Science vs Politicians

[highfigh]

Fixed that for ya.

Wouldn't want to show what you thought needed fixing, would ya?

 

[Alex2507]

That's not the only cause of rising sea levels. As oceans warm, they expand, raising their volumes.

Plus all the fat people swimming in the water. That adds up after a while.

 

[Chu Gai]

AFAIK, rosewood is one of the big ones (popular in China and elsewhere). As a result of various agreements like the one I linked to earlier, the national government has set some restrictions on how much logging can occur. Ownership is a mixed bag, and more importantly, so is enforcement. When the government has been claimed to be in bed with guys like this, you know the problems run pretty deep.

WRTthe Amazon, it bears noting that the deforested areas are in turn used for cattle as beef is a significant export for Brazil. Further, in the past Brazil has said they'd be pleased to stop cutting trees if they were paid. I don't recall any dollar amount though. But as in most things, there's no free lunch and Brazil may need to reconsider their position.
During the summer olympics, you may recall that Rio was experiencing fresh water shortages along with sewage issues and even powere that was derived hydroelectricaly. While a signifiant contributor is just gross mismanagement on a broad scale, there was also less rain. A lot less. Global warming or climate change due to CO2 emissions was floated. However scientists found that as the Amazon was deforested, the vapor that used to be above the trees was diminished to the point it affected rainfall elsewhere. In fact in their opinion the effects of this deforestation had effects on the climate as far as Texas.

To build a bit on the above, some may recall in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, he was taken to task for erroneously attributing droughts in a section of Africa where there was a mountain to rising CO2 levels. As it turned out the reasons had to do with the cutting down of trees. The point in this is that changes in the climate that are occurring cannot solely be attributed to CO2 but to what we as people do to reshape our environment.

In fact one rarely hears that scientists have also measured that the temperature of Mars has risen so it's reasonable to state the earth's rise in temperature is due to factors unrelated to human activity. How much I don't know but it sure isn't talked about. Also when you hear such and such year was the warmest on record you never hear just what the estimated rise was leaving the public to to imagine what they will. That's more alarming that hearing the rise was something like 0.0079 degrees. Also you never hear what the level of uncertainty is nor do you hear that while there are detriments to a global rise in temperature there are also positive aspects.

And you know, even if in the end it turns out to be settled science that human activity is the principal activity driving temperatures and all that, to my mind it's hardly settled science to think that the remedy is what the UN is putting forth.

 

[Rickster71]

A couple thoughts...

1. Nobody has a crystal ball. Scientists make predictions based on the data they have. Sometimes they're correct, sometimes they're incorrect. Is it wise to ignore these predictions totally out of hand, even if there is a fair possibility it may be the latter? In the case of scarcity of natural resources, I'd also note that speaks more to the power of human innovation and the ability to develop resources that were once considered unrecoverable than it does to general incompetence/deviousness of the people making predictions.

2. Nobody I'm aware of disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how much can we get away with pumping into the atmosphere before there are serious negative consequences? Never mind the situation today, but consider what would happen if the West said screw it, and a growing African population underwent a coal powered industrial revolution in the next few decades. Do we want to find out if that's too much CO2? What alternatives do we have beyond striking some sort of international agreement and/or trying to figure out a technical solution?

I wholeheartedly agree, if we were talking about pure unadulterated science.
Suspicions arise when the common man is indoctrinated to believe
in parts of science as if it was the New Religion.
The same tactics of Public Shaming, Ridicule and Peer Pressure and the Appeal to Authority are all being used. The same way they led the masses to believe in an Invisible Magic Man in the sky.

 

[highfigh]

Plus all the fat people swimming in the water. That adds up after a while.

Don't forget the small stones thrown into the water by kids and cars driven in when the mob wants to get rid of bodies.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Wouldn't want to show what you thought needed fixing, would ya?

You said reforestation needs to stop.

 

[highfigh]

You said reforestation needs to stop.

Thanks- it has been corrected.

 

[KEW]

An interesting article: Is Federal Funding Biasing Climate Research
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

I just read this article and it does refer to another article that makes some valid generalized speculations on how Government Funding could bias research, but it is all speculation, there is no actual evidence being offered. And, much more importantly no scientific criticism of the methodology of the climate change research.
Additionally, this cannot explain why such an overwhelming number of other countries and scientific agencies have reached the same conclusions and further validate climate change as a serious concern.

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.”

This is really not very compelling! If you asked me if there are likely to be 50 NASA scientists & Astronauts who were willing to be on record as denying climate change, I would not consider that a stretch. NASA currently employs 17,365 people so if we only use that number and lets generously allocate 9 secretaries, janitors, etc. per scientist/astronaut so we'll say 1,736 of them are scientists/astronauts, the 49 nay-sayers represents 2.8% of NASA scientists. Note that none of the Scientist appear to have a background in Climate Science (albeit, one is a metrologist).


What would impress me:
1) If 3 to 5 scientists directly involved in the research came forward to claim it used false or specious data/methodology.
2) Now that Trump is in office, NASA caters to him (as is the premise of your earlier post) and revises their conclusions to indicate that Climate Change is a hoax.
3) This letter had included technical information, specifically pointing out instances of flawed/biased methodology. The research is publicly available, and since these guys are holding up the NASA Scientist/Astronaut credentials, show us some rigor! As soon as they get specific, their concerns can be affirmed (or exposed as bogus).

 

[Swerd]

Plus all the fat people swimming in the water. That adds up after a while.

It only takes one to begin the destruction of the polar ice cap.

 

[shadyJ]

It only takes one to begin the destruction of the polar ice cap.

I could watch that all day....

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

This is really not very compelling! If you asked me if there are likely to be 50 NASA scientists & Astronauts who were willing to be on record as denying climate change, ...

Scientists? What kind? NASA has/had that many climate scientists on hand? Really?
What qualifies an astronaut to make a scientific conclusion like that one way or the other?

Reminds me of a document that had 10,000s of thousands of signatures from engineers and up.
Same deal; not qualified.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I could watch that all day....

So you have that much free time? I have plenty here to take care of that.

 

[Irvrobinson]

In fact one rarely hears that scientists have also measured that the temperature of Mars has risen so it's reasonable to state the earth's rise in temperature is due to factors unrelated to human activity.

Your logic is faulty.

There are so many facts associated with the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and especially carbon dioxide (which has effects beyond warming, like making the oceans more acidic), that the arguments against humans having an effect on the environment just sound clueless. Ignore global warming; do you really want the oceans to become more acidic? We might live with a warmer planet, but less productive oceans? That sounds worse.

While I am convinced the evidence shows that humans have changed the atmosphere and the environment (e.g. deforestation) in ways that increase the average global temperature, I would rather live with a warmer planet than go back to the 19th century. Or redistribute wealth in a way that kept Asia and Africa from becoming the carbon emitters they are projected to be. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but exponentially increasing technology tends to solve problems we thought were unsolvable just a few years ago. I remember in high school reading about the worries of another ice age. Now it's warming. Oil was going to run out. Wrong. Metals were going to run out. Wrong. Pollution in the US was out of control and there would be a Silent Spring. Wrong. Cars and trucks guzzled fuel and the auto companies said there was nothing significant they could do about it. Wrong. Now you can buy electric cars that get almost 250 miles on a charge, brake for you, avoid bad lane changes for you, and tell you how to navigate. It only took 40 years for a smart phone to make a 22nd century Star Trek communicator look archaic. IMO, nothing beats exponentiating technology. Of course, if you want to make that bet you need to make a huge side bet on science and technology investments. Too bad so many Americans are afraid of both.

(Extra rant - anti-science types always want scientific pursuits and scientists to be perfect. A few flaws in results or people and the whole of science is discounted. That's like looking at a down day on the S&P500 index and saying the S&P500 is a lousy investment. Looking at the S&P500 20-year trend line, anyone saying that sounds like a damned fool. The processes of scientific discovery and technology advancement are like that.)

 

[shadyJ]

I am likewise convinced of the spherical shape of the Earth. While I have not seen the Earth from the heavens, there is much evidence to suggest of its spheriodal shape. For instance, there has been no reports of a planetary 'edge' or 'angle' that would indicate a non-globular shape. Also, we have sent men into outer space and they have claimed to see the Earth as "ball-shaped" (in their words) and have also taken photographs which depict the Earth as a sphere. There are those who say that the Earth is a flat plane, but here is the thing- if the sun is a sphere, and the moon is a sphere, then why too would the Earth also not be spherical? They would say that if the Earth is a sphere, why do we not see the roundness all about us? This is a short-sighted proclamation, for if the Earth was a very large sphere, which is exactly what one would expect given its mass and gravitational pull, than the overall curvature would be so slight as to defy notice from a simple glance. Prey tell me this you nay-sayers: if the Earth is indeed flat, than where do the ships go that vanish over the seas' horizon!? Huzzah!

 

[Rickster71]

What would impress me:
1) If 3 to 5 scientists directly involved in the research came forward to claim it used false or specious data/methodology.
2) Now that Trump is in office, NASA caters to him (as is the premise of your earlier post) and revises their conclusions to indicate that Climate Change is a hoax.
3) This letter had included technical information, specifically pointing out instances of flawed/biased methodology. The research is publicly available, and since these guys are holding up the NASA Scientist/Astronaut credentials, show us some rigor! As soon as they get specific, their concerns can be affirmed (or exposed as bogus).

What did impressed me, was someone directly from NASA saying they were changing NASA's directives:

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."

 

[Rickster71]

Scientists? What kind? NASA has/had that many climate scientists on hand? Really?
What qualifies an astronaut to make a scientific conclusion like that one way or the other?

Reminds me of a document that had 10,000s of thousands of signatures from engineers and up.
Same deal; not qualified.

Kinda like Bill Nye?

 

[Rickster71]

So can you field an argument without copying and pasting from some right-wing chain mail nonsense that engages in extreme cherry-picking to serve their point?

Anyway, to all that I would say...

Human nature repeats it self..... "What if it's a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
That's the exact same quote that was made when they sold the concept of religion and the invisible magic man in the sky.

 

[Chu Gai]

I am likewise convinced of the spherical shape of the Earth. While I have not seen the Earth from the heavens, there is much evidence to suggest of its spheriodal shape. For instance, there has been no reports of a planetary 'edge' or 'angle' that would indicate a non-globular shape. Also, we have sent men into outer space and they have claimed to see the Earth as "ball-shaped" (in their words) and have also taken photographs which depict the Earth as a sphere. There are those who say that the Earth is a flat plane, but here is the thing- if the sun is a sphere, and the moon is a sphere, then why too would the Earth also not be spherical? They would say that if the Earth is a sphere, why do we not see the roundness all about us? This is a short-sighted proclamation, for if the Earth was a very large sphere, which is exactly what one would expect given its mass and gravitational pull, than the overall curvature would be so slight as to defy notice from a simple glance. Prey tell me this you nay-sayers: if the Earth is indeed flat, than where do the ships go that vanish over the seas' horizon!? Huzzah!

Well, your view simply does not conform to the Koran and a Tunisian doctoral student is looking to refute this in her thesis, https://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/is-the-world-flat-again-how-an-old-debate-was-revived-in-tunisia

 

[Pogre]

I don't even want to get started on flat earthers. For people with access to information to believe the Earth is flat and not spherical is just ridiculous. Magellan proved it centuries ago and the Greeks had an inkling at least as early as 300 BC.

 

[Rickster71]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>