waitforufo

Interesting questions. The first attacks the credibility of climate models for not including the effects solar cycles. The second attacks the credibility of climate models for not considering the negative feedback of melting polar ice. Why would anyone consider fundamentally changing our economy and culture based on computer models that do not include such well known climate forcings? I appreciate that these well known forcings are perhaps not well understood, but perhaps if warmthers were not intentionally avoiding negative forcings, because negative forcings detract from their funding and politically driven narrative, they just might find out that CO2 is climate benign. If recent temperatures don't match the models because of longer solar minimums and unexpected polar ice melting, why would it not be reasonable to assume that the slight warming of the past 150 years was not caused by other neglected factors instead of CO2? I hope you didn't think your questions were in defense of climate models. All they do is point out that we simply don't know enough to make decisions. Particularly decisions which will divert funds from known actual problems.

I'm more interested in the opinion of IM Egdall but your reply will do for now. The costs of these preventative measures you mention are not trivial. In fact many billions have already been spent and to what result? Are we adding less C02 to the atmosphere? I think not. Has "green energy" eliminated any fossil fuel power generating stations? No. Government regulation has caused some shifting from one form of fossil fuel to another, but the primary impact of these changes has only been to increase energy cost thereby hobbling the economy. Europe at the moment is abandoning subsidies for wind and solar power generation because these "preventive measures" are as predicted unworkable in providing power when power is needed and require traditional power generation means to provide power when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. You know, like when a large high pressure system covers a large land area and the sun goes down during winter. What Europe is finding out right now, the hard way, is that renewable energy in the form of wind and solar simply cost you twice; once for the solar panels and wind mills, and again for the fossil fuel plants that back them up on cold winter nights. These cost are only increased by the fact that traditional power generation pollutes more and runs less efficiently when it is constantly being turned on and off at the whims of the sun, clouds, and wind. I'm sure you think these costs are worth it based on the "cost of doing so later", but where is your proof of this urgency? On a different science forums topic you posted the following image. Now look at that sad little asterisk at the end of the steep predicted line. Did that prediction come true? That little asterisk has a date on it of 2004. This plot was generated at the height of warmther hysteria. It implies that the trend line shown will continue if "we wait too long." Well today its 2012, eight years after the call to urgent action that this plot represents. Did we ever travel down the predicted trend line? Have we even reached the level predicted for 2004? This plot represents the epic failure of warmther hysteria. So I ask again. Urgent why?

Urgent why?

Edtharan, my reply was in reply to your reference to the precautionary principle in the above quote. Your analogy above implies that with just a little adjustment in human behavior we can change the climate back to something you consider safer or better. My reply was to point out that warmists like you want to drastically change to our economy, government, and liberty in response to climate variation. All changed dramatically for the worse. For your analogy above to be properly aligned with the goals of warmists moving vehicles would have to be banned for safety sake. Or are you suggesting that climate variation can be modified by simply insulating the power sockets in my home? To your "Argument of Authority is a logical fallacy" comment above I was trying to point out that it is the warmists that constantly are guilty of making this logical fallacy. Warmists are constantly pointing out that they have a consensus. As if this consensus proves them right. The WSJ op-ed shows the lengths to which warmists will go to preserve their precious consensus; corruption of the peer review process, blacklisting, and Lysenkoism. Perhaps those in the climate science community should study the business concept of sunk costs. No matter how aggressively they polish there "assload of evidence", in the end it will still just be an assload.

Well if it is a crisis, no one thinks it is an important one.

What is my intent? I provided three articles; one from the US, one from the UK, and one from Australia. All of these articles shout that “global warming is not a crisis.” The first from the US condemns the entire climate science community and disparages the peer review process of climate science journals. Around the globe countries are abandoning subsidies for green energy. Nobody is buying this BS anymore. If you are looking for an echo chamber you won’t find it in the skeptic community. Climate science needs to accept the fact that they over played their hand. Nobody is buying into the fear they are peddling. The more they sell it, the more foolish they look.

Another one.. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-nonsense-gets-a-true-cold-shoulder/story-e6frezz0-1226258756363

Swansont, Edtharan the farmer's almanac does a better job incorporating solar activity models into their predictions than anyone in the climate science community. Edtharan, your analogy about jumping out of the way of a moving car is simply silly. What climate science is saying is that there are moving vehicles out there, moving vehicles are dangerous, and so vehicles should be banned. With regard to the logical fallacy of the Argument of Authority, why doesn't that apply to "the consensus?" If 16 wrongs don’t make a right how may does? Also, if climate science can't convince people like Burt Rutan and the other signers of the WSJ statement who can it convince? BTW the WSJ statement went quite a bit further than just saying "we have doubts" and was a broad condemnation of the warmest climate science community. Every one of those that signed the WSJ statement stuck their neck out with this condemnation. They are calling out the warmest climate science community. If nothing else warmest want political action and this statement will impact their credibility and reduce their sway with the public.

It’s statements like the above that make people doubt climate science. How do you model the climate of the earth without including solar activity? Such a model is simplistic to the point of ridiculousness. No intelligent person would change the economy of the world based on the above statement. If no warming is a possibility then no action is required. Yeah, I know we are talking about just 15 years, but modeled projections were made 15 years ago and those projections were significantly missed. Defending that miss by saying that solar activity and ocean cycles were not considered only make climate scientists look stupid. You don’t cry wolf and not expect to be chastised when there is no wolf. Those that signed the WSJ statement are all people of great accomplishment in science and engineering. People respect their opinions. It doesn’t matter that they are not climate scientists. When you sign a statement as strong as the one they signed, people will understand that those that signed want their unvarnished opinion of climate science known. That opinion is strongly disparaging.

Weaker –than-expected by who? I seem to recall several papers on expected low solar activity in the last 10 or more years. Also with regard to your comment that “AFAIK the details of solar activity are not part of any climate models”, is this a defense or condemnation of current climate models? That would be like saying current climate models don’t include ocean current and temperature cycles. Oh wait, they don’t. So just what exactly are they modeling? Doesn’t sound like the earth to me. No wonder the WSJ article states “There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.” These models we keep referring to have been around for quite some time. With these models predictions have been made. So how are these predictions fairing? I would say they have been an epic failure. CO2 keeps going up and the best defense provided is that “It may be true that there is no statistically significant evidence of warming — noisy data requires longer sets to show trends — but one cannot reverse this and say that there is evidence that no warming has occurred.” That’s a bit like telling a bill collector that there is no evidence that my check isn’t in the mail. I see quite a few people posting condemnations about WSJ and the signers of the WSJ statement. That is to be expected based on the content of the statement. The statement is rather harsh. In my opinion the signers are basically saying bullsh** to the current state of climate science. They signed this harsh statement to make sure that massage came across clearly. My favorite defense of the statement comes from Burt Rutan in his response to an open letter about the article on Scholars & Rogues. http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/ His response is the fourth comment posted.

Here is another story on how global warming is not a crisis. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html What's with all the crazy talk about sun spots and ocean temperature cycles? We all know that that sun and the oceans are trivial compared to CO2. Just read the outrageous quotes from this article. Obviously these people do not appreciate "the consensus." While I'm sure many of the following people and institutions are already on the list of evil deniers, some effort should be made to keep that growing list up to date. UK Met Office University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Confirmed? I was just told a few posts back that the above quote is a lie. Who are these bozos from the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit? Little Ice Age? Wasn't that just a tiny little local anomaly? I have read may times here in science forums that the variation in solar output has a trival impact on climate. Okay, now this guy is simply confused. I'm sure with time he will understand that computer models are more important the actual measurements. Models have shortcomings? Is this person even a scientist? Oceans smoceans. Wow, I guess the warmest better cash in now. On those grounds we should reject the "science" from the University of East Anglia and it's Climatic Research Unit since it receives funding from Shell Oil and BP.

Perhaps Dr. Giaever is using this comparison because he has not seen convincing evidence for anthropogenic climate change. I can’t speak for Dr. Giaever but perhaps he feels that recent climate variation is within the limits of natural variation. I would guess that he feels that the burden on proof is on the climate researchers and that adequate proof in his opinion has not been provided. If one considers the evidence for anthropogenic climate change to be weak, then his comparison makes sense. My reading of the article is that the warming that has occurred is significantly lower than predictions. Based on the hockey stick plots I have seen on this site, I would have to agree.

I believe the article is more a commentary on the researchers and proponents of anthropogenic climate change than the research itself. The article claims that the researchers and proponents of anthropogenic climate change are blacklisting and practicing Lysenkoism. A serious charge. Their primary commentary on the research is that the warming predicted by the research has not occurred. Also since the research has produced poor results “There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.”

Alarm bells only if one considers the current and projected concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to be detrimental. Obviously those that signed this statement do not consider current or projected concentrations of CO2 to be detrimental. Those that have signed on to this statement obviously understand the implications of so doing. The statement includes accusations of blacklisting (Dr. Chris de Freitas) and persecution which was likened to that practiced by Trofim Lysenko. To make such statements in a respected national, if not worldwide publication, is not done casually by anyone. An interesting shot across the climate change bow.

Interesting article relevant to the topic. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

If you have a felony record and served no time in prison, but simply received parole as your punishment, you will have great difficulty finding a job, renting an apartment, getting credit, or even a bank account. With the background check industry there is no paying your debt to society. Your felony record stays with you for life. Crime may be your only way to survive.

Plaese don’t stay out of his way. I don’t. Neither does anyone one else. With time you will find interchanges with iNow to be quite enjoyable entertainment. Beesides he needs constant rienforcement to maintain his smartest man in the world, or at least at scienceforums.net, ego. Take this post by iNow for example If any of the above was implemented no one would recognise this country as the United States. One last thing. Don’t forget to sprinkle your posts with poor speling. That makes iNow feel superior. Believe me when I say he needs all the help he can get.

toastywombel, Your list drives home Benjamin Franklin's words that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also why the original dads put the second amendment in the constitution. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking the second amendment is about hunting and not liberty. Having said the above, our liberties have always been, and always will be under attack. Those attacks most often come from those claiming to promote our health, well being, and safety. Today we are told that if we just give up a little liberty, we can have economic equality, be safe from terrorism, and have a stable climate. Yesterday the promises were perhaps different, but like today I'm sure the Faustian bargains offered were just as compelling. My guess is that the real reason you are worried is that people today seem more likely to make the trade, and in the end lose both safety and liberty.

iNow, thank you for posting such an excellent case in point to JustinW's opener. Justin W, based on iNow's post can you guess on which side of the isle iNow sits ?

The guy wasn't all bad. Look what he did to reduce global warming.

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where human life was held so dear that end of any human life was always considered a tragedy no matter the necessity. How important is your life to you? What part of it didn't matter? How you answer those questions can impact your opinion on whether "life-begins-at-conception". Mine began at conception. I also believe that our constitution recognizes my "right to life" and the lives of all humans. This issue by the way is not a Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, religious, or atheist issue. There are plenty of people who fit comfortably under each of those labels that believe that "life-begins-at-conception" and that life is a right protected by the US constitution. The reason this is such a hot political topic is that those that disagree with the idea that "life-begins-at-conception" know that strengthening that right is just one justice away.

The graph was based on Table ES5 this report. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf The data includes… By the way there will be no need to worry about relying on solar or wind if this research pays off. Something Jefferson would likely invest in. 1 to 2 trillion barrels of oil right in our own borders and extracted while generating electricity. Good thing Jefferson made that Louisiana purchase. http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=2098&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=fc7005f1-db97-4076-a668-146ac389cfc7 " Chemistry for Life" what a catchy slogan for the American Chemical Society. Oh, snap! I often wonder about your mind. Thanks for sharing.

Yeah, just like Solyndra.

Don't forget this one.

So here is one from today. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/182213-fury-over-solyndra-loan-threatens-to-sunset-solar-investments In it you will find this little nugget. “The biggest hurdle for U.S. manufacturers is that they have to compete with these giant Chinese companies that have access to huge amounts of capital, cheaper labor and more relaxed environmental policies” Then there is your story from China. It includes these little nuggets. “JinkoSolar Holding Co., a New York- listed Chinese solar-panel manufacturer, has been told to stop work at one of its plants after violent protests by villagers alleging pollution killed fish in a nearby river.” and “The environmental protection bureau fined the Haining plant 470,000 yuan ($73,600), China Business News reported, citing the unidentified environmental protection agency official.” So it takes “violent protests by villagers” to get action. I have to wonder what happened to the leaders of that protest. Also fines being imposed by an “unidentified environmental protection agency official.” Yea, that sounds like it really happened. iNow and swansont, do you really want to be known as the defenders of China’s environmental policies? Did you read the article from 2007 that I posted. Do you really think China is any different today?