Obama Announces New Climate Plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
styrgwillidar said:
…Lynvic, concern for the environment is great apart from the religion of Glo… sorry, Climate Change.
Click to expand...
You show me your religion that has no concern for the victims of AGW, and will not even follow prudence in giving climate scientists the benefit of the doubt when it comes to human lives, and I’ll show you my religion (Catholicism, including numerous Church and papal writings) that underlies my concern for AGW victims now and well into the future.
But government action isn’t the way it is going to get done.
Click to expand...
Very true.

As JPII said in 1990 everyone (that means EVERYONE) has responsibility to mitigate AGW. Some very few in the gov at various levels (fed, state, local) are trying to do their part, and we need to do our part.
 
lynnvinc said:
You show me your religion that has no concern for the victims of AGW, and will not even follow prudence in giving climate scientists the benefit of the doubt when it comes to human lives, and I’ll show you my religion (Catholicism, including numerous Church and papal writings) that underlies my concern for AGW victims now and well into the future.

Very true.

As JPII said in 1990 everyone (that means EVERYONE) has responsibility to mitigate AGW. Some very few in the gov at various levels (fed, state, local) are trying to do their part, and we need to do our part.
Click to expand...
GW is open to serious doubt. If there is GW, MMGW is very much open to serious doubt. If there is MMGW the question whether it’s caused by burning fossil fuels rather than e.g. desertification, is open to serious doubt. If there is MMGW caused by burning fossil fuels, the potentially catastrophic consequences are open to serious doubt. Scientists are all over the place on all of that.

It is a certitude that “mitigation” proposals by politicians in the U.S. aimed at reducing CO2 emissions will not affect MMGW if it exists.

Against that, and armed only by computer models that build on each other, we have politicians who are ready, willing and able to make utility bills of the poor and elderly “skyrocket”. They are willing to cause job loss of a serious magnitude. They are willing to see the economy seriously suffer.

You pray for the theoretical sufferers from theoretical consequences of theoretical MMGW, Lynnvinc, and I will pray for the poor and elderly who will suffer, go hungry, lose jobs and perhaps die as an absolute certain and acknowledged consequence of forced reduction and artificially increased cost of energy use in the U.S.
 
Ridgerunner said:
GW is open to serious doubt.
Click to expand...
Not so, according to bona fide climate science.

I don’t even think the denialist industry really believes AGW is not happening – it’s just that they are beholden to those buttering their bread, and than trumps truth.

A good flick to watch that gives you some inside insight into how things work is THE INSIDER, about the tobacco cover-up.
 
I finally got around to reading the new Climate Plan, and found I was wrong about one thing – the Prez does have some power to help people compensate for higher energy costs. So we’ve probably wasted a lot of words and back-and-forth on it being unfair to the poor.

From pp. 9-10 of the plan:
Reducing Energy Bills for American Families and Businesses: Energy efficiency is one of the clearest and most cost-effective opportunities to save families money, make our businesses more competitive, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the President’s first term, the Department of Energy and the Department of Housing and Urban Development completed efficiency upgrades in more than one million homes, saving many families more than $400 on their heating and cooling bills in the first year alone. The Administration will take a range of new steps geared towards achieving President Obama’s goal of doubling energy productivity by 2030 relative to
2010 levels:

• Establishing a New Goal for Energy Efficiency Standards: In President Obama’s first term, the Department of Energy established new minimum efficiency standards for dishwashers, refrigerators, and many other products. Through 2030, these standards will cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars and save enough electricity to power more than 85 million homes for two years. To build on this success, the Administration is setting a new goal: Efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings set in the first and second terms combined will reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 – equivalent to nearly one-half of the carbon pollution from the entire U.S. energy sector for one year – while continuing to cut families’ energy bills.

• Reducing Barriers to Investment in Energy Efficiency: Energy efficiency upgrades bring significant cost savings, but upfront costs act as a barrier to more widespread investment. In response, the Administration is committing to a number of new executive actions. As soon as this fall, the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service will finalize a proposed update to its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program to provide up to $250 million for rural utilities to finance efficiency investments by businesses and homeowners across rural America. The Department is also streamlining its Rural Energy for America program to provide grants and loan guarantees directly to agricultural producers and rural small businesses for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems.

In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s efforts include a $23 million Multifamily Energy Innovation Fund designed to enable affordable housing providers, technology firms, academic institutions, and philanthropic organizations to test new approaches to deliver cost-effective residential energy. In order to advance ongoing efforts and bring stakeholders together, the Federal Housing Administration will convene representatives of the lending community and other key stakeholders for a mortgage roundtable in July to identify options for factoring energy efficiency into the mortgage underwriting and appraisal process upon sale or refinancing of new or existing homes.

• Expanding the President’s Better Buildings Challenge: The Better Buildings Challenge, focused on helping American commercial and industrial buildings become at least 20 percent more energy efficient by 2020, is already showing results. More than 120 diverse organizations, representing over 2 billion square feet are on track to meet the 2020 goal: cutting energy use by an average 2.5 percent annually, equivalent to about $58 million in energy savings per year. To continue this success, the Administration will expand the program to multifamily housing – partnering both with private and affordable building owners and public housing agencies to cut energy waste. In addition, the Administration is launching the Better Buildings Accelerators, a new track that will support and encourage adoption of State and local policies to cut energy waste, building on the momentum of ongoing efforts at that level.
Of course, it would be much better if Congress were to get in on the act and come up with, say, revenue-neutral “fee & dividend” legislation.
 
lynnvinc said:
Yes, that’s so true. And it may sound weird, but when one understands the science behind it the mysteries get solved.

There are increasingly more droughts AND more deluges of biblical proportions. (and plagues) And that is because warming air holds more water vapor – sucking it out of water bodies, soil, and plants – desiccating them, leading to greater wildfire risk. Then under certain weather conditions that water up there can come down as a extreme precipitation event (blizzard, deluge), flooding out places. Add to that greater snowfall, then greater and earlier spring melt, and Upper Midwest, you’ve got problems. And in drought-stricken places where the plants have died back or been wiped out by wildfires, that could lead to severe mudslides when that all water up there comes down as a severe deluge.

These are all noted to be on the increase globally: ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/ and ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

The most recent tragedy in Uttarakhand, India: english.irib.ir/subcontinent/news/regional/item/87672-around-3000-still-missing-in-india%E2%80%99s-uttarakhand-state-official

Here is part of the reason: more heat and water in the atmosphere, the greater potential for that to be turned into kinetic enegry in the form of fiercer storms and hurricanes.

Also in order for a hurricane to even form, the sea-surface temps need to be high…which is why you usually don’t get hurricanes hitting California – due to the cold Humbolt current – unless they come up thru the hot Sea of Cortez.

This is a necessary, but not sufficient cause, since there are other factors (e.g., re wind sheer, etc) that need to come into play, so it has been difficult to say whether there will be more frequent storms, only that they will be more intense…until now, with Emanuel’s new study, which projects they will be more frequent, as well.

Some helpful studies and sites with info and/or links to studies:
Now this is one of the most disturbing developments for me, bec when moving to the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas in 2002, I was thinking the one silver lining to AGW is that we will have less killing freezes (that kill our tropical garden and winter veggie crops…since summer is too hot and dry to grow them).

Then come to find out AGW is also increasing negative Arctic oscillations, bringing cold snaps from north to south (making the Arctic warmer than usual, but killing my garden), rather than the more usual west-to-east pattern. However, studies are coming in showing that these Neg AOs are increasing due to GW factors:
The upshot is that the global average temps continue to increase, but regional weather in many areas involves wider swings than before, including really bad cold snaps that kill my garden.

One has to understand that there are many factors impacting climate, the enhancing greenhouse effect being just one. For instance the short-term fluxes in solar irradiance, and the sun having been in a deep “solar minimum” for the past 13 years… which if it were not for the enhancing GH effect would have brought the global average temp down to pre-1970s levels.

So the time-temp chart is like a saw blade, but that blade is pointed upwards.

Also it has actually continued to warm over the past 13 years, if one includes the various places on earth the heat is being stored, such as the oceans.

http://westcoastclimateequity.org/w.../Ocean-Heating-Total-Heat-Content-300x228.jpg

Hope this post helps to clarify some of the mysteries re AGW.
Click to expand...
After the infamous Hockey Stick graph hoax I don’t put much stock in graphs from Global warming Alarmists sites.
 
lynnvinc said:
Not so, according to bona fide climate science.

I don’t even think the denialist industry really believes AGW is not happening – it’s just that they are beholden to those buttering their bread, and than trumps truth.

A good flick to watch that gives you some inside insight into how things work is THE INSIDER, about the tobacco cover-up.
Click to expand...
“Denialist” is just an insult, and using it is just as ill-mannered as “environmentalist nut job”. Please refrain from using terminology of that sort, and so will I. Can we agree to that?

I don’t know that there is an “industry”, “denialist” or otherwise. There are a lot of scientific people who just don’t agree with MMGW, many of whom don’t make a dime out of their opinions, just as there are a lot of them who do agree with it. Some make money on it and some don’t. There are thousands on both sides of the question.

Most definitely, however, there are some very major capitalists (200+), multimillionaires and billionnaires, who have put a lot of money into “mitigation” and “alternative energy” strategies, just as oil companies have put a lot of money into discovering new fields.

I am also cognizant of the fact that pushing MMGW is financially rewarding for politicians, and that the politicians who push it don’t act as if they believe it themselves.

That kind of fact pattern ought to make a person questioning at the very least.

I’m already familiar with the tobacco thing, but I don’t think it has a lot of relevance to this issue, anymore than the “global cooling” fears of the 1970s did, or that the “peak oil” alarms of the 1970s, then again four+ years ago did.
 
estesbob said:
After the infamous Hockey Stick graph hoax I don’t put much stock in graphs from Global warming Alarmists sites.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the hockey stick (based on tree-ring proxies), except that people started lobbing death threats at Mike Mann and his 6 yr old daughter.

There are plenty of other climate proxies that jive with the hockey stick. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate
serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/general.html

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And the main issue is not the debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as current years, but that with the GHGs now in the atmosphere, and continuing to be emitted there, it is expected that the warming will greatly exceed the MWP and cause tremendous death and destruction. Because there are ice core proxies that show a very strong corrleation between GHGs and warming.

http://processtrends.com/images/chart_paleo_climate_1.gif

We’ve only seen the tiny beginnings of AGW and its impacts over the past decade or so with Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and the great droughts, heatwaves, floods, disease spread, sea rise, wildfires, species loss, glacier & snowpack melt, neg arctic oscillations, and concomitant problems such as ocean acidification and pollution.

When AGW really starts kicking in, I would hope and pray at least then, even though it will be way too late to save many lives, that people will begin to turn off lights not in use and the myriad of other measures that can reduce our GHG emissions. And I hope that happens before we have caused so much warming that nature takes over by releasing vast gigatons of carbon now frozen in permafrost and ocean hydrates, causing much more warming. But make no mistake it is we humans that are pulling the trigger on that methane shootgun, which is more fully loaded than during the PETM great warming of 55 mill yrs ago.

I’m old now and going out a good time (as the elderly Catholic mother of a friend used to tell us 30 years ago).

I am so terribly sorry I was not able to get anyone to do any good, to reduce their GHG emissions. So sorry.
 
estesbob said:
After the infamous Hockey Stick graph hoax I don’t put much stock in graphs from Global warming Alarmists sites.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that it takes approximately 3,000 years for increases in air temperatures to “equalize” ocean temperatures by transfer from the former to the latter, but only days for ocean temperatures to “equalize” air temperatures. But that’s at the surface. I’ll see if I can find the source again. If it’s so, and if the ocean temperatures measured in the graph are not simply one surface source somewhere, then the likelihood is that the graph you copied reflects air temperature increases that are caused by ocean temperatures, not the other way around.

The ocean temperature increases are almost certainly not caused by air temperature increases. There is a tremendous lag time between the two. That makes sense. You could have a very warm day in January, but it won’t affect the temperature of a frigid lake by very much.

It’s curious that the graph was expressed in joules rather than in degrees. A joule, it appears, is the energy required to produce one watt of energy for one second. Now, expressing a change in the heat energy stored in the vast oceans in even hundreds of “joules” would not, to me (a non-expert) suggest a gain of a whole lot of energy.

And, of course, the graph does not tell us where in the oceans any of the measurements came from, or in what season, or in what current, or anything else.
 
lynnvinc said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the hockey stick (based on tree-ring proxies), except that people started lobbing death threats at Mike Mann and his 6 yr old daughter.

There are plenty of other climate proxies that jive with the hockey stick. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate
serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/general.html

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ng/300px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And the main issue is not the debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as current years, but that with the GHGs now in the atmosphere, and continuing to be emitted there, it is expected that the warming will greatly exceed the MWP and cause tremendous death and destruction. Because there are ice core proxies that show a very strong corrleation between GHGs and warming.

http://processtrends.com/images/chart_paleo_climate_1.gif

We’ve only seen the tiny beginnings of AGW and its impacts over the past decade or so with Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and the great droughts, heatwaves, floods, disease spread, sea rise, wildfires, species loss, glacier & snowpack melt, neg arctic oscillations, and concomitant problems such as ocean acidification and pollution.

When AGW really starts kicking in, I would hope and pray at least then, even though it will be way too late to save many lives, that people will begin to turn off lights not in use and the myriad of other measures that can reduce our GHG emissions. And I hope that happens before we have caused so much warming that nature takes over by releasing vast gigatons of carbon now frozen in permafrost and ocean hydrates, causing much more warming. But make no mistake it is we humans that are pulling the trigger on that methane shootgun, which is more fully loaded than during the PETM great warming of 55 mill yrs ago.

I’m old now and going out a good time (as the elderly Catholic mother of a friend used to tell us 30 years ago).

I am so terribly sorry I was not able to get anyone to do any good, to reduce their GHG emissions. So sorry.
Click to expand...
Heres manns graph:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/m...013/05/Carbon-T-F-CD-thumb-650x400-121124.jpg
 
lynnvinc said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the hockey stick (based on tree-ring proxies), except that people started lobbing death threats at Mike Mann and his 6 yr old daughter.

There are plenty of other climate proxies that jive with the hockey stick. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate
serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/general.html

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ng/300px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

And the main issue is not the debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as current years, but that with the GHGs now in the atmosphere, and continuing to be emitted there, it is expected that the warming will greatly exceed the MWP and cause tremendous death and destruction. Because there are ice core proxies that show a very strong corrleation between GHGs and warming.

http://processtrends.com/images/chart_paleo_climate_1.gif

We’ve only seen the tiny beginnings of AGW and its impacts over the past decade or so with Katrina, Superstorm Sandy, and the great droughts, heatwaves, floods, disease spread, sea rise, wildfires, species loss, glacier & snowpack melt, neg arctic oscillations, and concomitant problems such as ocean acidification and pollution.

When AGW really starts kicking in, I would hope and pray at least then, even though it will be way too late to save many lives, that people will begin to turn off lights not in use and the myriad of other measures that can reduce our GHG emissions. And I hope that happens before we have caused so much warming that nature takes over by releasing vast gigatons of carbon now frozen in permafrost and ocean hydrates, causing much more warming. But make no mistake it is we humans that are pulling the trigger on that methane shootgun, which is more fully loaded than during the PETM great warming of 55 mill yrs ago.

I’m old now and going out a good time (as the elderly Catholic mother of a friend used to tell us 30 years ago).

I am so terribly sorry I was not able to get anyone to do any good, to reduce their GHG emissions. So sorry.
Click to expand...
Your appeal to family economy by reducing energy consumption and which MIGHT have some beneficial environmental effects, is meritorious.

But appealing to weather conditions that are by no means unusual even within recent memory and whose causation is not attributed to MMGW by meteorologists, and further appealing to mega-disaster scenarios that are mightily disputed by thousands of scientists is not effective. And it is particularly ineffective when politicians and billionaires have a huge financial stake in public belief in MMGW but do not live as if they believe it themselves.

And no matter what, when one considers that those politicians and billionaires are perfectly willing to pursue their agendas at the undisputed cost of the poor, the elderly and those who depend on employment, it’s just very difficult to embrace a known evil for the sake of a speculative one.
 
Ridgerunner said:
“Denialist” is just an insult, and using it is just as ill-mannered as “environmentalist nut job”. Please refrain from using terminology of that sort, and so will I. Can we agree to that?
Click to expand...
That’s the appropriate term for those being paid by fossil fuel monies to spread lies about climate change, the hacks spewing out fake-science, since a “skeptic” is one who questions something, but is open to accepting it if logical and evidentiary proof is provided.

However, I strive not to use that term for people who unwittingly buy into those lies and falsehoods. But the perps who are producing the lies are evil people for knowingly putting a huge portion of human lives and others of God’s creation at risk, and I pray for their conversion and their souls.
I don’t know that there is an “industry”, “denialist” or otherwise. There are a lot of scientific people who just don’t agree with MMGW, many of whom don’t make a dime out of their opinions, just as there are a lot of them who do agree with it. Some make money on it and some don’t. There are thousands on both sides of the question.
Click to expand...
Sorry you and 1000s of others are swayed by their lies.

Here’s a site that will help people understand their ties to fossil fuels and anti-environmental ideological think tanks receiving money from fossil fuel industries: desmogblog.com/

Here is their database, where you can look up particular names: desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

When I saw Fr. Sirico on EWTN’s WorldOver program some years ago denying climate change, I checked out his org, The Acton Institute, and found it was taking money from fossil fuels, most notably Exxon and Koch – see greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Acton-Institute-for-the-Study-of-Religion-and-Liberty—Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/ and exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=5&__utma=1.1017583319.1374009669.1374009669.1374009669.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1374009669&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1374009669.1.1.utmcsr=google

There could be a few honest working climate scientists who doubt AGW, but they will be very few, and since science requires 95% confidence before making claims, it is indeed very remarkable that there are so few who doubt it (less than 3%). We people called to be moral beings, however, should not have to have 95% confidence that our actions are harming people, to strive and find ways to reduce that. The U.S. Bishops have called us to prudence on AGW in 2001, to mitigate AGW, even if we do have some doubts.
I’m already familiar with the tobacco thing, but I don’t think it has a lot of relevance to this issue, anymore than the “global cooling” fears of the 1970s did, or that the “peak oil” alarms of the 1970s, then again four+ years ago did.
Click to expand...
Well, it just so happens that some of the denialist industry folks, are the same people they used to deny that smoking was bad for the health. Like Fred Singer.

However, if people here want to believe smoking is not harmful, then I guess there’s not much I can do to convince them otherwise, since I’m not really into that issue. Luckily my husband stopped smoking 25 years ago, but I haven’t had much luck convincing other relatives to give it up.
 
lynnvinc said:
That’s the appropriate term for those being paid by fossil fuel monies to spread lies about climate change, the hacks spewing out fake-science, since a “skeptic” is one who questions something, but is open to accepting it if logical and evidentiary proof is provided.

However, I strive not to use that term for people who unwittingly buy into those lies and falsehoods. But the perps who are producing the lies are evil people for knowingly putting a huge portion of human lives and others of God’s creation at risk, and I pray for their conversion and their souls.

Sorry you and 1000s of others are swayed by their lies.

Here’s a site that will help people understand their ties to fossil fuels and anti-environmental ideological think tanks receiving money from fossil fuel industries: desmogblog.com/

Here is their database, where you can look up particular names: desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

When I saw Fr. Sirico on EWTN’s WorldOver program some years ago denying climate change, I checked out his org, The Acton Institute, and found it was taking money from fossil fuels, most notably Exxon and Koch – see greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/Acton-Institute-for-the-Study-of-Religion-and-Liberty—Koch-Industries-Climate-Denial-Front-Group/ and exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=5&__utma=1.1017583319.1374009669.1374009669.1374009669.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1374009669&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1374009669.1.1.utmcsr=google

There could be a few honest working climate scientists who doubt AGW, but they will be very few, and since science requires 95% confidence before making claims, it is indeed very remarkable that there are so few who doubt it (less than 3%). We people called to be moral beings, however, should not have to have 95% confidence that our actions are harming people, to strive and find ways to reduce that. The U.S. Bishops have called us to prudence on AGW in 2001, to mitigate AGW, even if we do have some doubts.

Well, it just so happens that some of the denialist industry folks, are the same people they used to deny that smoking was bad for the health. Like Fred Singer.

However, if people here want to believe smoking is not harmful, then I guess there’s not much I can do to convince them otherwise, since I’m not really into that issue. Luckily my husband stopped smoking 25 years ago, but I haven’t had much luck convincing other relatives to give it up.
Click to expand...
When you use the term “denialist” it makes me disinclined to address you at all. I do not call you an “environmentalist nut job”.

I have cited the names of thousands of scientists who do not believe in MMGW. As you know from a previous thread, most meteorologists either do not believe in it at all or, if they do, don’t think it presents any kind of serious hazard.

Those people are not all on Exxon’s payroll.

I probably should thank you, though, for making the claim that, e.g., 95% of all scientists support the MMGW notion. It has moved me to do at least some checking into it. In doing so, I have found that’s far from the case. Possibly others have also been moved by your posts to check and, having done so, found that MMGW is more likely a minority opinion among scientists than a majority opinion, but certainly not the “overwhelming majority” some claim.

I have also found, for example, that the IPCC “findings” on which virtually all other MMGW models are based to at least some degree, have been actually “peer reviewed” by only seven people, every one of which was picked by IPCC.

I’ll look into this some more. But truly, it’s not looking all that good for MMGW as a theory nowadays.

And smoking has no more relevance to this subject than does the ambient temperature on Mars, except as an exemplar of wrong theories that can be promoted into wide belief by money and political power. But that cuts both ways in this, doesn’t it?
 
estesbob said:
Too Much Rain? Global warming!
Not enough rain? Global warming!
Major Storm? Global warming!
Lessening of major storms? Global warming!
Excessive heat? Global warming!
Excessive cold? Global warming!
10 years of increase temperatures? Global warming
13 years of no increase? Global warming
Sun comes up in the east? Global warming!
Sun sets in the west? Global warming
Click to expand...
**
Oh, & Ice age, Global warming **👍
 
Ridgerunner said:
When you use the term “denialist” it makes me disinclined to address you at all. I do not call you an “environmentalist nut job”.
Click to expand...
If one uses the term “denialist” for those who deny the holocaust happened, then it is an appropriate term.

I’m not using it for regular people who say AGW is not happening, such as those here at CAF. They are simply victims of the denialist industry fake-science lies and twisting of the truth so as to deceive.

However, those in the denialist industry (the ones cranking out the fake-science lies) are denialists, and they are much worse than that. They are evil for the work they do in dissuading people from mitigating climate change. They are purveyors of death and destruction.

To use the term “skeptic” for those blatant deceivers and purveyors of death would itself be a lie. “Denialist” is a much better term than what they deserve…a euphemism actually.

But you can call me an environmentalist nut job. People here & elsewhere have called me much worse. Doesn’t bother me.
I have cited the names of thousands of scientists who do not believe in MMGW. As you know from a previous thread, most meteorologists either do not believe in it at all or, if they do, don’t think it presents any kind of serious hazard.
Click to expand...
I’ve discussed before on CAF that very few of these people on the Oregon Petition have background in climatology – about .1 to .5%. The list includes the Spice Girls and various people with “Dr.” in front of their names, including dentists and philosophers and actors from MASH. Some don’t even know they are on the list. One climate scientist whose name was on the list had them take it off when he found out. Some others who signed it over 15 years ago, say they now accept AGW.

Here’s further info on it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
desmogblog.com/oregon-petition
huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers‐a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

The petition was sent out to people with an accompanied fake-article supposedly disproving AGW, which was made to look like a Proceedings fo the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) article. From Wikipedia:
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.” It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.” The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”

Of course, the final argument is that reality does not depend upon consensus or a huge proportion of believers. History and prehistory are replete with civilizations that collapsed from destroying their environments.
I have also found, for example, that the IPCC “findings” on which virtually all other MMGW models are based to at least some degree, have been actually “peer reviewed” by only seven people, every one of which was picked by IPCC.
Click to expand...
The IPCC is based on of many 1000s of scientific articles from peer-reviewed sources and datasets. 1000s of top scientists from all over the world (not just 7) contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis in their meager spare time. The IPCC is the gold standard of climate science research, despite that mistake on pg. 193 of the Asia chapter of Working Group II - Impacts in 4AR (which I actually caught & figured was wrong so I didn’t use it in a article I was writing, before it was caught by an expert glaciologist from WGI - the Science).

Each of their reports is a monumental piece of work that deserves tremendous respect. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater of a few mistakes.

I wish people who knock it would at least read it first. It really is worth reading. Here are some links to it:
 
lynnvinc said:
If one uses the term “denialist” for those who deny the holocaust happened, then it is an appropriate term.

I’m not using it for regular people who say AGW is not happening, such as those here at CAF. They are simply victims of the denialist industry fake-science lies and twisting of the truth so as to deceive.

However, those in the denialist industry (the ones cranking out the fake-science lies) are denialists, and they are much worse than that. They are evil for the work they do in dissuading people from mitigating climate change. They are purveyors of death and destruction.

To use the term “skeptic” for those blatant deceivers and purveyors of death would itself be a lie. “Denialist” is a much better term than what they deserve…a euphemism actually.

But you can call me an environmentalist nut job. People here & elsewhere have called me much worse. Doesn’t bother me.

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.
After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.” It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.” The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”

Of course, the final argument is that reality does not depend upon consensus or a huge proportion of believers. History and prehistory are replete with civilizations that collapsed from destroying their environments.

The IPCC is based on of many 1000s of scientific articles from peer-reviewed sources and datasets. 1000s of top scientists from all over the world (not just 7) contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis in their meager spare time. **The IPCCs seminal reports **The IPCC is the gold standard of climate science research, despite that mistake on pg. 193 of the Asia chapter of Working Group II - Impacts in 4AR (which I actually caught & figured was wrong so I didn’t use it in a article I was writing, before it was caught by an expert glaciologist from WGI - the Science). The IPCC is a thoroughly discredited organization to anyone who is not a devoted MMGW supporter. Various universities and even the country of India decoupled their research programs from IPCC sources for that reason.

Each of their reports is a monumental piece of work that deserves tremendous respect. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater of a few mistakes. Mistakes? Falsifying data is not a “mistake”. It’s “lying”. "falsum in unum, falsum in omnium.
​
Click to expand...

Ironically, use of terms like “deniers”, and especially when overtly used to compare to “holocaust deniers”, demonstrates almost better than anything else could that the MMGW supporters are intentional intimidators. It’s like calling someone a “racist”. It stops all conversation, with one party vainly thinking himself triumphant on the one side and the other being shocked into silence on the other.

It’s a despicable tactic, but completely consistent with the tactics of the MMGW community. The politicians and organizations espousing MMGW for their own benefit harass and cow opposing views while simultaneously funding those holding views consistent with their own gainful enterprises.

Unfortunately, their gain will be others’ loss; particularly the loss of the poor, the elderly, those dependent on transportation for their food, jobs, and livelihoods.

But those victims of the Bill Gates’, the Al Gores, the George Soros’ and the Barack Obamas can eat cake as far as they and their supporters are concerned. The MMGW-supporting billionaires who have invested billions of dollars of their own money in “mitigation” schemes and “alternative energy”, and gotten the government to give them billions more are not about to risk their gains for the sake of a bunch of poor or unemployed people. After all, they, themselves, are not going to be poor or unemployed. But they do have billions to gain. This is crony capitalism on a scale far beyond what has ever been experienced before.

But then, people who smear people they don’t even know with terms like “deniers”, intentionally trying to identify them with “holocaust deniers”, shouldn’t really be expected to have any Christian charity toward those who will be cold, too hot, hungry, unemployed, should they?

Now, Lynnvinc, you are well aware, since you obviously read a lot of MMGW stuff and now and then go to them for rebuttals to scientists who do not believe in it, you cannot, at minimum, escape the fact that there really is not scientific agreement on MMGW. You have to be aware too, that there are graphs and charts that “prove” exactly opposite positions. You know quite well that each side has information with which to discredit the other.

Why are you, personally, willing to cause hardship for the poor and elderly and cost people jobs for the sake of something you know full well is a contested issue?

Had to shorten your article and my responses. But I think readers can get the gist.​
 
Ridgerunner said:
Ironically, use of terms like “deniers”, and especially when overtly used to compare to “holocaust deniers”, demonstrates almost better than anything else could that the MMGW supporters are intentional intimidators. It’s like calling someone a “racist”. It stops all conversation, with one party vainly thinking himself triumphant on the one side and the other being shocked into silence on the other.

It’s a despicable tactic, but completely consistent with the tactics of the MMGW community. The politicians and organizations espousing MMGW for their own benefit harass and cow opposing views while simultaneously funding those holding views consistent with their own gainful enterprises.

Unfortunately, their gain will be others’ loss; particularly the loss of the poor, the elderly, those dependent on transportation for their food, jobs, and livelihoods.

But those victims of the Bill Gates’, the Al Gores, the George Soros’ and the Barack Obamas can eat cake as far as they and their supporters are concerned. The MMGW-supporting billionaires who have invested billions of dollars of their own money in “mitigation” schemes and “alternative energy”, and gotten the government to give them billions more are not about to risk their gains for the sake of a bunch of poor or unemployed people. After all, they, themselves, are not going to be poor or unemployed. But they do have billions to gain. This is crony capitalism on a scale far beyond what has ever been experienced before.

But then, people who smear people they don’t even know with terms like “deniers”, intentionally trying to identify them with “holocaust deniers”, shouldn’t really be expected to have any Christian charity toward those who will be cold, too hot, hungry, unemployed, should they?

Now, Lynnvinc, you are well aware, since you obviously read a lot of MMGW stuff and now and then go to them for rebuttals to scientists who do not believe in it, you cannot, at minimum, escape the fact that there really is not scientific agreement on MMGW. You have to be aware too, that there are graphs and charts that “prove” exactly opposite positions. You know quite well that each side has information with which to discredit the other.

Why are you, personally, willing to cause hardship for the poor and elderly and cost people jobs for the sake of something you know full well is a contested issue?

Had to shorten your article and my responses. But I think readers can get the gist.
Click to expand...
Could not agree more. Global warming alarmism has become a Religion where driving a hybrid and cutting down carbon use grants indulgences that lift them above the great unwashed-condemned to eternall hellfire for driving a diesel
 
Understanding as I do that both will be challenged by the “MMGW Seminar” response, it might be worthwhile for CAF readers to consider the following:
  1. One poll cited in Forbes (which will be criticized even though Forbes is only citing information) lets us know that a MINORITY of scientists in the field accept the standard MMGW theory. Something like 36%. Among the rest are those who don’t think any of it is manmade, who don’t think there is warming at all, who think human activities cause an insignificant part of it, and so on. Interestingly the MAJORITY of meteorologists either don’t believe in MMGW at all or think it’s insignificant. forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
  2. Another, very recent poll, shows that among the American public, less than 50% now believe in MMGW. Popularity of the theory has been dropping.
Hopefully, for all our sakes, and particularly for the sake of those who will be most harmed by the radical energy proposals of Obama and others; the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, the whole billionaire-funded MMGW lobby (they fund over 2300 lobbyists in Washington DC alone, more in other countries) will wane. Looks like it might just be on the wane.

The next ten years will be interesting because most MMGW proponents disaster scenarios commit them to serious disasters within 10 years. God willing, I hope to be here to see the reality and the death of the MMGW movement. Trouble is, a lot of people will probably be hurt in the meantime by the schemes of the wealthy and powerful who are behind the movement.
 
estesbob said:
Could not agree more. Global warming alarmism has become a Religion where driving a hybrid and cutting down carbon use grants indulgences that lift them above the great unwashed-condemned to eternall hellfire for driving a diesel
Click to expand...
Interesting that you mention a diesel. One of my favorite semi-occupations/semi-hobbies is forest improvement. It’s best to cut down ancient slow-growers. Most have a fairly predictable lifespan and you can tell which ones are going downhill if you know what you’re doing. Their wood goes into things like furniture, flooring, etc. That encourages the fast-growers, which are the big carbon-eaters and also “squesters” carbon in furniture, flooring, etc.

I do it with a diesel-powered bobcat. Incidentally, the tracks also mulch and half-bury the leaf ground cover which, again, sequesters carbon in the soil.

But I am burning diesel fuel doing it. Sure am.

One of the things nobody knows in all of this MMGW business is what the net effects of a good part of fuel-burning are. Is my activity a net positive or a net negative when it comes to CO2 emissions? I certainly don’t know, and neither does anybody else. Al Gore claims he’s sequestering a lot of carbon, but he had to bulldoze out rain forest and tenants farms, no doubt burning all the detritus as he went, in order to plant his eucalyptus trees in South America so he could sell “carbon credits”. And, of course, there’s probably quite a bit of CO2 outgassing after he bulldozes, for awhile. What’s the net effect? Nobody, including Al Gore, knows.

Farm tractors nowadays are enormous machines that gobble up fuel like there’s no tomorrow. But on balance do they generate more CO2 than their crops sequester; crops that end up in human stomachs and bodies? Nobody knows. Do those tractors, covering 40’ of ground at a time even generate more CO2 than an army of belching, gas-emitting mules on tiny farms, each cutting one furrow at a time? Nobody knows.

And with millions upon millions of unconsidered (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs they never consider or even know about, academics with government or environmentalist cash in their pockets, sit with their computer programs and get some data from some forester who has counted the rings of 10 trees, and conclusions about ice core samples taken by someone they never met, and tell us the world is going to fry unless we all freeze in the dark.

And George Soros, who got Obama to loan billions to Petrobras, in which he has a huge interest, is counting on Obama to restrict American fuel production and use as much as possible, to keep the competition down.

The robber barons of the 19th Century would go green with envy if they knew.
 
Ridgerunner said:
  1. One poll cited in Forbes…lets us know that a MINORITY of scientists in the field accept the standard MMGW theory. Something like 36%. …Interestingly the MAJORITY of meteorologists either don’t believe in MMGW…forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Click to expand...
I actually downloaded it a while back. The point is to show that the views of the respondents are biased by their institutional frameworks. But another point I would make is that engineers and meteorologists are NOT climate scientists, and even most geologists are not climate scientists.

I was discussing climate science with a geologist on my campus (which is heavily funded by Exxon, Shell and GM) and she didn’t even know water vapor was a climate feedback, responding to the warmer atmosphere, rather than a climate forcing like CO2. Their knowledge about climate change is limited.

I also know a meteorologist who works for the NWS, whom we invited to give talk on climate change. He started by saying that he is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist, but had taken interest in the topic & studied it in his spare time, so he was speaking from that, not from his meterological background. Meteorology is focused on the micro and sometimes meso-levels of local and regional weather, and climatology as focused on the macrolevel of climate. Also think about those TV weathermen and who funds their programs (hint: look at the commercials).

As for engineers it surprises me that many are climate change skeptics. They are supposed to focus on avoiding the false negative of failing to address true problems & risks; they are supposed to build bridges thinking of the worse possible scenarios, not light traffic on Sunday. So there is this disconnect; they would risk large chunks of humanity and others of God’s creation because they have doubts about climate change, whereas our Catholic Church is telling us to take the prudent, false-negative-avoiding route of mitigating climate change, even if we have doubts.
  1. Another, very recent poll, shows that among the American public, less than 50% now believe in MMGW. Popularity of the theory has been dropping.
Click to expand...
As Lincoln said, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time…and it sure helps to have the “skeptic” industry spewing out half-truths and lies.
Hopefully, for all our sakes, and particularly for the sake of those who will be most harmed by the radical energy proposals of Obama and others; the poor, the elderly, the unemployed…
Click to expand...
Why isn’t anyone worried about gas prices jumping up right now? Of course, I’m not personally worried bec I drive a Volt on wind-powered electricity, soon to be on solar energy in a few weeks, and we are saving over $1000 a year on auto energy.

When I see the news about gas prices I think, people have known this was coming for over 40 years. They’ve had 40 years to get efficient cars or EVs, and go on alt energy, to caulk their windows, and build passive solar homes.

To some extent it is their own fault if they have trouble with energy bills, which are subject much larger price hikes from the volatile market than from any 2 cents the gov might charge.

And if, as in other countries where gasoline is $6 to $9 per gallon, we were to end fossil fuel subsidies and tax-breaks, then the prices would really shoot up.

But knowing how people are, they’ll just pay the higher prices without any thought to keeping their tires inflated, running multiple errands, carpooling, turning off their engine in drive-thrus, or hypermiling.
The next ten years will be interesting because most MMGW proponents disaster scenarios commit them to serious disasters within 10 years…
Click to expand...
They are NOT saying total disaster will strike within 10 years, only that we may reach tipping points within 10 years that put earth systems onto an irreversible course toward disaster. For instance, by warming the earth enough to melt permafrost & ocean hydrates, releasing vast gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere (CH4 & CO2), causing more warming, causing more melting, causing more warming, and so on.

There are peoples around the world already suffering from the effects of climate change, but as for US agriculture, it is expected that the steep decline will start happening around 2050 (right now the longer growing seasons from GW and increased CO2 are actually increasing crop productivity a bit, tho worldwide GW is having a net negative effect). See:
 
lynnvinc said:
I actually downloaded it a while back. The point is to show that the views of the respondents are biased by their institutional frameworks. But another point I would make is that engineers and meteorologists are NOT climate scientists, and even most geologists are not climate scientists.

I was discussing climate science with a geologist on my campus (which is heavily funded by Exxon, Shell and GM) and she didn’t even know water vapor was a climate feedback, responding to the warmer atmosphere, rather than a climate forcing like CO2. Their knowledge about climate change is limited.

I also know a meteorologist who works for the NWS, whom we invited to give talk on climate change. He started by saying that he is a meteorologist, not a climate scientist, but had taken interest in the topic & studied it in his spare time, so he was speaking from that, not from his meterological background. Meteorology is focused on the micro and sometimes meso-levels of local and regional weather, and climatology as focused on the macrolevel of climate. Also think about those TV weathermen and who funds their programs (hint: look at the commercials).

As for engineers it surprises me that many are climate change skeptics. They are supposed to focus on avoiding the false negative of failing to address true problems & risks; they are supposed to build bridges thinking of the worse possible scenarios, not light traffic on Sunday. So there is this disconnect; they would risk large chunks of humanity and others of God’s creation because they have doubts about climate change, whereas our Catholic Church is telling us to take the prudent, false-negative-avoiding route of mitigating climate change, even if we have doubts.
Click to expand...
It does not greatly surprise me that you consider yourself a greater (though, so far, seemingly derivative) “climate scientist” than engineers, meteorologists and geologists of your acquaintence. Some environmentalists are not scientists at all, of course, and yet they purport to know more than people who know what it takes to “make real science”. The environmentalist movement is replete with such people, including Barack Obama.

And with the money of billionaires and the environmental movements that handle millions of dollars of frightened donor donations funding MMGW proponents, (some of whom have received huge sums) the latter are not “biased by their institutional frameworks”? Strains credulity.

The Catholic Church does not have a position on MMGW. But it does have a position on oppressing the poor, which the MMGW movement is on the cusp of doing knowingly and willingly. The Church is not very approving of that.

As to the geologist whom you think so ignorant, did you bother to distinguish between internal and external forcing before you concluded she didn’t know anything? And, of course, if she has tenure, she probably doesn’t care any more about Exxon or Shell that most college professors do. Do you really think she was suborned by the fact that her university, like many, receives donations from oil companies? I’m sure they get more money from the government than they do from Exxon or Shell, and the government is all into MMGW.

Probably I don’t watch enough TV, but the meteorologists I watch are sponsored by an airport. Is that permissible, or are his opinions irredeemably contaminated by the fact that airports host airplanes and planes burn fuel? Well, and people drive to and from airports, burning fuel when they do. One would think peoples’ opinions would be bought a bit more expensively than that, like, say, a grant for millions like some of the MMGW supporters receive.

Meteorolgy is a pretty serious course of study. Looking it up for U of Mo, it appears they are required a lot of hours of math, a lot of hours of physics, a lot of hours of oceanography, atmospheric physics, worldwide atmospheric forces and influences, and (mirabile dictu) climate. And yet, they are prominent among the MMGW/catastrophe skeptics or simply unbelievers.

Lots of folks, including lots of the people who purport to be “climate scientists” (not a science in itself) don’t have remotely that kind of background.

And yours, then, is???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top