Main Menu

It's a bit warm/ wet/ cold outside

Started by The Enigmatic Dr X, 24 July, 2019, 09:35:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Legendary Shark


The IPCC is a political body which was set up to assess the work of climate scientists and issue reports thereon. It is not a scientific body at all. It decides which research to accept and which research to reject based on political policy. Therefore, any research on the effects of the sun or cosmic rays, for example, can be excluded as it does not support the anthropogenic aspect - which does indeed exist. (For example, the IPCC's next report (AR6, due 2022), I believe, contains 784 authors, but no geologists - surely a vital discipline in determining historical climate data and trends.) This is how it can make the claim that 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made, because all the data it looks at comes from scientists studying this narrow aspect of the problem.

Further, the final reports are not issued until they have been thoroughly vetted by governmental political representatives.

Politics, as we all know, relies heavily upon correctly framing the issues for maximum impact and hoping nobody notices the gaps or vilifying those who do.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark


This is not to say, of course, that all the presented papers are bunk - just spotlighted for political/industrial/economic purposes. It's valid, but it's not comprehensive.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark


Aww, thanks, JBC. It's a genuine pleasure to interact with people like you - with whom I can disagree without falling out.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




radiator

QuoteThe IPCC is a political body which was set up to assess the work of climate scientists and issue reports thereon. It is not a scientific body at all. It decides which research to accept and which research to reject based on political policy. Therefore, any research on the effects of the sun or cosmic rays, for example, can be excluded as it does not support the anthropogenic aspect - which does indeed exist. (For example, the IPCC's next report (AR6, due 2022), I believe, contains 784 authors, but no geologists - surely a vital discipline in determining historical climate data and trends.) This is how it can make the claim that 95% of climate scientists agree that climate change is man-made, because all the data it looks at comes from scientists studying this narrow aspect of the problem.

Further, the final reports are not issued until they have been thoroughly vetted by governmental political representatives.

Politics, as we all know, relies heavily upon correctly framing the issues for maximum impact and hoping nobody notices the gaps or vilifying those who do.

It's extremely easy to understand why certain parties have a vested interest in denying or downplaying climate change.

It's much harder to imagine what anyone stands to gain from manufacturing or exaggerating the threat...

IndigoPrime

Quite. Most of the shitty politics is aligned with "carry on fucking things up", which says a lot. But say we don't. We invest in a sustainable, cleaner future. OH NO, WHAT A BAD THING.

Jim_Campbell

Leaving aside Shark peddling a line of unutterable shite he's peddled before, had comprehensively debunked, and repeated without so much as a hint of recognition of the arguments against...

Technologies exist that are capable of pulling CO₂ out of the air. Yes, in many ways most of them are problematic, but the simple truth is this:

Fossil fuels are going away. There are thermal solar power plants in various parts of the world producing electricity right now at unit costs equivalent to natural gas. Internal combustion engine vehicles are going to be replaced by electric, and self-driving vehicles will answer many of the criticisms that still exist for those. We're at a tipping point with these things — by the middle of the century, they'll be gone.

(Yes, there are unsolved issues like air travel and bulk sea transport, but sorting out power generation and road transport would cut CO₂ emissions enough to buy time for solutions to these remaining use cases to be found.)

But none of this is worth a damn if the oceans become too hot and too acidic to support life.

We need to change the conversation. Carbon capture at scale is the only way we save the planet. The money Elon fucking Musk is throwing at getting off the planet could easily save our own if it was thrown at carbon capture.

There's an argument that carbon capture will only encourage the production of more greenhouse gases and that only changing the fundamental basis of our economies will solve the problem in the long term, but we don't have that luxury.

If the patient has lung cancer, but is also bleeding out, you need to stop the bleeding before you persuade them to stop smoking.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: radiator on 24 July, 2019, 09:19:13 PM


It's much harder to imagine what anyone stands to gain from manufacturing or exaggerating the threat...


I did not say that the threat was manufactured or exaggerated but that the political solutions are far too narrow and limited.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 24 July, 2019, 11:22:46 PM

Leaving aside Shark peddling a line of unutterable shite he's peddled before, had comprehensively debunked, and repeated without so much as a hint of recognition of the arguments against...



Debunked by one or more of your beloved logical fallacies? I'll save us both the time and trouble, Jim:

You: You're wrong.
Me: Counter argument.
You: Swear, swear, sweary swear, swear.
Me: There's no need for that.
You: I'm tired and I don't know why I bother.
Me: Okay, but...
You: * ~ *  t u m b l e w e e d  * ~ *

Anyway, none of this changes the fact that I've been sweating my plumbs off gardening under a merciless sun all week and will be sweating my plumbs off gardening under a merciless sun all day today* but tomorrow is my day off so I'll be sweating my plumbs off  under a merciless sun whilst sat on the veranda (the flagged area outside my shed), sipping cocktails (fizzy pop) and reading erudite journals (2000ADs).


*And doesn't that seem daft? Burning fuel and emitting pollution in order to trim carbon dioxide consuming plants? I'd love to ban the electric/petrol garden tools but I'm too old and unfit to do it all with push-mowers and manual shears - which seems like a decent encapsulation of the problem. I'd love to save us from ourselves but I can't be arsed/afford it/deal with the consequences - best leave it to our trustworthy government.

Ah well, off out into the merciless sun to sweat my plumbs off I go. Wish me luck!

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




IndigoPrime


The Legendary Shark


Quote from: IndigoPrime on 25 July, 2019, 08:57:04 AM
Here's something even more bleak: https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/facing-extinction-humans-animals-plants-species_n_5d2ddc04e4b0a873f6420bd3

This is of course an op-ed, but it's nonetheless good for thought.

Damn it, that site won't let me unless I give them "...consent to access [my] device and use [my] data (including location) to understand
[my] interests, and provide and measure
personalised ads."

Nope. Sorry.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




IndigoPrime

It's HuffPo. Just tell it to piss off regarding cookies. Or perhaps try the Amp version.

The Legendary Shark


Thanks, I.P. Can't get 'round it on this old 'phone of mine so I'll have to try it when I can get my lappy on-line and fire up the Tor.

Extinctions are a worry - the butterfly effect means we can never be sure of the consequences :(

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




IndigoPrime

The article is significantly more bleak than that, as you'll discover. There was a line in it that made me want to cry, but I just ended up frozen. Ultimately, I suspect the article is probably about right, although the timescale may be off. (The question is what we can do, in terms of mitigation, and if there will ever be widespread will.)

Incidentally, anyone interested in The Great Filter theory may find this interesting. Not that every kind of life would necessarily be like ours, but it outlines why there aren't aliens zipping about everywhere.

The Legendary Shark


Just Googled that. Interesting theory.

One of the possibilities I've imagined (or read, forgotten, and recalled then mistaken for my own idea) is that alien civilisations don't use radio because there's a better way that we haven't discovered yet. Ditto technology.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




IndigoPrime

On the aliens front, there are plenty of reasons why we haven't seen any, and probably never will. Space is _vast_, and the universe's age is also. So even if the universe is, relatively speaking, teeming with life, the chances of advanced civilisations meeting is miniscule. (It's more likely – if still not hugely likely – humans may at some point find some other lifeforms elsewhere, although only if we don't wipe ourselves out first.)

On the end game front, that article paints a bleak picture, and as I sit here melting today am finding it hard to disagree with.

Hawkmumbler

Are these lads a joke to you gentlemen?