You are probably right thejeff.
Climate skeptics, as they call themselves, will believe anything that makes people they disagree with look bad. And then dismiss them as unreliable sources, because of some distorted or wholly fictitious version of something they said.
By contrast they will believe anything at all put about by their fellow "skeptics".
Perhaps if we get up a collection and buy them a dictionary they will at least change their name. Probably not though.
I suppose, just like Al Gore's (NOT a scientist by the way) prediction of New York being underwater right now, and how we know whether he was right or not, we'll find out if the journalist (most likely also not a scientist, but I'm not positive) who reported this is correct in a few years also.
Even then, most of the articles I've seen stating this, leave themselves an out by mentioning it as a possibility and not a definite occurrence (aka, fortune telling).
You know, I've never been able to reliably source this "prediction of New York being underwater right now".
The only place I ever find it is sites that are mocking it.
He posited the possibility of this in an Inconvenient Truth. A little while later, he clarified his standings by pushing the idea (an alarmist one) of the ice caps possibly being completely gone by 2014 (which would also mean all the ice from Greenland that he posited in an inconvenient truth would also be gone).
This is where this entire thing comes from...with that prediction that it was a possibility that in 5 years (from 2009) the ice caps could be all gone. (Now for the bigger irony, there HAVE been periods of time when the ice basically wasn't all there during the summer...but that's another discussion).
Due to his predictions of that and the inconvenient truth (which uses more progandists alarmist ideas rather than what I'd call the more solid views...which is what Gore does and makes it easy for many to mock his statements) the alarm he raised about the ice caps being gone by 2014 and Manhattan (or parts of it) are mocked and used by people to try to prove the entirety of the science of climate change is incorrect.
Note...Al Gore is NOT a scientist.
Also, as a secondary note...the ideas above are STILL climate change, but not necessarily the same ideas as presented by AL GORE (who as I stated, is not really a scientist in that field, he's a propagandist which is somewhat different, but connected slightly).
Al Gore does NOT represent the science of Climate Change as much as some would like that to be.
Here are links to the videos that people reference to...and mock at times.
Al Gore predicts 75% chance of ice caps being gone during summer in 5-7 years
It should be noted he did state it could take up until 2030...but 75% chance by 2014-2016 (so I guess there's still time).
75% is actually means someone is pretty certain...not certain if Al Gore meant to present it in that way. This is why this is Al Gore they point out...and not specifically the scientist...
HOWEVER...there is actually something quite humorous in all this if one knows what happens to the Northern Ice cap during summer (and ice in Greenland for that matter) over the past 500 years and some of this stuff...but that's for a completely different thread.
In regards to climate change itself though...Al Gore isn't exactly the one who is the person one should refer to, as he takes the extremes of what MIGHT happen and presents them as more plausible then merely the extreme (at least with SOME of his timelines). Hence, if someone is using Gore as their source to mock Climate Change, it's very easy simply to point out the fallacy of their statement (he's not a scientist and at times doesn't use the more middle of the road science but the extremes of what might happen)...which can also be applied to other journalistic articles which may seem to make predictions that may or may not come true...as they are written by the journalists or others for a sensationalistic splash.
That doesn't mean what they say is impossible or won't happen, but it does mean that many times what they are stating are the worst case scenarios that are on the fringe of possibility.
(and of course note, I 'm more of one of those legal mumbo jumbo types rather than math and science so I'm no scientist either...I DO happen to have one that is very close to me and I ask information of all the time...as well as others I know...but in reality, I'm not a scientist either. I can get answers pretty quick though by asking a scientist in the house...but still doesn't make me one).
I suppose, just like Al Gore's (NOT a scientist by the way) prediction of New York being underwater right now, and how we know whether he was right or not, we'll find out if the journalist (most likely also not a scientist, but I'm not positive) who reported this is correct in a few years also.
Even then, most of the articles I've seen stating this, leave themselves an out by mentioning it as a possibility and not a definite occurrence (aka, fortune telling).
You know, I've never been able to reliably source this "prediction of New York being underwater right now".
The only place I ever find it is sites that are mocking it.
It's a mischaracterization of his "world trade center memorial underwater" rant from An Inconvenient Truth. Where he gave the audience the impression that greenland's cap melt would cause that in the immediate future.
ABC later took the idea an ran with it, making a war-of-the-worlds style predictadrama where they have a character in (the then future) June 2015 say that New York is under water, milk is $13 a half-gallon and gas is $9 a gallon.
Well, within those 5-7 years we did reach the record minimum extent of the Arctic Ice sheet coverage, which still has not recovered to previous levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its also incredibly silly to give a far out date for under water: a city would suffer frequent floods to the point of becomming unlivable well before turning into Atlantis.
Its also incredibly silly to give a far out date for under water: a city would suffer frequent floods to the point of becomming unlivable well before turning into Atlantis.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Al Gore predicts 75% chance of ice caps being gone during summer in 5-7 years
It should be noted he did state it could take up until 2030...but 75% chance by 2014-2016 (so I guess there's still time).
75% is actually means someone is pretty certain...not certain if Al Gore meant to present it in that way. This is why this is Al Gore they point out...and not specifically the scientist...
Thanks for giving the reference. It does help.
I can see why people mock it.
But if you actually listen closely he says something more like "One study, from a particular researcher says "75% chance of ice caps being gone during summer in 5-7 years". Another researcher's study predicted 2030. So it's not 75% chance of 5-7 years and 25% chance of 2030, but two different studies making two different predictions.
And as BigDTBone said, we have seen huge drops in the ice cover.
I didn't see a date given for the Manhattan prediction.
Al Gor didn't include nearly as many caveats and careful phrasing in his speech as you did in this post, though. Listening to him it sounds like an actual conviction.
In other words, had a Republican "predicted" in the same way that because of same sex marriage, by 2020 it would be legal in the U.S to marry your dog, you would have been right there with the rest of us liberals mocking him when 2020 would have gone by and nothing would have happened (actually, all of us would be mocking him about from the second those words left his mouth).
Be rigorous. Demand from liberals the same standards you do from others. Al Gor was good for raising awareness and such, but he was really bad on the technical details, a fact on which he did not exactly come clean during his presentation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can all agree that the only Conspiracy theory about climate change is the Fact that the lizard people who control the world are changing the climate to better suit there needs. the only thing we can do is prepare for the war with the lizard people, reduce your carbon foot print to bye more time to develop the weapons we are going to need.
|
For the record, the study in question was done by Wieslaw Maslowski and found that;
"Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3, one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover."
Basically, he projected the recent trend in sea ice volume decline forward... basic math. Note that it isn't even a prediction that the Arctic WILL be nearly sea ice free by 2016 +/- 3 years, only that this is the "lower bound" of when that could occur.
Various attempts to re-characterize this, or Gore's reference to it, as a prediction for 2013, a consensus prediction, a prediction of land ice decline, and all sorts of other nonsense ALL rely on taking statements out of context or completely rewriting them.
|
|
Al Gor didn't include nearly as many caveats and careful phrasing in his speech as you did in this post, though. Listening to him it sounds like an actual conviction.Al Gore predicts 75% chance of ice caps being gone during summer in 5-7 years
It should be noted he did state it could take up until 2030...but 75% chance by 2014-2016 (so I guess there's still time).
75% is actually means someone is pretty certain...not certain if Al Gore meant to present it in that way. This is why this is Al Gore they point out...and not specifically the scientist...
Thanks for giving the reference. It does help.
I can see why people mock it.
But if you actually listen closely he says something more like "One study, from a particular researcher says "75% chance of ice caps being gone during summer in 5-7 years". Another researcher's study predicted 2030. So it's not 75% chance of 5-7 years and 25% chance of 2030, but two different studies making two different predictions.
And as BigDTBone said, we have seen huge drops in the ice cover.
I didn't see a date given for the Manhattan prediction.
Odd. I got all the caveats from him.
He described one researcher talking about ice extent and gave the 75% prediction and another researcher talking about ice volume and gave the 2030 prediction. He didn't specifically say "The second study is a different study not what happens if the first 75% chance falls through", but it was clear from the context of talking about 2 different researchers doing 2 different studies.
I went and watched the linked video and yeah, the caveats are there. I admit that before giving my original replay to you I assumed the link was to here, where I first encountered his "ice cap will be gone in 5 years" claim - in the video I knew, there were no caveats, no pointing out that when talking of disappearing ice he was talking of surface space rather than volume, no referencing to sources and limiting of scope of the declaration. Just some scary looking graphics and a "ice might be gone in five years."
|
|
...A thousand miles a charge. Seriously? Why just not say a million? It's just as meaningful and valid a benchmark. Making up numbers here, but If ninety percent of all daily usage is under 40 miles total and ninty percent of the population match that profile virtually 100% of the time, how is a 1000 mile range a requirement? The number of time a person needs to drive a thousand miles in a day is statistically meaningless. Heck, taxis don't do nearly that much.Like I said, out of City Limits. If you are going to spend 4 to 10 hours to recharge a car, you would need at least 1k miles(or more) before the next charge. Cycles should also be kept track of so that the owner would not short charge the batteries and shorten their lifespan. How much cleaner a coal plant is compared to 70's cars is really not that much of an issue. The point is both are "evil" sources according to those that
believe in this fairy tale.
When you put gas in a car, you take the pump, insert it, and use up to 5 minutes to refuel.
When you recharge a car, you plug it in, and leave it sit overnight.
Yes, it needs more than 120 miles per charge because of what goes into getting that charge. The most you would get with current tech is maybe 150 miles. It is well short of what is needed. Most cars that use electric will be hybrids, and cars that use electric exclusively will be, if not already, a luxury item. Works well for a golf cart or fork lift, but not as a main mode of transportation.
For the price of batteries, yes, the price has come down (for the Prius, at least) since the time my work had to junk the hybrid. The cost for batteries for the car in question (Ford Hybrid) is still more than those for the Prius.
I think we can all agree that the only Conspiracy theory about climate change is the Fact that the lizard people who control the world are changing the climate to better suit there needs. the only thing we can do is prepare for the war with the lizard people, reduce your carbon foot print to bye more time to develop the weapons we are going to need.
You seem rather more rational to me than most who deny what climatologists are telling us. :P
|
|
Electric vehicle charging, like everything else about the technology, is changing very quickly. The 'you have to wait overnight' claim is no longer true. Rapid charging stations can recharge ~5 miles per minute up to about 60% of total charge. After that, the charging rate declines sharply the closer to 100% you get. This still means you have to stop for ~10 minutes every ~50 miles, but there are now enough charging stations that you could get anywhere in the US that way. Whether continuing improvements will eventually get this down to the same timeframes as gasoline refueling isn't clear, but it also really only matters for RARE cross country driving. And even there... Tesla has built battery swapping stations which can take out a depleted battery and put in a fully charged one in about half the time of a refueling stop. So you might have to swap batteries every ~250 miles instead of refueling every ~500, but the total time spent off the road is about the same.
Of course, I keep expecting someone to build a 'better Chevy Volt' with ~100 miles all electric range and a gasoline powered electric generator. That would reduce total gasoline consumption by more than 99%... you'd only ever put gas in the car when you were planning to drive more than 100 miles. Basically, the gasoline option is only there to address 'range anxiety'... in the extremely rare instances where you need to drive over 100 miles, you can. The rest of the time it is all electric. That kind of car could have mass market appeal and accelerate the transition to 100% electric.
Like I said, out of City Limits. If you are going to spend 4 to 10 hours to recharge a car, you would need at least 1k miles(or more) before the next charge.
I live outside city limits. And in more than a decade of having a driver's license, I have yet to drive over 1000 miles a day even once.
And even my sister, who did recently drive crosscountry, never put in a thousand miles a day.
Now, I don't drive trucks for a living, but then again, neither do most people.
If I could have an affordable electric car that would go up to 250 miles on a charge, I'd think it would be awesome. Using solar panels for a recharge when I need it, that would be GREAT. A LOT of my car travel would be free (well, no fuel needed at least)!
Well, within those 5-7 years we did reach the record minimum extent of the Arctic Ice sheet coverage, which still has not recovered to previous levels.There's a big difference between Arctic Ice and Antarctic Ice. Ice in the Arctic Ocean is already in the water... and by itself doesn't add to the world's ocean volumne. Ice on LAND however, such as Greenland, continental glaciers, and Antartica, when it melts it flows into the world's oceans, thus it becomes an increase in oceanic volume on a global scale.
That was in reference to the Ice Cap loss, not the sea level rise.
The point of pretty much any pipeline to the Gulf project is to make export of said oil cheaper.Iron Truth would you be in favor of building more pipelines from the Bakken oil fields to Texas? Would you support building the XL pipeline
to ship oil sands oil from Canada to Texas?
The pipeline will also help avoid all these damned train wreck disasters we keep seeing a few times a year or so. I had a meeting in an office right next to a railroad with trains carrying crude oil and all I could think about the entire meeting was the train derailing and blowing up the whole town.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pipeline will also help avoid all these damned train wreck disasters we keep seeing a few times a year or so. I had a meeting in an office right next to a railroad with trains carrying crude oil and all I could think about the entire meeting was the train derailing and blowing up the whole town.The point of pretty much any pipeline to the Gulf project is to make export of said oil cheaper.Iron Truth would you be in favor of building more pipelines from the Bakken oil fields to Texas? Would you support building the XL pipeline
to ship oil sands oil from Canada to Texas?
Don't get too cozy, pipelines just trade one disaster for another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone heard the latest news from the Solar science community? They predict that the sun is going to experience a cooling cycle in the next 15 to 20 years that will mean the ave temp in the northern hemisphere will drop 5 to 10 degrees during the cooling cycle. Somewhat like the little ice age that happened in the middle ages.
Iron Truth would you be in favor of building more pipelines from the Bakken oil fields to Texas? Would you support building the XL pipeline
to ship oil sands oil from Canada to Texas?
No.
I'd rather see improved infrastructure in our rail system. Oil pipelines are only good for oil or other similar goods. Rail systems are good for any type of product. Our rail system is old and needs to be updated. Improving it could reduce reliance on the trucking industry, which would lower costs for highway maintenance.
Also, oil production in North America does not automatically mean lower prices.
There have been some major incidents with railway crashes that have killed nearby people. These need to be solved. As with most incidents involving large machines, the cause of most of these can be traced back to human error. The Lac-Megantic disaster from two years ago had relied on multiple errors over the course of several months.
1. The engine had been given a temporary fix 8 months prior to the explosion. They used an epoxy to make a repair, but due to heat and stress, the epoxy failed. The engine had numerous reports of excessive white and black smoke for weeks prior to the explosion.
2. The engineer tested the handbrakes but forgot to disengage the air brake at the time.
3. Not enough handbrakes were set. The rail company had been fined numerous times for this, but no fines were given.
4. When a fire broke out on the engine, local fire and police arrived. To put out the fire they had to shut off the engine (which supplies pressure to the air brakes). When the rail company was called they didn't send the engineer, they sent two maintenance workers who were not trained in air brake operation.
5. The track was not equipped with sensors to detect a runaway train.
The explosion and fire killed 42 people in the town and destroyed the town center. For many of the errors there were no rules in place to even try to prevent them.
Train derailment causes:
Human error 29%
broken rails/welds 15%
Track geometry 7%
Bearing failure 6%
Improving practices and procedures would reduce the largest cause of train derailments. Improving the basic quality of our rails would reduce the next two largest causes. It would also improve the speed and efficiency of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone heard the latest news from the Solar science community? They predict that the sun is going to experience a cooling cycle in the next 15 to 20 years that will mean the ave temp in the northern hemisphere will drop 5 to 10 degrees during the cooling cycle. Somewhat like the little ice age that happened in the middle ages.
Iron Truth would you be in favor of building more pipelines from the Bakken oil fields to Texas? Would you support building the XL pipeline
to ship oil sands oil from Canada to Texas?
No.
I'd rather see improved infrastructure in our rail system. Oil pipelines are only good for oil or other similar goods. Rail systems are good for any type of product. Our rail system is old and needs to be updated. Improving it could reduce reliance on the trucking industry, which would lower costs for highway maintenance.
Also, oil production in North America does not automatically mean lower prices.
There have been some major incidents with railway crashes that have killed nearby people. These need to be solved. As with most incidents involving large machines, the cause of most of these can be traced back to human error. The Lac-Megantic disaster from two years ago had relied on multiple errors over the course of several months.
1. The engine had been given a temporary fix 8 months prior to the explosion. They used an epoxy to make a repair, but due to heat and stress, the epoxy failed. The engine had numerous reports of excessive white and black smoke for weeks prior to the explosion.
2. The engineer tested the handbrakes but forgot to disengage the air brake at the time.
3. Not enough handbrakes were set. The rail company had been fined numerous times for this, but no fines were given.
4. When a fire broke out on the engine, local fire and police arrived. To put out the fire they had to...
As a former Safety Manager at a rail switching site I can agree with the above. Human error will screw up a rail system more often than anything. After the cited incident our company had our heads of safety and site managers checking every standing piece of equipment for proper handbrake numbers constantly to verify we weren't having an issue with compliance on them.
Yeah those damn humans if they would only get their s&*+ together.
I blame corporations. Someone had to make the silly call to fix the train with epoxy and to ignore the handbrake fines.
"Hey lets save a few bucks"
-the notorious corporate bean counter.
This exploration of a paper about science denialism seems relevant. It goes over five of the features common to denialism. See how many you can spot in action.
You forgot to drop the mic and walk offstage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah those damn humans if they would only get their s@+~ together.
I blame corporations. Someone had to make the silly call to fix the train with epoxy and to ignore the handbrake fines."Hey lets save a few bucks"
-the notorious corporate bean counter.
There actually weren't any fines for the years of previous handbrake violations. Just non-monetary citations.
I've been told - though I'm not an expert, just hearsay - that the Canadian rail industry was sharply deregulated at that time. It's not entirely clear to me whether the overseeing agency actually still (ever?) even had authority to issue fines for brake problems on trains by the time of the crash, or whether they had such authority but were discouraged from using it.
-edit- It looks like the overseeing agency was simply not allowed to fine the corporations for safety violations, prior to the crash.
I decided to spend the morning doing a little climate change research. You know to see what people were saying since the reveal a couple years ago that pro man made global warming side had been falsifying temperature data. And... it doesn't look like any actual science has happened since then. Wow what a mine field of political bias and lies from both sides. So I decided to filter out the BS being spread by fake scientists. There is a laundry list of pro man made global warming types all asking for donations to help them lobby for change. But did they have actual scientists or were they all just politicians? Actually at the very least some of them are indeed centered around actual scientists... it was also sad to note there were a staff filled with politicians built around the actual scientists. Way to go politicize the issue global warming people... although to be fair the opposition seems to be packed with just as many politicians. Who started the politicizing of the issue? Heck if I know, but I had hoped the global warming people would have at least stuck to the science that started this and not ran to politicians the first chance they got. What also surprised me in this little research session is that while MOST of the climate deniers haven't done any climate research that is in any way backed by anyone (and quite easy to tear to pieces as lies) there have been a few who HAVE published peer reviewed work supporting natural rather than man made global warming. So clearly not ALL the science is on one side.
If the fate of our planet is in the balance then we NEED to do real research NOW. Make a law that sentences anyone from either side who dares politicize the issue to mandatory prison time and fund actual scientists to simultaneously do research both for and against man made global warming so that we can see the real science behind both sides clearly.
Am I making any sense?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. The second you say we need to pass a law to do X you have politicized the issue.
If the fate of our planet is in the balance then we NEED to do real research NOW. Make a law that sentences anyone from either side who dares politicize the issue to mandatory prison time and fund actual scientists to simultaneously do research both for and against man made global warming so that we can see the real science behind both sides clearly.Am I making any sense?
Some, although I can't say I agree with everything you wrote above.
Similar models of funding have been used successfully on some contentious issues in the past. Health effects of air pollution is a good example. How much it hurt people to breathe auto exhaust and smog and such into their lungs, and therefore, what quality of exhaust filtration and such systems had needed to be mandated on new cars.
(I say "similar" - but not exactly as you suggest. Funding "for" scientists and "against" scientists is not a good way to go about it, because then the sides just argue about whose scientists to believe (and in complex scientific questions, it is not as simple as splitting the difference between two different opinions). How it was done on the air pollution and health issues was for each party, the US EPA and the auto industry, to fund the same scientists, each picking up half the tab)
That said, discussions involving the energy industry and cliamte have tended to be much more fraught and contentious than those involving health and the auto industry. There's much more at stake, and so neutral science is not necessarily seen as desirable.
On the topic I refer to above, the auto industry and the government may not have trusted each others' science, but each side had strong incentives to desire and abide by 'neutral' science if such could be produced. Settling the questions definitively and avoiding a lobbyist proxy war was in both sides' interest. It's not at all clear that this is the case for climate science, since the costs of an unfavorable study (that one has given up one's ability to discredit, by jointly funding it) might well be much less than the costs of a lobbyist proxy war.
There's an effort currently underway to apply the same 50-50 funding model to fracking studies (not necessarily strictly climate stuff - a lot of water quality work, and that sort of thing) - but, - secondhand, mind - I hear that it's already running into much stronger headwinds.
Also - whether or not you can manage to create a funding model that removes bias and appearances thereof, you won't be able to stop any political issue from being politicized to at least some degree. Probably best to drop the idea of a law against the inevitable. You'll just make criminals out of everybody, starting with yourself for proposing such a law :p
I... guess then there is no way to remove the politics?
I just can't see it as good to have two groups throwing muck at each other. If the pro man made global warming people are even partially correct then we need to have a plan in place to completely switch over to green energy... and force or convince the rest of the world to do the same in a timely fashion. China is one of the worst polluters and they don't exactly like us. Any change is going to HAVE to include these countries or no progress at all will be made. And if the man made global warming people are not correct then we need to know that as well to move forward.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To expand on what krensky is saying...
the reveal a couple years ago that pro man made global warming side had been falsifying temperature data.
This is simply not true. And we went into that rather deeply in this thread already.
And... it doesn't look like any actual science has happened since then.
This is very much not true. I dont know how you're dismissing more recent papers as not "actual science"
Wow what a mine field of political bias and lies from both sides.
People are fighting therefore they are both equally at fault. Argumentum ad School Bullyem.
So I decided to filter out the BS being spread by fake scientists.
You're not qualified to do that.
There is a laundry list of pro man made global warming types all asking for donations to help them lobby for change. But did they have actual scientists or were they all just politicians?
Side A is holding a bake sale to raise money.
Side B has the backing of oil corporations.
.. why would any scientists be on side A if they're in it for the cash?
If the fate of our planet is in the balance then we NEED to do real research NOW.
Saying that real research hasn't been done is nuts, and apparently part of the global warming deniers soundbite collection to deride what they can't refute.
Who started the politicizing of the issue? Heck if I know, but I had hoped the global warming people would have at least stuck to the science that started this and not ran to politicians the first chance they got. What also surprised me in this little research session is that while MOST of the climate deniers haven't done any climate research that is in any way backed by anyone (and quite easy to tear to pieces as lies) there have been a few who HAVE published peer reviewed work supporting natural rather than man made global warming. So clearly not ALL the science is on one side.
I don't agree fully.
I actually know quite a lot about climate change as a result of being very interested in mass extinction events. Those involve sudden changes in climate, so a lot of the science is the same or similar.
My understanding of the current position of climate scientists is that a large majority agree that human caused global warming is a fact. This was not the case 20 or 30 years ago, there was less evidence then. That increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the climate to get hotter, and that humans are causing an increase in CO2 levels, is trivial. There is a lot of disagreement about the details of the changes to come.
Climate skeptic scientists are a small minority. Some have not published in the area for decades. One of the worlds biggest and most powerful industries will have to be phased out if the scientific majority are right, so they use their economic and political power to fund research they expect to further their interests and push climate skeptics into the public eye.
I don't know how the question came to be so political either. But having it as a right vs left issue suits the fossil fuel industry very well. It provides a large pool of people, those politically on the right, many of whom will instinctively side with the right. Just how absolute this commitment can be is clear from some of the posts of climate skeptics, well most or all of them, on this thread.
Serious factual errors, over and over, all advancing the climate skeptics position, with absolutely no change in the thinking when the error is pointed out, again over and over, seems to be the norm for a climate skeptic.
Politics is how we decide things on the societal level. Since it's a global issue, it's going to involve politics.
China produces 50% more CO2 than the US, but per capita they're about 1/3 of our emissions.
Any international solution has to address the fact that poorer countries have just as much right to live the way we do in the US. Cheap energy is one of the fastest ways to grow an economy and telling them to avoid cheap energy is basically telling them that they have to stay poor and work for us.
Hans Rosling gives a good general breakdown of energy needs and what our goals should be.
|
My understanding of the current position of climate scientists is that a large majority agree that human caused global warming is a fact.
That understanding would be wrong. Almost no climatologists say it is fact as they are aware of the definition of the word fact. In addition, as has been repeatedly proved, a majority actually say that there is no definitive proof of man caused warming.
Climate skeptic scientists are a small minority.
Again, a completely false statement. There are many peer reviewed, current papers that show the fallacy of the AGW crowd and there is a plurality of climatologists, if not an outright majority, that question the impact of man on the global temperatures. Also, how do you account for the complete failure of the actual climate to even come close to the computer models used by the AGW supporters?
|
|
Another fallacy is the CO2 levels. The most current consensus among climatologists is that CO2 levels are actually a lagging result from warming. Despite some previous erroneous posts, the 1930s are actually the hottest decade on record. In addition, the period between 950 and 1250 AD may have been as much as 5 degrees warmer than current times. It appears global CO2 levels increased dramatically back then as well, but AFTER the warming started. The AGW people constantly warned about the cataclysmic effects that would happen if CO2 concentration passed the 350 ppm mark, but we blew past that threshold years ago and nothing happened. 17 years of stagnant temperatures more or less puts paid to those theories.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, a completely false statement. There are many peer reviewed, current papers that show the fallacy of the AGW crowd and there is a plurality of climatologists, if not an outright majority, that question the impact of man on the global temperatures. Also, how do you account for the complete failure of the actual climate to even come close to the computer models used by the AGW supporters?
Cursory searches on Google do not support your statements. Do you have an info to back them up? If not, I'm going to stick with the evidence I have seen, which indicates you're wrong.
And before you fire back "well where's your proof?". I've already posted many links in this thread. Feel free to quote and refute any of them.
|
|
Again, a completely false statement. There are many peer reviewed, current papers that show the fallacy of the AGW crowd and there is a plurality of climatologists, if not an outright majority, that question the impact of man on the global temperatures. Also, how do you account for the complete failure of the actual climate to even come close to the computer models used by the AGW supporters?
Cursory searches on Google do not support your statements. Do you have an info to back them up? If not, I'm going to stick with the evidence I have seen, which indicates you're wrong.
And before you fire back "well where's your proof?". I've already posted many links in this thread. Feel free to quote and refute any of them.
Well, I just looked back at all your posts on this thread and didn't see a single link regarding this part. I did see this in another thread:
"A majority of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.97% agree that the surface of the Earth is warming
84% agree that this warming is caused by humans
50% agree that the temperature will rise another 2 degrees within 50 to 100 years."
Yet you offer no proof nor source of where you got those numbers.
But let's just address the famous 97% fallacy:
97% fallacy
BNW???
I found a site explaining from the pro man made global warming side why they falsified data (although they don't call it that) (they call it changing the actual readings to better reflect what they should be if mankind and weather didn't keep messing up their experiments).
A quick web search revealed climate analysts make between 74k (Texas) to 105k (Washington DC) per year. I would like to know where your from that a bake sale raises enough to pay multiple 6 figure salaries.
Maybe Coriat is right the best way may be to have a 50-50 funded research team that can explore the validity of all these claims?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found a site explaining from the pro man made global warming side why they falsified data (although they don't call it that) (they call it changing the actual readings to better reflect what they should be if mankind and weather didn't keep messing up their experiments).
That's like writing "I found a site explaining why my roommate stole money from an ATM machine (although neither he nor the banks calls it that) (they call it making a withdrawal)."