Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by pulga » Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:18 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:34 am

That would be this - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michael_Savage - Michael Savage, Pulga?
I concede that I don't really listen much to Dr. Savage's radio broadcast. I believe this article probably reflects more accurately his concern for the environment.

Michael Savage warns Trump: Don’t throw out 100 years of environmental protections when reforming the EPA

Despite his being demonized by the left, Dr. Savage's views do seem to be far more nuanced than his critics claim them to be. And of course the story he tells of his visits with the President shows the warm human side of Trump that his enemies are loathe to acknowledge.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:45 pm

pulga wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 12:18 pm
Kim OHara wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:34 am

That would be this - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michael_Savage - Michael Savage, Pulga?
I concede that I don't really listen much to Dr. Savage's radio broadcast. I believe this article probably reflects more accurately his concern for the environment.

Michael Savage warns Trump: Don’t throw out 100 years of environmental protections when reforming the EPA

Despite his being demonized by the left, Dr. Savage's views do seem to be far more nuanced than his critics claim them to be. And of course the story he tells of his visits with the President shows the warm human side of Trump that his enemies are loathe to acknowledge.
Thanks, Pulga. We have a couple of high-profile people in Australia who are a bit similar - anywhere from Right to loony-Right on most issues but willing to go their own way, opposing their natural allies, on other issues. I think that's a good thing for them and for us.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:24 pm

An accurate but non-technical explanation of how the US cold snap fits into global warming, for anyone who needs it.
:reading: https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/ ... 987948001/

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:49 pm

Why say this:
You want extreme weather? Here's some, heading for the eastern US:
and quote this:
"Much of the eastern United States has been assaulted by brutally cold temperatures over the last week. New Year’s Eve revelers in New York City rang in 2018 in 9 degree weather—the coldest midnight temperature since 1907."
and conclude this:
This is not normal.
There have been more not-normal weather events than we would expect in the last few years.
Is there a credible explanation for how many records are being broken? Yes, climate change.
Does climate science support this attribution? Yes.
IF all along you believed THIS about cold weather in the US:
  • Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century.
  • The frequency of cold waves has fallen over the past century.
  • The frequency of intense cold waves peaked in the 1980s and reached record-low levels in the 2000s.
  • The coldest daily temperature of the year has increased at most locations in the contiguous United States.
  • The temperature of extremely cold days (1-in-10 year events) generally follows the the same pattern as above.
and you showed no evidence of more cold records being broken.
-----------------------------------
How are your comments relevant? (Especially given the criticisms of Donald Trump's recent tweets about cold weather)
What accounts for these apparent contradictions?


There appears to a pattern of "spin" and an attempt to influence that is not supported by science or evidence.
It's a understandable mistake if you do it once or twice . . .

----------------------------------


The statements above about cold in the US were adapted from the recently released US Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

On the issue of the detection of extreme weather trends, from what I've seen so far the NCA4 and the IPCC AR5 (2013) pretty much tell the same story. The evidence contradicts your previous suggestions that the IPCC AR5 or me are out of date.
One take away for me: many people need help reading and interpreting these reports.

What is probably hard for many is the amount of misinformation or misleading information that they have heard ... even from those who claim to be on the right side of science and who believe in "the consensus". But the actual consensus doesn't always agree with what is popularly believed. And that usually causes some cognitive dissonance and understandable doubt.

On the positive side. The case for paying attention to a possible threat from global warming can still be made without the spin, misinformation, and IMO unethical speech.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:23 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:49 pm
Why say this:
You want extreme weather? Here's some, heading for the eastern US:
and quote this:
"Much of the eastern United States has been assaulted by brutally cold temperatures over the last week. New Year’s Eve revelers in New York City rang in 2018 in 9 degree weather—the coldest midnight temperature since 1907."
and conclude this:
This is not normal.
There have been more not-normal weather events than we would expect in the last few years.
Is there a credible explanation for how many records are being broken? Yes, climate change.
Does climate science support this attribution? Yes.
IF all along you believed THIS about cold weather in the US:
  • Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century.
  • The frequency of cold waves has fallen over the past century.
  • The frequency of intense cold waves peaked in the 1980s and reached record-low levels in the 2000s.
  • The coldest daily temperature of the year has increased at most locations in the contiguous United States.
  • The temperature of extremely cold days (1-in-10 year events) generally follows the the same pattern as above.
and you showed no evidence of more cold records being broken.
-----------------------------------
How are your comments relevant? (Especially given the criticisms of Donald Trump's recent tweets about cold weather)
What accounts for these apparent contradictions?


There appears to a pattern of "spin" and an attempt to influence that is not supported by science or evidence.
It's a understandable mistake if you do it once or twice . . .

----------------------------------


The statements above about cold in the US were adapted from the recently released US Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

On the issue of the detection of extreme weather trends, from what I've seen so far the NCA4 and the IPCC AR5 (2013) pretty much tell the same story. The evidence contradicts your previous suggestions that the IPCC AR5 or me are out of date.
One take away for me: many people need help reading and interpreting these reports.

What is probably hard for many is the amount of misinformation or misleading information that they have heard ... even from those who claim to be on the right side of science and who believe in "the consensus". But the actual consensus doesn't always agree with what is popularly believed. And that usually causes some cognitive dissonance and understandable doubt.

On the positive side. The case for paying attention to a possible threat from global warming can still be made without the spin, misinformation, and IMO unethical speech.
Leeuwenhoek2,
You claim there are inconsistencies between my statements. There aren't.
I'm not responsible for your misreading of what I write and I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to correct your misunderstandings, but I will point you in the right direction:
!. Weather is not climate.
2. My statements about weather do not contradict my statements about climate any more than statements about (e.g.) Donald Trump would logically contradict statements about people in general.
3. The IPCC AR5 was good science and much of it is still true. The trouble is that you won't know which bits are still true and which bits have been superseded unless you consult more recent work - as, to your credit, you now seem to be doing.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:34 am

Some folks, for whatever reason, still don't like to trust climate scientists for their information about what's going on in the environment but would rather listen to "realistic" "rational" "hard-headed" (etc) business people. If you are, or know, anyone like that, please read, or share with them, this:
It turns out 2017 was a uniquely disastrous year in more ways than one, evidenced by German reinsurer Munich Re’s recently released review of the year’s global catastrophes.

Led by massive, climate change-fueled hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, 2017’s natural disasters will cost insurers a record $135 billion. Adding in uninsured losses brings the total global damages to $330 billion, which is second only to 2011.

“We have a new normal,” Munich Re’s Ernst Rauch told Reuters.

...back in September 2010, another year of stunning warming-driven extreme weather events, Munich Re issued a release noting it had analyzed its catastrophe database, “the most comprehensive of its kind in the world,” and concluded, “the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change.”

Then in October of 2012, the company released a massive 274-page report, “Severe weather in North America,” analyzing weather catastrophes and related losses since 1980 to understand trends and their causes, including man-made climate change.

Munich Re found that the number of weather-related loss disasters has been rising much faster in North America than anywhere else, and concluded, “Climate-driven changes are already evident over the last few decades for severe thunderstorms, for heavy precipitation and flash flooding, for hurricane activity, and for heatwave, drought and wild­fire dynamics in parts of North America.”

Prof. Peter Höppe, who heads Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research unit, said at the time, “In all likelihood, we have to regard this finding as an initial climate-change footprint in our U.S. loss data from the last four decades.”
:reading: https://thinkprogress.org/weather-disas ... 8070d8e53/

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:20 pm

There appears to a pattern of "spin" and an attempt to influence in Kim's posts that is not supported by science or evidence.
Kim OHara wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:23 am
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:49 pm
Why say this:
You want extreme weather? Here's some, heading for the eastern US:
and quote this:
"Much of the eastern United States has been assaulted by brutally cold temperatures over the last week. New Year’s Eve revelers in New York City rang in 2018 in 9 degree weather—the coldest midnight temperature since 1907."
and conclude this:
This is not normal.
There have been more not-normal weather events than we would expect in the last few years.
Is there a credible explanation for how many records are being broken? Yes, climate change.
Does climate science support this attribution? Yes.
IF all along you believed THIS about cold weather in the US:
  • Cold extremes have become less severe over the past century.
  • The frequency of cold waves has fallen over the past century.
  • The frequency of intense cold waves peaked in the 1980s and reached record-low levels in the 2000s.
  • The coldest daily temperature of the year has increased at most locations in the contiguous United States.
  • The temperature of extremely cold days (1-in-10 year events) generally follows the the same pattern as above.
and you showed no evidence of more cold records being broken.
-----------------------------------
How are your comments relevant? (Especially given the criticisms of Donald Trump's recent tweets about cold weather)
What accounts for these apparent contradictions?
Leeuwenhoek2,
You claim there are inconsistencies between my statements. There aren't.
I'm not responsible for your misreading of what I write and I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to correct your misunderstandings, but I will point you in the right direction:
" I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to correct your misunderstandings ..." -- which I say is your blustering and posing to cover up your mistake.

A difference in this exchange is that I explained what the inconsistencies are. And all you say is "no it's not".

So to use your "KISS principle" style of reasoning:
Did you explain why your statements are consistent? NO!
Can you?
It's plausible that you didn't and can't explain because your statements are inconsistent.
And you know they are inconsistent.
That is not a proof but it is a plausible theory that fits the facts.
-------------------------------------------------
Kim OHara wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:23 am
2. My statements about weather do not contradict my statements about climate any more than statements about (e.g.) Donald Trump would logically contradict statements about people in general.
Vauge rhetoric, non-response.
Kim OHara wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:23 am
3. The IPCC AR5 was good science and much of it is still true. The trouble is that you won't know which bits are still true and which bits have been superseded unless you consult more recent work - as, to your credit, you now seem to be doing.
But when you said it was out of date I'm thinking you hadn't consulted more recent work. We don't for instance see your citations to recent scientific literature or summaries.
(Much less well written science "explainers" that are relevant to the specific topic.)

Actually I already had a pretty good idea that it hadn't been superseded based on statements from usually reliable sources. But I still prefer to verify it for myself. And I want to know the specific citations (page numbers, and URLS). That underlines the differences in our respective approaches to integrity.

There appears to a pattern of "spin" and an attempt to influence that is not supported by science or evidence.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:26 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:34 am
Some folks, for whatever reason, still don't like to trust climate scientists for their information about what's going on in the environment but would rather listen to "realistic" "rational" "hard-headed" (etc) business people. If you are, or know, anyone like that, please read, or share with them, this:
Before pointing your fingers at other people who "still don't like to trust climate scientists for their information" we should ask why you don't ... or don't seem to know what they say to each other. Recent posts show that you don't seem to know what climate scientists say in their science reports from such as the IPCC.

The following can be shown with a good degree of confidence:
  • Munich Re is a re-insurance company -- a company that insures the insurance companies that everybody else buys from.
  • Insurance companies benifit when the public believes that risks have increased. This allows insurance companies to expand coverage and raise their rates.
  • Also insurance companies usually have the best risk data and risk analysis from insurance actuarials -- they have an edge on the ordinary buyer even sometimes on purchasers from large businesses.
  • In the past Munich Re has published white papers and press releases that tended to put their spin, if not distort, peer reviewed literature on storms and damages.
  • The source that Kim cites is a partisan, climate campaigner activist site. Kim has a pattern of doing this. Nothing wrong with being an advocate but thinkprogress is a long way from being a "honest broker".
  • The consensus in the peer reviewed literature is that climate is not the major driver behind increased disaster losses; that climate change is a minor to unnoticeable player. There is a debate about whether climate change is clearly detectable in the loss and damage records.
Watch the spin doctoring:
Unique Incentive? Motivations to advertise wrote:"Since the reinsurers must pay out billions and billions of dollars for such mega-disasters, they have a unique incentive to understand and predict trends in mega-disasters. That’s why companies like Munich Re and Swiss Re have been at the forefront of warning businesses and the public about the rise in extreme weather events due to climate change."
  • False. Many business and governments also have a strong incentive. Which is why academic researchers are given grants to study it too.
      Companies like Munich re are equally likely to be motivated by the financial incentives discussed above.
    “2017 was not an outlier” in having more than $100 billion in insured losses
    Insured losses are expected to go up for a variety of reasons such as more population, more wealth, higher GDP and a long term trend to build in higher risk areas. The strong consensus in the peer reviewed literature is that the major clause is not climate change or weather. Munich re admits this in some of their serious papers. There is a debate about whether climate change is even detectable in loss records once the other obvious causes are factored out.

    Tricks to watch for:
    • Disaster losses cited as evidence for climate change. Any climate change signal in disaster losses tends to get lost in more normal explanations such as more things insured in "hurricane country".
    • Failing to mention the other and larger drivers of increased losses. It's not to the benefit of a insurance company to admit that more property and more expensive property is at risk every year.
    • The sliding from economic losses to climate change to man-made climate change. They are different things.
    • A big year. The losses vary a lot from year to year.
    • Mixing estimations and predictions of future climate impacts with currently detectable trends in extreme weather, floods,
      etc.
    ===============================================

    Quoting from Joe Romm in thinkprogress is somewhat like, in the US, quoting from talk show host Rush Limbaugh on the science. A partisan mirror to thinkprogress is http://www.climatedepot.com/. In Austrialia think along the line of http://joannenova.com.au/.
    -----

    Seems to me this is the politics of climate 101 sort of stuff. Which illustrates why ethical Buddhist sangas should seek to have a multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding of the issues.

    User avatar
    Leeuwenhoek2
    Posts: 194
    Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

    no widespread belief among scientists

    Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Jan 05, 2018 9:27 pm

    Story from the publishers of GreenWire and ClimateWire.
    Story from wrote:A children's climate change case, known as Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 by 21 young plaintiffs who claimed their constitutional rights had been violated by government inaction on climate change and by policies that could exacerbate it, like oil and gas drilling in public areas. Earlier this year, just days before Trump took office, the Obama administration Justice Department argued that there is no widespread belief among scientists that the world's climate becomes dangerous after passing the 350-parts-per-million mark for atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key metric in the case.
    -- https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067949
    The story takes another interesting turn regarding a meeting with a well know researcher of ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon cycle/climate system.
    ... Department of Justice officials have met with Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science ...

    A few months ago, Justice Department lawyers went out to lunch with Caldeira, he told E&E News.

    They asked if he would take the lead on assembling government witnesses for the case. He said the lawyers are career officials, holdovers from the Obama administration. The lawyers told Caldeira they thought the case was weak, but that proving climate change poses an irreversible harm to humanity would benefit the plaintiffs, he said. Their position was that energy policy is something for the legislative branch to grapple with, not the executive branch, he said.

    The Justice Department likely reached out to Caldeira because he has been critical of the case, because he does not think the courts are the place to resolve climate policy. He said he would have worked with the Obama Justice Department because he feels a duty as a scientist to ensure that the best available research is used.

    But he declined the Justice Department's request for help, he said, because he is concerned that his work would be distorted for political means by the Trump administration.
    --------------------------------------------------
    The courts are a lousy place to resolve climate policy or other complex science or government policy issues.

    Caldeira's decision to remain silent about what he knows or believes as a scientist because concern " that his work would be distorted for political means" is a familiar theme in politicized, contested science. This despite or overriding his expressed duty as a scientist to ensure that the best available research is used. Issues in Science & Technology[/i] -- a forum for discussion of public policy related to science, engineering, and medicine; a joint publication of the National Academy of Sciences and other science and public policy organizations -- published an article on this topic:
    from 'The Science Police' wrote:On highly charged issues, such as climate change and endangered species, peer review literature and public discourse are aggressively patrolled by self-appointed sheriffs in the scientific community.

    ... His experiences have left him wondering if other ecology studies are being similarly judged on “how the results align with conventional wisdom or political priorities.”
    The short answer appears to be yes.

    ... In an article in the winter 2017 edition of Issues in Science and Technology, I reported on the different ways journalists and researchers working in the scientific arena are hounded and sometimes smeared by agenda-driven activists. A similar activity that is equally pernicious, if not much discussed, is the different ways scientists are sometimes aggressively policed by their peers. It’s the ugly side of science, where worldviews, politics, and personalities collide.

    It seems that highly charged issues, such as climate change and genetically modified organisms, engender the most active policing in the scientific community. I’ve also observed another common strand: scientists who become preoccupied with the public interpretation or political implications of scientific findings tend to deputize themselves as sheriffs of scientific literature and public debate.
    -- http://issues.org/33-4/the-science-police/ also at
    http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... ocacy.html
    (A well known science journal rejected the paper referred to below. It was published in another journal to little fanfare.)
    Comment from a peer reviewer wrote: Unfortunately, while the authors are careful to state that they are discussing biodiversity changes at local scales, and to explain why this is relevant to the scientific community, clearly media reporting on these results are going to skim right over that and report that biological diversity is not declining if this paper were to be published in Nature. I do not think this conclusion would be justified, and I think it is important not to pave the way for that conclusion to be reached by the public.
    Translation: It's scientifically valid but we shouldn't admit that because the wrong people may twist it and use it in their propaganda. As Kloor writes, this behavior is not much discussed in public but it's not rare in the face of highly charged issues. One can find a number of reports like in the comment sections of science blogs and in Q & A when heterodox scientists are asked the question.
    Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

    User avatar
    Kim OHara
    Posts: 4975
    Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
    Location: North Queensland, Australia

    Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

    Post by Kim OHara » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:50 pm

    I said before, Leeuwenhoek2, that I'm not interested in correcting your misunderstanding of what I write. That's even more true after these last two posts from you since, as the saying goes, you're "not even wrong." Trying to disentangle the half-truths from the misstatements and misinterpretations is probably beyond my ability and certainly wouldn't repay the effort it would take.
    So I will just say ...
    Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
    Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:26 pm

    Quoting from Joe Romm in thinkprogress is somewhat like, in the US, quoting from talk show host Rush Limbaugh on the science. A partisan mirror to thinkprogress is http://www.climatedepot.com/. In Austrialia think along the line of http://joannenova.com.au/.
    Nonsense. ThinkProgress bases everything in good science and accurate reporting, and routinely provides links back to verifiable sources.
    Sure, it's leftish. But it doesn't lie.
    Seems to me this is the politics of climate 101 sort of stuff. Which illustrates why ethical Buddhist sangas should seek to have a multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding of the issues.
    I'm not sure what you mean here. That your posts are "politics of climate 101 sort of stuff" ? That mine are?
    And I can't see any "Buddhist sangas" around here, ethical or not, so who might "seek to have a multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding of the issues" ?
    And is a "multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding" even useful, or does it just seek to hide the truth under a steaming pile of doubt?

    I've just given you rather a lot of questions but I will finish with something nice and simple: a description of what I'm trying to do in this thread, and why.
    Compassion demands that we, as Buddhists or just as decent human beings, seek to alleviate suffering.
    I believe that climate change, unchecked, will lead directly to untold misery for millions of people. Climate scientists have been saying as much, with increasing urgency, for more than thirty years; and I trust their work as published in peer-reviewed publications up to and including the IPCC reports and disseminated by responsible journalists.
    Sharing my knowledge about climate change, and thereby encouraging people to act against it, is my chosen way of working for the wellbeing of others, now and in the future. As a non-scientist with a good science background, and as a teacher (i.e. a professional communicator), my natural role is to act as an interpreter and populariser, and I know that most people don't want or need anything too technical.
    So I usually post excerpts from credible secondary sources, with links to the secondary sources, which in turn usually link to the primary sources. That allows the casual reader to grab the essential points and move on, while anyone with doubts or questions can quickly and easily track down as much depth as they want.

    :namaste:
    Kim

    User avatar
    Leeuwenhoek2
    Posts: 194
    Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

    Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

    Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:38 am

    I see the path of compassion and effective action on climate change is to address the less decided middle and others that are persuadable.

    Most of us aren't able to critique a science paper on their own. But what they can do is make a judgement on the intellectual or spiritual integrity of a speaker. IMO your writing is a case study in the avoidance of integrity and/or care to communicate effectively and honestly with others. That conclusion I hope is self-evident from your last post.

    That kind of approach has tended IMO to prevent action on climate change. When talking to people I begin with warning them that many advocates get carried away with their messaging (noble cause corruption), are probably biased, and sometimes dogmatically express opinions and judgement as fact. But I ask them not to dismiss the issue because of bad actors.

    "Compassion demands that we, as Buddhists or just as decent human beings, seek to alleviate suffering."
    As I see compassion it demands that we intelligently, wisely, and with integrity and ethical practice seek to alleviate suffering.
    IMO some of what you write is the opposite.
    Your postings illustrates posturing, dogmatism and "I'm right, your are wrong just because I say so, end of story" kind of reasoning.

    ------------------------------------
    :namaste:
    Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

    User avatar
    Kim OHara
    Posts: 4975
    Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
    Location: North Queensland, Australia

    Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

    Post by Kim OHara » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:22 am

    Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
    Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:38 am
    I see the path of compassion and effective action on climate change is to address the less decided middle and others that are persuadable.
    Agreed 100%
    Most of us aren't able to critique a science paper on their own.
    Agreed 100%
    But what they can do is make a judgement on the intellectual or spiritual integrity of a speaker.
    I think we all do that.
    IMO your writing is a case study in the avoidance of integrity and/or care to communicate effectively and honestly with others. That conclusion I hope is self-evident from your last post.

    That kind of approach has tended IMO to prevent action on climate change. When talking to people I begin with warning them that many advocates get carried away with their messaging (noble cause corruption), are probably biased, and sometimes dogmatically express opinions and judgement as fact. But I ask them not to dismiss the issue because of bad actors.

    "Compassion demands that we, as Buddhists or just as decent human beings, seek to alleviate suffering."
    As I see compassion it demands that we intelligently, wisely, and with integrity and ethical practice seek to alleviate suffering.
    IMO some of what you write is the opposite.
    Your postings illustrates posturing, dogmatism and "I'm right, your are wrong, end of story" kind of reasoning.

    ------------------------------------
    :namaste:
    In all of this I think you are mistaking my reluctance to either agree with your own posts or critique them fully, as reluctance to engage with anyone who disagrees with me. You say "others", I say "Leeuwenhoek2" - although there have been one or two others in the last 60-something pages of this thread.
    :thinking:
    As you said yourself, "the path of compassion and effective action on climate change is to address the less decided middle and others that are persuadable," and I don't think you are "persuadable" - not by me, anyway, since you have repeatedly said I'm wrong, I'm writing in bad faith, I'm "posturing", I'm "dogmatic" ... :toilet:
    I will keep on posting as I have been - as explained above - and will answer good-faith questions as well as I can, but won't waste time (mine, yours, or anyone else's) on your pointless waffle about why I'm doing what I'm doing.

    :namaste:
    Kim

    User avatar
    Kim OHara
    Posts: 4975
    Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
    Location: North Queensland, Australia

    Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

    Post by Kim OHara » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:38 am

    :focus:
    The human face of climate change - Bangla Desh.
    Last September, the Bangladeshi government responded to weeks of torrential rain with a slew of statistics. They said 8 million people in 32 districts had been affected by floods, with 307,000 people staying in emergency shelters and 1,945 medical teams deployed. In addition, 103,855 houses had been destroyed, with a further 633,792 partially damaged, and 4,636 schools – and several hundred thousand acres of farm land – had been flooded.

    ... Saber Saladas and his family were the human face of the government’s dry statistics. They had lived as fishers and farmers for generations on the south-west coast of Bangladesh, near Cox’s Bazar, but in recent years had struggled to adapt to increasingly strong storms and coastal erosion. Other families had moved to the city as saltwater encroached on their rice fields, but they had clung on.

    The monsoon floods were severe in 2017, but it was steady, incremental sea-level rise, which sent brackish water further into Saladas’s village than ever before, that finally forced the family to move. With water ankle deep in the family home – their well contaminated, their rice crop failing and no other land to go to – they bowed to the inevitable and left their village, possibly for ever.
    This is a photo essay and we know that a picture is worth a thousand words, so do click on the link to see the photos.
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... hoto-essay

    :namaste:
    Kim

    User avatar
    Leeuwenhoek2
    Posts: 194
    Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

    Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

    Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:29 am

    Kim OHara wrote:
    Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:50 pm
    Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
    Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:26 pm
    Quoting from Joe Romm in thinkprogress is somewhat like, in the US, quoting from talk show host Rush Limbaugh on the science. A partisan mirror to thinkprogress is http://www.climatedepot.com/. In Austrialia think along the line of http://joannenova.com.au/.
    Kim OHara wrote:
    Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:50 pm
    Nonsense. ThinkProgress bases everything in good science and accurate reporting, and routinely provides links back to verifiable sources.
    Sure, it's leftish. But it doesn't lie.
    Quote#2 wrote:Seems to me this is the politics of climate 101 sort of stuff. Which illustrates why ethical Buddhist sangas should seek to have a multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding of the issues.
    I'm not sure what you mean here. That your posts are "politics of climate 101 sort of stuff" ? That mine are?
    And I can't see any "Buddhist sangas" around here, ethical or not, so who might "seek to have a multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding of the issues" ?
    And is a "multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding" even useful, or does it just seek to hide the truth under a steaming pile of doubt?

    I've just given you rather a lot of questions ...
    Well, thank you. I am glad when questions are posed as real inquiries rather than as rhetorical questions -- statements posing as questions. I'm not saying you do it -- just that it often happens. This is a dialog more worthy of noble persons.

    The second quote refers to the first -- the politics of climate 101 refers to the words in the first quote.
    Just what is it that I wrote that you are saying nonsense to?

    Yes thinkprogress tilts left. It also has a strong advocacy tilt as does Mother Jones and other sources which you cite. It speaks to me of a partisan echo chamber. More to the point I just offered in a previous post a critique of one of thinkprogress articles which illustrated a couple of places where Joe Romm was selective or incomplete in his reporting of the story. Compare what Munich Re says now and has said in the past with what the IPCC reports say and I think everyone should find that there is some space between them.

    But good, you acknowledge the left wing tilt of thingprogress. A constructive question to consider is how two persons with differing opinion might come to a common conclusion as to whether thinkprogess " bases everything in good science and accurate reporting". That is an en devour that would tend to harmony and even right view and right speech.

    I'd bet that http://www.climatedepot.com/ and http://joannenova.com.au/ to name two could equally be said to "bases everything in good science and accurate reporting, and routinely provides links back to verifiable sources" and not lie. I'm going out on a bit of limb here because I don't read any of them regularly, it's partly based on what others have told me. IMO joannenova.com.au would do better to make two blogs - a science blog and a politics blog.

    We all are likely to remain stuck with the perspective that we came in. Which is where viewpoint diversity comes in. https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/ is an attempt among academics to do this.

    The word "sanga" gets stretched in an age of instantaneous global communication. But I assume you have a face to face sanga and may also have a virtual sanga or community of sorts. That is what I was thinking of. Would it make more sense if I spoke of Buddhist communities or dialogs?
    And is a "multi-perspective, multi-viewpoint, multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding" even useful, or does it just seek to hide the truth under a steaming pile of doubt?
    Very useful according to long experience and the study of modern decision making and group dynamics. It's the non-diverse groups that most tend toward "hiding the truth".

    User avatar
    retrofuturist
    Site Admin
    Posts: 20037
    Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Contact:

    Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

    Post by retrofuturist » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:15 am

    "Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

    "The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

    "One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

    Locked

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests