Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)
- Thread starter marquee moon
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Hisdickinhismandeac, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure from the intolerable taggety tagsters of the OGB that in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Bigdoubledouchebag, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Beachedbummeddeac, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous penis pressure that in recent days from all over the world, it seems my colleagues are wanting to shove it up my butt that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst elements of politicized science.”
Consider the case of Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist affiliated with Britain’s Reading University. In April, he announced he was joining the skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank because he felt it important to analyze “why the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show.”
His affiliation didn’t last long. Three weeks later he resigned, writing:
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that it has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me of the time of McCarthy.
The Institute of Physics, which had declined to publish a paper by Professor Bengtsson, insisted that their decision was based solely on his paper’s not meeting their high editorial standards. David Gee, an emeritus professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University, said the pressure placed on his friend “simply confirms the worst of politicized science"
Hahahaha hahahaha...wooohooohoooohooohooowww
Last edited:
Get the fugg outta town clownie...
Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg
http://m.spiegel.de/international/w...e&.tsrc=apple&pcarrier=AT&T&pmcc=310&pmnc=410
Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as "scandalous" and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards. In a statement on the IOP Science website, Publisher Nicola Gulley emphasizes that the study was declined on scientific grounds. She argues that Bengtsson's work failed to meet the journal's high standards.
Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.
It's a response from another scientist concerning the treatment of Lennart B.
Learn to fucking read and note the God Damn Citations!
It's Der Spiegel, Herr Hemorrhoid.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/07/Five-Things-You-Can-Do-About-Climate-Change
Back on Track!
1. Become Informed.
Every even half-way educated person ought to know by now that global mean temperature has flatlined since 1997. This means that no child under 17 has ever lived through a period of "global warming". It also drives a coach and horses through the "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) theory so assiduously championed by the scientific establishment for the last three decades. After all, if CO2 levels have continued to rise - especially thanks to industrial development in China - how come, as all the climate alarmists' computer models predicted, world temperatures haven't followed suit?
Clearly it is time for a rethink. As an informed citizen, you can do your bit by advising your children not to believe the politicized rubbish taught them by their geography and science teachers at school; warn your political representatives that if they carry on wasting taxpayers' money on this nonsense they're not going to get your vote; write letters to newspapers and TV channels asking why they're not doing their due dilligence and exposing the most expensive scientific fraud in the history of mankind.
2. Make changes at home.
There are lots of things you could do to make home life more comfortable for yourself and your family: ditch flickery, cold, dim low energy light bulbs and replace them with old-school incandescent ones that enable you to see what you're doing; turn up the heating as the winters get colder; spend less time recycling which, besides being a colossal waste of man-hours as you divide your trash into any number of coloured sacks, probably costs more energy than it saves and can, in any case, be done by commercial machinery these days so why should you be giving free labour to the environmental zealots?
Tragically, however, your options for rebellion here are limited. Thanks to government regulation, incandescent light bulbs are almost impossible to obtain; your energy bills - thanks to the massive state subsidies paid for compulsory renewables - have been driven so unaffordably high that heating is now a luxury; and if you don't recycle you get fined by your local authority.
Still if you're really desperate you can do what toads and snakes sometimes do in winter: bury yourself inside your compost bin and try and warm yourself with the ambient heat generated by the decomposing vegetable matter.
3. Be Greener At The Office.
If you are the CEO of a large corporation, consider sacking your Head of Sustainability. The business of business is to create value for shareholders and you certainly aren't going to do that by ramping up your overheads with worthless departments dedicated to feelgood environmental schemes.
Even if you are not the CEO you can still make a difference. For example, has your office canteen been suckered by some greenie do-gooders into sourcing locally-grown, organic food? If so, campaign for change! Note that "organic" is a decadent Western fad which does nothing for the needs of the world's growing population (that's what GM and fossil-fuel-fertiliser and industrial agriculture are for). Note to that - as per Liberal Curmudgeon Stephen Budiansky - that imported food, even when shipped by air, is often far more energy efficient than locally grown produce and has the added virtue of helping producers in the developing world.
4. Reduce Emissions In Transit
The key thing here is to avoid electric cars. Even before it rolls off the production line, an electric car has created far more CO2 than a conventional one. That's because the manufacturing process - notably the energy used to create its battery and mine the lithium - is so un-eco-friendly.
Avoid also using bio-fuels, one of the most environmentally damaging forms of energy available. In Asia and Africa, the demand in the West for mandated bio-fuels has led to the replacement of rainforest with plantations of industrial palm oil; it has also driven up food prices by diverting agricultural land for food production, thus harming the world's poor who are especially vulnerable to starvation.
Also avoid extensive jet travel - not because it isn't fun and good and useful and much cheaper than it was thirty years ago, but because you run a severe risk of being mistaken for leading environmental campaigners like Al Gore, the IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri and the Prince of Wales, all of whom fly tirelessly around the world every to warn anyone who'll listen about the terrifying relationship between air miles and catastrophic climate change.
5. Get Involved And Educate Others About The Big Picture
You may feel powerless in the face of so much green bullshit but you really can make a difference. Here's one thing you can do right now: write to Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth/The Sierra Club/The Nature Conservancy/WWF/RSPB/the Audubon Society/etc and explain why you're cancelling your subscription. Every one of them has been hijacked by green ideologues who seem to care less about saving the planet than they do ramping up scare stories (to raise revenues from credulous idiots), promoting junk science, and indulging rent-seeking crony capitalists like the companies making a killing (literally, in the case of the birds and bats they slice and dice) in the wind farm industry.
Back on Track!
1. Become Informed.
Every even half-way educated person ought to know by now that global mean temperature has flatlined since 1997. This means that no child under 17 has ever lived through a period of "global warming". It also drives a coach and horses through the "anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) theory so assiduously championed by the scientific establishment for the last three decades. After all, if CO2 levels have continued to rise - especially thanks to industrial development in China - how come, as all the climate alarmists' computer models predicted, world temperatures haven't followed suit?
Clearly it is time for a rethink. As an informed citizen, you can do your bit by advising your children not to believe the politicized rubbish taught them by their geography and science teachers at school; warn your political representatives that if they carry on wasting taxpayers' money on this nonsense they're not going to get your vote; write letters to newspapers and TV channels asking why they're not doing their due dilligence and exposing the most expensive scientific fraud in the history of mankind.
2. Make changes at home.
There are lots of things you could do to make home life more comfortable for yourself and your family: ditch flickery, cold, dim low energy light bulbs and replace them with old-school incandescent ones that enable you to see what you're doing; turn up the heating as the winters get colder; spend less time recycling which, besides being a colossal waste of man-hours as you divide your trash into any number of coloured sacks, probably costs more energy than it saves and can, in any case, be done by commercial machinery these days so why should you be giving free labour to the environmental zealots?
Tragically, however, your options for rebellion here are limited. Thanks to government regulation, incandescent light bulbs are almost impossible to obtain; your energy bills - thanks to the massive state subsidies paid for compulsory renewables - have been driven so unaffordably high that heating is now a luxury; and if you don't recycle you get fined by your local authority.
Still if you're really desperate you can do what toads and snakes sometimes do in winter: bury yourself inside your compost bin and try and warm yourself with the ambient heat generated by the decomposing vegetable matter.
3. Be Greener At The Office.
If you are the CEO of a large corporation, consider sacking your Head of Sustainability. The business of business is to create value for shareholders and you certainly aren't going to do that by ramping up your overheads with worthless departments dedicated to feelgood environmental schemes.
Even if you are not the CEO you can still make a difference. For example, has your office canteen been suckered by some greenie do-gooders into sourcing locally-grown, organic food? If so, campaign for change! Note that "organic" is a decadent Western fad which does nothing for the needs of the world's growing population (that's what GM and fossil-fuel-fertiliser and industrial agriculture are for). Note to that - as per Liberal Curmudgeon Stephen Budiansky - that imported food, even when shipped by air, is often far more energy efficient than locally grown produce and has the added virtue of helping producers in the developing world.
4. Reduce Emissions In Transit
The key thing here is to avoid electric cars. Even before it rolls off the production line, an electric car has created far more CO2 than a conventional one. That's because the manufacturing process - notably the energy used to create its battery and mine the lithium - is so un-eco-friendly.
Avoid also using bio-fuels, one of the most environmentally damaging forms of energy available. In Asia and Africa, the demand in the West for mandated bio-fuels has led to the replacement of rainforest with plantations of industrial palm oil; it has also driven up food prices by diverting agricultural land for food production, thus harming the world's poor who are especially vulnerable to starvation.
Also avoid extensive jet travel - not because it isn't fun and good and useful and much cheaper than it was thirty years ago, but because you run a severe risk of being mistaken for leading environmental campaigners like Al Gore, the IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri and the Prince of Wales, all of whom fly tirelessly around the world every to warn anyone who'll listen about the terrifying relationship between air miles and catastrophic climate change.
5. Get Involved And Educate Others About The Big Picture
You may feel powerless in the face of so much green bullshit but you really can make a difference. Here's one thing you can do right now: write to Greenpeace/Friends of the Earth/The Sierra Club/The Nature Conservancy/WWF/RSPB/the Audubon Society/etc and explain why you're cancelling your subscription. Every one of them has been hijacked by green ideologues who seem to care less about saving the planet than they do ramping up scare stories (to raise revenues from credulous idiots), promoting junk science, and indulging rent-seeking crony capitalists like the companies making a killing (literally, in the case of the birds and bats they slice and dice) in the wind farm industry.
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,891
- Reaction score
- 15,714
I know that when I look for reliable, scientifically accurate reporting I look to Breitbart.com
BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,891
- Reaction score
- 15,714
Townie, I'm gonna need you to post the CV's of Gavin Schmidt, Eric Steig, Reto Knutti, and Myles Allen before I can take anything you post seriously.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03...-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/
No warming for over 17 years.
Just the Facts.
No warming for over 17 years.
Just the Facts.
WFFaithful
Well-known member
I can't see any sense in people as distinguished as Lovelock to go about,at this late stage in their careers,and essentially dismantle a life's work. To have such a dramatic shift just doesn't make sense to me. Why would so many of these erstwhile leading lights of AGW/Climate Science movement throw away their legacy in a fit of apostasy. It does not add up and that is what is most troubling. That,and the fact many of them claim they feel free to speak now that they no longer feel constrained by the pressures of funding...
Facts dispel global warming horse shit...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Read and learn.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Read and learn.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/24/325073881/latest-climate-change-report-paints-dire-picture-for-business
The U.S. economy faces great risks from climate change, according to a new study that focuses on the current and future effects of climate change on everything from jobs, to crop yields, to energy production.
Though the study presents no new climate science, it paints a dire picture of the business and economic effects if action isn't taken, including crop yields that fall by more than 70 percent in the Midwest and billions of dollars' worth of property literally underwater on the East Coast.
The study is called "Risky Business", and the driving force behind it is a bipartisan group of prominent former businessmen and public officials: entrepreneur and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; retired hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer; and Henry Paulson, a former Wall Street titan and Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush.
Paulson, a Republican, acknowledges that many in his party are skeptical of the science of climate change and want more research. He says this new study suggests the business and investment community needs to take action.
The naval base at Norfolk has had to build two levels to its docks to accommodate rising sea levels. The water level has risen about 1 1/2 feet since 1920.
Environment
As Sea Levels Rise, Norfolk Is Sinking And Planning
"It's going to increasingly be difficult for anybody, regardless of party, to say there isn't a problem," he says.
Paulson says he hopes the study can influence the business community by applying a major business tool — the science of risk management.
"The more we can talk about risk management, which is part and parcel of the free enterprise system and a conservative principle, I think we will make some headway," Paulson says.
The study says there's a better-than-ever chance that as much as $23 billion worth of Florida property will be underwater by the middle of the century.
But the report projects something investors call a "tail risk" — a low-probability but extremely high-cost event that pushes losses far above $23 billion. For Florida property, the "tail risk" is that there's a 1 in 100 chance that by the end of this century, as much as $681 billion worth of property will be submerged.
Robert Rubin, another Wall Street veteran and former Treasury secretary under President Clinton, is also involved in the Risky Business study. He says the threats are widespread across the economy.
People survey the damage on Scenic Highway in Pensacola, Fla., after part of it collapsed following heavy rains and flash flooding on April 30.
The Two-Way
New Report Finds Climate Change Already Having Broad Impact
"Agricultural yields could fall by 50 percent or more in some parts of the country," Rubin says. "You could have temperatures that prevented people from working outdoors for some part of the year in certain parts of the country. All of this has massive effects, and all of this is a very realistic projection of what is likely to happen if we don't act."
Paulson proposes a tax on carbon emissions that scientists say are causing climate change, to provide an incentive to wean the economy off carbon-based fuels.
"A carbon tax is one way of putting a price on this pollution, one way of letting the market operate," Paulson says.
But there's virtually no chance a carbon tax will pass in Congress anytime soon. Rubin suggests an interim step that doesn't need congressional approval. It would be a requirement by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards Board where companies disclose the risks that climate change poses to their assets and profits.
"I think we've got to act on all possible fronts, because I really do think that life on Earth, as we know it, is at stake here," Rubin says.
The U.S. economy faces great risks from climate change, according to a new study that focuses on the current and future effects of climate change on everything from jobs, to crop yields, to energy production.
Though the study presents no new climate science, it paints a dire picture of the business and economic effects if action isn't taken, including crop yields that fall by more than 70 percent in the Midwest and billions of dollars' worth of property literally underwater on the East Coast.
The study is called "Risky Business", and the driving force behind it is a bipartisan group of prominent former businessmen and public officials: entrepreneur and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; retired hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer; and Henry Paulson, a former Wall Street titan and Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush.
Paulson, a Republican, acknowledges that many in his party are skeptical of the science of climate change and want more research. He says this new study suggests the business and investment community needs to take action.
The naval base at Norfolk has had to build two levels to its docks to accommodate rising sea levels. The water level has risen about 1 1/2 feet since 1920.
Environment
As Sea Levels Rise, Norfolk Is Sinking And Planning
"It's going to increasingly be difficult for anybody, regardless of party, to say there isn't a problem," he says.
Paulson says he hopes the study can influence the business community by applying a major business tool — the science of risk management.
"The more we can talk about risk management, which is part and parcel of the free enterprise system and a conservative principle, I think we will make some headway," Paulson says.
The study says there's a better-than-ever chance that as much as $23 billion worth of Florida property will be underwater by the middle of the century.
But the report projects something investors call a "tail risk" — a low-probability but extremely high-cost event that pushes losses far above $23 billion. For Florida property, the "tail risk" is that there's a 1 in 100 chance that by the end of this century, as much as $681 billion worth of property will be submerged.
Robert Rubin, another Wall Street veteran and former Treasury secretary under President Clinton, is also involved in the Risky Business study. He says the threats are widespread across the economy.
People survey the damage on Scenic Highway in Pensacola, Fla., after part of it collapsed following heavy rains and flash flooding on April 30.
The Two-Way
New Report Finds Climate Change Already Having Broad Impact
"Agricultural yields could fall by 50 percent or more in some parts of the country," Rubin says. "You could have temperatures that prevented people from working outdoors for some part of the year in certain parts of the country. All of this has massive effects, and all of this is a very realistic projection of what is likely to happen if we don't act."
Paulson proposes a tax on carbon emissions that scientists say are causing climate change, to provide an incentive to wean the economy off carbon-based fuels.
"A carbon tax is one way of putting a price on this pollution, one way of letting the market operate," Paulson says.
But there's virtually no chance a carbon tax will pass in Congress anytime soon. Rubin suggests an interim step that doesn't need congressional approval. It would be a requirement by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Accounting Standards Board where companies disclose the risks that climate change poses to their assets and profits.
"I think we've got to act on all possible fronts, because I really do think that life on Earth, as we know it, is at stake here," Rubin says.
DCDeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 11,774
- Reaction score
- 2,652
Not sure why I bothered, but I did enjoy tracking the magic on the blog linked there. First, decide what you'd like to prove - in this case, let's say you'd love to be able to say "Summers are hotter now than they used to be, so global warming is a hoax." Now you have a mountain of global temperature averages proving otherwise, but no matter. Just pick an arbitrary number, let's say 100 degree days. That sounds nice and hot, but it's also a very good choice as a meaningless outlier whose selection has no technical merit whatsoever. Now let's go back and see if we can find a time period to support the theory you're trying to get to. Ahhh, the 1930's. Spiked to 6% a few times in June when 3% is more the norm now, and let's not discuss the temperature collection methods and locations then versus now. This is especially great since you can then make a Y axis that goes from 0 to 7 and you can round down on 99.9 degrees, making the spikes really impressive on a graph. Also, make the line nice and fat so that the obvious nature of the bottom portion of non-spiking averages trending upwards kind of blends together. Bingo, you've proven your point with "data."
Then everyone on the blog who only would go there in the first place to have their preconceived notions confirmed will eat it up. Not that it doesn't happen on both sides of technical problems that become political, but that's the whole point of peer review and worldwide scientific debate. The result is overwhelmingly dominant support of the scientific community at odds with political dogma (instead of religious dogma like in the old days).
This thread would be more fun to see if you can find data to support the most ridiculous claims you can think of. The above logic could put up a rock solid argument that Wake's basketball team has been more successful over the past 4 years than ever before.
Then everyone on the blog who only would go there in the first place to have their preconceived notions confirmed will eat it up. Not that it doesn't happen on both sides of technical problems that become political, but that's the whole point of peer review and worldwide scientific debate. The result is overwhelmingly dominant support of the scientific community at odds with political dogma (instead of religious dogma like in the old days).
This thread would be more fun to see if you can find data to support the most ridiculous claims you can think of. The above logic could put up a rock solid argument that Wake's basketball team has been more successful over the past 4 years than ever before.
ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
:golfclap:
Continuing with same article that proves the computer-model/slant stats bullshit is growing ever hotter...
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
Spot the Wonder
Well-known member
Steve Goddard. This man thought it was cold enough to snow dry ice at the south pole. 55 pages in, Lectro has hit the bottom of the barrel. Anthony Watts thinks Goddard's an idiot.