Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
    That was actually a great post doc...16 words....

    But i DID ask for an opinion, for or against.

    Undoubted inteelectuals such as your good self are sitting on the fence, and we are still spending money going round in circles.

    I would like to award the gong to someone from whose posting's i bellieve is the smartest individual on this forum...but...fence sitter are a no go...

    Sorry. My daughter has to have SOMETHING to tell her class!
    My opinion is that I support spending money to study the Earth and its geological, geophysical, meteorological, hydrological and oceanographic processes (AKA Earth Science). This includes climate science.

    The AAPG.position statement is more than 25 words long, but it would be a good starting point for your daughter...

    https://dpa.aapg.org/gac/statements/climatechange.cfm
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
      Why spend money studying climate change?

      It's the same reason we spend money studying plate tectonics, meteorology and all other natural processes which affect humans, our civilization (or lack thereof) and our economic & agricultural activities.

      16 words...
      The better we understand actual and potential geophysical hazards, the better we can adapt to them.


      The problem with climate science, in its current form, is that it has been hijacked by politicians and bureaucrats. Rather than operating from Chamberlin's Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, it is operating from a Ruling Paradigm, a seriously flawed paradigm.

      Biodiversity is a meaningless word...

      Biodiversity is a crude measure of environmental health and while I appreciate what you are trying to say I'm not sure that crude measures are not better than none.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
        Biodiversity is a crude measure of environmental health and while I appreciate what you are trying to say I'm not sure that crude measures are not better than none.
        It depends entirely on how the crude measures are used.

        If a crude low resolution measure is spliced onto modern high resolution measures for the purpose of declaring the latter to be evidence that we are on the cusp of a sixth mass extinction, it is worse than none.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
          EXCERPT:

          As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

          A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

          The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

          In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

          According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:
          Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
          Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.
          ...
          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/


          Unravelling new processes at interfaces: photochemical isoprene production at the sea surface
          http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388


          Here for now, may need to "spam" to other ACC/AGW threads later ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            MASSIVE GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
            EXCERPT:

            As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.

            A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.

            The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.

            In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.

            According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:
            Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
            Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.
            ...
            http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09...climate_talks/


            Unravelling new processes at interfaces: photochemical isoprene production at the sea surface
            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388


            Here for now, may need to "spam" to other ACC/AGW threads later ...
            Any reaction from the scientific "consensus" folks yet?
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • Whether or not Climate Change is Man Made or not water has been on the Radar Screen as some kind of answer to the problem.
              Some form of (Zuiderzee type)dam over James Bay was the birth child of a Mining Engineer from New Foundland in the 1950's
              http://www.britannica.com/place/Zuiderzee
              http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscons...217472611.html
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_...elopment_Canal

              Hope these links are on topic and of interest.

              Regards, Patrick
              Last edited by SmackUm; 04 Dec 15, 15:57.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                Any reaction from the scientific "consensus" folks yet?
                Nah. They are dealing with science and can't be bothered with fanatics, corporate lackeys and pseudo scientific mercenaries.

                However, apologies for the late reply . I didn't realise that AGW denial was in the correct place . Might even take someone off ignore .
                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                  Nah. They are dealing with science and can't be bothered with fanatics, corporate lackeys and pseudo scientific mercenaries.

                  However, apologies for the late reply . I didn't realise that AGW denial was in the correct place . Might even take someone off ignore .
                  The key point is that they are dealing with anthropogenic climate forcing and that is the only subject on the table. I have never said AGW was not real but I insist that without knowing what the background ("natural") temperature is going to be you are not making useful predictions.

                  Both sides seem to be more than willing to massage the data to get the answers they want. I think what most people fail to understand is that this is not unusual in "research". There are a lots of very large egos at play and we all know how human nature is not always what we would like it to be.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    The key point is that they are dealing with anthropogenic climate forcing and that is the only subject on the table. I have never said AGW was not real but I insist that without knowing what the background ("natural") temperature is going to be you are not making useful predictions.

                    Both sides seem to be more than willing to massage the data to get the answers they want. I think what most people fail to understand is that this is not unusual in "research". There are a lots of very large egos at play and we all know how human nature is not always what we would like it to be.
                    We know AGW to be true because there are only two options concerning AGW.

                    1. Either it's true.....?
                    In that case, the current strategy of the fossil fuel corporations is spot on. Rather than deal directly with the science under their own name, they use internet mercenaries to promote denial and selective data to foster discord and distrust compared with actual scientific data. It worked for the tobacco industry for decades using other media.

                    Does anyone here still believe tobacco is safe? Even if second hand smoke? Those with more than one brain cell will probably state the correct conclusion.

                    2. Either it's false....?

                    In that case, an industry that supplies over 80% of the worlds energy requirements has real management issues. They are incompetent to a degree of moron off the scale for a usual corp.

                    We do know that some fossil fuel corporations have dubious levels of intellect. Let's take Tony 'I'd like my life back' Hayward. CEO of BP when the Deepwater Horizon spill happened, the catalogue of errors that led to 1000's of lives, businesses and families being effected is still relevant.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...izon_oil_spill

                    However, the reason for this disaster was down to profit. Costs were cut at important points. Why? To save money.

                    To understand a corporation, you only need to really consider one element, its share price. Its dividend is the second consideration, and nothing else comes close. This is why BP's option to try to ignore safety concerns can be considered important. It was not down to a lack of IQ on the part of the senior management of BP that the devastation happened. It was down to the probability that costs could be saved in cutting corners. They failed in this instance, but are more than doing okay in monetary concerns.

                    Lower costs mean higher profits. Higher profits mean a higher share price and greater dividends.

                    Higher share dividends is another reason why AGW is true. Major shareholders are not stupid, especially when it comes to money. If AGW was false, they would have made sure the truth was known. They have not. Money talks.

                    The fossil fuel industry has not directly sponsored anyone under their own name to really counter AGW.

                    Share price is everything, and the FF corporations know better. Money talks, and if AGW could be denied, it would have been done so several years ago. They have either failed due to incompetence, or because it is true.
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      We know AGW to be true because there are only two options concerning AGW.

                      1. Either it's true.....?

                      [...]

                      2. Either it's false....?


                      [...]
                      3. Or it's an unproven hypothesis.

                      4. Or it's a falsified hypothesis, hanging on only due to the power of paradigm.

                      5. Or, to the extent it exists, it is insignificant relative to natural variability.

                      6. Or it is a combination of 3, 4 and 5.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        We know AGW to be true because there are only two options concerning AGW.

                        1. Either it's true.....?
                        In that case, the current strategy of the fossil fuel corporations is spot on. Rather than deal directly with the science under their own name, they use internet mercenaries to promote denial and selective data to foster discord and distrust compared with actual scientific data. It worked for the tobacco industry for decades using other media.

                        Does anyone here still believe tobacco is safe? Even if second hand smoke? Those with more than one brain cell will probably state the correct conclusion.

                        2. Either it's false....?

                        In that case, an industry that supplies over 80% of the worlds energy requirements has real management issues. They are incompetent to a degree of moron off the scale for a usual corp.

                        We do know that some fossil fuel corporations have dubious levels of intellect. Let's take Tony 'I'd like my life back' Hayward. CEO of BP when the Deepwater Horizon spill happened, the catalogue of errors that led to 1000's of lives, businesses and families being effected is still relevant.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom...izon_oil_spill

                        However, the reason for this disaster was down to profit. Costs were cut at important points. Why? To save money.

                        To understand a corporation, you only need to really consider one element, its share price. Its dividend is the second consideration, and nothing else comes close. This is why BP's option to try to ignore safety concerns can be considered important. It was not down to a lack of IQ on the part of the senior management of BP that the devastation happened. It was down to the probability that costs could be saved in cutting corners. They failed in this instance, but are more than doing okay in monetary concerns.

                        Lower costs mean higher profits. Higher profits mean a higher share price and greater dividends.

                        Higher share dividends is another reason why AGW is true. Major shareholders are not stupid, especially when it comes to money. If AGW was false, they would have made sure the truth was known. They have not. Money talks.

                        The fossil fuel industry has not directly sponsored anyone under their own name to really counter AGW.

                        Share price is everything, and the FF corporations know better. Money talks, and if AGW could be denied, it would have been done so several years ago. They have either failed due to incompetence, or because it is true.
                        This is a strawman because I never denied that AGW was real.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                          This is a strawman because I never denied that AGW was real.
                          A strawman, false dilemma and a burden of proof fallacy.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                            This is a strawman because I never denied that AGW was real.
                            I never said in that post whether you said that AGW was real or false.

                            I am simply stating that AGW has to be true or false. There is no other option.

                            If AGW is true, the FF corporations strategy in using the same methods as the tobacco industries is spot on, at least as far as share price is concerned.

                            If AGW is false, the mismanagement by the FF industries, from their board through to their science and PR departments, borders on the epic moron scale. If the truth is so obvious they could have informed us themselves, and without concerned parties being paid to do so via 2nd and 3rd entities.

                            Either AGW is true, or FF corporations are run by truly incompetent managers. While there is some evidence for the latter, I doubt the whole industry is run by morons. Their shareholders would not allow it.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                              I never said in that post whether you said that AGW was real or false.

                              I am simply stating that AGW has to be true or false. There is no other option.

                              If AGW is true, the FF corporations strategy in using the same methods as the tobacco industries is spot on, at least as far as share price is concerned.

                              If AGW is false, the mismanagement by the FF industries, from their board through to their science and PR departments, borders on the epic moron scale. If the truth is so obvious they could have informed us themselves, and without concerned parties being paid to do so via 2nd and 3rd entities.

                              Either AGW is true, or FF corporations are run by truly incompetent managers. While there is some evidence for the latter, I doubt the whole industry is run by morons. Their shareholders would not allow it.
                              False dilemma and burden of proof fallacies.

                              "AGW" is generally defined as the proposition that anthropogenic activities have been the primary (>50%) cause of the global warming that occurred after 1950.

                              The burden of proof resides with the advocates of this proposition. The scientific method dictates that they formulate a hypothesis, test it and verify it. Thus far they have not been able to do so. The AGW hypothesis has failed every test it has faced.
                              Last edited by The Doctor; 06 Feb 16, 07:31.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • I'm really tired of the analogy with tobacco. Tobacco was know to be deadly by almost everyone I knew that smoked when I was kid long before the government decided to campaign about the health risks. To compare the use of fossil fuels to the use of tobacco is to deny that fossil fuels ever had a benefit for mankind and to imply that tobacco use was at one time beneficial. To equate something that has greatly improved the health and well being of humans to something that as been a scourge since it's introduction shows the delusional nature of the people that demonized fossil fuels.

                                If you could make the case that fossil fuels could be eliminated tomorrow and the human race would be better for it then perhaps it would not be so insane to try and argue their inherent evil. Even if fossil fuels are replaced by environmentally friendly alternatives for ground transportation and electric power they will still be needed for things such as jet fuel for the foreseeable future.

                                This presentation of reductio ad absurdum argument is in itself a strawman.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X