Why we should listen to the 97%

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Abraham3, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. Abraham3
    Offline

    Abraham3 BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,289
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +163
    This is a recording of Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M discussing some basic risk analysis issues regarding acting on climate change warmings. Have a listen. See what you think. Tell us about it.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iRAL3dWnSNg]Decision making under uncertainty - YouTube[/ame]

    Muchas obligado.

    Abraham
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    26,177
    Thanks Received:
    3,143
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +7,809
    Who cares?


    The only % that matters is the 3% in blue there on the graph below!!! That little itty bitty blue sliver there that makes me laugh my balls off every time I see it!!!




    [​IMG]




    THATS called..........not winning.:2up:


    And there are about 450,000 other graphs just like it, all of which should be entitled, "THE K00KS ARE LOSING"
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2013
  3. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    26,177
    Thanks Received:
    3,143
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +7,809
    [​IMG]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  4. Abraham3
    Offline

    Abraham3 BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,289
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +163
    If you listened to the recording and this is all you have to say in response, why in god's name do you bother? Is your existence so filled with ignominy and bleak despair that these tawdry bangles of other's wit are, to your mind, fitting? Turn around. See the sun. Walk till your feet are wet.
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    45,852
    Thanks Received:
    9,291
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +26,441
    When it has been shown categorically that your 97% number is sheer absolute BS, why on Earth would anyone listen to ANYTHING these frauds have to say?

    You need to get a clue there little clown. You and they are not credible. End of story.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    75,588
    Thanks Received:
    9,236
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +34,329
    The 97% claim is bullshit, just like everything else warmist cult members claim:

    ICECAP
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. Abraham3
    Offline

    Abraham3 BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,289
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +163
    The topic off this thread is not whether or not 97% of active climate scientists believe human GHG emissions are the primary cause of global warming. The topic of this thread is the simple and brief presentation by Andrew Dessler of a risk assessment of taking action against global warming.

    I guess I can assume none of you have listened to it as none of you has made the slightest comment to make on the presentation. An impressive lot.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  8. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,509
    Thanks Received:
    2,268
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,170
    I can’t view vids atm but will at a later time. My beef with something like this though is that none of the doomsayer’s predictions have come true – why are we to assume that future impacts are going to be so great that it requires widespread response? If you can answer that, then you also have to address one more reality here: not one single passable proposal to curb human activity results in any real changes. Typically, we are talking about a few percentage points at most. And those are usually measured relative to the nation and not the world where increasing emissions are the norm for developing countries. Those nations are not going to change those habits. So, in the end, even if we listen NOTHING changes.

    One thing I do know, if the inevitable happens we are going to NEED a strong economy and new advanced technology to deal with it. If we obliterated those now for a few percentage of a change, when we need the means to effect real solutions there won’t be anything left.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2013
  9. Abraham3
    Offline

    Abraham3 BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,289
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +163
    The audio-only message attached to the OP in this thread takes less than 5 minutes to listen to. Sadly, no one here seems to feel as if they need to listen to anyone else's opinion, they've got their own and they're going to stick to it no matter what.

    The crux of Dessler's message was:

    If 97% of the experts in a given field all believe the same thing, it is PROBABLY correct. It is not proven correct. We cannot say it is KNOWN to be correct. But it PROBABLY is correct.

    The harm that will be done should those 97% be correct and yet ignored is immense. For one thing, the harm will be IRREVERSIBLE within any timeframe meaningful to anyone alive now. The lifetime of CO2 and methane in an overheated world is many hundreds of years at the very least. If we do not stop it now, we will not be able to stop it in the future.

    The harm that will be done should those 97% be incorrect and yet measures are taken is small. It is small for several reasons:

    1) There are numerous co-benefits to moving away from fossil fuels
    a) Reduce air pollution
    b) Get an early start on the new energy and transport infrastructure that WILL be required at some point
    c) It is REVERSIBLE. If we eventually discover that we can safely burn coal and oil, they will still be here. We can quite easily return to a fossil fuel economy and burn the shit out of that stuff.


    Any thoughts on any of THAT?
     
  10. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,509
    Thanks Received:
    2,268
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,170
    First, he makes an assumption that 97% of the scientists agree that:
    • the earth is warming
    • Humans are very likely the cause
    • Future warming may be severe
    Which is a bald faced lie. Brip already outlined why the 97% is bullshit. More importantly, if you take the statistical analysis at it face value, you notice that the 2 questions that are asked NEVER allude to the third point. Again, this is ANOTHER core element to the argument that the video makes.

    IOW, the entire premise of the video that you are upset that no one is watching is based upon a complete fabrication. This alone is sufficient to disregard the asinine argument that he makes but we can go even FURTHER. The next step is to analyze the proposed ‘solutions’ that are being suggested and ask how much of an impact that they are going to make. In the video, he makes ANOTHER assumption that is incorrect, that the impacts of climate regulation are going to be small. That is absolutely false. All of the ‘small’ changes that are brought up have one thing in common – small impacts. Impacts that, when really looked at, amount to less than 1 percent of actual change. Is that going to do anything? Not according to ANYONE that believes AGW is going to be disastrous. Considering that, in order for the results to be disastrous in the first place, a feedback loop is required it is unthinkable that any of these changes amount to squat. In order to make real changes, we are going to have to completely remodel our economy and that is going to result in DRASTIC results. Lastly, he makes another MONUMENTAL asinine claim – that any changes occurring from AGW are completely irreversible. That is buffoonery. There was a time when people thought that the moon was impossible to reach or that the patent office was no longer needed because we had already invented everything. The fact is that no one knows what we are going to be able to do in ten or twenty years as technology moves faster every day.

    There is one thing that I do know however. If AGW is going to cause drastic and deadly changes in our atmosphere we are going to NEED a strong economy and advanced technology to deal with it. There is no other way around that simple truth as the doomsayers have already stated that we cannot handle those changes with what we currently have.

    The sad part is that the AGW believers seem to want to dismantle any method of dealing with that outcome out of sheer fear. Bad idea.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2013

Share This Page