Man Based Global Warming....

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

...or publish anything that backs up his opinions.

Um, Lindzen was an IPCC lead author. And his publication list indicates he's also highly published.

[Alric]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Um, Lindzen was an IPCC lead author. And his publication list indicates he's also highly published.

And therein lies his hypocrisy. His publications do not in any way contradict the fact that there is global warming or that it is anthropogenic. He is just speaking from authority without facts to back him up.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

For those that are interested in exploring the implications of GW check out Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer:

Part 1 http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3 and

Part 2 http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090126_11172.mp3

Part three to be made available later at CBC Radio | Ideas | The Best of Ideas Podcast

Or you can listen to this debate about whether "global warming is a crisis". The outcome:

• In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion [i.e. thought global warming is NOT a crisis], while 57 percent were against [thought global warming IS a crisis] and 13 percent undecided.
• The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion [that global warming is NOT a crisis], roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

Looks like the alarmists lost.

[tripp]

Originally Posted by malorn

So we should institute a huge tax, a juge infrastrtucture to administer the tax to solve a problem which we are not sure exists and probably have no realistic way to solveif it does exist anyways? Is that very rational thinking? too me that is just feel-good politics.

Malorn, make we really need is to send the right price signals to the market so that we can:

1.) improve out national security
2.) take money out of the pockets of petrodictators (Putin et al)
3.) secure the long term economic benefits of renewable energy
4.) create a sustainable economic model. The current one will simply collapse as more and more people move into the middle class.
5.) reduce our environmental impact. The environmental implications of a massive global middle class consuming resources like we do now, will make living on this planet difficult and unpleasant.
6.) Mitigate the effects of climate change and manage any changes it's too late to reverse.

The signals would likely take the form of tax incentives for technologies we want to develop as well as the removal of incentives for dirty, unsustainable technologies. What we need to do is send a message to the market of what we want the mid/long term to look like. Take the wind industry as an example. In 2008, 8.3 GW of new capacity was installed, setting yet another record for wind installations in the US. The 4 qtr alone exceeded the installed capacity of every year save 2007. Extending long term tax incentives is crucial to sustain this kind of development because it makes the investments predictable and safe. Money flows under such circumstances. A progressive carbon tax would also be nice because it would encourage more innovation in carbon intensive industries (i.e efficiency) was well as creating more opportunities to pursue low carbon alternatives.

Notice that I really didn't talk up climate issues much. It's really not necessary. There are extremely compelling reasons to pursue a true Green Revolution without climate being a factor.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Alric

He is just speaking from authority without facts to back him up.

[Lindzen]has published papers on Hadley circulation, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, hydrodynamic instability, mid-latitude weather, global heat transport, the water cycle, and their roles in climate change, ice ages, seasonal atmospheric effects.[1]
He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy.[2] He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and was a contributor to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995". He is known for pioneering the study of ozone photochemistry,[3] and advised several student theses on the subject.[4]
Professor Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Meisinger and Charney Awards, and American Geophysical Union's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)


So your contention is Alric, that Lindzen is unqualified to speak on the topic of climate change? That's funny.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by tripp

Notice that I really didn't talk up climate issues much. It's really not necessary. There are extremely compelling reasons to pursue a true Green Revolution without climate being a factor.

True, true. Though if I hear one more person talk about "tackling climate change" or worry over their "carbon footprint" I think I'm going to go postal.

[Fibb222]

I especially found the exploration on how/why climate science became a ideological issue very interesting. As Gwynne Dyer says, you don't see ideological debates occurring over the 2nd law of thermodynamics or Newton's laws of motion.

Part 1 http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090119_10989.mp3 and

Part 2 http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20090126_11172.mp3

Part three to be made available later at CBC Radio | Ideas | The Best of Ideas Podcast

[Alric]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

[I][Lindzen]
So your contention is Alric, that Lindzen is unqualified to speak on the topic of climate change? That's funny.

He can speak all he wants. It's only what he publishes what counts. You are just verifying my point.

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by dbermanmd

Excerpt: "We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades."

snip

John Coleman
1-29-09"

isnt this guy a founder of the Weather Channel or something.

what do you make of his article?

His comment about refineries proves he's an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Refiners spent decades shedding EXCESSS capacity.

Anything else?

[icarus]

Wasn't John Coleman the moronic tv weatherman on Chicago TV in the early '70's? If so I would trust him on climate change issues,,, since he could predict the current weather by looking out the window!

"You don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows!" Bob Dylan.

Icarus