Scott Adams on Global Warming
May 31st, 2007 at 6:46 pm by David FarrarScott Adams is mainly known for his wonderful humour as the creator of Dilbert. But he has also just done a blog post on global warming, which pretty much nails it for me. He concludes:
1. The earth is getting warmer, and human activity is an important part of it.
2. There is plenty of bullshit on both sides of the issue.
3. The people who are well-informed about global warming are overstating the case by conflating the well-studied fact of human-created warming with the less-than-certain predictions of what happens because of the extra warming.
4. The people who say global warming is irrelevant because we should all be recycling and using less fossil fuel for other reasons anyway don’t understand the size of the problem.
5. The people predicting likely doom because of global warming have not made their case. Humans are incredibly adaptive. And technological breakthroughs happen in steps, not predictable straight lines. Every other predicted type of global doom hasn’t happened because of human resourcefulness.
6. Some say that even a small chance of worldwide catastrophe is worth the “insurance” of working to reduce the risk to zero, even at astronomical expense. But how small is a “small” risk? And how does the risk of global warming stack up to the other global risks for which we could use our limited resources?
Read the full post at the link above and the hundreds of comments.
Related posts:
- Important Questions on Global Warming
- Leyland on global warming
- The summer the tide went out on global warming
- Global Warming Dirty Tricks
May 31st, 2007 at 10:20 pm
gee..all those scientists..vs. dilbert & dpf..
(no contest..!..eh.?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 10:35 pm
btw..the head climate-scientist at nasa..
(hardly a wild-eyed greenie/hippie..lurking in a yurt..eh..?..)
is warning that a two degree increase in temperature..
will melt the antarctic and arctic icecaps..
and that the arctic..alone..has enough ice above waterlevel..to raise global levels by 23 feet..
and it has been noted elsewhere that the antarctic melting would be like ‘throwing a boulder the size of australia into the pacific ocean’..
how would you ‘technology’/innovate your way out of that ..?..dpf..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Yawn……. Drop dead Phil, stuck record
…and no proof that human activity is an “important part” of warmer earth.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Hey phil, have you ever heard of the ice age or the medieval warm period, etc?
Must have been caused by us, too.
The global warming scare is just another cynical powergrab by the red ‘greens’.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Phil – Adding 2 degrees to minus 20 degrees equals minus 18 degrees. That’s still ice buddy.
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:17 pm
sean..
maybe you should take that up with the head climate-change scientist as nasa..?
it is his claim/warning..not mine..
meanwhile..
yet more evidence..
http://whoar.co.nz/?p=11031
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:34 pm
The sceptics are shooting bigger and bigger holes in thee GW bullshit and its starting to show…\
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/
“The grapes of math: Global warming fraud?”
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Phil – you’re the one who needs to re-read what he says. No way is adding 2 degrees to minus tens of degrees going to result in anything but ice remaining ice. And even if it did melt, the Arctic icecap, floating as it does on the ocean, would not increase the level of the ocean one iota. Honestly, your grasp of fundamental concepts of science and mathematics is appalling! A humanities graduate no doubt…
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
There are now 10 times the number of “scientists” playing the global warming game as there were 30 years ago. They say “yes sir” to their funding providers to keep the money coming in.
An the new profession of Environmental Journalist needs to keep feeding lies to the public as well.
Sad people!
Vote:May 31st, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Technologies that will produce diesel from coal by underground combustion are being tested in the next couple of months. Plants converting methane to diesel are being built.
New solar technologies are in the offing.
However sun spots, solar flares etc and other natural emissions are uncontrollable sources that contribute to global warming.
With global warming vegetation grows faster and adsorbs carbon dioxide faster. It all helps.
Technology will produce electricity more cheaply.
Frank
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 5:07 am
Sean: The nasa chappie isn’t saying that a two degree rise in temperature in the Arctic/Antarctic will melt the ice. He is saying a two degree rise in the GLOBAL temperature will melt the ice.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:01 am
Adams is not disputing there is AGW. He is correctly pointing out the effects are less certain and that humanity is extremely good at responding to such stuff and rejects the global Armageddon scaremongering.
Most importantly he points out that the real issue is the cost of mitigation vs the benefits of mitigation, and the opportunity cost.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:38 am
There are now 10 times the number of “scientists” playing the global warming game as there were 30 years ago. They say “yes sir” to their funding providers to keep the money coming in.
And the scientists funded by the oil companies don’t?
Get over denying anthropogenic climate change. As DPF says, the real question is the extent of the changes, and to what extent we should be changing behaviour or developing technologies to deal with it, based on an evaluation of the costs – that is, now we need to do a standard cost benefit analysis. And that’s where the interesting argument is now, not in being ostriches.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:42 am
Phil said:
how would you ‘technology’/innovate your way out of that ..?..dpf..?
I cant speak for DPF, but for my part I’m not sure what we can do if all the man’s predictions as you interpret them are going to come true Phil.
Vote:Pray tell us, what do YOU think we should do?
June 1st, 2007 at 7:52 am
um..!..kiss our arses goodbye..?..
be resolutely cheerful..?
buy on a ridge..?
and take up serious narcotic abuse..to kill the pain/ease the brain..?
it’s gonna be a rough-ride..eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:48 am
PhilU: or we could begin incrementally re-organising society so it’s less energy intensive – i.e. get people off the roads an on to public transport etc … though with people like Bush in power it’s going to be hard work.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4080600a12.html
Looks like his idea of tackling climate change is the quick “techno-fix” – knowing him it probably involves corporate welfare somewhere in the “plan” as well.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:11 am
Now I am a little sceptical about global warming but I would be right behind Phil contributing a reduction of a couple of tonnes carbon emmision per year by ceasing to breathe.
This would act as a shinning example and hopefully copied by others like Phil.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:15 am
“we could begin incrementally re-organising society”
Groan, another example of the innate narcisstic superiority complex of the leftist.. its becaue of your “re-organizing” that “society” is such a basket case right now you damn blind socialist loon..
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am
“Every other predicted type of global doom hasn’t happened because of human resourcefulness.”
This kind of gung-ho attitude pervades our society, and is actually quite scary. The fact that we’ve been able to avoid global environmental catastrophes in the past is no reason not to worry about possible future ones. The global economy of today is hundreds of times larger than it was 200 years ago, and so is our fossil fuel resource use. What is scarier is the fact that the global economy continues to grow at this rapid rate, doubling in size every 30 years or so. The fact is that we really don’t know how long can this be maintained, and what the consequences will be if we continue along our merry path of exponential growth.
To simply say that technology will always save the day is a kind of cultural arrogance/blind faith. We’re banking on the liberalist philosophy that has served us well in the period of plentiful resources and relative environmental stability. The problem is that we’re fast entering a period of resource scarcity (demand outstripping supply), and environmental over-shoot (we’re spoiling our own habitat).
The Professor Richard Heinberg’s question comes to mind … Are humans smarter than yeast?
“Yeast growing in grape juice provide a good example of overshoot and collapse behaviour. The yeast go after the sugar in the juice and in the process of metabolizing that sugar, they produce alcohol and carbon dioxide. As they consume the sugar, they also reproduce and their reproductive rate is dependent on the availability of food. Within a few days, at room temperature, the yeast population soars…But, the alcohol is a pollutant as far as the yeast are concerned and as their population rises, so does the level of alcohol. If there is enough sugar in the juice, the yeast will eventually produce so much alcohol that they start to die off rapidly and as the sugar reservoir is depleted, their reproductive rates plummet, leading to a total collapse of the population. So, in turning the juice into wine, the gluttonous, know-no-restraint yeast do themselves in.”
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:47 am
The debate about whether it is better to accept global warming and adapt to it, or to try to stop it happening is an interesting one.
I think the issue is that if we attempt to adapt then local investment will reap local results.
The problem with cutting emissions is that every counbtry in the world needs to get in on it. The biggest problem is developing countries whose emissions are increasing rapidly and show absolutely no interest in cutting back or adopting environmentally friendly policies.
So any money NZ invests in reducing emissions is money down the drain unless there is some action from China, India, and Brazil.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 11:56 am
“So any money NZ invests in reducing emissions is money down the drain unless there is some action from China, India, and Brazil.”
Funny that you should neglect to mention the world’s biggest co2 producer …
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Co2 is irrelevant to AGW and climate change in general.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Sure James. Looks like it’s you, Red Baiter and a few oil funded scientists against the world’s climatologist community – you fight that good fight boy!
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Frank said:
“With global warming vegetation grows faster and adsorbs (sic) carbon dioxide faster. It all helps.”
I tell you what else helps – illegal forestry operations in Brazil.
Vote:F*ucking awesome that isn’t it? Sure, they may replace it with pasture, but since when did wheat sustain a unique and diverse bio-chain? And what studies are there showing that pasture absorbs just as much CO² as tropical rainforest? You don’t see any government punishing a farmer for cutting down hectare upon hectare of wheat now, do you?
June 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I’m pretty much in agreement with Scott Adams, one point he doesn’t mention though is that because of the delayed consequences of bumping up CO2, much warming will be in the pipeline for decades, perhaps we should be a little more cautious than he suggests.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
DPF -
The problem is you’re fighting a strawman, this person who supposedly says global warming will bring on Armageddon.
No-one respectable says climate change will wipe us out or dramtically setback civilisation. Here’s essentially what the IPCC says: human activity is causing climate change and a changed climate will carry with it enourmous costs in human life, welfare, and wealth. I don’t think you or I or Scott Adams would disagree on that statement. But you setup up the strawman amd I think you’re doing that to undermine the entire cause for confronting climate change at all – hence why this post has brought out the fruit-loop deniers.
Look, its fine to say humanity will adapt, of course it will, but that shouldn’t be taken so far as to say, we don’t need to prevent climate change if its a hassle to do so. thats like saying we shouldn’t bother to wear seat belts because if we are injured in a crash we will heal and adapt to any premanent disability.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Mr Dixon,
Maybe you will find this article interesting:
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=729
Getting cooler
A few months ago, I wrote a series of unflattering columns on current trends among the Gaia worshippers. The last of these opened, “The more I think about ‘global warming’, in light of the most recent United Nations report, the more confident I become in averring that it is a fraud, a political stunt, a criminal imposture, that every intelligent journalist should be helping to expose.”
Since then, I have been bombarded with correspondence both favourable and unfavourable. I notice the former comes chiefly from those with plausible scientific backgrounds, the latter almost entirely from those whose ignorance of basic science scandalizes even me. However, there were a couple of credible science types who warned me against overstating the argument against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if only for tactical reasons. I’ve since continued to follow various links, both supplied and discovered, to intelligent discussion of the subject on the Internet.
I find nothing to revise nor repent, however. I don’t think it does any good to take a middle position between sense and nonsense. “Global warming” is not an exaggeration, but a fraud, in which possible human influences on climate — chiefly the increased proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels — are made to explain variations in average temperature that almost certainly have nothing to do with them. Yes, increasing CO2 could theoretically create a “greenhouse effect,” but that is to disregard compensating factors. Yes, the average temperature of our globe might rise uncomfortably high, if the slight warming trend of the last half-century continued and accelerated. But no, there is no reason to think it will.
There have been much more pronounced warming and cooling trends throughout recorded history, including two dramatic “mini ice ages,” and several more modest ones, in the last thousand years — and relatively torrid intervals between them. The freezes have coincided nicely with quiet periods in the solar cycle, the boils to extended periods of sunspots and flares. We are currently coming out of an extended session of abnormally heavy solar activity, that has lasted about fifty years, and therefore average global temperatures will soon be falling — if they are not doing so already. Quite possibly, they will fall dramatically, as we are overdue for one of the sun’s prolonged quiet spells.
Of course, the weather changes from day to day, and weather patterns from year to year, so you will always be able to convince the ignorant that something terrible is happening. Governments looking for opportunities to radically increase direct and indirect taxation, and vastly extend the regulatory bureaucracies that are the essence of their power, are currently playing on this public credulity. They are the chief investors in, and beneficiaries of, the fake science that employs computer modelling to generate alarming if meaningless long-term climate forecasts. The political effort to tag the better-informed sceptics with such epithets as “global warming denier” (on the analogy of “Holocaust denier”) is a crude and vicious, but nevertheless typical propaganda gambit of the bureaucracy-loving, environmentalist Left; and in due course we may expect efforts to criminalize free speech on this issue. For these are people whose arguments have never been able to withstand rational scrutiny.
Now to be fair, many of the scientific researchers who signed on for the global warming circus, are perfectly honest people who simply did not have the breadth of background to realize that they were being used. Over-specialization is the bane of current scientific research, and there are even “experts” on “palaeoclimatology” who don’t know anything about sunspot cycles.
Predicting solar activity is an art no better developed than predicting long-term weather trends, however. It also depends on computer modelling, which should soon enjoy the reputation phrenology acquired after its 19th-century vogue collapsed. Moreover, while the coincidence between solar magnetic and terrestrial climate trends becomes increasingly obvious, as isotope and pollen and other readings stretch back our records of both through thousands of years, the mechanism connecting them is imperfectly understood.
The best argument I have read from such specialists as Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, or Leif Svalgaard at Stanford, California (both recently quoted in an article in New Scientist), comes down to this: Solar magnetic activity has recently declined to the lowest levels since the 1950s, and is likely to settle lower still, and for a long time, given that we have just passed through an abnormally frenetic half-century.
In other words, it is time to chill out.
P.S. Among the more interesting things several science types have sent me are links and patches to studies suggesting it is not clear that the planetary CO2 build-up over the last century or two actually happened, and we may be well within the usual fluctuations. It is alleged that the IPCC cherry-picked unrepresentatively low readings for CO2 in available core samples from the pre-industrial era, &c. That would tend to knock the last leaf off the Global Warming figtree. I am not qualified to assess such studies: but I am qualified to notice that they exist. And to notice, further, that the politicians are rushing to get the new environmentalcase legislation into place before the scientism behind it completely disintegrates.
David Warren
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“Sure James. Looks like it’s you, Red Baiter and a few oil funded scientists against the world’s climatologist community – you fight that good fight boy!”
Keep it up fuckwit. If you had more than one working brain cell, you’d wake up to the fact that your failure to admit there is not universal agreement with your scaremongering delusional bullshit is your biggest weakness. You won’t tho, and its why you’re eventually going to lose big time on this.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
You’re right Baiter no consensus at all, nope still a lot of credible resistance to teh idea of AGW …
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,”[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,[4][5] and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of them.[6]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Terminology
Next argument/frothing session, please Baiter.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Sure James. Looks like it’s you, Red Baiter and “a few oil funded scientists against the world’s climatologist community – you fight that good fight boy!”
One wonders.. if its purely money that drives sceptical scientists…including some of THE best and brightest in the Climate field, why they are they willing to settle for the crumbs allegedly offered by oil companies when the real money is to be made in sucking up to the “consensus” and ensuring infinite taxpayer funding….?
Could it be that…horror! Scientific principles outweighed personal monetery benefit for these people?
And considering some of the biggest sceptics are members of the IPCC itself, (Patrick Michaels for one),….well….how say you PJ?
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“some of the biggest sceptics are members of the IPCC itself”
Exactly, all you get from the IPCC is the political propaganda, not the real scientific product. PJ misses the point. The more they push the obvious lies relating to “consensus”, the more it exposes them as deceivers. You’re up a dead end street on this one PJ. Even more so than usual.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Sam Dixon – you couldn’t be more wrong. There are hundreds of people preaching doom due to global warming, far beyond what the IPCC says. Al Gore is one of them.
Even in NZ someone set up a website showing the effects of up to 14 metre increases in sea levels, when IPCC says 19 cm to 80 cm over 100 years.
Even Russel Norman has linked to scare stories about an ice shelf melting and causing metres of sea level rising.
It would be great to have a science based debate on the consensus science. But it is sadly lacking.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:29 pm
DPF, how can a blog on global warming from the creator of Dilbert ‘nail it for you?’ Are you in denial or something? Do you really think ‘technology and human adaptation’ will save us?
If you would like me to send you some ‘real’ factual scientific papers on this subject from real scientists (who do not let opinions or money determine their case), let me know.
Do you really think ‘technology and human adaptation’ will save us? Maybe having a couple of kids would change your thinking.
Linda Axford
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Interestingly enough DPF’s original blog entry in a fine old spirit of selective quotation, stops at the point in Scott Adam’s argument where it could be read that “yes AGW is real, but we need not do anything about it”.
Actually Adams goes on to say:
My best guess for the future is that global warming continues, conservation doesn’t take hold in the less developed countries because of simple economics and corruption, and something “big” has to be done by the richest players. I think that something “big” will be mammoth carbon dioxide “scrubbers” to clean the atmosphere. It’s technically possible, but not economical. The economical part will either be solved or become a moot point if the alternative is global annihilation.
ie what he is saying is that as per usual we will stupidly argue and procrastinate until the warming becomes a massive crisis, and we are forced to act.
What is it about most people that they are so resistant to any hint of long-term thinking?
BTW Redbaiter. I’m curious to know what your definition of a “consensus” might be? Given that on almost any science topic you care to think about there is always some level of dissension…at what point do you think we could safely set aside their minority objections and proceed with the majority opinion? 1 objector in 10? 100? 1000?
I’ve done as much reading on the topic as my 30 year old Engineering education will sustain, I’ve looked at the objections (and many of them appear very plausible at first blush), and I’ve realised just how subtle some of these mistakes are while at the same time how obviously and perversely wrong some of the “denier” arguments are as well.
The history of science tells us that knowledge is not an absolute thing. There are numerous examples of very great figures from a previous generation completely failing to accept a new theory. (For instance the great Mendeleyev, him of the Periodic Table, spent much of the later part of his life storming out of lecture theatres at the mention of the word “radioactivity”.) All new ideas are initially resisted and are challenged and tested, which is as they should be. But an new will idea gain acceptance by the majority of experts if:
1. It fits with and explains observed data.
2. It has predictive power.
3. It is consistent with the general body of existing science, but at the same time gives new insights at a new level of thinking.
Historically the process was far from perfect, mainly because the flow of information was so difficult in those times. But the internet has transformed the rate at which science can absorb and review new information. And a new idea in the science world rarely remains neglected for long these days. There are literally millions of trained minds all over the globe who can all access and review papers and journals within months of their publication. From this perspective the AGW idea has passed the three tests listed above and is for better of worse is now the conventional wisdom.
With time it is inevitable that our current understanding of AGW will change. But it will be changed by better ideas, by better observations and deeper insights. What has never happened to my knowledge is that an idea that has gained solid mainstream science acceptance has been subsequently shown to be totally wrong and everybody reverts to the previous paradigm.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
This would be the same Scott “Dilbert” Adams who wrote in support of Intelligent Design:
Like that bit about the hominid fossils? It gets better…
Can anyone say “conspiracy theory”? Seems like Adams changed a few of the words around and just adapted this uninformed tripe to the global warming debate.
In case you haven’t got it yet, this is the hole in Adam’s reasoning (it’s also the hole in DPF’s reasoning): Both sides of the debate sound equally shrill to me, therefore the truth must lie in the middle.
Thus journalistic “balance” creeps ever onward. And onward!
I don’t know what’s funnier: that Adams thinks he can get away with recycling his ID lite, or that DPF is falling for the arguments of a cartoonist.
Vote:June 1st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
On the other hand today’s Dilbert may be weirdly appropriate:
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20070601.html
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 am
Can someone on the warmest side please tell the rest of us just what the temperature of the planet is ACTUALLY supposed to be to within say… three degrees to be generous? Is it 20, 25…..30?
Come on you smarmy bastards ….put up the agreed upon ideal global temperature that Earth is supposed to be at ALL the time for things to be “ok” and why it is so …if you can’t then the rest of us can be pretty sure you are talking out of your arses and haven’t a clue.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:29 am
Here you are James:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/JudyTang.shtml
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Is it any wonder the scaremongers have latched on to this issue? I mean we’ve had Y2K, Sars, bird flu, giant asteroids, etc. Not forgetting that Nostra Dumb Arse predicted the world would end in 1999. Maybe he was 100 years out? Some people just have to latch on to something – climate change is the new religion – it doesn’t matter whether you can prove that it will have a massive effect on civilisation or not. A mere technicality. Just believe.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Is it any wonder the scaremongers have latched on to this issue? I mean we’ve had Y2K, Sars, bird flu, giant asteroids, etc. Not forgetting that Nostra Dumb Arse predicted the world would end in 1999. Maybe he was 100 years out? Some people just have to latch on to something – climate change is the new religion – it doesn’t matter whether you can prove that it will have a massive effect on civilisation or not. A mere technicality. Just believe.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 am
Is it any wonder the scaremongers have latched on to this issue? I mean we’ve had Y2K, Sars, bird flu, giant asteroids, etc. Not forgetting that Nostra Dumb Arse predicted the world would end in 1999. Maybe he was 100 years out? Some people just have to latch on to something – climate change is the new religion – it doesn’t matter whether you can prove that it will have a massive effect on civilisation or not. A mere technicality. Just believe.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Andrew W, the link you provide refers to the average global temperature. How exactly is this relevant to NZ or to any country? You’ll be aware that in the last fifty years, the average yearly temperature in NZ has increased by an insignificant amount. Clearly, global warming has yet to reach us and maybe never will.
You’ll be aware that women have on average 2.1 children. Have you actually seen 2.1 children?
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Andrew W, the link you provide refers to the average global temperature. How exactly is this relevant to NZ or to any country? You’ll be aware that in the last fifty years, the average yearly temperature in NZ has increased by an insignificant amount. Clearly, global warming has yet to reach us and maybe never will.
You’ll be aware that women have on average 2.1 children. Have you actually seen 2.1 children?
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
1. Y2K was a real problem for banks, insurance companies and many businesses who ran systems that dealt with money. It is only when a computer needs to manage interst rates, billing periods and the like that it actually needs the calendar date. These organisations threw a huge amount of money at the problem and fixed it.
By contrast most embedded and automation systems only use elapsed time, and there was never ever going to be an “end of the world scenario” as painted by an ill-informed media who where lead to mistakenly extrapolate from one issue to the other.
Personally I laughed all the way through it.
2. Sars, bird flu. Never heard of the 1918 epidemic then? Who told you that the bugs have called a truce?
3. Giant asteroids. They happen. Not very often and with luck not during our lifetimes…but we know they are out there and some DO come awfully close. Something 100m in diameter travelling at many km/sec is giant in terms of kinetic energy.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 am
ross, James asked “..what the temperature of the planet is ACTUALLY supposed to be..”, the question was a little ambiguous, if he was asking what the ideal temperature of the planet is, my reply is that the planet would be fine at 15C or 20C, it’s the rate of change in moving from one to the other, and the much larger regional climatic variations that would occur as a result of such a change that will present problems to Man and some other species.
Regarding the effects of climate change on NZ, the Southern Hemisphere has been affected far less than the Northern Hemisphere because the ocean has a huge thermal inertia, about 85% of the SH is ocean vs 55% of the NH, NZ being in the SH and having a maritime climate will probably be affected much less by climate change in the short to medium term than many places.
“You’ll be aware that women have on average 2.1 children. Have you actually seen 2.1 children?”
Vote:God knows what your point you’re trying to make here.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
> “You’ll be aware that women have on average 2.1 children. Have you actually seen 2.1 children?” God knows what your point you’re trying to make here.
My point was that you shouldn’t take averages too seriously!
We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about the average or mean global temperature. But what is the relevance of this statistic? The average is influnced by the extremes at either end. The average global income probably doesn’t mean a hell of a lot to someone on subsistence income (because they’re not earning the average income). So why should the average temperature mean a lot to us? As has been said previously, some countries will probably experience cooler temperatures over time while others become warmer. NZ’s average temperature has increased by less than 1 degree celsius over the last 100 years.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
> “You’ll be aware that women have on average 2.1 children. Have you actually seen 2.1 children?” God knows what your point you’re trying to make here.
My point was that you shouldn’t take averages too seriously!
We’ve heard a lot of rhetoric about the average or mean global temperature. But what is the relevance of this statistic? The average is influnced by the extremes at either end. The average global income probably doesn’t mean a hell of a lot to someone on subsistence income (because they’re not earning the average income). So why should the average temperature mean a lot to us? As has been said previously, some countries will probably experience cooler temperatures over time while others become warmer. NZ’s average temperature has increased by less than 1 degree celsius over the last 100 years.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Ross,
Now we have thought somewhat about the nature of a “global average”, lets take the next step. Part of the reason why people underestimate the impact of the global average rising say 2 degC is that the rise is not uniform across the whole globe. It turns out that the recorded rises in the tropical regions are almost nil, whereas the rise in the polar regions has been somewhat higher. This idea is called “polar amplification” and is enlarged on here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/polar-amplification/
This is why a relatively small rise in the global average has the potential to be a much larger rise in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, and from this arises the “alarmist scenarios” that would be the consequence of the Western Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets collapsing.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
ross, you are correct that averages shouldn’t be taken too seriously, in fact this is the point that those who are most concerned about AGW emphasis, i.e. While we might see an average rise in global tempereature of only 3C, the the greater regional variations are the real concern, the deviation from this average will be greater inland, where the climate is not moderated by the thermal effects of the oceans, and also greater at higher latitudes, where, because low atmospheric temperatures, a small increase in temperature considerably increases airs ability to support H2O, so H2O enhancement of the GH effect is expected to be larger near the poles than in the tropics.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm
“alarmist scenarios..” Pffffft, what would you know Rag? A doctrinal leftist drip fed GW propaganda by TV One, TV3 CNN, ABC and all those other dead loss farcical “news” sources, in reality just pro big government / pro leftist propagandists ready to betray anyone for the sake of socialism, and staffed by dimwit liberals who long ago forgot the true role of the news media is to stand between the public and power seeking liars and control freak con artists.
Here’s where I get my news these days-
http://newsbusters.org/node/13159
..and here’s the kind of thing you get to read if you ignore the untrustworthy and troglodytic left wing mainstream media-
http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/3967
Keep on keeping on tho Rag, you and the rest of you one dimensional scaremongering power obsessed leftist drongoes.. buy the bullshit, buy as much of it as you want, the day’s coming when you’ll have it all over your face..
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Hilarious! That says it all.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
RB, (refering to 1 far right site): “Here’s where I get my news these days”
“you and the rest of you one dimensional…”
It’s you who’s blinkered to the point of having a one dimensional view of things RB.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“Hilarious! That says it all.”
Obviously forced expressions of humour and empty expressions of bigotry.. That says it all..
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
“It’s you who’s blinkered to the point of having a one dimensional view of things RB”
Thanks for that expression of worthless opinion on Redbaiter Andrew uttered at the complete expense of any discussion of the real issue.
You pathetic attention seeking child, you wouldn’t even be able to tell me why the site is “far right” if I asked you. Don’t worry, I’m not going to. The last thing I need to read is paragraphs of your boring and immature self focused waffle.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
James:
“And considering some of the biggest sceptics are members of the IPCC itself, (Patrick Michaels for one),….well….how say you PJ?”
Well let us just see about Dr Michaels shall we?
“Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that “Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels.
“Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.) Another paper made the bizarre claim that the temperature increases were meaningless because they correlated closely to GDP, without explaining how the GDP caused the increase warming. (A more likely explanation is that high-GDP countries tend to be at higher lattitudes, where global warming has the most impact).”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Michaels
Is this guy really the most reputable contrarian your side of the debate can come up with? If so, you’re really starting to get into grasping at straws territory.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Farrar reckoned I was wrong to say that no-one serious says the climate change will be the end of civilisation and cites Al Gore, Russell Norman, and some website from a nobody.
The point is Gore and Norman and IPCC are predicting massive costs from climate change, like metres of sea rise that are predicted in extreme scenarios, but not an apocolypse
- but the whole idea of this post is to say ‘hey a (admittedy very good) cartoonist has gathered evidence that says climate change will be bad but not the end of the world guess we shouldn’t wory too much then or do anyhting now about climate change, all those climate change activitsts are wrong, we will survive and adapt to climate change’ of course we will, thats not in doubt but we shouldn’t have to take huge costs to survive and adapt to a disaster we are bringing on ourselves, we shoud be smart enough to avoid the problem all together.. farrar prefers to do nothing now and leave it to others to clean up in the future.
btw, when debating the science, whats the point in linking to some nobody blog or something? like to New Scientist, or the IPCC, or a mainstream scientific site… nothing else has scentific credibility
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Here’s the bio of he guy that Baiter’s link cite’s as a serious opponent of AGW.
“Griffin received a bachelor’s degree in Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master’s degree in aerospace science from Catholic University of America; a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Maryland; a master’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California; a master’s degree in applied physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master’s degree in business administration from Loyola College; and a master’s degree in Civil Engineering from George Washington University.
Now, this man ceratinly has an impressive bio – but he doesn’t appear to have any qualifications that make him a specialist in climatology. So where are the reputable anti-AGW proponents. The more I search for them, the more they just don’t seem to exist.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“Now, this man ceratinly has an impressive bio – but he doesn’t appear to have any qualifications that make him a specialist in climatology.”
You’ll probably feel a lot better about this man PJ
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“Now, this man ceratinly has an impressive bio – but he doesn’t appear to have any qualifications that make him a specialist in climatology.”
You’ll probably feel a lot better about this man PJ
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Maybe Al Gore was a dope fiend, maybe he wasn’t. Until he’s arrested for it there’s no conclusive proof.
The case for George Bush’s Cocaine use is perhaps somewhat more solid
“A new book by Texas author J.H. Hatfield claims that George W. Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972, but had his record expunged with help from his family’s political connections.”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/
In any case, Al Gore isn’t put forward as one of the leading scientific proponents of AGW, he’s just a messanger. So your attempted smear is in all ways irrelevant.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
You’re such a dork RB, just about everyone else here has been discussing the real AGW issues except you, all we get from you is the same politically based clap trap with no understanding of the issues, even a moron would try to understand an issue before shooting off the crap that you spout on almost every thread, are you so old and feeble minded that you can’t manage one original thought? You are a miserable person who has nothing positive to say about anyone who disagrees with you on anything. Dip shit.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Thanks Andrew, for that expression of worthless opinion on Redbaiter, uttered at the complete expense of any discussion of the real issue.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Yup, that’s the score alright PJ. Michaels is written off as a charlatan for the sake of a measly $115,000 over four years, (yep, how could he resist the possible destruction of his career for such an enormous sum) whilst pro GW advocates whose billion dollar funding is dependent upon such respected and trusted people as politicians are apparently beyond reproach. ..and do you want me to reference you a site detailing the millions that Gore has scammed from his propaganda? No. Thought not.
Leftists, pffft. Always so consistent. Consistently full of bullshit….
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
“Michaels is written off as a charlatan for the sake of a measly $115,000 over four years”
Measly? That’s US dollars we’re talking Baiter, and certainly not a small number of them. BTW, you neglected to mention that he also writes for a journal funded by energy interests.
“whilst pro GW advocates whose billion dollar funding is dependent upon such respected and trusted people as politicians are apparently beyond reproach”
So now it’s a massive global conspiricy involving every science academy in every major industrialised country! Nice one Baiter.
It seems that your inconvenient truth is that Andrew W is right on the money.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“it’s a massive global conspiricy involving every science academy”
Except that the “academies” are as riven with internal dissent as anyone. (NASA for example)Funny how commies like you PJ always grant big government and its cronies a pass when history has shown over and over again what deceit and treachery they’re capable of.
“It seems that your inconvenient truth is that Andrew W is right on the money.”
Oh yeah, and of course you’d be just as neutral and objective on that issue as you are on the GW issue. PJ and Andrew W, two small minded suckholing panty waisted little hand holding leftists, agree that Redbaiter is an arsehole. Must be true then right?? Think what you like about me, I take some satisfaction in the fact that I’m widely disliked by the left. Shows me how effective I am. But on the real issue (GW), you’re hopelessly wrong, even more wrong than you are on everything else.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
“Except that the “academies” are as riven with internal dissent as anyone. (NASA for example)”
their is dissent yes – in almost every area of science there are people who object to what the vast majority of specialists believe. This is healthy as it encourages rigorous debate.
In the AGW debate there are a few dissenting scientists – the problem however is that they all seem to either have no relevant qualifications (dissent within NASA for example), or they are funded by industries that have financial interests in opposing mainstream scientific opinion.
That’s why mainstream debate has shifted past, “does significant AGW exist”? and on to what will the consequences of AGW be? And what can we do about it.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“PJ and Andrew W, two small minded suckholing panty waisted little hand holding leftists, agree that Redbaiter is an arsehole. Must be true then right?”
You via with Dad4Justice for the title of most abusive person to regularly post on kiwiblog. This is why we don’t like you, not because you oppose our political views. In one of my best friends is a Bushite – we do have some quite animated discussions at times though
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 7:57 pm
You’re problem is you are so religiously indoctrinated you don’t know difference of opinion from abuse. (Not that abuse is the great unforgivable sin you poor fucken brainwashed pissant commies assert anyway)
As if you have any right to complain anyway, your whole stinking dishonest and corrupt system is a massive abuse upon humanity and the democratic process, and something no civilized person would have any part of.
You are a stupid totalitarian knuckle dragging simian PJ, a brain damaged impediment to social progress and the betterment of the human race, a poorly educated drag on progress and enlightenment, and I will call you that and think of you as that not because its abuse but because it is truly what you are.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm
DPF has pointed out to you that you do have the ability to make a good argument, and I agree with him. It’s just a shame that this is so often over-shadowed by your propensity for mindless abuse and name-calling.
If you can’t see why this is a bad thing for your image, along with the quality of discussion then I don’t think anyone will ever be able to convince you.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
The weird thing with Redbaiter is that in the same post he will write:
You’re problem is you are so religiously indoctrinated you don’t know difference of opinion from abuse.
and then a few words later he will rant:
stupid totalitarian knuckle dragging simian PJ, a brain damaged impediment to social progress and the betterment of the human race
and pretend it is fact. He does this kind of stunt all the time. If someone calls him on the massive dissonance the usual response is faux-outrage along the lines that “our worthless opinions are just brainless leftie hatred”. It really is a transparent game that he plays, albeit somewhat more sophisticated than usual self-centered puffery that passes for argument from the right. Normally RB’s kind of attention seeking behaviour is called trolling and if you ignore it, they go away.
RB however is a rather wonderful case. Underlying all the bluster and clever mind-fuck games is, or was, a very capable brain with a passionate vision of different and rather better world he would like to live in. Strangely enough would like to tell him that I am not wholly unsympathetic to what I think he is saying. And moreover I can well imagine how aggravating it is for him, that that there is nowhere on the face of the planet that he can go to to appease his soul. This is why he never gives up, he is driven, compelled to seek some sense of a home that suits his spiritual clothing, a home that sadly I believe he will never find in this lifetime.
No RB, whoever you are, you do not annoy me…well not any more. I’m sorry if at times in the past I’ve been tempted into the occasional intemperate response and I haven’t been able to understand how sincere you really are.
Best wishes.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
It’s fun to fire the abuse back, just once in a while hehe.
Vote:June 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
“It’s fun to fire the abuse”
Well, we won’t be reading any more complaints from you on the issue will we Andrew? BTW, where did you learn those absolutely vicious hurtful and nasty words?? Dork. Dipshit. Moron. (and then you cap it off with this amazing little example of psychotic disconnect- “you can’t manage one original thought”) No, not when I’m facing such intense competition from you Andrew.
I’m cut to the quick, I mean, that’s abuse man, real abuse. Abuse abuse abuse. I’m so hurt, I don’t think I’ll be able to leave my house for a week, and I hope Mr. Farrar bans you for six weeks, and if he doesn’t you should at least voluntarily submit yourself to the nearest socialist brain washing camp for re-indoctrination in the prime socialist mantra “thou shalt not think or speak in a manner that the collective decrees offensive”
“you do not annoy me”
Now there’s someone who really knows how to hurt. I’ll be at least six months in counselling after that..!!!
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 12:34 am
I’ll be at least six months in counselling after that..!!!
No! Not six whole months! The place wouldn’t be the same without you. Please feel free to pop back in here anytime you feel the need for a quick topping up of cathartic release therapy, I’m always happy to oblige.
Cheers
Vote:June 3rd, 2007 at 7:09 am
Thank you for that RB, see, you can make your points better without the BS.
Vote:June 4th, 2007 at 11:01 am
“The people predicting likely doom because of global warming have not made their case. Humans are incredibly adaptive. And technological breakthroughs happen in steps, not predictable straight lines. Every other predicted type of global doom hasn’t happened because of human resourcefulness.”
Joint statement from the Joint Academies of science G8+4
- Articulate the reality and urgency of global energy security concerns;
- Plan for the massive infrastructure investments, and lead times required for a transition to clean, affordable and sustainable energy systems;
- Itensify cooperation with developing countries to build their domestic capacities to use existing and innovative energy systems and technologies, including transfer of technologies;
- Promote by appropriate policies and economic instruments the development and implementation of cost-competitive, environmentally beneficial, and market acceptable clean fossil, nuclear, and renewable technologies;
- Ensure, in cooperation with industry, that technologies are developed and implemented and actions taken to protect energy infrastructures from natural disasters, technological failures, and human actions;
- Address the serious inadequacy of R&D funding and provide incentives to accelerate advanced energy-related R&D, also in partnership with private companies;
- Implement education programs to increase public understanding of energy challenges, and to provide for energy-related expertise and engineering capabilities;
Incentive and innovation,reward not restraint.
Of course this goes against the restrictive ideology of cap and trade,tax mechanisms,and wealth distribution etc policies of the present political rhetorical flannel being promoted,so we can conclude that when scientific solutions are postulated for scientific “problems”real or perceived,puts all the political parties in denial of the scientific solutions “consensus”.
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 4:05 am
woelgyad gtecn qtjbavnlk rdthzyw rbnvmedz hfxwv yofv
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 4:06 am
woelgyad gtecn qtjbavnlk rdthzyw rbnvmedz hfxwv yofv
Vote:June 6th, 2007 at 4:07 am
woelgyad gtecn qtjbavnlk rdthzyw rbnvmedz hfxwv yofv
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 1:01 am
It would be nice if you added pictures into the story.
Vote:February 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Global warming peaked in 1998.
Vote:There is a huge web site
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/teegee/global warming alarm.html