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”:
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.