Green politics

Community
#61

“Chit-chat” isn’t a larp forum, it’s an open form for larpers to discuss things that aren’t larp. Like politics. I only wish the important stuff, like politics, were discussed openly like this more often. I’d hate to think we’re going to turn into a society like the US where politics and religion are no-go zones for polite discussion, given that they’re fundamental subjects of how we live our lives.

Moreover, people are welcome to ignore this thread. The practice of posting on a thread to deride any discussion of the subject, known as thread-crapping, is undesirable. If a topic holds no interest, or you don’t want to read it being discussed, then just don’t read it. The forum admin Ayesha has already made it clear that this topic isn’t out of bounds.

In the interests of not having another long discussion where me and Alista talk past each other, I’m going to leave off the subject of scientific consensus on climate change here too. What I have to say on the subject is in my last post, and it’s clear-cut.

#62

[quote=“Alista”]

I am not trying to quote the same authority, i am direct quoting the same authority. This is the most up to date and definative opinion from the scientists of the IPCC. They have released no other hard science on this point since this date. Therefore I must go with their most up to date data, especially as they are the main proponents of the theory and the original source.

To date total emperical proof presented on this thread that humans are the cause of global warming

None[/quote]

Sorry, yes, direct quoting the same body - whatever - my point was that given their last report was issued in 2007, and the previous one in 2001, I would hardly claim the 1995 report as “their most up to date data”. And seeing as you’re so keen on direct quoting the IPCC, I will follow your lead;

[quote=“IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - 2nd Feb 2007”]

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750
and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined
from ice cores spanning many thousands of years
(see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon
dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel
use and land use change, while those of methane
and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
{2.3, 6.4, 7.3}

…

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and
cooling infl uences on climate has improved since
the TAR, leading to very high confi dence7 that the
global average net effect of human activities since
1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative
forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure
SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9}

…

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average
sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}[/quote]

The report itself actually makes for a fairly straight-forward read, though I’m not going to pretend I understand all of the number-crunching, there’s enough laymans speak in there to make it understandable.

#63

[quote=“Ayesha”]Up to now, this debate has been perfectly congenial, if a little heated. However it is starting to lean towards inflammatory remarks towards individuals and if this persists I will be locking this thread.

Be warned.[/quote]

Locking the thread sends a message that anyone can have a topic shut down by becoming offensive on it. EDIT: although I doubt that was Mike’s intention.

In my opinion individuals who are offensive should be dealt with, not threads unless they’re just flamebait.

#64

[quote=“Alista”]Total emperical evidence that humans are causing presented by the IPCC or anyone on this thread;

Zero
[/quote]

Assuming a widespread adoption of ETS or similar programmes to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, do you think we will be able to observe the climate in such a way that we can determine if the programmes are haveing any affect at all ?

If these programmes do not affect climate change at all (because there is no anthropogenic causes for climate change) then how long would it take to confirm this via the data from climate observations ?

Because if, as you say, science has got this one wrong, I’d rather know sooner than later.

Thoughts ?

#65

“Chit-chat” isn’t a larp forum, it’s an open form for larpers to discuss things that aren’t larp. Like politics. I only wish the important stuff, like politics, were discussed openly like this more often. I’d hate to think we’re going to turn into a society like the US where politics and religion are no-go zones for polite discussion, given that they’re fundamental subjects of how we live our lives.

[/quote]

Hear, hear!

#66

[quote=“Mike Curtis”]

Assuming a widespread adoption of ETS or similar programmes to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, do you think we will be able to observe the climate in such a way that we can determine if the programmes are haveing any affect at all ?

If these programmes do not affect climate change at all (because there is no anthropogenic causes for climate change) then how long would it take to confirm this via the data from climate observations ?

Because if, as you say, science has got this one wrong, I’d rather know sooner than later.

Thoughts ?[/quote]

Even if Kyoto is fully implemented this is only expected to decrease the temperature rise predicted by the greenhouse gas theory by less than 0.1 degrees celcius.

In science at the moment there are several major competing theories on what is causing global warming. The predominant of these are Greenhouse Gas Theory, Solar Variability Theory, Milanckovitch Cycles and the Cosmic Ray Theory.

predictions based on these models normally show

Greenhouse gases : We can expect warming for an indefinate period into the future and we should be experiencing continuing warming now

Solar variability : We should expect a cooling period until about 2030 then we should enter another warming cycle for about 40 years

Milankovitch cycles show that we should expect overall cooling for the next 100,000 years, though we cann expect local temperature variation and warm plateaus.

Cosmic Ray theory would tend to agree with the Solar Variability Theories.

Of these theories there is some (but not totally compelling) emperical evidence to support the last three theories.

Easiest way to tell which is right?

If the newspapers and IPCC are again predicting an ice age by 2030, then we can be sure it is probably Solar Variation or Cosmic Rays with a long term Milankovitch signal underneath.
If it is 1 degree warmer than it is now, and the CO2 ia also higher, then that would be good circumsantial evidence to back up the Greenhouse gas theory.

#67

[quote=“Dave”]

[quote=“IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - 2nd Feb 2007”]

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750
and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined
from ice cores spanning many thousands of years
(see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon
dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel
use and land use change, while those of methane
and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.
{2.3, 6.4, 7.3}

…

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and
cooling infl uences on climate has improved since
the TAR, leading to very high confi dence7 that the
global average net effect of human activities since
1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative
forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure
SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9}

…

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is
now evident from observations of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average
sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}[/quote]

The report itself actually makes for a fairly straight-forward read, though I’m not going to pretend I understand all of the number-crunching, there’s enough laymans speak in there to make it understandable.[/quote]

Very interesting thing about this report. Basically it states that it does not have to prove that humans have caused global warming because this was proved in earlier reports. ( If you want a direct refence ask). The report before that gives no evidence. The second (1995) report the scientists said there was no evidence and the politicians said there was overwhelming evidence. The first report gave evidennce in the form of some now discredited models. That is all the proof the IPCC has ever given.

The first paragrapgh states that CO2 is higher than it was in 1750. It is generally recognised that CO2 hit a recent all time low about the 1700s. And at the moemnt it is recognised that current CO2 levels are the highest in recent history.

The second paragraph states that the radiative forcing is +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 . This has been determined by modelling and is unverified so is unproved. Also if you take into account that this a 68% confidence level, then the actual forcing is in the range of +1.6[ -2.2 to 3.2]Wm^2 with a 99% confidence. In reality this figure given shows that there is about a 6% chance that CO2 is actually causing cooling

The third paragraph is a statement from the politicains and is not from the scientists.

As someone who has knowledge in the field, ( I have been asked to speak on the subject and my Masters(with honours) was on global warming{Checkout my thesis here adt.waikato.ac.nz/public/adt-uow … index.html}. Also my supervisor is an internationally recognised expert on global warming who was on the IPCC and has been asked to speak to conferences and televison about global warming) I can state with reasonable confidence (95%+) that to date that the is no emperical evidence that Greenhouse gases cause global warming, and I can also state with even greater confidence that there is no concensus on this subject. I have seen the arguements first hand and studied it in great detail for over a year. In the last 4 years I have found two (2) scientists that will go on record and state that they believe that CO2 is the primary cause of global warming. I have met many dozens of others scientists who will go on record and state that it is not the primary cause.

#68

To take the discussion back where it started for a moment:

[quote=“Alista”]You seem to forget I have seen some of the Greens environmental policy.

As the Green party seems to live in fantasy world with no connection to emperical evidence, I would say the Green party is a very successful fantasy Live Role Play anyway.[/quote]

The Green party policy is in line with the foremost scientific authority on climate change (the IPCC) the findings of which have been endorsed by all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

To suggest that approach shows they are “living in a fantasy world”, merely because you happen to disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC and know other scientists who also disagree, is laughable.

At most, you can say that you don’t agree with the conclusions of the IPCC because you believe the evidence is lacking. Therefore, you don’t support the Green climate policy because it’s based on the IPCC findings. I don’t think anyone would begrudge you that position. But to talk of “fantasy” is to imply that the Greens have come up with their position out of nowhere, which is as far from the truth as you can get.

Why have the scientists in the IPCC come up with the “fantasy” conclusion that humans have caused global warming, in your opinion? And why have all the industrial country’s national science academies endorsed the conclusion? They are scientists themselves, presumably they hold to the same high standards of proof that you do. And a few of the scientists on the IPCC agree with you, which is hardly surprising as scientists are seldom in complete agreement. But what has led the others to draw what you see as unscientific conclusions from the available data?

#69

Ok I just got my electricity bill for my first two months of residence in NZ and I am horrified to announce that it was more expensive than my rent.

I now no longer care about if we do or do not need to keep using co2 emitting energy sources i now feel that any method of reducing the cost of electricity is more important than fussing over if it will or will not effect global warming.

Nuclear Power will not impact global warming as long as it is looked after sensibly and with respect.

Tidal: I don’t care if in several million years the earth might stop spinning - if by then we havn’t found a better method of producing electricity then we don’t deserve to keep on living.

Wind: O noes its an eye sore and is dangerous - so don’t paint them white? Paint them to look like big flowers - green stem and yellow fins etc. Be creative.

Solar: Bad chemicals used to make them - sure its a pain - but in 10 years they pay for themselves. Its a healthy investment.

Hydro: Flood an area to gain power… bad if you have a high population to low landmass. However have you thought about the benefits of creating a resevoir like this? The more Fresh water supplies there are near citys the less likly it is we will have a water shortage.

All of the above will obviously only work if money is spent and corners are not cut.

Tbh the price of electricity in this country is a joke. Hopefully this is the last thing that I find to be a joke about this country as on all other counts so far it beats the rest of the world hands down.

#70

[quote=“Xcerus”]Ok I just got my electricity bill for my first two months of residence in NZ and I am horrified to announce that it was more expensive than my rent.
[/quote]

It might be worth changing your electricity provider. We are with Genesis and they are fairly reasonable. They also help fund cancer research :smiley:

#71

I’m not educated in this area at all and may in fact just get laughed out of the forum… fair enough shrug

But for some fairly interesting thoughts on the “why” environmental groups and scientists are advocating the global warming theory have a nosy at Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”…

Yes it’s a fiction novel, but it’s one with about 30 pages of science journal references at the back of it. Besides, it’s a good story also. :smiley:

#72

[quote=“Alista”]Secondly, scientific concensus means nothing unless there is proof to back it up. (See the Flat Earth Theory). In science we try and follow the scientific method which goes roughly.

1.) Observe the data
2.) Make a theory
3.) Make a prediction
4.) Test the prediction.

If a theory has gone through these four steps then we say is a good working theory and we keep repeating steps 3 and 4 til we need a new theory.[/quote]I had a look at the abstract of your thesis, which discusses a number of models you created. If you don’t think that anyone’s models are sufficient proof that climate change exists - and the claims you’re making are not about the accuracy of the models, but the fact that people use them instead of direct physical experiment, why should we think that your models are sufficient proof that it doesn’t.

[size=59]Also, there are spelling mistakes in your abstract. “equivilent” should be “equivalent” and “warning” should be “warming.” Sorry, can’t help it, part of my job is proofreading.[/size]

#73

IMO its the USA and China that will have to mainly change their pollution pollicies (like joining the kyoto protocol), in order to see if any effects take places and what not in regards to said global warming/green house gasses

#74

In my experience, it seems that a lot of people seek to find something about Green policy that they disagree with so they can then write off all Green policies as being “extremist” or “not based in reality” etc.

I call this Active Dissonance Induction, where the process is:

  1. I disagree with the Greens about “x”
  2. They are therefore extremists/misinformed/luddites/anti technology/Rastas/whatever
  3. I can switch off and ignore anything else they have to say.

Which is unfortunate because the Greens have a lot of progressive, practical and principled policies. Like the Tertiary Education Policy (e.g. no student debt !) or the Justice policy (e.g. restorative justice).

Unlike other parties, our policies are developed, reviewed and moderated by the members, which means that the policies are not extreme at all, but are founded on our core principles of Social Justice, Appropriate Decision-Making, Ecological Wisdom and Non Violence.

Alista’s made some interesting points about the science behind the IPCC’s position on climate change. I must say, it’s very refreshing to debate climate change with someone who isn’t claiming that the whole shooting match is a vast, global conspiracy to promote The Myth Of Climate Change.

#75

How much does it cost per KWh in the UK ? Can you point me to a site that has the charges because I sure couldn’t google it.

Here it’s 18-20c, so I’d be interested in what it is in UK by way of comparison.

I would suggest that insulation and energy efficiency are the way forward in terms of domestic energy use. Why employ massive capital investment when distributed energy efficiency can achieve the same result at a fraction of the price ?

#76

consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?do … 0suppliers

These people have a good comparison about your cheapest gas/electric supplier.

(edit) Sorry, seems like they want $ to let you view the report now. Used to have a free calculator for gas and electric suppliers.

This page is free though:
consumer.org.nz/topic.asp?do … pe=general

Aha, this is the one you want:
consumer.org.nz/powerswitch/

#77

tbh a nice policy the greens could have would be to standardise insulation in NZ similar to that of the EU regulations where a house must comply to insulation regulations at build. Houses in NZ are v hot in the summer and v cold in the winter - proper insulation would resolve this. If you are going to build houses out of twigs at least put some foam in somwhere. Stone houses are nice but rare out here.

  • In regards to the electricity looks like we are paying around 40c phwh but I will take a look at other companies to see if we can get anything better. I know with phonelines at least alot of the good deals are main citys only and arn’t even offerd in the medium sized city’s / towns: eg: orcon.

If I recall its about 7p per kwh ( peak time approx 21C) however we have central heating in all uk homes which means you don’t use electric fires / wood burners to heat your home + the insulation means you use way less than in nz :confused:

I will look into Genesis (thankies Claire) as well as taking a look at the powerswitch site. Thankies all.

#78

Yep, we’ve got that policy. In fact, we secured $53m in this year’s budget to insulate 21,000 state houses over 5 years.

And, as part of the negotiations over the Emmissions Trading Scheme bill, we secured a $1 Billion fund to insulate every NZ home !

#79

nice one!

#80

[quote=“Stephanie”]I had a look at the abstract of your thesis, which discusses a number of models you created. If you don’t think that anyone’s models are sufficient proof that climate change exists - and the claims you’re making are not about the accuracy of the models, but the fact that people use them instead of direct physical experiment, why should we think that your models are sufficient proof that it doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree. My research is only to show if Ozne Depletion is a plausable cause of at least some of the observed warming. If you read the conclusion you note that I say that this indicates that more reserch would be due in this area. This is due to the fact I am using models and they cannot be considered strong evidence but can sometimes indicate you should do research. It is a minimum of Doctoral work to do the actual experimental data, even if one could get funding for it.

[quote=“Stephanie”]
[size=59]Also, there are spelling mistakes in your abstract. “equivilent” should be “equivalent” and “warning” should be “warming.” Sorry, can’t help it, part of my job is proofreading.[/size][/quote]
[size=59]You spell check, you read it yourself, your supervisors read it, you hire a professional proof reader and typos and spelling errors still come through. #@$&^@ (Translation : To late to fix it now.)[/size]

By the way, thanks for looking.