Great article with great visual aids.
You said, "Remember how the world was never going to recover from the BP spill? Nature took care of it in a matter of months though unexpected and massive bacterial action, with no human intervention. Scientists were shocked and flummoxed, as it fit no model. They were predicting beach wastelands and lost shellfish stocks for decades, perhaps millennia. Our biggest competition in the oyster business remains cheap product from the gulf, which set record harvests over the past two years. The earth is remarkably self-patching."
This does not mean that there was not permanent or long term environmental damage. This is PR spin that you bought in on.
An over abundance of a certain types of microorganisms in itself can destroy ecosystems and do irreversible damage to bodies of water. You need to take a close look at whose scientists are so flummoxed and shocked and declared it an amazing recovery. The real impacts will not be known for a very long time to come. We can all rest assured that there is plenty of money and effort being put into masking, hiding or preventing the disclosure of those impacts.
How funny that some of the green house gas deniers mention the "carbon sink". Yes there is a carbon sink which we also call fossil fuel. Those fossile fuel took billions of years to form and we are now trying to release them back to the atomosphere in few short years.
@AmpedRealtor The same thing happened with the Richard Muller post that Pungoteague_Dave gave on Dec 21. Pungoteague_Dave thought that Richard Muller was supporting evidence for his Climate Change denial. When I posted a link to the study that Richard Muller headed, which supports anthropomorphic Climate Change, there was the expected silence.
Silence? Some of us have lives. I never said Muller was a denier. It was just a link. I am NOT a denier. I simply know that both deniers and warmists have agendas that are self serving, starting with outcomes and finding supporting data. That's why I refuse to engage in a battle of competing links. I have had the benefit of knowing Al Gore personally, have seen him and his "scientist" supporters' work firsthand, and am quite familiar with the deniers' typical lack of sophistication or investigative rigor. I am also aware that consensus is often wrong in any argument about any form of change. Anyone who starts with "virtually all respected climate scientists conclude that..." is self-impeaching and my mind closes to whatever comes next. Same for ANY similarly couched statement on any topic. If I care about something, I chose to independently review the data. Although not a scientist,
I am a professor at a major research university, and understand how to read academic research. Most of what I have seen in this area is poorly done, suspiciously funded, and is blessed with pre-ordained conclusions. That does not by itself make it wrong, and clearly the deniers are further out the speculative and agenda-driven limb. If you read carefully, there are a limited few very good and independent researchers and thinkers in this area. They are very careful to be more circumspect, and guys like Muller do not believe there is sufficient causation or quantitative consensus, nor are there prescriptions for reducing or eliminating the projected warming within the context of economic logic. They instead are working on and proposing ways to deal with whatever comes, for example, showing that the economics of funding crop management under warmer conditions is a better use of resources than attempting to stand in front of a train. That's why I am involved in a sustainable lifestyle and business ventures. I don't know who is right or wrong, but do conclude that all of the extremes are usually wrong in any argument, and live with the smallest possible personal footprint while refusing to feel sanctimonious about driving a luxury EV of dubious carbon benefit when considering all inputs and outputs.
@Pungoteague_Dave Stepping through your last post: You say "Some of us have lives." You have spent a lot of time posting your opinions but have not posted a single fact or peer-reviewed link to support your opinions. You may not want to "engage in a battle of competing links" i.e. actual data, but you are prepared to engange in a battle of simple opinion. If 95%+ does not constitute "virtually all respected climate scientists" then what number would satisfy you? You say "I chose to independently review the data". Why will you not post any of that data which you have reviewed and find unconvincing? You say "If you read carefully, there are a limited few very good and independent researchers and thinkers in this area." Would you please provide evidence for this statement. There are hundreds of published scientists on Climate Change. I would find it elucidating to see how you were able to dismiss all their efforts. You said "guys like Muller do not believe there is sufficient causation or quantitative consensus". I posted a link to the study that Muller headed which says the opposite. I can provide more explicit statements from Muller supporting anthropomorphic Climate Change if you would like. It would be helful if you could provide a source link to back up your statement. You assert that preventing Climate Change is like "attempting to stand in front of a train". I partially agree with that statement, not because we do not have the economic and practical means to reverse our GHG emissions, but because of the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry, lack of action by people who do accept the Climate Change science, and because of people with a mindset such as yours.
There is a false equivalency that "every story has two sides", and that gets morphed into the belief that "both sides have equal value". Some people believe the earth is 6,000 years old, and they have "evidence". I have a relative that thinks this particular argument has two sides. It doesn't.
When 95% of working scientists agree, that's a firm consensus.
There is also a meme that scientists working in the field must be getting a pay off from some "green" organization. Let's face it. There is not a lot of money to be made by telling people to reduce, reuse, or recycle. There IS a lot of money to be made selling energy and the devices that consume it. And lest we point out that Al Gore is rich, Gore was wealthy on the day he was born and has managed his career both in and out of the public sector very well.
But if I had to guess, I'd say this follows the same pattern that the tobacco companies did to sponsor bogus research that showed tobacco was not harmful.
I'm guessing if someone is lying, it's not 95 of 100 scientists, but the oil companies.
@jbunn +1 I do wonder why people think that scientists, who, in my opinion, get paid poorly relative to other professions, are considered to be 'on-the-take' by denialists. Those same denialists give a free pass to those people in the biggest and most profitable industry on earth, i.e. the fossil fuel industry. Go figure.
The global warming scientists at the university where I teach in the business program do very well, into multiple six figures. This particular university and group is the largest recipient group of federal research funding, yet spend a huge amount of their time and internal internet bandwidth applying for and chasing further funding, with general requests for political support for specific pet programs coming to my inbox daily. This is all about the dollar chase. Al Gore no longer makes any secret of the fact that he is personally making hundreds of millions per year investing billions of investor dollars in green initiative companies. It is about thesis creation and fear mongering, with a hand out in follow up, much like passing the offering basket at a revival meeting. Throughout history we have seen waves of self-important charlatans create crisis and mass hysteria to serve their own interests. This in many respects feels like the scientific version of Hale-Bopp, and the 19th century Armageddon preachers. At every point in recorded history there have been organized groups running around predicting coming doom and the collapse of the world economy, environment, or society, often with religious overtones.
The major upcoming transitional events in human history are much more likely to revolve around a pandemic, such as a killer flu that passes like a cold virus, or another deadly communicable disease that kills hundreds of millions or billions. Overuse of antibiotics is pushing us in that direction quickly. We would be much better served planning for and researching solutions to things we know are coming, and to mitigate the impact we have on the world, but without creating a false economic construct in the process. This is about political control and financial resource hoarding as much as it is about true care for our environment.
Living on a tidewater farm with a maximum 8' elevation above sea level, I do not worry about being flooded out, and in fact just built a new (Leed Platinum) home here, with 10 geothermal wells, 100% led lighting, recycled content where possible and sustainable products elsewhere. We have and 84 solar panels, with significant renewable energy credit sales and electricity sold back to the grid in even the coldest darkest months. We walk the warming environmentalists' talk more than most anyone. I own six EV's. But I still call BS on a lot of it. I worry a lot more about a Canary island earthquake sending a tsunami toward the East coast, or a major meteor strike like the one that created the lower Chesapeake, than I do about melting ice caps. I am particularly amused at the false green aura claimed by many Tesla owners.
For those who demand links to peer reviewed evidence that global warming is a hoax, I don't respond because I do not think it is a hoax. I never said it was. There are no such refutation studies, although there are many who try, most poorly. My links would be to the very studies you would also cite, such as the most recent reports out of the IPCC, and the underlying supporting projects, most of which are publicly available. It is in those that I find self-fulfilling research methodologies, hand-picked data and date ranges, and unsupportable conclusions. By the way, demanding per-reviewed research is a typical and transparent impeachment tool in these debates, and is setting up straw men to be knocked down. Because I failed to respond in the manner you demand, you put words and conclusions in my mouth that were never uttered.
I have sat on many peer review committees in my own area and see the limited value and self-delusion they often support. And they are frequently wrong. Copernicus could find no support in 1514 for his round-world thesis, when peer-reviewed scientific consensus was that the world is the flat center of the universe. Of course his thesis was wrong too (that the sun is the center of the universe and that planets orbit in perfect circles), finally settled by Galilei's work in 1632 showing that the earth, in fact, circles the sun. Of course, even he was derided and ostracized by his scientific peers and the Catholic Church. Scientific consensus of the time rejected heliocentrism, and the Roman Inquisition, the IPCC of its day, investigated and concluded his thesis was not factual. He ended his life under house arrest because he disagreed with scientific consensus. An iconoclast is not always wrong, and scientific consensus is often 180 degrees wrong. Anyone up for a little bloodletting? That was consensus too.
What's wrong with making money on and investing in green technology? Green, renewable and sustainable energy is the right direction in which to proceed. There is not a single argument against renewable energy except for cost, and that's coming down quickly. All other problems with renewables are solvable. We deserve better than fueling our society on the remains of dead animal and plant life from hundreds of millions of years ago.
Plenty of money is being made on destructive technologies that are hosing the air that we breathe, yet I don't see anyone here saying that's wrong. If you make money on something that is destructive, does that not make you a part of the problem? It's clear green energy is the market of the future and there is a lot of money to be made.
There is a double standard here in that those who actively profit on renewable energy technologies are somehow cast as bad guys because they are making money. Just because you support green technology means you should not make any money on it? Why is Al Gore being criticized for making hundreds of millions on green energy investment when, instead, he should be lauded for stimulating much needed investment in that sector?
This faulty logic is the same faulty logic that leads people to proclaim that government subsidies to promote green technologies is a terrible, socialistic thing to do. What strikes me as funny is that these same people never mention the various subsidies that Exxon, Chevron, and other big oil companies get from our government. How hypocritical is it to attack subsidies for one sector of the energy economy and not the other? Bias is very easy to see.
Wow. Just wow. Waves of self important charlatans and mass hysteria?
Look, research universities do crank out theses. That's how you get your doctorate. And "Publish or Perish" is a maxim. Universities DO apply for research funding. Research takes money. It's not like you're revealing an undiscovered universal truth. It's always been about chasing the dollars in order to run the research programs.
The coaches in the athletic department of a university do the same thing. (The highest paid state employee in Washington is the UW football coach)
If Al Gore is making money running investment funds that specialize in green energy, that's great. I am a full time investor, and my portfolio is heavy on green projects, and biotech research. No shame in that.
You have this personal thing about Al Gore, huh? Does he not like oysters?
PDave I'm so glad that I have not met anyone like you in real life.
@Pungoteague_Dave You have again provided a lengthly polemic without a single verifiable fact to back it up. You criticise the Climate Change evidence for it's lack of the 'scientific method' but you totally lack it yourself. You claim to have read, evaluated, and then dismissed copious amounts of research. You have expended considerable time espousing your opinion publicly on this thread. Please give me just one link to a peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change evidence that you find unconvincing. Your opinions are hollow and without merit, until you can back them up with some facts. I made the effort to provide the facts about the cost of solar when requested by you. Please return the favour.
@Pungoteague_Dave PS: I am asking you for a single link. You have a choice of thousands. Just one link...please. That is the easy part. To dismiss Climate Change requires you to dismiss all of the evidence. Not just one piece, not just 100 pieces, but every single piece. That is the incredible part. You stated that you not believe that solar PV can be paid back in less than 10 years and asked me for my evidence. I provided my facts, and showed that 10 years was conservative, but you did not even acknowledge them. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to be both factually correct and intellectually honest. Thats is the hard part.
@Everyone A sample of easily digested facts in graphic form: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/20/3078461/9-climate-charts-2013/
@jbunn, you misunderstand me. I only mention Al because I have personal experience with him and one of his ventures, a green-oriented fund, generations, headquartered in London, paying us in investment advisory and trading fees. So he happens to be one of my personal touch points for the most extreme examples of distorted economic objectives and cynical business practices attached to the warmist movement. It isn't that they invest green. I do that too. It is that they lead with green because they know that shtick brings dollars their way, and then invest money in ways and places that they know will produce smaller returns, or negative returns, because that's the shtick and they're sticking to it. In my case, they invested in a real estate company to which I introduced them, a company that was the midst of a serious strategic mistake that took them down, simply because they were the only public company in that sector that wrote an annual sustainability report. That the report was window dressing without substantive green underpinnings was irrelevant. They needed a real estate investment, this one fit the shtick, so there went the investment even though it was an otherwise seriously flawed story. It just happens to be one example where I was personally inside the sausage machine watching how the green industry works, and being paid well to do it. We see this in many industries, and in politics in general, but it is particularly egregious coming from people with such sanctimonious faces, yet cynical underpinnings.
Bb0tin, you provided no facts that I see supporting a ten year payback for solar. I will put my solar panel count and knowledge of the details and cost/benefit of such installations over yours anyway because I have done them. I am sitting looking at 84 panels out my windows as I type this. There is no such thing as a non subsidized payback period, much less ten years.
@bb0tin, you seriously think the linked page has any veracity and underlying truth? It reads like an excited non skeptical first grade primer, with virtually no facts to back it up, no sourcing, hyperbole and inflated language throughout. Like so much of this work, it starts with an agenda and fulfills it poorly. I am sure you can do better, but this isn't the way to gain credibility.
Look for words like reconstructed, catastrophic, collapsed, dramatically, and use of cause and effect without showing any real connection. Real scientists know better. A common red flag is employing the word "denier" as a pejorative, which often exposes the writer's own limited perspective and bias. The last refuge of a scoundrel is demonization of that for which they have no good counter. Like all of these arguments, consider the source first. The bb0tin link above is a perfect example. I take none of my views from derivative sources. I read the actual papers.
Bb0tin is apparently willing to accept whatever spin and hyperbolic repackaging is sent his way, no matter the source as long as it fits his apocalyptic view. If you want objective thinking, let's not start with either liberal or conservative blogs. The link from think progress.org above is embarrassing, but is also more than suspect, coming from an agenda-drive organization that is a known shill for leftist ideology. But by doing so, you make my point. Facts don't count.
@Pungoteague_Dave I did provide the facts on solar PV. Other posters responded. You did not. Have another read of the thread where you asked me for the facts.
The thinkprogress link I provided contains links to the source data. Follow the links and read them. Then tell me which source you disagree with.
You said "Bb0tin is apparently willing to accept whatever spin and hyperbolic repackaging is sent his way, no matter the source as long as it fits his apocalyptic view." I believe you wrong on this, since I am the source data. Please provide an example to back up this claim.
I am still waiting for you to provide a single link to a peer-reviewed paper on Climate Change that you believe lacks credibility.
Anyway is a good way provided you are driving the Model S.
Bb0tin, I doubt normally jump through other peoples hoops, and definitely not demands on an Internet forum, but to humor you I have responded over on the other thread. But, please don't try to impeach someone on a thread for not responding. You attempt to say I have no answer because I didn't respond when it was as simple as I don't have time to read every thread on every forum in which I participate. I moderate three otter (unrelated) forums, two very active, and participate in two others. I have 220 people coming yo the farm for the holidays. There are things that must be done and making your day sent one of them. No apologies, but please change your abrasive, demanding approach here. I have now responded in full on your solar panel question over there.
Again, I refuse to engage in a war of dueling threads. If you have any intellectual honesty, and are a scientist as you state, you would not be linking or sourcing full left blogs. You would also be able to answer your own question, as any real scientist in ANY discipline is aware of and could cite dozens of deeply flawed research papers in his or her area of expertise. In my area, every single journal I have on my shelf has at least one peer reviewed paper with a serious, usually fatal flaw. Have you now reduced your debating thesis to saying that far beyond simple consensus thought, that every single peer reviewed paper on climate science, no matter the source, has no serious research or conclusion errors? You are unaware of the many internal scandals and internecine battles within the warming science sector? The investigations? The half truths? The cover-ups, intimidations, email chains regarding professional ostricization and research suppression? If you are inside the warmist scientific community, you are surely aware of these issues. If not, then you are not inside.
Otter = other
Sent = isn't
Peer review is glorified copy-edit. It is meant to skim off obvious error, and leave validation to the rest of the community, through replication, etc. Which is supposed to be made possible by public caching of data and software used in the original. In practice, done only by skeptics. Believers somehow lose the raw data in a messy office or declare it proprietary, etc. "The only reason you want to see my data is to find something wrong with it." Duh.
The harder and more thorough the challenges any hypothesis withstands, the stronger it is. Not achieved by ducking and dodging and "pal review".
(One of the academic quid quo pros many are not aware of is citation swapping. Nominally anonymous, a reviewer can indicate he'll recommend publication if this list of citations is added. Every one will likely have him/her as co-author. Citation points pay.)
@Pungoteague_Dave I for one would be very glad to meet you or someone like you. I find your approached measured, and appropriately cautious.
I do not know if we are entering a period of catastrophic global warming. I do know that scientific consensus does not make something true or false.
I believe both industries, traditional energy and green energy, have vested interests that skew judgement and actions. They are made up of people, therefore subject to biases and influence which can, and often does corrupt the scientific method.
Here is link to an excellent TED talk regarding "bad science" in the pharmaceutical industry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk It gets interesting about 1/2 way through and is applicable to all fields of scientific inquiry. It is a great explanation of how a group can significantly bias the data that gets to the public.
I believe that reduce, reuse and recycle are very good things. I bought a Model S, in part, as a way of hedging my bet on AGW. However that does not mean a strong measure of skepticism is still not in order. IMHO, it is.
I applaud those with enough intellectual honesty to say so. @PD, I tip my hat to you.
Brian H, thanks for that analysis - it explains what you, P_D and a few otters are up to here: con-damming us all.
Science is not American Football. Hard, yes. Not for all to play. But not the same.
Have a Holiday Truce, folks. Enjoy your eggnog and company.
" I do know that scientific consensus does not make something true or false."
You don't know how idiotic this statement is. Apparently you have no idea of what scientific process is. There is no such thing as scientific consensus in hard science. Physical laws were not voted by committees and luckily past attempts to do so have all failed.
@carlk, lets not devolve to name calling. "Idiotic you say?" - and so how do you explain Copernicus and Galilei? There were real scientists then too, and real consensus. The people fundamentally objecting to their work were not religious zealots, there were professional, full-time astronomers and physical scientists. Clearly consensus is often wrong through history, and consensus has evolved dramatically on this issue. In the warmist group, consensus ten years ago no longer applies today.
+1@brian. I have been amazed at the implied and overt quid-pro-quo and self-affirmation in my own peer review community. I still participate in journal reviews because I like some of the people, occasionally learn something, but it is a cluster**** most of the time.
@jjs, great link, thanks for your kind words. We do oyster aquaculture tours and samples on request if you ever get to the Eastern Shore of Virginia...
+1 jjs - I too would be glad to meet you as well PD.
What is most alarming to me is how someone like PD can do ALL he can to minimize his carbon footprint and WAY more than probably 99% of the rest of humanity. Yet, when he expresses a healthy skepticism about one scientific theory he's immediately labeled a "denier" and derided for not being a "believer".
It is after all a theory. Yes, there is quite a lot of evidence that points to it being the truth but ask any scientist and they'll tell you they don't and can't know everything about how the earth regulates climate. It's way too complicated.
Don't get me wrong, I see the overwhelming evidence that AGW is happening but science is about having healthy skepticism.
For those in the PNW you might recognize the name Cliff Mass. For those that don't know who he is, he's an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington. He recently tried to get a conference of scientists together to discuss climate change. It didn't go well...
Does that sound familiar? It sounds EXACTLY like what's going on in here.
X Deutschland Site Besuchen