Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[Hobgoblin]

Marco Rubio on Climate Change

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...humans-arent-behind-climate-change/?hpt=hp_t2

"I think severe weather has been a fact of life on earth since man started recording history. I understand that there's a vast consensus of scientists that are saying that human activity is what's contributing to changes in our climate. I think it's an enormous stretch to say that every weather incident that we read about or the majority of them are attributable to human activity," Rubio told CNN's Bill Weir Tuesday on "CNN Tonight."

So he is saying that he knows that the climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming, but he is just going to ignore that fact. Got it.

And Mark, most respectable climatologists say that it is impossible to look at one specific weather event and say it is caused by global warming. They only look at long term trends.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Do you honestly believe that burning fossil fuels at the rate we are today is not harming the environment? Are you so arrogant to think that we can continue using up our natural resources with no consequence?

Nice fact-free post.

"How can you not believe it?"

Really? That's the sort of thing that makes this issue illogical. Your point is based on 100% on the idea that anything we do must be bad. You don't need evidence, you just "know it".

We are debating the opinions of meteorologists when we should be discussing the opinions of the climate scientists. They are two very different professionals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/why-do-meteorologists-dis_b_1289630.html

I understand that any scientist who doesn't agree is attacked, demeaned, and discredited. Now that meteorologists don't agree, suddenly they don't know anything about the climate.

Meanwhile Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and Al Gore can talk about it all day long and there was never once any mention of their qualifications to talk about the subject. Dead silence as people like that make all kinds of proclamations of doom.

i.e. CAGW believers do not have a problem if you agree with them.

This was evident in the "97% consensus" poll that alarmists like to tout. They polled 10,257 scientists. Only 5% of them were climate scientists. Was it important to only ask climate scientist for the poll that CAGW believers bring up? Nope. That's only a problem when a scientist doesn't agree.

That's where you see this in action....10,257 shrank down to 3,146. 70% of the scientists polled didn't think the question of "consensus" was worth their time. That's a big consensus right there.

But it gets better. 513 of the 10,257 were climate scientists....only 79 of them bothered to answer the poll. That means 85% of climate scientists didn't think the poll was worth their time. The consensus just got bigger!

Naturally the pollsters got rid of all the non-climate scientists and just kept the 77 since 75 of those agreed with the consensus. That's how you get 75 out of 10,257 to be a "97% consensus".
Their words:

Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

This "consensus" thing is blatant fraud.

And of course that's only the deception of the pollsters. It gets worse when cited by CAGW believers. They claim that "97% of scientists agree we are doomed unless we act now".

Nope...not even close. Here is what those 77/75 scientists agreed upon:

1-When compared with pre- 1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2-Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

These questions also put most skeptics into the "consensus". (including me)

Don't believe me...read it yourself: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

Did you happen to notice when I went back and addressed each of the logical fallacies in turn?

Of course you didn't. Silly me.

I noticed you claiming that, yes. You are using the same logic which is applied to CAGW theory. The "warming=human caused" and "warming=catastrophe". You are using: "fallacy claimed=fallacy".

I wanted an outside opinion on whether I was actually observing what I was observing. If there was an actual response in that digital diarrhea, and I happened to miss it, I would want to know.

Yeah...that's what you were doing. I'm completely convinced.

I know. And you're wrong.

I disagree again.

Here is where you are mistaken: the idea that these effects are instantaneous. In fact, the magnitude of the delay and the response itself are influenced strongly by population growth rate, among other things.

Also, you seem to have a disregard for the concept of rates in general - instead opting for the more simplistic view that actual quantity at any given time is somehow more important. It is not, especially when we're talking about trends over time.

You seem to believe humans can exist without food. If we are talking about a week, I agree.

What do you have to lose? My offer was sincere.

I'm also sincerely not buying into elitism.

Marco Rubio on Climate Change

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...humans-arent-behind-climate-change/?hpt=hp_t2

So he is saying that he knows that the climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming, but he is just going to ignore that fact. Got it.

And Mark, most respectable climatologists say that it is impossible to look at one specific weather event and say it is caused by global warming. They only look at long term trends.

You're twisting the "consensus" as I described above. The more I see alarmists lie about that, the more I'm convinced this is 100% political and driven by an ideological belief system. Here is what you did:

Rubio said he understands that climate scientists think we have contributed to global warming. That's true. You then changed that to "humans cause global warming"....which is not the same thing. Leaving out the "contributed" part implies that all the warming is due to mankind. Scientists do not say that.

And there is no long term trend that supports what Obama claims with regard to weather events. Either Obama is misinformed or is lying. That and the common practice of pointing to every weather event as proof of CAGW is what Rubio was addressing. He is also right that these policies would do almost nothing to help even if all these claims are 100% accurate. (Great...now I get to be accused of being a Republican...wait for it....)

We know what 77/75 climiate scientists agreed to in that poll which is often cited. (Even Rubio was citing it without knowing it) And they are not saying what alarmists claim they are saying.

The reason people say they "don't agree with the scientists" is because alarmists are claiming scientists are saying things they are not saying. People are not disagreeing with scientists, people are disagreeing with what alarmists wrongly claim scientists are saying.

It's time for some honesty. I'll trust the motives of CAGW believers much more when they stop lying. Stop misrepresenting the "97% consensus" as something it is not. Stop claiming weather events are increasing when they are not. Stop pretending past predictions did not come true as you make brand new ones.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

This often rises to the level of absurdity and high comedy.

Instability in Nigeria, however, has been growing steadily over the last decade - and one reason is climate change. In 2009, a UK Department for International Development (Dfid) study warned that climate change could contribute to increasing resource shortages in the country due to land scarcity from desertification, water shortages, and mounting crop failures.

A more recent study by the Congressionally-funded US Institute for Peace confirmed a "basic causal mechanism" that "links climate change with violence in Nigeria." The report concludes:

"...poor responses to climatic shifts create shortages of resources such as land and water. Shortages are followed by negative secondary impacts, such as more sickness, hunger, and joblessness. Poor responses to these, in turn, open the door to conflict."​

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...oko-haram-climate-disaster-peak-oil-depletion

That's right folks.....global warming caused the kidnappings! Add that to the list of things which are blamed on global warming.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

Climate change brings more crime

new study broadens a notion held by the earliest criminologists: Periods of higher temperatures -- on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis -- are likely to produce more crime.

The study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a research and consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass., suggests global warming will trigger more crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.

Between 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft, the study published this week in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management says.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...hange-crime-20140219-story.html#axzz2trfFHcKu

No word on climate change causing less crime. (Because now it also means the climate gets colder too) t:

 

[Feenix]

Nice fact-free post.

"How can you not believe it?"

Really? That's the sort of thing that makes this issue illogical. Your point is based on 100% on the idea that anything we do must be bad. You don't need evidence, you just "know it".

Just answer the damn question. Do you believe that we will suffer any consequences through our consumption of fossil fuels?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Just answer the damn question. Do you believe that we will suffer any consequences through our consumption of fossil fuels?

It hasn't happened yet. There is no evidence to support it either.

Might depend on what you mean by "consequences". Do you mean, "We are doomed!" or "temps may or may not increase causing negatives and positives"?

I know I really like the greening of the earth. Ironic that CAGW believers are anti-green.

 

[Feenix]

It hasn't happened yet. There is no evidence to support it either.

Might depend on what you mean by "consequences". Do you mean, "We are doomed!" or "temps may or may not increase causing negatives and positives"?

I know I really like the greening of the earth. Ironic that CAGW believers are anti-green.

That wasn't an answer to my question. According to you there is no evidence to support it.

I feel like throwing facts and statistics at you would just get ignored. It would be like trying to convince a young Earth creationist that evolution is a fact.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

That wasn't an answer to my question. According to you there is no evidence to support it.

I need you clarify your question. What do you mean by "consequences"?

Like with that "consensus" poll...scientists agree that temps have risen...they didn't agree that we are doomed.

So what do you mean by "consequences"? I'll know how to answer when you tell me what you mean.

I feel like throwing facts and statistics at you would just get ignored. It would be like trying to convince a young Earth creationist that evolution is a fact.

This isn't related to evolution at all. Evolution is logical, CAGW theory is not.

We could talk about how there is no trend to support the weather related claims being made if you want. No trend in hurricanes, tornadoes, or droughts. Would you like to go over those?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I noticed you claiming that, yes. You are using the same logic which is applied to CAGW theory. The "warming=human caused" and "warming=catastrophe". You are using: "fallacy claimed=fallacy".

Can you show me exactly where I said any of these things, especially in the post in question?

You seem to believe humans can exist without food. If we are talking about a week, I agree.

I never said nor implied any such thing. In fact, my argument relies rather explicitly upon the concept that we cannot. I can't say that I'm surprised that you still don't grasp these concepts.

I'm also sincerely not buying into elitism.

How does that constitute elitism? I'm offering to teach you basic concepts in mathematics and biology. That is the OPPOSITE of elitism, as a matter of fact.

 

[Feenix]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/12/wat...rilliant_take_down_of_climate_change_deniers/

“The debate on climate change ought not to be whether or not it exists. It is what we should do about it,” Oliver exclaimed. “There is a mountain of research on this topic.”
“The only accurate way to report that one out of four Americans are skeptical of global warming is to say, ‘A poll finds that one in four Americans are wrong about something,’” Oliver said. “Because a survey of thousands of scientific papers that took a position on climate change found that 97 percent endorsed the positions that humans are causing global warming.”

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Oliver is killing it in his new show and that was hilarious. He then brought out 3 people to debate against man made climate change and 97 scientist including Bill Nye to show how much it is actually supported by them. Genius and hilarious

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Started to Collapse and Nothing Can Stop It

[YT]uZ3mxy8G978[/YT]

For decades, scientists have feared the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet—a vast swath of ice that could unleash a slow but unstoppable 10-foot rise in sea levels if it melted. So here is today's terrible news: we now know the ice sheet is melting. And there's pretty much nothing we can do about it.

The accelerating collapse of the ice sheet is reported by two different teams of scientists, in the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters. Its collapse has been predicted for decades, most prominently by glaciologist John Mercer, but this is the first tangible evidence that it's actually now happening. Warmer waters are most likely responsible for the melting.

The New York Times explains why the position of the ice sheet makes it especially vulnerable to runway melting:

The basic problem is that much of the West Antarctic ice sheet sits below sea level in a kind of bowl-shaped depression [in] the earth. As Dr. Mercer outlined in 1978, once the part of the ice sheet sitting on the rim of the bowl melts and the ice retreats into deeper water, it becomes unstable and highly vulnerable to further melting
This is no longer just speculation or the plot of a blockbuster film. "This is really happening," NASA's Thomas P. Wagner emphasized to the New York Times. "There's nothing to stop it now."

The relative good news is that the melting will take place over a few hundred years—so take a breath—but it means an inevitable 10-foot rise in sea level. That's enough to engulf large tracts of coast all over the world. Plan accordingly, humans.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/05/12/science.1249055

I can't wait for JKD to explain that this was all natural and we humans had absolutely nothing to do with this. Just the cycle of the Earth huh?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Now the Drought Could Be Causing Earthquakes in California

As if the drought couldn't get any worse, geologists now think that changes in groundwater could be destabilizing the infamous San Andreas Fault. The new research presents what one may call, as the SF Public Press put it, "a grand unified theory of California problems: drought, water use, and earthquake risk." Translation: sucks to be you, California.

The study published this week in Nature started with asking why the Sierra Nevadas and Coastal Ranges have been rising by 1 to 3 millimeters every year. The answer seems to lie with groundwater, which is being increasingly depleted by agriculture in the Central Valley. Katherine Bourzac explains in the San Francisco Public Press:

To picture how water can play a role in this, think of the Earth's surface like a flexible sheet of plywood with a weight on it. "The upper portion of the earth is elastic, and the ground water is weighing it down like a brick," [the study's author Colin] Amos said. Removing groundwater is like lifting that brick. The earth's crust literally flexes up. As it moves up, it pushes up the Sierra Nevadas and the Coastal Ranges.
If the effect of groundwater depletion is big enough to move mountains, then it's also big enough to affect the San Andreas Fault, where only friction keeps two tectonic plates from slipping. Change the balance of forces on these faults, and you could be feeling an earthquake.

Amos and his team found that seasonal fluctuations in groundwater caused seasonal patterns of tiny quakes. Long-term depletion of groundwater has led to the continued rise of the Sierra Nevadas and Coastal Ranges, and it could be further destabilizing the San Andreas fault in the long-term, too. The rise of agriculture in California's Central Valley has driven this reduction in groundwater. The current drought has made it only worse. We now have a fuller picture of earthquakes in California, and it's not a pretty picture.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13275.html

I'm sure this is totally natural too

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Corporations Are Planning for Global Warming. Why Can't Republicans?

As mainstream U.S. presidential candidates persist in pretending that global warming may not be real, at least one sector of society is already busy planning for the coming catastrophe: big corporations.

Though major international corporations tend to be amoral machines for collecting revenue without regard to fairness or human life, they do have one thing going for them: when there's money on the line, they don't waste time ****ing around. You will never see a major international corporation prancing around fancy-free and acting as if the seas aren't going to rise and whatnot, because they have assets to protect. Failing to plan for global warming due to some weird anti-science bias could potentially cost them billions of dollars. Therefore they will plan. (This will not stop them from making ample political donations to the Republican party, sadly.)

A new report from the Carbon Disclosure Project shows that this dynamic is already well underway. Corporate planning for the effects of global warming is in fact accelerating at a rapid clip—just like global warming itself! The report polled big public companies about how climate change is affecting them, and across the board, found that most companies are busily filling metaphorical sandbags for the coming flood:

45% of risks were described by companies as current or predicted to fall within the next 1-5 years in 2013, up from 26% in 2011

50% of the risks disclosed were described as more likely than not to virtually certain in 2013, up from 34% in 2011

68% of the disclosed physical risks [would directly impact a company's operations] in 2013, up from 51% in 2011
The general takeaway here is that 1) Global warming is real, 2) Corporations are increasingly making concrete plans for it, because they understand the concept of science, and because they have trillions of dollars at stake, and 3) Can someone please explain this to the business-lionizing Republicans who continue to cast doubts on whether global warming is real?

The prospect of scientists and environmentalists and major business interests all converging on the conclusion that global warming is an existential problem that must be addressed soon is our best chance for actually getting something real done. Even coal and oil industry lobbyists will lose their Congressional handmaidens when every other industry begins to turn against them, out of simple self-preservation. Ideologies tend to fall by the wayside when both life and money are at stake.

https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/review-2011-2013-USA-disclosures.pdf

Ya I'm sure the big companies are just covering their butts from climate change just in case the science "may" be true

 

[LizardMan07]

I've just had a little skim through this thread.

I thought anthroprogenic climate change was just a commonly accepted fact of life but apparently not, funny world we live in

 

[Hobgoblin]

Common Arguments Against Man-made Climate Change and Why They Are Wrong

http://www.newscientist.com/article...e-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html#.U3aJpYXABiy

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Look at Where Antarctica Is Losing Ice Faster Than Ever

This image might look pretty, but it holds a glum message: it shows that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year.

We already knew that Antarctica was melting, but this image—created by a team of scientists from the UK's Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling using data from CryoSat—shows exactly where it's happening. Cryosat is a satellite that carries a radar altimeter capable of measuring the surface height variation of ice in fine detail— allowing scientists to record changes in ice volume.

The results show that Antarctica's ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice a year – twice as much as when it was last surveyed. In the image, red indicates ice thinning while blue colorings indicates thickening. Deep, dark red—of which there happens to be a lot!—is a Bad Thing. Dr Malcolm McMillan, lead author of the study, explains:

"We find that ice losses continue to be most pronounced along the fast-flowing ice streams of the Amundsen Sea sector, with thinning rates of 4-8 m per year near to the grounding lines – where the ice streams lift up off the land and begin to float out over the ocean – of the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith Glaciers."
Those losses alone are enough to raise global sea levels by 0.45 millimeters each year—and it shows no signs of slowing unless we do something drastic.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/O...nds_sharp_increase_in_Antarctica_s_ice_losses

It almost seems hopeless, how are we supposed to make it colder there when so many countries are just dumping tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

 

[Destructus86]

I feel like I missed something...when did Pat Sajak start going crazy?

 

[Destructus86]

I've just had a little skim through this thread.

I thought anthroprogenic climate change was just a commonly accepted fact of life but apparently not, funny world we live in

I don't understand why some are so against the very idea of climate change? I mean...it doesn't contradict anyones religion....it's not technically even a political issue. So what gives? Why are there some so opposed to it?

 

[Hobgoblin]

I feel like I missed something...when did Pat Sajak start going crazy?

Yeah, I know. That little outburst came out of nowhere. Apparently he knows more about the climate because he is a meteorologist. Too bad climate scientists trump meteorologists.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Can you show me exactly where I said any of these things, especially in the post in question?

You claimed you addressed everything I said, but you merely danced around everything. I don't think you read what I said.

I never said nor implied any such thing. In fact, my argument relies rather explicitly upon the concept that we cannot. I can't say that I'm surprised that you still don't grasp these concepts.

Excellent. We agree. There can never be more humans than this planet can support.

How does that constitute elitism? I'm offering to teach you basic concepts in mathematics and biology. That is the OPPOSITE of elitism, as a matter of fact.

You are assuming that only you are qualified to talk on this subject. I do not buy into the elitist appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/12/wat...rilliant_take_down_of_climate_change_deniers/

They still parading out that distorted "97% consensus" claim? Exactly how many times do they plan to lie about that?

The Antarctic Ice Sheet Has Started to Collapse and Nothing Can Stop It

[YT]uZ3mxy8G978[/YT]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/05/12/science.1249055

I can't wait for JKD to explain that this was all natural and we humans had absolutely nothing to do with this. Just the cycle of the Earth huh?

The CAGW belief system appears to operate on the idea that "How could humans not be controlling the earth?". Incredible ego.

We aren't that big a deal.

Perhaps you would care to explain how the climate changed throughout millions of years of earth history without us? And exactly why do you believe the climate should now not be changing for the very first time in the history of this planet? You got a logical reason to believe that?

Now the Drought Could Be Causing Earthquakes in California

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13275.html

I'm sure this is totally natural too

Seriously? You actually believe we are going to cause earthquakes now?

Wow....religious people are funny.

Corporations Are Planning for Global Warming. Why Can't Republicans?

https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/review-2011-2013-USA-disclosures.pdf

Ya I'm sure the big companies are just covering their butts from climate change just in case the science "may" be true

Those "big companies" are a great example of how and why we adapt to problems and also why the doom predictions always fail and always will fail.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Interesting look into how political this has gotten. First this happened (The media ignored it of course):

LEADING CLIMATE SCIENTIST DEFECTS: NO LONGER BELIEVES IN THE 'CONSENSUS'

One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.
Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.
For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.
But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.
Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift - "I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are" he recently told Germany's Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an "alarmist" - his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.
"He's a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides," says the GWPF's Benny Peiser. "What's particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling - and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us."
In his interview with Spiegel Online, Bengtsson said:

"I have used most of my career to develop models for predicting the weather. I have learned the importance of forecasting validation, i.e. the verification of predictions with respect to what has really happened. So I am a friend of climate forecasts. But the review of model results is important in order to ensure their credibility. It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly. The warming of the Earth has been much weaker since the end of the 20th century compared to what climate models show."​

Bengtsson went on to reject another pillar of the warmist faith - the existence of a "consensus."

I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless.​

He believes that policymakers should be much more cautious in making decisions about the long-term future of climate when the facts are still imperfectly understood.

I do not think it makes sense to think for our generation that we will solve the problems of the future – for the simple reason that we do not know future problems. Let us do a thought experiment and go back to May 1914: Let us try from the perspective of that point in time to make an action plan for the next hundred years – it would be pointless!
​

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...t-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus

Most scientists are "deniers" and in the "consensus" depending upon how alarmists are addressing the subject at any one time. Most scientists do agree the earth has warmed and that human emissions have had some effect on that. But the also don't say "we are doomed unless we act now" or "there will be catastrophe". That distortions is told again and again by those on the doom side.

But Bengtsson was in for a shock. The politics and money in this (1 billion a day) means you pay a heavy price for speaking up publicly.

Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF

by Hans von Storch
In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :

"I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time."

http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.ca/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board.html?spref=tw

 

[Doctor Evo]

You claimed you addressed everything I said, but you merely danced around everything. I don't think you read what I said.

If you say so. I'm sorry that you were unable to recognize the points as they stood. I really couldn't have made it any clearer, or any simpler.

Excellent. We agree. There can never be more humans than this planet can support.

I see all of my earlier points flew just over your head. Wonderful.

Tell me, did you get a chance to look over the equations I gave you earlier?

You are assuming that only you are qualified to talk on this subject. I do not buy into the elitist appeal to authority fallacy.

I most certainly am more qualified than you, yes. You've proven that on more than one occasion.

However, there is no appeal to authority here. There would have been, had I merely left it at that. But the simple fact that I am offering to teach you - in detail - how and why you are wrong renders your complaint/accusation inaccurate, and I'm forced to wonder whether you understand what the "appeal to authority fallacy" actually means.

I'm still puzzled as to why you refuse the offer so vehemently. Rest assured, however, that the offer stands.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

If you say so. I'm sorry that you were unable to recognize the points as they stood. I really couldn't have made it any clearer, or any simpler.

Oh it was quite clear. You just avoided my points.

I'm still puzzled as to why you refuse the offer so vehemently. Rest assured, however, that the offer stands.

Nice try. How about I offer to educate you on this topic? Would you "vehemently refuse" that?

 

[JeetKuneDo]

More on how the politics works from the scientists' mouths...and has for some time. From several years ago:

"And one of the most difficult things I think for someone who is actively involved in the scientific community, is to realize...in my case for instance, that most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect...do endorse global warming. The important point however, is that the science they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier. I'll give you some examples.

I have a colleague, Kerry Emanuel, on good friendly terms. He works in tropical meteorology. He received little formal recognition for many years until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world. This is a position that he has since backed away from somewhat. But as soon as he made that point, he was inundated with professional recognition.

Another colleague, Carl Wunsch who's an outstanding oceanographer, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature, and ocean modelling. But he assiduously avoids association with skepticism. If nothing else, he has several major oceanographic programs to worry about. And moreover, his politics are clearly liberal.

In some ways to me, one of the most interesting examples is from here in New York. It's Wally Broecker at Columbia University. His work has clearly shown that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and he's richly rewarded for doing so.

For a much larger group of scientists, the fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists...and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding provides very little incentive to complain about the spin."

Go to 4:35:
[YT]PCrUQo3vbuc[/YT]
Here are three scientists talking about the subject. All are a part of the "97% consensus" (they agree the earth has warmed and that humans have contributed).

Garth Paltridge-There are vast quantities of scientists who at least question the concept of man-made global warming. It is true that the ones who go public are usually scientists either who have retired or come from other disciplines. ..They've got nothing to lose. In this day and age it can be fairly dangerous to one's career if you are a climate scientist and express some vociferous objection to the concept of dangerous global warming.

Peter ReidNow in science at the moment we only hear one side and one side is funded. The other side is not funded so we have a situation where in fact it's like a court case in China and therefor the public actually can't have a great deal of faith in science at the moment. We need scientific reform in fact before we go and do things to our economy.

Go to 7:25:
[YT]C35pasCr6KI[/YT]