What Climate Wars Did To Science

[jsgolfer]

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/071615-international-report-confirms-2014-was-earths-warmest-year-on-record.html

Good read:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/16/what-noaa-ncei-isnt-telling-you-in-their-2014-state-of-the-climate-report-released-today/

[jsgolfer]

easy to say as there is not mass industry behind an artpeace.

on the contrary a science matter may have huge lobbies and budgets behind pushing a favoable interpretation of results.

who pays this guy ?

Who pays me?

[bubble]

anyway my question is concerning sustainable energy ressources :

since the energy is more expesive and the material and research of high cost is this finally financed by wages generated by a fosil fuel world ?

I'm mean it's great to have a 45 000 £ eco car yet to earn the money to buy it what does the buyer have as ecological impact as well as the hunderds of thousand under this buyer working or supplying this standard of life ?

stupid things happen. example in france we tax diesel less than propain. nobody really knows why. the fact is wa went fast to nuclear and left areselves with huge stocks of low refind stock such as diesel.

another one for europe is we buy palm oil to add to petrol. great, it seams green. not really, europe has contracts with countries who rip theyre forest to harvest palm. then europe who add palm to petrol buys cheap oil, adds 10-15% of this to petrol but taxes the end consumption just like petrol. perfect example of tupidity in a thought so ecological concept as it is driven really by industrial and political choises using mass stupidity to say yes this is great. 20 years agos scientist were paid to say yes. now more thoughtfull eco mouvements pays scientist to research the contrary results.

[Lihu]

Not sure the source form JS is any less dependable than the one being disputed. My only issue is that we don't have consistently taken data for over a few decades.

[rkim291968]

Other countries aren't going to clean up their mess, everyone wants more wealth and cheap power means more wealth.

100% in agreement.

.

.

.

@jsgolfer is a pe rfect example why engineers don't make good (?) politicians.

[bubble]

on top of this I live is THE most windy place in france. 60 km/h winds 250 days a year and 10 days more at + 100 km/h

we have wind mills build here and there and finally the change is comming to sea tide mills, much more efficient. less cost. habitable places on stems for sealife.

[jsgolfer]

100% in agreement.

.

.

.

@jsgolfer is a perfect example why engineers don't make good (?) politicians.

Absolutely, I would make a horrible politician.

[rkim291968]

Not sure the source form JS is any less dependable than the one being disputed.

The truth is somewhere in between?  It's like a long putt you can't tell which way it's leaning.   The best thing to do is putt straight at it.

[Lihu]

Yeah, but try to make that putt.

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallT

Are you similarly offended when people use the pejorative "Climate Change Deniers," or when a certain president calls those who disagree with radical government action the "Flat Earth Society?"

I'd hazard a guess that most so-called "deniers" believe that warming is occurring (it's a graph, after all, duh), that climate is changing (always has, always will), and that there is some non-zero man-made component... but that the proof for catastrophic consequences has not been made. I have no stats of how many people fall in that category, but that is a valid position that I see held by a large number of seemingly intelligent critics of the folks raising the alarm (there, I won't use the term "alarmist").

The problem with requiring proof of catastrophic consequences to me is that it might be too late for anything to be done about it that isn't an incredible sea-change in itself. I have this image in the back of my head of a GOP Tea-Party caucus on national TV 25 years from now standing in the middle of South Dakota in November where it looks like Death Valley and saying "Ok, I guess you guys were right. Time to kill your neighbor for food or catch the first shuttle to Alpha Centauri..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandallT

Are you similarly offended when people use the pejorative "Climate Change Deniers," or when a certain president calls those who disagree with radical government action the "Flat Earth Society?"

I'd hazard a guess that most so-called "deniers" believe that warming is occurring (it's a graph, after all, duh), that climate is changing (always has, always will), and that there is some non-zero man-made component... but that the proof for catastrophic consequences has not been made. I have no stats of how many people fall in that category, but that is a valid position that I see held by a large number of seemingly intelligent critics of the folks raising the alarm (there, I won't use the term "alarmist").

I'm curious, then, where your personal tipping point is. Because if that underlined portion is the crux of your opinion, there must be one.

To be honest, I would say I don't have any defined tipping point. I just try to weigh what I see and judge it all. At this point, I do not see the vitriol and mockery that is coming from those who are raising the alarm as anywhere near justified by the science. The claim seems to be that in the somewhat near future (century or less?) that our planet will irreversibly change and cause major upheavals in society and life on earth (via rain/drought/flood/hurricane/tornado/rising oceans/acidification/etc). All because we go from 300ppm CO2 to maybe 500ppm CO2.

I know you'll say that there are thousands upon thousands of papers and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe it. I do see that.

Unfortunately, I still shake my head and think, "Really? You are betting the reputation on science on the claim that we are destroying this planet on such a short geologic time scale and this is the best proof you have? Really?"

[Lihu]

While I agree with the premise of the post, 500/300 is a pretty big increase. Will it cause catastrophes? Maybe, but not worse than we have been experiencing already.

[RandallT]

While I agree with the premise of the post, 500/300 is a pretty big increase.

Will it cause catastrophes? Maybe, but not worse than we have been experiencing already.

From the IPCC. Yep, definitely a large increase. Hard to argue that mankind is putting a lot of carbon into the atmosphere.

I know it's simplistic but even 1000 ppm is 0.1%. So if we go from 0.03 percent to 0.1 percent (300ppm to 1000ppm) of the atmosphere being a certain kind of molecule that can assist in trapping heat, then the entire ecosystem is in danger?  I would not think our planet is that sensitive. It has been here billions of years, with CO2 ppm's as high as many 1000s of PPM over the eons. (Scientists explain that away in various methods, but to me it doesn't seem 100% convincing).

Again, I won't belabor it, as I've said it a few times, I just don't feel the scientists have met my personal "burden of proof" (whatever that is) to be incredibly fearful that chaos will result within a century or so. We all naturally have our own threshold, and are more/less trusting of the information we are getting about the topic.

We must still be good stewards of the earth, of course, and I'm a proponent of using less coal (go nuclear!), but I think we have time to develop technology and be more innovative over time. In the meantime, I'd value free enterprise and trust that good people who have freedom will solve this, rather than relying on our government to solve this. I think we have enough public and private institutions earnestly working on this all over the globe.

I don't think we need to drastically turn over more power to our government at this point.  We are not in crisis mode yet, in my mind, so letting the government get too much control because we cave in to the bullying going on would be a mistake.  Those doing the bullying on behalf of science are doing the credibility of science harm to many of us, because we don't see convincing proof to match their rhetoric (which is the original point of the OP, I think).

[jsgolfer]

oops, somebody forget to tell the planet, that it's the warmest year on record.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

[Phil McGleno]

oops, somebody forget to tell the planet, that it's the warmest year on record. [URL=http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654]http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654[/URL]

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

You are seeing what you want to see-Maybe it was able to grow because it had shrunk for 30 years? I will take a 30-year trend over a one-year blip. What is the overall trend you see here?-

[jsgolfer]

You are seeing what you want to see-Maybe it was able to grow because it had shrunk for 30 years? I will take a 30-year trend over a one-year blip.

What is the overall trend you see here?-

It's still down, but it does rebound. And whose to say it won't continue to rebound.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/research-highlight-arctic-sea-ice-loss-likely-be-reversible

"We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

“Our results show that the basis for a sea ice tipping point doesn’t hold up when these additional processes are considered,” said Wagner. “In other words, no tipping point is likely to devour what’s left of the Arctic summer sea ice. So if global warming does soon melt all the Arctic sea ice, at least we can expect to get it back if we somehow manage to cool the planet back down again.”

[Phil McGleno]

It's still down, but it does rebound. And whose to say it won't continue to rebound.

30 years of data-And people smarter than you. Sorry but I will go with data over some guy on a forum who has a hunch. A year or two does not matter. Decades barely matter. If you do not think we are leaving the world worse off four our children than our parents left it for us you are a crackpot. Go look up how the government is spraying us with exhaust from planes or something.

[jsgolfer]

30 years of data-And people smarter than you.

Sorry but I will go with data over some guy on a forum who has a hunch.

A year or two does not matter. Decades barely matter.

If you do not think we are leaving the world worse off four our children than our parents left it for us you are a crackpot. Go look up how the government is spraying us with exhaust from planes or something.

Wow, so I'm dumb and an crackpot.  Where did I say I wanted to leave the world worse off.  I have no idea what the spraying exhaust is about.  Nice strawman dude.

[Phil McGleno]

Wow, so I'm dumb and an crackpot.

Clearly. ;-) [quote name="jsgolfer" url="/t/83264/what-climate-wars-did-to-science/72#post_1173494"]Where did I say I wanted to leave the world worse off.[/quote] Please learn to read.-Maybe it is your inability to read that leads you to think that a one-year blip is all it takes to reverse decades of ice loss. I never said you WANTED to leave the world worse off. So, not a strawman.-Just misreading on your part. And Sorry-I will go with scientists and decades of data over a one-year blip-There are lots of them in those charts- and a hunch of some guy on a forum that is not even dedicated to talking about this topic.