Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[chrisch]

No, there is definitely a "climate change industry".

The global carbon offset market is valued at around $145 billion.

Al Gore, the discoverer of Man Bear Pig, will probably become a billionaire based upon the carbon offset industry.

And there are examples like Solyndra, where piles of federal money is used to subsidize the industry.

And there are all of the national/international climate change bureaucracies funded with public money.

The climate change industry might not be as big as the defense industry, but it most definitely exists.

OK then let's go with your definition. What is the issue with this "industry"? Do you think that the jobs that it creates are somehow wrong? All those people paying their mortgages and taking vacations do not contribute to the wider economy just like people in the "computer industry". (Whatever that is).

Do you feel government subsidies to promote US industry over foreign industry is wrong? Like farming for example? Or just a personal issue with Mr Gore for some reason (I think you will find most Presidents and Veeps tend to get very rich as a result of office - it's why they do the job)

What exactly are "climate change bureaucracies"? There is the IPCC which might fit in that description. It does not carry out research nor monitor climate. It's costs are minuscule and most academic and research contributions are voluntary and unpaid. Data is taken from bodies such as NOAA. NOAA is government funded but what proportion is described as "climate change" is arguable. I have heard many times of NOAA Nitrox 1 and Nitrox 2. How much research is done that benefits the diving community?

I am trying to understand what is the problem. Maybe that's why I don't see it (whatever it is) as an industry as such. There are climate management issues in many industries, the energy industry and the transport industry for example. Defence is much easier to define. Anyway perhaps you would be kind enough to outline what you see as the way forward? How do we manage the world to make it a better place for the next generation? We sure do not need all those nuclear weapons, but they are here and someone somewhere is employed building them, looking after them and then decommissioning them. It's a stupid waste of money, taxpayer's money, but it isn't going away any time soon. People vote for it. Let's see the upside. Stopping anthropogenic global warming is cheap by comparison and the upside is a lot easier to see.

 

[chrisch]

....
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. As skeptic14 pointed out, $145 billion in carbon "offsets" or credits or whatever you call them. Heck, it might be closer to trillions if you add up the total value of the climate change industry.

I will live with our disagreement if it just about the definition of what constitutes an industry. But I still don't get what point is being made. Are you suggesting that the financial cost of preventing widespread destruction of the planet is too heavy to bear and it is cheaper for us all to die? Carbon offsetting is just another way for people to do nothing and pretend they are doing something. What is your beef with this idea? Mine is it does nothing. It's just a load of jerks messing with money and doing nothing to stop climate change. Why do you care how much they spend? I sure don't.

 

[Skeptic14]

OK then let's go with your definition. What is the issue with this "industry"? Do you think that the jobs that it creates are somehow wrong?

My post was pointing out that the industry clearly exists as you were appearing to refute the existence of a climate change economy.

As far as what is wrong with it, I suspect like with any industry that is based upon public money, there should be extra scrutiny on how the money is being used, just like with the defense industry.

 

[chrisch]

My post was pointing out that the industry clearly exists as you were appearing to refute the existence of a climate change economy.

As far as what is wrong with it, I suspect like with any industry that is based upon public money, there should be extra scrutiny on how the money is being used, just like with the defense industry.

So is it an industry or an economy?

Why do you think it (whichever of the two you mean) is based on public money? Carbon offsetting for example is not public money it is paid by commercial enterprises.

As to extra scrutiny well at last we are in full agreement. I totally agree that every dollar, every pound, every Euro, every Peso spend by governments around the world should be held up to scrutiny of the highest standard. How much US taxpayer revenue has been spent promoting the lie that humans have no role in climate change? Must be millions. Yup, I am all for that scrutiny.

 

[kelemvor]

I will live with our disagreement if it just about the definition of what constitutes an industry. But I still don't get what point is being made. Are you suggesting that the financial cost of preventing widespread destruction of the planet is too heavy to bear and it is cheaper for us all to die? Carbon offsetting is just another way for people to do nothing and pretend they are doing something. What is your beef with this idea? Mine is it does nothing. It's just a load of jerks messing with money and doing nothing to stop climate change. Why do you care how much they spend? I sure don't.

The point being made is that we are not "all gonna die". Climate change is happening but the science indicates it's not nearly the gloomy picture some indicate. Why did I get off into the big dollar industry topic? Big money drives things in this world. The fact that there's huge sums of money flowing in the industry is ample reason for people to try and skew lines of thinking.

Healthy skepticism is at the core of science. You seem to have an almost fanatical belief in one side of the discussion.

Did you read Richard Miller's study I posted a link to or the article about it written by Glen Peters? These guys are not alt right cooks or anything of the sort. They are part of the driving force behind the IPCC's carbon budget. If you claim to be on the side of science, the go read the science. It's tough to understand, I admit. Even if I did fully understand, I don't have the computing resources to run complex earth system models. So, I rely on analyses from folks like Mr. Peters. As does the IPCC who are at the core of carbon budgets and the Paris Agreement. Please, go read the study (at least the summary) and the articles about it. The results are significant, and eye opening.

 

[Skeptic14]

So is it an industry or an economy?

As to extra scrutiny well at last we are in full agreement.

It's good to be agreeable

 

[Skeptic14]

Did you read Richard Miller's study I posted a link to or the article about it written by Glen Peters? These guys are not alt right cooks or anything of the sort. They are part of the driving force behind the IPCC's carbon budget.

Exactly.

 

[chrisch]

The point being made is that we are not "all gonna die". Climate change is happening but the science indicates it's not nearly the gloomy picture some indicate. Why did I get off into the big dollar industry topic? Big money drives things in this world. The fact that there's huge sums of money flowing in the industry is ample reason for people to try and skew lines of thinking.

I did not say we are all going to die. But it is good that you believe some scientific data that suggests climate change is not as gloomy as some unidentified people think. I hope I never meet them they sound very sad people.

Healthy skepticism is at the core of science. You seem to have an almost fanatical belief in one side of the discussion.

Yeah. I am sceptical. I am pretty sceptical about the science you just mentioned. Who are these people? Who pays their salary? Maybe it is the gloomy picture these sad people think? As to me I believe that for which there is evidence. I don't think I have ever been fanatical about anything. That said I think once a fact is established pretty much beyond doubt there is little to commend constantly trying to refute it. The earth's atmosphere is mainly nitrogen. I think there is still quite a healthy debate why that gas is narcotic at pressure. Something about lipids I think. To be honest I can't be bothered with all that and just dive trimix for deep stuff. I leave the science to others.

Did you read Richard Miller's study I posted a link to or the article about it written by Glen Peters? These guys are not alt right cooks or anything of the sort. They are part of the driving force behind the IPCC's carbon budget. If you claim to be on the side of science, the go read the science. It's tough to understand, I admit. Even if I did fully understand, I don't have the computing resources to run complex earth system models. So, I rely on analyses from folks like Mr. Peters.

Be more sceptical. I thought you were? Why do you believe this? Miller is some religious nut job isn't he? That's what the Internet says.

 

[kelemvor]

I did not say we are all going to die. But it is good that you believe some scientific data that suggests climate change is not as gloomy as some unidentified people think. I hope I never meet them they sound very sad people.



Yeah. I am sceptical. I am pretty sceptical about the science you just mentioned. Who are these people? Who pays their salary? Maybe it is the gloomy picture these sad people think? As to me I believe that for which there is evidence. I don't think I have ever been fanatical about anything. That said I think once a fact is established pretty much beyond doubt there is little to commend constantly trying to refute it. The earth's atmosphere is mainly nitrogen. I think there is still quite a healthy debate why that gas is narcotic at pressure. Something about lipids I think. To be honest I can't be bothered with all that and just dive trimix for deep stuff. I leave the science to others.



Be more sceptical. I thought you were? Why do you believe this? Miller is some religious nut job isn't he? That's what the Internet says.

You've got the wrong Richard Miller. This one is the Richard Miller of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. Open the article on nature.com and click his name. It tells you about the lead scientist, although like most research these days this was a collaboration.
Here's a page about him: Richard Millar | University of Oxford Department of Physics
Here's a page about the Climate Dynamics group of which he is a part: Climate Dynamics | University of Oxford Department of Physics

• 
  

 

[Storker]

Climate change is happening but the science indicates it's not nearly the gloomy picture some indicate.

Cite?