MIT Proff of Meteorology @ MIT, and Atmospheric Physicist talks of ‘Global Warming’
By: James Burge
November 26th, 2010
Ok I just realized I have been posting a lot of videos lately with almost no commentary on them so I wanted to talk quickly about a video I just came across of an interview with Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, an Atmospheric Physicist and one of the lead authors on the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report.
I wanted to bring some quotes to your attention, but you should catch them if you are going to watch the video.
On the climate change debate:
[They are] “trying to deal with global warming as though the issue was weather the climate ever changes, or weather there is a greenhouse effect or weather man could contribute something to it. None of that is actually in dispute; there is a greenhouse effect, climate always changes, and undoubtedly man can contribute something if the fluttering of a butterfly’s wings could contribute something. The question, as always in science, is how much. If man’s contribution is very little when compared to the normal variability people experience, then there’s not much point in trying to manipulate it because it won’t make much of a difference.”
On the use of Climate models:
“The issue of climate sensitivity is the primary question we are dealing with. […] There are numerous pieces of evidence, some of them quite rigorous, that the current models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity, that in reality it’s very modest. And what we are dealing with is the potential effect over the next century or so of ½ a degree, and there is no evidence whatever that this is associated with catastrophe”
“In general, […] using models, especially models that don’t test out very well to predict long into the future beyond the time scale which they function does not seem wise. […] What isn’t realized is, the models are quite similar to each other and their agreement on climate sensitivity within a broad range hardly proves anything. It depends on rather delicate feedbacks and primarily on feedbacks from clouds and even the IPCC acknowledges that we are virtually ignorant of clouds and the models do a very bad job of them. So if you understand how the feedbacks function, that statement is tantamount to the statement that the models cannot be used to predict climate.”
On the idea of a ‘tipping point’:
“It is almost unheard of to have a natural system that when you perturb it, it tries to make the perturbation worse. That would say the earth system was ‘sick’ from the origin, 4.5 billion years ago, and it doesn’t seem like it would have made it this long if that were true.”
On who is keeping the ‘crisis’ alive:
“[F]or a lot of people including the bureaucracy in government [...] the issue is power. It is hard to imagine a better leverage point than C02 to assume control over a society. [...] [I]t is essential to the production of energy, it is essential to breathing. It’s a point, if you demonize it and gain control of it, you so to speak control everything. That’s attractive to people.”
“There are those that are committed to it because they stand to profit from it”
Not sure I could have said it better myself. (video below)
What will future generations think?
By: James Burge
May 10th, 2010
After watching the short video below I am struck with a question. What will future generations think? About our lack of care for the environment, about our exploitation of developing nations, or about our apparent inaction when faced with evidence of Corporate Looting of both the Environment and the Economy. I have to say that ours is a generation that will be measured by our failure to properly place the environment and its effects on the livelihood of millions, ahead of the profits available to those corporations in the third world, where environmental regulations don’t exist. Why is it that American corporations working abroad aren’t subject to the same regulations as they are domestically? And Why haven’t they been taken to task regarding the blatant damage done? How can we expect our world to survive us when we continue to dump toxic chemicals into the water? How can we expect humans to survive in these toxic conditions? Have we already doomed humanity to extinction? Only time will tell.
Liberal Solution: Tax it…
By: James Burge
September 18th, 2008
So after hearing that the Liberals are rolling out their “Liberal Green Shift” program as a response to voters climate change concerns I was a bit hesitant (to say the least) to embrace what is virtually the US carbon tax idea with a bit of a Canadian sugar coating. Stephane Dion said that the average Canadian should expect to see a reduction in their taxes not an increase, I’m just not sure I get it.
First off I have to say that the carbon tax idea is, in my opinion, the exact opposite of an expectable approach to addressing the problems associated with climate change. It seems to try and profit of a genuine concern for our environment. What it does is tax us for energy that we already use today, mostly because of the available energy infrastructure, (most Canadians would happily choose green power, but would they pay twice as much for it??) while promising tax relief for everyone in order to cover their carbon costs. This is by no means a hand out, nor will it offer the right type of incentive.
Obviously the greatest carbon producer is the energy industry which we all rely on for most of the energy we use every day. Anyone who thinks that industry will absorb the cost of the carbon tax is kidding themselves. Any increase in energy production costs to industry can be seen as a direct increase in cost to the consumer, and maybe not just once. Keep in mind the high cost of oil has impacted the cost of food as well; another way I think the average family can expect to see their cost increase under this plan.
So really what we are looking at is a tax break for everyone, coupled with increased ‘cost of doing business’ which will affect those that use the most energy (don’t worry Parents, because you have kids you are allowed (expected?) to use more energy and will therefore receive a “child tax credit worth $350 per year per child, on top of all other existing child benefits.” gotta keep those parents happy). The idea of a monetary penalty for polluting is nothing new; this is likely what has gotten us in this mess. Industry shifts the regulatory cost of emissions on to the consumer, as any business model would in order to protect the bottom line. I just don’t see the incentive to change to green energy.
Let me take this moment to relay something that may shock you.
In my opinion, climate change has yet to be conclusively attributed to humans.
‘Proof’ exists on both sides of the argument, one example being the temperature increase of other planets in our solar system, suggesting the sun’s output plays a roll. Also, evidence exists showing that this has occurred many times throughout Earth’s history and could very well be a part of a natural cycle.
Whether you feel we are to blame or not, is irrelevant!
Regardless of where the blame lies, the fact that our climate is changing is not being disputed and therefore will require a shift in thinking. We must first stop fighting over the cause and start trying to look to the future. Either we embrace the changes and be willing to accept that the climate we have come to enjoy may not last, or we begin to find new and innovative ways to adapt and/or effect the climate in order to combat climate change.
What innovation and voluntary adaptation of new technology needs is incentive, not burden through increased taxation (even the production of solar cells will produce carbon dioxide, should solar cell manufacturers be charged the same tax as oil companies, I don’t think so). All this does is further inflate the cost of adapting green technology. What we need is an increase in tax incentives for both business and residential adaptation (or production) of ‘green’ technology. Make environmentally friendly technologies more lucrative and more easily accessible by the greater public and you will see a change. If nothing else, it allows a business to cover cost for homeowners to convert to green energy.
Green Tax Incentives are, in my opinion, the best way to ensure that you get peoples attention without adding more financial burden on energy. For those individuals that ‘going green’ is important, tax incentives and government (or private) subsidies bring currently available green technologies to the average Canadian today while still offering incentives for new technology. The only thing it will require is a comprehensive plan to audit these incentives to ensure that the right people are getting them (keep in mind that the Liberal plan is to give the tax break to everyone). The added benefit is that businesses that use green technology will hopefully be able to pass some of the cost savings on to the consumers making it possible to undercut less-green businesses farther fueling the incentive to ‘go green.’
