Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 6578 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #15 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.”
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 09:21:35 pm by TimG »

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2930
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2017, 09:35:11 pm »
Maybe, but we still have to deal with GHGs. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #17 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.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 09:55:34 pm by TimG »

Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #18 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/
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 10:09:10 pm by Omni »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #19 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.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 11:15:12 pm by TimG »

Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #20 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.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #21 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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 12:26:51 am by TimG »

Online Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #22 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

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #23 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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 09:51:24 am by TimG »

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #24 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/apr/01/saudi-arabia-plans-to-sell-state-oil-assets-to-create-2tn-wealth-fund

Anyway, I hope your optimism beats out my pessimism. 

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #25 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 

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.   

guest4

  • Guest
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #26 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. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #27 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.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 10:52:18 am by TimG »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #28 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.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4036
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2017, 11:21:58 am »