Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

Forums › Off topic › Climate Accord - Fact or Fiction? Interesting blog

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1452924 18-Dec-2015 11:59

Geektastic:
JWR:
dickytim:
MikeB4:
Technofreak: One of the age old problems is the Lies, Damn Lie and Statistics.

Unfortunately I think both sides of the story are using Statistics to tell "lies".

One real problem I have is whether or not global warming is worsened by human influence there seems to be plenty of evidence to show the efforts being agreed to at meetings like the one in Paris will have virtually no effect but have significant cost. In the short term the money would be better spent on mitigating the effects rather than trying to stop the change. Money also needs to be spent on developing new technology

Another question needs to be asked. Is it actually possible to reduce the emissions enough to achieve the temperature reduction goals? Right now I'd say No, without the whole world returning to pre steam boat days style of living. Is that likely to happen? New technology may change this.

Your questions are best directed at climate scientists.

Until they stop making so much money with their opinion they can't be trusted.

This is where the lies come in, and it happens on both sides of the coin.

Likely there is natural and man made factors to global warming, but which is having the biggest effect has yet to be proven and agreed upon.

What scares me is the pollution/ carbon becoming a currency, who administers the Bank of Carbon? Do they skim off the top and become rich?

As above people become rich off this so the statistics become twisted to ones own truth.

"Until they stop making so much money with their opinion they can't be trusted."

That is insane.

The top 4 oil/gas companies have revenues around 2 Trillion dollars a year. The top 100 revenue companies are dominated by gas/oil companies.

Scientists aren't paid by their opinion. They would have been bought long ago, if that was the case.

Science is challenged by peer review. That means if you have a stupid idea that can't be supported, then it will be picked apart by other scientists.

Evidence is what counts... not opinion.

The problem is that science is also run like a democracy. Not every scientist believes in global warming being caused by humans. However because a majority do, it must be so.

There's no actual reason to assume the majority are correct and not the minority. Both sets are educated scientists with their own interpretations of the 'evidence'.

At the end of the day, I don't see any benefit to me in increasing my costs so that some people on an island somewhere can carry on living there. Personally it matters not a jot to me if the planet survives beyond my visit. Why would it? I just don't buy into the obsession or need I am afraid.

I have children and Grand children, I very much care and would care even if I didn't. We are custodians of this planet and have a responsibility to look after it.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1452960 18-Dec-2015 13:01

Technofreak:
MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.

So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.

Thing is, what you believe is irrelevant because its going to cost you no matter what.

Insurance companies do believe it is a problem, and they are already factoring it into your premiums.

The increased number of severe weather events is costing, that cost is being passed on too.

These increases to commercial customers is passed on to consumers.

You can NOT avoid it.

I am more pragmatic.
I accept CO2 is a pollutant, I accept Methane is a Pollutant. Yes, the world needs both to thrive, however its like water, you need so much to survive, a little more to thrive, but too much and it WILL kill you, even though it is essential to life.

So the issue is when is too much too much.
Do we wait until we have gone past the tipping point ?

The BEST solution is to decide we should not be adding more than we MUST. (i.e. we all breathe and add CO2, thats a must, however burning fossil fuels in preference to renewables is not).

Now, if I came along to a farmers empty paddock and decided that throwing my pollution into his paddock is OK, I am sure I will be met with a gun up the nose or a law suit telling me to either pick it up, or pay the cost someone else to. The fact that I could be making a lot of money from this is irrelevant, they say my sh!t, my problem and my cost.

However when it comes to pollution FROM farms, air pollution, pollution of the water ways, the farmers want a free ride because "it earns NZ billions" and it will be expensive for them.

All I am asking is they keep their sh!t on their property, and where they can not clean it up (methane/CO2) they pay someone else to do it for them, i.e. the SAME reasons they dont want me dumping my sh!t on their land.

So.
If I am wrong, the WORST outcome is we have a cleaner planet to live in

BUT, if the Farmers and other polluters are wrong, we are all in the sh!t and the costs will be a hell of a lot bigger.

Remember, prevention is better than cure.

Yes the sun has cycles, yes the earth has cycles, but yes we are creating another set of problems.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1453022 18-Dec-2015 14:02

Geektastic:
At the end of the day, I don't see any benefit to me in increasing my costs so that some people on an island somewhere can carry on living there.

Or, to put it another way, you're more than happy to screw people out of their homes & livelihoods so you can have a good time.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#1453031 18-Dec-2015 14:08

Despite the fact that here in Auckland, it is modelled that by 2100 at the current rate of increase the impact on the surrounding coastline by 1m, which is not surprisingly bad and will cause a large number of properties to be inundated, along with the flatter planes to the northwest which are already at risk to inundation.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1453033 18-Dec-2015 14:14

Benoire: Despite the fact that here in Auckland, it is modelled that by 2100 at the current rate of increase the impact on the surrounding coastline by 1m, which is not surprisingly bad and will cause a large number of properties to be inundated, along with the flatter planes to the northwest which are already at risk to inundation.

Yeah, you see the problem is this:
There are people making a LOT of money by being able to pollute, by the time 2100 rolls by they will all be dead of old age.
They know this.
So in the mean time they are all for making money, having a good time, and the hell with the future.

They figure their kids and grandkids will be gone by then too and if not, they will have enough wealth to buy safety and security.

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1453073 18-Dec-2015 15:05

The thing that gets me about this whole thing is the absurd conspiracy theories that otherwise rational people are reduced to resorting to. NASA tells us that there's going to be a meteor shower in this part of the sky at this date, and everybody runs outside to look. NASA tells us the planet is slowly warming and it's most likely out fault... and people get their tinfoil hats on and it's all just a big hoax.

My very metal Doctor Who theme

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1453145 18-Dec-2015 17:15

JWR: Scientists aren't paid by their opinion. They would have been bought long ago, if that was the case.

I think you'll find some have been bought.

JWR: Science is challenged by peer review. That means if you have a stupid idea that can't be supported, then it will be picked apart by other scientists.

No one says there are any stupid ideas. Both sides of the coin can provide peer reviews that stack up

JWR:Evidence is what counts... not opinion.

It's hows the evidence is presented and or analysed that really counts. So often evidence that doesn't support a point of view is discarded.

Geektastic:

The problem is that science is also run like a democracy. Not every scientist believes in global warming being caused by humans. However because a majority do, it must be so.

There's no actual reason to assume the majority are correct and not the minority. Both sets are educated scientists with their own interpretations of the 'evidence'.

There in lies the problem, interpretation. It's not uncommon to hear of a patient getting a second medical opinion only to get a different diagnosis from the first one.

What about the predictions of calamities from years past Have a look here http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24/seven-big-failed-environmentalist-predictions/ Things like Over population, Mass starvation, Mass extinction, none of which actually happened.

No wonder there's sceptism about what's causing climate change and how bad it will be.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1453473 19-Dec-2015 13:05

Lomborg is a gun for hire. His 'foundation' paid him US$775k one year. His doctorate is in political science. No published peer reviewed work in statistics. None of that would necessarily make him wrong about anything but...

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453476 19-Dec-2015 13:11

Is there any data on how this trillion is made up?

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1453536 19-Dec-2015 15:50

tdgeek: Is there any data on how this trillion is made up?

Does it matter, its been brought out to scare people... a Trillion, thats a BIG number.

This years US budget is 3.4 Trillion.

And 1 Trillion is about 18 months worth of US military spending.
Given the US is 4% of the worlds population, they account for about 50% of the worlds military spending.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1453671 19-Dec-2015 21:46

Technofreak:
joker97: I think there are a few separate issues that some professional protesters lump together and say that CO2 is killing the earth. In reality they are very distinct entities

1. Non degradable rubbish. The more of this crap that is generated, the larger your dumping ground needs to be. And it never degrades! IMHO = bad

2. Fossil fuel and polution. You just need to look at urban China. Complete loss of night-day. Smog everywhere. Surely if we keep burning crap we will all soon live in a fog of smog. IMHO = bad

3. CO2 and climate change. There are contrasting arguments about whether one causes the other or are actually independant beasts. I have no idea. These guys are pretty certain though.

I see one of "Those Guys" is the writer of the blog I linked.

I'm not convinced CO2 emissions are the root cause of climate change. It's a proven fact the earth has been heating and cooling for 1000's of years. having said that I don't think we should just ignore pollution either.

As for Greenpeace they're just eco terrorists. They're not peaceful at all.

If you're not convinced, you haven't done enough homework.

Seriously. Don't mistake your inadequate understanding of the science for climate change not being real, here and now. That's magical thinking. There is a lot if it about. "If I don't know it, it can't be true". Stop thinking like that. It gets people killed.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1453678 19-Dec-2015 22:17

Linuxluver:
If you're not convinced, you haven't done enough homework.

Seriously. Don't mistake your inadequate understanding of the science for climate change not being real, here and now. That's magical thinking. There is a lot if it about. "If I don't know it, it can't be true". Stop thinking like that. It gets people killed.

I find your reply just a little bit condescending. What makes you think you have a better understanding of the science of climate change than the next person. Just because my point of view may not exactly match yours doesn't make either of us right or wrong.

By the way I never said climate change wasn't real, I merely questioned what the root cause was.

I've read articles from both sides of the fence, both can make a plausible case. As I mentioned in an earlier post it's all a matter of how the evidence is interpreted or what evidence is included.

There have been natural disasters that have had a far bigger effect than mankind has had.

If man's carbon emissions are the problem we need to be reverting to the life style that existed prior to the steam ship. No one seems to be advocating that. So why are we just playing around with emission levels instead? It doesn't make sense. Assuming man's carbon emissions are the problem the agreements in carbon level reductions are not a enough to make any appreciable difference.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1453692 19-Dec-2015 22:55

The climate control issue is more political/economic than scientific.

The science questions are (a) is the climate changing? and (b) what can we do about it?

The answers seem to be (a) yes, and (b) not much, unless we spend a huge amount of money on it.

(NB: Whether the change is natural or man-made is irrelevant... the same types of decisions would need to be made regardless).

Economically, the questions are (a) who should pay? and (b) how much?

The obvious answers are (a) who would lose something if it happens, and (b) a bit less than they would lose if it did happen multiplied by the probability of it happening. But this is a bit difficult to estimate: e.g. if climate change caused the Gulf Stream to change direction, the consequences would be near enough to unpredictable, but likely to be enormous. Also the loss of trading partners may mean that there are indirect consequences (e.g. NZ becomes too warm for efficient dairy production is way bad for NZ, but also bad for everyone who currently buys dairy products from us).

Politically, this is far more difficult. The people who will lose the most are poor (sub-Saharan Africans, Bangladeshis, Pacific islanders). Most (all?) of the likely losers aren't even born yet. The rich and powerful got that way by doing the things that the rest want to do (e.g. burn coal)... climate change would be a convenient way to expand the economic power of the rich club. The rich can insulate themselves from the bad consequences by essentially doing more of the same (more electricity to run more air conditioners, for example, or burn fossil fuels for energy to build seawalls, jet fuel for holidays in cooler climes). Some countries may even gain from global warming (e.g. if some Pacific nations are wiped out, vast areas of the ocean become open slather for exploitation by other nations. Currently-cold places become more habitable).

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453695 19-Dec-2015 23:30

frankv:
Geektastic:
At the end of the day, I don't see any benefit to me in increasing my costs so that some people on an island somewhere can carry on living there.

Or, to put it another way, you're more than happy to screw people out of their homes & livelihoods so you can have a good time.

Sure. It's a dog eat dog world.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1453696 19-Dec-2015 23:33

frankv: The climate control issue is more political/economic than scientific.

The science questions are (a) is the climate changing? and (b) what can we do about it?

The answers seem to be (a) yes, and (b) not much, unless we spend a huge amount of money on it.

(NB: Whether the change is natural or man-made is irrelevant... the same types of decisions would need to be made regardless).

Economically, the questions are (a) who should pay? and (b) how much?

The obvious answers are (a) who would lose something if it happens, and (b) a bit less than they would lose if it did happen multiplied by the probability of it happening. But this is a bit difficult to estimate: e.g. if climate change caused the Gulf Stream to change direction, the consequences would be near enough to unpredictable, but likely to be enormous. Also the loss of trading partners may mean that there are indirect consequences (e.g. NZ becomes too warm for efficient dairy production is way bad for NZ, but also bad for everyone who currently buys dairy products from us).

Politically, this is far more difficult. The people who will lose the most are poor (sub-Saharan Africans, Bangladeshis, Pacific islanders). Most (all?) of the likely losers aren't even born yet. The rich and powerful got that way by doing the things that the rest want to do (e.g. burn coal)... climate change would be a convenient way to expand the economic power of the rich club. The rich can insulate themselves from the bad consequences by essentially doing more of the same (more electricity to run more air conditioners, for example, or burn fossil fuels for energy to build seawalls, jet fuel for holidays in cooler climes). Some countries may even gain from global warming (e.g. if some Pacific nations are wiped out, vast areas of the ocean become open slather for exploitation by other nations. Currently-cold places become more habitable).

Good news for Bluff, new beach holiday destination of New Zealand 2050 !

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5