Originally Posted by fugl
Well, I agree with you about nuclear energy (which I forgot to mention in my original post) but, unsurprisingly, little else in your post so perhaps we should leave things there?
That said, I’m puzzled by your “pay grade” remark. You feel competent, after all, to express an opinion on AGW, a complicated, highly technical subject only fully understandable in all its ramifications by highly trained scientists in faculties and committees assembled. Why not also, then, on international protections for rainforests, a political matter on which ordinary citizens can—and should—have an opinion? Probably unachievable in the present state of the world, admittedly, but still worth thinking about and working towards (e.g., in the US context, by voting a certain isolationist out-of-office).
My pay grade does not extend to trying to impose my views on others in matters of their national policies.
On AGW, it does not require huge technical expertise to understand that in science as in other matters, 'who pays my bread, his song I sing'. Eisenhower warned against this in his farewell address, to little benefit unfortunately. So science sings the song of its sponsor, the Federal Bureaucracy.
As is, I do not believe there is anything unusual to climate except the real impacts from the human misuse of the earth's surface. I think there is no doubt that this results in desertification and destruction of much of the biosphere that we depend on.
By contrast, I see sea level rise as a chimera, as evidenced by the lack of rise in places such as San Diego or Tarawa over the past 100 or 80 years. If one looks at a global sea level rise map, most of the increase is focused on places with the worst instrumentation, such as the Philipines, but it varies all over.
In the 1840s, a British Admiralty expedition carved a mean high sea level mark on an island off Tasmania, called the Isle of the Dead. That mark is still very much visible and actually above where the sea level now stands.
The island is not volcanic and has not been glaciated, so no isostatic rebound or similar explanations will be persuasive. Facts such as this are very compelling to me, enough so that it will take a lot more than an AAAS dictum to persuade me otherwise.
I also remember an interview with Mr Mann back in the 1990s where he forecast that the East River Drive, in my home town, NYC, would be under water by 2020. It was briefly, during Hurricane Sandy, but the drive is not different today from then. In retrospect, these were clearly alarmist projections. They left me deeply skeptical of anything that relates to the AGW narrative, especially the catastrophic variety.