Comments on: Chill Out — An economic triage for global climate change

By: GoneWithTheWind

GoneWithTheWind — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:45:30 +0000

So what caused the global warming of the 11th century. By all the evidence it was a LOT warmer then this one is. This is the 33rd naturally occurring global warming since the last ice age. It will be followed by the 33rd natural global cooling. The global warming periods are extremely friendly to humans and most animals. For better or worse we have 6.5 billion humans vying for food. When the next global cooling happens we will be unable to grow enough food for everyone and a lot of people must die. Do not “fear” global warming it is a good thing, it is natural and you can’t make it worse or better no matter how much fossil fuel you use. Beware the next Maunder Minimum.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:29:29 +0000

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.

Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.

The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

You can not put coal through a pipeline and nuclear power is expensive.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:28:50 +0000

Max;
Also, the medieval warming period was global.

Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data

By: Max

Max — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:56:11 +0000

Just because Greenland was warmer, doesn’t mean the planet was warmer.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:34:30 +0000

Max;
This is not so complicated.

There are Vikings buried by other Vikings in the permafrost in Greenland.
The permafrost was not disturbed since it froze.
It was not frozen when they were buried.
I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.

This hapened hundereds of years before the Industrial Revolution.

The ironic thing is that this evidence of the medieval warming period is in a museum in Copenhagen.

The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland

By: Max

Max — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:05:57 +0000

And lest you think that 84% is small

“87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection.”

By: Max

Max — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:02:06 +0000

I guess you haven’t met many scientists.

Pew Poll
http://people-press.org/report/528/

“While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.”

By: TheAnalyst

TheAnalyst — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:34:17 +0000

“Max”, your false assumption exists with the fact that you espouse a divide between AGW Believers, vs. AGW Skeptics, in that you tout AGW Believers as representative of the “Scientists”, while the AGW Skeptics are not. You could not be further from the truth in this assumption, and quite to the contrary, I have NEVER come across a serious scientist yet who has been willing to equate observed effects to Anthropogenic origins. The so called “Scientists” who continually espouse AGW alarmism, and jump to its popular conclusions, are in fact ACTIVISTS who have sold out their integrity and investigate processes for a bandwagon hopping existence.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:02:45 +0000

Max;
I would not need extraordinary evidence. I would simply have to tell other people how to do it and let them reproduce my results by themselves. If they can then it’s out with the old gravity theory. If they can’t then it is out with my theory. Is really that simple.

That is how science works. It only takes one wrong to disprove a theory. If the light from that star had not been deflected by that solar eclipse then that would have been the end of the theory of relativity. Yep, just like that, it is wrong, let’s move on….

It only takes one wrong outcome to disprove a theory.

By: Max

Max — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 02:20:22 +0000

Let’s say the data continues:
9 20 11 12 13

You might conclude that the data has a linear trend with outliers. You could predict with some confidence that the 100th number will be around 100.
If you can predict outliers, then they’re not outliers. If you reject every theory that can’t explain everything, you’ll be left with no theories and no science.

“If I could find or construct an element that had mass and was not affected by gravity, then that would immediately disprove the current theory of gravity.”

First, you’d have to present extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claim. And even if you do, then what? We immediately throw out the current theory of gravity and everything that relies on it? No, we try to improve the current theory while looking for a better alternative.