Macarthur said:

---

Actually, I just saw that.

I can see why Dressler probably doesn't want to debate because I don't think that would be his strong suit. regardless of your knowledge (or rightness) of a subject, debating is a skill that not everyone has.


I think the point he tried to make, admittedly not very well, is that a typical debate format would not be sufficient to debate the 'rightness or wrongness' of peer reviewed material. And he is 100% correct about that. And it would be a waste of his time.

I mean this is where he's coming from


A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

---

This is getting off the topic of Rogan, but I think the biggest issue is that both sides of the argument have been proven to be aholes that will at best, massage their data to get the outputs they desire, at worst, blatantly lying about what the data says to scare people. And we are basing our knowledge and predictions of the climate based on 150 years of recorded data with unknown margins of error, while looking at ice cores with a semi unknown margin of error for anything past that.

My biggest issue with proponents of the AGW crowd is that many of their solutions don't help the issue, and may actually increase pollution. If they aren't proposing nuclear power then they should not be taken seriously.

Our government is all in on solar and wind, not nuclear. .

Champ Bailey said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, I just saw that.

I can see why Dressler probably doesn't want to debate because I don't think that would be his strong suit. regardless of your knowledge (or rightness) of a subject, debating is a skill that not everyone has.


I think the point he tried to make, admittedly not very well, is that a typical debate format would not be sufficient to debate the 'rightness or wrongness' of peer reviewed material. And he is 100% correct about that. And it would be a waste of his time.

I mean this is where he's coming from


A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

---

This is getting off the topic of Rogan, but I think the biggest issue is that both sides of the argument have been proven to be aholes that will at best, massage their data to get the outputs they desire, at worst, blatantly lying about what the data says to scare people. And we are basing our knowledge and predictions of the climate based on 150 years of recorded data with unknown margins of error, while looking at ice cores with a semi unknown margin of error for anything past that.

My biggest issue with proponents of the AGW crowd is that many of their solutions don't help the issue, and may actually increase pollution. If they aren't proposing nuclear power then they should not be taken seriously.

Our government is all in on solar and wind, not nuclear. .

---

I do agree that it seems where most of the debate needs to happen is on the policy side (which is what Dressler said, too).

The way I see it is that debating whether Humans are the cause or not frankly misses the point. It's happening and we have to deal with it. I too think nuclear makes more sense and that's where the politics of policy come in play. However, solar and wind do help....they may not be the best solution but they are a step in the right direction.

Macarthur said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, I just saw that.

I can see why Dressler probably doesn't want to debate because I don't think that would be his strong suit. regardless of your knowledge (or rightness) of a subject, debating is a skill that not everyone has.


I think the point he tried to make, admittedly not very well, is that a typical debate format would not be sufficient to debate the 'rightness or wrongness' of peer reviewed material. And he is 100% correct about that.

---

He explicitly said won't debate because "the science is set. Temperature is warming. Humans are the cause." That is much more than claiming a debate is an ineffective format. And that sidesteps the question of exactly how these issues should be discussed if a moderated debate between experts with differing views is somehow inappropriate. I mean, if not that, what? I get the sense he's not willing to defend his opinions in an adversarial setting under any format.

---

Based on the links i posted above, he's not wrong. I mean I suppose you could find a climate scientist that agrees with Dressler that is willing to debate, and I would certainly enjoy watching/listenting to that.

But he feels that it's a waste of his time. In his mind, it's like debating the merits of whether gravity exists. It's a waste of his time.

For the record, I think Rogan handled that line of questioning fine. I wish he handled all of those situations with the same amount of push back.

---

I'll assume for the sake of argument that there is a consensus and that consensus is well founded. Now think about it from a practical/political standpoint. A fairly significant portion of the population either disagrees or thinks the threat is exaggerated. If this is the existential threat Dessler thinks it is, shouldn't he take every opportunity to try and win over hearts and minds to his side? I mean, the solutions he seeks are political solutions that will require public support. Exactly how is avoiding his critics going to advance the cause? If having policies implemented to stave off global warming is his end goal, I'm having a hard time figuring out how he thinks his plan of avoiding his critics is going to pay dividends.

And I'll edit to add--To say it is all man made is to literally rule out the rest of the universe. Regardless of the consensus, you really believe it is literally impossible for scientists to have overlooked something either on planet earth or space that might have played a role in the warming of the last 100 years or so?

He said he would gladly debate policy because that's where we're at right now. It's happening.

Again, to debate whether it's happening due to people or not is a moot point.

Macarthur said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, I just saw that.

I can see why Dressler probably doesn't want to debate because I don't think that would be his strong suit. regardless of your knowledge (or rightness) of a subject, debating is a skill that not everyone has.


I think the point he tried to make, admittedly not very well, is that a typical debate format would not be sufficient to debate the 'rightness or wrongness' of peer reviewed material. And he is 100% correct about that. And it would be a waste of his time.

I mean this is where he's coming from


A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

---

This is getting off the topic of Rogan, but I think the biggest issue is that both sides of the argument have been proven to be aholes that will at best, massage their data to get the outputs they desire, at worst, blatantly lying about what the data says to scare people. And we are basing our knowledge and predictions of the climate based on 150 years of recorded data with unknown margins of error, while looking at ice cores with a semi unknown margin of error for anything past that.

My biggest issue with proponents of the AGW crowd is that many of their solutions don't help the issue, and may actually increase pollution. If they aren't proposing nuclear power then they should not be taken seriously.

Our government is all in on solar and wind, not nuclear. .

---

I do agree that it seems where most of the debate needs to happen is on the policy side (which is what Dressler said, too).

The way I see it is that debating whether Humans are the cause or not frankly misses the point. It's happening and we have to deal with it. I too think nuclear makes more sense and that's where the politics of policy come in play. However, solar and wind do help....they may not be the best solution but they are a step in the right direction.

---

Knowing the cause misses the point? That makes no sense. What if the cause is naturally occurring and something we cannot control (say, the tilt of the earth)? Surely that's worth knowing. You can't fashion a solution unless you know the cause.

As a hypothetical, my oven is getting hotter. Did someone turn up the temperature? Is the oven on the fritz? Is the house on fire? Knowing the answers to these questions will dictate the proper response (turn down the oven, call a repairman, call the fire department). Just knowing the oven is getting hotter tells me nothing about what I should do about it.

Macarthur said:

---

So do you disagree that CO2 emissions create greenhouse effect?

---

No (although I'm certainly not the guy to ask). And neither did Koonin. That gets back to the very debate Koonin wants to have. The question is how much of the current warming can be attributed to CO2 (versus other potential causes). And of that CO2, how much of it are we responsible for (versus other sources we have no control over)? And what is the magnitude of this greenhouse effect on the climate? Until we flesh out these scientific questions, we can't even get to the policy questions. Yet these are very scientific questions that Dessler refuses to engage in.

Macarthur said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

So do you disagree that CO2 emissions create greenhouse effect?

---

No (although I'm certainly not the guy to ask). And neither did Koonin. That gets back to the very debate Koonin wants to have. The question is how much of the current warming can be attributed to CO2 (versus other potential causes). And of that CO2, how much of it are we responsible for (versus other sources we have no control over)? Until we flesh out these scientific questions, we can't even get to the policy questions. Yet these are very scientific questions that Dessler refuses to engage in.

---

So, there is overwhelming climate consensus on how much (around 80%) and there's the same consensus that humans and our activities are reponsible for about a 50% increase since the industrial revolution.

Some are accusing Koonin of a bit of deception...

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2021/08/15/book-review-unsettled-what-climate-science-tells-us-what-it-doesnt-and-why-it-matters-by-steve-koonin/

https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/a-response-to-stephen-koonins-call-to-inaction-685/

---

Why it almost sounds like we should get these guys in a room and hash out these differences in an open forum so that their views can be available to all to analyze. Any chance you've heard if any of them are up for that?

Macarthur said:

---

So, following the Koonin line of thinking...there is just some near 100% consensus of group think, grant protecting shenanigans?

---

That makes more sense than Dessler's implication that Koonin is doing it for a company he hasn't worked for in years.

We could probably keep going round and round for while with little to show for it.

I'll just say this. It's the group that wants to fundamentally re-organize society that has the burden of proof with me. Yet they seem to be strangely reluctant to show their work (I believe it was Mann who has refused to turn over his data, but don't hold me to that). There is also some evidence that the numbers are being fudged to generate an outcome--one showing climate change to be an existential threat (the email leak from the UK several years back). And I don't think it's crazy to conclude that most western governments see climate change as a political issue they can harness and academics are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing with regard to those extremely valuable grants. In light of all that, I think it would behoove those that want to push this issue to do their absolute best at being transparent and show a willingness to address critiques/questions. Yet, they just want to say the science is settled. It doesn't help that that is a phrase we've heard a lot in the last year or so only for those well respected scientists to be proven wrong if not outright liars.

JCA1 said:

---

We could probably keep going round and round for while with little to show for it.

I'll just say this. It's the group that wants to fundamentally re-organize society that has the burden of proof with me. Yet they seem to be strangely reluctant to show their work (I believe it was Mann who has refused to turn over his data, but don't hold me to that). There is also some evidence that the numbers are being fudged to generate an outcome--one showing climate change to be an existential threat (the email leak from the UK several years back). And I don't think it's crazy to conclude that most western governments see climate change as a political issue they can harness and academics are smart enough to see which way the wind is blowing with regard to those extremely valuable grants. In light of all that, I think it would behoove those that want to push this issue to do their absolute best at being transparent and show a willingness to address critiques/questions. Yet, they just want to say the science is settled. It doesn't help that that is a phrase we've heard a lot in the last year or so only for those well respected scientists to be proven wrong if not outright liars.

---

I find this incredibly ironic when the fossil fuel industry has spent an incredible amount of money to keep our society from making even small incrimental change, much less fundamental re-organization. I think that's amazingly tone deaf....It's also ironic to accuse the science community of not showing their work...I have yet to see or read a single 'skeptical' position that is legitimately peer reviewed.

It seems to me there is one side that doesn't like to show their work, if there is any.

Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#cite_note-6][6][/url]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. I'm all for everyone showing their work. To his credit, Koonin seems to be willing to. Dessler doesn't. Doesn't mean Koonin is right and Dessler is wrong.

And the fact that there are "sides" makes that all the more so. It's obviously gotten political on both sides. That only ups the potential for shenanigans.

Quote:

---

His argument basically boils down to he thinks climate scientists are exaggerating.

---

It is hard not to agree with him when hyperbole like this is constantly touted by the media:

Quote:

---

A new report from federal climate scientists warns that by 2050, sea levels along coastlines in the United States will rise by 10 to 12 inches.

....
The report estimates that in the Gulf Coast, there will be about a foot and a half of sea level rise by 2050, because land is also collapsing due to extraction of underground oil, gas, and drinking water. On the West Coast, the rise won't be as dramatic, with scientists predicting it will be about six inches.

---

https://theweek.com/climate-change/1010226/in-new-report-climate-scientists-estimate-us-sea-levels-will-rise-rapidly-by

Sea levels have gone up about an inch over the past 100 years but now they're going to rise by a foot in the next 28? Please. I believe we're causing some climate change, but wild exaggerations aren't helping things.

Champ Bailey said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Actually, I just saw that.

I can see why Dressler probably doesn't want to debate because I don't think that would be his strong suit. regardless of your knowledge (or rightness) of a subject, debating is a skill that not everyone has.


I think the point he tried to make, admittedly not very well, is that a typical debate format would not be sufficient to debate the 'rightness or wrongness' of peer reviewed material. And he is 100% correct about that. And it would be a waste of his time.

I mean this is where he's coming from


A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. Papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

---

This is getting off the topic of Rogan, but I think the biggest issue is that both sides of the argument have been proven to be aholes that will at best, massage their data to get the outputs they desire, at worst, blatantly lying about what the data says to scare people. And we are basing our knowledge and predictions of the climate based on 150 years of recorded data with unknown margins of error, while looking at ice cores with a semi unknown margin of error for anything past that.

My biggest issue with proponents of the AGW crowd is that many of their solutions don't help the issue, and may actually increase pollution. If they aren't proposing nuclear power then they should not be taken seriously.

Our government is all in on solar and wind, not nuclear. .

---

The thing is, the way the scientific method works, is its 100% in any other scientist's interest to be able to disprove any studies out there. When you present your findings, you also share all the data and the methods you used to arrive at your conclusions.
Obviously there are people out there that DO misrepresent what those findings say, or overstate them in their own self interest.

Everything else I agree with, except for the notion that Joe Rogan is in any way qualified to "call" a scientist on anything. He's a funny guy and does interesting interviews, thats it.

Macarthur said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

JCA1 said:

---

You're arguing against a position I haven't taken. I'm all for everyone showing their work. To his credit, Koonin seems to be willing to. Dessler doesn't. Doesn't mean Koonin is right and Dessler is wrong.

And the fact that there are "sides" makes that all the more so. It's obviously gotten political on both sides. That only ups the potential for shenanigans.

---

Fair enough. The last thing about showing Work is, what work does Koonin have? He is not a climate scientist. As best I can tell, His argument basically boils down to he thinks climate scientists are exaggerating. Keep in mind, he does not disagree that climate change is happening and he does not disagree that man is a part of it. Oh, and there's a little fact that he used to work for BP oil. He is an incredibly brilliant man but he's not a climate scientist nor would I want him to do brain surgery on me if I need it.

---

My limited knowledge of Koonin is he is a physicist by training. My guess is he has the intellectual capacity to digest the science despite not having a title with "climate" in it. If he is misrepresenting or misunderstanding the data, it should be easy for a climate scientist to show this. Yet, best I can tell, they all agree he's interpreting the data correctly. Even Dessler didn't dispute this.

I guess you can question his motives since he once worked for BP but since he doesn't anymore, I don't see how that holds much water. But since we're on the subject, exactly how good of a career move is it in academia to go against what are generally considered the liberal pillars (of which climate change is one)? It's pretty much beyond dispute that it's pretty much a death sentence. And parroting liberal pillars is celebrated even when it is utter nonsense (see the Sokol and Lindsay hoaxes). You willing to admit that this potentially taints Dessler's work?

---

If memory serves, both of those instances were in the social sciences and the Sokol paper was published in a publication that was open about it not going through some review process. I don't think either of those have merit in this instance. Climate Science is a hard science that uses peer reviewed processes.

---

It is true that the Sokol and Lindsay hoaxes involved what are generally considered soft sciences, but I would argue the more accurate term would be political sciences (i.e., disciplines that have strong political implications). While more rigorous, I think climate change falls in that category and is susceptible to the same impulses. I am not convinced the necessary checks and balances are in place to minimize those impulses. The fact that anyone who deviates from the "consensus" is immediately branded a "skeptic" or "denier" (and when did "skeptic" become a pejorative in science!?) and none of the so-called experts are even willing to engage with the points they raise does not give me warm fuzzies. There's also the fact that it's obvious which side the money and fame is on for both. When I see incentives lined up in such a fashion, I'm skeptical that everyone is being as vigilant as possible. That's why I would like to see more debate.

Regardless, I've enjoyed the cordial back and forth. Have a good weekend.

Macarthur said:

---

Champ Bailey said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

Only time will tell on that front. What I will say is that organizations that have to legitimately prepare for these things like the military and Insurance companies are taking this S serious as a heart attack.

---

I disagree. If the mortgage companies thought the world was really going to end in 15 years, then they would be stupid to offer thirty year mortgages. Especially in places like Miami and New Orleans. Same thing with insurance.

---

Ok, Champ. So, the climate scientists have been accused of being hyperbolic and you use terms like the world ending.


I'm not sure how you can 'disagree'. It is a fact that insurance companies are very much preparing for the continued effects of climate change. I mean a simple google search will turn up article after article about this. This is not a controversial point.

---

I think you are misinterpreting me. I'm saying that the climate change scientists are being hyperbolic. I'm also saying that the big money people are not taking the scientists seriously. Because if the world were truly going to end in 15-20 years, or the sea level was going to rise half a foot by 2050, a bank wouldn't loan you money to buy a house that will be underwater or in a catastrophic weather region by the time the terms expire. They still wouldn't be selling flood insurance in these places either.

Quote:

---

a bank wouldn't loan you money to buy a house that will be underwater or in a catastrophic weather region by the time the terms expire. They still wouldn't be selling flood insurance in these places either.a bank wouldn't loan you money to buy a house that will be underwater or in a catastrophic weather region by the time the terms expire. They still wouldn't be selling flood insurance in these places either.

---

A bank and a yearly flood insurance company could give two ****s in what might happen in 20-30 years.

Apache said:

---

I'm currently listening to Steven Koonin on Rogan who think climate change isn't that big of a deal.
Is Dessler the "counterpoint" expert?

---

Yes, but apparently Koonin came in with all types of graphs, evidence, exhibits, and Dessler came in unprepared with no real data and is convinced that the sea level is going to rise some insane amount just in the next few years and Rogan called him out. All of this doom and gloom constantly hyped while Dicaprio and the Obamas and many more "leaders" in climate change literally build mansions right at the shoreline and fly around on private jets and have the individual carbon footprints of a thousand US families.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Quote:

---

If they aren't proposing nuclear power then they should not be taken seriously.

---

This. End of thread. It's insane how many people are convinced that electric cars are "green". They are anything but.




My bro works for BHP. It's hilarious how progressive and "environmentally conscious" they pretend to be. They literally go into beautiful places like Chile and destroy mountain ranges.

---

Lithium does have serious issues, but you're being a bit outdated in your criticism. Technology is progressing pretty rapidly on brine solutions for Lithium and there's also big strides being made with Lithium alternatives like sodium.

And that Meme is just like 90% of meme's....simplistic and highly misleading.