Environmental idiocy

[LittleLebowski]

We gave a Spanish renewable energy company 2 billion. Two billion. They are declaring bankruptcy. Gotta love those green jobs. Meanwhile, Obama is doubling down (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261526-epa-unveils-contentious-ethanol-fuel-standard) on ethanol production because "green."

Words fail me on both topics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/30/spains-renewable-energy-powerhouse-teeters-toward-bankruptcy/

[TR675]

Don't think of it as an investment, think of it as tithing.

[LittleLebowski]

Don't think of it as an investment, think of it as tithing.

That is apt, considering that environmentalism is literally a religion.

[farscott]

Besides being bad (worse burning corn-based ethanol than burning gasoline) for the environment as cellulosic ethanol is not commercially produced, the increase in ethanol production increased food prices as corn is kinda important for feeding animals and people. When the demand for corn spiked due to mandated ethanol production, the price of corn followed due to some strange law of economics, driving up the cost of foods using corn as an ingredient or depending upon corn. In engineering, we call that a lose-lose.

[NETim]

More corn acres planted=more irrigation=continued lowering of the Ogala Aquifer. More corn acres=less cover/shelter for wildlife. More corn acres = more soil erosion.

Ethanol fuel gets less fuel economy. Ethanol production demands massive quantities of water.

I believe the production of ethanol is a net loss of energy. More corn acres= more diesel consumption.

Ethanol production is making proponents in and outside of .gov rich but it doesn't deliver on its environmental promises.

[RoyGBiv]

What really boils my peanuts is that he calls it "investing in R&D".
Investing in solar R&D would happen at the University level, not at the manufacturing level.
Either he's too stupid to know this, or We (The People) are collectively too stupid to know better. Or both.

[RevolverRob]

So...Okay I'm gonna write a long'ish post here about environmental sustainability that is a thread drift.

The bottom line is - anthropogenic-driven climate change is real, period. Full stop. There, I said it. I don't need to look at CO2 emission numbers to recognize that. The sheer reality is, humans are the cockroaches of the vertebrate world. There are seven billion plus of us and we modify our environments with all sorts of things to produce a whole variety of other things. We need look no further than the fact that there is clear, geological, evidence of our presence on the planet and that it is driven, almost entirely, by the industrial revolution. - There is no question that we do it, there is no question that the ways in which we have done it in the past are a net negative for both humans and the planet (unless you some how think strip mining and runoff changes that cause droughts or floods are positive). - And with continued population growth, continued industrialization, and continued urbanization, the sheer reality is we're going to run out of resources sooner rather than later.

So, what do we do about it? Now, I agree the ethanol thing, that's a bone-headed bunch of bullshit in the long-term. We're going to need acres of corn to feed people and we need those prices to be relatively low, to avoid mega inflation and political/social instability. I also agree that giving two billion to a company for hopes and dreams is a bit ludicrous. However, as a society, if we don't invest in the next generation, there isn't going to be a generation after that. Or at least not a significant one that isn't trapped in global conflict.

A couple of basic things we should be doing, for serious. Reducing, reusing, recycling - not for some feel good bullshit reason. But by doing this you bring your consumption in line with your production. In today's world where a considerable amount of our production is of the non-tangible kind that means your production is really the money you spend (both in taxes and as a consumer). And frankly, non-tangible production is the way of the future, honestly. We have too many people and too efficient means of production of primary resources to not have people standing around producing little in a tangible sense.

Anyways, I'm rambling a bit so let me just drive home what I mean. We have a mega-huge population, many of whom do nothing more than subsist daily, and then many who do more than subsist, but produce few tangible products. We also have to sustain at least some proportion of that mega-huge population and our current approach can't do it. Burning corn for gasoline may work short-term but it isn't a viable long-term solution. Petroleum isn't a viable long-term solution, either. By increasing fuel efficiency we do gain some more life from it, but the biggest investors in renewable energy are...the oil companies. Who spend more per-capita than anyone on the next-generation of energy. That should tell you what they already know, petroleum is going extinct. It will happen in my lifetime. All of this means, we have a very real, existential, threat to our society and our planet. Something that is...way more important than fucking ISIS, for example. We may literally not have energy in two-three generations if we don't do something about it. NOW...I think we are doing something about it and that is the good news.

If we could just get people past the holier-than-thou stage of recycling and reducing our "carbon footprint" (such a stupid fucking term for what should be "reducing your consumption to come in line with your production") - we'd be that much further along in developing long-term solutions.

-Rob

[breakingtime91]

So...Okay I'm gonna write a long'ish post here about environmental sustainability that is a thread drift.

The bottom line is - anthropogenic-driven climate change is real, period. Full stop. There, I said it. I don't need to look at CO2 emission numbers to recognize that. The sheer reality is, humans are the cockroaches of the vertebrate world. There are seven billion plus of us and we modify our environments with all sorts of things to produce a whole variety of other things. We need look no further than the fact that there is clear, geological, evidence of our presence on the planet and that it is driven, almost entirely, by the industrial revolution. - There is no question that we do it, there is no question that the ways in which we have done it in the past are a net negative for both humans and the planet (unless you some how think strip mining and runoff changes that cause droughts or floods are positive). - And with continued population growth, continued industrialization, and continued urbanization, the sheer reality is we're going to run out of resources sooner rather than later.

So, what do we do about it? Now, I agree the ethanol thing, that's a bone-headed bunch of bullshit in the long-term. We're going to need acres of corn to feed people and we need those prices to be relatively low, to avoid mega inflation and political/social instability. I also agree that giving two billion to a company for hopes and dreams is a bit ludicrous. However, as a society, if we don't invest in the next generation, there isn't going to be a generation after that. Or at least not a significant one that isn't trapped in global conflict.

A couple of basic things we should be doing, for serious. Reducing, reusing, recycling - not for some feel good bullshit reason. But by doing this you bring your consumption in line with your production. In today's world where a considerable amount of our production is of the non-tangible kind that means your production is really the money you spend (both in taxes and as a consumer). And frankly, non-tangible production is the way of the future, honestly. We have too many people and too efficient means of production of primary resources to not have people standing around producing little in a tangible sense.

Anyways, I'm rambling a bit so let me just drive home what I mean. We have a mega-huge population, many of whom do nothing more than subsist daily, and then many who do more than subsist, but produce few tangible products. We also have to sustain at least some proportion of that mega-huge population and our current approach can't do it. Burning corn for gasoline may work short-term but it isn't a viable long-term solution. Petroleum isn't a viable long-term solution, either. By increasing fuel efficiency we do gain some more life from it, but the biggest investors in renewable energy are...the oil companies. Who spend more per-capita than anyone on the next-generation of energy. That should tell you what they already know, petroleum is going extinct. It will happen in my lifetime. All of this means, we have a very real, existential, threat to our society and our planet. Something that is...way more important than fucking ISIS, for example. We may literally not have energy in two-three generations if we don't do something about it. NOW...I think we are doing something about it and that is the good news.

If we could just get people past the holier-than-thou stage of recycling and reducing our "carbon footprint" (such a stupid fucking term for what should be "reducing your consumption to come in line with your production") - we'd be that much further along in developing long-term solutions.

-Rob

Well said. I always have a hard time understanding why both parties aren't behind this..

[TR675]

So...Okay I'm gonna write a long'ish post here about environmental sustainability that is a thread drift.

The bottom line is - anthropogenic-driven climate change is real, period. Full stop. There, I said it. I don't need to look at CO2 emission numbers to recognize that. The sheer reality is, humans are the cockroaches of the vertebrate world. There are seven billion plus of us and we modify our environments with all sorts of things to produce a whole variety of other things. We need look no further than the fact that there is clear, geological, evidence of our presence on the planet and that it is driven, almost entirely, by the industrial revolution. - There is no question that we do it, there is no question that the ways in which we have done it in the past are a net negative for both humans and the planet (unless you some how think strip mining and runoff changes that cause droughts or floods are positive). - And with continued population growth, continued industrialization, and continued urbanization, the sheer reality is we're going to run out of resources sooner rather than later.

So, what do we do about it? Now, I agree the ethanol thing, that's a bone-headed bunch of bullshit in the long-term. We're going to need acres of corn to feed people and we need those prices to be relatively low, to avoid mega inflation and political/social instability. I also agree that giving two billion to a company for hopes and dreams is a bit ludicrous. However, as a society, if we don't invest in the next generation, there isn't going to be a generation after that. Or at least not a significant one that isn't trapped in global conflict.

A couple of basic things we should be doing, for serious. Reducing, reusing, recycling - not for some feel good bullshit reason. But by doing this you bring your consumption in line with your production. In today's world where a considerable amount of our production is of the non-tangible kind that means your production is really the money you spend (both in taxes and as a consumer). And frankly, non-tangible production is the way of the future, honestly. We have too many people and too efficient means of production of primary resources to not have people standing around producing little in a tangible sense.

Anyways, I'm rambling a bit so let me just drive home what I mean. We have a mega-huge population, many of whom do nothing more than subsist daily, and then many who do more than subsist, but produce few tangible products. We also have to sustain at least some proportion of that mega-huge population and our current approach can't do it. Burning corn for gasoline may work short-term but it isn't a viable long-term solution. Petroleum isn't a viable long-term solution, either. By increasing fuel efficiency we do gain some more life from it, but the biggest investors in renewable energy are...the oil companies. Who spend more per-capita than anyone on the next-generation of energy. That should tell you what they already know, petroleum is going extinct. It will happen in my lifetime. All of this means, we have a very real, existential, threat to our society and our planet. Something that is...way more important than fucking ISIS, for example. We may literally not have energy in two-three generations if we don't do something about it. NOW...I think we are doing something about it and that is the good news.

If we could just get people past the holier-than-thou stage of recycling and reducing our "carbon footprint" (such a stupid fucking term for what should be "reducing your consumption to come in line with your production") - we'd be that much further along in developing long-term solutions.

-Rob

You've expressed a lot of very firm opinions in this post and I wonder if you are qualified to make them. This is not to say I disagree with everything you wrote.

Environmental degradation and overpopulation are real problems. They are also much less problematic in advanced industrial economies that have the luxury of instituting pollution controls and setting aside land for preservation.

Nobody that I am aware of has introduced even a barely plausible plan for cutting pollution in industrial societies by the orders of magnitude being discussed in Paris without massive economic disruption that our society will not tolerate. Nobody that I am aware of has a suggestion on how to reduce the earth's population in the short term in a meaningful way that doesn't involve death on a massive scale.

The only viable alternative to fossil fuels for power generation is nuclear power. There is presently no viable alternative to fossil fuels for transportation. Given that, the best way to reduce carbon in the short run - a good goal IMO - is increasing nuclear power generation and improving vehicular fuel efficiency.

If you want to reduce population growth subsidized birth control is a good start. Turns out women don't like having lots of kids. Good luck getting this done in regressive patriarchal societies.

[RoyGBiv]

The bottom line is - anthropogenic-driven climate change is real, period. Full stop. There, I said it. I don't need to look at CO2 emission numbers to recognize that. The sheer reality is, humans are the cockroaches of the vertebrate world. There are seven billion plus of us and we modify our environments with all sorts of things to produce a whole variety of other things. We need look no further than the fact that there is clear, geological, evidence of our presence on the planet and that it is driven, almost entirely, by the industrial revolution. - There is no question that we do it, there is no question that the ways in which we have done it in the past are a net negative for both humans and the planet (unless you some how think strip mining and runoff changes that cause droughts or floods are positive). - And with continued population growth, continued industrialization, and continued urbanization, the sheer reality is we're going to run out of resources sooner rather than later.
"Correlation is not causation."
Fossil records show unequivocally that CO2 levels have been higher and have been lower than they are currently. I believe people are being led (brainwashed) to believe that somehow we are magically responsible for a perceived extra-geologic change. Is there some anthropomorphic contribution to current warming? Likely. Is human activity the primary cause, assuming that I believe "something unusual is actually happening"? TBD. It's impossible to wade through all the politics and scandalously poor "science" to reach an answer beyond "correlation". Should we let government tax carbon emissions as a way of tamping the "problem"? Hell no.


So, what do we do about it? Now, I agree the ethanol thing, that's a bone-headed bunch of bullshit in the long-term. We're going to need acres of corn to feed people and we need those prices to be relatively low, to avoid mega inflation and political/social instability. I also agree that giving two billion to a company for hopes and dreams is a bit ludicrous. However, as a society, if we don't invest in the next generation, there isn't going to be a generation after that. Or at least not a significant one that isn't trapped in global conflict.

A couple of basic things we should be doing, for serious. Reducing, reusing, recycling - not for some feel good bullshit reason. But by doing this you bring your consumption in line with your production. In today's world where a considerable amount of our production is of the non-tangible kind that means your production is really the money you spend (both in taxes and as a consumer). And frankly, non-tangible production is the way of the future, honestly. We have too many people and too efficient means of production of primary resources to not have people standing around producing little in a tangible sense.

Anyways, I'm rambling a bit so let me just drive home what I mean. We have a mega-huge population, many of whom do nothing more than subsist daily, and then many who do more than subsist, but produce few tangible products. We also have to sustain at least some proportion of that mega-huge population and our current approach can't do it. Burning corn for gasoline may work short-term but it isn't a viable long-term solution. Petroleum isn't a viable long-term solution, either. By increasing fuel efficiency we do gain some more life from it, but the biggest investors in renewable energy are...the oil companies. Who spend more per-capita than anyone on the next-generation of energy. That should tell you what they already know, petroleum is going extinct. It will happen in my lifetime. All of this means, we have a very real, existential, threat to our society and our planet. Something that is...way more important than fucking ISIS, for example. We may literally not have energy in two-three generations if we don't do something about it. NOW...I think we are doing something about it and that is the good news.

If we could just get people past the holier-than-thou stage of recycling and reducing our "carbon footprint" (such a stupid fucking term for what should be "reducing your consumption to come in line with your production") - we'd be that much further along in developing long-term solutions.

-Rob
If you're inclined to do something along the lines of Carbon Credits to address AGW, the place to start is "credible proof", then move on to "causation". Until you cover those credibly, I'm not buyin'. Honestly, I'm not sure it's possible given how badly the science has been contaminated by politics. Example? Let's change the data sources to fit the model. LINK (Is the government tinkering with global warming data?).

I've been a proponent of alternative energy since the early 80's. My senior (college) paper was on using Hydrogen as a storage mechanism for solar power. Like THIS (http://www.gizmag.com/honda-solar-hydrogen-fuel-cell-refueller-electric-vehicle/14049/) (solar), or THIS (http://cafcp.org/sunhydro-opens-first-hydrogen-fueling-station-connecticut-partners-toyota) (membrane). I spent the first few years of my professional career doing environmental research (related to Superfund site cleanup).

What I would do with $2B to spend on the problem is to fund university and private sector PRIMARY research to improve the underlying technologies (Chemistry, Engineering, etc.) of alternative energies. How far can we push conversion efficiencies of solar panels? ... How do we store the energy? Batteries? Hydrogen? ... As we get better at Hydrogen storage and infrastructure, we can begin to look at co-gen engineering..... How much heat is wasted by a Nuclear reactor? Can we efficiently use that wasted energy to catalyze cooling water and store the Hydrogen for fuel? What opportunities exist for extracting core heat from, say, the Yellowstone region and putting that to a useful purpose?

What BHO has done is nothing more than buy temporary jobs. Solar technology cannot, today, support a self-sustaining industry. If you believe the government should be "investing" in such things, primary research is the only area where I might agree with you. Otherwise, government should GTFO of fiddling with the market.

If you're a believer in AGW, I have a question for you...... Which will be easier, reversing what you believe man is doing or managing the outcomes? If you think you're going to force India and China and Africa and South America (deforestation) to lock down their carbon emissions, I have a bridge to sell you. Did you hear the Indians tell the world that it's up to the first-world nations to reduce their emissions, when they spoke in Paris this week? HA! I need no more proof than that, that reversing AGW, if you believe in it, is a fantasy. For AGW believers, take solace in the fact that there is upside to the world getting warmer..... LINK (http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf) <--- Link opens PDF

FWIW, I'm FAR more worried about being wiped out by a virus.

I'll stop rambling...

[JodyH]

Human arrogance has no limits.
We barely rate flea status, yet we think we're the tail wagging the dog.

[BobLoblaw]

Anthropogenic global warming is a farce. It is a hyper-inflated, scaremongering tactic by the government so they can choose the winners and losers of capitalism and use the taxpayers money in doing so.

For one, current data (read: right this moment) detecting the temperature of the entire surface of the Earth, not to mention the temperature of sub layers below the surface and the temperature of that which is surrounding the Earth is by all accounts a modest guess. Claiming you can measure the average temperature of the whole Earth for a whole year is academically absurd to say the least.

Secondly, historical quantitative data regarding the temperature of the Earth since what we can only guess is the beginning is a tiny fraction of less than one percent. One hundred and fifty years of less than reliable data (that has been cherry-picked with "rounding anomalies") showing a change of 288 degrees Kelvin to 288.8 is by all accounts an amazingly stable temperature shift.

Third, qualitative data such as "the arctic is melting" have been disproven and the Antarctic sea ice has had record-breaking growth for the last three years. The sea levels haven't risen like the alarmists noted a few years back.

Fourth, we've been on a cooling trend for the past 20 years and that's including the doctored statistics and more CO2 output than ever.

Fifth, the spawn of the cult of climate scientist. This college major was invented faster than any that I can recall. They're statisticians, that's it. Some of the greatest scientists of our time have resigned from the American Physical Society due to these lockstep followers. I attribute the new age of the climate scientist due to an undoubted, never-ending influx of capital to save the planet from a crisis that does not exist and thus cannot be disproven. How can you prove the world will not end from man-made global warming? It just doesn't and then they'll rebrand it "Climate Change" so they can attribute any weather anomalies (even the rise of ISIS if you're a Bernie Sanders fan) to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, bathtub farts or whatever other dumb shit they can think up.

The temperature changes. It swings up for a period and down for a period. We've been on the upswing. That has nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution or fossil fuels or more people fucking more people.

[ACP230]

By staying home, and shutting up, the participants at the recent conference could have saved a whole lot of fossil fuels
and expelled less carbon dioxide as well.

When those folks start acting like the problem they cower from is real enough to effect their behavior, they can talk to me
about the thermostat on my wall and the truck in my driveway. Until then, don't bother me, eh?

[Hatchetman]

Though it contains elements with which I don't agree, this piece captures my thinking where the Church of Anthropomorphic Climate Apocalypse is concerned:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/30/what_should_we_do_about_climate_change_128876.html

[Jeep]

We gave a Spanish renewable energy company 2 billion. Two billion. They are declaring bankruptcy. Gotta love those green jobs. Meanwhile, Obama is doubling down (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261526-epa-unveils-contentious-ethanol-fuel-standard) on ethanol production because "green."

Words fail me on both topics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/30/spains-renewable-energy-powerhouse-teeters-toward-bankruptcy/

Don't forget the "bio-diesel" that the administration is buying at $20+ per gallon and which takes far more energy to make than is in the diesel that is produced. The administration is requiring the DOD to spend billions per year on this kind of crackpot stuff.

One can debate whether human-produced CO2 is measurably warming the planet (my best guess is that it has some warming effect but much less than predicted by the more extreme prophets of doom), but almost all current alternative energy technologies make little or no economic or environmental sense, and many--like bio-diesel--ignore the first law of thermo dynamics.

In addition, if you look at these projects in detail you will find that a huge number of them are run by large Obama contributors. In other words, they are political payback, but they escape media scrutiny because they are "green" and hence automatically good.

We continue to be fleeced by a permanent governing class that uses scare tactics to gain power and enrich itself.

[RoyGBiv]

We continue to be fleeced by a permanent governing class that uses scare tactics to gain power and enrich itself.
Agreed. But I blame our own ignorance. Willful ignorance.
Once ISIL brings home the pain maybe some folks will wake up.

Tangent
At first glance I read "prophets of doom" as "puppets of doom" (still apropos), and thought that would be a great name for a rock band.
/Tangent

[Guinnessman]

I saw something very ironic this week; a passenger that I saw in the airport this week was wearing a "No Fossil Fuels" T-Shirt.

As we set the takeoff thrust on our first takeoff roll that morning, we had big shit-eating grins on our faces just knowing that while those big turbofans roared to life, someone in that airport posed a threat to puppies and kittens. :cool:

[Default.mp3]

Note the gap between the public's belief and scientist's beliefs about anthropogenic climate change:
http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01.png

Source: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

Make of it what you will, but one would think that such a wide gap denotes a failure somewhere in the system.

[GardoneVT]

Who cares.

Seriously. The nature of an industrious society means we will always be running out of SOME critical resource.
That's the nature of the beast.
2000 years ago, entire kingdoms fell and rose because of salt being the economic cornerstone of that society. Now there's bulk packs of the stuff in every corner store.

200 years ago, it was projected by 1950 civilized society would end. Not because of alien calamity or global war. But horses. The quantities of horses being used in every urban city of the time meant by 1950 there'd be 6 feet rivers of literal horseshit in the street. Hokey solutions like complex , Rube Goldberg type sewers, staggered streets, and other logistically impossible schemes were floated to solve the problem.

Then , in the early 1900s ,comes the automobile. A century later we now bellyache about emissions and climate change. I'll wager a century from now the Big Environmental Problem will be disposing of old fusion batteries and expired jetpacks, and so on it'll go.

[Cookie Monster]

We gave a Spanish renewable energy company 2 billion. Two billion. They are declaring bankruptcy. Gotta love those green jobs. Meanwhile, Obama is doubling down (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261526-epa-unveils-contentious-ethanol-fuel-standard) on ethanol production because "green."

Words fail me on both topics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/11/30/spains-renewable-energy-powerhouse-teeters-toward-bankruptcy/

Stripping organic matter out of the soil and burning it in our cars is idiocy. Ethanol is absolutely the wrong choice especially since it messes with my chainsaw.

[rauchman]

So...Okay I'm gonna write a long'ish post here about environmental sustainability that is a thread drift.

The bottom line is - anthropogenic-driven climate change is real, period. Full stop. There, I said it. I don't need to look at CO2 emission numbers to recognize that. The sheer reality is, humans are the cockroaches of the vertebrate world. There are seven billion plus of us and we modify our environments with all sorts of things to produce a whole variety of other things. We need look no further than the fact that there is clear, geological, evidence of our presence on the planet and that it is driven, almost entirely, by the industrial revolution. - There is no question that we do it, there is no question that the ways in which we have done it in the past are a net negative for both humans and the planet (unless you some how think strip mining and runoff changes that cause droughts or floods are positive). - And with continued population growth, continued industrialization, and continued urbanization, the sheer reality is we're going to run out of resources sooner rather than later.

So, what do we do about it? Now, I agree the ethanol thing, that's a bone-headed bunch of bullshit in the long-term. We're going to need acres of corn to feed people and we need those prices to be relatively low, to avoid mega inflation and political/social instability. I also agree that giving two billion to a company for hopes and dreams is a bit ludicrous. However, as a society, if we don't invest in the next generation, there isn't going to be a generation after that. Or at least not a significant one that isn't trapped in global conflict.

A couple of basic things we should be doing, for serious. Reducing, reusing, recycling - not for some feel good bullshit reason. But by doing this you bring your consumption in line with your production. In today's world where a considerable amount of our production is of the non-tangible kind that means your production is really the money you spend (both in taxes and as a consumer). And frankly, non-tangible production is the way of the future, honestly. We have too many people and too efficient means of production of primary resources to not have people standing around producing little in a tangible sense.

Anyways, I'm rambling a bit so let me just drive home what I mean. We have a mega-huge population, many of whom do nothing more than subsist daily, and then many who do more than subsist, but produce few tangible products. We also have to sustain at least some proportion of that mega-huge population and our current approach can't do it. Burning corn for gasoline may work short-term but it isn't a viable long-term solution. Petroleum isn't a viable long-term solution, either. By increasing fuel efficiency we do gain some more life from it, but the biggest investors in renewable energy are...the oil companies. Who spend more per-capita than anyone on the next-generation of energy. That should tell you what they already know, petroleum is going extinct. It will happen in my lifetime. All of this means, we have a very real, existential, threat to our society and our planet. Something that is...way more important than fucking ISIS, for example. We may literally not have energy in two-three generations if we don't do something about it. NOW...I think we are doing something about it and that is the good news.

If we could just get people past the holier-than-thou stage of recycling and reducing our "carbon footprint" (such a stupid fucking term for what should be "reducing your consumption to come in line with your production") - we'd be that much further along in developing long-term solutions.

-Rob

Excellent post for an excellent thread.

I'll preface this post by saying, when I pass chemical factories along the NJ Turnpike spitting out noxious gasses, pass massive industrial food processing centers in AZ where thousands of animals are forced to live in a way that is very far from their natural path of life, see mountains stripped away for mining, taste water that doesn't taste like water from fracking....all of it, it sickens the fuck out of me and pisses me off that this species that I am a part of, is so violently destructive in the quest for money and progress. There....I said it. Call me a gun loving tree hugger....whatever.

I fully believe humans are having an impact on the Earth's environment. I fully believe this impact is causing the environment to change outside of the natural cycle of how the Earths' climate changes. Objectively speaking, I also fully believe that while there will be ramifications for every living organism on the planet and some will die off, humans and in all likelihood, many other organisms will adapt to this change and survive.....amidst much sorrow, angst and violence.

People being people and politics being politics, it doesn't surprise me that sparklefart (credit goes to voodoo man for that one...love that) and company use this issue for political gain. Maybe I'm not informed enough, but like healthcare, it shouldn't surprise me that the folks on the other side of the isle aren't offering anything of constructive content to take the lead in this....but it does.

[RevolverRob]

You've expressed a lot of very firm opinions in this post and I wonder if you are qualified to make them. This is not to say I disagree with everything you wrote.

I'm not sure what you think qualifies an individual to state firm opinions about a subject. But let's see: I have a B.A. in Anthropology with a focus on studying past and present material cultures and utilizing stable and unstable isotopes to interpret past climate. I worked as a professional archeologist for three years. I have an M.S. in Geosciences from one of the top 3 ranked programs in the world, with a focus on studying ancient prehistory of Earth over the last 65 million years including considerable work on geoclimate models, paleoclimatic reconstructions, and interpretation of the fossil and geological record. I was hired as an academic lecturer at UT Austin to teach geosciences including paleontology and Earth systems. I am currently a Ph.D. student studying Evolution Biology at the #2 ranked program in the world, with a focus on understanding biogeographic shifts combined with the physical record of prehistory (fossil and geologic record). I have been the author/coauthor and an acknowledged advisor of multiple publications focused on archeological, paleontological, and geological papers. - So, I'm not sure if I am qualified to have a firm opinion on much of anything, but I am damn sure qualified to investigate and interpret scientific and geologic data relevant to the topic at hand. That or the past decade that I have spent studying, discovering, and publishing on data relevant to the question at hand has been entirely wasted.


Environmental degradation and overpopulation are real problems. They are also much less problematic in advanced industrial economies that have the luxury of instituting pollution controls and setting aside land for preservation.

Nobody that I am aware of has introduced even a barely plausible plan for cutting pollution in industrial societies by the orders of magnitude being discussed in Paris without massive economic disruption that our society will not tolerate. Nobody that I am aware of has a suggestion on how to reduce the earth's population in the short term in a meaningful way that doesn't involve death on a massive scale.

The only viable alternative to fossil fuels for power generation is nuclear power. There is presently no viable alternative to fossil fuels for transportation. Given that, the best way to reduce carbon in the short run - a good goal IMO - is increasing nuclear power generation and improving vehicular fuel efficiency.

If you want to reduce population growth subsidized birth control is a good start. Turns out women don't like having lots of kids. Good luck getting this done in regressive patriarchal societies.

I am in agreement on virtually all counts. The near-term future will have to be an increased use of nuclear energy, until such a time that alternative sustainable fuels (nuclear power isn't long-term (read: centuries) sustainable in terms of waste control at present) become viable. I think a long-term plan that focuses on refinement of solar energy storage, supplemented by nuclear power, and eventually, hopefully viable transportation alternatives, will provide good long-term solutions.


"Correlation is not causation."
Fossil records show unequivocally that CO2 levels have been higher and have been lower than they are currently. I believe people are being led (brainwashed) to believe that somehow we are magically responsible for a perceived extra-geologic change. Is there some anthropomorphic contribution to current warming? Likely. Is human activity the primary cause, assuming that I believe "something unusual is actually happening"? TBD. It's impossible to wade through all the politics and scandalously poor "science" to reach an answer beyond "correlation". Should we let government tax carbon emissions as a way of tamping the "problem"? Hell no.

That is correct, the fossil record does show, unequivocally that Co2 levels have been higher and lower in the past. The question is not have CO2 levels been higher or lower in the past. The question is how rapidly did those CO2 levels shift, relative to a shift we have measured today? - Do I think all measurements are accurate? No. Do I think the models are accurate? No. None-the-less repeated observations have suggested that we are seeing a shift in relative CO2 levels that 1) Coincides with the onset of the Industrial Revolution 2) Appears to be at a rate that relative to what we have in the fossil record is elevated compared to previous upticks. That said we must view the fossil record data with skepticism. Because it is time-averaged and incomplete at best. However, what isn't up-for-debate is the monumental changes that humans have made to the Earth's landscape, especially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We also know that some of these changes are definitive negatives on both local and regional scales.

Maybe you're thinking, "But correlation does not equal causation." - Correct it doesn't. But when isotope geochemists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. Have compared the rate shifts against the best records we have, compared simultaneously with known data about say volcanic eruptions, new knowledge and models of the Earth's elliptical orbit and rotation - We haven't yet identified a clear, compelling, alternative hypothesis to explain the rate shift.



If you're inclined to do something along the lines of Carbon Credits to address AGW, the place to start is "credible proof", then move on to "causation". Until you cover those credibly, I'm not buyin'. Honestly, I'm not sure it's possible given how badly the science has been contaminated by politics. Example? Let's change the data sources to fit the model. LINK (Is the government tinkering with global warming data?).

I've been a proponent of alternative energy since the early 80's. My senior (college) paper was on using Hydrogen as a storage mechanism for solar power. Like THIS (http://www.gizmag.com/honda-solar-hydrogen-fuel-cell-refueller-electric-vehicle/14049/) (solar), or THIS (http://cafcp.org/sunhydro-opens-first-hydrogen-fueling-station-connecticut-partners-toyota) (membrane). I spent the first few years of my professional career doing environmental research (related to Superfund site cleanup).

What I would do with $2B to spend on the problem is to fund university and private sector PRIMARY research to improve the underlying technologies (Chemistry, Engineering, etc.) of alternative energies. How far can we push conversion efficiencies of solar panels? ... How do we store the energy? Batteries? Hydrogen? ... As we get better at Hydrogen storage and infrastructure, we can begin to look at co-gen engineering..... How much heat is wasted by a Nuclear reactor? Can we efficiently use that wasted energy to catalyze cooling water and store the Hydrogen for fuel? What opportunities exist for extracting core heat from, say, the Yellowstone region and putting that to a useful purpose?

What BHO has done is nothing more than buy temporary jobs. Solar technology cannot, today, support a self-sustaining industry. If you believe the government should be "investing" in such things, primary research is the only area where I might agree with you. Otherwise, government should GTFO of fiddling with the market.

If you're a believer in AGW, I have a question for you...... Which will be easier, reversing what you believe man is doing or managing the outcomes? If you think you're going to force India and China and Africa and South America (deforestation) to lock down their carbon emissions, I have a bridge to sell you. Did you hear the Indians tell the world that it's up to the first-world nations to reduce their emissions, when they spoke in Paris this week? HA! I need no more proof than that, that reversing AGW, if you believe in it, is a fantasy. For AGW believers, take solace in the fact that there is upside to the world getting warmer..... LINK (http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf) <--- Link opens PDF

FWIW, I'm FAR more worried about being wiped out by a virus.

I'll stop rambling...

So, we're actually not in much disagreement either. Carbon-credits are a scam, pure and simple. If you reduce your output and intake, you reduce your output and intake. It's simple economics. Buying a "credit" to increase your output is no solution to anything. It's a governmental scam. I fully, and unequivocally agree that we should fund research in places where it is best done, not some cronyism quick. Also, yes BHO has only created temporary jobs and has done nothing to affect real change.

And you won't solve India or China, without a clear political and social strategy. And yes, I agree we cannot reverse the trend. I don't recall saying we could or that we even should. In fact, I think I elluded to that things will continue forward with economic development. Our only solution is one of management.

The virus thing is an interesting problem. I say it poses risk in less industrialised nations (like India or China) than in the U.S. - The important thing to remember is, viruses evolve quickly and they have a balancing act. A virus that kills 99% of its host population dies out equally fast, because it kills so fast to prevent transmission and reproduction. The long and short is, even if you wiped out 99.99% of humans, there would still be 700,000+ humans on the planet. Which means the species isn't extinct and is unlikely to go extinct, even from an ultravirulent virus.


Human arrogance has no limits.
We barely rate flea status, yet we think we're the tail wagging the dog.

It's funny, because I think the same thing, but in the opposite direction. Nothing like human arrogance to look at the number of buildings, development, waste, pollution we produce, and then go, "But Earth warms and cools naturally! So it's no big deal." That is the infinite height of arrogance. Last time I checked, fleas affected their local ecosystems. They didn't build dams that change the entire hydrogeologic landscape of a continent, such that it could reactive formerly dead fault zones and create new localized dangers for infrastructure and populations.


Anthropogenic global warming is a farce. It is a hyper-inflated, scaremongering tactic by the government so they can choose the winners and losers of capitalism and use the taxpayers money in doing so.

This statement is clearly a deliberate misinterpretation of my statement. I said Anthropogenic Driven Climate Change - which includes a broad spectrum of phenomena. Your statement is designed, deliberately to inflame passion, by utilizing rhetorical statements that have nothing to do with the Science or the Facts.


For one, current data (read: right this moment) detecting the temperature of the entire surface of the Earth, not to mention the temperature of sub layers below the surface and the temperature of that which is surrounding the Earth is by all accounts a modest guess. Claiming you can measure the average temperature of the whole Earth for a whole year is academically absurd to say the least.

A "modest guess"? If by modest guess you mean the interpretation of available data, backed by physical experiments, combined with 300 year understanding of the physical properties that control the Earth's rock-cycle, generated by thousands of well-educated researchers with combined millennia of experience in investigating such phenomena...Then sure, I suppose it is "modest".

The estimations for average temperature are estimations, period. No one claims exact knowledge of these, you must investigate the individual proxies, individually, and view the data carefully.


Secondly, historical quantitative data regarding the temperature of the Earth since what we can only guess is the beginning is a tiny fraction of less than one percent. One hundred and fifty years of less than reliable data (that has been cherry-picked with "rounding anomalies") showing a change of 288 degrees Kelvin to 288.8 is by all accounts an amazingly stable temperature shift.

Yes, the historical data are a tiny fraction of the total history of Earth. I am in complete agreement, compared on average to the best records we have, it is still an interesting trend that is a field of ongoing inquiry.


Third, qualitative data such as "the arctic is melting" have been disproven and the Antarctic sea ice has had record-breaking growth for the last three years. The sea levels haven't risen like the alarmists noted a few years back.

Fourth, we've been on a cooling trend for the past 20 years and that's including the doctored statistics and more CO2 output than ever.

Sea level rise is difficult to assess, period. A better indicator would be the height of tide fluctuation relative to sea-ice change. I can't comment on whether or not those values are accurate. It is important to realize that in the past decade, our ability to measure sea-ice and estimate the volume as greatly improved. In particular the use of airplane based LIDAR has allowed for the systematic assessment. Of these questions. Yes it means that new, quantitative data, don't support all of the previous qualitative observations. That's called science and it doesn't support one thing or another.

Recording the cooling trend of 20 years. I find it ironic that you just utilized the fact that 150-years of historical data is not even a drop in the bucket against geologic time, but then use 20 years of data as a way of suggesting their is a significant "cooling trend". I would argue that such data do not exist, particularly if we cannot compare with the remaining historical data, which you view as dubious.


Fifth, the spawn of the cult of climate scientist. This college major was invented faster than any that I can recall. They're statisticians, that's it. Some of the greatest scientists of our time have resigned from the American Physical Society due to these lockstep followers. I attribute the new age of the climate scientist due to an undoubted, never-ending influx of capital to save the planet from a crisis that does not exist and thus cannot be disproven. How can you prove the world will not end from man-made global warming? It just doesn't and then they'll rebrand it "Climate Change" so they can attribute any weather anomalies (even the rise of ISIS if you're a Bernie Sanders fan) to the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, bathtub farts or whatever other dumb shit they can think up.

This has nothing to do with measurable facts or reality, period. I won't even get into the broader political side of things, because that was, in fact, the whole point of my post. We need to recognize reality and move away from gut-reactionary politics and bullshit rhetoric.


The temperature changes. It swings up for a period and down for a period. We've been on the upswing. That has nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution or fossil fuels or more people fucking more people.

We've been on an upswing or we've been in a cooling trend? Let me know when you decide.


Note the gap between the public's belief and scientist's beliefs about anthropogenic climate change:

Make of it what you will, but one would think that such a wide gap denotes a failure somewhere in the system.

It is telling isn't it? The long and short is the failure is in the educational gap. Our schools are fucking terrible and we don't do a good job of teaching people about science. That's the fault of everyone, myself as a scientist, included. But ya know, American Exceptionalism is dead, except for celebrity exceptionalism. I've had people tell me that they don't trust the mathematics of scientific equations, because they don't understand them. Is that my fault? Or their fault? America is in an anti-intellectual movement. Our politicians scream rhetoric down our throats and make every issue into a political one. Such as the facts that humans are 1) Globally distributed. 2) Have large population size. 3) Modify their local environments. 4) Modify the global environment - which can be summarized under the term Anthropogenic Driven Global Climate Change has become a passionate discourse amongst people that should be smart enough to look at the verifiable facts about the situation. Thus far, by using the political hot button phrase and stating it so frankly has resulted in the questioning of my 1) Qualifications to hold such opinions 2) Theory of Scientific Field 3) Resulting Understanding of the Data at Hand.

I can't think of a better rhetorical example to demonstrate how it's not scientists who have misled you, but politicians.

-Rob

[JodyH]

Yay! A religious debate.

[RevolverRob]

Yay! A religious debate.

Sure - why not.

As an individual, I ascribe to philosophical naturalism. I believe that repeatable, observable facts, that I can observe and have been observed and recorded - can be used to explain natural phenomena via natural means, without needed to invoke any number of unmeasurable variables, particularly those of a supernatural origin. I do not believe in God. I am not an atheist. I am an apathetic agnostic who firmly believes that we cannot know the reality of metaphysics and that it is beyond our ability to comprehend or measure. Therefore, I do not concern myself with such ventures. I do not worship blindly at the Church of Science™. I accept that it is a methodological approach and that observations are reductions of a whole that is larger than can be known by an individual, but that those observations are far more ascertainable than metaphysical ones. I accept that observations are/can be incorrect and that some observations are fallacious. Those who make fallacious observations are best considered blasphemers and should be removed from the field, such that those who do honest work, trying to investigate these questions, may do so, honestly.

I'll step back over to the rhetorical side of the aisle. - Do people here, genuinely believe, that hundreds of thousands, of researchers and investigators, have constructed and refined, The Narrative of Global Climate Change™, to control all of you? For some, what are in all senses of the word, pretty paltry science funding dollars? Or - do you think that maybe - just maybe - there is a much smaller group of people, for instance a class of global politicians, who have politicized and disingenuously altered facts and statements to construct and refine, The Narrative of Global Climate Change™, to control the population? For some, much more significant, monetary distributions to their even smaller, group, of exceptionally rich, friends, in the name of the good of the people?

Now - I am going to be very unobjective and offer my personal and non-professional opinion - Religion, Science - These aren't the issues are hand - Lying scumbag politicians are the issues at hand. If you choose to ignore incontrovertible factual observations, to proselytize yourself at the altar of some politician. That's your decision, and by God, you are free to make it. Just don't get upset if I think you're a fucking moron and don't want your political choices messing up my society. Or perhaps more importantly, don't accuse me and those in my field of making shit up, shit that you can verify with your own eyes, for some nefarious purpose of controlling you. You can lead the horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

-Rob

[Joe in PNG]

There's been a lot in PNG news about the Prime Minister (and leaders from other island nations) wanting Something To Be Done.
Problem is, what they want is for the rich nations to give them money. What they will then do with the money will have nothing to do with battling climate change.
No, an infinitesimal amount will go to well publicized Green Potemkin Projects- usually a nice sinecure for a politically connected corny. But most of the money will be skimmed into the pockets of politicians, or used to buy votes, or expended in other ways that has nothing to do with ending the problem.
It's a bit like giving addicts cash money if they promise to not do drugs.

And that's the thing- every single solution posited by the usual suspects has bugger-all to do with fixing the problem. Usually they want us to 1) Give Governments more power 2) Give Governments more money. And neither one is a help, long term.

[Hawk87]

One of the main problems I can see with climate change research is funding bias. Others are in a better position to see it then I am, but I can't see the government funding too many studies that set out with the stated purpose of disproving climate change, which is the way science should work. If climate change is a valid scientific principle, it should resist any attempt to disprove it. There may be money out there for those types of studies from special interest groups, but again, you run into funding bias.

There have also been a lot of accusations of curve fitting data by climate change scientists, although I suspect it goes both ways. I don't know for sure how true those claims are, but again, I suspect it has happened on both sides of the debate.

The combination of those two factors (which are a result of politicizing of the topic) make it very difficult to ascertain the truth of situation.

[Joe in PNG]

Now onto the "Can Hundreds of Scientist Be Wrong?" trope. Answer, yes, yes they can. Feynman's famous essay "Cargo Cult Science" is about this very problem- the tendency is to believe that results outside the accepted norm are an anomaly. Add to a reluctance to re-do previous research, and yes, people can be "doing science' without doing science.
And that's before political pressure enters the debate.

[BobLoblaw]

..Recording the cooling trend of 20 years. I find it ironic that you just utilized the fact that 150-years of historical data is not even a drop in the bucket against geologic time, but then use 20 years of data as a way of suggesting their is a significant "cooling trend". I would argue that such data do not exist, particularly if we cannot compare with the remaining historical data, which you view as dubious.

If the argument is based around carbon, I found it worth noting that over the past 20 years humans have pumped out more and more yet the opposite effect is being realized by the same folks who taint the data. But of course they mentioned nothing of it in IPCC's latest summary. Out of our 150 years of "reliable" data, the past 20 has defied the trend. It doesn't tell the whole story but I never said it did. It raises a lot of questions such as, how many years does this cooling trend need to last before it matters to the scientific community?


We've been on an upswing or we've been in a cooling trend? Let me know when you decide.

You know a smaller trend can exist in larger trend, right? I pointed out the cooling trend because these "scientists" can't explain it. That should give one pause, but it doesn't. Their best guess is the heat went into the depths of the ocean (below our ability to measure) somehow for some reason. Brilliant, another unprovable hypothesis.

There's a lot of guessing in the climate science community by those who seem to be so certain that we're going to ruin the planet. I have a different theory: we as humans are an arrogant species who know very little. People "believe" in AGW because it's not science.

BHO said "the science is settled" though so maybe I'm wrong. That's how science works, right? You make a hypothesis, fit the data to the narrative, and profit.

[farscott]

I am still waiting for China to deal with their very visible climate change problem aka smog. The smog is so bad that Shanghai is cloudy even with no clouds in the sky, and the air is so bad it feels like breathing oil. It literally hurts to breathe in Shanghai. After seeing Shanghai, I am a huge fan of the EPA.

The bigger issue with energy policy in the USA is that the cleanest economical source of power is very unpopular due to previous poor designs, poor maintenance, and poor planning and, not surprisingly, has a huge NIMBY attitude. Of course, I am referring to nuclear power.

As we all use more and more electricity, something is going to give. When was the last time a new power plant came on line in California?

[Joe in PNG]

Yeah, the whole "The Science is Settled, So Shut Up!!" attitude goes against the philosophy of organized scientific research.
Science is never settled.

[RoyGBiv]

The question is how rapidly did those CO2 levels shift, relative to a shift we have measured today? - Do I think all measurements are accurate? No. Do I think the models are accurate? No. None-the-less repeated observations have suggested that we are seeing a shift in relative CO2 levels that 1) Coincides with the onset of the Industrial Revolution 2) Appears to be at a rate that relative to what we have in the fossil record is elevated compared to previous upticks. That said we must view the fossil record data with skepticism. Because it is time-averaged and incomplete at best. However, what isn't up-for-debate is the monumental changes that humans have made to the Earth's landscape, especially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We also know that some of these changes are definitive negatives on both local and regional scales.

Maybe you're thinking, "But correlation does not equal causation." - Correct it doesn't. But when isotope geochemists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. Have compared the rate shifts against the best records we have, compared simultaneously with known data about say volcanic eruptions, new knowledge and models of the Earth's elliptical orbit and rotation - We haven't yet identified a clear, compelling, alternative hypothesis to explain the rate shift.

-Rob
Why is that the question? It's not. Not until you can prove the CAUSATION between CO2 and "Climate Change™" , aka "Global Warming".
And then there's "The Pause™". If it's correct to claim that the rate of industrialization has increased over the past 20 years, why no warming over that period? Well, unless you decide to change your data source from ocean temperatures to inlet temperatures of ocean vessels (see my link to that story in my earlier post).

I think there's a lot of "We should be better to the planet" (which I agree with completely) driving unquestioning acceptance of AGM. Dangerous. There's way too much "hottest on record" sky-is-falling DERP. Climate/Temperatures/etc. are geologic events. For the current hundred years or so, we're not in the center of the Bell Curve. That's an expectation setting problem, not a let's f-up the world economy problem. Not until we can prove causation and even then it will still be cheaper to manage the consequences rather than give government more control to "fix" things that cannot be fixed unless everyone buys in.

[Wondering Beard]

Interesting article:

Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/)

[FNFAN]

AGW legislation is about stopping climate change, right? So why are its proponents talking about using it as a means of economic change?

As you read the below quote keep in mind that the UNFCCC is the 'United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change"

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.", Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC

Oh! And there's this one:

"Climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth andit's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War." -Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change.

[RevolverRob]

Now onto the "Can Hundreds of Scientist Be Wrong?" trope. Answer, yes, yes they can. Feynman's famous essay "Cargo Cult Science" is about this very problem- the tendency is to believe that results outside the accepted norm are an anomaly. Add to a reluctance to re-do previous research, and yes, people can be "doing science' without doing science.
And that's before political pressure enters the debate.

Of course hundreds of scientists can be wrong. Plate Tectonics. - A theory that has fundamentally transformed geological and Earth science studies since its acceptance in the field in the 1960s. It was postulated some forty years previous to its acceptance, but beaten down by critics. Only, to later, be discovered accurate, when new data became available.

In this case - I fully admit that the measurements we have are not accurate, can be improved, and could be currently wrong. The issue is, additional investigations into similar proxies producing similar results, forces one to consider multiple working explanatory hypothesis. Many of the proposed alternatives have shown up as incorrect or not adequate. Once again, in the absence of providing an adequate alternative hypothesis to explain these phenomena, we are left with multiple sets of observable data and some objective facts, that support the current hypothesis. And yes, I do, genuinely believe, people are looking for alternative hypotheses. Otherwise the folks doing work on Milankovitch cycles, deep ocean carbon sequestration, and magnetic field effects on instrument measuring, are doing it for virtually no reason.

And yes - political pressure is extreme in this situation.


If the argument is based around carbon, I found it worth noting that over the past 20 years humans have pumped out more and more yet the opposite effect is being realized by the same folks who taint the data. But of course they mentioned nothing of it in IPCC's latest summary. Out of our 150 years of "reliable" data, the past 20 has defied the trend. It doesn't tell the whole story but I never said it did. It raises a lot of questions such as, how many years does this cooling trend need to last before it matters to the scientific community?

The last point is an excellent philosophical question, ignoring the obvious bait. I would rephrase it as, "How much data is necessary to define "a trend". How much data is necessary to identify a "significant trend"? And the answer - isn't always clear.



You know a smaller trend can exist in larger trend, right? I pointed out the cooling trend because these "scientists" can't explain it. That should give one pause, but it doesn't. Their best guess is the heat went into the depths of the ocean (below our ability to measure) somehow for some reason. Brilliant, another unprovable hypothesis.

Man, there are so many holes here and in your logic I don't nowhere to start. Assuming the "cooling trend" you suggest is in fact a genuine "trend" and therefore is statistically informative. And assuming, most importantly, the data of it are comparable to the additional 150 years. Then there are potentially multiple explanatory theories. As near as I can tell, and honestly I have no fucking clue, because I think you're conflating heat, CO2, and a variety of other factors here - One hypothesis that is being investigated for why the rise in temperature doesn't match the rise in CO2 is because previous models and hypotheses, did not directly take into account the ability of the ocean to provide a buffering solution. Our oceans are currently slightly (ever so slightly) basic and contain significant amounts of calcium carbonate. When CO2 combines with water it produces Carbonic Acid which is mildly acidic and can be buffered by the free calcium carbonate in the ocean. This in turn, reduces the amount of CO2 free to produce a Greenhouse Effect. Even though CO2 production has increased, our oceans still have the ability to buffer incoming CO2. CO2 is but one issue, we may have slowed, considerably, greenhouse effect from other greenhouse gases considerably through collective pollution measures over the previous 40 years.

So look, I'm not sure if that's what you meant. Because I really don't know what you're talking about. But there is a ton of very real science and hypotheses driving Ocean CO2 buffering. And it's based on get this...Chemistry. Not even EVIL science like Geology.


There's a lot of guessing in the climate science community by those who seem to be so certain that we're going to ruin the planet. I have a different theory: we as humans are an arrogant species who know very little. People "believe" in AGW because it's not science.

Actually, I think the arrogant person here is you. I think you're upset, because you can't separate out a lack of personal and conceaptual knowledge and a personal, political, agenda that doesn't coincide with observable facts. Rather than attack the actual data, you've chosen to attack scientists and the scientific method. The long and short of it is - I honestly suspect you are WAY out of your lane and are too arrogant to admit it. Now, I'm not the type of dick to tell you to get back in your lane. Instead, I'll offer you the opportunity to ask well formulated questions about the hypotheses and data that you think are wrong. However, I suspect you won't take me up on this narrative, because your mind and opinion is settled about this subject.


BHO said "the science is settled" though so maybe I'm wrong. That's how science works, right? You make a hypothesis, fit the data to the narrative, and profit.


Or - do you think that maybe - just maybe - there is a much smaller group of people, for instance a class of global politicians, who have politicized and disingenuously altered facts and statements to construct and refine, The Narrative of Global Climate Change™, to control the population? For some, much more significant, monetary distributions to their even smaller, group, of exceptionally rich, friends, in the name of the good of the people?

God damn the irony is palpable.

-Rob

[RevolverRob]

Why is that the question? It's not. Not until you can prove the CAUSATION between CO2 and "Climate Change™" , aka "Global Warming".
And then there's "The Pause™". If it's correct to claim that the rate of industrialization has increased over the past 20 years, why no warming over that period? Well, unless you decide to change your data source from ocean temperatures to inlet temperatures of ocean vessels (see my link to that story in my earlier post).

Sorry I missed this. An increase in CO2 and other "Greenhouse Gases" causes a "Greenhouse Effect" on Earth and produces increase temperature, period. This is not a hypothesis. This is an observable fact. If you do not believe me, you can pump CO2 into a chamber filled with standard air and shine a UV light on it and watch the temperature rise. Control for the experiment by not pumping in additional CO2. It's really that simple, it's chemistry. This is a 1:1 increase in CO2 with no change in other variables, produces warmer temperatures. They've done a bunch of experiments to address that - since 1859. I'm not sure what else I can tell you.

Now I CAN tell you that the "Global Warming" was originally borne out of a series of models that are at best, primitive, approximations of reality. Early models didn't take into account carbon uptake by photosynthetic organisms or carbon buffering in the ocean. Newer models are better at doing that, but still imperfect. I can't PROVIDE you with a solution to this problem, because it isn't solved.


I think there's a lot of "We should be better to the planet" (which I agree with completely) driving unquestioning acceptance of AGM. Dangerous. There's way too much "hottest on record" sky-is-falling DERP. Climate/Temperatures/etc. are geologic events. For the current hundred years or so, we're not in the center of the Bell Curve. That's an expectation setting problem, not a let's f-up the world economy problem. Not until we can prove causation and even then it will still be cheaper to manage the consequences rather than give government more control to "fix" things that cannot be fixed unless everyone buys in.

So, I think the causation debate is settled (i.e., does increased CO2 produce a net warming effect? Yes.). The question is does human produced CO2 produce a rapid warming event? Which is a different question and a different sub-set of the debate from what I've said before. Humans cause climate change. Which is also a demonstrable fact. Now, I'm not skirting the issue, humans produce CO2 and the amount is increases. Our previous measures and models did not accurately take into account certain variables. Newer models take into account more variables, but are still incomplete. I agree that there has been considerable sensationalism regarding the interpretation of these incomplete data. However, there can be no doubt that downstream effects are forthcoming, how fast, how extensive, etc. Is difficult to know, measure, or estimate. So, I agree, there are a lot of things that are politically being done that have nothing to do with solving this problem.

However, ignoring the reality of the problem isn't solving it either. A "sit and wait" approach is likely inadvisable. It is better to recognize that there are culprits that can create a net negative - that we can actually deal with - and deal with them. Are we going to solve it all? Fuck no. But we can start. I already proferred my piece on that. We're gonna run out of petroleum, before the net effects of Global Warming actually take effect. But simultaneously solving the petroleum problem and greenhouse gas problem could actually be done. If we'd separate out the political chaff from the legitimate wheat.

-Rob

[BobLoblaw]

..Man, there are so many holes here and in your logic I don't nowhere to start. Assuming the "cooling trend" you suggest is in fact a genuine "trend" and therefore is statistically informative. And assuming, most importantly, the data of it are comparable to the additional 150 years. Then there are potentially multiple explanatory theories. As near as I can tell, and honestly I have no fucking clue, because I think you're conflating heat, CO2, and a variety of other factors here - One hypothesis that is being investigated for why the rise in temperature doesn't match the rise in CO2 is because previous models and hypotheses, did not directly take into account the ability of the ocean to provide a buffering solution. Our oceans are currently slightly (ever so slightly) basic and contain significant amounts of calcium carbonate. When CO2 combines with water it produces Carbonic Acid which is mildly acidic and can be buffered by the free calcium carbonate in the ocean. This in turn, reduces the amount of CO2 free to produce a Greenhouse Effect. Even though CO2 production has increased, our oceans still have the ability to buffer incoming CO2. CO2 is but one issue, we may have slowed, considerably, greenhouse effect from other greenhouse gases considerably through collective pollution measures over the previous 40 years.

So look, I'm not sure if that's what you meant. Because I really don't know what you're talking about. But there is a ton of very real science and hypotheses driving Ocean CO2 buffering. And it's based on get this...Chemistry. Not even EVIL science like Geology.
That wasn't the theory I was talking about. It was the theory that the ocean was absorbing the heat which has permitted the cooling to continue. I hadn't heard that one yet.


Actually, I think the arrogant person here is you. I think you're upset, because you can't separate out a lack of personal and conceaptual knowledge and a personal, political, agenda that doesn't coincide with observable facts. Rather than attack the actual data, you've chosen to attack scientists and the scientific method. The long and short of it is - I honestly suspect you are WAY out of your lane and are too arrogant to admit it. Now, I'm not the type of dick to tell you to get back in your lane. Instead, I'll offer you the opportunity to ask well formulated questions about the hypotheses and data that you think are wrong. However, I suspect you won't take me up on this narrative, because your mind and opinion is settled about this subject.

No need to get personal. I'm not a genius but then again I never said I was. I'm not a professional academic and wouldn't claim to be. If I was a scientist I wouldn't dare disagree with AGW on a public forum. You do realize that any AGW findings that are presented as absolute fact (which they have been..by scientists) equate to people losing their jobs, careers, and even destabilizing regions of the country (e.g. my state), right? The doctored data, lack of due diligence, and political push (which started this thread) registers high on my bullshit meter. It shouldn't be a shock when some people are shaking their heads because dogma sounded the alarm before all the facts are in. Science is never settled and in this instance it seems to barely have begun, yet you seem to have made up your mind as well.

BTW, I don't consider climate scientists to be actual scientists because they have an agenda: to keep their jobs. If AGW is disproven, their demand is vastly diminished and I somehow doubt the climate science community is completely immune to greed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wondering Beard]

Regardless of the scientific facts (sure humans cause climate change, we are all over this planet; the questions of how much, in which way and how bad can it get are still unanswered as far as I'm concerned, much less figuring out all the variables involved), to quote Instapundit: I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis, act like it's a crisis (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/02/climate-jetset-climate-change-crisis-conference-hypocrisy-column/76619818/)

[RevolverRob]

That wasn't the theory I was talking about. It was the theory that the ocean was absorbing the heat which has permitted the cooling to continue. I hadn't heard that one yet.

This is a new one to me, actually. I will have to investigate to try to understand it.




No need to get personal. I'm not a genius but then again I never said I was. I'm not a professional academic and wouldn't claim to be. You do realize that any AGW findings that are presented as absolute fact (which they have been..by scientists) equate to people losing their jobs, careers, and even destabilizing regions of the country (e.g. my state), right? The doctored data, lack of due diligence, and political push (which started this thread) registers high on my bullshit meter. It shouldn't be a shock when some people are shaking their heads because dogma sounded the alarm before all the facts are in. Science is never settled and in this instance it seems to barely have begun, yet you seem to have made up your mind as well.

The science has started and yes it is incomplete and always, for that matter, will be.

What's interesting here is - the alarm was sounded 98 years ago, by an industrialist - Alexander Graham Bell - who pointed out that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases and that left unchecked it would produce a net warming trend in Earth's atmosphere. To be sarcastic, I'm sure he said that, just to sell more telephones...My point is, this particular observation is not new. The reality is the situation is complicated. Yes, West Virginia is having issues, because of regulations on coal mining and limitations of coal production. I'm sorry to say this, but an industry that ran virtually unchecked and unregulated, that destroyed the natural landscape of West Virginia, and left its people largely impoverished without recourse, for more than a hundred years, is to blame. Not me, nor my colleagues, nor even Alexander Graham Bell. Yes, I recognize that these statements have broad implication for our society at regional, local, national, continental, global scales, but that doesn't make it right to ignore reality.

Yes, I agree that scientists must be careful to frame our findings objectively. I try not to state something is an incontrovertible fact, unless it is one. The incontrovertible facts here are 1) Humans occupy every continent on this planet. 2) Humans produce CO2 other greenhouse gases. 3) Humans modify their habitat extensively such that construction of certain types can dramatically influence the region or continent. Therefore the conclusion that Anthropogenic Driving Climate Change is real is the only logical conclusion. If you accept that humans modify (change) their local climates and are globally distributed, they must, by pure definition, drive global climate change. It's not difficult for me to state this. Those are factual observances that I accept as truth.


BTW, I don't consider climate scientists to be actual scientists because they have an agenda: to keep their jobs. If AGW is disproven, their demand is vastly diminished and I somehow doubt the climate science community is completely immune to greed.

Of course it isn't free from greed. Find me a single field that is. You gotta ask yourself...who is more greedy? The climate scientists who make statements that result in West Virginians losing their coal mining jobs...Or the companies that those West Virginians worked for, in some cases multiple generations, that barely paid them living wages, never invested in their broader communities, and when they finally left they left them with environmental waste that causes birth defects, illness, and shortened life-spans. All the while the CEOs of those companies retired to the Swiss Alps to enjoy frequent skiing.

[Cheap Shot]

Yeah, the whole "The Science is Settled, So Shut Up!!" attitude goes against the philosophy of organized scientific research.
Science is never settled.

I KNEW IT!

The Earth IS flat!

[breakingtime91]

Topics like this and gun control make it hard for me to vote for either party.

[TCinVA]

Yes, I agree that scientists must be careful to frame our findings objectively. I try not to state something is an incontrovertible fact, unless it is one. The incontrovertible facts here are 1) Humans occupy every continent on this planet. 2) Humans produce CO2 other greenhouse gases. 3) Humans modify their habitat extensively such that construction of certain types can dramatically influence the region or continent. Therefore the conclusion that Anthropogenic Driving Climate Change is real is the only logical conclusion. If you accept that humans modify (change) their local climates and are globally distributed, they must, by pure definition, drive global climate change. It's not difficult for me to state this. Those are factual observances that I accept as truth.


Even among so called "deniers" there is no disagreement that human activity changes the environment.

That's not the theory being sold.

The theory being sold is that global climate was stable until human industrialization fucked it all up and started a trend of unprecedented, out of control warming due to greenhouse emissions.

That theory is bullshit. It was concocted by some spectacularly shitty "science" by IPCC affiliated fucktards who have spent the last couple of decades assaulting anyone who disagrees for any reason whatsoever. They came up with the term "deniers" and spend their time assailing anyone who questions that orthodoxy, and have pretty successfully hijacked "peer review" to become a circle jerk. It's only in the last few years since the climate-gate emails came to light that the facade is starting to crack.

If you want to complain about people insulting scientists and the scientific method, start with Mikey Mann and his gaggle of idiots because those are the motherfuckers who have kept people from being published and have tried to ruin careers for daring to question their methods and conclusions.

The academy is easily captured by orthodoxy and one can point to lots of examples of the academic orthodoxy settling on something completely wrong but resistant to change because people's entire careers are based on bad theories.

Human nature is inevitable...even in the sciences, where people who challenge established orthodoxy often have to wait decades for their detractors to die off so new data gets a fair hearing. Ask Harlen Bretz.

Worse, this isn't a scientific question. It's a policy question where shitty "science" is being used as a bludgeon to try and allow Barack Obama to stand in front of a glacier and make a sad face claiming that the planet is going to die if we don't "do something". Nevermind that the glacier has been shrinking since before the industrial revolution, or that it's shrinking from its "little ice age" size which was the largest it had been since the end of the last major ice age. (Which, as best we know, wasn't ended by AGW) None of that gets mentioned. It's just shrinking glacier, sad polar bear, give guys like Obama more power because this fat fuck in a lab coat over here who claims a Nobel prize (that he never won) says we're all doomed if we don't!

[BobLoblaw]

This is a new one to me, actually. I will have to investigate to try to understand it.

The science has started and yes it is incomplete and always, for that matter, will be.

What's interesting here is - the alarm was sounded 98 years ago, by an industrialist - Alexander Graham Bell - who pointed out that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases and that left unchecked it would produce a net warming trend in Earth's atmosphere. To be sarcastic, I'm sure he said that, just to sell more telephones...My point is, this particular observation is not new. The reality is the situation is complicated. Yes, West Virginia is having issues, because of regulations on coal mining and limitations of coal production. I'm sorry to say this, but an industry that ran virtually unchecked and unregulated, that destroyed the natural landscape of West Virginia, and left its people largely impoverished without recourse, for more than a hundred years, is to blame. Not me, nor my colleagues, nor even Alexander Graham Bell. Yes, I recognize that these statements have broad implication for our society at regional, local, national, continental, global scales, but that doesn't make it right to ignore reality.

A) I doubt anyone considers Bell an alarmist, an observer at best for this subject matter. You know exactly the people I'm talking about. They didn't start screaming until a little over ten years ago. Before that the theory was global cooling if I'm correct.

B) Mining companies followed the guidelines set forth by the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA, and the DEP. If they didn't, they paid for the consequences, however the EPA is out of control now based upon the directive by BHO utilizing the shaky findings of AGW to further his personal goals.

C) WV is 98% forest and rivers. I've visited many sites from underground to surface and many reclaimed sites. The landscape is amazing, even the few MTR sites (the least used and least efficient form of mining) have not raped the land as the media would lead one to believe.


Of course it isn't free from greed. Find me a single field that is. You gotta ask yourself...who is more greedy? The climate scientists who make statements that result in West Virginians losing their coal mining jobs...Or the companies that those West Virginians worked for, in some cases multiple generations, that barely paid them living wages, never invested in their broader communities, and when they finally left they left them with environmental waste that causes birth defects, illness, and shortened life-spans. All the while the CEOs of those companies retired to the Swiss Alps to enjoy frequent skiing.

A) The climate scientists are more greedy, undoubtedly. Coal mining companies are not solely propped up by the government or propped up at all, not to mention they've provided a long-lasting economic influx for the region (with the exception of a few). Climate scientists are paid with taxpayer money taken from said company and employees working for that company and are used to destroy their professions without having beyond a reasonable doubt.

B) Miners don't use pick axes anymore, nor have they received a "living wage" for the past half century. Slaves didn't make much either but I'm not sure how that pertains to now. Miners make/made good money for hard work and they're royally fucked now.

C) Those who defied the law paid for those crimes, by law.

D) I don't care what CEOs do with their money. I somehow doubt the majority retired to Swiss Alps though.

I'll bow out. I have things to do and arguing on the Internet solves none of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

Even among so called "deniers" there is no disagreement that human activity changes the environment.

That's not the theory being sold.

The theory being sold is that global climate was stable until human industrialization fucked it all up and started a trend of unprecedented, out of control warming.

That theory is bullshit. It was concocted by some spectacularly shitty "science" by IPCC affiliated fucktards who have spent the last couple of decades assaulting anyone who disagrees for any reason whatsoever. They came up with the term "deniers" and spend their time assailing anyone who questions that orthodoxy, and have pretty successfully hijacked "peer review" to become a circle jerk. It's only in the last few years since the climate-gate emails came to light that the facade is starting to crack.

If you want to complain about people insulting scientists and the scientific method, start with Mikey Mann and his gaggle of idiots because those are the motherfuckers who have kept people from being published and have tried to ruin careers for daring to question their methods and conclusions.

The academy is easily captured by orthodoxy and one can point to lots of examples of the academic orthodoxy settling on something completely wrong but resistant to change because people's entire careers are based on bad theories.

Human nature is inevitable...even in the sciences, where people who challenge established orthodoxy often have to wait decades for their detractors to die off so new data gets a fair hearing.

It may come as a surprise...or maybe not. That among scientists, those who specialize in climate work, don't believe the original theorem published by those who had personal, vested, rhetorical arguments in it. It may also come as a surprise, that we utilize the example of "Climate-Gate" in ethics classes, along with things like Pilt Down Man, as examples of what NOT to do. It may come as a surprise, or not, that we have categorically transitioned the language to describe the current phenomena more accurately. I actually view their results or new results that reinforce the old narrative as dubious. And shockingly enough...most of my colleagues do to.

If you actually assess what I wrote, it is a very deliberate construction of words - Anthropogenic-driven Climate Change - Not Anthropogenic-driven Global Warming. Why? Because, it may come as a surprise, to realize that the Academy, hijacked though it was, has actually accepted that the data are insufficient to determine the "warming" portion of global warming. Global Climate Change is totally real and the impacts of it are also totally real. AND perhaps most importantly, there is clear geologic evidence...like the kind of thing we're gonna find in 25 million years, of the onset of the industrial revolution. Which means that those changes are large-scale, unprecedented, and in many places are actually out-of-control (like say I dunno...China). Like say the Industrial Revolution is to the modern rock record what the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction was to the Mesozoic rock record. It is abrupt, obvious, very clear, and unprecedented. The reality is Earth is a complex system, CO2 output is one variable in this immensely complex system and can't explain the whole thing, ever. We know that, we're working on improving our models, in being objective about them.

There are a lot of things that are going on in science these days. Particularly Earth sciences that are exceptionally difficult to summarize in a short time period. The bottom line is - the old guard is dying and the new guard is coming in and the theories are changing and so is the ability to set the ego aside. And not a moment too soon for some fields. We're nearing a pivotal transition in science and in Academia writ large that will color the future of our society on a global scale. I'm gonna tell you straight up, if you wouldn't blame all police officers for the bad behavior of a few, you shouldn't do the same with scientists.

Most of us work really, really, fucking hard to be as objective as possible. If you guys think I've bought hook-line-and-sinker into a crackpot theory, you're wrong. I've worked on these data, I've studied them, fuck I've fallen asleep on copies of them on my desk after an 18-hour day. And I did it, because I was trying to figure out if it was right, wrong, or irrelevant (turns out its mostly irrelevant). I've spent years, ONE THIRD OF MY LIFE in fact, dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. With no desire to destroy anyone, anything, or any society. I can't tell you how much the words that BobLobLaw wrote a couple of hours ago, about how these statements affect the very livelihood of people in West Virginia is tearing me up inside - why? Not because I think the data are wrong. But because I have an obligation as an ethical scientist to report the data I find. It's unfortunate that they support an assessment that is a negative for some. It's so unfortunate, that I have to agonize over whether or not it is the appropriate thing to do. I have to agonize over how to do it in a way that minimizes the impact on people not me.

If you guys think I'm doing this, so I have data, for my next NSF/EPA/NIH grant you're so wrong it isn't funny. Because it couldn't be further from the truth. But don't take my word for it. Try talking, objectively, with a scientist about what they do, their job, their data, their desires. Sure, there are some loud-mouth, scumbag, assholes out there. And like any field...those people are hated by the people within their field more than people outside of it.

-Rob

[RevolverRob]

A) The climate scientists are more greedy, undoubtedly. Coal mining companies are not solely propped up by the government or propped up at all, not to mention they've provided a long-lasting economic influx for the region (with the exception of a few). Climate scientists are paid with taxpayer money taken from said company and employees working for that company and are used to destroy their professions without having beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then you clearly have no idea how climate scientists get paid.


B) Miners don't use pick axes anymore, nor have they received a "living wage" for the past half century. Slaves didn't make much either but I'm not sure how that pertains to now. Miners make/made good money for hard work and they're royally fucked now.

But how was that in 1910? When did they finally get those real wages?


C) Those who defied the law paid for those crimes, by law.

I'm going to be honest, this made me laugh outloud. Seriously, if you believe this, you've drunk the corporate kool-aid more than I've drunk the science kool-aid.


D) I don't care what CEOs do with their money. I somehow doubt the majority retired to Swiss Alps though.

Really? Donald Blankenship retired to a personal compound in West Virginia owed 30+ million dollars from his company and held a position as a paid adviser. Not bad for a guy who violated the laws and killed 29 miners.


I'll bow out. I have things to do and arguing on the Internet solves none of them.

I've got to bow out too. I've got tax dollars from jobless miners to spend on champagne.

-Rob

[RoyGBiv]

It may come as a surprise...or maybe not. That among scientists, those who specialize in climate work, don't believe the original theorem published by those who had personal, vested, rhetorical arguments in it. It may also come as a surprise, that we utilize the example of "Climate-Gate" in ethics classes, along with things like Pilt Down Man, as examples of what NOT to do. It may come as a surprise, or not, that we have categorically transitioned the language to describe the current phenomena more accurately. I actually view their results or new results that reinforce the old narrative as dubious. And shockingly enough...most of my colleagues do to.

If you actually assess what I wrote, it is a very deliberate construction of words - Anthropogenic-driven Climate Change - Not Anthropogenic-driven Global Warming. Why? Because, it may come as a surprise, to realize that the Academy, hijacked though it was, has actually accepted that the data are insufficient to determine the "warming" portion of global warming. Global Climate Change is totally real and the impacts of it are also totally real. AND perhaps most importantly, there is clear geologic evidence...like the kind of thing we're gonna find in 25 million years, of the onset of the industrial revolution. Which means that those changes are large-scale, unprecedented, and in many places are actually out-of-control (like say I dunno...China). Like say the Industrial Revolution is to the modern rock record what the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction was to the Mesozoic rock record. It is abrupt, obvious, very clear, and unprecedented. The reality is Earth is a complex system, CO2 output is one variable in this immensely complex system and can't explain the whole thing, ever. We know that, we're working on improving our models, in being objective about them.

There are a lot of things that are going on in science these days. Particularly Earth sciences that are exceptionally difficult to summarize in a short time period. The bottom line is - the old guard is dying and the new guard is coming in and the theories are changing and so is the ability to set the ego aside. And not a moment too soon for some fields. We're nearing a pivotal transition in science and in Academia writ large that will color the future of our society on a global scale. I'm gonna tell you straight up, if you wouldn't blame all police officers for the bad behavior of a few, you shouldn't do the same with scientists.

Most of us work really, really, fucking hard to be as objective as possible. If you guys think I've bought hook-line-and-sinker into a crackpot theory, you're wrong. I've worked on these data, I've studied them, fuck I've fallen asleep on copies of them on my desk after an 18-hour day. And I did it, because I was trying to figure out if it was right, wrong, or irrelevant (turns out its mostly irrelevant). I've spent years, ONE THIRD OF MY LIFE in fact, dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. With no desire to destroy anyone, anything, or any society. I can't tell you how much the words that BobLobLaw wrote a couple of hours ago, about how these statements affect the very livelihood of people in West Virginia is tearing me up inside - why? Not because I think the data are wrong. But because I have an obligation as an ethical scientist to report the data I find. It's unfortunate that they support an assessment that is a negative for some. It's so unfortunate, that I have to agonize over whether or not it is the appropriate thing to do. I have to agonize over how to do it in a way that minimizes the impact on people not me.

If you guys think I'm doing this, so I have data, for my next NSF/EPA/NIH grant you're so wrong it isn't funny. Because it couldn't be further from the truth. But don't take my word for it. Try talking, objectively, with a scientist about what they do, their job, their data, their desires. Sure, there are some loud-mouth, scumbag, assholes out there. And like any field...those people are hated by the people within their field more than people outside of it.

-Rob
OK... I'll put down the shovel and listen more. :p

So what's the current best revised theory on The Pause?

[SeriousStudent]

Going back to ethanol.......

This is a good article that was written almost 10 years ago. I have found it useful.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-04-27/ethanol-a-tragedy-in-3-actsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

Ed Wallace is a local smart fellow, and what many here would refer to as "one of them durn liberals." He also abhors ethanol.

[45dotACP]

While I leave stuff like Climate Change to smart people like Rob, I have heard that Tiananmen Square goes dark at noon because of the smog. Whether it kills the Chinese trees is irrelevant compared to the potential for horrifying pulmonary diseases...I'll bet bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer will hit it off big in the next few decades for our friends in the east. I'm no tree hugger, but I like breathing and I'm pretty floored that people have to wear facemasks on their daily commute like it's some basement indoor range with no ventilation....

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[RoyGBiv]

While I leave stuff like Climate Change to smart people like Rob, I have heard that Tiananmen Square goes dark at noon because of the smog. Whether it kills the Chinese trees is irrelevant compared to the potential for horrifying pulmonary diseases...I'll bet bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer will hit it off big in the next few decades for our friends in the east. I'm no tree hugger, but I like breathing and I'm pretty floored that people have to wear facemasks on their daily commute like it's some basement indoor range with no ventilation....

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk
Beijing is the worst place I've been, breathing-wise. But, I remember flying into LA during an inversion a bunch of years ago and seeing the city enveloped by a yellow fog, thick as a rain cloud. Ick! Google "LA smog inversion" and check the images.

[GardoneVT]

If you think Obama really cares about the environment or how much the Earth's climate has changed in the last few thousand years, I've got oceanfront property in North Dakota to sell you.

Further, discussion on climate change is irrelevant given basic human nature. Our decisions are made by national leaders. No matter how said leader got to their post, they won't sacrifice short term political power for VERY long term problems . If we can't get elected leaders-to say nothing about unelected despots and dictators- to pay attention to localized issues beyond their election term , what precisely is the political point behind promoting climate change as a political issue when the end effects won't happen for decades into the future ? Everyone who could vote on it will be long dead by the time it's a tangible problem.

Which means, politically, its a dead end issue insofar as practical solutions goes.
Taking an alarmist approach on the matter is making the grand assumption we humans-whove only been measuring the Earth's environment for the last few thousand years- are qualified to comment on a climate system literally billions of years old. Doing so strikes me as similar to the alarmed range Cleetii who moan about their Glock barrels being somehow defective because they keep hitting low left at five yards.

[RevolverRob]

So what's the current best revised theory on The Pause?

Just an FYI, I haven't forgotten this and will try to update in the near term. I am reading up on the lastest information and will provide a detailed response and some citations, hopefully this weekend.


Taking an alarmist approach on the matter is making the grand assumption we humans-who've only been measuring the Earth's environment for the last few thousand years- are qualified to comment on a climate system literally billions of years old.

So, I agree that an alarmist approach is inappropriate. The alarmist approach is politically motivated.

The second half of the statement - that humans are qualified to comment on a climate system, literally billions of years old. We are. Without a doubt, geoscientists, geochemists, isotope geologists, biologists, physicists, and chemists are qualified to comment on what we can interpret based on available data of Earth's Climate over the course of the past 4.66 billion years. The physical material that is available in the record is actually based primarily on stable and unstable isotope chemistry. And it is not at all, beyond our ability to investigate these data and compile them. Man, I've got friends and colleagues who have processed literally millions of data points to get a sense of long-term, short-term, old, young, basis of climate. Is it simple? Oh Christ No. Continental position, ocean currents, ice ages, these are exceptionally difficult to identify on a global scale. But the ways of identifying them locally and then extrapolating them globally is very straight forward. - For instance rock formations that only form under certain conditions, fossil distributions that can only be explained by the association of two continents in the past that are separated today, isotopic fingerprinting of rock formations, that tell us, for instance that the chemical and elemental structure of chunks of rocks in Texas are related to rocks in Antarctica (read: they are from the same original formation event, a couple of billion years ago). Contained with each of these of individual puzzle pieces are threads of evidence for connecting the disparate pieces and understanding the bigger picture. That evidence allows us to understand climatic conditions on the scale of billions of years.

For instance, I don't need to know a whole lot to recognize the significance of Banded Iron Formations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation) as indicators of the beginning of the formation of Earth's modern atmosphere. Rust happens in our current environment, because free oxygen causes oxidation. The oldest rocks on Earth lack oxidized iron, indicating that there was very low free oxygen in Earth's early atmosphere. Iron is one of the most common elements on Earth and it is found in an non-oxidized form in high abundance in the oldest rocks.

That is just a single example of a broad piece of evidence that allows to understand Earth's climate over billions of years. There is a plethora of physical and chemical evidence out there. And honestly? Any single person could study it for a short period of time and would likely draw the similar conclusions. So, to suggest that we are making a grand assumption here is inappropriate, we aren't. We're using millions of man hours of investigation and the fundamental advancement of scientific fields to assess these things. In addition to that, the other issue and this is a non-trivial one. If we think that the assumptions we make are too large to make - then what is the point of continued investigation?

I proffer that the insinuations that we (as a society) are too ignorant of a complex system to make skilled observations and statements about it are the real brainwashing of our society. American Anti-Intellectualism is a centuries old institution and it has been built up and supported by the politicians who seek to oppress you.

-Rob

[Wondering Beard]

I proffer that the insinuations that we (as a society) are too ignorant of a complex system to make skilled observations and statements about it are the real brainwashing of our society. American Anti-Intellectualism is a centuries old institution and it has been built up and supported by the politicians who seek to oppress you.

-Rob

I would disagree with that conclusion. The ignorance of a complex system is what drives a lot of people (scientists in particular) to learn more and understand more. Having humility (which I'm sure you have) about how enormous the amount of knowledge yet to be found and understood is, serves as a better driver towards knowledge. There is an anti intellectual tradition in the US though while I can't speak to its origins, I can argue that nowadays it comes from the arrogance of certain scientists, the whole "the science is settled" from the left about climate change, a whole bunch of scientifism in dedicated scientific publication (mostly in he social sciences though) and the piling on by politicians and so-called pundits in order to serve their own interests. People don't like being bullshitted and when they can't tell who's really working to figure things out from who's grandstanding and cheating (like Michael Mann), they turn the whole thing off and mistrust everyone.

[Default.mp3]

the whole "the science is settled" from the left about climate changeSo, when does one declare that "the science is settled"? Is the science settled behind evolution via natural selection? What about HIV being the cause of AIDS? MMR vaccination and the alleged links between autism? Or to take it further into the semantics of such a phrase, can we consider the science behind gravity settled, despite our inability to reconcile general relativity with quantum field theory?

As the graph I previously posted shows, an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the current changes in climate trends are primarily driven by man. Even if they're all wrong, one would think that a belief in anthropogenic climate change would rate higher than being called "bullshit" or a "farce", considering the amount of scientific consensus behind it, and should be approached more seriously than handwaving it away as some political scam and/or pet theory of some egotistical scientists.

[GardoneVT]

The second half of the statement - that humans are qualified to comment on a climate system, literally billions of years old. We are. Without a doubt, geoscientists, geochemists, isotope geologists, biologists, physicists, and chemists are qualified to comment on what we can interpret based on available data of Earth's Climate over the course of the past 4.66 billion years. The physical material that is available in the record is actually based primarily on stable and unstable isotope chemistry. And it is not at all, beyond our ability to investigate these data and compile them. .....


....I proffer that the insinuations that we (as a society) are too ignorant of a complex system to make skilled observations and statements about it are the real brainwashing of our society. American Anti-Intellectualism is a centuries old institution and it has been built up and supported by the politicians who seek to oppress you.

-Rob
Except the available data is by definition incomplete. Not all processes which shape our environment are in permanently recorded media which can be studied.

Case in point; the Coelecanth .There's no fossil record of the fish after the Cretaceous. Pre 1938, the scientific community considered the genus extinct. Post 1938 when someone caught a live one was a scientific "oh WTF" moment. Seems like the fish lived on quite nicely for the last 400 million odd years in total obscurity.

I don't presume to judge the worth of geophysical research ,and indeed believe scientific research has profound social merits. That being said- it is the height of hubris to assume because we have X material and X data, that we can deduce the entirety of how the natural world operates. Especially when it's something as longstanding as our planets climate.

Anti-intellectualism is a danger. So is scientific arrogance.

[Default.mp3]

Except the available data is by definition incomplete. Not all processes which shape our environment are in permanently recorded media which can be studied.

Case in point; the Coelecanth .There's no fossil record of the fish after the Cretaceous. Pre 1938, the scientific community considered the genus extinct. Post 1938 when someone caught a live one was a scientific "oh WTF" moment. Seems like the fish lived on quite nicely for the last 400 million odd years in total obscurity.

I don't presume to judge the worth of geophysical research ,and indeed believe scientific research has profound social merits. That being said- it is the height of hubris to assume because we have X material and X data, that we can deduce the entirety of how the natural world operates. Especially when it's something as longstanding as our planets climate.

Anti-intellectualism is a danger. So is scientific arrogance.
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-15478-Nathan-Fillion-speechless-gif-QTlX.gif
So, we take a story about how absence of proof is not proof of absence (and one with a very narrow focus) and somehow extrapolate that moral to a situation in which we have lots of data, lots of modelling done, and have continual refinement of the various theories. Lawlwut.

[Wondering Beard]

So, when does one declare that "the science is settled"? Is the science settled behind evolution via natural selection? What about HIV being the cause of AIDS? MMR vaccination and the alleged links between autism? Or to take it further into the semantics of such a phrase, can we consider the science behind gravity settled, despite our inability to reconcile general relativity with quantum field theory?

That's a good question. In many ways, one could argue that the science is never settled but that doesn't help much. Still, in the examples you raise, the science is both settled and not. If I remember correctly there are a couple of theories on how evolution via natural selection works and neither have been shown (yet) to be the correct one. HIV is the cause of AIDS but the research to understand it and come up with a cure is still ongoing (like with cancer). I don't know anywhere near enough to comment on MMR vaccination but I wouldn't be at all surprised that research continues about any and all side effects just to get better vaccination. About gravity, the science continues to evolve, from Newton's force to Einstein space time curving, to the Higgs boson (can there be gravity without mass?), to one (perhaps incorrect) article that wondered if the speed of light is not a misnomer and might instead be the speed of space. The point I was trying to make is not about the truth of whether the science can or cannot be settled but rather the use of the statement to shut people up.


As the graph I previously posted shows, an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the current changes in climate trends are primarily driven by man. Even if they're all wrong, one would think that a belief in anthropogenic climate change would rate higher than being called "bullshit" or a "farce", considering the amount of scientific consensus behind it, and should be approached more seriously than handwaving it away as some political scam and/or pet theory of some egotistical scientists.

It should be approached more seriously and that is the problem: for people (like most of us here) who do not have the required knowledge in the specialized fields, we are being treated to an enormous degree of pompous, self important talk from both sides that might as well be religious in its intolerance of opposition. That is not treating the subject seriously, and the American people simply tune it out (if not mistrust all participants) as a result.

Personally, I do believe that there is anthropogenic climate change simply because we, humans, are all over the planet and we change our environment for our own purposes. However, a lot questions remain (for example: how much compared to let's say the sun and how bad or good can it be -the medieval warm period has been argued to provide an environment where more people got wealthy and enabled a pre-renaissance), lots of research to do (there are several articles that have demonstrated that the models presently used don't fit reality), I, for one, look forward to sober results rather than the hoopla we are being peddled nowadays (article from, I think 2010, that said England will never snowfalls again).

As an aside, the various "climate conferences" are nothing more than cronyists negociating with rent seekers.

[RevolverRob]

I would disagree with that conclusion. The ignorance of a complex system is what drives a lot of people (scientists in particular) to learn more and understand more. Having humility (which I'm sure you have) about how enormous the amount of knowledge yet to be found and understood is, serves as a better driver towards knowledge. There is an anti intellectual tradition in the US though while I can't speak to its origins, I can argue that nowadays it comes from the arrogance of certain scientists, the whole "the science is settled" from the left about climate change, a whole bunch of scientifism in dedicated scientific publication (mostly in he social sciences though) and the piling on by politicians and so-called pundits in order to serve their own interests. People don't like being bullshitted and when they can't tell who's really working to figure things out from who's grandstanding and cheating (like Michael Mann), they turn the whole thing off and mistrust everyone.

Ask yourself the following question - Putting aside personal political beliefs or what you perceive any one person's political beliefs to be based on their profession.

Who would you select 1) A Lawyer, 2) A PhD in Political Science/Theory/History, 3) A Medical Doctor, 4) Homeless Dan - to be your president? And why would you select that person? (This is going somewhere, play along).


Except the available data is by definition incomplete. Not all processes which shape our environment are in permanently recorded media which can be studied.

Case in point; the Coelecanth .There's no fossil record of the fish after the Cretaceous. Pre 1938, the scientific community considered the genus extinct. Post 1938 when someone caught a live one was a scientific "oh WTF" moment. Seems like the fish lived on quite nicely for the last 400 million odd years in total obscurity.

I don't presume to judge the worth of geophysical research ,and indeed believe scientific research has profound social merits. That being said- it is the height of hubris to assume because we have X material and X data, that we can deduce the entirety of how the natural world operates. Especially when it's something as longstanding as our planets climate.

Anti-intellectualism is a danger. So is scientific arrogance.

So wait...which part of that story was a deduction about how the natural world operates? Or rather, let me put the Coelcanth example aside (an excellent, classic example of how the scientific method works, by the way, but I will return to it) - When did I state unequivocally that scentists knew the entirety of how the world operates?

I said and I quote, with my OWN emphasis quoted:
We are. Without a doubt, geoscientists, geochemists, isotope geologists, biologists, physicists, and chemists are qualified to comment on what we can interpret based on available data of Earth's Climate over the course of the past 4.66 billion years.

I didn't. You're putting words in my mouth and the mouths of scientists. We spend lifetimes studying these things and dedicate millions of hours to identifying, collecting, and studying the data relevant to these questions. Sometimes, sometimes, scientists act like humans, and after a PhD student has spent 5-7 years of their life, slaving in a darkened lab for 15-18 hours a day to solve a problem...They might say something like, "And this is a model of how it works." Which shouldn't be construed as, "This is how it works." But sometimes they get a little lazy with their language, probably from the two hours of sleep they got the night before (kind of like me, right now), and say, "These data support that this is how it works." - And the next thing that person knows is - Everyone, qualified or not, is politicizing and destroying their work and attacking them. Those attackers resort to ad hominem attacks and comparisons (for instance referencing them as greedy individuals who pursue data for the sole purpose of destroying the lives of others) that are not only inappropriate, but are exceptionally asinine and inane. And when that happens, if those human scientists get a little testy and a little arrogant - well maybe you could just forgive them a scosh? Huh? No. Well, fuck you then.

___

Now returning to the Coelcanth - One of the very best examples of how science works is the Coelcanth. Here, we had a clade of fish that have an extensive fossil record. They were presumed extinct (given the then currently available data), however when extant Coelcanths were rediscovered in 1938, it did not turn the world up on end. Instead the biologists and paleontogists of the world went, "Whoa, COOL! Where is this thing living? Why is the diversity of this group so reduced compared to the past? How can we find more and study them? How do their bodies compare with extinct forms?" - That's all layered in with the mere fact that by studying extinct Coelcanths, the individual in question who discovered living ones, was able to actually recognize and identify the fish in question and the importance of it. Here's a question - could you recognize a random Coelcanth in a fish market in Africa? If you had never seen a live one before? No. Then here's a little arrogant statement, what makes you presume that you understand the nuanced details of how individual data fit together to provide a broader worldview?

Here's a not so arrogant statement - I could teach you how to do. That is identify a Coelcanth, recognize its importance, understand science, and put that together? I'd be willing to, too. But are you willing to learn, or are would you rather presume to call me arrogant, because I was willing to learn and did?

-Rob

[Joe in PNG]

To hitchhike on Wondering Beard's post above, the problem is not the Problem, it's the proposed Solution. Top down Government regulations, clueless bureaucrats, and uber rich NGO jet-setters are not the way to solve this, or pretty much any problem. Unless the problem is how to get guilt money from wealthy western nations, or give money to political cronies.

[Wondering Beard]

Ask yourself the following question - Putting aside personal political beliefs or what you perceive any one person's political beliefs to be based on their profession.

Who would you select 1) A Lawyer, 2) A PhD in Political Science/Theory/History, 3) A Medical Doctor, 4) Homeless Dan - to be your president? And why would you select that person? (This is going somewhere, play along).

-Rob

Ok, I'll play :)

While putting aside my own personal beliefs, keep in mind that I am a law school grad and almost finished a Masters in poli sci; so I have some insight as to how some of those folks think ;-)

Nevertheless, that is nowhere enough information for me to make a choice. I'd want to hear a lot more about their experience (or lack thereof), policies and so on.

P.S.: I'm guessing, this probably what you expected as an answer, so let's go to the next step in what seems to be your Socratic build up :-)

[Cheap Shot]

Ok, I'll play :)



P.S.: I'm guessing, :-)

Correct

[RevolverRob]

Ok, I'll play :)

While putting aside my own personal beliefs, keep in mind that I am a law school grad and almost finished a Masters in poli sci; so I have some insight as to how some of those folks think ;-)

Nevertheless, that is nowhere enough information for me to make a choice. I'd want to hear a lot more about their experience (or lack thereof), policies and so on.

P.S.: I'm guessing, this probably what you expected as an answer, so let's go to the next step in what seems to be your Socratic build up :-)

The lawyer is dean of the English Department of a small, but well respected, Liberal Arts College in the mid-west

The PhD. is an adjunct faculty member (non-permanent) at a state school in the south

The Medical Doctor has just completed residency and has been awarded a prestigious position at a world-reknowned medical institution

Homeless Dan - has been homeless for seven years, but organized the hobo camp he lives in, such that there is genuine order within the camp (meaning he sought to minimize violent crime within the camp)

-

The Lawyer reads on average one book a month, watches television three hours a week, and regularly attends the lectures of his faculty members and visiting faculty members. He spends his freetime playing racquetball with friends who work at a nearby university.

The PhD reads on average four books a month, never watches television, and only occasionally attends invited lectures. He spends his freetime working in his garden, and going to the movies.

The Medical Doctor reads on average four books a year, however he reads 1-2 journal articles a week pertinent to his work. He spends his free time playing golf, working out, and drinking with his friends.

Homeless Dan - visits the public library daily, primarily to bathe in the sink. He does however, read magazines, newspapers, and the occasional book while visiting. He spends his free time organizing the hobos and panhandling for change.

[Mr_White]

Here's how I predict all this will fit together:

Homeless Dan goes to school where the Lawyer is the dean of the English Department after the PhD. organizes a successful hashtag campaign on his behalf. But Homeless Dan is too organized and effectively microaggresses the shitless layabouts who are made to feel bad by his productivity and who then successfully petition for his expulsion. Eventually Homeless Dan dies of exposure and is sent to be a research cadaver at the world renowned medical institution, where the Medical Doctor prestigiously pokes at his various dead parts and jiggly bits, as he develops an erectile dysfunction drug so powerful that it works on long-dead men. The Lawyer is deeply affected by the suffering he heard that Homeless Dan had to endure, self-identifies as an advocate of Homeless Dan's cause, sues to have the new erectile dysfunction drug immediately released to the public domain and made free and over the counter, and is then swept into the Presidency in a blinding wave of selfless altruism by the voters.

So I think the Lawyer will become the President.

[Mr_White]

Sorry Rob, I don't mean to derail anything, but sometimes I have to crack wise. Time for more coffee. Maxwell House Instant Coffee, in case anyone is wondering.

[Wondering Beard]

Well, the PhD is definitely out. Not watching TV? sounds unamerican; how can one lead this country without having watched Justified at least once? ;-)

Well, it looks like you are asking about what I consider to be the necessary qualifications for a US president (or a president of any country?). My personal outlook on what makes a proper qualified person for a political job is naturally based off my political beliefs so keeping the latter out of consideration seems contradictory.

Since you mean to lead this little exercise towards something about science, scientists and/or climate change, let's put aside the contradiction mentioned above and drive on:
It's still not enough information; What I end up knowing about the first three is that they look (can't be sure with that info) competent at their job and supposedly well read, while their free time seems perfectly innocuous and not telling of anything; that tells me nothing about how they would handle the political job of being president. Homeless Dan could be intriguing as he appears to be successfully doing political work but organizing his hobo camp to have genuine order could also be telling of someone who is trying to set himself up as top dog by using organized violence as much as someone who is trying to act as a mediator; in other words, still not enough information.

I fear that as you add more info about who these people are, both our political biases are going to start showing and if the point is one about bias, we can already agree that being human means having biases. Then again I could be wrong.

[luckyman]

I'm sorry to say this, but an industry that ran virtually unchecked and unregulated, that destroyed the natural landscape of West Virginia, and left its people largely impoverished without recourse, for more than a hundred years, is to blame.
...who is more greedy? ...Or the companies that those West Virginians worked for, in some cases multiple generations, that barely paid them living wages, .... .

Excuse the tangent, but Wut? Are you talking about the same W Va I was born and raised in? Have you been in much of the state?

I grew up living within easy hiking distance of an MTR site. And it was a damn shame. But you would never know it if you weren't flying over that particular mountain in an airplane. You couldn't see it from any paved road, and there were another 500 mountains right next to it that were pristine. So that practice was horrible and needed to stop, but "destroyed the natural landscape of West Virginia" just lost credibility for your other statements that I can't judge so well.

Here is what I'm talking about: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1339019,-81.2497047,8213m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

And re: wages, in the 50s and prior you might have a point; I haven't researched it. You *definitely* would have a point if you were talking about the health hazards of mine workers in the 70s and 80s. But mine workers in the 70s and later got paid a quite respectable wage. Looking at 2014 data from NMA.org:

West Virginia coal mining average salary: $84,959
All industry average salary: $39,519

W Va had/has a lot of issues. I'm definitely not a fan of the mining industry per se, and without government intervention enforcing environmental practices it very well could have ruined the state. But "leaving it's people impoverished without recourse" being the responsibility of the mining industry I don't get, unless you are talking about 70 year old history or something.

[RevolverRob]

Note I have rearranged this post to lead logically to my point.


Well, it looks like you are asking about what I consider to be the necessary qualifications for a US president (or a president of any country?). My personal outlook on what makes a proper qualified person for a political job is naturally based off my political beliefs so keeping the latter out of consideration seems contradictory.

Not you individually. I'm utilizing your insight as a representation of what our culture and indeed what global culture identify as important qualifications to lead.


Since you mean to lead this little exercise towards something about science, scientists and/or climate change, let's put aside the contradiction mentioned above and drive on:
It's still not enough information; What I end up knowing about the first three is that they look (can't be sure with that info) competent at their job and supposedly well read, while their free time seems perfectly innocuous and not telling of anything; that tells me nothing about how they would handle the political job of being president. Homeless Dan could be intriguing as he appears to be successfully doing political work but organizing his hobo camp to have genuine order could also be telling of someone who is trying to set himself up as top dog by using organized violence as much as someone who is trying to act as a mediator; in other words, still not enough information.

Actually, I have/had no intention of driving the exercise towards science and/or climate change. This is an exercise about anti-intellectualism. None-the-less, I think your breakdown of the candidates thus far, is actually quite good.


I fear that as you add more info about who these people are, both our political biases are going to start showing and if the point is one about bias, we can already agree that being human means having biases. Then again I could be wrong.

Political bias has nothing to do with this. Honestly, it doesn't. Regardless of the particular political affiliation or personal policies, the average adult should be able to readily identify qualities and qualifications that belong in leaders. For instance, leaders should be successful, well respected, they should be knowledgeable about a range of subjects, because leaders, rarely deal with just issues that are under their direct set of expertise, they should lead from the front. None-of-those things are difficult to identify and none of them actually have much, if anything, to do with a person's individual political bias.


Well, the PhD is definitely out. Not watching TV? sounds unamerican; how can one lead this country without having watched Justified at least once? ;-)

;) - While I recognize that this meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment that is glib. You actually went straight for the bait in the problem. The PhD is out, because he doesn't watch television. How UnAmerican is it to not watch TV? How could anyone in our government ever - not watch television? Right? Right. Americans overwhelmingly agree with you. We need look no further than the string of presidents we've elected in the later half of the 20th and 21st century.

What's the point? Americans love-to-hate smart people. We killed PhD's candidacy for the exact WRONG reason. He doesn't watch TV, what a fucking weirdo. Never mind that he's among the smartest of the candidates and is reasonably successful - The reason he should be cut off the list has more to do with his ability to lead (i.e., the fact that he doesn't have demonstrated leadership skills) - than his learnedness on the matter. Yet we latch onto and reject an individual because, "He doesn't watch TV, he must spend all his time reading!".

Now - I am not saying that you, are anti-intellectual. I do not, think that you are. Your very commentary on the matter shows me that you an excellent critical thinker and recognize that one subset of qualifications doesn't make a person the correct choice. But Americans as a culture? As a whole? No, we don't. We have many examples in this thread and in other threads and across our popular media. Hell our popular media is anti-intellectual.

____

Now lest I forget and neglect the point. I agree that scientific arrogance is a problem. I stated, so matter of factly, something that some folks here disagree with. I was informed as a result that scientists are arrogant, because it is a theory. No, it is a fact. An observable, repeatable, fact. Humans alter their environments and are doing it at an unprecedented rate. Period, full stop. It is not an arrogant statement. I know how science works, new evidence can result in the rejection of previous hypotheses about what is going on in the world. What - if you ask yourself a real question - is the evidence we would need to overturn Anthropogenic Driven Climate Change™? We would need evidence that humans do not alter their landscapes and what's more that the rates they are doing it at are not unprecedented. That means, no roads, no construction, no mining, no development, no pollution. I don't need to know all of the details about how non-Avian dinosaur society worked, to know that at least as apparent in the extensive rock record, that they didn't appear to have nuclear power plants, airplanes, or paved roads. I could be wrong and just one Triceratops fossilized on top of a paved road, or one Velociraptor trapped in the concrete pilon of an ancient Cretaceous Dam would support that. But until I find that - I'll have to accept the data as they are. And - There is not a single thing arrogant about it.

-Rob

[Wondering Beard]

Political bias has nothing to do with this. Honestly, it doesn't. Regardless of the particular political affiliation or personal policies, the average adult should be able to readily identify qualities and qualifications that belong in leaders. For instance, leaders should be successful, well respected, they should be knowledgeable about a range of subjects, because leaders, rarely deal with just issues that are under their direct set of expertise, they should lead from the front. None-of-those things are difficult to identify and none of them actually have much, if anything, to do with a person's individual political bias.

I do believe that, in your mind, it has nothing to do with political bias, yet as far as I'm concerned, it very much does. For example, the qualities that you put forward for a good leader are just fine and I agree with them, however, one quality (which comes under the subset of 'successful') is at or near the top of what I want to see in a leader: decisiveness; that comes from the fact that 1) I'm a free marketer and value people who will go forward and try (and often fail and try again) to make businesses grow and thus make their lives better and 2) I have dealt with various highly placed people in governments and businesses and I have always found the ones who are capable of deciding rapidly (even if wrong) to get better results than those whose pondered no matter how knowledgeable they were. But you see, that's my bias; others with a different outlook on how politics should work can and have seen it differently.




;) - While I recognize that this meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comment that is glib. You actually went straight for the bait in the problem. The PhD is out, because he doesn't watch television. How UnAmerican is it to not watch TV? How could anyone in our government ever - not watch television? Right? Right. Americans overwhelmingly agree with you. We need look no further than the string of presidents we've elected in the later half of the 20th and 21st century.

What's the point? Americans love-to-hate smart people. We killed PhD's candidacy for the exact WRONG reason. He doesn't watch TV, what a fucking weirdo. Never mind that he's among the smartest of the candidates and is reasonably successful - The reason he should be cut off the list has more to do with his ability to lead (i.e., the fact that he doesn't have demonstrated leadership skills) - than his learnedness on the matter. Yet we latch onto and reject an individual because, "He doesn't watch TV, he must spend all his time reading!".

Now - I am not saying that you, are anti-intellectual. I do not, think that you are. Your very commentary on the matter shows me that you an excellent critical thinker and recognize that one subset of qualifications doesn't make a person the correct choice. But Americans as a culture? As a whole? No, we don't. We have many examples in this thread and in other threads and across our popular media. Hell our popular media is anti-intellectual.

While I appreciate the point you're making, I think you're exaggerating it. I have not been to all the parts of the US much less met everyone but my impression has never been that Americans hate smart people, rather Americans hate people who talk down to them and sadly a lot of intellectuals behave as if they do (at least the ones who go on various media outlets which are the only ones that a majority of the American public gets to see) and it's a very easy step to dismiss the whole intellectual class as a result. Now, politicians (and the media) have very much driven that outlook with the whole "ivory tower and aloof from ordinary Americans" narrative which is certainly not fully true but, for example, the whole mess with professor Gruber and Obamacare has not at all helped Americans respect intellectuals. I don't think American culture is anti intellectual per se, I just think that American cultures values other things first.

I am not anti intellectual at all but as my point above about bias shows, I generally would not want a leader who is primarily an intellectual because the qualities that make a great intellectual don't always easily mix with a leadership job. At the same time, I would not want a leader who disdains proper intellectuals (as opposed to poseurs and wannabes of which the supply seems never ending) as such a leader would never be able to get good information and analysis to enable him or her to make decisions.

I'd say that Buckley statement of "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University" has, while glib, more to commend it than not. Then again, it's my political bias :-)


Now lest I forget and neglect the point. I agree that scientific arrogance is a problem. I stated, so matter of factly, something that some folks here disagree with. I was informed as a result that scientists are arrogant, because it is a theory. No, it is a fact. An observable, repeatable, fact. Humans alter their environments and are doing it at an unprecedented rate. Period, full stop. It is not an arrogant statement. I know how science works, new evidence can result in the rejection of previous hypotheses about what is going on in the world. What - if you ask yourself a real question - is the evidence we would need to overturn Anthropogenic Driven Climate Change™? We would need evidence that humans do not alter their landscapes and what's more that the rates they are doing it at are not unprecedented. That means, no roads, no construction, no mining, no development, no pollution. I don't need to know all of the details about how non-Avian dinosaur society worked, to know that at least as apparent in the extensive rock record, that they didn't appear to have nuclear power plants, airplanes, or paved roads. I could be wrong and just one Triceratops fossilized on top of a paved road, or one Velociraptor trapped in the concrete pilon of an ancient Cretaceous Dam would support that. But until I find that - I'll have to accept the data as they are. And - There is not a single thing arrogant about it.

-Rob

You will not find me disagreeing with you on this but what you just wrote is a far cry from what people have pounded on them by a lot of supposedly knowledgeable folks about climate change.

[DocGKR]

I'll take the MD. Knows how to work hard for long hours. Knows how to problem solve under high stress conditions. Knows how to ask for help and assistance from other experts when necessary. Knows how to take responsibility and make hard decisions. Most importantly, knows how to revive the nearly dead--very necessary to restore vigor to our nearly moribund government...

[GardoneVT]

<snip>
-Rob


My point is simple, and I promise I won't resort to contrived games or ad hominems or preachy appeals to sympathy. Rest assured scientists arent the only ones in society toiling almost nonstop.

My basic point is this. You didn't build the Earth, and unless you left out some zeros in your birthdate you weren't there to see it evolve in person. As such no matter how many hours and days and months and years you spend studying the subject matter, the risk is always present you could be totally wrong.

Like the scientific community in 1937 was about the Coelecanth's existence.

[MDS]

When I start to feel proud about how much we know about things, I remember something Tam said: we spend a third of our lives lying down with our eyes closed, and we don't know why.

It's not that we don't know much. It's that there's so much to know that we've barely begun to start. Many things we take for granted as true today will seem like bizarre affectations in the not-too-distant future.

When you mix the vastness of what we don't know with the lesser vastness of what we think we know but are wrong about, and blend it with the ultimate vastness of the passionate politics involved - politics in government as well as politics in science - it's hard to just take what the lab coat guy says at face value...

[Hawk87]

While I don't know enough of the science to really dig into the debate, stories like THIS ONE (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/german-scientist-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature) might explain why people are so skeptical of global warming (or whatever it's being called now). If the story is true, then it casts doubt on much of the data gathered, and good data is the foundation of good models. If it's not true (for whatever reason), it shows an example of why people have such trust issues.

I would guess that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but data tampering at all is a serious problem for the credibility of climate change.

From the above news story.

In a presentation at the 2012 EIKE Climate Conference in Germany, Professor Friedrich-Karl Ewert, a retired geologist and data expert from the University of Paderborn, said that he examined publicly available archived temperature records from 1,153 weather stations around the globe going back to 1881 and found evidence of “massive” tampering by GISS between 2010 and 2012.

[RevolverRob]

My basic point is this. You didn't build the Earth, and unless you left out some zeros in your birthdate you weren't there to see it evolve in person. As such no matter how many hours and days and months and years you spend studying the subject matter, the risk is always present you could be totally wrong.

Actually, no. There isn't a risk that I am totally wrong. Period. Do I know everything? Nope. Am I still learning? Yes. Can I single-handedly, collect all relevant data and use that to say definitively X, Y, or Z, happened? Nope. Can scientists collectively do that, ever? Nope.

However, there is no chance that I am totally wrong about things I do. Why? See below.


Like the scientific community in 1937 was about the Coelecanth's existence.

WRONG. In 1937 the scientific community new that the Coelecanth exist(ed). It did not know that it was still exist(ing). Where they incorrect about the extinction of this animal? Yes. Were they totally wrong about it's existence? No, they were not. You see the difference here? It's subtle, but very important.

That is how science works. Yes, we know some, and yes we know that we don't know most of the things, and yes there is the risk that hypotheses are incorrect. But those hypotheses are based on legitimate, repeatable, observations, that take into account known data, that take into account unknown data, and data that we can gather in the future to evaluate those hypotheses. Because they are incomplete, does not mean that they should be disregarded. In fact, because they are incomplete is why we should continue to work on them.

I never ONCE claimed that we know all. I claimed that scientists are the most qualified to interpret the available data. I claimed that we base our hypotheses on those data. I've used multiple examples to exemplify this. I've used multiple examples of how initial hypotheses didn't account for details and thus have been refined to be much more accurate, but still fall short of total reality. And in return, I've seen repeatedly, appeals to ignorance.

"You don't know everything, therefore shut up." - "You've been wrong before, therefore you are wrong now." -

I'm not giving you a preachy appeal of sympathy and this is not a contrived game. This is my life and the lives of some of my best friends. And we want nothing more than to try to further our communities and societies through systematic investigation and to try to provide solutions to real problems. Sometimes we get it wrong. Other times we get it very, very, right. Or do I need to go find charts about the incidence of death by infectious disease in the 20 and 21st centuries? Or should I just rhetorically cite the example of the fact that we are conducting this conversation via the internet? On computers that are based on the efforts of our scientific predecessors? And what we're consistently met with is rhetorical ridicule that comes from irrational emotional response. The irony of this thread is - the response to a statement that I made, which is definitively true (period), is the same response that Liberuls™ have when talking about gun control, that everyone here is so adamant is dumb and requires, reasoned, rational, discussion.

And people wonder why I get just a little bit upset? And people wonder why we "retreat to our Ivory Towers to Hurl Down Insults onto the Peons" - I wonder why too? Did you ever stop and think, Gardone, that when you make a post here that you run the risk of being totally wrong?

-Rob

[RoyGBiv]

While I don't know enough of the science to really dig into the debate, stories like THIS ONE (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/german-scientist-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature) might explain why people are so skeptical of global warming (or whatever it's being called now). If the story is true, then it casts doubt on much of the data gathered, and good data is the foundation of good models. If it's not true (for whatever reason), it shows an example of why people have such trust issues.

I would guess that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but data tampering at all is a serious problem for the credibility of climate change.

From the above news story.

LOL!

[Hawk87]

LOL!

There is a little more info here: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.ibiNW4TW.sJNtrH6Y.dpbs


Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.ibiNW4TW.j4q6OM0Q.dpuf

I don't know the website quoted, so I can't speak to their credibility, but it seems inline with the other stuff I have read. I would be fine with being proven wrong, and that this didn't happen, but it is something that needs to be addressed.

As to the original topic, climate change or not, developing new energy sources is important if for no other reason then oil based energy in a finite resource. I wish we as a country would be more willing to implement nuclear power.

[RoyGBiv]

I wish we as a country would be more willing to implement nuclear power.
3 Mile Island. Chernobyl, Fukushima #1 (Twice!).

Anything made by humans WILL eventually fail. Add to that the ability to contaminate it's environment for millennia. No thanks.

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

[The Apprentice]

Why is it so hard for us to as as society to err on the side of caution last time I checked this is the only planet we have to live on. Now is the government pumping billions of dollars into ethanol subsidies or some other pork barrel right. No but thats not the fault of science its the lobiest that grab on to a little bit of truth and twist it into a nice little narative to fit there agenda. Can we all admit that regardless of climate change burning fossil fuels is unsustainable and left unchecked not good for the enviornment. Instead of looking for solutions we fight over wether it is global warming, global climate change, or what ever is next. Doesnt mater if it doesnt change one bit we still are using a rapidly depleting resource to supply ourselves with cheep consumer goods. Whats the solution I dont know but we should start looking hard for real alternatives now. Guess I'm a tree huggin gun lover sorry for the rambling I just don't see the sense in fighting over the cause of the problem when are efforts would be better spent fixing it.

[FNFAN]

I wish we as a country would be more willing to implement nuclear power.

I agree. I think that new technology in nuclear power can, or will in the future provide the answers to clean power.

Some good discussion on aging power plants here: http://breakingenergy.com/2015/03/23/nuclear-safety-in-a-post-fukushima-world-is-the-us-falling-behind/

[Joe in PNG]

Why is it so hard for us to as as society to err on the side of caution last time I checked this is the only planet we have to live on. Now is the government pumping billions of dollars into ethanol subsidies or some other pork barrel right. No but thats not the fault of science its the lobiest that grab on to a little bit of truth and twist it into a nice little narative to fit there agenda. Can we all admit that regardless of climate change burning fossil fuels is unsustainable and left unchecked not good for the enviornment. Instead of looking for solutions we fight over wether it is global warming, global climate change, or what ever is next. Doesnt mater if it doesnt change one bit we still are using a rapidly depleting resource to supply ourselves with cheep consumer goods. Whats the solution I dont know but we should start looking hard for real alternatives now. Guess I'm a tree huggin gun lover sorry for the rambling I just don't see the sense in fighting over the cause of the problem when are efforts would be better spent fixing it.

The obstacle is that fossil fuels are an energy source. You don't need to spend a lot of energy to make them, they have a nice energy density, they're not especially toxic or hard to store, and there's a pretty good infrastructure in place to get them where they need to go. Plus, fossil fuel power plants aren't really weather dependent.

There are serious problems with alternate energy that needs to be overcome. Alternate fuels often need more energy to produce- corn based ethanol for instance. Hydrogen is attractive, but has a low energy density and is hard to store. Batteries have a low energy density (compare the volume of the batteries on a Tesla to the average gas tank) and take a long time to recharge. And so on.

[Andrew E]

3 Mile Island. Chernobyl, Fukushima #1 (Twice!).

Anything made by humans WILL eventually fail. Add to that the ability to contaminate it's environment for millennia. No thanks.

More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country


Um. Three Mile Island is practically a case study of nuclear safety even in the case of a potentially catastrophic failure. Health effects of 3 Mile Island Accident (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html#effects) from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I'll quote a section of the linked article:

[C]omprehensive investigations and assessments by several well respected organizations, such as Columbia University and the University of Pittsburgh, have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.

[JTQ]

The bottom line is - anthropogenic-driven climate change is real, period.

If the planet is warming, is that a bad thing? Who determines what the proper temperature of the planet should be? Has the planet ever been colder or warmer? Would it be better or worse to have longer growing seasons for the huge expanses of land in places like Canada, or Russia?


I don't need to look at CO2 emission numbers to recognize that.
Do you have a pie chart showing the composition of the earths atmosphere in 1850 and another one of the composition of the atmosphere in 2015 that you could post so we could graphically see the large change?

How does a nuclear power plant or hydro-electric dam increase the global warming effect on the planet? There must be some huge impact on the climate to justify the strong opposition from many on the left to those electric sources.

What environmental impact do acres and acres of windmills or solar panels have on birds, or perhaps land animals under those facilities? Could we theorize on any possible unintended consequences?

[OnionsAndDragons]

The argument about warming/cooling is a red herring. Smoke and mirrors.

There are far bigger problems that arguing about this nonsense prevents us working on as a society. We absolutely change our climate and environment. We have turned some of the most fertile and productive areas of our nation, like the valleys of California, into pre-deserts through wholly unsustainable agricultural practices.

We lose millions of tons of topsoil because industrial agriculture can't be bothered to mulch or make any effort to build or replenish soil, just to apply chemical band aids. This has a far reaching impact on drought susceptibility and water tables in critical regions.

We pack animals into giant concentration camp sheds instead of running them on the land, which they could be improving by their very existence through proper management. Pump them full of antibiotics to keep them from dying from living cooped up in their own waste, which creates breeding grounds for resistant bacteria rendering one of the greatest discoveries in human medical science useless.

Yeah, we will run out of a useable supply of fossil fuels. That might suck a lot. But I'm honestly far more concerned with what happens when these lands we've been raping of fertility stop bearing. We lose 10% of our fuel capacity, we learn to do more with less. We lose that off of our food capacity and things get really ugly really fast.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hatchetman]

Steyn knocks it out of the park:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/08/mark-steyns-illuminating-and-entertaining-testimony-to-the-cruz-hearing-on-climate-today/