Why effective climate change solutions remain so elusive

heat globe
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Johns Hopkins Professor Paul Ferraro has spent a lot of time thinking about climate change, and he's uncovered a major barrier to combating the rise in global temperatures: the human psyche.

"The problem is that what we need to achieve is so daunting and taxes our resources so much that we end up with a situation that's much, much worse than if we had focused our efforts," says Ferraro, a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor who is an expert in behavioral economics and the design and estimation of impacts of environmental programs. "Proposed hundred-pronged solutions end up being, in actuality, zero-prong solutions because the human brain, especially in the collective, doesn't work like a computer."

The Hub reached out to Ferraro—who holds appointments in the Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Carey Business School, and the Whiting School of Engineering—for help understanding a blistering United Nations report published last month examining how the climate is affected by the way humans use land. The report, which was among the nine action areas discussed at the UN Secretary General's Climate Action Summit on Monday, found that —particularly agriculture, deforestation, and activities that erode coastlines—has degraded roughly a quarter of all the ice-free land on the planet, preventing that land from effectively absorbing carbon from the atmosphere.

Ferraro helped put the report's findings into perspective and spoke about which climate change interventions are and aren't effective, his recent research, and what future climate studies might—and should—look like.

What are your thoughts on the Special Report on Climate Change and Land?

The main takeaway from the report is that roughly 30% of come from land use activities. So the implication is that we should be spending resources on addressing land use activities for climate change, or that we should be spending at least an equivalent amount of our scarce resources addressing land use activities. The problem with that argument is that we have scarce cognitive, financial, and time resources for addressing the problem. And just because 30% of emissions come from land use activity doesn't mean 30% of our scarce resources should be assigned to address it.

In my research, we've found that it's very hard to move the needle in land use. We've had much more transformative changes in how we use energy in the last few decades than we have in how ecosystems are used. And so, I'm very concerned that efforts to shift land use in a transformational way are quite difficult to achieve. And I know from my behavioral work that cognitive limitations are a serious constraint in doing policy work, and you can't ask policy makers to simultaneously work on 20 different fronts. The problem you might end up getting is that they won't work on any of the fronts effectively.

You mean in this case, it wouldn't be effective to approach the problem from multiple angles?

Well, talk to my engineering colleagues, for example. If they have multiple objectives and multiple constraints, they can still optimize their allocation of resources. But that's not how the human brain works. That modeling exercise doesn't reflect the psychology of decision making in collective action situations, which is the situation we're in when addressing climate change.

What we need instead is a laser focus on the actions that are going to do the most good. And my belief, and this is where we can argue, is that the actions that do the most good are actions that are going to decarbonize the energy sector.

Some of your recent research calls into question the effectiveness of training and education programs for changing human behaviors to curb climate change. Can you talk about those studies and what they found?

Our main point of our recent study, published in Nature Climate Change, is to try to shake scientists up a little with their underlying assumption that information deficits are a key obstacle for action in or any other environmental issue. Scientists always think it's a lack of knowledge—because that's what we offer, knowledge—and that if we just show people what we know as scientists, then people will act in the appropriate or desirable way. But lack of knowledge is not typically the problem. The problem is a lack of incentives. When I act, it clearly costs me time and resources, but I only reap a small fraction of the benefits, which are shared widely among many other people. When there is this asymmetry in costs and benefits, our behaviors don't change.

The idea that simply disseminating science to people in written and oral forms would transform how we affect the planet is hard to believe. If we're going to go down that road, we need to test our methods of dissemination just like we would test our scientific hypotheses related to how the atmosphere works or how new technologies work. One of the reasons why this study was published in Nature Climate Change is because I think there are no other studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of capacity building, or information dissemination. We've always assumed the evidence must matter, but in reality we have almost a complete absence of evidence about the value of evidence. And we've spent a lot of time focusing our scientific lens on questions about the environment and complex coupled human environmental systems. But then when it comes to building capacity, disseminating that information, we don't apply a scientific lens anymore. We just do it. We have no idea how to effectively use the science and the evidence we generate to move human behavior.

That's an important area that we're only just starting to get involved in—scientists as the research subject, or even more broadly, the environmental engineer as the research subject. Part of the problem is that we do need to maintain peoples' enthusiasm and dedication to problem solving, and if we're honest and transparent, we're going to see that most of what we do doesn't move the needle, which can be discouraging.

Do you plan to conduct further studies in this area?

Sure, if we can get anybody willing to do it. Getting people to stop and carefully test what they're doing is difficult in the environmental domain because people believe we're facing a crisis. "We're losing, species are going extinct, there's no time to do careful testing"—we've been having that argument since the '80s when I was in college. But we're still here. We're still debating the same issues. So part of the problem is that environmental science is a crisis science, and this really impairs our incentives for doing careful testing.

If you go over to the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, the guiding precept is "do no harm." In the environmental arena, the guiding precept is "do something." We need to take a page from our medical colleagues and think more about "do no harm." They're subject to crises. People are dying, but they think about what they're doing and say, "Wait a minute. What we're doing may actually make things worse." What are the of scaling up interventions that may not work at all and thus waste time and resources when we could be doing something more effective? We need the "do no harm" precept to be more widely adopted in the environmental arena if we're going to not be in the same situation we're in now 30 years from now.


Explore further

Expert warns of climate change aggravating land degradation

More information: Francisco Alpízar et al. The impacts of a capacity-building workshop in a randomized adaptation project, Nature Climate Change (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0536-3
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Citation: Why effective climate change solutions remain so elusive (2019, September 26) retrieved 14 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-effective-climate-solutions-elusive.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
194 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 27, 2019
"We have no idea how to effectively use the science and the evidence we generate to move human behavior."

Just finished Sapiens by Yuval Harari, he makes clear how agricultural revolution boosted population but lowered quality of life. That's the problem: everything that cuts carbon in industry without economic damage boosts growth and population, so more is consumed.

It's all thermodynamic laws conspiring with evolutionary drives. Human won't act meaningfully because we're stupid. The same thing that has been happening for billions of years, evolution, will happen again. Correct action is to figure out how to survive sustainably on new semi alien planet as small cultish group, don't keep actions secret so other semi smart people can emulate.

Sep 27, 2019
I've been saying for a long time, "We need to stop burning coal." I'm still saying it. It's the single most important step we can take. Among other considerations, it's the single largest source of carbon pollution, and also it will give us more time to address other things. We can talk about cars and planes and so forth, but first, stop burning coal. It really is just that simple.

Sep 27, 2019
I've been saying for a long time, HAWW...HAWW...HEE....HEE...

Nah, DaSchitebo, you been BRAYIN'....for far too long.
Now go find some man-meat to stuff into your gob along with all the methane emitting beef. Perhaps, that will shut you up.

Sep 27, 2019
Just finished Sapiens by Yuval Harari, he makes clear how agricultural revolution boosted population but lowered quality of life. ....

Wow, you learnt it from a book, so it must be true. Go look yourself, for when population started it rapidest rise and perhaps you'll see that it's modern medicine that was responsible. Agriculture, luckily for you, responded to the challenge to sustain the growth.
There are about 700 million who are over 65, way past any useful contribution to humanity. A detrimental contribution to CO2 levels and waste of resources, won't you say? So, want to cut CO2, with minimum economic damage, while reducing population and consumption? Well, tonight when grandma and grandpa are in deep slumber, why don't you sneak in, kiss them goodbye and press their pillows over their faces.
WARNING: If you are stupid enough to actually do the above, please seek professional help.

Sep 27, 2019
The evidence shows there's NO ALARM. Only fools claim there is an emergency.

Sep 27, 2019
@old c
The evidence shows there's NO ALARM
this coming from a person who has no idea what the evidence actually states and refuses to read studies simply because they contradict his personal belief?

I mean, you actually stated "your BS links are truly BS" when I linked to you *validated evidence* that directly contradicted your beliefs because you believe you have "common sense"

that isn't logic or scepticism on your part: that is irrational delusional belief wrapped in religious or political fervour topped with conspiracist ideation

I'll repeat this: Common sense would dictate acceptance of the [validated] science and a refusal to accept unfounded accusations from anonymous posters

Sep 28, 2019
I'll repeat this: Common sense would dictate acceptance of the [validated] science and a refusal to accept unfounded accusations from anonymous posters
--Cap'n Stumpid
Well Stumps, if there is anyone who must be most accepting of the "validated science", that would be the ones pushing it the most i.e. the IPCC. Yet, in December, thousands of them will go on a CO2 spewing trip to faraway Chile. For a party to celebrate how effective they have been in convincing the ignorant of the "validated science". So Stumps, what does your "common sense" dictate, about that?

Sep 28, 2019
this coming from a person who has no idea what the evidence actually states and refuses to read studies simply because they contradict his personal belief?


You have no idea what I do.

You are a fool who can't think straight. I've written code for over 30 years. I'm guessing you don't think very much. Surely you don't think for a living.

Sep 28, 2019
@Anti
Yet, in December, thousands of them will go on a CO2 spewing trip to faraway Chile
a person's actions and choices are not representative of the science.

moreover, nowhere in any ruling dogma, constitution, creed or law does it say that elected officials will always do the right thing (or the smart thing)
So Stumps, what does your "common sense" dictate, about that?
I think it's pretty f*cking stupid of them if they take private aircraft, and it's one reason idiots cling to the faerie tale that AGW isn't real, especially the fanatical delusional people who can't segregate stupid human behaviour from fact and science

Sep 28, 2019
@old C
You have no idea what I do
I know what you post, and your abilities can be extrapolated from that, especially when you *literally* ignore validated facts for your beliefs
You are a fool who can't think straight
I'm not the idiot ignoring a century of validated science because of some political idiocy like you're doing
I've written code for over 30 years
your point?

being functional in one area doesn't mean you're logical, nor does it mean you have common sense

in point of fact, it's making you look worse, TBH
I'm guessing you don't think very much
this coming from a person who can't comprehend exposure and saturation limits?
Maybe you can code a program to explain it to yourself?
Surely you don't think for a living
says the self-professed coder who can't comprehend the difference between a fact and a political belief?

Considering you *literally* ignore the evidence for your beliefs, you haven't much of a leg to stand on

Sep 28, 2019
I think it's pretty f*cking stupid of them if they take private aircraft, and it's one reason idiots cling to the faerie tale that AGW isn't real, especially the fanatical delusional people who can't segregate stupid human behaviour from fact and science

But Cap'n, it's the IPCC who brought, from faraway Europe, an ignorant child, with a mental disorder, who claims that she can see invisible CO2, to cry and scream on the world stage, how the science concurs, when she sees no future and we are all going to die in a mass extinction.
It's that same IPCC who are dictating to the World's governments, to impose drastic policies on their people, because of the "settled science", but then they jet off for a party, spewing CO2 all the way.
Now, is that the behaviour of calm, rational people who can segregate stupidity from fact and science?

Sep 28, 2019
@antig
But Cap'n, it's the IPCC who brought, from faraway Europe, an ignorant child, with a mental disorder, who claims that she can see invisible CO2, to cry and scream on the world stage
and I consider the use of children and the mentally afflicted as pawns for political idiocy abhorrent behaviour

it still doesn't change the facts about AGW, nor does it change the science
It's that same IPCC who are dictating to the World's governments
they're an "Intergovernmental Panel" from United Nations, therefore they can suggest or even take sanctions against a nation, but they cannot dictate to or undermine the sovereignty of a nation ( https://www.un.or...dex.html ) even if said nation is a member state

just because a panel from the UN wants everyone to help save their own asses and is willing to facilitate that cooperation doesn't mean they're going to supplant your government

2Bcont'd

Sep 28, 2019
Considering you *literally* ignore the evidence for your beliefs,


Banks still giving out 30 year mortgages in Miami.

You're a fool.

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
to impose drastic policies on their people
perhaps that may be needed in the future because of people like you who argue against the science because you can't differentiate it from your political beliefs... this is a lot like TEL, lead, CFC's and other pollution issues from our global history
because of the "settled science"
this is demonstrative of your ignorance WRT the science
but then they jet off for a party, spewing CO2 all the way.
Now, is that the behaviour of calm, rational people who can segregate stupidity from fact and science?
and again: a person's actions and choices are not representative of the science

you're assuming that politicians are equivalent to scientists or the science in the above
you're wrong

politicians use topics to gain favour so that idiots will keep them in power - if you dislike the idiots in power, change them and seek someone who isn't an idiot (like Colorado did), but remember that NATO isn't just the US

Sep 28, 2019
@old c
Banks still giving out 30 year mortgages in Miami.
so what's your point?
that all businesses are sensible?
really?
you're an amway salesman, aren't you?
You're a fool.
says the coder of 30 years who can't differentiate science from political dogma!
LMFAO

you're the one who demonstrably can't comprehend saturation and exposure limits!


Sep 28, 2019
Well, Cap'n, if the "science is settled", why are billions still being squandered on "proving" it?

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
Well, Cap'n, if the "science is settled", why are billions still being squandered on "proving" it?
well anti, for the same reason cars are still being developed, houses today are built differently than houses 50 or more years ago, and we are still looking into space examining stars: just because an issue is "settled", per your claims, doesn't mean we know everything

you keep using the term "settled" as a pejorative
it's not

just because we know [x] doesn't mean we know everything, but more importantly, when we do know something (like the saturation and exposure limits of CO2 for plants), we can make predictions based upon said knowledge

this is best demonstrated by our knowledge of Iodine - we know it's vital for your life, but it is also toxic

so does this mean you should drink Iodine since the science is settled and we need it to live?
methinks even you wouldn't try that one

Sep 28, 2019
says the coder of 30 years who can't differentiate science from political dogma!
LMFAO

you're the one who demonstrably can't comprehend saturation and exposure limits!


CO2 is not a pollutant, you're just a numbskull.


Sep 28, 2019
LMAO.
Well, Cap'n, we can quantitatively show that our cars, houses and understanding of space, is better than that which we had from 50 years ago. And yes we do consume iodine to live by adding it to household salt because we can medically prove it.
Now, again, why are we wasting billions on "settled" climate "science"?

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
why are billions still being squandered on "proving" it?
there is another side to this not stated explicitly above: we also don't know what will be the most effective means to combat this

so there is just one reason to keep exploring the natural world in the hopes of finding a solution... you know, like cancer research

what to do about AGW is the *only* thing that is contested and not "settled", btw

but what does that mean, really?
a lot of things... we know what is wrong because of the science
we know what can help because of the science
we know that if we keep on the same path we'll cause worsening problems because of the science

ya don't redline a corvette in the desert and ignore the rapidly increasing heat from the warning gauges simply because it's been hot before

Sep 28, 2019
@old c
CO2 is not a pollutant, you're just a numbskull.
and the link above demonstrably proves you're either illiterate, stupid, a troll, or a paid shill

thanks for demonstrating my point

.

@anti
we can quantitatively show that our cars, houses and understanding of space, is better than that which we had from 50 years ago
we can also show our understanding of CO2, the environment, weather and climate is better
And yes we do consume iodine to live by adding it to household salt because we can medically prove it.
ya don't drink it and you limit your consumption because, and I will quote you
the "science is settled"
tell ya what: if it's not settled, drink or inject it ... prove me wrong
Now, again, why
asked and answered

Sep 28, 2019
Well, Cap'n, what does the science say -
We know is wrong?
We know can help?

Sep 28, 2019
addendum to @anti
because we can medically prove it
here is the thing: we can also botanically prove that CO2 is toxic to plants in certain saturations and for certain exposure limits because of the "billions on "settled" climate science" being spent, like the studies done by Lobell et al. 2008, Luo 2009, Zhao and Running 2010, Challinor et al. 2010, Lobell et al. 2011 and so many more that old C refused to actually read

so, paraphrased simply: like Iodine, O2, and even water, we know that there are upper and lower limits needed for life to exist
what does the science say -
We know is wrong?
asked and answered repeatedly and repeatedly ignored by you, but I'll throw out a primary driver: CO2 (this includes the relationships it has with other GHG's)
...We know can help?
limit the future production and/or find a way to capture the CO2 and sequester it


Sep 28, 2019
Alrighty Cap'n, so the "settled" science says (man-made) CO2 is the problem and you stated some solutions.

what to do about AGW is the *only* thing that is contested and not "settled"

So, how does wasting billions more on the "settled" science gonna resolve the above?

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
so the "settled" science says (man-made) CO2 is the problem and you stated some solutions
I said CO2 is a primary driver. there is a difference
So, how does wasting billions more on the "settled" science gonna resolve the above?
no such thing: all of Science exists on the frontiers of knowledge

we still study GR/SR even though we have plenty of validation
what have we learned by doing this? (Axe, Q-Star, Thermo and others like Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson will gladly fill you in on those details)

the same thing for climate science

then there is the issue of new discoveries - the same reason we still investigate new and better ways to manufacture cars, planes, etc

let's not ignore the research on how we can actually solve the AGW problem

most importantly: we need to keep spending on research to find a workable solution that doesn't include killing off the global population and living in caves

Sep 28, 2019
Focus Cap'n, we are talking about "settled" climate "science", are we not?

Now you said - "CO2 is a primary driver. there is a difference"
So, what's the difference and what does wasting billions on "settled" climate "science" have to do with it?

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
we are talking about "settled" climate "science", are we not?
your definition of "settled science" isn't the same as mine, and you are using the term more as a pejorative than as a descriptive, especially as you've provided absolutely no defining characteristics of what it means as a term

also note: I clarified my position already WRT the term
what's the difference
we've discussed this before and you ignored it...

CO2 is a primary driver directly affecting other GHG's, which are also a threat (H2O comes to mind)
what does wasting billions on "settled" climate "science" have to do with it?
define this term
"settled" climate "science"
until you are specific about what you mean then we can't discuss this point

also: see above

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
we are talking about "settled" climate "science"
to reiterate: *all of Science* exists on the frontiers of knowledge

some things are settled: examples include Iodine above, or how a beneficial compound can be both toxic and necessary for life - this does not in any way mean that there isn't more to learn or there aren't new and unknown ways to combine iodine for a benefit (or toxicity)

extrapolating this to the topic: just because we know and understand the primary driver and how it is affecting the climate doesn't mean we know how to combat the rise in CO2 production or how we can sequester it

Sep 28, 2019
Well, Cap'n as far as I'm concerned nothing in science is settled, hence the quotes.
Anyway, I went through the comments above and couldn't find/figure out what you mean by "settled climate science". So, you tell me your definition and we will go with that.

Sep 28, 2019
extrapolating this to the topic: just because we know and understand the primary driver and how it is affecting the climate doesn't mean we know how to combat the rise in CO2 production or how we can sequester it

Alrighty Cap'n, but that still does not answer how wasting billions more on the already "settled" climate "science", resolves the above.

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
as far as I'm concerned nothing in science is settled, hence the quotes
there is truth to this, but that doesn't mean there are no knowns, which is just another way of saying "settled science" in a way
So, you tell me your definition and we will go with that
well for starters, as noted, all science is on the frontiers of knowledge

but as I noted, there are things that can be considered "settled" as they are known and we know why (the example of iodine, CO2, water, potassium, and manufacture of cars, houses, etc all are examples)
but that still does not answer
actually, it does

so let us clarify: are you saying that investigation into the climate sciences simply pours money into learning what we already know?

EDIT: back in a while

Sep 28, 2019
One more time Cap'n, focus, we are talkin' "settled" climate "science".
So, you say - "well for starters, as noted, all science is on the frontiers of knowledge".
Does that mean all science is not settled, or only climate "science" is?

Then you ask - "so let us clarify: are you saying that investigation into the climate sciences simply pours money into learning what we already know?"
Well, I'm not saying, I'm asking, if climate "science" is "settled", then to what end are we wasting further billions on it?

Sep 28, 2019
proves you're either illiterate, stupid, a troll, or a paid shill


I correct myself, you're insane. Paid shill? Lol. Delusional.

Sep 28, 2019
@anti
Does that mean all science is not settled, or only climate "science" is?
focus, anti, and leave off the false dilemma fallacy

you're attempting to make an argument that the situation has to be either "settled" or not and it can be both, as explained above by the analogies to iodine or other similar scientific knowledge (like cancer, manufacturing, etc)
I'm asking, if climate "science" is "settled", then to what end are we wasting further billions on it?
asked and answered

you could ask the same thing about cancer research, or vehicle manufacturing, or bridge building

Sep 29, 2019
Guess this one really hurt @tehgeighalgore. It's sure whining about it a lot.

Whassamata U? Got a bunch of coal stocks?

Sep 29, 2019
Well, Cap'n, we can quantitatively demonstrate how investments has improved cancer research, vehicle manufacturing and bridge building and will continue to do so, because NONE of those has been declared "settled".
Now, back to what we are discussing.
Can you quantify how wasting further billions on the "settled" climate "science", can improve on the "settled" cause; it's man-made GHGs, and the "settled" cure; we must end emissions of said GHGs?

Sep 29, 2019
Я пошел в Google и перевел это, так что вы думаете, что я русский. лол.


TRANSLATION:
I went to Google and translated it, so you think I'm Russian. lol.

What utter fools who had this removed. LOL.

Sep 29, 2019
Watching gay incel @tehgeighalgore out itself is amusing. Tell us some more stories about the donkey sex you crave.

Sep 29, 2019
https://quadrant....Cby-CjFM

and, does nitrogen get warm ? whats going with the tropopause ? getting warmer ? how to define it ?

Sep 30, 2019
@anti
Now, back to what we are discussing
you already answered your own question
and yes, those topics are "settled" per your use of the word

more to the point: they're settled and also not settled at the same time
Can you quantify...
how about you answer your own question (yet again) by answering this:
why bother to invest money in materials development for the automotive, bridge, or other manufacturing industries when we already know how to build bridges, automobiles and other stuff out of existing materials?

Sep 30, 2019
Well Cap'n, here are just a few of the ways automobiles have improved and continue to, with investments because NO ONE has declared it SETTLED. https://www.popul...estones/

So, tell us Cap'n how does wasting billions on the "settled" climate "science" improve on, as you stated -
"we know what is wrong because of the science
we know what can help because of the science
we know that if we keep on the same path we'll cause worsening problems because of the science
"


Sep 30, 2019
@anti
So, tell us Cap'n...
first off, it's not a waste any more than current research into materials for cars is a waste
secondly, the improvements can start with everything from TSI, ISE and radiative forcing to the effects of increased CO2 on our primary food production grains and plants (all those FACE and other studies I tried to get you to read). The same funding drives weather research as well, BTW.

Then we can see dollars and research learning about Risk to Unique and Threatened Systems, extreme weather, conservation of energy, social orders under risk and management, psychology, evolution and adaptation, ocean warming and it's effects on climate and weather, GHG research, localised weather disruption, the jet stream, destabilisation, thermodynamics, MHD and so much more

https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

2Bcont'd

Sep 30, 2019
cont'd
... automobiles have improved and continue to, with investments because NO ONE has declared it SETTLED
ok then... let me know when they start using square tires

that is a major point, BTW - we know that round tires are best because [ahem] that is settled science

notice that I don't say anything about what the tires are made of?
because that isn't settled, though there is a strong argument for softer materials like rubber versus steel or concrete

and this is where you're ignorant of basic scientific principles: we can have issues that are "settled" but still have room for improvement or learning

this applies to Climate science as well as Cars, houses, aeroplanes, bridges, etc


Oct 01, 2019
Oh Cap'n, you so funny, "square tires".
Well Cap'n, if you said to me, square is better than round. I would point you to this test - https://www.youtu...8Q_4iaxU
And, if you still insisted that square is better, you know being one of them ignorant types who would bring up square tires to make your point in a serious discussion. Then, the smart me would walk away, but, unfortunately you are talkin' to the persistent, stupid me.
So, back to "settled" climate "change".
Now, you claim that what's settled is man-made GHGs are the cause and ending those emissions is the fix. Of course if asked, you would produce graphs of temperature data and claim, see, it has warmed exactly by so much and the supercomputer models say in 100 years all the ice would melt and if you ain't drowning, you would be roasting and dying from thirst.

/tbc..

Oct 01, 2019
/..con't
But, Cap'n where is your scientific data/graphs that proves cutting man-made CO2 will cool the planet? If we ended man-made CO2 tomorrow, where is your graph that shows how much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years? Save us oh "wise" Cap'n, the "settled" climate "change" has "proven" how we are all going to die. But, Cap'n when will it show me how the "settled" fix is going to make me live?

Oct 01, 2019
So, back to "settled" climate "change"...
Of course if asked, you would produce graphs of temperature data and claim, see, it has warmed exactly by so much
Ohh are you in luck, antigoracle, do i have a graph for you today. It shows that things were so well settled almost 40 years ago that "scientists working for oil and gas giant Exxon expertly predicted the shape of climate change to come."

Link: One Oil Company Expertly Predicted This Week's CO2 Milestone Almost 40 Years Ago

Spoiler alert -- the curve of the plot is comparable to that of an unripe banana -- is that why HeloMenlo is always promising you bananas on the climate change threads?

Oct 01, 2019
@anti
but, unfortunately you are talkin' to the persistent, stupid me
(just remember: you said it, not me) - that's why I'm trying to keep it monosyllabic and I'm not linking too many references - all that science cornfuddles you, it seems
Of course if asked, you would produce graphs of temperature data and claim
erm, no.

I would produce several studies demonstrating the causal link, the knowns, plus the correlation as well as the examinations that ruled out other data... you know - like I've done for you, steel and others already

In fact, Thermo actually took that idiot alche/waterprofit through the evidence several times, including explaining the maths and evidence
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

the real question I would ask first, though, is: are you willing to read the evidence?
then I would ask: do you know how to differentiate between your belief and facts?
https://en.wikipe...evidence

2Bctd

Oct 01, 2019
@anti cont'd
But, Cap'n where is your scientific data/graphs that proves cutting man-made CO2 will cool the planet?
But, Cap'n when will it show me how the "settled" fix is going to make me live?
and those comments right there prove you've never once read any of the links, references or other data that I've posted here

I've given you this data in the past - so has Thermo (actually, Thermo gave it to another denier in a thread where you've posted. he likely wouldn't actually discuss this with you as you've typically not been amenable to an evidentiary discourse)


Oct 01, 2019
Well, Cap'n the past is the past and the present is you lying, because this is the only time I've had any discussion of this with you. Now, prove you are not the liar and provide just a single document that answers --
Where is your scientific data/graphs that proves cutting man-made CO2 will cool the planet? If we ended man-made CO2 tomorrow, where is your graph that shows how much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years?

Oct 01, 2019
@antigoracle
@Captain Stumpy.

You two may be talking at cross-purposes because the "science/model" based on historical/projective effects from KNOWN climate change factors is NOT THE SAME THING as the POTENTIAL "technology/solutions" that have/are being considered to slow/reverse the effects of those known climate change factors already understood/in train.

ps: @antigoracle, for example, our Australian ABC TV did a REPORT on the climate change "science/model" BACK IN 1990....and the science/model was so ACCURATE EVEN THEN that THEY WERE SPOT ON with predictions as to what was going to happen re extreme/unseasonal/widespread etc storms, droughts, fires, floods, exacerbating/unsettling; and pests/diseases etc spreading/relocating polewards North and South. The point re the science is that IT IS SUFFICIENTLY SETTLED/SPOT ON SCIENCE/PREDICTIONS; such that INTELLIGENT beings would HEED (science/modeling) and ACT (explore behavioural//technological solutions) BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. :)

Oct 01, 2019
@anti
and the present is you lying, because this is the only time I've had any discussion of this with you
1- I didn't say we had a discussion. you don't discuss, you usually just shout and ignore facts, then lie, lie, lie

2 - so you're saying that I've never once posted links and references to you, quoting you, or in a thread where you're supporting some other anti-AGW poster?

really?

and you're saying Thermo hasn't ever tried to engage you as well?
not even in 2014?
Where is
1- are you willing to read the evidence?

2- do you know how to differentiate between your belief and facts that can be validated?
http://wp.auburn....opinion/

.

@rc
unless you've been able to find those miraculous hidden posts where you spell out all 8 fundamental flaws of BICEP2, f*ck off and keep your nose out of my conversation

9,555 comments and still no evidence

Oct 01, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 02, 2019
Well Cap'n, provide just a single document that answers --
Where is your scientific data/graphs that proves cutting man-made CO2 will cool the planet? If we ended man-made CO2 tomorrow, where is your graph that shows how much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years?

Oct 02, 2019
@anti
Well Cap'n, provide just a single document that answers --
Where is your scientific data/graphs that proves cutting man-made CO2 will cool the planet?
moving the goalpost because you realised that I can provide, and have provided, this evidence? Now you want just a single study? LMFAO

this is why people don't usually try to engage you within an AGW thread

I will ask this again and await your replies to it first due to your demonstrable prior tactics above and in AGW threads on this site:

1- are you willing to read the evidence?

2- do you know how to differentiate between your belief and facts that can be validated?
http://wp.auburn....opinion/

https://en.wikipe...evidence

3- are you willing to provide the same level of evidence to support your argument? (as in peer-reviewed, published and validated)

EDIT - I added #3 to eliminate opinion or politics as a valid argument against science

Oct 02, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 02, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 02, 2019
@anti
NOT ONLY WOULD I READ IT, I WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.
so you answered #1...

to discuss this topic using facts, not fiction, we need to set: a Hierarchy of evidence, differentiation between fact and opinion, and evidentiary equality

- do you know how to differentiate between your belief and facts that can be validated?
http://wp.auburn....opinion/

https://en.wikipe...evidence

- are you willing to provide the same level of evidence to support your argument? (as in peer-reviewed, published and validated)

Oct 02, 2019
Well Cap'n, here are the FACTS-
You tell blatant falsehoods.
You are totally devoid of facts so all you can do is paste irrelevant links.

FICTION -
you know how to differentiate between your belief and facts that can be validated?

Now, provide any peer reviewed doc that shows, If we ended man-made CO2 tomorrow, how much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years?

Oct 02, 2019
@anti
here are the FACTS
no, those are attitudinal statements without evidence, therefore they're opinion
http://wp.auburn....opinion/

therefore they can be dismissed as your inability to differentiate evidence and fact from your political belief
https://en.wikipe...evidence

Now, provide any peer reviewed doc that shows
do you agree:
- to provide the same level of evidence to support your argument that I do (as in peer-reviewed, published and validated)?

- can you distinguish between your attitudinal statements and facts?
(Protip: you can start by reading the two links above)


Oct 03, 2019
@Captain Stumpy.
keep your nose out of my conversation
Of course YOU have NEVER done such a thing yourself in your life here, have you, CS? [tongue-in-cheek]. Go back and check your own posting record, CS, and note the 'gazillion' times you have done just that with my and others' conversations; and note how you almost invariably did so c/w with insults and malice; whereas I just now constructively and politely pointed out for @antigoracle that, while the technological/other solutions may not yet be "settled", the climate science *is* itself "sufficiently settled" for intelligent humans to draw realistic conclusions and to base thereon urgent considerations/actions for remedying the situation. :)

unless you've been able to find those miraculous hidden posts where you spell out all 8 fundamental flaws of BICEP2, 9,555 comments and still no evidence.
Let it go, mate, or it'll drive you mad. Avoid 'trolling the messenger' (especially when they're proven correct). :)

Oct 04, 2019
@rc

Go back and check your own posting record, rc, and note the 'gazillion' times you have posted blatantly fallacious claims (like your BICEP2 claims or your ToE), epic failures to produce evidence (like your so-called evidentiary posts where you spell out the 8 BICEP2 flaws, 4 being "fatal" or any ToE claim) and outright delusional comments (like saving us all from AGW with your research or your "Reality-Axiomatic-Math to model the Reality-Postulatic-ToE" bullsh*t ).

reported for pseudoscience and your failure to post the flaws within 10K comments
(the latter being a prediction, just like when I predicted you would not post the evidence)

EDIT:
I also predict you will want the last word so will post a reply where you will obviously lie, which will only be reported and not responded to

Oct 04, 2019

http://wp.auburn....opinion/

Now, provide any peer reviewed doc that shows
do you agree:
- to provide the same level of evidence to support your argument that I do (as in peer-reviewed, published and validated)?

- can you distinguish between your attitudinal statements and facts?
(Protip: you can start by reading the two links above)


Well Cap'n, it took awhile to get through those links, as I'm sure you well know, having been through them yourself. So, as I agree to your conditions, just to see where we stand, I would like to share something I found very relevant to our conversation, as it pertains to how politicized climate science has become. So, Bertrand Russell in his epistemological views on "if politics is to become scientific" raised the point of the corrupting influence of politics on science. I totally agree with him. What do you think?

Oct 04, 2019
@Anti
as I agree to your conditions, just to see where we stand, I would like to share something I found very relevant ... Bertrand Russell ..."if politics is to become scientific" ... corrupting influence of politics on science. I totally agree with him. What do you think?
well, the question I would pose back to you would be: how is this relevant?

we're not discussing the politics of what to do. we were discussing the science

personally, I dislike politics because people tend to ignore the facts for the sake of their dogma, such as old_c's refusal to accept FACE or similar existing experiments and data regarding CO2 saturation with our typical grains, etc

so if you want to discuss the politics, I recommend going to sciforums.com and starting a thread where I may join the discourse and we can have a *moderated discussion*


Oct 04, 2019
can you distinguish between your attitudinal statements and facts?
(Protip: you can start by reading the two links above)

Well Cap'n, you posted the above and I accepted.
Now, "can you distinguish between your attitudinal statements and facts?"
Did you even read your own links, far less comprehend it? Or, did you miss the part on Russell?
Isn't science about facts and politics more about attitudes?
It sure sounds like you are dodging your own question at the top.
If you intend to keep dodging, then what's the point of this conversation.

NOW, Bertrand Russell in his epistemological views on "if politics is to become scientific" raised the point of the corrupting influence of politics on science. I totally agree with him. What do you think?

Oct 04, 2019
@anti
It sure sounds like you are dodging your own question at the top
I'm not dodging anything

you're moving the goalposts while attempting a redirection into ideology... you need to keep your focus and get back to our topic! what happened to you wanting to know about CO2 above?

as you even stated: Isn't science about facts and politics more about attitudes?

there is no point discussing politics (or attitudes) when the topic under discussion is scientific

Oct 04, 2019
Really Cap'n, politics has no place in this discussion?
What is the IPCC, if not a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION?
Aren't they the ones pushing all the SCIENTIFIC FACTS on climate change?
If we are to discuss climate change, then we need to agree on a single source of facts and that should be the IPCC. But, there are many claims that they have politicized and corrupted the science.
So, I need your answer to your own question of me - "CAN YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN YOUR ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS AND FACTS?"

NOW, Bertrand Russell in his epistemological views on "if politics is to become scientific" raised the point of the corrupting influence of politics on science. I totally agree with him. What do you think?

Your answer can be a simple Yes of No, if you agree or disagree.
This is the last time I'm asking, otherwise this conversation is over.

Oct 04, 2019
@Captain Stumpy.
keep your nose out of my conversation

Of course YOU have NEVER done such a thing yourself in your life here, have you, CS? [tongue-in-cheek]. Go back and check your own posting record, CS, and note the 'gazillion' times you have done just that with my and others' conversations; and note how you almost invariably did so c/w with insults and malice;...
Go back and check your own posting record, rc, and note the 'gazillion' times you have posted blatantly fallacious claims (like your BICEP2 claims or your ToE), ....
First off, you skipped over your hypocrisy, because you have intruded into other's conversations c/w with your nastiness. Plus I have bee scientifically sound/correct in my posts yours were all about the person/insults and your own bot-voting/trolling gang campaigns. Moreover, I am being confirmed correct while you and your gang incorrect. When are you going to move on from your past hypocrisy/nasty persona/agenda? :)

Oct 04, 2019
@anti
politics has no place in this discussion?
no, it does not

Bertrand Russell made an attitudinal statement that is subjective (opinion)
You concur, but that isn't objective empirical evidence
hence my statement: there is no point discussing politics (or attitudes) when the topic under discussion is scientific
What is the IPCC, if not a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION?
irrelevant: I have not linked IPCC data
but, tbh, the IPCC is at least referencing scientific data, which you are not
Aren't they the ones pushing all the SCIENTIFIC FACTS on climate change?
irrelevant - the discussion you and I were having was about the science, not the politics

why do you want to move the discussion into the realm of politics?
If we are to discuss climate change, then we need to agree on a single source of facts and that should be the IPCC
wrong
it should be peer-reviewed source material
stick to the science, not the politics

2Bcont'd

Oct 04, 2019
@anti ctd
But, there are many claims that they have politicized and corrupted the science
1- this statement requires validation, otherwise it's *at best* an untested claim

2- this is still irrelevant as the topic is the science, not the politics
stick to the source material (peer-reviewed studies from reputable sources that have been validated)
So, I need your answer to your own question of me - "CAN YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN YOUR ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS AND FACTS?"
better than you can
I am not in any way discussing political or subjective statements, let alone attitudinal statements- YOU ARE

and this is why most people don't talk to you at all: just because you want to argue a political point doesn't mean it in any way is scientific
This is the last time I'm asking, otherwise this conversation is over
so, if I don't talk politics, it's over
but if I do talk politics, we're not talking science, so it's also over

LMFAO
that is delusional!

Oct 05, 2019
So, I need your answer to your own question of me - "CAN YOU DISTINGUISH BETWEEN YOUR ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS AND FACTS?"
better than you can

gkam says that's a Big Fat Fib, StumPid.
LMAO.

Oct 05, 2019
@anti
gkam says that's a Big Fat Fib, StumPid.
LMAO
ROTFLMFAO
considering he is a proven liar, fraud and demonstrably inept, that is f*cking hilarious!
thanks for the laugh

.

so, I will ask again: why do you keep pushing the discussion into the realm of politics?
especially considering you started this discourse by requesting scientific data

Oct 05, 2019
What rhymes with fib ..... StumPid.
gkam says - It takes one to know one.

Did you read those 2 links? Of course NOT, because you lie.high.
Now, go get someone with intelligence to read and explain those 2 links to you and when you have the answer to -
Bertrand Russell in his epistemological views on "if politics is to become scientific" raised the point of the corrupting influence of politics on science. I totally agree with him. What do you think?

We'll talk.

Oct 05, 2019
@farcical anti
and so we get diverted into a subjective political and opinion debate yet again
why?
because you know you don't have evidence for your claims... let's break this down
Bertrand Russell in his epistemological views on
1- your comment specifically states an individuals "views" - this is *literally* a Self-report or personal judgment, therefore irrelevant

2- your constant diversion into Russell's opinion only validates the argument that you have no evidentiary support for your claims
I totally agree with him. What do you think?
your agreement of Russell and my opinion about anything are irrelevant to the topic of objective scientific evidence that can be validated
We'll talk.
not unless you can remember that you're opinion is irrelevant to the topic of the scientific evidence

Oct 05, 2019
LMAO.
StumPid lies.high again.

StumPid you are the one who questioned me on -
"DO YOU KNOW HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN YOUR BELIEF AND FACTS THAT CAN BE VALIDATED?"
And, posted 2 links.

And now you are BRAYING that I am NOT allowed to ask the same question of you.

- Did you read and comprehend the content behind those links? YES / NO
- If you did then you would be able to answer my question on Russell.

So, either you are a LI.AR or just plain StumPid. I know you are both, but that's just me being overly generous.
If you cannot read, far less comprehend, then giving you FACTS would be a total waste of time, but only slightly less than, how much a waste of skin you are.

So, you can either confirm you are a LI.AR or just keep on LY.ING.

Oct 05, 2019
@anti lying again and now back to trolling... sigh
And now you are BRAYING that I am NOT allowed to ask the same question of you
I'm not telling you that you can't ask the same question - I'm saying it's irrelevant because:

I have *demonstrated* that you don't know the difference between opinion and fact

Just because you agree with a philosopher doesn't mean the point you're in agreement with is factual, let alone reality, otherwise, we would still be saying *god did it*

.

this means "you are a LI.AR [and] just plain Stu...Pid. I know you are both"

in conclusion:
"If you cannot read, far less comprehend, then giving you FACTS would be a total waste of time, but only slightly less than, how much a waste of skin you are.

So, you can either confirm you are a LI.AR or just keep on LY.ING."

Oct 05, 2019
LMAO.
There you go again StumPid.
You are the one who posted those links, pretending you understood what they contained.
And, I'm saying you are a LI.AR and StumPid who cannot read far less comprehend.
So, you can either confess to your LI.ES or prove otherwise by answering my Bertrand Russell question, which any high school student could if they read those links.

Oct 05, 2019
there ya go lying again, anti
You are the one who posted those links, pretending you understood what they contained.
And, I'm saying you are a LI.AR and StumPid who cannot read far less comprehend.
not only do I understand them, but I have also just demonstrated that you do *not* understand them

you're showing your true colours

at least now there is a reference point to indicate your specific trolling tactic which is to ignore empirical evidence for the sake of political, ideological and other irrelevant subjective beliefs

of course, one only has to read your comments to know this, but the above was a means to objectively test it

thanks

Oct 05, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 05, 2019
LMAO.
The LY..ING Stum.PID troll, can't handle the truth and so is now off to IGNORE land.

Oct 06, 2019
WARNING to anyone reading this.
Cap'n StumPid is a deceitful, ignorant troll who wiil hound you until he gets you banned.
He throws obscure links at you, which he has not read far less comprehended and has NOTHING to do with the topic. This is his way of provoking you so that he can get you banned.

IGNORE the Cap'n StumPid.

Oct 06, 2019
There you go again StumPid.
Not only did you REPEATEDLY post those links here, pretending to UNDERSTAND them, you TROLLED me to other articles and posted them there too.
So, you can either confess to your LI.ES or prove otherwise by answering my Bertrand Russell question, which any high school student could if they read those links.

Above is the post that was removed by the moderator, IMMEDIATELY after posting. Never seen that before, and this is on a weekend.
When did physorg start paying moderators to watch a thread where Cap'n StumPid happened to be so that they can delete posts that exposed him?

Oct 07, 2019
Shameful display of ignorance throughout this whole thread Antigoracle.
It's sad that you cannot separate politics from science.
You are lucky the moderators even allow your troll posts.

"In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."

https://en.m.wiki...et_troll


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more