James Hansen On Energy

[MSimon]

I laugh at the billion plus people displaced. And I get incredulous when they want to migrate to where I live.

I laugh too. Because it is not going to happen.

But if it does China and India will bear most of the cost. If they decide to pay.

OTOH what about all the people who will have to migrate if continental ice sheets come back because we didn't emit ENOUGH CO2.

Who will pay for that?

Shouldn't we do more research into the presumed feedback before we assign blame for anything? We have one faction that credibly claims a multiplier of .5 (from several different types of analysis) and another faction claims 1.5X to 4X.

[Josh Cryer]

I laugh too. Because it is not going to happen.

Just like that fire in my untended fire barrel wouldn't burn down the neighbors shed (this didn't happen, just a metaphor, but I could have come up with other childhood examples where irresponsibility led to bad things).

But if it does China and India will bear most of the cost. If they decide to pay.

The human species will bear most of the cost, we're talking about mass migrations. Generally it would be a very slow process but it would put a whole lot of pressure on northern countries and war would ensue if things didn't go just right.

OTOH what about all the people who will have to migrate if continental ice sheets come back because we didn't emit ENOUGH CO2.

Who will pay for that?

That's not likely to occur even if we stop emitting CO2 tomorrow.

Shouldn't we do more research into the presumed feedback before we assign blame for anything?

MSimon, I am not really here to discuss policy, because I *know* for a *fact* that policy change is incapable of occurring. Not until at least CLARREO is launched and returning data will *anyone* capable of *doing something* will it happen. So please let's get this out of the way.

My main goal with arguing about this is that the science behind it is sound, that is all. Not that it is "settled." That it is sound, that it is improving.

We have one faction that credibly claims a multiplier of .5 (from several different types of analysis) and another faction claims 1.5X to 4X.

Every time I look at skeptic claims I see a total lack of credibility. This is only reinforced when I see just how abysmal their analysis of the data really is.

[MSimon]

Just like that fire in my untended fire barrel wouldn't burn down the neighbors shed (this didn't happen, just a metaphor, but I could have come up with other childhood examples where irresponsibility led to bad things).

Some people made up a story. You are credulous. It scares you to death. And so you act like a frightened child.

When I was on the left I used to be scared of all kinds of things. Because the left is a nihilistic cult. Lebensraum, kulaks, the intelligencia, the bourgeoisie. There was always some enemy. Some one ruining the plan. Sabotagers.

What you are a part of is a variant of the old Lebensraum cult.

Why you want to go there?

When I figured out the game I resigned my commission in the vanguard of the proletariat.

====

My job is to help people give up their fears. To have courage. Because people living in fear can do some really evil sh*t with a clean conscience.

"I had to condemn billions to poverty and death because we will be running out of lebensraum due to global warming."

[BenTC]

My job is to help people give up their fears. To have courage.

Sparked an offtopic thought, taken to new thread: Novels you have re-read several times

[Josh Cryer]

Some people made up a story. You are credulous. It scares you to death. And so you act like a frightened child.

Where am I acting afraid?

[MSimon]

Some people made up a story. You are credulous. It scares you to death. And so you act like a frightened child.

Where am I acting afraid?

Something to the effect that CO2 will ruin your world and you have 80 more years to go to see the effect while a certain MSimon is not likely to be around so long.

[Josh Cryer]

Something to the effect that CO2 will ruin your world and you have 80 more years to go to see the effect while a certain MSimon is not likely to be around so long.

Concern for my fellow human beings is not the same as fear for myself. I fortunately was lucky enough to be born in an environment that can handle any impacts of climate change. (We handle a million plus immigrations, so it would be trivial for us to handle the millions that would have to move over a very long period of time; plus we'd probably embark on geoengineering to some extent, so it may be avoidable entirely; I don't think we should do geoengineering until we have a very good confidence in how the atmosphere works, though, that's 50+ years out).

[MSimon]

Something to the effect that CO2 will ruin your world and you have 80 more years to go to see the effect while a certain MSimon is not likely to be around so long.

Concern for my fellow human beings is not the same as fear for myself. I fortunately was lucky enough to be born in an environment that can handle any impacts of climate change. (We handle a million plus immigrations, so it would be trivial for us to handle the millions that would have to move over a very long period of time; plus we'd probably embark on geoengineering to some extent, so it may be avoidable entirely; I don't think we should do geoengineering until we have a very good confidence in how the atmosphere works, though, that's 50+ years out).

Most of the alarming predictions are not science.

If we shouldn't do geoengineering for 50 years because we are not sure how everything works we should not condemn billions to poverty and death by denying them available energy.

One (CO2 use will cause catastrophe) is uncertain. The other (lack of energy leading to poverty and death) is certain.

[Josh Cryer]

Most of the alarming predictions are not science.

The scientifically sound predictions are not "alarming." They are disconcerting, perhaps, but they are not extraordinary. Skeptics like to use high end estimates and scenarios that are not part of the reliability curve to "prove" that they're "alarming" but that's not the case.

If we shouldn't do geoengineering for 50 years because we are not sure how everything works we should not condemn billions to poverty and death by denying them available energy.

We're not. Hello? Who's the one fear mongering now?

One (CO2 use will cause catastrophe) is uncertain. The other (lack of energy leading to poverty and death) is certain.

Indeed, and I am not and no one I know is advocating taking energy away from anyone.

[MSimon]

I get your point. If sea levels rise 17 inches Al Gore will have no place to live. He will then attempt to euchre me out of my 2nd floor garret and then I will have no place to live.

And not take energy from any one? How about preventing them from getting it if the use involves coal. And the extremists go further to oil and natural gas. Or preventing coal use - hiking energy costs - putting severe strain on those on the margins.

http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_ ... ative.html

And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato - never mind just climate science - in the public eye for decades. The appalling pre-Copenhagen attacks by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his climate-change henchman, Ed Miliband, on those who dared to be critical of the science of climate change were some of the most unforgivable I can recall.


It is further salutary that much of the trouble is now emanating from India. Indeed, the nonsense written about the Indian Sub-Continent has been a particular nadir in climate-change science, and it has long been judged so by many experts on the region. My ex-SOAS friend and colleague, Dr. Robert Bradnock, a world authority on the Sub-Continent, has been seething for years over the traducing of data and information relating to this key part of the world. In June, 2008, he wrote:


“However, in my own narrow area of research, I know that many of the claims about the impact of ‘global warming’ in Bangladesh, for example, are completely unfounded. There is no evidence that flooding has increased at all in recent years. Drought and excessive rainfall are the nature of the monsoon system. Agricultural production, far from being decimated by worsening floods over the last twenty years, has nearly doubled. In the early 1990s, Houghton published a map of the purported effects of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Coming from a Fellow of the Royal Society, former Head of the Met Office and Chair of the IPCC, this was widely accepted, and frequently reproduced. Yet, it shows no understanding of the complex processes that form the Bengal delta, and it is seriously misleading. Moreover, despite the repeated claims of the World Wide Fund, Greenpeace, and, sadly, Christian Aid, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers is of completely marginal significance to the farmers of the plains in China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. One could go on!”

I guess the WWF and Greenpeace failed to consult the experts when they made their dire Bangladesh predictions. Or their Himalayan glacier melt predictions.

It is worse than that though. The summabitches knew they were lying.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 009081.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu05lneE ... r_embedded

http://www.timesnow.tv/Pachuri-knew-of- ... 337462.cms

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 518163.cms

So let me give you a start Josh - Sources not to be trusted:

1. IPCC
2. UEA authors
3. Jones of UEA - Under investigation
4. Michael Mann - under investigation
5. WWF

===

Additions will be made to the list as investigations proceed. Subtractions will be made as warranted.

But the above is rather a big hole in the "science". Esp. if UEA authors includes the lot. Then papers where they are cited will have to be considered untrustworthy until they are re-evaluated.

Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh. And a cackle.

[Josh Cryer]

I'm against NGOs interfering with other peoples.

So let me give you a start Josh - Sources not to be trusted:

1. IPCC
2. UEA authors
3. Jones of UEA - Under investigation
4. Michael Mann - under investigation
5. WWF

I trust Gavin, Hansen, GISS, NASA, NCDC, and NOAA.

But you don't want me to trust them either.

[MSimon]

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... -nigh.html

Less than a week after he claimed the IPCC's credibility had increased as a result of its handling of the "Glaciergate" scandal, Pachauri's own personal credibility lies in tatters as The Times accuses him of a direct lie.

This is about when he first became aware of the false claim over the melting glaciers, Pachauri's version on 22 January being that he had only known about it "for a few days" – i.e., after it had appeared in The Sunday Times.

However, Ben Webster writes that a prominent science journalist, Pallava Bagla – who works for the Science journal (and NDTV as its science correspondent) - claims that last November he had informed Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Pachauri had replied: "I don't have anything to add on glaciers."

You can find the relevant links (not given in my excerpt) at the above link.

===============

You are being lied to about dire consequences - even if the whole CO2 causes significant global warming is true.

BTW did you note that the CO2 gain term has been reduced by at least 50% and nominally by 80% and possibly by as much as 96%.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08769.html

==============

And we haven't even got to the ocean oscillation alias which will reduce CO2 gain by 5% to 50%. As reported recently in a peer reviewed paper which I can't find at the moment. I think I cited a report on it here a while ago.

======

And then there is stratospheric water vapor.

Which may be:

1. natural
2. feedback

either of which will reduce the effects formerly attributed to CO2.

======

[MSimon]

You can trust any one you like. The question is can you get enough other people to trust them under the current circumstances?

Hansen? He is an advocate. And we already know that on the subject of climate the advocates for CO2 control are prone to lie.

The RC lot? In thick with the UEA lot.

[CaptainBeowulf]

The scientifically sound predictions are not "alarming." They are disconcerting, perhaps, but they are not extraordinary. Skeptics like to use high end estimates and scenarios that are not part of the reliability curve to "prove" that they're "alarming" but that's not the case.

Josh, when I hear young AGW activists (undergrad age - 18-25 years old) talk about global warming, they usually talk about "impending climate catastrophe" and things like that. I see slogans being used like "save the planet." The general message that has been put out is alarmist.

As I've said before, based simply on its "greenhouse gas" properties, I suspect carbon added to the air by humans has a slight warming effect. I concede that some of the scenarios put forward in IPCC reports are a possibility, but I think that the evidence for them is far too shaky and riddled with a politicized agenda to be taken seriously. I would like to see more solid research before any radical changes to the economy are made.

I would agree with you that a worst case scenario is "disconcerting" rather than "alarming." However, we are subjected to constant alarmism.

[Josh Cryer]

I absolutely think a meter or two in sea level rise can be catastrophic to the worlds populations. That doesn't make me an alarmist because I understand we're talking generational scales here. I might see it happening.