Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 Next
Comments 84751 to 84800:
-
nealjking at 07:06 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
I don't know Happer, but a good friend of mine is a colleague of his, at another university. Happer is well-enough versed in climate science to know how the enhanced greenhouse effect works, as he gave a talk in which he discussed it; correctly giving the detailed explanation instead of the high-school level summary that is usually given. Therefore, it is all the more shameful that he pretends to think that the reason that climate scientists think AGW is happening just because things are warming up. He knows better; he's pretending to be stupid to please his audience. This is what is known as "lacking intellectual integrity." It's a pity that education and professorial status don't protect you from this; it also takes a kind of moral backbone. If he really does need a review of why climate scientists think what they think, he should check out Stuart Weart's site on the American Institute of Physics website, The Discovery of Global Warming: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm Or maybe he should just think about his grandchildren, if he has any; and take seriously the concept that they will have to live in the ACTUAL world of the future - not just the one that he tells stories about. Maybe that will encourage him to apply his technical talents to understanding, and not obfuscating. -
JMurphy at 07:02 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Anyone who gives any credence to WUWT as a source of unbiased information (of any sort, let alone scientific), needs to go to WottsUpWithThat now and again, if they want to stay properly informed. They must obviously also have missed this classic : Canadian Harp Seals In New England (“prediction” of cooling?) And his use of dodgy photos : Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick Also, don't forget the many Steven Goddard 'classics' - so many, in fact, that even Watts had to let him go. (And that is just skimming the surface of the murky pond) Anyone who wants to maintain any scientific credibility does NOT refer to WUWT for anything but laughs. -
KR at 06:41 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Jay Cadbury "I think what got lost in the article is that Happer is a true environmentalist and believes we should be focusing on some other problems in the environment." If Happer was in this article simply arguing distribution of resources between different environmental issues, this thread would not exist. Instead, Happer went on a Gish Gallop of major proportions - stacks of errors, untruths, flat out lies, ad hominem arguments, etc. With his background, this is inexcusable behavior as a scientist, and I (and a number of other people) are quite reasonably wondering as to his motivations. Given his position as Chairman of the George Marshall Institute, a "non-profit" industry and right-wing advocate group, it's reasonable to conclude that this is an advocacy paper, not a scientific one. Happer's Princeton credentials therefore represent an Appeal to Authority in this case, a misuse of his position at the university. If presented in honesty, it should have been given a disclaimer to that extent. -
pbjamm at 06:39 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Dr. Jay Cadbury@33 "I don't understand how plants would ultimately suffer with elevated co2 levels because they were huge in the time of the dinosaurs with high co2 levels." Perhaps you should try researching the subject instead of commenting on it in ignorance. @sphaerica I think Dr J is baiting SkS -
David Horton at 06:31 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Whether Dr Cadbury is real (in various senses) or not, he is playing silly games with SkS readers here. A genuine person, a genuine "friend of Happer's", stung perhaps by the criticism of this post, might indeed turn up to see what's up with that. But having turned up, presumably for the first time, he would quickly discover that this is a site devoted to dispelling the bad science that Happer has represented. He might then click on "Arguments" or "Resources" - could read that all his myths have been presented before and dispelled by actual scientists. Could then, if he thought there was still some great truth revealed only to Happer and himself, come back to test us with this great undiscovered truth. Given someone who is clearly too lazy to do that, and I can't see it happening, there isn't a lot of point in doing a rehash of all the skeptic arguments on this site for Dr Cadbury. -
scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 26 May 2011Carter Confusion #1: Anthropogenic Warming
"Thermodynamics is important but it isn't the be-all and end-all behind climate science and, as you scaddenp will know, is sadly not well understood generally. " Frankly claiming some causal relationship by overfitting a statistical model, where the proposed causal relationship implies violation of 1st law, does indeed deserve the abusive term. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:22 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Jay @ 22... "okay that's not what I asked for. But I do in fact understand distribution curves." Then you surely understand the implications of shifting the distribution curve one way or another. You will still find larger extreme events in the past even when shifting the curve one direction. That is not an indication that a shift is not occurring. As Albatross pointed out at 24, the shift is happening. I know this is not a scientific way of looking at it, but just think back for a moment. When do you EVER remember people talking about 1000 year extreme weather events? I've been around long a while I can not remember this. I remember 100 events. Today we are witnessing many 1000 year events in consecutive years. As anecdotal as that is, it suggests to me that there is something very serious starting to happen. Published research backs that position up. And the science suggests this is going to get worse. To pull back on topic, it's this that I find unconscionable that people with the educational background to know better - people such as Dr Happer - are leveling such a litany of demonstrably inaccurate statements at the climate science community. It boggles the mind. -
scaddenp at 06:18 AM on 26 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
"I tried to match the CO2 hockey stick to the Greenland temperatures shown in the attached graph which I prepared with the idea that temperature trends are magnified at high latitudes. Can you see the correlation?" So how about instead matching global temperature to total forcings? That is what the climate models are actually about. Claiming that modellers expect that climate is only based on CO2 is a straw man. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:12 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
33, Cadbury, I guess it all depends on what you mean by "plants". Overall, plant growth will probably increase dramatically. But the plants that thrive will not be those that thrive today, and they won't be in the same areas as today. Interestingly, C4 plants have evolved for low CO2 but high temperatures, so it will be interesting to see which species of plants fail, which succeed, and how they evolve to handle a climate with more CO2 but also higher temperatures and more, less or inconsistent precipitation. The Hadley Cells are expected to enlarge, and precipitation patterns will change, so we can expect deserts to grow. That's not good for plants in those areas. Droughts may be more frequent and more severe. We've already seen two of the worst in the Amazon just since 2000. One possible extreme proposition is the conversion of the Amazon rainforest to savanna, since rainforest plants are so ill-equipped to handle water shortages. There's still a lot of work being done there, so it's a question mark, but it's not something to just shrug off. Plants can start to move further north, but the soil is particularly bad up north, where glaciers scraped away the top soil, and there hasn't been enough vegetation long enough to create more. So I guess in a few thousand years plants may be thriving there, but not in our lifetimes. Beyond this, the the change in seasons and seasonal daylight is more dramatic. I'm not sure which plants will be able to survive further north with good temperatures, but different light, moisture, soil and seasonal conditions. And, of course, what most selfish humans mostly care about is food crops. That could be very bad, if precipitation and moisture changes make the northern and northeastern US more fertile, but central, southern and western US all less fertile, along with great swaths of the USSR, and the countries along the northern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. So you see, your logic is rather simplistic. You stopped way short in the process of projecting what may happen, and what the implications are. -
apiratelooksat50 at 06:09 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
DB @ 95 and Albatross @ 96 For clarity's sake: I find both WUWT and SKS to be basically diametrically opposed on the GCC topic. I don't take either one at face value. I like to look at each and follow links and develop my own thoughts. If you will notice I listed just a few sources where a researcher can go to find the actual data and not the opinions of others after digesting and regurgitating that data. There are plenty more available. You may find WUWT to be a disinformation machine, and on the other hand I'm certain that the followers at WUWT find SKS to be a propaganda machine. Regardless, both can be used as a lead-in to investigation of new evidence. I'm really more of a centrist on the issue of AGW and enjoy reading different viewpoints. I prefer to go to the source and analyze the data myself rather than reading another person's breakdown of the same data. I am very open minded on most issues (including AGW). I have a BS and an MS degree in science disciplines, have over 20 years experience in environmental consulting, 5 years experience in environmental science/biology education, and 9 years experience running a successful environmental consulting company. Question me if you want, denigrate me if you want, but you are really doing yourself a disservice. I agree with you mostly, but not totally. And, I suggest that we stop using terms like 'skeptic'/contrarian/denier and their opposites believer/warmist/alarmist. A reasonable discussion without the "tagging" would be more productive. -
les at 06:02 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
33 Jay - I mean, like you said "Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement." So the 'fact' of the firing is, to you, sufficient evidence of AGW being a political movement... although, of course, Happer got his job many years before Gore as Bush fired his predecessor for AGW reasons... although that may have been more oil money than politics... may be? So? How do you know better? -
Patrick Kelly at 05:59 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
In short, even Princeton can make mistakes in who they decide should represent their department
The implication clearly being that Happer should be removed by the powers that be at Princeton. Are you prepared to come out and openly espouse that postion? -
les at 05:58 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
33 Jay - why? It's completely consistent... Exxon clearly had a big say in the Bush administration. Seems the Georgy Boy Marshall Institute gets cash from Exxon etc. He used the classical "needs more research" Merchents of doubt technique... So, why don't you agree? Just 'cos he's a mate? -
Kevin C at 05:54 AM on 26 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
#9 Galloping Camel: Yes, Charlie understood me correctly. My only reservation is that a 1-box model is just a bit too simple, because the real system seems to require at least two characteristic periods to fit the 20th century behaviour. With only one, you have to fit the multidecadal response and lose the faster ones. This is most apparent in a failure to fit the response to volcanic forcings. (I haven't tested that however, it is my synthesis of several different bits of work by Tamino and the others.) I actually agree with Arthur Smith here that attaching a physical meaning to even the 2-box model is suspect. You may as well abandon the pretence of physicality and simply determine the response function by a parameterised deconvolution, where a parsimonious parameterisation is chosen to best fit the observed data. Two exponentials happen to work quite well, but it may be possible to do better. Conceptually, cross validation should tell us just how parsimonious to make the parameterisation, but looking at the curves my gut says that there is not enough data once you account for autocorrelation. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 05:52 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
@Les I agree with some of that but I don't think Happer was hired to disagree about climate change. @Sphaerica See I don't understand how plants would ultimately suffer with elevated co2 levels because they were huge in the time of the dinosaurs with high co2 levels. Since greenhouse owners often pump levels of 1,000 ppm into greenhouses, what level would be detrimental to plants? -
Bob Lacatena at 05:52 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
15, Cadbury, The list continues:More CO2 is supposed to cause flooded cities, parched agriculture, tropical diseases in Alaska, etc., and even an epidemic of kidney stones.
I haven't myself seen these studies, but even if they exist, the implication here is clearly that if it hasn't happened already, it will never happen. This is a lie by implication.The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet.
No one scientific has raised this question, only deniers. The question is "how bad", not "good or bad." This lie falls somewhere in the gray area between a direct lie, a lie by implication, and a lie by omission.The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2.
This is a bold faced lie. First, it's not an "argument," it's a scientific position shared by the vast majority of practicing climate scientists. Beyond this, the argument has to do with radiative physics, contemporary observations, deductions through paleohistory, and more. The argument was never "CO2 rose, and so did temperature, so the former caused the latter." That one was probably the most egregious lie in his article.There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change
This is another lie by omission. Any climate change which endured for a half a millenium or more did see changes in CO2 levels, which were a result of the warming. Periods like the Medieval Climate Anomaly did not last long enough to produce CO2 feedbacks. But more to the point, the planet has never before had an intelligent species capable of digging up and burning the carbon that nature spent hundreds of millions of years burying. It should be no surprise that this has never happened before, or that because there can be other causes for climate change, this cannot be one of them.Since the end of the little ice age, the earth has been warming in fits and starts, and humanity’s quality of life has improved accordingly.
This is a lie by implication, i.e. that because temps have increased, and human quality of life has increased, then the two are related and any warming of any magnitude is good. But who was it that said "correlation is not causation?" Oh, yes, it was Happer, just a few paragraphs back. And before that he said "in reality, you can get too much or too little of a good thing." This time he should listen to himself.Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere.
Another lie by ommission. It's not unusual, and life and the planet may well survive, but such climate change in the past has spelled the end for many species, and will be just as dangerous to ours. The statement about benefiting the biosphere has already been addressed, and is a direct, egregious, and complete falsehood. Okay, this is getting boring, because pretty much every other sentence in his article is a falsehood of one sort or another. I'll stop here, rather than clutter the entire comment thread with more of his drivel. -
les at 05:46 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
I don't have my copy of MoD to hand... but my above post made me wonder...reskes and Conway have unearthed a treasure trove of primary documents covering decades of this sort of activity that leaves one enormously impressed at the scope of their efforts. But this is not just a history of a time before we all became far too sophisticated to fall for such foolishness. It is worth noting that the heirs of this tradition, such as William Happer, a Princeton University professor of physics and current chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, continue to operate in the same way.
bingo! -
les at 05:32 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
I'm fascinated by the "Gore fires Happer" story... a quick google reveals that Happer was fired because he objected to the VP wanting to take over the world by pretending AGW is true. However Happer was a Bush appointee and only, originally, kept on for 4 months at the start of the Clinton administration. He was fired after 3 for disagreeing with Gore both about climate change on the Ozone hole - claiming he agreed that both where important but more measurement is required... in his own words at the time. Who knows? It's not unusual for administrations to keep folks on for a period and then change... and much the same happened to his predecessor Bob Watson... ousted by Exxon! So Happer got his job to oppose climate change action and lost it for doing the same thing... -
BlueRock at 05:31 AM on 26 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Good post, Dana. This study was also widely debunked when it first appeared: * Gabriel Calzada: A study by a Spanish economist showing that as many as 20 jobs are lost for every “green job” created, has been criticized by the Spanish government as being “simplistic” and “reductionist” and based on “non-rigorous methodology.” http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-avenue/breaking-down-spain%E2%80%99s-green-jobs-spending * Spanish government debunks green jobs study cited by GOP. http://thephoenixsun.com/archives/4133 * Debunking The Study by Gabriel Calzada on The Dire Result of Green Jobs Creation in Spain. http://greeneconomypost.com/debunk-spanish-study-green-jobs-1582.htm It's a good example of the anti-renewable propaganda and lies that is constantly being pushed out to confuse the public. -
Mike Lemonick at 05:31 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Sphaerica 27: I'll add to it now. Happer has asserted that since the human race has survived dramatic climate change in the past, it follows that we'll be fine (I paraphrase). It's an idiotic statement, since the human population was dramatically less during the transitions into and out of ice ages, for example; it was nomadic, not dependent on an integrated world economy involving fixed infrastructure--and besides, "survived" is a pretty low standard. Does Happer know, for example, that 50% of the human race wasn't wiped out in those past episodes? Of course he doesn't. In short, another statement that a scientist with an ounce of shame wouldn't let emerge from his mouth. -
NewYorkJ at 05:25 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Happer's been at it awhile. Exxon Funded Think-Tank Chair Will Happer to Testify in Congress on Climate CO2 Famine -
Bob Lacatena at 05:22 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
15, Cabury, You asked for a list:By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it?
This is an idiotic thing to say. Obviously no one has said that human breath is making the air unclean. This is a lie by implication (i.e. implying that a claim has been made, when it has not).As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread...
A pollutant is anything that contaminates an environment. It does not in itself need to be directly poisonous. In the case of CO2, if it raises temperatures and reduces precipitation patterns, it will be harmful to the species of plants currently adapted to existing (and to be changed) ecosystems. This makes CO2 a pollutant. It also makes the above statement a lie by omission.We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people.
This is based on the failed logic that only direct poisoning by CO2 is dangerous, which is clearly not what anyone is saying. This makes this statement disingenuous to an insulting nth degree. Another lie by omission. By analogy, there is probably a maximum amount of water that a person can safely drink, so shoving your head in a bucket full of that amount of water and holding it there should be perfectly safe!As we have discussed, animals would not even notice a doubling of CO2 and plants would love it.
False! Plants will ultimately suffer with raised temperatures and reduced precipitation in areas. Humanity could actually see the loss of huge swaths of the Amazon rainforests, among other ecosystems. Ignoring this aspect of climate change is insane. That statement was a flat out lie....since the predicted warming has failed to be nearly as large as computer models forecast...
This is false, as discussed elsewhere on this site.Climate change itself has been embarrassingly uneventful
This is a disingenuous distraction. No one ever said that climate change would be instantaneously harmful. The major effects of our actions today won't be felt for 20-50 years, but they will be irreversible. To ignore this truth is a lie by omission....to stop the hypothetical increase of extreme climate events like hurricanes or tornados. But this does not necessarily follow. The frequency of extreme events has either not changed or has decreased
Again, a lie by omission. No one ever said climate change would instantly and obviously increase storm strengths. In fact, I've never seen any statement in the science about it increasing tornadoes. Even the science on hurricanes is not settled (see What is the link between hurricanes and global warming? for an overview of published papers on the subject). This is enough for now. I'll add to it later. -
Albatross at 05:18 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Jay, "Happer is a true environmentalist and believes we should be focusing on some other problems in the environment." That may be true, but he is presenting people with false choices in that case. The REDD programme is about protecting forests while also tackling AGW. We have been and can still continue do both. The scenario that you are trying to paint is an old "skeptic" tactic. As for "I do in fact have a phd but I am not comfortable disclosing it." Then why on earth is it part of your moniker. I have PhD too, as do other regular posters here, but do not feel entitled to advertise it each and every time I post. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 05:09 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
@Paul Barry Paul, I don't appreciate the cheap shots. I do in fact have a phd but I am not comfortable disclosing it.Response:[DB] Please, let us all return to the subject of this thread.
-
Albatross at 05:08 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Jay @16, "Give me a natural disaster or a storm that has happened since the beginning of the industrial era and I can find you a bigger storm or larger natural disaster in the past." And because we had wildfires before, does not mean that we do not have people causing fires now does it? Please, this is a science site. You are intentionally missing the point. And you need to do much, much bette than that horrendously lame attempt quoted above. The science shows that extreme rainfall events are on the increase. See here, here, here and here for some examples. Happer is doing a fine job destroying his credibility, he doesn't need your help. But why should I care...... -
les at 05:08 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
21 - yes, of course he is! Oh, and the poster called "Albatross" is really a sea-going bird. No, really... -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 05:07 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
@Rob okay that's not what I asked for. But I do in fact understand distribution curves. @Albatross As I stated before, I am a friend of Happer so yes of course I read the article and happen to agree with most all of it. I think what got lost in the article is that Happer is a true environmentalist and believes we should be focusing on some other problems in the environment. -
Paul Barry at 05:02 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Just a thought folks. Is Dr Jay for real? Sounds like a joker to me. Hardly worth spending time responding to his asinine remarks. "Ph.D." might be more convincing than "phd"! What's your doctorate in Dr. J?Response:[DB] It is immaterial whether Jay has a doctorate or what it may be in. Perusal of his comments over time here and elsewhere should make it self-evident as to his capabilities to make and formulate objective and substantive comments and decisions. Thus, unless also from Princeton, it has no bearing on the topic of this thread.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:02 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Jay @ 16... Then obviously you do not understand distribution curves, or are conveniently attempting to ignore what they mean. -
Mike Lemonick at 05:01 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Excellent post, but this sentence troubles me: "In short, even Princeton can make mistakes in who they decide should represent their department" What in the world led you to believe that Princeton decided to let Happer represent them? That's nonsense. Princeton didn't decide that Happer should represent anyone or anything. Happer decided entirely on his own to speak out on topics he doesn't really understand very well. Most universities have a handful of faculty members with tenure who end up making stupid statements that are an embarrassment. But being embarrassing isn't a criterion for dismissal or suppression. -
David Lewis at 05:01 AM on 26 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
Just to identify myself - that long comment immediately above this was written by David Lewis. I have been a climate activist since 1988. I was a voice in Canadian politics advocating stabilizing the composition of the atmosphere and aiming for returning it to the preindustrial composition starting from that date. -
David Lewis at 04:58 AM on 26 May 2011Climate Change Denial book now available!
I received my copy of your book yesterday and haven't had time to read much of it yet. I appreciate the work on climate that you do and ordered it on the strength of that. I'm looking forward to reading your book, as I have appreciated the way you handle the arguments of those who deny the validity of climate science. However, I immediately went to see what you had to say on nuclear power and carbon capture, to see if you approach those issues in the way you wish climate denialists would approach climate science. I think that if you want to understand a bit more about why climate science deniers just can't seem to understand that climate change is happening, consider your remarks in the book on nuclear power and carbon capture. A few points: The IPCC AR4 says because nuclear is "similar" to renewables in terms of lifecycle CO2 emissions, it is "an effective GHG mitigation option". It seems you disagree. Does this mean you would say the IPCC is a suspect source for information? Should we just cherry pick what we agree with from it and dismiss the rest? You say 6.7 cents a kWhr is "not cheap" and you say instead of building nukes that could produce power at that price we should spend where CO2 can be displaced "soonest". What does that mean? Shouldn't we be concerned about the cost? Take a look at the chart Al Gore took from McKinsey, i.e. the "global GHG abatement cost curve" he republished on page 240 of his book "Our Choice". McKinsey found that nuclear is a more cost effective mitigation option per tonne of CO2 displaced than wind or solar. Gore removed the word "nuclear" from his version of the chart so renewables supporters couldn't see what McKinsey found. Aren't you arguing the same way? Take a look at Monbiot’s critique of German solar power subsidies - Why are feed in tariffs for solar set so high if 6.7 cents a kWhr for nuke electricity is so expensive? You say the nuclear “fuel cycle produces weapons grade uranium and plutonium”. It doesn’t. Weapons grade material refers to highly refined material, i.e. in the case of uranium that means a sample that is 90% U235, in the case of plutonium that means Pu-239 93%. The fuel cycle for commercial nuclear power produces U235 at 3%. The plutonium would have to be reprocessed out of the waste and the bomb grade isotope separated. Why assert that a specific grade of material is created that is not? Do facts matter? If I used words the way you do, I could say crushing ordinary granite for gravel produces “weapons grade uranium”, just because it contains minute amounts of U235. Nuclear proliferation is a serious issue, but you should make your case about it without lies or whatever you want to call what you’ve done here. Nuclear waste can’t be dealt with, you imply. You might want to take a look at Kahan’s Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. Kahan was studying, among other things, why people reject climate science. One thing he discovered is that people who accept climate science tend to reject the equally authoritative scientific consensus among the relevant scientists about nuclear waste. He cites NAS NRC studies on climate science and nuclear waste to show what the consensus on the two issues is, then writes about his data and conclusions. The NAS concludes nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical one. You assert otherwise. Why? Look up WIPP, which is a licensed facility in the US that is safely disposing of US military nuke waste in a salt formation. The formation has been there for 300 or so million years, There isn't water flowing through it to carry anything anywhere because otherwise the salt wouldn't be there. The formation is large enough to hold the entire world supply of nuclear waste. Opponents of nuclear power insist there is no place to put the waste. Why? Why do you, as someone who wants something done about climate, add your voice to theirs? In order to make your point that nuclear plants are not being built, you had to tell us to ignore the places where they are being built, i.e. Asia. Why does arguing this way not seem very weird to you, given how much time you must spend going over the fine points of climate denier arguments? We’ll have to mine uranium, unless we use breeder reactors, but we can’t use those, according to you. MIT said they didn’t expect breeders to be used in the immediate future, so you refer to them, but you don’t say why they said that. They said there is enough uranium, which you dispute, they said light water reactors are proven and available and not too dangerous or too expensive to use given the climate problem we face, which you dispute, so they expect the industry, if people decide climate change should be dealt with, will use those. Your argument cherry picks MIT for what you can distort them to say to support your conclusions, which MIT would disagree with. Does this type of argument sound familiar to you? You assert that nuclear power stations can “melt down like Chernobyl”. None ever has. Only Chernobyl. Chernobyl didn’t have a containment building, and it had a graphite core that could burn. The reactor core caught fire and burned out of control without a containment for some days. It is a significant design difference from anything operating in other places. You might want to let the dust settle before declaring how great a catastrophe Fukushima was or is or will be in response. Dr. Robert Gale, who directed the medical effort treating victims of Chernobyl, expects no one will be able to detect the small theoretical increase in cancer that he expects will be calculated to have occurred as a result of Fukushima over the next decades. Why state what has to be disposed of when a nuke plant is decommissioned in units of pounds? Why not micrograms, or better, picograms? Wouldn’t that make the number look even bigger? Isn’t that your point – to exaggerate? Why do it? What is remarkable about the nuclear fuel industry is the tiny quantity of waste that has to be disposed of compared to the amount of power produced. When I toured a reactor, its entire production of waste was sitting in a back parking lot in casks, or in the spent fuel pool in the plant, for a facility that was producing about 10% of the power to the US state I live in for decades. One thing to bear in mind about the anti nuclear movement is that it predates widespread awareness that climate change is a problem. Eg. If you look up the written policy of the Sierra Club, the largest environmental organization in the world, you'll find that all of its nuclear policy is dated prior to their first attempt to write any policy at all about what they called back then "the enhanced greenhouse effect". Policy and attitudes conceived before it dawned on the people who conceived them that there is a very great problem nuclear may be able to help address, may need to be reconsidered, given how serious climate change is. Would you disagree? You should carefully examine Amory Lovins a bit before quoting what he says. Among people who are looking seriously at nuclear power, Lovins is regarded as a liar, something like Lord Monckton. For instance, at the height of the Fukushima crisis I tuned into Public Radio International's "Living on Earth" podcast which featured an interview with Lovins. He asserted that the entire cost of a new nuclear plant is being paid for by the US government at the moment and even at that, no one wants to build a plant that's how undesirable nuclear power is. The program he referred to is a loan guarantee program, where the US government provides insurance to a utility that is building a plant and charges the utility for that insurance. The utility still has to pay the entire cost of building the plant. Lovins says otherwise. He’s been around long enough and he’s been confronted with this often enough this is an outright lie he repeats to the ignorant which is who he thinks listen to a show like this. This is how climate deniers operate - and it is exactly how Lovins operates. Listen to this interview with Lovins and read third comment on this post Etc, Etc. On carbon capture, I note that the IPCC takes a different view than you do, see their Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. Mark Jaccard wrote a more accessible look at the technology entitled "Sustainable Fossil Fuels". I find it weird that people who want something done about climate tend to reject carbon capture but who tend to have a more open mind about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after it dawns on civilization at some future time that it has to do so to survive. What will civilization do with that carbon given the arguments you make against stopping it from going into the atmosphere in the first place? Etc. Etc. -
Albatross at 04:57 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Jay @ 15, "Okay well why don't you comb the article again, give me some statements you think are incorrect and I will check up on it with him" You have actually bothered to read the feature post that we are all commenting on right? -
Albatross at 04:57 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
JMurphy @14, "It's obvious by now that being a Phd doctorate.....is certainly no guarantee of rational, thoughtful, considerate, honest, unbiased or intelligent writing. What a great shame." Amen. Now are you talking about Happer or Lindzen or Christy or Spencer or Michaels or McKitrick or Muller or Curry or Plimer...? ;) -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 04:55 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
@Rob Honeycutt Give me a natural disaster or a storm that has happened since the beginning of the industrial era and I can find you a bigger storm or larger natural disaster in the past. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 04:52 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
@Sphaerica Okay well why don't you comb the article again, give me some statements you think are incorrect and I will check up on it with him? -
Albatross at 04:49 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Apirate @ 95 APirate "I provided the requested answer in the second paragraph" Did you mean this? "I will play your game and say that I do get some good information from WUWT" The games continue. WUWT is a disinformation machine, set up to feed fodder to the 'skeptics' and those in denial about AGW. It is also, for the most part, a faux science site. WUWT does not satisfy the criteria outlined in the post @64 ("One that demonstrates the science in a balanced way, with no games, no tricks, no misrepresentations, no blatant falsehoods?"), not even close. So you answer (WUWT), whether or not it was intended, is insulting. You tried to answer the question, but failed. Try again. -
JMurphy at 04:49 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
It's obvious by now that being a Phd doctorate (especially when it is being used to try to project some sort of scientific credibility to impress the credulous) is certainly no guarantee of rational, thoughtful, considerate, honest, unbiased or intelligent writing. What a great shame. -
Utahn at 04:43 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Dr. Cadbury: "Happer happens to be a friend of mine and since he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself." "Common knowledge to himself." That is pretty funny. And talk about appealing to authority. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:36 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Cadbury said... "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not." This kind of casual dismissal of what amounts to vast swaths of known science never ceases amazing to me. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:34 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.,Happer happens to be a friend of mine and since he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself.
So why does he cite untruths that are common knowledge to everyone, and have been debunked dozens of times, and are easy to categorically and indisputably disprove? The level of Happer's piece is appallingly simplistic. I don't know the man, and I'm unfamiliar with his work, but if his physics is as childish as that diatribe, I'd never let anyone I know attend Princeton, or trust anything that comes out of that institution.Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement.
No, it's an important issue which requires action, and someone who is too ignorant or biased to act in the best interests of the country and humanity has no right to such a position.Furthermore, it is quite ignorant to dismiss history as is done on this website.
That's quite a strong accusation, but it's unclear what you're talking about.The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not.
What complete foolishness. Obviously rising sea levels, increased droughts, drops in food production, and other calamities which have not yet become pronounced, but which are an inevitable consequence of global warming will be a very serious and indisputable way that elevated CO2 levels can cause harm to humanity. Your attempt to portray the situation otherwise does not speak well for your understanding of the issues.Simply having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere does not effect a human's ability to breath, unless it exceeds 8,000 ppm, which is pointed out in Happer's article.
What complete foolishness. Nobody has said that CO2 is poisonous to breathe. Arguing that point reflects rather poorly on your understanding of the issues. Really, why am I not surprised that you and Happer are friends, and your comment here looks almost as if it were written by Happer himself (based on the level of knowledge and thought contained in both)? -
Stephen Baines at 04:25 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Cadbury...that's pretty poor "...he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself" He does if nobody else knows about them. Noone is exempted from that in academics, no matter who employs them or how respected they are. "Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement." Are you suggesting that the earth is making a political statement by warming in response to greenhouse gasses? Sour grapes if you ask me. "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not. " First, we do not know Co2 levels don't affect hurricane or tornados - more research is required before any judgement can be made negative or positive. That would be the proper statement... That aside... you are ingnore all of the other possible impacts on impacts of sealevel rise, agriculture, extreme heating and precipitation events.... -
KR at 04:23 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Dr. Jay Cadbury - So, you defend Happer's misstatements with a few of your own? "Simply having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere does not effect a human's ability to breathe" - Complete strawman, nobody has asserted that we're going to start flopping like fish out of the water due to CO2. "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events" - Please read the thread on it's not bad. Sea level rise, ocean acidification, terribly expensive changes to croplands, food supplies, etc., species loss - you consider these to not be "harm"??? I'm appalled, Jay, simply appalled. Happer's article is a list of well debunked skeptic arguments, absolutely no science, and represents a political view in and of itself. Yet you're defending it? You have now, more clearly than ever, defined your point of view. And it's certainly not a scientific one - more one of denial. -
witsendnj at 04:13 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Here is the text of a letter I sent last June, to which I have yet to receive a reply: From: "Wit's End" -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 04:11 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
@Shoeymore Happer happens to be a friend of mine and since he is an authority on physics he doesn't need to site items that are common knowledge to himself. Furthermore, Happer was fired by Al Gore as director of energy research, which just further proves the point that global warming began and is still a political movement. Furthermore, it is quite ignorant to dismiss history as is done on this website. The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not. Simply having a lot of co2 in the atmosphere does not effect a human's ability to breath, unless it exceeds 8,000 ppm, which is pointed out in Happer's article.Response: "The only way elevated co2 levels could cause harm to humanity is if it caused extreme weather events, which it does not"
Let me direct you to http://sks.to/impacts to disabuse you of that notion. -
Charlie A at 04:10 AM on 26 May 2011Can we trust climate models?
#9 Galloping Camel -- I think you misunderstand what Kevin C has stated in comment #1. If the only thing you are looking at is a global average temperature, than an incredibly simple 1 box model fed with a set of forcings data will have an output which nearly identical to the most complex AOGCM. If you make a prediction for the annual net forcing for each of year of the next couple of decades, then I will make a prediction of the global average temperature over that period that will be virtually indistinguishable from the AOGCM outputs. Indeed, the each individual run of the typical AOGCM would probably have less correlation with the actual future temperature than my toy model, because of the internal variability of the AOGCMs. -
Bob Lacatena at 04:08 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
I've said it before about Lindzen, and now I'll say it about Happer and Motl. Princeton, MIT, and Harvard should all be huddled in shame. Certainly such institutions have to be very careful about squelching independent thought, allowing their researchers to pursue their instincts and their initiative where ever it takes them, and making sure that they have freedom of speech concerning political issues, as is the right of any one in the USA. But that does not entitle a researcher to use his title and standing at that university to "authoritatively" spout what are inarguable academic and scientific falsehoods, and to disparage an entire field of science and practicing scientists. This is particularly true if they do not actively do research and publish in that particular field. It may seem okay because the science has been turned into a political issue by economic and social forces (meaning fossil fuel interests, wing nuts, and weathermen with too much time on their hands), but it makes the university in question look very, very bad. MIT, Harvard and Princeton should all be ashamed, and in my mind it reflects very, very poorly on those particular institutions. Are there no actual climate scientists at these institutions? Don't they have something to say in the matter, when someone like Happer pontificates in an area that is clearly outside of his realm of understanding? -
Lou Grinzo at 04:08 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Happer stoops to using "correlation is not causality" when talking about the overwhelming majority of climate scientists? That's an astonishingly narrow-minded and condescending claim. I've heard many people talk about how physics is the field that produces the most adamant and often just plain wrong deniers. (Which is NOT to say that all physicists are deniers, merely that the worst ones with a background in a hard science tend to come from that field.) Happer sounds like a prime example of the phenomenon, right up there with Dyson.Response: [JC] Hey, no dissing physicists! What about petroleum geologists? :-) -
BillWalker at 04:04 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Has Happer "gone emeritus", or is he about to? Perhaps he needed a little extra retirement money. -
apiratelooksat50 at 03:28 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
I provided the requested answer in the second paragraph. No insult intended so you shouldn't feel too bad.Response:[DB] For clarity's sake, you consider WUWT to be an example of a skeptical site doing good science?
Prev 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 Next
