Why do we battle climate change

Makes sense to me.

 

That would be a skewed model to look at. For example. when I was a kid in the late 60's early 70's you had about 3.5 billion people in the world and now you have over 7 billion. We have doubled the worlds population in just under 50 years and it continues to grow.

My theory is Humans will one day go the way of the dinosaurs if we don't get a cap on the population as we have become more of a virus of the planet than a steward. We consume all natural resources until they are exhausted and one day (if things continue as they are) we will eventually be in an irreversible situation and mother nature will fight back with devastating consequences.

 

Your almost there. All of Florida's water comes from the aquifers. Water in the glades sinks through the soil and fills these under ground caverns. I have spent a lot of years air boating in south Florida and I can tell you from experience that most of the damage comes from the government redirecting the water flow for pineapple growers into south Florida.

Most of my air boating is in Gardeners Marsh which extends from Lake Cypress through Lake Hatchineha to Lake Kissimmee. Most of the big Gators are gone compared to 25 years ago and the wild life down there is a lot more scarce. Snakes are even harder to find and the wild hogs are almost impossible to find.

 

Actually, I was raised in that time as a kid. We got around on horses, lived outside a lot of the time, and raised our own beef. I am not saying let shut down everything live electricity or indoor plumbing or air transportation but there will come a day when we will be forced to make a decision on fossil fuels.

I wouldn't mind going back to a time of using horses a wagons. It was actually one of the best times of my life. Kind of made you feel independent and able to sustain yourself without the outside world. Ahhhh But I am just reminiscing.

 

No problem. Happy to point out the error. Next time do not deliberately misquote and pretend otherwise. It won't help your case.

There's a lot of debate in environmental economics, from the Georgists to those reintroducing Malthusian analysis into resource conflict. That debate should be embraced, rather than trying to simplify it all down to a bogus right wing narrative constructed around a fake sense of righteousness.

 

Maybe because we know that sticking our heads even further up our asses in denial won't stop the consequences.
And we're not 'battling climate change'- we're not the victims here, we are the culprits.

 

I think you nailed down the primary issue in the climate change debate. An actual scientist can measure temperatures, and document trends. Conceivably, (but improbably IMHO) thousands of scientists around the world and over decades can say the planet has warmed 0.1° C (or whatever number you wish to quote) since 1950. Can these same scientists then form engineering solutions for this "problem" in such a way as to reduce hunger, poverty, and improve the economy? If you are really a climatologist WTF are you doing dabbling in economics? Would you trust an economist to advise you on your liver transplant?

 

Consumerism will kill the planet.I blame it on hypocritical liberals.They don"t give a damn about climate change.Making Brazil, China and India consumerists countries have done more damage to climate and ecology than all western countries combined.Liberals encourage mindless consumerism just for the sake of it.

 

You're kidding, right? Here's one of your volunteers. He famously organized a Klan of 20 to attack with RICO actions anyone who disagrees with their dogma and threatens their fortunes.
,,,
in addition to his university salary from George Mason University (reported by Pielke as $250,000), Jagadish Shukla, the leader of the #RICO20, together with his wife, had received a further $500,000 more in 2014 alone from federal climate grants funnelled through a Shukla-controlled “non-profit” (Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc.), yielding total income in 2014 of approximately $750,000.

Actually, the numbers are even worse than Pielke thought.

• Pielke had quoted Shukla’s 2013 university salary, but his university salary had increased more than 25% between 2013 and 2014: from $250,816 in 2013 to $314,000 in 2014.
• In addition, the “non-profit” organization had also employed one of Shukla’s children (not reported, but say $90,000); and,
• IGES transferred $100,000 from its climate grants to a second corporation controlled by the Shukla family (the Institute for Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity, Inc.), which in turn transferred $100,000 to an educational charity in Shukla’s home town in India, doubtless a worthy charity, but one that Shukla could have supported from his own already generous stipend.

Over a million dollars in total in 2014 alone.


In addition, Shukla’s long-time associate, James Kinter, participated in the same double dip, though on a less grandiose scale. Kinter, also a Professor at George Mason, doubled his 2014 university salary of $180,038 with $171,320 from IGES, for a total 2014 income of $351,358.
https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/

 

Chris Landsea was a prominent cyclone expert who provided the benefit of research to the IPCC as input to their periodic reports. This is the memo he wrote when the IPCC included in AR4 statements that were not supported by the research performed by Dr. Landsea and his colleagues.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press
conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting
hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that
press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor
were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current
research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable,
long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones,
either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and
2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the
hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent
credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon
hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of
Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and
rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even
this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of
the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate,
2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global
warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible
for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside
of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very
difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the
assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify
themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements
far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish
our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how
he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr.
Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current
understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed
when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the
misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the
IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking
as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an
IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or
misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference
and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and
that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even
though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection
between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw
nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to
the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must
undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in
their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested.
Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress
in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific
discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a
scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead
Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and
general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was
caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written
in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes
problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed
hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as
the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements,
the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our
climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost.
While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I
suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and
entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of
view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much
care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than
passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views
on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the
Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several
presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though
worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the
scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.
Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I
have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

17 January 2005

 

You are under the bizarre impression that a volunteer for an organization never gets paid for any other work. This is not the case. That isn't how volunteering works. To volunteer does not mean that you relinquish all income from other sources. I volunteer all of the time. I still get a paycheck from my day job.

 

So, what you are peddling today is the notion that grants flowing due to the stature researchers gain by volunteering to give credibility a bunch of global fraudsters can rightfully be separated into two distinct lines of business. People like you give Climate Science a bad name. Chris Landsea is one of the few with too much character to allow a fraudulent enterprise like the IPCC use his good name to misrepresent the science.

 

The social green movement focuses very much on overconsumption analysis. Right wingers seem to have forgotten to get involved in it...

 

The IPCC is volunteer run and it doesn't do any original research. If physics denialists want to play ball, they at least need to do a modicum of homework.

 

Yeah, let's blame developing countries for starting to do what the first world has been doing for generations. That's fair.
The US was the worlds leading producer of CO2 for decades but now they don't make sh*t anymore and China takes the lead suddenly it's all China's fault.
Derp...

 

I would assume it was part of the study they were hired to produce. The production and use of energy impacts all facets of our society. Besides climate scientists I would assume they were sociologists, and public health scientists tied in to the study.

 

The worst thing that can happen is we clean our air and water. I want to breath clean air and drink clean water.

I'll gladly spend my tax dollars to keep my environment clean. Corporations are trying to poison us.

I don't drink tap water anymore. At least 5 years. That **** is sad

 

I clearly blamed liberal hypocricy and consumerism.The immediate concern should be the pollution of rivers and seas.People are just talking and looking for ways to make more money for themselves out of ecological disasters.Seas and rivers are flooded with plastics,sea creatures are dying out etc....

 

That actually has almost nothing to do with climate change and every to do with and increased number of homes and bigger more expensive homes in flood zones, Tornado alley, and in places frequented by hurricanes. Remember that average price of a home was around 12 grand in 1950 now it is about 20 times that.

 

Trouble is most of it is mutually exclusive.

 

Oil.

 

So, when Michael Mann writes a dissertation in his geology major that contradicts the recorded history of the Vikings ,,, when his temperature reconstructions contradict the temperature reconstructions created by Briffa, a seasoned expert ,,, when the solution was to hide the decline in Briffa's reconstructions to sell the story that the science was settled ,,, when inaccurate ship inlet manifold temperatures were included with highly accurate buoy air temperatures to kill the hiatus in advance of the Paris meeting ,,, when the relationship between the frequency and intensity of cyclones is misrepresented to stoke fear in the unwitting ,,, when a hoax is clearly being played to deceive policymakers ,,, we are supposed to be silent and accept the documented deception as science.

 

Dude that 30 percent sounds huge until you realize it is an increase of one part per ten thousand and that Ice ages have begun with CO2 levels a hundred times higher than current.

 

Well fiWhat?