|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The thread in which we argue if global climate change is real, part 2
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I see that a skeptic has recanted his belief, in a proper scientific manner. Richard A. Muller went to the trouble of setting up research foundation that would do what all the other scientists did, but BETTER, and came to same conclusion: that the surface temperature has risen by about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (that is 1.5 degrees C to everyone not in the US) in 250 years, or about 1.5 degrees F (1 degree C) in the last 50 years. The curve of temperature growth best matches the increase in human-caused greenhouse gas emission, and does not seem to berlated to a lot of other arguable events that are not human-caused.
IOW, the science has been working all along. (Bears shit in woods, too)
Will this affect anyone's decision-making process or will we all retreat into weak cries of "jobs, jobs, jobs" or blustery about needing a bigger engine for that new 4WD truck?
Answers on a postcard, please. The gentleman in question has set up his data for perusal at the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project.
I note also that he says that many of the tings that will possibly be affected by this change may not, in the end, be affected in that manner (Bears, woods, as above), so a note of caution about local details is to be observed.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Well I'm a skeptic on this subject, and I think skepticism will continue because of the suspicion that the whole issue has, if not exactly been taken over, then at least largely influenced by politicians and companies out to make money from it.
I can understand the frustration of the believers, because they have the overwhelming majority of orthodox science on their side, and just cannot bring themselves to admit that politics and money could still determine the propaganda.
BTW I suppose I'm contrarian by nature, and am equally skeptical about orthodox diet advice, and am following a low-carb high-fat diet (Atkins, really). However, there is a difference in the two cases. For my diet I have just had a lipid blood test, and if it shows the ratio of my HDL to triglycerides out of whack, I'll have to rethink. So it's a simple empirical test, and I would modify my view.
I can't do that for androgenic climate change.
[ 30. July 2012, 08:15: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
If the climate hasn't changed, the weather sure has!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I'm a skeptic on this subject, and I think skepticism will continue because of the suspicion that the whole issue has, if not exactly been taken over, then at least largely influenced by politicians and companies out to make money from it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How much money can either party make from climate change? There's only money in wind farms and solar panels if you can persuade the Government to subsidise you, and even then it's much less than there is in oil and gas and coal.
As for politicians, climate change means passing a whole series of restrictive laws to discourage carbon emissions, and this will never win you votes.
[ 30. July 2012, 08:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Might it be a bit like Darwinism (clip clop)? The real problem isn't with the science, it's with the vulgarisation of the science and the ideologies people build with the latter.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Might it be a bit like Darwinism (clip clop)? The real problem isn't with the science, it's with the vulgarisation of the science and the ideologies people build with the latter.
Neither have a problem. The ignorant who choose to ignore the science are the problem.
The allegation of profiteering is Rovian in its deflection. The source of the denialist propaganda is the same as the where most of our power comes from - the fossil fuel industry. This picture gives a helpful illustration of the situation:
http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g327/nightwinddsm/climategraph.jpg
The tobacco industry is probably the most useful comparison.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I can understand the frustration of the believers, because they have the overwhelming majority of orthodox science on their side, and just cannot bring themselves to admit that politics and money could still determine the propaganda.
Er... the problem is that politics and money do determine the propaganda.
Who stands to gain by spreading belief in climate change? Recycling industries and renewable energy industries.
Who stands to gain (in the short term) by spreading skepticism? The energy industry, the motor industry, the air industry, and politicians who don't want to push through unpopular policies.
Which of the above sides has more money to determine the propaganda?
Anthropogenic climate change skepticism: the belief that Greenpeace has more spare change than the oil industry.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Anthropogenic climate change skepticism: the belief that Greenpeace has more spare change than the oil industry.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Will this affect anyone's decision-making process?
Would anyone like to characterise the decision making processes used to come to different and contradictory conclusions?
Although the science can still be improved I'm persuaded by the IPCC and the 97% of climate scientists that agree with it, rather than those who grasp at conspiracy theories and think they have found the evidence that totally discredits the IPCC findings.
--------------------
'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
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I'm a skeptic on this subject, and I think skepticism will continue because of the suspicion that the whole issue has, if not exactly been taken over, then at least largely influenced by politicians and companies out to make money from it.
I can understand the frustration of the believers, because they have the overwhelming majority of orthodox science on their side, and just cannot bring themselves to admit that politics and money could still determine the propaganda.
BTW I suppose I'm contrarian by nature, and am equally skeptical about orthodox diet advice, and am following a low-carb high-fat diet (Atkins, really). However, there is a difference in the two cases. For my diet I have just had a lipid blood test, and if it shows the ratio of my HDL to triglycerides out of whack, I'll have to rethink. So it's a simple empirical test, and I would modify my view.
I can't do that for androgenic climate change.
1 – climate change is real, what is uncertain is the degree to which human activity is causing it – however, that is really irrelevant – our activities are adding to the problem and by modifying our behaviour we will reduce the harm, even if some of it is just cyclical and unavoidable.
There are people who seriously offer the god won’t allow us to kill the earth because he’s going to do it when he returns argument. These are the same nutters who believe that preventing peace in the middle-east will hasten Armageddon.
2 - There is evidence to suggest that the Atkins diet works as well as other (low calorie) diets – because people on the Atkins diet reduce their calorie intake (despite not being required to do so) as much as those following more traditional diets. Here There is still concern about the effects on health.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Loquacious beachcomber
Shipmate
# 8783
|
Posted
I have no doubt whatever that climate change here on earth is real, and has been for about 4 billion years or so.
--------------------
TODAY'S SPECIAL - AND SO ARE YOU (Sign on beachfront fish & chips shop)
Posts: 5954 | From: Southeast of Wawa, between the beach and the hiking trail.. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
... I can understand the frustration of the believers, because they have the overwhelming majority of orthodox science on their side, and just cannot bring themselves to admit that politics and money could still determine the propaganda. ...
I don't know about anyone else, but my frustration comes from not understanding wny "skeptics" so strongly oppose reducing / becoming more efficient in our use of energy and resources, regardless of whether the global atmosphere and climate are changing, and regardless of what caused it. Using less energy saves money. Using resources more efficiently saves money. Polluting less saves money. WTF is wrong with saving money? OliviaG
eta: fix code
[ 30. July 2012, 23:19: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The climate skeptics remind me of creationists, who also argue that there is a sort of conspiracy by biologists to support evolution, because they get paid to teach or research this.
I suppose this is also the age of the amateur skeptic, who now has the internet to indulge his conspiracy theories - thus, 9/11 conspiracies, global warming skepticism, Jesus mythicism, and on and on.
There is also some kind of distrust of science today, for various reasons; and I suppose, the obvious point in relation to climate change, not wanting to disturb capitalism too much.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Might it be a bit like Darwinism (clip clop)? The real problem isn't with the science, it's with the vulgarisation of the science and the ideologies people build with the latter.
Neither have a problem. The ignorant who choose to ignore the science are the problem.
Assuming you acknowledge anthropic climate change ("the science") is real (so you are "not ignoring it"), how does this affect your lifestyle, political choices and so on, and why?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
An article in today's paper says that the Vatican has approved a change to the usual processional liturgy in the Swiss canton of Valais. The Bishop of Sion had sought the addition of prayers that glaciers not retreat further.
That brings a point not raised above, but implicit in my posts on the related Hell thread. We can modify our behaviour to reduce the impact that behaviour has on climate change. Can/should we modify behaviour to alter natural change? In the Swiss example, this is highly relevant given that the previous processional liturgy had prayed that the advance of the glaciers be halted. That advance had followed the warm period around 1000 - 1300 AD when alpine passes now snowed in all year had been open for at least summer. Discussions are now proceeding between the Swiss and Italian governments to define the new boundary across the Theodul Pass (at the Matterhorn). In medieval times, this was one of those open for part of the year, but closed permanently for the last 650 or so years. The glacier is now retreating.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Might it be a bit like Darwinism (clip clop)? The real problem isn't with the science, it's with the vulgarisation of the science and the ideologies people build with the latter.
Neither have a problem. The ignorant who choose to ignore the science are the problem.
Assuming you acknowledge anthropic climate change ("the science") is real (so you are "not ignoring it"), how does this affect your lifestyle, political choices and so on, and why?
I vote Green. I don't have a car, have only flown twice in my life, argue in favour of renewable energy sources including wind turbines. I try to reduce my energy use and recycle and reuse where possible. I also encourage my church to do the same. I try to use things until they fall apart and repair them when they do, rather than just buying more.
Most of my actions at a personal level will not have a direct impact, and I waste more energy than I should because we don't own our current home and the insulation is poor. I vote Green because I think the economy is going to need radical restructuring, not just baby steps, if we're going to cut carbon emissions sufficiently to stabilise the temperature.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Fair enough, congratulations for your consistency. I can't quite match your credentials, but as a household I don't think we do too badly.
My point was that, as I recently argued here and here, not all believers in anthropic climate change seem to adjust their lifestyles to be consistent with their beliefs (even if it's only "baby steps").
My hunch is that this is due at least in part to the hysterical and guilt-inducing way climate change is reported in the media, which is not conducive to action. (In other words, vulgarisation matters).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Ricardus:
quote:
How much money can either party make from climate change?
I'm ainly thinking about the megabucks made by UK energy companies who flogged off carbon credits given free by the UK Gov, and which they didn't need.
In any case, later posts have shown pretty well that both sides of this argument have commercial interests lining up. I mean if it's even convinced George Monbiot to soften his stance on nuclear power, there must be something in it.
HughWillRidMe:
quote:
1 – climate change is real, <SNIP> . . and by modifying our behaviour we will reduce the harm, even if some of it is just cyclical and unavoidable.
This cannot stand until you quantify what harm reduction we can put in place, and further, compare this with other possible harm reduction that these resources can be put to.
This is the basic argument of Bjorn Lomborg, and seems cogent to me, although his book is not at all a good read. He would say that it is possible to agree with the scientific orthodoxy and still believe that it is not a priority when compared with other ways in which the population could be protected - like fresh drinking water.
Against this I have heard it argued that if the money was not spent on countering climate change, it wouldn't be used for other worthy purposes. If this is true, and it may well be, doesn't that show that it's all really about profit and votes?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Fair enough, congratulations for your consistency. I can't quite match your credentials, but as a household I don't think we do too badly.
My point was that, as I recently argued here and here, not all believers in anthropic climate change seem to adjust their lifestyles to be consistent with their beliefs (even if it's only "baby steps").
My hunch is that this is due at least in part to the hysterical and guilt-inducing way climate change is reported in the media, which is not conducive to action. (In other words, vulgarisation matters).
I think the bigger issue is that no-one in the media is prepared to talk about the elephants in the room. The fact is that we can't tackle climate change without adjusting to the fact that we can't travel all the time, and certainly not by car or plane. People have got used, in the last 30-50 years, to being able to go pretty much where they want, and even people on modest incomes have got used to taking foreign holidays. Nobody wants to hear that, unless technology develops rapidly and we have massive investment in replacing both electrical infrastructure and the legacy vehicle fleet, long distance travel needs to be a rarity. Many in the Green movement have been tiptoeing around this, because the favourite argument of the right is that Greens are anti-technology and want everyone to go back to the stone age.
There's also the fact that it's near impossible to live sustainably with the current way the economy is structured. Because the costs of fossil fuel use are externalised, energy efficiency and low carbon options are financially disincentivised. For most people, going shopping for food requires a private vehicle, you have to think quite creatively to get around that problem. My solution is this:
http://bakfiets.nl/nl/accessoires/cargotrike/breed/tent+trike+zwart/#0
But that's not practical for everyone and it's almost as expensive as a small second hand car.
I don't see media coverage as hysterical or guilt inducing. I see it as part of the problem - lifestyle programmes and articles don't pay any attention to the environmental consequences of choices. The only commendable exception I can think of is Grand Designs.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
Eutychus said:
quote:
Assuming you acknowledge anthropic climate change ("the science") is real (so you are "not ignoring it"), how does this affect your lifestyle, political choices and so on, and why?
Well, the other day I made the choice not to buy bottled water that had been imported to Europe from Fiji.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
This cannot stand until you quantify what harm reduction we can put in place, and further, compare this with other possible harm reduction that these resources can be put to.
I cannot help but see a weird parallel between this and your dieting.
Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories than you expend in energy. Any diet that tells you otherwise is a con. Any diet that makes it more complicated than this is making money off you unnecessarily.
Want to reduce the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Emit less greenhouse gas.
In neither case is it a particularly complex proposition, and in both cases 'every little bit helps'. Quantification isn't really necessary, unless you mean quantifying how much it might inconvenience us to actually think about the amount of gaseous waste we dump in the atmosphere instead of doing it mindlessly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I believe it is real, but I'm not sure how much is human made and how much natural.
What I am sceptic about is whether there is anything we (that is humanity) can do that will sort it. Given that China's increase in carbon emissions each year is greater than the UK's total carbon emissions, I'm pretty sure there's nothing the UK alone can do about it. And we are currently spending vast sums and making ourselves uncompetitive by trying, presumably on the theory that if we set a good example everyone else will follow. Sorry, but they won't.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I believe it is real, but I'm not sure how much is human made and how much natural.
What I am sceptic about is whether there is anything we (that is humanity) can do that will sort it. Given that China's increase in carbon emissions each year is greater than the UK's total carbon emissions, I'm pretty sure there's nothing the UK alone can do about it. And we are currently spending vast sums and making ourselves uncompetitive by trying, presumably on the theory that if we set a good example everyone else will follow. Sorry, but they won't.
We're not actually spending very much at all. Renewable energy at present adds about £10 to the average yearly electricity bill. Countries that are wealthy enough to take the lead need to do so in order to develop the technology so that China and India (and Nigeria, Indonesia et al) can industrialise without the horrendous impact we've had on the environment. We also have to exert some moral leadership, because we certainly can't sit here in comparative luxury and tell China off for trying to reach our standard of living. Any change has to start with the richest countries. Some of it, like improving energy efficiency, will save money in the long run. Insulating every home in the country would cost a relatively modest amount and provide an immediate boost the economy, putting people into work and reducing everyone's fuel bills. The current recession is the perfect opportunity to do it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I believe it is real, but I'm not sure how much is human made and how much natural.
What I am sceptic about is whether there is anything we (that is humanity) can do that will sort it. Given that China's increase in carbon emissions each year is greater than the UK's total carbon emissions, I'm pretty sure there's nothing the UK alone can do about it. And we are currently spending vast sums and making ourselves uncompetitive by trying, presumably on the theory that if we set a good example everyone else will follow. Sorry, but they won't.
Because building a sustainable future using renewable energy isn't enough of a goal on its own, right? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
HughWillRidMe:
quote:
1 – climate change is real, <SNIP> . . and by modifying our behaviour we will reduce the harm, even if some of it is just cyclical and unavoidable.
This cannot stand until you quantify what harm reduction we can put in place, and further, compare this with other possible harm reduction that these resources can be put to.
This is the basic argument of Bjorn Lomborg, and seems cogent to me, although his book is not at all a good read. He would say that it is possible to agree with the scientific orthodoxy and still believe that it is not a priority when compared with other ways in which the population could be protected - like fresh drinking water.
Fresh drinking water won't protect against rising sea levels - A study in the April, 2007 issue of Environment and Urbanization reports that 634 million people live in coastal areas within 30 feet (9.1 m) of sea level. The study also reported that about two thirds of the world's cities with over five million people are located in these low-lying coastal areas. The IPCC report of 2007 estimated that accelerated melting of the Himalayan ice caps and the resulting rise in sea levels would likely increase the severity of flooding in the short term during the rainy season and greatly magnify the impact of tidal storm surges during the cyclone season. A sea-level rise of just 400 mm in the Bay of Bengal would put 11 percent of the Bangladesh's coastal land underwater, creating 7–10 million climate refugees. Quoted in Wikipedia
And just because I live well above current sea level doesn't grant immunity - our little hill could become a very sought after haven.
What would probably be worth spending considerable sums on is a global policy of population control - but getting all the interested parties (some religious leaders/vote-chasing politicians/those expecting future generations to fund their retirement etc.) to agree would make herding wildcats look easy.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I believe it is real, but I'm not sure how much is human made and how much natural.
What I am sceptic about is whether there is anything we (that is humanity) can do that will sort it. Given that China's increase in carbon emissions each year is greater than the UK's total carbon emissions, I'm pretty sure there's nothing the UK alone can do about it. And we are currently spending vast sums and making ourselves uncompetitive by trying, presumably on the theory that if we set a good example everyone else will follow. Sorry, but they won't.
I never understand this argument, because if it was applied to other areas of life everyone would rapidly sink to the lowest common denominator. It's the psychological equivalent of what happened in the UK riots last year and people started taking the opportunity to go looting. Why follow the law if everyone around you isn't?
[ 31. July 2012, 23:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Orfeo,
Perhaps the thought is that an appropriate analogy is more like "How much difference will it make if I am the only one in the firing squad that doesn't shoot".
--------------------
'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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Orfeo,
Perhaps the thought is that an appropriate analogy is more like "How much difference will it make if I am the only one in the firing squad that doesn't shoot".
It depends. If you put down your rifle, you may be articulating exactly what the others are thinking.
Revolutions can be started like that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
But I haven't seen a revolution to limit population, which IMO is the major driving force.
--------------------
'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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Orfeo,
Perhaps the thought is that an appropriate analogy is more like "How much difference will it make if I am the only one in the firing squad that doesn't shoot".
That rather depends on how many bullets it might take to kill the extremely large individual in front of the firing squad.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
But I haven't seen a revolution to limit population, which IMO is the major driving force.
Female education does that on its own. There's a fair amount of research to support this idea. Besides, given the relative consumption of India vs the USA (for example) increases in the Indian population are a lot less significant than rises in the US population.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Orfeo:
quote:
I cannot help but see a weird parallel between this and your dieting.
The only obvious similarity is that both go against orthodox science. Which is not a comfortable place to be. Generally I have a decent respect for expertise, but less so when it gets tied up with politics, which even diet does this because Governments feel bound to give official advice. And the Food Industry lobbies like Hell.
quote:
Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories than you expend in energy. Any diet that tells you otherwise is a con. Any diet that makes it more complicated than this is making money off you unnecessarily.
This I totally disagree with. It's a bit of conventional wisdom that has been cogently argued against by many. And as a metter of fact, since I started on my diet, with no counting of calories I reduced from 85 to 80kg, though that is not my aim.
My specific goal is to improve my blood lipid profile, and whilst it is against most received wisdom to do this on an Atkins-style diet, there is some evidence it works. But people are different and I will find out this evening (as it happens) what it's done to mine. And if it's made it worse, I need to rethink.
I'm sure you will say that similar tests/evidence exists for Global Warming, but there are many more factors involved. I don't know the killer proof, which I could understand, which would convince me in the same way.
quote:
Want to reduce the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Emit less greenhouse gas. . . Quantification isn't really necessary.
I could never believe that an approach that refuses to quantify, even accepting there will be a lot of approximations, will result in wise policies. Are you really saying that any measure that reduces greenhouse gas should be taken, no matter how unfavourable a cost-benefit analysis would be? Well, maybe you are, but that's not practical.
[ 02. August 2012, 09:08: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
HughWillRidMe: quote:
Fresh drinking water won't protect against rising sea levels
I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that it did!
quote:
The IPCC report of 2007 estimated that
We're all do-o-o-omed. No doubt, and here is one of the chief problems. I have no idea what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections. Even worse, I probably couldn't understand it. So I have to take it on trust, which I'm reluctant to do. there's no way out of this.
quote:
What would probably be worth spending considerable sums on is a global policy of population control
Absolutely. Because the ethical issue lies here. If human populations encroach into areas not suited in the long term to sustain them, is there a moral imperative to protect them, virtually no matter what. That's a tough question.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Anteater, I most emphatically did NOT say that you have to count calories.
You are losing weight. This is not because of the mystical qualities of the Atkins diet. It is because people on the Atkins diet eat fewer calories. As has already been mentioned by another poster, protein makes you feel full. As a result, you eat less.
This has actually been scientifically investigated. The Atkins diet happens to work. Just not for the reasons postulated by Atkins.
It also does damage to your metabolism in the process, though. Hint: having ketones on your breath is not actually a good thing to do.
If you think that you're somehow losing weight while expending less energy than you are consuming, then congratulations, you have broken the physical laws of the universe. I don't know how anyone 'cogently' argues against the law of conservation of energy.
[ 02. August 2012, 11:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: In fact, among the diets I am completely against ARE diets that expect you count calories diligently for a set period, and then pretend that afterwards you can just go back to your old ways. It's quite dreadful for your body, biochemically speaking, to be starved for a period. As soon as you start eating again, your body is desperate to store everything it can because it doesn't know when the next 'famine' is going to be. This is why people yo-yo.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have no idea what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections. Even worse, I probably couldn't understand it. So I have to take it on trust, which I'm reluctant to do. there's no way out of this.
What makes you doubt well understood, evidence-based Climate Science while you happily accept a single medical opinion based on the test of your lipids? Both are fields of science beyond your or my expertise, but you don't seem to be treating them the same.
Think back - what initially made you suspicious of CS? Was it something you read? I'm convinced most 'scepticism' is rooted in not in science as it claims (which would be honourable and a correct basis for challenge) but in politically motivated or financially sponsored 'mind-games'.
[ 02. August 2012, 16:35: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have no idea what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections. Even worse, I probably couldn't understand it. So I have to take it on trust, which I'm reluctant to do. there's no way out of this.
If you want to know what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections then I suggest you read the IPCC reports, which gives all that information (or, at least summarises it with references to other publications that give the details). Some of the peer-reviewed publications may only be available in journals which require a subscription, although many of them will also be on open access repositories (eg: held by the library of the university of the lead author).
To know that information all you need to do is read. To understand you'll probably need someone to help, by for example teaching you some climate science. Which will be a more formidable exercise, but not something I would think is beyond the ability of most people with some background in maths and science. If you want to spend the time.
--------------------
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
@Alan Cresswell
Given all the threads here, I've been pondering for some time this issue of folks who don't understand the science but are sceptical anyway.
There are many scientific findings which are counter-intuitive, not at all self-evident. At the most basic of levels, it's a surprise that the earth is a globe and the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. The evidence of one's eyes doesn't lead to those conclusions.
I think we find intuitive thinking on both sides of the climate change line-up. There are "believers" working on the intuition that in lots of ways industrialisation has made life less natural and there will be a "comeuppance". On the other you have "sceptics" who reason; "Well, how could a man-made increase in the concentration of an atmospheric gas (which is a very low percentage of the atmosphere anyway) have major climatic effects? Doesn't climate change slowly anyway?"
I can see how folks get "stuck" in positions like that. Learning more about the science, looking at and weighing the evidence, these things are possible for folks without a scientific background, but they may require a lot of hard work.
From where I stand, I can actually understand folks saying that they lack the capability to learn and weigh, and have better things to do with their time. Being agnostic because of admitted ignorance or lack of motivation to do the hard work seems perfectly reasonable.
What strikes me as daft is knowing one is ignorant and unlearned, yet having a dogmatic opinion. I remember being flabbergasted to discover that one of the most vociferous dogmatic sceptics we've ever had on board didn't have a clue about the gas laws. It was like discovering that someone who didn't have a basic understanding of grammar taking to task the literary quality of a great book.
I guess this is a culture which encourages both the belief that "I'm entitled to my opinion" and "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". That way lies madness.
[ 03. August 2012, 07:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Orfeo:
I take your point. We don't want to have an ongoing digression on diet, but fyi the test results did not indicate any beneficial effect, in terms of the key triglyc/HDL ratio. In fact it got worse, even though the triglyc did go down - though this was very marginal.
So I'm giving it up, since I am not seriously overweight on a balanced diet. And it does have some anti-social effect, which is not worth it if it does no good.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have to admit to you all that I am a climate change sceptic.
Let me clarify that what that means is simply that I do not believe that mankind is causing it or has caused it.
If you want to ask why people like me think this way, there are a number of reasons and for me, none of them have anything to do with silly conspiracy theories - thouygh I do wonder sometimes ate the 'big business' of environmentalism...
Anyway, one of the reasons people are sceptical is that the data has often been wrong - I mean, people now know that Al Gore's film was inaccurate and yet people still watch it and believe it!
Another reason is that we are told the earthn is warming up, we are told that there could be a 6 degree rise in temperatures, a 11 percent increase, that;s been devestating
, that it will be devastating - and yet the truth is that average temperatures have risen in a century from .1 degree below average to plus .4 degrees above average. That's a .5 degree rise in the entire twentieth century. That covers the two periods of temperature rise and the the periods of temperature falling, including the fall since 2000.
Can you see why people are sceptical?
We see the scientists shouting that the sky is falling but it's not happening!
Next, the implication is always that the world was 'normal' until the industrial age but then we naughty and careless humans have steadily increased the earth's temperature by all the wicked things we have done. What many people say is that England, for example, was a warm country around 700 years ago - it was like the South of France, then we had a little ice age where the Thames froze every year until the dickensian era, but that now we are moving back to a warm period.
When I was a child at school all i heard from the teachers was that we are about to move back into another ice age, now we hear we're getting warmer (are we really/) but all that means is another global fluctuation, as has happened throughout the ages.
How can we puny humans 'claim credit' for warming the earth by HALF A DEGREE whern there is a huge ball of fire a mere few million miles away which by a tu=iny change to raise temperatures on thie earth by unimaginable amounts? It seems to many people that the change in temperatures - wherever they occur - have more to do with solar activity than the tiny changes we make.
in some ways i feel that the whole climate debate reveals so much about the arrogance olf man - "Oh look, the temperatures (may) have risen - we are so powerful and important, WE must have caused it."
I don't buy it at all.
If the temperatures are rising - and as yet there is no evidence at all for the scaremongering of the huge predicted temperature rises, would it not be better to actually prepare for those possible sea level rises?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I have been a strong supporter of sustainable energy and lessening our carbon footprint since I was 15 and visited this place. My brother is keen too - all his household energy comes from solar panels and wood burners.
I was strongly in favour of wind farms.
But I'm becoming less so. There is a huge wind farm near us (I live near very windy moorland) and I notice they are stopped as often as they are moving.
My brother is moored near Harwich at the moment and he watches the (diesel fuelled) catarmarans charging round serviceing the off shore wind farms and wonders why they are not using boats with electic/sails/whatever to service them.
Sadly, it looks like all are in thrall to big business.
So while I'm carefully conserving energy in my small ways the big players couldn't care less.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I once followed a large garbage-style truck going round the streets to collect all the stuff that was going for recycling - Oh so green! - and had to laugh as it belched out great clouds of black diesel exhaust!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That's a .5 degree rise in the entire twentieth century.
And there's the problem. You say that like it's a small number. It's actually a very, very fast change, and that's precisely why scientists are alarmed.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I once followed a large garbage-style truck going round the streets to collect all the stuff that was going for recycling - Oh so green! - and had to laugh as it belched out great clouds of black diesel exhaust!
... 'therefore' climate change is bunkum?
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I once followed a large garbage-style truck going round the streets to collect all the stuff that was going for recycling - Oh so green! - and had to laugh as it belched out great clouds of black diesel exhaust!
The same waste would be collected if it was going to landfill, there is still a net saving of energy.
As for your larger post, you've unfortunately absorbed a number of fallacious talking points with no basis in fact:
1. "The data has often been wrong"
Which data? When? Al Gore's film has nothing to do with scientific data.
2. 6 degrees of warming are not 11% of anything. Celsisus is not an absolute scale.
3. 0.5 degrees is substantial, and the warming so far matches the models. Additionally, the warming so far is closer to 0.9 degrees.
4. Yes there have been local variations in climate. This is about global average temperatures.
5. Yes the Sun has an impact on climate change in normal circumstances. The current temperature increase does not correspond in any way to alteration in solar output or any other solar feature.
6. There is vast evidence of the effect of CO2 and other gases on global temperatures, both from fundamental physics and from the historical temperature records. The link between CO2 and warming has been known since the late 19th Century.
7. Comparing speculation 40 years ago about a possible future ice age to the body of scientific knowledge today is absurd. Do you think plate tectonics is wrong because you were taught the shrivelled earth theory at school?
8. Temperatures have not fallen since 2000. The decade from 2000 to 2010 is the warmest on record, followed by the 1990s, then the 1980s.
9. Putting your gut reaction ahead of scientific research seems incredibly silly.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
6 degrees of warming are not 11% of anything. Celsisus is not an absolute scale.
Goodness me. I hadn't spotted that particular error. Honestly, that's scary.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have to admit to you all that I am a climate change sceptic.
Let me clarify that what that means is simply that I do not believe that mankind is causing it or has caused it.
That's not being a sceptic. You are a non-expert bloke in the street expressing a non-expert opinion based on nothing but what you read in the opinion piece in a newspaper. A proper sceptic is someone who's qualified to assess the evidence and has done so and isn't as ready to accept what others accept.
quote:
If you want to ask why people like me think this way, there are a number of reasons and for me, none of them have anything to do with silly conspiracy theories - thouygh I do wonder sometimes ate the 'big business' of environmentalism...
Anyway, one of the reasons people are sceptical is that the data has often been wrong - I mean, people now know that Al Gore's film was inaccurate and yet people still watch it and believe it!
Wow. So to you, mistakes - even if discovered and corrected - mean that a whole body of work must be wrong. How daft is that? And 'conspiracy theories'? Uh?
quote:
Another reason is that we are told the earthn is warming up, we are told that there could be a 6 degree rise in temperatures, a 11 percent increase, that;s been devestating
, that it will be devastating - and yet the truth is that average temperatures have risen in a century from .1 degree below average to plus .4 degrees above average. That's a .5 degree rise in the entire twentieth century. That covers the two periods of temperature rise and the the periods of temperature falling, including the fall since 2000.
Piffle, based on ignorance. If the measurements and proxies provide the data, how can you possibly say "and yet the truth " ? Where do your more accurate data come from?
quote:
Can you see why people are sceptical?
We see the scientists shouting that the sky is falling but it's not happening!
Next, the implication is always that the world was 'normal' until the industrial age but then we naughty and careless humans have steadily increased the earth's temperature by all the wicked things we have done. What many people say is that England, for example, was a warm country around 700 years ago - it was like the South of France, then we had a little ice age where the Thames froze every year until the dickensian era, but that now we are moving back to a warm period.
When I was a child at school all i heard from the teachers was that we are about to move back into another ice age, now we hear we're getting warmer (are we really/) but all that means is another global fluctuation, as has happened throughout the ages.
So you remember something your teacher said which turned out to be wrong and use that as an excuse to conclude that anything connected with the subject is false. Wow.
quote:
How can we puny humans 'claim credit' for warming the earth by HALF A DEGREE whern there is a huge ball of fire a mere few million miles away which by a tu=iny change to raise temperatures on thie earth by unimaginable amounts? It seems to many people that the change in temperatures - wherever they occur - have more to do with solar activity than the tiny changes we make.
More ignorance.
quote:
in some ways i feel that the whole climate debate reveals so much about the arrogance olf man - "Oh look, the temperatures (may) have risen - we are so powerful and important, WE must have caused it."
I don't buy it at all.
Still ignorance. You like anteater claim not to accept this one area of science, probably because something you read raised doubts. Can you remember how this happened?
quote:
If the temperatures are rising - and as yet there is no evidence at all for the scaremongering of the huge predicted temperature rises, would it not be better to actually prepare for those possible sea level rises? [/QB]
Wow. How can you say "if".
No evidence!? You're kidding. Have you not read or understood anything at all on the subject? Do thermometers, ice cores etc. lie or do deniers just turn off their brains and uncritically read and accept any old anti-science shit ? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I live a mile or so from Mudfrog. Let me assure everyone that he doesn't live on a different planet, and the effects of climate change are as tangible up here as they are elsewhere.
But of course, if he'd rather believe that the environmental lobby with its tiny budget has bribed every national science society to say anthropogenic climate change is real, while Big Oil with its billions of petrodollars stands by helplessly, he's free to do so.
He would, however, be wrong.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Is there a correlation among Christians between doubt over anthropogenic climate change and belief in creationism? ISTM both positions involve the choice to reject what the vast majority of scientists believe, citing a widespread conspiracy / corruption that is causing the truth to be suppressed.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Is there a correlation among Christians between doubt over anthropogenic climate change and belief in creationism? ISTM both positions involve the choice to reject what the vast majority of scientists believe, citing a widespread conspiracy / corruption that is causing the truth to be suppressed.
I think there is, generally. There's also a strong correlation with right wing politics. You don't find many socialist creationists.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
