The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Google invests 37.5% stake in wind power conveyance line on eastern seaboard, a line that will allow power balancing and delivery that is enough to power 1.3 million homes.

 

Google sees the future here, apparently.

This would never have happened had Cape Wind not been approved. Less than 6 months after approval of that project Google is jumping in.

 

The regulatory issues are such a hurdle here, this is what happens when 1 hurdle is crossed. Especially when that hurdle is such obvious B.S.

[EvilMonkey]

I think that even on the economic level, "stop ruining the environment" is a winner. If we don't spend the money now to address the issue, it's going to cost us much more down the road. Not necessarily in terms of technological implementation, but in terms of lost or destroyed economic opportunities (loss of fisheries, droughts, floods, etc.).

 

But I don't think "it will cost too much" is a valid rejection of "stop ruining the environment", even if that is a net economic loser.

"stop ruining the environment" isnt a valid rejection of "it will cost too much". I think that is what nss is trying to say.

[Balta1701]

"stop ruining the environment" isnt a valid rejection of "it will cost too much". I think that is what nss is trying to say.

Let me see if I can articulate the disconnect here and why it is frustrating the "damnit do something!" side here. I want to highlight a few bits of this post in particular.

This drives me nuts on this topic. You have a significant portion of the GOP who has decided its good policy to bury their head in the sand and not only ignore the consequences of not acting, but just plain ignoring the reality of it even existing. Then on the other side, you have the environmental lobby choosing to ignore the fact that this country is already in difficult financial position, and that spending a trillion dollars on getting everything done they want to isn't a realistic option.

 

Clearly, action is needed. Clearly, this money would be better use of capital and capitol than many other things we spend money on. And, clearly, we can't fix the whole world, nor can we even fix ourselves all at once.

Now, there are 2 problems here with the statement I've bolded that should be challenged specifically.

 

First and foremost...the science tells us that there are going to be massive climactic issues in every country, not just the united states. A person who states that spending a trillion dollars on solving this problem is a rough decision is correct. However...the counterpoint is that choosing to do nothing on the problem does not equal choosing to spend nothing. Quoting a trillion dollar cost to doing something is a strong argument for doing nothing, but that is only the case if the cost for doing nothing is also zero.

 

Between changing rain patterns, droughts, sudden inabilities to grow crops, massive losses of habitats and biodiversity, hell even small things like "all of the water here is too hot for me to use to cool my nuclear reactor any more"...the losses associated with Climate change are potentially at least the same order of magnitude as the costs associated with fixing the problem. The costs of fixing it are huge. The costs of doing nothing are equally huge and cannot be neglected in this discussion. The country is in a difficult financial position yes...so why are we prepared to spend hundreds billions of dollars on disaster recovery and potentially trillions on adapting our society? The answer is...the status quo is assumed to cost nothing, and this is simply untrue.

 

Second...the other implicit assumption is that the costs of doing something, especially in the short term, are high. Study after study shows that there is still significant low-hanging fruit, in terms of energy efficiency, that could be brought online right now that would actually save people and businesses money over the next 10 years. That's the other reason why my side gets frustrated when people talk about the cost of solving climate change; the other side doesn't get frustrated by wasting money on energy in a dozen different ways, but gets extremely angry when the government steps in to try to do something about that waste.

[NorthSideSox72]

"stop ruining the environment" isnt a valid rejection of "it will cost too much". I think that is what nss is trying to say.

 

Yes, that is part of what I was trying to say. You can't take either of those quotes and run with them, you have to see both sides.

 

And Balta says that below - in a very general sense, costs are high, but costs of inaction are similarly high...

 

Let me see if I can articulate the disconnect here and why it is frustrating the "damnit do something!" side here. I want to highlight a few bits of this post in particular.

 

Now, there are 2 problems here with the statement I've bolded that should be challenged specifically.

 

First and foremost...the science tells us that there are going to be massive climactic issues in every country, not just the united states. A person who states that spending a trillion dollars on solving this problem is a rough decision is correct. However...the counterpoint is that choosing to do nothing on the problem does not equal choosing to spend nothing. Quoting a trillion dollar cost to doing something is a strong argument for doing nothing, but that is only the case if the cost for doing nothing is also zero.

 

Between changing rain patterns, droughts, sudden inabilities to grow crops, massive losses of habitats and biodiversity, hell even small things like "all of the water here is too hot for me to use to cool my nuclear reactor any more"...the losses associated with Climate change are potentially at least the same order of magnitude as the costs associated with fixing the problem. The costs of fixing it are huge. The costs of doing nothing are equally huge and cannot be neglected in this discussion. The country is in a difficult financial position yes...so why are we prepared to spend hundreds billions of dollars on disaster recovery and potentially trillions on adapting our society? The answer is...the status quo is assumed to cost nothing, and this is simply untrue.

 

Second...the other implicit assumption is that the costs of doing something, especially in the short term, are high. Study after study shows that there is still significant low-hanging fruit, in terms of energy efficiency, that could be brought online right now that would actually save people and businesses money over the next 10 years. That's the other reason why my side gets frustrated when people talk about the cost of solving climate change; the other side doesn't get frustrated by wasting money on energy in a dozen different ways, but gets extremely angry when the government steps in to try to do something about that waste.

 

But I again feel like I am being shadow boxed here. You highlight my statement and say you disagree, yet... you agree. I'm saying you can't just go full boat on this, and you say there is low hanging fruit - that is not an argument, that is agreement. You say that climate change will effect all countries, and have large scale effect - I said the same thing.

 

You are really arguing with the "do nothing" and "it doesn't exist" crowd, not me.

 

[Balta1701]

You are really arguing with the "do nothing" and "it doesn't exist" crowd, not me.

I'm aware of that...but the reason I chimed in on this is that I read through the discussion and saw you specifically adopting one of their talking points in the bolded text without noting why it is invalid. That's how misinformation spreads.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm aware of that...but the reason I chimed in on this is that I read through the discussion and saw you specifically adopting one of their talking points in the bolded text without noting why it is invalid. That's how misinformation spreads.

What? I didn't adpot a talking point, I specifically and clearly brought up the talking point versions of both extremes, and said that in a vacuum, each is silly. The only ones spreading misinformation are you and anyone else characterizing my words as something they were clearly not.

 

Why is it so damn hard for people to understand being reasonable on this topic?

 

[Balta1701]

What? I didn't adpot a talking point, I specifically and clearly brought up the talking point versions of both extremes, and said that in a vacuum, each is silly. The only ones spreading misinformation are you and anyone else characterizing my words as something they were clearly not.

 

Why is it so damn hard for people to understand being reasonable on this topic?

Because you and I have very different definitions of what is reasonable here.

[StrangeSox]

^this.

 

There's an awful lot of ridiculously unreasonable rhetoric from the right (and big business) on this issue specifically and science in general that has to be countered.

 

Starting from a position of "what makes the most sense financially and has the biggest, quickest impact" means we'll go from a good solution to a pile of crap that's barely better than status quo during the political discourse in this country. Just look at the health care boondoggle.

[EvilMonkey]

^this.

 

There's an awful lot of ridiculously unreasonable rhetoric from the right (and big business) on this issue specifically and science in general that has to be countered.

 

Starting from a position of "what makes the most sense financially and has the biggest, quickest impact" means we'll go from a good solution to a pile of crap that's barely better than status quo during the political discourse in this country. Just look at the health care boondoggle.

You know, it would help if every time the one side gets the tiniest bit of data to support its position, it didn't exagerate it 1000-fold or just make s*** up becauor just because the real data wasn't 'sexy' enough to induce fear to act now. You lie, and it doesn't matter what the truth is, people will not believe you.

[BigSqwert]

You know, it would help if every time the one side gets the tiniest bit of data to support its position, it didn't exagerate it 1000-fold or just make s*** up becauor just because the real data wasn't 'sexy' enough to induce fear to act now. You lie, and it doesn't matter what the truth is, people will not believe you.

What a joke of a post. Why even bother wasting anyone's time?

[NorthSideSox72]

What a joke of a post. Why even bother wasting anyone's time?

I don't think he was saying Balta is lying, he was talking about the method of discussion at the margins. But maybe I misunderstood.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I don't think he was saying Balta is lying, he was talking about the method of discussion at the margins. But maybe I misunderstood.

YEs. When climatolgists get data showing a half degree rise, they start cherry picking and ignoring data unitl they get a 4 degree rise because that sounds scarier. They been caught doing stuff like that so many times that anyone who was sceptical to begin with just doesnt' believe anythign they say anymore.

[BigSqwert]

YEs. When climatolgists get data showing a half degree rise, they start cherry picking and ignoring data unitl they get a 4 degree rise because that sounds scarier. They been caught doing stuff like that so many times that anyone who was sceptical to begin with just doesnt' believe anythign they say anymore.

 

You are basing this assertion on what exactly? One case of misrepresentation? You're aware there have been countless studies done in this field by thousands of scientists around the globe? What proof do you have that your blanket statement is true in any way?

[EvilMonkey]

You are basing this assertion on what exactly? One case of misrepresentation? You're aware there have been countless studies done in this field by thousands of scientists around the globe? What proof do you have that your blanket statement is true in any way?

You may only see one if you have your head buried in the sand. I don't deny the fact that there are some changes noted. I dispute the severity of them and the honesty of most of the people delivering them. Too many agendas and too much money involved. Yet you seem to not see, or care, that many of the most vocal proponents for your position either lied, exagerated or rellied on data that was not entirely accurate, and what is worse, don't care that they did so. I found this an interesting read.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/re...ysical-society/

 

[Balta1701]

You may only see one if you have your head buried in the sand. I don't deny the fact that there are some changes noted. I dispute the severity of them and the honesty of most of the people delivering them. Too many agendas and too much money involved. Yet you seem to not see, or care, that many of the most vocal proponents for your position either lied, exagerated or rellied on data that was not entirely accurate, and what is worse, don't care that they did so. I found this an interesting read.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/re...ysical-society/

Here's an interesting read on that resignation.

 

Our response to your point is yeah...a handful of papers have gotten things wrong. We've backtracked on about 3 things out of many thousands of pages in the IPCC report. Basically 3 paragraphs out of thousands. Too much money involved? You apply that standard to the side that says climate change is real but you don't acknowledge that there's a fair amount of money devoted to making it look like climate change is up for debate. Which has more money, the National Science Foundation or Exxon? I could go on but I have other stuff to do.,

[EvilMonkey]

Here's an interesting read on that resignation.

 

Our response to your point is yeah...a handful of papers have gotten things wrong. We've backtracked on about 3 things out of many thousands of pages in the IPCC report. Basically 3 paragraphs out of thousands. Too much money involved? You apply that standard to the side that says climate change is real but you don't acknowledge that there's a fair amount of money devoted to making it look like climate change is up for debate. Which has more money, the National Science Foundation or Exxon? I could go on but I have other stuff to do.,

Publish or perish. Same holds true for your research. If you start off to prove climate change is real, you had better do that or you can kiss your grant money goodbye. No incentive there to fudge data, forget about those few reporting station over there, make a program to interpret the data that has formulas inside it that would make a programmers head explode, but give you the results you want and/or attack the character of anyone that speaks out against you instead of what they are speaking about.

[StrangeSox]

You know, it would help if every time the one side gets the tiniest bit of data to support its position, it didn't exagerate it 1000-fold or just make s*** up becauor just because the real data wasn't 'sexy' enough to induce fear to act now. You lie, and it doesn't matter what the truth is, people will not believe you.

 

You're describing the denialist side. Except their tiniest bit of data is usually due to poor interpretations or willful ignorance.

[Balta1701]

Publish or perish. Same holds true for your research. If you start off to prove climate change is real, you had better do that or you can kiss your grant money goodbye. No incentive there to fudge data, forget about those few reporting station over there, make a program to interpret the data that has formulas inside it that would make a programmers head explode, but give you the results you want and/or attack the character of anyone that speaks out against you instead of what they are speaking about.

Really...that's not how it is at all. There are literally millions of dollars out there for people who have other explanations for the current temperature rise other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions to go out and test their theories, regardless of whether or not 99% of their colleagues scoff at them.

 

Can cite a personal example here. We had a climate denier give a talk at my last institution a few years ago about his idea that cosmic rays and the earth's position relative to the rest of the galaxy exerts a controlling influence on climate. No one who knows anything about astrophysics, climate, or cosmic rays legitimately believes this effort. However, he's running a project funded to the tune of $10 million+ from the German government (he was from Germany) to test that idea. That's a huge grant for any country.

 

And that doesn't even begin to mention industry. Really...now that I have a Ph.D. in geosciences, if I wanted to come out as a climate denier and do nothing but go to an institution like the ones Exxon casually funds under the table, go on TV, and go around giving climate denier talks, I could make a very exceptional living at it. I wouldn't have to publish a thing.

[StrangeSox]

Publish or perish. Same holds true for your research. If you start off to prove climate change is real, you had better do that or you can kiss your grant money goodbye. No incentive there to fudge data, forget about those few reporting station over there, make a program to interpret the data that has formulas inside it that would make a programmers head explode, but give you the results you want and/or attack the character of anyone that speaks out against you instead of what they are speaking about.

 

This post demonstrates a lack of familiarity with academic research, but it's typical of the denialist crowd. "They do it for the grant money" is an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

 

Look, this is very similar to the evolution "debate". Tens of thousands of scientists in the field all agree say one thing, a small handful disagree and make charges of grand conspiracies, suppression of ideas, fabrication of data, etc. etc. And it's all bulls***, frankly. It's based on ideological objections. There isn't some worldwide conspiracy to make up climatology to get grant money. There isn't a worldwide conspiracy involves tens of thousands of researchers and hundreds (thousands?) of different institutions. Vague accusations of data fabrication that disparage the entire scientific community and scientific methodology aren't exactly convincing arguments.

 

Science is not perfect. Mistakes have been made in every field and certainly in climate modeling. But over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, as the models are refined and made increasingly accurate, the results are essentially the same. We're warming. We're warming rapidly. It's going to effect ecology around the world, and it will likely not be pretty for humans. And, most importantly, humans are the primary reason it is rising as fast as it is.

 

You can't burn hunderds tens of millions of years of stored carbon and not expect there to be consequences.

 

edit: probably more accurate

 

edit 2: it's not just warming that is a cause for concern from CO2 emissions, either.

Edited October 12, 2010 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

YEs. When climatolgists get data showing a half degree rise, they start cherry picking and ignoring data unitl they get a 4 degree rise because that sounds scarier. They been caught doing stuff like that so many times that anyone who was sceptical to begin with just doesnt' believe anythign they say anymore.

Support or retract. You're making a broad claim against climatology in general here, not against a specific paper or researcher.

 

And, of course, "man bites dog". You see the handful of examples of questionable papers splashed all over the media, but you don't see the hundreds of papers published yearly without incident.

[StrangeSox]

You may only see one if you have your head buried in the sand. I don't deny the fact that there are some changes noted. I dispute the severity of them and the honesty of most of the people delivering them. Too many agendas and too much money involved. Yet you seem to not see, or care, that many of the most vocal proponents for your position either lied, exagerated or rellied on data that was not entirely accurate, and what is worse, don't care that they did so. I found this an interesting read.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/re...ysical-society/

 

I'll ask for another support-or-retract, but then I'd like to make another point:

 

It doesn't matter what proponents or spokespeople say. That's simply an authority figure saying something. What matters is what is in the papers, if the data is reliable and if the methodology is valid, and then you can assess the validity of the conclusions drawn in the paper.

[NorthSideSox72]

YEs. When climatolgists get data showing a half degree rise, they start cherry picking and ignoring data unitl they get a 4 degree rise because that sounds scarier. They been caught doing stuff like that so many times that anyone who was sceptical to begin with just doesnt' believe anythign they say anymore.

 

 

You may only see one if you have your head buried in the sand. I don't deny the fact that there are some changes noted. I dispute the severity of them and the honesty of most of the people delivering them. Too many agendas and too much money involved. Yet you seem to not see, or care, that many of the most vocal proponents for your position either lied, exagerated or rellied on data that was not entirely accurate, and what is worse, don't care that they did so. I found this an interesting read.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/re...ysical-society/

 

This is pretty strident, and overstated. So many times? Most are dishonest? Come on now.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Also AD, let's follow your theory that this is about publish or perish. Part of finding subject matter and theories to explore for scientists in any field, is breaking ground. At this point, since the vast, vast majority of science sees climate change is real and at least partially anthropogenic, simply restating that fact isn't breaking new ground. So, your theory actually points to scientists NOT wanting to go along with the wave.

 

Instances of intentional mistatement are rare at best.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Also AD, let's follow your theory that this is about publish or perish. Part of finding subject matter and theories to explore for scientists in any field, is breaking ground. At this point, since the vast, vast majority of science sees climate change is real and at least partially anthropogenic, simply restating that fact isn't breaking new ground. So, your theory actually points to scientists NOT wanting to go along with the wave.

 

Instances of intentional mistatement are rare at best.

I don;t pretend that all climate scientists are on the take. Likewise not all are in it for the good of mankind. To ignore the money aspect of it entirely is stupid. To say that is can't or won't effect how people view data or direct their research is ignorant. I don't claim that it is a sole motivating factor for all, but very few can say that they don't think about getting that next grant.

 

As for giving you (not you, NSS) links, i will not. For every link I post about scientists getting caught manipulating the data, you wil post something saying they didn't. For every scientist I link that is against it, you will link someone saying they are a crackpot and doesn't know what they are talking about. When I post how only a handful of scientists actually signed onto a UN study that said hundred signed, you will say that is false and that hundreds DID sign. For every study you show that was peer reviewed, I can show that it seems like the same group of 'peers' always reviewing each other. Michael mann was 'cleared of fraud, but by his own university who had also peer reviewed his works. For every case where someone refuses to disclose their data, you will show a link where they did disclose it, again to the same subset of 'peers'. A fruitless exercise that will result in me getting suspended before we are thru.

[StrangeSox]

In other words, you can't actually support your assertions or arguments. You don't want to have a discussion but would rather make sweeping dismissals and accusations of fraud, dishonesty and dollar-seeking and then hand-wave away any challenges.

 

The overwhelming paradigm in climate science is that the planet is warming and that humans are responsible for a significant portion of that. It's not a conspiracy. It's not fraud. It's not chasing after that sweet, sweet grant money. It's good, solid science consillient with a variety of findings in a wide array of fields. Denial comes almost exclusively from politically or economically motivated entities.

 

Do you have any experience with academic research? Your statements about grant money and peer review seem to indicate that you do not. To reiterate an earlier point, no science is perfect. But the scientific method is the best system we have for determining provisional truths and expanding knowledge. You cannot isolate your statements about grant money and the peer review process to one single field because that situation is the same across the board.