Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by conachair

If we're talking science- politics here, can you link to the paper where hansen et al predicted devastating sea level rise in as little as 4 years for clarity? Google came up with nothing in a brief search.

Jim Hansen is fixated on feedback amplification/forcings of changes to climate.

Coming from a guy that constantly spruiked "runaway greenhouse" (notice how that term has disappeared in recent times) and wrote an article discussing how it was possible for the earth to experience Venus's runaway greenhouse effect, I would not be surprised. I have a copy of that article where he both discusses the above and rebuts claims, among others, he overestimated sea level rises which, to me, indicates that at some point maybe he did make some such an alarmist claim.

For a recent example of his sky is falling in relation to sea levels...
Sea level study: James Hansen issues dire climate warning.

The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, brings new importance to a feedback loop in the ocean near Antarctica that results in cooler freshwater from melting glaciers forcing warmer, saltier water underneath the ice sheets, speeding up the melting rate.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
Heartland is a nonprofit under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. As a result, they have to file and publicly disclose their tax returns every year. There are other disclosure requirements from financials to board members to funding sources.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... but not as rigorous as those which government-supported institutions must follow.

The reason nonprofits are so popular as a vehicle for political spending is that they don't have to disclose their donors.

You mean rigorous, govt-supported institutions like the IRS and George Mason Univ. which allowed compensation to Dr. Shukla & family in the amount of $750,000 in one year? Generally speaking, I'm in favor of full disclosure, but there are privacy issues as well as 1st Amend. free speech & assoc. issues which a court also has to weigh in cases like Citizens United. And btw, is there really any doubt who is funding the respective sides of the research in the field of CC?

Quote:
E-mails & files are a different matter due to privacy, privilege, & other justifiable legal concerns.

...yet CC scientist emails are fair game?

If you're referring to the Michael Mann/U. of Va. case, then no, they're not fair game. At least according to the Va. Supreme Court & every other Va. state court that ruled in favor of Mann & his colleagues.

Quote:
So you're suddenly now OK with FOIA, provided it's not used to get info from NASA, NOAA, and other govt agencies involved in climate research?

One eyeroll for you.

I've always said I'm ok with FOIA. But it is being abused in some cases.

Maybe so, but there are judicial remedies designed to address such abuses. It has become pretty customary for public institutions to have designated admin. staff who's job it is to respond to FOIA requests. It's a cost to allowing public access to the decisions govt officials are making on citizens' behalf.

Quote:
The Shukla/Alongi affairs were brought up in response to you and others constantly insinuating, without evidence, that scientists in the opposing camp were corrupted by their research being funded by oil cos., etc.

I've never said that. In fact I have stated that I have no personal beef with an honest scientist who ends up working in industry or for industry. We all gotta work. The issue is the science itself, or lack thereof. If the institution's goal is to find anything at all that fits in with not-AGW, and downplay/disregard any info that supports AGW... it's not really engaged in scientific research. Also, I'm not aware of any of the industry-backed 'institutes' engaging in original research, gathering fresh unique data, and presenting their peer-reviewed findings in the usual fashion.

The science is uncertain, is highly technology-dependent, and relies on copious amounts of data that is subject to wide interpretation. Given all the variables, I imagine scientists have to work off of hypotheses that often try and confirm or dispel conclusions reached by one side or the other. Apart from a small minority like the Shukla's & Alongi's, I'm sure the majority are well-intended and dedicated to their profession.

Quote:
But the fact remains that the US govt. provides the vast majority of the funding generally, and most of it goes to the establishment side.

"the establishment side". Is this where you again suggest that universities and other genuine scientific institutions are engaging in 'pro-AGW' research? No, they're engaging in research, and the results, pro or con, will come from the data they collect, process, review, and publish.

Yes, the establishment side. I was simply pointing out where the majority of the money goes. By "pro-AGW" research, I mean funding for those scientists & institutions that have gone on record as supporting the theory of MMGW and its predicted negative impacts. Let me know if you'd like me to label the opposing sides in a more PC way for you.

Quote:
Your suggestion that private oil cos. have more resources than the US govt. in this regard is laughable as my links to actual govt. data hopefully demonstrated. Similar types of financial info is available to you about Exxon/Mobil should you care to look.

I've never questioned relative amounts of resources. Just intent and processes. It's laughable and a bit tinfoil-hatty to keep implying that the government is out to buy a result re AGW, and the fossil-fuel industry is not. Frankly, I can't see any reason for the US government to want AGW to be a top-level concern... can you? That's like wanting diabetes or emphyzema...

Sometimes you manage to leave me speechless. You're on your own on this one.

Quote:
But I am convinced that this notion of a 97%/98%/95%/overwhelming/majority/significant/prepoderance "consensus" is BS, and there are many highly respected and credentialed scientists on both sides.

...What do you think these two, Judith Curry, and many, many others have been doing with their time??

My impression is that the number of scientists who seriously doubt AGW or think it will be inconsequential is relatively quite small, but quite well heard thanks to the number of politically-motivated organizations and groups who want the public to think there's serious dissent within the ranks. Can you or anyone point to an independent scientific body that expresses serious doubt about the "consensus" findings? We only hear about these few individuals.

Your impression?? How about a little research? You're just regurgitating the party line. Do you think that when James Hansen or Michael Mann speaks or publishes they are not also sufficiently heard? How about when the U.S. president or his sec'y of state speaks? The UN? NOAA? NASA? Al Gore? Who do you think has a better chance of making it onto the nightly news -- these people & govt. bodies or Spencer & Christy from the U. of Alabama?? The "consensus findings" are simply that the Earth is warming and man has played "a" role. That encompasses just about every skeptic and denier scientist, person and organization that has been brought up in this thread.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by conachair

Was that global?

Take a look at all the evidence here CO2 Science and then you tell us.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean rigorous, govt-supported institutions like the IRS and George Mason Univ. which allowed compensation to Dr. Shukla & family in the amount of $750,000 in one year?

The IRS? Since when were they tasked with setting proper salaries for employees? The individual salary amounts, by themselves, are not unusual for DC, are they?... how would the different employers know (or care) what the other employers were doing, especially if the person wasn't properly reporting? or are the IRS and GMU in on the con? Woooooo....

By "pro-AGW" research, I mean funding for those scientists & institutions that have gone on record as supporting the theory of MMGW and its predicted negative impacts. Let me know if you'd like me to label the opposing sides in a more PC way for you.

Now who's dissing scientists? A scientist whose own research led him/her to validate some aspect of the AGW conclusion is now unfit to do unbiased research?

No. The majority of the world's climate scientists, and the majority of the institutions that they work for/at... do science, and they do it properly. The scientific process by design minimizes the influence of bias, personal feelings and other human foibles that distort any human endeavour. Not perfect but it's the best we have, and it's served us well.

So, saying they're on a "side" is tantamount to accusing them (once again) of unprofessionalism, incompetence, distortion, and bad science.

It's fairly common knowledge that physicists often take delight when one of their pet theories is proved wrong, because it usually means that new knowledge has been gained and the ball has been moved forward. Why would climate scientists be less professional and collegial?

If you're simply referring to the public sphere where there ARE sides, where data produced by the scientists are selectively mined by both camps to bolster their arguments... well, on this we agree.

Sometimes you manage to leave me speechless. You're on your own on this one.

Spit it out. Why would the US government, or Obummer, or whoever want AGW to be a top-level concern in the US, if scientifically-speaking it really isn't? I promise, black SUVs will not suddenly appear on your street if you tell.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's fairly common knowledge that physicists often take delight when <font color="Black">one of their pet theories is proved wrong, because it usually means that new knowledge has been gained and the ball has been moved forward. Why would climate scientists be less professional and collegial?

An excellent question which has been asked time and time again. Regardless of motives, it's quite apparent that they are.

[Exile]

Oh boy, it's worse than I thought. Can't help thinking about Stu asking awhile back if you were for real.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The IRS? Since when were they tasked with setting proper salaries for employees? The individual salary amounts, by themselves, are not unusual for DC, are they?... how would the different employers know (or care) what the other employers were doing, especially if the person wasn't properly reporting? or are the IRS and GMU in on the con? Woooooo....

So I already knew you were incapable of objectivity, but now you're defending Prof. Shukla? Let's see if this helps. The IRS has primary enforcement authority over all 501(c)(3) nonprofits because . . . well . . . for starters they all have to apply to and be approved by the IRS for their tax-exempt status. And yes, this includes oversight for salaries for officers and employees of those nonprofits. Think of it as a deal where the taxpayers are foregoing the taxes that a for-profit organization would ordinarily have to pay, in exchange for the nonprofit having a charitable purpose which otherwise benefits society, thereby making up for the lost tax revenues. Still with me? So when a nonprofit officer, employee or contractor takes exorbitant salaries, unnecessary or lavish expenses, or outright steals, it is called "self-dealing" or worse, and the IRS is empowered to impose penalties or revoke the nonprofit status, all in an effort to prevent the taxpayers from getting ripped off. Kapeesh??

In case you haven't heard, the IRS also requires people like Prof. Shukla to file a federal income tax return, in which he would be required to disclose his salary from the nonprofit and from the university. And unless we read different articles, 90% of Shukla's nonprofit was funded by govt. agencies for the purpose of conducting CC research on behalf of the public, all of which was conducted at, by, and through a public university. So tell us again how these different entities wouldn't know how much they were each paying Shukla & family?

Now who's dissing scientists? A scientist whose own research led him/her to validate some aspect of the AGW conclusion is now unfit to do unbiased research?

Can't even fathom how you're attributing a comment like this to me.

No. The majority of the world's climate scientists, and the majority of the institutions that they work for/at... do science, and they do it properly. The scientific process by design minimizes the influence of bias, personal feelings and other human foibles that distort any human endeavour. Not perfect but it's the best we have, and it's served us well.

So, saying they're on a "side" is tantamount to accusing them (once again) of unprofessionalism, incompetence, distortion, and bad science.

If this is what you're taking away from my comments, you either can't read, are opting not to read, have phenomenally poor reading comprehension skills, or are here for another purpose that the forum rules don't allow me to accuse you of.

It's fairly common knowledge that physicists often take delight when [COLOR=Black]one of their pet theories is proved wrong, because it usually means that new knowledge has been gained and the ball has been moved forward. Why would climate scientists be less professional and collegial?

Generally speaking they are not. Next?

If you're simply referring to the public sphere where there ARE sides, where data produced by the scientists are selectively mined by both camps to bolster their arguments... well, on this we agree.

So in "your" world, I take it that all climate scientists are entirely "neutral" on the issue of whether they believe the science supports MMGW or not. OK, got it.

Spit it out. Why would the US government, or Obummer, or whoever want AGW to be a top-level concern in the US, if scientifically-speaking it really isn't? I promise, black SUVs will not suddenly appear on your street if you tell.

Never said there weren't many scientists & non-scientists who believe it's a concern. Only that there are many others who do not. After 2000+ posts, this part of the discussion really shouldn't be all that difficult for you to latch onto, no?

Are you feeling better enough now about the IRS, the world of nonprofits, Citizen's United, tobacco lawsuits, the Heartland Institute, and govt. funding of science so we may actually get back to something more closely related to the thread topic? Or was there something equally irrelevant you care to debate?

[fryewe]

Or was there something equally irrelevant...to debate?

Not right now, but this was too good to not share...

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or was there something equally irrelevant you care to debate?

those of you on the east coast, stay safe this weekend.
NOAA explains what to expect from winter storm Jonas

[nicholson31]

just to put into context my previous post, This photo was taken 2 weeks ago of our yacht club. There is trace ice around the docks but open water in the rest of the harbour. This is the norm now when there used to be, bank on it, 2-3 + feet of ice every year that extended throughout the entire bay. There are many islands 20-30 km out that have cabins built on them and the supplies were carried out in the winter by horse, trucks and snowmobiles, not anymore!!

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by nicholson31

just to put into context my previous post, This photo was taken 2 weeks ago of our yacht club. There is trace ice around the docks but open water in the rest of the harbour. This is the norm now when there used to be, bank on it, 2+ feet of ice every year.
Attachment 117243

And that is...bad?

Go sailin'!!!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

those of you on the east coast, stay safe this weekend.
NOAA explains what to expect from winter storm Jonas

I agree everyone be safe . Here is the funny part of winter storm Jonas when it went through here in the Seattle area it dumped near record rain and snow earlier this week but didn't get a name until it crossed the rockies. Here it was just called a heavy rain front.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So I already knew you were incapable of objectivity, but now you're defending Prof. Shukla?

No I was probing your assertion that somehow the IRS is letting Shukla get away with this apparent misbehaviour...for some reason.

So in "your" world, I take it that all climate scientists are entirely "neutral" on the issue of whether they believe the science supports MMGW or not. OK, got it.

I'm stating that the majority of climate scientists, like scientists elsewhere, are capable of doing their jobs competently and honestly, and that this, together with the checks and balances built into the full process, means that they are going to do good work, regardless of their fondness for some current theories. They are not on any "side" except that of advancing knowledge in their field.

Originally Posted by StuM

Regardless of motives, it's quite apparent that [climate scientists] are [less professional and collegial].

Originally Posted by Exile

Generally speaking [climate scientists] are not [professional and collegial]. Next?

ok... guess not.

... and back to square one. Climate scientists are not like other scientists. They're trying to put one over on us. That pesky conspiracy thing again.



Take as much as you need.

Still interested - Why would the US government, or Obummer, or whoever want AGW to be a top-level concern in the US, if scientifically-speaking it really isn't?

[Exile]

Quote:
Or was there something equally irrelevant...to debate?

Originally Posted by fryewe

Not right now, but this was too good to not share...

Attachment 117238

Hey, humor is never irrelevant!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

those of you on the east coast, stay safe this weekend.
NOAA explains what to expect from winter storm Jonas

Thanks Simon. Looks like my boat may have dodged a bullet -- snow line looks to pass about 50 miles to the north. But I heard they already closed the federal govt. down in D.C. and sent everyone home. Can't possibly be a bad thing for the health of the Republic, right?

[newhaul]

Keep an eye on the one that just passed here yesterday record rain hope it fizzles before it gets there. L-E to answer your question. " Why would the US government, or Obummer, or whoever want AGW to be a top-level concern in the US, if scientifically-speaking it really isn't? ". Now as others have said. Follow the money. ( government its tax money , the rest its just money)