Did you read the second to last paragraph? Should we also be stocking up on gold, dry rations and ammo?
I'm skeptical. And so is this guy. One of the most eminent climate scientists joins climate sceptics Lennart Bengtsson: He Knows How Little We Know Gradually, the ice seems to be melting – if not at the polar caps, then at least in the climate debates: for the first time, a widely recognized expert has changed camps. Lennart Bengtsson, the Swedish climatologist, meteorologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has now joined the GWPF’s academic advisory council. Bengtsson’s arguments do not sound like the radicalism of old age. Rather, he exhorts his colleagues to be more prudent and empirical. For the uninitiated, this approach may be comforting, because the climate debate has long been a highly complex issue. Now, for the first time, an expert like Bengtsson admits that he and others like him fare little better: how the world’s climate will develop in coming years and decades remains pure speculation.—Hans Jörg Müller, Basler Zeitung, 7 May 2014 We urgently need to explore realistic ways to address the scientific, technical and economic challenges in solving the energy problems of the world and the associated environmental problems. I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for adaptation and change. In 25 years the world will have nine to ten billion people. This will require twice as much primary energy as today. We need to foster new science and technology. We need a more open approach, especially here in Europe, which includes the issues of nuclear energy and genetic engineering, in order to supply the growing world population with energy and food.—Lennart Bengtsson, Spiegel Online, 5 May 2014 My main conclusion from reading the U.S. National Climate Assessment Report is this:the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change. Any increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been observed.—Judith Curry, Climate Etc., 6 May 2014 Attempts to stem sea level rises by reducing CO2 levels in order to “combat” global warming are a complete waste of time says a new report by two of the world’s leading oceanographic scientists. Over the last 150 years, average global sea levels have risen by around 1.8 mm – a continuation of the melting of the ice sheets which began 17,000 years ago. Such modest rises, argue oceanographer Willem P de Lange and marine geologist Bob Carter in their report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, are far better dealt with by adaptation than by costly, ineffectual schemes to decarbonise the global economy. http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62923
Commodre, check your blind hate for government, acknowledge that a blind spot in your philosophy is the tragedy of the commons problem, and then relax and just listen to your lord god, Hayek: When even Hayek disagrees with you, you need to seriously reevaluate your opinion. So yes, in cases like climate change where price systems become ineffective, the solution is for more government control and restriction our use.
You're right, we should drill for more oil and let people and companies pollute as they wish. That's bound to work.
I'm just curious... When most of the scientific community, and by scientific community I don't mean lobbied out/funded researchers, is in consensus over the issue of climate change (The issue being that not all climate change is man made, but is being accelerated by man at alarming rates do to our fossil fuel emissions)... then why do most who speak out against it usually have energy producing interests in oil and natural gas, and why do these same people lack a hint of knowledge on the subject of climate change, but are so ready to DEBUNK it.
they'd rather get honest grant money, rather than bribed massively by the richest companies on Earth? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange http://www.livescience.com/26618-climate-change-denial-koch-donors-trust.html 'Charities' Funnel Millions to Climate-Change Denial Recognize your "makers" Texxx, without them, you'd still be arguing against government support, while your pet project shale gas fracking was devised by publicly-funded scientists with large amounts of public funding---so you'd probably have no pet project to argue over.
For decades we were told saturated fat causes heart disease, with billions in government funded studies and scientific institutions backing the claim, with near universal consensus.
1- nothing that involve any sign of government "control" can be good. So with that, global warming must be fake. 2- A particular God created this world and there is no way that human can destroy it on human terms. So with that, global warming by human is fake. 3- (maybe should be part of 2). Science is anti-(again a particular type of) Religion to some and cannot be trusted. So with that, global warming by the scientific community means jack. 4- big potential loser (fossil fuel $$$) of course want to survive. So with that, global warming must be discredited. 5- Sincere scientists have their own good reasons for doubts. So with that, global warming still have a few truly honest scientists that doubt it. Well, if AGW turns out to be all alarm and wrong, the global scientific community is nailed to the coffin there-after. So, I think they are very self-interested in killing off themselves by knowingly claiming this falsehood. For, there is nothing more important in the science field than spreading non-truth for their own interest in making more money as evidenced by six centuries of non-progress in knowledge and understanding this world a bit more by this group of hoaxer.
I love how people seem to imply public research is profligate and conclusive enough to warrant dick-slapping over zero links to peer-reviewed studies or at least a readable summary of such. At least link to something with some amount of scientific depth and rationale, so that those who are curious can look through where you are sourcing your facts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/10703970/No-link-found-between-saturated-fat-and-heart-disease.html You owe your ability to communicate these unsourced thoughts with everybody here to public researchers. it's about time you started worshipping the true makers.
Surely there are now some online Logic courses available. However, I'm guessing three percent of the Logicians out there are funded with fossil fuel money and the other 97 percent are very self interested, whatever that means.
Curses, you found me out. Without all those Antarctic wildfires every year, my job would be untenable. I can retire in three years. This means nothing for my job and I doubt I will do post-retirement consulting on glacial melt and sea level rise. I care about this stuff because of the crappy world my kids and grand kids will be living in. Of course, that means nothing to the Bircher me-firsters.
Interesting to note that both texxx, and commodore are adopting the role of the Catholic church in standing against the science of Copernicus and Galileo. It seems odd that people would willingly cast themselves in that role. I honestly don't understand.
It sucks that they are distracting from things. The real story here is that this story is just a headline grabber. Most studies do not project significant sea level increases over the next 50+ years. Further, our understanding of the polar sea caps is not anywhere as good as one might hope. We don't even know how big they are. Also, we don't really understand the dynamics of what a quick rise in sea levels would do to world wide climates. It is too bad there isn't more economic value given to the research of the polar ice caps.
Was it about Greenland warming? I was just trying to Google that episode and I ran across this. It's a lot less attention grabbing. edit...I caught the Vice debrief of that episode on youtube. This episode sounds absurdly dramatic and verges on terror-p*rn lol. The co-founder of Vice even says they will have an episode on rising sea levels and climate change every season. Seems like he has already made his mind up on a very dynamic and poorly understood subject. http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/in...-warming-in-the-arctic-scientists-say/1309748 Pacific Ocean hot spot causing warming in the Arctic, scientists say Posted 12 May 2014, 14:21 AEST Scientists discover hot spot in the Pacific Ocean is causing warming in the Arctic. Scientists say the area over Greenland is warming rapidly due, in part, to natural variations in the Pacific Ocean. (Credit: ABC) An international team of scientists has discovered a hot spot in the Pacific Ocean is partly responsible for global warming in the Arctic. The area, east of Papua New Guinea, is an unusually warm part of the ocean and is causing atmospheric changes, researchers say. Professor John Wallace from the University of Washington says the climate pattern is similar to that of El Nino. "What it's doing is producing a very large scale wave pattern in the atmosphere, with warming in some places and a little bit of cooling in other places," he told Pacific Beat. "But that region of warming happens to be sitting over northern Greenland and the Canadian archipelago, that's a region we're seeing a lot of effects from global warming anyway. "This pattern is exacerbating it, making the warming larger than it would otherwise be." The scientists say while carbon dioxide emissions are still the major cause of global warming, their discovery shows that natural climate variations can still play a significant role. "I think when we talk about climate change at a particular place on earth ... there are always confounding factors, it's not just a simple picture of the globe warming and the same warming taking place," Professor Wallace said. "Some places are warming faster than the earth as a whole, others are warming more slowly. "It is a complicated picture and this is just one example of it." Ailie Gallant from Monash University, part of the research team, said the findings shows the Pacific hot spot is affecting the Arctic significantly. "What we found was, in fact, about half of that observed warming over Greenland since 1979 can be attributed to natural variations actually stemming from the Pacific Ocean."
