Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christopher Booker has been pushing this idiocy for months now. This article is an opinion column advertising a fake study being done by a right wing think tank founded by a right wing politician for the sole purpose of undermining science.
Booker also thinks asbestos is healthy and second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. Actually, he probably DOESN'T think that, he simply says it for a living.
That's not completely true as it's a complicated issue. Developed countries government action subsidizes fossil fuels through tax structures and subsidizing pollution by developing countries (China and India) keeps fossil fuel prices artificially low. You think if China and India adopts more western style pollution standards, the price of coal and oil will go down or up?
Furthermore, as we've seen with global demand, cheap fossil fuel energy is increasingly becoming a relic.
You are generalizing, not every person on the "left" fights nuclear energy. Not sure where you get your information from.
China and India are not going to impose Western style pollution standards. They got people to feed.
If cheap fossil fuels was becoming a relic we would not be having this debate.
But you agree that subsidizing pollution keeps prices low globally?
They can adopt "Eastern" standards and it will still raise prices.
I said "increasingly becoming...", please keep up. Before the US caused a supply glut, energy prices were historically high.
The fact is only nuclear rivals fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy. The fact it is the left that fights nuclear energy. Another fact is the developing world is not going to adopt pollution standards. Lack of regulations is not subsidization.
We still face the same problem we did with Kyoto. The developing world will do nothing more than pay lip service to global warming.
I guess I should throw in a cheap shot but I won't lower myself to that level.
The fact is only nuclear rivals fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy. The fact it is the left that fights nuclear energy. Another fact is the developing world is not going to adopt pollution standards.
Only nuclear rivals fossil fuels as a cheap source of energy currently is more accurate.
France is very progressive and liberal and they are the biggest nuclear users so again you are generalizing based on your rigid right wing ideology.
The developing world won't have a choice but to adopt pollution standards if they want to become developed countries. They probably won't be as stringent, but pollution isn't free.
Quote:
Lack of regulations is not subsidization
It is. Again, pollution isn't free. China is losing over a hundred billion per year out of is GDP due to the effects of pollution.
Quote:
We still face the same problem we did Kyoto. The developing world will do nothing more than pay lip service to global warming.
Nah. They may not do it for "climate change", but for their own health and social stability.
I read something a few months ago and I can no longer find the link. It said that the temperature sensors being used were set out 35 years ago and had never been recalibrated. Has anyone else read that?
You know, there's actually nothing wrong with revising models and adjusting data to take account of systematic errors and make it better represent reality.
I agree. But do you really think they would have revised their numbers if the data had not indicated a pause? I doubt it. They revised their numbers BECAUSE the first set of data showed a pause.
Quote:
Measuring global climate is a just a wee bit more challenging than sticking a thermometer outside on your porch.
I agree.
Quote:
Measuring things like ocean temperature is actually non-trivial and you get a different answer depending on whether you use a buoy, a bucket, or measure engine room intake. You have to take this into account or you conclude that we're headed for an ice age or about to start boiling purely because you didn't understand the measurements.
I agree and in fact that is why the projections are useless. I don't think it's possible to accurately model climate. And I guess we are seeing how impossible it is.
There is no doubt that there are isolated incidents of misconduct in science. However, in general the process of peer review tends to ferret out said misconduct.
No, it does not. Google it. You will find huge holes the the peer review process.
What does a belief in god have to do with climate science? Nothing!
I guess you think only atheists make credible scientists. Pathetic.
But he doesn't believe in a commonly-accepted Christian god, he believes in a sky wizard who determines all weather and other physical processes according to his mood. I mean, he's welcome to his weird religion, but spouting a verbal stream of "nanny noony ooby dooby ooby dooby" until everyone gets bored and leaves the room isn't a convincing argument.
It's too bad, because I have this Nobel Prize and millions in grant money just sitting here, waiting for someone to come up with an alternative theory to Global Warming. Instead there's just an endless line of armchair scientists spewing nonsense like "scientists say gravity pulls us down but how do they know we aren't being pushed?" without following through or actually explaining anything about the world. Skeptics are so easily identified by their complete lack of actual scientific theory. If only all the holes skeptics think they punch in science actually worked together instead of being mutually contradictory, they might actually have something useful to say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
