Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise


#261

Please read the article. It wasn't a poll. It has nothing to do with IPCC appointees. It was a review of the publications of 1,372 climate scientsts. The findings of the NASUSA are simply that 97-98% of the world's climate scientists are in agreement with the IPCC's conclusions that most of recent global warming is man-made. I'm curious, what would trigger you to act? 100% consensus?

Once again, please read the article. The materials and methods, including the selection process are explained in detail. The selection process was scientific and not political.

.

Fred, do you have any specific objections to their selection methods? If not, do you recognize the validity of their conclusion that 97-98% of the world's active climate scientists support the basic tenets of the IPCC, i.e., that global warming is primarily caused by man?

Yes, but when it happened in the past, there were planetological and/or astronomical causes. But there aren't any natural phenonema to explain the recent increase in temperatures other than human activities.

Many of the solutions to climate change will help solve other environmental problems. Developing cleaner, more efficient energy sources that are renewable will help reduce greenhouse gases and air, water, and soil pollution. There's a lot of synergy across proposed solutions to various environmental issues. I don't think it's a coincidence that efforts to reduce carbon emissions are strongest where pollution is the worst: China. China's efforts at greenification are outpacing those of the United States and Western Europe. Not because they love polar bears (maybe to eat?), but out of rational self-interest. Rampant pollution is literally killing them, and they've set aggressive carbon emission reduction goals to 1. save costs in the long run (despite short term cuts) and 2. reduce pollution. It's a happy coincidence that their efforts will help reduce the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.

It makes sense that development provides more funds to address environmental problems. But I don't think we can completely grow ourselves out of it. That's not realistic, and it is a bit ironic coming from someone who constantly accuses his opponents of idealism. :slight_smile: One problem is the loss of habitat in Central and South America accompanying industrialization there. The loss of broad-leafed rainforests reduces the world's supply of oxygen and pharmaceutical materials, and increases the amount of harmful carbon. How can Brazil and other countries "grow" out of that?

The Kyoto Protocols failed because of the lack of political will. The absence of American participation doesn't help but that's not the whole story. You keep insisting that nothing can be done, no solution will work, etc. I don't believe that's true. With enough determination, anything is possible. You naysayers aren't helping matters with your constant negativity and oppositionism. :raspberry:


#262

Much of China's push into clean energy is due to the need to conserve water. They are literally coming up against the absolute limits of water supply. How this relates to energy is interesting: most of China's energy is produced by coal but coal productions requires a lot of water. In China, coal is in the dry northwest, and water in the south. Even with plans to divert rivers 2000km to the north there is still going to be a shortage. China needs to move toward clean energy because it has no choice.

In the next decade, China is going to add as much capacity as exists in the US today in total (about 900GW). The majority will be coal generated but that begins to change after 2020. Even now there is a massive push into solar and wind, with more capacity added each year than the grid can handle. So there is concurrently a $750 billion grid upgrade in the works to enable China to utilize wind and solar.

With each decade that passes more and more energy will come from clean sources: hydro, wind, solar, biomass and yes, nuclear. I think by 2050 the plan is to have at least half of all energy come from non fossil-fuel sources, and the percentage to grow quickly after that.

Seems entirely feasible. Your own Department of Energy just released a report they had commissioned on how much energy the US could generate from clean sources by 2050 using current technology. Answer: 80%.


#263

This is new but there was a very similar research effort led by Oreskes, which was attacked by Peisner. Suffice it to say, after the exchange, that Berkleyite whose online name escapes me, is no longer here posting anything, and I continue to post away... tale between legs would be how one could describe the earlier exchange. Wanna go there?

Also, just so that I can clearly understand your citation, would you please spell out for me once again the AVERAGE number of citations of each of these "experts." I just want to be sure that both of us understand the framework before I start addressing your many valid (to be fair) points.


#264

so, it has happened before and the world did not end. Why worry so much this time?

Ummm no not exactly. Real pollution was a problem and required a real effort. We created a number of agencies from the EPA down to control these emissions. Problem is that mission creep went into hyperdrive. The new solutions require vastly more expensive solutions and the goal post (hahah remember how you started out with that complaint) keeps getting moved ever farther to justify the continued existence of our environmentalist bureaucrat class.

Yes, the rain forest... stifling yawn... and the peoples (always with an "s" of course) therein um... yawn... cannot fight back zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Gosh... even when completely out of power... we naysayers... continue to control the scenario? and you have lauded Chinese efforts to the sky (get it? haha) so why are the Chinese not interested in signing onto Kyoto type Treaties? Hmmm? Cannot have your cake and eat it too... or rather cannot blow hot air and reduce CO2 at the same time, eh?


#265

Focusing only on cost, Fred, the main reason any solutions will cost so much is because you and the politicians you support have constantly gotten in the way of any proposed solutions or attempts at mitigation. If action had have been taken 15 or so years ago when the science started moving out of the realm of possibility and into provability, then the cost now would be so much less. The longer the delay, the more it'll cost. The people who bear the main responsibility for high costs now are the GOP and their political machine, and their associates in other countries, and the energy lobby.

It's like a smoker with some pain when they breathe who ignores the pain and pretend the cigarettes aren't responsible. Take action to quit and get medical help when it's first noticed and there's a very high chance that any damaged can be arrested and minimized without costing too much. Go on smoking for another 2 decades and only costly solutions are available to treat the smoker's lung cancer.

You talk about the politicization of the issue but that's ALL your side as done. And you wonder why people get political in their response. :unamused:


#266

Really? We are not holding up the process in Japan, China, Canada, Europe.... and yet... they are all backing out of originally agreed upon commitments. AND AGAIN Kyoto, itself promised almost nothing under the best conditions while costing a great deal. That is a cost that seems to be never discussed.

Is this where I continue to nail the liberal messiah to the cross while stating that upon me and my children and my children's children be the Earth Mother's blood? Okay, where are the nails.

Yeah... we have heard about the denial of smoking causing cancer by doctors and cigarette lobbies except that way before these came along everyone already knew the dangers of smoking. That is why they were called coffin nails back in the 1800s. And what is it with climate change alarmists and anthropomorphizing the earth and its "ills?"

so all those conferences, all those papers, all those urgent activities and you have nothing to show for it and the reason you don't is all because of people like me? How laughably pathetic you all must be.


#267

Yeah, I want to go there. Your comparison to another study is a red herring, and I'm sure you know that. If you want to contest the methodology, please do so. Otherwise, admit you're wrong and recognize the validity of their conclusions.

Please read the article. :slight_smile:


#268

Please specifically tell me what the average number of citations as in papers was per person. I want to hear you tell me this.

Guess that I am used to arguing with Big John. I am just trying to establish definitions and frameworks before answering... wonder why :unamused: Not directed at Gaobohan by the way...


#269

More weasel words: you are the one who has trouble with frameworks, confusing social democracy with socialism and environmentalism with communism!

Why are you asking Gao Bohan for such detailed information? You are the one who made poorly thought out remarks about the selection process for climate scientists being political. GB politely responded with some useful information about it, and now you are insisting he provide even more detailed information. Your polite tone - for now - doesn't hide the weasely-ness of your tactics.

Fred: If you have a criticism of the selection process for climate scientists in the survey on how they feel about IPCC conclusions, then the onus is on YOU to come up with some valid evidence or a compelling argument to support it.


#270

Cute. Would you like in your own words to describe the difference between social democracy and socialism particularly as it refers to health care systems?

Because I have read and debated a similar study by one Oreskes before. This appears similar. Also, I have several criticisms of this one but would like to clarify a few things first.

For you to call anyone weasely (cough cough) is most amusing. I am supremely amused. I think that Gaobohan and I can have a conversation very well without you trying to defend his positions or attack mine.

How interesting that you are suddenly interested in having anyone take responsibility for their statements... I would continue this conversation but I know where it will end.

In the meantime, perhaps you would not mind butting out and letting the adults here have a conversation? We find your twirls and cartwheels and look at me antics most tiring. Now, while one might have to put up with this in the kindergarten where one teaches, at least one can rationalize the irritation by observing that one is getting paid. Neither GBH nor I have the luxury of such comforts.


#271

Well, that wouldn't include you.

As to your question about Socialism vs. social democracy and the health care system: What has that got to do with the Global Warming debate? That was the other thread, Fred.

Anyway, if you want to talk just with GB or others for a few rounds then go ahead. But don't make references to me in your posts if you don't want me to be involved.


#272

I already told you. You're not even reading the quotes I'm providing from the article. Once again:

The answer is 20 citations, though it's a minimum the authors imposed to even consider someone a climate researcher, not an average, which is likely to be higher (but cannot be below 20 because that was the minimum).

I think that a minimum of 20 climate publications is more than fair. It's clear to me that the authors wanted to limit the dataset to active researchers with a lot of experience. Most academics I know only publish 1-2 articles a year, which means the climate researchers cited in the artlce probably have 10-20 years experience. I'm speculating on that last point of course, but the point is that the authors have set a high bar to even be included in the study. Note that this also means the 2-3% of climate researchers who do not accept the mainstream anthropogenic climate change (ACC) theory are also fully qualified scientists with lots of experience and publications under their belts. Not political hacks. Not cronies of the oil the companies. Scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But, they're at most 3% of their field.

As previously stated, I think that when 97% of the world's climate scientists believe that we're the primary reason for the past century's global warming, we should take action. I agree with you that climate change is just one of many different environmental concerns. We disagree on the order of priority, but in reality that's irrelevant because there is a lot of synergy provided by the best solutions. All of us benefit from cleaner energy. All of us benefit from efficient methods of producing energy that can also recycle waste byproducts. All of us benefit from transitioning from depletable fossils fuels to renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and water. Whether the reduction of carbon emissions is the primary reason for making these changes or just a nice-to-have, doesn't matter. Perhaps I am being idealistic, but I maintain that good stewardship of our planet is something that benefits everyone more than it hurts them (loss of coal-mining jobs, etc.). I still believe that this is one issue on which people can and should stand united.


#273

No, it is not. That is not the average.

Correct. That is the minimum.

MOST academics that you know publish ONLY 1-2 articles per year. So, if I published an average of 2 for 10 years, I would have 20. If I published an average of one per year for 20, I would have 20. Yes? Now, most researchers in their assistant phase will be very lucky indeed to get their names on papers, would you agree?

Yes, this is exactly the conversation that I wanted to have. So a minimum of 20 would already be setting a very high benchmark indeed, wouldn't you agree?

Well, 97% of those who were included in this study with whatever parameters agreed with that assessment. That is really what you are saying, isn't it?

Can be but not if the costs far outweigh any of the synergies, wouldn't you agree?

Surely, not ALL of us? :slight_smile:

Again, I would suggest that high costs for minimum improvement is not the benefit that it is cracked up to be. Witness EPA efforts to clean air and water in US in early stages and now. Where was the biggest cost to benefit ratio? and why?

No, all of us do not and those of us who benefit might need to examine whether there were other beneficials that may have benefited us more, right?

Here, I agree but not for the reasons you might suspect. It really does not matter what the "reason" is for the "forced behavioral change" to achieve the "benefit that is to be attained," correct?

Again, it depends. I would look better with 20 fewer pounds. Would it benefit society $50,000 to enable me to have liposuction? so that I feel better about myself and thus make society one person happier at least for the short term? Many would benefit from free vacations to warmer climates in the winter. Sending them there would save on heating costs but might add air conditioning and transport costs with attendant CO2 emissions saved vs. those that might be increased subject to debate. The short of it is that you want to look only at the benefits and argue that the costs don't matter because everyone will benefit so that will be beneficial. You would not allow a discussion of health care and attendant costs to be built on such nebulous frameworks. What is it about the environment that makes you go all soft? Serious question.

and then a nasty aside to Big John about x y or z... mutant... midget... etc. etc. social democracy... etc....etc...


#274

GRRRRR!!!! Flouncing....prancing....rabid anti-com...delusional.... :fume:


#275

And back on topic once again, for now at least!

An interesting article on Global Warming and droughts, using a statistical approach:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html

Comments?


#276

So Hansen chooses a period of global cooling to use as a benchmark for the SHOCKING heat and droughts that are affecting ONLY the US and we are constantly told that we cannot look at one regions when it is cooling but we sure can when it is hotter, right?

Now, why do you think that Hansen did not including the period from oh the 1930s? We certainly had temperature readings from then as well. Why start from the 1950s? Hmmm... difficult question... sorta kinda like why the heating records always date from 1979-1982 and that is MIRACULOUSLY when his time comparison ends... as a scientist there is certainly no fiddling with figures here... move on ... nothing to see...

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

And just a reminder again about the costs of "action." And even more important what all that "action" will "achieve."

Shifting production to China? And then demanding that China do more to cut CO2 emissions? Why that cannot be right... surely, the Europeans are far too enlightened for such behavior :slight_smile:

But at least it keeps all the self-important NGOs in clover... and that is green... so therefore it is good :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

As to all of the solar and other renewable energy so beloved and admired and adored by some of our other posters on this forum... oh dear... not what the desired outcome should be either...


#277

Why should anyone place any more stock in an economic model than they do a scientific model? By its very nature, a economic model should contain more guesswork and assumptions than a scientific model. And yet despite numerous scientific models providing predictions and data confirming global warming, you constantly find something that makes you disbelieve them. So why should anyone believe the results of your economic model? Are these models described in peer-review journals so that any other economist can repeat the same model and experiment with the exact same data?

And while $180 billion sounds a lot, it's only 10% of the military budget of the top 15 military spending countries.


#278

Good point.

Depends on the scientific model. Those on climate change are er nebulous at best... blackholes at worst.

I guess that depends on whether you use only the ones that prove your point. There are numerous ones that disprove or question the findings of the many ever being finetuned models. Why not use them as well? So we are back to economic forecasting and I agree with you. Both are useful to some extent but absolutely incapable of making accurate predictions and the more the models, the more likely that one will prove correct much as lightning will eventually strike some place.

Don't believe my model and thanks for agreeing with me that all models in economics but even more so in climate change are not worth the paper that they are printed? modeled? scribed on?

so since we are already wasting money on the military, why not waste even more on climate change? Sounds like the most sensible argument that you have ever made. Except that some military spending will actually result in some good while almost no spending on climate change will actually lead to anything at all and even the most avid and rabid defenders of the same will admit that. Now, you do realize that the economic costs of Kyoto as above were actually provided by the defenders of said Treaty? So I guess we can double down on our contempt? You suggested it. I am merely finding much on which to agree with you. You go girl!


#279

Links/source?


#280

Leaving nature alone costs nothing. Nature takes care of itself.