[Truth To Power]

Ugh, it is precisely by discarding bad models that science and forecasting both improve.

Right. That is why the evil, lying purveyors of anti-fossil-fuel nonscience cite bad models to justify their dishonest scare narratives, then ignore them when attempting to justify their claim that the models they have cited in their scare narratives are accurate. It's the old bait-and-switch con.

If there was so much dishonesty, why are researchers in the field advising to avoid using badly made models?

That is only what honest researchers are doing. Dishonest anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists are dishonestly citing bad models to justify their scare narratives, then cherry-picking better models to justify their claim that the models they cite are accurate. Bait-and-switch.

Why are they ringing the bell about the issue of bad models and the need to discard or at least underweight them before averaging?

Anti-fossil-fuel nonscientists cite the bad models to justify their scare narratives, then only discard or underweight them when attempting to justify their claim that the models they have cited are accurate. Bait-and-switch.

[Truth To Power]

Your inability to understand that you agreed with me and provided an explanation as to why you agree with me does not change the fact that you did so.

Your claims about what I wrote continue to be false, which is why you do not quote them directly, verbatim, and in context.

You were referring specifically to subsidies for Tesla.

No, I only cited them as one example.

You write poorly and cannot seem to keep track of your claims.

Sorry, I'll have to leave this for now: overexposure to evil makes me physically ill.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your claims about what I wrote continue to be false, which is why you do not quote them directly, verbatim, and in context.

No, I only cited them as one example.

Sorry, I'll have to leave this for now: overexposure to evil makes me physically ill.

Then provide a clear argument.

What exactly is your argument about subsidies?

[wat0n]

@Truth To Power at least there are climate scientists pushing back against using bad models for averaging forecasts. You'll need to be more specific about who those bad scientists are.

If we go by that Science article, this is something the IPCC caught a few years ago.

[Steve_American]

I doubt that it is because of current wandering off topic and into the weeds of climate change denial, but in the last 24 hours, more or less, this thread has had 2141 views.

Currently at 20605 views

[Truth To Power]

Then provide a clear argument.

I have.

What exactly is your argument about subsidies?

They are just one example of public policy based on the CO2 climate narrative that harms the economy to no beneficial effect. Others are taxes, regulatory hurdles, cap and trade, etc. designed to reduce fossil fuel usage.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power at least there are climate scientists pushing back against using bad models for averaging forecasts. You'll need to be more specific about who those bad scientists are.

All the shrieking anti-CO2 scaremongers.

If we go by that Science article, this is something the IPCC caught a few years ago.

Then why does the IPCC continue to issue scare propaganda based on the models that predict the highest temperatures, then switch to the models that predict the lowest temperatures when justifying their models' accuracy?

[Pants-of-dog]

I have.

They are just one example of public policy based on the CO2 climate narrative that harms the economy to no beneficial effect. Others are taxes, regulatory hurdles, cap and trade, etc. designed to reduce fossil fuel usage.

No, you have not, and adding some more vague and ambiguous claims doe snot help.

Try again.

Maybe this will help:

1, Which economy are you discussing?

2. Name the subsidies that are causing problems.

[Steve_American]

@Pants-of-dog, you forgot to demand that TTP explain how subsidies paid to someone harm the economy.

He will no doubt assert that they add to inflation. He'd be wrong, though you might agree with him on that.

.

[Steve_American]

My goodness, this is a popular thread.

I'll summarize it for anyone new who gets this far.

Methane is 80 to 100 times worse than CO2 in the 1st week after it is released into the air. This makes fixing any leaking pipeline very worth while. Ii is slowly "burned" to CO2 over 10 to 20 years. Sources disagree on the exact numbers for both sets of numbers.

The US put up a satellite to look for and see leaking methane. Is shines a laser light down at a certain wavelength that methane absorbs and looks to see where it isn't reflected back to space. It also sees places like feed lots where a lot of cattle fart out methane and wetlands that release methene. So, we can measure how much, and exactly where methane is being released into the air.

A lot of methane is being released from tropical wetlands. Also, Arctic permafrost in summer. And some oil production fields.

The term "methane termination event" refers to the end of most glacial periods. At those times a lot of methane is added into the air and is trapped in gas bubbles in ice sheets like on Greenland. We take a core sample, melt it to release the air in the bubbles, and measure the percentages of different gases and their isotopes in the air bubbles. So, we have hard data about what happened at the end of past glacial periods.

The last glacial maximum was about 12500 years ago, and there was the usual methane increase.

The problem is that now there isn't a glacial period ending.

It is already warm. So, if more methene is released and it becomes continuous as the temp keeps increasing, the new methane keeps replacing the burned methane. So, the temp keeps being increased.

Right now, the temp increase in Nov. 2023 was by far the largest 1 month temp increase ever. If this continues for a decade or more, we will crash through the +2 deg. C level and will almost reach +3 deg. C at the end of 10 more years.

This may seem extreme, but the IPCC has in every report said that temps have gotten hotter faster than expected. This methane release event is an example of a tipping point. The IPCC has said that they exist, but they can't talk about them because there is no scientific way to prove or demonstrate when they will be tipped and then how large the effects of the tipping will be. So, all IPCC predictions are wrong on the "not so bad" side, because they must ignore the effects of all tipping points.

If that happens the extreme weather will get worse and crops will fail in more years. This will cause massive food shortages. Many, many people will die.

This will also be terrible for all ecosystems across the planet. We need them to do their thing. They make oxygen for us to breathe. They pull CO2 out of the air. They pollinate our grain crops and fruits, etc.
.

[Steve_American]

I hope you don't Mind a political comment on this prediction.

The heterodox economist, Dr. Steve Keen, and I have independently come to the conclusion that ---

The world most actively ASAP and act massively with a rationing of emissions program, to have any slight chance of avoiding that +3 deg. C world, that will kill most people. It can keep getting hotter and can be a mass extinction as bad as the End Permian one. That would drive humans to extinction.

So, young people have nothing to lost and much to gain by protesting in the street to try to force the powers that be to start a rationing program. In the US, IMO, only massive electoral gains by Progressives will be enough to have the needed effect. Corp Dems and Repubs are not going to do it unless they are forced somehow to do it.

We have waited way too long. Rationing of emissions is the only hope. IMO, it must be paired with geoengineering programs to cool the planet to buy time to work on carbon capture. IMO, we are at the point that every means short of violence is on the table. It doesn't matter that some people will be damaged by some geoengineering projects. We can help them survive in place or help them move. That is the right thing to do.

IMHO, a side benefit of a rationing program is that the rich people who have let things get to this point will see their standard of living reduced. I would let the super-rich buy extra coupon books (whatever that means with modern tech) for a billion dollars each up to 4 extra. I'd let the other 3 intermediate levels also buy 1, 2 or 3 coupon books for 10K, $100K, and $10M, respectively.

The base level would not reduce the poor of US & EU much at all. Maybe make US and EU people have the same base level. In the global south, only the rich would be rationed.

This is just my proposal, and I'm a nobody who sees the end coming very fast. Whatever we do it needs to be enough. We need to make errors on the side of too much to avoid doing too little.

[Steve_American]

SHOCKing POLL: "Upper Class" Democrats Admit They HATE FREEDOM || BlazeTV

My understanding of this video is that it is good news and bad news.
The good news is that a very high percentage of the poll's elites and super elites understand that climate change (ACC) is a huge problem and that to win that fight we will have to use Gov. to make everyone consume less. Hopefully, the super-rich will have their consumption slashed to no more than 5 times the poor's ration. With the merely-rich consuming 4 times, the middle class consuming 3 times and the well of working poor consuming 2 times what the poor can consume. Or some such amounts.
The bad news is that this guy doesn't accept that ACC is a huge problem and spins the poll results as the elites want to take away the freedom of everyone to let everyone keep consuming until civilization collapses.

A new poll has revealed some shocking beliefs held by the majority of America's elite class. The poll, conducted on behalf of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, split the American public into the general class, elites, and "super elites" and asked a range of questions. Unsurprisingly, the majority of elite and super elite respondents considered themself Democrats. But disturbingly, they admitted to multiple beliefs that might shock even the Democrats in the general class: "77% of elites and 89% of super elites support strict rationing of meat, gas, and electricity." Glenn reviews this shocking find, as well as others that shed light on why elites seem so out of touch with the rest of America: "They're supporting Biden because they're getting richer. You're feeling pain."

.

[Potemkin]

Of course elites don’t hate freedom - they love freedom. But only their own freedom. It’s everybody else’s freedom which they hate. This has been the case for every ruling elite in every human culture since the beginning of recorded history. Why should it be any different now?