TheEEStory.com

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...

Yep you are right. There is a giant conspiracy to keep the Global Warming myth. Not only are scientist being pressured but someone has gone to the north pole with a giant torch to melt a northwest passage. Ice had been there for 100,000 years and now it is gone. There must be a "new math" where ice melts at a lower temp. The ice caps in Iceland and Greenland are really being sucked away by a alien race but under cover of GW. Did I miss anything?

Thanks, Hum! That was worth bookmarking.

"Consensus", my Aunt Fanny.

---

cechilders wrote:

Yep you are right. There is a giant conspiracy to keep the Global Warming myth. Not only are scientist being pressured but someone has gone to the north pole with a giant torch to melt a northwest passage. Ice had been there for 100,000 years and now it is gone. There must be a "new math" where ice melts at a lower temp. The ice caps in Iceland and Greenland are really being sucked away by a alien race but under cover of GW. Did I miss anything?

I would say an education.

this belongs in the politics section.

also, oh noez 16 whole scientists!

Lensman wrote:

Thanks, Hum! That was worth bookmarking.

"Consensus", my Aunt Fanny.

There is consensus that the earth is warming, that CO2 is a likely large contributor, that there is likely danger.

The uncertainty is regrettable, it would be nice if we could predict the future 100 years hence.

But to go from "there is uncertainty" to "nothing is known" is simplistic. Easy to argue on a blog, and popular. People like simple ideas, don't lieke uncertainty.

The next part is not science, but politics. If there is likely but no ways certain chance of bad problem, should we pay for insurance against the likely, or do nothing.

Some people like living dangerously more than others, but in most aspects of life we play very safe, against very small risks. The AGW politics is struggling to get people to play a little safe, against a big risk.

And the arguments against are:
(1) there is no risk
(2) the risk is so great no action can prevent it.

I don't expect, Lens, that you will see the contradiction there. A bit too subtle.

---

I can't imagine anything that benefits from refusing to look at all the posibilities. Global warming may be mankinds biggest threat so look into it. Of course we might be wrong about the cause and or effect so look into that too. Anything else just doesn't make sense to me.

---

ee-tom wrote:

There is consensus that the earth is warming, that CO2 is a likely large contributor, that there is likely danger.

Yes, and I suspect most if not all of those who signed the aforementioned letter would agree. Where there should not be a consensus is in claiming that this gradual warming trend will cause a cascade disaster making much or most of the Earth unlivable in the near future.

In fact, there is growing evidence of warming and cooling trends of similar magnitude in, geologically speaking, the relatively recent past. There is no evidence that any such cascade disaster has occurred due to temperature swings of similar magnitude. In fact, I don't think it's overstating the case to say the historical and archaeological record proves that such mild temperature swings don't cause any cascade effect.

ee-tom wrote:

I don't expect, Lens, that you will see the contradiction there. A bit too subtle.

And I expect you will continue to post sneeringly condescending posts suggesting that even the most intelligent people on this forum are incapable of grasping your arguments.

---

Watch this lecture, there's more answers than anything else that has been posted here so far

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lectu...

I love you guys trying to pull the politics card with a straight face, while Hansen, Mann and Al Gore are on there way to Antartica for a political statement about how it is all melting soon.

I'm glad you are finally starting to get that CAGW is almost all about money and political power and almost nothing about saving the world.

Do I trust the caliber of these 16 scientists who signed this document and their opinion more than the likes of the climategate scientists?

Damn right.

soooo, people say "follow the money" in regard to the scientists (who aren't making money off of it) while completely ignoring the vast sums of money the coal/oil companies are throwing at congress, bloggers, some "scientists", pundits, advertising, etc to sway public opinion because they can't change the facts (which are NOT with them).

you're just a tool hum.

Maybe you can quote us the actual expenditures?? If you can't you are the tool.

Millions versus billions.

supamark wrote:

soooo, people say "follow the money" in regard to the scientists (who aren't making money off of it)

Perhaps in SupamarkWorld, climatologists don't get their salaries from grants, plus consultant and speaking fees, all based on their support of the dogma of Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmism.

Perhaps in SupamarkWorld, politicians don't get attention, support, and control of the taxation feeding trough by demagoguery, by getting people alarmed and upset over the supposed dangers of the "catastrophe" of global warming climate change.

But in the real world, they do.

Following the money most definitely points to the confluence of interests which promote CAGW alarmism.

---

Follow the money is pretty much a universal truth. In some cses it may not be cash. No matter what the issue is if you find out who benefits things tend to look a lot less black and white.

---

hum wrote:

Maybe you can quote us the actual expenditures?? If you can't you are the tool.

Millions versus billions.

lol, millions for the scientists, billions from oil/gas.... right?

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/20...

cognitive dissonance much?

Lensman wrote:

supamark wrote:

soooo, people say "follow the money" in regard to the scientists (who aren't making money off of it)

Perhaps in SupamarkWorld, climatologists don't get their salaries from grants, plus consultant and speaking fees, all based on their support of the dogma of Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmism.

Perhaps in SupamarkWorld, politicians don't get attention, support, and control of the taxation feeding trough by demagoguery, by getting people alarmed and upset over the supposed dangers of the "catastrophe" of global warming climate change.

But in the real world, they do.

Following the money most definitely points to the confluence of interests which promote CAGW alarmism.

how much are you getting paid to spout this nonsense again?

yeah, when I see climate scientists driving around in Bentleys we'll talk...

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary. are you really that stupid to think climate scientists are getting rich? you don't have a clue how scientific research works apparently.

btw, the real money is in inventing things for market (if your university contract allows you to keep your IP that is).

Lensman wrote:

Where there should not be a consensus is in claiming that this gradual warming trend will cause a cascade disaster making much or most of the Earth unlivable in the near future.

There can be no consensus this will happen, or that it won't. The possibility of danger mucking around with the atmosphere is real. This is not a chemisty experiment where you can evacuate the building if it goes wrong.

As you are fond of saying, climate modelling is not that good. It never could be because once you leave the current metastasis we know even less about what feedbacks, positive or negative, come into play.

In fact, there is growing evidence of warming and cooling trends of similar magnitude in, geologically speaking, the relatively recent past. There is no evidence that any such cascade disaster has occurred due to temperature swings of similar magnitude. In fact, I don't think it's overstating the case to say the historical and archaeological record proves that such mild temperature swings don't cause any cascade effect.

We don't know Lens. There is no comparable disturbance of the atmosphere (much higher CO2 levels) for a very long time. When CO2 was higher the ecosphere was very different.

No certainty here.

ee-tom wrote:

I don't expect, Lens, that you will see the contradiction there. A bit too subtle.

And I expect you will continue to post sneeringly condescending posts suggesting that even the most intelligent people on this forum are incapable of grasping your arguments.

I have never suggested that the most intelligent people on this forum are incapable of grasping my arguments. Certainly not on this thread.

---

supamark wrote:

lol, millions for the scientists, billions from oil/gas.... right?

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/20...

cognitive dissonance much?

So, your argument is that we should believe the CAGW dogma spouted by "climatologists" because their salaries are generally smaller than oil company executive salaries?

Sure. Just like we should believe Bigfoot hunters and flying saucer cultists because they generally don't get paid much for their investigations.

---

I see the Wall Street Journal Article (News Corp. what a surprise) thinks that by repeating this:

WSJ wrote:

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth.

they will convince us that since Co2 is colourless and odourless and plants love it then it can't be causing warming.

Why do deniers insist on repeating this crap if not to misdirect the debate?

Then there's this:

Claude Allegre (former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris) has been caught both misrepresenting and making up data and has, from what I can tell, lost all credibility as a scientist within the scientific community. He’s also a very old white man.

The WSJ (News Corp) article is starting to loose credibility already didn't take long.

There's plenty more here

http://brutishandshort.com/2012/01/27/shock-new...

with links to the referenced sources.

Just warming up

William Happer

Before signing off though, Happer made his biggest splash as a anthropogenic climate change “skeptic” (not that it really matters whether or not we’re causing it if it’s happening,which it fucking is) pushing a petition that the American Physical Society (APS) soften its stated affirmative position on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Here’s how that worked out:

Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of theAmerican Physical Society‘s 47,000 members signed on.

It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popularand electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.

Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same.

And a nice chart to go with the quote above

plain to see no moving baselines here

supamark wrote:

are you really that stupid...

Apparently you're talking to yourself.

supamark wrote:

...to think climate scientists are getting rich? you don't have a clue how scientific research works apparently.

The question isn't whether these anti-scientists' salaries are high or low, but rather whether or not they are dependent on toeing the line of the CAGW alarmism dogma.

I remember when the movie "Jurassic Park" came out, and there were some suggesting that a small portion of the profits from the movie should go to paleontology. At that time, it was said that a million dollars was more than the total of annual grants for all paleontologists worldwide.

Is climatology as a whole supported by such a paltry annual sum? I'd guess not. In general, pure science doesn't get much funding. But I would guess the CAGW alarmist "climatologists", as a whole, get a lot more than most fields do, because of how successful their alarmist propaganda has been.

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 ) induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards.

--Dr. William Gray, leading hurricane expert

However, I doubt money is the main motive of the anti-scientists. I think it's more of a motive for the politicians involved in, for instance, the IPCC. For the anti-scientists, it seems to be much more a pseudo-religion than any profit motive.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

But nice attempt to drag the discussion off-topic, Supamark.

Last edited Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 12:04am by Lensman

---

Nobody_ wrote:

they will convince us that since Co2 is colourless and odourless and plants love it then it can't be causing warming.

No, just that it shouldn't be called "pollution" merely because it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

The total greenhouse effect on the Earth's surface is about 33°C. Even if you believe the current slight warming trend is mainly due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere, that does not magically transform the gas from a naturally occurring atmospheric gas to "pollution".

---

Lensman wrote:

Nobody_ wrote:

they will convince us that since Co2 is colourless and odourless and plants love it then it can't be causing warming.

No, just that it shouldn't be called "pollution" merely because it contributes to the greenhouse effect.

The total greenhouse effect on the Earth's surface is about 33°C. Even if you believe the current slight warming trend is mainly due to additional CO2 in the atmosphere, that does not magically transform the gas from a naturally occurring atmospheric gas to "pollution".

I also don't really like the word pollution being used to describe C02, however in the context of being an unnatural increase in levels due to human activities then it probably would fit the strict definition of pollution.

I believe not calling CO2 a pollutant would have been more productive right from the beginning however that's not going be happening now. I however will be more than happy to just call CO2 a GHG which it is.

(No don't bother with the Wiki. I doubt that will take us any further)

This is much better than "colourless odourless plant food gas" AND "pollution".

lens wrote:

The total greenhouse effect on the Earth's surface is about 33°C.

so GHG it is then.

[EDIT]And while were clearing this up we can also say that those who say that GHG (Co2 included) are irrelevant because it is only PPM ("just a trace amount" etc) of the atmosphere are talking crap as even you agree that the existing GHG's are responsible for 33 degrees of the planets existing temperature.[/EDIT]

Last edited Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 12:21am by EricOlthwaite

Nobody_ wrote:

I however will be more than happy to just call CO2 a GHG which it is.

(No don't bother with the Wiki. I doubt that will take us any further)

Agreed, it won't. Quoting Wiki is useful when arguing with a fugghead-- which you, sir, are not-- who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about but thinks he does. But generally, I think if someone has to resort to quoting the dictionary or a Wiki definition, then it's a pretty good indication the conversation/debate has ceased to be meaningful.

However, I think you're being disingenuous when you claim that the letter in question has no import because it's signed by "only" 16 scientists and top engineers. Scientists are generally a pretty contentious lot, and it's my impression that it's rather unusual to see that many experts in any field of science sign such a lengthy statement.

Now, if you could demonstrate that all or nearly all of the other 99+% climatologists in the entire world signed a letter stating "These guys are stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins!", then I'd be more impressed.

---

Lensman wrote:

Nobody_ wrote:

I however will be more than happy to just call CO2 a GHG which it is.

(No don't bother with the Wiki. I doubt that will take us any further)

Agreed, it won't. Quoting Wiki is useful when arguing with a fugghead-- which you, sir, are not-- who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about but thinks he does. But generally, I think if someone has to resort to quoting the dictionary or a Wiki definition, then it's a pretty good indication the conversation/debate has ceased to be meaningful.

However, I think you're being disingenuous when you claim that the letter in question has no import because it's signed by "only" 16 scientists and top engineers. Scientists are generally a pretty contentious lot, and it's my impression that it's rather unusual to see that many experts in any field of science sign such a lengthy statement.

Now, if you could demonstrate that all or nearly all of the other 99+% climatologists in the entire world signed a letter stating "These guys are stuffed full of wild blueberry muffins!", then I'd be more impressed.

I left these guys out from my previous posts:

Jan Breslow is a medical doctor who’s done genetics research, but has no apparent expertise or training in climate science. Count one more really old white man (that’s three now).

Roger Cohen is a recent retiree of the Exxon Mobile Research and Engineering Company Company, which clearly suggests impartiality on this issue. (He’s also old, male and white.)

Edward David is even fucking older (can’t say whether or not he’s particularly whiter or /more/ manly). “ In 1977, he became President of Research and Engineering for Exxon Corporation, serving until 1985.”

Finding a reputable climate scientist amongst this lot doesn't look promising. Perhaps one of the others is a young and pretty Pakistani or African female climate scientist that has never even seen oil.

If the signatories are a random bunch, then does the "APS Membership" graph above have any relevance?

Burt Rutan, the noted aerospace engineer, is no climatologist, but has written an analysis of the subject concentrating on how well climatologists have analyzed the evidence-- or rather, how poor their scientific procedure is. Just because he's not a climatologist doesn't mean he can't make valid observations about the field.

CAGW alarmists have tried to dismiss the analysis of Bjørn Lomborg, too, on the basis that he's an economist and not a climatologist. But his "Are We Doing the Right Thing?" analysis still makes valid and significant points.

However, if someone has been paid a salary or consulting fees by an "energy company" (i.e., Big Oil and their associates), then in most cases I think that's a legitimate reason to discount their opinion on the subject.

---

supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary.

Their job security depends on their grant-grabbing ability you moron. No grants -> no contract.
So if some elected politician decides to have money for corn-ethanol you better have a proposal for that even if you know damn well that corn-ethanol is bullshit.

Last edited Sat, 28 Jan 2012, 1:25am by Y_Po

---

Lensman wrote:

Burt Rutan, the noted aerospace engineer, is no climatologist, but has written an analysis of the subject concentrating on how well climatologists have analyzed the evidence-- or rather, how poor their scientific procedure is. Just because he's not a climatologist doesn't mean he can't make valid observations about the field.

Except his analysis was posted here, and it was nonsense.

Lensman wrote:

CAGW alarmists have tried to dismiss the analysis of Bjørn Lomborg, too, on the basis that he's an economist and not a climatologist. But his "Are We Doing the Right Thing?" analysis still makes valid and significant points.

Agreed. I never understood the antipathy towards him.

As to whether AGW will be catastrophic, I would guess not, at least not as I would define catastrophic. Catastrophic to some individuals, sure, but a lack of global warming will also be catastrophic to some individuals. I wish I could be sure about it not being catastrophic to us as a species, though. In any case, it does look like it will be expensive, and I think switching to LFTRs or IFRs instead of coal, and reducing the oil used in transportation, will save money in the long run.

---

Y_Po wrote:

supamark wrote:

btw, they're mostly PhD's and MS's and make what others with their education working in research make (about 100K/year as a prof at a research university for example). the research grants pay for doing the research and hiring assistants (usually college students at univerisities), not their salary.

Their job security depends on their grant-grabbing ability you moron. No grants -> no contract.
So if some elected politician decides to have money for corn-ethanol you better have a proposal for that even if you know damn well that corn-ethanol is bullshit.

Y_Po is right and there is always monetary pressure to endorse this or study that. There would be a much larger anti-AGW crowd if money to dispute it was the key. There is lots of money out there to argue against AGW and still 99% say no. So even the grant sluts are mostly passing on Oil financed studies. Because they know it's a bullshit.

The AGW mainstream is also guilty of overstating their case and leaving wiggle room for the anti-AGW crowd.

---