weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 26, 2015 14:07:19 GMT -5
the idea that this is some kind of conspiracy to sell global warming is utterly nuts. Obama is behind this, I just know it! After Hurricane Sandy, the interwebz were just abuzz, blaming Obama, who can control the weather, apparently.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 26, 2015 14:10:06 GMT -5
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 26, 2015 14:24:51 GMT -5
WOW, when he is no longer POTUS he's going to have a really awesome job as a weather wizard.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 26, 2015 14:41:03 GMT -5
Regardless though, the ACE index still shows the last four years at a 45 year low in accumulated cyclone energy. That was my point by the way. Crying wolf over a single category 5 storm is just weather hyperbole. It's high speed winds only reach about 30 miles from the eye so far, making it small on the energy index. I'm not too scared, nor is any one else with a physics education. Great call 23! It's like you know your stuff or something.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 26, 2015 14:49:08 GMT -5
Regardless though, the ACE index still shows the last four years at a 45 year low in accumulated cyclone energy. That was my point by the way. Crying wolf over a single category 5 storm is just weather hyperbole. It's high speed winds only reach about 30 miles from the eye so far, making it small on the energy index. I'm not too scared, nor is any one else with a physics education. Great call 23! It's like you know your stuff or something. who is crying wolf? seriously- is this yet ANOTHER imagined outrage, or is there something to it?
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Oct 26, 2015 15:10:00 GMT -5
the idea that this is some kind of conspiracy to sell global warming is utterly nuts. Obama is behind this, I just know it! After Hurricane Sandy, the interwebz were just abuzz, blaming Obama, who can control the weather, apparently. There seems to be at least one person who thinks President Obama can control the weather. That would be Obama himself. His positions/policies/actions/inactions on the Keystone Pipeline, economic incentives for alternative energy, control of the coal industry, etc. were all premised as measures to change the climate.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 26, 2015 16:38:56 GMT -5
Great call 23! It's like you know your stuff or something. who is crying wolf? seriously- is this yet ANOTHER imagined outrage, or is there something to it? 1)#23 called it in advance that this wasn't going to be a bad one in terms of damage. Read his posts on the last page until you get that because it's gospel. 2) saying this is the worst storm in recorded history when we are talking about like 30 yrs of records, is like saying the Earth is 6000 years old.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 26, 2015 18:16:34 GMT -5
who is crying wolf? seriously- is this yet ANOTHER imagined outrage, or is there something to it? 1)#23 called it in advance that this wasn't going to be a bad one in terms of damage. Read his posts on the last page until you get that because it's gospel. 2) saying this is the worst storm in recorded history when we are talking about like 30 yrs of records, is like saying the Earth is 6000 years old. um....i think that we have been recording hurricane data for over 100 years, Aham: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_San_Ciriaco_hurricanei think that 100+ years of records are pretty.....deep. don't you?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 26, 2015 18:30:34 GMT -5
I agree with fairlycrazy23's assessment in reply #61. I don't consider the worst hurricane in recorded history to be an anomaly, but we can draw no conclusions about its origins. I really wish they could. I don't know why in 60+ years and countless billions of manhours of research they have yet to come up with weather/climate prediction models with even a modicum of accuracy, but it thus far seems as elusive as the "cure for cancer". I've never looked into chaos theory as applied to weather systems, and chaos theory is generally lacking for strong theorems and conclusions, but we may eventually reach the point where mathematicians prove that weather systems are chaotic enough that the amount of data needed for forward prediction on a reasonable timeframe is realistically impossible to obtain. For all I know, such a proof already exists and it's simply been buried because the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of scientists, have no conceptual understanding of chaos or the limits of predictability in chaotic systems. The fact that a no-go conclusion would sunder trillions of dollars in research and investment doesn't help matters either.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 26, 2015 18:32:29 GMT -5
who is crying wolf? seriously- is this yet ANOTHER imagined outrage, or is there something to it? 1)#23 called it in advance that this wasn't going to be a bad one in terms of damage. Read his posts on the last page until you get that because it's gospel. 2) saying this is the worst storm in recorded history when we are talking about like 30 yrs of records, is like saying the Earth is 6000 years old. I think, once the anticipated track was nailed down, it was pretty well known the damage might not be severe (unless the little darling made a quick turn and slammed a populated area). Where it came in the land is mountainous, so it was known the hurricane's strength would dissipate quickly. None of that is rocket science. This was, however, the lowest recorded barometric pressure at the eye that has ever been recorded. It was also tossing around steady, 200mph winds (hit the beach with 165mph winds). I think that qualifies it as the strongest storm in history. It seems a bit silly to me to get into a peeing contest over semantics. Better to say, I'd think, it wasn't the most destructive, but it was most certainly the strongest. The word "worst" takes it off into the hinterlands of subjectivity.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 26, 2015 19:19:31 GMT -5
1)#23 called it in advance that this wasn't going to be a bad one in terms of damage. Read his posts on the last page until you get that because it's gospel. 2) saying this is the worst storm in recorded history when we are talking about like 30 yrs of records, is like saying the Earth is 6000 years old. um....i think that we have been recording hurricane data for over 100 years, Aham: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_San_Ciriaco_hurricanei think that 100+ years of records are pretty.....deep. don't you? I love when ppl don't even bother to read the thread. From the last page.... I'm going to go with Prof. Klotzbach and #23 since they both seem to be in the know. #23 even more so since he has proven time and again to be correct. Not trying to start a peeing contest, just pointing out credit where it is due.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 26, 2015 19:39:56 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 26, 2015 20:02:08 GMT -5
I love when ppl don't even bother to read the thread. From the last page.... I'm going to go with Prof. Klotzbach and #23 since they both seem to be in the know. #23 even more so since he has proven time and again to be correct. Not trying to start a peeing contest, just pointing out credit where it is due. the claim was not made about "the entire hemisphere", therefore your counterargument is a red herring. edit: methinks thou dost protest too much.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 26, 2015 20:52:39 GMT -5
. From the article..... Literally the first lines...
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 27, 2015 11:57:56 GMT -5
I really wish they could. I don't know why in 60+ years and countless billions of manhours of research they have yet to come up with weather/climate prediction models with even a modicum of accuracy, but it thus far seems as elusive as the "cure for cancer". Virgil it would be nice if science was advanced enough it could create a computer model capable of predicting climate models accurately, but there are so many variables to account for, as well as the occasional totally random event (like volcanic eruptions) that we're not at the point a single computer program can accurately model them. There are so many predictions you would have to get right - like how many human beings will be on the planet in 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Will we continue to burn fossil fuels 500 years from now? If we have an alternative fuel source, how will that impact the climate? We're in the sixth wave of mass extinctions - the biggest loss of species since the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago - How will that loss of species impact the climate? Too many variables. That leaves us with two choices - do nothing and let our kids and grandkids figure out what to do (if anything can be done) or look at all the different models currently put forward by climate scientists, average their results and see if any action is warranted now. And that's what the fight over climate change boils down to. Do nothing and wait vs take a best guess.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 27, 2015 13:23:31 GMT -5
I really wish they could. I don't know why in 60+ years and countless billions of manhours of research they have yet to come up with weather/climate prediction models with even a modicum of accuracy, but it thus far seems as elusive as the "cure for cancer". Virgil it would be nice if science was advanced enough it could create a computer model capable of predicting climate models accurately, but there are so many variables to account for, as well as the occasional totally random event (like volcanic eruptions) that we're not at the point a single computer program can accurately model them. There are so many predictions you would have to get right - like how many human beings will be on the planet in 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Will we continue to burn fossil fuels 500 years from now? If we have an alternative fuel source, how will that impact the climate? We're in the sixth wave of mass extinctions - the biggest loss of species since the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago - How will that loss of species impact the climate? Too many variables. That leaves us with two choices - do nothing and let our kids and grandkids figure out what to do (if anything can be done) or look at all the different models currently put forward by climate scientists, average their results and see if any action is warranted now. And that's what the fight over climate change boils down to. Do nothing and wait vs take a best guess. That is what it boils down to, I agree. The trouble is that we're not talking years or decades of predictive power with "best guess". We're talking weeks. Months. And when the models go off the rails, they really go off the rails. These hockey stick, global extinction event plots go back to the 1960's. You have to acknowledge and respect the awesome amount of damage that would have been done if we'd taken the predictions of 40, 30, 20, even 10 years ago seriously and acted on them. The UN was looking at evacuating coastlines, shutting down entire industries, forced birth control, supranational organizations responsible for managing and regulating every aspect of commerce, industry, and human existence. The kind of extreme measures one would expect if the stakes are saving the world. Their predictions failed. Did that stop them? No. They've doubled down. What do they have on tap as a "solution" to climate change? Carbon credits and a supranational credits exchange designed to funnel trillions though major financial institutions. Geoengineering, whose disastrous legacy precedes it. Global regulatory agencies responsible for centralized management of all resources (including human resources) on Earth. I don't need to tell you that if these initiatives go through, the penalties to free citizens will be immense. It's not unreasonable for me or anyone else to expect that TPTB prove they have some clue about i) what the real consequences of climate change will be, and ii) whether the proposed countermeasures have a hope of fixing the problem. I do believe climate change is occurring. I'm somewhat convinced that man's activity is a factor. The problem does concern me. I believe government should play a modest role in encouraging the development of green technologies. But all this is tempered by the same grievance I discussed in the gun control thread: just because we're urgently compelled to do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it. Instead of climate change, we might well end up with climate change + geoengineering disasters + trillion-dollar boondoggles + loss of national sovereignty and personal freedoms we can never get back. If we're limited to blindly charging ahead without working models, I'm going to be reserved in how many " We must do this now! Now!" extreme proposals I embrace.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 27, 2015 13:38:32 GMT -5
The UN looks at a lot of things. Did any of those things come to pass? Nope. I wouldn't say they've failed. I would say they haven't come to pass yet. And while they may have doubled down, I doubt their new proposals will get any further than the last ones. Certainly the US won't approve them. New predictions that by 2100 the heat in the Middle East may be so intense human beings wouldn't survive for more than a few hours outside: www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/science/intolerable-heat-may-hit-the-middle-east-by-the-end-of-the-century.html?_r=0So let's sit and wait until 2100 and see if people do actually get so hot they die from going outside in the Middle East. Then maybe our grandkids can sit around and discuss what to do about it. Maybe move all the Middle Easterners to Canada.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 27, 2015 13:43:00 GMT -5
Virgil it would be nice if science was advanced enough it could create a computer model capable of predicting climate models accurately, but there are so many variables to account for, as well as the occasional totally random event (like volcanic eruptions) that we're not at the point a single computer program can accurately model them. There are so many predictions you would have to get right - like how many human beings will be on the planet in 100 years? 500 years? 1000 years? Will we continue to burn fossil fuels 500 years from now? If we have an alternative fuel source, how will that impact the climate? We're in the sixth wave of mass extinctions - the biggest loss of species since the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago - How will that loss of species impact the climate? Too many variables. That leaves us with two choices - do nothing and let our kids and grandkids figure out what to do (if anything can be done) or look at all the different models currently put forward by climate scientists, average their results and see if any action is warranted now. And that's what the fight over climate change boils down to. Do nothing and wait vs take a best guess. That is what it boils down to, I agree. The trouble is that we're not talking years or decades of predictive power with "best guess". We're talking weeks. Months. And when the models go off the rails, they really go off the rails. These hockey stick, global extinction event plots go back to the 1960's. You have to acknowledge and respect the awesome amount of damage that would have been done if we'd taken the predictions of 40, 30, 20, even 10 years ago seriously and acted on them. The UN was looking at evacuating coastlines, shutting down entire industries, forced birth control, supranational organizations responsible for managing and regulating every aspect of commerce, industry, and human existence. The kind of extreme measures one would expect if the stakes are saving the world. Their predictions failed. Did that stop them? No. They've doubled down. What do they have on tap as a "solution" to climate change? Carbon credits and a supranational credits exchange designed to funnel trillions though major financial institutions. Geoengineering, whose disastrous legacy precedes it. Global regulatory agencies responsible for centralized management of all resources (including human resources) on Earth. I don't need to tell you that if these initiatives go through, the penalties to free citizens will be immense. It's not unreasonable for me or anyone else to expect that TPTB prove they have some clue about i) what the real consequences of climate change will be, and ii) whether the proposed countermeasures have a hope of fixing the problem. I do believe climate change is occurring. I'm somewhat convinced that man's activity is a factor. The problem does concern me. I believe government should play a modest role in encouraging the development of green technologies. But all this is tempered by the same grievance I discussed in the gun control thread: just because we're urgently compelled to do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it. Instead of climate change, we might well end up with climate change + geoengineering disasters + trillion-dollar boondoggles + loss of national sovereignty and personal freedoms we can never get back. If we're limited to blindly charging ahead without working models, I'm going to be reserved in how many " We must do this now! Now!" extreme proposals I embrace. what freedom would you give up to the Climate Lords?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 27, 2015 14:01:50 GMT -5
The UN looks at a lot of things. Did any of those things come to pass? Nope. I wouldn't say they've failed. I would say they haven't come to pass yet. And while they may have doubled down, I doubt their new proposals will get any further than the last ones. Certainly the US won't approve them. New predictions that by 2100 the heat in the Middle East may be so intense human beings wouldn't survive for more than a few hours outside: www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/science/intolerable-heat-may-hit-the-middle-east-by-the-end-of-the-century.html?_r=0So let's sit and wait until 2100 and see if people do actually get so hot they die from going outside in the Middle East. Then maybe our grandkids can sit around and discuss what to do about it. Maybe move all the Middle Easterners to Canada. I could predict today that global warming will make animals so uncomfortable that cows will evolve fins and rush en mass to live in the oceans. Hence we can either sit around and wait for our grandkids' food supply to dive into the ocean, or we can start building 200-foot concrete walls around all cattle pens today. I don't think you realize just how many predictions there have been from reputable scientists, universities, and agencies that the Earth would be uninhabitable by 1980, 1990, 2000, 2020, etc., etc. That's not to say these perennial predictions may not ultimately turn out to be right, but turn your atheistic "if God exists, prove it" skepticism towards climate science. "If your models and predictions aren't bunkum, prove it. First demonstrate some modest degree of predictive power in your models, then release these models to the public so that the technically-minded can simulate the effects of differing policies and proposals and confirm their effectiveness. It's called good science." "The Middle East might not be inhabitable 100 years from now so let's tax carbon, divert all environmental protection monies to policing carbon, metals into the oceans and silicates into the atmosphere, and blindly hope that it all works" is not good science. It's men hoping to capitalize on a crisis.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 27, 2015 14:16:51 GMT -5
That is what it boils down to, I agree. The trouble is that we're not talking years or decades of predictive power with "best guess". We're talking weeks. Months. And when the models go off the rails, they really go off the rails. These hockey stick, global extinction event plots go back to the 1960's. You have to acknowledge and respect the awesome amount of damage that would have been done if we'd taken the predictions of 40, 30, 20, even 10 years ago seriously and acted on them. The UN was looking at evacuating coastlines, shutting down entire industries, forced birth control, supranational organizations responsible for managing and regulating every aspect of commerce, industry, and human existence. The kind of extreme measures one would expect if the stakes are saving the world. Their predictions failed. Did that stop them? No. They've doubled down. What do they have on tap as a "solution" to climate change? Carbon credits and a supranational credits exchange designed to funnel trillions though major financial institutions. Geoengineering, whose disastrous legacy precedes it. Global regulatory agencies responsible for centralized management of all resources (including human resources) on Earth. I don't need to tell you that if these initiatives go through, the penalties to free citizens will be immense. It's not unreasonable for me or anyone else to expect that TPTB prove they have some clue about i) what the real consequences of climate change will be, and ii) whether the proposed countermeasures have a hope of fixing the problem. I do believe climate change is occurring. I'm somewhat convinced that man's activity is a factor. The problem does concern me. I believe government should play a modest role in encouraging the development of green technologies. But all this is tempered by the same grievance I discussed in the gun control thread: just because we're urgently compelled to do something doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do it. Instead of climate change, we might well end up with climate change + geoengineering disasters + trillion-dollar boondoggles + loss of national sovereignty and personal freedoms we can never get back. If we're limited to blindly charging ahead without working models, I'm going to be reserved in how many " We must do this now! Now!" extreme proposals I embrace. what freedom would you give up to the Climate Lords? At this point, with the stakes as high as they are and their predictive record being as poor as it is, I'll only go as far as supporting "carrot" -type approaches for technologies whose utility extends beyond reducing carbon output. That is, I will suffer the Canadian government to levy taxes ( no deficit spending) to fund RDI for sustainable farming, vertical farming, green energy production, efficient recycling and waste reclamation, smart power grids, wildlife/wetlands/park conservation initiatives, etc., etc. I would support consumption taxes (i.e. carbon offsets) on households that consume resources vastly in excess of national norms. That's about it. Carbon credits are a non-starter since it's been proven time and again they're plagued by corruption, devastate industry, and simply don't work outside an small, insular domain. Geoengineering is a non-starter for too many reasons to get into. Global regulation of industry, global centralization of resources, forced population control initiatives: all non-starters. Product bans and industry shutdowns I'm no fan of, but it's case by case. Likewise with international pledges to reduce consumption, etc.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 28, 2015 7:32:06 GMT -5
I realize there have been crackpot predictions that the sea would rise four feet by 2100 - as well as the crackpots who claim global warming isn't happening at all. Whether you make economic predictions or political predictions or predictions about climate change there will always be the crank theories on each side of the issue. Real scientists (not cranks) look at the predictions of the most detailed models and consider that the real future lies somewhere within the average of those predictions. Which is what NOAA does: www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projectionsSo - do we wait for a 100% accurate predictive model of climate change to come along (which will take some time, because to be sure it's completely accurate we'll need to wait several hundred years for the results to be apparent) or do we at least agree with the scientific community that change is occurring and begin looking at what actions we could realistically take to try to abate it? And as much as there have been climate change radicals who insist the sea will start boiling by 2100, there are also climate change denier radicals who insist anything we try to do to abate that process will lead to famine, economic collapse, and the end of civilization. Both extremes are ridiculous. There are things we could be doing - things that wouldn't destroy our economy. There are new industries that would flourish, with encouragement, and that would actually help propell the economy. If the US was smart, they would be in the lead on those technologies and not wait for some other country to make the lucrative breakthroughs. But we're stuck like the auto industry was stuck, back in the 60's, insisting that lighter, smaller cars with more effecient engines that got better gas mileage were impossible - until Japan started making just that, and Americans starting snapping them up, and the American car industry suddenly seemed like dinosaurs. We could be at the forefront of Green technology, and reap the economic rewards of the patents. Instead, you're consumed with dread that changing the status quo will necessarily mean economic collapse. You're no better than the cranks that scream about the sea boiling in 2100.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 28, 2015 8:18:05 GMT -5
Janet Napolitano has the climate change solution. www.modbee.com/news/business/article41518803.html Translation, Let's tax the richest one billion people and give it to the Poorest three billion people. Yes, we climate change people will be the middleman, receiving a nice commission for handling the money!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 28, 2015 10:18:56 GMT -5
I realize there have been crackpot predictions that the sea would rise four feet by 2100 - as well as the crackpots who claim global warming isn't happening at all. Whether you make economic predictions or political predictions or predictions about climate change there will always be the crank theories on each side of the issue. First of all, I've already conceded that warming is occurring and the problem concerns me, and I've given a list of reasonable proposals I'd support even without a working climate model. Secondly, to entertain more radical proposals, especially those with financial ulterior motives, I would settle for a climate model that lasted just five years without going completely off the rails. They have yet to procure one, and I suspect a large part of the reason is that the organizations funding the research are more interested in justifying worst-case, alarm-generating, policy-goosing conclusions rather than accurately modeling the climate. We could be at the forefront of Green technology, and reap the economic rewards of the patents. Instead, you're consumed with dread that changing the status quo will necessarily mean economic collapse. You're no better than the cranks that scream about the sea boiling in 2100. And you're sucking air. I don't mind modest government investment in green technology. I've said so twice in this thread. I make no apologies for worrying over the ramifications of proposals to combat climate change. These include the policies' likelihood of success, their impact on industry, their impact on personal freedoms and national sovereignty, their political ramifications, and their unintended consequences. If you want to call that "being consumed with dread that changing the status quo", that's your problem. This notion that low-cost, low-maintenance green technology would flourish if only big, bad industry would stop holding it back is a myth. Yes, industry lobbies have some influence, but they're not the reason the west is taking it's sweet time going green. Cost, convenience, rarity of materials, prohibitive manufacturing requirements, low reliability, disposal issues, and a dozen other factors besides are why there isn't a wind farm on every corner and a solar panel on every roof. And that's just for energy. Another 50% of hydrocarbons are used to make the stuff in your home. Even if 100% of hydrocarbons used for fuel, heating, industry, etc. were suddenly replaced with 100% renewable energy tomorrow, you're not going to wind farm that last 50% away. Green technology will improve, and I don't mind government R& or industry incentives to nudge it along, but get into the real world.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,898
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 28, 2015 13:01:57 GMT -5
Well, this is just one of many things we'll have to disagree on, Virgil. I've already explained why you can't create a single 100% accurate global climate modeling system, and why scientists are having to rely on averaged results of multiple different models to arrive at their best guess scenarios. If you want to wait until we are 100% certain we have a model that accurately predicts climate changes before you act, it will be your grandkids acting, not you. And you're the one sucking air if you think making changes to try to influence climate change is necessarily going to cause an economic melt down that will ruin society. That's called fear mongering and it's bad whether the radical climate change nuts or the radical climate change "let's not do anything because it will ruin us" crowd does it. If we took just a few percentages off the military budget and devoted that to giving research grants to people working on different ways to become more efficient or to rely on renewable fuel technology, we would be coming up with new technology that people would be eager to adopt because it saved them money. That we could manufacture and sell internationally, to help our own economy, instead of waiting for some other country to make the break through. But that can't happen, can it, with conservative republicans who insist global warming is a hoax and who would never allow a penny of military spending to be diverted to Green research - certainly not when the fossil fuel industry is funneling millions in campaign money almost exclusively to the GOP: the fossil fuel industry dumped more than $36 million (so far!) into the 2016 elections, with a staggering 93 percent of it going to Republicans www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/28/global_warming_if_it_s_a_hoax.html
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Oct 28, 2015 13:25:58 GMT -5
Speaking of military... Now how do you argue with that? You can't, because...
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Oct 28, 2015 13:33:43 GMT -5
Get those people to the hyperbaric chamber...stat!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 28, 2015 13:55:27 GMT -5
the fossil fuel industry dumped more than $36 million (so far!) into the 2016 elections, with a staggering 93 percent of it going to Republicans
Yeah, wow. A whopping 1.8% of the $2,005 million pulled in by candidates during 2012. And it goes without saying that every dollar donated by every firm comes with the quid pro quo that government suppress green tech. Let's compare that to the $72 billion the US government has spent on climate change funding in the past four years. Hence in conclusion: some unknown % of $36 million: Sweet mother of a snow leopard, they're killing green tech! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! 100% of $72,000 million: Meh. Barely a drop in the bucket. It's not going to influence anybody. I guess they just missed 7.2 trillion pennies in the past four years then.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 28, 2015 21:37:00 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 29, 2015 8:28:07 GMT -5
I don't know. On one hand, it does seem like an abuse of government power. On the other, I wouldn't have any problem with handing over my correspondence with academic peers or collaborators in response to a subpoena. The "confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists" argument doesn't tread water. I agree the communications shouldn't be made available to just anyone, but a Congressional inquiry into data manipulation isn't "just anyone", and the "frank discourse among scientists" leaked in the CRU e-mails was damning. Tough issue. Good arguments on both sides. FWIW, I don't believe Congress would/will find any evidence of serious data manipulation, although I wouldn't bet my shirt on it.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 29, 2015 8:30:14 GMT -5
|
|