May 15, 2014 at 12:17 pm #13864
“Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.” http://www.nationalreview.com/node/378011/printMay 15, 2014 at 12:51 pm #13865
!974, Great article. I do believe that man should do better with the Earth. But all the green products are not always great for the Earth and some pollute more when they are manufactured. What is running all this green products is money and not helping the Earth. I think man can come up with cleaner solutions.May 16, 2014 at 5:25 am #13966
I’m personally inclined to disagree with the conlusion of the author of the article.
Looking at the change in polar ice sheets, shrinking glaciers and the increase in extreme weather events, along with the fact that the vast majority of the scientific community validate anthropogenic climate change it just makes sense.
Carbon dioxide has been trapped in fossil fuels; extraordinarily large quantities of it. Oil, coal and natural gas are the carbon from a huge section of the animal and plant based life on earth that was wiped out during one of the most lush and populated times in the earths geological history.
Dumping all that carbon in the form of carbon dioxide back into the earth’s atmosphere over the period of just over 2 centuries, combined with a huge increase of desertification and forestry reduction over the last millennia [remember, trees suck up and stabilize carbon, and people have been removing them since the beginnings of mass agriculture, and those fossil fuel carbon sinks have been around a looooong time] is going to have an effect.
There has shown to be a lag [to the tune of decades, not years] between the increases in CO2 and temperature increases. This is even more concerning due to the predictions that we are only a few degrees off a temperature needed to melt the methane gas that is currently trapped; frozen into the permafrost.
Why is methane a problem? Because it is a much stronger ‘greenhouse gas’ than CO2 and there a millions of tonnes of it currently locked up in the frozen ground. If it melts and is released it will create a huge positive feedback loop that will vastly accelerate the global warming process.
Even if you still totally discount anthropogenic climate change, there is another concern that comes with the vast release of CO2; ocean acidification.
An increase in atmospheric CO2 levels leads to higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 in the oceans:essentially increasing it’s carbonic acid content and raising it’s PH.
This is an issue as it is increasingly stopping marine life (including the micro-organisms at the bottom of the food-chain) from being able to deposit calcium as shells. This is contributing to declining fish stocks and dieing coral reefs. People tend to underestimate just how much we directly or indirectly rely on products that come from the ocean . . .May 16, 2014 at 11:09 am #13980
The problem is that even if there is some increase carbon dioxide we are not going to be able to stop that. China and India are producing the largest carbon dioxide in the world right now and they will not sign anything.
Also all the green product are really not green at all. To make the solar panels, batteries, or any other of the green products it take so much carbon dioxide to produce them that it is not really green.
Look at ethanol, to product it not only doe it take food from the world supply and money that the government gives the producers(which is our money) and to produce ethanol creates more carbon dioxide then gas.
Electric cars have the same problem were to produce them creates more carbon dioxide. So I do believe all the green my be the reason carbon dioxide is increasing world wide.
This is why you can see that all of the solar panels are made in China because they do not want the public to find out that to make a solar panel produces so much carbon dioxide.May 16, 2014 at 12:07 pm #13989
The article is about “their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch”
Other articles on the same subject:
You wrote all the nonsense the totalitarian politicians want you to believe like an acolyte without even reading the article. Whatever you believe for whatever reason is your choice. But realize the climate of discussion is perverted by tyrants and willing blind fools. You might pause for a second and consider the validity of each side when someone like Lennart Bengtsson has doubt about the scientific merits the issue.
“Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935, Trollhättan), is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. 
He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.
In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.”May 16, 2014 at 11:48 pm #14048
1974, with all due respect I did read the article. I have also read 100’s of other peer reviewed articles from respected journals, many written by people with as much gravitas as Mr Bengtsson [My 3rd year research project was on the factors the predict whether people will prepare for a disaster event].
I agree 100% that the chance of the global community taking the necessary steps to avoid climate change is Nil. This doesn’t mean that it is not a real, measurable and scientifically verifiable event with real implications for the way that I and any children i have will have to live.
In psychology in relation to change, particularly scary changes, people experience both denial, and what is called confirmation bias – we tend to seek information that reinforces what we wish to be true, rather than what IS true, this is a very human thing to experience.
It may lead to people rejecting a wealth of evidence based on one exception, it can also lead to ‘blaming’ [most commonly seen as conspiracy theories]. IN both cases it is an adaptive response as it allows the individual to ignore a hard truth as something they cannot influence and therefore have no personal responsibility for.
Relinquishing control of the situation in many cases leads to a reduction in stress levels; it can be shelved as something ‘that just is’ and allows better focus on events that have more salience [immediate greater importance] in many cases that can be the difference between life and death.
I say this not to belittle you or insult your intelligence, or that of Mr Bengtsson. Nor am I so arrogant to imply that I’m certain beyond all doubt that I’m correct; a true scientist is NEVER certain that s/he is right. [The fundement of the scientific method is that whatever hypothesis you hold may be disproved or called into question at a later date by new evidence].
It is my conclusions however, based on the weight of evidence, are that:
1. Climate change is happening at increasing speed and having observable effects of the frequency, duration and severity of extreme weather events.
2. Increased atmospheric CO2 levels are contributing to a oceanic dieback that has potentially significant implications.
3. There have been increases in sea levels and reductions in ice reserves in polar ice caps and glaciers world wide over the last 100 years that will see sea levels continue to rise
4. The earth is only a few degrees away from the release of frozen methane deposits that will accelerate the greenhouse effect.
5. It would appear highly likely that the above events are either caused by, or at the least, exacerbated by, humanity use of fossil hydrocarbons as fuels and mass release of CO2
I freely admit that I may be wrong in my conclusions, or that I may have been mislead, only god is Omnipotent and omnipresent.
HOWEVER, it is better to plan and prepare as if these are truths, rather than simply likelihoods or possibilities, and be wrong and thought a fool, than to discount them entirely and then be blindsided later.
“Better to have a gun and not need it, than need a gun a not have it” no?
FrozenthunderboltMay 17, 2014 at 2:24 am #14060
FT – thanks for the detailed post. For the record, I’m not a 100% global warming denier (how it got changed to “climate change” I don’t understand – doesn’t the climate change in cycles all the time?), and I haven’t studied or read any peer reviews, but I do have a few questions that maybe you can shed some light on (since you definitely seem to have qualification to do so). No, that’s not a sarcastic jab.
1) Doesn’t the plant world grow better and produce more in areas or times that have higher CO2 content? If so, is that truly bad?
2) Wasn’t there past ages of high CO2 levels during the dinosaurs and such?
3) I watched both Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and also McElhinney/McAleer’s “Not Evil, Just Wrong” rebuttal. Despite the fact that I think Al Gore is about the biggest hypocrite on earth and he only did this to enrich himself, the presentation by McElhinney and McAleer just seemed to make more sense to me. Thoughts on both?
4) Before the age of man, wasn’t the air being polluted by uncontrolled wildfires, volcanoes and storms? Doesn’t this account for an equivalent amount of CO2 now being released by man? Maybe less since we put out all those fires as soon as we can now?
5) Have we not had severe weather in the past that equals what we are now seeing? If memory serves me right there has been discoveries of nordic longhouses on long frozen areas of Greenland. Doesn’t that show that it was previously a warmer climate where the ancient Norse could live and grow crops?
6) If the above was warmer, didn’t that release the methane you mention above?
7) Lastly, in the 70’s much of the same community was preaching global cooling. What makes this different and why were they wrong then but right now?
I agree with doing what we can to conserve, recycle, reuse and any other method to preserve the earths resources – but I’m not a believer that an insect, a fairy shrimp or an animal should be raised to the same level as humankind.
Thanks for the discussion. Forgive my questions if they are on the lower end of the spectrum -
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
- Thomas PaineMay 17, 2014 at 2:47 am #14061
From the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temprature. Which brings into question all of the conclusions in your reponse. Which is why Mr Bengtsston notes that there is a large difference between observation results and model simulations. Model simulations are the only basis of global warming to date.
Your response doesn’t address the pressure applied to Mr Bengtsson because of a desenting opinon. However the pressure applied to him does explain the lack of other desenting opinons.
I glad you recognize that you may be wrong in your conclutions and because you admit your own misgivings you may bow down to me now
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.