Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
akh... would you agree that a "scientist" who is not in the field of climate or pollution should not be listened to any more than anyone else?

In principle, yes, since I can't see how the social sciences can contribute in a useful fashion.  But, in practical terms, a great many scientists who aren't climate and pollution experts can, and do, become involved.

Your question is not unlike querying whether civil engineers have something constructive to say about hurricanes.

If you add water that has more salt or less salt to the ocean you are polluting it.   everything we do is pollution.

Exactly.

I am simply asking for you to name what things we are doing that is causing the earth to heat up and how much it is doing so and..... what exact steps are needed to stop it.

Climate science from climate scientists

I would also like for someone to tell me that the myriad of sacrafices that are asked of us and the tons of money poured into it will have some effect... that they will stop or slow, by some measurable degree... the warming.

What will our sacrafices achieve?   How will they compare to the normal fluctuations in global climate?

You can google those questions.

If we suddenly started dropping a tenth of a degree a decade would we then be free to continue on with our lives or would this be some new "crisis" that we would have to look to these "scientists" to overcome for us?

Politicians, corporations and the media generate many more crises than scientists.  I can't see that changing.

I don't trust em.  They do not appear to be playing very honestly.   They appear to me to know a lot less about it than they pretend to and... they all have their hand  out for the fame and power and money.

Which do you trust more, scientists or corporations?

So long as they come off like this to people who are not of their cult.... then you will get people like me who look at them with distrust.

lazs

Skepticism is good, especially when one of the parties is intentionally misleading you.

[lazs2]

akh..  so you admit that being a civil engineer does not make your opinions on how hurricanes form or move very useful?

you admit that you and the scientists have no idea how much or little we are affecting the global climate if at all.

You admit that at least one side of the scientific arguement is intentionaly missleading us?   This is strange in the extreme to me.   How can you give any credence to "scientists" as a whole when even you admit that they are capable of intentionaly missleading us.

you seem to be saying that only your side has scientists and that the other side is... is what?  Corporations?  they are scientists just as your guys are scientists and... they at least are scientists in the field they are talking about.

unlike you... I see this and make the logical step in assuming that they are all intentionaly missleading us... I mean... if one group will for money and power... what makes your group any more special or honest than the other?

I would submit that you want to believe what they say so.... you ignore anything inconvienient...  I would submit that many...  not only ignore but would like to shut up and stiffle any oppossite view.

That is much more dangerous than any possible man made global warming to me.

lazs

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
akh..  so you admit that being a civil engineer does not make your opinions on how hurricanes form or move very useful?

you admit that you and the scientists have no idea how much or little we are affecting the global climate if at all.

You admit that at least one side of the scientific arguement is intentionaly missleading us?   This is strange in the extreme to me.   How can you give any credence to "scientists" as a whole when even you admit that they are capable of intentionaly missleading us.

you seem to be saying that only your side has scientists and that the other side is... is what?  Corporations?  they are scientists just as your guys are scientists and... they at least are scientists in the field they are talking about.

unlike you... I see this and make the logical step in assuming that they are all intentionaly missleading us... I mean... if one group will for money and power... what makes your group any more special or honest than the other?

I would submit that you want to believe what they say so.... you ignore anything inconvienient...  I would submit that many...  not only ignore but would like to shut up and stiffle any oppossite view.

That is much more dangerous than any possible man made global warming to me.

lazs

As I recall, you were the one who demanded proof of and solutions to this problem that you believe is purely a science fantasy cooked up to make climatologist famous, rich and powerful beyond their wildest dreams.  Maybe you also believe that Carl Sagan is behind this obvious plot to take over the planet and turn it into a technocracy?

Where did I admit that the "the scientists" have "no idea" - nowhere, thats where.

Actually, I said one party, and that is exactly what I meant.

What's "logical" in assuming that both parties are misleading us?  It may be paranoid to assume they both are, but logical, no.

And I put it to you that you don't actually want to investigate what they say,  so you ignore anything inconvienient.

You have had your say, but what have you contributed to the debate?  No data, no facts, no links.  Quite simply, you have brought nothing more than your own learned opinion to the table.

[Angus]

I cannot proof that I'll be dead in the year 2165, but I can say this:
1. I don't want to.
2. Yet I probably will.

Ponder on this Lazs

[lazs2]

angus... of course we will all die barring something really strange happening... this has been happening forever.   Global climate change has been happening forever too... it happens with or without our help..

things will get warmer and things will get colder even if we do nothing...  ponder on that angus.

AKH...  what proof do you bring to the table?   Where is the data that shows how much we are affecting the climate?  where is the data that shows how much of the global climate change is man made.

It is all "it is apparent that we are affecting the global climate"   that is not good enough.  if they don't know how much or how much radical changes in our lifestyle will help or hurt... why should I listen to their doom and gloom?

When a scientist tells me that elevated C02 levels never come before a global warming event but only after it....  why should I get paniced about it?

When the "scientists" told me in the 70's that by now I would be able to see a glacier out my window.... why didn't I colapse in fear and agony?

Nope... I laughed at em then and didn't wring my hands these last 30 years... you guys are welcome to come all unhinged and tear out your hair for the next 30 years over global warming.  I will pass tho.

Now... there is nothing wrong with treating the environment with respect and we should do what we can to improve things as the tech gets better and cheaper.  but it should not be forced and it should not be at the word of a group of scientists who have no knowledge in the field and or... have been 180 degrees wrong in the past.

carl sagan... besides being dead.... he was dead wrong about doom and gloom in the very recent past... he predicted a global winter from the fires the sadman set in kuwait... the evil oil company scientists said that it was a gross exageration and that any global winter would be local and brief..

so far... in measurable doom and gloom scenarios... the altruistic non climate scientists (glory hound/publicity hound) have a much worse track record than the evil oil company specialists.

lazs

[lazs2]

I guess what I am saying is that this is nothing new... respected scientists telling us that we are about to all be victims of a massive climate change that will throw civilization into the dark ages (maybe not such a bad thing after all)

It was the coming ice age last time.    

I guess what I am saying is.... fool me once... shame on you... fool me twice... shame on me.

But... like I said... go ahead and weep and wail and tear your hair out for the next 30 years or so and... send in those contributions and wear the T shirt...

Just don't extort anything from me while you are at it.

lazs

[lukster]

The alarmist movement is gaining momentum. It's almost a sure bet it will cost us something in violation of our will.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by lazs2

what proof do you bring to the table?

Well, if seeing is believing, try to see Boston from a distance on a hot humid day. You cannot see it through the smog.

[Angus]

Ponder instead Lazs.
There are and have been and will be climate changes. My concern (as well as most scientists that are NOT payed by an interest-related company such as Exxon) is that we are causing a climate change. Following are some points:

We already know from the law of physics how greenhouse effect works.

Then we know that we are causing very fast increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which is both uniquely fast and the amount has already been manifested.

It's only beginning, for we are going to be pumping fossil fuel into the atmosphere as long as we are still around and can find any.

To add to the effect, we are deforestating the globe at an enormous rate with the huge benefit of slightly cheaper lumber, burgers and coffee.

Then the fun starts. Some old paranoids have seen this coming and their predictions slowly come true.

We have debates over issues such as whether it's getting warmer or not, but when the predicted melting of the polar caps (not just an odd glacier here or there, but something MASSIVE) starts at record speed, we still have a debate about it.

When debaters are getting cornered in about established facts, such as that ancient ice melting means it's warmer than in ancient periods etc, one sees interesting ideas popping up. I see Volcanoes, underwater volcanoes, normal swings in temperatures told to be the cause, etc etc, as well as the final "It's not any warmer".

None the less, it is, and many people are afraid to look at it. So, who do I trust, - the ones that are looking at it and already fighting for measures dealing with it, - or an oil company who is paying for an opposite opinion since any countermeasuer will harm their budget?

Not a hard choice, - sorry.

[AKH]

This figure shows the variations in concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the last 400 thousand years. Throughout most of the record, the largest changes can be related to glacial/interglacial cycles within the current ice age. Although the glacial cycles are most directly caused by changes in the Earth's orbit (i.e. Milankovitch cycles), these changes also influence the carbon cycle, which in turn feeds back into the glacial system.

Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming.

[AKH]

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison.
 
It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair representation of the range of results appearing in the published scientific literature. Hence, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.

[AKH]

This figure shows the annual fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, in million metric tonnes of carbon, for a variety of non-overlapping regions covering the Earth.

Data source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

[AKH]

This figure shows the disparity in fossil fuel consumption per capita for the countries with the twenty largest populations. The large range of variation is indicative of the separation between the rich, industrialized nations and the poor/developing nations. The global average is also shown.

As most countries desire wealth and aim to develop that wealth through the development of industry, this figure suggests the degree to which poor nations may strive to increase their emissions in the course of trying to match the industrial capacity of the developed world. Managing such increases and dealing with the apparent social inequality of the present system will be one of the challenges involved in confronting global warming.

[AKH]

This figure shows an estimate of how efficiently the world's twenty largest economies convert fossil fuel usage into wealth as expressed by the ratio of their gross domestic product (in US dollars) over the number of kilograms of fossil fuel carbon released into the atmosphere each year. The relatively narrow range of variation between most countries in this figure suggests that the pursuit of wealth in the present world is strongly tied to the availability of fossil fuel energy sources.

As countries may be reluctant to combat fossil fuel emissions in ways that cause economic decline, this figure serves to suggest the degree to which different large economies can decrease emissions through short-term improvements in efficiency and alternative fuel programs.

The two countries that produce the highest GDP per kilogram carbon, Brazil and France, are heavily reliant on alternative energy sources, hydroelectric and nuclear power respectively.

[lukster]

Originally posted by AKH

This figure shows an estimate of how efficiently the world's twenty largest economies convert fossil fuel usage into wealth as expressed by the ratio of their gross domestic product (in US dollars) over the number of kilograms of fossil fuel carbon released into the atmosphere each year. The relatively narrow range of variation between most countries in this figure suggests that the pursuit of wealth in the present world is strongly tied to the availability of fossil fuel energy sources.

As countries may be reluctant to combat fossil fuel emissions in ways that cause economic decline, this figure serves to suggest the degree to which different large economies can decrease emissions through short-term improvements in efficiency and alternative fuel programs.

The two countries that produce the highest GDP per kilogram carbon, Brazil and France, are heavily reliant on alternative energy sources, hydroelectric and nuclear power respectively.

I'm all for nuclear power but I'm wondering how that's gonna work out for Europe once terrorists decide to make France's nuke plants a target. Could get pretty uninhabitable there in a hurry.