6 of 44 people found the following review helpful
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Climate Change Justice (Hardcover)
The authors could have debated what to do if it became known that a huge astroid was heading straight for the earth. That would have been more interesting exercise in wild speculation than musing about what what to do to prevent or embrace apocalyptic climate change. At least astronomy is a solid science and if the astronomers say an astroid is about to hit the earth you can have some confidence in what they say.
The authors do not ask if there is any substance to the predictions of climate doom handed down by the Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change (IPCC). The supposedly sophisticated law professors seem to think that the highly implausible predictions of the IPCC have been handed down from heaven on stone tablets. Perhaps the authors have to accept apocalyptic climate change predictions as true. There wouldn't be much reason to write most of their book otherwise.
Some judge said the constitution is not a suicide pact. But our law professors think that is plausible that the important nations of the world will join in a treaty that would clearly be an economic suicide pact. These nations are supposed to give up most fossil fuels in the name of preventing the hypothetical global warming. These are the same nations that can't sacrifice 5% of the GDP to keep their debt from spiraling out of control.
The professors have a real problem with science. They seem to think that if an expert with an impressive false front (i.e. the IPCC or Al Gore) say that the sky is falling it must be so. They eagerly swallow the most fake predictions, such as rising sea level or malaria going wild. There is no indication that their understanding of global warming is even up to the boy scout merit badge level. That said, maybe global warming really is a looming disaster. It's hard to prove a negative.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 9, 2013 8:30:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 9, 2013 8:33:47 PM PDT
The IPCC is not AN expert as you say. Rather, it is the representative body of climate scientists, which integrates the reports of thousands of scientists, including but not limited to all the published reports on climate science from peer reviewed journals. You should take a look at their summary report, if only to be a better critic.
One of the reasons this method of representing the findings of climate scientists, through such a massive consensus report, has been chosen is because climate science is highly complex and it concerns issues vital to the well being of all of humanity. Given the complexity of the science and the thoroughness of the reports, it seems a waste of energy (and an incredible waste of energy for people like myself who are well versed in the literature) to have to repeat these findings in every discussion of the matter.
The reason we often repeat the findings of the IPCC in every discussion, when we should be moving on to policy prescriptions instead, is because ignorant people, who are averse to changing their habits, and are often unconcerned with the fate of poor people and future generations, treat the whole discussion of climate change as some kind of political game. Skepticism is a healthy thing - if you actually understand the thing you are questioning. Most climate skepticism seems not to meet this condition.
It sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to the experts these authors take on faith. This makes you sound ignorant and brash. Perhaps you are brilliant, but none of us has any way of knowing this if you continue to comment on things about which you apparently know so little. Sorry for the harshness. These are very serious matters that call for serious attention. Under such conditions, it seems we should be a little less willing to tolerate the participation of individuals who have not done their homework.
In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2013 7:56:25 AM PDT
You misrepresent the purpose and methodology of the IPCC. You should read: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. This book exposes the IPCC as corrupt and a serial misrepresenter of what it does and how. The IPCC is not a neutral body summarizing scientific work. It is a political partisan organization trying to create alarm about a hypothetical climate crisis.
If you were actually well versed in the literature you would not look at the IPCC through rose colored glasses. The method that the IPCC uses to predict the future (projections) is based mainly on climate models that do a very poor job of replicating the Earth's climate and that disagree one with another by large amounts concerning the critical parameter of climate sensitivity. So you should take the time to actually investigate what is going on, not sit back with a superior, know it all attitude. Of course it is getting very embarrassing for the promoters of climate hysteria and windmills that the Earth has not warmed for 16 years. This fact will not be folded into the statistics in the next IPCC report (my prediction).
You are very sure of yourself that people who disagree with you are ignorant. This is closed mind attitude and your comments reveal that you are apparently deeply ignorant, or perhaps you have a financial or career interest in promoting climate hysteria.
You are welcome to look at my website: www.climateviews.com to see the many articles I have written about global warming.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2013 11:56:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 12, 2013 12:04:28 AM PDT
Thanks for your comment. I am friends with a few climate scientists, not through any activity related to climate, but randomly, having interacted with them for years. They are each very worried about climate change, a couple to the point of being sometimes depressed. And they do debate amongst themselves things like the reliability of climate models. They also respect the IPCC in the same way a doctor might respect the AMA.
I would not trust the findings of any academic discipline to be free of politics. However the work of the IPCC integrates the findings of multiple disciplines: meteorology, climate science, earth systems science, ecology, and geology, to name the most important. And it is the culmination of well over a hundred years of organizing meteorologists and climate scientists (see Edwards, A Vest Machine). This makes it one of the world's most integrative scientific bodies. Of course, there is politics in the process of formulating a message. And of course, they will craft that message carefully so as to influence our views. Many climate scientists believe that if they do not speak out we will destroy civilization, for Christ's sake. And of course it is good to question to what extent they have tunnel vision and are influenced by a political process. But to deny that there is anything to be worried about in climate change strikes me as deliberately obtuse, as if you simply do not want to know. After all, if you did believe climate change was a serious threat to civilization, you would immediately be burdened by a new set of moral obligations. You would be challenged to drive less, eat less meat, live in a smaller home, challenge the views of cynics and deniers.
This makes me think of people like yourself as free riders. Other people work hard to limit their emissions and to build a clean energy economy. Meanwhile, you are free to pollute away because you do not believe there is a problem. And when we have solved the problem of climate change, you can say I told you so. Yes, it is far easier reading books with childish and cynical titles, which deny that there may be a serious challenge in climate change, that give you a free moral pass. After all, you will most likely not be alive in 2080 or living in sub-Saharan Africa in 2040. So while I do not doubt that you believe climate change to be some kind of joke, I do doubt your motives for reading the sort of material that would lead you to this sort of view.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2013 5:24:33 AM PDT
I have never noticed any epidemic of depression among climate scientists. I think that is just another propaganda ploy to try to convince the booboisie of the "seriousness" of the "situation." They should be happy since global warming stopped 16 years ago. If they are so depressed they should welcome evidence that the predictions of doom are wrong.
How am I a free rider? The free riders are the climate scientists, windmill manufacturers, and others benefiting professionally from climate hysteria.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2013 1:56:57 PM PDT
I never said there was an epidemic of depression amongst climate scientists, only that two of the climate scientists I know have often been depressed about it; the same goes for most activists I have known who deal with the issue.
Most of us who take climate change seriously have changed numerous habits. I don't eat meat, don't drive, and live in small apartments to limit my carbon footprint, for instance. Many of us contribute money to campaigns to bring about legislation to slow global warming. Many have invested in clean energy when it cost more than fossil fuel energy. Many work in clean energy start-ups at below market rate pay for their talents. Many climate scientists earn just below upper middle class salaries as opposed to the upper middle class salaries typical of other scientists with similar training.
As the climate skeptic George Gilder recently wrote to me in another discussion on Amazon, to paraphrase, "everyone agrees humans are causing climate change." The real question for him is the extent it matters. My point about people like he and you being free riders is that, maybe we will get global warming under control, but if everyone were like you, we would be doomed.
So far as your comment about no temperature rises occurring in the last 16 years go, that is just embarrassing for you. I am not even sure where to start...
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2013 2:13:10 PM PDT
The idea that climate scientists are depressed or scared is a widely repeated propaganda point. Maybe they need counseling.
Your symbolic gestures will of course have absolutely no effect. If we were serious about CO2 there would be a big push for nuclear energy.
Have you considered joining a monastery?
I'm sorry that you are ignorant about the failure of the globe to warm for 16 years. It is well known and acknowledged by all scientist, including the advocates of global warming hysteria.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2013 3:50:01 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 14, 2013 3:58:18 PM PDT
Great point about nuclear energy. There has, however, been a strong push for nuclear in environmental circles amongst a number of leaders like James Hansen, James Lovelock, and Stewart Brand. A number of others have been much more guarded due to its cost. Nuclear power stations are well known for running massive cost over runs and are more expensive than wind and solar in many circumstances. Whether or not this has been exaggerated by environmentalists in the past I cannot tell. Certainly I used to argue against nuclear for just this reason and I am not yet convinced it is cheaper. However, I am convinced that it will win support from many Republicans, who seem to embrace it partially as a way of making environmentalists eat dirt. Whatever works :-)
So far as the temperature levelling off goes, it is true that the pace of warming has slowed. And if we take 1998 as the baseline year, then the rise has completely stalled. But 1998 was an anomalously hot year due to a strong El Niño effect. Those who are saying there has been no rise in temperature are deceiving people like you through a statistical trick and using this deception as propaganda. The biggest worry over global warming, the melting of the Greenland icecap, is actually proceeding far faster than the IPCC predicted in 2007. Further, the release of CO2 into the atmosphere has increased faster than the IPCC predicted.
Given these developments, to argue that temperature increases have slowed, or evenly stalled, and that for this reason there is nothing to worry about, strikes me as deeply partisan and irresponsible. Perhaps you were not aware of these developments, but many are and ignore them to score partisan victories. Skeptic or not, we owe it to those who are now children to take their futures more seriously.
The slowing of the temperature rise may be caused by excess pollution in China adding a cooling effect or from the CO2 being absorbed by the oceans. Either way, this would not effect long term warming trends. No serious thinker I am aware of, including amongst the few skeptics I follow, is disputing that CO2 causes temperature increases through the greenhouse effect. It is also possible that the rising CO2 has been absorbed by plants that have grown faster because of the CO2, which does spur their growth. This would be great, and it would partially vindicate some skeptics. The problem is that we cannot expect this scenario to last, since greater heat will eventually harm plant growth, through desiccation and fires. Skeptics who focus on this seem to be grasping at still green, but soon to dry, straws.
That said, I will give you the last word, as I need to focus more on work in the coming days. Be well :-)
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 14, 2013 8:34:16 PM PDT
A few individuals may favor nuclear but zero important environmental organizations have come out even though they are hysterical about CO2 and there is no CO2 from nuclear. Nuclear if fantastically cheaper than wind and solar if you add electricity storage - a necessity if there were to be large scale deployment. In any case the cost in the U.S. is due to the obstruction by the anti nuke groups - the same groups that worry about global warming.
The temperature rise has not "slowed." It stopped. If you don't like the 1998 el nino then start in 2002 - same result. At the present rate of melting, a short term measurement that is quite speculative, it would take between 12,000 and 30,000 years for it to melt. In other words melting is absolutely negligible.
The expected global warming is just not there and is is an intellectual disaster for the warmists.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›