We shouldn’t worry, we should just accept that this will happen and we should adapt to it and regard it as a business opportunity.
Its arrogant to assume that climate will remain static.
The whole language of climate change is designed to confuse the public and policy makers
Bob Carter says the IPCC has accomplished the inversion of the null hypothesis, where the onus is now on disproving dangerous anthropogenic climate change
We should focus on protecting people from natural hazards, and not worrying about what is causing them
It makes sense to encourage alternative energy and see what happens.
Bob Carter closed with this: no scientist can tell you whether it will be warmer or cooler in 2020, so we should prepare for both.
Yes. We don’t know much more than we do know.
And as she notes, the people speaking sensibly are independent or retired, not those receiving government funding.
Climate can not remain static. It’s never static.
And as she notes, the people speaking sensibly are independent or retired, not those receiving government funding.
While those with ample funding from energy concerns are of course the most rational of all.
Same planet, different worlds we live on…
Just boggling.
While those with ample funding from energy concerns are of course the most rational of all.
To whom specifically are you referring?
I’m sure you suspect Scientific American is some commie rag, but I’ll put this out here as a starter: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Actually, yes, SciAm has been putting out poltically correct bullshit for decades, going back to missile-defense crap from Kosta Tsipis in the eighties.
But thanks for playing.
Actually, yes, SciAm has been putting out poltically correct bullshit for decades
Heh. When SciAm is where you plant the flag for “radical left-wing”, the mind reels about what could be “uber-super-left-wing” or worse. It’s an indication of how your position is actually the extreme.
My god that was stupid. I guess it’s what we should expect from a “environmental sociologist”, whatever the heck that is. That Scientific American would run such a daffy piece, laying out the influence of covens, Satanic cults, and the Knights Templer, I don’t think they’ll ever get their credibility back. Of course they haven’t had any credibility for over a decade, as half their old readers canceled their subscriptions after the scientists who used to run the magazine were replaced by know-nothing journalism majors with an overweening political bias.
What even more amusing is that the idiot just listed all the conservative charities, linked them to all the conservative institutes, and spun it as all funding “climate denial.” I’m sure Anthony Watts, the leading skeptic in the entire world, would at least like to someday see a check from these vast institutes, maybe for as much as $50.
This past weekend at Judith Curry’s site I shredded the methodology of the Neukom et. al paper (The first millennial multi-proxy reconstruction of the Southern Hemisphere’s climate, using 111 data sets!) Even its mindless defenders threw in the towel, because it only had three or four good proxies that actually went back a millenium (most started after 1800), and all of those showed the MWP being warmer than present, just as the original authors of those individual proxy studies had stated. So they got averaged with random noise (things that weren’t temperature proxies, like local Antarctic ice extent), and then blended with a hundred much later data sets to reassert the current warmth, because the millennial proxies didn’t show us warmer than the MWP.
I’m still waiting on my check from the Dark Forces that Scientific American claims stalk the Earth.
I’m still waiting for my check.
Yes, some the independent and retired climate scientists have gotten enough energy money to buy one cup of coffee. The rest got zilch.
Meanwhile the alamists are slurping up multi-million dollar grants and speaking fees and getting flown to conferences around the world.
This is an old tactic – demonize your opposition by claiming energy interests are funding their research. All the while ignoring the special interests that are funding the “climate scientists” to support AGW/Climate Change. Follow the money, honey, and you’ll see which side is getting the most. Follow it back to the source and you’ll see the motives: more government power and wealth transfer.
As the InstaPundit says, I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start living like it’s a crisis. They aren’t, and I don’t.
“It makes sense to encourage alternative energy and see what happens.”
Judith Curry appears to be encouraging alternative energy. Will you criticize her for this?
I don’t criticize people for encouraging alternate energy, as long as they don’t do it with my money.