Tom Nelson writes in a Response to Don Cheadle, some things I thought worth repeating here, because it succinctly sums up the position of many climate skeptics.
===========================================================
(This post was written to respond to Don’s Twitter question here)
Don, off the top of my head, here are some things I believe:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
3. Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901
6. We can’t burn fossil fuels forever without running out
7. Alternative energy research is a good thing
8. Energy efficiency is a good thing
9. Destroying the environment is a bad thing
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generations
Some things I don’t believe:
11. The Earth is a more dangerous place at 61F than at 59F.
12. Carbon dioxide taxes can prevent bad weather
13. Trace CO2 causes drought
If the hard evidence supported the idea that trace CO2 is dangerous, I would be fighting very hard ON YOUR SIDE.
CO2 hysteria risks making energy less available and affordable for poor people who currently have no connection to stable grid power. Many of those people’s lives could be greatly improved by a big honkin’ coal plant instead of some solar panels and wind turbines.
=================================================================
I would add these to “Some things I don’t believe”:
14. Global warming/climate change causes severe weather (There’s no proven link.)
15. “Ocean acidification” as a claimed byproduct of increased CO2 (It is not a significant problem).
15. Michael Mann (on anything).
16. Various explanations for “the pause”:
Amen to that!
Excellent. This is highly accessible stuff, and as such it would be good if it were widely disseminated. The quality of public debate over climate would thereby have an increased chance of improving by leaps and bounds.
Excellent apologetics; I wish others would write as carefully. However, the word “trace” in #13 is still waving a red flag in front of the bull. I’d change it to “increased.”
On the “Claims I don’t believe” section, you are using negatives.
Are you saying that you DON’T believe that there are NO proven links between global warming and severe weather? That is what you are saying, although that might not be what you are meaning to say.
REPLY: Clarified – Anthony
You don’t believe Michael Mann on anything?
How about in his book where he posits a negative feedback in the tropics, possibly Cane’s Pacific Thermostat, that would serve as a long-term negative feedback to global warming?
I don’t believe anything.
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Harris-Mann_Historic_Temp_Chart.jpg
MikeN says:
April 15, 2014 at 10:46 am
“If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?”
“I dunno, Mom, maybe, if the bridge was on fire or there was a 5-piece chicken nuggets down there, or something. Geeze, people jump off of bridges for lots of reasons, quit being so rigid & controlling.”
I am not convinced that 600 ppm of co2 will destroy our biosphere. On the contrary, I think it will thrive.
I suppose I should know who Don Cheadle is but to be honest I really don’t care enough to look it up. He appears at first blush to be someone who kisses statuary. Probably more than I need to know. I also wonder why people treat Twitter as if it were a conversation and not a series of poorly jotted off soundbites presented in a “Got your nose” style.
I far prefer watching the British parliament at http://www.parliamentlive.tv where considered and intelligent debate is better stated and without empty platitudes.
I utterly reject bad weather induced co2. Utter garbage with no evidence.
Co2 induced extreme weather of 1935? 1936? Bear these headlines next time you read about the weather being weird or extreme. Such claims are utter garbage as long as they are not backed up by multiple lines of peer reviewed evidence. Batshit.
I would also suggest that in the things I believe section
CO2 is a net benefit to the biosphere releasing one of the base elements in building life on this planet in a readily usable form ( there will always be winners an losers in a biosphere but I do mean NET benefit )
I’d add something about CO2 as plant food and the already positive effects of increased yields.
I would change #1 to
CO2 and H2O are greenhouse gases.
And another category: “Things I believe that ‘your side’ does not believe”.
Increased CO2 levels increase plant growth.
Well said! Totally agree with everything you said, only two things I would add are:
The phrase “unprecedented” has been used by AGW supporters both in the context of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. The fact is both have been a lot higher in the past.
Anthony,
This post via JoNova recently compliments this article.
Just a few things where I’m not sure I agree.
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect – Perhaps in a closed system this is true. But we don’t live in a closed system and I think there’s 4.5 billion years of earth history saying showing CO2 levels have no effect on temperature.
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century – Any data I see supporting this is highly adjusted, with the entire upward trend due to the adjustments. I believe there was a Little Ice Age and things have warmed since then, I just can’t say with any certainty that the warming continued in the 20th century.
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901 Did they? I see lots of tide gauge data showing no rise for the past 30 years.
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generations. But at what cost to current generations? And frankly I tend to doubt we can even project exactly from where future dangers might be coming.
1. of course
2. obviously not
3. so what? what is 3-4%….get it in perspective
4. the planet recovered from the erased LIA in the 20th century, the overall trend is still down
5. 65% of tide gauges show no sea level rise or sea levels falling, satellites are tuned to convenient tide gauges the just happen to be the ones showing sea levels rising
6. that a WAG, we’ve been running out for over a century and just “discovered” the largest resources yet
7. find some that work first
8. 9. what the hell does this have to do with anything other than some warm and fuzzy crap
10. where is that video of the nut jobs beating drums in the woods when we need it
…good grief
Mooooooo. Co2 in the atmosphere is a trace gas. Since the industrial revolution there has been a trace rise of this trace gas co2. Trace is the only description for it.
Ditto – Well put Tom
In addition, I believe:
* In the scientific method of testing model predictions against objective evidence.
* Upholding high scientific integrity is vitally important and is being degraded by some alarmists falling for Noble Cause Corruption.
* Objective validated and verified models with wide ranging debate to make policy. We cannot rely on global climate models for policy decisions when > 95% of 34 year predictions exceed the objective data of subsequent global temperatures.
* We need “red teams” to “kick the tires” and objectively test models against data. e.g., See The Right Climate Stuff and Climate Change Reconsidered by the Nongovernmental Panel International On Climate Change (NIPCC.)
* Earth’s climate is highly stable with natural phenomena controlling temperature within fairly narrow bounds geological range of about +/- 6 C (well above frozen and well below boiling.) (aka “negative feedback loops” – without “active” controls)
* Cold Kills. Cold waves kills far more than heat waves.
* People prosper during warm periods We are currently in a balmy interglacial period. The Roman Warm Period was much more productive than the Little Ice Age. People migrate to warmer climates when they can. e.g. from New York to Florida.
* Glaciation promises greater danger Descending into the next glaciation would be far more catastrophic than mild warming. Will we be able to generate enough warming to prevent it? Yet humans survived the last glaciation and the rapid warming to the Holocene Optimum.
* CO2 is vitally important plant food. Historically increasing CO2 has boosted agricultural and is projected to continue to do so for the next generation. e.g. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Stimulating $15 trillion in crop production
* Wise environmental stewardship must be coupled with caring for the poor. See Cornwall Alliance. e.g. Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming.
I believe that much of what you believe, I believe.
lol all decontextualised reasons. They WANT people to keep the narrative decontextualised from the ice age cycles.
belief? whats wrong with knowing?
where is
‘this is an inter glacial warming period so expect warming’
‘no proof ice age cycles have ended’
‘polar ice has melted before’
‘the sea level has been higher’
‘predictions from unverified models are used to scare people’
‘the standard of science is prove predict so where are the confirmed predictions’?
etc
A couple more things I don’t believe:
17. The science is settled.
18. The debate is over.
Love Tom Nelson, but what has happened to his blog??
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
It used to be the greatest resource on the
warmingchanging planet. But no more. This month he has entered a single post [which is usually a link to another article] yesterday (the Response to Don Cheadle), and on April 8th (a single link), and on April 3. He used to put dozens of links out every day.Oh well. I know, he’s busy with other things. But I wish he’d get back to helping all of us by putting his [previously] great blog back to the way it was. Yes, like the song, the way it was. Or does anyone know of an alternative source for skeptical climate links, other than ClimateDepot? Or with a good skeptical blog roll? Thanks.
“”
I would add these to “Some things I don’t believe”:
. . ..
15. “Ocean acidification” as a claimed byproduct of increased CO2 is not a significant problem.”
“”
Do you mean “IS a significant problem.”?
You will not believe the number of Warmists who think I either have
1) special fossil fuel interests;
2) am being paid to be sceptical;
3) no children to worry about.
I have not share or interest in fossil fuels except as a consumer. No one pays me a cent to hold any view and I have 3 kids.
They simply cannot comprehend how someone can be sceptical of the IPCC’s projections and claims as well as many papers that make their way to WUWT for ‘blogger comment review’.
Mann said he forwarded Jones mail to Wahl.
I believe him.
That said, it would be a great thing for folks to put down what they actually believe, rather than what they doubt.
Under “Things I don’t believe”, you list:
“”Ocean acidification” as a claimed byproduct of increased CO2 is not a significant problem.”
Too many negatives here, Anthony, because this statement implies you DO believe “acidification” IS a significant problem. Pretty certain that was not your intent.
Corals have been around for nearly 500 million years and have demonstrated incredible adaptability to changing conditions by clever symbiosis with zooplankton.
There are so many red herrings in the warming-alarmist camp, but “acidification” and “species extinction” are among the major teeth-grinders/eyeball-rollers for me.
17. I believe that the proposed mitigation schemes will have, to a much higher degree of certainty, dramatically larger ill effects than the climate changes they are meant to combat.
You might add as an entry that, contrary to the opinion of a certain kooky psychologist, none of us believe the moon landing was a hoax. 😛
I believe climates are naturally highly variable, we are currently living in a variety of climates conducive to the expansion of homo erectus, and a couple of degrees C +/- isn’t going to hurt us. On the other hand, it’s bad practise to crap where you eat or use without replacing. We should keep that in mind.
“17. The science is settled.”
ah yes, it’s settled that its not settled.
I know it is more about taxes, spending of the tax money and control of the population than any thing else they claim via lies and fraud fudged into U.S.A. by the likes of Michael Mann.
They use climate/weather for evil lust.
I agree with your credo generally. I even like your choice of adjectives.
A “big honkin'” coal plant is just what some third world countries need, provided that they have the civic infrastructure to generate them on their own. Hydroelectric and coal plants make tasty targets in African nations undergoing perpetual tribal and religious upheavals. Societies that embrace fossil fuels probably have evolved political stability, skilled civil engineers, and law-abiding populous to support and maintain such big projects. Maybe we can help them get there somehow.
Who is Don Cheadle? He’s a good actor and a smart guy, once profiled on “African American Lives”. But then there’s this:
Apparently the irony of this humorous role escapes him.
“Some things I don’t believe”:
15. Michael Mann (on anything).
____________________________________
Amen to that, brother.
Don Cheadle is the typical greenie uber-hypocrite, thinking that his “solar house, electric car, xeriscaping, recycling, and appliance refits” somehow “makes up” for all the flying he does (15 to 25 flights per year).
I don’t believe that agreeing with warmunist elitists on anything will be productive. Whatever agreement there might be are of no consequence in the scope of the climate wars. The hell with them, I say.
I do believe:
That, in a number of respects, climate was worse than now during the LIA..
These have been well established by scientists such as HH Lamb, and extend well beyond the obvious places such as NW Europe.
For instance, droughts in many parts of Africa and Asia were more severe and extensive than anything seen in the last century.
How you balance the pluses and minuses of then against now, I don’t know – it is an impossible job. But it is naive in the extreme to believe that a slightly warmer planet automatically means “universally worse”.
Clearly, the increased atmospheric CO2 levels has decreased mankind’s ability to think logically…or perhaps only revealed an existing weakness…or maybe it’s just coincidence…I would need funding to really study it more…
The biggest danger is that the inter glacial will end and the next ice age will begin.
# 1 For me:
Models will never replace or be better than empirical observations.
Sorry but believe whatever you want.
For an intelligent dialogue, let us discuss what can be “proved” via the scientific method.
Belief can be most comforting, however it produces circular arguments and irrational actions.
Show me that empirical data, that provides the foundation for the theory that mans contribution of CO2 to the planets lifecycle produces a measurable effect.
Is this not the Holy Grail of the IPCC?
Billions of taxpayers dollars squandered, careers dedicated to terrorizing schools children and the more gullible citizens of western democracies, yet no actual verifiable science to support this contention.
What I am coming to “believe” of the persons pushing CAGW is unprintable on a civilized blog.
“Eric Simpson says:
April 15, 2014 at 11:20 am
Love Tom Nelson, but what has happened to his blog??
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/”
________________________
Eric, Tom is still quite active, but rather than posting links to his blog, he is now posting them to his Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/tan123 I gather that he’s now using the blog only for those occasions that need longer posts, such as this list.
(I don’t use Twitter but I do read his feed with my web browser.)
I think I would add
Climate models do not represent the real world in any significant way
Cost efficient/clean energy is a good thing (excludes wind turbines by definition)
I try not to simply believe. I think about things. Some of the things I think are true:
The planet is starved of CO2. More is better, at both current and projected concentrations. And…
There is no verifiable, testable scientific evidence for ocean acidification, or fast-rising sea levels. And…
The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified, therefore all observed climate parameters have been exceeded in the past, before human industrial activity began. And…
Polar ice cover is within historically normal ranges. The Arctic was probably ice-free at times during the Holocene. And…
CO2 has a small warming effect — but most all of the warming took place in the first 20 – 40 ppmv, and at current levels [≈400 ppmv] any warming from CO2 is far too tiny to measure. Therefore, it does not matter at all. And…
Temperature changes cause changes in CO2 — but there are no scientific evidence or observations showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. And…
The “carbon” scare is a grant-driven scam, designed for the purpose of passing a useless but extremely expensive carbon/cap & trade tax.
That isn’t a complete list. As a skeptic, I can accept it if I’m proven wrong about any or all of those things. But so far, they all remain unrefuted.
And finally…
I believe that Michael Man is a liar, who claims he won the Nobel Prize, among other mendacity. I think Mann is a dishonest scientist. Why should we accept anything he says? Because: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Why do so many warmists hate the plant food CO2?
Don’t they ever have to eat? Don’t they want the shade of trees? Don’t they want to enjoy flowers? DON’T THEY WANT TO HAVE OXYGEN TO BREATHE?
On actors presenting on serious topics:
I’m reminded of the time that Sissy Spacek and Jessica Lange were asked to testify before Congress on the plight of farmers as they considered the Farm Bill. One might ask what expertise do these ladies have on the subject. Well, they eached played the role of a farmer’s wife in a movie.
A few things I’d add:
1) I respect science too much to call anything produced by climate models scientific. The big names promoting Alarmism abandoned the scientific method decades ago and have done their best to prevent others from using it. They are promoting ignorance because the data tells us that there is no call for alarm.
2) Every effort to reduce CO2 emissions so far has failed because we’re trying to implement technologies that aren’t ready yet. It is like trying to build cell phones using 1970s technology: possible, but stupidly expensive and impractical. Instead of subsidizing the construction of immature technology we should be funding R&D to figure out a solution that will work.
3) We achieved the dream of clean energy too cheap to meter. Existing nuclear plants produce power for less than 2c/kWh and will operate for 100 years if allowed to. Then we destroyed the dream through a knee jerk reaction of ignorance-fueled over-regulation.
This is such an interesting post. I think some people here forget in their frenzied denial of the obvious, that Anthony Watts actually agrees with the basic science behind global warming. It’s just that he doesn’t think it a major problem worth altering (significantly) our way of life. I am in agreement with him except… I think the warming will continue. I think it’s only a question of how much? And sadly, human nature being what it is, there is little chance of change by large CO2 producers.
So the next 50 years is going to be one hell of an interesting experiment. If the predicted La Nina kicks in and temps go up as they did in 1998, the whole dynamic of this discussion/argument is going to change. On the other hand, If they don’t rise, the discussion will be even more frenzied and interesting. In a way the next La Nina is D day.
I don’t believe any statistic/data prefaced by the words ‘record-breaking’.
I believe that in the face of North American flatlining of CO2 input and temperature analomies, people like Don Cheadle should be celebrating.
The most important thing that should be on that list is: I do believe that most, but not all, of the observed increase in global temperatures during modern times have been from natural causes. This is important because most warmists believe all skeptics are unaware of the greenhouse effect and many skeptics think that there is no anthropogenic effect on climate.
Brad R says: at 12:08 pm
Love Tom Nelson, but what has happened to his blog??
________________________
Eric, Tom is still quite active, but rather than posting links to his blog, he is now posting them to his Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/tan123 I gather that he’s now using the blog only for those occasions that need longer posts, such as this list.
(I don’t use Twitter but I do read his feed with my web browser.)
—————————-
Well, if Tom is reading, I don’t know why then he can’t also cross post on his blog the same stuff that is on twitter. For people that don’t get involved in twitter, like me right now. Would it take so much more time? Another thing is the blog roll, and that is the only reason I go to TNelson now. Also, why isn’t it noted at TNelson that you should go to his twitter page?
Ok, I just visited the TNelson twitter page. Maybe that’s better than nothing, but on first impression I’m not liking it as much as the old TNelson blog. It just doesn’t feel as easy and comfortable to kick and read. And sometimes there’s longer excerpts on the old blog, yes, MOST TIMES, that are more than twitters 112 character limit. And truth it, I dislike twitter. It’s for twits. Allright, it not just for twits, but still, why can’t we at least cross post?
Correction: [Tom Nelson’s twitter page] doesn’t feel as easy and comfortable to kick [back] and read (as the old TNelson blog). http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
I would add to the beliefs side that Geo-engineering and CO2 sequestration schemes are insane ideas.
On further scrutiny of the Tom Nelson twitter page I’m VERY MUCH disappointed in comparison to the old blog. The good thing about the old blog is you had pithy but somewhat lengthy excepts that usually gave the gist, and you didn’t usually have to follow the links because that is time and broadband consuming. But if you wanted greater depth, click the link over into a tab. So with the old blog you could relax and kick back and read the entries, and be renewed and ready to go out into this cruel world and defeat the evil climate loons. Not going to work that way with the twitter feed. So, I implore Tom… well I already said it. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
Things I believe:
Things I have reasoning and observations to support as partly understood within today’s context:
Again, thank you Tom Nelson for the original thoughts.
John
I believe that we don’t really know if the climate has warmed in the 20th century. Unfortunately the combination of “adjustments” (i.e. fudging), siting issues, and instrument error, we really don’t know what the climate is doing. What we do know is that it isn’t changing very much, or very fast.
#16 – I do not believe impoverishing the planet will save it.
>>“If all of your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?”
“I dunno, Mom, maybe, if the bridge was on fire or there was a 5-piece chicken nuggets down there, or something. Geeze, people jump off of bridges for lots of reasons, quit being so rigid & controlling.”<<
Thanks for the laugh – yes, if you are determined enough, you can talk (or argue) your way into one absurdity after another. The goal of life, for me at least ,is the search for truth. The search for truth trumps everything – convenience, personal comfort, self-esteem – everything. Is one willing (using religious type terminology here) to give up one’s self for truth, even if it is inconvenient (Hi, Al Gore) from time to time? I believe this goal applies to both science and religion. Some people try to use religion, not as a search for truth, no matter how uncomfortable the search might be – but to make themselves more comfortable. Unfortunately, some scientists do the same thing. They really aren’t interested in the truth, they are primarily interested in themselves. They should not have become scientists in the first place. The CAGW movement is a bulletin board example of that “self before truth” attitude that is so against the whole idea of the purpose of science, and that is why sites like this one are so important. The science presented here is often over my head, but I’m learning, and I appreciate everyone’s efforts.
14.” I will believe its a crisis, when the people telling me its a crisis, start acting like its a crisis.”
Add:
Until a realistic cost/benefit analysis is possible, doing nothing is just as valid as doing something
And we are just about there
I guess everybody has additional items to add or change/fine tune.
Here’s one with proven benefits and overwhelming scientific evidence.
# I believe in the law of photosynthesis and the key role that increasing carbon dioxide plays to enhance plant growth. This greatly benefits the earth’s biosphere and vegetative health. It increases the food supply for all animals.
“Eric Simpson says:
April 15, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Well, if Tom is reading, I don’t know why then he can’t also cross post on his blog the same stuff that is on twitter. For people that don’t get involved in twitter, like me right now. Would it take so much more time? Another thing is the blog roll, and that is the only reason I go to TNelson now. Also, why isn’t it noted at TNelson that you should go to his twitter page?”
__________
I don’t know, but I’ll hazard a guess that either (a) the tools for maintaining a twitter feed are easier than for a blog, or (b) he feels he can reacher a wider audience on twitter. I do expect it’s twice as much work to post to two places. (And I maintain a blog myself; it is work to do posts.)
Like you, I miss Tom’s old blog posts. And like you, I still go to his page for the blogroll. But I figure Tom is the best judge of what is the best use of his time. Incidentally, his twitter feed is mentioned on his blog, in a very modest link at the upper right (“Follow me on Twitter”). What might be even better is a live twitter feed of his posts on his blog page — I know other people who have those. Don’t ask me how, though; I’m not a blogspot user.
One thing I do not believe is that our planet is fragile and everything Man does is a hammer.
Steven Mosher says:
April 15, 2014 at 11:26 am
That said, it would be a great thing for folks to put down what they actually believe
=====
lying about what CO2 really does…
…lying about past temp records
lying about the perfect temperature
…lying about present temperatures
and every penny we’ve wasted on this crap and the green energy crap could have put us all in health care and made this countries infrastructure brand new
I believe that anyone making comments, assertions, policy, taxes etc. should be required to say “Carbon Dioxide” in full, and not just say ‘carbon’. The two things are utterly different, and if laziness extends to not being able to use three more syllables to accurately describe the thing that you’re on about, then you’re not worth listening to.
Oh wait a second… I got it… “carbon dioxide” sounds a bit too sciency, like that stuff the Bad Scientists who are destroying the planet do… yeah man, better make our own special shorthand so all us really clever people who are saving the planet can recognise each other. Evil Carbon Death – much better!
One thing I do believe is that a bureaucracy formed to solve a problem will ever be dissolved because the problem was solved.
TYPO!!
“One thing I do believe is that a bureaucracy formed to solve a problem will ever be dissolved because the problem was solved.”
SHOULD BE:
“One thing I do believe is that a bureaucracy formed to solve a problem will never be dissolved because the problem was solved.”
(I also believe that “spell-checker” is great but what I need is a “typo-checker”.8-)
Bob Johnson;
Agree with your points, but I think you’re living int the early 20th C:
“5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901 Did they? I see lots of tide gauge data showing no rise for the past 30 years.”
You need to go back 130 to encompass 1901.
I notice the “debate” from CAGW proponents doesn’t seem to be enjoined by scientists anymore. It’s Don Cheadle, Matt Damen and the rest, social scientists, politicians and hateful organizations run by people who appear to need some therapy we have to argue with (350.org, etc). With over 10,000 papers having been published in a decade on AGW (ridiculous in itself – over 1000 papers a year is a good argument for a lack of consensus). But now, the bulk of AGW papers are by hysterical, non-scientific types – psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.
typo: in the early …
I’d like Warmists or lukeWarmists or An**ony or anyone to point to any period of unequivocal CO2-driven Warming and then explain how any cooling during rising CO2 periods is compatible with dismissing complete “Natural Variation” dominance. After all, if it can overwhelm CO2’s effects in the short term, then it’s always in charge, because that effective dominance could arise at any time and last for any length of time. It’s therefore the first thing that needs to be understood, not the last, not a mere add-on or throw-in.
1. Meaningless.
2. Disagree.
3. Remains to be shown.
4. Possibly.
5. Halve that.
6. The word you need is “abiotic”.
7. Yes, but trivial.
8. Yes, but trivial.
9. Yes, but trivial.
10. Meaningless.
But at least
11 and above. Don’t believe a word of any of them.
Maybe I’m just not the right sort of sceptic.
Steven Mosher says: “it would be a great thing for folks to put down what they actually believe, rather than what they doubt.”
davidmhoffer says: “I believe that the proposed mitigation schemes will have, to a much higher degree of certainty, dramatically larger ill effects than the climate changes they are meant to combat.”
I believe Mr Hoffer is correct in the specific. I believe, in general, that what James Hansen sneers at and calls “Business as Usual” is a better approach to dealing with ALL existential threats to the eco-sphere and civilization than proposals for government by experts.
That is, I believe there are other threats besides global warming. (For examples: nuclear War, asteroid strikes, treatment-resistant diseases, earthquake, volcanoes, etc.)
I believe the confidence in the climate data is — like data on other existential threats — insufficient and unsuitable for prioritizing which threat should be addressed either first, or most. (For example:
I believe we have insufficient data to predict whether Russia will launch nuclear missiles before, or after, the Yellowstone Caldera bursts.)
I believe every dollar pin-pointed to spend on one specific threat is a dollar stolen from spending on general threat-preparedness. (For examples; stockpiling rations in civilian emergency shelters is a preparedness measure that applies to a wide range of potential disaster scenarios. Capture-and-sequester of CO2 has no utility at all beyond addressing the supposed threat of CAGW.)
I believe the UN and proposed treaties aimed at addressing CAGW and Carbon restrictions schemes are likely to lead to war. What should the UN and carbon-fearing governments do to non-compliant nations (for examples: China and India) that refuse to set CO2 emission targets to to comply with targets set for them — except enFORCE the treaty-targets by targeted strikes of war-like forces? I believe embargo, quarantine, and diplomatic sanctions are acts of war, by the way.
I believe more than 97% of scientists surveyed are against unnecessary war, including wars designed to support UN-IPCC climate control methods.
I believe climate science has very little to offer upon the question of “what do we do?”, regarding either “Business as Usual” or “Appoint a Philosopher-King” or any other proposal to collectively direct the actions of “we” in the question as posed.
This seems like a good place to mention this:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Petition Project)
“I want the best, safest world possible for future generations.”
NOPE – you can’t have that. You can have the “best” world or the “safest” world – but not both. The “safest” world would mean spending all kinds of money to prevent low level risks resulting in subopitmal economic activity. If you wanted the “safest” house you would spend nundreds of thousands of dollars on a sprinkler system, alarms of all kinds, locks etc. but then, because you are economically constrained, you will end up being to afford only a very small house, less food in the pantry etc. The “world” works much the same way – it is economically constrained and if you spend a fortune making it safer, in the end you will be poorer.
“I want the best, safest [etc.]”
Under Hansen’s “Business as Usual” scenario, it’s up to each family and government to decide for itself what the trade-offs and priorities should be. My best is not your best; Australia’s best choices may be different from France’s. What makes Russia feel safest may be entirely at odds with what makes Poland feel safest — and what efforts the rest of us make into reconciling those odd feelings are up to each government to handle, separately or together as seems best (and safest) to each.
Otherwise we have a very small pool of aristocrats who define “best and safe” for all the rest of us. Developing a new class of aristocrats doesn’t seem very progressive to me.
Ok, here it is:
timg56 says (April 15, 2014 at 12:11 pm): “I’m reminded of the time that Sissy Spacek and Jessica Lange were asked to testify before Congress on the plight of farmers as they considered the Farm Bill.”
Hee hee! I remember that. It says all you need to know about our overseers in Washington. Jane Fonda was there, too:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2457&dat=19850507&id=lhA9AAAAIBAJ&sjid=bS4MAAAAIBAJ&pg=2273,3311010
To paraphrase Homer Simpson, “Celebrities! Is there anything they don’t know?”
Patrick B
“NOPE – you can’t have that. You can have the “best” world or the “safest” world – but not both.”
Are you saying that it is all or nothing? If you are, that is nonsense. It is possible to compromise.
Steven Mosher says:
April 15, 2014 at 11:26 am
1. The physical universe we live in is limited & bounded, not infinite.
2. Human stupidity has no such limit.
3. There are more things, then, that I disbelieve than things that I believe. & let’s be honest, no matter how many of somethings there are, if you compare it to an infinite well of stupidity, you can’t go with percentages or orders of magnitude when mathing it up. You can bitch & moan all you want, but until I’ve already listed an infinite number of things that I don’t believe in, I’m not statistically bound to name something I do believe in. The proportions are still fair, you know.
3. Math is hard.
Jimbo says: @ April 15, 2014 at 10:55 am
I am not convinced that 600 ppm of CO2 will destroy our biosphere. On the contrary, I think it will thrive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am with you Jimbo. I want to see a MINIMUM of 500 ppm and preferably 1000 ppm of CO2.
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution
Thanks, A. Tom’s belief system is sound and consistent.
“Energy” research is a good thing and the amount of fossil fuel resources the Earth actually holds is unknown. “Energy efficiency” is a myth as it is commonly applied (will reduce energy usage)
The Efficiency Paradox (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)
The Virtue Of Waste (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)
– – – – – – – – –
Poptech,
Regarding energy efficiency, I think I agree with you. Efficiency has a cost. That cost cannot be discounted in evaluating the real worth of efficiency gains.
As to fossil fuel resources on Earth, they are not known although they must be finite. I think one could calculate a ‘cannot be reasonably exceeded upper bound’ on what the resources might be given the context of our current data. Historical such upper bound estimates on fossil resources seem to have been consistently low.
As to energy research being a good thing, I generally agree with one caveat. I would caution to add considering at the expense of what? Henry Hazlitt had some insightful thoughts on values forgone in any economic decision (his book ‘Economics in One Lesson).
John
John,
The Sun’s energy is finite too but it does not mean we are going to run out anytime soon. The reason the estimates on upper bound limits to our resources has been low, is generally due to improvements in technology for locating new resources and for extracting existing resources. Here is an example:
Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells (The New York Times, March 5, 2007)
My comment on energy research was in general and was not advocating for federal funding.
I would like to add two points.
First after all my reading I see nothing to support a “Global Warming Tipping Point” If there is a tipping point or as Dr. Brown would indicate a jump to another strange attractor, it would be to a cold state.
Dansgaard–Oeschger oscillations extends as far back as 680 million years and during the Holocene become the more muted Bond Events. These events appear to be the upper limits on earth’s warm state and I see nothing to indicate humans can force the earth to a state beyond these upper limits.
The second point is warm is better than cold as the misery during the Little Ice Age and even the 1969 -1970 grain shortage due to a cold snap showed. Willis E. has shown in several different ways that the tropics do not warm past a certain point thanks to thunderstorms. This means warming would be in the more northern latitudes if it did occur. The Dutch have shown it is quite possible to ‘Recover’ land below sea level and various papers and just plain physics shows a warmer world is a wetter world with less storms. In a word a much nicer habitat for humans.
To put it bluntly if you are inclined towards panic then panic about being slightly past a half precession cycle old, when Quaternary science suggests it is time for the next glaciation. If we, as a civilization are going to do anything “For the Children” it would be making sure we have a robust, wealthy, energy efficient and technologically advanced civilization capable of dealing with any climate scenario. The back to nature luddites have the exactly wrong end of the stick.
I absolutely agree Gail. I think what we have at present is arguing too much about graphs to prove particularly scientific irregularities written by some and not concentrating on the inevitable should this planet enter another very cold status Should we be putting more funds into preventing extreme climatic events killing humans. E.g., I mean levies on flood prone areas. Cyclone proof homes, bush fire preventative measures (well in Australia at least) and forget clean energy as even Hansen thought that was useless, and recommended nuclear. We can’t change the weather and if we try we will like millions of our generations have before tried, it is a waste of time and money. We can only hope that various governments start to rethink global warming and think global cooling. Clean out the trash and see what the horizons could be.
What about these reported experiments where increased atmospheric CO2 causes nitrate to not be converted to protein in food plants ?
Anyone got the ‘goss ?
Have these experiments been previously covered here?
Here’s a link to one such:-
http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10886
The “explanation” is this (apparently)-
“The catch is that the higher levels of carbon dioxide also changed the plants’ chemical processes. Assimilating more CO2 left less room for nitrogen, a key component in protein formation. Growth rates went up, but nutritional value went down.”
Something just doesn’t smell right about this. There could be a few reasons why protein levels were lower in the plants grown under higher levels of CO2
farmerbraun says: @ April 15, 2014 at 8:21 pm
What about these reported experiments where increased atmospheric CO2 causes nitrate to not be converted to protein in food plants ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes there was a long discussion on that here at WUWT a few years ago. I just dug it out this morning for someone else as a matter of fact. See: link
farmerbraun said:
“The catch is that the higher levels of carbon dioxide also changed the plants’ chemical processes. Assimilating more CO2 left less room for nitrogen, a key component in protein formation. Growth rates went up, but nutritional value went down.”
This actually seems like a positive to me. The proteins we find in grains like wheat are absolutely harmful to humans, I don’t know how many different proteins there are in wheat but if we limited just gluten and gliadin we’d see a huge health benefit in the population.
In the January, 1953 issue of Popular Science, this was published on the discussion of interglacial and sea level rise:
That quote, given by Dr. Carter over 50 years ago, was printed in the editors column of Popular Science, and made very little headlines anywhere else. What I do find significant about this prediction is how it was made in 1953, as a prediction on sea level rise that is higher than the predictions made by the I.P.C.C. in AR4 some 55 years later.(the IPCC has since upped the ante)
That is very suspicious. I believe that the IPCC authors already knew this and hoping no one remembers what was predicted half a century ago and then use those same predictions as their own.
If I was to add to this list of things I don’t believe, it would be:
#21 . Don’t believe a goddamn thing Mann or an other warmists says or predicts even if their right, because more than likely, they stole the prediction from some real scientist from a time they think we all but forgot about.
“4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century”
Some places did, others didn’t. Averaging all those dids and didn’ts together is physically meaningless. The phrase as presented has no factual meaning.
# 3. “Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years.”
I, for one, do not believe that “human activity” has any relationship at all to atmospheric CO2 levels. These levels are in thermochemical equilibrium with the vapor pressure of CO2 from seawater. LeChatlier’s principle modifies the source-sink dynamics to maintain this equilibrium. There is no one who can say that atmospheric CO2 would be reduced in any way even if human civilization were not to exist. Since this seems to be the case with ice ages and cycles of CO2 increase and decrease, the point is proven.
I don’t think the fact that Co2 is a trace gas should detract from the fact that trace gasses can have a serious impact. Concentrations of Carbon Monoxide at 350 parts per million are considered to be lethal by some researchers. Aldo describing Co2 as plant food, is like describing O2 as animal food.
But CO2 is chemically inert. And humans in subs can work for months under concentrations much higher (ten times?) than 400 ppm.
That is true Roger, but my point is that the virtue of a gas being a trace gas in itself is not a good indicator of whether it is harmless or not, or whether it can have an impact much larger than its quantity would suggest.
Consider: There are only three points on which Tom Nelson differs from the warmists. Yet politically, emotionally they are poles apart.
It’s not about science.
Sea level rise – is that net, after soil depth/thickness increase from cosmic dust, earthworm and other processes?
also – – thank you, Gail Combs plus 7
John
Increasing energy efficiency causes the total rate of energy consumption to go up. Jevon’s Paradox.
The catch is that the higher levels of carbon dioxide also changed the plants’ chemical processes. Assimilating more CO2 left less room for nitrogen, a key component in protein formation. Growth rates went up, but nutritional value went down.”
================================
Not as I recall. What I remember is that; say CO2 induced growth increased 20%, but proteins & nutritional value only increased 12%, or something to that affect, but both increased.
Yeah, it should be called “an inert trace gas.”
That’s my recollection too.
“If the hard evidence supported the idea that trace CO2 is dangerous, I would be fighting very hard ON YOUR SIDE.” Dismaying give away. You’d lie, cheat, line your pockets and/or give yourself an award, coerce, and manipulate to hand control (economic and otherwise) of the world over to a small group of like-minded individuals who promise to remove bad weather and climate change if I can be made to do as they say?
If CAGW exists, it is a “wrong.” that exists centuries from now but it’s not the only wrong and 2 or 4 or 100 other wrongs don’t make even a single right. And, BTW, what I believe is that any currently insignificant problem associated with CO2 from energy will be an afterthought for technological reasons in 100 years.
@rogernights, Hi Roger, I suspect you are quoting me for some responses that have been written by others. Mine was your first quote, but not the second.
Gareth Phillips says:
April 16, 2014 at 1:31 am
“Aldo describing Co2 as plant food, is like describing O2 as animal food.”
Shall we call it “pollution” instead? Like that better?
‘I would add these to “Some things I don’t believe”:
14. Global warming/climate change causes severe weather (There’s no proven link.)’
Based on the lousy weather during the “Little Ice Age”, it would be more reasonable to conclude that global warming causes LESS extreme weather, global cooling causes MORE extreme weather.
Steven Mosher says:
April 15, 2014 at 11:26 am
That said, it would be a great thing for folks to put down what they actually believe, rather than what they doubt.
“Well, I believe in the soul… the xxxx…the xxxxx… the small of a woman’s back… the hangin’ curveball… high fiber… good scotch… that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap… I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. Goodnight.”
Genesis 8:22
The systems are perfect, no man can prove otherwise, let alone permanently alter.
Jason Joice MD
I said believe, not enjoy. most of what you listed are things you enjoy. Note the difference
You say you believe X. I ask why, you give reasons. We can discuss whether this is a justified belief.
You say you believe (enjoy) Scotch. I ask why, you say “well because I do”. or “it tastes good”
I ask why does it taste good.. you say “it just does”
One way to tell the difference between something you enjoy and something you believe is the
reaction you have to someone who questions you.
@Steven Mosher, my attempt to bring some levity by quoting Kevin Costner as Crash Davis in Bull Durham was apparently lost on you. It’s a great movie, you should watch it sometime.
It’s already 600 PPM under the forest canopy in British Columbia. According to Hadi Dowlatabadi, Canada Research Chair and professor in Applied Mathematics and Global Change at the University of British Columbia, in a Canadian debate with Richard Lindzen. (This entire debate is well worth watching, bookmarking.)
[start at 23:06 minutes. It comes around 24 min]
” R. de Haan says:
April 15, 2014 at 10:53 am
I don’t believe anything.
http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Harris-Mann_Historic_Temp_Chart.jpg”
I’m right with you there, “R”. The problem is the meaning of “Believe”. I use it in the sense of unconditional acceptance of a datum. You may say that I’ve got to believe – say – that I exist. I don’t. It is a reasonable assumption, but if you showed me evidence that I am, say, a few bytes in a computer, I’d accept that pro tem as well. It comes down to evidence – as I say to people who propose a perpetual motion machine, “Fine, show me it working”.
My position,
There has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age. How much of that is due to man is undetermined, likely to at best be minor and does not override natural variability.
“Disputin says:
April 17, 2014 at 2:47 am
… The problem is the meaning of “Believe”. I use it in the sense of unconditional acceptance of a datum. You may say that I’ve got to believe – say – that I exist. I don’t…”
That reminds me of a joke by Raymond Smullyan, in reference to Rene Descartes’ syllogism :
“I think, therefore I am”, could be, unless I’m really someone else who only THINKS they’re me.