I hate it, I hate it, I really hate it!

Open Forum in English
101

The global warming hysteria, the carbon trading shell game and all, is damaging the chances of reducing the consumption of non-renewable resources. We don’t know for sure if the world will get warmer, nor how much, nor how or what is causing it, nor who will benefit , nor if any human actions can change the course of climate change, from what I can see. It is a colossal red herring.

The argument is really quite simple. We should not deplete non-renewable resources when renewable resources are available. It does not matter if we have have enough hydrocarbons for 100 years or 500 years, they are finite. 500 years is a short period of time. Let’s focus on conservation and better utilization of all renewables and at the same time stop funding all the climate ideologues.

All climate ideologues should practice what they preach. It should be absolutely forbidden for any global warming alarmist to travel to conferences like Copenhagen and Cancun, when all of that conferencing and palavering could have taken place on the internet, and everything they had to say at these conferences had already been said. Al Gore should live in a energy neutral home, and live off his own garden.

102

if I remember well, from an article I read, Al Gore lives in a mansion with 20 rooms (10.000 square feet), his electricity and gas bill is about $2000 month, and he travels on private jet. It’s definitely a good example.

103

I believe the whole non-renewable energy debate will be obsolete by the end of this century.

It is looking increasingly likely that energy derived from nuclear fusion will be commercially viable in the next few decades. The fuel is nothing more than water. It will solve mankind’s energy consumption problems forever. There is multi-billion dollar investment by the international community (notably the EU, China and the US) in major projects (HiPER and ITER) to make this a reality. Science and technology at its best.

I hope there are members of this community who will be alive to see this happen.

104

@ Jamie, “I believe the whole non-renewable energy debate will be obsolete by the end of this century”.

I may imagine it will be obsolete, or it at least it we will unpredictably reduce our need in hydrocarbons as a source of energy.

Steve and Fridemann have mentioned this ‘depletion of non-renewable resources’ a few times. I had no desire to be picky on it went to bad. However I do not readily accept this as well:

“It does not matter if we have enough hydrocarbons for 100 years or 500 years [I believe in practice it does matter], they are finite. 500 years is a short period of time. Let’s focus on conservation and better utilization of all renewables and at the same time stop funding all the climate ideologues.”

If you Steve also mean, let us focus on not using the hydrocarbons now, because they are finite and we may need them in a few hundred years for an unknown purposes, then I might not be with you. At least it is interesting to debate. The Rideley’s point of view (about whom I heard from your debate with Fridemann) is that the future generations will know better what they need, and will be much better equipped to get what they need, and to tackle their problems.

105

I am sorry for my dirty editing of the above post

106

JayB “I’m trying to find the exact words of the famous leaked e-mails.”

Is this is what you were looking for? http://www.eastangliaemails.com/

107

@Friedemann:

“While wheather forecasts, as you say are indeed imprecise beyond say 5 days, climate forecasts are in fact extremely precise! Climatologists can predict the climate in your city next year and the year after that with extreme prescision. Want to take a bet?”

Could you please elaborate on this?

108

@mark

It would be better to just read his bio and see if you think he’s credible. I agree that the fact that his research is funded by oil companies does not automatically disqualify him.

@Ilya

I don’t understand why you don’t accept that there is a consensus on this. Didn’t the international climate change pnel represent the world’s climate scientists?

109

@jayb

As I understand it, those e-mails were investigated. Two guys don’t disqualify the whole scientific process.

If you don’t trust scientists or the scientific process, then that’s a separate issue. I do trust the scientific process. At any rate, it’s the only thing we really have.

110

Steve and the skeptics here still fail to explain on which grounds they as non-experts go with the extremely small group of dissenters such as Lintzen and others.

@Ilya,
everybody able to operate a keyboard can find out what the current consensus view is, your statements on this issue are just rediculous! Go to this wikipedia article: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia, look up the references of the survey articles, go to the homepage of all these scientific institutions mentioned and you’ll find out.

@Steve
500 years? Oil will probably peak within the next 20 years, conventional oil may alread have peaked!

@Jamie: using dogfarts as an energy source is closer to commercialisation than fusion, c’mon get real!

111

I am done with this circular discussion.

112

There has always been minority dissent in science: The great Albert Einstein never accepted quantum theory (and was wrong), the great Fred Hoyle never accepted the big bang theory.

113

@ Bortrun,

"I don’t understand why you don’t accept that there is a consensus on this. Didn’t the international climate change pnel represent the world’s climate scientists? "

The picture that I could have imagined as plausible is this. The intergovernmental climate change panel(s) has made it as a verdict, that there is a “consensus”. ( In a way, like the Soviets had made a verdict on genetics, but using better words :-). The function of the panel is to sum-up complex and controversial opinions, results, predictions and data, in terms of YES and NO. They have consistently been choosing YES. The ideological component of this has been discussed above by many of us. It is also much more difficult to say NO, (and not enough evidence), and indeed, so many grants and careers may be ruined :slight_smile:

The critics say that there is no consensus in the actual opinions, results, predictions and data. “Consensus” seems to appear after administrators (who may also take part in science) “sums-up” all this and put it on tables of politicians.

In fact I do not know. My intuition says that one should not expect “consensus” in the research of that kind, in the system of that kind at our present abilty to anylize such system (global atmosphere, + chemistry and photochemistry + turbulent hydro and aerodynamics, + uncertain conditions +++) My experience of scientific work on much simpler systems and in much smaller groups shows there may be no full consensus for a long time even there. So the words of the critics, my intuition, my take of the political and ideological factors, (and my undrestanding of how people misunderstand science), and my prejudices also, leave me skeptical.

However, the intuition is a poor help and , I am not a specialist (as seems nobody here is). I may be wrong. I embrace it as uncertain.
I can’t prove it , but I disprove of investing huge public funds in the projects of that kind while things are that unclear.

Didn’t the international climate change pnel represent the world’s climate scientists? "

I belive that science is represented by scientists. If something reminds a voting of a panel, verdict of a panel, it is not science. However, the topic of the scientific consensus in general is very intersting. How much should we trust scientists? However it is not the topic of GW.

114

Steve, could you please start a thread on health systems in different countries. I cannot, but I will be an avid reader and won’t attack you.

115

Ilya,

the review articles I have mentioned to you have nothing to do with the IPCC. They are written by individual scientists, published by respected journals such as Science an others. You don’t look at them, yet you hold on to your unsubstantiated claims, what kind of position is that?

You say it’s all too complicated and so forth, but scientists figured out the ozone hole, right?

116

@Ilya,

I thought the IPCC was made up of climate scientists. Is that not correct?

I understand what you mean about things being complex and there being much more disagreement when you take a closer look. That’s true of many things. However, sometimes you have to make a call and say whether you think something is probably happening or not. And the IPCC made its call.

Even the fellow Steve cited, Christy, says that the majority of his colleagues do not agree with him.

The other fellow Steve cited, the MIT professor, Lindzen I think, seems a very respected person and a genuine critic of climate change. It may turn out that he is correct and that all these climate change fears are misplaced.

However, as a non-expert, all I can really do is go by what the consensus seems to be. While we may not all be able to investigate the actual data involved, we can investigate what the majority opinion of relevant scientists is.

117

@Steve

I see that another climate change conversation has run aground. I suppose there’s no point running around in circles. I don’t understand where you get your level of confidence that humans have nothing to do with climate change, but there it is. I understand that there are legimate skeptics, but I don’t understand why you have such confidence in the skeptics, and apparently none in their colleagues who have come to a different conclusion.

I’m also curious about your definition of ideologue. It’s a word you use often - climate change ideologues, health care ideologues, and so on.

118

Dear Bortrun and Fridemann,

I have explained you my take on this. It is not the take of a knowlegable expert on the field. Neither you are the experts. It seems started with Mark asking if there were, indeed, skeptics about the consensus. Steve and I have proved you that there are. My purpose was not to prove that the skepticks are right. We now indeed repeat ourselves. Thank you for expressing your opinions, providing links etc. I look forward to talking to you more, but not nesessary chewing this again :slight_smile:

119

Bortrun,

you see, I think that is precisely the problem. Many people harbour deep seated fears or mistrust of the “science establishment” and then that gets mixed up with the scientific debate.

I realise I am passionate about defending science, maybe too passionate but I really take issue with opinions like those of JayB who lash out at scientists without realizing that about everything they touch during the course of an entire day has only been made possible through modern science.

I know that Steve is not a particular religious person and seems to be very interested in modern science, but in the case of GW I guess the science is just on a collision course with his wider political views.

120

Ilya,

you may repeat some lines but you have failed to answer others, for example why you as a non-expert go with the minority. Yes, I also am a non-expert, but I know science and I go with the majority, which BTW you also do in most other cases.

I never doubted there were skeptics. You will always find a contrarian position held by some people on anything. There are people who believe the earth is flat.

I respect your wish to leave this discussion and won’t address more points you made unless you come back to continue.