20150922 - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - Climate Change - Live Show Chat Thread

[Rat-eating Hater]

Lindzen isn't a climate denier. He flat out said "He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."

Lindzen is fat and smokes. Therefore he is wrong. However, if you are thin with minty breath that would create a logical dilemma from which there would be no escape.

[WhiteCrow]

I only believe thin people with minty breath.

If only you would of told me this earlier tonight!

[21st Century Man]

Too many "stupid liberals".  Again, another small minded, broad brush stroke that says more about you, than about me, the stupid liberal.  Because yes!  I DO want a carbon tax, I LOVE being taxed!  That's why I work - to pay my hard earned money to the government!  And I LOVE BIG OIL!  You have me so pegged.  Guess I'm busted.

I'm a conservative for the most part but I like you because you think for yourself and don't tend to attack other people who disagree.  This stereotyping on both sides needs to stop.

[Juan Cena]

I think you're right... If they speculated on people resorting to cannibalism it would have been more entertaining...

Cannibalism! This so needs to be a topic!

[21st Century Man]

I think something needs to be cleared up here.Climate "deniers" are being grouped with those that don't believe the "reasons" for the changes that are being experienced.
Weather patterns are changing, but not for the reasons we are being forced to swallow.

I agree with this.  Not changing too much on my part of the planet but it is in many other places.

[TigerLily]

Fantastic show.  Different, but fantastic!  Art did an amazing job as usual.  I wouldn't been able to have been as objective as he was.  Not by far.  It's difficult for this issue.  So mad props to Art.  Thank you.

^^^^^^^^^^^ this!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[TigerLily]

Well a big GO FUCK YOURSELF KEVIN TRENBERTH from me. What a piece of shit. You want to ramble about Woo science, that's great. You want to be an asshole and invalidate peoples' opinions on stupid things like weight or smoking, then well you know... GO FUCK YOURSELF.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not this!!!!!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[b_dubb]

Lindzen is fat and smokes. Therefore he is wrong. However, if you are thin with minty breath that would create a logical dilemma from which there would be no escape.

I took that remark to mean that here's this supposed paragon of higher reason engaged in behaviors that are obviously unhealthy and why look to him for wisdom

[Bodach]

I took that remark to mean that here's this supposed paragon of higher reason engaged in behaviors that are obviously unhealthy and why look to him for wisdom

Perhaps he's overly stressed by having to deal with these climate hoaxers all day that he turns to smoking and food.  Has nothing to do with wisdom; unless you're implying he is unaware smoking and over eating is bad for you.  Which, surely, you're not. 

[b_dubb]

It points to an obvious schism. Makes me wonder what other disconnects someone is hiding.

[Bodach]

It points to an obvious schism. Makes me wonder what other disconnects someone is hiding.

Well luckily, science is based on data.  You have nothing to worry about.  He could be a psychopath, but if his analysis is sound, then it doesn't matter to the issue.  You and the good doc should take note of that.  What science is.

[b_dubb]

Well luckily, science is based on data.  You have nothing to worry about.  He could be a psychopath, but if his analysis is sound, then it doesn't matter to the issue.  You and the good doc should take note of that.  What science is.

Scientists can deceive themselves. Data can be modified to fit a preconceived belief.

[Bodach]

Scientists can deceive themselves. Data can be modified to fit a preconceived belief.

Climate change, ladies and gentlemen!

[CornyCrow]

I think this show was right on target. 

Germany provides over 70% of its energy needs from alternates.  Are those German scientists part of the plot of the US government to steer us away from fossil fuels?  Hmmm.  Germans are known for being clueless and impressionable and their scientists are wonky, at best.  Do we really believe that?

Denmark takes about half it's energy from alternate sources. 

Our next car will be electric.
Electric cars certainly DO have a lower carbon footprint:  http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green

[onan]

Scientists can deceive themselves. Data can be modified to fit a preconceived belief.

Yeah, only science is biased. That's why experiments are repeated by other scientists. Then data is measured against previous results.

At least there is a logical model to follow.

[jblank]

Scientists can deceive themselves. Data can be modified to fit a preconceived belief.

Not only that, but we KNOW they've manipulated data and even in some cases, manufactured data, in order to substantiate their claims.

[nika01]

I really really really hate to say this, but im enjoying RCH more than Art lately.
I NEVER thought i would say that

Wont quite go that far, but RCH has surprised me. If he would only give up on his mindless "physics" remarks, and stop acting like a puppet master, he could be great. I am almost throwing up in my mouth writing this due to my past hatred for him. Its still there mainly because of his nutty physics and seeing structures where there are none.

[wr250]

Scientists can deceive themselves. Data can be modified to fit a preconceived belief.

19.5 my man, 19.5 .

[pyewacket]

I only caught bits and pieces of this and will have to listen to the whole show later. I did catch that nasty crack invalidating another scientist due to his weight and smoking. Sounds more like what a religious zealot would say rather than a reasonable scientist.

Did the guest lay out specific plans and policies that will combat the negative climate effects? Did he say how much this will cost and how we're going to pay for it? How are we going to get all of the most offending countries on board with this and what are they going to be required to do?

And, most importantly, did he address the problem of overpopulation? We can implement all the draconian policies to improve the environment we want, but it will be cancelled out by the out of control number of people who have to be fed, hydrated, sheltered, kept warm or cool, need to bath and wash clothes, employed, and cleaned up after. What does he propose to do about all of that? Or is that not his field of expertise? I'm pissed now before I've even fully listened to him. I'll try to be objective, but by the tone of the posts I've read, I doubt I'll succeed. 

[ZomZom]

Chefist's call was quite good.  Art did very well challenging the guest and shepherding callers into the play-nicely corral.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are pumping tremendous quantities of it into the atmosphere.  I yield to experts who have worked entire careers studying a subject that they are clearly more knowledgeable about than I.

But as a believer in the scientific method, I understand the concept of falsifiability, and I ask how, exactly, are these predictions of doom by 2100 falsifiable in any realistic sense?  If we have to wait decades or even centuries to find out that the theory was bunk, how is that practically different than an unfalsifiable theory?

And for those who propose carbon credits or other legislative action, isn't the bar higher still?  Surely they need to show that the costs of fossil fuel use exceed the benefits derived from their use?  I just don't see how that burden has been met.

At least the proponents of Bigfoot, UFOs and shadow people don't want to levy a tax on us.

[Tarbaby]

Good guest, great show.

[ItsOver]

Wont quite go that far, but RCH has surprised me. If he would only give up on his mindless "physics" remarks, and stop acting like a puppet master, he could be great. I am almost throwing up in my mouth writing this due to my past hatred for him. Its still there mainly because of his nutty physics and seeing structures where there are none.

That's what makes Hoagie so much fun.    "The data.  Look at the data!"

USING A PREDECESSOR TO THE ACCUTRON.  TORSION FIELDS.  THEY'RE OUT THERE!

[nika01]

Art,

Listened to climate show. Dont really care to be told that "this guy knows what he is talking about". While he may be a scientist in this field, his ideas and statements are his interpretations, not necessarily fact. Some may be, I dont know. I do know there are other scientists in this field that would disagree with some of his apparent facts. I know you want to believe the "settled science" theory. I dont. Its not the way of real science to make proclamations like this. Why not have a guest scientist that is on the other side of the debate, and it is a debate. There are kool-aide drinkers on both side of this issue.

[SciFiAuthor]

That's what makes Hoagie so much fun.    "The data.  Look at the data!"

We have two new phenomena from last night's Hoagie show to ponder. The "torsion beam" and the "screaming ball of fear". Poor guy, his open lines last night were all people that couldn't get through Art's lines, so they called Hoagland to complain about the climate change guest.

[albrecht]

The guest was obviously a smart guy but he did have a political agenda and he wouldn't answer some questions (or maybe he didn't understand them?) Like at the first part of the show he didn't comment on all about the NW passage and Russian operations in the Arctic. He just talked about "problems drilling for oil." The potential in a warming Arctic is A LOT more lucrative/important than for oil. For gas, for mineral, for shipping/logistics, and in agricultural output.

He did make an important point that often the "warmers" don't understand, the "Big Boys" actually don't mind carbon-taxes, carbon trading schemes, or regulation, in theory, but what they (and their investors) want is knowledge of the actual plans so that they can plan for the costs. Unlike government those successful companies plan decades in advance. They want to know the costs so they can plan (and, yes, pass costs down to consumers.) And those huge companies can absorb/pass-on any costs of taxes, regulation, or carbon-trading schemes so would likely gain market-share vs smaller/independent producers. (Much like the big banks benefited from more regulations.)

[chefist]

Yea...that's what I mentioned to him on air last night... They are a legal monopoly... They just pass on the costs with no fear of competition...

[albrecht]

Yea...that's what I mentioned to him on air last night... They are a legal monopoly... They just pass on the costs with no fear of competition...

I'm not sure where you live but in the USA most are not legal monopolies, ARAMCO etc might be but that's in Saudi Arabia. Exxon-Mobil competes with Chevron, BP, ARAMCO, etc etc and there is lots of competition. I'm talking mainly in the upstream and midstream areas, where big capital investment needs to take place, (though they compete in the downstream also.) Yes, costs will be passed down but worse projects/investment won't happen without predictability- to an extent. So companies want to know what the "scheme" to correct/stop the "warming" will be so they can build that into their projections and planning. For the "big boys" especially stability is more important than the costs (which will be passed down or accounted for.)

If you are talking about the consumer buying heating oil, natural gas, electricity, etc I guess it depends where you live. But there is still competition there (to varying extents.) Even in municipally owned utilities compete in the market to buy the coal, gas, or whatever from the producers and pipelines with contracts, future markets, competing sources, etc.

[chefist]

I'm not sure where you live but in the USA most are not legal monopolies, ARAMCO etc might be but that's in Saudi Arabia. Exxon-Mobil competes with Chevron, BP, ARAMCO, etc etc and there is lots of competition. I'm talking mainly in the upstream and midstream areas, where big capital investment needs to take place, (though they compete in the downstream also.) Yes, costs will be passed down but worse projects/investment won't happen without predictability- to an extent. So companies want to know what the "scheme" to correct/stop the "warming" will be so they can build that into their projections and planning. For the "big boys" especially stability is more important than the costs (which will be passed down or accounted for.)

If you are talking about the consumer buying heating oil, natural gas, electricity, etc I guess it depends where you live. But there is still competition there (to varying extents.) Even in municipally owned utilities compete in the market to buy the coal, gas, or whatever from the producers and pipelines with contracts, future markets, competing sources, etc.

I'm speaking of utility companies... If a Chevron raises petroleum prices to your local utility, they just pass that cost on to the consumer...

[whoozit]

Just finished last nights show. I enjoyed it immensely but am saddened to see that a lot of people ignore the political side of this issue.  It has affected me enough to whizz on the electric fence by writing this calling the two main camps to task; "settled sciencers" and "deniers". Participation in the groups seem to be highly correlated with ones political views.  The most alarming part is the wacky part of both segments is quite large and not confined to the fringe.

I know that I don't have time to check all of the scientific papers to see if there are any biases in studies.  I think that we have to all assume the scientists know what they are doing and if the preponderance of papers suggest climate change then we must believe these facts.  I do get alarmed when I hear of computer models of the climate.  These models are only as good as the inputs and biases built in the model.   It is concerning because our models of local weather  leave a lot to be desired. I think the climate would be even more complex.  I have heard several models predict catastrophes in the future that weren't borne out.

I think that "settled sciencers" project an air of superiority and launch ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with their viewpoint.  Check back through the this thread if you don't believe me.  Perhaps for most it out of frustration trying to convince the closed-minded, but there is a large element of the superiority complex.

Most of the "deniers" seem to have their heads in the sand.  As I said a preponderance of papers seem to indicate climate change, disputing a few papers on the fringe does not change the findings.  These people do deserve the ad hominem attacks.  I hate any dearly held position that is the result of ignorance or laziness.  These positions must be re-evaluated as new evidence or thoughts are presented.

Now for the third, and I hope largest, camp.  Those of us who realize climate change is real but are not yet convinced that humans are the main cause.  Now before you accuse me of being a bible thumping Christian ( I'm not) or living in the equivalent of the central or southern U.S. (I don't) let me explain.  I have a BS in engineering and an MBA.  I think it safe to say I understand statistics.  Let's look at simple scenario that will illustrate that correlation does not imply causation.  I think we can agree that everyone that has died was      once conceived.  There is perfect correlation (1) between these facts.  Yet it is difficult to argue that the cause of death of everyone was conception.  With the complexities of climate change I think it is difficult to single out humans as the sole or even major cause.  With that said human carbon output is the only thing we can effectively control so all efforts to reduce this should be looked at.

Sorry for the wall of text.  Feel free to attack me if I've pissed you off.  That won't stop me from buying you the beverage of your choice if we ever meet to have a conversation about this.  A world where everyone thought like me
would suck.

[albrecht]

I'm speaking of utility companies... If a Chevron raises petroleum prices to your local utility, they just pass that cost on to the consumer...

I guess ultimately, sure, costs are passed to the consumers in price or opportunity costs. But there is competition. Even now a lot of utilities are switching over to nat gas instead of coal, for example. Or even sometimes wind makes sense. And there is competition and financial strategies in those purchases ("spot" price, different pipelines, different upstream providers, future hedging and contracts, etc.) In some markets you can also choose what electric company you use, so that is competition. Here our power-company is municipality-owned but they still participate in other forms of competition to try to "pass" a reduced-cost to the customer. Other places the utility is a co-op (which, in theory, has even more incentive to pass the least "cost" to the consumer- who is a partial owner.)

My point is it would likely still be cheaper to consumers if the producers and refiners (upstream and midstream) knew what the future costs due to taxes, new regulation, or carbon-trading schemes would be. The problem is the uncertainly which fuels, to pun intended, causes speculation, reduced capital investment in future projects, etc.