Climate Change
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
From the above article:
New technologies are only solutions if they’re implemented and the old carbon-emitting ones are phased out or shut down. It’s clear enough that the great majority of fossil fuel reserves must be kept just where they are -- in the ground -- as we move away from the Age of Petroleum. That became all too obvious thanks to a relatively recent calculation made by scientists and publicized and pushed by activists (and maybe made conceivable by engineers designing replacement systems). The goal of all this: to keep the warming of the planet to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit), a target established years ago that alarmed scientists are now questioning, given the harm that nearly 1 degree Celsius of warming is already doing.
Dismantling the fossil-fuel economy would undoubtedly have the side effect of breaking some of the warping power that oil has had in global and national politics. Of course, those wielding that power will not yield it without a ferocious battle -- the very battle the climate movement is already engaged in on many fronts, from the divestment movement to the fight against fracking to the endeavor to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and others like it from delivering the products of the Alberta tar sands to the successful movement to shut down coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and prevent others from being built.
New technologies are only solutions if they’re implemented and the old carbon-emitting ones are phased out or shut down. It’s clear enough that the great majority of fossil fuel reserves must be kept just where they are -- in the ground -- as we move away from the Age of Petroleum. That became all too obvious thanks to a relatively recent calculation made by scientists and publicized and pushed by activists (and maybe made conceivable by engineers designing replacement systems). The goal of all this: to keep the warming of the planet to 2 degrees Celsius (3.5 degrees Fahrenheit), a target established years ago that alarmed scientists are now questioning, given the harm that nearly 1 degree Celsius of warming is already doing.
Dismantling the fossil-fuel economy would undoubtedly have the side effect of breaking some of the warping power that oil has had in global and national politics. Of course, those wielding that power will not yield it without a ferocious battle -- the very battle the climate movement is already engaged in on many fronts, from the divestment movement to the fight against fracking to the endeavor to stop the Keystone XL pipeline and others like it from delivering the products of the Alberta tar sands to the successful movement to shut down coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and prevent others from being built.
Climate scientist urges climate scientists to ditch academic and fact-based climate science in favor of emotionally charged climate science... because facts don't matter.
Scientists 'must be emotionally charged' about climate change to highlight its dangers, claims expert
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...hlight-its-dangers-claims-expert-9950692.html
Climate scientists must inject more emotion and personal experience into their communications with the public to underline the dangers of global warming, according to a leading professor.
Chris Rapley, a professor of climate science at University College London, is urging colleagues to ditch “academic, fact-based approaches” to the subject in favour of “charged” narratives.
He recently performed 2071, a one-man show giving a personalised account of what climate change means for him, at the Royal Court theatre in London and the Deutsches Schauspielhaus in Hamburg.
(More denial of real science and "climate change" theatre at above url)
Scientists 'must be emotionally charged' about climate change to highlight its dangers, claims expert
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...hlight-its-dangers-claims-expert-9950692.html
Climate scientists must inject more emotion and personal experience into their communications with the public to underline the dangers of global warming, according to a leading professor.
Chris Rapley, a professor of climate science at University College London, is urging colleagues to ditch “academic, fact-based approaches” to the subject in favour of “charged” narratives.
He recently performed 2071, a one-man show giving a personalised account of what climate change means for him, at the Royal Court theatre in London and the Deutsches Schauspielhaus in Hamburg.
(More denial of real science and "climate change" theatre at above url)
Well sometimes the only way to reason with a Jackass is to hit it over the head with a big stick. That's what that guy is saying.
The problem is that this has been tried for more than 20 years. There are only so many times that one can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater before most of the audience stops listening. We're past that point.
There are problems on both sides of the AGW argument, but the catastrophic predictions that have failed to materialize has done significant damage to the AGW argument.
However, the thing I find MOST DISTURBING in all of this are the data adjustments in the GISS and HadCRUT databases. Dr James Hansen, while director of GISS, had the GISS historic temperature database adjusted for 'anomalies'. The old dataset was not retained and the adjustments were not recorded so it is now impossible to retrieve an uncorrupted temperature database. The practice continues today. The UK Met office did the same with the HadCRUT historical database and did not save the unadjusted data or the adjustments. This is like the director of the Library of Congress going through each rare book in the library with bottles of whiteout and 'correcting' every perceived misspelling and improper sentence construction. Or the director of the Louvre 'smoothing' Mona Lisa's appearance so that it's more appealing to the public.
That's not science, it's outright destruction of historical records.
As a result, I have more confidence in Chinese government economic reports than I do of IPCC and government climate reports. But sure, keep trying to scare the public with silly catastrophic predictions that have a very low probability of coming true.
You may want to talk to people in the Southeast about that . . .
OK... let someone from the South-east pipe in. The Southeast is in our biggest hurricane drought in recorded history. Florida has not endured a hurricane for a decade - the last one was Wilma in 2005 (associated article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ord-setting-hurricane-drought-portends-danger)
The last major hurricane to hit the Southeast was in 2005 (hurricane list by state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes). The named storms that have come ashore in the last decade in the Southeast have mainly been rain events that did not reach hurricane strength while onshore.
Who's talking about hurricanes? The consistent flooding is a continuing problem. You don't see it, of course, but that doesn't stop it.