Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Monday, April 6, 2020

Climate Change: A Review of the Evidence


Moonrise before sunrise

A 2 hour video that NOVA produced summarizes the data that shows humans are responsible for climate change. It first aired January 5, 2020. Before viewing this documentary, my analysis and belief about the situation was this:

Chance that climate change is real and mostly caused by humans: ~65%
Chance that the current estimate of the problem is not as bad as experts project: ~15%
Chance that the current estimate of the problem is worse than experts project: ~20%


After viewing this and being Bayesian, my analysis and belief is now this:

Chance that climate change is real and mostly caused by humans: ~77%
Chance that the current estimate of the problem is not as bad as experts project: ~3%
Chance that the current estimate of the problem is worse than experts project: ~20%

The data is presented for a lay audience. The data comes from decades of geology, study of fossils, the environmental record and other sources of information. The evidence this video lays out evidence that cannot be denied. What will be endlessly debated is the interpretation of the data.

Most climate science deniers (~99.9%) will continue to flatly deny expert consensus opinion. But maybe, just maybe one in a thousand will at least start to doubt their own certain knowledge.


Conclusion
Climate science deniers do not have any reasonable shield to defend their beliefs. Those that do cannot rationally defend their positions, unless and only unless they want to take the risk and play Russian Roulette with civilization and maybe human survival. In my opinion, they play the civilization and maybe human survival game with a 3% chance they are right.

As usual, that's just my facts- and logic-based opinion and I am not infallible.



Sunrise after the 2003 Cedar Fire

No comments:

Post a Comment