Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2010 - 12:06am PT
|
Let me pose a question: Are you so certain of catastrophic global warming, resulting from human CO2 emissions, that you're willing to destroy trillions of dollars of wealth and set this country on a terminal economic decline? (And that doesn't consider the question whether the proposed remedies will even have much of an impact in the desired direction, which itself is debatable.) Classical decision theory considers two variables, the potential consequences of a decision and the probability that the worst case will ensue. What is the probability of a disastrous ecological outcome if we do nothing? I don't know, but it's got to be a helluva lot smaller than the probability of a disastrous economic outcome if we do what the AGW advocates are clamoring for. As others on this forum have noted, you simply can't separate the science from the economics, nor the benefits from the costs. Most politicians understand this, if only in terms of keeping themselves viable for re-election (which is why we won't be seeing cap-and-trade anytime soon, and why it isn't looking like Obama will serve a second term). Do you scientists get it?
I believe in the concept of alternative/renewable energy, and I applaud efforts to develop those technologies; however, nuclear power is a key element of any near-term plan to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Even the Euros realized that long ago, but the "progressives" in this country still seem to live under the delusion that we can live without both. What do you think? As a parent and grandparent, I'd like to preserve a United States in which my offspring can thrive.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2010 - 12:56am PT
|
I think one of the biggest fallacies that Status Quo disciples present is that by putting off a full bore effort to embrace clean energy technologies our economy will thrive.
The opposite is true.
Its coming whether the republagumbies want it or not. The question is whether America will be a leader or a follower. We are already buying our Solar Panels ( A technology developed thanks to basic science research paid for by the American taxpayer) from China. The same is true for wind technology ( Vestas is a pretty sad story), energy efficiency technologies (germany), and in many other areas.
The longer we put it off, the further we fall behind, the more we hurt ourselves in the long run. The irony is that our reliance on cheap and dirty energy sources is costing us plenty. Even ignoring the looming specter of climate change.
|
|
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2010 - 10:05am PT
|
The last word in practical terms is that we will be waiting to see what happens, at least in the short term, since the legislation isn't going anywhere in the Senate. AGW is consistently polling at the bottom of just about any list of concerns/priorities, and I would posit that it isn't due to the ignorance of the unwashed masses (whom the Left purports to champion but in fact despises); rather, they've heard shrill doomsday warnings before and have learned to take them with a grain of salt.
In ten years, will the situation be indubitably worse? As I say, we'll see, but I'm not holding my breath.
Bluster on amongst yourselves--
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2010 - 11:27am PT
|
The last word in practical terms is that we will be waiting to see what happens
Sadly, I suspect gazela might be right on this one, the "Do Nothing!" forces have everything except science on their side.
The trouble with "Wait and see" as a strategy is that if we wait ("letting the atmosphere run the experiment," scientists have called that), and in time have to admit the concerns of climate scientists were justified -- it will by then be too late not only to reverse the trends, but to prevent them from carrying us deeper into an even less favorable atmosphere/ocean regime.
"Wait and see" makes an obvious sound bite, but falls apart if you think even briefly about applying that to a planet-scale system characterized by positive feedbacks, interacting processes with time scales from weeks to millennia, and a past record of large abrupt shifts.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2010 - 12:25pm PT
|
so, the head of the ipcc went to copenhagen to try to persuade (coerce?) america into a shaky (shady?) economic plan to cut emissions even though he KNEW the ipcc report that was the basis of his argument contained FRAUDULENT information...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
ok, i'm thinking the entire scope of "data" used to bolster agw claims needs to be "peer reviewed" before agw-ers make any more suggestions (demands?) on legislation
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
|
Incontrovertible evidence of global climate change.
Overwhelming (and largely untainted) evidence of it's human causes and future catastrophic effects.
But the right-wingers say "wait and see".
Would but they had only said "wait and see" to the ENTIRELY FRAUDULENT evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
|
|
REIGN 1
Trad climber
Mt. Woodson, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2010 - 05:01pm PT
|
I'm a democrat. I voted for obama and change. I'm not going to fall for another democrat bs story like global warming.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2010 - 01:32pm PT
|
suh-weet! this thread just became ON topic
it seems the ipcc report based its claims about himalayan glacier melt on a paper written by a grad student working on a masters degree, 16 non-peer reviewed articles from the world wildlife fund, and...
observations made by MOUNTAIN CLIMBERS!!!
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
From the article that 'worm linked above:
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings. But they do call into question the probity of some climate change science.
Worm, how can you walk through a forest of evidence, see a few dead trees, and then keep on telling us there is no forest.
Actually you don't really investigate the evidence yourself do you? So my analogy is flawed.
Let's try this instead: you fly over a vast forest of evidence, you read airline magazine articles about dead trees, and then you tell us there are no forests.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
i've often wondered about the motives of the agw movement...are you concerned about the planet or humanity? granted, saving the planet would save humanity, but f has certainly made remarks suggesting he thinks the planet is overpopulated (though he hasn't shown any initiative by volunteering for the reduction)
anyway:
"According to a 2004 paper by British geographer and climatologist Nigel Arnell, global warming would likely reduce the world's total number of people living in "water-stressed watersheds"—that is, areas with less than 1,000 cubic meters of water resources per capita, per year—even though many regions would see increased water shortages. Using multiple models, Mr. Arnell predicted that if temperatures rise, between 867 million and 4.5 billion people around the world could see increased "water stress" by 2085. But Mr. Arnell also found that "water stress" could decrease for between 1.7 billion and 6 billion people. Taking the average of the two ranges, that means that with global warming, nearly 2.7 billion people could see greater water shortages—but 3.85 billion could see fewer of them."
so, according to this "peer-reviewed" study, at least 867 MILLION people will suffer greater "water stress" if agw is not stopped...however, at least 1.7 BILLION people will suffer LESS water stress if agw is not stopped
1) it seems agw will actually BENEFIT more people than it will harm
2) don't these numbers actually demonstrate a balanced effect of agw on people and the planet? or, at least, show that we really can't say with any degree of accuracy what the effects will be?
here's the whole article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575038742717786422.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopBucket
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
http://www.calera.com/
This Silicon Valley genius has invented a process that will take the
CO2 , fly ash , and sulfur out of the stack gases of coal fired power plants.
Its cheap and supremely carbon negative. And its gonna make him
very rich because the byproduct is high grade cement for construction
projects.
The coal power industry is looking to switch to this new process as it uses
a small fraction of the power they must currently use to scrub their stack
gases of just fly ash and Sulfur as required by law. Calera gets all that
plus the CO2 which has never been accomplished before.
So the planet is saved by a businessman/engineer! Predictable. (if it needed saving at all that is)
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Turning waste heat and CO2 into valuable materials is beautiful.
On September 23, 2009 the U.S. Department of Energy announced that Calera was to be awarded a grant for the expansion of the Moss Landing facility to a demonstration scale.
At this site, Calera will treat a 50-megawatt coal equivalent slipstream from the adjacent Dynegy plant, removing the carbon and other emissions to produce a carbonate mineral product.
. The award is in the category of “innovative concepts for beneficial carbon dioxide use.”
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Bookworm
Good find in the Guardian about the funky Chinese weather numbers.
The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
Another fine example of garbage in garbage out by the IPCC.
Good news on climate from last year. CO2 just is doing its job huh?
NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.
September 10, 2009
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
ok, ed, mann might avoid implication in the most serious charges (he still LIED about his hockey stick) and the investigation may or may not be a whitewash
BUT...
why do "scientists" have to lie, hide or destroy data, manipulate the peer-review process, and attack dissenters to PROVE something for which the "science is settled" and the "evidence is overwhelming"? why lie about the "truth"?
maybe i can help: the ipcc isn't about science; the vast majority of its members are not really "scientists"; even those with scientific degrees/training are primarily bureaucrats pushing a POLITICAL agenda; the ipcc should be disbanded and its reports sent to the shredder and all of its members required to reimburse the un for all expenses and its (and al's) nobel prize returned (including the cash)
then, let's get the real scientists together--agw believers AND skeptics--and have them present ALL their data and research for review by the other side and then see where we are...in the meantime, NO LEGISLATION based on any research of questionable integrity
|
|
TomT
Trad climber
Aptos.
|
|
I've been in the University for way long now (not in climate science) , and sometimes scientists lie, and in most cases it is to get famous. There isn't much money to be made in science - it is almost all about ego. However, lying is hard to do for long in this setting, because the whole community is a fairly skeptical group. I think what most folks outside science don't understand is that if you make big claims like those made in climate change science, a bright light is shined on what you are doing, and you become a target for another scientist to become famous by proving you were wrong. That is how this business works. And there are just too many scientists in the world who will be looking at what you do ,and whose training or proclivities are to prove you wrong. And I don't think the climate change skeptics have proved their case.
That said, large groups of researchers do get involved in certain major projects, approaches and hunches about causation. Such big projects then have thousands of scientists working out details of the whole project, and produce experts in its methods and tenets. Projects like this become what we call a paradigm - much like evolution or a helio centric solar system have become paradigms. Paradigms are often challenged, but it is difficult. If you want to challenge a paradigm, you can't just have a few questions about a few papers, or projects - you better have a set of explanations that fundamentally challenge the whole thing.
In climate science, the whole issue of human industry and greenhouse gases has been a productive avenue for exploring and explaining potential and actual climate change. The two seem have certain simple and obvious synchronicity, and then there are long standing hypothetical propositions about the heat trapping aspects of these gases that most scientists learned in basic classes early in their careers.
So if a person wants to argue that climate change is a natural cycle, or the result of solar activity, their work does not explain to this whole group of scientists what is going on around CO2 from industrial activity - the original inspiration. The alternative explanations of warming trends leave out the 800 pound gorilla in the room that climate scientist all know so well. You had better explain all of it in a better, more concise way, not just pick around the edges. Most of these climate scientists are convinced of the basic issue of heat trapping gases ,and are measuring the growth of those gases from human industry - it is so basic that if you want to challenge it, you better explain first how such a dramatic increase in these human origin gases in the last 200 years will not cause heating.
It is like that with evolution - merely pointing out a few missing puzzle pieces will not dislodge the science of evolution -you better have a full fledge explanation of all the stuff evolution explains to the hundreds of thousands of scientists who are working out its details. The skeptic who can do that effectively will be very famous indeed, and win the fame so many scientists seek. However, it is not an easy task.
In the case of this climate science, I think non-scientists who support the skeptics imagine that climate scientists in the Universities are a bunch of tree hugging, fanatics who either want to torpedo capitalism, or are grubbing for grants that require conformity to politically correct criteria. This is an image promoted in movies and in the case of climate science, by some non-scientist political activists skeptical of climate change. And if some climate scientists get caught up in the politics, and round up their wagons, it is because climate science did get attacked in this country by the previous administration and some major corporations an an illegitimate line of research.
There is a growing industry of climate science because it is an expanding area of knowledge that increasingly provides productive projects and explanations that make sense and nothing yet challenges its primary insight in a comprehensive way. If skeptics are ignored, it is because they don't address the central questions so many scientists are exploring about the relationship of heat trapping gases and human activity.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Thanks for a thoughtful post, Tom.
Michael Mann, called "liar" with such certainty by bookworm, has a better reputation among the scientists who have actually read his work. And that "hockey stick" graph shape is better understood now; newer versions have been replicated and improved by many other researchers, using many different datasets.
Bookworm calls for peer review and for scientists to get together. Well, that's what they do.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!