Climate Change means no more flying for you after 2050

azure said:
What we can say with confidence is that sea levels will rise and that heat waves will be more common in parts of the world. Some areas may well see colder winters.
Click to expand...
Gee, like that's never happened before in the history of the earth. That's what I like about the climate change zealots. They live in the "here and now" and totally disregard history.
 
azblackbird said:
Gee, like that's never happened before in the history of the earth. That's what I like about the climate change zealots. They live in the "here and now" and totally disregard history.
Click to expand...
Of course it's happened before, the difference is that now it may be a result of our own doing. Previously, humans could only render small pieces of the globe uninhabitable by themselves. Now our actions have global consequences.

Other than to bash "climate change zealots" (and I don't think I qualify in that group; I'm concerned about CC but skeptical of much of what the alarmist community says), I'm not sure what your point is.
 
Everskyward said:
But it doesn't negate the fact that it exists on both sides. Pressure to change regulations exists on both sides, but you are blind enough to think that it works only one way.
Click to expand...
What is your point? The scientific consensus is supposedly 97% that man is destroying the climate and we need to take measures to correct it. We are talking about money influencing the science, and it obviously points in one direction. We're not talking about 50-50 here, its 97-3. If you want to argue that Climate Deniers are driven by greed and an attempt to secure political and financial backing, then show it. This "nuh-uh, you are", thing doesn't interest me.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
Of course it's happened before, the difference is that now it may be a result of our own doing.
Click to expand...

So why did it happen independently of 'us' for million of years, but now it's possibly a result OF 'us'? So now we just change the cause since 'us' are here, when it happened without 'us' for all that time?
 
Last edited:
One other tidbit, why should America cut our own throats economically, so to speak, if other countries pollute more than us and are not willing to follow suit.
 
BrianNC said:
So why did it happen independently of 'us' for million of years, but now it's possibly a result OF 'us'? So now we just change the cause since 'us' are here, when it happened without 'us' for all that time?
Click to expand...
That's actually a very good question. And to do it justice I'd have to explain in depth how the greenhouse effect works, how we know that the increase in measured CO2 levels to date is large enough that we can expect significant warming from it, and how we know that the increase is mostly due to burning fossil fuels (i.e., due to us). I don't really have time to engage that deeply now (the fall semester is coming up in 2 weeks). The answers to all of these questions are easily gotten with a little searching online; Google is your friend. The Skeptical Science website is a good starting place, though it's a bit doctrinaire and dogmatic about "the consensus". If you have a more mathematical or hard science bent I'd recommend Science of Doom.
 
1RTK1 said:
One other tidbit, why should America cut our own throats economically, so to speak, if other countries pollute more than us and are not willing to follow suit.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone here is arguing that we should "cut our own throats economically" at all, regardless of what other countries do. At least I'm not arguing that.
 
1RTK1 said:
One other tidbit, why should America cut our own throats economically, so to speak, if other countries pollute more than us and are not willing to follow suit.
Click to expand...
I was just in China. I haven't seen so many electric vehicles before outside of a slot car show. Motorcycles, cars, delivery trucks, auto rickshaws. And charging stations to support them. They are working to curb their pollution, their own people are getting fed up with the smog. My friends and colleagues there are always in awe of the pictures I send them from here because the skies here seem so blue to them.

Visits to Beijing and Shanghai (and other places) make me glad of the clean air act.

The image below was the nicest, clearest day during my time there:
JAK_1474 by Jack Silver, on Flickr
 
To a point, I hope they follow suit with cleaning up industrial pollution too.. I have heard they are a little slow in that aspect. Wonder how India is doing with there standards.
 
1RTK1 said:
Agreed, but we are aren't we? That's important too....
Click to expand...
I'm actually not sure what you're getting at. We're certainly not economically disadvantaging ourselves to cut carbon emissions. Thanks to kickstarting by government subsidies, the renewable energy industry is doing pretty well in many parts of this country. That's an industry in the process of growing and maturing, and I'd say that's a healthy sign. Although several auto companies are working on electric cars, the demand here isn't that great for them and they are still pricey, so thus far they aren't selling that well, and that's as it should be. If we were forcing people to buy them then I'd agree with you, but we're not. The only industry that has really suffered is the coal industry, and that's due more to the low cost of other fossil fuels (especially natural gas) than emissions cutting policies.

We could be doing more without hurting ourselves... IMO we should be trying to keep existing nuclear plants alive where there aren't real safety concerns, and we could ease the regulatory burdens on new, modern design nuclear plants to make it less onerous to build and bring new plants online. But that's a matter of political will, and public fear of anything "nuclear".
 
Cooter said:
What is your point? The scientific consensus is supposedly 97% that man is destroying the climate and we need to take measures to correct it. We are talking about money influencing the science, and it obviously points in one direction. We're not talking about 50-50 here, its 97-3. If you want to argue that Climate Deniers are driven by greed and an attempt to secure political and financial backing, then show it. This "nuh-uh, you are", thing doesn't interest me.
Click to expand...
What make you think that it's only money that's driving the 97% result?
 
Cooter said:
6,000-10,000, but what's a few thousand years between friends? And yes, we still exist and contrary to popular belief, we're not flat-earthers and we don't all handle snakes. :)

Hey........where's everybody going?........ I know, I know, leave it to the religious nut to kill a good discussion!
Click to expand...

A few thousand years when discussing the age of the earth as being between 4 to 5 billion years ain't squat. It's downright nuts though to have a margin of error of a few thousand years when the top of your range is just 10,000 years. And it's even nuttier when those numbers are not based on any scientific studies but rather some mythological texts.
 
SkyDog58 said:
A few thousand years when discussing the age of the earth as being between 4 to 5 billion years ain't squat. It's downright nuts though to have a margin of error of a few thousand years when the top of your range is just 10,000 years. And it's even nuttier when those numbers are not based on any scientific studies but rather some mythological texts.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of science and the facts are the facts. What's differs are the assumptions.
The Bible does not necessitate a 6000 year old earth. There is plenty of disagreement within the church about how those text should be interpreted. I do not have a firm position on it one way or another, but the evidence leads me to believe it is not billions of years old.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
What make you think that it's only money that's driving the 97% result?
Click to expand...
I don't. But it does drive some of it. I provided a quote from a respected climate scientist above, and I have others that I can provide. I was trying not to be a bore.

Assume you want a grant for your academic department. Which do you think is more likely to put you in the running? A study on the catastrophic effects of MMGW, or a study on how we minimally influence the climate? And, which do you think would more likely lead to future grants?

Our minds are not simply data processors, and that applies to scientist as well. Our thinking operates in categories and paradigms that help us to process and understand the data. Those paradigms can be influenced whether we recognize it or not. Science has been wrong in the past, and science has been influenced in the past. There are cultural and financial pressures to find support for the reigning paradigms, not to bust them.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
I'm actually not sure what you're getting at. We're certainly not economically disadvantaging ourselves to cut carbon emissions. Thanks to kickstarting by government subsidies, the renewable energy industry is doing pretty well in many parts of this country. That's an industry in the process of growing and maturing, and I'd say that's a healthy sign. Although several auto companies are working on electric cars, the demand here isn't that great for them and they are still pricey, so thus far they aren't selling that well, and that's as it should be. If we were forcing people to buy them then I'd agree with you, but we're not. The only industry that has really suffered is the coal industry, and that's due more to the low cost of other fossil fuels (especially natural gas) than emissions cutting policies.

We could be doing more without hurting ourselves... IMO we should be trying to keep existing nuclear plants alive where there aren't real safety concerns, and we could ease the regulatory burdens on new, modern design nuclear plants to make it less onerous to build and bring new plants online. But that's a matter of political will, and public fear of anything "nuclear".
Click to expand...

You don't live in kalifornia and have had to deal with the Air resource boards regulations.
 
1RTK1 said:
To a point, I hope they follow suit with cleaning up industrial pollution too.. I have heard they are a little slow in that aspect. Wonder how India is doing with there standards.
Click to expand...
The Chinese certainly are working on that aspect. But they have people that flout the laws there, until they get caught. They do have some ways to go. They are also amazed when I send them pictures of deer, turkey, and bears running around since they say they only see wildlife in their zoos. That's one reason Asian tourists are some of the "worst offenders" with the animals in Yellowstone- they think the animals are tamed and the place is a giant petting zoo!

As for India- they are slower. I was in Kolkata once when the government was working to have the auto rickshaws converted to run on natural gas. People wrote in and said similar things to what I read in this thread. "They smog is always here, it predates industry", "It will cost too much to change", "the scientists are being paid off by the natural gas companies to link the pollution to the rickshaws". So the BJP* party organized a strike of all the rickshaw drivers in Kolkata. It sadly backfired- By the afternoon of the strike day, the sky was showing hints of blue, we could see the planes enroute to/from CCU (VECC to us). Nicest day in years! The rickshaws are all NG now, and they are working but my personal experience is they lag China.

In both places, I work with lab people and researchers.

* http://www.bjp.org/
 
Cooter said:
I don't. But it does drive some of it. I provided a quote from a respected climate scientist above, and I have others that I can provide. I was trying not to be a bore.

Assume you want a grant for your academic department. Which do you think is more likely to put you in the running? A study on the catastrophic effects of MMGW, or a study on how we minimally influence the climate? And, which do you think would more likely lead to future grants?

Our minds are not simply data processors, and that applies to scientist as well. Our thinking operates in categories and paradigms that help us to process and understand the data. Those paradigms can be influenced whether we recognize it or not. Science has been wrong in the past, and science has been influenced in the past. There are cultural and financial pressures to find support for the reigning paradigms, not to bust them.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is probably rather easy to get a grant to show minimal effects on the climate. I've had research funded by the American Petroleum Institute (but nothing to do with the climate).
 
*sigh*
Dunning-Kruger-Effect.jpg

Why is this thread not locked yet? This doesn't belong here.
 
Last edited:
azblackbird said:
Gee, like that's never happened before in the history of the earth. That's what I like about the climate change zealots. They live in the "here and now" and totally disregard history.
Click to expand...

Yes, and there was a point in the past that the CO2 level was 7000ppm, the global temperature was 25C, and the world was a single continent. 7000ppm is probably even survivable by humans - most of us at least.

We'll be fine as a species, (almost) no matter what we do. But our cities aren't exactly built to be mobile. If the sea level changes now, it costs us money. LOTS of money.
 
Cooter said:
Assume you want a grant for your academic department. Which do you think is more likely to put you in the running? A study on the catastrophic effects of MMGW, or a study on how we minimally influence the climate? And, which do you think would more likely lead to future grants?
Click to expand...
Do you have any experience as a scientist in trying to get an academic grant? Or is this just a guess on your part.
 
Everskyward said:
Do you have any experience as a scientist in trying to get an academic grant? Or is this just a guess on your part.
Click to expand...
I believe he may be resting firmly on the left-most peak of the chart I just posted ;)
 
1RTK1 said:
You don't live in kalifornia and have had to deal with the Air resource boards regulations.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that's California. When you said "we", I thought you meant the US.

Vermont was on the way to committing economic semi-suicide in the name of climate change as well... with plans to allow wind turbines on ridge tops all over the state. Not a good thing in a state that gets a large fraction of its income from tourism. But that's not likely to happen soon now, thanks in part to our new governor.
 
Cooter said:
Look out! Here comes a zinger from Left Field!:yikes:

It funny how this always comes up. But, engaging it will certainly result in the thread being locked. So, I'll pass unless you want to discuss it via open PM. But, most political discussion eventually make their way back to root beliefs about God, purpose, meaning, etc. Maybe we should just skip political topics and just jump right to religion?:popcorn::stirpot:
Click to expand...
Well one has to consider that politics is just a continuation of religion by other means...
 
Everskyward said:
Do you have any experience as a scientist in trying to get an academic grant? Or is this just a guess on your part.
Click to expand...
It was a question, and you didn't answer it. This may be a good time to bow out, I see how once again that those on the left have to make it personal.
 
Cooter said:
It was a question, and you didn't answer it. This may be a good time to bow out, I see how once again that those on the left have to make it personal.
Click to expand...
I am not a scientist either, but one one of them answered your question in post #219.
 
Everskyward said:
I am not a scientist either, but one one of them answered your question in post #219.
Click to expand...
No he didn't. But it doesn't matter, your elementary distractions are stopping the conversation not furthering it. As I said earlier, it doesn't interest me unless you have something to contribute, and it doesn't appear you do.
 
Salty said:
That didn't answer the question. At least it wasn't a straight answer. "Below 2 degrees increase" is not a valid answer to the question "what is the ideal temperature."
Click to expand...

16 degrees C average global temperature is considered the point at which we have to start moving cities and farms to other places. 20th century average was 13.9. We were at 14.84 last year.
 
Cooter said:
No he didn't. But it doesn't matter, your elementary distractions are stopping the conversation not furthering it. As I said earlier, it doesn't interest me unless you have something to contribute, and it doesn't appear you do.
Click to expand...
The reason what I have to say doesn't interest you is that I am not agreeing with you. You don't even know what my position is. The only thing I stated is that there has been hyperbole on BOTH sides.
 
Everskyward said:
The reason what I have to say doesn't interest you is that I am not agreeing with you. You don't even know what my position is. The only thing I stated is that there has been hyperbole on BOTH sides.
Click to expand...
That's pure conjecture on your part. I don't care to interact with someone who won't state their position. Disagreement doesn't bother me, obviously. Distraction does.
 
Cooter said:
That's pure conjecture on your part. I don't care to interact with someone who won't state their position. Disagreement doesn't bother me, obviously. Distraction does.
Click to expand...
Well, since I'm a glutton for punishment:

I'm sure you'll explain this away just like how flat-Earthers rationalize their absurd beliefs but here's some good science. Feel free to delve into the real report to see the actual hard numbers.
http://www.noaa.gov/news/international-report-confirms-2016-was-warmest-year-on-record-for-globe

Just to be perfectly clear where I stand because that seems to be an issue:
Man-made climate change is very real - I believe it's not that big of an issue ecologically - just expensive. But where's the harm in being more environmentally friendly? Even if scientists were wrong about climate change (which they're not, I'm not even sure how this is really still debated in this country) technological advancements as well as more efficient transportation and production is just not a bad thing.

Edit - and like @Everskyward says there is most definitely hyperbole on both sides. I have seen some VERY aggressive climate change models with some pretty drastic assumptions made. But flat out denying it is pretty absurd too.
 
Last edited:
deonb said:
We'll be fine as a species, (almost) no matter what we do. But our cities aren't exactly built to be mobile. If the sea level changes now, it costs us money. LOTS of money.
Click to expand...
No different than it was many 1000's of years ago when people were forced to move because of drought, famine, plague, or flooding. The climate change zealots act as if the the oceans will swell 10ft. overnight and flood entire coastlines and cause all kinds of mass hysteria. Take my word for it... there will be a s**t ton more problems for mankind to worry about before the masses of NY or LA have to worry about water coming up to their doorsteps.

FYI... you do realize AZ was once on the bottom of an ocean. Took us a few million years to finally dry out. I'm always finding remnants and fossils of the previous sea life that inhabited our state.
 
So do any of you folks who are concerned about climate change fly planes for fun? If yes, how in the world can you live with yourself? Think of the children!
 
I had a thermodynamics professor that was awesome and had presentations every couple weeks that discussed the various renewable energy types - their pros and cons, shortfalls and potential, etc. He discussed "climate change" briefly here and there. Politically he kept it very neutral which I really appreciated. He now does some sort of energy research (I believe it may be for the department of energy). The point is he wasn't some fanatic professor way out in left field (which quite frankly isn't an unusual thing in the university environment).

I am all for taking care of our planet...but some of these folks are just plane silly!
 
Cooter said:
That's pure conjecture on your part. I don't care to interact with someone who won't state their position. Disagreement doesn't bother me, obviously. Distraction does.
Click to expand...
For someone who doesn't want to interact with me, you sure quote me often. ;)

Today my alerts have mostly been from your replies.
 
azure said:
Of course it's happened before, the difference is that now it may be a result of our own doing. Previously, humans could only render small pieces of the globe uninhabitable by themselves. Now our actions have global consequences.
Click to expand...
As I stated previously... mankind is nothing but a gnat on an elephant's ass in what Mother Nature has in store for us. I'm a history and geology buff. I've seen the damage done by man against mother nature. Mother nature always wins. It may take her a little time (relative to us, but a blink of an eye to her) to repair herself, but she will always win. Remember that! ;)
 
Cooter said:
I don't. But it does drive some of it. I provided a quote from a respected climate scientist above, and I have others that I can provide. I was trying not to be a bore.

Assume you want a grant for your academic department. Which do you think is more likely to put you in the running? A study on the catastrophic effects of MMGW, or a study on how we minimally influence the climate? And, which do you think would more likely lead to future grants?

Our minds are not simply data processors, and that applies to scientist as well. Our thinking operates in categories and paradigms that help us to process and understand the data. Those paradigms can be influenced whether we recognize it or not. Science has been wrong in the past, and science has been influenced in the past. There are cultural and financial pressures to find support for the reigning paradigms, not to bust them.
Click to expand...

Cap'n Jack said:
Actually, it is probably rather easy to get a grant to show minimal effects on the climate. I've had research funded by the American Petroleum Institute (but nothing to do with the climate).
Click to expand...

Everskyward said:
Do you have any experience as a scientist in trying to get an academic grant? Or is this just a guess on your part.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be that hard to find out "scientifically". Just count the number of papers. Scientists don't typically do work on things that won't feed their families.

I'll really blow up the thread with this one, but it's been studied more... there's severe evidence of this sort of shenanigans in the gun control non-debate. Pay for the assumptions you want in a paper is what both sides do there. Clearly.

There is little evidence in human history that scientists have become super-human and are immune to such things, so it's really a quite reasonable assertion.

Of course many people of science believe today that Galileo was tortured by the church for his heresy... and that's not true either. More like pampered...

"Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the source of controversy, previously had been read and approved by the Church's censors; and Pope Urban VIII, who presided over the trial, was Galileo's friend and admirer. Consider also: prior to the trial, Galileo stayed in the Tuscan embassy; during the trial, he was put up in a six-room apartment, complete with servant; following the trial, his "house arrest" consisted of being entertained at the palaces of the grand duke of Tuscany and the Archbishop of Siena. Galileo, apparently, was no ordinary heretic."

There's a number of coddled scientists today, collecting nice paychecks too, as long as their study is passed through the slightly more unofficial censorship of popularity. Nothing new under the Sun, even if it isn't the center of the Universe anymore. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top