|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Climate Change News
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
After more threads than I can remember, can it be that we've finally talked out the climate change issues? I was a bit surprised at the lack of anything on the two news stories this week.
First, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) have reported on their review of the IPCC. Which concludes (in summary) that the science is sound but the IPCC can benefit from some procedural changes; to reduce the potential for small errors sneaking into their reports, having a 'conflict of interest' policy etc.
Second, Bjørn Lomborg has rather taken the wind out of the skeptic sails by describing climate change as "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and calling for substantial expenditure to tackle climate change. Not exactly a u-turn (afterall, Lomborg never actually denied the science), but it certainly appears to be a change of tack.
So, have people actually noticed the news? Or, just totally fed up with the subject? If Lomborg can call it one of the chief concerns of the world today, surely there's something worth talking about?
[ 15. June 2016, 18:44: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Absolutely. We should be talking about it, though I think that climate change, peak oil, resource depletion, overgrazing, overfishing, poisoning of the oceans from waste (including increasing acidity from CO2), overharvesting of the forests, desertification, fresh water shortages, salinization of farmland and the extinction of between 5,000 and 50,000 plant and nimal species annually all need to be discussed as a whole, since they are all symptoms of the larger reality that humanity has overshot the Earth's carrying capacity and the environment is deteriorating rapidly.
[ 01. September 2010, 19:37: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or not.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
What's not, Martin? (ie which one(s) - ?
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
What's wrong MPC? Experimental results not giving you the results you wanted?
[ 01. September 2010, 21:01: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Tambourine Man
Shipmate
# 15361
|
Posted
Did anyone notice the Ohio Tea Party demand that politicians sign up to this statement:
The regulation of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere should be left to God and not government Link
I don't know what's worse, their science or their theology.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
'Experimental results' ?
'discussed' ?
'carrying capacity' ?
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Henny Penny the globe is anthropogenically warming ! A bit. May be. And I wouldn't be at all surprised. BUT WE WON'T KNOW FOR SURE UNTIL IT'S TOO ... METHANE HYDRATE!!!!
And ?
I trust capitalism (ESPECIALLY Big Oil), democracy to find a way. If it can't, it can't be found.
When it fails completely, which it shows NO smoking gun of doing, Jesus'll fix it.
NATO haemorrhaging drop by drop in Afghanistan to prevent nuclear war notwithstanding.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Tambourine Man
Shipmate
# 15361
|
Posted
It appears like the closing line of my last post could well apply to the MPC's ramblings below. Unless I'm wrongly taking his sarcasm at face value?
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
Unless I'm wrongly taking his sarcasm at face value?
IMNSHO you may be mistaking what might be the truth for sarcasm (a great part of the fun is deciphering exactly WHAT he's saying).
Of course, reasonable people can disagree on this topic.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
NATO haemorrhaging drop by drop in Afghanistan to prevent nuclear war notwithstanding.
? America started the nuclear war in 1991.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
[tangent alert]
Australia recently held its national elections.
On the ballot vote, was the first ever Climate Skeptics political party.
Just thought it was interesting.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Second, Bjørn Lomborg has rather taken the wind out of the skeptic sails by describing climate change as "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and calling for substantial expenditure to tackle climate change. Not exactly a u-turn (afterall, Lomborg never actually denied the science), but it certainly appears to be a change of tack.
Lomborg's principles remain the same. What do the data say? What will the effect of a proposal be? What will be the cost if said proposal is implemented? Does the benefit to cost ratio make it a reasonable solution? Or is it just about us feeling good with ourselves?
Lomborg consistently points out that we are throwing huge amounts of money at the wrong direction. If only more people followed his principles in their line of thinking!
ETA: Specifically, Lomborg does not "call for substantial expenditure to tackle climate change period". He says much against substantial expenditure already undertaken by various organizations, because they won't be of much help. He then points our attention to more pressing issues, which can be dealt with with only a tiny fraction of what we mindlessly put away for climate change. And then he explains how we could spend mney effectively to prevent climate change.
[ 02. September 2010, 11:25: Message edited by: El Greco ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
I forgot to mention: a high school buddy of mine who has been in 'meteorology' or some such discipline has worked himself far enough up the academic/government foodchain he now disburses funds to various agencies; technically he's still employed by a large university but is on some kind of loan program to the gubbermint and lives in DC making, presumably, oodles of money. He's published quite a bit and is I believe a respected voice.
At our HS reunion this year I did my best to pin him down (he tried to avoid it - you get the impression there's pressure to go with some flow) on the ACC debate and what he finally acceded was (close to verbatim paraphrase) 'The scientific consensus is that humans are changing the climate... but there's a lot we don't know'.
Exactly.
I'm thinking the question remains 'how much is a lot?'.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
the extinction of between 5,000 and 50,000 plant and nimal species annually
Really? I thought there were only 2 (tentative) declarations last year in regards to animals for instance: the black rhino and the Yangtze dolphin.
To be clear, I think it's an important issue and I'm not a global warming skeptic, but stupid scaremongering like this is very annoying. Take the example of the golden frog for instance. The golden frog lives somewhere up some mountain range in Costa Rica - beautiful little delicate thing that has lived on the knife edge of extinction for a very, very long time. It was noticed back in 1987 that their numbers seemed to be dropping very significantly. After further study the conclusion was reached that there must be an outside factor. They were put on the endangered list in the 90's and since then they have been cited as an example of the victims of global warming and human pollution. You hear it said again and again. In actual fact, what is killing them off is a water borne fungus that requires very pure water and up there in the mountains it has the perfect environment to grow, and has been doing for a very, very long time. It reached the frogs and started killing them off. It could have happened 10,000 years ago, but by chance, it's happening now.
For every one herpatologist stating the facts, there are a hundred scaremongering 'greens' talking about pollution and global warming and doing their cause no favours by talking nonsense. It really is a pity, when there are animals that are directly affected by our actions and our pollution and even global warming, lack of care and illegal poaching. I just wish they would stop this scaremongering nonsense that gives the skeptics endless amounts of ammunition.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
We don't need endless amounts of ammunition when we have examples as OP. Sweeping falsified data under the carpet while still claiming scientific truth for a theory is example enough.
In other words.
Truth doesn't require falsified data. That this is resorted to prove AGW is proof enough that the theory is junk.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I fear there is another reason we don't do these threads here...
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Because false 'scientific facts' and vested interests and screaming emotional 'everything nasty is AGW and all not agreeing are ignorant bigots' has so taken over that no sane discussion is possible with those promoting this junk. No matter how many examples are given of falsified data. And no matter how many requests for actual proof.
None is forthcoming because none can exist without producing falsified data and/or emotionally hammering using false facts such as you gave example.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Really? I thought there were only 2 (tentative) declarations last year in regards to animals for instance: the black rhino and the Yangtze dolphin.
The number of declared extinctions reflects only a fraction of the number of actual extinctions.
quote:
Only 869 extinctions have been formally recorded since 1500, however, because scientists have only "described" nearly 2m of an estimated 5-30m species around the world, and only assessed the conservation status of 3% of those, the global rate of extinction is extrapolated from the rate of loss among species which are known. In this way the IUCN calculated in 2004 that the rate of loss had risen to 100-1,000 per millions species annually a situation comparable to the five previous "mass extinctions" the last of which was when the dinosaurs were wiped out about 65m years ago.
Guardian UK: Humans driving extinction faster than species can evolve, say experts
I'm not scaremongering, but there seems to be a lot of denial and myopic thinking around the state of the environment. The conditions of the planet are changing and in a way that bodes ill for our way of life.
As a society we've replaced traditional religion with a mythic faith in infinite growth, infinite progress and the myth that human ingenuity and technology can rise to any challenge - even transcend the laws of nature. But many of our past civilizations collapsed because they destroyed the environment they were in. Human ingenuity and adaptability didn't work for them either.
It's not scaremongering to warn people about what is happening on the planet.
[ 02. September 2010, 13:47: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Truth doesn't require falsified data
OK, I'll probably regret this. But, I'll bite. What 'falsified data'?
Honest mistakes like "the Himalayan glaciers will disapper by 2035" (a simple typo ... the original data said 2350), or minor errors in analysis that when corrected don't actually change the results (eg: the Mann paleoclimate reconstruction), don't count. Let's have some actual data that has been falsified, preferably with some reliable source demonstrating that the data has been falsified.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Truth doesn't require falsified data
OK, I'll probably regret this. But, I'll bite. What 'falsified data'?
Honest mistakes like "the Himalayan glaciers will disapper by 2035" (a simple typo ... the original data said 2350), or minor errors in analysis that when corrected don't actually change the results (eg: the Mann paleoclimate reconstruction), don't count. Let's have some actual data that has been falsified, preferably with some reliable source demonstrating that the data has been falsified.
Alan, we've been through this. You accept all excuses to continue to believe something that you have yet to show any proof for.
Prove it.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Ditto.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Maybe I'm an ignoramus, but who is this Bjørn Lomborg and why does his expressing an opinion change the discussion so dramatically?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ditto.
Your theory, you provide the proof.
But that's another cop out like the falsified cherry picking of temperature data to create a hockey stick which gives hockey stick whatever numbers you put into it and the emails proving they excluded all objections to falsified data by establishing a coterie of themselves claiming they were the 'scientific consensus' by peer reviewing themselves, isn't important..
Go on, keep measuring 'well-mixed C02' in the atmosphere from a friggin volcano in one of if not the most volcanic spots on earth originally chosen by someone with an agenda, proved already, and be happy.
I don't have to believe such nonsense.
So, your theory, you prove it.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm a total sceptic AND AGW is a no brainer.
Like evolution.
It's self limiting like a verucca, we have more important things to worry about.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Maybe I'm an ignoramus, but who is this Bjørn Lomborg and why does his expressing an opinion change the discussion so dramatically?
Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" (he wrote a book with that title basically before most of the world had even heard the phrase 'snthropogenic climate change'). For decades he's been saying that, although he accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is changing the global climate, there are far more important things to worry about and we shouldn't spend money countering global climate change. So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change (although he disagrees with where a lot of the money currently being spent is getting spent ... and, on some points I'd agree) is quite significant.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ditto.
Your theory, you provide the proof. ...
So, your theory, you prove it.
And, it's your theory that climate change science is built on a foundation of falsified data and egotistical scientists looking for a quick buck. You've failed to prove that theory to basically anyone.
--------------------
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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, it's your theory that climate change science is built on a foundation of falsified data and egotistical scientists looking for a quick buck. You've failed to prove that theory to basically anyone.
No, what I have shown is that there are so many contradictions to your theory that to continue believing in it is become a matter of faith, not science.
I have produced no theories.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" [...] So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change [...]is quite significant.
I agree with you, both on the strength of the science behind climate change and the significance of Lomborg's comments ... and yet no-one (so far) has posted to say that this news has made them think again, let alone changed their mind. Has this news made anyone think again about this issue?
Maybe this account contains a clue. The effect on Marion Keech and her followers, when her 'end of the world' prediction did not happen, was reportedly that "they reacted to the dissonance of being wrong: by becoming even more certain that they were right". Will something similar happen here?
As the account of Marion Keech observes, "thanks to Google we can find evidence in support of practically any belief. If you can imagine the conspiracy theory, there is a website out there ardently promoting it, and a clan of fellow believers who share your peculiar obsession with fluoridated drinking water and the New World Order. The end result is that we never have to recant. We can always find another link to prove that the government is trying to zombify us, or that aliens are going to destroy the earth at midnight.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
It might be revealing to put Londberg in place of Moses coming to the government (Pharoah) and threatening the ten plagues: polluted rivers, crop failures due to insects, darkness caused by volcanic ash, etc. Would the end result be the same as Moses had, death of many billions?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go on, keep measuring 'well-mixed C02' in the atmosphere from a friggin volcano in one of if not the most volcanic spots on earth originally chosen by someone with an agenda, proved already, and be happy.
I don't have time at the moment to go through the whole of climate science again. But, I have time to pick up a point or two.
I'm assuming your statement relates to the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration record. First off, it probably should go without saying that there was no "agenda" in choosing that data set. It is a convenient place for a climate station - above the lower atmosphere and away from continental landmasses where human impact would need to be considered in data analysis, a good place to launch balloons carrying instruments into the upper atmosphere etc. There was also a very convenient road to the summit built by the US military in the 1940s.
You have postulated a hypothesis that the location would impact the quality of the data due to proximity to active volcanoes. That's a hypothesis that's relatively easy to test. If proximity to volcanoes was an issue you would expect a correlation between collected data and volcanic activity. Actually, you'd be right ... individual volcanic events do sometimes create detectable signals (not always, because often the wind is blowing the other way), these are easy to identify (it's not just CO2 in the gas from volcanoes) and hence remove from the data sets. Also, you'd expect that measurements from Mauna Loa would disagree with other CO2 concentration measurements ... it's a real shame for your hypothesis that all the other stations around the world measuring CO2 agree with the Mauna Loa record.
So, you have to do a lot better than that to dismiss the recorded increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations - an increase of almost 25% over the last 60 years.
And, as CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas that increase can have had no effect other than to warm the planet - unless other factors (eg: increased cloud cover) acted against that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
[I agree with you, both on the strength of the science behind climate change and the significance of Lomborg's comments ... and yet no-one (so far) has posted to say that this news has made them think again, let alone changed their mind. Has this news made anyone think again about this issue?
I don't think that Lomborg was ever in the position of extreme sceptic or conspiracy theorist, so I'm not sure how this should change anyone's thinking - least of all those most convinced on the warmist/sceptic axis.
Perhaps Lomborg's repositioning shows that it is possible to have a debate on policy without resorting to shrill stereotypes. But that hope has already proved ill-founded given the posts on this thread.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Tambourine Man
Shipmate
# 15361
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Go on, keep measuring 'well-mixed C02' in the atmosphere from a friggin volcano in one of if not the most volcanic spots on earth originally chosen by someone with an agenda, proved already, and be happy.
Myrrh [/QB]
Just in case anyone is tempted to believe Myrrh's nonsense about the Mauna Loa CO2 observations, see here.
Likewise I presume that plants and animals also have an agenda and are changing their habitats to further this evil climate change conspiracy.
See here
Basically this whole exercise links back to the OP and shows why I avoid most climate change online messaging. Clearing up the mess made by skeptics/deniers is akin to sharing a flat with an incontinent elephant.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" (he wrote a book with that title basically before most of the world had even heard the phrase 'snthropogenic climate change'). For decades he's been saying that, although he accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is changing the global climate, there are far more important things to worry about and we shouldn't spend money countering global climate change. So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change (although he disagrees with where a lot of the money currently being spent is getting spent ... and, on some points I'd agree) is quite significant.
Far more pressing issues to deal with does not equal we must not spend big money on climate change. Just like not spending big money on methods that don't have an effective cost/benefit ratio does not equal not spending big money in general.
Lomborg has pointed out what must have been obvious. That saying yeah to laws that give ridiculous amounts of money to projects that don't bring much benefit is irrational.
He also explained how some always preached the end of the world by some catastrophe or another, and they have been proven wrong, so it's time we begin to evaluate such claims and see them for what they actually are: exaggerations that are not based on data and rational analysis.
It is very shallow to assume that to criticize the governments for throwing away taxpayers' money means one does not want the governments to give taxpayers' money to projects that really work.
With Lomborg we have a dilemma. Do you just want to feel good with yourself, or do you want to actually make a difference? Do you want to follow your heart without listening to your mind, or do you want to have your mind co-operate with your heart so that your actions actually have a positive effect in the world?
It's not just good motives, people. It's about good results. This is what Lomborg has been focusing on all along.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Yeah, yeah, yeah..
Haven't you yet got that my objection is that there is no data? Why isn't there any data? Because at every turn, at every so called fact given, we find nothing but effin lies..
..which of course, don't materially change anything..
'Oops, we didn't include data for South America and Africa but it doesn't really matter',(*) then what the f does matter if these have been excluded in 'Global' claims?
It doesn't matter that temperature data has been so screwed with that none of it can be trusted, it doesn't matter that the big guns have been shown time and time again to be dishonest in the science, none of it matters.
Sorry, really can't be bothered arguing with those who think honesty in science doesn't matter.
Myrrh
(*) Hansen frees the code
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Tambourine Man
Shipmate
# 15361
|
Posted
So Myrrh, two posters disprove your lies about CO2 measurements being worthless and we get no response beyond "yeah, yeah, yeah". But no, its nearly every scientific body in the world who are the dishonest ones.
Final post by me; any more and this thread would join Beelzebub (insert naff joke about 'warming').
PS Where is the data? Here you go for a start.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Lomborg is the "original 'skeptical environmentalist'" (he wrote a book with that title basically before most of the world had even heard the phrase 'snthropogenic climate change'). For decades he's been saying that, although he accepts the scientific consensus that human activity is changing the global climate, there are far more important things to worry about and we shouldn't spend money countering global climate change. So, for him to now change his tune slightly and say that actually we should be spending money on countering climate change (although he disagrees with where a lot of the money currently being spent is getting spent ... and, on some points I'd agree) is quite significant.
Far more pressing issues to deal with does not equal we must not spend big money on climate change. Just like not spending big money on methods that don't have an effective cost/benefit ratio does not equal not spending big money in general.
I know that Lomborg hasn't shifted a great deal in his position (and the basis for reaching that position, as you point out, hasn't changed at all as far as I can see). But he has shifted from a position where any expenditure on climate change is irrational (because the benefits outweigh the costs) to one where he sees it as rational to spend several tens of billions of dollars per year. Clearly he hasn't moved to the position of many of the more extreme environmentalists where any amount of money that reduces our carbon footprint is worth spending. But, then there are very few people who hold that position anyway.
quote:
Lomborg has pointed out what must have been obvious. That saying yeah to laws that give ridiculous amounts of money to projects that don't bring much benefit is irrational.
Well, the level of rationality is going to depend on a) how much money and benefit is in question as each project will have its own cost:benefit ratio, b) what other projects there are that money could be spent on as you'd want the biggest bang for your buck, c) how much money is available and d) how big an issue you consider climate change to be. If you consider climate change to be unimportant then no amount of benefit will make any expenditure worthwhile because the finite amount of money that could be spent would be much better spent on other issues - that seemed to be Lomborgs position a few years ago. The more important you see climate change to be then the more value you'll see in climate projects, and then you'll see that there are projects which bring a reasonable return - which seems to be where Lomborg is now.
It's all entirely rational. And, if you agree with the science that human activity is having a significant detrimental impact on the global climate, and that the poor are going to experience the worst effects of those changes, then you're going to see giving large sums of money to projects that should alleviate those changes is money well spent.
Needless to say there are some projects (proposed or even in place) where there has been insufficient consideration of how they'll work, and they're costing money with very little benefit. Carbon trading is a project that should work, but the limited implementations so far attempted have highlighted plenty of weaknesses - the challenge being to iron out those difficulties before the whole scheme falls apart. Intensive agriculture producing what should be food crops to generate biofuels is also less than ideal; biofuels from waste material (eg: corn husks) is great, but to grow maize or sugar beet just to make petrol is simply not sustainable - especially when that's done by the application of vast quantities of fertilisers and pesticides.
Lomborg has always had a lot of good things to say, and is well worth listening to. But, IMO, he has always underestimated the severity of the predictions of climate scientists and possibly overestimated the ability of people and society to adapt. He seems to be moving towards what to me is a more realistic position that climate change will have a much bigger effect than he'd previously assumed, and that people and society will need more help to adapt. Which shifts the cost-benefit analysis, with the results we've seen of his change in position on spending on climate change projects.
--------------------
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
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Oh nooooooooooooooooooo its climate change time again.
Bring me the comfy chair...............oh no not THE COMFY CHAIR.
Don't worry I'm not contributing anything remotely sensible to this thread, and the retort was 'not that you ever did anyway' I hear echoing in the ether?
Serious point, is there more a coming together now, with the polarised views of a year or two ago less? That is, we accept man does have an influence on climate, but this is tempered by an acknowledgement that mans footprint isn't quite so large and apocalyptic as first thought?
Saul the Apostle.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know that Lomborg hasn't shifted a great deal in his position (and the basis for reaching that position, as you point out, hasn't changed at all as far as I can see). But he has shifted from a position where any expenditure on climate change is irrational (because the benefits outweigh the costs) to one where he sees it as rational to spend several tens of billions of dollars per year. Clearly he hasn't moved to the position of many of the more extreme environmentalists where any amount of money that reduces our carbon footprint is worth spending. But, then there are very few people who hold that position anyway.
It's all entirely rational. And, if you agree with the science that human activity is having a significant detrimental impact on the global climate, and that the poor are going to experience the worst effects of those changes, then you're going to see giving large sums of money to projects that should alleviate those changes is money well spent.
Pielke Jnr does not seem to think that there's much new about Lomborg's proposals.
quote:
Lomborg has always had a lot of good things to say, and is well worth listening to. But, IMO, he has always underestimated the severity of the predictions of climate scientists and possibly overestimated the ability of people and society to adapt. He seems to be moving towards what to me is a more realistic position that climate change will have a much bigger effect than he'd previously assumed, and that people and society will need more help to adapt. Which shifts the cost-benefit analysis, with the results we've seen of his change in position on spending on climate change projects.
'Severity', 'bigger effects', or 'catastrophes' - it is in this area of 'prediction' where we should have most scepticism. And I don't think that Lomborg has done a U-turn here.
Lomborg now seems to be proposing a carbon tax primarily for investment and research into new technologies. That might be a good way of moving forward. Surely no-one can seriously believe that things will change much until there are some affordable alternatives to fossil fuels? Research and development is vital.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, have people actually noticed the news? Or, just totally fed up with the subject? If Lomborg can call it one of the chief concerns of the world today, surely there's something worth talking about?
I suspect that of the 2 camps, the pro- didn't consider Lomborg's apostasy notable as they didn't pay too much attention to him anyway. The anti- camp OTOH, is desperately ignoring it in the same way that they desperately ignored the vindication of Phil Jones, the debunking of "Amazongate," the reaffirmation of the temperature records, and the fact that 2010 is likely to top 1998 thus destroying their favourite (if meaningless) argument that temperatures haven't risen in the last 10 years."
I'm mostly trying to get my head around Lomborg's haircut in the publicity shots.
- 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
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
So Myrrh, two posters disprove your lies about CO2 measurements being worthless and we get no response beyond "yeah, yeah, yeah". But no, its nearly every scientific body in the world who are the dishonest ones.
Final post by me; any more and this thread would join Beelzebub (insert naff joke about 'warming').
PS Where is the data? Here you go for a start.
Which word don't you understand me saying here, "there is no honesty in the science"?
The "consensus" is a fraud.
It's been proved to be a fraud, just because the dead chicken keeps on twitching doesn't mean the theory is alive.
Those with vested interests in keeping up the pretence that it is alive will continue to do so, just as the government has put itself above the law in the Dr Kelly saga, stopping a legally required coroner's inquest, hiding the facts for next 70 years, so the cover ups and obfuscations will continue with this junk science as long as reputations are on the line, and funding.
The theory is dead. Get over it.
quote:
Meltdown of the Climate Consensus
"Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus."
..
The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers - and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train."
Those are facts you can read in the emails for yourself. That there was an 'enquiry' which smudged around all this is to be expected, the corruption and fraud is in all areas of government, business and science.
The gravy train is loaded and must be kept running..
Frankly, I got tired of the amount of easily recognisable bogus information masquerading as 'science' and the 'high confidence' with manipulated evidence, even if evidence was bothered with..
..when others wanting to check results are continually fobbed off then you know you're not dealing with 'science', but a con.
The history of it is fascinating, however, how it began and then grew like topsy over the decades with disparate interests getting on the bandwagon to support it.
But, a con is a con is a con.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
That is, we accept man does have an influence on climate, but this is tempered by an acknowledgement that mans footprint isn't quite so large and apocalyptic as first thought?
My understanding is that it's the opposite. Predictions of an ice free North Pole during summer and concerns that mass amounts of permafrost methane are being released into the atmosphere in a feedback loop are becoming are being moved closer to the present rather than receding.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
So Myrrh, two posters disprove your lies about CO2 measurements being worthless and we get no response beyond "yeah, yeah, yeah". But no, its nearly every scientific body in the world who are the dishonest ones.
Final post by me; any more and this thread would join Beelzebub (insert naff joke about 'warming').
PS Where is the data? Here you go for a start.
You have to understand that in Myrrh's world this is one great big conspiracy. So any data, even hard data, that contradicts her claims is going to be discarded because... well, it's a conspiracy... by thousands of people, over several decades, working in all kinds of capacities, with different agendae, serving private, public, media and academic institutions, in dozens of countries who somehow all think exactly the same.
You'd honestly be better off debating a young earth creationist, a 9/11 "truther", an Obama "birther" or a moon-landing denialist. There are dozens of old Purg threads on the subject where people are essentially worn down into shear exhaustion on the subject.
[ 03. September 2010, 03:13: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Lomborg now seems to be proposing a carbon tax primarily for investment and research into new technologies. That might be a good way of moving forward. Surely no-one can seriously believe that things will change much until there are some affordable alternatives to fossil fuels? Research and development is vital.
Most sensible people who've advocated carbon taxes have been saying that the revenue raised should be invested directly back into supporting a low-carbon economy - by investing in new technologies and helping boost markets for existing and emerging new technology. Even most politicians have recognised that they're onto a non-starter introducing a new tax and just adding the revenue into the general tax income pot.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spawn:
[qb] Most sensible people who've advocated carbon taxes have been saying that the revenue raised should be invested directly back into supporting a low-carbon economy - by investing in new technologies and helping boost markets for existing and emerging new technology. Even most politicians have recognised that they're onto a non-starter introducing a new tax and just adding the revenue into the general tax income pot.
But that's the problem isn't it? I would be happier with a shift in taxation, rather than an increase in the tax burden. In a downturn we're already going to have to pay more tax, if you add greater carbon taxes to the mix you'll end up with disillusion, apathy and cynicism. The fact is that if we consider climate change to be a greater priority than others (and the jury is still out on that) then other things are going to have to suffer.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think that Lomborg was ever in the position of extreme sceptic or conspiracy theorist, so I'm not sure how this should change anyone's thinking - least of all those most convinced on the warmist/sceptic axis.
I may be misunderstanding you. You seem to be arguing that Lomborg's change of mind would be more significant if his previous views were extreme, rather than moderate.
When a person switches from one extreme view to an opposing view, I sometimes wonder how much their thinking has actually changed. I wonder if they simply exchanged zealotry about one view for zealous advocacy of the opposite?
If Lomborg was previously a moderate, reasonable and well-informed sceptic (rather than a conspiracy theorist) - and if he has changed his mind - then, for me, his change of mind would be more significant, not less.
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Perhaps Lomborg's repositioning shows that it is possible to have a debate on policy without resorting to shrill stereotypes.[...]
I hope so.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
AIUI, one of the big reasons that the climate science looks so uncertain is the way the scientists are asked to report. Anecdotally from people who've been on these panels, they are asked to give their predictions for the worst case scenario and the best case scenario - and aren't necessarily allowed to explain that at either extreme that's assuming all other factors are worst case or best case or what they thing will realistically happen. And it's this information that's picked up and reported.
If the scientists were allowed to say what they thought was most likely situation, summarising all the situations, we wouldn't have the extremes of predictions that get picked up and run with by conspiracy theorists and climate deniers.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I may be misunderstanding you. You seem to be arguing that Lomborg's change of mind would be more significant if his previous views were extreme, rather than moderate.
When a person switches from one extreme view to an opposing view, I sometimes wonder how much their thinking has actually changed. I wonder if they simply exchanged zealotry about one view for zealous advocacy of the opposite?
If Lomborg was previously a moderate, reasonable and well-informed sceptic (rather than a conspiracy theorist) - and if he has changed his mind - then, for me, his change of mind would be more significant, not less.
I think the link I gave earlier from Pielke summed it up rather well. Lomborg hasn't changed his position he's simply adopted someone else's ideas on policy. That's not going to change anyone's view on the basic issues. The fact that he was ever viewed in the 'enemy camp' by 'true believers' suggests that there is something skewed and polarised about this whole debate.
I'm not a scientist, but the more I read about climate science is that this is a whole world of new discovery. A lot which has been said by politicians, journalists, opinion formers and some scientists has ignored the uncertainties. We need to be dragged back to a debate about how far we should reasonably go to take precautions about this threat without causing worse problems than we're trying to solve.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I think the link I gave earlier from Pielke summed it up rather well. Lomborg hasn't changed his position he's simply adopted someone else's ideas on policy. That's not going to change anyone's view on the basic issues. [...]
You wrote that Lomborg's adoption of other people's ideas on how to respond to climate change doesn't mean that he has changed his position. I see this differently. For me, if Lomborg has changed his views on 'what we should do about climate change,' then he has changed his position, even if he hasn't changed his view on 'whether humans cause climate change'. Of course, if you can show that Lomborg has not changed his views on 'what we should do about climate change', then I'm wrong.
You referred the comments by Pielke as supporting your view. However, Pielke wrote that "Lomborg offers the potential to bring along many of his supporters to a new view". Pielke seems to be saying that Lomborg's change of thinking could be significant, in terms of its effect on other people. That seems to support my argument.
You wrote that Lomborg's change of views won't change anyone's views on 'basic issues'. That depends on what you mean by basic issues. For me, 'whether humans are causing climate change' and 'what we should do about climate change' are both basic issues. Perhaps, for you, only the former issue is basic?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
