|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment?
|
|
|
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
