Global warming skeptic now says global warming is real and is a chief concern

[Moonbeam]

O RLY? Which part of the physics of the greenhouse effect is pseudoscience?

The important point, in my opinion, is that he sees this as a matter of personal enrichment which, I should think, would tell you what motivates him.

It's like nobody on the whole planet ever does anything for any good reasons. It's always some kind of partisanship or greed. But if people hate themselves, as is obvious if you look at oneself, one will see that self hate requires we have some opinion or another of others or we'd just be nobodies who don't know things and somebody would surely make fun of us. Shit, you can't have that. You would die.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think there is a good chance that global warming or climate change (Which has always been happening) may be caused primarily by external or non-man-made forces that we can not even control. There have been global cooling events in the past and this may just be part of a larger cycle that mankind could not change if they wanted to.

Nothing wrong with trying to pollute less and protecting the environment. We should always be doing that. China has just about polluted all of their water supply at this point. That is just asking for trouble. I would not be surprised if pollution from China is causing fish kills in the south china seas and the areas surrounding china.

No, it is natural causes that are killing the fish. The pollution from China is warming the air. God!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

O RLY? Which part of the physics of the greenhouse effect is pseudoscience?

See the climate models as they are a direct reflection of our current scientific understanding of the subject. Let's just say that they're less than robust. Then get back to me and preach physics of the greenhouse effect...as if this somehow explains it all.

It's all so simple for you isn't it?

 

[Throckmorton]

I think there is a good chance that global warming or climate change (Which has always been happening) may be caused primarily by external or non-man-made forces that we can not even control. There have been global cooling events in the past and this may just be part of a larger cycle that mankind could not change if they wanted to.

Nothing wrong with trying to pollute less and protecting the environment. We should always be doing that. China has just about polluted all of their water supply at this point. That is just asking for trouble. I would not be surprised if pollution from China is causing fish kills in the south china seas and the areas surrounding china.

This has been discussed time and time again on this forum. The 40% increase in CO2 over the last century is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Not volcanoes, not aliens, not Jesus.

 

[Throckmorton]

See the climate models as they are a direct reflection of our current scientific understanding of the subject. Let's just say that they're less than robust. Then get back to me and preach physics of the greenhouse effect...as if this somehow explains it all.

It's all so simple for you isn't it?

Here's the physical model that explains the warming over the last century:
40% increase in CO2 ----> greater heat retention ----> global warming

Sophisticated models are for predicting future conditions. They aren't necessary to understand basic cause and effect. I can tell you that putting on a jacket will make you warmer, and you accept that statement as reality, without any need for models predicting exactly how much your body temperature will rise or how much your metabolism will decrease to compensate.

If you can come up with something better, please post it. Keep in mind, the sun hasn't gotten brighter, the earth hasn't moved closer to the sun, and aliens aren't heating us up with rayguns.

 

[desy]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Not as wack a doodle as you think. . .

Another skeptic bites the dust
key here is 'worlds most high-profile skeptic' meaning the ostrich crowd lost another touchstone every time they try to discredit AGW in the media

I'll add however man is too shortsighted to change the climate anyway and our efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption and changing our economy to renewables should be the priority with hopefully the collaborative result in less pollution ergo easing of climate change

 

[GuitarDaddy]

That dude looks like Chef Ramsey on happy pills

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's the physical model that explains the warming over the last century:
40% increase in CO2 ----> greater heat retention ----> global warming

Sophisticated models are for predicting future conditions. They aren't necessary to understand basic cause and effect. I can tell you that putting on a jacket will make you warmer, and you accept that statement as reality, without any need for models predicting exactly how much your body temperature will rise or how much your metabolism will decrease to compensate.

If you can come up with something better, please post it. Keep in mind, the sun hasn't gotten brighter, the earth hasn't moved closer to the sun, and aliens aren't heating us up with rayguns.

Did you even spend one second looking at the climate models and the issues with them?

 

[monovillage]

From the nutcase that's at the Discovery channel building.

"6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/discovery-channel-hostage-taker-demands-2010-9#ixzz0yJGCXyW7

I'm not saying that every catastrophic global warming advocate is this big of a nutcase.

 

[yllus]

I've been reading pieces from Mr. Lomborg for years and this isn't really an about-face for him. He's been of the belief that climate change is occurring from the very beginning, he's just disagreed with some proof that's been offered, and with the policy floated to address the issue.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
Not as wack a doodle as you think. . .

Another skeptic bites the dust
key here is 'worlds most high-profile skeptic' meaning the ostrich crowd lost another touchstone every time they try to discredit AGW in the media

I'll add however man is too shortsighted to change the climate anyway and our efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption and changing our economy to renewables should be the priority with hopefully the collaborative result in less pollution ergo easing of climate change

Sadly, we put all our money in Iraqi oil.

 

[sandorski]

This. Anyone who thinks you can alter the surface temperature of an entire planet for $100bn is so deluded there's no point in even arguing with them. (Well, maybe $100 billion worth of nukes). If we spent $2-300bn could we start another ice age if we want? It's just preposterous.

I'd like to hear a reasonable estimate for replacing the entire power generation infrastructure of China and India (let alone our own country) with "renewable" sources. It would certainly be in the trillions I'm sure.

And that's assuming man-made CO2 is even a major cause of the slight warming we've seen so far, which I'm not convinced of. But we should all just cross our fingers, print more money, and hope it works.

I'd bet we could. Just need to throw enough sun blocking particulates into the upper atmosphere.

 

[Throckmorton]

Did you even spend one second looking at the climate models and the issues with them?

Did you spend one second reading my post? Shut up about the god damn climate models and apply some common sense.

If you're so obsessed with models, ready desy's link.

 

[monovillage]

Did you spend one second reading my post? Shut up about the god damn climate models and apply some common sense.

If you're so obsessed with models, ready desy's link.

If they were used as they should be then it wouldn't be a problem, but the warming alarmists like James Hansen (head enviro-wacko of NASA Goddard) used them in testimony for Congress in 1988. Don't blame us skeptics because the way the alarmists have used Climate Models or how inaccurate they are.

 

[TheDoc9]

From the nutcase that's at the Discovery channel building.

"6. Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/discovery-channel-hostage-taker-demands-2010-9#ixzz0yJGCXyW7

I'm not saying that every catastrophic global warming advocate is this big of a nutcase.

I don't know, my friends who are are the most pro-global warming sound eerily similar sometimes.

 

[glenn1]

I wonder if others will flip as well.

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/a...nialist-bjorn-lomborg-changes-course/19614449

To me, the fair U.S. share of $100B is about $25B. Our non-military foreign aid is about that ($23.5B in 2008, surely at or exceeding $25B now) so if we cut that to zero we're even. If we're a little short then we can eliminate the spending on fighting AIDS in Africa to make up the difference. Or, since money is fungible we can just consider it a donation-in-kind that frees up other money for the cause of anti-global warming.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Did you spend one second reading my post? Shut up about the god damn climate models and apply some common sense.

If you're so obsessed with models, ready desy's link.

Your willful ignorance astounds me.

 

[IGBT]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio..._the_climate_consensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ


The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...onsensus_G0kWdclUvwhVr6DYH6A4uJ#ixzz0yO3KIQUf

 

[desy]

Since most of this NYpost articile is based on glaciers
Lets look at glaciers

Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier is complicated and not due to just global warming. However, this does not mean the Earth is not warming. There is ample evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence.
Indeed deforestation seems to be causing Mount Kilimanjaro's shrinking glacier *so Gore got this wrong* But Philip Mote, author of the study in Nature, puts it in perspective: "The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing.htm

Lets look at the author of this article hmm Capital Research Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center
Right wing think tank once in bed with tobacco companies, now who is conspiring?

 

[Genx87]

My sarcasm meter is undecided...

It should be pegged

 

[piasabird]

How come when you increase CO2 plants grow faster?

 

[AnitaPeterson]

This. Anyone who thinks you can alter the surface temperature of an entire planet for $100bn is so deluded there's no point in even arguing with them. (Well, maybe $100 billion worth of nukes). If we spent $2-300bn could we start another ice age if we want? It's just preposterous.

I'd like to hear a reasonable estimate for replacing the entire power generation infrastructure of China and India (let alone our own country) with "renewable" sources. It would certainly be in the trillions I'm sure.

And that's assuming man-made CO2 is even a major cause of the slight warming we've seen so far, which I'm not convinced of. But we should all just cross our fingers, print more money, and hope it works.

Are you a tool?

Reading comprehension FAIL!
""Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes."

FYI, that basically means 100 billion x 90 years.

How much is the U.S defence budget every year?

 

[OCGuy]

OK, I am a believer now. Where do I sent the check?

 

[Throckmorton]

Your willful ignorance astounds me.

YOUR willful ignorance astounds ME. You refuse to even understand the concept of a model, much less why models are irrelevant to understanding the basic causality of more greenhouse gas -> higher temperature.

 

[Throckmorton]

How come when you increase CO2 plants grow faster?

Because CO2 is a limiting factor for some plants. What does that have to do with anything?