"Most Caribbean coral reefs may disappear in the next 20 years"

[John Drake]

Lake effect, are you for real? I just cannot imagine you have any idea of what you are talking about. Seriously.

I stated that climate scientists do not agree on the amount of impact human activity has on climate change. And you state that there is disagreement among climate scientists as to what the effect of human activity will be. Gee...no kidding...I just said that.

As for the false construct...you obviously really have no idea what a false construct is.

I asked three simple questions. If you are going to say there is a problem and we need to listen to you...then YOU need to have the construct as to the cause and effect, and any solution.

And you do not. You think you do, but you would be mistaken, because you are exhibiting first order, one dimensional thinking.

Those three little questions are the same questions you would ask your car mechanic, boat mechanic, roofer, doctor or dentist before they did ANYTHING for you. Simple.

So, as I stated, if you cannot answer three simple questions, you have nothing. Everyone agrees, climate changes. If you have a plan (a real plan, not just this first order thinking...we have to do something....we need green energy...that is meaningless without detail), a cost and what it will affect, speak up.

Obviously, instead of answering three simple questions, you attack the person asking the questions. Classic.



There are, in fact, answers to the first two questions. But, you are too stuck in your dogma to think outside the box enough to even guess what it could possibly be. But, I will give you a hint as to what the climate science committee's answer to the second question is....under the false construct of the UN 2009 report. Maybe you can find that....it is a pretty obvious hint. Read that report and you might be able to understand what a false construct really is

[donradcliffe]

For those looking for a good read on the subject of global warming, here is a well known denier:

State of Fear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Andrew B.]

Sorry for the cut and paste.

Global Warming:
"By John Coleman, The Founder of The Weather Channel. It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.


Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.

Now their ridicules manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.

However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I suspect you might like to say to me, "John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with
PH D's in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D's. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.

Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90's they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.

There were a few who didn't fit the mold. They did ask questions and raised objections. They did research with contradictory results. The environmental elitists berated them brushed their studies aside.

I have learned since the Ice Age is coming scare in the 1970's to always be a skeptic about research. In the case of global warming, I didn't accept media accounts. Instead I read dozens of the scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct when I assure you there is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. It is all a scam, the result of bad science.

I am not alone in this assessment. There are hundreds of other meteorologists, many of them PH D's, who are as certain as I am that this global warming frenzy is based on bad science and is not valid.

I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped.

The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway.

I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend."

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Robin3

I have no idea if Parrotfish are good bad or indifferent other than they get bad press on local TV here in Florida, but the cloying portrayal for indoctrination of kids on TV like on the 'oh so goody goody 'Enviropals' brats programme who are daily out there saving the planet singlehanded quite frankly sickens me. Kids should be informed but be allowed to make up their own minds, Brainwashing is brainwashing no matter who does it and whether in the name of religion or environmentalism. Interfering with the natural order of things seems all wrong to me, but then what do I know, just a dumb limey (or lamprey as my stoopid spellchecker corrected initially) that likes to sail.

All I can say from some 45 years as a diver on the Aust GBR and coral sea is that parrotfish appear to me to be a sign of a healthy coral ecosystem.

I know the corals I see and won't attempt to get into the climate change debate. All I know is that I have not been convinced climate change is down to being man made.

Agreed on brainwashing of kids. occurs her in Australia also.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Andrew B.

Sorry for the cut and paste.

Global Warming:
"By John Coleman, The Founder of The Weather Channel. It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.

Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental wacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.......

From the Snopes website, which researches "urban legends".

Weather or Not?

Origins: John Coleman is a television weather forecaster who worked in that field for over six decades, at a number of different TV stations across the U.S., until he suddenly retired from his last job at KUSI-TV in San Diego in April 2014. Coleman pioneered the use of such now-standard TV weather forecasting elements as onscreen satellite technology and computer graphics, and he was also instrumental in the founding of The Weather Channel (TWC) on cable television, serving as that channel's CEO and President during its establishment and its first year of operation.

John Coleman also became, in later years, an outspoken critic of the global warming issue, stating that his epiphany came while he was viewing a football game in 2007:

The Eagles were playing the Cowboys in Philadelphia on Sunday Night Football, and as a gesture of environmental awareness — it was "Green is Universal" week at NBC-Universal — the studio lights were cut for portions of the pre-game and half-time shows. Coleman, who had been growing increasingly skeptical about global warming for more than a decade, finally snapped. "I couldn’t take it anymore," said. "I did a Howard Beale."

In November 2007 Coleman penned a widely-reproduced essay in which he labeled global warming "the greatest scam in history" and "a manufactured crisis," and he delivered a speech in that same vein (the text of which is reproduced above) to the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in June 2008.

Although this item is superficially "true" in the sense that the words quoted above were indeed written by John Coleman, the statement that they "refute" global warming (i.e., prove it to be false) is something of an exaggeration. As Coleman's critics have noted, he does not hold a degree in climatology or any related discipline, nor has he studied or conducted any research in that field; he merely parrots arguments advanced by others. Moreover, much of his criticism of climate change deals with impugning the motives of those engaged in that discipline rather than refuting the science behind their work:

For the many Americans who don't understand the difference between weather — the short-term behavior of the atmosphere — and climate — the broader system in which weather happens — Coleman's professional background made him a genuine authority on global warming. It was an impression that Coleman encouraged. Global warming "is not something you 'believe in,'" he wrote in his essay. "It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise."

Except that it wasn't. Coleman had spent half a century in the trenches of TV weathercasting; he had once been an accredited meteorologist, and remained a virtuoso forecaster. But his work was more a highly technical art than a science. His degree, received fifty years earlier at the University of Illinois, was in journalism. And then there was the fact that the research that Coleman was rejecting wasn't "the science of meteorology" at all — it was the science of climatology, a field in which Coleman had spent no time whatsoever.

Skepticism is, of course, the core value of scientific inquiry. But the essay that Coleman published would have more properly been termed rejectionism. Coleman wasn't arguing against the integrity of a particular conclusion based on careful original research — something that would have constituted useful scientific skepticism. Instead, he went after the motives of the scientists themselves. Climate researchers, he wrote, "look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else."

Critics of Coleman who do study and work in the field of climate science have produced detailed line-by-line rebuttals of his arguments against global warming.

Last updated: 30 June 2014

[Fritz Gahagan]

[QUOTE=John Drake;:

Answer three simple questions:

1. What is the plan?
2. How much will it cost?
3. How much will it limit climate change?

If you cannot answer those three simple questions, you have nothing.

See The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World
Book by William Nordhaushe

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Fritz Gahagan

See The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World
Book by William Nordhaushe

Two reviews of this book:

NEW YORK TIMES

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM BLOG

[a64pilot]

See, I believe Global warming is probably occurring, I don't see how Billions of people can't make an impact of some kind, denying that is well, sort of illogical.

But, what Irks me is a politician standing up and making big press about it, and then turning around and enriching his own pocket selling "carbon credits etc.", all the while while personally contributing to more CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gasses because he personally consumes many times more fossil fuels than Joe Average. While the "Eco warriors" praise him as a saint.

It just stinks of hypocrisy

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Drake

I stated that climate scientists do not agree on the amount of impact human activity has on climate change. And you state that there is disagreement among climate scientists as to what the effect of human activity will be. Gee...no kidding...I just said that.

I took what you originally wrote to mean that people were saying "oh look, here's some change" and that the issue was, well, is it us or not?, which usually leads into the silly "hey, the earth always changes, so it must not be us" argument.

My version was trying to emphasize that "it's obvious we are affecting the climate" over and above what could be natural cycles, and the issue is to better understand to what extent we're about to f#@k things up and what we could possibly do to avoid that.

Hope that's clearer, and sorry about any ambiguity.

Originally Posted by John Drake

I asked three simple questions. If you are going to say there is a problem and we need to listen to you...then YOU need to have the construct as to the cause and effect, and any solution.

And you do not. You think you do, but you would be mistaken, because you are exhibiting first order, one dimensional thinking.

Those three little questions are the same questions you would ask your car mechanic, boat mechanic, roofer, doctor or dentist before they did ANYTHING for you. Simple.

Uh huh. Right.

Car mechanic has been trained on how to fix cars, and has likely fixed several. Boat mechanic - substitute "boat" for "car". Roofer... Doctor...Dentist....Simple.

So, find me the guy/gal who's studied and already corrected for the atmosphere-altering effects of a rapidly industrializing species. Try Google. or the Yellow Pages. Any luck there?

So, as I stated, if you cannot answer three simple questions, you have nothing.

You can pound all you like, this square peg of an issue will not fit into your nice little round logic-hole. It's something new, John, something not previously encountered on this scale.

I'm not here with a plan; I go off when people display breathtaking ignorance about this issue and about science in general. I don't much care whether anyone is actually concerned or not. I do care that misinformation is spread about like fertilizer then pointed to as legitimate.

Denying the reality and scope of a problem prevents us from researching it more thoroughly, and THEN tabling some solutions.

you are too stuck in your dogma

I would call it more a conviction based on information, bolstered by the mainly ludicrous and non-scientific arguments on the denial side ... but yeah, I'm pretty stuck in.

[John Drake]

Hi Fritz...thank you for the...imaginary .....argument.

Unfortunately, you should have read Descartes to understand how basing a dogma on a set of assumptions that cannot be validated, puts you in danger of creating a ....false construct.

A singular quote, from the imaginary review, should suffice:

"Professor Nordhaus understands that major uncertainties remain about how nature works. Computer models help, but they can disagree. Nevertheless, he says, we have no choice but to make our best guesses and most prudent choices, relying on a “fuzzy telescope.”

Are you serious? You really cannot believe that basing public policy and BILLIONS of dollars of tax payer money on that garbage a good idea.

This is the argument from proponents: Climate change will cause such unbelievably huge costs to the environment that ANY money spent now is a good investment.

The proposed solution is.....wait for it .... CAP AND TRADE.

And here is the problem with such thinking.

The models are....just models. They are not reality. The models vary by 10X on what the future outcome of climate change.

All of this belies the fact that a scant 40 years from now, the planet will hit 9 BILLION in population. The issues associated with that will dwarf those of climate change. The UN's own population model falls off the chart at 9 billion.

Australia just repealed their cap and trade laws. They don't work, they do not reduce carbon. They are simply a scam to enrich those who create that market.

Since the models DO NOT know how much climate change is cause by humans, it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the outcome of ANY policies to limit carbon. So, question #3 cannot be answered and of course...no one single climate scientist has even tried.

For there to be any possible global solution, China, India and Russia have to play along. And China, India and Russia have thus far told the US and UN to jerk off.

OK?

Now, to be clear:

Is there climate change? Yes

Will climate change have a greater impact 100 years from now, than global population 40 years from now? No.

Would limiting carbon output be a good idea? Yes

Would spending money to do so be cost effective in any way? No

Is that solution spending 37 TRILLION dollars installing what will be century old technology by 2030 to "limit" climate change...not reduce or eliminate it (this is the answer to help Lake Effect)? No...that is a false construct from the 2009 UN climate report. False because it is impossible for the govt's of the world to find 37 TRILLION to spend. False because it would be stupid to spend so much money installing century old technology.

If we cared about this...is there a solution? Yes...you have to think out of the box, but there is a very logical solution that is consistent with the advances in technology and the energy needs of a fully developed world.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, you have been a wonderful audience.

[John Drake]

Lake

It is fine that you are stuck in your dogma. Show me a man without conviction and I will show you a man without a soul.

No one denies climate change. Although Michael Crichton did an excellent job and compiled the most extensive bibliography on the subject.

What is denied is that the cap and trade plan put forth by AGW advocates is anything but a scam. Australia has already repealed their C&T laws.

As for the three questions, I would urge you to ask those questions of anyone who would spend your money. If you have truly paid a boat yard to take care of your boat, without asking those questions....you have not sailed enough.

If you read a little more, you will find that science is not about pretending to know everything, it is about knowing to ask questions about everything.

[GordMay]

There was this one man who believed he was a corpse. He wouldn't eat, wouldn't work. He just sat around all the time claiming he was a corpse.

The psychologist tries to convince the man that he is not really dead. They argue about it back and forth to no avail. Finally the psychiatrist says "Do corpses bleed?"

The man thinks about this for a moment and says..."No..all body functions have stopped so there is no more bleeding possible"

So the psychiatrist says "OK, let's try an experiment then. I will take a needle and prick your finger and see if you bleed."

Since the patient has decided he is a corpse, there is nothing much he can do to stop it, so the psychiatrist sticks him with the needle, and the man starts to bleed. The patient looks at it totally amazed and says:

"I'll be dammed. Corpses do bleed!"

[John Drake]

BTW, Lake - there is an answer. Being too stuck in dogma can blind you to it. But, if you ask the right questions, it is surprisingly easy to find.

Thanks

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by John Drake

What is denied is that the cap and trade plan put forth by AGW advocates is anything but a scam. Australia has already repealed their C&T laws.

AGW is an issue - full stop.

Cap and trade is not the grail of all or most advocates for AGW. It's just a tool in the toolbox. Economists and business leaders have proposed cap and trade as a free-market approach to reducing CO2 emissions. We like free markets, don't we? (-cough-2008-cough-)

So if you're down on AGW advocacy because you think it's a front for C&T proponents... relax, it's not.

As for the three questions, I would urge you to ask those questions of anyone who would spend your money. If you have truly paid a boat yard to take care of your boat, without asking those questions....you have not sailed enough.

If you read a little more, you will find that science is not about pretending to know everything, it is about knowing to ask questions about everything.

You're kind of contradicting yourself. First you're insistent that one cannot talk credibly about a problem unless you come to the table with a full solution proposed.

Then you lecture me on how science is about asking questions. So which is it?

[John Drake]

Lake - I will try to make it clearer for you. Sorry if my prose is complex.

If you do not have a plan with a cost effective solution that produces results...DON'T SPEND MY MONEY.

Science is about asking questions. You still cannot even answer the first two, even though I provided you with the answer.

The point is that AGW and climate change advocacy misses the point. You, yourself are focused on ..."deniers".. to the point where you cannot see the flaws in your argument, nor the actual solution that could be discussed.

This causes you to make flawed assumptions...such as the free market solution...never stated that...so...please do yourself a favor and forgo the demonstration of a lack of understanding.

Hope that helps