Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.   Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocaly

This guy went to Princeton University and Harvard Law School for goodness sake! Please tell me he knew the Paris Climate Agreement was named after the location the meeting took place and had nothing t

Anyone else getting a little fed up with being told that we have to "cut this, and cut that" when in truth, the one thing that we MUST cut is the global population.  Anything else is just "fiddling wh

The article you link to is behind a paywall. However there is a discussion here that makes it clear what it is about.

 

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/198963-wsj-confessions-computer-modeler.html?amp;goto=newpost

 

 

"After earning a master’s degree in environmental engineering in 1982, I spent most of the next 10 years building large-scale environmental computer models. My first job was as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency. I was hired to build a model to assess the impact of its Construction Grants Program, a nationwide effort in the 1970s and 1980s to upgrade sewer-treatment plants.

The computer model was huge—it analyzed every river, sewer treatment plant and drinking-water intake (the places in rivers where municipalities draw their water) in the country. I’ll spare you the details, but the model showed huge gains from the program as water quality improved dramatically. By the late 1980s, however, any gains from upgrading sewer treatments would be offset by the additional pollution load coming from people who moved from on-site septic tanks to public sewers, which dump the waste into rivers. Basically the model said we had hit the point of diminishing returns.

When I presented the results to the EPA official in charge, he said that I should go back and “sharpen my pencil.†I did. I reviewed assumptions, tweaked coefficients and recalibrated data. But when I reran everything the numbers didn’t change much. At our next meeting he told me to run the numbers again.

After three iterations I finally blurted out, “What number are you looking for?†He didn’t miss a beat: He told me that he needed to show $2 billion of benefits to get the program renewed. I finally turned enough knobs to get the answer he wanted, and everyone was happy.

Was the EPA official asking me to lie? I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed in the value of continuing the program. (Congress ended the grants in 1990.)"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers MJ

 

Here's the rest of it...

 

" He certainly didn't give any indications otherwise. I also assume he understood the inherent inaccuracies of these types of models. There are no exact values for the coefficients in models such as these. There are only ranges of potential values. By moving a bunch of these parameters to one side or the other you can usually get very different results, often (surprise) in line with your initial beliefs.

I realized that my work for the EPA wasn't that of a scientist, at least in the popular imagination of what a scientist does. It was more like that of a lawyer. My job, as a modeler, was to build the best case for my client's position. The opposition will build its best case for the counter argument and ultimately the truth should prevail.

If opponents don't like what I did with the coefficients, then they should challenge them. And during my decade as an environmental consultant, I was often hired to do just that to someone else's model. But there is no denying that anyone who makes a living building computer models likely does so for the cause of advocacy, not the search for truth.

Surely the scientific community wouldn't succumb to these pressures like us money-grabbing consultants. Aren't they laboring for knowledge instead of profit? If you believe that, boy do I have a computer model to sell you.

The academic community competes for grants, tenure and recognition; consultants compete for clients. And you should understand that the lines between academia and consultancy are very blurry as many professors moonlight as consultants, authors, talking heads, etc.

Let's be clear: I am not saying this is a bad thing. The legal system is adversarial and for the most part functions well. The same is true for science. So here is my advice: Those who are convinced that humans are drastically changing the climate for the worse and those who aren't should accept and welcome a vibrant, robust back-and-forth. Let each side make its best case and trust that the truth will emerge.

Those who do believe that humans are driving climate change retort that the science is "settled" and those who don't agree are "deniers" and "flat-earthers." Even the president mocks anyone who disagrees. But I have been doing this for a long time, and the one thing I have learned is how hard it is to convince people with a computer model. The vast majority of your audience will never, ever understand the math behind it. This does not mean people are dumb. They usually have great BS detectors, and when they see one side of a debate trying to shut down the other side, they will most likely assume it has something to hide, has the weaker argument, or both.

Eventually I got out of the environmental consulting business. In the 1990s I went into a completely different industry, one that was also data intensive and I thought couldn't be nearly as controversial: health care. But that's another story."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

 

Interesting thoughts on climate change about 5 minutes in.....

 

 

Interesting in as much as it reveals that he doesn't understand the basics of Climate Change.

 

This idea that if we take action, it will make no difference for thousands of years is complete nonsense. In fact it is the complete opposite of the truth. If we do not take action within the next 30 years then nature will take matters into her own hands and nothing we do after that will make any difference.

 

There is a point, after which, the natural carbon sinks (peat bogs, rain forests, tundra, the oceans, etc) will change from being natural carbon sinks to being natural carbon sources and Climate Change will take on a life of it's own. Officially, this will begin after 2 degrees of temperature rise though there are many scientists who think that we will pass this point of no return before we reach 2 degrees. On the other hand, you will struggle to find any scientists who think we can go above 2 degrees and get away with it.

 

Another point is the one about "going back to the stone age". This is typical denier nonsense. Nobody is suggesting this. We have the technology to provide the worlds energy needs without digging stuff up and burning it. All we've got to do is build it. Reducing peoples energy use (or increasing efficiency as I prefer to put it) is simply one step towards a sustainable future. Nobody, apart from a few radical nutters on the extreme fringes of the Green movement is suggesting that we need to go back to the stone age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote ArabiaTerra, "This idea that if we take action, it will make no difference for thousands of years is complete nonsense. In fact it is the complete opposite of the truth. If we do not take action within the next 30 years then nature will take matters into her own hands and nothing we do after that will make any difference."

 

Very true, and not only will nature take matters into her own hands but she will do nothing to look after us. The best thing, IMHO, is for us to take action now, otherwise we will keep saying, "In thirty years we'll..." and nothing at all will be done until it's too late.

 

By then we will probably have got a few peeps up to Mars and they'll be selling plots of land to build on, we'll all move there and immediately poison everything until it becomes uninhabitable. 

 

Then we'll be looking for somewhere else to destroy - and on it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting George....

Just a thought though......,  Mars is not some pristine garden of eden waiting for us to exploit.

 I think we would have a hard job making it inhabitable first before we then poison it and move on.

I have my doubts if any thing like that will be happening in 30 years time !!

 

Anyway , I totally agree with ReesMogg .

 

If yourself and Arabia Terra are correct then it will becurtains for all of us!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Gorgonzola. I don't know if it will be Mars. It may be moon or it might be Star Trek. Whatever, man will leave Earth, IMHO. It will not be everyone, though. Those without means will stay and suffer until....

 

One thing I am certain about, it will be a rush to leave when man gets to grips with it - and it's mans fault.

 

And if that doesn't happen then, when the sun turns into a red dwarf in about 5 billion years, and totally fries Earth, it's all over around here anyway ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Oh dear.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/29/skeptical-climate-documentary-set-to-rock-un-climate-summit-film-to-have-red-carpet-premiere-in-paris/

 

Don't you just hate it when the consensual scientists become non-consensual. Politically (and financially) motivated scientists, fuelling the needs of politicians.

 

There is a lot of practical sense in trying to reduce emissions and protect the environment. There is also a lot of completely valueless rhetoric and political investment behind the current attempts to make a difference. India is dramatically increasing its coal fired electric generating capacity, and if you've ever been to China, well what can you say? Indonesia is burning itself up, and has had a direct and very local impact on its neighbours for decades now.

 

Without bringing everyone to action, you are simply pi55ing in the wind! With subjective and politically motivated "scientific" analysis and facts being delivered and adjusted to meet the agenda, there will never be a credible advancement toward a measurable decline in global emissions, which is a goal I can certainly support without the politics involved.

 

The most interesting local development is all the third world nations who are choking in self generated pollution, and are making no attempt to reduce their own emissions, but are lining up at the door with their hands out looking for cash to mitigate the effects of climate change! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a Senator from the Philippines on the TV the other day saying that climate change is the fault of the industrial nations and why should they be denied the same industrialisation process as we went through. There's a contradictory argument if ever you heard one.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 

 

Oh dear.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/29/skeptical-climate-documentary-set-to-rock-un-climate-summit-film-to-have-red-carpet-premiere-in-paris/

 

Don't you just hate it when the consensual scientists become non-consensual. Politically (and financially) motivated scientists, fuelling the needs of politicians.

 

There is a lot of practical sense in trying to reduce emissions and protect the environment. There is also a lot of completely valueless rhetoric and political investment behind the current attempts to make a difference. India is dramatically increasing its coal fired electric generating capacity, and if you've ever been to China, well what can you say? Indonesia is burning itself up, and has had a direct and very local impact on its neighbours for decades now.

 

Without bringing everyone to action, you are simply pi55ing in the wind! With subjective and politically motivated "scientific" analysis and facts being delivered and adjusted to meet the agenda, there will never be a credible advancement toward a measurable decline in global emissions, which is a goal I can certainly support without the politics involved.

 

The most interesting local development is all the third world nations who are choking in self generated pollution, and are making no attempt to reduce their own emissions, but are lining up at the door with their hands out looking for cash to mitigate the effects of climate change! 

 

Waaaah! Waaah!  Fixing Climate Change is haaaard. So we should do nothing.

 

Just another piece of fossil fuel funded propoganda. It will be ignored, as it should.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.

 

Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocalyptic scenario somebody is capable of dreaming up, is as irrational as denying all the crap humanity churns out makes no odds to our surroundings.

 

Somewhere in between the gross extremes of both camps probably lies what is nearest to the truth. It would be nice, even perhaps useful to know what that is, but as long as the shock jocks on either sideline keep shouting at each other, that middle ground is always going to be drowned out. As always, the extremists ruin it for the vast majority of calm and resonable players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 

 

^ Just like the flawed science "climate change" propoganda is being ignored, as it should.

 

Minimising pollution is admirable and worthy of support, but getting all hysterical about the worst apocalyptic scenario somebody is capable of dreaming up, is as irrational as denying all the crap humanity churns out makes no odds to our surroundings.

 

Somewhere in between the gross extremes of both camps probably lies what is nearest to the truth. It would be nice, even perhaps useful to know what that is, but as long as the shock jocks on either sideline keep shouting at each other, that middle ground is always going to be drowned out. As always, the extremists ruin it for the vast majority of calm and resonable players.

 

Wow, Ghosty, didn't know you'd gone full on irrational denier troll. But then you're a troll anyway, so I guess it's your natural habitat. Why don't you actually educate yourself on the science, then you might be able to make a relevant contribution to this debate.

 

Tell you what, why don't you post some specific examples of "flawed science "climate change" propoganda" and I'll tell you why you are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 
 

 

Oh dear.

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/29/skeptical-climate-documentary-set-to-rock-un-climate-summit-film-to-have-red-carpet-premiere-in-paris/

 

Don't you just hate it when the consensual scientists become non-consensual. Politically (and financially) motivated scientists, fuelling the needs of politicians.

 

There is a lot of practical sense in trying to reduce emissions and protect the environment. There is also a lot of completely valueless rhetoric and political investment behind the current attempts to make a difference. India is dramatically increasing its coal fired electric generating capacity, and if you've ever been to China, well what can you say? Indonesia is burning itself up, and has had a direct and very local impact on its neighbours for decades now.

 

Without bringing everyone to action, you are simply pi55ing in the wind! With subjective and politically motivated "scientific" analysis and facts being delivered and adjusted to meet the agenda, there will never be a credible advancement toward a measurable decline in global emissions, which is a goal I can certainly support without the politics involved.

 

The most interesting local development is all the third world nations who are choking in self generated pollution, and are making no attempt to reduce their own emissions, but are lining up at the door with their hands out looking for cash to mitigate the effects of climate change! 

 

Waaaah! Waaah!  Fixing Climate Change is haaaard. So we should do nothing.

 

Just another piece of fossil fuel funded propoganda. It will be ignored, as it should.

 

Not just haaaard.  Impossible.

 

Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.

 

Link to post
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...