As the example of how we in the developed world got clean water and sewage systems shows, you only get a fraction of what actually is done in cases like the one at hand.
You are right, it is pointless for you. As I have seen many times the reason why you claim things like the scientists are not committing fraud, but at the next moment you report or imply that things like with the surveys about the consensus are fraudulent shows that your efforts are mostly geared to toss bones to your peers that would feel upset if you do not do so.
Looking at your list I have to say that you are aware of what is going on, but your view of the surveys of the consensus and the number of scientific papers shows a basic contradiction, that and comparing scientists to low criminals. I can see only a miasma of contradicting posts coming from you like in many past threads.
As I have seen in many reports contradictions like that are coming mostly as a result of political or ideological leanings.
If by “I really wasn’t trying to be scientific” you mean “I really have no concern at all about accuracy”, then I agree. The fact in this case, that you are apparently unable to grasp, is that the growth of Antarctic sea ice has a direct positive correlation with Antarctic warming and the melt of the Antarctic ice sheets, for the reasons I stated. ** It means the opposite of what the nitwits writing denialist blogs claim it does**, and what you apparently thought it meant. Some of those writing denialist blogs know it’s deceptive but they post it anyway, but I’m quite willing to assume that you just didn’t know better.
I have no idea where you’re going with this. Do you honestly want to know how I feel about those pronouncements? Why?
OK. I think most of it is correct, and some of it is deceptive, and none of it means anything without scientific understanding and context.
Example:#3: CO2 concentration has increased from about 295ppm in 1900 to about 404 now.
To the average Joe, those are just some numbers. Some questions to establish context:
what is the highest CO2 concentration the earth has routinely reached during the last 800,000 years of glacial cycles? How does that compare with 400 ppm?
what is the quantitative difference between CO2 levels at glacial minima and at glacial maxima, the two climate extremes the earth experiences in glacial cycles? What does that tell us about the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 levels? How does this compare with what we’ve added to the carbon cycle since industrialization?
when was the last time the earth’s atmosphere had 400 ppm of CO2?
Example:#4: Human activity has played a part in this increase. I’d say 1/3 at the very least, probably much more.
You’d say “1/3 at the very least”? Based on what? Maybe you should look at this chart of CO2 levels. Or this one, over a period of 800,000 years.
How come CO2 levels were so incredibly stable and took off like a rocket just as industrialization started burning fossil fuels? If human activity is only contributing a relatively small fraction of the incremental CO2, where the hell is the rest of it coming from, and conversely, where the hell is the 35 billion or so metric tonnes that we dump into the atmosphere every year going? And how come the ratio of [sup]13[/sup]C to [sup]12[/sup]C carbon isotopes in the atmosphere has been dropping since industrialization, reflecting the lower isotopic ratios present in fossil fuels?
Example:#1: The average temperature of the Earth increased about 1°C from 1900 to today.
I can hear Joe Denier laughing. One degree? The temperature can change more than that over one single day!
More questions: Do you have any understanding of why this is significant? Do you imagine that this is the equilibrium temperature for the present level of CO2? What, in fact, is the CO2 level we’ll stabilize at? 600 ppm? 800? What are the equilibrium temperatures for that? Do you understand how rapid these changes are compared to any natural changes, and consequent impacts on both the climatological and biological systems on this planet? And what will the effects be on extreme weather, local climate changes like floods and droughts, crop losses, property destruction and loss of life, and large-scale ecosystem impacts?
OK, just one more:
Example:#5: Climate is a super-complex system and the cause-effect relations of the many factors are not always clear. Many are clear, at least in first and second order.
Like many other truisms, this is, well, true. But what does it mean? In particular, what should it mean to someone like yourself who has "clearly and unequivocally [stated] that “[the scientific consensus on AGW is] not a mere majority of specialists. It’s an overwhelming one.”
It means that, if you honestly believe that, then you trust what the science and the scientists have to say, rather than relying on your own gut, your own prejudices and beliefs, your own wishful thinking. After all, if the issue is so “super-complex”, how can you possibly know more about it than the consensus of the thousands of the world’s leading climate scientists?
And what the science and the scientists have to say is pretty fairly and succinctly summed up in this joint statement [PDF file] by the world’s leading national academies of science:
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
… We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments to help develop and implement the national and international response to the challenge of climate change.
Added to this is footnote 3, stating that “We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”, and a six-point action plan beginning with a call on world leaders to “acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing” and to build on the work of the IPCC to define and enforce emissions targets.
To claim to accept the scientific consensus but reject this particular scientific consensus, or to accept both but continue to insist that we should not take serious action to mitigate climate change is, I will say again, a syndrome identified in clinical psychology as cognitive dissonance, that peculiar rationalization of denial that occurs when we encounter facts that contradict deeply held beliefs or preferences.
Even when I state scientific facts that you agree with I’m “deceptive” and I get treated like an ignorant because I don’t make a treatise of each point. You can’t simply say yes to the most basic points because you’re afraid of ever agreeing with a sceptic.
Nice not debating with you.
Bye.
Of course, the Aji de Gallina does ignore the very example of him claiming that the consensus is deceptive, but at the same time he tell us that the vast majority of scientists do indeed agree. IMHO the idea here is to at least acknowledge most of the audience the Aji has over here, it is clear that him pushing for extreme doubts is made then for the people that do have a political stake on declaring that this issue is a hoax.
As I noticed before the game of contrarians that are more sophisticated is to claim that they are not contrarians or deniers, but they end up pushing extreme and baseless doubts anyway, it has to be noted that this is now mostly based on political reasons, it is geared to help the deniers in positions in power and the ones that support them to continue with their denial.
Neil Degase Tyson expected the Republicans and conservatives to eventually yield to science as it will in reality in the end help protect the wealth of our nation (and all other nations too). Unfortunately there are many smart contrarians that do know a lot of what is going on, but they can not picture themselves being voted out of the island of their peers and friends. Problem is that that behaviour also encourages the Republicans to follow what denier sources continue to spew and so it looks that now Tyson continues to be wrong in expecting the light to shine on the current crop of Republicans.
Indeed, The Bad Astronomer (AKA Phil Plait), that was expected.
I will not be surprised that since the **Aji de Gallina **accepts that the temperature has increased that he also accepts that cap ice is melting at the poles specially (Polar amplification of the temperatures is real indeed), but it is vital for the ‘well-being’ of deniers out there to ensure that they continue to hear the red herring about the extent of the ice around the Antarctic.
Declaring that it was a record avoids the important item, that extent of ice over the sea does not contribute to the rise of the oceans that the continuing loss of cap ice will cause, and there is evidence that an acceleration of the loss of cap ice is happening now.
As we can see just in this thread, one thing about Deniers is that there’s a whole hierarchy. At one extreme there are some who can’t imagine that CO[sub]2[/sub] could have an effect at a concentration of less than 0.05% in the atmosphere. These are the same who laugh at scientists whenever it snows. A slightly better-informed group will focus on what FauxNews wants them to believe about the Climategate e-mails.
But then you have some who post a laundry list of things they believe: CO[sub]2[/sub] is a greenhouse gas, temperatures have risen, Al Gore doesn’t really outspend Big Oil. And then they spring some “gotcha”: A trivial fact they think thousands of climatologists have somehow overlooked. In this case, the gotcha was Antarctic sea ice – just one step up from the redneck who tossed a snowaball in the Senate. With ships needing to be rescued from the sea ice, FauxNews and the Hoaxsters had a field day.
SDMB is a refreshing change from some blogs where it often seems like the 6th-grade science students are debating with the 7th-grade students. Well, here’s a tip for the 7th-graders: All else equal, if sea water were freezing, levels of the open sea would be falling. They’re not – they’re rising. There is huge drainage from Antarctica’s ice mass (though most comes right back as snowfall). … And yes, some freshwater turns into sea ice. The sea ice is dwarfed by the 75 gigatonne (and accelerating) net annual loss from Antarctica, but, like the fact it snowed at Imhofe’s house, is far more visible.
For visible land ice reductions, consider the Himalayas or, closer to home, the Sierra Nevada: with downstream water consumers being menaced by future shortages.
I’m reminded of another climate change discussion in this forum. I mentioned that the 2000’s had eight Category-5 Atlantic hurricanes compared with only two in the 1990’s. I was informed that this statistic was useless – only hurricanes that made landfall in the U.S. counted. :smack: :eek:
You are confused about the difference between the ability to solve a problem and the will to solve it.
The problems you mention did not require personal sacrifice of any kind, and whatever cost was involved was relatively trivial for an individual. It certainly did not require a diminution in lifestyle.
If we are to solve for overproduction of AGW gasses in enough time to make a difference, we need to pay a cost today that is too substantial. Neither Al Gore nor Joe Tanzania are going to personally sacrifice; the taxpayer is not going to publicly sacrifice.
So what is going to happen is a lot of handwringing and lipsticking while various experiments try to make the energy grid greener but still competitive financially.
Pay attention, I also showed why the political will is not there, there are indeed other things we have to do besides using our consumer power.
You really ignored what Richard Alley told us after consulting with many economists (and this was mentioned many times before) To control cholera and many other diseases and problems brought by not having reliable clean water and a sewage system; the people in the developed countries accepted that, to have a better lifestyle too, about 1% of the GDP had to be invested and then used to maintain that cleanup system.
The same amount has been calculated that will have to be invested and used for the maintenance of the systems and technology that will be deployed to control our emissions, we can not continue to use our atmosphere as a sewer.
As noted before many times your tactic is to tell us again about the problem, and not about what needs to be done. There is also a continuous showing of ignorance about what the experts are telling us about how to get to a solution. There is also the item that many skeptics can tell you that this change is happening already* the point is that there is still a lot that can be done to prevent even more dire scenarios.
*Of course many skepticts that are really contrarians continue to repeat many denier myths while at the same time they harp about that, their idea -seen many times in this message board too- is to claim that industry alone will take care of the issue, forgetting that history shows that it will be much faster and efficient to control the issue with the power of our governments in concert with industry.
Our job is to encourage concerted efforts by the government and industry, that is the most important thing that will give us the most significant change.
Just how many Senate and House seats are owned outright by Exxon, and how many do they have controlling interest? I don’t believe this is public information anymore. Is it really true that frackers are exempt from filing environmental impact reports?
For the typical coal miner, this isn’t a hoax … this is about his job … for some this is reason enough to deny AGW.
Sort of, but it’s probably more attributable to regulatory lack of foresight than anything nefarious.
EIRs are strictly a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement, which (as the name implies) only applies to California. You’re probably thinking of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the national version of CEQA.
CEQA is triggered whenever a project requires an agency to take action a project (more or less). That project must have undergone CEQA evaluation for the permit to be issued. This includes everything from changing zoning to building a massive factory, so there are lots of CEQA reports. They can range from categorical exemptions to full EIRs.
California is putting together a programmatic EIR for fracking. Essentially, it’s looking at whether elements of fracking require specific evaluation or whether some elements can be categorically exempted from the requirements. This approach isn’t unusual for common industrial operations and can range from “this activity is inherently insignificant and does not require additional CEQA analysis” to “this type of activity is always case-by-case and always requires project-specific analysis.” In between is “this type of project doesn’t need evaluation for (air quality, water quality, aesthetics…) but should be evaluated for other categories.”
Theoretically, all current fracking should have been evaluated under CEQA already; however, some activities slip through the CEQA cracks. A developer asks for Project A (natural gas extraction) and it gets approved and permitted. The developer wants to do related activity and sees that the permits don’t prohibit it and he requires no additional permitting for it, so he shifts to Project A’ (fracking). Project A’ wasn’t included in the original EIR impact assessment and shouldn’t have been allowed under the permits, but it wasn’t anticipated by the permits and wasn’t prohibited.
Projects are less likely to trigger NEPA, which triggers when federal agencies are required to take action on a project (more or less). Since the federal government is less involved with day to day actions than local agencies, projects under NEPA tend to be bigger or interstate affairs.
The situation with NEPA appears to be more or less the same. Gas extraction was permitted after undergoing NEPA review. Fracking wasn’t evaluated, but it wasn’t prohibited. It falls within the range of described activities, so they’re doing it some places.
It wasn’t a hoax for science to be 97% certain for 34 years that the planet was doomed from Human CO2. But goose stepping “believers” were 100% certain and told their own children science wasn’t “ALLOWED” to say it was “proven” they were doomed.
And now, after 34 years of climate action failure only unstoppable denial is now; “certain”.
Deniers “believe” decades of needless exaggeration, panic and fear mongering of vague science to billions of children can only be a crime against humanity in the history books.
Deny that.
Science only “agreed” with 97% certainty for the worst crisis imaginable actually happening so let’s all just be happy they couldn’t be “certain”.
It wasn’t a hoax, it was an exaggeration of vague science. It’s a good thing.
No it is not a good thing, in one clear area the scientists actually underestimated the rate of change:
It is now more likely that, regarding the ocean rise that cap ice collapse means, we are more likely to see a few feet of ocean rise by mid century instead of the end of the century when no acceleration of the loss of that cap ice was observed; well, now it is.
