Science vs Politicians

[Rickster71]

It's a shame the topic has been a political football from the very beginning. I suppose when so much money is at stake, it's to be expected, unfortunately.
As with everything so political, my first inclination is to Follow The Money..........
An interesting article: Is Federal Funding Biasing Climate Research
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/
Reminds me of an Upton Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

 

[Chu Gai]

Take a look at the tactics employed by the tobacco lobby in decades past, as they're strikingly similar to those used by the petroleum lobby today, complete with pseudo-science Foundations and paid shills, and with the interwebs as they are, an army of unpaid, scientifically naive partisan trolls to spread the gospel (even in places like Auidoholics).

Like this?

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.

 

[KEW]

Like this?

It is no surprise that Washington may mislead people!
That is why you should go directly to the science agencies like the NASA site I linked to earlier.

 

[highfigh]

On this point we agree. In the US things are much better, air pollution-wise, than as recently as the 1990s. Riverside, CA used to be uninhabitable as far as I was concerned.



Whoops, you're totally incorrect. Not only can we feed everyone, we are producing enough food to make the majority of the world overweight. Last I read, human calorie production is 2700 kcal per day per person. Yes, there are some distribution issues, but let's not get carried away with Malthusian nightmares.

OK, how about "we AREN'T feeding everyone now"?

 

[Irvrobinson]

OK, how about "we AREN'T feeding everyone now"?

No, that's just old-fashioned nonsense from the 1950s. It goes right along with Hubbert's Peak Oil theory, the slowing pace of Moore's Law with CMOS means Silicon Valley is the next rust belt, and every other silly statement that ignores or discounts the impact of technological advances. Agriculture and distribution in many countries is still woefully inefficient, and just reducing waste in developing countries would increase the food supply faster than the population is growing. Even in the US, the USDA thinks the waste factor is 30-40% of the food supply.

There are malnourished people in the US right now, so, yeah, we aren't technically feeding everyone, but that doesn't mean your paranoia is justified.

If you really want to worry about something, worry about North Korea setting off a nuke in the atmosphere over the US and causing an EMP, or a massive solar flare causing a modern-day replay of the Carrington Event. The US electrical grids are unprepared for either one, and if such scenarios played out it could be back to the middle ages for a long time.

 

[Rickster71]

Too bad NASA has become politicized.
During the last 8 years their main mission was changed.

Edit: Lori Garver, NASA’s Deputy Administrator revealed NASA’s altered mission when she outlined the administration’s vision for NASA’s transformation in a March 2010 speech to the American Astronautical Society. The president’s plans, Garver said, “will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation’s future. These key national priorities that I am referring to are: Economic development—poverty, hunger, jobs. International leadership/geo-politics—world peace. Education—societal advancement. Environment—future of planet and humanity."


NASA is an independent civilian space agency under the executive branch. NASA is not a cabinet-level organization like the Department of Defense, its administrator gets nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. Presidents can set policies/directions for the agency.


49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Select excerpts from the letter:

• “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
• “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
• “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

 

[highfigh]

No, that's just old-fashioned nonsense from the 1950s. It goes right along with Hubbert's Peak Oil theory, the slowing pace of Moore's Law with CMOS means Silicon Valley is the next rust belt, and every other silly statement that ignores or discounts the impact of technological advances. Agriculture and distribution in many countries is still woefully inefficient, and just reducing waste in developing countries would increase the food supply faster than the population is growing. Even in the US, the USDA thinks the waste factor is 30-40% of the food supply.

There are malnourished people in the US right now, so, yeah, we aren't technically feeding everyone, but that doesn't mean your paranoia is justified.

If you really want to worry about something, worry about North Korea setting off a nuke in the atmosphere over the US and causing an EMP, or a massive solar flare causing a modern-day replay of the Carrington Event. The US electrical grids are unprepared for either one, and if such scenarios played out it could be back to the middle ages for a long time.

It's not paranoia, it's observation. We and other countries have starving people, therefore, they aren't being fed. I mean people are literally not being fed in all places on the planet. Many are in places where the soil is so bad it can't support crops, some have little water, but people are starving.

I'm concerned about a lot of things and if NKorea can actually hit the US, it will be one of the last things the Mushroom Head does, but that won't reverse any damage his missiles might do. However, we have the technology to shoot missiles out of the sky without causing the warhead to explode, so I'm a bit hopeful it will work.

 

[Chu Gai]

It is no surprise that Washington may mislead people!
That is why you should go directly to the science agencies like the NASA site I linked to earlier.

But you're not even following your own advice here. You started this thread by stating that,

This is probably one of the most important things happening on the earth right now!

I see that as an opinion devoid of comparison or context. Then you give a short video of Bill Nye addressing the Science March crowd. He's no science guy but a personality and activist that masquerades as a scientist and derives his income and self-importance from as much.

Then you say the story might've been different had Al Gore not jumped on the bandwagon. From my POV, it's being politicized by just about everyone else both before and after Gore. I don't know what you're trying to get at brining Israel into the topic but I really don't see climate change as a major driver of conflict and wars.

 

[Irvrobinson]

However, we have the technology to shoot missiles out of the sky without causing the warhead to explode, so I'm a bit hopeful it will work.

That's doubtful. Missile interceptors are notoriously ineffective. If ten missiles are fired we might get three or four. Ineffective missile defense just encourages the idiots to fire more missiles to start with.

 

[shadyJ]

But you're not even following your own advice here. You started this thread by stating that, I see that as an opinion devoid of comparison or context. Then you give a short video of Bill Nye addressing the Science March crowd. He's no science guy but a personality and activist that masquerades as a scientist and derives his income and self-importance from as much.

Then you say the story might've been different had Al Gore not jumped on the bandwagon. From my POV, it's being politicized by just about everyone else both before and after Gore. I don't know what you're trying to get at brining Israel into the topic but I really don't see climate change as a major driver of conflict and wars.

Climate change WILL be a major driver of conflict, of that there is no doubt. It will reduce the worlds supply of fresh water, namely glacial melt. It will also cause crops to die out. Once resources get low enough, people will start fighting for them. Law and order will crumble. The cities will explode. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men will begin to feed on men...

Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage will survive. Gangs will take over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men will be battered and smashed. Men like Max. The warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he will lose everything. And become a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he will learn to live again...

 

[Irvrobinson]

So timely!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-26/how-climate-evangelists-are-taking-over-your-local-weather-forecast

 

[Johnny2Bad]

A few things ...
Al Gore isn't paid attention to outside the US.

The planet is on a geological warming trend, and would still be if there were no humans.

The IPCC is prohibited from considering geological trends in it's reports and research. They can only consider human contributions to the planet's climate trends.

I am amused with calls to "stop global warming." That ship sailed a long time ago. Even if every human decided to commit suicide tomorrow morning, the planet will continue to rise in average temperature.

Ice melt from ocean ice (icebergs, sea ice in the North and South Poles) lowers the overall level of the oceans. Ice melt from land ice (glaciers, the Greenland Ice Sheet, etc) raises the overall level of the oceans.

The amount of water on Earth is fixed * ... there is exactly the same amount of water today as there was during the time of the dinosaurs.

Perhaps some in the US Government could be described as deniers or (probably more accurate) people who don't want to be the ones increasing the cost of government over warming trends.

However, the US Military is not one of them. They have for some time been planning based on warming trends and assessing how such trends might affect future combat, have been adjusting procurement priorities, and are assessing likely future areas for conflict due to warming.

Our current economic trends are worrisome. 12 trips via ocean-going container ship creates more pollution from hydrocarbons (they burn "bunker fuel", the lowest grade possible from refining oil) than all the cars and trucks in the US combined over one year. And the need for container ships carrying Chinese made goods to North America is growing by the day.

* It actually increases slightly over time, as comet strikes usually add water ice, and the planet's atmosphere doesn't allow it to escape. The increase, however, is infinitesimal compared to existing water volume.

 

[highfigh]

That's doubtful. Missile interceptors are notoriously ineffective. If ten missiles are fired we might get three or four. Ineffective missile defense just encourages the idiots to fire more missiles to start with.

My uncle worked on the intercept system when manufacturers were competing for the M1A1 Abrams tank and this is one of the requirements- it needed to identify missile profiles at extremely high speed in a very short time

And how many missiles were shot down during the beginning of Desert storm? How many have been shot down by Iron Dome?

Their nukes are limited in number- they can fire several dummies, but it's in our best interest to hit whatever comes our way.

 

[highfigh]

But you're not even following your own advice here. You started this thread by stating that, I see that as an opinion devoid of comparison or context. Then you give a short video of Bill Nye addressing the Science March crowd. He's no science guy but a personality and activist that masquerades as a scientist and derives his income and self-importance from as much.

Then you say the story might've been different had Al Gore not jumped on the bandwagon. From my POV, it's being politicized by just about everyone else both before and after Gore. I don't know what you're trying to get at brining Israel into the topic but I really don't see climate change as a major driver of conflict and wars.

But he does have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and thermodynamics is part of that. Hell, I took enough physics and HVAC classes to know when someone is BS-ing, or not.

 

[Irvrobinson]

And how many missiles were shot down during the beginning of Desert storm? How many have been shot down by Iron Dome?

I don't know. There's a lot of controversy about these systems. I think this fits right in with Kurt's thread; science versus politics.

The Desert Storm controversy is probably not worth reiterating, because that's 26 years ago. The Israelis claim something like 1000 cumulative interceptions for Iron Dome a couple of years ago, and the claims are surrounded by a lot of expert controversy, but even if the Israelis are telling the truth, no one is firing ICBMs at them, and of course an ICBM interception is a tougher problem.

I'm still a MAD fan. I think the only thing keeping N.K. at bay is the certainty that the US response would be overwhelming and horrific.

 

[shadyJ]

I don't know. There's a lot of controversy about these systems. I think this fits right in with Kurt's thread; science versus politics.

The Desert Storm controversy is probably not worth reiterating, because that's 26 years ago. The Israelis claim something like 1000 cumulative interceptions for Iron Dome a couple of years ago, and the claims are surrounded by a lot of expert controversy, but even if the Israelis are telling the truth, no one is firing ICBMs at them, and of course an ICBM interception is a tougher problem.

I'm still a MAD fan. I think the only thing keeping N.K. at bay is the certainty that the US response would be overwhelming and horrific.

MAD assumes your opposition is rational, but North Korea is run by an arrogant, deluded ego-maniac. But, then again, so is the USA.

 

[KEW]

Climate change WILL be a major driver of conflict, of that there is no doubt. It will reduce the worlds supply of fresh water, namely glacial melt. It will also cause crops to die out. Once resources get low enough, people will start fighting for them. Law and order will crumble. The cities will explode. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men will begin to feed on men...

Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage will survive. Gangs will take over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men will be battered and smashed. Men like Max. The warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he will lose everything. And become a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he will learn to live again...

I hope we don't get to a Mad Max scenario, but thanks for explaining what I meant by bringing up West Bank. Climate change is likely to flood some areas and cause drought in others which have traditionally been good farm land, both of these will limit food. Desperate people are quicker to resort to desperate measures and the level of conflict will likely increase.

That was not the core of my OP, but a notion I wanted to voice. I believe it is realistic to consider that increases in conflict may be one of the big risks of Global Climate Change. But understand this is supposition on my part and I have no evidence to back it up.

 

[KEW]

But you're not even following your own advice here. You started this thread by stating that, I see that as an opinion devoid of comparison or context. Then you give a short video of Bill Nye addressing the Science March crowd. He's no science guy but a personality and activist that masquerades as a scientist and derives his income and self-importance from as much.

Then you say the story might've been different had Al Gore not jumped on the bandwagon. From my POV, it's being politicized by just about everyone else both before and after Gore. I don't know what you're trying to get at brining Israel into the topic but I really don't see climate change as a major driver of conflict and wars.

God, you like to argue just to argue!

I was not using Bill Nye as proof of Global Warming! I linked to him for a general overview of the concerns behind the march for anyone who was not keeping up with it.

I feel like it's importance is largely obscured by other headlines which, though provocative, are not nearly so important.

Sure, fears of:
Mexicans raping and looting (the wall), Russians undermining confidence in our elections, Obamacare crippling our economy, loss of Obamacare crippling the less fortunate of our population; are more palpable and easier to get wound up about that climate change. It is always easier if you have something or someone to blame, but in the case of Climate Change the target is less well defined and the enemy is (indirectly, at least) ourselves!
I guess we can partially point a finger at the large automotive companies who, despite tremendous financial resources see leaving petrol as a difficult prospect while start-up Tesla is just doing it - yes, I'm talking electricity from nuclear energy as the future, I don't think there is much way around it (at least as a stop gap) unless we see major efficiencies in alternate energy sources.

Chu, please note that I am not arguing anything about the "other" headlines and I have roughly chosen equal concerns of both left and right. There is no point in arguing those topics, you can just watch Fox and CNN to get your conflict fix. I am just pointing out that these headlines have been and are dominating our media on a daily basis, and will for much longer even though it is rare to see any news of true significance on these topics. They are relevant topics, but don't warrant the kind of daily micro-attention the media gives them while largely ignoring other topics.
Also, I don't mean to minimize these topics because they certainly are relevant, but at the end of the day, I believe these are getting the attention needed to insure nothing goes too far awry.

 

[highfigh]

I don't know. There's a lot of controversy about these systems. I think this fits right in with Kurt's thread; science versus politics.

The Desert Storm controversy is probably not worth reiterating, because that's 26 years ago. The Israelis claim something like 1000 cumulative interceptions for Iron Dome a couple of years ago, and the claims are surrounded by a lot of expert controversy, but even if the Israelis are telling the truth, no one is firing ICBMs at them, and of course an ICBM interception is a tougher problem.

I'm still a MAD fan. I think the only thing keeping N.K. at bay is the certainty that the US response would be overwhelming and horrific.

Videos from Desert Storm and later show the missiles being shot down- it works to some extent and if it didn't, Israel and other countries wouldn't want it installed between them and Russia, China or NK. We (the US) have had a fairly large force stationed in Eastern Europe, Japan and South Korea foe a long time and it has worked well for preventing attacks, but the little twit in NK is the wild card- a sane person wouldn't launch against anyone. They're desperate, but they do sell and buy from someone, or they wouldn't have nukes (from Iran, right?).

 

[Swerd]

Videos from Desert Storm and later show the missiles being shot down- it works to some extent and if it didn't, Israel and other countries wouldn't want it installed between them and Russia, China or NK. We (the US) have had a fairly large force stationed in Eastern Europe, Japan and South Korea foe a long time and it has worked well for preventing attacks …

I wouldn't be so confident. The performance of the Patriot missiles in the 1991 Persian Gulf War against short range ballistic Scud missiles left major doubt whether it worked as intended, and a lot of controversy about the analysis of its performance. There were various claims of effectiveness ranging from 90% to 10%. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot#Operational_History.

Apparently, from a brief reading of that long Wikipedia article, there is much room for development in the software and radar guidance system of the Patriot. But it's clear that a reliable and field-tested anti-ballistic missile defense system does not yet seem to exist based on that unclassified info. I don't know anything about what the Navy employs on ships for anti-missile use, and it's certainly possible that the naval ships in the Sea of Japan, as well US forces in South Korea might be involved.

… but the little twit in NK is the wild card- a sane person wouldn't launch against anyone. They're desperate, but they do sell and buy from someone, or they wouldn't have nukes (from Iran, right?).

The best evidence is that North Korea initially purchased designs and technology from Pakistan for nuclear bomb development. Pakistan also supplied similar aid to Iran. North Korea buys critical missile components from China.