Global warming

[living sounds]

Another good point about the disinformation that is around:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/14/rupert-murdoch-doesnt-understand-climate-basics

 

[ruffrecords]

Let's not go down this route. So far as I can see nobody has suggested that the climate is not changing. Quite the opposite, it is very clear it has been changing for thousands of years.

The bone of contention is the anthropomorphic bit; that the primary cause of current changes  is man-made and specifically our carbon emissions. Arguments about the vested interests of fossil fuel companies are moot; there are at least as many vested interests in the anthropomorphic camp as any other; just look at the billions spent in 'research'.

I am happy to accept the anthropomorphic reality as soon as someone without a vested interest can demonstrate it.

Cheers

Ian

We're sure of it. An overwhelming majority of scientists around the globe in the relevant field are in agreement. Questioning the credibility of virtually the entire scientific community is quite a leap...

The facts surrounding certain industries massive efforts in climate change denial are on the table and are finely detailed in this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

As I said, let's not go down this route. Science is NOT about consensus. The fact that a lot of scientists with vested interests say this does not make it true. The fact that others with different vested interests say it is not true does not make it not true either. I am sure one day we will get to the truth but I am not convinced we are there yet.

Cheers

Ian

 

[dmp]

Science never has been and never will be about consensus. It is about the truth.

No. Science works to identify truths, where truths are accepted by moving towards consensus. Not everything can be relegated to just a controversy that cannot justify a course of action. It seems that those who want to preserve the status quo fall back on this mindset.
Collective action CAN be justified by a consensus of scientific opinion. We can see this looking at history.
For instance, as I already mentioned, collective action was employed to reduce combustion emissions that were causing negative health effects (smog, acid rain, ozone depletion, particulates increase asthma, etc...). Detractors, who wanted to preserve the status quo, could say volcanoes, forest fires, etc... were natural causes of these same pollutants, so why have the government step in to regulate anything? Yet 20-30 later, we see that the collective action, following a consensus of science on the subject, yielded a far better outcome for the majority, than preserving the status quo would have.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Science never has been and never will be about consensus. It is about the truth.

No. Science works to identify truths, where truths are accepted by moving towards consensus. Not everything can be relegated to just a controversy that cannot justify a course of action. It seems that those who want to preserve the status quo fall back on this mindset.
Collective action CAN be justified by a consensus of scientific opinion. We can see this looking at history.
For instance, as I already mentioned, collective action was employed to reduce combustion emissions that were causing negative health effects (smog, acid rain, ozone depletion, particulates increase asthma, etc...). Detractors, who wanted to preserve the status quo, could say volcanoes, forest fires, etc... were natural causes of these same pollutants, so why have the government step in to regulate anything? Yet 20-30 later, we see that the collective action, following a consensus of science on the subject, yielded a far better outcome for the majority, than preserving the status quo would have.

This is a false equivalency. The harm and risk from air pollution is a far simpler cause and effect analysis than the vague "climate change" thesis. I do not recall any credible push back against clean air and clean water acts. There used to be a river so polluted in Chicago it caught on fire once. While regulators in the administration are expanding the scope of those very acts to regulate things never intended by that legislation. 

I would observe they changed the nomenclature from global warming to climate change to hedge their bets in case they got the direction arrow wrong on the temperature trends. I reject the assertion that CO2 is harmful, and must be regulated similarly to mercury, lead,  et al. The premise that human activity is driving the climate is not proved IMO despite very vocal consensus in some circles. There are also vocal and credible (IMO) scientific opposition.

There used to be scientific consensus that the Sun revolved around the earth. Anybody who argues that climate science is simple does not know what they don't know. It's complicated.

The relatively good news is that the actions taken so far more resemble a group Kumbaya or group hug, and are relatively harmless to our planet, while I can't say the same about the impact on western economies if they get their way (apparently Oz just repealed their carbon tax by popular mandate). I hope these "experts" who are convinced that they know it all, do not take overt action to physically cool the planet without better understanding climate science and the factors driving global temperature. I could imagine that ending badly for humans (or making a so-so sci-fi movie). 


JR

 

[fazer]

This is an interesting TED Talk on Hacking the Atmosphere by David Keith. 
"Can Hacking The Stratosphere Solve Climate Change?"

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/06/209191273/can-hacking-the-stratosphere-solve-climate-change

Another kind of solutions to problems based on cooling temperatures from volcanic ash in the Stratosphere.

 

[ruffrecords]

The relatively good news is that the actions taken so far more resemble a group Kumbaya or group hug, and are relatively harmless to our planet, while I can't say the same about the impact on western economies if they get their way (apparently Oz just repealed their carbon tax by popular mandate). I hope these "experts" who are convinced that they know it all, do not take overt action to physically cool the planet without better understanding climate science and the factors driving global temperature. I could imagine that ending badly for humans (or making a so-so sci-fi movie). 


JR

And global warming is not even a big issue in the overall scheme of things. The elephant in the room is that there are just too many of us. Thing is, we know exactly how to curb population growth; there's no doubt we know how to do it, no high falutin' theories, just basic obvious science. Yet nobody even discusses the population problem because even if there is a CO2 problem and even if we fix it, the elephant will still be there.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

The relatively good news is that the actions taken so far more resemble a group Kumbaya or group hug, and are relatively harmless to our planet, while I can't say the same about the impact on western economies if they get their way (apparently Oz just repealed their carbon tax by popular mandate). I hope these "experts" who are convinced that they know it all, do not take overt action to physically cool the planet without better understanding climate science and the factors driving global temperature. I could imagine that ending badly for humans (or making a so-so sci-fi movie). 


JR

And global warming is not even a big issue in the overall scheme of things. The elephant in the room is that there are just too many of us. Thing is, we know exactly how to curb population growth; there's no doubt we know how to do it, no high falutin' theories, just basic obvious science. Yet nobody even discusses the population problem because even if there is a CO2 problem and even if we fix it, the elephant will still be there.

Cheers

Ian

Actually they have been talking about that for decades and were wrong... Paul Ehrlich wrote "the population bomb" back in the late '60s and according to him we would be starving by '70s/'80. Agricultural technology has advanced to the point where we have so much food we choose to make fuel with it (ethanol). 

Another similar theme from the experts was "peak oil" or how we would run out of oil by now... Bzzzt another wrong prediction. If you study the history of oil extraction the technology is not finished finding new ways to milk more black gold from the earth. 

I suspect that global warming is just another popular "scientific" meme that may be wrong too, or it may be right, but if it is right we are smart enough to deal with it before cataclysm without committing economic hari kari now just in case.. The government pukes who want to help us by slipping their hand in our pocket are not part of the actual solution.

Of course I may be wrong.

JR

 

[etheory]

Quite a decent speech on the topic:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/29/watch-a-republican-senator-get-schooled-on-climate-change-by-his-fed-up-colleague/