Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

[Ljube]

Climate science is certainly not settled. There are a lot of things the scientists don't know, can't explain, or simply guess.

For instance - the amount of warming per doubling of CO2 content in the atmosphere. They give a figure (varies), but can't say to which absolute point it refers to, i.e. is it doubling from the pre-industrial 200 to the 400 we have today, or further doubling to 800, or somewhere in between?

Anybody claiming to know what kind of temperature increase doubling of CO2 will bring is a liar or pretending to be Nostradamus.


A second thing is futility of any proposed action in terms of real reduction of CO2 emissions at punishing costs. When considering actions, an economic cost-benefit analysis should be prepared taking into consideration the cost of actions performed now against the potential cost of future, more efficient actions. Any unbiased cost-benefit analysis would always advise against any action now.


The current understanding of the Earth climate system is based entirely on theoretical thinking and is very similar to the once popular, but ultimately wrong four humors theory in medicine which was also the result of theoretical thinking (i.e. no way to experiment, postulate a hypothesis and then disprove it, etc... meaning no way to apply the scientific method). Until that problem is remedied, the climate science cannot be considered settled, or informative for decision making purposes. It can be consulted, but it must not determine the course of our collective actions.

[Ljube]

"Real Clear Investigations" is of course a wing of RCP, which gives serious caution about the article's reliability.  Equally telling is the fact they listed 2 's ientists whom have hardly been silent in the Obama years, and a third whom a tally DOES acknowledges climate  change is real rather than "a hoax" lime Trump,  but simply believes it's "not cataclysmic ".

Still,  it's hard to deny that climate change deniers,  rather than the overwhlming consensual of the scientific community will find a ready spot at Trumps table

Badger, you are such an insufferable Dem hack. You even use their talking points.

Science never progresses through consensus. Brilliant minds are needed for scientific breakthroughs. You should know that.

[Ljube]

I don't think it is worth of me to write about it but I think people should read more - I have read dozens of books on a variety of issues - Israel-Arab relations (some include historical letters which British wrote), Different Economic philosophies & ofcourse Climate Change.

The whole history is fascinating - From the moment when Exxon's discovered it through the various climate conventions , the extent of damage already being caused etc. Since I earn pretty good money, I will probably retire @ 40 or something & work on this issue. If people actually read this issue, they won't be debating this.

I am genuinely concerned if the planet I leave to my grand-kids would be habitable because as of now it doesn't look it will be. My heart especially goes out to many poor island nations who are absolutely en route to be submerged very soon.

Nauru island today is obviously a case study of how to f**k up with over-exploitation of resources & rising sea level & climate change! The least bit people should do is to listen to the scientists - When 98 or 99% of the Scientists argue about something, there generally should be a damn good reason!

100% of doctors argued for the four humors theory. Did it make the theory right?
Nauru Island is just an example and while possibly tragic (we are not sure about that yet), it only affects a small number of people.

I will certainly not retire at 40 or something (I am already 42). I plan to work till I am 70 at least. I love my job.


I was once a blind follower of the global warming orthodoxy, until I actually took the time to study it. The more I read about it, the more questions popped up and I realized that the theory was undeveloped and hollow in places. Eventually, I understood the reason for it - the theory is purely speculative (a mind experiment) and does not depend on real life or lab experimentation for reaching conclusions. It's a trial and error theory.

Now, I sympathize with the plight of the people of some small island, but to base the world accepted policy on that would be folly. There are more people who will suffer from the effects of that policy than those that will be potentially protected by it. It's far better to just help those islands in need than to bring everybody down.

[Ljube]

No. I certainly don't agree with any sort of carbon tax.

Taxing is simply not a solution. Taxing either makes it worse for the people who are poor, or if they are subsidized, does not achieve anything.

We need advances in technology to make alternatives to carbon viable. These technological breakthroughs will not only reduce carbon emissions, but will spur economic growth for many years, because everybody will want to have the new, efficient technology.