Global Cooling

[FIGJAM]

I agree. But an educated public is an unsatisfide public and who wants that. Its true that ignorance is bliss and i see entirly to mush bliss.

[ygmir]

we got about an inch and a half of global warming a couple of days ago.
glad it's melting now, the plants can start again.

[Trishntek]

The worst blizzards I ever experienced were in Wyoming. Back when I didn't even know snow could fall straight down,,,, thought it always fell horizontally. I was 23 years old the first time I saw snow pile up on a fence post.

Anyway,,, those worst blizzards all occurred in April or May. In fact it was April 28th 1984 we got 88 inches of snow in 3 days. That was on top of 4 feet still on the ground. Nothing moved for 5 days. Ahhhhhh yup,,,, the good old days.

Now I've lived in Ventura for 7 years. This is still the coldest spring we've experienced here. We almost always have a week or two each month getting up into the 70's. We haven't seen those temps for any length of time. Been real windy too.

[can't sit still]

"Meanwhile, over at Climaterealists, legal expert John O’Sullivan casts an eye over yet another Mann-related lawsuit, this time one threatened by Mann himself against the creators of the hilarious Hide The Decline song which became a hit on You Tube. He concludes:"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... -the-heat/
Pretty sorry when you have to go after someone for a Youtube vid.

"Ken Cuccinelli. He’s the new Attorney General of Virginia and he’s about to launch quite possibly the most delicious and worthwhile law suit in the entire history of litigation: one that could result in Michael Mann – arch-climate-fear-promoter, comedy You Tube Star, creator of the infamous, twice-discredited Hockey Stick – being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for alleged misuse of state grant funding. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)"

[dr.placebo]

The Ken Cuccinelli suit is political grandstanding. I don't think that it will accomplish anything but to waste VA funds and harass Dr. Mann.

I also think that the suit by Mann against the YouTube "artists" is a bad idea. It is unlikely to get anywhere and is a waste of time and money.

Now ask yourself if the VA suit is going to make it more or less likely for a serious researcher in a controversial subject to want to do research in VA.

[ygmir]

or, could the VA suit make it more likely a researcher there has his shit together and is honest and forthright?.

as opposed to so many "researchers" who play loose and fast with facts and techniques....to get headlines (read money).

no, I'm not cynical about the money trail related to some researchers............

[dr.placebo]

It's important to be skeptical about whether anyone in the position of advocacy has a personal interest. It might be money, or religious dogma, or fame, or political gain. Scientists must not be immune from such questioning. Nor should attorneys general.

I find it ironic that in this case there is so much bias is against the researcher, especially from some who express concern about government tyranny.

I've read a number of things that question Mann's results and motives, and also articles that support his results. I should add that I personally find the support to be more credible, but that I'm open to actual evidence.

[unjonharley]

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!! I felt it hit my head. The sky is falling.. Now fucking sue me for saying that.


Some pepole should get a life..

[theCryptofishist]

I don't know if this is still true, but a few years back most of the people who were saying that global warming isnt' going on had ties to oil companies. Yet they didn't seem to be nearly as heavily scrutinized as researchers saying that there is global warming are.

[Trishntek]

It's important to be skeptical about whether anyone in the position of advocacy has a personal interest. It might be money, or religious dogma, or fame, or political gain. Scientists must not be immune from such questioning. Nor should attorneys general.

I find it ironic that in this case there is so much bias is against the researcher, especially from some who express concern about government tyranny.

I've read a number of things that question Mann's results and motives, and also articles that support his results. I should add that I personally find the support to be more credible, but that I'm open to actual evidence.

The fact that the majority of research is funded by gubmints makes us suspicious of their tyrannical motives behind the support of said research. And how does information gleaned from this research help or hurt an agenda for liberty versus tyranny? There is not a single gubmint or bureaucracy in the world I trust today.

So it is claimed the climate is warming and it is our fault. I can claim this,,,,, it is always raining somewhere. It is always hot somewhere and it is always cold somewhere. It is always a drought somewhere and a flood somewhere. When there is major backing for the Chicago Climate Exchange from the same persons who are the most vocal about the Global Warming "Crisis" it gives fuel to suspicious minds.

If we all stopped burning hydrocarbons right now, can anyone tell me definitively what the climate would be?

[can't sit still]

Trish, what is this BULLSHIT? Are you implying that global warming studies are somehow influenced by the possibility of a multi-trillion dollar carbon tax. Are you actually implying that GOV would distort the research just to grab several $ trillion? You also directly imply that GOV might do something dishonest.
Oh, yea of little faith

[dr.placebo]

First, a minor disclaimer. I've not done government sponsored research since the '70's, but it did pay for my grad school (at a ridiculously low hourly rate, thank you). At the time our charter was always to do basic research that was public and free. We never got any pressure to come up with any particular results.

I've done corporate r&d for the past 30 years. Over that time I've seen a lot of pressure in our center and virtually all other corporate r&d centers to do more D and less R. The remaining basic research in this country is primarily funded by the federal government (and to a lesser extent by state support of universities). I work closely with people who get government funding, so I do know something about it.

I have a long list of problems that I see in government sponsored research. The funding is erratic. The paperwork is maddening. But demanding particular research results is one of those things that is fairly rare and even less often successful (although the Bush administration tried hard to suppress certain climate results).

It's one thing to be skeptical, but it cuts both ways. The notion that the feds are trying to use global warming as a means to impose taxation (or some other tyranny) should neither be rejected nor accepted easily.

The notion that one can get overwhelming agreement on climate change among working climatologists through some vast conspiracy runs counter to every experience that I have and every historical precedent that I am aware of. We just don't roll that way.

[Ugly Dougly]

Like they need to go through all that trouble to raise taxes. It's easy enough to wage war on another third world republic.

[Trishntek]

Like they need to go through all that trouble to raise taxes. It's easy enough to wage war on another third world republic.

The founder of the CCX stated recently it would be a $10 Trillion per year "stock exchange" in trading credits for the production of invisible gas. That is not a tax, that is additional cost for everything which contributes to the production of invisible gas. I'll try to find that quote,,,, I think it was an interview on CLSD or something like that,,,,,,

[Trishntek]

Richard Sandor is his name:

[youtube][/youtube]

[dr.placebo]

I also think that carbon trading is a bad idea because it is way too easy to game the system. The same goatfuckers who dreamed up the current financial meltdown will run the show (both in and out of government). Also, as the EU found out, the success of the system depends far too heavily on the accuracy of the estimate for how many credits are needed.

Personally, I prefer a carbon tax, with the proceeds going towards improving energy efficiency and deploying renewable infrastructure. But the political climate isn't likely to allow it to happen.

[Ugly Dougly]

"Invisible gas"! WTF?

[Token]

Yeah, like Tata Industries buying up all the steel foundries in England on firesale since they can't compete with the Chinese.

Then by coincidence someone at the IPCC figures out the whole carbon credit thing. Brilliant.

Then by pure chance the whole Copenhagen fiasco happens and Brittain declares they will reduce carbon emissions by 40%.

And how fortunate is it that Tata Steel, a subsidiary of Tata Industries is generous enough to offer Brittain their carbon credits for a mere Billion £ per steel foundry in England to transfer the polluting monsters to Bhopal India where they are allowed to burn baby burn.

And can you imagine the good fortune that the chairman of Tata Steel just happens to be the chair of the IPCC.

It's just like poetry.

[Trishntek]

The carbon credit system this proposes, and by the way, the machine is in place just waiting to be started, buying the credits from countries with little development so the industrialized countries can make more gas than allowed by law.

This is basically another means to redistribute wealth by raising the price of whatever is produced in order to "buy" the smog from the underdeveloped nations who do not create it. The underdeveloped countries "receive" payment for something they do not produce. Isn't that special?

[dr.placebo]

Interesting open letter about to appear in Science magazine. 255 National Academy of Science members have signed a letter supporting the conclusions of climate change research.

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

Whether the head of the IPCC has acted in self-interest or not, the research still stands.

[littleflower]

It's one thing to be skeptical, but it cuts both ways. The notion that the feds are trying to use global warming as a means to impose taxation (or some other tyranny) should neither be rejected nor accepted easily.

The notion that one can get overwhelming agreement on climate change among working climatologists through some vast conspiracy runs counter to every experience that I have and every historical precedent that I am aware of. We just don't roll that way.

where i always get stuck is in finding the balance between climate catastrophe and economic catastrophe. i would love to see climatologists and economists working together more, trying to determine some kind of risk assessment, scenario likelihood sort of thing, and finding some kind of compromises, but there seems to be very little of this ... with the exception of bjorn lomborg. the reluctance of either side to appeal to the concerns of the other puts them both, in my mind, into the usual ho-hum-human-nature-dog-eat-dog sort of mold.

[dr.placebo]

LF, I basically agree with a sane and open risk assessment approach to climate change. I've seen some of Bjorn Lomberg's stuff, and on the face of it I agree with the process. I also don't think that being hysterical is productive.

On the other hand, Lomberg's tendency is to push up estimates of climate change remediation, and to push down the estimates of climate change cost, and to completely ignore side benefits of climate change remediation. A good example is in this paper by Lomborg, where he makes the argument that the benefits of action are inflated and the costs are underestimated.

What's missing from his discussion? Well, the cost effects of peak oil, the environmental costs associated with oil and coal extraction, the economics of conservation and increased efficiency, and the inertia of a structure that has rewarded fossil fuels at the expense of alternative sources.

So, I agree with the approach, but I think that he should play fair. Let's talk honestly about the cost/benefit analysis of business-as-usual in the context of an expanding world population hungry for economic growth. I also think that there is some tendency for Lomborg to frame the choice as between short-term investments and climate investments, when it's more of a balancing act.

Now, I don't have enough time to do all the sleuthing, but I'll finish by pointing to a Newsweek review of a book critical of Lomborg. Skepticism should extend to the skeptics as well.

[dr.placebo]

According to this article in Ars Technica, carbon usage in the US dropped by 7% in the past year, with only about 1/3 of that drop due to the economy. How did that happen? Well, mostly in efficiency improvements. Also, in the electrical power sector, there was a boost from increased wind power.

Since the US uses about twice as much energy per capita as Western Europe (and Japan), we have a lot of potential for continuing to drop carbon emissions through efficiency improvements without dropping our standard of living. And we can do this economically since energy efficiency tends to pay for itself with reduced costs.

You can't get to the eventual goal of being carbon neutral simply through efficiency improvements, but it's not a bad place to start.

[Trishntek]

DrP, I just want you to know how much I appreciate your even tone in your discourse. Thank you!

[littleflower]

doc, i didn't mean to suggest that lomborg was correct in his assessment of the situation, so much as to mention that he is just about the only person i know of whose approach is to look at both science and economics with the idea that government action - or inaction - in either sphere can cause a disaster.

people worry more about their retirement savings than anything else.... and that isn't going to change. climate change advocates would do well to keep this in mind.

[Trishntek]

doc, i didn't mean to suggest that lomborg was correct in his assessment of the situation, so much as to mention that he is just about the only person i know of whose approach is to look at both science and economics with the idea that government action - or inaction - in either sphere can cause a disaster.

people worry more about their retirement savings than anything else.... and that isn't going to change. climate change advocates would do well to keep this in mind.

retirement? savings? Invest now! OUTSIDE the BOX!

[dr.placebo]

doc, i didn't mean to suggest that lomborg was correct in his assessment of the situation, so much as to mention that he is just about the only person i know of whose approach is to look at both science and economics with the idea that government action - or inaction - in either sphere can cause a disaster.

people worry more about their retirement savings than anything else.... and that isn't going to change. climate change advocates would do well to keep this in mind.

I did not take your note as endorsing Lomborg. I did want to point out that even when an approach is correct that the orientation and the details matter. I could rake Al Gore over the coals (so to speak) for being sloppy, but that seems to be more than adequately covered by others.

IMHO we will only solve this through a multidisciplinary approach that values results and discards perfection and ideological purity.

As I am at the point (59) where retirement is looming, and I have no fuzzball idea of what investments might be safe, since the value of anything depends on the economy, on politics, and on fads among the buyers and sellers. Thinking outside of the box, though, I keep trying to invest more in my relationships with others (some days are better than others).

[can't sit still]

I posted near the beginning of this thread that an experiment a century ago seemed to reasonably prove that CO2 had nothing to do with warming. It involved 2 greenhouses made with different materials.
Dr Spencer, formerly senior scientist for climate studies at NASA says the same thing. There is no connection between CO2 and heating.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... orologist/
I would like to see the truth come out without all the BS. Since this whole scam? seems to involve huge sums of money, the BS seems inevitable.

[Trishntek]

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/G ... rnance.htm

"What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?'

Maurice Strong 1990[/i]

[can't sit still]

industrialized civilizations collapse
I guess this means that it's time to party