Do we have any Climatologists with a good working knowledge on CAGW?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-03-2013, 06:16 PM
Do we have any Climatologists with a good working knowledge on CAGW?
I came across this article and some of Burt's presentations on this subject.

Burt Rutan is a relative newcomer to the study of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). He is however legendary in aviation world. He published a report critical of climatologists who support CAGW.

http://burtrutan.com/burtrutan/downloads...W-v4o3.pdf

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2013, 08:07 AM
RE: Do we have any Climatologists with a good working knowledge on CAGW?
I haven't heard the about CAGW before. Is it a new trend in the denialist community - a wedge tactic to pretend that actual scientists are on the crazy fringe perhaps?

I'm certainly aware of scientists claiming that we are setting up feedback loops that mean climate change could soon be out of our control. I'm certainly aware of claims that storms will become more powerful, and climate patterns we rely on for food will change. I'm certainly aware of predicted sea level rise that will endanger or eliminate coastal towns and cities. These will all take a few hundred years to play out though, or longer. The main immediate concern is probably that first one that we're nudging the lever out of our grasp.

All of the information in his leaflet appears to be crap. He starts with a claim that we don't have enough CO2, but we are now pushing levels outside the range that our species evolved under and the sun is hotter now[1]. Of course the planet will survive, but it won't be the planet of the last 50000 years or so. He calls predictions from models that have proven accurate so far (far more accurate than deniallist predictions[2]) a "scare". He goes on to claim a conspiracy between "Government Scientists, Universities, Politicians, Top Leadership, Science Media, etc.".

Next - oh woe is me - they didn't ask me for my opinion! I know more the dem daaare climatogyests. I bets dey don't evven knows 'bout statistical significance!

Stupid fucking prick.

Ahh yes. Now he reveals is academic qualifications. He's a flight test engineer. Surely he must know more about the climate record than scientists in the field publishing peer reviewed report. We must have been stupid to have listened to them.

Now we're back to conspiracy theories on the "Modern Human-Extinction Scares" including "ozone changes were not caused by human CFS", overblowing early research on climate etc.

Is 'Climate Change' just another over-blown scare? Yes - it is overblown in some quarters. It doesn't have to be expensive to address, and it doesn't have to cause major problems for our species or other species. The way we're going however, it will make the planet significantly less habitable for our species.

[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
[2] http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-sci...sensus.htm

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
14-03-2013, 08:27 AM
RE: Do we have any Climatologists with a good working knowledge on CAGW?
His first point of arguing for promoting a CO2 enriched atmosphere over a CO2 starved atmosphere says all you need to know. Yes, high CO2 concentrations are good for plants. Yes, during the But there was no ice, and the continents were configured differently so as to make the formation of ice much more difficult and coupled with the high concentrations of CO2, ice would have been a short-lived and geographically limited occurrence.

The point is not that all life will be extinguished as CO2 concentrations continue to go up, but the polar and sub-polar species will be doomed. And anything living close to sea-level that does not like to be inundated with water is screwed. And humans are not going to fare too well when these types of changes occur.

He is making a straw-man argument. He is arguing against something that the climate community is not arguing for.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: