Climate change will impact beer. Now, do you care?

[ocean size]

Analogies are never perfect and I generally agree with this, but it seems like you're still missing the broader point: the entire idea of finding "consensus" by Cook et al (2013)'s method is absurd.

The "right way" to do this would be to perform a poll of a representative sample of experts on a specific question. A few attempts are contained in the list here. None of them indicate that 97% of experts believe that man is primarily responsible for the observed warming, and none of them indicate that 97% of experts believe that the effects of global warming will be catastrophic.



Right, so Curry's papers are part of the "97% consensus". Yet Michael Mann---probably the most prominent scientist calling for massive economic mobilization to fight global warming---referred to Curry in written testimony to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee as a "climate science denier".

So is Curry a "denier" or "part of the consensus"?



* a 97% consensus of the 32.6% of abstracts that took any position on the question of whether humans cause warming

Damn my edit game is lining up poorly with your replies. See edits.

And you are incorrect about the Anderegg survey "(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[23]"

Regarding Curry, she has certainly denied some aspects of the consensus, but her publication record at least in terms of Cook et al contained no denial. Not too much of a contradiction here according to the methods Cook employed. In strict terms I dunno if I'd call her a denier since she supports AGW overall, even if she enables real deniers by using talking points like 'no warming since 98'

Alright, done being in the weeds on this one. The data is out there to support a strong consensus regarding AGW, regardless of the admitted flaws Cook et al 2013 had. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

 

[12ga.]

China is on the hook for roughly 30 percent of global co2 emissions.

Wanna get tough? Talk to china. Be tough in china. Dont trade with or even more drastic, threaten war with china if they dont fix their shit now because you know...end of the world type shit apparently.

But that doesnt happen, does it?

Instead cuckold countries like canada whos on the hook for fucking 2 percent is gonna fuck their economy by imposing a carbon tax that wont actually reduce carbon emissions at all. Just another way to tax people.

Tesla a company that actually seems to be trying to give people options other than gas burning cars and homes...do you see governments pushing his tech globally? I sure dont. I dont see any government trying to give the individual real options to get off of burning fossil fuels.

No instead ya got virtue signally assholes flying their private jets all over the globe preaching “global warming, pay this tax now!” Instead of offfering the invidual real options ti lessen their footprint.

Why is the automotive companies even allow to continue making gas guzzling cars if its end of the world type shit? Co2 emissions from transportation is one of the major factors in global emissions.

Id wager ever single asshole libtard in this thread preaching global warming hasnt done jack shit to change thier habbits to actually solve the problem individually.

The still drive gas guzzling cars or take gas guzzling transport daily. Heat their homes with natural gas.

No instead they virtue signal about how important man made global warming is and virtue signal and call it a day.

That makes you an asshole. A virtue signalling libtard cuckold asshole.

I have a prius gets like 50 MPG. I ride my bike to work or run if I get up early 4.8 miles so it takes me awhile. I dont eat meat which is a huge Global warming contributor. just keeping an animal alive uses 99% more calories for what i'd get than if I ate the source (vegetables)

But yeah one or two or even 100,000 don't make much dent. I'd like government to put a $10 gal tax on gas. Then you'd see electric car flying out of every plant. Gonna take a movement like that on all these issues for real change before its too late.

But it will never happen even if 100% of scientist say we are fucked. No one ever won an election promising less.

Big problem with democracy BTW. Like crippling debt too most democracies are experiencing we will kill ourselves before giving up modern gluttony.

 

[Tiny]

I have a prius gets like 50 MPG. I ride my bike to work or run if I get up early 4.8 miles so it takes me awhile. I dont eat meat which is a huge Global warming contributor. just keeping an animal alive uses 99% more calories for what i'd get than if I ate the source (vegetables)

But yeah one or two or even 100,000 don't make much dent. I'd like government to put a $10 gal tax on gas. Then you'd see electric car flying out of every plant. Gonna take a movement like that on all these issues for real change before its too late.

Or how about they put a higher price on buying gas paying cars? So that the only cheap options are electric powered vehicles?

Why punish those who had to buy gas cars and instead steer those MAKING gas cars into making electric ones? Phase out gas cars in roughly 10-15 years entirely.

There are ways to go about doing this without burdening joe tax payer, but that's not what's fucking happening now is it. It's very CLEARLY a tax grab. A global fucking tax grab.

Dude. Look at fucking king cuck Trudeau's carbon tax. It does NOTHING but adds another tax to the tax payer to help alleviate bloated government spending. Are people still going to buy gas powered cars? Yeah...because car companies keep making them and they are cheaper. People have no money.

Here's Trudeaus libtard government lacking the ability to answer a fucking question about their own bill.



Are people still going to burn gas to fuel their houses?

YA

Because contractors keep building gas heated homes. Why is there no government mandate to have newly constructed homes with solar cells and batteries?

Real decisions could be made if they were ACTUALLY SERIOUS. But they are not actually serious. They are using this fucking outcry as a means to make money.

 

[Andy Capp]

Or how about they put a higher price on buying gas paying cars? So that the only cheap options are electric powered vehicles?

Why punish those who had to buy gas cars and instead steer those MAKING gas cars into making electric ones? Phase out gas cars in roughly 10-15 years entirely.

There are ways to go about doing this without burdening joe tax payer, but that's not what's fucking happening now is it. It's very CLEARLY a tax grab. A global fucking tax grab.

Dude. Look at fucking king cuck Trudeau's carbon tax. It does NOTHING but adds another tax to the tax payer to help alleviate bloated government spending. Are people still going to buy gas powered cars? Yeah...because car companies keep making them and they are cheaper. People have no money.

Here's Trudeaus libtard government lacking the ability to answer a fucking question about their own bill.



Are people still going to burn gas to fuel their houses?

YA

Because contractors keep building gas heated homes. Why is there no government mandate to have newly constructed homes with solar cells and batteries?

Real decisions could be made if they were ACTUALLY SERIOUS. But they are not actually serious. They are using this fucking outcry as a means to make money.

Better something than nothing. If you have better ideas, run for office and make changes. I don't know what the best solution is. I just know inaction is not an option if we give even the slightest fraction of a fuck about future generations. But I don't see any opposition politicians proposing other solutions to combat AGW, just deadfast opposition to anything the Liberals put on the table. So tell me how the party that is willing to at least do something is worse than the party that is actively trying to do sweet fuck all?

 

[Tiny]

Better something than nothing. If you have better ideas, run for office and make changes. I don't know what the best solution is. I just know inaction is not an option if we give even the slightest fraction of a fuck about future generations. But I don't see any opposition politicians proposing other solutions to combat AGW, just deadfast opposition to anything the Liberals put on the table.

This is nothing.

It's not "something"...it's actually nothing.

Let me say that again.

It's actually nothing.

 

[Andy Capp]

This is nothing.

It's not "something"...it's actually nothing.

Let me say that again.

It's actually nothing.

It seems to be working well for British Columbia.

British Columbia:
Main article: British Columbia carbon tax
On February 19, 2008, the province of British Columbia announced its intention to implement a carbon tax of $10 per tonne of Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions (2.41 cents per litre on gasoline) beginning July 1, 2008, making BC the first North American jurisdiction to implement such a tax. The tax will increase each year after until 2012, reaching a final price of $30 per tonne (7.2 cents per litre at the pumps).[167][168] Unlike previous proposals, legislation will keep the pending carbon tax revenue neutral by reducing corporate and income taxes at an equivalent rate.[169] Also, the government will also reduce taxes above and beyond the carbon tax offset by $481 million over three years.[167] In January 2010, the carbon tax was applied to biodiesel. Before the tax actually went into effect, the government of British Columbia sent out "rebate cheques" from expected revenues to all residents of British Columbia as of December 31, 2007.[170] In January 2013, the carbon tax was collecting about $1 billion each year which was used to lower other taxes in British Columbia. Terry Lake, the minister of the environment of British Columbia, said "It makes sense, it's simple, it's well accepted."[171]

The British Columbia revenue-neutral carbon tax is based on the following principles:

• All carbon tax revenue is recycled through tax reductions – The government has a legal requirement to present an annual plan to the legislature demonstrating how all of the carbon tax revenue will be returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. The money will not be used to fund government programs.[172]
• The tax rate started low and increases gradually – Starting at a low rate gave individuals and businesses time to make adjustments and respects decisions made prior to the announcement of the tax.[172]
• Low-income individuals and families are protected – A refundable Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit is designed to help offset the carbon tax paid by low-income individuals and families.[172]
• The tax has the broadest possible base – Virtually all emissions from fuel combustion in B.C. captured in Environment Canada's National Inventory Report are taxed, with no exemptions except those required for integration with other climate action policies in the future and for efficient administration.[172]
• The tax will be integrated with other measures – The carbon tax will not, on its own, meet B.C.'s emission-reduction targets, but it is a key element in the strategy. The carbon tax and complementary measures such as a "cap and trade" system will be integrated as these other measures are designed and implemented.[172]

Following implementation many Canadians concluded that the carbon tax generally benefitted the British Columbian economy, in large part because its revenue neutral feature did indeed reduce personal income taxes.[173] However some industries complained loudly that the tax had harmed them, notably cement manufacturers and farmers.[174] Nevertheless, the tax generated sufficient praise to attract broad attention in the United States and elsewhere from those seeking an economically efficient way of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases without hurting economic growth.[175]

Can you say what differences there would be with the federal tax?

 

[Tiny]

It seems to be working well for British Columbia.



Can you say what differences there would be with the federal tax?

No. Emissions havn't dropped.

Canada has still be roughly 2 percent of global C02 emissions and will continue to remain roughly 2 percent of global c02 emissions.

And if by some miracle Canada were to even reduce that by a percentage it still doesn't do anything to save global warming.

There are two major culprits that need to act or we are fucked.

China
United States

And China doesn't give a fuck. If you want to REALLY solve global warming, the answer isn't in Canada.

So what we have here is a country (canada) taxing their middle class under the guise of global warming passing a bill that doesn't directly deal with changing how/why people burn gas.

But to break down this bill, again...it can't stop people from buying gas powered cars or homes because that's all that's affordable to the middle class. This bill when broken down adds billions of surplus for government spending.

Wanna stop people from burning gas in cars? Stop making gas powered cars. But since that isnt the case, then they really are not that serious beyond collecting new tax revenue.

 

[12ga.]

Or how about they put a higher price on buying gas paying cars? So that the only cheap options are electric powered vehicles?

Why punish those who had to buy gas cars and instead steer those MAKING gas cars into making electric ones? Phase out gas cars in roughly 10-15 years entirely.

There are ways to go about doing this without burdening joe tax payer, but that's not what's fucking happening now is it. It's very CLEARLY a tax grab. A global fucking tax grab.

Dude. Look at fucking king cuck Trudeau's carbon tax. It does NOTHING but adds another tax to the tax payer to help alleviate bloated government spending. Are people still going to buy gas powered cars? Yeah...because car companies keep making them and they are cheaper. People have no money.

Here's Trudeaus libtard government lacking the ability to answer a fucking question about their own bill.



Are people still going to burn gas to fuel their houses?

YA

Because contractors keep building gas heated homes. Why is there no government mandate to have newly constructed homes with solar cells and batteries?

Real decisions could be made if they were ACTUALLY SERIOUS. But they are not actually serious. They are using this fucking outcry as a means to make money.

I already said no politician can get elected promising less so they can't do anything serious which would be much fucking less. We are screwed unless there is a mass awakening because people want their cheap rides and food and corps are more than willing to fulfill those desires and carve up the planet and atmosphere doing it- both will lobby politicians to keep it that way.

I'm pretty pessimistic - maybe these kids coming up are our hope.

 

[Tiny]

I already said no politician can get elected promising less so they can't do anything serious which would be much fucking less. We are screwed unless there is a mass awakening because people want their cheap rides and food and corps are more than willing to fulfill those desires and carve up the planet and atmosphere doing it- both will lobby politicians to keep it that way.

I'm pretty pessimistic - maybe these kids coming up are our hope.

kids coming up? you mean the ones with the special pronouns that can't even understand what gender they are? The ones who get ribbons for participation? Require safe spaces and are easily triggered?

Ya...we are fucked.

 

[12ga.]

kids coming up? you mean the ones with the special pronouns that can't even understand what gender they are? The ones who get ribbons for participation? Require safe spaces and are easily triggered?

Ya...we are fucked.

They have been taught of the dangers of anthroprogenic global warming fro early age by educated people. As opposed to xers like me which have not and greed is good culture. We shall see.

Problem with warming is you can't shut it off like a tap and we could get into a runaway scenario I really hope some tech comes like cheaper electric cars than gas, more nuke plants to power them, atmospehere scrubbers than rely on millennials

Still doesn't stop the clear cutting of rain forests and such for cheap beef but that would really give me hope.

 

[Tiny]

They have been taught of the dangers of anthroprogenic global warming fro early age by educated people. As opposed to xers like me which have not and greed is good culture. We shall see.

Problem with warming is you can't shut it off like a tap and we could get into a runaway scenario I really hope some tech comes like cheaper electric cars than gas, more nuke plants to power them, atmospehere scrubbers than rely on millennials

Still doesn't stop the clear cutting of rain forests and such for cheap beef but that would really give me hope.

I was taught that we needed to stop ozone burning emissions from air conditioners and hairspray bottles because the hole in the ozone meant we all wouldnt be able to outside by 2025...

I change none of my habbits and everyhouse now has central air which was a luxury in the 80’s

I was also told that top soul was eroding and would be all but gone by now...

I look at global warming with skeptical hippo eyes. I know how to solve it. Like really enact change. And lead by example and all that. I see nobody in power doing anything thats worth anything that will cause any kind of change. And i expect very little from melennials and under as we seem to be growing a culture thats more interested in insuring equality of out come and equal representation than it is in making hard decisions to solve hard problems.

 

[12ga.]

Didnt they switch worldwide to R134 and other non ozone killing gases a long time ago?

Thats an easy change too. Trivial. Nothing like trying to reduce methane and CO2 in atmosphere which even breathing produces. But it's mainly fossils - we are burning hundreds of millions of years of accumulation in 100-200 years and atmosphere is gaining layers trapping heat. Half the great barrier reef has disappeared last 50 years reefs are the oceans estuary so fish stocks way down. You heard all the issues with just 1C elevation..I'm sure. Icebergs, crops etc. I have to defer to the expertise of these scientists who are overwhelming on consensus as dinosaurs existed and smoking is bad for you.

They cant do real change. Like my $10 gal gas tax would would drive electrics to affordable production curves, initially would be murder on 9/10th of the population who still all have gas cars. Your idea of taxing gas cars to bove electric levels would have people wrenching forever in their garage (i still have a 1966 vette from HS and will have till I die) and do absultly nothing.

Edit not in a democracy you can't Just like we will all go bankrupt and have bankers making our government choices in democracies (see greece) Because people do electing and people are dumb and shortsighted and politicain must play to that to get in.. A king would listen to his experts - people do not.. This is way more serious though. It can literally kill most people on earth. You;ll probably be fine in Yukon or some shit. Beach front property and Caribbean weather by then.

 

[waiguoren]

Regarding Curry, she has certainly denied some aspects of the consensus

What is "the consensus"? Please state it explicitly and completely.

What “aspects of the consensus” has Curry “denied”?

but her publication record at least in terms of Cook et al contained no denial.

That's true, and it illustrates my point. As you pointed out earlier, Cook's method classifies Curry's publications as "endorsing" the so-called consensus. Yet Curry believe humans do not currently know how to determine what percentage of observed warming is attributable to mankind. That position would cause her paper to be labeled as "rejecting" the so-called consensus under Cook's methods.

In strict terms I dunno if I'd call her a denier since she supports AGW overall

Please specify what it means to "support AGW".

even if she enables real deniers by using talking points like 'no warming since 98'

What is a "real denier"?

The "right way" to do this would be to perform a poll of a representative sample of experts on a specific question. A few attempts are contained in the list here. None of them indicate that 97% of experts believe that man is primarily responsible for the observed warming, and none of them indicate that 97% of experts believe that the effects of global warming will be catastrophic.

And you are incorrect about the Anderegg survey "(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[23]"

Note: For purposes of the following, “the statement” will refer to: "humans are responsible for more than half of the earth's warming since the industrial revolution observable in the HadCRUT dataset."



I was correct. Anderegg et al (2009) did not perform representative poll of experts. In fact, the authors admit this themselves on Page 1:

Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC.


Anderegg et al (2009) show that of those researchers in the authors’ tiny, unrepresentative sample, about 66% agree with the statement. Further, after ranking the researchers in that arbitrary sample by their individual number of publications containing the word ‘climate’, the authors find that those who reject the statement constitute only 2-3% of the top 50-, 100-, and 200-ranked researchers.


Beyond using an unrepresentative sample, there are other serious flaws with the study. For example, the authors consider anyone who worked on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report to be “convinced of the evidence”. That’s an absurd approach. Contributing one’s expertise to a huge project does not require that one endorse all conclusions of that project. As an example, Richard Lindzen worked on the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report, yet he is actually counted among those “unconvinced of the evidence” in this study. If he had worked on AR4 instead of AR2, he would be counted in both the “convinced of the evidence” and the “unconvinced of the evidence” groups!

 

[ocean size]

That's true, and it illustrates my point. As you pointed out earlier, Cook's method classifies Curry's publications as "endorsing" the so-called consensus. Yet Curry believe humans do not currently know how to determine what percentage of observed warming is attributable to mankind. That position would cause her paper to be labeled as "rejecting" the so-called consensus under Cook's methods.

Yeah fair enough - and to be honest I am not sure a read through of her abstract would demonstrate just how different it is from the IPCCs. As an aside as of a few years ago she was willing to say the most likely natural-anthropogenic split was 50-50, at the time her energy budget models were estimating an ECS of 1.64 K (5–95 % 1.25–2.45 K). Since then, they've taken into account new data since AR5 on forcings demonstrating that the total anthropogenic forcing is higher. Her new ECS estimates are 1.66 K for ECS (5−95%: 1.15−2.7 K) and 1.76 K (5−95%: 1.2−3.1 K) with infilled data and allowing for temporal variation in climate feedbacks.

Long story short I haven't seen a quote since that 2014 blog post but while I'm sure she still thinks the uncertainty is higher than the 'consensus' and likely warming lower, I wonder if the new data on forcings should push her 50-50 estimate above 50% for anthropogenic...

 

[Sharkhunter]

forget science, do you think cutting down all our trees, polluting our water, both fresh and salt, killing off animals, insects, and dumping gods knows what into our air is going to have a good affect on our climate? To suggest that humans are not having a negative influence on this planet is absurd