Jump to content
Science Forums

The GW denialists are winning


Michaelangelica

Recommended Posts

Denialists win because alarmists want too much. Everyone wants a clean environment and we know you have to trade production for waste and energy for heat There are physical laws that control these things, it’s not a political choice. Everyone wants a good climate, my grandparents moved to Florida. Adaptation is a perfectly good climate strategy, too. At least it has a proven utility, past experience and firm experimental base.

 

I don't know what the climate will be next year, and I don't believe you do either. If you could produce a series of short or medium term forecasts, we could test your climate model. As it stands, they don't seem much better than random chance. No one wants a climate catastrophe, you don't want catastrophic global warming, I don't want another ice age.

 

We both have the same incentives. There are market solutions to our problems. Forest and soil carbon sequestration, nuclear and hydroelectric power has proven low carbon impacts. Letting governments, instead of individuals and markets, select energy policy is a sure disaster. We have ethanol mandates, turning food into famine based fuel additives. We have punitive taxes on all fuels and tax incentives for inefficient solar and wind power generation.

 

The very fact that CO2 emission restrictions and conservation gained its current popularity proves that there is a demand for low carbon energy and CO2 sequestration schemes, but they must compete with "Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing." (Ann Coulter). Why are only ethanol additives pumped at every gas station, instead of choice? Why can't we let the market sell beautiful windmills, instead of tax subsidies? All denialists want is freedom of choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what the climate will be next year, and I don't believe you do either. If you could produce a series of short or medium term forecasts, we could test your climate model. As it stands, they don't seem much better than random chance. No one wants a climate catastrophe, you don't want catastrophic global warming, I don't want another ice age.

Any model you or I could come up with is dwarfed by the models being used. Nobody is claiming they are perfect and it is a constantly evolving science.

 

An ice age would be bad too, for sure. It's very likely inevitable, though with our great AGW experiment going on right now, perhaps we will know how to stave it off a bit in the future.

 

But human meddling aside, there's a good argument to be made for just letting Earth do it's thing, without so much influence from us, whether you see that influence as negative or positive.

 

We both have the same incentives.

 

I'd like to hope so.

 

There are market solutions to our problems. Forest and soil carbon sequestration, nuclear and hydroelectric power has proven low carbon impacts. Letting governments, instead of individuals and markets, select energy policy is a sure disaster. We have ethanol mandates, turning food into famine based fuel additives. We have punitive taxes on all fuels and tax incentives for inefficient solar and wind power generation.

 

The very fact that CO2 emission restrictions and conservation gained its current popularity proves that there is a demand for low carbon energy and CO2 sequestration schemes, but they must compete with "Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing." (Ann Coulter). Why are only ethanol additives pumped at every gas station, instead of choice? Why can't we let the market sell beautiful windmills, instead of tax subsidies? All denialists want is freedom of choice.

 

I understand where you are coming from as I too believe in the power of market forces, left unfettered. Though, with respect to the environment, my Libertarian ties end. We've seen the results over and over where industry has botched up the environment. If companies do not have incentives to not-pollute, then they will not do it. Of course, this is slowly starting to change a bit as people demand responsible business practices (the whole "green" phenomena). But it's mostly a show, throwing us a bone. (this is not to disparage the great companies out there doing great things for the environment)

 

It's a tough decision and I don't think either extreme (total market control vs. no market control) is going to help the environment in a way that will also help humanity's inventions, like the economy and humanitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

An ice age would be bad too, for sure. It's very likely inevitable, though with our great AGW experiment going on right now, perhaps we will know how to stave it off a bit in the future.

...

 

What we are doing now is burning fossil fuel to give us heat, light, electricity and transportation, not experimenting with AGW. This is a common mistake, until we test a series of measured sequestrations or releases of [ce]CO2[/ce], and climate measurements, this is merely our life, and not an experiment. We've experimented with the effects of man made particulates in the atmosphere and measured the cooling effect, but to my knowledge, this has not yet been tried with [ce]CO2[/ce]. The effect must be too small.

 

We might try experimenting with [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate by building a Super Power Plant, filtering all atmospheric emissions but [ce]CO2[/ce], and measuring climate downwind of the plant. We could also try planting barren land to sequester [ce]CO2[/ce].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the argument methane is a GHG or not?

Is the argument that it is rising?

Is the argument that it could be involved in a "tipping point" event ( and that this does, or does not, matter)

What is the argument?

 

This is an excellent talk on the economics of CC

Nicholas Stern's blueprint for a safer planet

 

Nicholas Stern Courtesy IMF (Wiki Commons)

 

. . .One of the key players in Copenhagen this week will be Sir Nicholas Stern, the most important climate economist in the world.

 

He is the author of the Stern Review, a 700-page report released in October 2006 and commissioned by the British government which looks at the effect of global warming on the world economy.

 

He was recently a guest speaker at the Times Cheltenham Literature Festival and gave this lecture, defining the tasks for world leaders in Copenhagen.

Nicholas Stern's blueprint for a safer planet - RN Book Show - 8 December 2009

Lots of facts figures and probability estimates of various events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denialists win because alarmists want too much.

"Alarmist" or are people becoming too alarmed because they don't understand what is happening? Yes scientists, perhaps, need to realise they are talking to the 50% of the population with below average intelligence too. or those who usually get their news in 4 second grabs on TV

Everyone wants a clean environment . . .

we want it but we won't pay for it

Adaptation is a perfectly good climate strategy, too. At least it has a proven utility, past experience and firm experimental base.

Yes it is, and this will happen. The problem is we humans may not have the time.

+5 degrees and Florida is gone.(a 50% possibility).

 

I don't know what the climate will be next year, and I don't believe you do either.
No but the models are getting better and better all the time. When i was young a dart board would have given you a better weather forecast than the Meteorological beuro. Now they are accurate 2-7 days ahead and can predict long term (6 month) trends( likely hood of rain here). The rest is probabilities

Did you listen to Stern?

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/12/bsw_20091208.mp3

 

There are market solutions to our problems. Forest and soil carbon sequestration, nuclear and hydroelectric power has proven low carbon impacts. Letting governments, instead of individuals and markets, select energy policy is a sure disaster. We have ethanol mandates, turning food into famine based fuel additives. We have punitive taxes on all fuels and tax incentives for inefficient solar and wind power generation.
Yes all this is true. (Although hydroeletric is not as CO2 negative as you would think.)

 

The very fact that CO2 emission restrictions and conservation gained its current popularity proves that there is a demand for low carbon energy and CO2 sequestration schemes, but they must compete with "Jet Skis, steak on the electric grill, hot showers, and night skiing." (Ann Coulter). Why are only ethanol additives pumped at every gas station, instead of choice? Why can't we let the market sell beautiful windmills, instead of tax subsidies? All denialists want is freedom of choice.
I am constantly amazed that Yanks still believe in the " 'Free' Capitalist Market" to solve all our problems, given their recent track record. I wish I had your faith.

 

We might try experimenting with [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate by building a Super Power Plant, filtering all atmospheric emissions but [ce]CO2[/ce], and measuring climate downwind of the plant. We could also try planting barren land to sequester [ce]CO2[/ce].

I don't think Climate works on such a local level. We are all in it together on this little spaceship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...[T]he models are getting better and better all the time. When i was young a dart board would have given you a better weather forecast than the Meteorological beuro. Now they are accurate 2-7 days ahead and can predict long term (6 month) trends( likely hood of rain here). The rest is probabilities

Did you listen to Stern?

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/12/bsw_20091208.mp3

...

 

You should peruse the /cru-code file in /documents from the Climategate file. It shows the models are fixed to reproduce past observed climate change, and then build "forecasts" dominated by carbon forcing. The file's a little over 31MB, or I'd upload it myself.

 

I don't share your belief in the improvement of climate models, you point to weather models but we are all quick to say weather and climate aren't the same thing. I'm not sure why, they are measured with the same instruments in the same places, the same way. The only difference is the time scale.

 

Time scales are a critical factor in modeling. When you deal with a complex, chaotic system, twice the time doesn't mean twice forecast power.

 

I'm listening to Stern now. I wonder if he's going to explain the "hide" part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Denialists" win when proponents of climate change mitiation must resort to name calling, the very term "denialist" shows a lack of open debate. Where are the great debates on man made climate change? Why doesn't Al Gore debate scientists who hold contrary views?

 

1860 Oxford evolution debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

FAMOUS DEBATES; American History Told in Discussions Among Statesmen G... - Article Preview - The New York Times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Do all you denialists get your arguments out of the same manual?

Why do you doubt the sincerity of my criticism? Would it be appropriate for me to question the source of your ideas? It doesn't matter where you learn something, the content of the ideas are important. Labeling is the way we avoid thinking, put opponents in a neat categorical slot, and your done. Then, there's no need to question your beliefs.

Skeptics of man made climate change are skeptics, it's as simple as that. Using emotion laden terminology isn't furthering the debate, and finding the truth. There are serious problems with climate change mitigation; people don't understand the probabilities, costs and benefits. The fault lies with climate science, not with the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you doubt the sincerity of my criticism?

I for one don't doubt your sincerity. I question your methods. That's different.

Would it be appropriate for me to question the source of your ideas?

Yes. Since you have done that repeatedly, I'm glad I could reassure you.

It doesn't matter where you learn something, the content of the ideas are important.

We'v all been subjected to scrutiny. There are jokes among the Moderators about how many times I've had to apologize. We have the right to question each other any time any of us makes an affirmative statement of fact. There's always a chance any of us might have made a mistake. Also, since we don't know each other, there's always a chance any of us is just making stuff up. It is simply part of the scientific method and scientific curiosity to want to know where statistics come from. I personally am not a trained scientist, but I'm a trained journalist, so I have the same instincts.

Labeling is the way we avoid thinking, put opponents in a neat categorical slot, and your done. Then, there's no need to question your beliefs.

You are right about labeling. Urban Dictionary defines "Denialist" as simply "One who excessively denies the truth." It also defines "Alarmist" as "Someone who is always jumping to conclusions or thinking the worst." It seems to me that's pretty much a draw. I agree strongly about questioning beliefs. I like the line from Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

Skeptics of man made climate change are skeptics, it's as simple as that. Using emotion laden terminology isn't furthering the debate, and finding the truth.

I'd like to think all of us here are trying to find the truth--well, at least most of us. There are a couple people I couldn't vouch for. (I'm joking.)

There are serious problems with climate change mitigation; people don't understand the probabilities, costs and benefits.

Pleas help us find those costs and benefits.

The fault lies with climate science, not with the public.

That isn't a very good start. It's the kind of over-reaching, over-broad, emotionally charged statement you're accusing us of. Let's try to work toward a friendly, empirical study of the problems associated with the controversy over climate change. As an alarmist, I'd like that kind of dialog with any denialist who cares to join the discussion.

 

I'd also like to extract all pejoration from the terms "Alarmist" and "Denialist." Let's see. An Alarmist sees the glass half . . . while a Denialist sees the glass as half . . . . An Alarmist and a Denialist are in a boat when . . . . An Alarmist and a Denialist walk into a bar . . . .

 

Anyody have other reductio ad absurdum suggestions?

 

--lemit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

That isn't a very good start. It's the kind of over-reaching, over-broad, emotionally charged statement you're accusing us of. Let's try to work toward a friendly, empirical study of the problems associated with the controversy over climate change. As an alarmist, I'd like that kind of dialog with any denialist who cares to join the discussion.

 

. . . An Alarmist and a Denialist walk into a bar . . . .

 

--lemit

 

And the bartender gets out a mop and bucket, reduces their carbon footprints 80% below 2000 levels.

 

_________

 

When have I ever accused anyone here of making over-reaching, over-broad , emotionally charged statements? Would you please cite, so I can learn better?

 

Scientists don't merely, research and theorize, they teach. If so many students aren't learning and we can fairly say, "The GW denialists are winning", why not lay some of the blame on the teachers. It's not all the fault of evil fossil fuel producers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When have I ever accused anyone here of making over-reaching, over-broad , emotionally charged statements? Would you please cite, so I can learn better?

 

You've given me another reason to apologize, although I will understand if you don't accept it graciously, because in looking back through your posts I see that instead of accusing others of making over-reaching statements, you yourself have been the one making the over-reaching, insupportable statements.

 

My mistake. Sorry.

 

--lemit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a common mistake, until we test a series of measured sequestrations or releases of [ce]CO2[/ce], and climate measurements, this is merely our life, and not an experiment. We've experimented with the effects of man made particulates in the atmosphere and measured the cooling effect, but to my knowledge, this has not yet been tried with [ce]CO2[/ce]. The effect must be too small.

 

"until we test"? Surely you jest?

 

It is a known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do a search here to find other threads dealing with this issue.

 

We might try experimenting with [ce]CO2[/ce] and climate by building a Super Power Plant, filtering all atmospheric emissions but [ce]CO2[/ce], and measuring climate downwind of the plant.

 

Fortunately, there are devices that measure CO2 output, without worrying about downwind conditions.

 

We could also try planting barren land to sequester [ce]CO2[/ce].

 

If you haven't already looked, I recommend the "Terra Preta" threads for a novel approach to sequestering carbon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...