General > General Technical Chat
heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
<< < (63/67) > >>
vad:
But there is no debate, as stated by Dr. Judith Curry. Only research confirming climate concerns is rewarded; journals decline to publish articles that do not align with certain political viewpoints, and scientists are hesitant to voice their opinions due to potential career repercussions.
vad:
Alright, let's assume the new "climate change" religion is correct: humanity is on a path towards hell (literally - take a look at Venus). The Greens are our saviors, and people must abstain from certain activities, like stop burning fossil fuels, to be saved.

The top four CO2 emitters globally are China, the US, India, and Russia. The US is moving in a positive direction; for instance, soon, gas stoves won't be available, so wood-burning stoves might see a resurgence, particularly among lower-income individuals. After all, firewood is a renewable resource.

However, the biggest concern isn't just CO2 emissions from developed world. The real issue is the elephant in the room: China. China's CO2 emissions exceed the combined emissions of the US, EU, and Japan. Additionally, there's India and Russia to consider.

Here is the question: how can our "climate change" preachers persuade Russia, India, and China to halt their harmful actions? Going to war is not a viable option I guess. I'm genuinely curious.
Bicurico:
The main reason China is on the top in CO2 emissions is because they produce most products we consume.

If western countries would have kept their factories locally, then western countries would have much higher CO2 emissions and China, in consequence, would have less.

I already said it in the beginning of this thread:

1) The main "environmental problem" is due to human over population. We need to go back to being 2.000.000.000 people on earth, instead of striving to reach 10.000.000.000, soon.
2) The "clima change" is harmfull to us humans and our living standard. We might die out, but the planet will continue to exist and life on earth will continue. Remember what happend to the dinosaurs: a global clima change, caused by a meteorite, whiped out a whole species. So what? They were replaced by a new species.
3) In order to restrain human caused pollution, one has to accept that there is a price. Take for instance an MRI machine in a hospital. This machine relies on technology and components, manufactured all over the globe. It requires all sorts of elements, manufacturing processes, etc. If we want to eliminate pollution, then we need to eliminate global transportation (ships are enormous pollutors), we need to elimitae the extraction of elements like rare earth metals, gases, etc. We need to eliminate most of our industry. Also, we would need to increase the life expectancy of our products: no new mobile phone every two years - it needs to last 20 years! The same with the TV or the car. But doing so would mean that all these products need to be much more expensive, because they would be less production and demand.

Let's face it: nothing will change, we will at some point in time reach a new global war or pendemic, which will drastically reduce human kind. From there on, a new cycle will start.

All the rest is just made up taxes to get more money for questionable things.
AndyBeez:

--- Quote from: Bicurico on August 12, 2023, 01:56:46 pm ---The main reason China is on the top in CO2 emissions is because they produce most products we consume.

If western countries would have kept their factories locally, then western countries would have much higher CO2 emissions and China, in consequence, would have less.

--- End quote ---
Dumping CO2 still makes for cheaper electricity than net zero nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geo' and hydro' ever will.

One question guys: Why are we still having this conversation decades after the drive towards green energy began? Climate hysteria aside, the west was greening energy production long before globalisation. Yet we still have managed to increase our dependency on fossil fuels? Even my cleaner and greener UK has licensed new oil, gas and coal exploration and exploitation licenses under the fake pretence of energy security. Politicians might act as if they listen to the science, but really they just act on who has the most money to pull their strings. So it is no irony that the next COP climate junket this November will be hosted against the oil tycoon's skyline of Dubai. Which is why this quote kind of makes sense when considering the billions of dollars of snake oil that the climate industry rubs on itself every year. "Finding a solution to climate change is not the problem. The problem is if we find a solution to climate change." The inconvienient climate truth is your children will still be having this conversation in decades to come.
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: Wiktionary ---skepticism (countable and uncountable, plural skepticisms) (American spelling)
* The practice or philosophy of being a skeptic.
* A studied attitude of questioning and doubt
* The doctrine that absolute knowledge is not possible
* A methodology that starts from a neutral standpoint and aims to acquire certainty through scientific or logical observation.
* Doubt or disbelief of religious doctrines
--- End quote ---
Points 2., 3., and 4. also apply directly to all scientific methods.

A trustworthy scientist knows that they have to work based on the best current understanding –– best meaning the one that has withstood tests and comparisons to real-world measurements the most –– and that it is not necessarily correct.  They believe in some things, but they also recognize that that belief itself is just a human tool, something to make it easier for them to handle the fact that they know nothing for sure.

Indeed, one fun to work with faction of trustworthy scientists can be classified as diligent optimistic skeptics, who don't mind generalising and approximating things when there is real world utility in that.

Climate science is a bitch.

Researchers do not even agree to the underlying data sets.  Any measurement over a hundred years old is subject to "adjustment", often meaning the known measurements are replaced by running some model in reverse, so that it reproduces some initial (latest) best guesses what the measurements would have been if they were done "properly"; then the actual measurements are replaced with the simulated values.  Some measurements are ignored completely, because the researchers "do not believe in them", often because they can't get their models to reproduce such measurements at all.

Very few researchers understand the limitations of their models and simulations.  Many are near-chaotic, such that small changes produce only small changes in short simulations, but above a certain limit, changes produce completely unpredictable results.  That limit decreases the longer the simulation is.

Nobody agrees to the combined effects of insolation (solar output), composition of upper atmosphere (H2O and CO2 being the largest absorbers of sunlight spectrum, but stuff like ash – acting as kernels for water droplets – changing the picture completely), cloud reflection at lower atmosphere (aeroplane contrails and even large cargo ship exhaust) combined with seasonal winds, and so on.  You cannot even do serious research on that, because whatever your findings are, those believing otherwise will attack you with likely very deep pockets behind them (because all sides of the climate discussion are backed by deep pockets: many political, some industrial).

None of it is reliable.  All stages have pokeable holes in them.  Any claim –– and I do mean any, from purely anthropogenic causation to fully anthropogenic causation, and all variants in between and outside –– can be shown to have a significant basis on arbitrarily selected data (choose the data to get the results you want) or poorly understood models and their initial parameters.  Even meta-studies (looking at findings of existing studies) suffer from this.

Plus, historically, whenever the majority of scientists have agreed on something –– achieving the consensus some seem to be so desperate for –– they have turned out to be wrong within the next hundred years or so.

Basically, it is one of the fields of "science" we have managed to turn to utter shit, by messing and meddling with the data, its collection and collation, and now by using models we do not really know the limitations and faults of.  I don't care what side of the findings –– ostensible results –– you take/accept/believe, it is going to be wrong anyway.  You cannot find the best-fitting model when there is so much political, social, and financial power involved in the result.

:palm:
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod