UPDATE: 11/25 I now have word from a reputable source close to TWC that Cullen was indeed part of the layoff. – Anthony
I’ve been following this story since yesterday, but the details kept being somewhat nebulous. Since WaPo has it, I’ve decided it is safe to consider reasonably accurate now. It looks like TWC has ditched their entire environmental unit, and possibly also host Heidi Cullen, who once said:
“If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.” “Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.” “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.”
Needless to say, I and many other current and former TV meteorologists took exception to the issue. I posted on it almost two years ago here.
TWC’s Heidi Cullen
From the Washington Post: (h/t to Jason Samenow)
NBC Fires Weather Channel Environmental Unit
Some on-camera meteorologists also let go
*A very cold evening: PM forecast update*
NBC Universal made the first of potentially several rounds of staffing cuts at The Weather Channel (TWC) on Wednesday, axing the entire staff of the “Forecast Earth” environmental program during the middle of NBC’s “Green Week”, as well as several on-camera meteorologists. The layoffs totaled about 10 percent of the workforce, and are the first major changes made since NBC completed its purchase of the venerable weather network in September.
Keep reading for more on The Weather Channel cuts…
The layoffs affected about 80 people, but left the long-term leadership of the network unclear, according to a source who requested anonymity due to the continuing uncertainty at the station.
Among the meteorologists who was let go was Dave Schwartz, a Weather Channel veteran and a viewer staple due to his lively on camera presentations. USA Today reported that meteorologists Cheryl Lemke and Eboni Deon were also let go.
The timing of the Forecast Earth cancellation was ironic, since it came in the middle of NBC’s “Green is Universal” week, during which the network has been touting its environmental coverage across all of its platforms. Forecast Earth normally aired on weekends, but its presumed last episode was shown on a weekday due to the environmentally-oriented week.
Forecast Earth was hosted by former CNN anchor Natalie Allen, with contributions from climate expert Heidi Cullen. It was the sole program on TWC that focused on global climate change, which raises the question of whether the station will still report on the subject. Cullen’s future role at the network is not known.
By Andrew Freedman | November 21, 2008; 5:00 PM ET
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, the way NBC was during the elections, they might just turn The Weather Channel into the all Obama Weather Channel and do constant updates of the weather conditions around him.
“Something’s just not right…..our air is clean and our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty”-
ah, the good ole days before Man screwed it all up.
Hi,
Me again. This is all very fascinating these insights into everyone’s thinking. It is helping to understand better your side of the argument which is why I’ve come back a few times.
We still seem to be worlds apart so I appreciate everyone’s patience. I think I came in here somewhat angry by the commenters at the top being all snarky about the prospects of unemployment for Dr. Cullen. It seemed that some were down right cruel to her and dismissive of her views. It smacked of arrogance and lacking empathy.
But I can’t engage all of you on all of your points. This is kinda like getting mugged in a dark alley.
But I’ll go after a few comments.
Anna says: Did you know that plants thrive with 1000ppm CO2 in true green houses?
No, I didn’t. OK, so what about other life forms like humans and polar bears? I don’t think they do so well @ur momisugly 1000ppm.
I see lots of concern about impacts on 3rd world countries brought on by cap & trade. So what are your suggestions for helping the 3rd world countries improve quality of life? Maybe the US should increase foreign aid to these countries to make them more self sufficient?
Another perspective might be if we have environmental havoc, economic conditions are somewhat irrelevant as the world descends into chaos, starvation, etc.
And back to the last question about what is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster brought on by GW or AGW?
I think I saw some hedging on the answer. It’s not one fact but a set of facts. Mongo turned the tables on me with what fact convinced me this was a concern and real? Likewise John didn’t answer the question either with “Imagine if someone had asked in 1908, “what would convince you that automobiles will not destroy mankind by the year 2000.” It’s also as if I were to ask you “What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convice you that our climate is not headed to a state of disaster”?
Now I like to think that I’m a reasonable guy but that is really condescending when I was trying to debate with you since that was what everyone got all stirred up about.
Well, I think aside from the fact that every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record pretty much convinced me that something was up. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/1
But here’s another question maybe you folks can help me understand.
Everyday, we burn tons & tons of coal, oil, & gas. That generates heat that must go somewhere and have an impact, no? And we cut down forests by the square mile on a daily basis. And so on. Don’t these actions have consequences for the Earth? Are they sustainable behaviors?
Are we saying that just because we don’t know the exact consequences of these behaviors with scientific precision that we should carry on until the data arrives that says “oops, maybe that wasn’t such a good idea to burn and cut down everything.”?
Will, who is not a James Bond character
Will Small (18:15:28) :
Please read the theory and think about it.
No, I didn’t. OK, so what about other life forms like humans and polar bears? I don’t think they do so well @ur momisugly 1000ppm.
What make you think that? I bet you have been situation where the co2 ppm was higher without any ill effect. (think about a party, subway, or bar)
The polar bears
Again an independent sutdy about the bears.
http://www.informs.org/article.php?id=1383
‘HANOVER, MD, May 8, 2008 – Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS®).’
Will,
Burning Coal, Gas, Oil, Nuclear, gasoline, glucose (what life burns) all create heat, and add it either directly or indirectly to the environment. It does have a local effect on the immediate environment. The overall effect on the climate is still unknown, but almost certainly negligible. Vastly more heat is being generated by life forms burning C6H12O6 (sugar) and converting it into CO2 and H2O, the two main greenhouse gases, than is being generated by power plants and cars.
As I am an eco-green freak, I can’t stand it that we keep cutting down forests. I have not read any posts to the contrary on this site or I would be sorely disappointed. I think most here are upset that more of our resources are not going to protect forests, oceans, and particularly water supplies (rivers, lakes, etc.). I can’t speak for everyone here, but it makes me sick to my stomach when I see 500 year old fir trees cut down for lumber. A lot of progress is being made here, but it still makes me upset.
How would humans and polar bears like 1000 ppm CO2?
Well, the biosphere was able to support much more large land life when it had higher CO2 levels. In fact, all this oil, coal, and gas we are burning was actually in the air at one time. Vegetation is the primary energy source for the food chain, and with the extra vegetation, animals used to really thrive. Things are a little tighter now.
Speaking of polar bears: Polar Bears do just fine when the arctic is ice free. They have lived happily under such circumstances before, and their population is actually larger when the ice melts. Remember, the Arctic was navigable before the “little ice age”. Interestingly, the state of Alaska is suing the U.S. Dept. of the Interior for placing Polar Bears on the Endangered Species list. The polar bear population has quintupled since we began keeping track in 1960. Unfortunately, this is of no concern to those who would use the bears as a means to prevent development of land in the ANWR. I wish the politicians would come up with a more honest way to fight exploration in ANWR than by exploiting misinformation about the polar bears; but alas – they are politicians for a reason!
Anyway, Mr. Small, I can see that we are indeed on the same side here. I think we are all concerned about the environment and proper use of our limited resources. I enjoy this site, and have learned a lot. I think you should stick around a while and see what kinds of zany things get brought to the light here, that you wont get on NBC. Also, it is good to be refreshed on how people are arguing in support of the global warming theories, and I appreciate your candor.
They are still using the Polar Bears? Yikes!
I assume that Cullen said more than this, I can’t see anything to object to in it.
“If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.” “Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.” “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.”
Will, what the board just doesn’t understand is how you actually believe that a tiny amount of gas which has a tiny IR absorption spectrum can some how control the temperature of the earth which is a bizillion times bigger. And you actually talk about a temperature of the earth as if there is one.
Have you ever looked at time series and spatial array of the earths temperature and seen the variations with season and locale?. This would be a good place to start to try see what this is all about. Look up surface brightness RSS. do you have any idea what a tiny percentage of the earths daily temperature is deemed to have changed by the most alarming prognosticators?
have you ever asked how much co2 is produced on earth, in the oceans and the skies, by man and beast and fish and algae and geology? Do you know what earths temperature should be? are we too hot or are we too cold?
What is it within your soul that makes you believe that earth is being destroyed and makes you want to save earth, and have decided that doing so is so important that you dont ever examine your wished for effects or the apparent causes? Why do you think that you are so powerful that if you could only get THEM to believe and reduce the atmospheric co2 by 10 parts per million then the earth would be saved?
Let me ask you a direct question: I will bet you that you do not know what an atom is, or even what an orbital is. And that you have never done an experiment and recorded data and tried to make an observable into a theory. To you “science” and technology was always something that you did not understand and you accepted the word of others , ” the scientists”, who are a priestly caste who knew things that you did not. You accepted what they said. You see the marvels all around you in cell phones and computers. Its a world you do not understand and could not reproduce.
Yet from this world you latch onto an idea of saving the world and it invigorates you.
Why?
Richard:
I think everybody reading here would agree with cleaner air and water. Thing is a modern coal plant produces very little pollution if you do not count CO2, and other forms of fuel like natural gas produce no pollution. Most(though not all) fuels do not pollute water.
Then consider Bio fuels cause huge pollution, energy saving light bulbs contain mercury, wind power has a huge physical footprint, tidal barriers and dams destroy habitat.
One third of the US mercury emissions come from those coal plants!
dbstealey, moderator:
Reply: Will, you’re new around here, so you may not know it, but we don’t use the word “deniers,” or any of its permutations. Please use “skeptic,” meaning one who questions.
Excuse me but ‘skepticism’ is not a synonym for ‘denial’, I’ll continue to use whichever one is appropriate and would suggest Will does likewise!
REPLY: Ok Phil, let me make this easy for you.
This blog is my home on the internet, you along with many others, are guests here, just as if I invited you into my living room for a chat. Now if one of my guests gets unruly, and says things that not only insults me, but the other guests, I see it as a reasonable to ask that person to refrain from doing so, and if they choose not to, ask them to leave my home.
Should I be asking you to leave? Or would you prefer to use a gentler word not linked to WWII Germany to describe your host and other guests? – Anthony
Will Small (18:15:28)
‘Everyday, we burn tons & tons of coal, oil, & gas. That generates heat that must go somewhere and have an impact,’
The “heat” ends up in space. it’s sort like a camp fire the furter away from the source the colder the air. It gets to a point were our instrument can no
longer measure the “heat” (it’s lost in the noise).
The impact? Very little if any. Rememder CO2 is a gas. All it can do is adjust to the incoming “heat” wave and it does it very quickly. CO2 is a lousy insulator.
As far as I know, Hansen is still looking for the hot spot in the troposhere.
Anthony:
This blog is my home on the internet, you along with many others, are guests here, just as if I invited you into my living room for a chat. Now if one of my guests gets unruly, and says things that not only insults me, but the other guests, I see it as a reasonable to ask that person to refrain from doing so, and if they choose not to, ask them to leave my home.
No one’s getting unruly and insulting your guests (except of course your friends who have free rein to insult me without check).
Should I be asking you to leave? Or would you prefer to use a gentler word not linked to WWII Germany to describe your host and other guests? – Anthony
‘Deny’ is not a word that’s associated with WWII Germany and is quite distinct from ‘skeptic’, and it’s not a word I’ve used to describe you or anyone else here but it’s not a word that I will stop using for a misguided sense of ‘political correctness’.
As an example R John says: “Finally, does it actually feel warmer this year than any say twenty years ago? Our spring and winters are still starting and stopping on about the same time they always have. If we were truly warming, then you would see much longer growing seasons in the temperate zones.” Quite a definite assertion, hardly skeptical, just flies in the face of the data to the contrary, what would you term that Anthony?
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gakf19.htm
REPLY: So many words, when a simple “sorry” would do. May I suggest that if you don’t like the way we operate here, don’t visit. – Anthony
peerreviewer (21:01:01) :
Will, what the board just doesn’t understand is how you actually believe that a tiny amount of gas which has a tiny IR absorption spectrum can some how control the temperature of the earth which is a bizillion times bigger. And you actually talk about a temperature of the earth as if there is one.
Please do yourself a favor and learn some of the science involved in the subject, for a start CO2 does not have a ‘tiny IR absorption spectrum’ and the idea that the concentration of CO2 is to small to effect the radiation transfer of the planet is absurd, all you have to do is look at the long wave spectrum leaving the atmosphere. For example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/full/410355a0.html
REPLY: Phil, please don’t use Nature as a source, we aren’t all blessed with public funds to use for a membership to read the papers behind the money wall that Nature puts up for the general public. Find another citation. – Anthony
Hey, Phil., you should get over to climateaudit.org and try to defend Tom Karl and Ben Santer and his 16 als. That is a disgrace. And check out what Willis is doing to the Piltdown Mann. Your paradigm, that CO2=AGW, is foundering on the shoal of undetermined climate sensitivity to the feedback of water vapor.
===========================
Phil. (20:26:49)
You shouldn’t indict yourself so easily and monstrously. Sensible people can understand the chilling arrogance of Heidi Cullen’s words. It is emblematic of your attitude that you find nothing wrong in those words. The mystery to me is how someone of your strong scientific analytic capability is a complete fool about the dearth of real empiric science behind the output of the climate models.
===========================================
Will Small (18:15:28)
One small example of your tangled thinking: “Maybe the US should increase foreign aid to these (Third World) countries to make them more self-sufficient.”
Would you care to play with that bizarre skein?
====================================
It would help all of us if more of the non-technical crowd would become educated in these matters, so please don’t scare them away! Maybe you were trying to educate Mr. Small, but the impression I got from reading your post was that you were trying to intimidate him. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. I believe that there are simpler sources to defend your position.
Mr Old Coach
Einstein said “Make everything as simple as necessary but not simpler .”
I am sorry but if somebody feels “scared” because the simplest problems in a given domain are too complicated for his referential of what “simple” should be , then he has a problem with this domain .
Do you think that somebody would jump in a discussion about string theory with his conception of how “simple” it should be .
Probably no .
To show the relationship between string theory and atmospheric physics I will quote what Heisenberg is reported to have said : “When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first.”
So atmospheric physics is REALLY not simple and I have observed that Mr Small avoided any scientifc issues I have mentionned 🙂
Sure you could look at some computer runs and observe that their output doesn’t match data .
At least not all the time , not everywhere at the same time and not all the data .
This is indeed simple and needs no knowledge but it doesn’t begin to scratch the surface of the problem .
Is it because the program has bugs ? Because the computer has not enough power ? Because the boundary conditions are not correct ? Because one or several parameters are wrong ? Because some approximations don’t always apply ? Because assumed constants are not constant ? Because parts of the physics itself are wrong or badly coded ? Etc .
If I post on blogs like this one , Climate audit and such it is indeed because I try to :
a) educate interested people who have not the adequate training
b) give a feeling what the real (aka scientific) problems are
c) what level of “simplicity” can one expect
I will try to describe a problem that belongs for me to the top 3 climate problems in terms as simple as possible (a version of my previous post) .
Everybody who tries to tackle this problem will get important and deep insights of what the climate physics is about .
The GMT (global mean temperature) is considered as the main and most important metrics to make statements about climate dynamics .
The “global warming” is supposed to manifest itself in GMT graphs , anomalies , statistics and such .
OK , so now how is it computed ?
Well you make a simple arithmetical spatial average of a finite number of points at the Earth’s surface .
In its limit it is an integral over the Earth’s surface .
Now as the laws of nature are local , expressed in terms of functions and their derivatives that depend on the coordinates – f(x,y,z,t) – the following question imposes itself .
Has a spatial integral of a dynamical parameter (like temperature) which effectively eliminates the space by “averaging” a physical meaning ?
Or in other words if I know the laws governing the temperature in San Francisco Golden Bridge , will the integral of all temperatures over California obey some set of “global laws” (deterministic or stochastical) ?
Or must I , on the contrary compute all the temperatures all over California with the known laws FIRST and to compute the spatial average only AFTERWARDS in which case this average will be only an arbitrary number with no special relationship to the energy and the dynamics of the system ?
Hint : look at the isotherms and their time evolution on a map . There is obviously spatial structure . Space averaging destroys the structure and the signal in it . What should we infer from that ?
This is an extremely important , unsolved and not really “simple” problem .
Greetings from Finland. Here is a site worth to visit:
http://lustiag.pp.fi/climate_change.htm
Suomen Metsäntutkimuslaitos (Finnish Forest Research Institute) is highly respected here in north, and their tree ring findings does not back up AGW at all. Instead it is all cyclical, and we have just seen +phase peak and temps are going down allready.
Have fun with their great documents.
Will Small (18:15:28) :
What exactly does this mean?
You’re right, this exchange is giving us all an insight into how others think.
You come on to this blog like Wyatt Earp intent on cleaning up Dodge City.
Then it turns out you’re armed with nothing more than a peashooter. When you’re confronted with the fact that some skeptics have a more nuanced view of Climate Change than your usual talking-point blogs had led you to believe, you view that as “hedging”.
If you’re just espousing a simple mindled Precautionary Principle, just say so and stop pretending it’s Science-based.
Phil. (20:26:49) :
Perhaps what folks object to is that this set her off (comments by a meterologist who hadn’t bought in to AGW):
The implication was certainly “toe the line or else”.
As a member of the American Chemical Society, I wouldn’t have responded too kindly if someone said to me: “The ACS has written an important position paper on securing government funding for University research. The paper draws heavily on research showing a direct link between such funding and invention and innovation. If you don’t agree with it, you can’t practice in the field of Chemistry.”
Hi Peerreviewer,
You asked:
“What is it within your soul that makes you believe that earth is being destroyed and makes you want to save earth, and have decided that doing so is so important that you dont ever examine your wished for effects or the apparent causes? Why do you think that you are so powerful that if you could only get THEM to believe and reduce the atmospheric co2 by 10 parts per million then the earth would be saved?
Let me ask you a direct question: I will bet you that you do not know what an atom is, or even what an orbital is. And that you have never done an experiment and recorded data and tried to make an observable into a theory. To you “science” and technology was always something that you did not understand and you accepted the word of others , ” the scientists”, who are a priestly caste who knew things that you did not. You accepted what they said. You see the marvels all around you in cell phones and computers. Its a world you do not understand and could not reproduce.
Yet from this world you latch onto an idea of saving the world and it invigorates you.”
To your questions.
I don’t think I ever insinuated that I was powerful enough to change the world or convince you to change your mind. I’m here to understand your mind. And it seems like folks are getting a kick out of understanding my mind as well.
And yeah, I know what an atom is. I did go to HS. And you don’t need a PhD to be smart.
I respect science & data. I don’t consider you guys to be a “priestly caste”. Otherwise, not sure what you’re getting at? Elaborate on the cell phone/computer thing. Yeah, it does seem magical doesn’t it? You know that 99.9% of the population can not give a cold answer to how these things technically work succinctly. And you may not be able to either if I walked up to you @ur momisugly a cocktail party and said explain it in 60 secs.
Why wouldn’t saving the world invigorate me? Doesn’t it invigorate you? Hasn’t a lot of progress (and regression) been made under similar thinking? Delusional or not. Why are you on this earth? To make it a better place I hope. That’s why i’m here, last I checked.
Again, I’m an environmentalist. I like clean air and water and biodiversity and trees and polar bears, etc. And GW/AGW doesn’t seem to be a good thing for them.
Look. Change is coming. The new admin will have an EPA that will begin to vigorously enforce existing regs that seek to minimize damage. It’s important for us to understand how we can bring you over to help us. Apparently, out data is insufficient to do so.
So again, my challenge: what would it take to convince you that GW/AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?
Since my followup, I haven’t seen anyone answer the question aside from my previous observation that there were a lot equivocating responses to the question.
Please, somebody help me with an answer. You’re a smart bunch.
Please do yourself a favor and learn some of the science involved in the subject, for a start CO2 does not have a ‘tiny IR absorption spectrum’ and the idea that the concentration of CO2 is to small to effect the radiation transfer of the planet is absurd, all you have to do is look at the long wave spectrum leaving the atmosphere. For example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/full/410355a0.html
REPLY: Phil, please don’t use Nature as a source, we aren’t all blessed with public funds to use for a membership to read the papers behind the money wall that Nature puts up for the general public. Find another citation. – Anthony
Well the abstract is free and is very informative, I recommend the poster read it to disabuse himself of his misconceptions.
Indeed I’m also not blessed with public funds (a subscription to Nature costs less than $4/week). Any member of the ‘general public’ can access it just like they can any magazine, there are these institutions called libraries too.
Here’s another source for you (Figs 6 & 7), as far as I’m aware it’s free.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5025/2006/acp-6-5025-2006.pdf
Fig 3 is interesting too.
Will said: “So I’ll conclude by saying, what would it take to convince you that GW or AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?”
Prove, without pre-programmed “models” that a doubling of CO2 results in a 2-5C increase in global temperature. It has already been long established that doubling of CO2 just by itself, in a laboratory experiment, resuslts in .6C. That is without any feedbacks. The IPCC contends that water vapor feedback will supply the rest of the warming, while ACTUAL OBXERVATIONS from the Aqua satellite show the increase in water vapor to be a NEGATIVE feedback, instead of positive like the models are programmed to show.
Prove to me WITH ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ATMOSPHERIC OBSERVATIONS that a doubling of CO2 leads to the positive feedback loop as indicated by the IPCC.
So again, my challenge: what would it take to convince you that GW/AGW is real? What is the one absolute irrevocable fact that would convince you that we need to act to prevent total disaster?
1.) I would have to be shown that the CO2 feedback loop theory was correct. The Aqua Satellite observations clearly indicate it is not. The middle and upper atmosphere are not becoming more humid. High-level clouds are not on the increase. Low level humidity is not causing positive feedhback, but to the contrary is forming low-lying clouds which increase albedo and create negative (not positive) feedback, and push us towards homeostasis.
But the final verdict is not yet in. CO2 as a significant factor all hangs on that one question.
Also, what MattN points out is important. We need to know more about the saturation level of CO2.
2.) Assuming that positive feedback is indeed happening, I suggest there are ways of addressing the problem other than cutting CO2 emissions, ways that are far cheaper, far more effective, ways that will not cost the huge number of lives that cutting CO2 emissions to the point of reducing world growth by a third or more would inevitably entail.
Well, actual evidence not in the form of an assumption loaded climate model would go a long ways. Not evidence of warming, but evidence that it is abnormal.
Less evasiveness on the part of the scaremonger community would also help. For instance, it would have been nice if Mann’s server, which held the data for the famous “Hockey Stick” did not have a subdirectory named “censored” which contained data that revived the MWP, which he disputed. It would have have been nice for Mann if subsequent evidence from field studies in Greenland did not undermine the case that the Vikings left due to “overgrazing” Overgrazing could easily be caused by the same number of animals and a shorter growing season. It would be nice if these kind of facts were pointed out, rather than obscured in published reports, creating skepticism.
It would be nice if a declared interested party in the political debate, James Hansen, was not in charge of producing the data under discussion. That one would go a long way.
Here is one question that no doomsday cult warmer like yourself ever answered for me, an answer to this might help convince me. If you could defend your answer in logical and mathematical terms, and not with rhetoric.
what piece of evidence was it that convinced you that AGW was real and likely to “create totoal disaster?”
I don’t think you can name one. I think you accept it on the authority of the UN and politicians you trust, and I think you accept it because of previous beliefs that capitalism is a bad thing and previous beliefs that corporations are evil. Not a singe “reason” I listed here could be considered evidence or the result of the excercise of logic.
I am curious about one more thing from you doomsday culters. Do you know what the definition of “rhetoric” is? Rhetoric is a form of speech than sounds like logic, but isn’t. You can’t work out the behavior of physical systems accurately using rhetoric.
The problem with arguing with somebody like Will Small is that he does not want to engage in the actual argument. I don’t know if he is just too stupid, or does not have the habits of mind that allow for critical thinking. He accepts what he is told by people he trusts. Then, for some reason I would love to know, after admitting that he knows little about the science, thinks he has the credibility to change a single mind.
Remember when “Question Authority” was a shibolith of the left? Now it is “Don’t Question Authority”
evanjones (08:59:00) :
2.) Assuming that positive feedback is indeed happening, I suggest there are ways of addressing the problem other than cutting CO2 emissions, ways that are far cheaper, far more effective, ways that will not cost the huge number of lives that cutting CO2 emissions to the point of reducing world growth by a third or more would inevitably entail.
Even if we ignore the lack of tropospheric warming, the cooling of the oceans, and the lack of humidity increase, positive feedback is not happening at the moment, since CO2 is still merrily rising while temperatures are in stasis. Keenlyside et al have put the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in an IPCC model and foresee a stasis for the next ten years anyway.
So whats the hurry, except for the sharks to make money fast before the ice age comes?
I agree with you that even if greenhouse gases were a problem there are better ways of controlling them than by destroying the global economies and starving the third world.
reduce the sunshine reaching ground:
The albedo could be changed with that proposal of ships spewing sea water .
or
Simulated volcanic stuff could be released in the atmosphere to reduce warming like volcano erruptions do,
or
shades put around the earth with a ring of satellites .
I would favor the last because with clever engineering the same set up could be used to avoid an ice age, by reflecting judiciously extra sunlight, if it is an ice age that is in store as some are predicting by reading sun signs.