Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

[Shadows]

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!

[Shadows]

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.

I could give you a lot of info & actually prove you wrong about the extent of warming & theoretical nature & what not.

But I am not sure if it is worth my time - Which is why I wanted to ask how educated you are? Ivy league ? Some decent college?

[Shadows]

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, published on Monday at the global climate summit in Morocco, found the global temperature in 2016 is running 1.2C above pre-industrial levels. This is perilously close to to the 1.5C target included as an aim of the Paris climate agreement last December.


I personally do not believe we can wait.

Island nations will be submerged

Massive fall in agricultural production

Fight & a potential World War over Limited resources

Pollution is causing respiratory diseases & deaths

The Tropic Zone will become unbearable to live due to high heat

There will be more heat waves, floods & hurricanes

One-fourth of Earth’s species will be headed for extinction by 2050

Coastal communities are severely affected

[Shadows]

Thanks to media hype and the general inability for most people to properly understand complicated science they are not particularly interested in, there is a commonly held misconception that ALL warming since the industrial revolution was caused by humans [...]

This is perhaps the most galling tactic of climate changing deniers.  It's akin to arguing that because not all lung cancer is caused by tobacco use, nothing should be done about cigarettes.

To be fair, sometimes those who accept the fact that anthropogenic warming is real and significant don't always take into account the economics of what should be done in response, but at this point to argue that we should do nothing to curb anthropogenic warming because the science is inconclusive is ridiculous and short-sighted.

What seems to be the biggest feature of climate change science and the toxic "debate" surrounding it is people filling other peoples' mouths with words.

Where, pray tell, did I say nothing should be done to curb anthropogenic warming?

Put in place a carbon tax!  My carbon footprint is very small for an American.  The true believers that berate me for my "denialism" but brag about how many times they fly each year and where they go will pay for it... not me.

A Carbon Tax is actually the best way to fight crony capitalism & have a free market.

For one, can anyone argue that coal based pollution causes respiratory diseases, increases healthcare costs (w/o even going into Climate Change)?

This is called negative externality so you're not paying the Negative Social cost caused. In macro-economics the simple point is that coal & polluting fuels are not subsidized by the general tax payers of this social cost. You are already suffering the effects, paying taxes, suffering agricultural productivity, natural disasters, etc.

If you let coal & oil bear some costs there will be a little increase in prices but then Solar & Wind can compete on an even playing field vs Fossil fuels. Also the money obtained can be used to help those communities suffering from climate change or use to fuel Clean energy R & D which will bring costs of Solar, Wind down!

[Shadows]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ0o2E4d8Ts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ0o2E4d8Ts