Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

[SmellyTerror]

I'm questioning the philosophy behind the solution. An ETS. I owe no duty to a science that claims I morally should do so, if the consequences of such bring suffering. If fellow human beings will become hungrier and poorer as a result of an ETS, I vote no.

The proposed solutions have not one tiny thing to do with the science of whether or not it's happening.

Not. One. Thing.

The science it not saying one tiny thing about what you should or should not do, simply what is happening and what may happen given different courses of action. IF you want to avoid climate change, you need to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, or do something else to cool the planet. How you go about that is for the politicians to work out. There's also a lot on what will happen if you do nothing, in case you want to try to just ride it out. That action is up to the politicians too.

...and of course, they screw it up. That's their job. Our political systems are built to make sure pretty much nothing effectual ever gets done.

But if it's your concern about human suffering that is driving you, then I'm a bit confised how you can say that the likely effects of climate change will do less damage to the poor and hungry than the development of sustainable energy sources (something we are going to have to do anyway, in the long run). Food shortages are one of the most likely effects of climate change.

So we can do something when we're forced to, or we can do it now and avoid the addional pain of major climate change. Either way we do it, but which way has less pain?

My question is how did the 2035 figure ever get included in the official IPCC position.

Sorry, missed this one.

There's a decent discussion here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php

Are you actually interested, though? You want to think it's just a (really inept) conspiracy, right?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Hey GG
I used to sit on your side with this argument. I was always arguing with friends that there was no "solid" evidence of GW. It is easy to dismiss a lot of the "science" when there is an obvious conflict of interest (ie a report from a scientist from the "Global Warming Research Institute") They are never going to publish anything which disputes the argument.

Now I am no researcher, or scientist for that matter, however after spending 6 months looking at the topic during a Post Grad unit I now find it pretty difficult to argue that a) Global warming is not occuring (I never argued it wasnt, I just argued that humans were not the cause and it was "natural") b) Humans are not the primary cause.

If you have plenty of time on your hands read the Stern Report. I found it pretty interesting and it opened my eyes to a lot of unknowns. It is bloody long, so just pick out the parts you find interesting.

I would be interested to hear if, after reading the Stern Report, you still maintain your argument.

All the best.
Blacky

Thanks mate,

The Weather forecast says its going to rain in Townsville on the weekend, so I'll download it and give it a read. If it rains. Otherwise I'll read it later.

gg

 

[Atlas79]

I think prosecuting climate change advocates is just a waste of energy. We just need a good ol neck tie party to string up a few of the main culprits and that will quieten down the rest of the rabble.

I'm glad (maybe ) that Garpal and co have seduced a few new people into arguing against their denier conspiracy theories. I just hope these newbies don't spend too much time working out that no amount of considered scientific research, logical argument or even the simple possibility that even if there was a 10% chance our CO2 emissions were going to knock us off we should do something about it is going to move these guys. Good luck.

Over and out.

Tell you what, when the "solution" results in my own personal enrichment to the tune of 7 or 8 figures, I'll join the Al Gore camp

 

[GumbyLearner]

The proposed solutions have not one tiny thing to do with the science of whether or not it's happening.

Not. One. Thing.

The science it not saying one tiny thing about what you should or should not do, simply what is happening and what may happen given different courses of action. IF you want to avoid climate change, you need to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere, or do something else to cool the planet. How you go about that is for the politicians to work out. There's also a lot on what will happen if you do nothing, in case you want to try to just ride it out. That action is up to the politicians too.

...and of course, they screw it up. That's their job. Our political systems are built to make sure pretty much nothing effectual ever gets done.

But if it's your concern about human suffering that is driving you, then I'm a bit confised how you can say that the likely effects of climate change will do less damage to the poor and hungry than the development of sustainable energy sources (something we are going to have to do anyway, in the long run). Food shortages are one of the most likely effects of climate change.

So we can do something when we're forced to, or we can do it now and avoid the addional pain of major climate change. Either way we do it, but which way has less pain?



Sorry, missed this one.

There's a decent discussion here: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport.php

Are you actually interested, though? You want to think it's just a (really inept) conspiracy, right?

Oh really?? Read this critique by Professor George Reisman of Sir Nicholas Stern's UK government funded proposal. The part about the goat is especially prescient.

http://georgereisman.com/blog/2006/11/britains-stern-review-on-global.html

Sir Nicholas’s and the rest of the environmental movement’s hostility to carbon technology, is ultimately contrary to purpose not only insofar as it prevents the development of the low-carbon technologies they claim to favor, but also in that it simultaneously, and more fundamentally, operates to deprive the world of the ability to counteract destructive climate change, such as global warming.

Whether or not they are aware of it, in attempting to combat alleged global warming, Sir Nicholas, and the rest of the environmentalists, are urging a policy of deliberate counteractive global climate change by the world’s governments. They want the world’s governments to change the world’s climate from the path that they believe it is otherwise destined to take. They want the world’s governments to make the earth’s climate cooler than they believe it will otherwise be as the next two centuries or more unfold. But their policy of climate control is the most stupid one imaginable. It’s more stupid than a modern-day equivalent of a savage’s attempting to control nature by the sacrifice of his goat.

The reason it’s more stupid, much more stupid, is that the goat that they want to sacrifice is most of modern industrial civilization—the part that depends on the 80% of the carbon emissions they want to eliminate, and which will not be replaced through any magical power of words to create and control reality, however much they may believe in that power. It is precisely modern industrial civilization and its further expansion and intensification that is mankind’s means of coping with all aspects of nature, including, if it should ever actually be necessary, the ability to control the earth’s climate, whether to cool it down or to warm it up.

If mankind ever really finds it necessary to control the earth’s climate, whether to prevent global warming or, as is in fact probably more likely, a new ice age, its ability to do so will depend on the power of its economic system. An economic system with the ability to provide such things as massive lasers, fleets of rocket ships carrying cargoes of various chemicals, equipment, and materials for deployment in outer space, with the ability to create major chemical reactions here on earth too, if necessary—such an economic system will have far more ability to make possible any necessary change in the earth’s climate. That is the kind of economic system we could reasonably expect to have in coming generations, if it is not prevented from coming into existence by policies hostile to economic progress, notably those urged by Sir Nicholas and the environmental movement.

What Sir Nicholas and the rest of the environmental movement offer is merely the destruction of much of our existing means of coping with nature and the aborting of the development of new and additional means. To the extent that their program is enacted, it will serve to prevent effectively dealing with global warming if that should ever actually be necessary.

A major word of caution is necessary here. The above discussion implies that the use of modern technology to control climate is infinitely more reasonable than the virtually insane policy of attempting to control climate by means of destroying modern technology. The word of caution is that in the hands of government, a policy of climate control based on the use modern technology could be almost as dangerous as the policy of government climate control by means of the destruction of modern technology.

In fact, a possible outcome of today’s intellectual chaos on the subjects of environment and government is a combination of major destruction of our economic system resulting from policies based on hostility to carbon technology and climate damage caused by governmental efforts to control climate through the use of modern technology. It’s not impossible that what we might end up with is an economic system largely destroyed by environmentalist policies plus the start of a new ice age resulting from government efforts to counteract global warming through the use of technologically inspired counter measures.

The only safe response to global warming, if that in fact is what is unfolding, or to global freezing, when that develops, as it inevitably will, is the maximum degree of individual freedom. (For elaboration and proof of this proposition, see Capitalism, pp. 88-90.)

Any serious consideration of the proposals made in the Stern Review for radically reducing carbon technology and the accompanying calls for immediacy in enacting them makes clear in a further way how utterly impractical the environmentalist program for controlling global warming actually is. The fundamental impracticality of the program, of course, lies in its utterly destructive character. But in addition to that, the fact that people are not prepared easily or quickly to make a massive sacrifice of their self-interests dooms the enactment of the program. Even if, in utter contradiction of the truth, the program were sound, it would simply not be possible to enact it in time to satisfy the environmentalists that the level of carbon buildup they fear will not occur. In other words, the world is quickly moving past the window of opportunity for enacting the environmentalists’ program for controlling global warming. (Concerning this point, see pp. xi-xii of the Executive Summary, especially Figure 3 on p. xii.) The implication is that either they will have to find another issue or different means for addressing the issue.

The only different means, however, are technological in character. Environmentalism thus stands a very strong chance of ultimately reverting to the more traditional socialism of massive government construction and engineering projects. It’s future may well lie with what is coming to be called “geo-engineering.” We shall see.

Again I come back to the fact that these kind of reports are premised on deontological ethics and not on consequences.

 

[sneak'n]

Let me rephrase - "anthropogenic" climate change is a hypothesis, particularly co2 induced AGW.

If you prefer your definition, so be it. The semantics will not change what is is occurring in the natural world.

On entering ASF, this thread was at the top and your contention that "the CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed " caught my attention.

A question to ponder: CO2 is just one of a number of gases that are labelled "greenhouse gases", so would it be wrong to infer that others in the class, if we were to stretch Mr L's contention, are similarly unable to impact climate change through man's predominant role in nature?

Specifically in this thread I have raised the principle of forcings and sought from Mr L his views on the topic. As Mr L has demonstrated strong views on the IPCC's role in shaping broader opinion on climate change, it could be useful for him to indicate how this element of climate change science should be ignored.

To date Mr L has done little to justify the contention that brought me into this thread. He has, however, demostrated in his responses every element of personal attack that he otherwise attributes to his posting adversaries.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Why climate change is a 'scam'

Here's a link to an interview by The Age with Lord Monckton

http://media.theage.com.au/opinion/...c-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html

Good to hear he touches on the consequential school of ethics when it comes to hunger in third world countries and the use of bio-fuels. Rather than just follow the deontological fallacy of the science.

GL its worse.

New info from the UK Guardian that a Chinese bloke measuring Temperatures in China for all these graphs was fiddling the results and that attempts were made to delete emails alluding to the whole Univ East Anglia cockup of research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese


gg

 

[SmellyTerror]

GL: I said that the proposed solutions to the situation has no bearing on the science that has detected that we have the situation. You posted... the above.

...you know Nicholas Stern is an economist, right?

...

I also mentioned that the science also tells us the consequences of not acting, so we can better deal with them if we do fail to take action. So, uh, yay science? What exactly are you objecting to in my post?

DO YOU UNDERTAND THAT YOUR DISLIKE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES, SOLUTIONS AND POLITICAL NONSENSE SURROUNDING THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT AGW IS HAPPENING?

I bold that because, no matter how much I talk about the science, you guys keep coming back with political bull**** that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If a scientist told you you were about to drive off a cliff, and told you you need to either turn your car or prepare for freefall -> impact, would you rant against him for daring to tell you what to do? If a politician said that, no, you should just jump out your window and throw him your wallet, would you STILL RANT AGAINST THE SCIENTIST?

 

[GumbyLearner]

GL:

DO YOU UNDERTAND THAT YOUR DISLIKE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES, SOLUTIONS AND POLITICAL NONSENSE SURROUNDING THIS ISSUE HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT AGW IS HAPPENING?

I bold that because, no matter how much I talk about the science, you guys keep coming back with political bull**** that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I find that statement quite insulting SmellyTerrier.

You see the problem with your presumptions for solutions is that you don't understand Marx. You think 'use value' and 'exchange value' are one and the same thing. You think that there is this mystical moral duty to science that exists whereby people around the world regardless of their economic station in which they live require a huge tax in order to save the planet.

Even goat herders in Greece have been planting olive trees on the cliffs of the Aegean during times of drought for millenia. I think they understood 'global warming' eons ago and adapted the only commercial resource available to them at the time to both survive commercially and in perpetuity.

Don't preach to me sunshine!

 

[Smurf1976]

Now I am no researcher, or scientist for that matter, however after spending 6 months looking at the topic during a Post Grad unit I now find it pretty difficult to argue that a) Global warming is not occuring (I never argued it wasnt, I just argued that humans were not the cause and it was "natural") b) Humans are not the primary cause.

If you have plenty of time on your hands read the Stern Report. I found it pretty interesting and it opened my eyes to a lot of unknowns. It is bloody long, so just pick out the parts you find interesting.

I would be interested to hear if, after reading the Stern Report, you still maintain your argument.

I've read quite a bit of it and found a major, fatal flaw in the Report. Specifically, it assumes emissions from the combustion of natural gas and particularly oil that substantially exceeds the vast majority of credible estimates of world recoverable reserves.

That is a serious, fatal flaw - if the oil isn't there to burn then there's no chance we're going to burn it.

Personally, I do think that a significant part of the whole CO2 issue amounts to nothing more than a diversion from the overall issues surrounding energy, a topic I've had an interest in for a couple of decades now. It's the great taboo - don't mention what's already happened to oil discovery rates. Don't mention the incredibly dangerous (in a political sense) geographic concentration of natural gas. Don't mention the chronic lack of investment in energy generally. Just pretend instead that we've got so much of the stuff that all we need to worry about is the effects from using it (CO2) and who owns the power plants. Wrong, very, very wrong when you look at the hard data.

I wonder how many Australians realise that Bass Strait oil is essentially gone now and production has collapsed? I wonder how many realise that Cooper Basin (SA) gas production is going the same way? And so on around the world from Venezuela to Mexico to Norway.

Running out of oil? No! But we're in real trouble in terms of maintaining production with the levels of effort (expense, cost) we're used to. The geology just doesn't seem to support that. And if we have to put a lot more in (pay a lot more) for energy then that blows the CO2 argument out of the water...

 

[Atlas79]

If a scientist told you you were about to drive off a cliff, and told you you need to either turn your car or prepare for freefall -> impact, would you rant against him for daring to tell you what to do? If a politician said that, no, you should just jump out your window and throw him your wallet, would you STILL RANT AGAINST THE SCIENTIST?

What if a politician paid a scientist to instruct me to drive off a cliff, so the politician could sieze more control of the house I'd left behind? Should I blindly trust the scientist because he calls himself a scientist but acts like a ***** and a liar?

 

[Sidamo]

New info from the UK Guardian that a Chinese bloke measuring Temperatures in China for all these graphs was fiddling the results

The article also notes that said researcher was cleared of any fraud by his university.

Furthermore, the paper in question is a 20yr old paper on the Urban Heat Island effect, and even IF there are genuine concerns (amongst scientists, not amongst sceptics) about the paper, there are a number of far more recent papers which confirm the findings of the Chinese paper in question, using completely different data from the US.

Frankly, in an entire field of science, spanning multiple disciplines, there's bound to be a few mistakes. In fact, if there were NO mistakes, then you could suggest that it's all too perfect and start making your conspiracy claims.

Sceptics seem to think the AGW issue is a house of cards and if they can remove a card or two here and there the whole thing will come falling down. That's clearly not the case. Most of what we know about AGW has come from multiple different sources. There are thousands of interwoven strands, and if one or two of those strands turn out to be so flawed that the papers in question require retraction, it won't make any difference.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

....Sceptics seem to think the AGW issue is a house of cards and if they can remove a card or two here and there the whole thing will come falling down. That's clearly not the case. Most of what we know about AGW has come from multiple different sources. There are thousands of interwoven strands, and if one or two of those strands turn out to be so flawed that the papers in question require retraction, it won't make any difference.

And this is where you're completely wrong on the 'strand' assumption. The further the IPCC and cohorts are investigated the deeper the scam becomes....

More than a couple of strands here.... http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/climategate/history/climategate_timeline_banner.pdf

And there's much more being pubished on the internet everyday. This is just the tip of the iceburg.

 

[Purple XS2]

... prosecuting climate change advocates is just a waste of energy ...

Nuttiest. Thread. Ever.

GG, you've set the bar higher (lower ..? further ...?) than I could have imagined. I'm stunned with an amazement bordering on stupefication(sic)

Over and out.

And it's goodnight from me.

 

[wayneL]

Nuttiest. Thread. Ever.

GG, you've set the bar higher (lower ..? further ...?) than I could have imagined. I'm stunned with an amazement bordering on stupefication(sic)

ROTFL

I must point out that it was the warmists (viz, "Dr" James Hansen) that started the prosecution theme.

 

[sneak'n]

It would appear that the global warming debate has been a combination of ignorance, misguided science, greedy opportunists and gullibility in equal measure, by those who argue in its favour.

Mr Gumnut
May I make observations about you, firstly, that you are a stirrer - based on the wonderful thread titles you initiate - and secondly that your audience cares significantly more about these dodgy topics than you.
Congratulations for flushing out so many gullible globe trotters.
I suspect you would equally be willing to propose that those of ignorance, misunderstanding the science, greedy and gullible in equal measure, who deceitfully argue against global warming should be prosecuted.
Maybe not?
As my few posts in this thread bear out, the science of radiative forcings is not on the table for discussion - at least not with Mr L - yet these forcings measured for greenhouse gases underpin climate change theory.
And for Mr L's benefit I am specifically talking about the "theory", and not about a hypothesis.
Climate change theory is predicated on a vast array of empirical data that fits the measurable forcings and is able to be demonstrated through a general circulation model (also known as a global climate model). Predictions into the future may be hypothesised, and this is likely an area that Mr L would contend undesirable.
Mr Gumnut hits the nail on the head when he talks about the level of debate in the general community, but is quite amiss if he thinks this is occurring in the climate science arena.
More and more empirical data becomes available each year, and as it does it gives greater credence that the "theory" is stacking up.
Arguments for the prosecution do not.

 

[prozac]

It's one HUGE scam. The perpetrators and the politicians backing it should be gaoled.

Do a search for Lord Christopher Monckton. This knowledgeable gentleman speaks most eloquently on the subject. Better still, listen to him on 2GB here - http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41

The reported melting of the Asian glaciers is untrue declared on a lie with no evidence at all?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/himalayan-glaciers-melt-claims-false-ipcc
Who announced it knowing it was pure BS? Non-other than the president of the International Committee on Climate Change (IPCC) some Indian chap who has an interest because he has a business in India that gained millions in grants from the IPCC to study the effect. He is currently under investigation in UK for fraud.

This is a good read also. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html

 

[GumbyLearner]

Mr Gumnut
May I make observations about you, firstly, that you are a stirrer - based on the wonderful thread titles you initiate - and secondly that your audience cares significantly more about these dodgy topics than you.
Congratulations for flushing out so many gullible globe trotters.
I suspect you would equally be willing to propose that those of ignorance, misunderstanding the science, greedy and gullible in equal measure, who deceitfully argue against global warming should be prosecuted.
Maybe not?
As my few posts in this thread bear out, the science of radiative forcings is not on the table for discussion - at least not with Mr L - yet these forcings measured for greenhouse gases underpin climate change theory.
And for Mr L's benefit I am specifically talking about the "theory", and not about a hypothesis.
Climate change theory is predicated on a vast array of empirical data that fits the measurable forcings and is able to be demonstrated through a general circulation model (also known as a global climate model). Predictions into the future may be hypothesised, and this is likely an area that Mr L would contend undesirable.
Mr Gumnut hits the nail on the head when he talks about the level of debate in the general community, but is quite amiss if he thinks this is occurring in the climate science arena.
More and more empirical data becomes available each year, and as it does it gives greater credence that the "theory" is stacking up.
Arguments for the prosecution do not.

You are right sneak'n GG is a stirrer.

But I think I know what Hegel might have said in response to your last post.

Prove it.

 

[wayneL]

As my few posts in this thread bear out, the science of radiative forcings is not on the table for discussion - at least not with Mr L - yet these forcings measured for greenhouse gases underpin climate change theory.
And for Mr L's benefit I am specifically talking about the "theory", and not about a hypothesis.
Climate change theory is predicated on a vast array of empirical data that fits the measurable forcings and is able to be demonstrated through a general circulation model (also known as a global climate model). Predictions into the future may be hypothesised, and this is likely an area that Mr L would contend undesirable.
Mr Gumnut hits the nail on the head when he talks about the level of debate in the general community, but is quite amiss if he thinks this is occurring in the climate science arena.
More and more empirical data becomes available each year, and as it does it gives greater credence that the "theory" is stacking up.
Arguments for the prosecution do not.

Apparently, in the AGW religion it is a greater heresy to speak in favour of sustainability outside of the co2 dogma, than to be an outright denier.

Pielke Snr has found this out as well.

Why is that?

Regarding theory. If one reads outside of the narrow focus of the AGW religious canon, one can see very quickly why the AGW hypothesis cannot qualify as a theory in the strict sense.

 

[sneak'n]

Apparently, in the AGW religion it is a greater heresy to speak in favour of sustainability outside of the co2 dogma, than to be an outright denier.

Pielke Snr has found this out as well.

Why is that?

Regarding theory. If one reads outside of the narrow focus of the AGW religious canon, one can see very quickly why the AGW hypothesis cannot qualify as a theory in the strict sense.

You had ample opportunity to provide your views on the science that underpins climate change theory, but have chosen belittlement instead.
It is a sad indictment of the menatlity that some bring to this topic.

 

[wayneL]

You had ample opportunity to provide your views on the science that underpins climate change theory, but have chosen belittlement instead.
It is a sad indictment of the menatlity that some bring to this topic.

The truth is that it is very time consuming, so I yield to the greater effort of the religious AGW zealots. Additionally, others are doing an admirable job in de-constructing the Goreist/Hensenist version of AGW hypothesis in other places. It is more enjoyable for me to leave the heavy lifting to them and carp from the sidelines instead.

I've got nothing I want to prove on the issue... which would be futile anyway. I'm happy with my views and happy to let those views evolve as more information comes to hand. Though I'm satisfied the Goreist/Hansenist/RealClimate position is largely BS.

However the fact that I have more pleasant and/or productive things to do with my time, does not change the science, whether I choose to collate it here or not.

The final arbiter will of course be the climate itself. I await Hughie's verdict with interest.

Meanwhile, I act on my views on sustainability, which is very much more than the IPCC gravy trainers are prepared to do.

I am at peace with the world... 'cept for those religious AGW zealots who should be locked up for fraud.