|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment?
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, the country which produces the largest per capita amount of environment-affecting stuff, and the largest proportion of said stuff among nations,
AND, feeds starving people all over the world, AND supplies technology to upgrade themselves.
quote:
doesn't have to do anything, because it is their right to over-use and throw away everything,
Pure BS tactics! The USA is a leader in conservation. Yes, there is a lot of waste. Everybody wastes. We can improve.
Here's something the USA can do to achieve its Kyoto assessment: stop exporting food. Think of all the carbon we will stop spouting if all those tractors stop producing what WE don't eat, and all those trucks, trains, ships and planes stop exporting. Yeah.
quote:
while the countries that don't produce any measurable amount of environment-destroying stuff, becasue they have no choice but to live basically in balance with the place they're in, should commit suicide to allow for your targets for self-satisfied consumption?
Commit suicide, how exactly? I thot that undeveloped nations were working to upgrade themselves. See the disconnect? While they are undeveloped, they CAN'T produce industrial amounts of CO2. So the developed nations are supposed to pay carbon debt, and the money gouged from them is supposed to go to the undeveloped nations so that they can upgrade and contribute to the CO2 output?! And THEN start paying carbon debt too?! WTF???
Fix the problem FIRST, then we all play together.
But the carbon debt is money flowing through the hands of those who have positioned themselves to get rich off it.
quote:
The USA'ns can't possibly accept ANY reduction in waste?
Oh yes we can, and do. But fair is fair. We help a lot and pay the cost. But we won't put up with helping and paying penalties for the privilege.
quote:
And don't get all finger-pointy about Steven Harper and his bunch of reality-impaired poodles. I'm doing what I can about them, but your whining excusery doesn't help there, either.
I don't drop names in discussing this issue. I don't know any. (Oh, wait, I did use "Big Al" up there, didn't I. But I have no idea who you are talking about....)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I would look at cosmic causes such as this for the mechanics of Earth's climate changing. All we do is add a relatively insignificant nudge one way or the other....
He doesn't give any indication to indicate why he judges human activity to be "insignificant" or what levels influence would be significant.
The other shoe is worn by the IPCC and their "informants". They, also, don't know what constitutes significant amounts of CO2 to cause a "tipping point". They DON'T KNOW.
To me it revolves around the observed data of climatology: the Earth has warmed in the past and none of those other times had one iota to do with human activity. The sun has lower activity now than at any time within the last 100 years. Watch and see what is said about that, vis-a-vis climate change.
quote:
The idea that human activity cannot affect the environment in any large-scale manner seems like more of a philosophical preference or article of faith than a conclusion reached using skeptical inquiry.
Seems like, to you maybe. Philosophy has nadda to do with the conclusion. Past incidents of global warming do. The discord in formulating proof of AGCC also plays its part. Sure, the science says that human activity plays into it. But how much is anything but clear. I ascribe to the idea that we can hurt our planet in many ways, but we can't significantly reduce its ability to provide life sustaining weather. Previously, the Sahara was a small desert. Previously Greenland was GREEN and there really was a NW Passage below the ice rim. Previously we really did have a so-called mini ice age. And previously this planet has gone through more ice age years than warm ones.
quote:
Obviously he doesn't considered releasing enough sequestered carbon to triple atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be significant, but since we don't know how he reached this conclusion we have no way of knowing how much tinkering with the atmosphere is required before the threshold of "significance" is reached. Quintupling CO2? A twenty-fold increase? In the end I suspect it doesn't matter since, as previously mentioned, the environmental non-impact of human activity is an assumption rather than a conclusion in the assertion above.
CO2 output can "triple" and even "quadruple", but it isn't likely to do more than that, UNLESS every nation on the planet puts out the industrial by products at the same level as the USA. And then the sun takes a little nap, for how long? And all our predictions based on solar activity go into the toilet.
Fix the problem FIRST, then talk about what everyone can do. (by fix the problem, I mean first and foremost that we should be pursuing alternate energy/fuels; THEN we can upgrade the undeveloped nations with the new, CO2-free energy grids....)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Obviously he doesn't considered releasing enough sequestered carbon to triple atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be significant, but since we don't know how he reached this conclusion we have no way of knowing how much tinkering with the atmosphere is required before the threshold of "significance" is reached.
CO2 output can "triple" and even "quadruple", but it isn't likely to do more than that, UNLESS every nation on the planet puts out the industrial by products at the same level as the USA.
This is the sort of half-baked "skepticism" I'm talking about. Note how in responding to a point about the atmospheric concentration of CO2 our "skeptic" has (deliberately?) switched metrics to CO2 output. This is the sort of routine rookie error that makes me skeptical of self-proclaimed climate "skeptics". They either don't have any real understanding of the subject, or they do have such an understanding and make deliberate errors in an attempt to mislead.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Perhaps the US could stop using high-energy-input farming in order to allow the rest of the worlsd to grow their crops in a more sustainable manner.
Then teaching about good farming practise might be a help to the actual people there.
Right now, for instance, there are rice farms in California that are subsuidised by the US Gov't to grow a water-intensive crop in a valley that doesn't have enough water. The solution to lack of water? Pump it over the mountains, if possible from the dry bits of Canada (which was seriously proposed, BTW) Why in hell not allow people to grow crops that would be economic if they weren't being sabotaged by misguided US policy? Then we wouldn't be hauling heavy loads all over the globe while impoverishing farmers in underdeveloped countries, who could use low-impact methods.
All you guys are doing is forcing impoverishment, particularly through the destruction of sustyainable farming, so some fat-cat farmers can get rich from your own (impoverished) government's subsidies.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...human activity is affecting the global climate ...
Stop there, and I don't have an issue with the issue of climate change.
But to move from "human activity is affecting the global climate", to AGCC, is an enormous leap. Science has not and cannot prove that human activity is CAUSING the climate to change. We only contribute.
Ten on that we're all in agreement. Climate scientists state that human activity is contributing towards climate change.
Incidentally, that contribution includes maintaining a large population of cattle fed in a manner that increases their methane ouput ... so those belching cows producing methane is also an anthropogenic input to climate change.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Look, if it was ONLY science the resulting "fix" would apply to everyone, not just the developed nations; and especially not ONLY the USA. The proposed "fix" puts heavy demands for limitation and reduction on the USA (and curtailing China's industrial development), while offering little or no requirement on the nations of Europe, and NONE whatsoever on the balance of the world's underdeveloped nations.
Can I just ask on what basis you consider there aren't significant demands placed on Europe? At lest we ratified Kyoto, and aren't too far off actually meeting the cuts in carbon emissions specified there. For the record, that was to 8% below 1990 by 2012 ... the US would have only had to make a 7% cut. The EU has (unilaterally) agreed on cuts to 20% below 1990 by 2020, the UK commitment is for even greater cuts (60% by 2050 with~30% by 2020 as an intermediate target). In contrast, the proposal at Copenhagen in December would have committed the US to cuts of just 4% below 1990 by 2020 ... which is even less of a cut than would have been demanded under the Kyoto agreement.
[ 03. February 2010, 21:07: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Previously Greenland was GREEN and there really was a NW Passage below the ice rim.
This keeps on coming up in debates like this. I don't know what evidence it's supposed to be based on; all the evidence I'm aware of is against it. Some time ago I posted this on another board:
Was Greenland green? When people say that Greenland is so called because it was green and pleasant at the time of its naming, the obvious counter is surely, 'so why did they call Iceland 'Iceland'?' It was named not that long before Greenland was and must have had a not dissimilar climate. If Greenland was green, was Iceland then covered in ice at the time it was named and settled? Of course not. Iceland was probably so named because of one area with a very large conspicuous glacier, which exists to this day. Greenland was called green because a couple of small areas round sheltered fiords on the west coast were green then in summer - as they are today.
There were other attempts to settle Greenland at the same time, and they ended in miserable failure because of the bitter climate. We have descriptions of these attempts in the sagas, which are also the source of what we know about Eirik's settlement of Greenland. In 978 (a couple of years before Eirik) Snæbjorn Galti investigated the possibility of settling Greenland. A shipload of prospective colonists landed on the bitterly inhospitable east coast, and spent an appalling winter snowed up there. They had to return to Iceland the next year. Floamanna's Saga tells of another man called Thorgils, who set sail in order to settle in Greenland. On the way his ship ran into difficulties and his crew faced starvation in the frozen sea. They finally made land in Greenland, but life there was harder than he'd expected, and bitterly disillusioned he returned to Iceland.
Eirik's exploration of Greenland is described in Eirik's Saga, where you can read the following description of his first trip: "Eirik put out to sea past Snæfells Glacier [in Iceland], and made land [in Greenland] near the glacier that is known as Blaserk." So there was a conspicuous glacier there when he arrived.
One final point: what people don't seem to take into acount is that Eirik was a desperate man, desperate to find somewhere to settle. He'd had to flee Norway and tried to find land in Iceland; here too his quarrelsome nature soon caused him to be banished. He had nowhere else to go, and had to make the best of what must have been a very difficult situation. He would have known he stood no chance of surviving alone in Greenland, so had every incentive to paint the possibilities of the place in the best possible light, hence the name.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
Sorry for the poor spacing in my post above - I would have edited it and put in a few line spaces between paragraphs, but missed the edit window. I hadn't realised just how short it is!
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
Merlin the Mad, I probably agree with you more than you think! Firstly, you're right about the Sun - it's ultimately the provider of (nearly) all the heat on Earth, and the source of our climate. In fact, the IPCC is with you as well: quote:
Global climate is determined by the radiation balance of the planet (see FAQ 1.1). There are three fundamental ways the Earth’s radiation balance can change, thereby causing a climate change: (1) changing the incoming solar radiation (e.g., by changes in the Earth’s orbit or in the Sun itself), (2) changing the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected (this fraction is called the albedo – it can be changed, for example, by changes in cloud cover, small particles called aerosols or land cover), and (3) altering the longwave energy radiated back to space (e.g., by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations)
(sorry, that's a big document: it's from FAQ 6.1). There's no question that a substantially different solar output would lead to a substantially different climate, for which there's evidence in the paleoclimate record.
There's just a couple of problems with what you're saying vis a vis the current state of the climate:- The known influence of the small-scale changes we've seen in the recent past aren't enough to explain the size of the changes in the global temperature record: this 2003 paper estimates that it could explain between 16% and 36% of the observed change in temperature over the last 50 years (summary, p4089). With solar observation satellites, we can measure solar output changes pretty accurately.
- It's going in the wrong direction. If as you say solar output is currently decreasing, you would expect the global temperatures to go down, but they're going up.
As for the measures being proposed: well, disagreeing with the policy measures is a very different thing to disagreeing with the underlying science, and I try to keep the two separate. In fact, the famous climate scientist and AGW advocate Jim Hansen is on record as saying Copenhagen and cap and trade are a bad idea, and other eco-talking heads have described Copenhagen as "the Munich accord of our time," so it obviously doesn't follow that if you believe in the science you must be in favour of all the proposals currently being put forward!
However, where they're starting from is the premise that we, as a species, have got to stop putting this much fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. How would you achieve that, if you think the current proposals are unfair and flawed? It seems obvious that a lot of the burden is going to fall on the largest current emitters, and I can't really see a way round that if we're serious about this.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
Correction (edit window expired): quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
this 2003 paper estimates that it could explain between 16% and 36% of the observed change in temperature over the last 50 years (summary, p4089)
That should be 16-36% of the greenhouse warming, not the total temperature change. That means that the overall contribution is less. Sorry for the misreading.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Following 'email-gate', 'glacier-gate' etc, I amazed at the business-as-usual approach of some people on this thread. This thoughtful climate scientist at least acknowledges that it can't be business as usual from now on. The fundamental problem it seems to me is that climate science, politics and activism have become too confused. Trust us, say the scientists; trust the science, say the politicians and activists; we're all doomed, say the activists, scientists and politicians. The IPCC has been hyped up to an impossible extent; the uncertainties have been understated. Now I really don't think any single individual or community has been at fault, just a general state of hysteria. I think there are going to be quite a few red faces as the debate now progresses in a more positive direction.
Does this all change the basic science? No I don't think it does. But if we can just step back from the alarmism, the apocalyptic scenarios and think coolly about the next steps to take then we might actually get somewhere. Firstly, let's talk more about the need to live in a less wasteful, more sustainable and less-polluting world without sticks but carrots. Most people, and most nations need to take baby-steps first. The current state of national economies mean that any ambitious programme of CO2 cuts can pretty much be ruled out for the short term. It's the medium and longer term that really matters - where we are in decades rather than years. I'd like to see much greater investment in the science, in technology and strategies for adaptation. What matters is the discovery of technologies that can be rolled out to replace fossil fuels, so that we don't lock emerging economies into the dark ages and clobber the abilities of developed nations to actually come up with high tech alternatives.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Following 'email-gate', 'glacier-gate' etc, I amazed at the business-as-usual approach of some people on this thread.
Public relations disaster exploited by people who for reasons of their own want to lie to the public. People with a lot of money and technical ability probably. Its scary. Doesn't chance the fundamentals at all. In fact it makes it more important to push harder for policy change because it shows us how far the deniers are prepared to go.
quote:
The fundamental problem it seems to me is that climate science, politics and activism have become too confused.
That's certainly true but the confusion is being deliberately caused by the big-business and big-government money that is supporting the climate-change deniers.
Make no mistake - what we are seeing is terrorism against scientists funded by right-wing political elements in the USA and big business in many countries and also possibly various governments.
The anti-science activists are a much bigger material danger to us than Islamoid wankers who blow up their own underpants.
Also it appeals to a certain sort of mindset. Basically very gullible people who like to think they are skeptics but in fact just believe what they are told. Sam sort of thinking that drives the anti-vaccination campaigns and possibly even some YEC.
Its very frustrating because its very hard to deal with someone who thinks they are thinking for themself but is in fact just repeating some bollocks being fed to them by cleverer people with hidden agendas.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Following 'email-gate', 'glacier-gate' etc, I amazed at the business-as-usual approach of some people on this thread. ...
Does this all change the basic science? No I don't think it does.
The reason for the business as usual approach is precisely because none of the recent revelations changes the basic science. Several people have suggested some tinkering with IPCC procedures (you link to someone suggesting precisely that), but not much more than that ... because basically the system isn't broken so why try and fix it?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Merlin the Mad, I probably agree with you more than you think! ...we, as a species, have got to stop putting this much fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. How would you achieve that, if you think the current proposals are unfair and flawed? It seems obvious that a lot of the burden is going to fall on the largest current emitters, and I can't really see a way round that if we're serious about this.
- Chris.
Agreed. Emitters must change the energy grids. Plain and simple, and unwanted! It would be costly and those currently in lucrative positions might have to share or even get cut out altogether, if we developed real alternate energy. Too bad for them, says all of us! But the simple roadblock to progress/change is that coterie of established energy barons. They are in it world-wide: maintain the status quo at all costs, because change would be even more costly, even deadly, to their existence.
I don't dispute the basic claim of climatology that tracks climate change. There is disagreement on the testing methods and data, but it agrees in the main points. We have a problem that is getting worse, and there is something that humans can do about part of it; the industrial CO2 and even methane output.
Even doing our theoretical best to cut out all of that, the climate is still going to change regardless. But to take that attitude and say "We might as well continue on as we are, nothing we do is going to stop climate change", is admitting a callous disregard for our impact on the planet. We can and must live more in harmony with the balances in nature. We must save and grow our resources, not squander them.
If I could engineer the changes my way and see them implemented (if I was a modern day Caesar Augustus), I would impose population reduction, NOW (in the Real World, all we can realistically do is give incentives to have only two children per couple; any compulsion, such as China imposes, for infractions, is not to be condoned by the free West). Once the planet was back to supporting no more than a couple of billion people our problem would largely take care of itself.
Meanwhile, energy sources that do not emit CO2 or methane would be developed and made to replace the current power grids.
I would go for developing self-contained energy as much as possible, where each house/apartment, or block of them, extracts energy from solar and wind, where feasible.
More efficient consumption of natural gas and oil would also be promoted with incentives.
I would pursue each and every rumored new energy research program; who knows, we may have a breakthrough into energy sources as yet only imagined.
I would not go nuclear.
One thing I would not do: impose reductions in energy consumption upon the people. I would expect everyone to be equal, no favorites who can pay for their excesses. I would not impose quotas for reduction upon nations. That's where I have my main gripe about all of this emitter's must pay kind of talk.
Fix the problem, then talk about what everybody is going to do to make it happen.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Then Merlin, we're not too far apart in our thinking after all. There's only a few points I'd disagree on with what you posted.
First, I would go nuclear - or, rather go further nuclear as we already have a significant nuclear capacity.
Second, I wouldn't pursue every new energy source proposed. Most such proposals are largely crackpot ideas. But, there are some promising areas of research currently being explored - and not just in electricity generation, power transmission and efficiency in using that power are equally important. Where'd I'd particularly disagree is the implication that these aren' currently being explored vigorously. Recent years have seen significant improvements in photovoltaics that make solar a realistic option eve for cloudy nations like the UK, engineering solutions have allowed larger windfarms (onshore and off), wave and tidal power generation is moving from the lab to full scale trials, battery and other power storage methods have made significant advances (allows buffering of variable power sources such as wind, and also viable hybrid/electric transport), there's ongoing interest in 'high temperature' superconductors that might help in transmission, and other areas of active (and, reasonably well supported) research.
But, the biggest point where we disagree is on the issue of 'compulsion' and legally enforcable emissions reduction targets. Although some sigificant savings will happen that are cost free (or even result in reduced costs), the cuts neeed will be more significant than that. If a company can cut costs, it will. But, if inorder to reduce carbon emissions by 20% it needs to invest serious money that won't repay the investment for 10-20 years will it? I'd say that'll only happen if either their competitors also make the same investment (so no one can undercut the production costs of others) or there are incentives to make the change (eg: government grants towards the investment, or punative taxation of those who don't invest). And, the same applies internationally as well as nationally. And, also for private individual homeowners. Basically, I don't trust human nature enough to expect to do what's needed for the sake of the planet unless everyone does it or they're given a suitable carrot (or threatened with a suitable stick ... though I'd prefer the carrot approach).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Alan - I'd prefer carrots to sticks too. Sadly some people try to make out that carrots don't cost anything - the conservative party springs to mind.
In the end as you imply, if doing the right thing in terms of carbon emissions, was most cost effective, everyone would be doing it already.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Following 'email-gate', 'glacier-gate' etc, I amazed at the business-as-usual approach of some people on this thread.
Public relations disaster exploited by people who for reasons of their own want to lie to the public. People with a lot of money and technical ability probably. Its scary. Doesn't chance the fundamentals at all. In fact it makes it more important to push harder for policy change because it shows us how far the deniers are prepared to go.
The "climategate" e-mails show that a group of people (I refuse to call them scientists - they don't follow scientific method or principles) closed their minds to anything other than one possibility; the in-crowd mentality of trusting only those who agreed with them; cherry-picking the data to publish; ignoring and hiding data which did not "fit" the model; and the corruption of the peer-review process. All of these are serious charges as they are totally contrary to proper scientific method. This is the proponents of climate change. I haven't seen any similar substantiated expose of the opponents.
To use a criminal legal case as a simile, it is as though the investigators only examined one thesis; witnesses did not tell the whole truth; judges made up their minds before the case started; and the jury had been "nobbled" to provide the correct verdict. Any appeal against the verdict when this evidence became known would throw the case out and destroy the credibility of those involved.
quote:
The fundamental problem it seems to me is that climate science, politics and activism have become too confused.
That's certainly true but the confusion is being deliberately caused by the big-business and big-government money that is supporting the climate-change deniers.
ALL the government money for many years has gone to projects supporting AGW. Any project proposal that even hinted of critically reviewing global warming doesn't get beyond the civil servant's desk. I know that this is the Torygraph, but the authors have done a good job tracing cui bono.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
ALL the government money for many years has gone to projects supporting AGW. Any project proposal that even hinted of critically reviewing global warming doesn't get beyond the civil servant's desk. I know that this is the Torygraph, but the authors have done a good job tracing cui bono.
I'm still not seeing the motive for the conspiracy. Virtually all climate scientists are accepting government payoffs to falsify climate data in order to . . . ? I'm missing the nefarious outcome here. One could argue that the lack of government funding for climate change denialists is akin to the lack of government funding for research debunking the link between tobacco and cancer.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
ALL the government money for many years has gone to projects supporting AGW. Any project proposal that even hinted of critically reviewing global warming doesn't get beyond the civil servant's desk. I know that this is the Torygraph, but the authors have done a good job tracing cui bono.
I'm still not seeing the motive for the conspiracy. Virtually all climate scientists are accepting government payoffs to falsify climate data in order to . . . ? I'm missing the nefarious outcome here. One could argue that the lack of government funding for climate change denialists is akin to the lack of government funding for research debunking the link between tobacco and cancer.
My degree is in chemistry not psychology, so I can't give you a definitive answer in technical terms.
However, if you get a grant to investigate climate change and come back to say: "Nothing to worry about, everything is natural and normal and a rise in CO2 levels doesn't threaten anything", where does your next position or project come from? Human nature says that I want to build on what I have been doing up now. If it is an emerging area, I might even end being a leading figure in the field.
I can think of others possibilites, but I don't see this as a killer objection.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rufiki
Ship's 'shroom
# 11165
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
However, if you get a grant to investigate climate change and come back to say: "Nothing to worry about, everything is natural and normal and a rise in CO2 levels doesn't threaten anything", where does your next position or project come from? Human nature says that I want to build on what I have been doing up now.
Well, if you've studied the options and found that CO2 is not the cause, you've probably identified one or more other things that you suspect are the cause. Perhaps the next position or project could focus on that? Once you've done the work to understand the processes better, you could do some work towards climate prediction. We'd still like to know whether some parts of the world will be more or less habitable in 100 years time, whatever the causes.
Conversely, how would you go about extending work that you know full well is wrong?
Posts: 1562 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Traveller: I assume that you went to school. During that time you dealt with other students who were (pick one) lazy, incompetent, criminally-inclined...
Does this mean that you are also lazy and/or incompetent and/or criminally-inclined?
The fact that a particular bunch of scietists were a bit loose in their definition of proper process doesn't imply that all scientists are so inclined.
Or are you so set against "scientists" that they aren't really people at all, just a bunch of cardboard cutouts with "target" printed on them?
Just what is it about the thousands of bits of data that need a coherent explanation that makes you so sure that the coherent explanation can't be the one you don't like?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
Rufiki shows a wonderful knowledge of how scientific enquiry proceeds. If an experiment or analysis shows that CO2 isn't the cause, that is all it can say. There are almost certainly hundreds of influences, so an experiment to investigate a CO2 hypothesis won't shed much light on any other cause.
Horseman Bree's response is an example of the sort of reply that has been typical of the climate change debate all along. Challenge the motive of the person, not debate or even mention the substantive point.
In this case, the substantive point was the leaked "climategate" e-mails. In their own words, climate change workers were more than "a bit loose in their definition of proper process".
I'll quote one example from "climategate", but there are many that could be chosen. This is a September 2000 e-mail from Malcolm Hughes (co-author of the "hockey-stick" paper in 1998) discussing temperature proxies: "I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature."
I refer to my legal simile used above. Gentlelmen of the (impartial) jury, I rest my case.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
The "climategate" e-mails show that a group of people (I refuse to call them scientists - they don't follow scientific method or principles) closed their minds to anything other than one possibility; the in-crowd mentality of trusting only those who agreed with them; cherry-picking the data to publish; ignoring and hiding data which did not "fit" the model; and the corruption of the peer-review process.
Actually they don't. All they show is that scientists are just like everyone else.
Also remember that these guys more or less live on email - not only do they use it for doing their work its their means of informal communication with each other.
Imagine some malicious hacker stole recording f the complete mobile phone traffic of every employee of some business for some years. And then selectively published parts of them out of context. That's the equivalent. These people were having what they thought were private conversations.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Following 'email-gate', 'glacier-gate' etc, I amazed at the business-as-usual approach of some people on this thread.
Public relations disaster exploited by people who for reasons of their own want to lie to the public. People with a lot of money and technical ability probably. Its scary. Doesn't chance the fundamentals at all. In fact it makes it more important to push harder for policy change because it shows us how far the deniers are prepared to go.
quote:
The fundamental problem it seems to me is that climate science, politics and activism have become too confused.
That's certainly true but the confusion is being deliberately caused by the big-business and big-government money that is supporting the climate-change deniers.
Make no mistake - what we are seeing is terrorism against scientists funded by right-wing political elements in the USA and big business in many countries and also possibly various governments.
The anti-science activists are a much bigger material danger to us than Islamoid wankers who blow up their own underpants.
Also it appeals to a certain sort of mindset. Basically very gullible people who like to think they are skeptics but in fact just believe what they are told. Sam sort of thinking that drives the anti-vaccination campaigns and possibly even some YEC.
Its very frustrating because its very hard to deal with someone who thinks they are thinking for themself but is in fact just repeating some bollocks being fed to them by cleverer people with hidden agendas.
Yawn.
It seems that not only are we being told a lot of guff masquerading as science about the climate but we are now to believe a load of paranoia about a right-wing conspiracy to counter the warmists.
The fact is the public can recognise flim-flam without a conspiracy of right wing industrial-militarists to help them.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
And, also, most people are to tired (lazy? jaded?) to do more about whatever their worry is, than talk about it.
In other words, very few are out there living whatever stance they've taken. Westerners, most of them, are not fighting the Sahara creeping into Grandpa's cornfield.
Nobody wants to read about the "Little Ice Age" or the "Medieval Warm Period". Nobody really cares that Greenland got its name for a reason. People either think about the past five minutes or some cute cartoonish simplified idea of an unimaginably dim past.
Nobody cares but the actual scientist involved, when s/he either heads-up against a brick wall trying to explain basics to laypeople, or s/he hits the stained glass ceiling usually smacked by a person of faith trying to succeed in scientific/academic circles.
You might get some hand-wringing or Chicken-Littling in some pop-sci mag or on a message board. You might even get a commitment from folks to buy only chocolate harvested by organic-minded Andean virgins.
But, considered world-wide, only pampered relatively wealthy Westerners have the time to get grey hairs over the issue as a whole. The people living with visible effects are planting trees and fighting guerilla soldiers and trying to make a living growing boring foodcrops when opium is so much better, financially.
As for attempts to bring in global government -- any excuse will do, for proponents thereof. Pandemics, climate change, tiresome dictatorial tendencies of governments, natural disasters. Whatever.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
[edit: hit add reply instead of preview!]
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
The "climategate" e-mails show that a group of people (I refuse to call them scientists - they don't follow scientific method or principles) closed their minds to anything other than one possibility; the in-crowd mentality of trusting only those who agreed with them; cherry-picking the data to publish; ignoring and hiding data which did not "fit" the model; and the corruption of the peer-review process. All of these are serious charges as they are totally contrary to proper scientific method.
Yes these are serious charges, so I'd advise you to back them up with some evidence rather than vague accusation that the stolen climate emails "prove" everything you wanted to believe about the climate change scientists.
The leaked emails are a tiny fraction of ten(?) years of private correspondence. If you don't think this has been cherry-picked to find the most embarrassing-sounding sound-bites possible, then you're sadly naive (especially given the timing of the leak). They've then been quoted ad nauseam by those with an axe to grind and little to no comprehension of the context they were written in, or even what they were written about in some cases. You say you have a degree in Chemistry: so do I. given that you have a scientific background, what is your excuse for not finding out some facts before coming out with these libellous accusations?
quote:
This is the proponents of climate change. I haven't seen any similar substantiated expose of the opponents.
Then you haven't been looking very hard. Clue: you won't find it in the Telegraph. quote:
ALL the government money for many years has gone to projects supporting AGW. Any project proposal that even hinted of critically reviewing global warming doesn't get beyond the civil servant's desk.
Leaving aside the lack of evidence for this bit of paranoia, even if 100% of the research was supportive of the consensus opinion on AGW[1], there could equally well be the explanation that that was because the facts pointed towards it, not because there was some vast conspiracy to milk government research grants. If you had that sort of mindset, it's common knowledge that there's far more money to be had from industry.
- Chris.
--
[1] aside: if nobody agreed with the consensus, it wouldn't be the consensus. Is it too suspicious that the experts in a field are in broad agreement about the latest state of that field?
[ 09. February 2010, 15:07: Message edited by: sanityman ]
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
[1] aside: if nobody agreed with the consensus, it wouldn't be the consensus. Is it too suspicious that the experts in a field are in broad agreement about the latest state of that field? [/QB]
One indication of the ways things are is the recent example of the codswallop-prediction for the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. Where were the experienced climate scientists who should have spotted that that was a load of nonsense? It was not as if it was buried in an obscure vault. It is quite plain that scientists who had read the report and knew it to be nonsense did not raise their heads above the parapet and is an indication that scientists dare not give the impression that they do not follow the "concensus".
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
[1] aside: if nobody agreed with the consensus, it wouldn't be the consensus. Is it too suspicious that the experts in a field are in broad agreement about the latest state of that field?
One indication of the ways things are is the recent example of the codswallop-prediction for the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. Where were the experienced climate scientists who should have spotted that that was a load of nonsense? It was not as if it was buried in an obscure vault. It is quite plain that scientists who had read the report and knew it to be nonsense did not raise their heads above the parapet and is an indication that scientists dare not give the impression that they do not follow the "concensus". [/QB]
(my emphasis) They were all on Working Group 1: quote:
Another [WG1 scientist speaking anonymously] said: "I am annoyed about this and I do think that WG1, the physical basis for climate change, should be distinguished from WG2 and WG3. The latter deal with impacts, mitigation and socioeconomics and it seems to me they might be better placed in another arm of the United Nations, or another organisation altogether."
The scientists were particularly unhappy that the flawed glacier prediction contradicted statements already published in their own report. "WG1 made a proper assessment of the state of glaciers and this should have been the source cited by the impacts people in WG2," one said. "In the final stages of finishing our own report, we as WG1 authors simply had no time to also start double-checking WG2 draft chapters."
And this is a fair cop: I didn't realise that there were different working groups with a different focus and disciplines prior to this media furore. Obviously the quote above is from an annoyed scientists wanting to distance themself from the cock-up - but the fact remains that "the experienced climate scientists [glaciologists] who should have spotted that that was a load of nonsense" weren't actually involved in that bit of the report, and would have smelled a rat very quickly.
A good argument for revising the IPCC procedures, or possibly making a clearer distinction about the different parts of the report. Nothing that alters the basic science, hence my frustrating "business as usual" attitude.
- Chris.
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
I didn't realise that there were different working groups with a different focus and disciplines prior to this media furore.
I always thought the report titles (eg: "Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007", my bold) gave a strong hint that that was the case.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Having in my time written or contributed to many very large reports, one of the issues we always face is the accuracy of the synopses - Executive Summaries, "Janet and John's", whatever.
The need for synopses is in itself a recognition that the audience for the publication may have neither the patience nor the capability to get into the detail. When drafting synopses, it is actually very easy to "harden" or "soften" the meaning and implications of the detail. And politics do creep in, at that stage, to all manner of synopses, because the authors are aware that many readers will turn straight to them - indeed they may not look seriously at anything else.
I've had some pretty confrontational discussions when seeing synopses which "hardened" the conclusions I'd drawn personally from detailed work - and been over-ruled, with the kind observation that "my ass was covered by the detail in the Appendix". On one occasion, I forced the issue by saying that I wanted my name removed from the list of authors - and got both a concession in the synopses and a reputation for being "precious" as a result. The truth is that, mostly, if you are a report contributor, you let some things go and fight others. These things are an inevitable consequence of group think.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
I didn't realise that there were different working groups with a different focus and disciplines prior to this media furore.
I always thought the report titles (eg: "Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007", my bold) gave a strong hint that that was the case.
You're right: I wasn't paying attention. Or to be more face-savingly precise, I was only paying attention to WG1 and didn't realise the other WGs were from different disciplines. So yes, my bad is what I was trying to say.
- Chris.
PS: B62, I'm strongly reminded of Blair's Iraq dossier for some reason. I imagine a lot of the underlying analysts were scandalised by how the thing turned out, given their input. But that's definitely off topic!
[ 15. February 2010, 00:20: Message edited by: sanityman ]
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Obama wants to increase climate change research funding by an additional 21% for 2011. This man is obviously impressed by the need to impress the rest of the world that the USA is onboard with meeting this crisis. I am impressed that he's a gambler whose political career is teetering on the brink. He seems unaware of public sentiment shifts. Or maybe he knows something we don't know, about what is in the multinational works, and he's cooperating....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Or maybe he'd like to have more information, whatever it may indicate.
It would be kind of nice if some discussion centered around what the data said rather than "I'm not going to believe any of the data anyway, so why bother?"
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Merlin's Fox News link's opening paragraph says: quote:
Global warming skeptics are agog that President Obama is seeking to dramatically increase federal funding for global warming research in the wake of the Climate-gate scandals that have emerged during the last three months.
Sceptics are "agog" that Obama wants enough information to be sure to make the right decisions?
Surely even people who are more sceptical of climate science as a result of the stolen emails and other recent embarrassments would still like to know more about the science and the extent to which ACC is true; only the stupidest of people could think that seeking better information is pointless.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Surely, even the least skeptical of souls would suspect that an increase in funding (TAXATION) would be throwing good money after bad. With such an information mess, why would increasing funding become anything less than increasing waste, fraud and corruption? "They" have had enough money so far to learn that only a multinational effort (spelled government) can save the planet from ourselves: if that funding, world-wide, has been sufficient to determine that we can actually do something to save ourselves from ourselves, then more money is not required to determine what in fact we should do about it.
When there is any asserted crisis, the very first word out of a protagonist's mouth is "MONEY!" They have plenty of that already; let them work within their already established budget and come up with some RL solutions (hell, I'd even settle for some reasonable sounding suggestions)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...let them work within their already established budget and come up with some RL solutions (hell, I'd even settle for some reasonable sounding suggestions)....
And what would you class as reasonable-sounding suggestions? Suggestions which agree with what you already believe?
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
@ IntellectByProxy:
Of course. And who is any different? The trick to turn here is to show that AGCC is the major factor in "global warming". It hasn't been shown, only asserted. Virtually every science department involved has concurred that human contribution is significant. That's it. From this agreement we get massive disagreement on how much, what can be done to reverse the contribution to CC, or even who's to pay for it. It has all turned political.
The scientists are the ones who need to get their heads together and research verifiable "fixes" to the human contribution. They need to publish their findings, free of national entanglements. They need to invent workable solutions to replace fossil fuels with new power grids. Once these have been demonstrated via computer modelling that is pretty well established to be above criticism, then and only then, can the national governments begin to take steps to adopt the workable, affordable measures to establish the new power grids.
But it isn't being approached this way. Instead, we have people trumpeting the dangers and calling for immediate action without knowledge, without proven methodology, only assumptions and guesswork. And the ones making the most noise are too often already positioned to reap profits from the first measures adopted, like carbon debt. They are discredited by self-interest. We need to cut them out, free the scientists to work without political tampering, and turn all the research over to private funding: nothing motivates better than competition with private gain as the reward.
The resulting industries to produce and maintain the new power grids would all be private corporations. The only thing that the multinational org would cooperate on would be the way the power grids intersect across national borders, which would include the regulation of financial/taxation considerations. Actual gov't funding of and ownership of the power grids would be right out. (all a pipe dream, I know, but that would be the best-case scenario....)
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
per MtM:
quote:
Instead, we have people trumpeting the dangers and calling for immediate action without knowledge, without proven methodology, only assumptions and guesswork.
Yet, just a couple of posts before, you are excoriating Obama for funding research into how to avoid exactly that problem.
Are you so upset by the thought of a (pick one) black b) community organiser c) Democrat as President that you are not capable of remembering what you just said?
Why should we be told we can't spend money on research when the problems to be studied are clearly growing? Do you want to insist that the US should get any other country to do the work, take the credit and reap the profits, while you guys just continue burning every drop of fossil fuel that you buy, borrow or steal?
And why should power grids necesarily be run as for-profit corporations? What is the problem with non-profit co-ops, for instance? I know that any suggestion that governments can do anything doesn't enter your mind, but that attitude would be strange and alien to successful countries like Sweden or Norway.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Virtually every science department involved has concurred that human contribution is significant.
True. I find that persuasive.
quote:
From this agreement we get massive disagreement on [...] what can be done to reverse the contribution to CC, or even who's to pay for it.
But by-and-large, the scientists aren't the ones arguing those points. The engineers, economists, journalists, politicians, talk radio hosts, and business leaders do that.
quote:
It has all turned political.
Sadly, it was always doomed to become political when so many vested interests were at stake. It's not the scientists' fault - very few of them are political at all. Look at how ineptly they've handled the email fuss. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Instead, we have people trumpeting the dangers and calling for immediate action
We've known AGW was very likely for 20 years. That's not "immediate action".
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
[edit: sense]
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And why should power grids necesarily be run as for-profit corporations? What is the problem with non-profit co-ops, for instance?
In fact, the profit motive is not correctly aligned with the goal of increasing efficiency. What power company is going to pay more than lip service to getting their customers to consume less unless they're regulated into it?
- Chris.
[ 15. February 2010, 20:03: Message edited by: sanityman ]
--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot
Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The scientists are the ones who need to get their heads together and research verifiable "fixes" to the human contribution. They need to publish their findings, free of national entanglements. They need to invent workable solutions to replace fossil fuels with new power grids.
Though, there are plenty of "fixes" known. There are non-fossil fuel power sources - wind, solar, wave, tide, nuclear, biofuels etc. There are known ways of improving efficiency and so reduce demand for power - building insulation and design, low energy devices, smaller vehicles, public transport etc. There needs to be political will to invest in these - and that includes some support for these technologies (not just financial subsidies, though in some cases that might be needed to kick-start the sector, but also some relaxation of planning restrictions and the like). Of course there's scope for further research to improve on these technologies, and bring other technologies out of the lab into the market place. But, that's primarily an engineering issue rather than science per se (even something like fusion is now more into the realms of engineering a working reactor than researching the fundamental physics).
There are other political decisions to be taken as well. A good example would be how much warmer should we let the world get? Scientists can make predictions about the effects of different temperature increases, and there's scope for improving the accuracy of those predictions, but it's not upto scientists alone to decide how far up the temperature scale to place the fairly arbitrary line that says "this much impact is too much".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
per MtM:
quote:
Instead, we have people trumpeting the dangers and calling for immediate action without knowledge, without proven methodology, only assumptions and guesswork.
Yet, just a couple of posts before, you are excoriating Obama for funding research into how to avoid exactly that problem.
Read carefully: MORE funding is my problem. The whole AGCC crisis has been studied sufficiently well to give "authorities" on the subject plenty of ammo. They don't need more money for research into CC.
Where the money will be needed is in implementing changes.
I'm not going to respond to your ad hominem.
quote:
Why should we be told we can't spend money on research when the problems to be studied are clearly growing?
The problems are the same; and they are supposed to be understood well enough to scare everybody into agreeing to do something NOW about it. The problem isn't growing, it is continuing.
... (hyperbole)
quote:
And why should power grids necesarily be run as for-profit corporations? What is the problem with non-profit co-ops, for instance? I know that any suggestion that governments can do anything doesn't enter your mind, but that attitude would be strange and alien to successful countries like Sweden or Norway.
Americans aren't made that way, sorry. Well, some are, because they don't understand what made American initiative work: they would (along with His Oness) restructure America to be like these tiny countries you point to as examples. But most Americans work for profit. That's the most effective motivator on the planet.
Gov't-run concerns over here all cost more than their private enterprise counterparts, and are riddled with waste, corruption, inefficiency and poorer quality service. Give the Gov't ownership/control of something, and it immediately begins to degrade and at the same time the operating costs go up. Look at the VA, Medicaid, Social Security: all practically bankrupt and providing sub par services....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...There are known ways of improving efficiency and so reduce demand for power - ...
All of these won't work as long as the big power grid operators and owners are in competition with the inovations. The trick is to get the already established operators to invest in the changes so that they profit by them. This is where gov't subsidies come in.
quote:
...
how much warmer should we let the world get?
That's NOT a decision for governments to make! Science can provide (or not, depending) reliable data, and it is that which says "this is too much", not some political line in the sand....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
...
how much warmer should we let the world get?
That's NOT a decision for governments to make! Science can provide (or not, depending) reliable data, and it is that which says "this is too much", not some political line in the sand....
Are you really suggesting that a very small number of scientists should really make that sort of decision? Really? Why do you think scientists are in any position to draw that "political line in the sand"? Inform those who are in such a position (ie: representatives of the people, preferably democratically elected), certainly. But, not making the decision themselves.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
...There are known ways of improving efficiency and so reduce demand for power - ...
All of these won't work as long as the big power grid operators and owners are in competition with the inovations. The trick is to get the already established operators to invest in the changes so that they profit by them. This is where gov't subsidies come in.
quote:
...
how much warmer should we let the world get?
That's NOT a decision for governments to make! Science can provide (or not, depending) reliable data, and it is that which says "this is too much", not some political line in the sand....
We have scientists to find out things for us, to push back the boundaries of human ignorance. Decisions as to what to do about things they discover isn't in their remit. Think of it like a doctor telling you your blood pressure is high; s/he may strongly recommend courses of action but you decide what to actually do, not the doctor. For democratic countries we delegate decision making to those elected, so government does and should decide, while trying to balance expert advice with what the [mostly] ill-informed electorate says. Often lobby groups like climate change deniers try to influence the decision for their own purposes.
By the way is "the trick" you mention above an attempt to deceive and obfuscate, or just an informal reference to a solution to a problem, as in those famous emails? Thanks.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
...
how much warmer should we let the world get?
That's NOT a decision for governments to make! Science can provide (or not, depending) reliable data, and it is that which says "this is too much", not some political line in the sand.... [/QB]
MtM,
I recall you stating (I think seriously) in another post on one of these climate change threads that the main driver for AGW is the population.
I don't think scientists saying that a global population of e.g. 1 billion would work, for obvious reasons.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
MtM,
On second thoughts I realise that here you were only saying that scientists should propose a target, and not how to achieve that target.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
...
how much warmer should we let the world get?
That's NOT a decision for governments to make! Science can provide (or not, depending) reliable data, and it is that which says "this is too much", not some political line in the sand....
Are you really suggesting that a very small number of scientists should really make that sort of decision? Really? Why do you think scientists are in any position to draw that "political line in the sand"? Inform those who are in such a position (ie: representatives of the people, preferably democratically elected), certainly. But, not making the decision themselves.
That's what I mean. Gov'ts can't make the decisions alone. FIRST, a consensus on the science of CC has to be arrived at: how much is anthropogenic, how fast it is adding "tipping balance" CO2 to the air, how this can be reduced most effectively, who/what the main culprits are that need immediate addressing, etc. THEN, in tandem with the scientists, we have the engineers standing by with their solutions. FINALLY, and only at this point, after the world's concerned populations are confident in the solutions and onboard with them, the various gov'ts do a multinational implementation of the proposed solutions. In none of this should there ever be a push for unilateral controls that subvert national sovereignty in the "bigger" interest of saving the planet (too late, I'm afraid, but "they" can certainly back off with a chorus of "we've been bad, let's start this over, shall we?")....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...The trick is to get the already established operators to invest in the changes so that they profit by them. This is where gov't subsidies come in....
quote:
By the way is "the trick" you mention above an attempt to deceive and obfuscate, or just an informal reference to a solution to a problem, as in those famous emails? Thanks.
I wasn't even thinking of the emails ("climategate"). No, "trick" as I use the word means inducing the investors in the present power grids to turn to investing in proposed innovative solutions. And to sweeten the pot for them, gov'ts will subsidized the cooperative investors so that they not only do not lose profits by switching over to the environmentally friendly power technologies, but where possible they even show in increased profit by doing so....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
MtM,
I recall you stating (I think seriously) in another post on one of these climate change threads that the main driver for AGW is the population.
I don't think scientists saying that a global population of e.g. 1 billion would work, for obvious reasons.
They would say it, more or less, as a fact: but that isn't a solution in the short term. Down the road we could reduce world population naturally, with the education and cooperation of all people everywhere. We're not there yet.
Under the present, messy power technologies the planet would never be in trouble from a human population of 1 to 2 billion, using the present level of conservation measures. So yes, scientists can point out the inevitable destruction of much of our planet's resources, such as the rain forests, at the PRESENT level of consumption, and be correct in stating (as I have done) that a much smaller population would solve Earth's problem with the anthropogenic contribution to CC....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
