If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
The development of the whole climate change scenario bears a resemblance to the low level radiation risks problem.
The science was interfered with on supposedly morally defensible grounds which has had and will have long term detrimental effects.
In the case of low level radiation the effects were accentuated with a view to stopping atmospheric nuclear testing. Apparently a good thing but has resulted in 10’s thousands of deaths due to unnecessary evacuations and unnecessary abortions as well as many deaths relating to the fossil fuel industry and associated pollution that could have been avoided by the greater uptake of nuclear power.
The science was and is obviously wrong when you look at the lack of effects from the large variations in natural background radiation levels. If LNT was correct it would be visible in it’s effects in high radiation areas of the world. There are people still looking but have not come up with anything yet. Others are researching the opposite, that low level radiation is beneficial or necessary.
Higher levels of radiation (more than 100 mSv short term dose) have detrimental effects and above 1 Sv are definitely harmful.
The basic premise of protect our planet by reducing our consumption of finite resources, reducing waste and sensible use of land and sea is good and defensible. Unfortunately this has been hijacked by the CO2 brigade who are using incomplete ‘science’ to promote their view that we need to use vast amounts of our finite resources to promote inefficient ‘renewable energy’ sources. In most cases reality is simply ignored and everything is blamed on man-made climate change. Property destruction due to wildfires is caused by stopping natural burning of waste material and building evermore in and close to forests. Flooding is very often caused by building in floodplains or by bad land management removing run off areas.
The same scaremongering techniques are used in both cases, although there are generally less anti-nuclear protests the fear instilled in people is still there. The climate change fear being generated was the reason for starting this thread.
Roger Bryant:
The development of the whole climate change scenario bears a resemblance to the low level radiation risks problem.
The science was interfered with on supposedly morally defensible grounds which has had and will have long term detrimental effects.
Well, actually no.
BTW, thanks for clarifying your position on the Stott contention. I wonder why you haven't written it up and submitted it to ASL?
In the case of low level radiation the effects were accentuated with a view to stopping atmospheric nuclear testing.
Actually, no.
The cohort studied for the effects of radiation on the human body was and is the Hiroshima-Nagasaki survivors. Most of what is known comes from such studies. Many of those studies are published (for free) by the National Academies Press of the US National Academy of Sciences (BTW, there is more on this subject there, for free, than anyone will ever get to read unless they specialise). I last got into that about twenty years ago. There is no trace of any political agenda. After all, the facts of what happened to those poor people are pretty accessible; you can't manipulate the data set.
The issues with low-level ionising radiation are straightforward. There are lots of confounding factors and it is exceptionally hard to factor them out. No one has yet succeeded. There are two possible conclusions you can draw. One is that the influence of ionising radiation below the level at which we can control for confounding factors is, as luck would have it, biologically negligible. The other is that the effects we see at higher levels which we can distinguish are broadly thus-and-so and it makes sense to extrapolate these to low levels also. Since the basic causal mechanism and physiology is known - particle hits cell; genome gets zapped, cell does weird things - it does seem to most people that extrapolating downwards is the better of these two alternatives.
The science was and is obviously wrong
Maybe you should write to the National Academies explaining this?
The basic premise of protect our planet by reducing our consumption of finite resources, reducing waste and sensible use of land and sea is good and defensible. Unfortunately this has been hijacked by the CO2 brigade
There is science of this going back many, many decades which has not been “hijacked” by anybody. Significant anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere have been known - I emphasise the word “known” - since the 1960's, starting with the ozone layer. An eminent colleague tells me about his relative, an eminent spectroscopist, who was concerned that the emissions which were affecting the ozone layer were actually doing greater damage through their absorption in the near infra-red. I hazard a guess none of us were around for such discussions but that is where the greenhouse effect arose.
The same scaremongering techniques are used in both cases, although there are generally less anti-nuclear protests the fear instilled in people is still there. The climate change fear being generated was the reason for starting this thread.
There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.
The basic premise of protect our planet by reducing our consumption of finite resources, reducing waste and sensible use of land and sea is good and defensible. Unfortunately this has been hijacked by the CO2 brigade
I agree with this statement. Vested interest parties are all over this CO2 net zero 'big time'!!!
There is science of this going back many, many decades which has not been “hijacked” by anybody. Significant anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere have been known - I emphasise the word “known” - since the 1960's, starting with the ozone layer. An eminent colleague tells me about his relative, an eminent spectroscopist, who was concerned that the emissions which were affecting the ozone layer were actually doing greater damage through their absorption in the near infra-red. I hazard a guess none of us were around for such discussions but that is where the greenhouse effect arose.
Many, decades ago the planet was said to be cooling and proven wrong, truth is we barely understand the planet and how it works. Early days I'd say. So why scare the sh1t out of everyone and hold the world to ransom unless of course there's money and power to be gained, which is exactly what going on. I wonder when the world is going to wake up to this!
Jon Steward:
Vested interest parties are all over this CO2 net zero 'big time'!!!
There are vested interests on every side of every big public and political discussion. The trick is to use your experience as an engineer to look hard at the science and try to figure out which scientific contentions are right and which are wrong. Let me invite you to try doing so.
There is science of this going back many, many decades which has not been “hijacked” by anybody. Significant anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere have been known - I emphasise the word “known” - since the 1960's, starting with the ozone layer. An eminent colleague tells me about his relative, an eminent spectroscopist, who was concerned that the emissions which were affecting the ozone layer were actually doing greater damage through their absorption in the near infra-red. I hazard a guess none of us were around for such discussions but that is where the greenhouse effect arose.
Many, decades ago the planet was said to be cooling and proven wrong, truth is we barely understand the planet and how it works. Early days I'd say. So why scare the sh1t out of everyone and hold the world to ransom unless of course there's money and power to be gained, which is exactly what going on. I wonder when the world is going to wake up to this!
If you don't engage with the science in order to substantiate your inclinations, then the world may be well advised to carry on sleeping until you do. I do agree with you that it can be pretty hard to find out when and if people have good reason for believing what they believe.
Let me put the same question to you as I did to Roger. What is wrong with Karoly and Stott's contention that the CET has risen by 1° since 1950, and that this is very probably (with the percentage given) due to anthropogenic warming? If you think it's wrong, what is your counterargument? Is it sufficiently robust that you can publish it?
When we are done with that, let's go to the work on the European heatwave of 2003, the chances of which Stott, Stone and Allen estimated to a confidence level of greater than 90% had doubled due to anthropogenic effects on climate.
There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.
At the risk of stirring, I disagree.
operational safety is good - a handful of accidents over 75 years with more than 500 land base full size power stations running today, perhaps 100-200 small ones in submarines, not to mention small nuclear sources on using radioactive decay for direct heat of remote weather stations and so forth, from a few hundred watts to kW - a few of those are on satellites (no new launched for a while though)
Waste - you need a big car park. It is only a problem if you try and make the waste less radioactive than the background - a lot of low level waste you could sit on all day. Some you could not- but we are not very grown up about the difference.
Compare to mining accidents or leaks of nasty chemicals that have killed folk over the same period that seem to have a few a year, (Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez, Probo Koala, Aberfan, Sago mine, Flint Water scandal ..)
mike
Peter,
‘BTW, thanks for clarifying your position on the Stott contention. I wonder why you haven't written it up and submitted it to ASL?’
Because I have had enough of the peer review process. It is designed to maintain the status quo of the peer group.
A lot of the data on radiation effects, as you say, come from the atomic bomb victims. Some also comes from other accidents. All this data is for short term exposures and does not relate to long term exposure to low level radiation. The best data for long term low level exposures comes from the Taiwanese apartment blocks that were built with rebar contaminated with Cobalt 60. Around 10 000 occupants received elevated doses of radiation. As with the atomic bomb victims the doses had to be reconstructed so this brings a significant source of variability but published studies suggest minimal health effects at lower dose’s and some possible health benefits. The data certainly does not support the Linear No Threshold theory and collective dose which are currently used.
This is important as realistic dose limits are required for sensible planning of nuclear power plants and the storage and processing of used fuel.
The British Green Activist George Monbiot had an interesting experience when he started looking into the anti-nuclear movement. They were mostly making it up as they went along with no scientific basis.
https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
https://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/
I did challenge George to carry out a similar investigation into AGW but he wouldn’t at the time.
mapj1:
There are good engineering and safety reasons for not reintroducing nuclear fission power plants which have nothing at all to do with any of the issues about climate change and neither do they have anything to do with scaremongering. There is first of all the operational safety; second, the waste problem, which has not been solved in seventy years. But that is not the topic of this thread.
At the risk of stirring, I disagree.
You are very welcome to disagree with anything I say. This is off-topic, so if we want to carry on we might want to move to another thread.
operational safety is good
You refer to historical operational safety. The historical operational safety of nuclear weapons is also good. But the safety is not. Scott Sagan and Eric Schlosser have had their say (both studies very well worth reading). And there is (rather, was) the magnificent Stanislav Petrov, who likely saved the world in 1983.
The safety of NPPs is not what I would call generally good, although it differs by country. The Union of Concerned Scientists has substantial material on safety incidents in NPPs. Constance Perin's study Shouldering Risks about how the people part works is also eye-opening. Then there is Chick Perrow's last book, The Next Catastrophe. He points out, as did Dave Lochbaum, that the emergency-generation systems of the Westinghouse BWR-I, being located in the basement, are susceptible to flooding, as indeed happened in 2011 at Fukushima Daiichi, which led to core meltdown. Lee Clarke's Worst Cases is also relevant.
The point about NPP safety is that the worst case is so very bad that it falls outside the usual engineering concepts of risk (besides that, there is no reliable way to quantify the probability of a worst-case event). I could probably write a book about it … oh, I did.
Waste - you need a big car park.
You need a big car park, sealed from the environment, and guaranteed to remain so sealed for at least 10,000 years. People have been looking for one for seventy years and have not found one yet. And it's getting bigger all the time (as the Beatles might have said).
Compare to mining accidents or leaks of nasty chemicals that have killed folk over the same period that seem to have a few a year, (Bhopal disaster, Exxon Valdez, Probo Koala, Aberfan, Sago mine, Flint Water scandal ..)
Sure, there are plenty of historical industrial accidents that turned out to be worse than, say, Chernobyl, although there is quite some dispute about how many people died because of Chernobyl. However, had the wind been the way it usually was at the time of the Chernobyl accident, it would likely have wiped out Kiev, which alone would have been an order of magnitude worse than Bhopal, often thought to be the worst to date. That is what I mean about the difference between historical operational safety and safety. We're still here. We might so easily not have been in 1984. That doesn't mean that LOW and MAD have turned out to be OK.
Roger Bryant:
I have had enough of the peer review process.
Yes, it can be frustrating. However, no better method of quality control has been found than asking a couple of potential readers what they think of a scientific contribution. Most of us have our pals who will just do that for us, before anything goes off to a third party. The discipline is necessary.
Poor reason, BTW. If you can coherently contradict Karoly and Stott, and you make that public claim, ultimately somebody's going to have to look at your reasoning and tell you if it's right or wrong.
It is designed to maintain the status quo of the peer group.
I think “designed” is the wrong word. “Evolved” might be better.
“Maintaining the status quo of the peer group” seems to me a good thing if it leads to qualified and trustworthy lawyers, doctors, electricians, plumbers, pharmacists and climate scientists.
The best data for long term low level exposures comes from the Taiwanese apartment blocks that were built with rebar contaminated with Cobalt 60.
I didn't know that. At the time, I was concerned mainly with exposure of airline pilots to cosmic rays. On some routes, that is likely to be rather more, I suspect. As well as different from the decay of Cobalt-60.
The British Green Activist George Monbiot had an interesting experience when he started looking into the anti-nuclear movement. They were mostly making it up as they went along with no scientific basis.
https://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
Well, I'm glad he checked the basics. Nobody believes the Yablokov estimate, but neither do we necessarily believe UNSCEAR. It sounds as if he was pointed to the right literature, not before time, but it is a bit of a mystery to me why he berates Caldicott for it, rather than thanking her. There is stuff out there, always is. You gotta know what it is and read it. Looks like he hadn't :-(
Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Is that right? What is the reasoning behind that estimate? Why do others disagree with it?
If you are unable to refute these statements of Dr. Hayden, perhaps they are true? Although my degrees are not in physics, I find his points to be highly likely.
The trouble is, so far you have been pointing to a bunch of dubious sources. At some point, I have to ask why on earth you believe this stuff. If you can't give any reason (despite having been asked) then that tells us you are not able to judge the scientific worth of the material you are pointing us to.
Since we seem to be in the questions game: isn't calling a source "dubious" another form of ad-hominem, disregarding the fact that such sources provide analysis and links to indubitably valid science or peer-reviewed research ?
I am happy to answer the question "why on earth you believe this stuff". As you have rightly pointed out, "nominally-impressive academic title does not necessarily mean much". Nevertheless, having learned many years ago that thousands of dedicated scientists of great integrity question the "scientific consensus" on CO2 as the "climate control knob" as sold by the IPCC, one might develop doubts. Mine were aggravated since several leading scientists in my country explained how their research does not support the IPCC angle, and how their non-conforming research is systematically oppressed by refusing grants and publication. I have learned a lot from the websites that I have shared here.
Another point: every now and then we hear of some scientists or officials publicly deserting from the "climate alarmist" camp and joining the "climate realists", but I cannot remember hearing of a single one jumping in the opposite direction. Even one of the initial pillars of warmism, Dr. Roger Revelle who first mentioned global warming in a government report in 1965, turned to be a sceptic shorthly before his death ("What to Do About Greenhouse Warning: Look Before you Leap", 1991). One might be surprised to see how many sceptical scientists are stepping out from the shadows - have a look at the World Climate Declaration of 2020.
I notice this week's summary discusses a paper by Richard Lindzen, one of the people you have mentioned.
If one has not heard of prominent scientists like Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Legates, Dr. Humlum, Dr. Happer, Dr. Koonin, Dr. Vahrenholt and many others holding up the debate in climate science, one might indeed not have any idea that such debate still exists. This is not an accusation - public media typically avoids referring to scientists or research hinting that the "climate crisis" is not severe enough.
Look at point 4). Apparently this gentleman doesn't read the newspapers. He wouldn't be ablt to say that in a lecture anywhere in California. Or, I imagine, many places in Louisiana. Or in the Eifel. And it passes in this supposed review also without comment. So there are at least two people not reading newspapers :-)
With all due respect, I cannot accept grethaesque exclamations based on newspaper articles a hard evidence. There is enough historic evidence demonstrating that wildfires, floods and heat waves of recent years are of lower magnitude than the ones 100+ years ago, or inbetween. Supporting research is available.
In 2017 I happened to be in beautiful Koblenz where the 2021 flooding caused great damage. Nevertheless, while water level reached 654 cm on July 16'th, I can see on one of my photographs that historic floods have exceeded a 1000 cm mark with many over 800 cm in previous centuries. Some of the floods may certainly be intensified due to human activity - more structures on land, less water absorption capability - but not necessarily CO2.
Talking about Germany: chancellor Merkel may have been a climate sceptic - as Nature notes:
"Although Merkel maintained close ties with the research world, there is one crucial policy area in which her decisions have not always been backed up by science. Germany is not a leader when it comes to phasing out fossil fuels. In the past, Merkel has even shown irritation at warnings of dangerous climate change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
I always enjoy a civilized debate based on scientific arguments. Hopefully the climate inquisition shall not be institutionalized in Europe and the debate extends, until the truth comes out and unjustified policies are abandoned.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
