Skip to comments.Science chief: greens hurting climate fight (Global Warming)
Posted on 01/13/2008 4:52:34 AM PST by chessplayer
The scientist credited as being the first to convince Tony Blair of the urgency of the climate crisis has accused green activists of being Luddites who risk setting back the fight against global warming.
He says: "There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves 'green' are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
El Rushbo has been saying this for several years. He must be a closet scientist.
“There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves ‘green’ are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century.”
Anyone with a bit of common sense knew this from the start.
It is the fight against nothing. The proposals of the radical environmental movement are not just the actions of Luddites but seem to have the goal of the halt of progress and the eventual extinction of the human race.
Warming is a good thing. The world and its species has survived temperatures and CO2 levels far greater than anything that is being proposed by the perpetual alarmists.
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Eventually people will realize that they are not so much enviromentalists as they are anti-capitolists.
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ping~~
I have yet to see anywhere that ALL of the carbon being released by the burning of fossil fuels was once ALREADY IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
As you said, the world and it's species survived that, even THRIVED.
The rate we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere is slow really, when you consider the amount of coal and oil that is locked in the earth. New plant growth is encouraged and the carbon is returned to the earth. I'd be more interested in the CO2 concentration if we were to suddenly release all carbon back into the atmosphere, but that isn't going to happen by human means anyway.
Thanks for the pings!
Right on the mark. All great advancement has come about as a result of leaving ice ages and entering periods of global warming.
I hope you are right. The environmental movement is being co-opted by the anti-capitalists to do their bidding for sure. Anthropogenic warming tugs at emotional strings, and apparently is so alluring as to capture the minds of even non-revolutionists. This is what I worry about. All we can do is continue to provide information which refutes the thesis.
I find myself debating this issue with colleagues who should know better, but they buy into the alarmist theories so readily. It is very frustrating.
you mean like in state capitols?
you probably mean anti-capitalists.
Thanks for the correction.. it’s still early..
"We're talking about technical solutions that can also be safely spread to every country in the world, no matter how unstable. Nuclear power isn't that technology, but Sir David wants to take us back to the 1950s, the last time we were told it would solve all our problems."
Tells you most of what you need to know about Greenpeace. Nuclear is no good because those poor pygmies can't handle it. These "low-carbon technologies that can deliver deep emissions cuts in a very short timeframe" he's talking about are mud huts.
The solution to our problems of pollution lie in converting solar rays to usable electricity, and getting off oil and telling the oil sheiks to pound sand.
It would be really refreshing if even one of the "scientists" that make this stupid statement would admit that the theory of global warming has not been proven scientifically.
The whole theory of global warming has been statistically modeled using computer algorithms that did not even accurately predict the temperature and CO2 changes last decade.
If the algorithms were so broke that their predictions for the last decade were garbage, then it is completely unreasonable to expect that the algorithms would have any more accurate results for the next decade, or beyond.
Unfounded and unproven theories are not science.
Hmm...if you accept the Karl Popper principles of the philosophy of science, then science never 'proves' theories. It advances by falsification, not verification....all theories must be theoretically capable of falsification, and therefore none are ever conclusively 'proved', but have only provisional status.
For the record:
QUOTE: “The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship. ... Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.
“Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.
“On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...
“Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for todays most critical environmental problem.” ~ Kerry Emmanuel - MIT http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
QUOTE: “Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. Frankly, the very idea of consensus in such an immature and multi- faceted subject as climate change should be suspicious ab initio. Consensus is largely a propaganda claim designed to relieve ordinary people of the need to understand the issue. This is neither good for science nor for public policy. . “ ~ Richard S. Lindzed the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Vol.15, No. 2, Spring 1992
QUOTE: “..There are by now a few dozen such models in the world, but they are not entirely independent of one another, often sharing common pieces of computer code and common ancestors.” ~ K. Emmanuel MIT
QUOTE: “..The problem here is that many important processes are much smaller than these scales. For example, cumulus clouds in the atmosphere are critical for transferring heat and water upward and downward, but they are typically only a few miles across and so cannot be simulated by the climate models. ... there are not too many ways to test the model, and projections of future climates must necessarily involve a degree of faith. “ ~ K. Emmanuel MIT
QUOTE: “... all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.
“Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests.
“They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
“The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.
“It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”.... Freeman Dyson, (8/8/07) http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
QUOTE: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models” (Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office)
QUOTE: “The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable” (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)
QUOTE: “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.” ~ Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO of the Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute
That's the biggest oxymoron I have ever encountered.
Perhaps that's why I never read anything from Karl Popper.
...which was rather Popper's own position before trying to find a new conceptual framework for the subject. Popper does seem to have rather gone out of fashion since his death: but I do still find his analyses very refreshing for the critical faculties when confronted with some of the sloppy thinking in the climate change/global warming debate, among others.
I don’t find anything to disagree with in that article!