| Previously here...
Says Guardian UK environment blog by Leo Hickman. | Previously here...
Meanwhile, BD recently published news, leveraging green org's, that called into question Grimshaw's green cred. The story was later picked up by the Guardian also. "Gotcha!"?
31 Comments
Baillieu response:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/nov/16/editor-climate-change?showAllComments=true#CommentKey:33f9d0aa-6f2d-4b26-bcbf-0ee7be63aa1d
'that I believe in low carbon buildings while conserving energy and resources as much as possible. I am not denying global warming exists'
she's still speaking out both sides. she's argued that global warming isn't caused by CO2. but then she's saying she believes in low-carbon building.
there is no need for low-carbon buildings if CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
The argument is global warming man made or natural cycle. Its not double speak. The eco-vipers are like the new inquisitors.
450 peer reviewed papers critical of man made global warming claims. The steady drum beat of the UN's IPCC same 2500 scientists, the ones most often refered to as "thousands of scientists agree" is starting to wane.
The position of the United is and has been that we will not sign ANY treaty that doesn’t require other nations, particularly those of the 3rd world, to adhere to the same playing field for production and trade that we have to, thus creating an unlevel playing field.
Why do you think 50 African delegates walked out on the recent talks? Because they care about the climate? Right. They care about the relocating of industrial production from carbon capping.
If you folks think this is just about science you are sadly mistaken. Science is being used as cover for wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, you probably think thats a good idea to.
Your quote: "If you folks think this is just about science you are sadly mistaken."
Jack, the funny thing is that that's exactly what I've said to you all along but you haven't been reading or understanding it!
Of course it's not JUST about science! Amanda Baillieu showed it clearly when she wrote "who's going to pay?"
You are living proof that, in order to preserve profit margins, we will do anything, no matter what the canary in the coal mine does.
Besides, Jack, if you want more proof for global warming, you can go ask the Pentagon. They already warned Bush several years ago about this.
To the contrary Javier, powerful groups like the UN are using highly interpretive data to redistribute production, without any guarantee that it will have the intended effect of reducing emissions. Do you honestly think the Chinese government or Nigeria is going to report factual data? Your arguing this is a moral issue based on science when it is not. This is a morality "trap" set by people who stand to gain a lot of power. Science has been hijacked.
You still deny that there is actual holes in the man made global warming argument. Maybe you are the deniers. And maybe you don’t read the posts I've written because I said earlier that true efficient markets always work towards the most reduction of waste. The chase of profits is a economizing force of thrift. The chase of power is disastrous.
Amanda is spot on when she says, "Whos going to Pay"? We all are going to pay if you stop the advancement of the system. By re-engineering it, you are going to stiffle true economic activity, research and development and god forbid the drive for profits, that will lead to the next great inventions and discoveries in energy, and instead lock yourself into a system with capped emissions and concentrated power.
Javier - stop saying global warming and start saying man made global warming. You know and I know they 2 seperate issues. The pentagon makes reports and scenerios on all matters of possible issues and no doubt somewhere they may even have an "alien attack" scenerio.
The free market! Yes, for sure what the patient needs is more of the same. How did I not think of that?
Because your close minded and stuck in academia.
Jack, once again - academia keeps getting in the way! If only the world were dumber things would work better!
Somebody please give this man a lobotomy or some kind of brain prosthetic so that he can live his dream of a life free from having a single thought or rationale. You're almost there Jack.
I have a degree, I have years of experience on you and have watched this debate take shape since before you were even born. I have been on both sides of this issue at points in my life because I have thought for myself and weighed the issues, for myself. Somehow I doubt you have done the same and are only capable of regurgitating what your fed.
Have you bothered to even look at any of the 450 skeptical peer reviewed docs? Ive read all that you've posted.
Attack if you must but Amanda is right. There needs to be a REAL debate not IPCC Papal decrees and religious zeal among the flock.
getting confused again, Jack, help me out... Is this about the peer review work, or the level "playing field"?
One more thing Jack - of course there's a limited number of peer reviewed work that supports your claim. But that's often confused for a "debate" in the sciences. There also was peer reviewed work once that disputed the connection between HIV causing AIDS. Scientists do what scientists do, but the question for the skeptics is, are you really just picking at straws, and is this really an issue that we can afford to be wrong about?
jack having his cake and eating it, too
scoffing at phd’d climate scientists that say global warming is a serious issue, and then saying a handful of non-climate scientists that have earned hundreds of millions of dollars in grant monies from big oil, big coal, etc – are the ones telling the truth.
a good number of these publications are from energy & environment, a rag that is not listed on ISI’s journal citation reports indexing service for academic journals and has been publishing suspect peer-reviewed articles for years.
environmental geosciences, a journal published by the american assn of petroleum geologists – gee, these guys surely stand to lose millions in the green economy. i’d deny global warming, too.
The PNAS closed the loophole for publishing non-peer reviewed pubs just this fall.
craig loehle-degrees in forest science and forest management, global warming ‘expert’ for the heartland institute, a ‘free-market’ thinktank funded by coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear industries. definitely no conflict of interest there…
robert c. balling, jr–PhD in geography. over $400k from exxon mobile, scientific advisor for a thinktank which stated CO2 burning was a good thing, and funded by a coal-backed western fuels association
david h. douglass-professor of physics…
sonja boehmer-christiansen-editor of energy & environment, emeritus ‘reader’ in geography @ university of hull.
ross mckitrick-PhD in economic and frequent ‘free market’ contributor. criticized canada’s endangered species act. senior fellow of the fraser institute, an organization funded by exxon, forestry and tobacco companies.
s. fred singer-PhD in physics and satellite designer. worked on a paper w/ exxon to establish a fund for the financing of denial of climate change. big tobacco defender. sworn affidavit to congress that he did climate change research on behalf of big oil.
richard s. courtney- editor for coaltrans international and editorial board for energy & environment. no advanced degree.
patrick j. michaels-PhD in climatology. previously contended that warming will be on low end of ipcc report. received $100,000 from a colorado energy company, and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from electrical and oil orgs
richard s. lindzen-PhD in applied mathematics. has lied about his financing from big coal/oil co’s. has been an advisor for various libertarian thinktanks funded by oil co’s.
The peer review process is flawed, and can be circumvented by a number of events, including:
writer/reviewer have an agenda
unqualified reviewers
submitting outside your field
it’s a debate my PhD-candidate wife and her profs have regularly.
these scientists all loosely work for the same ‘denier’ free-market thinktanks like cato, CEI, fraser and heartland institute.
Yes this is an issue we can afford to be wrong about. More CO2 leads to more trees and a hotter wetter planet. It is perfectly survivable and may actually be beneficial. You do not overthrow your economy for possibility of something happening and you certainly dont use science as a social engineering tool.
Science hasnt even established that CO2 is even a warming agent. It used to be considered a cooling agent. There’s been years without summer due to CO2 released from eruptions. In the 1980s it was methane that was the warming culprit, and then like now, the science was undisputable!
You may live to see the day when it is decided that we need to change the climate and that will be looked at as a good thing.
holz any scientist that works for a think tank or on behalf of a think tank is no less qualified to debate as a scientist working for the IPCC who has monopolised this issue for 20 years, as peer reviewers of each others' work, where less than 15% of the 2500 are actual atmospheric scientists.
Jack - it's been really fun. sayonara. all I can say is that I really hope you ARE paid by some thinktank or oil/mining company, because if you're really coming up with these things yourself (it's like Geoff said, you're one step ahead of everybody...), then you've really been had.
So how did holz get a post in at 2:22 after he posted at 2:24?
About those IPCC Scientists whom Holz would like to believe are a cut above all others:
"Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."
How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"
IPCC Lead scientist Dr. Hansen caught faking data in 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html
Stand up guy. Guess he wants to keep some of that Gore reflected light on himself a little longer
more CO2 may lead to more trees in slightly higher altitudes, but will also lead to drier dry regions, and wetter regions will see more floods.
we've already been over your asinine volcano CO2 myths: you're fabulously wrong on that, like your insanely wrong on this:
Yes this is an issue we can afford to be wrong about
if you really think we should take lazy papers pushed by oil-and coal-owned thinktanks at face value, then you are far dumber than you've proven in previous discussions. seriously, jack. when did reality's grasp become too hard for you? you're quite the intellect, jackie!
inaction will cost more than proactive steps taken now. where is the innovation? why don't deniers want to leave the world a better place for future generations? why do they kowtow to the old-economy fossil fuel giants hellbent on keeping us in the 18th century?
of the 450 peer reviewed 'scientists' you referenced, about 6 were in climate-related sciences - most are math nuts and economists.
ah, yes. steve mctntyre’s a trustworthy source - mathematician cum mineral explorer who worked for fossil fuel co's, even a few publications w/ energy & environment for good measure - um, good one, jackie!
hansen wasn't a 'lead IPCC scientist' - he was one of the 619 members of the AR4 working group. the group wasn't just looking at climate change, but the effects of increased temps (hence specialists in climate, dendrology, oceanography, etc)
learn some facts before you spew more lies, jack.
Jack, I just don't see this as true at all, and I'd like, separately from this climate debate, to ask you to go a little further on it.
Off the top of my head, a recent product where waste is an acceptable byproduct of profit: the Ford van that is shipped to the US with seats that are then immediately stripped and landfilled. it's cheaper to throw away the seats than to change the design of the van.
Things like plastic packaging are so cheap that making lots of them and throwing them away ends up being more profitable than trying to come up with a less wasteful way of packing something.
and this part didn't fit (who knew there was a limit?!?):
regarding those IPCC lead authors, 22 (of 37, another 4 are scientists w/ PhDs but limited bio) are science-based PhDs. the rest are an assortment of climate modelling gurus and economists.
say, jack... are you really dumb enough to think that not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject [climate science].
myles allen, PhD physics w/ focus on atmosphere-ocean interactions
john christy, PhD atmospheric sciences
john church, PhD oceanography
david wratt, PhD atmospheric physics
ian g. enting, PhD particle physics (climate modeling)
ann henderson-sellers, PhD climate science
michael e. mann, PhD geology & geophysics
john f. b. mitchell, PhD theoretical physics
mario j. molina, PhD chemistry
michael oppenheimer, PhD chemical physics
stefan rahmstorf, PhD oceanography
hans joachim schellnhuber, PhD theoretical physics
michael schlesinger, PhD meteorology
stephen schneider, PhD plasma physics
keith shine, PhD meteorology
kevin e. trenberth, PhD meteorology
david vaughan, PhD botany & plant physiology
pier vellinga, PhD technical sciences (beach erosion)
seriously, jack - you sound like my wingnut neighbor that contends mckibben didn't go to harvard, just cos overlord rush told him so. a bitchslap of reality would do you good. christ yer dumb.
breaking news for the jack klompuses of the world:
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2151
my personal thanks to javier to sticking to this!
All that CO2 might be the reason temps have fallen or flatlined in the same time frame to.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
regarding the spiegel article, isn't the most important point this one?
"The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory."
seems to me like a good lay person description of climate change, and completely in line with the worst effects (polar ice cap melt, rising seas, glacier melts, changing weather patterns, potential current change).
Some would simply call it the weather
jack,
did you [once again] even bother to read the article?
If the deep waters of the Pacific are, in fact, the most important factor holding up global warming, climate change will remain at a standstill until the middle of the next decade, says Latif. But if the cooling trend is the result of reduced solar activity, things could start getting warmer again much sooner. Based on past experience, solar activity will likely increase again in the next few years.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.