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

Another Republican Wakes Up and Smells the Stink Cabbage

“Ever since college I have been a libertarian—socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility. I also believe in science as the greatest instrument ever devised for understanding the world. So what happens when these two principles are in conflict? My libertarian beliefs have not always served me well. Like most people who hold strong ideological convictions, I find that, too often, my beliefs trump the scientific facts. This is called motivated reasoning, in which our brain reasons our way to supporting what we want to be true.” 
-- prominent libertarian Michael Shermer writing in 2013 on his epiphany about how his rigid ideology blinded him to ideologically inconvenient facts and logic


This is a fascinating 17-minute interview with the influential republican strategist Stuart Stevens. Mr. Steven has awakened from the mental stranglehold his rigid partisanship and ideology had on him. He now regrets what has has done. Unfortunately, his awakening has come far too late.

In the video, Stevens comments that listening to Trump or Hannity about Coronavirus drugs is a short walk to Jim Jones. That is just a little part of the rage and hate-driven republican ideological-tribal fantasy that he no longer believes in.

In a Washington Post editorial, Stevens writes:

“Don’t just blame President Trump. Blame me — and all the other Republicans who aided and abetted and, yes, benefited from protecting a political party that has become dangerous to America. Some of us knew better. 

But we built this moment. And then we looked the other way. 

Many of us heard a warning sound we chose to ignore, like that rattle in your car you hear but figure will go away. Now we’re broken down, with plenty of time to think about what should have been done. 

The failures of the government’s response to the coronavirus crisis can be traced directly to some of the toxic fantasies now dear to the Republican Party. Here are a few: Government is bad. Establishment experts are overrated or just plain wrong. Science is suspect. And we can go it alone, the world be damned.  

All of these are wrong, of course. But we didn’t get here overnight. It took practice.

Long before Trump, the Republican Party adopted as a key article of faith that more government was bad. We worked overtime to squeeze it and shrink it, to drown it in the bathtub, as anti-tax activist Grover Norquist liked to say. But somewhere along the way, it became, ‘all government is bad.’ Now we are in a crisis that can be solved only by massive government intervention. That’s awkward.”

Yeah, it is awkward. And for some innocent people, it is lethal.

Thanks to 別對牛彈琴 (aka SIASD) for bringing Mr. Stevens and his epiphany to my attention.

"Déjà vu all over again?"

Donald Trump is pulling another fast one on the populace-at-large.  He’s getting the press to cover (on cable TV) his rambling White House briefings, regarding the Coronavirus.  My understanding is that yesterday, Sunday, he held an impromptu (unscheduled) presser, where he rambled on for an hour and a half.  I have stopped watching those ramblings myself, as I know how they work.  Trump takes a sentence and rephrases it three or more times to make it sound like an extended thought. His greatest hits of, “Never seen anything like this,” “No one saw this coming,” “We’re making tremendous progress…” etc., etc., and freakin' etc., are like ear worms that haunt us.  For crying out loud!  STOP IT!!

To me, these W.H. briefings are reminiscent of the 2016 election build-up, where, like the train “we can’t seem to turn away from it” wreck that he was and still is, Trump gets free press coverage. It’s like a “free rally,” and he doesn’t even have to go travel out into the nasty, possibly Coronavirus-laden crowds. Wow!  Talk about your “win-win!”

What do you think:

Should the press stop airing these W.H. briefings?  Maybe just let the press show up, with no national real-time coverage, and then just give us a succinct recap afterward, by a network of our choice? Has the press not learned any lessons from the 2016 election fiasco?

Thanks for posting and recommending.

QUESTION: SHOULD Joe Biden pick Andrew Cuomo as his running mate?

CONSIDER:

Andrew Cuomo supporters quietly angling him for 2020 vice president gig

For his part, the governor has strenuously denied any interest in the job. “I don’t want to be vice president,” he told Albany radio host Alan Chartock last week.

A former senior Cuomo staffer dismissed that, telling The Post the 62-year-old Cuomo “definitely” has national aspirations and would jump at being Biden’s running mate.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/04/andrew-cuomo-supporters-angling-for-2020-vice-president-gig/

HOWEVER:

Would picking Cuomo end up hurting Biden's credibility, as he has promised a female running mate?

OPINIONS?