What do you think of climate change?

[PetraG]

So, two thirds of the projected warming somehow doesn’t matter?
Strange math.

Also it’s a bit disingenuous to lament the ‘deniers’ not engaging when one does so themselves to a very large degree.

No, I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that the American Meteorological Society and the American Statistical Society and the American Chemical Society and so on know how to read the data they have seen, which is more that you have seen, correct? I do not feel a need to argue about data with you when I know very well that neither of us has even a fraction of it.

That’s the thing–you’re arguing this as if you’re debating all the evidence out there to support the idea of human-induced climate change. It isn’t, and not by a long shot. More to the point, you are also advancing the odd idea that real scientists haven’t debated this point. leaving you and me to do it. That is simply not true.

I’m not “lamenting” that we’re not engaging. “Engage” all you like. I’m saying that I have more than enough evidence to conclude, as the meeting at the Vatican did, that this is no longer a matter that ought to be debated rather than acted upon. I personally believe there is enough data, enough certainty, and high enough stakes to quit arguing and try to move to more frugal use of fossil fuels. That is what is being suggested, not the end of civilization as we know it nor even the imminent destruction of all petroleum-fueled machinery. I have plenty of evidence to show I’m not making an uninformed lead-by-the-nose sheep-like decision.

This is the way the American Chemical Society’s news journal Chemical and Engineering News put it in 2009, as the debate raged in the chemistry community (which obviously has stakeholders on both sides!!):
C&EN Senior Correspondent Stephen K. Ritter notes in the article that global warming believers and skeptics agree on a cluster of core points. These points include the following: That the Earth’s atmospheric load of carbon dioxide has increased since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s; that this increase largely results from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels; and that the average global temperatures have been rising since 1850, with most of the warming occurring since 1970.

The summary goes on to say that this is where the agreement ends and the fighting begins.

If anyone would like to read what I think is a quite balanced replay of the argument as it stood in 2009–and considering the range of the membership in the American Chemical Society, be sure both sides are well-represented–skip this thread and try this, instead, as the state of the arguments is presented in a very coherent way:
Global Warming And Climate Change | Cover Story | Chemical & Engineering News?

 

[PetraG]

The ACS article cited in my last post, as anyone can note from the date of the article, was the state of the debate about 10 years ago.
This is what the ACS says now:

Global Climate Change - American Chemical Society

“The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity. Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement. It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will accelerate and compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future…” (ACS Public Policy Statement on Climate Change, 2016-2019)

Sorry, but I don’t care to rehash 10 year old arguments, not even if people whose intelligence I respect still want to do it. If you do, fly at it, but don’t accuse me of putting my head in the sand just because I don’t want to debate the point until doomsday when better heads than either you or me have presented their sides of the argument already.

 

[PetraG]

This is truly disappointing, although not entirely unexpected. It’s a bit life declaring that life on Mars is a scientific reality: it might actually be true, but it is assuredly unknown at this point and there is no justification for asserting it.

Well, if we had reason to believe there were life on Mars headed this way, I don’t think we’d be taking a “wait and see” attitude about it, would we?

This statement just seems disconnected from reality. The proposals to “solve” climate change require the virtual elimination of hydrocarbons as fuel. If that was even possible one of the immediate impacts would be the impoverishment of most of the people on Earth. It would not lead to the elimination of global poverty but to its massive expansion. I think the Vatican was on stronger ground opposing Galileo. At least Galileo got some things wrong.

Where does the statement say that the use of combustion as an energy source is to be anything like eliminated, rather than curtailed, let alone that it be done in a way that will impoverish “most of the people on Earth”? Nowhere, that’s where!! The statement specifically supports a transition TOWARDS low-carbon energy, done in a way that will mitigate poverty, not the immediate abolition of combustion as an energy source!!

The world has within its technological grasp, financial means, and know-how the means to mitigate climate change while also ending extreme poverty, through the application of sustainable development solutions including the adoption of low-carbon energy systems supported by information and communications technologies;

The financing of sustainable development, including climate mitigation, should be bolstered through new incentives for the transition towards low-carbon energy, and through the relentless pursuit of peace, which also will enable the shift of public financing from military spending to urgent investments for sustainable development; …

News flash: We in the US could change our standard of living drastically and not even approach “impoverishment.”

So–keep arguing all you like, but please drop the pretense that you’re more concerned for the poor than Pope Francis. I’m not buying it.

 

[pnewton]

I do not understand the argument that proof of climate change does not exist. It is a completely irrelevant and unimportant question. The scientific consensus is not debated, which is why liberal conspiracy theories are needed to discredit science. Neither is it debatable by those who are intellectually honest that climatology is not an exact science.

So considering the size of the dissent in the scientific community, it would seem clear that the danger of mass inhumanity should be enough to motivate all who claim to be pro-life to support measures to limit Man’s contribution to global warming. If it was just one life, someone in the woods, and a hunter saw him, was 80% certain it was a human being, but shot anyway on the 20% it could be a deer, it would still be murder, regardless of how hungry the hunter was, or that he couldn’t be certain. When the possibility exists that you are going to kill someone, not to mention the probability, don’t shoot. With the climate, we are speaking of millions of someones. We can’t shoot.

 

[PetraG]

I do not understand the argument that proof of climate change does not exist. It is a completely irrelevant and unimportant question. The scientific consensus is not debated, which is why liberal conspiracy theories are needed to discredit science. Neither is it debatable by those who are intellectually honest that climatology is not an exact science.

So considering the size of the dissent in the scientific community, it would seem clear that the danger of mass inhumanity should be enough to motivate all who claim to be pro-life to support measures to limit Man’s contribution to global warming. If it was just one life, someone in the woods, and a hunter saw him, was 80% certain it was a human being, but shot anyway on the 20% it could be a deer, it would still be murder, regardless of how hungry the hunter was, or that he couldn’t be certain. When the possibility exists that you are going to kill someone, not to mention the probability, don’t shoot. With the climate, we are speaking of millions of someones. We can’t shoot.

Exactly, particularly when we are talking about spending money we do have to develop frugal technologies that are within our financial means.

Really, I heard similar “the sky is falling” arguments when it was proposed that smoking should be barred in restaurants. It was even worse for bars. Well, we still somehow have bars and restaurants, and people who work there actually do like going to work and not having to breathe cigarette smoke all night. It did affect their well-being, in spite of arguments to the contrary.

We’re not going to have our cars taken away, stranded at home and unable to get to work. They’re not turning off the gas to our houses. That is not what is being proposed, but when you read @Ender writing things like “The proposals to “solve” climate change require the virtual elimination of hydrocarbons as fuel,” you’d think it was.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

the danger of mass inhumanity should be enough to motivate all who claim to be pro-life to support measures to limit Man’s contribution to global warming

The problem is that frequently, the proposed solutions involve anti-life measures. The spread of contraceptives and abortion for “population control,” or the mass-shutdown of long-standing industries that will lead to large growth in unemployment.

–

My biggest issue with the green movement is that none of it’s technologies are really that much better than what’s in place now. Sure, wind energy is neat and all, but it’s only available in certain areas, and is having an impact on the migration pattern of birds.

Solar energy requires a large amount of land for the water-heating variety, or are made from highly dangerous chemical pollutants, and require more enrgy to produce than they are currently capable of generating over their lifetime.

Hydro-electric power is probably the “cleanest”, but it requires a pre-exiting water supply, as well as the creation of reservoirs, which is devastating to the local ecology. There’s also the problem of the dam degrading over time, which has potential to cause catastrophic damage.

Honestly, of all the options, nuclear power is the “cleanest,” until something goes wrong with the reactor… well, cleanest except for Geothermal, but geothermal is prohibitively expensive in most places.

All the so-called green options just shift the damage to somewhere we don’t notice it. Either in the production of equipment, the generation of the energy to power electric devices, or the destruction of land and habitats in order to use the “green” energy source.

Sadly, there are no real solutions right now, just band-aids and curtains to hide to the damage.

To be clear, I’m in favor of developing new green technology, I just dislike the secular religion of climate change.

 

[PetraG]

The problem is that frequently, the proposed solutions involve anti-life measures. The spread of contraceptives and abortion for “population control,” or the mass-shutdown of long-standing industries that will lead to large growth in unemployment.

Yet the Vatican does not see agreement that the prospect of climate change calls for a moral response as anything like carte blanche to spread a culture of death. The two are not intrinsically linked, then.
Where does the Vatican’s declaration call for a mass shut-down of long-standing industries? Did switching from horse-drawn vehicles to petroleum-fueled vehicles shut down agriculture, let alone manufacturing? No, the wagon makers learned to make something else! Will people really not have to make furniture or clothing or household articles or transportation vehicles just because there is a need to generate much less CO2 while doing it? Why should we just assume that industry is going to shut down, then?

My biggest issue with the green movement is that none of it’s technologies are really that much better than what’s in place now.

I don’t know; cars that get 50 mpg instead of the 13.5 mpg that was the average in 1975 seem to have been an improvement. There are a lot of green technologies that work by being more frugal rather than by doing the same thing in the same way but with a different energy source. Even if energy is generated in a plant where the CO2 is fixed (say, to make some sort of solid carbonate) instead of burned in really inefficient internal combustion engines of the sort that are light enough to use as direct sources of energy to drive transportation, that would make a difference.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yet the Vatican does not see agreement that the prospect of climate change calls for a moral response as anything like carte blanche to spread a culture of death. The two are not intrinsically linked, then .

I agree, they are not intrinsically linked. However, as much as correlation does not prove causation, a strong enough correlation should give you pause to consider whether or not a course of action is a good idea. I, personally, do not think it’s a good idea to jump on the bandwagon, considering what that bandwagon is so frequently used to promote.

I’m all for a greener Earth and better green technology, but I’d prefer that it be developed apart from the MMGW collective and all the social engineering they tend to promote.

I don’t know; cars that get 50 mpg instead of the 13.5 mpg that was the average in 1975 seem to have been an improvement. There are a lot of green technologies that work by being more frugal rather than by doing the same thing in the same way but with a different energy source.

Very true, but that doesn’t change the fact that these “green” things are not, in actuality, all that green to begin with. They’re green-er, which is a positive, I certainly love the improved gas mileage on my new car, but at the end of the day my car’s energy is generally either coming from a coal-fired plant or gasoline. We haven’t removed the problem, we’ve just removed it a step.

 

[PetraG]

I, personally, do not think it’s a good idea to jump on the bandwagon, considering what that bandwagon is so frequently used to promote.

I’m defending the idea that the Church does not warn us away from this “bandwagon” but instead points out that if this science is true we have a moral imperative to act to allay actions that could be damaging the ability of our planet to support human life and our civilizations to protect peace.

Very true, but that doesn’t change the fact that these “green” things are not, in actuality, all that green to begin with. They’re green- er , which is a positive, I certainly love the improved gas mileage on my new car, but at the end of the day my car’s energy is generally either coming from a coal-fired plant or gasoline. We haven’t removed the problem, we’ve just removed it a step.

That’s like saying that it is pointless for someone in debt to try to spend less if they’re not going to repay their creditors immediately. Doing even a little better is a lot better than continuing full speed ahead at doing worse, right? Otherwise, it is just “Eat and drink for tomorrow we die!” and I don’t think we’re at that point quite yet.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’m defending the idea that the Church does not warn us away from this “bandwagon” but instead points out that if this science is true we have a moral imperative to act to allay actions that could be damaging the ability of our planet to support human life and our civilizations to protect peace.

Fair enough. I can’t argue with that.

That’s like saying that it is pointless for someone in debt to try to spend less if they’re not going to repay their creditors immediately. Doing even a little better is a lot better than continuing full speed ahead at doing worse, right? Otherwise, it is just “Eat and drink for tomorrow we die!” and I don’t think we’re at that point quite yet.

I’m totally in favor of trying to fix with problem, and incremental advancements are better than nothing. My problem is that most of the proposed solutions aren’t actually solution, they just mollify people into thinking they’re helping. As I said in my earlier post, petty much all the current alternate energy systems cost more energy than they generate, or have severe ecological effects which kind of defeats the purpose. Nuclear is best, but it’s also the most dangerous, and so we don’t want to use it.

I dunno, I like that we’re trying, it just frustrates me how people treat these things as solutions when they’re more like band-aids…

 

[PetraG]

I’m totally in favor of trying to fix with problem, and incremental advancements are better than nothing. My problem is that most of the proposed solutions aren’t actually solution, they just mollify people into thinking they’re helping. As I said in my earlier post, petty much all the current alternate energy systems cost more energy than they generate, or have severe ecological effects which kind of defeats the purpose. Nuclear is best, but it’s also the most dangerous, and so we don’t want to use it.

I dunno, I like that we’re trying, it just frustrates me how people treat these things as solutions when they’re more like band-aids…

Yes, and I also agree that joining the resolve that climate change appears to be at least in part due to human activity should not be made into political carte blanche to run after any hare-brained proposal if only it presents itself as a solution to climate change. Saying “we ought to be willing to change our choices accordingly” is not the same as running around waving our hands yelling “Do something! Do something! Do something!!” and swallowing any proposal that has the “right intention.”

An example is biofuels. Who on earth came up with the idea that the desirability of clean-burning fuels is an argument for burning food? No, we’re not that overrun with food or irrigation water or arable land on this planet. Agriculture has its own environmental impacts, and we ought to be spending those wisely. Maybe using land not practical for food crops to grow plants that make biofuel could possibly work, certainly it is not a bad idea to burn used-up cooking oil if that pencils out, fine, I’m not saying the entire biofuel idea could never have any merit in any place or circumstance, but growing food so we can burn it is not a wise use of resources.

In other words, each project has to be assessed on its merits within the broad context of all the costs and benefits rather than solely on some narrow environmental goal, even if the goal is very important. We have to have some faith that we have the imagination and technical prowess to reach important goals by prudent decision-making.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Kind of like “What do you think of thunderstorms?” or “what do you think of gravity?”

Climates are changing. This is a simple fact.

We can believe it is part of the natural cycle of the earth, believe it is man-made or believe something in between.

I know I kinda miss the 4 seasons

 

[hojo33]

Well, it’s normally considered an environmental issue and not a social one, but I do see that it is indeed a social issue in many aspects.

Our home, the earth, is very important, but that does not make it the most important issue. I was making the point that I don’t think that any practicing Catholic should make that their priority issue to vote on, as it does not have the same impact on souls as abortion does. The possibility of making the earth pass away does not have the same moral gravity as an inherent evil like abortion. Oddly enough, we just spoke again about this. We both concluded that it is a very important issue, to which I will agree as I stated before do what I can, and that we, as a society should do what is reasonable to battle it, but certainly not the extremes of a green new deal. Very important subject, just not the most important if your main goal is to get to Heaven. It would be quite interesting if the end of our physical world caused by warming coincided with the second coming and end of the world as we know it! It does make some sense in a sense!

 

[Theo520]

No, I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that the American Meteorological Society and the American Statistical Society and the American Chemical Society

You are deflecting.

My source is the IPCC itself.

Since their very first report they stated that feedbacks may add between 0.5 and 3.5 C in warming.

Since their very first report they’ve shown zero progress in narrowing down the certainty of how feedbacks will exacerbate man made warming from doubling CO2.

The impact of feedbacks is where the rubber hits the road. If it’s on the low side, then policy would indicate we respond to the impacts. If it’s on the high side, then there is a case for more severe policy changes to mitigate and prevent.

0.5 and 3.5 C in warming as a target impact is the broad side of a barn, it doesn’t indicate confidence.

 

[Aquinas11]

We can’t predict climate beyond 10 days

But 10 years? Now that we can do! And with nuclear precision!

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

I apologize for portraying my views as personal attacks. I will try to do better.

Concerning the Vatican workshop on climate change: if this is the promulgation as dictated by the Magisterium for all Catholics, I will and do comply. I have not been able to find who exactly were the undersigned in that declaration, but will take it at its word.

But it is not because I found it convincing, but because obedience is far more important. I hope that compliance to the scientific consensus of things is enough.

 

[Ender]

C&EN Senior Correspondent Stephen K. Ritter notes in the article that global warming believers and skeptics agree on a cluster of core points. These points include the following: That the Earth’s atmospheric load of carbon dioxide has increased since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s; that this increase largely results from the burning of coal and other fossil fuels; and that the average global temperatures have been rising since 1850, with most of the warming occurring since 1970.

This is on the order of saying there was agreement that the rooster crowed and the sun came up. What happened is not debated; it is why they happened that is contentious, a question that has yet to be resolved.

Whether or not global warming stemming from human activities is occurring is developing into the great scientific debate of our time. (C&EN)

The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity.

Everyone acknowledges this. The issue is not whether man has impacted the climate, but how great that impact has been.

Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement.

“Unmitigated”? I suppose that’s true, but if it is it is equally true regardless of whether it is man’s fault or not. As far as warnings about extreme weather and catastrophic sea level rise, we’ll just have to wait to see if they materialize in the future inasmuch as they haven’t manifested themselves as of yet.

It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies.

Again, predictions of future awfulness even while in the real world of the present the earth is greening like nothing we’ve ever seen, and crops are growing better even as they use water more efficiently. The burdens to societies will come from going green figuratively, going green literally is a good thing.

 

[Ender]

The statement specifically supports a transition TOWARDS low-carbon energy, done in a way that will mitigate poverty, not the immediate abolition of combustion as an energy source!!

Let’s look at actual instances of where such “transitions” have actually been tried and see how well it has worked out. The best such example would be Germany, which has been less successful than hoped.

Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson? (MIT Technology Review)

It has made huge but costly strides toward renewables. Can any other nation afford to follow it? (Fortune)

If Germany can’t afford it there is every reason to believe that the green approach won’t do anything but deepen poverty in every country that tries it.

So–keep arguing all you like, but please drop the pretense that you’re more concerned for the poor than Pope Francis. I’m not buying it.

It is not a question of which of us is more concerned for the poor, but which approach is more likely to improve their lot. Green energy will assuredly not do it.

 

[Ender]

We’re not going to have our cars taken away, stranded at home and unable to get to work. They’re not turning off the gas to our houses. That is not what is being proposed, but when you read @Ender writing things like “ The proposals to “solve” climate change require the virtual elimination of hydrocarbons as fuel ,” you’d think it was.

Yeah, you would.

California is leading the nation toward a 100 percent clean energy future… (California Energy Commission)

New York just passed the most ambitious climate target in the country
Carbon-free electricity by 2040 and a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. (Vox)

“meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources” (Green New Deal)

 

[PetraG]

2040 is over twenty years from now and 2050 is 30 years. I just found a Consumer Reports from 30 years ago that was explaining how cell phones work and discussing what kind of cassette tape to use to record music.

We first saw phones with cameras, USB flash drives, bluetooth devices, hybrid cars, iPhones and smart phones within the past 20 years. A lot can happen in 20 years, for people who have goals.

Besides, I remember someone promising a wall built from sea-to-sea and Mexico was going to pay for it. Having a goal and realizing a goal aren’t the same thing. I will believe they’ll reach their goals when I see it. In the meantime, they’re not turning off the heat or eliminating personal transportation.