Google takes action on Climate Change Hoaxsters 26

[enginesrus]

JoshPlumSE, Yes your correct. " I agree that enginesrus' analogy was poor. I was merely pointing out what I believed he was trying to say."
It was an all encompassing statement about the topic mentioned that was being denied. Maybe continue this discussion here, if we wish to discuss the science that is ignored or denied .

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=485639

 

[TugboatEng]

It won't cause major interruptions to our daily lives because the change is slow.

Locally, climate change is being used to secure taxpayer funds to harden the shorelines of the most expensive houses in the world against normal coastal erosion. Looking at you Tiburon California.

 

[dik]

I hope you're correct... but you might want to hold on to your hat...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

I work on boats. They normally rise with sea level, anyways.

 

[1503-44]

Well the problem is that very little else does and sea level rise isn't the limit of its scope.

A black swan to a turkey is a white swan to the butcher ... and to Boeing.

 

[dik]

and there may be some low lying areas that are drastically affected. About 30 years ago, I approached the head of NAPA (NORR Airport Planning Associates) suggesting that he should be looking for clients at low lying airports to upgrade their facilities.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[IRstuff]

I work on boats. They normally rise with sea level, anyways.

Well, it would be a big disruption if you had to dock your boat on Montgomery Street, which was about where the original shoreline for SF was; although, docking near the Transamerica pyramid might be somewhat easier, since it's got non-vertical structures

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Josh, you're basically presenting a case that this has all been about making money and not having a frank and honest discussion about the pitfalls of climate prediction. The literal bottom line is, therefore, not anything to do with "free speech" but about the almighty dollar. That just makes them even less credible than they might have otherwise been

Makes who less credible? The YouTubes / Facebooks of the world, or the content providers that are upset at their demonetization?

In my mind, there are not very many people with a "noble" position in this debate. Maybe some true academics who post videos for use in a university classroom or such.

The tech companies have obviously self serving policies that help them to make more money off of what they consider to be "mis-information". Most of this is within their rights to do so as long as they have reasonable criteria they use to apply to everyone. Even if it isn't always applied fairly (whether that's because their users are more likely to flag conservative content or whether there is true bias within the organization).

Then the content providers who object to these practices are normally not truly being "censored", though sometimes they are de-platformed for violating "community guidelines". And, they complain that they are never told what video violated the guidelines or which guideline was violated. From my understanding, most of the time, the only "hardship" is that they are forced to navigate more bureaucracy than they'd like in order to get their monetization restored.

I get why it's frustrating for them. But, my perspective is that but they're upset that these tech platforms have rules that make it harder for them to make money off of.... This is somewhat hypocritical in that these content providers are able to reach a huge audience these these tech platforms. And, they don't have to set up any of the infrastructure to bring in ad revenue. Most of that is handled directly by the tech companies. Yes, there are aspects of it that are NOT ideal for them. But, without these tech companies existence, the business model of these content providers would not exist.

 

[IRstuff]

The latter; the fact that they are more concerned about demonetization of their content says their content is intended solely to garner clicks from the advertising and not to present any real discussion about facts, statistics, physics, etc.

As for the transparency of the rules, that's just griping for the sake of griping, since they crossed some line and got shot down, no different than trying to figure out how to get an "A" from the new English teacher.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[TugboatEng]

My gripe is that Google and YouTube rose to the top by being free and open. Now that they have a monopoly on information they have taken a sudden left turn.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Tug -

I think that's definitely true of Google / YouTube.

I'm not 100% certain it's true of Facebook. The upper management there (while definitely left leaning) seems pretty committed to the idea of non-partisanship. They've been attacked from both sides of the aisle. Right?

Dems want them to crack down HARD on the type of mis-information that was flowing around the 2016 election. But, they've resisted this somewhat because they don't want to be seen as partisan.

However, they've partnered with independent "fact checkers" that are very much left wing and that has upset the GOP.

I think Facebook is caught in the middle and both sides want to use them as something of a scapegoat.

 

Libertarianism seems very attractive on the personal and social level, but gets nasty in a real hurry when it becomes the business and political model. They are two entirely different beasts. Unfortunately it is marketed on the former ('hey, just live and let live') and activated in the latter sphere (deregulation, governments captured by business interests).

I just wish Silicon Valley billionaire Libertarians (i.e., the lottery winners) would just be honest with us: their products will NOT transform society into utopia, their products are there to generate massive financial returns. To achieve this they leverage the 'scale' offered by the internet; something we used to call 'monopoly'.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[IRstuff]

My gripe is that Google and YouTube rose to the top by being free and open.

They were NEVER going to let anyone take free rein; THAT was the doom of MySpace. The x-rated, the pedophiles, the racists, all were never going to get a open platform. Once you accept that as a necessity, the rest follows as just a matter of degree; moon landing deniers aren't ever going to get much traction, but others...

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[TugboatEng]

Here is an interesting read. Remember, global warming used to be very controversial.

Budyko was one of the first scientists to warn about the greenhouse effect more than 20 years ago. ‘At the very beginning of this problem, I think I was in a minority of one . . . nobody believed in such a possibility,’ he says. ‘It contradicted many, let us not say scientific facts, but scientific superstitions. The opposition was enormous. If I was not bold enough to ignore this opposition, quite possibly scientific development would not be exactly the same as we have now.’ Now, he says, ‘my position is rather conservative’.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...imatologist-predicts-greenhouse-paradise/amp/

 

[JoshPlumSE]

So, this scientists take is that the global warming effect may actually be beneficial.

That's really not a crazy position. Though it certainly goes against the grain. I've read other people say similar things. Pointing to the middle ages and various mini-ice ages or mini-warming effects that greatly helped the agricultural productivity of the human race.

However, I have to think that he may be a little biased being in Russia. So much of Russia is frozen wasteland. It makes a lot of sense that Russia (in particular) would benefit greatly from a more mild climate in those areas. We might be able to say the same thing about Canada and Alaska.

All that being said, I tend to have a lot more skepticism toward his position. To me, it's the rapid "rate of change" of temperature that we're seeing that is likely to cause a significant problem. Not just to human populations, but to other animals and eco systems that aren't as adaptable as we are.

That doesn't me I fully buy into the "world ending", "existential" threat that the AOC's of the world believe. There is a huge gap between "world ending" and "it will be beneficial". The reality of what's happening is a good distance away from either of these extreme views.... At least that's my opinion.

 

[dik]

Yeh... Winnipeg will warm up! The benefit may not be universal.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

The author's take is certainly a bit, different. But I linked the article because around 1969 the author "warned" of the effect. His opinion then would be considered mainstream today. He diverged a bit in 1989 with this article.

Off topic, he did make some claims that have been tested by time now. Does anybody have data on the rainfall in the Sahara over the period of 1980 to 2000? The author claimed there would be a significant increase in that time.

 

[IRstuff]

The fact that the southwest US is getting drier belies any consequential claims from the guy in the article we can't access. Since it doesn't seem like the guy had much in the way of an actual climate model, his guess was just a guess. Moreover, even if there was some benefit from some temperature change, too much of a good thing is bad. A few liters of water a day is required, but 40 liters of water a day will kill you.

The trend is at best flat, but had been trending downward

and its size has grown by 10% in the last century

https://www.geologyin.com/2018/04/the-sahara-desert-expanded-by-10-in.html

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[JoshPlumSE]

IRStuff -

I have to admit that I only read a couple of paragraphs of that article (paywall!), but I'm not following your logic.

Because the southwest appears to have been drier between 1960 and 1990 before regaining about half of the "lost" rainfall between 1990 and 2020, that suggests that a hotter world (due to global warming) is NOT going to be more wet? Is that what you're saying?

I think that's the same logical fallacy we all stumble on with global warming. "Winters have been colder in a particular region of the world over the last few decades, therefore global warming doesn't exist". The world is a very large place and the range of data scatter can be very, very large. Right? Therefore, it's never logical to look at one year, or one region or such and draw any conclusions from that. It's only when the data for the entire world is analyzed as a whole that we can develop meaningful conclusions.

My tendency is to take something of a "conservation of energy" approach to global warming. If you have a change of the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the earth and it's atmosphere, then that energy has to "do something". It can increase the temperature of the air and water, it could evaporate that water and make things more moist. It could result in dynamic energy (i.e. more storms and such). Those are all rational conclusions to draw from increase energy input. What exactly it's going to do, I don't know for sure. It could easily be different depending on where you are in the world.

 

[dik]

There are a few issues with climate change. IMHO, it for real and the net effect is uncertain. There's no doubt in my mind that in the last few centuries we have caused the earth's atmosphere to heat up. We have accomplished in a millennia what, historically, has taken millions of years.

Again, IMHO, one of the few legitimate purposes of a government is to look after the long term interests of the population. The oligopholies have failed terribly. I don't see any resemblance to a democracy anywhere. Maybe Switzerland? Governments are still refusing to act in a meaningful manner and I can see temperatures going above 4C... not the 2C they are talking about. Last summer, places in Siberia had temperatures of 30C.

There is climate change that is a result of global warming. This is unpredictable and the full extent is unknown. The increased storms, intensities, droughts, et al, may be just a harbringer of the future. Things could, and I think they will, get a lot worse.

The loss of glacial ice will bring water shortage issues to some communities The increased sea level will flood lower lying areas of countries... 'deshies will be treading water. Part of New York may become flooded. Louisianna, and Florida... it's OK, it's just them. Larger areas may become desert with a loss of food production.

More farfetched items could be the redistribution of the mass of ice may increase seismic activity and volcanoes. There is even the possibility that the Gulf stream may cease... it's already weaking... look up AMOC. This latter item may make Europe and the UK significantly colder.

Hold on to your hats, folks... you might be in for quite a ride.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik