Canadian Political Events

Beyond Canada => The World => Topic started by: guest4 on August 26, 2017, 10:36:43 am


Title: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 26, 2017, 10:36:43 am
Who is concerned about climate change?  I personally believe this is our biggest threat - Nazis, Muslims, Trump are mere child's play compared to the chaos, destruction and death that climate change promises.  I do wonder why it isn't talked about more, and I've concluded its because nobody really knows what to do about it, especially when world leaders are busily posturing their military might, their political clout, or just trying to get re-elected.

Anyway, I found this infographic showing which countries, due to location, wealth and infrastructure will survive the best.  Canada and the US are near the top of 'survivability' chart, but Mexico and South America are not.  For those who worry about illegal immigration, stop concerning yourselves with Muslims - they'll be barely a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers of people who will be trying to escape a continent that will become essentially uninhabitable in a few decades.   

So here's the graphic. 
http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-that-will-survive-climate-change-infographic-2015-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-that-will-survive-climate-change-infographic-2015-6)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: BC_cheque on August 26, 2017, 02:51:19 pm
I'm more worried about climate change than terrorism too.  Terrorism can't take out entire continents in the same way climate-change will.

The fact that it will be mostly non-western third-world (and overpopulated) countries that will suffer is probably the primary reason those who aren't concerned feel as they do, but you're right, they're forgetting that that the people of those countries aren't going to just lie down and die.  They'll migrate and it's going to get ugly trying to fight hordes of people whose only will is to survive.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: JMT on August 26, 2017, 03:41:34 pm
I'm concerned, but at the same time, I have faith that we'll figure it out in the end.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 06:18:43 pm
Who is concerned about climate change?  I personally believe this is our biggest threat
Humans have been dealing with climate change for 1000s of years. We adapt cause that is what we do.

So here's the graphic.
The graphic correlates with GDP per captita. Those countries with functional governments and economies will do fine. Those with dyfunctional or non-existent governments will have problems. IOW - this is nothing new. The only thing climate change does is give people a boogie man to blame instead of more accurately placing the blame on the people living in the countries that are not able to create or sustain a functional government.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Peter F on August 26, 2017, 08:03:22 pm
.. Those countries with functional governments and economies will do fine. Those with dyfunctional or non-existent governments will have problems. IOW - this is nothing new. The only thing climate change does is give people a boogie man to blame instead of more accurately placing the blame on the people living in the countries that are not able to create or sustain a functional government.

  The functional economies pump out vast amounts of greenhouse gasses and we are to blame the dysfunctional economies/governments for being subjected to the results. Doesn't make much sense to blame them. I blame us functional folks for pumping out the gasses far more than any non-functioning government/economy/society then doing our utmost to not take steps to utilize our grand superiority and reign in our excesses. The fault does not belong on the shoulders of pearl-divers in micronesia.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 26, 2017, 08:17:55 pm
  The functional economies pump out vast amounts of greenhouse gasses and we are to blame the dysfunctional economies/governments for being subjected to the results. Doesn't make much sense to blame them. I blame us functional folks for pumping out the gasses far more than any non-functioning government/economy/society then doing our utmost to not take steps to utilize our grand superiority and reign in our excesses. The fault does not belong on the shoulders of pearl-divers in micronesia.

As I recall Tim was one of those who used to deny global warming was a valid concern. Now that science has overwhelmingly proved that idea faulty, the attempt to try and pass the buck for who caused it is equally stunning. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 08:23:38 pm
The functional economies pump out vast amounts of greenhouse gasses and we are to blame the dysfunctional economies/governments for being subjected to the results.
GHGs which have greatly improved the lives of everyone in the world  and are well worth the cost. Do you really believe the 'pearl divers Micronesia' don't use any technology whether it is cellphones, TVs or ICE powered farming implements? In fact, your example is quite ironic given the fact that pearls are worthless without access to developed country markets.

The problem with the blame game is it just gives people excuses for taking responsibility for their own actions and choices.




Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on August 26, 2017, 08:24:49 pm
TimG ?  What the what ?  ???
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 08:28:16 pm
As I recall Tim was one of those who used to deny global warming was a valid concern. Now that science has overwhelmingly proved that idea faulty
Except that is nothing but psuedo-religious claptrap that you have been told to believe. What science tells us is GHGs are going to make the world warmer. Beyond that all claims about what the consequences will or will not be are hypothetical speculations. It seems like ever other day I see 'climate change' claims in the media that are simply not supported by the science either because the science says the exact opposite or because the uncertainty is no great no respectable scientist would make such a claim.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 08:36:39 pm
TimG ?  What the what ?  ???
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/01/kiribati-crisis-the-blame-game/

Quote
The reality is that the reef islands that are formed on living coral arcs or atolls are not a suitable long-term habitat for anything other than a very light human footprint: in the not-so-distant past, limitation was placed on population growth by the size of the freshwater lens that forms by the accumulation of rainwater in the compacted sand behind the beach, and above sea level. If this becomes exhausted by the withdrawal of too much water for drinking or for growing vegetables, the human population dies out, or must migrate.
IOW - overpopulation of these atolls is the primary cause of any distress they may incur in the future. Rising seas are a secondary concern.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: JMT on August 26, 2017, 08:43:44 pm
I took that as surprise on his part that you're here.

I only asked people that I had a degree of respect for to come here.  Some didn't show up.  Most did.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 26, 2017, 08:44:22 pm
Except that is nothing but psuedo-religious claptrap that you have been told to believe. What science tells us is GHGs are going to make the world warmer. Beyond that all claims about what the consequences will or will not be are hypothetical speculations. It seems like ever other day I see 'climate change' claims in the media that are simply not supported by the science either because the science says the exact opposite or because the uncertainty is no great no respectable scientist would make such a claim.

Actually around 97% of climate scientists do make such claims. Ignore them if you will but we see the results occurring before our eyes. I'm glad I don't own property in Florida.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 26, 2017, 08:54:42 pm
GHGs which have greatly improved the lives of everyone in the world  and are well worth the cost. Do you really believe the 'pearl divers Micronesia' don't use any technology whether it is cellphones, TVs or ICE powered farming implements? In fact, your example is quite ironic given the fact that pearls are worthless without access to developed country markets.

The problem with the blame game is it just gives people excuses for taking responsibility for their own actions and choices.

You're a little confused. GHG's haven't improved our lives. Creating them did because it warmed our homes and propelled our cars etc. But it also polluted the air we breath, and is adversely affecting our environment. We need to progress if we want to stay healthy.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on August 26, 2017, 09:11:27 pm
1. I took that as surprise on his part that you're here.

2. I only asked people that I had a degree of respect for to come here.  Some didn't show up.  Most did.
1. Correct.
2. You asked people ?  I would just ask everybody and boot out idiots m'self.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 09:14:17 pm
Actually around 97% of climate scientists do make such claims.
That claim itself is excellent example of the nonsense that gets repeated in the media but is basically false. The 97% refers to a study where a group of scientists were asked if GHGs contributes to warming - a statement that I also agree with. What makes it false is people like you try to take a response to a very narrow question and use to claim that any alarmist statement is equally supported by scientific evidence.

And honest debate requires that every individual claim be evaluated on its own. i.e. if someone claims that warming is causing hurricanes then we need to the look at the evidence for that claim. The fact that GHGs cause warming has no bearing on whether that particular claim is correct or reasonable.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 09:19:23 pm
But it also polluted the air we breath, and is adversely affecting our environment.
Cities are cleaner today with the all of ICE vehicles than they were in the past. People are healthier and living longer than they ever have. This does not mean there is no room for improvement but this endless vilification of GHGs without any consideration of the real benefits fossil fuels provide is not helpful.

http://www.banhdc.org/archives/ch-hist-19711000.html

Quote
Yet they have forgotten, or rather never knew, that the predecessor of the auto was also a major polluter. The faithful, friendly horse was charged with creating the very problems today attributed to the automobile: air contaminants harmful to health, noxious odors, and noise. At the beginning of the twentieth century, in fact, writers in popular and scientific periodicals were decrying the pollution of the public streets and demanding “the banishment of the horse from American cities” in vigorous terms. The presence of 120,000 horses in New York City, wrote one 1908 authority for example, is “an economic burden, an affront to cleanliness, and a terrible tax upon human life.” The solution to the problem, agreed the critics, was the adoption of the “horseless carriage.”
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: JMT on August 26, 2017, 09:35:11 pm
Maybe, but we still have to deal with GHGs. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 09:46:43 pm
Maybe, but we still have to deal with GHGs.
In an ideal world we would find alternatives just like we found alternatives to horses. The trouble is none of the alternatives available at this time can realistically replace fossil fuels in many applications. If it was possible to have a rational discussion we would look each at application and determine pragmatically whether a  non-fossil fuel option is feasible and if there is one, use it. Unfortunately, instead of a rational debate we have endless streams of doom mongers saying the world will end if we don't stop our carbon sinning.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 26, 2017, 10:07:16 pm
Cities are cleaner today with the all of ICE vehicles than they were in the past. People are healthier and living longer than they ever have. This does not mean there is no room for improvement but this endless vilification of GHGs without any consideration of the real benefits fossil fuels provide is not helpful.

http://www.banhdc.org/archives/ch-hist-19711000.html

Sorry but people in certain countries live longer because of advances in healthcare, maybe you live in YVR and have never been anywhere else, but globally people die younger because of global warming, especially pollution, and will continue to do so due to increased temperatures in countries where they don't have an air conditioned house.
The price of oil is where it is because smart investors are moving away because they know the path to the future is renewable energy, not pollutants.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 11:13:29 pm
Sorry but people in certain countries live longer because of advances in healthcare
Advances in healthcare made possible by an economy with access to energy and these advances are being shared around the world. Look at the infant mortality stats which is a reasonable proxy for most health outcomes:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT

Steady downward trend.

The WHO claims are purely hypothetical and should not be given any more credence than astrology or an economist's model.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 26, 2017, 11:21:34 pm
Advances in healthcare made possible by an economy with access to energy and these advances are being shared around the world. Look at the infant mortality stats which is a reasonable proxy for most health outcomes:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT

Steady downward trend.

The WHO claims are purely hypothetical and should not be given any more credence than astrology or an economist's model.

I think I'll go by the word of the overwhelming majority of trained scientists who have brought the facts to our attention. Even China and India are on board. Trying to claim the evidence is hypothetical is like sticking ones head in the sand. Like I say, these days smart money is not invested in oil wells.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 26, 2017, 11:35:36 pm
I think I'll go by the word of the overwhelming majority of trained scientists who have brought the facts to our attention.
A meaningless statement because you are not quoting any 'scientists' or referencing any actual science. You are simply parroting the talking points provided by people with a vested interest in climate alarmism.

One of the biggest problems with climate science is it has been so politicized by people with an agenda that scientists that cast doubt on the politically desirable narrative are attacked and are often forced out of the field because it is simply not worth the hassle. The result is a scientific "consensus" that is largely meaningless. For a consensus to be meaningful people must be free to disagree. Given the lack of any trustworthy authority we must instead rely on science based on techniques that are not vulnerable to manipulation by motivated analysts. This means anything based on the output of a climate model is suspect and cannot be considered to be anything other than a hypothesis.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 02:22:13 am
A meaningless statement because you are not quoting any 'scientists' or referencing any actual science. You are simply parroting the talking points provided by people with a vested interest in climate alarmism.

One of the biggest problems with climate science is it has been so politicized by people with an agenda that scientists that cast doubt on the politically desirable narrative are attacked and are often forced out of the field because it is simply not worth the hassle. The result is a scientific "consensus" that is largely meaningless. For a consensus to be meaningful people must be free to disagree. Given the lack of any trustworthy authority we must instead rely on science based on techniques that are not vulnerable to manipulation by motivated analysts. This means anything based on the output of a climate model is suspect and cannot be considered to be anything other than a hypothesis.

You're kidding right?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 09:40:32 am
You're kidding right?
Are you kidding? Your link is to a propaganda website that goes out of its way to misrepresent the state of the science in order to promote the alarmists narrative. Sites like that are are a big part of the problem.

What I said is true: scientists who express views that cast doubt on the acceptable narrative are attacked by their colleagues and often choose to leave the field. The fact that the people left in the field publicly state particular views should come as no surprise since their jobs depend on holding those views. The net result is relying on the "consensus" of climate scientists for an opinion on climate science is like relying on a group of white supremacists for an opinion on racial diversity.

As I said: consensus means nothing if people who disagree are not free to express their views.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 27, 2017, 09:59:23 am
I'm concerned, but at the same time, I have faith that we'll figure it out in the end.

There've been warning about the effects of pollution since the 60s, and we haven't figured anything out yet, so I'm not as certain.   Still, oil companies and maybe even Saudia Arabia seem to be looking to get out of the fossil fuel industry, so that's something.   
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/15/shell-creates-green-energy-division-to-invest-in-wind-power (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/15/shell-creates-green-energy-division-to-invest-in-wind-power)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/saudi-arabia-plans-to-sell-state-oil-assets-to-create-2tn-wealth-fund (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/saudi-arabia-plans-to-sell-state-oil-assets-to-create-2tn-wealth-fund)

Anyway, I hope your optimism beats out my pessimism. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 27, 2017, 10:27:01 am
Humans have been dealing with climate change for 1000s of years. We adapt cause that is what we do.
 
Quote
I assume humans will survive this climate change event, but remains to be seen how many.   If the models are remotely accurate - and they have been for the last 30 years, although real-time events are happening faster than the models predicted - there will be essentially a worldwide collapse of ecosystems and societies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-computer-model-princeton-stouffer-manabe-vindicated-30-years-global-warming-a7609976.html   (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-computer-model-princeton-stouffer-manabe-vindicated-30-years-global-warming-a7609976.html)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/10/earths-oceans-are-warming-13-faster-than-thought-and-accelerating


Quote
The graphic correlates with GDP per captita. Those countries with functional governments and economies will do fine. Those with dyfunctional or non-existent governments will have problems. IOW - this is nothing new. The only thing climate change does is give people a boogie man to blame instead of more accurately placing the blame on the people living in the countries that are not able to create or sustain a functional government.

That we will be "just fine" because we have a 'functioning government' is an overstatement.  Even if we discount flooding, droughts and wildfires in the Western world, the influx of people from those countries that are more severely affected is going to be huge factor.  As weather events intensify and the cost of rebuilding each one becomes unmanageable, those with money and power are going to be intent on saving themselves by any means possible, not maintaining a 'functioning' government.  Sure, someone might be in power - but it will be essentially every man for himself. 

Even aside from societal breakdown, in 2003, 40,000 people died from a record heat wave - the hottest one in recorded history.   The summer of 2017 is already again seeing extreme heat - the highest since 2003.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4259-european-heatwave-caused-35000-deaths/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/extreme-heat-warnings-issued-europe-temperatures-pass-40c

More and worse such events are expected in the decades to come, according to the models that have already accurately predicted where we are today.

It's difficult for me to understand how a person can discount the evidence so completely when events that were predicted have come true.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 27, 2017, 10:33:27 am
GHGs which have greatly improved the lives of everyone in the world  and are well worth the cost.   

Indeed - I wonder how the people who are actually going to be paying the GHG piper will feel about that.

Quote
The problem with the blame game is it just gives people excuses for taking responsibility for their own actions and choices.

The people who keep denying the reality of climate change and the effects it will ultimately have are the ones who don't want to take responsibility for their actions and choices.   You are lucky, because you'll likely be dead before the full results of our actions and choices are apparent.  It's our kids and grandkids who'll be paying. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 10:45:42 am
Even aside from societal breakdown, in 2003, 40,000 people died from a record heat wave - the hottest one in recorded history.   The summer of 2017 is already again seeing extreme heat - the highest since 2003.
In 1950s few people lived in the US south west because of "extreme heat". It is now the fastest growing regions thanks to technology (air conditioners) and the energy needed to keep the air conditioners running.

Adaptation requires access to resources - particularly energy at a reasonable price. If there is one group of people who deserve criticism for increasing the suffering of people in developing countries is it western environmentalists who, thanks to an irrational fear of CO2 and GMOs and Nuclear, actively seek to deny developing countries access to essential adaptation tools.

There is a concept in engineering called a 'cost benefit analysis' where every action is weighed against its costs and benefits. The trouble with your line of thinking is you ignore the benefits of fossil fuels while exaggerating the potential harms. The end result of your thinking will only be great harm. The way forward requires pragmatism. i.e. look for cost effective ways to reduce CO2 but don't fret if we still have to emit CO2 in many applications where no cost effective alternatives exist yet.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 10:58:29 am
You are lucky, because you'll likely be dead before the full results of our actions and choices are apparent.  It's our kids and grandkids who'll be paying.
People have been repeating this kind of doom mongering for centuries. There is no reason to believe that the doom mongering today will turn out to be any more accurate than the doom mongering from the the past. It seems like only yesterday everyone was convinced over population would destroy the world - now - thanks to fossil fuels (indirectly) populations are stabilizing everywhere and the global population should start to decline this century. But if you told someone living in the 70s that the population problem would fix itself they would have said you were 'in denial'. It will be the same with the effects of 'climate change'. There will be effects but they will be no where as bad as you claim and societies will quietly adapt as needed.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on August 27, 2017, 11:21:58 am
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/42964019/the-straw-man-fallacies-are-strong-in-this-one.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 11:33:23 am
In 1950s few people lived in the US south west because of "extreme heat". It is now the fastest growing regions thanks to technology (air conditioners) and the energy needed to keep the air conditioners running.

 You don't see the fallacy of that argument? You "solve" the problem of burning GHG's by burning more GHG's to run AC's.
I think they call that a vicious circle.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on August 27, 2017, 11:34:08 am
The only thing climate change does is give people a boogie man to blame instead of more accurately placing the blame on the people living in the countries that are not able to create or sustain a functional government.

please sir! This board purports to be a troll-free zone...

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 27, 2017, 01:01:50 pm
People have been repeating this kind of doom mongering for centuries. There is no reason to believe that the doom mongering today will turn out to be any more accurate than the doom mongering from the the past.

Of course we do. It's called science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 01:08:19 pm
Of course we do. It's called science.
So you are saying we did not have science in the 70s when the population bomb and exhaustion of resources was all the rage? Both of those 'predicted by science' disasters failed to materialize.

Science it is a tool that must be used correctly to be helpful. If a field starts to demand ideological conformity by regularly ostracizing colleagues that do not parrot the preferred narrative then that field can no longer claim to be using science.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: kimmy on August 27, 2017, 01:14:45 pm
TimG ?  What the what ?  ???

It's kind of like Bloody Mary or Baba Yaga or Beetlejuice. Say "climate change" 3 times, and TimG appears.

 -k
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 27, 2017, 01:21:37 pm
So you are saying we did not have science in the 70s when the population bomb and exhaustion of resources was all the rage? Both of those 'predicted by science' disasters failed to materialize.

Science it is a tool that must be used correctly to be helpful. If a field starts to demand ideological conformity by regularly ostracizing colleagues that do not parrot the preferred narrative then that field can no longer claim to be using science.

World population has nearly doubled since the 70's. Are you saying population growth is no longer an issue? Do you think the planet can support an infinite number of people? You preface your argument on the principle we have learned nothing and are incapable of doing so.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 01:37:56 pm
World population has nearly doubled since the 70's. Are you saying population growth is no longer an issue? Do you think the planet can support an infinite number of people? You preface your argument on the principle we have learned nothing and are incapable of doing so.
No - i am saying that we now know that human populations appear to naturally limit themselves as wealth increases. The net result is human population is expected to peak this century and start to decline without any special government interventions. However, such a outcome was considered inconceivable in the 70s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Quote
"What needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[6] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[7] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[8] He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[9] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.
That quote is long but it is useful because it *exactly* mirrors the argument being made by climate change alarmists today.

Now you would like to argue that we learn as we move forward, however, learning requires humility. The arrogance and exaggerated certainty that under pins the climate doom mongers' arguments today suggests that they have learned nothing.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on August 27, 2017, 01:39:47 pm
It's kind of like Bloody Mary or Baba Yaga or Beetlejuice. Say "climate change" 3 times, and TimG appears.

 -k

Hasn't been on MLW in almost 6 months I figured he'd quit.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 01:41:09 pm
So you are saying we did not have science in the 70s when the population bomb and exhaustion of resources was all the rage? Both of those 'predicted by science' disasters failed to materialize.

Science it is a tool that must be used correctly to be helpful. If a field starts to demand ideological conformity by regularly ostracizing colleagues that do not parrot the preferred narrative then that field can no longer claim to be using science.

Why do you seem to think that the indicators that have been noted by the majority of climate scientists are nothing more than a "preferred narrative"? Not liking the bad news is understandable, but ignoring it is dangerous.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 01:46:40 pm
Why do you seem to think that the indicators that have been noted by the majority of climate scientists are nothing more than a "preferred narrative"? Not liking the bad news is understandable, but ignoring it is dangerous.
I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 27, 2017, 01:51:12 pm
No - i am saying that we now know that human populations appear to naturally limit themselves as wealth increases. The net result is human population is expected to peak this century and start to decline without any special government interventions. However, such a outcome was considered inconceivable in the 70s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_BombThat quote is long but it is useful because it *exactly* mirrors the argument being made by climate change alarmists today.

Now you would like to argue that we learn as we move forward, however, learning requires humility. The arrogance and exaggerated certainty that under pins the climate doom mongers' arguments today suggests that they have learned nothing.

The UN is predicting 9.8 B by 2050 and 11.2 B by 2100 taking into account that fertility rates will continue do decline. Humans are putting severe pressure on the world's ecosystem yet you assume a 50% increase will be sustainable.

I would argue that we learn as we move forward because that is what we have always done. That's why we have things like sewage and water treatment, eliminated lead from gasoline and a thousand other things . You can't just reject what you don't like.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on August 27, 2017, 01:59:21 pm
I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.

outside of outright cranks, charlatans and wackos... name the names! Given your staunch, year upon year, unrelenting position on this, surely there must be literally hundreds of your so-called dissenters who have been attacked... had their livelihoods threatened. Name the names - cause, like there sure haven't been any attacks, vilification and undermining of legitimate scientists by your preferred "denier/do nothing/adapt-r-us" crowd, hey! C'mon, name the names of your poor downtrodden. Name the names!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 02:09:59 pm
I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.

"Zero confidence in any claims made by the majority" Now there's a cop out if I ever heard one. You are talking about the majority of specifically trained scientists. It sounds more like you are attacking that majority in favor of the few dissenters because you don't like what the former are telling you. And for instance, 800,000 sq. km. of ice missing from the Arctic Ocean is not a claim, it's a fact that can be seen clearly from satellite imagery. Trying to ignore such things is kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 02:13:01 pm
The UN is predicting 9.8 B by 2050 and 11.2 B by 2100 taking into account that fertility rates will continue do decline. Humans are putting severe pressure on the world's ecosystem yet you assume a 50% increase will be sustainable.
You are missing the point. In the 70s people believed:

Quote
“The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” He later went on to forecast that hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that crowded India was essentially doomed, that odds were fair “England will not exist in the year 2000.” Dr. Ehrlich was so sure of himself that he warned in 1970 that “sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come.” By “the end,” he meant “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html?mcubz=0

IOW - the predictions of immediate doom were dead wrong (england did not dissappear). the population problem fixed itself since technology has ensured we more than able to provide food for the population. Now the concern is consumption. I am arguing that problem will likely follow a similar path with incremental social changes and unexpected technology advancements will gradually eliminating it as an issue. That does not mean we don't need to work towards change - it just means the incessant doom mongering and arbitrary deadlines is not helpful.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 02:20:45 pm
"Zero confidence in any claims made by the majority" Now there's a cop out if I ever heard one. You are talking about the majority of specifically trained scientists.
So what? If "experts" act like political partisans when faced with other experts who disagree then they have obviously forgot their training. The concept should not be hard to understand: people who have confidence in their opinions do not feel the need to bully or attack colleagues that disagree. People who lack confidence do. We should all be concerned if "experts" lack confidence in their own claims.

And for instance, 800,000 sq. km. of ice missing from the Arctic Ocean is not a claim, it's a fact that can be seen clearly from satellite imagery. Trying to ignore such things is kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.
Sure it is fact. So what? Why should we care? As soon as you try to answer that question you are not providing facts - you are providing *opinions*.  Here is a article that looks at more facts and suggests the concerns about sea ice retreat are over done: https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/16/what-do-we-know-about-arctic-sea-ice-trends/ . Of course that is an opinion too that uses facts to support it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 02:47:39 pm
So what? If "experts" act like political partisans when faced with other experts who disagree then they have obviously forgot their training. The concept should not be hard to understand: people who have confidence in their opinions do not feel the need to bully or attack colleagues that disagree. People who lack confidence do. We should all be concerned if "experts" lack confidence in their own claims.
Sure it is fact. So what? Why should we care? As soon as you try to answer that question you are not providing facts - you are providing *opinions*.  Here is a article that looks at more facts and suggests the concerns about sea ice retreat are over done: https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/16/what-do-we-know-about-arctic-sea-ice-trends/ . Of course that is an opinion too that uses facts to support it.

Your article basically points out two facts with regard to sea ice, both the decrease in the Arctic, and the increase in the Antarctic, both caused by global warming. Increasing temps. at the south pole have caused increased evaporation followed by precipitation, and of course I'm sure you understand that when sea water evaporate it doesn't take the salt with it, and therefore the salt content of the surface water is reduced, allowing it to freeze at higher temps. It may be confusing to think that more ice can be caused by warming, but such is science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: JMT on August 27, 2017, 03:11:10 pm
There've been warning about the effects of pollution since the 60s, and we haven't figured anything out yet, so I'm not as certain.   Still, oil companies and maybe even Saudia Arabia seem to be looking to get out of the fossil fuel industry, so that's something.   
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/15/shell-creates-green-energy-division-to-invest-in-wind-power (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/15/shell-creates-green-energy-division-to-invest-in-wind-power)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/saudi-arabia-plans-to-sell-state-oil-assets-to-create-2tn-wealth-fund (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/01/saudi-arabia-plans-to-sell-state-oil-assets-to-create-2tn-wealth-fund)

Anyway, I hope your optimism beats out my pessimism.

Actually, the world is less polluted in many ways than in the past.  The air is cleaner (outside of a few places), for one.  Humanity tends to deal with problems when we have to, and not before.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 03:14:11 pm
Your article basically points out two facts with regard to sea ice, both the decrease in the Arctic, and the increase in the Antarctic, both caused by global warming.
The article also points out that the climate models cannot reproduce the likely historical trends in sea ice which means the models' ability to predict future trends is zero. Hand waving about sea salinity does make the problems with the models go away.

Science is useful when it tells us what we don't know but the problem with climate science is the "approved narrative" does not allow scientists to acknowledge that the models are poor approximations of the real world and should never be treated as "predictions".  Statements like 2degC as the limit to prevent "dangerous" warming are unscientific nonsense.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 03:25:13 pm
The article also points out that the climate models cannot reproduce the likely historical trends in sea ice which means the models' ability to predict future trends is zero. Hand waving about sea salinity does make the problems with the models go away.

Science is useful when it tells us what we don't know but the problem with climate science is the "approved narrative" does not allow scientists to acknowledge that the models are poor approximations of the real world and should never be treated as "predictions".  Statements like 2degC as the limit to prevent "dangerous" warming are unscientific nonsense.

The good news is that the people who understand what is going on are bailing out of fossil fuel markets, (hence the prices), and moving heavily into renewables such as solar and wind. I suspect nuclear will be revisited as well.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 04:11:43 pm
The good news is that the people who understand what is going on are bailing out of fossil fuel markets, (hence the prices), and moving heavily into renewables such as solar and wind. I suspect nuclear will be revisited as well.
Well, no one with knowledge of how the energy system works takes such claims seriously:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/images/figure_1-6.png

Coal/gas/nuclear/hydro power will provide the majority of our electricity for the foreseeable future.
(note that >1/2 of the 2040 estimate for renewables is hydro-power).

If electric cars take off we will need to build many more gas/coal/nuclear plants to meet the new demand.

Of course we could refuse to build the necessary capacity based on misguided obession with CO2 but that would simply delay or block the adoption of EVs.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 04:40:33 pm
Well, no one with knowledge of how the energy system works takes such claims seriously:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/images/figure_1-6.png

Coal/gas/nuclear/hydro power will provide the majority of our electricity for the foreseeable future.
(note that >1/2 of the 2040 estimate for renewables is hydro-power).

If electric cars take off we will need to build many more gas/coal/nuclear plants to meet the new demand.

Of course we could refuse to build the necessary capacity based on misguided obession with CO2 but that would simply delay or block the adoption of EVs.

When the Bank of Abu Dhabi abandons investments in fossil fuels in lieu of renewables, you can bet they have done their research.
https://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/national-bank-abu-dhabi-even-10-barrel-oil-couldnt-match-solar-cost.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 05:09:39 pm
When the Bank of Abu Dhabi abandons investments in fossil fuels in lieu of renewables, you can bet they have done their research.
The report in question was dealing with the viability of solar in a country in a tropical desert that currently uses oil to generate electricity. The article attempted extend the analysis beyond the scope of the report which is nonsense. In any case, the cost of solar is not from the cost of solar panels - the cost comes from the backup power and/or grid scale storage required to deal with the variability. Hand waving assurances that the 'storage cost is coming down' does not make solar cheaper than the alternatives - especially in northern latitudes with half the solar isolation. If we actually get real low cost storage solutions the economics will change. But we don't have them today and pretending we do is not helpful.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 06:12:25 pm
 But we don't have them today and pretending we do is not helpful.
[/quote]

Yes we do have the lower cost versions of solar panels, which is why even $10/bbl can't compete. The other thing you do is employ soalr during the day, and wind at night. Yes you do need some backups but total reliance on fossils is quickly going the way of the doh-doh bird.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 06:34:16 pm
Even Texas is buying in.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-is-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 27, 2017, 07:02:16 pm
Even Texas is buying in.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-is-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy/

China is the world's biggest producer of wind generated electricity. Has been since 2010.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 27, 2017, 07:19:53 pm
Denmark produces 40% of it's power needs through wind.
https://qz.com/323218/denmark-produces-40-of-its-power-from-wind-more-than-any-other-country-on-earth/

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 07:32:47 pm
China is the world's biggest producer of wind generated electricity. Has been since 2010.

Both China and India are pledging to stay on board with the Paris Accord regardless of Trump.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/15/india-china-track-exceed-paris-climate-pledges/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 27, 2017, 07:39:58 pm
Actually, the world is less polluted in many ways than in the past.  The air is cleaner (outside of a few places), for one. 

It is still essentially pollution that is causing us problems. 

Quote
Humanity tends to deal with problems when we have to, and not before.

Well, there is still time - 5 or 6 years, according to one expert I heard today, for us to get our act together and start addressing the problem.  There are also a few geoengineering ideas being batted around, but none have gone beyond the idea stage yet.   
 
Anyway, looks like renewable energy is the place to invest these days ...

Quote
Some striking facts and figures — In 2016, wind and solar beat investment in fossil fuels by 2-to-1. Global capacity additions increased again in 2016; in the United States, renewable energy accounted for 60 percent of these additions. In 2016, Portugal powered the country with renewable energy alone for four consecutive days, clean power supplied Germany’s power demand for a full day, and Denmark could produce enough wind power to meet its domestic electricity demand and have enough to export power to Norway, Germany and Sweden.

http://www.ge.com/reports/unstoppable-next-decade-belongs-renewable-energy/ (http://www.ge.com/reports/unstoppable-next-decade-belongs-renewable-energy/)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 08:09:29 pm
Well, there is still time - 5 or 6 years, according to one expert I heard today, for us to get our act together and start addressing the problem.
The so called "expert" is just another doom monger making predictions that will be shown to be false. Should I collect a timeline "climate doom" quotes over the last 20 years with deadlines that have long past? How many would it take to convince you that you can't take such people seriously?
 
There are also a few geoengineering ideas being batted around, but none have gone beyond the idea stage yet.
Adaptation will always be cheaper and easier than expending resources trying to collect CO2.
 
Anyway, looks like renewable energy is the place to invest these days ...
Only if you believe governments will continue to maintain unsustainable subsidies. In Europe renewable investors are discovering that the public has limited willingness to pay for overpriced and unreliable power.

South Australia recently discovered the price of a mindless obsession with renewables:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-blackouts-wind-farm-turbines-key-to-power-outages-report-finds/news-story/97967948bbd3f7644451ee02d61b14bf

 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 09:28:37 pm
The so called "expert" is just another doom monger making predictions that will be shown to be false. Should I collect a timeline "climate doom" quotes over the last 20 years with deadlines that have long past? How many would it take to convince you that you can't take such people seriously?
 Adaptation will always be cheaper and easier than expending resources trying to collect CO2.
 Only if you believe governments will continue to maintain unsustainable subsidies. In Europe renewable investors are discovering that the public has limited willingness to pay for overpriced and unreliable power.

South Australia recently discovered the price of a mindless obsession with renewables:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-blackouts-wind-farm-turbines-key-to-power-outages-report-finds/news-story/97967948bbd3f7644451ee02d61b14bf

Perhaps you are unaware that 149 countries signed onto the Paris accord, and 3 didn't. Nicaragua, Syria, and Oh yeah Donald Trump land. And many major US industries are  ignoring his ignorance and proceeding to adhere to the accord anyway. They understand the science, and the way to keep profits up.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 10:17:51 pm
Perhaps you are unaware that 149 countries signed onto the Paris accord, and 3 didn't. Nicaragua, Syria, and Oh yeah Donald Trump land. And many major US industries are  ignoring his ignorance and proceeding to adhere to the accord anyway. They understand the science, and the way to keep profits up.
Do you actually have any idea what the Paris accord requires of countries? A little hint: nothing. Each country sets its own targets which it can adjust as politicians realize that there is 0 chance that they will meet whatever imaginary numbers their predecessors came up with. Many republicans wanted Trump to stay in the accord because they felt the US would be in a better position to ensure future agreements are equally ineffective if they were part of the process.

IOW - Paris is nothing but virtue signalling for pretentious politicians. If companies jump on the bandwagon it is for the same reason.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 10:41:18 pm
Do you actually have any idea what the Paris accord requires of countries? A little hint: nothing. Each country sets its own targets which it can adjust as politicians realize that there is 0 chance that they will meet whatever imaginary numbers their predecessors came up with. Many republicans wanted Trump to stay in the accord because they felt the US would be in a better position to ensure future agreements are equally ineffective if they were part of the process.

IOW - Paris is nothing but virtue signalling for pretentious politicians. If companies jump on the bandwagon it is for the same reason.
Luckily industry leaders in the US are planning to adhere to the Paris accord, regardless of Trump. They see where the future is headed, and it ain't in coal.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 27, 2017, 11:18:20 pm
Luckily industry leaders in the US are planning to adhere to the Paris accord, regardless of Trump. They see where the future is headed, and it ain't in coal.
Yep. The US future is natural gas. Wind and solar are toys that keep preening politicians happy but won't be the work horse that keeps the lights on.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 27, 2017, 11:43:05 pm
Yep. The US future is natural gas. Wind and solar are toys that keep preening politicians happy but won't be the work horse that keeps the lights on.

Who do you think has the largest solar farm? Yep, the US. Your shares in gas pumps will simply continue to drop.
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/worlds-largest-solar-farm-goes-online-california/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 28, 2017, 12:22:02 am
Who do you think has the largest solar farm? Yep, the US. Your shares in gas pumps will simply continue to drop.
I prefer reality instead of wishful thinking:
 (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_energy_source_small.jpg)0.6% of US energy needs are supplied by solar. Solar will remain a tiny fraction as long as there is no cost effective solution for the reliability problem. Today using solar means building natural gas plants as backups which is a waste of resources. It makes more sense to build the gas plant alone and skip the solar.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 28, 2017, 01:09:24 am
I prefer reality instead of wishful thinking:
 (https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/energy_consumption_by_energy_source_small.jpg)0.6% of US energy needs are supplied by solar. Solar will remain a tiny fraction as long as there is no cost effective solution for the reliability problem. Today using solar means building natural gas plants as backups which is a waste of resources. It makes more sense to build the gas plant alone and skip the solar.
Solar + wind fastest growing industries even in Texas. You're apparently hiding from what is actually going on.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: cybercoma on August 28, 2017, 09:12:56 am
When in doubt, argue against a point the other person didn't make.

Hey, Tim....nobody said solar power was the largest energy source in the United States. They're talking about transitioning here.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 28, 2017, 10:49:13 am
The so called "expert" is just another doom monger making predictions that will be shown to be false. Should I collect a timeline "climate doom" quotes over the last 20 years with deadlines that have long past? How many would it take to convince you that you can't take such people seriously? 

 Adaptation will always be cheaper and easier than expending resources trying to collect CO2.
 Only if you believe governments will continue to maintain unsustainable subsidies. In Europe renewable investors are discovering that the public has limited willingness to pay for overpriced and unreliable power.

South Australia recently discovered the price of a mindless obsession with renewables:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/sa-blackouts-wind-farm-turbines-key-to-power-outages-report-finds/news-story/97967948bbd3f7644451ee02d61b14bf

Paid link, so have no idea what you are trying to prove with it.

Here's an interesting article that does seem to take a more reasoned approach; it criticizes the way in which the media talk about climate change, but also admits there is a problem that needs to be addressed and offers up some scenarios and numbers.

Quote
RCP2.6 is the ignored orphan. It provides no sad stories for journalists and no propaganda for activists. In a sane world it would be headline news, showing us a feasible future achievable — with some work. But not like the revolution activists advocate.


Some interesting stuff there if anyone wants to take a look:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/29/the-ipcc-gives-us-good-news-about-climate-change-but-we-dont-listen/




Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 28, 2017, 11:03:07 am
Hey, Tim....nobody said solar power was the largest energy source in the United States. They're talking about transitioning here.
And my point is it the "transition" is not going to happen given the currently available technology. Solar and wind can't be much more than 15% of grid production before the grid gets unstable. Low cost storage would completely change the economics but there is no plausible solution that on the horizon (PR statements by companies selling tech is not the same as a plausible solution).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 28, 2017, 11:17:59 am
Here's an interesting article that does seem to take a more reasoned approach; it criticizes the way in which the media talk about climate change, but also admits there is a problem that needs to be addressed and offers up some scenarios and numbers.
The IPCC reports frequently contradict alarmist rhetoric but I point that out I often get some yahoo whinging about how I am ignoring the "97% consensus".

The article essentially makes my point that natural evolution of tech and society will "fix" the problem without any need for radical interventions by government - just like what happened with the over population/resource depletion panics in the 70s.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 28, 2017, 11:21:49 am
The IPCC reports frequently contradict alarmist rhetoric but I point that out I often get some yahoo whinging about how I am ignoring the "97% consensus".

The article essentially makes my point that natural evolution of tech and society will "fix" the problem without any need for radical interventions by government - just like what happened with the over population/resource depletion panics in the 70s.

Isn't the 97% consensus that humans are the major contributors to global warming?  And the page I linked to suggests that it will be human behavior that reduces emissions, and prevents disaster.  To me, this page presents a viewpoint that is between yours and the 'alarmists'. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 28, 2017, 11:28:26 am
Isn't the 97% consensus that humans are the major contributors to global warming?  And the page I linked to suggests that it will be human behavior that reduces emissions, and prevents disaster.  To me, this page presents a viewpoint that is between yours and the 'alarmists'.
The issue for me is government policy. Most CO2 reduction policies are shameless scams that will not accomplish the stated objective or will only do so at a cost much greater than the likely harm. Eliminate policies that make no rational sense and I would not have any issue with working to reduce emissions. The trouble is the alarmist rhetoric which creates a false sense of urgency pushes politicians to adopt bad policies in order to pretend to do something.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 28, 2017, 11:34:27 am
The issue for me is government policy. Most CO2 reduction policies are shameless scams that will not accomplish the stated objective or will only do so at a cost much greater than the likely harm. Eliminate policies that make no rational sense and I would not have any issue with working to reduce emissions. The trouble is the alarmist rhetoric which creates a false sense of urgency pushes politicians to adopt bad policies in order to pretend to do something.

So you say, but there seems to be good evidence that pricing carbon does work to reduce emissions so as an initial measure, it seems to be effective.  It may become less necessary as industries work towards providing green alternatives, though no doubt it will be hard to persuade governments to give it up. 

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 28, 2017, 11:42:22 am
So you say, but there seems to be good evidence that pricing carbon does work to reduce emissions so as an initial measure, it seems to be effective.  It may become less necessary as industries work towards providing green alternatives, though no doubt it will be hard to persuade governments to give it up.
I am in favour of a carbon tax that is connected to reasonable estimates of future harms (e.g. social cost of carbon). But AGW alarmists don't like that solution because a reasonable price for carbon emissions is not enough to change behavoir because the cost of the alternatives is so high. The end result is are smoke and mirror scams designed to look like something is being done when in reality nothing changes.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 28, 2017, 12:17:43 pm
I am in favour of a carbon tax that is connected to reasonable estimates of future harms (e.g. social cost of carbon). But AGW alarmists don't like that solution because a reasonable price for carbon emissions is not enough to change behavoir because the cost of the alternatives is so high. The end result is are smoke and mirror scams designed to look like something is being done when in reality nothing changes.

It does work, we've had a carbon tax in BC for some time and it has reduced emissions and last I looked was basically revenue neutral. It seems it's as simple as making people think and plan ahead, such as making one trip to the grocery store to get everything instead of going back three times.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 28, 2017, 02:25:29 pm
It does work, we've had a carbon tax in BC for some time and it has reduced emissions and last I looked was basically revenue neutral. It seems it's as simple as making people think and plan ahead, such as making one trip to the grocery store to get everything instead of going back three times.
Then why are greens insisting that it be increase way beyond the estimated social cost of carbon? The fact is the economic of reducing CO2 simply do not work. The cost is simply too high to justify the expense given the likely consequences.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 28, 2017, 02:33:56 pm
Then why are greens insisting that it be increase way beyond the estimated social cost of carbon? The fact is the economic of reducing CO2 simply do not work. The cost is simply too high to justify the expense given the likely consequences.

Depends where you get your "estimated social cost of carbon". 149 countries, including India and China think it's worth it to move away from fossil fuel pollution. If you've evern been in either of those countries you would see why. Another attractive feature of renewables is that once developed, there is no real reason for the prices to fluctuate wildly such as they have always done with fossils. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on August 30, 2017, 11:08:57 am
hey now! Can the "no mitigate, adapt-r-us" guy comment on the stalled out (now tropical) storm still dumping rain... why's it just hangin' in/around?

got an estimate for infrastructure adaptation in the U.S. Gulf Coast (and proximity) area... sure you do... c'mon, what's your cost to adapt... and then adapt again... and then again...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 30, 2017, 07:59:32 pm
Audi and Porsche are quitting the World Endurance Championship (Le Mans) and Mercedes is quitting the German Touring Car Championship and joining BMW, Jaguar, Renault and Mahindra in Formula E next year.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 30, 2017, 08:26:29 pm
Audi and Porsche are quitting the World Endurance Championship (Le Mans) and Mercedes is quitting the German Touring Car Championship and joining BMW, Jaguar, Renault and Mahindra in Formula E next year.

The more industry turns to green alternatives the less the deniers will be able to deny.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 30, 2017, 08:38:35 pm
The more industry turns to green alternatives the less the deniers will be able to deny.

That is true and even though Trump backed away from the Paris Accord, many large US industries have ignored him to continue on with their own green approaches.

But hey I guess if someone  wants to go down into a **** hole coal mine, Trump's your....cough, cough.... man.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 31, 2017, 01:19:15 pm
The more industry turns to green alternatives the less the deniers will be able to deny.

More manufacturers are realizing that EV's are going to be a much bigger factor in the market but I don't see the demise of the IC engine anytime soon. Batteries will have to get much better and charging times much shorter if they are to rival the flexibility of IC engines. Automotive engineers also say there is room for at least a 20% increase in efficiency for IC engines,  making hybrids even more attractive. Consider that current hybrid F1 cars are faster than the pure IC cars they replaced while burning 30% less fuel during a race and hybrids of some sort have won every LeMans 24hrs since 2012.

I think that for people who like cars, the future is going to be exciting.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 31, 2017, 01:38:32 pm
More manufacturers are realizing that EV's are going to be a much bigger factor in the market but I don't see the demise of the IC engine anytime soon. Batteries will have to get much better and charging times much shorter if they are to rival the flexibility of IC engines.
The current EV bubble is driven entirely by threats of governments outlawing ICE vehicles. I really doubt that when the time comes governments will go through with such bans. More likely hybrids will become standard because hybrids give drivers the best of both worlds.

One factor that will stop the alleged "EV revolution" in its tracks will be the cost of building all of the new power plants and grid capacity needed to meet the additional demand. It simply won't happen in if the current obstructionist political environment continues and it will lead to price spikes, blackouts and general consensus that depending on a politically mismanaged grid is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 31, 2017, 02:04:32 pm
This is not a fad, car companies are staking their futures and spending billions on developing EV's. There was a lot less infrastructure for IC vehicles when they were first introduced.

"The president of Ferrari, Sergio Marchionne, who is also the CEO of the manufacturer Fiat Chrysler, has said one of the brands the group owns is also likely to enter FE. Maserati, whose cars will be electrified by 2019, is a strong favourite. It is part of a wider process. Marchionne also announced last week that half of the group’s entire fleet, which includes Alfa Romeo, Dodge, Chrysler and Fiat, would be electrified by 2022."

Source, The Guardian F1 coverage.

Plug in hybrids and EV's with IC backups will be part of the future, I don't see one technology dominating it completely for some time, if ever.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 31, 2017, 02:17:11 pm
The current EV bubble is driven entirely by threats of governments outlawing ICE vehicles. I really doubt that when the time comes governments will go through with such bans. More likely hybrids will become standard because hybrids give drivers the best of both worlds.

One factor that will stop the alleged "EV revolution" in its tracks will be the cost of building all of the new power plants and grid capacity needed to meet the additional demand. It simply won't happen in if the current obstructionist political environment continues and it will lead to price spikes, blackouts and general consensus that depending on a politically mismanaged grid is a bad idea.

Care to show us where you get this idea that the government is planning to outlaw IC vehicles? France has talked about banning the sale of them, but that won't mean you can't drive one if you still have one.

Depending on where you live I guess, but generally speaking your idea that the cost of new power plants will stop the evolution is unfounded as well. BC Hydro for instance already claims to currently have enough unused capacity, even in winter, to meet the demands if almost the whole province who have vehicles all switched to EV's tomorrow. Quebec claims to be in similar shape. They claim they could handle at least a million EV's without expanding the current system and they anticipate having 100,000 on the road by 2020.

So saying "it simply won't happen" is simply wrong. It is already happening.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: guest4 on August 31, 2017, 02:26:57 pm
More manufacturers are realizing that EV's are going to be a much bigger factor in the market but I don't see the demise of the IC engine anytime soon. Batteries will have to get much better and charging times much shorter if they are to rival the flexibility of IC engines. Automotive engineers also say there is room for at least a 20% increase in efficiency for IC engines,  making hybrids even more attractive. Consider that current hybrid F1 cars are faster than the pure IC cars they replaced while burning 30% less fuel during a race and hybrids of some sort have won every LeMans 24hrs since 2012

If I were getting a new vehicle, hybrid is definitely the way I would like to go. 

I am not a car-racing fan, but I am curious.  When the hybrids win races, are they running mostly on battery or gas?   Is there something in the design of hybrids that makes them more powerful than traditional IC cars?   Why do they win?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 31, 2017, 03:35:21 pm
If I were getting a new vehicle, hybrid is definitely the way I would like to go. 

I am not a car-racing fan, but I am curious.  When the hybrids win races, are they running mostly on battery or gas?   Is there something in the design of hybrids that makes them more powerful than traditional IC cars?   Why do they win?



The race cars use both but most of the power still comes from the gas engine. Even so, the cars are limited to 105 KG of fuel per race with is about 35% less than the old cars. In F1, the power plant formula is mandated so all manufacturers build engines to the same formula. This is true of all formula racing including Indy and NASCAR. The fastest pure ICE cars they replaced were 3 litre V10 normally aspirated engines that ran at up to 20,000 RPM. The new cars use a 1.6 litre turbocharged V6 limited to 15,000 RPM. The hybrid system uses the usual things like brake regeneration that you see in the Prius and other hybrids, plus an energy recovery turbine in the exhaust system. The big difference with the hybrids is that electric motors produce maximum torque at zero RPM, which makes the cars accelerate faster out of turns. Initially in 2014, the IC engines were producing about 600 HP and the electric motor 160 HP for over 30 seconds per lap for 760 HP  total but this year, Ferrari and Mercedes power plants are making over 900 and 1000 has been rumoured. The car's race weight is also less because they carry less fuel.

 In endurance racing lower fuel consumption also means fewer pit stops.

I don't know if it is a good car or not but I kind of like the idea behind the Volt. Instead of a hybrid that uses both the IC engine and an electric motor to drive the wheels, the Volt is a pure electric where the IC engine just drives a generator to charge the batteries and run the electric motor when needed.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 31, 2017, 04:24:33 pm
This is not a fad, car companies are staking their futures and spending billions on developing EV's. There was a lot less infrastructure for IC vehicles when they were first introduced.
We should talk after Tesla crashes and burns. Companies are spending money on EVs but I have seen no evidence that this is more than a case of hedging bets in the face of possible future regulations. EVs are still too expensive and charging times too long to make the viable for most consumers.

Also, the problems with the grid and supply are real. Too many EVs on a block and the local grid will go down. Given how incompetently the electricity supply has been managed over the last 10 years it is naive to assume that these problems are going disappear.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 31, 2017, 04:37:02 pm





 In endurance racing lower fuel consumption also means fewer pit stops.

I don't know if it is a good car or not but I kind of like the idea behind the Volt. Instead of a hybrid that uses both the IC engine and an electric motor to drive the wheels, the Volt is a pure electric where the IC engine just drives a generator to charge the batteries and run the electric motor when needed.
[/quote]

That 's certainly a good way to reduce the "range anxiety" issue.

I recall some moons ago reading about a car maker who was proposing an EV where the chassis contained the battery's and the body would be a type of "quick disconnect" and you had the option of buying one or all of three different body designs, so you could a sedan for the family trips, a small pickup for trips to Lumberworld, or a sporty convertible for those kind of trips. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 31, 2017, 05:01:25 pm
We should talk after Tesla crashes and burns. Companies are spending money on EVs but I have seen no evidence that this is more than a case of hedging bets in the face of possible future regulations. EVs are still too expensive and charging times too long to make the viable for most consumers.

Also, the problems with the grid and supply are real. Too many EVs on a block and the local grid will go down. Given how incompetently the electricity supply has been managed over the last 10 years it is naive to assume that these problems are going disappear.

Yeah I don't think Tesla will be doing anything like crashing and burning if you look at how not only their new car business is expanding, but they've been on the road long enough that the used vehicle business is also taking off.
And of course there are much cheaper EV's available that are comparable to their IC engine countrparts, especially when you see how much you can save on fuel costs.

You do have one point in that yes, if everyone on your block went out tomorrow and bought an EV, if could overload the local grid, but what's more likely is that EV's will show up gradually and your local power corp. will be able to adjust.

And I don't know where you live, but it must not be in BC if you have such an incompetently run grid system.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 31, 2017, 05:10:15 pm
We should talk after Tesla crashes and burns. Companies are spending money on EVs but I have seen no evidence that this is more than a case of hedging bets in the face of possible future regulations. EVs are still too expensive and charging times too long to make the viable for most consumers.

Also, the problems with the grid and supply are real. Too many EVs on a block and the local grid will go down. Given how incompetently the electricity supply has been managed over the last 10 years it is naive to assume that these problems are going disappear.

When car companies put billions into this technology they will be pressuring government to implement legislation so they can get a payback from their investment.

We know from experience that new technology gets better and cheaper all the time. I remember an engineer friend of mine getting the first electronic maths calculator I had ever seen. It was a big Texas instrument thing that he paid over $200 for in the mid seventies or about $900 in today's dollars. Now the calculator app on your cell phone will do a more than that thing ever did.

The grid issue isn't what it is **** up to be. Demand will be increased but most of it will be during off peak times when people are sleeping and their cars are charging.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on August 31, 2017, 05:27:50 pm
We know from experience that new technology gets better and cheaper all the time.
A naive view. 90% of the technology improvement came from better integrated circuit designs. This allowed more to be done with less physical hardware. Batteries and energy storage are different - they require physical matter to store charge that can only be reduced so much. This no 'moore's law' for batteries. Also the charging time is a simple function Volts*Amps and no technology improvement will change the basic math. The charging time will always be a function of the size of the wire you have to deliver power. The wires we have now were not designed for widespread EV use.

The grid issue isn't what it is **** up to be. Demand will be increased but most of it will be during off peak times when people are sleeping and their cars are charging.
It would cost ~5000 to upgrade my 100A connection to my house to support 1 EV for night time charging. If everyone on the block did it the neighborhood transformer would need to be doubled. If several neighborhood did the lines to bring power to the city would need an major upgrade. Who is going pay for this?

These are real issues and I have zero confidence that our incompetent governments will be able to deal with it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 31, 2017, 05:40:34 pm
A naive view. 90% of the technology improvement came from better integrated circuit designs. This allowed more to be done with less physical hardware. Batteries and energy storage are different - they require physical matter to store charge that can only be reduced so much. This no 'moore's law' for batteries. Also the charging time is a simple function Volts*Amps and no technology improvement will change the basic math. The charging time will always be a function of the size of the wire you have to deliver power. The wires we have now were not designed for widespread EV use.
It would cost ~5000 to upgrade my 100A connection to my house to support 1 EV for night time charging. If everyone on the block did it the neighborhood transformer would need to be doubled. If several neighborhood did the lines to bring power to the city would need an major upgrade. Who is going pay for this?

These are real issues and I have zero confidence that our incompetent governments will be able to deal with it.

Perhaps you should try to take a lesson from history: how many gas stations were there when the pollution spewing, gas guzzling Ford hit the roads? Did we adapt, yes, will we do so again, yes. And it will be to our benefit.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on August 31, 2017, 05:49:19 pm
A naive view. 90% of the technology improvement came from better integrated circuit designs. This allowed more to be done with less physical hardware. Batteries and energy storage are different - they require physical matter to store charge that can only be reduced so much. This no 'moore's law' for batteries. Also the charging time is a simple function Volts*Amps and no technology improvement will change the basic math. The charging time will always be a function of the size of the wire you have to deliver power. The wires we have now were not designed for widespread EV use.
It would cost ~5000 to upgrade my 100A connection to my house to support 1 EV for night time charging. If everyone on the block did it the neighborhood transformer would need to be doubled. If several neighborhood did the lines to bring power to the city would need an major upgrade. Who is going pay for this?

These are real issues and I have zero confidence that our incompetent governments will be able to deal with it.

I think it will take more time than many of its fans are claiming but it will be done. Charging points can be mandated into all new construction which will make it cheaper. Mass production also drives costs down as volumes go up. It is also wrong to fixate on our own situation where we travel greater distances. Much of the world is not like that and Europe already uses a 220V electrical grid, so they only draw half as many amps to produce the same wattage. Mainland China is now the world largest vehicle market and it is also 220V.  Because of increased electrical demands in our vehicles themselves, expect to see cars with 24V or 48V electrical systems in the future. Automakers are already saying we are approaching the limit of 12V systems.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on August 31, 2017, 06:23:35 pm
I think whenever I have a few bucks left over to invest it will be toward EV's rather than GHG's.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-electric-cars-electricity-system-1.3526558
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 03, 2018, 08:37:41 am
How much hotter is your hometown than when you were born ?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/30/climate/how-much-hotter-is-your-hometown.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on September 04, 2018, 01:41:18 pm
How much hotter is your hometown than when you were born ?

Interesting, my hometown (Montreal, 1960) remains at 1 day per year.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 04, 2018, 06:41:15 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0&t=778s

Called a 'conservative' solution on climate change... it's not really but still interesting.

I like how the coal museum in Kentucky uses solar panels.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/us/coal-museum-goes-solar-trnd/index.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 04, 2018, 06:45:43 pm
I guess he's on the record as saying climate change isn't to be blamed on capitalism.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 04, 2018, 09:58:44 pm
I think whenever I have a few bucks left over to invest it will be toward EV's rather than GHG's.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-electric-cars-electricity-system-1.3526558

I wouldn't invest in them.  Tesla is in huge debt and has never turned a profit.  If EVs shown signs of being popular the big car companies would quickly jump in with their own models.

If people didn't buy into hybrids much I don't see why they would for EVs.  I hope it happens ASAP but i don't want one yet.

The US gets 17% of its electricity from renewables, so EVs won't be 100% renewable, only 17%...for now.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 05, 2018, 06:06:58 am
... only 17%...for now.

That's one of the points the video above is making: we know where the trend is going so why aren't businesses going there ? 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on September 05, 2018, 11:57:13 am
If EVs shown signs of being popular the big car companies would quickly jump in with their own models.



They are. China and Europe are dictating where auto development is headed, no longer the US which is abandoning smaller efficient vehicles for trucks and SUV's.

The Chinese and European markets are each larger than the North American market which is now #3.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41231766

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2017/10/10/china-raises-the-bar-with-new-electric-vehicle-rules/#5c80197677ac

Jaguar just came out with its I Pace electric SUV which is a less expensive alternative to the Tesla Model X.  Mercedes and Audi are about to unveil their first electrics any day now and Porsche is coming out with a direct competitor to the Tesla Model S.

Major competition on the way from the big guys with deeper pockets is what makes Tesla risky, not the fact they build EV's.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on September 05, 2018, 04:05:07 pm
Tesla is in huge debt and has never turned a profit.

Actually they did turn a profit in two quarters. The point however is their revenue continues to increase. Contrast their debt with other car companies.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on September 05, 2018, 05:12:34 pm
Major competition on the way from the big guys with deeper pockets is what makes Tesla risky, not the fact they build EV's.

I think it's both.  It's not even that they build EV's, it's the spending vs revenue problem of that specific company.  They're doing so much R&D that other car co's are just going mirror anyways.  Tesla cars are sexy and have that trendy brand name, I think they'll do at least ok, maybe even really good.  But their shares have gone up 2000% but hardly any sales to back it up, which makes it very risky.  Those shares are not an investment they're a gamble.

Warren Buffett wouldn't touch Tesla stocks with a 10-foot pole.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on September 05, 2018, 05:24:51 pm
Actually they did turn a profit in two quarters. The point however is their revenue continues to increase. Contrast their debt with other car companies.
The only time Tesla made a profit is when they cashed some of their government subsidy cheques (zero emission allowance credits that only have value because car makers that need to make cars that people actually want are forced to buy them).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on September 05, 2018, 10:49:12 pm
The only time Tesla made a profit is when they cashed some of their government subsidy cheques (zero emission allowance credits that only have value because car makers that need to make cars that people actually want are forced to buy them).

Carbon taxes are here to stay, as are EV's. Interesting how the largest consumer of EV's (China) is one of the countries that suffers most from global warming/pollution.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on September 06, 2018, 12:52:50 pm
but hardly any sales to back it up

Have you even looked at their revenue growth? Why do you continue this fantasy?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on September 06, 2018, 01:20:53 pm
Have you even looked at their revenue growth? Why do you continue this fantasy?

I recall a number of years ago landing at YYJ (Victoria) and grabbing a cab into town. As we left the curb I automatically noticed there was no engine noise. My first ride on a Prius. On the half hour ride into town the driver mentioned how much this vehicle had added to his profits from the greatly reduced costs of buying gas. Now you don't see a lot of Tesla's with taxi lights on them anywhere, but you'll have a hard time finding a cab that is not at least a hybrid in YYJ these days.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on September 06, 2018, 01:48:38 pm
Now you don't see a lot of Tesla's with taxi lights on them anywhere, but you'll have a hard time finding a cab that is not at least a hybrid in YYJ these days.
And you won't see any Telsa taxis for a long time, if ever.
Time is money for taxi drivers and waiting for a charge is expensive. Taxis need the fast refueling that hybrids offer.

Hybrid should be the way of the future. EVs are a pointless distraction.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on September 06, 2018, 02:04:56 pm
And you won't see any Telsa taxis for a long time, if ever.
Time is money for taxi drivers and waiting for a charge is expensive. Taxis need the fast refueling that hybrids offer.

Hybrid should be the way of the future. EVs are a pointless distraction.

Yes of course, and you didn't see a lot of Cadillacs as taxis either. Hybrids are the way of the present and certainly the future, and EV's will/do fit in where people have perhaps retired or work from home but want a clean car to get around town. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on September 06, 2018, 03:50:06 pm
And you won't see any Telsa taxis for a long time, if ever.
Time is money for taxi drivers and waiting for a charge is expensive. Taxis need the fast refueling that hybrids offer

Actually TAXIs are an excellent fit. They spend a lot of time waiting for a ride. If you equip TAXI stands with recharging stations then they will always be topped up.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: kimmy on September 06, 2018, 03:56:50 pm
And you won't see any Telsa taxis for a long time, if ever.

I'll see several of them later today.

http://currenttaxi.ca/

 -k
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on September 06, 2018, 04:12:55 pm
I'll see several of them later today.

http://currenttaxi.ca/

 -k

Don’t tell TimG....
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 06, 2018, 06:17:01 pm
My neighbour had a new red Tesla in the driveway.  He tests cars for a living I think.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on September 06, 2018, 06:29:56 pm
My neighbour had a new red Tesla in the driveway.  He tests cars for a living I think.

Do you mean reviews?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on September 06, 2018, 06:31:52 pm
Actually TAXIs are an excellent fit. They spend a lot of time waiting for a ride. If you equip TAXI stands with recharging stations then they will always be topped up.
And how many taxis actually stay in taxi stands? At airports you have along line of cabs that are constantly moving forward as people pick up cabs. Not practical to park in one spot so you can be plugged in nor is it remotely plausible to have enough outlets for the number of cabs.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on September 06, 2018, 06:38:01 pm
I'll see several of them later today.
Seem like a niche corporate marketing scheme rather than something driven by reducing operation costs. My opinion comes from talking to owner-operators driving cabs from the Vancouver airport. I agree the economics for fleets may be different than for owner-operators.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on September 06, 2018, 06:55:46 pm
And how many taxis actually stay in taxi stands? At airports you have along line of cabs that are constantly moving forward as people pick up cabs. Not practical to park in one spot so you can be plugged in nor is it remotely plausible to have enough outlets for the number of cabs.

Glass half empty kind of guy.

Lots of ways to address the challenges like wireless charging, and cabs are not constantly moving forward in airport lines anyways (go visit them and see how they operate and don't make assumptions). Why do you think it is not remotely plausible to have enough outlets, there is nothing magic about them. There might be a challenge to have them all running concurrently, but this is not the issue we are facing.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on September 06, 2018, 06:56:58 pm
Seem like a niche corporate marketing scheme rather than something driven by reducing operation costs. My opinion comes from talking to owner-operators driving cabs from the Vancouver airport. I agree the economics for fleets may be different than for owner-operators.





Quote
And you won't see any Telsa taxis for a long time, if ever.

3 posts later....


Oh look...  A Tesla fleet taxi company. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 06, 2018, 07:23:41 pm
Do you mean reviews?

Maybe ?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on September 15, 2018, 05:52:00 pm
I love the way some of you righteous blowhards need to attack Tim G for his opinion.
I disagree but respect many of his comments on this topic. In some cases trendy leftist jack asses have joined a debate they do not understand. David Suzuki and Al Gore have been caught spewing crap.
I believe human activity including the use of plastics, certain chemicals, mass forest burnings, have contributed to permanent global environmental damage. The disaster in Japan alone and the nuclear radiation it pours into the oceans and coal burning absolutely has caused environmental changes. To pretend we did not damage the ozone layer is just stupid. That said arguing that we need to amend and reform our practices to find better ways not to damage the fragile planet as a key to our survival is a  no brainer. Why someone would try to compare it in priority to terrorism I do not know. Whether its a politician, trendy lefist, Trudeau, Trump, hemmeroids, they all are a pain in the ass.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on September 15, 2018, 05:57:42 pm
I love the way some of you righteous blowhards need to attack Tim G for his opinion.
I disagree but respect many of his comments on this topic. In some cases trendy leftist jack asses have joined a debate they do not understand. David Suzuki and Al Gore have been caught spewing crap.
I believe human activity including the use of plastics, certain chemicals, mass forest burnings, have contributed to permanent global environmental damage. The disaster in Japan alone and the nuclear radiation it pours into the oceans and coal burning absolutely has caused environmental changes. To pretend we did not damage the ozone layer is just stupid. That said arguing that we need to amend and reform our practices to find better ways not to damage the fragile planet as a key to our survival is a  no brainer. Why someone would try to compare it in priority to terrorism I do not know. Whether its a politician, trendy leftist, Trudeau, Trump, hemmeroids, they are all pains in the ass.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 15, 2018, 06:25:17 pm
MY POST WAS SO GREAT THAT I QUOTED IT AND REPOSTED IT
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on September 15, 2018, 07:01:27 pm
A lot of taxis at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam are Teslas.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on September 15, 2018, 07:15:31 pm
I love the way some of you righteous blowhards need to attack Tim G for his opinion.
I disagree but respect many of his comments on this topic. In some cases trendy leftist jack asses have joined a debate they do not understand. David Suzuki and Al Gore have been caught spewing crap.
I believe human activity including the use of plastics, certain chemicals, mass forest burnings, have contributed to permanent global environmental damage. The disaster in Japan alone and the nuclear radiation it pours into the oceans and coal burning absolutely has caused environmental changes. To pretend we did not damage the ozone layer is just stupid. That said arguing that we need to amend and reform our practices to find better ways not to damage the fragile planet as a key to our survival is a  no brainer. Why someone would try to compare it in priority to terrorism I do not know. Whether its a politician, trendy lefist, Trudeau, Trump, hemmeroids, they all are a pain in the ass.

"Disagree but respect" and then go on to agree with regard to environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. Sounds like you have an internal conflict.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on September 15, 2018, 07:24:41 pm
A lot of taxis at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam are Teslas.

TimG says that’s not possible... 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on September 16, 2018, 07:27:37 pm
MY POST WAS SO GREAT THAT I QUOTED IT AND REPOSTED IT

No I reposted it because I know how short a memory you have.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on September 16, 2018, 07:28:09 pm
No I reposted it because I know how short a memory you have.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 16, 2018, 07:29:26 pm
No I reposted it because I know how short a memory you have.

Please post again as I forgot what you posted and I forgot that I can scroll up to read it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on September 16, 2018, 07:30:27 pm
Please post again as I forgot what you posted and I forgot that I can scroll up to read it.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on September 16, 2018, 07:42:40 pm
TimG says that’s not possible...

Tim's ideas aside, one taxi company over there switched to Teslas buying something like 167 of them back in 2014. Now they want to update their fleet to the newest model Teslas and so have a number of the older ones for sale. Now that's a ways to go to buy a used car but I bet if you were willing to pay a littel extra, Ellon Musk would arrange to have it launched into space and it would then set down at your local airport. ;)

https://electrek.co/2017/12/14/tesla-taxi-fleet-amsterdam-used-model-s-sale/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on September 16, 2018, 07:56:45 pm
"Disagree but respect" and then go on to agree with regard to environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. Sounds like you have an internal conflict.

No but it sounds like you are projecting one on me. The fact I agree with some of what Tim G says and disagree with some of what he says does not give me any internal conflict. The only internal conflict I have is with my prostate.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on September 16, 2018, 08:16:41 pm
No but it sounds like you are projecting one on me. The fact I agree with some of what Tim G says and disagree with some of what he says does not give me any internal conflict. The only internal conflict I have is with my prostate.

Fair enough. I trust you have consulted your physician.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on September 18, 2018, 07:00:21 am
Thank you for your concern Omni. You ask me we no.1 need to stop the use of plastics as we now use them in consumer items and get back to glass and other recyclables. Coal burning in India and China. Dependence on fossil fuels, antiquated farming practices,use of the oceans to dump nuclear waste, fishing practices, you and I and most agree such issues are real.. Focusing on such issues, in discussions is crucial.

 
I think getting into a semantical what causes the world to warm  or why I do not think cap and trade will help manage such issues with you, will deflect from environmental pollution and human practices that harm the planet...which we do not debate. You and I do not deny that...we can not afford to for the sake of the next generations. Obviously there are no easy answers. I have zero confidence in China, Japan,Russia or the US at this time in addressing these issues.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on September 18, 2018, 07:03:08 am
I have read that China is phasing out fossil fuels.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS?locations=CN

This graph seems to support that.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on October 30, 2018, 11:20:57 pm
I have read that China is phasing out fossil fuels.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS?locations=CN

This graph seems to support that.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

Posted elsewhere but I thought it was appropriate here too.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on October 30, 2018, 11:23:48 pm
But the real reason I came to this thread...

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-price-prediction-2018-cryptocurrency-market-value-birthday-10-a8607081.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-nature-climate-change-environment-earth-a8607876.html

I mean, really?  Do we even deserve to survive?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on October 31, 2018, 12:01:43 am
I mean, really?  Do we even deserve to survive?
I am honestly not certain whether the problem with the link were the supposed harms caused by bitcoin narrated by someone who has no clue how the energy system works or if the problem was yet another hyperbolic prediction of climate doom.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on October 31, 2018, 12:06:15 am
I am honestly not certain whether the problem with the link were the supposed harms caused by bitcoin narrated by someone who has no clue how the energy system works or if the problem was yet another hyperbolic prediction of climate doom.

Well when you figure it out let me know.  I could do with cheering up.

Of course, I won't believe you, but still, it's worth a shot.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on October 31, 2018, 12:07:18 am
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45640706

Posted elsewhere but I thought it was appropriate here too.
Numbers provided by the Chinese government are fiction. The only reliable data comes from external sources like the satellite that caught the Chinese dumping CFCs into the atmosphere decades after people declared the international treaty a "success".

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/07/10/Chinese-foam-industry-responsible-for-rise-in-CFC-11-emissions/1601531150702/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on October 31, 2018, 12:11:46 am
Well when you figure it out let me know.  I could do with cheering up.
Well, something has to produce the power that bitcoin miners consume and these things need to be built and that costs a lot of money. The economics of bitcoin may work when they can access pockets of cheap excess power but I doubt they would hold up if the bitcoin miners had to start funding their own power stations. This implies the bitcoin boom will be self limited and the claims in the paper are implausible (some less polite words would also be appropriate).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on October 31, 2018, 08:50:18 am
Well, something has to produce the power that bitcoin miners consume and these things need to be built and that costs a lot of money. The economics of bitcoin may work when they can access pockets of cheap excess power but I doubt they would hold up if the bitcoin miners had to start funding their own power stations. This implies the bitcoin boom will be self limited and the claims in the paper are implausible (some less polite words would also be appropriate).

Possibly.  I read somewhere that Bitcoin currently uses as much power as Ireland.  Maybe some of the coal fired plants that China is hiding will be used for Bitcoin as well.  Why would these people worry about who was paying the bills?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on October 31, 2018, 09:45:20 am
Why would these people worry about who was paying the bills?
If they draw so much power that locals are facing blackouts then they will be forced by local governments to care. Bitcoin mining is a simple profit-cost calculation. If the costs go up bitcoin mining becomes unprofitable and bitcoin miners stop expanding. There is no way bitcoin could expand in the way suggested by the paper without major investments in power generation and those investments would increase costs. Right now bitcoin is an arbitrage play: miners find places where power is cheap an turn it into money. The trouble is such places are finite and do not allow exponential expansion so the paper is just another example of bogus catastrophe **** which alarmists can get enough of.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on October 31, 2018, 08:02:56 pm
If they draw so much power that locals are facing blackouts then they will be forced by local governments to care. Bitcoin mining is a simple profit-cost calculation. If the costs go up bitcoin mining becomes unprofitable and bitcoin miners stop expanding. There is no way bitcoin could expand in the way suggested by the paper without major investments in power generation and those investments would increase costs. Right now bitcoin is an arbitrage play: miners find places where power is cheap an turn it into money. The trouble is such places are finite and do not allow exponential expansion so the paper is just another example of bogus catastrophe **** which alarmists can get enough of.

If you like.  It seems to me that if Bitcoins are worth as much as they say the power will be found. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on October 31, 2018, 08:05:59 pm
Numbers provided by the Chinese government are fiction. The only reliable data comes from external sources like the satellite that caught the Chinese dumping CFCs into the atmosphere decades after people declared the international treaty a "success".

https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2018/07/10/Chinese-foam-industry-responsible-for-rise-in-CFC-11-emissions/1601531150702/

Yeah, I heard they're going back to allowing their crackpot quacks to fool people into thinking they're being cured with eye of newt. 

Sorry, I mean rhino horn and tiger bones.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on October 31, 2018, 08:48:24 pm
just another example of bogus catastrophe **** which alarmists can get enough of.

Here, fill your boots...

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046067

I know, I know.  If that's how much of a clue these scientists have...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 01, 2018, 04:55:07 am
I know, I know.  If that's how much of a clue these scientists have...
Scientists are human. They are not immune to the hyper partisanship that has gripped the rest of society. In fact, the climate science helped create the hyper partisan political environment today because some climate scientists were way to willing to attack scientists who expressed doubt about some of the alarmist claims being made. i.e. dividing what should be a heterogeneous scientific community with a wide range of views into "believers" and "deniers" was pure politics and it should come as no surprise that people who don't share the "believers" politics now don't trust a word they say.

FWIW - the is a debate in the literature today about why the climate models were so wrong over the last 20 years. The article you linked takes the approach that the climate models are infallible oracles and the explanation must come from some other phenomena that cancelled out the warming that did not appear. The other approach asks whether the climate models are wrong about the strength of CO2 induced warming and whether the risk is much less than previously stated. Each camp obviously says the other camp is full of crap but only the side that produces alarmist **** gets reported in the media.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 01, 2018, 09:25:40 am
Scientists are human. They are not immune to the hyper partisanship that has gripped the rest of society. In fact, the climate science helped create the hyper partisan political environment today because some climate scientists were way to willing to attack scientists who expressed doubt about some of the alarmist claims being made. i.e. dividing what should be a heterogeneous scientific community with a wide range of views into "believers" and "deniers" was pure politics and it should come as no surprise that people who don't share the "believers" politics now don't trust a word they say.

FWIW - the is a debate in the literature today about why the climate models were so wrong over the last 20 years. The article you linked takes the approach that the climate models are infallible oracles and the explanation must come from some other phenomena that cancelled out the warming that did not appear. The other approach asks whether the climate models are wrong about the strength of CO2 induced warming and whether the risk is much less than previously stated. Each camp obviously says the other camp is full of crap but only the side that produces alarmist **** gets reported in the media.

I don't pay the blindest bit of notice to the models.  They've always been dodgy at best.  I just look at the stuff that's finite, land, fresh water, etc, and the stuff that's increasing, population, and realise it really can't be any other way.

Unless, as stated before, we come up with cold fusion or something equally as remarkable. 

I forgot the stuff that's useless.  Politicians and world leaders.

Of course, this is one argument I'd be happy to lose.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 01, 2018, 12:54:45 pm
Scientists are human. They are not immune to the hyper partisanship that has gripped the rest of society. In fact, the climate science helped create the hyper partisan political environment today because some climate scientists were way to willing to attack scientists who expressed doubt about some of the alarmist claims being made. i.e. dividing what should be a heterogeneous scientific community with a wide range of views into "believers" and "deniers" was pure politics and it should come as no surprise that people who don't share the "believers" politics now don't trust a word they say.

FWIW - the is a debate in the literature today about why the climate models were so wrong over the last 20 years. The article you linked takes the approach that the climate models are infallible oracles and the explanation must come from some other phenomena that cancelled out the warming that did not appear. The other approach asks whether the climate models are wrong about the strength of CO2 induced warming and whether the risk is much less than previously stated. Each camp obviously says the other camp is full of crap but only the side that produces alarmist **** gets reported in the media.

So you're still convinced that what 97% of publishing climate scientists conclude is "alarmist ****"? I guess they phonied up the sat. pics of all that missing ice in the arctic as well eh.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 01, 2018, 02:05:45 pm
I just look at the stuff that's finite, land, fresh water, etc, and the stuff that's increasing, population, and realise it really can't be any other way.
What does one have to do with the other? There are lots of real environmental issues that we can actually do something about but the chattering classes can't stop talking about CO2 and pushing policies that waste resources and accomplish nothing remotely useful. Meanwhile the real environmental issues fall by the way side.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 01, 2018, 02:16:08 pm
What does one have to do with the other? There are lots of real environmental issues that we can actually do something about but the chattering classes can't stop talking about CO2 and pushing policies that waste resources and accomplish nothing remotely useful. Meanwhile the real environmental issues fall by the way side.

Not by my way side.  But the notion that the climate isn't changing as a result of human activity is as ridiculous as one that says humans aren't putting plastic in the oceans.

I'm on the same page as you when it comes to vacuous virtue signalling but doesn't mean I don't see us seriously regretting our failure to do something worthwhile about the issue in a few decades time.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 01, 2018, 02:29:30 pm
I'm on the same page as you when it comes to vacuous virtue signalling but doesn't mean I don't see us seriously regretting our failure to do something worthwhile about the issue in a few decades time.
CO2 reduction policies are futile no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Adaptation is what we will be forced to do. I will certainly will have no regrets when we end up following the only rational path open to us.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on November 01, 2018, 02:32:50 pm
Adaptation is what we will be forced to do.

When I was a child, we adapted to the polluted St. Lawrence river around Montreal by staying far away from it. Today however we swim in its waters, and new beaches are opening up.

No, adaption is not the way. Solving the problems with pollution is the only solution.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 01, 2018, 02:41:47 pm
CO2 reduction policies are futile no matter how much you may wish otherwise. Adaptation is what we will be forced to do. I will certainly will have no regrets when we end up following the only rational path open to us.

I know they are.  I don't wish anything other than that those who purport to lead us had actually done so years ago when we had a chance.

Your regrets are your own, of course.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 01, 2018, 02:43:22 pm
When I was a child, we adapted to the polluted St. Lawrence river around Montreal by staying far away from it. Today however we swim in its waters, and new beaches are opening up.

No, adaption is not the way. Solving the problems with pollution is the only solution.

Yeah, it's a shame we're not going to...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 01, 2018, 02:51:40 pm
When I was a child, we adapted to the polluted St. Lawrence river around Montreal by staying far away from it. Today however we swim in its waters, and new beaches are opening up.

No, adaption is not the way. Solving the problems with pollution is the only solution.

Yeah I somehow don't really see Florida residents for instance happily preparing to pack up and head north as the ocean level rises to flood their properties.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 01, 2018, 02:59:57 pm
When I was a child, we adapted to the polluted St. Lawrence river around Montreal by staying far away from it. Today however we swim in its waters, and new beaches are opening up.
The difference is there was something that could be done about polluted waters. No such option exists for CO2 because viable alternatives do not exist. It is all expensive and pointless virtue signalling.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on November 05, 2018, 05:44:53 pm
This article perfectly describes posters here....    since denying climate change is occuring makes you look like an uneducated idiot, these people have changed to denying the solutions.  Same climate deniers, different tactic.

Quote
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-denying-solutions-is-the-new-climate-change-denial/

Climate solutions are frequently attacked by politicians and media pundits who acknowledge the problem, but offer no alternative. Canada has not only entered a new era of climate policy – we’ve entered a new era of denial.

While once rampant, denying human-caused climate change is now considered out-of-touch and has been abandoned by most Canadian political leaders. As a recent poll from Abacus Data found, 90 per cent of Canadians are concerned about climate change. But a new form of denial has risen from the ashes of the old: denying the solutions that empower us to minimize climate change.

Sound familiar....???

Quote
No such option exists for CO2 because viable alternatives do not exist. It is all expensive and pointless virtue signalling.

I'm on the same page as you when it comes to vacuous virtue signalling but doesn't mean I don't see us seriously regretting our failure to do something worthwhile about the issue in a few decades time.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 05, 2018, 06:09:59 pm
This article perfectly describes posters here....    since denying climate change is occuring makes you look like an uneducated idiot, these people have changed to denying the solutions.  Same climate deniers, different tactic.
Yawn. Same moronic alarmists that are so obsessed with their own righteousness that they cannot comprehend that reasonable people can look at the facts come to different conclusions.

There is a word for people who denigrate people who do not adhere to their doctrine: religious zealots.

BTW: Everything I have said about the impracticality of doing anything about CO2 given the current state of technology is true. People claiming that action has not occurred because of "big oil" conspiracies or other nonsense are living in self-delusion. Most governments have not acted because they know there is nothing they can do other than **** people off and damage the economy. Those that have acted have payed a high price in terms of higher bills for consumers/voters and have precious little to show for the pain.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 05, 2018, 07:11:10 pm
This article perfectly describes posters here....    since denying climate change is occuring makes you look like an uneducated idiot, these people have changed to denying the solutions.  Same climate deniers, different tactic.

Sound familiar....???

I don't give dumbs except reciprocally but if I did...

The idea that just because those of us who know that no-one is going to come up with a solution to AGW should shut up about it because we're deniers is risible.  The evidence that we aren't going to fix it is as plain as the evidence that it exists.  Those who say we will are the deniers.

As for changing, I've known about climate change for about thirty years.  Started realising no-one who could actually do anything about it was taking it seriously about 10 years after that.

So go ahead and pretend, if it makes you feel any better, but don't tell me to.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 05, 2018, 07:40:47 pm
Yawn. Same moronic alarmists that are so obsessed with their own righteousness that they cannot comprehend that reasonable people can look at the facts come to different conclusions.

There is a word for people who denigrate people who do not adhere to their doctrine: religious zealots.

BTW: Everything I have said about the impracticality of doing anything about CO2 given the current state of technology is true. People claiming that action has not occurred because of "big oil" conspiracies or other nonsense are living in self-delusion. Most governments have not acted because they know there is nothing they can do other than **** people off and damage the economy. Those that have acted have payed a high price in terms of higher bills for consumers/voters and have precious little to show for the pain.

True ...in your mind. Actual scientists know better.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on November 06, 2018, 10:42:37 am
This article perfectly describes posters here....    since denying climate change is occuring makes you look like an uneducated idiot, Sound familiar....???

Yah it sounds familiar. You use the tactic all the time...when someone disagrees with you and your opinions, you call them names.

What was your point, that you can't debate without getting personal and insulting?

Get off your moral throne and stick to the topic.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on November 06, 2018, 11:47:36 am
Yah it sounds familiar. You use the tactic all the time...when someone disagrees with you and your opinions, you call them names.

What was your point, that you can't debate without getting personal and insulting?

Get off your moral throne and stick to the topic.

If you deny gravity, you're an idiot.  If you deny evolution, you're an idiot.  If you deny a round earth, you're an idiot...

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with my opinion. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on November 06, 2018, 11:51:58 am
Yawn. Same moronic alarmists that are so obsessed with their own righteousness that they cannot comprehend that reasonable people can look at the facts come to different conclusions.

There is a word for people who denigrate people who do not adhere to their doctrine: religious zealots.

BTW: Everything I have said about the impracticality of doing anything about CO2 given the current state of technology is true. People claiming that action has not occurred because of "big oil" conspiracies or other nonsense are living in self-delusion. Most governments have not acted because they know there is nothing they can do other than **** people off and damage the economy. Those that have acted have payed a high price in terms of higher bills for consumers/voters and have precious little to show for the pain.

I respect your differences of opinion on this topic but one I disagree with you on is the notion that CO2 emission programs are futile. I do agree to date some programs have not worked as effectively as was hoped but to throw them all out as futile is not accurate.

I do have the same concerns you do that many of emission reduction programs may simply enable the worst of polluters to continue polluting and buying their way out of having to do anything and I base my concern on articles such as this:

http://science.uwaterloo.ca/~mauriced/earth691-duss/CO2_General%20CO2%20Sequestration%20materilas/Early%2520Emissions%2520final%2520revision%2520June%25202001.pdf

However I agree with  the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change when it concluded  that the world is currently on track to emit enough greenhouse gas emission to exceed 2°C of global warming by 2040 and that beyond that threshold, the risks of "dangerous" ramifications of climate change escalate. Sp O can't buy in to this just sit on our asses mind set as this happens.

I would further argue that since 3/4 of emitted CO2 comes from fuel combustion (anthropogenic origin) and only 1/4 comes from natural CO2 cycles on the planet, it is illogical to justify inaction saying its not something that we humans create and therefore can not be stopped. Blaming mother nature for what is happening and saying we can't change mother nature is for me intellectually dishonest. Its the 3/4's of human created green house gas emissions that are warming the planet we can and should reduce. No one is claiming the 1/4 portion that happens naturally does not happen but some of us are arguing that 1/4 portion is not causing the problems.

So I would argue and take my arguments from: https://www.energycentral.com/c/um/climate-change-bold-approach-co2-emission-reduction-usA is that pursuing a realistic assumption for CO2 reduction is in fact  the most efficient way to reduce CO2 emission.

I would argue we need to replace the worst emitter (coal power plant for electricity) with near zero emission generators such as:

renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass;
large hydropower plants;
biomass power plants.

In regards to  biomass power plant burns Sweden has already been using them with positive results.  The biomass is used to  make steam and ultimately electricity. It comes from garbage

Biomass provides 1.8% of US electricity. It has limitations yes, but is it futile of course not. It works.

As well there is solid date that better forest management and slowdown in deforestation contributes to emission reduction and we can control that. Consider this:

1-15% of global carbon dioxide emissions come from deforestation;
2-32 million acres of forest per year were cut and burned from 2000-09;
3-the process of cutting and burning trees adds as much pollution to the atmosphere as all the cars and trucks in the world combined.3 Therefore, any realistic plan to reduce global warming pollution sufficiently—and in time—must include the preservation of tropical forests/

Here is data that proves effective forest management is an effective reducer of CO2emissions:

http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/281182/icode/.

Here is a CO2 emission program for airports the State of Israel started in 2014  and people are watching and its very premature to call it futile:

https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Lists/ActionPlan/Attachments/51/Israel_Action%20Plan_%20December%202014.pdf

Interesting the program is called: "ICAO Action Plan on CO2 Emission Reduction of Israel" and I am sure the anti Zionists on this board seeing the reference to reduction of Israel will get all excited but alas it refers to CO2 emission reduction, not the reduction of Israel so calm down.

Hell even oil companies are trying to engage in CO2 emission programs. Sure its good pr but if it was stupid, they would not do I. Take for example Irving Oil. It publically states it  recognizes that the emission of greenhouse gases due to human activity is impacting our global climate and requires action by us all. They claim in this regard they are providing cleaner transportation fuels and trying to reduce their  carbon footprint.

They claim to have implemented a  carbon reduction goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, in alignment with GHG reduction targets agreed upon at the 2009 UNFCC Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

They also claim In 2011 they  were successful in obtaining a 13 percent reduction in our GHG emissions intensity and continue  to investigate new ways to further reduce emissions.

source: https://irvingoil.com/en/corporate-social-responsibility/environmental-responsibility/carbon-reduction/

OK it may be propaganda, good will pr, be cynical, but why is it futile? Why isn't it an example of a positive corporate response?

Nissan has a similar program called the The Nissan Green Program 2016 (NGP2016),which was actually started in  2011:

https://nissannews.com/en-CA/nissan/canada/releases/nissan-global-corporate-activities-reduce-co2-emissions-by-22-6-percent

Why are its efforts futile?

I am also aware of the many arguments saying CO2 emission programs and policies are too costly, but I would argue not necessarily and it depends who you ask. For example there is a policy model by Stanford Graduate School of Business accounting professor Stefan Reichelstein that  suggests it’s not only possible but also less costly than many think.  see: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-would-it-really-cost-reduce-carbon-emissions

Here is my concluding and I think most up to date argument. In the US as everyone knows, Donald Trump has abandon the National Clean Energy Standard and has an Secretary in his cabinet dedicated to undoing all federal pollution and environmental regulations as the article source I quite bekow points out: a number of leading U.S. corporations are implementing climate-changing emissions from their operations and supply chains because as Wayne Batla, the VP of Corporate Envrionental Affairs and Product Safety at IBM was quoted as saying:

"We do it because it makes good business sense—whether it's top of the fold [politically] or not,"

source: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120906/major-corporations-quietly-reducing-emissions%E2%80%94and-saving-money

The fact is many members of the corporate sector are on board implementing CO2 emission programs and achieving remission results. How can that not be positive?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on November 06, 2018, 11:54:12 am
If you deny gravity, you're an idiot.  If you deny evolution, you're an idiot.  If you deny a round earth, you're an idiot...

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with my opinion.

It has everything to do with disagreeing with your opinion You can't take the time to debate. Your cognitive processes clearly are limited
to reducing complex issues to simplistic rigid black and white concepts.

The thread subject clearly is too much for you to handle.  You might want to quite while you are ahead responding to me.

Yes I know you don't are enveloped by gravity.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 06, 2018, 12:56:35 pm
Yah it sounds familiar. You use the tactic all the time...when someone disagrees with you and your opinions, you call them names.

What was your point, that you can't debate without getting personal and insulting?

Get off your moral throne and stick to the topic.

That's rather rich coming from you! Only argus could top that hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 06, 2018, 04:00:47 pm
The fact is many members of the corporate sector are on board implementing CO2 emission programs and achieving remission results. How can that not be positive?
You raise a lot of fair points which would require a separate thread to deal with the issues that lie below the headlines. A few general comments:

1) Energy efficiency measures can reduce CO2 but the scope of savings are limited since there is already an economic incentive to avoid wasting energy. If energy is "wasted" is often because the cost of stopping the waste exceeds the cost of wasted energy.

2) Beware of touting biomass power since that often means chopping down low grade forest in NA or Russia and turning it into pellets to burn in Europe. Headlines on small scale methane capture tend to obscure where the majority of biomass power comes from and it is often a long way from carbon neutral.

3) Emissions trading schemes are largely scams and often do not represent real emissions reductions. They are simply accounting tricks. In some cases, unnecessary facilities in places like China are built simply to collect money selling credits when the facility is close and/or upgraded.

4) Don't be fooled by carbon capture claims because true permanent, large scale carbon capture (i.e. create limestone from CO2) takes a lot of energy because they involve reversing the chemical processes that release the CO2 in the first place. The need to consume as much as 25-30% of energy produced to capture CO2 makes it very hard to do cheaply no matter what headlines might say. Capturing CO2 in underground bunkers (they leak) or by planting trees (they eventually die) are not truly sustainable solutions.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 06, 2018, 04:10:25 pm
And before trees die they produce seeds which produce more trees which consume more CO2. Otherwise I guess we would have no trees.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on November 06, 2018, 07:44:04 pm
Biomass has its limits. Recycling has made some biomass power plants unviable because there isn't enough garbage to keep them going. Burning wood would be OK as long as the forests are replaced at the same rate as they are being burned.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on November 13, 2018, 10:13:26 am
That's rather rich coming from you! Only argus could top that hypocrisy.

I am actually discussing the topic with TG without name calling. How about you?

I will tell you this. You get it personally  when you initiate it personally. Stop whining and discuss the topic.

Sir John Argus has blasted me many times. So phacking what. Of course.  Its a bloody forum mate. Discuss the topic.

You have anything to contribute other than posing as a victim of Sir John Argus or myself? Lol.

TimG has been presenting the other side of the debate damn well. What do you want me to do, insult him because I don't agre
with some of his points?   I also take the points he and Wilbur made. Doesn't make either of them Satan worshippers.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on November 22, 2018, 11:17:45 am
So... yeah, about that great push for renewable energy and getting rid of the fossil fuel industry...
It doesn't seem to be working.

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

The WEO report, yet again, projects that global fossil fuel use — and related emissions — will grow out to 2040, as oil, gas and coal continue to dominate the energy picture. But it is also struggles to put a positive spin on wind and solar. Solar had a “record-setting” year in 2017. The Chinese solar business is “booming.” New wind and solar additions “outpaced those of fossil fuels in 2017, driven by policy support and declining costs.

“Policy support” means subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As for declining costs, solar is at least twice as expensive a generator as coal and almost twice as expensive as gas.


https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-another-report-reluctantly-admits-that-green-energy-is-a-disastrous-flop

Meanwhile in Canada, home of virtue signalling.

There’s long been a view in Alberta that the Trudeau government is intentionally winding down Alberta’s oilsands, and ultimately the entire fossil fuel industry.

This belief has a basis in fact. Indeed, you could say it’s not a fake fact, but an honest-to-goodness fact fact.
It was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself who said in January 2017: “We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.

“That is going to take time. And, in the meantime, we have to manage that transition.”


https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/braid-liberal-no-oil-plan-for-alberta-is-working-just-a-little-early/wcm/3de8ad98-046c-462e-bcbf-35518d294ec9
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on November 22, 2018, 03:02:03 pm
“Long been a view in Alberta”...  blah, blah....

First, Trudeau is 3 years into his 1st term ...  “long been the view”.   LOL.  Ok then.  It’s been the view in Alberta 3 days after the election!   Clearly they were going to think this regardless of the facts.  Trudeau could grab a shovel and start digging his own pipeline and Albertans would still think this. 

2nd, this gov’t has pushed the trans-Mountain expansion harder than the Harper gov’t.  They nationalized the pipeline!   Of course, that has no effect on Albertan’s long-held views...    ::)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 22, 2018, 03:17:02 pm
So... yeah, about that great push for renewable energy and getting rid of the fossil fuel industry...
It doesn't seem to be working.

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

The WEO report, yet again, projects that global fossil fuel use — and related emissions — will grow out to 2040, as oil, gas and coal continue to dominate the energy picture. But it is also struggles to put a positive spin on wind and solar. Solar had a “record-setting” year in 2017. The Chinese solar business is “booming.” New wind and solar additions “outpaced those of fossil fuels in 2017, driven by policy support and declining costs.

“Policy support” means subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As for declining costs, solar is at least twice as expensive a generator as coal and almost twice as expensive as gas.


https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-another-report-reluctantly-admits-that-green-energy-is-a-disastrous-flop

Meanwhile in Canada, home of virtue signalling.

There’s long been a view in Alberta that the Trudeau government is intentionally winding down Alberta’s oilsands, and ultimately the entire fossil fuel industry.

This belief has a basis in fact. Indeed, you could say it’s not a fake fact, but an honest-to-goodness fact fact.
It was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself who said in January 2017: “We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.

“That is going to take time. And, in the meantime, we have to manage that transition.”


https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/braid-liberal-no-oil-plan-for-alberta-is-working-just-a-little-early/wcm/3de8ad98-046c-462e-bcbf-35518d294ec9

Sounds like the similar type of narrow minded thinking that arose after someone suggested and invented the horseless carriage.

In 1930, Alexander Winton, by then one of the legends of the auto industry, wrote this article for the Post about the wild early days when even promoting the idea of a self-propelling machine would make you the object of ridicule. Winton was a bicycle maker, and as he writes below, he soon became infatuated with the idea of a bicycle that “a rider wouldn’t have to push and keep pushing.” In 1896, he founded the Winton Motor Carriage company, and soon began turning out cars at the dizzying rate of four per year. He would sell his first car in 1897 — arguably the first automobile sold in the U.S. — for the princely sum of $1,000.

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/01/get-horse-americas-skepticism-toward-first-automobiles/

Hey argus, what's your suggestion for when we run out of dinosaur bones, back to horses?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on November 22, 2018, 04:47:54 pm
Hey argus, what's your suggestion for when we run out of dinosaur bones, back to horses?

Well, according to the report the oil and gas industry will be expanding for the next 22 years (at least).
After that, we'll see where technology has gone, hmm? Maybe we'll be better at nuclear by then. Maybe we'll have nuclear fusion by then. Maybe we'll have better batteries by then. Who knows?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 23, 2018, 09:48:56 am
Hey argus, what's your suggestion for when we run out of dinosaur bones, back to horses?

The Japanese are working on the more difficult stuff.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181119-why-flammable-ice-could-be-the-future-of-energy

Honestly, you fantasists...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 23, 2018, 03:14:13 pm
So... yeah, about that great push for renewable energy and getting rid of the fossil fuel industry... It doesn't seem to be working.

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

Peter Foster - yet another from NP's/FP's stable of climate deniers! Nice parlor-trick in bundling all sectors... in particular, leveraging the transport sector to weasel out his (unsubstantiated) per cent figure.

From the IEA 2018 WEO:

Quote
The share of renewables in meeting global energy demand is expected to grow by one-fifth in the next five years to reach 12.4% in 2023.

Renewables will have the fastest growth in the electricity sector, providing almost 30% of power demand in 2023, up from 24% in 2017. During this period, renewables are forecast to meet more than 70% of global electricity generation growth, led by solar PV and followed by wind, hydropower, and bioenergy. Hydropower remains the largest renewable source, meeting 16% of global electricity demand by 2023, followed by wind (6%), solar PV (4%), and bioenergy (3%).

While growing more slowly than the power sector, the heat sector – which includes heating for buildings or industry – will account for the biggest overall share of renewables in meeting energy demand in 2023. Renewable heat consumption is expected to increase by 20% over the forecast period to reach a share of 12% of the heating sector demand by 2023. However, a modest increase in the share of renewable heat is foreseen, as robust growth in total heat demand is expected to result from continuous economic and population growth.

Renewables in transport have the lowest contribution of all three sectors, with their share growing only minimally from 3.4% in 2017 to 3.8% in 2023. Although they expand by almost one-fifth over the forecast period, renewables cover only a small portion of all energy demand in transport because of ongoing petroleum product consumption. Renewables in transport mostly comes from biofuels, and although renewable electricity consumption in road (such as electric cars, two- and- three wheelers, and buses) and rail transport modes increases 65% over the forecast period, this is from a low base.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on November 23, 2018, 03:51:12 pm
Peter Foster - yet another from NP's/FP's stable of climate deniers! Nice parlor-trick in bundling all sectors... in particular, leveraging the transport sector to weasel out his (unsubstantiated) per cent figure.

From the IEA 2018 WEO:

Yes, well, it's still energy use, right? And I don't think we really count hydro electricity. It's renewable, but it's not what we're talking about. If we could eaisily introduce more hydro we'd do so instead of expensive and less reliable solar and wind power.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 23, 2018, 04:01:05 pm
Yes, well, it's still energy use, right? And I don't think we really count hydro electricity. It's renewable, but it's not what we're talking about. If we could eaisily introduce more hydro we'd do so instead of expensive and less reliable solar and wind power.

Well Germany now produces slightly over half of it's daily electrical needs from solar power. There sun must be more reliable than ours.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 23, 2018, 04:09:04 pm
Well Germany now produces slightly over half of it's daily electrical needs from solar power. There sun must be more reliable than ours.

Last I heard they were cutting down a forest to build a coal mine.  It can't be that reliable.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 23, 2018, 04:13:10 pm
Well Germany now produces slightly over half of it's daily electrical needs from solar power. There sun must be more reliable than ours.
A shell game only made possible because they maintain enough fossil fuel production capability to cover the gaps and force these fossil fuel plants to curtail production when renewable production is high (at great cost). This allows politicians to pretend that a large portion of power was produced by renewable when coal plants are really what keep the lights on.

If you look at TOTAL energy consumption wind and solar are less than 5% despite massive subsidies and preferential regulations:

(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/factsheet/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2017.png?itok=MkVrivJJ)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on November 23, 2018, 04:14:28 pm
If we could eaisily introduce more hydro we'd do so instead of expensive and less reliable solar and wind power.

Hydro is not cheap. Yes, if you put up a huge dam you get get somewhat reliable hydro energy at a massive cost. Of course your reservoir may not last as long as you think, check out what is happening to lake Mead feeding the Hoover dam in the past 18 years. The same is happening to upstream lakes that feed it like lake Powell.

Best estimates are the sun will shine for several billion years more.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 23, 2018, 04:20:48 pm
Last I heard they were cutting down a forest to build a coal mine.  It can't be that reliable.

I guess the naysayers will always be so. Carry on.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 23, 2018, 04:21:24 pm
I guess the naysayers will always be so. Carry on.

Are they not now?  They were in October.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 23, 2018, 04:44:13 pm
A shell game only made possible because they maintain enough fossil fuel production capability to cover the gaps and force these fossil fuel plants to curtail production when renewable production is high (at great cost). This allows politicians to pretend that a large portion of power was produced by renewable when coal plants are really what keep the lights on.

If you look at TOTAL energy consumption wind and solar are less than 5% despite massive subsidies and preferential regulations:

(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/factsheet/fig10-germany-energy-mix-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-2017.png?itok=MkVrivJJ)

Apparently not really a "shell game"

Germany produces enough renewable energy in six months to power country's households for an entire year

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/renewable-energy-germany-six-months-year-solar-power-wind-farms-a8427356.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 23, 2018, 04:49:58 pm
Germany produces enough renewable energy in six months to power country's households for an entire year
It is a shell game because the production does not match up with when households actually need the power. Germany uses fossil fuel plants to manage the mismatch between supply and demand. The net result is renewables are an expensive bauble that are not actually needed to keep the lights on because the backup fossil fuel capacity is more than capable of doing that. OTOH, if those fossil fuel plants when offline Germany would be in trouble.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on November 23, 2018, 04:53:24 pm
The net result is renewables are an expensive bauble that are not actually needed to keep the lights on because the backup fossil fuel capacity is more than capable of doing that.

You are completely ignoring all the fossil fuel that is not burned when the sun shines.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 23, 2018, 04:54:37 pm
OTOH, if those fossil fuel plants when offline Germany would be in trouble.

No, I'm pretty sure they're planning to cut down a forest to build a coal mine.  They'll be okay.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 23, 2018, 04:55:14 pm
It is a shell game because the production does not match up with when households actually need the power. Germany uses fossil fuel plants to manage the mismatch between supply and demand. The next result is renewables are an expensive bauble that are not actually needed to keep the lights on because the backup fossil fuel capacity is more than capable of doing that. OTOH, if those fossil fuel plants when offline Germany would be in trouble.

Yes the sun does go down at night. That seems to be the naysayers best/only defense against renewables. They seem to ignore the sun does come back up every morning, and the fact that fossils will run out, but maybe not until we wreck the planet if we don't evolve.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 23, 2018, 05:00:28 pm
...maybe not until we wreck the planet if we don't evolve.

Now you're getting the hang of it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 23, 2018, 05:11:57 pm
A shell game only made possible because they maintain enough fossil fuel production capability to cover the gaps and force these fossil fuel plants to curtail production when renewable production is high (at great cost). This allows politicians to pretend that a large portion of power was produced by renewable when coal plants are really what keep the lights on.

citation request

by the by...

(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/factsheet/fig3-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-2017.png?itok=pT6aOwO-)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 23, 2018, 05:15:27 pm
You are completely ignoring all the fossil fuel that is not burned when the sun shines.
That is not exactly true when the plants need to be kept in standby mode so they can supply power immediately when renewables drop off. More importantly, if regulation did not force the fossil fuel plants to curtail production it would often be more cost effective to dump the solar/wind rather than to curtail fossil fuel production. This means the % of renewables is a fiction created by regulation rather than an emergent property of a sustainable power market.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 23, 2018, 05:20:02 pm
That is not exactly true when the plants need to be kept in standby mode so they can supply power immediately when renewables drop off. More importantly, if regulation did not force the fossil fuel plants to curtail production it would often be more cost effective to dump the solar/wind rather than to curtail fossil fuel production. This means the % of renewables is a fiction created by regulation rather than an emergent property of a sustainable power market.

Seems liker you are basing your support for fossils totally on costs. Well guess what, it costs money to dig for oil and coal, and, they will run out. The sun for instance won't for a long time.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 23, 2018, 05:37:08 pm
No, I'm pretty sure they're planning to cut down a forest to build a coal mine.  They'll be okay.

dude, you're not offering the necessary distinction: this is strictly the want of an existing utility company mining lignite... it wants to expand the current lignite mine. In any case:

German court orders suspension of Hambach Forest clearance --- https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-orders-suspension-of-hambach-forest-clearance/a-45764690

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 23, 2018, 06:08:41 pm
That is not exactly true when the plants need to be kept in standby mode so they can supply power immediately when renewables drop off. More importantly, if regulation did not force the fossil fuel plants to curtail production it would often be more cost effective to dump the solar/wind rather than to curtail fossil fuel production. This means the % of renewables is a fiction created by regulation rather than an emergent property of a sustainable power market.

geezaz! Is operating reserve just for (supply/demand) contingencies relative to renewables... just renewables?  ;D

a short few posts back you were asked for a cite in regards your statement, "force these fossil fuel plants to curtail production when renewable production is high (at great cost)"... and now, again, in this latest post you're beaking off about regulation forcing production curtailment. Citation request.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 23, 2018, 06:09:49 pm
dude, you're not offering the necessary distinction: this is strictly the want of an existing utility company mining lignite... it wants to expand the current lignite mine. In any case:

German court orders suspension of Hambach Forest clearance --- https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-orders-suspension-of-hambach-forest-clearance/a-45764690


It does seem to go against the grain, though, doesn't it? I mean, this is Germany, not the Phillipines.  If you can't trust the Deustch...

Still, I hadn't heard about the court ordered delay.  It does say it is carton related, so I wouldn't hold out a great deal of hope.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 23, 2018, 06:13:07 pm
"force these fossil fuel plants to curtail production when renewable production is high (at great cost)"... and now, again, in this latest post you're beaking off about regulation forcing production curtailment. Citation request.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/

Quote
The auction system is designed to reduce the rate of new renewable-energy additions and keep Germany from producing too much power. It might seem like an easy way to solve the oversupply issue would be to shut down excess power plants, especially ones that burn coal. But not only are the coal plants used to even out periods when wind and solar aren’t available, they’re also lucrative and thus politically hard to shut down. Because German law requires renewable energy to be used first on the German grid, when Germany exports excess electricity to its European neighbors it primarily comes from coal plants. Last fall, the German subsidiary of the Swedish energy giant Vattenfall started up a 1,600-megwatt coal-fired plant that had been under construction for eight years, defying opposition from politicians, environmental organizations, and citizens who want to see coal plants eliminated.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 23, 2018, 07:01:52 pm
BFD - you've tried this same ploy over on the other board... and you were shown just how Germany has/is successfully handling renewables integration and grid management. Until higher renewables penetration rates are realized, integration is managed with little to no impact on grid design. Given the highest penetration rates reached, Germany has had to somewhat pioneer renewables integration management in terms of, hardware, grid extension, transport, interconnections, balancing, building on grid 'smartness', technical innovation/etc.. Example:

- WindNODE – Showcase Intelligent Energy in Northeastern Germany:
 
=> https://reiner-lemoine-institut.de/en/windnode-schaufenster-fuer-intelligente-energie-nordostdeutschland/

=> https://www.50hertz.com/en/News/FullarticleNewsof50Hertz/id/5902/utilisation-before-limitation-windnode-flexibility-platform-begins-trial-operation


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 01:16:26 pm
Well, it's not looking good...

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46347453
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 01:39:53 pm
Well, it's not looking good...

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46347453

And it could look a lot worse if Trump has his way. Fortunately I doubt he will.

"Coal isn’t the future of the American economy – it’s renewable energy. The sooner Donald Trump realizes that, the better"

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/apr/12/donald-trump-coal-mining-renewable-energy
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 27, 2018, 01:40:32 pm
Well, it's not looking good...
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46347453
It is unfolding exactly as I said it would. We can't do anything of substance about CO2 so preening politicians make pronouncements they have no intention of keeping while they know the task of breaking those promises will fall to a future politician. We also have politicians wasting billions on pointless exercises so they can pretend to do something while nothing actually changes.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 01:47:15 pm
It is unfolding exactly as I said it would. We can't do anything of substance about CO2 so preening politicians make pronouncements they have no intention of keeping while they know the task of breaking those promises will fall to a future politician. We also have politicians wasting billions on pointless exercises so they can pretend to do something while nothing actually changes.

Very pretty report though.  I was put in mind of the pointy haired boss telling Dilbert to make it nice and colourful so people won't feel too bad when they read it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on November 27, 2018, 03:47:13 pm
That is not exactly true when the plants need to be kept in standby mode so they can supply power immediately when renewables drop off.

We are not in the age of coal boiling water any more. Gas turbines spin up from cold very quickly. Stored hydro is also almost instant on.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 27, 2018, 04:23:48 pm
We are not in the age of coal boiling water any more. Gas turbines spin up from cold very quickly. Stored hydro is also almost instant on.
Works great if you don't have to import gas from Russia. Geo-political conflicts and energy security matter which is why countries will favour power sources that allow them to minimize dependence on imports. The need for energy security will always be more important than CO2 reductions.

Furthermore, those natural gas plants need to be built along with the pipelines to supply gas. This requires a minimum number of hours of operation to make them economic. Germany has discovered that if you simply tell fossil fuel plants that they must pay the cost of renewables they will close and the system will collapse. So now Germany has to subsidize fossil fuel plants because they cannot afford to let them dissappear.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 04:45:54 pm
We are not in the age of coal boiling water any more. Gas turbines spin up from cold very quickly. Stored hydro is also almost instant on.

I assume the "over 40" naysayers will continue to ignore the science. Luckily the more educated are dealing with what's actually happening.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 04:51:38 pm
I assume the "over 40" naysayers will continue to ignore the science. Luckily the more educated are dealing with what's actually happening.

Yeah, you can tell that's the case from the report there.  Optimistic stuff.

God only knows where we would be if they weren't dealing with it!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 04:58:59 pm
Yeah, you can tell that's the case from the report there.  Optimistic stuff.

God only knows where we would be if they weren't dealing with it!

God knows where we will be if we don't deal with it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 05:04:13 pm
God knows where we will be if we don't deal with it.

Sure, but before long she won't be the only one.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 05:12:36 pm
Sure, but before long she won't be the only one.

You just bounce along there l'il buddy. Grown ups will take care of it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 05:14:10 pm
You just bounce along there l'il buddy. Grown ups will take care of it.

I don't think they will.  I think you're a bit delusional.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on November 27, 2018, 05:17:33 pm
As I posted in an article earlier in this thread....   the latest tactic by climate change deniers is to deny there is anything that can be done, since denying that it is actually takes place makes you look like a complete buffoon. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 05:22:15 pm
As I posted in an article earlier in this thread....   the latest tactic by climate change deniers is to deny there is anything that can be done, since denying that it is actually takes place makes you look like a complete buffoon.

Denying it is taking place would make someone look like a complete buffoon.  Claiming we are doing enough about it to actually make a difference also makes one look like a complete buffoon.

Claiming that someone who acknowledges the truth about efforts to deal with AGW is actually a denier eclipses both in complete buffoonness, and is actually dishonest as well as stupid.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 27, 2018, 05:32:59 pm
As I posted in an article earlier in this thread....   the latest tactic by climate change deniers
I have been saying the same thing about the impossibility of reducing emissions since 1998. The only that has changed is back in 2000 I took climate scientists at their word and was expecting a grim future. I only got optimistic once I started to learn about the science and realized how much of it is driven by group think and a desire to create a catastrophe narrative rather than an honest quest for scientific understanding.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 07:20:48 pm
What we really need is another meeting!  Poland's not busy...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 08:11:04 pm
Denying it is taking place would make someone look like a complete buffoon.  Claiming we are doing enough about it to actually make a difference also makes one look like a complete buffoon.

Claiming that someone who acknowledges the truth about efforts to deal with AGW is actually a denier eclipses both in complete buffoonness, and is actually dishonest as well as stupid.

You claim you know the truth about AGW and we should just ignore it. Now that is STUPID. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 08:26:48 pm
You claim you know the truth about AGW and we should just ignore it. Now that is STUPID.

Now you're making stuff up again.  As far as I can tell, you're the only one on two boards who does that regularly in response to posts you don't like.  How come?

What I claim is that humans are never, ever going to achieve the level of cooperation required to halt or reverse AGW.  If you think that they are, and I'm wrong about that, then say so.  I won't ask for a cite.

Another thing I claim is that some of things people do in order to look like they are doing something is just for that reason.  In order to look like they are doing something.  So it's pointless.  I have said I don't mind paying taxes.  I don't mind paying more for fuel. (I'm not French) Just don't tell me I'm fixing AGW.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 08:33:19 pm
Now you're making stuff up again.  As far as I can tell, you're the only one on two boards who does that regularly in response to posts you don't like.  How come?

What I claim is that humans are never, ever going to achieve the level of cooperation required to halt or reverse AGW.  If you think that they are, and I'm wrong about that, then say so.  I won't ask for a cite.

Another thing I claim is that some of things people do in order to look like they are doing something is just for that reason.  In order to look like they are doing something.  So it's pointless.  I have said I don't mind paying taxes.  I don't mind paying more for fuel. (I'm not French) Just don't tell me I'm fixing AGW.

So tell us exactly what it is you think I "made up" We'll get the popcorn.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 08:36:03 pm
So tell us exactly what it is you think I "made up" We'll get the popcorn.

"You claim you know the truth about AGW and we should just ignore it. Now that is STUPID."

Edit>  Perhaps that's not enough.  I don't claim to know the truth about AGW.  It was only a month or two back that experts on the subject realised they had some effect the oceans had wrong by about 50%, so I don't think anyone does. 

I don't claim we should ignore it.  Quite the opposite.  I think we are ignoring it, except for bluster, and I think we should not be.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 08:47:46 pm
Now you're making stuff up again.  As far as I can tell, you're the only one on two boards who does that regularly in response to posts you don't like.  How come?

What I claim is that humans are never, ever going to achieve the level of cooperation required to halt or reverse AGW.  If you think that they are, and I'm wrong about that, then say so.  I won't ask for a cite.

Another thing I claim is that some of things people do in order to look like they are doing something is just for that reason.  In order to look like they are doing something.  So it's pointless.  I have said I don't mind paying taxes.  I don't mind paying more for fuel. (I'm not French) Just don't tell me I'm fixing AGW.

BTW, I'm not on two boards. I left mlw when it got way too redneck stupid. And the fuhrer scolded anybody who refuted the wingnuts he liked.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 08:48:31 pm
BTW, I'm not on two boards. I left mlw when it got way too redneck stupid. And the fuhrer scolded anybody who refuted the wingnuts he liked.

I know.  I am though.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 27, 2018, 08:51:33 pm
I know.  I am though.

Good for you l'il buddy.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 27, 2018, 08:56:27 pm
Good for you l'il buddy.

Well, I was the one making the claim, so it is not necessary for you to be on both.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 28, 2018, 01:34:40 am
from Tuesday's WAPO interview with Trump:

(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi68.tinypic.com%2F2yngvwn.jpg&hash=d729b87f28d85d5332d0a21b60bacd20a0a966bb)  (https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdarkgoddess.org%2Fwonderland%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F12%2Fffffuuuu.jpg&hash=fa6917db23d3d44bd2d3191054cf4a1fe7007764)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 28, 2018, 01:42:55 am
Edit>  Perhaps that's not enough.  I don't claim to know the truth about AGW.  It was only a month or two back that experts on the subject realised they had some effect the oceans had wrong by about 50%, so I don't think anyone does.

no - as a part of standard 'peer response', a couple of errors were found; accordingly, per norm, the paper will be corrected. Per the lead author, expectations are that required changes/corrections will have a small impact on the calculations of overall ocean heat uptake (in line with some "dozen" prior paper findings")... but with larger margins of error.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 28, 2018, 01:55:56 am
Simple. All we have to do is rake the leaves, and global warming is taken care of. Melting glaciers? no sweat, we just install a coal fired heater to warm that water a bit more and we charge admission to a health spa where you can "float to relax" Raging wildfires? we sell sharp sticks and bags of marshmallows. Rising sea level, buy a boat. Too hot? we have air conditioning here in the white house. And on and on... 
300 climate scientists, over a thousand pages of a report, what the **** do they know? Oops, my hair piece floated away.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 28, 2018, 07:05:26 am
It was only a month or two back that experts on the subject realised they had some effect the oceans had wrong by about 50%, so I don't think anyone does.
And shortly afterwards the authors were forced to admit that they made significant math errors that meant their conclusions could not be supported by the data. These math errors were uncovered and published by "blog science" which alarmists deride because insulting people who do not accept their religion is all they are intellectually capable of doing.

Fortunately, the scientists in question demonstrated professional integrity which has been sorely absent from climate science when they acknowledged the errors and the person who found them.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/19/admitting-mistakes-in-a-hostile-environment/#more-24476
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 28, 2018, 07:46:00 am
no - as a part of standard 'peer response', a couple of errors were found; accordingly, per norm, the paper will be corrected. Per the lead author, expectations are that required changes/corrections will have a small impact on the calculations of overall ocean heat uptake (in line with some "dozen" prior paper findings")... but with larger margins of error.

But didn't the paper itself, regardless of errors, indicate that past views on how fast the oceans were warming were wrong?  The corrections just showed them to be not as wrong as initially stated? 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 28, 2018, 07:53:22 am
But didn't the paper itself, regardless of errors, indicate that past views on how fast the oceans were warming were wrong?  The corrections just showed them to be not as wrong as initially stated?
No. The corrections means there was no error from prior estimates. But note how the media blasts the original story but makes no mention of the correction. This is a good illustration of what we know about "climate change" from the media is often false or misleading and it is a huge mistake to take what activists *claim* the science says as fact. The actual science is a lot less certain.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on November 28, 2018, 07:58:30 am
No. The corrections means there was no error from prior estimates. But note how the media blasts the original story but makes no mention of the correction. This is a good illustration of what we know about "climate change" from the media is often false or misleading and it is a huge mistake to take what activists *claim* the science says as fact. The actual science is a lot less certain.

I don't know so much.  Why would the Weather Network lie to me?

So, the 'good' news from this is, whereas the original message of the study was that the oceans were warming 60 per cent faster than had been predicted in the most recent IPCC climate change report - which would have been quite the dire development - the new margins of error of the study put the amount of increased warming, compared to those same IPCC predictions, at somewhere between +10 per cent to +70 per cent.

Thus, the oceans are still warming faster than predicted, according to the study, so it's not really good news. It's just that it is hard, at the moment, to pin down exactly how much faster they are warming. It could be by just a small bit (an extra 10 per cent over prediction), or it could be much faster (possibly even more than the study originally stated).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on November 28, 2018, 08:16:30 am
I don't know so much.  Why would the Weather Network lie to me?
Somewhere between 10 and 70%? Well, I had not seen the official revised numbers but that explains why they were willing to be civil. They did the math and figured they can still get their catastrophe ****.

And that does not take into account that this is just one study with a different way to doing a calculation that may or may not be better than prior estimates. When the same thing can be measured in a many different ways you can't assume the latest way to do it is necessarily better.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 28, 2018, 09:10:41 am
And shortly afterwards the authors were forced to admit that they made significant math errors that meant their conclusions could not be supported by the data. These math errors were uncovered and published by "blog science" which alarmists deride because insulting people who do not accept their religion is all they are intellectually capable of doing.

Fortunately, the scientists in question demonstrated professional integrity which has been sorely absent from climate science when they acknowledged the errors and the person who found them.

given your denier history, I'm shocked you would speak this way!  ;D You'll need to pick one: either the scientists were professional in responding (per norm)... or they were, as you stooopidly state, "forced to admit"! Your boy/Crazy Aunt Judy co-author/publish - why not issue a paper challenge instead of wallowing in their fevered denying blog-swamp? Is it because they're a little gun-shy given responses they've received to some of their papers - say it ain't so!

google scholar shows an impressive 282 count for the author in question... so easy for a denyingHack to belittle his lifetime of study/accomplishment, hey! Do you feel emboldened... pumped?
=> https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=NPq_XkUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
=> http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/rkeeling/biocv

a correction has been submitted to the journal; in the interim, a response through RC: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/



Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 28, 2018, 09:14:56 am
And that does not take into account that this is just one study with a different way to doing a calculation that may or may not be better than prior estimates. When the same thing can be measured in a many different ways you can't assume the latest way to do it is necessarily better.

what a stooopid comment. New methodology either gains acceptance through confirmation - or it remains a somewhat unique outlier. Then again, you've never understood the scientific method - evah!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on November 28, 2018, 12:04:58 pm
As I posted in an article earlier in this thread....   the latest tactic by climate change deniers is to deny there is anything that can be done, since denying that it is actually takes place makes you look like a complete buffoon.

There is a difference between denying anything can be done and simply recognizing the reality that the solution being proposed is unworkable.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on November 28, 2018, 12:11:03 pm
BTW, I'm not on two boards. I left mlw when it got way too redneck stupid. And the fuhrer scolded anybody who refuted the wingnuts he liked.

Weren't you banned?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 28, 2018, 12:14:41 pm
There is a difference between denying anything can be done and simply recognizing the reality that the solution being proposed is unworkable.

Except that the deniers will continue to deny, because that's what makes them deniers. After all, no solution is required for something you don't believe is happening. Just hide your eyes whenever those troublesome satellite pics of huge areas of missing arctic sea ice show up. Just stay with your cartoons. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on November 28, 2018, 12:18:05 pm
Except that the deniers will continue to deny, because that's what makes them deniers. After all, no solution is required for something you don't believe is happening. Just hide your eyes whenever those troublesome satellite pics of huge areas of missing arctic sea ice show up. Just stay with your cartoons.

I've already given you my proposed solution. Everyone must dye their hair purple.
Just as effective as your solution but infinitely cheaper.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on November 28, 2018, 12:28:34 pm
I've already given you my proposed solution. Everyone must dye their hair purple.
Just as effective as your solution but infinitely cheaper.

profound! Did you and your posse come up with that solution around your home's jigsaw puzzle table... or in the tee-vee room?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 28, 2018, 12:30:48 pm
I've already given you my proposed solution. Everyone must dye their hair purple.
Just as effective as your solution but infinitely cheaper.

That sounds like a typical denier type solution. I haven't given you mine. I'll leave that to the actual scientists who are tasked with studying the issue. Ah, please don't post pictures of you in your purple hairdo.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 28, 2018, 02:27:21 pm
Weren't you banned?

I probably was after I told CA what I thought of him on a personal note. The place was becoming so far right as well as goofy with the likes of taxme, the bc Canada troll, and that religious freak woman who's handle I can't recall. CA supports them all, but I'm not alt. right so I left.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on November 28, 2018, 02:58:03 pm
I probably was after I told CA what I thought of him on a personal note. The place was becoming so far right as well as goofy with the likes of taxme, the bc Canada troll, and that religious freak woman who's handle I can't recall. CA supports them all, but I'm not alt. right so I left.

Are you saying MH is alt right? He still posts there.
Taxme and BC look as fine in my ignore file as Omni and Onguardforthee did.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 28, 2018, 03:04:24 pm
Are you saying MH is alt right? He still posts there.
Taxme and BC look as fine in my ignore file as Omni and Onguardforthee did.

And so do you still post there. And no, MH isn't alt right. Maybe read his posts and try to understand.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on November 29, 2018, 04:46:34 pm
Recent surveys show we have now lost even more arctic sea ice. Carnival Cruise Lines could flourish.
Global warming can be good for some business I guess.

"Since 1958, the study reveals that Arctic ice cover has lost about two-thirds of its thickness, and older ice has shrunk by almost 2 million square kilometres (800,000 square miles)."


https://www.sciencealert.com/arctic-sea-ice-lost-thinner-more-vulnerable
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on December 16, 2018, 09:01:28 am

The purpose of the Polish summit was to finalize the rules that signatories of the Paris accord are supposed to follow when they report their greenhouse gas emissions. But any sentient being knows that the rules are not the problem. The problem is that most major nations, including Canada, have no feasible plan to meet their climate targets. Canada, for example, has promised a 30-per-cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.And if you believe we can do that, you probably believe pigs can fly. Even so, those targets are not nearly ambitious enough to slow down climate change, the UN says.For that to happen, we’d have to shut down the modern world as we know it.

For now – and for a long time to come – decoupling prosperity from fossil fuels will be all but impossible. That’s why China, which is widely hailed as a renewable-energy leader,has been building coal plants by the dozens. Like most other countries, it needs to get richer before it gets greener. China is so big that anything Canada does to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is irrelevant. China’s annual increase in carbon emissions is about the same as Canada’s entire annual carbon output.

Embarrassingly – for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, at any rate – Canada’s performance is rated as “highly insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker, an outfit that monitors these things. He plans to fix this through carbon taxes, which are set to start next year.But according to a United Nations scientific panel, our carbon taxes will be too low to have any impact on behaviour. The UN report estimates that governments would need to impose carbon prices of US$135 to US$5,500 per tonne of emissionsto keep global warming in check – levels that are politically impossible. By contrast, Canada’s carbon tax will start at $20 per tonne and rise to $50 by 2022. At best it will be an ineffective nuisance.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-climate-hypocrite/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on December 16, 2018, 09:21:59 am
The purpose of the Polish summit was to finalize the rules that signatories of the Paris accord are supposed to follow when they report their greenhouse gas emissions. But any sentient being knows that the rules are not the problem. The problem is that most major nations, including Canada, have no feasible plan to meet their climate targets. Canada, for example, has promised a 30-per-cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2030.And if you believe we can do that, you probably believe pigs can fly. Even so, those targets are not nearly ambitious enough to slow down climate change, the UN says.For that to happen, we’d have to shut down the modern world as we know it.

For now – and for a long time to come – decoupling prosperity from fossil fuels will be all but impossible. That’s why China, which is widely hailed as a renewable-energy leader,has been building coal plants by the dozens. Like most other countries, it needs to get richer before it gets greener. China is so big that anything Canada does to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions is irrelevant. China’s annual increase in carbon emissions is about the same as Canada’s entire annual carbon output.

Embarrassingly – for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, at any rate – Canada’s performance is rated as “highly insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker, an outfit that monitors these things. He plans to fix this through carbon taxes, which are set to start next year.But according to a United Nations scientific panel, our carbon taxes will be too low to have any impact on behaviour. The UN report estimates that governments would need to impose carbon prices of US$135 to US$5,500 per tonne of emissionsto keep global warming in check – levels that are politically impossible. By contrast, Canada’s carbon tax will start at $20 per tonne and rise to $50 by 2022. At best it will be an ineffective nuisance.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-climate-hypocrite/

Margaret Wente? now there's an ineffective nuisance. I wonder who she plagiarized for this article!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on December 16, 2018, 11:23:42 am
Notwithstanding twats and plagiarists, it looks like another round of self serving, back slapping, virtue signalling has come and gone without anything more concrete than commitments that either won't be met, or won't be effective.

At least they showed some sense of humour with regards the location.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on December 16, 2018, 11:52:27 am
oh, argus is back to his twat/twit thingy. Wente has long ago proven herself an unreliable source. Of course her being alt. right would appeal to you, so carry on.

And again, you can think whatever you want about Wente. I really couldn't care less. But quoting three paragraphs and not responding to what was actually SAID but instead writing some juvenile one-line put-down of the author is almost as moronic as you suggesting anything about this is 'alt right'. Do you even know what 'alt right' is or did you just hear the big kids on the playground using it a lot and though it a kewl phrase to use against anything you don't like?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on December 16, 2018, 12:13:16 pm
And again, you can think whatever you want about Wente. I really couldn't care less. But quoting three paragraphs and not responding to what was actually SAID but instead writing some juvenile one-line put-down of the author is almost as moronic as you suggesting anything about this is 'alt right'. Do you even know what 'alt right' is or did you just hear the big kids on the playground using it a lot and though it a kewl phrase to use against anything you don't like?

https://www.thetelegram.com/opinion/columnists/peter-jackson-why-does-margaret-wente-still-have-a-job-135226/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on December 16, 2018, 12:49:21 pm
I don’t disagree that Canada has been lacking in implementing policies to reduce GHGs.  It certainly doesn’t help when Provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta refuse to do anything.   But then the Feds have to step in, take over and do what’s right on the climate issues since idiots leading the provinces won’t.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: bcsapper on December 16, 2018, 12:58:31 pm
I don’t disagree that Canada has been lacking in implementing policies to reduce GHGs.  It certainly doesn’t help when Provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta refuse to do anything.   But then the Feds have to step in, take over and do what’s right on the climate issues since idiots leading the provinces won’t.

Macron tried that, and look what happened there. 

I know the arguments are legion, but one basic fact seems to rear its ugly head over all the rest.  In order to make a real difference, an extremely unlikely level of both cooperation and suffering needs to be reached.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on December 16, 2018, 01:05:21 pm
I don’t disagree that Canada has been lacking in implementing policies to reduce GHGs.  It certainly doesn’t help when Provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta refuse to do anything.   But then the Feds have to step in, take over and do what’s right on the climate issues since idiots leading the provinces won’t.

Living in BC I keep a bit of an eye on the carbon tax we have had for some time now. Overall it seems to have been revenue neutral as it was intended, and has reduced consumption somewhat. In one way simply because people plan such things as trips to the grocery store a little better so they don't have to make as many. That won't snub global warming of course but it's step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on December 16, 2018, 02:26:08 pm
I don’t disagree that Canada has been lacking in implementing policies to reduce GHGs.  It certainly doesn’t help when Provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta refuse to do anything.

2005-2016

Alberta - increase 14%
Saskatchewan - increase 11%
Ontario - decrease 22%


On a per-capita basis, Saskatchewan is the worst.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on December 16, 2018, 05:13:04 pm
Living in BC I keep a bit of an eye on the carbon tax we have had for some time now. Overall it seems to have been revenue neutral as it was intended, and has reduced consumption somewhat. In one way simply because people plan such things as trips to the grocery store a little better so they don't have to make as many. That won't snub global warming of course but it's step in the right direction.

Was revenue neutral, just goes into the big pot now.
http://theclimateexaminer.ca/2017/09/22/b-c-overturns-carbon-tax-revenue-neutrality/

Here's another.
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/the-ndps-carbon-tax-increase-puts-b-c-on-a-very-different-path/

Too much money there and they need it to pay for some of their campaign promises. The NDP had to figure out a way of getting the rest of the Province to pay for removing those bridge tolls.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on December 17, 2018, 11:06:55 am
I don’t disagree that Canada has been lacking in implementing policies to reduce GHGs.  It certainly doesn’t help when Provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta refuse to do anything.   But then the Feds have to step in, take over and do what’s right on the climate issues since idiots leading the provinces won’t.

Yeah, we gotta get that carbon taxing going! I mean, it won't make one iota of difference to the world, but we gotta look like we're progressive no matter what it costs!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SirJohn on December 17, 2018, 11:11:05 am
2005-2016

Alberta - increase 14%
Saskatchewan - increase 11%
Ontario - decrease 22%


On a per-capita basis, Saskatchewan is the worst.


Who gives a ****? You guys always figure out just what stat makes you the most self-righteous and then go with that one.
Ab and SK have had increasing oil output, meanwhile your dream girl in Ontario has succeeded in driving half its manufacturing base south. Yeah, LETS HAVE MORE OF THAT!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on December 17, 2018, 12:20:53 pm
...meanwhile your dream girl in Ontario has succeeded in driving half its manufacturing base south.

whaaa! No supporting Fraser Institute cite? Half? Is that a lot?  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on December 17, 2018, 04:15:49 pm
Who gives a ****? You guys always figure out just what stat makes you the most self-righteous and then go with that one.
Ab and SK have had increasing oil output, meanwhile your dream girl in Ontario has succeeded in driving half its manufacturing base south. Yeah, LETS HAVE MORE OF THAT!

Ontario had 54% GDP growth, and 11% population growth, all while cutting back emissions by 22%.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on December 17, 2018, 10:42:30 pm
2005-2016

Alberta - increase 14%
Saskatchewan - increase 11%
Ontario - decrease 22%

Ontario residents have paid a big price on their monthly hydro bills & gasoline fill-ups for that decrease too. (though there's also other factors that have driven up ON hydro rates).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on December 17, 2018, 11:34:28 pm
I'm actually a fan of global warming. It's so mild here on the west coast, and by the time the Pacific floods my house I'll be gone up yonder. Sorry about the kids.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on December 18, 2018, 02:00:48 pm
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports carbon pricing in Canada.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4946754

Quote
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says the business community in Canada is solidly backing carbon pricing as the way for it to "play its part in the fight against climate change" — and it wants governments to stop playing politics and waffling about it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 16, 2019, 04:11:17 pm
The latest report on the advance of global warming is a bit, can I say "chilling"? I don't live far from the Pacific and a 180 foot rise as antarctic ice melt accelerates would see my house well under water.

Since 2009, Antarctica has lost almost 252 billion tonnes of ice per year, the new study found. In the 1980s, it was losing 40 billion tonnes a year.

The recent melting rate is 15 per cent higher than what a study found last year.

Melting in West Antarctica and the Antarctica Peninsula account for about four-fifths of the ice loss. East Antarctica's melting "increases the risk of multiple metre sea level rise over the next century or so," Rignot said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/antarctica-melting-ice-climate-change-1.4978499
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on January 16, 2019, 04:14:29 pm
The water rise numbers seem to be the ones most exaggerated - by the media.   Scary studies get reported.  Unscary ones don't.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 16, 2019, 04:28:28 pm
The water rise numbers seem to be the ones most exaggerated - by the media.   Scary studies get reported.  Unscary ones don't.

And so do you also suggest the media "adjusts" the satellite photos to make them more scary too?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on January 16, 2019, 05:21:54 pm
I don't live far from the Pacific and a 180 foot rise as antarctic ice melt accelerates would see my house well under water.

Where did you get the 180 feet from? I though glaciers melting would add about 10 feet. That is still serious for many heavily populated parts of the world, including in North America.

Also note that floating ice melting will add about 2 inches to sea level. Yes, I know that by weight the same amount of water is displaced, but that doesn't take into account the density of fresh water compared to the salt water it is displacing.

What I haven't seen a good figure on is the effect of rebounding of the Earth surface will play when the glaciers melt. That was a big contributor to sea level rise after the last ice age, so I expect it will play part here as well.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 16, 2019, 05:33:22 pm
Where did you get the 180 feet from? I though glaciers melting would add about 10 feet. That is still serious for many heavily populated parts of the world, including in North America.

Also note that floating ice melting will add about 2 inches to sea level. Yes, I know that by weight the same amount of water is displaced, but that doesn't take into account the density of fresh water compared to the salt water it is displacing.

What I haven't seen a good figure on is the effect of rebounding of the Earth surface will play when the glaciers melt. That was a big contributor to sea level rise after the last ice age, so I expect it will play part here as well.

The figure comes from the estimated effect of the antarctic ice shelf melt. Most of the ice down there sits on land so if it slips into the surrounding ocean it will have a much more significant effect than arctic ice melt which is already in the water. Then of course there's Greenland and glaciers.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on January 16, 2019, 05:47:41 pm
The figure comes from the estimated effect of the antarctic ice shelf melt. Most of the ice down there sits on land so if it slips into the surrounding ocean it will have a much more significant effect than arctic ice melt which is already in the water. Then of course there's Greenland and glaciers.

Ok, I see that most of the current studies were based on the west antarctic ice sheet which is considered unstable since its base is under water. The east antarctic ice sheet has been considered stable, but yes there are some indications it is losing more to melt than it gains from snow cover now. It is much larger, but I can't find any consistent measures of how much it would contribute to sea level rise. The estimates are anywhere from 16 feet to 60 meters, and there are many in-between.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on January 16, 2019, 07:55:06 pm
I'm actually a fan of global warming. It's so mild here on the west coast, and by the time the Pacific floods my house I'll be gone up yonder. Sorry about the kids.

Its caused by all the hot air coming from Trudeau and your beloved Liberals.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on January 16, 2019, 08:34:17 pm
The water rise numbers seem to be the ones most exaggerated - by the media.   Scary studies get reported.  Unscary ones don't.

Depends on how much melts. The Greenland icecap is two miles thick.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 16, 2019, 08:42:22 pm
Ok, I see that most of the current studies were based on the west antarctic ice sheet which is considered unstable since its base is under water. The east antarctic ice sheet has been considered stable, but yes there are some indications it is losing more to melt than it gains from snow cover now. It is much larger, but I can't find any consistent measures of how much it would contribute to sea level rise. The estimates are anywhere from 16 feet to 60 meters, and there are many in-between.

Eric Rignot, a University of California, Irvine, ice scientist, was the lead author on the new study in Monday's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He said the big difference is that his satellite-based study found East Antarctica, which used to be considered stable, is losing 51 billion tonnes of ice a year. Last year's study, which took several teams' work into consideration, found little to no loss in East Antarctica recently and gains in the past.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 04:48:17 pm
I suspect the global warming deniers will use the current cold snap in the eastern US as "proof" of their position.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on January 30, 2019, 05:38:10 pm
I suspect the global warming deniers will use the current cold snap in the eastern US as "proof" of their position.

That's exactly what's happening...

Except the polar vortex that's causing this is exactly what you'd expect from rapid climate change.

Quote
Recent boreal winters have exhibited a large-scale seesaw temperature pattern characterized by an unusually warm Arctic and cold continents. Whether there is any physical link between Arctic variability and Northern Hemisphere (NH) extreme weather is an active area of research. Using a recently developed index of severe winter weather, we show that the occurrence of severe winter weather in the United States is significantly related to anomalies in pan-Arctic geopotential heights and temperatures. As the Arctic transitions from a relatively cold state to a warmer one, the frequency of severe winter weather in mid-latitudes increases through the transition. However, this relationship is strongest in the eastern US and mixed to even opposite along the western US. We also show that during mid-winter to late-winter of recent decades, when the Arctic warming trend is greatest and extends into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, severe winter weather—including both cold spells and heavy snows—became more frequent in the eastern United States.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 05:45:43 pm
That's exactly what's happening...

Except the polar vortex that's causing this is exactly what you'd expect from rapid climate change.

I'm still waiting to hear any sort of explanation as to why 1.4 million sq. km of Arctic sea ice has disappeared over the last couple of decades.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on January 30, 2019, 06:08:06 pm
Except the polar vortex that's causing this is exactly what you'd expect from rapid climate change.
Yep. "Climate change" the universal cause of everything bad. Hot weather, cold weather, dry weather, wet weather, cloudy days, sunny days, justin bieber. you name it - climate change it is always to blame because... well just "because" some scientist in desperate need to publish something managed to find enough spurious correlations to create some great disaster **** headlines.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 06:21:50 pm
There is really nothing we can do about Global Warming until the World population is reduced significantly, so I suggest keeping the status quo. Besides, since 1961 Alberta has given over $600 billion in transfer payments. We should not mess with that cash cow.

This includes getting rid of the carbon tax, and sending Justin Trudeau to Baffin Island.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 06:26:52 pm
Yep. "Climate change" the universal cause of everything bad. Hot weather, cold weather, dry weather, wet weather, cloudy days, sunny days, justin bieber. you name it - climate change it is always to blame because... well just "because" some scientist in desperate need to publish something managed to find enough spurious correlations to create some great disaster **** headlines.
Even if climate change is real, one has to ask the question whether Canadians want their standard of living reduced, or to continue having the West bail them out
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on January 30, 2019, 06:36:16 pm
Even if climate change is real, one has to ask the question whether Canadians want their standard of living reduced, or to continue having the West bail them out
CO2 is a GHG and the climate is changing. I don't see any doubt there. The questions that matter are whether we can do anything other than adapt. The endless attempts by alarmists to promote disaster **** are simply a means to push policies that have nothing to do with the stated problem but instead are designed to appeal to their ideological biases. i.e. the obsession with stopping pipelines while they consume gluten free quinoa shipped on bunker oil burning ships is all about pretending to "save the planet" while forcing people other than them to make sacrifices to make them feel better.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on January 30, 2019, 06:43:04 pm
since 1961 Alberta has given over $600 billion in transfer payments

Transfer payments come from Ottawa, not the provinces. Alberta benefits from them. Canadians, all of them from sea to shining sea, contribute to Ottawa's revenues on the exact 100% same scale.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 06:48:55 pm
Yep. "Climate change" the universal cause of everything bad. Hot weather, cold weather, dry weather, wet weather, cloudy days, sunny days, justin bieber. you name it - climate change it is always to blame because... well just "because" some scientist in desperate need to publish something managed to find enough spurious correlations to create some great disaster **** headlines.

"Some scientists"? How about 97% of them who are professional and peer reviewed. And once agian you seem to confuse weather with climate.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 30, 2019, 07:08:17 pm
Transfer payments come from Ottawa, not the provinces. Alberta benefits from them. Canadians, all of them from sea to shining sea, contribute to Ottawa's revenues on the exact 100% same scale.

If anyone can read this with with a straight face, you are one up on me.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on January 30, 2019, 07:39:28 pm
If anyone can read this with with a straight face, you are one up on me.

Please point out any errors in fact.

Whining from a zip code is like those in Beverley Hill whining they pay more taxes.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 30, 2019, 11:47:35 pm
I did just hear on the news the temp. dipped down to -48 somewhere in Wisconsin just now. And that was not wind chill factored in. Lets hope the power stays on down that way.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on January 31, 2019, 06:33:54 am
I suspect the global warming deniers will use the current cold snap in the eastern US as "proof" of their position.

Less and less.  They are starting to remember the summers.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on January 31, 2019, 06:34:39 am
There is really nothing we can do about Global Warming until the World population is reduced significantly, so I suggest keeping the status quo. Besides, since 1961 Alberta has given over $600 billion in transfer payments. We should not mess with that cash cow.

This includes getting rid of the carbon tax, and sending Justin Trudeau to Baffin Island.

All horseshit.  Electric doo dads, windmills etc.  People also don't need 1/2 the **** they consume.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on January 31, 2019, 08:00:13 am
All horseshit.  Electric doo dads, windmills etc.  People also don't need 1/2 the **** they consume.

You better go to China and India, and tell them that. Everyone wants a slice of the pie, and 1/2 of the World population is on the cusp of prosperity.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on January 31, 2019, 09:02:23 am
CO2 is a GHG and the climate is changing. I don't see any doubt there.

weasel wording! You continue to deny that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/CC - yes? As before, as always, please provide your understood/interpreted alternate principal causal tie... your principal alternative other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 - waiting, waiting, waiting (forever... waiting)! 

The questions that matter are whether we can do anything other than adapt.

more schlock weasel wording. There is no legitimacy in you continuing to beak-off about adaptation - not when you have flat-out stated your timeframe for 'even beginning' adaptative measures is some vague testament to "somewhere in the future". Your wait, do-nothing, delay at all costs routine is simply you acting out your perpetual shilling for Big Oil. There is no legitimacy to anyone pushing an 'Adapt Only' policy approach in the absence of (accompanying) prevention and mitigation measures.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on January 31, 2019, 09:26:21 am
You better go to China and India, and tell them that. Everyone wants a slice of the pie, and 1/2 of the World population is on the cusp of prosperity.

no, you better go; while you're there you can tell them to quit making all that shyte/emissions on behalf of Western/developed countries!

(https://i.imgur.com/pHHWdl0.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on January 31, 2019, 09:32:41 am
Besides, since 1961 Alberta has given over $600 billion in transfer payments. We should not mess with that cash cow.

no - you clearly don't understand how transfer payments work... I expect you also struggle with understanding how equalization actually works! If you really want to whine/wail about your perceived "unfairness" to Alberta, you need to also include federal spending within Alberta - and realize whether or not there is a disproportionate lack of spending.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on January 31, 2019, 07:15:04 pm
And you won't see any Telsa taxis for a long time, if ever.
Time is money for taxi drivers and waiting for a charge is expensive. Taxis need the fast refueling that hybrids offer.

Hybrid should be the way of the future. EVs are a pointless distraction.
EV taxi company goes under due to numerous cost pressures:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-montreals-teo-taxi-gravely-underestimated-its-many-economic-pressures/

This caught my eye:
Quote
To make matters worse, Téo underestimated the idling time of its electric vehicles, which require charging for several hours per day. Add to that the overhead associated with owning a fleet of cars and paying employee benefits (challenges Uber avoids through its business model), and Téo’s financial struggles are obvious.
People really do not understand the implications of the refueling time for EVs and that this will make EVs less desirable to anyone who is not a dedicated fan of EVs and willing to put up with their idiosyncrasies.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on January 31, 2019, 08:29:49 pm
I think EV's for commercial use will require some sort of quick change battery system where batteries can be swapped in about the same time it takes to fuel a regular car. Shouldn't be hard to do but it might take purpose built cabs such as London taxis and a standardized battery system between makes.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on January 31, 2019, 09:16:09 pm
EV taxi company goes under due to numerous cost pressures:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-montreals-teo-taxi-gravely-underestimated-its-many-economic-pressures/

This caught my eye:People really do not understand the implications of the refueling time for EVs and that this will make EVs less desirable to anyone who is not a dedicated fan of EVs and willing to put up with their idiosyncrasies.

Elon Musk is waaay ahead of you. Quick charge/long service batteries are emerging, and of course we can set up batteries stations just like we have gas stations, without the pollution
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on January 31, 2019, 10:01:40 pm
It takes 1:15 for a supercharger to fully charge the Model S standard 85 Kw battery, longer for the optional 100 Kw battery. I still think quick change batteries will be necessary for things like cabs which often run 24 hrs with different drivers. I fully expect that to happen.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2019, 04:10:47 pm
An interesting news item on this issue I'm just hearing is than NASA, who's operations have provided scientists with much of the confirmation of global warming issues has had to recently fortify the seawalls surrounding parts of their property lest their launch pads be flooded by rising sea level.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on February 06, 2019, 04:13:43 pm
An interesting news item on this issue I'm just hearing is than NASA, who's operations have provided scientists with much of the confirmation of global warming issues has had to recently fortify the seawalls surrounding parts of their property lest their launch pads be flooded by rising sea level.

Fake news...  they're doing that just to fool people into thinking the seas are rising.   8)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on February 06, 2019, 04:16:36 pm
I've always wandered why NASA just does not launch garbage and other pollutants into space. A 10km wide slingshot could be used to send debris into orbit.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2019, 04:16:47 pm
Fake news...  they're doing that just to fool people into thinking the seas are rising.   8)

You just put words in Tim's mouth.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2019, 04:18:57 pm
I've always wandered why NASA just does not launch garbage and other pollutants into space. A 10km wide slingshot could be used to send debris into orbit.

The residents of the ISS might disagree with you.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 06, 2019, 04:23:33 pm
Fake news...  they're doing that just to fool people into thinking the seas are rising.

I understand they will be repainting the water level scale every other year.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2019, 04:39:08 pm
I'm planning to cash in on it. With a little help from the melting Thwaites Glacier and a couple of others, my place will soon be waterfront. I'll sell and move a ways inland.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 07, 2019, 04:47:19 pm
A bit of a cold snap out here on the coast just now but don't worry, global warming will fix it soon.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144510/2018-was-the-fourth-warmest-year-continuing-long-warming-trend

Global temperatures in 2018 were 0.83 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015. The past five years have been the warmest years in the modern record, and 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2000.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on February 08, 2019, 12:39:44 am
Global temperatures in 2018 were 0.83 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015. The past five years have been the warmest years in the modern record, and 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2000.

(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fcd%2Fcdedf3aa24539de8151babe4dc45dc71aaea609c79abfda1b49284722b67a83a.jpg&hash=d948b9516bc61e3a886ad7f7954aa912c263fd16)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2019, 12:58:23 am
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2Fcd%2Fcdedf3aa24539de8151babe4dc45dc71aaea609c79abfda1b49284722b67a83a.jpg&hash=d948b9516bc61e3a886ad7f7954aa912c263fd16)

Right then. To hell with science. What's in the bowl?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on February 08, 2019, 06:37:54 am
I've always wandered why NASA just does not launch garbage and other pollutants into space. A 10km wide slingshot could be used to send debris into orbit.

Maybe the cost ?  Jeez...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on February 08, 2019, 07:38:45 am
Right then. To hell with science. What's in the bowl?

that's TimG's anti-science bowl... ask him what's in it!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 08, 2019, 08:20:45 am
that's TimG's anti-science bowl... ask him what's in it!
I used to assume you were simply an ideologue that understood the arguments I made but chose to ignore them. I now see that you are simply a clueless idiot who has no idea what science is and how it works and can only cut and paste crap from other locations that you do not actually understand.

So it is laughable for you to claim I am 'anti-science' when you can't even understand the scientific reasoning that goes into my arguments. For example, any competent scientist knows that simply saying that GW may have an effect on fire risk is meaningless unless you compare too other things that also contribute to the risk. But instead of acknowledging the unscientific nature of the question you pose, you throw a fit because I call your bluff and insisted of properly framing the question.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on February 08, 2019, 10:47:54 am
Quote
...scientific reasoning that goes into my arguments.

TimG, you're not a scientist.  You have no expertise.  You have no knowledge of climatology. 

You should get your PhD and refute the common understanding of climate change using the scientific method.  Instead, you're like the anti-vaxers or flat-earthers...   no knowledge of the subject, yet you know the "truth" that all the actual experts are wrong.   ::)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 08, 2019, 01:52:03 pm
I've always wandered why NASA just does not launch garbage and other pollutants into space. A 10km wide slingshot could be used to send debris into orbit.

Assuming your calculations are correct (or even made), is that enough to escape Earth's gravitational field? If not, how do you control their orbit to ensure they don't hit anything (ie. satellites). What is the slingshot made out, and how may times can it be reused before failing? How much energy does it take to stretch the slingshot? Do you have sufficient control over the course vector, or will the material you "launch" potentially hit satellites? What happens if the slingshot breaks?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2019, 02:05:33 pm
Assuming your calculations are correct (or even made), is that enough to escape Earth's gravitational field? If not, how do you control their orbit to ensure they don't hit anything (ie. satellites). What is the slingshot made out, and how may times can it be reused before failing? How much energy does it take to stretch the slingshot? Do you have sufficient control over the course vector, or will the material you "launch" potentially hit satellites? What happens if the slingshot breaks?

Can't find a cite for it just now, but I seem to recall some dude back in the day saying he was gonna use a slingshot to launch a Volkswagen into low earth orbit. Maybe there's a reason we haven't heard much from him lately.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 08, 2019, 03:08:59 pm
TimG, you're not a scientist.  You have no expertise.  You have no knowledge of climatology.
Most of climate science is statistical analysis. The notion that only members of a self appointed club are capable of looking at the issues and developing an informed opinion is pathetic nonsense. There are a lot of people in the world who are more than qualified to comment on climate science and most don't work in the field. Note that almost all major scientific breakthroughs prior to 1900 were made by self taught amateurs. Rejecting opinions without investigation because they don't come from self appointed gatekeepers is a recipe for ignorance.

You should get your PhD and refute the common understanding of climate change using the scientific method.
More pathetic appeals to authority. My problem with climate science as a field is it has abandoned any pretense of impartiality and active promotes political causes. Climate scientists have said on a number of occasions that they will suppress results that don't fit the narrative because they don't want to give ammunition to political opponents. This attitude means nothing they say can be trusted which, in turn, means there are no authorities qualified to speak on climate issues.

I realize that global warming zealots are willful blind the group think in climate science because climate scientists say what they want to here. But the fact that you are blind does not mean it is not a big problem and more importantly, you have no business telling me that I should place my trust in a bunch of left wing zealots pretending to be scientists just because you say I should.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 08, 2019, 03:12:45 pm
I am more qualified to perform brain surgery than any neurosurgeon, I am self taught.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2019, 03:21:40 pm
Most of climate science is statistical analysis. The notion that only members of a self appointed club are capable of looking at the issues and developing an informed opinion is pathetic nonsense. There are a lot of people in the world who are more than qualified to comment on climate science and most don't work in the field. Note that almost all major scientific breakthroughs prior to 1900 were made by self taught amateurs. Rejecting opinions without investigation because they don't come from self appointed gatekeepers is a recipe for ignorance.
More pathetic appeals to authority. My problem with climate science as a field is it has abandoned any pretense of impartiality and active promotes political causes. Climate scientists have said on a number of occasions that they will suppress results that don't fit the narrative because they don't want to give ammunition to political opponents. This attitude means nothing they say can be trusted which, in turn, means there are no authorities qualified to speak on climate issues.

I realize that global warming zealots are willful blind the group think in climate science because climate scientists say what they want to here. But the fact that you are blind does not mean it is not a big problem and more importantly, you have no business telling me that I should place my trust in a bunch of left wing zealots pretending to be scientists just because you say I should.

I presume then that you don't believe in medical science either, and so if for instance someone breaks a leg there is no need to put a cast on as it will simply heal itself. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 08, 2019, 03:44:07 pm
I presume then that you don't believe in medical science either, and so if for instance someone breaks a leg there is no need to put a cast on as it will simply heal itself.
The trouble with these discussions is I have to deal with ideologues that don't actually read the arguments I write and instead respond with strawmen based on whatever delusions they have.

To put it simply: I have a problem with the field of climate science because there is overwhelming evidence that it has been politicized and is no longer willing or able to investigate the science without considering the effect on politics. If major figures and institutions in climate climate acknowledged the problem and made a concerted effort to depoliticize the field then they could regain my trust over a number of years. But there is no sign if this happening.

The net result of politicization is I will automatically assume that any claims by climate scientists are exaggerated and/or misrepresentations of facts even if partially true. I certainly will not agree to dismantle the technological infrastructure we have today based on the word of clearly biased individuals.

What this also means I have no issues with other fields of scientific endevour where science still matters.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2019, 03:50:59 pm
The trouble with these discussions is I have to deal with ideologues that don't actually read the arguments I write and instead respond with strawmen based on whatever delusions they have.

To put it simply: I have a problem with the field of climate science because there is overwhelming evidence that it has been politicized and is no longer willing or able to investigate the science without considering the effect on politics. If major figures and institutions in climate climate acknowledged the problem and made a concerted effort to depoliticize the field then they could regain my trust over a number of years. But there is no sign if this happening.

The net result of politicization is I will automatically assume that any claims by climate scientists are exaggerated and/or misrepresentations of facts even if partially true. I certainly will not agree to dismantle the technological infrastructure we have today based on the word of clearly biased individuals.

What this also means I have no issues with other fields of scientific endevour where science still matters.

Once again you claim to know better than the clear majority of the professional climate scientists. It's just not working for ya.

How would you explain actual sat. photos of over 1.4 million sq. km's of missing arctic ice cap? Or do you just ignore that science?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 08, 2019, 04:01:33 pm
I have a problem with the field of climate science because there is overwhelming evidence that it has been politicized and is no longer willing or able to investigate the science without considering the effect on politics.

The science has not been politicized. Just because political hacks are pretending they know more than the scientists doesn't make the science itself politicized. You are listening to the noise, and then say since the noise is drowning out the science I will discredit the science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 08, 2019, 05:54:08 pm
The science has not been politicized. Just because political hacks are pretending they know more than the scientists doesn't make the science itself politicized. You are listening to the noise, and then say since the noise is drowning out the science I will discredit the science.
Give me break. I have been following this topic for 15+ years and I am seen example after example of credentialed scientists making scientifically sound claims only to be viciously attacked and ostracized by their peers.  I have seen more than one example of climate scientists admitting they suppress adverse results via self censorship or via the peer review system because they don't want to undermine the political cause. And don't get me started on so called scientists defending obvious errors in papers because acknowledging and fixing them would undermine the "cause".

If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves.

But go ahead. Blame it all on a vast right wing conspiracy instead of actually accepting that these people are human and act like humans.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on February 08, 2019, 08:02:11 pm
Quote
If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves

But they don’t have a credibility problem.... 

There are science deniers like yourself trying to paint it that way, but that’s all it is.   It’s like the anti-Vaxers who think they know better than the experts in immunology.  No different. 

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 08, 2019, 09:08:27 pm
The science has not been politicized. Just because political hacks are pretending they know more than the scientists doesn't make the science itself politicized. You are listening to the noise, and then say since the noise is drowning out the science I will discredit the science.

The science seems pretty darned politicized to me.  I would hate to work in this field, you wouldn't know what's real anymore.  I also think it's very difficult to be both a scholar and an activist, no matter the subject, because then you have to deal with confirmation bias.  There's zero room for emotion in science. Not to say there isn't great climate science out there, or that AGW isn't happening and a big problem.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/second-opinion-scientists-data-fudging-1.4861556
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2019, 11:13:25 pm
Give me break. I have been following this topic for 15+ years and I am seen example after example of credentialed scientists making scientifically sound claims only to be viciously attacked and ostracized by their peers.  I have seen more than one example of climate scientists admitting they suppress adverse results via self censorship or via the peer review system because they don't want to undermine the political cause. And don't get me started on so called scientists defending obvious errors in papers because acknowledging and fixing them would undermine the "cause".

If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves.

But go ahead. Blame it all on a vast right wing conspiracy instead of actually accepting that these people are human and act like humans.

So no idea what caused all that ice to melt? Thought so.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 09, 2019, 12:04:10 am
There are science deniers like yourself trying to paint it that way
There is that word again. Please explain what exactly think I am denying? I have said that CO2 is a GHG and the climate changing. My contempt for the ideologues claiming to be climate scientists does not mean I reject findings that have a well founded scientific basis. I only reject claims where is there is no scientific basis other than the opinion of the researcher manipulating the data.

What I also reject are idiotic policies being pushed by progressives who see climate change an excuse to hijack the moral authority of science in order to push their pet policies that have nothing to do with climate. The recent "Green New Deal" released by that Democrat in the US is a text book example. It is filled a progressive wish list of policies while it completely fails to deal with the claimed objective (i.e. it wants to close all nuclear plants in 10 years - a policy that makes zero sense if someone actually cared about CO2 emissions).

Now you can continue call me names and dismiss my legitimate concerns about the politicization of climate science. All that accomplishes is convince me that there is no point looking for compromise policies that would work toward CO2 reductions and I will cheer on Doug and Jason in their attempts to obstruct the modest policies that Trudeau wants to put in.

Or you could get out of your bubble, acknowledge that science is no where near as certain as you would like to believe and try to have a conversation with the people that are numerous enough to ensure that no effective anti-CO2 policy will ever be put in place.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 09, 2019, 12:31:39 am
There is that word again. Please explain what exactly think I am denying? I have said that CO2 is a GHG and the climate changing. My contempt for the ideologues claiming to be climate scientists does not mean I reject findings that have a well founded scientific basis. I only reject claims where is there is no scientific basis other than the opinion of the researcher manipulating the data.

What I also reject are idiotic policies being pushed by progressives who see climate change an excuse to hijack the moral authority of science in order to push their pet policies that have nothing to do with climate. The recent "Green New Deal" released by that Democrat in the US is a text book example. It is filled a progressive wish list of policies while it completely fails to deal with the claimed objective (i.e. it wants to close all nuclear plants in 10 years - a policy that makes zero sense if someone actually cared about CO2 emissions).

Now you can continue call me names and dismiss my legitimate concerns about the politicization of climate science. All that accomplishes is convince me that there is no point looking for compromise policies that would work toward CO2 reductions and I will cheer on Doug and Jason in their attempts to obstruct the modest policies that Trudeau wants to put in.

Or you could get out of your bubble, acknowledge that science is no where near as certain as you would like to believe and try to have a conversation with the people that are numerous enough to ensure that no effective anti-CO2 policy will ever be put in place.

Still no idea about the ice eh? Oh well, Donald Trump agrees with your idea.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on February 09, 2019, 01:33:03 am
Please explain what exactly think I am denying? I have said that CO2 is a GHG and the climate changing.

(https://i.imgur.com/IlZelVU.jpg)

you deny that the principal causal tie to today's relatively recent GW/CC is anthropogenic sourced CO2. When repeatedly challenged to provide your understood/interpreted alternate causal tie, one other than anthropogenic sourced CO2, you refuse to do so.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on February 09, 2019, 01:44:57 am
The science seems pretty darned politicized to me.  I would hate to work in this field, you wouldn't know what's real anymore.

real science is real science... and is inclusive of legitimate skeptical views/papers. The difficulty fake skeptics/deniers have is that their preferred "science" is not prevailing science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on February 09, 2019, 02:12:32 am
If climate scientists have a credibility problem it was one they created themselves.

But go ahead. Blame it all on a vast right wing conspiracy instead of actually accepting that these people are human and act like humans.

ya ya, climate scientists keepin' the poor denier-man down! It is you/your favoured cadre of "blog scientists" that have the credibility problem. As is your forever way, you presume to denigrate the hundreds of thousands of world-wide ethical scientists, simply based on your targeting of a handful of perceived, suspect and/or real circumstance.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on February 19, 2019, 11:13:52 pm
Maybe the cost ?  Jeez...

My attempt at humor falls flat.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on February 22, 2019, 05:52:40 am
My attempt at humor falls flat.

Kudos
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 22, 2019, 03:46:00 pm
People really do not understand the implications of the refueling time for EVs and that this will make EVs less desirable to anyone who is not a dedicated fan of EVs and willing to put up with their idiosyncrasies.

A couple of points to note on TEO taxi.

It was a competitor to Uber, not a real taxi company. The biggest failure was their app gaining popularity.
Most of their vehicles were Kia Soul, they only had a handful of Tesla in the fleet. The Soul has a very limited range.
The parent company Taxelco intends to electrify their regular taxi cab fleets (Diamond Taxi and Hochelaga Taxi).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 22, 2019, 05:23:43 pm
A couple of points to note on TEO taxi.
The point I was making is charging times matter to a business whose profitability depends on having vehicles in motion. It may not be a huge issue when business is slow but during peak times the downtime for charging will impact the bottom line. There will obviously be companies that want to cash in on virtue signaling that comes from a fleet of EVs much like farmers cash in on the organic label but that does not mean that a fleet of EVs is cheaper to run. The devil will be in the detailed calculation of capital cost, maintenance, fuel and downtime across different weather conditions (cold weather increases EV charge times and lowers the range).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 22, 2019, 07:53:43 pm
The point I was making is charging times matter to a business whose profitability depends on having vehicles in motion. It may not be a huge issue when business is slow but during peak times the downtime for charging will impact the bottom line. There will obviously be companies that want to cash in on virtue signaling that comes from a fleet of EVs much like farmers cash in on the organic label but that does not mean that a fleet of EVs is cheaper to run. The devil will be in the detailed calculation of capital cost, maintenance, fuel and downtime across different weather conditions (cold weather increases EV charge times and lowers the range).

Except the downtime issue youy mention has been discussed and you simply have recharge stations with pre-charged batteries so when you need more juice you go to a station and swap out batteries. Probably quicker than you can pump a tank full of gas.

Farmers are able to cash in with the organic label because there are enough shoppers who are happy to pay the higher price for health concerns. The increase in sales of EV's I can imagine comes from the same thinking.

Plus, how can maintenance costs of an EV not be significantly less than than your old gas guzzler when you look at the comparison of moving parts. You can save money while saving the planet.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on February 22, 2019, 08:55:24 pm
@TimG - didn't you have a link that put forward a cohesive argument for risk acceptance with climate change ?  Can you repost it ?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 22, 2019, 10:12:42 pm
@TimG - didn't you have a link that put forward a cohesive argument for risk acceptance with climate change ?  Can you repost it ?
Can you remember anything about who the author was?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 22, 2019, 10:18:45 pm
Donald Trump? Naw, he can't concentrate long enough to get out anything longer than a tweet.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on February 23, 2019, 08:18:56 am
Can you remember anything about who the author was?

Unfortunately no.  My Google Fu doesn't cut it either.  I tried 'Climate Change' 'Risk Acceptance' etc. but it's too general.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 23, 2019, 01:23:27 pm
Except the downtime issue youy mention has been discussed and you simply have recharge stations with pre-charged batteries so when you need more juice you go to a station and swap out batteries. Probably quicker than you can pump a tank full of gas.

Way faster - over twice as fast, Musk demonstrated that years ago.
Replacement demostration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY).
Tesla however never brought the technology to market. I expect a big issue was maintaining a stock of batteries, and dealing with either the concept of a leased battery pack or providing a method to return your original battery pack on a subsequent "refueling". Those issues however would not be real issues for fleet services.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 23, 2019, 02:06:33 pm
Way faster - over twice as fast, Musk demonstrated that years ago.
Yawn. Showing that something can technically be done does not make it economically viable.

I expect a big issue was maintaining a stock of batteries, and dealing with either the concept of a leased battery pack or providing a method to return your original battery pack on a subsequent "refueling". Those issues however would not be real issues for fleet services.
Taxi companies reduce capital costs by buying stock vehicles. Any scenario that required a company to buy specialized vehicles would significantly increase capital costs. On top of this the taxi company would now be responsible for building and maintaining the refueling infrastructure and taxis would be frequently required to return to that central facility (incurring costs and lost revenue) while they make the trip. In the meantime their competitors with ICE vehicles will be laughing at them all the way to the bank.

I am sorry, but that "solution" makes the economic viability of EVs in the taxi industry much much worse.  The fact that Telsa took a pass on the technology once they did the math should have given you pause.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 23, 2019, 02:18:04 pm
On top of this the taxi company would now be responsible for building and maintaining the refueling infrastructure and taxis would be frequently required to return to that central facility (incurring costs and lost revenue) while they make the trip.

Taxi cab companies with company owned fleets often have central garages for repair, refueling, and driver switching. It would also be sensible to locate service facilities near airports and other areas where taxis frequent. Metro taxi companies also use natural gas and have their own facilities for refueling.

Taxi companies reduce capital costs by buying stock vehicles.

Actually taxi companies are far more interested in operating costs than buying stock vehicles. It has always been that way.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 23, 2019, 02:19:13 pm
Yawn. Showing that something can technically be done does not make it economically viable.
Taxi companies reduce capital costs by buying stock vehicles. Any scenario that required a company to buy specialized vehicles would significantly increase capital costs. On top of this the taxi company would now be responsible for building and maintaining the refueling infrastructure and taxis would be frequently required to return to that central facility (incurring costs and lost revenue) while they make the trip. In the meantime their competitors with ICE vehicles will be laughing at them all the way to the bank.

I am sorry, but that "solution" makes the economic viability of EVs in the taxi industry much much worse.  The fact that Telsa took a pass on the technology once they did the math should have given you pause.

Ah no, it won't be the taxi companies who will have to build the recharge stations, it will be the car companies who plan to sell a lot of EV's, especially in the US in the near future. You may have heard of a couple of them, Volkswagen, Porsche.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/18/17252088/vw-porsche-electric-car-charging-station-us
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 23, 2019, 02:30:43 pm
Taxi cab companies with company owned fleets often have central garages for repair, refueling, and driver switching. It would also be sensible to locate service facilities near airports and other areas where taxis frequent. Metro taxi companies also use natural gas and have their own facilities for refueling.
Yet natural gas/propane based cab companies are very rare. That should tell you something about the economic value of using stock vehicles that can be refueled anywhere. Uber's entire business model is built on using stock vehicles.

Actually taxi companies are far more interested in operating costs than buying stock vehicles. It has always been that way.
Capital costs cannot be ignored because cars depreciate and need replacing. That said, the biggest cost for cab companies is down time. A car not carrying paying passengers is losing money. Companies that can minimize that will do better. A company could invest in all of the facilities to keep a fleet of EVs running only to find that a competitor with ICE vehicles is doing better because of more running time.

Of course, running a taxi company in most cities is more about crony capitalism than the free market. So I am sure some cities will simply mandate EVs cabs, ban Uber and force consumers to pay.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 23, 2019, 02:44:48 pm
Uber's entire business model is built on using stock vehicles.

What? Uber doesn't own any vehicles, their entire business model is about passing messages and collecting a commission. Yes, they are experimenting with self driving vehicles which may change their business model in the future, but that is far, far, far from stock vehicles.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 23, 2019, 02:46:04 pm
Taxi cab companies with company owned fleets often have central garages for repair, refueling, and driver switching. It would also be sensible to locate service facilities near airports and other areas where taxis frequent. Metro taxi companies also use natural gas and have their own facilities for refueling.

Actually taxi companies are far more interested in operating costs than buying stock vehicles. It has always been that way.

It has to be at least 10 years ago I arrived at the airport in YYJ and jumped in a cab to go into town. As we pulled away from the curb I realized I wasn't hearing any engine noise. It was my first ride in a Prius. I chatted with the driver on the way and he could not have been happier with this vehicle. He and his brother had bought it and drove it night and day. I can't recall the numbers he quoted me just now but it was a huge savings for them. The vehicle itself was comparable to other 4 door compacts, but the difference in fuel savings was the big deal. There whole fleet for a long time has been either updated hybrids or EV's. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 23, 2019, 02:48:33 pm
What? Uber doesn't own any vehicles, their entire business model is about passing messages and collecting a commission. Yes, they are experimenting with self driving vehicles which may change their business model in the future, but that is far, far, far from stock vehicles.
Their business model depends on individuals buying vehicles and making them available for fares. This is how some tax cab companies work too where the drivers own their own vehicle and the company just provides the name and dispatch services. In both cases the business model depends on *stock* vehicles being used as cabs: models which will do not work if specialized cabs with replaceable battery packs are needed.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 23, 2019, 02:52:05 pm
Their business model depends on individuals buying vehicles and making them available for fares. This is how some tax cab companies work too where the drivers own their own vehicle and the company just provides the name and dispatch services. In both cases the business model depends on *stock* vehicles being used as cabs.

Yeah, like as I pointed out, stock hybrids or EV's.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 23, 2019, 02:53:31 pm
Yeah, like as I pointed out, stock hybrids or EV's.
Stock EVs have a huge problem with recharging times. Such a problem does not exist for hybrids so it is silly to treat them as a comparable tech.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 23, 2019, 03:01:16 pm
I don't know where you are going with the "stock vehicle" argument. Replaceable battery packs are about servicing infrastructure, not the vehicle itself.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 23, 2019, 03:08:25 pm
I don't know where you are going with the "stock vehicle" argument. Replaceable battery packs are about servicing infrastructure, not the vehicle itself.
EVs on the market today have the batteries embedded in the vehicle and cannot be used with replaceable battery packs. A vehicle that can use replaceable battery packs needs to be designed for that purpose. So a taxi company that wanted to use replaceable battery packs would have to acquire specialized vehicles rather than simply buying standard vehicles (i.e. stock vehicles). This will mean higher cost, lower quality and less selection for the vehicles themselves. The cost of the infrastructure would be on top of the extra costs for the vehicles.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 23, 2019, 03:10:51 pm
Stock EVs have a huge problem with recharging times. Such a problem does not exist for hybrids so it is silly to treat them as a comparable tech.

And as those recharge times continue to reduce with improved battery efficiency EV's will continue to catch up.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 23, 2019, 03:15:00 pm
EVs on the market today have the batteries embedded in the vehicle and cannot be used with replaceable battery packs. A vehicle that can use replaceable battery packs needs to be designed for that purpose. So a taxi company that wanted to use replaceable battery packs would have to acquire specialized vehicles rather than simply buying standard vehicles (i.e. stock vehicles). This will mean higher cost, lower quality and less selection for the vehicles themselves. The cost of the infrastructure would be on top of the extra costs for the vehicles.

As has already been pointed out, car manufacturers who plan to sell EV's are also planning to install the infrastructure. Kind of like Exxon investing in Cadillac back in the day.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 23, 2019, 03:24:22 pm
EVs on the market today have the batteries embedded in the vehicle and cannot be used with replaceable battery packs.

Go back to the video I posted above about a stock Tesla model S. It is entirely about the infrastructure. Perhaps there are some vehicles that might make it more difficult, but that is not a general case. The Tesla model 3 is more difficult to swap, although Tesla did file a patent for relevant technology a couple of years ago. From what I understand, the model X is similar to the model S, although nothing has been demonstrated as far as I know.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 23, 2019, 03:48:26 pm
Go back to the video I posted above about a stock Tesla model S. It is entirely about the infrastructure. Perhaps there are some vehicles that might make it more difficult, but that is not a general case. The Tesla model 3 is more difficult to swap, although Tesla did file a patent for relevant technology a couple of years ago. From what I understand, the model X is similar to the model S, although nothing has been demonstrated as far as I know.
There is a huge difference between what Telsa is doing and a generic swappable battery. In the Telsa case a battery designed by Telsa for a specific model can be swapped out but that is way too limiting to support generic infrastructure that can work with vehicles from any manufacturer. There may be cases where a fleet commits to a single model/maker but once they make that commitment they would be locked in because switching to another model/maker would require a brand new pool of batteries.

Remember this is not a debate about what can be technically done. This is a debate about what options are the most cost effective. The disadvantages of EVs are real and they cost money to overcome. Delivering the same service at a higher cost is not progress.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 23, 2019, 03:57:51 pm
There is a huge difference between what Telsa is doing and a generic swappable battery. In the Telsa case a battery designed by Telsa for a specific model can be swapped out but that is way too limiting to support generic infrastructure that can work with vehicles from any manufacturer. There may be cases where a fleet commits to a single model/maker but once they make that commitment they would be locked in because switching to another model/maker would require a brand new pool of batteries.

Remember this is not a debate about what can be technically done. This is a debate about what options are the most cost effective. The disadvantages of EVs are real and they cost money to overcome. Delivering the same service at a higher cost is not progress.

Edison and Tesla got their act together back in the day. That is why you can now plug your US made TV set into the same plug as your Japanese made radio. And, I could take the battery out of my Mazda pickup and put it into my GM pick up.

In other words developing a common interchangeable battery is not really any problem.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2019, 01:13:55 pm
Now here's an interesting way to help fight climate change I hadn't thought of, but scientists in California have found that adding a small amount of seaweed to cows feed removes ~99% of the methane from their burps, (and farts). Cal. has introduced significant methane reduction goals on the cattle farmers in the state and this may provide a relatively easy way for them to meet/exceed them.   

  And who doesn't like a little seaweed? I eat sushi often. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 24, 2019, 02:34:22 pm
removes ~99% of the methane

Were did you get that figure? I heard almost 60% for cattle at the UC Davis study, and in a separate study in Australia they used red algae in the feed of Sheep to cut emissions by about 80%.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2019, 02:37:50 pm
Were did you get that figure? I heard almost 60% for cattle at the UC Davis study, and in a separate study in Australia they used red algae in the feed of Sheep to cut emissions by about 80%.

I forgot to post the cite. Here it is.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cows-seaweed-methane-burps-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change-research-a8368911.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 24, 2019, 02:52:08 pm
I forgot to post the cite. Here it is.

Interesting, most other articles that give numbers do not go that high. Professor Kebreab does not appear to have any recent publications on the topic (last one was in 2016 that I can find). His website does link to a more recent article (https://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/news/research-led-ermias-kebreab-tests-if-seaweed-cuts-methane-emissions-dairy-farms), but all it says is "substantial reductions".
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2019, 03:25:21 pm
Interesting, most other articles that give numbers do not go that high. Professor Kebreab does not appear to have any recent publications on the topic (last one was in 2016 that I can find). His website does link to a more recent article (https://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/news/research-led-ermias-kebreab-tests-if-seaweed-cuts-methane-emissions-dairy-farms), but all it says is "substantial reductions".

The article I posted specifically says their results were initial and surprising and that more work was needed to follow. Other more recent articles show somewhat reduced outcomes, but still well above the requirements California has asked for. (40%) I see others, (Australia) have tried the same approach mixing molasses with the seaweed and feeding it to other animals such as sheep, goats who also emit methane. And India who had similar results and boy they have a lot of cows.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/11/seaweed-may-be-the-solution-for-burping-cows/

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/how-indias-cows-can-save-the-earth-by-feeding-on-seaweed/articleshow/65590210.cms
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 24, 2019, 04:19:26 pm
You do realize that a clever low cost solution will never be good enough for climate alarmists because it is not really about reducing GHGs: it is about forcing people to adopt "approved"
 lifestyles and getting rid of industries which the alarmists don't like. In this case, it is meat eating culture which is the problem rather than the cows.

It would be a lot easier to come up with rational solutions if this debate was actually about reducing GHGs (e.g. by building nuclear power plants).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2019, 04:35:08 pm
You do realize that a clever low cost solution will never be good enough for climate alarmists because it is not really about reducing GHGs: it is about forcing people to adopt "approved"
 lifestyles and getting rid of industries which the alarmists don't like. In this case, it is meat eating culture which is the problem rather than the cows.

It would be a lot easier to come up with rational solutions if this debate was actually about reducing GHGs (e.g. by building nuclear power plants).

You make some rather silly assumptions. Climate alarmists are actually all about reducing GHG's. (Have you been living under a rock)?
If we can accomplish a significant step toward that reduction by simply modifying the food intake of cows, which produce a lot of methane, (which a serious GHG, much worse than CO2) no one is going to take your steak away from you. Building nuclear power plants so you don't have to inhale coal smoke is another step.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on February 24, 2019, 04:46:58 pm
Building nuclear power plants so you don't have to inhale coal smoke is another step.
Yet climate alarmists like AOC in her "Green New Deal" want to shut down the nuclear plants that are already ready built. Building new ones is absolutely out of the question.

It makes no difference if you think nukes are fine, I am simply pointing out the toxic political dynamic that exists and because of that toxic environment it has become impossible to have a rational discussion on what can be done given the technology available.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 24, 2019, 05:04:34 pm
Yet climate alarmists like AOC in her "Green New Deal" want to shut down the nuclear plants that are already ready built. Building new ones is absolutely out of the question.

It makes no difference if you think nukes are fine, I am simply pointing out the toxic political dynamic that exists and because of that toxic environment it has become impossible to have a rational discussion on what can be done given the technology available.

I myself am in favor of nuclear power however they take ~20 years to build, and science shows us that the increasing advance of global warming requires remedies sooner than that. So start feeding your cows a bit of seaweed.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on February 25, 2019, 12:15:47 pm
Yet climate alarmists like AOC in her "Green New Deal" want to shut down the nuclear plants that are already ready built. Building new ones is absolutely out of the question.

It makes no difference if you think nukes are fine, I am simply pointing out the toxic political dynamic that exists and because of that toxic environment it has become impossible to have a rational discussion on what can be done given the technology available.

of course that resolution has no relation/attachment to the actual 'real-deal' Green New Deal (GND) that originates from 2008 on... the real GND that doesn't take any 'tools off the table', including nuclear and fossil-fuels (that is, fossil-fuels leveraging carbon-capture). AOC is just noise in the mix; however, as I recall, their anti-nuclear stance was somewhat pulled back after receiving significant criticisms - I note some of their more profiled advocates are accepting to "advanced nuclear" (i.e., 4th/5th gen).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on February 25, 2019, 04:45:25 pm
Yet climate alarmists like AOC in her "Green New Deal" want to shut down the nuclear plants that are already ready built. Building new ones is absolutely out of the question.

Actually there is very healthy debate among climate realists. AOC plan does not include nuclear, but it also does not say shut down existing ones. She specifically addressed that as transition off of nuclear to renewables. It is climate denier extremists that are twisting her and others words to support their unrealistic ideals.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on February 25, 2019, 05:10:44 pm
Actually there is very healthy debate among climate realists. AOC plan does not include nuclear, but it also does not say shut down existing ones. She specifically addressed that as transition off of nuclear to renewables. It is climate denier extremists that are twisting her and others words to support their unrealistic ideals.

And, surprise, surprise, one of those well known climate denier extremists is planning to set up a panel of a hand picked group of same to attempt to overturn his own governments findings on climate change.

"The White House plans to create an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet, according to three senior administration officials."

And of course Trump is setting up his panel in such a way as to be able to hide in a backroom somewhere and then once his panel concludes what he wants them to, he can say, there's no climate change, my special panel tells me so.

"The Federal Advisory Committee Act imposes several ground rules for such panels, including that they meet in public, are subject to public records requests and include a representative membership. The new working group, by contrast, would not be subject to any of those requirements."

And of course there's no surprise that William Happer will likely head up this group. Well aside from the fact he's not a climate scientist.n

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-to-select-federal-scientists-to-reassess-government-climate-findings-sources-say/2019/02/24/49cd0a84-37dd-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html?utm_term=.c294c59561fa
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on March 19, 2019, 03:22:22 pm
I have a crazy yet simple way to fight climate change and GHG emissions:

People should go to bed shortly after the sun goes down, and wake up when the sun rises.  You know, like humans did for 99.99999% of human history prior to the invention of the lightbulb.

When I was younger I used to go fishing on a remote lake in the middle of nowhere.  You had to fly by small pontoon plane to get to this lake, not even road accessible.  Well, obviously there was no hydro to the cabin we stayed in.  We relied on gas-powered generator to keep the fridge running.  No flush toilet, just an outhouse.  At night we shut the generator off to save gas.  In the summer sundown was 9pm-ish, so lights out.  We woke up at dawn and went fishing.  It was kind of neat.  There was nothing to do at night anyways, no cable TV, no internet, no cell phones, maybe a game of cards by lantern.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on March 19, 2019, 03:27:58 pm
People should go to bed shortly after the sun goes down, and wake up when the sun rises.

Astronomers would disagree.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on March 19, 2019, 03:51:33 pm
Astronomers would disagree.

Not to mention seafarers who can't afford a GPS.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on April 06, 2019, 12:36:19 pm
hey poochy... re: your stated, "How to lie with statistics" - how so poochy, how so?

that study: Canada’s Changing Climate Report (https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/)

Quote
There is very high confidence that temperature datasets are sufficiently reliable for computing regional averages of temperature for southern Canada from 1900 to present and for northern Canada from 1948 to present.

Both past and future warming in Canada is, on average, about double the magnitude of global warming. Northern Canada has warmed and will continue to warm at even more than double the global rate. {4.2}

Temperature has increased in all regions of Canada and in the surrounding oceans. Since 1948, when nation-wide records became available, Canada’s annual average temperature over land has warmed by a best estimate of 1.7°C, with higher temperature increases observed in the North, the Prairies, and northern British Columbia. Annual average temperature over northern Canada increased by 2.3°C since 1948. The greatest warming has occurred in winter. {4.2}
(https://changingclimate.ca/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/03/Figure-4.3-ES1_SE1.png)
Observed changes (°C) in annual temperature across Canada between 1948 and 2016


That study could have been titled, How to lie with statistics.

No doubt just a coincidence it appeared the same day the carbon tax was inflicted.
And a recent study showed that Canada is warming at a faster rate than other countries.

But whatever, let's continue turning Alberta into the surface of the Moon.
Liberal government climate change propoganda "leaked" to CBC News the day the carbon tax goes into effect. This is utterly disgusting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-warming-at-twice-the-global-rate-leaked-report-finds-1.5079765
It looks like the government in power used Environment Canada to create a report in order to sell the public on their carbon tax policy, and then it was "leaked" to CBC News and put as the #1 headline on the site the same day the carbon tax went into effect.  How is that a coincidence? This should disturb everyone regardless of party or ideology, and regardless of what anyone feels about the science or the carbon tax.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 06, 2019, 03:23:16 pm
And now that the ice is all melting the Russian, for one, are racing up to their northern shores to A: build a number of military bases, and B: drill for ever more oil. Obviously Putin couldn't care less about the planets future, he just wants to cash in any way he can right now.

The race for the Arctic is heating up, as the region's estimated huge oil and gas reserves are expected to become more accessible as climate change accelerates the rate of ice melt.
Putin has described the Arctic as "the most important region that will provide for the future of Russia" and created a new Ministry for Far East and Arctic Development. In a presidential decree issued shortly after his 2018 inauguration, Putin ordered a tenfold increase of shipping traffic via Northern Sea Route by 2024.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/04/europe/russia-arctic-kotelny-island-military-base/index.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 07, 2019, 04:08:43 am
Nothing can be done about climate change.  Anyone who thinks differently is naive, and has no understanding of human nature.

Call me cynical, but the only way to stop climate change is to eliminate 2/3 of the human population.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on April 07, 2019, 06:48:05 am
Nothing can be done about climate change.  Anyone who thinks differently is naive, and has no understanding of human nature.

Call me cynical, but the only way to stop climate change is to eliminate 2/3 of the human population.

Leadership convinced people that there were gods, so convincing them of something real should be easier.  We just need the generation of the selfish mindset to die off completely (ie. mine).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 07, 2019, 09:55:21 am
Leadership convinced people that there were gods, so convincing them of something real should be easier.  We just need the generation of the selfish mindset to die off completely (ie. mine).

Never going to happen, unfortunately...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 07, 2019, 10:17:33 am
We just need the generation of the selfish mindset to die off completely (ie. mine).
The "selfish mindset" can be found in most people who claim to care about climate change but only if that means people other than them are expected to pay the costs of the regulations they advocate. The so called "selfish" mindset of the old often comes from an understanding of how the world works and what is possible and what is not possible. It is more fatalism than selfishness.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on April 07, 2019, 10:57:33 am
Never going to happen, unfortunately...

Sure.  The generation before boomers was community minded too. This will pass.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 07, 2019, 11:45:17 am
Nothing can be done about climate change.  Anyone who thinks differently is naive, and has no understanding of human nature.

Call me cynical, but the only way to stop climate change is to eliminate 2/3 of the human population.

How about eliminating coal fired power plants. How about eliminating the more than 1 billion cars driving around spewing exhaust and replacing at least a portion with EV.s. We have the technology so why not use it instead of, as MH points out below, being duped like the religious folks.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on April 07, 2019, 03:19:39 pm
The "selfish mindset" can be found in most people who claim to care about climate change but only if that means people other than them are expected to pay the costs of the regulations they advocate. The so called "selfish" mindset of the old often comes from an understanding of how the world works and what is possible and what is not possible. It is more fatalism than selfishness.

I think the 'selfish mindset' is more typically likely to project that all folks are motivated by selfish motives. They often expect that the 'normal' response to a situation is to give nothing to help the community.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 07, 2019, 03:28:21 pm
I think the 'selfish mindset' is more typically likely to project that all folks are motivated by selfish motives. They often expect that the 'normal' response to a situation is to give nothing to help the community.
I am simply stating facts. Climate chicken-littles always want to destroy other peoples livelihoods. They never volunteer to destroy their own. This is human nature. In BC we have the  LNG and coal exports not mention a rapid increase in cargo shipping yet many of the people opposing trans-mountain say nothing about CO2 emissions or whales when BC jobs are at stake. People are fundamentally selfish whether you want to acknowledge it or not. So please don't try to pretend that climate chicken littles are altruists. It is nonsense and you know it. People only care about climate change as long as they are not asked to make big sacrifices. There is numerous polls that support that last statement.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/01/01/people-will-pay-to-stop-climate-change-but-only-5/#7944fc8423e4

Quote
People who worry about human-caused climate change are willing to pay higher energy bills to help stop it, but only up to 5 percent higher, or about $5 on the average American energy bill, according to a Harvard political scientist who has conducted a comprehensive survey of attitudes toward energy and climate for the last 12 years.
...
"People are not willing to really put their dollars—even people who say they are concerned about global warming—are not willing to put their dollars where their hearts are," Ansolabehere told a gathering of climate scientists
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 07, 2019, 03:37:14 pm
I am simply stating facts. Climate chicken-littles always want to destroy other peoples livelihoods. They never volunteer to destroy their own. This is human nature. In BC we have the  LNG and coal exports not mention a rapid increase in cargo shipping yet many of the people opposing trans-mountain say nothing about CO2 emissions or whales when BC jobs are at stake. People are fundamentally selfish whether you want to acknowledge it or not. So please don't try to pretend that climate chicken littles are altruists. It is nonsense and you know it. People only care about climate change as long as they are not asked to make big sacrifices. There is numerous polls that support that last statement.

So you don't think peoples livelihoods will be "destroyed" when we suck that last bbl of oil out of the ground? That is going to happen even if you put you hands over your eyes and your fingers in your ears. Why not plan for that day before it arrives, and maybe we save a lot of lives, not just livelihoods in the process.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 07, 2019, 03:41:20 pm
So you don't think peoples livelihoods will be "destroyed" when we suck that last bbl of oil out of the ground? That is going to happen even if you put you hands over your eyes and your fingers in your ears. Why not plan for that day before it arrives, and maybe we save a lot of lives, not just livelihoods in the process.
Overpopulation is a biggest concern. What are you willing to do about that? Oh right. Absolutely nothing. I guess I should call you an overpopulation denier.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on April 07, 2019, 03:46:45 pm
Overpopulation is a biggest concern. What are you willing to do about that? Oh right. Absolutely nothing. I guess I should call you an overpopulation denier.

Yes, all (Jews, Cambodian Viets/Chinese/Cham/Lao/Thai, Tutsis, non-whites, etc.) should be eliminated and that will solve all our problems.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on April 07, 2019, 03:51:08 pm
I am simply stating facts.

This is not a fact: "most people who claim to care about climate change but only if that means people other than them are expected to pay the costs of the regulations they advocate"  It's an opinion on group values.  It's like if I *were* to say "most rich people don't care if they destroy the planet".

Quote
Climate chicken-littles always want to destroy other peoples livelihoods. They never volunteer to destroy their own. This is human nature. In BC we have the  LNG and coal exports not mention a rapid increase in cargo shipping yet many of the people opposing trans-mountain say nothing about CO2 emissions or whales when BC jobs are at stake.

And yet, people who are concerned about climate change aren't fussing about a 5 cent hike on gas while others are protesting loudly.

Quote
People are fundamentally selfish whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

it's a topic that is the subject of many discussions over the ages.  If it's partially true, people are also altruistic and the interplay between those human characteristics define how societies work.

Quote
So please don't try to pretend that climate chicken littles are altruists. It is nonsense and you know it.

Also claiming that I "know" that your group value opinion is bizarre.  The implication is that I'm on here lying, I guess.

Quote
People only care about climate change as long as they are not asked to make big sacrifices. There is numerous polls that support that last statement.

Ok... The carbon tax is pay now vs. pay later.  The big sacrifices are in converting to new energy sources, reducing CO2.  What is the estimate again ?  I think it's less than 5% of GDP.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 07, 2019, 03:58:09 pm
Yes, all (Jews, Cambodian Viets/Chinese/Cham/Lao/Thai, Tutsis, non-whites, etc.) should be eliminated and that will solve all our problems.
Which is my point. Just because a problem exists it does not automatically follow that we should pay whatever cost is needed to deal with it. Sometimes we have to choose to live with a problem and deal with the consequences as best as we can.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 07, 2019, 04:05:23 pm
Ok... The carbon tax is pay now vs. pay later.  The big sacrifices are in converting to new energy sources, reducing CO2.  What is the estimate again ?  I think it's less than 5% of GDP.
Two can play at that game. The medium estimate of the cost of climate change is it would shave 2% off world GDP by 2100. Seems to me that adapting is the lower cost option. Of course, you don't like to look at the full range estimates of the cost of adaptation - you just want to focus on the catastrophic estimates which is not a lot different from the rhetoric we get from the carbon tax opponents. FWIW, i am not against a carbon tax as long as we dispense with the silly notion that we will reduce emissions by X amount by Y date. As long as our climate policy it driven by nonsensical targets that cannot be met then the climate policy will be nonsense.

https://reason.com/archives/2014/08/29/climate-change-costs-by-2100
Quote
The adaptation report reckons that if the world takes no steps to deal with climate change, and temperatures increase by around 2 degrees Celsius, the annual economic losses will be "between 0.2 and 2.0% of income." It adds, "Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range."

What about mitigation? Making the heroic set of assumptions that all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, that everyone adopts the same carbon price, and that all key low- and no-carbon technologies are now available, keeping carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million by 2100 would reduce consumption growth "by 0.04 to 0.14 percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6 percent and 3 percent per year." The median estimate for the reduced annual growth in consumption is 0.06 percent.

The last line of that neatly dispenses with the notion that it is some how more ethical to act now:
Quote
"Most philosophers and economists hold that rich generations have a lower ethical claim on resources than poorer generations," observes the Yale economist William Nordhaus. How much should people living on incomes averaging $10,000 a year now spend to make sure that people whose incomes will likely be many-fold higher don't see their wealth reduced by a couple of percentage points?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 07, 2019, 04:23:13 pm
Which is my point. Just because a problem exists it does not automatically follow that we should pay whatever cost is needed to deal with it. Sometimes we have to choose to live with a problem and deal with the consequences as best as we can.

Now there's the head in the sand approach if ever I've heard one. We caused the problem so we can fix it. We have lived here a long time before we discovered fossil fuels and so we can use our technology, and brains, to continue living here without it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on April 07, 2019, 05:31:25 pm
Two can play at that game. The medium estimate of the cost of climate change is it would shave 2% off world GDP by 2100. Seems to me that adapting is the lower cost option.

Actually, your post validates that it was YOU I got this from.  Whether or not we opt for accepting risk/adapting the costs are generally low when spread out per person.  Of course the cost is higher to you if, for example, you work in the energy industry.  That's a shame but if you *haven't* been impacted by macroeconomic forces in the last 20 years, where do you work ?  (I have)

Quote
Of course, you don't like to look at the full range estimates of the cost of adaptation - you just want to focus on the catastrophic estimates which is not a lot different from the rhetoric we get from the carbon tax opponents. FWIW, i am not against a carbon tax as long as we dispense with the silly notion that we will reduce emissions by X amount by Y date. As long as our climate policy it driven by nonsensical targets that cannot be met then the climate policy will be nonsense.

Now you're drifting back to climate change arguments in general.  I was just talking about your assertion that people who favour doing something are selfish, will not be impacted at all etc. 

Glad to hear you aren't against the carbon tax.

BTW - just so you know I am actually not a poser, I have fully accepted adaption as a 'plan b' argument and am not against it - presumably in the same way you're not against a carbon tax !  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 07, 2019, 09:57:11 pm
For the two persons that down voted me for speaking the truth:

I would love to see them sell their car and home, bike everywhere, and live in a tent somewhere. If you really care about the Earth, you will do it.  Squid and Impact, I believe in you both.  People have survived camping out on rooftops in -30C weather for good causes.  I believe you can survive and even set an example to young people everywhere
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 07, 2019, 10:00:28 pm
Now there's the head in the sand approach if ever I've heard one. We caused the problem so we can fix it. We have lived here a long time before we discovered fossil fuels and so we can use our technology, and brains, to continue living here without it.

We cannot fix it, and continue to live the quality of life that we enjoy.

The only thing that will fix global warming, is the eradication of the human race.

Since that is improbable, we may as well adept to it the best we can, and try to curtail CO emissions as best we can, even though it will not make any difference, since there will always be countries out there that will ignore any kind of environmental regulations.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 07, 2019, 10:19:51 pm
We cannot fix it, and continue to live the quality of life that we enjoy.

The only thing that will fix global warming, is the eradication of the human race.

Since that is improbable, we may as well adept to it the best we can, and try to curtail CO emissions as best we can, even though it will not make any difference, since there will always be countries out there that will ignore any kind of environmental regulations.

I dunno, I could enjoy watching tv just as much if the power came from a nuclear plant or a wind turbine. Just keep your god damn coal plant in your back yard OK?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 07, 2019, 11:28:50 pm
We have known about climate change for close to 50 years. Yet, it is only accelerating.  The only way people will change, if there is some type of catastrophic event that occurs, and even then, judging by human history, the most likely scenario will be war.  It's a sad commentary on human nature, but regardless, it is true.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: cybercoma on April 08, 2019, 08:56:02 am
Overpopulation is a biggest concern.
Uh...no it isn't. It's pretty widely acknowledged that there's been a demographic shift were fertility has fallen below replacement in most areas of the world and it's assumed that this will also happen in the developing areas (it already has in many before they even reached the economic milestones that we used to assume they needed to meet).

Climate change is a far bigger concern with far more dire consequences.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on April 08, 2019, 09:06:00 am
Nothing can be done about climate change. 
... the only way to stop climate change is to eliminate 2/3 of the human population.
So ... humans do contribute to climate change, and something can be done about it.
We agree on that, though perhaps not on what's to be done about it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 08, 2019, 12:12:08 pm
So ... humans do contribute to climate change, and something can be done about it.
We agree on that, though perhaps not on what's to be done about it.

Only one way to stop climate change:  kill of all homo-sapiens..
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 08, 2019, 12:35:14 pm
Only one way to stop climate change:  kill of all homo-sapiens..

Again, we have lived on this planet a long time before we discoverd oil, and we can continue to live here without it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on April 08, 2019, 03:27:20 pm
I would love to see them sell their car and home, bike everywhere, and live in a tent somewhere

..­. What a false equivalence. There is plenty of middle ground, but you are unwilling to make any changes.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 08, 2019, 04:17:47 pm
Uh...no it isn't. It's pretty widely acknowledged that there's been a demographic shift were fertility has fallen below replacement in most areas of the world and it's assumed that this will also happen in the developing areas (it already has in many before they even reached the economic milestones that we used to assume they needed to meet).
Providing for each person living in Canada requires a minimum amount of energy. That amount is not going to go down because you really want it to and a lot of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Every person we add this country increases the energy demands and fossil consumption. Every country in the world wants a standard of living live we enjoy in Canada and will face the same problem where more people means more energy demands which cannot be fulfilled by building wind mills. It other words, you can't deal with the CO2 emission as long as endless population is considered acceptable.

Climate change is a far bigger concern with far more dire consequences.
Then why aren't climate alarmists demanding that we build more nuclear power? Perhaps because most climate alarmists are liars and don't really believe it is a crisis. It is only a problem that does not require them to make sacrifices by accepting lesser risks like nuclear power. But these snivelling  hypocrites are more than willing to ask government to force other people to make sacrifices/compromises when they refuse to make any for themselves. Why should anyone take such people seriously?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on April 08, 2019, 04:21:29 pm
Providing for each person living in Canada requires a minimum amount of energy. That amount is not going to go down because you really want it to and a lot of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

That amount can go down dramatically through the use of technology and lifestyle changes. There is no need to heat and air condition your 5600 sq ft mansion with little insulation and windows wide open, and drive to the corner store in your SUV.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 08, 2019, 04:26:10 pm
Many of those "sniveling hypocrites" are actually educated scientists who work for the government and so they base their findings on what they see, not some bullshit money bag you always seem to suggest exists. Once again, take a gd look at teh ice melt at the poles. Or do you think the sat. photos are phonied up by payments from the same "money bag"?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 08, 2019, 05:21:22 pm
That amount can go down dramatically through the use of technology and lifestyle changes. There is no need to heat and air condition your 5600 sq ft mansion with little insulation and windows wide open, and drive to the corner store in your SUV.
Right. Any lifestyle choice that you don't need is "optional" and a waste. Any lifestyle choice that you want is essential. Got it.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on April 08, 2019, 05:23:41 pm
Right. Any lifestyle choice that you don't need is "optional" and a waste. Any lifestyle choice that you want is essential. Got it.

I didn't say any, I suggest you stop with the over the top rhetoric. It is the extremes that need to be addressed.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on April 08, 2019, 05:36:11 pm
Again, we have lived on this planet a long time before we discoverd oil, and we can continue to live here without it.

What on Earth are you talking about?  You do realize that global warming is caused by more than oil, do you not? 

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 08, 2019, 05:44:15 pm
What on Earth are you talking about?  You do realize that global warming is caused by more than oil, do you not?

Oil, coal, gasoline, cow farts, but mostly CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on April 08, 2019, 05:48:23 pm
You do realize that global warming is caused by more than oil, do you not?


Fossil fuels are certainly a major contributor. Yes, deforestation and concrete production are other major ones. In Canada, fossil fuels account for about 80% of our GHG emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 08, 2019, 06:19:45 pm
I didn't say any, I suggest you stop with the over the top rhetoric. It is the extremes that need to be addressed.
What you call extremes either don't happen frequently enough to matter or other people see as essential. Reducing energy consumption means forcing people to live without conveniences they have come to see as essential. The only way to deal with the CO2 problem is to provide a reliable alternate source of energy that does not require CO2 emissions. At this point nuclear power is only option available but it is rejected by many because it offends the sensibilities of many of the people claiming that CO2 is a crisis.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 08, 2019, 07:16:15 pm
What you call extremes either don't happen frequently enough to matter or other people see as essential. Reducing energy consumption means forcing people to live without conveniences they have come to see as essential. The only way to deal with the CO2 problem is to provide a reliable alternate source of energy that does not require CO2 emissions. At this point nuclear power is only option available but it is rejected by many because it offends the sensibilities of many of the people claiming that CO2 is a crisis.

So is installing a programmable stat that causes your furnace to drop the temp. over night while you sleep and warms it back up before you get up an inconvenience? Is planning to drive to the mall once to get all the shopping done instead of three times an inconvenience? People are already doing that so your argument on that level falls short yet again. On the bigger scale, I suspect your anti nuclear comments are based on what AOC has said. She's just one mouthpiece. I suspect you will see nuclear expansion before long.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on April 16, 2019, 01:59:36 pm
At this point nuclear power is only option available but it is rejected by many because it offends the sensibilities of many of the people claiming that CO2 is a crisis.

1. bio-diesel from vegetable oil and fats
2. methanol, ethanol, butane, propane, natural gas
2. algae fuel
3. wind
4. hydrogen
5. solar
6. walking
7. cycling
8. thermal (using the ground and rocks to store heat and cold)
9. hydro-electricity
10. steam
11. forced water streams.

We have patents, industrial designs, for all kinds of alternative technologies. The question is who controls the rights to these inventions and techniques....ask them what they intend to do with them.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 16, 2019, 02:31:23 pm
We have patents, industrial designs, for all kinds of alternative technologies. The question is who controls the rights to these inventions and techniques....ask them what they intend to do with them.
A common mistake people make is to assume that just because a technology exists that it must be possible to use at a large scale. Nothing could be further from the truth. Energy production is extremely sensitive to economics. i.e. the energy produced must be much more valuable that the resources consumed to produce it where the resources consumed include fuel but also capital investment. On top of that you have a hierarchy of energy where liquid fuel is more valuable than dispatch-able or baseload electricity which is more valuable that intermittent electricity (e.g. wind).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 16, 2019, 02:36:37 pm
A common mistake people make is to assume that just because a technology exists that it must be possible to use at a large scale. Nothing could be further from the truth. Energy production is extremely sensitive to economics. i.e. the energy produced must be much more valuable that the resources consumed to produce it where the resources consumed include fuel but also capital investment. On top of that you have a hierarchy of energy where liquid fuel is more valuable than dispatch-able or baseload electricity which is more valuable that intermittent electricity (e.g. wind).
So have you not heard that hydro technology is being used on a large scale? And why would you think that energy produced by renewables is somehow less valuable than that produced by burning fossil's?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 18, 2019, 02:27:43 pm
This op really resonates with me:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tristin-hopper-how-environmentalists-killed-rachel-notleys-government?video_autoplay=true

Quote
You may have noticed that Conservatives everywhere have been losing their goddamned minds over the carbon tax. It’s a “tax on everything,” it’s “job killing,” yada, yada, yada. You can dismiss them as a bunch of climate truthers who hate the earth. Or, maybe they’re cynically tapping into a public mood that is reacting against a green movement that is increasingly uncompromising and unreasonable.

You know what I’m talking about. Cities like Victoria and Whistler suing oil companies for climate change, even while they preside over vast carbon-dependent economies: I’m looking at you, heli-skiing. A green movement that is manically opposed to nuclear energy, even if by simple mathematics, you cannot feasibly run the power grid on renewables. Lauding a fringe group of protesters who illegally blockade an LNG pipeline project that has unprecedented amounts of Indigenous buy-in and is a net boon to global emissions reduction because it will be supplanting coal power in China. Prominent environmentalist voices who are openly saying that we can’t save the climate without “smashing capitalism.”

A lot of people have been watching this unfold, and they are coming to the not unreasonable conclusion that no matter what they do, the green movement’s going to hate it, so screw it: Coal plants and Jason Kenney forever. You can talk all you want about the existential risk of climate change and the need to take radical action immediately. You’ve got science on your side, green movement. But if the Alberta election is any lesson, people aren’t going to be inclined to listen to you if you’re a dick about it.
The criticism will, of course, be completely lost on the various climate alarmists who think screaming "denier" is a useful technique to persuade people.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2019, 02:41:36 pm
This op really resonates with me:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/tristin-hopper-how-environmentalists-killed-rachel-notleys-government?video_autoplay=true
The criticism will, of course, be completely lost on the various climate alarmists who think screaming "denier" is a useful technique to persuade people.

Polls suggest about a third of Canadians buy this nonsense. The rest rely on actual climate scientists for guidance.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on April 18, 2019, 03:55:03 pm
The criticism will, of course, be completely lost on the various climate alarmists who think screaming "denier" is a useful technique to persuade people.

there's no screaming in naming you a denier - simply a matter-of-fact labeling
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 18, 2019, 04:00:19 pm
there's no screaming in naming you a denier - simply a matter-of-fact labeling
What wonderful evidence of why nothing you say can be taken seriously because you simply do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on April 18, 2019, 04:58:38 pm
What wonderful evidence of why nothing you say can be taken seriously because you simply do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.

No one screams at flat-earthers either...  they're just ignored because they are so bloody ridiculous no one can take them seriously.  Deny science all you want...  you'll just have to do it from the sidelines with other fringe groups while the adults make decisions.

Unfortunately, there are people like you in conservative politics.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 18, 2019, 05:39:52 pm
No one screams at flat-earthers either...  they're just ignored because they are so bloody ridiculous no one can take them seriously.  Deny science all you want...  you'll just have to do it from the sidelines with other fringe groups while the adults make decisions.
That's rich. You have no clue what the science says and does not say yet you have the nerve to lecture others on "denying" science. All your do is spout nonsense you read in the media which often has nothing to do with what was actually reported in the literature.

Unfortunately, there are people like you in conservative politics.
Unfortunately there are way to many people like you who prefer to call people names rather than attempt to understand the complex questions involved.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 18, 2019, 08:49:43 pm
That's rich. You have no clue what the science says and does not say yet you have the nerve to lecture others on "denying" science. All your do is spout nonsense you read in the media which often has nothing to do with what was actually reported in the literature.
Unfortunately there are way to many people like you who prefer to call people names rather than attempt to understand the complex questions involved.

You still have never given your explanation of where all that 1.4 million sq.kms. of ice went from the arctic ice cap. I'll get the popcorn.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on April 19, 2019, 11:33:35 am
What wonderful evidence of why nothing you say can be taken seriously because you simply do not understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.

instead of whining about it, if you had a capability to counter the denier label, you would. You can't. You have been given many opportunities to do so. You deny that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to global warming/climate change... and you refuse to provide your interpreted understanding of an alternative principal causal tie. That's not an opinion; rather, that factual as borne out over the years on multiple board postings.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Rue on April 22, 2019, 10:10:58 am
A common mistake people make is to assume that just because a technology exists that it must be possible to use at a large scale. Nothing could be further from the truth. Energy production is extremely sensitive to economics. i.e. the energy produced must be much more valuable that the resources consumed to produce it where the resources consumed include fuel but also capital investment. On top of that you have a hierarchy of energy where liquid fuel is more valuable than dispatch-able or baseload electricity which is more valuable that intermittent electricity (e.g. wind).

Going large scale can happen once patents do not prevent the wide application of a particular technological process. intellectual property rights can and do prevent this. The sources I listed were done on purpose because in fact they could be implemented on large scale. In fact they could be used by all of us in daily life.

With due respect  nothing I listed has production issues. Can you think of any?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on April 22, 2019, 11:14:42 am
Going large scale can happen once patents do not prevent the wide application of a particular technological process. intellectual property rights can and do prevent this. The sources I listed were done on purpose because in fact they could be implemented on large scale. In fact they could be used by all of us in daily life.

With due respect  nothing I listed has production issues. Can you think of any?
1) Patents are non-issue. Owners of these kinds of patents make more money on volume so they have a financial incentive to license at a reasonable cost. If technology is not deployed it is because of things other than patent costs.

2) If a hypothetical patent holder did try to block the deployment of cheap alternatives that patent would be ignored and/or removed by legislation very quickly. Patent holders only have rights when the government thinks there is a public interest in letting them keep those rights.  It would not take much lobbying by renewable power advocates to put an end to any attempt to block the use of technology.

3) You listed a bunch of alternatives (such of which were irrelevant like walking) but let's pick one "algae fuel". Yes it is possible to produce liquid fuel with algae and it is being done at significant scale today. The trouble is the process consumes energy, water and labour. When you do the math it would take $800/barrel oil to make it economically viable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#Economic_viability

This is an example of what I meant when I said, that just because a technology exists that does not mean it is a viable replacement for fossil fuels. This statement is often true if one assumes that costs come down as production scale increases (the link explains why, even if produced at very large volumes, algae fuel is too expensive).

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2019, 12:05:30 pm
I don't think it's patents that are slowing down advancement toward renewable energy production, and, contrary to what some people around here seem to think, the ever increasing evidence of the need to make advances in the field is not provided by paid off scientists, but is in fact thwarted by the strangle hold the fossil fuel producers have on our economies.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on April 22, 2019, 03:30:41 pm
Roll up your pant legs and get out your wallets as global warming raises both water levels and insurance rates.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-climate-fuelled-flooding-is-canadas-costliest-and-fastest-growing/


“We have a growing adaptation deficit in Canada, and we’ve got to reverse that trend,” said Blair Feltmate, head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo.

A new report from the think tank pegs flooding in major urban centres as Canada’s costliest and fastest-growing extreme-weather challenge, with implications for everything from residential insurance premiums to municipal credit ratings.

It cites data from the Insurance Bureau of Canada that show payouts for catastrophic losses jumped from an average $405-million a year between 1983 and 2008 to a yearly average of $1.8-billion since 2009, with flooding accounting for more than half of the increase.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on April 23, 2019, 01:50:44 pm
It cites data from the Insurance Bureau of Canada that show payouts for catastrophic losses jumped from an average $405-million a year between 1983 and 2008 to a yearly average of $1.8-billion since 2009, with flooding accounting for more than half of the increase.

I think the relationship between insurance payouts and climate change is very tenuous. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 09, 2019, 09:01:37 pm
The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change
might not be reliable information. 
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/?fbclid=IwAR0vaxsruaxQUQAWjgC1HTFLsh9fxkjBZGuTceJ54PAGpZ8Z2Qru1ovsiS0
The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

...

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.


The descriptions of the 3 main errors are interesting to read.  Lol

A 3% error rate in science isn't bad.
But nobody should be basing policy on the 3% who sold out to the oil lobby.





Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 09, 2019, 09:26:55 pm
The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change
Pathetic alarmist propaganda that means absolutely nothing because it is based on a irrelevant strawman. In fields where honest scientific inquiry is sill possible there is always dissent. The lack of dissent is are argument for why should should not trust anything a climate scientist says. They are clearly more interested in pushing their "consensus" meme rather than understanding what is going on.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 10, 2019, 06:18:42 am
  The lack of dissent is are argument for why should should not trust anything a climate scientist says.

Horseshit.  You yourself don't deny human-caused climate change.  How much dissent is there on commonly accepted theories ?

 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 10, 2019, 06:32:11 am
The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change
 

That number seems waay high.  I think they may have expanded what they considered real scientific papers... also...

Quote
by one contrarian paper (Miskolczi 2010). A handful of papers (Shaviv 2002; Svensmark 1998; Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991; Marsh and Svensmark 2000)

One of these was in the last 10 years and only 2 in the last 20 ?  And some of them method DON'T deny human-caused change they only discount the impact of it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 10, 2019, 07:52:47 am
Horseshit.  You yourself don't deny human-caused climate change.  How much dissent is there on commonly accepted theories ?
There is always dissent in any fields where it is not possible to prove a hypothesis with repeatable controlled experiments. The fact that they try so hard to suppress dissent in climate science should be a serious concern for anyone who actually wants to know what is really going on. Climate science is the textbook example of what happens when science is used to support a political agenda because politics does not handle nuance and contradictions well. Politics demands clear and ambiguous "answers" hence the need to produce stupid papers like the one listed here which reduce an extraordinarily complex and multi-factor problem to an irrelevant yes-no question.

Of course, I realize I am whistling in the dark because way too many people have stopped caring about science and only care about their personal political agendas. The net result is researchers that support their "team" are never expected to meet ethical and professional standards which they demand of researchers who do not support their cause.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 10, 2019, 09:29:18 am
There is always dissent in any fields where it is not possible to prove a hypothesis with repeatable controlled experiments. The fact that they try so hard to suppress dissent in climate science should be a serious concern for anyone who actually wants to know what is really going on. Climate science is the textbook example of what happens when science is used to support a political agenda because politics does not handle nuance and contradictions well. Politics demands clear and ambiguous "answers" hence the need to produce stupid papers like the one listed here which reduce an extraordinarily complex and multi-factor problem to an irrelevant yes-no question.

Of course, I realize I am whistling in the dark because way too many people have stopped caring about science and only care about their personal political agendas. The net result is researchers that support their "team" are never expected to meet ethical and professional standards which they demand of researchers who do not support their cause.

Ya, because the best research is always the 3% that didn't do it right, failed to meet inspection. <rolleyes> Lol
You do make the oil industry sound pretty dumb, too dumb to be in charge of making those decisions.
You just make it more and more apparent that we need to take control, cut all their subsidies to nothing, make the polluters pay the REAL cost of cleaning up the environment from producing oil ... and then see how many staunch supporters still want to pay the REAL cost of gas at the pumps.

If people had to pay the REAL price of fossil fuel products, they would have switched long ago.

I am REALLY tired of the fossil fuel corporate welfare bums. We just need to shut them down, drain the swamp.
You're not winning, Tim. You just make the oil industry look too dumb to exist. Lol

I love the 'errors' they made to fake the results, get the results their oil bosses wanted:

"Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing."

Hahahahahahaha ....

Step away Tim ... step away from the data ... farther!  farther!!!
Hahahahahahaha!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on May 10, 2019, 09:59:48 am
Quote
Of course, I realize I am whistling in the dark because way too many people have stopped caring about science...


This is what flat-earthers say too...   “You have to look at the REAL facts, not what all the so-called scientists are saying”.

It’s embarrassing.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 10, 2019, 09:37:19 pm
It’s embarrassing.
What embarrassing is your complete inability to read arguments written and address those instead of spouting whatever nonsense pops into your head.

From my post above I put a very important qualifier:
Quote
There is always dissent in any fields where it is not possible to prove a hypothesis with repeatable controlled experiments.
Repeatable experiments are the bedrock of the scientific method and the foundation for all science which we rely on today whether we are talking astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry or anything else.

However, those kinds of experiments are not possible in every field of study. When a field lacks the ability settle scientific arguments with repeatable experiments then dissent becomes essential because that is only way to protect against group think. That is the problem with climate science.

So call me names if you like; but if you are unable to address the nuance in the argument I am making all that does is show how little you understand about how the scientific method works.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 11, 2019, 01:27:29 am
...only way to protect against group think.

what do you call fake skeptics and deniers group think? 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 11, 2019, 01:44:13 am
Repeatable experiments are the bedrock of the scientific method and the foundation for all science which we rely on today whether we are talking astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry or anything else.

Yes, and the 3% climate change denial were not repeatable.
The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

So what do you conclude from that?

Do you conclude that the scientific method doesn't work? Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 11, 2019, 01:49:15 am
Yes, and the 3% climate change denial were not repeatable.
Neither is any of the so called 97%. The nature of the field means repeatable and verifiable experiments are not possible. This makes any claims inherently uncertain. Trying to hide this uncertainty with a manufactured consensus simply creates an environment where the truth is less important than preserving the consensus. The net result is the field is not trustworthy as long as they keep insisting on this consensus.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 11, 2019, 01:59:44 am
Neither is any of the so called 97%. The nature of the field means repeatable and verifiable experiments are not possible. This makes any claims inherently uncertain.

Hahahahahahaha
Absolute nonsense.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 11, 2019, 08:22:56 am
Hahahahahahaha
Absolute nonsense.
So please explain how you think claims of past temperatures are 'verified'? Do you think they have time machines that can go back and collect reference measurements? How about the extra planets and time machines needed to do double blind studies on the effects of different policies? Computer models don't count as verification. At best, they are equivalent to testing a drug on mice. No government regulator would ever dream of approving a drug for use based only on the tests on mice. They insist on real human trials. Yet people expect governments to treat the climate science equivalent of testing on mice as incontestable truth. It is nonsense.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the field is inherently uncertain because repeatable real world experiments cannot be done. Any claimed "consensus" is manufactured and only evidence of group think.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 11, 2019, 08:30:16 am
... repeatable real world experiments cannot be done. Any claimed "consensus" is manufactured and only evidence of group think.

Of course they can't be done.  Do you want to say 97% isn't consensus ?

How would society work if we needed 100% approval for anything moving forward ?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 11, 2019, 08:43:18 am
How would society work if we needed 100% approval for anything moving forward ?
I am saying the opposite. I think we would have more confidence in the field if the "consensus" as 80% or so and there was strong contingent of contrarians poking holes and showing the limits of knowledge. As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus". Without real world experiments this is the only way to expand our knowledge.

Consider a trial where someone is convicted of murder. Would you have more confidence in the verdict if the accursed is allowed to present contrary evidence or a trial where only the prosecution is permitted to present evidence? The latter is the way climate science is run today.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 11, 2019, 09:53:23 am
I am saying the opposite. I think we would have more confidence in the field if the "consensus" as 80% or so and there was strong contingent of contrarians poking holes and showing the limits of knowledge. As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus".
Disagreeing with the contrarians is not silencing them.
Proving them wrong (for faulty scientific methods) is not silencing them.
Their faulty papers are still readily available.
In fact, the paper reported in the Harvard Business Review would contain full references for all of them.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 11, 2019, 10:37:33 am
1. I am saying the opposite. I think we would have more confidence in the field if the "consensus" as 80% or so and there was strong contingent of contrarians poking holes and showing the limits of knowledge. As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus". Without real world experiments this is the only way to expand our knowledge.

2. Consider a trial where someone is convicted of murder. Would you have more confidence in the verdict if the accursed is allowed to present contrary evidence or a trial where only the prosecution is permitted to present evidence? The latter is the way climate science is run today.
1. There's no way only 80% of climate scientists believe in Climate Change.  Provide a subjective definition of 'suppression of truth' that can be applied across any discipline and I'll opine on that and we can try to apply it - discussion for another thread.

2. See #1.  There is no conspiracy of silence.  People try to express opposition to aspects of the papers but it doesn't stick. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 11, 2019, 10:38:07 am
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the field is inherently uncertain because repeatable real world experiments cannot be done. Any claimed "consensus" is manufactured and only evidence of group think.
Experimental manipulation of variables in controlled (eg double blind) settings can mimic and elucidate very  specific effects related to climate change. But their validity can't be generalized beyond those controlled settings. To understand the larger picture in the REAL world requires the collection over time of data on a large number and variety of factors about climate itself, and about factors that may impact on climate, all in situ - in the natural settings where they occur - with multiple factors and interactions of factors intact.
 
Computerization since the 70's has given us the capacity to collect and analyse these huge datasets.
Experimental manipulations of factors - like double blind studies - can't tell you how the factors would act and interact in the real world. But they can generate hypotheses that can be applied to and evaluated through analyses of large real world datasets.
Those analyses may reveal that factors tested in laboratory studies may have different effects, depending on interactions with other, possibly unanticipated, factors in the natural environment.
(Eg, forested vs deforested areas, etc). Those additional factors can then be included in future experimental manipulations to assess their effects more closely, generating more specific hypotheses that can then be applied to the large datasets .... etc.

Double blind studies are not the be all and end all of science (as believed in the computerless 1960's). They are necessary for generating specific hypotheses, but they cannot stand alone as they can only produce findings relevant to specifically controlled factors in unnatural settings. Unlike the 60's, we now have the capacity to test those hypotheses on real world data.

We'd be silly fools to cherry pick preferred methods and fight about them, when the reality is so complex that it requires all methods interacting appropriately to elucidate the complexities of climate.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 11, 2019, 11:00:29 am
1. There's no way only 80% of climate scientists believe in Climate Change.
Saying scientists "believe" in climate change is religious nonsense. Science is not about belief. It is about evidence.  More importantly, you missed my point. I said we would have more confidence in the consensus view if there were more contrarians. As it stands, we have a claimed consensus that is not supportable given the methods available so we are left wondering what evidence is being ignored in ordered maintain this artificially high consensus.

Provide a subjective definition of 'suppression of truth' that can be applied across any discipline and I'll opine on that and we can try to apply it - discussion for another thread.
The field is not a field that allows unequivocal knowledge. Claims of certainty are simply false. Attempts to suppress or downplay uncertainties are attempts to deceive.

2. See #1.  There is no conspiracy of silence.  People try to express opposition to aspects of the papers but it doesn't stick.
Again, this brings me back to my original point. In a field where no real world experiments are possible then these kinds of disputes cannot be settled with experiments. They are settled by politics. So when you say these papers did not 'stick' all that really means is they said things that were politically inconvenient for many scientists so they made  up excuses to dismiss them despite the fact that exactly the same kinds of flaws exist in pro-consensus research.

It is simply not possible to show that the skeptical papers are definitively wrong. It all comes down to the subjective opinion of human beings which are rarely reliable.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 11, 2019, 11:04:24 am
We'd be silly fools to cherry pick preferred methods and fight about them, when the reality is so complex that it requires all methods interacting appropriately to elucidate the complexities of climate.
I  am not cherry picking methods. I am pointing out the limitations of the methods that are available in climate science. The limitations of these methods means unequivocal claims are simply no supportable and any claims of a grand consensus have to manufactured because the available methods do not provide a foundation for that strength of claim.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 11, 2019, 11:13:27 am
As it stands contrarians are silenced in the name of "protecting the consensus".

good to read your consistency - that you'll always (eventually) revert to conspiracy... that the poor, 'fake-skeptic/denier man can't get anything published'! Except, of course, when they do - often get published! Unfortunately for your agenda driven denial, these papers are either fundamentally flawed and/or can't stand-up to peer-response.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 11, 2019, 11:14:31 am
1. Saying scientists "believe" in climate change is religion nonsense. Science is not about belief. It is about evidence.   

2. The field is not a field that allows unequivocal knowledge. Claims of certainty are simply false.

3. Attempts to suppress or downplay uncertainties are attempts to deceive.

4. They are settled by politics.

5. So when you say these papers did not 'stick' all that really means is they said things that were politically inconvenient for many scientist

6. It is simply not possible to show that the skeptical papers are definitively wrong. It all comes down to the subjective opinion of human beings which are rarely reliable.
1. Fine, I picked a bad word.  But my point stands.
2. Let's say they are convinced then.
3. It's entirely appropriate to do so if the opposition to accepted theory is given too much credence and stops us from addressing a problem. 
4. That's horseshit.  There are two realms: science and politics.  The politics does not solve the science.  If it takes people 200 years to believe it, it doesn't mean that the science is impacted.  Evolution is another example of that.
5. No - the scientists didn't buy the argument, for example, that the sun was behind it.  This was one of the past theories from the 1990s.  You turn into a conspiracy theory when the result displeases you.
6. Sure but these are experts and it's not 'politics'.  They have a duty to be objective.  There is a right-wing meme that objectivity isn't possible and I believe that is 'projection'

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 11, 2019, 01:48:31 pm
I  am not cherry picking methods.
Yes you have. In your posts, you limit 'science' to 1960's style contrived laboratory experimentation and show little awareness of the evolution of science, data collection and statistics in the computer age. Science includes all methods used in appropriate ways. One method is not 'superior' as you falsely claim, but only in relation to its purpose and generalizability.
Your grasp on modern science is tenuous, and your interpretation is clearly biased by your duty to promote fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 11, 2019, 02:20:57 pm
There is a right-wing meme that objectivity isn't possible and I believe that is 'projection'
All human beings bring their own experiences and mindsets to everything they do, so perfect objectivity is not possible. That is why science methods evolved to includes standard protocols to minimize subjectivity, replication of studies, and meta-analyses across a variety of studies by different researchers to arrive at consensus about findings.
 
As an aside, there is very interesting research on the differences in cognitive processing between right wing and left wing people ... but for another thread, perhaps. Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 11, 2019, 02:46:39 pm
6. Sure but these are experts and it's not 'politics'.  They have a duty to be objective.
Duty? Don't make me laugh. What consequences do they face if they fail to be objective? Who gets to judge whether they are objective? You seem to think that only you are entitled to decide when scientists are objective and when they are not. Who gave that right and why should I accept it?

What you fail to acknowledge is there is example after example of climate scientists failing in their duty to be objective. Evidence that would be strong enough to convict in a court of law if it was possible to hold them accountable in such a venue. But you dismiss this evidence because it does not suit your ideological preferences. You invent conspiracies to explain away the evidence because it undermines what you would like to believe. On top of that your have the nerve to accuses others of creating conspiracies. Try looking in a mirror.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 12, 2019, 04:38:20 am
What you fail to acknowledge is there is example after example of climate scientists failing in their duty to be objective. Evidence that would be strong enough to convict in a court of law if it was possible to hold them accountable in such a venue. But you dismiss this evidence because it does not suit your ideological preferences. You invent conspiracies to explain away the evidence because it undermines what you would like to believe. On top of that your have the nerve to accuses others of creating conspiracies. Try looking in a mirror.
What evidence are you referring to?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 12, 2019, 12:19:57 pm
What evidence are you referring to?Y
You can start with the CRU emails released in 2009 which document scientists discussing manipulating the peer review process to keep papers they did not like out of the peer reviewed literature. Those emails demonstrates a complete lack of objectivity.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-scientists-subverted-peer-review
(can't find a link to the actual emails at this time).

These scientists received no censure by the peers for their clearly unethical discussions. In fact, alarmists went out of their way to to rationalize those kinds of discussions from big oil conspiracies to boys will be boys. But none of these rationalizations refute the argument that these scientists are not objective. IOW, MH claim that scientists have a "duty to be objective" is laughably false.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 12, 2019, 02:21:02 pm
Duty? Don't make me laugh. What consequences do they face if they fail to be objective?

What kind of person thinks that being able to get away with something means it will likely happen ?

Quote
Who gets to judge whether they are objective? You seem to think that only you are entitled to decide when scientists are objective and when they are not. Who gave that right and why should I accept it?

The system assumes that they are objective... it's built in that people care about what they do for a living.  And as such for many professions also.

Quote

What you fail to acknowledge is there is example after example of climate scientists failing in their duty to be objective. Evidence that would be strong enough to convict in a court of law if it was possible to hold them accountable in such a venue. But you dismiss this evidence because it does not suit your ideological preferences. You invent conspiracies to explain away the evidence because it undermines what you would like to believe. On top of that your have the nerve to accuses others of creating conspiracies. Try looking in a mirror.

?  I think in the past we went through one example and it wasn't 'strong enough to convict in a court of law'.  As far as I can tell, we agree on the science part so I don't know what you're on about with regards to conspiracies.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 12, 2019, 02:37:27 pm
What kind of person thinks that being able to get away with something means it will likely happen ?

Well Mike you'd also have to be naive to think it doesn't happen.  The tobacco and junk food industries have proven for many decades that science can be manipulated because there's a lot of money and politics involved:

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2019/05/12/be-wary-of-junk-food-science.html

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/study-claims-coca-cola-can-block-publication-of-research-it-funds-1.4415592

Climate science is highly politicized. To fully believe any claim i'd want to see the science replicated in multiple studies published that were different academic journals.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 12, 2019, 02:47:45 pm
Of course it can happen, but does it HAVE to ?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 12, 2019, 04:00:42 pm
What kind of person thinks that being able to get away with something means it will likely happen ?
Someone who has seen example after example of alarmist scientist getting away with grotesquely unprofessional behavior in the name of promoting the "cause". This is not an academic concern. It is real. The only issue is you are choosing to be deliberately blind to the problem because (in your words) "It's entirely appropriate to do so if the opposition to accepted theory is given too much credence and stops us from addressing a problem.". i.e. you have clearly decided the ends justify the means which makes your claim to believe in the "duty of objectivity" laughable. How can someone claim to be objective if they believe that suppressing contrary evidence is "entirely appropriate" if it support their preferred public policies?

The system assumes that they are objective... it's built in that people care about what they do for a living.  And as such for many professions also.
Wrong. Every profession has a body which sets out a code of conduct and passes judgment on those who do not live up to the code. No one assumes that a code means anything if there is not some enforcement mechanism (except you when want let people who agree with off the hook)

I think in the past we went through one example and it wasn't 'strong enough to convict in a court of law'.
The emails in question are not online anymore. But they were conversations where climate scientists conspired to subvert the peer review process. The emails were sufficiently damming that one of the scientist stepped aside while it was being investigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

In the end the accusations of fraud were dismissed (not unlike Trump's "exoneration"). However, even if the accusations of fraud could not be proven the grotesque lack of objectivity and unprofessional behavior on display cannot be ignored. IOW, the evidence is there unless someone is determined to willfully ignore it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 12, 2019, 04:05:40 pm
The only issue is you are choosing to be deliberately blind to the problem because (in your words) "It's entirely appropriate to do so if the opposition to accepted theory is given too much credence and stops us from addressing a problem.".

Sorry - I was talking about the realm of media not academia.  If you have a real example of me being wilfully blind to 'the' problem I would love to hear it. 

Quote
  But they were conversations where climate scientists conspired to subvert the peer review process. The emails were sufficiently damming that one of the scientist stepped aside while it was being investigated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Pffft.  There was nothing there.  I read those a long time ago, and no...

 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 12, 2019, 04:07:53 pm
To fully believe any claim i'd want to see the science replicated in multiple studies published that were different academic journals.
The trouble with climate science is there is no way to "replicate" any claim because experiments cannot be done. "replication" in climate science typically means using a different way to look at the same data and getting the same answer. Except that kind of replication is extremely subject to reporting bias because researchers tend to assume that results that fail to replicate are some how "wrong" and never publish them (or never being allowed to publish them).

The positive test  bias is a real problem in drug testing:
https://catalogofbias.org/biases/positive-results-bias/

Forcing researchers to publish the results of all studies has had a dramatic effect on drug research.
There is no reason to believe the same problem does not affect the climate science literature.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 12, 2019, 04:10:17 pm
Pffft.  There was nothing there.  I read those a long time ago, and no...
Like I said. Willfully blind. No reasonable person could read those email and not question the ethics and professionalism of the scientists involved. If you don't see it then it is willful blindness.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 12, 2019, 05:09:41 pm
Pffft.  There was nothing there.  I read those a long time ago, and no...

of course the denier TimG reverts to his tride&true 'hackergate'... and yes, there was no there... there!

the denier claim about "corrupting peer review' was absolute bullshyte! The scientist in question was email venting over the antics of fake-skeptics - nothing more, nothing less. MOST POINTEDLY, no skeptical/denier papers were kept out of the related IPCC reports - NONE! In the past, denier TimG has been challenged to name a single paper that was suppressed - he can't!

as I've put to denier TimG many times now: even if he could legitimately find his claimed "some number of corrupt/fraudulent climate-science field scientists", that number pales in comparison to the world-wide network of honest/legitimate/honorable scientists and relevant scientific organizations, bodies, academia groups, etc..
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 12, 2019, 05:45:50 pm
the denier claim about "corrupting peer review' was absolute bullshyte!
They said in the emails they would work to keep papers they don't like out of peer review even if they have to redefined what peer review is. They also discussed boycotting journals that published papers they did not like. Those statements on their own establish that those scientists lack the professionalism and ethics we would expect of any scientist.  It makes no difference if those statements were "just talk" they provide a window into the ingrained biases held by these very influential players. The fact that the various professional societies refused to condemn the ingrained biases is evidence that a willingness to accept such bias is widespread within the community.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 12, 2019, 09:25:42 pm
They said in the emails they would work to keep papers they don't like out of peer review even if they have to redefined what peer review is. They also discussed boycotting journals that published papers they did not like. Those statements on their own establish that those scientists lack the professionalism and ethics we would expect of any scientist.

Have any links to that?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2019, 12:26:41 am
Have any links to that?

WTF for! This is exactly what denier TimG is after... this is now a decade old. It was ONE scientist 'mouthing off' in an email about 2 papers from 2 deniers (not skeptics... flat out deniers) who posited that local urbanization was the cause of related land warming rather than the global influence of GHGs. Bottom line was that neither paper was suppressed from the related IPCC reports... but don't let that stop, now a decade later, denier TimG from harping on about 'the BadMan' and using that to impugn the integrity of all scientists working in climate related fields... that whole world-wide network of thousands upon thousands of dedicated/honest/reputable/honorable scientists. It's what deniers like TimG do - it's what he relishes!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 13, 2019, 12:35:35 am
Have any links to that?
Link to Guardian with their pro-consensus spin: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-emails-analysis

Quote
From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Can't find a exact email for the boycott claim. The text is here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244

Quote
Mann further stated, "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board
Mann appears to justify the action because the journal published papers that Mann did not like. Of course the ethical and professional way to deal with papers you don't like is to publish your own papers. Mann is clearly does not place much importance on ethics or professionalism.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 13, 2019, 12:48:11 am
WTF for! This is exactly what denier TimG is after... this is now a decade old. It was ONE scientist 'mouthing off' in an email about 2 papers from 2 deniers (not skeptics... flat out deniers) who posited that local urbanization was the cause of related land warming rather than the global influence of GHGs. Bottom line was that neither paper was suppressed from the related IPCC reports... but don't let that stop, now a decade later, denier TimG from harping on about 'the BadMan' and using that to impugn the integrity of all scientists working in climate related fields... that whole world-wide network of thousands upon thousands of dedicated/honest/reputable/honorable scientists.

It's what deniers like TimG do - it's what he relishes!
And how he distracts ...
Especially when it's clear that he's a flat oil man flogging 60 year old computerless Grade 9 science methods and hanging his hat on every outlier, crackpot and oil-paid 'researcher' putting out garbage method 'research' with oil happy findings.

Tim hangs out with the 3% error of science.
Lol

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 13, 2019, 06:08:10 am
Like I said. Willfully blind. No reasonable person could read those email and not question the ethics and professionalism of the scientists involved. If you don't see it then it is willful blindness.

Professionalism starts to veer towards behaviour, and I will admit that the scientists are not magnanimous in the face of the pesky bloggers, but it's a giant leap to what you're saying about them.  Furthermore the email hackers selectively highlighted exchanges where nothing substantial was wrong but made it sound like they were manipulating truth.

They were also rightly concerned that journals might actually publish poor papers in order to seem more objective.  The bloggers try to jimmy the system so that if they DON'T get published it's because of a conspiracy.  If they DO then they have shown that the science is fake. 

It's such old news at this point. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 13, 2019, 07:58:06 am
Professionalism starts to veer towards behaviour, and I will admit that the scientists are not magnanimous in the face of the pesky bloggers
Deflect. minimize, whatever you need to do to to defend the indefensible. These were not just "pesky" bloggers. These were practicing academics. Moreover, it is insulting and condescending for you to denigrate people trying to get published in the peer reviewed literature just because they are not full time academics.

but it's a giant leap to what you're saying about them.
Similar nonsense has been going for 20 years involving multiple scientists. I picked this example because the evidence should be so obvious that even you could not dismiss it but I was wrong (you are just as bad as Trump defenders who insist he was "exonerated" and did nothing wrong). It is clear to anyone that has been paying attention and is not being willfully blind that many climate scientists lack objectivity and the degree of professionalism that we expect from people tasked with providing input into the legislative process. But I guess there is no evidence short of a confession from the accused that would be sufficient to convince you.

They were also rightly concerned that journals might actually publish poor papers in order to seem more objective.
Special pleading. Lots of poor pro-alarmist papers are published and they have no issue with quality. This is not a remotely acceptable defense of their actions. But this bring me back to my original point: in a field like climate science there is no objective way to determine which papers are bad and which are good. It all comes down to a question of whether other scientists see the paper as a help or a threat. That is why the lack of objectivity among influential academics in the field matters. It leaves us wondering what is really going on because we don't have anyone able to be a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian to find holes in our knowledge and protect against group think.

It's such old news at this point.
It is a current problem as long as there are people who refuse to acknowledge the systematic problems with the field and enable scientists who act unprofessionally.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2019, 11:30:20 am
Similar nonsense has been going for 20 years involving multiple scientists.

in a field like climate science there is no objective way to determine which papers are bad and which are good. It all comes down to a question of whether other scientists see the paper as a help or a threat.

That is why the lack of objectivity among influential academics in the field matters. It leaves us wondering what is really going on because we don't have anyone able to be a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian to find holes in our knowledge and protect against group think.

you speak to a 20-year history of "BadMen"... yet whenever this folly of yours rises you always revert back to and trot out something from Hackergate. Surely there must be more... more - yes? Surely you and your cadre of denierBlogScientists must have a collective database of all those instances of "BadMen". Surely you must have something to support your want to impugn the integrity of all world-wide scientists working in climate-change related fields - surely!

more pointedly, you should have at ready-reach, a list of all the poor ole' DenierMen being kept down by the wascally ScienceMan - surely you can name the names - surely!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2019, 12:12:19 pm
what do you call fake skeptics and deniers group think?

hey TimG, by ignoring the question are you implying there is no such thing as group think within your trusted cadre of fake-skeptics and deniers?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2019, 12:16:27 pm
The trouble with climate science is there is no way to "replicate" any claim because experiments cannot be done. "replication" in climate science typically means using a different way to look at the same data and getting the same answer. Except that kind of replication is extremely subject to reporting bias because researchers tend to assume that results that fail to replicate are some how "wrong" and never publish them (or never being allowed to publish them).

for all your sanctimonious blowhardiness YOU don't even understand the fundamental distinction between replicability and reproducibility!  ;D Would you like a do-over sir?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 13, 2019, 04:15:24 pm
  in a field like climate science there is no objective way to determine which papers are bad and which are good. It all comes down to a question of whether other scientists see the paper as a help or a threat. 

It doesn't matter if there's no objective way.  Subjectivity is a fact of life.  We aim for objectivity and we count on it, knowing that true objectivity is impossible.  You must be horrified with the idea of a judicial system also.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 13, 2019, 04:42:27 pm
It doesn't matter if there's no objective way.  Subjectivity is a fact of life.  We aim for objectivity and we count on it, knowing that true objectivity is impossible.  You must be horrified with the idea of a judicial system also.
Funny you mention that. The judicial system is a good example of methods we use to find the truth when the evidence is sparse, subjective and/or conflicting. In the judicial system you have a prosecutor that makes the case for conviction and the defendant who makes the case against. The jury, chosen from members of the public, decides whether the prosecutor made the case. IOW, the system makes a space for contrarians and would never consider silencing the defendant because the prosecutors have reached a "consensus". This is model I have in mind when I say I would have more confidence in climate science if the consensus was only 80%. This is model people want to follow when they talk about red-team/blue-team analysis.

Since you now seem to acknowledge that subjectivity is a fact of life perhaps we can talk about how to fix the system to better deal with the world that exists rather than keep the one based on the "impartial, objective academic" fantasy?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 13, 2019, 05:21:07 pm
Funny you mention that. The judicial system is a good example of methods we use to find the truth when the evidence is sparse, subjective and/or conflicting. In the judicial system you have a prosecutor that makes the case for conviction and the defendant who makes the case against. The jury, chosen from members of the public, decides whether the prosecutor made the case. IOW, the system makes a space for contrarians and would never consider silencing the defendant because the prosecutors have reached a "consensus". This is model I have in mind when I say I would have more confidence in climate science if the consensus was only 80%. This is model people want to follow when they talk about red-team/blue-team analysis.

Since you nhttps://cdn.smfboards.com/caf/images/bbc/table.gifow seem to acknowledge that subjectivity is a fact of life perhaps we can talk about how to fix the system to better deal with the world that exists rather than keep the one based on the "impartial, objective academic" fantasy?

One problem I see you are still having is thinking the evidence with regard to the global warming issue is somehow "sparse".
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 13, 2019, 05:38:04 pm
It is a current problem as long as there are people who refuse to acknowledge the systematic problems with the field and enable scientists who act unprofessionally.
No it isn't a current problem TimG:
No papers have been suppressed.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 13, 2019, 05:56:10 pm
No it isn't a current problem TimG:
No papers have been suppressed.
You make a claim which is simply not possible to know. The only thing we can do is look at how climate scientists act and what they say and pass judgement over whether these are the type of people that would ignore or suppress evidence that did not fit their preferred narrative. It is simply not plausible to argue that a person who spouts over heated rhetoric about a planetary emergency would not hide evidence that undermines their rhetoric. People who have the integrity to follow the evidence wherever it would lead would be much more careful about the claims they make in the first place and would most certainly not refer to people who disagree as "deniers".
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 13, 2019, 06:01:05 pm
You make a claim which is simply not possible to know. The only thing we can do is look at how climate scientists act and what they say and pass judgement over whether these are the type of people that would ignore or suppress evidence that did not fit their preferred narrative. It is simply not plausible to argue that a person who spouts over heated rhetoric about a planetary emergency would not hide evidence that undermines their rhetoric. People who have the integrity to follow the evidence wherever it would lead would be much more careful about the claims they make in the first place and would most certainly not refer to people who disagree as "deniers".

You mean people such as Donald Trump who ignore and suppress the evidence? Not my type.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 13, 2019, 06:45:29 pm
No it isn't a current problem TimG:
No papers have been suppressed.

You know this how?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2019, 06:59:48 pm
Since you now seem to acknowledge that subjectivity is a fact of life perhaps we can talk about how to fix the system to better deal with the world that exists rather than keep the one based on the "impartial, objective academic" fantasy?

you're so full of shyte! Your real problem is that even if legitimate skeptic papers (legitimate... not your favoured fake-skeptic/denier papers) meet the test of peer-review and get published in legitimate journals, invariably they can't stand up to subsequent peer response.

by the by: the following speaks to replicate... are you ready to acknowledge your recent bonehead play concerning replicability versus reproducibility?

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers --- A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 13, 2019, 07:02:47 pm
People who have the integrity to follow the evidence wherever it would lead would be much more careful about the claims they make in the first place and would most certainly not refer to people who disagree as "deniers".

The rich, powerful and omnipresent FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY disagrees.
We get that.
Don't care.

In the case of the papers under discussion here,  none have been suppressed.
Discredited, but not suppressed.
Best practice is to air it, critique it.
Outlier papers by people who have the temerity (and corporate  funding) to lead the evidence wherever it would follow.

Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 13, 2019, 07:05:23 pm
In the case of the papers under discussion here,  none have been suppressed.
How can you know? Are you psychic?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2019, 07:05:50 pm
You know this how?

given your earlier want to revisit the decade old Hackergate, you would appear to be invested in "contrarian" research/publication... care to share your insights into which author's/papers that legitimate journals have suppressed from publication?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 13, 2019, 07:11:17 pm
People who have the integrity to follow the evidence wherever it would lead would be much more careful about the claims they make in the first place and would most certainly not refer to people who disagree as "deniers".

of course, per norm, you now resort to playing the victim! No one here, other than you, is purposely conflating legitimate skeptics with fake-skeptics/deniers - deniers, like you!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 13, 2019, 07:12:22 pm
How can you know?

I read.

The 3% of papers with alternate results were included in the IPCC report.
Regardless of emails.

You have nothing TimG.
Clock out.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 13, 2019, 07:20:50 pm
The 3% of papers with alternate results were included in the IPCC report.
Logic fail. You claim no papers have been suppressed. Suppressed papers would obviously not show up to be counted which makes that stat meaningless. Prove that no papers have been suppressed. If you can't then simply acknowledge that we can't know if papers are suppressed and we can only ask ourselves if climate scientists seem to be the type of people that would suppress adverse results. To do that we would look at what the say and how they talk and, most importantly, examine how they treat people that disagree with them. People who vilify people that disagree with them are the type of people that suppress results.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 13, 2019, 07:26:10 pm
Prove that no papers have been suppressed.

You are the one claiming that papers have been suppressed, the onus is on you.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 13, 2019, 07:44:18 pm
You are the one claiming that papers have been suppressed, the onus is on you.
I am saying we can't know if papers are suppressed because the people who we are supposed to trust to be objective and act professionally instead act like partisan zealots and therefore can't be trusted.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 13, 2019, 07:47:40 pm
I am saying we can't know if papers are suppressed because the people who we are supposed to trust to be objective and act professionally instead act like partisan zealots and therefore can't be trusted.

They published the oil-funded papers TimG.
As examples of how not to do climate science.

Seriously ... Don't do research this way:

Step away from the data plot until the dots coalesce so you can fit the curve you want.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!

You got nothing.
Step away.
:D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 14, 2019, 05:49:27 am

Since you now seem to acknowledge that subjectivity is a fact of life perhaps we can talk about how to fix the system to better deal with the world that exists rather than keep the one based on the "impartial, objective academic" fantasy?

Sure but what about the impartiality of judges ?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 14, 2019, 08:14:58 am
Sure but what about the impartiality of judges ?
With the judiciary there is at least a public debate and parliament has tools to override some judicial decisions if the elected representatives decide differently. Furthermore, the principle that contrary views and juries of peers are an intrinsic part of the system of justice further mitigates any problem with bias in the judiciary.

But you did not answer the question: are you willing to acknowledge that the "objective, impartial academic" is a myth and the biases of the academics matter in fields of knowledge where replicable experiments cannot settle scientific debates (i.e. the decision of what papers are "good" and what papers are "bad" comes down to a popularity contest among academics)?

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 14, 2019, 10:45:50 am
(i.e. the decision of what papers are "good" and what papers are "bad" comes down to a popularity contest among academics)?

popularity contest? You mean prevailing science is just a... popularity contest?  ;D Ya ya TimG, you & your hucksters gotta huck!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Goddess on May 14, 2019, 10:47:41 am
https://www.businessinsider.in/bill-nye-is-angrily-telling-everyone-to-get-their-act-together-and-fight-climate-change-the-planets-on-f-ing-fire/articleshow/69315923.cms

Bill Nye is mad as hell and he's not taking it anymore.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 14, 2019, 11:55:16 am
But you did not answer the question: are you willing to acknowledge that the "objective, impartial academic" is a myth and the biases of the academics matter in fields of knowledge where replicable experiments cannot settle scientific debates (i.e. the decision of what papers are "good" and what papers are "bad" comes down to a popularity contest among academics)?

So we're supposed to believe you instead?
Hahahahahahaha!
Step away, TimG.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 14, 2019, 12:18:05 pm
So we're supposed to believe you instead?
Well, that is the problem. You see it as a religion where one is expected to place blind faith in the system and the humans who run the system. I see the system as flawed like any other human institution and reject the notion that we should have blind faith in it. I instead want to see checks and balances built into the system so we can better manage the problems created by flaw humans.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 14, 2019, 01:13:12 pm
Well, that is the problem. You see it as a religion where one is expected to place blind faith in the system and the humans who run the system. I see the system as flawed like any other human institution and reject the notion that we should have blind faith in it. I instead want to see checks and balances built into the system so we can better manage the problems created by flaw humans.
I read the review paper.
The checks and balances in scientific inquiry into climate change seem to be working quite well. The parameters for acceptable research are well defined. The 3% of papers with contrary findings were found to have flaws when assessed against those parameters; When the flaws were corrected, those findings became consistent with the 97% consensus.

All papers were published and referenced in the IPCC report. The flawed papers were not suppressed. They stand as examples of bad scientific methods.

Flawed or faked research results being flogged by the fossil fuel industry is an old story, getting stale and stupider all the time.

Your blind faith in fossil fuels is perhaps admirable but misplaced loyalty.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 14, 2019, 09:00:29 pm
Oh. They knew.
https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 15, 2019, 05:50:33 pm
With the judiciary there is at least a public debate and parliament has tools to override some judicial decisions if the elected representatives decide differently. Furthermore, the principle that contrary views and juries of peers are an intrinsic part of the system of justice further mitigates any problem with bias in the judiciary.

There is also scientific debate, which on some level is better than so-called 'public' debate as it's necessarily informed by the specific subject matter.  Now, you WILL get people saying they're structural engineers and that the 9/11 commission was a scam and weathermen and geologists calling themselves climate scientists but still better on the whole. 

Justices still have the final say and that part of your argument is just not analogous in a way that helps either of our arguments here.

Quote
But you did not answer the question: are you willing to acknowledge that the "objective, impartial academic" is a myth and the biases of the academics matter in fields of knowledge where replicable experiments cannot settle scientific debates (i.e. the decision of what papers are "good" and what papers are "bad" comes down to a popularity contest among academics)?

Humans are subjective, so all systems need to be built around that.  The best you can do is create a culture that STRIVES for objectivity, which is why CBS/NBC/ABC of the 1980s and the newspapers will always be better than FOX news.

I even think that Climate Scientists show their tribalism in the leaked emails but you can't demand that people act above humanity.  I believe they thought they were against bad science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 15, 2019, 06:47:05 pm
I even think that Climate Scientists show their tribalism in the leaked emails but you can't demand that people act above humanity.  I believe they thought they were against bad science.
1) I not asking them to not be human. I am asking you to acknowledge that the tribalism exists and scientists are not objective as individuals;
2) Almost every paper in climate science is a statistical analysis of one form or another that uses techniques and assumptions that could be criticized if someone was so inclined;
3) Because of 1) and 2) any paper that does not say things a scientist personally agrees with will be subject to criticism while papers a scientist agrees with will get a pass even if the exact same flaws exist;
4) 3) means very few scientists are going to bother trying to point out flaws in the consensus because it is not worth the abuse they will receive from the alarmist peers.
5) 4) means the consensus is artificial because no one is trying to be a contrarian and to explore topics that could undermine the consensus.

To re-iterate a point I made in other posts. Despite the dim view I have of academics working in climate science today I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore. My motivation for criticizing the field is that I honestly feel that the process to ensure objective outcomes is broken and it is not serving the public interest. I am open to ideas on how to fix but we have to start by agreeing there is a problem in the first place.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 15, 2019, 06:56:41 pm
I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore.

BFD! You refuse to accept/acknowledge that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/CC... and you refuse to provide what you understand/interpret to be a/the alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2 as that principal causal tie. Accordingly, you deny prevailing science - ergo, you are a denier!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 15, 2019, 06:58:55 pm
I even think that Climate Scientists show their tribalism in the leaked emails but you can't demand that people act above humanity.  I believe they thought they were against bad science.

and you play right into the TimG denier narrative... by elevating the statements of a few into the, "TimG damning of the whole".

be better MH, be better!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 15, 2019, 07:06:04 pm
My motivation for criticizing the field is that I honestly feel that the process to ensure objective outcomes is broken and it is not serving the public interest. I am open to ideas on how to fix but we have to start by agreeing there is a problem in the first place.

no - skeptical papers get published... many of them. Your motivation is to cast doubt and suspicion on honorable/reputable scientists and to sow discord in a system that accepts... and publishes so-called contrarian views. Again, your favoured contrarian views can't meet the test of peer response - nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 15, 2019, 07:13:14 pm
5) 4) means the consensus is artificial because no one is trying to be a contrarian and to explore topics that could undermine the consensus.

this is incomplete without your conspiracy attachments that speak to the climateScienceMan keeping the poor denierMan down!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 15, 2019, 08:05:51 pm
and you play right into the TimG denier narrative... by elevating the statements of a few into the, "TimG damning of the whole".

be better MH, be better!

Sorry, but you can't deny the humanity of the scientists by saying they weren't annoyed by their opposition.  They clearly were.

But it doesn't matter on the whole. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 15, 2019, 08:06:22 pm
... I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore.

So we're on the same page there.
How would you address it?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 15, 2019, 08:30:11 pm
1) I not asking them to not be human. I am asking you to acknowledge that the tribalism exists and scientists are not objective as individuals;
2) Almost every paper in climate science is a statistical analysis of one form or another that uses techniques and assumptions that could be criticized if someone was so inclined;
3) Because of 1) and 2) any paper that does not say things a scientist personally agrees with will be subject to criticism while papers a scientist agrees with will get a pass even if the exact same flaws exist;
4) 3) means very few scientists are going to bother trying to point out flaws in the consensus because it is not worth the abuse they will receive from the alarmist peers.
5) 4) means the consensus is artificial because no one is trying to be a contrarian and to explore topics that could undermine the consensus.

To re-iterate a point I made in other posts. Despite the dim view I have of academics working in climate science today I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore. My motivation for criticizing the field is that I honestly feel that the process to ensure objective outcomes is broken and it is not serving the public interest. I am open to ideas on how to fix but we have to start by agreeing there is a problem in the first place.
1) They are as objective as one could hope for.  Judges aren't objective although they try.
2) "Could be criticized" ... well of course that is true.  Statistical analysis, coupled with the known physics of the greenhouse effect is pretty solid.  The best criticisms have been accepted but they didn't turn out to be true.
3) Theoretically that's true but your example isn't really applicable to real life - no two papers could have completely symmetrical flaws in that way.
4) Theoretical also.  I would look at the few papers published by climate scientists that DIDN'T agree with the consensus.  The publishers weren't pilloried as far as I can tell.  I don't think they are mentioned in Climategate.  I know of a few - and will look that up when I can.
5) Your thinking on this presumes that papers exist that are valid, and that are being shut down. 

Your closing paragraph unfortunately endears you to me as reasonable so I will have to shake that off as I search for the papers above and the (loud sigh) Climategate papers... (secondary sigh)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 15, 2019, 08:53:57 pm

Your closing paragraph unfortunately endears you to me as reasonable so I will have to shake that off as I search for the papers above and the (loud sigh) Climategate papers... (secondary sigh)
Shh... why bother when TimG has conceded.
 I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore

Now perhaps we can finally move on to constructive mitigation and adaptation.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 15, 2019, 10:16:31 pm
2) "Could be criticized" ... well of course that is true.  Statistical analysis, coupled with the known physics of the greenhouse effect is pretty solid.
Those are two unrelated things. i.e. paper making claims about the influence of climate on storms can be complete nonsense even if the basic physics is correct. I call this kind of lazy thinking the 'bait and switch'. i.e. people take something that is well supported by science and then use it to claim that unrelated claim must also be true. It is nonsense. Science does not work that way. Each claim is evaluated on its own merits.

The best criticisms have been accepted but they didn't turn out to be true.
You can't prove a statistical analysis is false unless you can do experimental replication. All you can do in climate science is criticize the methods which is a purely subjective exercise. That is why it is so easy for alarmist scientists to dismiss skeptical papers. There is always some quibble that they can use as an excuse to declare it "debunked". The fact that their own papers have similar issues is shamelessly ignored.

Theoretically that's true but your example isn't really applicable to real life - no two papers could have completely symmetrical flaws in that way.
You miss the point. Someone claimed a skeptical paper was wrong because it did "curve fitting" but the same criticism applies to almost every paper produced by alarmists like Michael Mann but his papers are taken seriously. The only difference is Mann supports the alarmists narrative so his crappy statistical methods are ignored. It is a painfully obvious double standard.

I would look at the few papers published by climate scientists that DIDN'T agree with the consensus.  The publishers weren't pilloried as far as I can tell.
We don't know what goes on behind the scenes but scientists like Judith Curry and Robert Pielke have talked about the abuse they received from colleagues  for talking a less alarmist approach. Both decided to leave the field rather than put up with it. You, of course, will argue that they are lying or not representative but you have no evidence to support that belief. I am saying that they are credible enough that their claims of inappropriate pressure should not be dismissed and we should want to have some external authorities investigate how bad it is really is. There is the story of skeptical scientist that was sacked by his university for daring to dispute the alarmist narrative. The university claims his views had nothing to do with it but a court dismissed all of the universities defenses as nonsense: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-16/jcu-scientist-peter-ridd-sacking-unlawful-federal-court-judgment/11021554

I know of a few - and will look that up when I can.
The problem is the chill in the current environment that could lead to paths of research being dropped as soon as the academic realizes it would be impossible to get it through the alarmists who are the gatekeepers at many journals. We can never know if these paths exist or not. We can only know is that if these did exist we would never hear about them because academics have a strong incentive to self censor. That is why I think more skeptical papers would mean we have more confidence in the consensus. As it stands the number of skeptical papers is simply too low to justify given the uncertainties inherent in the methods available to climate scientists.

5) Your thinking on this presumes that papers exist that are valid, and that are being shut down.
I am saying that your claims of absolutes (valid or not valid) do not apply when dealing with complex statistical methods applied to dubious datasets. All papers are flawed in some way. Why should alarmist papers be taken anymore seriously if these flaws were show stoppers?

Your closing paragraph unfortunately endears you to me as reasonable so I will have to shake that off as I search for the papers above and the (loud sigh) Climategate papers... (secondary sigh)
I would not spend a lot of time on that. If a skeptical paper has been published I have probably read about and am aware of the criticisms. Sometimes I even agree with the criticisms. My pet peeve is with the extremely bad alarmist papers which are treated as gospel because they support the narrative. I would he happy if people would learn to understand the limitations of the methods available and the kind of certainties claimed are not legitimate.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 15, 2019, 10:31:10 pm
Shh... why bother when TimG has conceded.
 I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore

Now perhaps we can finally move on to constructive mitigation and adaptation.

Wishful thinking apparently. Not unexpected though.

Stay tuned. :)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 15, 2019, 11:51:17 pm
Like your irrational hatred of Israel?

off topic - **** off!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 12:17:57 am
Sorry, but you can't deny the humanity of the scientists by saying they weren't annoyed by their opposition.  They clearly were.

But it doesn't matter on the whole.

no - again, you are the one elevating the circumstance "of a few" into the broader whole - that world-wide network of honest/reputable/honorable scientists working directly in or peripheral to climate change fields. You are the one playing directly into member TimG's purposeful intent to demean the integrity of ALL scientists... to cast doubt/suspicion on peer-review and prevailing science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 12:30:29 am
So we're on the same page there.
Shh... why bother when TimG has conceded.
 I do feel the case has been made that human emitted CO2 is contributing to a warming planet that creates a risk that we should not ignore

no - that TimG statement is..... meaningless - the ultimate greenwashing from a guy who denies that contribution he "accepts" is actually the principal causal tie to GW/CC. What degree of contribution, hey TimG - what degree?  ;D Typical TimG vagueness that plays right into his, "do-nothing, delay any action at all costs" prattle. Even when you manage to corner member TimG into actually addressing the practicality, logistics, timelines, etc., of his perpetual "AdaptOnly" bleating, he won't commit to adapting to anything on any timeline!

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 01:14:52 am
We don't know what goes on behind the scenes but scientists like Judith Curry and Robert Pielke have talked about the abuse they received from colleagues  for talking a less alarmist approach. Both decided to leave the field rather than put up with it.

 ;D "less alarmist approach"! Notwithstanding it's Roger (not Robert) Pielke (and Jr., not his father Sr.), his work/analysis couldn't stand the challenge test; notwithstanding he was a political scientist focused on policy, not a climate scientist. Forever remembered for this monumental bonehead statement: "In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather."

as for the darling of blogScience... and Congressional Republican's as their regular go-to "expert", Curry favoured... make that reveled in, confrontation. Her positions were rightly challenged - how could they not be! Of course, as you've shown over the years by repeatedly quoting her or linking to her blog, she's your personal mentor! It's clearly where you copied her calling into question that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change, where you've parroted her support for an emphasis on natural climate variability, etc.. In any case, you speak to her retirement from academia as "leaving the field" - it seems others suggest she became a liability to the University/tenured position she held - perhaps not a particularly sound choice for a PhD candidate to have her as an advisor!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 01:43:38 am
There is the story of skeptical scientist that was sacked by his university for daring to dispute the alarmist narrative. The university claims his views had nothing to do with it but a court dismissed all of the universities defenses as nonsense: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-16/jcu-scientist-peter-ridd-sacking-unlawful-federal-court-judgment/11021554

no - that's your fake-skeptic/denier spin on the ruling. Notwithstanding the university has given suggestion of an intent to appeal, the judge's ruling itself counters your bullshyte; from the ruling judgement:

Quote
Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

principal interpretations have the University's focus on Ridd's failures to adhere to a 'code of conduct' being usurped by a 'terms & conditions' clause within an employment agreement... not your bullshyte claim the guy was sacked for, as you say, "daring to dispute the alarmist narrative". More pointedly, scientists routinely challenge/push-back on the statements/positions taken by Ridd - for example: Top marine scientists defend attack on Great Barrier Reef research (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/29/top-marine-scientists-defend-attack-on-great-barrier-reef-research)

 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 16, 2019, 02:23:05 am
principal interpretations have the University's focus on Ridd's failures to adhere to a 'code of conduct' being usurped by a 'terms & conditions' clause within an employment agreement.
Terns that would have never been enforced if he had not dared to question the glorious consensus. My argument is about double standards that are used to punish academics that fail to adhere to the consensus orthodoxy.

BTW: your attempt to spin the ruling is fiction.

The Court ordered that:
1. The 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.
2. The issue of the making of declarations and penalty are adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Every argument the university made was rejected. It was not an obscure technical ruling.

The judge even criticized the university, who spent a million dollars trying to martyr Ridd, for not even attempting to address his complaints about shoddy science:

Quote
Today, Judge Vasta asked how it could be that James Cook University – a recipient of so many billions of dollars over the years – could leave no stone unturned in its disciplinary process against Peter Ridd, while doing absolutely nothing to address his complaints about the lack of quality assurance of its research.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 16, 2019, 03:52:35 am
On a lighter note ...

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/10-gifs-that-debunk-myths-about-carbon-pricing-in-canada/?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1557957098
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 16, 2019, 05:55:16 am
... demean the integrity of ALL scientists... to cast doubt/suspicion on peer-review and prevailing science.

I don't think it demeans all scientists when you say 'scientists are human and fallible'.  They WILL insult, and be petty like anyone else.... Waldo.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 16, 2019, 06:25:17 am
Those are two unrelated things. i.e. paper making claims about the influence of climate on storms can be complete nonsense even if the basic physics is correct. I call this kind of lazy thinking the 'bait and switch'. i.e. people take something that is well supported by science and then use it to claim that unrelated claim must also be true. It is nonsense. Science does not work that way. Each claim is evaluated on its own merits.

You seem to be disqualifying the idea that a physical effect can be verified using statistical analysis.  There is no reason to do so.  The counter claims against it can be part of the discussion as with your non-analagous example of storms.  This appears to be a simpler relation than weather overall.  To say it's unrelated is basically a subversion of the discussion that would happen in peer review.

"CO2 greenhouse effect does occur in the laboratory but you can't use that to examine the macro effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because... they are unrelated" Really ?  Can we at least start with the laboratory effect and use that to examine the correlation of CO2 in atmosphere with temperature ?  I guess not ?
 ???

Quote
You can't prove a statistical analysis is false unless you can do experimental replication. All you can do in climate science is criticize the methods which is a purely subjective exercise. That is why it is so easy for alarmist scientists to dismiss skeptical papers. There is always some quibble that they can use as an excuse to declare it "debunked". The fact that their own papers have similar issues is shamelessly ignored.

No you can't "prove" it but that is immaterial.  There is no laboratory that mimics our atmosphere 100% and so you can effectively use this maxim to deny any action on climate change. 

Quote

You miss the point. Someone claimed a skeptical paper was wrong because it did "curve fitting" but the same criticism applies to almost every paper produced by alarmists like Michael Mann but his papers are taken seriously. The only difference is Mann supports the alarmists narrative so his crappy statistical methods are ignored. It is a painfully obvious double standard.

"Curve fitting" sounds a generic term for qualitative smoothing and - yes - some of that is valid and some isn't.  It's like discounting error - you can do it correctly or incorrectly and it's subject to discussion.  Unless we have the specific example it's hard to say and no I don't want it.  I already have an assignment.

Quote
We don't know what goes on behind the scenes but scientists like Judith Curry and Robert Pielke have talked about the abuse they received from colleagues  for talking a less alarmist approach

But wait.  You seem to be saying that scientists are abused BECAUSE they disagree with the consensus right ?  If I find some scientists that disagree but are also respected doesn't that disprove your assumption here ?

Quote
The problem is the chill in the current environment that could lead to paths of research being dropped as soon as the academic realizes it would be impossible to get it through the alarmists who are the gatekeepers at many journals.

Or... nobody wants to fund something that doesn't have much science behind it - only politics.  There were some strong alternatives that didn't stand up to peer review.

You yourself accept the science so why are you expecting people to be publishing papers that dispute it ?  It's a paradox.

Quote
Why should alarmist papers be taken anymore seriously if these flaws were show stoppers?

I would put to you: if someone found a correlation between temperature and some other factor (say sunspots) then that would definitely be accepted even though the same "flawed" (your word) method was used.
 
Quote
the extremely bad alarmist papers which are treated as gospel because they support the narrative. I would he happy if people would learn to understand the limitations of the methods available and the kind of certainties claimed are not legitimate.

Almost none of the denialist chatter I read from "the" public (ie. the popular fora discussing climate change) mention statistical analysis as being a flawed way to look at physical science.  Instead, I am more likely to read that George Soros is funding lying scientists for his world domination scheme.

You agree with the science, but you hate socialists.  Most of the vocal denialists are garbage-minded but also hate socialists.  You have to pick a team and unfortunately for you it's not the one you like.

I would prefer you limit your response to this post to something shorter if you can as I spent 20 minutes writing this, which is 100% of my posting time for today.  I would rather spend time looking at the critics of climate change and how they were received, thanks.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 16, 2019, 08:50:05 am
"Curve fitting" sounds a generic term for qualitative smoothing and - yes - some of that is valid and some isn't.  It's like discounting error - you can do it correctly or incorrectly and it's subject to discussion.  Unless we have the specific example it's hard to say and no I don't want it.
Mann produces papers that takes datasets which may or may not have as correlation with temperature, applies statistical algorithms that weight the data by their correlation with temperatures in modern times and simply assumes that the same correlation is valid over the entire dataset without any supporting evidence. The net result is feeding random noise into the algorithm produces the same result. In theory, objective scientists should have looked at his techniques and recognized that they produce nothing meaningful and ignore his papers. However, since his results are politically useful the quibbles with his techniques are ignored and his glorified curve fitting is celebrated.

We can (and have) produced pages of text arguing about the merits of Manns papers but all this does is prove that quibbling about statistical methods applied to datasets that cannot be re-created on demand is a purely subjective exercise. In the real world, this means alarmist scientists can always find excuses to reject skeptical lines of argument and why practicing academics have no incentive to invest their time in exploring these lines of evidence. The net result is the public interest in undermined and climate science cannot produce the research that we need to really understand the limits of our knowledge.

You agree with the science, but you hate socialists.  Most of the vocal denialists are garbage-minded but also hate socialists.  You have to pick a team and unfortunately for you it's not the one you like.
I see no difference between people rambling about "big oil" conspiracies and people going on about Soros. I see no difference between a moron that screams "denier" whenever someone questions some aspect of climate policy and a moron that claims that AGW is a UN plot. These people exist on all sides. Why do they have to prevent us from having a more nuanced discussion of what we know and what we do not?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 09:45:42 am
There is the story of skeptical scientist that was sacked by his university for daring to dispute the alarmist narrative.
BTW: your attempt to spin the ruling is fiction.

no - providing you the judge's wording, verbatim, is not spinning anything! Again, direct from the judge's ruling:
Quote
Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

Terns that would have never been enforced if he had not dared to question the glorious consensus.

 ;D nothing sweeter to see what's behind the/your curtain!


again, as I said: principal interpretations of the ruling have the University's focus on Ridd's failures to adhere to a 'code of conduct' being usurped by a 'terms & conditions' clause within an employment agreement... not your bullshyte claim the guy was sacked for, as you say, "daring to dispute the alarmist narrative". More pointedly, scientists routinely challenge/push-back on the statements/positions taken by Ridd - for example: Top marine scientists defend attack on Great Barrier Reef research (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/29/top-marine-scientists-defend-attack-on-great-barrier-reef-research)

now we could have some real fun here if you persist in your bullshyte... there's no shortage of quotes from the guy to clearly show his true positions/agenda/motives. Please proceed Governor, please proceed!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 10:04:19 am
I don't think it demeans all scientists when you say 'scientists are human and fallible'.  They WILL insult, and be petty like anyone else.... Waldo.

wow! How insightful of you - who knew scientists are humans! Of course, what you're really doing is, as you've done several times on "the other board", get suckered right into the TimG play. Are you at all surprised he's pulled out his tried&true - the Mann!  ;D You're the ultimate TimG enabler! What you did, what you're continuing to do, is take the circumstance of a couple/few scientists and a few hacked emails from a decade ago to allow TimG to use that once again to ply his false/fake narrative; one that purposely intends to denigrate ALL world-wide scientists by collectively impugning their integrity, honesty and honor... to ply his false/fake narrative that prevailing science (what he's just referred to as, "the glorious consensus") is simply a, as he's recently called it, "a popularity contest"!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 10:16:29 am
I see no difference between a moron that screams "denier" whenever someone questions some aspect of climate policy and a moron that claims that AGW is a UN plot. These people exist on all sides. Why do they have to prevent us from having a more nuanced discussion of what we know and what we do not?

you should just accept your denier label and wear it, "loud & proud"! In your case, your described "questioning some aspect", is you questioning a key/fundamental aspect - yes? You deny that mankind (that anthropogenic sourced CO2) is the principal causal tie to the relatively recent global warming/climate change (GW/CC). When repeatedly given the opportunity to provide your interpreted/understood alternative principal causal tie - you refuse to do so!

there is no, as you suggest, "nuance" in your false/fake narrative... in your agenda-driven attacks on scientists and prevailing (consensus) science. Hey, if you're all about nuance, step-up and provide your alternative principal causal tie to GW/CC - your alternative to anthropogenic sourced CO2. More nuance please!  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 16, 2019, 11:11:31 am
hey meester chilipeppers... less DUMB tagging, more posting! Signed - the "community"
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 16, 2019, 11:30:23 am
hey meester chilipeppers... less DUMB tagging, more posting! Signed - the "community"

Sometimes I hope lightning strikes your keyboard, and you lose the ability to type.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 16, 2019, 11:34:45 am
Sometimes I hope lightning strikes your keyboard, and you lose the ability to type.

Well with the ever increasing occurrence/severity of lightning storms due to global warming you may just get your wish. Just make sure you keep an eye on the forecasts and be ready to pull your fingers back.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 16, 2019, 11:53:29 am
This out of Germany ... and WOW!
Could the right-wing climate-change deniers be any more disgusting?!!
Vile personal attacks on a teenager because of her success in promoting awareness of climate change.
Absolutely VILE behaviour from so-called adults.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/14/germanys-afd-attacks-greta-thunberg-as-it-embraces-climate-denial
Germany’s rightwing populists are embracing climate change denial as the latest topic with which to boost their electoral support, teaming up with scientists who claim hysteria is driving the global warming debate and ridiculing the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg as “mentally challenged” and a fraud.
...
The party, whose members have been seen handing out climate change denial leaflets at school climate strikes, has ratcheted up its anti-Thunberg rhetoricahead of the EU parliamentary elections this month. Its candidates have made comparisons between the Swedish teenager and a member of a Nazi youth organisation and called for her to seek treatment for what Maximilian Krah, an AfD candidate for the EU elections, called her “psychosis”.
...
Attacking Greta, at times in fairly vicious ways, including mocking her for her autism, became a way to portray the AfD’s political opponents as irrational.”


Any party that hinges it's platform on such child abuse should be subject to disbanding and other appropriate legal punishments.
Disgusting **** creeps!
The FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY no doubt supports them financially in such degraded behaviour, likely encourages these attacks ON A TEENAGER!

ABSOLUTE FILTH, ALL OF THEM !!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 16, 2019, 12:20:54 pm
Vile personal attacks on a teenager because of her success in promoting awareness of climate change.
You mean the teen that has been shamelessly exploited by alarmists for propaganda. Talk about the kettle calling pot black. This is also the same teen that claims (https://www.afrinik.com/my-daughter-can-see-co2-with-the-naked-eye/) to see CO2 in the air. Suggesting that she Mentally challenged and/or suffering from psychosis seems like a factual statement.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 16, 2019, 01:33:53 pm
You mean the teen that has been shamelessly exploited by alarmists for propaganda. Talk about the kettle calling pot black. This is also the same teen that claims (https://www.afrinik.com/my-daughter-can-see-co2-with-the-naked-eye/) to see CO2 in the air. Suggesting that she Mentally challenged and/or suffering from psychosis seems like a factual statement.

I guess the far right climate denier idiots such as the AfD must be feeling a little feeble in their position if they need to attack a little girl such as Gretta to try to grab a headline. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 16, 2019, 01:50:35 pm
You mean the teen that has been shamelessly exploited by alarmists for propaganda. Talk about the kettle calling pot black. This is also the same teen that claims (https://www.afrinik.com/my-daughter-can-see-co2-with-the-naked-eye/) to see CO2 in the air. Suggesting that she Mentally challenged and/or suffering from psychosis seems like a factual statement.

Links?
PROOF of exploitation, not just more of your predatory Alt-right filth and slanderous nonsense.
This is a minor child.
She is NOT an appropriate target for filthy fossil fuel  scum.

The fact of her Autism is not an indicator of anything other than that she is a child who may possess extraordinary and extrasensitive perceptions and abilities.

Only scum would attack a child that way.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 16, 2019, 02:04:00 pm
Links?
I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means. And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics. The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 16, 2019, 02:13:11 pm
I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means. And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics. The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.

PROOF of exploitation.
Or are you just a filthy fossil fuel predator who would victimize a child?
Sick to death of those scum, who would stoop to child abuse as just another handy weapon to make more blood money.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 16, 2019, 02:42:45 pm
I gave you a link in my post. That is what the underlined text means.
PROOF of nothing.
Quote
And if alarmists wish to exploit a teen by making her a spokes person for alarm-ism then her credibility is a valid target for critics.
No.
Prove she is exploited by "alarmists", and attack their credibility.
A child is never a "valid target" for abuse by adults.
(I have to actually tell you that?!!!)

Quote
The idea that she should be able to spout incoherent nonsense and everyone has to bite their tongues because she is a child is ridiculous.

So ... critique what she says.

But the vile and abusive personal attacks against a child as reported above ... that's the behaviour of criminals.

She is a child with a huge following, and that's a disturbing thing to the fossil fuel privateers.
But it is no justification for fossil fuel funded child abuse.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 16, 2019, 03:05:50 pm
PROOF of exploitation.
All of the media coverage that makes her out as a some sort of climate hero is exploitative. Any alarmist who uses her image to to promote alarmism is exploiting her. Children should not be used in such a way. Children have nothing of substance to contribute to the policy debate because they don't have enough life experience to understand how the real world works. Most children don't even understand what it is like to have to work to get enough money to put food on the table nevermind deal with questions of economics. The fact that this child also appears to be delusional makes the exploitation even worse.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 16, 2019, 06:47:52 pm
PROOF of exploitation.
Or are you just a filthy fossil fuel predator who would victimize a child?
Sick to death of those scum, who would stoop to child abuse as just another handy weapon to make more blood money.

I hate those fossil fuel scum. They once lured me to their white van with the promise of "candy."
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 17, 2019, 05:55:26 am
The net result is feeding random noise into the algorithm produces the same result.

Sorry, though - you yourself believe this correlation don't you ?

Quote
In theory, objective scientists should have looked at his techniques and recognized that they produce nothing meaningful and ignore his papers. However, since his results are politically useful the quibbles with his techniques are ignored and his glorified curve fitting is celebrated.

Smoothing and error correction requires knowledge of the subject matter.  Even a mathematician has limited ability to assess things like cofactors, or independence of variables.  While it's possible that the thousands of knowledgable scientists that have read this work said nothing, it's not believable to me.


Quote
alarmist scientists can always find excuses to reject skeptical lines of argument and why practicing academics have no incentive to invest their time in exploring these lines of evidence. The net result is the public interest in undermined and climate science cannot produce the research that we need to really understand the limits of our knowledge.

Of course they could but are they ?   And if so, how did they convince you ?

Quote
I see no difference between people rambling about "big oil" conspiracies and people going on about Soros. I see no difference between a moron that screams "denier" whenever someone questions some aspect of climate policy and a moron that claims that AGW is a UN plot. These people exist on all sides. Why do they have to prevent us from having a more nuanced discussion of what we know and what we do not?

Because people allow them to define points of discussion in the debate.  The incredible thing is that the science is far more discrete and has more capacity for objective exploration than the economics, and than our approaches to the problem.  And yet the debate on the science seems to be the more contentious one. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 17, 2019, 07:32:55 am
Smoothing and error correction requires knowledge of the subject matter.  Even a mathematician has limited ability to assess things like cofactors, or independence of variables.  While it's possible that the thousands of knowledgable scientists that have read this work said nothing, it's not believable to me.
Well that is the problem. You place too much weight on the idea that every narrow domain is so specialized that someone who is not a professional academic cannot read the literature and learn what is needed to provide a knowledgeable assessment. People with a lot of knowledge of math, statistics and the datasets in question have looked at these issues and provided more than adequate arguments that Mann's methods are junk and violate the basic rules of statistical analysis. I personally have enough knowledge of statistics to read the claims and counter claims to know that the critics have the better argument yet despite that many professional climate scientists refuse to acknowledge the obvious. This is why I say any scientific question that cannot be settled with replicable experiments is subjective and the answers change depending on the biases of the academics providing the answers.

Of course they could but are they ?   And if so, how did they convince you ?
They convinced me only in the areas where experimental replication can be used to validate the claim. In this case it is the warming effect of CO2 and a measurable increase in air and ocean temperatures over the last few decades. However, this tells us nothing about the amount of warming we will have to deal with or the consequences. The only thing that has been established is that it could be a big problem and therefore it would be prudent to act.

Because people allow them to define points of discussion in the debate.  The incredible thing is that the science is far more discrete and has more capacity for objective exploration than the economics, and than our approaches to the problem.  And yet the debate on the science seems to be the more contentious one.
This is entirely the fault of alarmists who decided that they would usurp the authority of science in order to push policy choices that are questions of values rather than science. This forced people who do not share the values and priorities of the alarmists to attack the science. If the alarmists had instead acknowledged that the decision on what to do about the science is a question of values then the science would have been left out of the debate (i.e. people would have agreed on the science but used arguments based on values to argue for their preferred policy choices). To provide an analogy: science may diagnose someone with cancer and provide treatment options but the question of what treatment to follow is a question of values.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 17, 2019, 09:13:47 am
wow! ...denigrate ALL world-wide scientists by collectively impugning their integrity, honesty and honor... to ply his false/fake narrative that prevailing science

You seem to be saying that I should deny obvious facts because they help his argument.  That's a great example of a Waldo thing.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 17, 2019, 11:21:07 am
wow! How insightful of you - who knew scientists are humans! Of course, what you're really doing is, as you've done several times on "the other board", get suckered right into the TimG play. Are you at all surprised he's pulled out his tried&true - the Mann!  ;D You're the ultimate TimG enabler! What you did, what you're continuing to do, is take the circumstance of a couple/few scientists and a few hacked emails from a decade ago to allow TimG to use that once again to ply his false/fake narrative; one that purposely intends to denigrate ALL world-wide scientists by collectively impugning their integrity, honesty and honor... to ply his false/fake narrative that prevailing science (what he's just referred to as, "the glorious consensus") is simply a, as he's recently called it, "a popularity contest"!
You seem to be saying that I should deny obvious facts because they help his argument.  That's a great example of a Waldo thing.

in regards Hackergate, you're the one that said there was NO THERE, THERE... in your enabler mode (the MH thing) you then proceed to make hay over a couple of scientists and a few emails. The so-called TimG "argument" is his false/fake narrative that you're playing into.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 18, 2019, 05:52:40 pm
1. in regards Hackergate, you're the one that said there was NO THERE, THERE...
2. in your enabler mode (the MH thing) you then proceed to make hay over a couple of scientists and a few emails.
3. The so-called TimG "argument" is his false/fake narrative that you're playing into.
1. There is nothing like a conspiracy, no.
2. 'make hay' means acknowledge some points of my discussion partner, right ?  So yes
3. He comes to incorrect conclusions IMO.  Some of his observations are accurate though.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 08:03:09 am
Well that is the problem. You place too much weight on the idea that every narrow domain is so specialized that someone who is not a professional academic cannot read the literature and learn what is needed to provide a knowledgeable assessment.

It's a balance.   I will just say I don't see any examples of what you're saying in the criticism.  I do recall reading blogs by people who say " I have a degree in science and this is wrong because .... " then quoting something that's incorrect.

Quote
People with a lot of knowledge of math, statistics and the datasets in question have looked at these issues and provided more than adequate arguments that Mann's methods are junk and violate the basic rules of statistical analysis. I personally have enough knowledge of statistics to read the claims and counter claims to know that the critics have the better argument yet despite that many professional climate scientists refuse to acknowledge the obvious. This is why I say any scientific question that cannot be settled with replicable experiments is subjective and the answers change depending on the biases of the academics providing the answers.

I looked into this in the past and I disagree.

Quote
They convinced me only in the areas where experimental replication can be used to validate the claim. In this case it is the warming effect of CO2 and a measurable increase in air and ocean temperatures over the last few decades. However, this tells us nothing about the amount of warming we will have to deal with or the consequences. The only thing that has been established is that it could be a big problem and therefore it would be prudent to act.

Well... how does Mann's paper broach the topic of 'consequences' ?  If they do anything beyond a high-level summary then I agree they went to far.

Quote
This is entirely the fault of alarmists who decided...

You're mixing in politics with the science that we were discussing.  If you're done, then please limit your response to a quick one so I can look for references to Friis-Christensen etc. in the leaked emails thanks.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 08:33:39 am
It's a balance.   I will just say I don't see any examples of what you're saying in the criticism.  I do recall reading blogs by people who say " I have a degree in science and this is wrong because .... " then quoting something that's incorrect.
That is because you don't bother to look because you simply assume that anyone posting an opinion on a blog has not done the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment. When Climate Audit was active, Steve McIntyre read all of the relevant papers and re-did the math to prove that he could reproduce the results (this was often challenging because scientists and journals would refuse to follow their stated policies and provide the data needed for reproduction of papers). No reasonable observer can argue that he did not do the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment, however, there are a lot of unreasonable observers out there. If you disagree then explain what a non-academic would have to do to demonstrate that they have done the work needed to  provided an informed opinion? Note that publishing papers in journals is not a legitimate requirement for someone who only wants to understand and critique research done by others. Also you can't argue that critique need to be published in journals because that people can be informed even if they do not bother with the completely ineffective process for commenting on published papers (the problems are nicely summed up in this humorous post (https://frog.gatech.edu/Pubs/How-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-123-Easy-Steps.pdf)).

I looked into this in the past and I disagree.
Well that is my entire point. You can disagree but you can't prove that you are right or prove that I am wrong. That is why this particular field is purely subjective and there are few claims that do not depend the biases of the academics. That is why the the lack of objectivity among climate scientists means their claims cannot be taken at face value and the lack of skeptical voices undermines the credibility of their claims.

Well... how does Mann's paper broach the topic of 'consequences' ?  If they do anything beyond a high-level summary then I agree they went to far.
The reaction of the academic community to the blatantly obvious problems in the Mann is evidence of the lack of objectivity in the field. The substance of Mann's paper is not that significant.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 08:42:55 am
That is because you don't bother to look because you simply assume that anyone posting an opinion on a blog has not done the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment.

Incorrect.  I spent dozens of hours or more on this years ago and I found - at the heart of it - a "spat".  None of the calculations around correlations appeared to me to be wrong and you yourself seem to be accepting the obviosu here.

Quote
No reasonable observer can argue that he did not do the work required to provide a knowledgeable assessment, however, there are a lot of unreasonable observers out there.

Ok - I don't remember the details.  Did he find egregious issues ?  Nit picks ?  Did he publish his findings.

Quote
If you disagree then explain what a non-academic would have to do to demonstrate that they have done the work needed to  provided an informed opinion? Note that publishing papers in journals is not a legitimate requirement for someone who only wants to understand and critique research done by others.

If you are an academic and you find a significant problem with the science then they will accept your paper.

Quote
Well that is my entire point. You can disagree but you can't prove that you are right or prove that I am wrong. That is why this particular field is purely subjective and there are no results that do not depend the biases of the academics.

'Proof' happens in math or philosophy, not physical sciences.  You yourself have been convinced without 'proof' in that the lab experiments can't be replicated, by your own words.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 08:54:07 am
I finally looked for the 'real' Climate Scientists I know of that registered skepticism about the science at that time.  Most are not mentioned but Richard Lindzen is, but also given credit as being a 'real' scientist.  It seems to indicated that the scientists you accuse of being biased, are at least begrudgingly objective.

To me, if your thesis is that scientists are 'biased' I say "ok, humans are biased - sorry Waldo" and I also say "enough scientists in a culture that values objectivity will provide a space to discuss reasonable doubt".  They were discussing whether reasonable doubt was in fact being registered. There is such a thing as unreasonable doubt.

And with regards to Lindzen, a real climate scientist who had doubts, the leaked emails say:

"As token skeptic there is Dick Lindzen—but at least he is a smart guy and he does listen."
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 08:57:32 am
Incorrect.  I spent dozens of hours or more on this years ago and I found - at the heart of it - a "spat".  None of the calculations around correlations appeared to me to be wrong and you yourself seem to be accepting the obviosu here.
That is your opinion which is proof of my point: there is no truth in this field. Only opinion that depends on the biases of the observers.

'Proof' happens in math or philosophy, not physical sciences.  You yourself have been convinced without 'proof' in that the lab experiments can't be replicated, by your own words.
You miss the point entirely. Replication is a unbiased way to resolve scientific disagreements. i.e. the experiment can be replicated or it cannot. Without replication you only have opinion which is subject to bias.

To put it another way: you expect me to have "faith" that the system works in climate science. Why? Because scientific process works in other fields? I have explained why that is not good enough because of the lack of experimental replication. Do you have another reason that is not simply an appeal to religion?


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 09:16:02 am
That is your opinion which is proof of my point: there is no truth in this field. Only opinion that depends on the biases of the observers.

The question to me is more about whether the biases cripple the ability to come to a correct conclusion.

Quote
To put it another way: you expect me to have "faith" that the system works in climate science. Why? Because scientific process works in other fields? I have explained why that is not good enough because of the lack of experimental replication. Do you have another reason that is not simply an appeal religion?

Well, I guess there is no alternative so you can maybe suggest something better that manages the problem wherein physical sciences can't always be replicated.  Again, you have bought into the conclusion so it's strange to me that you are invalidating it.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 09:22:20 am
The question to me is more about whether the biases cripple the ability to come to a correct conclusion.
And how are we supposed to determine that when it is impossible to know what the "correct" conclusion is? Note that I have a concrete suggestion for managing the biases that inevitability exist: embrace contrarians instead of vilifying them. A larger number of skeptical scientists publishing without fear for their career or livelihoods would only increase the confidence we have in the majority view.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 09:57:51 am
1. And how are we supposed to determine that when it is impossible to know what the "correct" conclusion is?
2. Note that I have a concrete suggestion for managing the biases that inevitability exist: embrace contrarians instead of vilifying them.
3. A larger number of skeptical scientists publishing without fear for their career or livelihoods would only increase the confidence we have in the majority view.
1. I think we have to make a best guess.
2. Nice sentiment but the devil is in the details.  Journals have limited space, there is a limit to what we can consider reasonable also - even if we can't articulate it objectively.
3. Turning your first question back "how are we to know if we're not being objective enough or are being objective enough ?". 

As I have shown, skeptical scientists were respected enough and were published.  Do you want every crank to be allowed to be published ?  Your solution seems more like a platitude.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 10:24:59 am
2. Nice sentiment but the devil is in the details.  Journals have limited space, there is a limit to what we can consider reasonable also - even if we can't articulate it objectively.
It is about a change in culture rather than the number of papers that starts with an end to the obsession with the "consensus". As long as a value is place on the "consensus" there will be an effort to silence critics to protect the "consensus". Remove this artificial constraint and more diverse voices are inevitable.

3. Turning your first question back "how are we to know if we're not being objective enough or are being objective enough ?".
We don't need objectivity if contrarian voices are valued. Bias is inevitable.  We need to deal with it - not deny it exists.

As I have shown, skeptical scientists were respected enough and were published.  Do you want every crank to be allowed to be published ?  Your solution seems more like a platitude.
In an environment where the "consensus" is valued above all else anyone who disagrees is a called a "crank" so that epithet is not helpful. What is needed are more people who can distinguish between reasonable contrarian arguments that may be wrong from unscientific nonsense. We don't have that today.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 10:33:13 am
It is about a change in culture rather than the number of papers that starts with an end to the obsession with the "consensus". As long as a value is place on the "consensus" there will be an effort to silence critics to protect the "consensus". Remove this artificial constraint and more diverse voices are inevitable.

'Consensus' is a mark that enough scientists agree for us to act.  If you hate the word, give it another word.  The real problem is that a minority of scientists were allowed to dissuade the public from believing there was a problem.  Your concern is 100% misplaced given what happened.

Quote
We don't need objectivity if contrarian voices are valued. Bias is inevitable.  We need to deal with it - not deny it exists.
In an environment where the "consensus" is valued above all else anyone who disagrees is a called a "crank" so that epithet is not helpful. What is needed are more people who can distinguish between reasonable contrarian arguments that may be wrong from unscientific nonsense. We don't have that today.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the current problem in front of our face (outliers defining the debate) in case a future situation happens where the consensus is clearly wrong...
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 10:55:49 am
'Consensus' is a mark that enough scientists agree for us to act.  If you hate the word, give it another word.  The real problem is that a minority of scientists were allowed to dissuade the public from believing there was a problem.  Your concern is 100% misplaced given what happened.
1) You are basically admitting that the consensus is artificial and that the scientific process has been turned into a political tool. This is why many believe the process cannot be trusted anymore.

2) Climate scientists have no expertise in economics or energy production. They may think it is prudent to act but others have to determine if we should act.

It seems to me that you are ignoring the current problem in front of our face (outliers defining the debate) in case a future situation happens where the consensus is clearly wrong...
The problem in front of our face is that well meaning but misguided people thought they could corrupt the scientific process by introducing political requirements. This inevitably turned climate scientists into partisans and destroyed any credibility they might have had as neutral arbiters of facts.

Skeptics are not going away. Australia just elected a conservative government that will be rolling back climate policies. The question for you is why you think introducing political requirements into the scientific process was such a great idea?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 19, 2019, 11:49:05 am
Skeptics are not going away. Australia just elected a conservative government that will be rolling back climate policies. The question for you is why you think introducing political requirements into the scientific process was such a great idea?

says you, here, attaching politics to presumptive skeptical science - such a hypocrite you are! Point in fact, is that votes are still being counted to determine whether the 'Liberal-National' coalition will remain in its current minority position... notwithstanding this same party has been ruling for 3 terms now - care to speak to what "climate policies" of their own making they, as you say, will be "rolling back"?  ;D

and as I read/interpret it was essentially one 'province' that turned the election - a rural intensive one with strong ties to coal mining... where fossil-fuel interests heavily factored in emphasizing, 'jobs, jobs, jobs''! And just as significant, the overall populace did not "like" the leader of the alternate Labour Party - populist rhetoric ruled the day.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 19, 2019, 11:58:15 am
well done MH! You're just so malleable  ;D I'm shocked denier TimG managed to, once again, trot out his tried & true "McIntyre/Mann" - shocked, I tells ya! And again, you dredge up your past so-called behemoth effort to show there was, "no there there"... as you, once again, played right into the TimG fake/false narrative. Did you get the same result as last time?

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-only-fools-repeat-the-same-things-over-and-over-expecting-to-obtain-different-results-george-bernard-shaw-146-33-02.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 19, 2019, 12:00:52 pm
says you, here, attaching politics to presumptive skeptical science - such a hypocrite you are! Point in fact, is that votes are still being counted to determine whether the 'Liberal-National' coalition will remain in its current minority position... notwithstanding this same party has been ruling for 3 terms now - care to speak to what "climate policies" of their own making they, as you say, will be "rolling back"?  ;D

and as I read/interpret it was essentially one 'province' that turned the election - a rural intensive one with strong ties to coal mining... where fossil-fuel interests heavily factored in emphasizing, 'jobs, jobs, jobs''! And just as significant, the overall populace did not "like" the leader of the alternate Labour Party - populist rhetoric ruled the day.

Yes a third term Liberal coalition government being elected for a third term is hardly "a new conservative government". And this current government has set it's goals to roll back emissions by 26-28 % of 2005 levels by 2030, so they haven't dismissed the4 global warming problem either it would seem.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 19, 2019, 12:02:23 pm
In an environment where the "consensus" is valued above all else anyone who disagrees is a called a "crank" so that epithet is not helpful. What is needed are more people who can distinguish between reasonable contrarian arguments that may be wrong from unscientific nonsense. We don't have that today.

no - legitimate skeptics are valued and recognized as an avenue to confirm and/or extend upon and/or change prevailing science. Cranks are your preferred fake-skeptics and deniers who offer nothing to confirm/advance prevailing science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 19, 2019, 12:10:21 pm
Ok - I don't remember the details.  Did he find egregious issues ?  Nit picks ?  Did he publish his findings.

I wonder why TimG didn't answer your question concerning his mentor/hero McIntyre publishing?  ;D Why would he need to publish and go outside the protected confines of his blog? Ah, just when I think I'm out... they pull me right back in again... I thought my days of remembering/thinking about that cesspool of "blog scientists" was passed!

you mention Lindzen - a most accredited "skeptic"... yes, the guy did publish - and given his standing/credentials was met with necessary challenge; again, another "skeptic" whose papers/positions couldn't stand the test of peer-response.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 19, 2019, 02:46:08 pm
I wonder why TimG didn't answer your question concerning his mentor/hero McIntyre publishing?  ;D Why would he need to publish and go outside the protected confines of his blog? Ah, just when I think I'm out... they pull me right back in again... I thought my days of remembering/thinking about that cesspool of "blog scientists" was passed!

you mention Lindzen - a most accredited "skeptic"... yes, the guy did publish - and given his standing/credentials was met with necessary challenge; again, another "skeptic" whose papers/positions couldn't stand the test of peer-response.

I think the most valid conclusion to draw from TimG's posts is that if it's a skeptic-denier paper on his preferred list, it's most likely funded by the fossil fuel industry. = /ignore.
:D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 06:18:39 pm
1) You are basically admitting that the consensus is artificial and that the scientific process has been turned into a political tool. This is why many believe the process cannot be trusted anymore.

No, I'm not saying that.  It's real but you can't create an objective process on this - you have to trust humans.

Quote
2) Climate scientists have no expertise in economics or energy production. They may think it is prudent to act but others have to determine if we should act.

So let's see Mann's paper on economics or his energy production patents ?  Right, there are none.

When they speak about politics and economics, it's a different landscape and we aren't talking about that here.

Quote
The problem in front of our face is that well meaning but misguided people thought they could corrupt the scientific process by introducing political requirements. This inevitably turned climate scientists into partisans and destroyed any credibility they might have had as neutral arbiters of facts.

Hyperbole.  Again, you agree with the conclusion so you are trying to convince me that you yourself were fooled.

Quote
Skeptics are not going away. Australia just elected a conservative government that will be rolling back climate policies. The question for you is why you think introducing political requirements into the scientific process was such a great idea?


The politics is separate, the humanity isn't.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 06:20:01 pm
well done MH! You're just so malleable  ;D I'm shocked denier TimG managed to, once again, trot out his tried & true "McIntyre/Mann" - shocked, I tells ya! And again, you dredge up your past so-called behemoth effort to show there was, "no there there"... as you, once again, played right into the TimG fake/false narrative. Did you get the same result as last time?

"played right into his narrative" again means I agreed with some stated facts that are foundational to his argument.  I don't argue to win, I argue to learn and to teach so I reject your lawyerly approach to discussion.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 06:35:18 pm
I wonder why TimG didn't answer your question concerning his mentor/hero McIntyre publishing?  ;D Why would he need to publish and go outside the protected confines of his blog? Ah, just when I think I'm out... they pull me right back in again... I thought my days of remembering/thinking about that cesspool of "blog scientists" was passed!

TimG now is convinced of the science... but wants marginal contributors to be given more attention ... than the excessive attention they have already received.

Quote
you mention Lindzen - a most accredited "skeptic"... yes, the guy did publish - and given his standing/credentials was met with necessary challenge; again, another "skeptic" whose papers/positions couldn't stand the test of peer-response.

I thought he eventually gave up his theory. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 06:47:33 pm
TimG now is convinced of the science... but wants marginal contributors to be given more attention ... than the excessive attention they have already received.
My opinion on the science has not changed in 10 years. The only thing that changed is you tried listening to what I say instead of making assumptions because I don't blindly trust people who have demonstrated that they are not worthy of trust.

You have completely missed my entire argument about the need to protect against group think by encouraging contrarians. Perhaps this wiki article on group think will help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

The symptoms describe climate scientists almost exactly:

Quote
To make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms indicative of groupthink.

Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.

Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.

Type III: Pressures toward uniformity

Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

That said, I am not optimistic that you will be able to acknowledge the clear evidence of a problem.

If is much easier for you to "[stereotype] those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid."
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 19, 2019, 07:15:25 pm
I think the opposition is mostly 'incorrect' and the system as it was bent over backwards to give too much attention to weak theories because people were sensitive to accusations of bias.  And I believe that just as you believe the opposite and there's no way to prove it.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 19, 2019, 07:41:01 pm
TimG now is convinced of the science...

no - he most certainly does not! Why do you keep saying so? Member TimG does not accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to climate change/global warming. The related CO2 science can't be refuted... so TimG begrudgingly accepts the warming aspect by giving a token acknowledgement to, "it being a contributor to warming". This is dance he keeps suckering you into. As you recently mention Lindzen, that was his same underlying theme, to the point of even qualifying his denial to state that anthropogenic sourced CO2 impact on warming was a nominal ~1% factor; claiming instead that natural variability is the cause of global warming. At least here TimG goes mute when challenged to state his understood/interpreted alternate principal causal tie.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 19, 2019, 07:42:12 pm
My opinion on the science has not changed in 10 years. The only thing that changed is you tried listening to what I say instead of making assumptions because I don't blindly trust people who have demonstrated that they are not worthy of trust.

You have completely missed my entire argument about the need to protect against group think by encouraging contrarians. Perhaps this wiki article on group think will help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

The symptoms describe climate scientists almost exactly:

That said, I am not optimistic that you will be able to acknowledge the clear evidence of a problem.

If is much easier for you to "[stereotype] those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid."

So you are still somehow convinced that over 97% of environmental scientists with peer reviewed studies that concur on climate change are simply victims of this "groupthink" thingy? I suggest looking in the mirror.


The evidence is overwhelming. Record-breaking temperatures, humidity, and sea level rise, along with many other indicators, show that the Earth is warming fast, and that all the heat-trapping emissions we release into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is changing our climate.

The time to act is now. But, many powerful industry interests have hindered action and have, largely through surrogates, spread dangerous myths about climate change.

One of the preferred tactics these groups use to sow confusion is to promote studies that either ignore or misrepresent the evidence of thousands of articles published in well-established and well-respected scientific journals, which show that global warming is happening and that it is caused by humans.

No matter how much contrarians try to cloak reality, the evidence is not going away. 

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 07:55:46 pm
no - he most certainly does not! Why do you keep saying so?....
An waldo drops by to fill the role of "Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.".
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 19, 2019, 07:58:05 pm
So you are still somehow convinced that over 97% of environmental scientists with peer reviewed studies that concur on climate change are simply victims of this "groupthink" thingy? I suggest looking in the mirror.
And omni drops by to remind us about one of the more obvious symptoms of group think:

Quote
Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 19, 2019, 08:05:11 pm
And omni drops by to remind us about one of the more obvious symptoms of group think:

I had no need to remind "us", you have already displayed many obvious symptoms. Would you suggest perhaps that the majority of scientists who have concluded that the world is not flat may also possibly be affected by "groupthink"?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 19, 2019, 08:19:16 pm
An waldo drops by to fill the role of "Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.".

yet another of your standard weasel plays. I'm not preventing you from showcasing your denial. In the post you're quoting from, what did I state that wasn't accurate/true?

you do not accept the prevailing science - you deny it. Again, please provide your understood/interpreted alternate principal cause of the relative recent climate change & global warming... your alternate to anthropogenic sourced CO2. Just do it!  ;D

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 20, 2019, 03:29:30 pm
And I believe that just as you believe the opposite and there's no way to prove it.
And ultimately this is the problem with climate science. There are few objective facts or hypotheses that can be proven or replicated with experiments. The majority of claims are subjective opinions dressed up with academic language. Different knowledgeable people can read the same paper can come to different conclusions on its worth because each person brings their own biases and preconceptions to the table that they cannot escape. In your case, your biases mean you want to believe that scientists can be objective even though you can't prove this belief. This blind faith in the process biases your view as much as my view is biased by the belief that climate scientists are not objective and have no desire to be objective. The bigger question is whether people who agree to disagree on many aspects of the science can then work to develop policies to deal with the plausible but largely unknown harms caused by future warming.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 20, 2019, 04:03:04 pm
And ultimately this is the problem with climate science. There are few objective facts or hypotheses that can be proven or replicated with experiments. The majority of claims are subjective opinions dressed up with academic language. Different knowledgeable people can read the same paper can come to different conclusions on its worth because each person brings their own biases and preconceptions to the table that they cannot escape. In your case, your biases mean you want to believe that scientists can be objective even though you can't prove this belief. This blind faith in the process biases your view as much as my view is biased by the belief that climate scientists are not objective and have no desire to be objective. The bigger question is whether people who agree to disagree on many aspects of the science can then work to develop policies to deal with the plausible but largely unknown harms caused by future warming.

So you still believe that upwards of 97% of professionally trained climate scientists are publishing their peer reviewed findings simply based on blind faith. I suggest the actual "blindness" is ignoring such obvious examples such as sea level rise due to rapid melting of long term ice sheets. You can actually SEE that simply by looking up a sat. photo of the arctic. Other effects might not be so blatantly obvious to the untrained eye but it's a good place to start.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 21, 2019, 04:43:50 pm
TimG doesn't really believe that. Lol

Apparently we can't trust the coal industry to tell the truth either. SHOCKING that the fossil fuel industries fund research and propaganda-philes to deny climate change!  SHOCKING I say! What are they going to try next?! The banks don't trust them either!

They must be getting quite desperate now.
Exposed.

A Major Coal Company Went Bust. Its Bankruptcy Filing Shows That It Was Funding Climate Change Denialism.
https://static.theintercept.com/amp/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy.html

Moral of the story: Climate deniers go bankrupt?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 21, 2019, 05:36:59 pm
Apparently we can't trust the coal industry to tell the truth either. SHOCKING that the fossil fuel industries fund research and propaganda-philes to deny climate change!
And Granny drops by with a text book example of Type II symptom of group think:

Quote
Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 21, 2019, 05:59:37 pm
TimG doesn't really believe that. Lol

Apparently we can't trust the coal industry to tell the truth either. SHOCKING that the fossil fuel industries fund research and propaganda-philes to deny climate change!  SHOCKING I say! What are they going to try next?! The banks don't trust them either!

They must be getting quite desperate now.
Exposed.

A Major Coal Company Went Bust. Its Bankruptcy Filing Shows That It Was Funding Climate Change Denialism.
https://static.theintercept.com/amp/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy.html

Moral of the story: Climate deniers go bankrupt?

I suspect Tim may be a fan of Chris Bookers: British journalist who thinks he's a scientist and who believes global warming is a hoax as well as that asbestos is good for you and smoking doesn't hurt you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Global_warming

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is a British journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the satirical magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] He has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 21, 2019, 06:19:21 pm
I suspect Tim may be a fan of Chris Bookers: British journalist who thinks he's a scientist and who believes global warming is a hoax as well as that asbestos is good for you and smoking doesn't hurt you.
And Omni follows without another slam dunk example of Type II symptom of group think:

Quote
Type II: Closed-mindedness

Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 21, 2019, 06:24:36 pm
And Granny drops by with a text book example of Type II symptom of group think:

Hey now don't get mired down in "groupthink". You have to get your hand into your pocket to help subsidize the fossil fuel industry you seem to be so in favor of. The industry needs in excess of $5 trillion/year to keep them profitable so you better get off your ass and get to work and pay that tax.

The International Monetary Fund periodically assesses global subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its work on climate, and it found in a recent working paper that the fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. This amounts to 6.4 percent of the global gross domestic product.

Its last assessment in 2015 tabulated a value of $5.3 trillion — so not much has changed since then, despite growing alarm about rising temperatures and plummeting prices for alternatives like solar and wind energy. And it’s now clearer than ever that the political will to take on fossil fuels still hasn’t materialized.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 21, 2019, 09:32:58 pm
Hey now don't get mired down in "groupthink". You have to get your hand into your pocket to help subsidize the fossil fuel industry you seem to be so in favor of. The industry needs in excess of $5 trillion/year to keep them profitable so you better get off your ass and get to work and pay that tax.

The International Monetary Fund periodically assesses global subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its work on climate, and it found in a recent working paper that the fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. This amounts to 6.4 percent of the global gross domestic product.

Its last assessment in 2015 tabulated a value of $5.3 trillion — so not much has changed since then, despite growing alarm about rising temperatures and plummeting prices for alternatives like solar and wind energy. And it’s now clearer than ever that the political will to take on fossil fuels still hasn’t materialized.

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

Political will in two parties now.
Trudeau will waffle.
Maybe Scheer will surprise us.  Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 22, 2019, 07:58:19 am
And Granny drops by with a text book example of Type II symptom of group think:

“You are not mature enough to tell it like it is. Even that burden, you leave to us, children. … Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.”

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 08:38:36 am
“You are not mature enough to tell it like it is. Even that burden, you leave to us, children. … Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.”
And Granny decides to mix it up with wonderful example of a Type I group think symptom:

Quote
Type I: Overestimations of the group — its power and morality

Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 22, 2019, 09:31:10 am
in the mega-throes of climate denial groupthink, member TimG tags others with the groupthink label

by the by, those 5+ decades of study that support related prevailing science... are the foundation behind the climate 'consensus' and, accordingly, disproves your and anyone's accusations of groupthink
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 09:50:08 am
by the by, those 5+ decades of study that support related prevailing science... are the foundation behind the climate 'consensus' and, accordingly, disproves your and anyone's accusations of groupthink
Except it doesn't because almost all of the science is based on non-replicable hypotheses where acceptances by the "group" is the only criteria used to judge which science is good and which is bad. It is an environment where group think can easily lead people down a blind alley and why the fact that climate scientists demonstrate all of the symptoms of group think should be a major concern. Of course, denial of the possibility of group think is one of the symptoms of group think so it comes as no surprise that you refuse to acknowledge the risk.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 11:13:26 am
Except it doesn't because almost all of the science is based on non-replicable hypotheses where acceptances by the "group" is the only criteria used to judge which science is good and which is bad. It is an environment where group think can easily lead people down a blind alley and why the fact that climate scientists demonstrate all of the symptoms of group think should be a major concern. Of course, denial of the possibility of group think is one of the symptoms of group think so it comes as no surprise that you refuse to acknowledge the risk.

Huge tracts of polar ice melt is not "non-replicable hypothesis", it's reality, and it's actually the ice that is non-replicable. It seems simply that any scientific that happens to refute your idea must be "group think". Scientists also concluded back when that airplanes at specific weights, in specific density altitudes require specific lengths of runway to safely get airborne. You could call that "groupthink" too I suppose, but if you want to go outside of that I hope you never get in a cockpit.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 12:47:17 pm
Huge tracts of polar ice melt is not "non-replicable hypothesis"
Ice melting is not a hypothesis. It is a fact. Explanations for why the ice is melting are hypotheses and none of the suggested hypotheses are based on replicable science.

Scientists also concluded back when that airplanes at specific weights, in specific density altitudes require specific lengths of runway to safely get airborne.
A perfect example of a replicable hypothesis. In this case, a scientist proposes a hypotheses regarding aircraft then goes out a does real world experiments that will either confirm or refute the hypotheses. It makes no difference if the scientist is biased or an ideologue because the real world is the arbiter of the truth. Almost none of the claims made by climate scientists can be verified in such as way which makes their claims entirely dependent on their biases. If scientists want to believe that CO2 explains everything then any research that supports this will be deemed "good" and any that refutes it will be deemed "bad". IOW, without the ability to refute or confirm claims with the real world there is no way to determine if claims have any connection to reality or are simply the product of "group think". As long as climate scientists exhibit the behaviors associated with group think there is no reason to believe that group think is not a serious problem.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 01:21:52 pm
Ice melting is not a hypothesis. It is a fact. Explanations for why the ice is melting are hypotheses and none of the suggested hypotheses are based on replicable science.
A perfect example of a replicable hypothesis. In this case, a scientist proposes a hypotheses regarding aircraft then goes out a does real world experiments that will either confirm or refute the hypotheses. It makes no difference if the scientist is biased or an ideologue because the real world is the arbiter of the truth. Almost none of the claims made by climate scientists can be verified in such as way which makes their claims entirely dependent on their biases. If scientists want to believe that CO2 explains everything then any research that supports this will be deemed "good" and any that refutes it will be deemed "bad". IOW, without the ability to refute or confirm claims with the real world there is no way to determine if claims have any connection to reality or are simply the product of "group think". As long as climate scientists exhibit the behaviors associated with group think there is no reason to believe that group think is not a serious problem.

Um, I can show you on a daily basis what causes ice to melt. Warm it up and it melts. It's not a hypothesis. Trap heat with CO2 and you melt ice.
The very basis of proper science is not based on scientists "wanting to believe" anything. It's to do with studying what is happening and then doing research to find out why. You have yet to support this nonsense you spout about scientists exhibiting any particular behavior that supports "group think", so perhaps it is you who is afflicted. You are certainly outnumbered among actual scientists.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 03:32:52 pm
Um, I can show you on a daily basis what causes ice to melt. Warm it up and it melts. It's not a hypothesis. Trap heat with CO2 and you melt ice.
Natural variations in ocean currents, black carbon and reduced cloud cover due to cosmic rays also would melt ice. The non-relipacable hypothesis is that CO2 induced warming the primary cause of the observed melting.
 
The very basis of proper science is not based on scientists "wanting to believe" anything. It's to do with studying what is happening and then doing research to find out why.
Except when they can't do replicable experiments to verify their hypotheses then "finding out why" ends up being indistinguishable from "wanting to believe".

You have yet to support this nonsense you spout about scientists exhibiting any particular behavior that supports "group think", so perhaps it is you who is afflicted.
Any researcher who smears skeptical researchers as "deniers" or "oil company funded" exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who uses the "consensus" argument a justification to dismiss anyone who questions the consensus exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who conspires to keep competing ideas about of the peer reviewed literature exhibits the symptoms of group think. The symptoms are obvious and on full display to anyone paying attention, however, people who are caught in the group think themselves will obviously insist that it does not exist. This is why I have been pointing where you and other alarmists exhibit the symptoms of group think with your own arguments.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 22, 2019, 03:38:37 pm
Any researcher who smears skeptical researchers as "deniers" or "oil company funded" exhibits the symptoms of group think.

Anyone who smears scientists with the allegation of group think exhibits the symptoms of a propagandist.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 03:49:24 pm
Natural variations in ocean currents, black carbon and reduced cloud cover due to cosmic rays also would melt ice. The non-relipacable hypothesis is that CO2 induced warming the primary cause of the observed melting.
 Except when they can't do replicable experiments to verify their hypotheses then "finding out why" ends up being indistinguishable from "wanting to believe".
Any researcher who smears skeptical researchers as "deniers" or "oil company funded" exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who uses the "consensus" argument a justification to dismiss anyone who questions the consensus exhibits the symptoms of group think. Any researcher who conspires to keep competing ideas about of the peer reviewed literature exhibits the symptoms of group think. The symptoms are obvious and on full display to anyone paying attention, however, people who are caught in the group think themselves will obviously insist that it does not exist. This is why I have been pointing where you and other alarmists exhibit the symptoms of group think with your own arguments.

Who is the one who used to continually try to flog the idea that environmental scientists findings were in some way "paid off" by, I guess the government? Now you are naive enough to think that the few deniers remaining might not be supported by big oil? tsk tsk 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 04:02:44 pm
Anyone who smears scientists with the allegation of group think exhibits the symptoms of a propagandist.

I'm still waiting to hear the logic of the Tim types to explain why governments would pay scientists, as he seems to suggest they do, to come up with phony science which shows we need to wean off fossils, which will be a challenge. Why wouldn't they just accept what the other 3% says and continue to collect that revenue at the gas pumps?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 04:04:15 pm
Anyone who smears scientists with the allegation of group think exhibits the symptoms of a propagandist.
Got to love the circular logic. But ultimately, the differences in opinion simply prove my point: there are few objective facts that can be proven in this field of knowledge. Almost every claim is someone's subjective opinion which is biased by their own ideologies and preferences. That includes my own and yours and anyone who claims to have knowledge of what the "truth" is.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 04:11:23 pm
Got to love the circular logic. But ultimately, the differences in opinion simply prove my point: there are few objective facts that can be proven in this field of knowledge. Everything is someone's subjective opinion which is biased by their own ideologies and preferences. That includes my own and yours and anyone who claims to have knowledge of what the "truth" is.

Science is based on facts not "ideologies or preferences" My preference would be to drive around in the fancy ass gas guzzler I drove around in decades ago. Now I know better.
a: because I like the air I breathe
b: because I can see the Arctic melting
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 04:31:27 pm
Science is based on facts
Science uses facts to create hypotheses. If it is possible to create replicable experiments to test hypotheses then the hypotheses become like facts. If no replicable experiments are possible then the hypotheses are just some's opinion and subject to bias.

IOW, by giving examples of hypotheses proven by replicable experiments you simply prove you do not understand how science works.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 04:37:09 pm
Science uses facts to create hypotheses. If it is possible to create replicable experiments to test hypotheses then the hypotheses become like facts. If no replicable experiments are possible then the hypotheses are just some's opinion and subject to bias.

IOW, by giving examples of hypotheses proven by replicable experiments you simply prove you do not understand how science works.

How would you suggest we scientifically "replicate" major areas of polar ice melt? Apparently your knowledge of science is a bit confined to grade school stuff.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 04:43:55 pm
How would you suggest we scientifically "replicate" major areas of polar ice melt?
Another gold star for "completely missing the point". Yes, we can't replicate an experiment for polar ice melting which is my point. In climate science such experiments are not possible which means that any hypotheses are inherently less certain than hypotheses from fields where such experiments are possible. It is simply wrong to put climate science in the same category as gravitation or medicine. Climate science can never provide the same quality of results and should never be compared to those fields.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 22, 2019, 05:02:12 pm
Stirring the pot...

While TimG's point of 'group think' being a problem isn't the primary issue facing us, with Climate Change, I don't think he's off the mark in describing it as a 'general' problem with organizations.  Of course, Waldo will pillory me because I agree with some minor premise and therefore 'enable' TimG's argument (I don't) I find it interesting that sometimes Climate Change is given too much leeway.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-rise-climate-change-1.5144739

^ This is one study that made the front page of the CBC page.  There was also a study in the past year or two saying that climate change from ice melt could be lower than thought but that didn't get front page on the CBC.

Everything is political.  Everyone is political.

Oh.

Except me.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 05:02:43 pm
Another gold star for "completely missing the point". Yes, we can't replicate an experiment for polar ice melting which is my point. In climate science such experiments are not possible which means that any hypotheses are inherently less certain than hypotheses from fields where such experiments are possible. It is simply wrong to put climate science in the same category as gravitation or medicine. Climate science can never provide the same quality of results and should never be compared to those fields.

You seem to like to use that word "hypothesis" a lot, but "reality" seems to be difficult. Increased sea level rise along with water temp. combined with ice melt are not, once again, hypothesis. Measurements of increased GHG are not hypothesis. The fact that we now have over a billion vehicles roaming around spewing fossil fuel carbon ( for the first time in the history of the planet) is not a hypothesis. Wake up and smell the...cough, cough, roses. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 05:32:09 pm
While TimG's point of 'group think' being a problem isn't the primary issue facing us, with Climate Change, I don't think he's off the mark in describing it as a 'general' problem with organizations.  Of course, Waldo will pillory me because I agree with some minor premise and therefore 'enable' TimG's argument (I don't) I find it interesting that sometimes Climate Change is given too much leeway.
The issue I am arguing here is a pedantic one about properly understanding what science can do and not do and where biases of researchers can affect results and where they don't matter. I also feel that by denying the inherent limitations of the science they conduct, climate scientists only undermine their own credibility and exacerbate the politically polarized environment when they should be using science to bridge the divide.

In any case, the issue is irrelevant to the question of what to do since I agree that we know enough to justify some policy response to increasing CO2 emissions. I obviously have my own opinions on what policy response is appropriate but those opinions are not going change if I was suddenly convinced that everything the "consensus" said was the absolute truth because the appropriate policy response is a question of economics (what can we afford?), technology (what can we do given what we can afford?) and values (what priorities do we have?).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 22, 2019, 06:10:31 pm
just some's opinion and subject to bias.

Yes, the bias is education. I know some prefer the uneducated biases.

Gravity is simply a hypothesis, so you better put on your seat belt lest you float away.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 06:14:14 pm
Gravity is simply a hypothesis, so you better put on your seat belt lest you float away.
A great example of a replicable experiment. Replicable experiments are the way to turn a hypothesis into a well established theory. Unfortunately, no such replicable experiments exist for climate science which means the various claims remain hypotheses.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 22, 2019, 06:20:02 pm
A great example of a replicable experiment. Replicable experiments are the only way to turn a hypothesis into a well established theory. Unfortunately, no such replicable experiments exist for climate science which means the various claims remain hypotheses.

You confuse experiments with observations. Einsteins theories are confirmed by predicted observations. If you want to replicate an experiment, then tell me how you are going to move a distant star behind the Sun?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 06:26:37 pm
You confuse experiments with observations. Einsteins theories are confirmed by predicted observations. If you want to replicate an experiment, then tell me how you are going to move a distant star behind the Sun?
I suspect Einstein would agree with me:
Quote
Albert Einstein proposed[3][4] three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the "classical tests" of general relativity, in 1916:

the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
the deflection of light by the Sun
the gravitational redshift of light
In the letter to the London Times on November 28, 1919, he described the theory of relativity and thanked his English colleagues for their understanding and testing of his work. He also mentioned three classical tests with comments:[5]

"The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

General relativity was validated because it could predict specific details about future events reliably and consistently. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 22, 2019, 06:39:01 pm
Science uses facts to create hypotheses. If it is possible to create replicable experiments to test hypotheses then the hypotheses become like facts. If no replicable experiments are possible then the hypotheses are just some's opinion and subject to bias.

IOW, by giving examples of hypotheses proven by replicable experiments you simply prove you do not understand how science works.

I have to point out again, TimG that your understanding of Science is Grade 9,  1965.

Experimentation is a small but still valuable portion of Science that mimics the real world to test specific hypotheses about 1 or 2 factors.
But in the computer age has been around for a long time now, and gives us the capacity to observe and document phenomena in the real world, in real contexts, record and evaluate a variety of contributing factors statistically and make predictions about future events under a variety of conditions.

Your posts about science are just wrong and should be ignored by anyone actually interested in climate science.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 06:58:37 pm
I have to point out again, TimG that your understanding of Science is Grade 9,  1965.
You don't have the any understanding of what science is and is not.

But in the computer age has been around for a long time now, and gives us the capacity to observe and document phenomena in the real world, in real contexts, record and evaluate a variety of contributing factors statistically and make predictions about future events under a variety of conditions.
Computer simulations depend entirely on the assumptions that when into their making. They cannot discover that those assumptions are wrong. When computer simulations are used successfully (airplane design/silicon chip design) it is only because every calculation made by these computer simulations is verified by real world experiments. If the simulation fails to predict the real world outcome the default assumption is the simulation is wrong. In climate science the default assumption is the real world data is wrong and needs to be "corrected" until it matches the model.

Real world validation is the *only* way to turn a hypotheses into a theory. Most claims in climate science will never be validated.

Your posts about science are just wrong and should be ignored by anyone actually interested in climate science.
Jumping in to assist waldo with group think Type III symptoms:
Quote
Mindguards— self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 07:03:07 pm
Another gold star for "completely missing the point". Yes, we can't replicate an experiment for polar ice melting which is my point. In climate science such experiments are not possible which means that any hypotheses are inherently less certain than hypotheses from fields where such experiments are possible. It is simply wrong to put climate science in the same category as gravitation or medicine. Climate science can never provide the same quality of results and should never be compared to those fields.

Science has never proven exactly how gravity works either but by gawd we have figured out ways to deal with it. Medicine is ever growing but it has saved lives. It seems you simply want to ignore science that refutes your concepts of it. Shares in Exxon-Mobil perhaps?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 22, 2019, 07:59:52 pm

Real world validation is the *only* way to turn a hypotheses into a theory. Most claims in climate science will never be validated.

They are validated on real data.
The 97% of climate science you don't read.
Lol

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 08:10:29 pm
They are validated on real data.
Except that is not true no matter how much you wish it to be true. Over the last 20 years the best models climate scientists had failed to predict the amount of warming we actually had. Scientists that were not consumed by group think would have considered the possibility that climate models were wrong and needed to be fixed to match the real world. However, instead they ignored the real world and clung to be notion that the models could not be wrong and instead went about manipulating the various datasets until they produced something the could claim to be agreement with models.

No scientist designing models for use with aircraft design would ever consider such shady tactics. If you suspect the data you get new data. You don't manipulate data with subjective ad-hoc corrections until the data matches what you wish it to be.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 09:11:04 pm
Except that is not true no matter how much you wish it to be true. Over the last 20 years the best models climate scientists had failed to predict the amount of warming we actually had. Scientists that were not consumed by group think would have considered the possibility that climate models were wrong and needed to be fixed to match the real world. However, instead they ignored the real world and clung to be notion that the models could not be wrong and instead went about manipulating the various datasets until they produced something the could claim to be agreement with models.

No scientist designing models for use with aircraft design would ever consider such shady tactics. If you suspect the data you get new data. You don't manipulate data with subjective ad-hoc corrections until the data matches what you wish it to be.

If aircraft scientists manipulated data as you seem to suggest environmental scientists you happen to disagree with do, we'd all be dead. Your so called "groupthink" says a 747 needs ~ 180 mph to lift off. Don't try to challenge that with me on board OK?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 09:20:59 pm
If aircraft manipulated data as you seem to suggest scientists you happen to disagree with do, we'd all be dead. Your so called "groupthink" says a 747 needs ~ 180 mph to lift off.
Exactly. Climate scientists live in a world where they never need to worry about being held accountable for bad models so they can get away with all kinds of data abuses that would never be tolerated in fields where the real world is the final judge. That why climate science should never be treated as a field of knowledge equal to fields like aircraft design where replicable experiments are possible. Climate science is uncertain by its nature and claims of absolute certainty are not supportable.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 09:31:50 pm
Exactly. Climate scientists live in a world where they never need to worry about being held accountable for bad models so they can get away with all kinds of data abuses that would never be tolerated in fields where the real world is the final judge. That why climate science should never be treated as a field of knowledge equal to fields like aircraft design where replicable experiments are possible. Climate science is uncertain by its nature and claims of absolute certainty are not supportable.

Climate scientists have shown what has and is happening and show how burning fossil fuels has effected it. Predicting what the future will bring can best be predicated on the evidence so far. But who knows, maybe we'll get hit by a meteorite and have another ice age and global warming will no longer be a concern. Failing that we'd be smart to deal with the cuirrent facts.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 09:36:44 pm
Climate scientists have shown what has and is happening and show how burning fossil fuels has effected it.
I don't dispute those parts of their claims because the physics of GHGs can be verified with replicable experiments. Where this get uncertain is when they claim to predict how much warming will occur or what the consequences will be for human society. Those claims are inherently uncertain because they have no way to do replicable experiments to validate their hypotheses.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 09:44:45 pm
I don't dispute those parts of their claims because the physics of GHGs can be verified with replicable experiments. Where this get uncertain is when they claim to predict how much warming will occur or what the consequences will be for human society. Those claims are inherently uncertain because they have no way to do replicable experiments to validate their hypotheses.

Well here's a for instance for ya: while we've never been here when the polar ice caps (especially the antarctic) haven't been frozen, we know very well what will happen when they do melt, and that they are melting. It's simple math and observation.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 09:51:53 pm
Well here's a for instance for ya: while we've never been here when the polar ice caps (especially the antarctic) haven't been frozen, we know very well what will happen when they do melt, and that they are melting. It's simple math and observation.
But we don't know when this might happen. The more plausible scenarios suggest we have thousands of years before Antarctica melts. If that is the case the coming flip of the magnetic field would be much more devastating for humans. It is impossible to know if the more crazy melt rates claimed are by some have any connection to reality.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 10:06:30 pm
But we don't know when this might happen. The more plausible scenarios suggest we have thousands of years before Antarctica melts. If that is the case the coming flip of the magnetic field would be much more devastating for humans. It is impossible to know if the more crazy melt rates claimed are by some have any connection to reality.

Ice melts, on both polls are not "claimed" they are observed. And of course don't forget Greenland.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 22, 2019, 10:53:46 pm
Over the last 20 years the best models climate scientists had failed to predict the amount of warming we actually had.

We agree that's a problem.

The kids call it a climate emergency.
Kids are smart.
Some municipal governments too.
Banks.
Shareholders.
Everybody's evaluating their exposure to climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 22, 2019, 11:11:04 pm
Everybody's evaluating their exposure to climate change.
And if they do that honestly they will either realize there is no useful information available about the potential benefits and harms which means they can't do anything or that any problems will appear slowly enough that they can adapt as needed.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 22, 2019, 11:16:24 pm
And if they do that honestly they will either realize there is no useful information available about the potential benefits and harms which means they can't do anything or that any problems will appear slowly enough that they can adapt as needed.

So at least it seems you are coming to the realization that there is a need for adaptation. So maybe now it's a discussion of how quickly, and by what means do we need to adapt. On way or another there is a last barrel of sludge down in the dirt.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 12:32:36 am
Stirring the pot...

While TimG's point of 'group think' being a problem isn't the primary issue facing us, with Climate Change, I don't think he's off the mark in describing it as a 'general' problem with organizations.  Of course, Waldo will pillory me because I agree with some minor premise and therefore 'enable' TimG's argument (I don't) I find it interesting that sometimes Climate Change is given too much leeway.

stir harder! Such a hard choice for you, hey! If you want to accept TimG's false premise that all legitimate scientists analysis/study/results are subject to bias & influence due to "groupthink", why do you give fake-skeptics, deniers, TimG's blog "scientists", etc., a free pass in terms of groupthink. Is it much easier for you to be theEnabler; do you never tire playing devil's advocate?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 12:45:38 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sea-level-rise-climate-change-1.5144739

^ This is one study that made the front page of the CBC page.  There was also a study in the past year or two saying that climate change from ice melt could be lower than thought but that didn't get front page on the CBC.

Everything is political.  Everyone is political.

sorry, nice try. The CBC News webpage is made up of ever rotating articles from assorted sub-section areas... in your case example, the article homes within the technology sub-section. The rotation of articles presumes upon 'hits... views' - more popular articles last longer in the rotation and ultimately can only be found within their respective sub-section areas. But hey, if believing there's a political choice being made lets you pontificate, good on ya!

(notwithstanding it's a tad difficult to gauge the presumed legitimacy of your imaginative claim when you can't even provide the name/link of the other article you presume to imply didn't have the political weight to make the main page).
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 12:52:48 am
In any case, the issue is irrelevant to the question of what to do since I agree that we know enough to justify some policy response to increasing CO2 emissions. .... the appropriate policy response is a question of economics (what can we afford?), technology (what can we do given what we can afford?) and values (what priorities do we have?).

which is you giving your token nothingness to the irrefutable science of CO2 - you can't deny that, so you continue to throw out platitudes buried under caveats that allow you to continue to play out your perpetual, "delay, do nothing"... uhhh... policy response!  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 12:54:20 am
Most claims in climate science will never be validated.

which ones make your top/target list?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 23, 2019, 01:03:51 am
which is you giving your token nothingness to the irrefutable science of CO2 - you can't deny that, so you continue to throw out platitudes buried under caveats that allow you to continue to play out your perpetual, "delay, do nothing"... uhhh... policy response!  ;D

Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, mountain mama
Take me home, country roads
Take me home, down country roads
Take me home, down country roads.


(https://d1yjjnpx0p53s8.cloudfront.net/styles/logo-thumbnail/s3/012011/st.-louis-blues-nhl.png?itok=lFmBLo4-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyQarMNl0aM
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 01:14:17 am
Over the last 20 years the best models climate scientists had failed to predict the amount of warming we actually had. Scientists that were not consumed by group think would have considered the possibility that climate models were wrong and needed to be fixed to match the real world.

are you categorically stating NO models have been able to predict recent warming? Are you implying modelers don't acknowledge limitations, constraints, uncertainties, etc.? ... are you stating/implying that world-wide modeling groups don't openly publish their intentions and progress towards model refinements?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 01:17:08 am
Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, mountain mama
Take me home, country roads
Take me home, down country roads
Take me home, down country roads.


(https://d1yjjnpx0p53s8.cloudfront.net/styles/logo-thumbnail/s3/012011/st.-louis-blues-nhl.png?itok=lFmBLo4-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyQarMNl0aM

Are you aware of what thread you are in?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 01:18:44 am
geezaz, are you off the wagon... or just desperately seeking attention?  ;D

I suggest probably both.
Oh well fun eh!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 23, 2019, 05:25:48 am
1. If you want to accept TimG's false premise that all legitimate scientists analysis/study/results are subject to bias & influence due to "groupthink",

2. why do you give fake-skeptics, deniers, TimG's blog "scientists", etc., a free pass in terms of groupthink. Is it much easier for you to be theEnabler;

3. do you never tire playing devil's advocate?

1. I think this is a feature of humanity not a 'bug'.  This is why we have peer review in the first place, to allow gadflies and contrarians to pick apart the consensus.

2. I do not.  But... their 'human' problems are elsewhere, ie. vanity, iconoclasticism, jealousy. 

3. Let's not get so arrogant that we utterly dismiss other points of view, erst we become what TimG says we are.  Also, if you think I'm the 'devil's advocate' that makes you God, or at least on his team.  Ahem.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 23, 2019, 05:30:02 am
sorry, nice try. The CBC News webpage is made up of ever rotating articles from assorted sub-section areas... in your case example, the article homes within the technology sub-section. The rotation of articles presumes upon 'hits... views' - more popular articles last longer in the rotation and ultimately can only be found within their respective sub-section areas. But hey, if believing there's a political choice being made lets you pontificate, good on ya!

Well it showed up at the top when I hit CBC news' main page.  I will assume you are dead right that it's an algorithm that serves up the top story.  This means that somebody is willing to believe the story based on one study.  If it's not a CBC editor or web master then it's the audience.  Groupthink in any case.

Also - my point about the Alaska story stands.  It was about reduced methane release or somesuch and appeared exactly nowhere on the CBC or elsewhere.

Quote
(notwithstanding it's a tad difficult to gauge the presumed legitimacy of your imaginative claim when you can't even provide the name/link of the other article you presume to imply didn't have the political weight to make the main page).

Here's one that's more recent https://phys.org/news/2019-02-arctic-lakes-carbon.html

Seems legitimate and we're not hearing about it, although if you google you will find articles all over the place on both sides.   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: MH on May 23, 2019, 05:44:22 am
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/permafrost-thawing-methane-1.4806284

CBC - showing one study again. 

In the quest to determine OBJECTIVE standards to truth-seeking can we agree that publishing a story based on ONE STUDY is a bad idea ?  The exception might be a Naomi Oreskes (sp?) type study-of-studies study.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 23, 2019, 07:36:45 am
are you categorically stating NO models have been able to predict recent warming?

After recently acknowledging that climate change is a real problem and we hsve to pay attention to it, Tim now is also very upset that climate change scientists UNDERESTIMATED in predicting the amount of warming that we have now.

We know that, as it's the reason for the IPCC's recent emergency report.

Nice to see TimG making some progress beyond 1965.
I just have a feeling that TimG's real inner self comes out sometimes, cracks the facade of his propaganda-phile duties.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 08:04:37 am
In the quest to determine OBJECTIVE standards to truth-seeking can we agree that publishing a story based on ONE STUDY is a bad idea ?  The exception might be a Naomi Oreskes (sp?) type study-of-studies study.
Naomi Oreskes is the worst of the worst when it comes to academics with a bias that is so extreme that nothing she say can be taken seriously.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 08:08:55 am
After recently acknowledging that climate change is a real problem and we hsve to pay attention to it, Tim now is also very upset that climate change scientists UNDERESTIMATED in predicting the amount of warming that we have now.
ROTFL. No Granny, the climate models have consistently predicted much MORE warming that has actually occurred over the last 30 years. Now alarmists are constantly trying to explain this mismatch away by "fixing" the real world data but all that does is leave us with no useful data to use for real world comparisons.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 23, 2019, 09:51:17 am
ROTFL. No Granny, the climate models have consistently predicted much MORE warming that has actually occurred over the last 30 years. Of course, alarmist propagandists believe in the "big lie" so they sometimes claim otherwise but it is complete nonsense. They also spend a lot of adjusting datasets to match their models instead of fixing their models which only means that we no longer have any useful data that can be uses as a real world comparison.
Ahh ... more propaganda-phile TimG nonsense ... but Tim ... real Tim ... also said  this:

...the question of what to do since I agree that we know enough to justify some policy response to increasing CO2 emissions. ..

What do we do Tim?
Tackle the biggest sources first, I'd say.
Canada has the highest emissions per capita in the world. But that's a total divided by the number of people, and individual people are not really a big  source of our emissions: industries are.

Past Canadian data on GHG emissions looked at different economic/industrial sectors, resulting in pitting sectors against each other.

I rather like this new report that, instead, looks at buildings/facilities across all sectors:
Emissions from the reporting facilities account for 41% of Canada's total GHG emissions

That's certainly a number worth addressing, for a fairly quick return on our efforts and money. It's accurately targeted at significant sources, doesn't pit sectors against each other, and I think we know quite a bit about reducing emissions of large facilities that just hasn't been implemented or prioritized for funding.

 So I support the Green Party's platform that does just that.
No doubt some funding for these infrastructure improvements may come from reduced or reallocated subsidies to fossil fuel production, also Green policy, so perhaps additional GHG reductions there too.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 10:17:38 am
Canada has the highest emissions per capita in the world. But that's a total divided by the number of people, and individual people are not really the source of our massive emissions: industries are.
Per capita emissions mean nothing. The atmosphere only only cares about absolute emissions. More importantly,few people care about CO2 emissions if the economy is not strong or if purchasing power decreases due to extra costs and/or higher taxes. Those two factors means it makes zero sense for Canada to adopt policies that are more aggressive that the US, China or India.

Emissions from the reporting facilities account for 41% of Canada's total GHG emissions
Again, does not mean much. Buildings are essential and they consume energy and that is not going to change. Energy already costs money so there is already an incentive to reduce wasted energy so the scope for reducing emissions though relatively low cost efficiency improvements is minimal. Zero emission buildings are accounting fictions that manipulate numbers to ensure the emissions needed to keep the building functional are counted against someone else's ledger. Any policy on buildings needs to focused on real emission reductions through deployment cost effective technologie. Setting targets simply encourages people to play games with accounting rather than actually reducing emissions.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 11:30:44 am
ROTFL. No Granny, the climate models have consistently predicted much MORE warming that has actually occurred over the last 30 years. Now alarmists are constantly trying to explain this mismatch away by "fixing" the real world data but all that does is leave us with no useful data to use for real world comparisons.

Ah, no Tim, many climate models have been accurate and have done so by using a procedure called hindcasting, which means you look at the records over the past, say, thirty years and use that data to construct a future looking model. If we ignore that and just sit on our hands for the next thirty years we might just find ourselves in a spot of bother.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 11:45:57 am
Ah, no Tim, many climate models have been accurate and have done so by using a procedure called hindcasting
Hindcasting is glorified curving fitting and provides no meaningful validation of the models. The only scientifically valid way to demonstrate that the models have useful predictive ability is to show that they can accurately predict future events. Over the last 20 years they have failed to meet that criteria.

If we ignore that and just sit on our hands for the next thirty years we might just find ourselves in a spot of bother.
I am not saying we should do nothing. I am only saying that the climate models are unverifiable hypotheses and have not been shown to represent anything resembling the the real world.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 12:26:26 pm
Hindcasting is glorified curving fitting and provides no meaningful validation of the models. The only scientifically valid way to demonstrate that the models have useful predictive ability is to show that they can accurately predict future events. Over the last 20 years they have failed to meet that criteria.
I am not saying we should do nothing. I am only saying that the climate models are unverifiable hypotheses and have not been shown to represent anything resembling the the real world.

No, it's not "glorified curving fitting" ,whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, it's based on actual data collected through history and used to predict future events given similar conditions. In this particular case, when there is an obvious  correlation between increases in global temperatures concurrent with increased use of burning fossil fuels, you can predict what the future will bring given those same conditions. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 12:43:18 pm
No, it's not "glorified curving fitting" ,whatever the hell that is supposed to mean
It means the models depend on a large number of tuning parameters that are adjusted to get a good fit with the historical record. It is circular logic to use the historical record to adjust the tuning parameters and then claim the match with the historical record is evidence that the models have predictive ability. This is a common problem with all computer models. Climate science is the only field where computer modellers try to absurdly argue that a match to the training dataset is evidence of correctness. This is just another example of how climate science does not deserve to be treated like other scientific fields where replicable experiments are possible.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 12:56:42 pm
Now alarmists are constantly trying to explain this mismatch away by "fixing" the real world data but all that does is leave us with no useful data to use for real world comparisons.

good to read you finally going full-on TonyWatts - full on conspiracy that those wascally scientists have been 'working the temperature data to falsify warming'!  ;D Hey, some time back I kind of washed my hands of your fantasy blog-world... did the/your guy ever publish and bring down the entirety of the network of world-wide temperature monitoring/analysis?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 01:09:20 pm
Well it showed up at the top when I hit CBC news' main page.  I will assume you are dead right that it's an algorithm that serves up the top story.  This means that somebody is willing to believe the story based on one study.  If it's not a CBC editor or web master then it's the audience.  Groupthink in any case.

your premise is nonsensical stooopid! There is an onus on the, as you say, "audience", to extend upon any information provided to them by the MSM. Or are you seriously advocating for "news media" to become the arbiter of real science versus false/fake science!  ;D Hey now, considering Harper's move to prevent scientists from talking directly to media/journalists, you should welcome any articles that actually quote real scientists - yes!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 01:15:43 pm
It means the models depend on a large number of tuning parameters that are adjusted to get a good fit with the historical record. It is circular logic to use the historical record to adjust the tuning parameters and then claim the match with the historical record is evidence that the models have predictive ability. This is a common problem with all computer models. Climate science is the only field where computer modellers try to absurdly argue that a match to the training dataset is evidence of correctness. This is just another example of how climate science does not deserve to be treated like other scientific fields where replicable experiments are possible.

I guess deniers will continue to deny, regardless of the data showing otherwise. I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 01:16:48 pm
which ones make your top/target list?

hey member TimG - again, notwithstanding your periodic conflation of replication & reproducibility, you've laid down a brazillion posts claiming that climate science can't be "replicated". And yet, when you're finally asked for specifics... for your top/target list, you ignore the request.

wait now, perhaps you missed the initial request... sending it again:
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 01:19:56 pm
I guess deniers will continue to deny, regardless of the data showing otherwise. I'll leave it at that.
IOW, when alarmists discover someone not willing to accept BS masquerading as science they resort to naming calling.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 01:25:55 pm
IOW, when alarmists discover someone not willing to accept BS masquerading as science they resort to naming calling.

"Naming calling"???
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 23, 2019, 01:38:07 pm
Here's one that's more recent https://phys.org/news/2019-02-arctic-lakes-carbon.html

Seems legitimate and we're not hearing about it, although if you google you will find articles all over the place on both sides.

in its capacity as a 'partner' to phys.org, the article was provided/written by the University of Washington... the affiliated university of the study's lead authors. I note it has no citations as of this date, albeit it has only been a few months since its publication. Perhaps you could extend upon your worry and suggest how to get this into the mainstream media.

now, of course, there is a real problem with the single-study syndrome... but its typically attributed to fake-sceptics and deniers who charge forward after a single study comes forward to their liking/preference... not to mainstream media!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 23, 2019, 01:46:17 pm
Per capita emissions mean nothing. The atmosphere only only cares about absolute emissions.
More importantly,few people care about CO2 emissions if the economy is not strong or if purchasing power decreases due to extra costs and/or higher taxes.
Nonsense again.
A LOT of Canadians have been VOLUNTARILY paying extra for products etc than are less damaging to the environment, sealong our houses, high efficiency heating, hybrid cars/EV's solar panels, etc to cut down on our own use of fossil fuels, carbon tax (without whining about it), etc.
I think maybe Conservatives always whine the most about environmental measures that cost them more, and Albertans in particular are feeling  let down, defensive and cranky about that right now.

Those two factors means it makes zero sense for Canada to adopt policies that are more aggressive that the US, China or India.
Again, does not mean much. Buildings are essential and they consume energy and that is not going to change. Energy already costs money so there is already an incentive to reduce wasted energy so the scope for reducing emissions though relatively low cost efficiency improvements is minimal. Zero emission buildings are accounting fictions that manipulate numbers to ensure the emissions needed to keep the building functional are counted against someone else's ledger. Any policy on buildings needs to focused on real emission reductions through deployment cost effective technologie. Setting targets simply encourages people to play games with accounting rather than actually reducing emissions.
[/quote]

I suggest you read up on Green Party policy to understand the measures they suggest. You are absolutely wrong that we can't improve efficiency of large buildings/facilities.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 01:47:46 pm
IOW, when alarmists discover someone not willing to accept BS masquerading as science they resort to naming calling.

Apparently it's the other way around. I do understand it must be difficult supporting the 3% of environmental scientific BS.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 03:19:10 pm
A LOT of Canadians have been VOLUNTARILY paying extra for products etc than are less damaging to the environment, sealong our houses, high efficiency heating, hybrid cars/EV's solar panels, etc to cut down on our own use of fossil fuels, carbon tax (without whining about it), etc.
Symbolic gestures. If reducing emissions was simply a matter of going without a latte for a week we would have solved it long ago. Real emission reductions require real sacrifices.

I suggest you read up on Green Party policy to understand the measures they suggest. You are absolutely wrong that we can't improve efficiency of large buildings/facilities.
If the measures are cost effective and don't involve accounting tricks then I am all for it. No need to waste if we don't need to.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 23, 2019, 03:21:27 pm
Symbolic gestures. If reducing emissions was simply a matter of going without a latte for a week we would have solved it long ago. Real emission reductions require real sacrifices.
If the measures are cost effective and don't involve accounting tricks then I am all for it. No need to waste if we don't need to.

The same old argument. I am unwilling to do anything because it won't solve the entire problem. Unless I can boil the ocean, then it is not worth it. That is no different than the stupid Canada only generates 1.8% of GHG so we will continue to do the wrong thing because we cannot solve world peace alone.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 03:44:57 pm
The same old argument. I am unwilling to do anything because it won't solve the entire problem. Unless I can boil the ocean, then it is not worth it. That is no different than the stupid Canada only generates 1.8% of GHG so we will continue to do the wrong thing because we cannot solve world peace alone.
What we should not do is set goals that put us at a disadvantage when compared to our major competitors in the US, India and China. What we should not do is kill off industries because of the stupid idea that eliminating an industry in Canada will make a difference to the global demand for the products in question. If you have ideas that don't violate those two principles then lets hear them.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 03:50:07 pm
What we should not do is set goals that put us at a disadvantage when compared to our major competitors in the US, India and China. What we should not do is kill off industries because of the stupid idea that eliminating an industry in Canada will make a difference to the global demand for the products in question. If you have ideas that don't violate those two principles then lets hear them.

What if we "kill off industries" that are endangering our existence and generate new industries that can fulfill the same roles. For instance I grew up near a hydro dam, but luckily not near a coal burning plant, or you might be paying taxes to help pay my medical bills for lung disease.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 04:04:14 pm
What if we "kill off industries" that are endangering our existence and generate new industries that can fulfill the same roles.
Resource industries are essential to maintaining Canada's balance of trade with the rest of the world. We need those exports to pay for the imports we need to keep our society running. Replacing those export revenues with alternative industries is not going to happen given that Canada has no real competitive advantage in areas outside of resources and agriculture. Wishful thinking about "green tech" manufacturing won't happen. At best we could produce a few start ups that outsource manufacture to Asia until their IP is bought out by a big American/European/Chinese company.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 04:34:42 pm
Resource industries are essential to maintaining Canada's balance of trade with the rest of the world. We need those exports to pay for the imports we need to keep our society running. Replacing those export revenues with alternative industries is not going to happen given that Canada has no real competitive advantage in areas outside of resources and agriculture. Wishful thinking about "green tech" manufacturing won't happen. At best we could produce a few start ups that outsource manufacture to Asia until their IP is bought out by a big American/European/Chinese company.

So your idea is we should continue to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" forever? Sorry bud, we are much more educated than that.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 23, 2019, 04:45:20 pm
So your idea is we should continue to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water" forever? Sorry bud, we are much more educated than that.
"Hewing wood and drawing water" is an incredibly high tech business that requires a lot of know how and provides a lot of extremely well paid jobs. Your condescending attitude is typical of clueless urban elites who live of a comfortable life thanks to the efforts of the people they spit on.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 23, 2019, 04:59:19 pm
"Hewing wood and drawing water" is an incredibly high tech business that requires a lot of know how and provides a lot of extremely well paid jobs. Your condescending attitude is typical of clueless urban elites who live of a comfortable life thanks to the efforts of the people they spit on.

Except global warming is on its way to killing the trees that provide the labor you seem to be into. Therefore we need to go a little beyond just chopping them down and figure out how to maintain them.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 24, 2019, 01:53:06 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAN4RCOaqeE
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 24, 2019, 02:42:13 am
<yet more climate ****>
No one ever considers other explanations because climate change causes everything!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 11:38:42 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAN4RCOaqeE

And the ice is disappearing down south just as rapidly.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x70u4tm
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 24, 2019, 11:50:11 am
That is no different than the stupid Canada only generates 1.8% of GHG so we will continue to do the wrong thing because we cannot solve world peace alone.

Why is it stupid?  What is the wrong thing vs the right thing?  Saying something is stupid isn't an argument.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 24, 2019, 11:53:02 am
What we should not do is set goals that put us at a disadvantage when compared to our major competitors in the US, India and China. What we should not do is kill off industries because of the stupid idea that eliminating an industry in Canada will make a difference to the global demand for the products in question. If you have ideas that don't violate those two principles then lets hear them.

Exactly.  I'm all for fighting AGW but we need to consider all factors while doing so.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 11:59:01 am
Exactly.  I'm all for fighting AGW but we need to consider all factors while doing so.

Except typical deniers tend to ignore the most pertinent factors, otherwise their arguments fall apart.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 24, 2019, 12:06:29 pm
What if we "kill off industries" that are endangering our existence and generate new industries that can fulfill the same roles. For instance I grew up near a hydro dam, but luckily not near a coal burning plant, or you might be paying taxes to help pay my medical bills for lung disease.

How do we kill off these industries?  You'd have to convince 7.7 billion people on the planet to stop using gasoline and other cheap fossil fuel energy.  We could completely shut down the Alberta oil sands and take axes to all our current pipelines but it wouldn't kill off these industries.

We don't need unworkable dreams, we need practical solutions that will fit into the current economic realities.  People want to help global warming, they also want cheap food, energy, and transportation.  When those 2 are able to intersect we will have ourselves a solution. Fortunately we have geniuses working on tech and that tech will keep getting cheaper as it always does.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 24, 2019, 12:08:25 pm
Except typical deniers tend to ignore the most pertinent factors, otherwise their arguments fall apart.

Yes, and so do alarmists.  Fortunately none of these people  control technological progress or the global marketplace and neither of them can stop progress.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 12:12:48 pm
How do we kill off these industries?  You'd have to convince 7.7 billion people on the planet to stop using gasoline and other cheap fossil fuel energy.  We could completely shut down the Alberta oil sands and take axes to all our current pipelines but it wouldn't kill off these industries.

We don't need unworkable dreams, we need practical solutions that will fit into the current economic realities.  People want to help global warming, they also want cheap food, energy, and transportation.  When those 2 are able to intersect we will have ourselves a solution. Fortunately we have geniuses working on tech and that tech will keep getting cheaper as it always does.

Apparently you didn't see it but you answered your own question.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 12:18:30 pm
Yes, and so do alarmists.  Fortunately none of these people  control technological progress or the global marketplace and neither of them can stop progress.

"Alarmists" as you like to call them DON'T ignore the pertinent facts, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned. UNfortunately fossil fuel producers do control much of the global marketplace currently and have done for some time.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 24, 2019, 04:01:46 pm
I see either a UPS or a Fedex truck go down my street everyday. They are just driving around town just as a lot of us do. EV's would work quite well.
As far as farming goes, have you ever heard of a company caleed John Deere? who are now focusing intently on new tractors that are not only electric but autonomous.

That's promising but UPS/Fedex and farmers will only use the EV technology if it's as cheap or cheaper than gas vehicles.

There's not much that can be done about that either, because if Fedex uses electric and UPS uses gasoline and gas vehicles are cheaper, Fedex will need to charge more to remain competitive and by consequence may go out of business and stock investors will flee as profits drop, like every other business, same with farmers.

Carbon taxes can make EVs more competitive, but then the price will be passed on to the consumer which will cause inflation and everything will cost more, for the poor and rich alike.  And it will also make us less competitive on the global market and literally put companies out of business if they're competing against countries that use cheaper fossil fuels (if fossil fuels remain cheaper).

The best wishes of Elizabeth May etc. are irrelevant to consumers and businesses.  That's why our best hope is to invent technologies that are as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, and I hope we get there ASAP. We seem to be making a lot of progress.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 24, 2019, 04:07:04 pm
That's promising but UPS/Fedex and farmers will only use the EV technology if it's as cheap or cheaper than gas vehicles.

Times are changing:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 04:16:04 pm
That's promising but UPS/Fedex and farmers will only use the EV technology if it's as cheap or cheaper than gas vehicles.

There's not much that can be done about that either, because if Fedex uses electric and UPS uses gasoline and gas vehicles are cheaper, Fedex will need to charge more to remain competitive and by consequence may go out of business and stock investors will flee as profits drop, like every other business, same with farmers.

Carbon taxes can make EVs more competitive, but then the price will be passed on to the consumer which will cause inflation and everything will cost more, for the poor and rich alike.  And it will also make us less competitive on the global market and literally put companies out of business if they're competing against countries that use cheaper fossil fuels (if fossil fuels remain cheaper).

Once again you have basically gone in a circle. One thing I would point out to you though is that people have already shown they are willing to spend a bit more to buy an environmentally friendly vehicle simply because they are concerned. And, EV's are actually cheaper buy nowadays and way cheaper to operated than gas guzzlers.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 04:25:51 pm
One study that BC Hydro presented showed that, based on an average of 20,000 km's per year comparison, a Nissan Leaf would cost $430 while a compact gas vehicle would cost $2200.

https://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/electric-vehicles/owning-an-electric-vehicle/costs.html

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 24, 2019, 04:32:07 pm
based on an average of 20,000 km's per year comparison

Even more relevant is the type of driving. A delivery service with frequent stops might get even more benefit.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 24, 2019, 04:52:54 pm
That's promising but UPS/Fedex and farmers will only use the EV technology if it's as cheap or cheaper than gas vehicles.
Truth.
And it will ... next year.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/
Quote
Carbon taxes can make EVs more competitive, but then the price will be passed on to the consumer which will cause inflation and everything will cost more, for the poor and rich alike.

Factoring in the REAL public costs of fossil fuel energy - ie what you pay at the pumps, on your meters and in your taxes
... subsidizing ff production,
... paying for climate change effects (floods, fires, migration)
... cleaning up ff environmental damage
 WHEN THEY CONVENIENTLY GO BANKRUPT AND WALK AWAY FROM THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ... AND THEIR PENSION OBLIGATIONS.

We all pay for that.

Quote
And it will also make us less competitive on the global market and literally put companies out of business if they're competing against countries that use cheaper fossil fuels (if fossil fuels remain cheaper).

Fossil fuels are not cheaper when all of the public costs we pay for environmental damage are included:
-production (Orphan wells, degraded soil, water, air)
-transmission (construction, seeps leaks spills)
-use (emissions from burning)
Quote
The best wishes of Elizabeth May etc. are irrelevant to consumers and businesses.  That's why our best hope is to invent technologies that are as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, and I hope we get there ASAP. We seem to be making a lot of progress.

We're on it. Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 24, 2019, 05:29:34 pm
Times are changing:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/12/electric-cars-already-cheaper-own-run-study

If they're cheaper and the charging options are practical then companies will obviously buy them and all is good, as long as the power grid isn't running on fossil fuels of course.  I would think the charging practicalities would keep some companies and consumers back.  The proof will be in the pudding, we'll see how the sales are in the coming years.  Obviously charging will keep getting better which is good too.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 24, 2019, 05:39:08 pm
Fossil fuels are not cheaper when all of the public costs we pay for environmental damage are included:
It is easy to make up imaginary or unquantifiable costs and then declare that whatever you dislike is too expensive. What matters in the real world are quantifiable costs relative to the amount of energy produced.

More importantly, all of those costs apply to the development and deployment of renewable power too so it is simply wrong to say that these costs are unique to fossil fuels. Toxic waste from solar panel production that pollute Chinese soil and rivers such matter as much as pollution from fossil fuel production. The only difference is we produce fossil fuels here which means reasonable efforts to minimize the impacts are put in place. Based on you logic we should be raising the price of solar panels to pay the cost of the pollution created with their production.

Companies going bankrupt and leaving taxpayers with the cleanup is not unique to fossil fuels either. Old wind farms are being abandoned around the world as companies decide it is too expensive to keep them operating. Imposing end of life cycle cleanup costs will hurt  renewable power's economically viability more than fossil fuels because renewable is can't make money with government subsidies. Fossil fuel production can at least make a profit that can be used to pay those costs.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 05:51:32 pm
It is easy to make up imaginary or unquantifiable costs and then declare that whatever you dislike is too expensive. What matters in the real world are quantifiable costs relative to the amount of energy produced.

More importantly, all of those costs apply to the development and deployment of renewable power too so it is simply wrong to say that these costs are unique to fossil fuels. Toxic waste from solar panel production that pollute Chinese soil and rivers such matter as much as pollution from fossil fuel production. The only difference is we produce fossil fuels here which means reasonable efforts to minimize the impacts are put in place.

Companies going bankrupt and leaving taxpayers with the cleanup is not unique to fossil fuels either. Old wind farms are being abandoned around the world as companies decide it is too expensive to keep them operating.

It seems it is easy for you to ignore the clean up costs of fossil fuel production that get passed on to the taxpayer and simply look at the price at the pump. And yes there are wastes caused by solar panel production but once it's built,it's built. You don't have to generate more waste every time you get power from it like you do when you hit the gas pedal in your car.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 24, 2019, 05:55:01 pm
It seems it is easy for you to ignore the clean up costs of fossil fuel production that get passed on to the taxpayer and simply look at the price at the pump.
Canadian governments collect $20 billion per year from fossil fuels. That pays for a lot of clean up and still leaves the taxpayer with a tidy profit. IOW, the idea that consumers don't pay the "true" cost of fossil fuels is nonsense.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on May 24, 2019, 06:02:04 pm
If they're cheaper and the charging options are practical then companies will obviously buy them and all is good, as long as the power grid isn't running on fossil fuels of course.  I would think the charging practicalities would keep some companies and consumers back.  The proof will be in the pudding, we'll see how the sales are in the coming years.  Obviously charging will keep getting better which is good too.

There will always be capitalists who will play the longer  game for more sustainable returns.

EV's are still just 2.2% (& hybrids?)
But a spiking bigly trajectory.

https://emc-mec.ca/wp-content/uploads/Sales-growth-province-2018.jpg

.Big rigs

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/22/truck-makers-rev-up-for-rollout-of-electric-big-rigs.html

Airplanes
https://www.harbourair.com/harbour-air-and-magnix-partner-to-build-worlds-first-all-electric-airline/

Ships
https://safety4sea.com/are-electric-vessels-the-future-of-shipping/

Etc.
All coming online fast
It's all in the batteries.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 24, 2019, 06:12:47 pm
It's all in the batteries.
Batteries that require massive mining operations to produce. What are the chances that lithium producers in Ecuador will pay anything close to the costs of mitigating the environmental damage and reclaiming the land once the mining operation ends?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 06:17:18 pm
Canadian governments collect $20 billion per year from fossil fuels. That pays for a lot of clean up and still leaves the taxpayer with a tidy profit. IOW, the idea that consumers don't pay the "true" cost of fossil fuels is nonsense.

Obviously you haven't fact checked your figures for oh, say 30 years or so. Current revenues are about $1.4.

That number was actually for Alberta. Canada in 2016 was just over $10.0, and declining rapidly.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 06:24:35 pm
Batteries that require massive mining operations to produce. What are the chances that lithium producers in Ecuador will pay anything close to the costs of mitigating the environmental damage and reclaiming the land once the mining operation ends?

Again you seem to ignore that the environmental damage from coal only begins with the mine, and then proceeds around the globe from there.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 24, 2019, 06:34:55 pm
Obviously you haven't fact checked your figures for oh, say 30 years or so. Current revenues are about $1.4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada

Quote
The Government of Canada collects about $5 billion per year in excise taxes on gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel[16] as well as approximately $1.6 billion per year from GST revenues on gasoline and diesel (net of input tax credits). The Canada Revenue Agency, a part of the government, collects these taxes.
Collectively, the provincial governments collect approximately $8 billion per year from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/energy-economy/20062
Quote
An important share of government revenues is collected from the oil and gas industry, which averaged $15.7 billion over the last five years, including $12.8 billion from upstream oil and gas extraction and its support activities.

So I was wrong the number is closer to $24 billion/year.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 24, 2019, 08:17:48 pm
Might be time to start rolling up our pant legs.



Chile's 12,000-square kilometre Southern Patagonia Ice Field has split in two and is likely to continue to fracture amid climate change, according to a team of Chilean scientists who were in the region in March.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/patagonia-ice-field-split-climate-change-1.5147759
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on May 25, 2019, 10:11:26 am
optics? ... Green Party leader's "EViper"! (apparently, not the 1st time she's taken a parade spin in that Green Party volunteer's... 400hp, 2.3km/liter gas guzzling behemoth). The "leader" was criticized the 1st time, and now again for this most recent ride.

(https://postmediadriving.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/elizabeth-may-viper.jpg?)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 25, 2019, 01:27:54 pm
lithium producers in Ecuador

Not very high on the list:

Chile, Bolivia, Australia, Argentina, China

There are new operations in the US, and once a cost effective extraction method is found then we can get over 200 billion tonnes from the Oceans.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on May 25, 2019, 01:29:39 pm
Canadian governments collect $20 billion per year from fossil fuels. That pays for a lot of clean up and still leaves the taxpayer with a tidy profit. IOW, the idea that consumers don't pay the "true" cost of fossil fuels is nonsense.

Canadian government already spends much more than that on developing roads, subsidizing fossil fuels, etc.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 04:14:36 pm
Canadian government already spends much more than that on developing roads, subsidizing fossil fuels, etc.
Who cares? Roads are needed no matter what powers the cars. There are no significant subsidies to fossil fuels in Canada and they are more than made up by the revenue that fossil fuels bring in. Wind and solar are a drain on government on government finances.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 04:21:58 pm
Who cares? Roads are needed no matter what powers the cars. There are no significant subsidies to fossil fuels in Canada and they are more than made up by the revenue that fossil fuels bring in. Wind and solar are a drain on government on government finances.

No, actually they are a drain on oil company revenues, and will continue to be. Maybe get rid of those Exxon Mobil shares.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 25, 2019, 04:22:48 pm
This weekend i went to 2 different pubs and ordered soft drinks which came in glasses with paper straws.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 04:25:43 pm
This weekend i went to 2 different pubs and ordered soft drinks which came in glasses with paper straws.

Why would you go to a pub for soft drinks?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 25, 2019, 04:26:36 pm
No, actually they are a drain on oil company revenues, and will continue to be. Maybe get rid of those Exxon Mobil shares.

Are wind and solar power cheaper or more expensive than fossil fuel plants?

I have no idea, i assume more expensive.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 04:34:40 pm
Are wind and solar power cheaper or more expensive than fossil fuel plants?

I have no idea, i assume more expensive.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#1b9801e74ff2

The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The organisation – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23%  since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on May 25, 2019, 04:37:50 pm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#1b9801e74ff2

The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The organisation – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23%  since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.

I would love to leave the oilfiled, and work in an occupation related to helping resolve climate change.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on May 25, 2019, 04:38:30 pm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/#1b9801e74ff2

The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The organisation – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23%  since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.

Good news.  Confirmed by this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_factors
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 04:50:28 pm
Good news.  Confirmed by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Cost_factors
These claims are nonsense with have no connection to the real world because they never account for the full cost of deploying renewables which includes the batteries and/or gas plants needs to provide power when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. It is the cost of backup power which inevitably leads to skying rocketing electricity rates in any jurisdiction that tries to force the deployment of renewables.  This problem is noted in your link but I guess most people don't read past the tables with the meaningless numbers.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 04:50:54 pm
I would love to leave the oilfiled, and work in an occupation related to helping resolve climate change.

I will admit to having drawn quite a lot of paychecks from the oil industry and at the level I was emplyed I became well aware of how technically adept those around me were. I have often thought that capacity could be redirected toward renewables and the band could play on.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 25, 2019, 04:55:36 pm
I would love to leave the oilfiled, and work in an occupation related to helping resolve climate change.
You are working to deal with climate change by helping ensure our society has the economic resources needed to adapt.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 25, 2019, 05:01:08 pm
You are working to deal with climate change by helping ensure our society has the economic resources needed to adapt.

Or, in reality, working to accelerate climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 02:11:18 pm
500 tornadoes in 30 days in the US with more in the forecast. Nope, no global warming here.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 28, 2019, 02:34:42 pm
500 tornadoes in 30 days in the US with more in the forecast. Nope, no global warming here.
There is zero evidence that climate change has any effect on tornado formation. This is more of the "blame the sick cow on the old woman" nonsense that alarmists are so addicted to.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: wilber on May 28, 2019, 06:27:38 pm
There is zero evidence that climate change has any effect on tornado formation. This is more of the "blame the sick cow on the old woman" nonsense that alarmists are so addicted to.

The energy generating these storms is heat. That's why we see fewer tornados and hurricanes the farther we get from the equator.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 06:50:55 pm
There is zero evidence that climate change has any effect on tornado formation. This is more of the "blame the sick cow on the old woman" nonsense that alarmists are so addicted to.

Increased heat equals increased evaporation equals increased storms. Maybe think about updating your home insurance.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 28, 2019, 06:53:54 pm
The energy generating these storms is heat. That's why we see fewer tornados and hurricanes the farther we get from the equator.
According to theory warming reduces the differential between the poles and tropics which should reduce the the number of storm events. The increase heat may increase the intensity of the storms that do form but there should be fewer of them. More importantly, the actual data supports the theory since the number of storms has been decreasing across the globe, unfortunately, in any given year there will be higher than normal activity in some part of the globe which the media and alarmists hype because they have witches to burn but that does mean there is an actual increase in the average.

(https://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 07:06:14 pm
According to theory warming reduces the differential between the poles and tropics which should reduce the the number of storm events. The increase heat may increase the intensity of the storms that do form but there should be fewer of them. More importantly, the actual data supports the theory since the number of storms has been decreasing across the globe, unfortunately, in any given year there will be higher than normal activity in some part of the globe which the media and alarmists hype because they have witches to burn but that does mean there is an actual increase in the average.

(https://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png)

Yep over 500 tornadoes in 30 days and that type of increase has been accelerating over the last 8 years more than ever since records have been kept. Must be just a "blip" eh?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 07:40:45 pm


The United States is experiencing the most active prolonged period of tornadoes since the April 2011 Super Outbreak.

More than 500 reports of tornadoes have been received by the National Weather Service in the past 30 days, notes Sam Lillo, a doctoral candidate at the University of Oklahoma. The actual number of tornadoes has yet to be confirmed, pending NWS damage surveys from recent activity.

https://weather.com/storms/severe/news/2019-05-28-severe-weather-tornado-streak-may-2019
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 28, 2019, 07:52:47 pm
Yep over 500 tornadoes in 30 days and that type of increase has been accelerating over the last 8 years more than ever since records have been kept. Must be just a "blip" eh?
Its called weather. There is 100% chance of unusual weather somewhere in the world each year because that is what weather is. In any case, there is decrease the number of strong tornados in the US over the last 50 years. The increase in weak tornados is entirely due to more diligent reporting of small events over the last 30.

(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/image182.png)

The same data is true for the alleged increase in droughts (i.e. there has not been any when you look at global data).

The only extreme that has shown a measurable increase are heat waves but that is matched but an equally significant decrease in cold waves which are generally more deadly to humans than heat waves.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 08:03:17 pm
Its called weather. There is 100% chance of unusual weather somewhere in the world each year because that is what weather is. In any case, there is decrease the number of strong tornados in the US over the last 50 years. The increase in weak tornados is entirely due to more diligent reporting of small events over the last 30.

(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/image182.png)

The same data is true for the alleged increase in droughts (i.e. there has not been any when you look at global data).

The only extreme that has shown a measurable increase are heat waves but that is matched but an equally significant decrease in cold waves which are generally more deadly to humans than heat waves.

The awareness as to the increase in significant storms is due simply to "reporting"? That's rich even from you.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 28, 2019, 08:09:32 pm
The awareness as to the increase in significant storms is due simply to "reporting"? That's rich even from you.
Not me. The NOAA:
Quote
With increased National Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the variability and trend in tornado frequency in the United States, the total number of EF-1 and stronger, as well as strong to violent tornadoes (EF-3 to EF-5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These tornadoes would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar charts below indicate there has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

But we all know you have  witches to burn and data and facts do not matter to you.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 08:17:38 pm
Not me. The NOAA:https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

But we all know you have  witches to burn and data and facts do not matter to you.

I suggest you read the opening paragraph of your post. The current deluge of tornadoes were observed and who knows, maybe there were others that were not. 500+ in 30 days? That data matters to me.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 28, 2019, 08:24:20 pm
I suggest you read the opening paragraph of your post. The current deluge of tornadoes were observed and who knows, maybe there were others that were not. 500+ in 30 days? That data matters to me.
You need to learn to read. There is no trend in strong tornados ad the reporting of small tornados has increases which creates the illusion of an increase. A random increase in one year or two years is not climate. It is random variation in weather that means nothing. Claiming that it means something is as dumb as saying there is no global warming because we have a period of record cold temperatures in the winter.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 08:39:14 pm
You need to learn to read. There is no trend in strong tornados ad the reporting of small tornados has increases which creates the illusion of an increase. A random increase in one year or two years is not climate. It is random variation in weather that means nothing. Claiming that it means something is as dumb as saying there is no global warming because we have a period of record cold temperatures in the winter.

The increase in tornadoes has increased more in the last 8 years since records have been kept. Just a blip maybe?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 28, 2019, 08:47:28 pm
The increase in tornadoes has increased more in the last 8 years since records have been kept. Just a blip maybe?
The trend is down or non-existent for larger tornados. The data makes that clear. If smaller tornadoes increase then it is more likely due to increased reporting due to better technology and more awareness. If it was climate related then there would be a trend in all sizes of tornados.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 28, 2019, 09:03:27 pm
The trend is down or non-existent for larger tornados. The data makes that clear. If smaller tornadoes increase then it is more likely due to increased reporting due to better technology and more awareness. If it was climate related then there would be a trend in all sizes of tornados.

The reporting comes from the people who were in the path of those storms. Do you think people weren't able to see those storms years ago?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: cybercoma on May 29, 2019, 06:58:44 am
According to theory warming reduces the differential between the poles and tropics which should reduce the the number of storm events. The increase heat may increase the intensity of the storms that do form but there should be fewer of them. More importantly, the actual data supports the theory since the number of storms has been decreasing across the globe, unfortunately, in any given year there will be higher than normal activity in some part of the globe which the media and alarmists hype because they have witches to burn but that does mean there is an actual increase in the average.

(https://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png)
Why the truncated data and from a source like "policlimate" and Ryan Maue, who engages in scientific fraud on a regular basis, publishing opinion pieces for the CATO Institute?

Here's longer-term data from the Environmental Protection Agency, who dare I say, has far more credibility than your highly discredited blogger friend.

(https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/cyclones-figure1-2016.png)

(Source, including other indicators: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-tropical-cyclone-activity)

Why it's almost as if Ryan Maue truncated his data because it shows the opposite of what long-term data shows. It's almost like he's committing data fraud by changing the sampling frame to suit his climate-denier narrative that is discredited by scientists who are more interested in research than politics.

Stop drinking the god damned Kool-Aid, Tim. If you were half as skeptical about bloggers as you were about the actual science, you would understand how stupid you look posting discredited opinions.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 29, 2019, 09:00:00 am
Here's longer-term data from the Environmental Protection Agency, who dare I say, has far more credibility than your highly discredited blogger friend.
1) Typical alarmist BS to claim that anyone who does not adher to every aspect of your alarmist cult is "discredited". In this case he is a meteorologist PhD and publishes in the peer reviewed literature: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011GL047711
He is certainly qualified to comment on the topic even if he uses some new-fangled technology to communicate which seems make you choke on your dentures.

Here is a post that compares other contributions to the peer reviewed literature that shows roughly the same story
https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/17/hurricanes-climate-change-detection/

Quote
The relatively short historical record of hurricane activity, and the even shorter record from the satellite era, is not sufficient to assess whether recent hurricane activity is unusual for during the current interglacial period. Results from paleotempestology analyses in the North Atlantic at a limited number of locations indicate that the current heightened activity is not unusual, with a ‘hyperactive period’ apparently occurring from 3400 to 1000 years before present.

Global hurricane activity since 1970 shows no significant trends in overall frequency, although there is some evidence of increasing numbers of major hurricanes and of an increase in the percentage of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

In the North Atlantic, all measures of hurricane activity have increased since 1970, although comparably high levels of activities also occurred during the 1950’s and 1960’s.

2) The EPA is a completely politicized agency and has no more claim to objectivity than the Cato institute so it is not clear why you think your source has more credibility.

3) Your graph show no obvious trend hurricane count over 100 years. The bump at the end is hardly enough to reverse the downward trend so it is not clear what point you think you are making.

BTW - your immediate attempt to label a scientist who publishes in the peer reviewed literature as "discredited" is a perfect example of the hostile climate for contrarian academics. This kind of attitude simply protects the group think dominates the field and leaves us with no way to know what is real and what is an illusion created by academics that are unwilling to look at ideas that undermine their pre-determined conclusions.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: cybercoma on May 29, 2019, 09:58:15 am
He is certainly qualified to comment on the topic even if he uses some new-fangled technology to communicate which seems make you choke on your dentures.
The reason he uses the "newfangled technology" is because his trash can't pass peer review because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Something you would recognize if, as I said, you were HALF as skeptical about bloggers as scientists.

Here is a post that compares other contributions to the peer reviewed literature that shows roughly the same story
https://judithcurry.com/2019/02/17/hurricanes-climate-change-detection/
Judith Curry, eh?

You know my post is from the EPA themselves, right?

2) The EPA is a completely politicized agency and has no more claim to objectivity than the Cato institute so it is not clear why you think your source has more credibility.
If you're claiming the CATO Institute has the same credibility as the EPA, then there's no discussing anything with you because you're not capable of reason.

3) Your graph show no obvious trend hurricane count over 100 years. The bump at the end is hardly enough to reverse the downward trend so it is not clear what point you think you are making.
No obvious trend to you, since you're willfully blind. But you could take half a second to click the link and read the source, which explains it if you're so confused by what you're looking it. Even if it showed "no trend," that's still a very different narrative than the pile of trash you're peddling.

BTW - your immediate attempt to label a scientist who publishes in the peer reviewed literature as "discredited" is a perfect example of the hostile climate for contrarian academics. This kind of attitude simply protects the group think dominates the field and leaves us with no way to know what is real and what is an illusion created by academics that are unwilling to look at ideas that undermine their pre-determined conclusions.
I label him as discredited because he's lacking credibility, as in the things he says are proven to be lies and distortions. Again, if you showed half as much skepticism for the bloggers and deniers as you do for the scientific consensus, you wouldn't be peddling sources that have zero credibility.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 29, 2019, 02:41:02 pm
The reason he uses the "newfangled technology" is because his trash can't pass peer review because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny
Except he is published in the peer reviewed journals so you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

You know my post is from the EPA themselves, right?
If you're claiming the CATO Institute has the same credibility as the EPA, then there's no discussing anything with you because you're not capable of reason.
If you think government agencies have no bias then you are the one not capable of reason. Government agencies have their own biases, prejudices and preconceptions that are a function of the type of people who choose to be career bureaucrats. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The Cato institute is biased but at least everyone acknowledges the bias.

I label him as discredited because he's lacking credibility, as in the things he says are proven to be lies and distortions.
Wrong. You claim that that the things he says are lies/distortions but that is just your *opinion* coloured by your own biases. It is not a fact. The bottom line is there is no credible evidence that climate is having a measurable effect on the number of hurricanes. Perhaps there will be evidence in the future but we will have to see.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 29, 2019, 02:49:54 pm
Except he is published in the peer reviewed journals so you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
If you think government agencies have no bias then you are the one not capable of reason. Government agencies have their own biases, prejudices and preconceptions that are a function of the type of people who choose to be career bureaucrats. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The Cato institute is biased but at least everyone acknowledges the bias.
Wrong. You claim that that the things he says are lies/distortions but that is just your *opinion* coloured by your own biases. It is not a fact. The bottom line is there is no credible evidence that climate is having a measurable effect on the number of hurricanes. Perhaps there will be evidence in the future but we will have to see.

Um no, we already see.
Or at least actual scientists do.

The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.


https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on May 29, 2019, 03:24:30 pm
The main text then gives more background discussion.
The text is full of caveats and waffle words despite the clear desire on the part of the authors to claim that such evidence exists.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on May 29, 2019, 03:37:58 pm
The text is full of caveats and waffle words despite the clear desire on the part of the authors to claim that such evidence exists.

I guess we have all pretty much concluded that everything presented to you that refutes your denier claims are simply "waffle words" coming from  all 97 plus% of peer reviewed climate scientists including those crazy guys over at NOAA, you know that right wing outfit started by Richard Nixon. Oops!   
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 01, 2019, 06:26:20 am
(https://i.imgur.com/d2QdjhM.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on June 01, 2019, 09:57:39 am
The text is full of caveats and waffle words despite the clear desire on the part of the authors to claim that such evidence exists.

You believe that the climate science (journals etc) types are compromised by activist interests.  If pro-AGW types are compromised by alarmists and research funding, and skeptics are compromised by deniers and energy companies, your stance is that the truth in the climate field is fundamentally compromised and is therefore unknowable.

So we should stop this discussion right now.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 01, 2019, 10:04:32 am
Except he is published in the peer reviewed journals so you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

wait, what? Aren't you the guy who perpetually denigrates peer-review... always stating that it can't be trusted... that "theSciencyMan" is always keepin' the "skepticMan" down! Isn't that you?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 01, 2019, 01:15:23 pm
You believe that the climate science (journals etc) types are compromised by activist interests.  If pro-AGW types are compromised by alarmists and research funding, and skeptics are compromised by deniers and energy companies, your stance is that the truth in the climate field is fundamentally compromised and is therefore unknowable.

So we should stop this discussion right now.
PG:
'Only the TimGod speaks the truth'!  ...  Lol

Oh wait! He's got competition ...
As Pope Francis called on global financial leaders to help keep dirty energy in the ground, the United Nations chief said Tuesday that fossil fuel subsidies amount to "using taxpayers' money... to destroy the world."

"Climate disruption is upon us, and it is progressing faster than our efforts to address it," said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres in Vienna at the climate-focused R20 Austrian World Summit.

While near-daily global disasters including floods, droughts, and wildfires make clear that the impacts of the climate crisis are already occurring, Guterres said, "there is a silver lining to the looming cloud."

That's because "if we do what we must to combat climate change, the benefits for societies around the world would be profound," he said, pointing to "cleaner water and air" and "reduced biodiversity loss."

But the scope of the task at hand is huge, explained Guterres, as it necessitates a total transformation of all aspects of society.

"What is needed for effective mitigation and improved resilience," he said, "is quite simply a rapid and deep change in how we do business, how we generate power, how we build cities, and how we feed the world."

Another key change, said Guterres, is to stop using taxpayer funds to prop up the coal, oil, and gas industries.

"We need to tax pollution, not people, and to end subsidies for fossil fuels," said Guterres. He also debunked the wrongful assumption by some that fossil fuel subsidies improve people's lives.

"There is nothing more wrong than that," he said. "What we are doing is using taxpayers' money—which means our money—to boost hurricanes, to spread droughts, to melt glaciers, to bleach corals. In one word—to destroy the world."

"As taxpayers," continued Guterres, "I believe we would like to see our money back rather than to see our money used to destroy the world."


Now waiting for the wrath of the TimGod .... 3 2 1 ... !!!  Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 01, 2019, 01:47:09 pm
your stance is that the truth in the climate field is fundamentally compromised and is therefore unknowable.
That is more or less what I am saying. However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about when it makes economic sense. Unfortunately, the debate has been polarized by people that push all kinds of irrational actions because they have beeen persuaded by alarmists peddling fantasies and hypotheticals as if they are foregone conclusions.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 01, 2019, 02:14:13 pm
That is more or less what I am saying. However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about when it makes economic sense. Unfortunately, the debate has been polarized by people that push all kinds of irrational actions because they have beeen persuaded by alarmists peddling fantasies and hypotheticals as if they are foregone conclusions.

So you are still trying to flog this weary, worn out concept that the vast majority of professionally trained, peer reviewed climate scientists are simply "peddling fantasies and hypothetical s". Who then will decide "when talking about it makes economic sense"? The 3% of deniers? Probably too late by then, if they ever come around.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 01, 2019, 02:50:12 pm
That is more or less what I am saying. However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about when it makes economic sense.

When your carbon monoxide alarms are going off in your house, do you say "We'll fix it when it makes economic sense?"

Do you mean "makes economic sense" ...
immediately today?
quarterly?
1 year?
2 years?
5 years?
a generation of children?
2 generations ?
7 generations of children?

How far ahead do you plan for "economic sense"?

More details on those 'sensible' economic plans, please.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 01, 2019, 03:03:09 pm
When your carbon monoxide alarms are going off in your house, do you say "We'll fix it when it makes economic sense?"

Do you mean "makes economic sense" ...
immediately today?
quarterly?
1 year?
2 years?
5 years?
a generation of children?
2 generations ?
7 generations of children?

How far ahead do you plan for "economic sense"?

More details on those 'sensible' economic plans, please.

Perhaps "economic sense" in the vein of as more and more arctic sea ice continues to melt we can have more and moreViking Cruise ships sailing through the NW passage and that should generate some revenue. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 01, 2019, 03:04:01 pm
When your carbon monoxide alarms are going off in your house, do you say "We'll fix it when it makes economic sense?"
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming. From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 01, 2019, 03:18:20 pm
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming. From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

Where you seem to have a problem understanding the economy is to realize the billions of subsidies that continue to pour into fossil fuel producers to this day. Then of course it will be a further strain on taxpayers to repair the environmental damage done by that industry. Better to put those subsidies into renewables and not get hit with the double whammy.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 01, 2019, 03:40:51 pm
Perhaps "economic sense" in the vein of as more and more arctic sea ice continues to melt we can have more and moreViking Cruise ships sailing through the NW passage and that should generate some revenue.
Ya, there's oil up there! Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 01, 2019, 03:47:40 pm
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
100 years!
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!!
You are hilarious.
HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE!!
Good one, TimGod!
'We have to wait 100 years to tackle emissions because we can't afford it now.'

Funniest thing I've read in ages!


Quote
From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

Thanks.

/sarcasm
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 01, 2019, 05:11:48 pm
Well, to understand the answer you have to understand economics and I am not convinced you do. For example, the people living 100 years from now will be much richer and have more technology available to them so they will be much more able to deal with either reducing CO2 or deal with the consequences of warming. From an economic perspective we take this factor into account by applying a discount rate which means money spent today is more valuable that money spent in the future. Of course, we don't know what the future costs will be so any such calculation is creative fiction but the concept does not change. i.e. there is limit to the amount of resources that it makes sense to spend today to reduce the need to spend resource in the future.

More importantly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of any resources spent today. For example, spending $1000/tonne to reduce CO2 emissions makes no economic sense and such projects should not be considered. Spending $50/tonne does make sense and those projects should be funded.

So lets see, the money we have now is worth more than it will be in 100 years, but we will be richer in the future. Yep that's some interesting economics. I'm sure the top 1% will continue to thrive even as blue collar jobs are lost to robots. But that's more economics. More to the point here is that in 100 years we will already have run out of oil 50 years ago. Coal will either have, or be about to run out by then as well. Maybe we should be smart and get out ahead of the game, even if you don't care for the environment.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 02, 2019, 11:12:35 am
The questions that matter are whether we can do anything other than adapt.
Even when you manage to corner member TimG into actually addressing the practicality, logistics, timelines, etc., of his perpetual "AdaptOnly" bleating, he won't commit to adapting to anything on any timeline!

that forever Adapt-R-Us-Only sentiment that refuses to accept any accompanying prevention & mitigation approaches, doesn't get enough props! That uber-popular right-wing "journalist"/Trump apologist, Ben Shapiro, recently made a foray into climate change discussion... Harry Brewis had a go at him in this linked video! (https://twitter.com/i/videos/1134537636159393792)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 02, 2019, 11:39:25 am
I just want to highlight this TimG quote:

However, the basic physics of GHGs and the contribution of humans to CO2 emissions is well supported enough that we don't need to be concerned about the systemic biases. This means CO2 emissions are a potential problem that we should talk about doing something about

TimG has given up his climate change denial stance.
We are in agreement there.

But as to what we do about it, he's still advocating 'nothing at this time':
 
Quote
... when it makes economic sense.

So I howled with laughter at that. Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: the_squid on June 05, 2019, 07:07:11 pm
I just want to highlight this TimG quote:

TimG has given up his climate change denial stance.
We are in agreement there.

But as to what we do about it, he's still advocating 'nothing at this time':
 
So I howled with laughter at that. Lol

I think he throws that in once in a while....  but then goes back to his science denying ways.   It’s very confused. 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 05, 2019, 08:00:08 pm
I think he throws that in once in a while....  but then goes back to his science denying ways.   It’s very confused.
The problem is you refuse to listen to the arguments I actually make and instead assume that anyone that criticizes anything about climate policy is a "denier". The opinion that I had for years is:

1) Not all science is equal. Fields where hypotheses can be refuted or confirmed with real world testing are fields where the real world can be used to settle scientific disagreements. In fields where such real world tests are not possible then science is reduced to nothing but the opinions of academics.

2) When science is driven by the opinions of academics instead of the real world then politics matters and it is very easy to get trapped in a cycle of group think that prevents the academic community from honestly assessing the information available.

3) Climate scientists have repeatedly demonstrated numerous symptoms of group think (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) which means any claims made by people working in the field need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

4) Notwithstanding the problems in 1-3) the basic science of GHGs and human emissions can be confirmed with real world testing which means GHGs are potentially problematic even if we have no idea what the eventual harms may be. i.e. the fact that harm cannot be ruled out is enough to argue that we should make effort to reduce GHGs emissions.

5) The economically and technically viable options for GHGs emission reductions are very limited so any policy based on promising to reduce GHGs by X% by some date are simply dumb. All we can do is invest in R&D and make sure that no regulatory barriers prevent economically  and technically viable solutions from being deployed.

6) We have to accept the reality that GHG reductions cannot prevent whatever future harm may occur so we will need to prepare to adapt. This is not about choosing to adapt instead of mitigating, it is about honestly assessing the tech available to us and acknowledging the limits of that tech instead of wasting resources on policies that are doomed to fail because it makes some people feel better.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on June 05, 2019, 08:35:56 pm
Honey bees are going extinct because of excessive use of pesticides in crops and certain blood-sucking parasites that only reproduce in bee colonies. It’s true that the extinction of bees would mean the end of humanity.

"For many of us, honeybees are annoying. We think that their only purpose is to keep buzzing around and dropping their formic acid-laden stings on random people (this impression will certainly change when we stop getting spoonfuls of sweet honey in our morning cereal).

The truth is, honeybees are crucial elements of our environment, and almost never get the credit that they deserve.

If bees didn’t exist, humans wouldn’t either.

Bee extinction – Why would it affect us?
Out of the 100 crop species that provide us with 90% of our food, 35% are pollinated by bees, birds and bats (source). It’s that simple.

Bees are the primary initiators of reproduction among plants, as they transfer pollen from the male stamens to the female pistils."

Since 2006, the population of bees has declined considerably (source). Pesticides, disease, parasites, and poor weather due to global warming have played a major role in this worrying decline."

(https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bee-polling.webp)

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 07, 2019, 12:01:48 pm
I think he throws that in once in a while....  but then goes back to his science denying ways.   It’s very confused.

The fossil bosses (at least any who are smarter than the flat-earthers) have pretty much abandoned climate change denial and the contribution of emissions.

Now it's just economic and technical-sounding arguments for the short-term: continuing fossil-fuel production because renewables 'aren't ready'. 

Those are both just short-term challenges, good reasons to wind down fossil fuel subsidies and ramp up support for development and implementation of renewables.

I am not being facetious when I say ... the environmrntally-compromised lands of the oil fields might be a good place for massive wind-solar farms ... if energy companies broaden their horizons a bit.
For domestic use, though, not for mass export for profit like they're trying to do with oil - ie, exporting their emissions to China. Lol

Environmental assessments/NEB approvals and court challenges are now trending toward including both upstream emissions (production) and downstream emissions (use of product - ie, burning fossil fuels for power, heating, vehicles, etc.). If that trend continues, oil operations and pipeline proposals (even for mass export to China for burning there) will count against the companies: Proving the profitability of the operation will also prove its lack of environmental viability.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/08/23/energy-east-pipeline-to-review-upstream-downstream-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2019/1/neb-mulls-request-broaden-tmx-review-consider-upstream-downstream-ghgs/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Pinus or Vid or...????? on June 07, 2019, 12:21:15 pm
The fossil bosses (at least any who are smarter than the flat-earthers) have pretty much abandoned climate change denial and the contribution of emissions.

Now it's just economic and technical-sounding arguments for the short-term: continuing fossil-fuel production because renewables 'aren't ready'. 

Those are both just short-term challenges.

I had an interesting conversation with an Ontario person currently transplanted to Edmonton, who said that the oil-workers there are very cranky people.
Apparently having the highest average income in the country ($94k vs Canada $70k) makes people unhappy!

Not unexpected, really:
https://www.marketwatch.com/storythe-dark-reasons-so-many-rich-people-are-miserable-human-beings
“We think external things we buy will bring us happiness, but then we get them and we wonder ‘what’s next?” she explains. “That [next thing] has to be bigger and better” than what we had before and than what other people around us have, she adds.

The problem with this, of course, is that plenty of research shows that most material possessions don’t make us happier -- instead, it’s things like experiences and having more time to do things we love -- and spend time with people we love -- that drive happiness. [/i]

If you're working lots of overtime to afford the house and the toys and the bragging rights ... quality of life suffers. And then there's the fear that the oil business is threatened too. That can't be an easy feeling.

It has nothing to do with money.  It's the lifestyle.  Tons of oilfield workers do shifts of 70+ hours a week, and 24 on/4 off shifts.  This is not unique to the oil and gas industry.  The same can be said for miners, forestry workers, hydroelectric workers, etc. It's not an easy lifestyle.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 07, 2019, 12:57:41 pm
Honey bees are going extinct because of excessive use of pesticides in crops and certain blood-sucking parasites that only reproduce in bee colonies. It’s true that the extinction of bees would mean the end of humanity.

"For many of us, honeybees are annoying. We think that their only purpose is to keep buzzing around and dropping their formic acid-laden stings on random people (this impression will certainly change when we stop getting spoonfuls of sweet honey in our morning cereal).

The truth is, honeybees are crucial elements of our environment, and almost never get the credit that they deserve.

If bees didn’t exist, humans wouldn’t either.

Bee extinction – Why would it affect us?
Out of the 100 crop species that provide us with 90% of our food, 35% are pollinated by bees, birds and bats (source). It’s that simple.

Bees are the primary initiators of reproduction among plants, as they transfer pollen from the male stamens to the female pistils."

Since 2006, the population of bees has declined considerably (source). Pesticides, disease, parasites, and poor weather due to global warming have played a major role in this worrying decline."

(https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/bee-polling.webp)

In fall and spring, we tidy-to-a-fault gardeners like to clean leaves and plant debris from our gardens.
BUT ... JUST DON'T DO IT.
https://savvygardening.com/spring-garden-clean-done-right/

Fall:
... reasons why you shouldn’t do a fall garden clean up. ... let your garden stand all winter in order to provide habitat for many of the beneficial insects and other creatures living in it.

Spring
Lots of beneficial insects, including pollinators like tiny native bees and pest-munching predators like syrphid flies, lacewings, and parasitic wasps, spend the winter hunkered down in hollow plant stems either as adults or pupae. Cutting down the dead plant stems too early in the spring will disturb them before they have a chance to emerge. Wait as long as you can to do your spring garden clean up. Ideally, you should wait until the daytime temperatures are consistently above 50 degrees F.

Or ... just don't do it at all.
This year I totally conquered my ocd urges and social pressures to clean out my garden fall and spring. The debris is now mulching the garden nicely and  hidden by new growth, and for the first time in my 15 years here in the concrete jungle, there are honeybees flying around my garden.
A very simple but significant change.
Who knew!

And don't prune shrubs in spring either - cocoons  attached!  Lol

Mother Nature is still the best gardener. Lol

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 01:32:21 pm
Now it's just economic and technical-sounding arguments for the short-term: continuing fossil-fuel production because renewables 'aren't ready'.
Solar and wind cannot be our primary source of power. This is a fact that can be shown to be true by looking at the experience of almost every jurisdiction that has tried to force their deployment. No amount of wishful thinking on your part will change this reality.

Those are both just short-term challenges, good reasons to wind down fossil fuel subsidies and ramp up support for development and implementation of renewables.
The notion that fossil fuels are subsidized in this country is a fiction. There is no pot of money that can be magically produced by ending these imaginary subsidies. In the real world, fossil fuels are net contributors to government revenues. Again, no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change this reality.

If we want to have a conversation about what can be done about emissions it has to be based on the real world. It can't be based on these falsehoods that you insist on clinging to.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on June 07, 2019, 01:37:05 pm
fossil fuels are net contributors to government revenues

I paid $0.01 tax last year, so I am a net contributor to government using that logic.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 01:47:10 pm
I paid $0.01 tax last year, so I am a net contributor to government using that logic.
Governments collect $20 billion per year in revenue from fossil fuel production and sale. Furthermore, these fossil fuels are a key input into the economy that allows everyone to produce more and also contribute to the economy. Replacing fossil fuels will less flexible and/or more expensive energy sources would reduce economic activity and reduce government revenues even more than $20 billion they get from direct revenues.

IOW, if you want to bring in unquantifiable "harms" caused by fossil fuels you MUST also include the  unquantifiable "benefits" of fossil fuels. It is simply dishonest to only talk about the unquantifiable harms as if they are cost that must be paid. Every accountant knows that proper book keeping requires that the liabilities AND assets be added up to determine the net worth.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on June 07, 2019, 01:54:17 pm
Every accountant knows that proper book keeping requires that the liabilities AND assets be added up to determine the net worth.

Exactly, and the net contribution of fossil fuels is low or negative. They receive a lot of direct and indirect benefits.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 02:15:36 pm
Exactly, and the net contribution of fossil fuels is low or negative. They receive a lot of direct and indirect benefits.
What imaginary numbers do you base this on? Fossil fuels are essential in many parts of our economy. For example, aircraft, shipping, trucking, et. al. There are simply no alternatives to fossil fuels which means the benefits of having aircraft, shipping and trucking are benefits that fossil fuels provide. It is simply not plausible to argue that fossil fuels are net negative contribute once you look at both sides of the ledger.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on June 07, 2019, 02:26:02 pm
aircraft, shipping and trucking are benefits that fossil fuels provide

You are confusing the transportation industry with the energy industry.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 02:31:51 pm
You are confusing the transportation industry with the energy industry.
Without fossil fuels the transportation industry could not operate on the scale that it operates today. Therefore, all of the benefits provided by the transportation industry are also benefits provided by fossil fuels. It is frankly ridiculous to claim that the emissions produced by the transportation industry are "harms" caused by fossil fuels without counting the benefits of the transportation industry as a benefit of fossil fuels. If you don't want to count the transportation industry as a benefit then you have to exclude emissions from transportation industry as a harm. It is the only fair way to these kinds of calculations.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 07, 2019, 03:12:49 pm
Without fossil fuels the transportation industry could not operate on the scale that it operates today. Therefore, all of the benefits provided by the transportation industry are also benefits provided by fossil fuels. It is frankly ridiculous to claim that the emissions produced by the transportation industry are "harms" caused by fossil fuels without counting the benefits of the transportation industry as a benefit of fossil fuels. If you don't want to count the transportation industry as a benefit then you have to exclude emissions from transportation industry as a harm. It is the only fair way to these kinds of calculations.

You seem to think that goods being brought to your door somehow offsets the harm that delivery truck burning diesel does to the air your breathe. Sorry but it is rather silly to make such an assumption. That delivery truck could be running on electricity and probably soon will be. And yes, the fossil fuel industry is subsidized either directly or through tax benefits.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 07, 2019, 03:21:39 pm
Solar and wind cannot be our primary source of power. This is a fact that can be shown to be true by looking at the experience of almost every jurisdiction that has tried to force their deployment. No amount of wishful thinking on your part will change this reality.

Improved technology will change that.
So will applying current fossil fuel subsidies to development and implementation of renewables.

Some projections:

https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/
Quote
The notion that fossil fuels are subsidized in this country is a fiction. There is no pot of money that can be magically produced by ending these imaginary subsidies. In the real world, fossil fuels are net contributors to government revenues. Again, no amount of wishful thinking on your part will change this reality.
False logic:
Federal government revenues from energy production don't disappear.
Switch the subsidies to renewables, and revenues come from renewables.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 03:37:26 pm
Improved technology will change that.
Wishful thinking. Wishing for a unicorn does not make them real.

So will applying current fossil fuel subsidies to development and implementation of renewables.
There are no subsidies to switch. We can't make policy based on your delusions.

Federal government revenues from energy production don't disappear.
Nonsense, Wind and solar are not viable without government subsidies. There is no way governments could turn around and charge producers royalties like they does with fossil fuels. Nor could they double everyone's electrical bill with taxes like they do with gasoline. Get rid of fossil fuels and government revenues will take a hit.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on June 07, 2019, 03:39:49 pm
That delivery truck could be running on electricity and probably soon will be.

I came across the perfect candidate today. There was a pickup truck at the lock park stopping every 50-100 meters and leaving his engine running while he emptied trash cans. These are the no-brainers. There already exist electric pickups, this is a local service returning to the garage every night, and spends most of its time idling.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on June 07, 2019, 03:41:59 pm
Get rid of fossil fuels and government revenues will take a hit.

Now there is an argument. We need to destroy the Earth for future generations to run government.

...I didn't say it was a good one.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 03:46:53 pm
Now there is an argument. We need to destroy the Earth for future generations to run government.
You and your fellow crusaders seem to be under the delusion that fossil fuels are subsidized and that if they subsidies were ended there would be a big pile of cash to to spend your pet projects. This is nonsense. The potential loss of revenues to government is proof that it is nonsense.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 07, 2019, 03:53:11 pm
I cam across the perfect candidate today. There was a pickup truck at the lock park stopping every 50-100 meters and leaving his engine running while he emptied trash cans. These are the no-brainers. There already exist electric pickups, this is a local service returning to the garage every night, and spends most of its time idling.

As a follow up to that yesterday was "blue box" day in my neighborhood. Instead of a diesel engine roar for 10 seconds and then the screeching of brakes as the truck moved along from house to house, why not convert that to an EV. Much less noise, much less pollution. When you hit the brakes in an EV some of the energy goes right back to the battery. Sounds like a win/win to me.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 07, 2019, 03:59:20 pm
You and your fellow crusaders seem to be under the delusion that fossil fuels are subsidized and that if they subsidies were ended there would be a big pile of cash to to spend your pet projects. This is nonsense. The potential loss of revenues to government is proof that it is nonsense.

If Canada stopped subsidizing fossil fuel production there would be around 3.3 billion available to invest is renewables.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on June 07, 2019, 04:01:17 pm
You and your fellow crusaders seem to be under the delusion that fossil fuels are subsidized

Here are some of those delusions for you to ponder:

Canadian Development Expense - $1,018 million
Canadian Exploration Expense - $148 million
Crown Royalty Reductions (Alberta) - $1,161 million
Deep Drilling Credit (British Columbia) $271 million
Atlantic Investment Tax Credit - $127 million
Other - $589 million
Total: $3.3 billion

ref: 2014 Report (https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9988.pdf)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 04:12:22 pm
Here are some of those delusions for you to ponder:
Total revenues from fossil fuel royalties: 6-10 billion. Total revenue from fuel excise taxes: $15 billion.

Like I said: fossil fuels are a net revenue generator. There are no subsidies to eliminate.

Furthermore, most of those are tax deductions and credits available to every industry in different forms because creating a profitable business always has expenses. Getting rid of them would result in less revenue for the government as companies invest less and make lower profits.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 07, 2019, 04:16:17 pm
Total revenues from fossil fuel royalties: 6-10 billion. Total revenue from fuel excise taxes: $15 billion.

Like I said: fossil fuels are a net revenue generator. There are no subsidies to eliminate.

Furthermore, most of those are tax deductions and credits available to every industry in different forms because creating a profitable business always has expenses. Getting rid of them would result in less revenue for the government as companies invest less and make lower profits.

So why then are we subsidizing them to the tune of over 3 billion to continue to pollute our planet when we could be collecting revenue each time you charge up your EV?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: ?Impact on June 07, 2019, 04:22:06 pm
Getting rid of them would result in less revenue for the government as companies invest less and make lower profits.

You seem to think that if there were no fossil fuels trade would come to halt. You realize that other energy industries also contribute to trade, and hence government revenues.

... and before you go off on your old tirade; nobody is suggesting turning off the tap tomorrow, the point is focusing investment in sustainable futures instead.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 07, 2019, 04:37:35 pm
You seem to think that if there were no fossil fuels trade would come to halt. You realize that other energy industries also contribute to trade, and hence government revenues.
No other industries produce a product that is so profitable that the government can collect billions in taxes from every unit shipped and then collect special excise taxes when bought by the consumers. There is no way those revenues would be replaced by other energy sources which struggle to make a profit without subsidies.

... and before you go off on your old tirade; nobody is suggesting turning off the tap tomorrow, the point is focusing investment in sustainable futures instead.
My point is there is no pool of money from "fossil fuel" subsidies that can be reallocated. Fossil fuels are net revenue generator for government.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 07, 2019, 04:44:08 pm
.
My point is there is no pool of money from "fossil fuel" subsidies that can be reallocated. Fossil fuels are net revenue generator for government.
[/quote]

So why are we continuing to subsidize the industry?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 07, 2019, 05:20:39 pm
Shut up. UV

.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 07, 2019, 05:36:50 pm

There are no subsidies to switch.

Nonsense. The data is just not being released by the Liberals.

In his spring 2017 report, the auditor general found that the Department of Finance along with Environment and Climate Change Canada — responsible, respectively, for the tax and non-tax portion of the commitment — hadn't yet defined what an "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidy was, let alone figured out a way to cut or phase them out.

And real numbers have been hard to come by.

Under pressure from environmental groups this past June, Jim Carr announced a study to pinpoint how much Ottawa and the provinces actually spend to support the fossil fuel industry, the results of which will eventually be made public.

A recent report from the Overseas Development Institute, a U.K. think tank, that compares all the G7 nations gave Ottawa low marks on transparency and ranked Canada the worst at ending support for oil and gas production.

By its figures, Canada was providing a total of $4.63 billion US ($6.25 billion CDN) in support to fossil fuel industries, the most per capita in the G7.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-canada-oil-subsidies-us-politics-1.4950380
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 08, 2019, 12:22:50 am
Nonsense. The data is just not being released by the Liberals.
The data does not say what you think it says because it only looks at one side of the ledger. Any full and honest accounting must take into account the direct revenues that governments get from fossil fuel production and sale. Governments make ~$20 billion per year in direct revenue from fossil fuels which far exceeds any alleged subsidies. On top of that many of the so called subsidies are not subsidies at all but simply tax rules that all corporations benefit from in one way or another.

No matter how you twist and turn, the argument that fossil fuels in canada are net recipients of subsidies is unequivocally false.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 08, 2019, 12:28:56 am
The data does not say what you think it says because it only looks at one side of the ledger. Any full and honest accounting must take into account the direct revenues that governments get from fossil fuel production and sale. Governments make ~$20 billion per year in direct revenue from fossil fuels which far exceeds any alleged subsidies. On top of that many of the so called subsidies are not subsidies at all but simply tax rules that all corporations benefit from in one way or another.

No matter how you twist and turn, the argument that fossil fuels in canada are net recipients of subsidies is unequivocally false.

How much does Canada give out in fossil fuel subsidies?

About $3.3 billion for oil and gas producers (currency in Canadian dollars).

https://www.iisd.org/faq/unpacking-canadas-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 08, 2019, 12:47:12 am
About $3.3 billion for oil and gas producers (currency in Canadian dollars).
And oil and gas producers pay about $6-10 billion per year in royalties. A 100%+ return on investment is pretty good deal for taxpayers. Of course, that assumes that everything on the list is really a subsidy. Most are are simply tax rules that every corporation benefits from in one way or another.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 08, 2019, 03:55:34 am
Of course, that assumes that everything on the list is really a subsidy. Most are are simply tax rules that every corporation benefits from in one way or another.
Furthermore, most of those are tax deductions and credits available to every industry in different forms because creating a profitable business always has expenses.
You and your fellow crusaders seem to be under the delusion that fossil fuels are subsidized...

and what have the 164 member states of the WTO agreed to?

(https://i.imgur.com/77CIJ66.png)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 08, 2019, 07:04:32 am
And oil and gas producers pay about $6-10 billion per year in royalties. A 100%+ return on investment is pretty good deal for taxpayers. Of course, that assumes that everything on the list is really a subsidy. Most are are simply tax rules that every corporation benefits from in one way or another.

Irrelevant, Tim. The fossil fuel issue is not about short term profits. It's now about the long term pain it is causing.
We're aware that fossil fuels are profitable in the short term - if we don't include environmental costs.  Profitability is not the reason for winding down fossil fuels.
Damage is.

Yes there are still federal subsidies, and we want those federal subsidies to be transferred to renewables.

I tracked down a federal subsidy to a startup oil company once - $150m.
In their first year of operation - not drilling yet - the company posted a profit of ... $150m.
Weird. Public money should never be 'profit' for investors. Something hinky there.

Alberta can subsidize if it wants, but that federal money needs to be invested in the future of clezn energy, not shoring up dirty energy.

Fossil fuels were never cheap. We just subsidized them and passed the environmental costs on to the future.
We can't afford to do that anymore.
And the kids are really pissed at us about that: Have you heard of them protesting in the streets worldwide?
It's their future we've compromised.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 08, 2019, 07:38:11 pm
Updated report on polar ice melt due to global warming not good news.

The Arctic is heating up twice as fast as the global average, causing massive melting of sea ice. But while we know climate change is warming the Arctic air, there is a lot more happening under the ice that we don't fully understand.

A team of interdisciplinary scientists is here on a study facilitated by Greenpeace, at the start of the environmental group's nearly year-long pole-to-pole expedition. The scientists want to learn more about this threat beneath the ice, which could potentially destroy the cycle of life that starts here, and threaten the lives of people all over the planet.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/08/world/arctic-beneath-ice-intl/index.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 08, 2019, 08:03:09 pm
We're aware that fossil fuels are profitable in the short term - if we don't include environmental costs.
While can agree that fossil fuel use has negative side effects but any attempt calculate a "cost" for these effects is an exercise in creative fiction. That means you have no rational basis for your claim that the environment costs of fossil fuels exceed their benefits to society (monetary and non-monetary). This is nothing but a belief you have which is not unlike a christian believing in jesus. You can hardly expect others to share your religion.

Yes there are still federal subsidies, and we want those federal subsidies to be transferred to renewables.
If you wish to say you want to impose punitive taxes on fossil fuels to fund the development of completely useless renewables then you should say that. Repeating a falsehood about fossil fuel subsidies does make it true.

Fossil fuels were never cheap. We just subsidized them and passed the environmental costs on to the future.
Again complete nonsense. If you want to talk about the intangible harms caused by fossil fuels you MUST also talk about the intangible benefits. Ignoring the benefits is simply dishonest and fools no one.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 08, 2019, 08:23:03 pm
While can agree that fossil fuel use has negative side effects but any attempt calculate a "cost" for these effects is an exercise in creative fiction. That means you have no rational basis for your claim that the environment costs of fossil fuels exceed their benefits to society (monetary and non-monetary). This is nothing but a belief you have which is not unlike a christian believing in jesus. You can hardly expect others to share your religion.
If you wish to say you want to impose punitive taxes on fossil fuels to fund the development of completely useless renewables then you should say that. Repeating a falsehood about fossil fuel subsidies does make it true.
Again complete nonsense. If you want to talk about the intangible harms caused by fossil fuels you MUST also talk about the intangible benefits. Ignoring the benefits is simply dishonest and fools no one.

1. People understanding/believing science is about as far at the opposite end of the scale as you can get vis a vis religion.

2. If you think renewables are "useless" than are guess we are screwed. Fossils are nearing their end.

3. I would hardly call the thousands of people who die each year from inhaling particles from fossil combustion "intangible harms"
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 08, 2019, 08:37:08 pm
People understanding/believing science is about as far at the opposite end of the scale as you can get vis a vis religion.
There is little science in efforts to quantify intangible harms caused by fossil fuels. It is often a self serving exercise driven to produce numbers that suit the researcher.

If you think renewables are "useless" than are guess we are screwed. Fossils are nearing their end.
NO credible source believes this. Fossil fuel use is expected to grow for the next 30 years.

I would hardly call the thousands of people who die each year from inhaling particles from fossil combustion "intangible harms"
Except can't prove any such link. All you can do is a correlation analyses and assume that any correlation found can be attributed  to fossil fuels. Furthermore, even if you accept that some of those deaths can be correctly attributed  to fossil fuels you also have to factor in the benefits. e.g. every person who's life was saved by a fossil fuel powered ambulance or medical evac helicopter is a life saved by fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 08, 2019, 08:58:00 pm
There is little science in efforts to quantify intangible harms caused by fossil fuels. It is often a self serving exercise driven to produce numbers that suit the researcher.
NO credible source believes this. Fossil fuel use is expected to grow for the next 30 years.
Except can't prove any such link. All you can do is a correlation analyses and assume that any correlation found can be attributed  to fossil fuels. Furthermore, even if you accept that some of those deaths can be correctly attributed  to fossil fuels you also have to factor in the benefits. e.g. every person who's life was saved by a fossil fuel powered ambulance or medical evac helicopter is a life saved by fossil fuels.

1. What would be the reason peer reviewed professional scientists would produce results simply to suit themselves? Makes no sense.

2. What could cause us to wean ourselves off fossils even before they run is the continued rising costs of extraction.

3.  I don't think the ride to the hospital is what saves lives. That ambulance could easily be an EV.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 08, 2019, 11:30:02 pm
I don't think the ride to the hospital is what saves lives. That ambulance could easily be an EV.
The point is there are no EV ambulances so such qualification means nothing. The fact is people's lives are saved because of fossil fuels powering emergency vehicles. This is a benefit of fossil fuels because any other alternative would have meant fewer and/or non-existent (too expensive/unreliable) emergency vehicles. Similar arguments are everywhere. Every positive thing produced by the economy is only possible because of the cost structures created by the wide availability of the fossil fuels. You can't whinge about the harms of fossil fuels without taking into account all those benefits. This is true even if alternatives do become cost effective in the future because those options did not exist in the past.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 08, 2019, 11:52:09 pm
The point is there are no EV ambulances so such qualification means nothing. The fact is people's lives are saved because of fossil fuels powering emergency vehicles. This is a benefit of fossil fuels because any other alternative would have meant fewer and/or non-existent (too expensive/unreliable) emergency vehicles. Similar arguments are everywhere. Every positive thing produced by the economy is only possible because of the cost structures created by the wide availability of the fossil fuels. You can't whinge about the harms of fossil fuels without taking into account all those benefits. This is true even if alternatives do become cost effective in the future because those options did not exist in the past.

As people continue to switch to EV's they will continue to develop, as will ongoing extension of battery range. Denmark has already developed an ambulance that is an EV. Norway working toward it.

https://www.sustainability-times.com/sustainable-business/a-new-ambulance-made-in-denmark-has-gone-all-electric/

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 09, 2019, 12:03:52 am
Fossil fuel use is expected to grow for the next 30 years.

(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F66.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_md0z8hzOm51qc0cxpo1_500.gif&hash=7f50f606878cd06ac52ca71b2ebe0f89b654f88c)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 09, 2019, 12:13:34 pm
The point is there are no EV ambulances so such qualification means nothing. The fact is people's lives are saved because of fossil fuels powering emergency vehicles.

Because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't.
People are saved by emergency vehicles w proper equipment getting them to hospital.
Their power source is entirely irrelevant.

You're really running out of arguments, TimG, and the only ones you have left are full of holes. Lol
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 09, 2019, 12:58:59 pm
Because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't.
People are saved by emergency vehicles w proper equipment getting them to hospital.
Their power source is entirely irrelevant.

You're really running out of arguments, TimG, and the only ones you have left are full of holes. Lol

And those electric helicopters that "don't exist" might not be that far away. The big boys of that industry are already developing them.

 Several aircraft manufactures are developing electric urban air taxis, many of which use tilting, ducted fans for lift and propulsion.

Airbus Helicopters, for instance, is developing its CityAirbus electric-powered urban air taxi, Boeing is developing an electric "autonomous passenger air vehicle" and Bell Helicopter is working on a hybrid-electric design as part of its Nexus programme.

Several years ago, Sikorsky developed an electric-powered version of a Schweizer S-300C light helicopter, part of a project called Firefly.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hai-sikorsky-launches-drive-to-develop-urban-air-ta-456316/
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Granny on June 09, 2019, 01:53:12 pm
And those electric helicopters that "don't exist" might not be that far away. The big boys of that industry are already developing them.

 Several aircraft manufactures are developing electric urban air taxis, many of which use tilting, ducted fans for lift and propulsion.

Airbus Helicopters, for instance, is developing its CityAirbus electric-powered urban air taxi, Boeing is developing an electric "autonomous passenger air vehicle" and Bell Helicopter is working on a hybrid-electric design as part of its Nexus programme.

Several years ago, Sikorsky developed an electric-powered version of a Schweizer S-300C light helicopter, part of a project called Firefly.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hai-sikorsky-launches-drive-to-develop-urban-air-ta-456316/
EV planes, ships, transport trucks, trains, buses etc etc, all ramping up production.

It's going to be a huge shift, and It's going to be fast now.
 
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 09, 2019, 02:14:25 pm
EV planes, ships, transport trucks, trains, buses etc etc, all ramping up production.

It's going to be a huge shift, and It's going to be fast now.

The planes are on their way too.

Harbour Air starts multi-year conversion to electric-powered flight

 The converted six-passenger DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver will feature a zero-emission, 750-horsepower motor.

“Everything is on schedule,” said Randy Wright, president of Harbour Air, who was on hand for James’ visit. “The plane is currently in Richmond being retrofitted and the engine is on the way up from Australia and should be here in August and we are on schedule to test fly in November.”

The first commercial flight is still as long as two years away, but Harbour Air has committed to eventually convert its entire fleet of 42 planes. “This is very cutting edge and very exciting,” said Wright.

https://www.timescolonist.com/business/harbour-air-starts-multi-year-conversion-to-electric-powered-flight-1.23847737
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 09, 2019, 03:53:02 pm
Because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't.
People are saved by emergency vehicles w proper equipment getting them to hospital.
Their power source is entirely irrelevant.
We are talking about the PAST and the PRESENT. Not whatever fantasies you may invent about what MIGHT happen in the future. In the PAST and PRESENT emergency services cannot function without fossil fuels which means the lives saved by emergency services DO count as lives saved by fossil fuels. If you are going whinge about the harms of fossil fuels you cannot avoid talking about the benefits of fossil fuels. It is simply dishonest to only look at one side of the ledger.

Your blindness to the benefits of fossil fuels is why there is such a disconnect between what you believe and what politicians actually do. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not fossil fuels bring great benefits to society and these benefits must be weighed against the harms. In the past and the present the intangible benefits of fossil fuels far exceeds any intangible harms. New tech in the future may change that balance but that will only happen when the new tech exists and is proven to be as useful as the fossil fuel powered solution. We are closer than we have been in the past but we are still a long way away from that point.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 09, 2019, 04:05:43 pm
We are talking about the PAST and the PRESENT. Not whatever fantasies you may invent about what MIGHT happen in the future. In the PAST and PRESENT emergency services cannot function without fossil fuels which means the lives saved by emergency services DO count as lives saved by fossil fuels. If you are going whinge about the harms of fossil fuels you cannot avoid talking about the benefits of fossil fuels. It is simply dishonest to only look at one side of the ledger.

Your blindness to the benefits of fossil fuels is why there is such a disconnect between what you believe and what politicians actually do. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not fossil fuels bring great benefits to society and these benefits must be weighed against the harms. In the past and the present the intangible benefits of fossil fuels far exceeds any intangible harms. New tech in the future may change that balance but that will only happen when the new tech exists and is proven to be as useful as the fossil fuel powered solution. We are closer than we have been in the past but we are still a long way away from that point.

Why would you think it's "dishonest" to look at the harms of fossil fuels? Essentially since they are well proven. Yes of course we have all pumped gas into our vehicles to get around, but assuming we can't move beyond is simply narrow mindedness. It almost sounds as if you think we owe those pollutants some sort of a debt of gratitude.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 09, 2019, 05:09:44 pm
Why would you think it's "dishonest" to look at the harms of fossil fuels?
Learn to read. It is dishonest to whinge about the harms of fossil fuels without also acknowledging the benefits. Both the harms and benefits are real but the problem with anti-fossil fuel zealots is they have no understanding of how essential fossil fuels are to the functioning of society and that their benefits far exceed any harms.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 09, 2019, 05:18:59 pm
Learn to read. It is dishonest to whinge about the harms of fossil fuels without also acknowledging the benefits. Both the harms and benefits are real but the problem with anti-fossil fuel zealots is they have no understanding of how essential fossil fuels are to the functioning of society and that their benefits far exceed any harms.

People with concerns about the air they breath ( and we remind you, also the air you breath) are not zealots. Fossil fuels WERE essential to us for some time but it is time to improve and move on to cleaner ways of moving stuff around.  And BTW, I read quite well.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 15, 2019, 10:39:09 am
nothing to see here... move along now!

(https://i.imgur.com/vjt3Env.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/kASQL57.jpg)  (https://i.imgur.com/wCqVUTA.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 15, 2019, 04:06:27 pm
Greenland lost 2 billion tons of ice yesterday. No global warming there.

Over 40% of Greenland experienced melting yesterday, with total ice loss estimated to be more than 2 gigatons (a gigaton is equal to 1 billion tons).
While Greenland is a big island filled with lots of ice, it is highly unusual for that much ice to be lost in the middle of June. The average "melt season" for Greenland runs from June to August, with the bulk of the melting occurring in July.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/14/us/greenland-sudden-ice-melt-wxc/index.html
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 19, 2019, 03:06:16 pm
This paper discusses the problems academic research today and why "scientific consensus" should never be confused with "scientific truth". A  "scientific consensus" may represent the "truth" or it may simply reflect the interpretive biases of the academics doing the research. Without a connection to replicable real world experiments we can't know which.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/elimpj5u0aaeup5/JussimEtAl.pdf?dl=0

Quote
We consider how valid conclusions often lay hidden within research reports, masked by plausible but unjustifiedconclusions reached in those reports. We employ several well-known and cross-cutting examples from the psy-chological literature to illustrate how, independent (or in the absence) of replicability difficulties or questionableresearch practices leading to false positives, motivated reasoning and confirmation biases can lead to drawing un-justified conclusions. In describing these examples, we review strategies and methods by which researchers canidentify such practices in their own and others' research reports. These strategies and methods can unmask hid-den phenomena that may conflict with researchers' preferred narratives, in order to ultimately produce moresound and valid scientific conclusions. We conclude with general recommendations for how social psychologistscan limit the influence of interpretive biases in their own and others' research, and thereby elevate the scientificstatus and validity of social psychology
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 19, 2019, 03:19:09 pm
This paper discusses the problems academic research today and why "scientific consensus" should never be confused with "scientific truth". A  "scientific consensus" may represent the "truth" or it may simply reflect the interpretive biases of the academics doing the research. Without a connection to replicable real world experiments we can't know which.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/elimpj5u0aaeup5/JussimEtAl.pdf?dl=0
[/quote

And when you have better than 97% of professionally trained scientists achieving a consensus on the issues they are specialists in, you shouldn't try to ignore the scientific truth their research has revealed.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 19, 2019, 05:35:56 pm
This paper discusses the problems academic research today and why "scientific consensus" should never be confused with "scientific truth". A  "scientific consensus" may represent the "truth" or it may simply reflect the interpretive biases of the academics doing the research. Without a connection to replicable real world experiments we can't know which.

social psychology: study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others; Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the interaction of mental states and immediate, social situations

the/your referenced paper: addressing methodological rigor and replicability in social psychology - do you have something relevant to, you know, the foundations of climate change; i.e., physical sciences?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 19, 2019, 05:49:39 pm
social psychology: study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others; Social psychologists typically explain human behavior as a result of the interaction of mental states and immediate, social situations

the/your referenced paper: addressing methodological rigor and replicability in social psychology - do you have something relevant to, you know, the foundations of climate change; i.e., physical sciences?

Social clubs weighing in on actual science is what I see.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 19, 2019, 06:41:13 pm
do you have something relevant to, you know, the foundations of climate change; i.e., physical sciences?
Many of the claims made about climate change, like most social sciences, cannot be replicated which means the real world cannot be used as a way to separate the chaff from the grain. Because of this all of the criticisms also apply to many aspects of climate change research. Of course, you will insist that there is some magic that separates a fields where people manipulate tree rings to make unverifiable claims about past temperatures and fields where people manipulate stats on people to make unverifiable claims about why they act in a particular way. There is no magic. They have the same (lack of) merit.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 19, 2019, 07:16:43 pm
Many of the claims made about climate change, like most social sciences, cannot be replicated which means the real world cannot be used as a way to separate the chaff from the grain. Because of this all of the criticisms also apply to many aspects of climate change research. Of course, you will insist that there is some magic that separates a fields where people manipulate tree rings to make unverifiable claims about past temperatures and fields where people manipulate stats on people to make unverifiable claims about why they act in a particular way. There is no magic. They have the same (lack of) merit.

Studies of social science simply confirm that our recent and current activities have in large part created the findings of the overwhelming majority ofclimate scientists.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 20, 2019, 07:23:45 am
Many of the claims made about climate change, like most social sciences, cannot be replicated which means the real world cannot be used as a way to separate the chaff from the grain.
you ignored the ask earlier; let me rephrase: given your expressed denial concerning the principal causal tie to CC/GW, which "claims made", have helped shaped and reinforced your denial... of those you claim can't be replicated?

Of course, you will insist that there is some magic that separates a fields where people manipulate tree rings to make unverifiable claims about past temperatures...
you're still clinging to concerns over decades old temperature reconstructions - still? Ah, good times: "hide the decline"... "Mike's Nature trick"... the divergence problem effect!!!  ;D But still? I mean, c'mon... notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?

I appreciate this board is somewhat obscure, but I understand the Mann has become somewhat litigious in wanting to protect his reputation... perhaps you can spell out your concerns (for him). Wait, what's this... just in recent weeks! C'mon - go for it!  ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/9pL3Wa4.png)

in any case, imagine the chutzpah of CRU to prominently display this graphic on their home-page! Oh my... he shoots, he scores... with that hockey-stick!

(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cru.uea.ac.uk%2Fdocuments%2F421974%2F487107%2FCRU-GTC-2019.gif&hash=823f0dfd19a6b20323647d6aa0da809095b70703)
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 20, 2019, 07:51:32 am
I appreciate this board is somewhat obscure, but I understand the Mann has become somewhat litigious in wanting to protect his reputation...
Mann winning a lawsuit because it is not possible to prove that Mann is unethical or merely incompetent does not mean much. This issue has never been about Mann per se. It has been how the scientific establishment continues to defend pseudo-scientific gibberish because it happens to support the political narrative that they want. It is about how the garbage that Mann produces is a shiny example of why climate science is not a real physical science because it what is deemed to be "true" is based on political considerations rather than a careful consideration of the proper use of statistics.

Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 20, 2019, 11:32:17 am
It is about how the garbage that Mann produces is a shiny example of why climate science is not a real physical science because it what is deemed to be "true" is based on political considerations rather than a careful consideration of the proper use of statistics.

how long will you carry the torch for the Mann? Given we're decades beyond the "hockey-stick", well beyond reliance on paleo-reconstructions, from my last reply to you, let me ask you again: "notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?"

but c'mon, is there not any climate physical science that, to you, isn't based on political considerations? None? Not even if you throw out your perpetualHateOnForTheMann? None? To you, the whole world-wide network of thousands upon thousands of scientists working in fields directly and/or peripherally related to climate science... they're all working under an overarching umbrella to deliver politically considered results? Right; is that your belief?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 20, 2019, 11:44:14 am
Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?
Question: is there any way to go back in the past and measure *actual* temperatures to determine what things are stable long term proxies?
Answer: time travel is not possible at this time.

Question: how do we know what is a stable long term proxy and what is not?
Answer: we do a correlation analysis on part of the record and simple assume the correlation holds for all time.

Question: what happens when the correlation diverges for the modern record?
Answer: If the proxy tells us what we want hear we invent excuses for why the correlation breaks down for the modern period.

Physical science? ROTFL. It is nothing but repeated data mining/p-hacking to find things that tell the academics what they want to hear.



Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 20, 2019, 11:59:39 am
how long will you carry the torch for the Mann? Given we're decades beyond the "hockey-stick", well beyond reliance on paleo-reconstructions, from my last reply to you, let me ask you again: "notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?"

but c'mon, is there not any climate physical science that, to you, isn't based on political considerations? None? Not even if you throw out your perpetualHateOnForTheMann? None? To you, the whole world-wide network of thousands upon thousands of scientists working in fields directly and/or peripherally related to climate science... they're all working under an overarching umbrella to deliver politically considered results? Right; is that your belief?

I think we have all become aware that in Tims world all experts who refute his arguments are simply those being "exploited for political purposes"-climate change, immigration, refugees, and I'm sure there are others.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: cybercoma on June 20, 2019, 01:06:10 pm
I think we have all become aware that in Tims world all experts who refute his arguments are simply those being "exploited for political purposes"-climate change, immigration, refugees, and I'm sure there are others.
Yes and the bloggers who support his views are completely unbiased
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 20, 2019, 01:14:34 pm
Yes and the bloggers who support his views are completely unbiased

Meanwhile in the background, 2 billion ton ice cubes are cracking off Greenland and falling into the oceans.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 21, 2019, 12:45:42 am
Question: how do we know what is a stable long term proxy and what is not?
Answer: we do a correlation analysis on part of the record and simple assume the correlation holds for all time.

setting aside your "for all time" hyperbole, within multi-proxy reconstructions, just what specific time frame/period are you challenging. Again, let me ask for the 3rd time: "notwithstanding other reconstruction proxies like ice-cores, lake/ocean bottom sediment, corals, etc., aren't there any reliable (confirming) tree-ring proxy reconstructions - not any? Not any multi-proxy reconstructions you accept - even those that don't use tree-rings? None?"

Question: what happens when the correlation diverges for the modern record?
Answer: If the proxy tells us what we want hear we invent excuses for why the correlation breaks down for the modern period.

riddle me this Mr. Wizard: is your described 'modern period breakdown' applicable to all proxies... or even to all tree-ring locales... or even to the entirety of your described 'modern period breakdown'? Just answer the question - sure you can! Of course, those temperature reading 'thermometer' thingees are a real inconvenient truth for you, yes?

in any case, for certain trees in certain locales over a certain time period... yes you can whine/wail about the divergence effect. Of course you would prefer to call the work of scientists doing science in attempting to understand the effect, "inventing excuses". Much easier for your denial to ignore such things as global dimming, (likely anthropogenic) air pollution effects, warming induced drought, etc..

Physical science? ROTFL. It is nothing but repeated data mining/p-hacking to find things that tell the academics what they want to hear.

one can only wonder why you so object to having your denial pointed out... why you take such exception to being labeled the denier you are! You should embrace it - be loud and proud about your denial!
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 21, 2019, 10:41:56 am
setting aside your "for all time" hyperbole, within multi-proxy reconstructions, just what specific time frame/period are you challenging.
Anytime when the proxies cannot be checked against actual thermometers. Without the ability to verify the reliability of proxies we have no way to know if they are actually giving us information or just noise. It is not enough to rely on a short period for 'calibration' because proxies are usually affected by many things and a correlation in one period does not prove a correlation over all periods.

centers  the divergence effect.
Post-hoc rationalization created by academics with an agenda. Academics who cared about being honest would have realized that the need to make post-hoc rationalizations means the proxy is junk and cannot be used.

Of course, explaining such basic stuff to you is impossible since you firmly believe any BS that promotes the alarmist religion is "good science" and any criticism is wrong. You cannot comprehend the idea that there are standards in science that do not change depending on whether you get the results you want.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 21, 2019, 11:16:11 am
Anytime when the proxies cannot be checked against actual thermometers. Without the ability to verify the reliability of proxies we have no way to know if they are actually giving us information or just noise. It is not enough to rely on a short period for 'calibration' because proxies are usually affected by many things and a correlation in one period does not prove a correlation over all periods.
Post-hoc rationalization created by academics with an agenda. Academics who cared about being honest would have realized that the need to make post-hoc rationalizations means the proxy is junk and cannot be used.

Of course, explaining such basic stuff to you is impossible since you firmly believe any BS that promotes the alarmist religion is "good science" and any criticism is wrong. You cannot comprehend the idea that there are standards in science that do not change depending on whether you get the results you want.

Once again Tim, I think most of us who have any interest in science think that the overwhelming majority of peered reviewed climate scientists who say global warming is happening and we are largely responsible is the good science, while the religious BS stuff comes solely from the nay sayerds.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 21, 2019, 12:40:27 pm
Anytime when the proxies cannot be checked against actual thermometers. Without the ability to verify the reliability of proxies we have no way to know if they are actually giving us information or just noise. It is not enough to rely on a short period for 'calibration' because proxies are usually affected by many things and a correlation in one period does not prove a correlation over all periods.

Post-hoc rationalization created by academics with an agenda. Academics who cared about being honest would have realized that the need to make post-hoc rationalizations means the proxy is junk and cannot be used.

setting aside your rejection of all proxies/all reconstructions, lets get to your bottom line, hey! Setting aside your concerns over the instrumental records, when you dismiss anything prior to the instrumental records (say 1860 or so), what summary statement are you making concerning prior climate and causal attributions therein? Just say it so we can move on to the next stages of your denial - just say it!

Of course, explaining such basic stuff to you is impossible since you firmly believe any BS that promotes the alarmist religion is "good science" and any criticism is wrong. You cannot comprehend the idea that there are standards in science that do not change depending on whether you get the results you want.

you're certainly not the arbiter of determining "good science"... of "standards in science"! It's always comforting to read your consistency - when you start to drop the alarmist tag, the religion tag, the BS tag... the waldo recognizes your true-self coming forward.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 24, 2019, 01:57:34 pm
Mike Pence came off sounding pretty stupid during a section of a recent interview with Jake Tapper when he brought up the issue of climate change. I guess he had to stumble along and try to ignore the facts of the issue lest his boss hear him whereupon the **** would have hit the fan.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/mike-pence-climate-crisis/index.html

TAPPER: OK. So you don't think it is a threat, is all I'm saying? You don't think it is a threat?
PENCE: I think we're making great progress reducing carbon emissions, America has the cleanest air and water in the world. We will continue to use market forces...
TAPPER: That is not true. We don't have the cleanest air and water in the world.
We don't.

And, scene.
Let's start here: There is no real debate in the scientific community as to whether or not a) the climate is warming and b) this warming is well outside of past ups and downs in terms of temperature.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 24, 2019, 02:06:18 pm
TAPPER: That is not true. We don't have the cleanest air and water in the world.
TAPPER is spouting the usual alarmist BS. The US air and water is cleaner than it ever has been is the last 100 years and it is certainly cleaner than most countries in the world.

this warming is well outside of past ups and downs in terms of temperature.
Again, not true. The planet was warmer 20,000 years ago and at many other times in the recent history.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 24, 2019, 02:35:32 pm
TAPPER is spouting the usual alarmist BS. The US air and water is cleaner than it ever has been is the last 100 years and it is certainly cleaner than most countries in the world.
Again, not true. The planet was warmer 20,000 years ago and at many other times in the recent history.

Tapper wasn't "spewing" anything, he was asking pertinent questions and Pence was lying through his teeth, again I suspect because he was afraid his boss may be listening. As of 2016 the US ranked #10 in terms of air quality, and I suspect it will degrade if Trump has his way and gets coal mining active again.

The average world temp. has been the highest in the last 5 years than any other since we have been keeping records. Your example from 20k years ago wouldn't have been caused by humans burning fossil fuels do you think?

The average global temperature during 2018 was 1.42 degrees F above the 20th-century average. This marks the 42nd consecutive year (since 1977) with an above-average global temperature. Nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 2005, with the last five years comprising the five hottest.Feb 6, 2019
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: TimG on June 24, 2019, 02:41:34 pm
The average world temp. has been the highest in the last 5 years than any other since we have been keeping records. Your example from 20k years ago wouldn't have been caused by humans burning fossil fuels do you think?
Who cares? You said:

Quote
b) this warming is well outside of past ups and downs in terms of temperature.
A statement that is clearly false. If you want to revise it to say "since we started keeping records" then go ahead but that is not what you said.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 24, 2019, 02:51:27 pm
Who cares? You said:
A statement that is clearly false. If you want to revise it to say "since we started keeping records" then go ahead but that is not what you said.

So you don't care that we are clearly the major cause of current global warming? It was kinda fun watching Pence wobble around like a deer in the headlights stating untrue facts to try and cover up and getting caught out.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 24, 2019, 09:50:21 pm





And this report was published only a couple of months before 2 billion tons of ice broke off Greenland.

Staggering New Data Show Greenland's Ice Is Melting 6 Times Faster Than in The 1980s

The findings, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, estimate that Greenland's glaciers went from dumping only about 51 billion tons of ice into the ocean between 1980 to 1990, to losing 286 billion tons between 2010 and 2018.

The result is that out of nearly 14 millimeters of sea level rise in total caused by Greenland since 1972, half of it has occurred in just the last 8 years, researchers found.

https://www.sciencealert.com/greenland-s-accelerating-ice-loss-is-worrisome-to-scientists
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 25, 2019, 01:04:26 am
The planet was warmer 20,000 years ago and at many other times in the recent history.

wait... what? Given your expressed rejection of all proxies/reconstructions, what are you relying upon to make such an outlandish statement on your 20K years past warming - hey!  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 25, 2019, 01:07:39 am
hey member TimG - what's your understood/interpreted attribution for today's relatively recent warming... say from the industrial age on?
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: queenmandy85 on June 25, 2019, 10:06:45 am
Too many people are focusing on what is happening today. The accumulation of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated over the last 200 years. If this is not a result of human activity, no one has offered an alternative explanation. Methane and carbon dioxide inhibit re-radiation of energy. This is a scientific fact. If you don't believe it, you can prove it in any under graduate lab. It is predicable and measurable.
What many people are not looking at is the real impact of this crisis is in the future but the window of opportunity to mitigate it is now. What we do now will affect what happens in the future. People talk about sea level rise. That will be a serious problem but it is when the sea level drops due to evaporation that we have a true extinction situation. If the global temperature nears 100 degrees C,  the oceans will dry up and it will stop raining.
On the bright side, in about 200,000 years, we will enter an ice age and the regeneration of life will begin again after that. Who knows what the dominant life form will be after that.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 25, 2019, 11:34:12 am
Too many people are focusing on what is happening today. The accumulation of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has accelerated over the last 200 years. If this is not a result of human activity, no one has offered an alternative explanation. Methane and carbon dioxide inhibit re-radiation of energy. This is a scientific fact. If you don't believe it, you can prove it in any under graduate lab. It is predicable and measurable.
What many people are not looking at is the real impact of this crisis is in the future but the window of opportunity to mitigate it is now. What we do now will affect what happens in the future. People talk about sea level rise. That will be a serious problem but it is when the sea level drops due to evaporation that we have a true extinction situation. If the global temperature nears 100 degrees C,  the oceans will dry up and it will stop raining.
On the bright side, in about 200,000 years, we will enter an ice age and the regeneration of life will begin again after that. Who knows what the dominant life form will be after that.

Perhaps we should consider expanding the size of the ISS and installing some families if we want to preserve our current life form.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: queenmandy85 on June 25, 2019, 01:50:16 pm
"The survival value of human intelligence has never been satisfactorily demonstrated." Fictional character Dr. Jeremy Stone in Michael Crichton's novel, The Andromeda Strain.
A major contributor to our situation is over population. A segment on Quirks and Quarks about a year ago said the maximum sustainable human population is 1.5 billion. If we don't reduce our population, mother nature will. The latter option is not a pleasant one.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Omni on June 25, 2019, 02:01:26 pm
"The survival value of human intelligence has never been satisfactorily demonstrated." Fictional character Dr. Jeremy Stone in Michael Crichton's novel, The Andromeda Strain.
A major contributor to our situation is over population. A segment on Quirks and Quarks about a year ago said the maximum sustainable human population is 1.5 billion. If we don't reduce our population, mother nature will. The latter option is not a pleasant one.

The world population has been over 1.5 billion for well over a hundred years and we're still here. But I agree adjustments need to be made. One problem is that countries that can afford to have kids aren't, while those that can't, are. Lot's of young people in India, lots of old people in Canada for instance.
Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: waldo on June 26, 2019, 12:07:54 pm
wait... what? Given your expressed rejection of all proxies/reconstructions, what are you relying upon to make such an outlandish statem