Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (40103)	5/26/2013 12:52:00 PM
From: Bilow	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Hi Landshark; Regarding "deniers" and peer review; Peer review isn't working for you anymore. You need to find some other way of showing that science supports your (extreme) position. Deniers are now in positions of authority. ------------------------------------------------ Here's a peer reviewed article on the subject of climate sensitivity (how much will temperatures rise due to CO2). The paper is Nature, probably the most esteemed science journal on the planet: Energy budget constraints on climate response Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens & Myles R. Allen The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. ... nature.com Among the authors is a denier, Nicholas Lewis. Here he discusses the above article for the denier website "Watts Up With That": New paper shows transient climate response less than 2°C Guest post by Nic Lewis Readers may recall that last December I published an informal climate sensitivity study at WUWT, here. The study adopted a heat-balance (energy budget) approach and used recent data, including satellite-observation-derived aerosol forcing estimates. I would like now to draw attention to a new peer-reviewed climate sensitivity study published as a Letter in Nature Geoscience, “Energy budget constraints on climate response”, here. This study uses the same approach as mine, based on changes in global mean temperature, forcing and heat uptake over 100+ year periods, with aerosol forcing adjusted to reflect satellite observations. ... wattsupwiththat.com So sorry, you lost the scientific argument. You're going to have to retreat to another bunker. Here are some suggested positions: (a) Science has been corrupted by money from big oil. The idea here is to claim that the latest science really isn't science. This is going to be a little difficult because, for example, the above article has so many climate scientists as coauthors. Deniers are now a part of mainstream climate science. (b) It only takes one peer reviewed paper supporting catastrophic man-caused global warming to prove that it's really happening. And that paper doesn't have to have been written in the last 10 years. (c) The science was settled in the 1980s or 1990s. Since then it's gotten a little unsettled but we should only pay attention to science when it's settled. Hence only the settled papers are important. (d) Science is not the best tool for understanding what is happening in the natural environment. Instead, we should think naturally and use our feelings. We should use our hearts not our heads. Nature is not science. (e) Or just ignore the anti CAGW papers flooding the science journals. Argue that they're bad science done by bad scientists and ignore them. -- Carl P.S. Good luck with that. I'll be watching. I find this highly entertaining.

To: Land Shark who wrote (40103)	5/26/2013 6:49:53 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

As Bilow explained eloquently, you are using an old and failed argument. You demonstrate your faulty premise about Denialists too - we are not in favour of pollution nor are we antiscience. On the contrary, we love science as the foundation of rationality [actually, reason is the foundation and science is a mechanism to which reason can be applied]. I am more against pollution than you are. If I decided that CO2 is a problem, you would find yourself saying "Oh, no need to go that far. Some CO2 is probably okay." I'd be telling you that you are not going to fly in an airliner to go scuba diving in some exotic location if you don't pay enough money to offset your despoliation of the environment. Carbon taxes would be huge. Income taxes would be zero. So would sales taxes. Cyberspace taxes would be zero. But it seems to me that CO2 emissions are a good thing at current rates. We can review the situation in 2100. Or, more accurately, anyone alive then can do so as you will probably not be alive and neither will nearly everyone. Those who are will likely not be buying much carbon to burn. Fusion reactors and very different lifestyles will likely mean not much carbon combustion. If there are only 2 billion people, that will reduce consumption of carbon even further. Mqurice