Hello!!!!! Earth to Jerry and Happy Nazi!!! Tol says there is no reason for alarm.
Didn't I just finish saying that the crystal ball is cloudy, and the future is difficult or impossible to predict?
The questions should be, what is the range of possible & credible scenarios?
Supposing we assign a 10% probability to the worst case scenario (extinction of the vast majority of species on earth), is that a cause for alarm, or not? And would that be a basis for enacting a carbon tax, or not?
Or can we confidently say that the scenarios painted by "alarmists" can be assigned a zero weight? If so, on what basis?
If you aren't happy with scientists with spectacular careers you don't need to besmirch their character and mine, just show how they are wrong.
OK, fair enough. The scientists in question should be addressed on an individual basis. It's entirely possible that a self-respecting and conscientious individual could accept funding from CO2 belching industries, and that their objectivity would be entirely unaffected by said funding.
Nevertheless, if obvious errors in reasoning are correlated with funding sources, then I feel confident in rejecting the conclusions.
That every credible critic of the IPCC and MMGW Alarmgate has not denied that CO2 causes warming simply can't stop any alarmist from being triggered into insisting that they are all denying that MMGW exists altogether.
Hooray!! Yes, every
credible critic admits that CO2 causes MMGW, which is a real thing. The legitimate controversies are about the sensitivity values, and how positive and negative feedbacks will effect the outcome.
It's only the Thunderbolts, Ben Davidson, and various speakers at Heartland and Cato Institute conferences, who say that the whole thing is a fraud.
Claims that there is no fusion taking place in the core of the Sun, or that electrical effects related to solar wind are the dominant factor determining the Earth's climate, are simply not legitimate science.
...preeminent atmospheric physicist like Richard Lindzen...
Lindzen's most recent
peer reviewed paper on climate change, shows that he's clearly in this camp of "credible critics" who do indeed agree that CO2 causes MMGW. What he's arguing is that the IPCC and other mainstream scientists have over-estimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2, based on errors in computing positive feedback effects.
And I agree that it's important to get the basic science right, as much as humanly possible. We need the best, clearest crystal ball we can get.
For whatever it's worth, Lindzen's arguments have been answered, for example, by
the four peer reviewers (including two recommended by Lindzen himself) who rejected the paper at PNAS. (It was later published in a Korean journal.) All four reviewers agreed that Lindzen had failed to answer the criticisms that were raised in reply to an earlier 2009 version of the paper.
Also see the analysis by Dana Nuccitelli at John Cook's website, which includes links & discussion of more peer reviewed analysis of Lindzen's view on climate sensitivity to CO2.
I myself can only hope that Lindzen is right. Furthermore I don't claim to have time or expertise to follow these arguments at the level they're presented. But it would seem extremely presumptuous to me, to assume that Lindzen's arguments are entirely correct and comprehensive. Not to mention the assumption that he is totally pure of any influence from all the Koch money he's taken, or that he is not in any way effected by his obvious bias in favor of continuation & increase of fossil fuel based industrial activity. And similarly it seems pretty dangerous to me, to assume that all the peer reviewed scientific literature specifically replying to Lindzen's arguments, are motivated entirely by support for fascistic globalist solutions to MMGW problems.
There is no consensus among general scientists, which claim had to be dropped, and now we're left with these whores who have taken billions in globalist funding to confirm their master's a priori conclusions.
Why should there be a consensus among "general scientists", any more than among the general public? Some specialist in, say, General Relativistic Analysis of the Crab Nebula, doesn't know any more about this than you or me. Maybe less, because they're too busy studying the Crab Nebula to do much reading in the area. And sadly, such a person can be just as much prey to sophisticated propaganda as anybody.
As I've said a hundred times by now, and as you've refused to even acknowledge:
the far fringe of climate alarmists no longer get globalist funding, if they ever did. I'm talking about (for example) Guy McPherson, James Lovelock, Stuart Scott, Paul Beckwith, Dahr Jamail, & etc. They say the situation is far worse than the IPCC is saying, and even worse than the MSM is saying(!!), for the following reasons:
(1) IPCC ignores Arctic feedback effects which will occur as melting ice causes albedo change;
(2) Likewise, IPCC ignores that Arctic warming could release large amounts of CO2 and methane from permafrost and undersea methane hydrate deposits.
(3)
IPCC ignores or underestimates the aerosol masking effect. Industrial activities such as coal burning power generation, and commercial airline traffic, inject massive amounts of aerosol particles into the atmosphere. The particulates tend to reflect solar energy from the planet, resulting in "global dimming" and a cooling effect that partially offsets the warming caused by greenhouse gases. In the event of a dramatic reduction in global industrial activity, this global dimming would stop, resulting in a step increase in MMGW.
I used the bold heading because in this entire thread, I believe I've forgotten to mention this.
(4) IPCC makes unwarranted assumptions about economics and the political system. They assume that economic growth can continue, and the human race will prosper, even as climate change unfolds. In fact, the full effects of MMGW may come into play, as a much smaller human population is trying to cope with the aftermath of economic collapse, nuclear war, and/or with the escape of massive amounts of nuclear waste from destroyed nuclear power plants.
I love that you two think that money from the government makes for more honest whores.
Yes, that's right. And you must think the same way, otherwise you wouldn't be advocating for UBI, national health care, or any other program with the potential to turn the entire population into government whores.
To the extent that there's any real basis for a government or institutional bias on climate change, it's entirely towards understating the extent of the problem. Scientists researching the true facts of MMGW have been subject to continual pressure from CO2 belching industries and the billionaire status quo. In my mind, the fact that they've reached as much of a consensus as they have, in the face of this tremendous and ongoing pressure, is a testament to their integrity.
So now, as a result of decades of hard work and perseverance, MMGW researchers and renewable energy innovators have finally reached a point of having some globalist influence. They've won (fickle) support from a fractious sect of elite-funded charitable foundations and nouveau riche, including such as Bill Gates and George Soros. And this is a mixed blessing, as the environmental concerns have been co-opted in support of dubious fascist-feudal policies.
