Japan's hopefully not so "great fall"

Mature Discussion
61

Like they can get gas out of stones, green Coal Tech ECT. It’s all really pie in the skies stuff until it becomes viable. I’m sure I read somewhere scientists have a system that could mean the end of wires and plugs, but again it years off and we’ll be lucky to see it in out life times

It’s widely known and they felt so strongly they reported their findings to the USA President through the 1930’s to the 1960’s .

[quote]
The Earth’s temperature naturally goes in cycles.[/quote]

Exactly, and how’s to say this one isn’t a natural cycle ?, after all even Mars has been seeing it’s own Climate change and one can hardly blame Man for that.

[quote]
I don’t think this is quite accurate. [/quote]

It’s taken from NASA’s satellite temperatures readings , and they show from 1998 till 2008 they was no real increase to the earth’s overall temp. Completely at odds with every Computer Model and the Famous Ice Hockey stick scare story.

The best part is there is only 1 authority that collects data and only 4 University’s that are trusted to ‘interpret’ the findings, and one of them loves to delete data and e-mails that doesn’t fit with the Global warming theory. hand the data the over and let everyone look at the ‘untouched’ source data . maybe then some of us sceptics will believe what we’re being told

[quote]
I’m assuming you trust scientists when it comes to some theories[/quote]

It really depends…After all Nuclear scientists say it’s completely safe, do people trust them, more so now ? . How many so called experts said SARS was going to be a Pandemic ? , same for Bird Fuel - both of which were hopelessly wrong
Same with of our so called experts in the UK and spending billions on tamiflu vaccine , only for more people to die of the bog standard seasonal flue, what experts !

I’m not saying there isn’t any Climate change or that man isn’t helping matters. I just wonder how much we really are to blame, and for the life of me can not see how the likes of Wind farms or Solo Panels are the answers, when both output loads of greenhouses gases during their manufacture, never mind when they are being transported and fitted and then replaced.

62

japan-nuke-workers-have-committed-themselves-to-die-if-necessary

Wow…

63

Some people still have “honor” and a sense of “duty” no matter how weird it appears to others. Idk about the equipment and stuff, I think too many people who aren’t actually there, or anywhere near there, are speculating in Japan’s expense about doing this or that wrong, or not providing all the information to international media (as if that should be their first worry currently) with no real tangible evidence. I mean, I could believe it easier if it was some poor nation that barely had the means to run these plants in the first place but surely Japan could afford such equipment for everyone, it’s not like at this point they’d only leave this at the hands of a single company just because they own the place… Surely everyone relevant is involved in the process to the degree it is possible in by now… Outside help like the US cooling solutions didn’t do much either so it’s not that they aren’t trying enough…

64

I didn’t think people like that existed anymore. Some of my lost faith in humanity has been restored.

Of course, there is too much media spin for my liking. On one hand, you have people using this as proof of the need to disarm the world of nuclear anything, and on the other, the world of business as usual keeping the status quo of a dependency on non-renewable energy all the more alive.

Or maybe I am imagining things.

65

Good point. It also works the opposite way, with fossil fuel companies backing global warming deniers in order to defend the (profitable) status quo. With political motivation linked to both sides of the debate, we have to look to at the scientific consensus to get to the heart of the matter. Or, ideally, do the actual the science if you have to know how.

The reason I asked for a source is because I wanted to know if there was scientific consensus, rather than just a group of scientists coming up with a hypothesis.

There is a correlation between human related emissions and increasing temperature. You’re right, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of other factors causing the rise in temperature. That said, there are other reasons to believe there is a link between human activity and climate change. It’s a very complex debate.

I can’t argue much more than this as I’ll freely admit that I don’t understand the science in great detail. Maybe Ancient Weapon can answer this question?

I think we need to look at all the evidence, rather than taking this one set of data as the truth. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be sceptical (we should), but we should also be sceptical of the sceptics too. :slight_smile: I find this site to have a good list of criticisms of the sceptical arguments: skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The satellite temperature readings are mentioned there. We should also be sceptical of this site too, of course.

These claims need more evidence. There were investigations made into the Climategate emails, but I was not aware of anything conclusive being found (e.g. data deletion)? I think the skeptics would be better off focusing on attempting to show how the science is problematic.

[quote=“Team Andromeda”]It really depends…After all Nuclear scientists say it’s completely safe, do people trust them, more so now ? . How many so called experts said SARS was going to be a Pandemic ? , same for Bird Fuel - both of which were hopelessly wrong
Same with of our so called experts in the UK and spending billions on tamiflu vaccine , only for more people to die of the bog standard seasonal flue, what experts ![/quote]

It’s important to differentiate between media hype and scientific consensus here. Was there a 97-98% consensus in those scientific fields? Or were these claims something that just a few scientists said off hand?

Is this not a matter of gradually fazing out the status quo? E.g. if windmills and solar panels use fossil fuels while being transported, the trucks etc that transport the parts can be replaced by electric vehicles. That electricity can be gained from renewable energy sources. But if the renewable energy sources don’t exist, then we have to use fossil fuels in the meantime.

66

It’s amazing that a story can be so uplifting and demoralizing at the same time… and it’s easy enough to just think this shouldn’t have ever been necessary in the first place, but as a technicality I’m sure it was also avoidable. You can’t ultimately eliminate risk, in anything, but it will always boil down to the cost-benefit analysis. If nuclear plants are to be even safer, they’ll also be more expensive to build and operate.

There will be no simple answers to any of it, which is precisely why simplistic answers become such an easy substitute. TA I believe I’m also more of a skeptic than most people, and about a lot more things. But to be a platform skeptic about the causes and consequences of climate change, seems more like mere cynicism at this stage. I’m sure I was reminded of the phrase “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything” recently only from the Sucker Punch trailer, but it’s one I’ve always liked. However… like most such wisdom it’s ultimately reactionary, and valid only as such.

I think it’s equally valid to say that if you’re too worried about falling for something, you may find yourself standing for just anything. And there is actually truth and grace to be found in either state.

So what do these climate theorists stand to gain from their own platform consensus, other than reputation? Every investigative agency in the world understands the principle “follow the money”; when it comes to crime you almost can’t be led astray by it so… we can know EXACTLY what the primary motivations of those denying and obfuscating on behalf of the status quo are. What then are the motivations of the vast majority of actual researchers? Are people so ready to distrust them precisely because they don’t have such an obvious self-interest?

In a battle over the minds of an obtuse public, I’m certainly not naive enough to expect any side to be perfectly honorable in their tactics. But ascribing a level of misrepresentation or even ineptitude that could outright undermine the alarmists’ message simply cannot add up. And really, bringing up an anecdote about one conclusion from a relatively isolated group from the infancy of climate science, as an argument for ignoring the anguished consensus of a global scientific community a half-century later? That’s a textbook example of bad faith persuasion.

There is nothing easier, or simpler, than casting doubt. And science isn’t perfect, no one knows THAT better than a genuine scientist. But trends of a scientific field / community just don’t take this form when the direction is toward error. All apparent resistance has been quite well quantified and transparent, as well as entrenched. A challenge to orthodoxy only ever succeeds when it represents a greater virtue.

67

Doesn’t the fact that these people haven’t been convinced yet show that the argument presented isn’t convincing enough?

It seems that way to me.

68

Well, I’m basically just speaking for myself here, and as such I can’t agree. If an opposition presents virtually nothing but FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), and for many many years, that basically tells me THEY have nothing of substance at all. And by default gives the other side automatic credence.

But sure, for whatever reasons delivery of the alarmist message hasn’t been effective enough yet. Those very reasons being part of my point?

69

I think this needs to become as evident as us needing air to breathe before opponents will concede. The democratic process itself still cannot be overstepped.

I am pretty sure though, that most people would like to live. Pumping all this toxic crap into the atmosphere won’t exactly not have consequences.

70

People say that, and yet in the 1940 to 1975 they was cooling,when we were outputting GOD knows what , fighting a World and dropping the Nuclear Bomb.

They are not claims, but facts. All the data is owned by NMS and the data collected is not open to all and freely available.

and the 98% so consensus is also misleading . for 1 there has been Global warming, that means the Thames no longer freezes over like it did 300 hundred years ago; Also with in that consensus there are people that believe cloud cover is to blame , or that is it a natural cycle.

No they can’t meet the energy needs to power people houses or cars, never mind being able to be able to power the entire Nation and all its transport .

And you fall into the trap of thinking that electric means no C02 or greenhouses gasses . You do know that the production of the Toyota yaris is more damaging to the earth than the Standard car, the Electric battery is not clean at all, and needs all sorts of chemicals in it production all mined from the ground

71

Something has to change. You can argue that this is a Trojan horse used to undermine national sovereignty, and you’d be half right, but something is going to change because western gluttony cannot be maintained forever unless it is at someone else’s expense.

72

I’m going to skip over the science points, because this is not my area of expertise. However, I’ll address the other points laid out here…

I don’t understand why you think this is a misleading representation of what the evidence points towards. Are you suggesting that all these scientists are simply wrong? Or that they are all involved in a conspiracy? I could understand if it were, say, 60/40, but 98% is a really high consensus.

They may be facts, but I’ll need you to provide some sources before I can investigate further. I understand that there is a central panel, the IPCC, who produces these reports. But the data is collected from independent climate stations throughout the world. If the skeptics are confident that something is amiss, why don’t they recollect the data themselves and produce a counter report which can then be peer reviewed by scientists in the field?

With peak oil approaching, the status quo is going to have to change regardless. We have two choices:

  1. Replace the current unclean energy systems with renewable energy.
  2. If (1) isn’t possible, we will have to adjust the Western way of life.

The first option is obviously preferable, but it may not be entirely possible if renewable energy fails to provide all the power that we need to maintain the current Western way of life. So, perhaps a combination of (1) and (2) will be the approach we’ll need to take. I don’t think we should give up on (1) yet though.

You could be right. Can you point me towards your source of information?

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]Doesn’t the fact that these people haven’t been convinced yet show that the argument presented isn’t convincing enough?

It seems that way to me.[/quote]

There are always going to be some skeptics. And that’s a good thing. The 2% may never be convinced, but in the meantime we can start acting using the data that the 98% agree on.

Democratic process? The scientific method is not democratic… perhaps you are referring to political decisions based on the science?

73

That was a good post, The Ancient, and it mirrors my thoughts on the topic. One thing I’ll add: regardless of the deniers financial backing, we at least need to consider their arguments. Well, not us as in people who are non climate scientists, but on scientific matters these arguments need to be addressed by the scientists themselves. Science should always be open to updating old theories, or examining new evidence.

Another point that popped up in this topic is the idea that scientists would have to prove global warming to the deniers. But this is not how a scientific theory works. Science never actually proves anything, it only confirms that there are strong current theory that something is true. Rather, a scientific claim is falsifiable: if someone wants to go out and debunk a theory then there is a method that one can use to do. Gravity could even be proven wrong using this method too.

74

[quote=“Solo”]

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]Doesn’t the fact that these people haven’t been convinced yet show that the argument presented isn’t convincing enough?

It seems that way to me.[/quote]

There are always going to be some skeptics. And that’s a good thing. The 2% may never be convinced, but in the meantime we can start acting using the data that the 98% agree on.

Democratic process? The scientific method is not democratic… perhaps you are referring to political decisions based on the science?[/quote]

The majority needs to be convinced, and they clearly aren’t. It’s not as if this has reached an impasse either. It has reached a point where some people pretend that opponents (such as ones in America) don’t exist or are ignoring them as ignorant as if that tactic still worked when no one side controls the flow of ideas. This couldn’t get any more childish when the truth should speak for itself. Apparently it isn’t because we are all still here debating it.

There are vested interests colliding. International statism versus sovereign free market capitalism which has slowly merged for mutual gain. At this point, I don’t know which side is worse. I expect them all to only do what is profitable for them in the long run.

Some of the solutions proposed, like the carbon tax for example, would kill economies. Why would anyone want that? These changes need to be slower to give people time to reinvent their businesses.

75

I’ll throw that one back at you: how would you propose that the majority is convinced? The scientists have produced their findings. 98% of the climate scientists agree with those findings. It’s not like it’s a small subset - that’s a representation of the scientific consensus. The general public doesn’t have the know-how to do the science themselves, so we’re left to go by what scientists say. We’re really up against a brick wall - other than the results of climate change affecting people in their day to day lives, what other criteria can be used to convince them?

I’m not sure who you’re referring to when you say “some people pretend that opponents (such as ones in America) don’t exist”. Most scientists involved in the debate would admit that there are 2% who remain sceptical. As I mentioned earlier, this isn’t a problem for science, as science encourages scepticism. Scientists are generally open to looking at new findings and updating old theories; that’s the nature of the field.

Also, it’s important to note the difference between the two debates here:

  1. The debate over whether global warming is occurring. This is a debate for the scientists.
  2. The debate over what action should be taken if global warming is occurring. This is a debate for the politicians.

Note that (2) depends on (1), but ultimately the two debates should not be mixed. Politicians should have no business with the first debate; the political debate is about what do about the warming problem.

As Abadd mentioned earlier, it is a continuum. The poles at either end of the continuum are both undesirable (absolute government and absolute free market), but a point somewhere in the middle can give us the benefits of both systems. Since we already have a combination of free market and government (and neither are disappearing anytime soon), it is best to look at individual issues on a case by case basis rather than invoking one ideology for all.

I agree with this partially. Gradually phase out unclean energy with clean energy. A carbon tax on fossil fuel consumers may not be the best approach and it is good to discuss alternative strategies. Another approach would be for the government to pump money into energy companies who adopt a renewable energy sector, especially if such energy is expensive right now. Of course that money will need to come from somewhere, so some sort of tax would probably be necessary. Just don’t leave it entirely to the free market, because that will invoke a tragedy of the commons.

76

Those forces (statism and capitalism) balance one another out by the accident of their necessity. The creation of wealth out of nothing keeps statism on a leash under control… for now.

Not everyone wants limited government and the push away from it is undeniable. So to centralize power away from sovereign nations based on collective interests is inherently dangerous because individuals are going to suffer to balance the whole. That is just inevitable.

They call this fearmongering, but would you want the decisions of your country decided by someone halfway across the world?

It HAS to be mutually beneficial. There HAS to be a way to make cleaner energy sources profitable, otherwise this already fragile economy will spiral into freefall.

What I am saying is, voters cannot be ignored. If anyone wants their vote, then convince them. At the moment, a lot of people seem unconvinced because no one wants to beat the right wing rhetoric at its own game in the open arena of ideas.

Simply prove them wrong over and over again with reality. Speak in facts and make the message heard for as long as it takes. If there is any truth to it, people will listen. The world cannot work around those people when they are one of the biggest creators of the problem.

The problem is this doesn’t seem to be in the best interests of the powers that be and could mean an end to getting fat on sucking the world dry. Even if that is the case, changes cannot be forced. It should be extremely apparent if drastic changes were necessary.

I won’t defend the western way of life because I see the fatal flaws in the governing ideologies, but all that really matters here is how many people you can reach with your message.

77

No I simply saying that with-in that consensus they are splits - some that its cloud cover, others that think its C02 , or some that think its a natural cycle, but ‘all’ agree the World has got warmer

The data is not open to all - it all owned by National Meteorological Services . And please don’t even get me started on the poor placements of data sets .

Because Like I said the data is not open all. Like I say all the data is owned by NMS.

Yes, same with gas or even Coal. It will all run out eventually

Renewable energy is not clean, it’s renewable and that is an important difference, but its not clean at all.

I think we will have do that anyway - more so as countries like China, Africa and India get richer and start to want the same life style as us in the West, never mind trying to feed all the people in the World (which we can’t do now)

It’s widely know, the components needed to make the Battery is up to 4 more time damaging to the environment in it’s manufacture (granted it’s far less when it’s running onthe road) than for the basic normal car

78

Team Andromeda:

The BBC article on the study that I linked to earlier says:

“Some 98% of climate scientists that publish research on the subject support the view that human activities are warming the planet, a study suggests.”

Source: bbc.co.uk/news/10370955

So, while they may disagree on other details, the study supports the view that 98% of climate scientists agree that AGW is occurring.

There is always that chance that the BBC got it wrong or has a liberal bias, the study wasn’t conducted fairly, etc, etc. I’m not disagreeing with that skeptics on these points. But until some alternative data is presented, this is what we’ve got to go by when it comes to the scientific consensus.

With regards to your other points, they are mainly factual claims. I can’t investigate these any further without sources. I did Google some of them, but the results were inconclusive. So, if you think this scepticism really is warranted, perhaps you could point me towards some evidence for the following claims:

  1. All of the climate data is owned by National Meteorological Services.
  2. There is some conclusive evidence of fraudulent scientists (e.g. deliberating deleting data). I think this last point was investigated and nothing conclusive found. Source.
  3. Components needed to make the electric car battery is up to four times more damaging to the environment in it’s manufacture than for the basic normal car.
  4. Renewable energy can’t meet the current energy needs of Western nations.

Anyway, it’s good to get a discussion about the facts going here. All too often climate debates are clouded by underlying political ideologies.

79

Why do you think a global agreement couldn’t be balanced to be fair for all? If all nations signed an agreement to reduce their emissions, why couldn’t that be fair for everyone?

Think about a law that all citizens mutually support on a national scale, for example a law that forbids stealing. Seems reasonable, right? Now replace those citizens with nations, each agreeing to support an international agreement to reduce carbon emissions. This seems to be a suitable analogy.

The alternative, leaving the decision for the free market decide, is guaranteed to be dangerous when trying to balance the whole. The free market won’t change so long is it in each corporation’s self interest to keep maintaining the status quo. Whereas, a global agreement can be based on the long term self interest of all the nations who sign up.

If it’s a global problem, then it really needs a global solution. And since we don’t have a world government, the decision wouldn’t be made by an external group “halfway across the world”, but rather an agreement of all the member states of the United Nations.

[quote=“Geoffrey Duke”]What I am saying is, voters cannot be ignored. If anyone wants their vote, then convince them. At the moment, a lot of people seem unconvinced because no one wants to beat the right wing rhetoric at its own game in the open arena of ideas.

Simply prove them wrong over and over again with reality. Speak in facts and make the message heard for as long as it takes. If there is any truth to it, people will listen. The world cannot work around those people when they are one of the biggest creators of the problem.

The problem is this doesn’t seem to be in the best interests of the powers that be and could mean an end to getting fat on sucking the world dry. Even if that is the case, changes cannot be forced. It should be extremely apparent if drastic changes were necessary.

I won’t defend the western way of life because I see the fatal flaws in the governing ideologies, but all that really matters here is how many people you can reach with your message.[/quote]

Voters will vote for a party, not on the science of global warming. As far as I’m aware, most of the major parties (on both the political left and right) now accept that view than humans are contributing to global warming. The difference is in what each party is doing to prevent it. So we’re left with deciding whether to support political parties who are doing more or less to lessen the problem. Present day national self interest vs the long term national and global self interest.

80

People profit from keeping others down. With limited resources, the resistance to balance the scales will be immense. Everyone will do this. It’s best to assume the worst when it comes to human nature, so I guess the trick is to work with that.

I don’t see growth in places slowing down either. It’s all heading for another crash without room to grow anyway.

An agreement would have to benefit everyone, but I don’t see it happening in a way that helps everyone westernize. That would be against the interests of slowing down man-made climate change.

If the free market can make money from cleaner energy, they would do it in a heartbeat. Demand is still the source of the problem, and the sheer lack of urgency to lessen these addictions because they are so profitable for everyone.

I just think that people have to see more consequences with their own eyes first before they will be motivated to change anything. It’s like watching bricks be moved by the wind at the moment.

If decisions elsewhere personally hurt your economy which robs people of lives, you will extremely resent it no matter who you are. So why can’t we change locally to both give people ways up in the world without hurting anyone or anything else?

It’s the impossible dream. Those political parties are just using climate change to profit themselves. But you can still convince people of the urgency of the problem. Just assume that everyone wants to somehow benefit from it and work with it, like a true American capitalist.