Climate change

[Al_U_Card]

Trump, like a broken clock, appears to be correct at least once with the withdrawal from the Paris "agreement". Time will tell just how much he has cost or saved the planet. The IPCC numbers say no (real) diff. The alarmists are, well, alarmed.

[RedSpawn]

my last prediction was very wrong but I will predict that Trump will not pull out of the Paris Climate Change Accord.

 

See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-paris-climate-agreement-china-winner-us-decision .

 

What say you now?

 

You should consider selling that oracle you have been using on Ebay. 😏

[RedSpawn]

Are we doomed yet? Latest "last chance to save humanity" has been pushed back yet again.

Meanwhile, climatocrats are panicking over the thought of Trump pulling funds from their schemes.

We can only hope that we are not running out of time to save our economy from the rain-makers and their ilk.

Saving our economy? LOL.

 

You hear that giant sucking sound? It is the interest expense we pay on our federal public debt of $20 trillion. It acts as a vacuum cleaner and sucks the life out of our federal budget. Why?

 

Because the amount we pay as interest annually is roughly 50% of the ENTIRE annual Department of Defense (DoD) budget! The annual DoD budget is $800 billion. Our annual interest on public debt outstanding is $400 billion and keeps rising....

 

See https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

[PassedOut]

How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science

 

“Most Republicans still do not regard climate change as a hoax,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist who worked for Senator Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign. “But the entire climate change debate has now been caught up in the broader polarization of American politics.”

 

“In some ways,” he added, “it’s become yet another of the long list of litmus test issues that determine whether or not you’re a good Republican.”

 

Since Mr. McCain ran for president on climate credentials that were stronger than his opponent Barack Obama’s, the scientific evidence linking greenhouse gases from fossil fuels to the dangerous warming of the planet has grown stronger. Scientists have for the first time drawn concrete links between the planet’s warming atmosphere and changes that affect Americans’ daily lives and pocketbooks, from tidal flooding in Miami to prolonged water shortages in the Southwest to decreasing snow cover at ski resorts.

 

That scientific consensus was enough to pull virtually all of the major nations along. Conservative-leaning governments in Britain, France, Germany and Japan all signed on to successive climate change agreements.

 

Yet when Mr. Trump pulled the United States from the Paris accord, the Senate majority leader, the speaker of the House and every member of the elected Republican leadership were united in their praise.

 

Those divisions did not happen by themselves. Republican lawmakers were moved along by a campaign carefully crafted by fossil fuel industry players, most notably Charles D. and David H. Koch, the Kansas-based billionaires who run a chain of refineries (which can process 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day) as well as a subsidiary that owns or operates 4,000 miles of pipelines that move crude oil.

 

Government rules intended to slow climate change are “making people’s lives worse rather than better,” Charles Koch explained in a rare interview last year with Fortune, arguing that despite the costs, these efforts would make “very little difference in the future on what the temperature or the weather will be.”

 

Republican leadership has also been dominated by lawmakers whose constituents were genuinely threatened by policies that would raise the cost of burning fossil fuels, especially coal. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, always sensitive to the coal fields in his state, rose through the ranks to become majority leader. Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming also climbed into leadership, then the chairmanship of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, as a champion of his coal state.

 

Mr. Trump has staffed his White House and cabinet with officials who have denied, or at least questioned, the existence of global warming. And he has adopted the Koch language, almost to the word. On Thursday, as Mr. Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal, he at once claimed that the Paris accord would cost the nation millions of jobs and that it would do next to nothing for the climate.

It's not easy for a member of congress to take on the Koch brothers:

 

Unshackled by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other related rulings, which ended corporate campaign finance restrictions, Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity started an all-fronts campaign with television advertising, social media and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who would ensure that the fossil fuel industry would not have to worry about new pollution regulations.

 

Their first target: unseating Democratic lawmakers such as Representatives Rick Boucher and Tom Perriello of Virginia, who had voted for the House cap-and-trade bill, and replacing them with Republicans who were seen as more in step with struggling Appalachia, and who pledged never to push climate change measures.

 

But Americans for Prosperity also wanted to send a message to Republicans.

 

Until 2010, some Republicans ran ads in House and Senate races showing their support for green energy.

 

“After that, it disappeared from Republican ads,” said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity. “Part of that was the polling, and part of it was the visceral example of what happened to their colleagues who had done that.”

 

What happened was clear. Republicans who asserted support for climate change legislation or the seriousness of the climate threat saw their money dry up or, worse, a primary challenger arise.

 

“It told Republicans that we were serious,” Mr. Phillips said, “that we would spend some serious money against them.”

 

By the time Election Day 2010 arrived, 165 congressional members and candidates had signed Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax” pledge.

The supreme court ruled that billionaires have the right to buy congressional seats, and now the US has a president incapable of independent reasoning. Sad.

[RedSpawn]

How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science

 

 

It's not easy for a member of congress to take on the Koch brothers:

 

 

The supreme court ruled that billionaires have the right to buy congressional seats, and now the US has a president incapable of independent reasoning. Sad.

The Supreme Court failed us with the Citizens United decision. Or maybe the lawyers failed us.

 

A corporation is a legal fiction. It only exists through the instrumentality of human beings. Without human beings, a corporation is simply a piece of paper, neither more nor less.

 

Furthermore, a human being can exist without corporations but a corporation can not exist without human beings. This self-evident truth establishes whose rights are superior and whose "rights" are inferior, especially in a court of law.

 

A corporation is neither created by God nor is it male nor female nor man nor woman. A corporation is not of the human race because it has no DNA, fingerprints, flesh, blood, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, orifices, skull, limbs, bones, spine, brain, mind capable of reasoning and thought, organs, muscles, respiratory system to breathe and expel air, and no genitalia capable of reproduction.

 

None of our founding documents mention corporations, but man is mentioned in The Declaration of Independence.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, delivering their just powers from the consent of the governed.

So how does an artificially created not-for-profit corporation or for-profit corporation have the same Constitutional rights and legal standing as men (human beings) endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights?

 

Simply put, they don't.

 

A corporation does not have a First Amendment right because it is neither a man nor woman nor human being; therefore, it has no unalienable rights and can not receive these rights through agency as they are by definition nonnegotiable and nontransferable. Furthermore, a corporation is not a citizen of the body politic of The United States of America. That's why it can't assume public office and govern over men nor can it cast a ballot to vote. And finally, no police officer can apprehend, arrest, or jail a corporation. It is impossible to incarcerate a figment of our thoughts.

 

These super PACs never had legally enforceable Constitutional rights and their case should have been summarily dismissed until they can prove that they are not legal fictions.

[Daniel1960]

Every area of science uses a model. Newton's Laws are a model, as are relativity and quantum mechanics. So I have no issue with the use of models. Where I think there is legitimate concern at present is in terms of the sensitivity. There have been a number of papers in the last years pointing towards a sensitivity figure lower than the majority of models are using and the teams behind them have seemingly been slow to react to this, probably believing this to be a temporary anomaly rather than a solid figure. This sensitivity issue also points to one of the serious issues with the models - despite their complexity, a relatively simple adjustment has a huge impact on the long-term trend and the complexity seems to come back as "noise" around this long-term trend. That may be unavoidable, of course, but it means that getting the underlying sensitivty figure correct is absolutely praamount to the models making reliable estimates.

 

There are also still some other open questions too - clouds is one that gets mentioned often and is still controversial. Perhaps even more important is the question of ocean current cycles. It is well known that some of these have a major impact on climate but it is doubtful that we are currently modelling all of the interactions. Once these are fully udnerstood, we should be able to recalibrate the factors in the models for greatly increased accuracy.

 

Perhaps the resulting models will show a warming trend that is negligible or even non-existent. Or perhaps we are even underestimating at present. Modelling is absolutely the correct approach though, whichever side of the debate you stand on.

 

As for a guide on how to remedy the situation, that is a different question entirely and goes somewhat beyond the science itself. It is my considered belief that we possess the technology already to do so if we were really to want to, for example by building aeroforming devices (aka artificial trees). The question is more about who pays, when and in what form. But that moves over into the political sphere rather than the scientific one.

 

The other issue is that msot models assume a linear sensitivity. Nothing can rise linearly forever, but these models make that assumption. Perhaps, they all reside in the linear range of the equation, but is not guaranteed. Most linear models are just a simpliciation of a more complex system, and can be utilized under certain conditions only. I have no issue with using models. As you say, we use them all the time. However, when the model makes predictions well outside its calibrated range, some semblance of restraint must be exercised.

[Al_U_Card]

The other issue is that msot models assume a linear sensitivity. Nothing can rise linearly forever, but these models make that assumption. Perhaps, they all reside in the linear range of the equation, but is not guaranteed. Most linear models are just a simpliciation of a more complex system, and can be utilized under certain conditions only. I have no issue with using models. As you say, we use them all the time. However, when the model makes predictions well outside its calibrated range, some semblance of restraint must be exercised.

C'mon Dan, these people want to save the world, no matter what the cost (to the world and its people...). The models are the only source of "support" so they cannot be questioned.

 

Happily, on another note, this just in:

Nigel Farage and Brexit

 

Now THAT is something worthy of note.

[Al_U_Card]

Whither climate sensitivity?

 

With each passing year, the estimates get lower and lower. Will we have time to avert disaster? ;)

 

 

[Zelandakh]

Whither climate sensitivity?

 

With each passing year, the estimates get lower and lower. Will we have time to avert disaster? ;)

I have asked you before please to post your sources and not merely graphs that may or may not be misleading. In this case your source appears to be this article from 2015, which in turn links back to data from Climate Audit, a good site but hardly an unbiased one. If you look carefully at the sources you can see that the end points are dominated by papers by scientists on the skeptical side and does not include mainstream papers such as the one mentioned here.

 

Finally, here is a little further more recent discussion about the subject that is probably simple enough for most who have an interest in the underlying maths to follow. There is also a further link embedded there to a scientist on the skeptical side, Nik Lewis, with a more complicated discussion on the subject. This is amongst the most recent material I can find in this area, so will hopefully give a decent indication to readers on where things currently stand.

[Winstonm]

I have asked you before please to post your sources and not merely graphs that may or may not be misleading. In this case your source appears to be this article from 2015, which in turn links back to data from Climate Audit, a good site but hardly an unbiased one. If you look carefully at the sources you can see that the end points are dominated by papers by scientists on the skeptical side and does not include mainstream papers such as the one mentioned here.

 

Finally, here is a little further more recent discussion about the subject that is probably simple enough for most who have an interest in the underlying maths to follow. There is also a further link embedded there to a scientist on the skeptical side, Nik Lewis, with a more complicated discussion on the subject. This is amongst the most recent material I can find in this area, so will hopefully give a decent indication to readers on where things currently stand.

 

Don't waste your keystrokes - these guys are not interested in the science but are driven to denial by their anti-regulation, small government political belief systems. Tobacco, ozone, acid rain, and now climate change - doesn't matter the problem, their contribution is always denial or confusion.

[olegru]

Several years ago, somebody asked Putin why he never participated in debates with opposition. He said that debates with opposition just waste of time, these guys are not interested in the trues but are driven to denial by their anti-government ideology and political belief systems.

 

Why did I suddenly recall that old story?

[Zelandakh]

Why did I suddenly recall that old story?

For the same reason that Trump tweeted about the media having an "agenda of hate" perhaps?

[olegru]

For the same reason that Trump tweeted about the media having an "agenda of hate" perhaps?

Very well may be. I am not particularly good in reading other people mind and can only guess Trumps reason to tweet that, but I will not be very surprised if reason is the same.

[RedSpawn]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/218555-are-we-sovereign

 

Nice article about energy systems and climate change....what say you BBO Forum?

[mike777]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/218555-are-we-sovereign

 

Nice article about energy systems and climate change....what say you BBO Forum?

W

 

When you have time take a look at the current market share solar power has for electrical generation. Where do you see its market share in ten or twelve years from 2017?

[RedSpawn]

W

 

When you have time take a look at the current market share solar power has for electrical generation. Where do you see its market share in ten or twelve years from 2017?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183447/us-energy-generation-from-solar-sources-from-2000/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#bd987d228000

 

I think it will continue to grow exponentially provided the government doesn't play favorites and go through extraordinary lengths to protect fossil fuel energy development (coal, oil & gas) and public utilities (nuclear as well).

 

The biggest impediment is government intervention in the "free" marketplace of energy generation. Never underestimate the power of government to override the natural laws of economics for its own gain.

 

The growth in terms of solar power generation measured in millions of kilowatt-hours is at the beginning point of an e^x curve. Click on 1st link for 16 year history.

[Al_U_Card]

Are renewables "only" responsible for a few % of power generation because "someone" is impeding progress? Or are they simply expensive, inefficient and time/labor/space consuming methods that are hopelessy outclassed as far as generation and distribution are concerned?

Green power tends to create more ghg overall than stright hydrocarbon removal and use...nuclear is about the only viable alternative, especially thorium, but even the evil oil/coal industry is lining up for renewable subsidies et al.

Efficiency is the key because as population grows, waste becomes an unacceptable luxury

[Zelandakh]

Green power tends to create more ghg overall than straight hydrocarbon removal and use...

More misinformation? Here are some more representative figures. Nuclear is indeed strong in the area of its total carbon footprint, almost as good as wind in some studies (although it has some other drawbacks that are hard to ignore). Hydrocarbons on the other hand are considerably worse.

 

In terms of numbers, America currently gets around 15% of its energy from renewables. Compare that with Germany, where the number is 30%. The truth is that the price of renewables has come down enormously and this sector will certainly continue to grow. Prices for solar rival coal generated electricity in many areas, which shows what is possible if the will is there. Almost all analysts are predicting that solar will become the cheapest power source overall in the next few years. If efficiency is indeed key then we should see a massive move in this direction very shortly.

[RedSpawn]

Are renewables "only" responsible for a few % of power generation because "someone" is impeding progress? Or are they simply expensive, inefficient and time/labor/space consuming methods that are hopelessy outclassed as far as generation and distribution are concerned?

Green power tends to create more ghg overall than stright hydrocarbon removal and use...nuclear is about the only viable alternative, especially thorium, but even the evil oil/coal industry is lining up for renewable subsidies et al.

Efficiency is the key because as population grows, waste becomes an unacceptable luxury

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#6c9fdfa0128c

 

Hmmmm.

[Al_U_Card]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#6c9fdfa0128c

 

Hmmmm.

As soon as you legislate (oblige) action and $ is involved (tax-payer unlimited resource) the rapacious and even the well-meaning will belly up to the trough... easy money ... that can be used as profit as well as purchasing influence and control.

 

Renewable refers more to the cash cache than the nature of the beast. The market weeds out the inefficient BUT when the system is gamed by its principals then the playing field tilts away from efficiency and heads towards influence.

[Zelandakh]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#6c9fdfa0128c

Can't open Forbes site without turning off adblocker. Could you quote the most important passage perhaps?

[RedSpawn]

Can't open Forbes site without turning off adblocker. Could you quote the most important passage perhaps?

Your wish is my command. . . .

 

On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.

 

However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).

 

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the University of Texas, from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54%, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion, despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23%, from $38 billion to $29 billion.

 

Subsidies then decreased dramatically from 2013 to 2016, because:

 

• tax incentives expired for biofuels,

 

• the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds were used up,

 

• energy assistance funds decreased,

 

• there was a 15% decrease in fossil fuel subsidies from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and

 

• a 12% decrease in nuclear subsidies from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion.

 

But the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are indirect subsidies like decommissioning and insurance assistance, leasing of federal lands, and other externalities, unlike the subsidies for renewables which are directly for the production of electricity and directly affect cost and pricing.

 

Within the renewables, electricity-related subsidies increased more than 50% for wind and solar, whereas conservation, end-use, and biofuel subsidies deceased more than 50%. This is unfortunate since conservation and efficiency usually yield great results with little cost or infrastructure requirements.

 

The Institute for Energy Research and the University of Texas calculated the subsidies per unit of energy produced, or cents per kWh. This is a more relevant number for comparing different energy sources as it normalizes to the amount of energy produced (see figure above).

 

Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all years.

 

Much of the subsidies in 2010 and 2013 resulted from ARRA stimulus funding following the economic crash of 2008 and the end of ARRA is why the 2016 and 2019 numbers are so much lower.

 

Solar also gets the most state-funded subsidies, some of which greatly exceed the federal subsidies. In my own State of Washington, where electricity prices are 8¢/kWh, the State pays me 54¢ for every kWh generated by my rooftop solar array, whether I use it or not. This has made my total electricity costs -7¢/kWh over the past two years, and will for the foreseeable future.

 

Yes, that’s negative (-)7¢ per kWh. And this is on top of my 30% installation federal tax credit which came to about $6,000 for my 4 kW array.

 

There is no doubt that these subsidies incentivize renewables, but what do they do to the cost of the electricity generated by them?

 

They actually increase the cost. However, this cost is transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and so goes unnoticed by most Americans.

 

Using the per-kWh subsidy numbers from EIA and UT in the figure above, each kWh of solar produced in 2010 received 88¢, more than ten times the actual cost of any other energy source. These subsidies have to be added to the retail cost of that energy to determine total costs since that’s what was actually spent to produce it.

 

So in 2010 and 2011, solar cost about 100¢ per kWh, and in 2013 and 2014, solar cost about 80¢ per kWh. Even after the ARRA funds were depleted after 2013, the cost of solar is still double what is usually given as its cost.

 

For comparison, nuclear energy cost between 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce over this time period. Remember, though, the cost to produce energy is not the same as the price charged for it. Price is set by the region and the market, and has add-ons for transmission, grid maintenance and other non-production costs. Subsidies decrease the price while increasing the cost.

 

Although wind received more total subsidies, wind received much less subsidies per kWh produced than solar as it produced much more energy. However, it is nonetheless significant for 2010 and 2013 and about 50 times that of nuclear and fossil fuels, allowing wholesale prices for wind and solar to become negative, unfairly undercutting nuclear, hydro and coal prices.

 

These subsidies for wind and solar will likely continue under the Trump Administration. Red States receive more of these subsidies than Blue States, so Congress is unlikely to kill them. In fact, in 2015 Congress extended the renewable tax credits to 2021.

 

Although nuclear energy gets very little federal subsidies, and almost no subsidies from the states, that may be changing. States like New York and Illinois are struggling with the closure of perfectly good low-cost nuclear plants because of subsidized renewables and low-cost natural gas, foiling their state’s emissions targets and laying off thousands of high-paid workers.

 

This is important since these subsidies have warped the wholesale electricity markets, causing negative pricing in some markets and threatening the closure of lone merchant nuclear power plants that don’t, but should, have similar subsidies to renewables. Especially since nuclear turns out to be as renewable as wind.

 

 

Exelon is discussing legislative solutions with stakeholders that could secure the future of its Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, and some of their other plants in other states. The utility hopes that "anything and everything hopefully will be on the table for discussion," said David Fein, vice president for state government affairs.

 

Unfortunately, this ideological disregard of nuclear as a low-carbon source has meant that there has been little substantial effect of renewables on emissions. From 2000, the point where renewables started to kick into high gear worldwide, to the present, the growth in renewables (18% to 23% of total electricity production globally) has merely offset the decline in nuclear (17% to 10% of total electricity production globally), with little net decrease in carbon emissions (see figure above).

 

On the other hand, nuclear energy is beginning to rise again in the world. As Eric Hanson notes, "For the second year in a row, ten new nuclear reactors started to generate electricity in 2016, the highest number since the 1980s, according to the 2017 edition of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Reactors in the World."

 

However, until we promote all low-carbon sources the same, I can’t see how we achieve our critical environmental goals in time to make any difference to the planet.

[PassedOut]

The Post has a piece from Ben Santer today with a good description of how scientists -- including climate scientists -- work. The article also expresses the determination of a scientist forced to confront the forces of ignorance: I’m a climate scientist. And I’m not letting trickle-down ignorance win.

 

I’ve been a mountaineer for most of my life. Mountains are in my blood. In my early 20s, while climbing in France, I fell in a crevasse on the Milieu Glacier, at the start of the normal route on the Aiguille d’Argentière. Remarkably, I was unhurt. From the grip of the banded ice, I saw a thin slit of blue sky 120 feet above me. The math was simple: Climb 120 feet. If I reached that slit of blue sky, I would live. If I didn’t, I’d freeze to death in the cold and dark.

 

Now, over 40 years later, it feels like I’m back in a different kind of darkness — the darkness of the Trump administration’s scientific ignorance. This is just as real as the darkness of the Milieu Glacier’s interior, and just as life-threatening. This time, I’m not alone. The consequences of this ignorance affect every person on the planet.

 

Imagine, if you will, that you spend your entire professional life trying to do one thing to the best of your ability. In my case, that one thing is to study the nature and causes of climate change. You put in a long apprenticeship. You spend years learning about the climate system, computer models of climate and climate observations. You start filling a tool kit with the statistical and mathematical methods you’ll need for analyzing complex data sets. You are taught how electrical engineers detect signals embedded in noisy data. You apply those engineering insights to the detection of a human-caused warming signal buried in the natural “noise” of Earth’s climate. Eventually, you learn that human activities are warming Earth’s surface, and you publish this finding in peer-reviewed literature.

 

You participate in rigorous national and international assessments of climate science. You try to put aside all personal filters, to be objective, to accommodate a diversity of scientific opinions held by your peers, by industry stakeholders and by governments. These assessments are like nothing you’ve ever done before: They are peer review on steroids, eating up years of your life.

The Trump vs. climate science nightmare reminds me of other slowly unfolding disasters unleashed by my own government. In 1963, for example, it was clear that the US was slowly moving into a disaster in Vietnam, yet no one was able to stop it. The same was true of the US attacking on Iraq in 2003 instead of coming down on those who attacked the US on 9/11. In both those cases, though,, there were folks who -- in the beginning, at least -- imagined that the US was doing the right thing.

 

Now we have a situation with global warming that affects everyone on earth, and the potential consequences are much worse than those of the Vietnam and Iraq wars. What's more, everyone knows that to be the case, except for a few crackpots and pinheads. Nevertheless, some of those crackpots -- cheered on by dishonest beneficiaries of the status quo -- have gotten into position to warp the US commitment to work together to mitigate the damage of global warming. This is another slow-motion nightmare, and it's past time to wake up.

[Al_U_Card]

The same Ben Santer that changed the 1995 attribution statement from no discernable effect to mankind having an influence?

 

The same Ben Santer that said that 15 years of no global temperature rise would falsify the (his) models and them changed it to 17 when 15 years had passed?

 

The same Ben Santer who,in the climategate emails, said that he wanted to do bodily harm to opponents of his stance on global warming?

 

Yup, just a typical climate scientist, for sure...

[Zelandakh]

Now we have a situation with global warming that affects everyone on earth, and the potential consequences are much worse than those of the Vietnam and Iraq wars. What's more, everyone knows that to be the case, except for a few crackpots and pinheads.

Sorry passedOut but that is simply a misclassification of the situation. I think it would be very difficult to classify a renowned scientist such as Judith Curry as a crackpot or pinhead. Here are some recent Q&As from her web site:-

 

Questions from Politifact to JC, and JC’s responses:

.

(1) Do you consider the IPCC the world’s leading authority on climate change and why?

The IPCC is driven by the interests of policy makers, and the IPCC’s conclusions represent a negotiated consensus. I don’t regard the IPCC framework to be helpful for promoting free and open inquiry and debate about the science of climate change.

.

(2) Do you agree with the IPCC that effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions “are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

It is possible that humans have been the dominant cause of the recent warming, but we don’t really know how to separate out human causes from natural variability. The ‘extremely likely’ confidence level is wholly unjustified in my opinion.

.

(3) How solid is the science behind the conclusion that human activity is the main cause of climate change?

Not very solid, in my opinion. Until we have a better understanding of long term oscillations in the ocean and indirect solar effects, we can’t draw definitive conclusions about the causes of recent warming.

 

And here is another recent article from her discussing some of the uncertainties behind the climate science.

 

Notice that there are no extreme claims such as "there is no AGW" on the one side or "the science is settled" on the other - genuinely good scientists do not make statements like this so you should treat those that do particularly skeptically - nor even a moderate one for skeptic like "man is responsible for less than half of the warming". Her position seems to me completely reasonable, just more cautious about the level of evidence currently available than activist scientists would like. So tell me again, what are the consequences of minimal action (eg continuing the slow move towards cleaner energy sources) that you know (100%) will occur? Forget "potential consequences" - one of the potential consequences of orbiting the Sun is that we collide with a dark asteroid next week wiping out all life on Earth. Playing the potential disaster card has little to do with science.