• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wall Street Journal: Cooling Down Fears of Climate Change

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change - WSJ.com

... The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

Mr. Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite.

Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."
Click to expand...

The climate alarmist case has been undone. The AGW skeptics are vindicated.

No, the IPCC report isn't final, but it will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle now.
 
Mr. Ridley's expert, who is a financier by trade reviewing statistical data rather than being a climate scientist himself, makes a reasonable case to doubt warming estimates. But any dozen people reviewing the data can come to different conclusions about what range of statistical probability exists between the low side and high side estimates of anything. That the article is patently slanted toward conspiracy theory-lite rants about science guiding policy or policy guiding science, I would hardly consider this particular evaluation of the IPCC report to be the smoking gun that slams the lid on the coffin of AGW.
 
I think it is plenty enough to cast sufficient doubt on climate-change-as-a-doomsday-global-catastrophe, and enough to say "NO" to calls that we gut our economy and give up our sovereignty to some international carbon credits council.
 
Something is going on. I don't know of anybody who has not observed atypical weather patterns. The problem is that the alarmist scientists make horrible PR decisions. Screaming the sky is falling--we must give up oil today before it is too late--are 1) unrealistic and 2) poor salesmen for the ideas that will get us off so much oil. Promoting solar and wind and wave as a way to stick it to big oil who drive prices up while saving you money once we fine tune it is a much better selling point than the temperature is rising, but gets you to the same end.
 
My first thought would be, if you are looking for good information about science, you don't turn to the WSJ. My next thought would be, if you want scientific data analyzed scientifically, you want it done by a scientist.
 
Ten years from now AGW will be forgotten and their will be some new scary doomsday scenario in its place. Some people need to and want to scare the public for political reasons and some people in that general public need to have something to be afraid of, it keeps their minds occupied. If you have something or someone to focus your fear or anger on it keeps you from having to deal with who or what is really wrong in your life. It is an escape mechanism.
 
AGW has been and will be the leading threat to human kind. The problem is most people either believe, or don't believe based on their already held ideology. If you are a conservative/libertarian, you don't believe it, if you are a liberal, you do. If people would set aside their confirmation bias, and take an honest look, they could see the truth.
 
Fisher said:
Something is going on. I don't know of anybody who has not observed atypical weather patterns. The problem is that the alarmist scientists make horrible PR decisions. Screaming the sky is falling--we must give up oil today before it is too late--are 1) unrealistic and 2) poor salesmen for the ideas that will get us off so much oil. Promoting solar and wind and wave as a way to stick it to big oil who drive prices up while saving you money once we fine tune it is a much better selling point than the temperature is rising, but gets you to the same end.
Click to expand...

i agree. we should move forward with a solution instead of focusing on alarmist scenarios and political footballs. i support throwing our resources at the problem, but i don't support cap and trade, because i think that's among the poorest and most regressive ways to address the problem. we need to treat post-oil energy innovation like the national security priority it is and fund it as such.
 
LowDown said:
Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change - WSJ.com



The climate alarmist case has been undone. The AGW skeptics are vindicated.

No, the IPCC report isn't final, but it will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle now.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. Any number of published, peer-reviewed papers exist estimating climate sensitivity from 2-4.5C, with 3C being the "most likely."

But an opinion writer for a financial publication is telling you that some guy told him climate sensitivity is less.

And you're declaring victory. It's all over. Vindication.

Is that about right?
 
Deuce said:
So let me get this straight. Any number of published, peer-reviewed papers exist estimating climate sensitivity from 2-4.5C, with 3C being the "most likely."
Click to expand...

All of which are based on modelled guesswork all of which have gotten it completely wrong to date

But an opinion writer for a financial publication is telling you that some guy told him climate sensitivity is less.

And you're declaring victory. It's all over. Vindication.
Click to expand...

I dont know about him but the satellites say it currently is
 
flogger said:
All of which are based on modelled guesswork all of which have gotten it completely wrong to date



I dont know about him but the satellites say it currently is
Click to expand...

The satellites didn't tell you climate sensitivity was 1.7C, no.

But lets face it. You'd be propping up tarot cards as vindication if they said climate change wasn't a problem.
 
Deuce said:
The satellites didn't tell you climate sensitivity was 1.7C, no.

But lets face it. You'd be propping up tarot cards as vindication if they said climate change wasn't a problem.
Click to expand...

The facts are the facts sorry you dont like em but thems the breaks.
 
flogger said:
The facts are the facts sorry you dont like em but thems the breaks.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who thinks all estimates of sensitivity come from climate models.
 
That is how science works. People publish their work and other scientists do a hatchet job on the poorly supported work.
 
LowDown said:
Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change - WSJ.com



The climate alarmist case has been undone. The AGW skeptics are vindicated.

No, the IPCC report isn't final, but it will be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle now.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem, a non-scientist writing an op-ed about science.

A warming of 1.6 Degrees?

Well, to effect a change of just one degree takes about 100 Hiroshima size bombs.

With the recent swaying of public opinion in the wake of Sandy, more Americans now accept climate science, I bet we'll see a lot of these type of op-eds written by paid shills for the energy cos. They're very good at getting on TV and sounding all scientific when they mock legitimate science.

The one thing these shills are not good at. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.
 
Obama being reelected was the worse thing that could happen to the man made global warming true believers. No way are they going to attack him, no way is he going to be able to make it a hot button topic...so...just like when the global warming blowhards swallowed Clintons load for 4 years and then blamed Bush for not signing the Kyoto protocols, they will do the same thing with Obama until (or if) the next president is a republican.
 
mr4anarchy said:
Here's the problem, a non-scientist writing an op-ed about science.

A warming of 1.6 Degrees?

Well, to effect a change of just one degree takes about 100 Hiroshima size bombs.

With the recent swaying of public opinion in the wake of Sandy, more Americans now accept climate science, I bet we'll see a lot of these type of op-eds written by paid shills for the energy cos. They're very good at getting on TV and sounding all scientific when they mock legitimate science.

The one thing these shills are not good at. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.
Click to expand...


A global average temperature increase of 1 degree takes an awful lot more than 100 Hiroshima size bombs.
 
mr4anarchy said:
Here's the problem, a non-scientist writing an op-ed about science.

A warming of 1.6 Degrees?

Well, to effect a change of just one degree takes about 100 Hiroshima size bombs.

With the recent swaying of public opinion in the wake of Sandy, more Americans now accept climate science, I bet we'll see a lot of these type of op-eds written by paid shills for the energy cos. They're very good at getting on TV and sounding all scientific when they mock legitimate science.

The one thing these shills are not good at. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.
Click to expand...

More people will read them than will read a peer-reviewed journal. If I wanted to effect change, I would rather be read in the Times and the WaPo than the Journal of anything.
 
Fisher said:
More people will read them than will read a peer-reviewed journal. If I wanted to effect change, I would rather be read in the Times and the WaPo than the Journal of anything.
Click to expand...

But the times and WaPa allow ob-ed writers to submit their own bios which often leave out that their important sounding front group is an empty office in Maryland or only a website setup by a law firm on k street.
 
mr4anarchy said:
But the times and WaPa allow ob-ed writers to submit their own bios which often leave out that their important sounding front group is an empty office in Maryland or only a website setup by a law firm on k street.
Click to expand...

One can be 100% correct and given all the praise they want in their peer review journals, but the people who will be voting and politicking are likely to never read your article. Just a reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom