Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[chrisch]

Electricity is the future. From hydro or nuclear sources.

If humanity ever survives itself, steam turbine engines running on mini nuclear reactors will power the vehicle engines and generators of the future. Like submarines.

If governments want to take more of my money for climate change, they'll have little resistance if it's to build nuclear reactors or batteries.

Just burning another type of oil seems hokey.

7 billion and counting, but no one wants to talk about that.

Nuclear fusion is the future when we get to it. Personally I think central generation and distribution much as it is now is more likely than small power plants, but I guess we will see.

Vegetable oil is a stop gap and uses existing technology. It's something we can do now. If we do nothing now we will not survive in the same numbers or at the same standard of living within 20 years, maybe less, maybe much less.

The 7 billion will very quickly be much less as climate change destroys people's food crops. War will break out over resources. But these are really issues of inequality rather than sheer numbers. The world could support many more people than that, but the nations that do the most damage; the USA, Australia, the Middle East and Europe, take more resources than is sustainable at the expense of the less developed world. Needless to say the less developed world would like to destroy the environment just as much as we do, they just don't have the money to do it.

 

[Storker]

Just burning another type of oil seems hokey.

This just shows that you've completely missed the point about biofuels.

The use of fossil fuels requires us to extract those fuels from the Earth's crust, effectively adding carbon to the biosphere. Every ton of coal or crude oil extracted from the Earth's crust and burnt means another 3.6 tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere. That carbon wasn't in the biosphere until we dug it out of the ground. The reason biofuels at least are potentially carbon-neutral is that the carbon we're burning is already in the biosphere, and the plant material we harvest will regenerate, re-absorbing the CO2 we produce by burning it.

The detailed picture is of course much more complicated than that (it's perfectly possible to produce biofuels with a larger carbon footprint than a comparable fossil fuel, and some of the palm oil-based biodiesel is a prime example), but the fundamental difference is whether we're burning carbon that already is present in the short carbon cycle, or whether we add carbon to the cycle.

 

[chrisch]

....
The use of fossil fuels requires us to extract those fuels from the Earth's crust, effectively adding carbon to the biosphere. Every ton of coal or crude oil extracted from the Earth's crust and burnt means another 3.6 tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere. That carbon wasn't in the biosphere until we dug it out of the ground. The reason biofuels at least are potentially carbon-neutral is that the carbon we're burning is already in the biosphere, and the plant material we harvest will regenerate, re-absorbing the CO2 we produce by burning it.....

As well as this it is important to flag up that biofuels are renewable. Because you can grow another canola crop or some more corn. I realise a lot of people do not want to believe the truth that fossil CO2 is causing climate change, but even if that were not true it is a fact that fossil fuel sources are finite. At some point you have drilled all the oil, dug all the coal. With renewable technologies you can generate energy for ever. For us as a species to use up all the fossil fuel in two generations is a criminal act of selfishness.

I honestly believe there is nothing we cannot solve as a species if we have enough energy. We can easily grow enough food for twice the current population with things like hydroponics, but you need energy to do it. We can refreeze the tundra with freezer units (they use them on oil pipelines already) and stop the methane melt off. We can even begin to clean up the seas and keep the marine environment in good order for us divers to enjoy. But you need energy. Nuclear fusion is a fantastic way to generate it, but it isn't real yet. Maybe it never will work. I am not an expert and cannot say for sure. What I know is that the Chinese are way ahead of the rest of us with that project.

The future is Chinese. Communism won. Get ready to shine shoes.

 

[Schwob]

As well as this it is important to flag up that biofuels are renewable. Because you can grow another canola crop or some more corn. I realise a lot of people do not want to believe the truth that fossil CO2 is causing climate change, but even if that were not true it is a fact that fossil fuel sources are finite. At some point you have drilled all the oil, dug all the coal. With renewable technologies you can generate energy for ever. For us as a species to use up all the fossil fuel in two generations is a criminal act of selfishness.

I honestly believe there is nothing we cannot solve as a species if we have enough energy. We can easily grow enough food for twice the current population with things like hydroponics, but you need energy to do it. We can refreeze the tundra with freezer units (they use them on oil pipelines already) and stop the methane melt off. We can even begin to clean up the seas and keep the marine environment in good order for us divers to enjoy. But you need energy. Nuclear fusion is a fantastic way to generate it, but it isn't real yet. Maybe it never will work. I am not an expert and cannot say for sure. What I know is that the Chinese are way ahead of the rest of us with that project.

The future is Chinese. Communism won. Get ready to shine shoes.

I get the general direction of what you are saying and don't disagree totally, but in some details. e.g.

- You really think humanity could re-freeze the tundra? I mean even if we had nuclear fusion to power it, the enormeous refrigeratoon units would generate a lot of heat, just the production of all the stuff needed the mining to make it the transportation to make it, installing it, maintaining it... I mean , really?
In the long run, how many sooner or later failing and falling apart engineered "things" do we want to enslave ourselves to? For me, I in away already regret the day that I moved into a house that relies on a sump pump to survive dry footed. I sure would hate to see us extend that kind of philosophy globally. We can do better, but will we ever?

- Yes, the earth can sustain an even larger human population if we put our minds and efforts to it, but it and all it's other living things won't benefit from it. We'd still be raping it, just smarter so, and on an endlessly increasing scale. More and more of our resources and manpower will go towards just dealing with all that. Why do we do this? Why do we as human population continue to grow to perpetuate this? Beets me, but it's not even something that we honestly, and seriously talk about. In the long run it will havevto happen so, unless one believes in war, famine or worse as a means of global self control...

- Chinese communism, while it was that, failed spectacularly after freeing the country from occupation. Their draconian, repressive, institutionalized totalitarianism (still called communism by name, but definitely society with big time capitalist traits) does scarily and thought provokingly well for the time being. Yep, working on shoe shining skills now...

 

[chrisch]

....
- You really think humanity could re-freeze the tundra? I mean even if we had nuclear fusion to power it, the enormeous refrigeratoon units would generate a lot of heat, just the production of all the stuff needed the mining to make it the transportation to make it, installing it, maintaining it... I mean , really

Well it is technically possible I think. For sure you need some big machines. The thing is that it is quite a small temperature drop between melt and stay stable. If - at the same time - we are addressing the warming issue then it is a short term need. I agree though that the manufacturing is a contributor to the problem (as things stand).

The ideal power is solar and use a high reflective solar panel to stop the thaw in the other parts.

The question is political - does anyone think it is "worth" the effort? If you believe the methane will totally mess up the world's climate do we have a choice but to try or do with go with the doom mongers, the naysayers and the deniers who keep telling us it is too late? I guess there will be a big argument who pays. However, like most things in this subject there is only a short window of opportunity and it is closing. 10 years from now the answer to your question is probably no.

 

[seaseadee]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

What happened to the traditional role of skepticism in climate science?

I guess I should apologize in advance for interrupting folks piping into the echo chamber of their own "beleifs"

So I decided to actually read the first link. It's an opinion piece in Forbes by a gentleman who cites this paper as his proof that "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis." So read the abstract of that paper:

"This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association."

It does not appear that there is any real statistical analysis in this paper, just a "reconstruction" by the authors. I'm not sure how this constitutes any sort of serious contradiction of the science. It does what all political speech seems to do: attack the messengers. I'm happy to read serious work that isn't doesn't fill the "echo chamber", but this isn't it.

 

[diver0008]

It does not appear that there is any real statistical analysis in this paper, just a "reconstruction" by the authors. I'm not sure how this constitutes any sort of serious contradiction of the science. It does what all political speech seems to do: attack the messengers. I'm happy to read serious work that isn't doesn't fill the "echo chamber", but this isn't it.

So, I went and read the study, and am not sure by what you mean by there being no "real statistical analysis". The study was not looking for "contradictions of the science", as you put it, but I do understand how that may have been what you were looking to examine.

The study was looking into the opinions of scientists themselves on the science, not the science per se. This was clearly stated.

An excerpt that summarizes the conclusions:

"The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

I see no "attack the messengers".

Sometimes when we don't see what we are looking for, we miss the point.

 

[diver0008]

Communism won

What did it win?

The freedom of the people who live under it?

 

[Storker]

An excerpt that summarizes the conclusions:

"The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. [...]

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, [...]

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. [...]

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. [...]

Respondents. Now, what background do those respondents have?

They are "professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada".
70% are engineers.
14% are engineers in training.
10% are geologists.
3.5% are geophysicists

There doesn't seem to be a single climatologist among the respondents. I think I'll run a survey among homeopaths, faith healers, chiropractors and aromatherapists abut their belief in the efficacy of chemotherapy and radiation therapy against cancer. I might even be able to publish the results in Organization Studies...

 

[diver0008]

Respondents. Now, what background do those respondents have?

They are "professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada".
70% are engineers.
14% are engineers in training.
10% are geologists.
3.5% are geophysicists

There doesn't seem to be a single climatologist among the respondents. I think I'll run a survey among homeopaths, faith healers, chiropractors and aromatherapists abut their belief in the efficacy of chemotherapy and radiation therapy against cancer. I might even be able to publish the results in Organization Studies...

I was just replying to another member who thought the study was about the science of climate change, and not the scientists themselves, which it was was, even as inadequate as they may seem to you.