Comments on: Climate change deniers: right-wing fruitcakes or well-reasoned logicians?

By: tprobert@pennwell.com

tprobert@pennwell.com — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:55:33 +0000

Or, perhaps, vice versa if the flat-earthers have their way.

By: C guzman

C guzman — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:02:54 +0000

“If the US leads, China will follow.” Nobelist and prize winner film maker Al Gore
So not to worry mate. Al said it. Follow him

By: tprobert@pennwell.com

tprobert@pennwell.com — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 07:25:03 +0000

Not sure I buy the ‘clean coal is inefficient therefore we shouldn’t bother’ argument. The IEA projects IGCC + CCS efficiency at 50-55%, which is 15-20% higher than the average efficiency of the existing US coal fired fleet and a significant improvement over even the most advanced supercritical plant.

China will go big for IGCC and anyone betting against them bringing down the cost is a brave man.

By: Pete Ulvog

Pete Ulvog — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:28:18 +0000

Actually it appears that CO2 increases follows global warming, not the other way around. I am a big advocate of prudent use of our resources which requires increased efficiency. All of this Anthropogenic Global Warming “solutions” do nothing to improve efficiency and in fact cause much worse efficiency besides further bloating the government regulators. Look what CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) will do the efficiency of the average fossil power plant - cut the output by 30% or more. If NSR (New Source Review) and massive restrictions on new plants weren’t hanging over power companies’ heads, they would have already modernized many plants and replaced others. I have no problem with holding the line on emissions or even reducing them but the rush to lower efficiency is backwards thinking.

By: Mike George

Mike George — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:53:20 +0000

I wonder if any of these climate change skeptics can honestly name a single peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal to support the denier hypotheses. I think not. We’re all entitled to our personal opinions and jaded by our own biases, but the body of scientific evidence is in . . . and like it or not, climate change is very real; its causes well established (if not entirely understood) by the vast majority scientist around the globe.

When your doctor advises you quit smoking cigarettes, that smoking causes cancer, heart disease and a host of other potential threats to your health and wellbeing, who are you going to believe? Your family physician or tobacco industry funded studies that claim there’s no connection?

By: C guzman

C guzman — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:40:28 +0000

Sunspot activity has been declining since 1992. New measurements validate previous ones.
Similar low sunspot activityoccurred during the so called Maunder Minimum when the earths’s temperature dropped significantly. The information can be found in recent publications of EOS magazine of the American Geophysical Union.

Anthropogenic factors may not suprescede astronomical ones.
Let us keep in mind that much money is at stake for those who make a living of climate cahnge issue including Nobelist Gore.

By the way, which of the twenty or so climate models or combinations thereof should we use? The models fail to predict the temp distribution measured in the past. What makes us so sure that the models can predict the future?
Cloud cover is an important factor that impacts the models but is not well understood.
Observations>>>model>>prediction>>>fit prediction? NO? wrong model back to the drawing board.
Watch the Sun baby.

By: Marty Hall

Marty Hall — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:59:31 +0000

I recently sent this note to my two US Senators asking them to vote against Cap and Trade.
\"The so called \"case is closed\" science that Al Gore et al utilize with their ridiculous castigation of CO2 in their Global Warming BS extravaganza is a bunch of garbage! Please stop voting based on popular opinion wind direction, and, for the sake of the country\’s future, vote instead based on common sense and good conscience!
I encourage you to do the same.

By: Martin Tampier

Martin Tampier — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:32:57 +0000

The problem is, while you may have found hidden motives for those who mentioned, there are many out there, including many scientists, where those hidden motives will be extremely hard to find or, in other words, they have none. I don’t think denigrating the naysayers is very helpful. As long as the science is not clear (and the critics really have some good scientific arguments), a war of words will not move us forward. Rather, better science is needed to settle this ongoing discussion.

By: joshua rosenfeld

joshua rosenfeld — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:17:43 +0000

Let’s not forget the 31,000 scientists who haven’t drunk the AGW Cool-Aid (Google or Bing “Heartland Institute”) The “big lie” is really working here; i.e. if a lie is broadcast often enough it will be believed, especially when academic scientists are co-opted by grant money to justify this foregone conclusion while Chicken Little politicos and their financial backers see an economic opportunity to commercialize vaporous carbon credits.

By: Ralph Horton

Ralph Horton — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:03:22 +0000

Anyone who drives a car/truck, powerboat, rides a train/plane, operates a gas powered lawnmower, power tools, has an air conditioned home, watches TV, etc. has a vested interest in the AGW debate! I don’t know about those mentioned by Mr. Probert, but I don’t accept AGW for one simple reason - I’ve never seen any data that indicates that recent temperatures are any higher than those experienced in the past (Greenland was certainly greener and warmer during the time of the Vikings, for example). Presumably, Mr. Probert is in the AGW camp and believes that the U.S. must use environmental taxes and regulations to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. News Flash: It won’t make any difference world-wide. China, India, and other parts of the developing world will guarantee - yes guarantee - that carbon dioxide levels will increase for the foreseeable future. The U.S., by dramatically reducing its use of fossil fuels which essentially increases the supply, would ensure that globally, fossil fuels would remain the lowest cost option for transportaion and power generation needs.