IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 23

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2109505 17-Oct-2018 10:45

Dingbatt:
A group of published climate scientists, not all climate scientists.

Given that, at least in theory, a published paper has been subjected to peer review to weed out the junk science, I think there's a very good argument that 'published climate scientists' is a better pool of scientists to poll than 'all climate scientists'.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2109547 17-Oct-2018 11:09

Dingbatt:

Edit: and the thing that annoys me most is when people that have genuine doubts and questions are labelled with the term 'denier', with all its religious and holocaust connotations. I have a former school friend who is an Atmospheric Scientist (prefers that title) that is very gaurded about this topic, partly I believe, because he doesn't want to say the wrong thing (personal opinion).

I agree. If dissent isn't tolerated and people who disagree are pejoratively labelled, it's no longer a scientific debate.

It has become an ideology.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2109559 17-Oct-2018 11:20

I agree as well, but I think the dissent needs to have a pretty high standard of evidence if it goes against the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion. That is not to say it is wrong, but it needs a pretty strong argument that goes beyond just a differing opinion.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kotuku4

483 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2109624 17-Oct-2018 12:20

I respect right to have an differing opinion, beliefs, and to question, not blindly follow. I can be sceptical especially when politicians/governments/UN are involved and or big corporations/industry groups.

However, some debate seems to indicate a basic lack of understanding of scientific method, the essence of questioning, experimenting/testing, finding variables that alter results and exploring/discovering. Nothing is ever considered 100% set in stone, or beyond inquiry. Previously understood facts change and get updated over time with further discovery.

And independent verification and review, peer review, publication in scientific journals, further reviews by others scientists, weight of scientific evidence for various fields of science that show correlation with previous modelling. Further research and study. Increasing data and evidence confirming earlier studies and modelling, or increased indicators and acceleration of the factors of climate change.

Agree or not, we have responsibilities with the agreements and targets that the government has signed up too, and all main political parties agree with. And we will be judged by our trading partners and others if we do not be seen to act responsibly.

TwoSeven

1623 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2109668 17-Oct-2018 12:56

MikeAqua:
Dingbatt:

Edit: and the thing that annoys me most is when people that have genuine doubts and questions are labelled with the term 'denier', with all its religious and holocaust connotations. I have a former school friend who is an Atmospheric Scientist (prefers that title) that is very gaurded about this topic, partly I believe, because he doesn't want to say the wrong thing (personal opinion).

I agree. If dissent isn't tolerated and people who disagree are pejoratively labelled, it's no longer a scientific debate.

It has become an ideology.

From my observations on how science works, I think there is a perhaps a difference between something that is only a scientific theory/hypothesis versus something that is a scientific fact or even a scientific law..

I can understand someone questioning a theory or hypothesis, but when something has been shown to be [generally] true (a fact??) based on a high level of empirical evidence, it becomes much harder to argue against without supporting material, although that is to say, to me, that doesn’t mean one shouldn’t ask questions (test the theory so to speak).

I would think that creating ones own hypothesis to test ones own knowledge can be a good thing, passing off that hypothesis as a fact without the appropriate level of empirical evidence to support it, probably isn’t all that great - but that’s just my opinion.

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...

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2109672 17-Oct-2018 13:02

In many ways, the whole anthropogenic side of the global warming argument is a red herring. People who don't want to address climate change will point to the Middle Ages warm period, or even to the Jurassic period, saying that clearly climate changes due to non-anthopogenic causes. But it really doesn't matter whether the climate change that is being seen was caused by people or not. Because we have adapted ourselves very well to the current climate (placement of cities near present sea level, large populations and much food production in presently temperate climate zones), any changes in climate will mostly be BAD.

So the first question is whether the climate is actually changing (I don't think there's any serious dispute that it's warming) and how fast it's changing. This is about measurement, which hasn't been done well, because no-one foresaw the need for this kind of data.

The second question is what our environment be like in the future. This is all about extrapolating from what we have measured, and prediction is difficult, especially when we don't have a lot of good quality data to go on.

And finally, what should we do to mitigate the effects? Because there is no doubt that we *can* change the climate if we so choose, because we can measure changes that are caused by people (e.g. ozone hole increasing and decreasing, weather effects of aircraft).

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2109673 17-Oct-2018 13:02

SaltyNZ:
Dingbatt:
A group of published climate scientists, not all climate scientists.

Given that, at least in theory, a published paper has been subjected to peer review to weed out the junk science, I think there's a very good argument that 'published climate scientists' is a better pool of scientists to poll than 'all climate scientists'.

And it is exactly my point. "All scientists agree", is not the same as "Peer reviewed papers by climate scientists indicate" that human activity is warming the planet. (Edit: But remember all of their 'peers' are in the same club and have a vested interest in their own research findings being reinforced.)
People need to want to change behaviour rather than be told they have to. We have changed our family footprint because we want to, not because we have been told we have to. In exactly the same way as we reduced our use of plastic bags before it became fashionable this year, but I rail against being told I can't use plastic bags.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

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.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2109755 17-Oct-2018 13:57

I think a problem is that while people who actually think about things are capable of making their own decisions on these kinds of matters, those who don't need to be told what to do and there are far more who don't. Blanket rules make it easier for the unwashed masses to do the right thing but they also force the rest of us to go along.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2109767 17-Oct-2018 14:11

But we ban plastic bags and exponentially increase tourism. Tourism surely must incur a massive CO2 cost. How many plastic bags do we need to make disappear to offset CO2 released on one flight between Auckland and London on the most environmentally friendly aircraft? Please add up all the plastic bags used by all the crew and passengers in the entire journey.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2109775 17-Oct-2018 14:22

Batman: But we ban plastic bags and exponentially increase tourism. Tourism surely must incur a massive CO2 cost. How many plastic bags do we need to make disappear to offset CO2 released on one flight between Auckland and London on the most environmentally friendly aircraft? Please add up all the plastic bags used by all the crew and passengers in the entire journey.

I'm hoping you didn't infer any connection between between global warming and plastic bags. My only intention in them both being the same post was to make a point about forcing people to do something, unwashed or not.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2109777 17-Oct-2018 14:23

Dingbatt:

People need to want to change behaviour rather than be told they have to.

I get your point, and I lean libertarian for people's personal lives myself. But where the libertarian personal rights end is where those rights conflict with someone else's. You have the right to give yourself lung cancer with tobacco smoke if you like; you don't have the right to give it to me. You have the right to spend $500 a week on petrol for your 3500kg 7L V8 lifted pickup truck which you drive to the supermarket and back. You don't have the right to flood my house because the smoke it spits out makes the planet warmer and the sea levels rise.

There are many, many examples of the government changing people's behaviour with laws over public apathy or even hostility. Ask ten people why they don't speed. Seven of them will tell you they don't speed because they don't want to kill themselves. Three will tell you they don't speed because they don't want to get fined. Not a single one will tell you they don't speed because speeding is against the law, and therefore it would be morally wrong to speed.

Or for a different example: 30 years ago it would've been completely socially acceptable to get drunk and then drive home. But the government cracked down on it using the force of law, and 30 years later you have ghost chips bro.

It is absolutely the case that the government needs to suck it up and make everyone do the right thing by threat until such time as they do it because it's the right thing to do. And one day our kids will look back in disbelief that anyone would want to drive around in a roaring machine that sucked poison in and pumped poison out again when they could've had a beautiful clean, safe, quiet battery instead.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2109784 17-Oct-2018 14:33

Batman: But we ban plastic bags and exponentially increase tourism. Tourism surely must incur a massive CO2 cost. How many plastic bags do we need to make disappear to offset CO2 released on one flight between Auckland and London on the most environmentally friendly aircraft? Please add up all the plastic bags used by all the crew and passengers in the entire journey.

A couple of different sources both suggest aviation accounts for ~2% of global emissions, so while it's the hardest to decarbonise, it's also one of the smallest at the moment. A 787 uses about 2.4L/100km per passenger, which puts it roughly on par with driving a mid-size car the same distance with 3 or 4 passengers.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

wellygary

8312 posts

Uber Geek

#2109787 17-Oct-2018 14:40

Batman: But we ban plastic bags and exponentially increase tourism. Tourism surely must incur a massive CO2 cost. How many plastic bags do we need to make disappear to offset CO2 released on one flight between Auckland and London on the most environmentally friendly aircraft? Please add up all the plastic bags used by all the crew and passengers in the entire journey.

Totally agree,

AirNZ are engaged on one of the biggest greenwash exercises NZ has ever experienced,

There own figures

https://p-airnz.com/cms/assets/PDFs/Air_NZ_GHG_Inventory_-Report_2018.pdf

Show their emission have grown every year since they started recording them and were 20% higher than their 2011 base year.

- and they have the gall to host a "sustainability" event promoting personal flying devices that are going to be as cheap as taxis ( that are apparently just around the corner- hah!,) and removing plastic swizzle sticks from their aircraft... talk about focussing on the big issues....

wellygary

8312 posts

Uber Geek

#2109805 17-Oct-2018 14:54

SaltyNZ:

A couple of different sources both suggest aviation accounts for ~2% of global emissions, so while it's the hardest to decarbonise, it's also one of the smallest at the moment. A 787 uses about 2.4L/100km per passenger, which puts it roughly on par with driving a mid-size car the same distance with 3 or 4 passengers.

Yeah, but the efficiency argument is a straw man because you don't jump in and drive a mid sized car 10,000 kms there are back for a week long holiday..

The airline industry have a very cushy international agreement that prevents governments from imposing taxes on international aviation fuel, No Excise, no GST no nothing... so when airlines cry how much higher fuel prices are hurting them ask them how much they pay per litre...

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2109849 17-Oct-2018 15:01

SaltyNZ, the pickup truck owner would say serves you right for building so close to the sea. :-) It would make more sense to move while you still can! Certainly while beachfront property commands such a price premium, it behoves you to move to higher ground, off grid, consuming only goods that you can grow yourself or walk to access. Unless of course, you aren't really that concerned about 10cm of sea level rise after all. Mitigation may be a better strategy for a small player like NZ, rather than screaming at the sea to recede.
Please don't equate 'smoke' with CO2 emissions. It's as bad as the media showing pictures of steam coming out of a chimney (or even worse, a cooling tower) when talking about climate change. (Yes, I know water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but not one of the 'evil' ones.)
The 'smoke' has proven detrimental health effects due to particulates and NOx it contains, and for that reason should be reduced.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 23