Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species?

[GIGObuster]

@Farin

Where any of this graph’s models used in the IPCC projections? How did the IPCC use those ones that were included? What series did they use on the same models?

I think you are not doing step one, as we should check first if what he is doing with his and the models of others the proper thing.

Roy Spencer

Roy Spencer is one of the few climate contrarians with real credentials. That doesn’t stop him from propagating some real whoppers, however. Here I’ve collected links to critiques of Roy’s work. I’m starting with the posts I’ve made on my blog, including my 3-part review of his new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists.

Christy and Spencer’s Satellite Temperature Record Mistake

1. Andy Revkin writes about the episode in the New York Times.

Dr. Spencer Goes to Salt Lake City

1. Politicizing Science. Roy Spencer testified before a committee of the Utah House of Representatives. Read all about what he said, and the response of local scientists and politicians.

The Great Global Warming Blunder

1. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1. In his latest book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Roy Spencer lashes out at the rest of the climate science community for either ignoring or suppressing publication of his research. This research, he claims, virtually proves that the climate models used by the IPCC respond much too sensitively to external “forcing” due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, variations in solar radiation, and so on. Instead, Spencer believes most climate change is caused by chaotic, natural variations in cloud cover. He and a colleague published a peer-reviewed paper in which they used a simple climate model to show that these chaotic variations could cause patterns in satellite data that would lead climatologists to believe the climate is significantly more sensitive to external forcing than it really is. Spencer admits, however, that his results may only apply to very short timescales. Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.

2. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2. Roy Spencer repeatedly claims that most of the rest of the climate science community deliberately ignores natural sources of climate variation, but then contradicts himself by launching an inept attack on the standard explanation for climate change during the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last million years (i.e., they are initiated by Milankovitch cycles). The problems Spencer identifies are either red herrings or have been resolved, however, and he proposes no other explanation to take the place of the standard one. In fact, climate scientists have used paleoclimate data such as that for the ice ages to show that climate sensitivity is likely to be close to the range the IPCC favors. Therefore, it appears Roy Spencer is the one who wants to sweep established sources of natural climate variation under the rug.

3. Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3. Roy Spencer posits that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is linked to chaotic variations in global cloud cover over multi-decadal timescales, and thus has been the major driver of climate change over the 20th century. To test this hypothesis, he fit the output of a simple climate model, driven by the PDO, to temperature anomaly data for the 20th century. He found he could obtain a reasonable fit, but to do so he had to use five (he says four) adjustable parameters. The values he obtained for these parameters fit well with his overall hypothesis, but in fact, other values that are both more physically plausible and go against his hypothesis would give equally good results. Spencer only reported the values that agreed with his hypothesis, however. Roy Spencer has established a clear track record of throwing out acutely insufficient evidence for his ideas, and then complaining that his colleagues are intellectually lazy and biased when they are not immediately convinced.

[GIGObuster]

@ITR_champion

I think you need to be clear who you’re talking about when you refer to skeptics. I like the presentation in this article by Warren Meyer. One can be skeptical that the planet has generally heated up over the past century or so; one can be skeptical that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to it; one can be skeptical that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions have caused all of it; one can be skeptical that the results from global warming will be as catastrophic as some environmentalists are predicting. I personally don’t doubt that humans have caused the planet to heat up by emitting greenhouse gasses. I am skeptical about the more disastrous predictions of what will result in coming years.

As economist William D. Nordhaus reports, based just on the most likely changes that will come, if little is done, the disaster he is referring to is bound to affect the very economies the contrarians claim to protect.

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus

This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.

Remember, he is doing calculations on costs like the costs of the damage to coastal cities, damages from droughts and depending on the location. Others are more pessimistic because Nordhouse does not includes items that they claim are very possible. As it was pointed before, uncertainty is not the friend of the contrarian.

[ralph124c]

Humans are evil, and a cancer upon Mother Gaia. Therefore, human extinction is desirable. Groups like “Earth First” actively promote a big reduction in the human numbers…I think a good start would be with them.
Of course, the Al gores of the world see themselves as the elite-they get to determine who lives.

[Farin]

@GIGObuster

No, this is the argument that is the poor one, to begin with you miss the point, the answer to the previous poster was to deal with the gross idea that there has been no experiments done for a long time.

Then the rest is a strawman, the IPCC and other groups already acknowledge the reality that we will not be able to cut emissions “cold turkey” and once again as Richard Alley and many others reported, there is no demand that civilization as we know it should end. What you should see here is that change is part of our civilization. The point should be made that many ignore that this change is common, a major shift was needed on how to deal with clean water and sewage in our cities, civilization did not end.

I believe that you missed my point by focusing on something that isn’t true. It’s not a strawman: Every model I’ve looked at (admittedly, I haven’t examined every model) show continued change in various degrees based upon the CO2 that is present as of now. Thus, we are in a “changed” mode already and we can do nothing to stop that change and most of the regulatory proposals are for taxation and/or curbing emissions. That’s closing the barn door long after the horse bolted and died of old age.

We need a real game plans for solutions that don’t harm the economy or infringe on it minimally and part of that game plan should be rolling over to technologies that don’t pollute as much, such as nuclear. But getting quicker nuclear approval to build out a facility that can replace, say, coal generation is a pipe dream. As is mandating, from my suggestions above, that we move to all new passenger vehicles being based on electric motors in 6-10 years.

@GIGObuster

I think you are not doing step one, as we should check first if what he is doing with his and the models of others the proper thing.

Roy Spencer | Climate Asylum

So…You want me to disbelieve a piece of evidence based completely on the person. Why? Why can we not evaluate the evidence he presents, instead of concentrating on him? The links you have provided review his work in aggregate and do not focus on this particular item.

But that’s from a single person’s perspective in both cases. Barry Bickmore. Awesome. How about we ignore Bickmore’s opinion since he hasn’t published anything in peer-reviewed journals about climate change? While I’m at it, I can also get you as many sources as you want that all say the IPCC’s methods are bunk so that anyone who gives them information or supports their research is wrong by proxy and I can bible thump those sources when telling you that you are wrong. However, that doesn’t advance understanding and it certainly doesn’t do anything but polarize the debate.

I fully understand that Spencer has issues as a source of information. However, I want information that repudiates or validates his information and not his character.

I ask that you provide evidence for or against the data presented instead of going after the person. If you can’t or don’t wish to, please just say so. It’s not proof for or against the graph provided by him, it’s simply a missing bit of evidence which means the graph cannot be interpreted at this time.

[GIGObuster]

@ralph124c

Humans are evil, and a cancer upon Mother Gaia. Therefore, human extinction is desirable. Groups like “Earth First” actively promote a big reduction in the human numbers…I think a good start would be with them.
Of course, the Al gores of the world see themselves as the elite-they get to determine who lives.

Oh, that crap from James Lovelock again.

RealClimate: James Lovelock’s Gloomy Vision

Researchers and experts do not agree with him.

Google

And you are also wrong about putting Gore in the same collumn:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/23/469749/james-lovelock-finally-walks-

back-his-absurd-doomism-but-he-still-doesnt-follow-climate-science/
As I wrote at the time, Lovelock makes “you — or Al Gore or James Hansen or even me — look optimistic by comparison.”

Memo to Lovelock: Gore never asserted billions would die or anything close to what you’ve been saying. And unlike you, he always believed — and still does — that it’s not too late. So if you finally admitted you were wrong, that’s awesome, but don’t try to claim you were just saying what others were. You weren’t. Not even close.

[GIGObuster]

@Farin

I believe that you missed my point by focusing on something that isn’t true. It’s not a strawman: Every model I’ve looked at (admittedly, I haven’t examined every model) show continued change in various degrees based upon the CO2 that is present as of now. Thus, we are in a “changed” mode already and we can do nothing to stop that change and most of the regulatory proposals are for taxation and/or curbing emissions. That’s closing the barn door long after the horse bolted and died of old age.

No, read it again, you are only using the spin from the contrarians, only by keeping the emissions going on with no changes is that we will get into worst situations. while it is true that some change is inevitable now, even worse scenarios are possible by just taking the position that we should not do anything.

@Farin

So…You want me to disbelieve a piece of evidence based completely on the person. Why?

Check the links, the evidence is there, the reason why one should not trust that person is that he is a failure on what he is doing not his persona, what you claim here is not what I or Barry Bickmore are reporting about the shenanigans of Spencer.

[Farin]

@GIGObuster

No, read it again, you are only using the spin from the contrarians, only by keeping the emissions going on with no changes is that we will get into worst situations. while it is true that some change is inevitable now, even worse scenarios are possible by just taking the position that we should not do anything.

Except that I have said, twice now, that there can be changes to curb emissions without doing direct and costly curbs to the population at large using cap and trade. I additionally advocated for scrubbing technology, research of which is actually progressing quite nicely in Britain, to be introduced to actively remove carbon from the climate system. I would even be fine with a less cost-intensive taxing scheme that would funnel the taxes to a heavily regulated NGO that could then use those fund projects that actively capture carbon dioxide so that the cost of producing energy has the inbuilt cost of pollution added in, similar but not quite the same as RGGI.

@GIGObuster

Check the links, the evidence is there, the reason why one should not trust that person is that he is a failure on what he is doing not his persona, what you claim here is not what I or Barry Bickmore are reporting about the shenanigans of Spencer.

I reviewed the links. And the articles in the links provided by your link. They do not discuss this specific piece of data that I am trying to find more information on. As I pointed out, both of them are reviewing his works as a whole. If I wanted more information on his book, it would be great.

[ITR_champion]

@GIGObuster

As economist William D. Nordhaus reports, based just on the most likely changes that will come, if little is done, the disaster he is referring to is bound to affect the very economies the contrarians claim to protect.

Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.

Remember, he is doing calculations on costs like the costs of the damage to coastal cities, damages from droughts and depending on the location. Others are more pessimistic because Nordhouse does not includes items that they claim are very possible. As it was pointed before, uncertainty is not the friend of the contrarian.

Yes, if Nordhaus’ research is correct in assessing the cost of waiting fifty years before reducing CO2 emissions, then that cost would be $4.1 trillion in today’s dollars.

If.

[Learjeff]

To most global warming skeptics, we’re the most important species, and the rest don’t matter much. To a rabid tree hugger, all species are equally important. To a sensible person (me!), we’re the most important species, but our quality of life depends on the others.

About a decade ago I reviewed the Creationism & Intelligent Design debate, to see if my views really had a leg to stand on. It doesn’t take a genius; a moderately intelligent and educated person can pretty easily see that the evidence for evolution is compelling. The naysayers can’t state any bit of evidence that would prove them wrong, whereas those who believe in evolution can list any number of kinds of evidence that would prove them wrong. Furthermore, the “follow the money” argument worked pretty clearly: the ID camp were almost entirely funded by The Creation Institute (in various names and forms over the years).

When I reviewed the AGW debate a few years ago, the science wasn’t nearly as easy to evaluate. The basic tenets of the models are understandable, but the heated debates tend to center on evaluation of the data, and it quickly got way over my head both in terms of the science (chemistry and physics) as well as the math to turn the raw data into meaningful information. I found the defenses of the IPCC’s scientists to be very plausible, but I’m just not well-enough informed to be sufficiently skeptical, to really evaluate their arguments.

But I did see a few correlations between the anti-AGW camp and the creationists:

1. There’s no “big tent”. Most of the arguments against the consensus contradict each other.

2. There’s a powerful incentive to disagree with the consensus. For creationism, it’s religious. For AGW, it’s short-term economics.

Seems to be there was a third biggie, but I don’t recall it offhand.

I have the following challenge to both pro- and anti-consensus camps:

What evidence would convince you that you are wrong?

The answers to this for evolution are simple, and give great clues as to who is being skeptical versus who is trying to buttress a preconception.

My fear is that this will just end in the same old argument disputing the “facts” – that is, different interpretations of the geological record, which is where my ability to discriminate science from good BS broke down.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Learjeff

To most global warming skeptics, we’re the most important species, and the rest don’t matter much. To a rabid tree hugger, all species are equally important. To a sensible person (me!), we’re the most important species, but our quality of life depends on the others.

About a decade ago I reviewed the Creationism & Intelligent Design debate, to see if my views really had a leg to stand on. It doesn’t take a genius; a moderately intelligent and educated person can pretty easily see that the evidence for evolution is compelling. The naysayers can’t state any bit of evidence that would prove them wrong, whereas those who believe in evolution can list any number of kinds of evidence that would prove them wrong. Furthermore, the “follow the money” argument worked pretty clearly: the ID camp were almost entirely funded by The Creation Institute (in various names and forms over the years).

When I reviewed the AGW debate a few years ago, the science wasn’t nearly as easy to evaluate. The basic tenets of the models are understandable, but the heated debates tend to center on evaluation of the data, and it quickly got way over my head both in terms of the science (chemistry and physics) as well as the math to turn the raw data into meaningful information. I found the defenses of the IPCC’s scientists to be very plausible, but I’m just not well-enough informed to be sufficiently skeptical, to really evaluate their arguments.

But I did see a few correlations between the anti-AGW camp and the creationists:

1. There’s no “big tent”. Most of the arguments against the consensus contradict each other.

2. There’s a powerful incentive to disagree with the consensus. For creationism, it’s religious. For AGW, it’s short-term economics.

Seems to be there was a third biggie, but I don’t recall it offhand.

I have the following challenge to both pro- and anti-consensus camps:

What evidence would convince you that you are wrong?

The answers to this for evolution are simple, and give great clues as to who is being skeptical versus who is trying to buttress a preconception.

My fear is that this will just end in the same old argument disputing the “facts” – that is, different interpretations of the geological record, which is where my ability to discriminate science from good BS broke down.

Sorry to answer a question with a question…

Wrong about what, exactly?

[eschereal]

@IdahoMauleMan

Sorry to answer a question with a question…

Wrong about what, exactly?

He means which ever camp you subscribe to, what would it take to make to switch to the other?

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

Repeating strawmen will not make them turn into good arguments.
Besides ignoring the facts, contrarians that go for this kind of arguments, even after the serious skeptics told them that the earth is warming and man has something to do with it, are not doing science.

Repeating strawmen will not make them turn into good arguments or convince everyone that the global temp is increasing when it isn’t or that man-made CO2 is the cause.

Either the global temperature is increasing or it isn’t. Either CO2 levels have a direct collation to increasing/decreasing global temps or they don’t. Either the IPCC can provide the data that they used to produced their failed guesstimations or they can’t/won’t.

Some people are waiting for the next IPCC report to clarify the situation. (That doesn’t mean that people will be any more convinced or impressed by the IPCC’s next effort than they were by the IPCC’s past efforts.)

[PhillyGuy]

@Learjeff

What evidence would convince you that you are wrong?

On evolution? While I think the evidence for it is quite strong, if the evidence was weaker, I’d probably just think that the science wasn’t mature.

As for the other side on evolution, there is no amount of evidence that would convince them. Perhaps God is just putting all that evidence in place as a test of faith!

Global warming is a little different because if there was a decade or two with dramatically higher temperature, increasing every year, wherever the skeptics were living, a lot of them might be convinced. Of course, climate change isn’t likely to be that consistent, so people will keep on disagreeing.

Once people get an idea into their head, it is going to be hard to change. See; A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

As far as Great Debates is concerned, it is less frustrating to see this as a place to sharpen your ideas rather than to think you are going to change someone’s mind. However, over a period of generations, I think correct ideas are a little more likely to advance than mistaken ones.

[njtt]

@eg8576736

In the context of modern industrial life, does anyone claim that these problems are primarily caused by an agent other than Man?

air pollution aka smog
water pollution, plus damming and diversion of rivers
deforestation (beavers don’t knock down millions of acres)
overfishing (many ocean species are in serious decline)
ocean dead zones due to agricultural runoff
loss of biodiversity
species extinctions (see “The Sixth Extinction”)
topsoil loss and erosion (often tied to deforestation)
soil salination from over-watering
desertification and dust bowls (e.g. U.S. 1930s)
unnatural chemicals in food and the environment
radiation far beyond natural levels*
etc.

To put it another way, is the species that “can’t be causing global warming” also “not causing” the environmental problems listed above? I see apathy about fixing those problems, but little debate about the species that’s at fault. So it seems well accepted that Man is capable of altering and damaging nature.

But the notion that little old Man can’t harm big old Earth is common among global warming deniers (sorry, I meant skeptics). Why the disparity on that one topic? Are fossil fuels that sacred? Is it solely about money?

*Smog is a very close analogy to AGW, and you don’t even see Rush Limbaugh claiming that Man isn’t responsible for it. The main difference between smog and CO2 is that the latter is invisible and its impacts occur over decades, not days. Plus, CO2 at natural levels is a good thing, so it doesn’t have an existing bad reputation like visible smog.

Jeez, you sure are good at winning people over, aren’t you. :rolleyes:

So I have to believe human beings are evil in order to believe, in or care about, global warming, do I? I think I might look into this skepticism/denial thing then. Maybe they have a point after all.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

Repeating strawmen will not make them turn into good arguments or convince everyone that the global temp is increasing when it isn’t or that man-made CO2 is the cause.

No, that was not a strawman that is what one of the few skeptical scientists said, you do not know what a straw man is.

@doorhinge

Either the global temperature is increasing or it isn’t. Either CO2 levels have a direct collation to increasing/decreasing global temps or they don’t. Either the IPCC can provide the data that they used to produced their failed guesstimations or they can’t/won’t.

It is increasing, and more and more serious skeptics acknowledge reality:

Environment

Yet among those who deny that climate change is real, there appears to have been a palpable shift away from a refusal to accept the climate is warming and towards those who doubt the severity of the damage.

It’s a subtle but important shift, and suggests that holding the view that climate change is not occurring is intellectually untenable in the long-term.

American physicist Richard Muller is one climate sceptic who has recently changed his mind after reviewing the evidence.

Muller crunched a bunch of numbers to do with global temperatures and announced in the New York Times that he is a “converted sceptic”. It was this opinion piece in arguably the world’s most influential paper that set tongues wagging about climate change all over again.

Muller had previously been claimed by those unconvinced by the science as one of their own, because he questioned the validity of Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph, used by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth.

The disagreement between Mann and Muller, a rather arcane arm wrestle over data methodology, was used as evidence that the science was not, in fact, settled. It was fuel for thousands of climate sceptic blogs the world over.

Muller had so many concerns over the raw data and the tidied-up data that he just wasn’t convinced the world was experiencing unprecedented warming. However, in October last year, Muller announced the findings of his own research in the Wall Street Journal. “Global warming is real,” he wrote.

At the time, climate science circles welcomed another scientist into the ranks of those convinced by the evidence. But Muller was still not entirely sure what had caused this warming. “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that,” he said.

Nearly a year later, he is convinced: “I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause,” he wrote in the NYT.

@doorhinge

Some people are waiting for the next IPCC report to clarify the situation. (That doesn’t mean that people will be any more convinced or impressed by the IPCC’s next effort than they were by the IPCC’s past efforts.)

Oh, you mean the one that was recently released and you claimed we should had waited for it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/26/will-the-u-n-s-massive-new-climate-report-tell-us-anything-new/

Over the years, a vast pile of climate research has simply reaffirmed that conclusion. In 2001, the third IPCC report said it was “likely” that most of the rise in surface temperatures over the past half-century was due to human activity. The 2007 report bumped this up to “very likely.” And the 2013 report says that it’s “extremely likely” that humans are responsible for more than half that warming — a more than 95 percent chance.

That increased confidence represents years of painstaking research, bolstered by dozens of independent lines of evidence, from advanced computer modeling to investigations into Earth’s ancient climate history. Scientists are now as certain that humans are responsible for rising temperatures as they are that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. But they’re still basically saying the same things they said in 1990:

(NOAA)

“A lot of these things were actually predicted even before 1990,” says Spencer Weart, a physics historian and author of The Discovery of Global Warming. “But they weren’t taken quite as seriously by the wider scientific community until around 2000. The biggest change came between 1990 and 2001” — as computer models improved rapidly and the field of paleoclimate offered new independent confirmation of various climate science ideas.

It’s also notable that the big uncertainties that existed in 1990 still exist today. One crucial question is how much temperatures will rise each time we double the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere. In 1990, scientists predicted the Earth would warm somewhere between 1.5ºC to 4ºC. This year? The new report says climate sensitivity is likely… between 1.5ºC and 4ºC for every doubling of carbon-dioxide.

[GIGObuster]

@Farin

I reviewed the links. And the articles in the links provided by your link. They do not discuss this specific piece of data that I am trying to find more information on. As I pointed out, both of them are reviewing his works as a whole. If I wanted more information on his book, it would be great.

That is like thinking that a tree that has bad fruit could have one branch with one good apple. A suspiciously specific point to make.

But it is not even that in the case of the Spencer graph by the way of John Christy.

How Roy Spencer and John Christy trick Anthony Watts and his deniers once again

I have three questions:

Why did John Christy use a four year baseline period instead of a 30 year baseline as is usual?
How did John Christy get all the CMIP5 models to start at exactly the same zero degree anomaly point?
Why did they use running five year means instead of average annual?

Now let’s see how the models are reported in the IPCC report. (Click to enlarge.)

From TFE.3, Figure 1: IPCC WG1 Technical Summary (page TS-96)

I must say that John Christy messed up his model runs, comparing John’s chart to the IPCC chart above. Unlike in John’s chart, there is no point at which the models all converge in the IPCC chart. As well as that, while the observations are at the low end of the models right now, that wasn’t the case back in the 1980s and 90s. John Christy’s chart shows UAH diverging from the get go way back in 1983.

Later addition: --o–The fact that 1983 lies above the trend line (see top chart above) probably means that John’s model runs, which start at zero in 1983, are too high. It’s the same problem as discussed elsewhere when people were looking at an early draft of the IPCC report.–o–

Shall we just assume that John Christy and Roy Spencer are having a little fun at the expense of Anthony Watts and other science deniers? Anthony Watts reposted Roy’s article at WUWT and he didn’t have any notice to indicate he knew it was a joke. In fact Anthony seems to think Roy is serious. He writes:

Reality wins, it seems. Dr Roy Spencer writes:

Well, Anthony it’s not reality. It’s just a more mischief from John Christy and Roy Spencer. It gives Wondering Willis’ a chance for payback if he cares to take it.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@For You

He means which ever camp you subscribe to, what would it take to make to switch to the other?

That’s the point. That’s the point of my earlier posts.

I didn’t realize I was in a “camp”.

If the camps are

1. Man causes no change to the environment. There is nothing we need to do about anything, because we aren’t having any effects whatsoever.

or

2. We need to stop all activity that has any impact on the environment immediately.
   Than I’m in neither camp.

[Ken001]

@IdahoMauleMan

As one of the posters above said…there is smog in L.A. It contributes to poor air quality. We aren’t denying that.

But so what? How bad is it, really? If it allows people to drive automobiles to connect desirable places to live with flexibile employment…

So why is a little smog so bad?

Good post so I’ll just pick up on this.

In most developed nations, smog is under control. Water pollution is worried about and regulated. That is very responsible of we wealthy folk.

Environmental problems however are global not local and we in the West contribute every time we buy cheap clothes made in Bangladesh etc. Google the South Asia Plume, which I experienced in India.

The Plume is a vast smog of pollution which covers Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, South-East Asia, and southern China. The industrial heart of the global economy. It is immense and is slowly poisoning the water and soil which will lead to biological collapse.

We could just shrug but it bothers me.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Ken001

Good post so I’ll just pick up on this.

In most developed nations, smog is under control. Water pollution is worried about and regulated. That is very responsible of we wealthy folk.

Environmental problems however are global not local and we in the West contribute every time we buy cheap clothes made in Bangladesh etc. Google the South Asia Plume, which I experienced in India.

The Plume is a vast smog of pollution which covers Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, South-East Asia, and southern China. The industrial heart of the global economy. It is immense and is slowly poisoning the water and soil which will lead to biological collapse.

We could just shrug but it bothers me.

Now I’m in a camp. You just put me in a camp.

Hundreds of millions, if not 1+ billion, people have been lifted out of grinding poverty in SE Asia in the past 20 years due to our purchases of “cheap clothes” and other things that involve consensual transactions between free peoples.

and “…will lead to biological collapse…” is an extraordinary claim that requres extraordinary proof. I see no evidence of that.

Life expectancies and quality of life continue to improve amongst the peoples on both ends of the free market transactions described above.

[dropzone]

I find that many people who poo-poo the environmental movement did not live in urban areas before the EPA forced businesses, whose only interest was in making money for their investors, to clean up their act. That description of Asia could have been a description of the industrialized Great Lakes Region fifty years ago.