What to say to environmentalist opponents of motor racing?

[NAC]

FIA has just appointed Ricardo Consultancy (an automotive technology and engineering specialists) to provide technical support and advice on the development of future regulations in F1. http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlin...11195620.shtml

www.ricardo.com

Back to the topic of “What to say to environmentalist opponents of motor racing” FIA are getting on the green band wagon. Either that or it’s all for show and to keep the wolves at bay.

[OVERSTEER]

I'm of the opinion that the "greenhouse effect" is a conspiracy by the government to raise fuel taxes. Climate change is a natural cycle, I suppose that the last ice age was caused by all those cars that was being run. I reckon it's all that hot air being expelled by all those greedy politicians!

[davyboy]

The level of passion and certainty that those proclaiming the human effect on global warming is frightening at best, I agree.

Apparently Mars is experiencing global warming as well. Seems the Martians are not driving enough hybrids... maybe the FIA should expand their audience beyond our own planet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

[WebberForWDC]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

From time to time, views such as "with fossil fuels in short supply and global warming a big concern, how can cars/bikes going nowhere for 2 hours be justified?".

You'd say combustion engines can be run on alcohols or bio diesel !

Then "Let's go motor racing", and "it's a proper engineering sport".



But "$ 500 million a season to put two little vroom-vroom cars on the track is completely obscene" so "you are right there!"!!!

[dsg]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The level of passion and certainty that those proclaiming the human effect on global warming is frightening at best, I agree.

Apparently Mars is experiencing global warming as well. Seems the Martians are not driving enough hybrids... maybe the FIA should expand their audience beyond our own planet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

You can find individual scientists to back up anything. 911 conspiracy, fake moon landing, Holocaust denial, god exists and even that england once had a cricket team.

Peer reviewed scientific consensus indicates that people are the cause of rapid global warming. But if you think the emperor has no clothes, enjoy the view.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by dsg

Peer reviewed scientific consensus indicates that people are the cause of rapid global warming. But if you think the emperor has no clothes, enjoy the view.

Its still just a debate over different opinions and more 'experts' holding a particular opinion does not make it more correct.

There's a big difference between scientific consensus and scientific proof.

There is no scientific proof that human activity is the most significant cause of global warming and that's not an opinion... that's a fact.

[Locost47]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Its still just a debate over different opinions and more 'experts' holding a particular opinion does not make it more correct.

There's a big difference between scientific consensus and scientific proof.

There is no scientific proof that human activity is the most significant cause of global warming and that's not an opinion... that's a fact.

There is no indeed no "proof" that human activity is *the most significant* cause of global warming but there is a great deal of supporting evidence to say that it *is* a significant contributing factor.

I agree that there's too much evangelism about global warming but if you look at the IPCC reports and have a nosey arond the dedicated climate change websites and pages at major academic and weather-researching institutions (like Oxford & Cambridge Unis and our own Met Office) then you'll see that a great number of the actual experts in this field agree that we're definitely not helping the situation, even if we are not solely responsible.

The physics of the Earth's climate is extremely complex, with hundreds if not thousands of influencing parameters, many of which are highly non-linear in their behaviour. A better understanding of what was once called 'Chaos Theory' has led to it being retitled 'Complexity Theory', due to the discovery that many supposedly chaotic systems are not random but instead controlled by multiple factors whose relative contribution to an overall effect may be highly variable and interconnected. Therefore to be able to deterministically say that X causes Y in such a system is incredibly difficult. What they do instead is run thousands of simulations, each with different combinations and permutations of both the sub-models and 'seed' values for each influencing factor. The huge database thus formed gives you a sensitivity study of which factors tend to have the biggest influence in the largest number of cases.

Many of these tests have been done and are continuing to be done currently (again, see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research...tre/index.html) and they are showing that increasing C02 in the atmosphere is one of, if not the, biggest contributors to changing overall atmospheric temperature.

As a scientist myself it bugs the crap out of me (technical term, that ) that the popular opinion is that no-one agrees on this matter and that scientists can and will prove anything only to be disrpoved by another bunch the next day. Personally i split the blame between the way research is often funded and there being too many "scientists reveal a new study which shows air/water/living causes cancer" headlines on TV.

I find it strange that many people seem to have very strong opinions about the subject of global warming and how many people are highly dismissive of it. I truly don't mean to sound patronising but please spend some time looking into the research that is being done in this field and the findings before coming to conclusions. You wouldn't walk into an operating theatre and take the scalpel off a brain surgeon so why do you think you're in a position to ignore the views of people who are highly qualified experts in the field of weather research?

[Inigo Montoya]

Lets say you are a scientist in the previously underfunded field of climate study. Then lets say there is some data (not necessarily sound data) that is presented by a scientist that suggest that climate change is caused by humans (rather than being linked to solar activity, as it has been for the past few hundred million years or so). A powerful lobby (e.g. environmentalists) gets a hold of this data, and all of sudden public awareness increases on the subject. Soon, budgets for research funds on this previously small research area have increased a hundred fold. What proportion of these funds are going to go to scientists who want to study the effect that the sun has on climate change, and what proportion will go to those who want to study the effect of C02 on the climate? As a scientist, what study would you propose?

[Locost47]

Well i do think there's a difference between realism and cynicism but, anyway, that argument also holds true for the counter-claimers; quite a lot (but admittedly not all) of the research which suggests alternative formulations of the relative contributions of different factors to the (now undisputed) fact that the Earth is getting warmer is actually funded by the oil companies. How seriously can you treat their arguments when, by your own accusation, there are definitely vested interests behind the funding of their research?

What you've got to remember is that 'proper science' is subject to extensive peer review and so biased experimental methods or interpretations of data rarely reach formal publication. Ok so sometimes they do - the cold fusion debacle is an example - but when so many people all over the world are working on the same thing (with a variety of sources of funding) then no false claim can last for long before someone debunks it.

Politics will be involved, i have no doubt, but to presume that the numerous experts from dozens of different countries are all corrupt and only serving their own short-term interests is flawed. It is one thing to have someone improve on your theory but a different thing to actively falsify or misrepresent information. For any credible figure to stand by a scientific finding which is subsequently found to have been falsely derived destroys their reputation and wrecks their chances of getting future funding as non-one will believe them again. You could argue that maybe by then they'd be sipping champagne on a yacht in the Bahamas and so not terribly bothered by that, but i think that would be a pretty cynical character assessment of what is in reality a large number of people from many countries and with many different backgrounds.

[davyboy]

You've made some excellent points here Locost. You also question whether we should cast doubt over the experts pushing the human cause of climate change and this is something I'd like to expand on a little as I think its the crucial reason why many sceptics are passionately sceptical.

If theories being put forward by these pro-human cause are true, then man needs to change the way he exists on this planet in an unprecedented way in order to halt, let alone reverse these consequences. Let's look at just three aspects of this, there are many more.

If we stop and think for a second, this has cataclysmic implications. Driving hybrid cars and switching to low energy lightbulbs is little more than lip service.

o International communication would have to all but cease. Domestic travel/transport will have to go the same way. This would mean almost no trade between countries which would mean wealth concentrated in the wealthiest areas of the globe and poverty and starvation decimating billions in the underdeveloped areas of the world in a way we've never seen.
The only form of non-carbon energy that could be used would be nuclear and aside from the other implications that brings, it would take decades to supercede all fossil fueled sources.

o Humans would need to stop procreating - population increase is the single biggest source of the 'human effect'. This would lead to an aged world population who could not be supported by the dwindling younger generation.

o Humans would need to immediately cease eating meat [livestock is the largest source of carbon right now]. That would lead to malnutrition and other eco problems with an imbalance of animals.

Discussing hypotheses on global warming is one thing. Taking proactive measures on the basis of such hypothesis is quite another and has the most incredible consequences - most of which you rarely hear debated.

Instead of attempting to reverse climate change, maybe our energies would be better channeled towards reactive measures... e.g. preparing places in cooler climates for progressive migration and leaving areas that are likely to be threatened by sea erosion etc... That would be action based on physical happenings as opposed to theoretical prognoses. It would also serve to protect our current lifestyle and safeguard the lives of millions in the underdeveloped world.

[Locost47]

Yeah i agree, sort of, though i don't think that things need to change as comprehensively as you suggest.

As i understand it not just the quantity of CO2 being produced but the rate of increase in the production being so high that none of the natural regulatory systems in the biosphere can react fast enough to stabilise it and we have a 'runaway' feedback situation. If we find a way of reducing the CO2-specific activities to a level where nature can accommodate the levels (as it has done so for millenia worth of more and more generations of cows farting, the sun changing it's power output etc) then the Earth may get warmer but at least warmer in a stable manner.

Bearing in mind that the majority of 'unecessary' human-derived CO2 essentially comes from burning fossil fuels in whatever manner and for whatever purpose, we know that this will have to change at some point anyway, given that it will eventually run out. The working assumption is that these are technological issues, rather than philosphical ones and that we will find other sources of energy and materials which allow civilization as we know it to continue on its current path of development (or one parallel to it).

The energy will have to come from nuclear (fusion, not fission) and renewable sources whilst the materials will have to come from natural sources again (natural fibres, woods, non-petrochemical plastics etc). Things like travel and communication should surely still be possible, only by different means than we currently use.

[Inigo Montoya]

And how convenient is it that the agenda that the global warming alarmists are pushing will hurt the underdeveloped countries the most? So now we want to deny them the right to develop, based on what? Computer models that try to capture the essence of a phenomena which is, by everyone's admission, incredible complex. Ice core samples that show increased C02, that some think are due to solar activity, and others think are due to human emissions?

In my opinion, the science is not strong enough to deny millions of people the right to develop.

[Inigo Montoya]

there is a five part series that the cbc made. Here you can see what scientists outside of the IPCC are saying about the "science" behind the link between CO2 and global warming.

Its a very long watch, but if you are interested in this issue, I highly recommend it.

A shorter watch (1.5hrs) is the "great global warming swindle"



Many of the same issues are covered. The claim that there is a concensus on Co2 global warming issues is addressed directly in this one.

Youtube has these, but I decided not to post the links.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

In my opinion, the science is not strong enough to deny millions of people the right to develop.

In a nutshell that's it. As Locost says, climate change is an incredibly complex issue and it can only be treated holistically. Singling out one element will not yield a solution and is likely to cause even greater problems... and that's before we've even affirmed with certainty that the element in question is even the primary cause.

Now... in terms of scientific consensus... please take a close look at the panic and furore that was created over Y2K and the billions wasted in recoding systems unnecessarily. This was an issue far less complex than climate change, but beyond the understanding of the average guy in the street. The vast majority of IT experts agreed that unless something was done in advance of the millenium chaos would insue. They were wrong.

[Adam43]

I agree that the science is not great in this debate. Any good science has been lost and it has become impossible to find the decent evidence either way.

However I implore you, when arguing that the science if bad do not say things like this:

I'm of the opinion that the "greenhouse effect" is a conspiracy by the government to raise fuel taxes. Climate change is a natural cycle, I suppose that the last ice age was caused by all those cars that was being run.

or

IMO we had an ice age like 100,000,000 years ago, all this "global warming" is natures way.

We MAY have another ice age, but in like another 100,000,000 years time. All this talk about global warming is doing my head in now, and the world leaders are moaning about it now BUT what cars do they drive?? "Gas Guzzling" Jaguar's, BMW's Mercedes Benz's, all the BIG cars that used to have a reputatin for having low MPG. Its about time the world leaders drove electric cars!!!!

It is just as bad in the 'debate' and unhelpful.

[Locost47]

I disagree that the science is bad, rather i think that the communication of the science to the public is bad. Go direct to the source rather than watching the news or TV documentaries and you will see a much clearer picture than is being debated here.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
http://www.cei.group.cam.ac.uk/directory/climate/
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/index.php
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange

I also disagree that the climate change debate is underpinned by some kind of international conspiracy to prevent an improvement in the standard of living for developing countries. Whilst it is probably true that rich countries will always want poorer countries to outsource cheap labour to i think that is just yet another confusing argument being brought in to further cloud the issue.

The world's economy is currently carbon-based. Carbon energy sources are fundamentally limited in quantity. Part of the world has used them to develop itself very rapidly over the last ~100+ years. Other areas of the world now want to follow the same route but the first group has learned that ruthlessly exploiting this resource has consequences that they did not foresee and now want to stop the other group from making that worse.

What do you think will happen if, for example, China are allowed to go on building coal-fired power stations at a rate of 1 every 6 days and then this fed into the climate change mechanism in such a way as to do what is predicted and worsen the situation? Do you think the developing world has the resources and infrastructure to cope with the consequences? How would Bangladesh cope with its 144 million population being displaced by rising sea levels? Should they be allowed to make the same mistakes as the west? At least then maybe they could all sail away on their diesel-powered dinghys...

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Locost47

I also disagree that the climate change debate is underpinned by some kind of international conspiracy to prevent an improvement in the standard of living for developing countries. Whilst it is probably true that rich countries will always want poorer countries to outsource cheap labour to i think that is just yet another confusing argument being brought in to further cloud the issue.

I don't think there's an deliberate international conspiracy on this, but it has provided a convenient bandwagon for everyone and his dog to jump on and promote their own individual agenda. Its got to such a stage now that Al Gore experienced a protest against him by environmentalists during his promo for biofuel in Argentina this week. At least the Argentinians can see that widespread take-up of biofuel is not only less green than fossil fuel, its harmful to people and the environment in a ton of other ways too.
There are many climate change charlatans around at the moment and in time they'll be exposed for what they are.

Originally Posted by Locost47

What do you think will happen if, for example, China are allowed to go on building coal-fired power stations at a rate of 1 every 6 days and then this fed into the climate change mechanism in such a way as to do what is predicted and worsen the situation?

How crazy is it to think that we will be in a position to dictate energy policy to China at a time when we've become addicted to cheap products from that country.

Originally Posted by Locost47

Do you think the developing world has the resources and infrastructure to cope with the consequences? How would Bangladesh cope with its 144 million population being displaced by rising sea levels? Should they be allowed to make the same mistakes as the west? At least then maybe they could all sail away on their diesel-powered dinghys...

The developing world is facing a far bleaker future if pre-emptive corrective action on climate change is taken by the developed world. And as for Bangladesh, its problems will be exacerbated faster by the projected increase in population than by the rising sea levels. Its has been a disaster waiting to happen for some time now. Speaking of which... there are many pressing humanitarian crises in the world right now which can be solved in a far less protractive way than climate change yet nothing's done about them.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Locost47

I disagree that the science is bad, rather i think that the communication of the science to the public is bad.

That is sort of what I mean.

[Locost47]

Originally Posted by davyboy

How crazy is it to think that we will be in a position to dictate energy policy to China at a time when we've become addicted to cheap products from that country.

Because of that very fact - a great deal of the money which is financing China's out-of-control rate of development is coming from the west. There are also numerous westerners over there now helping to speed up the development process, especially in the automotive industry. I wouldn't like to go toe-to-toe with China, sure, but the fact that a large proportion of their growth is in response to commercial pressures from the west means they have a weakness. For an example of how politics can direct commerce just look at how some big American companies refuse to allow their products and/or services to be used in any way which specifically benefits Iran.

Originally Posted by davyboy

The developing world is facing a far bleaker future if pre-emptive corrective action on climate change is taken by the developed world.

How so?

Originally Posted by davyboy

there are many pressing humanitarian crises in the world right now which can be solved in a far less protractive way than climate change yet nothing's done about them.

I think the organisations like Oxfam, Amnesty International, Christian Aid etc would disagree with you there. Note that they receive significant government funding too (the childrens' charity Barnardos is over 50% government funded).

The key difference, as i see it, is that climate change effects *every single person on Earth*, which is unlike any other humanitarian issue (other than disease, which takes countless forms but overall does have a great deal of effort put into dealing with it).

That fact, plus the way that so many people are in denial that it is happening at all, is why it is so high-profile in the media.

[Rennen]

In the evoloution of this Planet, man has been around for about 5 seconds...the thought that 'he' makes any differance to 'it' is sheer arrogance! A Volcano can errupt any moment and create another Ice Age, whenever it damn well feels like it! So live for today, cos' that's all there is folks!

During the mid 1960's Arab fuel embargo, the so called 'Fuel Crises' when the the British National speed limit was reduced to 50mph, and the Middle East oil producers couldn't care less. The finger was pointed at Motor Racing as wasteful and unnecessary...Mario Andretti 'nailed it' when he said "Who's to say my way of life, is any more or any less important than what anyone else is doing"?

Or if we were in another World War situation, the powers that be on all sides, would sling everything they've got at each other, just like they did in WW2 without restraint!

So just tell 'em...Whilst people are occupied racing cars, for fun, 'WE ARE' Saving the Planet"!

[dsg]

The ignorance is staggering.

[Knowlesy]

What ignorance?

[Schummy]

Originally Posted by Rennen

In the evoloution of this Planet, man has been around for about 5 seconds...the thought that 'he' makes any differance to 'it' is sheer arrogance! A Volcano can errupt any moment and create another Ice Age, whenever it damn well feels like it! So live for today, cos' that's all there is folks!

Never! The UN will never allow any volcano eruption anymore! It's in Kyoto treaty

[Locost47]

Originally Posted by Rennen

In the evoloution of this Planet, man has been around for about 5 seconds...the thought that 'he' makes any differance to 'it' is sheer arrogance! A Volcano can errupt any moment and create another Ice Age, whenever it damn well feels like it! So live for today, cos' that's all there is folks!

That is exactly the type of uninformed 'pub opinion' that i have been talking about. Look at the atmospheric CO2 data gathered over the last few hundred years and the sudden and dramatic change which began simultaneously with the industrial revolution is immediately apparent.

To say that we cannot affect the Earth is ignorance in the extreme. How many species of animal are extinct due to over-hunting/fishing or the clearing of rainforests etc? How many areas now suffer flooding or mudslides from deforestation? You mention world wars - well even at the lower level of stocks of nuclear weapons that we have since the Cold War finished there are still enough left to eradicate all land-borne life from the face of the Earth something like 16 times over. Oh and they're increasing the stocks again due to China, Iran and India/Pakistan all developing weapons.

You're right that we as a race haven't been around for long and i guess we shouldn't be too surprised that we exhibit the responsibility for our actions of an infant...

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Locost47

That is exactly the type of uninformed 'pub opinion' that i have been talking about.

I agree that this is uniformed pub type opinion, but it isn't so different to much of the opposing evidence.

Look at the atmospheric CO2 data gathered over the last few hundred years and the sudden and dramatic change which began simultaneously with the industrial revolution is immediately apparent.

It is immediately apparent that CO2 levels have changed, as has temperature, but the cause and resultant effect of the situation is not known for certain. Go further back and there are changes which can't be linked to an industry, but are just as dramatic. I'm not saying that there is or isn't a link, but I am wary of catagorically claiming anything here.

Most of the evidence is presented in a manner only slightly better than a Mark Hughes fuel corrected lap. The assumptions are hardly ever expanded upon and the confidence levels practically ignored. It is frustrating for me.