Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

Regardless of on which side of the issue you reside, Steven Hayward makes a valid point in his PowerLine post, this morning.

80 BY 50: WHY CLIMATE SCIENCE DOESN’T MATTER ANY MORE

He does make a VERY valid point concerning our overall ability to cut emissions at that time scale.

I don't think such a scale of cuts is possible either.

That is why I generally go for far more realistic goals.

BUT

Just because we can't cut by 80% doesn't mean that we can't level off or even decline a bit with efficiency, and some sensible steps towards less carbon intensive energy sources.

Are you against doing anything at all?

[Yonivore]

He does make a VERY valid point concerning our overall ability to cut emissions at that time scale.

I don't think such a scale of cuts is possible either.

That is why I generally go for far more realistic goals.

BUT

Just because we can't cut by 80% doesn't mean that we can't level off or even decline a bit with efficiency, and some sensible steps towards less carbon intensive energy sources.

What you fail to allow is that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change alarmists claim that, unless we do reduce our emissions by 80% (and, in the case of the Al Gore scale nut, by 90-95%), we're doomed. Game over. We're ed.

It seems they've overplayed their hand.

Are you against doing anything at all?

First of all, you'd have to convince me we can appreciably affect global climate, at all. Then second, you'd have to advance a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't put us all on the plane of Somalia in trying to achieve that affect -- however small or big it would be.

No, I'm not in favor of spending Trillions over the next few decades to have a negligible affect on climate.

I'd rather spend that money working on technologies that will allow us to mitigate the affects of any climate change that does occur.

[RandomGuy]

What you fail to allow is that Anthropogenic Global Climate Change alarmists claim that, unless we do reduce our emissions by 80% (and, in the case of the Al Gore scale nut, by 90-95%), we're doomed. Game over. We're ed.

It seems they've overplayed their hand.

First of all, you'd have to convince me we can appreciably affect global climate, at all. Then second, you'd have to advance a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't put us all on the plane of Somalia in trying to achieve that affect -- however small or big it would be..

??

I actually do allow and acknowledge the figure. I said as much, and think it is not possible to achieve it.

I think a great deal of risk mitigation can be had by more modest, realistic goals, as I said.

Since I am not advocating for such a reduction, do not expect me to flesh it out.

I think it is entirely unreasonable to assume that shifting our energy usage to forms of energy which do not deplete, and do not have to be imported would help our economy in the long run. Do you disagree?

No, I'm not in favor of spending Trillions over the next few decades to have a negligible affect on climate.

I'd rather spend that money working on technologies that will allow us to mitigate the affects of any climate change that does occur

Total US GDP over the next 30 years, assuming 2.5% growth rate:
570Tr

2Tr/570Tr = 0.35%

2Tr/30 = 66bn

Not altogether unreasonable, IMO.

The function of the money would be to mitigate risks. Again, not altogether unreasonable, given the uncertainties involved.

[RandomGuy]

First of all, you'd have to convince me we can appreciably affect global climate, at all.

The problem with this is that by the time the data is in, the experiment is run and if it is bad, it is too late.

We have some indication that we are starting to affect things now. The only question iseems to be how much.

This is pretty much the same as drinking something that your drunk buddy just handed you without knowing what it is, and THEN asking what was in it.

Conservative risk management dictates that until we have better data, mitigating potential affects is the prudent thing to do.

I do not liberally accept that much risk generally.

[Yonivore]

??

I actually do allow and acknowledge the figure. I said as much, and think it is not possible to achieve it.

I think a great deal of risk mitigation can be had by more modest, realistic goals, as I said.

Since I am not advocating for such a reduction, do not expect me to flesh it out.

I think it is entirely unreasonable to assume that shifting our energy usage to forms of energy which do not deplete, and do not have to be imported would help our economy in the long run. Do you disagree?

To repeat myself, what you don't allow is that the alarmists (many of whom have informed this entire debate through the IPCC -- along with Nobel Winner Al Gore) claim we are ing doomed unless we meet those goals.

[Yonivore]

The problem with this is that by the time the data is in, the experiment is run and if it is bad, it is too late.

We have some indication that we are starting to affect things now. The only question iseems to be how much.

What you have is an indication the climate isn't performing as predicted -- there's absolutely no evidence anything we've done has resulted in the unexpected moderation of the climate.

This is pretty much the same as drinking something that your drunk buddy just handed you without knowing what it is, and THEN asking what was in it.

Conservative risk management dictates that until we have better data, mitigating potential affects is the prudent thing to do.

I can say, there is little to zero evidence humans have an appreciable affect on the global climate. And, to top it off, those who claim we do, have a credibility sullied by scandal, lies, and obfuscation over the course of this entire cluster of the past couple decades.

I do not liberally accept that much risk generally.

I don't listen to Henny Pennies, either.

[DarrinS]

Good post by Yoni.


A much scarier scenario than anything Al Gore's studios could dream up is what would happen if oil ran out.


See National Geographic's:

Aftermath: World Without Oil

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now were backed to Al Gore says this, defend him?

Spare me the pigeonhole please.

[MannyIsGod]

What you have is an indication the climate isn't performing as predicted -- there's absolutely no evidence anything we've done has resulted in the unexpected moderation of the climate.


I can say, there is little to zero evidence humans have an appreciable affect on the global climate. And, to top it off, those who claim we do, have a credibility sullied by scandal, lies, and obfuscation over the course of this entire cluster of the past couple decades.


I don't listen to Henny Pennies, either.

Lololololololol

[Agloco]

What you have is an indication the climate isn't performing as predicted -- there's absolutely no evidence anything we've done has resulted in the unexpected moderation of the climate.


I can say, there is little to zero evidence humans have an appreciable affect on the global climate. And, to top it off, those who claim we do, have a credibility sullied by scandal, lies, and obfuscation over the course of this entire cluster of the past couple decades.


I don't listen to Henny Pennies, either.

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/clim...308-1unan.html

[Wild Cobra]

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/clim...308-1unan.html

I see.

The very small 3.3 mm per year is cause by AGW climate changes? can you back that up? We know that somewhere in the neighborhood of half the rise in sea level is from thermal expansion. Ocean movement changes also affect sea level.

I'll bet there is more going on at this location, like maybe the sea bottom actually changing depth from normal tectonic actions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these islands are getting far more than an average 3.3 mm/year of sea level rise relative to them. I read someplace in a search it was 4.3 mm/year.

These Islands simply are too low and some are the remains of coral that obviously have been submerged in the past.

Is it your conclusion this sea level change is unnatural?

[RandomGuy]

To repeat myself, what you don't allow is that the alarmists (many of whom have informed this entire debate through the IPCC -- along with Nobel Winner Al Gore) claim we are ing doomed unless we meet those goals.

What you don't allow is that the deniers (many of whom have informed the entire debate through blogs) claim that any action at all will doom our economy.

Deniers who don't want us to do anything have yet to provide any reasonable level of proof that lowing the CO2 intensitivity of our economy will have any real long term damage.

If you have scientists telling you "we don't know for certain, but there is a chance it will be very bad", the reasonable thing would be to take some action to limit risk, right?

[RandomGuy]

What you have is an indication the climate isn't performing as predicted -- there's absolutely no evidence anything we've done has resulted in the unexpected moderation of the climate.

I can say, there is little to zero evidence humans have an appreciable affect on the global climate. And, to top it off, those who claim we do, have a credibility sullied by scandal, lies, and obfuscation over the course of this entire cluster of the past couple decades.

I don't listen to Henny Pennies, either.

Is it possible you are wrong about the evidence?

[101A]

VERY Scientific Analysis from Me Follows:

No links, just pulling this out of my own er.... brain:

WC's signature got me thinking - CO2 looks like a good thing. Plants get bigger with more CO2 - Bigger plants mean more oxygen. Better for life. OBVIOUSLY at one point in time on this planet, in fact, for a very long time, there was a lot more CO2 in the air than there is now.

Plants grew everywhere, and they grew very, very large. The planet was much more fertile than it is today; there was little, if any, tundra, or ice caps. Less water tied up in ice. Animals, in turn, ALSO grew larger; it was so long ago, it is hard to tell just how much more abundant life was on the planet than now; but we DO know the Earth supported much larger life forms than now exist.

Then something happened. Apparently, some 65 million years ago an asteroid hit our flying greenhouse, killing most everything, and ostensibly blanketing the planet in an "asteroid winter", for who nows how long - long enough to kill, and presumably bury, much of the plant life. ALL of that life getting buried tied up trillions of tons of carbon and oxygen presumably buried PERMANENTLY beneath the surface of the planet. Never again to feed the plants, or fill the lungs of animals. The Earth cooled; life became more scarce, and much more miniscule. The great abundance of life that the planet had enjoyed came to a quick, dramatic, halt.

Now we have a chance to change all of that. If we just keep punching more holes in the ground, pumping those long lost molecules out of their prehistoric resting places; we can again fill our atmosphere with life giving CO2 - the plants will grow, and so will we. The frozen, fertile lands will thaw, there will be more habitable places on earth. Siberia with FARMS! Thanks to human-kind, great wrong can be righted. We can restore the atmosphere to its correct, historical levels of Co2. We can once again make life abundant on this planet.

We just have to keep it up.

[RandomGuy]

The kicker to that is that most of the animal/fish life on the planet has adapted to the lower level that we have now.

We are acting to increase the concentrations very, very fast. Evolution happens, but there is a limit to how quickly things can adapt changes in the environment.

It isn't that there might be changes, it is the rate of the changes.

I can think of a few other things off the top of my head, such as ocean convection different than the past (think: continent shapes/position).

I dunno, I will be long dead by the time anything really really bad happens. I would like my kids not to have to deal with our generations stupid though.

We owe it to future generations not to affect processes we don't understand.

[DarrinS]

We owe it to future generations not to affect processes we don't understand.

I agree. Hopefully, no one goes nuts with geoengineering .

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-...ighlights.html


My personal favorite is wrapping Greenland with a woobie.

Honorable mention: launching trillions of lenses into space to reflect sunlight

[Wild Cobra]

I agree. Hopefully, no one goes nuts with geoengineering .

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-...ighlights.html


My personal favorite is wrapping Greenland with a woobie.

Honorable mention: launching trillions of lenses into space to reflect sunlight

LOL...

I think this is a huge scale mistake waiting to happen:

Dr. Jason Box, a glaciologist from Ohio State University, wants to prevent glaciers from melting by covering them with blankets that will reflect the powerful rays of the sun. Box is convinced that his specially chosen material is resilient enough for Arctic conditions, but just how indestructible is it really? The team goes airborne to reproduce some of the worst weather experienced in the Arctic Circle: a hurricane-force ice storm. After testing, they deploy a 10,000-square-yard, reflective geo-textile blanket on the Greenland ice sheet. Will the blanket indeed reflect the sun and block the wind?

After there is more precipitation in the form of snow, and this is covered, what good is it? Isn't it just now a piece of trash, trapped in ice, that will eventually flow into the sea?

Am I wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

I miss Global Warming. It's snowing outside my window. I wonder if we will still have snow after the equinox?

[RandomGuy]

I agree. Hopefully, no one goes nuts with geoengineering .

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-...ighlights.html


My personal favorite is wrapping Greenland with a woobie.

Honorable mention: launching trillions of lenses into space to reflect sunlight

Sooooo.... you aren't comfortable with geoengineering on a massive scale and think it is nutty, yet doubling the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and continuing to pump it out on a massive scale with little understood consequences doesn't phase you?

Do you hear the words coming out of your mouth?

[DarrinS]

Sooooo.... you aren't comfortable with geoengineering on a massive scale and think it is nutty, yet doubling the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere and continuing to pump it out on a massive scale with little understood consequences doesn't phase you?

I thought the consequences were very well understood. You mean, that part isn't settled?

[RandomGuy]

I thought the consequences were very well understood. You mean, that part isn't settled?

My reading is that the effects are fairly conclusive, the wording of the quote was shaped by what I think you advocate.

If you like, I am reasonably certain I can find a post where you criticise the "consensus" and emphasise the uncertainty in climate science to make your case, such as it is.

Why ask? Does the logical inconsistency sting a little?

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

[Wild Cobra]

Bump.

I miss Global Warming. Had to scrape my windows last night, and it snowed again over the weekend.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I miss Global Warming. Had to scrape my windows last night, and it snowed again over the weekend.

Thats about as worthwhile as talking about the weather down here in S. Texas. The aggregate data every year makes you look like a fool yet you continue with this same .

[MannyIsGod]

You know, right now I'm really learning a great deal about climate dynamics due to my current course load. Its really exciting because the knowledge I'm gaining really starts to connect the dots and give me a fuller understanding of the entire situation.

Then I read this thread, and its just sad.