How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[waldo]

I am a skeptic of various claims that man-made emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change.

I assert that various claims, that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any alleged global warming or supposed climate change, are not certain.

I neither assert nor deny that any long-term climate warming trend is occurring.

yes, most certainly... you are of various claims. You offer a rather definitive totality of dismissal claim in terms of "any alleged global warming"... you then shift into claims of "uncertainty"... and then you polish that off with a fence-sitting assessment of neither asserting or denying. By the way, you really should watch the use of your double negatives - some wag might just call ya on it, hey? In any case, with your latest of various claims, you would appear to have no skin in the game... what's the deal then? If you're not prepared to actually take a stand, if you can't put your self-professed "skeptic" self out there... where's the beef, man? Clearly, obviously, the entire premise of the causal linkage to ever increasing atmospheric CO2 levels presumes upon the greenhouse effect, presumes upon related warming, presumes upon affected climate (change). For you to be so banal as to... "neither assert or deny"... well... what do you care about the affects of rising atmospheric CO2 levels as attributed to mankind's burning of fossil fuels? You, apparently, neither assert or deny, rising CO2 levels has any affect. Bully... why should one bother with you if you're so intent on denying your own denial. Speak up man... shout it, loud and proud. Accept your denial, revel in your denial... shout it... loud and proud!!!

Certain extra mechanisms, not yet described publicly, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which results in the so-called “missing carbon sink”. These extra mechanisms, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, need to be adequately explained and understood if the extent of human impact on the global carbon cycle is to be acceptably assessed and reliably predicted.

this... is a legitimate point. There is uncertainty as to where all the absorbed carbon... is going. Recent scientific papers are targeting a much greater influence in tropical forests. Of course, the significant ongoing tropical deforestation is simply compounding the existing imbalance...

Ongoing tropical deforestation would have no effect on the certain extra mechanisms, that I am referring to, that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which results in the so-called “missing carbon sink”, and that have not yet been described publicly.

wow! Could you be any more evasive? Tell you what... when whatever the hell you're referring to, actually gets "described publicly"... Y'all come back now, ya hear?

... an imbalance that most certainly has been shown to result from atmospheric carbon remaining in the atmosphere, as attributed to emissions related to mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries A.D., many direct measurements in the atmosphere of the concentration of carbon dioxide were higher than present-day carbon dioxide measurements.

Relatively soon after carbon dioxide is released by man near ground level, it is removed from the atmosphere.

well... you are consistent, if nothing else. Consistent in continuing to blindly drop links to denial blogs... and, in this particular case, consistent in focusing on the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2, while completely discounting the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere. Far be it from you to actually consider a multifaceted, multidimensional, climatic system to be involved in actually accessing the true residence time of CO2. In any case, I punted you on this point some time back... here, again... enjoy!

Even though there are several statements of probability, there are also several key statements of certainty. For the IPCC, at least some important fundamental science is settled. The following is an example of one of the IPCC's statements of certainty:

“Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}”.

In the article “Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air”, available

here

, Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway, writes:

“In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO

₂

in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO

₂

, the molecule

¹²

CO

₂

, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule

¹⁴

CO

₂

is ~16 years.

Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC

. ...”.

Putting aside R. Essenhigh’s main assertion concerning CO2 residence times, within that same linked to article, R. Essenhigh also throws in an assortment of other claims that have (also) been soundly refuted… R. Essenhigh also offers the following false assertions: that:

- R. Essenhigh states: “The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa.”

False – the accepted feedback system is one where a CO2 induced temperature increase results in warming that causes oceans to outgas CO2 to the atmosphere in response to a lowering of CO2 solubility in warmer ocean water…increased warming causes increased atmospheric CO2 which brings forward the greenhouse effect….. in terms of global warming, temperature increases do not drive CO2 increases.

- R. Essenhigh states: “Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapour.”

False – anthropogenic CO2 upsets the rough natural carbon cycle emission-absorption balance… where a percentage of human CO2 emissions are not being absorbed and remain in the atmosphere.

False – Essenhigh’s claim reflects upon water vapour’s radiative transfer impact range as limited to the lowest 2km of the atmosphere and discounts the radiative transfer aspects of CO2 within the 2km-to-8km portion of the atmosphere… notwithstanding, the positive warming feedback loop between increased CO2 and water vapour.

In regards R. Essenhigh’s principal assertion concerning CO2 residence times, he addresses the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2 and completely discounts the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere.

The following paper from David Archer, one of the world’s pre-eminent climatologists, soundly refutes any of R. Essenhigh’s claims concerning CO2 residence times:

Summary

The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr.

A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 104 years is in start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behaviour of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of 300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to choose. However, the 300 year simplification misses the immense longevity of the tail on the CO2 lifetime, and hence its interaction with major ice sheets, ocean methane clathrate deposits, and future glacial/interglacial cycles. One could sensibly argue that public discussion should focus on a time frame within which we live our lives, rather than concern ourselves with climate impacts tens of thousands of years in the future. On the other hand, the 10 kyr lifetime of nuclear waste seems quite relevant to public perception of nuclear energy decisions today.

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’

if you're going to front the debunked Beck paper, as you did, you will need to advise on your multiple contradictions.

I did not “front the debunked Beck paper”, rather I fronted the “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

I did not “proffer the debunked Beck paper”, rather I proffered the “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

There is a difference between the “Beck paper” and the “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

I did not “offer” this “source’s conclusions”, rather I offered “carbon dioxide measurements before 1958”, as shown by the red dots in the graph displayed here.

I am not necessarily defending anything Beck may have stated or concluded. I am not necessarily defending any of his various interpretations, extrapolations, interpolations, etc., of carbon dioxide measurements made before 1958. I was simply referring to the carbon dioxide measurements made before 1958.

just what type of 'sleight of hand' do you think you're running here? Let's be very clear and precise: you initially linked to your denier website, the same link you now again offer 4 times in your latest reply... the same link, referenced 4 times. The article's graphic you are hell bent on leveraging is sandwiched between the article's author's name (Beck), the name of his paper (180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Method), linkage to that paper within the previously mentioned disreputable "skeptics" journal (Energy & Environment), the blogger's own website download link to that paper, the complete verbal rendering of the papers Abstract, the papers supporting documentation... with all of this, wrapped snugly together by the salutation of the author Beck, himself. Apparently, you believe you can differentiate that particular graphic image from the greater whole... that, somehow... somehow... you believe you have "distance" between that graphic and the author Beck and his paper? What? Are you presuming to suggest that graphic has materialized from... from... from what? In actuality, that graphic is one Beck created and offered within a "condensed" early 'draft' rendition of his "paper"... I expect it can be found many places; one of those places is here in a Nov. 2006 newsletter (pages 6 & 7, an article appearing under the same title name as the eventual paper's name), again, some 6 months or so, before his actual paper was "published". Everything in that graphic you presume to hang your all on, is represented within the full paper... quite obviously, Beck chose to update on that early graphic and did not include it, as is, within his "published paper". Now, we have given more than enough wasted time and space on your ridiculously linked/offered piece of debunked Beck frivolity. Of course, you can continue this drivel and presume to stick to that early draft graphic... and even acknowledge it's from Beck - of course, in so doing, we can summarily dismiss it (even easier than already done) since it will have no standing whatsoever. It will rest on the annals of a "draft" offering within a newsletter... as authored by a "chemist"... one who taught biology within grammar school. Formidable!!!

in any case, you're becoming quite a bore - you have... no game!

[waldo]

If I find a cite that counts the number of papers in the 1970s that postulated Global Warming versus Global Cooling would you believe it?

you're welcome

We've dealt with this 70's global cooling nonsense previously in other MLW threads... I note the usual suspects have lined up again to attempt to continue to foster this media perpetrated myth. Once more with vinegar, here's the

Peterson et al paper

that most authoritatively speaks to what scientists of the 70's were (not)saying/(not)writing about global cooling:

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

[Michael Hardner]

Counting papers that you can/cannot find is not the point....this is not a football game! (heh heh)

It does mean something. If it didn't, then people wouldn't falsely claim that thousands of climate scientists claim that human-caused warming isn't happening.

[Saipan]

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels

Obviously, coming from the Little Ice Age.

Would freezing be better? Not for me.

But now it's colder than some 20 years ago.

The hot summers when we went swimming full four month of the year are just fond memmory. Now we can't go at all. Except in 1/8" wet suit. It got so bad that last year we had fire in the woodstove EVERY month of the year.

[Michael Hardner]

But now it's colder than some 20 years ago.

Maybe where you live there was a cold summer, but climate scientists are not suggesting that cooling is upon us. Let's hope they're wrong.

[Saipan]

Maybe where you live there was a cold summer

Too many cold summers. So how can there be a "global" warm up.

but climate scientists are not suggesting that cooling is upon us.

I trust thermometer lot more than any scientist.

[Michael Hardner]

Too many cold summers. So how can there be a "global" warm up.

Because you only live in one place on the globe. Maybe it's colder than the others. We rely on temperature readings, such as from NASA>

I trust thermometer lot more than any scientist.

The scientist uses instruments to measure temperature too, and they use more instruments, over a wider area, with more accuracy than you. Did you happen to write down daily temperature readings where you live ?

[Saipan]

Because you only live in one place on the globe. Maybe it's colder than the others.

No. I have family in Europe and Asia as well. I stay there often. But that is NOT the point. Show me it's warmer in SouthEast Asia for example. There are daily reports on actual temperatures.

The scientist uses instruments to measure temperature too, and they use more instruments, over a wider area, with more accuracy than you.

We don't worry about 0.03C change. 5C or 10C is the problem. Large body of water, like say Lake Superior pretty much averages the daily, even monthly, temperature. No need for Smoke & Mirrors "science". If the ice clears later for shipping you KNOW it's colder. And if it's too cold to go swimming all summer long, you know it's colder.

Now even if all that was just in someone's head, WHERE'S the global warm up?

Why the 'scientists' never point to inhabitated area? Why is the global warm up always somewhere like way up North of far in the ocean or high above the Earth? Like the old time magicians "don't look there look here"....

Edited August 22, 2011 by Saipan

[Michael Hardner]

No. I have family in Europe and Asia as well. I stay there often. But that is NOT the point. Show me it's warmer in SouthEast Asia for example. There are daily reports on actual temperatures.

The NASA temperature readings should be good enough.

We don't worry about 0.03C change. 5C or 10C is the problem.

That's a different discussion, I think.

[Saipan]

Shouldn't, for example Phuket, Thailand, be much warmer than it is now?

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/thxx0001?ref=topnav_weather_savedcity

[Saipan]

The NASA temperature readings should be good enough.

"Good enough"? I though it's very precise. What it read right now for Marathon, ON, Canada?????

[Saipan]

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/caon0678?ref=topnav_weather_savedcity

[Wild Bill]

The mainstream media can't be counted on to get this right, which is why you don't catch me citing Al Gore or popular TV shows on here.

Proof lies with the positive claimant. He made the claim of the Ice Age theory and declined to back it up.

You are the one who walked away from our last discussion on this. The last claim I remember you making was that you read OMNI back in the day.

If I find a cite that counts the number of papers in the 1970s that postulated Global Warming versus Global Cooling would you believe it ?

The issue seems to be that if you find something that disagrees with you, you discount the source.

Why are you missing the point? I never referred to the new Ice Age theory as accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I stated that it was an assumption shared by a large segment of scientsts but more importantly, by the mainstream media and the general population of the western world.

I never said there was some consensus at an IPCC type body. That was never necessary. Just have Carl Sagan give a talk on PBS about how Man was causing a plunge into an Ice Age (Which I recall he did, one night, BTW) and more people believed it than those that heard Satanic messages when they spun their Beatles LPs backwards. You see Michael, that was a LOT of people!

This was enough in itself to steer public policy, i.e. large sums of tax money and restrictions placed upon industry, which provided jobs. When I was in my teens it was the heyday of good-paying manufacturing jobs. There is an argument that it was the rise of pseudo-environmentalism in the 1970's that lad to much industry and its jobs being re-located to the Third World. The flow chart would be "America feels guilty that it is causing climate change. It begins to put anti-carbon and anti-pollution restrictions on its industry. This causes price increases in the products, making them uncompetitive against goods produced in the Third World, which didn't care about the environment and had NO restrictions on its industry! As American industry became more and more uncompetitive it began to abandon domestic manufacturing, placing its plants in those Third World countries and having only warehouses at home.Warehouses, as it is well known, contribute very little negative influences to the environment. American (or Western) environmentalists were proud of themselves for "greening" their country. Unemployed people were miserable but at least they could breath better air while their kids' stomachs were growling.

[Michael Hardner]

Why are you missing the point? I never referred to the new Ice Age theory as accepted by the mainstream scientific community. I stated that it was an assumption shared by a large segment of scientsts but more importantly, by the mainstream media and the general population of the western world.

My apologies Bill. I went through your posts again to try to find out where I got the idea that you thought that.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19289&st=315&p=698142entry698142

It was that post, where you said 'significant high-level support' but not scientific support.

When you say "more importantly by the mainstream media", I assume you are talking about the kind of mass misunderstanding that accompanies such issues.

I never said there was some consensus at an IPCC type body. That was never necessary. Just have Carl Sagan give a talk on PBS about how Man was causing a plunge into an Ice Age (Which I recall he did, one night, BTW) and more people believed it than those that heard Satanic messages when they spun their Beatles LPs backwards. You see Michael, that was a LOT of people!

I concur, and I have been saying that mass media has done a bad job of communicating such matters.

This was enough in itself to steer public policy, i.e. large sums of tax money and restrictions placed upon industry, which provided jobs. When I was in my teens it was the heyday of good-paying manufacturing jobs. There is an argument that it was the rise of pseudo-environmentalism in the 1970's that lad to much industry and its jobs being re-located to the Third World.

That is yet to be proven IMO. Third World salaries are likely a bigger draw to employers.

In any case, I want to point out again the difference between the mass perception of the 'ice age' and the mass perception of 'global warming'. The first issue didn't have a large consensus of scientists buying into it (more than 90%, say) and in fact only had a few papers supporting it. The second has had hundreds, thousands of papers published and reviewed.

So we can lament mass media and the dumbing-down of the public but our solution, the best way to find consensus, is to promote responsible and accountable institutions and processes for determining knowledge.

Too many people want to throw up their arms and say we're done for, or to complain - and these are people on both sides of the issue - but progress can be made if we engage and discuss.

[Wild Bill]

My apologies Bill. I went through your posts again to try to find out where I got the idea that you thought that.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19289&st=315&p=698142entry698142

It was that post, where you said 'significant high-level support' but not scientific support.

When you say "more importantly by the mainstream media", I assume you are talking about the kind of mass misunderstanding that accompanies such issues.

I concur, and I have been saying that mass media has done a bad job of communicating such matters.

That is yet to be proven IMO. Third World salaries are likely a bigger draw to employers.

In any case, I want to point out again the difference between the mass perception of the 'ice age' and the mass perception of 'global warming'. The first issue didn't have a large consensus of scientists buying into it (more than 90%, say) and in fact only had a few papers supporting it. The second has had hundreds, thousands of papers published and reviewed.

So we can lament mass media and the dumbing-down of the public but our solution, the best way to find consensus, is to promote responsible and accountable institutions and processes for determining knowledge.

Too many people want to throw up their arms and say we're done for, or to complain - and these are people on both sides of the issue - but progress can be made if we engage and discuss.

No apologies needed, Michael. A simple misunderstanding is all. I'm just glad my "old man's" memory is holding up!

Anyhow, as I've said many times, I don't give a hoot for any consensus. Something is true or not true even if NO ONE believes it, let alone a majority.

I don't accept that 90% of scientists have drunk the GW Kool-Aid either. I will believe that 99% know how to keep their mouths shut and thus their jobs, however!

As for Third World salaries, I believe that to be a secondary goad to businesses. I was there in the high tech business back in the 70's. The sense I got was that American (and Canadian) business was very hide-bound. There was an incredible amount of inertia making change very difficult. Remember, it was never Timex that invented the digital watch, even though they were a huge and long-standing maker of watches. They were oblivious to the digital revolution and were shocked to find Litronix, a light emitting diode maker, had brought a digital watch onto the market and were starting to eat Timex's sales for breakfast! Also, Royal or Underwood typewriters could have been expected to be the first to bring word processors onto the market but they didn't! As Silicon Valley new companies began that wave the traditional typewriter manufacturers just dwindled out of business.

So with that kind of "stick in the mud" management I would have expected our manufacturers to just go on and on doing things the same way they always had! However, the new environmental laws put them in serious jeopardy of bankruptcy! The Third World countries were totally out-competing them, since they had NONE of the "green" costs. "Green" advocates have been very poor at understanding that business can't implement green solutions for free! Western countries must have spent trillions by now, if we totaled everything up. I doubt if China, Russia or India have spent enough to buy a case of beer! Perhaps a case or two, but only recently because of political pressures. Since they now OWN the manufacturing industry they can afford to implement some token programs.

In effect, the threat of bankruptcy woke our companies up and FORCED them to make decisions! As they investigated options the fact of much lower wages in the Third World certainly would have led them in that direction. My point is that if the environmental costs had never happened Western management would have stayed asleep!

I've worked for some VERY big companies, Michael! I've done business with many even bigger! It all taught me that the cartoon "Dilbert" is not a comical fantasy but rather a documentary!

Edited August 22, 2011 by Wild Bill

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I don't accept that 90% of scientists have drunk the GW Kool-Aid either. I will believe that 99% know how to keep their mouths shut and thus their jobs, however!

... another conspiracy theory fronted by "grass roots" organizations created by oil companies to cloud the real issue.

HEY, THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY!!! It's a conspiracy theory to keep their jobs!

.... says the oil company in an industry that has over $115 574 267 150 000* in business left to do in oil based on current proven reserves and price of oil.

are you insane Bill? How can you even support such an argument after thinking about it?

*1,392,461,050,000 Barrles of Proven Oil Reserves * $83 cost of oil today = $115 574 267 150 000

Edited August 22, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Michael Hardner]

Anyhow, as I've said many times, I don't give a hoot for any consensus. Something is true or not true even if NO ONE believes it, let alone a majority.

I'm not sure what to do with that statement. As a society, we have to listen to science and consensus is the best thing we've got, I suppose.

I don't accept that 90% of scientists have drunk the GW Kool-Aid either. I will believe that 99% know how to keep their mouths shut and thus their jobs, however!

That's basically a conspiracy theory and there's not much anybody can do to refute the idea that the scientists are lying to save their jobs.

So with that kind of "stick in the mud" management I would have expected our manufacturers to just go on and on doing things the same way they always had! However, the new environmental laws put them in serious jeopardy of bankruptcy!

...

I've worked for some VERY big companies, Michael! I've done business with many even bigger! It all taught me that the cartoon "Dilbert" is not a comical fantasy but rather a documentary!

Me too. I think that once a few companies offshored their work, others followed the crowd. IT jobs went too, which have nothing to do with environmental laws.

[Wild Bill]

... another conspiracy theory fronted by "grass roots" organizations created by oil companies to cloud the real issue.

HEY, THEY WANT TO MAKE MONEY!!! It's a conspiracy theory to keep their jobs!

.... says the oil company in an industry that has over $115 574 267 150 000* in business left to do in oil based on current proven reserves and price of oil.

are you insane Bill? How can you even support such an argument after thinking about it?

*1,392,461,050,000 Barrles of Proven Oil Reserves * $83 cost of oil today = $115 574 267 150 000

Well, by YOUR definition I may not be sane but by any dictionary definition I would look inwards, if I were you!

"A conspiracy to keep their jobs"? Followed by an implication that the oil industry is corrupt AND that the world will keep buying oil until the last of the reserves is gone, which is the only way to arrive at YOUR total! Moving to any sort of energy alternative or decrease in the world's consumption blows your "math" right out of the water.

All your posts show that you divide the world into two categories, that which you believe is moral and that which isn't! Big business to you is always evil. Anything "cloaked in green" is on the side of the angels. You never seem to be objective.

I've got news for you! You're in danger of winning a Darwin award! There are mistaken and even corrupt people amongst the "greens". There are decent and honorable companies out there as well.

What's more, there are new technologies on the horizon which may solve many if not all of these problems. Business will make money from these new technologies. Business has no loyalty. Believe it or not, Studebaker Corp is still around and very healthy! They just haven't made cars for a long time. That "Mr.Fusion" power plant Doc put in the DeLorean may actually end up on the market. It could have a Shell logo! There is no law of the Universe that says Shell must stay forever in the oil business.

Being a fanatic doesn't make you more right or "holy". It simply means you're nuts!

Edited August 22, 2011 by Wild Bill

[waldo]

That's basically a conspiracy theory and there's not much anybody can do to refute the idea that the scientists are lying to save their jobs.

ya see, Michael... Wild Bill's conspiracy point is one well worn by deniers; one they continue to punch forward, as he has once again. So well worn, one can only wonder if it's actually been tackled head on. I mean, really, c'mon... surely given the rigid accountability within academia and the corporate world, most particularly as relates to grants, research funds, etc., it wouldn't be an insurmountable task to actually publish papers that might presume to show just how much scientists... on either side of the "debate"... rely on funding for their jobs... that they would presume to commit fraud... to lie... in order to "save their jobs". Hmmmm... I wonder if such research papers exist? Perhaps those fronting the conspiracy should actually check, hey?

[Michael Hardner]

ya see, Michael... Wild Bill's conspiracy point is one well worn by deniers; one they continue to punch forward, as he has once again. So well worn, one can only wonder if it's actually been tackled head on. I mean, really, c'mon... surely given the rigid accountability within academia and the corporate world, most particularly as relates to grants, research funds, etc., it wouldn't be an insurmountable task to actually publish papers that might presume to show just how much scientists... on either side of the "debate"... rely on funding for their jobs... that they would presume to commit fraud... to lie... in order to "save their jobs". Hmmmm... I wonder if such research papers exist? Perhaps those fronting the conspiracy should actually check, hey?

And given the microscope that these people are constantly under, academic challenges to their theories, as well as out-of-bounds things like having their personal emails stolen - it's hard to see how such a conspiracy could happen.

Business doesn't have to conspire - their goal to maximize profits is in the open, and accepted by all.

And still there are many who would rather let them go about their business, apparently out of a simple mistrust of authority, even though they represent a most powerful authority themselves.

[TimG]

And given the microscope that these people are constantly under, academic challenges to their theories, as well as out-of-bounds things like having their personal emails stolen - it's hard to see how such a conspiracy could happen.

Gawd the you simply don't want to give up this strawman, Do you?

Obviously there is no secret society where scientists meet to plan how to deceive the world. However, group think does not work like that. We are dealing with ambiguous data that is heavily adjusted and interpreted. The decision on whether the adjustments are legitimate or not is largely subjective and largely based on whether the adjustments give the "right" answer. If you are an up and coming scientist and you think these adjustments are wrong you can try to prove the existing experts wrong but since we are dealing with largely subjective interpretations of data the chances of finding irrefutable proof of error is next to zero. And without irrefutable proof of error your ideas and career will go no where. The net result is scientists in this position find something else to do (possibly leaving the climate science field altogether). Over time the climate science field attracts more and more ideologues that honestly believe they are finding the "right" answers but are blind to the flaws in their arguments.

The arguments that we had over the divergence is a good example. No matter how many times I explain it you cannot seem to grasp that the divergence means the data is crap and should not be used. You are convinced that since it correlates for part of the record it must be good for all time except when it diverges. This is a ridiculous argument from the point of view anyone with an understanding of statistics but you want to believe the data so you cling to it. Climate scientists have the same problem.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

"A conspiracy to keep their jobs"? Followed by an implication that the oil industry is corrupt AND that the world will keep buying oil until the last of the reserves is gone, which is the only way to arrive at YOUR total! Moving to any sort of energy alternative or decrease in the world's consumption blows your "math" right out of the water.

The irony here is that using today's figures are conservative as the price of oil will only go up. We have hit peak oil, demand growth outpaces new finds.

All your posts show that you divide the world into two categories, that which you believe is moral and that which isn't! Big business to you is always evil. Anything "cloaked in green" is on the side of the angels. You never seem to be objective.

I hope that you can reflect on why this statement is ironic.

I've got news for you! You're in danger of winning a Darwin award! There are mistaken and even corrupt people amongst the "greens". There are decent and honorable companies out there as well.

And non of them are oil companies. I want new companies to come out that might actually have an ethical conscience.

What's more, there are new technologies on the horizon which may solve many if not all of these problems. Business will make money from these new technologies. Business has no loyalty. Believe it or not, Studebaker Corp is still around and very healthy! They just haven't made cars for a long time. That "Mr.Fusion" power plant Doc put in the DeLorean may actually end up on the market. It could have a Shell logo! There is no law of the Universe that says Shell must stay forever in the oil business.

Yeah, the oil companies want to unethically hold their position and you support that.

Why are we waiting for technologies like hydrogen that are decades off when we have current technology that can help shift us there? The oil companies love hyrdogen because they can keep their business model infinitely... you still require a fueling station... unlike electric vehicles that can be charged at home.

Being a fanatic doesn't make you more right or "holy". It simply means you're nuts!

Again, I hope you can reflect on the irony in your statement.

Truth be told, all that you are convincing me of is that your have a nest egg that contains a large investment in oil companies.

That goes for a large portion of pro-oil posters as well.

Edited August 22, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Michael Hardner]

Obviously there is no secret society where scientists meet to plan how to deceive the world. However, group think does not work like that. We are dealing with ambiguous data that is heavily adjusted and interpreted.

Groupthink doesn't apply in this kind of environment.

The reason for the recent tree ring data to be thrown out is that's it's clearly wrong, not because it doesn't align to theories.

[TimG]

Groupthink doesn't apply in this kind of environment.

You have absolutely no basis for that statement. Group think is a possibility whenever you have a group of people who divide the world between "insiders" and "outsiders".

The reason for the recent tree ring data to be thrown out is that's it's clearly wrong, not because it doesn't align to theories.

Again - you have absolutely no basis for your claim that the data is "clearly wrong". You could say that there are some semi-plausible explainations for why the data might be wrong. But you have no basis for stating the data is "clearly wrong".

You are so wrapped up in the climate science group think that you can't see the fallacies in your own arguments.

[Michael Hardner]

You have absolutely no basis for that statement. Group think is a possibility whenever you have a group of people who divide the world between "insiders" and "outsiders".

There is a set of criteria mentioned here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Causes

As to whether scientists see themselves as 'insiders' or 'outsiders' who knows, but there are other reasons why groupthink shouldn't take hold.

Again - you have absolutely no basis for your claim that the data is "clearly wrong". You could say that there are some semi-plausible explainations for why the data might be wrong. But you have no basis for stating the data is "clearly wrong".

Yes, I do -we have actual temperature readings that show the data is wrong.