Climate Change Debate

[Tredman]

On the other, you can't rightly invest more in green energy just yet as that would leave developing countries in an even deeper hole than they already are.

I don't see the link here, the overall CO2 % contribution of lower income developing countries is very low and a good number of these countries derive a higher percentage of their power from renewables anyway (specifically large hydro projects)

 

[Alan]

A significant reason that that is so, however, is that their energy needs are relatively low at this point. As they develop they need more and green energy is not yet nearly efficient enough to fulfill such needs. Think of what would happen in India if fossil fuels were suddenly abandoned.

 

[Tredman]

A significant reason that that is so, however, is that their energy needs are relatively low at this point. As they develop they need more and green energy is not yet nearly efficient enough to fulfill such needs. Think of what would happen in India if fossil fuels were suddenly abandoned.

I don't count India and China as lower income developing counties. Outside of these two continung and encouraging the good progress and use of renewables should have good results.

 

[Alan]

Or it could continue the trend of putting developing countries in administrative poverty and relying on the IMF and World Bank for loans that put them in a cycle of debt.

 

[Tredman]

Or it could continue the trend of putting developing countries in administrative poverty and relying on the IMF and World Bank for loans that put them in a cycle of debt.

That's a whole different topic, as much as the IMF and world Bank have done a lot of bad, it's not that black and white.

There's some very good infrastructure projects and the HIPC process wrote a good amount of this debt off. I was working in overseas development at this time and HIPC made some fantastic changes.

Direct governmental budgetary aid has its place, as does debt relief, but to say direct funded project aid is always wrong is not correct.

 

[Alan]

Not saying it's always wrong, but when you consider the costs of renewable energies at the present time and combine that with the natural decline in local markets that occurs with globalization, there is always going to be a link between the source of your energy and the overall health of your economy.

 

[Tredman]

Not saying it's always wrong, but when you consider the costs of renewable energies at the present time and combine that with the natural decline in local markets that occurs with globalization, there is always going to be a link between the source of your energy and the overall health of your economy.

Yes, but if you live in a country with an abundance of natural energy (sunlight, water) focusing on developing short term solutions applicable to developed economies is actually harmimg the long term prospects of these economies.

 

[Alan]

The only way I see that as true is if our renewable energy collection methods worked in such a way as to allow for surplus to be more generously accrued. Personally I think that's far from the reality.

 

[Tredman]

The only way I see that as true is if our renewable energy collection methods worked in such a way as to allow for surplus to be more generously accrued. Personally I think that's far from the reality.

It already happens in southern Africa, SADC has an international grid spreading excess production (mainly down to SA, who have slightly stuffed up)

 

[Alan]

Hardly a reflection of the well-being of those countries, though.

 

[Tredman]

Hardly a reflection of the well-being of those countries, though.

What does that have to do with anything? You pointed out that investment in renewables is inefficient, I gave an example of where renewables were invested in over the course of the last 50 years resulting in electricity being generated and shared as required.

The economies may not be doing that well (they are certainly growing though, and much faster than the developed world), but it doesn't change the fact that it works.

 

[Premier Quality]

So this is the kind of thing that makes normal people (as in non scientists) wonder if the whole climate change thing is made up...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

 

[visage]

Raw data is continuously manipulated, with good reason. Satellites continuously monitor the earth to measure energy fluxes. Essentially how much is coming from the sun, and how much s coming back. But the latter is very variable. Maybe it was excessively cloudy. Maybe the satellites orbit had brought it closer, or further away. Maybe it crossed a point in summer when previously it was winter.

All of these things require adjustment of the raw data. Climate skeptics have full access to the methodology. What was adjusted, why, and how much. Yet the cry is always 'You adjusted your data, it's all bunk!'

 

[Premier Quality]

It's the telegraph - hardly the daily mail or the guardian in its extremism?

 

[visage]

I didn't mention the Telegraph. I just mentioned the flaw in the logic.

 

[Premier Quality]

Did you even read the article? Or just disagree with it on your general beliefs?

"Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy."

So - given that I'm not a scientist so your data adjustment point may be true - why is it always revised upwards, and why is it apparently so clearly now wrong?

 

[visage]

Temperature measurements are often revised downwards. It's just that such adjustments tend to be ignored by the denialists.

 

[Premier Quality]

Not according to the article? Surely you can see that to those without the clear and foolproof insider knowledge that someone like yourself has would find that kind of article makes it look like its making up the numbers to suit the theory?

 

[visage]

Not according to the article? Surely you can see that to those without the clear and foolproof insider knowledge that someone like yourself has would find that kind of article makes it look like its making up the numbers to suit the theory?

To draw a Wolves analogy; there are people in the Wolves fanbase who will beleive, to their dying day, that Moxey and/or Morgan are the antichrists - everything they do is detrimental to the club, and no amount of reasoning will dissuade them. And so it is with the denialists.

The mere notion that the raw evidence was adjusted just sets them off. The fact that the raw evidence is freely available, the fact that the adjustment methodology is also freely available, and the resultant data is freely available doesnt matter.

If it really were a methodical effort to adjust data to fit a conclusion then that would be readily apparent from the methodology.

 

[Premier Quality]

You could put it the other way - people who hate Morgan adjust the spending data to fit their agenda that he's stealing from the club. If he was stealing, why would they need to adjust it to prove it?