Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[rb1957]

i've been reading NIPCC for a while now. not just "peer reviewed" but "double peer reviewed" ... sigh!

still they offer an alternative viewpoint.

"Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?" ... all they can do is believe one side or the other (if you accept there's another side). the issue is too politicised, too dogma driven, with positions held with unassailable conviction that the debate quickly devolves into personal attacks. There is too much data available for anyone to read fully, so everyone accuses, and is accused of, cherry-picking. Too many replace science with reviewing other's research. There are infinitely few of us who can understand the complexity of the problem. It's easy to read a paper and think "that sounds right", and another (with the opposite viewpoint) "that also sounds right"; we (ok, I) don't know enough to be able read a paper critical and say "wait, you're overlooking this point ...". Most commentaters might touch of some points, but then spiral off in a different direction so that issues are not worked (just more issues are added to the fire).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[JohnRBaker]

Below is some background info on the NIPCC. Be sure to check the link (in the second to the last paragraph) about where their parent, 'The Heartland Institute', gets its money.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

Here's some additional recent items:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience.html

http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/alternative-reality-heartland-institute-s-nipcc-report-0015140

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[TheTick]

Every engineer should be bugged by the climate change debate. Every good engineer knows that the answers are only as valid as the model used to get the answers.

Climate "science" is based on a model that is quite incomplete. All we really know is that one of the inputs, greenhouse gas concentration, has gone up. We don't know enough to model the rest accurately.

I will buy in as far as that if one of the inputs changes significantly, then the output will likely change. Beyond that???

 

[GregLocock]

Here's another bunch of non climate-scientists who have the temerity to point out the obvious

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com...sitivityForUseInRegulatoryDecisions140228.pdf

And here's the results from a Gallup poll for the USA

And here's the results for Europe

So, no wonder those 10 billion dollar rigs aren't getting built, the general public has more pressing concerns. Maybe they've formed a consensus?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

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

 

[GregLocock]

Sorry facebook doesn't seem to support hot linking

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152349665523968

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

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

 

[rconnor]

ewh,

Thank you for taking the time to accurately review your sources of information. This is an important step that is often overlooked, which leads to people being susceptible to believing misinformation. Unfortunately, climate science has become a politicized issue and it can be hard to separate ideology from scientific truth.

We here at the Eng-Tips forum, having no apparent formal training in climate science, are the perfect group to mark that divide. Furthermore, we also have keen insights into the issue that actual climate scientists, that have spent their life studying the science, do not. Having said that, let’s move onto the question at hand – is the NIPCC are trustworthy source?

NIPCC are the paragons of truth and reason. Don’t bother fact checking anything that they say because it is the objective truth. The blogs tell me so.

They never really publish papers in peer-reviewed journals but ask yourself why? Also, ask yourself why their conclusions always seem to counter the conclusions of the massive volumes of peer-reviewed research by actual climate scientist? Or why so few of their contributors are active, publishing scientists in the climate science field. Well it is because there is a world-wide conspiracy involving every top, most reputable scientific journal, scientific institution and university to block TRUE research from being published. This conspiracy also involves every major Head of State, from both the developed and developing world, and the UN. You see, the UN, through the IPCC, is, somehow, trying to create a one-world government that will secretly control the world and strip you of all your civil liberties. Now I know this might sound a little crazy and the fact that we don’t have any logical argument to back it up may be suspicious, but it’s true – NIPCC told us so.

Furthermore, you may be questioning the validity of the supposed “double peer reviewed” process they claim. Well because they cannot go through the normal peer-review process, due to the global conspiracy described above, they must do it themselves. Now, please ignore the fact that most of the people in the NIPCC are the same people as in Heartland, CATO, GWPF, etc – so by “peer” they really mean “themselves”. This fact is irrelevant. The review process they used is very unbiased and non-ideologically driven. Also, ignore the fact that these institutions have pretty much the same funders and same goals. This fact is irrelevant. These institutions are actually very diverse and very independent - some are right-wing, Koch funded think-tanks while others are tea party, Exxon funded think-tanks. Hence they can offer a very unbiased and non-ideologically driven review. What you will need to learn is the only relevant facts are those that come from NIPCC.

May I also suggest other unbiased, non-ideologically driven sources like CATO and GWPF. Blogs can be a good source of information but be careful – only read the ones that disagree with the anthropogenic climate change theory as the others are filled with unqualified liars.

Avoid untrustworthy sources like NASA, Joint National Academies of Science, Nature (the journal), Science (the journal) and pretty well every other scientific journal and university.

Best of luck navigating through the minefield that is the climate change debate.

Sincerely,

The Eng-Tips Climate Science Consensus

(ewh, please note this is aimed at making fun of others who eats this stuff up and was not aimed at you. My first and last points are sincere messages – I really respect you for trying to check the facts.

I think that the NIPCC Report is a bunch of trash. If you read in between the sarcasm above, you’ll find some reasons why. Others have posted links which dismantle their arguments. As to the specific “arguments” that they bring up, I have dealt with many of them in other threads. Here’s a link to Grant Foster’s take on the report. The NIPCC report is really just full of awful, cherry picked arguments that breakdown the second you understand the issue in more depth.

Although my answers were sarcastic, my questions regarding why don’t they publish anything in peer-reviewed journals and why does everything they say fly in the face of all the other data, evidence and papers are sincere. If you pursue those answers, I trust that you’ll be lead to the same conclusion as I have – the NIPCC is junk science.

Peer-reviewed papers are the best source of information. NASA and NOAA publications are great as well. As for blogs, I recommend Real Climate (Gavin Schmidt) and Tamino (Grant Foster), both are published scientists in the field of climate science. I’d love to give you a recommendation for a good skeptic website but it’s becoming very difficult. A few years ago, I would have said try Judith Curry’s blog (climate, etc.) but the more I read her stuff, the more I think her arguments are biased and cherry picked. That’s the thing, the more I know about the science, the more I see the debate isn’t really one side versus the other – it’s the science vs a misunderstanding of the science.

All the best in your search and I greatly respect you opening these sources to criticism. I do apologize for my sarcastic response but I’ve become more and more jaded each time I have to explain why the “pause” is not a valid argument. I hope you can read between the lines and draw the proper message from it. Best wishes.)

 

[rb1957]

6 posts and we're already at the "piss-taking" stage ... that was quick!

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[beej67]

You guys sure do like poisoning the well.

This is a pretty good paper, peer reviewing AR5, that shows the equilibrium climate sensitivity in the IPCC's own research is actually about half what they claim it is.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JohnRBaker]

...the general public has more pressing concerns.

After the Winter that North America has been experiencing and the Summer that Australia has been experiencing, perhaps the people will reconsider where on your 'Worry' graph should the 'Climate change' line-item be placed.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[GregLocock]

Turn the A/C up or grab a coldie from the Esky, seems a more likely response. Me, I jump in the dam and get my toes nibbled by yabbies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_yabby

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

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

 

[swall]

Greg--that was always one of my major worries as a little kid--having my toes pinched by crayfish when I would go to some small lake on a family outing.

 

[cranky108]

Debate the science all you want. I just want to know how we came to the conclusion of higher taxes is the solution, and it happened so fast.

The conclusion I draw from all of this is the political machine is at work, so I can't trust anything I hear.

 

[JohnRBaker]

It has always been shown that one of the most effective ways to motivate anyone in society to do anything is to make the less desirable behavior more expensive, if not actually cost-prohibative. It seems to always work that way, just like any other scientifically verified phenomenon. Perhaps it's called 'Social Science' for a reason, in that the laws of 'cause and effect' apply here just like it does in most other scientific fields of endeavor ;-)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[ewh]

IF, and that's a big if, the taxes actually went to aleviate the problem, they wouldn't be so hard to swallow. But they won't and can't unless there was an agreed upon, viable solution. As it stands, it appears that they will only serve to make some people very rich(er).

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[KENAT]

Who will the taxes make rich?

Certainly that's a very clear flaw with 'cap and trade'.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

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

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

 

[rb1957]

how much have we changed our behaviour with $5/gallon gas, and gosh knows what for electricity ?

i'd've thought that the greatest increase in FF burning would come from the developing economies (China, etc) ?

how much do the wind turbines actually contribute to the grid ?

why are nukes worse than coal burning power stations ? certainly they're much better at reducing CO2 output.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[JohnRBaker]

The real 'cost' of something can be much more than just the dollars that we have to take out of our pockets to pay for something.

BTW, $5/gallon for gas would be a bargain compared to what they pay in places like Denmark or Germany yet they seem to continue to drive cars. But that being said, they also drive smaller cars with less 'creature comforts' like AC and automatic transmissions. And if the cost of fuel was not a 'motivater' how do you explain the popularity of hybreds and the introduction of truly small cars like the Fiat 500 or the Smart Car?

And if you think gas is expensive in Europe, the next time you're in Stockholm, go down to the hotel bar and order a mixed drink or for that matter, just buy a beer. After all, excessive consumption of alcohol leads to all sorts of long term medical problems and since socialized medicine is so popular in that part of the world they tend to 'tax' the vices which increase health care costs to society. You may no like the idea, but that the way things work.

And along those same lines, here's another example: Look at how the number of people who smoke has been dropping each year (and not just because the long-time smokers are dying off although I'm sure that has some impact). After all, we've known for a long time that smoking was bad for you but it took excessive tabacco taxes to really change people's habits particularly teens and young people where it was most critical. After all, have you bought a pack of cigarettes in New York City lstely? I understand they're going for something like $13 a pack there right now. I know that the high cost alone got one of our sons to quit, and it's at least gotten the other two to cut way back.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Whew, this is one tough climate change cat!

On a more humorous note, speaking of felines . . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/10/vicious-22-pound-cat-traps-oregon-couple-in-room-attacks-baby/

"Yes, hello, officer? I'm a fully grown adult male and my cat is threatening me . . ." I suppose a 22 pounder might make a formidable opponent.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

Yes and as I hear $13 a pack has made smuggling a bigger problem. So are you expecting more people to brew there own, beer?

$5 gas also has impacted our food prices, and mandated ethonol in the gas has not only made gas millage go down, but also increased the price of food.

So you fix one thing with taxes, and you create another problem. Sort of like squeezing a baloon.

Part of the problem has been people want what is cool. Smokes, brew, fast cars, but in makeing them cool we are now seeing the bad side effects.
So what are you intending to replace them with? Nose rings, and body art? People must have something to strive for that is at least somewhat reasonable.

The whole enviromental movment also has some good and bad, which we see in wind farm bird deaths. We also could see an increase in insect populations, but with cleaner air.
It's a give and take, however there isen't any discussion, just one sided decisions that seem to only make some people richer (like cap and trade).

All I ask is to suggest something that will make us all better off (you haven't liked any that I have suggested so far).