The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

[Bill the Cat]

And their baby steps aren't making much of an overall impact...

NOAA reported tha even if we stopped ALL emissions, it would take 1000 years to reverse some of the (so-called) damage we have allegedly done.

[Teallaura]

NOAA reported tha even if we stopped ALL emissions, it would take 1000 years to reverse some of the (so-called) damage we have allegedly done.

Eh, I just don't see China waiting on nuclear before ramping up production if US levels fall low enough to open the market.

[Sparko]

Everyone knows that the only reason the government is against burning coal is because they want to corner the futures market on diamonds!

[seanD]

The aging and decrepit nuclear power plants scattered around the world are more of a threat to humanity than climate change. And that's a tangible problem that can be fixed if it had the same Al Gore fearmongering hype.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news...ear_plants_us/

http://america.aljazeera.com/article...easedrisk.html

[Teallaura]

Well, they certainly don't help...

[Epoetker]

Quick disclaimer that I understand this is meant in jest, but...

Once upon a time, that might have been the case. These days my attitude is pretty similar across disciplines. I think you need to understand the principles involved to disparage the results, and I find dishonesty to be a people thing not a profession thing. All the lawyers I know are Christians (just an example). I've known clueless doctors and well-meaning doctors, and I've seen people self-medicate/diagnose. Being married to a dietitian, I've heard plenty of stories about people who aren't convinced some dietary regimen (mind, not a diet) won't work but who won't follow it.

Suffice to say that the attitude towards lawyers, doctors, et.al. permeates through all areas. The teacher is stupid when she disagrees with you, the scientist has an ulterior motive, and the boss is clueless. In the current paradigm, everyone and anyone is permitted to think themselves an expert. It's moronic. Case in point, my boss is on blood pressure medication. He decided one time to stop taking it because "he felt fine". Stupid. Luckily, nothing went wrong, and his doctor managed to chastise him in a way that still sticks in his mind years later. Her statement? "I don't come to your office and try to do your job for you. Don't come to mine and do the same. Quit doctoring." I think that lesson is sorely needed in the U.S. (naturally I can't speak for other countries).

/soapbox

You're ignoring something about "climate scientists" that is less true of doctors and lawyers:

Basically, in the 19th century, Hayek's professional intellectuals became the dominant influence over Anglo-American public policy. In the 20th century, sovereignty was captured entirely by their intellectual institutions - other forces retaining some powers of resistance, but no initiative. (And Anglo-American public policy became everyone's public policy.) These institutions now being thoroughly corrupted, their corruption now visible to all, we can only be doomed to spend the 21st extracting them from their offices. Or at least, wishing we could.

The basic problem here is one of sovereignty. Namely: Mike Mann, Phil Jones, and their friends exercise - or have been exercising - a little local slice of sovereignty over climate science for about the last ten years or so. If you were in the club and/or toed the line, you got to be a climate scientist. If not, you didn't.

We can tell that Mann and Jones were sovereign, because they were not responsible to anyone. There was no party in the world authorized to check their work. There still is no party in the world authorized to check their work. (Perhaps there is some way to get the issue to the Supreme Court. If so, it is not obvious.) Within the domain of climate science, their authority was roughly as absolute as Stalin's. Their methods, too, were comparably aggressive. Had this security breach not occurred, this situation might have persisted indefinitely - and, indeed, it may still persist indefinitely. The Soviet Union outlived Stalin. Climate science will outlive Mann and Jones, even if they do get the boot personally. I am not at all sure they will.

Worst of all, Mann and Jones were and are sovereign over billions of minds. Literally: what a billion people know of "global warming" is the beautiful smoothed curves of Mann and Jones. (And others, of course, in their little Party - climate science, as we've seen, being a one-party state.) Then again, hundreds of millions believed in Stalin. (Counting Americans - from '41 to '48.) What about this is surprising? It is, or was, the 20th century. In that century God abandoned his traditional affection for fools and drunks, devoting himself entirely to the United States. But even God's patience has its limits.

Less than the limits of America's ability to print money, of course. Sadly, once the money and thus the incentives to do high-level doctoring become comparatively worthless, you will very much have to start amateur doctoring, amateur lawyering, and amateur climate-sciencing on your own. (PROTIP: The Farmer's Almanac has so far predicted weather better than 90% of climate scientists.)

Take heart-this sort of distributed knowledge is usually in place when some of the most revolutionary inventions come about. What have the big institutions wrought, with their official scientific consensus?

[Cow Poke]

The aging and decrepit nuclear power plants ...

Decrepit?

[Carrikature]

Haven't been to a doctor in ages. If I'm sick enough, I go to one of the clinics in HEB or something -- and it's "fee for services". They don't advocate spending zillions of dollars on health care in general.

Rediclinic employs licensed clinicians which are allowed to treat common issues in collaboration with licensed physicians. Of course they charge less since their experience and ability are both lower than what a PCP would have. "Zillions of dollars" is pretty ridiculous even as hyperbole.

I doubt the benefits.

If this is to be taken seriously, it indicates that you fail to understand the point of licensing and expertise in specific fields. If so, I'd suggest that's entirely the problem. The benefits are evidenced by their efficacy which is why, when push comes to shove, you still take you and yours to the experts. You didn't take your wife to Rediclinic regardless of how cheap/effective they are for everyday illnesses.

If the US actually was WINNING the war on poverty or the war on drugs, C, the need for the "war" (warbucks) ceases. Do you have any reason to believe that the government's war on global whatever is going to be any different? Seriously -- what would an effective government action look like in the war on climate/weather/warming?

There's no way you intend this to actually address anything I said. Drop the talking points and start interacting with what I've actually said. Wars on poverty/drugs/etc are stupid for a multitude of reasons, not least because there are no definable goals. If nothing else, emissions levels are something that could (at least in theory) have set standards and timelines. That's not to say they are the only or even the most effective means for achieving a reduction in negative impact. A war on climate/weather/warming is something you've made up, and I have no need or desire to defend it.

The movies, the hype, the AlGorisms... you don't think they portray a "sky is falling" mentality? And they use "science" to justify it.

I'm smart enough to look beyond the talking points and movies aimed at popular consumption. You are too. I could care less what such things portray because their accuracy has zero impact on what is or isn't really happening.

So, do we have a global problem, C? And, if so, what should our government do about it?

Sort of. Global warming is happening. Is it a problem? It could be, though the effects won't be immediately apparent. Climate operates in a feedback system to a large degree, and I've little doubt that the system can be overbalanced beyond its ability to self-correct. We may not be there yet, and maybe we will never be. I'm not in favor of finding out the hard way, either. Nor am I interested in finding out how the system corrects itself when things get too far off 'normal'. The effects of that are in the decades and centuries which makes it a minor problem to most people today. In the short term, there's definitely a problem if warming continues. Places that have dense populations along coastlines are going to need to relocate, just as an example.

Can the government help with relocation? Theoretically yes, but I suspect the reality will be too drawn out for any government action to be possible (if it should even be a goal, which I doubt). What it can do is mandate policies to keep from exacerbating the issue (assuming for the moment that enforcement is a non-issue...one thing at a time). Things like carbon credits are exactly the wrong way to do things. You're not really accomplishing anything by allowing people to pay their way out of compliance. Things like mandating LEED compliance in buildings is insufficient but a step in the right direction. FWIW, I'm a LEED AP, though I'm not entirely in favor of LEED itself. From a design perspective, I see the reality that poor design is a bigger problem than most realize, and LEED can't truly address that. To be fair, its purpose is focused more on people and their needs. I contend that we could work on efficient equipment and insulation as realistic options to pursue, not to mention spending more time on properly designing and balancing HVAC systems. It looks small, but multiply it out and the impact becomes significant. Upstream, reduced load means reduced need for power production which has its own effects.

The more I think about it, C, the less "fitting" your analogies seem to be.

If/when I see a doctor, it is for a specific purpose, and it's fee for services (considering, of course, whatever insurance coverage is involved). And if I don't like what the doctor says, I can go see another doctor. Or, I can just ignore what he says. (at my own peril, of course)

Same with a lawyer. I contract with a lawyer for a specific solution -- a will, sale of property, power of attorney, etc. Fee for services. I'm free to use a lawyer or not. And I can choose the one(s) I want to employ.

How many people actually hire a scientist? And what specific problem are they solving? I know the cost of using a doctor or a clinic, and I know up front the cost of using a lawyer.

I really don't see "doctors and lawyers" as a legitimate parallel.

I think the problem is that you missed the point of the analogy in the first place. The point was that when you want an expert opinion, you go to the the expert. In the same way that no one forces you to trust a single opinion, so too are you able to see multiple opinions of scientists.

As for who hires scientists, do you really not know? Countless people hire scientists. Universities do, and so do R&D companies. The DoD does. Oil companies do. Governments do for a wide variety of applications. The specific problem scientists are solving depends on their field and type of employment. Some are simply investigating the nature of the world around us, which has its own benefits. People like that give us the foundational information necessary to make inroads on things like medical treatments, communications and food growth/development/distribution. Yes, you know the cost of a lawyer up front (not so usually with a doctor), but those are different types of services. Trying to compare lawyers and doctors to scientists in this vein is comparing apples and oranges. It also underlines my point about misunderstanding the analogy. The "zillions of dollars" is not wholly nor significantly being spent on scientists.

[Carrikature]

People generally don't have a problem trusting the experts in things that can be easily verified. I can verify that the people who made my computer monitor know what they're doing quite easily. I can't do the same with global wa... err, "climate change". It should be quite obvious why claiming that trusting one is the same as trusting the other is fallacious (and that's about as polite as I can put it).

This is exactly my point regarding ego. It's not that they trust the experts in things that can be easily verified. They trust the experts when their own experience matches what the experts say. Where there's conflict, suddenly the experts are no longer reliable. In truth, they were never trusting the experts in the first place. They were looking to the experts to confirm what they already 'knew'. There's nothing fallacious about this, though I'm not sure that's the word you were looking for anyway...

Obviously there are limits to what people can and can't verify on their own. I haven't suggested otherwise. What I have suggested is that these cases are exactly where you should be trusting the people who have spent their lives dedicated to the field. That's what they do. We recognize this in other areas which is why there are regulated licensing for certain professions and why things like diploma mills are such a problem. People need the ability to look at credentials as meaningful. That's part of sorting through whose opinion to trust.

[Cow Poke]

As for who hires scientists, do you really not know? Countless people hire scientists.

So, we go from INDIVIDUALS who contract with doctors and lawyers to ....

Universities do, and so do R&D companies. The DoD does. Oil companies do. Governments do for a wide variety of applications.

WAY different than how individuals interact with providers.

The specific problem scientists are solving depends on their field and type of employment. Some are simply investigating the nature of the world around us, which has its own benefits. People like that give us the foundational information necessary to make inroads on things like medical treatments, communications and food growth/development/distribution. Yes, you know the cost of a lawyer up front (not so usually with a doctor), but those are different types of services.

Exactly, which is why I think it's a bad analogy.

Trying to compare lawyers and doctors to scientists in this vein is comparing apples and oranges.

Which was my point.

It also underlines my point about misunderstanding the analogy. The "zillions of dollars" is not wholly nor significantly being spent on scientists.

OK, here's where you can tell me how much money it's going to cost to "solve the problem", how we collect this money, and to whom the money is paid.

[Darth Executor]

This is exactly my point regarding ego. It's not that they trust the experts in things that can be easily verified. They trust the experts when their own experience matches what the experts say.

The two are usually the same.

Where there's conflict, suddenly the experts are no longer reliable. In truth, they were never trusting the experts in the first place. They were looking to the experts to confirm what they already 'knew'.

That is sometimes true. It's further amplified when certain scientists show unscientific borderline dictatorial attitudes but insist that their word be taken as gospel anyway.

There's nothing fallacious about this, though I'm not sure that's the word you were looking for anyway...

There is definitely something fallacious about comparing scientists whose research produces easily observable benefits and scientists whose research does not. "Let me inject you with this glowing blue liquid, you have a TV after all and you trust the scientists who developed THAT technology so why not trust me?" is a fallacious argument. And creepily cult-like.

Obviously there are limits to what people can and can't verify on their own. I haven't suggested otherwise. What I have suggested is that these cases are exactly where you should be trusting the people who have spent their lives dedicated to the field.

Bernie Madoff spent his life dedicated to finance but I still wouldn't trust him with my money.

That's what they do. We recognize this in other areas which is why there are regulated licensing for certain professions and why things like diploma mills are such a problem. People need the ability to look at credentials as meaningful. That's part of sorting through whose opinion to trust.

Sometimes entire fields of study are complete garbage, and receive the full support of regulatory bodies (including and especially national governments). In an ideal world people would have the assurance that credentials are always meaningful. We don't live in that world.

[Paprika]

Um, does anyone know offhand if there has EVER been full compliance with Kyoto? Last I looked (which has been a while) none of the signatories were actually in compliance.

Does anyone really expect the Kyoto to be taken seriously, not least when one of the greatest CO2 emitters - the USA - didn't ratify it?

[Sparko]

Does anyone really expect the Kyoto to be taken seriously, not least when one of the greatest CO2 emitters - the USA - didn't ratify it?

The biggest CO2 emitters are the guys in Washington. They are full of hot air. Eliminate them and the problem goes away.

[Cow Poke]

The biggest CO2 emitters are the guys in Washington. They are full of hot air. Eliminate them and the problem goes away.

That would be worse than nuclear winter -- they just need to tone it down a bit, or we'd FREEZE if they shut up!

[Pinoy]

That would be worse than nuclear winter -- they just need to tone it down a bit, or we'd FREEZE if they shut up!

But .... i want to experience winter..that would be a climate change here in the tropics.. it is so humid (dry and humid) in the last few days.