Don’t cry, Luci. You guys have got the International Panel on Climate Change on your side, even if they have been caught cooking the stats and refusing to make their data available to critics.
There’s an interesting study on this question here. One thing it says is that the passenger average load factor in 2005 (last year of the study) was 75%. Since there are empty seats on average, whether there is a first class or not, and whether you fly first class or not, is immaterial.
Doesn’t really answer the core of your question, however, which is whether personal actions make a difference. In fact, even if the US and all of Western Europe could magically roll back their emissions to 1970’s levels, it would have only a trivial effect on total CO2 emissions. See my post here for why.
It is not at all certain that global warming is actually happening.
If it is, it has not been demonstrated that global warming will actually result in global catastrophe for the human race.
It is not certain that global warming, if it is happening, is the result of human economic activity.
It is not certain that we can reverse or stop the trend.
It is not certain that the tremendous cost of appreciably reducing carbon emissions will produce a benefit which will outweigh the catastrophic global economic disruption such measures will necessarily cause. The burden will necessarily fall much harder on the poor and the lower classes throughout the world. It will, however, deliver a great deal of power into the hands of anonymous bureaucrats. People like Al Gore will not suffer. People like me will. What I see is a group of people asking for an awful lot of power to prevent something which may not even be happening in the first place and may be beyond our ability to contain or control if it is.
There is an old joke about a man in Trafalgar Square spinning around like a top and waving his umbrella in the air on a perfectly sunny day. A bobby watches him for a few minutes, and then strolls over to him.
“What do you think you’re doing?” asks the bobby.
The man stops and gives the bobby a puzzled look as if the question made no sense. “I’m keeping the elephants away,” says the man.
“There aren’t any elephants in Trafalgar Square,” the bobby says.
“See? It works!” replies the man, and goes back to spinning and swinging his umbrella.
That’s global warming.
The vast majority of climate scientists believe the evidence is credible. That you are unconvinced is irrelevant.
Few are suggesting global catastrophe. However it doesn’t have to be a catastrophe for word economy to take a tremendous hit.
The vast majority of climate scientists believe the evidence is credible.
The Earth sequesters carbon, trapping it in rocks and dissolving it in the ocean. We are overcoming that sequestration by producing more carbon than the Earth can handle. If we reduce our output we will give the Earth time to remove the carbon from the atmosphere.
That is a fair question. However the current cap-and-trade proposals are hardly draconian.
Why do you place your ignorant and uninformed opinion against thousands of climate scientists from across the globe? Do you think they are in a conspiracy to steal money from you?
Lordy; this should not be that difficult. My question is not whether personal actions make a difference. That’s like asking if my actual individual vote makes a difference for the Presidency. It does not.
If I don’t fly first class on a given flight, it makes no difference. The plane will simply fly with someone else in the seat or fly the seat empty.
OTOH everyone doesn’t fly first class on any flights, there will be no first class and flying will become more efficient.
Do the AGW realists hold that flying first class is wrong? Does holding a position of AGW realism invalidate the appropriateness of any behaviour at all?
You misunderstand entirely. The Polecat is not saying that if we emit less, that atmospheric CO2 won’t rise more slowly. He is saying that we can’t stop or reverse the rise in CO2. Re-read his statement. Given the abysmal failure of Kyoto, there is evidence that he is correct. See my post for the huge difference that Kyoto has made in European emissions, and why Polecat is right about reversing or stopping the trend …
You seem to be stuck on the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist. I’m still waiting for your citation to anything I’ve said that indicates I am a conspiracy theorist as you have claimed. Put up or shut up, you’ve been called.
You misunderstand how science works. The reality is that the majority of scientists have been wrong, wrong, wrong many times in the past. That is the nature of science, something is believed by “thousands of scientists” until it is shown to be wrong. No conspiracy theory needed, it’s just science at work. We’re not claiming that your un-named “thousands of scientists” are conspiring … just that they are wrong.
Widespread “scientific” backing for an idea is particularly prevalent when science and politics get mixed together, as they have in climate science. Google “eugenics” for an example.
The efficiency of flying depends on how many seats are filled. Given that passenger average loading is only 75%, in general the limiting factor is not first class vs. no first class. Without first class, they will still average right around 75% full.
However, I find it interesting that you have so much trouble getting your questions answered.
Well certainly if we haven’t done it, it must be impossible. :rolleyes:
Haven’t we already danced this dance?
Of course. However we have huge amounts of data supporting AGW and a few nits and statistical anomalies against. The vast majority of working climate scientists find the evidence compelling and a very few on the fringe are unconvinced. Oddly, an awful lot of the unconvinced are ideological, working for carbon producing industries, or completely unqualified in the field.
Eugenics is an engineering project, how is that at all like climate science?
You need a big fat cite for that.
It is my educated guess that when an organization like the Meteorological society gives an a ward to Jensen it means that most meteorologists do dismiss your points.
I fly a little over a hundred segments a year. I must be choosing the wrong flights b/c mine are typically pretty close to full; I think AA runs a load factor of a little over 80%. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2009_Nov_5/ai_n42026748/ But in any case, I’m looking for the principle of the thing: where I have a choice to do something which increases the CO2 cost to the environment and adds no benefit to me other than my personal creature comfort, do AGW realists hold that to be wrong? Perhaps I can refine the OP question by positing a full flight. If the only counter arguments are via wiggle room based on fine points about the example rather than the underlying principle, I am suspicious that there is no actual principle derived from AGW realism which should result in behavioural changes.
if you want a more egregious example: Is it wrong for me to get my own personal Gulfstream 5 to get around in?
I started to look at your list. The first person on it is Dr. Philip Lloyd. He was a not just an author, but a coordinating lead author, for the UN IPCC section on carbon capture. He has written 189 peer reviewed articles including “Coal Mining and the Environment”, “Energy for the poor? The Clean Development Mechanism”, “The greening of world trade issues”, “Environmental protection in South Africa”, “Particulate Monitoring”. He is a co-author of the IPCC book “IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage”.
But your citation throws him out the window, because he’s not a “climate scientist” … someone should notify the IPCC.
So let’s move on to Dr. William Gray. Dr. Gray is perhaps the best known hurricane specialist on the planet. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences. He is author or co-author of Global climate change and tropical cyclones, - Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Downward trends in the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes during the past five years, - Geophysical Research Letters, Strong association between West African rainfall and US landfall of intense hurricanes - Science Magazine, and a host of others. A quick search finds 33 other papers.
But your reference says that Dr. Gray is not a climate scientist … say what? Bill Gray is one of the pre-eminent climate scientists on the planet, he has published a host of papers on the topic, but … oh, yeah, he’s not wild about CO2 being the global thermostat, so your citation says he’s out.
Moving on to Henk Tennekes. Wikipedia says "Hendrik (Henk) Tennekes (born December 13, 1936, Kampen) was the director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut, or KNMI), and was a Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at Pennsylvania State University.[1] He is known for his work in the fields of turbulence and multi-modal forecasting. He authored the textbooks The Simple Science of Flight and A First Course in Turbulence with John L. Lumley.[2] The book “A First Course in Turbulence”, is a classic that logs more than 2,000 citations on Google Scholar.[3]
Tennekes was a strong proponent of scientific modeling, and he challenged the use of incomplete or unproven scientific models trying to explain complex phenomena such as global warming.[4]
So he is an expert in atmospheric turbulence, and has written peer reviewed articles and books on atmospheric turbulence and how it applies to climate models … but he’s not a climate scientist either, according to your bogus list.
Moving on, we come to Dr. William Cotton. Wikipedia says:
Your citation says that they decide whether someone is a climate scientist based on, among other things, a search on Google Scholar. Here’s just the first few results for Dr. Cotton …
[BOOK] Storm and cloud dynamics, [PDF] ►New primary ice-nucleation parameterizations in an explicit cloud model, MP Meyers, PJ DeMott, WR Cotton - Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1992 - [PDF] C Chen, WR Cotton - Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 1983 - Springer
The formulation and testing of the turbulence model and the sensitivity
experiments with the model using Wangara Day, [BOOK] Human impacts on weather and climate, The physics of the marine stratocumulus-capped mixed layer - Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 1987, A numerical investigation of several factors contributing to the observed variable intensity … GJ Tripoli, WR Cotton - Journal of Applied Meteorology
So I call bullshit on your list. Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are a couple of the most eminent climate scientists in the country. Under what possible rubric are they not climate scientists? The idea that your citation somehow “soundly discredits” the list of over 700 scientists is a joke. Defend your citation as being valid, or give it up. If you think it is correct to say that Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are not climate scientists, let us know why.
Nope. I asked for a citation where I claimed there was a conspiracy. AFAIK, you haven’t provided one, so I’m still waiting. If you have provided one, please point it out.
A fat cite for what? I still don’t have an answer about what the Meteorologists are missing. And who is “Jensen”? Your citation we were discussing is by somebody named Coby Beck. What am I missing here?
Again, other than your nasty fantasies about the motives of people who don’t believe as you do, that’s the nature of science. Until Einstein came along there were “huge amounts of data supporting [Newtonian physics] and a few nits and statistical anomalies against.” Until Wegener came along, there were “huge amounts of data supporting [stable continents] and a few nits and statistical anomalies against.” You really don’t understand science at all, do you? Science progresses by overthrowing the consensus.
Let me make it painfully clear for you, since you seem to be having trouble connecting the dots. Eugenics is an example of what happens “when science and politics get mixed together”. Clear now?
And you are not advocating science. You are nitpicking minor statistical anomalies and distorting other people’s work. You are not a scientist and very, very few actual peer-reviewed scientists produce work that goes against the orthodoxy. If you wanna prove your case, do some science, not whiny complaints and letters to the editor.
Eugenics has nothing to do with climate change. Do you understand how to form analogies?
You are citing Inhofe’s work as evidence. Inhofe thinks there is a conspiracy. Also, are you suggesting that the vast majority of climate scientists on Earth, are wrong, and you, and a minuscule handful of fringes who can’t manage to get anything published on the topic are correct?
Are the vast majority of climate scientists misleading people or are you just a better climate scientist than the majority of climate scientists on Earth?
I’m wiling to stipulate that there may be a climate scientist or two on the list. I asked you to provide me a list of the seven hundred and tell me who is an actual climate scientist on it. The vast majority of them appear not to be. You’re the one providing the list of random personages that has people misquoted and outright lies in it. So get your list in order and post exactly how many people you are suggesting of the 700 are real climate scientists.
Nice way to ignore the misrepresentations on the list, but even the researchers mentioned that are close to the subject at hand continue to show how wrong they are.
AFAIK, Henk Tennekes is retired, whats more he retired back in 1995 long before there was much public debate or even interest in GW and it makes suspect the Richard Lindzen affirmation in 2006 that Tennekes was dismissed from his position for opposing AGW.
William R. Cotton is indeed a Meteorologist, but the Wikipedia site does say that “He has indicated **some **skepticism of anthropogenic global warming” So until I see another citation for him I will put him on the “doubtful to be a good representative of the deniers” column.
William Gray has a number of theories that I don’t agree with one bit … but he also has the world’s best record at predicting hurricanes. Go figure, he must be getting something right. You sound like the guys that came to Abraham Lincoln to complain about General Grant’s drinking. Lincoln replied to them “If it [drink] makes fighting men like Grant, then find out what he drinks, and send my other commanders a case!” Whatever Gray’s theories are, they are borne out by his results, and that’s more than you can say for the models’ records of forecasting hurricanes.
Next, here’s the quote from Tennekes in the list of 700:
Yes, Tennekes is retired … but that doesn’t mean his brain fell out. So do you disagree or agree with that, and if so, what do you disagree with and why? Do you truly think that the vastly complex climate system is ruled by CO2, and we can dial the temperature up and down?
Since you agree that Cotton is a Meteorologist even though Lobohan’s citation says he is not a climate scientist, here’s the statements from him:
Gosh, that sounds a whole lot like what I have said over and over on SDMB. Now, do you disagree with that, and if so what and why? And why is Dr. Cotton not a climate scientist? That’s crazy.
Finally, what about those people identified in Lobohan’s citation as actually being climate scientists? Since you diss most people on the list because they are not identified in Lobohan’s citation as being climate scientists, should we put more weight on what the ones that are listed in his citation as “climate scientists” have to say?
Oh, I see. So if I quote the work of a scientist who thinks that there is a God with a white beard looking over us, that means that I’m a religious man?
Please learn to distinguish between “the work of” and “the beliefs of”. Agreeing with one doesn’t mean you agree with the other. It’s subtle, I know, but with practice it will come to you.
First, you say:
Cite? I don’t recall you asking anything of the sort. You already had a list of the seven hundred, why would I need to “provide [you] a list of the seven hundred”.
Lobohan, you provided the citation that you said “soundly discredited” the list of 700. That citation, that you provided, claims that Dr. Cotton and Dr. Gray are not climate scientists. Are you now withdrawing that citation?
If not, please explain why you agree with the citation you provided as regards Dr. Gray and Dr. Cotton not being climate scientists. Surely if you believe your list “soundly discredits” the list of 700 because it shows than many are not climate scientists, you should be able to explain it.
So is your citation any good? Will you stand behind it and let us know why it is valid and true, why you believe it “soundly discredits” anything at all, or will you withdraw it?
Your choice …
:rolleyes:
When people like Tennekes resort to lies I don’t care what he was, he is no longer a valid source.
In any case, he is not disagreeing with the IPCC.