Bjorn on RIO+20

Bjorn Lomborg has once again drawn attention to the opportunity costs of focusing on global warming as a pressing human problem while neglecting death dealing dangers facing the poor.

"So, for each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels (such as dried animal dung) indoors, and from breathing polluted air outdoors.
By focusing on measures to prevent global warming, the advanced countries might help to prevent many people from dying. That sounds good until you realize that it means that 210 times as many people in poorer countries might die needlessly as a result – because the resources that could have saved them were spent on windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and other rich-world fixations."

This will remain the shame of warmist alarmists in perpetuity. 

I hope Bjorn's comments receive wide circulation in RIO next week.

An Answer to Tom Toles' Burning Question

Over at the Washington Post, Tom Toles has a burning question.

"As the west is once again ablaze in what is now politely called “fire season,” perhaps soon to be “conflagration season,”"

Conflagration season? Now that wouldn't be alarmist would it? Come on Tom. Fires have happened in days of yore when CO2 concentration was much lower than now. CO2 has nothing to do with it. Isn't that the correct conclusion?

"Weather increasingly comes in three forecasts: Out of control wildfires, out of control rainfall, and out of control wind"

I don't see a link in there. Any data to support the 'increasingly' adverb? Here is some US data to dispute it. Collected by a government agency not paid for with oil money. The old normal was massive forest fires. Colorado has seen it before even in January.

Some perspective on our warm March and May can be found here.

And Tom, we usually use the “if this is climate change, I’ll take it!” comment with respect to temperatures. But you know that. We don't like forest fires anymore than you do but they are a fact of life and fortunately not getting any worse.

Tom, change is what the climate does. Dispute.

Tom, clouds cool. On a hot day when a cloud moves in front of the sun you feel warmer right? Dispute

Yes, Tom. As the Earth warms forest floors add GHGs to the atmosphere. Same thing with the oceans as the world warms. Warming first, GHGs follow. You got it! Exactly what the Vostok ice cores show. What caused the initial warming? The SUN maybe?? Ocean cycles?? And how do the POSITIVE FEEDBACKS explain the US cooling trend. Could it be that the nefarious effects of CO2 have been overestimated?

It is a sure thing that those who deny what reality is telling them are bound to spend money wastefully on non-problems. This is an intelligent use of our resources. /sarc

Alarmists have reached their own 'tipping point' and have crossed over to the delusional world of Harold Camping. Do alarmists need to be in a perpetual state of alarm in order to feel alive and purposeful? Do they need to dish out FEAR and GUILT with every meal?

And what about the rest of the world that experienced a horrible winter in 2011-2012, where did their POSITIVE FEEDBACK from their CO2 go? How come their CO2 didn't work for them like it did for the Eastern US and southern Ontario? That is the real burning question.

Maybe, just maybe, CO2 has naught to do with it. Yuh think?

And that should be good news.

Natural Climate Change - Consider

Food for thought

Which is it?

Two studies appeared this week (May 7) which attribute global warming to two different causes. So which is it? Sun or Farts?

It is the SUN  in solar minimum that can cause cooling of the planet. And we seem to be headed that way.

It is the FARTS  of dinosaurs that caused the climate change that killed them off. They committed suicide via flatulence. What a joke!           

Polar Bears are thought to be threatened by too little ice.

Here is a study which suggests PB populations crash when there is too much ice.

So which is it?

White, Male and Old

This white male who is aged beyond the grave has some pertinent advice for us. St Thomas Aquinas reminds us to play the ball not the man.

Ask not who made the claim; ask instead if the claim is true.

Suzanne Goldenberg on the Heartland Climate Change conference attendees in Chicago May 21-23 2012:

'Speakers and audience are almost entirely male, white and getting on in years'

SG likes to score points with her audience rather than engage in  meaningful dialogue on the causes of climate change. 

57 warmist scientists were invited to speak at the conference. None appeared. Why? 

Damn white men ruined Australia in 1846

Begin challenging your own assumptions.  Your assumptions are your windows on the world.  Scrub them off every once in awhile, or the light won't come in.  ~Alan Alda

 

 

 

 

 

 

Klimate Kooks

Scientists can reasonably say: Here is what we think we know. This statement sums up the dynamic process that scientific investigation entails. It recognizes the ignorance present in all scientific inquiry. We are not yet omniscient and it is always best to remain humble in the presence of an enigmatic natural environment. When scientists act like all-knowing religious zealots and forget their humility with definite prognostications of the future our skeptical radar should automatically activate as a protective device. Harold Camping of recent 'end of the world' fame was suitably humbled by reality and his religious views were shown to be kooky to all of his admiring sheeple not to mention an ever hopeful media. He did neither himself nor his followers any favors by treating his mistaken non peer reviewed calculations as gospel. Those who claim special knowledge are immediately suspect in the world of the skeptic. Harold removed himself from future seer consideration. His crystal ball was shown to be broken. But that was religion, a realm filled with fanciful opinion and belief and those that have a mind to are free to engage their imaginations without the restraint of reality. We accept that.

However, when scientists similarly step outside the humility of  'this is what we think we know' and offer predictions of the future without humble caveats they proceed into the realm that Harold C. has so ignominiously vacated and will copy his result. This is not good for their reputations as serious scientists nor is it good for the discipline of science itself. It cheapens what otherwise is our road to enlightenment and  makes a mockery out of a serious guide to human betterment. It strengthens the fanciful to be just as reliable as science.

In the realm of global warming/climate change/climate disruption several scientists have in the past and in the present danced in the limelight of tomfoolery without, it seems, any awareness of the damage they are doing to themselves and to their scientific discipline or to the fact that others less inclined to the need for fame are mocking their spotlight appearances. 

In the 1970s Paul Ehrlich of Population Bomb fame predicted mass famine for the human race before the turn of the 20th century. Undeterred and unrepentant by his failed predictions he continues to marginalize himself among a dwindling band of admirers.

James Lovelock of Gaia hypothesis fame famously once said “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable” by the end of the 21st century.

He, to his credit, has since repudiated his alarmist notions of climate change. This allows him to step back under the scientific umbrella and be a voice heeded once again.

When a scientist steps into the role of activist for a cause rather than remain an impartial seeker of truth the temptation to play the role of omniscient expert can lead to embarrassment when the data don't support the conclusion being pursued or the temptation to manufacture results that support the cause in fraudulent disregard for the truth which will attract nothing but the deserved opprobrium of fellow colleagues uncorrupted by star quality attention.. The latter is a sad ending and betrayal for any scientist.

It appears that James Hansen of NASA's GISS has chosen this road to infamy. First, an apocalyptic prediction: "If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate." He was talking about Canada's development of its tar sands for oil export. Game over for us too, I suppose. Hysterical talk detected, skeptical radar on. There is no evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is leading to CAGW. In fact, there seems to be ample evidence that the scare is unwarranted. Perhaps, suspecting that that is so,Mr. Hansen has been caught adjusting the temperature records over which he has some control to fulfill his preferred view of the world's climate direction. If Nature won't behave as I want I will make it. It must be true. I have staked my career and life's work on it. Hansen's scary climate predictions have been contradicted by scientists and others with a working brain are dubious.

Reality is no fan either.

CAGW does lead to Conning A Gullible World.

At least, this is what I think I know.

Chill Bill

Bill McKibben of 350.org fame sounds off in an article in Asia Times.

He is rejoicing at the troubles experienced recently by those whom he calls climate change 'deniers'.

His outburst of apocalyptic announcements regarding the state of the planet betrays his political opinions and reassures me that the planet is fine. Doomsayers are never right. The Earth always proves to be more resilient than they give it credit for. Doomsayers like to frighten people into accepting totalitarian solutions to non-problems. Bill's prognostications will find their way into the Hallowed Hall of Failed Predictions just like those of Harold Camping.

Facts are not McKibben's strong point although he does recognize the effective influence of the Climate Depot and Watt's Up With That web sites that keep people informed about the truth concerning the modern global warming scare.

As Anthony Watts comments:

Couple of things Bill, since I know you read WUWT:

1. Where’s the beef?
2. Hansen’s alternate view of cause was swept under the rug, he’s flip-flopped on the causes of global warming back and forth.
3. Climate “Deniers” Winning the War

Bill calls climate deniers planet wreckers and says that if they can delay climate action past the point of no return "they’ll be able to claim one of the epic victories in political history – one that will last for geological epochs."

Not just a political science victory but as Anthony's links show a real science epic victory as well. And we hope that Bill is correct about the geological epochs. It would be nice to rid the world of climate change fear mongers for that length of time. Not holding my breath!

The point of no return, the tipping point - when is that exactly, Bill? Oh yes, there is no consensus on that one for if it were ever unsuccessfully passed the funding would dry up.  Thus the end date always leap frogs from climate conference to climate conference. Even though the world is 'on the brink' there is always time for a new conference to reintroduce the next scary date.

WUWT Commenter KENG succinctly captures the flavor of Bill's article:

"Typical professional alarmist rhetoric, just one long ad hom, no actual science discussed. What was it Lindzen said? “When the science is on your side you argue the science. When it’s not, you attack the messenger”.

McKibben’s article is another perfect example."

Bill swill!