Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2010 - 04:44pm PT
|
Wes, did you get suckered into a bunch of Gore Carbon Creditz? You seem pretty upset about this fraud.
Sell now!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2010 - 05:47pm PT
|
We've reasoned it out Weschrist. Being in charge of the
Carbon Inspection Police would be the most lucrative
scam in history. Want a piece of that gravy train?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2010 - 12:14pm PT
|
Maybe you love him, or maybe you hate him. But, Thomas Friedman wrote a great opinion piece on "Global Weirding":
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html
Among the things he said that I liked, here is one notable:
In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
And, for those economically/politically minded:
... by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit ... We will import less oil, invent and export more clean-tech products, send fewer dollars overseas to buy oil and, most importantly, diminish the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2010 - 02:24pm PT
|
hey.. just so we all know... There really is no argument....
What I see is, on the one hand, logic running of the mouth (fingers)... on the other complete lack of knowledge of how things are connected.....
Thanks Ed for pointing out a hypo... but to be honest.. I've never read his work that closely.. You have a brilliant mind, and you seem to have the room in there for these things..... I don't!
Cheers all
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2010 - 03:22pm PT
|
It's heartening that Weschrist is being disappointed daily by the defeat of the Warmist movement. He could apply for a job as professional whiner for the IPCC?
Probably wouldn't get hired though.
He doesn't have the flair of the nastiest spin masters.
Perpetually petulant is a good tag.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2010 - 04:06pm PT
|
In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
I also read his column, but I think he completely misses the issue. What he wants already exists and it called the IPPC. It has a summary for policy makers:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spm.html
That sums up the state of what we know. It is backed up with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes. But does that have any influence on the deniers, of course not. Real climate gives a good perspective:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/#more-2832
The focus of the recent allegations is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which was published in 2007. Its three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print. They were written by over 450 lead authors and 800 contributing authors; most were not previous IPCC authors. There are three stages of review involving more than 2,500 expert reviewers who collectively submitted 90,000 review comments on the drafts. These, together with the authors’ responses to them, are all in the public record (see here and here for WG1 and WG2 respectively).
The IPCC cites 18,000 references in the AR4; the vast majority of these are peer-reviewed scientific journal papers
To those familiar with the science and the IPCC’s work, the current media discussion is in large part simply absurd and surreal. Journalists who have never even peeked into the IPCC report are now outraged that one wrong number appears on page 493 of Volume 2. We’ve met TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reports’ errors, who were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having never even seen it. They told us frankly that they had no way to make their own judgment; they could only report what they were being told about it. And there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills that make sure these journalists are being told the “right” story.
So just what is this new 50-page report going to do that hasn't already been done???
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2010 - 04:27pm PT
|
August,
Thanks for the link, very informative.
However, this report is, as stated, for policy makers, and has such, is not for the layman.
On the first page, after a short Introduction, I read the second box note, and my eyes glaze:
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9}
So, how many average folks, do you think understand the last phrase? I sure don't. And this is just the first page. Friedman's article specifically stated that the 50-pager should be at the 6th-grade level. You know, for average folks, not policy makers. In other words, something I could show my mother.
So, if you're going to bash the dude, it would present better if you first comprehended what he was saying.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2010 - 04:52pm PT
|
k-man, a good brochure that is readable at a high school science or college-freshman level
was published a few years back to share highlights from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
Here it is:
http://www.amap.no/acia/highlights.pdf
It's a bit dated (2004) and mainly concerns the Arctic, but the basic ideas are there. It is
colorfully illustrated with graphics that pack quite a lot of information.
Even this simplified, you get a sense of how rich the science is, and sadly why realistic
explanations usually lose out to bumper stickers and slogans. The page below fits in ideas
from ice and vegetation albedo feedback, accelerating hydrological cycles, and thermohaline
circulation -- but without using those words.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 21, 2010 - 06:37pm PT
|
Awesome Chiloe, thx.
Now we can write a letter to the NYT telling Mr. Friedman of this paper (and heck, maybe somebody can update it with the past 6 years of new science discovery).
And yes, I do understand a lot of what is in that IPCC report (maybe I'm smart enough to be a policy maker), and it's pretty disturbing.
Hey Blue, what did you think about it?
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2010 - 03:21am PT
|
these guys are always fun to read as a counterpoint to the Warmists propaganda.
http://www.iceagenow.com/
A;so damning to the Warmists: UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night Scientist admitted
it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders and was basically a lie."
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2010 - 08:00am PT
|
CC is a champion of the "It's cold today in Wagga Wagga" fallacy.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 22, 2010 - 10:28am PT
|
CC sez the Warmists propaganda.
That would be so funny if I thought he was serious.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2010 - 10:52am PT
|
Bluering wrote:thanks for being patient, Ed.
Way more patience than you deserve after calling him names. Where do you get off calling him arrogant for explaining that science is done by scientists, and windbags who don't know sh#t (like you and me) are simply irrelevant to the actual scientific debate?
Jesus, you're an as#@&%e!
GO
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2010 - 11:19am PT
|
Leave it to Cornshit Chopper to spew a daily dose of scientific ignorance.
THAT is arrogance.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2010 - 01:25pm PT
|
Friedman's prescription is economics, not science (as any honest economist should admit). He's correct in describing the effect of his proposed solutions on demand for petroleum, for example (although whether it curbs imports of petroleum depends on other factors).
The issue of whether we should do it, however, comes down to something that so far no one can measure easily, namely the opportunities we lose by following his prescription. (We economists call that cost, but several years of teaching economics convinces me that most people can never get themselves to believe that concept).
For example, if we spend more on mass transit, we have less to spend on other things (which, depending on your values, could be health care, education, or national defense, e.g.) plus, it will take some people more time to move around. It will also take people who don't use cars less time to move around. Should we do it? This largely comes down to a personal value judgment. We have trouble measuring this when we aggregate to the level of society.
Bottom line: this issue is contentious not because of scientific debate, but because of individual values and preferences. We already know a lot about human activities' effects on our climate and environment, and we are rapidly learning more. I doubt we will resolve this, though, even if we knew those effects with 99.9999999% certainty, because peoples' values and preferences differ.
John
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 22, 2010 - 02:06pm PT
|
We economists call that cost ...
John, isn't what you describe called opportunity cost (the opportunity lost of doing one thing vs. another)? In either case, David Bower said, and Patigonia has etched on it's business front door, the following:
There is no business to be done on a dead planet.
So, what is the opportunity cost of ignoring this potentially Earth-shattering problem? And, as pointed out by Friedman, investing in "green" technologies is a plus for US, economically, politically, environmentally.
From where I stand, the only opportunity lost from going this route is the opportunity for Exxon & Friends to make Bazillion$/qtr.
BTW, I read the "layperson" article Ed linked to just above and am making my way through the IPCC paper for policy makers. Both excellent, thanks for the links.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2010 - 02:21pm PT
|
weschrist wrote: Why not charge more for petroleum at the gas pump? God knows the US pays way less than any other country. I'm sure you economists have considered this? It seems more feasible than cutting funds for health care or education. I respect you informed opinion JE.
Thanks
I'm not an economist, but I can answer your question: The main stumbling block to this as a solution in the US has always been that a gas tax is regressive. That is to say, such an increase in costs for food and transportation hurts poorer folks the most.
GO
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!