Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by motion30

But there is 1 major political partie in the US, who claims they are the religious party, that completely denies climate change. In fact they believe it is a conspiracy from the other political party. These same people do not believe in evolution but rather in creationism.

Huge overstatement. The Republican party encompasses a large spectrum of adherents, thoughts and ideas, and has been characterized by serious division and internal polarization in recent years. The enthusiasm and thus the money more often than not come from the more extreme elements of both parties, leaving probably 80% of Americans without the type of effective, consensus based leadership that characterized so much of the country's history. Candidates from both sides have to play to the extremists to win primaries, and then try and backtrack from those positions to attract the moderates needed to win the general election.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... don't know why it's a surprise that fossil fuel interests are part of the funding for anti-CC or at least anti-MMCC research. This is for the same reason that I'm not surprised that most of the public funding for pro-CC research is coming from a US administration that has an anti-capitalist & an anti-fossil fuel agenda, along with plenty of private funding from universities, think tanks & industries that have a pro-AWG agenda. Some of this private funding is from the millionaires & billionaires who believe in the science, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of it comes from private interests that stand to gain should some of the proposed solutions be implemented. Perhaps industries involved in alternative energy, environmental clean up, maybe even nuclear. Unless it can be shown that the actual research on either side is being manipulated or corrupted by this funding, this is just the way a society not bound by absolute gov't. control operates, and I would suggest that it's healthy.

The public funds research into the climate, including into CC, not 'pro-CC research' . Science goes where the data leads, and that's what they report, whether it's for, against, or immaterial. Proper university endowments and institutional funding are arms-length; there's no easy way to 'buy' or influence an outcome by funding in this manner. And the ethics and checks and balances of the scientific process itself and its practitioners, which you don't seem to acknowledge.

This is not like the fossil-fuel-funded (or untraceably-funded) self-declared skeptical 'institutions' (they're really more like PACs) who are paid to find anything that will counter the findings of CC. If their research ends up validating AGW, they won't utter a peep, and some files will be burnt in a midnight fire.

That's not healthy. It makes sensible people like you think there's a serious scientific debate when there actually isn't.

But hey, this is just a sailing forum and none of it is exactly subject to peer review.

I'm conducting beer review this very minute.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

I
But hey, this is just a sailing forum and none of it is exactly subject to peer review.

Yes it is subject to peer review. We are your peers on this sailing forum

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... a US administration that has an anti-capitalist & an anti-fossil fuel agenda

Bit of a slip there, no?

Everyone knows that low fossil-fuel price has been a gift that has kept our sputtering western economies going (except us exporters ). Just because a government won't rubber-stamp a poorly-planned pipeline doesn't make them anti fossil-fuel.

Since your current government hasn't much raised the top tier of personal and business taxes from their historical lows set in 2003... hard to see them as anti-capitalist either...

(Yes, gas on a fire. Sue me. )

[Kenomac]

I'm back.

Things took a little longer than expected... I tripped while running to the car with a pair of scissors and needed to stop by the ER for some stitches.

Did I miss anything?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The public funds research into the climate, including into CC, not 'pro-CC research' . Science goes where the data leads, and that's what they report, whether it's for, against, or immaterial. Proper university endowments and institutional funding are arms-length; there's no easy way to 'buy' or influence an outcome by funding in this manner. And the ethics and checks and balances of the scientific process itself and its practitioners, which you don't seem to acknowledge.

This is not like the fossil-fuel-funded (or untraceably-funded) self-declared skeptical 'institutions' who are paid to find anything that will counter the findings of CC. If their research ends up validating AGW, they won't utter a peep, and some files will be burnt in a midnight fire.

That's not healthy. It makes sensible people like you think there's a serious scientific debate when there actually isn't.

I'm conducting beer review this very minute.

Outstanding! But I would have thought that after jetting off to a new year's party with Al you'd need some time to recover.

Your comments suggest a lot of insight into the scientific process, the manner into which funding is obtained, and some of the research methodology itself. You also don't hesitate to indict the scientists who happen to be conducting research on the other side, even though you vehemently object to these same sorts of attacks on scientists who are part of the "consensus" community. Given the specificity and intensity of your comments, I think you should disclose your relationship to the scientific community, and whether you yourself have a scientific background or training.

After all, you are boldly stating that some scientists "are paid to find anything that will counter the findings of CC. If their research ends up validating AGW, they won't utter a peep, and some files will be burnt in a midnight fire." Care to share how you know this? That's quite an indictment to these experts' professional reputations L-E, and I have yet to read any such accusations of unprofessional ethics directed towards scientists on the "consensus" side of the issue. Even the controversy and protracted litigation involving Michael Mann don't seem to involve claims of libel or slander.

Please inform us.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I'm back.

Things took a little longer than expected... I tripped while running to the car with a pair of scissors and needed to stop by the ER for some stitches.

Did I miss anything?

Nah, same old, same old. Although a few sub-debates and one or two sub-sub-debates. L-E is drinkin' again, but that can probably only help.

How did the new .308 work out? Any nice groupings you care to share?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Bit of a slip there, no?

Everyone knows that low fossil-fuel price has been a bit of a gift that has kept our sputtering western economies going. Just because a government won't rubber-stamp a poorly-planned pipeline doesn't make them anti fossil-fuel.

Since your current government hasn't much raised the top tier of personal and business taxes from their historical lows set in 2003... hard to see them as anti-capitalist either...

(Yes, gas on a fire. Sue me. )

Crony capitalism and corruption keeps stopping the pipeline, not a lack of tax revenue... just ask Warren B.

'Seems to me that Canada has the most to loose if the world turns it's back on fossil fuels.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Bit of a slip there, no?

Everyone knows that low fossil-fuel price has been a gift that has kept our sputtering western economies going (except us exporters ). Just because a government won't rubber-stamp a poorly-planned pipeline doesn't make them anti fossil-fuel.

Since your current government hasn't much raised the top tier of personal and business taxes from their historical lows set in 2003... hard to see them as anti-capitalist either...

(Yes, gas on a fire. Sue me. )

Nah, I don't think your pockets are deep enough to make a lawsuit worthwhile. But wait, is your insurance paid up?

Low oil prices have a been a gift to everyone except the administration. Not only did they have nothing to do with it, but they tried everything they could to stop it.

You need to start broadening your reading. Start by picking something up that does not validate your entrenched opinions. Trust me, it won't hurt.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Exile

Nah, same old, same old. Although a few sub-debates and one or two sub-sub-debates. L-E is drinkin' again, but that can probably only help.

How did the new .308 work out? Any nice groupings you care to share?

Maybe on Sunday when I actually go. I've been out painting the entire interior of the carriage house on my day off, it's not going as fast as I'd hoped. New office tenants moving in tomorrow.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yes it is subject to peer review. We are your peers on this sailing forum

That's TRUE!! And if I keep this up it will probably result in someone telling me they're getting annoyed with all my postings and to not-so-kindly knock it off.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

'Seems to me that Canada has the most to loose if the world turns it's back on fossil fuels.

Alberta knows that and they still elected a social democratic government who are bringing in carbon pricing. We are shifting from coal generated electricity to cleaner forms using natural gas a a transitional fuel. Our local light rail transit system uses wind power for its electricity.

Canada has great hydroelectric potential. We also have lots of uranium deposits.

Ontario is replacing coal-fired electricity generation with a mix of emission-free energy sources like nuclear, hydro and renewables, along with lower-emission energy sources like natural gas and biomass.

BC already has a successful revenue neutral carbon tax.

The new Liberal federal government is committed to lower carbon emissions.

None of this will occur overnight.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Alberta knows that and they still elected a social democratic government who are bringing in carbon pricing. We are shifting from coal generated electricity to cleaner forms using natural gas a a transitional fuel. Our local light rail transit system uses wind power for its electricity.

Canada has great hydroelectric potential. We also have lots of uranium deposits.

Ontario is replacing coal-fired electricity generation with a mix of emission-free energy sources like nuclear, hydro and renewables, along with lower-emission energy sources like natural gas and biomass.

BC already has a successful revenue neutral carbon tax.

The new Liberal federal government is committed to lower carbon emissions.

None of this will occur overnight.

That all sounds most sensible . . . if it'll work and not unduly encumber the taxpayers. But as you say, it's a start and a majority of the people essentially voted for it.

[Mike OReilly]

I appreciate your thoughtful and challenging responses Exile. It's one of the reasons I haven't put this whole thread on ignore (like I often do). And I don't want to belabour these points. I think they are rather peripheral to the main event.

The whole statin debate (which is still raging) is a complex one. As usual, there is "truth" on all sides. Without diving too deeply into the research (which I'm happy to do, but perhaps elsewhere), the broad sweeps appear to be one of general over-reach and extension of a drug's use. Statins are well indicated for a certain population (those with diagnosed heart disease, and strong genetic connections). The issue is that, like many other pharmaceuticals, the target population keeps expanding. There is a growing body of research that questions the efficacy of much of statin use.

The problem, if I can put it this way, is that drug research is almost exclusively conducted by drug companies themselves. Findings are presented to the various approving bodies, but these bodies have a decreasing ability to conduct independent confirmation studies. This is partly due to the evisceration of independent government research capacity. Drug companies spend 100s of millions of dollars each year "detailing" physicians on how to use their drugs. All this is most pronounced in the USA where healthcare is largely a private good, and billions of dollars are at stake.

I think the parallels are strong with the whole climate change debate. If all climate research was done by those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo, what do you think the results would be? Luckily (from my perspective) the research space in climatology is not dominated by the fossil fuel industry -- but they are trying.

I don't find it at all surprising that this is happening. It is exactly what I would expect to happen. Heck, if I were the Koke brothers (to use a simplistic example) I'd be doing the same thing.

I'm not clear where you're going with pointing to the political leanings of Hofstadter. I used his book as an example of the long tradition of writing and research that has explored this anti-intellectual bent in American culture, mainly b/c of the Pulitzer Prize attached to his work. It was in context of some other comments around this subject which I don't really care to dig back to find now. I could have cited any of the other hundreds of authors of papers, books, talks, thesis and journal articles out there. This has nothing to do with Hofstadter being a communist or anti-captialst (which is news to me).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's TRUE!! And if I keep this up it will probably result in someone telling me they're getting annoyed with all my postings and to not-so-kindly knock it off.

Nah we will just sequeztsr you for a couple days.