Scientists declare climate claims irrational

[The Green Barbarian]

You challenged my assertion, for which I *had* provided evidence.

Where?

[Jlabute]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/ ... rming.html

There was an 18 year pause until this year when data was adjusted.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-n ... l-warming/

[I Think]

There was no pause, during the time when atmospheric temps rose more slowly, the oceans were continuing to get warmer apace, glaciers continued to recede and Exxon executives kept trying to deny it so they could just keep trashing the planet to make profits. Unfortunately some of the twerps here have fallen for the Exxon/Kochs trash hook line and sinker.
Unfortunately they are too dumb to realize they are being had.

[highway001]

We can continue to support the catastrophe narrative because, "golly gee, we don't really understand the science, but there's this consensus so the science must be settled". Or we can take a long, hard look at how the wheels are falling off that bandwagon.

We might want to figure out whether we've been listening to scientists or to the interpretations of idealogues, policy makers and politicians.

We blithely adopt one green strategy after another because there's so little consequence for our society in supporting the catastrophe narrative. It's easy to ignore the far greater consequences for those in a position of hardship.

Our indifference to them, to their hardship, speaks for itself.

Is this hardship necessary? We owe it to those we're inflicting hardship on to get this right.

Your narrative on the hardship of others is a little one sided Id say. Since when has the current energy system ie: fossil fuels been particularly kind to the have nots? Most of the middle east and africa have been pillaged of resources while leaving local economies and people far worse off.

Now thats not to say that one wrongdoing begets a green revolution that equally alienates the worlds most vulnerable.

Projects such as: Solar city or Solektra (which aims to provide electricity to 600 million people in Africa...which oddly recieved no press or fan fare when launched this week) are exciting innovations which help the world's most vulnerable as well as the environment.

Rustled I understand your point yet the status quo is a bleak situation which provides no solutions. Innovation in green technology does.

The World Bank even stated that "Green Energy is the solution to poverty, not coal" in a recent article (July 2015)

In a rebuff to coal, oil and gas companies, Rachel Kyte, the World Bank climate change envoy, said continued use of coal was exacting a heavy cost on some of the world’s poorest countries, in local health impacts as well as climate change, which is imposing even graver consequences on the developing world.

“In general globally we need to wean ourselves off coal,” Kyte told an event in Washington hosted by the New Republic and the Center for American Progress. “There is a huge social cost to coal and a huge social cost to fossil fuels … if you want to be able to breathe clean air.”

Coal, oil and gas companies have pushed back against efforts to fight climate change by arguing fossil fuels are a cure to “energy poverty”, which is holding back developing countries.

Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest privately held coal company, went so far as to claim that coal would have prevented the spread of the Ebola virus.

However, Kyte said that when it came to lifting countries out of poverty, coal was part of the problem – and not part of a broader solution.

“Do I think coal is the solution to poverty? There are more than 1 billion people today who have no access to energy,” Kyte said. Hooking them up to a coal-fired grid would not on its own wreck the planet, she went on.

But Kyte added: “If they all had access to coal-fired power tomorrow their respiratory illness rates would go up, etc, etc … We need to extend access to energy to the poor and we need to do it the cleanest way possible because the social costs of coal are uncounted and damaging, just as the global emissions count is damaging as well.”

The World Bank sees climate change as a driver of poverty, threatening decades of development.

The international lender has strongly backed efforts to reach a deal in Paris at the end of the year that would limit warming to a rise of 2C (3.6F).

However, even that deal would not do enough to avoid severe consequences for some of the world’s poorest countries, Kyte said.

“Two degrees is not benign,” she said. “It is where we put the line in the sand.”

[Jlabute]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-government-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming.html

There was an 18 year pause until this year when data was adjusted.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-n ... l-warming/

Apparently NOAA has been subpoenaed by the US government to show their data but NOAA is refusing. They altered data from 3000 buoys. Now, their data is inconsistent with hadsst now. NOAA is in the largest coverup since climate gate. There was a pause until NOAA released "revised" data... as they said

[rustled]

Your narrative on the hardship of others is a little one sided Id say. Since when has the current energy system ie: fossil fuels been particularly kind to the have nots? Most of the middle east and africa have been pillaged of resources while leaving local economies and people far worse off.

Maintaining the status quo has never been my objective, highway001.

My objection has always been, and continues to be, the wasteful, insensitive and counterproductive ways we use our resources.

Here in the West, we are busy augmenting and replacing the relatively clean, relatively inexpensive power we already enjoy with "greener" energies, some of which have proven ridiculously destructive to the environment, and too many of which have had repercussions for the poor, as the case in Germany illustrates. The re-introduction of wood-burning there should be a warning bell to us.

Meanwhile, the massive amount of money we have spent on our follies could have been used to provide smaller-scale source-to-user energies for those who still rely on kerosene and coal.

We support permanently dumping billions of cubic meters of concrete over rebar in sensitive desert environments and in forests and on agricultural land on which to install massive wind turbines so we can temporarily compete with hydro-electric energy (thereby recreating some of the grid and affordability problems already experienced in other jurisdictions).

Instead, we could be using the same money and resources to supply millions of people who rely on coal and kerosene with smaller, more practical and less destructive turbines, along with solar panels so they don't have to choose between taking the one solar light they can afford to rent to their place of employment, or leaving it where their children need it for their homework.

Germany's decision to decommission their nuclear plants (and to turn their backs on the new nuclear technologies) was not science or fact based. That policy was based on ideology and driven by the emotion of the masses, just as too many of ours are.

I'm no expert, but everything I've read points to using the new generation of nuclear technologies to provide both the energy, and all the fresh water, we need. Effectively, efficiently, and with less destruction to the environment than any of the current paths we're taking. The piece in November's National Geographic shows us the social and economic fallout of Germany's decision to decommission nuclear, without bothering to examine the decision itself. Just as it paid lip service to those who now struggle to pay for their power, without bothering to examine whether or not Germany needed to inflict this hardship on their poor in the first place.

My objective has always been to turn that blinding spotlight on the "catastrophe narrative" OFF, so we can all see the bigger picture. I believe if we can see the bigger picture, we will stop supporting destructive and costly energy "solutions" and instead support sensible, practical, less destructive measures that will better address everyone's energy needs.