Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

I am genuinely curious to know just how much thought you'd given the subject. If I were to tell you I had a plan that could drastically reduce the amount of "pollution" pouring out of our nations power plants, you'd probably be supportive. However, if I pointed out that it would cause a dramatic rise in the cost of electricity and that our nations "poor" would suffer as a result, then I think you'd be less likely to support the plan. Am I wrong?

There is a balance to keep between the cost of preserving our environment and that of providing affordable NECESSITY OF LIFE for everyone.

This is why I am a supporter of nuclear energy.

But there are many other ways to save on polution that would in fact BENEFIT the poor, not only in cleaner air, but also in cost. One of those ways is to get rid of all the big, old gaz guzlers, and move toward hybrids and smaller cars with a much better gaz efficiency. Developing better public transportation is also a ways to limit the quantity of polution that cars spew in the air, AND to help poor and middle class people to reach their work place without having to depend on cars.

The deforestation that took place was just absolutely terrible planning by people who had only GREED in mind. Planting new trees to replace every tree that is being cut should easily take care of that (and provide work) without costing that much.

And industries do have a responsibility to clean their mess. . .although I am willing to look at a "reasonable" quotient of return to investment in terms of cleaning the mess made by industry. I believe I read (forgot when, forgot the text book it came out of, but it was in one of my economics class in College) an analysis that determined that if it cost X to clean 95% of the polution created by a specific industry, but it cost 3X to clean the polution created by that same industry at 97%, it is debatable whether or not it is wise to pursue that extra 2% cleaner air. I am willing to compromise on that.

However, what I am not willing to compromise on, are companies (like the Koch brothers) who prefer to spend millions, and even billions in lobbyists, and in commercials to defend their "right" to mess up our environment, INSTEAD of taking those billions to clean up their mess!
 
Werbung:
More on this story

seems there is more to this story than originally thought

IT'S one of the hottest feuds in science - climate chance zealots insist that we're still destroying the planet but now another scientist has warned the cast-iron evidence just isn't there.

FOR a minute there it seemed the global warming debate had finally been resolved.

While for years scientists and sceptics have raged against each other on the crucial topic, new research hailed “the most definitive study into temperature data gathered by weather stations over the past half-century” seemed to come to an authoritative conclusion.

Global warming IS real it said, strengthening the need for us all to reduce carbon emissions and boost efforts to try to save the planet.

And this research was headed by a physicist who had previously been a sceptic of global warming and an outspoken critic of the science underpinning it, lending the results even greater credibility.

Prof Judith Curry, a member of Prof Muller’s team

Prof Richard Muller had spent two years trying to discover if the mainstream scientists were wrong but concluded they were right. Temperatures are rising and his results, he concluded, “proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer”. Case closed.

But is it? Not according to Prof Judith Curry, a member of Prof Muller’s team, who claims the same findings have shown that global warming has stopped – plunging the rest of us into a quandary of what and who to believe.





When Prof Curry heard that Prof Muller was saying that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) findings would put an end to climate change scepticism for good she was horrified. “This isn’t the end of scepticism,” she exclaimed.

“To say that is the biggest mistake he has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, ‘Oh my God.’”

Prof Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and Prof Curry, who chairs the Department Of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at America’s Georgia Institute of Technology, were part of the BEST project that carried
out analysis of more than 1.6 billion temperature recordings collected from more than 39,000 weather stations around the world.

Prof Muller appeared on Radio 4’s Today Programme last Friday where he described how BEST’s findings showed that since the Fifties global temperatures had risen by about 1 degree Celsius, a figure which is in line with estimates from Nasa and the Met Office.

When asked whether the rate had stopped over the last 10 years he said they had not. “We see no evidence of it having slowed down,” he replied and a graph issued by the BEST project suggests a continuing and steep increase.

But this last point is one which Prof Curry has furiously rebuttted. In a serious clash of scientific experts Prof Curry has accused Prof Muller of trying to “hide the decline in rates of global warming”.

She says that BEST’s research actually shows that there has been no increase in world temperatures for 13 years.

She has called Prof Muller’s comments “a huge mistake” and has said that she now plans to discuss her future on the project with him. “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped,” she says.

“To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.” New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller.

A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.

This issue is crucial because the levels of carbon dioxide in the air have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade and if temperatures have remained constant during that period it would suggest there is no direct link between carbon gas emissions and global warming.

Previously carbon dioxide emissions – from the burning of fossil fuels and from deforestation – have been considered one of the biggest causes of climate change, the most damaging effects of which are thought to be the melting of the polar ice caps and the rise in sea levels as well as an increase in extreme weather events such as floods and droughts.

“Whatever it is that is going on here it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by carbon dioxide,” says Prof Curry.

Prof Muller has made it clear that the BEST study was not conducted in order to gauge the causes of global warming, saying the study “made no assessment on how much of this is due to humans and how much is natural”.

He and his scientists – who also included this year’s physics Nobel winner Saul Perlmutter – set out purely to determine once and for all whether climate change had occurred.

The group had been suspicious of previous results which confirmed a rise in global temperatures , believing that their work may have been skewed by the “urban heat island effect” where increasing urbanisation around weather stations was causing the temperature increases recorded over the past 50 years.

But their exhaustive research discovered that the urban heat effect could not explain the global temperature increase of about one degree Celsius since 1950.

IT IS well to point out that Prof Curry is not disputing the one degree Celsius increase. She is disputing Prof Muller’s suggestion that temperatures haven’t levelled off in the last decade.

Indeed she says this global warming standstill since the end of the Nineties – which has been completely unexpected – has wide-reaching consequences for the causes of climate change and has already led many climate scientists to start looking at alternative factors that may have contributed to global warming,other than carbon gas emissions. In particular she has mentioned the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation.

What she also seems furious about is the way that Prof Muller went about publishing BEST’s results without consulting her and before a proper peer review could be carried out. “It is not how I would have played it,” she has said. “I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did. It would have been smart to consult me.”

This is, you can be sure, not the last we will hear on the debate.
 
Whoever claimed that there was no climate change? I doubt very seriously that there have been many periods in earth's history where the climate was not in a period of warming or cooling. Change is the norm on earth. The question is whether or not the activities of man are responsible and the best team did not even touch on that question.

Further, the best team found that here in the US, the temperature monitoring system is the next thing to useless. Thousands upon thousands of monitoring stations have been taken offline and the bulk of those are in rural areas which has led to a warm bias due to heat islands in large metropolitan areas. In addition, at least 70% of the stations here are situated in such terrible places that they are generating data that is 2 to 5 degrees C in error. In short, the margin of error is several times larger than the amount of temperature change being predicted and that is here in the US. We are as of yet, unsure about the condition of data stations in the 3rd world or in europe.

The bottom line is that the best team found that the data indicate that the temperature is rising, but also found that the data is hardly worth the time and expense it took to collect it.
 
certainly. . .
the whole concern is how fast it is changing, and how fast mankind could adapt to those changes without going the way of the dinosaures.

And, ina shorter term, it is toknow how it will affect our athmospere, ourculture (as in food supply), our water, even our dwellings and the distribution of life on this planet.

Can you provide any observed evidence that proves unequivocally that the present change is outside of, or even approaching the boundries of natural variability. For that matter, can you provide any evidence that suggests that the margin of error in the data is not several times larger than the temperature change they are trying to measure?

Do you have anything at all other than your faith upon which to base your position?
 
I believe men contribute to it in a negative way, which speeds up the process.

You believe? That's good for you but I don't "believe". Do you have any hard, observable, repeatable evidence that provides unequivocal proof that the activities of man are responsible for the changing global climate. If you don't, then you have no basis for your belief and no reasonable claim that I should join you in your belief.
 
You are very good at asking questions in an effort to "trap" people in saying something that you can then ridicule.

This no longer works with me.

Why don't you answer some of your own questions. . .because, really that is what you will end up doing anyway. . .contradicting and belittleling anything I will say.

Have fun! ;)

He is asking rational questions that a reasonable person should be asking themselves before jumping on a bandwagon. Have you not asked yourself these questions? Upon what hard observable data do you base the position you hold that led you to hop aboard the bandwagon in the first place?

Or is it more likely that you hold your position based on little more than your political leanings?
 
It is truly amazing how many people and nearly all of them on the Left, believe in AGW. They have made it their faith, which is most ironic considering the fact that many lefties do not believe in a superior being.

The fact that most true believers in AGW are lefties, while many on the right do not believe, could prove AGW is political and not science. I for one KNOW AGW is politics and not science. Hell I admire Algore for getting rich off of a hoax.

It seems no matter of proof that AGW is a hoax will change the minds of warmers. Our favorite moderator for example (I affectionately refer to him as TCH1 in reverence for his considerable appetite for cannabis) who comes to this forum new every day, purposely refuses to accept facts about AGW, while accepting propaganda.
 
It is truly amazing how many people and nearly all of them on the Left, believe in AGW. They have made it their faith, which is most ironic considering the fact that many lefties do not believe in a superior being.

The fact that most true believers in AGW are lefties, while many on the right do not believe, could prove AGW is political and not science. I for one KNOW AGW is politics and not science. Hell I admire Algore for getting rich off of a hoax.

It seems no matter of proof that AGW is a hoax will change the minds of warmers. Our favorite moderator for example (I affectionately refer to him as TCH1 in reverence for his considerable appetite for cannabis) who comes to this forum new every day, purposely refuses to accept facts about AGW, while accepting propaganda.

It has been my experience that most lefties are "ends justify the means" types. The ends envisioned by those promoting the AGW hoax are attractive to the left since they involve tight controls over industry and a great deal of socialization. That being the case, they really don't care what means are used to get to the ends. They would support practically any nonsense that was presented to them so long as they could see that it represented a means to the end they so earnestly want.

You probably can't convince any on the hard left to change because they simply don't care whether the science is true or false. It is nothing more than a means to an end and when the AGW hoax finally collapses and goes down in flames, they will readily hop on board the next bandwagon that promises a means to their mythical end and never spend a second looking back at the failure of AGW to achieve their ultimate goal.
 
It has been my experience that most lefties are "ends justify the means" types. The ends envisioned by those promoting the AGW hoax are attractive to the left since they involve tight controls over industry and a great deal of socialization. That being the case, they really don't care what means are used to get to the ends. They would support practically any nonsense that was presented to them so long as they could see that it represented a means to the end they so earnestly want.

You probably can't convince any on the hard left to change because they simply don't care whether the science is true or false. It is nothing more than a means to an end and when the AGW hoax finally collapses and goes down in flames, they will readily hop on board the next bandwagon that promises a means to their mythical end and never spend a second looking back at the failure of AGW to achieve their ultimate goal.

Well said and I could not agree more.

They believe in AGW purely because it makes sense to them (it FEELS right) and they love the idea of government controlling everything.

However it is completely illogical to think placing tighter controls on industry will result in benefits to society based on unproven science. It is equally illogical to think granting greater power to the government will result in anything but inefficiency, corruption, and increased costs. Anyone paying attention to current events and possessing even an elementary understanding of history, knows this to be true.
 
Well said and I could not agree more.

They believe in AGW purely because it makes sense to them (it FEELS right) and they love the idea of government controlling everything.

However it is completely illogical to think placing tighter controls on industry will result in benefits to society based on unproven science. It is equally illogical to think granting greater power to the government will result in anything but inefficiency, corruption, and increased costs. Anyone paying attention to current events and possessing even an elementary understanding of history, knows this to be true.

Logic and depth of thinking aren't exactly the hallmarks of the left. They gravitate more towards what makes them "feel" good. There is a reason that the left are known as the kings of unintended consequences.
 
Further, the best team found that here in the US, the temperature monitoring system is the next thing to useless. Thousands upon thousands of monitoring stations have been taken offline and the bulk of those are in rural areas which has led to a warm bias due to heat islands in large metropolitan areas. In addition, at least 70% of the stations here are situated in such terrible places that they are generating data that is 2 to 5 degrees C in error. In short, the margin of error is several times larger than the amount of temperature change being predicted and that is here in the US. We are as of yet, unsure about the condition of data stations in the 3rd world or in europe.

The bottom line is that the best team found that the data indicate that the temperature is rising, but also found that the data is hardly worth the time and expense it took to collect it.

The state of present temperature measurements is akin to trying to find out how hot it is in the house by putting all your thermometers in the kitchen.

Any high school school kid could tell you that to be at all approximating good science the thermometers would need to be equally distributed around the area inside of the Earths atmosphere - some in the lower atmosphere, some in the upper atmosphere, some on land, some on sea, some in the land, some in the sea... This has never been done. We have absolutely no idea if the earth is getting warmer or colder or of the heat is just moving around.
 
The state of present temperature measurements is akin to trying to find out how hot it is in the house by putting all your thermometers in the kitchen.

Any high school school kid could tell you that to be at all approximating good science the thermometers would need to be equally distributed around the area inside of the Earths atmosphere - some in the lower atmosphere, some in the upper atmosphere, some on land, some on sea, some in the land, some in the sea... This has never been done. We have absolutely no idea if the earth is getting warmer or colder or of the heat is just moving around.


and because of this flawed stuff some would have us destroy our economy. even acknowledging that it would make no change given the status of the rest of the world.
 
Werbung:
You probably can't convince any on the hard left to change because they simply don't care whether the science is true or false. It is nothing more than a means to an end and when the AGW hoax finally collapses and goes down in flames, they will readily hop on board the next bandwagon that promises a means to their mythical end and never spend a second looking back at the failure of AGW to achieve their ultimate goal.

We need to find out what the next bandwagon will be for the Left and profit from it.

Nothing would make me happier than duping lefties and getting rich in the process.
 
Back
Top