Comments on: Obama’s Climate Change Speech FTW

By: Marco

Marco — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:39:24 +0000

Graham Lyons: I am afraid then that your understanding of the scientific is extremely weak. Anyone following the scientific method would have known that the IPCC does not put forward data. The IPCC reviews the science published mainly in scientific journals. There are no similar institutions to the IPCC, there are only large numbers of independent scientists who have in vast majority come to the conclusion that the greenhouse effect is real, that increasing CO2 increases the global temperature (in a situation of all other forcings remaining the same), and that the climate sensitivity is around 2-3 degrees per doubling.

Those who disagree are in vast majority flat earthers: people who don’t like the outcome of the science and therefore disagree. They hold a belief. Now, what did you start your comment with? Three times “I do believe”.

Telling, no?

By: Graham Lyons

Graham Lyons — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:30:00 +0000

I don’t believe the earth is flat; I do believe in evolution, natural selection being its main mechanism; I do believe that the Holocaust happened; above all I do believe that science is the greatest achievement of our civilisation. I have taken a greatest interest in science and the scientific method. as a result I conclude that the evidence the undoubted increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution has a significant effect on temperature is extremely weak. What is needed is research money for scientists to investigate the data put forward by the IPCC and similar institutions and the validity of computer programs that produce their results. Anyone who calls someone who disagrees with them ‘flat earthers’ etc. is not worthy of respect.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:39:31 +0000

I think that is right about mitigation. I spent a couple of decades in the environmental engineering business where “mitigation” was something you did to address adverse effects, and in that context, say, loosing New Jersey to a series of big storms would be adverse effects you’d mitigate against with some sort of policy or action, so to me that seems very correct. But it would also include reducing carbon output, and for some reason people have divided effects causing climate change and effects of climate change into distinct things (a dichotomy that is in some areas artificial).

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:19:34 +0000

I like the fact that, in the beginning, he had to restrain himself from speaking more forcefully. And that at the end — in the “I have no patience” portion — he didn’t restrain himself.

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:16:05 +0000

He then spoke about mitigation.

As I understand it, mitigation means averting or lessening the bad effects of climate change. Things like higher sea walls are properly referred to as adaptation.