Durban Climate Change Conference 2011

[ironsides]

I usually use science as my bible when it comes to something like "global warming, climate change". Question is there any real scientist that says we can stop global warming, climate change etc. or will we just spend money on what will eventually happen anyway? That is the question I think most of us would like to know.

 

[darkbeaver]

peer review is under review by science today that's because peer review is done by people with positions and habits, just like anybody else they like the smooth

 

[captain morgan]

peer review is under review by science today that's because peer review is done by people with positions and habits, just like anybody else they like the smooth

It's a lost cause.... Today's version of 'peer review' can be more aptly called 'buddy review' as the peers, in this case, are friendly reviewers that already believe in the premise that is being forwarded.

East Anglia taught us that, yet there is still a large population of buffoons that are impressed by a pseudo-scientific process and immune to any form of objective thought.

 

[Tonington]

I usually use science as my bible when it comes to something like "global warming, climate change". Question is there any real scientist that says we can stop global warming, climate change etc. or will we just spend money on what will eventually happen anyway? That is the question I think most of us would like to know.

Climate scientists aren't political scientists or economists. Climate scientists can comment on the risks. Effective policy isn't really the sphere of an atmospheric physicist or chemist.

It's a lost cause.... Today's version of 'peer review' can be more aptly called 'buddy review' as the peers, in this case, are friendly reviewers that already believe in the premise that is being forwarded.

It depends on which journal, they aren't all the same. Also, it's not just some climate journals where article submitters get to offer reviewers, it happens in medical journals, economic journals, social science, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.

 

[ironsides]

Climate scientists aren't political scientists or economists. Climate scientists can comment on the risks. Effective policy isn't really the sphere of an atmospheric physicist or chemist.




.

I'm not sure that the answer to my question can be answered by a political scientist or a economist. We are talking about saving live on this Earth as we know it. Say six renowned scientists come up with six possible solutions (all may work or not). We only have so much resources to expend, which one do we chose? Who will decide it?
[/FONT]

 

[Tonington]

I'm not sure that the answer to my question can be answered by a political scientist or a economist. We are talking about saving live on this Earth as we know it. Say six renowned scientists come up with six possible solutions (all may work or not). We only have so much resources to expend, which one do we chose? Who will decide it?

You could try this solution, it's been around for a while, the researchers (not climate scientists) identified current technology which could be considered wedges, each wedge corresponding to a change in emissions 50 years later:
http://www.wartburg.edu/business/corp/Science-13Aug04-SocolowWedges.pdf

But you should note, the later the start date, the more wedges we need, or the wedges need to be adjusted to make them larger.

Then you have others advocating geo-engineering, like pumping aerosols into the atmosphere. But if you don't do anything about the carbon dioxide, well then it's analogous to this solution:
Global Warming - None Like It Hot! - YouTube

 

[darkbeaver]

It's a lost cause.... Today's version of 'peer review' can be more aptly called 'buddy review' as the peers, in this case, are friendly reviewers that already believe in the premise that is being forwarded.

East Anglia taught us that, yet there is still a large population of buffoons that are impressed by a pseudo-scientific process and immune to any form of objective thought.

To be clear what needs to be attacked here and crushed is the insane attachment to the authority of institution which has thoroughly defiled itself in bribery and fraud like much of the rest of the rapidly deflating western edifice. They seem to want us to believe that these offices of science are exempt from regular human error. It's exactly as if these pseudo scientologists had attained saintly and divine proportion in their heroic battle against the dark forces of CO2, a gas.

How in flaming hell can all the methane and CO2 spewing holes on this planet be plugged. That is exactly the idiot plan, plugs or bags, if the taxes remaining allows it after administrative costs are covered.

 

[Tonington]

They seem to want us to believe that these offices of science are exempt from regular human error.

Straw man.

It works better than the alternative. Maybe you have the luxury of working with perfect systems, for the rest of us living in reality however we have to make do with what we have and what works best.

There is no such thing as a perfect human system. They are all imperfect. Some are better than others. You don't happen to have an alternative to review do you? If so let's hear it dim rodent.

 

[darkbeaver]

Straw man.



There is no such thing as a perfect human system. They are all imperfect. Some are better than others. You don't happen to have an alternative to review do you? If so let's hear it dim rodent.

You blasphemer, The Sacred Scientific Method is just such a perfect system invented by god and delivered unto the Greeks by St Lucifer hisself.

 

[petros]

If you want reliability use the "jail" option.

 

[ironsides]

You could try this solution, it's been around for a while, the researchers (not climate scientists) identified current technology which could be considered wedges, each wedge corresponding to a change in emissions 50 years later:
http://www.wartburg.edu/business/corp/Science-13Aug04-SocolowWedges.pdf

But you should note, the later the start date, the more wedges we need, or the wedges need to be adjusted to make them larger.

Then you have others advocating geo-engineering, like pumping aerosols into the atmosphere. But if you don't do anything about the carbon dioxide, well then it's analogous to this solution:

Looks like wedges it has to be, but the sooner the better. I got it, thanks a lot.
[/FONT]

 

[petros]

Widgets and catafraz will fix any non-problem.

 

[Tonington]

You blasphemer, The Sacred Scientific Method is just such a perfect system invented by god and delivered unto the Greeks by St Lucifer hisself.

You won't find anyone who actually uses the scientific method making those silly claims. Like I said, it's the best we have, that doesn't mean perfect.

 

[darkbeaver]

You won't find anyone who actually uses the scientific method making those silly claims. Like I said, it's the best we have, that doesn't mean perfect.

The scientific method is perfectly logical truth.

 

[Tonington]

The scientific method is perfectly logical truth.

The scientific method is a tool. That's like calling a screwdriver perfectly logical truth. You need a wrench? Yer nuts.

 

[ironsides]

We have Methane hydrates bubbling up off the coast of California. water off Florida has risen 2 degrees. in the past 100 years or so. CO2 levels are rising because of man. It is known that the Earth travels around the sun in an elliptical orbit that varies in shape, with time from nearly circular to distinctly elliptical. This, combined with the fact that the sun is not the center of the earth's orbit, causes the distance from the Earth to the sun to vary. For instance, the current annual variation of this distance is between 147 million kilometers and 152 million kilometers. The distances can be as much as 142 million kilometers for a minimum and 156 million kilometers for a maximum. The amount of solar energy received by the earth is greatest when the earth is nearest the sun. This phenomenon is called the eccentricity of the orbit and has a 100,000 year cycle. This factor, combined with the tilt of the earth's axis, is believed to cause seasonal climate changes which are out of phase in each hemisphere. For instance, northern hemisphere winters are currently milder and summers cooler than normal. The opposite situation, colder winters and hotter summers, is now occurring in the southern hemisphere.

We are should be in a cooling off cycle in Earth's history, but the CO2 levels are rising faster than the Earth can clear it up. Something will happen in this tug of war.