Potholer54's Response to "The Global Warming Hoax Lord Monckton & Stefan Molyneux"
I posted a couple months ago on climate change and tribalism which sparked some really great discussions. I'm not going to rehash my views here, so please give that a read first to understand where I'm coming from.
Once you've done that, come back and give this 19 and a half minute video a watch:
Peter Hadfield (known as potholer54 on YouTube) has a degree in geology and is a British journalist with over 117,000 subscribers to his channel. As I've worked through my stance on climate change, his videos have been really helpful. Not only are they detailed and supported by evidence, but they are also fun and witty as he insults what he sees as stupidity as only a British accent can.
If you're a skeptic of the climate change consensus, I especially encourage you to give his videos a watch. We only learn when we listen to someone smarter than us who has an opposing view point. This guy is pretty smart and does his research. He brings a level of skepticism based on empirical evidence and data which I find quite refreshing.
I'd love to know what you think as well.
Also, I wanted to share this video as yet another example of how far Stefan Molyneux has moved away from the philosophical principles he's communicated so often. I've learned a lot from Molyneux, especially his philosophical parenting series. I've enjoyed his early views on anarchy, virtue, voluntaryism and the like. Unfortunately, much of what I've seen him communicate in the past couple of years is filled with what seems to me to be confirmation bias.
We can learn great things from anyone. It's when we put them on a pedestal as an authority while shutting out opposing views that we fall into the tribal, authoritarianism trap of follow the leader. Instead, let's follow the evidence and improve our epistemology as we go.
In your previous article I read:
So how do you define "right"? IMO what is right is "not screwing it up for..." the future inhabitants of the planet. "Not screwing it up" means we need to understand it so we don't make it worse, or create some other problem worse than the original, for example more respiratory dealth as a result of aerosol spraying to reduce sunlight.
I'd be willing to bet we're both on the same page with our perspectives on "climate change" topic, including your call to be more objective and balanced in our review of information. I K N O W we're on the same page regarding Molyneux! You couldn't have expressed my views on him any better!
Thanks for your post.
Thank you! And yes that is so important regarding evaluating the unintended consequences of our own "solutions" to these problems. I agree with your "right" there. It's one of the reasons I want more liberty-minded people to consider climate change seriously so they can actively take part in evaluating solutions instead of just leaving it up to governments (who want control) and big businesses (who have an interest in downplaying the concerns) which seems to be the approach so far.
I'm not convinced we're doomed (yet). I think the technological solutions we create for problems we face are pretty amazing and will only get better. It's a tough problem, for sure, but I do think a Nash equilibrium can be reached where we don't screw ourselves or developing countries with heavy-handed solutions which might end up killing more people than they save. The price of solar, as an example, is dropping a lot. That seems like a great thing to me.
I dont know if humans are causing climate change or if its happening at all, but I can see that if we continue consuming irreplacable natural resources at an ever increasing rate, that humanity will paint itself into a corner.
So if climate change isnt real, its not caused us any real harm to adjust as if it was, our natural resources will just last longer.
The question I ask of climate change deniers is; what if you are wrong? What if climate change is real and our failure to act is dooming future humanity, is that risk worth taking? Are you willing to gamble our whole planets habitability for the sake of a quick short term profit?
It doesnt matter if climate change is real, we need to start doing a little more long term thinking, in my humble opinion.
I agree resource usage is a risk, whether or not we agree with climate change concerns, but I also think we should engage the research and improve our epistemology as part of the process. Improving our tools for understanding truth should always be considered a good thing.
Yes I agree, but we have to consider that by the time we have exhausted the scientific rigour to the degree that we are absolutely certain climate change is occurring and we as humans can have some impact that will reduce its severity on our habitable environment, it may be that we missed the opportunity to do anything about it.
Its like being unsure if a patient is ill, and if they are what the cause is, but if we wait long enough they will die and then we will be certain; its very accurate, but of little value to the poor patient.
Very well said. I completely agree. It's challenging if our "cure" kills the patient though. Great analogy.
I also think about how some developing countries need cheap energy or their people will suffer. Ideally, they can skip oil and go right to renewable sources, but sometimes it's just not that easy, especially if their economy is based on fossil fuels.
Yeah we can help the developing world jump past fossil fuels though. Projects like http://solarly.webflow.io/ can give rural people a direct source of energy, and with incentives like www.solarcoin.org they can even generate an economy. Many developing nations have huge resources of renewables, without the need for huge infrastructure projects.
Of course the climate changes, but that is, I think, not what you are saying. First it was Global Warming, then man-made climate change, and now climate change, and this shifting of the goal posts doesn't really help anybody to have an honest debate.
EDIT: original reply was to wrong comment!
All I was saying was that I dont know if the climate is or is not changing; I literally dont know.
But if we err on the side of caution, conserve resources by shifting to using renewable resources, then its a safer course of action.
Have you looked into the scientific reasons for why it was changed from Global Warming to Climate Change? Just because a description isn't ideal or might be a bit confusing doesn't mean it's not a scientifically accurate descriptive change to more accurately understand the very real concerns involved. To understand "global warming" we have to understand how the climate changes. As an example, extreme warming in a short period of time could change ocean currents causing other areas of the globe to freeze. That's still a big problem human beings care about and should study deeply. As this video explains, there have been other massive changes in climate that were not man-made. Understanding those is the only way to accurately understand how much change we are seeing today is man made and how much of it is naturally occurring without us. If they only studied "man-made climate change" then it would be really bad science.
Science is okay with saying "We were wrong. Here's how we were wrong, here's how we found out we were wrong, here's how we've improved our understanding of physical reality, and here's what we learned to make better predictions in the future." Often in the climate change debate I hear people supporting specific positions instead of pursuing facts with the best evidence available.
Please watch the video. Note how many times Stefan has interviewed people who disagree with him. That's not what a skeptic or someone really wanting truth does.
What you call moving the goal posts, I see as good science adapting to more accurately understand the physical world. In my opinion, it does help us have a more honest debate because we're not worried as much about perception as we are about the data and the consequences of the results we're seeing.
No, I'm sorry to say I haven't. There is limited processing power, and I suppose what really interests me is the language that is used in this, and other, debates. As soon as people started talking about consensus I felt that honest discussion would be difficult.
He has a great video on scientific consensus and arguments from authority. Highly recommended!
It's only 17 minutes long.
I understand time is a valuable, limited resource, but often I hear people say, "I don't have time to watch all those videos or read abstracts from papers, etc, etc" but we all get 24 hours a day and many of us use them to entertain ourselves with learning while others just go straight for the entertainment and skip the learning part. No judgement there, I understand some have less "mental downtime" than others and need to disconnect (I enjoy me some Candy Crush and Pokemon Go also).
Back to the concept of consensus... I'm not threatened or concerned by it. Example:
Let's imagine a giant meteor was going to crash into the earth. We have several orbiting and land-based telescopes to accurately track it and confirm it is in fact a serious problem. Maybe the cost to do something about it is in the trillions of dollars and we all have to pitch in some money to help. Wouldn't we want a scientific consensus before hiring Bruce Willis and his team to fly out there, drill a hole and blow it up? Wouldn't we want to look at data from multiple experts in that field and ensure they agree before we have to spend money on the project? Consensus is a good thing when it's not an argument from authority (again, see the video above).
All three terms of which you list refer to the same thing. The name has just been changed to more accurately describe the issue. Global Warming = man-made climate change = climate change. Global warming sounded too much like all areas of the planet would be warmer which is not going to be the case, so its name was modified to man-made climate change, but that term implies that the entirety of the changing earth temperature are somehow caused by the actions of man, which is also a misrepresentation and misleading, so the name was refined again to just be climate change. The term has changed, but the underlying science has remained the same.
There was a time back in the 1950's - 1980's where people were discussing global cooling (Net earth temperature not based on any one individual temp), rather than warming. The data they were compiling at the time was heavily influenced by the change associated with the little ice age which the planet is still coming out from. That climate data is noisy (actually all climate data is noisy as hell) and extrapolations made it seem like the cooling trend would continue. That was found to be way off, as more data was added and time went on, we have seen that the trend rapidly reversed and is headed the other way.
It's quite difficult to discuss climate change as a whole with people, because there truly are examples of times where the earth was warmer than now (as near as 5 million years ago it was... mind you humans didn't exist then), and it's unfortunate that the data from as little as 40 years ago was wrong. I suppose you could ask "How do we know we aren't wrong again?" That's a great question, and its a fundamental aspect to Science. We don't know if we are right, we just report the best interpretation of the observations we can. That best interpretation is always going to be subject to change as more data becomes available.
I fiercely argue in favor of people taking climate change seriously, however if data comes to light indicating that what we have been observing is wrong, or a fluke, I will go with that. The only reasonable course of action is to go in the direction the data points, and we have a lot of data pointing in the same direction at the moment.
Upvoted and resteemed!!!!
Thank you. :)
This of course cuts both ways.
Can you elaborate? Do you mean there are people who follow climate change alarmism because their tribe of left-leaning statists are clamoring for the government to swoop in and do something to save the day while also (conveniently) obtaining more power for themselves? If so, I completely agree.
As to following the evidence and making decisions based on it, I don't see that as primitive or tribalistic. I see that as using the most advanced technology we have available to use today and going wherever the data leads us, regardless of our pre-conceived notions.
Well yes, it is a bit like tribal warfare at times, ritualistic mudslinging, from both sides. As for following the evidence, the problem there is that it is simply not possible for any work-tied individual to read through the 1000s of pages of primary research, even if they had access. So each will build a picture, find some sort of coherency, as best they can. It doesn't help to call this cherry-picking, as your Youtuber did. And once he did, I moved on. (The English accent does not impress me, perhaps as it is like my own.)
Please watch the whole video. The database source used clearly was cherry picked becuase it was the only source supporting a preconceived view. He also didn't mention how the author of the source published about how their own data was wrong and why. If we use a faulty source as evidence (admitted as such by the creator of the evidence) and that evidence is the only credible source for our views (the other main sources disagree): that's the very definition of cherry picking! Why does that turn you off? It's an accurate use of language, IMO. Accurate use of language gives us a better understanding of reality.
Just becuase we don't have time to do detailed research ourselves doesn't justify our opinions as being accurate or defensible. This is hard stuff to understand, as is much of science. Ignorance is no excuse for anyone who claims a knowledgeable position. The only other accurate response would be "I don't know and have no position."
OK, I'm on it. But straight away, I find one thing that put me off this morning: why does he switch accents after 20 seconds? (Or is it a different guy?)
[Edit] Understand: it's Molyneaux(?) without a beard ...
First pause: at 2:45 we that potholer's first graph comes from a letter to Nature. I googled the title and the third hit gave me this:
Link: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was-not-right-frame-stone-ignore-main-ipcc-predictions/
So, before I move on with this video, there is some reading to do. What kind of fruit is being served with that first graph?
Later on the in the video, I think it addresses concerns about the models being accurate or not.
Unfortunately, we all risk falling into this trap:
Googling for perspectives on Joanne Nova's approach to science brings up some interesting counter arguments. Maybe we could balance her blog (which appears to be anti-man made climate change) with sources like https://skepticalscience.com/.
I'll get back to reviewing this later, because I am curious about the critique and may even post a comment to Potholer54 if there's something there he missed.
Stefan Moluneux got my interest once I started to research anarcho-capitalism as well, but he certainly isn't a good representant of the political philosophy, nor should he be trusted overall.
Like with Alex Jones, he should be filed under... no sorry, he shouldn't be filed at all. He should be abruptly thrown in the intellectual trashcan.
HAhah. Yeah, sadly the intellectual trashcan seems to be the category of choice for these two as of late.
Haha Yes, as much as I want to avoid "infighting" we still have to be honest with ourselves. Not everyone is worth building up this way. That's just the way it is.
Nesting limit, in response to your cartoon: seriously, is this helpful?
That being said, following a link from the first, I find:
The quoted text is from the IPCC, and the quote is used in the context of the actual rise in temperatures since that first IPCC report, half of their prediction, is a straight-line continuation of the previous 100 years temperature.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was-wrong-england-and-the-abc-mislead-australians/
Yes, I think it's greatly helpful! We all fall for that trap and it's a funny reminder to be aware of it.
I could look to blogs rebutting Joanna Nova's perspective (yes, I did the google thing also), but instead I'll defer to the potholer54's videos which also address IPCC findings. The one I linked to above about scientific consensus also links out to other videos which don't rely on computer models or the IPCC at all. I've done enough research for myself to come to the conclusions I have now. If you have peer-reviewed scientific papers you can link to which would help me have a more accurate view, I'd love to see them.
Thank you, this is useful. I'll continue slowly with the video.
But I'm not so much as interested in Joanna Nova's perspective, more in the couple of statements regarding the first IPCC predictions, statements which question potholer's first source. (And just reading a little about Christopher Monckton - well, I trust him less than potholer).
OK, finished the video. Most of it seemed to be an ad hominum attack on Molyneux (who is he? Is he important?), so the video doesn't really seem to be about the debate, more the debaters.
But one point jumped out, this from potholer's graphic on positive forcing. He missed the effect of increasing cloud albedo on moderating temperature rise (negative forcing). And since you asked for "peer-reviewed papers {}"... here one is:
Warming-induced increase in aerosol number concentration likely to moderate climate change
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1800.html
The link has only the an abstract.
Lord Monckton and Stefan Molyneux are both scientifically illiterate morons.
Molyneux is YT duty moron, just like Alex Jones. They are both loud idiots who seem to lack any ability to understand the scientific method and void of any sort of logical reasoning and self critical thinking. Their videos are nothing else but verbal masturbation.
I realized that after listening to this debate.
(I also recommend watching P. Joseph's later response to Moleneux infantile accusations)
Oh my gosh, yes. I remember this and was blown away by it. I have a lot of respect for Peter Joseph, even if I disagree with some of his ideological perspectives on capitalism and death toll he ascribes to markets. I really enjoyed his Culture in Decline series. He's the type of dude I'd love to just sit around and chat with at length.
Same here. I actually met him once during Z-Day London few years ago.
I agree with most of what he says, just disagree with some of his points regarding corruption in medical science.
Culturein Decline is awesome. He's on the way to film another project - InterReflections.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/interreflections-by-peter-joseph#/
That looks great! Glad he got all the funding he was looking for. Any idea when it will come out?
I'm not sure. Hopefully soon!
Thanks for discussing this subject in such a mature way. I've spent enough time trying to understand all sides of this debate to know that most articles and videos for laymen, that I've seen, just add to the confusion with incomplete information, incorrect interpretations, cherry picking data, or they don't address concerns of opposing views, or they straight up lie. Great video too!
Thank you, @skypal! I really appreciate your comment. The world needs more people searching for truth and fewer people looking for confirmation bias. This stuff is hard to understand, but if we keep an open mind and follow rational, supported evidence, hopefully over time we can come to a better understanding of reality.