Comments on: The adaptation trap and the nonskeptical delayers (like Roger Pielke) — Part 1 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:48:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10285 Robert Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:00:21 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10285 Paul My interest started with peak oil in2003, this spread to the wider (un)sustainability issue of our entire civilisation, which has been built on the basis of gobbling up global resources at an exponentially increasing rate with no thought wahtsoever for what happens when they run out. I have read books by Heinberg, Kunstler, Monbiot, Jared Diamind and others and follow sites such as http://www.energybulletin.net/ and http://www.theoildrum.com/ I have a particular interest in AGW and think the IPCC if anything are guilty of understating the case. My views are more in line with James Hansen http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ The IPCC tend to understate the case because the positive feedbacks are not well understood and they cannot gain consensus without being conservative, whereas Hansen expects these feedbacks to accelerate the process and to cross irreversible tipping points as we do so. Peak Oil has the greatest following in the US and I think this is because they realise they will be hardest hit and soonest. This is because they consume so much, import 2/3 of it and have a built an infrastructure that depends so heavily on it. My sympathy for the Peak Oil camp has diminished greatly because it is centred around the selfish needs of a particular segment of the current generation. Conversely AGW will chiefly affect future generations and the rich can buy their way out of the problem, at least for a while. This makes it a much easier problem for the US to ignore and deny. At a personal level I have installed a wood burner so that we no longer require gas C/H, full wall and roof insulation, CFL's throughout, clothes drying by line in summer and in front of the wood burner in winter, putting PCs in standby or off whenever possible. It is quite hard work but shows how much can be achieved fairly easily. My wife and I work from home so use cars very little and I work on my client's systems (software development) remotely. Joe - sorry. This was maybe an overreaction spawned from my experience on the BBC message boards where anyone who refuses to tow the party line has their posts instantly removed and their accounts cancelled! Paul

My interest started with peak oil in2003, this spread to the wider (un)sustainability issue of our entire civilisation, which has been built on the basis of gobbling up global resources at an exponentially increasing rate with no thought wahtsoever for what happens when they run out. I have read books by Heinberg, Kunstler, Monbiot, Jared Diamind and others and follow sites such as http://www.energybulletin.net/ and http://www.theoildrum.com/

I have a particular interest in AGW and think the IPCC if anything are guilty of understating the case. My views are more in line with James Hansen http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ The IPCC tend to understate the case because the positive feedbacks are not well understood and they cannot gain consensus without being conservative, whereas Hansen expects these feedbacks to accelerate the process and to cross irreversible tipping points as we do so.

Peak Oil has the greatest following in the US and I think this is because they realise they will be hardest hit and soonest. This is because they consume so much, import 2/3 of it and have a built an infrastructure that depends so heavily on it. My sympathy for the Peak Oil camp has diminished greatly because it is centred around the selfish needs of a particular segment of the current generation. Conversely AGW will chiefly affect future generations and the rich can buy their way out of the problem, at least for a while. This makes it a much easier problem for the US to ignore and deny.

At a personal level I have installed a wood burner so that we no longer require gas C/H, full wall and roof insulation, CFL’s throughout, clothes drying by line in summer and in front of the wood burner in winter, putting PCs in standby or off whenever possible. It is quite hard work but shows how much can be achieved fairly easily. My wife and I work from home so use cars very little and I work on my client’s systems (software development) remotely.

Joe – sorry. This was maybe an overreaction spawned from my experience on the BBC message boards where anyone who refuses to tow the party line has their posts instantly removed and their accounts cancelled!

]]> By: Paul K http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10278 Paul K Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:44:48 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10278 Robert, I can't speak for Earl, but assure you he is one of the better global thinkers on electricity. Best of all he walks the walk and so, from your comments, do you. You wrote "My wife and children have absolutely no interest in climate change or energy". Did you believe in AGW at the time? If not , what is your view of it now? If you did believe but it did not factor in your decision, what was the more important consideration? I have been saying there are other perhaps more compelling reasons than AGW to eliminate fossil fuels. It is apparent you are neither a denier nor a delayer. In fact you are ahead of the curve and I thank you for illustrating my point. Robert,
I can’t speak for Earl, but assure you he is one of the better global thinkers on electricity. Best of all he walks the walk and so, from your comments, do you. You wrote “My wife and children have absolutely no interest in climate change or energy”. Did you believe in AGW at the time? If not , what is your view of it now? If you did believe but it did not factor in your decision, what was the more important consideration? I have been saying there are other perhaps more compelling reasons than AGW to eliminate fossil fuels. It is apparent you are neither a denier nor a delayer. In fact you are ahead of the curve and I thank you for illustrating my point.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10276 Patrick49 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:44:43 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10276 Mr. Benson, What are your oceanographers saying about the 3,000 Argo monitors that have not found evidence that the oceans are warming? Have you checked lately? And did you really mean that hundreds of thousands of career scientists are global warming advocates, haven't seen that number before, any verifiable source? Since Joe has deemed my comments and questions unworthy of posting and a waste of his readers' time He would probably deny any effort to discuss your three assertions about CO2 causing global warming since that was the point of the comments He refused. Mr. Benson,
What are your oceanographers saying about the 3,000 Argo monitors that have not found evidence that the oceans are warming? Have you checked lately? And did you really mean that hundreds of thousands of career scientists are global warming advocates, haven’t seen that number before, any verifiable source? Since Joe has deemed my comments and questions unworthy of posting and a waste of his readers’ time He would probably deny any effort to discuss your three assertions about CO2 causing global warming since that was the point of the comments He refused.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10274 Patrick49 Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:10:24 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10274 Joe, Not debunked and not all the posters on your various threads are acolytes of what Professor Lindzen refers to the religion of global warming. There are any number of scientists who are not convinced by those who claim to be the only source of what is to be debated, discussed and believed. Are you unable to answer the three rather basic question or simply avoiding a reasoned debate that would probably raise issues that you prefer to bury? Joe,
Not debunked and not all the posters on your various threads are acolytes of what Professor Lindzen refers to the religion of global warming. There are any number of scientists who are not convinced by those who claim to be the only source of what is to be debated, discussed and believed. Are you unable to answer the three rather basic question or simply avoiding a reasoned debate that would probably raise issues that you prefer to bury?

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10268 Joe Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:44:55 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10268 Mellow out, Robert. WordPress automatically holds any post for moderation with multiple links because such posts are more likely to be spam. I was eating dinner and didn't get to post it yet. Jeez. And yes, I'll accept an apology. Patrick -- you keep running the same long-debunked disinformation, and, as noted earlier, I'm not gonna waste my readers' time with it. Mellow out, Robert.

WordPress automatically holds any post for moderation with multiple links because such posts are more likely to be spam.

I was eating dinner and didn’t get to post it yet. Jeez.
And yes, I’ll accept an apology.

Patrick — you keep running the same long-debunked disinformation, and, as noted earlier, I’m not gonna waste my readers’ time with it.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10267 Robert Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:29:01 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10267 ****************************************************** Robert Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. March 31st, 2008 at 6:22 pm ****************************************************** Excuse me, what the xxxx is the moderation shite about? I am not a Bushite global warming denier. I care greatly about CO2 emissions and despair of all the non-solutions that are toted round the internet. Sorry if Joe sees this as a threat to his book sales. ******************************************************
Robert Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 31st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
******************************************************
Excuse me, what the xxxx is the moderation shite about?

I am not a Bushite global warming denier. I care greatly about CO2 emissions and despair of all the non-solutions that are toted round the internet. Sorry if Joe sees this as a threat to his book sales.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10266 David B. Benson Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:38:46 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10266 Patrick49 --- First go read the established science. Start with http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ if you need to, and then read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html The whole thing. If you still have doubts, be sure yoou understand how science provides the best information about how the universe actually works, not how we might want it to. You might wish to begin with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method After all that, I am sure that you and I can find another blog to mind-wrestle if you actually still think you know more about it than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who, as there career, study climate and related matters such as oceanography, etc. Patrick49 — First go read the established science. Start with

http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2007/ 05/ start-here/

if you need to, and then read

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

The whole thing. If you still have doubts, be sure yoou understand how science provides the best information about how the universe actually works, not how we might want it to. You might wish to begin with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

After all that, I am sure that you and I can find another blog to mind-wrestle if you actually still think you know more about it than the hundreds of thousands of scientists who, as there career, study climate and related matters such as oceanography, etc.

]]> By: Patrick49 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10264 Patrick49 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:49:35 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10264 Mr. Benson, Joe has deleted at least two posts of my posts which provide data and question your and his assertions about CO2. Ask Joe to restore the posts and perhaps you can answer the questions raised. Then a discussion can commence in a reasonable manner. Mr. Benson,
Joe has deleted at least two posts of my posts which provide data and question your and his assertions about CO2. Ask Joe to restore the posts and perhaps you can answer the questions raised. Then a discussion can commence in a reasonable manner.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10263 David B. Benson Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:40:59 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10263 PATRICK49 wrote "...the lack of evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming." (1) CO2 is a global warming (so-called greenhouse) gas. Established physical fact for at least 150 years now. (2) More CO2, more warming. Established physical fact for at least 100 years now. (3) CO2 increasing in the air. Established physcial fact for 50 years now. PATRICK49 wrote “…the lack of evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming.”

(1) CO2 is a global warming (so-called greenhouse) gas. Established physical fact for at least 150 years now.

(2) More CO2, more warming. Established physical fact for at least 100 years now.

(3) CO2 increasing in the air. Established physcial fact for 50 years now.

]]> By: Robert http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/adaptation-trap-and-nonskeptical-deniers-roger-pielke-1/#comment-10259 Robert Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:22:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/03/28/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/#comment-10259 Earl and Paul - I just think your whole view of the subject is too focussed on some relatively minor politicking in a few parts of the US. How can you take Califonia seriously when its govenor drives a fleet of Hummers and washing lines are banned? http://www.bp.com/multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=9017892&contentId=7033503 "Nearly every one of California’s 35,000 home-owner associations have ruled against clothes lines, according to an anti-nuclear, nonprofit organisation called Project Laundry List. " For a view of the global picture the annual BP energy review is a good place to start: http://www.bp.com/multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=9017892&contentId=7033503 If you flick through the "compressed slide pack" the long term global trends are very obvious and all heading smoothly in the wrong direction - upwards. It would take WW3 to turn it around (in my humble opinion of course...) A couple of years ago I began what turned out to be an interesting social experiment on a domestic scale. By making various changes to our household arrangments I have managed to cut our electricity consumption to 60% and our gas to 35% of where it was 2 years ago. My wife and children have absolutely no interest in climate change or energy, so this all had to be achieved without noticably impacting anyone's lifestyle. Conclusion - a lot can be done, but I'm starting to feel like a mug and about to give up because the rest of the world refuse to take the issue on board and make the same level of effort. I see far less signs of this happening in the UK now than a couple of years ago. Earl and Paul – I just think your whole view of the subject is too focussed on some relatively minor politicking in a few parts of the US. How can you take Califonia seriously when its govenor drives a fleet of Hummers and washing lines are banned? http://www.bp.com/ multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=9017892&contentId=7033503

“Nearly every one of California’s 35,000 home-owner associations have ruled against clothes lines, according to an anti-nuclear, nonprofit organisation called Project Laundry List. ”

For a view of the global picture the annual BP energy review is a good place to start: http://www.bp.com/ multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=9017892&contentId=7033503 If you flick through the “compressed slide pack” the long term global trends are very obvious and all heading smoothly in the wrong direction – upwards. It would take WW3 to turn it around (in my humble opinion of course…)

A couple of years ago I began what turned out to be an interesting social experiment on a domestic scale. By making various changes to our household arrangments I have managed to cut our electricity consumption to 60% and our gas to 35% of where it was 2 years ago. My wife and children have absolutely no interest in climate change or energy, so this all had to be achieved without noticably impacting anyone’s lifestyle. Conclusion – a lot can be done, but I’m starting to feel like a mug and about to give up because the rest of the world refuse to take the issue on board and make the same level of effort. I see far less signs of this happening in the UK now than a couple of years ago.

]]>