Global warming, is it already too late to make meaningful change?

stickyfiddle

fretmeister

modellista said:

Climate "scientists" have been proven liars - see East Anglia and that loony Michael Mann.

Even during the 17-year pause, no climate "scientists" were admitting they got it wrong and hanging up their white coats.

Climate "scientists" are funded on the basis that global warming is happening.  No global warming = no funding.

Agreeing the climate is changing doesn't mean you agree it's 100% (or even 10%) caused by mankind.

A true scientist would acknowledge that nothing can be proven without experiment.  Therefore we cannot ever prove ACG.

Climate modelling has been entirely useless.

If economies steadily move towards low-pollution, low-energy consumption states, maintaining quality of life for their citizens, then fine.  If we all get taxed out of existence because of some unproveable scare story, then not fine.

So guys like Stephen Hawking are wasting their time then?

Still I like the way you use "scientists" every time you mention "scientists" in the hope that it makes it clear you don't think that people with advanced degrees in a subject could actually be "scientists" but in reality it just makes you look like a "twonk"

TheBlueWolf

@fretmeister ;

I suspect any conspiracy is mostly due to politicians being incapable of giving a straight answer, and they heap a load of cobblers on top when they do.

I know a couple of tin foil hat wearing nutters I could ask though

fretmeister

Please don't!

I have enough trouble with nutters already. Their explanations will make sticky's lizard (oo-er) example seem positively sane.

Chalky

fretmeister said:

Chalky said:

If you'd asked world scientists in the late 40s about the universe they would have told you the Steady State theory was correct, and only a few would have said they believed in Big Bang theory. The vast majority of scientists will go along with the prevalent view as a matter of course. Revolutionary or renegade views don't get employment or grants...

Very true.

And it was the first people who said "man made climate change" who were those renegades.

Have you swapped argument horses mid-race? Your answer suggests the 24 renegades on your graph could be the ones with the right answer.

fretmeister

Chalky said:

fretmeister said:

Chalky said:

If you'd asked world scientists in the late 40s about the universe they would have told you the Steady State theory was correct, and only a few would have said they believed in Big Bang theory. The vast majority of scientists will go along with the prevalent view as a matter of course. Revolutionary or renegade views don't get employment or grants...

Very true.

And it was the first people who said "man made climate change" who were those renegades.

Have you swapped argument horses mid-race? Your answer suggests the 24 renegades on your graph could be the ones with the right answer.

Nope. I've merely noticed the passage of time.

I am unaware of any discovery going "backwards" to an early result.

Chalky

One problem is the term "scientists" as in "scientists warn of climate change impact". The term "scientists" is used to conjure the full authority of their collective body. The fact is that the majority of scientists do not work on climate change study. So its rather misleading to use the term "scientists", just as it would be to use the term "Muslims" when talking about ISIL views. But of course, when you're trying to sell an idea, you use all the methods at your disposal.

fretmeister

It reminds me a bit of the anti-evolution lobby who claim that as many as 45% of scientists reject evolution.

99% of those rejecting it are not biologists or zoologists, or even biochemists.

The amount of times I have read "so and so is a scientist and he rejects man made climate change" only to discover that "so and so" is a dental surgeon is amazing.

I wouldn't let the world's greatest knee surgeon operate on my brain and they are in the same basic field of human medicine. So I certainly won't give equal weight of opinion on climate science to the worlds greatest astronomer or immunologist.  

The other day Nigel Lawson tried to get stuck in again by claiming all of science (every field) is broken because no one is paying him any attention. And then he claims that "his" scientists are right. 

Cirrus

Fretwired said:

Although being a cynic I'd point out that there's no funding for global warming deniers .. :-)

And arguments aren't helped by findings like this (backed in part  by NASA) .. https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

I don't think funding works that way. Funding is given to experiments, experiments generate results, results are analysed and conclusions drawn. If you take the cynical view that funding bodies are more likely to give grants to studies they believe will add the the body of evidence that man made global warming is a thing (and I don't think that argument in isolation is totally unreasonable, given that most humans are corruptible and we know institutions can have ulterior motives) , then you still need to provide some evidence, some motivation, and some proof. And that in itself still wouldn't necessarily mean that experiment results and conclusions were fabricated or otherwise suspect. First you'd have to prove the system of funding was biased, then you'd have to prove that the scientists conducting the research were corrupt.

Cirrus

Chalky said:

If you'd asked world scientists in the late 40s about the universe they would have told you the Steady State theory was correct, and only a few would have said they believed in Big Bang theory. The vast majority of scientists will go along with the prevalent view as a matter of course. Revolutionary or renegade views don't get employment or grants...

So what conclusion do you draw from this vis a vis global warming?

thebreeze

Fretwired said:

fretmeister said:

This is a question to all the conspiracy nuts.

What is the purpose of the conspiracy? Every conspiracy needs an aim.

It is NOT taxation as no government has ever need a reason to do whatever they want with taxation.They don't even try to justify their decisions.

So what is the aim?

I don't see it as a conspiracy - its a rational explanation for the evidence. I just think the planet/universe is more complex ... I'd prefer focusing on pollution that kills millions of people a year and activities that pollute the seas, kill wildlife remove forests and habitats and screw up the environment. To do that we need to invest in new tech and take on the big corporations which stand to lose billions.

The fact that over 9000 people a year dies from pollution in London should be a wakeup call to do something.

I know there are plenty of examples where it's gone wrong - the diesel/petrol one mentioned above and the shambolic fishing policies are obvious examples, but do you think it might be easier to achieve the things you list working as a EU rather than an individual state?  All the things you list are global issues which perhaps can't be effectively tackled if we act on our own.

I know I'm introducing another very controversial topic but it is relevant.  I'd be assuming we would have to take a much more involved role/reform institutions/"change from within" etc. but that a united approach from 28 (fairly significant) nations would be more effective when e.g. negotiating with the Brazilian/Chinese/etc. governments and big corporations (although I fully acknowledge that currently the EU probably encourage big corporations/cultural homogenisation etc.)

UnclePsychosis

"Science has been wrong before therefore it must be wrong now" is a spectacularly stupid logical fallacy. 

Science never used to be able to explain electromagnetism, but you don't get weirdos claiming that the modern science behind radars and mobile phones is wrong as a result. 

I have to laugh at the "no-one would fund science that opposed climate change" bollocks. Compare the budget of your average geophysics university group with, say,  Shell or Gazprom. Anyone with any meaningful research that helped the position of the oil and gas industry would get more funding than they could spend. 

fretmeister

Well

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fucking-magnets-how-do-they-work

Cirrus

modellista said:

Climate "scientists" have been proven liars - see East Anglia and that loony Michael Mann.

Nonsense.

modellista said:

Even during the 17-year pause, no climate "scientists" were admitting they got it wrong and hanging up their white coats.

Maybe because the "pause" has an explanation that's totally consistent with the theory of man made global warming - namely that the extra energy trapped by the atmosphere has gone into other processes such as ice melting (which traps energy) and warming oceans rather than into increased atmospheric temperature.

modellista said:

Climate "scientists" are funded on the basis that global warming is happening.  No global warming = no funding.

Nonsense.

modellista said:
Agreeing the climate is changing doesn't mean you agree it's 100% (or even 10%) caused by mankind.

Agreed, but based on geological records and improved understanding of the natural processes we can make some good guesses as to how much attribution to make to different causes.

modellista said:

A true scientist would acknowledge that nothing can be proven without experiment.  Therefore we cannot ever prove ACG.

What's the argument here? That we need to find a control earth, otherwise all the global warming evidence is suspect?

modellista said:

Climate modelling has been entirely useless.

This has no effect on what is actually happening in the real world.

modellista said:

If economies steadily move towards low-pollution, low-energy consumption states, maintaining quality of life for their citizens, then fine.  If we all get taxed out of existence because of some unproveable scare story, then not fine.

And here we have it - the mention of tax.

People choose to be sceptical of global warming because they wrap the whole thing up with politics, and people don't like politics and don't trust governments. So when you have to pay more for fuel because of environmental taxes, it's only natural that we should get annoyed at the authorities and begin to believe that they have an ulterior motive for wanting us to believe in climate change; so they can take our money and line their pockets.

I've been reading an absolutely fascinating book called "Thinking: Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel prize winning psychologist.

He believes that when we are faced with a very complicated question - say "Do I believe in man-made climate change" - which to answer properly would require years of study, a deep understanding of many different fields, the assimilation of lots of different evidence - our brains do something very sneaky. They substitute the difficult question for an easy question, and answer that instead.

And we don't even realise it's happened.

There's something else about the way the brain works - it creates networks of association, which are primed ready to go when a certain topic comes up. So if you're thinking about how plausible global warming is, you also start thinking about associated things - your trust of authority, the government, how they have raised taxes and blamed climate change, how you are being made to feel bad for things like driving your car and living a wasteful consumerist western lifestyle. So it goes;

Question: Do you believe in human caused climate change?

Brain says "I don't know a lot about climate change, but I know the government makes me pay for it and they're a bunch of lying twats only in it for themselves and their mates."

And you get an intuitive answer of "No. Don't believe in it. They're tricking you."

So you decide that climate change doesn't seem plausible and are sceptical of it. Note that you've not looked at any data, you've not dealt with climate change on a purely unbiased theoretical level, but you don't notice that. You just associate it subconsciously with things you don't trust.

Now, you can say I'm wrong, you can think I'm an uppity cunt, that's fine. I'll survive. But I think everyone should really consider how and why they have arrived at their views. Because I think this thing matters. The universe doesn't care about tax. the planet doesn't care about republicans, democrats, Tories, capitalism. It doesn't care about green activists or wind farms or oil companies lobbying politicians or hand-wringing do-gooders. Those are all human concepts. All the universe cares about are the laws of physics. If energy goes into the atmosphere and more of it is trapped because the composition of the atmosphere has changed, then the earth's temperature will go up. If the ice at the poles melts and decreases the earth's libido causing less energy to be reflected back into space, the temperatures go up. If the ice on Antarctica and Greenland melts, the sea level will go up and coastal cities will be flooded. If increased energy in the atmosphere means more tropical storms, rain, less sunlight hitting the ground, and crops fail, then we'll be the ones that suffer. The universe won't care about how much we believed our scientists.

Fretwired

Cirrus said:

I don't think funding works that way.

It does on this issue - no UK university will fund you if you're a climate change denier and since US oil corporation's funded some deniers their work has not been taken seriously.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/worlds-leading-climate-sceptic-sees-his-funding-melt-away-fast-2362056.html

And this just puts ordinary people off ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711

stickyfiddle

UnclePsychosis said:

"Science has been wrong before therefore it must be wrong now" is a spectacularly stupid logical fallacy. 

Science never used to be able to explain electromagnetism, but you don't get weirdos claiming that the modern science behind radars and mobile phones is wrong as a result. 

I have to laugh at the "no-one would fund science that opposed climate change" bollocks. Compare the budget of your average geophysics university group with, say,  Shell or Gazprom. Anyone with any meaningful research that helped the position of the oil and gas industry would get more funding than they could spend. 

Ah, but of course all the Big Oil companies have had working, cost-effective, potentially revolutionary hydrogen cells since the 50's but are holding them back and keeping drilling for oil because apparently making money off something even better wouldn't be OBVIOUSLY A BETTER IDEA FOR EVERYBODY CONCERNED...

:fucking rolleyes:

[/sarcasm, in case anyone thinks I've gone bonkers. You never know in these threads...]

fretmeister

Fretwired said:

Cirrus said:

I don't think funding works that way.

It does on this issue - no UK university will fund you if you're a climate change denier and since US oil corporation's funded some deniers their work has not been taken seriously.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/worlds-leading-climate-sceptic-sees-his-funding-melt-away-fast-2362056.html

And this just puts ordinary people off ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711

And yet Exxon of all people confirmed they now accept that it is real.

Obviously they don't admit that they knew in 1981 despite the content of their leaked emails. They just have no comment to make about it.

And despite them spending over $30 Million to fund denial supporters they now refuse to fund deniers because they know the denialists are talking bollocks.

Cirrus

Fretwired said:

It does on this issue - no UK university will fund you if you're a climate change denier and since US oil corporation's funded some deniers their work has not been taken seriously.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/worlds-leading-climate-sceptic-sees-his-funding-melt-away-fast-2362056.html

And this just puts ordinary people off ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711

I guess in answer to that I'd point you up to my last post. What matters is what's actually happening, the stuff you've linked to is political stuff. I agree, it puts people off. But if climate change is real, it won't go away if everyone stops believing in it because of the crazy Green Party.

TheBlueWolf

fretmeister said:

Please don't!

I have enough trouble with nutters already. Their explanations will make sticky's lizard (oo-er) example seem positively sane.

  

The dude I know thinks the Rockefeller/Rothschild families are in charge and us "sheeple" need waking up.

Very entertaining but I won't encourage him further lol

crunchman

I'm sceptical about the scale of global warming but we need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels for completely unrelated reasons.

Firstly, fossil fuels are a finite resource.  We should be conserving them for use as raw materials rather than burning them.  We need to make sure that there some left for our great-great grandchildren to use as raw materials for plastics etc.

Next, weaning ourselves off of oil would mean that Middle East volatility would be less of an issue.  There would be no reason to invade Middle Eastern countries to protect our oil supplies.  Also, there would be a lot less money in the pockets of people with extreme viewpoints in Saudi Arabia to fund things around the world.

The other major reason is that the pollution issue in our cities is a massive problem.  We need cleaner forms of transport.

Whatever you think about Global Warming, these reasons alone mean we need to change the way we get our energy.

On global warming itself, I think that the scale of the problem may have been exaggerated, but I am worried about the scale of deforestation in the Amazon and other major forests around the world.  Trees take lots of CO2 out of the atmosphere and there is a balance that we may have upset by chopping so many down.

Obviously, Brazil and other countries want land to grow food on, but there needs to be a concerted effort to protect forests and grow new ones around the world.  We could plant millions of trees in this country very easily if someone would pay for it.  There are a lot of roadside verges and embankments that are just grass that could easily be planted with trees (which would also save money mowing the grass).  There also is a lot of very poor agricultural land that could be planted with trees.  A lot of the flooding in recent years has been blamed on the lack of trees up-river in the hills in what is very marginal farmland.  In the grand scheme of things it might not be a lot but 5 million extra trees wouldn't do any harm.