Spiritual Portal

Social Topics => Earth Friendly People => Topic started by: Steve Hydonus on May 22, 2015 03:55 am



Title: Climate Change
Post by: Steve Hydonus on May 22, 2015 03:55 am
http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-debate-heats-jeb-bush-clashes-president-193638986.html


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on May 22, 2015 09:55 pm
The issue of climate change has maybe become too politicized to understand how much scientific truth there is in it.

Anyway, many are speaking about that, no one is speaking about a viable solution. Maybe because there is no viable, or realistic solution, neither to natural, nor to anthropic heating of the atmosphere.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Laila on May 28, 2015 10:20 am
There is one way we can help stop climate change ….. change our diets !   Animal agriculture is probably the number one cause …...

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294

http://www.hsi.org/issues/climate_change/

http://www.new-harvest.org/2015/01/worlds-leading-driver-climate-change-animal-agriculture/

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/global-warming/


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on May 28, 2015 02:01 pm
Laila, I cannot express opinions because that's a host of material which would require lots of time to evaluate carefully.

Assuming that's one of the reasons, or the main reasons, is it realistic that in the short or middle term  all of America and all of the developed world and all the developing countries renounce meat and all animal derivatives?

I'm afraid no. That's one source which I believe cannot be ruled out of the prediction equations.

What about other sources? I'm skeptic about the other sources as well, at least, I'm skeptic that a global benefit can be achieved by local restrictions.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Laila on May 29, 2015 12:01 am
Sorry, McCoy.     I guess I did get a bit carried away with the links !    LOL.    The first one really says it all.

:}


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve Hydonus on Jun 09, 2015 06:38 am
The Republican stance on manmade climate change has, historically, been resolute, if not entirely unanimous. Among the likely 2016 GOP contenders, candidates such as Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee have vigorously denied that humans are changing the climate, with Mr. Santorum calling it "a beautifully concocted scheme by liberals." Rand Paul shows no support for acknowledging climate problems in his voting record.

At least Jeb Bush acknowledges the possibility;

"[T]he climate is changing," the former Florida governor and likely 2016 candidate said in comments made Wednesday, but, he added, it's not clear whether humans are to blame

Sorry, McCoy.     I guess I did get a bit carried away with the links !    LOL.    The first one really says it all.

:}

Laila I do not believe it to be overkill. It is just that many of us get more out of reading something that is written on the forum. So decided to put some words here myself. There are many recent studies that show ice on earth is melting at an alarming rate; to deny any human responsibility seems very ignorant to me.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jun 09, 2015 11:07 am
...There are many recent studies that show ice on earth is melting at an alarming rate; to deny any human responsibility seems very ignorant to me.

Steve, that's not so simple, and here I'm reasoning by the scientific standpoint, absolutely no political bias involved (I'm also a foreigner so not directly involved in American policy).

The Tricky point in climate change science is that in nature there are Always climatic fluctuations. We have various records from geology, sedimentology, glaciology, palinology and more. The debate presently is whether the present trend is natural or has been influenced by anthropic change, in the latter case how much it hs been influenced.

Not a banal point. Have human emissions been stronger than volcanic emissions for example? A large volcanic eruption hurls in the atmosphere incredible quantities of gases and powders.

Again, as soon as the supporters of anthropic change publish some evidence, other researchers publish scientific objections. There are presently 3 potential, serious sources of bias in the research:

1)Personal bias: a resercher carries out a study, such study becomes his or her conceptual creature, the same as a painting or a sculpture or a tune to artists. If he cannot mantain a really objective attitude, he becomes biased and will nto recognize criticism
2)Financial and career bias: in academia, the more you publish in technical journals, the more you gain prestige, credentials, career and ultimately money. It isa well known fact that many researchers publish just to boost their publication list. Data or interpretations may be distorted
3) Political bias: that's the wors, since it creates funding scheme which encourage a particular bias. A real researcher must absolutely be unbiased, data must speak, not politicians.


So, presently, until I'm able to go deeper into recent research, I cannot draw conclusions and remain a skeptic.

Of course, one line of reasoning might be: Let's adopt the worst case scenario. Climate is changing because of human activities.

Okey doke, but, now, what are we going to do? Use alternative energies, I agree, deleting the oil monopoly would be just great. but is it going to be enough? Closing factories?  And what about the unemployed? We'd have social unrest and riots. And what about China, India, Brasil, Indonesia? Would they be willing to sacrifice their development? After the presently developed countries have polluted the world and become rich?

The issue is not easy at all.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jun 09, 2015 11:25 am
A proposal that I have if guys in this forum are interested, is to start examining material on climate change from the most basic sources as Wikipedia and commentign them trying to reach some reasonable conclusion on the present state of the research. This is a topic where I believe there is no easy prior judgement that one explanation is totally unlikely. That is: I believe the truth may be either one, or even both hypotheses.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve Hydonus on Jun 09, 2015 12:44 pm
Mccoy u put your ideas in such complicated terms. I have done no studies so I have no self interest in their results. I have lived on this planet for decades. All I do is make observations. My father told me that year after year people could drive over Lake Michigan in the winter in the 1950's. Now year after year u can see unfrozen water. I have seen such horrible polution in Los Angeles and other cities that looked like the appocolypse. I have seen incredibly cold winters with snow up to the windows replaced by winters with snow never reaching those levels. We are talking about decades here.... Not hundreds of years or thousands. Some of these things are impossible to deny the human element and the short term consequences are alarming.

What can we do about it? First and for most acknowledge the problem. Second vote for people who are trying to make changes. Third make differences in our own personal life styles.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SpiritImage on Jun 09, 2015 08:04 pm
First and for most acknowledge the problem. Second vote for people who are trying to make changes. Third make differences in our own personal life styles.

IMHO, I believe the 3rd point is the most important. To me it's the only point worthwhile.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jun 09, 2015 10:46 pm
Steve,
I carried out a fast research on the internet and it appears that most specific researchers support a human-related global warming.

Since it would take a huge amount of time to me to go into teh details, I'm going to settle presently with such consensus, barring further developments.

Now, after having accepted that most climate scientist support anthropogenic warming, hence after havng implied the high degree of confidence of such an hypothesis, barring a collective delusion of most scientists, what are we going to do?

I think we agree that America and the developed countries should not declare war to India, Indonesia, China and Brasil if they refuse to cut their emissions.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve Hydonus on Jun 09, 2015 11:30 pm
When we speak of climatic changes there is much more involved then the heat factor. Let me give an example that is supported by the Self Realization Fellowship and Amma. SRF specifically warns members to use caution and not practice the long sun baths that Paramahansa Yogananda recommended in the SRF lessons in the 1950's and 40's. Why? because of the depletion of the ozone layer and harmful ultra violet rays entering the the atmosphere as well as the increase in skin cancer.  Amma has specifically announced that our treatment of mother earth is the number one concern socially and politically... even more so then the possibility of war.

If we do not believe Master's and spiritual organizations we respect we run the risk of harm to ourselves and the rest of humanity.



Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jun 09, 2015 11:36 pm
Steve, I changed my previous post since I realized I cannot objectively hold a contrarian opinion to an anthropogenic change of climate.

But again, what would be the proposals to deal with this warming in such a way that the remedy would not be worse than the illness?


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jun 09, 2015 11:53 pm
This is the list of the states with the highest Carbon emissions in Kt (2013):

1) China, 10.3 millions
2)USA, about 5.3 millions
3) European Union, 3.7
3)India, 2.1 millions
4) Russia, 1.8 millions
5) Japan, 1.4 millions

So, China+India+Russia, countries which have no intention to adhere to emission restrictions, add up to 14 millions Kt per year C02
the Usa with 5.3 is almost one third as much.

USA+Europe+Japan = 10.4 , still less than China+India+Russia


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: SpiritImage on Jun 09, 2015 11:56 pm
Let me give an example that is supported by the Self Realization Fellowship and Amma. SRF specifically warns members to use caution and not practice the long sun baths that Paramahansa Yogananda recommended in the SRF lessons. Why? because of the depletion of the ozone layer and harmful ultra violet rays entering the the atmosphere as well as the increase in skin cancer.

Also it might be because in this era they may become liable if someone has sensitive skin or just plain stays out too long.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve Hydonus on Jun 10, 2015 12:50 am
Steve,

Now, after having accepted that most climate scientist support anthropogenic warming, hence after havng implied the high degree of confidence of such an hypothesis, barring a collective delusion of most scientists, what are we going to do?

I think we agree that America and the developed countries should not declare war to India, Indonesia, China and Brasil if they refuse to cut their emissions.

First and for most acknowledge the problem. Second vote for people who are trying to make changes. Third make differences in our own personal life styles.

IMHO, I believe the 3rd point is the most important. To me it's the only point worthwhile.

yes because it is all mind and cosciousness that has created our present environment. We have the best tools of all to change it. ....The techniques that raise consciousness to new levels and consequently change the material realty we witness. There are outward things as well - car pooling, growing trees and plants limiting our consumption etc. But the inner dimensions create realities that benefit all humanity. Just the thought that the inner life is superior to the outer is a giant step in humanities evolution.... only a few of us are practicing it.



Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jul 08, 2015 05:25 pm
Steve,
I carried out a fast research on the internet and it appears that most specific researchers support a human-related global warming.
Since it would take a huge amount of time to me to go into teh details, I'm going to settle presently with such consensus, barring further developments.

The contention that 97% of scientists support a human-related global warming has been challenged by soem reasonable arguments. I agree with the challenges, since the 97% number seemed too overwhelming for a topic which sure is not very clear to date. I refer to the anthtropogenic effect. Since geological and climate records prove that the climate has fluctuated wildly in the past, with warmings and coolings, how can we be so sure that the present effect is due to man? I have my doubts that it has been proved with reasonable certainty.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jul 08, 2015 05:31 pm
This si an exceprt from the Forbes site. Actually, the author supports fossil fuel use. I DO NOT agree on that, but he makes a point in underlining how comments on scinetific literature can be distorted. I'm simply against the MANIPULATION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA.
Whenever people have an agenda, they start manipulating the data. NO. Evidence, not manipulation, must speak.

Quote
How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.



Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
 —Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
 —Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
 —Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
 —Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jul 08, 2015 08:10 pm
There is a wiki voice:

Quote
Survey of scinteists' view on climate change

which seems to be pretty objective, although the chart on the upper right-hand side is misleading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change. I'll start from the most recent researches

Quote
Powell, 2013[edit]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[31] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]

The above is pretty clear. Just a few rejected anthropogenic global warming. But that tells nothing. I do not reject it either. It can be true. But It can be untrue. It is simply a possibility, not proved.

One thing is to say that very few scientists reject the hypothesis, another thing is to say that almost all scientists are sure of that.


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jul 08, 2015 08:19 pm
this is the controversial research, which is used to say that 97% of scientists endorse anthropogenic global warming. It results clear that the elaborations are pretty much confused and that the logic has been bent to serve the agenda of one strong supporter of anthropogenic GW. To begin with, the first sentence makes it clear that only 97% of 33.6% of scientific articles endorse the 'consensus position' of the anthropogenic effect.

97% of 33.6% is 32.6% and is a minority to all effects.. The so called consensus is not such.

Quote
John Cook et al., 2013[edit]

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming....

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’





Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jul 08, 2015 08:22 pm
Another recent researcH, according to which it is again clear that only 36% of the respondents endorse anthropogenic GW. This is a compatible figure to that calculated above.

Bottom line: scientists who endorse AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are the minority

Quote
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012[edit]

Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[23] Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[24]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[23] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[23]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[23] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[24]


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: mccoy on Jul 18, 2015 12:12 pm
Unfortunately, when politics and vested interests seep into science, science itself becomes biased and looses all its credibility.

We laypeople are compelled to build our own view of the facts based on data which are often construed according to the benefits of the political groups.

Now, I myself am absolutely against the indiscriminate use of fossil fuels and absolutely favour the use of natural sources, I myself am thinking about applying photovoltaic panels on my house and producing myself my own electricity.

However, since I try to use my God-given logic, I just cannot ignore all the criticism to the supporters of AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

Such supporters appear to have lost most scientific objective balance and appear to cater undisriminately to the anti-lobbist tendencies, that is to oppose the supporters of fossil fuels just for the sake of it.

It should not be for the sake of it, it should be done with absolute objectivity.

For example, why should we go on being dependent on oil & gas coming from the middle east and Arab countries? We keep being blackmailable this way.

And keep being subject to the whims of the large distributors of energy.

We cannot try to bend scientific evidence just to fight the claims of the oil companies. Figthing the powerful lobbies must be done with intelligence.

Maybe this became a war where all farness has been lost but I would rather say that people cannot but benefit from adopting natural sources of energy, regardless of the fact whether the global warming is really caused by the anthropogenic influence or not. And, just in case that there really is a significant antrhopogenic influence, for the precautionary principle, we might as well start to adopt natural sources of energy, in such a way to minimize the impact on the economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.html


Title: Re: Climate Change
Post by: Steve Hydonus on Mar 21, 2019 06:32 pm
https://apple.news/AFCpN9J_sRwGo9Zmz-zue0Q