Your initial claim was that I was being hyperbolic because we “aren’t nearing 2 degrees of warming.” I debunked that soundly.

Actually, you didn’t. My point was that that the IPCC was predicting .2 per decade going forward, your original post also seemed to be forward looking.

Once you were challenged, you started looking in your rear-view mirror, sputtering about the 1.5 degrees that we “already had”. Obviously, had you raised that contention in your original post, I would have included that in my calculus.

So, basically, you got a bad grade, then went back and corrected your work, and are now insisting that your grade be changed.

Now you’re claiming that 3.1 degrees of warming would not be catastrophic, and that’s why I am an “alarmist.”

I have neither claimed that 3.1 would not be “catastrophic”, nor have I called you an “alarmist”. I simply asked you if you could explain why your conclusion does not necessarily derive from the facts you stated.

In fact, you don’t seem to be an alarmist to me, you just seem to be a sloppy advocate for your cause and debater. You do not appear to have well-organized thoughts on the matter, which is why I originally engaged you, not because we are in some huge disagreement on climate, I suspect.

You are right, not all sources are equal. But the only metric you seem to use to choose yours is which are the least alarmist.

Let’s leave out the straw men. If you want to know how I assess these studies, just ask me.

While I have no doubt in my mind that “climate alarmism” is not, in fact, alarmist at all, let’s imagine that it could be. Since you love statistic so much, we’ll speak of it in those terms. If we make a type one error, and believe the world is warming more than it is, we’ll have wasted a few trillion dollars and cleaned up our environment without good reason. If we make a type two error, and act as if there is no impending catastrophe, the world warms to the point of disaster, and civilization as we know it ceases to be recognizable.

Yes, the “what if the worst case is true” argument is generally the fallback position seen when engaged in these discussions. The general idea is that the ramifications of being wrong are so grim that the rational person should be willing to “do anything” to avoid them.

The problem with this is threefold: The first is that this form of debate is a logical fallacy:

And the second is that “do anything” is not defined. If “do anything” is a 1% payroll tax that we then ship off to bribe the Indians and Chinese not to build coal-fired plants, I might be inclined to support that. If “do anything” is a nonevolutionary restructuring of regional economies (e.g., “let’s regulate coal companies out of existence) I am not so friendly to that idea. People matter.

The third problem is that what is rational to one person is based on their situation, and people’s situations differ. Obviously.

At any rate, going back to my original point, throwing out refutable factoids without context is not a strong way to persuade. Nor are appeals to emotion. Nor are scientists, politicians, or activists which exaggerate the findings in hopes or stoking emotion.

What’s persuasive is a well researched, reputable position based by the consensus of scientists, whilst ignoring the outliers and the shrill voices on the extremes, although with an incrementalist approach to solving the problem which is nonthreatening economically.

If you can’t articulate that, we’re all screwed anyway. May as well pop the champagne and wait for the dolphins to say “So long, and thanks for all the fish”.

(I hope you recognize the reference)

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.