Comments cbrtxus has made

  • There is no consensus.

    David, are you suggesting that there are no papers by serious scientists that are skeptical of the anthropogenic global warming crisis claim?

    Do you believe that the warming that ended the Little Ice Age around 1850 was anthropogenic or natural? Do you believe that humans were producing enough carbon dioxide around 1850 for the warming to be anthropogenic? If the 1850 climate change was natural, would it be unreasonable to assume that continued warming was natural also?

    How can we know that any warming that occurred (on average) during the twentieth century was anomalous? Wouldn't we have to be able to compare it to the warming that occurred during the Medieval Warm Period? How would we do that?

    Peer review? I would assume that you mean peer review by the paleoclimatology community (Mann & Co.). I doubt that would happen. My impression is that anyone with the temerity to question the mantra of the "consensus" is ignored, ostracized, and often subjected to ad hominem attacks. I don't know that the "consensus" would ever seriously review a paper that they considered climate change sacrilege. Besides they are probably far to busy peer reviewing each others papers to bother with a paper from outside.
    On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 3 years ago 109 Responses

  • There is no consensus

    In the talking points it says:  "No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century."

    Anyone who wants to do even rudimentary research on the Internet will find that statement to be at best misleading. Yes, if you only consider the opinions of those scientists who agree with each other and discard the opinions of scientists who disagree, there would appear to be a consensus. Isn't that be a peculiar sort of consensus?  

    There is debate about whether the human contribution to the CO2 levels is going to significantly impact future climate. There is debate about whether the current warming trend that started around 1850 is natural or anthropogenic. We would expect for sea levels to rise with the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age but even that is debatable.

    If you only go to RealClimate.org for your information, you will find that there is a consensus of opinion--the talking points. You really need to dig deeper than that. Some folks claim to understand climate completely and many of them are probably sincere in their belief. The truth is that we really don't know yet.

    It seems to me that the talk of consensus is just an attempt to declare that the debate is over. If the science about anthropogenic global warming is robust, why not just lay it out and let the facts speak for themselves. It shouldn't be necessary to engage in misrepresentation and exaggeration. It shouldn't be necessary to try to shut down opposing points of view either.

    Since when are talking points or "consensus" a part of the scientific method anyway?
    On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 3 years ago 109 Responses

  • Wind Power in Texas

    If wind power or solar ever makes economic sense in Texas, you can bet that this "corporatist ruled region" will do it.  Texas is not a "progressive" state in political sense.  We are more of a free market state.  As an illustration of how unprogressive we are, we have thus far avoided the rolling blackouts or brownouts of some of the more progressive regions.

    There are some wind farms West of San Antonio that were built mostly because of the tax subsidies. As you drive through that region there are miles and miles of ridges with the machines. And miles and miles of transmission lines cutting like a scar through an otherwise beautiful desert landscape.  On Locking in global warming posted 3 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

  • Wasted Wind Power

    I live in Texas.  There is indeed a lot of wind power potential. However, when you run the numbers, it would take tens of thousands of wind mills and perhaps hundreds of thousands to produce the power that Texas needs and will need in the future. And you still have to have conventional backup for when the wind doesn't cooperate which is costly.  The wind mills themselves have an environmental impact that cannot be ignored.  Also, the best areas for wind power are not generally where we need the most electricity.  That means running transmission lines over vast distances. I just don't see how wind power would be a viable answer for us in Texas.  On Locking in global warming posted 3 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses