Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

OK what foods have been proven that won't be able to adapt to the " higher co2 " expected 2050?
Also what foods that I need to feed me could not survive in a greenhouse environment? ( BTW I have canine teeth just like all humans as well as other carnivorous mammals. )

[StuM]

2. Cuccinelli

Virginia Attorney General who failed in his attempts to get public access to information from the University of Virginia about Michael Mann's research grants.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by StuM

Peter Gleick - the epitome of noble cause corruption. At the time of the incident he was the head of the Ethics Committee of the AGU

No matter how many examples of the climate change "community" using lies, distortions, and ostracism toward peers who have legitimate questions about the science and policy...including an attempt to have them charged under RICO statutes...those who are most zealous in proselytizing for the cause will put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la-la-la-la...."

Happer was maligned simply because he is credible...and that's bad for The Cause.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Peter Gleick - the epitome of noble cause corruption. At the time of the incident he was the head of the Ethics Committee of the AGU

The best summary is probably this:

Today marks the one-year anniversary of ‘Fakegate,’ the day Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick sent to liberal activists and reporters documents he stole from The Heartland Institute and claimed to have obtained from a ‘Heartland insider’ and later from an ‘anonymous source.’ The documents included Heartland’s annual budget, fundraising plan, and other confidential documents. Media outlets in the U.S. and around the world reported on the ‘leak’ of ‘secret plans’ by an anonymous ‘insider’ at the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made global warming. “Gleick eventually confessed to being the ‘insider’ and explained that he had stolen the identity of another person – a member of Heartland’s board of directors, it soon became known – in order to steal the confidential documents. There was no ‘leak.’ Gleick also admitted to lying about the nature of one document he originally claimed had come from Heartland, a ‘strategy memo’ that purported to describe Heartland’s plans to address climate change in the coming year. That document was quickly shown to be a fake, written to misrepresent and defame The Heartland Institute. Gleick denied he was the author of the fake memo.
“The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit organization, retained legal counsel to formally request that the U.S. Attorney prosecute Peter Gleick for the federal crimes of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Today, one year after the crime was revealed and nearly one year after Gleick’s confession, the U.S. Attorney still has not filed charges against Gleick.
“We urge everyone who has an interest in the global warming debate to review the ‘Criminal Referral of Dr. Peter H. Gleick Talking Points’ presentation and decide for themselves whether Peter Gleick should be tried for his crimes. We ask the reporters and activists who were fooled by Gleick’s lies and who used the documents he stole and may have forged to attack The Heartland Institute, rather than come to our defense as the victim of a serious crime, to revisit their decisions and cover the story again, this time honestly. And we urge everyone to ‘look under the hood’ at the real science behind the global warming scare and recognize that man-made global warming is not a crisis.”


While nothing was ever proven, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Gleick was actually the creator of the fake document despite his protestations.

Well, even if it didn't rise to the level of criminal acts, it sounds much worse than what Jack has given us thus far about the hapless Dr. Happer. The Happer case is only analogous if there's evidence that he would not hold the position he does (on the benefits of CO2) if the phony energy company had declined to make the contribution. Whether his scientific theory is valid or not has nothing to do with his right to espouse it. In fact, it would be more convincing for the AGW movement if Happer's theory was allowed unfetterred exposure and then debunked, just like the Heartland's position on tobacco was ultimately overcome years ago.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Let me get this straight.

Currently no GM food crops that you can name can adapt to the higher CO2 levels expected in 2050.

M'Kay.

Oh my God! The sky is falling, the oceans are rising, and the food will all be gone in just 35 years.... we're all going to die!

Well let's see... I'm 58 now... 58 + 35 = 93yrs

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Happer was maligned simply because he is credible...

I'm only saying that, without additional facts, we can assume that HE is credible. I don't know enough about the science to validate or invalidate his THEORY. Now if there was evidence, rather than mere surmise, that he was a hired gun for the oil cos. who would say anything for personal enrichment, it would be a different set of facts. But right or wrong, he believes that more CO2 -- including from fossil fuel emissions -- is a positive, and believes strongly enough in that theory that he created a nonprofit to advocate & educate others about it. The hired gun accusations don't really add up.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

2. Cuccinelli

Virginia Attorney General who failed in his attempts to get public access to information from the University of Virginia about Michael Mann's research grants.

You mean scientists might have valid reasons for not wanting to disclose funding sources on hotly debated, highly politicized research topics???

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Merely repeating your assertions against Happer won't substantiate them

Why ever not? The unsubstantiated vilification of the entire field of climate science has been embraced by doubters/deniers without the slightest qualm.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oh sorry, I was not trying to visualize string theory. Not sure it, string theory, is valid.

But while watching the wave interference pattern interaction of droplets falling on flat smooth flowing water (the flow representing time in this case), I visualized what that would look like in 3d. Which got me thinking of the big bang and larger structures of the universe. Which got me thinking that a single point source of inflation, from a different dimension.


BTW folks, the big bang, like string theory is just theory. Like god, there is no proof of it. The big bang sort of fits the observed universe. But it is only one theory of many. There is steady state (though perhaps with an isolation) and the universe riding on the back of a pandimensional turtle. Oddly equally valid, in theory.

We do not know all that we don't know. There is the niggly bit of extra acceleration that objects in a sling shot around a gravity well, picks up. It's tiny (fraction of a MPS), but no one knows where it comes from.

I tend the think the big bang could be valid. But lets not chastise people that finds fault with it. There is after all no convinsing proof that is how the universe came into being.

Much like climate models. The models are true only if they model everything without assumptions. The models may predict climate, but may not be complete or conclusive.

I very much liked your description of musing.

However, if you will forgive me, your assertion that BBT is "just a theory" seems really quite misguided. You are eliding the lay definition of a "theory" with the scientific nomenclature. When a lay person has a "theory" it generally is synonymous in parlance with the word "guess". When a "theory" in science is dignified with that term, it means that the concept has gone through an extremely rigorous assessment process (hypothesis, prediction, observation, confirmation, many times and from different quarters, agreement with other existing theory and model, and finally establishtment as "theory"). It is not some kind of guess. It is the final stage of the scientific process and is certainly not equal to the status of myth or any other random guess. BBT agrees with a great number of other branches of science and cosmology, and is an extremely powerful and well demonstrated model of the early formation of this universe. What occurred "prior" (if that term can even make sense of a state possibily irrelevent to the existence of time) is not a part of the theory.

The idea that the universe may equally be derived from the actions of a "pandimensional turtle" is either irrelevant or frankly simply wrong. Your assertion of that would have BBT being absolutely undemonstrated in any way whatsoever, and incapable of demonstration, even by implication and observation of its varying stages. Don't forget that powerful telescopes are actually looking back in time. [Edit: I have now read your response to Mike above so realise you are likely more than au fait with this and more, though I will keep the post up for its explication of "theory" "Validity" and "soundness"] Further, your use of the term "valid" is not really accurate either. BBT is thoroughly valid. Cosmic turtle hypothesis has no discernible validity whatsoever. What you are perhaps seeking is the second aspect of solidity of theory, which is "soundness". "Validity" refers to the internal logic of a theory, or concept, "soundness" refers to its demonstrable mapping on to actual reality. BBT is pretty thoroughly "valid", and has powerful claims to being "sound", as it is indeed observable in many respects, and makes perfect agreement with many other branches of scientific theory which are themselves thoroughly demonstrated to be both "valid" and "sound". Cosmic turtle hypothesis? Neither valid nor sound, whatsoever. While I am not suggesting you are one, [and indeed seem to be "touched, by his noodly appendage", as I am, Ramen] the kind of argument you appear making here is rather typical of the mistaken sorts of (non) arguments made by young earth creationists in their attempts to dismiss the likes of evolution, and indeed the many branches of science they require to dismiss (pretty much all of it actually) in order to hold onto their entirely unsound and invalid position.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why ever not? The unsubstantiated vilification of the entire field of climate science has been embraced by doubters/deniers without the slightest qualm.

You are again confusing challenges to the science (models, processes, estimates, raw data, conclusions, etc.), as opposed to attacks on individual scientists themselves. Claims of institutional bias towards what some deem an overly politicized process are very different from thus far unsubstantiated allegations that a particular scientist is personally corrupt because he or she is "on the take."

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean scientists might have valid reasons for not wanting to disclose funding sources on hotly debated, highly politicized research topics???

I thought the issue was not funding sources, but rather the correspondence related to their studies/research efforts, which is publicly funded to a large degree. And, being publicly funded, it seems to me that correspondence should be part of the public record.

The argument used to avoid release is that such release would dampen the "open" discussion between scientists of controversial topics.

Being the cynic I am, I wonder that the correspondence might reek of malpractice in the vein of the "Climategate" correspondence.

I'm in favor of releasing it for perusal by AGWers and skeptics alike, and letting the fur fly.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I thought the issue was not funding sources, but rather the correspondence related to their studies/research efforts, which is publicly funded to a large degree. And, being publicly funded, it seems to me that correspondence should be part of the public record.

The argument used to avoid release is that such release would dampen the "open" discussion between scientists of controversial topics.

Being the cynic I am, I wonder that the correspondence might reek of malpractice in the vein of the "Climategate" correspondence.

I'm in favor of releasing it for perusal by AGWers and skeptics alike, and letting the fur fly.

Stu mentioned research grants so I assumed funding sources, but it could very well have been about correspondence. The little I got from Wiki was that it involved extended litigation, including an appeal, and at least two courts sided with Mann & the university. My guess is that it involved weighing competing interests, namely the public's right to know vs. the potential suppression of open scientific discourse as you say. It sounds similar to battles over assertions of "work-product privilege" in some professions. There probably has to be some evidence of wrongdoing or malice for a court to override the privilege.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Merely repeating your assertions against Happer won't substantiate them, unless you have something more than the e-mail exchange you already linked us to.

I would surmise the we have differing views on intellectual integrity.

[StuM]

Just a short intermission:


"You appear to forget that powerful telescopes are actually looking back in time."

As was just illustrated in the Joke thread, if you look at anything, with or without a telescope, you are looking back in time - at the rate of about 1 nanosecond for every foot of distance to the object.

" Cosmic turtle theory has no discernible validity whatsoever"
Tell that to the Terry Pratchett fans


Now back to our regular programming...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I would surmise the we have differing views on intellectual integrity.

Or perhaps your differing view with Dr. Happer on the science of CO2.