Posted on 03/19/2017 8:22:57 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
You probably know that actor Leonardo DiCaprio is a climate activist, and he is trying to persuade the world that climate change is both real and serious. Someone asked me on Twitter what it would take for DiCaprio (for example) to persuade a person like me.
I’ll take a swing at that.
For starters, you must separate the questions of real and serious. The real part refers to the climate models. The serious part refers to economic models. Those are different topics.
If you want to convince me that climate change is real, the best approach is to abandon the current method that packages climate models in a fashion that is identical to well-known scams. (Or hoaxes, if you prefer.)
Let me say this doubly-clear. When I say climate models are packaged in a fashion that is identical to known scams, I am not saying they are scams. I’m saying they are packaged to look exactly like scams. There is no hope for credibility with that communication plan.
To make my point visual, imagine walking into your kitchen and finding an intruder wearing a ski mask and holding a gun. You assume this person is not your friendly neighbor because he is packaged exactly like an armed burglar. If you shoot that intruder, and it turns out to be your neighbor playing a prank, you probably won’t go to jail because it isn’t your fault. The problem was that your neighbor packaged himself to look exactly like an armed burglar.
Climate scientists tell us that there are hundreds of climate models, all somewhat different. I assume that most of them do a good job predicting the past (hindcasting) because otherwise they would not be models at all. Hindcasting is one minimum requirement for being a model in this field, I would assume.
Then science ignores the models that are too far off from observed temperatures as we proceed into the future and check the predictions against reality. Sometimes scientists also “tune” the models to hindcast better, meaning tweaking assumptions. As a non-scientists, I can’t judge whether or not the tuning and tweaking are valid from a scientific perspective. But I can judge that this pattern is identical to known scams. I described the known scams in this post.
And to my skeptical mind, it sounds fishy that there are dozens or more different climate models that are getting tuned to match observations. That doesn’t sound credible, even if it is logically and scientifically sound. I am not qualified to judge the logic or science. But I am left wondering why it has to sound exactly like a hoax if it isn’t one. Was there not a credible-sounding way to make the case?
Personally, I would find it compelling if science settled on one climate model (not dozens) and reported that it was accurate (enough), based on temperature observations, for the next five years. If they pull that off, they have my attention. But they will never convince me with multiple models. That just isn’t possible.
If climate scientists want their climate predictions to be believed, they need to vote on the best model, and stick with it for a few years. If they can’t do that, all I will see is lots of blind squirrels in a field of nuts. Some squirrels will accidentally find some nuts. But it won’t look like science to me because of the way it is packaged.
I do realize that picking one model as the “best” is not something science can do with comfort. It would feel dishonest, I assume, since they don’t know which one will perform best. But if science wants to be persuasive, they need to pick one model. And it needs to be accurate(ish) for the next five years. Nothing else would be persuasive to me.
On the second point, about how serious the alleged problem of climate change is, we have to rely not on scientists but on economists. And economists have zero credibility for long-term forecasts of that type. So the serious part is beyond the reach of persuasion. You can’t get there from here because economic models are no more credible than astrology.
By the way, my educational background is in economics and business. And for years, my corporate jobs involved making complex financial projections about budgets. In other words, I was perpetuating financial fraud within the company, by order of my boss. He told me to pretend my financial projections were real, and I did. But they were not real. My predictions were in line with whatever my boss told me they would be. I “tuned” my assumptions until I got my boss’s answer.
When I tell you it would be hard to convince me that a stranger’s economic model is credible, keep my experience in mind. I’ve seen lots of economic models. I’ve built economic models. In my experience, they are nothing but guesses, bias, and outright fraud.
The only way to convince me that climate change is bad for the economy is to wait until it starts breaking things. If I see it, and scientists agree I am seeing it, I might believe it. But long-term economic predictions can’t get me there.
I remind you that my topic is about persuasion, not the underlying truth of climate change. I don’t have access to the underlying truth because I am not a scientist working in the field. My information comes from strangers that tell me their interpretation of what the scientists are saying. I am as far from science as you can get.
The people who are hallucinating the hardest on this topic are the non-scientists who believe they have done a deep dive into the scientific papers and the climate models and arrived at a rational conclusion. The illusion here is that getting information from other humans is the same as “science.”
Another group of hallucinators believe that they can determine the scientific truth of climate change by counting the number of scientists on each side. But that ignores the fact that science often has the majority on the wrong side. That happens every time a new idea is starting to replace an old one. Darwin did not agree with the consensus when he introduced evolution. Einstein’s ideas were slow to catch on, etc.
When the majority of scientists are on one side, what matters most is the flow rate from one side to the other, not the raw numbers. I need to know which direction the scientists are moving. Are more climate scientists moving toward climate skepticism or away from it? Give me that data and I’ll have something useful. But counting the number on each side during one slice of time is meaningless for persuasion.
My point is that Leonardo DiCaprio would have a tough time persuading me that climate science is both real and serious. But it isn’t his fault, because science has packaged climate science to look like a hoax, and sent him out to sell it. I respect and admire DiCaprio for his heart on this matter, and his effort on behalf of the planet. But science has failed him by giving him hoax-looking sales collateral.
Didn't notice that you had already explained my point before I posted my own explanation.
As for bikes,skateboards and walking let's not forget swimming.
If leftists had any real appreciation for science, they would not deny that a pre-born baby is a human person nor that biological sex (in humans) is binary and fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneuploidy
When it comes to aneuploidy involving the X and Y chromosomes that make up “normal” males and females there are 4 other anomalies that can occur. One is called Klinefelter syndrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
The anomalies were known of for a long time and clinically identified after the 1940’s. Some of the anomolies in the X and Y chromosome are more prevalent in the general population than Downs Syndrome, the most commonly known Aneyploidy. I know because my brother has downs.
“It is more than binary. Aneuploidy is its’ scientific or medical name.”
Sex IS binary — male and female.
Aneuploidy is, by definition, abnormal.
“X and Y chromosomes that make up ‘normal’ males and females”
You don’t need to put normal in quotes here. Male and female ARE the normal states.
My point is not that aberrations never occur. It is that they are aberrations.
Sure, “gender” dysphoria exists, but it is a disorder. Trying to make society conform with a mental illness is insanity.
The salient point here is that the left thinks science is a bludgeoning tool to force everyone to agree with them. But they are really anti-science.
Abortion advocacy is a denial of the scientific fact that babies are unique, living, individual, humans.
The homosexual agenda denies that there is a biological distinction of two and only two sexes. Human reproduction requires a coupling of those two sexes. Deviation from this is possible — sure — but such sex acts are disordered and dysfunctional.
Gender is supposedly a spectrum to the left. And LGBT designations represent alternative but normative conditions, for leftists. These things are anti-science.
Echoing a lot of the comments above, DiCaprio will be believable if and when he decides to walk the walk.
Well he will be less hypocritical he won’t be any more believable! There is no AGW, saying there does not change the facts.
Saying there is does not change the facts!
You way over estimate your ability to have an effect on the earth.
There is also, I believe, a good reason that big icy Canadian island is called GREENland!
Physicist Howard Hayden's one-letter disproof of global warming claims [pre-Climategate]Dear Administrator Jackson:
I write in regard to the Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, Proposed Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (Apr. 24, 2009), the so-called "Endangerment Finding."
It has been often said that the "science is settled" on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.
The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.
Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.
We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.
(excerpted from Professor Hayden's letter to Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency. More at link.)
There is not a person on this planet who could convince me that human induced global warming is a greater threat than the natural cycling back into the cold ice age period. And we have to assume the cold is coming soon due to scientific analysis of the recent geological past.
If DiCaprio believed what he is pushing he would not have flown an eyebrow groomer in from half way around the world but would have "acted locally".
He didn't.
He is a fraud pushing a fraud and he knows it.
So you might want to put your respect and admiration somewhere else.
[[There is not a person on this planet who could convince me that human induced global warming is a greater threat]]
There is no human induced warming- none- The math doesn’t lie- man is not producing anywhere near enough CO2 to cause warming- man’s CO2 comprises just 0.00136% of the atmosphere- That’s it-
To put this into perspective- take a stadium with 100,000 people in it- 0.04% (the total of all the CO2 and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) means that 40 people would represent ALL the CO2 and greenhouse gases- take 3.4% of that amount- which represents man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, and it = 1 and 1/3 people-
That 1 and 1/3 people out of 100,000 represents how much CO2 would be in the atmosphere as a direct result of man
For another visual- picture an olympic sized swimming pool of 95 degree water- now picture a 9 gallon pail of 100 degree water being poured into that pool- what is going to happen to the temperature of the pool? Nothing- It can’t- there isn’t enough hotter water to over power the mass volume of cooler water- the pool temp remains the same except for very local small area that very briefly warms but instantly reaches equilibrium with the rest of the pool’s temp of 95 Degrees
0.04% of 661,000 gallons = 264 gallons
3.4% of 264 gallons = roughly 9 gallons
warming of this planet is 100% natural, and has nothing to do with CO2- Did you know warming happens hundreds of years —Before— CO2 rises? CO2 does not drive temperature changes-
Yep. Am aware of that. What the psuedo scientific proponents of AGW claim is that the insignificant warming possible from CO2, causes an increase in water vapor which then actually causes significant warming. They have no actual experimental proof of this however. The hard facts are that the amount of vapor a single moderate El Nino releases dwarfs the theoritical AGW input. During El Nino solar energy gets transferred into water vapor.
I don’t have the link now, but the water vapor supposedly caused by man’s CO2 is shown to also be too insignificant to cause any issues-
No doubt. Its not about the climate anyways. The issue is never the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.