This is just rich. Another point for the denialists. I wonder how this is now going to play out with the Cap & Trade crowd and the rest of the group. A bigger question might be why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists.
Let’s go back to the global cooling thesis!
Related link: Academic paper on the IPCC with amazing bibliography. A goldmine for skeptics.
Found by Jason Price.
Ah Yea–after all the other well worn arguments are exchanged, let me remind you of one that does get mentioned, but not emphasized: nuke is centralized whereas renewables are distributed.
Even if nuke was “an answer” it fails other socially relevant criteria.
Big Government, Big Oil, Big Nuke. Don’t be a Big Dick.
#61 Obviously, your stated solution is the correct one. However, the AGW crowd wants control over economies and individuals. It isn’t about solving anything. Otherwise, the solution you stated would be priority one. It isn’t. That tells you all you need to know.
Just one (man-made) oil rig disaster pollutes the gulf of Mexico and soon off to the Atlantic. Everyone agrees it’s a ecological disaster.
However, burning oil 24x7x356 days into the thin atmosphere for 50 years appears to not be so concerning.
Why is that? Simple – out of sight, out of mind. This is especially true of conservatives – if it don’t hurt, leave it alone mentality.
Hah—more proof Big Nuke is for losers: Anon is for it.
Its almost “mathematical” how the truth is but one fabric.
Anon–seriously now==what stocks would you recommend for maximum growth over the next quarter? Any lotto numbers you’d like to share?
What a dope. Man up.
Bobbo, I agree that Nuke isn’t anything close to an ideal solution.
It certainly is another “Big Something”.
BUT… Nuclear can be easily phased into the existing power grid, and pollutes a whole lot less than what we are doing now (if done right. This is a good case for proper government oversight.)
So, given that what we are doing now isn’t working, and solar and wind are not realistic alternatives,
What would you suggest?
Here’s the very saddest part of this whole situation …
As sides are taken, AGW vs denialists, exposed faults and flaws of both arguments are leaped upon as compelling reasons to dismiss the other’s entire position.
Now for the sad part …
As these discussions reach a feverish pitch, the core message (or what should be) …
“STOP POLLUTING THE FRICKIN’ PLANET !!!”
… gets diluted.
The assertion seems to be that a C02 reduction will “cure” global climate change. While this may be true, the concentration on this single element (yes, I know CO2 is not an element, it’s a compound 😉 ) appears to overshadow all the other worthy “clean up the environment” messages.
And that’s sad.
In an effort to “sell” AGW, arguments put forward are now being found wanting or at the very least generate controversy.
Those (people, enterprises and governments) who where once committed to making real, tangible efforts to “clean up” become confused and begin to question their once noble path.
This confusion results in a reduction of efforts to reduce pollution in a broad and general sense.
And that is also sad.
It’s disheartening to think how going through life as my great-great-great-grandchild is going to suck, bad.*
/T.
*Environmentally at least … there’s also the chance (s)he’ll bear some resemblance to me 😉
Sheesh… There is scientific consensus and has been for quite a while. It might be nice to actually read some articles and notice that we’re getting warmer each year and that we can already see more evidence in recent events.
Here’s a nice quote…
I find it systematically tends to get underplayed and it often gets underplayed by my fellow scientists. Because one of the opening statements, which I’m sure you’ve probably heard is “Well you can’t attribute a single event to climate change.” But there is a systematic influence on all of these weather events now-a-days because of the fact that there is this extra water vapor lurking around in the atmosphere than there used to be say 30 years ago. It’s about a 4% extra amount, it invigorates the storms, it provides plenty of moisture for these storms and it’s unfortunate that the public is not associating these with the fact that this is one manifestation of climate change. And the prospects are that these kinds of things will only get bigger and worse in the future.
Was this some radical leftist enviro type who doesn’t understand basic science? Actually, that quote is from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
You can see his interview at http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/14/ncar-trenberth-global-warming-extreme-weather-rain-deluge/
Not to mention if Nuclear is phased into the existing power grid, then the nuclear plants would be part of a public utility and subject to the regulation we already have in place.
Not to mention, as we discovered just a week or so ago, America has over 5,000 warheads. I bet we could spare a 1,000 or two for some clean energy.
Diminishing Armageddon while cleaning the environment?
Nah, No one would ever go for that.
Ah Yea–that is a perfect parry. Let me think about that as I get another beer. – – – – – –
I guess you still want to cover some of the ruts. Air travel: highly regulated. Industry highly motivated to achieve perfect safety: airplanes still crash. Oil Drilling: not regulated. Industry seemingly should be self motivated to achieve perfect safety: oil spills large and small every year all over the world. No, I’m sorry. U-235 has a half life of 780 Million years. as the chance of a nuclear spill approach zero, the consequential damage from accident or terrorist attack are simply too large to be allowed. END OF STORY.
Now, what to do? Simple general answer is a “moon shot program” for energy independence. Yes, use oil, coal, nat gas, and so forth in the interim==but make a real concerted effort to get green and independent. Its arguable but “I believe” ((not really, just proposing)) that if all the overt and covert subsidies given to Big Oil were equaled or transfered to renewables, the cost advantage/energy density of oil would disappear over renewables.
A lot more jobs, real jobs, non-exportable jobs, created by green energy programs. What percentage of the Military Budget should be transfered to renewable for National Security purposes?
Immediately impose a 5 cent alternative energy development tax on each gallon of oil sold to be increased 5 cents a year forever. The market will respond in ways we can’t imagine==and some we can.
I think its all very doable in 10 years. And if it takes 2- or 30 or more, at least the program if well grounded philosophically==not the self destructive captured by International Oil Conglomerates we have toady.
Progress is only made by changing course.
Bobbo said in #70
“Ah Yea–that is a perfect parry.”
Exceedingly high praise! I appreciate it.
I understand your response to be “business as usual until something better comes along” along with “and it’s not nuclear because of the possibility of accident”.
Here is where we do not agree. You can throw all the money in the world at a problem without solving it. Look at Atomic Fusion and how many years and billions of dollars sunk into that black hole.
If it was simply a matter of money and time, we would already have a viable, green solution. We have neither.
Wishing for “green jobs” while taxing current energy? You need to rethink this. How many jobs will be lost under your gas tax? How many jobs will go to China because American production is even more expensive?
How many “green jobs” will also end up in China or India?
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949
So this proposal is a non-starter, at least by itself. Call it “Plan B”.
Why not simply have a “moon shot” for disposal of nuclear waste? Not to mention we already have 728,000 pounds of material which can be converted for power generation already!!
Yes that is SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT THOUSAND POUNDS!
(~130lbs each warhead * 5,600 warheads)
Looks like we already have a disposal problem. We already have a terrorist problem. Why not reduce both problems and get some benefit?
51, Bobbo,
By all means you can clarify your stance.
Nah, I prefer the Socrates route.
52, Phydeau,
Man are you dense. I just said anything is possible. The question is if it is likely or stands up to the scientific method. Instead you cling to some people who have produced no empirical evidence but call themselves experts and have come to their own conclusions.
54, Misanthropic Scott,
You’re obviously reading something else. The problem is the politics and lack of conclusive evidence.
He says:
“While most participants are scientists and bring the aura of objectivity, there are two things to note:
* this is a political process to some extent (anytime governments are involved it ends up that way)
* scientists are mere mortals casting their gaze on a system so complex we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead”
“After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their [3 European Climate Scientists] discussion continued, which boiled down to this: “We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol.”
Politics, at least for a few of the Lead Authors, was very much part and parcel of the process.
If there’s anything “social” about the problem it’s the politics and herd mentality of those calling themselves scientists which he talks about.
59, J,
Maybe I misunderstood this part?:
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2’s radiation properties.
However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.
The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.
He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…”
Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us. “
60, Bobbo,
And here I thought you were a “skeptic”…. sounds like you have your own conclusions?
Speaking of the IPCC models, Christy had this to say:
“In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies – hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states.
Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).”
62/65 Bobbo,
You’re not being pragmatic. As smart as you want others to see you, the sad truth is Nuclear is one of the few REALISTIC options. You’re too busy trying to be idealistic.
Heck, even the founder of Greenpeace promotes Nuclear is the only realistic way to go. http://tinyurl.com/qa6rn
But go ahead and try to preach that hydro and wind power will cover the majority of our country’s needs.
64, Dallas,
Partially for the sheeple… but we do have emissions testing. And an oil spill has clear and immediate impacts to an ecosystem. With CO2, the damage it creates is currently debatable. CO2 is a natural byproduct of life on this planet. What other natural byproducts do you believe we should regulate? Water vapor? It’s a greenhouse gas too.
66, Ah Yeah,
If not nuclear, perhaps the Bloom Box or something like it if it actually lives up to the hype.
http://tinyurl.com/y9xw5fn
Hey Bobbo!
Do you want to know a much better solution? I have it, and it’s real.
Imagine a reactor which cannot melt down, whose byproducts are not highly radioactive, and can actually consume and make atomic bomb material safe to handle?
Not to mention create enough clean energy for well over 1000 years?
http://cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/
Sounds worthy of a “space shot” to me!
Guyver,
Bloom Box! Good call! I saw that but forgot about it.
If they can deliver, then it’s a winner.
Here is some additional info.
http://csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0222/Bloom-Box-generates-buzz-skepticism-with-60-Minutes-spot
http://www.bloomenergy.com/
#74, India is moving fast on Thorium reactor tech.
The US is being left behind on the tech front. We’ll be a 2nd world country within 2 decades, at most.
I hope few people here follow Bubba’s confusion of the fraud surrounding solutions to AGW with the fact of AGW itself?
Bobbo, who is confused? You? I stated plainly that you can have your wallet sucked as much as you want by listening to Al Gore and CCX. They are using AGW as a straw to suck the money right out of you. Did I dispute AGW? No. The IPCC, maybe. Get your facts straight, or have you forgotten how to read?
Scott, I trust you read all sides of an argument, regardless of what you think of the authors. Glenn Beck or Al Gore? I’ll take Beck. Didn’t I say he was wacky? But Al Gore is wacky and greedy, too. The Nobel Prize has become smaller since Gore and Odumba got one.
#9 Actually Bobo all of those were and still are highly regulated.
Did the regulations prevent the problems they were supposed to prevent?
It is also clear that many governments are going for the maximum regulations possible. When they reach that point you will most likely have to have permission in advance to say anything or take a dump. You will need to get permission to move, change jobs, to live in a certain house or to have children. You will be free to say what the government says is properly respectful. Any failure to comply will result in your re-education.
This does tend to ruin the local economy. Lower the standard of living for the under class to barely existing, and freeze progress in its tracks or did in China but nothing bad happened to the elite until outside forces showed up and did very bad things to them.
#73 Guyver
Clearly that comment went over your head.
His paper is a load of shit. Full of speculation, accusations and other such nonsense. He is a stooge for Exxon Mobil. A lot of money flowing his way. That is why he says what he says.
Even despite all of that he still says Global Warming is real and that humans have made a significant contribution. So your post is lame at best.
#71 pedro the donkey’s ball licker.
Hey I have an idea for you. Why don’t you stick a light bulb up your ass so you can find your head and pull it out.
I could compost these comments and grow tomatoes.
“A bigger question might be why do so many people WANT the global warming scenario to be true?” -John
Despite whether GW is true or not, it’s better be environmentally friendly.
Now if they proved too much friendless hurt the planet…
I haven’t seen any science in this debate.
I want a chamber filled with appropriate levels of the gases that make up air, expossed to appropriate levels of RF energy, and an appropriately reflective surface with which to absorb and reflect the RF energy, with temperature measurements made as the mixture has tiny percentages of additional CO2 mixed in and then diluted out again. I want to see the Gas Law (ie, a model) that has been emperically verified that relates to RF heating of the gas.
Where’s the link for that?
Then I want fully vetted data that shows the Earth’s CO2 percentage, of the total, for the last 1,000,000 years.
Then I want to know if everything died, and the proof of that death, when the Artic permafrost wasn’t frozen.
I want to know the details, not some blowhard’s opinion.
Ray,
The current fossil energy global economy is supporting quite a few billion human beings.
How many of them would you deem expendable to be “environmentally friendly”? How low a standard of living do you want to enforce at the point of a soldier carried gun?
Because that’s the trade-offs you greenies are forcing.
Banning DDT totally has killed millions of human beings. You think that’s ok? In the name of “environmentally friendly” of course.
Such is the result of simplistic green thinking.
One must consider both the cost and the gain.
Everyone argues the points about whether AGW is influencing the climate but nobody talks about the conclusions that get drawn from the idea. What if the climate is warming but nothing impacts human civ because the pace of change is to slow? the most damning piece to me is that the conclusions drawn on the data are purely speculative. No one knows what the effects are and no scientific method or peer reviewed article out there can tell the future so it is a bunch of pot stirring to achieve an emotional reaction that will sway people one waty or another.
Scott, did I disagree with the science? Yes, a little, some of it is not quite right. Some of those “scientists” might as well be TV weathermen. You miss my point — people like Al Gore, Odumba and other shareholders in the Shore Bank, CCX, as well as SEIU et. al. are going to use IPCC’s conclusions (wrong as some may be) to suck the money out of your pocket.
Is the Earth getting warmer? Seems to be. Is it all our fault? Not by a long shot, although we’re players.
Just think, in about 3 billion years, way long before the Sun goes into red giant phase, the Earth will be so hot that no life can exist at all. It’s the Sun’s fault for that one, and it’s not debatable, unless the Sun has figured out a way around physics and its own mass. It’s a good thing we’re living now instead of almost then. Although I’m willing to entertain ideas to send the current administration straight there.
RSweeney,
no no no, you’re thinking in extremes as typical ppl like u usually do. of course we’re not going to live in wood cabins for the sake of being completely environmental.
there’s certainly a balance of both industrial and environmental that can be achieved. environmental alternatives should win out for both capitalism and environmentalism.
however, fossil fuels isn’t going to last forever, which is where the investment of renewable and cleaner energy comes into play.
a lot of products produce a considerable amount of waste. i guess its ppl like u that like to eventually be surrounded by your own filth?
# 56 gmknobl:
“Seriously dude, get your head out of the sand and actually read real science on it.”
Ah gits awl the science ah need from World Net Daily and The New American!
* * * * * *
Them collidge boyz think ther so smart! Ther awl a-lyin to yez… Why, fer awl yew know, we maht not even be speakin English! They maht have secretly bin teachin us Chinese our entire lives! ‘At’d be jist lahk ‘em!
WER ALL A’SPEEKIN’ CHINESE, I TELLS YA!!!
#87 – BubbaRay,
This is very uncharacteristic of you. I posted science. You posted opinion. On what is your opinion based? Where are the papers showing that the watts per square meter calculations to which I linked are wrong? Where are the papers stating that the greenhouse gases are not the reason that the planet is 15C instead of -18C?
Does the heat of the planet come from the sun? Of course. Does the layer of greenhouse gases trap that heat and keep it from radiating back into space? Of course. So, why is it that you find it hard to believe that enormous percentage increases in GHGs will warm the planet? Why is it you do not believe that we have the ability to calculate the increase in radiative forcing?
The fact that GHGs are a small part of our atmosphere should scare you more not less. It means that fairly small amounts of such gases in our atmosphere really do have a large effect.
Please argue facts. Post some papers. Post something that states why the increase in radiative forcing would not be responsible for the observed warming we are seeing.
#85 – RSweeney,
The current fossil energy global economy is supporting quite a few billion human beings.
Yes. So would a clean energy economy. Putting up and maintaining solar panels, wind turbines, and the rest takes humans. And, it’s good skilled labor. Here in the U.S., we’re going to have to import the technology because we’re missing the curve. Instead of innovating, we’re trying to continue to solve 21st century problems with 19th century technology. That will never work.
How many of them would you deem expendable to be “environmentally friendly”? How low a standard of living do you want to enforce at the point of a soldier carried gun?
Don’t ask a misanthrope about number of expendable people. No matter what we do, the earth cannot support the current population. It’s a problem even bigger than global warming. In fact, carbon footprint isn’t the only issue. It’s also the number of feet.
But, for population reduction, all we need is education for women. For population reduction, all we need is a bit of self-interest on the part of the masses. We need to realize that the root cause of poverty in the world is too many people. All but one of the countries of the world with high standard of living also have birth rates below replacement.
One must consider both the cost and the gain.
Well, it apparently hasn’t occurred to you that human beings are animals who depend on a functioning biosphere. It is you who are not considering the real costs. A functioning biosphere provides us with $30 trillion with a T every year in services for free.*
We have been systematically destroying this biosphere since the dawn of agriculture and have been dramatically accelerating the rate of destruction since the industrial revolution. Ecosystems tend to be quite resilient for long periods until something puts them over the edge and they collapse.
Can we afford to purify every liter of required drinking water on the planet via technology? Can we afford to purify the air via technology? Do we even have the technology? How many people would you kill through desertification and reduction of available food?
These are the trade-offs you are calling for.
* http://tinyurl.com/5rgloj – Scroll about half way down or search for trillion on this page for the $30T reference.
#73 Guyver,
I thought that was all cleared up way back in post #7 when J posted the author’s own response to being quoted out of context and misinterpreted as you have done.
81, J,
He said that the CO2 will have SOME climate impact. He did not say this would mean global warming. Heck the fact that you exhale CO2 means you too will have SOME climate impact. Christy just explained in another quote I provided:
“Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).”
As for him being a stooge, that’s your prerogative…. he’s been a lead author for the IPCC and he’s explaining why the organization is flawed (from an insider’s perspective). But I get it. You don’t like what he says so now he’s a stooge for big oil.
Clearly you’re seeing what you want to see. No he’s pretty clear in talking about how politicized the IPCC is as well as how bias is more dominant in this process than science. You should really try to attempt to read the article before you open mouth and insert foot.
92, Misanthropic Scott,
It’s been cleared up in my response to you in post #73. You’re not talking about the same article I am.
The article I have been referring to was cited in my post #48.
Or maybe J thinks Mike Hulme and Professor Christy are the same person like he implies in post #59? 🙂
If you still beg to differ, then by all means please point out ANYTHING Professor Christy said in J’s link cited in post #7. It’s really strange that the internal light bulb came on when I previously referenced Christy.