22 replies to this topic

[risktaker]

On the anti-climate-change side, you have manipulation by the Oil, Car Companies and other Big Businesses. The money fanatics. Not sure which side is correct, but sure do not like living in industrial cities or being stuck inhaling exhaust in a traffic jam.

[risktaker]

Should we guarantee them a lower standard of living by doing something stupid now, or should we grow as fast as we reasonably can, so that they can better afford to do something later, provided we actually need to do anything (besides clean up our acts)?

A more polluted environment is by some standard a lower standard of living.

Remember, action has long-term consequences too.

Exactly, it is just like this financial bubble that we keep on trying to reflate. It gets bigger and bigger... eventually we will hit a tipping point where there is a point of no return and it explodes. We can continue to damage the environment in exchange for better economic growth, but at some point we may hit a point of no return... We can only hope that it has not happened already.

The one thing that we know is that wealthier people do better in any climate change scenario (warm or cold).

That is only true if money is a measure of "doing better or worse". A lot of wealthy people are unhappy and quite a few once-wealthy people commit suicide or die of health problems the past two years.

Edited by risktaker, 01 May 2009 - 04:32 PM.

[stocks]

The AGW hoax lives on for political reasons

1 The greenhouse signature is missing.

Weather balloons have scanned the skies for
years but can find no sign of the tell-tale hot-
spot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases
would leave. There’s not even a hint.
Something else caused the warming.

2 The strongest evidence was the ice
cores, but newer, more detailed, data
turned the theory inside out.

Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures,
for the last half-million years temperatures
have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On
before. This totally threw what we though was
cause and effect out the window.
Something else caused the warming.

3 Temperatures are not rising.

Satellites circling the earth twice a day show
that the world has not warmed since 2001.
How many more years on NO global warming
will it take? While temperatures have been flat,
CO2 has been rising, BUT something else has
changed the trend. The computer models don’t
know what it is.

4 Carbon dioxide is already doing
almost all the warming it can do.

Adding twice the CO2 doesn’t make twice the
difference, the first CO2 molecules matter a
lot, but extra ones have less and less effect. In
fact, carbon levels were ten times as high in
the past but the world still slipped into an ice
age. Carbon today is a bit-part player.

http://joannenova.co...andbook_2-0.pdf

[risktaker]

Stocks, check out Jeremy Jacquot's three articles debunking Joanne Nova's "Skeptic's Handbook":
"More CO2 Does Worsen Climate Change" http://www.desmogblo...-climate-change
"Yes, Global Warming is Real and it's Still Happening" http://www.desmogblo...l-and-happening
"The Climate Models Have it Right" http://www.desmogblo...s-have-it-right

For further info, RealClimate.org publish thoughts from a team of working climate scientists: http://www.realclima...ndex.php?cat=10

Edited by risktaker, 03 May 2009 - 03:08 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

Should we guarantee them a lower standard of living by doing something stupid now, or should we grow as fast as we reasonably can, so that they can better afford to do something later, provided we actually need to do anything (besides clean up our acts)?

A more polluted environment is by some standard a lower standard of living.

Fallacy. More CO2 isn't pollution, and nobody is advising that we should be polluting more. Try again.

Remember, action has long-term consequences too.

Exactly, it is just like this financial bubble that we keep on trying to reflate. It gets bigger and bigger... eventually we will hit a tipping point where there is a point of no return and it explodes. We can continue to damage the environment in exchange for better economic growth, but at some point we may hit a point of no return... We can only hope that it has not happened already.

The evidence suggests that we're tipping much colder. There's better evidence for that to be a far bigger concern. Everything you appear to be worried about is, well, unsubstantiated hooey, designed for effect, but unsupported by science.

The one thing that we know is that wealthier people do better in any climate change scenario (warm or cold).

That is only true if money is a measure of "doing better or worse". A lot of wealthy people are unhappy and quite a few once-wealthy people commit suicide or die of health problems the past two years.

No, not at all. Survival is a greally good measurement of doing better and in a disaster, it takes wealth to mitigate problems.

Your approach GUARANTEES less of what's needed to deal with a problem, when there's little evidence to suggest that the problem won't be just the opposite of what you're worried about.

More options to mitigate is better than less.

A conservative approach is always good when to comes to the environment. We should conserve energy. We should conserve habitats. We should pollute as little as possible within reason. We should leave ourselves as many options and choices in the futures as possible. You would limit our childrens' choices that that's a very bad idea.

M

[OEXCHAOS]

Realclimate is merely an eco-chamber for climate change zealots. I'm pained by your being taken in by them.

They are absolutely a propaganda arm for the AGW industry. They broach no dissent and allow no criticism. They are NOT an open forum on the subject. Thus, they have no credibility.

Try ClimateAudit.org and WattsUpWithThat.com for better, more critical and OPEN discussion of the issues.

Stocks, check out Jeremy Jacquot's three articles debunking Joanne Nova's "Skeptic's Handbook":
"More CO2 Does Worsen Climate Change" http://www.desmogblo...-climate-change
"Yes, Global Warming is Real and it's Still Happening" http://www.desmogblo...l-and-happening
"The Climate Models Have it Right" http://www.desmogblo...s-have-it-right

For further info, RealClimate.org publish thoughts from a team of working climate scientists: http://www.realclima...ndex.php?cat=10

[risktaker]

Mark, have you read articles from both sides?

Realclimate is merely an eco-chamber for climate change zealots. I'm pained by your being taken in by them.

RealClimate's team of working scientists (link) includes:

• Climate modeller at NASA (Gavin A. Schmidt)
• Penn State University faculty member in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (Michael E. Mann)
• Climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Caspar Ammann)
• Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts (Raymond S. Bradley)

These people have climate-related education background and jobs and they are contributing to the RealClimate on the side.

They are absolutely a propaganda arm for the AGW industry. They broach no dissent and allow no criticism. They are NOT an open forum on the subject. Thus, they have no credibility.

Everybody can post comments on RealClimate's blog and everybody can edit their wiki (link). So people can post criticism and dissenting opinions.

Try ClimateAudit.org and WattsUpWithThat.com for better, more critical and OPEN discussion of the issues.

Thanks for suggesting these sites. At a cursory glance, people behind these sites do not have academic credentials on climate research. Moreover, publishing evidence against climate change seems to be their full-time endeavor.

Stephen McIntyre, the primary author of Climate Audit, holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He was a director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst in the Canadian government.
http://en.wikipedia....tephen_McIntyre

Anthony Watts, the Editor of WattsUpWithThat.com was a long-time television weather presenter. I could not find information regarding his education background. In addition, I could not find information regarding the background of other contributors on the website.

[mss]

RealClimate's team of working scientists (link) includes:

• Climate modeller at NASA (Gavin A. Schmidt)
• Penn State University faculty member in the Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (Michael E. Mann)
• Climate scientist working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Caspar Ammann)
• Director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts (Raymond S. Bradley)

These people have climate-related education background and jobs and they are contributing to the RealClimate on the side.

Thanks for suggesting these sites. At a cursory glance, people behind these sites do not have academic credentials on climate research. Moreover, publishing evidence against climate change seems to be their full-time endeavor.

Stephen McIntyre, the primary author of Climate Audit, holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics from the University of Toronto. He was a director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst in the Canadian government.
http://en.wikipedia....tephen_McIntyre

Anthony Watts, the Editor of WattsUpWithThat.com was a long-time television weather presenter. I could not find information regarding his education background. In addition, I could not find information regarding the background of other contributors on the website.

risktaker, may I suggest that instead of checking so much about their education background you investigate something else.
Check very deeply where the money comes from that pays their salary. Go far enough into where the Grant money came from, not just who wrote the check. In most cases it will be a real eye opener. Also check into the policy of the institution they work for and what their policy and statement about warming, and WHERE their endowments are funded from.
In other words follow the money trail ALL the way back.
Best to you,
mss

Edited by mss, 04 May 2009 - 06:35 AM.

[OEXCHAOS]

There's always an ad hominem tucked into every critique of Watts' and McIntyre's sites. So far, however, I've not seen them misrepresent any information. They've been scrupulous and civil. I've not seen the same at RealClimate. There are many claims of censorship at the hands of these folks. Not of stupid comments but of the smart and relevant critiques. The abusive nature of the posters there is manifest. Please don't pretend it's otherwise. Look, there were good reasons for people of good will to be concerned about climate. People (of considerable scientific knowledge) I know and trust were swayed. Of course they were also bullied and abused, too. Those who were swayed, however, have become surprisingly silent in the past year or so. The well has been poisoned and it's not just with incivility. I'm claiming de facto fraud and intellectual dishonesty on the part of a number of climate "researchers". The more I dig, the less I like the way this is shaping up. It's BAD for science which is even worse than the attempt to hijack billions of productive dollars for unproductive uses.

[risktaker]

mss, I drive a gas guzzler and I use plastic bags, so I am not the kind of person who will go out of my way to do good things.

The education background and jobs are all listed at this RealClimate page (link), so it did not take much effort for me to find this info. If there are a lot of climate scientists on both sides, then there must be a corresponding website to RealClimate on the other camp.

Moreover, a Climate Science Degree is probably the last on the list of degrees anybody who wants to make a lot of money would get. If a person wants to make a lot of money, he would work at Wall Street or go into the business world, rather than becoming a professor or a researcher. (Just in general, there are probably exceptions.)