La Villa Spa
Toronto Escorts

Press Is the Enemy of Climate

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Warning, some math concepts ....


Press Is the Enemy of Climate
HOLMAN W. JENKINS DECEMBER 04, 2018
There are lessons in the media’s psychiatric moment last week over the newly published U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Let’s give the New York Times credit. It was b********** than just about every other news organization when it said, in its lead sentence, the “damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end.”

I can’t figure out where the Times got this, but it’s the difference between, say, 2% and 1.86% annual growth over the next 82 years and happens to be about right. How does this justify the dire adjectives it was swathed in? It doesn’t. I suspect that’s why every other news report, including the Journal’s, relied on adjectives alone rather than giving numbers—because the numbers just aren’t that alarming.

What does the National Climate Assessment actually say? In 2090 the U.S. will experience annual climate-related costs of $500 billion. Notice that $500 billion, to echo a widespread misinterpretation of the Times report, is not 10% even of today’s economy (it’s 2.5%). It’s 10% of 1971’s economy.

Steven Koonin, a former Obama administration official and physicist, made a similar point last week on these pages. He calculates that, after climate costs and modest assumptions about growth, 2090’s economy would still be 3.8 times larger than today’s. If so, $500 billion in annual costs would amount to just 0.6% of GDP. Understand too that many costs enumerated in the report are not detractors from gross domestic product but contributors to it. Building a sea wall adds to GDP. Constructing a house to withstand 2090’s weather adds to GDP.

Weirder still, I saw not one news report that ventured to say what the expected temperature would be in 2090. Maybe that’s because doing so would reveal that these relatively bearable costs arise under a worst-case scenario for emissions, known as RCP 8.5, which would further undercut the media’s hysterical adjectives. This is a shame because all such studies, including the new U.S. assessment, show that the biggest threat to climate is a lack of prosperity.

In fact, RCP 8.5 is a model of emissions under conditions of economic stagnation. Trade, technology, global wealth and global per capita income stagnate. Demographic transitions to slower population growth don’t occur. Fracking is essentially uninvented. Countries burn impossible amounts of coal because that’s the only resource they have access to.

Notice how important these assumptions are. It’s a mouthful, but here’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says: “The second-to-lowest RCP” [with about half the emissions of RCP 8.5] is “consistent with a baseline scenario that assumes a global development that focuses on technological improvements and a shift to service industries but does not aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a goal in itself” (emphasis added).

That is, a fast-growing world is greener even if it’s not trying to cut carbon.

Unfortunately the environmentalist left has only itself to blame for the developed world’s (not including the U.S.) wholesale flight in the wrong direction. In France, the target of the rioters may be a new fuel tax, implemented by the government as a gesture of climate virtue. But as every news account tells us, what really is bringing them into the streets is 30 years of slow growth and chronic joblessness caused by towering taxes and antibusiness regulation.

Put aside scientific uncertainties, which we haven’t talked about. The clear lesson of last week’s U.S. government report and every other official assessment is that climate change is not the end of the world. We can handle the cost and we can also handle the cost of avoiding a portion of climate change through sensible tax policy. (It should not be necessary at this point to rehearse the case for a carbon tax that is simultaneously pro-growth and anti-carbon.)

Unfortunately the U.S. media have become a positive hindrance to public understanding. Consider that systemization of banality known as Axios. Last week it told its presumably politically engaged readership that the way to “be smart” about climate change is to understand that “In climate science, one side is the scientific consensus, and the other is a small but vocal faction of people trying to fight it.”

In other words, reduce everything to a binary question of believers vs. deniers, good guys vs. bad guys. Here’s the sad truth: This narrative is mostly an invention of journalists for their own convenience. It relieves them of having to understand a complicated subject.

I’m not trying to be funny. Over the past 15 or 20 years, the climate beat has been handed over to reporter-activists who’ve decided that climate science is impenetrable but at least nobody ever got fired for exaggerating the risks of climate change.

Their ignorant crisis-babble is why electorates everywhere now believe climate and prosperity are necessarily at odds. Every study, including the U.S. government’s latest, shows the opposite: Continued prosperity is essential to mitigating the risks of climate change.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
Warning, some math concepts ....


Press Is the Enemy of Climate
HOLMAN W. JENKINS DECEMBER 04, 2018
There are lessons in the media’s psychiatric moment last week over the newly published U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Let’s give the New York Times credit. It was b********** than just about every other news organization when it said, in its lead sentence, the “damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end.”

I can’t figure out where the Times got this, but it’s the difference between, say, 2% and 1.86% annual growth over the next 82 years and happens to be about right. How does this justify the dire adjectives it was swathed in? It doesn’t. I suspect that’s why every other news report, including the Journal’s, relied on adjectives alone rather than giving numbers—because the numbers just aren’t that alarming.

What does the National Climate Assessment actually say? In 2090 the U.S. will experience annual climate-related costs of $500 billion. Notice that $500 billion, to echo a widespread misinterpretation of the Times report, is not 10% even of today’s economy (it’s 2.5%). It’s 10% of 1971’s economy.

Steven Koonin, a former Obama administration official and physicist, made a similar point last week on these pages. He calculates that, after climate costs and modest assumptions about growth, 2090’s economy would still be 3.8 times larger than today’s. If so, $500 billion in annual costs would amount to just 0.6% of GDP. Understand too that many costs enumerated in the report are not detractors from gross domestic product but contributors to it. Building a sea wall adds to GDP. Constructing a house to withstand 2090’s weather adds to GDP.

Weirder still, I saw not one news report that ventured to say what the expected temperature would be in 2090. Maybe that’s because doing so would reveal that these relatively bearable costs arise under a worst-case scenario for emissions, known as RCP 8.5, which would further undercut the media’s hysterical adjectives. This is a shame because all such studies, including the new U.S. assessment, show that the biggest threat to climate is a lack of prosperity.

In fact, RCP 8.5 is a model of emissions under conditions of economic stagnation. Trade, technology, global wealth and global per capita income stagnate. Demographic transitions to slower population growth don’t occur. Fracking is essentially uninvented. Countries burn impossible amounts of coal because that’s the only resource they have access to.

Notice how important these assumptions are. It’s a mouthful, but here’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says: “The second-to-lowest RCP” [with about half the emissions of RCP 8.5] is “consistent with a baseline scenario that assumes a global development that focuses on technological improvements and a shift to service industries but does not aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a goal in itself” (emphasis added).

That is, a fast-growing world is greener even if it’s not trying to cut carbon.

Unfortunately the environmentalist left has only itself to blame for the developed world’s (not including the U.S.) wholesale flight in the wrong direction. In France, the target of the rioters may be a new fuel tax, implemented by the government as a gesture of climate virtue. But as every news account tells us, what really is bringing them into the streets is 30 years of slow growth and chronic joblessness caused by towering taxes and antibusiness regulation.

Put aside scientific uncertainties, which we haven’t talked about. The clear lesson of last week’s U.S. government report and every other official assessment is that climate change is not the end of the world. We can handle the cost and we can also handle the cost of avoiding a portion of climate change through sensible tax policy. (It should not be necessary at this point to rehearse the case for a carbon tax that is simultaneously pro-growth and anti-carbon.)

Unfortunately the U.S. media have become a positive hindrance to public understanding. Consider that systemization of banality known as Axios. Last week it told its presumably politically engaged readership that the way to “be smart” about climate change is to understand that “In climate science, one side is the scientific consensus, and the other is a small but vocal faction of people trying to fight it.”

In other words, reduce everything to a binary question of believers vs. deniers, good guys vs. bad guys. Here’s the sad truth: This narrative is mostly an invention of journalists for their own convenience. It relieves them of having to understand a complicated subject.

I’m not trying to be funny. Over the past 15 or 20 years, the climate beat has been handed over to reporter-activists who’ve decided that climate science is impenetrable but at least nobody ever got fired for exaggerating the risks of climate change.

Their ignorant crisis-babble is why electorates everywhere now believe climate and prosperity are necessarily at odds. Every study, including the U.S. government’s latest, shows the opposite: Continued prosperity is essential to mitigating the risks of climate change.
Are you on the payroll of the Kochs?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Are you on the payroll of the Kochs?
That’s beneath you. It’s a very serious point being made.

Climate change has become an fundamentalist issue with believers and non-believers with no serious and nuanced dialog about impactful policies and end-of-days nonsense. 19 of the G20 all signed an agreement yet only the US and UK are actually decreasing emissions. It’s all hyperbole and window dressing and the window dressers feel better about themselves by taking non-serious actions. Canada is a poster child for this.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
That’s beneath you. It’s a very serious point being made.

Climate change has become an fundamentalist issue with believers and non-believers with no serious and nuanced dialog about impactful policies and end-of-days nonsense. 19 of the G20 all signed an agreement yet only the US and UK are actually decreasing emissions. It’s all hyperbole and window dressing and the window dressers feel better about themselves by taking non-serious actions. Canada is a poster child for this.
There is no serious issue. Climate change is a fact and man is contributing to it. That is a fact. Arguing the difference between 1.86% and 2% is not really that great of that the projections go out many years are not serious arguments or refutations they are attempts to divert.

This is very serious issue that should be dealt with in a serious and thoughtful manner not minimized by people who have a short term financial interests. I am not suggesting that you do but you are parroting their spurious arguments. Not really different than the arguments that big tobacco used to make.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
26,135
6,344
113
Room 112
There is no serious issue. Climate change is a fact and man is contributing to it. That is a fact. Arguing the difference between 1.86% and 2% is not really that great of that the projections go out many years are not serious arguments or refutations they are attempts to divert.

This is very serious issue that should be dealt with in a serious and thoughtful manner not minimized by people who have a short term financial interests. I am not suggesting that you do but you are parroting their spurious arguments. Not really different than the arguments that big tobacco used to make.
Of course climate change is a fact, it always changes. It's as certain as saying women give birth. But we do know now beyond a reasonable doubt that man's contribution to the change is negligible.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
Of course climate change is a fact, it always changes. It's as certain as saying women give birth. But we do know now beyond a reasonable doubt that man's contribution to the change is negligible.
You do not know about man's contribution because you rely upon the same natural instinct that Trump does. I rely upon the high likelihood cited by the overwhelming preponderance of climate scientists.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
Of course climate change is a fact, it always changes. It's as certain as saying women give birth. But we do know now beyond a reasonable doubt that man's contribution to the change is negligible.
We know with 95% certainty that the climate change we are experienced was caused by man.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Of course climate change is a fact, it always changes. It's as certain as saying women give birth. But we do know now beyond a reasonable doubt that man's contribution to the change is negligible.
We don't know that, anymore than we 'know' humans are the main contributing factor. But we can predict many of the consequences of making the wrong bet and doing nothing, and none of those outcomes are good.

Either way, it won't hurt us to do a better job of taking care of our crap, trash and pollution and focusing on how to more with less, in order to benefit more people.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
We don't know that, anymore than we 'know' humans are the main contributing factor. But we can predict many of the consequences of making the wrong bet and doing nothing, and none of those outcomes are good.

Either way, it won't hurt us to do a better job of taking care of our crap, trash and pollution and focusing on how to more with less, in order to benefit more people.
Actually, we cannot predict. Hence, the constant need for spin and hyperbole. But, I'm with you. Clean water, air and plentyful and good quality food should be the focus. Unfortunately, we're wasting trillions on fighting what we exhale. It will do nothing for the environment and the betterment of the peoplekind. Of course fighting windmills is a long and well established tradition. And the best thing is, you'll never have to produce any results.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
Actually, we cannot predict. Hence, the constant need for spin and hyperbole.
Science can and is predicting or projecting global temperature change from anthropogenic climate change quite accurately.
This isn't spin, this is the science.

 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
There is no serious issue. Climate change is a fact and man is contributing to it. That is a fact.
It is not a fact
It is an opinion based upon a lot of extrapolation
The planets climate has been constantly changing for 4.3 Billion years
Mans record history of temperature is what 200-400 years ?
It is an opinion. It may be correct, however it is not a fact
Nor is it a fact that it is man made
Nor is a fact that we can control it
Sadly the loonie left has made this political & some are using it an excuse to expand government & taxation
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,157
2,150
113
Science can and is predicting or projecting global temperature change from anthropogenic climate change quite accurately.
This isn't spin, this is the science.

A forty year graph ???
the planets climate has been changing for 4.3 Billion years
please do insult your intended audience
Surely you have better propaganda than that?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
79,750
17,571
113
A forty year graph ???
the planets climate has been changing for 4.3 Billion years
please do insult your intended audience
Surely you have better propaganda than that?
Once again proving you are totally clueless, larue.
Nicely done.

Do I really need to explain why that chart starts at 2000 with projections?
Do you really have that little understanding of climatology?
And do you really think that a chart that comes from the head of NASA's GISS is 'propaganda'?

Why do you think you have the tools or understanding to even be in this debate, larue?

Until you read some of the science and are able to understand it, you really should just keep to pushing failed economic models.

Try this page as a start, its written with language a layman like you can hopefully understand and covers some of the incredibly basic concepts you keep getting wrong.
Adding to the evidence of direct temperature measurements, studies by independent teams of researchers indicate that the planet is undergoing one of the largest climate changes in Earth’s history, and also one of the fastest in the past 65 million years. Not only that, the current warming is projected to occur at a rate 10 times faster than any change over that period.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/temperature-is-rising#.XArjlBNKh24
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
We don't know that, anymore than we 'know' humans are the main contributing factor. But we can predict many of the consequences of making the wrong bet and doing nothing, and none of those outcomes are good.

Either way, it won't hurt us to do a better job of taking care of our crap, trash and pollution and focusing on how to more with less, in order to benefit more people.
I don’t disagree with this, and in some ways this is the point of the thread. The fundamentalist approach based on belief has little to do with tangle actions. The hyperbolic predictions only serve to separate the thinkers from the true believers.
 

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,978
6,111
113
I don’t disagree with this, and in some ways this is the point of the thread. The fundamentalist approach based on belief has little to do with tangle actions. The hyperbolic predictions only serve to separate the thinkers from the true believers.
Climate scientists, that is those who are knowledgeable and capable of credible scientific analysis, have concluded with a high degree of likelihood that man contributes to climate warming and they have projected the consequences. the fact that the projections are not precise does not make them wrong. The consequences of you and the other deniers or even skeptics being wrong is disaster.
If I tell you that there is a high likelihood that if you run across the 401 you will be hit and killed but it is not a certainty would you take the chance?
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,988
113
Toronto
if you run across the 401 you will be hit and killed but it is not a certainty would you take the chance?
I did that about 40 years ago to go to Yorkdale for a haircut.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,988
113
Toronto
Hence climate change is a hoax.
I think you are overreaching here. It was strictly a stand alone anecdote that the previous post reminded me of.

If you check my history you will see I have been debating against the climate deniers.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Warning, some math concepts ....


Press Is the Enemy of Climate
HOLMAN W. JENKINS DECEMBER 04, 2018
There are lessons in the media’s psychiatric moment last week over the newly published U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Let’s give the New York Times credit. It was b********** than just about every other news organization when it said, in its lead sentence, the “damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end.”

I can’t figure out where the Times got this, but it’s the difference between, say, 2% and 1.86% annual growth over the next 82 years and happens to be about right. How does this justify the dire adjectives it was swathed in? It doesn’t. I suspect that’s why every other news report, including the Journal’s, relied on adjectives alone rather than giving numbers—because the numbers just aren’t that alarming.

What does the National Climate Assessment actually say? In 2090 the U.S. will experience annual climate-related costs of $500 billion. Notice that $500 billion, to echo a widespread misinterpretation of the Times report, is not 10% even of today’s economy (it’s 2.5%). It’s 10% of 1971’s economy.

Steven Koonin, a former Obama administration official and physicist, made a similar point last week on these pages. He calculates that, after climate costs and modest assumptions about growth, 2090’s economy would still be 3.8 times larger than today’s. If so, $500 billion in annual costs would amount to just 0.6% of GDP. Understand too that many costs enumerated in the report are not detractors from gross domestic product but contributors to it. Building a sea wall adds to GDP. Constructing a house to withstand 2090’s weather adds to GDP.

Weirder still, I saw not one news report that ventured to say what the expected temperature would be in 2090. Maybe that’s because doing so would reveal that these relatively bearable costs arise under a worst-case scenario for emissions, known as RCP 8.5, which would further undercut the media’s hysterical adjectives. This is a shame because all such studies, including the new U.S. assessment, show that the biggest threat to climate is a lack of prosperity.

In fact, RCP 8.5 is a model of emissions under conditions of economic stagnation. Trade, technology, global wealth and global per capita income stagnate. Demographic transitions to slower population growth don’t occur. Fracking is essentially uninvented. Countries burn impossible amounts of coal because that’s the only resource they have access to.

Notice how important these assumptions are. It’s a mouthful, but here’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says: “The second-to-lowest RCP” [with about half the emissions of RCP 8.5] is “consistent with a baseline scenario that assumes a global development that focuses on technological improvements and a shift to service industries but does not aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a goal in itself” (emphasis added).

That is, a fast-growing world is greener even if it’s not trying to cut carbon.

Unfortunately the environmentalist left has only itself to blame for the developed world’s (not including the U.S.) wholesale flight in the wrong direction. In France, the target of the rioters may be a new fuel tax, implemented by the government as a gesture of climate virtue. But as every news account tells us, what really is bringing them into the streets is 30 years of slow growth and chronic joblessness caused by towering taxes and antibusiness regulation.

Put aside scientific uncertainties, which we haven’t talked about. The clear lesson of last week’s U.S. government report and every other official assessment is that climate change is not the end of the world. We can handle the cost and we can also handle the cost of avoiding a portion of climate change through sensible tax policy. (It should not be necessary at this point to rehearse the case for a carbon tax that is simultaneously pro-growth and anti-carbon.)

Unfortunately the U.S. media have become a positive hindrance to public understanding. Consider that systemization of banality known as Axios. Last week it told its presumably politically engaged readership that the way to “be smart” about climate change is to understand that “In climate science, one side is the scientific consensus, and the other is a small but vocal faction of people trying to fight it.”

In other words, reduce everything to a binary question of believers vs. deniers, good guys vs. bad guys. Here’s the sad truth: This narrative is mostly an invention of journalists for their own convenience. It relieves them of having to understand a complicated subject.

I’m not trying to be funny. Over the past 15 or 20 years, the climate beat has been handed over to reporter-activists who’ve decided that climate science is impenetrable but at least nobody ever got fired for exaggerating the risks of climate change.

Their ignorant crisis-babble is why electorates everywhere now believe climate and prosperity are necessarily at odds. Every study, including the U.S. government’s latest, shows the opposite: Continued prosperity is essential to mitigating the risks of climate change.


I agree that media is the one of the biggest enemy of climate they keep pushing in favour of the climate alarmist agenda.

And also that there are several front that need to be fought against global warming aka ( man made climate change / AGW) in order
to defeat the global warming agenda.

I believe that

1) The sciences ( examples climate scientist alarmist bullshit )... Slowly more discrepancies are being found to disproved AGW. Hopefully
when the mini ice come by 2030 it will kill AGW theory.
2) unfortunately. liberal media always pushing in beliefs of climate alarmist with exception of FOX ... They are wining on that front.
3) Environmentalists are winning on that bullshits.
4) politicians( liberal / democrats always pushes for new sources of taxes / revenues to save the planet bullshit / & general public who listens to mainstream media......there are winning on that area also.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,988
113
Toronto
I agree that media is the one of the biggest enemy of climate they keep pushing in favour of the climate alarmist agenda.
I can see how that, if incorrect, may be harmful to our pocketbooks, how could that be in any way harmful to our climate?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts