| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the environmental lobby were so powerful, they'd have been able to shut down or significantly impede fossil fuel company's influence on governments.Green Peace has spent $17,531 in lobbying money in 2015.
Exxon Mobil has spent $9,190,000 in lobbying money in 2015.
Which organization looks more powerful to you?
Using the moving goalpost methodology, it's obvious that Green Peace has more power because they were able to spend so much less than poor defenseless Exxon. :)
Why environmental groups public outreach and popularity is pretty useless
The Princeton study cited in that video applies to government processes in general, not just in the environmental arena.
Can you accept the possibility that if you WERE a scientist (which you've admitted to not being), that you'd be able to answer every objection you've raised in this post?I'm not a scientist, however I am a mathematician
when doing any kind of calculations with large data sets, the expected accuracy of your results is always one significant digit less than the accuracy of your data.
current predictions show global temperature change over the last 100 years to be roughly 1.5 degrees.
exactly how have we been able to accurately measure global temperatures to the hundredth of a degree over the last 100 years?
I'm not saying that climate change is real or not, all I'm saying is that there's something screwy with the math.
My objection has nothing to do with the science, my objection is to the devices and techniques used to compile the original data that was used to determine the effects of global climate change.
I don't think that 30 years of data is enough when you are talking about systems whose size is on the order of solar system, and even if the data is extended out to 100 years, I don't think the measuring devices or techniques are accurate enough to begin with.
IMO (admittedly non scientific opinion), 2 degrees of temperature change (Fahrenheit or Celsius) over 100 years of data falls well within what I could consider a normal margin of error.
Or to put it in layman's terms... "Roundoff error"
|
My objection has nothing to do with the science, my objection is to the devices and techniques used to compile the original data
Devices = Thermometers
Techniques = Primarily averagingThey make adjustments to deal with things like changes in station siting, time of day readings are taken, et cetera... however, multiple analysis have shown that the differences between those adjusted data and straight averaging are minimal. So... what exactly is your objection to thermometers and averaging?
I don't think that 30 years of data is enough when you are talking about systems whose size is on the order of solar system, and even if the data is extended out to 100 years
Where did these numbers come from? 30 years? 100 years?
Most temperature anomaly series date back to 1880... 135 years. Some extend back another 30 years to 1850, but are generally considered less accurate due to a lack of full global thermometer reading coverage at that point. Others go back hundreds, thousands, and even millions of years using proxy data sources... though obviously with increasing margins of error as you go further back.
IMO (admittedly non scientific opinion), 2 degrees of temperature change (Fahrenheit or Celsius) over 100 years of data falls well within what I could consider a normal margin of error.
You believe that the margin of error on thermometers (and/or averaging thermometer readings) is greater than two degrees? Based on what?
We have a lot more than 30 years of data. We also have ice cores and tree ring data going back thousands of years
Can you accept the possibility that if you WERE a scientist (which you've admitted to not being), that you'd be able to answer every objection you've raised in this post?I'm not a scientist, however I am a mathematician
when doing any kind of calculations with large data sets, the expected accuracy of your results is always one significant digit less than the accuracy of your data.
current predictions show global temperature change over the last 100 years to be roughly 1.5 degrees.
exactly how have we been able to accurately measure global temperatures to the hundredth of a degree over the last 100 years?
I'm not saying that climate change is real or not, all I'm saying is that there's something screwy with the math.
My objection has nothing to do with the science, my objection is to the devices and techniques used to compile the original data that was used to determine the effects of global climate change.
Here's the question, if you don't know the science, how can you judge the methodology? Pure mathematics only gets you so far when you don't have the science to ground it. Climate science and weather don't have the simplicity of Newtonian physics. And the temperature mesaurement data collected doesn't exactly fit in a void, it can be tagged to overall changes in weather trends as well.
We have a lot more than 30 years of data. We also have ice cores and tree ring data going back thousands of years
Also worth noting is that we are talking about global averages. It's not like we have one temperature for every year of the last hundred. We have hundreds of thousands of reading each day.
individual error from equipment malfunction or human error is going to be swamped out as having any influence in the final analysis.
also I have to say I never heard of the "make up the last digit rule". Generally speaking, In many cases analytical equipment has an accuracy fine enough that we can produce significant digits beyond the range that is useful to report, so the last digit is often "rounded up", not made up.
also I have to say I never heard of the "make up the last digit rule". Generally speaking, In many cases analytical equipment has an accuracy fine enough that we can produce significant digits beyond the range that is useful to report, so the last digit is often "rounded up", not made up.
Rounded up all the time would create a skew in your data. With most modern analytical data the instrument reads it for you and gives you a digital value. So you take the full amount of numbers it gives and use it. The observer doesn't have to guess the last digit. But, the person who programmed that machine sure as hell had to tell the instrument how to report that information.
For example, US Pharmacopeia mandates that scales used in compounding pharmacies are accurate to within 5%. So a analytical scale may display xx.xxx grams but the scale will also tell you in the manual that it has a minimum weightable weight of 20 mg. This means that the display is guessing at the last digit. Because it can display anything and be within 5% of 20mg.
Now, that isn't to say that the guess is bad. The programming algorithms are quite good at guessing. Just like a human is pretty good at saying "5 marks and about 3 tenths to the next mark."
Was the last page of debate on digits actually based on something relevant? Or is this all just supposition based on knowledge of things other than the relevant report?
Hey, if I can complain about catch-phrases actively impeding communication, other people can talk about math. It's like Schoolhouse Rock all up in here.
Hey, if I can complain about catch-phrases actively impeding communication, other people can talk about math. It's like Schoolhouse Rock all up in here.
I'm fine with people talking about math. I'm just curious if this is all purely hypothetical though; is the discussion premised on suppositions about what might have happened, without actually checking first to see what did happen.
You and I could discuss how many apples my neighbor has in her kitchen, but it would be purely theoretical. Would still be "math" though.
You and I could discuss how many apples my neighbor has in her kitchen, but it would be purely theoretical.
Very concrete. Your neighbor is totally hawt -- I bought her those apples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You and I could discuss how many apples my neighbor has in her kitchen, but it would be purely theoretical.Very concrete. Your neighbor is totally hawt -- I bought her those apples.
Sorry, I'm not sure first-hand knowledge is allowed in these discussion.
|
|
I'm fine with people talking about math. I'm just curious if this is all purely hypothetical though; is the discussion premised on suppositions about what might have happened, without actually checking first to see what did happen.
So far all we've got is that there is some unspecified problem with the devices (i.e. thermometers) and techniques (i.e. averaging) used to compute the temperature anomaly series, which causes the results to have a margin of error 'well over' two degrees.
Personally, I'm not seeing it.
I'm fine with people talking about math. I'm just curious if this is all purely hypothetical though; is the discussion premised on suppositions about what might have happened, without actually checking first to see what did happen.So far all we've got is that there is some unspecified problem with the devices (i.e. thermometers) and techniques (i.e. averaging) used to compute the temperature anomaly series, which causes the results to have a margin of error 'well over' two degrees.
Personally, I'm not seeing it.
There's all kinds of problems with how and where you use a thermometer to measure temperature. I have one hanging outside of my window at home. it measures outdoor temp. can we use it for our analysis? how do we know it's been properly calibrated, how do we know I'm making measurements the same way every day. How do we take into account that sometimes it's in the sun, and measuring warmer than it should. since it's so close to my window, how is the heat transfer from inside my home affecting the measurement of that thermometer. based on all that, I feel confident saying that the thermometer at my house cannot give accurate long term temperatures within a 2 degree margin of error.
As we move back through our data sets, that margin gets worse.
with glass mercury thermometers in use 40 years ago, are we sure they were calibrated correctly?
Archimedes type thermometers (in use 1000 years ago) are affected by air pressure, did we account for that?
then before that we talk about ice core samples and tree ring. ice cores can evaporate and tree rings can only sample the local environment.
None of these measuring techniques, IMO, can be accurate to within a 2 degree margin of error. and even if they do show trends, there are other things at issue.
We've been existing an ice age for the last few millions of years, if that warming natural.
The earth wobbles in it's orbit around the sun, can some of the warming be attributed to that?
The sun has had a few years of higher than normal activity, how much of the warming can be attributed to that.
when I take in all the facts and figures of all this kinda of data, I don't see where mankind can be charged as being the sole cause of 1-2 degrees of temperature change over a period of 30 years.
the measurements aren't accurate enough and there are too many other things which could attribute. all things said... 2 degrees falls well within what I consider to be a margin of error.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also I have to say I never heard of the "make up the last digit rule". Generally speaking, In many cases analytical equipment has an accuracy fine enough that we can produce significant digits beyond the range that is useful to report, so the last digit is often "rounded up", not made up.Rounded up all the time would create a skew in your data. With most modern analytical data the instrument reads it for you and gives you a digital value. So you take the full amount of numbers it gives and use it. The observer doesn't have to guess the last digit. But, the person who programmed that machine sure as hell had to tell the instrument how to report that information.
For example, US Pharmacopeia mandates that scales used in compounding pharmacies are accurate to within 5%. So a analytical scale may display xx.xxx grams but the scale will also tell you in the manual that it has a minimum weightable weight of 20 mg. This means that the display is guessing at the last digit. Because it can display anything and be within 5% of 20mg.
Now, that isn't to say that the guess is bad. The programming algorithms are quite good at guessing. Just like a human is pretty good at saying "5 marks and about 3 tenths to the next mark."
In many cases though, you don't need that analytical degree of certainty (and most journals will generally want you to keep your tables of data within a certain consistent number.
In my own research I use a lot of measurements derived from the skull or limb bones from whales, seals, etc. Some of the measuring equipment I use has accuracy extending down as far as 0.01 mm. But if your comparing measurements from different species of whale, really anything below a single mm is going to be pretty trivial and unimportant, and won't influence any statistical analyses I do when I incorporating critters with a size range from elephant seal to harbor seal.
|
|
based on all that, I feel confident saying that the thermometer at my house cannot give accurate long term temperatures within a 2 degree margin of error.
Why?
Yes, there are numerous factors which can introduce inaccuracies in thermometer readings... but there is no reason these would throw off the long term results. Random inaccuracies would average out (cf. law of large numbers) and consistent biases would have no impact on anomaly trends.
That said, as I mentioned previously, the temperature anomaly series do consider and adjust for these (and other) factors. However, due to the law of large numbers, the differences between the un-adjusted readings, the adjusted readings, and sub-sets of readings not requiring various adjustments... are minimal. There has been extensive research and analysis done to adjust for these measurement error factors... but it really all amounts to quibbling over hundredths of a degree per decade differences.
then before that we talk about ice core samples and tree ring. ice cores can evaporate and tree rings can only sample the local environment.
Which is why you take multiple ice/tree cores from each location (to identify any errors in any one core) and get samples from multiple locations (so you aren't just looking at one local environment).
None of these measuring techniques, IMO, can be accurate to within a 2 degree margin of error.
So... why do their results diverge by FAR less than 2 degrees? Different thermometer data sets. Satellite temperature estimates. Tree rings. Other proxies. How do they all match to within fractions of a degree if they all have more than 2 degree inaccuracies?
We've been existing an ice age for the last few millions of years, if that warming natural.
The earth wobbles in it's orbit around the sun, can some of the warming be attributed to that?
The ice age (meaning, periods when the planet has ice caps) cycle occurs over millions of years (as you note). Milankovitch cycles (aka "earth wobbles") occur over tens of thousands of years. Current global warming is playing out over mere hundreds of years.
So yes, these natural factors do exist, but they take place so slowly that they are meaninglessly small on century time scales. At that, the Milankovitch forcing has been cooling for the past few thousand years.
The sun has had a few years of higher than normal activity, how much of the warming can be attributed to that.
Actually, since ~1960 incoming solar radiation has been on a slightly declining trend... and the current solar cycle (#24) is on track to be the weakest since measurements began. Further, variations in solar irradiance over the past hundred years have been about an order of magnitude smaller than the current greenhouse gas forcing. So again, this factor exists... but it's small... and causing cooling.
I don't see where mankind can be charged as being the sole cause of 1-2 degrees of temperature change over a period of 30 years.
Actually, since natural influences have been towards cooling in recent decades, mankind is responsible for MORE than the observed warming. That is, we've caused ALL of the observed warming AND offset the small natural cooling which would otherwise have occurred.
I'm fine with people talking about math. I'm just curious if this is all purely hypothetical though; is the discussion premised on suppositions about what might have happened, without actually checking first to see what did happen.So far all we've got is that there is some unspecified problem with the devices (i.e. thermometers) and techniques (i.e. averaging) used to compute the temperature anomaly series, which causes the results to have a margin of error 'well over' two degrees.
Personally, I'm not seeing it.
There's all kinds of problems with how and where you use a thermometer to measure temperature. I have one hanging outside of my window at home. it measures outdoor temp. can we use it for our analysis? how do we know it's been properly calibrated, how do we know I'm making measurements the same way every day. How do we take into account that sometimes it's in the sun, and measuring warmer than it should. since it's so close to my window, how is the heat transfer from inside my home affecting the measurement of that thermometer. based on all that, I feel confident saying that the thermometer at my house cannot give accurate long term temperatures within a 2 degree margin of error.
As we move back through our data sets, that margin gets worse.
with glass mercury thermometers in use 40 years ago, are we sure they were calibrated correctly?
Archimedes type thermometers (in use 1000 years ago) are affected by air pressure, did we account for that?
then before that we talk about ice core samples and tree ring. ice cores can evaporate and tree rings can only sample the local environment.
None of these measuring techniques, IMO, can be accurate to within a 2 degree margin of error. and even if they do show trends, there are other things at issue.
We've been existing an ice age for the last few millions of years, if that warming natural.
The earth wobbles in it's orbit around the sun, can some of the warming...
Do you have anything to back up any of your claims? Or do you think we should all just agree with you because you were able to think them up? You said you were a mathematician, is that how it works in your field, just make assumptions and everyone will nod their head and accept them?
And I'll link this yet again, since no one has bothered to read/comment/disprove it yet.
We can measure CO2's effect on the temperature. We know where the CO2 is coming from. We know how CO2 works in the atmosphere. The science on all that is exceptionally sound.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and even if they do show trends, there are other things at issue...Do you have anything to back up any of your claims? Or do you think we should all just agree with you because you were able to think them up?
If the "Tx" in his alias stands for "Texas," it's totally not his fault; it's a cultural thing. I live in Texas. If you fail to scoff loudly at the idea of AGW whenever possible, they revoke your citizenship and deport you to Mexico or something.
If the "Tx" in his alias stands for "Texas," it's totally not his fault; it's a cultural thing. I live in Texas. If you fail to scoff loudly at the idea of AGW whenever possible, they revoke your citizenship and deport you to Mexico or something.and even if they do show trends, there are other things at issue...Do you have anything to back up any of your claims? Or do you think we should all just agree with you because you were able to think them up?
I think it is because everyone here is secretly hoping for AGW to continue. Our's is one of the few global regions which is having consistently improved weather as a result of AGW.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, every nation on the planet just agreed to adopt standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
If they stick to the current standards then the temperature increases will stop a little shy of 3 C over the pre-industrial global average. That'd be bad for island nations and other low-lying areas around the world, millions of people in many poor nations would die, some high altitude and Arctic species would go extinct, and world economic activity would be severely hampered for decades... but overall not so bad.
If standards continue to improve every five years, as specified in the deal, then maybe we get down to only 2 C or even 1.5 C average global warming. That'd still have some problems, but not much worse than what we are already seeing (at the current ~1 C warming). Indeed, once the warming stops and we have time to adjust to the new climate patterns, a 1.5 C warming over pre-industrial might even be a net positive in the long term.
Of course, there is also the possibility that nations don't stick to even their current pledges and it all still spins out of control... but that is seeming increasingly unlikely. Even if the next US president is a climate change denier who repudiates the deal... that'd just make the US an international pariah while the rest of the world would probably go ahead anyway and then impose punitive sanctions on the sole rogue nation.
So, every nation on the planet just agreed to adopt standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
If they stick to the current standards then the temperature increases will stop a little shy of 3 C over the pre-industrial global average. That'd be bad for island nations and other low-lying areas around the world, millions of people in many poor nations would die, some high altitude and Arctic species would go extinct, and world economic activity would be severely hampered for decades... but overall not so bad.
If standards continue to improve every five years, as specified in the deal, then maybe we get down to only 2 C or even 1.5 C average global warming. That'd still have some problems, but not much worse than what we are already seeing (at the current ~1 C warming). Indeed, once the warming stops and we have time to adjust to the new climate patterns, a 1.5 C warming over pre-industrial might even be a net positive in the long term.
Of course, there is also the possibility that nations don't stick to even their current pledges and it all still spins out of control... but that is seeming increasingly unlikely. Even if the next US president is a climate change denier who repudiates the deal... that'd just make the US an international pariah while the rest of the world would probably go ahead anyway and then impose punitive sanctions on the sole rogue nation.
Actually, based on what has happened to the other deals, I predict ONLY 1% or less of the nations actually stick to their pledges. I completely expect most of the nations will flat out ignore them (China for example), whilst others might try to stick to them for a while and then abandon them (like they did previously), and if the US actually DOEs try to stick to it, it would actually be the one that has problems (as ONE reason the others don't stick to the pledges is it is Cheaper not too, hence a nation that DOES stick to it eventually has a harder hit on their economy...bleed jobs overseas to those who aren't as expensive...etc).
So...I expect that a VERY few will stick with their pledges to tell the truth. Last time one of these pledge items went through...almost NONE of the nations stuck with it, and most were blatant at breaking them.
Short answer: Yes, they've considered all that. The people doing the research aren't idiots. "The earth wobbles in its orbit" isn't going to be a great revelation to them. Nor are concerns about measurement accuracy.
Longer answer: As I said earlier, you've things backward - the theory for global warming came first, the observations followed and supported it.
If you want to dispute it, you've got to argue that
a) the Greenhouse effect doesn't exist
b) that we're not adding massive amounts of such gasses to the atmosphere (and that the direct observations of such increases are either wrong or from some other cause, while ours are disappearing)
or c) some other unknown effect is countering the Greenhouse effect.
Actually, you are right, they aren't idiots...but most of the people in this thread, politicians, media...all act as if they are idiots. The pick and choose the specific items from their papers and utilize that to try to say something is FACT or LAW.
In truth, it is all theory and hypothesis. Scientists REALIZE this. They utilize theories (much like other science uses theories, for example, you wouldn't just toss out using the math and principles of string theory or relativity simply because they are theories and not LAWS), but scientists realize that they ARE theories.
Much of the problem in climate change science are people proclaiming everything as fact and law and hard fixed. I think this is why you have so many who fight against it. They see the inherent flaws.
The thing is, researchers REALIZE there are flaws in the system. That doesn't mean these things are unusable (any more than quantum theory is unusuable...people realize there are flaws and inconsistencies in physics and how things operate between theories...doesn't make them any less valid in usage...but they realize it). However, they don't pick and choose (unless politically motivated, which, unfortunately there are a LOT of those out there) what to ignore or use...they focus on their specific areas and try to do research to reveal more information behind each hypothesis they get.
It is a changing science, new things are discovered everyday. Some say that if immediate action is not taken, irreparable things may happen. This is a hypothesis that is not yet proven. You wouldn't actually believe that by reading the media (or the comments on this forum for that matter).
HOWEVER...this also is why there could be some political expediency behind it. It may be an unproven hypothesis at this point, but there is EVIDENCE that supports several tenents OF this hypothesis.
This is why to act on it could be very important. If the hypothesis turns out to occur...then it could threaten the very existence of life on this planet eventually. If action is taken, it could prevent this from occurring. The actions themselves should not have an adverse effect.
One way of putting it is...if we take action now...it could save the planet and we lose nothing really of value by doing these actions. If we fail to take these actions, the planet could be destroyed.
That's a pretty big gamble, and depending on what you want to do...could have drastic effects. It IS just a hypothesis though, but to push the expediency of what must be done if the hypothesis acutally comes to fruition, is for people to paint some of it as fact, or as reality.
The truth is, it is ever evolving. There is no set LAW of this yet, there are some theories...and even more hypothesis's. However, as many pointed out...it is true, that there are a LOT of inaccuracies in the measurements. There are a LOT of guesses. The research is relatively new (compared to some sciences out there) and new things are being discovered fairly often.
Scientist not only KNOW this, but freely admit this. They aren't out to hide it. They don't really need to argue about it as they'd agree with many things here that are opposed to the supposed "facts" of the matter. In fact, I think if many people who are anti-climate change talked to scientists, their opinions on the actual SCIENCE of the matter would change drastically. It's not the scientists or the science that has gone wrong...it's the way it's portrayed and the way the public feels about it.
Of course, the public has problems with a LOT of science (for example, to tell someone that there are difficulties in equating quantum physics with other physics and even Laws of physics and those differences are not things the public would really accept, the public works on facts that they know, not the way science does in that everything is really just a question of what is observed...not what is fact).
However, most of what scientists talk about or research about is ignored to the point that, even if the scientists are not idiots (and they aren't) most treat them as idiots and most of their research as non-existent.
In some ways, it's annoying, in others...it's just how it's always been.
The Princeton study cited in that video applies to government processes in general, not just in the environmental arena.Why environmental groups public outreach and popularity is pretty useless
As it is a democratic republic, I'm not so certain the first item is as problematic as people may make it out to be. If they coincided with 100% of approval where the public has 100% of approval, than many of the civil rights advancments over the past 35-40 years would not have happened. In many ways, the protection of the minority is particularly pointed in WHY it is a republic instead of a democracy.
However, the item where those with money and influence have the correspondence more towards what they desire is far more troubling.
|
|
Actually, based on what has happened to the other deals, I predict ONLY 1% or less of the nations actually stick to their pledges.
Well, "1% or less" of 196 nations would be one or two (if we round up). That doesn't sound anything like past climate deals... where MOST nations have stuck to their commitments and even nations that didn't MAKE any commitments (e.g. the US, China, India) have made progress. Global CO2 emissions have leveled off the past two years despite economic growth. That couldn't have happened if only one or two nations were taking action on climate change.
I completely expect most of the nations will flat out ignore them (China for example), whilst others might try to stick to them for a while and then abandon them (like they did previously), and if the US actually DOEs try to stick to it, it would actually be the one that has problems (as ONE reason the others don't stick to the pledges is it is Cheaper not too, hence a nation that DOES stick to it eventually has a harder hit on their economy...bleed jobs overseas to those who aren't as expensive...etc).
Again, this doesn't seem at all accurate. Pollution in China has gotten so bad that people die if they go outside on heavy smog days. Thus, they are going forward with greenhouse gas reductions as a matter of necessity. They can't 'flat out ignore' commitments they have already begun meeting. The economic impact and job bleeding claims also seem entirely fictional. I haven't noticed massive job losses in Germany as they ramped up renewable energy. Japan. China. India. The US. All undergoing major climate initiatives while enjoying relatively strong economies.
This is a hypothesis that is not yet proven.
No scientific hypothesis or theory is EVER 'proven'. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Rather, theories eventually accumulate so much evidence that they become in part or fully accepted and people stop doing new research until someone comes up with an unanswered question on some esoteric detail.
Thus, saying 'AGW theory is not proven' or 'evolution is only a theory' is really meaningless. In scientific terms they will NEVER be 'proven', because there is no such thing as absolute scientific proof. Rather, they have been tested so thoroughly that there are no longer any plausible ways they could be wrong. Maybe there is some IMplausible way that no one has thought of yet and thus they aren't 'proven', but until someone comes up with such an implausible possibility there isn't anything to test. Which is why research on these subjects is devoted to nailing down the details along the edges rather than re-examining the basic tenets that have been confirmed by thousands of previous experiments.
Actually, based on what has happened to the other deals, I predict ONLY 1% or less of the nations actually stick to their pledges.Well, "1% or less" of 196 nations would be one or two (if we round up). That doesn't sound anything like past climate deals... where MOST nations have stuck to their commitments and even nations that didn't MAKE any commitments (e.g. the US, China, India) have made progress. Global CO2 emissions have leveled off the past two years despite economic growth. That couldn't have happened if only one or two nations were taking action on climate change.
I completely expect most of the nations will flat out ignore them (China for example), whilst others might try to stick to them for a while and then abandon them (like they did previously), and if the US actually DOEs try to stick to it, it would actually be the one that has problems (as ONE reason the others don't stick to the pledges is it is Cheaper not too, hence a nation that DOES stick to it eventually has a harder hit on their economy...bleed jobs overseas to those who aren't as expensive...etc).Again, this doesn't seem at all accurate. Pollution in China has gotten so bad that people die if they go outside on heavy smog days. Thus, they are going forward with greenhouse gas reductions as a matter of necessity. They can't 'flat out ignore' commitments they have already begun meeting. The economic impact and job bleeding claims also seem entirely fictional. I haven't noticed massive job losses in Germany as they ramped up renewable energy. Japan. China. India. The US. All undergoing major climate initiatives while enjoying relatively strong economies.
This is a hypothesis that is not yet proven.No scientific hypothesis or theory is EVER 'proven'. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science. Rather, theories eventually accumulate so much evidence that they become in part or fully accepted and people stop doing new research until someone...
China actually DID make agreements in the past...and they did not even come close to even admitting it after the fact. In fact, most of the nations did NOT adhere to the agreements they've made.
If you are going to use China, perhaps you should know there have been MULTIPLE agreements by them in the past...most of which they didn't even really come close to making it home before it was discarded (in some cases they blame "rogue" business men that seemingly commit suicide after discovery and other things...), but overall...I don't expect them or anyone else to really follow anything they agreed to EXCEPT maybe a very few nations.
Japan abandoned their own protocols a while ago as well...interestingly enough. Germany states it is doing renewable energy, and it is to some degree, but overall it's just as profitable in the US over the past several years in the same field (depending on the state), which probably says more about it than anything else I could say.
The US has had major job losses, and the employment rate (vs. the unemployment [which is remarkably low], we're talking total population employed) has suffered from this. That's without what I would call major overhauls in the system.
Unemployment similarly is low in Germany (record lows one might say) but job losses are at record highs (which is rather confusing, but both can actually exist).
Low paying jobs are on the rise in Germany, just like the US (but not as drastic), while the middle class is shrinking.
Meanwhile, the middle class has been growing in China and India.
The US had major job losses when the economy collapsed some years back and a slow recovery since. That wasn't related to any environmental overhauls.
The US energy sector is seeing job losses now, but that's tied to the fossil fuel boom/bust cycle, not climate change regulation. Coal's been out competed by cheap natural gas and even the oil/gas boom employment is being hurt by current low prices.
What I'm referring to isn't seen in the unemployment numbers, what I'm referring to is something that accounts for total population employed. It's lower now in the US and other nations, much of it due to how the job market is going.
That combined with the increase of lower pay (also due to many of the higher wage jobs being exported to places like China and India) is part of what's responsible for the shrinking middle class and rising lower class in nations like the US and Germany.
The international aspects of the management and owners of these types of companies also can be shown that while the direct effects on the US and other nations result in the lower pay in these regions, as the companies are international, the owners of these companies actually have HIGHER incomes.
For example, if I understand the BLS(Bureau of Labor statistics) though unemployment is at a low, the percentage for the number I'm speaking about is around 59.5% currently. Traditionally it was around 62%, rising to a high of around 63% in the 2007 timeframe. Worse news is it looks like it may have reached it's peak of 59.5% (it was lower in the recession), and may be on a downward trend again...2016 should reveal whether that's a fluke after it climbed around 1% over the past 1.5 years, or whether it's just leveling out. This was a trend though, that started prior to 2007 (despite that being a high point over the past decade), and can probably be traced back at least to the mid 90s.
Overall, I think there are fixes to this though, that if renewable resources and energy were really practiced, could change everyone's lives for the better (for example, imagine if everyone had solar panels on their roof and how much that would reduce their energy bills...and it's utilizing less fuels in the process...win/win for everyone I'd imagine).
You're misinterpreting. Both "sides" of the debate.
And your position of "I'm not taking sides, scientists are still researching, we need to get more information", is in fact a side. Whether you want it to be or not. It's the side of "Don't do anything because we're not sure yet."
It's also, slightly more subtly, the side of "Don't trust the media or environmentalists or government reports or anyone telling you AGW is a problem."I don't think you actually mean that, but by falling all over yourself trying to be neutral and objective, you're failing horribly.
The reason I keep asking what you think about where the science stands is not because I want to nail you down to one side or the other, but because you keep making these pronouncements that you know better than the rest of us, but refuse to let on what it is that you know.
On the basic issues (again, not the details that are still being researched and changing) the debate over climate change isn't an actual debate between scientists and hasn't been for years. It's a political debate between science and not science.
Much like the debate between creationism and evolution isn't a debate among biologists, but one in which there is a scientific position and non-scientific one. Which of course doesn't mean biologists don't still research evolution.
Or for an even closer parallel, the debate over the dangers of tobacco, which tobacco companies kept up long after the science was clear.
Actually, read what I wrote above about the hypothesis that we are currently acting upon. That's a gamble...
In truth, there are many facets that are hypothesis's that are acted upon.
I presented the discussion of it above...which apparently you did not read?
However, to say that this is taking a side is inherently false, and trying to force scientists to take a side is also inherently flawed.
Look, I see many of these people quite often, and they don't have the arguments that you see on these forums. They don't have the problems that many people are stating they have. They freely acknowledge weaknesses people have pointed out and the research is always advancing in regards to closing holes in research or other areas. They are FULLY aware of these things. (DO they have disagreements on certain ideas...sure...but it's not like what you see on this topic by any means).
What BOTH sides are proposing on these forums (and believe it or not, it could be HIGHLY offensive to some scientists) are that they are idiots (and that's probably what got me responding). That really IS how people treat the scientists...including most of the posts on this topic.
You either have to pretend scientists are idiots because they don't see weaknesses in data or are oblivious (the side that is pro-AGW I suppose), or that they are idiots because they don't interpret the data and are able to make logical assumptions, theories, or hypothesis (the other side, I suppose the anti-AGW).
Do people realize just how crazy these arguments are?
And then to try to peg down the scientists and say...you have to be one of these options and call yourself an idiot?
I'm not going to call anyone in the field an idiot...
That's a foolish thing to do.
This isn't one of those things where you have to take a side, especially in the types of discussion which has been going on in this forum.
and....I should listen to my own self sometimes and avoid posting. As I said, people WANT facts, they want TRUTH...but science isn't necessarily going to bring you facts or truth, just observations that open the way for more questions in many instances in climate observation.
Are there things that are generally thought of as true (such as how the properties of certain gases act in the atmosphere), undeniably. However, there is research that is currently going on (someone I think posted a link to how for the first time some of the ideas were supported by evidence in two locations just earlier this year) that is looking at this, questioning what we know about it and refining ideas we already have.
Anyways, yeah...shouldn't jump into these things. Universally the scientists seem to be despised....even though everyone is basing their arguments on their research. Ironic...isn't it.
[understand you're saying we should gamble and act anyway. I'm saying that all the conditions and lack of support you're putting on it wind up making the other argument whether you intend it to or not.
And you're still misinterpreting the debate here and mostly elsewhere. Or seriously misunderstanding what the actual state of the scientific debate is, but I think it's the former.
Of course the scientists in the field don't have these arguments: they agree on the basics. Any more than biologists have evolution/creationism spats.
Unless there really is far more weakness in both data and theory than anyone outside of some pretty radical deniers is saying, then the pro people here (or at least myself) are pretty much in line with scientific opinion - the basics are pretty well known, but there's a lot of research and debate on the margins and on the details. The scientists aren't idiots and I'm not saying they are. But if there really are such glaring weaknesses that call the whole theory into question, why aren't they making into the major reports? If there really still is broad debate in the community about whether there is any global warming or whether human emissions are responsible for it, why is that debate not public? Where are the scientific conferences that highlight it? Where are the papers that support each side?
We see these things in other fields, where there actually are scientific controversies. We see them in climate science when it comes to the details of various predictions or mechanisms, but not for the big picture stuff. And it's that big picture that nearly all the lay pro-AGW people are talking about. It's certainly what I'm talking about.
And again, I'm not asking you to take a side, but you keep saying you have a better picture of what's actually going on in the scientific community than the rest of us do and you keep refusing to say anything about what actually is - other than scientists are still researching stuff, which we all know.
I suppose the best response is that you do see it in other fields, but it's not being utilized in a political context.
This is why I used the quantum mechanics vs. relativity problems from Physics. They have KNOWN weaknesses. They have KNOWN problems. That doesn't mean they both aren't utilized to come up with the best situations from theoretical, to real life applications (such as satellite technology and many things dealing with objects being placed out into space). There are weaknesses which scientists accept...they don't toss out the entire theory or even hypothesis based on those theories simply because of the weaknesses.
As I stated previously, though they are only ideas and hypothesis in some ways...many of them have MUCH better results than the public or medias..."facts." (and yes, that's a direct reference in many ways to how Spock had to take a guess in STIV...and how McCoy said that his guess was better than some who did the computation with "facts").
I actually understand now days why politically it is not expedient to present it as such (there's already a LOT of political opposition), and of course the public goes with the perception...but if people understood what they are saying...they are in many ways implying that the scientists are idiots.
Not a fun thing to see, especially if some of those scientists are your personal friends.
The difference then, is that quantum mechanics and relativity are not political hotspot items. If they were, you'd probably have people going all hot under the cover about the apparent weaknesses of each thing, despite the fact that scientists know all about those weaknesses...they still use those ideas and don't exclude something just because it's from relativity or quantum...they utilize what they need for their research or other activities.
An example if I may...This political activity was necessary in some ways (you know those movies) where someone calls NASA and says they think they see an asteroid headed towards earth...at that point it's probably only a hypothesis...but if it turns out true...a VERY deadly result. In many ways, the changes in climate have had one of these. We can take action now, but if we delay...we're all dead (hypothetically speaking). Of course, no one wants to hear that it's a hypothesis based on what someone has noted...and it's politically insolvent if presented like that.
This has caused some weird things. For example, if I see AGW or Global Warming...I instantly know it's not really a scientific debate (though it still doesn't prevent people from indirectly insulting the science or scientist, which this thread shows)...it's a political one. If scientists use the terms of AGW or Global Warming (and they still do) it is NOT used as a broad term, but in a specifically and pointed manner to a specific and defined item. There are other terms used in science these days for broad application to the field as a whole, or to specific broad theories. When they refer to it in a broad manner, that is the clue that it's basically going into the political arena instead of a scientific one.
The politics are waaaay heated on this, especially in the US...and unfortunately too many are way to quick find ways to blame scientists as being in this conspiracy or hoax or some other ridiculous thing. Unfortunately, many who take the political points (AGW as a broad context or Global Warming as a broad statement) back this idea up.
I seriously think that if people were allowed to hear what the scientists really do (and yes, many of the weaknesses people point out are valid ideas...but if that asteroid [speaking figuratively] is what's really coming...we have to rely on the things we have now rather than on what we hope we'll have later...simply put...that asteroid has a time table we can't avoid) and present...there would be far less castration of the scientists research efforts. Ironically, what's good for the field, may not be expedient on the political front.
I'm not refusing to say anything about sides...but the only sides presented in this forum is whether I want scientists to be idiots under exhibit A...or idiots under exhibit B....please excuse me if I choose NEITHER.
And I'm an idiot for responding again...I'll need to buffer my Will saves.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are asking the WRONG question.
'Can you substantiate your claims'?
If that's 'the wrong question' then I've got to conclude that its answer is 'no'.
Do you realize HOW broad the question you want defined is?
How broad a question is, 'Name one'? Not very broad at all. Quite specific in fact. For example;
Kyoto or Copenhagen (for 'one climate agreement' that you claim China violated)
James Hansen or John Christy (for 'one REAL scientist' among the ALL that you claim acknowledge that AGW is "still not even a solid theory")
Granted, none of those four examples actually matches what you said... but that's because what you said is false. Very specifically false. Nothing 'broad' about it at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolf, you know you're posting on a message board where people frequently do get all hot under the collar about quantum mechanics vs. relativity, right? :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has caused some weird things. For example, if I see AGW or Global Warming...I instantly know it's not really a scientific debate (though it still doesn't prevent people from indirectly insulting the science or scientist, which this thread shows)...it's a political one. If scientists use the terms of AGW or Global Warming (and they still do) it is NOT used as a broad term, but in a specifically and pointed manner to a specific and defined item. There are other terms used in science these days for broad application to the field as a whole, or to specific broad theories. When they refer to it in a broad manner, that is the clue that it's basically going into the political arena instead of a scientific one.
Scientific papers have been linked in this thread to disprove this claim already. For once, could you stop talking in generalities with no evidence to back them up?
GreyWolf, you know you're posting on a message board where people frequently do get all hot under the collar about quantum mechanics vs. relativity, right? :P
Actually, no I didn't. In that case maybe the board has more problems than simply a political debate!
#1 - You are asking the WRONG question. AGW is a political construct in many ways.
Do you have scientific evidence that AGW isn't happening? I don't care about your opinion about anyone in this thread, because opinions aren't science. I'm specifically looking for scientific evidence that AGW isn't real.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolf, you know you're posting on a message board where people frequently do get all hot under the collar about quantum mechanics vs. relativity, right? :P
There's nothing to debate, everything is at superposition and is actually a mango.
You are asking the WRONG question.'Can you substantiate your claims'?
If that's 'the wrong question' then I've got to conclude that its answer is 'no'.
Do you realize HOW broad the question you want defined is?How broad a question is, 'Name one'? Not very broad at all. Quite specific in fact. For example;
Kyoto or Copenhagen (for 'one climate agreement' that you claim China violated)
James Hansen or John Christy (for 'one REAL scientist' among the ALL that you claim acknowledge that AGW is "still not even a solid theory")Granted, none of those four examples actually matches what you said... but that's because what you said is false. Very specifically false. Nothing 'broad' about it at all.
I think I specified it above in my response to the JEFF. You are trying to cram politics as science and vice versa. While connected...you are asking a political question in regards to science.
It would be like asking...Which is the best Federation Enterprise Captain that faced the Klingons in Star Wars? Or, if you wanted to be even more specific...which Captain was the best during their command of the Enterprise in the Star Wars Universe...Captain Archer of the Enterprise NX, Captain Kirk of the Enterprise original/A, or Captain Picard of the Enterprise D.
In broad terms, it's too broad to address...as science doesn't refer to the broad idea as AGW these days. Even if you get specific, your question makes NO sense scientifically speaking.
It's understandable, you are taking the stance that the public takes...and it's something I should expect these days. No one really listens to the scientists in the field, and many times they are openly mocked in regards to the politics (take this thread for example...and it's on both sides).
And now, I ask myself, why am I still responding to this stuff in this thread. I am no psychologist either...obviously.