US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Name one scientific institution or professional society that endorses that assertion.

Why would there be be need to do this? Such institutions and societies can be wrong. Even physicians were wrong about hand washing between patient examinations. This was not common practice until the 1840's. Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered by simple observation that handwashing between patient examinations reduced patient mortality. Germ theory was not known at the time. Most physicians were resistant to Semmelweis' annoying idea. It was quite an insult to suggest to educated professional that he has dirty hands.



The power of climate change establishment is so strong, that they are able to beat institutions and societies into submission. Politicians do not dare oppose the climate mob for fear of the media who are sure to destroy their career. A former US President suffered such abuse for taking the country out of the Paris Accord. And in his term the economy flourished while CO2 emissions actually decreased. In case you have not noticed, this is the new inquisition. It is both visible and subtle. Anyone who publicly disagrees is made to suffer in some way, whether by ridicule, career impediment, or some other form of punishment.



It seems that resistance to this modern inquisition is no longer alive within institutions and professional societies due to the politics of punishment. As I've indicated before, climate change is a political movement, not a matter of science. Resistance to the inquisition has been relegated to individuals and informal groups, as organizations have been unable to combat the bombardment of opposition.


A more modern matter is the idea that tobacco smoke is unhealthy. Those who challenged the society of the day on smoking faced quite a battle, but they eventually were vindicated.



In science, it is entirely possible for huge numbers of people to be wrong about a matter, and for only one or a few to be right. This is how it was for Galileo for example with his bold discoveries on gravity. There was a time when one would have been ostracized for believing that the world is a sphere because everybody else "knew" that it was flat. In the 16th century, Copernicus made the bold announcement that we live in a heliocentric solar system against strong opposition by the society of the day.


If you were able to travel to North Korea and ask any well educated man who might belong to a professional society his opinion of the President of his country, you would most certainly receive a formal answer that highly praised the dear supreme leader. But if you had opportunity to befriend the same man and gain his trust, you might receive a much different answer. Such is the way with climate change in the "free world".


Getting back to the question, my answer is only another question. What would it matter what the official position of a formal group is on such a matter as climate change? This has no effect on the truth of the matter. If one were to ask individuals within a formal group privately, one might discover that some have a view that differs with the official position of that group.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Name one scientific institution or professional society that endorses that assertion.

I have and as per usual you browbeat against them ..well time is not kind to those proven wrong .

How about the heartland institute. Or the global warming policy foundation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

I've put Dieseldude on ignore. I can't stand his irrational ranting.

Now that's really an adult thing to do .

Don't like what someone types then put them on ignore fine . No need virtue signal . Just ignore them .

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Um "impossible to afford" is not a cost - it is an opinion bereft of fact. From wikipedia's entry on carbon capture: "As of 2018 a carbon price of at least 100 euros per tonne CO2 was estimated to make industrial CCS viable[64] together with carbon tariffs.[65]" (references can be found in wikipedia entry)

It is actually about $1200 per ton for direct air carbon capture. Industrial capture makes no sense in this context as the plane itself is emitting into the air: you would have to capture that.

You must also factor in the cost of producing the aircraft, the cost of causing emissions. The cost of consuming a resource even if you do capture it: it is still consumed and this deprives future generations, so it should be taxed somehow.

You did not even consider the emissions of extraction, refining and transporting the fuel which is very significant. Your estimation of carbon capture cost is a tiny fraction of the real cost. You are not considering the emissions of the super alloys in the engine, nor the cost the producing the plane itself.

Also consider all of the emissions of the oil workers and the lifestyles they lead. This begins to blow your estimations out of proportion really.

There is also considerable cost of the land devoted to airports and runways. There is considerable land used to grow rubber trees for the tires. There is more cost supporting the air-traffic control which is not considered at all as the government unfairly covers this at the expense of everyone.

If you factor all of this in, a cross-country trip will cost $15,000 to $20,000 per passenger.

In a world with zero emissions and equitable income, the average income for a full time worker will range from $3000 to $10,000 per year. This is actually being quite generous. It is unclear if this level of income is actually possible to achieve. You are maybe used to having a much higher income than this, but it is at the expense of the world's poor, creating conflicts around the world and stealing resources as well as significant carbon emissions that are not sequestered.

Consider that in countries without significant carbon emissions typical income is < $1000 per year. They put westerners in those jobs for a documentary (in more than 10 different scenarios) and they were unable to earn the $2-3 per day in most cases and unable to buy enough food to survive because the work was too difficult and they just couldn't do what the locals did every day even trying their hardest their output was less than half in most cases. I will remind you that 85% of the world has never flown in an aircraft, and this is not even a zero emissions world.

To my eye, that is nowhere near "impossible to afford". It is expensive, and a good number of people who currently fly would decide it is not worth it, but as I have previously

said, it has to be paid for. If these numbers are anywhere near correct (I welcome corrections from knowledgeable readers) that would be a lot easier to implement than gliders.

Your figures are just way off. How are you going to spend 5 years of income to fly for 3 hours?

Consider this is a zero emissions world, where the highest-paid person makes 10x the lowest paid. If you want to save for years in a high paying job to fly once, then its possible, but generally speaking: no one can afford it.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

In a nut shell, it was first introduced in a big way by Margaret Thatcher in the mid 1980's as a means to break the striking coal miners' union. She demonized coal and promoted nuclear to threaten the miners. What we are suffering now the expanded legacy of the original lies.

Yes folks, here you have it - the vast, left-wing climate gate conspiracy includes Margaret Thatcher. These people truly are evil geniuses. To have sent in the Iron Lady as a mole would make Dr. Evil proud.

I will ask again - are these posters real? Is anyone that unmoored from reality to actually believe this stuff?

[Bycrick]

A few comments on several recent posts. LE will just have to figure out which ones.

LS — I think you might be being a little too sensitive. For example, you commented about "one question" in the Maersk discussion. I said there were probably more. But no reason you should feel that you missed something in your comment. Supposedly a conversation is when each side adds different thoughts as things progress. In any case, you’re forgiven.

As to the question of whether hypocrites are good sources of quotes just because one agrees with them, we will just have to live on opposite sides. I think telling everybody else what to do while doing the opposite disqualifies one from being thought a moral leader. Hence my general dislike of politicians.

And, following up on your comments about "why" and "how" Maersk might have reached their decision, there was an article in Fast Company today about how few of the companies that have loudly trumpeted their plans, promises, pledges, proposals, etc. supporting saving the world, have actually met any of them. Hence my belief that most of the conferences, pledges and statements are public relations puff pieces and not to be taken seriously. And largely repeated in the media to try and make it appear that there’s more support for the positions than there really is.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have and as per usual you browbeat against them ..well time is not kind to those proven wrong .

How about the heartland institute. Or the global warming policy foundation .

Heartland is a tobacco and fossil fuel lobby.

GWPF is also a lobby.

Neither are scientific institutions.

Time is not kind to you.

[Bycrick]

Jackdale keeps pushing the idea that lots of people believe something so it must true. And if the believers call themselves scientists, then the belief must be science. And if there’s lots of believers, that everybody else should agree. And anybody that calls themself a scientist but doesn’t agree is a quack. He can always find a thousand quick links to cut and paste that must prove his positions because there’s so many of them.

Sort of like the old joke about the TV salesman who’s pitch supposedly was "Our prices are so cheap, we lose money on every sale. How do we stay in business? Volume."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Jackdale keeps pushing the idea that lots of people believe something so it must true.

If the climate science paradigm is in dispute, then at least one scientific institution or professional society would be on the record as saying so.

Belief is for religion. Science is based on evidence, the overwhelming body of evidence supports support that paradigm.

There are no natural forcings that can explain the current warming. The correlation of CO2 and temperature is well understood and as is the mechanism of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Thomas Kuhn, a physicist, has a superb discussion of of the role of scientific consensus in scientific paradigms. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions should be required reading for anyone interested in how science progresses. My copy from grad school is still on my bookshelf.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Yes folks, here you have it - the vast, left-wing climate gate conspiracy includes Margaret Thatcher. These people truly are evil geniuses. To have sent in the Iron Lady as a mole would make Dr. Evil proud.

I will ask again - are these posters real? Is anyone that unmoored from reality to actually believe this stuff?

What makes that claim really funny is the fact that "Lord" Monckton asserts that he was Margaret Thatcher's science advisor.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Heartland is a tobacco and fossil fuel lobby.

GWPF is also a lobby.

Neither are scientific institutions.

Time is not kind to you.

The IPPC is not a scientific institution either. They are part of the political institution, the UN. In effect they contract science related research to other institutions. And of course whomever pays the piper names the tune to be played. The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been one of the IPPC's major contributers. And their climategate scandal is well known to anyone who has even a slight interest, though most people in the general public know nothing about it. This reflects the complacency of big media. Bottom line is that the IPPC is just too corrupt to have any credibility. If the Heartland Institute is criticized, the UN and its IPPC must also face scrutiny.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Now that's really an adult thing to do .

Don't like what someone types then put them on ignore fine . No need virtue signal . Just ignore them .

Good, bcboomr will be one less item of junk mail for me to delete. I need to pare this down anyway. Too many contrary type to deal with. I have better things to do than try to break through steel plated skulls with logic and reason.

[Ericson38]

There is the IPCC model (the predictor of things in the future), then there is the data.


The current UAH satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset shows the air temperature pause has lengthened to 7 years 5 months.

If you were to seed the current version (in its several forms) of the IPCC climate model with the actual 2015 starting point conditions and actual C02 levels, then run the model forward (with the C02 level increases), the results would not put the temperature at the same point as in 2015 where one started. This would be impossible with the model. But this is where we are.

NOAA tide gages in US West Coast show no significant changes in sea level rates for 110 years based on data. If the water level rate was increasing, but is hidden by the tide gages, then the earth's crust would have to rise up in unison to hide it.

The sea level rate increase was 1st detected in the 1870s (90% probable) based on tide gage data. This is before the C02 craze. What caused this?

This is right after the end of the LIA-

The 6th report of the IPCC describes the coldest period in the last millennium as:[24]
"...a multi-centennial period of relatively low temperature beginning around the 15th century, with GMST averaging –0.03 [–0.30 to 0.06] °C between 1450 and 1850 relative to 1850–1900."

From LIA to sea level rise by 1870 ? Why ? Not C02, but a big change none the less.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Heartland is a tobacco and fossil fuel lobby.

GWPF is also a lobby.

Neither are scientific institutions.

Time is not kind to you.

My point proven once again .

[newhaul]

Once again the goremons are in session