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”:
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.