I cannot bring up alternatives to CO2 without being mobbed.

[Skogsgurra]

PC has now taken over all discussions on climate and reasons for climate changes.

I try to keep an open mind, but Sweden has always been a consensus society and consensus is now total. Any other possible mechanism than CO2 is now banned and not allowed to be brought up in discussions.

What do you think about such a society?

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[SomptingGuy]

Our newspapers have moved on. Now the common term is "carbon producing". I really want to write a stern letter, etc, but fear that the war has been lost.

- Steve

 

[cswilson]

Skogs,

As an American of Scandinavian descent, I have been involved in many family discussions over the years of the relative merits of the societies. Certainly the Scandinavian countries are much better ordered on the whole than America is.

But on the whole, I would choose the "raucous glorious mess" that America is. I think the lack of consensus here makes the country more self-correcting and better able to adapt to changing circumstances. I am not a fan of Fox News, for example, but I am very glad that it exists.

I can bring up my doubts about how much our activities cause climate change (which I find many engineers share) without believers thinking I am a "creationist" or "flat-earther".

 

[csd72]

creationist - I always thought that was what the c was for at the beginning of your handle!

But seriously, the term carbon emmisions is a misdenomer in itself as it is and always has been 'carbon equivalent' as there are many gases involved.

Climate has changed, both in my birth city (Sydney, Australia) and my current home (In the UK) based on that small sample evidence I would say that there definately could be some merit to it.

We cannot predict the weather let alone the entire climate, so asking for absolute proof of climate change is only a little short of asking for absolute proof of the big bang. very (to the power of 20) difficult.

 

[MikeHalloran]

The last round of revisions to US emissions regulations made it clear that carbon banking is a scam intended to further enrich Albert Gore.

Yes, I believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and that CO2 levels are rising, but I also believe that the primary cause is not combustion, but deforestation, which continues unabated.

The difference is that the actors most responsible for deforestation have no money to be extorted by governments, whereas owners and operators of combustion processes do have some money, and are relatively easy targets of governmental extortion.




Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[TheTick]

If it can't be questioned, it simply is not science. It is dogma.

 

[Eltron]

IF we are to believe that current climate change is anthropogenic, AND IF we are to believe that CO2 levels affect the climate change, AND IF we are to believe that it is not combustion related, AND IF deforestation is the main culprit in CO2 levels' increase then we need to start to point the finger (you decide which one) in the direction of the major culprit - the cattle industry. These foul beasts are quite likely primary contributors when their husbandry, packaging and transportation are taken into account; yet they never get mentioned or taxed. Why?

Regarding the "CO2" no-no word, this is to be expected when people only partially understand the complexity of things they claim to be passionate about. Typical.

Dan

http://www.eltronresearch.com

Dan's Blog

 

[KENAT]

I'm an advocate of 'hedge your bets' on these issues.

That is, while I'm not 100% sure that cutting carbon dioxide (equivalent) emissions will slow down the rate of climate change (I am convinced it changes at some rate regardless of what we do) there are other reasons to do some things that also work toward this goal.

These other reasons might include factors like the effect of pollution associated with burning fossil fuels, negative consequences of importing lots of hydrocarbons (balance of payments and the political power it gives those darn foreigners that have the oil etc.), concerns over increasing demand for at least some hydro carbons while supply is getting tighter (not exactly 'peak oil' but along those lines), saving more hydrocarbons for the chemical industry etc. rather than burning them for fuel...

So, take measures where they also help with these other issues, and if concern over anthropogenic global warming is used to help justify them maybe that's not so terrible.

Hold off on measures that only help the 'Anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change' concerns until we're a bit more clear on the exact cause and effect mechanism etc.

So for instance conservations measures are probably a reasonable idea so long as they don't have too big a negative effect on productivity etc.

However, large scale deliberate 'carbon sequestration' as in pumping CO2 underground, seems dubious to me at the moment.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Skogsgurra]

Watch your tongues! You will all be hung high if you say things like that to my neighbours!

I also ventured to say that I would like better proof that global warming is caused by humans and not just a statistical variation - or something that we have had many many times over hundred thousands of years.

That was not the right thing to say.

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[TGS4]

... I believe ...

... If we are to believe ...

To pile onto what TheTick said, we don't believe anything in science or applied science - engineering. Either the evidence demonstrates a hypothesis to be plausible, or it falsifies it. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable, then it is not science. Computers models are NOT evidence.

This is worth repeating...

If it can't be questioned, it simply is not science. It is dogma.

Perhaps, to silence critics, our Scandinavian friends should require their "denier" brethren to wear, on their clothes, some type of identifying mark. The Star of David has already been used, so they will need something else. Of course, we all know that went - or have we forgotten?!?

 

[hokie66]

KENAT,
Did you ever consider going into politics?

 

[KENAT]

Hmm, not sure if that's meant to be an insult, but no I've never really considered it. I mean, I'm not the sharpest tool in the Eng-Tips tool box (though I'm sure some would confirm I am a tool) but I don't think I'm that dumb.;-)

Certainly as regards 'office politics' I'm not good at it either.

Plus, far too many skeletons in my closet.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[KENAT]

Oh, and could I count on your vote?

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Skogsgurra]

Yes, and mine, too.

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
Half full - Half empty? I don't mind. It's what in it that counts.

 

[IRstuff]

" better proof that global warming is caused by humans and not just a statistical variation "

Does it matter? I find that whole argument about whether it's anthropogenic or not perplexing; it's like two guys on the deck of the Titanic arguing about whether it was an iceberg or a German torpedo that caused the ship to start sinking. Really? Is that even relevant? The damn ship is sinking, who cares how it started, can it be stopped, or should we be looking for a place to put our tombstones?

AND, regardless of how or why, it is, glaciers are disappearing on an hourly basis, and we can wring our hands and say, "Well, we don't think it's our fault; it's maybe a natural cycle," until the sea level rises enough to flood out Malibu and all our other beachfront communities. At that point, we are going to have massive levels of disruptions of populations, war, food riots, and the rest of apocalyptic visions, or we can try to do something about it before it gets to that state.

Unless, of course, everyone's banking on the powers simply stockpiling their nuclear warheads, while pretending to destroy them. According to some recent modelling, it would only take about 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs to send us into nuclear winter.

The bottom line is that we can indeed affect global climate to the negative, yet so many are absolutely positive we can't affect the climate the other direction. That's perplexing as well.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[KENAT]

Isn't part of the question just how tightly the CO2 levels are linked to the rate of global climate change?

I agree to some extent it doesn't matter if humans are causing it, it's more can we be so sure that reducing CO2 emissions will address it.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[hokie66]

KENAT,
Not an insult, just a gentle prod. I agree with what you said...it was just the way you said it that reminded me of politispeak. Now what I don't agree with is the method most politicians seem to be stuck on to combat the perceived problem...more taxation. So yes, you have my vote.

 

[KENAT]

Well that's no good, sounding like a politician, oh dear.

Next I'll be sounding like a PHB, oh hang on, I think we had that thread already.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[Demon3]

My opinion is that there is no global warming and even if there were, there is no evidence that mankind caused it.

Throughout history the CO2 level always increased after the warming occurred, not before. Of course Gore reversed the labels on the graph of that for his book to make it look as if CO2 causes warming.

Interestingly the UK courts ruled it illegal to use that book to teach children because it was full of fiction and rubbish.

None of the scientists I respect believe in global warming and even the most recent poll of scientists showed most see no link.

At the moment we have cooling because sun activity is at a low.

Read this and the links to see how the data has been adjusted upward to make it look as though there is warming.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/

This serves the special interest groups and the scientists who need funding which is easy to get when the public feels threatened.

Chris DeArmitt PhD FRSC CChem

 

[zdas04]

This discussion goes on and on and on and no one ever convices anyone of anything. I heard the other day that this year's tornados have been the worst since 1950. OK. What was there about 1950 that made it a worse tornado year than 2011 so far?

The climate changes. It has always been in a state of flux. It will always be in a state of flux.

If Malibu (and maybe San Francisco, at least Pelosi's district) is submerged by the melting glaciers (many of which increased in size over the last 12 months) then oh well maybe we'll lose a few liberal socialist congressional seats.

I was in a gas field near Riverton, WY today and saw a shell fossil. It was 5400 ft above sea level. The oceans have encroached and receded dozens of times over the millena, and they are pretty sure to do it again. If the world is warming (and there is NO unmanipulated data to show that it is), then it is probably caused by something. Maybe sun spots. Maybe ash clouds. Maybe Greenhouse Gases. To steal the wealth of nations away from citizens to feather the nests of Chicago Politicians based on the horrible science to date is irresponsible.

"Hedging you bets" would be refraining from buying beachfront property, it isn't "Cap and Trade". I design projects for my clients all the time that reduce vented gas--those projects keep the gas in the pipe for sale and have great economics. I design projects that use less hp, because hp is expensive and wasting it is irresponsible. It is a good thing to reduce waste. It is a bad thing to improverish nations in order to reduce the unproven and probably unprovable "greenhouse effect".

Skogs, you have to keep fighting the good fight. If they run you out of town on a rail, there are other towns.

David