Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?'

[Stephanie]

dear gawd, we need to be saved from these people in this government

SNIP:

What if '97 percent' of scientists are wrong?

11:38 AM, May 20, 2014 • By JERYL BIER


Secretary of State John Kerry did not shy away from pejorative language when addressing "climate change" in his commencement speech at Boston College on Monday. Kerry referred to those skeptical of the Obama administration's climate claims as "members of the Flat Earth Society" who are "risking nothing less than the future of the entire planet" by resisting implementation of the administration's policies. At the very least, Kerry argued, what have we got to lose by taking the steps he and the president are advocating? [emphasis added]:


If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower.

Kerry also suggested there's not much time to act, because "things will change in a hurry," and indeed some things have already changed:


ALL of it here
Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?' | The Weekly Standard

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm not big Pascal's Wager, but the climate does change and that we should pay attention to, since it can easily, has in the past, caused mass extinction.

 

[Howey]

His point is valid. Why shouldn't we respect our environment, regardless of climate change?

 

[bendog]

Yep. He's got a point, but there's also a market inefficiency in having govt set price levels, and while cap and trade allows private markets determine who gets to Pollute, with the polluter with the most positive econ benefit getting the right, still ..... It's a cost.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

His point is valid. Why shouldn't we respect our environment, regardless of climate change?

I don't think anybody has an issue with that... It's the extremists that are the problem.

 

[TemplarKormac]

His point is valid. Why shouldn't we respect our environment, regardless of climate change?

We should. But on the other hand, we shouldn't be using it as a means to commit fraud. That's because AGW is a scam.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I don't think the physics is wrong, but something tells me our understanding of the climate system is....

15 years of no warming!

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm not big Pascal's Wager, but the climate does change and that we should pay attention to, since it can easily, has in the past, caused mass extinction.

I agree...We must also be honest with the current temperature trends.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

His point is valid. Why shouldn't we respect our environment, regardless of climate change?

I don't think anybody has an issue with that... It's the extremists that are the problem.

We have two kinds of those. The ones in a panic, and the ones who say the actions of seven billion humans don't change anything. See above.

 

[martybegan]

The worst that can happen is we again grow our government, resulting in more taxes, more regulation, less freedom, and less prosperity.

 

[Howey]

His point is valid. Why shouldn't we respect our environment, regardless of climate change?

We should. But on the other hand, we shouldn't be using it as a means to commit fraud. That's because AGW is a scam.

97% of scientists say it's not a scam. But you'd rather believe the 3% who are paid by the right to believe differently. After all, it's worth the exposure, right?

It's better to have name recognition for being a kook rather than nothing at all.

 

[g5000]

What's the worst that can happen?

Hmmm. Mr. Kerry has presented us with a poser.


We could waste trillions of dollars during a time when our economy cannot afford it. This would, in turn, have unending and unforseeable negative ripple effects which would last for decades.

But at least no women would have to become hookers, amiright?


Other than that, Mr. Kerry has me stumped.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The AGWCult believes they have the power to change the climate of a planet.

Where, besides a State Mental Hospital, do you find such hubris

 

[ScienceRocks]

How can we be having global warming when it hasn't warmed in a decade?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's wrong with energy conservation, clean air, clean water?

 

[martybegan]

What's wrong with energy conservation, clean air, clean water?

Nice strawman. Nothing is wrong with them, unless you force people to have a lower standard of living, or pay more for services/government to get them via a lie.

 

[PredFan]

John Kerry has never been a smart man.

 

[jc456]

I'm not big Pascal's Wager, but the climate does change and that we should pay attention to, since it can easily, has in the past, caused mass extinction.

yep without the hand of man! So you're saying that man can't make a change.

 

[BlindBoo]

I don't think the physics is wrong, but something tells me our understanding of the climate system is....

15 years of no warming!

Except that's not really the case.

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists | Connecting the Dots | BillMoyers.com

So, as a public service, we gathered eight of the most common of these pseudoscientific arguments and asked some serious climate scientists — all working climatologists who have been widely published — to help us understand what makes these claims so misleading.

1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)

This claim was popularized by “Lord” Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate “skeptic” with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called “research” relies on people’s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there’s been “no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.”


Kevin Trenberth
Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
What’s going on? “1998 was the warmest year in the last century,” explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that’s the real anomaly — the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.”

“That’s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers — they take the highest value and then compare it” with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as “weather.” “If you choose the highest value,” says Trenberth, “then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower — even in the presence of an overall warming climate.”

 

[bendog]

yeah, it's still warming, and most of the warmth (extra energy) is in the oceans.

But it is a good question. If you make energy more expensive, it's essentially a regressive tax. And the notion of solar or wind giving poor people "free" energy is only viable in the third world.