Christy: attention brought by climate change views "almost a drug"

Global warming skeptic tells group that cure is worse than problem.

By Lee Roop, special to The Huntsville Times

Christy.jpg

Dr. John Christy

HUNTSVILLE, AL – Science doesn’t support current global warming alarms and, even if it did, current proposals to fix things won’t work and might make life worse.

That’s the well-known view of Dr. John Christy, a University of Alabama in Huntsville climate scientist, and Christy spelled out the “whys” and “why nots” of his perspective Tuesday to the Huntsville Rotary Club.

“Consensus is not science,” Christy began, quoting the late author Michael Crichton.

Christy, the state climatologist, is well-known in the global warming debate. He has testified before Congress many times and was an unpaid expert witness for the automobile industry in a federal lawsuit against fleet mileage requirements.

Here’s Christy’s basic argument:

* The data being used to predict catastrophic warming is suspect.

* Models generated from that data “overstate the warming” actually taking place. The earth is warming, but not that much, and it has warmed and cooled for eons.

* The Earth’s atmosphere is nowhere near as sensitive to carbon dioxide as some environmentalists believe.

* Any “solution” to perceived global warming must balance the growing worldwide demand for energy against cutting carbon dioxide output.

Fleet mileage requirements now proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency “would reduce global temperatures by about 1/100th of a degree,” Christy said.

You would need to replace 1,000 coal-fired power plants with 1,000 nuclear plants to change global climate even .15 of a degree, he said.

“This is the scale (of global climate) we are talking about,” Christy said.

* One cost of mandating harsh energy controls is the migration of industry to areas where requirements are less, Christy said.

In his talk, Christy also took aim at several other widely discussed pronouncements.

* Temperatures in the Arctic have increased over the last 100 years, he agreed, but that’s only because 100 years ago “was the coldest it’s been in a long time.”

* Arctic ice has melted, but ice has grown in Anartica. Between the two, there’s about as much ice as always.

* There are more polar bears now, not fewer. Canada issues 800 bear-hunting permits each year, he pointed out.

* Temperatures may be warmer in Greenland, but scientific experiments with ice fields show “that 4,000 years ago, it was warmer in Greenland than it is today.

“Greenland did not melt,” Christy said.

Why is the apocalyptic view of climate change so widespread?

“Funding comes if you have an alarming story,” Christy said.

He also cited “group think” and said scientists revel in the attention their views about climate brings.

“It’s almost a drug,” Christy said.

h/t to Climate Depot

Advertisements

78 thoughts on “Christy: attention brought by climate change views "almost a drug"

  1. The drug metaphor is facile, but fatuous groupthink could be symptomatic of a general abandonment of academic and scientific integrity coupled with (driven by) a desire to get funding.

  2. He is very kind. The AGW’ers are merely deluded drug addicts hooked on funding – they can’t help it.
    WRONG – they are a bunch of fraudulent con artists. They are crooks. In many other disciplines one would be sued for criminal negligence for the typical kind of inaccuracies and outright false statements found in many AGW papers. Liars and cheats and eco-fascists that masterminded this kind of fraud are not merely people who lost their way.

  3. You would need to replace 1,000 coal-fired power plants with 1,000 nuclear plants to change global climate even .15 of a degree, he said.
    Hmm. That’s a pretty big chunk.
    Since CO2 increase has diminishing returns in effect, replacing, say, 4000 would virtually wipe out 20th century warming. Providing the forcing assumptions are correct.
    I wonder how much that would cost compared with what is being proposed at Copenhagen?
    (Costs are a couple of $bil. each, but that would come ‘way down if that many were built.)

  4. MIke D
    In the case of certain (NYC based) scientists, the drug metaphor might be close to the truth, they already have funding.

  5. You would need to replace 1,000 coal-fired power plants with 1,000 nuclear plants to change global climate even .15 of a degree, he said.
    Having read Dr. Chisty’s work before, and if I am not mistaken, this calculation is based on IPCC models. In other words, he is assuming, for the sake of argument that the alarmists are correct.
    In this case, he’s not disputing the science, although he doesn’t agree with it. He’s merely demonstrating that the suggested solutions wouldn’t make any meaningful difference even if you are a believer.

  6. “Funding comes if you have an alarming story,” Christy said.
    This is a piercing truth of the information age.
    …& it doesn’t just apply to climate. As a civilization we need to get beyond this stage. What I am saying is that we need to get jaded, comfortably numb, whatever you want to call it.
    Alarmism is a weakness that will be capitalized upon. It is not safe.

  7. It IS a drug.
    Maybe the current DEA could think about Schedule 1’ing it.
    Certainly has no medicinal–or scientific, for that matter–value.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  8. @ Jeremy (20:53:20)
    In the past Christy talked about “the ones who know”, the press wants to know your opinion about global warming/climate change, now what can you do as a climate scienctist? Tell the thruth or go with the populair opinion also known as “the consensus”? It is definitly not science, but absolutely human.
    And yes attention becomes addictive, because it is also human, afteral we are still social apes, we crave for attention, getting attention means that you for example can move up in the pecking order. In my opinion people like Mann and Hanssen are clearly under the influence of this social motivation to keep up the scary stories. And with them there are a lot more who dare not to say that “The science is unsettled about AGW and that predictions are overstating the actual warming that will take place”.
    So apart from a very selected few there is no widespread conspiracy in science about AGW, just the fear what happens when you say “no!”.
    The other parties in this story, well kool-aid is very addictive.

  9. How to save the Planet by shutting it down, by our man Gore.
    Ok. You go first. Oh, well I changed my mind, after I saw what condition your condition was in. That’s gotta hurt, Spain.
    Meanwhile, I have a forest to save. The ‘let it burn/shut it down/no salvage-no planting-no restoration’ bunch hugs their trees but wants to destroy ours.

  10. I see you talking; damn, you look good!
    I wish I could speak to you but I ain’t got your love.
    I see you flying; damn, you look good!
    I wish I could fly like you but I ain’t got the drugs.
    I see you riding on a bicycle straight to Hell.
    I wish I could ride with you because you and me and the devil make two.
    I rode the bicycle of the devil
    Driving straight to Hell.
    The bicycle of the devil will take you straight to Hell.

  11. If the press wants to know what I think about Global Warming, I think it’s another one of those alarming predictions that fall by the wayside under close inspection.
    Stop worrying about the Planet getting too warm, worry about keeping your body warm in the cooling years ahead. Your children will thank you.

  12. What I find puzzling lately is that only small amounts of CO2 increase would cause wast changes in climate if one would believe the Green’s but on the other hand they claim even vast reduction in CO2 output to the tune of 80% reduction result in only very small improvements of the situation.
    Is that your typical Green double talk? That’s what I’m thinking.

  13. Paul Vaughan (21:14:11) : ” What I am saying is that we need to get jaded, comfortably numb, whatever you want to call it.
    Alarmism is a weakness that will be capitalized upon. It is not safe.”

    No. It is not safe.
    Agree across the board, Paul. Some major reality in your words. (Roger Vaughan Carr)

  14. “You would need to replace 1,000 coal-fired power plants with 1,000 nuclear plants to change global climate even .15 of a degree, he said.”
    1000 reactors was also an estimate of what is required to electrify all N. American autos. You know… the electric car solution.
    However, nobody proffers a hint or suggestion as to where we could possibly find the uranium fuel to power even a few hundred big, new reactors. Someone better accelerate prototype thorium reactors if fission is going to give us energy while waiting for fusion. Otherwise, coal, oil, gas, will still be our future. GK

  15. Semi OT – Youth trapped on ice floe forced to shoot polar bear
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/youth-trapped-on-ice-floe-forced-to-shoot-polar-bear-1818058.html
    A teenager spent two nights adrift on an ice floe in the Canadian Arctic with three polar bears for company before being dramatically rescued, it emerged today.
    The 17-year-old youth, named as Jupi Angootealuk, was forced to shoot dead one of the bears after it ventured too close while rescuers desperately tried to locate him from the air…
    …The polar bear season had just begun and the two hunters headed out on to the frozen seas with their rifles to test the ice and look for prey.
    I thought all the ice was melting because it was too hot and the Polar Bears are endangered?

  16. I recall Michael Mann on TV, (Climate wars perhaps). He came over like a whining kid caught out in a lie, still protesting his innocence!
    Once I finally convince a warmist that the hokey stick is bunkum, I get, “it doesn’t matter, global warming is out of control!”
    They can’t see that the whole point of the hokey stick was to prove that warming wasn’t natural and without it, there is nothing left!
    DaveE.

  17. New (and modern) scientific method
    When you have facts, argue about the facts, unless arguing about the facts will not result in large government grants.
    When arguing about facts will not result in large government grants, come up with a speculation, and call it a theory, which will result in large government grants. Make up data to “demonstrate” the “theory”. Say that the planet will be destroyed if whatever the “theory” says will happen happens.
    When the “theory” is falsified again and again, pound on the table, wave your arms and shout: “We need more large government grants for further study. Else the planet will be destroyed.”

  18. My God, someone speaking plain, understandable truth. I’d almost given up hope that such people still existed in science. What ever I can do to be of aid to him, he has it.

  19. G. Karst (22:26:16) : However, nobody proffers a hint or suggestion as to where we could possibly find the uranium fuel to power even a few hundred big, new reactors. Someone better accelerate prototype thorium reactors if fission is going to give us energy while waiting for fusion. Otherwise, coal, oil, gas, will still be our future. GK
    Um, no problem getting the U or the Th. India is prepared to offer for sale a Th based reactor, LTBR Lightbridge is putting Th fuel bundles in Russian reactors for licensing trials somewhere between Real Soon and “now”. There is about 11,000 years of U on land that we know of, and extraction from the ocean is a proven technology at economical prices (thought a little more expensive than land sources.
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-ship/

  20. Jeremy: maybe the AGWers are cocaine drug addicts who need to get the substance, so they have to become con artists, promote AGW, and get the grants. Drug addiction is sometimes convoluted. 😉

  21. Lets work back from your average person in the street. What do they believe?
    They believe that the world is, or will be, getting warmer over the next few decades, and that the sea will rise, and that there will be more hurricanes, and the Polar Bears will die, and the seas will all turn to acid, so there will be no fish, and because of methane emissions, there will be no cows, or sheep, or pigs, or goats, so we will all need to be vegetarians, but there will be a shortage of arable crops because most of the land will have been taken by the oil companies to grow bio-fuel, and … and …
    Why do they believe this? Because the news media tell them these stories.
    And why does the news media do that? Because disasters are always good for selling newspapers or improving your ratings, and that sells advertising.
    Also, it is easier for a journalist to pick up the phone and call a tame scientist for a quote, than it is to actually get their head around discovering a story and then verifying the facts.
    From the scientist’s point of view, they were initially flattered to be phoned all of the time, and to give interviews, and appear on television, and be quoted in the articles, and to become famous.
    Ah, but fame is a wonderfully treacherous thing. It is not funding that is the drug here, it is fame. And even if they are proved wrong, and their famousness turns to infamousness, the notoriety will still provide the fix that they need.
    In fact, the more outlandish the claims they make, the more exciting the news becomes, and the more the public become concerned, and then more news media is consumed.
    It is a magic suit of clothes that the world is wearing. I am thankful for people like Dr Christy for taking the role of the little boy who spoke up, and who continued to speak up, until the Emperor was “exposed” as being the fool he was.

  22. There is one most deeply puzzling aspects of the AGW movement. It continually argues that we should do various things because of Global Warming. But when you look at the things that are urged, they have almost no effect on it. The magic number here is 1.8 million. Read this:
    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/
    If the US were to stop emitting CO2 totally, it would have only a small effect on temperatures, and if the UK were to stop totally, it would have none. That is, assuming the IPCC is right about climate sensitivity.
    So why then are we reading this week in the UK press that everyone in the UK should spend around $20k each to make their homes more fuel efficient, in order to combat Global Warming, when it can have no effect whatever on it? In the case of the US mileage restrictions, there are sound reasons for it as a policy, they have to do with energy independence. But obviously, the policy is simply irrelevant to Global Warming.
    It seems that what’s really going on is that people are invoking Global Warming as an emotional gesture on the side of policies which they advocate for quite other reasons, sometimes correctly, but often not. The sad part is that some important and perfectly rational policies will wrongly get rejected as the GW justification is exploded.

  23. I’m not sure how facile the drug metaphor is. How panicky does a young tenure-track associate professor get when he thinks he isn’t distinguishing himself enough fast enough? With co-eds in the mix, it could be pretty panicky.
    One sometimes thinks that academic papers aren’t judged by their quality as much as how damned dry they are.

  24. Dr. Christy has begun to open a new debate. Up till now, it has been almost impossible to convince the warmists that that these alarmist scientists could be biased let alone dishonest. Such arguments always get shot down as being of the “conspiracy theory crackpot” type. But there is a much more simple – and powerful – dynamic at work. Celebrity status.
    Imagine the adrenaline as you pick up the phone and your secretary announces “ABC, CNN, CBC tv reporters to see you Doctor Hansen.” You adjust your tie just in time as you are dazzled by flash guns, cameras rushing from all directions, mikes shoved at you, shouts of “What does this tell us about the climate Doctor Hansen?” “How hot do you predict it will get by 2036?” Next day your face is plastered all over the worlds newspapers: “Top climate scientist predicts . . . “; “We must act at once says top US climate scientist”.
    And hanging on the coat tails of the most celebrated, ride the little scientists – the Mann’s, Schmidts and all the others – who can bask in the reflected glory. But why only reflected glory? Why not leverage ourselves up with Hansen? Let us too make dire predictions. If we redouble our efforts we can make that troublesome medieval warm period go away; make the ice dissappear; find more feedbacks; more droughts, floods, plagues, hurricanes, extinctions . . .
    And we do it. We too have our names in lights; we too become “leading climate scientists”. Journalists seek our opinions. And we notice that the more alarming we make things sound, the more of them come back. We even start to notice that we are making things up, just for effect – we are playing to our audience. At first we feel a little embarrassed. Maybe someone will trash our nonsense. But something amazing happens. When reasoned argument comes at us, they are attacked and excoriated by journalists and our peers.
    We are invited to conferences, have the ears of leading politicians, feted by the media, celebrated by celebrities. We have become gods.

  25. Slightly OT but, after the amazing BBC web site piece by Paul Hudson “Whatever happened to Global Warming”, this morning’s edition of BBC’s daily news programme TODAY featured an interview with Prof. Ian Plimer.
    It is at:-
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8356000/8356114.stm
    and the interview can be listened to if you scroll down to time 08:52.
    Plimer gives an excellent account for himself.
    His book “Heaven And Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science” hasn’t been much commented on by WUWT. Strongly recommended.
    But what’s up with the BBC?
    Did they check this out with Roger Harrabin “the BBC’s Environment Analyst, and one of the world’s senior journalists on the environment and energy”??
    (Senior eco-fascist twit, more likely).
    Perhaps they thought they could make Plimer look ridiculous and it just didn’t work out. But the BBC is usually very reluctant to admit that there ARE any climate sceptics, even a ‘tiny minority’!

  26. Thought some on here might like this: The same UK government organisation that brought you the little girl being read a story that the world is going to end is currently running a TV ad on UK television that states, “Car travel is the single biggest contributor to our personal CO2 emissions” http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home.html
    Personal car travel (26.1%)
    Space heating (24.8%)
    Personal flights (14.0%)
    Water heating (12.0%)
    So I carried out their CO2 calculator (a lengthy process!). However, when I inputted a typical family of 4, living in a detached house, cooking by gas, but NO AIR TRAVEL I got a different set of figures.
    Car travel 3.99 tonnes
    Space heating 4.67 tonnes
    Appliances 2.24 tonnes
    If you add a 4-bed house then the space heating rises even further against the car travel. Indeed, it’s only possible to make the statement “Car travel is the single biggest contributor to our personal CO2 emissions” if you ignore the fact that other members of the family will be travelling in the car! Otherwise you would naturally divide the ‘car travel’ by 4 – the same as you would for the space heating. In every case where I inputted a typical scenario (such as someone living alone etc.) I still got the CO2 footprint bigger on space heating than on car travel.
    I still cannot understand. Why lie?

  27. Very simply, it’s the bandwagon effect, and yes, the benefits for AGW “scientists” for being on board could be called addictive, especially being in the limelight, as well as the appeal of “saving the planet”. Then, there are the very likely negative consequences of not being on board, including no funding, ridicule and shunning by your peers and others, job loss, and possibly worse. The minute they climbed aboard, however, they ceased to be scientists, and have violated the faith and trust that society has placed in them. This violation of trust will have severe consequences down the road, for science, and for mankind. A day of reckoning is coming, however. They will be and should be held accountable.

  28. “WRONG – they are a bunch of fraudulent con artists. They are crooks. In many other disciplines one would be sued for criminal negligence for the typical kind of inaccuracies and outright false statements found in many AGW papers. Liars and cheats and eco-fascists that masterminded this kind of fraud are not merely people who lost their way.”
    The fact that this goes unmoderated might lead certain people to think that you share these views, Anthony. If only because this is one of many similar comments.

  29. Slightly OT:
    Today the BBC Today program ran an interview with Prof. Ian Plimer, a well-known sceptical scientist:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm
    Go down to the 08:52 item.
    Is it possible that the BBC is starting to give a more balanced coverage of climate change? In recent weeks there has been some other good BBC coverage e.g. Clive James and Andrew Neil.
    Chris

  30. To paraphrase a couple of leaders from the past . Elizabeth the first wisely said “We now have wolves not shepherds governing us, and all that will be left will be ashes and carcasses to rule over”.
    Yet Winston Churchill’s words are also relevant when he said “Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.”
    http://www.twawki.wordpress.com

  31. Vincent (02:18:53) : all too true. Read Erich Hoffer for a good description.
    News organizations are geared to disaster reporting (image them reporting “good news today, nothing bad happened!), so they’re going to be attentive to the Catastrophic AGW crowd rather than rational scientists like Dr. Christy.
    Humanity also seems to have a built in desire to believe in the Apocalypse. End of Days, Club of Rome, Population Bomb, Nuclear Winter, 2012 all seem to resonate with a large part of the population.

  32. Unfortunately journalists rarely allow facts to get in the way of a good story. What is delightful about Dr Christy’s table of general facts is that they are simple to understand and convey to the lay person.
    What I think is good that given all the propaganda from the Doogooder Doomsayers, the money spent by governments and lobbyists, Jo public and a large swathe of scientists and academics think and know they are being sold a pup. The web has allowed this.
    As I have said before there is only one thing worse than a hypocrite and that’s a sanctimonious hypocrite.

  33. “twawki (04:30:17) :
    To paraphrase a couple of leaders from the past . Elizabeth the first wisely said “We now have wolves not shepherds governing us, and all that will be left will be ashes and carcasses to rule over”.
    Yet Winston Churchill’s words are also relevant when he said “Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.”
    http://www.twawki.wordpress.com
    Old Winston was a suppoter of the ‘Feble Minded Peoples” act of 1912, fortunately voted down. Silver spoon idiot!

  34. If my memory serves me correctly, fleet mileage requirements for Detroit were proposed originally as a way to reduce our economy’s sensitivity to price flucuations in oil, especially those brought on by manipulations of the market by foreign states. That seems like a good idea to me today as much as it was then.
    Just because the AGW folks latch onto it, doesn’t make it a bad idea.

  35. Humour of the day
    I get all my climate science by watching the Day After Tomorrow. . In that film, all was good during global warming. It turned catastrophic when it turned cold

  36. Is getting on the climate change bandwagon like a drug? I’m not sure about that metaphor, but perhaps it is exciting to publish research with dramatic conclusions, particularly if you get a lot of media attention from it. I suppose anything can be addictive in that same sense.
    Certainly, it’s more enjoyable to be funded than to be unemployed.

  37. lichanos (06:35:46) :
    If my memory serves me correctly, fleet mileage requirements for Detroit were proposed originally as a way to reduce our economy’s sensitivity to price flucuations in oil, especially those brought on by manipulations of the market by foreign states. That seems like a good idea to me today as much as it was then.
    Just because the AGW folks latch onto it, doesn’t make it a bad idea.

    Just because something was proposed with good intentions doesn’t make it a good thing, either. We all know where the road paved with good intentions leads.
    Have we reduced our economy’s sensitivity to price fluctuations in the oil market? Have we reduced our dependency on foreign oil? Have oil imports gone up or down since this was implemented?
    If any of these were the real goals, wouldn’t it be better to increase domestic oil production?

  38. I wish someone would tell the BBC and the rest of the British media about this. I’m sick to death about their constant warming propaganda at the diktat of the Left Liberal establishment, constantly pumped out to justify more and more green taxation, and the manufacture of expensive gadgets that are not cost efficient and do more environmental harm than good in their maintenance and manufacture. Eco fascism is big business in the UK and these people are ruthless in their lies and bully boy tactics. Why destroy the economies of the developed world and stifle the emerging economies of the third world with all these ludicrous costly co2 reduction measures because of these nutters. Technology will achieve all this on it’s own without the pain. People let’s fight back.

  39. lichanos (06:35:46) :
    “Just because the AGW folks latch onto it, doesn’t make it a bad idea.”
    Well, it kind of does make it a bad idea, within the context of the socio-political dictum that the AGW crowd are foisting upon us. Intolerance must often be met with equal or greater intolerance.
    If a government official tells me that I must reduce fleet mileage to save us from AGW, I will fight it. If the same official says that we must reduce fleet mileage to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or dampen oil price fluctuations, then I will consider it.

  40. Neven-
    If you are expecting a website that censors comments that do not fully support a particular mindset, this website isn’t it.
    I can link others that do so if that is what you prefer to see.

  41. E.M.Smith (23:00:32) :
    Thanks for the update on thorium fuel. I was not aware that it had reached a demonstration stage. I will re-acquaint myself with current developments.
    I realize that uranium is one of the most common elements on the planet and is contained with-in everything. Accessible deposits which are suitable for mining are a different matter. With a 10 yr lead time required to develop a producing mine and many mines required for such a buildup of reactors… I still, would have to say fuel supply will be the limiting factor.
    Supply is running at about 135 million pounds per year, with mines contributing only 79.2 million pounds per year. In Canada and Australia, the big producers in uranium, few new mines have come on stream, largely as a result of recently poor prices.
    To sustain the increases in energy demand dictated by a growing world economy, there is no question that uranium will need to play a key role. But… Where are the massive construction projects that are required, actually taking place, that makes it all possible? GK

  42. Andrew Parker (08:32:00) :
    lichanos (06:35:46) :
    The best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through fuel consumption would be to increase domestic oil retrieval and build some refineries. Given that a new refinery hasn’t been built in the U.S. for decades, it would seem that their stated concern of our dependence is disingenuous.

  43. Neven: The fact that this goes unmoderated might lead certain people to think that you share these views, Anthony. If only because this is one of many similar comments.
    When referring to the proliferation in alarmist AGW reports, “peer reviewed” alarmist papers and the obfuscation by some researchers when asked to provide raw data, I think it is no longer an opinion but plainly factual to speak in the terms I did. Whether the alamists statements are directly based on fabricated evidence like the “Hockey Stick” or unsubstantiated climate models that heavily implicate CO2 …let’s call a spade a spade.
    Every successful con artist works by couching lies within truths and half truths. The alarmist man-made climate catastrophe predictions are not so very different from a Bernard Madhoff Ponzi scheme – superficially convincing and involving large amounts of money for those who successfully propagate the scam. Although Madhoff came up with the Ponzi scheme, he used a network of brokers to propagate his scheme – all of whom profited heavily – that is the beauty of a a successful con – many people choose to believe in it because it is structured so that they gain from it – they have absolutely no insentive to question the fundamental basis for the scheme.
    Although the “Hockey Stick” was artfully fabricated, those who use this to propagate the man-made alarmist agenda are culpable, IMHO. It is beholden on the people who make wild claims (with HUGE global economic consequences) to have done some due diligience. Lack of due diligence is criminal in many disciplines, such as engineering and medecine.
    Call a spade is a spade.

  44. re: Jeremy (20:53:20) :
    Yes, Jeremy, you are absolutely right and there should be hell to pay for the damage these eco-fascists are doing and have done. These frauds do not deserve an easy out.

  45. G. Karst (09:11:38) : “To sustain the increases in energy demand dictated by a growing world economy, there is no question that uranium will need to play a key role. But… Where are the massive construction projects that are required, actually taking place, that makes it all possible?”
    China and India. 🙂

  46. P Wilson (06:57:11) : “I get all my climate science by watching the Day After Tomorrow. . In that film, all was good during global warming. It turned catastrophic when it turned cold”
    One of my favorite comedies. I loved the way already-frozen New York froze more when the stratosphere fell on it. Full marks for originality, too. I’ve seen actors chased by cars, airplanes, explosions, even dinosaurs, but that was the first time I’d ever seen anyone chased by an ice age!
    As I recall, they even had the Gulf Stream backwards. 🙂
    No doubt many here have already seen the South Park version:
    http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/908/Two-Days-Before-the-Day-After-Tomorrow.html

  47. SLIGHTLY OT:
    Cuba orders extreme measures to cut energy use
    Source: Reuters
    * Cuba’s energy situation termed “critical”
    * Some factories, workshops to be closed through December
    * Most other economic activities to be reduced
    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11371755.htm
    ——–
    This is what central planning, socialism a command economy and not developing energy sources gets you.

  48. I spent roughly 600 gallons of fuel to buy and ship my new sailboat so I could sail and use free wind. It takes about 300 gallons to drive to the yacht club and back for a season. It does use less than 20 gallons diesel in the auxillary motor a year. As the harbormaster, I spent under 100,000 dollars hauling in crushed concrete from an old roadway in the name of recycling. The breakwater jetty looks great. I spent that again on dredging and shoreline improvements and lining a cove with bags to create a bag wall. All the work requires heavy equipment and burns a lot of fuel to be able to claim we are green. We even built a log cabin clubhouse. It is natural. Of course we hauled the logs in in kit form over 1,200 miles. I have spent a lot of money and consumed an incredibly massive amount of petrol to show the region what being committed to green looks like. I searched at long distances to find a quarry to provide great native stone for the fire place. We also have contacts that bring in pecan for firewood because it has a better fragrance than local hedge, pine or inferior woods.
    As you can see, it takes a lot of fuel to save energy. Some of us old timers still can use celestial navigation. We also keep logs and diaries and plot weather from way back. It does seem to show a pattern of our racing starts are being done in cooler temps and lighter winds than some earlier decades.

  49. G Karst: There are 52 large nuclear power reactors being built around the world today. None in the US if you don’t count the one that was started more than 30 years ago. Details here:
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
    Quantity of uranium is not a problem. The estimate of current reserves is a strong function of price, and uranium is cheap now. As the price for new uranium goes up, reprossessing becomes viable, which also reduces the amount of waste. Since the cost of electricity is a very weak function of fuel cost, that’s not an economic time bomb. Then, fast neutron breeder reactors, being developed in 4 countries, promise about 70-fold increase in fuel reserves. Details here:
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf98.html
    And in the near term, the Koreans are working on burning spent fuel from light water reactors (most commercial reactors are light water) in their heavy water reactors. This greatly reduces the amount of wastes and generates more energy. Details here:
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html
    In summary, there is at least 1000 years of fission power available without needing new technology. I like the idea of plug-in hybrid cars running on clean, safe, reliable, low cost nuke power, and solar and wind power. Stop burning oil in cars by gradual phase-in of plug-in hybrids before all-electric cars are viable.

  50. “Consensus is not science,” Christy began, quoting the late author Michael Crichton.
    Yes, may he rest in peace. I sometimes recall scenes from his book, State of Fear, when I view some of these climate catastrophe speeches given by the president, which name increased terrible weather, disease and droughts as proof that government action must be taken. I think they were expecting all of this, but the sun did not cooperate.

  51. It’s a good point about the drug effect of such groupthink. You often find that these “overwhelming-issues” people are fairly wooden or colourless.
    AGW belief can be a kind of sexiness for the unsexy, stimulation of the frankly dull by the frankly dull.

  52. “Consensus is not science,” Christy began, quoting the late author Michael Crichton. But the truth is so much stranger than fiction!
    In Michael Crichton’s State of Fear some island states were actually suing the US for damages caused by AGW.
    Instead, you have these yahoos in the Maldives waterboarding themselves or whatever so the US will sign a treaty forfeiting 1% of our GDP to the UN!
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/maldivians-pull-underwater-publicity-stunt/

  53. @ Barry Foster
    I still cannot understand. Why lie?
    My thinking is that it is much easier to “herd” your sheeple if they are on foot instead of driving their own vehicles around.
    Once they get rid of most of us old Baby Boomers who still remember the days of V-8s and hot rod music, perhaps they can finish changing the culture so we are not so enamored with having our own set of wheels.
    Is anyone writing hit rock music about their “sweet ride”, the Prius?

  54. Most people have already seen this, but it might be worth mentioning again, there is a very good debate with Dr. Christy on youtube.

    all eight parts are worth the time if you can spare it.
    Dr. Christy is facts, figures, and observation. All the other guy has is hot air.

  55. We got heaps of thorium laying around in Western Australia if you guys need some in the future. Heck we bury monazite all the time as part of the heavy mineral sands operations in the central west and south west. Got tonnes of it ready to go. Until recently it was against state government policy to mine uranium, but that lunacy was dropped when the Libs got control in the last election.
    I am not sure that waxing lyrical about AGW types and drug-like addictions is helping this side of the debate… we don’t want to lower ourselves to the standard of Real Climate now do we?

  56. Rereke Wakaaro (00:01:44)
    As a post script to your well defined analysis,
    ”Those who are to smart to go into politics are punished by being governed by idiots.
    Plato.”
    born 427 BC
    died 347 BC
    and in this time nothing has changed

  57. “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Senator Timothy Wirth 1990

  58. weather office on Tuesday sounded a cyclone alert for the coastal regions of south Gujarat and north Maharashtra, where it is expected to make a landfall in the early hours of Thursday.
    Weather scientists are tracking a deep depression formed in the Southeast and adjoining Central Arabian Sea, which is moving in the northwest direction and to hit south Gujarat.
    “The system is likely to intensify further into a cyclonic storm and move in a northerly direction for some more time and then north-northeastwards and cross south Gujarat and north Maharashtra coast between Mahuva and Dahanu by early hours of November 12,” an alert issued by the India Meteorological Department said.
    Why such storms? climate change?global warming?
    Rayat Ngo
    http://www.rayatngo.blogspot.com

  59. Sorry for sarcasm, Rayat Ngo. (If you’re an actual person and not a robot.)
    I’m trying to improve my internet manners, but often failing.
    I’m so glad that the cyclone missed Mumbai. If it’s any help, you had a November cyclone in 1912, 1947, 1948, 1966…and you had three of them in November of 1946.
    I hope it’s good new to you that, for the above very simple and obvious reasons, anthropogenic global warming is unlikely to be involved. This is the point I should have made without sarcasm.

  60. Martin Brumby (03:29:02) :

    Plimer gives an excellent account for himself.
    His book “Heaven And Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science” hasn’t been much commented on by WUWT. Strongly recommended.

    I agree with you on this very fine book. He has an excellent section on what history teaches us about climate.
    I’ve suggested Anthony have a book review section where we could comment on any books we’ve read. It would also be nice to have a FAQ section. Many times people will bring up topics discussed earlier. The FAQ could have links to the appropriate item of discussion.
    This is still one of the best places to get really interesting discussions of climate issues. I feel a little frustrated at times because I can’t find a particularly good comment on a subject of interest.

  61. @ Andrew Parker (08:32:00) :
    …within the context of the socio-political dictum that the AGW crowd are foisting upon us. Intolerance must often be met with equal or greater intolerance.
    I grew up taught that two wrongs don’t make a right. Also a good idea, still. This statement of yours is a recipe for truly uninformative debate.

Comments are closed.