Good Riddance to Copenhagen

[Riverwind]

"Objective and open scientific debate" happens in the papers, and you have something like 3 or 4 scientists who quibble on certain aspects of AGW but none that reject the theory outright.

I am disappointed that after all of these discussions you still don't understand the fundemental problems that plague climate science.

First, there is little disagreement on the fundemental science that adding CO2 causes the planet to warm. However, there is a debate about how much warming will occur. Even the IPCC acknowleges that CO2 sensitivity could be as low as 1.5 degC/doubling and if it is that low then there is no need for CO2 mitigation policies since the temperature will stay below the 'safe' level of 2 degC even if we do nothing. This means the objections of the dissenting scientists are a lot more than a 'quibble' as far as the policy makers are concerned.

Second, peer review in climate science has been rigged by people wishing to control the message received by policy makers and the public. Papers have been rejected for no reason other than the fact that they muddy the scientific waters or if they are accepted the editors collude with alarmists in order get a counter paper into the literature so alarmists can tell the public to ignore the paper by claiming it was 'debunked'. All of this has created an environment were scientists sceptical of the science are unlikely to even bother submitting papers and are going to find other avenues to research.

The CRU emails provide evidence that supports the latter claims are sceptics have been successful in tracking down two previously unknown papers that CRU scientists 'spiked' for failing to support the cause. In at least one case, the paper was worthy of publication and the author admitted he choose to do other things with his career after realizing the climate science field was rigged.

What this all means is the necessary pObjective and open scientific debatehas NOT been happening in climate science and it is not likely to happen any time soon because there are too many people with a vested interest in maintaining the current 'consensus' position.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

"Objective and open scientific debate" happens in the papers, and you have something like 3 or 4 scientists who quibble on certain aspects of AGW but none that reject the theory outright.

And around and around we go. No one can argue with the fact that greenhouse gases help keep the earth warm.......and by extension, no one argues that humans are adding to those greenhouse gases. So.....no scientist worth listening to can deny that AGW is a reality. I accept that completely. The question has always been - to what extent does CO2 contribute to warming, over and above natural causes. Is it a little bit, is it a lot, is is catastrophic? This is the part of the "settled science" that is not settled......and there are thousands of scientists out there who are not convinced that we face an Armageddon in the next 10, 20, 50 or even 100 years - depending on which alarmist is speaking.......and there are certainly more than a handful of scientists who are "quibbling".

Even assuming that the science is absolutely settled - that as emissions rise, temperatures will sooner or later rise in arithmetic lockstep (there are arguments against this).....then the length of time until something dire occurs is critical. It's already clear through the CRU emails, but also through human nature and media sensationalism - that the case for AGW is largely overstated. Human Nature is such that well-meaning people NEED to create a crisis to spur action - it's natural to overstate one's case and we can clearly see that AGW has become heavily politicized, if not "religionized".

The IPCC is looking through the prism of a century - what would happen in the next 100 years. Given that the case has been grossly overstated (in addition to natural human bias, the emails point to many individual components of "modelling" erring to the benefit of the theory....if it's not clearly known, make an adjustment that does not negatively affect the theory) then our "window" whereby we can reasonably increase GHG's may well be 200 years....and if that's the case, technology will take care of everything. Look at what mankind has achieved in the last 200 years - the last 100 - the last 50 or even 25! Technology is incremental - we're already working on artificial photosynthesis as an example - why shouldn't we simply be able to break up a Carbon/Oxygen molecule in 100 years? It would be a miracle if we couldn't.

[Bugs]

Then why single out one of the alternatives ?

The debate is more important than the underlying issue at this time because we can't even agree on a process to resolve our collective unanswered questions.

Even your terminology in that last excerpt shows that we're hopelessly mired in debate about debate. For example, you refer to this global warming fiasco, but are you referring to warming, the debate, both or maybe neither ?

Ok, well, do you have anything to offer ? If not, then back to the debate about the debate, hm ?

Not at all ... why discuss which alternative is the right one, when there may be no need to make the choice? The CO2 is only a means to an end -- cooler temperatures on earth -- and guess what? We are already at 1990 levels of temperature. And here you are, wanting to refocus the discussion on which form of taxation is least objectionable to finance this expansion of state power.

Which is my point. What you characterize is the 'debate' on the debate is, at least in part, a way of ignoring the objections, and making the record skip back to the same old weary chorus. My hope is that Copenhagen has ended all of that.

Kyoto was negotiated back in the 1980's, and started out being chiefly a method of raising money for the UN, a form of taxation. As luck would have it, we moved into a hot period of the sun cycles, and it did seem to be getting hotter. Then, Al Gore's movie came out. Since then, we have been in the midst of a 'mania', a social phenomenon that occurs regularly in contemporary urban communities.

As the weather began to cool, the slogans changed, but the programs did not. The budgets rose. Data kept coming out -- temperatures ARE still rising, they insisted. Except all of that was a sham, an illusion created by Environmentalism's own Wizards at the CSU.

Now we can, with good conscience, go back to cleaning up out own environmental problems. Like Nanicoke ... a publicly owned state-regulated monopoly ... What's wrong with fixing things, rather than enjoying denouncing your neighbours as neandrathals?

[waldo]

Firstoff, I am in the skeptic camp in that I believe that humans can exacerbate climate change but not to the degree that the alarmists would have us believe.....

based on your MLW history you are anything but an outright denier. You scour the interweeb for anything and everything that absolutely refutes AGW global warming - your recent misguided attempt to claim global cooling, your trend folly, your idiocy over Morner/sea levels, etc., highlights your real DD (denying your denial) position... your real agenda.

even if one were inclined to give passing acceptance to your quoted statement, I've asked this same question repeatedly of "skeptics"... specifically, if you're prepared to accept it's warming, if you're prepared to accept that it's due, in part, to AGW influence..... how... do you qualify/quantify the "other part" that you presume is caused by "other influence(s)". That qualify/quantify doesn't mean you dive into your blog junk science drawer for anything/everything to obfuscate. That means, step up and show the science that divides the overall global warming influence into AGW and your "whatever(s)".

[Keepitsimple]

That means, step up and show the science that divides the overall global warming influence into AGW and your "whatever(s)".

I would ask you the same question. Other than models, show me the science that quantifies AGW as opposed to natural causes. Quantify it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As many have said before there are problems with global warming science. In other words even the so-called experts don't agree with the nuts and bolts within the theory. Based on that reality what hope do the average citizens have of understanding the problems when the scientists can't agree?

[waldo]

Firstoff, I am in the skeptic camp in that I believe that humans can exacerbate climate change but not to the degree that the alarmists would have us believe

based on your MLW history you are anything but an outright denier. You scour the interweeb for anything and everything that absolutely refutes AGW global warming - your recent misguided attempt to claim global cooling, your trend folly, your idiocy over Morner/sea levels, etc., highlights your real DD (denying your denial) position... your real agenda.

even if one were inclined to give passing acceptance to your quoted statement, I've asked this same question repeatedly of "skeptics"... specifically, if you're prepared to accept it's warming, if you're prepared to accept that it's due, in part, to AGW influence..... how... do you qualify/quantify the "other part" that you presume is caused by "other influence(s)". That qualify/quantify doesn't mean you dive into your blog junk science drawer for anything/everything to obfuscate. That means, step up and show the science that divides the overall global warming influence into AGW and your "whatever(s)".

I would ask you the same question. Other than models, show me the science that quantifies AGW as opposed to natural causes. Quantify it.

Simple, Simple, Simple... why your avoidance? But... shall we play... for a while! What natural causes are you referring to - in particular, in your avoidance, which qualified and quantified natural causes do you favour as counter and/or complimentary influences to (mankind's) CO2 influence on global warming? More pointedly, Simple... what observations or data would you consider as acceptable "evidence" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels (as contributed to by mankind)?

[Riverwind]

More pointedly, Simple... what observations or data would you consider as acceptable "evidence" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels (as contributed to by mankind)?

If it is 1.5 degC warmer in 50 years then we will have evidence that CO2 is, in fact, the primary driver of climate. Until then it is impossible to seperate the effect of CO2 from the myriad of other variables that could affect climate because any CO2 signal is lost in the noise.

[Oleg Bach]

The expedtion to Copenhagen reminded me a lot of one of Mayor Millers trips to some exotic place while dragging along ten of his smiling staffers. There was a major problem with the people who attended this conference. The fact that they strutted a lot..grinned and thought themselves as important and successful earthlings was deeply desturbing...seeing they were utter failures and immature leaders not fit to have this free lunch.

[Keepitsimple]

Simple, Simple, Simple... why your avoidance? But... shall we play... for a while! What natural causes are you referring to - in particular, in your avoidance, which qualified and quantified natural causes do you favour as counter and/or complimentary influences to (mankind's) CO2 influence on global warming? More pointedly, Simple... what observations or data would you consider as acceptable "evidence" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels (as contributed to by mankind)?

That's the hypocracy of your position. No one has to prove what is "natural" - that Climate Change is a constant - that temperatures go up and down, seemingly in rhythmic cycles - that the MWP was hotter that today - that 1934 was the hottest year - that each century is getting a little warmer (at least for awhile). You don't have to prove what is natural. That's the "given" - that's the baseline. It's the AGW community that must provide the proof. That's why the CRU emails are so revealing; the MWP and the fact that relatively recent tree ring readings don't agree with the warming hypothesis (hide the decline)are detrimental to establishing a historical baseline from which to show that "today" is grossly different than anything before. So if the historical record of "natural" climate change is still in dispute, how can we accurately gauge what the current anthropogenic contribution to climate change might be? Can you answer that in your own words without cutting and pasting.....just a little summary will do.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Oleg Bach]

Not so much to do about warming or cooling. It's about extremes! The weather is becoming more predictable and violent. It seems as if the planet is strained and reacting like a tortured prisoner. Great and powerful men love to control people - eventually the control becomes so intense that it effects not only the inhabitants but the very habitation itself. If the bastards that keep tightening the noose of force consumerism don't back off soon their power mongering mindlessness will leave a hot and burned out trash heap where there once was an paradise in the dark cold void of space. This problem is about ambition and power peaking and refusing to naturally decline..all things come to an end..and all slave masters get old and die - I just wish that nature would take it's course and time would speed up and remove the culprits that have lost their minds and suffer dementia - yet insist on continued dominance and rule.

[Rovik]

All this talk of Copenhagen, or Emissions control or whatever is all a waste of time because nothing will ever come out of it.

In my opinion, we will pay the price; maybe 50, 100 or 200 years down the road, our descendents will pay the price but that's just the way it will be; there's no stopping it.

There are two reasons for this. First, there is too much money being made by govts, corporations and individuals. Let's face it when you have people in oil and gas rich places such as Alberta and the Middle East making huge money; they don't want anything to interrupt the money flow. Just imagine, if most of Alberta's oil production, or anywhere else for that matter, was shut down to cut emissions, then many jobs would be lost and the jobs that remained would not be as high-paying. So nobody working and making good money off the oil wants to hear of this.

Second, people live for the now, the present that effects them right now, not about what happens 50 or 100 years down the road. They may hear about the potential damage to the Earth's atmosphere and its effects on the people in the future but they don't care since it is not impacting them right now.

So there you have it, we are going down a road of no return due to inherent human greed and shortsightedness so there is no point in trying to stop it. I will feed bad for these people in the future living in less then ideal conditions who wonder why nothing was ever done to stop it.

And for those who say it's not going to happen because of a minority of scientists who say so, consider this; up until the 80s, the tobacco industry also had scientists come out and said that there was no proof that smoking hurts people.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Rovik