[Doug Siebert]

I am in the Kirk camp.  Why in the hell do we have to argue about the impact of humans on the ecological system?  Isn't it enough to know that we are falling far short of doing what we can (without endangering the economy) to reduce our footprint?  I can understand turnng a blind eye to the science debate, but it takes a numbskull to ignore the concept of reducing the footprint as goal to strive toward. 

Ciao

This is the real shame of it.  Global warming has become a religious issue in politics that in many ways is no different than the debate on abortion or gay marriage.  There are extremists on both sides who are so dug into their POV that it is like speaking to a brick wall.  Each major party in the US has their official position that is nearly a litmus test for being electable in that party (as a new candidate, as always, guys who have been around for decades can and will occasionally deviate from their party's doctrine)

If the debate wasn't so extreme, those who don't subscribe to global warming (or to global warming as being human caused) might have some incentive to at least do something.  As it is, they fight any regulation that would help the environment, from higher MPG standards for cars to curbside recycling, because they see it all as a slippery slope where they will eventually be told what kind of car they're allowed to buy and fined for throwing away a magazine instead of recycling it.

If it wasn't for this siege mentality caused by the extremists on the other side, maybe their next vehicle would be higher mileage - maybe they still get a big honkin' SUV, but they pick the most efficient of the big honkin' SUVs.  Or they can be convinced to conserve energy in their homes, if they can be shown it will save them money - even if that savings comes later in terms of avoiding future rate increases by helping to avoid building another power plant.  They could do the easy recycling - maybe they recycle some stuff but not other stuff depending on how hard it is to sort and store.

But many anti-GW extremists almost take it as a point of pride to be wasteful, as if it is showing up those pro-GW extremists, who if they had their way would limit families to one car, hybrid/electric only, mandate immediate replacement of incandescent bulbs, and have thermostats that couldn't be set lower than 78* in summer or higher than 62* in winter.  They have the same smug holier-than-thou air about their conservation efforts as they point to all the evidence for GW that a bible thumper has when they condemn gay marriage and point to verses from scripture supporting their position.

As a result we become fixated on pointless things, like the "phantom power" from charging devices that are plugged in when not in use.  Sure, most little wall wart cell phone chargers wasting energy when plugged in without the phone attached, but it is such a tiny amount compared to even simple measures like retiring the 40 year old fridge you use in the garage to keep extra beer on hand, or fixing air leaks around ill-fitting windows.  Worrying about a watt lost (even when it is 24x7x365) on a couple wall warts is like schoolchildren collecting pennies to help pay down the national debt.  It might make you feel good, but it distracts from doing something that would have more impact.

[Craig Sweet]

Doug it is estimated that "phantom power" amounts to a little over 10% of your total home energy use....over the course of a year the savings would be a free month of energy!

My take on the whole GW issue is the fossil fuel industry has spent a few billion dollars to muddy the waters and plant a seed of doubt. Politicians from oil/gas/coal states use this seed of doubt or cover while racking in millions in campaign contributions.

Congress should be like NASCAR and our Congressmen should have to wear the patches of their sponsors on their suits.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

What I think you and many others forget is that people have greater concerns facing them than watching the wattage on their light bulbs.

Employment issues, income and expense issues, marital problems, problems with their kids, costs to educate, health issues, health costs,  etc. etc..
All of these very real issues that people face every day demote environmental issues to low man on the totem pole.

It makes sense to be environmentally aware, but, "The Sky is Falling" mantra that we hear too often, is both extreme and far removed from the pressing problems of everyday life.

In addition, you seem to forget about "NIMBY".
Often a reasonable project gets shot down for no other reason than "NIMBY"
And, that includes pro-environmental folks too
Maybe Three Mile Island and/or the movie, "China Syndrome" contributed to that mindset, but, it's a very real impediment to energy saving installations, be they windmill farms or nuclear power plants.

And, what remains unquantified, is the degree to which man influences the GW process.

I like to recycle, I advocated recycling at clubs where I was a board member.  I tried energy saving light bulbs and found out that many were defective and those that worked didn't throw off enough light for my impaired eyes.  I thought smaller cars would be great until a woman on a cell phone driving at 50+mph hit me while I was waiting to make a left turn.  The police tell me that my life was spared because I was in a big car.  Advocates of smaller, energy saving cars should be forced to car pool with their kids friends before making any purchase.   Again, life and life experiences influence the degree in which people respond to issues, environmental and otherwise.

What may concern you, may be of no concern to your neighbor and vice versa.

I think problems begin when one faction attempts to dictate a life style for other factions.

In the ultimate, whether you like it or not, the "pocketbook" is the great motivator.
If the incremental cost is negligible, people won't react or respond and environmental issues, to many people, are de minimis, today.

My point is, that most people don't place a high priority on environmental issues because they have so many, more immediate, issues to deal with and the environmental issues don't impact their pocketbook in a meaningful way.

If we could bury all of the used fisionable material that's a byproduct of nuclear reactors, safely on Mars, do you think we'd follow the French National energy policy and reduce our dependency on foreign oil ?

[Jeff Taylor]

From the Unskeptical Guide to the Skeptics Handbook by Joanne Nova
"Carbon on it’s own causes 1 measly paltry pathetic degree of warming if carbon doubles. If feedbacks are negative, which Douglass, Spencer, and Lindzen show from three independent data sources, then the world will warm by around half a degree over 200 years. Carbon dioxide could well be warming the planet, but the entire quantitative effect is not worth worrying about. And yes, I’m aware of criticisms of Lindzen and Choi, but I’ve seen the update for 2010, and the results still suggest feedback is negative."

There is no catastrophic warming consensus except among those that have an interest in taking freedom from those less connected to protect it. Some may want an elimination of fossil fuel usage or a reduction to a level that can be supported nationally or at least by friendly sources. That is all well and good but cannot be tied to some future threat to climate. Divorcing the two thwarts the need to increase the cost of carbon based energy to a level that makes other sources of energy economically viable. Some countries can just dictate lifestyle changes for their citizens. Dr. Hansen praises China's methods in directing economic activity and finds it preferable to ours. This is no coincidence. America will be the last fruit to fall from the tree and rightly so. Man made catastrophic warming advocates hope that this happens before a cooling trend starts. Too late.

[Jud_T]

Pat and George,

Here you go.  Plug-in hybrid Range Rover Sport by 2015:

http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/05/12/range-rover-hybrid-coming-in-2013-plug-in-hybrid-version-coming-in-2015/

[Craig Sweet]

Jeff Taylor...Joanne Nova has be totally debunked. She has a very flimsy grasp of the science....and for what its worth, the Heartland Foundation that employes her receives a lot of its funding from oil/gas/coal companies.

There absolutely is a consensus that man's burning of fossil fuels is impacting our climate. But I guess there are those, with a huge financial interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, who will repeat over and over and over again that there is no connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change until they have everyone believing them. Its the big lie...like Reagan was a tax cutter or Obama will set up death panels...they say long enough until it becomes the " truth".

[Jeff Taylor]

Jeff Taylor...Joanne Nova has be totally debunked. She has a very flimsy grasp of the science....and for what its worth, the Heartland Foundation that employes her receives a lot of its funding from oil/gas/coal companies.

There absolutely is a consensus that man's burning of fossil fuels is impacting our climate. But I guess there are those, with a huge financial interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, who will repeat over and over and over again that there is no connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change until they have everyone believing them. Its the big lie...like Reagan was a tax cutter or Obama will set up death panels...they say long enough until it becomes the " truth".

You are correct Craig. There is no shortage of repetition on either side. If repetition is proof of being wrong then we both have a problem. I think it is Lindzen and Choi that needs to be debunked. So far, not so.

[DMoriarty]

I think it is Lindzen and Choi that needs to be debunked. So far, not so.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043051.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml

[Matt Kardash]

The lack of understanding of science and the peer-review process on this messageboard is scary to me.
Grabbing one source that backs up your bullshit doesn't validate your point of view.

Watch how I can do the same thing. This is my theory: The Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man and the grand canyon was caused by a global flood. My source, Kent Hovind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJXtXUcXw2U&feature=related
You can't prove me wrong because Kent Hovind says so.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Matt

Would you say there is any truth in the following statements or are they also just bullshit

“One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.”

“………. regards volcanoes doing more damage to this small planet, let’s just look to one – which has a potential caldera of 35miles x 45miles and is regarded as a ‘supervolcano’.

When this little beauty goes bang it will not only do more damage than Man has ever achieved but may have the possibility of wiping out life on Earth. This little ball of happiness is located in Yellowstone Park  and to my knowledge has no connection to Man and his destructive ways, this is Mother Nature saying whatever we think we can do she can do it so much better.”

Bullshit or possible?

Melvyn

[Craig Van Egmond]

The lack of understanding of science and the peer-review process on this messageboard is scary to me.
Grabbing one source that backs up your bullshit doesn't validate your point of view.

Watch how I can do the same thing. This is my theory: The Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs lived with man and the grand canyon was caused by a global flood. My source, Kent Hovind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJXtXUcXw2U&feature=related
You can't prove me wrong because Kent Hovind says so.

And yet you still offer no solutions.

How'd the peer review process work out for the guy that connected autism and vaccinations?

Don't you have any faith in your fellow scientists to come up with solutions?

[Jeff Taylor]

I think it is Lindzen and Choi that needs to be debunked. So far, not so.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042314.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043051.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042911.shtml

Well done David.

http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/05/03/lindzen-and-chois-new-paper-out-confirms-negative-feedback-unlike-agw-climate-models/

The battle of the models continues. Sounds like good Super Bowl halftime fun.

[DMoriarty]

The battle of the models continues. Sounds like good Super Bowl halftime fun.

First off, I don't think we are talking about a battle of the models here.  As I understand it, Lindzen was severely criticized for playing fast and loose with data and selectively choosing start and finishing points in an already artificially limited data set, essentially throwing out portions of the data which would have undermined his claimed results.  In other words, it was criticized as extremely shoddy science, at best.  

So, contrary to your original claim, Lindzen's conclusions were thoroughly refuted, and even Lindzen acknowledged that his study was seriously flawed! "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009], much of which was appropriate."

As for his 2010 paper and whether or not it actually corrected the flaws of the first paper as he claims, who knows?  The paper is available online and was apparently submitted to professional publications for peer review, but has it ever been published in a reputable publication?   I don't know.  The paper does not appear in his list of publications on his website.  

[Pete_Pittock]

Matt

Would you say there is any truth in the following statements or are they also just bullshit

“One medium size volcano erupting would match what Man has done in a 100 years of pollution. Two would probably match what Man has done since the Industrial Revolution. Three covers the full damage Man has done since he first farted.”

“………. regards volcanoes doing more damage to this small planet, let’s just look to one – which has a potential caldera of 35miles x 45miles and is regarded as a ‘supervolcano’.

When this little beauty goes bang it will not only do more damage than Man has ever achieved but may have the possibility of wiping out life on Earth. This little ball of happiness is located in Yellowstone Park  and to my knowledge has no connection to Man and his destructive ways, this is Mother Nature saying whatever we think we can do she can do it so much better.”

Bullshit or possible?

Melvyn

Melvyn,
Leaning towards BS. A quick check of Wikipedia for supervolcanoes lists major eruptions. The largest one, in Indoneisia, managed to wipe out about 60% of population, but there were nearby survivors. Eradication of the human race is very unlikely. A number of eruptions have created a volcanic winter. There was one VEI-7 (8 is tops) about 200 years ago, but the empire lived on. For what its worth, Krakatoa was a VEI-5.

[John Kirk]

There is no catastrophic warming consensus except among those that have an interest in taking freedom from those less connected to protect it.

There they go, there they go.  Every time I start talking about global warming, some Republican has to pull freedom out of they ass.  That's they one! That's they one!  Freedom this.  Freedom that.  It's about freedom..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWvDao-MpOk

You're welcome.

[Jeff Taylor]

The battle of the models continues. Sounds like good Super Bowl halftime fun.

First off, I don't think we are talking about a battle of the models here.  As I understand it, Lindzen was severely criticized for playing fast and loose with data and selectively choosing start and finishing points in an already artificially limited data set, essentially throwing out portions of the data which would have undermined his claimed results.  In other words, it was criticized as extremely shoddy science, at best.  

So, contrary to your original claim, Lindzen's conclusions were thoroughly refuted, and even Lindzen acknowledged that his study was seriously flawed! "This work was subject to significant criticism by Trenberth et al. [2009], much of which was appropriate."

As for his 2010 paper and whether or not it actually corrected the flaws of the first paper as he claims, who knows?  The paper is available online and was apparently submitted to professional publications for peer review, but has it ever been published in a reputable publication?   I don't know.  The paper does not appear in his list of publications on his website.  

Thanks David. Yes you are correct. The models comment was a weak attempt at humor. Lindzen's methodology was criticized. His conclusion does not fall but the paper's credibility does. His 2010 submission maintains the claim about feedback being negative. Like you, I await publication. Can't wait to read it.

[Jeff Taylor]

There is no catastrophic warming consensus except among those that have an interest in taking freedom from those less connected to protect it.

There they go, there they go.  Every time I start talking about global warming, some Republican has to pull freedom out of they ass.  That's they one! That's they one!  Freedom this.  Freedom that.  It's about freedom..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWvDao-MpOk

You're welcome.

It is a good thing that hot air has not been banned yet. You can still speak and write freely. Your ass is probably safe for now.
How do you know I am a Republican? I could draw several conclusions about you from your writing. I choose not to.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

The conclusion falls with the methodology.

Can't wait to read it.

Why?  

[Jeff Taylor]

Jeff,

The conclusion falls with the methodology.

Can't wait to read it.

Why?  

Interest. I do want to see what the peer review process brings.

[John Kirk]

Hi Jeff,

Obviously I am blowing hot air.  The comment happened to remind me of that clip, since I sometimes hear freedom identified as a legitimate concern with regards to global warming.

I'm a Democrat.  Are you a Republican?  I'll fix it if I'm wrong.

Perhaps the reason I respond with such sarcastic vitriol is my belief that global warming is so obviously affected by man.  How we got to a point where 95% of scientists believe man is affecting the climate, while only about 50% of the population believes it, is a tragedy of such enormous magnitude that I can't stand the idiotic, so called serious discussion.  It's so obvious what is happening here.  If this had happened in 1970, the world would have responded more responsibly.

Why don't you want to believe this?  Why would anybody want to stifle freedom?  For that matter, why would anyone want to damage the overall prosperity of the world?  How is the oil and gas industry "less connected from those who want to protect it."?  It seems to me the oil/gas industries are sufficiently well represented a the highest levels of government.  Do you really think that other forms of energy production wish to stifle the oil/coal/gas industries for their benefit?  Maybe a tiny bit, but hydrocarbons are irreplaceable.  They should be used responsibly so there is plenty left a hundred years from now.

OK, Jeff, sorry for the vitriol.  I'll sit back down.  Obviously, you're hot about my wise ass remark, but it's such an important issue, and even though the vast majority of scientists believe this is happening, the world is so concerned with economics that the issue is being swept under the rug.

Trust scientists, not the media, and not Mr. Businessman.

But you, and everybody else who challenges this assumption, doesn't give a damn what I think.

[Jim_Kennedy]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

Was that an American Study?

Melvyn

[Craig Van Egmond]

John,

   You obviously don't remember the 70's.  Let's see Earth Day started in 1970,  the world would soon be overpopulated, gas lines and oh the impending ice age.

    I sorry it pisses you off that not everybody thinks like you. John Kavanaugh is the same way with people who aren't as smart as he is.

    People will not change until they have to, when gas hits $5 a gallon then people will cut back on driving, get smaller cars etc.

    Name me one legitimate 'clean energy' option?

[Jeff Taylor]

Hi Jeff,

Obviously I am blowing hot air.  The comment happened to remind me of that clip, since I sometimes hear freedom identified as a legitimate concern with regards to global warming.

I'm a Democrat.  Are you a Republican?  I'll fix it if I'm wrong.

Perhaps the reason I respond with such sarcastic vitriol is my belief that global warming is so obviously affected by man.  How we got to a point where 95% of scientists believe man is affecting the climate, while only about 50% of the population believes it, is a tragedy of such enormous magnitude that I can't stand the idiotic, so called serious discussion.  It's so obvious what is happening here.  If this had happened in 1970, the world would have responded more responsibly.

Why don't you want to believe this?  Why would anybody want to stifle freedom?  How is the oil and gas industry "less connected from those who want to protect it."?  It seems to me the oil/gas industries are sufficiently well represented a the highest levels of government.  Do you really think that other forms of energy production wish to stifle the oil/coal/gas industries for their benefit?  Maybe a tiny bit, but hydrocarbons are irreplaceable.  They should be used responsibly so there is plenty left a hundred years from now.

OK, Jeff, sorry for the vitriol.  I'll sit back down.  Obviously, you're hot about my wise ass remark, but it's such an important issue, and even though the vast majority of scientists believe this is happening, the world is so concerned with economics that the issue is being swept under the rug.

Trust scientists, not the media, and not Mr. Businessman.

But you, and everybody else who challenges this assumption, doesn't give a damn what I think.

So you apologize for the vitriol and the assumptions about me and then claim that I don't give a damn about what you think. Well played sir.
I will be brief as I have to go home and pack for a golf trip to Florida. I hear it is nice and warm there.
1. I question the "95% of scientists" figure. Sorry. Maybe you can provide the list.
2. It is not so obvious to me that this (former) period of warming is carbon induced. Please point me to the research that eliminates natural variability as a cause of the warming from the 70's to 2000. It would help me in my thinking.
3. I do not want to stifle freedom. Not sure how I am doing so. I am more worried about the people in the world that cannot use carbon based energy to lift themselves out of poverty. Oil and gas companies can stand or fall on their own. Likewise for their competitors who also have a seat at the table.
4. While hydrocarbons may be irreplaceable, the "save it for later argument" is meaningless if we migrate to renewables. Hell, I would rather run out than let some with a discredited temperature database, rigged peer review process, and a manufactured consensus take it away from me.
5. Yes, the world is concerned with economics. That world includes people who own businesses, scientists, politicians, and school teachers. None of us are above scrutiny.
Be well and stay warm.

[Colin Macqueen]

Craig,

I 'umbly submit nuclear energy will be the method of choice by the end of the century. "Legitimate, clean"? depends how you want to define it but nuclear will be top dog.

Cheers Colin

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()