The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong > Comments

Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong : Comments

By John Robertson, published 23/4/2015

Man-made? Yes, Mr President. Man's release of CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuels is a significant factor in current climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Excellent article. May we see a tide of support for such common sense.
Posted by John McRobert, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is growing recognition that GHG emission do not pose a threat of dangerous or catastrophic consequences and that ‘Command and Control’ policies are inappropriate for mitigating climate change. Policies that are likely to damage the global economy or individual country’s economies are unlikely to be accepted and even less likely to be politically sustainable. Climate scientist, Professor Judith Curry, testified to the US House of Representatives on “The President’s US Climate Pledge”, on 15 April 2015. Her summary states [my bold added]:

"Major points:

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:

• The hiatus in global warming since 1998

• Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide

• Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century

We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:

• The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

• Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.

• Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution

• It has been estimated that the U.S. INDC of 28% emissions reduction will prevent 0.030C in warming by 2100.

The inadequacies of current policies based on the Precautionary Principle are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events (whether caused by humans or natural variability) largely unaddressed:

• We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide policy makers with a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.

• Pragmatic solutions based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures have justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. "

Read Curry’s written testimony here: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JCurry-20150415_0.pdf
or access all testimonies and webcast here: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-tax
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:27:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There is growing recognition that GHG emission do not pose a threat of dangerous or catastrophic consequences"
Peter Lang, today; 9:27:39 am

I agree. It's even unlikely that *increased* GHG emission will have, overall, catastrophic consequences; but we see increased climate change (we may even see year-round farming in Siberia).

And, it's likely we will see periodic consequences of climate change that are dangerous: storms; flooding, etc.

And those consequences are more likely in coastal regions; and their flood plains and river deltas, where many people live.

We may see the demise of the Australian ski industry. We may see the demise of farming in some inland areas.

But, hey, none of those things will be catastrophic.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:56:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most, if not all, of the things that John Robertson has listed are not consequences of atmospheric CO2 rising "by a multiple of 1.35" - they are incidental events not caused by rising atmospheric CO2.

The author has asserted without reason, thus making *cum hoc propter ergo hoc* fallacies (with this; therefore because of this); and ignoratio elenchi fallacies: ie. irrelevant conclusion.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:06:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear another article for the rubes.
I really wish these arm chair scientist would turn their minds to cancer research or something like that.
Surely if they believe they can fore go all the years of study required to understand climate science. Then the same must be for biology or physics. Think of all the money we could save.
How about particle science we could turn off the LHC saving billions.

Come on John whats your thoughts on string theory or even if P = NP?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:09:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The pause in temperature rise has been at a higher level than the average temperature. There has been no indication that the temperature is or is likely to fall back towards the long term average.
Also sea levels world wide have continued to rise at about 3.2mm per year.
Most climate sceptics appear to have fallen for the propaganda generated by George W Bush and his fossil fuel industry appointees and cronies.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:21:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy