Professor says Global Warming a Scam

24

Comments

  • bryanlbryanl Solar Expert Posts: 175 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    re: "will not come to a conclusion here. it will cause arguing and be disruptive sooner or later and is my primary reason for not participating in this redundant subject matter. what good will this discussion do?"

    perhaps so we can raise consciousness enough so that, instead of just avoiding or complaining about uncivil behavior, folks will undertake their individual responsibilities for civil discourse and use peer pressure to inhibit dishonest or uncivil discussion and promote an open minded approach to discussion of ideas honestly put forth.

    in re Hansen and climate theory - the question is to define that theory. Hansen has not proposed a theory, he proposed a concept and then proceeded, despite ethical questions regarding his position at NASA, to engage in civil unrest and other destructive behavior.

    The 'theories' of folks like Hansen raise more questions than answers. You can see that in this thread. What we know is that global temperature change as measured (and this is well agreed upon) is on the order of a degree over a person's lifespan in recent years. Yet we see here some folks claiming tens of degrees and we see others (like Hansen) claiming certitude about coming doom and gloom and TEOTWAWKI resulting from this sort of change.

    In these forums, it is not only the AGW hypothesis that generates heated and close minded dialog that rapidly gets uncivil. Look for instance as some of the battery threads where I raised some issues that did not toe the PC line. What we learn here is broader than just one single topic.

    The key is behavior. Observable behavior.

    Behavior was described in the stimulus for the OP and used as a measure of the quality of the argument it was being used to advance. Behavior is something that each of us has in our own realm of control. If we want civil and productive discussions where we can learn something, it is up to each and every one of us to keep track of our feelings and how they influence our behavior. We have to be open to strange ideas and put our efforts on learning the basis for them rather than just rejecting them outright. We need to make sure we are not expressing denial - often seen as ad hominem or other logical fallacies. We need to make sure we discriminate between opinion, preference, and measure. We need to accommodate and allow for the uncertainties and the variabilities in measure and observation and not confuse precision with accuracy.

    Science sometimes has the reputation of being stodgy because of the image of it not being emotionally driven (think Spock). That is a goal but it has never been that way (think Newton versus Liebnitz). What we can do, though, is to use that goal as a referent, much as Lewis did, to evaluate what is placed in front of us. We can also use it to evaluate our own efforts in discussion. The mark of a good scientist is not that he doesn't get emotional but rather that, after a good knock down drag out when he has had time to mull over what has been discussed he learns and he doesn't hold grudges (much!).

    So, maybe we can consider a discussion like this a lab experiment where we can take a look at ourselves and how we participate and use that to help foster greater civility and integrity in discussions by making our own contributions better.
  • dreesdrees Solar Expert Posts: 481 ✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    dwh wrote: »
    One is - the other isn't:
    Except for your claim that Antarctic sea ice extent is growing (which just about everyone has confirmed), I'm having a hard time finding actual references to any of your other claims.

    Others seem to indicate that the Antarctic is losing land ice overall.

    http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Antarctic-ice-trends.html

    Both of those links include links to the actual studies from which the data was obtained.
  • CariboocootCariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    I've stated my reasons for believing that climate change and global warming are happening. But I've yet to hear anyone's explanation for why they support the opposite side. Both use data and "experts" of equal qualifications and credibility (or incredibility). Both have been found to be lying, or at least bending the results of studies to suit their pre-defined position on the issue.

    So why do the nay-sayers pick that side as being right when it has no more validity than the pro side?

    This whole thread is a waste of forum space and should be deleted. But that's just my opinion. No government or oil industry funded studies have been done to prove/disprove its validity. :p
  • russruss Solar Expert Posts: 593 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    What is missing are scientists to dıscuss/argue the points. I have yet to read anything except repeated points and buzz words.

    Everyone wants to discuss what they have exceedingly little knowledge of and most of that was gained from other blogs.

    In the event someone here is really qualified as a climate scientist by education and work experience, then my apologies to them. I don't think I am going to need to be apologizing.
  • dwhdwh Solar Expert Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    niel wrote: »
    what this boils down to is what difference would it make to you dwh if you are right or wrong? i don't see the relevance as to what this really has to do with anything this forum addresses and i can only assume that you are just obsessing over an issue that is unprovable by most of us, including myself and you, one way or another until everybody will agree with you. you can still bring it up and you can still discuss it if you want to, but why? is it going to boost people buying pvs or conserving or is it everybody can just do whatever anybody wants to until the damages prove that wasn't a good idea to do if such damages occur? many have an opinion or some just don't know.

    It's not about me "being right".
    It's about holding a firm belief in something that has not been proven, and which is based on questionable science, being wrong.

    It's about trying to encourage critical thinking - which is, in my opinion, sadly lacking when it it comes to the subject of global warming.

    I like precision. It's one of the wonderful things about this forum. If someone comes in here with vague ideas and questionable mathematics - they WILL be set straight. By engineers. With the facts. With the real math. I love that - even when it inevitably happens to me. :D

    Get a few percentage points wrong in a voltage drop calculation or the efficiency of a solar cell, forget to include system losses, make some unfounded claim or dodgy assumption and the members of this forum will jump on it and straighten it out. As I say, I love that.

    But make an assertion about the temperature rising, or sea levels or the ice caps melting or whatever - it passes unchallenged. Not a peep.

    What happened to the critical thinking? What happened to challenging the assumptions?

    We can talk about oil prices and whether or not BP is telling the truth. We can analyze and speculate about the underlying reasons. No gripes from the mods or anyone else about that - go right ahead.

    We can talk endlessly about these tax breaks and government rebates that we're all so fond of. No objections there. But don't even think about questioning whether the underlying reasons for all that "free money" are even true.


    As for my motives...to assume that I'm "just obsessing over an issue.. ...until everybody will agree with you" - that's completely incorrect.

    I'm not trying to get people to "agree with me". There's no point in that, as most people will already pay lip service to the idea that "we just don't know" - even if they actually believe that they *do* know.

    I'm just nurturing the seeds of doubt. Challenging the assumptions. Being, in fact and in deed, skeptical.

    And again, this is the Skeptic's Corner.


    Perhaps, as has been said, an RE forum is not the place to voice skepticism about this particular subject. I disagree. I think it *is* appropriate - after all, who is is that is taking advantage of the tax breaks, credits and rebates? We are. The people in THIS forum.
  • solar_davesolar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,347 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    dwh wrote: »
    It's not about me "being right".

    Perhaps, as has been said, an RE forum is not the place to voice skepticism about this particular subject. I disagree. I think it *is* appropriate - after all, who is is that is taking advantage of the tax breaks, credits and rebates? We are. The people in THIS forum.

    But that is a different issue, really having little bearing on GW, those are financial decisions that motivate action to do what is perceived to be the correct thing by society. It really makes no difference if it is Cigarette taxes, Health Care or Solar rebates, it is all about behavior modification. The best motivator is always money, and if the keeper of the purse strings want to alter behavior it is as simple as injecting money into the equation.

    We know that importing oil from unfriendly places is probably not in our best interest, and pollution of any kind is probably counter productive as population density increases. How do you alter those situations? you give rebates for hybrids & solar, keep GM running for the Volt and build out nuclear reactors & wind and solar. While GW might be part of the motivator, the real deal here is to fix other society problems.
  • icarusicarus Solar Expert Posts: 5,391 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    russ wrote: »
    What is missing are scientists to dıscuss/argue the points. I have yet to read anything except repeated points and buzz words.

    Everyone wants to discuss what they have exceedingly little knowledge of and most of that was gained from other blogs.

    In the event someone here is really qualified as a climate scientist by education and work experience, then my apologies to them. I don't think I am going to need to be apologizing.

    I'm going against my better judgement and chime in even though I see this conversation going exactly where I predicted it would.

    I know a few things to be true. First, the vast majority of climate scientists (and you can find the links to cite this post, I am not going to!) believe that climate change is real, it is being caused to some great extent by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which serve to insulate the earth. Humans have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 by over 1/3 since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

    Second, there has been what I believe to be an orchestrated, organized well funded climate change denial cabal that has tried to plant any seed of doubt so as to be able to under mine the basic science. Even the evidence that came out of the "climate change e-mail" scandal reveal little to undermine the science, only the reporting thereof.

    The core of the denial campaign is based largely on the idea that people are afraid that government will mandate solutions that will cost them (or their industries) money. If you follow the money trails, it is pretty easy to see where the denial community starts! (Once again, link and citations are easy to find!)

    Finally, in my opinion, the consequences are likely to be severe in the coming decades (I personally think we are beginning to see them in the higher latitudes!) and every day we wait, the costs get greater. Also IMHO, the solutions are actually a win/win/win.

    For example, most of us here know that an investment in PV/RE has an up front cost, but a long term benefit. We also know that due to a variety of reasons, the cost of energy is likely to continue to go up going forward, and finally we are more and more dependent on unstable off shore oil.

    So by moving robustly to alternatives, we stimulate the economy now (Win) we by long term energy stability (Win) and we by a huge measure of national security. (Win)

    If the billions we spend annually to protect our off shore oil, were to be redirected in some measure for RE the need to protecting that oil becomes (more) moot.

    So I would ask anyone who thinks that climate change is not significant. Are you prepared to bet you, your children's, you grandchildren's future on that assumption? Are you prepared to risk all the worlds children in some fashion for that belief?

    Please read the source documents instead of MSM or industry provided information. Look at what is happening at higher latitudes, and understand that while you may have had a colder winter last winter, what is happening in the high latitudes is exactly what the models predicted, and nears the tipping point. (Melt the permafrost, and the amount of CO2 released jumps uncontrollably!) Put aside your politics, and even your religion and look at the sources. Understand that the vast majority of climate scientists, those that should really know understand the severity of this issue.

    That my friends, will in all likely hood be my final comment on the subjet.
    '
    Tony
  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 29,809 admin
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    The best way to predict the future is to make it yourself.;)

    It is a difficult discussion as terms and argument evolve. Went from global cooling to global warming to climate change.

    Since there was a forecast for hot/cold/wet/dry winter this year--what would someone do to change the forecast. I have seen massive forest fires--and not one forecaster said anything about changing the next season's weather forecast. Other than saying there was an increased risk of mud slides if we have heavy rains.

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • dwhdwh Solar Expert Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    drees wrote: »
    Except for your claim that Antarctic sea ice extent is growing (which just about everyone has confirmed), I'm having a hard time finding actual references to any of your other claims.

    Other claims? What other claims?

    I claimed that Lewis resigned.
    I claimed that Lindzen stated (in '09) there has been no warming for 12 years.
    I claimed that there is a heat island effect.
    I claimed that the IPCC made changes to their policies.

    I provided links to all of those.


    I thought about not referencing that particular article about the Antarctic because at first glance it could be interpreted as only being about sea ice. But I went ahead with it because of this quote:

    "The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast."

    Which clearly is not only about sea ice.

    I think the SCAR report that the author of that article referred to is here:

    http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxii/Atcm32_ip005_e.pdf

    And what he says about south pole cooling is here:

    "23. On the plateau, Amundsen-Scott Station at the South Pole shows a statistically significant cooling in recent decades, interpreted as due to fewer maritime air masses penetrating into the interior of the continent."

    On the whole, that report does not dispute global warming. However, in the section on predictions for the next 100 years they say:

    "47. The models project significant surface warming over Antarctica to 2100 AD, by 0.34ϒC/decade over land and grounded ice sheets, within a range from 0.14 to 0.5ϒC/decade. Over land, the largest increase is projected for the high-altitude interior of East Antarctica. Despite this change, the surface temperature by the year 2100 will remain well below freezing over most of Antarctica and will not contribute to melting inland.

    Others seem to indicate that the Antarctic is losing land ice overall.

    http://skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Antarctic-ice-trends.html

    Both of those links include links to the actual studies from which the data was obtained.

    Aye. There is plenty of dispute to go around. I like that you used the words "seem to" as a qualifier.

    I don't claim certainty one way or the other - I claim that the scientific "evidence" is questionable and, thus far, unconvincing.
  • dwhdwh Solar Expert Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    icarus wrote: »
    Second, there has been what I believe to be an orchestrated, organized well funded climate change denial cabal that has tried to plant any seed of doubt so as to be able to under mine the basic science.

    No argument from me about that - it's almost certainly true.

    Allow me to point out though, that in the OP Lewis resigned from the APS because there is also such activity on the scientific side - scientists who are supporting questionable science because of the grant money they get for doing so.
  • CariboocootCariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    dwh;

    Since you admit there is corruption to the "facts" on both sides of the issue, why do you choose to support the nay-sayers?
  • dwhdwh Solar Expert Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    dwh;

    Since you admit there is corruption to the "facts" on both sides of the issue, why do you choose to support the nay-sayers?

    That's not quite accurate.

    I don't "support the nay-sayers". I "oppose the certitude of the proponents", which is a different thing altogether.

    Though I'm not above quoting the nay-sayers if helps to point out that the science is dodgy (and it really is), but that's a far cry from supporting them.
  • CariboocootCariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    dwh wrote: »
    That's not quite accurate.

    Oh, many of us on this forum think it's quite accurate. Especially since you played agent provocateur by starting this thread with the alarmist topic "Professor says Global Warming a Scam".
    I don't "support the nay-sayers". I "oppose the certitude of the proponents", which is a different thing altogether.

    Could you split that hair any thinner? I doubt you'll find many others here who agree with that either.
    Though I'm not above quoting the nay-sayers if helps to point out that the science is dodgy (and it really is), but that's a far cry from supporting them.

    The science supporting climate change/global warming is basic physics and far from "dodgy". Furthermore, the studies supporting it are funded largely by Government rather than some business which stands to gain by the results (not that no business will). On the other hand, if you trace back the funding for the nay-sayers how long does it take before you find someone in the oil industry - which has everything to gain by shooting down climate change/global warming?

    BTW, what sort of solar power system do you have? Just curious. :D
  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 29,809 admin
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    Regarding the funding issues--that is just wrapping ourselves around the axial again...

    The US Governments (fed/state/local) get about 3x the money from oil as taxes vs what Exxon makes in profit. And the government has been spending huge amounts of money funding scientists and trying to add "carbon" taxes for increased revenues.

    We have already had long discussions about this before in other threads.

    I guess my two throw away lines about the climate claims would be:

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
    -Marcello Truzzi

    “I'll start believing it's a crisis when those who are telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis.”
    – Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • icarusicarus Solar Expert Posts: 5,391 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    Two more things to add, (even though I wasn't going to get involved).

    First, no climate scientist has suggested that "climate change" will consist of strictly global warming, but rather some areas will warm, others will cool, some areas will be wetter, some drier. The classic argument from the last year or so, was "we got so much snow in the N.E last winter, how can there be global warming" not being aware that this is as much a symptom as not, being aware that there are many other parts of N. America (and indeed the world) that had abnormal climatic conditions last winter, like we did,, in spades.

    Second, if DWH admits that there is an Orchestrated disinformation campaign doesn't that speak legions about the corrupting influence? And let's not let this degrade into who funded what studies. Look at the studies, in their peer reviewed sources, and evaluate them on their merits, instead of using the media and the organizational forces that tend to skew the data.

    And finally, (I know that is three) This very thread is the very reason that I didn't want to let this forum devolve into these kind of discussions. There are too many avenues for he said/she said to take over.

    All for now,,, all forever I hope!

    Tony
  • dwhdwh Solar Expert Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    Oh, many of us on this forum think it's quite accurate. Especially since you played agent provocateur by starting this thread with the alarmist topic "Professor says Global Warming a Scam".

    Well, this is the scams section and he did in fact say scam. I had nothing to do with choosing the name of this section nor with Lewis' choice of words.

    The title of the thread was precise. Not warm and fuzzy, no...but accurate.

    Provocative? Okay, I'll buy that. :D It's not a dirty word.


    Could you split that hair any thinner? I doubt you'll find many others here who agree with that either.

    Maybe, but I doubt that's unanimous.

    Nevertheless, I think I am in a better position to describe my motives than those who are merely speculating about my motives (and filtering my actions through THEIR motivations).

    The science supporting climate change/global warming is basic physics and far from "dodgy".

    The actions of the IPCC that I linked to yesterday would dispute that. There would be no need for them to call for greater diligence and veracity if there weren't a lack of it to begin with.

    Furthermore, the studies supporting it are funded largely by Government rather than some business which stands to gain by the results (not that no business will).

    The point is that the scientists become motivated to supply what is required to keep the money coming. If the supplier of the funds expects reports that support their position, then that's what they'll get.

    I would like to believe that Government is unbiased - but I don't. As for government funding vs. business funding - where do you think campaign funds come from in the first place?

    It's ALL funded by business. BP doesn't just spill oil all over the place - they make PV modules too.

    On the other hand, if you trace back the funding for the nay-sayers how long does it take before you find someone in the oil industry - which has everything to gain by shooting down climate change/global warming?

    I don't know. Do you?

    BTW, what sort of solar power system do you have? Just curious. :D

    How is that relevant?




    At this point you are starting to head off into the realm of personal attacks, which is exactly what Tony predicted would be the outcome of any discussion on this topic. No mystery there - happens all the time.

    First you try to instill a feeling of alienation in me - "Oh, many of us on this forum think it's quite accurate." (cue creepy music)

    Then you insinuate that ownership of PV is what makes someone's opinion valid. Where does that stop? "My PV is bigger than your PV"?

    Ultimately, if unchecked this will result in a flame war.

    In any case, by taking the discussion into the realm of personal attack, you drive the thread into being locked by the mods. In which case, you successfully stifle discussion of the subject - exactly the behavior which drove Lewis to resign from the APS.
  • CariboocootCariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    dwh, I want to make this perfectly clear: I consider you to be a very valuable member of this forum. Many times you have contributed valuable insight and information and varied subjects and on occasion even corrected a few mistakes made by an aging and often forgetful ol' coot. :p

    I actually was just curious about your own RE use; it has no relevance whatsoever. I know you're not one of those "green crazies" who thinks putting a single Enphase on his roof is somehow saving the world. :roll:

    And yes, the evil ol' 'Coot was playing devil's advocate; gently pushing the thread in the "wrong" direction. You are smart enough to see this. And you know the reason why: Post#2, for instance. So this thread, like so many other things, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It didn't have to be me; I just hastened things. Anyone might have pushed the hot buttons. Thus my reasoning for wanting to leave such political discussions elsewhere, just as Tony suggests.

    I really thought the purpose of this section was to take the Mickey out of the green scams that can fool newcomers to RE into parting with their hard earned $. You know: "Buy this 45 Watt solar panel and get free power for life!", "Spin this wind turbine and spin your meter backwards!", "Reduce your energy consumption by attaching a 0.0001 uf capacitor to the wiring!" That sort of nonsense. Not a realm for socio-political, semi-philosophical, pseudo-religious arguments.

    There's nowt we can do about that, so there's no point in discussing it.
  • dwhdwh Solar Expert Posts: 1,341 ✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    No worries, I don't take it personally.

    As to what sort of solar system I've got - none yet. Planning to buy one and doing my homework first was what led me here in the first place.

    I was a single father for 18 years. Sold my house when the market started to climb - I *knew* it would crash (lenders offering nothing down 40 year interest only mortgages? there's a recipe for disaster) and wanted to cash out before that happened. Just as well, there are few things I hate more than paying interest. (My debt load right now - zero. Don't owe a dime to anyone.)

    If I do buy another piece of real estate it will likely be a triplex or fourplex. My son is 23 now and will likely get married at some point, and unlike a lot of Americans, I don't like the idea of kicking the kids out when they're grown. I'd rather help the newlyweds get their start by providing a place to live and some help with the babysitting. I became a single father when my son was 7 months old and I know I could sure have used some help. But they do need their privacy, so a multi-family dwelling would fit the bill perfectly.

    Whether or not I would put any PV on it...probably not since at some point they'll probably move to a bigger place and I'd just end up renting the place out.

    But I do have my old camper, and I use it a lot. The problem is, that I'm digging it so much, that I keep thinking of buying something newer and/or bigger. For a while I was pretty gung-ho on adding PV to it as well as some additional batteries, but I don't really want to bother if I'm going to end up with something else.

    I have designed and re-designed a system for this camper, and I might even end up building it since even if I do get something else, I'll probably keep this old thing around for my son to use.

    But also after getting my feet wet I have been seriously considering the full-timer / snowbird thing as well. Mighty attractive. But if I went that route, I'd need a whole different system than what I'd need for my little camper. That line of thinking led me to bus conversions and if I decide to go full-time, I might decide to build my own - which is a whole different system design all over again.

    Still, a few weeks back I was >< this close to buying that $500 Sunwize/Morningstar kit from that other place. The only thing that stopped me was that I don't want the MPPT, I want the Duo for this camper and those modules are just all wrong for a PWM.

    At some point I will end up pulling the trigger, but it won't be Tony's Ready, Fire, Aim when I do. :)



    I've lived on farms, and I've lived on ranches and I can't say I cared much for either one (other than the lack of bothersome neighbors), so there's not much chance I'll ever end up with an off-grid house or cabin, but I very well might end up full-timing.

    Also, having been an electrician for so long, it seems like everyone I know asks me about solar at some point, so I try to keep up.
  • CariboocootCariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    I remember your mentioning the camper and its dual battery charging system But could not recall if you had solar of any type. I guess you've mentioned looking in to it before, but haven't decided to join the rest of us in the poor house just yet. :p

    Neighbours are best kept at arm's length; it stops them from borrowing your lawn mower. :p That's why our "new" house is on 1.5 acres; just about the right balance of near and far. :D

    Our youngest daughter is 24, but she's already married. Sorry. ;)

    I get lots of solar questions too. Sometimes people even listen to me. I've no idea why. :roll:
  • icarusicarus Solar Expert Posts: 5,391 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    Neighbours,,, we don't need no stinkin' neighbours!

    In fact, our nearest neighbour is on another island 2 miles down the lake. There is one other couple who are here most weekends from town, and a couple of out of town cabins used a couple of weeks a summer, then our next nearest year round neighbour is ~40 kms away.

    That said, our neighbour and us are very dependent on one another for help. We each help the other cut and haul wood, haul heavy stuff in and out, search each others shops for spares, parts to cob together a repair, but most importantly to help solve problems. My Husky saw developed a strange problem that I couldn't solve, and in 5 minutes he found a pin missing on the throttle that I had missed. His internet dish quit, and I discovered a bad piece of Coax,, and on and on.

    Treat your family well, but treat your neighbours better,,, just know their weaknesses!

    Tony
  • bryanlbryanl Solar Expert Posts: 175 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    Who was it that said something about predicting being hard, especially about the future?
    I don't "support the nay-sayers". I "oppose the certitude of the proponents", which is a different thing altogether.

    I think this is the 'debate' in a nutshell but look at what we have here.

    On the one hand we have dire predictions about the future, assertions of authority, assertions about money, assertions about groups with certain opinions, and assertions about science. On the other we have very little to no backing for such assertions.

    Yes, the physics about the greenhouse gas effect is solid but that isn't linear, it doesn't explain the time trends between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperatures, and it is only a part of the entire atmospheric engine. -- ever hear the story of the spherical chicken?

    When I look at the views of the most prominent of what have been labeled "deniers" here such as McKitrick, Pielke, Montford, Watts et al, I don't find any of them denying that there is climate change. Why such a contrast to assertions made with force and conviction in this thread?

    When I see assertions about that group being well funded, I am again confronted with a contrast between what is plainly visible and what is strongly asserted.

    Then there is the strong belief about what the future will bring, a future for which there is no precedent. Again, a strong contrast between reality and assertion.

    There are two ways these sorts of conflicts get handled. One is to examine the evidence carefully and qualify or correct the perceptions and convictions. The other is to engage in psychological defense of untenable positions. What is sad to me is that I see more of the latter and very little of the former. It seems to be a cancer in our society.
  • tallgirltallgirl Solar Expert Posts: 413 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    If they'd just be clearer that the "dire predictions" are worst-case scenarios for risk-management purposes, I suspect that

    1). They'd be believed more by the better educated folks
    2). They'd confuse the heck out of anyone who doesn't understand risk-management.

    The only thing that has me worried is that oil companies really have figured out how to recover more oil than we ever imagined being available. Canada now has more oil than the Saudis and we've get oil and gas shales that are starting to produce.
  • icarusicarus Solar Expert Posts: 5,391 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    At huge environmental cost, Natural gas burning/CO2 emission/ water pollution/ destruction of boreal forest.

    If you wish an eye opening vision of tar sands oil I suggest you might read:
    http://www.amazon.ca/Tar-Sands-Dirty-Future-Continent/dp/1553654072
  • bryanlbryanl Solar Expert Posts: 175 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    re: "The only thing that has me worried is that oil companies really have figured out how to recover more"

    and not only oil but most other natural resources - remember that bet a while back where an alarmist was challenged to choose ten natural resources that would be more expensive and more scarce in ten years?

    I think a lot of folks don't really understand just how big the earth really is.

    re: "At huge environmental cost, Natural gas burning/CO2 emission/ water pollution/ destruction of boreal forest."

    The question becomes why, if all these terrible things are happening, we have more such forest now than 200 years ago.

    It also begs the question about names like "Blue Ridge" or 'Great Smokey Mountains' and what those names are actually describing.

    Then there is the modern fire suppression efforts and their impact.

    The fact is that it is the wealth that is generated by the more efficient and better use of natural resources that has provided the means to reduce water and air pollution as well as forest recovery. That seems to bother some folks and gets back to the essence of the climate change and control issue.

    As for behavior - consider how the 'PC talking points' are being tossed out with authority but no basis. That is the essence of a hubris that, I think, should be of primary concern because it limits exploring the assumptions, presumptions, and measures behind them in an honest fashion.
  • icarusicarus Solar Expert Posts: 5,391 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    The question becomes why, if all these terrible things are happening, we have more such forest now than 200 years ago.

    I'm sorry, but you are looking at this issue from a very North American centric eye. Deforestation is a problem world wide from a variety of reasons! The earth may be a big place, but it does have finite limits. The real FACT is, humans have been belching CO2 into the atmosphere in great quantities since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The atmospheric concentration has risen by about 1/3 in that time frame.

    Considering the known fact that CO2 is an insulating greenhouse gas, it is only logical to assume that given similar heat input (solar) over that time, the increased insulation would add to global (net/net) warming.

    Once again, I would urge those that have legitimate skepticism about climate change to ignore mainstream media sources, and look at the original peer reviewed studies! Even if you are not enough of a scientist to understand all the journal entries, you can certainly can find compilations that are not filtered through those that have an axe to grind, or a vested interest in the outcome and I believe most will come away with a renewed feeling about the veracity of the science! If one only reads (or listens to FOX or the "american thinker" on the one hand, or the GreenPeace journal on the other hand you are not likely to get un-biased sources.

    The sad fact of the web is that you can spend the entire day searching the web, finding publications/blogs etc that only confirm your own point of view! (on any subject) .

    Once again, I will try to shut up!

    Tony

    PS I would also suggest that people take a virtual tour of environments other than the ones in which they live. As I have suggested, the effect of climate change is likely going to be very different in various places, East Asia, parts of Africa, as well as the obvious high latitude issues.
  • tallgirltallgirl Solar Expert Posts: 413 ✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    bryanl wrote: »
    As for behavior - consider how the 'PC talking points' are being tossed out with authority but no basis. That is the essence of a hubris that, I think, should be of primary concern because it limits exploring the assumptions, presumptions, and measures behind them in an honest fashion.

    There is a lot of scientific basis, and it all supports the conclusion -- beyond any doubt -- that we're messing with the environment.

    The only issues, and why I made the comment I did, is "What does it mean?"

    At 100% level of certainty, we know that more atmospheric CO2 means a more energetic atmosphere. How that plays out =exactly=, no one knows for sure. What scientists do know, again at 100% level of certainty, is that if it stays "okay" in one place or another, it's going to be all that much worse somewhere else because the energy balance has to balance.

    At lower levels of certainty all sorts of other things happen, down to probabilities that are fairly low, but the cost to humanity (including mass die-offs of human beings from drought, famine, starvation, etc) fairly high.
  • bryanlbryanl Solar Expert Posts: 175 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    re: "There is a lot of scientific basis, and it all supports the conclusion -- beyond any doubt -- that we're messing with the environment." -- See Mark Roberts on stewardship (Sunday's blog posting), maybe? 'Messing with the environment' is biblical so that isn't at issue. The issue, what makes it worthy of discussion here, is what is implied by the use of loaded terms like "messing" (much like Lewis noted in the use of the term "incontrovertible").

    re: "you are looking at this issue from a very North American centric eye." -- true enough. But it is against the US where most of the 'save the planet' effort is directed (not to mention the adjective that was used to describe the forests). Very little is directed at the third world where devastation of the forests is the major problem. That gets into the unpleasant reality (for some) that it is the wealth and economic system in the US that has done most for effective stewardship of the environment, which is another sticking point for those who think the US is 'messing' up the planet.

    re: "Considering the known fact that CO2 is an insulating greenhouse gas" -- an example of where learning is needed. The greenhouse gas effect is not insulating, it is a a matter of selective energy absorption and radiation. That is why I made the note about nonlinear. We are at the knee of that point on the curve where it takes a whole lot to make a small bit of difference - and we haven't seen differences that correlate well to the curve we measure in the lab.

    What is to be learned is that we need to be very careful about our biases and presumptions as seen in the words we use and we also need to be careful about the fact that sometimes our perceptions, even of measure, observation, and theory, may be a bit off. That is why we need to be self aware and keep an open mind.
  • BB.BB. Super Moderators, Administrators Posts: 29,809 admin
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    Perhaps something that can help move the conversations along--as well as our education...

    I would humbly suggest that links to sources for support/education of us all when statements like CO2 is a Green House Gas and provides insulation which will raise the average temperatures.

    Or the "everyone knows" type statements.

    Personally, I have seen "evidence" from both sides of the argument and the find them to be complex and interrelated causes and effects.

    Given that the temperature on land falls between 10-70 degrees F, or more, every night--I find it very difficult to believe that there is a long term average, measurable, heating effect from CO2 over a 1 century time period.

    Certainly, the oceans are a tremendous latent heat reservoir. And it has periods of 1,000's (or even 10,000) years... But the effect of clouds/moisture from the ocean seem to swamp the effect of CO2. I.e., when I look at the weather, I watch for clouds/fog/humidity levels--Not for PPM of CO2 or Methane, etc.

    OK--I violated the suggestion on a link per statement of "fact"--but I have to go right now--What do you guys think of links to add to the discussion?

    I will put a couple in... Atmospheric Circulation is a huge heat transfer engine for equalizing temperatures around the globe.

    And on a micro scale, it has been shown that Long Wave / Short Wave transmission insulative effects are virtually nil.

    A Green House does not work this way. The Green House Effect is caused by the prevention of Convective Currents in the air which cools the ground by caused by the heating of the sun. Glass walls simply prevent the atmosphere from circulating next to the warmed ground. This effect was first tested (scientifically) by Professor R.W Wood around 1909 (or a bit earlier):
    THERE appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the "open," the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents.

    To test the matter I constructed two enclosures of dead black cardboard, one covered with a glass plate, the other with a plate of rock-salt of equal thickness. The bulb of a thermometer was inserted in each enclosure and the whole packed in cotton, with the exception of the transparent plates which were exposed. When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 oC., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other, owing to the fact that it transmitted the longer waves from the sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate.

    There was now scarcely a difference of one degree between the temperatures of the two enclosures. The maximum temperature reached was about 55 oC. From what we know about the distribution of energy in the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a body at 55 o, it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped.

    So, a lot of conventional wisdom (probably including this statement :roll:) is wrong.

    -Bill
    Near San Francisco California: 3.5kWatt Grid Tied Solar power system+small backup genset
  • icarusicarus Solar Expert Posts: 5,391 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

    See why I didn't want to go here? Opinions and passions are strong when informed/uninformed/right/wrong/political/apolitical etc.

    If you accept any notion that there is a real issue, the causes and solutions become very political both locally and internationally.

    Tony

    PS I must add, the the reason that North American gets the "bulk of the Save the planet" effort is multifold, but the net result is generally the same. North Americans use more of the worlds resources per capita than nearly anyone else in the world, often many multiples more. Second, there is a much greater level of what I will call denial (others may call skepticism) to the issue in N. American, particularly in the US, for reasons I have stated elsewhere. The Europeans and to some lesser extent the Canadian's (levels of governments per se) have a greater recognition of the problem and the potential solutions than does the US. Additionally, North America has the resources (wealth/industrial base and educated populace) such that it should be able to afford the resources to combat the problem that they are a greater contributer to than average, and North America should be in a position to benefit from the conservation efforts and new technologies that emerge as solutions. Instead (IMHO) we are too concerned with what it will "cost us today" and we ignore the benefits going forward. We are often all too willing to sell ourselves (in this case to the Chinese) for short term balance sheet gains, but long term security/financial loss!

    So in short, we are bigger contributers to the problem, we have the resources to combat the problem, what we lack is the political will to do so. I personally feel that all the talk about "Government control" or "Government just wants to get ahold of your money from a "carbon tax" is nothing but a red herring designed at it's core to kick the can down the road. If we don't have to pay for our choices today, we don't have to worry about it,, we will let our kids worry about paying for it!.

    We can argue from now until the ice caps melt as to the extent and the speed of the climate change, but in the real world it really doesn't matter. 1degree C over a century will bring significant changes, 5 degrees more so. One might not consider 1C very significant, but if you are permafrost, and that one degree represents staying frozen or melting it is very significant! Please note that melting of permafrost will release CO2 due to methane release much faster than humans are currently releasing, very likely creating a feed back loop that is fundamentally uncontrollable. Additionally, the potential for ocean methane releases if Ocean temps rise above a certain point is also a very real possibility. (Ocean acidification due to CO2 is also considered a very serious problem).

    Once again, I would urge all those that "don't believe" or who think this is some vast "left wing/socialist/green/tax grabbing conspiracy to do some research independent ouf your usual sources. In short, I think that is is extremely selfish to potentially risk your grandchildren's futures for the sake of beginning to do something now. Even it it turns our we are wrong, the money invested in the solutions will be generally money well spent, as it will in all likely hood lead to net/net cheaper, more secure energy going forward.

    One final note. Nearly every environmental regulation has been met with nay sayers who have said it would bankrupt the country, it would be too expensive, would cost more to solve the problem than the solution was worth. I challenge anyone to look at the real record. Nearly every major environmental regulation and the technology to implement it has cost way less than predicted, and had a much higher benefit. The perfect example is Catalytic converters on cars. It was said it would cost $1000s per car and not have any appreciable benefit. The cost turned out (economy of scale) to be a few $ per car, and the benefits were huge. It is estimated that the public health savings alone exceed the cost of Cat cons by a factor of ~10. (Sometime I will post a link, but the sat is too slow right now!) The same is true of SO2 scrubbers of coal plants. Much cheaper, much better benefit.
  • solar_davesolar_dave Solar Expert Posts: 2,347 ✭✭✭✭
    Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam
    icarus wrote: »
    See why I didn't want to go here? Opinions and passions are strong when informed/uninformed/right/wrong/political/apolitical etc.

    If you accept any notion that there is a real issue, the causes and solutions become very political both locally and internationally.

    Tony

    One final note. Nearly every environmental regulation has been met with nay sayers who have said it would bankrupt the country, it would be too expensive, would cost more to solve the problem than the solution was worth. I challenge anyone to look at the real record. Nearly every major environmental regulation and the technology to implement it has cost way less than predicted, and had a much higher benefit. The perfect example is Catalytic converters on cars. It was said it would cost $1000s per car and not have any appreciable benefit. The cost turned out (economy of scale) to be a few $ per car, and the benefits were huge. It is estimated that the public health savings alone exceed the cost of Cat cons by a factor of ~10. (Sometime I will post a link, but the sat is too slow right now!) The same is true of SO2 scrubbers of coal plants. Much cheaper, much better benefit.

    Don't forget about the amount of lead that removed from the environment as well.
This discussion has been closed.