asoliduniverse

“”To claim that observations can tell us something about ECS, we first have to see whether it is a meaningful test by using the best info to hand – model output ”
–
Or in other words ignore data. Who needs data anyway.
It is useless without models.
Now as someone once said all models are wrong.
But we can discuss a lot of physics in the models and the answers are always right.
–
Further proof,
“Observations therefore are not likely to usefully constrain ECS in any Bayesian assessment”
We do not need observations or data to construct highly reliable models, especially when we know what the data will be in the future without looking at it.
“Whereas by 2095, the correlation between total warming and ECS is 0.77. Correlation over the period 2006 to 2095 is 0.81. The best way to estimate climate sensitivity is to be there, not here and now.”
In fact model data gets better and better in correlation with the models as it gets further away from actually being observed.

 

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Mal Adapted says:
November 21, 2017 at 11:44 pm

angech:

All the hand waving afterwards and altering of the data sets afterwards do not change the premise, at the time, on the data that was available and used, that there was a pause.

Except there was no pause, if by ‘pause’ you mean a short-term interval when the slope of the long-term statistical trend in GMST fell to zero. There was an interval between 1998 and 2012 when observed GMST appeared to the eye to rise more slowly than projections for that interval produced by an ensemble of coupled GCMs, although still within modeled lower confidence bounds. Change point analysis, more rigorous than eyeball methods, found no statistically significant change in the trend of the previous three decades. From the latter article, by Rahmstorf, Foster and Cahill earlier this year in ERL:

[T]he data are fully consistent with a steady global warming trend since the 1970s, superimposed with random, stationary, short-term variability. All recent variations in short-term trends are well within what was to be expected, based on the observed warming trend and the observed variability from the 1970s up to the year 2000. We discuss some pitfalls of statistical analysis of global temperatures which have led to incorrect claims of an unexpected or significant warming slowdown.

Although the alleged ‘pause’ was not statistically significant and was conclusively terminated in 2014, it attracted attention from climate scientists seeking to resolve ‘internal’, short-term variability to forcings. Rather than casting doubt on the AGW consensus, the short-term slowdown in observed warming led to refinement of models as well as datasets. Climate science advanced pretty much as one expects, and the consensus case for AGW grew still stronger. AGW-deniers hoping to weaken it, OTOH, found their ‘pause’ rhetoric had backfired ;^D!
angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 22, 2017 at 2:45 am

“The problem becomes worse, in that a lot of people here dispute that there was a pause at all”
Mal Adapted says: re
“All the hand waving afterwards and altering of the data sets afterwards do not change the premise, at the time, on the data that was available and used, that there was a pause.”
–
“Except there was no pause, if by ‘pause’ you mean a short-term interval when the slope of the long-term statistical trend in GMST fell to zero”

Note I did say premise, not fact.
And thank you for one definition of what a pause might be.
It is difficult to discuss what one believes does not exist.
Particularly when giving proof that it did not exist because you [*Xiangdong Zhang] have found extra missing data that proves it did not exist.
angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 22, 2017 at 3:12 am

Mal Adapted
“Except there was no pause, if by ‘pause’ you mean a short-term interval when the slope of the long-term statistical trend in GMST fell to zero”
–
I would be happy with a definition of a pause, in general, to be a zero slope trend for any graph with a time base over any reasonable fraction of the presented graph.
This is not a standard definition but since we are discussing unicorns this is the sort of definition I would prefer.
At Lucia’s 2 years ago she and others argued that a steady slope with no acceleration could be taken in some circles to mean a pause. I get the idea of a non changing rate being paused but in the real world I would insist on a zero slope, that is there was a rate which has now altered to a zero slope.
As for short term there is no short term in my definition if showing a single pause as the requirement is for it to be visible on the graph shown.
–
Commenting specifically on “[T]he data are fully consistent with a steady global warming trend since the 1970s, superimposed with random, stationary, short-term variability”
We have a graph of 47 years, the authors dispute the existence of a pause while admitting several occurred by my definition [random, stationary, short-term variability]. Karsten himself acknowledges a pause was seen and named by some people ” the inappropriately named “hiatus”. John Hart references “average global temperatures from 1998-2012 ” which would be a significant 14 years out of 47, hardly short term in the context of a 47 YO graph.
–
Since a lot of people here dispute that there was a pause at all.
Not to mention all authors referenced above
With good arguments.
Too short a time frame.
The graph actually went up 0.05C in the misquoted study.
Cherry picking a time after El Nino.
Definition of a pause is completely wrong.
etc.
There is no need to throw in studies showing there was a pause but….

 

• angech says:

  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  November 12, 2017 at 10:56 am

  John Hartz
  “I believe that the Womens March on Washington will go down in history as the pivotal event for shifiting the momentum.”
  Really?
  “I was wondering where Liv Tyler has her hands to cause the expressions on the face of Trump and the Emir.”
  “Hmm err, so Trump is married to a mannequin I mean seriously, have you ever seen her move? I haven’t.”
  Really pivotal?
  Cue the Princess Bride Spaniard.
  Mind you the first comment was funny in my non PC correct world.
• angech says:

  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  November 12, 2017 at 11:30 am

  DM
  ” For someone that doesn’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change, there is no “impact of the accompanying production pathway” in this respect, so how are they going to accept any ownership of a problem they do not believe to exist?
  “Making people own their position can be very difficult. Sometimes the best you can do is expose the evasion.”
  –
  There is a subtle difference between knowing and believing.
  Found this out studying Italian Conditional verbs last week.
  –
  I guess some of the people that do not accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change know they do not have enough proof. Show them enough proof.
  –
  Others are believers, They do not need proof and you will never convince them.
  They are still people and we all need to get on with people so the best thing is to be nice to them [especially your elders] and not harangue them and embarrass them in public as others have done. Some are mothers, sisters, wives, girlfriends or family, some are bosses.
  No need to argue with them. just ignore them.
  –
  Some are difficult contrarians on blogs. Fight them with all you have got. Expose my evasion.
  –
  For the record.
  The world has a lot of problems and potential problems and if your justified fears on Climate change come true there may well be severe “problems” as you put it.
  If I waved a magic wand and fixed it today forever the rest of the problems would still exist.
  Some of the problems would still be the same, deforestation and species rundown from anthropogenic, non climate change reasons.
  Some of the problems are much more urgent and pressing than climate change and can be fixed for a fraction of the cost. Overpopulation and famine for a start.
  Which one should I give allegiance to, and at what detriment to all the others?
  –
  None of the problems for a single person last more than a thinking lifetime.
  Duties and obligations seem to be an undercurrent. Yet why are we lumbered with duties and obligations, culturally burdened, when we did not ask to be born?
  Do you blame your forebears for not considering the consequences of invading the new world or starting the Industrial Revolution? Did they consider their descendants?
• angech says:

  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  November 12, 2017 at 11:52 am

  “I’m sorry, but as far as I can see, you have not answered the question”
  Anthropogenic Climate Change as an entity.
  Willard might have a list of levels.
  Absolute denial. Some deluded people. Not CO2 , not happening
  Relative Denial Some deluded people. Not CO2.
  Specific denial Some deluded people Not CO2, something else
  but then we have another group of people also called denialists who absolutely agree that there is AGW but just do not believe that it has to be bad or severe.
  Judith Curry and R Pielke spring to mind as do nearly all Climate etc followers and most WUWT bloggers.
  –
  A definition of Anthropogenic Climate Change would be that harmful warming due to human activity [ specifically increased CO2] that produces 110% of all the warming that has occurred to date since humans first built fires and will cause anything between a 2.0 and 6.0C temperature rise by 2100 if fossil fuel use increases at the current rate.
  Harmful warming being sea level rise of several meters, Increased severe flooding, droughts and weather disturbances etc.
  Special mention that this effect will be irreversible and last for 100’s of years.
  –
  For some strange and unaccountable reason a lot of people just do not buy this product despite testimonials from 97% of dentists.

 

The term scourge of drugs was mentioned yesterday.

The image that came into my mind was not that of a drug addict but that of a person suffering from despair. What else would drive  most people to use and continue to use drugs that have such a terrible effect on their lives.

Some people obviously use drugs out of curiosity initially. What sort of effect does it have?

ATTP,
This is a discussion of clouds precisely because they are a very important part of the climate puzzle.
“Clearing Clouds of Uncertainty by Mark Zelinka, David Randall, Mark Webb and Steven Klein. Their commentary is really a summary of our recent understanding and – as illustrated by the figure on the right – they conclude that the evidence is converging on the cloud feedback likely being positive.”
From FAR 1990 positive but cloud feedback represented the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity among atmospheric models.
To SAR Second Assessment Report; 1995), more climate models were predicting the mass of cloud liquid and ice, and generally finding negative cloud opacity feedbacks, albeit of widely differing strengths. The report concluded that it was not possible at that time to judge the sign of the net cloud feedback.
TAR 2001 …the sign of [the cloud] feedback remains unknown.
AR4 2007 it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable
AR5 “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is…likely positive”
BUT Cloud opacity feedback “is highly uncertain”

You say,
“I don’t really see why I should be expected to post comments that are certain, but wrong.”
I repeated a fact, “Averaged globally and annually, clouds cause cooling ” from the article overview. I said in view of this,
“any increase in cloud cover should have a stronger negative than a positive effect.”
The current point of view says this is likely wrong but admit to high uncertainty still in areas like cloud opacity. There is a threefold variation in the global sensitivity parameter FAR 1990 due to
differences in cloud feedback.
This is a most important discussion which is not yet settled and needs open discussion.

 

 

• angech says:

  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  October 8, 2017 at 1:05 pm

  Izen
  The article overview states
  “Averaged globally and annually, clouds cause 18W/m2 of cooling relative to a hypothetical
  cloud-free Earth. This is the net result of a 46 W/m2 cooling from reflecting sunlight back to space (an albedo effect) partly offset by a 28 W/m2 heating due to reduced terrestrial radiation emitted to space (a greenhouse effect). The net planetary cooling provided by clouds is roughly five times as large as the planetary heating from a doubling of CO2.”
  So even though the albedo effect usually works only half the time [there is a minuscule effect for moonlight etc] it produces much more cooling in that 12 hour period than a whole 24 hours of
  cloud GH positive effect.

  “Why would the albedo negative effect be larger than the cloud GH positive effect if they increase”

  Because it is positive with more clouds. As stated above in a cloud free earth it would be 18W/M energy warmer. So if there is no effect with no cloud and 18 W/m2 cooler with current cloud it stands to reason that with more cloud from global warming there should be an increase in the cooling effect.

  The authors state,
  “The overall cloud feedback is actually the aggregate effect of several individual cloud feedbacks, commonly separated into three components: cloud amount, cloud altitude,and cloud opacity feedbacks” “Nearly all current climate models simulate an overall positive cloud feedback ”

  Despite Victor’s assertion he is referring to a decreasing amount of ice and here we are referring to an increasing amount of water vapor. Which up to this point in the climate causes cooling of a known degree. The models simulate and argue for positive feedbacks from clouds from this point on without acknowledgment of how the clouds caused cooling in the first place.
  It appears to be models all the way down with “weak further support from observations”
• paulski0 says:

  October 8, 2017 at 1:21 pm

  angech,

  ATTP ” they conclude that the evidence is converging on the cloud feedback likely being positive.”
  This comment must therefore be directed at the increase in clouds, not their current status as the article demonstrates an original strong negative feedback (18W/m2).

  Positive feedback in this case refers to enhancement of warming rate due to changes in cloud behaviour in response to temperature increase.

  The -18W/m2 figure refers to the net present day radiative effect of clouds, relative to a hypothetical Earth without clouds (all else remaining the same). I guess you could argue that clouds wouldn’t exist at 0K temperature, so the “warming” to present day 288K temperature has resulted in a -18W/m2 negative feedback, but the temperature at which clouds can form is so far below 288K that it makes no sense to extrapolate a continuing increase in cloud amounts with temperature.

  It’s actually fairly easy to dispel any “intuitive” idea that cloud amounts must increase with temperature at present day levels by looking at seasonal cycles. Certainly in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, Summers are considerably less cloudy than Winters.

  Putting into numbers AR5 concluded with a best estimate of 0.6W/m2/K for net cloud feedback. That means a 1K warming from now would result in a change from -18W/m2 to -17.4W/m2 cloud radiative effect. Don’t know if it’s been done, but might be interesting to produce a diagram giving some idea of how Earth’s net cloud radiative effect, total cloud fraction, low cloud fraction varies with temperature from 0K up to 300K.
• Magma says:

  October 8, 2017 at 1:31 pm

  That’s a nice commentary/short review in Nature Climate Change, open-access and well worth reading.

  I have the strong impression that much of the contrarian opinion on cloud feedback originates from the fact that when one is outdoors on a sunny day and a cloud passes in front of the sun, ground level insolation and perceived temperature quickly drop. Coupling this to the undeniable facts that it still gets cold in mid-latitude winters and major coastal cities are still above sea level, it is but series of short logical steps to the “all scientists are liars and climate change is a hoax to bring about one world government” held by many of these rather dim individuals.
• Pingback: Collapse Daily 081017 | Loki’s Revenge
• Eric Michel says:

  October 8, 2017 at 1:48 pm

  Just a quick note of thanks. Not nearly well versed enough to comment on the material, but enjoy reading and learning bits and pieces.

  Eric

  On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 3:02 PM, …and Then There’s Physics wrote:

  > …and Then There’s Physics posted: “A few years ago I posted a video by > Andrew Dessler that was discussing whether or not Equilibrium Climate > Sensitivity could be less than 3oC. The bottom line was that the best > estimate for ECS is about 3oC. Given that we’re quite confident about water > v” >
• Pingback: “Sales temps pour les glaciers” – Ocasapiens – Blog – Repubblica.it
• …and Then There’s Physics says:

  October 8, 2017 at 3:51 pm

  angech,
  I don’t like having to justify moderation decisions, but I will illustrate this just this once. You said

  SInce the first effect is primary ie albedo and since this effect is negative any increase in cloud cover should have a stronger negative than a positive effect.

  Well, this is wrong, as others have indicated. Yet, you said it as if you understood this well enough to make a strong claim. I don’t really see why I should be expected to post comments that are certain, but wrong.

  angech | October 9, 2017 at 11:18 pm | Reply

  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  Overview of #cloudfeedbacks in the 5 IPCC reports & beyond [link].
  An interesting blog on this over at ATTP. “A bit more about clouds”
  This is a discussion of clouds precisely because they are a very important part of the climate puzzle.
  “Clearing Clouds of Uncertainty by Mark Zelinka, David Randall, Mark Webb and Steven Klein. Their commentary is really a summary of our recent understanding and – as illustrated by the figure on the right – they conclude that the evidence is converging on the cloud feedback likely being positive.”
  From FAR 1990 positive but cloud feedback represented the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity among atmospheric models.
  To SAR Second Assessment Report; 1995), more climate models were predicting the mass of cloud liquid and ice, and generally finding negative cloud opacity feedbacks, albeit of widely differing strengths. The report concluded that it was not possible at that time to judge the sign of the net cloud feedback.
  TAR 2001 …the sign of [the cloud] feedback remains unknown.
  AR4 2007 it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable
  AR5 “The sign of the net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is…likely positive”
  BUT Cloud opacity feedback “is highly uncertain”
  –
  The article overview states
  “Averaged globally and annually, clouds cause 18W/m2 of cooling relative to a hypothetical cloud-free Earth. This is the net result of a 46 W/m2 cooling from reflecting sunlight back to space (an albedo effect) partly offset by a 28 W/m2 heating due to reduced terrestrial radiation emitted to space (a greenhouse effect). The net planetary cooling provided by clouds is roughly five times as large as the planetary heating from a doubling of CO2.”
  The albedo effect works only half the time [there is a minuscule effect for moonlight etc] yet it produces much more cooling in that 12 hour period than a whole 24 hours of cloud GH positive effect.
  –
  “The overall cloud feedback is actually the aggregate effect of several individual cloud feedbacks, commonly separated into three components: cloud amount, cloud altitude,and cloud opacity feedbacks” “Nearly all current climate models simulate an overall positive cloud feedback ”
  –
  Too much information. The link I had from Victor Venema has gone down but the article could have said Cloud Albedo negative effect had x5 the effect of GHG doubling. That observational was very weak and most of the proof came from climate model simulations which duh incorporate positive cloud feedbacks in the first place.
  –
  To the amateur eye if going from no clouds to what we have causes 18 W/m2 cooling any further cloud increase should cause more cooling.
  Miraculously this article has found a new physical fact on model evidence. That clouds cool the earth as it goes to a surface temp of 14 degrees and then at that precise point start to warm the atmosphere up.
  Not on the basics of testable physics.
  I do not see a kettle of water cooling down as you get past a certain point in heating it up.
  But on the basis of models, observationally wrong and incorporating the very features the claim to be looking for.
  Science, shame.

 

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 6, 2017 at 9:44 am

Jai John Mitchell says:
“The range of estimates of ECS on the low-end are dominated by observational estimates.”
Long time reader of your comments at ASIB.
Says it all really does it not?
Unreliable observational estimates are no match for real time paleological proxies and centennial-based feedbacks in models
The lower end range is not applicable as it only exists in an observational world.
Admire the effort and work that you have always put in to your comments and thanks for sharing those referrals above.
ECS range is around 3.0 at this site as befits IPCC, you can try to push it higher, I have failed to push it lower.
angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 6, 2017 at 10:21 am

Everett F Sargent says:
“Well RealClimate has another post on the Millar paper 2017/10/1-5oc-geophysically-impossible-or-not/”

Thanks Everett, I do not go to RealClimate as much as I should, partly as this site keeps well abreast of it which means there is no need generally. I do read a cross section of all of the others though Stoat is quiet for long periods and Tamino is dormant at the moment.

The choice of temperature data
“the conclusion that present day temperatures lie outside of the model distribution.”
remains a problem even if resorting to
” The anomaly between observations and the CMIP5 mean temperature response to cumulative emissions is halved by repeating the Millar analysis with the GISTEMP product instead of HadCRUT.”

The role of internal variability
“Both HadCRUT and GISTEMP suggest strongly negative index values for the period 2005-2014, suggesting a potential cold bias in the warming estimate due to natural variability of 0.1?C (with 5-95% values of 0.05-0.15?C).”
Which means it is 0.2 C potential natural variability shown in just a 10 year period. Interesting to contemplate what the actual range would be in a series of a 100 decades.

The low CMIP5 compatible emissions comment suggests fallibility.
” the combined evidence of the influence of natural variability on the unforced temperature estimate, the disagreement between different observational datasets on warming level, and the uncertainty introduced by an uncertain pre-industrial temperature baseline means that we can’t be confident as the Millar paper suggests on what the current level of warming is.”

and this gem on trust in models v observations ” Alternatively, we trust the cumulative emissions number and treat the models as full proxies for reality, as was done in AR5,”

 

• DM,
  “Perhaps the oldest and most basic carbon cycle canard stretches its wings again. Whether anthropogenic emissions are large or small compared with the magnitude of environmental fluxes is entirely irrelevant, what matters is whether they are large or small compared with the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake as that is what governs the rise or fall of atmospheric CO2 concentrations”
  Thank you for the video and the X-File? music and science with it.
  Much easier to address you after having seen that and the work you put in.
  If I can try to comment without being too antagonistic which is hard when we have differing views I would put for your consideration the following.
  I agree/understand your comment on emissions and sinks.
  1. I did not want to put up a canard.
  “The extra amount we produce is still reasonably small compared with the overall yearly carbon cycle.”
  To me has the same meaning as
  “what matters is whether they are large or small compared with the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake as that is what governs the rise or fall of atmospheric CO2 concentrations”
  Particularly when I add “The fact that after several [many] severe outgassing of CO2 events in the past we are still here indicates to me that the biosphere and the earth sea chemical mixes have shown the needed resilience.”
  which to me means that I took sinks into consideration.
  In the video you mention the balance of the emissions with the uptake of the natural environment but then change terms to net sinks [presumably still the environment] which for 50 years have removed half the excess CO2 claimed produced by man.
  There are at least four different natural causes for CO2 in the atmosphere. One is volcanoes. One is natural chemical. Even with no life forms anywhere but the current composition of the earth there would be CO2 in the atmosphere commensurate with dissolved CO2 in the water and calcium carbonate in the rock. The level might even be as high as 280 ppm because the third component, life forms, has a mutable create/ destroy existence.
  Here [the second] emissions /sinks as you put it are in balance, have to be in balance, no choice.
  But then you add the fourth cause, still “natural” but unwanted. Human beings adding in CO2 which is different to normal life activity.
  Once you perturb the level “artificially” you activate the chemical sinks. By your own reckoning these sinks activated at a low level of CO2 increase are capable of taking 50% extra of the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.
  Now balance is important. As you ramp up the increase in CO2 you might [*] increase the sink capacity way beyond 50%. A bit like pH rise or fall being logarithmic.
  If you choose to attribute, for very good paleontological reasons a linear 50% rise so be it.
  If ATTP chooses to believe the sinks will become saturated and run out of puff so be it.
  I do not wish to change my belief system, sorry but I do not mind being corrected on the science if and [very often I guess] it is needed.
• angech says:

  Your comment is awaiting moderation.

  October 3, 2017 at 5:52 am

  RustneverSleeps.
  “Another “why” question: Why do you so often just make things up in your head and present them as credible “just so” (yet counterfactual) representations of well-understood real-world phenonmenon”.
  Robbie Burns answer I guess. I see your making things up in my head as thinking about things in my world. The fellow with the different hats theory [De Bono] says you need people like me [questioners] to make other people think about things more clearly which helps consolidate their real world views. Does not make one appreciate the fellow in the funny hat any better though.

 

crandles 2017/09/11
“I really don’t follow why people think the butterfly effect is not real. On what scale does it not work? Do you accept browning motion creates random movement of a grain of pollen? Does this work in the atmosphere? Does a grain of pollen sometimes cause an animal to sneeze? Does an animal sneezing sometime reveal that animal to another animal. Once you have altered animal behaviour, won’t there be follow on effects that will lead to stampedes of animals at different times or in different directions? Is this big enough yet to talk about unstable convection in the tropics?
On what scale does the butterfly effect break down?
Any one particular path is remarkably unlikely.”

Love your argument, very well put. Sort of how I thought about it but could not articulate.

However there are other considerations in blame games. One of which comes to mind is that the butterfly is not unique or individual but it itself is only part of the mosaic of events that are all intertwined.
Saying that a pathway attributable to the butterfly and the butterfly only ignores all those other exiguous causes [did I make this word up] which also impacted on the hurricane.
For instance every other butterfly , person etc in the world also happened and the same contiguous line must be drawn for all those other effects.
I think the butterfly effect is a real correspondence but a fake cause.

“The black line is the case in which we assume feedbacks remain constant; this produces what is typically referred to as the Effective Climate Sensitivity.”

The ECS is not the ECS with constant feedbacks. It is the ECS for a doubling of CO2 whatever the CO2 level is and in the particular group of cases we are talking about it is for the current earth atmosphere in the 21st century. Hence such a figure includes all known feedbacks some of which vary depending on the starting CO2 point.
This in effect removes the wriggle room for forcing definitions such as changing warming patterns, earth system feedbacks and temperature dependent feedbacks. They are for the most part already included in an ECS or it would not be the ECS. Some of these are part of natural variation anyway. Natural variation after all is only the envelope of uncertainty.
The comment “The consensus on the ‘likely’ range for climate sensitivity of 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C today is the same as given by Jule Charney in 1979” gives it away.38 years of satellites and better world wide monitoring and mapping for what? Certainly not an improvement in diagnostics.
As I said before graphs with results only on one side of a 50% projection are suspect either in maths or motivation.
Your graph should include another line to the left giving a lower surface anomaly for the fact that temperature dependent feedbacks and the pattern of warming can also, one expects lead to less warming in future.

“We expect, however, that temperature dependent feedbacks and the pattern of the warming could lead to more warming in future than we would expect based on an assumption of constant feedbacks”. Expectation is not science.

angech | August 30, 2017 at 2:33 am |

“There is a difference between MOVING PEOPLE
and SUBSIDIZING them to continue stupid behavior.”

“I will explain this slowly. I have no issue with people living in flood plains AS LONG AS they,not me, pay the FULL unsubsidized price of living there and fixing the problems associated with living there.

That means insurance reform which every right thinking libertarian understands. Dont make people in kansas subsidize the kooks to choose
to live on fault lines. You wanna live on a fault line? fine. pay a true unsubsidized insurance cost to do so. No federal bailouts.”

Blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.
–
People are not kooks because their great grandparents traveled to Kansas and settled there.
The choice they have, giving up family and friends and property and family ties to move some where else “Safe” is easy to spout when you do not live there.
If they have an earthquake, or people in Houston have a flood you can choose not to help and absolve yourself by saying it is all their own fault.
Impeccable line of heartless logic.
–
I will explain re smokers so you get it.
People did not choose to smoke.
Tobacco is addictive.
People made cigarettes and sold them society promoted it.
Now I know doctors who refuse to treat people who smoke and people who are overweight.
I repeat.
A blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.
Smokers are in my family and in your family.
Smokers are my friends [and enemies].
Smokers are part of the fabric [for richer or poorer] of our society.
Smokers and overweight people share a higher burden of disease.
A civilized doctor, a civilized society, picks up the pieces. We help them because they need help whether they caused their problems or not.
I do not expect you to change your attitude.
I have lots of friends who are vehemently anti-smoking and believe as you do. They are wrong as well.