RRC Archives

From the Washington Post:

(The emails)" don't provide proof that human-caused climate change is a lie or a swindle.

But they do raise hard questions. In an effort to control what the public hears, did prominent scientists who link climate change to human behavior try to squelch a back-and-forth that is central to the scientific method? Is the science of global warming messier than they have admitted?"

For me, this is the central point. What raises my hackles is the "Shut up, the science is settled, no time for debate, just do what the scientists say" position staked out by many of the "Believers". If AGW is real, the costs of doing nothing could be catastrophic for mankind and other living things. Alternatively, it AGW is not real, and we proceed as if it were, we could be throwing away untold trillions of dollars. Dollars that are much needed to feed the hungry, house the poor, heat our homes, cure disease, etc. We have to be right on this issue. I'm not at all good with a headlong rush to greatly increase the cost of energy before the data that the conclusions of the "Warmists" are based on have seen the light of day - and have been truly peer reviewed in an open and untainted process. That's all. Fortunately, it looks like that process may now have finally begun.

Thank Gaia for the hacker, whistleblower or whomever exposed these emails for the world to see.

krampus wrote:Seriously though, is climate change something that can really be studied wither way?

Yes

krampus wrote: We cant even predict tomorrows weather, how can we expect to explain why its warmer this year than last year.

The latter is much simpler, the former has always been tricky.

krampus wrote:(..)... has to be changing the earth in some fashion, of course if its bad we won't know til its too late.

We do know, right now.

As usual - I'm with Larry on this one. The science is NOT settled - and even if it were what makes us so certain that we can fix it? How is big government going to control mother nature?

Another thought is what will the unintended consequences be of our "efforts" to combat climate change? Consider the case of pesticides use in Africa. There have beed envirnonmental problems with pesticides - but efforts to stop them have resulted in more insects and malaria outbreaks (which kill people).

michaelarmand wrote:How is big government going to control mother nature?

They can't; they can only try to convince you to help.

michaelarmand wrote:Another thought is what will the unintended consequences be of our "efforts" to combat climate change?

Not shit compared to the consequences of climate change itself.

michaelarmand wrote:Consider the case of pesticides use in Africa.

No, because my intelliscope tells me that that is a pretty strange analogy.

The arguement to do nothing is specious. If science is wrong and we try to modify CO2 admissions and effect a change over the next 50-75 years, what have we lost. Lost nothing but have become better stewards of the planet and its resources.
If science is right and we do nothing, the outcome will be worse than if we changed.
So, why not become better stewards and hope the science is off the mark, despite what the majority of climate scientists think?
When so much could be on the line, why debate this simple logic.

agreed. alternative energy technology, more efficient engines, a greater emphasis on recycling finite resources... all of these things have potential to do great things for the country (yes, including generate lots of money, if that's your angle). i can think of no logical reason to want to resist...

..i can think of a lot of illogical ones, though.

toad857 wrote:i can think of no logical reason to want to resist...

Aside from the collapse of the world economy

Michael that is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Innovation breeds economic prosperity. New technologies bring economic prosperity. I could go on and on about how you are wrong, but I don't have the time.


Its this simple people, and its kind of what Hugh said.

Who cares about the science, its right its wrong, doesn't matter. Lets just do the right thing and stop polluting as much. It will be better for our kids, us, and mother nature.

If you think the scientists are wrong, and we should just keep on polluting, you are a retard

If you think the scientist are right, and we can change mother nature in our life time, you are a retard.

Lets just make some bluer skies, cleaner water, and better smelling planet, and while were at it create some better jobs and a stronger economy.

the lurkist wrote:The arguement to do nothing is specious. If science is wrong and we try to modify CO2 admissions and effect a change over the next 50-75 years, what have we lost. Lost nothing but have become better stewards of the planet and its resources.
If science is right and we do nothing, the outcome will be worse than if we changed.
So, why not become better stewards and hope the science is off the mark, despite what the majority of climate scientists think?
When so much could be on the line, why debate this simple logic.

cheers.

I hate that a few heavy hitters in a scientific field can suppress the exposition of good data.

Hugh is on it though. We need to decrease impact.