Comments on: Kristof on PWG http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4389 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Harry Haymuss http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4389&cpage=1#comment-9686 Harry Haymuss Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:04:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4389#comment-9686 There are many viewpoints on climate change: three basic types are alarmists, deniers, and skeptics. If you are on the alarmist side (including their zombies) anyone not of your opinion is off in the same direction and if you're shortsighted you can't tell if they're skeptics or deniers. So, you call them skeptics because you have a vague feeling it encompasses more of them. Kristoff is typical of the press and to sell more papers (typical) falls into that category: "If you’re a skeptic about climate change, stop reading here." The truth is there are also deniers that anything except ghg's affect climate. Realists, on the other hand, understand that our models are way too weak to call their results data as the IPCC does. A realist is a true skeptic, thinking it might be bad or it might not be bad, we don't know yet. Once again the silver bullet in the heart of the argument that ghg's are the sole cause of "global warming" is here, the data (yes, "data") over two solar cycles: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257 There's no soot at the South Pole, but there are just as much ghg's: http://climatesci.org/2008/03/25/new-paper-elevates-the-role-of-black-carbon-in-global-warming/ This all just makes the point that we have a much better handle on what it takes to slow ghg emissions (massive) vs. what it takes to adapt (unknown). The one thing that's certain about climate change is that it's not accelerating. Heck, for the last ten years it hasn't even happened (if you realize the difference between warm and warming and reference the only unbiased source we have - satellites). So, rather than stifle the world's economy (which China and India aren't going for anyway) should we not put resources into finding out the reality of climate change instead of wasting effort cutting back on emissions? CO2 is, after all, the base of the food chain. There are many viewpoints on climate change: three basic types are alarmists, deniers, and skeptics. If you are on the alarmist side (including their zombies) anyone not of your opinion is off in the same direction and if you’re shortsighted you can’t tell if they’re skeptics or deniers. So, you call them skeptics because you have a vague feeling it encompasses more of them. Kristoff is typical of the press and to sell more papers (typical) falls into that category: “If you’re a skeptic about climate change, stop reading here.” The truth is there are also deniers that anything except ghg’s affect climate.

Realists, on the other hand, understand that our models are way too weak to call their results data as the IPCC does. A realist is a true skeptic, thinking it might be bad or it might not be bad, we don’t know yet. Once again the silver bullet in the heart of the argument that ghg’s are the sole cause of “global warming” is here, the data (yes, “data”) over two solar cycles:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257

There’s no soot at the South Pole, but there are just as much ghg’s:
http://climatesci.org/2008/03/25/new-paper-elevates-the-role-of-black-carbon-in-global-warming/

This all just makes the point that we have a much better handle on what it takes to slow ghg emissions (massive) vs. what it takes to adapt (unknown).

The one thing that’s certain about climate change is that it’s not accelerating. Heck, for the last ten years it hasn’t even happened (if you realize the difference between warm and warming and reference the only unbiased source we have – satellites).

So, rather than stifle the world’s economy (which China and India aren’t going for anyway) should we not put resources into finding out the reality of climate change instead of wasting effort cutting back on emissions? CO2 is, after all, the base of the food chain.

]]>