Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Er - maybe I'm just missing the obvious - are we talking climate science or climate politics?
    Climate science of course, and not conservative political agenda against the climate science.

    The major problem of political science is when some countries do not aggressively address the problem and avoid being involved with an international commitment like the USA and India. Other countries are neglecting their responsibility also, but the USA and India are the major polluters avoiding their responsibility.

    Passing out straws at a campaign event does not reflect a good attitude toward climate change, not plastic pollution, both related potential devastating environmental issues.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-21-2019, 06:56 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Climate science of course, and not conservative political agenda against the climate science.

      The major problem of political science is when some countries do aggressively address the problem and avoid being involved with an international commitment like the USA and India. Other countires are neglcting their responsibility also, but the USA and India are the major polluters avoiding their responsibility.
      Then per capita is a stupid metric to use - further evidence that the 'crisis' is manufactured. [This is why you shouldn't jump in where you don't know the depth.]

      Nah, the major problem is that it's all a big scam.

      Also, get an automatic spellcheck...
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Egypt has about four times as many people as Australia. If the Egyptians and the Australians are producing similar amounts of pollution, Egypt would produce four times as much CO2 as Australia. If Egypt is producing more than four times as much as Australia, then the Egyptians are bigger polluters than Australians. If Egypt is producing less than four times as much as Australia, then it's the Australians that are the bigger polluters.
        And now I lose you. Granted, higher pop with all else equal would have that result - but the atmosphere won't care. The overall volume of CO2 is the problem as I understand it.

        This calculation only works if pop is the only variable - but that isn't so in the real world. I understand how per capita is calculated - we use it all the time in Poli Sci. What I don't get is why this is a useful metric - specifically, why is per capita a better metric than overall volume in this particular case*.
        The overall volume produced globally is the problem - but some parts of the world contribute to that volume more than others, and the question asked was where to concentrate on to best reduce that overall volume.

        If China and Andorra were both producing the same total amount of pollution, which would you concentrate on if you wanted to reduce the global total?
        If Egypt and Australia were both producing the same total amount of pollution, which would you concentrate on if you wanted to reduce the global total?

        Canada used to produce more CO2 than West Germany, and also more than East Germany. But after reunification, Germany produced more CO2 than Canada. Does that mean Germany became a worse polluter than Canada overnight?

        The US produces more CO2 than the EU - but if California seceded, it wouldn't. Would Californian secession somehow make both California and the rest of the US better than the EU regarding emissions?

        The problem with using national totals rather than per capita figures is that a populous nation that has introduced pollution controls will still produce more total emissions than a less populous country that hasn't - focussing on the former is missing the best chance of reducing pollution.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Then per capita is a stupid metric to use - further evidence that the 'crisis' is manufactured. [This is why you shouldn't jump in where you don't know the depth.]

          Nah, the major problem is that it's all a big scam.

          Also, get an automatic spellcheck...
          The bold above exemplifies the denial issue
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            The overall volume produced globally is the problem - but some parts of the world contribute to that volume more than others, and the question asked was where to concentrate on to best reduce that overall volume.
            Agreed.

            If China and Andorra were both producing the same total amount of pollution, which would you concentrate on if you wanted to reduce the global total?
            If Egypt and Australia were both producing the same total amount of pollution, which would you concentrate on if you wanted to reduce the global total?
            Both - there is no need to act piecemeal. We have a diplomatic corps for a reason - so we can have relations with many nations at once. If we do need to focus, focus on volume - it doesn't make sense to put out the trash fire while the house burns.

            I'm accepting your use of pollution for this discussion.

            Canada used to produce more CO2 than West Germany, and also more than East Germany. But after reunification, Germany produced more CO2 than Canada. Does that mean Germany became a worse polluter than Canada overnight?
            Actually yes - because Germany became a new entity overnight. And in real terms, yes again - producing more pollution is a 'bigger polluter' than producing less.

            The US produces more CO2 than the EU - but if California seceded, it wouldn't. Would Californian secession somehow make both California and the rest of the US better than the EU regarding emissions?
            We'll give you California - FYI, they can't secede (one of the consequences of the Civil War).

            All that does is divide responsibility - the pollution is the same. This use of per capita is a political issue then - now it makes sense.

            The problem with using national totals rather than per capita figures is that a populous nation that has introduced pollution controls will still produce more total emissions than a less populous country that hasn't - focussing on the former is missing the best chance of reducing pollution.
            And it introduces the problem of chasing the hole rather than the rabbit. The goal is reduction of overall volume - not per capita production. It's a bit of political chicanery to focus attention away from the actual problem, overall volume, to the 'bad guys'. It works really well - to the benefit of some nations at the detriment of others but doesn't actually catch the rabbit.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              The bold above exemplifies the denial issue
              Nah, you just keep proving that the crisis is just a scheme to garner political power. Gotta admit, it did much better than the acid rain scare.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                Nah, you just keep proving that the crisis is just a scheme to garner political power. Gotta admit, it did much better than the acid rain scare.
                One thing these debates show. If a persons mind is already made up, if a person would just rather not know, if a person simply refuses to be convinced, the facts do not matter.
                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                  And it introduces the problem of chasing the hole rather than the rabbit. The goal is reduction of overall volume - not per capita production. It's a bit of political chicanery to focus attention away from the actual problem, overall volume, to the 'bad guys'. It works really well - to the benefit of some nations at the detriment of others but doesn't actually catch the rabbit.
                  What you are not getting teal is that the less pollution per capita, the smaller the potential for improvement. Consider an arbitrary lower bound x that is the minimum polluion per capita possible. If China has 1 billion people and its pollution output per capita is 2x, and russia has 250,000,000 people but its per capita output is 8x, then they have the same amount of pollution 2x109x. But the best I can do for china is to cut its pollution by 1/2 to 1x109x - a net reduction of 1x109x. But I can take russia's down to 1/8, which means that we can cut the total output for them down to .25x109x for a total reduction of 1.75x109x - or almost twice what I can get out of China.

                  Now, if you fold the law of diminishing returns in, then we realize x being a lower bound is going to be a lot harder to achieve than say 1.5x, which means I can likely get a lot more than just a two fold difference in the total reduction out of helping russia's problem than helping china's problem, even though they are 'equal' in terms of national production.

                  Another way to look at it is that if all nations are equal per capita, the total volume output of a given nation tells you almost nothing about how to reduce emissions further.
                  Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-21-2019, 08:26 AM.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    What you are not getting teal is that the less pollution per capita, the smaller the potential for improvement. Consider an arbitrary lower bound x that is the minimum polluion per capita possible. If China has 1 billion people and its pollution output per capita is 2x, and russia has 250,000,000 people but its per capita output is 8x, then they have the same amount of pollution 2x109x. But the best I can do for china is to cut its pollution by 1/2 to 1x109x - a net reduction of 1x109x. But I can take russia's down to 1/8, which means that we can cut the total output for them down to .25x109x for a total reduction of 1.75x109x - or almost twice what I can get out of China.

                    Now, if you fold the law of diminishing returns in, then we realize x being a lower bound is going to be a lot harder to achieve than say 1.5x, which means I can likely get a lot more than just a two fold difference in the total reduction out of helping russia's problem than helping china's problem, even though they are 'equal' in terms of national production.
                    Good argument, but, of course you realize you are communicating with someone who believes that Global Warming or politely called Climate Change, is totally a sham.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Good argument, but, of course you realize you are communicating with someone who believes that Global Warming or politely called Climate Change, is totally a sham.
                      Thanks, but not only has she done what you say, she has me on ignore permanently it seems. So the argument then is being made more to a general audience, not to her directly.
                      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-21-2019, 08:38 AM.
                      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Good argument, but, of course you realize you are communicating with someone who believes that Global Warming or politely called Climate Change, is totally a sham.
                        No he isn't - he knows darn well I have him on ignore.

                        And quit complaining about your own handiwork.
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          One thing these debates show. If a persons mind is already made up, if a person would just rather not know, if a person simply refuses to be convinced, the facts do not matter.
                          I think it goes beyond that - both sides go running to the cameras declaring that "today's testimony" absolutely proves (of disproves) the case.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            I think it goes beyond that - both sides go running to the cameras declaring that "today's testimony" absolutely proves (of disproves) the case.
                            Are you in the correct thread? This thread is about climate change. I'm talking specifically about the climate change debate, or perhaps more generally scientific debate in an ideological rather than a scientific environment.
                            Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-21-2019, 02:20 PM.
                            My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                            If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                            This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Are you in the correct thread?
                              I am ALWAYS in the correct thread!

                              [ looking around ]

                              um....

                              This thread is about climate change.
                              I'll see myself to the door --- is that real fruit in the bowl?
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                                Nah, you just keep proving that the crisis is just a scheme to garner political power. Gotta admit, it did much better than the acid rain scare.
                                Now politics in the fundamental science global warming.

                                Still waiting for a sound scientific argument with references that support any alternative scenario.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X