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.
Personally, I start from the point that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” is an invention of a “liberal” politician and not a scientist. AGW just happens to serve as an excuse for “liberal” politicians to do exactly what they want to do.
It also is a fact that strategic bombing against Germany was not all that effective in any other way than in reducing Germany’s fuel supply. And therefore a political attack on the use of carbon fuels is quite similar to an effective bombing attack against the country.
When the elites give up their private jets and close down their mega mansions then I’ll take some note.
He can convince me that he truly believes in what he says by giving up his luxury homes, his jet rides, his cars and go live in a cave and eat raw meat that he caught with his bare hands...
Otherwise, he is full of it...
Just my opinion....
Sure, Scott - they can do that. It will only cost $50 million. And guess what, when this "blue ribbon panel" is done - you will find that, mirabile dictu, they all agree that we have climate change!
Besides he had no hand in creating this great economy that offers so much to so many and that he wishes to destroy. He only benefits from that which wishes hurt. Typical hypocrite.
Yep...True hypocrite...Just like 99% of Follywood....
Translation....my carbon footprint is very probably one fiftieth...maybe even one one hundredth...of his.
Is there ‘climate change”??? Sure....
Climate changes every day...If it’s one degree warmer or cooler tomorrow, the climate has changed...
Does man change climate...Nope....
How about some REAL LEGITIMATE KNOWLEGABLE SCIENTISTS “convince me” ?
How about some REAL and HONEST people “convince me” this isn’t a world redistribution of wealth scheme by the totalitarian global ‘elites”?
Rather than some super egotistical child who thinks the world revolves around him and who shoots his mouth off SOLEY for LOOKITMEE publicity, and Hypocrite with his mansions and private jet setting?
THEN and ONLY then, might I be convinced. But some little snot nosed bastard who thinks by faking someone else’s character on screen somehow credentials him on #FakeScience, then no. I’d never be “convinced” by that juvenile POS
What happened to that ice? Air conditioners? VW diesel engines? Private LearJets? Four hundred foot yachts (like yours)?
Sure, Scott - they can do that. It will only cost $50 million. And guess what, when this “blue ribbon panel” is done - you will find that, mirabile dictu, they all agree that we have climate change!
That it, the model gets tweaked until it shows what the modeler wants it to show.
He could make another point; that we co not have sufficiently accurate data to show good “hindcasting” we simply do not have the data.
But he is not scientist in the field (my career was as a meteorologist, so I can easily see it), so I will give him a pass on it.
The fact is that climate models that predict disaster offer several benefits to climate modelers that non-disastrous models do not.
For one, if there is no disaster, why do we need climate modelers? For another, there is great mental reward in perceiving oneself as the savior of the world.
The strategic bombing of Germany's industrial and urban centers was conducted to counter the rockets being fire into Britain. It was carried out to disrupt production and, "de-house" the population centers which were supplying the Nazi's. It forced Germany to defend it's territory and limited their capacity to attack, thus hastening the surrender.
As to the article, Models of the economy and climate change are hoaxes riddled with falsified premises and data. The media, however, is pushing the agenda full tilt.
Just ask one of these cultists, if they got to be in charge of the globe's thermostat, what temperature they would set it at and why/how they know that is the right temperature, and see what kind of answer you get. If they can't tell you what the ideal temperature is, how can they conclude it's getting too hot or too cold? If they can tell you what the ideal temperature is, getting them to reveal the source of their esoteric and arcane knowledge is usually worth a pretty good laugh.
DeCaprio would be well on the way to covincing me if he sold his yacht(s) and jet(s) and several of his homes, and comported himself as someone who SERIOUSLY believes that we are in a climate crisis. He’s behaving as a total fraud, so far.
I guess they don't call it Caliphony for nothing...
Yikes, you want them to live like common folks. You are mean. 8>)
I've often asserted (much to the consternation of my leftie opponents) that I would be willing to change my opinion or attitude on a topic of they could persuade me thorough a convincing argument. The left's inability to differentiate between real and serious represents a major impediment to a persuasive argument.
The "arguments" that they tend to offer up are chaotic messes of conjecture laced with emotion and spiced with junk facts - just to suggest the appearance of knowledge. To quote the great Ronald Reagan, "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
Not knowing never seems to deter lefties, as they are never reluctant to resort to bullcrap in place of facts. They believe that a sensational sounding factoid, delivered with impassioned scorn, is the ultimate debate strategy. "But my challenge", I remind them, "is to persuade me. You've failed so far because your argument is muddy, contradictory, and frankly phony."
Drives them crazy every time.
This posting has no links or attribution to source.
So far no one has proposed a solution to climate change. If you believe climate change, then you also have to believe solutions will require real sacrifice. LED bulbs won’t do it.
If you want me to believe that you believe in climate change, lay down an objective, ie, no more than 1.5 degrees F increase by year xxxx. Then layout a program that will achieve that objective along with the costs.
So far the only programs described will cost trillions and will only limit temperatures to about a fourth of the objectives. One can only assume that these programs are not serious since they do not achieve serious results.
Bottom line. If carbon is the problem, then you must limit carbon to pre-industrial age amounts, say 1900. But, then, populations have increased so, per capita, that moves the date back into the early 1800s. Now lay out a program that limits energy consumption to the total carbon emissions of the early 1800s. Now explain to the people why they have to reduce their standards of living to those levels.
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.