How much faster will food resources dwindle when the climate is unpredictable and weather swings between extreme dry and tread water flooding? There is some research pointing to the fact that when dinosaurs roamed the arctic the tropics were desert - would be more than a tragedy if that happened today
I read an interesting study that suggested higher CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels may allow plants to open their pores less, allowing them to grow better in arid climates. Since the presence of surrounding vegetation increases humidity levels, this can have a compounding effect, and potentially reverse desertification.
That sounds like a terrible example since the human body isn't something we built like a car. I'm not going to argue this forever but saying that cholesterol isn't a concern for over-consumption anymore is worthy of being called an error in "settled science" if anything is. Not that many of us followed the previous cholesterol guidelines anyway, much like no one tries to do anything tangible about carbon output when they could blame their social opponents for the lack of miracle technologies instead. Moving on, do you think we should punish climate change deniers and if so, what do we do about Obama making the US the world's #1 oil producer?
Depends upon the plant - some will some won't and as for this reversing desertification, well to increase humidity this way you actually have to have a fair number of plants first and thing about deserts is.....
I think we should have fines for anyone knowingly promoting misleading information which can lead to adverse outcomes, Whether that be junk food diets, pseudoscience pills and "salt lamps" or anti-vaccine campaigners who lie through their backsides it does not matter, If the legislation is fair then anyone on EITHER side of this debate would be prosecuted IF and only IF they are found to be actively promoting misleading information which could cause harm Betcha that would catch more denialists than proponents though
Are you saying that misleading information is worse than actual policies that, according to the scientific theory, make the problem worse? To be fair, I didn't notice you were Australian, so I guess there's no reason to try and make you take a position on Obama. Still, you're coming from a context where your country repealed a carbon tax. What's your way forward in combating climate change on the carbon level if you can't have a carbon tax?
We repealed the carbon tax for a trading scheme and we basically repealed the tax because the big mining industrial bastards hired tax lawyers that got them out of paying a bloody cent!!!! And no I am not saying misleading information is worse than an imaginary policy that may or may not make a problem worse, I am saying that most industrialised nations have policies on truth in advertising - or there is case law supporting this principle. Not so for the internet - Big Oil and many others have used the Tobacco industry deception book to write a misinformation campaign on climate science. It is not a co-ordinated effort but it is there and the footprints are easy to follow I also have to acknowledge Rupert Murdoch's part in this through Faux News (may his precious parts rot and fall off)
Most Australian Greens and Labor viewed the end of the carbon tax as a major defeat that won't have the same impact on carbon emissions, would you agree?
This IS politics with a capital P It was successfully promoted as a fail by the Liberal party - who are shills for big money, Truth is Labor lost that election because they could not get their act together and it really had little to do with the Carbon Tax, Instead of standing behind the then prime minister, a woman they ditched Julia for Kevin 3 months before the election - the opposition danced all over this all the way to parliament. Carbon tax was only an issue because it was the ONLY positive issue the Liberals brought forward
You realize Mann was defending the paper because he helped write it don't you? So, do you know believe that proxy measurements are better than direct measurements? Do you believe only one paper from a political shill over all the other data and papers that say it is normal variation based on direct measurements? Of course you do, because accuracy is not as important than a good headline.
Liberals lost on the only positive issue they had? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Nothing the global warming crowd does really makes sense, there's this constant hollow blame game and no real solutions presented.
Aye, & there's the rub. First, someone has to have the truth of science, before policy can be made. At one time, the scientific establishment thought the earth was flat, leeches took out bad blood, & the 4 humors were the basis for human health. Now you may think that modern man, with his advanced sense of technology, is above that, & is never wrong. But i see no reason to conclude that. Man has not changed, & has the same prejudices, biases, self interests, & arrogance as at any time in the past. So how can something as important as AGW... human generated doom of the planet.. be made policy? More taxes? Really? Redistribution? Dismantle capitalism? These things have nothing to do with global warming. In fact, some of the worst offenders are communists & despots. 3rd world countries are given a pass, while the more advanced countries.. the ones that are actually RESPONSIBLE regarding pollution, over population, caring for the environment, etc, are punished more? It is because 'policy' is not based on scientific truths, but political agenda. The major polluters of the planet now are in 3rd world countries, with little to no regulation, or desire to do so. How does taking money from poor people in rich countries, & giving it to rich people in poor countries solve anything? All you are doing is putting a heavy burden on the working man.. he only wants to provide for his family & be a responsible citizen of the planet, but the hordes of looters & moochers all have their hands in his pocket, driving him to poverty. All your politicians will get rich. All your politicians' cronies will get rich. Your 'alternate energy sector' will get rich. Nothing will change, except the working man will be poorer, & the looters will be richer. The planet will go on, indifferent to the mandates of these manipulators, & the working man will become poorer, until & unless he rises up in defiance toward the moochers & looters who are sucking the life out of him. Al Gore? Obama? Some UN bureaucracy?
The government gives grants to researchers to find a crisis, and we get what we paid for. If we pour $30 billion into finding reasons to fear CO2, and $0 into finding holes with that theory, it is entirely predictable that we will get 90+ percent of papers that support the theory.
Your argument is that we should ignore what we've learned. And, there couldn't be an approach more tuned for failure. AGW is the best understanding of our situation that science can detect. Policy is how we respond to our situation. Your suggestions of policy are nonsense. For example, the entire first world has carbon tax, yet you suggest a response including such taxes would destroy us. What makes you think America is so weak? Why do you have to enlist nonsense arguments such as "All your politicians' cronies will get rich."? Capitalism hasn't been "dismantled" by action taken by other nations in response to carbon emissions. No major nation comes close to us in per capita emissions of CO2. We are 5% of the world population, yet emit more than 17% of the CO2. China is a problem even though they have far lower per capita emissions, because they have 4X our population, and they are showing commitment to reducing their output. You seem to be insisting that everyone in the world be ahead of us - that rather than being leaders America should make sure we who are wealthy and emit huge amounts of carbon per capita, should not only fail in terms of leadership but should actually be sure we do less than everyone else. And, that's a pathetic vision for America.
You are proposing that there is a nearly perfect world wide conspiracy covering climatology and all the related fields upon which it draws. And, for some reason every scientist and every scientific organization is carefully shunning the leadership position, research money and massive attention that would come with a new understanding of climate. The chance of that seems, uh, LOW!
Do you really believe that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Berkeley Earth $150,000 just to say that global warming is happening and that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause?
Financial Support Berkeley Earth is an independent non-profit. Institutional donors and private foundations interested in funding opportunities can contact Elizabeth Muller at: liz at symbol berkeleyearth.org. We also accept donations of any size via Paypal. Financial Support First Phase (2010) The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($10,000) William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000) Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000) This work was also supported by the Director, Office of Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 ($188,587) We also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling $14,500 for the first phase of work. Second Phase (2011) William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000) The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($10,000) Third Phase (2012) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000) The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($10,000) William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000) Anonymous Foundation ($250,000) Fourth Phase (2013) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000) Anonymous Foundation ($250,000) The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($10,000) William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($75,000) Energy Foundation ($50,000)* Fifth Phase (2014) The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($10,000) William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($175,000) Energy Foundation ($50,000)* Anonymous Foundation 1 ($250,000) Anonymous Foundation 2 ($50,000) ANGA ($200,000) Online donations ($417) * Note: All donations, except for the Energy Foundation grant, were provided as unrestricted educational grants, which means the donor organizations have no say over our activities or what we publish. All of our work and results are presented with full transparency. http://berkeleyearth.org/funders
This is nonsense. Your few donors do not even start to justify your contention of a nearly perfect world wide conspiracy. Scientists are not getting rich. And, any one of them (or any scientific organization) would be FAR better off if they made some breakthrough finding that changed understanding of climate.
Not so in the current climate where Congress is investigating those that have done just that and when professors lose the ability to advance if they are not on the AGW bandwagon and young scientists cannot find funding if they are also not on the bandwagon.
Dr. Judith Curry and others demonstrate that this contention of yours is, once again, total nonsense, demonstrating that outlier opinions don't just get stuffed, but get funding, attention throughout the scientific community and the attention of congress. And, that's just in the USA. Do you think China would have no interest in science? What brings them to the same conclusions as our own scientists come to?
Being a prominent global warming skeptic hasn't stopped her from getting grants, now has it? I've only included the ones since she became critical of AGW, lest you accuse me of cherry picking.
