News   Jun 05, 2024
 241     0 
News   Jun 04, 2024
 1.5K     0 
News   Jun 04, 2024
 1.1K     0 

The Climate Change Thread

Oh don't worry, I don't feel insulted. More like amused. You're persistent, I'll give you that much. As for clarity, I do hope you grasp the meaning of the word. From the sentence I quoted, it's pretty clear that the authors accept that greenhouse gases are warming the earth.

At no point did I ever promise a literature review that expressly refuted or denied human causation. It was you who invoked a false dilemma to provide this. I have pointed out to you repeatedly that there are numerous research papers and literature reviews on the subject of climate change that take no position with respect to human causation.
I have no doubt that you've looked for a review that denies human causation and if you succeeded you would have shown us all. Are there literature reviews that focus on the possibility of humans causing climate change and come to no conclusion? Hey, I'm open to being proven wrong. So far all we've seen are ones agree with the consensus.
 
I'm wondering why articles that don't express a position on human causation are even being brought up. I see two possible explanations, either there is a lack of understanding of how evidence is assessed, or it's a deliberate attempt to confuse the argument.

Articles that don't express a position are not a part of the evidence. The issue of human causation must be brought up in the article for it to be used as a part of the evidence. If the author of the article didn't research the evidence for or against human causation, why are we talking about this article then? If the issue of human causation is addressed, there are a few possible conclusions that can be drawn:

1. There are not enough studies to make a conclusion.
2. There is evidence that humans do not contribute to climate change.
3. There is conflicting or mixed evidence that humans contribute to climate change.
4. There is evidence that humans do contribute to climate change.

Every recent review article that addresses the notion of human causality comes up with #4 as the conclusion. Every single one.
 
GTA to face grim future due to global warming
City must improve its planning, look at toll roads, experts say
Toronto Star
January 23, 2008
Jim Byers (City Hall Bureau)


Higher death rates from heat waves. More cases of Lyme disease and West Nile virus. And more polluted skies.

Speaking at a Toronto City Council committee session, climate change experts and politicians yesterday painted a grim picture of a GTA future – although some stressed that change is possible.

"I just want to say, `Oh, my God,' and `Let's get to work,'" environmentalist councillor Gord Perks said after hearing from a half-dozen experts.

The parks and environment committee meeting was called to discuss how the city can adapt to climate change in coming decades. Speakers didn't weigh in on moves the city already is considering, such as a potential ban on two-stroke engines popular in lawn mowers and snow blowers. But they did talk about how the city must improve its planning, including potential road tolls for GTA highways.

"We shouldn't build on vulnerable pieces of land," said Mark Yakabuski, president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. "Building codes should have to take global warming into account."

Yakabuski said insurance claims related to geological and weather events are 20 times higher today than in the 1970s, if inflation is taken into account. Climate change, he said, "is a threat that is real beyond anything we've faced before."

Perks cautioned that the insurance industry is a big part of Toronto's financial success and suggested federal politicians might pay more attention to climate change if they considered the impact it could have on the private sector.

Councillor Ron Moeser said the city will have to be creative to respond to the challenges ahead.

"Toll roads are a last resort, but they may be one of the realities we have to look at," he said.

Committee chair Paula Fletcher agreed, saying Mayor David Miller has talked about tolls, but only if they're spread out on all GTA-area highways.

A study commissioned by the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario, released Monday, said extra charges on some Ontario highways would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ease traffic jams.

Dr. Monica Campbell of the city's health department said climate change is affecting the city through more summer heat waves, worse air pollution and mild winters that help build mosquito populations.

Some European and U.S. cities have suffered through devastating heat waves, Campbell said, "but Toronto has yet to be really tested."

A study done for the city in 2005 predicted that heat-related mortality will double by 2050 and triple by 2080, she said.
 
I'm wondering why articles that don't express a position on human causation are even being brought up. I see two possible explanations, either there is a lack of understanding of how evidence is assessed, or it's a deliberate attempt to confuse the argument.

Articles that don't express a position are not a part of the evidence. The issue of human causation must be brought up in the article for it to be used as a part of the evidence. If the author of the article didn't research the evidence for or against human causation, why are we talking about this article then? If the issue of human causation is addressed, there are a few possible conclusions that can be drawn:

1. There are not enough studies to make a conclusion.
2. There is evidence that humans do not contribute to climate change.
3. There is conflicting or mixed evidence that humans contribute to climate change.
4. There is evidence that humans do contribute to climate change.

Every recent review article that addresses the notion of human causality comes up with #4 as the conclusion. Every single one.

The articles mentioned that do not express a position on human causation with respect to climate change do not express a point of view with respect to consensus. That's all. They do not speak to this consensus in either direction so they can't be counted as part of it. I mentioned all of this earlier.

Articles that examine climate change in all its forms are part of the evidence of climate change. That you wish to restrict relevance only to those articles that take a position with respect to human contribution is a limitation you wish to impose. If that is all that matters to you, then so be it.

So you have read every single review article? Do you mean that you have read every single review article with respect to climate change, or do you mean that you have read every single review article that has expressed an opinion on human causation?
 
Oh don't worry, I don't feel insulted.

So am I to understand that you have read every single literature review in the field of climatology with respect to climate change?



By now its obvious that you have not.



Honestly, I don't really care whether either you ganjavih have read all the review articles or not. This thread has otherwise become repetitive, and the excessive focus on what the writers of review articles think is rather dilettantish.
 
When speaking about reviews, I mean reviews that actually address anthropogenic climate change. Isn't that the issue we're discussing? I don't know if I've read all of them, how would I know? The few reviews I looked at that examined the evidence for or against human causation came to the conclusion that human activity does contribute to climate change. I haven't been able to find a single review that has any other conclusion. If anyone finds a review that suggests there's conflicting evidence or that research indicates that humans don't contribute to climate change, I'd be interested in the reference.
 
This thread has otherwise become repetitive, and the excessive focus on what the writers of review articles think is rather dilettantish.
That focus is neither excessive nor dilettantish. It's necessary. Again, a literature review is the best way to understand the current literature on a topic.
 
If reviews of the literature (summaries of research) are not appropriate methods of answering a scientific question, what is? How does Hydrogen find evidence to help him form his opinions?
 
This topic won't die, will it?

If it is of so much interest to you, I read a variety of materials, including research papers.
 
^Well you don't seem to hold literature reviews in very high regard so it's a fair question to ask.

So says you. Read 'em all?
Ah, never mind.
*sigh* Okay fine, I haven't read every one. Obviously. Now I suppose you're going to say there might be one out there that refutes the consensus that none of us have found?
 
Pence Commits Vehicular Home-Cide
The Vice President enraged Michigan residents by driving his eight-car motorcade through car-free Mackinac Island Saturday.


See link.

Vice President Pence made a “Veep”-sized blunder on Saturday by barreling his motorcade across a northern Michigan island that has historically outlawed cars — appalling, well, pretty much everyone.

Pence arrived on Mackinac Island via chopper and took an eight-car motorcade to the hotel where he gave the keynote address at a biennial conference for Michigan Republicans.

But the VP wasn’t supposed to be driving through the island at all. The bucolic Lake Huron isle has prohibited motorized vehicles, with the rare exceptions of emergency vehicles and snowmobiles, since 1898. Nearly everyone gets around the 4.35-square-mile town by walking, cycling, or taking a horse-drawn carriage — as President Gerald Ford did when he and First Lady Betsy Ford visited the region in 1976, and as presidents George H.W. Bush, Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and John F. Kennedy did before or after they were in office.

The Pence motorcade was almost certainly Mackinac Island’s first, according to Michigan natives. Lobbyist and former Crain’s Detroit Business publisher Ron Fournier called his decision “sacrilege,” and former Michigan state Senate candidate Julia Pulver labeled the move a “huge transgression.”

“Plenty of actual presidents have visited sans cars,” Pulver tweeted. “It’s literally an island, you can very easily control who’s there for this event. No excuses. This didn’t have to happen, but it did, because they could.”

And Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib tweeted the video of Pence’s motorcade whipping up dust as pedestrians watched helplessly on the side of the road made her “stomach turn.”

As infuriating as Pence’s carmageddon jaunt is, it’s only the third-worst vehicle-related disaster the Trump administration generated this year. There was President Trump’s dumbfounded plan to roll Army tanks along Washington D.C. streets for his Independence Day celebration, and his punitive decision last week to revoke California’s ability to set its own emissions standards for new vehicles.

Pence’s show of force came as part of his keynote address to the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference. He told the local GOP that he visited Mackinac often when he was growing up and well into adulthood when he took his wife Karen there while she was seven months pregnant. So it’s not as if he didn’t know any better than to bring a car. But all he took away from his prior experiences with peaceful, anxiety-free, slow-speed movement on the island is its famous fudge.

“She told me if you don’t come back with fudge don’t bother getting on the plane,” Pence said, the Detroit Free Press reported.
 

If Toronto’s climate in 2080 is likely to be best approximated by the climate in Secaucus today, that hardly seems like a slow-motion catastrophe for us. Of course, we may choose to severely limit our CO2 emissions for reasons other than our own interest, like the good of vulnerable people in the third world, or generally protecting the environment from anthropogenic change. And we should certainly mitigate the negative impacts of the coming change by rebuilding infrastructure like sewers that we’d have to rebuild anyway over the rest of the century. But the climate forecast for Toronto itself doesn’t seem to justify the very expensive transformation of our economy and society activists are calling for, or the hysterical rhetoric that seems to be the new normal.
 

Back
Top