Climate Change Discussion

[Tig]

You are right, the hybrids that we are discussing are not suited to be more than passenger vehicles.
However, the technology does scale up well for moving cargo.
Diesel locomotives have been a hybrid technology (no batteries) for many years because it was cheap and efficient. Howstuffworks "How Diesel Locomotives Work"
Newer locomotives take it a step further by adding batteries. The Green Goat Diesel Technology Forum: Railroad

Welcome to IEEE Xplore 2.0: Development of a hybrid switcher locomotive the Railpower Green Goat

 

[N80]

If you don't think man is contributing significantly to CO2 levels, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think man is contributing significantly, but don't feel that we can do anything about it, relax and have a homebrew. If you do think we do and can, it looks like you may get to express your opinion at the polls. Do whatever feels right.

I'm not sure what to make of this, on a number of levels. What do you mean by "relax and have a homebrew"? It seems like you might be saying something akin to 'relax and stick your head back in the sand.' That seems a little derogatory, but maybe I've misread you. But you don't suggest that the skeptics should express thier opinions at the polls. Why not?

You also seem to be suggesting that we can relax with no worries other than the impending doom of our children from global warming. Surely you know that is not the case. If we relax and the greenies go to the poles and 'we' start taking every conceivable action to stem global warming, am I to presume that those actions will have no effect on me or my children?

And what value do you see in the election process? Let's say we populated the US House and Senate radical environmentalists and Richard Gere was president, do you really, seriously think that would have any impact on corporate industry in the US, much less in the world and even less on global warming?

This is part of the problem. If all the brilliant, unbiased, altruistic scientists can tell us just exactly what the problem is and how it got that way, why can't they tell us exactly what impact each and every type of effort to change it will have, now, tomorrow and fifty years from now? Well, you know why. First, they can't. Second, if they could and did (and they were honest) we'd be very unimpressed with our hybrid cars, solar water heaters and Birkenstocks. And this would hurt their cause. And the cause is everything. If you like to delve into what I think the cause is, feel free to PM me because if I start quoting Richard Weaver and Eugene Genovese people are going to fall asleep on us.

I'm also not sure what to make of "Do whatever feels right." As you mentioned in a following post, lots of people, groups of people and nations pave the way to Hades by doing what feels right. I say "Do what IS right." If you are not sure what is right, find a moral compass. If there is no true 'right' and there is no reliable moral compass, then one should say "Do whatever you want", as long as you include the small print that says that is the same as citing 'survival of the fittest' and 'the spoils go to the victor' and 'only the strong survive.' But hey, I'm comfortable with that too.

 

[scott_vt]

Mornin Guys,
Thought I would post another article thats on the MSN home page today. I have to chuckle at some of the wording in this article, about how the scientists should word certain phrases to present to the public.

On another note, if even some of what they say becomes reality as far as oceans rising a predetermined amount, some very expensive coastal shoreline will become pretty worthless in the next 90 years.

Officials: Warming 'very likely' due to man - World Environment - MSNBC.com

Have a nice day !

 

[Chuck52]

George,

What is it that you want from me? By "do what feels right", I simply meant make up your own mind and follow your beliefs. Relax and have a homebrew is on a magnetic thing on my whiteboard, no deep or denigrating meaning was intended by its use. I don't think you used it, but referring to folks who believe in human caused global warming as "treehuggers" and snide remarks about Al Gore could be interpreted as demeaning too, couldn't they? I don't expect to change your mind about this topic. I have no better, or even other, data than you have already read and interpreted for yourself. If you think that the majority of scientists (and no I don't want to get into the definition of scientist) who argue that man is contributing to global warmning are at best wrong and at worst simply going for the bucks, I don't think I can convince you otherwise. Note, by the way, that I said "majority of scientists who argue for" rather than majority of scientists in toto, since I am not interested in going through that argument either.

If you believe in global warming and that it will or might cause problems that we can address, even if man's activities are not contributing to the process, and you have actions we can pursue to ameliorate those problems, more power to you. We would probably agree on doing those things. And yes indeed, some of the things which will be proposed by those who do believe in human caused global warming will be ridiculous and even potentially harmful. That's why I say to think about it and Make Up Your Own Mind about how to proceed.

I don't think you have your head in the sand. I simply think you are wrong. I'm not so sure of myself that I don't accept the possibility that you may be right, but my bet is you are not. Presumably your cynicism about biased scientists has basis in your experience; it does not jibe with my own experience, but I don't discount it altogether. I've known some guys who have incorrectly interpreted their data, in my opinion. I don't know any personally who intentionally presented incorrect data, though there have been some well documented cases, even local to me. It would be easy to cite a number of such cases, but those cases make news largely because they are uncommon when you look at the vast number of scientific articles published.

Taking it to the polls is what we should do in a democracy. Majority opinion can be wrong, and can lead to some terrible results. On the other hand, one of the crutches on that game show...Who Wants to be a Millionaire or something, is to poll the audience. I don't deliberately watch that show very often, but I've seen the audience be right on questions I sure didn't know the answer to. I find it somewhat comforting that the majority can be right sometimes.

Chuck

 

[scott_vt]

I say "Do what IS right." If you are not sure what is right, find a moral compass. If there is no true 'right' and there is no reliable moral compass, then one should say "Do whatever you want", as long as you include the small print that says that is the same as citing 'survival of the fittest' and 'the spoils go to the victor' and 'only the strong survive.' But hey, I'm comfortable with that too.

Mornin George,
Isnt the phrase "Do what IS right" , really where the problem begins ?

Should I ride my bike to work pedaling six miles, buy a sub compact with little enviromental impact or should I just keep driving my gas guzzling Dodge pickup ? If my moral compass was working I think I would settle on the sub compact for daily transportation ! Use the pickup to haul wood and pull tractors, and drive my wifes Chevy Equinox with AWD when needed.

 

[N80]

Mornin George, f my moral compass was working I think I would settle on the sub compact for daily transportation ! Use the pickup to haul wood and pull tractors,

Sounds like you have the luxury of owning two vehicles for one person. That would be nice. Oh, but, might there be environmental issues with the energy consumed to produce multiple vehicles for single individuals? I'm just poking at you, but you see where that can go, right?

 

[scott_vt]

I'm just poking at you, but you see where that can go, right?

Indeed I do !!!

 

[deereman64]

It looks as if this discussion has latched onto the subject of the public’s acceptance of the scientific approach. A debate that will only grow more intense with the imminent release of a UN report. Perhaps, I can explain by using the example of the possibility of an asteroid hitting the earth. We seem to have little difficulty in accepting a scientific prognostication that there is 100% probability that one will hit but we don’t know the date and that on certain dates in the future the probability of a hit rises significantly. Where we may have problems with the scientist is with the discussions as to what happens in the aftermath. I would argue that there are two factors at work here. Firstly, in the case of an asteroid we are blameless and secondly it is what I call a binary event. Lights on/Lights off.
I don’t what to go into the “blame” aspect, but rather concentrate on the event itself. The problem with global warming that as an event is that it is an ongoing one. This means the more significant parameters of variance in the estimation of probability are second and third derivatives i.e. the rate of change and the volatility of that rate of change.
These are difficult concepts to model. This work is known as the “theory of extreme events” and what it essentially tries to do is measure the slope of the probability curve as it approaches the tail, as this will in turn determine whether the degree of event severity will be a “fat tailed or thin tailed” one.
So where does this leave us? Certainly we must continue to press the scientific community to ensure that the highest levels of integrity are maintained , but we must also demand that our leaders will make us fully aware of the detailed complexities of making estimates

 

[Tig]

....and this would hurt their cause. And the cause is everything. If you like to delve into what I think the cause is, feel free to PM me because if I start quoting Richard Weaver and Eugene Genovese people are going to fall asleep on us.

I'm curious, do you believe that this is some sort of Marxist/socialist conspiracy? That's the only common cause I can easily associate with those two people.
If so, then you are not alone in this belief, since our current Prime Minister expressed a similar view five years ago when commenting on Kyoto.

 

[N80]

George,

What is it that you want from me?

Chuck, I'm not making any demands. I've been accused of parsing and taking people's 'words' too seriously. Probably a personality flaw. But, in my defense (and everyone will defend their own personality flaws ) I believe that people say things for a reason and I try not to be dismissive of them. If I didn't think your words were important I wouldn't reply to them. Maybe I push too hard looking for clarification.

Relax and have a homebrew is on a magnetic thing on my whiteboard, no deep or denigrating meaning was intended by its use.

That's fine, I had never seen that particular refridgerator magnet. But you didn't suggest that those who have a different belief from mine to 'relax and have a homebrew' nor did you suggest that those who share my belief get out and vote. Maybe it was just a peculiar coincidence, but taken together those three things seemed to be a bit dismissive. If that is not what you intended, so be it, but that's why I asked.

I don't think you used it, but referring to folks who believe in human caused global warming as "treehuggers" and snide remarks about Al Gore could be interpreted as demeaning too, couldn't they?

Yes. As you say, I didn't use those terms so I won't try to defend them. I have used the term 'greenies'. I don't think it is demeaning.

If you think that the majority of scientists (and no I don't want to get into the definition of scientist) who argue that man is contributing to global warmning are at best wrong and at worst simply going for the bucks, I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

First off, I never said the scientists in question were in it for the bucks. I doubt there are that many bucks to make in that field. I also wouldn't use the term 'majority', I would use the term 'all', as in every last one. Its just a fact of 'science' that the observer will bring bias to any scientific endeavor. The realm of pure science is tiny and bias is always an issue. Thus the demand that hard core medical research be done via prospective, randomized, double blinded studies. That option is not available to the scientists in the global warming issue. Bias, whether idealogical, political or even personal gain cannot be eliminated. So it must be considered. To do otherwise would be niave indeed. Unfortunately, this topic of global warming reeks with it and equally on both sides. Possibly more so than any other 'scientific' topic since evolution. I cannot imagine how anyone could dismiss it when evaluating the data.

If you believe in global warming and that it will or might cause problems that we can address, even if man's activities are not contributing to the process, and you have actions we can pursue to ameliorate those problems, more power to you. We would probably agree on doing those things.

Right. That's what the pragmatic and logical side of me wants to know. What are the real, practical and effective adaptive and ameliorative steps we need to take? The skeptical side of me is concerned that that is the very thing we are hearing so little about. Why? Isn't that THE most important issue? Why, why, why are we not hearing any critical analysis of the things we need to do? It is a huge sucking vacuum of a subject. Why? I've already told you why I think it is. Why do you think it is?

And yes indeed, some of the things which will be proposed by those who do believe in human caused global warming will be ridiculous and even potentially harmful. That's why I say to think about it and Make Up Your Own Mind about how to proceed.

A fundemental precept of the medical profession is primum non nocere, or "First do no harm." I think those words could be applied here as well where the patient is society, culture and mother earth. It exists to keep physicians always alert to prevent harming someone they are trying to heal. Global warming needs to share that same level of vigilance. We needed that type of vigilance at Manzanar, no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manzanar

Presumably your cynicism about biased scientists has basis in your experience; it does not jibe with my own experience, but I don't discount it altogether. I've known some guys who have incorrectly interpreted their data, in my opinion.

Well, you use the word cynicism. I prefer the word skepticism. The fact that personal bias is extraordinarily difficult to control for, and that I take that fact into consideration, doesn't make me distrustful. It makes me cautious. But come on, you don't strike me as a Pollyanna either. You say you've known some people who have incorrectly interpreted data. Good gosh, everyone misinterprets data. That is the single most ubiquitous thread in the history of human science! It doesn't mean anyone is wicked, just mistaken.

I don't know any personally who intentionally presented incorrect data, though there have been some well documented cases, even local to me. It would be easy to cite a number of such cases, but those cases make news largely because they are uncommon when you look at the vast number of scientific articles published.

You seem to have a sheltered perspective on the scientific community. We'll just have to differ on that. I was very forutnate to have trained under a very cynical mentor. When he wanted to demonstrate weaknesses in medical studies he didn't pull out the throw-aways. He went straight for JAMA and the NEJM. The current issue, not the ones from the days of leeches and hormone replacement therapy for menapausal women! It's there man, you just have to know how to spot it.

Taking it to the polls is what we should do in a democracy.

Of course. It is the power made available to us. If we do not use it we should not complain. But it is also important to understand the extent and practical reality of that power as applied to the issue at hand. Can 'We the People" really do anything about global warming even if we march in lock step? If so, what? And if so, what are the costs as weighed against concrete benefits.

Don't take any of this personally Chuck. I've enjoyed discussing this topic. I'm learning stuff about global warming and, more importantly, about other people's thoughts on global warming. I'm sure I've done more than my share of gabbing but the topic interests me and I think it is fun (plus we got an inch of snow today and as many southern towns do when it snows, we go home and chill out). I also think the topic is a good one for this forum. People who own tractors are very often more out-doorsy and probably prone to be curious about the topic. It would also appear that many of us here, probably the majority, are skeptics when it comes to the issue. So it is even better that we get to hear great comments from the other side of issue. And all-in-all I think everyone has been very civil in what is often a divisive topic. My hat is off to the members here.