Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: PeterAit on December 16, 2016, 12:17:53 pm
-
http://www.boredpanda.com/2016-national-geographic-nature-photographer-of-the-year-winners/
-
Great stuff, Peter. Thanks.
-
Great stuff, Peter. Thanks.
+1
-
Some superb images there, and some really quite saddening ones amongst them. Climate change deniers won't understand.
-
Some superb images there, and some really quite saddening ones amongst them. Climate change deniers won't understand.
+1.
-
Some superb images there, and some really quite saddening ones amongst them. Climate change deniers won't understand.
I've never met a Climate Change denier. I would imagine such a person would be very ignorant on climate matters, and would be the sort of person who thinks that climate is always constant and benign and that any change in climate must be due to mankind's destructive activities.
On the other hand, perhaps the term 'Climate Change Denier' is a mischaracterisation which refers to those who have a healthy skepticism about the significance of the role of CO2 in the current warming period, which is similar in temperature to previous warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period.
If this is the case, one might wonder how any intelligent person could believe in any evidence on climate matters which is presented by people who so blatantly and misleadingly mischaracterise a healthy skepticism about the effects that CO2 might have on climate, as a denial that the climate is changing. Climate is always changing, and always has changed throughout history. ;)
-
Climate is always changing, and always has changed throughout history. ;)
Exactly, Ray. And for the past fourteen or so years climate has been changing in a cooling cycle. My favorite uncle was a geophysicist, and his wife, my favorite Aunt was a geologist who was head of the geology department at University of Houston. When I was in my twenties both were convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age ("verge" being expressed in geologic time, meaning we all were going to be long gone by the time it arrived). They never used the term, but at the time the new ice age was "settled science." So much for climate deniers.
-
Yes, the earth's climate is constantly changing. We keep having this pointless fact lectured to us as if it's a new idea. Tell me, do you honestly think that the world's climate scientists don't already know this? Do you honestly think that today's climate models and new data aren't better than what we had 40 years ago?
-
Hi Robert, Yes, I think the world's climate scientists realize that the climate is constantly changing, and reading what various climate scientists have written, it's clear that the idea the earth is warming, and warming dangerously as Algore would have it, is a long way from "settled science."
As far as today's "climate models" are concerned: NO, I don't think they're better than what we had 40 years ago. They're nothing but "models." As I wrote, sixteen years ago, in "A Common Cause" (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html):
"The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage."
We've seen a whole series of garbage outputs from climate models and there's no reason to think the situation will improve. The models' premises are suspect and the data being fed into them are shaky at best. Weather forecasting has improved tremendously since I was flying fighters in the early fifties and sixties because of radar and satellite observations, but weather isn't climate.
-
There is EVERY reason to assume that the models have improved and will improve. The question is, and always has been, how human action has perturbed the biosphere's equilibrium. It is important to know that. We will find that out the same way we've discovered everything else, including how airplanes fly, by conducting research and not by relying on gut feelings and entrenched ideology. Humans did not stop acquiring new knowledge just because some of us got old(er).
-
We all get old(er), but that doesn't improve the premises upon which our "models" are based or the validity of the data being fed into them. The premises and the data just get older, not better.
-
http://www.boredpanda.com/2016-national-geographic-nature-photographer-of-the-year-winners/
Impressive images indeed... !
( whatever is the cause of the climate change)
-
Exactly, Ray. And for the past fourteen or so years climate has been changing in a cooling cycle. My favorite uncle was a geophysicist, and his wife, my favorite Aunt was a geologist who was head of the geology department at University of Houston. When I was in my twenties both were convinced we were on the verge of a new ice age ("verge" being expressed in geologic time, meaning we all were going to be long gone by the time it arrived). They never used the term, but at the time the new ice age was "settled science." So much for climate deniers.
New data = scientists changing their mind. But experts & facts, eh? You can prove anything with facts, and we've had enough of experts. Or something.
-
Now, now, Bill, you're acting like a climate denier.
-
Total waste of time & space here. Folks are too psychologically and emotionally dug in. Confirmation bias and backfire effect to the max. IMO another example of the human species running up against its own limitations.
Anyway, the parameters of the cosmos, including those of our climate system, are what they are. They neither know nor care about anyone's tribalist regurgitation or Worldview™ pontificating.
Better to just chill and enjoy this lovely Hubble telescope photo:
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1612/Cartwheel_Hubble_1282.jpg)
The three galaxies are part of a cluster ~400 million light years away. The largest of the three is ~100,000 light years in diameter, about the same size as our Milky Way.
-Dave-
-
Some superb images there, and some really quite saddening ones amongst them. Climate change deniers won't understand.
Yup, Bill is proven correct, yet again!
-
There is EVERY reason to assume that the models have improved and will improve. The question is, and always has been, how human action has perturbed the biosphere's equilibrium. It is important to know that. We will find that out the same way we've discovered everything else, including how airplanes fly, by conducting research and not by relying on gut feelings and entrenched ideology. Humans did not stop acquiring new knowledge just because some of us got old(er).
On very complex issues there is often the trend, 'the more we know, the more we realize how little we know'.
I find it very bizarre that any scientist could truthfully express certainty about the effects of rising CO2 levels on global warming when even the causes of the previous, most recent change in climate, The Little Ice Age, are not fully understood.
Suggested causes of the previous cooling period include, changing orbital cycles around the sun, low sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions, changes in ocean circulation, decreases in human population in certain areas, increases in human populations in other areas at high altitudes, and/or the inherent variability of climate.
All of those factors might have had a role, including other (so far) unknown factors. Calculating the magnitude and interrelatedness of such factors with any certainty does not yet seem possible, but one fact does seem certain; the current warm period is generally more benign than that bloody awful cold period of The Little Ice Age. ;)
Here's a nice wikipedia article for those who are interested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
-
"Climate Change Deniers" is a term that climate ideologues use to stifle conversation. It has taken on the same mantle as accusations of "racism". Both are identical to McCarthy's "communist".
-
Maybe it is more easy to agree that pollution due to fueled cars harms the local climate....
and that it is sensible to search for other kinds of energy than burning carbon rich fuels...
Unlike Bejing we have in Holland a lot of wind coming from the seaside, making our problems less acute...
-
That's like people who talk about "climate change deniers," Pieter. They have a lot of wind.
-
Maybe it is more easy to agree that pollution due to fueled cars harms the local climate....
and that it is sensible to search for other kinds of energy than burning carbon rich fuels...
Of course. But we already have that source. Nuclear. It is used very effectively in Europe. In the US it is stagnant thanks to the same people who advocate the Chicken Little response to global warming.
There are other similar absurdities in response to global warming theory. The west seeks to cut down its carbon foot print. Fine. But at what cost? At the same time, the west expects the emerging east to follow suit. How hypocritical is that? We, the west, create the problem (if we agree there is a problem) in order to achieve the economic and technological status we enjoy now and then have the nerve to tell the emerging east that they should not achieve similar levels of economic and technological welfare using the methods that we used. Subsequently China and India pay mere lip service to it. To compound the absurdities, the west then presumes to continue down this path, which has no real data to support it and which, statistically is meaningless anyway if the emerging economies do not adhere.
It is all a real mess, based on marginal science and fueled by wealth redistribution ideology. And virtually nowhere on either side of the discussion does much common sense or objective logic prevail.
-
+1
-
"Climate Change Deniers" is a term that climate ideologues use to stifle conversation. It has taken on the same mantle as accusations of "racism". Both are identical to McCarthy's "communist".
Er, no it isn't. There's a great deal of data that shows a rapidly warming climate, one that is warming at a far faster rate than ever before. The thing with science - it changes in light of new data, which makes it the antithesis of ideology. Those people who ignore the data (aka 'facts') are the ones most likely to be ideologues. Climate change denial is of a kind with young earth creationism; mind made up, please don't confuse with facts.
-
Well, then I won't confuse you, Bill, with the fact that the "planet" has been cooling for roughly 14 years. We wouldn't want facts, or the confusion that emanates from them to run rampant among "ideologues."
-
Of course. But we already have that source. Nuclear. It is used very effectively in Europe. ....
Yes it was especially effective in Europe near Kiev and also in Japan; Fukushima...,
also we still do not know what to do with the waste and to dismantle a nuclear plant cost astronomical...
-
Actually, this whole discussion should have been posted under "A Touch of Humor."
-
Amazing photos! Also some sad (yet still beautiful) ones.
Since I'm not a climate scientist I need to rely on them to use their expertise to collect and analyze the data.
Many non-scientific anecdotal arguments in either direction ("it snowed today so global warming is a lie" or "it should have snowed today so global warming is true") really add nothing to the discussion. We need a better picture through good data and good analysis to cut through all the BS and emotional arguments. That's called science and it's the only objective way we have to figure this kind of thing out. Therefore I'm going to go ahead and agree with the 97% of climatologists who believe global warming is strongly linked to manmade CO2 emissions.
That is also why I go to the doctor if I'm truly sick or injured instead of just trying to figure it out myself.
-
Yes it was especially effective in Europe near Kiev and also in Japan; Fukushima...,
also we still do not know what to do with the waste and to dismantle a nuclear plant cost astronomical...
Yes, this exposes the kind of thinking that lead to the problem we're in. It's called "wishful thinking". You want clean zero cost energy for a burgeoning population and emerging economies. Maybe if you wish enough it will come true? Of course not. All forms of energy will have a cost and a risk.
The truth is coal and petroleum based energy have killed millions, probably many, many more over the last 100 years. In 65 years there have been a grand total of two significant nuclear incidents and the death and sickness caused by the two is statistically insignificant when compared to what fossil fuels have done. Storage of nuclear waste has caused no significant harm to date. But I suppose you will have neither fossil nor nuclear and you will expect the world to run on just what, exactly? Let them eat cake?
Until the extreme environmentalists have an answer then nuclear remains the only sustainable option. And until then the environmentalists should simply be quiet since they offer nothing other than platitudes.
-
Er, no it isn't. There's a great deal of data that shows a rapidly warming climate, one that is warming at a far faster rate than ever before. The thing with science - it changes in light of new data, which makes it the antithesis of ideology. Those people who ignore the data (aka 'facts') are the ones most likely to be ideologues. Climate change denial is of a kind with young earth creationism; mind made up, please don't confuse with facts.
This is the typical response. And is so deeply flawed and fabulously ironic. If you deny man made climate change you are ignorant and closed minded. If you believe the "facts" you are smart, tolerant and open minded..............unless and until what you believe about climate change is challenged. Then you become dogmatic, utterly closed minded and intolerant.....kind of like a religious fanatic. Priceless.
But let's look at two points in question here:
First, the "climate change denier" moniker. You, in this very response, have proven my point perfectly. (Thank you.) If you are a "denier" then you are a nut, kind of like people who believe the earth is 6000 years old and who form opinions that are not based in "facts". Therefore, if you question climate change you cannot be taken seriously. Conversation over. No tolerance for wackos. So it seems clear that I hit that nail right on the head. Thanks for your assistance.
Second, let's talk about your "facts". Just what exactly are they? How did we get them? What do they tell us? What are we to do about them? If we do something about them will it help? And no, you may not dodge any of these questions if your assumptions are that climate change science has given us facts that undeniably show that the global climate is warming at such a rate and to such a level that it is clear that it is man made AND that this effect will be injurious to mankind and the planet AND that there is something we can do about it AND that you, or anyone else knows what that something is AND that you know that the costs and risks of doing that outweigh the costs and risks of doing something else. Otherwise, you need to drop the pejorative attitude about people who still harbor concerns that we are not quite sure about the science, we don't know what the implications are, we don't know if we caused it or not, and we do not know what to do about it if even all the rest is true.
Now, all that is generalization. If you'd like to talk about the specific "facts" that make anyone who denies them a cave man, then let's have them. But be prepared to be open minded.....or be prepared to be called ignorant and dogmatic. That's only fair, right?
-
Interesting lecture (https://vimeo.com/64407973).
-
Since I'm not a climate scientist I need to rely on them to use their expertise to collect and analyze the data. [/qoute]
That's fine. But throughout this process you need to ask yourself how far you are prepared to take this belief.
Many non-scientific anecdotal arguments in either direction ("it snowed today so global warming is a lie" or "it should have snowed today so global warming is true") really add nothing to the discussion.
Quite right. But it points to the elephant in the room. How long have we been recording reliable global climate trends? Answer, less than 200 years. Probably less than 100. Just like a warm day in February in Maine, 200 years of actual hard data are statistically insignificant when it comes to global historical trends. All the other historical data is largely contrived and based on consensus and is not verifiable by experiment or hard data.
We need a better picture through good data and good analysis to cut through all the BS and emotional arguments.
Quite right, but that ship has sadly and surely sailed.
That's called science and it's the only objective way we have to figure this kind of thing out.
People tend to use the word "science" as if they are invoking some sort of deity. As if it is some uniform thing which cannot vary or be manipulated; as if "Scientists" are always or even mostly objective. None of this is true. Yes, it is the best tool we have. But in the case of climate change if the best tool you have for driving a nail is a screwdriver, that's fine, just don't call it a hammer.
Therefore I'm going to go ahead and agree with the 97% of climatologists who believe global warming is strongly linked to manmade CO2 emissions.
That's fine. Just don't check your brain at the door and don't trade your $1000 for what is behind curtain number two unless you know what you're trading for.
That is also why I go to the doctor if I'm truly sick or injured instead of just trying to figure it out myself.
That's fine too. but just keep in mind that what your doctor did 20 years ago for problem 'a' might be consider malpractice now. Again, trust.......but verify.
-
Science is just a process to get the best explanation we can. The explanations will change as new data comes to light but the process to collect and test that data is a very well-tested and proven methodology.
You are welcome to disagree but like I said I'm going to side with the experts using a process that has answered countless questions over hundreds of years better than another method. If a better scientific method comes along and it can be proven superior to what we have I'm sure the scientific community will adopt it.
To many of us who do agree with the overwhelming consensus among experts, the deniers are either just demonstrating their lack of scientific literacy or they are being delusional. No amount of nay saying without some scientific consensus will change that. Probably similar to how "scientific mumbo jumbo" isn't going to change the minds of the truly dedicated denier.
But how 'bout those pretty photos, eh?
-
I'll just leave this data from NASA* here.
* Yes, I know, NASA are a front for the lizard alien overlords, Jewish bankers, Free Masons & the Illuminati, all part of the New World Order, so just ignore this.
-
....
Until the extreme environmentalists have an answer then nuclear remains the only sustainable option. And until then the environmentalists should simply be quiet since they offer nothing other than platitudes.
Oil Companies like Shell are now starting to invest seriously into wind and solar energy; Most modern made buildings have a surplus of energy that can be used.
More and more the wast energy of the industry is being used to warm private homes.
Investors loose their interest in oil for they see it is a dead end.
We are moving towards an electric era fed by clean energy. This is now and not the future.
-
I'll just leave this data from NASA* here.
* Yes, I know, NASA are a front for the lizard alien overlords, Jewish bankers, Free Masons & the Illuminati, all part of the New World Order, so just ignore this.
And the point of this graph is what? Can you explain what a "global land ocean temperature index" is? If you can, how was it derived? If it was derived in a statistically sound fashion AND if it is correct AND the approximate 1 degree C change in this index in the last 100 years is significant to global cultures and economies it STILL says nothing about its cause and nothing about what we need to do about it.
I am perpetually amazed how people who beat the drum of scientific objectivism will still look at two phenomena and connect them causally without adequate evidence to support causality.
-
And the point of this graph is what? Can you explain what a "global land ocean temperature index" is? If you can, how was it derived? If it was derived in a statistically sound fashion AND if it is correct AND the approximate 1 degree C change in this index in the last 100 years is significant to global cultures and economies it STILL says nothing about its cause and nothing about what we need to do about it.
I am perpetually amazed how people who beat the drum of scientific objectivism will still look at two phenomena and connect them causally without adequate evidence to support causality.
I agree with your point.
Since we are (probably) not climate scientists here, maybe we should see what the climatologists think! In peer-reviewed and accredited publications of course. To filter out the junk science and confirmation bias.
-
Oil Companies like Shell are now starting to invest seriously into wind and solar energy; Most modern made buildings have a surplus of energy that can be used.
This is wonderful. We need to do more of it.
More and more the wast energy of the industry is being used to warm private homes.
Wonderful too. We need to explore every option and avenue. Diversity of energy sources is crucial from an environmental and social perspective.
Investors loose their interest in oil for they see it is a dead end.
You are welcome to speculate. But right now, and for the rest of your lifetime, you're simply wrong about this one.
We are moving towards an electric era fed by clean energy. This is now and not the future.
This is an absolute delusion. There is simply no evidence to suggest that this is true unless by clean energy you mean nuclear. We are decades from significantly moving away from fossil fuels. And there is simply no way, physically or economically that wind and solar can provide the energy deficit if nuclear and fossil fuels are taken out of the equation. It is simply wishful thinking and nothing more. Ask India. Ask China. Ask Russia.
-
Science is just a process to get the best explanation we can. The explanations will change as new data comes to light
Of course.
but the process to collect and test that data is a very well-tested and proven methodology.
This is incorrect. Climatology is nothing without trends. Climatology models will not function without trends. Global temperatures for the last 150 years are meaningless in regard to historical global climate trends. So they substitute a great hodge-podge of criteria on which to extrapolate climate conditions for the thousands of years needed to establish trends. Mush of this criteria is based on consensus and not hard, verifiable data. Nest to anecdote, consensus is probably the weakest science of all.
You are welcome to disagree but like I said I'm going to side with the experts using a process that has answered countless questions over hundreds of years better than another method.
This is where you and so many others make a fundamental mistake. You view 'science' as a monolithic set of rules and methods. Nothing is further from the truth and there is a vast difference between the sort of scientific method that gives us Newton's calculous or Einsteins work or even the applied sciences that give us useful new compounds and the work that climatologists do. To see them as similar is to be gravely mistaken.
If a better scientific method comes along and it can be proven superior to what we have I'm sure the scientific community will adopt it.
History has shown that you are right. History also shows that such adoption will typically be achieved only with a great deal of kicking, screaming and angst, often taking decades.
To many of us who do agree with the overwhelming consensus among experts, the deniers are either just demonstrating their lack of scientific literacy or they are being delusional.
Again the pejoratives! Why? Why must people who disagree, based on scientific principle be ignorant or delusional? If the science is solid there is no need to be defensive. No need to stereotype or demean.
By your assessment I would be either be lacking in scientific literacy (I am not, I have a doctorate) or I am delusional. I am not. Could it be that there are thoughtful and sane people out there who can see the glaring inadequacies of climate change research? Who can agree that it is the best science that we have but also see that it lacks the certainty required to use it to change laws, cultures and societies? Must we be lumped with 'new earthers' 'flat earth's' and moon landing deniers? If your answer is yes, you're exposing your own intolerance and religious-like faith in science you don't understand.
And let's make no mistake about it: People who believe that the current status of climate research is rock solid and sufficient to base global policies on who also don't understand and haven't sought to understand the science ARE JUST AS BAD as those who deny climate change without understanding why. It is the SAME thing.
Probably similar to how "scientific mumbo jumbo" isn't going to change the minds of the truly dedicated denier.
Again, this presumes that those who question the current status of climate change are incapable of understanding the science. This is the very definition of bigotry.
-
I didn't say science is "monolithic set of rules and methods" or that climatology is "rock solid". I do not believe either of those things, exactly.
What you describe sounds more like technology than science. Much of science is scientific method which is a pretty rigid methodology but I do realize that isn't all of it.
I do believe that what we have now with climatology is our best shot at being correct with our current tools and data. Much more so than any other voice weighing in on the issue which typically have a good incentive to refute those conclusions.
But to answer your question, it does sound like you have some science education, so that's good.
You can make a good Internet forum argument too, but I have not yet changed my mind on the issue.
When scientific consensus supports your position I'll be more likely to take it seriously. Without that consensus is might as well be anti-vac, flat-earth, faked moon landing, or whatever.
Many people pushing those ideas don't consider themselves delusional either.
-
And let's make no mistake about it: People who believe that the current status of climate research is rock solid and sufficient to base global policies on who also don't understand and haven't sought to understand the science ARE JUST AS BAD as those who deny climate change without understanding why. It is the SAME thing.
Straw man. No researcher claims to have rock solid knowledge, and no one said so here. The research is on-going of course, but a picture seems to be emerging, and is being fine-tuned all the time, that humans are having an impact by creating a rapid rise in CO2 that cannot be mitigated against by changes in the biosphere in a reasonable time frame. To that extent, doesn't it make sense to implement policies that seek to avoid the mistakes of the past? Why would you wait, given the decades-long lead times involved in making those changes? It is a given that those changes will have to be fine-tuned as we go along, because new information will emerge with time. This is how we do everything.
And the argument that these societal changes cost money are pointless unless you also take into account the cost of not doing them.
-
You can make a good Internet forum argument too, but I have not yet changed my mind on the issue.
Not trying to change your mind. I'm primarily pointing out the inconsistency of forming beliefs that you are willing to defend by belittling those who do not share them.
When scientific consensus supports your position I'll be more likely to take it seriously.
Well, first, I don't think you know what my position is. So that's going to be a problem.
Without that consensus is might as well be anti-vac, flat-earth, faked moon landing, or whatever.
Well, that is perfectly illogical, but perfectly fine for you to think so. But, it lumps you right in there with the folks you are belittling.
-
Straw man.
How so? Having faith in things you don't understand and can't prove is a problem in either direction.
No researcher claims to have rock solid knowledge
Maybe. Maybe not. I doubt you can say for certain. But that is certainly not the headline. It is difficult to separate the results from the conclusions.
and no one said so here.
Well that isn't true. Unless you're willing to parse the difference between "facts" and "rock solid" evidence.
The research is on-going of course, but a picture seems to be emerging, and is being fine-tuned all the time, that humans are having an impact by creating a rapid rise in CO2 that cannot be mitigated against by changes in the biosphere
Okay. In any of this discussion I'm willing to concede that the best science says we are in a warming trend. Of course, this is still being debated WITHIN the climatology community. But fine, let's say it is true. It remains far harder to prove that human activity is contributing. But let's concede that too. Nothing wrong with that, evidence certainly exists. And still, we're a long way from confirming that we are the primary cause. That becomes a stretch and in reality we're not that close to nailing that down. Still, for the sake of conversation we'll concede that too. So, it is getting warmer and human activity over the last 100 years is the primary reason.
in a reasonable time frame.
This is where it all falls apart of course. This is were the assumptions pile up (and we've had to make plenty already just to get to this point). It falls apart because it assumes that a rise of a degree or two over the last 100 years and another few in the next 100 is somehow bad. From here, all of that science starts to fall apart and becomes conjecture. But what about the melting ice and 10' of water on Broadway? Well, ask 100 climatologists about that. And this is also where 'deniers' have a real foothold and where the ideology begins to trump 'science'. I defy you to find any significant study or even news report that extols the benefits and merits of global warming. There aren't any. And that impugns a scientific community that does not address and refute the ridiculous notion that a change of 2 degrees globally can result in only bad outcomes. It is perfectly absurd, statistically impossible, and scientifically irresponsible to let such a myth persist.
To that extent, doesn't it make sense to implement policies that seek to avoid the mistakes of the past? Why would you wait, given the decades-long lead times involved in making those changes?
This is yet another problem. So lets concede, again, that it is getting warmer, humans are the cause and even that all possible global outcomes are bad. Which is pretty much where you're at if it makes sense to you to implement policies. If we concede all else, this is the stretch that is a bridge too far. Its like knowing you need to build a bridge without knowing where to put it, how big to build it or if it will get you where you need to go. And THAT science simply does not exist. And that's where it all falls apart and why the people some of you call 'deniers' are perfectly rational and reasonable to question 'policies'. It doesn't make them stupid, it doesn't make them ideologues. It makes them prudent.
And the argument that these societal changes cost money are pointless unless you also take into account the cost of not doing them.
Incorrect. Because neither you, nor Al Gore nor any climatologist has the vaguest idea supported by verifiable science how much the cost of not doing them OR how effective doing them will be. And all of this still hinges on the belief that on balance the harms of global warming will outweigh the benefits and to date it is not clear that ANYONE has asked this question. And failing to ask it is a glaring failure of the scientific community so many are willing to put their blind faith in.
For the record, I believe there is a moral imperative to use our resources in a wise and sustainable fashion to protect the planet we have been given. So, again, I'm all for exploring all the options and making wise decisions. I also firmly believe that most of the people who tend to lump people like me in the derogatory stereotype of "denier" are rushing to build and expensive bridge to nowhere.
In the end, all I would like to see is for rational intelligent people who embrace the science and implications of current climate change theory to stop belittling rational intelligent people who question the science and implications of same by using labels that are usually inaccurate and serve only to fortify their belief structure. Belittling others is no way to shore up a belief.
-
Thanks, George. I thought about simply doing a +1, but that doesn't do justice to your post. Instead, I'll say "bravo!" As soon as one gets away from emotion and begins dealing with the facts, the climate change "arguments" begin to look silly. There may be danger in climate change, but it's hard to believe that even at its most extreme the danger is anywhere near the danger of a nuclear war or an asteroid strike. Life simply is dangerous. For those who think it's too dangerous, as the M.A.S.H. theme song used to point out, "Suicide is Painless." The other advantage of suicide is that it's a way to stop polluting the planet with your dangerous emanations.
-
As soon as one gets away from emotion and begins dealing with the facts, the climate change "arguments" begin to look silly.
I agree 100%.
If only we could agree on what the facts actually are. No point in belaboring this discussion any further.
-
Russ, I personally don't see suicide as an option for me and fortunately I have never been put in a situation where I have had to consider it. I am blessed.
But yes, the conversation needs to be informed and civil. Sometimes we run into flat-earthers and sometimes we run into militant environmentalists. But the truth is, as someone else mentioned, those are usually straw men that we set up to make ourselves seem smart and to prop up our belief structures. I suspect we are all guilty. And the less straw men we set up, the less we offend. The less we offend, the more civil the conversation becomes.
The funny thing is, that many here would label me a climate change denier. Its funny not because I don't think I fit that stereotype but because on many environmental issues I'm probably more 'progressive' than they are. (I hate the way the word 'progressive' is used these days. It is such an empty euphemism. It gives no indication towards what one is 'progressing'.)
-
I'm with you, George. I'm certainly not a climate change denier. The climate changes. It keeps changing. How do people think Leif Erickson made it to this continent? And we certainly know about the Little Ice Age" which came after the Medieval Warm Period. But when it comes to the political questions associated with what once was called "global warming" and, when that didn't pan out, now is called "climate change," I'm definitely a denier.
Oh, and I've never considered suicide either. I'll just have to go on polluting the atmosphere.
-
You are welcome to disagree but like I said I'm going to side with the experts using a process that has answered countless questions over hundreds of years better than another method. If a better scientific method comes along and it can be proven superior to what we have I'm sure the scientific community will adopt it.
To many of us who do agree with the overwhelming consensus among experts, the deniers are either just demonstrating their lack of scientific literacy or they are being delusional. No amount of nay saying without some scientific consensus will change that. Probably similar to how "scientific mumbo jumbo" isn't going to change the minds of the truly dedicated denier.
MattB,
You've highlighted the problem quite well. Probably about 85% of the populations of most countries are science illiterate and are therefore unable to question for themselves the credibility of many of the claims of the climate change alarmists.
Of course, there are many different disciplines in science, about 20 to 30 of which are involved in the broad subject of climatology, so when I use the term 'science illiterate' I'm not referring to a lack of detailed knowledge in a particular discipline of science, but a general lack of understanding of the fundamental processes of scientific investigation which involve repeated experiments under controlled conditions, observing the results within reasonably short periods of time, when any specific change in a variable is made.
Through such processes, we begin with a hypothesis that an increase in atmospheric CO2 might have a devastating effect on the planet's climate, for example. We then try to create models which simulate the conditions of the earth's atmosphere, oceans and land surfaces, in order to gain some degree of certainty about the effects of rising CO2 levels, and also delve into conditions in the past in search of any warm periods that appear to be associated with increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, whatever the sources of such CO2 emissions, volcanic or otherwise.
Unfortunately, the general subject is so complicated with so many variables, and so many feedbacks both positive and negative, and so many elements of chaos which cannot be quantified, and so much doubt about the accuracy of measurements relating to the distant past, and so many flaws in computer models which are unavoidably based upon selective and incomplete data, there can be no certainty about the effects on climate of the relatively small quantities of rising CO2 levels, which are currently around 400 parts per million, or 0.04% of the atmosphere.
The modern marvels of science and technology, such as airplanes, rockets, DSLR cameras, 8k OLED TVs, antibiotics and various life-saving drugs, have been developed through repeated experiments in the laboratory where the result of a particular procedure can be observed within a short period of time. As a consequence, a high degree of certainty about the outcomes can be determined.
However, the nature of climate change does not lend itself to such rigorous procedures. We simply cannot create an accurate model of our planet and atmosphere in a laboratory. Also, the time scales involved for meaningful trends to be observed are too great. In such situations there can be no certainty.
Those who have at least a basic appreciation of the scientific method and have read perhaps a few books on the philosophy and history of science and its processes of verification and falsification, should understand this.
Merry Christmas!
-
I think that Ray has some important points to make about the nature of the scientific method.
It is absolutely correct that no means exist to reproduce the state of the atmosphere and its effect on our weather in the way that is required to do controlled experiments.
All we have are observational data.
Collection of direct weather data (particularly in terms of predicting long-term changes to weather and climate) is only a very recent phenomenon.
It is true that a lot of interesting work has ben done to try and look back much further to correlate indirect data from soil and ice samples, mud from the ocean floor etc to known weather phenomena of recorded history (a few thousand years at best) with some interesting results.
However, all the data so far is circumstantial.
The issue of CO2 and its effect on our climate is a case in point.
There is a definite correlation between the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and and a change noted in our global climate over about the last century.
However correlation does not equal causation.
A lot more work needs to be done to prove that one observation might actually be the cause of another.
CO2 in the bigger scheme of things is actually a very weak greenhouse gas.
A lot of gases, methane is an example, are much stronger greenhouse gases.
Interestingly enough, in Australia, it has been proposed that we should get rid of all the cattle on continent and that we should farm kangaroos instead for meat.
The argument is that billions of farting cows are contributing to global warming because of the amount of methane these cows are collectively excreting.
However this bovine contribution to global warming is well and truly put in the shade by volcanic activity.
A single significant volcanic eruption extrudes more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (not just methane and CO2) than 10 years of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Each year we see multiple large volcanic eruptions!
Now, in fact, I am not necessarily against limiting the use of fossil fuels and trying to limit the production of man-made greenhouse gases. The reason is that all the activities related to the whole process are damaging the global environment in very significant ways irrespective of the effect that may occur to the climate.
The point is that in multiple diverse ways humankind is collectively destroying our environment much faster than any change in climate might.
There is no doubt that the global climate has changed (even since I have been alive!)
However, as far as causation goes, as far as I am concerned the cause is not certain.
When I was in school and university classical scientific thought at the time was that things like climate and geology, if they do change at all, only do so very slowly and incrementally.
Current data is challenging that belief profoundly.
Again, the data is also circumstantial, but rather compelling, that climate and geology are actually pretty static - until they change!
So, change, when it occurs, may be pretty dynamic and dramatic rather than slow, incremental, and imperceptible.
Whether CO2 or any other so-called greenhouse gas is responsible for what we call climate change is still debatable.
Our climate has been warming and cooling since our planet has had an atmosphere capable of creating a climate and weather that is roughly equivalent to what we experience.
The truth is that we do not understand all the inputs that either maintain or change our climate.
There are lots of tantalising, and interesting, theories that explain more short-lived climate phenomena rather well but when applied to longer-term climate determination become much less certain (to the point of chance).
Even applying those factors that are known to play a role combined into the best weather and climate models running on the most powerful computer systems operational today still struggle to determine whether a particular location will get rain tomorrow, never mind next week!
The reason is simply that those models are still way too simplistic to model reality and the granularity of the data applied is still way too coarse not mention incomplete.
I have no doubt that rapid advances will be made. Computing power will allow more complex models, fundamental research will uncover more and more of the essential, but still unknown, drivers of our climate and weather, and the granularity of the data available will improve progressively.
In summary, I would say that there are many agendas across the world that are being pushed by what I call scientism. It is an unwarranted, religious-type, belief in the infallibility of science always to be correct and always to do the "right" thing.
Having been around the types who do the science all my adult working life I can only say that the degree of intrigue and politics that goes on makes traditional politics seem boring. Dispassionate, objective types they are not!
This is not all bad. Passion is as important in science as in any other endeavour. However, the same human foibles so evident in other disciplines, professions, and job descriptions are just as prevalent in scientific circles as any other. So mistakes are made, agendas are pushed that reek of palace politics (or worse) rather than rational thought. The "right" answer may be more a function of what is politically acceptable than the actual evidence. All of us can think of scientists who have been publicly humiliated and disgraced by their colleagues, not because they were wrong - but because they were right - it was just not accepted because it challenged the politics and dogma of the day (howsoever defined). This problem is not limited to the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, believe me, it is very prevalent today in the 20th and 21st centuries.
The scientism of today feeds into this appalling phenomenon because the relatively uniformed public feed into the debate on a political level rather than at the level where it needs to be - the actual data and the process by which it was obtained since this is the only way to actually gauge the significance of any conclusions being drawn. How many "climate dissenters" in the scientific community are allowed a voice right now? Does the actual data they are basing their conclusions on even get a look in? The labels "climate dissenter" or "climate change denier" are very much political ones designed to humiliate and destroy credibility. So, instead of the debate being a scientific one it becomes a matter of popular politics.
So, my suggestion is that while the issue of climate change deserves our attention we all need to be much more discerning in who and what we believe. At the level of what the general public has access to there are very few unbiased sources of information out there.
To use an analogy familiar to us photographers: the level of noise is not a good indicator of the strength of the signal!
Merry Christmas!
Tony Jay
-
The reason is that all the activities related to the whole process are damaging the global environment in very significant ways irrespective of the effect that may occur to the climate.
The point is that in multiple diverse ways humankind is collectively destroying our environment much faster than any change in climate might.
Well even this is up for debate. You use the word "damage" and "destroy". Now certainly those can be fairly objective words but in this context they are not. Some could say building a city and its urban sprawl are a beautiful process in which humans, by virtue of evolution and their DNA, are very effectively guaranteeing the propagation of their species. And this is undeniable despite what has to be destroyed to build such cities and structures and despite how bad things look sometimes in the inner city. It would be just as fair to say, thank goodness we got rid of those ugly trees, horrible streams and pesky rare species in order to build water treatment facilities, hospitals and grocery stores.
We generally don't look at a bird's nest and say eeew, look at all that destruction of the environment. Likewise a termite colony on a plain in Africa or a wetland created by beavers....at the cost of hundreds of mature trees and the habitat they created.
If we are just another evolved species, then we aren't "destroying" or "damaging" anything. We are surviving. And the numbers suggest we are doing a great job at it.
-
Or to put it another way, the only consistent and unchangi9ng thing in the history of the planet is change.
-
Well even this is up for debate. You use the word "damage" and "destroy". Now certainly those can be fairly objective words but in this context they are not. Some could say building a city and its urban sprawl are a beautiful process in which humans, by virtue of evolution and their DNA, are very effectively guaranteeing the propagation of their species. And this is undeniable despite what has to be destroyed to build such cities and structures and despite how bad things look sometimes in the inner city. It would be just as fair to say, thank goodness we got rid of those ugly trees, horrible streams and pesky rare species in order to build water treatment facilities, hospitals and grocery stores.
I think lots of people would disagree with that view. However, there always tends to be a new balance that takes place in nature, after some destructive or damaging event takes place, whether that event is the introduction of a new species into a territory, a volcanic eruption or earthquake, or a massive meteorite hitting the planet.
There have been many mass extinctions of life in the past due to catastrophic but natural events. Perhaps we owe our existence, as the Homo Sapiens species, to such a catastrophic event that caused the extinction of predators such as the dinosaurs, allowing small, furry creatures to evolve into ape-like creatures which later evolved into Homo Sapiens who more recently evolved into the subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
We have now reached the stage, since the industrial revolution, of unwittingly releasing lots of toxic fumes as a byproduct of our need for energy. Fortunately, some of us have the nous to distinguish between the noxious fumes and the beneficial fumes. The unhealthy toxic fumes that are emitted in countries such as China and India, causing significant health problems, are largely due to those countries cutting the cost of their energy supplies, by failing to introduce existing and effective methods of emission controls, in order to give themselves an economic advantage allowing their own 'industrial revolution' to take place more quickly.
Since there is always a degree of economic competition throughout the world which sometimes encourages individuals, companies and countries to cut corners in order to get an economic edge,( the recent example of Volkswagen cheating on its emission controls being a case in point), I'm quite comfortable with a move towards clean and renewable energy, particularly solar power which has tremendous potential as the cost of PVPs comes down and the efficiency goes up.
A future in which most house roofs are covered with PVPs and most vehicles are electric, is worthwhile to strive towards. At the same time, I see no good reason why energy supplies from fossil fuels should not be available in circumstances where they are more economical, taking all external costs into consideration, such as the costs of effective emission controls and the costs of damaging good agricultural land through fracking or coal mining.
However, it doesn't seem rational to ban the burning of fossil fuels purely on the grounds that such a process results in emissions of that clean and odourless gas called CO2 which is essential for all life and is of great benefit for the greening of the planet and increased crop production. ;)
-
I think lots of people would disagree with that view.
Of course. There is no shortage of disagreement these days. But, on what grounds? Either there is a moral imperative to protect this planet, the lifeforms in it and each other....or there is not. If there is no moral imperative then any opinion is as good as the next regarding what we do with this place. If we humans are just a smarter monkey then there is no 'ought to' or 'ought not' and the only thing we can appeal to is some level of pragmatism that suggests we are somehow going to make it hard on our offspring if we keep driving gasoline powered cars and burning coal. And again, the current trend in populations and growth centers suggest that even that sort of pragmatism is misplaced. The species is thriving better since the Industrial Revolution than ever before. The use of fossil fuels has been our single greatest evolutionary adaptation. The environmentalists simply lament that everyone is just too stupid to understand or that they do not see the threat because it is decades if not centuries away.
I believe we do have a moral imperative. I believe it is wrong to misuse what we have been given. I believe we ought to use what we have wisely. I do not believe that we are simply a higher life form. And on what grounds would we assume that we were? We have been nowhere near as successful as the common bacterium if we measure success based on evolutionary efficiency, which, without a moral imperative is ALL THERE IS. I believe there is more and that there is a right and wrong way to use this planet. But without some moral imperative, all the other oughts and shoulds are just opinions. We are rationally free to reject them and replace them with whatever we might like to believe.
"What is truth?" Pontius Pilate
Merry Christmas
-
N80, your opinions and arguments seem to be in some way similar to those of the ancient sophist Protagoras. But your rather obscure "moral imperative" seems to be much more irrational than his pragmatic "Good of the city".
-
N80, your opinions and arguments seem to be in some way similar to those of the ancient sophist Protagoras. But your rather obscure "moral imperative" seems to be much more irrational than his pragmatic "Good of the city".
I'm not familiar with the Protagoras or the sophists. The moral imperative I referred to could not have been more specific if you noticed, and understood, the last two lines of my reply. But, I also did not name it out right because there is no need. Either there is one or there is not. As to its rationality, well, rationality often has to be argued. I'm ready. Are you? (Yes, I know, why bother, its exhausting.)
And if Protagoras posited a pragmatic "Good of the city" that is exactly the sort of pragmatism that certain environmentalists and climate change ideologues cling to (and to which I referred specifically above). It is not in any way a moral imperative as the "Good of the city" can be interpreted in as many was as Democrats and Republicans, communists and capitalists, monarchists and populists have in the past. And it is far less rational than a moral imperative since it remains purely subjective and relative. Further, in terms of the effects of global climate change it can barely lay claim to being pragmatic. The reason being that global climate change will have vastly different effects depending on the locale and that in order to be pragmatic a plan of attack has to be able to promise some sort of tangible, practical effectiveness. Nothing in the current response to global warming can claim that. It is a one size fits all, single faceted panacea with no real scientific support. So clearly, the sophistry lies on the side of the climate change ideologues.
A moral imperative is nearly the opposite of pragmatism. Pragmatism says "do this" and you will benefit from this result. If the result can be called into question, and it always can, then the "do this" has no power. A moral imperative says "do this". Period. The ends do not require justification and are not up for debate. Humans are, I believe, naturally repulsed by such imperatives. But if you want me to get behind "saving the planet" then don't attempt to justify it to me by telling me I need to save the snail darter or to clean up the air in Beijing or even make things nice for my great great grandchildren. I can decide that I don't care about those things and worry only about myself and what is good for me....which, ironically, is very pragmatic from an evolutionary standpoint.
-
It strikes me that "save the planet" arguments always seem to ignore the "scientific fact" that even if we were to do all the things they tell us we must do and were to stop doing all the things they tell us we must not do the effect on the planet would be almost unnoticeable. Makes clear that the effort to save the planet from toxic human emanations (and farting cows) is an exercise in politics -- not morality and not science.
-
No matter how many scientists will say that humans have influenced the climate in a negative way there will always be some that disagree and I totally agree that all scientists have their own agendas as well.
Anyway regardless of agreeing or not there are other very good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels. And the very good news is that we have just passed the point where many countries see renewable energy as on par or cheaper than fossil fuels for energy production even without subsidies. That also means without carbon tax which ought to be applied to fossil fuel burning. 2017 will be a turning point for EV adoption in many countries. Transport is just a small part of all fossil fuel burning. Bruning of forests is as big a problem too. Lot's of problems, but there is a lot of work in progress on improvements. So this should make us all happy even for those who don't agree on global warming. Especially getting clean air in our cities should be a high priority. Self driving electric cars will within the next 10 years reduce the pollution and fatalities a lot. So be happy :)
-
I'm not sure where you are getting your news. I wish half of it were true. The truth is that China is building coal burning power plants at an astonishing rate. I heard one per week but cannot confirm that figure. The point is, the nations that matter, which are China, India and Russia are doing their own thing while western nations wring their hands and impose taxes on themselves for using the most readily available energy forms. The vilification of fossil fuels is a propaganda myth even if they are making the planet warmer. And even if everyone in Holland is riding in a self driving EV with electricity provided by windmills, the effect of that on the planet will be immeasurably................small.
-
I'm not sure where you are getting your news. I wish half of it were true. The truth is that China is building coal burning power plants at an astonishing rate. I heard one per week but cannot confirm that figure. The point is, the nations that matter, which are China, India and Russia are doing their own thing while western nations wring their hands and impose taxes on themselves for using the most readily available energy forms. The vilification of fossil fuels is a propaganda myth even if they are making the planet warmer. And even if everyone in Holland is riding in a self driving EV with electricity provided by windmills, the effect of that on the planet will be immeasurably................small.
The simple point I'm trying to make is that we are at a turning point so that it no longer makes sense to burn fossil fuels. At a turning point not evertthing will change, but it will as we move forward. It will change due to to economics and because of beliefs. That's what I find very positive. The consequences of this will be huge and will change everything over the next decades. Self driving cars will be the norm in every country and starting with the most forward looking countries like Norway, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Denmark as well as a number of states un the US. China will move very fast in this area also is my expectation. Initially relatively small but after some years it will grow exponentially large.
-
To set fire to something in general is the most primitive form of use.
If it is wood or oil or whatever. It is time we move on to a more intelligent use of our fossil earth.
-
China will move very fast in this area also is my expectation.
I admire your optimism. But the truth is, from your standpoint China is moving backwards as fast as it can. Like I said, China is building NEW coal fired plants at a rapid rate. How is that progressing away from fossil fuel?
-
To set fire to something in general is the most primitive form of use.
How does the fact that oxidation is primitive make it somehow bad? Breathing is primitive too. Do we need to find an alternative?
If it is wood or oil or whatever. It is time we move on to a more intelligent use of our fossil earth.
Again, what shall we move on to? We are told that the problem is urgent. We know that wind and solar are not even close to being sufficient particularly not in rapidly industrializing nations like China. The environmentalists are always telling us we must stop using fossil fuel but rarely tell us what we can actually use. Solar and wind are not it. So again, what? How?
And yes, diversity of energy production is great. But diversity alone will not solve the problem now. Sometimes it seems these small western European nations live in a vacuum.
-
....Sometimes it seems these small western European nations live in a vacuum...
Well than it is a good thing we have almighty N80 here to guide us through these difficult times ;)
-
I admire your optimism. But the truth is, from your standpoint China is moving backwards as fast as it can. Like I said, China is building NEW coal fired plants at a rapid rate. How is that progressing away from fossil fuel?
The use of coal peaked in 2013 and is on the way down. The use of oil in general is still on the way up in China. China builds wind and solar plants. It will take a long time to get rid of the coal power plants in China and also in the worst states in the US. I'm optimistic since the price point where renewable energy (RE) is starting to be cheaper than fossil fuels. This does not mean that the transition will be fast. I do think (being optimistic) that as RE is becoming the norm and we get rid of the air pollution more and more that it will not be acceptable any more to us fossil fuels and the public will accept the costs in closing down older fossil fuelled plants as they are no longer economic and pollutes. Being realistic I'm also sure that it will take longer than desired. But on the edge of a new year, isn't it time to be optimistic? :)
-
And yes, diversity of energy production is great. But diversity alone will not solve the problem now. Sometimes it seems these small western European nations live in a vacuum.
There will be diversity as progression to RE will take place. I see Chinese delegations coming to my country (Denmark) all the time to study what we have done for quite some time now in the area of RE and also other sustainable actions. Areas like waste handling and reuse and clean water etc. It's not a vacuum. It is forward thinking and smart as many green industries are built up around such techniques. In my country we have the worlds largest windturbine manufacturing company Vestas and a lot of Siemens Wind Power is also in Denmark as Danish companies were bought by Siemens. So I think is smart and not a vacuum as these techniques will be in high demand. Germany, Holland, Norway and other countries do similar things. Germany is not exactly a small country.
-
Hi,
RE has pressed electricity prices here in Sweden, where I live. We are in the process of phasing out four of our nuclear power plants because electricity prices are so low. We need to reach profitability at 1.9 eurocent / kWh in a few years.
When RE is cheeper that fossile it will replace fossile. But RE is also troublesame, the sun is not always shining and the wind is not aways blowing. Well the wind is always blowing when I try to shoot anything but waves…
The way I see it:
- Fossiles are cheap right now
- Developing world needs energy
- NIC/BRICK and other letter soup countries will need more power
So, I am not overly optimistic in the short term. In a longer term we have a lot of positive developments.
- More fuel efficient cars
- More efficient illumination
- Fuel cell cars coming soon
- Energy storage solutions may balance energy production/consumption over day
Best regards
Erik
There will be diversity as progression to RE will take place. I see Chinese delegations coming to my country (Denmark) all the time to study what we have done for quite some time now in the area of RE and also other sustainable actions. Areas like waste handling and reuse and clean water etc. It's not a vacuum. It is forward thinking and smart as many green industries are built up around such techniques. In my country we have the worlds largest windturbine manufacturing company Vestas and a lot of Siemens Wind Power is also in Denmark as Danish companies were bought by Siemens. So I think is smart and not a vacuum as these techniques will be in high demand. Germany, Holland, Norway and other countries do similar things. Germany is not exactly a small country.
-
Well than it is a good thing we have almighty N80 here to guide us through these difficult times ;)
Over here in 'merica we're told that you guys are doing just fine. A model for the world to follow. Imagine how that sounds to the nation that pays NATO's bills.
-
Hi,
RE has pressed electricity prices here in Sweden, where I live. We are in the process of phasing out four of our nuclear power plants because electricity prices are so low. We need to reach profitability at 1.9 eurocent / kWh in a few years.
When RE is cheeper that fossile it will replace fossile. But RE is also troublesame, the sun is not always shining and the wind is not aways blowing.
Hi Erik,
The sun is always shining somewhere, particularly in desert areas. High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission lines have a very low energy loss across thousands of kilometres, and it would be technically possible to provide 20 or 30 times the current energy requirements of the entire world from solar power alone, by building large solar farms in deserts and arid regions which are currently not used for any useful purpose, and by encouraging the installation of solar panels on the millions of building roofs around the world which also represent free space which is not being used.
Those of us who have witnessed the amazing improvement in the efficiency of digital cameras during the past 20 years or so, together with a very significant drop in price, should not be surprised to see a similar trend applying to Photo Voltaic Panels.
At a fundamental level, the average prosperity of the whole of mankind is inextricably linked to the cost of energy and the ways in which we use that energy. If we were to continue to rely upon fossil fuels for most of our energy needs into the future, there would eventually come a period of total, world-wide economic collapse, when the world population is perhaps around 10 or 12 billion, and India and Africa have greatly increased their prosperity.
The 1930's depression would be mild in comparison, so it's fortunate we are already preparing ourselves to be able to avoid such an event, even though the main motivation, which is a scare about the future effects of increased CO2 levels, might be unfounded.
Happy New Year to everyone. ;)
-
Over here in 'merica we're told that you guys are doing just fine. A model for the world to follow. Imagine how that sounds to the nation that pays NATO's bills.
"America's contribution to NATO's military budget - provided through the Department of the Army's Operations and Maintenance account - is under 23 percent. The U.S. contributed $408.051 million and $430.381 million, respectively, in FY2009 and FY2010, according to the Congressional Budget Service.
After the U.S., the largest contributors to NATO's military budget are Germany (16.6 percent); France (12.4 percent); United Kingdom (12 percent); Italy (7.8 percent); Canada (5 percent); Spain (4.2 percent); Netherlands (3.3 percent); Belgium (2.6 percent); Poland (2.3 percent); Turkey (1.8 percent); Denmark (1.7 percent); and Norway (1.6 percent). Fifteen countries make up the remaining 5.8 percent.
"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-criticizes-nato-how-much-does-us-pay/
-
I don't understand your point. NATO is a tiny fraction on what the US spends defending Europe.
Again, I'm not arguing that we should defend Europe. I'm not arguing that NATO should exist. Several Europeans in this thread have suggested Europe would be better off if we did not have a presence there. I'm inclined to agree.
-
Maybe it is more easy to agree that pollution due to fueled cars harms the local climate....
and that it is sensible to search for other kinds of energy than burning carbon rich fuels...
Unlike Bejing we have in Holland a lot of wind coming from the seaside, making our problems less acute...
Livestock farming results in more pollution than all car and truck driving. Not only that, but while transportation creates CO2, livestock farming produces methane which is 23 times more potent when it comes to warming the planet.
In other words, a vegetarian driving a Hummer is gentler to the planet than a carnivore driving Prius.
http://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html (http://www.ecowatch.com/which-is-worse-for-the-planet-beef-or-cars-1919932136.html)
-
After the U.S., the largest contributors to NATO's military budget are Germany (16.6 percent)
The United States spends 3.3% of its GDP on defense. We have bases all over Europe and US based and mobile defense systems all for defending Europe.
Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on its own defense. France spends 2.1%. Sweden 1.1%.
The United States spends as much protecting Europe as Europe does. Many western European economies are own the brink without even really making an effort to defend themselves. Again, imagine those economies if they couldn't rely on US defense spending for security.
-
http://www.boredpanda.com/2016-national-geographic-nature-photographer-of-the-year-winners/
My apologies to Peter Alt for highjacking his nice Coffee Corner topic about some astounding photos.