I wish I had a dollar for every time someone called Al Gore an alarmist.
The dictionary definition of an alarmist is "someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic," "a person who habitually spreads alarming rumors, exaggerated reports of danger, etc." Not to be confused, of course, with someone who sounds the alarm about a genuine threat. Someone who shouts "Fire!" in a movie theater is a villain if there's no fire, but a hero if there is.
In the case of climate change, 97% of climate experts -- the scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals -- agree that the climate is changing as a result of human activity. Given the dramatic scale of current and anticipated impacts, this is akin to a fire smoldering in the projection room.
But what about those who shout "fire!" in relation to measures aimed at eliminating energy waste and our dependency on fossil fuels? This is the other side of the alarmist coin.
This kind of alarmism has led to a spate of death threats against climate scientists, most recently in Australia where a heated public debate over a proposed carbon tax is currently raging. I'm not referring to the run-of-the-mill creepy, anonymous emails that many of us receive from time to time, but to blatant and open hate-mongering. Take the example of German physicist Hans Schellnhuber, who spoke at a conference in Melbourne recently. Accused of being a "green fascist," his speech was interrupted by a member of the audience brandishing a hangman's noose (you can watch it for yourself here).
Or how about Christopher Monckton, currently touring Australia to whip up opposition to the carbon tax? He calls his critics fascists, yet without the slightest hint of irony makes this threat against climate scientists: "So to the bogus scientists who have produced the bogus science that invented this bogus scare, I say, we are coming after you, we are going to prosecute you and we are going to lock you up!" (You can hear it on this Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABC program at 5.08 minutes).
Leave aside the relative merits of the scientific arguments. (Monckton's were thoroughly discredited in the ABC program, as well as in a recent BBC documentary called Meet the Climate Skeptics.) Check out Skeptical Science for a comprehensive inventory of claims and responses to skeptic arguments.
Let's look instead at the arguments of the 'Progress Alarmists,' i.e. those who apparently believe that solving the climate problem will bring an end to civilization as we know it. It's a curious position given the myriad non-climate benefits to be had from getting off fossil fuels. Here are the two most common:
1) "It costs too much." This is a favorite argument for inaction. But a new peer-reviewed report concludes "the damages from a ton of carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 could equal or exceed the cost of reducing emissions at the maximum technically feasible rate. In other words, it is unequivocally less expensive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than to suffer climate damages."
This is consistent with the findings of the seminal review on the economics of climate change, led by Lord Nicholas Stern in 2006:
The evidence shows that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. The earlier effective action is taken, the less costly it will be.
2) "It curtails freedom," or any number of variations on that theme that imply national sovereignty is subjugated to the United Nations (hint: it won't). Last week's Congressional 'Battle of the Bulb' is a classic example of 'Progress Alarmism' and one that has left even me scratching my head.
A law signed by George W. Bush in 2007 (with the support of manufacturers!) requires a 30% increase in the efficiency of light bulbs, with savings to consumers estimated at around $100-$200 per year for a total of $15 billion per year. In practice, this spells the end of old-style incandescent bulbs, although newer more efficient versions will still be available in addition to compact fluorescents, LEDs and others that meet the standard. In an effort to overturn the regulation, Rush Limbaugh has attacked it as a form of "nannyism, statism" and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann referred to it as "an issue of freedom. It's about whether people are able to make even the most basic decisions anymore or whether Big Brother will control every aspect of their lives."
Shall we compare those comments with their positions on, let's see now, gay marriage? flag burning? smoking marijuana? and see if the freedom argument holds water? Inconsistency aside, the fact is that climate change knows no borders and therefore requires a cooperative international approach to deal with it. Any country that exercises its freedom to profligately pollute ultimately condemns other countries to annihilation. And if you think that's an alarmist exaggeration, ask the people of Tuvalu or the Maldives. It's the equivalent of demanding the right to shout "fire" in the cinema on principle.
So the next time you hear claims like Limbaugh's or Bachmann's (Big Brother? Control over every aspect of our lives? Really?) ask yourself who the real alarmist is.
Follow Kelly Rigg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kellyrigg
Global warming: study finds natural shields being weakened
Not only are the heat retention parameters way - way - overstated, but the temporal parameters were way off, too.
In other words: CO2 doesn't retain anywhere near as much heat as the models presumed. Worse, CO2 doesn't contain heat for as long as the models were presumed.
So CO2 holds far less heat, and it begins dumping the little heat that it does hold, far sooner than any of the models presumed. This is NASA's statement, not mine.
Thus CO2 isn't causing global warming at any kind of level that should concern anyone. If it's causing it at all, it's not a big deal. CO2 isn't an insulator, for all intents and purposes.
Officer, arrest these people who were screaming Fire! in the theater. All 97% of them.
The world isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the universe, and CO2 doesn't cause enough warming to matter - particularly when it's such a tiny % of the atmosphere.
Once again data trumps drama.
Like wow.
Is it on their web site?
As you probably know by now, it was not a NASA report. It was an article co-authored by Roy Spencer using NASA data. Yes, it was a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal (remote sensing). There is another side to Roy Spencer. Here is what some of his other peers think of him:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html
Spencer admits, however, that his results may only apply to very short timescales. Since the publication of his book, furthermore, other scientists (including one that initially gave Spencer’s paper a favorable review) have shown that Spencer was only able to obtain this result by assuming unrealistic values for various model parameters.
Video from 10:10. No Pressure. Just blow them up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM
James Hansen of NASA wants trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/308598/doubting_global_warming_could_be_treason.html?cat=75
Yvo de Boer of the UN calls climate skepticism criminally irresponsible
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm
David Suzuki calls for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513
Joe Romm encourages the idea that skeptics will be strangled in their beds
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1174/Update-Romm-defends-remarks-as-not-a-threat-but-a-prediction--Strangle-Skeptics-in-Bed-An-entire-generation-will-soon-be-ready-to-strangle-you-and-your-kind-while-you-sleep-in-your-beds
Green Peace wants you to know that they know where you live.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/greenpeace-are-coming-we-know-where-you-live/
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore,
If that's not alarmism...
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
The source for that claim is a report from PNAS "expert credibility in climate change" April 9, 2010 - pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.
The article admits to including only "peer reviewed" authors. As is well known, the experts are a very closed group - unless you agree with the AGW theory, your work is not published. Just check the emails from climate gate - anyone doing research showing conflicts in the AGW was blackballed. The correct conclusion is the 97% of the experts who believe in AGW believe in AGW.
Denier canard #137. Singer, Soon, Baliunas, Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, and the rest of the gang have NO difficulty getting published. E&E will publish pretty much anything that's "skeptical" of AGW.
The consensus is very real. Get over it.
I gave you a citation so that you could read the source. You apparently did not actually read the report. Why do the stepford wives of the AGW crowd always spout the Denier carnard" when confronted with facts that are contrary to the company line versus addressing the actual issue.
Dr. Hansen said the West Side highway in New York City would be underwater by now. Didn't happen. The temperature is well below the IPCC predictions. Tropical storm energy hasn't increased. There is no tropospheric hot spot. Sea ice remains inside of normal variability. None of the dire predictions have come to pass.
This column is just more of the same, appeal to authority and ignore the real world evidence. it is --"exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic,"
The AGW crowd are now an industry pumped with 50 Billion $ to promote their "cause". the email scandal shows just how far these dopes will go to keep the money flowing.
The following reference gives over 900 peer reviewed papers totally rejecting any human involvement in climate change. www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html By contrast the 2007 IPCC paper had 13 peer reviewed papers papers in support.
here is more on that particular piece of crap - and she keeps coming here and saying the same nonsense....
The graphic [directly above] comes via our friends at skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of “climate scientists think that global warming is ‘significantly’ due to human activity,” a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this “consensus” and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.
However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 76 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/
Monckton always challenges his critics to check his sources. Here's what happens when someone does just that:
http://oneworldgroup.org/2011/06/21/climate-smackdown-lord-monckton-embarrassed-by-a-genuine-sceptic/
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
To all those deniers, you don't like it, ST*FU and get OUT of the way. The sane people have a lot of work to do.
You'd think that such geniuses would have easily made it big - and established new Intels and solved world hunger.
The science is actually becoming ever more refined- but not with this group who will remain around till the Great Plains becomes a dust bowl again- permanently- and the NY Subway system is flooded.