Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by weavis

First you establish if there is a real problem.

Dont tax something that is unproven..

You have been sucked in.

Not one science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. I guess they have been suckered in as well.

BTW proof is for booze and mathematics; science depends on evidence, which is overwhelming.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Not one science academy on the planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. I guess they have been suckered in as well.

BTW proof is for booze and mathematics; science depends on evidence, which is overwhelming.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Repeating that last quip doesn't make it any catchier, memorable, or instructive. You are correct that science depends on evidence, but you seem to consistently forget that politically or personally motivated propaganda has no place. This is true even if pseudo-scientists have beliefs that they personally feel justify falsities, alarmism, or distortions under the guise of means justifying ends.

Kindly take note of the "academies," "institutions," and "organizations" next to most of the scientists' names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming

1. Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[16][17][18][19]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[20][unreliable source?][21]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[22][23]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[24][25][26][27]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[28][29]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[30][31]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[32][33][34][35]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[43][44][45]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[46][47]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[48][49]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[50]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[51][52][53][54]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[55]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[56][57]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[58][59]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[60][61]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[62][63]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[64][65]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[66]

2. Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[67]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[68][69]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[70][71][72]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[73][74][75]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[76][77]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[78][79]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[80][81]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[82][83]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[84][85]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[86][87]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[88][89]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[90][91]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[92][93]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[94][95]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[96][97]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[98][99]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[100][101]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[102][103]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[104][105]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[106][107][108]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[109][110]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[111][112]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[113][114][115][116]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[117][118]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[119][120]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[121][122]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[123][124]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[125][126]

3. Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[127][128]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[129][130]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[131][132]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[133][134]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[135][136][137]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[138][139]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[140][141]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[142][143]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[144][145]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[146][147]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

4. These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[148][149][150]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [151][152]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[153][154]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[155][156]

5. Deceased scientists

This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[157]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[158]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[159][160]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[161][162]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[163][164][165]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[166]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[158][167]

[Exile]

And the much vaunted "97% consensus (one of many critiques):

Forbes Welcome

As I've said, it's bogus. But there is some honest evidence that most scientists support the theory that GW is real and that humans have influenced the warming. And it may also appear safe to say that a majority of scientists believe that human influence has been "significant," an obvious prerequisite for believing that humans can therefore mitigate it.

Btw, what is the significance of a scientific "institution," "academy," or "organization" taking a position when we don't know the position of the scientists working there? What position does the Univ. of Alabama take when two of their highly respected climatologists are well known skeptics? Jack?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Kindly take note of the "academies," "institutions," and "organizations" next to most of the scientists' names.

None are representative of the millions of members of these 197 organizations, societies, academies, etc..

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And the much vaunted "97% consensus (one of many critiques):

Forbes Welcome

Really a Forbes blogger?

Here is a peer reviewed study that is also critical of Cook et al.

The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW.

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, what is the significance of a scientific "institution," "academy," or "organization" taking a position when we don't know the position of the scientists working there? What position does the Univ. of Alabama take when two of their highly respected climatologists are well known skeptics? Jack?

Academies, such as AMS and APS, have well known processes for soliciting member input into their climate change policies.

I am curious to find out what UAH thinks about Roy Spencer now that his $4,000 fee for testifying on behalf of Peabody energy has come to light. Despite his testimony, Peabody lost in court.

Peabody coal’s contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case – Stoat

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

None are representative of the millions of members of these 197 organizations, societies, academies, etc..

Millions?? Does that include the cafeteria & janitorial staff? Or how about the pseudo-scientists who subscribe to their newsletter, give them donations, and therefore become "members?" Is it any surprise that the more well-known skeptics work elsewhere?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Really a Forbes blogger?

I'm only following rules laid down by a prolific pro-AGW blogger who frequents these CF threads, and who has strongly suggested prohibiting attacking the messenger as opposed to the message. Oops, wait . . . apparently it depends on what position on MMGW the messenger takes.

Speaking of which:

A snippet from page 2 of the Forbes article:

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

Sounds like a pretty astute blogger, regardless of which magazine he's writing for, no? Except he's on the "wrong" side of the issue so must not be credible. Simple convenience is no substitute for critical analysis, my friend, no matter how easy or tempting.

Here is a peer reviewed study that is also critical of Cook et al.

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous

Ah yes, the Powell "study" I presume? Next comes the big black ball graph . . . wait for it.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous

And nutritionists and public health specialists were virtually unanimous that saturated fat caused heart disease. Turns out they were badly wrong, and millions have suffered because of it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Academies, such as AMS and APS, have well known processes for soliciting member input into their climate change policies.

I am curious to find out what UAH thinks about Roy Spencer now that his $4,000 fee for testifying on behalf of Peabody energy has come to light. Despite his testimony, Peabody lost in court.

Peabody coal’s contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case – Stoat

As opposed to expert witness fees typically provided for all expert opinions rendered in litigation? You do know this is customary, right? Do we know what experts hired by the environmental groups were paid, or is that not relevant to your attempt to slander this particular scientist because he happens to have been hired by a coal company? I would imagine the actual miners who are employed by Peabody and whose jobs are in jeopardy appreciate the more balanced and fair representation.

And I guess your excitement over a "win" for the "case for AGW" in a legal setting prevented you from mentioning that this was an administrative hearing by an administrative judge with only advisory powers before a public utility regulated by the state of Minnesota. So not only are we distorting the "consensus," we are now resorting to lower level administrative bodies with limited legal authority to "adjudicate" whether MMGW exists? I'd say the scientists on all sides are gonna be bummed that all their work has been co-opted by lawyers.

If you or anyone else would like to read for yourself what this case was really about -- as opposed to how Jack's posted articles (by bloggers perhaps?) spin them, here's the link to the administrative court's advisory opinion:

https://mn.gov/oah/assets/2500-31888...m19-222628.pdf

Sorry for the cynicism & wisecracks, but I'm tired of these manipulative attempts to distort public opinion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Millions?? Does that include the cafeteria & janitorial staff? Or how about the pseudo-scientists who subscribe to their newsletter, give them donations, and therefore become "members?" Is it any surprise that the more well-known skeptics work elsewhere?

Let's say for arguments' sake it's only several tens of thousands of actual practising scientists in the 197 academies and institutions that Jack listed. Your 70 dissenters still aren't even a rounding error.

It's of course telling that you need to imply that all the 197 listed scientific organizations must be bastions of intolerance and conformity, rather than consider that some of your cherished 70 individuals might be misinformed, a bit potty, have hidden motivators of their own, or are just plain wrong.

[Exile]

Quote:
Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

We already do this through strict emissions regulations imposed on auto mfgs., fossil fuel cos., and power plants which are designed to become ever stricter as time goes by. The consumer pays for these added costs.

Originally Posted by jackdale

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2 that again is paid by the consumer not the producer. Any company that has waste products in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed unless they do not pose a threat to other people.. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them in the air? Yes, if they are not "pollutants" or other byproducts that have the potential to harm others (per Milton Friedman).

The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, supports a carbon tax. So does a large consensus of climate economists.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...rbon-pollution

If you use less carbon you will pay less carbon tax. Not a hard concept.

No, the most simplistic part of this tax scheme you like to cite is not hard to grasp. But for some reason you are unable or unwilling to respond to the harder parts of the analysis that others have repeatedly challenged you on.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Let's say for arguments' sake it's only several tens of thousands of actual practising scientists in the 197 academies and institutions that Jack listed. Your 70 dissenters still aren't even a rounding error.

The Wiki link itself says it's not a complete list. I'm sure there are various levels of dissenters who work at the institutions on Jack's list, even though the institution they work for has a stated position.

It's of course telling that you need to imply that all the 197 listed scientific organizations must be bastions of intolerance and conformity, rather than consider that some of your cherished 70 individuals might be misinformed, a bit potty, have hidden motivators of their own, or are just plain wrong.

All logical possibilities, as they are for the mainstreamer's. When it comes to climate science, I'm not smarter than any of the scientists wherever they may come down on AGW. How 'bout you?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

When it comes to climate science, I'm not smarter than any of the scientists wherever they may come down on AGW. How 'bout you?

You must be pretty smart, to believe that the vast majority of these scientists are wrong.

You're clever enough to seek a "scientific" or rational basis for your personal-politics-driven opposition to taking any collective action against AGW, or against any other significant environmental or social problem, I imagine.

I'm smart enough to see this for what it is.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by jackdale

None are representative of the millions of members of these 197 organizations, societies, academies, etc..

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

And here I thought you criticized people who copy and paste...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Quote:
Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979
Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?
Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

We already do this through strict emissions regulations imposed on auto mfgs., fossil fuel cos., and power plants which are designed to become ever stricter as time goes by. The consumer pays for these added costs.

Read the part of the Friedman quote highlighted in DarkSlateBlue.

Friedman is opposed to regulations. He would rather use something more market based like a carbon tax.