• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Apparently Norway's top environmental official thinks man-made climate change doesn't exist. Not what I'd expect from such a "green" country.

Mads could give us more info, I'm sure, but I haven't seen him on in ages.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
It seems to me that it is an acknowledgement of dependance on oil and gas for the forseeable future. Like it or not coal will be important elsewhere, the places we in the West have deferred our manufacturing to.
Click to expand...

Still better to take the steps where they are possible than not, though.
 
Alan USA said:
Still better to take the steps where they are possible than not, though.
Click to expand...

Like I've posted before, efficiency is important. It is also important to present technologies that actually work on the macro scale for energy generation (more accurately liberation).
Unworkable policy like the Milliband led (Bryony Wothington English Lit. Grad. FOE activist doing the string pulling) Climate Change Act? As if we could legislate for such a thing.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Emotional speculation by the looks of it (no comments allowed, speaks volumes). Also in the guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/03/climate-change-scepticism-denial-lukewarmers

Climate changes and we don't have a control knob except perhaps an ability to adjust the data.
Click to expand...

Question for you HGW; If engineers could reduce the CO2 by 10% and increase energy efficiency across the whole supply chain and product lifecycle (cradle to grave) would you still argue over climate change or would you accept lower carbon and improved efficiency/ capacity is just a good thing?
 
Johnny75 said:
Question for you HGW; If engineers could reduce the CO2 by 10% and increase energy efficiency across the whole supply chain and product lifecycle (cradle to grave) would you still argue over climate change or would you accept lower carbon and improved efficiency/ capacity is just a good thing?
Click to expand...

I think I've been pretty clear that efficiency is a goal any engineer strives for even if only for the purposes of elegance. Energy efficiency makes for a better product for many reasons. The unintended consequencies of current policy is not necessarilly helpful in this aim. To sumarise my view is that even if the 'greens' are right tbeir solutions are almost always counter productive.
 
A couple of things.

1) If efficiency is improved despite policy and carbon is reduced as a result, would you still argue about climate change?

2) If any engineer is just looking to be more efficient then they are a lousy engineer.
 
Johnny75 said:
A couple of things.

1) If efficiency is improved despite policy and carbon is reduced as a result, would you still argue about climate change?

2) If any engineer is just looking to be more efficient then they are a lousy engineer.
Click to expand...

I take issue with politically motivated and nonsensical policy that is prescriptive for no justifiable reason. The Climate Change Act fits the description.
Any good engineer will be looking for the wow factor but looking at other perfomance metrics such as efficiency and cost. I argue about attribution in the climate debate because there remains uncertainty.
 
Technically there remains uncertainty about evolution. Do you argue against that as vehemently?
 
Alan USA said:
Technically there remains uncertainty about evolution. Do you argue against that as vehemently?
Click to expand...

In principle no, I know about a couple of genentic issues that I have, every one has them, different ones of course. This is well tested whereas speculating on climate due to anthropogenic forcing over the next century doesn't come close.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I take issue with politically motivated and nonsensical policy that is prescriptive for no justifiable reason. The Climate Change Act fits the description.
Any good engineer will be looking for the wow factor but looking at other perfomance metrics such as efficiency and cost. I argue about attribution in the climate debate because there remains uncertainty.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my question HGW. I'll have a third go. My question is would you still argue against climate change even if energy efficiency and carbon emission were reduced?

I dispute your engineers statement. Solving problems with innovation is what I understand as engineering. Efficiency through cost is for accountants and politicians. But I do understand that institutionalised engineers can sometimes think that way (I'm not saying you are by the way).
 
Johnny75 said:
That wasn't my question HGW. I'll have a third go. My question is would you still argue against climate change even if energy efficiency and carbon emission were reduced?

I dispute your engineers statement. Solving problems with innovation is what I understand as engineering. Efficiency through cost is for accountants and politicians. But I do understand that institutionalised engineers can sometimes think that way (I'm not saying you are by the way).
Click to expand...

I don't argue against climate change. I question the certainty that our politicians have that it is dominantly anthropogenic given the uncertainties involved. It is the political distortion that is the problem in my opinion.
 
If it isn't anthropogenic then that raises two questions:

1. What is causing it?
2. Why are the emissions we've created *not* having an effect?
 
Visage said:
If it isn't anthropogenic then that raises two questions:

1. What is causing it?
2. Why are the emissions we've created *not* having an effect?
Click to expand...

Quite. There are at least 60 theories related to the 'pause'.
 
Just because it's a highly complex long-term system, that doesn't mean we can't be sure that one particular element isn't having a short-term effect we can measure.

It smacks of ignorance and non-committal bet hedging to me to suggest otherwise. Better to act now and make sure, than wait and make a huge mistake that will cost future generations.

Renewable energy sources need to come in to the fore for the good of the planet anyway. Any excuse to get the world to invest in it is a good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top