Man, if you think trying to sell AGW is tough, think about how hard it will be to sell theories with statements like this, "the costs associated with climate change impacts are calculated through the “social cost of carbon” (SCC), which is a very difficult value to estimate. ", and ranges from 50% to 300%. And then getting people to agree that a tax that you would implement on those who produce carbon, would do anything to resolve things.
Well, that does not negate the pound foolish nature of what you say here, the longer that we take to do the right thing, the harder it will be to deal with this issue in the future, and the harder will be also for free enterprise to have a say on the matter.
As a commenter pointed out:
And the right thing is to tax someone? I mean rather than spend money on a solution vs. sending people abroad to fight useless wars? And these same people who make these decisions are going to make the right ones with all this extra tax money, well vs. spending the money on pork for their constituencies?
Like if the efforts to make industry replace CFCs to protect the ozone layer failed and cap and trade was not effective against acid rain, you are forgetting that in this case also we all are involved, even the people you are disparaging here. What is important is that they have the right information and that we do the eternal vigilance item, and that leads us to the other main point I’m making, we really have to make an effort to clean up the act of outfits like FOX and other sources that do broadcast the big lie to our leaders.
Meanwhile, back in the real world. Email 3896
That’s Kevin E. Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA National Center for Atmospheric Research.
A lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change (see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) and serves on the Scientific Steering Group for the Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) program.
And he wants somebody fired from NOAA because they don’t fully support “the cause”.
Four exclamation marks? That is just reprehensible.
Sure, and other wanted to kick the ass of a denier, well he did later, but he was referring to the metaphorical sense. What he needs here is more than just wishful thinking, as it has to be pointed out to deniers of time itself, time has showed that the scientists were trash talking there, as many do in personal emails.
In the real world what FX is doing is just setting a barrel with fish and he even provides the shotgun :), like if nothing had been investigated before and the context should be ignored.
What a maroon!
fn trsl wrjold climate ahhchae isn’t a wautiion fo poiticw as juch a wuwstio of seice. Te utrr thwdslkfj===== th e sceince gheehd t ragw agout tw prefessl D=Given the arjs f gu9oi8hgajd wswaj0eeed herRedthe reatiewwsssssssssssssssss
Uh, so every dozen years I have to pay a little extra to get my refrigeration unit on my car serviced rather than pay a buck more per gallon every time I fill up. Good comparison. And IIRC, they replaced freon with another fluid? What equivalent fluid should we pump into our cars rather than gasoline? LPG? Natural Gas. They seem to be all fossil fuels, actually.
Try electric,
The “eureka” moments by the gas guzzler drag racers is priceless after they get beaten and see what did beat them.
A before you jump to where one gets the energy you should know that I support nuclear power, but nevertheless solar and wind are becoming cheaper thanks to ongoing deployment and manufacturing.
Incidentally that is one of the best demonstrations that shows how silly is your ongoing idea that environmentalists are demanding a complete overhaul of our way of living, change does not mean the end of progress, but it seems that is important for you to make the change ridiculously impossible, it is not.
The possibility exists…and the probability cannot be reasonably assessed, but…the possibility of finding the very Holy Grail: cheap, green energy. Abundant energy that doesn’t kill us. Such that even a subsistance farmer could have a tenfold increase in available energy.
For a golden dawn of a new civilization, we don’t need a Jesus. We need a Tesla, or an Einstein. And we only need one.
Maybe that’s what it looks like to you. To me, it seems more like he wants somebody who does not understand the science on a basic level and is either incompetent or extremely biased fired because, well, it doesn’t matter what field it is: you don’t need people like that. Someone who fails to understand the importance of higher ocean temperatures on hurricanes, a well-understood phenomenon in climatology, and refuses to open his eyes, will probably be shunned by his peers the same way that someone like Michael Behe would be shunned from, say, Harvard’s biology department. Not because he doesn’t “believe”, but because he’s essentially shown himself to be incapable of doing his job.
And don’t get me wrong, I see how that could be fairly damning. But judging by the overall progress of the science (BEST study, NSA investigation, etc.), I just think that your view of the correct context of that comment is simply false. Again; are you trying to discredit global warming as a whole or just this group of researchers?
See? This is exactly why out of context, and not knowing the whole story leads to ignorance and jumping to conclusions. You obviously don’t know shit, but think you do, and based on your own blind ignorance you have concluded the matter.
If you read the open letter from Chris Landsea you will know a little more.
But still not enough to understand why the email is meaningful.
I also support nuclear. I’m not blind to other forms of energy, but it can take a long time to transition. I’d rather money be spent on employing scientists on finding new and better ways of generating energy than spent on accountants shuffling carbon credits around.
I don’t want our economies to tank any further than they are. When people say our only solution is to tax, I get worried.
I remember many years ago an announcement was made about cold fusion. My co-workers wondered why I was so excited about it. I told them that places like the Sahara Desert no longer had to be a desert. Turned out it was a bust, but I’d like to see that sort of game changer. Spend money on fusion rather then war and we might see it in our lifetime. Spend money of ways to tax people without offering them a legitimate alternative and we’ll get no where other than making people poor.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=632 (email 632)
Now the problem with something like that brief section is to understand what the hell it even means, you have to be pretty educated in a lot of history, and science, and politics, and what has been going on for the last decade in regards to proxies and temperature reconstructions.
Even then, you might not grasp what it means.
I’m sure the true believer won’t have a clue. Unless they can find a prerecorded message from the warmer religion, they may be at a loss to both comprehend, as well as dismiss.
Again, the fallacy of a leading question.
Hmm… I’m gonna have to give you this one. I looked for peer-reviewed articles on the subject and only found ones that supported this viewpoint.
It is confusing as to why they would do that. But still… Are you trying to discredit the researchers involved here or climatology’s take on global warming in general?
The true believer can’t see anything except what they want to see. It’s the real curse of running on faith and belief, rather than logic and reason.