Steve Johnson of BBSRadio.com tries to draw him in on one conspiracy theory after another but David Ray Griffin wont't have any of it, he just says like any good academic would, that he has not studied it or has the expertise to comment. To me, he comes across as a pretty genuine guy. Steve Johnson goes along with Prof. Griffin's belief in global warming for the interview, but underneath in the comment section he complains to people who write in that the radio station had selected Prof Griffin to be interviewed, not him. He then gives a link to a climate change denier he interviewed some time previously.
In the comment section is one right wing climate change after another going ape shit. But what scientists do they have, those that aren't qualified and so don't know what they are talking about, and a few mavericks on the Right, who are more into politics than facts. They reckon that Prof Griffin is part of the global warming conspiracy and they say spreads disinformation.
Prof. Griffin says how the fossil fuel energy companies have spent 100's of $millions on climate change denial which is peanuts for them, especially as they get 100's of $millions in subsidies from the US government. But why?
The global warming deniers remind me of the modern humans in the Planet of the apes film who lived underground and worshiped the atomic bomb, daft or what. Or they are like the astronauts in the film Dark Star whose ship got blown up, so floating in space orbiting towards the planet below, they got hold of splinters of the wreckage and surfed laughing into the planets atmosphere as they got sizzled up, 'Heehaw! We're going to have blazing summers forever now, wow, let's get out there and have some fun.'
Below is another film about solar energy, it now costs less half the price of conventional energy. Put solar panels on your roof and you can not only power your house for free, but your electric for too for hundreds of miles everyday. We could have had this technology years ago if it hadn't have been for the climate change deniers, the antics of the fossil fuel industries. Imagine never having to pay for fuel ever again. Was avoiding that little bit of extra tax of fossil fuels really worth it? That is, expensive energy forever, if the climate change deniers had gotten there way. Thank god the Chinese and Germans didn't listen, and now they are reap in the big profits and clean up the market for themselves.
Prof David Ray Griffin - israelis on 9-11? What israelis?
(That's not my title, it's Steve Johnson's.)
Published on 27 Oct 2015
Well known 9-11 author Professor David Ray Griffin speaks to Steve Johnson on BBSRadio.com about his new book on Global Climate Change and the Global Warming stooge debate.
18 comments:
China invested billions to mass produce solar cheaply. That is why we have cheap solar now. Western capitalism and disruptivators did not believe in the "economics" though the US government did move the technology forward by improving the efficiency of panels in the lab.
It's about reducing pollution Kaivey, not about climate change, about oil companies, and all that. The narrative about one half of the energy industry opposing the other half is silly. Look at Warren Buffet's energy company, they have hydro, natural gas, oil production, transmission lines and also giant wind and solar operations. Nearly all the big energy companies are the same way. That's why this narrative you embrace with your fellow climate alarmists is mystifying. Texas is the largest lignite coal (heat/electricity coal) producer but also the largest wind energy producer in the United States. At the end of the day, the same billionaires control both sides of energy production and don't care which is produced. The important part, that activists find boring, but should be the most important, is people should watch how their renewable energy markets are developing. Who is trying to eliminate competition, who is trying to wall off new production, who wants higher prices for the poor? News Flash: Big oil isn't part of the discussion. They produce oil which isn't important in the electricity markets because it is higher priced than other forms of energy. It isn't even about coal vs solar/wind, they are complementary. Dig in, learn about the renewable markets where you live, rather than ignorant banter about "big oil" vs "renewables." Who is setting prices? Who is making money? Is the competition between oil and wind or solar in YOUR market? Seriously, go look, and then post something on MNE! We'd love to know what the real constraints are on renewables in your country/state/city!
"But what scientists do they have, those that aren't qualified and so don't know what they are talking about, and a few mavericks on the Right, who are more into politics than facts." - Kaivey
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time trying to understand what the global warming skeptics are so skeptical about. It's amazing to me how folks here at MNE can be so skeptical about the mainstream economics profession and at the same time drink the kool-aid without question on global warming. My guess: being skeptical of the former fits our politics, as does being unskeptical of the latter.
China invested billions to mass produce solar cheaply. That is why we have cheap solar now. Western capitalism and disruptivators did not believe in the "economics" though the US government did move the technology forward by improving the efficiency of panels in the lab.
Two of the major sources of pollution are NSFO (naval standard fuel oil) a type of bunker fuel, and jet fuel. The US military burns a huge amount of fuel. So does the global merchant marine. This is a huge source of pollution.
The US military has been pushing alternative fuel sources, much to the displeasure of many in Congress. They have known for a long time that carbon-based fuel is a toxic pollutant. When I was serving on active duty in the US naval reserve, ships were not permitted to "blow tubes" in port, that is, release steam into the exhaust system to clean out residue into the air. They were supposed to put out to sea. Many ships just blew tubes at night instead. BTW, our home port was Long Beach, at the time that the LA was pretty heavily polluted.
"I'm guessing you haven't spent much time trying to understand what the global warming skeptics are so skeptical about."
They are skeptical about this?
“Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers(N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of nonexperts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’)represent nonendorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf
Any climate scientist who could convincingly argue that climate change is not a threat would:
1. be famous
2. get a Nobel prize
3. plus a squintillion dollars in funding
4. lifelong gratitude of billions of people.
So if there is any incentive, it’s for a scientist to show that climate change is not a threat.
That's spot on, Tom. This is really a very important topic that Dems need to make an effort on, and understand that their leaders who are avid supporters of global trade don't want to talk about. The mental hurdle isn't that hard to understand, most have never taken the time to learn about it and it shouldn't be a republican winning issue, it should be a progressive issue that forces dems to the left instead of holding the right with a death grip.
A united US Congress took a big step forward on toxic chemicals yesterday with a republican sponsored bill, that the chemical industry has been asking for. It gives sweeping powers to the EPA to stop industrial use of dangerous chemicals in unsafe manner. Despite opposition from Democrats (that support the electronics and other polluting industries, [Obama took enormous sums from silicon valley] they still had bipartisan support for the bill because it is good public policy. The chemical industry pushed for the bill because they don't want companies buying their products, using chemicals improperly then blaming the chemical companies, when the industrial engineers should have known better. [The revolving door of academics into government, prevent regulation of university curriculum to require toxicology training for engineers) because it would be expensive] This way, industrial users have a burden to prove safety before they unleash products on the public.
People think their gas tanks are their biggest source of pollution to the exclusion of all else. This is why climate-alarmism is such a scam. It distracts from big issues that require difficult work and real change that will ultimately reduce oil consumption in a real systemic way as part of a larger strategy to capture costs of pollution. Light vehicle fuel only makes up over 1/3 of consumption, and rising consumption in the frontier markets will still increase overall usage even if no light vehicles use oil. Reducing pollution means reducing consumption, and not just oil. For Dems, they cling to this idea, that easy fun ideas like electric sports cars, and solar panels on their roof, excuse them from all other pollution and difficult choices in their favored areas of consumption. In fact they think they can consume more irresponsibly ("organic") because they are being "responsible".
The reality is that it means not flying, using fewer ships (liberals vaunted global trade), changes to things as diverse as food packaging to medical systems, all sorts of enormous changes to the world. It means imagining an economic system where production is probably local, with a hell of lot less packaging (yay Walmart) but capital and knowledge move instead. It means overcoming productivity and distribution hurdles to scale while rewarding companies like ARM that produce efficient responsible products and penalizing Intel that create filthy products. It means taking a hard look at everything we consume, and all the components for toxins. Silly anecdote, but in Texas right now, we have tons of cheap ripe melons locally on farms, but our stores are filled with melons from central america because walmart/costco/kroger/safeway whoever have established production suppliers and guaranteed contracts, toting melons halfway around the globe is a waste of fuel. Local farmers can't sell their at nearly any price.
But keep arguing over climate models with a snarky denier idea. That's a real winner. It's where the left has become right. ;0)
Postkey, There are probably 97% of oil company executives that agree burning fuel causes climate change, as is reflected in nearly all their annual reports.
Though hopefully they understand that climate scientists are off on their predictions and the models have been wildly inaccurate and and political commentators are completely crazy with their outlandish prediction. Remember "Inconvenient Truth" that had all those crazy predictions ten years ago about now?
Polling 97% of climate modelers to see if they think climate modelling is a good idea isn't very revealing. It's like asking microsoft if intellectual property is important.
The climate models are pretty lame and need a lot of work, but that can't stop environmental policy. It is irrelevant to whether or not we need to continue reducing pollution. The climate modelling crazies just discredit the whole endeavor and give critics endless reasons.
"There are probably 97% of oil company executives that agree burning fuel causes climate change, as is reflected in nearly all their annual reports. "
So 97% of oil company executives and there is a 97% consensus and yet
"The climate modelling crazies just discredit the whole endeavor and give critics endless reasons."
ex cathedra statements are not an argument.
Climate change doesn't mean the climate models are correct. The models make predictions about the future. Those predictions have been proven incorrect, over and over again. Not just a little wrong but, they were more wrong than they were right.
But no humility going forward, to avoid awkward admissions, the climate politics blame deniers, conservatives, oil companies, pretty much everything except the models for reality failing to live up with the exaggerated predictions. The word games seem endless at times. It isn't necessary to have all the divisive antics. The world is moving on regardless, industry is changing and governments are developing alternative technology for more important reasons. So for politicos: Move on, take a deep breath, and look around. There exist a million reasons why without climate change. China developed the solar industry because their air quality in cities was poor and people were unhappy. Now the world is basking in cheap solar. If the climate-modelers had not been so divisive, perhaps the west would have done it first?
" Those predictions have been proven incorrect, over and over again. Not just a little wrong but, they were more wrong than they were right."
More e.c.
This is a comment forum, we can't post data and charts and foot notes to every claim.
Arguments backed by data are not, ec. Saying a model doesn't fit observations isn't EC, the data just don't fit. It's hardly controversial to say the models are wrong, even the most ardent climatologists and the IPCC itself admits as much. Look at the data runs against the models!
Postkey,
(1) Spend some time googling criticisms of the supposed 97% consensus. If you give the criticisms an honest consideration, I think you'll be unhappy to find that the 97% is based on shoddy research.
(2) Even if there were a consensus, that actually tells us very little. A consensus of economists have believed or operated as if they believe all sorts of wacky ideas. Hell, billions of religious people of different denominations the world over believe all sorts of wacky ideas. Consensus is no indicator of truth.
If you want to see what it looks like when a "denier" and an "alarmist" sit down for a cordial conversation about what we know and what we don't know about some of the issues related to climate change, here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaiZ5BHaUMY
"(1) Spend some time googling criticisms of the supposed 97% consensus. If you give the criticisms an honest consideration, I think you'll be unhappy to find that the 97% is based on shoddy research."
I don't think so.
Give this 'an honest' consideration.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf
"(2) Even if there were a consensus, that actually tells us very little. A consensus of economists have believed or operated as if they believe all sorts of wacky ideas. Hell, billions of religious people of different denominations the world over believe all sorts of wacky ideas. Consensus is no indicator of truth."
So someone who can't tell the difference between science and religion?
Postkey,
(1) Sure I'll read Cook et al 2015. But I'm already familiar with Cook et al. 2013 and criticisms of it. I've found the criticisms to be very convining. "I dont think so" … Are you not even wiling to engage criticism? That's telling. You should self reflect on that. I'm picturing a cartoon character plugging their ears, closing their eyes, and shaking their head 'no' left and right.
If you're genuinely interested in the criticism of Cook et al 2013, this post is a quick easy place to get started:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/cooks-97-consensus-is-a-case-study-of-agnotology-ignorance-and-misinformation/
And if you're genuinely curious about why the skeptics are so skeptical, this is one of the better layman introductions imo:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html
(2) Consensus is not an indication of truth; neither in science nor religion.
Unless there is a problem with the observation data, climate models on the higher end have to be revised. Time will tell.
The climate 'hockey stick' and the peak oil 'bell curve' bite the dust.
It's really not about models, though, is it? We've known for years that the models don't represent the system, they don't teach us how the system responds to pollution. But the climate-change adherents become more more angry and militant in promoting their beliefs the more inaccurate the models become. I'm not sure that is worth engaging in arguments about data, science and models. It's old but I saw this interview with Crichton this weekend, and I think he nails it. And the interaction of the indoctrinated audience is priceless, pure emotion as the simple black and white model is threatened with a complex view. What I think is interesting is that you can see how the adherents to the climate change religion perceive normal discussion as an attack in the same way that cults or insular societies view any outside influence as an attack on their way of life. Perhaps as the world changes and society moves on from this simple view, it threatens everything they've organized their lives around. From the inside, it probably seems to make a mockery of everything they've worked so hard for. So the critics, need to work around that emotional defense and try to give the climate fanatics a new simple behaviors that let them take control of their world and slowly make their value system evolve over time into new behaviors that are less destructive to society.
Extrapolation from historical temperature data is an alternative to models. It could look at land and sea temperature changes.
Post a Comment