BHS1975
Member
And once we lose the summer sea ice in the Arctic it will get much worse which could be less than a decade away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And once we lose the summer sea ice in the Arctic it will get much worse which could be less than a decade away.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I doubt it. The arctic, even if it accelerated its melting, wouldn't be gone in a decade. It would take probably much longer, like 50 years at the minimum.We might have these crawlers almost every year which would be catastrophic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I doubt it. The arctic, even if it accelerated its melting, wouldn't be gone in a decade. It would take probably much longer, like 50 years at the minimum.
For the crawling storms, we just have to see. There isn't really a pattern from what I've seen of crawling storms, though if the data were presented for storms that stalled near or on land and there was a defined increase in the 2010s, it could possibly be evident they are increasing in frequency.
Good points. They are automatically assuming the GW has been mainly due to AGW, which is debatable. But keep in mind "the slowdown of 30 per cent and 20 per cent over land areas affected by western North Pacific and North Atlantic tropical cyclones, respectively, and the slowdown of 19 per cent over land areas in the Australian region." So, there was a large slowdown of those specifically over land per this study.
Does it make sense from a met. view that there'd be a slowdown in average forward speed, especially well away from the tropics, due to GW regardless of the GW main cause?
I disagree. That little scrap of ice which was a quarter of what it was in the early 80s is going to be gone well before 50 years. I’d say 2030 tops especially with the negative feedback backs kicking in hard with more open ocean soaking up solar radiation and huge 20ft waves chipping away at the edges for example. Scientists are shocked with the speed of decline. The models are doing a terrible job by not accounting for all the feedbacks and by the time they catch up it will be too late.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s the goal. Make predictions so far out in the future that many people won’t be around to see it come to fruition, and when it doesn’t happen just push the deadline back a couple decades. “Don’t you want to save the planet for future generations?” It really is a well thought out campaign slogan driven by fear and shameWhy do you think the ice will be gone by 2030? Just in the summer or winter as well? Are there any natural feedbacks that could counter this in a positive way? I think some scientists are shocked the ice isn't gone by now. I remember the various predictions that it would be gone by 2012, 2015, 2018, etc. it keeps getting pushed back. It's also interesting that going back to the 1940s scientists thought the ice disappearing was imminent. Seems like this fear mongering has been ongoing for at least 70 years.
$a well thought out campaign slogan driven by
I still do not understand though why many people who argue against AGW so strongly do not see the basic argument for doing something about it. The simple idea no one can argue against, which is “control the things you can control”. No, science will never 100% prove that all of the recent warming is anthropomorphic, but why not have some common sense policies that address something we humans can do about, regarding CO2 release? You and others give fine arguments as to why the warming may not be anthropogenic, but then again there is nothing we can do about those factors. Sure their are folks who cry “ the sky is falling”, but more dangerous I think are those with their heads in the sand who think their is nothing that needs to be done.That’s the goal. Make predictions so far out in the future that many people won’t be around to see it come to fruition, and when it doesn’t happen just push the deadline back a couple decades. “Don’t you want to save the planet for future generations?” It really is a well thought out campaign slogan driven by fear and shame
I still do not understand though why many people who argue against AGW so strongly do not see the basic argument for doing something about it. The simple idea no one can argue against, which is “control the things you can control”. No, science will never 100% prove that all of the recent warming is anthropomorphic, but why not have some common sense policies that address something we humans can do about, regarding CO2 release? You and others give fine arguments as to why the warming may not be anthropogenic, but then again there is nothing we can do about those factors. Sure their are folks who cry “ the sky is falling”, but more dangerous I think are those with their heads in the sand who think their is nothing that needs to be done.
How in the world can they tell what the temp and co2 levels were millions of years ago ?Here is a graph to help explain the earths co2 history (there are others if you don't like this one)
![]()
Again you are not adressing my argument. No one doubts how much the earth and atmosphere have changed over the millennia, the question is what can humans do about it. It’s a simple risk/ reward equation. You argue it could alter the earths economy to make stricter CO2 emissions, but economic devastation can occur with AGW, just look at the recent hurricanes, which may/ may not be affected by it but if you have reasonable evidence we can do something to change it later then do so. It is as simple as investment now for better investment down the road.Here is a graph to help explain the earths co2 history (there are others if you don't like this one)
![]()
By studying soil samples at depth using cores, much like they do with Greenland and Antarctic ice coresHow in the world can they tell what the temp and co2 levels were millions of years ago ?
I’m not going to try to go into the complicated ways it can be addressed, I just know there must be a healthy medium between “worry mongerers” and then our current administration claiming it is just a hoax to ignore. I was compelled to say something about it just because folks are discussing excellent science here, but then some using the doubt about it as an argument to do nothing. I am a physician, and every time I treat a patient I have to use risk/benefit analysis to treat every patient. Drug A may carry some risk of side effects/adverse event, but it may be a small risk if it has reasonable chance of benefitting the patients health for 25 years down the road. The AGW discussion should be the same that we should debate in a healthy way,and if changing oil production economy could have a significant positive benefit 100 years down the road, then it is well worth some current economic risk. Same thing I tell my children regarding their decision making.An argument without a solution is pointless. What exactly do you propose to do to in order to improve whatever you believe is happening to the Climate? We know now that one of the preferred methods of reducing dependence on oil is prohibitively expensive, kills millions of birds and requires way too much space, namely wind power. They won't increase Nuclear because "other"groups think it is inherently unsafe. As for Hurricanes, the increased costs are largely the result of more and increasingly expensive housing and other property being located right on the coast which dramatically increase the potential damage. The amount of major hurricanes striking the US has actually declined since the late 60's.
But there is a huge difference in trusting a computer model or a proxy as in Climate Science as opposed to a double blind placebo controlled study required for prescription drugs in medicine (your discipline). We are guessing as to whether a model can correctly anticipate any variables involved in a stochastic system like the atmosphere. Like I mentioned earlier with the asteroid possibility, you can not prepare for any and all contingencies, so the ones we can control we should attempt it, but the atmosphere and hence Climate is not one of them IMO. There are likely a myriad of variables about Climate we don't even know about so how can we change them if we don't even know what they are? To spend Trillions ( and that could be a conservative estimate) on an attempt to correct something we don't even understand is a risk reward I am not willing to bet on until we learn a lot more about what the ramifications of all the drivers of our Climate are.I’m not going to try to go into the complicated ways it can be addressed, I just know there must be a healthy medium between “worry mongerers” and then our current administration claiming it is just a hoax to ignore. I was compelled to say something about it just because folks are discussing excellent science here, but then some using the doubt about it as an argument to do nothing. I am a physician, and every time I treat a patient I have to use risk/benefit analysis to treat every patient. Drug A may carry some risk of side effects/adverse event, but it may be a small risk if it has reasonable chance of benefitting the patients health for 25 years down the road. The AGW discussion should be the same that we should debate in a healthy way,and if changing oil production economy could have a significant positive benefit 100 years down the road, then it is well worth some current economic risk. Same thing I tell my children regarding their decision making.
I think humans make this planet a very dirty, polluted and hostile place to live but I believe that’s because there are A) more of us than ever B) we are a society of consumersI still do not understand though why many people who argue against AGW so strongly do not see the basic argument for doing something about it. The simple idea no one can argue against, which is “control the things you can control”. No, science will never 100% prove that all of the recent warming is anthropomorphic, but why not have some common sense policies that address something we humans can do about, regarding CO2 release? You and others give fine arguments as to why the warming may not be anthropogenic, but then again there is nothing we can do about those factors. Sure their are folks who cry “ the sky is falling”, but more dangerous I think are those with their heads in the sand who think their is nothing that needs to be done.
Rather be here than say, Venus (hot) or Mars (sterile) ... God gave us this place, the resources to thrive, and the brains to do so ... the rest is up to us ...I think humans make this planet a very dirty, polluted and hostile place to live but I believe that’s because there are A) more of us than ever B) we are a society of consumers
The planet has a way of balancing itself out. We (humans) aren’t even a factor in the grand scheme of things
Nuclear power is not the answer, dangerous waste. Hydro, solar, wind and geothermal are the way to go.I will say if we are willing to produce many many more Nuclear power plants to supply most of our energy, I would have no problem with that but moonbats like California Governor Jerry Brown are not willing to do that. Just remember back to a few years ago to the ACA by the previous administration was going to "fix" our health care system, how did that work out for most people?
Sorry but NONE of those have proven to be cost or land usage efficient. The wind mills kill birds in the thousands and also take up huge amounts of valuable land. Solar also requires a lot of money and land to produce much energy. Hydro of course requires massive amounts of water, which is not distributed evenly across the country nor the world. Geothermal is probably the cleanest and waste free of the four you mentioned but it will provide only 4.6% of electricity by 2040 and does not provide energy for vehicles to run on. There is no energy system that can produce anywhere near the amount or cost effectiveness Fossil fuels currently do and won't for (barring an amazing technological advance) better than 100 years from now. A fusion system would be the best but we are a very long way from making that a workable system at less than a prohibitive cost. Should we just do nothing, no, research should continue, but it will require a Manhattan type project to make it in large enough quantities and at a reasonable cost in the foreseeable future. All this assumes of course (which I don't) that co2 is dangerous or potentially catastrophic to our planet. It is good the name calling normally associated with AGW diehard adherents has appeared here in this discussion because that is surely not the case in the Climate Science world where many on that side want to punish, silence and intimidate those that don't buy their thoughts hook line and sinker. Science is not, and never should be, accepted because it is a consensus or else it ceases to be science at all. All viewpoints should be heard but unfortunately in today's academia and in the media it is notNuclear power is not the answer, dangerous waste. Hydro, solar, wind and geothermal are the way to go.
OK well I was trying not to make this so political, but since you are going that route I feel I better address a few points. So how are these scientists who try to “punish, silence and intimidate” able to do such? Who has the power, a small group of academics doing research and trying to report their concern to the public or the gas and oil industry, all supported by our government and that of oil rich nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Who has the ability to truly wield the power here? Come on man. Of course science should never be a consensus, but again when you do polls where half of Americans believe AGW is not a priority, and well over 95% of scientists who work on this do, that to me is a problem where the folks with the power are the ones in control and casting enough doubt where the average American does not take it seriously. And that is where you have to have some balance with some people trying to shout an alarm of concern vs those who truly wield the power, such as our government currently who is silencing said climate scientists, where the EPA is no longer even able to address the issue, and those speaking up about it could lose their jobs? I agree with a lot of what you say as far as research on new technology but cannot take some of what you say seriously about the “trillions” it would cost to move away from fossil fuels? Is their more evidence for that suspect economic “ certainty” or for the dangers of CO2? I’m sorry you sound more like someone with their pension all in Exxon rather than looking at it objectively. And no more efficient fuel than fossil fuels for the next 100 years?? Ok, but I think humanity can do a little better than that.Sorry but NONE of those have proven to be cost or land usage efficient. The wind mills kill birds in the thousands and also take up huge amounts of valuable land. Solar also requires a lot of money and land to produce much energy. Hydro of course requires massive amounts of water, which is not distributed evenly across the country nor the world. Geothermal is probably the cleanest and waste free of the four you mentioned but it will provide only 4.6% of electricity by 2040 and does not provide energy for vehicles to run on. There is no energy system that can produce anywhere near the amount or cost effectiveness Fossil fuels currently do and won't for (barring an amazing technological advance) better than 100 years from now. A fusion system would be the best but we are a very long way from making that a workable system at less than a prohibitive cost. Should we just do nothing, no, research should continue, but it will require a Manhattan type project to make it in large enough quantities and at a reasonable cost in the foreseeable future. All this assumes of course (which I don't) that co2 is dangerous or potentially catastrophic to our planet. It is good the name calling normally associated with AGW diehard adherents has appeared here in this discussion because that is surely not the case in the Climate Science world where many on that side want to punish, silence and intimidate those that don't buy their thoughts hook line and sinker. Science is not, and never should be, accepted because it is a consensus or else it ceases to be science at all. All viewpoints should be heard but unfortunately in today's academia and in the media it is not
OK well I was trying not to make this so political, but since you are going that route I feel I better address a few points. So how are these scientists who try to “punish, silence and intimidate” able to do such? Who has the power, a small group of academics doing research and trying to report their concern to the public or the gas and oil industry, all supported by our government and that of oil rich nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Who has the ability to truly wield the power here? Come on man. Of course science should never be a consensus, but again when you do polls where half of Americans believe AGW is not a priority, and well over 95% of scientists who work on this do, that to me is a problem where the folks with the power are the ones in control and casting enough doubt where the average American does not take it seriously. And that is where you have to have some balance with some people trying to shout an alarm of concern vs those who truly wield the power, such as our government currently who is silencing said climate scientists, where the EPA is no longer even able to address the issue, and those speaking up about it could lose their jobs? I agree with a lot of what you say as far as research on new technology but cannot take some of what you say seriously about the “trillions” it would cost to move away from fossil fuels? Is their more evidence for that suspect economic “ certainty” or for the dangers of CO2? I’m sorry you sound more like someone with their pension all in Exxon rather than looking at it objectively. And no more efficient fuel than fossil fuels for the next 100 years?? Ok, but I think humanity can do a little better than that.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. Source https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#7702cebf3f9f
Several groups routinely produce gridded land surface air temperature (LSAT) data sets using station measurements to assess the status and impact of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report suggests that estimated global and hemispheric mean LSAT trends of different data sets are consistent. However, less attention has been paid to the intercomparison at local/regional scales, which is important for local/regional studies. In this study we comprehensively compare four data sets at different spatial and temporal scales, including Berkley Earth Surface Temperature land surface air temperature data set (BEST‐LAND), Climate Research Unit Temperature Data Set version 4 (CRU‐TEM4v), National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies data (NASA‐GISS), and data provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Center for Environmental Information (NOAA‐NCEI). The mean LSAT anomalies are remarkably different because of the data coverage differences, with the magnitude nearly 0.4°C for the global and Northern Hemisphere and 0.6°C for the Southern Hemisphere. This study additionally finds that on the regional scale, northern high latitudes, southern middle‐to‐high latitudes, and the equator show the largest differences nearly 0.8°C. These differences cause notable differences for the trend calculation at regional scales. At the local scale, four data sets show significant variations over South America, Africa, Maritime Continent, central Australia, and Antarctica, which leads to remarkable differences in the local trend analysis. For some areas, different data sets produce conflicting results of whether warming exists. Our analysis shows that the differences across scales are associated with the availability of stations and the use of infilling techniques. Our results suggest that conventional LSAT data sets using only station observations have large uncertainties across scales, especially over station‐sparse areas. In developing future LSAT data sets, the data uncertainty caused by limited and unevenly distributed station observations must be reduced. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028355
People need to stop using the 97% statistic because it’s been debunked already as a false and misleading statistic. See below.
For a detailed list of some of the papers and how they were incorrectly classified, see this link below for further details and actual responses from the scientists. The 97% claim is well documented as misleading and incorrect so it’s time people stop using this statistic to argue that the consensus agrees on AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
OK well I was trying not to make this so political, but since you are going that route I feel I better address a few points. So how are these scientists who try to “punish, silence and intimidate” able to do such? Who has the power, a small group of academics doing research and trying to report their concern to the public or the gas and oil industry, all supported by our government and that of oil rich nations such as Russia and Saudi Arabia? Who has the ability to truly wield the power here? Come on man. Of course science should never be a consensus, but again when you do polls where half of Americans believe AGW is not a priority, and well over 95% of scientists who work on this do, that to me is a problem where the folks with the power are the ones in control and casting enough doubt where the average American does not take it seriously. And that is where you have to have some balance with some people trying to shout an alarm of concern vs those who truly wield the power, such as our government currently who is silencing said climate scientists, where the EPA is no longer even able to address the issue, and those speaking up about it could lose their jobs? I agree with a lot of what you say as far as research on new technology but cannot take some of what you say seriously about the “trillions” it would cost to move away from fossil fuels? Is their more evidence for that suspect economic “ certainty” or for the dangers of CO2? I’m sorry you sound more like someone with their pension all in Exxon rather than looking at it objectively. And no more efficient fuel than fossil fuels for the next 100 years?? Ok, but I think humanity can do a little better than that.
I honestly do not know or do not care what the actual statistic is, but even by those numbers it is still a majority. Science needs skeptics on both sides, but this debate has become so divisive that it can skew everyone’s objectivity. My point I was trying to make again is that science is never going to be “definite” regarding our climate. I do not understand why everyone feels a need to pick sides as this is a totally black and white problem. I certainly agree that there are many factors that affect our climate other than AGW. My point is that we can only do something about the factors humans can control. Interpreting and then acting upon science is the hard part, and on that we obviously disagree. I just personally believe that based on the current evidence the risk/benefit ratio of doing nothing/doing something is skewed towards doing more than we are currently committing to. MichaelJ brought up the asteroid hitting earth for example. We do not know either our exact risk of asteroid strikes, but surely the risk/benefit ratio of doing something about an asteroid should be quite low, plus again most scientists agree there is probably not much we could do at this time to stop an asteroid. Now, surely if we found a large asteroid that looked as if there was good evidence it would strike earth within three years, then I bet most of us would agree we would do something about it, that risk:benefit ratio would go up tremendously. The odds of catastrophic affects from AGW are obviously somewhere between 0 to 100%, and I believe the current data we have more supports taking action versus inactionPeople need to stop using the 97% statistic because it’s been debunked already as a false and misleading statistic. See below.
For a detailed list of some of the papers and how they were incorrectly classified, see this link below for further details and actual responses from the scientists. The 97% claim is well documented as misleading and incorrect so it’s time people stop using this statistic to argue that the consensus agrees on AGW.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
The only reason I brought this up was due to your comment about how the people who believe in AGW are trying to “silence” the skeptics. Maybe their is some of that happening but I find it ludicrous that their voice is more influential than the clear bias powerful industries have to sway public opinion. Sure so you don’t have anything in oil yourself, but who is spending/lobbying as hard as they can to put more doubt in the science? Some of your comments about the trillions that would be needed to move away from fossil fuels sure sounded like a oil company statement, as they do have billions to lose. Same goes for the science looking at tobacco use, CFCs, DDT, or lead in gasoline. The more money you can throw at the public to cast doubt, the less likely policy or human bevior will occur. Look at lead in gasoline, no one in their right mind would now say it is a good thing now, yet the oil industry pushed back extremely hard and this likely put off action on it for many years, and at a tremendous price to people’s health. Again, we don’t know exactly how much negative effects fossil figures will have in the future, but to say that said companies are not trying to change at least people’s perspectives on the subject, and in my opinion swaying emotion and skewing the science a lot more than the climate change group. And in the court of public opinion, injecting as much doubt as possible about the science is their objective, the longer you can do that the longer you can continue the status quo.Ahh, the last resort of people on the AGW side is to lump us with oil companies with NO proof whatsoever. It is like saying Physicians are part of the big Pharma complex, and they own stock in them. Sadly you resorted to the conspiracy nonsense. For the record I have never worked, owned stock or even much liked the oil industry but don't let a few facts get in the way, it isn't ( the AGW debate, and there is a huge debate among scientists in the field believe it or not) or should not be based on emotion but strictly on science
I honestly do not know or do not care what the actual statistic is, but even by those numbers it is still a majority. Science needs skeptics on both sides, but this debate has become so divisive that it can skew everyone’s objectivity. My point I was trying to make again is that science is never going to be “definite” regarding our climate. I do not understand why everyone feels a need to pick sides as this is a totally black and white problem. I certainly agree that there are many factors that affect our climate other than AGW. My point is that we can only do something about the factors humans can control. Interpreting and then acting upon science is the hard part, and on that we obviously disagree. I just personally believe that based on the current evidence the risk/benefit ratio of doing nothing/doing something is skewed towards doing more than we are currently committing to. MichaelJ brought up the asteroid hitting earth for example. We do not know either our exact risk of asteroid strikes, but surely the risk/benefit ratio of doing something about an asteroid should be quite low, plus again most scientists agree there is probably not much we could do at this time to stop an asteroid. Now, surely if we found a large asteroid that looked as if there was good evidence it would strike earth within three years, then I bet most of us would agree we would do something about it, that risk:benefit ratio would go up tremendously. The odds of catastrophic affects from AGW are obviously somewhere between 0 to 100%, and I believe the current data we have more supports taking action versus inaction
The only reason I brought this up was due to your comment about how the people who believe in AGW are trying to “silence” the skeptics. Maybe their is some of that happening but I find it ludicrous that their voice is more influential than the clear bias powerful industries have to sway public opinion. Sure so you don’t have anything in oil yourself, but who is spending/lobbying as hard as they can to put more doubt in the science? Some of your comments about the trillions that would be needed to move away from fossil fuels sure sounded like a oil company statement, as they do have billions to lose. Same goes for the science looking at tobacco use, CFCs, DDT, or lead in gasoline. The more money you can throw at the public to cast doubt, the less likely policy or human bevior will occur. Look at lead in gasoline, no one in their right mind would now say it is a good thing now, yet the oil industry pushed back extremely hard and this likely put off action on it for many years, and at a tremendous price to people’s health. Again, we don’t know exactly how much negative effects fossil figures will have in the future, but to say that said companies are not trying to change at least people’s perspectives on the subject, and in my opinion swaying emotion and skewing the science a lot more than the climate change group. And in the court of public opinion, injecting as much doubt as possible about the science is their objective, the longer you can do that the longer you can continue the status quo.
Olson, 2018 [O]pinion polls and other research show a public that frequently perceives climate science and associated AGW threats as complicated, uncertain and temporally and spatially distant (Anghelcev et al., 2015; Bennett et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2011). Thus climate scientists, celebrities, public policymakers and other AGW social marketers face a daunting task in convincing a lackadaisical and often skeptical public to support AGW mitigating behaviors and policies. The difficulty of this marketing assignment has also led to the utilization of ethically questionable tactics that hype the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threats (O’Neil and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Rogers, 1975; Rosenberg et al., 2010).
For example, the past 25 years have witnessed a large number of greatly exaggerated predictions regarding the speed and scope of temperature increases and AGW dangers from a variety of AGW “endorsers,” which have fortunately proven to be false alarms (Bastasch, 2015; Grundmann, 2011; Michaels, 2008; Newman, 2014).
Another ethically questionable example is provided by the Climategate scandal involving members of the climate science community and their attempts to increase public certainty regarding the methods and predictions of “mainstream” climate models by blocking the publication of research not supportive of the AGW paradigm (Curry, 2014; Grundmann, 2011).
The Fakegate scandal that is the focus of the current research is different than other AGW scandals and ethical missteps, however, because the protagonist publicly admitted to the intentional use of ethically questionable tactics for the purposes of favorably influencing public opinion regarding the AGW cause. Fakegate started with the theft of internal strategy and donor documents from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank and dangerous AGW “competitor” owing to their efforts to educate the public regarding climate model uncertainties and the high economic and political costs of AGW mitigation (Hoffman, 2011). … An analysis of the writing style, content details and errors in the fake document led several bloggers to speculate that the thief and fake document author was Peter Gleick, a climate researcher, environmental think tank president, chairman of a scientific association ethics committee and frequent blogger on climate science and AGW threats (Greenhut, 2012). These publicly discussed suspicions led Gleick to confess and apologize for his use of deception in posing as a Heartland board member to acquire and disseminate the internal documents.
Ok no I am not disagreeing with you that both sides have a stake in it and can influence the science. I was again addressing MichaelJs assertion that implied it was the AGW side that was getting in the way of the science where it certainly works both ways. Look, I think we all agree we need an open mind about it, that is always a good policy. Your prior post also brought up the uncertainty about AGW that I am not denying. My point is that on the whole you have to look at all the evidence you have and make decisions based on the risk/benefit model, and I am in the camp that feels more should be done about it and you are not. But just like the point I made about the studies with lead and CFCs, you cannot just look at the evidence forever and put off action when there is some doubt, we can argue what that point is but I still believe the decision to “wait until we have more evidence” is more costly than some reasonable steps to lower fossil fuels than no action at all.Regarding the first bolded statement there is evidence out there that AGW advocates were actually blocking the publication of people they disagree with or who advocate alternative explanations for the current warming we are seeing. See below.
If you're going to argue $$ as a reason that fossil fuel companies are trying to influence the science... you should also consider the $$ which is flowing into these researchers pockets, alternative energy exploration and the AGW cause. There is $$ on both sides to be made/lost so I don't find the $$ argument a compelling one for either side.
Ok no I am not disagreeing with you that both sides have a stake in it and can influence the science. I was again addressing MichaelJs assertion that implied it was the AGW side that was getting in the way of the science where it certainly works both ways. Look, I think we all agree we need an open mind about it, that is always a good policy. Your prior post also brought up the uncertainty about AGW that I am not denying. My point is that on the whole you have to look at all the evidence you have and make decisions based on the risk/benefit model, and I am in the camp that feels more should be done about it and you are not. But just like the point I made about the studies with lead and CFCs, you cannot just look at the evidence forever and put off action when there is some doubt, we can argue what that point is but I still believe the decision to “wait until we have more evidence” is more costly than some reasonable steps to lower fossil fuels than no action at all.
There is an awful lot I could list as you and Michael have already discussed as far as sustainable energy, some of it viable and some not. Solar is not the full answer but can be an important part, also biofuels, and both need more technology put in them now and in the future (also solar has come along way as far as its efficiency in the past decade). So there are many things that need to be explored while not at the same time installing more coal fire power plants that’s undermines any net improvement. Why I entered this dialogue was not about the myriad possible solutions but about how the science is interpreted and therefore is acted upon, especially in the all important poll of public opinion. In a democratic society a well informed educated population is key to a healthy democracy. In an increasingly partisan country, It is even more important for the public to know at least about the science and about the risks/benefits of policy for or against climate change or any important issue. Recent Gallup poll in March of this year shows more Americans believe it is an important subject, but it is still way down the list of priorities. Again, a big part of that is when you have enough doubt and dissent to make people question their choices on energy use or government policy. Not trying again to be too political, but when you have a current head of state calling it a hoax rather than at least having more open debate on the subject, it is a problem.If you read my previous comments you will see I have no problem with things being done in a sustainable way to improve how our resources our used. At the same time MichaelJ has brought up some great points about the issues with switching to various alternative energy sources that are effective, efficient and cost effective for the average consumer. I'm not against things being done in a sustainable and economically sustainable way... but what alternatives are there that meet these criteria? What do you propose as a cleaner way to power the millions of cars on the road and to get people to switch not just in the US but globally? What about sustainable electricity generation?
There is an awful lot I could list as you and Michael have already discussed as far as sustainable energy, some of it viable and some not. Solar is not the full answer but can be an important part, also biofuels, and both need more technology put in them now and in the future (also solar has come along way as far as its efficiency in the past decade). So there are many things that need to be explored while not at the same time installing more coal fire power plants that’s undermines any net improvement. Why I entered this dialogue was not about the myriad possible solutions but about how the science is interpreted and therefore is acted upon, especially in the all important poll of public opinion. In a democratic society a well informed educated population is key to a healthy democracy. In an increasingly partisan country, It is even more important for the public to know at least about the science and about the risks/benefits of policy for or against climate change or any important issue. Recent Gallup poll in March of this year shows more Americans believe it is an important subject, but it is still way down the list of priorities. Again, a big part of that is when you have enough doubt and dissent to make people question their choices on energy use or government policy. Not trying again to be too political, but when you have a current head of state calling it a hoax rather than at least having more open debate on the subject, it is a problem.