|
On January 22 2013 21:49 KAB00000000M wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 14:00 neggro wrote:
Is there a definite proof somewhere that there is really climate change? Even the scientists are not unanimous about it. This is exactly what I see too. So much "up and down" about this stuff. It is funny how scientists who graduated studying the same stuff can come up with so different conclusions. Some times it makes me think that there are other factors involved. (eg. money for publishing etc.) Although. I really hated Al Gore's presentation. That was completely false.
It isn't. It really isn't. Its not unusual or strange at all, its a feature of science coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works in the general population. I'm a PhD researcher in biosciences, I know scientists, I AM a scientist. A good scientist seeks to question the conclusions they draw from that data until they run out of ways to attack it.
Science works by constantly challenging assumptions and conclusions. And adapting to new data and new ideas. And by being critical of all work done but accepting the conclusion as the best explanation if there is no convincing way to dispute that conclusion. Science isn't a "belief", its a process or a tool which you use to assess observations.
So of course you're going to get scientists coming up with different conclusions. I have disagreements and different ideas from my colleagues and supervisors all the time. Its all part of how science works.
The problem is that you and others in the general public, and the media especially, don't deal well with how scientists tend to provide conclusions. That isn't meant to be a criticism by the way, you just haven't had the same kind of training or developed a scientific mindset. Scientific conclusions tend to be within a certain margin of error and full of qualifications (i.e. "if this then that"). This doesn't make for very good headlines and most non-scientists can't get their head around it anyway. I've actually been to lectures on communicating science to the general public, thats how big a problem it is.
In short, which of the following do you thinks makes a better headline (totally made up scientific "fact" for demonstration purposes):
"Eating more than 40g of carrots per day found to cause 15% increased risk of developing a specific form of skin cancer in the over 50 age group of caucasian males at a 95% confidence interval"
or
"CARROTS CAUSE CANCER"
And thats the problem with scientists communicating with the general public.
|
On January 23 2013 02:23 Lightspeaker wrote:
"CARROTS CAUSE CANCER"
And thats the problem with scientists communicating with the general public.
If you can't condense something into a funny picture with a caption, it's not real knowledge.
|
On January 23 2013 00:19 TheFrankOne wrote:
There is only a lot of money going to climate science because it has become obvious how pressing of an issue it is. The funding keeps increasing year after year because the predictions are being validated. I can't remember hearing this argument in any other field of scientific study.
Evolution!?! It's all a fraud for biologists to get their funding! Astronomy?!?!? A fraud for big telescope to get their grant money!
The people who argue against climate change do have some money from a variety of funding sources. So why can't they get published in peer-reviewed journals? Is there some vast conspiracy here?
Climate gate was not an important thing. If you actually look into it using reliable sources, you'll find it didn't undermine the overwhelming evidence in favor of climate change, mostly just pulled a few quotes out of context from a few emails and then pretended that was enough to destroy the validity of decades of research across many institutions.
It's really fascinating to observe how this fact is seemingly overlooked (or denied?) by so many people - even here
|
Best thing about this tread is how, on about every page, someone comes in... "have scientists found the conclusion yet? Because it's not even the general consense".
Then 10 people tell them, that there basically is a consense and it developse into.. "other country is not doing it so herpderp"...
sad.
|
On January 23 2013 06:06 Velr wrote:
"other country is not doing it so herpderp"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
this is why the endgame is unified earth. any political philosophy that doesn't acknowledge this is a waste of time
|
This thread is very enlightening. Keep up the good work!
|
On January 22 2013 22:43 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 21:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Post all you want guys, unless it's written in Mandarin and addressed to Chinese officials then it's meaningless.
USA emissions = dropped last year
EU emissions = dropped last year
China = Worlds number #1 emitter
China emissions rose another 8% last year
Chinas cement industry alone produces more CO2 than the entire country of Germany.
So if you believe in man made global warming (I do not) then you can see "developed" countries are "doing the right thing" by reducing emissions, meanwhile China is set to pump out over 50% of the worlds greenhouse emissions within 20 years at current growth rates and neither the worlds largest polluter (China) or the world largest per capita emitter (since 1992) (Qatar) have signed Kyoto protocol.Giving westerners a guilt trip here won't do jack, go to China if you want to enact change and protest there, see how far you get. Per capita emissions in China are still ways off from the US or EU average and Qatar is too small of a country to matter. Unless you have some innate belief that developed countries have the right to polute more per capita then developing countries, your argument holds no ground. This above all is what makes me very pessimistic about finding a solution to global warming. A (theoretical) solution that would be fair to developing countries would be to calculate a global average of "allowed CO2 emissions per capita" (or something of the sort) and create a "carbon credit" market for those that polute less than the average to sell to those that polute more. This solution, though, would impose on the sovereignty of all countries and probably require a much, much larger commitment from developed countries.
My point was basically just that developed countries ARE reducing emissions, meanwhile Chinas emissions keep rising 8-9% per year.Surely even the dimmest individual can see that Chinas per capita emissions will overtake the developed countries within a few short decades with current growth rates??
And i'm not the one saying any country has "the right" to pollute more per capita than anyone else but i do find it strange that there are groups who ignore the fact China is building two new coal plants per week but then go on to say that Africa should not be allowed to build coal plants at all because that is bad for the environment.http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Green-Economics/2010/0415/Africa-s-carbon-conundrum-CO2-from-coal-or-no-lights
While we are on the topic of per capita emissions i note that you dismissed Qatar quite quickly.Let me explain the situation in the Middle East (Last i checked the Middle East accounted for the top 5 per capita emitters).Their CO2 emissions are high because they use oil for their electricity generation.There is very little potable water there (There were huge ancient springs underneath a large portion of the Middle East but they are tapped out now) so what happens is they build huge desalination plants to make seawater drinkable.This is true in most Middle Eastern countries, issue is now they are using this water for other purposes apart from drinking water : example - the 530 acre "Tiger Woods designed" golf course in Dubai that needs 4,000,000 gallons of water per day.This is water from desalination plants powered by oil energy plants remember.But yeah, environmentalists just keep brushing all of this under the rug (Or maybe they never heard about it on MSNBC or CNN?) and keep campaigning to remove all of those old incandescant globes and replacing them with mercury filled CFLs because that is whats good for the environment right?
|
So has your opinion changed on global warming through this thread?
Poll: Your opinion on global warming?Real and man made (20) 83% Real, exaggerated, not man made (2) 8% Fear-mongering, not man made, may be slightly warming (2) 8% Real, dangerous, but not man made (0) 0% A complete scam to make billions through carbon trading schemes (0) 0% 24 total votes Your vote: Your opinion on global warming? (Vote): Real and man made
(Vote): Real, dangerous, but not man made
(Vote): Real, exaggerated, not man made
(Vote): Fear-mongering, not man made, may be slightly warming
(Vote): A complete scam to make billions through carbon trading schemes
|
I'm loving this global warming thing. I'm not freezing my butt off this winter!
+ Show Spoiler +Yes, I know it's different.
|
Except in the prisoner's dilemma, there's no internal communication. You'd think that since we're all able to see the issues and the consequences we'd be able to cooperate. Then in come denialists to claim it's all a lie and short sighted pragmatists who say the cost is too high. It then becomes a game of chicken to see who's willing to sacrifice their economy first.
|
Just because you work in the field doesnt make you right. Sorry buddy. The guy at mcdonalds isnt a burger expert either.
|
On January 23 2013 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2013 22:43 Sbrubbles wrote:On January 22 2013 21:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Post all you want guys, unless it's written in Mandarin and addressed to Chinese officials then it's meaningless.
USA emissions = dropped last year
EU emissions = dropped last year
China = Worlds number #1 emitter
China emissions rose another 8% last year
Chinas cement industry alone produces more CO2 than the entire country of Germany.
So if you believe in man made global warming (I do not) then you can see "developed" countries are "doing the right thing" by reducing emissions, meanwhile China is set to pump out over 50% of the worlds greenhouse emissions within 20 years at current growth rates and neither the worlds largest polluter (China) or the world largest per capita emitter (since 1992) (Qatar) have signed Kyoto protocol.Giving westerners a guilt trip here won't do jack, go to China if you want to enact change and protest there, see how far you get. Per capita emissions in China are still ways off from the US or EU average and Qatar is too small of a country to matter. Unless you have some innate belief that developed countries have the right to polute more per capita then developing countries, your argument holds no ground. This above all is what makes me very pessimistic about finding a solution to global warming. A (theoretical) solution that would be fair to developing countries would be to calculate a global average of "allowed CO2 emissions per capita" (or something of the sort) and create a "carbon credit" market for those that polute less than the average to sell to those that polute more. This solution, though, would impose on the sovereignty of all countries and probably require a much, much larger commitment from developed countries. My point was basically just that developed countries ARE reducing emissions, meanwhile Chinas emissions keep rising 8-9% per year.Surely even the dimmest individual can see that Chinas per capita emissions will overtake the developed countries within a few short decades with current growth rates?? And i'm not the one saying any country has "the right" to pollute more per capita than anyone else but i do find it strange that there are groups who ignore the fact China is building two new coal plants per week but then go on to say that Africa should not be allowed to build coal plants at all because that is bad for the environment.http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Green-Economics/2010/0415/Africa-s-carbon-conundrum-CO2-from-coal-or-no-lights While we are on the topic of per capita emissions i note that you dismissed Qatar quite quickly.Let me explain the situation over there.Their CO2 emissions are high because they use oil for their energy source.There is very little potable water there (There were huge ancient springs underneath a large portion of the Middle East but they are tapped out now) so what happens is they build huge desalination plants to make seawater drinkable.This is true in most Middle Eastern countries, issue is now they are using this water for other purposes apart from drinking water : example - the 530 acre "Tiger Woods designed" golf course in Dubai that needs 4,000,000 gallons of water per day.This is water from desalination plants powered by oil energy plants remember.But yeah, environmentalists just keep brushing all of this under the rug (Or maybe they never heard about it on MSNBC or CNN?) and keep campaigning to remove all of those old incandescant globes and replacing them with mercury filled CFLs because that is what is really whats good for the environment right?
China (and other developing countries) overtaking developed coutries' per capita emission is not something that will happen in the short term (like you say, it will only happen in a few decades) and should be dealt with in due time (if and when it happens). Note that in a few years a lot can change in world governance, in technology, in chinese society, economy, etc, so assuming that China's pollution growth is 100% sure to be sustained at the current level in the next few decades is absurd. To put it simply, you're overstating the problem.
About these "groups" you mention, I don't know what you're talking about and it's not relevant to my post, so I wont comment on it. The website you linked to, though, says nothing about Africa not being allowed to build coal plants (did you even read it?). It says something I agree with completely, that if the international community wants to incetivize developing african countries to pollute less, it needs to put money down for it.
On the issue of Qatar, I completely agree with you and have absolutely no problem with making them responsible for their own pollution (as they should be!). I just dunno why you would make a point of it given its insignificanse greater scheme of things.
|
Thanks for the thread! Giving the general public (TL) knowledge about a serious topic is a noble deed.
|
On January 24 2013 00:04 jermmanDOTA wrote:
Just because you work in the field doesnt make you right. Sorry buddy. The guy at mcdonalds isnt a burger expert either.
But he probably has more clue when it comes to burgers than some guy that only ever saw one from afar...
|
Whew, just read about half of that OP (including most of the responses) and I'm sorry if this has already been brought up. My question is, assuming man has been adversely affecting the climate (which seems to be the general consensus here), to what degree is man actually responsible (how much damage has been done) and how much responsibility do we have to do something about it? Honestly, alot of my denialism has more to do with not buying into political fear-mongering (Al Gore admitting that he has exaggerated the seriousness of it, if I recall correctly) than the actual science of it. I don't deny that the climate is changing, I just question how much we have affected it and how much responsibility we have to do something about it (changing the climate would probably be kind of expensive I imagine).
On January 24 2013 00:04 jermmanDOTA wrote:
Just because you work in the field doesnt make you right. Sorry buddy. The guy at mcdonalds isnt a burger expert either.
What a stupid remark, it makes him a hell of a lot more qualified than the McDonalds guy at answering questions about climate change and the guy at McDonalds could probably wrap a sandwich faster than he could. Climate change is an ongoing debate, but he has the credentials to back up his opinion.
|
On January 24 2013 00:04 jermmanDOTA wrote:
Just because you work in the field doesnt make you right. Sorry buddy. The guy at mcdonalds isnt a burger expert either.
how can you justify logic like that, most scientists are not in it for the money or fame
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On January 23 2013 22:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
While we are on the topic of per capita emissions i note that you dismissed Qatar quite quickly.Let me explain the situation in the Middle East (Last i checked the Middle East accounted for the top 5 per capita emitters).Their CO2 emissions are high because they use oil for their electricity generation.There is very little potable water there (There were huge ancient springs underneath a large portion of the Middle East but they are tapped out now) so what happens is they build huge desalination plants to make seawater drinkable.This is true in most Middle Eastern countries, issue is now they are using this water for other purposes apart from drinking water : example - the 530 acre "Tiger Woods designed" golf course in Dubai that needs 4,000,000 gallons of water per day.This is water from desalination plants powered by oil energy plants remember.But yeah, environmentalists just keep brushing all of this under the rug (Or maybe they never heard about it on MSNBC or CNN?) and keep campaigning to remove all of those old incandescant globes and replacing them with mercury filled CFLs because that is whats good for the environment right?
First of all that is not true for "Most of the Middle East Countries", but only for the handful of countries on the Arabian gulf: Qatar, UAE, Kuwait. And even though much water desalination fueled by oil happens in Saudi, Saudi as a whole is much more diverse.
Of course these countries have a high per capita emission. Why? Because hardly anyone lives there. The three countries mentioned that run virtually entirely on oil/gas and have no fresh water left have a total population of less than 13mio people. If you add the East of Saudi (the part that is on the gulf and doesn't have any fresh water) you can add maybe another 15mio. That's just not a lot of people.
And, it's slow but there are major changes going on in the Arabian gulf countries. They simply can't afford their own oil for much longer anymore. UAE is basically already broke, Saudi is trying to reduce oil consumption for years.
The only ones who really can afford to not care are Qatar and to a much lesser extend Kuwait. But again, with less than 5mio people combined, they are just not significant.
|
First of all, the use of "denier" as in "hollocaust denier" is flatly Orwellian. Secondly, the idea that there is a ton of money funding us deniers is hilarious, because there is a hundred times as much money funding the global warming side.
Oh wait. It's not man made global warming any more. Because that was bunk. Now it's "climate change". And we're not supposed to raise an eyebrow as the scientific establishment switches seamlessly (without acknowledging their defeat, of course) from global warming to climate change.
I'll tell you what - when scientists can predict the weather a week from now, then you can work on predicting the weather one hundred years from now.
|
I'll tell you what - when scientists can predict the position and momentum of an electron one millisecond from now, then you can work on predicting the locations of the planets one month from now.
|
On January 24 2013 02:56 TerribleNoobling wrote:
I'll tell you what - when scientists can predict the weather a week from now, then you can work on predicting the weather one hundred years from now.
As froggy has pointed out, there could not be a more stupid way to think about it. That's not how it works when you study chaotic systems. It's EASIER to predict a long time from now than in the near future.
This is the difference between "weather" and "climate." It's very difficult to predict the weather on any given day. That's why you get caught in the rain. But I can tell you if you move to Seattle, you're sure as hell gonna get rained on a whole bunch. That's "climate."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
