Global Warming

[carlfense]

There is very much a "profit" motive for scientists similar to private industry except it's based on securing funds through grants and getting published instead of landing contracts with clients and meeting sales goals.

What is more likely to get you published and land a contract: researching and writing an article that says the exact same thing that everyone else is saying . . . or conclusively disproving conventional wisdom? Ask your scientist friends if you don't see the obvious answer.

 

Guess what happens if a scientist applies for a grant to study global climate change and ends up publishing a paper that contradicts the "consensus"?

They're going to make a TON of money and become a celebrity over night.

 

 

It's likely that scientist won't receive anymore grants..meaning they have to layoff staff and researchers and can lose access to facilities.

No.

 

Scientists therefore have a motive to structure their studies and publish papers that fall within the scope that the grant givers want to see.

No.

 

What you end up with is an "economy" of scientific research that is motivated to do what is necessary to keep the lights on - not necessarily produce good science.

What's your proposed alternative?

[carlfense]

I said this is just one example. If I even cared to (for which I don't so no use asking) I could literally write a book of activist groups or movements that are based on lies and falsehoods. So....sorry....it's not just people who don't want PVC. These things usually start off with good intentions but then are over ran by people with hidden motives. How???? Those people with good intentions need money to go be activists. Hmmmmmm.......money.

You’d be better served approaching this without broad conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.

 

That's the problem. How do I know I can trust the "scientific data" being put out by people who may be motivated by money?

I don’t think anyone is asking you to trust anything. In fact . . . if you’re talking about science through the lens of trust you’re probably doing it wrong.

 

Where did I say I did?

You didn’t. You did however talk about these environmental crazies many times and even used a specific example. You haven’t given equal time to the polluting industries. I infer something from those facts. Of course in your next post you might completely disprove that inference by giving examples of egregious polluters who have faked and/or downplayed the severity of their actions.

 

Yes, we need to do sensible things like continue to try to reduce emissions. But....sorry....not buying that the world is going to be destroyed and we are all going to be extinct.

 

I’d settle for making the world a better place. I don’t think that this desire requires an existential crisis.

[BigRedBuster]

I said this is just one example. If I even cared to (for which I don't so no use asking) I could literally write a book of activist groups or movements that are based on lies and falsehoods. So....sorry....it's not just people who don't want PVC. These things usually start off with good intentions but then are over ran by people with hidden motives. How???? Those people with good intentions need money to go be activists. Hmmmmmm.......money.

You’d be better served approaching this without broad conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. The environmental movement needs to stop crying wolf. I am very well served by being skeptical.

 

That's the problem. How do I know I can trust the "scientific data" being put out by people who may be motivated by money?

I don’t think anyone is asking you to trust anything. In fact . . . if you’re talking about science through the lens of trust you’re probably doing it wrong.Really???? Al Gore isn't asking me to trust him that his movie was all true? Oh....did someone say profit???

 

Where did I say I did?

You didn’t. You did however talk about these environmental crazies many times and even used a specific example. You haven’t given equal time to the polluting industries. I infer something from those facts. Of course in your next post you might completely disprove that inference by giving examples of egregious polluters who have faked and/or downplayed the severity of their actions.This thread is about the Global warming movement. That is why that is what I'm talking about it. You might be better served not putting words in my mouth or trying to read into my posts what isn't there.

 

Yes, we need to do sensible things like continue to try to reduce emissions. But....sorry....not buying that the world is going to be destroyed and we are all going to be extinct.

 

I’d settle for making the world a better place. I don’t think that this desire requires an existential crisis. Hmmm...an existential crisis (according to wiki) is a moment in which someone questions the very foundation of their life. Hmmm....where did I say I was? I'm simply taking personal experience (for which I have quite a bit in this area) and applying it to what to believe.

[Conga3]

What you end up with is an "economy" of scientific research that is motivated to do what is necessary to keep the lights on - not necessarily produce good science.

What's your proposed alternative?

Encourage contradicting research and studies. Don't just assume the "science" is settled. Good science happens when previously established ideas are challenged.

 

I see the pie chart in the O.P. having the exact opposite goal. It's meant to shout down detractors, claim the science is "settled" and move on to the next phase - fixing the problem.

[strigori]

What you end up with is an "economy" of scientific research that is motivated to do what is necessary to keep the lights on - not necessarily produce good science.

What's your proposed alternative?

Encourage contradicting research and studies. Don't just assume the "science" is settled. Good science happens when previously established ideas are challenged.

 

I see the pie chart in the O.P. having the exact opposite goal. It's meant to shout down detractors, claim the science is "settled" and move on to the next phase - fixing the problem.

The Koch brothers did hire a guy to disprove global warming. The problem? After he did the research he came the the conclusion that it was real.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story

 

Why don't we pay some scientists to disprove that the earth is round? There is a group who think its flat still. Sometimes things are just facts, and need to be accepted.

[Conga3]

What you end up with is an "economy" of scientific research that is motivated to do what is necessary to keep the lights on - not necessarily produce good science.

What's your proposed alternative?

Encourage contradicting research and studies. Don't just assume the "science" is settled. Good science happens when previously established ideas are challenged.

 

I see the pie chart in the O.P. having the exact opposite goal. It's meant to shout down detractors, claim the science is "settled" and move on to the next phase - fixing the problem.

The Koch brothers did hire a guy to disprove global warming. The problem? After he did the research he came the the conclusion that it was real.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,7372823.story

 

Why don't we pay some scientists to disprove that the earth is round? There is a group who think its flat still. Sometimes things are just facts, and need to be accepted.

That's probably an excellent example of what I'm talking about, thanks!

 

Your post was very helpful until you tried to compare those who question the validity of Global Warming claims with flat Earth/round Earth.

 

Climate science is incredibly complex. Trying to dumb it down using that comparison isn't very useful.

 

To be clear, and I guess I haven't said this yet, I'm not one who thinks Global Warming doesn't exist.

 

I do however question the scale and predictions based off the "models" that are based off "interpretations" from "data" collected.

 

--

 

For me, there is one major problem with this whole thing. If man-made Global Warming is as dire as some predict...then who cares? There is nothing we can do short of wiping out a significant percent of the world population and reverting back to a pre-industrial age level of energy consumption....then waiting for the Earth to "heal" itself.

 

Any attempt to "curb" global warming by taxing polluters is non-sense....but I won't get into that here. That deserves it's own thread.

 

Instead we simply need to adapt to the changing world and accept the consequences of our prosperity through the use of fossil fuel energy.

 

I imagine someday our future generations we'll have access to unlimited cheap/clean energy and will attempt to terraform the planet how they want it....possibly reversing the CO2 levels we created...or maybe keeping them the way they are...

 

...it's hard to say what the "ideal" global system would look like. It's not crazy to think the planet will be better off being warmer since it'll make food production easier and North Dakota slightly more tolerable to visit.

[zoogs]

Encourage contradicting research and studies. Don't just assume the "science" is settled. Good science happens when previously established ideas are challenged.

 

I see the pie chart in the O.P. having the exact opposite goal. It's meant to shout down detractors, claim the science is "settled" and move on to the next phase - fixing the problem.

 

Science is all about encouraging breakthroughs, which many times means taking established truths and turning them upside down with evidence.

 

That pie chart is about illustrating reality to people who refuse to believe it, for various political or other reasons.

 

Funding research directly aimed at contradicting something because you refuse to believe it for non-scientific reasons is agenda-driven. Science isn't, because fame awaits those who can make head-turning discoveries...

 

Also, the "It's complex and hard to understand, so I'm skeptical" isn't really a sound basis for skepticism. If you have a thorough understanding and can, as a scientist, voice criticisms and produce countering research or claims, then you have something. Without that, you (I do not mean you personally -- just highlighting an often expressed angle you referred to) would still be clinging onto what you would like to believe or not believe and not what is there.

[Conga3]

Encourage contradicting research and studies. Don't just assume the "science" is settled. Good science happens when previously established ideas are challenged.

 

I see the pie chart in the O.P. having the exact opposite goal. It's meant to shout down detractors, claim the science is "settled" and move on to the next phase - fixing the problem.

 

Science is all about encouraging breakthroughs, which many times means taking established truths and turning them upside down with evidence.

In theory, yes. In practice, not entirely. It's common practice for researchers to obtain grants for "popular" endeavors that spark the interest of donors and policy makers and use some of the funds to research something else that is less popular, but interesting and important to the researcher. This results in an excessive amount of "science" done for purely economical reasons in order to fund the "real" science. And when researchers are producing "science" in order to keep their department funded...and not as you say "encouraging breakthroughs"... we all lose.

 

That pie chart is about illustrating reality to people who refuse to believe it, for various political or other reasons.

Not really. Read the guy's blog post about how he came up with the chart. Reality wasn't his goal. Making a point in order to shout down the detractors is closer IMO.

 

Funding research directly aimed at contradicting something because you refuse to believe it for non-scientific reasons is agenda-driven. Science isn't, because fame awaits those who can make head-turning discoveries...

Not sure what you are referring to. Science != Fact. It's the process of discovering truthier truths. It's incredibly important to counter scientific claims made with a contrarian mind-set.

 

Also, the "It's complex and hard to understand, so I'm skeptical" isn't really a sound basis for skepticism. If you have a thorough understanding and can, as a scientist, voice criticisms and produce countering research or claims, then you have something. Without that, you (I do not mean you personally -- just highlighting an often expressed angle you referred to) would still be clinging onto what you would like to believe or not believe and not what is there.

I see your point, but I believe thoughtful people without an intimate knowledge of a topic can remain skeptical of claims made by the expert as long as they keep an open mind. Most people make judgments everyday about someone or something based solely on past experiences. And if you understand that "science" is not always "fact", but rather most the time an evolving "truth" or in some cases...especially with global warming, out and out lies.

 

For example : Once upon a time a Global Warming alarmist said something ridiculous about what the world will look like in 10 years. At the time they were considered knowledgeable and expert on the subject. They had prestige and scientific studies backing up their assertions. One would hardly have grounds to be skeptical....unless... (See anything Al Gore said 10 years ago)

 

[strigori]

What you end up with is an "economy" of scientific research that is motivated to do what is necessary to keep the lights on - not necessarily produce good science.

What's your proposed alternative?

Encourage contradicting research and studies. Don't just assume the "science" is settled. Good science happens when previously established ideas are challenged.

 

I see the pie chart in the O.P. having the exact opposite goal. It's meant to shout down detractors, claim the science is "settled" and move on to the next phase - fixing the problem.

The Koch brothers did hire a guy to disprove global warming. The problem? After he did the research he came the the conclusion that it was real.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,7372823.story

 

Why don't we pay some scientists to disprove that the earth is round? There is a group who think its flat still. Sometimes things are just facts, and need to be accepted.

That's probably an excellent example of what I'm talking about, thanks!

 

Your post was very helpful until you tried to compare those who question the validity of Global Warming claims with flat Earth/round Earth.

 

Climate science is incredibly complex. Trying to dumb it down using that comparison isn't very useful.

 

To be clear, and I guess I haven't said this yet, I'm not one who thinks Global Warming doesn't exist.

 

I do however question the scale and predictions based off the "models" that are based off "interpretations" from "data" collected.

 

--

 

For me, there is one major problem with this whole thing. If man-made Global Warming is as dire as some predict...then who cares? There is nothing we can do short of wiping out a significant percent of the world population and reverting back to a pre-industrial age level of energy consumption....then waiting for the Earth to "heal" itself.

 

Any attempt to "curb" global warming by taxing polluters is non-sense....but I won't get into that here. That deserves it's own thread.

 

Instead we simply need to adapt to the changing world and accept the consequences of our prosperity through the use of fossil fuel energy.

 

I imagine someday our future generations we'll have access to unlimited cheap/clean energy and will attempt to terraform the planet how they want it....possibly reversing the CO2 levels we created...or maybe keeping them the way they are...

 

...it's hard to say what the "ideal" global system would look like. It's not crazy to think the planet will be better off being warmer since it'll make food production easier and North Dakota slightly more tolerable to visit.

Lots of science is extremely complex, and yet we don't have deep political arguments about most other areas. The only reason we are even having this discussion is there are industries with financial interests at stake. When numbers of scientists like that agree on something, it is generally accepted as fact.

 

There are some massive holes in your second part there.

 

First off the temp changes will do more adverse effects on crops than it will help. The drought this summer cost the farmers a massive part of the corn crop. The warm winter made for more insects that damaged more crops. Temp changes will make some types of plants unable to flourish in their current locations.

 

Cheap unlimited energy? Not as long as the same industries that are fighting global warming are running as they are. The politics of coal and oil, and the bank accounts they use to fund opposition to things, or to just outright buy patents to prevent others from using it will keep something like that from coming about. That theory is based around people doing what is best for the human race over what makes the most money. Precisely the same thing as fighting global warming. And too many people are in the mindset that making money is the only thing that matters.

[The Dude]

For me, there is one major problem with this whole thing. If man-made Global Warming is as dire as some predict...then who cares? There is nothing we can do short of wiping out a significant percent of the world population and reverting back to a pre-industrial age level of energy consumption....then waiting for the Earth to "heal" itself.

Your whole problem with global warming hangs on an "if"?

 

That's not much of a problem.

 

 

What if it's just bad enough that we can still do something about it, without your crazy idea of mass genocide and reverting back to the 19th century?

[JJ Husker]

And the solution is to tax American business into oblivion? The only person making money on this deal is Al Gore.

Not everything is about making money.

 

If businesses wanted to be responsible and do what they could to reduce pumping chemicals and green house gasses into the air, there wouldn't be the need for the gov to interfere. Unfortunately without being forced to, we would still be suffering from acid rain and smog all over the place.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that this should be about money. The Gore mention was just a cheap shot reflex for this issue. My point about taxes was intended to suggest that this problem cannot be solved by our government alone. I have my doubts that this issue is anywhere near as serious as some make it out to be. Sure, human actions are causing adverse consequences on the environment but , in the grand scheme, we're still a whole lot less impacting than whatever the earth/nature does regardless of us. Increasing energy costs, higher taxes on energy, energy credits, etc. are not going to change much except transferring dollars from American business to the government and putting our manufacturing at greater odds to compete globally. Sorry but I am much more concerned with our economic condition over the next year, ten years, hundred years, than I am with an issue that change is measured in eons. Find some solutions that apply to everyone globally, equally, and I'll be more likely to jump on board.

[strigori]

And the solution is to tax American business into oblivion? The only person making money on this deal is Al Gore.

Not everything is about making money.

 

If businesses wanted to be responsible and do what they could to reduce pumping chemicals and green house gasses into the air, there wouldn't be the need for the gov to interfere. Unfortunately without being forced to, we would still be suffering from acid rain and smog all over the place.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that this should be about money. The Gore mention was just a cheap shot reflex for this issue. My point about taxes was intended to suggest that this problem cannot be solved by our government alone. I have my doubts that this issue is anywhere near as serious as some make it out to be. Sure, human actions are causing adverse consequences on the environment but , in the grand scheme, we're still a whole lot less impacting than whatever the earth/nature does regardless of us. Increasing energy costs, higher taxes on energy, energy credits, etc. are not going to change much except transferring dollars from American business to the government and putting our manufacturing at greater odds to compete globally. Sorry but I am much more concerned with our economic condition over the next year, ten years, hundred years, than I am with an issue that change is measured in eons. Find some solutions that apply to everyone globally, equally, and I'll be more likely to jump on board.

Your arguments against action are the same as were being made against efforts to curb smog in CA and acid rain. Both are now more or less relegated to history. We are not talking 'eons' we are talking 'decades' The kids of today will be seeing the result of our actions, or inactions.

 

We will never 'compete globally' as long as we refuse to work for a quarter an hour. Its an irrelevant argument .And it doesn't mean 'more money to the gov' either. That's more scare tactics. Regulations like cars have on them for instance. They must go 100k miles before a scheduled tune up. When that was introduced, it was claimed to be impossible. Now its taken as a given.

[Moiraine]

 

 

WE ARE NOT DINOSAURS!!!!!!

 

 

 

Some of us can almost be classified as this.

 

I told you, I'M NOT OLD. Where is Moiraine these days, anyway? She loads up on this knapplc-is-old agenda and then walks away? Bush league, sister. BUSH LEAGUE.

 

Witness.

 

 

Knapp is old. *goes back to where I've been hiding*

[zoogs]

You aren't fooling anybody, knapp. You watch CSPAN and daytime soaps, not Community and Parks and Rec

[Conga3]

For me, there is one major problem with this whole thing. If man-made Global Warming is as dire as some predict...then who cares? There is nothing we can do short of wiping out a significant percent of the world population and reverting back to a pre-industrial age level of energy consumption....then waiting for the Earth to "heal" itself.

Your whole problem with global warming hangs on an "if"?

 

That's not much of a problem.

 

 

What if it's just bad enough that we can still do something about it, without your crazy idea of mass genocide and reverting back to the 19th century?

 

Well that's just it. Let's take 2012 for example. Let's say we waved a magic wand and all of a sudden all the countries in the world decided to "freeze" their CO2 emissions (through whatever measures it takes). First off that would be a HUGE accomplishment considering the growth in population and growth in energy consumption. The Kyoto Protocol wouldn't even have sniffed such an ambitious goal even if all the nations ratified and complied.

 

Freezing 2012 rates of CO2 emissions would be near impossible...yet everything we're told says the last 50 years is already causing noticeable changes to our environment... and 50 more years at 2012 levels would just continue the problem - likely at multiples. It comes down to a matter of balance between our planet and the CO2 we add to it through our activities.

 

So, let's assume there is a happy medium based on a certain "year" of human history where CO2 produced by humans is readily absorbed by the planet and doesn't accumulate and change the dynamics of the atmosphere and global temperature....meaning an indefinite continuation of this rate of CO2 emissions would have a negligible effect on our future planet. Follow?

 

So...for the sake of argument, lets consider that year 1950 since that is the break out year on a graph found here :http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

 

OK, now we get to use fun math.

 

In 1950, the world population was 2.5 Billion. (http://www.infopleas...a/A0762181.html)

 

Today the world population is 7 Billion. So on average, if a human used 100 units of CO2 emitting energy TODAY, to achieve 1950 levels of emission, they would have to scale back their energy consumption to 35 units. (2.5/7=0.35). For those having a hard time following along...your $100 electricity bill would have to be $35. Your monthly gas card bill of $100 would have to be $35...and so on...

 

*** I forgot to include the increase in energy consumed per person from 1950 to 2012 in the above calc...i'll do that later. Spoiler alert..it means the reduction is even greater than 65%***

 

Using this simple calculation, in order for YOU to return YOURSELF back to 1950 energy consumption, you'd have to remove 65% of your total consumption....and rely of everyone else in the world to follow suit.

 

Not only that! Each year you would have to REDUCE your energy consumption to keep up with growth in the world population. Some fun math {HERE} might be able to calculate that in 50 years you'd have to reduce your individual energy consumption to be on par with someone from the 1800's......who knows...that's too hard to figure out.

 

But wait... advanced nations like the US are higher consumers of energy! They should bear the most burden! I'm sure I've heard that somewhere....

 

OK lets accept that US citizens consume energy at a rate 4X the average (http://www.worldpopu...pulation_energy)

 

That would mean to "bear an equal burden" an American would have to reduce their consumption by 4X more than average. These kind of numbers are hard to come by, but IF the average Earth inhabitant needs to go back to 1950 energy consumption, and the average American needs to cut back 4X more than average....we are talking a return to the era of the "Model-T".

---

 

Now the caveat. Everything calculated above assumes that the ratio of energy produced to CO2 emitted is steady from 1950 to today, and 50 years from now. Even with increased "green" energy, if it can't outpace population growth X energy consumption growth...it doesn't matter one lick.

 

---

 

So, short story long,...either EVERYTHING we've ever heard about global warming is false and the human effect on the planet's increasing temperature is so small up to this point...that we could take legitimate steps NOW to reduce our CO2 emissions and in the future and somehow strike that "balance" at some future date...

 

- OR - you believe the data and conclusions presented to us today...and accept that the last 50 years of CO2 emissions has caused dramatic change...and the next 50 years are going to have an effect many times worse...no matter what we do...

 

...short of mass genocide.