[ridenrain]

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

hey, if you don't like science, go back to prayer.

Excuse me? We're not the ones who are destroying their data to prevent it from being replicated. We're not the ones persecuting scientists who stray from the non-scientific 'consensus'. We're not the ones violating the law by deliberately destroying government documents.

In sum, we're not the ones acting like common criminals trying to hide the evidence of their crimes and silencing anyone who talks.

AGW 'scientists' are naught but a bunch of extortionists in white coats running a scam to steal money from everyone.

Well, neither am I, if that's any consolation, so you can the "us" versus "them" stuff. And I daresay that if you dug through the personal emails of so-called "big oil" you'd probably find a few embarrassing things too.

The bad news for the sceptics is that the behaviour of these scientists--and it was bad, though I think you're pouring it on a bit thick--still doesn't change much. The totality of the science didn't rest with these guys. I suppose you could argue that they are all in on it, from the guys digging the ice cores, to the modelers running the GCMs, to the atmospheric physicists running the radiation balance--but then you're into conspiracy theory territory, in my opinion.

The other fact convenbiently forgotten by many sceptics is that a lot of the researchers commonly referred to as "Denialists" aren't denying climate change at all. Most of them think humnas have contributed to climate change; they just don't agree with the predicted degree of change, or they think that the uncertainties are too high to be relibale in any sense.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

responding to climate change

Why waste energy responding to a nonexistent entity.

So, you don't think carbon dioxide radiates heat? Or you don't thihnk that the concentration of CO2 is rising? Or do you think, over the long term, that other factors will negate the heat produced by teh surplus carbon dioxide?

Yep, they're called hurricanes.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The other fact convenbiently forgotten by many sceptics is that a lot of the researchers commonly referred to as "Denialists" aren't denying climate change at all. Most of them think humnas have contributed to climate change; they just don't agree with the predicted degree of change, or they think that the uncertainties are too high to be relibale in any sense.

Funny you should say that Zip. Coincidentally Lindzen submitted a good one to the Wall Street Journal yesterday that goes into where the two sides agree, and where they part company.

Oh, and you know how we talk about how he can agree with 1 degree of warming per doubling of CO2 minus feedbacks. I know I've heard him say that too, or at least give it a nod, but in this one he's ready to accept the old Arhenius number of 2 degrees per doubling (unless it's a typo...I don't know).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 25400.html

[Zipperfish]

$1:

The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.

I'd certianly agree with this.

(Note: 2 deg F = about 1 deg C). The whole argument rests on the feedbacks being positive. If they do turn out to be very positive, then we're kind of hooped.

$1:

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible

This is the exact reason that I don't subscribe to the runaway positive feedback theories. In almost every other natural system, nature applies a balancing phenomenon to prevent runaway feedback effects. I think we might see some positive feebacks early, as predicted by the IPCC, but then we'll see emergent phenomena (which are virtually unpredictable) come into play to counter the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Even if we don't there are still technological solutions we could try. That's a better approach than cranking up the cost of energy, in my opinion.

[sandorski]

Don't Jump! Gravity is not Proven!!

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, neither am I, if that's any consolation, so you can the "us" versus "them" stuff. And I daresay that if you dug through the personal emails of so-called "big oil" you'd probably find a few embarrassing things too.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

When research scientists are making the kind of money that CEOs of large energy companies make, that argument might become more valid.

Both excellent points Zip!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

$1:

The potential (and only the potential) for alarm enters with the issue of climate sensitivity—which refers to the change that a doubling of CO2 will produce in GATA. It is generally accepted that a doubling of CO2 will only produce a change of about two degrees Fahrenheit if all else is held constant. This is unlikely to be much to worry about.

I'd certianly agree with this.

(Note: 2 deg F = about 1 deg C). The whole argument rests on the feedbacks being positive. If they do turn out to be very positive, then we're kind of hooped.

$1:

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible

This is the exact reason that I don't subscribe to the runaway positive feedback theories. In almost every other natural system, nature applies a balancing phenomenon to prevent runaway feedback effects. I think we might see some positive feebacks early, as predicted by the IPCC, but then we'll see emergent phenomena (which are virtually unpredictable) come into play to counter the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Even if we don't there are still technological solutions we could try. That's a better approach than cranking up the cost of energy, in my opinion.

Well apparently, governments aren't interested in finding ways to lose tax money. I've written the CPC, the Libs and the NDP about investing more in solar power R&D. I've told them of the work done at ATS. I've mentioned how it had the serious potential of reducing total reliance on a power grid for residences.

Not one word from any of those parties as far as promoting solar power development and use.
Seems to me that all anyone in the upper echelons is interested in, is a way to promote ecological responsibility while at the same time, keeping everyone dependent on the status quo, taxable energy.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

(Note: 2 deg F = about 1 deg C).

Doh!.Farenheit, Celsius, dzzzt - I'm such a ninny. I totally missed that. I was so shocked to see the 2 there, all I could thing of was "What? Where did that come from?". I knew I'd heard Lindzen say 1 per doubling before, where did the 2 come from; not even considering conversion. I knew I'd seen a 2 in conversations about what Arhenius (sp?) believed, so I thought Dick must be using an old estimate of some sort. Now that I think about it, I'll bet the Arhenius one was farenheit too.

[N_Fiddledog]

itsanalias itsanalias:

Perhaps you can explain why Harper gave away $10 BILLIONas his way of responding to a nonexistent entity.

Did he actually give that away. I'm hearing different stories on that one. Isn't it more like if conditions A and B fall into place Canada will join other developed countries, and give $10 billion dollars to help undeveloped countries adapt with alternate energies, or something like that?

[ridenrain]

sandorski sandorski:

Don't Jump! Gravity is not Proven!!

Gravity is proven because it's repeatable.
What your asking is for us to believe your religion, based on erased data.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Now, is that $10 billion total or just the share we're giving?

In either case, Canada should be using that money to help CANADA adapt with alternate energies.

And I understand that this is a global issue in that it affects all of us. But, does it make sense to give your neighbour money to fix up his property when you still have work on your own that needs done? On top of the other finances required in running a household/country, especially when yer in debt and running a deficit?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, neither am I, if that's any consolation, so you can the "us" versus "them" stuff. And I daresay that if you dug through the personal emails of so-called "big oil" you'd probably find a few embarrassing things too.

No doubt. But I'm talking about scientists here, not businessmen. In this case we have scientists acting like corrupt businessmen.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The bad news for the sceptics is that the behaviour of these scientists--and it was bad, though I think you're pouring it on a bit thick--still doesn't change much. The totality of the science didn't rest with these guys. I suppose you could argue that they are all in on it, from the guys digging the ice cores, to the modelers running the GCMs, to the atmospheric physicists running the radiation balance--but then you're into conspiracy theory territory, in my opinion.

The thing is, we've seen the behavior of East Anglia played out before. NASA and Hansen got themselves into a dither covering up their misdeeds when the Canadian kid proved they were lying. The State Climatologist for Oregon was censured for saying that none of Oregon's climate data supported AGW even though he presented his data and the data has proven to be sound. And we will see this again as more whistleblowers are emboldened to reveal what is really going on behind AGW 'science'.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The other fact convenbiently forgotten by many sceptics is that a lot of the researchers commonly referred to as "Denialists" aren't denying climate change at all. Most of them think humnas have contributed to climate change; they just don't agree with the predicted degree of change, or they think that the uncertainties are too high to be relibale in any sense.

Myself, I agree there is warming and there has been warming since the peak of the current ice age. What we are seeing in modern times is merely the end of a process of warming that started 20,000 years ago. Are we contributing to it? Maybe. But even if we were not here the trend of the past 20,000 years shows that it would happen without us. Thus I dismiss the BS of AGW as merely another alarmist movement to soon join the ranks of ozone depletion, alar, and global cooling.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well apparently, governments aren't interested in finding ways to lose tax money. I've written the CPC, the Libs and the NDP about investing more in solar power R&D. I've told them of the work done at ATS. I've mentioned how it had the serious potential of reducing total reliance on a power grid for residences.

Not one word from any of those parties as far as promoting solar power development and use.
Seems to me that all anyone in the upper echelons is interested in, is a way to promote ecological responsibility while at the same time, keeping everyone dependent on the status quo, taxable energy.

It's a fascinating field. In myopinion, the reason that you are not hearing back from the various political parties is that the ebergy situation facing the human population required big thinking. Regardless of climate change, oil will go up in price as it becomes more scarce and more difficult to refine into products we need. We could move into shale and stuff, but (on top of teh CO2 accumulation) you're going ot start reaching the point where it takes the energy of a barrel of oil to make a barrel of oil. That's your thermodynamic limit.

Solar is nice but it's intermittent adn also you'd have to probably cover a few percent of Canada's total land area to really put a dent in things. Same with wind and tidal. They're good supplemental sources, and provide resiliency in your energy supply system, but they can't be the bread and butter of your system. Hydro isd great for BC, but there's not enough hydro to supply the world's need without doing in all your rivers.

After oil gets scarce, the only realistic default is nuclear fission. There's probably enough uranium for fifty years or so.

After that, I think we're going to need something novel. Capturing sunlight from space and microwaving to earth, for instance. Maybe nuclear fusion.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The thing is, we've seen the behavior of East Anglia played out before. NASA and Hansen got themselves into a dither covering up their misdeeds when the Canadian kid proved they were lying.

I think you're referring to the hockey stick here. I don't think that McKitrick and McIntyre showed that Mann was lying; what they showed was that the statistical tool that Mann used in the development of his hockey stick was not appropriate; the Mann analysis produced hockey sticks even when fed noise for data.

In that case. the peer-review process worked exactly as it was supposed to.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Myself, I agree there is warming and there has been warming since the peak of the current ice age. What we are seeing in modern times is merely the end of a process of warming that started 20,000 years ago. Are we contributing to it? Maybe. But even if we were not here the trend of the past 20,000 years shows that it would happen without us. Thus I dismiss the BS of AGW as merely another alarmist movement to soon join the ranks of ozone depletion, alar, and global cooling.

My favourite scenario would be the sudden discovery that we are headed for an imminent ice age, and then all the world leaders would get together and say "We have to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we possibly can!"