MIT Professor Richard Lindzen on Climate Sensitivity

David Berlinski, educated at Princeton is an American author and academic who opposes the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution. He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.


'The Devil's Delusion' author David Berlinski shares insight on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.' (also discusses the climate issues)

 
Nordberg said:
I never get the argument. If global warming is happening and man is a cause, we should clean up and try and save the planet. That is good.
Click to expand...
True. We (most western countries)have been doing a great job cleaning up since the '70's. So apparently cleaning up pollution has done nothing to stop GW. And if developing countries are still polluting 1. how do we stop them and 2. do we even try. Seems pointless to.
Nordberg said:
If we are wrong and man is not causing it, we will have a cleaner less polluted and safer world. No matter what the facts are, we will have less pollution and less health problems .

Not cleaning up, for whatever reasons you are believing, is not a correct answer, no matter what the science is.
Click to expand...
True again. But carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are the elixirs of life, not pollutants.
 
S #61

Thank you S.
I don't know which (if either) "side" you're on here.
But there may be a paradox you didn't anticipate.

I don't think Berlinski undermines ACC. To the contrary, the ostensibly science-based disagreement demonstrates that even now the issue is being actively debated, disputed.
 
sear said:
S #61

Thank you S.
I don't know which (if either) "side" you're on here.
But there may be a paradox you didn't anticipate.

I don't think Berlinski undermines ACC. To the contrary, the ostensibly science-based disagreement demonstrates that even now the issue is being actively debated, disputed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's up for intelligent dialogue and debate. Most scientific matters are. It is NOT a settled issue as the climate alarmists claim.
 
" It is NOT a settled issue as the climate alarmists claim. " S #65
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that matters.
Laymen don't understand how modern science works, or even the criterion for confidence.
In Newtonian physics, we can accurately predict outcomes.
In relativity, we can precisely calculate outcomes as well, but the math is more complicated than F=M*A
But with quantum physics, such predictability is luxury that can't be $bought. So there we deal in probabilities, Heisenberg, etc.

If there's a drinking glass on the dining table, but you're not sure if the liquid in it is apple cider, or gasoline, are you going to guzzle it, an hope for the best?
Or will you perform an impromptu risk to benefit calculation, and decide remaining thirsty a few moments longer isn't as bad as dying of ingesting 6 oz. of gasoline?

Perhaps the 97+% are just plain old flat out wrongety wrong wrong wrongo !!

So?

Let's do the risk to benefit calculation. Shall we?
If the consensus is just 100% plain old wrongety wrong wrong wrong, fine!
By expanding our renewable energy supply we've reduced pollution, saving many lives in the process.

$AND !!

We'll have left some petroleum for an extra generation or two.
Petroleum is extremely useful. We not only convert it into a variety of fuels.
We can also make plastic out of it, etc.

BUT !!

If we are significantly correct, we may have added a hundred generations, perhaps a thousand to human history.
Please bear in mind, 100 generations ago, J.C. strode the Earth. So this is no trivial contribution.

Windmills don't inconvenience me.
Living out my dotage in the shade of a palm tree North of the Arctic Circle, that would inconvenience me.

For you see S #65, scientists are puzzle solvers / problem solvers.

We've already done the risk to benefit calculation, based upon sound science, and reasonable probability. Awaiting irrefutable proof could cost the lives of a hundred billion humans or more.

They're not willing to take that risk. ARE YOU ?! And if you ARE willing to take that risk, for what gain?
 
sear said:
I'm not sure that matters.
Laymen don't understand how modern science works, or even the criterion for confidence.
In Newtonian physics, we can accurately predict outcomes.
In relativity, we can precisely calculate outcomes as well, but the math is more complicated than F=M*A
But with quantum physics, such predictability is luxury that can't be $bought. So there we deal in probabilities, Heisenberg, etc.

If there's a drinking glass on the dining table, but you're not sure if the liquid in it is apple cider, or gasoline, are you going to guzzle it, an hope for the best?
Or will you perform an impromptu risk to benefit calculation, and decide remaining thirsty a few moments longer isn't as bad as dying of ingesting 6 oz. of gasoline?

Perhaps the 97+% are just plain old flat out wrongety wrong wrong wrongo !!

So?

Let's do the risk to benefit calculation. Shall we?
If the consensus is just 100% plain old wrongety wrong wrong wrong, fine!
By expanding our renewable energy supply we've reduced pollution, saving many lives in the process.

$AND !!

We'll have left some petroleum for an extra generation or two.
Petroleum is extremely useful. We not only convert it into a variety of fuels.
We can also make plastic out of it, etc.

BUT !!

If we are significantly correct, we may have added a hundred generations, perhaps a thousand to human history.
Please bear in mind, 100 generations ago, J.C. strode the Earth. So this is no trivial contribution.

Windmills don't inconvenience me.
Living out my dotage in the shade of a palm tree North of the Arctic Circle, that would inconvenience me.

For you see S #65, scientists are puzzle solvers / problem solvers.

We've already done the risk to benefit calculation, based upon sound science, and reasonable probability. Awaiting irrefutable proof could cost the lives of a hundred billion humans or more.

They're not willing to take that risk. ARE YOU ?! And if you ARE willing to take that risk, for what gain?
Click to expand...

Thank-you.
For me, it's simpler. Man can't change the climate.
Don't litter.
Renew what you can renew.
Keep drilling for what's already been provided to us.
Earth is an oil-producing machine.
 
sear said:
I'm not sure that matters.
Laymen don't understand how modern science works, or even the criterion for confidence.
In Newtonian physics, we can accurately predict outcomes.
In relativity, we can precisely calculate outcomes as well, but the math is more complicated than F=M*A
But with quantum physics, such predictability is luxury that can't be $bought. So there we deal in probabilities, Heisenberg, etc.

If there's a drinking glass on the dining table, but you're not sure if the liquid in it is apple cider, or gasoline, are you going to guzzle it, an hope for the best?
Or will you perform an impromptu risk to benefit calculation, and decide remaining thirsty a few moments longer isn't as bad as dying of ingesting 6 oz. of gasoline?

Perhaps the 97+% are just plain old flat out wrongety wrong wrong wrongo !!

So?

Let's do the risk to benefit calculation. Shall we?
If the consensus is just 100% plain old wrongety wrong wrong wrong, fine!
By expanding our renewable energy supply we've reduced pollution, saving many lives in the process.

$AND !!

We'll have left some petroleum for an extra generation or two.
Petroleum is extremely useful. We not only convert it into a variety of fuels.
We can also make plastic out of it, etc.

BUT !!

If we are significantly correct, we may have added a hundred generations, perhaps a thousand to human history.
Please bear in mind, 100 generations ago, J.C. strode the Earth. So this is no trivial contribution.

Windmills don't inconvenience me.
Living out my dotage in the shade of a palm tree North of the Arctic Circle, that would inconvenience me.

For you see S #65, scientists are puzzle solvers / problem solvers.

We've already done the risk to benefit calculation, based upon sound science, and reasonable probability. Awaiting irrefutable proof could cost the lives of a hundred billion humans or more.

They're not willing to take that risk. ARE YOU ?! And if you ARE willing to take that risk, for what gain?
Click to expand...

God almighty, that's some pretty powerful acid you're taking.
 
"Earth is an oil-producing machine." S #70
Click to expand...
Indeed.

BUT !!

That capacity is far from infinite.

- One such limitation, the raw material for petroleum is former life. And that life slowly gathered the energy petroleum contains, gathered it from sunlight. If sunlight were enough, we could just put a photo-voltaic (PV) system on the roof, and meet all our energy needs. It's not that simple.

- That former life, over geological time periods, is converted to petroleum.

One or two humans couldn't keep up with Earth's petroleum production rate.
But there are many orders of magnitude more than one or two humans. And we're consuming petroleum at a rate faster than Earth can replace it.
And due to the way humans use Earth's surface, the rate at which petroleum is being produced may have dropped substantially.

Though you haven't said so explicitly, it is a mistake to think of petroleum as an inexhaustible resource. It surely is not at the rate humans have consumed it in the new millennium.
"Man can't change the climate." S #70
Click to expand...
So many a layman might imagine, without intensive study and training.

BUT !!

Those that have done the study, obtained the training, and devoted their professional lives to it assert otherwise.
It is unwise to reflexively disagree, without a rational reason to do so.
"Man can't change the climate." S #70
Click to expand...
Saturday I was car shopping. The two automobiles I checked each were rated to add over 6 tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year.
Multiply that by the number of cars on the planet,
then add all the commercial power plants
add all the fire places, wood-burning stoves, and furnaces
all the off road vehicles, the bulldozers, the graders, the track-hoes
the farm equipment, tractors, harvesters
the chain saws, lawn mowers, etc
and the affects of Earth's 7,000,000,000+ population begins to add up.
"Man can't change the climate." S #70
Click to expand...
You directly contradict the scientific consensus, ignorantly apparently.
"God almighty, that's some pretty powerful acid you're taking." HM #71
Click to expand...
Ah, ad hom.
The refuge of the out-classed.

s #66 is a constructive panorama of ACC in cultural context.
If there were ONE factual error, you could quote it, correct it, and expose me for posting false information.

Your #71 doesn't address the content of my post. Your #71 addresses me, accusing me of "taking" "acid".
When you have something of substance to contribute, please do.
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something. -- Plato
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top