Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2 40

Status
Not open for further replies.
A recent BBC radio show featured a bunch of them.
The main justification for all eco-engineering would appear to be that extreme as it is, CO2 reduction isn't going to work (especially, I'd have thought, if the AGW people have it wrong) and will be far more expensive than these schemes.

JMW
 
A very interesting read but please, keep the data away from Hansen or who knows how it will be edited and "adjusted".
Click to expand...
When I asked for proof of claims like this, I got a link to a page describing an error. The error was deemed by the guy who discovered it to have "no material effect" or something like that. There was nothing ever presented to indicate it was anything other than an error.

Why there are persistent comments such as this in the absence of anything resembling proof is beyond me.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
Of the various temperature sets, the GISS set which is NASA and Hansen's, is the only one out of sync.

We have been around the many questions about Hansen's temperature data set before. His reluctance to publish his calculations or program and the justification for the changes to the temperature remain unanswered, or at least, to the satisfaction of those better able than I to understand what he has been doing.

But, who did you ask for "proof of claims like this"?
The various links posted in this thread should surely lead to some concern that the GISS data is increasingly suspect.

JMW
 
electricpete said:
10 Jul 08 21:54
I can remember some accusations earlier in this thread about James Hansen (director of the NASA Goddard Space Center) of deliberately manipulating data. I followed the links and I never detected anything resembling proof. All I saw was links to sites containing description of relatively minor errors, with no indication of deliberate manipulation. If I have missed the proof (or anything close to it) to support the accusations that the data was deliberately manipulated, please let me know.
Click to expand...

LCruiser said:
11 Jul 08 0:33
Here's the latest on Hansen:
Click to expand...

electricpete said:
11 Jul 08 2:24
Now, you're link about Hansen. It is purely a discussion about the significance of the "Hansen error". There is nothing about the motivation for the error or anything suggesting intent to decieve. Certainly there is nothing to support the accusations that he cooked the books as suggested by others in this thread. (For example "just that the Hansens of this world are having a hard time proving it with doctored temperature data" - 30 Jun 08 6:27 ).

And while we are talking about significance, let's see what Steve McIntyre himself has to say about significance, from your link:

[red]Quote (McIntyre):
So while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a "significant" impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely "matter" and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS[/red]

Notice the bold part. This is not from NASA, this is from Steve McIntyre! The guy who found the error and who is an unabashed critic of Hansen. He says it has no material impact on world temperatures. I had assumed with all the chatter that there must have been something significant at the bottom of all this. Guess not.
Click to expand...

jmw said:
5 Aug 08 17:39
A very interesting read but please, keep the data away from Hansen or who knows how it will be edited and "adjusted".
Click to expand...
Note - no proof provided, but the ridiculous comments just keep coming.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
 
Tomfh,

Motl was a physics professor at Harvard. Despite his opinionated nature, he *was* that and nut cases don't generally become professors at Ivy League schools.

Why do you say he was a "nutcase" or is it just because you can't find anything really wrong with his position so an ad hominem attack is all you have left?
 
when you say he's opinionated, does that imply that he defends his positions on things by saying "i'm a physics professor at Havard, i know more than you, my opinion is worth more than yours" ? ... that could be someone else's "nutcase" ...
 
No, Motl prefers to defend his positions by calling his opponents "terrorists", "hyper communists", "nazis" etc etc. He also calls for their deaths, whether it be "by the gun" or "euthanasia".

Hence why Harvard let him go...
 
Facts are hard to find. Positions are your beliefs. Thoughts are based on your evaluations of facts and other peoples positions.

But calling people names is a sure sign you can't defend your positions.

People can lead by example, stating facts, or by giving the illusion of athorty.

I still believe global tempeture is controlled by activies of the sun, and little if any by man.

If man has done anything to change the climant it isen't CO2, it is concrete and asphult.
 
Tomfh said:
"Motl prefers to defend his positions by calling his opponents "terrorists", "hyper communists", "nazis" etc etc. He also calls for their deaths, whether it be "by the gun" or "euthanasia"."

Got anything concrete to back that up?

 
Just finished "Scared to Death" and I had quite an experience.
Needless to say that I will not see all the alarms and warnings in TV, radio, etc... under the same light I used to any more.
Short from verifying all the quotes, links and references, I think what is explained and detailed makes sense; to me at least.
The authors show a very sensible approach on how genuine health/environmental concerns are escalated and taken out of proportion to become a scare.
It has to be taken with a grain of salt though; otherwise your liver will explode.
It presents how we, the public and most affected by these scares, are nothing more than spectators. How policy has been made based on flawed science and how things taken out of context and proportion lead to these policies.
In my personal case, I know I am a little biased and see things in a different light than most people around me where I am at.
Even before I immigrated to a "1st world country" in North America I had some perceptions that are the same that the book presents (might be the ‘I lie they verify’ case).
I might be chewed on for this, but here they are:
• People need to find something to complain about since most of them (us now for me) have the basic needs already met and secured (and a little more if you get picky). When the daily struggle is to make ends meet and your worry is you own welfare and that of your loved ones, it is pretty hard to start worrying about something you do not really understand. If you have lived all your life in a 1st world country, you might have no clue what really is opening your front door (assuming you are upper middle class and have a roof over your head), seeing your children and having no clue whether you will be able to provide what they need next month (careful, these are the BASIC NEEDS, not the wii that all their friends have and not them). Needless to say that people less fortunate than you will not even have exposure to these scares.
• Bad news sell, period. If it is the press, they will see their numbers soar. If it is a political group, they can gain adepts. If it is an environmental group, well… they also need to eat, cannot afford to loose their source of income.
• Just as with a sex video of Britney with Pamela Anderson making headlines and grasping everybody’s attention span (in spite of the fact that this will not affect their lives in the least bit), morbidity will grab people’s attention. Bad news, scares, etc… give a legal and socially acceptable morbidity for small talk and more.
• There is some unconscious need (I guess) to feel threatened, especially when the concept is so vague or complex that the normal Joe (or Jane… no chauvinism here) cannot fully grasp. The threat has to seem remote but with a sense of closeness. Something along the lines that it is happening all around you but cannot conceive it happening to you (yeah, hard to grasp what I am trying to explain here, but it is the best I could do).
• People’s minds are very relaxed, and as a group, can be easily manipulated.
• There is no conceivable way, in our democratic worlds, to overrule what politicians and power groups do. No matter what the theory of democracy says.

The one I have not seen but, I think, is another factor here (and could also explain the stock market reactions)
• The speed in which news can reach us and information can travel leads to overreaction. The INTERNET is like a double edged sword, but the point is stabbing.
I think technology has advanced much faster than people’s education has. There is too much information and not every person with access to it can understand causes and consequences. It is unreal how an event in one side of the world can have such strong consequences on the opposite side (assuming both happened in developed countries).

There are more far more personal and I am pretty sure easily debatable.
• People have short, very short, memories. At least when applied to the collective memories.
• Most scientists are shy. They are not the media type and will not jump up and fight. And the few that have, well, have been labeled. The typical scientist will avoid confrontation with the publicity if he can help it. He can fight data; she can fight the cosmos, but will NOT fight public exposure.
• People are very willing to hear/learn about everything except what is really worth learning.


<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>
 
OK,

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>
 
Yeah, and I feel really guilty now for not having read it (yet) myself. I did consume Lomborg's book really rapidly though - same sort of thing perhaps (?).

Less mindless TV, more reading. I promise.

- Steve
 
here's a thought ... who's sticking the "ads by google" on the bottom of the threads, advertising "CO2 removal" ... probably something most of the responders think is a crock ?
 
Actually, unotec's post is *extremely* relevent here. This one statement clarifies a point:

"There is some unconscious need (I guess) to feel threatened, especially when the concept is so vague or complex that the normal Joe (or Jane... no chauvinism here) cannot fully grasp."

When people don't get the basic thermodynamics (which includes modelers since convection is not in the GCM's) they become afraid of the unknown. Hot air rises, CO2 greens plants, etc. are basic truths that pigeonholed people don't (or can't, sometimes) grasp.

Face it - some people go on to get advanced degrees because their ability to function with only a bachelor's degree is, well, "limited" so they become climate modelers.
 
rb1957,

Google is searching the thread and selecting ads from its subscribers. Over in the Engine & Fuel Engineering forum, the "run your engine on water" posts always attract the snake oil guys.

I find it quite amusing (ironic almost) that the ads that appear are generally from those that the thread is lambasting.

- Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

EngineerRam
  • Locked
  • Question
Decoupling of Buyer's and Seller's Agents Fees - Real Estate - Implications on Engineering Industry
Replies
11
Views
31
IRstuff
IRstuff
271828
  • Locked
  • Question
Article on AI implementation in work flows
Replies
8
Views
12
IRstuff
IRstuff
geotechguy1
  • Locked
  • Question
Changes to the iron ring ceremony 4
2
Replies
31
Views
32
Sparweb
Sparweb
JohnRBaker
  • Locked
  • Question
How will the COVID-19 pandemic change the face of business... 7
2
Replies
27
Views
28
kissymoose
kissymoose
ash060
  • Locked
  • Question
FL Engineers - Collaspe result in changes
Replies
14
Views
15
-
?
Back
Top