Man Based Global Warming....

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

[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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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

 

The problem is your rhetoric conveys the exact opposite of that. Rather than siding with those who are moving in the same direction, you do what you can to obstruct them and support pseudoscience instead. How pragmatic is that? You are espousing the same lines as those who have said, "efficiency is not the answer."

No, you appear to be far less pragmatic because you would put off doing what appears to be best, based on ill conceived personal hunches you have. In fact, those sharing your views of climate change propose doing nothing at all. That is not pragmatic. You aren't talking about "putting off the good" you are talking about not doing it at all.

You allude to "perfect being the enemy of good". In my experience it is most often used by managers just before they commit a major blunder against the advice of their technical staff. It is an excuse for not doing the right thing. It is the polar opposite of, "if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well." I'll invest in, work for, hire those who believe the latter, but not the former.

I would have pegged you as Buchanan supporter, so I'm not sure what you would be 120 degrees from...probably more like 30-60 degrees.

 

But unless you really get off on political upheaval, mass migration, extreme poverty and severe famine, climate change is the most compelling reason.

 

Let's see...it was only the "doomsday scenarios" that even made you aware of the situation (and most of the other denialists based on their hilarious fixation on Al Gore.) I'm not sure that the doomsday scenarios aren't honest. It could be that bad. But since our citizens don't seem to pay attention to more dispassionate approaches, sometimes you have to address them as you would a mule and whack 'em upside their heads to get their attention.

What a phoney argument. The exact opposite is true. If we instead continue down the path we are headed we won't have money to invest in those things because we will be too strapped paying for fossil fuels and the results of global warming.

This is the same bogus argument that has been used to claim that improving energy efficiency or solar/wind, etc. will impoverish us.

By leading rather than obstructing. Seems like we handled the ozone hole rather well.

 

Tripp you are dead on with the green revolution, I just don't think we need to use an enigmatic issue and the resulting fear-mongering to ingite a green revolution. I have the feeling the AGW movement is about more than a green revolution, possibly a revolution where we as a nation give up our freedoms, independence, leadership and money. All for a "green" revolution just not a "UN" revolution.

 

I'll take you back to page 9 of this thread:

Does that sound obstructionist? I bet we differ very little in policy but instead differ on why these policies should be implemented. I want these policies because of the need for energy security and a reduction in pollutants that are known to be harmful. I'm tired of living in a non-attainment zone with smog that aggravates my wife's asthma. I don't need to believe in global warming caused by CO2 to believe that these are good policies.

Apparently this this not good enough for you. I seems that I have to believe for the right reasons and have faith in computer models that predict apocalypse to prove that I'm one of the "good guys". Apparently the left has a litmus test and it is AGW.

Take a look at the policies above. Do you think Buchanan supports any of them? How about universal single-payer healthcare paid by the federal government? Comprehensive Sex Ed? Abortion rights? Stem Cell Research?

I was raised in a small fundamentalist Baptist Church that believes that the Southern Baptists are very liberal. It would only be natural for me to support someone like Buchanan as a teenager in my parents home. Then I went to college and met people from very diverse backgrounds. I would say the biggest changes came when I started travel internationally in 2003. If your interested my voting record is as follows:

------------------ Primary --------- General Election
2000 ----------- McCain ---------------- Bush
2002 ------------------ Straight Republican
2004 ----------- Dean ------------------ Kerry
2006 ------------------- Straight Democrat
2008 ----------- Obama ---------------- Obama

As you can see I'm not currently a Buchanan support.

 

This is so ironic.

If the world fails to reduce emissions an incredible amount and (perhaps also fails to scrub the atmosphere of existing CO2) then the USA will lose all of that. You really need to listen to Climate Wars...

 

Doom and Gloom Doom and Gloom.

It's funny how much AGW believers have in common with religious believers. The methods and logic are very similar.

Religious:
Clergy: God loves you and you need to follow him.
Me: Why?
Clergy: It says so in this book.
Me: Ok, look at book. The books seems to be very confusing and contradicts itself a lot. Why should I believe your interpretation?
Clergy: Because I'm an expert and have special training. The common man can't just read the book himself.
Me: What if I don't believe you?
Clergy: God will burn you forever and ever! (Because he loves you)

Global Warming:
AGW Scientist: You need to eliminate all sources of CO2.
Me: Why?
AGW Scientist: Because the data says so.
Me: Ok, look at data. The data seems to be very confusing and contradicts itself a lot. Why should I believe your interpretation?
AGW Scientist: Because I'm an expert and have special training. The common man can't just look at the data and read the graphs himself.
Me: What if I don't believe you?
AGW Scientist: Political upheaval, mass migration, extreme poverty, severe famine, and the end of civilization itself!

 

So you really think the world is going ot cut co2 emissions in a meaningful way? C'mon, not a chance. A huge bureacracy may gain a foothold and a carbon tax may be enacted, but a reduction in carbon emissions over the next 10-15 years?

 

I ran across Michael Crichton's speech on this very topic. It reminds me of my wife's family, worship of the earth. This worship of the earth has replaced any form of traditional organized religion. There is still sin, guilt and confession, it is just all centered around the earth.

 

Hey calling me religious is a low blow... no need to get nasty...

I'm not into sin or guilt. I just like all this prosperity and my kid is really cute so let's keep civilization rolling along.. for her.