Why is a climatologist commenting on the economic impact of reducing carbon emissions? I understand CATO is a policy think-tank institution, but this guy is a climatologist, not an economist.
Also,
Zakaria: Isn't your research funded by these industries [oil]?
Michaels: Not hardly.
40% is 'NOT HARDLY.' He couldn't even say it with a straight face.
If man is causing global warming why are the ice caps melting on mars?
If you let the establishment think for you ,then enjoy what you wanted !
wake up sheeple do some non-corporate research ,like read a real book not a magazine ! You will pay for your stupidity again and again if you refuse to learn form history.
The "carbon tax" scheme is nothing but another insider trading scam to enrich a few elites. Global warming is NOT caused by carbon dioxide but by water vapor. The earth was warmer in the past as evidenced by fossilized mammoths found in the north. That said we still have to replace fossil fuels as soon as possible. They are getting harder to extract and support the elites. We need low energy nuclear fusion and algae based fuels to replace petroleum. Energy is the life of the economy, period!
The record shows that independence via local communities and independent nationalism is something that major powers fight agaist i.e. foreign currencies must be tied to the dollar. It's in the interest of a few elite to convince people not to be independent and therefore ignore the externality of climate change or the fate of our species for that matter: this is effective public relations.
We don't have replacement technology that will keep an elite class in control. Form local communities and be independent of oil companies that generate income for a few rich people who don't do anything productive.
The Cato Institute in Washington DC is a complete fraud. I smelled a rat back in 2007 when these guys went out of their way to discredit Ron Paul and refused to endorse him but now the truth is revealed. Also note, what a fraud this CNN "debate" really is. The only sincere person sitting at this table is the guy not wearing a suit because he's probably gullible enough to actually believe what the IPCC has forced fed him over the years. What can you expect though from the CFR news network!!!
Greenland ice meltin in summer? No! This must be the first time ever that summer heat has caused ice to melt. Next catastrophe to happen will be for more ice to form in winter because of lower temperatures. That would would surely prove that the climate is changing. GIve us carbon taxes, replace our elected governments with an unelected one world government to spend our carbon taxes for us. Thank you CNN for saving us!
"Global warming" oh I'm scared...not. What scares me: Politicians and central banksters. Entering the greatest depression should reduce our use of fossil fuels, especially since it coincides with peak oil production. Think for yourself.
CO2 is an Hoax. Plants breath CO2 to produce O2 (not the mobile phone stupid!). there is hardly any CO2 in earth's atmosphere and Ice Core research has shown that CO2 always comes AFTER the earth has warmed up - NEVER BEFORE. it's a SCAM!
@YouriCarma , your arguement is shockingly unfounded. While you are correct in saying that plants absorb CO2, you are ignoring the fact that there is such an excess of CO2 that they cannot handle all the CO2 in the world. On top of that, deforestation (which incidently releases the stored CO2 in the trees) reduces the amount of trees able to absorb CO2.
@YouriCarma And as to your point on CO2 coming after the earth heats up--There is CO2 stored in the worlds ice and permafrost, which is released when that ice melts. However, the reason that ice melts is due to carbons released into the atmosphere, which then bond with one of the oxygens in Ozone or O3. I dont have time to give u a full chemistry lesson but in short, the Ozone that is depleted creates less of a barrier to the suns rays, making it hotter and melting more ice.
Wait wait, you're saying that carbon dioxide frequently binds with O3 molecules in the upper atmosphere at a rate that exceeds the atmospheres ability to replace it? I've never heard that before, but if you're right that's interesting. Ive only heard of the idea of the greenhouse effect going rampant and causing a sharper thermal increase to the planet, but the depletion of ozone adds a whole new dynamic. Are you sure that this is occurring at such an incredibly fast rate?
My theory is simple, look at the science on both sides, and make an objective choice. Talking about someones funding is a political argument, not a scientific one
And this problem is actually really simple and easy to prove, you need like 3 data sets and a graph, and you can prove it right or wrong. So far, haven't seen any UN or IPCC guys touting this particular info
Which is weird, they seem really interested in proxies, but measuring the problem directly? That would be crazy talk
@LordVigeous666999 the evidence is everywhere that the globe is heating up rapidly...at what point do we decide to voluntarily reduce the amount of pollution an average westerner creates on a daily basis? what is a long term sustainable amount of consumption? does it matter what kind of planet we leave for people 5, 6, 10, 20 generations from now? or maybe all that matters is maximizing our consumption short term.
global warming isn't about pollution. Nor is it about the FACT of warming. The FACT of warming, does not tell you the SOURCE of warming
There is an easy way, to directly measure whether or not CO2 is causing the "rapid" warming
So why are we messing with proxies? Why are we dealing with glaciers? Why are we looking at Geological data, and trying to divine whether or not its CO2? Why are we reading 1,000 page reports?
Why not just directly measure it? And then show the result on 3 pages?
@LordVigeous666999 complex scientific issues typically are not solvable in 3 pages of data. anyway its a cost-benefit analysis. if the pro-AGW people are right then we need to cut emissions now. if the anti-AGW people are right then our actions now don't matter and its all a natural process that human activities are not influencing. so look at the data and pick your side.
this is not a complex scientific issue, this is a thermodynamics 101 problem
energy comes in = energy staying in system + energy leaving
Sun hitting surface = Temp + Heat radiation into space
Sun hitting surface is tough to measure, so just look at temp vs heat into space
High temp, will have more energy escaping, so if you plot these on an XY plan, you will get an up sloping line. Take the measurements every so often, which we have been doing
Correlate through time, change in slope tells you exactly how much greenhouse effect is changing
The only thing left unanswered by this measurement, is the role of clouds, are they changing to let more sunlight in, because of the increase in temp. And I'll tell you what, there isn't evidence for either side on this one
Some people say warming is causing clouds to let more sunlight in, some people say clouds are changing to let more sunlight in causing the warming
The point is, why isn't this measurement ever discussed? One measurement narrows the debate down to what is going on with clouds. So why is the public debate about polar bears?
So why isn't talked about? Oh yeah, the result is devastating to the alarmist case. So of course its ignored, because your side has good scientist that ignore data that disagrees with their hypothesis
Wait, that doesn't really make them "good" scientists does it?
We know from ice core data (and all the other proxies) that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature have been in close correlation throughout most of earth's history.
If some of the current research focuses on paleoclimate, maybe it's because all other claims against CO2 are beyond proven and so basic that even a musician like me can understand them.
You're right. It's not that hard to recognize CO2's fingerprint. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that point in its direction. It's a bit like solving a murdercase: someone dies, four suspects have an alibi and one doesn't. AND he has blood on his hands. AND he has his fingerprints on the murder knife. Does that conclusively prove anything? No. But there's nobody else to blame and it all makes sense. So, for practical reasons we put the suspect in jail...
The sun: apart from its 11-year cycle shows no significant change, in fact it's recently been in a deep minimum. Alibi, check.
Volcanoes: no particular drop in volcanic activity.
Human aerosols: might have been responsible for the slight cooling trend in the mid 20th century, recent global brightening might have added to extra warming but in any case, it can't account for the observed warming.
First Ice cores cause its shooting fish in a barrel: Temp leads CO2, for obvious reasons, temp increase, ice melts releasing CO2, oceans warm releasing CO2, you have more animals and plants, so greater "CO2 traffic" between the two
Then temp drops, and CO2 follows for the exact same reasons in reverse
Long wave to space decreasing, the only measurement I'm aware of, is in Richard Lindzens paper, which shows the greenhouse effect measured being 1/6 to 1/7 what the UN says it should be
So I'm not sure what paper / measurement you're referencing there
Aerosols: They don't know jack shit about aerosols, you can even look at the IPCC, look at the error bar they have on it. And further, press anyone in the field, and they will tell you, the number PICKED by the UN, is a guess. A straight up guess, which is why the error bar is so big, which too.... is a guess
stratosphere: Don't know anything about this, but I do know CO2's finger print is warming in the troposphere above the tropics
Which no measurement has detected, so CO2 also has an allibi, to use your words
Unless maybe this has changed? (Waits for paper and measurement citation). But, we haven't seen it in the 30 years we've been looking, so, not gonna hold my breath
Your murder case analogy is also faulty, in science you don't figure out which things DIDN'T do it, and then say, this thing doesn't have an excuse of why its not responsible, therefore it is
Thats a fallacy in science, because what you're really saying is you lack the knowledge, measurement, or creativity to figure out what actually caused it
its called an argument from ignorance, YOU don't know what caused it, it must have been caused by something, this is something, lets blame this
*more heat=more life. So, would there be more life on a planet with an average temperature of 20°C, 30°C, 150°C?
*higher temp triggers the release of CO2, therefore higher CO2 cannot cause temp to rise. Sure? It's what you call a positive feedback loop. That's why it's so worrying. Surely you can understand that.
Yeah, but if the positive feedback loop theory is correct, why isn't this planet a desert or an ice box?
If a slight lowering of temp, causes more ice to form at the caps, reflecting sunlight, ocean absorbing more CO2, less ocean evaporation meaning less water vapor(GH gas), shouldn't this create a loop into a permanent ice age?
And then, reverse all those things, with slight warming as the starting catalyst, shouldn't that be a loop that ends in a permanent desert?
The global warming problem has been solved. The Sun has done it for us. Expect abrupt and deep cooling in winters due to the new Grand Minimum.
david222444 8 months ago
Why is a climatologist commenting on the economic impact of reducing carbon emissions? I understand CATO is a policy think-tank institution, but this guy is a climatologist, not an economist.
Also,
Zakaria: Isn't your research funded by these industries [oil]?
Michaels: Not hardly.
40% is 'NOT HARDLY.' He couldn't even say it with a straight face.
mrknight411 1 year ago
If man is causing global warming why are the ice caps melting on mars?
If you let the establishment think for you ,then enjoy what you wanted !
wake up sheeple do some non-corporate research ,like read a real book not a magazine ! You will pay for your stupidity again and again if you refuse to learn form history.
blowbackinevitable 1 year ago
@blowbackinevitable watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
Watch this video and then continue to be a total moron like I know you are going to. This proves mars heating has nothing to do with the sun.
thesparitan 9 months ago
The "carbon tax" scheme is nothing but another insider trading scam to enrich a few elites. Global warming is NOT caused by carbon dioxide but by water vapor. The earth was warmer in the past as evidenced by fossilized mammoths found in the north. That said we still have to replace fossil fuels as soon as possible. They are getting harder to extract and support the elites. We need low energy nuclear fusion and algae based fuels to replace petroleum. Energy is the life of the economy, period!
chargermopar 1 year ago
The record shows that independence via local communities and independent nationalism is something that major powers fight agaist i.e. foreign currencies must be tied to the dollar. It's in the interest of a few elite to convince people not to be independent and therefore ignore the externality of climate change or the fate of our species for that matter: this is effective public relations.
nota2cdtime 1 year ago
We don't have replacement technology that will keep an elite class in control. Form local communities and be independent of oil companies that generate income for a few rich people who don't do anything productive.
nota2cdtime 1 year ago
The Cato Institute in Washington DC is a complete fraud. I smelled a rat back in 2007 when these guys went out of their way to discredit Ron Paul and refused to endorse him but now the truth is revealed. Also note, what a fraud this CNN "debate" really is. The only sincere person sitting at this table is the guy not wearing a suit because he's probably gullible enough to actually believe what the IPCC has forced fed him over the years. What can you expect though from the CFR news network!!!
libertybelle2027 1 year ago
Greenland ice meltin in summer? No! This must be the first time ever that summer heat has caused ice to melt. Next catastrophe to happen will be for more ice to form in winter because of lower temperatures. That would would surely prove that the climate is changing. GIve us carbon taxes, replace our elected governments with an unelected one world government to spend our carbon taxes for us. Thank you CNN for saving us!
calumcoburn 1 year ago 2
CNN is disgusting
tafw 1 year ago
"Global warming" oh I'm scared...not. What scares me: Politicians and central banksters. Entering the greatest depression should reduce our use of fossil fuels, especially since it coincides with peak oil production. Think for yourself.
lithophiliac 1 year ago
CO2 is an Hoax. Plants breath CO2 to produce O2 (not the mobile phone stupid!). there is hardly any CO2 in earth's atmosphere and Ice Core research has shown that CO2 always comes AFTER the earth has warmed up - NEVER BEFORE. it's a SCAM!
YouriCarma 1 year ago
@YouriCarma , your arguement is shockingly unfounded. While you are correct in saying that plants absorb CO2, you are ignoring the fact that there is such an excess of CO2 that they cannot handle all the CO2 in the world. On top of that, deforestation (which incidently releases the stored CO2 in the trees) reduces the amount of trees able to absorb CO2.
MrEvergreen94 1 year ago 2
@YouriCarma And as to your point on CO2 coming after the earth heats up--There is CO2 stored in the worlds ice and permafrost, which is released when that ice melts. However, the reason that ice melts is due to carbons released into the atmosphere, which then bond with one of the oxygens in Ozone or O3. I dont have time to give u a full chemistry lesson but in short, the Ozone that is depleted creates less of a barrier to the suns rays, making it hotter and melting more ice.
MrEvergreen94 1 year ago 2
@MrEvergreen94
Wait wait, you're saying that carbon dioxide frequently binds with O3 molecules in the upper atmosphere at a rate that exceeds the atmospheres ability to replace it? I've never heard that before, but if you're right that's interesting. Ive only heard of the idea of the greenhouse effect going rampant and causing a sharper thermal increase to the planet, but the depletion of ozone adds a whole new dynamic. Are you sure that this is occurring at such an incredibly fast rate?
chaoscontrot 1 year ago
@YouriCarma ; Idiot.
Desertphile 1 year ago
Apparently, the Cato institute should now be considered a scientific institution.
BeondaPale 1 year ago
industry funded think tank "scholars" are not credible commentators on this serious of an issue. more scientists, less shills.
chadmalik 1 year ago
My theory is simple, look at the science on both sides, and make an objective choice. Talking about someones funding is a political argument, not a scientific one
And this problem is actually really simple and easy to prove, you need like 3 data sets and a graph, and you can prove it right or wrong. So far, haven't seen any UN or IPCC guys touting this particular info
Which is weird, they seem really interested in proxies, but measuring the problem directly? That would be crazy talk
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 the evidence is everywhere that the globe is heating up rapidly...at what point do we decide to voluntarily reduce the amount of pollution an average westerner creates on a daily basis? what is a long term sustainable amount of consumption? does it matter what kind of planet we leave for people 5, 6, 10, 20 generations from now? or maybe all that matters is maximizing our consumption short term.
chadmalik 1 year ago
global warming isn't about pollution. Nor is it about the FACT of warming. The FACT of warming, does not tell you the SOURCE of warming
There is an easy way, to directly measure whether or not CO2 is causing the "rapid" warming
So why are we messing with proxies? Why are we dealing with glaciers? Why are we looking at Geological data, and trying to divine whether or not its CO2? Why are we reading 1,000 page reports?
Why not just directly measure it? And then show the result on 3 pages?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999 complex scientific issues typically are not solvable in 3 pages of data. anyway its a cost-benefit analysis. if the pro-AGW people are right then we need to cut emissions now. if the anti-AGW people are right then our actions now don't matter and its all a natural process that human activities are not influencing. so look at the data and pick your side.
chadmalik 1 year ago
this is not a complex scientific issue, this is a thermodynamics 101 problem
energy comes in = energy staying in system + energy leaving
Sun hitting surface = Temp + Heat radiation into space
Sun hitting surface is tough to measure, so just look at temp vs heat into space
High temp, will have more energy escaping, so if you plot these on an XY plan, you will get an up sloping line. Take the measurements every so often, which we have been doing
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Correlate through time, change in slope tells you exactly how much greenhouse effect is changing
The only thing left unanswered by this measurement, is the role of clouds, are they changing to let more sunlight in, because of the increase in temp. And I'll tell you what, there isn't evidence for either side on this one
Some people say warming is causing clouds to let more sunlight in, some people say clouds are changing to let more sunlight in causing the warming
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
The point is, why isn't this measurement ever discussed? One measurement narrows the debate down to what is going on with clouds. So why is the public debate about polar bears?
So why isn't talked about? Oh yeah, the result is devastating to the alarmist case. So of course its ignored, because your side has good scientist that ignore data that disagrees with their hypothesis
Wait, that doesn't really make them "good" scientists does it?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Cosmic rays? Nope.
Urban heat island effect? Is being dealt with. Anyway, the greatest observed warming is near the north pole, far away from cities.
Check and check.
You can add more suspects to the list but they'll all have an alibi.
Next you look at extra indication of CO2 influence:
well obviously its concentration has risen,
we know it's from the combustion of fossil fuels because of its isotopic signature,
arneperschel 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
we observe stratospheric cooling, which is in agreement with an enhanced greenhouse and inconsistent with increased solar radiation,
we observe more warming at night than at day-time, again consistent with greenhouse,
we observe greater longwave radiation coming back to the earth's surface and less radiation leaving to space,
of course, we've known for over 150 years that CO2 absorbs longwave radiation, while being transparent to visible light,
...
And then we look at the past
arneperschel 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
Does CO2 have a criminal record?
Well it sure looks like it.
We know from ice core data (and all the other proxies) that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature have been in close correlation throughout most of earth's history.
If some of the current research focuses on paleoclimate, maybe it's because all other claims against CO2 are beyond proven and so basic that even a musician like me can understand them.
For 3-page explanations search skeptical science.
arneperschel 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
You're right. It's not that hard to recognize CO2's fingerprint. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence that point in its direction. It's a bit like solving a murdercase: someone dies, four suspects have an alibi and one doesn't. AND he has blood on his hands. AND he has his fingerprints on the murder knife. Does that conclusively prove anything? No. But there's nobody else to blame and it all makes sense. So, for practical reasons we put the suspect in jail...
arneperschel 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
So, to get to our example:
first you look at everybody else.
The sun: apart from its 11-year cycle shows no significant change, in fact it's recently been in a deep minimum. Alibi, check.
Volcanoes: no particular drop in volcanic activity.
Human aerosols: might have been responsible for the slight cooling trend in the mid 20th century, recent global brightening might have added to extra warming but in any case, it can't account for the observed warming.
Check and check.
arneperschel 1 year ago
First Ice cores cause its shooting fish in a barrel: Temp leads CO2, for obvious reasons, temp increase, ice melts releasing CO2, oceans warm releasing CO2, you have more animals and plants, so greater "CO2 traffic" between the two
Then temp drops, and CO2 follows for the exact same reasons in reverse
Long wave to space decreasing, the only measurement I'm aware of, is in Richard Lindzens paper, which shows the greenhouse effect measured being 1/6 to 1/7 what the UN says it should be
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
So I'm not sure what paper / measurement you're referencing there
Aerosols: They don't know jack shit about aerosols, you can even look at the IPCC, look at the error bar they have on it. And further, press anyone in the field, and they will tell you, the number PICKED by the UN, is a guess. A straight up guess, which is why the error bar is so big, which too.... is a guess
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
stratosphere: Don't know anything about this, but I do know CO2's finger print is warming in the troposphere above the tropics
Which no measurement has detected, so CO2 also has an allibi, to use your words
Unless maybe this has changed? (Waits for paper and measurement citation). But, we haven't seen it in the 30 years we've been looking, so, not gonna hold my breath
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Your murder case analogy is also faulty, in science you don't figure out which things DIDN'T do it, and then say, this thing doesn't have an excuse of why its not responsible, therefore it is
Thats a fallacy in science, because what you're really saying is you lack the knowledge, measurement, or creativity to figure out what actually caused it
its called an argument from ignorance, YOU don't know what caused it, it must have been caused by something, this is something, lets blame this
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
@LordVigeous666999
One-dimensional thinking:
*more CO2=more life. Is that a 1:1 proportion?
*more heat=more life. So, would there be more life on a planet with an average temperature of 20°C, 30°C, 150°C?
*higher temp triggers the release of CO2, therefore higher CO2 cannot cause temp to rise. Sure? It's what you call a positive feedback loop. That's why it's so worrying. Surely you can understand that.
arneperschel 1 year ago
Yeah, but if the positive feedback loop theory is correct, why isn't this planet a desert or an ice box?
If a slight lowering of temp, causes more ice to form at the caps, reflecting sunlight, ocean absorbing more CO2, less ocean evaporation meaning less water vapor(GH gas), shouldn't this create a loop into a permanent ice age?
And then, reverse all those things, with slight warming as the starting catalyst, shouldn't that be a loop that ends in a permanent desert?
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
Its easy to understand, using this theory how you wind up in an ice age, but this can't explain how you get out
And we've had ice ages, AND have gotten out. So whatever strength these fedback loops have, there is something with more power
These fedbacks at MOST, are playing second fiddle......they have no choice
And I doubt they even can claim that much influence
LordVigeous666999 1 year ago
"I dunno, 40%? I dunno"
Great question, it remains unanswered. So it could be 80%, or more.
rapauli 1 year ago
"Michaels: 40% of my research is funded by petroleum industry". Priceless.
werecow2003 1 year ago 2
Faved and posted on DU. Thanks Brad!
Naskeleng 1 year ago