'Educated' opinions on climate change part 2 40

[moltenmetal]

That people tend to blow risks out of proportion in order to satisfy a need to be threatened may well be true.

To conclude that this applies to each and every threat is a non sequitur.

Anthropogenic global warming might be real or might not be. If it's real, the consequences could be disastrous and essentially irreversible. The people who are best qualified to offer an opinion on the subject, NOT merely the media and politicians, offer the opinion that this is probable rather than merely being possible. If it isn't a real threat, and we take action to combat it, we still get the benefits of p*ssing through our finite, limited supply of fossil fuels at a slower rate, generating the known toxic emissions at a more manageable rate, leaving the resources for future generations to benefit from. It's a no-brainer from a risk management perspective.

 

[LCruiser]

The science behind "global warming" is a huge Tower of Babel. There is no consideration of the ravaging of Earth's surface by its burgeoning population, and how that changes transpiration etc. Neither is there consideration by the "experts" of the increased food supply from increased CO2.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html

The average annual global precipitation is about a meter. Each percent of change corresponds to a change in insolation of about 1 w/m^2.

According to solar influence theory, we should be at the cusp of a cooling period:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080924193222.3r9aw25a&show_article=1

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf

It looks like we are, so the alarmists (and those jockeying for position based on that alarmism) are becoming more desperate:

http://www.newser.com/story/38331/gore-calls-for-civil-disobedience-vs-coal.html

 

[GregLocock]

I recently read an interesting analysis of the Australian equivalent of the Stern report.

The argument we are being presented with is:

"If we act now then it is going to be much less expensive/difficult than doing nothing and then dealing with the consequences.

Introducing a carbon emissions scheme will cost about 1 % of GDP.

1% is not very much so OBVIOUSLY it is the right way to go."

Now, the proponents of this line of reasoning carefully ignore one rather important fact. That level of expenditure will have absolutely no practical effect on Global Warming (even if global warming is actually a problem), even by their own models.

However, I think that reducing oil usage in particular, and perhaps fossil fuels in general, is not a bad idea in itself, although at a global level of course it is not going to happen. 2 billion Indian and Chinese people are very keen to get both wheels and air conditioning.





Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[vims]

"2 billion Indian and Chinese people are very keen to get both wheels and air conditioning"
No, they want what we have. If the western world manage to live life with a lesser impact on the environment alot will be gained when the asians start to spend some real cash.

 

[vims]

Sorry, i meant to say alot would be gained. We all know we won´t stop spending good money on cr*p.

 

[rb1957]

yes, they want what we have ... the 1st world life style (including guns and gangs and ...) isn't china supposed to be building a coal power station a day (starting to build, that is) ?

greg, i heard on the radio that your chief climate "scientist/witch doctor" saying that we had to reduce the CO2 level to 450ppm ... 500ppm is not enough ! sorry, it sounds like your politos have jumped on the band wagon. interestingly enough, the same program said that a survey of the public showed that 50% were prepared to spend <$10/month on this, and that job/financial security was more important ... maybe the public are smarter than their leaders ?

 

[GregLocock]

The party currently in power was elected partly on their allegiance to the climate change litany. Of course, last year an electorate that was enjoying a booming economy (largely based on digging coal out of the ground) could afford to wring their hands symbolically and vote on a feel-good ticket.

What a difference 12 months makes.



Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[rb1957]

particularly for the climate !

 

[GregLocock]

Yeah, that bloody global cooling...

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[jmw]

With all due respect to Electricpete I long ago stopped trusting Hansen at al. I have no reason to since the work fails the scientific test.

Now the idea of science, it seemed to me, was that once you made your observations and produced your theory that theory should be able to make testable predictions.

The requirements are that:
(a) someone else can duplicate the experiments...

(c) that the predictions can be verified

Peer reviewing is not a substitute.
It is simply a sanity check (and it seems to fail even at that).

It seems to me that we have just one man processing temperature data that disagrees with the other main temperature data sets, introducing corrections that are hard to validate and which are of similar value to the projected changes and it has taken the sustained efforts of some dedicated people to weasle out of the guy the original data and his algorithms.

As for the predictions?

Now I'd have to say that if you or I or anyone has produced a set of hokum that has the entire population of the planet committed to a particular course of action and it comes into quesion, then the temptation is, whatever the real facts, to try and justify the original hokum.
In this case, the chances of some of these guys sticking there hands up and saying "Oops, sorry, we got it wrong." are about nil.

The problem is that "these guys" is an ever expanding group which includes some of the stupidest people on the planet, politicians.

Our future? Our chances of doing something about it are diminishing daily since no important advocate of AGW seems to have recanted nor any anti. SO we have an unresolved problem but that doesn't stop the policy makers taking our money and spending it.

To quote Paul Valery: "the future isn't what it used to be."



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[btrueblood]

"Now, the proponents of this line of reasoning carefully ignore one rather important fact. That level of expenditure will have absolutely no practical effect on Global Warming (even if global warming is actually a problem), even by their own models."

Oh, Greg. You KNOW you are wrong in that statement.

Oh, wait, you were not talking about the GW warming groups' financial models...

 

[rb1957]

to jmw,
i agree with everything except your description of politicans as the "stupidest" people on the planet. the "most powerful" possibly (because of their effect on our lives and their control of our money), "the greediest" possibly (but maybe that goes to financial leaders), possibly the "most ignorant".

i reckon the stupidest people are "john and mary doe", the general public who are buying this crock, and allowing them to impose this on ourselves. because of this we've now got both sides of the political spectrum proposing some kind of "climate policy". i though the last leader to try this was king canute, and he failed (commanding the tides); some stroies have it that he failed deliberately to show his subjects that he was fallable; i reckon the latest crop of politicans aren't that smart.

you could have referred to steve macintyre who exposed the "hockey stick" for the lie that it is. unfortunately, the cat is well and truly out of the bag, the horse has well and truly bolted, ... and the tide is coming in on a certain creek.

 

[jmw]

Ah, but that is what Mann is apparently doing, trying to patch up his data and get the Hockey Stick accepted again.

OK, to avoid any arguments I'll allow that politicians don't have an exclusive on stupidity.

I found these two Will Rogers quotes appropriate:

"Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do."

(Don't the Brits know this! Except they didn't even get to vote for Gordon Brown and he reciprocated but not letting them vote on a European constitution.)

"A fool and his money are soon elected."

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[owg]

I may have missed this link in this long thread. If so - sorry. The link shown below appears to present solid data, do some analysis, and provide an opinion that we should know by 2015 whether the current hiatus in global warming is a blip or a real trend. (I am not sure if a hiatus can be a trend but you know what I mean.)

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/

Any comments?

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca