User Tag List

First 1018192021 Last

Results 191 to 200 of 205

  1. #191
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    What exactly are the political and economic variables that are problematic with the Kyoto protocol?
    Most pertinently, the same variables involved in any collective action problem and any "tragedy of the commons" scenario, but in an anarchic international environment and on a far, far larger scale than any others that have been attempted. I simply don't think there is any realistic way to overcome such problems (remember, positive-and sustained-actions rather than simply negative actions are mandated) on such a vast international endeavor.

    Assuming, however, that the Kyoto Protocol participants actually cooperated in good faith, then the economic costs of compliance within developed countries would cause lost production to shift to Newly Industrialized and Emerging Market countries, which are not equally subject to Kyoto regulations (to put it mildly) and which produce far more greenhouse gasses per unit of production than the developed countries.

    To illustrate my point, here's a list of the six largest developed countries and the six largest NI and/or EM countries, along with their ratio of GDP per carbon dioxide emissions (the higher the score, the smaller the amount of carbon emissions for the same unit of production):

    1.) United States 1.936
    2.) Japan 3.663
    3.) Germany 3.393
    4.) France 5.373 (nuclear power?)
    5.) United Kingdom 3.670
    6.) Italy 3.842

    1.) China 0.450
    2.) India 0.497
    3.) Indonesia 0.679
    4.) Brazil 2.000 (Amazon rain forest?)
    5.) Pakistan 0.781
    6.) Russia 0.388

  2. #192
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    Have you read the myriad refutations of Lindezen's analysis of the data? Here's just one:
    RealClimate: Lindzen in Newsweek

    The best refutation is in the person's own words. No doubt, he holds against the idea that immediate action is required in terms of policy but here's what he does agree with, in an editorial written by him:
    Extra - WSJ.com
    I was hoping that was a critique of a peer reviewed paper. I was disappointed to see that it was only an article for a magazine.

    Again, as stated before, CO2 emissions are just one part of the evidence and the argument on climate change. Are you suggesting we use cherry-picked evidence (one paper?!?) or we look at the larger trend?
    You're new here, so perhaps you haven't seen me say it. I'm not convinced that CO2 is a major factor. I have never argued that humans cannot effect the climate in other ways (in fact, I've tried to start threads on it, but people always end up talking about carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon). I think we're wasting time and resources with CO2. So much is devoted to something that is only a minor player, at best, while larger, more immediate problems remain unresolved.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #193
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    So, you didn't really have other evidence to offer, did you?
    Took the words right out of my mouth, though the question would be directed to alarmists. Peer review is one of many elements missing from on-rails research -- expressed no better than in the CRU e-mails.

  4. #194
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    Blackmail you're full of BS and lies, you teach at a university do you? Well you know what they say don't you? Those who cannot do, teach. MARGINALIZED.
    That explains those losers Plato, Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein. Huxley had it right - Henry Ford is the real intellectual titan.

  5. #195
    Allergic to Mornings ergophobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFP
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I was hoping that was a critique of a peer reviewed paper. I was disappointed to see that it was only an article for a magazine.
    Quote Originally Posted by htb View Post
    Took the words right out of my mouth, though the question would be directed to alarmists. Peer review is one of many elements missing from on-rails research -- expressed no better than in the CRU e-mails.
    Wow - we've come a long way here, folks to be asking for peer-reviewed research and hoping to present the same (I hope) as evidence. That's great! I'm glad we can at least take SOME scientists seriously.

    Clearly, in your view, some scientists understand climate science even if it is just the minority agreeing with your view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    [I]
    Peer review is not a perfect process. Don't pretend that it is.

    Stop pretending that scientists understand climate science. They don't. No one can predict the future of the climate. All predictions are tainted.
    Lateralus -- the magazine article raises questions about Lindezen's conclusions. We could try reading the questions raised and addressing them as I did with the Wall Street Journal article. The questions raised are valid - why not address them?

    Evidence presented would need to be and much of what I have used here has been peer-reviewed. Did you miss all of it? Since you both did, I'll restate Everything used here as evidence has been from one of the following types of sources:
    1. National well-respected news sources like the Guardian. These were used to present interviews and views of the scientists that were misquoted here, including Mojib Latif and raise questions about the skeptic view much like the WSJ article did.
    2. Peer-reviewed journals or proceedings from the national academy of the sciences.
    3. Commentary by a senior scientist from NASA.

    Here we go with the sources used so far:
    1. Commentary in the Skeptical Inquirer where Stuart Jordan is a senior staff scientist (retired emeritus) at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He has a PhD in physics and astrophysics and is science advisor for the Center for Inquirys Office of Public Policy in Washington, D.C., where he works on science-related policy issues, such as climate change. He talked about the systematic examination of the 600 so-called skeptics used in the Senate minority report used as evidence against 'global warming' where the majority had no peer-reviewed publications (80%) and 55 had NO science credentials at all. In comparison, IPCC reports he mentions have over 2000 scientists with a consensus on 'global warming'.
    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/can_a_...e_legislation/

    Here is a description of how IPCC reports are written. They clearly say they use mainly peer-reviewed literature for their reports along with a smaller number of non peer-reviewed articles. Also, their own report goes through two cycles of expert and government review.
    IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    The IPCC report itself is published by Cambridge after going through an additional peer-review process.

    The first of four volumes concentrates specifically on the physical basis for climate change. Starting at page 955, you can find the list of authors who contributed to the report and their institutional affiliations. Several NASA scientists, hundreds of researchers across the world affiliated with Oxford, Michigan, Univ of California, Berkeley, SUNY Stony Brook, U of Kansas, Univ of Otago (NZ), Univeristy Las Palmas (Canary Islands, Spain), MIT, Stockholm, Cardiff...There are roughly 1500 names of people who have contributed to this single volume alone.
    On the researchers attached to universities -- none of these places give people tenure without a long list of peer-reviewed publications FYI. Subsequently, they are invited to contribute to the volume based on this reputation itself.

    Each chapter of the IPCC report contains a bibliography with the list of peer-reviewed publications used to support its thesis. Here is a link to the list of references for Chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. SM-9.13
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...p-material.pdf

    Roughly 60 citations here, the majority of which are from the Journal of Geophysical Research. Here is a link to their website that explains their peer-review process:
    Submission & Review

    2. News reports and statements/audio recordings/editorials made by the scientists mentioned here as skeptics. These include Mojib Latif who clearly explains the long term trend versus short term in his audio recording
    WCC3 Recorded Videos
    Advancing Climate Prediction Science
    Also includes an editorial by Lindezen himself. These are not peer-reviewed sources but are the words of the scientists themselves to clarify their positions.
    This also includes a New Scientist article clearly quoting Mojib Latif as saying that he is not a skeptic
    World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

    3. Peer-reviewed sources used directly:

    a. Blackmail referred to an article from Science, a peer-reviewed publication from the American Academy of the Advancement of the Sciences:
    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publicati...lonTermIII.pdf
    Here is the page that talks about their peer-review process:
    Science/AAAS: Science Magazine: About the Journal: Information for Authors

    b. In my last post, I referred to this article that clearly connects CO2 emissions to temperature change, suggesting halving these would make a 2 degree difference to global temperatures.
    Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize Global Warming
    Scrolling down would reveal that this story was based on four journal articles, at least three are from top peer-reviewed journals, including Nature.

    Here are two from those four - please note the titles alone.
    # Meinshausen et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2?C. Nature, 2009; 458 (7242): 1158-1162 DOI: 10.1038/nature08017
    # Allen et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emission: the trillionth tone. Nature, 2009; 458 (7242): 1163-1166 DOI: 10.1038/nature08019
    Please ask an anthropologist, social scientist, natural scientist across disciplines how difficult it is to get published in Nature. They reject over 90% of the articles sent to them. Here is an explanation of their peer-review process:
    Getting published in Nature : For authors and referees : Nature

    c. The last article referred was from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
    Yeah, the one titled, Irreversible Climate Change Due to Carbon Dioxide Emissions from 2009.
    Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions PNAS
    Here is a link that describes their peer-review process:
    Information for Authors
    Click on the right for the full text version - it's an open access article.
    Scroll down to read the articles that have cited this one, including David W. Keith's "Why Capture CO2 From the Air" published in Science. I have a link to their peer-review process above.

    Please let me know what else you may need in terms of peer-reviewed research to better understand the arguments made here. I'd be glad to look further.

    Lateralus: You're new here, so perhaps you haven't seen me say it. I'm not convinced that CO2 is a major factor. I have never argued that humans cannot effect the climate in other ways (in fact, I've tried to start threads on it, but people always end up talking about carbon carbon carbon carbon carbon). I think we're wasting time and resources with CO2. So much is devoted to something that is only a minor player, at best, while larger, more immediate problems remain unresolved.
    Why are you not convinced? I don't want to ignore Lindzen's article. He is a MIT scientist but his conclusions don't clearly match up with the data he's using. If we accept him as a dissenter, the question still remains of the large body of peer-reviewed work with a clear consensus. Why cherry-pick one article as evidence when you've got this large body of work by thousands of people worldwide that points in the other direction. I've been saying this all along, unless we find a similar preponderance of research pointing to a false connection between CO2 and temperature change, I'm going to go with the large body of work available. It's just the amount and types of peer-reviewed scientific evidence available.

    Since you are convinced that human activity influences degradation of the environment, what should be done, in your view to counter this process? How should public policy, in particular, address this issue?

    A safe, clean environment is a public good. By definition public goods are provided by governments or we have government intervention where there exist market failures -- underproduction, overpricing (electricity,water) overproduction and negative externalities (drugs, tobacco) or critical goods and services. The environment requires government intervention since industrial waste, including CO2 is overproduced and with severe negative externalities. Government regulation would ensure correcting this market failure since industry itself has no incentive to produce less industrial waste.

    LR- Thanks for your post. I'll be back with thoughts on Kyoto after I finish some work that I'm actually paid for

  6. #196
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    So ehm, anyone up for a pool party? I mean...the North Pole pretty much is one :p

  7. #197
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ergophobe View Post
    just the minority agreeing with your view.
    No vote, here; fact or falsity either is or isn't.

    peer review
    I meant objective and critical scrutiny, not politically or pseudo-spiritually motivated reinforcement. If a claim can't be validated by someone who theretofore intended to disprove it, the claim certainly isn't strong enough to instruct sweeping legislation. Given the now-disclosed record of tampering in CRU and resulting dubiety of claims from Mann's "Hockey Stick" to any number of IPCC reports, such a system doesn't exist among the "majority"; the IPCC's infographic depicts the fox guarding the hen house.

  8. #198
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    If not global warming, politicians will find leverage elsewhere.

    Any hot topic, is a topic that will be abused in every way imaginable.

    Is global warming as much a problem as being said? The world has gone through many climate changes throughout the millenia. And life has persisted through each and every one. I'm not even sure why people so conservately hold on to an as steady as possible climate, it's natural that climates change. Is global warming an issue? On some fronts, sure, but so is building billions and billions of acres of house and construction. Yet I hear no one saying we should go back to living in trees and eating fruits.

    Still, now it's global warming and anti terrorism. There is always something that people will use and abuse in order to be heard and gain political leverage and votes. This has never changed and never will.


    Suppose you win, Risen. And change the public opinion about global warming not being a threat. And to tackle pollution in more honest and direct ways. Making global warming and pollution a solved and uninteresting issue. What will be the next issue?

    Global warming is a very interesting item to abuse because the effects are long term so it can be squished for a very long time. Giving a stable supply of attention.


    I'll take a guess and say the next issue in 10 or 20 years from now will be something like cancer causes like radiowaves and whatnot. :P
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  9. #199
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    IPCC's Himalayan Glacier 'mistake' Not An Accident - Science News

    Quote Originally Posted by Article
    The Sunday Mails David Rose reached Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the 2007 IPCC reports chapter on Asia. Lal told Rose that he knew there were no solid data to support the reports claim that Himalayan glaciers the source of drinking and irrigation water for downstream areas throughout Asia could dry up by 2035. Said Lal: We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. In other words, Rose says, Lal last night admitted [the scary figure] was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

    Been watching this with mild interest. But this news is not really encouraging. If we're going to be making responsible policy decisions, we need responsible scientists. I wonder how this affects the next IPCC panel's authors or process? Couple this with the fact that Copenhagan didn't really seem to do much of anything I don't know where the world is in terms of reform.

    I think if there's going to be any kind of appreciable change, it should be through the emergence of better technology instead of governmentally imposed sanctions.



  10. #200
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    This doesn't surprise me. What I fear is that the anti-environmentalists will see this as vindication of their entire ideology.

    I wish scientists would be more scientific and less political.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. What is some viable proof of Global Warming?
    By Blackout in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 09:40 PM
  2. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. Conspiracy theories cluster - global warming hoax is among them.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 06:42 AM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO