Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Note to Shaw 3 - On Why Obama is Anti-Science
a) The man continues to think that increasing a trace gas (a beneficial one, at that) from three one-hundredths of 1% to four one hundredths of 1% is something that's significant and dangerous.............b) The man continues to spit out that same old thoroughly discredited statistic which claims that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming (not that science works by consensus anyway).............c) He trumpeted FOR MONTHS the Spanish green energy initiative; a policy that even the leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party has admitted was an unmitigated disaster.............d) He actually thinks that the United States can reduce its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050; a target that would literally put us at pre Civil War era levels.............e) He apparently doesn't understand that the relationship between carbon dioxide and warming is a logarithmic one and that after 400 ppm the effect on warming is negligible (you might get a .2 to .5 degree Celsius increase via a doubling of it).............f) He apparently isn't aware that the ice core data has consistently shown that it is the warming which plainly precedes the rises in atmospheric CO2 (for something to cause another thing, at the very least it has to come first).............g) He apparently doesn't know that global temperatures have essentially plateaued (starting in 1998) and that if anything we're experiencing a slight cooling trend now.............h) He apparently doesn't know that virtually every IPPC model from the 1990s has failed in its predictions (the observed temperatures actually coming in below those that were predicted by Santer and Hansen with draconian CO2 cuts!).............i) He apparently isn't aware of the fact the University of Illinois's Arctic Science Research Center has been measuring global sea ice for 40 years now and that the current level of sea ice is well within normal limits.............j) The man shows absolutely no intellectual curiosity when it comes to subjects such as power density (the fact that you would literally have to cover entire states with corn and windmills just to get the energy from a couple of coal-fired, gas-fired, or nuclear plants) and resource intensity (the fact that it takes a massive amount of energy to make a windmill and that a windmill cannot make another windmill).............k) He is abjectly ignorant when it comes to the economics of climate change; the fact that by virtually every cost-benefit analysis out there, it will be far, FAR less expensive to adapt to climate change than it ever will be to prevent (and it is doubtful that we could).............l) He apparently doesn't know that a significant percentage of the 20th Century warming actually happened prior to 1940, an era in which the atmospheric CO2 levels were still under 300 ppm.............m) He apparently doesn't realize that the United States already IS one of the most energy efficient countries on the planet and that this has come about largely via market forces and not government mandates, U.N. agreements, etc..............n) He apparently doesn't know that wind energy is highly intermittent and inefficient and that it literally ALWAYS needs either a fossil fuel, nuclear, or hydro backup.............o) He (along with Gore) apparently doesn't know that the polar bear population is up by some 300% over what it was in the '70s.......I got more but I'm tired.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I haven't bothered to read through your whole list of reasons, but the last one caught my eye. Perhaps you don't understand that polar bear populations have increased because
"Several polar bear populations were decimated by unsustainable hunting by European, Russian and American hunters and trappers from the 1600s right through to the mid-1970's."
And are threatened because
"If current warming trends continue unabated, scientists believe that polar bears will be vulnerable to extinction within the next century.
By 2040, scientists predict that only a fringe of ice will remain in Northeast Canada and Northern Greenland when all other large areas of summer ice are gone."
I'm not sure what is anti-science about their stance. If they are wrong, it is because the science is wrong, not because they are anti-science. Seems to me, at least as far as polar bears go, they are pro-science.
If current warming trends continue? The warming stopped in 1998 and with the current solar cycle being relatively weak I hardly expect that that will change any time soon.......And I agree with you that it was the hunting and not the CO2 which was harming the polar bears (a species that survived the Medieval Warm Period in spite of it being an even warmer Arctic period than today).
"The warming stopped in 1998..."
Perhaps you should tell the oceans. They do not seem to have got the message....the whole ocean, not just the surface.
IMO, anti-science is the compulsion to teach creationism in place of geology, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, and numerous other 'ologies'. There are numerous politicians pushing for that. (an perhaps why only 6%
of scientists vote GOP)..and as I've noted previously, Huntsman
has sided with the climatologists
on warming.
The most reliable measurement of ocean temperature that we have is the ARGO system and according to that there has been ZERO ocean warming since 2003. That, and for the CO2 theory to be the correct one, the tropsosphere temperatures would have to increasing at a faster rate than the surface site temperatures AND THEY ARE NOT. The jig is up, Jerry.
BB, I didn't mean to infer that the Republicans AREN'T anti-science. Bush, in particular, was exceedingly anti-science. But like dmarks said, the creationists, while they're definitely dumbing down the culture with their idiotic paradigm, they aren't single-handedly trying to destroy the world's economy and keep the third world in perpetual impoverishment (the fact that the world has spent over a trillion dollars over the past decade on carbon trading schemes, renewable energy, etc. and ignoring things like malaria and a billion people world-wide not having electricity). Nope, that would be the environmental movement which has totally lost its soul.
And there is ZERO evidence (all of the IPCC models have thoroughly failed) that CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. No geological evidence (all of the evidence points to very low climate sensitivity - negative feedbacks generally not being a characteristic of natural systems) and no evidence from the modern era. This is all about naked politics and power, good gentlemen.
While 97% of climate scientists agree there is global warming, I doubt they are 'trying to destroy
the world's economy': some non- scientists may be. IMO, to grab a
sliver of current data and give it
great import (either way) is a bit disingenuous. A much larger chunk
of temp trend would reveal more; am reminded of the seven blind men
and the elephant. At any rate, it
is helpful that industry is now aware of the potential.
You are aware, aren't you, that that 97% figure is completely bogus. It was based solely on a survey of just 75 people who were asked 2 very general questions that even I would have responded, yes, to. The fact is that there are a multitude of climatologists, geologists, meteorologists, and astro-physicists who think that this is a highly questionable enterprise based on an extreme paucity of evidence (models, that's all that the alarmists have); Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Piers Corbyn, Judith Curry, David Legates, Sallie Baliunis, etc., etc..
And as far as the time-frame goes, I'm using the exact same time-frame that the IPCC has been using. This, in that back in the late '80s and early '90s, Santer and Hansen had made 3 distinct predictions on atmospheric temperatures; one with no changes in CO2 emissions, one with moderate changes in CO2 emissions, and one with draconian changes in CO2 emissions and guess what happened. The actual temperatures came in UNDER what they had predicted with the draconian cuts. How is this not an indictment on the theory?......And what about 35 year time-frame from 1940 to 1975? During that era we were emitting tens of gigatonnes of CO2 and what pray tell happened to the temperatures then? Yeah, that's right, they went DOWN 3-4 tenths of a degree Celsius. Please, tell me, what IS the evidence (other than the fact that government paid and prodded "scientists" such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and James Hansen have decreed it)?
Based on The Consensus Project , I would say there are a few more than just 75 people and 2 general questions backing up the 97% consensus number.
I'm sorry, Jerry, but any site that starts with the claim that "The Debate is Over" I find utterly offensive.
A 28% increase in carbon emissions over the past decade and a half and zero warming. A massive increase in carbon emissions from 1940 to 1975 and a temperature DECREASE!
And I DO understand the point about hunting (polar bears). I just didn't think that it was germain to the point about Al Gore lying about their imminent extinction in his error ladened film, "An Inconvenient Truth".
I guess if you are part of the 3% then the debate is not over...for you.
It's a bogus stat, Jerry. Anthony Watts and others went through the 12,000 most recent articles on climate and only about 65 of the articles expressly came out in favor of AGW (that, and a majority of the American Meteorological Society doesn't buy it). I provided that link to the Intelligence Squared Debate and I really suggest that you watch it.
And even if everything that these clowns are saying is correct (that CO2 affects climate more than the sun, the oceans, the clouds, cosmic rays, plate tectonics, volcanoes, planetary wobbles, galactic cycles, bacteria, etc.) it will still be far, far cheaper to adapt to climate change than it ever will be to prevent it.
65% of most recent articles on climate change expressly in favor of AGW and 97% of articles since 1991 with a position on AGW are in favor. I suspect that many of the 65% articles took NO position one way or the other.
Part of adapting is stopping the human contribution.
Where'd you get the 65% figure, Jerry. And that 97% figure comes from Skeptical Science in which they take that tiny sample of people taking an activist view and extrapolating from it. I could literally name you DOZENS of climatologists, meteorologists, and astrophysicists who are exceedingly skeptical of a trace gas being more important than the oceans, the sun, cosmic rays, the clouds, plate tectonics, volcanoes, galactic cycles, planetary wobbles, etc........Not that it's a battle of my experts being more impressive than your experts, in any regard. It's all about the facts, and the warmists and you have given me nothing but discredited models as evidence.
I would also add that the entire peer-review process has been hijacked by these alarmists and their massive largesse from governments. Unless you're a real heavyweight like Lindzen or Spencer you are not going to get published and in many instances you're not even going to get funding.
Whoops! It wasn't 65%, it was 65 articles out of 12,000. I find that stat even more unbelievable than 97%. 0.5% in favor?!? Give me a break!
Jerry, go to CO2Science.org. There are dozens of journal articles there that lean much more toward the skeptic side. As for how many scientists are pro-AGW, percentage-wise, I really don't know and question if it's even germain (though, yes, I personally would take people like Judith Curry and William Happer over the likes of people like Michael Mann who've committed malpractice).
Post a Comment