Discussion in 'Other Stuff' started by Steve, Dec 3, 2015.
Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming: The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Report on Scientific Consensus
This is an area I readily accept - I think manmade climate change is very real and is some thing we need to accept and seriously think about how we deal with it.
What on earth makes you so certain? The basic problem is that research funds for 'Climate Science' would dry up pretty fast if it were admitted that thee isn't a problem.
Of all the problems that the earth faces, I would put this one last!
If you want one good reason to doubt CAGW, look at Venus! Yes Venus, the planet that is supposed to demonstrate the consequences of a runaway greenhouse effect! The temperature at the surface of Venus is enough to melt lead, and its atmosphere is largely CO2 - so what could possibly be wrong?
Well here is a lot of temperature and pressure data collected by a US Magellan spacecraft:
The flaw in the above argument, is that the atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is over 92 times the pressure on the Earth's surface. If you follow the black lines on the temperature and pressure diagrams, you can see that the temperature of the atmosphere at i atmosphere pressure is 66 C. Certainly hotter than on Earth - but Venus is a lot closer to the Sun - but nowhere near hot enough to melt lead!
One of the fascinating things about our time, is that a lot of science has become corrupted. That, if you think about it, is why science handles subjects like NDE's in such a peculiar way - because it can't be honest with data.
Yes, but the surface temperature is 500C, which is enough to melt lead. Honestly, the fact that humans are causing climate change is pretty much settled, and the idea that there is some conspiracy to promote to make money it is laughable. The profit made in muddying the waters is far greater. Fossil Fuel companies have a vested interest in the consumption of petroleum and gas supplies where they rake in hundred of billions of dollars a year. What exactly does one get from saying the AGW is real?
Of course it is, and if our atmosphere was that thick, the temperature at the surface would be nearly as hot here! Haven't you ever noticed that it gets colder as you ascend a mountain, or if you go up in an aircraft!
They only started to call it 'Climate Change' out of desperation when the temperature predictions went all wrong. There is tons of money to be made out of Climate Change! For example, some large landowners in the UK charge exorbitant fees to allow wind energy to be generated on their moorland. Other people make money by chopping down trees in the US, shipping them to the UK so they can be burned instead of coal (the trees are called renewable carbon).
The energy companies are doing just fine! If they are told to sell a deluxe product to people they do, and roughly speaking they take the same percentage cut - which is obviously greater in magnitude!
People are so blind to this con!
Assuming profits are made under any model of energy supply, what are the specific downsides of a more sustainable, renewable supply with reduced emissions? I can't see much that outweighs the benefits/positives.
It's certainly worthwhile to consider the pros and cons of such legislation.
Energy is a requirement to move across space-time and it provides one with degrees of freedom. So the impact of changes will be incredibly wide and varied.
It seems quite natural to be suspicious when the rich and powerful want to alter how one is allowed to access and use energy. Energy is a very powerful mechanism with which to control.
1) They turn out to be pretty expensive.
2) They are intermittent - so for example wind power has to be backed up by a gas power station already idling - just in case the wind drops.
3) Many of the schemes are environmentally very unfriendly - they kill birds, trees get chopped down to burn, etc!
4) They help industrialise our wild places - moorland, etc.
Other than that, probably nothing much!
So... some problems, but a worthwhile goal, no?
(I don't have a definitive horse in this race but this cartoon did give me a good laugh.)
Bugger... some sort of fucked up nirvana might be someone's worthwhile goal... but the devil is in the detail... if you haven't considered the pro's and con's of rich & powerful legislation that is supposed to get one to nirvana, how does one know whether the legislation gets one to nirvana... or whether their sort of nirvana, is your sort of nirvana.
I do think climate change/global warming where the main area of suppression of data or any sort of Scientific data fudging/conspiracy would be in favour of those who deny manmade impact on climate change. Yes renewables can be expensive, the technology is new but there's much more money to be made from dirty oil/non renewables and it costs companies money to reduce their impact on the planet - money they'd rather not spend.
One thing often missing from this debate is the use of resources and pollution. We simple can't carry on using resources at the rate we are, there isn't enough to go around and the resources aren't distributed anywhere near fairly and evenly enough. The other issue is pollution, which inspects negatively on people's health, causes millions of premature deaths worldwide per year and damages the natural environment that we all share.
Sorry this is an area where we have a lot more to lose if we don't do anything - as Sci's awesome comic alluded to. It's also an area where I'd say the mainstream consensus is correct. I don't think there is a conspiracy to trick us all into believing manmade climate change - the data overwhelmingly tells us it is a fact.
To get a bit more serious, like most things I haven't looked into I don't know the extent of man made climate change. Instinct, and some brief glances at the data, make me feel it's real but I can no more argue the case for/against than I can with Intelligent Design.
It does seem caution would suggest some measures should be taken, though the degree of such measures would depend on economic impact and other considerations.
The biggest problem is to disentangle the (very gentle) warming coming from CO2 from the gentle warming coming from the rebound from the last ice age. People knew about a gentle warming trend for a long time before CAGW came along, and nobody worried - indeed they worried about the potential for another ice age! We know this will eventually happen, and when it does it will be devastating.
This is complicated by the effect that it is only possible to compute the net contribution of CO2 to the temperature of the earth (I don't know how accurately). The gross effect is different because of a variety of feedback effects - such as the fact that a small increase in temperature evaporates more water off the oceants, which produces a small increase in clouds, which reflect back solar radiation to space. Venus should tell everyone that the simple minded picture is hugely wrong.
Leaving aside CAGW, CO2 isn't a pollutant - it makes plants grow better - indeed it is essential for life on earth!
I am not anti-green in general, but I think the movement has been diverted into an obsession about something that doesn't matter, at the expense of all the things that really do matter! For example, the real answer to waste (plastic bags, excess packaging, excess consumer goods, excess food, etc) has to be to not produce it - not to 'recycle' it in various ways! Fixing that would really get in the way of big business - so it is almost completely ignored!
Chopping trees down in the US, transporting then to the UK, and burning them in power stations simply isn't green by my definition of things!
Of course CO2 itself isn't a pollutant, but too much of it released into the atmosphere can be a problem and is a problem! Then you have diesel, methane, and like I said, related issues to do with use of finite resources, polluting water such as in Flint, the acidification of oceans and so on.
I've also never heard any green proponents talk about burning wood as a solution. Most people think we need to reduce consumption and move to wind, solar, tidal etc.
Honestly, that is now what happens in the UK, we stopped mining coal, and to comply with EU rules we now import wood to burn - if we didn't, the lights would go out in the winter! I'd much rather we reverted to coal because that would be a much greener solution!
The issue of acidification of the oceans has also been hugely exaggerated, for example there are parts of the world where CO2 of volcanic origin is bubbling through coral that is thriving!
So let the rich and powerful get on with deciding what laws to implement eh? Like lambs to the slaughter... seriously it upsets me... people spout this general idea of laudable Pro's they've been exposed to, in the absence of any Con's... because they've never been exposed to any Con's... they don't have a clue... they just spout regurgitated crap.
[I was out with a UK government scientist very recently who works somewhere where secrecy is important. He revealed that he's officially prevented from expressing any opinions on the subject of global warming. That goes for all the other scientists where he works.]
I'd give up if I were you, David. There's no convincing some people just how iniquitous and, paradoxically, environmentally damaging the AGW farrago is. We seemingly can't do without our apocalyptic myths that somehow always have their roots in our simply being here and improving our lives. The solution? Stop anyone else improving their lives. It could be viewed as part of a subliminal agenda in eugenics. If only all those nasty poor people in India and elsewhere (even in our own countries) would resist the temptation to use up precious resources and continue dying in droves, then we could be happy and feel unthreatened.
Luckily, the Indians aren't stupid and whatever we do, however much we whine, they're determined to bring themselves into modernity. The populations of North America and Europe combined are less than that of India, or China for that matter, and we're just pissing in the wind, wallowing in self-indulgent guilt. As you say, there are genuine environmental issues, but they're being turned a blind eye to in cases where it suits the great god of AGW (which is the public face of something else: Marxism).
We seem doomed to get ourselves into situations where best intentions turn out to produce tragic outcomes; where we spend billions chasing illusionary rainbows, when less money would achieve really useful ends. I don't know, sometimes I despair.
Michael, instead of making passive aggressive comments and acting like you and David have some special knowledge that I have missed out on, address me directly and apply skepticism to your own beliefs on this issue.
Separate names with a comma.