Streams

Will The Durban Agreement Save The Climate?

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Environment and energy reporter for Time Magazine Bryan Walsh on the recent agreement among the world's leaders to work toward a climate accord that includes both developed and developing nations. 

Guests:

Bryan Walsh

Comments [14]

@hjs11211
" . . . will be under water in my life time."

How much time? A range will be fine. In units that I can look up in some accepted reference work. Thanks.

Dec. 14 2011 01:02 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/12/long_faces_in_durban_112369.html

" . . . That's what "climate change" is. Temperatures in the lower atmosphere this October were just one- tenth of one degree Celsius warmer than in 1979, according to data from weather satellites. Temperatures haven't risen in 13 years, according to measurements from ground stations. Data from tree rings and ice cores show no warming since 1940.

"Few journalists have reported these facts. That's why so many accepted for so long the preposterous assertions of the scammers. The most preposterous is that carbon dioxide -- which is to plants what oxygen is to us -- is a pollutant.

"For some, the scam is about power. Politicians saw in the regulation of CO2 an opportunity to control people's lives.

"For others, it's about money. Scammers sought to cash in on carbon credits and government subsidies. More than 80 percent of the $20.5 billion in loan guarantees made by the Department of Energy has gone to firms either run or owned by financial supporters of President Barack Obama, according to a new book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer. . . . "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/12/long_faces_in_durban_112369.html

Dec. 13 2011 11:20 PM

A stunning breakthrough into the understanding of anthropomorphic global warming and other environmental viewpoints:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/story.html?id=5847032

http://wizbangblog.com/2011/12/12/ann-maest/

Dec. 13 2011 11:08 PM

The vast majority of scientists believe that humans are having an affect on the environment and climate. Of course this isn't surprising because the vast majority of scientists believe is Causation, (IE that actions have effects).

The main exception seems to be in Meteorologists, who deal in "weather" not "climate"; and who are also more likely to have only an undergrad degree, as opposed to the PhD prominent among Climatologists.

The other group that seems to be divided is geologists, although they still lean to believing humans are having an affect. It seems the deciding factor is whether they work for an energy company or not!

Kind of reminds you of the debate over cigarettes. Those can't possibly cause cancer!

Seems the goal of some is not really to find and deal with reality, but to try and keep debating the issue and doing nothing for as long as possible. Worked for the cigarette companies for decades after all!

Dec. 13 2011 11:38 AM
gary from queens

@meatwnyc

What are you to think? Nothing. They are pols. Not scientists. Listen to the scientists. All scientists.

This issue became politicized when Al Gore declared that all debate on a serious science issue should end, despite the fact that the hallmark of science, as compared to religion, IS to challenge theories all the time!

Speaker Pellossi had even said there should be penalties for those who question global warming theory. Remember THAT?! What am I to think of such people who have turned a science into a religion?

Dec. 13 2011 11:09 AM

geTaylor
Maldives (home to 400, 000) will be under water in my life time.
that's just one example

Dec. 13 2011 10:56 AM

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It's ONE of the gases that contribute to the Greenhouse Effect, along with others like Methane and Water Vapor. The Greenhouse Effect in turn is PART of what determines climate, and what makes our planet livable.

It's only takes common sense to understand that changing some of the Variables in the Climate Equation will cause changes.

But what should I expect from a movement that along with believing "humans can't affect the planet" also often believe "the Earth is only about 5,000 years old"?

Dec. 13 2011 10:47 AM


" . . . Nations will soon start to vanish under water. . . ."

Scientifically speaking: Which nations (by name)? When?

Dec. 13 2011 10:42 AM
james from Princeton NJ

What is the impact of Canada pulling out of the agreement ???

Dec. 13 2011 10:34 AM

We need to start planning for climate refugees. Nations will soon start to vanish under water. We need to welcome them, get them jobs and housing. Maybe in your neighborhood

Dec. 13 2011 10:25 AM
gary from queens

How Climate became politicized for its demagogic utility:
November 27, 2011, Karin McQuillan wrote in Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1fFVqQgqz

Dec. 13 2011 10:14 AM
gary from queens

The Climate Cataclysm Is Not Nigh
“We have some room to breathe,” a scientist reports.
By CHARLES C. W. COOKE
DECEMBER 2, 2011 4:00 A.M.

In 1783, William Pitt warned the British Parliament about the dangers of those who would reflexively employ “necessity” as an argument in favor of their preferences. “Necessity,” Pitt exclaimed, “is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves!” These are wise words indeed. But in a purely Machiavellian sense, the tactic is also a risky one. Those who shout “or else!” tend to be left in the role of the boy who cried wolf if their apocalypse fails to turn up on time.

more:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284635/climate-cataclysm-not-nigh-charles-c-w-cooke?pg=1

Dec. 13 2011 10:13 AM
gary from queens

Scientists Behaving Badly
More nails for the coffin of man-made global warming
BY JIM LACEY
NOVEMBER 28, 2011 4:00 A.M.

Global-warming skeptics spend much of their time knocking down the fatuous warmist claim that the science is settled. According to the warmists, this singular piece of settled science is attested to by hundreds or thousands of highly credentialed scientists. In truth, virtually the entire warmist edifice is built around a small, tightly knit coterie of persons (one hesitates to refer to folks with so little respect for the scientific method as scientists) willing to falsify data and manipulate findings; or, to put it bluntly, to lie in order to push a political agenda not supported by empirical evidence. This is what made the original release of the Climategate e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia so valuable. They clearly identified the politicized core of climate watchers who were driving the entire warmist agenda. Following in their footsteps are all the other scientists who built their own research on top of the fraudulent data produced by the warmist core.

More:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284137/scientists-behaving-badly-jim-lacey

OR

Listen to the Audio Version
http://media.blubrry.com/outloudopinion/traffic.libsyn.com/nro/20111128Lacey.mp3

Dec. 13 2011 10:12 AM

The "Climate" will endure despite the demagogic fear mongering of those accumulating wealth through these "3 card monte" scenarios.

The poor phrasing of the question demonstrates the depth of the ignorance (or cupidity) of WNYC's personnel and / or audience.

Dec. 13 2011 07:12 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.