Why Does Everyone Have to be a Believer or a Skeptic?

[Jack Frost]

Why Does Everyone Have to be a Believer or a Skeptic?  

I've seen this question asked in this forum and others.  I think I get the sentiment; i.e. "why does everyone take an extreme position?".  Fair enough. 

However, do you see the problems that the lack of precision in the question creates?

First, "why does everyone have to be a believer or a skeptic?" about what exactly?  Before you reply "about climate change / global warming", consider the following.

Believer or skeptic as to:

1.  In certain controlled environments, the addition of CO2 will result in an increase in temperature.   

2.  The addition of CO2 to the earth's atmosphere will result in an increase in temperature.

3.  The release of geolocked carbon resulting from the burning of fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 in earth's atmosphere.

4.  The release of geolocked carbon resulting from the burning of fossil fuels results in positive feedbacks that will dramatically change for the worse life on earth as we know it.

5.  Spending billions if not trillions of dollars on carbon credits and other disincentives to the burning of fossil fuels is a noble endeavor that will save the planet and make the world a better place in which to live.

Believer or skeptic as to the above?  Perhaps the better list of choices is believer, skeptic or disbeliever.  Yes, there is a category "worse" than skeptic.

Count me in as a believerskepticdisbeliever.

So what are you?

 

                

 

 

[bobbutts]

5. Is really out of the domain of scientists and is more of a political question. 

1-3 I consider those "settled science" which to me means nearly 100% chance.

4. Is the the kind of thing where assumptions must be made to answer and a larger range of uncertainty exists.  We can't rule out some unconsidered negative feedback or external events which adds uncertainty to already imperfect modeling.  Having no immediate way to verify and having large error bars on even the best answers guarantees disagreement here.

[blizzard1024]

This is an interesting topic which has been brought up before in posts.  There are two extreme views. One that states that CO2

does little to nothing to the climate system and the other that the world will end as we know it if we don't drastically cut back our fossil fuel energy usage.

These are the folks who state that the science is settled just like gravity is settled.  The ones who state that CO2 does nothing are truly alt-science.

It all comes down to how much will CO2 increasing  affects the climate. Even if you take a middle of the road approach you get slammed and I believe

that is why the whole topic gets people so fired up.  a great example  is on Dr Jeff Master's blog, if you question anything, these fanatics attack you and

ultimately ignore you. very very political and not really science driven.  Of course wunderground is owned by the weather channel which was owned

by MSNBC so you can see why here. Its politics.  As to the original post,   1, 2 and 3 are pretty well accepted.   4 is where the issues begin and

5 is a big risk in my opinion at this time. But if this "whole CO2 is deadly movement" gets humans to develop clean energy sources that are marketable

and help the global economy than all will be good even if it doesn't warm that much...

[Jack Frost]

 

Will nuclear fusion make solar and wind obsolete before those admittedly attractive but heavily subsidized forms of energy ever become solete :-)?

[chubbs]

Everyone frames the discussion differently. Here are my main points:

1) It is human nature to discount and avoid an uncertain and troubling future, particularly one that is remote and develops slowly.

2) In terms of carbon content per unit of energy coal>>oil>> gas. Fossil fuel reserves are limited and in terms of carbon, 80% coal and roughly 10% oil and 10% gas. Worst case climate scenarios can only be reached by massive coal burning. As the most economically beneficial fossil fuel, oil is already limited by resource availability which is primarily in troubled geopolitical areas. One way or the other there will increasing change in the way we use energy after a long period of stability.

3) There is tremendous inertia in the climate system and in human society. Our climate system will be changing for hundreds and thousands of years. It will take decades to change our energy system and adapt to climate change

4) There is no "alternative" view in climate science. The basic theory of climate change has been developed over 150+ years and is widely accepted. The trend is for modeling , paleo and observations to come into even better alignment. Increasingly research is being focused on the impacts and feedback of warmer temperatures on soil, vegetation, ocean, ice sheet etc.

5) The debate on this forum is mainly about short-term trends, politics, world view, and reaction to climate misinformation. Whether someone is in the "middle" or "extreme" on this forum is not a good reason for judging the validity of their viewpoint.

6) Costs of moving way from fossil fuels are uncertain. Here again there is plenty of misinformation. Fossil fuels are commodities with wide swings in pricing. As the most cost-effective fossil fuel resources are exploited costs are bound to increase.  Our current path where all future costs of fossil fuel use are ignored and where coal, oil and natural gas are all treated equally can not be optimal.

7) Costs for many energy technologies are dropping steadily.  A measured acceleration in the use of these technologies can reduce costs by advancing the learning curve and increasing economies of scale. Once renewable technologies are widely implemented the cost of energy will stabilize and decrease slowly with time. 

8)  Just like going to the doctor, no matter how strong the procrastination, most will feel better about the future once the course of treatment has begun.

[Jack Frost]

 

Chubbs,

Thanks for the well thought out post.

I respect your thoughts and appreciate your taking the time to express them.

I respectfully disagree that there is a consensus diagnosis and course of treatment but do appreciate and respect not just your opinion but the manner in which it was conveyed.

Much better than the "Frosty the Snowman" quote!!! 

[ORH_wxman]

The biggest controversy over climate science deals with attribution and climate sensitivity. Attribution is typically where you see the unscientific claims in the media with an alarmist slant that actually contradict the literature or embellish its claims. It tends to derail the climate science debate in my opinion in that is makes the narrative around climate change less credible. You will get more galvanization around changing policy when you have more credibility. Of course a lot of policy kind of depends on both attribution and sensitivity so it doesn't help when they have uncertainty.

Sensitivity is something we've been trying to figure out for decades and haven't really gotten a whole lot closer to narrowing it down than 30 years ago. We are pretty certain feedbacks are positive but just don't by how much. 

One thing is clear...a transition to renewable energy would be a good thing in the long run. Deals like the Paris agreement insult our intelligence as they would do almost nothing to stop climate change. A total waste of money. We're better off having a more comprehensive plan. 

[blizzard1024]

5 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

The biggest controversy over climate science deals with attribution and climate sensitivity. Attribution is typically where you see the unscientific claims in the media with an alarmist slant that actually contradict the literature or embellish its claims. It tends to derail the climate science debate in my opinion in that is makes the narrative around climate change less credible. You will get more galvanization around changing policy when you have more credibility. Of course a lot of policy kind of depends on both attribution and sensitivity so it doesn't help when they have uncertainty.

Sensitivity is something we've been trying to figure out for decades and haven't really gotten a whole lot closer to narrowing it down than 30 years ago. We are pretty certain feedbacks are positive but just don't by how much. 

One thing is clear...a transition to renewable energy would be a good thing in the long run. Deals like the Paris agreement insult our intelligence as they would do almost nothing to stop climate change. A total waste of money. We're better off having a more comprehensive plan. 

well said. 

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

4 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Our brains have been wired to ignore climate change.

 

 

actually people that think for themselves , and have basic common sense of where temperatures and co2 levels were 100 years ago to now...know that something 'different' is happening.   And also weather patterns then and now.   Actually there's an enormous amount of other hard-core facts...but i'll just stick to that for now.

i've always hung in the middle on most things.

as to why people are always so much for 1 side or the other...I think it's like that with most issues in the world.   And how much people 'let' others influence their own opinion.  (family, media, social media , tv etc..)  

Media, Journalists always claim their so independant...yet their always the ones pulling the strings.   Like today's protests across the country.   If they'd ignore it , people would ignore it and move on with their day.    

[Jack Frost]

Thanks Chris.  That was hysterical!

If you can't conclusively prove that the addition of relatively small amounts of CO2 to a very little understood dynamic atmosphere will lead to dire consequences, just prove that the brain is hard-wired to ignore climate change.  There is just so much scientific research that proves that our brains are hard-wired in such a manner.  If you cannot accept that our brains are hard-wired to ignore climate change, it is because our brains are hard-wired to not accept that are brains are hard-wired to ignore climate change.

Elementary, my dear Watson!  

[Jack Frost]

13 minutes ago, Bacon Strips said:

as to why people are always so much for 1 side or the other...I think it's like that with most issues in the world.   And how much people 'let' others influence their own opinion.  (family, media, social media , tv etc..)  

 

A skeptic is not on one side or the other.  The two extremes are believer and non=believer.  A skeptic is someone who questions.

 

15 minutes ago, Bacon Strips said:

i've always hung in the middle on most things.

If this applies to AGW, then you, my good man, are a skeptic.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

I'll accept Skeptic.  

cool with that. 

 

[Jack Frost]

2 minutes ago, Bacon Strips said:

I'll accept Skeptic.  

cool with that. 

 

 

Thanks Bake.  I am absolutely sincere when I say "You are the man"!!!!

For the rest of you, I am always absolutely sincere but just wanted to emphasize how much I agree with my man Bacon Strips!

[ORH_wxman]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Belief or disbelief in climate change is irrelevant. You can't convince society to make major changes to the way we use and produce energy based on future outcomes

which will most be harmful well beyond their lifetimes. Climate scientists need to realize that the barriers to enacting the changes necessary

to seriously reduce emissions are not scientific but psychological. There could be 100% certainty on exactly how much warming and how fast the ice sheets

will break up and that wouldn't change a thing in regard to how soon we transition off fossil fuels. Alternate energy will overtake fossil fuels only when 

the technology reaches a point based on lower cost to consumers  and not by how much it reduces reduce emissions.

The money that would be spent on stuff like the Paris agreement or trivial changes in emissions reductions would be better served toward R&D of renewable energy. I agree with you...the best way to make large scale changes that actually end up mattering is to make renewable energy too good/cheap/efficient to pass up. 

[Jack Frost]

48 minutes ago, bluewave said:

There really is no sense of urgency that we need to be moving faster on R&D for renewables and alternative energy forms. Climate change would need to

be elevated to the level of the space race to land a man on the moon back in the 1960's. The primary motivating factor for that was fear of falling behind

the Soviets which was very tangible to the people alive at the time. There just isn't that level of fear about climate change to motivate that type of response

today. It's a tough sell to the general public that some negative outcomes after their lifetimes are worthy of a response now on their part. It's even

difficult to convince people to stay away from harmful things like drugs which they know will have negative consequences that they will see in real time.

 

Alternatives are fine, although it would be great if the ultimate alternative - nuclear fusion - were to be developed in a commercially usable manner before additional amounts of massive subsidies were spent propping up solar and wind.  It would be awesome if solar technology in particular could replace or even largely substitute for geolocked carbon, but that is simply not the case.  And solar is not a nascent technology by any means. 

Big picture, to the extent that your position deflects from the fact that catastrophic AGW is nowhere near settled science, I respectfully disagree.  Perhaps that belief, that the science is nowhere near settled, is more widespread than our brains are hard-wired to accept and that is the reason people are not motivated to spend substantial time, money and effort on something not proven to even be problem.    

[chubbs]

Saw this on twitter and thought this thread could use a little levity

http://www.theonion.com/article/cockroaches-feeling-very-optimistic-about-future-p-55154

[BillT]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

It's precisely that we don't know for sure ultimately how fast or severe climate change will be in the future that we need to take it more seriously as a global concern.

Your daily life is made up of taking into account risks that may or may not actually happen to you. The whole insurance industry is based on this concept.

We spend our lives planning for risks that may never actually happen. So just look at reduction of emissions along the same lines.  Since we don't know how

bad things will get, it's safer to plan for a wide variety of outcomes including the worst which hopefully won't occur. Having cleaner and cheaper

forms of energy will be a reward in and of itself even if climate change didn't exist.

 

there already is far cheaper and cleaner also safer energy that your side opposes = nuclear.

[ORH_wxman]

There's a big resistance to nuclear that has been around for years from many of the greens...it's really fractured the opposition to fossil fuels. It is too bad. 

[chubbs]

6 hours ago, ORH_wxman said:

There's a big resistance to nuclear that has been around for years from many of the greens...it's really fractured the opposition to fossil fuels. It is too bad. 

A carbon tax would help nuclear and then the free-market would decide. It would also separate, coal, oil and gas and encourage efficiency in fossil fuel use. I see whining about renewable subsidies on this threat. Fossil fuels, and coal in particular, are getting a huge subsidy, much larger than the small amounts wind and solar get, by not paying for resource depletion or carbon impacts. We are allocating our economic resources in a very inefficient manner  and incurring a huge debt for future impacts.

[chubbs]

Recent paper below assesses progress in meeting objectives of the Paris Agreement across a range of energy sources and technologies. There is a mix of good and bad news. CO2 emissions have stabilized and many energy technologies are progressing as anticipated. There are a couple of laggards however, the biggest being carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels (CCS on chart below).

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n2/full/nclimate3202.html

 

[Jack Frost]

Recent paper below assesses progress in meeting objectives of the Paris Agreement across a range of energy sources and technologies. There is a mix of good and bad news. CO2 emissions have stabilized and many energy technologies are progressing as anticipated. There are a couple of laggards however, the biggest being carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels (CCS on chart below).

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n2/full/nclimate3202.html

 

In your own words, please elaborate.   

Thanks.

 

[Jack Frost]

On January 30, 2017 at 0:47 PM, bluewave said:

It's precisely that we don't know for sure ultimately how fast or severe climate change will be in the future that we need to take it more seriously as a global concern.

Your daily life is made up of taking into account risks that may or may not actually happen to you. The whole insurance industry is based on this concept.

We spend our lives planning for risks that may never actually happen. So just look at reduction of emissions along the same lines.  Since we don't know how

bad things will get, it's safer to plan for a wide variety of outcomes including the worst which hopefully won't occur. Having cleaner and cheaper

forms of energy will be a reward in and of itself even if climate change didn't exist.

 

 

Chris. Your heart is in the right place.  And I truly believe you are one of the good guys.

With that being said, I need to address a couple of your thoughts above.

"So just look at reduction of emissions along the same lines."

I am sure that you know the implication of the word "emissions" - pollution, right?

Do you truly believe that the gas you exhale is a pollutant?

"Having cleaner and cheaper forms of energy will be a reward in and of itself even if climate change didn't exist."

Again. and Don knows this, it totally freaks me out that CO2 is portrayed as a "pollutant".  Let's have an honest conversation.  I firmly believe that we have more in common than not....