Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
How do they do it 9
- Thread starter 1503-44
- Start date
JoshPlumSE
Structural
Ironic Metallurgist said:
I do not know you very well all all. But, I do know you a at least a little based on interacting with you on this forum. My comments about your beliefs are entirely based on the types of comments you have made on this forum. Feel free to correct me anytime you feel I've stepped over the line or wronged you.
I certainly apologize for "putting words in your mouth". That really wasn't my intention. My comments about "killing 40% of the population and the rest of us living subsistence hunter gatherer type lives" as being the solution was related to the "extreme pessimism" that I see from so many. Your posts have led me to believe that you think that CO2 levels are so high now that catastrophic consequences are inevitable. You've also said things in the past that seem like you think there is no possible way we can globally reduce carbon emissions to the point where it will make any difference. Please let me know if I'm off base with those summaries.
To be clear, I'm not trying to denigrate you at. Not trying to invalidate your opinion or your posts. I'm just saying that you're pessimistic and somewhat extreme (IMO). Just like I don't view Greta Thundberg as the "reasonable" "straight talker" that you think she is. I think she is a sad, angry young lady who lives in terror and fear and wants to spread that terror and fear to others. We just have a difference of opinion of her based on what we have seen and heard from her and based on our different interpretations of the climate crisis.
Agreed. Though, I will say that the hypocrisy does seem pretty sinful to me. But, you're correct in that their inaction (or poor actions) are actually more sinful / wasteful.Ironic Metallurgis said:
I think she's an optimistic, angry person. Optimistic because she obviously thinks that she can still make a difference; angry because her youthful impatience sees a world sitting on its collective hands and not doing enough. Given that we are sitting on our collective hands, she rightly should be fearful. Aside from her, there is a large segment of the scientific community that thinks we're on the verge of a tipping point, such that the sheer inertia of the existing momentum will carry us towards the catastrophic changes even if we stopped everything in its tracks now.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list
- Thread starter
- #44
Landen Anderson
Computer
This is absolutely a computer model, and there are indeed a number of sources by which scientists are more likely to estimate annual weather conditions.
The IPCC reports, the NOAA shared data, all published scientific works, numbers and graphs is what is necessary to know, isn't it?
New drones sent to seas, new surveillance satellites sent to orbits to collect data for local ecosystems and measure CO2 in 3D.
1. There are reports.
2. There are warnings.
3. There is history of preventing floods with dams.
4. There are new technologies.
5. There are personal life style to be changed where necessary.
Do we have a complaint here for an exact aimed idleness?
New drones sent to seas, new surveillance satellites sent to orbits to collect data for local ecosystems and measure CO2 in 3D.
1. There are reports.
2. There are warnings.
3. There is history of preventing floods with dams.
4. There are new technologies.
5. There are personal life style to be changed where necessary.
Do we have a complaint here for an exact aimed idleness?
-
1
- #47
I tend to monitor these Climate Change (CC) threads but rarely comment. I think they need a climate change bumper sticker that says, "Somebody needs to do something-But not Me". The most public supporters of Climate Change measures exempt themselves, or want one country to suffer through drastic measures while exempting other countries that amazingly, they tend to make money off of.
I really have no idea how serious CC is. I have tried to grasp it but quite frankly, the science aspect is lacking. So, I just quit worrying about it.
From some of my previous posts on the subject, I repeat:
-Stop arguing about if it is a problem or not, treat is a goal you have decided to achieve. Most threads on the subject rapidly turn into an argument about if it is a problem or not. Just decide to improve the environment. No law against that.
-Note the difference in a Fact, Conclusion and Opinion. A lot of what I see is conclusions and pure opinions be presented as Facts. Fact are indisputable. Conclusions require supporting evidence and rational mixed with an acknowledgment of legitimate evidence that refutes the conclusion. Opinions only require a statement with no logic or thought.
-Explain to the non-believers why one of the early IPCC reports listed "eliminating poverty" as one of their goals in the mission statement. If CC is so dire, why get sidetracked eliminating poverty? I have asked this and never got a CC related answer.
Getting back to the heart of this thread, the presentation makes sense on the surface, but as usual, I don't have time to fully review and question it. So I do not just assume it to be accurate or inaccurate. I do question whether NASA started in 1880. NOAA has its roots in the early 1800s but itself was not formed until much later.
As far as the previous post, dams attempt to control downstream flooding but create permanent upstream flooding. Its the nature of dams.
I really have no idea how serious CC is. I have tried to grasp it but quite frankly, the science aspect is lacking. So, I just quit worrying about it.
From some of my previous posts on the subject, I repeat:
-Stop arguing about if it is a problem or not, treat is a goal you have decided to achieve. Most threads on the subject rapidly turn into an argument about if it is a problem or not. Just decide to improve the environment. No law against that.
-Note the difference in a Fact, Conclusion and Opinion. A lot of what I see is conclusions and pure opinions be presented as Facts. Fact are indisputable. Conclusions require supporting evidence and rational mixed with an acknowledgment of legitimate evidence that refutes the conclusion. Opinions only require a statement with no logic or thought.
-Explain to the non-believers why one of the early IPCC reports listed "eliminating poverty" as one of their goals in the mission statement. If CC is so dire, why get sidetracked eliminating poverty? I have asked this and never got a CC related answer.
Getting back to the heart of this thread, the presentation makes sense on the surface, but as usual, I don't have time to fully review and question it. So I do not just assume it to be accurate or inaccurate. I do question whether NASA started in 1880. NOAA has its roots in the early 1800s but itself was not formed until much later.
As far as the previous post, dams attempt to control downstream flooding but create permanent upstream flooding. Its the nature of dams.
thermionic1
Electrical
I don't have any skin in this game, but found this guy on YouTube and I believe he has some interesting information to share on the topic. PhD in Ecology and founder of Greenpeace.
TEDxVancouver - Patrick Moore - 11/21/09
TEDxVancouver - Patrick Moore - 11/21/09
- Thread starter
- #50
Ron247, Was not their intent to address poverty created by climate change. Seems to be within their scope of interest.
Thernionic1. Your link is 11 years out of date. Why not roll it back a bit more and maybe we can find one telling us that whale oil is the best renewable energy source of the future. Not that I don't believe that nukes do have a role to play.
Greenpeace's rollback of Patrick More.
Not that I can speak for Greenpiece, however Moore's contention that Greenpeace abandoned science and industry for emotional sensationalism appears to be true. I explain that easily. Science and industry will not lead the attack on this problem. Hopefully they will contribute to the solution, however it is apparent that, without a favourable public opinion, this as all of societies' problems will not be solved by an attack lead by scientists. Society does not function according to the whims of science. No matter what scientists hope, society is an emotional animal, so it will follow its emotions. Science did not prevent WWI, it did not solve the Vietnam War, it did not solve the Mideast Crisis, it did not solve gun violence, it will not solve Covid 19, nothing, unless the will of the people first forces the issue and allows science to step in and contribute, if it is still able. As we have found out, it is probably easier to mislead through science than anything else. The public has never understood science and probably never will. You lead people with emotion.
Thernionic1. Your link is 11 years out of date. Why not roll it back a bit more and maybe we can find one telling us that whale oil is the best renewable energy source of the future. Not that I don't believe that nukes do have a role to play.
Greenpeace's rollback of Patrick More.
Not that I can speak for Greenpiece, however Moore's contention that Greenpeace abandoned science and industry for emotional sensationalism appears to be true. I explain that easily. Science and industry will not lead the attack on this problem. Hopefully they will contribute to the solution, however it is apparent that, without a favourable public opinion, this as all of societies' problems will not be solved by an attack lead by scientists. Society does not function according to the whims of science. No matter what scientists hope, society is an emotional animal, so it will follow its emotions. Science did not prevent WWI, it did not solve the Vietnam War, it did not solve the Mideast Crisis, it did not solve gun violence, it will not solve Covid 19, nothing, unless the will of the people first forces the issue and allows science to step in and contribute, if it is still able. As we have found out, it is probably easier to mislead through science than anything else. The public has never understood science and probably never will. You lead people with emotion.
1503-44, Please, explain how it is within the scope of interest. I did not think they were saying poverty was caused by CC. I have no idea how it is relevant. The point I was making is that CC is so important we must address it now and with severe measures or we will perish in 12 years, but at the same time, lets spend effort on eliminating something that appears totally unrelated and has been around literally forever and most likely will be here until the end of time. I think I am correct that was in one of their early mission statements or writings and may still be there now.
The proxy data is interesting to consider. But there are roughly 3 groups pondering it. "Close-minded, CC is a problem", "Close-minded, CC is not a problem" and "Somewhat Open-Minds". The first 2 are probably not looking at the article beyond lookin for ammo for their viewpoint. Close-minded is nice from a research standpoint, don't need to spend much time. Open-minded is much harder to be. A lot of data (good and misleading) to sift through. That takes a lot of time.
The proxy data is interesting to consider. But there are roughly 3 groups pondering it. "Close-minded, CC is a problem", "Close-minded, CC is not a problem" and "Somewhat Open-Minds". The first 2 are probably not looking at the article beyond lookin for ammo for their viewpoint. Close-minded is nice from a research standpoint, don't need to spend much time. Open-minded is much harder to be. A lot of data (good and misleading) to sift through. That takes a lot of time.
- Thread starter
- #52
Its not rocket science. If they didn't say it, it should be obvious to those that follow the CC problem, but as you say, I guess you've no time to do that. Climate change is increasing poverty, so it is in their wider scope (and your interests) to do something about that, even though it might just wind up to be a side effect of their direct actions. I will explain. In addition to increasing pressure on subsistence farmers, making it no longer possible for them to live on the land they occupy now and forcing them to look for alternatives, such as joining the migration caravans to the US and EU, climate change is also expected to wipe billions off the property tax revenue from many homes in beachside cities, so if you don't want to think about "increasing poverty", call it decreasing wealth. The difference is simply relative to where a person's average bank balance stands. There are plenty of vineyards here in Spain that have failed this year from very low rainfall and record high temperatures in some regions and yet in others vinyards have been washed away by record rainfall intensities. My neighbour lost all his crop. They're not exactly scrounging the bins for food, but if it happens again next year, it just might put their year's income below the statistical poverty level. Maybe you would rather pay for more walls and border guards?
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
How does a failed vineyard relate to poverty? Wine seems to be more of a luxury item.
All of this action against climate change is working to make food and energy more expensive so the trickle down effect is an increase in poverty. That is why poverty and climate change need to be addressed together.
All of this action against climate change is working to make food and energy more expensive so the trickle down effect is an increase in poverty. That is why poverty and climate change need to be addressed together.
thermionic1
Electrical
Some have said that poverty is a big cause of CC due to the bio-fuels used by those in poverty. Due to the large scale of bio-fuels used, if poverty is eliminated a lot of things are cleaned up as sort of a two for one.
- Thread starter
- #56
All good points.
Wine can be a luxury for the drinkers of it; not so much for the agricultural producers, remembering that most is not grown for fun by the vast estates held by the idle rich like you see on TV Falcon Crest, but grown by hundreds of small plot holders which the large wealthy bottlers buy to stuff their bottles and their pockets. As for most all agricultural crops, the bulk of the money does not trickle down as far as the growers. Don't believe for a second that the thousands of coffee farmers in Colombia get more than 15% of the price you see at Starbucks. There is a huge reason that cocaine and poppies have replaced the traditional crops in South America and Afganistan. Its not because of the high prices that they get for growing coffee and chickpeas, or grapes in Spain, Portugal and Italy. The Duero River Valley and the Sil River in Galicia is full of thousands of small, family vinyards. They generally just get by. Some of the owners of the smaller plots still live in old, cold, uninsulated stone houses. Many do not own the land that you see, they just tend the grapes, or the bananas on La Palma. On La Palma there were 1200 residences destroyed by the volcano, but 15,000 people tend the bananas and avocados and otherwise make a living off of agriculture, transporting and packing them, grocery stores that sell to those workers and teachers of their kids in their schools. 50% of the islands economy is agriculture. That disaster was not climate change related, probably because the land got covered by lava before the crops failed due to lack of rain this year, but it gives an idea of how many people are involved with basic agriculture and are vulnerable to CC. They now have desalination plants that they can run for irrigation, so its just one more hit that will actually worsen CC. And as always, the bulk of the risk is taken by the farmers and they get the smallest cut of the ultimate proceeds. Small scale sugar cane growers can hardly afford the price of fossil fuels they need to run the sugar cane crushers, never mind to fuel the boilers to render it down, and dried cane really has no other use except to feed cattle, for which they would need to cut down even more tracks of the Brazilian rain forests to do that. At least coffee can be grown under a natural tree canopy and its not the farmers, but the trademarks that do the roasting. If they have electricity, it's for running their one or two incandescent bare light bulbs and maybe a TV if they can get any reception in their area. Not much cell phone coverage in the steep Sil River Valley. I'll leave cotton farming in Uzbekistan for the next post.
The Wall Street money guys and Elton 9Zuckerburg have to fix it. There's little anyone directly involved can do except try to use natural fertiliser instead of the stuff Monsanto wants to sell them. Fossil fuels are not their biggest problem. Bug killers are $65 a quart and that was a couple of yrs ago. Do the grunts ever win a war, no its the generals in the big chairs that really do the work. Don't look for the subsistence farmers to solve this problem. Call these guys.
Cheniere Energy
Entergy
PPL
Edison International
PG&E Corporation
DTE Energy
Valero
Consolidated Edison
MPLX
Williams
Pioneer Natural Resources
WEC Energy Group
Marathon Petroleum
PSEG
Phillips 66
EOG Resources
Eversource
Kinder Morgan
Xcel Energy
Sempra Energy
American Electric Power
Exelon
Enterprise Products
ConocoPhillips
Dominion Energy
Southern Company
Duke Energy
NextEra Energy
Chevron
ExxonMobil
Wine can be a luxury for the drinkers of it; not so much for the agricultural producers, remembering that most is not grown for fun by the vast estates held by the idle rich like you see on TV Falcon Crest, but grown by hundreds of small plot holders which the large wealthy bottlers buy to stuff their bottles and their pockets. As for most all agricultural crops, the bulk of the money does not trickle down as far as the growers. Don't believe for a second that the thousands of coffee farmers in Colombia get more than 15% of the price you see at Starbucks. There is a huge reason that cocaine and poppies have replaced the traditional crops in South America and Afganistan. Its not because of the high prices that they get for growing coffee and chickpeas, or grapes in Spain, Portugal and Italy. The Duero River Valley and the Sil River in Galicia is full of thousands of small, family vinyards. They generally just get by. Some of the owners of the smaller plots still live in old, cold, uninsulated stone houses. Many do not own the land that you see, they just tend the grapes, or the bananas on La Palma. On La Palma there were 1200 residences destroyed by the volcano, but 15,000 people tend the bananas and avocados and otherwise make a living off of agriculture, transporting and packing them, grocery stores that sell to those workers and teachers of their kids in their schools. 50% of the islands economy is agriculture. That disaster was not climate change related, probably because the land got covered by lava before the crops failed due to lack of rain this year, but it gives an idea of how many people are involved with basic agriculture and are vulnerable to CC. They now have desalination plants that they can run for irrigation, so its just one more hit that will actually worsen CC. And as always, the bulk of the risk is taken by the farmers and they get the smallest cut of the ultimate proceeds. Small scale sugar cane growers can hardly afford the price of fossil fuels they need to run the sugar cane crushers, never mind to fuel the boilers to render it down, and dried cane really has no other use except to feed cattle, for which they would need to cut down even more tracks of the Brazilian rain forests to do that. At least coffee can be grown under a natural tree canopy and its not the farmers, but the trademarks that do the roasting. If they have electricity, it's for running their one or two incandescent bare light bulbs and maybe a TV if they can get any reception in their area. Not much cell phone coverage in the steep Sil River Valley. I'll leave cotton farming in Uzbekistan for the next post.
The Wall Street money guys and Elton 9Zuckerburg have to fix it. There's little anyone directly involved can do except try to use natural fertiliser instead of the stuff Monsanto wants to sell them. Fossil fuels are not their biggest problem. Bug killers are $65 a quart and that was a couple of yrs ago. Do the grunts ever win a war, no its the generals in the big chairs that really do the work. Don't look for the subsistence farmers to solve this problem. Call these guys.
Cheniere Energy
Entergy
PPL
Edison International
PG&E Corporation
DTE Energy
Valero
Consolidated Edison
MPLX
Williams
Pioneer Natural Resources
WEC Energy Group
Marathon Petroleum
PSEG
Phillips 66
EOG Resources
Eversource
Kinder Morgan
Xcel Energy
Sempra Energy
American Electric Power
Exelon
Enterprise Products
ConocoPhillips
Dominion Energy
Southern Company
Duke Energy
NextEra Energy
Chevron
ExxonMobil
TugboatEng
Marine/Ocean
Volcanos aren't a result of climate change...
- Thread starter
- #58
Scientists are not leading the society, they do research, present data and make conclusions.
There is missing data, there are assumptions, interpolations, models. This is not what can be presented in the media, those are technical articles.
The 1, 2, 3.. conclusions should be clear and straightforward for the society. Other approaches are manipulation.
As it is already mentioned the data may be ‘manipulated’ by media or context as any celebrity’s interview (that what media does, this is not necessarily done on purpose).
If there are international initiatives, rules, actions, if there is a ‘green economy’, which brings us to results till 2050 - that may lead the society. If one’s backyard is rich or not, or even if there is none, one clear voice should be - there is a threat - do something.
There is missing data, there are assumptions, interpolations, models. This is not what can be presented in the media, those are technical articles.
The 1, 2, 3.. conclusions should be clear and straightforward for the society. Other approaches are manipulation.
As it is already mentioned the data may be ‘manipulated’ by media or context as any celebrity’s interview (that what media does, this is not necessarily done on purpose).
If there are international initiatives, rules, actions, if there is a ‘green economy’, which brings us to results till 2050 - that may lead the society. If one’s backyard is rich or not, or even if there is none, one clear voice should be - there is a threat - do something.
1503-44 said:
I was really looking for some answer to the question that made sense to me. The only thing that is rocket science, is rocket science. I did not say I have no time, I said it takes time. What takes more time is researching through false claims and false data regardless of the source (CC is fake or CC is real). According to the scenario you outline, correcting climate change will correct the poverty issue, but correcting poverty will not cure climate change. I made the second part of that statement, not you, but if we take all money and assets and divide them evenly among all earthlings, you have either eliminated poverty or re-defined it. But there is still CC. For that reason alone, I do not see its relevance.
Scientifically, you would first define poverty. I have not seen that done yet. Can't eradicate it if you do not know what its characteristics are.
Also, I think the wording was to eliminate poverty, you are talking about not increasing poverty. Those are 2 different things. If I was going to look at it as 'not decreasing wealth" rather than increasing poverty, the lets try to eliminate people getting wealthy rather than eliminating poverty. You see, we are both just playing with words here and neither of us are advancing anyone's understanding of CC.
I have never made my mind up on CC, and most likely never will.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question