More reasons to buy organic food or better yet grow our own.Human sludge in our corporate farmed produce.

http://www.greenmedinfo....ontaminate-fresh-produce

Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change
Evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial.

http://online.wsj.com/ar...tml?mod=rss_opinion_main

As Upton Sinclair said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

The entire article is based on the analysis of a Wall St. financier with no formal training in any of the relevant scientific disciplines, whose opinions have not been published or peer-reviewed, by an author who owns a coal mine.

"Net effect" is an interesting way of trying to make it sound not so bad that we are changing the chemical composition of the only atmosphere of the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life.

Setting aside the numerous patently false assertions (like warming has stopped, computer models are unverified) in his article for the moment, due to lack of time (SkepticalScience.com and RealClimate.org may have gotten to it).... Unintended consequences, feedbacks known and as-yet-unknown (permafrost, ocean warming, methane clathrates) --- none of these are mentioned in his opinion that humanity can continue to dump our waste everywhere without negative consequences, that physics and known facts of geologic history won't apply to us or the planet this time.

It's a fact that extreme weather events are increasing in the U.S. and around the world, with only a .8 degree Celsius increase since pre-Industrial times. It's a fact that actual observations occurring today match scientists' predictions from the last 20 years --- only much more rapidly than they predicted.

That suggests that, if anything, scientists have been too conservative in their predictions of the speed and impacts of warming.

I understand the deep desire to invest in the idea that the science is wrong and there will be no consequences. It fails on risk management, and on values, Davey.

If the Wall St. Journal and all the other wishful-thinkers are right in their predictions, that would be wonderful news. But if they are wrong and the global scientific community is right, as they have been so far, it will be too late to stop it and (most of the scientific evidence indicates) it will very possibly be catastrophic.

You appear to be willing to take that risk, Davey, on behalf of your kids and grandkids, on behalf of everyone else's kids and grandkids. Why is that?

Davey Crocket, @2

You are being a good citizen by hallucinating properly, however, those who are responsible will pay dearly.

Denial is getting beyond absurd:

Including this November, the 10 warmest Novembers have occurred in the past 12 years. The 10 coolest Novembers on record all occurred prior to 1920. November 2012 also marks the 36th consecutive November and 333rd consecutive month with global temperature higher than the long-term average. The last month with a below average temperature was February 1985, nearly 28 years ago.

(The State of the Climate, NOAA). This is the latest data.

Well, I spent 40 minutes with a reply when my browser crashed. Oh well.

Not gonna repeat it other than to reaffirm that Al Gore IS a scientist as well as Pachauri, and that all of Gore's predictions HAVE come true.

Michael Mann (the scientist) was in the room when the Nobel prize was granted and he more than anyone adheres to your Upton Sinclair quote.

" the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life. " WE AGREE YAY!!

"You appear to be willing to take that risk, Davey, on behalf of your kids and grandkids, on behalf of everyone else's kids and grandkids. Why is that? "

You and I want the same thing for the good earth and our kids. I just understand risk differently than you and my different view results in different behavior.

Sorry to hear your browser crashed. I don't know about Al Gore's predictions because I have not seen his film. I read the scientific literature from, you know, actual scientists.

You haven't acknowledged the parameters of the other half of the risk management equation, in which the scientific evidence suggests that the climate system is far, far more sensitive than the WSJ and the like believe --- the projections that show global temperatures rising to 11° Fahrenheit or more, with long-tail feedbacks over centuries.

To put it in the starkest possible terms, using the worst case scenarios outlined in the academic literature on both the scientific data and the economic data:

If the global scientific community is wrong, we get a cleaner world and may have an economic boom, or an economic hit.

If you're wrong, everything dies.

That's the other side of the risk management equation. If we wait until you know for certain, it will be too late. That is a risk that you are willing to take.

---i recovered my earlier--thought lost--post

Desi:

Yes, I think Michael Mann has this posted right next to his, "I was in the room when the Nobel prize was awarded." plaque...

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

--
So you are saying Mr. Lewis is wrong because he is a successful financier?

Lets consider Mr. Pachauri. He has a degree in mechanical and industrial engineering but spent most of his career in economics. If you equate an engineering degree to being a scientist then you do not understand the difference. If you equate economics to climate science, then, well...

Of course, Al Gore is the real scientist...on that, I am sure that we all agree.

"Only planet in the universe capable of supporting life."

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT! YAY!

Climate has a very long time constant and I believe that it is foolish to make long-term predictions on very short-term measurements.

I do not believe the models (you and I have been over this before...no reason to rehash it).

"Predictions" There have been lots of predictions that did not come true. Gore predicted polar ice could be nearly ice free by the end of summer 2012. Did not happen.

"It's a fact that extreme weather events are increasing"
Well, I am not sure. How do you define "extreme?" That is critical to your assertion! It is very easy to find data you like and use it of course, but it may not paint an accurate picture.

I did not say that "science is wrong" but I think scientists can be wrong. Happens all the time.

"You appear to be willing to take that risk, Davey, on behalf of your kids and grandkids, on behalf of everyone else's kids and grandkids. Why is that?"

We have the same goal...live on and preserve a cool blue ball. I am not an ogre as you imply. I just believe that climate science has been co-opted by climate charlatans. It has become a religion.

Regarding risk...a very interesting topic. Most people do not understand it. We have spent boatloads of money to make sure that not one person dies from a terrorist attack on a plane. It has really ruined air travel for all of us. Has it made us safer? Who knows. I doubt it frankly. In fact it has caused me to drive on certain business trips so the reality is that airport scanners have made me less safe. Funny thing about unintended consequences.

I believe in managing risk, not removing it (removing it is impossible).

Thanks for the long reply

Postscript:
Here is the analysis of Mr. Lewis.
http://wattsupwiththat.c...ol-estimates/#more-75982

Davey, are you unclear on what the IPCC does? The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not do any scientific inquiry itself; it is a survey that puts the thousands and thousands of earth systems science studies into a summary that can be accessed by governments and individuals for policy decisions.

Therefore, Pachauri (an administrator of the IPCC), Gore, Lewis, and everyone else can have relevant opinions to offer within their areas of expertise as it relates to potential policy responses. But they are not scientists and their opinions on the scientific data are not as relevant as that of actual scientists, who warn we are on a trajectory that brings catastrophe into the realm of possibility.

Global insurance companies --- the ones who have to pay up for extreme weather events --- see a clear increase in extreme weather events, like Munich Re did in their October 2012 report, "Severe Weather in the United States".

Munich Re and other are offering their opinion on potential policy responses, based on their relevant experience. They are experts in risk management.

The vast majority of the people with the relevant experience and formal training to evaluate the scientific data say we are headed for the worst end of the risk management equation.

Desi#7

You might be the most reasoned person on this blog (no offense to the others of course).

Let me follow your argument..."there is no downside to a cleaner world." OK, I agree. I want clean air, clean water, preserved natural resources, etc. I am very much a conservationist. I recycle, I conserve water. When I am backpacking/camping, I practice LNT. I am happy to move from coal to natural gas...it is cleaner and it is cheap. Windmills are ugly so I am not to fond of them. Solar has a long way to go (I have heard the Germany story...lets get to the end of that book before making that call). I think it will get there eventually but we may have to burn up the fossil fuels first. Give me a cheap alternative to my F150 burning unleaded fuel and I will consider it. It is not an electric car...at least not for another XX years.

Back to climate...I posted the article because it gave some balance to your other posts. Moreover, it agreed that there is some warming...just not as much as the alarmists.

Davey Crocket,

You posted:

Evidence points to a further rise of just 1°C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial.

Evidence points to Santa Clause being real, but it is not good evidence.

Here is good evidence so you can compare:

It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency.

This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes.

(Embryonic Look At Civilization's Future - 5). Nearly unanimous means about 98% of climate scientists.

Read up on Agnotology, the study of the origin and proliferation of ignorance in society.

Here ya go, Davey: the debunking of that WSJ article from the folks with the relevant experience to evaluate those claims:

WSJ's Climate "Dynamite" Is A Dud.

Thanks, Dredd, for posting the link to the World Bank report, just one of the recent evaluations of our current emissions trajectory that indicate the climate is more sensitive to our emissions dump and we are headed for dangerous levels of warming. Of course the climate change denial industry, whose wildly successful business model is predicated on the public bearing the cost of the industry's pollution, is delighted to have the WSJ shill for them. It's like Tom Sawyer with the fence --- get the public to pay you to dig up the public's reserves, sell it back to them at a premium, pocket the profits and socialize the pollution, with enough left over to buy politicians to keep it all going.

Just so's ya know, Davey --- the arithmetic is clear. According to those who actually know what they're talking about, we can't "burn up the fossil fuels first". Even the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook report bluntly says:

“No more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 °C goal”, the internationally recognized limit to average global warming in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

IEA is not known for being tree-hugging hippies. Nature's proven carbon capture and storage system is already doing the work of storing all that ancient carbon that once made the planet so warm, Antarctica was lush and green. Besides, since when was it considered good planning to burn through our natural resources as quickly as possible? Do people just not care if there's anything left for their kids and grandkids?

Also, those people trying to warn you aren't "alarmists". They're scientists. The global scientific community is deeply worried. It would be nice to believe they are just in it for the money like the fossil fuel industry. The scientist who can prove climate science is wrong stands to make a great deal of money.

Davey, you haven't yet acknowledged the other half of the risk management equation if you and the WSJ and the climate change denial industry are wrong --- the one that scientists and the insurance industry say we are headed for. Worst case scenarios do occur, and humans have already proven we don't do so well on managing the really big risks, even when they've been predicted (see: Wall St. crash, Fukushima, Hurricane Sandy, etc...),

There is some good news, tho. If it's all natural, then there's nothing we can do about it; but if it's human-caused, there's a human solution. Or, at least, a fighting chance at one.

Davey, you may also find this summary of the predictions vs. observations regarding computer climate models that you say you don't believe "in #8):

In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen, sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, ran computer models that predicted the decade of the 2010s would see many more 95-degree or hotter days and much fewer subfreezing days. This year made Hansen's predictions seemed like underestimates. For example, he predicted that in the 2010s Memphis would have on average 26 days of more than 95 degrees. This year there were 47.

There is much more here: 2012: Another record-setter, fits climate forecasts

The upshot of the review is that real-world observations indicate the computer models that you "don't believe" have actually underestimated the speed and sensitivity of the climate to our dumping wastes into the biosphere, and we are seeing an increasing frequency of extreme weather events around the world come true much sooner than the models predicted. What is your take on that?

Still waiting for an acknowledgement of the other half of the risk management equation, the one that indicates we are headed for the worst case scenario. What actions should we take, and at what point would you advocate taking action? Should we wait until the global average temperature officially goes up beyond 2°C?

Are there any benchmarks or thresholds that you would support for taking action?