>>Nations will be under great stress due to a dramatic rise in migration including displaced coastal communities as well as changes in agriculture and water availability. These stresses could lead to armed conflict between nations over dwindling resources and that includes the possibility of nuclear conflicts.

We are on track for an increase of more than two degrees around the middle of the century. The report goes on to consider a world with a five-degree increase and concludes the consequences are “inconceivable”. At the current rate of change, we should be there by 2100.<<

>>Climate change is locked in and already effecting our ability to feed ourselves. But, if world population continues to rise (and there’s no way that it won’t) we’re going to need more food from less land. I can’t see how these realities can play out in any other way than a calamity. It may not end in the extinction of our species (which is a distinct possibility if nuclear war were to break out over access to dwindling resources), but it certainly can’t end happily.

And my main concern at the moment is that no world leaders are looking at this oncoming train-wreck and planning to do something about it. There are steps we could take to at least minimise the size of the coming calamity, such as rolling out zero carbon economies and investing in agricultural research that could feed more with less. But the most common response is no response at all. Willful blindness to our current situation creates a poor vision for the future.

As Julian Cribb puts it “…humanity isn’t sleep-walking to disaster so much as racing headlong to embrace it.<<

More and well worth the read:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/04/23/3990450.htm

>>>More and well worth the read:<<<

yeh, if ya enjoy fiction

Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry has recently posted a number of sharply worded essays providing stinging critical rebukes of assertions of climate harm by alarmists derived from biased and highly selective reading of the UN IPCC AR5 reports.

In an April 21 posting she says the following regarding the so called ‘facts’ cited by climate alarmists to try to make a case for man made climate harm:

“With regards to climate science, the biggest concern that I have is the insistence on ‘the facts.’ This came up during my recent ‘debate’ with Kevin Trenberth. I argued that there are very few facts in all this, and that most of what passes for facts in the public debate on climate change is: inference from incomplete, inadequate and ambiguous observations; climate models that have been demonstrated not to be useful for most of the applications that they are used for; and theories and hypotheses that are competing with alternative theories and hypotheses.
I particularly like Dyson’s clarification on facts vs theories:
Facts and theories are born in different ways and are judged by different standards. Facts are supposed to be true or false. They are discovered by observers or experimenters. A scientist who claims to have discovered a fact that turns out to be wrong is judged harshly.

Theories have an entirely different status. Since our understanding is incomplete, theories are provisional. Theories are tools of understanding, and a tool does not need to be precisely true in order to be useful. A scientist who invents a theory that turns out to be wrong is judged leniently. Mistakes are tolerated, so long as the culprit is willing to correct them when nature proves them wrong.

The loose use of ‘the facts’ in the public discussion of climate change (scientists, the media, politicians) is enormously misleading, damaging to science, and misleading to policy deliberations.

I would also like to comment on the ‘good loser’ issue. I wholeheartedly agree with Dyson. In the annals of climate science, how would you characterize Mann’s defense of the hockey stick? Other good or bad losers that you can think of in climate science? The biggest problem is premature declaration of ‘winners’ by consensus to suit political and policy maker objectives.”

In these remarkable essay’s Dr. Curry demonstrates and documents the huge limitations and inadequacies of climate alarm science and the attempts of alarmists, media propagandists and ideologically driven politicians to ignore extensive contrary scientific evidence challenging man made climate harm claims, falsely condemn and demonize qualified and competent scientists peer reviewed work which exposes the huge shortcomings of alarmist climate science claims and alarmists ever increasing efforts to eliminate free speech concerning the climate science debate.

The entire assay addressing the AR5 WGI report analysis can be found here:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/

In an April 19 posting Dr Curry addresses the increasing trend of climate alarmists and their supporters
in the media to try to suffocate and eliminate free speech by attacking those who offer opposing
viewpoints, scientific analysis and alternative theories to unproven claims of man made global
warming theories. She notes the following regarding this attach by alarmists on free speech:

“I am broadly concerned about the slow death of free speech, but particularly in universities and
also with regards to the climate change debate.”

“With regards to climate change, I agree with George Brandis who is shocked by the “authoritarianism”
with which some proponents of climate change exclude alternative viewpoints.

While the skeptical climate blogosphere is alive and well in terms of discussing alternative viewpoints,
this caters primarily to an older population. I am particularly pleased to see the apparent birth of resistance
to climate change authoritarianism by younger people, as reflected by the young Austrian rapper.
Climate change ideology, and attempts to enforce it in the media, by politicians and by the cultural practices
of academia, leads us down a slippery slope:

Because the more topics you rule out of discussion — immigration, Islam, ‘gender fluidity’ — the more you
delegitimise the political system. . . A culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender
fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast. – Mark Steyn”

Dr Curry is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists who has concerns about the degree of climate change; not that climate change is happening. However over 97% of climate scientists disagree with her concerns and recognise the dire situation we currently find ourselves.

The_observer said:

>>>More and well worth the read:<<<

yeh, if ya enjoy fiction

How would you know? You obviously have not read it.

PermeateFree said:

Dr Curry is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists who has concerns about the degree of climate change; not that climate change is happening. However over 97% of climate scientists disagree with her concerns and recognise the dire situation we currently find ourselves.

According to Wikipedia:
“Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013, remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.”

so it seems her position is that the degree of uncertainty is higher than most scientists recognise.

I think she is very likely correct in that, but the problem is this doesn’t reduce the risk of bad outcomes (let alone remove the risk), it increases the risk, because the uncertainty can go either way, and there is much more scope for bad change than for good change.

>>>Dr Curry is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists who has concerns about the degree of climate change; not that climate change is happening. However over 97% of climate scientists disagree with her
<<

Oh please. You’d eat your own shit.

An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th and 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes—natural and human—on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.

• The statement of the APS Council, adopted on November 18, 2007 is as follows:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

— APS News; January 2008 (Volume 17, Number 1)

Signatories:

Harold M. Agnew
Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970-1979)
President, General Atomics Corporation (1979-1984)
White House Science Councilor (1982-1989)
E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal (with H.A. Bethe) 2001 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS, AAAS

Sol Aisenberg
President, International Technology Group
Formerly Staff Member, MIT; Lecturer, Harvard Medical School;
Visiting Research Professor, Boston University

Ralph B. Alexander
Former Associate Professor of Physics, Wayne State University
President, R.B. Alexander & Associates
Author, Global Warming False Alarm (Canterbury)

Moorad Alexanian
Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography, University of North Carolina Wilmington
Member Mexican Academy of Sciences

Louis J. Allamandola
Director, Astrochemistry Laboratory
NASA Ames Research Center
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member ACS, American Astronomical Society, International Astronomical Union

Eva Andrei
Professor of Physics, Rutgers University
Fellow APS

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS; APS Council: 1991-1994, 2007-2010
Member National Academy of Sciences, American Association of Arts and Sciences

Franco Battaglia
Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry, University of Modena, Italy
Life Member APS

David J. Benard
Aerospace Scientist (retired)
Coinventor of the Chemical OxygenIodine Laser

Lev I. Berger
President, California Institute of Electronics and Materials Science
Author, Semiconductor Materials and
Material and Device Characterization Measurements (CRC Press)

Stuart B. Berger
Research Fellow, Xerox Corporation (retired)

Ami E. Berkowitz
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California at San Diego
Fellow APS

Barry L. Berman
Columbian Professor and Chair, Physics Department, The George Washington University
Fellow APS

Edwin X. Berry
Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Physics, LLC
Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180
Member American Meteorological Society

Vladislav A. Bevc
Associate Professor, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey (retired);
Formerly Technical Staff Member, The Aerospace Corporation;
Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution (Stanford University)
Member IEEE

Clifford Bruce Bigham
Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (retired)
Senior Member APS, Sustaining Member CAP

Arie Bodek
George E. Pake Professor of Physics, University of Rochester
Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics (APS) 2004
Fellow APS

Lowell S. Brown
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Washington
Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Fellow APS, AAAS

Daniel M. Bubb
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Physics, Rutgers University-Camden

Timothy D. Calvin
President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired)
Member ACS

Gregory H. Canavan
Senior Fellow and Scientific Advisor, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Fellow APS

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Otto Schade Prize (Society for Information Display) 2006
Fellow APS

Steven R. Cranmer
Astrophysicist, HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Karen Harvey Prize (AAS) 2006
Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics
Member: American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union

Jerry M. Cuttler
President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc.
President, Canadian Nuclear Society 19951996
Fellow Canadian Nuclear Society
Member American Nuclear Society

Joseph G. Depp
Founding President and CEO, Accuray Incorporated (retired)
Founding President and CEO, PsiStar Incorporated
Life Member APS

Riccardo DeSalvo
Senior Scientist Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO)
California Institute of Technology
Member ASME

David H. Douglass
Professor of Physics, University of Rochester
Fellow APS

Paul J. Drallos
President and CEO, Plasma Dynamics Corporation (retired)

William T. Duffy Jr.
Professor Emeritus of Physics, Santa Clara University

David F. Edwards
Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired)
Formerly Los Alamos National Laboratory
Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Colorado State University
Lincoln Laboratory, MIT

Albert G. Engelhardt
President and CEO, Enfitek, Inc.
Senior Life Member IEEE

Hughen Falconer
Emeritus Professor of Geology, University of Aberdeen
Member American Geophysical Union

Jens G. Feder
Professor of Physics of Geological Processes, University of Oslo
Fellow APS

Peter D. Friedman
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Member American Geophysical Union, ASME, American Nuclear Society

Rodger L. Gamblin
Inventor, holder of 44 U.S. patents

G. Roger Gathers
Senior Scientist, M. H. Chew and Associates
Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1967-1993)
Author, Selected Topics in Shock Wave Physics and Equation of State Modeling (World Scientific Publishing)

Gary J. Gerardi
Professor, Department of Chemistry and Physics, William Paterson University

Ivar Giaever
Institute Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Nobel Prize in Physics 1973
Fellow APS, Member National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering

Albert Gold
Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences (Retired), Harvard University

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics, University of Hartford
Member Executive Board of the New England Section of the APS
Chairman (2004), New England Section APS

Paul M. Grant
EPRI Science Fellow (retired)
IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus
Senior Life Fellow APS

Howard D. Greyber
University of Pennsylvania (retired)
Formerly Princeton University, LLNL Theory Group, Northeastern University
Member American Astronomical Society, Fellow Royal Astronomical Society

Mike Gruntman
Professor of Astronautics, University of Southern California
Author, Blazing the Trail. The Early History of Spacecraft and Rocketry (AIAA)
Luigi G. Napolitano Book Award (International Academy of Astronautics) 2006
Member American Geophysical Union, Associate Fellow AIAA

George Hacken
Senior Director, SafetyCritical Systems, New York City Transit Authority
Formerly Senior Member of the Technical Staff, GECMarconi Aerospace
Chair, New York Chapter, IEEE Computer Society
Member AMS, SIAM, ANS, AIAA, New York Academy of Sciences

Sultan Hameed
Professor of Atmospheric Science, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
Stony Brook University, New York

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

Howard C. Hayden
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Editor, The Energy Advocate
Author, A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Vales Lake)

Jack M. Hollander
Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley
Vice President Emeritus, The Ohio State University
First Head, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Fellow APS, AAAS

David B. Holtkamp
Scientific Staff Member, Physics Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Helen Jackson
Physicist, U.S. Air Force, Wright Patterson Air Force Base
Member Materials Research Society, IEEE

James R. Johnson
3M Company (retired)
Member Carlton Society (3M Hall of Fame)
Member National Academy of Engineering

O’Dean Judd
LANL Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Technical Advisor and Consultant
Fellow APS, IEEE, AAAS

Andrew Kaldor
Distinguished Scientific Advisor, Manager of Breakthrough Research, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow AAAS, Member ACS

Alexander E. Kaplan
Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University
Max Born Award (Optical Society of America) 2005
Alexander von Humboldt Award (von Humboldt Foundation) 1996
Fellow OSA

Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics, Washington University

William E. Keller
Leader. Low Temperature Physics Group 1971-1985, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
Fellow APS

John M. Kennel
Autonetics Division, Boeing North American (retired)
Formerly Electronics Division, Northrop Grumman Corporation
Member AAAS, AIAA

Robert S. Knox
Professor of Physics Emeritus, University of Rochester
Member APS Council (1985-1988)
Fellow APS

Joseph A. Kunc
Professor, Physics and Astronomy, University of Southern California
Fellow APS

Robert E. LeLevier
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1951-1957)
Physics Department, RAND Corp (1957-1971)
R&D Associates (1971-1983)
Eos Technologies, Inc. (1983-1993)

Robert E. Levine
Industrial and Defense Physics and Engineering (retired)
Member ACM, IEEE

John D. Lindl
James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics (APS) 2007
Fellow APS, AAAS

Michael D. Lubin
Colonel, United States Air Force (retired)

Alfred U. MacRae
President, MacRae Technologies
Fellow APS, IEEE, Member National Academy of Engineering

Phillip W. Mange
Associate Superintendent, Space Science Division
Scientific Consultant to the Director of Research,
Naval Research Laboratory (retired)

Joseph Maserjian
Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired)

Harold Mirels
Principal Scientist, The Aerospace Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS, AIAA
Member National Academy of Engineering

Jim Mitroy
Lecturer in Physics, School of Engineering and Information Technology, Charles Darwin University, Australia

Michael Monce
Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics, Connecticut College
Member AAPT, American Geophysical Union

Nasif Nahle
Scientific Research Director
Biology Cabinet, Mexico
Member AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences

Rodney W. Nichols
President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences (1992-2001)
Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University (1970-1990)
Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Meritorious Civilian Service (1970)
Fellow AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences

Gordon C. Oehler
Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Working Group Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.
Corporate Vice President for Corporate Development, SAIC (1998-2004)
National Intelligence Officer for Science, Technology and Proliferation (1989-1992)

William P. Oliver
Professor of Physics, Tufts University
Life Member APS

Frank R. Paolini
Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut at Stamford (retired)
Senior Member APS, Member IEEE

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.
Physicist (retired)
Operations Evaluation Group, MIT
US Naval Ordnance Laboratory
Senior Member APS

Donald Rapp
Chief Technologist, Mechanical and Chemical Systems, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired)
Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979)
Author, Assessing Climate Change and Ice Ages and Interglacials (SpringerVerlag)
Fellow APS

Ned S. Rasor
Consulting Physicist
Formerly President and CEO, Rasor Associates, Inc.
Member IEEE, AIAA

John E. Rhoads
Professor of Physics, Midwestern State University (retired)
Member SPE

Harry I. Ringermacher
Sr. Research Physicist, General Electric Global Research Center
AIP “History of Physics in Industry” Participant at GE
Sir William Herschel Medal (American Academy of Thermology)
Copper Black Award (American Mensa) 2003 and 2007

Stanley Robertson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Berol Robinson
Principal Scientific Officer, UNESCO (retired)
Member AAPT, AAAS, Association des Écologistes Pour le Nucléaire

Raymond E. Sarwinski
President, Cryogenic Designs, Inc.
Life Member APS

Nicola Scafetta
Research Scientist, Physics Department, Duke University
Member American Geophysical Union

Thomas P. Sheahen
President/CEO, Western Technology, Inc.
Member AAAS; APS Congressional Science Fellowship (1977-1978)
Author, Introduction to High Temperature Superconductivity (Springer)

Joseph Silverman
Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Maryland
Fellow APS, ANS

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, American Geophysical Union

Hermann Statz
Raytheon Corporation (retired)
Microwave Pioneer Award (IEEE) 2004
Fellow APS

Nick Steph
Chair, Department of Physics, Franklin College
Member AAPT, ACS

Peter Stilbs
Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Life Member APS

Szymon Suckewer
Professor, School of Engineering & Applied Sciences, Director of Plasma Science and Technology Program, Princeton University
Fellow APS, OSA

Ronald M. Sundelin
Associate Director, DOE Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (retired) Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Physics, Virginia Tech
Fellow APS

Frank J. Tipler
Professor of Mathematical Physics, Tulane University
Coauthor, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

Salvatore Torquato
Professor of Chemistry,Princeton Center for Theoretical Science
2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of Material Physics
Fellow APS

Edward S. Troy
Principal Engineer Aerospace Consulting Wireless, RF, microwave, analog/DSP, and GPS circuits and systems
Member IEEE

Samuel A. Werner
Curators’ Professor Emeritus, The University of Missouri
Guest Researcher, NIST Fellow APS, AAAS

Bruce J. West
Adjunct Professor of Physics, Duke University
Fellow APS

Peter J. Wojtowicz
Group Head, Senior Member Technical Staff (retired), RCA Labs, GE, Sarnoff Corporation Fellow APS

YaHong Xie
Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles
Senior Member IEEE, Member Materials Research Society

M. John Yoder
Principal Physicist, The MITRE Corporation
Life Member APS

Martin V. Zombeck
Physicist, HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics (retired)
Author, Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press)
Coauthor, High Resolution XRay Spectroscopy of Cosmic Plasmas (Cambridge University Press)

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in a flawed paper by John Cook et al published in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.
The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.
“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as theIPCC defines it.”
Dr William Briggs said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.
“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1-by-brown-et-al-2008/

Our survey is consistent with that reported on Hans von Storch’s weblog in that there is a
wider diversity of views on the role of humans within the climate system than is commonly
reported. Our survey is also another
example of the suppression of attempts to poll the climate science community with respect
to their views of natural climate variability and change, and of the role of humans in the climate
system than has been communicated by the IPCC.
To my knowledge, no professional organization, such as the American Meteorological Society,
the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geosciences Union, as just three examples,
have undertaken such surveys of their membership in the preparation of their statements on climate
science. This is a very much overdue requirement for the next IPCC assessment

While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples.

A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

In 2009, eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environmental business leaders, including many physicists, asked the century-old American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading physics organization, to change its policy statement which contains such language as “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate”, and “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
Instead, the group of scientists and academic leaders urged APS to revise its statement to read: “While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both animals and plants.”

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Senator Inhofe also points out, “While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion.

In 2007, Congress appropriated $5,856,000 for NAS to complete a climate change study. The organization subsequently sold its conclusions in three separate report sections at $44 per download.
What scientific understanding breakthrough did that big taxpayer-financed budget buy? Namely that the Earth’s temperature has risen over the past 100 years, and that human activities have resulted in a steady atmospheric CO2 increase. All professional scientists recognize that correlation does not establish causation.

The_observer said:

Oh please. You’d eat your own shit.

Poor Buffy. She’ll be so disappointed.

>>>Poor Buffy. She’ll be so disappointed.<<<

give Buffy my regards

Consensus’ by exhaustion
Posted on August 8, 2012

by Judith Curry

Regarding the consensus-seeking process for the IPCC SAR:

http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/08/consensus-by-exhaustion/

Michael Crichton
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to
be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the
first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter
is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something
or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only
one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results
that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.
What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.
If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked.
Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.
Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the
consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

What is a denier?

Denies global warming? Denies climate change? Denies a human element?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Skunkworks said:

What is a denier?

Denies global warming? Denies climate change? Denies a human element?

Denies human produced emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the climate, or have the potential to change the climate.

The_observer said:

Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the
consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Although they have agreed that data gleaned from an artificial environment within the super-collider IS the Higgs Boson responsible for gravity with no more than some numbers on a read out. I find that machine decidedly questionable……….

:P

“
”
I just hate the notion of scientific consensus. Science isn’t a voting model. 1 study can disprove 1000.
—An economist who’s apparently shocked, shocked that his field is still called the “dismal science.”

Pseudoscience advocates tend to see scientific consensus as just an argument from authority (or even a conspiracy). This is a twisting of science was wrong before, the Galileo gambit and false dichotomy — that since the notion of falsifiability exists (no theory can never be fully certain) we should then ignore the mountains of literature already available.

Portraying scientific consensus as a form of majoritarian rule is hilarious for two reasons: a) the scientific community’s inherent role is to keep a check on popularly-held (either right or wrong) opinions; and b) if one study is proven correct over mainstream academic thought, it will eventually become the new consensus.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Skunkworks said:

What is a denier?

Denies global warming? Denies climate change? Denies a human element?

I prefer the term “doubter” myself, because it removes their favourite ploy of comparing themselves to persecuted groups of the past.

But the consensus amongst the doubters seems to be that they doubt the scientific evidence is sufficiently certain to require any action to reduce GHG emissions.

Which is a completely arse about face way of looking at it.

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

What is a denier?

Denies global warming? Denies climate change? Denies a human element?

Denies human produced emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the climate, or have the potential to change the climate.

No, it’s a pejorative term used by one team in the debate about how much increased co2 in the atmosphere will affect the climate.
That team says that we’ll all be rooned and will be burnt to a crisp the other team says that the effect will be minimal and swallowed up by the natural vagaries of our climate system.
That’s it, all the rest about denying the science etc is bullshit and mostly political.

Well observer, we will begin to see the radical changes soon enough. Personally I think things have gone too far to easily turn GW around now, so we shall soon see if the 97% are right or the 3%. I will not be around when things get really rough, nor do I have dependants who will be affected. My interest is not in saving humanity, but the other species that also inhabit this planet. However with people like you muddying the water and slowing any positive action that might alleviate the situation, it would seem they are going to get the sharp end of the stick too.

So I leave you to float in your little bubble where only the information you personally find acceptable is allowed to enter. If others can’t be bothered shutting up such destructive people like you, who are willing to sacrifice all for greed, stupidity and/or ideology, then they will also reap the whirlwind.

>>> What is a denier?

Denies global warming?<<<…..I, on the other hand believe that the global average temp is warmer now than at the turn of the century.

Denies climate change?<<<…. .I, on the other hand know that the earth goes through inter-glacial to glacial fluctuations

Denies a human element? <<< .I, on the other hand believe that’s a possibility

Denies human produced emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases have the potential to change the climate. <<< .I, on the other hand do not agree with that statement

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

What is a denier?

Denies global warming? Denies climate change? Denies a human element?

Denies human produced emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the climate, or have the potential to change the climate.

No, it’s a pejorative term used by one team in the debate about how much increased co2 in the atmosphere will affect the climate.
That team says that we’ll all be rooned and will be burnt to a crisp the other team says that the effect will be minimal and swallowed up by the natural vagaries of our climate system.
That’s it, all the rest about denying the science etc is bullshit and mostly political.

Yes dear.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

>>>Well observer, we will begin to see the radical changes soon enough. Personally I think things have gone too far to easily turn GW around now, so we shall soon see if the 97% are right or the 3%. I will not be around when things get really rough, nor do I have dependants who will be affected. My interest is not in saving humanity, but the other species that also inhabit this planet. However with people like you muddying the water and slowing any positive action that might alleviate the situation, it would seem they are going to get the sharp end of the stick too.

So I leave you to float in your little bubble where only the information you personally find acceptable is allowed to enter. If others can’t be bothered shutting up such destructive people like you, who are willing to sacrifice all for greed, stupidity and/or ideology, then they will also reap the whirlwind.
<<<

take the poo to the loo

The_observer said:

>>> What is a denier?

Denies global warming?<<<…..I, on the other hand believe that the global average temp is warmer now than at the turn of the century.

Denies climate change?<<<…. .I, on the other hand know that the earth goes through inter-glacial to glacial fluctuations

Denies a human element? <<< .I, on the other hand believe that’s a possibility

Denies human produced emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases have the potential to change the climate. <<< .I, on the other hand do not agree with that statement

Clarifies a lot.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

What is a denier?

Denies global warming? Denies climate change? Denies a human element?

Denies human produced emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the climate, or have the potential to change the climate.

No, it’s a pejorative term used by one team in the debate about how much increased co2 in the atmosphere will affect the climate.
That team says that we’ll all be rooned and will be burnt to a crisp the other team says that the effect will be minimal and swallowed up by the natural vagaries of our climate system.
That’s it, all the rest about denying the science etc is bullshit and mostly political.

Why don’t you just read the reference I supplied in my first post?

correction

Denies human produced emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases have the potential to change the climate. <<< .I, on the other hand do agree with that statement

>>>skepticalscience<<<

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument
then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal.

Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the
sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,.

The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms,
with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the
scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which
there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

still not doing science ehh TO. can’t even follow your own train of thoughts by the look.

The_observer said:

>>>skepticalscience<<<

In short

Skepticlescience’s (SKS) strategy is to begin with a popular sceptics argument
then counter it with what purports to be a pro-AGW scientific consensus rebuttal.

Of course there is no opportunity for the sceptic to rebut SKS’ rebuttal.
Each skeptics argument SKS initiates is couched in lay terms, making the
sceptics look ignorant & intentionally leave out references that support it,.

The AGW counter argument is couched in scientifically sophisticated terms,
with weighty references, making AGW look scientific. What is not shown are the
scientifically sophisticated sceptical responses to these AGW arguments, of which
there are a great many, also with loads of weighty references. In short the site is a one-sided sham.

Do people really take notice of you Observer? Surely they are not that stupid.

Consensus

.Create a concept & reality leaves the room

As far as I understand it, the greater concern is that by the time there is significant observable data to expose a global warming factor, there will be little to nil that can be done to reverse the trend. It is fairly obvious that the environment relies on sensitive balance. We have the means to influence the environment one way or the other and up till now we have pushed in the negative direction. I would prefer to see a future in which we conscientiously designed our activities to improve the health of the environment rather than argue about how quickly our negative and destructive behavior will leave the planet uninhabitable.

Postpocelipse said:

As far as I understand it, the greater concern is that by the time there is significant observable data to expose a global warming factor, there will be little to nil that can be done to reverse the trend. It is fairly obvious that the environment relies on sensitive balance. We have the means to influence the environment one way or the other and up till now we have pushed in the negative direction. I would prefer to see a future in which we conscientiously designed our activities to improve the health of the environment rather than argue about how quickly our negative and destructive behavior will leave the planet uninhabitable.

Well put Postpoc.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

As far as I understand it, the greater concern is that by the time there is significant observable data to expose a global warming factor, there will be little to nil that can be done to reverse the trend. It is fairly obvious that the environment relies on sensitive balance. We have the means to influence the environment one way or the other and up till now we have pushed in the negative direction. I would prefer to see a future in which we conscientiously designed our activities to improve the health of the environment rather than argue about how quickly our negative and destructive behavior will leave the planet uninhabitable.

Well put Postpoc.

And how many are seriously listening? We simply do not have the time for a common consensus.

>>>>>Postpocelipse said:

“As far as I understand it, the greater concern is that by the time there is
significant observable data to expose a global warming factor, there will
be little to nil that can be done to reverse the trend
<<<<

Excellent example of the ‘Precautionary Principal’

Of course, if the science was settled, one wouldn’t need to invoke such nonsense!

The_observer said:

>>>>>Postpocelipse said:

“As far as I understand it, the greater concern is that by the time there is
significant observable data to expose a global warming factor, there will
be little to nil that can be done to reverse the trend
<<<<

Excellent example of the ‘Precautionary Principal’

Of course, if the science was settled, one wouldn’t need to invoke such nonsense!

The science is settled Observer and just because you and a few other nutters do not agree, does not make it otherwise.

Permofile,

you either need to agree with postpoc’s statement,

or that the science is settled.

you can’ thave it both ways

it makes you look desperate

and you need to stop the name calling, and ignoring the truth that there is no consensus.

The_observer said:

and you need to stop the name calling, and ignoring the truth that there is no consensus.

From: The_observer
ID: 521704
Subject: re: Within the next 90 years
Me>>>Dr Curry is one of the less than 3% of climate scientists who has concerns about the degree of climate change; not that climate change is happening. However over 97% of climate scientists disagree with her
<<
The_observer >Oh please. You’d eat your own shit.<

From: The_observer
ID: 521734
Subject: re: Within the next 90 years
Me>>>Well observer, we will begin to see the radical changes soon enough. Personally I think things have gone too far to easily turn GW around now, so we shall soon see if the 97% are right or the 3%. I will not be around when things get really rough, nor do I have dependants who will be affected. My interest is not in saving humanity, but the other species that also inhabit this planet. However with people like you muddying the water and slowing any positive action that might alleviate the situation, it would seem they are going to get the sharp end of the stick too.
So I leave you to float in your little bubble where only the information you personally find acceptable is allowed to enter. If others can’t be bothered shutting up such destructive people like you, who are willing to sacrifice all for greed, stupidity and/or ideology, then they will also reap the whirlwind.
<<<
The_observer >take the poo to the loo<

You obviously have no empathy for anything other than yourself and shit Observer. Do you know what that makes you? Well, not only a nutter, but a “brown phycopath.”

;)))))

So just what is your objection to a “better safe than sorry” approach Observer ?

Do you like breathing smog ?

Sorry Observer, although you are probably also a brown phycopath. I really meant “brown psychopath.”

:0

rumpole said:

So just what is your objection to a “better safe than sorry” approach Observer ?

Do you like breathing smog ?

What has smog got to do with GW?

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

So just what is your objection to a “better safe than sorry” approach Observer ?

Do you like breathing smog ?

What has smog got to do with GW?

Last time I looked it was a by product of burning carbon.

rumpole said:

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

So just what is your objection to a “better safe than sorry” approach Observer ?

Do you like breathing smog ?

What has smog got to do with GW?

Last time I looked it was a by product of burning carbon.

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

jjjust moi said:

What has smog got to do with GW?

Last time I looked it was a by product of burning carbon.

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

What has, smog ? Of course. I expect it has killed more than a few people in the last century.

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

jjjust moi said:

What has smog got to do with GW?

Last time I looked it was a by product of burning carbon.

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

Since the late 19th century in London, according to a quick search.

But that’s a quibble. Smog and climate change are separate but overlapping phenomena. A reduction in smog is an added benefit of the reduction in the burning of coal required by climate change considerations.

rumpole said:

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

Last time I looked it was a by product of burning carbon.

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

What has, smog ? Of course. I expect it has killed more than a few people in the last century.

That’s a not disputed fact, but a price that is paid for modern living. Nobody wants to go without the comforts.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

Last time I looked it was a by product of burning carbon.

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

Since the late 19th century in London, according to a quick search.

But that’s a quibble. Smog and climate change are separate but overlapping phenomena. A reduction in smog is an added benefit of the reduction in the burning of coal required by climate change considerations.

Since the middle ages according to Wiki.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

Last time I looked it was a by product of burning carbon.

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

Since the late 19th century in London, according to a quick search.

But that’s a quibble. Smog and climate change are separate but overlapping phenomena. A reduction in smog is an added benefit of the reduction in the burning of coal required by climate change considerations.

Won’t work in California.

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

jjjust moi said:

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

What has, smog ? Of course. I expect it has killed more than a few people in the last century.

That’s a not disputed fact, but a price that is paid for modern living. Nobody wants to go without the comforts.

I’m pretty sure you’ll find that there is a negative correlation between standards of living and smog levels.

It’s not a price that has to be paid for modern living at all.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

It’s been around for centuries, not a modern thing.

Since the late 19th century in London, according to a quick search.

But that’s a quibble. Smog and climate change are separate but overlapping phenomena. A reduction in smog is an added benefit of the reduction in the burning of coal required by climate change considerations.

Won’t work in California.

California is probably one of the places in the world for improvement in air quality by switching to electric vehicles.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

rumpole said:

What has, smog ? Of course. I expect it has killed more than a few people in the last century.

That’s a not disputed fact, but a price that is paid for modern living. Nobody wants to go without the comforts.

I’m pretty sure you’ll find that there is a negative correlation between standards of living and smog levels.

It’s not a price that has to be paid for modern living at all.

That work for China?

The Rev Dodgson said:

California is probably one of the places in the world for improvement in air quality by switching to electric vehicles.

California has been at the forefront of efforts to make cars pollute less. I imagine LA is no longer near the top of America’s smoggiest cities.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

That’s a not disputed fact, but a price that is paid for modern living. Nobody wants to go without the comforts.

I’m pretty sure you’ll find that there is a negative correlation between standards of living and smog levels.

It’s not a price that has to be paid for modern living at all.

That work for China?

Why wouldn’t it?

But I can’t spend all night here discussing this alarmist view of the consequences of reducing GHG emissions.

The true sceptics recognise that their are risks associated with all policies; the logical approach is to minimise those risks.

That’s all.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Since the late 19th century in London, according to a quick search.

But that’s a quibble. Smog and climate change are separate but overlapping phenomena. A reduction in smog is an added benefit of the reduction in the burning of coal required by climate change considerations.

Won’t work in California.

California is probably one of the places in the world for improvement in air quality by switching to electric vehicles.

Throwing older cars off the road has probably had more effect.

jjjust moi said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

Won’t work in California.

California is probably one of the places in the world for improvement in air quality by switching to electric vehicles.

Throwing older cars off the road has probably had more effect.

I somehow lost the words “with potential” in there somewhere. I’m certainly not suggesting that electric vehicles have had any significant effect as yet (or will do in the near future).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why wouldn’t it?

But I can’t spend all night here discussing this alarmist view of the consequences of reducing GHG emissions.

The true sceptics recognise that their are risks associated with all policies; the logical approach is to minimise those risks.

That’s all.

Christ! Next you’ll be telling us that there should be standards, procedures and policies put into place to avoid harm.

rolls eyes

:)

>>>But I can’t spend all night here discussing this alarmist view of the consequences of reducing GHG emissions.

You don’t really know what the discussion was,do you.

jjjust moi said:

>>>But I can’t spend all night here discussing this alarmist view of the consequences of reducing GHG emissions.

You don’t really know what the discussion was,do you.

How about you explain the point you think I have missed, rather than coming out with the smart-arse comments?

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

>>>But I can’t spend all night here discussing this alarmist view of the consequences of reducing GHG emissions.

You don’t really know what the discussion was,do you.

How about you explain the point you think I have missed, rather than coming out with the smart-arse comments?

that’s not the forum way…

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

>>>But I can’t spend all night here discussing this alarmist view of the consequences of reducing GHG emissions.

You don’t really know what the discussion was,do you.

How about you explain the point you think I have missed, rather than coming out with the smart-arse comments?

Rumpole inplied that GW was causing smog. I pointed out that smog had been around a long, long time.

Then you brought up alarmist, skeptics ect. Way, way away from the smog topic.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

>>>But I can’t spend all night here discussing this alarmist view of the consequences of reducing GHG emissions.

You don’t really know what the discussion was,do you.

How about you explain the point you think I have missed, rather than coming out with the smart-arse comments?

that’s not the forum way…

Sorry – too late.

jjjust moi said:

Then you brought up alarmist, skeptics ect. Way, way away from the smog topic.

I’ve already agreed that smog and climate change are separate phenomena. We’ve moved on from that.

You stated that smog was a necessary cost of leading a comfortable life, and hence implied that any measures to reduce coal burning would prevent a comfortable life.

That is alarmism.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

Then you brought up alarmist, skeptics ect. Way, way away from the smog topic.

I’ve already agreed that smog and climate change are separate phenomena. We’ve moved on from that.

You stated that smog was a necessary cost of leading a comfortable life, and hence implied that any measures to reduce coal burning would prevent a comfortable life.

That is alarmism.

Your implication, not mine.

jjjust moi said:

Your implication, not mine.

OK, no argument then.

We’re all agreed that reducing smog levels is an added benefit to reduction in use of fossil fuels, in addition to the reduction in GHG emissions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

jjjust moi said:

Your implication, not mine.

OK, no argument then.

We’re all agreed that reducing smog levels is an added benefit to reduction in use of fossil fuels, in addition to the reduction in GHG emissions.

No argument here.

>>>From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 522196
Subject: re: Within the next 90 years
jjjust moi said:

Then you brought up alarmist, skeptics ect. Way, way away from the smog topic.

I’ve already agreed that smog and climate change are separate phenomena. We’ve moved on from that.

You stated that smog was a necessary cost of leading a comfortable life, and hence implied that any measures to reduce coal burning would prevent a comfortable life.

That is alarmism.
<<<

“but burning coal is healthier than burning dung or wood. The Economist proclaims coal “The fuel of the future.” A cheap, ubiquitous and flexible fuel, with just one problem:

What more could one want? It is cheap and simple to extract, ship and burn. It is abundant: proven reserves amount to 109 years of current consumption, reckons BP, a British energy giant. They are mostly in politically stable places.

The problem? “It is devastatingly dirty,” says the article. Oh Really? Try burning dung in your London flat. Anyone who has read this blog regularly, or our book, The Energy Gap, knows that I am not a fan of coal. But, given the choice between coal or nothing, coal can be a lifesaver for the poor and impoverished people of the world. And make no mistake, coal use is on the rise around the world for just that reason.”

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/tragedy-earth-day

http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/issues/climate-change/2014/14-04-24_emissions-reduction-fund-white-paper.pdf

ChrispenEvan said:

http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/issues/climate-change/2014/14-04-24_emissions-reduction-fund-white-paper.pdf

Thanks CE.

I’ll have a read.

Big Business and Corporations just dont want to know about climate change/global warming

they see it as a threat, that anything they have to do to curb emissions is a threat to their profits

The majority of scientists and people know what the causes are

what perhaps is difficult is that there are so many overlapping causes that it is difficult to step back

and get an overview of things

We need a set of goals and two of them are to change the governments view to being proactive on climate change

and the other goal is to change big business and corporations to see the threat to humanity not just their profits, change their behavior and to realize that humans need to live in the future

too many greedy CEO’s live in the now moment of getting rich, looking after themselves

time to look after everyone one else in the future

business and corporations are not good at realizing the dangers of people living in the future having to cope with poor decisions made in the past by greedy people who only care for themselves and not others

oh, I see the blindfolded observer is here

CrazyNeutrino said:

Big Business and Corporations just dont want to know about climate change/global warming

they see it as a threat,

Some do.

Some see it as an opportunity.

Just like improvements in working conditions and improved worker safety.

It’s the job of government to ensure that those who make the change willingly benefit as a result, and those that don’t do not benefit from their inaction.

>>>Thanks CE.

I’ll have a read.
<<<

evening Rev;

thinking about stabilizing climate, the cost of that, & the on-going cost of that – into the distant future

what do we base this, (hypothesis of anthropogenic warming) on ?

2 x co2 = 1.5C

to

2 x co2 = 4.5C

tyr reading this

Discursive stability meets climate instability:

A critical exploration of the concept
of ‘climate stabilization’ in contemporary climate policy

Maxwell T. Boykoff , David Frame, Samuel Randalls

ABSTRACT
The goals and objectives of ‘climate stabilization’ feature heavily in contemporary environmental policy
and in this paper we trace the factors that have contributed to the rise of this concept and the scientific
ideas behind it. In particular, we explore how the stabilization-based discourse has become dominant
through developments in climate science, environmental economics and policymaking. That this
discourse is tethered to contemporary policy proposals is unsurprising; but that it has remained
relatively free of critical scrutiny can be associated with fears of unsettling often-tenuous political
processes taking place at multiple scales. Nonetheless, we posit that the fundamental premises behind
stabilization targets are badly matched to the actual problem of the intergenerational management of
climate change, scientifically and politically, and destined to fail. By extension, we argue that policy
proposals for climate stabilization are problematic, infeasible, and hence impede more productive policy
action on climate change. There are gains associated with an expansion and reconsideration of the range
of possible policy framings of the problem, which are likely to help us to more capably and dynamically
achieve goals of decarbonizing and modernizing the energy system, as well as diminishing
anthropogenic contributions to climate change. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2805-2009.58.pdf

definately worth a real read, not a browse.

Allen Simmons & Doug L. Hoffman (http://theresilientearth.com/?q=welcome-resilient-earth-web-site) make a living debunking Global Warming, which makes you wonder why? And why would someone producing so many books find time to debate their points against so much opposition here? Are they looking for weaknesses in their arguments, so they can patch up them up before they publish? Maybe The_observer is just someone not connected to them, but a huge fan and using their material.

Why go to such lengths, doubt if their book sales would amount to much, so are they fanatics or is someone else paying them handsomely like fossil fuel producers? In America where both of these people have connection, it was common knowledge that wealthy people were paying very good money to have people like this muddy the GW waters and sow doubt.

Perm;

what you are doing here is playing the ‘men’,

because you cannot counter their argument

Perm,

do yourself a favour & go read this-

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2805-2009.58.pdf

The_observer said:

Perm;

what you are doing here is playing the ‘men’,

because you cannot counter their argument

It is a waste of time arguing with you, you are just not interested in the facts, only crap to muddy the water.

>>>It is a waste of time arguing with you, you are just not interested in the facts, only crap to muddy the water.<<<

there you go again

The_observer said:

Perm,

do yourself a favour & go read this-

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2805-2009.58.pdf

Only if you read the hundreds of papers produced by climate scientists that refute everything you try to promote and who actually do the research work and are not just armchair experts, which I suggest is all you are.

The_observer said:

>>>It is a waste of time arguing with you, you are just not interested in the facts, only crap to muddy the water.<<<

there you go again

Well it’s true, that is why!

>>>Only if you read the hundreds of papers produced by climate scientists that refute everything you try to promote and who actually do the research work<<<

well, I’ll need at least 15 minutes

>>>>and are not just armchair experts, which I suggest is all you are.<<<

what category do you fall into ?

The_observer said:

>>>Only if you read the hundreds of papers produced by climate scientists that refute everything you try to promote and who actually do the research work<<<

well, I’ll need at least 15 minutes

>>>>and are not just armchair experts, which I suggest is all you are.<<<

what category do you fall into ?

I read and listen to the real climate scientists! You might find it interesting if you did the same. And to suggest it would only take 15 minutes to read all the papers about GW, only goes to show what a snake-oil salesman you really are.

>>>I read and listen to the real climate scientists!<<<

are you suggesting that your armchair is bigger than my armchair, baby

The_observer said:

>>>I read and listen to the real climate scientists!<<<

are you suggesting that your armchair is bigger than my armchair, baby

You don’t read them for knowledge, you only read them so you can think up obscure ways of discrediting them.

>>>You don’t read them for knowledge, you only read them so you can think up obscure ways of discrediting them.<<

Oh, behave

FOR the first time since the creation of a science portfolio in 1931, Australia does not have a science minister.
The Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott announced today during his cabinet unveiling that the science portfolio would be shared between the Industry and Education ministries.

“Science, as in the CSIRO, will be with industry,” Mr Abbott said during the press conference, which means the minister overseeing the sciences will be Ian McFarlane.

Laborite Jack Holloway was the first Australian minister to hold a science portfolio when he was appointed assistant minister for industry, council for scientific and industrial research in 1931.

The science portfolio – though it took different forms – was held by more than 30 ministers both Labor and Liberal up until today when it was abolished by Mr Abbott.

Australian scientists say they are “confused and disappointed” by the fact that there is no science minister in the new cabinet.

Catriona Jackson, the CEO of Science and Technology Australia, told news.com.au that science and technology was central to everything government did “from industry, to health to creating the sort of jobs that are key to ensuring a prosperous future for the country”.

“It seems inconceivable that we do not have a minister of Parliament that is responsible for the sciences,” she said.

The_observer said:

We don’t need to show your best portrait Observer, we have already have a realistic picture of you.

cal me all the names you like permy baby

just post some science,

for a change

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

We don’t need to show your best portrait Observer, we have already have a realistic picture of you.

Again:
You don’t need to show your best portrait Observer, we already have a realistic picture of you.

cal me all the names you like permy baby

just post some science,

for a change

The_observer said:

cal me all the names you like permy baby

just post some science,

for a change

Why don’t you for a change?

19 shillings said:

FOR the first time since the creation of a science portfolio in 1931, Australia does not have a science minister.
The Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott announced today during his cabinet unveiling that the science portfolio would be shared between the Industry and Education ministries.

“Science, as in the CSIRO, will be with industry,” Mr Abbott said during the press conference, which means the minister overseeing the sciences will be Ian McFarlane.

Laborite Jack Holloway was the first Australian minister to hold a science portfolio when he was appointed assistant minister for industry, council for scientific and industrial research in 1931.

The science portfolio – though it took different forms – was held by more than 30 ministers both Labor and Liberal up until today when it was abolished by Mr Abbott.

Australian scientists say they are “confused and disappointed” by the fact that there is no science minister in the new cabinet.

Catriona Jackson, the CEO of Science and Technology Australia, told news.com.au that science and technology was central to everything government did “from industry, to health to creating the sort of jobs that are key to ensuring a prosperous future for the country”.

“It seems inconceivable that we do not have a minister of Parliament that is responsible for the sciences,” she said.

Because there is only one polly emminently qualified for the job.

Denis Jensen, who holds a double Phd in Physics and Material Science.

They hate him. He’s a loose cannon according to them.

His statement on the JSF fighter this week is an example of that. He won’t toe the party line.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

We don’t need to show your best portrait Observer, we have already have a realistic picture of you.

Fairly ordinary reply to an argument.

>>Why don’t you for a change?

god you’re pathetic.
try the last link I pointed out to you dimwit

>>Fairly ordinary reply to an argument.<<

but good for perm

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

We don’t need to show your best portrait Observer, we have already have a realistic picture of you.

Fairly ordinary reply to an argument.

Including yours Boris.

The_observer said:

>>Why don’t you for a change?

god you’re pathetic.
try the last link I pointed out to you dimwit

All you do fuckwit is recycle old arguments that have been discredited years ago and only when its beyond dispute by the most stupid do you discard it. Why don’t you read climate scientists work instead of being directed by the fossil fuel industry.

>> keep on perm,

you make anyone you argue with look Soooooo Much better

>>>>>>
From: PermeateFree
ID: 522248
Subject: re: Within the next 90 years
The_observer said:

>>Why don’t you for a change?

god you’re pathetic.
try the last link I pointed out to you dimwit

All you do fuckwit is
<<<<<<<<<<

its a win win win situation

The_observer said:

>>Fairly ordinary reply to an argument.<<

but good for perm

You totally ignore any facts presented to you. You are a charlatan.

The_observer said:

>> keep on perm,

you make anyone you argue with look Soooooo Much better

Well with your stupid remarks I certainly look better than you.

The_observer said:

>>>>>>
From: PermeateFree
ID: 522248
Subject: re: Within the next 90 years
The_observer said:

>>Why don’t you for a change?

god you’re pathetic.
try the last link I pointed out to you dimwit

All you do fuckwit is
<<<<<<<<<<

its a win win win situation

Why don’t you reproduce the entire posts? Because you like to cherry-pick to promote your objective.

>>>Well with your stupid remarks I certainly look better than you.<<

keep me up to date with your comments on this link I provided perm

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2805-2009.58.pdf

I’d be interested in the comments radiating from your BIG ARM CHAIR :)))))))

bump

The_observer said:

>>>Well with your stupid remarks I certainly look better than you.<<

keep me up to date with your comments on this link I provided perm

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2805-2009.58.pdf

I’d be interested in the comments radiating from your BIG ARM CHAIR :)))))))

But me in my armchair only repeats what climate scientists state, I don’t make it up like you. You really are a total dill. :)))

>>>But me in my armchair only repeats what climate scientists state, I don’t make it up like you. You really are a total dill. :)))
‘
interesting though how the things I make up’ come with links to the scientists saying exactly the same thing

The_observer said:

>>>But me in my armchair only repeats what climate scientists state, I don’t make it up like you. You really are a total dill. :)))
‘
interesting though how the things I make up’ come with links to the scientists saying exactly the same thing

Yes the 3% (not the 97%) and no doubt a number of them are being well-paid to do so.

>>Yes the 3% (not the 97%) and no doubt a number of them are being well-paid to do so.<<

you do realise that it’s religion you’re into.

any comments on the two links I’ve provided in this post, other than Ad hominem.

I won’t ask you again to read the second, that’s way beyond you in every capacity.

The_observer said:

>>Yes the 3% (not the 97%) and no doubt a number of them are being well-paid to do so.<<

you do realise that it’s religion you’re into.

any comments on the two links I’ve provided in this post, other than Ad hominem.

I won’t ask you again to read the second, that’s way beyond you in every capacity.

No, I’m not into reliegn, I’m into reality.

And apart from saying you could read all the proper global warming related papers in 15 minutes, you totally ignore all the facts they contain. You really are pathetic Observer and as someone famous once said ‘forgive them father for they know not what they do.’ If only you had a little insight!

“Rumpole inplied that GW was causing smog. I pointed out that smog had been around a long, long time.”
=================
I did not . I implied that burning carbon was causing smog. AND burning carbon causes AGW. Reduce the burning of carbon and you kill two birds with one stone.

bump