Technology, Science and the Environment.

[MC Prussian]

19 hours ago, leicsmac said:

"yes, why aren't you? You'd actually learn something in the process, including socializing with your peers" - yep, it's sad that it falls to her to do all of this because no one else seems to have the fortitude to step up.

 

"nope, that'd be technology" - and yet there are a lot of people who stand directly in the way of the technology required.

 

"seriously, you need a head check, Greta. You're hurt by words - I thought actions speak louder?" - yeah, and "words will never hurt me". Dangerous fallacy. Words have power, which is why so many governments often don't like them. The right words can incite, condemn and a thousand other things without lifting a finger.

 

"yes, every single day" - and trying to do something about the suffering of these people isn't a good thing?

 

"ok, prove it" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Lack of biodiversity of whatever kind *will* end up hurting humans too, among other consequences.

 

"nope, there's a lot of infighting, external influence and controversy" - https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

There really isn't, quit with the misinformation.

 

"wait, Al Gore or more recently AOC referred to ten years, now we've already lost a year and a half in the space of a few months? Can you all please settle for the same time frame? Do you realize that this indicates that the science is not in fact "crystal-clear" and that you are actually contradicting yourself?" - Right, you want an "exact time to disaster" clock ticking down before you'll agree to act, yes?

 

"way to alienate people, Greta" - if those influential people do end up doing nothing and it all goes to hell, then alienation is the best those people might expect.

 

"erm, yes. That's the way it is and has always been. Would you like to go back to 1888 or the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and compare it today's standard of living and working?" - put the strawman away please, they catch fire so easily. No one outside daft neo-Luddites thinks that we need to abandon technology. What we need to do is advance it in a way that mitigates the effects of climate change, and do it in a timely fashion.

 

"how about you aim your emotional criticism at places such as China or India more specifically?" - how well would that work without government backing? You know that it wouldn't, so again, strawman. Besides, it's not like the Earth will spare the countries that all played ball, will it?

 

"And no word on the continuing massive population increase in Africa or Asia and its consequences and effects on our resources and air pollution?" - ah, a good spot of neo-Malthusian eugenics. How splendid. If we're really going there, are you absolutely sure that it's not less kids all around the world that might be a good thing, rather than less kids in just those places?

 

Seriously Prussian, you have put across these arguments time and time again - they were wrong before, they're wrong now and it belongs in the same scientific folder as the Flat Earth Theory and anti-vaxxer belief - with about the same risk to public health as the latter.

 

 

 

As above, I'm not sure the detractors here can really claim to be looking after her welfare when they remain adamantly opposed to a course of action that would render the need for campaign no longer necessary.

 

 

She's saying - and has been saying for some time - "listen to the science, listen to the scientists."

 

And what they propose is something like this:

 

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

 

This is not pie-in-the-sky BS, it is a reasonably detailed plan for helping us move forward that could be applied by governments given political will. People need to stop thinking that no such solutions exist or are being presented, they are there, people just seem to not care to hear them.

 

 

"Fortitude"? If you still believe the myth of the poor 16-year old sole warrior, I suggest you read up on the activists that have made her who she is, including her parents.

See my link above. Very revealing. She is a product, and you're buying it.

 

"A lot of people standing in the way of technology" is no argument in defense of a person who argues with feelings, claims, insults and allegations. Just because "some" people are against technology doesn't mean we're not making progress in spite of that hindrance. Also, technological progress poses problems that need to be resolved first.

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/technological-progress-and-potential-future-risks/

 

Still think that what we have here is a mere play, and that we'd be better off financing and supporting new technology and better ways of dealing with nuclear power (for the time being) instead of letting the media dictate whom to follow and whom not.

 

"People are suffering, people are dying" - that is a fact, and as part of her speech, a nonsensical argument. People have suffered and have died before, we all do in some ways and will continue to do so - it's part of life, some do suffer more than others. Do you think with an increase in global population, these issues will go away or be cured more easily? Question is how to alleviate or stop the suffering, death is another matter entirely. I despise her generalization, as it is bordering on the inflammatory. Or rather, stupid. She's saying nothing at all here.

Same goes for the "change is coming, whether you like it or not" - another hollow, meaningless phrase. We have made great strides towards bettering ourselves as a society in general already, despite numerous wars in between. So, there is hope.

 

As for the Holocene Extinction, yes, it's a pity. And yes, it should be stopped, if only for romantic reasons. Can it be stopped entirely, forever? No. Will we be able to stop natural extinction ourselves? Should we? Species have disappeared off this planet in droves for millennia, nobody cries wolf here. One hope is cloning, although it remains to be seen how effective and ethical that is.

 

Great for you to quote SkepticalScience - and I agree and I'll state it again, Climate Change is happening. Because Climate Change does happen naturally as part of Earth's existence, it's a constant flux. The question is how much of it is man-made and how much of it part of the natural development, as part of the regular up and down on this planet (see indications towards a new mini ice age). The infighting and controversy stem from the methods used in climate science, a rather young scientific field, and the influence of NGOs and governments on these queries and results. Stop deflecting and argue the point here, @leicsmac.

 

The "death clock" timer is a funny occurrence, don't you think? Everyone has his or her opinion on doomsday. So, whom do you believe? Again, is this somewhat condescending ivory tower argument helping anyone?

 

And no, alienation is no way to conduct politics. And neither is it for social engineering, but I hope more people see through that strategy of Team Thunberg.

 

I still find it very hypocritical that she's coming off as being on a high horse, but doesn't have the balls to address the biggest polluters in this world directly or on location. THAT would be fortitude. And I'd applaud her for it. Again, what she does here is mostly preaching to the choir. We care about solutions and we are already implementing them, so other nations ought to follow. THEY are the ones to be convinced.

What good does it do if we are all-complying and China and India (among others) continue to be absolute dirt bombs?

 

In terms of global population increase, we are already limping way behind compared to Asia and Africa and will continue to do so:

https://ourworldindata.org/region-population-2100

If you can't see this being a veritable threat to climate (in terms of strain on resources, emissions, energy), then I don't know what more to say to you.

Western European populations increase, too. But at a way slower rate than in African or Asian countries.

Are more and more people on this planet really the answer? When does reason come in? What is the limit before we kick off another war over resources, water most of all?

Edited 25 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

"Fortitude"? If you still believe the myth of the poor 16-year old sole warrior, I suggest you read up on the activists that have made her who she is, including her parents.

See my link above. Very revealing. She is a product, and you're buying it.

 

"A lot of people standing in the way of technology" is no argument in defense of a person who argues with feelings, claims, insults and allegations. Just because "some" people are against technology doesn't mean we're not making progress in spite of that hindrance. Also, technological progress poses problems that need to be resolved first.

https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/technological-progress-and-potential-future-risks/

 

Still think that what we have here is a mere play, and that we'd be better off financing and supporting new technology and better ways of dealing with nuclear power (for the time being) instead of letting the media dictate whom to follow and whom not.

 

"People are suffering, people are dying" - that is a fact, and as part of her speech, a nonsensical argument. People have suffered and have died before, we all do in some ways and will continue to do so - it's part of life, some do more than others. Do you think with an increase in global population, these issues will go away or be cured more easily? Question is how to alleviate or stop the suffering, death is another matter entirely. I despise her generalization, as it is bordering on the inflammatory. Or rather, stupid. She's saying nothing at all here.

Same goes for the "change is coming, whether you like it or not" - another hollow, meaningless phrase. We have made great strides towards bettering ourselves as a society in general already, despite numerous wars in between. So, there is hope.

 

As for the Holocene Extinction, yes, it's a pity. And yes, it should be stopped, if only for romantic reasons. Can it be stopped entirely, forever? No. Will we be able to stop natural extinction ourselves? Should we? Species have disappeared off this planet in droves for millennia, nobody cries wolf here. One hope is cloning, although it remains to be seen how effective and ethical that is.

 

Great for you to quote SkepticalScience - and I agree and I'll state it again, Climate Change is happening. Because Climate Change does happen naturally as part of Earth's existence, it's a constant flux. The question is how much of it is man-made and how much of it part of the natural development, as part of the regular up and down on this planet (see indications towards a new mini ice age). The infighting and controversy stem from the methods used in climate science, a rather young scientific field, and the influence of NGOs and governments on these queries and results. Stop deflecting and argue the point here, @leicsmac.

 

The "death clock" timer is a funny occurrence, don't you think? Everyone has his or her opinion on doomsday. So, whom do you believe? Again, is this somewhat condescending ivory tower argument helping anyone?

 

And no, alienation is no way to conduct politics. And neither is it for social engineering, but I hope more people see through that strategy of Team Thunberg.

 

I still find it very hypocritical that she's coming off as being on a high horse, but doesn't have the balls to address the biggest polluters in this world directly or on location. THAT would be fortitude. And I'd applaud her for it. Again, what she does here is mostly preaching to the choir. We care about solutions and we are already implementing them, so other nations ought to follow. THEY are the ones to be convinced.

What good does it do if we are all-complying and China and India (among others) continue to be absolute dirt bombs?

 

In terms of global population increase, we are already limping way behind compared to Asia and Africa and will continue to do so:

https://ourworldindata.org/region-population-2100

If you can't see this being a veritable threat to climate (in terms of strain on resources, emissions, energy), then I don't know what more to say to you.

Western European populations increase, too. But at a way slower rate than in African or Asian countries.

Are more and more people on this planet really the answer? When does reason come in? What is the limit before we kick off another war over resources, water most of all?

Fortitude, care, whatever. It's still sad that it falls to someone like her to actually raise this issue properly because the elected officials in countries around the world are not doing their jobs.

 

Technology does come with its own risks - that's been talked about on here before - but it's a choice between that and a much bigger risk of bigger problems should we not apply that tech. I think that you're on board with that idea though, and I'm all for Gen III and IV fission reactors to help with that.

 

WRT the "people are dying" and "extinction event" comments, I'm glad we're in agreement that they are factual statements, if rather emotive.

 

I'll happily argue the point with respect to the science:

 

- the global average temperature is increasing year on year

- the average global CO2 concentration is increasing year on year, as well as other greenhouse gas components; higher, in fact than at any point in the last ten million years

- these two values show a high degree of correlation and causation can be heavily implied

- the increase in CO2 has likewise coincided with a big increase in human industrial output, again, heavily implying causation

- this global increase in temperature will in all likelihood lead to consequences including rising sea levels increased drought, flooding and other extreme effects that will lead to further strain on food and potable water supplied in a great many different countries

- there is little or no discussion within the scientific community about the veracity of this information, given how heavily it has been researched and peer reviewed. (that last one in bold because implying there is some kind of conflict with the scientific community at large about the facts above is dishonest in the extreme and you know that as well as I do.)

 

Those, above, are all scientific facts. The discussion has been had, the conclusions have been reached. If you believe otherwise, feel free to publish your paper, get it reviewed and I look forward to the TV coverage of your Nobel Prize. Until then, I know it's fashionable to rag on "experts" in this day and age but please stop impugning the reputations of those who have no good reason to lie about this.

 

The exact timeframe isn't really known - it could be as low as a decade, it could be as high as a few decades. But that range still puts it solidly within a single human lifetime and doesn't leave us much time, either way. Asking for an exact time reference down to the year - and for what exactly - when people in rich countries start running out of food, or when one billion refugees storm the borders because they have no food - is merely obfuscation to give an excuse to do nothing.

 

You could well be right in that shaming isn't going to work, but then asking people nicely hasn't really worked that well either given that we are where we are and the problem is still very apparent.

 

Again, you and I both know that activists going directly to China or India isn't going to do squat, whereas lobbying Western governments to do it on their behalf just might - where's the hypocrisy there? There is a method here. And no, the biggest CO2 contributor and supposed leading Western nation clearly doesn't care about this issue (or at least their present government does not), I would have thought that was obvious. That average temperatures are still going up is a consequence that will affect everyone, and as such it is everyone's responsibility - and no one, not China, India, the USA, the UK or anyone - is doing enough right now. The data makes that clear.

 

Population increase is clearly an issue, but forgive me when I've seen this line parroted by far too many armchair Mengele-style eugenicists who don't want fewer children born, they just want fewer black and brown children born.

 

It's a pretty straight correlation that as technology advances, birth rates decline naturally without any need for such controls - as tech spreads around the world, that will happen. We're already seeing a slowdown in the overall population growth around the world, one that will hopefully lead to a plateau of about 11 billion - rather a lot, but given good logistics, manageable. I'd really rather the Thanos solution be a last resort rather than a first option, wouldn't you?

 

Finally, it's ironic that you mention resource wars when by far the most likely scenario for that starting off is not an increase in population, but doing nothing about climate change leading to several key areas becoming low on food and water, and then the shooting starts. You want to prevent that? Look at the Project Drawdown list and hope that governments start applying at least some of it, and quickly.

 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49815731

 

While he's right that they're not exactly the "lungs of the world" - phytoplankton does most of the heavy lifting when it comes to CO2 ----> O2 conversion - there's a hundred other reasons why the Amazon should be preserved for the benefit of all mankind so he can still fvck off.

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fortitude, care, whatever. It's still sad that it falls to someone like her to actually raise this issue properly because the elected officials in countries around the world are not doing their jobs.

 

Technology does come with its own risks - that's been talked about on here before - but it's a choice between that and a much bigger risk of bigger problems should we not apply that tech. I think that you're on board with that idea though, and I'm all for Gen III and IV fission reactors to help with that.

 

WRT the "people are dying" and "extinction event" comments, I'm glad we're in agreement that they are factual statements, if rather emotive.

 

I'll happily argue the point with respect to the science:

 

- the global average temperature is increasing year on year

- the average global CO2 concentration is increasing year on year, as well as other greenhouse gas components; higher, in fact than at any point in the last ten million years

- these two values show a high degree of correlation and causation can be heavily implied

- the increase in CO2 has likewise coincided with a big increase in human industrial output, again, heavily implying causation

- this global increase in temperature will in all likelihood lead to consequences including rising sea levels increased drought, flooding and other extreme effects that will lead to further strain on food and potable water supplied in a great many different countries

- there is little or no discussion within the scientific community about the veracity of this information, given how heavily it has been researched and peer reviewed. (that last one in bold because implying there is some kind of conflict with the scientific community at large about the facts above is dishonest in the extreme and you know that as well as I do.)

 

Those, above, are all scientific facts. The discussion has been had, the conclusions have been reached. If you believe otherwise, feel free to publish your paper, get it reviewed and I look forward to the TV coverage of your Nobel Prize. Until then, I know it's fashionable to rag on "experts" in this day and age but please stop impugning the reputations of those who have no good reason to lie about this.

 

The exact timeframe isn't really known - it could be as low as a decade, it could be as high as a few decades. But that range still puts it solidly within a single human lifetime and doesn't leave us much time, either way. Asking for an exact time reference down to the year - and for what exactly - when people in rich countries start running out of food, or when one billion refugees storm the borders because they have no food - is merely obfuscation to give an excuse to do nothing.

 

You could well be right in that shaming isn't going to work, but then asking people nicely hasn't really worked that well either given that we are where we are and the problem is still very apparent.

 

Again, you and I both know that activists going directly to China or India isn't going to do squat, whereas lobbying Western governments to do it on their behalf just might - where's the hypocrisy there? There is a method here. And no, the biggest CO2 contributor and supposed leading Western nation clearly doesn't care about this issue (or at least their present government does not), I would have thought that was obvious. That average temperatures are still going up is a consequence that will affect everyone, and as such it is everyone's responsibility - and no one, not China, India, the USA, the UK or anyone - is doing enough right now. The data makes that clear.

 

Population increase is clearly an issue, but forgive me when I've seen this line parroted by far too many armchair Mengele-style eugenicists who don't want fewer children born, they just want fewer black and brown children born.

 

It's a pretty straight correlation that as technology advances, birth rates decline naturally without any need for such controls - as tech spreads around the world, that will happen. We're already seeing a slowdown in the overall population growth around the world, one that will hopefully lead to a plateau of about 11 billion - rather a lot, but given good logistics, manageable. I'd really rather the Thanos solution be a last resort rather than a first option, wouldn't you?

 

Finally, it's ironic that you mention resource wars when by far the most likely scenario for that starting off is not an increase in population, but doing nothing about climate change leading to several key areas becoming low on food and water, and then the shooting starts. You want to prevent that? Look at the Project Drawdown list and hope that governments start applying at least some of it, and quickly.

 

We are doing the job! We are making progress, just not as fast as some would like to see or not through the channels activists are proposing (for selfish reasons). Implementing technological progress or a change in policy isn't done by a snip of the fingers, it takes time, especially in democratic countries with the corresponding process. And the top-down approach doesn't work, I'd rather we work bottom-up, from the population as basis. As more and more technological advancements are made on a smaller level, the more acceptable it becomes with time on a broader level. But to each in his own time, you can't force people to follow suit.

 

The extinction that is taking place right now is in large parts down to whom...? Mankind. And why? The more people we have on this planet, the more resources they require, the more flora and fauna needs to make way for agriculture, industry, housing, roads and whatnot. More people need more space to live in. It's not that hard to understand.

Which brings us back to one of the main issues right now - an ever-increasing global population. And I've seen few people in the media mention this at all as our biggest threat, instead wasting time on Thunberg and a debatable CO2 crisis. More CO2 is actually a positive side effect, as plants thrive on it - if they were left intact or if more plants were grown. Which leads us to the modern-day conundrum of more people vs. a balanced natural environment/healthy natural equilibrium.

 

The climate change isn't fully man-made, and yes - we can and should debate its extent caused by human influence, but then stick to irrefutable facts and kick scaremongering, propaganda and activism in the bin. That the climate is striking back is only one aspect, though. Again, as the global population increases, we continue to strain the soil, deforestation does its part and because we have more and more people on this planet, natural disasters tend to gradually cause more damage as a logical consequence: More people living in the same area are potentially more likely to be affected, be it by losing lives, livelihoods, housing. The damage to infrastructure is so high these days because there is more and more and more expensive (modern) infrastructure in place to start with!

 

I'm not saying Climate Change scientists are "lying", at least not on purpose. They are either not completely honest, base their research on dubious data or create/fake schematics to support their own agenda. The sheer young age of this scientific field, coupled with a lack of long-term comparisons, faulty, spotty data, difference in use of said data, differences in the use of particular time frames, skewing of charts, lack of independent research (influence of outside money)... I'm sorry, but we're far from having a discussion based on bias-free research. There's too much interpretation going on based on partly sketchy data. And the IPCC in particular need to up their ante to gain my trust.

 

I want to have a serious, reasonable public discussion about Climate Change, and I'd welcome more scientists with different views, addressing the controversies surrounding data, research on a panel or several public panels, debating the real issues, the impacts and what we can do about it as the general population. So that we as the people can make our mind up about what is most pressing and how to go on about it.

But this does not take place right now. I wonder why? The lack of connection between science and people is striking, given the fact that it affects us all in some way or another. I also think the media aren't reporting fairly and in a balanced style about the lack of consensus in many areas regarding Climate Change.

 

I am not a Climate scientist and thus it's a complete waste of time for you to attempt to mock me with your hypothetical Nobel Prize scenario. You can do better than that.

 

Climate does not stop at the border, and as long as the biggest polluters, responsible for a total of roughly 70 to 80% of the current air pollution, do not change their policy regarding Climate Change, all efforts in Western Europe or Japan or South America or Canada are a waste in comparison. That's China (400+% increase since 1990), India (400+% increase since 1990), the US, but also more and more African countries (Equatorial Guinea, Benin, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Lesotho, Tanzania, Moçambique, Ethiopia, Congo all with 600% increase and more since 1990), as well as Saudi Arabia (380+% since 1990).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

You can see here how the UK, for instance, pales in comparison (64+%).

 

If these activists were so hell-bent on spouting their "truth", they should at least be consequential and hit where it hurts the most, travel to various places that are the worst polluters on this planet. China, the US, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, various African countries. But I suppose the UN is a bit more attractive and more of a "safe space" and a more welcoming platform to provide propaganda...

Make it a World Tour and stop preaching to the choir.

 

Advocating for less children being born in context of Climate Change has nothing to do with eugenics and bringing up a creep persona such as Josef Mengele is a distasteful move on your behalf. In relation to the population increase at present, yes, we need to look at the birthrates in Africa and Asia in particular, as these two regions are the two biggest drivers in that regard.

Even the UN acknowledges this as one of the two main issues we're facing right now:

Quote

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that population growth and economic (consumption) growth are the two main causes of global warming. Per capita resource consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions are highest in developed economies, while rapid population growth in developing countries contributes to the loss of forests and biodiversity.

https://opinion.inquirer.net/124098/world-un-must-reduce-population-growth

So, following your logic, the UN are full of Nazis now?

 

If we continue at this rate with an increase in population, then yes, that is the most likely scenario for a war. A war over a decreasing amount of resources in relation to a needy population. And water is probably the common good that is most in danger, as seen with the attempts at privatizing the use of water sources by reprehensible companies such as Nestlé.

 

The Project Drawdown list you provide is interesting, yet also flawed. How are these predictions measured? Concrete numbers are future thinking, because at present, we cannot predict  the exact amount of impact these changes will have. In the end, all that remains are assumptions and computer models that cannot foresee future reality.

I agree that some of the measures are feasible or at least, interesting enough to be pursued. But nothing new as opposed to what I've said before. In the end, most of it boils down to technological advancement once more. Again, I'm not a fan of wind energy, mainly because it is not efficient enough. But creating more energy-effcient motors, ACs or other electric consumer goods for example is the way forward. And again, we're indeed making progress and we'll continue to do so. Small steps towards a brighter future in countries that are already performing well enough, and more drastic measures for countries that are the worst offenders.

Edited 25 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[Jon the Hat]

I've not been in for a while, some interesting stuff in here.

The project drawdown list looks like a sensible list of realistic activities, however they are pretty much all happening already in the West at least.  If you accept that China, India and Africa re the main problem areas, then do we think that by leading the way and pushing down cost as technology develops we will accelerate change in those countries?  I suppose that makes sense.  I don't hear a lot of talk about the fact that the west still owns the emissions of the the Asian etc factories which make all our consumer goods.  You cannot outsource responsibility for emissions as much as Trump likes to deny responsibility.

 

We should really be using trade policy to require low emission manufacturing and reducing transport.  It has occured to me that the irony of no deal Brexit would be more local produce being consumed and lower miles.  Which is obvioulsy a positive no one seems to want to mention:)

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

We are doing the job! We are making progress, just not as fast as some would like to see or not through the channels activists are proposing (for selfish reasons). Implementing technological progress or a change in policy isn't done by a snip of the fingers, it takes time, especially in democratic countries with the corresponding process. And the top-down approach doesn't work, I'd rather we work bottom-up, from the population as basis. As more and more technological advancements are made on a smaller level, the more acceptable it becomes with time on a broader level. But to each in his own time, you can't force people to follow suit.

 

The extinction that is taking place right now is in large parts down to whom...? Mankind. And why? The more people we have on this planet, the more resources they require, the more flora and fauna needs to make way for agriculture, industry, housing, roads and whatnot. More people need more space to live in. It's not that hard to understand.

Which brings us back to one of the main issues right now - an ever-increasing global population. And I've seen few people in the media mention this at all as our biggest threat, instead wasting time on Thunberg and a debatable CO2 crisis. More CO2 is actually a positive side effect, as plants thrive on it - if they were left intact or if more plants were grown. Which leads us to the modern-day conundrum of more people vs. a balanced natural environment/healthy natural equilibrium.

 

It's certainly happening, but it simply isn't fast enough - that the rate of increase of temperature is still climbing is testament to that, sadly. I'm not sure whether a top-down, bottom-up or a mixture of the two would be the right approach, but I'd take anything that is effective.

 

WRT CO2 as plant food - https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

Not as simple as some folks think.

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

 

I'm not saying Climate Change scientists are "lying", at least not on purpose. They are either not completely honest, base their research on dubious data or create/fake schematics to support their own agenda. The sheer young age of this scientific field, coupled with a lack of long-term comparisons, faulty, spotty data, difference in use of said data, differences in the use of particular time frames, skewing of charts, lack of independent research (influence of outside money)... I'm sorry, but we're far from having a discussion based on bias-free research. There's too much interpretation going on based on partly sketchy data. And the IPCC in particular need to up their ante to gain my trust.

 

I want to have a serious, reasonable public discussion about Climate Change, and I'd welcome more scientists with different views, addressing the controversies surrounding data, research on a panel or several public panels, debating the real issues, the impacts and what we can do about it as the general population. So that we as the people can make our mind up about what is most pressing and how to go on about it.

But this does not take place right now. I wonder why? The lack of connection between science and people is striking, given the fact that it affects us all in some way or another. I also think the media aren't reporting fairly and in a balanced style about the lack of consensus in many areas regarding Climate Change.

 

I am not a Climate scientist and thus it's a complete waste of time for you to attempt to mock me with your hypothetical Nobel Prize scenario. You can do better than that.

 

...no you're not, and neither am I (though climate physics was part of my university study).

 

However, you seem to posit that you know better than these climate scientists, or at the very least doubt their research methods, their intent and their competence as your first paragraph shows here. And you seem to be making this assertion based on nothing more than your own ideology rather than any scientific framework. So yeah, perhaps I was a little facetious there...but perhaps you should examine your own stance towards decent people first.

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

 

If these activists were so hell-bent on spouting their "truth", they should at least be consequential and hit where it hurts the most, travel to various places that are the worst polluters on this planet. China, the US, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, various African countries. But I suppose the UN is a bit more attractive and more of a "safe space" and a more welcoming platform to provide propaganda...

Make it a World Tour and stop preaching to the choir.

 

I grow a little weary of repeating myself, but once more: going to these countries would serve no useful purpose in acheiving the objectives required. Lobbying governments to pressure these countries might.

 

Folks seem hellbent on pushing some kind of hypocrisy angle here when anyone with a faint understanding of the situation would know the above is true and so, again, it's just a convenient snipe designed to discredit the activism as a whole.

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Advocating for less children being born in context of Climate Change has nothing to do with eugenics and bringing up a creep persona such as Josef Mengele is a distasteful move on your behalf. In relation to the population increase at present, yes, we need to look at the birthrates in Africa and Asia in particular, as these two regions are the two biggest drivers in that regard.

Even the UN acknowledges this as one of the two main issues we're facing right now:

https://opinion.inquirer.net/124098/world-un-must-reduce-population-growth

So, following your logic, the UN are full of Nazis now?

 

 

...advocating for less children being born in the context of climate change has nothing to do with eugenics. The UN advocate for less population growth all around the world - not eugenicist.

 

Advocating for less children to be born in two particular places largely inhabited by people of a particular ethnicity and skin colour, even if those places are the largest drivers of population growth, can rather easily be confused with eugenicist and eco-fascist arguments seen up and down the internet. To avoid that kind of confusion, perhaps some further clarity of speech is called for?

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

If we continue at this rate with an increase in population, then yes, that is the most likely scenario for a war. A war over a decreasing amount of resources in relation to a needy population. And water is probably the common good that is most in danger, as seen with the attempts at privatizing the use of water sources by reprehensible companies such as Nestlé.

 

The Project Drawdown list you provide is interesting, yet also flawed. How are these predictions measured? Concrete numbers are future thinking, because at present, we cannot predict  the exact amount of impact these changes will have. In the end, all that remains are assumptions and computer models that cannot foresee future reality.

I agree that some of the measures are feasible or at least, interesting enough to be pursued. But nothing new as opposed to what I've said before. In the end, most of it boils down to technological advancement once more. Again, I'm not a fan of wind energy, mainly because it is not efficient enough. But creating more energy-effcient motors, ACs or other electric consumer goods for example is the way forward. And again, we're indeed making progress and we'll continue to do so. Small steps towards a brighter future in countries that are already performing well enough, and more drastic measures for countries that are the worst offenders.

Lack of resources can just as easily be caused by increased drought and/or flooding caused by climate change as it can by increasing population.

 

WRT the Drawdown numbers: yes, all we have are computer models. We also have computer models for modelling other unstable future systems - financial markets, quantum behaviour, etc. Should they also all be disregarded?

 

At least at the end we find something we can agree on: technological advancement is the best and likely only way forward on this one.

Edited 25 September 2019 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I've not been in for a while, some interesting stuff in here.

The project drawdown list looks like a sensible list of realistic activities, however they are pretty much all happening already in the West at least.  If you accept that China, India and Africa re the main problem areas, then do we think that by leading the way and pushing down cost as technology develops we will accelerate change in those countries?  I suppose that makes sense.  I don't hear a lot of talk about the fact that the west still owns the emissions of the the Asian etc factories which make all our consumer goods.  You cannot outsource responsibility for emissions as much as Trump likes to deny responsibility.

 

We should really be using trade policy to require low emission manufacturing and reducing transport.  It has occured to me that the irony of no deal Brexit would be more local produce being consumed and lower miles.  Which is obvioulsy a positive no one seems to want to mention:)

 

Perhaps, perhaps not - we've got to put pressure on them to do so, I think - and that is what most of the sensible climate activists are advocating for.

 

It's also a fair point that while China and India have the largest emissions, they do it while producing cheap stuff for the West and yeah, there's a responsibility there. Still, as I've said a few times, pointing fingers isn't going to do much good when the consequences target everyone, not just those responsible.

 

I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to globalised production - other than perhaps for certain foodstuffs. What you can do - what we really should be looking to do - is making the methods of production and transportation cleaner in of themselves.

[leicsmac]

A page from the IPCC Sea Temperatures report (if the data can be trusted, of course):

 

 

Long story short, blue line is if we apply the solutions necessary in a full and timely fashion. Red line is if we do not, and is an approximation of our current trajectory (for all the work we've been "trying" to do).

 

This is not a runaway train, we can still mitigate the effects.

Edited 25 September 2019 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

Not just for you, but also for @leicsmac: Here's an example of how skeptic I am with regards to Climate science.

 

Remember the Hockey Stick curve/theory?

The curve, often used in Climate Change activist circles and referred to in Climate science, allegedly shows how temperatures have risen excessively in the past 100 years.

 

Well, its inventor, Michael Mann, is caught in a bit of a scientific scandal and doesn't come across as somebody who would like to share the grounds for his research, which is odd:

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-26-michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud?fbclid=IwAR3c5rKuSyIenGKPwlo41FOp3ZPQJFpwf_OeF282e_85Qob8n2E3u5ZrttE

Edited 25 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

Or the fact that hundreds of scientists are turning away from the IPCC (2014)?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

 

Damning excerpts:

Quote

This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

 

Quote

The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

 

Quote

Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

 

Quote

“The great climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet,”

 

Quote

2010 saw the once vaunted UN IPCC now become the object of ridicule and scrutiny. In June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that claims such as “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate” are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. “That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.” [Note: Hulme is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

 

Quote

The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process – LINK)

 

Quote

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process

 

I find that read quite interesting.

 

So much for your

Quote

- there is little or no discussion within the scientific community about the veracity of this information, given how heavily it has been researched and peer reviewed. (that last one in bold because implying there is some kind of conflict with the scientific community at large about the facts above is dishonest in the extreme and you know that as well as I do.)

 

Would you like to comment?

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Not just for you, but also for @leicsmac: Here's an example of how skeptic I am with regards to Climate science.

 

Remember the Hockey Stick curve/theory?

The curve, often used in Climate Change activist circles and referred to in Climate science, allegedly shows how temperatures have risen excessively in the past 100 years.

 

Well, its inventor, Michael Mann, is caught in a bit of a scientific scandal and doesn't come across as somebody who would like to share the grounds for his research, which is odd:

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-8-26-michael-mann-hockey-stick-update-now-definitively-proven-to-be-fraud?fbclid=IwAR3c5rKuSyIenGKPwlo41FOp3ZPQJFpwf_OeF282e_85Qob8n2E3u5ZrttE

 

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Or the fact that hundreds of scientists are turning away from the IPCC (2014)?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

 

Damning excerpts:

 

 

 

Would you like to comment?

Certainly, and it will thankfully be brief.

 

The Manhattan Contrarian is a controversial source (have a look at some of the other articles) and the "hockey-stick" graph has been investigated rather thoroughly.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

Globalresearch.ca is still more controversial, being an InfoWars-style conspiracy site with precious little picking between fact and fiction:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

 

Not to mention the information itself is close to or over a decade old, which is rather a long time in this debate.

 

Parse your sources more carefully and look for credible ones and they will be considered further.

[MC Prussian]

22 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Certainly, and it will thankfully be brief.

 

The Manhattan Contrarian is a controversial source (have a look at some of the other articles) and the "hockey-stick" graph has been investigated rather thoroughly.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

Globalresearch.ca is still more controversial, being an InfoWars-style conspiracy site with precious little picking between fact and fiction:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

 

Not to mention the information itself is close to or over a decade old, which is rather a long time in this debate.

 

Parse your sources more carefully and look for credible ones and they will be considered further.

Don't attack the source, attack the message.

 

For instance Steve McIntyre:

If an often applauded and referenced scientist like Michael Mann can't disclose the fundaments of his research, the data and his methodology, and after careful reconstruction of his research by McIntyre indicates that he seems to have tampered with the results, it very likely means he has something to hide.

The Hockey Stick theory remains disputed.

This sound better to you as a source?

https://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.hidethedecline.asp

 

Have the 1'000 scientists criticzing the IPCC (updated in 2014) all reverted back to their former status?

You can argue against globalresearch, but you're being lazy here - you'd be best taking apart its sources for said article, among them CBS and the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

 

Here's the PDF with many, many quotes from actual scientists:

http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

 

Updated list with skeptical scientists (not complete):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

 

The fact remains that the "consensus" you refer to encompasses a certain group only - there is no real consensus, otherwise everyone, every single scientist working in Climate science, no matter what field he or she is originally from. would agree wholeheartedly. And criticism where criticism is due in the scientific world.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Don't attack the source, attack the message.

 

For instance Steve McIntyre:

If an often applauded and referenced scientist like Michael Mann can't disclose the fundaments of his research, the data and his methodology, and after careful reconstruction of his research by McIntyre indicates that he seems to have tampered with the results, it very likely means he has something to hide.

The Hockey Stick theory remains disputed.

This sound better to you as a source?

https://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.hidethedecline.asp

 

Have the 1'000 scientists criticzing the IPCC (updated in 2014) all reverted back to their former status?

You can argue against globalresearch, but you're being lazy here - you'd be best taking apart its sources for said article, among them CBS and the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

 

Here's the PDF with many, many quotes from actual scientists:

http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

 

Updated list with skeptical scientists (not complete):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

 

The fact remains that the "consensus" you refer to encompasses a certain group only - there is no real consensus, otherwise everyone, every single scientist working in Climate science, no matter what field he or she is originally from. would agree wholeheartedly. And criticism where criticism is due in the scientific world.

The message means shit if the source is a lying propagandist.  

 

According to one of the articles on that Global Research site:

Quote

Ukraine is a Nazi-infested police state, installed by the Obama regime in February 2014

Or should we not attack the source and attack the Obama-backed Nazi Ukranian state?

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

The message means shit if the source is a lying propagandist.  

 

According to one of the articles on that Global Research site:

Or should we not attack the source and attack the Obama-backed Nazi Ukranian state?

Nice job of deflecting there.

You can certainly be critical of the globalresearch enterprise, hence me pointing to the more credible sources that make up the vast majority of the article.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

Nice job of deflecting there.

You can certainly be critical of the globalresearch enterprise, hence me pointing to the more credible sources that make up the vast majority of the article.

Did you read those sources, though?  That Wikipedia page about scientists who disagree with global warming tells us that 97-98% of scientists agree that mankind is significantly warming the planet for instance, stark contrast to your claim of significant levels of doubt.

[MC Prussian]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Did you read those sources, though?  That Wikipedia page about scientists who disagree with global warming tells us that 97-98% of scientists agree that mankind is significantly warming the planet for instance, stark contrast to your claim of significant levels of doubt.

The 97 to 98 percent refer to the most actively publishing climate researchers supporting the IPCC's ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change), as described in the footnotes.

 

It does not equal all scientists.

Edited 25 September 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

The 97 to 98 percent refer to the most actively publishing climate researchers supporting the IPCC's ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change), as described in the footnotes.

 

It does not equal all scientists.

So of the scientists actively engaged in studying the subject and publishing their findings, only 2-3% disagree with the IPCC's assertion that mankind is a significant contributor to climate change.  And your point was what, again?

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

So of the scientists actively engaged in studying the subject and publishing their findings, only 2-3% disagree with the IPCC's assertion that mankind is a significant contributor to climate change.  And your point was what, again?

That there is no consensus on climate change - especially not as defined by the IPCC.

[Carl the Llama]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

That there is no consensus on climate change - especially not as defined by the IPCC.

97-98% isn't a consensus.  Genius.

Edited 25 September 2019 by Carl the Llama
Unnecessary tangent

[MC Prussian]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

97-98% isn't a consensus.  Genius.

As defined by the IPCC solely... But thanks for missing my point.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

As defined by the IPCC solely... But thanks for missing my point.

No, you've missed the point. I know you've read the wikipedia footnotes so you've obviously misunderstood the following sentence:

Quote

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

That or I actually have missed the point and you're serious about a dissension rate of 2-3% indicating significant doubt in the scientific community that mankind has had a significant effect on the climate.  

[MC Prussian]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

No, you've missed the point. I know you've read the wikipedia footnotes so you've obviously misunderstood the following sentence:

That or I actually have missed the point and you're serious about a dissension rate of 2-3% indicating significant doubt in the scientific community that mankind has had a significant effect on the climate.  

In the scientific community following the IPCC's definition/outline of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change).

There is a scientific community outside that realm.

 

CThompson articulated it way better:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=17&t=822&&a=17

Quote

I think the whole problem I have with this alleged "scientific consensus" claim is the symantic gymnastics it is they engage in. To hear them talk, ALL scientists, or even ALL climate scientists, agree that climate change is happening and humans are responsible. However, and we'll use the Doran study in this example, we find out that actually isn't the case. If we analyze the Doran study and break it down, 10,257 earth scientists were asked to participate in an online survey. Of those, only 3,146 of those asked participated in the study. And, of those 3,146 earth scientists, 5% were climate scientists. That means some approximate 158 of them were climatescientists. Now, surely, there are more climate scientists than 158 and, there's certainly more earth scientists than 3,146 of them and, we can feel pretty confident that there's more scientists than the 10,257 that were asked to participate.

See what I mean now?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

In the scientific community following the IPCC's definition/outline of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change).

There is a scientific community outside that realm.

 

CThompson articulated it way better:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=17&t=822&&a=17

See what I mean now?

No.  In the community of climate scientists, 97-98% agree that the IPCC's ACC model is accurate.  Keep reading that sentence I quoted (and which you asked me to read thinking I hadn't).  You'll get there.

 

Btw this 'all scientists' thing is a moot point.  When it comes to climate science I only care about climate scientists who have undertaken research and published their studies.  These are the people included in the 97-98% figure.

[Wymsey]

'Global warming is a myth', don't think so somehow..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49817804

[WigstonWanderer]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

In the scientific community following the IPCC's definition/outline of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change).

There is a scientific community outside that realm.

 

CThompson articulated it way better:

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=17&t=822&&a=17

See what I mean now?

Clear as mud

Edited 25 September 2019 by WigstonWanderer