Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 Next
Comments 84851 to 84900:
-
David Horton at 11:07 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Marcus - in the same spirit as using "skeptic" to mean someone who isn't skeptical, and "liberal" to mean Tony Abbott, "genuine environmentalist" has come to mean those who have absolutely no interest at all in protecting and conserving the world we live in. -
witsendnj at 10:59 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Marcus #53, that is an excellent point. First off, according to this paper describing an 11-year study (http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119583&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click) in the real world plants to not absorb the amount of excess CO2 predicted by models. Even more critically, the idea that CO2 is good for plants ignores the effects of the other greenhouse gases and hydrocarbons that are released during the same process of fuel combustion. The ozone that results is well-known to be toxic to all forms of life. Humans suffer asthma, emphysema, allergies, cancer, and other maladies, all epidemics. Exposure to ozone stunts the growth of trees and annual crops and reduces the quality of fodder, seeds, nuts and fruits. In a world beset with food shortages from extreme, unprecedented weather events due to climate change, such as the floods, droughts and wildfires plaguing several continents, and a reduction in fish stocks from polluted, acidifying seas, the only sane collective action would be drastic energy conservation on an emergency basis while we transition to clean sources. -
Andy Skuce at 10:51 AM on 26 May 2011Carter Confusion #2: Green Jobs
Dana@19. To be clear, I agree that arguments like Calzada's and Carter's need to be rebutted. Inactivists are all too quick to exaggerate the costs and to neglect to mention the economic benefits of any move to renewables. Where I disagree with you is in the section "Renewable Energy Creates More Jobs than Fossil Fuels". I think that such claims are arguable and may well be overstated, especially when they are put forward by a renewable energy advocacy group making difficult apples-oranges comparisons. If we exaggerate the positive secondary effects of a needed policy, we risk making those into the main area of contention with contrarians. Basically, I acknowledge the need to play defense on this subject, but we should be careful not to overreach with the offensive game. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic, but I don't believe that there are many thousand-dollar bills lying on the energy sidewalk just waiting to be picked up. Any progress toward decarbonizing our energy system is going to be disruptive and costly, and it will require government intervention. To be sure, there will be short-term economic winners as well as losers but this isn't about the short-term. -
Marcus at 10:32 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Here's another point-if, as Jay Contends, Happer is a "genuine environmentalist" then he'd be arguing for a significantly reduced consumption of fossil fuels anyway. After all, extraction of coal & oil do *enormous* damage to the air, waterways & soil-not to mention oceans in some cases. Burning of petroleum generates particulate emissions, benzene, nitrogen dioxide & a number of other chemicals which contribute to photochemical smog & acid rain. Burning of coal produces radon, cadmium, mercury & particulate emissions-& generates millions of tonnes of fly-ash waste that needs to be disposed of. In some cases, it also contributes to acid rain & photochemical smog too. So even on the most basic environmental grounds-& even if AGW were somehow disproved tomorrow-it's severely unwise to go on consuming a resource that is so clearly harmful to both our environment & our health. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:32 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Jmurphy@98 I went to your link at wottsupwiththat.com and found this: "Who are “we”? We are me. To make the creepy rock-pokers work harder I’ll stick to just a first name; Ben. I earned a B.Sc. in Geology in the Eighties at a leading Canadian university. I started an Earth Sciences Master’s degree shortly afterward, but for economic reasons have spent my working life mainly in the Information Technology field as both a programmer and a systems administrator. Politically I believe that governments represent the collective interests of their citizens and should act to both protect and enable them. This is a “librul” perspective." To say that I am at least as vetted as this guy: I earned a B.Sc. in Biology at a leading American University in 1987. I started and actually was awarded my M. Sc. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology at another leading American University in 1991. Since, then I've worked for international based environmental engineering consulting firms, international based manufacturing companies, and started my own environmental consulting company. I'm experienced in modeling for Title V air permitting, and NPDES wastewater discharge permitting. Plus, I am on the forefront for permitting cooling water intake structures in the American Southeast. -
scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Apirate - of course I am biased. I strongly prefer published science to misinformation. I think current climate theory is strong enough to make bells ring about our CO2 levels. On the other hand, I also decided early what data would make me change my mind and look for it. At any point where a strong prediction from climate science is incompatiable within error bars to observations, then something must give. Strong predictions include: OHC increasing; upper stratospheric cooling; upward 30 year trends; accelerated arctic warming; changing OLR spectra. However the pseudo-skeptic evidence for discrepencies so far are either about claims that the science doesnt make or misrepresentation of observational data. -
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
"(DB) Interested in buying a bridge?" :-) I guess we should leave that to individuals to judge. Going further might breach the "no stalking" guide in Comments Policy. -
apiratelooksat50 at 10:15 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
JMurphy @ 98 and scaddenp @ 99 One question with a yes or no answer: Is SKS unbiased? Even more: Question 2: Are you unbiased? -
ClimateWatcher at 09:33 AM on 26 May 2011Monthly Climate Summary: April 2011
16 "In summary, this year’s incredibly violent tornado season is not part of a trend... the climate is growing unstable and is transitioning to a new, higher energy state..." ??? The energy relevant to tornadoes ( which stem from mid-latitude cyclones ) is driven by temperature gradient and most certainly not from the sum total thermal state of the earth. One of the predictions from the gcms was increased warming at the poles. Should this verify, one might expect reduced storminess as a result of reduced pole to equator thermal gradient. Fortunately, the main factors determining the general circulation change very slowly: orbital angles, location of the oceans, location of the continents and mountains. That's why the Namibian Desert has been a desert for sixty million years. -
Johnny Vector at 09:32 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Based on the way he taught me undergrad quantum mechanics 30 years ago, my default explanation is that he is entirely too sure of his own abilities and too lazy to look up the actual articles. (His idea of helping us with a problem set during office hours once took the form of quickly teaching us the variational method, which was introduced about 3 weeks later in the syllabus. That takes some serious not-caring.) Some of the above comments do seem to point to the option of more deliberate misrepresentation, but I remain open to the possibility of blinding hubris. -
Michael Hauber at 09:20 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Co2 is not a pollutant. Its a banana. And any government that wants to tax Co2 is obviously a banan republic. -
mandas at 09:19 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
This is a perfect example of how denialists like to twist things to suit their purposes, and how wrong they get it: ".....But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise....." But in this case, correlation IS causation, except Happer twisted backwards. The roosters crowing did not cause the sun to rise, BUT... the sun rising DID cause the roosters to crow. -
Alexandre at 08:03 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Cadbury #7 says 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. Spot on. That political movement brilliantly orchestrated since Tyndall and Arrhenius. Must be quite a secret brotherhood. I bet we could trace some ancestor of Al Gore back then, plotting to achieve... something, a century or two later. -
scaddenp at 07:42 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
DB/Paul Barry, note that "Jay Cadbury, phD" denies that he is NOT the same "Jay Cadbury, phD" that posts on other climate sites eg, the thread from here and comments that follow.Moderator Response: (DB) Interested in buying a bridge? -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:38 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Les... Yeah, I was just looking at the JASON connection. There was one climate related paper published in 1990 titled Detecting the greenhouse signal (May 1990; JSR-89-330). That research would have been done when he was there. -
scaddenp at 07:35 AM on 26 May 2011Skeptical Science Educates My Students
Apirate - how many articles at WUWT would we have to debunk with published science before you changed your mind? Or are you saying you cant distinquish between pseudo-science there and real science here? A blog post is as good as a peer-reviewed paper? -
shoyemore at 07:33 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
@Dr Jay Cadbury,#7 Your shocking misstatements about climate science (without citing any references at all, just like Happer) are so far off the point that they lead me to believe you are having us on. If Professor Happer is your advisor on climate science, then you need to get a new one. -
les at 07:32 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
43 - Rob Not quite all... I hadn't realised he was a member of "Jason"... Again, one should consult ones copy of Merchants of Doubt; Jason's principle role is military advisory, it's mostly physicists (not a bad thing, IMHO) and also advised the DoE on Climate / CO2 in the late 70s... So he fits the MoD profile very well: right wing, defense oriented, highly legitimate as a scientist, using delay and doubt tactics... Exxon money... -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:18 AM on 26 May 2011Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
I think Happer's position at the George C Marshall Institute pretty much says it all... -
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.
Prev 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 Next
