IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 23

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2137906 1-Dec-2018 20:38

There are alternatives that have less impact. The mess we are in now illustrates clearly why we need to look at low impact and not repeat mistakes of the past.

I don't know how you can label our amazing hydro lakes as "mistakes of the past". Some of my best childhood holidays were camping, fishing and sailing at places like Lake Benmore.

But let's leave it

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2138035 2-Dec-2018 09:32

So we remove hydro, turbines and solar as they impact the environment. Maybe a large number of small footprint coal furnaces would reduce the impact for the very small footprint of just a number of hectares. Then the lakes and environment can suffer from that.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2149341 22-Dec-2018 16:12

This guy says the planet is cooling... Someone explain?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#5cf302203de0

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2149355 22-Dec-2018 16:41

Batman: This guy says the planet is cooling... Someone explain?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#5cf302203de0

The normal argument is that although there may be oscillations, the overall trend is upwards and this is caused by humans.

It's baffling because we keep hearing that we've had the warmest "X" for "N" years, but there are also credible graphs around showing no increase in average temperature since 1998.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain that the guy in the link is sponsored by Big Oil and that his claims have been debunked previously

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2149383 22-Dec-2018 17:43

shk292:

Batman: This guy says the planet is cooling... Someone explain?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#5cf302203de0

The normal argument is that although there may be oscillations, the overall trend is upwards and this is caused by humans.

It's baffling because we keep hearing that we've had the warmest "X" for "N" years, but there are also credible graphs around showing no increase in average temperature since 1998.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain that the guy in the link is sponsored by Big Oil and that his claims have been debunked previously

here ya go, from Wikipedia. This is who sponsored the "seventh International Climate Change Conference" where that guy spoke:

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[3][4]:233–34[5] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[6][7] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9]

No mention of Big Oil, but I think that denying smoking hazards speaks volumes.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2149405 22-Dec-2018 18:50

shk292:

Batman: This guy says the planet is cooling... Someone explain?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#5cf302203de0

The normal argument is that although there may be oscillations, the overall trend is upwards and this is caused by humans.

It's baffling because we keep hearing that we've had the warmest "X" for "N" years, but there are also credible graphs around showing no increase in average temperature since 1998.

I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain that the guy in the link is sponsored by Big Oil and that his claims have been debunked previously

Global cooling exists. But this link is about denial, aka Profit and Loss Account. The factual global cooling is when smoke particles which are large compared to dust (which holds moisture in the clouds) holds excess moisture. This blocks sunlight. So, theoretically and in docos I have watched you could combat global warming by reducing greenhouse gases and emitting smoke, to reduce sunlight, and thus warming. Greenhouses gases hold warmth in, but smoke particles hold the sunlight out, a possible option to reduce global warming. The docos I have watched suggested that if the global warming was say 2C, it might actually be 3C minus the cooling/blocking effect of smoke particles.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2149440 22-Dec-2018 20:41

Batman: This guy says the planet is cooling... Someone explain?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/#5cf302203de0

I suspect that the article plays on the idea that since people dont learn science, they dont fact check what they read.

That article mentioned a conference sponsored by an agency, when I looked up the agency using google I found that it it appears to be a lobby group of some kind.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2149444 22-Dec-2018 21:15

When 99 people say the planet is warming, and one person says it is cooling, I'm inclined to agree with the 99.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#2149479 22-Dec-2018 21:32

TwoSeven:
That article mentioned a conference sponsored by an agency, when I looked up the agency using google I found that it it appears to be a lobby group of some kind.

Why not be more specific about what the article said? Vague allusions aren't very helpful.

The conference and the Heartland Institute were not "mentioned", which means "To refer to, especially incidentally." The entire article promotes the conference, the Heartland Institute that sponsored it and their position opposed to the IPCC.

the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, ...

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2149518 23-Dec-2018 08:15

Hammerer:

Why not be more specific about what the article said? Vague allusions aren't very helpful.

https://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumid=48&topicid=242125&page_no=14#2149383

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2940

#2149801 24-Dec-2018 09:03

Rikkitic:

When 99 people say the planet is warming, and one person says it is cooling, I'm inclined to agree with the 99.

99 out of 100 astronomers used to say the sun went around the earth but galileo said it was the other way round.

In that case consensus was wrong and galileo had good evidence to argue his case.

The thing about dissenting voices in the climate change 'debate' is they don't have enough scientific evidence to convince anyone that the earth is not heating.

For those with doubts about what's happening, remember, science isn't something you have to believe in for it to be true.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2149955 24-Dec-2018 12:20

I have observed in the past that sometimes the goal of a lobby group is not to change peoples mind, but to introduce enough doubt to stop people making decisions.

As someone that works in a field where science is important, I am aware that there may be people for whom science isnt part of their world view, so they may not necessarily have the knowledge or sense of need to enable them to check the facts on what they are being told, let alone understand the very specific terminology used when scientific data is being presented.

I think this can This allow for an entity, whether a lobby group, advertising entity or salesperson to make a plausible statement, often in a general form, without making any actual claims. I think we have all likely seen the advert where a person is dressed in a white coat and wears glasses and opens with the phrase “some scientists say...”

To me, Science has different levels of trueness which one measures objectively. Objectivity can be said to be the concept of being true independantly of personal views. I would suggest that It can also be treated as a value and can have different amounts depending where one is in the scientific process.

I think an idea or notion or hypotheses can have one level of trueness - for example, I am pretty sure my coffee cup is empty. This is pretty low on the trueness scale because I have a high level of uncertainty. It can become a “fact” when I examine the interior of my cup - my understanding of the level of emptiness of the cup becomes aligned with objective reality. I think in science this increases the level of trueness to quite a high level, but it is still not totally true. I must get others to make independant observations of their own about the state of the cup - this would yet again raise the certainty of the level of truth in the statement that the cup is indeed empty. In science I can do this by presenting my “theory” on the emptyness of my cup to my colleagues so that they can test and verify my findings.

Scientific laws can be derived from facts I think - my understanding is that a law can be used to predict a natural phenomena and are often derived from facts. Laws I think are usually heaviliy tested as the level of trueness while extremely high, still isnt total. For example, I might propose that: my coffee cup could be considered empty at a point in time, if it is possible to then fill it with a liquid equal to its internal volume.

In terms of my opinion on global warming (and global polution) my feeling is that there is both enough objective data that has been produced from both historical analysis, current observation and the development of laws predicting natural phenomina with increasing accuracy, and, there is enough general consensus among climate scientists for me to feel that - a) we can see the difference between the natural order of things as we think it should be, and the planet as it has been impacted by Human industrialisation. And b) there is enough of a difference in those factors for people to objectively say that the part of the impact caused by humans is high enough for it to be having an adverse impact on the environment with regards to warming and general polution as is currently being observed.

But this is just my [subjective] opinion.

...they/their/them...

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2150344 25-Dec-2018 08:06

Rikkitic:

When 99 people say the planet is warming, and one person says it is cooling, I'm inclined to agree with the 99.

In that case you could have still been sure that the earth was flat!

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2150356 25-Dec-2018 08:27

Batman:

Rikkitic:

When 99 people say the planet is warming, and one person says it is cooling, I'm inclined to agree with the 99.

In that case you could have still been sure that the earth was flat!

Thats true. Those were probably the big names of the time too. But, its many years of unbelievable progress later, landing on comets and so on. I trust todays science.

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#2150381 25-Dec-2018 08:59

Batman:

Rikkitic:

When 99 people say the planet is warming, and one person says it is cooling, I'm inclined to agree with the 99.

In that case you could have still been sure that the earth was flat!

Your point loses its impact because you are using a "modern" myth to make your point.

It is a "modern" misconception based on a late-nineteenth century ideological polemic which has become an incredibly deep-rooted fallacy in arguments supporting science over other things. Even today most people probably believe that the vast majority of people used to believe that the world is flat.

I am dumbfounded that this excrement keeps being recycled. The fact is that scientist-philosophers were proving the earth to be spherical before Christmas Day was an idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat-Earth error flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over biological evolution. Russell claims "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat", and ascribes popularization of the flat-Earth myth to histories by John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White, and Washington Irving.

If you read the writings used to create this myth then you very quickly lose any taste for using it ever again.

1 | ... | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ... | 23