View topic - controversy over IPCC

It is currently December 14th, 2019, 2:38 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2010, 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 19th, 2010, 2:02 pm
Posts: 51
I believe we are contributing to global warming. However, anyone that believes anything the IPCC puts out is either unfamiliar with their track record, or has made up their mind and will only consider evidence that suits their biased conclusions. They are a farce. Who cares that they won a Nobel prize, it has become a joke too. Far more of concern to me is the rate of the tar sands development.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 22nd, 2010, 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2003, 5:10 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Horseshoe Valley, On
And there's lot of ways to minimize our current use of fuels and energy without leaping whole-hog into uncertain technologies.

Although, you seem to suggest that irresponsible use of energy is OK and is probably not harming our ecosytems' functions, which I don't get - why take that chance and defend irresponsible use of something precious just for the selfish convenience of having the AC cranked and driving a single-occupant SUV?

Assuming you also support the irresponsible conversion of natural habitat lest it interfere with someone's lifestyle or profits, you'll be sad to know that the UN is considering an IPCC-like panel to address the global loss of biodiversity, i.e., there are crazy, biased governments & scientists who have a concern with the rate that species are going extinct. How dare they suggest precautionary alternatives to that too!

I'm sure everything will be alright if we all just keep consuming as much as possible everywhere possible.
____________________________________________

Where in my posts did I say that I support irresponsible use of energy, or that it is not harming our ecosystems functions? I guess that is going to come down to what your definition of irresponsible is, vs. what my definition is, vs. what the definition is to a low-income laborer in the Amazonian basin, etc. In other words, there should be some sort of compromise, and in Ontario right now, the government has been taking away the abilities of the municipalities to decide whether, or where, they want alternate energy facilities located within their boundaries, regardless of neighbors/other industries, etc.

What I suggested is not irresponsible use of energy, it was that existing sources of energy can be made cleaner while we sort out the new technologies, instead of leaping whole-hog into them. Again, though, McGuinty seems to have taken that option away from us here in Ontario as well.

As far as irresponsible conversion of natural habitat, again, that is relative to who is involved. The uranium mines being discussed in another thread in this forum are supported by at least half the bands in ther area from what I see in the various articles. The same in India, Brazil, China, etc. Who are we to tell poor people that they can't make a living in their country because we can't let them change their environment. It's tough to live in the middle of a huge resource, be it forests, minerals, ocean life, etc., barely able to feed your families, and be told you can;t use them to make a living. In fact, in Brazil, much of the land is supposed to be protected, but gets burned off by locals or big ranchers looking to increase their holdings.

Ther e isn't necessarily an easy answer, but I think any solution will have to include economic costs as well as the environment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2010, 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 9th, 2003, 11:48 am
Posts: 1485
Location: Back to Winnipeg
You wrote:
Quote:
...there is a hell of a lot of dispute over whether [climate change] is man-made — that SUVs and irresponsible use of energy and greenhouses gases are endangering the earth.


I took that to mean that you believe we can do whatever we want with fossil fuels etc. and not have anything to worry about. Basically, I don't get the fervour of your attack on IPCC and climate change, and I don't trust people who argue that we shouldn't be responding to climate change, because as I said, cautious use of scarce resources makes sense on all accounts - it's not witchcraft science or crooked policy, it's common sense, for protection and economics, regardless of who believes what.

In your more recent posts I see that this is not the case, I don't disagree with your much of what you say (except possibly on exactly where to draw such lines), but I also don't think that the people on the UN panels disagree with you either. Socioeconomics and cultural impacts are not ignored in policy discussions about managing climate change and biodiversity, and I think a lot of the recommendations on these issues have shown a lot of patience - perhaps too much if you happen to be a species or person in an environmentally vulnerable situation.

Only time will tell if our elected folks put the right weight on the right recommendations/lobbying/science and draw the right lines in the right places. The only thing that's for sure is their decisions will never please everyone.

Pat.

_________________
Learning to paddle is like learning a language:
It's easy to learn the basics, but will you be understood in a strong wind?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Doin' my part.
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2010, 9:21 am 
Offline
CCR Moderator & Assistant Administrator
User avatar

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 5:51 am
Posts: 2895
Location: Montreal
Just this morning I did my bit. After picking up stuff for my office, which is closed today, I decided not to make the 20k round-trip to deliver it because tomorrow I'm going via foot and subway as usual. I decided I can put it all in a big pack and carry it on my back.

What I wonder is, who will burn the 2 liters of gasoline that went unburned? Ie. is it possible whatever fossil energy you and I conserve by startegic planning and adopting various conservation methods will just get quickly burned up by someone else?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2010, 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2003, 5:10 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Horseshoe Valley, On
yarnellboat wrote:
You wrote:
Quote:
...there is a hell of a lot of dispute over whether [climate change] is man-made — that SUVs and irresponsible use of energy and greenhouses gases are endangering the earth.

__________________________________________________

Oh, that quote was part of the article, not my statement.

Right now anyway, I got to get into my pickup and drive to the back of my property to cut some firewood with my chainsaw. Not sure it'll use Neil's full 2 liters, guess it depends on how hard I work.

On the plus side, I'll probably wander down and see if the salmon are still running up the stream at the back of my property. Couldn't believe how high and brown the water was last night! Maybe pick some puffballs to have with dinner....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Doin' my part.
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2010, 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 21st, 2004, 10:52 am
Posts: 1102
Location: Near Ottawa ON
Hiker Neil wrote:
.... is it possible whatever fossil energy you and I conserve by startegic planning and adopting various conservation methods will just get quickly burned up by someone else?
Yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Doin' my part.
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2010, 2:51 pm 
Offline
CCR Moderator & Assistant Administrator
User avatar

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 5:51 am
Posts: 2895
Location: Montreal
Krusty wrote:
Hiker Neil wrote:
.... is it possible whatever fossil energy you and I conserve by startegic planning and adopting various conservation methods will just get quickly burned up by someone else?
Yes.

Ski Dubai! Aw heck. What's 12000 liters of oil per day? Just another brick in the wall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 23rd, 2010, 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
You guys drove right into that dead-end street - with eyes wide open!
:rofl:


It's like the good folks on the west coast that couldn't get the agreement betwixt North and South on the Salmon quotas needed to protect it. So the word was out to catch as much as possible to make sure the Other Side didn't get it...

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Doin' my part.
PostPosted: September 27th, 2010, 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 21st, 2004, 10:52 am
Posts: 1102
Location: Near Ottawa ON
Hiker Neil wrote:
Krusty wrote:
Hiker Neil wrote:
.... is it possible whatever fossil energy you and I conserve by startegic planning and adopting various conservation methods will just get quickly burned up by someone else?
Yes.

Ski Dubai! Aw heck. What's 12000 liters of oil per day? Just another brick in the wall.
By conserving we are keeping the global price down, making it possible for that old factory in Indonesia that uses a smoky old 2-banger of an engine to buy and burn more fuel. Better for the planet to burn that fuel in your super-clean spanking new SUV.
So do your bit to fight AGW - get out there, buy some gasoline and start driving. For the good of the planet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Doin' my part.
PostPosted: September 27th, 2010, 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
Krusty wrote:
By conserving we are keeping the global price down, making it possible for that old factory in Indonesia that uses a smoky old 2-banger of an engine to buy and burn more fuel. Better for the planet to burn that fuel in your super-clean spanking new SUV.

So how do we keep hedge funds, commodity traders, OPEC, sovereign state funds, and everyone else from manipulating the price of oil (supply and demand) to drive development, resource extraction, circumvent environmental policy, get rich, fund political candidates to secure their votes, subsidize extraction with tax breaks, artificially inflate the cost for the average joe, delay the development of cleaner and more efficient alternatives (in a competitive marketplace), deploy armies and poverty around the globe (look at Nigeria, Sudan, Angola, Ecuador), and a great deal more.

It's a little more complex than this Krusty … and I know that you know this?

At this point, climate change legislation has only very little to do with regulating/mitigating global warming and temperature change (whether you believe this is happening or not). It has far more to do with achieving long term energy security, global national security (dealing with third world dictatorships and failed states), jobs and future market competitiveness in new technologies, sustainable long term economic goals and growth, local health concerns, I could go on. In case you don't agree … two articles (by same dude) that paint a picture in stark black and white terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/opini ... edman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/opini ... edman.html

Wanna quibble whether Pachauri made a mistake citing one study on rates of melting glaciers in the Himalayas (they are still melting, but won't be gone by 2030), and should be fired and throw the whole IPCC enterprise into doubt, I think you're ENTIRELY missing the point!!

I'm not going to go on and on in this thread on the nature of peer reviewed sources, the prevalence and ubiquity of scientific doubt (as the bread and butter of scientific progress and understanding), who's funding who, whether there is a conspiracy to silence skeptics, and all of the rest … I find such discussions a little silly and misguided.

We have huge challenges in today's global and rapidly developing world … and energy is right at the center of all of them (energy security, long term economic sustainability, failed states, nuclear states, air and water quality, sustainability of the ocean's fisheries, availability of fresh water, etc.). If you don't think climate change legislation is a way to deal with these issues, well, instead of stubbornly putting your foot down and looking the other way, why not role up your sleeves and tell us how to make the world a better, more affordable, cleaner, healthier and more productive place to live, work, raise a family, and live a "rich" life with dignity and accountability/responsibility for the benefits we receive from society, the earth, educators, inventors, entrepreneurs, doctors and nurses, artists and filmmakers, journalists, and the many generations of people (near and far) who came before and are yet to follow (and the lessons of history, which we all too easily forget)!

The bounty (which we assumed was boundless) and technological monopoly (of the West following the end of WWII) are both coming to a tough and very decisive end. The financial sector, as we have painfully learned of late, is no place to make up the difference. We either adapt (or suffer in the long run) … and I'd rather adapt!! It's what we humans (and even those early dreamers who came to the US and Canada from a despoiled and intolerant Europe) do best. Only now, there is nowhere else to go (and we have to deal with the long term consequences of our actions)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 28th, 2010, 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 21st, 2004, 10:52 am
Posts: 1102
Location: Near Ottawa ON
idylwyld wrote:
It's a little more complex than this
Indeed.

ChrisCanoes wrote:
However, anyone that believes anything the IPCC puts out is either unfamiliar with their track record, or has made up their mind and will only consider evidence that suits their biased conclusions. They are a farce.

Psychologists tell us that we are really good at that - only considering evidence that suits our biased conclusions. The more an idea challenges our basic belief structure the more likely we are to consider it farceful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 28th, 2010, 7:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 3rd, 2003, 11:15 am
Posts: 904
Location: on the edge of the big blue
Quote:
The more an idea challenges our basic belief structure the more likely we are to consider it farceful.

Krusty you're challenging my basic belief structure with your choice of words.

_________________
Time's but a golden wind that shakes the grass...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 28th, 2010, 8:45 am 
Offline
CCR Moderator & Assistant Administrator
User avatar

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 5:51 am
Posts: 2895
Location: Montreal
In other words, believing is seeing.

Farceful?

My wife commented over the glossy ads for big SUVs in today's paper that big vehicles were still being bought and sold. Imagine that in today's enlightened world! I told my wife that I recently learned, on a canoing forum, that the best way to conserve oil is for us to burn it like hell in order to create a scarcity, which would then provoke a price increase and thereby decrease consumption.

She laughed at this farceful notion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 28th, 2010, 9:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
Good observation, Neil!
I stayed out of this one, but here's an additional note.

Ever since the IPCC was in the headlines, it gave us enough reason to accept that global warming was occurring and that it is largely human-made. And the IPCC has been maligned massively.

The heavy critiques of the IPCC has made me take a closer look of what the organization actually is, and I have come to the opinion that they are too quick to make compromises in order to reach consensus. Their forecasts were not pessimistic enough, and we are actually in worse shape than they told us.

Will we, as one of earth's dominant life forms, be able to change our ways to stop and even reverse the climate trends? Suzuki was optimistic when asked that question recently. He thought "Yes", but added that it will take a few more Katrinas to get here...

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: September 28th, 2010, 9:46 am 
Offline
CCR Moderator & Assistant Administrator
User avatar

Joined: October 27th, 2006, 5:51 am
Posts: 2895
Location: Montreal
The weather in Montreal (not to be confused with climate) has been consistently quite warm all month (all year actually, 4 degC above "normal") and when I mentioned that maybe GW had something to do with it my associate said in all seriousness, "That would be great, I hate the cold". This is a person with 8 years of post-secondary education.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group