Mr Tump and Mr Musk set the world to rights.

[Larniavc]

Mr Trump and Mr Musk opine on various topical issues. Some have commented in a quite discourteous way that (for example) Mr Trump’s understanding of certain technical aspects of geometry is below the standard of grade schoolers.

‘The dumbest climate conversation of all time’: experts on the Musk-Trump interview

Trump talked about ‘nuclear warming’ while Musk said the only reason to quit fossil fuels is that their supply is finite

www.theguardian.com

Is this criticism valid?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Mr Trump and Mr Musk opine on various topical issues. Some have commented in a quite discourteous way that (for example) Mr Trump’s understanding of certain technical aspects of geometry is below the standard of grade schoolers.

‘The dumbest climate conversation of all time’: experts on the Musk-Trump interview

Trump talked about ‘nuclear warming’ while Musk said the only reason to quit fossil fuels is that their supply is finite

www.theguardian.com

Is this criticism valid?

If it's climate experts commenting on Trump and Musk's understanding of climate science and their inaccuracies about the science itself, then I'm assuming their critique is valid.

However, no one issue exists in a vacuum, so a person can be incorrect about the technical details of an issue, but still be accurate about the countervailing interests and extraneous aspects of adopting one policy vs. another.


I've often said that the climate debate doesn't involve only 2 ideological buckets, there's actually 5 buckets...

We're misled into thinking it's just:
"Climate Change is real"
vs.
"Climate change is a hoax"


When in reality it's:
1) "Climate change is real, and we need to embrace every policy put forth in the name of addressing it, no matter what it is"

2) "Climate change is real, but I don't think the proposed policies are going to address it in any meaningful way, so I reject those policies while still acknowledging the problem is real"

3) "Climate change is real, some of the policies could work if adopted globally, but hamstringing our own energy independence and competitiveness in the global market doesn't accomplish much other than hurting us if China and India are going to keep doing whatever they want"

4) "Climate change is real, we need to address it, but if you're not talking nuclear energy instead of focusing exclusively on wind/solar/tidal, then you've not having a serious conversation about this"

5) "Climate change is a hoax"


I'm a little bit of #3 and a little bit of #4.



In a nutshell, I think climate change is real, I think humans are causing it, and I think we need to address it. However, if someone is suggesting that the Green New Deal or Wind Turbines are a more worthwhile endeavor than embracing the expansion of nuclear power, then I think they're just playing the role of "climate warrior" for their own personal image and aren't taking the problem seriously, themselves.

 

[AlexB23]

If it's climate experts commenting on Trump and Musk's understanding of climate science and their inaccuracies about the science itself, then I'm assuming their critique is valid.

However, no one issue exists in a vacuum, so a person can be incorrect about the technical details of an issue, but still be accurate about the countervailing interests and extraneous aspects of adopting one policy vs. another.


I've often said that the climate debate doesn't involve only 2 ideological buckets, there's actually 5 buckets...

We're misled into thinking it's just:
"Climate Change is real"
vs.
"Climate change is a hoax"


When in reality it's:
1) "Climate change is real, and we need to embrace every policy put forth in the name of addressing it, no matter what it is"

2) "Climate change is real, but I don't think the proposed policies are going to address it in any meaningful way, so I reject those policies while still acknowledging the problem is real"

3) "Climate change is real, some of the policies could work if adopted globally, but hamstringing our own energy independence and competitiveness in the global market doesn't accomplish much other than hurting us if China and India are going to keep doing whatever they want"

4) "Climate change is real, we need to address it, but if you're not talking nuclear energy instead of focusing exclusively on wind/solar/tidal, then you've not having a serious conversation about this"

5) "Climate change is a hoax"


I'm a little bit of #3 and a little bit of #4.



In a nutshell, I think climate change is real, I think humans are causing it, and I think we need to address it. However, if someone is suggesting that the Green New Deal or Wind Turbines are a more worthwhile endeavor than embracing the expansion of nuclear power, then I think they're just playing the role of "climate warrior" for their own personal image and aren't taking the problem seriously, themselves.

I am 3 and 4 as well. Practical and pragmatic approaches are the best. We need more nuclear power also, and ways of recycling nuclear fuel.


Also, we need nuclear pulse rockets, cos nuclear pulse rockets go fast.

Project Orion (Atomic propulsion system):

Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tdidymas]

If it's climate experts commenting on Trump and Musk's understanding of climate science and their inaccuracies about the science itself, then I'm assuming their critique is valid.

However, no one issue exists in a vacuum, so a person can be incorrect about the technical details of an issue, but still be accurate about the countervailing interests and extraneous aspects of adopting one policy vs. another.


I've often said that the climate debate doesn't involve only 2 ideological buckets, there's actually 5 buckets...

We're misled into thinking it's just:
"Climate Change is real"
vs.
"Climate change is a hoax"


When in reality it's:
1) "Climate change is real, and we need to embrace every policy put forth in the name of addressing it, no matter what it is"

2) "Climate change is real, but I don't think the proposed policies are going to address it in any meaningful way, so I reject those policies while still acknowledging the problem is real"

3) "Climate change is real, some of the policies could work if adopted globally, but hamstringing our own energy independence and competitiveness in the global market doesn't accomplish much other than hurting us if China and India are going to keep doing whatever they want"

4) "Climate change is real, we need to address it, but if you're not talking nuclear energy instead of focusing exclusively on wind/solar/tidal, then you've not having a serious conversation about this"

5) "Climate change is a hoax"


I'm a little bit of #3 and a little bit of #4.



In a nutshell, I think climate change is real, I think humans are causing it, and I think we need to address it. However, if someone is suggesting that the Green New Deal or Wind Turbines are a more worthwhile endeavor than embracing the expansion of nuclear power, then I think they're just playing the role of "climate warrior" for their own personal image and aren't taking the problem seriously, themselves.

I'm entering this conversation here, so pls forgive if I'm unaware of previous posts.
IMO there are other buckets than listed here. I'm a skeptic about "climate change" and that whole narrative. Not only do I believe that current policies are too expensive, but they will do little to nothing to address the problem of global warming (#2). Yet, I'm a skeptic about the narrative, because:

(1) it began as a big fat lie, in the sense that the instigators of it said, "if we don't talk about disasters, they won't listen to us" (I read the transcript of the meeting). This is fear mongering, by setting up a false crisis narrative.

(2) It's about politics and money flow, as indicated by a change of title from "global warming" to "climate change." The first name of it was vilified by so many exaggerations and false narratives told by the GW activists that were exposed by skeptics, that they decided it would be politically expedient to change the name to "climate change." The billions allocated to it will not make more than a negligible difference.

(3) The NOAA site has no indication that there has been any changes in the global temperature sensors, whether in maintenance, moving the sensors, adding sensors, or any such thing. All we have is the data, which may be inaccurately indicating a warming trend, because changes in ocean currents, growth of cities, and such are not considered when analyzing the data. Even if there is actually a warming trend, extrapolating that trend may be inaccurate.

(4) Man-made CO2 increase causing warming is still a theoretical idea, since amounts are at negligible levels.

If anyone wants to put me in a certain bucket listed, you can interpret my response any way you want. I invite anyone to show me links to documentation that proves any of these objections wrong.

 

[Larniavc]

Apropos of nothing on re listening to the interview, for the first time I can remember I heard Mr Trump laugh out loud.

It was when Mr Musk said when his workforce went on strike he gave them all the sack.

Charming.

 

[ozso]

If it's climate experts commenting on Trump and Musk's understanding of climate science and their inaccuracies about the science itself, then I'm assuming their critique is valid.

However, no one issue exists in a vacuum, so a person can be incorrect about the technical details of an issue, but still be accurate about the countervailing interests and extraneous aspects of adopting one policy vs. another.


I've often said that the climate debate doesn't involve only 2 ideological buckets, there's actually 5 buckets...

We're misled into thinking it's just:
"Climate Change is real"
vs.
"Climate change is a hoax"


When in reality it's:
1) "Climate change is real, and we need to embrace every policy put forth in the name of addressing it, no matter what it is"

2) "Climate change is real, but I don't think the proposed policies are going to address it in any meaningful way, so I reject those policies while still acknowledging the problem is real"

3) "Climate change is real, some of the policies could work if adopted globally, but hamstringing our own energy independence and competitiveness in the global market doesn't accomplish much other than hurting us if China and India are going to keep doing whatever they want"

4) "Climate change is real, we need to address it, but if you're not talking nuclear energy instead of focusing exclusively on wind/solar/tidal, then you've not having a serious conversation about this"

5) "Climate change is a hoax"


I'm a little bit of #3 and a little bit of #4.



In a nutshell, I think climate change is real, I think humans are causing it, and I think we need to address it. However, if someone is suggesting that the Green New Deal or Wind Turbines are a more worthwhile endeavor than embracing the expansion of nuclear power, then I think they're just playing the role of "climate warrior" for their own personal image and aren't taking the problem seriously, themselves.

I'm around 3 and 4 as well. What I'll add to that is some variance between real and hoax. I think it's real, but I don't think it's fully man made. Also I think the current and future severity of it is being exaggerated, so there's a partial "hoax" via misinformation in place.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

(1) it began as a big fat lie, in the sense that the instigators of it said, "if we don't talk about disasters, they won't listen to us" (I read the transcript of the meeting). This is fear mongering, by setting up a false crisis narrative.

I'm around 3 and 4 as well. What I'll add to that is some variance between real and hoax. I think it's real, but I don't think it's fully man made. Also I think the current and future severity of it is being exaggerated, so there's a partial "hoax" via misinformation in place.

I think what you two are referring to is what's referred to as the climate "alarmism", which I see as something separate, as alarmism surrounding an issue is has no bearing on whether or not the issue is real, nor the levels of efficacy of the proposed solutions.

For instance, as a hypothetical, if I wanted to bring up the issue of teen smoking.

Obviously young people getting their hands on cigs is a problem that should be addressed.
If I pitched smoking cessation programs and more stringent rules surrounding the sale of tobacco products, those would be valid solutions.

If I said "and with all of the youth smoking, we're going to have a wave of people dying of lung cancer in their 30's fifteen years from now!!!", that would be alarmism. However, that alarmism itself wouldn't invalidate the existence of the problem, nor the merits of the proposed solutions.

 

[durangodawood]

....Also I think the current and future severity of it is being exaggerated.....

Most of the climate models have turned out to be overly conservative.... so far. In other words, severity at this point is worse than anticipated, on average.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Most of the climate models have turned out to be overly conservative.... so far. In other words, severity at this point is worse than anticipated, on average.

I don't think the models are where the alarmism was coming into play...I think the alarmism was coming from pundits and politicians.

There's no reason believe that the IPCC's & NASA's data and estimates are incorrect, they certainly have better monitoring tools and expertise than those of us in the general public.

However, that's something different than Al Gore getting on stage at a climate conference and saying "there's a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 years"

Like with many other topics, alarmism actually damages the perceptions about the people who aren't being alarmist.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think the models are where the alarmism was coming into play...I think the alarmism was coming from pundits and politicians.

There's no reason believe that the IPCC's & NASA's data and estimates are incorrect, they certainly have better monitoring tools and expertise than those of us in the general public.

However, that's something different than Al Gore getting on stage at a climate conference and saying "there's a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next 5 years"

Like with many other topics, alarmism actually damages the perceptions about the people who aren't being alarmist.

I'm a little fed up with this issue getting discussed in terms of what various celebrities and politicians might say.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm a little fed up with this issue getting discussed in terms of what various celebrities and politicians might say.

That's probably something that should've been thought about before activists and the scientific community decided to make various politicians, celebrities "the face" of the movement's messaging by elevating them to the level as being "equals" with the scientists in the public eye. (and the actual scientific community "letting it slide" because they felt it may get their issue some more visibility)

The event in question where Al Gore said the things that were obviously alarmist and didn't come to fruition wasn't some po-dunk gathering in a banquet room at a Holiday Inn... it was the Copenhagen Climate Conference (one of the largest climate events in the world, an event put on by the UN, and is considered a big deal in that realm of discussing climate change and public policy)

They also gave Al Gore a Nobel Prize (one of the highest global honors) the same year they also gave the prize to the IPCC (collectively, as an organization), for his informing the public about climate change.


So they can't have it both ways here....
"Let's invite this politician to the most high profile climate summit on the globe to the be a keynote speaker, and then have one of the top scientific organizations rally behind giving him a Nobel"
....and then later say...
"well, who cares what politicians say?"


In short:
If someone gets invited to be one of the main speakers at the most high profile gatherings in the world on the subject...
And if the community rallies around giving that person a Nobel Prize...

The answer to the question "Why does anyone care what Al Gore says?" is "Because they wanted people to care what he says"

 

[durangodawood]

That's probably something that should've been thought about before activists and the scientific community decided to make various politicians, celebrities "the face" of the movement's messaging by elevating them to the level as being "equals" with the scientists in the public eye. (and the actual scientific community "letting it slide" because they felt it may get their issue some more visibility)

The event in question where Al Gore said the things that were obviously alarmist and didn't come to fruition wasn't some po-dunk gathering in a banquet room at a Holiday Inn... it was the Copenhagen Climate Conference (one of the largest climate events in the world, an event put on by the UN, and is considered a big deal in that realm of discussing climate change and public policy)

They also gave Al Gore a Nobel Prize (one of the highest global honors) the same year they also gave the prize to the IPCC (collectively, as an organization), for his informing the public about climate change.


So they can't have it both ways here....
"Let's invite this politician to the most high profile climate summit on the globe to the be a keynote speaker, and then have one of the top scientific organizations rally behind giving him a Nobel"
....and then later say...
"well, who cares what politicians say?"


In short:
If someone gets invited to be one of the main speakers at the most high profile gatherings in the world on the subject...
And if the community rallies around giving that person a Nobel Prize...

The answer to the question "Why does anyone care what Al Gore says?" is "Because they wanted people to care what he says"

We, and by that I mean everyone, have been around this block enough times to know better.

So when I say Im getting fed up, I mean we all know enough to the point that anyone still arguing about what celebrities or some pol from decades prior say is being completely disingenuous for the purpose of pushing ideologically motivated lies. At this point they are choosing to highlight anything but what credentialed and reputable scientists say.

 

[tdidymas]

I think what you two are referring to is what's referred to as the climate "alarmism", which I see as something separate, as alarmism surrounding an issue is has no bearing on whether or not the issue is real, nor the levels of efficacy of the proposed solutions.

For instance, as a hypothetical, if I wanted to bring up the issue of teen smoking.

Obviously young people getting their hands on cigs is a problem that should be addressed.
If I pitched smoking cessation programs and more stringent rules surrounding the sale of tobacco products, those would be valid solutions.

If I said "and with all of the youth smoking, we're going to have a wave of people dying of lung cancer in their 30's fifteen years from now!!!", that would be alarmism. However, that alarmism itself wouldn't invalidate the existence of the problem, nor the merits of the proposed solutions.

What you're saying is true, but what about my objections about the "uncontested" data, and the assumptions surrounding it? Don't you see that is a valid objection to the whole narrative, if the foundation is inaccurate? If climate scientists are leftists, then they are biased, and will disregard anything that is an obstacle to their agenda.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We, and by that I mean everyone, have been around this block enough times to know better.

But it seems like the pundits don't know better, because they keep doing the same things...and not even just for climate science.

Remember this from a few years back?

Why was Greta Thunberg in a panel discussion about covid with 3 doctors? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a 4th doctor would've been a better choice, but they opted for getting a "famous" person in the mix in hopes of leveraging that person's publicity reach.


And for the record, the UN is still leveraging "the celeb effect" for the newer COP events. The list of people invited for panels at the upcoming one tentatively includes DiCaprio, Matt Damon, and Bill Gates (none of which are climate scientists, and all of which will likely arrive on private jets...which introduces another aspect of optics/perception that isn't exactly helpful to the cause)

But to your other point, the reason why some folks still discuss it can be explained with the old "boy who cried wolf" tale.

Alarmism (that's both unchecked, and elevated) is going to leave some with the impression of "they were exaggerating then, so they may be exaggerating again now". And that form of skepticism isn't going to magically vanish in a period of 10 years. And it's certainly not going to go away until they tell the celebs to go sit back at the kid's table (figuratively speaking) instead of propping them up next to actual qualified experts.

Leveraging "the celebrity effect" for media attention (even if what the celebrities were saying was completely accurate) doesn't necessarily convey urgency or seriousness with how it comes across.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What you're saying is true, but what about my objections about the "uncontested" data, and the assumptions surrounding it? Don't you see that is a valid objection to the whole narrative, if the foundation is inaccurate? If climate scientists are leftists, then they are biased, and will disregard anything that is an obstacle to their agenda.

Is there an alternative set of data and reports to indicate the main ones that are commonly leveraged are incorrect?

The "if client scientists are leftists, they could have biases" rationale isn't one that I find to be particularly compelling.

Now, if the political mouthpieces took the scientists' data, and used it to try to make a case for things being more urgent & dire than they actually were, that goes back to the alarmism I was referring to, but alarmism isn't the same thing as "NASA and the IPCC are lying about the numbers".

There's always going to be politicians and organizations with the mindset of "never let a tragedy go to waste", and take a real issue, and find ways to capitalize on it...but if we stopped trying to address every issue where that was the case, that would pretty much be all of the issues.

There's cash grab organizations out there operating in the space of cancer research, that doesn't negate the reality of the issue of cancer.

 

[tdidymas]

Is there an alternative set of data and reports to indicate the main ones that are commonly leveraged are incorrect?

The "if client scientists are leftists, they could have biases" rationale isn't one that I find to be particularly compelling.

Now, if the political mouthpieces took the scientists' data, and used it to try to make a case for things being more urgent & dire than they actually were, that goes back to the alarmism I was referring to, but alarmism isn't the same thing as "NASA and the IPCC are lying about the numbers".

There's always going to be politicians and organizations with the mindset of "never let a tragedy go to waste", and take a real issue, and find ways to capitalize on it...but if we stopped trying to address every issue where that was the case, that would pretty much be all of the issues.

There's cash grab organizations out there operating in the space of cancer research, that doesn't negate the reality of the issue of cancer.

Since there is no alternative set of data that I know of, the issue I'm addressing is not the data, but how that data is being used. Since oceanic currents have changed, cities have grown, and sensors are closer to heat sources, it stands to reason that average temp would be higher. Therefore, what we have as far as I can tell is a theory, and until we can obtain independent data from sources that are unbiased, we're dealing with an urban legend.

 

[durangodawood]

Since there is no alternative set of data that I know of, the issue I'm addressing is not the data, but how that data is being used. Since oceanic currents have changed, cities have grown, and sensors are closer to heat sources, it stands to reason that average temp would be higher. Therefore, what we have as far as I can tell is a theory, and until we can obtain independent data from sources that are unbiased, we're dealing with an urban legend.

Oh man youre giving me early 2000s nostaliga.

 

[durangodawood]

Why was Greta Thunberg in a panel discussion about covid with 3 doctors? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a 4th doctor would've been a better choice, but they opted for getting a "famous" person in the mix in hopes of leveraging that person's publicity reach.

For some reason I expect better of the people here than to form their reality from that kind of media silliness.

Why do I hold on to this hope despite repeated disappointment?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

For some reason I expect better of the people here than to form their reality from that kind of media silliness. Why do I hold on to this despite repeated disappointment?

We have the society that we have lol.

If they want certain things taken seriously by the majority, they have to avoid things that 'cheapen' the perception of it and make it look silly.

"Media silliness" is just a small part of it.

One of the things that separate the right and left is the level of faith institutions (specifically the scientific and academic institutions)

The Academic Institutions and Scientific institutions were the ones that had a hand in elevating some of that "silliness" themselves which is why the media was getting on board with it.

You can't really say "people shouldn't be swayed by the silliness of the media reporting on Leo DiCaprio's opinions on climate change, they should be focusing on what the bona fide climate science organizations are saying... y'know the same climate science organizations that are inviting DiCaprio and Matt Damon to come be featured speakers and participate in panels at their next UN-funded global event"

And major Academic institutions inviting Greta (who spent a year and half skipping school and encouraging 2 million other students to do the same) to come be a "guest lecturer" (when they already have actual subject matter experts on staff) in exchange for an honorary doctorate from the institution cheapens it as well. She's up to five honorary doctorate degrees from various universities.


I've mentioned before that instead of tapping actors like Leo and pop-culture activists like Greta to fill the role of being "the face and the voice" of the movement, they would've been better off getting someone like a Neil DeGrasse Tyson to be their guy for that sort of thing. As he still checks the boxes of being well-known, and an excellent public speaker who's engaging to listen to while still conveying seriousness, but in ways that are approachable, but he also has the academic and scientific credentials where he's not going to going to completely destroy credibility and is less likely to make serious flubs like an actor or politician.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since there is no alternative set of data that I know of, the issue I'm addressing is not the data, but how that data is being used. Since oceanic currents have changed, cities have grown, and sensors are closer to heat sources, it stands to reason that average temp would be higher. Therefore, what we have as far as I can tell is a theory, and until we can obtain independent data from sources that are unbiased, we're dealing with an urban legend.

We have satellite date for SST and so much more for the last couple decades.