Wez
DA
I don't care what you or he thinks he knows, he's a Coal industry lobbyist. I doubt his opinions add meaningfully to a discussion about the Science as it relates to AGW.
Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
I don't care what you or he thinks he knows, he's a Coal industry lobbyist. I doubt his opinions add meaningfully to a discussion about the Science as it relates to AGW.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
I have entertained your thoughts and rejected them
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
I also will be wearing clothes, living in a house, eating food brought to us by, etc. etc. Yes, BIZ, we live in a world built on fossil fuels, so what?
You can be a proponent of good science and be open to common sense policies designed to recognize and reduce AGW while still having contact with fossil fuels.
Stop trying to play delusional gotcha for a moment and add to the discussion.
The problem isn't that we still use fossil fuels, the problem is we are still arguing over the possibility that AGW is actually possible.
You can be a proponent of good science and be open to common sense policies designed to recognize and reduce AGW while still having contact with fossil fuels.
Stop trying to play delusional gotcha for a moment and add to the discussion.
The problem isn't that we still use fossil fuels, the problem is we are still arguing over the possibility that AGW is actually possible.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
Once again we take a trip down the rabbit hole...
Bruddah IZ
DA
It's Ehrlich, and the plural of alarmist is alarmists.
Luckily for us, Ehrlich made his predictions soon enough that those who were paying attention were able to make technological and policy changes that so far have avoided the direst of his predictions.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I think I'll keep you on as my editor unless Espoola can do a better job?
Politicians paid Ehrlich's predictions lip service while subsidising the fossil fuel industry.
Life expectancy is up, Child mortality down. We are also having less children while baby boomers are starting to die off.
Ehrlich and Malthus had good intentions I think? Perhaps they didn't have enough information.
Last edited:
What was Ehrlich's connection to the fossil fuel industry (I assume you meant "industry")?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Don't know.
What the hell is this guy saying?
Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records
Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Sounds like echos of the rulers of Hatussa shaking their fists at the advancing Hittites. "Without bronze you'd never have gotten to iron".
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Maybe he's also got an axe to grind since his "Evolution of Everything" book (harkening back to FA's social selection ideas interestingly enough) largely got panned. I think the real lesson is never get between a Viscount and his ancestral flow. "I've popularized your damn science, and I can just as easily bring it to its knees"!
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
In terms of something that tries to be a real summary of the scientific literature bolstering the skeptics viewpoints, one could try this
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/10-17-2013_ccr-ii_entire_book.pdf
If you go here
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
you can find more chapters. Its the so called nongovernmental international panel on climate change, a group with some level of research credentials brought together by our good friends at the Heartland Institute. It is obviously set up as an alternative document that mirrors the structure of the AR reports from the IPCC, but it does seem to try to walk the walk and talk the talk. To compare and contrast, the entire AR5 document can be found here
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
Check out the extent and dates of the literature cited at the end of the chapters, for example. But its probably less superficial than Warren or Ridley.
https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/10-17-2013_ccr-ii_entire_book.pdf
If you go here
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
you can find more chapters. Its the so called nongovernmental international panel on climate change, a group with some level of research credentials brought together by our good friends at the Heartland Institute. It is obviously set up as an alternative document that mirrors the structure of the AR reports from the IPCC, but it does seem to try to walk the walk and talk the talk. To compare and contrast, the entire AR5 document can be found here
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
Check out the extent and dates of the literature cited at the end of the chapters, for example. But its probably less superficial than Warren or Ridley.
EvilGoalie 21
GOLD
Here's tonight's existential question. A climate change researcher gets on a plane in New York, flies to Reagan airport, and takes the blue line to a symposium on climate change at George Washington University. A political economist gets on a plane in San Francisco, flies into Reagan airport, and takes the yellow line to the Cato Institute for a symposium on the power of free markets to transform American infrastructure. Who's the bigger hypocrite?
This is a presentation at a meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, a group originally founded to advocate for public fallout shelters in the early days of the Cold War. Somewhere along the way they lost both their original membership (Doctors) and their purpose (Disaster Preparedness), evolving into a fringe science group. To illustrate how far into the wackosphere they have placed themselves, they give an annual award named for Petr Beckman, who was an otherwise competent scientist best known as a denier of the Theory of Relativity.
Wez
DA
Using our world's existing fossil fuel infrastructure doesn't make an AGW researcher a hypocrite.
Silly me.
I thought he was evaluating the integrity of official climate records.
What kind of moron wouldnt trust the government?
Obviously deniers and whackos.