Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

Register Log in
  • Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Michael Shellenberger censored 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't need it in writing either way.

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"
 
This forum is supposed to discuss mitigation strategies and engineering efforts to deal with climate change.

I find it most telling this forum is dead because of the belief that climate change "is still up for debate," so the topic of dealing with the actual issues is side-lined while the veracity of the issue is debated. I really don't know why this forum is kept up since no one wants to deal with solutions.
 
what problem to address ?

too much CO2 ? go nuclear (in the short term), use renewables in niches, support fusion power (as the only viable long term solution weI can see), improvements in energy efficiency (generation and consumption) … but the impact of these measures is decades away (it'll take decades to enact a significant change).

rising water levels ? are they ? locally or globally ??

something else ?

is a different issue driving man's impact on the environment ? land use ??

is population The problem (and a solution ?)

how much to spend ?

...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
 
Well yeah. He pointed out the climate emperors lack of clothes, so he was bundled off and thrown down the well.
 
We are dealing with climate change as we do all other issues, solving whatever problem we are faced with on a daily basis, regardless of whether it was, or was not, caused by climate change, within in our forums of the appropriate subject's expertise. No point coming to this forum, unless you want to be force fed the political consequences of that effort.

It is pretty obvious to me, unfortunately at least in some cases, that engineers are not going to lead the long term political solutions, so it seems that we should instead concentrate on doing what we do best, which is solving the realtime practical tasks that come across our desks as best we can. In some instances that might include the necessity of planning for potential climate changes, in other cases not. I may be struggling with a question of if I should route a pipeline one way or another to entirely avoid a potential sea level rise, or to put weight coatings on a pipeline that may be exposed to such risks. I would evaluate all the data on hand and any other expert testimony that might be available, climate change not being one of my areas of expertise, and see what it all suggests might be the risks to each of my design options, then evaluate the associated costs and discuss the options honestly with my client. If I could clearly determine in my expert opinion as to how my design would be affected under each option and clearly state my preferred solution and the reasons for selecting it, as well as give all the reasons as to why I had discounted others, I do so. My job boils down to informing my client as best I can so as to allow him/her to make an educated and final decision. I don't have to believe in climate change or not, it will happen, or not, regardless of my idealological inclinations, but I must consider the risks of climate change's potential consequences to my designs. I think it does help to have an open mind in that regard, but I suppose it isn't totally necessary. Anyway, that's what I'm interested in, so I can make appropriate mitigations as required to evaluate costs and risks, but I'm seeing none of that in this forum. In fact, many times just the opposite, or no real help in that regard at all. This forum is really 99% politics and 0% realtime solutions, yet E-T focuses is normally directionally opposite, 0% politics and 100% realtime solutions. Is that not a bad fitup with the typical visitor's objectives?

“What I told you was true ... from a certain point of view.” - Obi-Wan Kenobi, "Return of the Jedi"
 
I agree with you.

The problem is political (and therefore insolvable ?).

The real world question for us, working on real world projects, is how much to spend on possible problems ? Is the sealevel going to rise 2m over the next 20 (100?) years ? If your project is directly impacted by sealevel you'd hope that the contract spelt out the responsibilities of each party ? If not, would your E&O insurance cover you if sealevel rise impacted your design and lawyers get involved ? Do you include extensive mitigation in your project submission so your proposal costs way more than others and you don't get the job ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
 
Nobody knows for sure. That part is a crap shoot, so turn it into a probabilistic marketing problem. Do the Cost-Benefit-Probable Risk Study. Determine the project's projected revenues against supposed increasing costs of reducing climate change risk. Presumably, as is evident by most negative comments herein, increased levels of mitigation against climate change can only have the effect of reducing projected net revenue, which, when you look under the hood, ignores the additional and very important aspect of project investment, that of reducing risk of the resulting revenue stream. You give the investors various levels of the project's projected revenue streams along with each level's associated risk, which can have a component based on climate change effects on the project as necessary. Typically with most investments as I'm sure you know, the greater the projected revenue stream, the greater is the risk of eventually collecting it. So you simply let the investor's greed quotiant decide what amount of revenue they want to collect against the risk of collecting it. The free market then decides what level of climate change mitigation is acceptable with your investor's appitite for a given level of risk-balanced potential profit. If investors are sensitive to climate change issues, they might accept a lower revenue stream resulting from increased climate change mitigation costs alone, even if risks remain constant amongst options. If your potential investors are less, or not sensitive to climate change issues, I guarantee that they will still be very interested in the risk reduction aspects of your climate change mitigation schemes as to how they affect the ultimate security and confidence in collecting each of the resulting projected revenue streams, which will presumably increase with each level of mitigation taken against climate change effects on the project. When you evaluate this amongst all the various options you may find that there are some obvious break points, where spending on climate change mitigation gives good benefit in reducing climate change risk, up to a point, but then starts to cost "too much per mile"after that, making for a good stopping point. Or perhaps the cost-benefit curve increases nicely for a good while, then starts to drop off. Present the info in the form of Cost versus Risk Based Benefits and circle the optimized solution, then let the investment market tell you where they are and make appropriate compromises. That's all we can do in a real capitalistic world. When, or if, if you prefer, climate change starts to impact profit, climate change mitigations will become affordable. In the meantime, keep an open mind and advise your clients as best you can. For us engineers it boils down to our engineering judgement, our integrity, the risk of a project's success or failure at the end of its lifetime and how potential climate change issues might affect those and the value of your longer term reputation. Then let the market decide what is appropriate. They will get to where they need to be to balance risk and profit against technical capacities, politics, public opinion, and regulations, or ... they won't survive. If we as human beings cannot influence that decision as we think appropriate to protect our own interests using any one of the options above, we may survive, or we may not. Your choice.

Speaking about flooding, Here is some new 2020 data.
You can start with entering your own house's address here
Full 163 page Report
 
Congratulations, you found someone less qualified than yourself who wrote an editorial for Forbes. So what.

One would think that someone that holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in a Peace and Global Studies (PAGS) program from a rinky dink quaker college in indiana is not technically qualified to comment on climate change.

Would you expect him to hold his own in a debate with someone with a professor with a PHD in science from a major university?
 
Not really, that is the issue with this fellow, he is not the gold standard for science. No Science For You with a scientific credibility equal to -1.2.

Scientists Weigh in on Bogus “Environmentalist Apology

bogus straw men, distortions, or outright lies


"There is way, way more at the link, and I’ve heard other scientists have their own debunks on the way – so this one is going to be roasted the way Moore’s movie was, and end up being influential only in the right wing Bizarro-verse."






 
hokie66,

Started reading the link you provided and it's immediately clear that Mr. Shellenberger is a mess of contradictions and not somebody I would look to for clear guidance. Full disclosure: I had no knowledge of the man before today.

In the list 'Here are some facts few people know:' there are some outright falsehoods (adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor), some dangerous recommendations (Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture) and some other items requiring heavy qualification.

Seafaring, trading, inventiveness, progressive civil society, and yes, slavery, made the Netherlands prosperous. Dykes just kept them alive. NL has literally no natural resources.

' “industrial” agriculture', taken in the context of unbridled laissez-faire capitalism and globalization, has created pressures on wildlife as food sources for marginalized populations (bush meat in Africa; wet markets in Asia). As far as I have read that connection is not disputed.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
 
ironic,

I didn't intend the thread as support for Shellenberger, just a protest against censorship. It is telling that in the great debate about climate change and ways to deal with it, that those proposing contrarian views are the only ones censored and/or ridiculed. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
hokie66,

If the alternative to censorship is the nonsense and damaging media practice of giving equal time to tiny minority crackpots, then I'll go with censorship.

Slam incoming in 3, 2, 1 ...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
 
I'll just say that there are also crackpots in the majority. Equal time is not the issue.
 
Michael Moore is famous for saying something to the effect that when discussing antisemitism in the media, it is idiocy to seek the opinions of neo-Nazis in an effort to provide "balance". On some issues, there's a right and a wrong.

He used this sensible argument (when put in correct context) as a justification to provide ideologically slanted, but often very witty and amusing, views on social issues in films and books and TV shows- with the slant selected to ring the confirmation bias of people with a certain world view. It was good business, and made him a fairly rich man.

Moore upended his own apple cart earlier this year however when he provided money, and his name as exec producer, to put behind a very ideologically slanted film that didn't ring the confirmation bias of the same audience, but rather this time rang the confirmation bias of people with the opposite ideological slant. But the thing they wanted to tar and feather him for was sometimes the wrong one. Rather than calling him out for the distortions, dated information and propagation of myths that this film was rife with, some were calling for the film to be censored and were dragging him over the carpet for a sort of ideological disloyalty- they felt "betrayed" because he rang the other guy's confirmation bias this time, not theirs! The real issue was that the film offered myths- kernels of truth, turned into popcorn by the soured enviro-idealism of Jeff Gibbs who was its actual film-maker.

We live in a world which is "post-journalism". And that's really sad. Good journalists understood that there's more to the craft of journalism than either selling an ideological viewpoint OR providing contrary viewpoints as if they were equal, irrespective of how well supported each point of view is by the available facts and reason.

The public discourse is completely destroyed on all sorts of topics these days, with people divided into camps based on their pre-existing world view on all sorts of matters- even matters where the facts, and reason, are clearly on one side and not the other. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion about arithmetic while a crowd in the back of the room are continually shouting "2 + 2 = 5!"
 
hokie66 said:
I'll just say that there are also crackpots in the majority.
Click to expand...
Certainly true for the US senate, but not among the majority of climate scientists.

hokie66 said:
Equal time is not the issue.
Click to expand...
It is when you give oxygen to racist trolls, fundamentalist end-times facilitators, and conspiracy theorists.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
 
The frustration that I have is that you can read through a lot of documentation about the basis of AGW and the temperature records and such that support it. However, if you don't agree with some extremist conclusion about what this all means, then you get called a flat earther or an uneducated troll, et cetera.

Same thing when you point out distortions that are used to convince the uneducated masses (97% of scientists agree on global warming). One side is essentially correct, but so rabid about the "ends justify the means" that I don't want to associate with them. The other side is a problem too. They deny that there is even the "potential" for catastrophic problems.

The politics of anthropogenic global warming are nasty and dirty.... But, that's just all politics, I guess.
 
"The nail that sticks up gets hammered down"...Old Japanese proverb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latexman
  • Locked
  • Question Question
Political Spin News Article on Hurricane Michael. Really!?!
Replies
10
Views
422
hokie66
hokie66

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top