Study: Greens Have a Fat Carbon Footprint

Green Pass

Nobody seems to mind, if a “Green” clocks up a lot of air miles.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Willie Soon – a group of Cambridge Conservation Scientists have discovered that greens enjoy the same carbon belching perks as the rest of us, and rarely purchase carbon offsets or make other personal sacrifices such as reducing meat consumption.

Conservationists take nine flights a year, despite knowing danger to environment, study shows

Sarah Knapton, science editor
10 OCTOBER 2017 • 5:52PM

Conservationists may preach about the importance of going green to save the planet, but most have a carbon footprint which is virtually no different to anyone else, a new study has shown.

Scientists as Cambridge University were keen to find out whether being fully informed about global warming, plastic in the ocean or the environmental impact of eating meat, triggers more ethical behaviour.

But when they examined the lifestyles of conservation scientists they discovered most still flew frequently – an average of nine flights a year – ate meat or fish approximately five times a week and rarely purchased carbon offsets for their own emissions.

They were also less green in travelling to work than medics, and kept more dogs and cats. A recent study suggested pets are a hefty ecological burden. It takes more than two acres of grazing pasture to keep a medium-sized dog fed with meat, while the eco-footprint of a cat is similar to a Volkswagen Golf.

Even the study’s four authors – all conservation scientists – admitted that between them they took 31 flights in 2016 and had each eaten two meat dinners in the week before submitting the research.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/10/conservationists-take-nine-flights-year-despite-knowing-danger/

The abstract of the study;

The environmental footprints of conservationists, economists and medics compared

Author Andrew Balmford, Lizzy Cole, Chris Sandbrook, Brendan Fisher

Many conservationists undertake environmentally harmful activities in their private lives such as flying and eating meat, while calling for people as a whole to reduce such behaviors. To quantify the extent of our hypocrisy and put our actions into context, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey of 300 conservationists and compared their personal (rather than professional) behavior, across 10 domains, with that of 207 economists and 227 medics. We also explored two related issues: the role of environmental knowledge in promoting pro-environmental behavior, and the extent to which different elements of people’s footprint co-vary across behavioral domains. The conservationists we sampled have a slightly lower overall environmental footprint than economists or medics, but this varies across behaviors. Conservationists take fewer personal flights, do more to lower domestic energy use, recycle more, and eat less meat – but don’t differ in how they travel to work, and own more pets than do economists or medics. Interestingly, conservationists also score no better than economists on environmental knowledge and knowledge of pro-environmental actions. Overall footprint scores are higher for males, US nationals, economists, and people with higher degrees and larger incomes, but (as has been reported in other studies) are unrelated to environmental knowledge. Last, we found different elements of individuals’ footprints are generally not intercorrelated, and show divergent demographic patterns. These findings suggest three conclusions. First, lowering people’s footprints may be most effectively achieved via tailored interventions targeting higher-impact behaviors (such as meat consumption, flying and family size). Second, as in health matters, education about environmental issues or pro-environmental actions may have little impact on behavior. Last, while conservationists perform better on certain measures than other groups, we could (and we would argue, must) do far more to reduce our footprint.

Read more (paywalled): http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071730071X

I strongly suspect many frequent flying greens have a transactional view of climate, they justify personal environmental excess by virtue of the work they are doing. In their minds, any personal excess is likely justified by their efforts to convince the rest of us to make lifestyle sacrifices.

A wind farm engineer I once knew justified buying a diesel guzzling pleasure boat on the grounds of all the good he did, filling the landscape with wind turbines.

Of course, if any greens really wish they had an alternative to flying; there is still time to sign my petition, to ensure that climate scientists have access to all the latest teleconferencing equipment, so they never again have to travel in person to attend a climate conference.

Advertisements

237 thoughts on “Study: Greens Have a Fat Carbon Footprint

  1. It would be interesting to compare these traits among two kinds of conservationists: 1) Those who regard it as a religion, and 2) Those who regard it as a political opportunity.

      • cracker345: brave of you to cross swords on this blog – glad you do as it livens up debate. I’d hotly dispute your statement “…there is evidence for anthro global warming.” That is just the point – there isn’t.

        The way that science works is hypothesis testing: you postulate an idea (say that anthropogenic CO2 warms the atmosphere) and then devise a way to test that idea. A key part of the test is that your hypothesis correctly predicts the outcome. That is the way science works – hypothesis – test/experiment – prediction – result matching prediction. Simple correlation doesn’t cut it. The only verifiable test of the CO2 hypothesis are climate models (we can’t roll back the 20th century and re-run it with less carbon), and the climate models miss their predictions by a country mile when compared to temperature data that hasn’t been fiddled

        There is another vital but often missing step in this debate: testing the hypothesis that warming (if it occurs) is bad. Historically warmer periods in history have been times when mankind has flourished, so anyone advocating carbon reduction to save mankind has two mountains to climb: firstly to prove that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming, and then second that the warming has net negative effects

      • john, so you too haven’t
        bothered to read about the
        evidence.

        but you’re completely sure
        the hypothesis is wrong, never
        having looked into the evidence.

        why did you do that?

      • john, is sea level rise bad?

        10-20 meters per degree C of warming?

        is the effect on crops good or bad?
        how do you know?

        are higher temperatures wanted in the tropics?
        in cities? more heat waves? is ocean
        acidification desired? anoxic ocean waters?
        more drought? more downpours? more
        insects? wider spread of diseases? more
        weeds? do far northerners want higher
        temperatures, melting the permafrost?
        what’s good about artifically inflating the
        global
        temperature far far faster than nature has
        ever done before?

      • Problem with your number with the science. Now go look at your green sites how much warming has there been since 1950, I am sure you will get a number around 1 degree. Now go look at the sea level rise between 1950 and now should be something like 200mm (8 inches).

        That is 70 years, see the problem with your stupid number of 10-20m per degree.

        Surely you see the number you just gave is unscientific and blatantly stupid.

      • cracker 345 – what makes you think I haven’t looked for evidence? I explained rather carefully how the process of science works and the evidence presented fails.

        And statistics page 1 line 1: correlation is not causation. A change in temperature or sea level on its own proves zer0. Indeed many paleogeologists hold that warming CAUSES increasing CO2 not the other way around.

      • john – warming does cause natural co2 emissions.

        look at the warming from the last ice age. 5 c of warming,
        and 100 ppm increase in CO2. (a mutual feedback.) but now
        we have 1 c of warming and 125 ppm increase in CO2.

        how do you reconcile these?

      • Crackers345 as regards the evidence for man made global warming:-
        There is nothing that stands up to the sort of examination Poundland ( a cheap end store in the UK) quality control suppliers put their products through much less the sort of quality Assurance program used for life critical products which is what they claim climate change is all about.
        Where are the regular certification of the tests for the measuring devices, the enclosures and the surrounding environment of the measuring stations? Where are the certificates to show that the predictions of normal progression are accepted by all those suitably trained in the sort of analysis used to predict patterns in engineering and marketing. These are professions where these techniques are their mainstream activity, not just a dabbled in pastime as it is for climate scientists? Where are the tests to show that there is no localised activity that affects the measuring environment by taking some reading from points between the stations and seeing how closely they match when averaged to get the probably error in the measurement?
        In short the evidence shows a level of cavalier self indulgence in the climate profession that would in any other field be regarded as criminal negligence given the costs of their claims to society. Climate is merely a religious faith demanding cult and not even a religion as it demands total obedience and a heavy subscription but unlike a cult it demands payment from of all of us and not just cult members.

      • david – do you think research groups don’t care
        about the quality of their instrumentation?
        have you ever asked any of them about how they
        ensure quality measurements? I bet not.
        you’re just making up excuses not to consider
        and examine
        the evidence.

        ps – where are the quality records for the
        instruments that certify the bridges you drive
        over? for the airplanes you fly? where?

      • No substantiated, physical (aka empirical) evidence. All they have is the same sort of evidence that religions are based on. As with many cult religions, the priesthood of the Church of CAGW are consummate liars and opportunists taking advantage of the faith of their followers in the absolute veracity of the unsubstantiated, contrived evidence.
        Yes, climate alarmists are members of a cult religion, and its faithful are convinced that the fake “evidence” is absolute truth, and that those who don’t believe are “denialists” which is not only insulting but is equivalent to “infidel,” or for those former cult members who have discovered the man behind the curtain and denounced CAGW – “apostate.”

      • Cracker, here you are still trying to act all scientific even when I show you that your number is stupid. Do you at least admit it’s stupid? I mean last year was 0.1 degree warmer than the year before wan’t it so the sea level should have gone up 1-2m , I think we would have spotted that.

        Your credibility is about at the same level as Griff at the moment, so would you care to at least correct the record.

      • Cracker, here is some science for you.
        CO2 is an absolute necessity for life on this planet. This is scientific fact based on empirical study, If you lower the free, gaseous CO2 from the lower atmosphere only a smidge below what the CAGW alarmists claim is the “right amount,” plant life begins to die off. Reduce plant life and free O2 begins to dwindle. All fauna rely on flora at some level of the food chain – also scientifically tested and based on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence shows that the slightly higher CO2 concentration has resulted in the greening of the planet, because plant life thrives when CO2 levels are high. Plant life would do even better if CO2 would double from today’s concentration.

        The greenhouse theory teaches that it requires a doubling of CO2 for a 1C rise in surface temps, which automatically puts the effect of additional CO2 on a logarithmic curve. Economists call the effect of a logarithmic curve “diminishing returns.”

        The CAGW hypothesis claims that the ideal global temperature is rather low, considering that paleoclimate studies show that global temperatures during the time of the most explosive growth in the quantity and diversity of life on Earth were several degrees higher. Where is the empirical evidence that supports their claims that the ideal global temperature is lower than what they have divined to be the global temperature today? Where is the empirical evidence that falsifies any claim that the ideal global temperature is several degrees higher?

        The CAGW hypothesis claims that slightly higher atmospheric CO2 concentration will combine with positive “feedback forcings” to result in catastrophic runaway global warming, leading to death and destruction.
        This, despite actual evidence that CO2 concentrations during those periods of explosive growth in prehistory were for the most part five to seven times higher than today, without causing runaway, catastrophic global warming. If the seas didn’t boil when CO2 was over 2,000ppm, CO2 concentrations over 400 ppm are inconsequential, and the much hyped “tipping point” preached by the alarmist cult leaders is a bald-faced lie, as is the claim that if the earth warms another 2C will be disaster.

        Not only is more CO2 good for the greening of the planet, it also is good for civilization as a whole. Not only is warmer overall temperatures less likely to cause death than a colder overall temperature would, higher CO2 is more likely to result in food surpluses than it is to result in food shortages. Human civilization has had periods of growth and increased sophistication during warm periods, and have had periods of decline during cold periods, implying that warmer temperatures = social advancement. Scientific and technological advancement also have had growth spurts during warmer times.

        These statements are based on empirical evidence, unlike CAGW which relies on agenda-driven studies designed to produce a foregone conclusion.

      • Crackers. Yeah, yeah, we know the sky is falling unless we stop eating herbivores and start eating their food. But for the love of Gaia, try to be coherent with yourself. Market another scare than an increase in plant food.

      • yeah, yeah, yeah,
        but the evidence is fuzzy
        with wide error bars.

        Not to mention vv good reasons
        to suspect systemic data biases
        that are not carbon related

        Dodgy data is a huge problem
        and then there is the feedback
        of scientist self interrest.

        Expressing sneering contempt
        for “skeptics”, calling them “deniers” hardly
        encourages sober, respectful debate

        What is really at issue 345
        is the VERACITY of all that “evidence”,
        let alone the “credit of the witnesses”

        The article in question
        is really about the integrity of
        purported CAGW advocates.

        Cappice?

      • “ps – where are the quality records for the instruments that certify … the airplanes you fly? where?”

        As someone who once worked for a jet engine manufacturer in the UK, I can tell you that the company’s metrology department carried out the comparisons between the National Physical Laboratory standards and they kept the documentation to prove it. Local instrumentation was calibrated against those proxies.

        Engine test results, if used for certification or production pass-off were stored by the manufacturer for at least 20 years together with all the relevant calibrations and documentation. This is so that if something failed during the engine’s productive life they could carry out a thorough investigation.

        Climate science, on the other hand does not even use the same instrumentation over time. I can take a thousand “random” signals that average to a flat line and by changing which ones I look at I can turn that into either an increase or a decrease over time.

        Some of the worst examples from climate science do not even compare the same sort of instrumentation (e.g. MBH98 and MBH99).

      • CO2 is up.
        So are temperatures.
        Case proven.
        At least that’s activist logic usually works.
        Either that or they cite models which have been tuned to show what the activists want to see.

      • crackers, what makes you think we haven’t examined the so called evidence and found it sadly wanting.

      • crackers, the seas have been rising for over 200 years, there is no sign of acceleration in recent decades.

        The impact of CO2 on crops is very good. We know because we observe experiments where differing CO2 levels are applied to crops.
        Moderate temperature increases are also good for crops. They lengthen the growing season and help plants to grow faster.

        Higher temperatures aren’t going to happen in the tropics, the IR spectrum there is already saturated by H2O.

        There is no ocean acidification.

        Droughts and floods have shown no increase in recent decades.

        Do northerners want warmer temperatures? H#ll yes.

        So what if the permafrost melts. Not that it is melting.

        There is no evidence that temperatures are increasing faster, much less “far far faster”, then ever before.
        In fact there is solid evidence that rapid temperature swings are normal.

      • crackers, as always you show complete ignorance of the scientific method.
        It’s up to the person making a claim to provide the evidence to prove the claim.
        If we can show that your evidence is faulty, we have disproven your claim. It is not up to us to come up with better evidence or better theories. Though we have done just that.

      • Crackers – you’ve certainly picked the correct name to use with all the unfounded nonsense you are spouting.

        BTW what made you choose Crackers over an equally appropriate one such as Village Idiot, Daft as a Brush, Madhatter, GIGO, etc ???

      • “john, is sea level rise bad?

        10-20 meters per degree C of warming?”

        Thank you for actually citing some numbers instead of just spewing buzzwords and babbling talking-points…and showing your complete and utter ignorance of history and all things scientific.

    • crackers345

      And whilst CO2 has been rising, temperatures are not following anywhere near as fast.

      How do you reconcile that?

      Nor is there one single, credible, empirical study which demonstrates CO2 causes the planet to warm. And yes, I have looked. Clearly, you haven’t.

      The only observable effect CO2 is seen to have on the planet is entirely beneficial, man made or otherwise.

  2. Anybody who vocally supports the notion of CAGW and who demands that trillions be spent on it is obviously exonerated from any responsibility. Celebrities even more so. That’s just the way it is.

      • Why should that bother anyone.

        Trump et al KNOW that CO2 is NOT A PROBLEM.

        Its the utter hypocrisy of the green feftist “believer” that you don’t seem to be able to even acknowledge.

        Perhaps because you are one of them, and you feel your use of carbon is “justified” by the cause.

      • Because they get publicity and people forget their one dominating ability that makes them rich and famous is the ability to make pure fiction eve total fantasy plausible.

      • “but people like watching actors make fiction. what’s wrong with that?”

        Like your comedy fiction act.??

        I find it quite funny , in a very sick kind of way.

        Slapstick humour at best.

      • cracker, the use of private planes in the Trump administration doesn’t bother me.
        Nor did the much higher use of private planes during the Obama administration bother me.

    • As with the former governor of California:

      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/06/arnold-schwarzenegger-oktoberfest-215685

      “…six years after leaving Sacramento, he’s still reinventing himself—as a kind of globetrotting do-gooder, promoting a handful of causes like fighting climate change and gerrymandering.

      But mostly, he’s having a hell of a good time. Wherever he goes, everybody knows him. Everybody loves him.

      With a net worth estimated at $300 million, he zips around the world in private jets and has restaurant owners pick up his tab because they’re just so honored he chose to eat there.

      Constant selfies. He sounds off on whatever he wants, but has no actual responsibility. His perfect day is waking up and not knowing what country he’ll eat dinner in.”

      The irony totally escapes them.

  3. The principles proclaimed by the greens are for the hoi polloi, the lumpenproletariat, not the elite green cadre. Vanishingly few of the prominent green advocates live an Amish lifestyle, no matter what they urge on the lower classes.

      • These folks use other people’s money, so a tax is not recognized by them. Less well off folks would be poorer.
        If your goal is to reduce CO2 emissions — build nukes, stop burning wood pellets and biofuels, and stop flying.

      • CO2 reduction is a silly goal, as even if CO2 changes from 300 to 400 ppm cause warming, it is mostly lost in the noise of other causes, and beneficial at historic temperature increases, as is added CO2.The Hansen scenario of runaway temperature increases is inconsistent with paleo evidence of when the CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppm, no such runaway feedback occurred.
        This is more a matter of spanking the green blob for being elitists who do not follow what they wish to impose on others.

      • john: celebs spend money, on air travel,
        hotels, big homes, driving, food, etc.

        so a carbon tax would certainly affect
        them.

        would you otherwise prefer to put a
        cap on what any person can emit?

        or do you complain about celebs, and not
        other capitalists?

      • Tom Halla, “”CO2 reduction is a silly goal, as even if CO2 changes from 300 to 400 ppm cause warming, it is mostly lost in the noise of other causes”

        what other
        causes?

      • I don’t bloody know. Chaotic effects, solar effects that do not show well in the paleo record, unicorn farts? Unless you have drunk Mann’s Kool-aid, CO2 variations do not explain the LIA, the Medieval Warm, or any of the variations in climate over history and the paleo record since the last ice age. As I mentioned on a different thread, you are into an ad ignoratium argument.

      • Tom, so you don’t know, but
        you don’t accept the science. why?

        ps – Mann’s work did not
        attribute warming to anything.
        nor did it predict future
        warming. come on, this is
        basic stuff.

      • Mann (in MBH 98) and Karl vastly reduced the variations in temperature in the paleo record and instumental record, respectively, thus creating a much simpler history of temperature variations to account for. Calling what are controversial at best and deliberately falsified “records” “the science” is egregious.

      • crackers345 at 9:02 PM tony, you are dismissing the science by fiat.

        Sir, if you are addressing the author of this post, his name is Eric Worrall. If you are addressing Mr. Watts, I suggest you use his proper name. Most visitors here respect his considerable effort to advance the public interest.

      • wrong tom. mann et al didn’t attribute
        warming or cooling to anything — they
        simply reconstructed temperatures.

        i’m unaware of any reconstructions by karl.
        please enlighten me.

      • Without going into a history of the IPCC reports, your claimed ignorance of why Mann and his “Hockey Stick” are relevant is a bit precious. As is Thomas Karl creatively modifying GISSTEMP to do away with the 1930’s warm period, in making 1939 cooler than 1997.
        You have been a commenter on this site for long enough to know better.

      • tom, karl et al didn’t compute
        reconstructions. glad you finally
        admitted that.

        adjustments are necessary to
        correct for biases. how would you
        prefer to
        correct for those biases?

      • Damn, my man, you play dense better than anyone I have read recently! Bubba, if one does away with the LIA (you do admit to knowing what that was?), one does not have to adjust the models of effects on temperature to account for it, which is what Mann did. Karl did much the same thing to instrumental records.
        The controversy you dismiss by playing ignorant is that the “adjustments” were made to fit the models, whether consciously or unconsciously (either is possible, as the adjustment and infill process is not blind).

      • Tom Halla, ‘As is Thomas Karl creatively modifying GISSTEMP to do away with the 1930’s warm period, in making 1939 cooler than 1997’

        Karl works for noaa, not nasa giss.
        he has nothing to do with gistemp (one “s” only).
        adjustments reduce the long-term warming trend.
        you should know that by now

      • it is rather late here, so remembering which record Karl cooked is irrelevant to the question of relying on altered “records”, which you evaded.

      • tom, you are very wrong on a lot of things. mann
        et al didn’t rely on climate models in any way. they did
        no adjustments. at all.

        karl et al adjusts to correct for biases.
        how would you correct for those biases?
        their adjustments _lead to cooling_, not warming.

      • Accepting Mann in MBH98 is not credible given the results of the Wegman report. Mann used a model to assemble his paleo bits into the infamous “Hockey stick”, model in the sense of a computer program.
        You still have not dealt with the possible motives in flattening the records prior to 1950.

      • tom, all calculations are models, whether
        done by hand or by computer. ALL OF THEM.
        even the calculations you did in high school.

        using computers is simply a faster way to
        handle data and solve
        equations. used everywhere every day.

        your excuse is lame.

      • Your reply was a non sequitur. The issue is Mann doing away with the LIA and the Medieval Warm, and how he did it, and speculation as to why.

      • tom – adjustments are done to
        correct for biases.

        do you honestly not know this?
        or have taken the time to
        understand it?

        how would you prefer to handle
        biases?

        the BEST project looked at all this, yet again.
        they found the same results
        as everyone else, adjustments
        and all

      • Do you have any idea (or admit to knowing) why doing adjustments to data in a non-blind way is a bad idea?

      • tom, the lia & mwp simply don’t show up
        in mann et al’s nh reconstruction.

        would you prefer they have lied about that?

        what data do you think showed a lia & mwp,
        anyway? please point to it; cite it.

      • MBH98 was subject to a Congressionally sponsored report (the Wegman report), which found that Mann was unwilling to defend his work.QED. Try finding the pre-2000 IPCC graphs of paleoclimate, which do show both the LIA and the Medieval Warm.

      • totally wrong, tom.
        the national academy of sciences report
        on mann et al’s work found nothing wrong with it.
        (but it’s now known that wegman plagarized.)
        the hockey stick has been
        confirmed by
        many groups since, using several
        different methodologies

      • No, you mean that the IPCC still accepts Mann, despite being refuted by McKittrick and McIntyre. The corruption of the IPCC is something of a given.

      • tom, no, i mean mann et al’s work has been
        replicated by over a dozen different groups,
        using many different methods.
        no one believes mcint and mckit’s work, which is
        why no one ever cites it.
        they are history.
        you’re just making excuses.

      • If one uses Mann’s programming, it finds hockey sticks. Wegman is still authoritative, as Mann refused to defend his methods, and stonewalled, not the actions of anyone acting in good faith. Mann is still stonewalling the Steyn lawsuit, again not the actions of anyone with a truly sound case.

      • crackers345

        “how would you like to reduce
        C emissions from big celebs?”

        Simple solution. Introduce a compulsory passport qualification for a start. Those who elect to purchase a ‘green’ passport are turned away when trying to board an aeroplane.

        A lot cheaper than a carbon tax which would further burden the poverty stricken.

        Oh! and by the way, a diamond is carbon, sceptics don’t have a problem with diamonds. CO2 is a colourless, odourless, tasteless trace gas which is both entirely beneficial to the planet and required by almost every living organism on it. Sceptics also don’t have a problem with increasing levels of CO2.

        Please try to understand the difference when discussing the subject.

      • It’s really difficult to win an argument against an intelligent person, but it’s impossible to win one against a stupid person.

      • Cracker, I like your troll methodology. In every single post you ask questions. Obvious questions that are written in a way to show your “obvious superiority” over the person you are asking the question. Then, no matter what the answer, which you ignore, you then mock the person who answers.

        You might be an intelligent member of society, but your troll methodology reminds me of a little kid posting from mommy’s basement.

        Now why don’t you carry on a normal conversation like an adult.

      • Crackers345- stop asking simple-minded questions. If you believe you know all the answers start providing them. The rest of the commenters, myself included, stop trying to convince a troll that has no knowledge whereof he speaks. We’ve wasted enough time on his trash.

        The point of this article is that most of the promoters don’t follow their own conclusions and waste fuel, emit excess CO2 they demonize, and scandalously waste resources promoting totally disfunctional policies.

        To main point: conservationists do not follow their own advice. Period. That is totally unethical, unscientific, and hypocritical.

        Doctors, nurses, and other health providers often face daily life or death situations. They believe in what has been proven to work, for the most part- there are some fraudsters involved in any profession.

        Economists at least are trying to do something useful and productive. So are most other people.

      • crackers345 October 10, 2017 at 11:39 pm
        “how specifically is the ipcc corrupt, as you claim. what’s your evidence?”

        Well well, so you think we should go and do some reading do you? But you obviously have not read Donna LaFrambois’ “Delinquent Teenager” have you? Otherwise you wouldn’t be gullible enough to ask that question. I’m sure you can still find the e-book on Amazon if you care (dare) to catch up.

        As for your easy dismissal of McIntyre and McKittrick, most people on this site have followed the arguments with a view to understanding the truth. But you prefer to carry on as though we’re a pack of idiots. So pay attention: Science is NOT simply whatever your Greentard friends tell you it is. And they’re not your friends.

      • “…Tom, so you don’t know, but
        you don’t accept the science. why?

        ps – Mann’s work did not
        attribute warming to anything.
        nor did it predict future
        warming. come on, this is
        basic stuff…”

        This, coming from a guy who thinks 1 deg C of warming causes 10-20 meters of sea level rise.

      • Cracker, here is some science for you.
        CO2 is an absolute necessity for life on this planet. This is scientific fact based on empirical study, If you lower the free, gaseous CO2 from the lower atmosphere only a smidge below what the CAGW alarmists claim is the “right amount,” plant life begins to die off. Reduce plant life and free O2 begins to dwindle. All fauna rely on flora at some level of the food chain – also scientifically tested and based on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence shows that the slightly higher CO2 concentration has resulted in the greening of the planet, because plant life thrives when CO2 levels are high. Plant life would do even better if CO2 would double from today’s concentration.

        The greenhouse theory teaches that it requires a doubling of CO2 for a 1C rise in surface temps, which automatically puts the effect of additional CO2 on a logarithmic curve. Economists call the effect of a logarithmic curve “diminishing returns.”

        The CAGW hypothesis claims that the ideal global temperature is rather low, considering that paleoclimate studies show that global temperatures during the time of the most explosive growth in the quantity and diversity of life on Earth were several degrees higher. Where is the empirical evidence that supports their claims that the ideal global temperature is lower than what they have divined to be the global temperature today? Where is the empirical evidence that falsifies any claim that the ideal global temperature is several degrees higher?

        The CAGW hypothesis claims that slightly higher atmospheric CO2 concentration will combine with positive “feedback forcings” to result in catastrophic runaway global warming, leading to death and destruction.
        This, despite actual evidence that CO2 concentrations during those periods of explosive growth in prehistory were for the most part five to seven times higher than today, without causing runaway, catastrophic global warming. If the seas didn’t boil when CO2 was over 2,000ppm, CO2 concentrations over 400 ppm are inconsequential, and the much hyped “tipping point” preached by the alarmist cult leaders is a bald-faced lie, as is the claim that if the earth warms another 2C will be disaster.

        Not only is more CO2 good for the greening of the planet, it also is good for civilization as a whole. Not only is warmer overall temperatures less likely to cause death than a colder overall temperature would, higher CO2 is more likely to result in food surpluses than it is to result in food shortages. Human civilization has had periods of growth and increased sophistication during warm periods, and have had periods of decline during cold periods, implying that warmer temperatures = social advancement. Scientific and technological advancement also have had growth spurts during warmer times.

        These statements are based on empirical evidence, unlike CAGW which relies on agenda-driven studies designed to produce a foregone conclusion.

  4. Sarah Knapton sounds (writes actually) like a real twit. She writes (in the Telegraph piece):

    “Scientists as Cambridge University were keen to find out whether being fully informed about global warming, plastic in the ocean or the environmental impact of eating meat, triggers more ethical behaviour.

    More ethical behavior??? Apparently in her worldview, any meat eating is unethical. She should consult with an anthrolopologist on that issue and stop trying to play apologist.

    And just what is a conservation scientist? I know one can train in biology of all sorts, ecology, entomology, etc. Sounds to me like “conservation scientist” is just a liberal virtue signaling scout badge for a cocktail party.

    And any “scientist” who calls himself/herself fully informed on GW surely isn’t in either instance.

    • My understanding is that were it not for the protein content of meat, man would never have evolved a large brain.

      Mind you, I don”t understand then, what happened to Lions.

      • I thought it was the fat content of meat that enabled the brain to grow.
        I know that sufficient fat intake is vital for brain development in infants.

      • Lions also have a big brain. All predators have a bigger brain than their victims. The difference between the human being and the lion is evidently only the missing tools (fingers) in the lions and the missing upright gait. Lions, as well as dogs and cats, see the world completely different from humans. They are limited in perspective and can not, therefore, collect the three dimensions (length, width, height) in their entirety. Therefore, they have not developed the abilities of man. But they did not need it either.

      • “They are limited in perspective and can not, therefore, collect the three dimensions (length, width, height) in their entirety.”

        Rubbish.

        All carnivores have the eyes close together on the front of the head for stereoscopic vision to produce a 3-D image.

        Many carnivores have in fact far more acute judgement of speed and distance, watch a peregrine falcon stoop at around 200 MPH and perfectly intercept a pigeon, for example.

        Or a cat using its mobile ears to exactly identify the position of its prey behind it and then turn and pounce without even bothering to look with its eyes.

      • catweazle666

        “All carnivores have the eyes close together on the front of the head for stereoscopic vision to produce a 3-D image.”

        Whilst I largely get what you are saying, hammerhead sharks are carnivores, but they don’t have eyes close together on the front of their heads. Nor do sharks of almost any description, nor most predatory fish.

        Venus fly traps are, well, kind of predatory, but don’t have eyes at all.

      • “Whilst I largely get what you are saying, hammerhead sharks are carnivores, but they don’t have eyes close together on the front of their heads. Nor do sharks of almost any description, nor most predatory fish.”

        Sharks are different to land carnivores and use completely different sensors – often detecting electrical effects – to hunt, the head on hammerhead sharks appears to contain sensors sensitive to electric fields, so the spacing gives a similar stereoscopic effect, allowing judgment of direction and range.

  5. Do as I say, not as I do.

    When these people start to lead by example and to do so in massive numbers then the hypocracy might deminish somewhat. Until then, and after, they will be ignored by me. I have no interest in their world-view and I wish they would simply stop boring the rest of us with it.

      • I am leading I am using my fair share of Fosil Fuels. Your error is assuming everyone wants to do what you suggest is the right thing.

      • the science shows it’s the right thing,
        because our carbon
        emissions are leading to
        serious, world-altering
        changes.
        you know that too, despite trying to
        put up a defiant front.
        i don’t see any pride
        in being a polluter, just
        truculence.

      • “I am leading I am using my fair share of Fossil Fuels.”

        ditto.

        By myself I use enough electricity for a 3 person house, I drive a V8

        I am here to help the environment by contributing AS MUCH CO2 as I can financially manage to.

      • “carbon
        emissions are leading to
        serious, world-altering
        changes.”

        You really are into the FANTASY mushooms today.. aren’t you crackhead.

      • “crackers345 October 10, 2017 at 10:21 pm

        the science shows it’s the right thing,
        because our carbon
        emissions…”

        The fact you use the term “carbon emissions” tells me you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

      • Actually I believe in the science if you exclude the crazy upper limits, the mid numbers look about right. The science doesn’t say that emission control is the only solution, it simply says it would work if implemented. There are lots of other solutions and during the 100 years we will probably investigate and use all of them. I actually have so much faith in science and our ability to use and implement what we need that I have more faith in it than your green agenda of emission controls. The old saying “what will be … ” applies.

        Currently in Australia your view is a minority view and all the major political parties are running scared. I will watch with interest how Germany plays out after the election as I suspect even they may face the problem of public backlash. Depending on the country I am sure 10-20% share the green dream but it is a small but noisey minority and as a few politicians have learned there is a big difference between noise and votes.

      • Ldb – what Australia does
        isn’t very important. it’s not a
        big player. we know its ethics and
        it clearly cares about no one else. you’ll
        have to live with your coal pollution. breathe
        easy.

      • crackers345

        “i don’t see any pride
        in being a polluter”

        I don’t imagine there’s a single sceptic who would condone ‘pollution’.

        CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a trace gas essential to life.

      • Cracker no one knows what it would cost to scrub the atmosphere because it has never been studied because the Green groups don’t believe in it. The power source is obvious nuclear energy which is why the green groups won’t look at it.

      • Usually it’s extracted in some chemical process so it’s bound in the chemical which is exactly how it is in fossil fuels. I would have thought you greenies would want to put it back down the holes the oil came out of … what a stupid question :-)

      • Now you are just getting pouty.
        If you want other people to change their behavior and you aren’t willing to change yours then you won’t be effective.

      • crackers345 October 10, 2017 at 11:20 pm
        “where do you put it after extraction?”

        How much longer can I hold my tongue?

      • The greens probably use the term “carbon emissions” for an emotional effect. The term is viewed by most to be black carbon or visible pollution like we had 30 years ago or so here in the US. On the other hand CO2 is odorless and invisible so it’s a way to demonize it.

        Liberals and greens tend to rely on their emotions rather than logic. I hear it all the time from journalists. Just today at the WH press conference I heard one say something like, “I never was good at math”.

  6. I believe it was Einstein who said that there were only two things that were infinite — the universe and the ability of humans to rationalize their behavior. And he wasn’t sure about the universe.

  7. If you think that the use of fossil fuels is bad then you should immediately stop making use of goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. Turn your computer off, take your cloths off, turn off the main breaker to your home as well as the gas. Go outside and live off the land and do not come back. Remember that it is your money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. Lots of luck surviving. You should also try to stop brething because it involves greenhouse gas emmissions as well as uses up O2. Perspiration also causes greenhouse gas emmissions.

    • there is no choice in our
      society but to use fossil fuels,
      unless you want to put your life
      in danger. energy is essential to
      modern
      society, but there’s no
      reason it has to be
      only FF energy

      we need to generate the energy we
      need in ways that doesn’t emit carbon.
      and we need to get really really serious
      about it.

      • That is your view and as many of us live in a democracy we allow it. Unfortunately for you it is the minority view in most of those democracies and unlikely to happen anytime soon.

      • and we will change the
        climate accordingly
        for hundreds of
        generations to come.
        tropics too hot to work
        in.
        coastal cities will
        be swamped worldwide.
        do you care about any of
        this? why not?

      • “crackers345 October 10, 2017 at 10:11 pm”

        That was all supposed to happen nearly 20 years ago.Nothing of the sort has happened, nothing of the sort will.

      • Cracker you are crackers. So spending trillions on renewables isn’t taking it seriously? On the other hand I actually might agree with you because spending all that on useless alternatives to Fossil fuels won’t fix the problem you are so desperately worried about. .

      • Again, if it has no positive effect, why should anyone spend any money to something useless or counterproductive? Your religion?

      • crackers345;
        do you care about any of
        this? why not?

        Substantially reducing CO2 emissions will cut food production, throwing hundreds of millions if not billions into starvation and sentence the remaining billions to poverty conditions and short brutal lives. Do you care about any of this? Why not?

      • Reducing CO2 emissions will have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on anything, except eventually to stunt plant growth and cause starvation.. the green dream.

        There is NO REAL SCIENCE that allows for warming of our convective atmosphere by any possible level of atmospheric CO2

      • “and we will change the
        climate accordingly
        for hundreds of
        generations to come.
        tropics too hot to work
        in.
        coastal cities will
        be swamped worldwide.
        do you care about any of
        this? why not?”

        Seriously….. What a load of ANTI-SCIENCE, FANTASY. gish gallop and farcical nonsense.

        How did you manage to wrap so much garbage in such a tiny post !!

      • david, what is the effect of higher temperatures
        on crop yields?

        of drought?

        what is the effect of higher co2 on
        plant nutrition?

        did you read “the coming nutrient crash”
        recently published on politico?

      • “crackers345 October 10, 2017 at 10:26 pm

        wrong patrick. go read.”

        I have been following this boondoggle for decades. The predictions made by scientists then never happened. Your claims need to be supported by some evidence. Oh right…you don’t have any because there isn’t any. Well done crackers.

      • I answered you question above, the science doesn’t say it is the right thing it just says it will work over the 100 year projection. I have faith in humans and science and think we will solve the problem without the emission control. If we don’t and things got worse we may have to take more dramatic action like CO2 scrubbers etc. However technology will have advanced so much more that the options and cost of tackling it with more aggressive action would be that much cheaper.

        I rate the chance of us being wiped out by a meteorite much more likely than us going extinct to CO2 effects. I am not here advocating all humans should get off Earth due to the danger so why would I support the whole CO2 emission thing?

      • “we need to generate the energy we
        need in ways that doesn’t emit carbon.”

        SHEER idiocy to think that way.

        Every living thing on this planet RELIES on an abundant supply of CO2 for plants.

        It is currently NOT abundant. More is needed.

        It has absolutely ZERO provable warming effect.

        Its all just a childish FANTASY aimed at childish minds.

      • “crackers345 October 10, 2017 at 11:08 pm

        the ones
        you heard on tv?”

        When I started my studies in sciences (UK) I didn’t have access to a TV, I had access to a library with a well stocked science section. A library of such quality probably does not exist today. Clearly you get your “science” from TV and the internet.

      • coming nutrient crash .. a study by non-farmers with the intent of starving the plants of other nutrients.

        Just plain BAD science.

        You really have been quaffing at the klimate kool-aide.

        Or have you been injecting it with other hallucinogenics.?

      • “Clearly you get your “science” from TV and the internet.”

        Twit and faceplant.. almost certainly.

      • Now we suddenly jump from talking about fossil fuels to only coal. Make you mind up here one minute you are using FF as an abbreviation and now it suddenly became coal? Coal is in decline around the world with most moving to GAS. So if the world ran on GAS would you still have the problem with us burning fossil fuels?

      • ldb, coal still comprises a significant
        fraction of FF use around the globe. and
        even in the us — 27% of FFs. it kills
        people. it should have been eliminated
        long ago, absent any considerations of
        its climate-changing pollution. it’s regular
        pollution is bad enough

      • crackers345;
        david, what is the effect of higher temperatures
        on crop yields?

        They go up. Glad you asked

        of drought?

        The Palmer Drought Index shows no change in globally averaged drought conditions with changing temperatures AND increased CO2 makes plants considerably more drought resistant which is why desert areas like the Sahal are greening as CO2 rises. Glad you asked.

        what is the effect of higher co2 on
        plant nutrition?

        Nutrients per weight/volume tend to go down but total available nutrients sky rocket due to much higher production. Glad you asked.

        what predictions never
        happened?

        The ones by leading climate scientists as published in multiple United Nations IPCC reports that summarize the best known climate science in the world. So badly have their models and predictions failed that in the last report they reduced their sensitivity estimates (yet again) and set aside the results of the vaunted climate models in favour of “expert opinion”. They have no justification remaining for the high end of their estimates, but left them in the report anyway for “effect”. Glad you asked.

        coal still comprises a significant
        fraction of FF use around the globe. and
        even in the us — 27% of FFs. it kills
        people. it should have been eliminated
        long ago, absent any considerations of
        its climate-changing pollution. it’s regular
        pollution is bad enough

        Modern coal plants produce almost nothing but water vapour and CO2. Your argument is based on coal mining and power plant technology that haven’t been in use in most of the world for decades. This wasn’t a question, but glad you brought it up. You’re clearly either uninformed or just deliberately obfuscating the issues, I suspect the latter. You want to do things that will drive billions into poverty and starvation to prevent something that MIGHT happen. Even the IPCC says that there will be a net benefit to warming for decades to come, and that things like lifestyle changes will have a much larger effect on the population than climate change. Instead of spouting off, go read the actual science as actually published by the actual experts. You’ll not only learn something, you’ll spend less time making a fool of yourself.

      • “crackers345 October 10, 2017 at 11:21 pm

        patrick, you didn’t answer – what
        predictions didn’t happen?”

        So far. all of them. But how about supporting your claims, like flooded coastal cities etc, with actual evidence?

      • crackers345 October 11, 2017 at 12:11 am
        david, you didn’t even try to prove
        any of your claims.

        Allow me to quote United Nations IPCC AR5:

        Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change

        So you see crackers345, the published science agrees with me. Here is the link so you can read it yourself:

        https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FINAL.pdf

        So you see, you have your knickers in a twist about something which the best climate scientists in the world say will have a minor effect on us in comparison to a long list of other things. As I said before, start reading what the actual science says. You’ll learn something and cease making a fool of yourself (again).

      • Totaly crackers345;
        you didn’t quote
        anything saying crop
        yields will go up with
        temperature.

        Huh. Crops aren’t a good as per my link to IPCC AR5 above? Who knew.

        Glad you asked.

        I have to go sleep now, so you’ll have to be content with making a fool of yourself without me to point it out.

      • crackers345

        “there is no choice in our
        society but to use fossil fuels,
        unless you want to put your life
        in danger.”

        But your position is that using fossil fuels that emit CO2 (please note, CO2, not carbon) is dangerous. So it”s dangerous to emit the stuff, and it’s dangerous not to emit the stuff.

        Now, I’ll be interested in hearing your solution, which won’t, of course, include windfarms and solar arrays as for each unit of energy produced by these methods, the environmental impact from their manufacture and construction is far higher than from modern fossil fuel use.

        You need to think this through a bit more.

      • Yes Griff and I don’t live there or know about the background and that is there issue. The same as the UK can do whatever the hell it wants. You don’t find me trying to tell anyone else what to do, unlike you.

    • But there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The radiant greenhouse effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon has not been observed anywhere in the Solar system including the Earth. The radiant greenhouse effect and the AGW conjecture are both science fiction. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    • Good point. Majority of politicians, film-stars, monarchs, journalists and planned economy gadget salesmen are disqualified, because they don’t conserve and/or are scientists in the relevant field. The greenest people Earth are Amish, but don’t worship Gaia and, thus, are disqualified.

      • Actually the Amish pollute horribly. And it’s not the invisible kind either. “Back to nature” is terrible for nature.

  8. crackers345, why in the world do you think unbelievers have a greater obligation to promote the faith than the true believers who are constantly preaching it? That doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    I can guarantee that my carbon footprint is orders of magnitude smaller than Gore’s or DiCaprio’s. Yet they are constantly preaching that I need to do more, while they make no effort at all to reduce their footprint. If that doesn’t strike you as hypocritical, then you would clearly have no problem defending the inequities in “Animal Farm.” In your fantasy world, the pigs deserve to live the good life in the farm house while the rest of us go hungry and huddle for warmth in the leaky barn. You also think the political elites and celebrities will let you join them in the comfortable farm house because you support their cause. Boy, are you deluded. Only the top elites will be allowed in. The rest of us, including you, would be allowed to live no better than the common citizens of North Korea, with a carbon footprint of someone living in the stone age.

      • Sustainable electricity? OMFG thank you for the laugh of the day. You really have no idea what the words you throw around even mean.

        BTW, coal doesn’t shorten lives and kill miners almost anywhere in the world anymore as I pointed out upthread.

      • You are right, we wouldn’t kill miners. Instead we would kill people who rely on reliable sources of electricity to stay alive.

      • I know one thing,

        It’s getting pretty disheartening to have to scroll past a cracker package just to read.

  9. crackers345

    Mind bending ignorance.

    “world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years.”

    “If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000.”

    “At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area [half the size of] the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area [half] the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels” [My emphasis].

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/

    Do please try to educate yourself.

    • If you got to those densities you would have a wind shadow causing it’s own problems for actual weather I suspect. I know several groups have looked at that problem and why they prefer sea based installation.

      • Doubtless, sea based installations would cause their own problems. But the concept itself is ridiculous as these numbers are only dealing with the 2% growth in energy use. The world would still be getting the vast majority of it’s energy from fossil fuels. So virtually nothing would be solved.

    • Hmm!

      why suppose all demand is met only by wind? Clearly in areas nearer the equator solar is a major provider.

      HVDC transmission has been improved markedly in recent times and is quite capable of shipping large quantities of electricity long distances from deserts, for example.

      electricity demand in many developed countries, even those with growing economies, has declined in recent years, thanks to efficient appliances, e.g. LEDs. Developing countries will leap straight to efficient devices, bypassing power hungry stuff of the past.

      wind turbines are increasing in size and now the floating wind turbine is a reality. Offshore wind, in areas with higher capacity than onshore, is on the increase. I think those figures are probably out of date.

      • Long distance delivery of dc (at any voltage) would require superconductance. As we don’t have high temperature superconductors yet it isn’t possible.

  10. Dear crackers345. Why 345? Just aasking.

    Now then, dear biped, something for you to think about (hopefully) or dismiss as irrelevant (there I’ve given you an escape route)!

    Ponder this dear crackers. I have a small 64 hectare “hobby farm” in the south west of Western Australia.Every three years I put in a 40 Ha crop of oats,of the ” Wandering” variety. This involves spreading around 90 kgs of seed per hectare. Wandering oats has a carbon content of 40%,, give or take, due to oil ,protein etc in the grain.
    Last harvest we reaped 4,000 kg per hectare, of grain. That represents a 44.4 fold increase in yield, compared to what was sown!
    In other words, my paltry 36 kg of carbon (90 kg x 40%) spread over a hectare, yielded 1,600 kg of carbon per hectare (4,000 kg x 40%). Get the picture?

    Now for the “kicker”.

    The stoichiometry of photosynthesis , the relative quantities of CO2 & water to produce sugars and oxygen, established that increased CO2, for a given H2O contribution results in higher yields and lifted resistance to pests and disease.

    I thought you might like to know this.

    PS there is also a similar quantity of C in the stubble and root mass. Give me more CO2!

  11. Innit great living and working in a Magically Thought-out Bubble?
    You’ve utterly convinced yourself that you are ‘doing good’, that your intentions are pure and whatever motions you go through are ‘for the better’

    Its gets even better because there are 100’s, 1000’s, millions even, of people just like you inside similar bubbles that you can seek out and find. There upon you stroke each other’s egos and dispense the attention that each individually crave, because, It is actually a very lonely place inside a drug-induced Magical Bubble.
    Oh noez, have I just described a consensus? A consensus/tribe of children perhaps?

    Just for a second, think about the notion of being a ‘social drinker’
    What does the grog do if not actually inhibit your physical and mental processes. It effectively knocks you out.
    So, why do you do social drinking if you, and the people within that group can only stand each other’s company while effectively stunned, half asleep? Although physically awake, are actually mentally asleep.
    Is that your idea of socialising, being within a group where the members can only put up with each other while they are asleep? Some ‘friends’ they are huh?

    The Drug is of course= glucose.
    The REALLY great thing about any drug is that it rewards you for using it. For any and every ‘drug’.
    All that any one of them does is promote Dopamine release inside your brain and *that* is what makes you feel good – it tells you that whatever you’re doing is ‘good’ and that its a sensible idea to do more or whatever it is you’re doing.

    Even better and heading off into positively fedback Exponential Land, doctors are now telling us to consume this drug every 2 hours. As if 3, 4 or 5 times per day wasn’t sufficient. (An alcoholic is simply someone who drinks more than his doctor)
    Positive feedbacks, unless some pretty hefty brakes are applied, ALWAYS end in the break-down and destruction of the positively fed system. Be it a machine, a climate or a personality.

    A really rather major problem with the drugs (depressants especially) is that they destroy empathy.

    Because THAT is exactly what is going on here in this thread isn’t it?
    A torrent of misunderstanding, name-calling, insults, ad-homs, self-superiority/promotion and general holier-than-thou sentiments. Things we here are all supposed to be vehemently against.
    There is no real discussion or even ideas about why these Greenies behave as they do. No empathy, no thought, just a rapid descent into childish tribalism.

    That sugar stuff is a Real Pig innit?

    • Peta

      “There is no real discussion or even ideas about why these Greenies behave as they do.”

      Sorry Peta, but this is a blog on climate. Were it a psychological analysis of the green psyche, I, and most others wouldn’t be here.

      Furthermore, I don’t think even the greens know why they have such a pessimistic view of climate change. Except, that is, for the ones earning money from the phenomenon.

      And when someone like cracker345 turns up and makes statements but refuses to/can’t provide evidence to support those statements, he/she deserves to be ridiculed. He/she is wholly responsible for understanding his/her motivations, not the rest of us. Griff is much the same, he/she turns up and frequently cites the media, presenting it as scientific evidence instead of recognising it for what it is, a distortion of the truth in order to sell newsprint.

      And where’s cracker345 and Griff’s efforts to to attempt to understand my motivation?

      • I cite stories in the media reporting the science – for a media summary is an excellent starting point to get the basic information before diving into the links to the actual detailed science those articles usually provide.

        I honestly find your views quite perplexing and it is beyond me to analyse your motivation.

        all I wish to do is present facts and hope you will engage with them.

      • Not true you are only okay with Media if it supports your agenda. The moment it doesn’t you will insist that sourcewatch or some other biased site is the umpire. Your behaviour has been absolutely consistent and you have been called on it time and time again.

      • Griff. Stories in the media reporting the science? Really? Be it for or against, the last people in the world I would go to for an opinion on climate change are journalists. They provide neither an excellent starting point nor do they provide the necessary basic information. I mean we are talking about people who didn’t even have to take a higher math class to get their degree.

      • andrew…

        Stories in the media do report the publications of scientists.

        Not infrequently this site will reference same – e.g. about earth passing asteroids, for example.

        And I try to select ones with links to the scientific paper.

      • LdB I check my sources.

        sourcewatch is a useful tool as it flags up who is paying for some science and some stories.

      • Griff October 11, 2017 at 4:35 am
        I cite stories in the media reporting the science – for a media summary is an excellent starting point to get the basic information before diving into the links to the actual detailed science

        Anyone who has the ability to understand the science and reads the actual paper being reported knows that this is not true in many, if not most cases. If you are relying on the media summaries, you are doing yourself a disservice.

      • Griff

        You frequently cite the media as your only source. And if you are following links the media article provides, you are being suckered.

        Do your own research instead of being led by the nose.

  12. LdB wrote: “I answered you question above, the science doesn’t say it is the right thing it just says it will work over the 100 year projection. I have faith in humans and science and think we will solve the problem without the emission control. If we don’t and things got worse we may have to take more dramatic action like CO2 scrubbers etc. However technology will have advanced so much more that the options and cost of tackling it with more aggressive action would be that much cheaper.”

    And find it an astonishing thing to write. Surely you are aware that for almost all of the all but infinite span of Phanerozoic time, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were in the thousands of ppm? During most of those vast CO2-rich aeons the world was a fecund place abounding with diverse life. Herds of giant sauropods roaming the land and plesiosaurs disporting themselves in the warm shallow seas of the Western Interior Seaway during the Cretaceous – for example – when CO2 was between one a two thousand ppm.

    At this present time in history we find ourselves in a CO2 crisis – literally hovering on the point of multicellular life extinction for lack of the stuff – and you think we may have to take more dramatic action and start scrubbing the last gasp of it out of the atmosphere??? Please! Get a grip of yourself!

    Also, don’t rely on technology advance. It doesn’t always advance much in particular directions and assuming it will is a dangerous thing to do.

  13. Hypocrisy is part and parcel with the global warming movement. Just look at some of its acolytes, like Algore, Michael Mann, and Leonardo DiCaprio.

  14. The cracker345 debate was fine for the first several comments back and forth, then it was just boring. If cracker345 is indeed a hardcore leftist environmentalists and CAGW devotee then no amount of logic, but most especially no amount of science will change their mind. I debated such folks for forty years in letters, on telephone and at public hearings. While I often won the debate I very seldom changed their minds. Cracker345 is most probably a paid troll or committee of trolls commenting here to take up space and distract from the real debate. WUWT might take it as a compliment since whoever is paying Cracker345 fears sites like WUWT. Somewhere along the line science, especially government funded science was corrupted. We all are aware of just how intellectually corrupt the news media is today. Certainly so called science education has been corrupted in recent decades. Managing PhDs and others with advanced degrees I was amazed that the younger they were they less real science they knew and the less they understand Scientific Method. More than several believed that if you stuffed data in a computer that the output had to be good science.

    • Yes, I also think the trolling was meant to be deceptive. The elongated writing format always followed by a rejoinder question seems like dissembling rather than sincerity. I picture a university student trying to elicit reactions testing some conceptualized social theory. After reading a few exchanges my impresion is of a passive/agressive justice warrior’s version of “…. the best defense is an offense ….”

  15. It is stuff like this that originally made me question the AGW movement in general. I can assure you, if I truly believed in CAGW, I personally would never fly again, I would convert my home to all solar and wind, I would eliminate all wasteful electricity habits, I would immediately switch to a bicycle only transportation, I would locally source all my food and I would sacrifice my lifestyle in general.

    They say they believe but still live as if they don’t. Ergo, they must not really believe. They then must be opportunists chasing an opportunity or they are ignorant, brainwashed dunces who are incapable of reconciling their personal actions with their beliefs.

    There are NO other options.

    Griff, Mosher, Cracker, Ivan, I am talking to you.

    • The thing which has done most to reduce UK CO2 emissions has been closing coal plants, followed by building wind turbines.

      That level of impact can only be achieved by government, not the individual

      (In the UK at least: in Germany I could invest in a community windfarm project or other community renewables)

      • You probably meant to say, “That level of impact can only be achieved by government imposition on individuals.” The link below is food for thought.

        http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/770637/Britain-road-network-crumbling-despite-high-fuel-tax-motorists-anger

        Going back to reduced CO2 emissions…England can pat itself on the back all it wants for reducing emissions and claim it is mostly due to closing coal plants and building wind farms, but the fact of the matter is that peak electricity demand fell from 61.5 GW to 52.7 GW from 2007-2015.

        The UK overall is stuck importing energy at levels not seen since the late 1970s (despite being a net exporter for about 25 yrs, roughly 1980-2005). The UK has steadily gone from about a 20% exporter in the late 1990s to a nearly 50% importer in recent years.
        http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-energy-how-much-what-type-and-where-from/

        If you rely on other nations for your energy production, it is easy to cut CO2 emissions.

      • Griff, the UK started down the road of eliminating coal LONG before CAGW was an environmental issue de jour. Until a decade or so after WWII most UK homes burned relatively soft coal for heating, etc. Power plants had no reductions systems for large and small particulates and most were old enough where it was too costly to retrofit them. Germany is going to have significant problems. Merkel has already lost sits and will lose more but especially if they start browning and blacking out. The Green Party also has lost big in recent elections. Germany is a small country geographically compared to the USA (137,983 sq. miles vs 3.797 million square miles). And they have only so much of the North Sea that they can claim. So where are they going to have enough land for wind farms and solar arrays to meet Merkel’s renewable goals. She has only magnified Germany’s problems by closing nuclear. And do you understand was fascism really is? It is government in partnership with a few mega corporation controlling every aspect of their people’s lives. Having worked with EVERY US federal agency at one time or another, government does NOTHING very well and gets it wrong more often than the get it right. Even when they get it right it will cost two to ten times as much as it should have cost.

      • Wind is barely discernible in UK energy use. Lumped in with hydro

        Coal, Oil, Gas, Nuclear are over 90%, with heavily polluting biomass doing most of the rest.

        Your claims are yet again proven wrong by real data.

      • (In the UK at least: in Germany I could invest in a community windfarm project or other community renewables)

        You could … but you don’t, do you?

  16. Crackers345- stop asking simple-minded questions. If you believe you know all the answers start providing them. The rest of the commenters, myself included, stop trying to convince a troll that asks simple minded questions and makes simple minded replies. We’ve wasted enough time on his trash.

    • Philo, do you think a real person is behind the gibberish?

      I thought it was an artificial stupidity experimental prototype performing brilliantly. Just look at the number of hours spent by those engaging with it. Talk about bang for buck.

  17. When contributors type
    on here without
    using up all the space provided
    it means that I have to scroll
    a lot more
    this is very wasteful of scarce
    resources like
    electricity.
    Please
    STOP
    IT
    !

  18. Some piggies are more equal than others.

    Just imagine what it would be with a huge carbon tax revenue stream and redistribution of wealth as a side objective, a la Waxman Markey.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s