The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.
Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.
Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability.
Humans may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.
An example of an adaptation strategy would be the construction of sea walls and levees to protect against flooding. Another might be introducing more efficient irrigation for farmers in areas where water is scarce.
Natural systems are currently bearing the brunt of climatic changes, but a growing impact on humans is feared.
Members of the UN's climate panel say it provides overwhelming evidence of the scale of these effects.
Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the summary says.
The report was agreed after almost a week of intense discussions here in Yokohama, which included concerns among some authors about the tone of the evolving document.
This is the second of a series from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) due out this year that outlines the causes, effects and solutions to global warming.
This latest Summary for Policymakers document highlights the fact that the amount of scientific evidence on the impacts of warming has almost doubled since the last report in 2007.
Be it the melting of glaciers or warming of permafrost, the summary highlights the fact that on all continents and across the oceans, changes in the climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems in recent decades.
In the words of the report, "increasing magnitudes of warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts".
"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change,'' IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told journalists at a news conference in Yokohama.
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."
Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said that, previously, people could have damaged the Earth's climate out of "ignorance".
"Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said.
Mr Jarraud said the report was based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies. He said this document was "the most solid evidence you can get in any scientific discipline".
US Secretary of State John Kerry commented: "Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice."
He added: "No single country causes climate change, and no one country can stop it. But we need to match the urgency of our response with the scale of the science."
Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.
"The recent flooding in the UK is a testament to the devastation that climate change could bring to our daily lives."
The report details significant short-term impacts on natural systems in the next 20 to 30 years. It details five reasons for concern that would likely increase as a result of the warming the world is already committed to.
These include threats to unique systems such as Arctic sea ice and coral reefs, where risks are said to increase to "very high" with a 2C rise in temperatures.
The summary document outlines impacts on the seas and on freshwater systems as well. The oceans will become more acidic, threatening coral and the many species that they harbour.
On land, animals, plants and other species will begin to move towards higher ground or towards the poles as the mercury rises.
Humans, though, are also increasingly affected as the century goes on.
Food security is highlighted as an area of significant concern. Crop yields for maize, rice and wheat are all hit in the period up to 2050, with around a tenth of projections showing losses over 25%.
After 2050, the risk of more severe yield impacts increases, as boom-and-bust cycles affect many regions. All the while, the demand for food from a population estimated to be around nine billion will rise.
Many fish species, a critical food source for many, will also move because of warmer waters.
In some parts of the tropics and in Antarctica, potential catches could decline by more than 50%.
"This is a sobering assessment," said Prof Neil Adger from the University of Exeter, another IPCC author.
"Going into the future, the risks only increase, and these are about people, the impacts on crops, on the availability of water and particularly, the extreme events on people's lives and livelihoods."
People will be affected by flooding and heat related mortality. The report warns of new risks including the threat to those who work outside, such as farmers and construction workers. There are concerns raised over migration linked to climate change, as well as conflict and national security.
Report co-author Maggie Opondo of the University of Nairobi said that in places such as Africa, climate change and extreme events mean "people are going to become more vulnerable to sinking deeper into poverty".
While the poorer countries are likely to suffer more in the short term, the rich won't escape.
"The rich are going to have to think about climate change. We're seeing that in the UK, with the floods we had a few months ago, and the storms we had in the US and the drought in California," said Dr Huq.
"These are multibillion dollar events that the rich are going to have to pay for, and there's a limit to what they can pay."
But it is not all bad news, as the co-chair of the working group that drew up the report points out.
"I think the really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change as a problem in managing risks," said Dr Chris Field.
"Climate change is really important but we have a lot of the tools for dealing effectively with it - we just need to be smart about it."
There is far greater emphasis to adapting to the impacts of climate in this new summary. The problem, as ever, is who foots the bill?
"It is not up to IPCC to define that," said Dr Jose Marengo, a Brazilian government official who attended the talks.
"It provides the scientific basis to say this is the bill, somebody has to pay, and with the scientific grounds it is relatively easier now to go to the climate negotiations in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and start making deals about who will pay for adaptation."
Heard about this on BBC last night and I thought I might post it.
Maybe the deniers might start listening.
There's no mention of insurance, and with pay-outs going up, shouldn't a share of premiums go towards prevention?
Skinnereal wrote: Maybe the deniers might start listening. There's no mention of insurance, and with pay-outs going up, shouldn't a share of premiums go towards prevention?
Blah blah. Gulf Coast has avoided major hurricanes since OMG GLOABAL WAMRINZ! so I am ok with it. At worst Canada becomes the breadbasket of the world.
Skinnereal wrote: Maybe the deniers might start listening.
There's no mention of insurance, and with pay-outs going up, shouldn't a share of premiums go towards prevention?
Blah blah. Gulf Coast has avoided major hurricanes since OMG GLOABAL WAMRINZ! so I am ok with it.
At worst Canada becomes the breadbasket of the world.
Skinnereal wrote: Maybe the deniers might start listening.
There's no mention of insurance, and with pay-outs going up, shouldn't a share of premiums go towards prevention?
Blah blah. Gulf Coast has avoided major hurricanes since OMG GLOABAL WAMRINZ! so I am ok with it.
At worst Canada becomes the breadbasket of the world.
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
I'm not sure what you are saying s\with your first quote....
Also
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."
Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
This.
I live near chicago, and we set a record for days under zero this winter. We had several feet of snow that stuck for 4 months.
That doesn't fit the "man made global warming" agenda however, so now its "climate change" and raising temps can lead to more snow and colder winters...
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
I'm not sure what you are saying s\with your first quote....
Also
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."
Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.
Perhaps he is pointing out that our records of the earths climate changes are nothing but a speck of sand in a desert.
No one on this planet is qualified to say what the temperature or climate of the earth is "supposed" to be.
As such, we know we have warm periods, and we have cold periods. We had a warm period recently. That in no way proves the earth is being irreverseably damaged by man.
Do you deny that the CO2 in our atmosphere has spiked do to human emissions.
Also, your using the "It's cold, climate change can't exist!" defense.
Also, from the EPA website
The major scientific agencies of the United States — including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In 2010, the National Research Council concluded that "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems". Many independent scientific organizations have released similar statements, both in the United States and abroad. This doesn't necessarily mean that every scientist sees eye to eye on each component of the climate change problem, but broad agreement exists that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by excess greenhouse gases from human activities.
Scientists are still researching a number of important questions, including exactly how much Earth will warm, how quickly it will warm, and what the consequences of the warming will be in specific regions of the world. Scientists continue to research these questions so society can be better informed about how to plan for a changing climate. However, enough certainty exists about basic causes and effects of climate change to justify taking actions that reduce future risks.
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
I'm not sure what you are saying s\with your first quote....
"Climate Change" is the new euphemism for the "Global Warming™" hysteria.
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
When "the science has clearly spoken" jargons get thrown about... it really means, "shut the feth up and gimmie your money".
Also
Dr Saleemul Huq, a convening lead author on one of the chapters, commented: "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."
Ed Davey, the UK Energy and Climate Secretary said: "The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.
Again... let's have some peer reviews first before claiming we need to do something stat!
whembly wrote: I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.
Sorry, but a couple hundred years of records compared to BILLIONS of years of this planets existance does not make for an accurate assessment.
Using a sample size that small would be laughed out of any real research study, but there is an agenda, and money to be made.
I remember how serious FAIL Gore said global warming would be, and I also remember how much money he spent on "carbon credits" so he could continue to live his lavish life style all while telling us all we were killing our planet with suv's.
I love how you ignored the fact that lots of areas have actually been COLDER than normal, in the US at least.
Cue answer that global warming causes colder winters and more snowfall blah blah
How many years did they say we had till it was too late for our planet?
Whats your excuse gonna when we blow past that date huh?
Think about it. Canada develops, Texas and Louisiana realize there are French and at least one Spanish speaking person there are being oppressed. Shortly after, 10,000 rednecks in pickups without identifying markers (other than Budweiser and Duck Dynasty) led by a Messianic wiener dog arrive to help insure free and fair elections concerning annexation into Greater Texas. Off shore a Battleship with "Texas" scratched through patrols in case the Brits or Belgiums get uppity.
whembly wrote: I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.
I'm sorry... you think the IPCC, in factan armof the United Nations, is all about legitimate facts?
O.o
You do know who's in the UN... right? It consists of countries mostly rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and which Russian and China both having veto powers. You think they're all concerned about outright facts and legitimancy?
whembly wrote: I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.
BarBoBot: Well we can't get billions of years now can we? From our current knowledge we see the world's average (got to remember that, average, no all) temperature is going up. I live in NY, we had a cold winter. That doesn't mean that climate change does not exist, and it is an argument that has no meaning. We have created holes in out ozone layer. The CO2 in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Temperature has gone up while at the same time solar activity has actually gone down.
whembly: Yes, I do think it is legitimate, and I did say UN, I know it's part of the UN. Why would a climate change report be altered by these countries. If anything anything most countries, possibly Russia, and most definitely China, one of our biggest polluters, would try to affect the report in the other direction so they don't have to spend more money.
Also, could you put some facts in the "money to be made" thing.
the climate has been changing, forever, and has been much warmer then it is right now in the past.
all without humans doing it.
Fact is, most green house emissions are not caused by humans
even if 100% of man made emissions dissipated overnight, its a drop in the bucket compared to the NATURALLY produced ones. the earth has warmed by 3+ degrees before, it will again.
Climate change is real, and its a natural and recurring process.
really, the only thing we need to worry about are things like CFC s , and those are already banned in most cases.
That being said there isnt anything wrong with implementing green energy, aside from the fact that it cannot (aside from nuclear) provide the same energy density at the same cheap cost we have now.
The garbage we throw out causes far more damage to our health and planet then our effect on heating the planet up, and that we can actually have an effect on.
95% of the garbage we throw out can be avoided, having actual measurable positive effects.
Frazzled wrote: Think about it. Canada develops, Texas and Louisiana realize there are French and at least one Spanish speaking person there are being oppressed. Shortly after, 10,000 rednecks in pickups without identifying markers (other than Budweiser and Duck Dynasty) led by a Messianic wiener dog arrive to help insure free and fair elections concerning annexation into Greater Texas. Off shore a Battleship with "Texas" scratched through patrols in case the Brits or Belgiums get uppity.
whembly wrote: I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.
I'm sorry... you think the IPCC, in factan armof the United Nations, is all about legitimate facts?
O.o
You do know who's in the UN... right? It consists of countries mostly rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and which Russian and China both having veto powers. You think they're all concerned about outright facts and legitimancy?
Dude...
All of which have a definite and massive interest in getting money without, er doing anything.
whembly wrote: I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.
The UN's view on so-called "Climate Risk" = 'it's all rich people's fault'.
The real world reasons for horrific severe storm outcomes = massive population increases & growing densities along highly vulnerable coastlines & natural flood plains.
Seriously, you think this planet has never before seen massive storms like Superstorm Sandy, or hurricanes Katrina/Hyane? Maybe, just maybe, the real culprit is the fact that people;
a) are living much, much longer since the industrial revolution
b) uncontrolled population growth and urban sprawl is settling huge portions of our growing & longer living population in areas at or below sea level in regions with naturally occurring major storm cycles.
And before you start crying "but the polar ice caps are melting!!!", try and remember the following;
a) the ice pack saw a dramatic increase this past year due in part to the coldest winter in 35+ years, which was caused by a shift in the Jetstream.
b) the polar ice caps are actually a fairly new feature of our planet, being only 100000+ years old.
As we tend to say up here, "if you don't like the look of the weather out your front door, go look out your back door - it's probably different!"
Co'tor Shas wrote: BarBoBot:
Well we can't get billions of years now can we? From our current knowledge we see the world's average (got to remember that, average, no all) temperature is going up. I live in
NY, we had a cold winter. That doesn't mean that climate change does not exist, and it is an argument that has no meaning. We have created holes in out ozone layer. The CO2 in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Temperature has gone up while at the same time solar activity has actually gone down.
whembly: Yes, I do think it is legitimate, and I did say UN, I know it's part of the UN. Why would a climate change report be altered by these countries. If anything anything most countries, possibly Russia, and most definitely China, one of our biggest polluters, would try to affect the report in the other direction so they don't have to spend more money.
Also, could you put some facts in the "money to be made" thing.
In any scientific "debates"... you need review both sides of the debate.
You have the IPCC, an outfit of the UN, down pat.
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
easysauce wrote: Fact is, most green house emissions are not caused by humans
even if 100% of man made emissions dissipated overnight, its a drop in the bucket compared to the NATURALLY produced ones.
Are you being wilfully ignorant? It's never been claimed humans are the sole cause of things like CO2, but they part we do play is highly relevant given the system in which it operates. The issue is that there are sources and sinks of all these emissions and they broadly lie in an equilibrium which shifts slightly one way or the other over time causing the sorts of climate change seen across thousands and millions of years. The issue with human activity is that we are putting an increase of emissions into a system that was previously well balanced, and taking deforestation into account we are also destroying some of the sinks to CO2. Futhermore, geologically speaking, these increases have been achieved over night. Saying 'but but there's a huge volume produced naturally so what we do doesn't matter' is a dishonest argument obvious to anyone with some scientific understanding.
easysauce wrote: Fact is, most green house emissions are not caused by humans
even if 100% of man made emissions dissipated overnight, its a drop in the bucket compared to the NATURALLY produced ones.
Are you being wilfully ignorant? It's never been claimed humans are the sole cause of things like CO2, but they part we do play is highly relevant given the system in which it operates. The issue is that there are sources and sinks of all these emissions and they broadly lie in an equilibrium which shifts slightly one way or the other over time causing the sorts of climate change seen across thousands and millions of years. The issue with human activity is that we are putting an increase of emissions into a system that was previously well balanced, and taking deforestation into account we are also destroying some of the sinks to CO2. Futhermore, geologically speaking, these increases have been achieved over night. Saying 'but but there's a huge volume produced naturally so what we do doesn't matter' is a dishonest argument obvious to anyone with some scientific understanding.
you are the one being ignorant....
the earth has been around for a looooonnnggggg time.
the level of C02 has been going DOWN long term, and we are no where close to pre historic levels.
yes, man made emissions appeared suddenly... as a sudden drop in the bucket might... doesnt mean the pail over flows when a single drop arrives suddenly.
otherwise every time a large volcano erupts and throws out more green house gasses in one eruption the we do in 50 + years, the world would end.
Co'tor Shas wrote: BarBoBot:
Well we can't get billions of years now can we? From our current knowledge we see the world's average (got to remember that, average, no all) temperature is going up. I live in
NY, we had a cold winter. That doesn't mean that climate change does not exist, and it is an argument that has no meaning. We have created holes in out ozone layer. The CO2 in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Temperature has gone up while at the same time solar activity has actually gone down.
whembly: Yes, I do think it is legitimate, and I did say UN, I know it's part of the UN. Why would a climate change report be altered by these countries. If anything anything most countries, possibly Russia, and most definitely China, one of our biggest polluters, would try to affect the report in the other direction so they don't have to spend more money.
Also, could you put some facts in the "money to be made" thing.
In any scientific "debates"... you need review both sides of the debate.
You have the IPCC, an outfit of the UN, down pat.
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Spoiler:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
I'm not taking their exact word, I'm taking the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists. I have read papers from both sides and the denires/skeptics are both in the majority and proven wrong repetedly. Despite what you say, 97% seems like a pretty good consensus. I do admit that I could be wrong, I just don't see any downside for pushing for climate friendly legislation. Green jobs, cleaner air, less pollution, ect. If I'm right and we do nothing however, now that is bad.
Spoiler:
Look at the consenting vs. disenting [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Putting industries out of business and tanking the economy seem like pretty severe reactions to something you ADMIT you don't have NEARLY enough knowledge on.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a fun fact about "scientific concensus".... At one point the scientific concensus was that the earth was flat...
How did that turn out? lol
In the 1970's, the scientific concensus was that we were heading for another ice age... Hmmm
Co'tor Shas wrote: BarBoBot:
Well we can't get billions of years now can we? From our current knowledge we see the world's average (got to remember that, average, no all) temperature is going up. I live in
NY, we had a cold winter. That doesn't mean that climate change does not exist, and it is an argument that has no meaning. We have created holes in out ozone layer. The CO2 in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Temperature has gone up while at the same time solar activity has actually gone down.
whembly: Yes, I do think it is legitimate, and I did say UN, I know it's part of the UN. Why would a climate change report be altered by these countries. If anything anything most countries, possibly Russia, and most definitely China, one of our biggest polluters, would try to affect the report in the other direction so they don't have to spend more money.
Also, could you put some facts in the "money to be made" thing.
In any scientific "debates"... you need review both sides of the debate.
You have the IPCC, an outfit of the UN, down pat.
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Spoiler:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
I'm not taking their exact word, I'm taking the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists. I have read papers from both sides and the denires/skeptics are both in the majority and proven wrong repetedly. Despite what you say, 97% seems like a pretty good consensus. I do admit that I could be wrong, I just don't see any downside for pushing for climate friendly legislation. Green jobs, cleaner air, less pollution, ect. If I'm right and we do nothing however, now that is bad.
Spoiler:
Look at the consenting vs. disenting [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
BarBoBot wrote: Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"
Co'tor Shas wrote: Wrong survey wembly. There was no Cook in the authors' names attached to the three surveys I'm getting my info from.
Did you read that link?
Here's a snippet:
So, the inconvenient truth here is that about half of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming the rest will probably get smeared as “deniers”
Again... I'd be leery of bureaucrats demanding regulatory change/money in the name of "Global Warming™"...
I think we can safely ignore the Climate Change agenda and still be proponents of recycling, resource management, reduction of emissions, stopping wide scale deforestation etc.
Mr. Burning wrote: I think we can safely ignore the Climate Change agenda and still be proponents of recycling, resource management, reduction of emissions, stopping wide scale deforestation etc.
Mr. Burning wrote: I think we can safely ignore the Climate Change agenda and still be proponents of recycling, resource management, reduction of emissions, stopping wide scale deforestation etc.
Absolutely.
The devil is always in the details.
@Co'tor Shas: Let's shift this conversation a bit. What would you have us (as in, Americans) do? What are you advocating exactly?
Whether or not our current warming trend is part of a natural cycle, or has been significantly impacted by humanity, they're both the same thing to me. Man cannot exist outside of the natural world; we are a part of it, not apart from it. Anything we do is as natural as any other animal on the planet. It may be destructive, but it's still natural. If we kill ourselves and other life on the planet with our actions as a species, well that's natural too. It's not the first time that a mass extinction has occurred, it won't be the last.
In the end, our species means no more to the cosmos than does the proverbial ant, or the ancient dinosaurs; the solar system will spin on without us, and life will begin anew to try a different evolutionary course. And if it doesn't, well that's natural too.
It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
Grey Templar wrote: The worst humans have done is minorly accelerated climate change.
But we really don't have sufficient data to say humans are responsible anyway. My Grandparents were born before any data was collected.
We'd need several thousand years of data to even come close to an accurate picture of the swings in the climate.
Saying 100ish years of data is sufficient is like diagnosing someone with cancer with nothing more than a stethoscope and a tongue depressor.
We have thousands of years of data. Ice cores for a start. Plenty of long term climate data, which deniers are so fast to point too when needed. All of it shows that the current warming is way faster than anything that has happend outside of mass extinction events.
Off the top of my head:
Research the affects of climate change and how we can help mitigate them (flood protection ect.).
Cut down on out use of fossil fuels.
Punish big polluters for what they have done even after anti-pollution laws went into affect.
Invest in clean energy, and push for trying to get off coal and oil almost completely for our electricity production in the next 25-30 years.
Try to get more people to actively try and help the environment.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
Designate more areas as official wilderness.
Educate people on how to protect the environment.
Subsidies and tax credits for clean energy, hybrid/electric/CAT cars, natural, eco-friendly replacements to currents, non-eco-friendly items (mushroom based insulation for example).
Increased funding to the EPA and NPS (especially the NPS, their funding got severely cut during Bush v2.0 and I don't think it has gotten an increase since).
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
What, specifically would you have us do?
Give fact. Evidence that the climate is not warming, or if it is where it is coming from if not from humans? Science?
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
I think you're overlooking the big picture here. The folks who deny climate change would have nothing to fear from it anyway. After all,if the seas threaten to rise and the crops threaten to wither than can protect themselves from those threats with their guns.
Here's a fun fact about "scientific concensus".... At one point the scientific concensus was that the earth was flat...
How did that turn out? lol
The notion that the Earth is flat died out among educated people shortly after science became a nascent thing in Ancient Greece.
So at no point has there been a scientific consensus that the Earth is flat. A lay consensus, sure, but what laypeople think only matters when you have to convince them to back a given cause.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Off the top of my head:
Research the affects of climate change and how we can help mitigate them (flood protection ect.).
Cool... many universities and private organizations are doing this. I'm always down with this...
Cut down on out use of fossil fuels.
At the expense of what? If we can find a cheaper/clean alternative... GREAT!
Punish big polluters for what they have done even after anti-pollution laws went into affect.
Who? Got any sources for that?
Invest in clean energy, and push for trying to get off coal and oil almost completely for our electricity production in the next 25-30 years.
Nuke... do you support Nuke plants?
Try to get more people to actively try and help the environment.
Worthy goal.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
There's massive industry for that... but continual PSA is a good thing.
Designate more areas as official wilderness.
That's exploding in these last few years...
Educate people on how to protect the environment.
Erm.. .okay.
Subsidies and tax credits for clean energy, hybrid/electric/CAT cars, natural, eco-friendly replacements to currents, non-eco-friendly items (mushroom based insulation for example).
Those exists a plenty. Some don't work out as well (ie, Solyndra).
Increased funding to the EPA and NPS (especially the NPS, their funding got severely cut during Bush v2.0 and I don't think it has gotten an increase since).
EPA? feth no. they're powerful enough as it is... may need to be taken down a couple of notches.
Steve steveson wrote: It's not worth having this argument. Climate change denial is held to with religious conviction, with no real facts other than negative attacks, poor science like "it's not warming, look! It's snowing" and "well, the UN are involved and they are evil". Zero science and nothing but attacks and negativity.
What, specifically would you have us do?
Give fact. Evidence that the climate is not warming, or if it is where it is coming from if not from humans? Science?
Facts?
IPCC has been wrong on every projection so far...
That's the thing here... you have powerful groups (the UN/IPCC) trying to project something in the future, that is slanted with a political agenda.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Off the top of my head:
Research the affects of climate change and how we can help mitigate them (flood protection ect.).
Cut down on out use of fossil fuels.
Punish big polluters for what they have done even after anti-pollution laws went into affect.
Invest in clean energy, and push for trying to get off coal and oil almost completely for our electricity production in the next 25-30 years.
Try to get more people to actively try and help the environment.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
Designate more areas as official wilderness.
Educate people on how to protect the environment.
Subsidies and tax credits for clean energy, hybrid/electric/CAT cars, natural, eco-friendly replacements to currents, non-eco-friendly items (mushroom based insulation for example).
Increased funding to the EPA and NPS (especially the NPS, their funding got severely cut during Bush v2.0 and I don't think it has gotten an increase since).
1. So, ding taxpayers because our pockets are apparently bottomless...
2. Good luck getting China & India to play ball, meanwhile, you'd have us blow up our economy and revert back to a pre-industrial quality of life - thanks but no thanks.
3. So again, make rich countries pay, because the developing countries will just laugh at your ideals and continue to ignore you.
4. Sure, ask Ontario how that's worked out...
5. Again, good luck convincing the likes of China, India & Russia.
6. We already do - how's the developing world & third world though?
7. Fine, but good luck keeping the poachers out.
8. We already do, again, the US/Canada/Western Europe aren't the real problem!
9. Again, ask Ontario how that's worked out for the average guy... (hint: it's tanked our economy to the point of now becoming a 'have-not' status province, while sending our energy bills through the perverbial roof!)
whembly:
So you are OK with helping the environment and just don't believe climate change was caused by humans? In that case I have no further quarrel with you .
Hey, EPA is kind of horrible at times, but the NPS is great. They keep all of our great monuments (man-made and natural) safe and allow us to visit places we might not be able to normally. Yellowstone, Mount Rushmore,
that form our wilderness preserves,
That and my dad works there (if you ever wonder why I'm so pro-environment ).
Its astounding that people still come up with "its not cold therefor its not global warming". Its climate change, the ice caps ARE melting faster than they can replenish as it is on average hotter at the poles, the climate IS changing, weather IS more extreme. Some people wont believe it untill it happens with them, and some perts of the media dont help this ignorant frame of mind.
I just hope these stubborn ignorant people dont make the efforts of everyone else futile.
Co'tor Shas wrote: whembly:
So you are OK with helping the environment and just don't believe climate change was caused by humans? In that case I have no further quarrel with you .
Hey, EPA is kind of horrible at times, but the NPS is great. They keep all of our great monuments (man-made and natural) safe and allow us to visit places we might not be able to normally. Yellowstone, Mount Rushmore,
that form our wilderness preserves,
That and my dad works there (if you ever wonder why I'm so pro-environment ).
I have no problem with honest, practical applications in helping the environment.
The things that drive me bonkers are things like "Carbon Tax Credit" scheme and opposition to the Keystone pipeline project. The IPCC fully descredited themselves in pushing the ol' Hocky Stick graph to the point that I reflectively discount everything from them.
That's the thing here... you have powerful groups (the UN/IPCC) trying to project something in the future, that is slanted with a political agenda.
The yellow band, is that the one, two or three sigma region? What's the baseline for the temperature difference? Why did they choose that particular time interval? Considering the variance of the data, is it perhaps a way too short interval to see what they and you claim?
It conveniently doesn't go back as far as 1998 because it would show that we haven't been as warm as that year since, and in order for the agenda to go forward the temerature has to keep going up.
What happened with a those hurricanes we were supposed to get?
Wasnt the US supposed to get nailed with more and with greater severity?
BarBoBot wrote: It conveniently doesn't go back as far as 1998 because it would show that we haven't been as warm as that year since, and in order for the agenda to go forward the temerature has to keep going up.
That's the thing here... you have powerful groups (the UN/IPCC) trying to project something in the future, that is slanted with a political agenda.
The yellow band, is that the one, two or three sigma region? What's the baseline for the temperature difference? Why did they choose that particular time interval? Considering the variance of the data, is it perhaps a way too short interval to see what they and you claim?
The yellow band is from IPCC original projection...
In fact, IPCC’s mid-range estimate of global warming from 1990 onward was 0.35 Cº/decade. At that time, it was advocating a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions. Funny now that the IPCC is now predictingg less than half that, at 0.17 Cº/decade.
They keep changing their minds.... do you know what that really means?
It means that climate science is an extremely complex and nuanced science with a bajillion different factors going into it.
Which is what I'd like to say... we don’t quite know what we don’t quite know.
That’s not to say that it isn’t a serious problem and that human activity can be contributing variable... but, when climate scientists and bureaucrats make huge, sweeping, and obviously politicized conclusions, ie "It's Settled", "feth the Climate Deniers", "et, el.”... it makes it really hard to have a decent conversation about it.
feth, even a respected scientist asked to have his name TAKEN OFF of the latest IPCC report.
whembly wrote: I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
I'm sorry, you don't view the studies by the US government and the fething UN as legitimate. I don't even see any point in debating you if you ignore facts to support your view.
I'm sorry... you think the IPCC, in factan armof the United Nations, is all about legitimate facts?
O.o
You do know who's in the UN... right? It consists of countries mostly rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and which Russian and China both having veto powers. You think they're all concerned about outright facts and legitimancy?
Dude...
All of which have a definite and massive interest in getting money without, er doing anything.
I have no idea how someone can be so ignant. The UN has achieved lots, in fact they are a world leader in the use of bright blue military helmets.
They also have a great use of tunnel vision when it comes to human rights. Australia is apparently regarded by them atm as a place with a terrible human rights record, I'm not sure but there should be places with far worse records, then again what do I know i never had the genius idea of blue military helmets.
btw whembly keep up the good fight, I feel like I have nothing to contribute to this discussion whilst you are talking. I will say I find it funny that the warmists seem to reply with insults in response...it's almost like it's a dogma they are defending
What gives any person on this planet the idea that we know what the temperature is supposed to be?
It isn't really a matter of what the temperature is supposed to be, or purely a matter of temperature. It is a matter regarding whether or not the Earth's climate is changing such that it will negatively impact human life, and whether or not humans are the cause of such a change if it is occurring.
You do know who's in the UN... right? It consists of countries mostly rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and which Russian and China both having veto powers. You think they're all concerned about outright facts and legitimancy?
The US and its citizens have proven time and again that they don't always care about facts, or legitimacy. So rejecting a UN report out of hand on the basis that there are countries that you don't like (that do the same) in the UN is a bit ridiculous.
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.
DO WHAT? FEEL GUILTY AND THEN HAVE FEEL GOOD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW 'BIG POLLUTERS' ARE TO BLAME AND OUTLINING VAGUE IDEAS ON HOW TO 'SOLVE' THE PROBLEM ALL THE WHILE IGNORING THAT THE BIGGEST POLLUTERS ARE SOCIETY ITSELF NOT 'BIG POLLUTERS' .
How to solve this problem without dismantling consumerism I really have no idea. This point seems to be conveniently ignored when warmists talk about this issue. 'Big polluters' are there to service our consumerism , but it seems like it's the done thing to point the finger at them as an easy target. 'Big polluters' seem to be the Kulaks of the 21st century. I wish I could join this movement and get on my high minded, low solution horse and ride around flailingly tilting at windmills.
BarBoBot wrote: Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"
Well if you don't practice any sustainable methods you won't have much resources for an economy either...
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.
whembly wrote: I'm not denying that there's climate change... as in, we have fething weather.
I'm all for "green energy alternatives" and for practical, sensible policies on human waste.
But the IPCC pushing the hockey stick data point loses all credibility for me.
Also, "Carbon Tax" initative is nothing more than a wealth transfer mechanism. It's a scam.
And if anyone keeps pushing this "the science is settled on this" has no fething clue.
97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.
BarBoBot wrote: I live near chicago, and we set a record for days under zero this winter. We had several feet of snow that stuck for 4 months.
That doesn't fit the "man made global warming" agenda however, so now its "climate change" and raising temps can lead to more snow and colder winters...
The agenda continues.
Actually, models that go in to local climate detail and don't just abstract an overall warming pattern have been part of the science for two decades. It took media reporting a while to catch on and start using 'climate change' over 'global warming', and the deniers still haven't cottoned on to that, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been there for a long time, and people who think otherwise don't know what they're talking about.
No one on this planet is qualified to say what the temperature or climate of the earth is "supposed" to be.
As such, we know we have warm periods, and we have cold periods. We had a warm period recently. That in no way proves the earth is being irreverseably damaged by man.
Which is, to put none to fine a point on it, a really fething silly load of nonsense. No-one anywhere, gives a gak about what temperature 'should' be. The issue is simply that we've built our societies and infrastructure for the current temperature and weather patterns, and if that changes to rapidly it will cost a hell of a lot to adapt, and so, where possible, we should seek to minimise the part we play rapid changes in temperature and weather patterns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: "Climate Change" is the new euphemism for the "Global Warming™" hysteria.
The term is decades old.
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
Cheesecat wrote: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities is pretty close to the "science is settled" on this, what percent do you need where you feel convinced.
Ah, the old "97%" line. I'm amazed people still believe that.
whembly wrote: "Climate Change" is the new euphemism for the "Global Warming™" hysteria.
The term is decades old.
That's true... but the term's usage evolved a bit.
I realize that there's many, many things that we don't understand about our climate and our potential impact. But, I view many "studies" by both the government and UN regarding climate whenever the "science is settled" crap.
Do you think NASA is lying to you?
Yup.
It became a weapon for them to secure more fundings. Not that I really blame them... NASA's budget these last few decades took enormous hits.
gak... I remember numerous articles from the scientific community criticising NASA for jumping on that issue... (need to find it... brb).
You know what else is decades old? The climate catastrophism that said we were heading into an ice ace... in the 70's I believe... and all because of what we were doing to the environment.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You know what else is decades old? The climate catastrophism that said we were heading into an ice ace... in the 70's I believe... and all because of what we were doing to the environment.
Yeah, let's put a handful of speculative reports put out at the beginning of the beginning of the field of climate science on the same pedestal as massive meta-research reports compiled by hundreds of people across the planet, using decades of research data.
That's as sensible as claiming that medicine is all a load of junk because Plato used to think the uterus floated around the body and affected women's moods.
whembly wrote: Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?
Stop approving coal power plants and start approving much cleaner nuclear/solar/hydroelectric plants instead (and the anti-science morons and NIMBYs can stfu and deal with it), impose a mandatory deadline for moving 95% of new car production to electric-only (and invest in the infrastructure to make that possible) so that only the occasional hobbyists and collectors are burning gas, promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff, and transfer the entire US military budget into developing practical fusion power along with efficiency improvements in power distribution and similar areas. Nuclear power and an all-electric infrastructure get emissions down immediately, while fusion provides a clean long-term solution.
whembly wrote: That's true... but the term's usage evolved a bit.
Maybe, it doesn't really matter. But it's thirty different kinds of bs to try and discredit the science of climate change by complaining about how entirely different parties politically address the issue. It could be revealed tomorrow that Greenpeace are a scam that's attempting to use climate change to corner the market on hemp clothing to fund their dreams to put Hitler's brain in to a blue whale... and it still wouldn't change the basic, overwhelming nature of climate science.
Yup.
Then we have nothing to discuss. Can't debate science with someone who is happy to reject the findings of scientific organisations. Makes the whole thing really fething pointless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And the failed hockey stick study too... amirite?
Wasn't failed. Some scientists have specific technical issues with the study, and other people (including the original authors but not just them) have specific technical answers, and meanwhile the whole of the field moved on with more complex and sophisticated models that they continue to refine.
Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?
Reduce carbon emissions. Simplest way to do this is through making it expensive for industry to emit carbon. By fixing a price to emission you get an incentive to reduce current practices or move to entirely different practices.
Of course, this won't happen, because, essentially, people are fething insane. Staring at a cost to their daily living of 1 to 3%, they will freak the feth out, and when given extensive research that tells them the long term cost of refusing that mino cost... they will simply deny it. This can be established by reading this thread.
Instead, the rich countries will have the resources to adapt, and the poor countries will get shafted. Human history as it always is.
whembly wrote: Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?
Stop approving coal power plants and start approving much cleaner nuclear/solar/hydroelectric plants instead (and the anti-science morons and NIMBYs can stfu and deal with it),
Abso-fething-lutely! I know coal power plants are knarly industries and I only object to shutting them down if no alternatives are being supplied.
We need to bring that same spirit when the TVA first started.
And more nukes. Nothing is cleaner, safer and more efficient than a nuke plant.
impose a mandatory deadline for moving 95% of new car production to electric-only (and invest in the infrastructure to make that possible) so that only the occasional hobbyists and collectors are burning gas,
Not sure I'd go that far... instead, promote/optimize public transportation. (more mono rails, electric buses, TRAINS!).
promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff,
How? End "consumerism" as we know it?
and transfer the entire US military budget into developing practical fusion power
Um... Darpa is already working on this.
along with efficiency improvements in power distribution and similar areas. Nuclear power and an all-electric infrastructure get emissions down immediately, while fusion provides a clean long-term solution.
Our power grid definitely need upgrades. It'll take most of our lifetime to get that done though...
whembly wrote: Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?
Stop approving coal power plants and start approving much cleaner nuclear/solar/hydroelectric plants instead (and the anti-science morons and NIMBYs can stfu and deal with it), impose a mandatory deadline for moving 95% of new car production to electric-only (and invest in the infrastructure to make that possible) so that only the occasional hobbyists and collectors are burning gas, promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff, and transfer the entire US military budget into developing practical fusion power along with efficiency improvements in power distribution and similar areas. Nuclear power and an all-electric infrastructure get emissions down immediately, while fusion provides a clean long-term solution.
Wow... Talk about whack...
Having possessions is now bad... Just WHO decides what is useless?
I'll bet you think my big scary black "assault weapon" is useless right along with a anything else that fits the left wing agenda.
Typical. Its not enough for you to live your life, you have to make sure everyone is living theirs just like you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And diverting all the military defense money?
Are you a child? Do you think that if the USA stopped supporting its military that countries that don't like us WON'T take advantage of that? FFS that's the most moronic thing ive ever heard...
BarBoBot wrote: Having possessions is now bad... Just WHO decides what is useless?
No, having possessions just for the sake of having possessions is bad. The problem isn't buying stuff that you actually want to have, it's the fact that businesses spend obscene amounts of money on advertising whose sole purpose is to convince you that you want something you didn't want to buy. It's a culture where we buy something on impulse (often using money we don't have) and then quickly throw it away or put it in storage because we didn't really have any need for it. And it's a culture where the thought of not upgrading your electronic devices every few months is just unbearable, not because you see any real benefit from the upgrade, but because the marketing industry has convinced you that you absolutely need the newest toy and should just throw away the old one.
And nobody decides what is useless. The point is that I want to promote a cultural change where people take responsibility for their own purchases, and stop buying useless garbage.
I'll bet you think my big scary black "assault weapon" is useless right along with a anything else that fits the left wing agenda.
That depends: do you have that gun because you really enjoy owning it and taking it to the gun range to play soldier and fantasize about stopping the evil UN black helicopters, or did you just buy it along with a dozen others just like it and then put it in the gun safe until you finally need some cash and have to sell it? If you're actually enjoying it then feel free to own whatever gun you want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BarBoBot wrote: Do you think that if the USA stopped supporting its military that countries that don't like us WON'T take advantage of that?
Obviously that's an exaggeration to make a point, but you could slash the US defense budget to a tiny fraction of what it is now and not lose anything besides the ability to invade other countries and have pointless budget-destroying foreign wars. Seriously, we have oceans on two sides and friendly countries on the other two. Insisting on current levels of military spending for "defense" is nothing but paranoia.
whembly wrote: Not sure I'd go that far... instead, promote/optimize public transportation. (more mono rails, electric buses, TRAINS!).
Public transportation is important, but unfortunately US geography is a problem. We've sprawled out under the assumption that everyone has a car, and connecting that sprawl with adequate public transportation is going to be a major investment (if it's even possible without moving people back into the cities). Moving to electric cars is much easier because it uses most of the same infrastructure and doesn't require people to make any major changes in their lives.
How? End "consumerism" as we know it?
Yep. Consumerism as we know it needs to end. It's an obscene waste where we spend vast amounts of resources on convincing people to spend even more vast amounts of resources on garbage they don't want, complete with transportation waste, packaging material waste, planned obsolescence to guarantee future waste, etc.
Our power grid definitely need upgrades. It'll take most of our lifetime to get that done though...
It will only take most of our lifetimes if we don't make it a high priority. The biggest obstacle isn't the actual work, it's getting enough funding priority to do it on a fast enough schedule.
BarBoBot wrote: I think somewhere along the line you missed the part about America being a FREE country.
Oh good, more useless cliches instead of constructive discussion.
If I decide its in my best intrest to upgrade my electronics, I don't need some sap telling me what I should do with my money.
Do you understand the difference between a meaningful upgrade that you actually benefit from and buying the latest new thing just because it's new?
You know what I do when I see advertising that doesn't appeal to me? I ignore it.
FFS, this is exactly the problem. Huge amounts of money are spent on bombarding you with advertising that you're not interested in, in a desperate attempt to get someone to take the bait and buy something. Oh, and don't bother claiming that you aren't affected by advertising, because there are a lot of very rich marketing experts who disagree with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: That's nine kinds of ironic on a board devoted to plastic fighting mens games.
I have nothing against buying gaming stuff. Buy all you want if you're actually going to use it. I only have a problem with the idea that we should buy obsessively just for the sake of buying, even if all we're ever going to do with the stuff is throw it in the closet to gather dust until it finally ends up in a dump somewhere.
I suppose I'll have to leave it up to someone as "enlightened" as yourself to tell me when I'm allowed to upgrade my stereo speakers... Becuase apparently I'm entirely too stupid to know for myself.
Sorry but this reeks of socialism. I'm sure the real reason people cant spend money on what they want is because you have deemed it "unfair" that some have more than you.
whembly wrote: That's true... but the term's usage evolved a bit.
Maybe, it doesn't really matter. But it's thirty different kinds of bs to try and discredit the science of climate change by complaining about how entirely different parties politically address the issue. It could be revealed tomorrow that Greenpeace are a scam that's attempting to use climate change to corner the market on hemp clothing to fund their dreams to put Hitler's brain in to a blue whale... and it still wouldn't change the basic, overwhelming nature of climate science.
I feel like you haven't read any of my earlier posts.
Yup.
Then we have nothing to discuss. Can't debate science with someone who is happy to reject the findings of scientific organisations. Makes the whole thing really fething pointless.
Really Seb?
So, do you believe everything your government tells you?
We. Don't. Know. Everything.
It's the highest of hubris to believe that we human kind has that sort of influence over mother nature, that many Climate Alarmist is perpetuating. Mother. Nature. Will. feth. You. Up. To. Thy. Kingdom. Come.
Here's the dealio Sebster... many scientists are convinced that human activity is a factor in influencing global warming... right? I'm not discounting that. Okay? In addition, it is also well known that the causes extend outside human activities that we had no part in creating and which we are powerless to stop (Solar activites, volcanoes, oceanic trends, etc...). Here's the kicker... NO ONE is able to definitively peg a percentage of the warming that we’ve seen so far is attributable to natural vs. human causes. It's all educated guesses... The IPCC thought they had the answers in the 90s, which we now know is proven to be wrong.
The true danger, imo, is that someday people will realize that no matter what we do, we will never stop global warming entirely because a good fraction of the causes are natural and not anthropogenic.
By then, we may be able to figure it out a bit more to come up with a viable solution... but it'd be too late. People would be numb to climate hysteria and would react negatively to a possible legitimate policy. Classic Cry Wolf Syndrome here dude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And the failed hockey stick study too... amirite?
Wasn't failed. Some scientists have specific technical issues with the study, and other people (including the original authors but not just them) have specific technical answers, and meanwhile the whole of the field moved on with more complex and sophisticated models that they continue to refine.
Um... no, the tree ring data had to be hand-picked to get the desired result (getting that hockey bend). Even the National Academy of Science Report from 2006 clarifed that the hockey-stick methodologies lead "questionable historical reconstructions."
It's discredited largely by the scientific community.
Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?
Reduce carbon emissions. Simplest way to do this is through making it expensive for industry to emit carbon. By fixing a price to emission you get an incentive to reduce current practices or move to entirely different practices.
feth. No.
That doesn't mean I want these industries to willfully ignore current laws/regulation to pollute the environment in the name of the almighty dolla... but, to have bureaucrats to artificially impose an "emission tax" is an asinine policy is crazy pants. There are better ways to achieve this.
Of course, this won't happen, because, essentially, people are fething insane. Staring at a cost to their daily living of 1 to 3%, they will freak the feth out, and when given extensive research that tells them the long term cost of refusing that mino cost... they will simply deny it. This can be established by reading this thread.
Because the research isn't complete Seb... We don't know what we don't fething know. There's no reason to implement drastic policies until we know for sure. In the meantime, if there's practical, sensible policies that encourages emissions reduction / recycling / green energy... I'm all for that. But when groups and bureaucrats pushes for polices that will raise the costs of daily living... and they justify it from things like that "97% consensus" bs line... there's no credibility dude.
Instead, the rich countries will have the resources to adapt, and the poor countries will get shafted. Human history as it always is.
Nah... it's the poorer country that are the big polluters (throw in India, China and Russia too).
Oh except for the pesky bill of rights affirming what? Freedom of speach. Freedom of religeon, the right to bear arms etc.
The things that some people cherish, and that others cant wait to take away...
If I cannot push the state to make a law which bans guns, and the state cannot enact it, then my freedom to push the state to enact a gun ban is restricted.
The Bill of Rights necessarily restricts freedom, as do all laws; as I said before.
BarBoBot wrote: I suppose I'll have to leave it up to someone as "enlightened" as yourself to tell me when I'm allowed to upgrade my stereo speakers... Becuase apparently I'm entirely too stupid to know for myself.
Sigh. Before we continue this "discussion" would you please re-read my posts and understand that I'm talking about voluntary cuts in consumerism, not imposing laws about how often you're allowed to buy stuff?
I'm sure the real reason people cant spend money on what they want is because you have deemed it "unfair" that some have more than you.
Oh FFS. It's not about being "fair" about how much money people are allowed to spend, it's about not trashing the environment by producing useless garbage that people buy and discard immediately because they never really wanted it in the first place. Right now you're looking like the kind of person who drives a giant SUV, not because you really like them, but because you hate "liberals" and want to prove a point.
dogma wrote: Good to see that you're contributing in your habitual manner: one line at a time.
And to think, you tried to criticize me for doing the same thing!
Sorry. I didn't realize it'd hurt your feelings to the extent you'd be bringing it up a week later.
And to be fair, I was criticizing your history of making demonstrably false claims - such as, "Obama never lied about being able to keep your health plan," or, "When I say companies force people to work for them, I don't mean they force people to work for them," - and then responding to the paragraphs posted in opposition with single-line attempts at sophistry.
One line responses are perfectly acceptable in certain situations. Climate change discussion, for example. I realize it's the sort of thing polisci PhDs sit around stroking themselves over for hours at a time, but concise and dismissive is exactly how this topic should be handled.
whembly wrote: So, do you believe everything your government tells you?
"The government" is not the same thing as peer-reviewed science. You're talking about a self-correcting system where everyone has a strong incentive to earn their fame and fortune by proving established theories wrong. If your facts and analysis are bad then it doesn't matter how much the government wants to use you as an example, people are going to publish research that proves you wrong and you'll end up as a brief mention on a list of obsolete theories. If you want to question the established opinion of the majority of experts in a given field then you need a lot more than reflexive skepticism about "the government".
It's the highest of hubris to believe that we human kind has that sort of influence over mother nature, that many Climate Alarmist is perpetuating.
No, it's just understanding science. How about instead of worshiping this idea of "mother nature" we see what the experts have to say? The models for how human activities impact the planet as a whole are far from "hubris".
NO ONE is able to definitively peg a percentage of the warming that we’ve seen so far is attributable to natural vs. human causes.
Who cares? As long as it's a non-zero percentage then we should be doing something about it. Insisting on knowing with absolute certainty whether we're entirely responsible or just contributing to the problem is like refusing to put out the fire in your kitchen because you're not sure whether to blame your bad cooking or bad electrical wiring.
but, to have bureaucrats to artificially impose an "emission tax" is an asinine policy is crazy pants.
Why? It's a perfectly reasonable solution that exploits greed to produce the desired changes. There are issues with the existing systems, especially the ability to buy your way out of the consequences without making any real changes and the lack of penalties on "developing" countries, but the fundamental concept of "stop polluting or you're not going to make any profits" is a good one.
And to be fair, I was criticizing your history of making demonstrably false claims - such as, "Obama never lied about being able to keep your health plan," - and then responding to the paragraphs posted in opposition with single-line attempts at sophistry.
And you're attacking me for having hurt feelings? That was almost 6 months ago, and was not my argument.
But, if you wish to continue, we should take this to PM.
For the record, I do drive an SUV and I have multiple ATV's (gasp even though I can't ride more than 1 at a time!) and I also hate liberalism.
I don't drive my SUV because I'm trying to prove a point. I need a 4x4 because I find it practical for my needs. Hating liberalism has nothing to do with it.
I don't care if you want an electric car, just don't push your gak on me.
BarBoBot wrote: I don't care if you want an electric car, just don't push your gak on me.
I don't want an electric car, I want to minimize the damage done to the environment. And that means everyone* goes all-electric, with zero-emission cars charging from clean nuclear/hydroelectric/etc power. Turning this into some "freedom" issue where everyone has their choice of car is missing the point entirely. Unless you're a mindless Ayn Rand cultist freedom has its limits, and this is a situation where imposing some of those limits is justified.
*Excluding the occasional dedicated hobbyist/collector, whose impact on the overall problem is negligible.
BarBoBot wrote: I don't care if you want an electric car, just don't push your gak on me.
I don't want an electric car, I want to minimize the damage done to the environment. And that means everyone* goes all-electric, with zero-emission cars charging from clean nuclear/hydroelectric/etc power. Turning this into some "freedom" issue where everyone has their choice of car is missing the point entirely. Unless you're a mindless Ayn Rand cultist freedom has its limits, and this is a situation where imposing some of those limits is justified.
*Excluding the occasional dedicated hobbyist/collector, whose impact on the overall problem is negligible.
As long as people like you try to force their beliefs on others, people like me will push back.
Your idea of a better world may involve electric cars. Mine isn't.
You can take your 40 mile per 12 hour charge car and stick it...
BarBoBot wrote: As long as people like you try to force their beliefs on others, people like me will push back.
Of course. People like you will always exist and be a problem. The only question here is whether your kind of selfish ideology will become an irrelevant minority in time to fix our problems.
Your idea of a better world may involve electric cars. Mine isn't.
At least mine still involves cars of some kind. Yours seems to involve pretending the problems of finite oil resources and climate change don't exist, and then wondering why gas is up to $100 a gallon and you're taking the electric bus everywhere.
Peregrine wrote: I don't want an electric car, I want to minimize the damage done to the environment. And that means everyone* goes all-electric, with zero-emission cars charging from clean nuclear/hydroelectric/etc power. Turning this into some "freedom" issue where everyone has their choice of car is missing the point entirely. Unless you're a mindless Ayn Rand cultist freedom has its limits, and this is a situation where imposing some of those limits is justified.
*Excluding the occasional dedicated hobbyist/collector, whose impact on the overall problem is negligible.
No dreams like pipe dreams, I suppose.
Tell you what: I'm fully on board with this as long as you can vouch for China and India doing the same.
BarBoBot wrote: You can take your 40 mile per 12 hour charge car and stick it...
First of all, you're not impressing anyone by using obsolete numbers. How about looking at a modern electric car, with 200+ miles of range and 30+ miles per hour of charging (much more with dedicated charging infrastructure available). Replace gas stations with charging stations and you can drive until you're tired of driving, and charge your battery while you eat lunch.
Second, most driving is within a fairly small range. You don't need 500+ mile range for your 10 mile daily commute, so what you're left with for justification is the ability to make the occasional long trip without having to take a bus/train. And even that justification is going to disappear entirely as range improves beyond the point where the vast majority of people aren't willing to drive that far in one day.
Finally, range is an engineering challenge, not an inherent limit of electric cars. It's only going to improve, and the fastest way to get those improvements is to stop letting car manufacturers ignore electric cars in favor of their existing products.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Tell you what: I'm fully on board with this as long as you can vouch for China and India doing the same.
Obviously that isn't possible, but it's also not a sensible requirement. Other countries deciding to take a short-sighted approach and ignore future consequences doesn't mean that we should do the same just to prove a point about "fairness".
Peregrine wrote: Obviously that isn't possible, but it's also not a sensible requirement. Other countries deciding to take a short-sighted approach and ignore future consequences doesn't mean that we should do the same just to prove a point about "fairness".
I don't think we should do the same to prove a point about "fairness."
I think we should do the same to avoid pointlessly gutting our economy to effect no change. Also, because I am one of the majority who couldn't give a gak less about this issue.
Seaward wrote: I think we should do the same to avoid pointlessly gutting our economy to effect no change.
You seem to have a rather unconventional definition of "no change". If the climate change from India and China is bad, then the climate change from them and the US is going to be even worse. Reducing the damage as much as possible is better than nothing, even if it isn't a perfect solution.
Also, because I am one of the majority who couldn't give a gak less about this issue.
Yeah, who cares about whether the future is going to suck or not. I really have no idea how a reasonable an intelligent person can fail to care about the issue. Believe that the scientists are wrong? Sure. Believe that it's not worth thinking about or that our policies don't matter? No.
How many years have they been claiming that oil is going to run out? The "experts" said it would be gone by now, but somehow we have found more oil, and more ways to get oil from different sources.
Not to mention that the US has been called the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas".
Your zero emissions electric car isn't going to pull my trailer, or do any of the other things i need my 4x4 for. Its useless to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, who cares about whether the future is going to suck or not.
More fearmongering. Scare them into following your orders, and when that doesn't work...shove it down their throats
People don't want to believe something that would require they change their convenient lifestyle or which would hit them in the wallet. This thread is descending into 'waah, that sounds like socialism' and 'b-but I can't have everything I want' in response to the suggestion that we take a serious look at the waste and pollution resulting from wasteful consumerism.
The reason that alternative energies will have to be supported eventually is because fossil fuels are running out and the cost will spiral, it'll hit people in the wallet. There just isn't the interest to act 'for the environment'. And some people don't even believe fossil fuels will run out. Hell, a not insignificant number of poeople in the US struggle to believe in an Earth millions of years as old required for fossils or the arguments required in studying climate change over extremely long periods.
Peregrine wrote: You seem to have a rather unconventional definition of "no change". If the climate change from India and China is bad, then the climate change from them and the US is going to be even worse. Reducing the damage as much as possible is better than nothing, even if it isn't a perfect solution.
If you, me, and Bob are all in a lifeboat, it's going to sink if all three of us start poking holes in it. It'll sink a little slower if you refuse and it's just me and Bob, but it'll still sink.
And that's the dire, dire, DIRE situation you're telling us about. Our lifeboat will sink, unless everyone in the world hugs a tree and starts singing Kumbaya. I know that's not going to happen, so why bother?
Yeah, who cares about whether the future is going to suck or not.
BarBoBot wrote: How many years have they been claiming that oil is going to run out?
Sigh. The fact that we haven't run out yet doesn't mean that we don't have a problem. Some of the initial estimates may have been wrong, but that's because they're estimates, not absolute guarantees. There's uncertainty in how much oil we have, but it's indisputable fact that it's a finite resource and eventually we're going to run out.
The "experts" said it would be gone by now, but somehow we have found more oil, and more ways to get oil from different sources.
Yes, and the oil we keep finding is smaller and smaller volumes. Discovery of new oil isn't keeping up with demand, and production volume is declining. Notice how gas prices are a bit more expensive than they used to be? It's just basic supply and demand.
As for new ways to get oil, no, not really. What's actually happening is that the supply problem is getting bad enough that oil prices have increased to the point where it's profitable to start using ways that were previously too expensive or inefficient to bother with. It's a sign of desperation, not innovation. And it's certainly not going to change the fact that oil is a finite resource.
Not to mention that the US has been called the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas".
Which is still a finite resource, and requires major infrastructure changes. If you're going to have everyone buy new natural gas cars then you might as well go for the better solution of electric cars instead.
Your zero emissions electric car isn't going to pull my trailer, or do any of the other things i need my 4x4 for.
Well, you've certainly done a good job of establishing that you have no clue about this subject.
To me, necessity is the mother of invention. If climate change is as catastrophic as people say it will be, than imagine the wonders that will result - floating cities, submerged utopias, amphibious cars...
...or it could not be catastrophic, and everything will be fine.
...or it could be semi-catastrophic and only destroy certain things, in which case, whatever - we've had wars more devastating than that, and look at the technology those wars drove.
And lastly, I will say that I doubt climate change will result in the extinction of humans. It is unlikely that we will adapt more slowly than the climate will change, what with our intelligence.
Seaward wrote: And that's the dire, dire, DIRE situation you're telling us about. Our lifeboat will sink, unless everyone in the world hugs a tree and starts singing Kumbaya.
Except that's NOT what anyone is saying. This isn't some all or nothing situation where we either continue on exactly as we are now, or everyone dies. There's a wide range of potential effects, depending how much damage we do. Limiting the damage might not avoid the consequences entirely, but it can prevent the worst effects or at least delay them long enough that we have time to adapt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: And lastly, I will say that I doubt climate change will result in the extinction of humans. It is unlikely that we will adapt more slowly than the climate will change, what with our intelligence.
Of course not. The question though is how many people are going to be left behind. Losing 20% of crop yields because your former biggest farming regions no longer have an ideal climate is bad if you're a wealthy country, but you probably have the resources to deal with it. Losing 20% of crop yields means mass starvation and death if you're a country that is already suffering from starvation and depending on foreign food aid just to keep the death rate down. "Don't worry about it now, we'll deal with it later if anything bad happens" is an attitude you can only afford to have if you're privileged enough to live in a wealthy country and think Ayn Rand created the greatest ethical system ever.
Seaward wrote: That's nine kinds of ironic on a board devoted to plastic fighting mens games.
Trying to claim that owning a few hundred pieces of moulded plastic represents consumerism is inane.
The problem isn't coming up with solutions, by the way. The "problem" is that nobody cares. Seriously. Nobody gives a gak about this issue.
And on this I actually agree with Seaward. If we wanted sustainability we'd have it. The difference being, I suspect, that Seaward concludes 'and therefore we should carry on not caring about it', whereas I happen to think that we should at least try to do the sensible thing, even if its quite likely that people will insist on being crazy.
whembly wrote: I feel like you haven't read any of my earlier posts.
Sorry, I did read them, so I don't think I'm missing anything that would work as a counter to my point that how activist groups might have sold the cause reflects not at all on the science underpinning that cause.
Really Seb?
So, do you believe everything your government tells you?
No, of course not. This isn't about some guy coming out and just saying it. This is about a scientific field establishing a theory then refining it and testing it over the course of four decades, all along the way steadily bringing on board every major scientific institution on the planet. We are at the point where rejecting this means you are rejecting the very idea that science can tell us things about the planet.
It's the highest of hubris to believe that we human kind has that sort of influence over mother nature, that many Climate Alarmist is perpetuating.
That's an argument from metaphysics or philosophy, not science. Science will tell you that an increase in CO2 emmissions will increase global temperatures, producing a wide range of local impacts and changes in weather patterns. This isn't new science, greenhouses have been a thing for more than a hundred years. And that is really the only thing that matters.
Here's the dealio Sebster... many scientists are convinced that human activity is a factor in influencing global warming... right? I'm not discounting that. Okay?
Well, if by many you mean 97% of scientists active in the field, then yeah.
In addition, it is also well known that the causes extend outside human activities that we had no part in creating and which we are powerless to stop (Solar activites, volcanoes, oceanic trends, etc...). Here's the kicker... NO ONE is able to definitively peg a percentage of the warming that we’ve seen so far is attributable to natural vs. human causes. It's all educated guesses...
Actually, solar flares have been utterly debunked, as there has been no warming pattern on other planets. Volcanoes increase greenhouse gasses, but they also offset those emissions with a number of other emissions and an increase in cloud effect. The oceanic trends are cyclical, with cycles up to 15 years iirc, and while they make the data more complex, they do nothing to offset or increase long term warming trends.
And there are sophisticated models to track the input and importance of all kinds of effects. Thousands of boffins work away at that stuff all day long.
The IPCC thought they had the answers in the 90s, which we now know is proven to be wrong.
The models weren't as sophisticated as they are now, but calling them wrong is simply not true.
The true danger, imo, is that someday people will realize that no matter what we do, we will never stop global warming entirely because a good fraction of the causes are natural and not anthropogenic.
Non-anthropogenic causes are very long term, gradual processes, measured in hundreds or thousands of years, not the decades we're witnessing.
Um... no, the tree ring data had to be hand-picked to get the desired result (getting that hockey bend). Even the National Academy of Science Report from 2006 clarifed that the hockey-stick methodologies lead "questionable historical reconstructions."
It's discredited largely by the scientific community.
Ah yes, you're right on that. I was thinking of a different paper. Maybe. Some of my reading on this goes back a long time now... might be I read about the hockey stick thing before the conclusion.
Anyhow, point to you.
But I will point out that with the hockey stick graph... that's science working as it is supposed to. A problem is shown with one method and its results, and it is no longer used. Meanwhile there are dozens of other studies that use other methods that produce results just like the infamous hockey stick graph, and there is no sensible challenge to the methods in any of those studies.
That doesn't mean I want these industries to willfully ignore current laws/regulation to pollute the environment in the name of the almighty dolla... but, to have bureaucrats to artificially impose an "emission tax" is an asinine policy is crazy pants. There are better ways to achieve this.
Economics disagrees with you. And this is one of the places where it becomes clear I'm actually a lot more right wing than you - I believe a properly designed market will reach an optimum conclusion far better than government rules.
Because the research isn't complete Seb... We don't know what we don't fething know. There's no reason to implement drastic policies until we know for sure.
I think you're wildly overstating how drastic the policy will be. We had this debate in Australia before our own Carbon Tax was put in place... and then it came and nothing. No industry collapse, no massive spike in employment. Just... a really small increase in the cost of living, and ridiculous amount of whinging.
Nah... it's the poorer country that are the big polluters (throw in India, China and Russia too).
While they have great poverty, they are not the poor countries. Ironically, it is in the process of moving from poor countries to developing countries that's led to their increase in pollution. If you want real poor look at India and China's neighbours - look at countries like Bangladesh, and tell me how practical it will be for them to adapt to climate change.
And you should remember who actually gets the goods produced by their pollution heavy manufacturing - it is you and I who end up wearing the shirts they produce, watching the tvs they produce.
Seaward wrote: And that's the dire, dire, DIRE situation you're telling us about. Our lifeboat will sink, unless everyone in the world hugs a tree and starts singing Kumbaya. I know that's not going to happen, so why bother?
Oh look, and here Seaward tells us he knows that gak isn't going to happen. Peer reviewed science built up over a period of forty years can suck it, because Seaward knows.
sebster wrote: Trying to claim that owning a few hundred pieces of moulded plastic represents consumerism is inane.
No more inane than claiming they fall into Peregrine's "buy what you need," proposal.
And on this I actually agree with Seaward. If we wanted sustainability we'd have it. The difference being, I suspect, that Seaward concludes 'and therefore we should carry on not caring about it', whereas I happen to think that we should at least try to do the sensible thing, even if its quite likely that people will insist on being crazy.
I don't see anything sensible at all about hamstringing our economy in the hopes it might, maybe, possibly do something about a problem we may not be able to affect anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Oh look, and here Seaward tells us he knows that gak isn't going to happen. Peer reviewed science built up over a period of forty years can suck it, because Seaward knows.
This is a reading comprehension fail on your part, sebster, and a fairly significant one. I was saying that not everyone's going to get on board with the environmental agenda, not that climate change will not occur.
Jesus Christ. It wasn't even a difficult sentence to parse. I get that you get angry and start foaming, but come on.
BarBoBot wrote: First of show me an emission less car that can pull several thousand pounds and travel several hundred miles on a charge?
Whether or not it exists right now it can exist. There's no inherent limit in the technology that prevents it, and the biggest factor in the absence of vehicles like that is the fact that nobody is forcing car manufacturers to develop and build them.
Second, does everyone here realise that the power your using to charge your toy electric car most likely came from the burning of fossil fuels?
Sigh. Go back and read where I've said that electric cars are only part of the solution, and should be accompanied by nuclear/hydroelectric/geothermal/solar power.
Also, even if you're getting electricity from fossil fuel power plants there are significant gains in efficiency and emissions when you scale up the size of your power plants. A well-designed coal power plant is going to produce less pollution per unit of energy than the engine in your car, and that's ignoring the differences between carrying electrical energy over power lines vs. driving trucks full of gas everywhere to supply your car.
Just from a big ol coal burning plant.
And guess what I also oppose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: No more inane than claiming they fall into Peregrine's "buy what you need," proposal.
Yeah, because I was clearly talking about "needs" as in basic survival, not "don't buy useless garbage that just collects dust in your closet until you finally throw it away".
22 years ago text books told me that my home town would be part of a new coast line right around now.
There have been other scary claims which appear to have taken a small drop of science topped off with large amounts of scare mongering and politicization.
Climate change is real, but can the layman be pulled up for believing that 'THE SCIENZ' is hokum when it is fed through biased channels?
Mr. Burning wrote: 22 years ago text books told me that my home town would be part of a new coast line right around now.
There have been other scary claims which appear to have taken a small drop of science topped off with large amounts of scare mongering and politicization.
Climate change is real, but can the layman be pulled up for believing that 'THE SCIENZ' is hokum when it is fed through biased channels?
Seaward wrote: No more inane than claiming they fall into Peregrine's "buy what you need," proposal.
"Buy what you need" would be almost inane, if it weren't for the fact that as a species we so rarely do it. Instead it becomes really, really useful advice. I mean, read my sig, there it is right there, albeit in a slightly different form, and for a slightly different purpose.
Whereas your suggestion, that a couple of hundred pieces of plastic are consumerism in the way that a new hummer might be... well that's just silly.
I don't see anything sensible at all about hamstringing our economy in the hopes it might, maybe, possibly do something about a problem we may not be able to affect anyway.
Whereas I don't see anything sensible at all about throwing terms like hamstringing out there, when we know the costs of carbon reduction and they simply aren't 'hamstringing'. And I find it perhaps sillier still to go straight from 'oh is there much of a problem', as you asked in a thread not that long ago, to now deciding that there's nothing we can do about it.
This is a reading comprehension fail on your part, sebster, and a fairly significant one. I was saying that not everyone's going to get on board with the environmental agenda, not that climate change will not occur.
It can be read either way. It doesn't really matter, as whether your argument rests on assuming the boat will sink, or whether it rests on needing everyone to hug and sing kumbaya, they're both very stupid claims.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: Climate change is real, but can the layman be pulled up for believing that 'THE SCIENZ' is hokum when it is fed through biased channels?
Very true. It's often said that politically active groups have done a lot of harm by overstating the immediacy and threat of climate change, despite meaning well. The issue I have with that is that I don't really want to give those groups the credit of meaning well - too many are little more than attention whores.
BarBoBot wrote: How many years have they been claiming that oil is going to run out? The "experts" said it would be gone by now, but somehow we have found more oil, and more ways to get oil from different sources.
sebster wrote: "Buy what you need" would be almost inane, if it weren't for the fact that as a species we so rarely do it. Instead it becomes really, really useful advice. I mean, read my sig, there it is right there, albeit in a slightly different form, and for a slightly different purpose.
Whereas your suggestion, that a couple of hundred pieces of plastic are consumerism in the way that a new hummer might be... well that's just silly.
The only difference is the scale, sebster. Space Marines aren't somehow a more utilitarian purchase than a Hummer.
If nothing else, this thread has inspired me to finally pull the trigger on that $2K quadrotor I'd like to dick around with now and then.
Whereas I don't see anything sensible at all about throwing terms like hamstringing out there, when we know the costs of carbon reduction and they simply aren't 'hamstringing'. And I find it perhaps sillier still to go straight from 'oh is there much of a problem', as you asked in a thread not that long ago, to now deciding that there's nothing we can do about it.
I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, thanks. My stance on this has always been, "I don't care." Is it happening? Whether the answer's yes or no (and I personally think it's yes), I don't care. It doesn't justify reconfiguring the way we live and do business. And pretending that getting to where guys like Peregrine want us to be would be a mostly painless, cheap process? Please. Either you're being disingenuous, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Sustainability's not going to gain any ground until it makes a modicum of economic sense. A good friend of mine went into sustainability consulting when he got out of the Navy and got his Master's. It doesn't work for most companies. They increase spending or decrease productivity, and have nothing to show for it. Shareholders don't give a gak about a sense of environmental well-being.
It can be read either way. It doesn't really matter, as whether your argument rests on assuming the boat will sink, or whether it rests on needing everyone to hug and sing kumbaya, they're both very stupid claims.
I don't think they're anywhere near as stupid as, "Hummers are bad, plastic toy soldiers are useful!" but to each their own. The major economies do in fact all need to be on board with any of these sustainability pipe dreams, because the plan doesn't work without that being the case. China or India or even the EU would be quite happy to fill a US-sized void if it meant increased growth with the only offset being some nebulously-defined, far-off doomsday where the beach is a little colder (or warmer, depending on who you're listening to and what day of the week it is when the prediction's being made).
Seaward wrote: The only difference is the scale, sebster. Space Marines aren't somehow a more utilitarian purchase than a Hummer.
Actually the space marines are more utilitarian. Unless you're the type of person who buys a bunch of model kits and then tosses them in the closet to collect dust those space marines will probably give you a lot of enjoyment. The Hummer, on the other hand, is something people only buy because it has been successfully marketed as a status symbol. Remove that marketing and most of the Hummer buyers probably wouldn't be getting much more enjoyment out of it than they would be getting from a more sensible car, and they'd feel pretty stupid about their gas bills.
And pretending that getting to where guys like Peregrine want us to be would be a mostly painless, cheap process?
Who said anything about it being painless? Of course it's not going to be painless, but that's not the point. The question is whether you want to suffer some pain now, or a lot of pain later. Like I said about electric cars, the choice is to invest in the technology now and suffer the short-term costs, or do nothing and have no cars at all when gas costs $100 a gallon and electric car technology hasn't been developed to the point where it's practical for everyone to own one. Or it's the choice between a small cost of living increase now, or a massive cost of living increase in the future when crop yields fall and food prices start increasing. Or it's the choice between paying for new infrastructure now, or paying for even more new infrastructure later every time a major hurricane hits (and they're expected to become more frequent).
What you're doing here is saying that you'd rather pay no taxes this year in exchange for paying double the taxes for the rest of your life. Unless you're old enough that you don't expect to live to feel any of the effects of climate change, and don't care about the effects on your children/younger friends/etc, that's an absolutely insane choice to make.
Shareholders don't give a gak about a sense of environmental well-being.
And this is why things like carbon taxes are a good approach. Obviously our entire economic system is designed to favor short-term profits no matter what the long-term costs are, but if you give business a choice of working towards better sustainability and making a profit (even if it's less than they'd like) or being taxed to death then even the most selfish and short-sighted shareholder can see the obvious correct choice.
China or India or even the EU would be quite happy to fill a US-sized void if it meant increased growth with the only offset being some nebulously-defined, far-off doomsday where the beach is a little colder (or warmer, depending on who you're listening to and what day of the week it is when the prediction's being made).
The potential effects of climate change go way beyond being a little annoyed at the weather being warmer or colder than usual. For example, what do you think happens when the climate in major farming areas stops being so ideal for farming? How many people should starve to death to satisfy our need for more useless junk to buy?
Seaward wrote: The only difference is the scale, sebster. Space Marines aren't somehow a more utilitarian purchase than a Hummer.
Yes, the difference is scale. We are talking about dealing with finite resources, and you don't realise that scale is perhaps the most important thing.
I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth, thanks. My stance on this has always been, "I don't care." Is it happening? Whether the answer's yes or no (and I personally think it's yes), I don't care. It doesn't justify reconfiguring the way we live and do business.
Except, of course, the cost of minimising emissions are cheaper than the cost of adapting. As I've explained to you before.
And pretending that getting to where guys like Peregrine want us to be would be a mostly painless, cheap process? Please. Either you're being disingenuous, or you don't know what you're talking about.
Peregrine's stance was individual action, which incurs no cost other than that each person puts on themself. The complaint against that is it is impractical, not that the burden is too great.
And you are being disingenuous in pretending the only solution is one like Peregrine's. Current models call for a slow increase emission reduction efforts over a period of time and if you spent any time looking at them you'd find them remarkably not scary.
Sustainability's not going to gain any ground until it makes a modicum of economic sense. A good friend of mine went into sustainability consulting when he got out of the Navy and got his Master's. It doesn't work for most companies. They increase spending or decrease productivity, and have nothing to show for it. Shareholders don't give a gak about a sense of environmental well-being.
Well fething duh. That's why you build an economic system in which unsustainable business practices incur an economic cost. Hence cap and trade.
I don't think they're anywhere near as stupid as, "Hummers are bad, plastic toy soldiers are useful!" but to each their own.
Do you actually not understand how some things are bigger than other things?
[quote[The major economies do in fact all need to be on board with any of these sustainability pipe dreams, because the plan doesn't work without that being the case. China or India or even the EU would be quite happy to fill a US-sized void if it meant increased growth with the only offset being some nebulously-defined, far-off doomsday where the beach is a little colder (or warmer, depending on who you're listening to and what day of the week it is when the prediction's being made).
I mean an agreement, or a treaty if you will, signed on by multiple nations... some kind of "international treaty", to invent some crazy new buzzword that I just made up that no-one has ever done before... I mean come on, what kind of craziness is that?! Hah! "International treaty" man that's just some insane utopian nonsense.
Peregrine wrote: Actually the space marines are more utilitarian. Unless you're the type of person who buys a bunch of model kits and then tosses them in the closet to collect dust those space marines will probably give you a lot of enjoyment. The Hummer, on the other hand, is something people only buy because it has been successfully marketed as a status symbol. Remove that marketing and most of the Hummer buyers probably wouldn't be getting much more enjoyment out of it than they would be getting from a more sensible car, and they'd feel pretty stupid about their gas bills.
I don't think of the Hummer as a status symbol, personally, but beyond that, this is a very bizarre argument. If someone enjoys their Hummer, whatever might be motivating that enjoyment, that's no different than someone enjoying their Space Marines. You're adding a very weird moral connotation to the different forms of enjoyment that simply isn't organic.
Who said anything about it being painless? Of course it's not going to be painless, but that's not the point. The question is whether you want to suffer some pain now, or a lot of pain later. Like I said about electric cars, the choice is to invest in the technology now and suffer the short-term costs, or do nothing and have no cars at all when gas costs $100 a gallon and electric car technology hasn't been developed to the point where it's practical for everyone to own one. Or it's the choice between a small cost of living increase now, or a massive cost of living increase in the future when crop yields fall and food prices start increasing. Or it's the choice between paying for new infrastructure now, or paying for even more new infrastructure later every time a major hurricane hits (and they're expected to become more frequent).
And those are all false choices, I'm afraid. Exactly none of the scenarios you presented are binary. It can be one, or the other...or any number of different points between. It's not, "full-on electric cars now, go go go, or no cars at all!" We know this because...well, we have electric cars now, and no government mandate for them.
What you're doing here is saying that you'd rather pay no taxes this year in exchange for paying double the taxes for the rest of your life. Unless you're old enough that you don't expect to live to feel any of the effects of climate change, and don't care about the effects on your children/younger friends/etc, that's an absolutely insane choice to make.
No. What I'm saying is that between the choices of, "Pay no taxes this year, and run the incredibly murky, ill-defined, and possibly non-existent risk of a tax increase next year," or, "Pay double taxes this year, and run the incredibly murky, ill-defined, and possibly non-existent risk of a tax increase next year," I'll take the former.
And this is why things like carbon taxes are a good approach.
If they worked, I'd agree with you.
Obviously our entire economic system is designed to favor short-term profits no matter what the long-term costs are, but if you give business a choice of working towards better sustainability and making a profit (even if it's less than they'd like) or being taxed to death then even the most selfish and short-sighted shareholder can see the obvious correct choice.
Not really. Obviously this is purely anecdotal, but as I said, I have a buddy who does this stuff for a living. He believes in the mission, same as you. The reality is that a lot of businesses dip their toes in the sustainability pool, realize that it's costing more than it's benefiting, and either back right out or at least swear off wading deeper.
We're simply not going to get to a point where we're telling business, "Ah ha! You declined to go green when you had the chance, so here's your Tax Doom!" That's, forgive the pejorative, absolute liberal fantasy.
Find a way to make it profitable, and you might have something. But it has to be "real" profitable, not, "We can exploit this government money glurge for a while until everybody else catches on and tries to cash in," profitable.
The potential effects of climate change go way beyond being a little annoyed at the weather being warmer or colder than usual. For example, what do you think happens when the climate in major farming areas stops being so ideal for farming? How many people should starve to death to satisfy our need for more useless junk to buy?
Everyone seems to have made their peace with the amount dying now, for the same reason. I'm not sure a few percentage points of increase will incite a crisis of conscience.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: Peregrine's stance was individual action, which incurs no cost other than that each person puts on themself.
This tells me all I need to know about how little you bother to read of a thread before wading in to toss about inaccurately. The guy calling for governments to force a halt to combustion engine vehicle production and switch entirely over to electric is advocating only "individual action"?
Tell you what. When you want to read and comprehend what's being said, you can come back to the adult table.
Seaward wrote: I don't think of the Hummer as a status symbol, personally, but beyond that, this is a very bizarre argument. If someone enjoys their Hummer, whatever might be motivating that enjoyment, that's no different than someone enjoying their Space Marines. You're adding a very weird moral connotation to the different forms of enjoyment that simply isn't organic.
Yes, and I'm proposing that, as a society, we need to value direct enjoyment more than things like status symbols. And it's not a moral connotation, it's a utilitarian analysis of whether or not a person is getting much benefit from the resources they're consuming. Right now we have a society that encourages consumption for the sake of consumption, which leads to lots of credit card debt and a lot of wasted resources. We need to start asking ourselves whether we really want that thing we're about to buy, or if we're just buying it because the marketing experts have convinced us that we "need" it.
And I'm not proposing a ban on ridiculous toys like the Hummer. I'm proposing voluntary change, that we stop seeing things like the Hummer as an appealing purchase. It's the difference between saying "you should be a good person and donate to charity" and imposing a 90% income tax and directing all of that money to the official government charity programs.
And those are all false choices, I'm afraid. Exactly none of the scenarios you presented are binary. It can be one, or the other...or any number of different points between. It's not, "full-on electric cars now, go go go, or no cars at all!" We know this because...well, we have electric cars now, and no government mandate for them.
Obviously it's not binary, but the point is that "who cares" isn't a sensible opinion here. We need to start taking action, not just shrugging and saying "not my problem yet" or being so terrified of the immediate costs that we set ourselves up to pay a much higher cost in the future.
And no, it's not full-on electric cars. That's the end goal, but not something that would happen overnight. My preference would be a gradually increasing limit on how many non-electric cars can be produced, like we did with improving MPG standards. This motivates companies to work on making better electric cars instead of quietly burying the technology (like they did with previous electric cars) as a danger to their business model.
No. What I'm saying is that between the choices of, "Pay no taxes this year, and run the incredibly murky, ill-defined, and possibly non-existent risk of a tax increase next year," or, "Pay double taxes this year, and run the incredibly murky, ill-defined, and possibly non-existent risk of a tax increase next year," I'll take the former.
Except it's not that ill-defined. We know that consequences are pretty likely, and we know that the more we do to reduce carbon emissions the less severe those consequences are likely to be (or, the longer it will take for the worst consequences to hit). You're assuming a lot more uncertainty and helplessness than the experts in the field.
If they worked, I'd agree with you.
Obviously the system isn't perfect, but the basic concept provides a useful starting point. You can't fix short-sighted greed, so you change the rules to make doing the right thing the profitable thing, and ensure that companies that refuse to work towards better sustainability are unable to compete with companies that do.
Not really. Obviously this is purely anecdotal, but as I said, I have a buddy who does this stuff for a living. He believes in the mission, same as you. The reality is that a lot of businesses dip their toes in the sustainability pool, realize that it's costing more than it's benefiting, and either back right out or at least swear off wading deeper.
Yes, but that's because the current system isn't making a strong enough effort to reward sustainability and punish companies that refuse to cooperate. Imagine a hypothetical new policy that outlines steps towards sustainability and imposes a 100% tax on all revenue for any company that fails to meet them. Obviously that's extreme and never going to happen, but if it did I can guarantee that every business would be doing their absolute best to comply with the new sustainability goals, and any CEO that refused would be instantly replaced by the angry shareholders.
We're simply not going to get to a point where we're telling business, "Ah ha! You declined to go green when you had the chance, so here's your Tax Doom!" That's, forgive the pejorative, absolute liberal fantasy.
Unfortunately you're right about it being fantasy. Too much of our government cares more about making their CEO friends lots of money than doing the right thing, so we aren't going to get any real change. But the fact that our current (and foreseeable) government is too greedy and stupid to do the right thing doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do.
Find a way to make it profitable, and you might have something. But it has to be "real" profitable, not, "We can exploit this government money glurge for a while until everybody else catches on and tries to cash in," profitable.
But that's never going to happen until it's too late. We're stuck with an economic system that would rather make $2 now than $1 a year for ten years (see every GW news thread for the past year). It's always going to be profitable to sacrifice the future for short-term gains, and by the time climate change gets bad enough that it's impossible to make money without changing it's way too late. You need government regulation and funding to force the system to care about the future and make the necessary investments.
Everyone seems to have made their peace with the amount dying now, for the same reason. I'm not sure a few percentage points of increase will incite a crisis of conscience.
Yes, obviously we're happy to let people starve to death as long as we're nice and comfortable here. But the point is that the effects of climate change potentially go way beyond just minor annoyances about the weather not being quite what you like. To give another example, how many additional city-destroying hurricanes have to hit the US before you think that anti-climate-change policies are justified? Even if you don't want to address the moral issue the economic damage caused by that kind of disaster is clear.
Graphs of carbon dioxide levels over millions of years mean little when lined up with the type of climate at the time.
The problem with climate change is 'change'.
We're used to everything being the same, as rising sea-levels means coastal towns and islands get swamped. This is only a problem for those areas, as the new coast can take over from them. But, no-one wants that, so there's this huge amount of work done to stop it.
If the equator becomes uninhabitable, people move to the tropics, and we're all squashed up a bit more. But we could grow the same crops, just in new areas. As the poles warm, there'll be more space to live there, and it evens out a bit more.
Or, something similar, depending on who you talk to.
So, change is painful and expensive, but the planet will survive, as will most things on it. Somewhere new.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, and I'm proposing that, as a society, we need to value direct enjoyment more than things like status symbols. And it's not a moral connotation, it's a utilitarian analysis of whether or not a person is getting much benefit from the resources they're consuming. Right now we have a society that encourages consumption for the sake of consumption, which leads to lots of credit card debt and a lot of wasted resources. We need to start asking ourselves whether we really want that thing we're about to buy, or if we're just buying it because the marketing experts have convinced us that we "need" it.
And I'm proposing that we all choose to stop human conflict.
I mean, I get what you're saying, but you're talking about re-wiring the way humanity...works, for lack of a better term. Status symbols and things of that sort aren't some modern invention. And I don't think you'll have any success whatsoever at getting a species that is, in most cases or maybe at the macro level, inherently selfish to suddenly commit to self-sacrifice in pursuit of a goal we can't really clearly define.
Obviously it's not binary, but the point is that "who cares" isn't a sensible opinion here. We need to start taking action, not just shrugging and saying "not my problem yet" or being so terrified of the immediate costs that we set ourselves up to pay a much higher cost in the future.
I disagree. If all of the varied doomsday predictions are true, it'll certainly be someone's problem, and I hope that generation's pretty clever and figures out a way to McGuyver themselves out of it, but it's absolutely not going to be our problem.
And no, it's not full-on electric cars. That's the end goal, but not something that would happen overnight. My preference would be a gradually increasing limit on how many non-electric cars can be produced, like we did with improving MPG standards. This motivates companies to work on making better electric cars instead of quietly burying the technology (like they did with previous electric cars) as a danger to their business model.
But that's not what's happening, and I've seen enough Teslas driving around DC to know it's not. If they wind up being successful, they'll just be pioneers into the market, not the only players. Demand will grow organically as the technology improves and drops in price. Government trying to force that to happen on its own schedule is not a good idea, because it rarely works well.
Except it's not that ill-defined. We know that consequences are pretty likely, and we know that the more we do to reduce carbon emissions the less severe those consequences are likely to be (or, the longer it will take for the worst consequences to hit). You're assuming a lot more uncertainty and helplessness than the experts in the field.
Maybe, but I don't think I am. I'm hardly an expert in this field or anything, but I do try to keep at least general knowledge-abreast, and the impression of the consensus I have is, "Something will likely happen, someday. We may or may not be able to stop it." That's about as specific as the agreement gets.
Obviously the system isn't perfect, but the basic concept provides a useful starting point. You can't fix short-sighted greed, so you change the rules to make doing the right thing the profitable thing, and ensure that companies that refuse to work towards better sustainability are unable to compete with companies that do.
I don't see any way of doing that without the government spending tons upon tons of money.
Yes, but that's because the current system isn't making a strong enough effort to reward sustainability and punish companies that refuse to cooperate. Imagine a hypothetical new policy that outlines steps towards sustainability and imposes a 100% tax on all revenue for any company that fails to meet them. Obviously that's extreme and never going to happen, but if it did I can guarantee that every business would be doing their absolute best to comply with the new sustainability goals, and any CEO that refused would be instantly replaced by the angry shareholders.
Well, sure, if you impose policies that basically amount to, "We'll drive you out of business if you don't go green," then everybody's going to try to go green. Would that work in forcing the vast majority to do so? Absolutely.
The problem is that you're not guaranteeing those companies stay profitable with the new regulations; all you're doing is tying one hand behind their backs when it comes to foreign competition not subject to such rules.
But that's never going to happen until it's too late. We're stuck with an economic system that would rather make $2 now than $1 a year for ten years (see every GW news thread for the past year). It's always going to be profitable to sacrifice the future for short-term gains, and by the time climate change gets bad enough that it's impossible to make money without changing it's way too late. You need government regulation and funding to force the system to care about the future and make the necessary investments.
The problem with that notion is, as I said, if everybody the world over isn't held to the same standards, you're going to create lopsided competition that inevitably will hurt our economy. If you're going to do that sort of thing, you need to be considerably more concrete than you are about the consequences of not taking action, and what action to take. (Using the general "you," by the way.) Nobody's there yet.
Yes, obviously we're happy to let people starve to death as long as we're nice and comfortable here. But the point is that the effects of climate change potentially go way beyond just minor annoyances about the weather not being quite what you like. To give another example, how many additional city-destroying hurricanes have to hit the US before you think that anti-climate-change policies are justified? Even if you don't want to address the moral issue the economic damage caused by that kind of disaster is clear.
There you go. Economic effects are the way you want to argue this if you want to see change, but it's not enough to convince me yet. New Orleans was destroyed because it's a below sea level swamp with gakky levies. When the sea reclaims Manhattan, maybe.
BarBoBot wrote: Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"
Well if you don't practice any sustainable methods you won't have much resources for an economy either...
whembly wrote: Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?
Stop approving coal power plants and start approving much cleaner nuclear/solar/hydroelectric plants instead (and the anti-science morons and NIMBYs can stfu and deal with it), impose a mandatory deadline for moving 95% of new car production to electric-only (and invest in the infrastructure to make that possible) so that only the occasional hobbyists and collectors are burning gas, promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff, and transfer the entire US military budget into developing practical fusion power along with efficiency improvements in power distribution and similar areas. Nuclear power and an all-electric infrastructure get emissions down immediately, while fusion provides a clean long-term solution.
There's the rub.
1. NUMBYs DON"T just STFU. They block them. Look at the wind projects off New England. Oh wait...
2. Coal just gets shipped to China which conveniently seems exempt from all this.
3. Nuke reactors? The same hippy tree huggers who want us to "just conserve" and use flower power are against nuke power in a big way.
BarBoBot wrote: I suppose I'll have to leave it up to someone as "enlightened" as yourself to tell me when I'm allowed to upgrade my stereo speakers... Becuase apparently I'm entirely too stupid to know for myself.
Sorry but this reeks of socialism. I'm sure the real reason people cant spend money on what they want is because you have deemed it "unfair" that some have more than you.
No no get it right. That reeks of communism's crappier more annoying sister who can't get a date- nanny statism.
We only need basic food, water, shelter and transport to obtain such. Everything else is "rampant consumerism."
BarBoBot wrote: I don't care if you want an electric car, just don't push your gak on me.
I don't want an electric car, I want to minimize the damage done to the environment. And that means everyone* goes all-electric, with zero-emission cars charging from clean nuclear/hydroelectric/etc power. Turning this into some "freedom" issue where everyone has their choice of car is missing the point entirely. Unless you're a mindless Ayn Rand cultist freedom has its limits, and this is a situation where imposing some of those limits is justified.
*Excluding the occasional dedicated hobbyist/collector, whose impact on the overall problem is negligible.
You must be a Yankee (see after a few decades I've finally managed to exclude the term "Damn" as a preface). I drive 84 miles back and forth to work. You electro car can't hack it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: People don't want to believe something that would require they change their convenient lifestyle or which would hit them in the wallet. This thread is descending into 'waah, that sounds like socialism' and 'b-but I can't have everything I want' in response to the suggestion that we take a serious look at the waste and pollution resulting from wasteful consumerism.
The reason that alternative energies will have to be supported eventually is because fossil fuels are running out and the cost will spiral, it'll hit people in the wallet. There just isn't the interest to act 'for the environment'. And some people don't even believe fossil fuels will run out. Hell, a not insignificant number of poeople in the US struggle to believe in an Earth millions of years as old required for fossils or the arguments required in studying climate change over extremely long periods.
You first. Guive up your electricty right now you evil consumerist!
BarBoBot wrote: How many years have they been claiming that oil is going to run out? The "experts" said it would be gone by now, but somehow we have found more oil, and more ways to get oil from different sources.
...
Obviously there is not infinite oil.
And? At that point crank up the nukes or its 1850s time. Either way "green" will correct at that point. Aint llife grand?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Oklahoma is trying to block new wind power projects. Wind blowing across this flat state is one thing that we will never face a shortage...
Oklahoma could get rich selling power to evil Kalifornia when tornado season comes.
d-usa wrote: Oklahoma is trying to block new wind power projects. Wind blowing across this flat state is one thing that we will never face a shortage...
BarBoBot wrote: Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"
Well if you don't practice any sustainable methods you won't have much resources for an economy either...
Thats wrong on its face actually.
How do you keep an economy going if you run out of natural resources then?
There is a tremendous arrogance, not to mention worrying trend of paranoia, in assuming you know better than the vast number of experts in a field. Whether it's that the warming is happening, that it's caused by humans, or that it will be ecologically significant, I reckon very few of us here are well enough educated to make judgements on that.
I've had enough training in ecological science to be pretty damn confident that the impacts on our ecosystems (which, by the way, is where your frigging food and water come from, not just a bunch of trees that hippies like to hug) will be significant, though likely not "catastrophic" in a "wipe out all humans" kinda way. We're currently living through a mass extinction event due to human caused change, changes in global temperature will accelerate that change. You might not care about that, in which case I have opinions about you that will violate rule 1, but at least have the self interest to recognise that our current systems are based around the ecosystem as is, and adapting to change will be costly and chaotic.
Anyhow. I'm pretty defeatist on this issue. I reckon my side is right, but will ultimately fail to prevent or even make a significant impact on warming due to human nature. I reckon we're going to be seeing the effects of warming until some other thing reduces human population or productivity significantly, whether that be ecological collapse (which would likely be localised) or a few plagues in succession (Seems fairly likely given the increase in travel and population density).
I'm just pretty angry at the drivel pumped out by the opposing side, most of whom really obviously are influenced primarily by political leaning and weird anti-everything paranoia, rather than any reading or attempt to understand the issue. It's a damn shame. This thread has made me angrier than anything I've read in a long, long time, but it's to be expected.
The bitter satisfaction that history will likely not be kind to the deniers is the only thing that even slightly cheers me up.
BarBoBot wrote: Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"
Well if you don't practice any sustainable methods you won't have much resources for an economy either...
Thats wrong on its face actually.
How do you keep an economy going if you run out of natural resources then?
You will either run out or you won't "sustainable" in the industrial world doesn't mean what you think it means.
BarBoBot wrote: Thats right, tank our economy, while the people who lead the charge don't stop anything they do, because they can afford "carbon credits"
Well if you don't practice any sustainable methods you won't have much resources for an economy either...
Thats wrong on its face actually.
How do you keep an economy going if you run out of natural resources then?
You will either run out or you won't "sustainable" in the industrial world doesn't mean what you think it means.
Thanks for giving us a post with zero content in it, then again why should I be surprised.
whembly wrote: I feel like you haven't read any of my earlier posts.
Sorry, I did read them, so I don't think I'm missing anything that would work as a counter to my point that how activist groups might have sold the cause reflects not at all on the science underpinning that cause.
Wait... so now I'm the "activist group" here?
Really Seb?
So, do you believe everything your government tells you?
No, of course not. This isn't about some guy coming out and just saying it. This is about a scientific field establishing a theory then refining it and testing it over the course of four decades, all along the way steadily bringing on board every major scientific institution on the planet. We are at the point where rejecting this means you are rejecting the very idea that science can tell us things about the planet.
Yeah... here's the thing Seb, You and I are probably a lot closer on this issue than we think. The difference is maybe the "urgency" to do something about it.
Many of the problems I have is that certain groups (both sides if I may add) with agendas will take these studies, and push it as gospel. That Hockey Stick graph is one such example...
Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated. The facts are that the claims of "rising confidence" in attributing effects to human greenhouse gas emissions and predictions of future warming and climate change are not supported by scientific evidence. There's still waaaaaaay too much variability to discount.
Back in school... we learned that in order to conduct a proper scientific "investigation", scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test.
An alternative and null hypothesis... must also be defined and validated.
So... take the IPCC or NASA hypothsis: That human-related greenhouse gas emissions will result in dangerous global warming.
The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes are the result of natural variability.
To invalidate the null hypothesis requires, at a bare bones minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability.
The big studies, ie IPCC, NASA, Al Gore's Inconvient Truthers ( ) has failed to meet this burden of proof.
These studies relies on global climate models that cannot rule out natural variability as the cause of observed climate changes. As such, we cannot verify what impact, if any, anthropogenic activities on our climate.
It's the highest of hubris to believe that we human kind has that sort of influence over mother nature, that many Climate Alarmist is perpetuating.
That's an argument from metaphysics or philosophy, not science. Science will tell you that an increase in CO2 emmissions will increase global temperatures, producing a wide range of local impacts and changes in weather patterns. This isn't new science, greenhouses have been a thing for more than a hundred years. And that is really the only thing that matters.
Science is being used to determine those impact... as such, it's the Global Warming Alarmist™ crew cherry picking the dataset to push their agenda.
Here's the dealio Sebster... many scientists are convinced that human activity is a factor in influencing global warming... right? I'm not discounting that. Okay?
Well, if by many you mean 97% of scientists active in the field, then yeah.
The IPCC thought they had the answers in the 90s, which we now know is proven to be wrong.
The models weren't as sophisticated as they are now, but calling them wrong is simply not true.
O.o
Okay...whatever dude. You are awfully dismissive that there's even a chance that these studies can be wrong.
The true danger, imo, is that someday people will realize that no matter what we do, we will never stop global warming entirely because a good fraction of the causes are natural and not anthropogenic.
Non-anthropogenic causes are very long term, gradual processes, measured in hundreds or thousands of years, not the decades we're witnessing.
There's a huge scientific community that refutes that.
Um... no, the tree ring data had to be hand-picked to get the desired result (getting that hockey bend). Even the National Academy of Science Report from 2006 clarifed that the hockey-stick methodologies lead "questionable historical reconstructions."
It's discredited largely by the scientific community.
Ah yes, you're right on that. I was thinking of a different paper. Maybe. Some of my reading on this goes back a long time now... might be I read about the hockey stick thing before the conclusion.
Anyhow, point to you.
Thanks.
But I will point out that with the hockey stick graph... that's science working as it is supposed to. A problem is shown with one method and its results, and it is no longer used. Meanwhile there are dozens of other studies that use other methods that produce results just like the infamous hockey stick graph, and there is no sensible challenge to the methods in any of those studies.
Yea, but not to the degree of the uptick on that hockey stick graph. That was the point man.
That doesn't mean I want these industries to willfully ignore current laws/regulation to pollute the environment in the name of the almighty dolla... but, to have bureaucrats to artificially impose an "emission tax" is an asinine policy is crazy pants. There are better ways to achieve this.
Economics disagrees with you. And this is one of the places where it becomes clear I'm actually a lot more right wing than you - I believe a properly designed market will reach an optimum conclusion far better than government rules.
You're talking about the market adapting to the business environment.
I'm talking about that it's crazy pants to institute policy based on something that is still going through a major debate in the scientific community.
Because the research isn't complete Seb... We don't know what we don't fething know. There's no reason to implement drastic policies until we know for sure.
I think you're wildly overstating how drastic the policy will be. We had this debate in Australia before our own Carbon Tax was put in place... and then it came and nothing. No industry collapse, no massive spike in employment. Just... a really small increase in the cost of living, and ridiculous amount of whinging.
I need to find the past plans... but, iirc, the US's Carbon Tax initiative was much more severe than anywhere else.
Nah... it's the poorer country that are the big polluters (throw in India, China and Russia too).
While they have great poverty, they are not the poor countries. Ironically, it is in the process of moving from poor countries to developing countries that's led to their increase in pollution. If you want real poor look at India and China's neighbours - look at countries like Bangladesh, and tell me how practical it will be for them to adapt to climate change.
And you should remember who actually gets the goods produced by their pollution heavy manufacturing - it is you and I who end up wearing the shirts they produce, watching the tvs they produce.
No real argument from me there...
But, getting the Global Market to sing the same tune is like herding cats across a river.
Howard A Treesong wrote: People don't want to believe something that would require they change their convenient lifestyle or which would hit them in the wallet. This thread is descending into 'waah, that sounds like socialism' and 'b-but I can't have everything I want' in response to the suggestion that we take a serious look at the waste and pollution resulting from wasteful consumerism.
The reason that alternative energies will have to be supported eventually is because fossil fuels are running out and the cost will spiral, it'll hit people in the wallet. There just isn't the interest to act 'for the environment'. And some people don't even believe fossil fuels will run out. Hell, a not insignificant number of poeople in the US struggle to believe in an Earth millions of years as old required for fossils or the arguments required in studying climate change over extremely long periods.
And yet you're still killing Gaia by typing on a computer.
Da Boss wrote: There is a tremendous arrogance, not to mention worrying trend of paranoia, in assuming you know better than the vast number of experts in a field.
That's what this forum exists for, though. Christ, I had some IT tech trying to lecture me about carrier landings here. Talking out your ass in contradiction to the experts might as well be the forum's new name.
Yes, and I'm proposing that, as a society, we need to value direct enjoyment more than things like status symbols.
As long as you get to define it, evidently. Behold the tryannic hypocrisy of the entire movement.
And it's not a moral connotation, it's a utilitarian analysis
Horse gak. The fact you can defend his cost per unit toy soldiers invalidates your argument on its face.
We need to start asking ourselves whether we really want that thing we're about to buy, or if we're just buying it because the marketing experts have convinced us that we "need" it.
Well this is true. Except for chocolate. I NEED chcolate.
And I'm not proposing a ban on ridiculous toys like the Hummer. I'm proposing voluntary change, that we stop seeing things like the Hummer as an appealing purchase. It's the difference between saying "you should be a good person and donate to charity" and imposing a 90% income tax and directing all of that money to the official government charity programs.
Voluntary now, but we've seen this movie before.
Obviously it's not binary, but the point is that "who cares" isn't a sensible opinion here.
Its the most sensible. actually, considering when you try to (pin down the stereotypcial tree hugger the answer comes down to returning to some hippy commune lifestyle for everyone (but themselves usually-Gore is an example therein) and exist on unicorn power.
Da Boss wrote: There is a tremendous arrogance, not to mention worrying trend of paranoia, in assuming you know better than the vast number of experts in a field.
That's what this forum exists for, though. Christ, I had some IT tech trying to lecture me about carrier landings here. Talking out your ass in contradiction to the experts might as well be the forum's new name.
You're pretty damn right. You ever catch me lecturing you on your area of speciality, just smack me down with that, perhaps.
Heh. A Seaward post that made me smile. And they said it wasn't possible
In 2013, any engaged policymaker or commentator has a responsibility to be fully familiar with
the arguments and conclusions adduced by both of these teams of climate advisors. Towards this
end, we present the primary conclusions of NIPCC’s latest report as they are stated in its
Summary for Policymakers:
1. We conclude neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface
warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual
compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. Furthermore, solar forcings of
temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is
lacking that a 2/ C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful.
2. We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment
caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an
enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been
documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme
meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from
permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.
3. We conclude the current generation of global climate models are unable to make accurate
projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100 year period that has been
adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide
public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value
They're funded by a political think tank with a heavy bias. I don't find them to be a credible source, whatsoever.
Whembly- I used to be involved in agricultural research. In my research, part of what I was investigating was the increase in number of a particular parasite that likes warm, wet summers.
Now, do you think that I was misinterpreting the data I had access to on purpose to acquire more funding, or do you think I was merely mislead by my political bias to the wrong conclusions? I mean, if I am part of any conspiracy, it's really well hidden and I've never received a cent of hush money, is all I'm saying. In fact while I was a researcher I was massively underpaid and my research was really underfunded, often requiring me to take costs on the chin or to work insane hours to solve problems that could easily have been solved with just a little more money.
So, are all the other scientists working in the field just in on it and I was an unlucky schmuck, or what?
(Feel free to disregard as unsubstantiated bs from a guy you've never met on the internet, of course. But I hope you'll think about what I'm saying)
So are you going to immediately recommend full conversion to nuclear reactors, global fracking to release larger natural gas deposits, and mandated GMO crops which can produce greater yields?
I'm pro nuclear and pro GMO. I think GMO could actually be the solution to a lot of problems, though it has to be considered extremely carefully, of course. The ecosystem is damn complicated.
Nuclear power is the best stop gap we have while we develop better alternatives to oil, and should lower the cost of energy in the meantime. It's non-renewable too, however, so it wouldn't do to be complacent.
I don't see how fracking reduces global warming, so I'm not particularly pro fracking.
Also, recently switched to being (mostly) vegetarian because meat based agriculture is pretty damn devastating to the environment (see my posting history to note that I have no particular qualms about killing individual animals- I am concerned for species.)
Edit: But that's a sideline and you know it- play the ball, not the man, Fraz.
Da Boss wrote: They're funded by a political think tank with a heavy bias. I don't find them to be a credible source, whatsoever.
Uh... if you believe that, then I can't help you. The links I provided contains massive amount of data... backed up by real referenced studies if you decide to investigate deeper. I find it hard to believe that you'd discount this information since I posted it.
I think your bias is slipping through a bit.
Whembly- I used to be involved in agricultural research. In my research, part of what I was investigating was the increase in number of a particular parasite that likes warm, wet summers.
Cool! Environmental Studies is a fascinating subject for me.
Now, do you think that I was misinterpreting the data I had access to on purpose to acquire more funding, or do you think I was merely mislead by my political bias to the wrong conclusions?
No. Why would I think that? However, I haven't seen your study so I cannot definitively give you an answer.
I mean, if I am part of any conspiracy, it's really well hidden and I've never received a cent of hush money, is all I'm saying. In fact while I was a researcher I was massively underpaid and my research was really underfunded, often requiring me to take costs on the chin or to work insane hours to solve problems that could easily have been solved with just a little more money.
Huh? Projecting much?
So, are all the other scientists working in the field just in on it and I was an unlucky schmuck, or what?
Of course not.
(Feel free to disregard as unsubstantiated bs from a guy you've never met on the internet, of course. But I hope you'll think about what I'm saying)
Nah... you cool with me.
Fun fact for the day. Whembly (that's moi) was a big believer of Global Warming™ and firmly believed that we'd reached critical mass in our lifetime. Then.... I got older and wised up. The world is a very complex place....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm pro nuclear and pro GMO. I think GMO could actually be the solution to a lot of problems, though it has to be considered extremely carefully, of course. The ecosystem is damn complicated.
Me too! /nukefanhighfive
Nuclear power is the best stop gap we have while we develop better alternatives to oil, and should lower the cost of energy in the meantime. It's non-renewable too, however, so it wouldn't do to be complacent.
Absolutely... I know the Germans, (pretty much Europe too) uses many Nuke plants. It's a shame that the US is lagging behind.
I don't see how fracking reduces global warming, so I'm not particularly pro fracking.
Fracking's potential issue is more on the residual waste byproduct than contributing to greenhouse gases. If done wrong, it can feth up environment (like any extraction technologies).
Also, recently switched to being (mostly) vegetarian because meat based agriculture is pretty damn devastating to the environment (see my posting history to note that I have no particular qualms about killing individual animals- I am concerned for species.)
That's interesting. I fall into the camp of minimizing my wheat intake lately.
Edit: But that's a sideline and you know it- play the ball, not the man, Fraz.
Da Boss wrote: They're funded by a political think tank with a heavy bias. I don't find them to be a credible source, whatsoever.
Uh... if you believe that, then I can't help you. The links I provided contains massive amount of data... backed up by real referenced studies if you decide to investigate deeper. I find it hard to believe that you'd discount this information since I posted it.
I think your bias is slipping through a bit.
Well, TBF whembly, it is funded by the heartland institute, who have a definite bias. If they didn't display that on their front page it would be easier to take what they say at face value. But then again, when is that last time there has been an entirely unbiased report on a political issue by anybody.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I can't stop looking at this from the NIPCC.
The reality is that the world is getting greener over time as plants, animals, and humans benefit from higher temperatures and CO2-enriched air.
At this point they are just talking out of their 's. I just hope this wasn't written by the scientists themselves.
Edit: it wasn't (whew) it was written by the 'executive editor' of the heartland institute so the forward is not based on fact.
whembly wrote: Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.
Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.
No the cause is debated. Temperature change over tim e is not debated.
1. Whats causing it is debated.
2. What to do about it is debated.
3. The costs of doing that is debated.
The fact I don't give a flip about it is not debated.
whembly wrote: Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.
Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.
no its really not... thats a totally false parallel between evolution/creationism and climate change.
the "experts" in the climate field, do NOT agree, its about a 52%-48% divide, so stop acting like its a slam duck hypothesis like gravity or evolution.
yes, the earth has gotten a bit warmer, far far LESS then the global warming zealots predicted. The earth has also naturally been warming up, without our help. It naturally cools and warms, and humans are more then capable of adapting to this normal change in climate.
WHY the temperature is rising, is still very much up for debate, the role of humans in this temperature increase could very well be insignificant compared to the forces of nature (solar cycles, natural warming cylces, ect)
If we look at the #'s humans have far less of an effect then natural events/processes, even green house gas emission wise, then the planet does emit far far more itself then we add to it. again, human emissions are nothing compared to things like volcanoes, and the world doesnt end every time a volcano erupts now does it?
Shutting everything down or crippling economies, when it could have no appreciable affect on the climate (as it could just keep warming up due to other factors) is a huge risk, with real guaranteed detriments without a guaranteed payoff.
whembly wrote: Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.
Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.
That... right there my friend is incorrect.
No one is debating what's happening... the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both.
Not always. The scientific debate maybe, but not the normal one. It started out with one side saying it exists and the other saying it doesn't. I know one guy who even now believes that climate change (man-made or natural) is a hoax.
Climate change alarmists have claimed we "crossed the rubicon" over and over and over.
each time they were wrong, and each time the observed reality vs the fear tainted projections just does not add up.
notice all the projections are at least off by 100%... not a close prediction at all, hence the science behind it is flawed and not 100% understood as the alarmists claim it to be.
[img]
yeah.. real 100% consensus there... everyone agrees, 50% is close enough to 100% right?
whembly wrote: Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.
Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.
no its really not... thats a totally false parallel between evolution/creationism and climate change.
the "experts" in the climate field, do NOT agree, its about a 52%-48% divide, so stop acting like its a slam duck hypothesis like gravity or evolution.
yes, the earth has gotten a bit warmer, far far LESS then the global warming zealots predicted. The earth has also naturally been warming up, without our help. It naturally cools and warms, and humans are more then capable of adapting to this normal change in climate.
WHY the temperature is rising, is still very much up for debate, the role of humans in this temperature increase could very well be insignificant compared to the forces of nature (solar cycles, natural warming cylces, ect)
If we look at the #'s humans have far less of an effect then natural events/processes, even green house gas emission wise, then the planet does emit far far more itself then we add to it. again, human emissions are nothing compared to things like volcanoes, and the world doesnt end every time a volcano erupts now does it?
...
Not according to the US Geological Survery, reported in Scientific American...
whembly wrote: Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.
Sigh. No, it's "intensely debated" like evolution vs. young-earth creationism is "intensely debated". The experts all agree on what the conclusion is, but a lot of people don't like those conclusions (because of ideology/money/etc) and refuse to accept them.
no its really not... thats a totally false parallel between evolution/creationism and climate change.
the "experts" in the climate field, do NOT agree, its about a 52%-48% divide, so stop acting like its a slam duck hypothesis like gravity or evolution.
yes, the earth has gotten a bit warmer, far far LESS then the global warming zealots predicted. The earth has also naturally been warming up, without our help. It naturally cools and warms, and humans are more then capable of adapting to this normal change in climate.
WHY the temperature is rising, is still very much up for debate, the role of humans in this temperature increase could very well be insignificant compared to the forces of nature (solar cycles, natural warming cylces, ect)
If we look at the #'s humans have far less of an effect then natural events/processes, even green house gas emission wise, then the planet does emit far far more itself then we add to it. again, human emissions are nothing compared to things like volcanoes, and the world doesnt end every time a volcano erupts now does it?
...
Not according to the US Geological Survery, reported in Scientific American...
And what? No country is going to volutnarily knock itself back into the pre-industrial age on a hunch, especially when other countries are churning and burning. That one unassailable fact makes pro arguments moot.
whembly wrote: No one is debating what's happening... the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both.
The CO_2 levels have risen rather sharply over the last hundred years. Did it come from some invisible volcanoes, the Nazis living inside the hollow earth, or rather from us living on the surface?
If you then look at the transmission spectra of various gases and especially CO_2 it's quite clear that the increasing CO_2 concentration leads to more energy from the sun being kept on the planet. There have been countless measurements of those spectra both in laboratories and outside of labs using satellites.
A part of that increasing energy content will lead to higher temperatures on the surface of our planet. What's there to debate?
whembly wrote: No one is debating what's happening... the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both.
The CO_2 levels have risen rather sharply over the last hundred years. Did it come from some invisible volcanoes, the Nazis living inside the hollow earth, or rather from us living on the surface?
If you then look at the transmission spectra of various gases and especially CO_2 it's quite clear that the increasing CO_2 concentration leads to more energy from the sun being kept on the planet. There have been countless measurements of those spectra both in laboratories and outside of labs using satellites.
A part of that increasing energy content will lead to higher temperatures on the surface of our planet. What's there to debate?
easysauce wrote: places like the manhattan institute have pretty good non biased science on this kind of thing
Why would i rather read a non-scientist's view than the relevant scientific publications?
non-scientist?
is that what you call experts in their fields conducting peer reviewed research?
are you looking for a literal degree in "doing science"? or does the lack of the word "science" in the title just throw you off?
The author is a researcher with accreditation in the environmental field, and the facts presented have been peer reviewed. The Manhattan institute has been a leading reputable research group for decades.
again, you keep acting like 100% of scientists agree on this, they clearly do not.
The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.
Essentially... we still don't know what we don't know.
That graph conveniently misses the CO_2 absorption by plants, oceans, etc (it's mentioned in the text though). Before the industrial revolution the CO_2 levels were lower and stable due to that previous equilibrium. We have changed that in the last hundred years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now
It's not that puzzling if you take the increasing heat content of the oceans into consideration:
Spoiler:
(The figure shows the observed change of heat content.)
Deny climate change all you want. It's totally fine to justify your choice to abstain from adopting policies designed to tackle it because you've got the fear.
It'll be more expensive to tackle later than it is now. Who cares though? It's obviously a conspiracy.
easysauce wrote: again, you keep acting like 100% of scientists agree on this, they clearly do not.
Lol, wow. Your supposed example of scientists not agreeing is a poll asking random people whether they agree with the statement "do scientists agree", not a poll of scientists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
easysauce wrote: The Manhattan institute has been a leading reputable research group for decades.
You mean "a leading conservative advocacy group". Come back when you have legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals to cite.
whembly wrote: Wait... so now I'm the "activist group" here?
No the activist causes are the various environmental groups that overstated various parts of global warming in order to get a shock effect. Those people have worked to reduce overall confidence in the scientific understanding of climate.
Yeah... here's the thing Seb, You and I are probably a lot closer on this issue than we think. The difference is maybe the "urgency" to do something about it.
Acting in a small and moderate fashion now is vastly cheaper than having to act in an extreme fashion later on.
Many of the problems I have is that certain groups (both sides if I may add) with agendas will take these studies, and push it as gospel. That Hockey Stick graph is one such example...
But none of that matters when the scientific body itself has consensus. Seriously, 97% of people active in the field of climate change are on side, 3% are on the other – and that’s an old number that’s probably gotten even more lopsided. As a scientific question it is fething done, the debate in the field is now about how fast, exactly what will happen and all of that stuff.
Many of the conclusions of these studies aren't robust... hence why it's intensely debated.
The 'intense debate' within the field is on specific technical matters - how fast, exactly what will happen etc. The debate over whether it is happening, whether it is caused by man etc... that's only in the political sphere. This is Galileo vs Pope Urban VIII. It is people who study this for a living trying to explain what science knowns, up against people know nothing who demand they be listened to as much as the experts.
Back in school... we learned that in order to conduct a proper scientific "investigation", scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test.
An alternative and null hypothesis... must also be defined and validated.
So... take the IPCC or NASA hypothsis: That human-related greenhouse gas emissions will result in dangerous global warming.
The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes are the result of natural variability.
To invalidate the null hypothesis requires, at a bare bones minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability.
Which has been done, and was done in the 1990s. You see, they had fairly decent models for this stuff even then. At that point there was a real debate in the field, between people who said this was due to greenhouse gases, and other people who said it was just part of cyclical pattern, and would soon return to norm. We then continued to watch temperature patterns, and guess what - while specific cyclical patterns were observed those models that relied purely on cyclical patterns completely missed the underlying temperature increase and had poor predictive results. Meanwhile, those models that did include some measure of underlying temperature increase based on predicted carbon emissions had much stronger predictive powers. That's your hypothesis and your null right there.
There's actually two sources for the 97% figure. The first source is a study that simply asked scientists in many fields of science if global warming was real and if it was caused by man. Most scientists said it was, but not by a strong majority… but when you narrowed it down to people actively working in climate science it was found that 97% answered it was.
Anyhow, in the article you link to, what we see is basically the latest goal post shift. Giving up on ‘there’s no climate change’, and then giving up on ‘but we don’t know if it is caused by man’, we see the latest stalling effort – ‘but we don’t know if it is severe enough to do something about it so we better not do anything about it’. And then, with glorious moxie, the hack who wrote the article rejected a metastudy of the field by claiming the question reviewed only looked at the old stalling tactic his side used, not the new stalling tactic. Supposedly for him to accept the answer the scientific studies must show that climate change is severe enough to require action… which is complete nonsense because concluding what policy positions government must take is not what science does.
And to answer your question on whether Forbes is good enough… it’s a bad question. Forbes has some high end reporting, particularly on business, but it also has opinion pages, and those pages like anywhere else vary wildly depending on the columnist. And this guy, judged just on this article, is one of the less capable partisan hacks out there.
Okay...whatever dude. You are awfully dismissive that there's even a chance that these studies can be wrong.
I'm not dismissive of the idea that they can't be improved, or refined, or updated. But the idea that they are wildly wrong is just not a possibility. The idea that human carbon emissions are impacting global temperature is now basically as established as gravity and evolution.
There's a huge scientific community that refutes that.
I await eagerly your list of links from climate scientists active in the field that show that.
Yea, but not to the degree of the uptick on that hockey stick graph. That was the point man.
Sure, and I think that’s something that needs to be clearly set out. We aren’t talking about The Day After Tomorrow here. Those are Hollywood movies, and bad ones at that. We are talking about a steady list of negative consequences over multiple decades.
You're talking about the market adapting to the business environment.
I'm talking about that it's crazy pants to institute policy based on something that is still going through a major debate in the scientific community.
No, not the market adapting to the business environment by itself, but adapting as a direct result of market design put in place by government policy. You see, right now greenhouse emissions are free to the emitter, and costly to the rest of us. So you change that, you put a price on those emissions and watch the market adapt, shifting to lower emission technology and elsewhere reducing production that isn’t justified by the end product.
And no, there isn’t a debate within the field. That’s a story sold by moneyed interests.
I need to find the past plans... but, iirc, the US's Carbon Tax initiative was much more severe than anywhere else.
They claimed that about our policy as well. It was bs.
But, getting the Global Market to sing the same tune is like herding cats across a river.
Only if you try and push them (via regulation). If you draw them towards you (by properly pricing carbon) then it should work okay.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: So are you going to immediately recommend full conversion to nuclear reactors, global fracking to release larger natural gas deposits, and mandated GMO crops which can produce greater yields?
If not then your ignoring "climate change."
I would advocate all those options, yes.
I'm often quite annoyed that people are so indifferent to the certainty of emissions from coal plants, but terrified of the small possibility of nuclear disaster.
Fracking is absolutely the way forward (the tech has improved massively since the early days), and the GMO freakout by the hippies is fething infuriating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I don't see how fracking reduces global warming, so I'm not particularly pro fracking.
I also have no problem with greatly expanded nuclear plants and GMO crops - we've been monkeying with these since we've been growing them - but am still at least somewhat concerned by fracking and it's consequences, such as polluted groundwater and earthquakes.
Nuclear is bothersome when you think of future implications. It's an OK here and now solution if we have no Cheeky Chernobyl accidents.
I was initially pro fracking but the more I've looked into it the less keen I am on it. It requires a disgusting amount of water to do and the "propant" that they use is highly toxic and unlikely to be filtered from such water. In the US and Africa I think they use drying basins, so while the chemicals don't go straight back into a main watercourse they still manage to infiltrate the environment in other ways.
Medium of Death wrote: Nuclear is bothersome when you think of future implications. It's an OK here and now solution if we have no Cheeky Chernobyl accidents.
Even if we do have another Chernobyl accident it's still an acceptable solution. Let's ignore the fact that Chernobyl was a case of a really old and badly designed reactor combined with incredibly stupidity and disregard for safety rules, and assume that the price of nuclear is an occasional disaster. That seems bad, but only if you ignore the fact that coal power (which will probably replace nuclear) also kills people through horrible pollution. The only reason we think that nuclear is more dangerous is that when nuclear power kills people it does so with a big news story, while coal just quietly increases the number of deaths from cancer. It's the same kind of poor risk evaluation that makes people terrified of dying in a plane hijacking, but think nothing of the much greater risk of dying in a car accident on the way to the airport.
And of course another Chernobyl incident is incredibly unlikely for the previously-mentioned reasons. A better example would be the incident in Japan, where a natural disaster way beyond what anyone thought was possible combined with a deliberate coverup by the plant owners still had limited impact outside the area of the plant itself and (IIRC) didn't kill anyone.
Grey Templar wrote: And the waste material is inert and easily stored in underground bunkers for eternity.
As opposed to the toxic waste produced by coal plants, which has a nasty habit of getting into our water supply because we just leave it out in the open and hope that nothing breaks?
I'm going to bow out because no one is going to convince any here.
You keep pushing that 97% figure (based on ridiculous small sample) as gospel.
o.O
You aren't getting off that easy.
You said the 97% figure was bad, and to establish that you linked to a column that said "The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming."
And then you later claim that "the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both".
Well, which is it? Is the debate over whether any part is man-made (in which case the 97% figure is sound, has asked a valid question and utterly refutes your claim)? Or is the debate over whether the consequences are severe enough for us to do something about the issue, and you are (like the column) conceding that yes, climate change is caused by man?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Even if we do have another Chernobyl accident it's still an acceptable solution. Let's ignore the fact that Chernobyl was a case of a really old and badly designed reactor combined with incredibly stupidity and disregard for safety rules, and assume that the price of nuclear is an occasional disaster. That seems bad, but only if you ignore the fact that coal power (which will probably replace nuclear) also kills people through horrible pollution. The only reason we think that nuclear is more dangerous is that when nuclear power kills people it does so with a big news story, while coal just quietly increases the number of deaths from cancer. It's the same kind of poor risk evaluation that makes people terrified of dying in a plane hijacking, but think nothing of the much greater risk of dying in a car accident on the way to the airport.
And of course another Chernobyl incident is incredibly unlikely for the previously-mentioned reasons. A better example would be the incident in Japan, where a natural disaster way beyond what anyone thought was possible combined with a deliberate coverup by the plant owners still had limited impact outside the area of the plant itself and (IIRC) didn't kill anyone.
Peregrine wrote: It's the same kind of poor risk evaluation that makes people terrified of dying in a plane hijacking, but think nothing of the much greater risk of dying in a car accident on the way to the airport.
it's funny, driving is far and away the most dangerous thing we do, but we think nothing of it - driving when we're tired, when we've had a few drinks, not wearing seat belts, and so on.
I'm going to bow out because no one is going to convince any here.
You keep pushing that 97% figure (based on ridiculous small sample) as gospel.
o.O
You aren't getting off that easy.
You said the 97% figure was bad, and to establish that you linked to a column that said "The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming."
And then you later claim that "the debate has always been if it's man-made, natural or both".
Well, which is it? Is the debate over whether any part is man-made (in which case the 97% figure is sound, has asked a valid question and utterly refutes your claim)? Or is the debate over whether the consequences are severe enough for us to do something about the issue, and you are (like the column) conceding that yes, climate change is caused by man?
*cracks knuckles*
First, let's get the 97% figure out of the way... look at the chart:
See where that 97% figure came from? 75 out of 77 answered yes to #2.
So..apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning.
Consensusmy ass!
This figure/study is continually pushed throughout the 'net and I can facepalm enough to keep up.
Now... to answer your question: It's irrefutable that there's measured global warming. The debate is really what impact, and by how much does humankind contribute.
Ok let's see you want the newer industrial power houses China India etc etc to change how they operate cause it is damaging to the environment. When the old industrial leading countries have been doing it for years. Right good luck with that.
For the whole global warming cleaner industry green energy. good luck cause if the all mighty dollar or your currency is going to rule at the end of the day. So as long as they are making the cheddar. Who cares if the rest suffer, Greedy rules the world and I don't see people who can really change this to worry about the future generations as long as they are good here and now.
The day clean energy become the have too is when the oil is gone till then hello money.
whembly wrote: So..apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning.
Which means that the actual percentage is probably greater than 97%, since scientists who are skeptical of the accepted theory would be highly motivated to get their votes counted, while scientists who agree with the majority are likely to just shrug and not bother with such a silly "controversy". Therefore the "no" group is probably over-represented in the survey results.
whembly wrote: So..apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning.
Which means that the actual percentage is probably greater than 97%, since scientists who are skeptical of the accepted theory would be highly motivated to get their votes counted, while scientists who agree with the majority are likely to just shrug and not bother with such a silly "controversy". Therefore the "no" group is probably over-represented in the survey results.
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
So, 2/3rd didn't have a position?
Probably the best way to describe it is that "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"
Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go... no?
That's so far removed from the usual hysteria pushing the 97% figure that, ermahgawd... we must do something no before we die next year! Give all of our monies to Al Gore... he'll save us!
Climate change surveys are a bit like evolution studies, the ones that show the greatest dissent require polling scientists to who aren't really qualified on the matter. 'Scientists' aren't experts on everything, only their specific fields. The fact that if you cast a net wide enough you can get 'scientists' who doubt evolution doesn't make it less true or suddenly create a controversy worth building policies around. But there are politically strong and wealthy groups invested in promoting the controversy, as there is with the movement against global warming. Mainly because efforts to curtail it would affect oil companies and heavy industry.
I worked with plant scientists and attended conferences with similar groups. I don't recall anyone disputing climate change or even that humans were playing a role, yet even then there were a couple of creationists I worked with, so it's not as if people of very unconventional scientific views didn't exist. Nationally there wasn't debate about whether climate change was happening, it's well beyond that, the focus was on what we can do about it regarding future food security because of the impacts it has on currently fertile land and the spread of crops and diseases. People who think global warming means we'll be growing mangos and vineyards in the UK don't have a clue.
Do you honestly think that this is a good argument in favor of your side? If 2/3 of the papers expressed no position then they expressed no position, they didn't express a position of neutrality and/or uncertainty. For example, the paper may have come up in a search with the term "global warming" (which is how they got the pool of papers), but actually be about something other than the yes/no debate and therefore not have any reason to take a side. Or the author may not have felt the need to take an explicit position in the abstract (IOW, the short summary at the beginning of the paper) when the issue is so uncontroversial among the actual experts, just like papers in physics don't usually put explicit agreements with basic laws of physics in their abstracts.
So what we actually see here is that there is near-unanimous agreement on the issue, and the denialists are an irrelevant minority.
First, let's get the 97% figure out of the way... look at the chart:
See where that 97% figure came from? 75 out of 77 answered yes to #2.
So..apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning.
Because the majority of scientists are outside of the field and don't go making conclusions on areas that aren't their field of study. Honestly, it'd be nice if all scientists showed that discipline.
I mean, I get sent stuff like this on accounting standards from time to time, and because my financial accounting knowledge is woeful, I understand it enough to generally understand what they're proposing to change, but nowhere near enough to know if changing it is a good idea. So I don't respond.
Now... to answer your question: It's irrefutable that there's measured global warming. The debate is really what impact, and by how much does humankind contribute.
Do you want to start naming major scientific institutes that believe the issue is still up for debate.
Because I can have lots of fun with the copy and paste game;
American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."
U.S. National Academy of Sciences "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
The BBC has to adopt "clear editorial guidelines" for its reporting on the issue of climate change, MPs have said.
The BBC has to adopt "clear editorial guidelines" for its reporting on the issue of climate change, MPs have said.
The Science and Technology Committee said the organisation played a "central" role in informing the public.
But some editors were "poor" at determining viewers' and listeners' level of expertise and sometimes pitted lobbyists against "top scientists" as if their views had "equal weight".
The BBC said it did "not believe in erasing wider viewpoints".
In its report, the committee said news teams, including those on Radio 4's Today programme, had committed the mistake of attributing the same weight to opinions and scientific fact when covering climate science.
'Impartiality'
Its chairman, Labour MP Andrew Miller, said: "Given the high level of trust the public has in its coverage, it is disappointing that the BBC does not ensure all of its programmes and presenters reflect the actual state of climate science in its output.
"Some editors appear to be particularly poor at determining the level of scientific expertise of contributors in debates, for instance, putting up lobbyists against top scientists as though their arguments on the science carry equal weight."
Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote
The BBC does its utmost to report on this complex subject as clearly as possible using our specialist journalists”
BBC spokesman
The report suggested the majority of the public did not have a good understanding of climate change or its causes and many people would like to be better informed.
The MPs called on the BBC to develop "clear editorial guidelines" for commentators and presenters, encouraging them to challenge statements from either side of the climate policy debate that strayed too far from accepted scientific facts.
The report also criticised the government and its agencies for failing to provide "clear, consistent messages", which had had a detrimental impact on the public's trust in climate science.
It said: "As a matter of urgency, the government needs to draw up a climate change communication strategy and implement this consistently across all departments."
'Refreshing strategy'
A BBC spokesman said: "The BBC does its utmost to report on this complex subject as clearly as possible using our specialist journalists.
"While the vast bulk of our interviews are with climate scientists, as part of our commitment to impartiality it is important that dissenting voices are also heard.
"We don't believe in erasing wider viewpoints even if the select committee doesn't agree with them."
He said the BBC took "care to reflect all viewpoints in the debate" about science and to give them "due weight".
And Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey said: "The government is already proactive in communicating the science of climate change, using the media, climate scientists and trusted third-party organisations as a medium to do so.
"We are continuing to maximise all communications channels, including digital, social media and traditional media, whilst refreshing our strategy to help improve how climate change is communicated to the public."
Scientific Fact.
Trusted third parties.
Top Scientists.
Heres an idea - Tell us climate change is happening - the possible causes - and the end result has the potential to be bad for our current way of life. The debate as to what is causing climate change needs to be held separately as far as possible.
Lets have some honest debate as to possible repercussions of climate change on our way of life and discuss ways which we can adapt.
Medium of Death wrote: Nuclear is bothersome when you think of future implications. It's an OK here and now solution if we have no Cheeky Chernobyl accidents.
I was initially pro fracking but the more I've looked into it the less keen I am on it. It requires a disgusting amount of water to do and the "propant" that they use is highly toxic and unlikely to be filtered from such water. In the US and Africa I think they use drying basins, so while the chemicals don't go straight back into a main watercourse they still manage to infiltrate the environment in other ways.
Frazzled wrote: Thats cute. It might work if we had the global power needs of 1907.
Are you sure?
Look it up.
For the record I'm all for renewable energy sources (I'm a hydrogen economy advocate) and cost efficient recycling (or my wife is). But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything, and nuttiness like banning barbeque pits is just the trappings of hysteria from a new religion.
Scientific Fact.
Trusted third parties.
Top Scientists.
Heres an idea - Tell us climate change is happening - the possible causes - and the end result has the potential to be bad for our current way of life. The debate as to what is causing climate change needs to be held separately as far as possible.
Lets have some honest debate as to possible repercussions of climate change on our way of life and discuss ways which we can adapt.
Frazzled wrote: Thats cute. It might work if we had the global power needs of 1907.
Are you sure?
Look it up.
For the record I'm all for renewable energy sources (I'm a hydrogen economy advocate) and cost efficient recycling (or my wife is). But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything, and nuttiness like banning barbeque pits is just the trappings of hysteria from a new religion.
Frazzled wrote: Look it up. ... But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything
It's possible; no serious doubt about that. And it's going to be (way) more expensive, e.g. some scenarios for the next 50 years in Japan predict 25-100% increase of costs depending on the transition speed and whether nuclear fission is phased out fast, slow or not at all. Even the CO_2 emissions might increase significantly for a few decades if the transition is done very fast and without nuclear fission.
As for the benefits, (most likely publicly funded) r&d, new jobs building the necessary new power lines and solar-/ wind-farms, and new opportunities to export that technology to developing countries. It's mostly going to be a long term investment for the coming generations though.
Campfires and other open flames are bad for the environment. During the winder, a large portion of airborn pollution is from woodburning stoves. They are also inefficient for cooking. You can burn like 1/10th the biofuel in something like a rocket stove and cook way more food. one log can fuel a rocket stove for a month opposed to dozens of logs cooking one campfire meal.
If some had it their way, campfires, fireplaces in houses, firepits, BBQ grills, all would be illegal. You can heat and cook with way more efficient technologies which create less airborn particles and are better use of the fuel.
Campfires and other open flames are bad for the environment. During the winder, a large portion of airborn pollution is from woodburning stoves. They are also inefficient for cooking. You can burn like 1/10th the biofuel in something like a rocket stove and cook way more food. one log can fuel a rocket stove for a month opposed to dozens of logs cooking one campfire meal.
If some had it their way, campfires, fireplaces in houses, firepits, BBQ grills, all would be illegal. You can heat and cook with way more efficient technologies which create less airborn particles and are better use of the fuel.
Frazzled wrote: Southern California was at least floating it.
Yeah, but who cares about them. It's not like they have real BBQ anyway. Banning whatever abomination they make there would probably be good for all of us.
This is indeed a true statement. When I lived in CA, I drove ten miles through Crip riddled side streets to get decent barbeque from an expat Louisiana couple.
Frazzled wrote: This is indeed a true statement. When I lived in CA, I drove ten miles through Crip riddled side streets to get decent barbeque from an expat Louisiana couple.
CA does have fething awesome barbacoa (mexican bbq).
When people say fracking is a "clean" fuel, do they mean it is low in terms of non-CO2 emissions? Like, it has a low sulphur dioxide output? Because I can't see a way to burn a hydrocarbon without releasing a crap ton of CO2. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
I could see it having a low NO2 output, but NO2 is not the main culprit in global warming.
The idea is that it usually fully combusts leaving none of the intermediates of the reaction is my understanding. The problem is that nay 'cleaness' of natural gas is more than compensated by the amount of chemicals that go into the environment and our water supplies, so it isn't any better. It can also cause earthquakes and fires are quite common.
The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.
1: This graph is highly topical. It is right up to date. Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) is one of the two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). And RSS is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As this month, RSS is usually the first to report, and its latest monthly value, for February 2014, became available just hours ago.
2: The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations of the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe enabled the age of the Universe to be determined: it is 13.82 billion years.
3: The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly directly from the RSS website. They are read down from the text file by a computer algorithm and plotted automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum size. The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted beneath the dark blue spline-curve showing the actual data is calculated by the method of least-squares linear regression, which determines the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. Least-squares linear regression is used by the IPCC and by most other agencies for determining global temperature trends. Interestingly, it is recommended by Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in one of the Climategate emails, so no one on the true-believing side will challenge its appropriateness. The reliability of the trend calculation by the algorithm was verified by Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne.
4: The graph is news. Not only is it very recent: it is also something that the mainstream news media very seldom reveal. They tend to keep the now embarrassingly long hiatus in global warming secret.
Da Boss wrote: Yeah, but if it combusts fully it still leaves CO2 and H2O as the end products, both of which are greenhouse gases. So it's hardly an alternative.
Water is a greenhouse gas? Now this is just getting stupid.
Dude, you're really making your ignorance of this topic abundantly clear here. A quick google would tell you that water vapour is a hugely significant greenhouse gas, along with methane and all the rest.
Da Boss wrote: Dude, you're really making your ignorance of this topic abundantly clear here. A quick google would tell you that water vapour is a hugely significant greenhouse gas, along with methane and all the rest.
Now you're worried about limiting...water?
I feel either a Battle LA or Dune reference coming on.
Yeah, I mean, some warming is of course normal- without it, there'd be no life on earth because too much of the heat would be reflected back into space.
One issue with water vapour is, the warmer it gets the more water the air can hold, which acts as a positive feedback loop.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembly- that satellite does not take into account ocean warming.
In any case, short term noise does not buck the overall trend. And yes, 17 years is short term in this situation.
Frazzled wrote: For the record I'm all for renewable energy sources (I'm a hydrogen economy advocate) and cost efficient recycling (or my wife is). But cost/benefit needs to be applied to everything, and nuttiness like banning barbeque pits is just the trappings of hysteria from a new religion.
Absolutely everything needs to be seen in terms of cost & benefit (the issue being that we need to start including environmental costs in those calcs).
And while hydrogen is likely to be part of our future energy needs, what's important is not to look at any single tech as the solution. We will need to develop a range of technologies, and deploy each where they are effective.
Solar power, for instance, generates nowhere near enough power to cover our energy use, but collected at the point of use (ie on the roof of the household) its a nice supplement to other energy sources (especially once commercially viable power storage becomes viable).
And one more point on your comment that our power use is nothing like it was in 1907 - that's true... but only for us in the developed world. In much of the developing world today, households use far less power than we used in 1907, but are likely to increase in the next few generations. But as they do expand, given the sheer numbers in India, Africa and China, it would be an ecological disaster it their power consumption was provided by new coal plants. Technologies that are comically limited for our power consumption, like solar leaves, actually make a lot of sense when looking at very modest households that simply want enough power to provide heating and a handful of electronic appliances.
Apart from setup and maintenance costs, they could probably power the whole country for free.
Iceland is powered on geothermal, and actually exports power to Europe. Mind you, Iceland has more volcanoes that people, so it isn't a solution for everyone.
Open fire pits are banned here in Western Australia but only on the hottest days, and only because of the fire hazard. Banning open fires because of the fuel inefficiency and emissions seems a really, really silly focus on a very trivial part of the problem. Not saying it isn't happening somewhere, just that it's silly.
While there's been too much nonsense about environmental apocalypse from my side, there's far more hysteria about economic apocalypse coming from your side of the fence.
Soon as everyone can settle down and start talking about a steady, long term solution to a long term environmental issue then that'd be awesome.
sebster wrote: Solar power, for instance, generates nowhere near enough power to cover our energy use, but collected at the point of use (ie on the roof of the household) its a nice supplement to other energy sources (especially once commercially viable power storage becomes viable).
Well, somewhat true. It's pretty limited in a lot of places, and needs some other energy source to handle peak loads and periods of bad weather, but solar thermal plans can provide power on the scale of coal/nuclear/etc in the right locations. Like geothermal/hydroelectric/wind it makes a lot of sense to use it where the conditions are right, and then use nuclear to fill in the gaps.
whembly wrote: The RSS satellite record, the first of the five global-temperature datasets to report its February value, shows a zero trend for an impressive 210 months.
If we pick out the hottest year on record, and look only at surface temperature, and ignore that most cyclical patterns are on a downswing compared to 1997, then it hasn't gotten any hotter!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Well, somewhat true. It's pretty limited in a lot of places, and needs some other energy source to handle peak loads and periods of bad weather, but solar thermal plans can provide power on the scale of coal/nuclear/etc in the right locations. Like geothermal/hydroelectric/wind it makes a lot of sense to use it where the conditions are right, and then use nuclear to fill in the gaps.
Solar in large scale plants only makes sense if we assume that current price decreases will carry on for an extended period. Which might be true and is what some people are saying, but there is likely a floor to the price of photovoltaic cells that will make limit their viability economically.
And note I'm not saying we should just accept they can't be a larger part of the final solution - I'm just saying we can't bank on that. We're really in a stage where it makes sense to explore all kinds of technology to see what ends up delivering, and adapting all practical technologies where they make the most sense.
ROFL when the previous graph showed an upward trend in temp because it conviently didnt go back to 1998 all the man made warming pushers toted it as an absolute sign of global warming.
Now that a graph showing that it has in fact NOT gotten warmer since 1998 is put forth its scoffed at as not accurate!
When they started this man made global warming BS they said we would be almost to the point of not return by now!
Hilarious that when facts don't fit their agenda they are ignored and mocked.
This is why the whole "man made global warming" movement is failing to convince the masses... Because the science is CLEARLY not settled.
sebster wrote: Solar in large scale plants only makes sense if we assume that current price decreases will carry on for an extended period. Which might be true and is what some people are saying, but there is likely a floor to the price of photovoltaic cells that will make limit their viability economically.
I'm talking about solar thermal (use a giant field of mirrors to focus sunlight onto a tank of water and generate steam), not photovoltaics. The big limiting factor with solar thermal isn't the cost or technology, it's the very limited number of sites that get enough consistent sunlight to make it a viable option.
Peregrine wrote: I'm talking about solar thermal (use a giant field of mirrors to focus sunlight onto a tank of water and generate steam), not photovoltaics.
That's a thing? Pretty cool if it works.
The big limiting factor with solar thermal isn't the cost or technology, it's the very limited number of sites that get enough consistent sunlight to make it a viable option.
In terms of the capital costs per watt solar is still very expensive, it only gets around that cost by being viable at small scale, allowing you to install panels at the point of consumption (ie on rooftops). And sure, limited spaces and suitable times are a limiting factor as well, but not so much when seen as a supplemental energy source.
Yep. And not just a theoretical thing, there are already large-scale solar thermal plants in operation, producing the same level of power as coal/nuclear/etc plants.
In terms of the capital costs per watt solar is still very expensive, it only gets around that cost by being viable at small scale, allowing you to install panels at the point of consumption (ie on rooftops). And sure, limited spaces and suitable times are a limiting factor as well, but not so much when seen as a supplemental energy source.
Again, those only apply to photovoltaics, which I'm not talking about. In fact photovoltaics are pretty much a dead end for power generation (outside of specialized areas where you have to operate off the grid), efficiency is terrible, manufacturing them produces lots of really nasty toxic waste, and the average life of a panel is short enough that it's questionable whether you'll reach the break-even point (without government subsidies) before you have to replace them. Advances in technology could make them a viable option in the future, but right now they're more of a way to make yourself feel like you're doing something than an actual solution.
BarBoBot wrote: ROFL when the previous graph showed an upward trend in temp because it conviently didnt go back to 1998 all the man made warming pushers toted it as an absolute sign of global warming.
Now that a graph showing that it has in fact NOT gotten warmer since 1998 is put forth its scoffed at as not accurate!
It doesn't matter if you can find a small interval where the global temperature anomaly goes up, down or sideways. What's important is the trend over several decades. Look at a plot that's at least covering the last century like the following graph from a Cowtan and Way publication:
This is why the whole "man made global warming" movement is failing to convince the masses... Because the science is CLEARLY not settled.
Of course it's not settled. But we _do_ know that the global mean temperature has risen, we _do_ know that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere works just like a greenhouse, we _do_ know that we release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and changed the previous equilibrium of its emission and absorption by the planet. Feel free to disprove any of that or any of the implications. It will have far reaching consequences for physics and related fields. You could be the next nobel laureate.
I'm a Climate Change Denier due to fatigue. Being told since childhood that the world is ending 'soon', but then 'soon' keeps getting postponed, kind of saps away the will to believe. Why are the people telling us to panic not panicking themselves?
I'm all for innovation, energy solutions and reducing pollution. Just not the shrieking hysteria that the sky is falling. . . 'soon'
I for one am not a fan of the term "Global Warming/Climate Change Denier".
It's been coined to make us look like loonies, and I don't appreciate it. I know I've made it very clear in the past what my objections are, my reasoning as to why the science is not clear or yet reliable, and all of it made up from personal and professional knowledge and experience.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Frazz, excess H2O is bad. Just like how we have had CO2 in our air for the duration of history, it's just that we have excess now.
No offense meant, but you are acting kind of obtuse on this.
The thought that toomuch water is bad (when there's land) is farcical on its face.
Unless you can't swim of course, or if Sharknado is coming.
Water Vapour is a greenhouse gas.
Too much water vapour in the amtosphere = more heat trapped from the Sun.
More heat from Sun = rising temperatures.
Rising temperatures = more water vapour.
And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.
Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.
Frazzled wrote: And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.
Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.
Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.
Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.
Frazzled wrote: And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.
Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.
Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.
Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.
Nah...
Humankind lived on a hotter earth than now... in two major periods. From memory, one was in 800 AD and the other was prior to the mini-Ice Age. I'll see if I can find it....
Frazzled wrote: And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.
Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.
Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.
Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.
please show proof its happening faster than previous epochs. that sounds like utter horse gak.
Frazzled wrote: And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.
Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.
Again, the thought this is a concern is farcical.
Your point? The point isn't that change is happening, the point it that it is happening to fast for creatures to adapt.
please show proof its happening faster than previous epochs. that sounds like utter horse gak.
First a note, I really should have just put organisms not creatures
I don't have the information (I'm not a scientist, I just read their papers) but I do have a clarification on what I mean. I don't even know if it is true or not, it's just the other side of the argument side of the argument. Dodos could have evolved to escape predators, but did not because they were wiped out before they could. It's the same with anything, rapid change causes damage to the current ecosystem. It's not a bad thing when it happens naturally, but if it happens too fast than that would be bad. Not world-destroying bad (climate change is not going to cause that) but it could severely damage our ecosystems. Imagine if it heats up enough that we can't produce wheat in the quantities we require to eat. Or if the oceans heat up fast enough that it can't hold the same amount of O2(aq) that it does now, that would certainly hurt the marine life and anything that is in that ecosystem. We see some of these effects now. plants that would usually grow well in a certain area now don't grow as well because it is too hot and start to migrate northward. Plants that survive in warms climes will start to spread further south as well. This is extremely evident on mountain where most plants grow in 'bands' of elevation. This allows them to get to the right temperature, but if it gets warmer, they migrate and don't have time to adapt. The problem with that is that the plants get progressively less area to grow, until they (eventually) go extinct.
And it most definitely is a concern. It affects our food sources, natural resources, and safety.
And about your origanal comment, these are the most abundant greenhouse gases in order
Water vapor (H2O)
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Ozone (O3)
CFCs
H2O(g) is a greenhouse gas, try looking it up next time before you just deny something.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm a Climate Change Denier due to fatigue. Being told since childhood that the world is ending 'soon', but then 'soon' keeps getting postponed, kind of saps away the will to believe. Why are the people telling us to panic not panicking themselves?
I'm all for innovation, energy solutions and reducing pollution. Just not the shrieking hysteria that the sky is falling. . . 'soon'
yup...
they told me almost 30 years ago that within 20 years its all over because we are such evil bad people that pollute.
No better then the mayan calandar or y2k alarmists.
fact is, the TOP two green house gases H20 vapour and C02, the former is 100% natural, then second is 97% natural 3% human.
above someone discredited the graph showing global temperature as being stable, because, it didnt cover a long enough time frame... what bolloks.. I had posted the 500 million year time frame graph eariler in this thread, showing concentrations of green house gasses being more then 8 times current levels in the past. Life on earth was just fine back then, and all that warming + extra greenhouse gasses were all naturally produced.
so if the planet can handle 8-9x the current amount of greenhouse gasses released at a natural rate far greater then we get from the current rate, even with the added 3% mankind contributes in modern times, (so stop it with the "perfect balanced rate of emissions BS") then it can handle this.
I have nothing against reduction, recycle, reusing, I practice environmentalism, I have a smaller carbon footprint then most people (cut out driving, cut out packaging, 99% of my garbage is reused or recycled.
I do have something against alarmists using models that have failed time and time again to predict observed reality in the past, being used as "successful" models to predict future reality.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Even if it is happening too fast for other creatures to adapt, who cares?
Our intelligence grants us the ability to survive where others are unable to adapt. So screw the other creatures.
As far as I believe, the human species will continue to exist, and therefore there is nothing to worry about.
You do realise your entire diet is made from "other creatures", right? Humans are not autotrophs, we must consume other living things to survive. Without stable environments for agriculture we are pretty much boned.
I mean, that's the most simplistic way I can lay out the importance of biodiversity for you. I could say a lot more, but I'm not making the effort on someone who actually posted "screw the other creatures".
Edit: Oh come ON. 100% natural? EVERYTHING is 100% natural! The whole damn system is "natural". Jesus. The idea that "natural" is good and "artificial" is bad is friggin middle school level!
Deadly nightshade is natural.
Uranium is natural.
Cyanide is natural.
Botulism is natural.
Cancer is natural.
I wouldn't say screw all other life, thats rediculous, but I don't care one bit that the dodo is gone, or that some insignificant gnat is going to go extinct.
I'm not bothered that tigers won't exist forever in the wild any more than I would be bothered that t-Rex is gone... One apex predator will replace it. Life WILL go on. Long after we are all gone, the planet will still be here.
I'm sick of people trying to imply that every species of animal is precious like its always been there and always should.... That's not how the world works. Sometimes its fair, and sometimes its not.
The thing is, biodiverse ecosystems are more robust than less biodiverse ecosystems. If "some species of gnat" dies out, it really does reduce the overall resilience of the ecosystem, sometimes with upredictable and chaotic results.
While this is part of the cycle of the planet, it doesn't mean if it happens it will be beneficial for us.
Are we Americans, naturally inclined to question the veracity when someone proclaims their expertise on something? Or is that a normal human behavior?
It is normal human behavior. People are more inclined to trust people like them, so when someone who is really well educated (especially in an esoteric field) asks a person who is not to do a thing there will be an inherent trust issue*. This is especially pronounced in the US due to a cultural streak of independence. However, while that's not a bad thing, it can quickly go wrong when people fail to take the time to learn what they're talking about.
*This is part of the reason why I'm a political analyst and not a politician.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Even if it is happening too fast for other creatures to adapt, who cares?
Our intelligence grants us the ability to survive where others are unable to adapt. So screw the other creatures.
As far as I believe, the human species will continue to exist, and therefore there is nothing to worry about.
You do realise your entire diet is made from "other creatures", right? Humans are not autotrophs, we must consume other living things to survive. Without stable environments for agriculture we are pretty much boned.
I mean, that's the most simplistic way I can lay out the importance of biodiversity for you. I could say a lot more, but I'm not making the effort on someone who actually posted "screw the other creatures".
Edit: Oh come ON. 100% natural? EVERYTHING is 100% natural! The whole damn system is "natural". Jesus. The idea that "natural" is good and "artificial" is bad is friggin middle school level!
Deadly nightshade is natural.
Uranium is natural.
Cyanide is natural.
Botulism is natural.
Cancer is natural.
My entire diet is currently made up of other creatures, but that could easily change to synthesized nutrient supplements should such an alteration be required for survival. And it is true that stable environments are required, but they can be created. If we can grow plants in space, then we can grow plants in similar air-sealed, water-supplied structures on earth with little issue.
The energy usage for that would be absolutely staggering if you want to feed a world of 7 billion. All of these human controlled processes are massively inefficient. I'm sure we could synthesise glucose in a lab, but doing it on the scale that plants do so easily through photosynthesis is just crazy unlikely.
Da Boss wrote: The energy usage for that would be absolutely staggering if you want to feed a world of 7 billion. All of these human controlled processes are massively inefficient. I'm sure we could synthesise glucose in a lab, but doing it on the scale that plants do so easily through photosynthesis is just crazy unlikely.
We can't even feed 7 billion now.
Some humans must die so that humanity may endure.
Also, we can grow plants in space, and therefore we can do it in a biodome on Earth. You don't need to synthesize anything we get from plants.
You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
I also consider many of the world's population ultimately expendable, myself included.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
]Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
I also consider many of the world's population ultimately expendable, myself included.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
fething walk or ride a bike every once in a while instead of driving. Lord knows America could use it seeing how disgustingly fat this country has become.
Congrats! You just helped curb global warming.
Oh people just want to argue politics instead of taking incredibly simple steps that help everyone. Carry on then.
I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it. Less than 10% of plastic goes into each new bottle and I'd argue that the power costs associated with getting the bottles ready for recycling/recycling probably take more power than just making new ones. Using less resources? sure it helps/ reducing carbon no.
Composting locally instead of in a garbage dump / what is the difference ? All you are doing is reducing the size of land fill, nothing to do with global warming. it is still degrading in your compost bin.
Walking instead of driving ? sure that helps , also fat people make more gas so that also helps.
Unless we basically dismantle the supermarket system as we know it , whilst making things to last instead of producing throw away goods and reducing our reliance on electrical power for things we can do manually there will be no reduction in greenhouse gas.
You are right, it is up to us to change our habits in spending and the materials of things we buy, not point the finger at companies and governments.
I do not believe the science but I can still see that consumerism of society is in direct opposition to lessening climate change. It is up to everyone not just blaming industry.
Hell I don't even believe in being 'green' and I still do more 'green based' stuff than most committed 'greenies'. Next up is setting up a aquaculture tank and gardens. I'm not doing it because I'm saving the world, I'm doing it as it's a smart way to get freeish protein and food.
Bullockist wrote: I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it.
Nothing matters so why do anything right?
feth carbon tax credits they're bunk, but literally all those things do help to reduce our emissions. I still cannot fathom how people can see things like the Pacific Garbage Patch and say "yeah, humans don't effect the environment".
The thing is, most Americans aren't doing those 3 things I mentioned. Even warming alarmists (people like Gore) don't always practice what they preach. But can anyone give me a good reason why sensibly limiting pollution is a bad thing?
Frazzled wrote: And in the earlier times the temperature was much hotter and the air much more humid. Yet titanic creautes roamed the lands, seas, and air then, the likes of which are fantastical.
Its like everyone believes the current environment haas already been like this. Its ALWAYS been in a state of flux. Adapt or die.
Yeah, everything should adapt or die! Unless it's a business that's putting out greenhouse gases, then we can't possibly require them to change their practices in any way because they are precious, sacred flowers that will wither and die if we dare require new environmental standards.
But everything else should totally adapt or die.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Humankind lived on a hotter earth than now... in two major periods. From memory, one was in 800 AD and the other was prior to the mini-Ice Age. I'll see if I can find it....
Which has massive economic repercussions.
I mean, think about it - think about where our farming land is, and the vast infrastructure we've built to service that infrastructure. Think about the road and rail networks, the silos, slaughterhouses and all the rest. Now think about how a change in rainfall patterns and local temperatures might mean that that land is no longer effective farming land, and think about all the infrastructure we'll have to build up to farm in some other place.
Think about the trillions that kind of infrastructure shift will cost. And then think about the cost of doing that constantly - chasing new weather patterns as we continue to emit ever more greenhouse gases. And then compare that to the costs of moving to low carbon emissions processes.
This is a dollars and cents issue, and it is simply much more cost efficient to reduce emissions than to adapt to a changed climate.
Bullockist wrote: I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it.
Nothing matters so why do anything right?
feth carbon tax credits they're bunk, but literally all those things do help to reduce our emissions. I still cannot fathom how people can see things like the Pacific Garbage Patch and say "yeah, humans don't effect the environment".
The thing is, most Americans aren't doing those 3 things I mentioned. Even warming alarmists (people like Gore) don't always practice what they preach. But can anyone give me a good reason why sensibly limiting pollution is a bad thing?
No mate, I'm saying I do those things but most of them do not reduce carbon emissions. They are 'green' and they help reduce the use of resources but in regard to reducing emissions they do not help much at all. Negligible would be the word I use (except for reduced use of petrol/oil.).
I am actually more worried about the crap we put into river systems/oceans than I am about global warming.
Are we Americans, naturally inclined to question the veracity when someone proclaims their expertise on something? Or is that a normal human behavior?
It's normal human behaviour. Whether or not it is sensible depends on how we question them. If we, for instance, reject the expertise and statement of that scientist because some non-scientific activist told us 20 years ago some fanciful story about environmental doom... well then what we're doing is very stupid indeed. Similarly, if we reject the scientist because some other person is making all sorts of claims, and we can't be bothered figuring out which one is being sensible so we just pick the one who's argument sounds the most pleasing to us, then we are doing something very stupid.
But if we instead ask the scientist to explain his arguments in terms we will understand, and ask for evidence of predictions his theory made coming true, well then maybe we're on to something.
There hasn't been a lot of that last one going on, though, unfortunately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: How, exactly? We can literally survive in space for as long as supplies hold out.
Use of the same technologies on a much more massive scale could ensure the supplies, as well.
Literally nothing has to be developed - just more infrastructure must be constructed.
We are actually at a place where at least one guy is happily chatting about building vast artificial grow labs to survive in a ravaged Earth as an alternative to just emitting less greenhouse gasses. Extraordinary.
Bullockist wrote: I do all this now and it does not help curb global warming. The carbon foot print is reduced by an such a small amount you may as well not do it.
Nothing matters so why do anything right?
feth carbon tax credits they're bunk, but literally all those things do help to reduce our emissions. I still cannot fathom how people can see things like the Pacific Garbage Patch and say "yeah, humans don't effect the environment".
The thing is, most Americans aren't doing those 3 things I mentioned. Even warming alarmists (people like Gore) don't always practice what they preach. But can anyone give me a good reason why sensibly limiting pollution is a bad thing?
I am actually more worried about the crap we put into river systems/oceans than I am about global warming.
I guess the problem for me is I see all those things as being connected. A person who casually throws a McDonald's wrapper out the car window is just as likely to not give 2 gaks our dwindling freshwater resources or global warming.
I'm not solidly sold on all the science, but ice is melting, seawater is rising, and we're getting worse instead of getting better as a species. But I got myself fixed last year so really why should I care about the future of others?
Hummers for all! And not even the good ones, only the gakky H2's that even rappers don't feature in videos anymore they suck so much.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How, exactly? We can literally survive in space for as long as supplies hold out.
Use of the same technologies on a much more massive scale could ensure the supplies, as well.
Literally nothing has to be developed - just more infrastructure must be constructed.
We are actually at a place where at least one guy is happily chatting about building vast artificial grow labs to survive in a ravaged Earth as an alternative to just emitting less greenhouse gasses. Extraordinary.
Da Boss wrote: You're pro letting a massive amount of the world's population die off and developing far more expensive and unsustainable methods to feed whoever is left using inefficient and potentially unreliable technological methods, when there are many other avenues to deal with the issue which aren't as expensive in terms of human life or resources.
Your idea is just really unworkable, and would involve mass deaths of the poorest and most vulnerable people.
It's just a terrible standpoint, whatever way I look at it.
Truth, although we may have different views of the world. I believe necessity causes innovation, and what better way to create necessity than global catastrophe?
I also consider many of the world's population ultimately expendable, myself included.
You seem to be saying that innovation is good, but we should not innovate in terms of sustainable power supplies, recycling techniques, and flood adaptation, we should wait for catastrophe as that will force us to innovate.
Unit1126PLL wrote: How, exactly? We can literally survive in space for as long as supplies hold out.
Use of the same technologies on a much more massive scale could ensure the supplies, as well.
Literally nothing has to be developed - just more infrastructure must be constructed.
We are actually at a place where at least one guy is happily chatting about building vast artificial grow labs to survive in a ravaged Earth as an alternative to just emitting less greenhouse gasses. Extraordinary.
It is entertaining isn't it.
It's fething amazing that someone is acting that idiotic.
Actually we can feed way more than 7 billion people. Its a complete myth that Earth cannot feed the current, or even future, population.
The problem is that the food isn't able to be distributed to everyone. The largest growth epicenters are not correlated with where there is arable land. That is the reason people are starving, they are outgrowing their local food production.
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
Your point about legitimate critics is well-taken. But just as you question the motives of the IPCC, the NIPCC isn't exactly unimpeachable. The suggestion to "do some research" readily reveals the NIPCC to be the brainchild of Fred Singer, of "second-hand smoke is harmless" fame, and paid consultant for a number of large oil companies.
Do some research on their counterpart, they're all over the place on the 'net. Here's one: The NIPCC, a group that describes itself as:
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
Looks like they've just released another report too... here's the conclusion:
Conclusion
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
describes thousands of peer-reviewed scientific
journal articles that do not support, and often flatly
contradict, IPCC’s pessimistic narrative of “death,
injury, and disrupted livelihoods.” The impact of
rising temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2
levels in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries
has not been anything like what IPCC would have us
believe, and its forecasts differ wildly from those
sound science would suggest.
Why is this research and perspective missing
from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing
volumes containing this research for five years—long
enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s
reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But
the drafts of the Working Group II contribution to
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggest otherwise.
Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research
because it runs counter to their thesis that any human
impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped
at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to
conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of
the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is
misleading the scientific community, policymakers,
and the general public. Because the stakes are high,
this is a grave disservice.
How CO2 enrichment has affected global food
production and biospheric productivity is a matter of
fact, not opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that
it has and will continue to help plants thrive, leading
to greater biodiversity, shrinking deserts, expanded
habitat for wildlife, and more food for a growing
human population. In sharp contrast to IPCC’s
pessimistic forecast of declining food production,
NIPCC’s authors say “a future warming of the climate
coupled with rising atmospheric CO2 levels will boost
global agricultural production and help meet the food
needs of the planet’s growing population.” They find
“the positive direct effects of CO2 on crop yields tend
to overcome any negative effects associated with
changed weather conditions.”
Journalists, policymakers, and the interested
public should demand to know why IPCC either hides
or is silent about these truths.
They've included a feth ton of references and peer-reviewed articles in these reports if you want to take the next step and review it.
The point being, there are many legitimate scientific critics of the IPCC that should provide at least a red-flag for you... and maybe, not just take the UN/Government's study as gospel.
All this says to me, really, is that we really don't KNOW how climate works and what is, if any, the human impact. That doesn't mean we should stop researching this, nor does it mean we shouldn't advocate for alternative/clean energy sources... but, it does mean that we should be very wary of any bureaucrats asking for money in the name of "Climate Change™".
Your point about legitimate critics is well-taken. But just as you question the motives of the IPCC, the NIPCC isn't exactly unimpeachable. The suggestion to "do some research" readily reveals the NIPCC to be the brainchild of Fred Singer, of "second-hand smoke is harmless" fame, and paid consultant for a number of large oil companies.
Of course... always question everything!
Also... I think they haven't accepted any contributions from oil companies for quite some time.
Again, "taking their word for it" doesn't amount to compelling evidence.
Yup... google-fu is your friend.
All of this is easier if you'd simply have a mindset that everyone has an agenda. Temper your reviews from multiple sources with that... and then come to your own conclusions.
.
's. I just hope this wasn't written by the scientists themselves.
[img]
