We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Ah, 'climate change'! Ever since the Earth got an atmosphere we have had 'climate change'... of course you couldn't survive as an oxygen breathing life form in that first atmosphere. Life had to pollute it with all that oxygen as a survival mechanism and then others figured out how to live on that stuff. Ah, for the 'good old days' of a reducing atmosphere thick in methane! That 'life' stuff came to no good, I tell ya...
Polluted the pristine atmosphere with that oxygen garbage.
And we are stuck with that stuff! No matter how much we burn, how fast we burn it, how long we do so getting that original atmospere back just won't happen.... all because of life! I am sure some envirotwit will come out and tell us all how Venus or Jupiter are such pristine places due to their keeping atmospheres closer to that original one.
As for Global Warming the numbers aren't there: go fish. No data, no theory.
At the very beginning, the moderator notes that there are two types of people, climatologists and "everybody else." Then he goes on to point out how his guest is a marine geologist.
So, what's a marine geologist doing opining on climatology?
Then the "professor" states:
"There are extreme views on this issue, and if you want to reduce it to two extreme views, on the one hand, you have what are called the 'deniers'; people who deny that climate change happens at all....on the other hand you have the alarmists."
So, BD, which are you? Are you an alarmist or do you deny climate change occurs at all?
The "professor" then goes on to say, "The great majority of scientists sit in the middle."
They do? First we heard that the "vast majority" of scientists favored AGW and that "the science was settled." Then, about four months ago, this site and others ran that article that claimed the majority of scientists were now on the other side. At which point during this debate has the "vast majority" of scientists ever been "in the middle"?
"Every scientist understands that humans have an effect on climate. That's not a disputed issue."
Mount St. Helens blew more CO2 into the atmosphere in 20 seconds than the entire history of mankind put together.
Then he later qualifies his statement by pointing out the urban warming effects and the wheat field example as proof that man affects LOCAL climate. That's a far, far cry from global climate.
But from that we jump to:
"In some areas the effect is cooling, in some areas the effect is warming. It's a no-brainer, as the Americans say, that if you add all those effects all over the world, there must be a global human signal. Nobody doubts that."
In other words, the science is settled.
Just one quick question, Bob. What if the LOCAL warming and cooling trends balance each other out?
But to conclude:
"There is such intimidation of scientists in universities and research organizations on this issue; intimidation against them speaking out because it's politically incorrect, that nobody knows what the majority of scientists think. Nobody has the faintest idea what the consensus is."
But I thought ol' Bob just told us that "The great majority of scientists sit in the middle" and "Every scientist understands that humans have an effect on climate." So, do we know what the majority of scientists are thinking or not, Bob?
For those of you scoring at home, this is the same New Wave AGW that the MSM has been pushing as of late. Okay, we agree the earth hasn't warmed in ten years. Okay, we agree it may not warm for the next ten years due to those pesky El Nino and La Nina currents. But that doesn't mean that mankind's not affecting global temperatures, therefore we have to continue taking steps to prevent it. Warming, cooling, it doesn't matter. All we know is that "Every scientist understands that humans have an effect on climate. That's not a disputed issue."
Marine geologists tend to be expert in paleoclimatology.
He makes an important distinction between local climate and "global climate" - whatever that is. The only global numbers I trust are tropospheric.
My opinion? Climates change. Where I sit right now was under a mile of ice 7000 years ago. Greenland was green 800 years ago. Whether man plays a role in global temp trends doesn't really matter because, even if we do, there's not a damn thing we can realistically do about it. However, some global warming would be a net good thing for humans, overall.
Except buy feel good credits from todays version of snake oil salesmen. I think that carbon credits will undermine our own abilities to adapt and still provide the transportation, the heating and the cooling and the food that are necessary for society as we now know it. The Green movement says that the planet and trees and polar bears come first. People come last. Especially Americans. We are greedy planet rapers and abusers.
Am amazed at how many people who are college educated and science oriented believe that since we have changed the climate, we now should change it back. Read somewhere to ask them what temperature they would they like it to be. Have tried this a few times and get a blank stare in response. The Greens ignore anything that challenges the real goal. Their own self esteem and need to pat themselves on the back in their quest for power and money.
Agree that they have co-opted and corrupted real goals towards conservation and less pollution.