About: Blinded by Science
by BradfordScience, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear now the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri.
He is chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says:
"They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder — and I hope they put it on their faces every day."
Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement. Global warming alarmists, long cosseted by echoing media, manifest an interesting incongruity — hysteria and name calling accompanying serene assertions about the "settled science" of climate change. Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole that amounts to Ring Lardner's "Shut up, he explained."…
If you are blinded, it is not by science, but rather by the politicization of it.
February 21st, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Fundamentally, what will drive honest science is when there is incentive to do it correctly.
Bad science can happen when there is not the sense of accountability or need for independent verification, or worse if there is the incentive of money and fame to falsify data.
To my mind, some of the worst offenders are certain interests in the pharmaceutical industry. I know personally of researchers pressured to falsify data. On the other hand, enough of a backlash from bad drugs, and science self-corrects.
The defense and aerospace industry? Hmm, its generally obvious if the project incentives are not achieved. There tends to be a natural loop of accountability. However, that's not to say there isn't financial corruption. There is, but not science corruption.
The telcom and computer industry. Same thing. Some good physics and chemistry, especially silicon valley.
Evolutionary biology? Hmm, there are a few who've made money in it, not much, as far as I know. The problem is that it is hard to falsify inferences. How many times has the dino-bird hypothesis flipped? Much easier to falsify ideas in laboratory controlled conditions versus speculations about the deep past. Plenty of cultural interest to perpetuate myths rather than squash them (recall Nebraska man) .
Man-made global warming. Well, we got some cold spells, it was pretty embarrassing. I say that as someone who thinks the world is warming, but I think the warming was mostly by the forces of nature.
It turns out there seemed to be a lot of ideology in global warming advocacy, more so than the plain old greed of some other institutions.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 21, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 3:21 pm
George Will wrote:
Umm… I'd like to see some actual quotes, Will.
And the copy editor who decided to headline your piece "Blinded by science" ought to be fired: he or she only further confirms the idea that conservatives have a rather complicated relation with science.
Comment by olegt — February 21, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I think that was an indirect reference to the sentiments expressed by Chris Mooney's Republican War on Science.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 21, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 5:26 pm
You want quotes Olegt. You're right I should do a whole entry on the relationship between the far left and pseudo-science. It starts with global warming. Really, the question you should be asking is why the protectors of science have been muted during the revelations of recent scandals. Instead you get the clear impression that ID guy et. al are the real concern. And probably they are. There are about as many negative blog remarks over Salvador Cordova among our critics as there are critical comments directed at high profile Climate/Glaciergate scientists. It is a complicated relationship between ID critics and science.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I agree with Olegt about the title. A more accurate one would be:
How Ideological Blindness Leads to Misuse of Science
Ah, now it's a masterpiece.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Olget,
Ask and you shall recieve
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 21, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 6:00 pm
From the article:
It's global hubris to think provincial regulations create climate change. They may temporarily satiate activists for whom life's meaning is pegged to a cause; bringing about ever more onerous regulations by Big Brother. Beyond that? Dreams- and hubris.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 7:23 pm
George Will made a mistake here. Lack of statistical significance over a given period does not mean absence of warming, it means the interval is too short for a meaningful conclusion either way. Due to the nature of climate variability, trends can only be established at longer intervals like 30 years and it is there that the warming is seen (see RealClimate).
Comment by woodchuck64 — February 21, 2010 @ 7:23 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 8:25 pm
woodchuck:
The larger point though is a research obsession with the overarching debate at the expense of a focus on the integrity of the process by confining concerns to data.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2010 @ 8:25 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 9:02 pm
LOL RealClimate.
Oh wow HAHAHAHAHA!
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 21, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 9:39 pm
From angryoldfatman's cited authority:
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2010 @ 9:39 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 9:43 pm
The political dynamic is such that significant damage to the climate will be done while people make excuses, which caps your point about the integrity of the data.
No one thinks that limiting greenhouse gases in California will solve the climate problem. It's meant to demonstrate leadership and to spur the development of the necessary technologies. Keep in mind that the U.S. emits three times the greenhouse gases per capita as China. The decisions made in the next few years will determine how much damage to the climate will be done, and who will develop new green technologies.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Not buying it. There are better ways to spend our resources. As for the leadership point noone believes that except the environmental faithful. You don't know how much China emits as they will not submit to inspections. In any case the science of climate change is not established. There is more to this than CO2. It's a ripe breeding ground for political mischief and scientific scandals.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 10:26 pm
BTW, climates have been warmer in historic eras. Climate damage is a very unscientific term but what the heck, junk science begets politicization.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2010 @ 10:26 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 10:30 pm
angryoldfatman:
How many trillions do they want spent based on shoddy science. It is bad enough to wreck the economy for the sake of these nuts but do we have to divert resources that could feed the hungry instead for the sake of feel goodism?
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2010 @ 10:30 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Zach said,
Keep in mind that the U.S. emits three times the greenhouse gases per capita as China.
I say
We also have 3 times the GDP per capita as they do and rank 132 places above then in the economic freedom index . Sense a pattern?
History has shown that it's takes money (Capitol) and freedom to develop new technologies.
Lets hope the U.S. still has enough of these things when the AGW dust settles to continue to provide necessary technology for the benefit of the planet and it's people.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 21, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Correction,
We have 3 times the GDP of Taiwan but 12 times that of China.
It looks like we get a lot done with that extra CO2
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 21, 2010 @ 10:47 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 11:18 pm
fifth monarchy man wrote:
fmm,
The New York Times article you link to quotes Obama's inaugural address. As far as I know, he is not a scientist. Try again.
And my name is Oleg, not Olge.
Comment by olegt — February 21, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Bradford wrote:
What, global warming is a myth again? I thought you did not dispute its reality.
Maybe because they are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? The data supporting the global warming and its link to CO2 production remain valid.
I'm sorry, but that's a gross exaggeration. There are barely a dozen blogs in the world where Sal's shameless quote mining is discussed. And outside of Panda's Thumb, nobody gives a flying fig about Joe's silly comments. The right-wing blogosphere, on the other hand, is in lockstep over "Climategate" as if that disproves the fact of the global warming or its relation to CO2.
Comment by olegt — February 21, 2010 @ 11:33 pm
February 21st, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Bradford wrote:
What do you mean by historic eras, Bradford? Are you referring to the Paleocene or the MWP? If it's the latter then you're wrong.
And what's with the "junk science" again?
Comment by olegt — February 21, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:07 am
Olegt, the warming data has been a wedge issue for social engineering. A chance to do what you leftists love best- regulate the lives of the rest of us. Gives you a chance to exercise your elitist birthright. After all I'm a scientist and if I and others say we need to save the planet then putting the next generation further behind the debt eight ball must be done. BTW, the Chinese have already taken the lead in the techology and manufacturing side of this. Another myth deflated. The one referring to green jobs. It will be job loss if the feelgoodys have their way. In 100 years there will be a global catastrophe… Yeah, yeah yeah.
Where's the outrage? Quote mining will spark it no doubt. But scientific integrity? Well now we'll just have to be low key about that. After all the planet is at stake.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 12:07 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:50 am
YouTube – Stephen C. Meyer spanks Chris Mooney (1 of 3)
YouTube – Stephen C. Meyer spanks Chris Mooney (2 of 3)
YouTube – Stephen C. Meyer spanks Chris Mooney (3 of 3)
Comment by Jared Jammer — February 22, 2010 @ 12:50 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:50 am
This is about money and power. Who gets to keep theirs and who gets to spend yours. There is no plausible science related to the central issue- this treaty will change the climate by lowering temperatures this much (a precise and tight range) and here are specific predictions tying CO2 levels to temperature (no cheating this time). You're not going to get this.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 12:50 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:14 am
Exactly right fmm. Unfortunately China has the capital. More and more of ours is used to feed the government pig. A thriving economy is also the best hedge against a broad assortment of threats.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 1:14 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:47 am
If you take a look at the article I think you will find lots of quotes from important scientists expressing glee at the fact that he won. Some to the point of shedding tears of joy. It also quotes big name scientists who singed a petition claiming a systematic abuse of science in the previous republican administration.
I assumed that was the kind of thing you were looking for, was I wrong?
It looks like it is time once again for my periodic apology for butchering the English language, terrible spelling and horrid grammar.
I try to allways run my posts past spell check but it often leaves me in the lurch.
Sorry and thank you all for putting up with me.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 22, 2010 @ 7:47 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:27 am
Except that data doesn't exist so just how can it be valid?
What about the scientists who have refuted such a notion?
They must be cranks and crackpots because they disagree with olegt.
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 8:27 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 am
John Coleman meteorologist on climate change
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 8:29 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 am
That's part of the problem. There are billions of people who want a better standard of living. That's why China and India's greenhouse gas emissions are growing so rapidly.
Anthropomorphic climate change is an inevitable result of exponential growth. The West has the opportunity and responsibility to help provide the necessary technologies as they have created much of the problem. However, developing nations also have a responsibility and have to find ways to develop that do not require the same profligate emissions as the West used. But it's also an opportunity. Those that create and manufacture green technology will export to everyone else.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 8:30 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 am
Bald assertion du jour.
There isn't any evidence for Anthropomorphic climate change.
Just a bunch of alarmists trying to scare people.
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 8:32 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:39 am
Detailed estimates using faulty data.
It was once predicted that hurricane season would be worse every year.
That hasn't panned out, has it?
All the whiile real scientists are refuting the notion of man-made cliamte change.
But let's ignore them, right oleg and Zachriel?
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 8:39 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, this silly caricature tells the reader much more about your perception of reality than about reality itself.
I've been on this blog long enough for you to learn that I am not a leftist. There, I italicized it. Write that down. I don't have any birthrights. Heck, I don't even have a right to vote in the US.
Railing against the elites, of course, is a favorite pastime of right-wingers. I've pointed you to John Derbyshire's excellent essay in the hope that you might be able to learn from someone on your own side. Fat chance, I know, but let me quote from it again:
He sums it up like this:
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 8:54 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:58 am
If the human population (6.8e9) were to continue to increase at its current rate of 1.1% per year, then it would outmass the Earth (6.0e24) in just a few thousand years. If global energy use (1.5e13 W) were to increase at the same rate, it would exceed the Sun's energy output (3.8e26 W) in just a few thousand years.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 8:58 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:14 am
Big "IF".
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 9:14 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:15 am
olegt,
Meteoroligists are not outsiders.
History will show it was the climate change alarmists who went against science.
I am comfortable with that.
BTW "thinking" they are elite is a favorite past-time of leftwingers…
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 9:15 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 am
Joe,
Did you mean to say TV weathermen?
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 9:20 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:35 am
And speaking of meteorologists, here is An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society. An excerpt:
[WND]Damned elitists.[/WND]
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 9:35 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 am
Dick,
I said meteorologists.
Also, as far as I know, science is not done via declaration.
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 9:37 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 am
Hurricane season was predicted to keep getting worse because of man-made cliamte change.
How has that prediction panned out?
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 9:40 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 am
AMS-
Don't forget the unusually heavy winter weather that has hit the southern USA.
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 9:45 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Glad you asked, Joe.
Tropical storms in the Northern Atlantic have gotten stronger and more frequent over the last century, precisely as expected on the basis of warmer sea temperatures. Here is a graph of the tropical storm frequency in the Northern Atlantic over the last 75 years or so.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 9:50 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:18 am
Well yeah- we were coming off of a little ice age.
However they haven't been stronger and more frequent recently.
And if your premise had any merit they would be.
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 10:18 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
Dick,
Only 9 named storms in 2009.
Well below your dotted line.
Comment by ID guy — February 22, 2010 @ 10:23 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:47 am
Joe, you're a hoot! No one in his right mind would agree with you that my name is Dick. You're projecting.
As to the number of named storms, it fluctuates from year to year strongly. However, if you average over a decade the random noise goes away and one sees a clear increasing trend. Have a look at the raw data here.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 10:47 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 am
Zachriel write:
Is this an attempt to support RealClimate by quoting RealClimate?
How very pious of you. Answering refutations of your Bible with passages from your Bible.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 22, 2010 @ 11:13 am
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Do you have a reading disability or are you just stuck on stupid government. Do you understand the difference between treaty provisions and climate data? Do you understand that data linked to warming is different from data linked to reversing warming based on the effects of a treaty? If you and others are unwilling to address that issue then take a powder and find something else to do with your time. A swamp is an accommodating environment for the deaf and arrogant.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:09 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
You don't know who Roger A. Pielke, Sr., is, do you?
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Olegt:
You are judged based on your positions on a number of specific issues. You can say anything you want about what you are but if your views are consistently to the left of center then…
As for elitism, an indicator is use of the positional expertise option. It is quite easy to pretend a science background confers some expertise about climate change especially when ignoring the fact that it is primarily a political matter. Anytime you legislate a "solution" it's political. What's your political expertise?
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:20 pm
IDGuy:"Only 9 named storms in 2009.
Well below your dotted line."
Isn't that the pattern that would be expected (even by the first year meterologist) from the influence of a moderate ENSO event?
Comment by Acipenser — February 22, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
olegt wrote:
No, except that his name is used as a commenter's name on RealClimate.
By the way, I'm the King of Norway.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 22, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Bradford wrote:
What a bunch of baloney. Let me count the errors.
1. I don't claim to be an expert on climate change. I said so previously on this blog.
2. Climate scientists at IPCC certainly have the expertise and desrve to be heard on the subject.
3. Climate change is not a political matter, it's an established fact of our life. Certain people in the oil industry and their allies on the right would like to portray it as a political matter.
Other than that, fine.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Then I gather Olegt that you are content to simply state that the climate is changing and that nothing more needs to be said or done. After all it is not a political matter.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Bradford,
That's silly. Climate change is no more a political matter than the link between smoking and lung cancer. It's a fact.
Whether something should be done about these facts is up to the society. That's certainly a matter of politics.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 12:37 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
That is the whole point of it. No one gets excited about climate change until "remedies" are proposed. What I find interesting is that the climate change movement wants to keep the debate focused on climate itself (although they endorse political remedies) whereas a conservative like me thinks the remedies are the debate focus.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Bradford wrote:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! It's your side, Bradford, that keeps saying that global warming is a myth, thus keeping the focus of debate on science.
Does the phrase the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people ring the bell?
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
No it's not a fact. The King of Norway says it is not a fact.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 22, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
It was a hoax because of the politicized demands hinging on the dubious science.
By the way, proton evaporation is proven science. If we do nothing about it you and your children could disappear in just a few decades. Give me and my friends all your money so you and future generations won't go POOF. The King of Norway says you should, and he is never wrong.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 22, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Of course by warming our side correctly infers catastrophic warming because that's the message calling for draconian political policies. The catastrophic part is by no means a settled science.
The other science part of this that remains relevant is its usage. Science is the wedge used by political activists to justify policy changes whose effects are hardly scientifically predictable. This is a much more complex issue than gathering temperature data.
The aspect of East Anglia that most bothered me was that researchers saw themselves as part of the movement. That and the fact that their peers are reluctant to criticize them convinces me that politics is at the core of all this.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Bradford,
In case you didn't get a chance to read Inhofe's statement in its entirety, here are his conclusions:
Kindly look at Point 1 and let me know what you think.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
That warming tends are geologically cyclical tells us there are natural components to climate fluctuations. Man can and does alter CO2 levels. As I said this stuff is very complex and does not lend itself to panicky legislative reactions.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Bradford:
I agree there is no scientific consensus on how to reverse climate change (in any practical sense). But given that fossil fuels aren't going to last forever, political focus now on a reduction in CO2 levels solves at least one problem, and may solve others. Economic concerns are another issue but I'll just state my humble opinion without expecting agreement: we're at the start of global economic boom that will double the world's wealth in a decade, so we've got nothing much to worry about.
Comment by woodchuck64 — February 22, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
These points cannot be dismissed. Public policies involve trade-offs. If you want to fund costly CO2 reduction programs it is reasonable to ask what could have been alternatively funded and is the cost worth the results?
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:24 pm
You're evading the question, Bradford.
Inhofe denies the very fact of anthropogenic global warming and says the science behind this claim is wrong. Do you agree or disagree with that? Do you see why we have to keep fighting about the scientific point?
It would be one thing if he listed Points 3 and 4 only. That would be politics. But no, Points 1 and 2 are directed against science.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
woodchuck64:
I hope you are right but storm clouds are everywhere. The crisis in Greece, a small country, is an indicator of deep underlying problems in my view.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
You had questioned whether anthropomorphic climate change was inevitable *given* exponential growth.
Every year? No reputable climatologist would make such a claim.
It's colder in New York than it was just six months ago. That means there is no global warming.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Inhofe is a politician not a scientist. I would give no more credence to his views on global warming than I would Al Gores.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 22, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
JAD:"Inhofe is a politician not a scientist. I would give no more credence to his views on global warming than I would Al Gores."
Unfortunately Inhofe is a politician who is in a position of power to decide how the 'science' is to be applied legislation/regulatory acts. Look at his stance in June of last year as he proposed to exempt every stream and wetland from inclusion into the Clean Water Restoration Act (thus exempting them from the pClean Water Act) merely days before the 40th anniversary of the last Cuyahoga River fire. The question is do we wait for the equivalent of a Cuyahoga River with our atmosphere or should we act before such a tipping point is reached?
Comment by Acipenser — February 22, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Acipenser:
All politicians do this and none in Congress are climate scientists. The central issue remains the need to tie specific legislative proposals to costs and specific predictions about cooling.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Unfortunately climate science itself has been so corrupted by politics that it is virtually impossible for the informed public to put any credence in alarmists views.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 22, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Bradford:"All politicians do this and none in Congress are climate scientists. The central issue remains the need to tie specific legislative proposals to costs and specific predictions about cooling."
Politicians are also not toxicologists (of any form), engineers, health care providers (for the most part), and a host of other ..ologists that aren't included on their resumes. However, these are the people who are using (or misusng) science to promote their agendas.
This is all too reminescent of the squalling that went on with the passage of the clean air act of how thousands and thousands of jobs will be lost and the costs of emmision reductions will be in the realm of tens of billions. All of that turned out to be false and the costs were much cheaper than the dire predicitons of many and the benefits were quite large.
In the recent past we turned soft on coal plant emmission restrictions due to these same type of cost estimates and what we ended up with is no further restrictions and as a result (historically) we now have consumption advisories for fish taken from nearly every open water source in this country.
The issue is how far down the road do we wish to continue the negative deline in atmospheric quality before we act. Do we really want to wait for the equivalent of a Cuyahoga River fire based on what are likely gross estimates of costs versus expected benefits? Looking into the past (and not so distant at that) the answer is clearly no and that acting sooner rather than later is prudent.
Comment by Acipenser — February 22, 2010 @ 5:42 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:05 pm
So, Bradford, will you continue with the evasion or will you finally tell us what you think about Inhofe's Point 1?
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:29 pm
This remark led me to the realization that neither side wishes to get off the debating point on global warming. Both sides are in their comfort zones when arguing that either global warming is taking place or no it is not. The secondary argument related to human input is also skewed. One side denies while the other side fails to demarcate the difference between natural and man man causation.
The science debate should be about the science connected to specific treaties and laws. What is the science behind the legislative intent? Is it realistic? Temperature numbers linked to specific bills would be needed as well as realistic cost assessments. Assessment of long term effects on climate and the science behind that would be needed. Only then could we arrive at the final debating point which is whether or not the cures are worse than the disease. There are few talking points yet established in some of the areas so I can see the discomfort they invoke in some.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Acipensar:
Bad analogy. A factory sending out pollution into a river or the air is very different from engineering the climate change of a planet. There are contributory natural causes to climate fluctuations.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:39 pm
I say what I've said in the past. I'll not dispute human input but challenge those who think this settles the matter to furnish models of how specific legislative proposals would alter climate. To do this a model is needed which accurately accounts for natural as well as man made input. This is a role reversal where you are arguing for intelligent design of climate change and I'm asking for the numbers and the theory about the remedy. There is a need for all sides to get past the initial bone of contention. Both are afraid to do so. The global warmists know that the data connected to specific legislation is a lot less secure on scientific grounds and entails revelations of cost. The other side is afraid to progress to stage two as well probably fearing the freight train effect. They think the global warmists will pancake them if they concede warming. They are all wrong and acting from fear.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 6:39 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Bradford wrote:
Wow, that's a spectacular attempt at evasion! Well, Bradford, I'm going to have to put you on the spot.
Before we even get to the point of discussing "specific treaties and laws" (subjects to Points 3 and 4) we need to make sure that there is anthropogenic global warming to begin with. Inhofe says, in his Point 1, that there is no anthropogenic global warming and that science indicating otherwise is junk. What do you think about that, Bradford? Pretty please?
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:54 pm
I've already indicated there is human input but that natural forces signify contributory causes. What don't you understand about that? You want me to make a political statement, instead of one based on science, like there is anthropogenic global warming so support Waxman Markey? That's exactly the wrong approach. Here is a better question. What have the various treaties and laws passed so far accomplished in terms of slowing warming? What are the specific figures and what are they based on?
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 6:54 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:59 pm
The first link is to an article about Roger Pielke criticizing RealClimate. The second link's first reference is to Roger Pielke's website criticizing RealClimate.
Do you even bother to read your own posts? You cited Roger Pielke as an authority criticizing RealClimate. That very same authority claims that not only is climate change scientifically supported, but that it's "incontrovertible."
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 6:59 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Here's another conundrum rarely mentioned. China and India have clearly indicated they have no intention of stopping short of full industrialization. Meaning they intend that their 2 + billion people will live in conditions comparable to the populations in Europe and America. That's a vast increase in the global carbon output even given generous estimates of efficiency breakthroughs. Where is the counterbalancing reduction to come from? It is not difficult to see. This is a major impetus to de-industrialization of the west.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, you're not stupid. You realize that there are two separate questions:
1. Is there AGW?
2. What should be done about it?
As far as I can tell, your answer on 1 is yes but you don't like specific remedies on 2. Inhofe's position is different. He says, unequivocally, no on 1, hence 2 is moot (but in case anyone is interested, he doesn't like specific proposals on 2, either).
Do you agree that Inhofe is wrong, wrong, to say that there is no AGW, period?
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
All climate models include natural forces.
The best solution may or may not be a particular piece of legislation, however, you first have to establish the science, including the effects on climate, and the resulting effects on the environment. Oddly enough, graphs showing the effect of various scenarios on global temperature and sea levels was sent to the Memory Hole.
Yes, there are naysayers in China and India, too, only they have even more incentive to ignore the problem as large segments of their populations live comparatively meager lives. Nevertheless, climate change will affect their futures too.
The problem is vast. It's going to take leadership and new technologies. Some damage to the environment is inevitable, but that is no reason to despair. Viable solutions exist, many of them market driven.
That would be exactly the wrong course of action. The West will be crucial to the development and implementation of green technologies. A healthy global economy is essential.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
More specifically I don't like the absence of clarity linking remedies to specifiable outcomes.
Human carbon input, as a contributory cause to elevated levels of CO2, should be acknowledged so Inhofe is wrong when he denies this. Would there be a warming trend without humans on this planet? What's the answer to that?
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Exactly. Their message is that 18th century poverty is worse than a warming planet in the 21st century. IOW the cure is worse than the disease.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:52 pm
What they're saying is that those who have caused the most damage should bear the most responsibility for cleaning up the problem. Nor do they consider it fair that the U.S. continue to use far more of the world's resources per capita. These are reasonable concerns that have to be addressed.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Bradford:"Bad analogy. A factory sending out pollution into a river or the air is very different from engineering the climate change of a planet. There are contributory natural causes to climate fluctuations."
It is no different than enginerring the quality of water in a stream, lake, or pond by monitoring the level of pollutants that are permitted to be discharged into those systems.
What we discharge into the atmosphere is added to what every other naton also adds to the atmosphere. There is no (at least there shouldn't be) denying this simple fact. The anthropogenic component is also added to all the 'natural' causes that contribute to climate fluctuations. There is little we can do do control what the 'natural' input into the atmosphere will be but it is within our means to monitor and control the anthropogenic inputs.
In the past we have seen cries of economic downfall and the end of our industrialized base if industry were to be required to limit and control the content, and volume, of their discharges. We've seen that these claims did not bear fruit and quite to the contrary jobs were not lost and the environment responded in a very favorable and encouraging fashion. There is no reason to think that there will be an economic collapse due to promotion and action on the amount of pollutants we discharge into the atosphere including CO@.
Bradford:"Would there be a warming trend without humans on this planet? "
Quite likely.
Bradford:"What's the answer to that?"
Would the current rate of change be the same with or without anthropogenic inputs of GHGs?
Bradford:"Exactly. Their message is that 18th century poverty is worse than a warming planet in the 21st century. IOW the cure is worse than the disease."
Not exactly. There message is the same that drove all early industrialized societies…greed. It costs money to not discharge pollutants and run an industry to make a profit. Implementation of any discharge regulations results in a loss of money that comes out of the profits. Their short-sighted goals are now coming back to bite them in the butt given some of the current uprisings due to gross water contamination, cancer clusters, and other ills brought on by trashing their environment.
Comment by Acipenser — February 22, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
This dooms the effort at the outset. First, it is impossible. If the largest nations industrialize and come to our level we must descend to preserve the desired carbon footprint. Second, it is unjust. It means people not yet born are to be punished because of history which incidentally created virtually all the modern medical and technological advances those two nations currently benefit from.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Which Pielke? There's two of them, you know.
And by the way – Senior's rebuttal mentioned in my linked source is from 2009. Your quote-mine found on RealClimate is from 2005. I win. The King of Norway declares me the winner as well, so that goes double.
Do you bother to read past the bylines on any linked post, or do you simply search for the author name on the website you agree with and regurgitate the tripe they feed you? SURVEY SAYS… THE LATTER! Not very thoughtful, Sparky. Pious, but not thoughtful.
RealClimate is to science what McDonald's is to fine dining – full of cheap junk that's easily consumed by children who believe clowns are authoritative.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 22, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
It's very different. I lived near Lake Erie before the cleanup efforts. There were identifiable culprits and one nation having legal control over events. Take a look at the comments over China and India. This is an altogether different kettle of fish.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 pm
The link you provided as an authority is Sr.
Um, how about read the cite you provided and tried to understand their actual position and not just the quote-mine.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Of course it's not doomed, and it's certainly not impossible. Indeed, it will happen. The only question is how much damage will be done.
Fortunately, new technologies can be implemented. But this won't occur until there is an individualized cost for dumping.
The problem of divvying-up common resources isn't new. There is no economic incentive for people upstream to conserve water or to avoid dumping wastes into the river. That's how civilization began—to regulate water rights.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
More complex, of course, but the same dynamic. Competing interests, including those that can profit from environmental degradation (i.e. those who live upstream) inflicted on others (i.e. those who live downstream).
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Zachriel:
Technology might come to the rescue as you indicated making this all a moot point. But if it does not, do not expect that China and India can reach their goals without drastic de-industrialization elsewhere on the globe.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 pm
It's not an insoluble problem. When those who dump greenhouse gases have to pay for their cleanup, then the technology will follow.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Zachriel wrote:
No, it's got a lot more than him. Admittedly, it was a second-hand posting; the original is here.
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes
Dr. James A. Peden
Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo
Dr. Nir Shaviv
Dr. John Blethen
Dr. Craig Loehle (not really a scientific response, but…)
Maurizio Morabito
Harold Ambler
Gavin Schmidt (yes, the main blogger for RealClimate is the best evidence against the credibility of the site)
Reporter Seth Borenstein
Dr. Kevin Trenberth
Dr. John Christy
And I only looked halfway down the list.
You may now continue to avert your little eyes and wave your little hands at that and the second link to make them go away. Shoo, bad naughty contrarian thoughts, shooooooo!
One other thing.
The owner of the domain name "RealClimate.org" is Environmental Media Services. EMS was founded by Al Gore's 1988 Presidential campaign national press secretary, who was also Gore's communications director for his 2000 campaign.
EMS is the "scientific" arm of the public relations firm Fenton Communications.
Fenton's client base is exclusively leftist and includes not only Democrat PACs and enviromentalist special interest groups, but Central American Marxist dictators as well.
Ummmmmm, how about you figure out whether 2005 or 2009 is more recent? I know, math is hard for you soft-science types…
Umumummumumummmmmm, another thing you can figure out is that the issue I'm addressing is RealClimate's credibility, which is entirely separate (but not completely independent) from the "reality" of man-made global warming/climate change/Mother Gaia's anger.
Comment by angryoldfatman — February 22, 2010 @ 9:43 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Sounds good but emitting green house gases can be profitable too. The case of Corus illustrates the point. Corus is a major producer of steel in Europe but is shutting down its steel plant in Redcar, UK. 1,700 workers will lose their jobs. By closing the Redcar plant Corus gets carbon allowances and sells them for a nifty profit. But does that reduce carbon output? Not necessarily. Why? The demand is not affected. Only the supply and that perhaps only until the parent company Tata, a large Indian corporation, is able to construct a new plant in India where environmental laws are much more lax.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Didn't get very far, then we simply posted a quote.
You cited several individuals, some who hold views that have largely been rejected by researchers, and many of whom are not climatologists, or even scientists. At least from this cursory glance, your attack on RealClimate's credibility is not persuasive, though they surely have their share of problems.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Bradford:"It's very different. I lived near Lake Erie before the cleanup efforts. There were identifiable culprits and one nation having legal control over events. Take a look at the comments over China and India. This is an altogether different kettle of fish."
The problem only differs in scale and the example Lake Erie provides is an example of two nations working together not one alone to solve a common problem. The same path was followed with reductions in pollutants that are responsible for acid rain. On a smaller scale sulpher emission were also traded and sold in this country and in the end the reductions of this pollutant was not only reduced but at a cost that was much lower than predicted and without any economic collapse.
This is an age old example of the "Tragedy of the Commons" as Zachriel pointed out previously.
note to self: figure out WordPress block quotes…
Comment by Acipenser — February 22, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:34 pm
The USA and Canada have a good record on cooperation Similar heritage etc. This contrasts with the lack of cooperation seen on the global warming issue. Not surprising when you are talking about all the nations on earth.
Which brings up another point I did not mention. Acid rain and other pollutants posed health hazards either to humans, wildlife or both. CO2 is not hazardous. It's effects on climate are not precisely understood and more importantly while you can eliminate some hazardous substances you cannot do the same with CO2. This really is not analogous to stream and car pollution.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2010 @ 10:34 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Bradford wrote:
Attaboy, Bradford! Shouldn't have taken you so long to concede this. So it's not "the climate change movement [that] wants to keep the debate focused on climate itself," as you put it, it's the oil companies and politicians like Inhofe who wish to stall any action against climate change and fight a preemptive battle with science. Right-wingers are simply along for the ride.
I find interesting parallels between skeptics of AGW and skeptics of evolution or of the link between smoking and cancer. Science per se does not concern them. They are fighting a larger battle. Science merely suffers collateral damage from these political wars.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Acipenser, olegt and zachriel all appear to have arrived at a position that the science behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is irrefutable. And, Al Gore has said the time for debate has passed. “The scientific community,” he said in an interview, “has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue… It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake.”
However, I don’t remember there ever being a debate. All I recall for the last decade are left wing political activists and the mainstream media preaching at us that AGW is real, and we need to take action now, before it is too late.
However, recently I discovered there are experts out there who disagree with the so-called scientific consensus.
For example, there is MIT’s Richard Lindzen has written a number of papers critical of AGW alarmism. Here is an excerpt from one paper, “Is the Global Warming Alarm Founded on Fact?”
In other words, we are in a natural cycle of global warming (I think everone here agrees with that) but it looks like it is impossible to discern whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a damaging effect. Therefore, alarmism and/or the call for draconian counter-measures is unwarranted.
Why is it that the AGW crowd is so adverse to debating the issue?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 22, 2010 @ 11:36 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:41 pm
The dose makes the poison.
We have been working on the problem of CO2 removal from various atmospheres pretty much since submarines came into vogue. There are some notable successes in that realm and the USA could make major reductions (perhaps as high as 30%) in CO2 emissions by focusing on removal of CO2 from flue gases at power plants. The technology is already available but given the advanced age of the plants and the need to keep them in operation we (meaning citizens) need to assist the operators of these plants (power generation) in offsetting the cost of retrofitting their aged boilers.
Comment by Acipenser — February 22, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Bradford wrote:
And I thought were making progress! Bradford, what do you mean when you say that the effects of CO2 on climate are not precisely understood? Do you think one needs to have a complete understanding of the physics and chemistry of burning before one puts out a fire?
And who is the genius that proposes to eliminate CO2?
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 11:42 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 pm
JAD wrote:
I'm sure you missed the debate on evolution as well.
Comment by olegt — February 22, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:52 pm
That isn't exactly my opinion. I think that the input of sequestered carbon via human activities are additive to all other inputs of atmospheric carbon and that these inputs are influencing the rate of warming.
I thought we were debating the issue.
I also think that one of the ways we are going to maximize our ability to survive/adapt is to develop the technologies that reduce pollutant inputs through any number of methods.
Comment by Acipenser — February 22, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 am
I am talking about experts, skeptics like Lindzen, debating other experts. It appears to me that this is something the mainstream media (NBC, ABC, CNN etc.) have been loathe to do. Are they trying to uncover the truth, or advocate a position?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 23, 2010 @ 12:08 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 am
I listened to an interview of a climate scientist about three weeks ago. It was televised and also on the radio, I heard it on the radio as I was doing something but heard enough to convince me that the costs involved are not justified by the "scariness' of the phenomenon. The worse case scenario he gave was uncomfortable but humans survive and even thrive. The likely scenario inconvenient but paling in comparison to other major traumas afflicting humanity. There are other ways to spend trillions- better ways in my view. More efficient energy is inevitable with technological advances encouraged by tax incentives and conventional strategies. A crisis outlook and the baggage that entails is unwarranted.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2010 @ 1:15 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:29 am
A warmer planet is a good thing.
A colder planet is a bad thing.
There were times in the past when the CO2 was higher than it is today and living orgnaims thrived.
Plants thrive when there are higher concentrations of CO2.
We need plants.
Now if we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere then it must be at the expense of something else as there can only be 100% concentration at the end of the day.
So what is CO2 kicking out?
And if CO2 were as powerful of a greenhouse gas as some people say then why aren't we putting CO2 between the panes of double-paned windows?
Why hasn't Phoenix, which sits under a CO2 dome, been heated to the point no one can live there?
Junk Science weighs in and I bet oleg would rather insult them then to actually address what it being said.
Comment by ID guy — February 23, 2010 @ 8:29 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:33 am
Bradford wrote:
Thanks for translating, Bradford. Now I know for sure that when a conservative says "the effects of CO2 on climate are not precisely understood" he actually means "hands off my hard-earned cash."
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 8:33 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 am
CO2 is not the problem.
It is the soot that industries produce.
That soot collects on the ice packs, ice caps and glaciers.
That soot warms the top layer which then melts.
This is an easily reproducible experiment- if you have snow and freezing temps.
Just take some soot- I get mine from my pellet stoves- and sprinkle some on the white snow- make sure that patch is in a sunny area.
Then sit back and watch as from day to day that sooted patch will melt away.
People who concentrate on CO2 are like dogs who look at your finger when you point to something- totally clueless…
Comment by ID guy — February 23, 2010 @ 8:38 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:07 am
JAD wrote:
John, imagine that you are a journalist who wants to cover a highly technical topic. You interview ten experts, nine of them concur, the tenth experts dissents. What do you tell the public? You report that there is a consensus among the experts, although there is a minority opinion to the contrary. In my view, that's what the press has been doing.
And before you tell me again that the press is loath to even mention the debate, maybe you should google around a bit. Here, for instance, is Andrew Revkin in the New York Times:
Skeptics dispute climate worries and each other.
A rebuttal to a cool climate paper.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 9:07 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:15 am
Is there a scientific consensus about AGW?
I doubt it but there could be.
Comment by ID guy — February 23, 2010 @ 9:15 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:26 am
Scientific debates are debates among scientific peers.
Of course there are. There are always dissenters.
The claim that humans are changing the climate is strongly supported. The current debate is about what to do about it. The opponents can't make up their mind whether to deny climate change completely, exonerate humans, or just say it isn't that important.
Humans will survive. Some will thrive. Some will suffer.
That's right. Life will continue even if every major coastal city is flooded.
You're comparing window panes to the content of an atmosphere that is several miles thick. Of course, you're concentrating the gas, so you should only need a gap of a few meters between the panes, but convection works quite a bit differently and you are trying to create a very distinct temperature differential. Controlling convection is much more effective, in which case, a thin barrier of an inert gas such as CO2 works well.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2010 @ 9:26 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:30 am
ID guy wrote:
Joe, the answers to your question are at your fingertips. Here is the Wikipedia article on Climate change consensus. Even if you don't trust Wikipedia writers, it's a good place to start as it contains things called references. Yes, imagine that!
Here is an excerpt:
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 9:30 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:06 am
The CO2 concentration in the atmoshere is several miles thick?
How do we breathe?
Comment by ID guy — February 23, 2010 @ 10:06 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:09 am
What is the scientific data that shows us what CO2 concentrations equate to what temperature rise?
What is the scientific data which shows us what the temperature of the earth should be?
What is the scientific data which shows us how much ice should be on the surface of the Earth?
Comment by ID guy — February 23, 2010 @ 10:09 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:17 am
Is the scientific consensus for AGW the same as the scientific consensus for the theory of evolution?
That is scientists agree yet they cannot muster the data to support their claims.
Comment by ID guy — February 23, 2010 @ 10:17 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:30 am
ID guy wrote:
Deep thoughts. On so many levels.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 10:30 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:32 am
ID guy wrote:
Joe,
Richard Lindzen and Steven Milloy—even Steven Milloy!—do not dispute the link between CO2 and rising temperatures. Read the links you post.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 10:32 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:36 am
What is the scientific data that shows us what CO2 concentrations equate to what temperature rise?
Dick (I am not saying that your name is Dick),
You didn't answer the question.
Why is that?
Comment by ID guy — February 23, 2010 @ 10:36 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:38 am
ID guy wrote:
I suppose Bradford might want to deal with this one.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 10:38 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:32 am
The atmosphere has a mass of about 5e18 kg, of which 0.0582% is CO2 by mass. That works out to roughly a column of 3 meters of CO2 at standard pressure.
Most people inherited lungs from their mammalian ancestors.
Here are some graphs with references that might help.
Rapid climate change will result in agricultural failure, flooding of highly populated coastal areas, dislocation, disease, migration, mass extinctions, political instability and human suffering.
Comment by Zachriel — February 23, 2010 @ 11:32 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:52 am
The range of possibilities given for the year 2100 was considerable. It's not just the climate change range but the advances in technology that must be factored into this. Breakthroughs in technology are notoriously difficult to predict. Even climate scientists would not link the predictive power of their discipline to that of chemistry, physics, molecular biology and more.
As for the cash part, I find it strange that anyone would not be at least a bit tepid about assuming the right to determine how money, not their own, is spent.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2010 @ 11:52 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:56 am
I advise people to simply use the internet handles provided. Most commenters do not use their real names for different reasons. Focus on the comments themselves and set the other garbage aside.
And of course if one is using his real name then use that name in response.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2010 @ 11:56 am
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Olegt: "And before you tell me again that the press is loath to even mention the debate, maybe you should google around a bit. Here, for instance, is Andrew Revkin in the New York Times:"
March 2009 is the best you can do? That is less than a year ago. Where have the dissenting voices been for the last decade?
Here’s something I uncovered from 2006.
Lawrence Solomon of Canada's National Post newspaper has written a series articles in which he interviewed top scientist who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. Here is what he has to say about the series:
His first interview in 2006 was with Edward Wegman, a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University.
You can read about it here and find links to Solomon’s other articles.
Solomon has also recently written a book based on his series entitled,
The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so.
According to Solomon there has been a campaign of intimidation to suppress the voices of dissent. Is that true? Some of us think, that in an open society, that that is something worth knowing about.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 23, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
He is wrong. Something melted us out of the last ice age (not man). If the conditions that caused the melting have not changed, then we will keep warming or at the least melting.
Enjoy life and/or get right with God. The human race will go exinct eventually. That is a scientific fact.
The question is whether sooner (a few thousand years) or later (when the Sun burns out the Earth from the normal evolution of stars, or the universe dies as Weinberg points is inevitable).
Here is a spectrum of views from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Assuming AWG, if humans are the creators of pollution and consuming resources, it seems population reduction is a simple answer. This sentiment is echoed by :
Voluntary Extinction Movement
Kind of hard to run away from the basic numbers. Do I think we'll have the intelligence and technology to overcome the problems of environmental deterioration? It's anyone's guess:
From http://www.Eugenics.net
I'm expecting radical Islam to get a hold of the bomb or other weapons of mass destruction. I doubt Dawkins and friends will persuade radical Islamicists from their holy cause.
Any bets on how many year before we encounter nuclear or serious biological terrorists?
The rational, scientific view is at variance with Darwin's optimism:
Darwin is wrong.
If the prospects of humanity are so dismal, what is the reason to forge ahead? My sentiments expressed by Moses in Psalm 90
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 23, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
If I take a glass of seawater and add a teaspoon of salt what gets kicked out or do the proportions of the ions/solutes merely change and nothing gets kicked out?
Something you might want to consider given the question you propose above.
Comment by Acipenser — February 23, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
JAD wrote:
O, the press has been on top of it, alright. It's you who hasn't been reading it.
Here is an article from March of 1996 in the New York Times:
Richard S. Lindzen;A Skeptic Asks, Is It Getting Hotter, Or Is It Just the Computer Model?
Here is Lindzen's letter published in the New York Times in November of 1991: Errors Hurt Global Warming Theories
Get out of the bubble, John.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Tattling to Bradford? Really?!?
Comment by chunkdz — February 23, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
No, chunk, just asking the blog owner to clean up Joe's vomit.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:35 pm
You are acting like a 3rd grader.
Comment by chunkdz — February 23, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:06 pm
No, I thought that Bradford as a conservative subscribes to the theory of broken windows. I was wrong: our host tells the people to simply mind the garbage heaps.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 5:06 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Olegt, I do not care if ID guy's name is Joe or if Joe is also an alias. None of this matters. By the same token ID guy, refrain from calling Olegt anything other than Olegt. I do not want TT to become a swamp.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2010 @ 5:46 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Olegt: "Hey Joe!" (poke)
ID Guy: "Shutup Trolleg" (shove)
Olegt: "Hey Joe!" (poke)
ID Guy: "Shutup Trolleg" (shove)
Olegt: "Hey Joe!" (poke)
ID Guy: "Knock it off, Dick"
Olegt: "MOM! ID GUY CALLED ME A DICK!"
Comment by chunkdz — February 23, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Bubble? Hardly. I referenced a story, indeed a whole series of stories beginning in 2006. I didn’t claim that there weren’t any stories out there. (Obviously not, I knew that there were.) But, a story buried on the back pages of even the NY Times is not going to get much notice, either by the public or other news outlets. Sure Lindzen any other skeptics have been given their obligatory interviews, but other than that they have been brushed aside. Meanwhile, the media gives us little lectures about what we can do to help stop global warming. Obviously, they made up their collective minds a long time ago that the science is settled.
Did you bother to read what Solomon wrote. It sounds to me like the there was a very active campaign to suppress any kind of dissent within the climate science community itself. IMO that should have been a bombshell. Did the NY times bother to look into that? Did anyone else? If not, why not? Nevertheless, it seems a bit prophetic considering what happened last Fall over at East Anglia.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 23, 2010 @ 6:50 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
John,
The 1996 article about Lindzen was in the Science section of the NYT, exactly where it belongs. Lindzen's 1991 letter appeared in the Opinions section (where else?). And these are just two articles. There are plenty more, so if you were paying attention you'd see them. Don't complain.
I'll tell you that I am not impressed by Solomon's journalism. One of his linked articles is about Habibullo Abdussamatov, a Russian astronomer from St. Petersburg who blames the global warming on increased solar flux.
I have actually read the article that propelled this gentleman to international fame. The article was published in an obscure Ukrainian journal with minimal review standards. You can find it here and read it if you know Russian. He is talking about periodic variations of the solar flux at the level of 0.1% (see Fig. 1) and speculates about the link of these variations to processes in the solar core. He makes no attempt to tie these minuscule fluctuations of the solar power to global warming. But any physicist will tell you that the influence of such fluctuations is negligible. Here's the math. A 0.1% fluctuation in solar power translates into a 0.025% variation of the Earth's absolute temperature (radiation flux is proportional to the fourth power of temperature). 0.025% of 300 K is 0.075 K, or 0.135 F. Come on.
And contrary to Solomon's characterization, Abdussamatov is not exactly "at the pinnacle of Russia's space-oriented scientific establishment." He is a bureaucrat with a dozen and a half articles under his belt. Solomon, of course, doesn't tell you that.
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 pm
I've pointed to the delusion problem of dreaming CO2 curtailment while allowing substantial industrial growth in two countries with 2 billion people- India and China. Maybe this is what it is all about. What say you TT progressives?
What happens when you follow the money? Could it be that sophisticated, idealistic scientific elites are really the naive victims of big money interests? And they call us tards.
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2010 @ 11:31 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 pm
And a take from JJS:
http://evolutionengineered.com...
Comment by Bradford — February 23, 2010 @ 11:41 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:52 pm
But the Earth is cooling
Comment by chunkdz — February 23, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Bradford wrote:
This interesting idea (developed by a blogger at Pajamasmedia, echoed by Wizbang, and finally repeated by Bradford) deserves to be developed further. Why don't you, Bradford, take this model and think through how the gullible scientists swallow Al Gore's propaganda and tell their computers and temperature probes to behave as Mr. Gore prescribes.
Seriously, how can an adult read and uncritically repeat such bullshit?
Comment by olegt — February 23, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Olegt, if this were simply about climate change there would be no demands for draconian action. This is about a claim of global catastrophe. That's the claim upon which the political action and economic gains depend. If you are not distinguishing between warming and catastrophe then the obvious question is why not?
Comment by Bradford — February 24, 2010 @ 12:00 am
February 24th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Hmmm….
Why would a scientist ever commit questionable research practices?
It's not bullshit. It's a documented statistic, not to mention a perfectly expected example of human nature.
But please share with us your research that shows that climatologists are immune to the temptations of money and popularity.
Comment by chunkdz — February 24, 2010 @ 12:09 am
February 24th, 2010 at 1:37 am
Hey, check out how Oleg forgot he was the decency and civility cop.
Typical.
Comment by Pez — February 24, 2010 @ 1:37 am
February 24th, 2010 at 2:35 am
I see. If you don’t like the message attack the messenger. Typical Saul Alinsky type tactics. But that proves my point, this is at it’s heart a political debate not a scientific one.
Okay. Let’s ignore the messenger and go straight to the message.
Here are a couple of articles by a couple of climate scientists: Dr. Timothy Ball and Ricahrd Lindzen who argue that there has been a concerted effort by vested interests to suppress the science contradicting AGW. They would both agree that there has never been a genuinely open scientific debate about “climate change.” Indeed, according to Lindzen, "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun."
Timothy Ball writes:
And here is Lindzen:
He concludes his article claiming that:
In other words, there is no noble “save the planet” cause here. There never was. It’s all about power and money. That is all it has ever been about.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 24, 2010 @ 2:35 am
February 24th, 2010 at 8:38 am
JAD,
Sorry, but Solomon's journalism practices are shoddy. You can see it even if you agree with his political leanings. His article on Abdussamatov relies exclusively on Abdussamatov's own words. Solomon never bothered to ask any other scientists to tell him what they think about that work.
Here is a thread at WattsUpWithThat, The Sun defines the climate—anessay from Russia, where you can find out that Abdussamatov's "research" does not withstand scrutiny. I'm not surprised: he is not an active scientist (less than 20 pubs since the early 1970s), so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Solomon is completely uncritical.
Lindzen certainly has credibility. He is not muzzled. He publishes papers in peer-reviewed literature, writes opinion pieces in newspapers, and his take on climate change is well known thanks to the mainstream press. (The New York Times alone profiled him a number of times.) Lindzen does not deny the role of increased CO2 in warming the planet. He has his own theory that negative feedback from water vapor in cloudy regions will reduce the effect. Other scientists find positive feedback from water vapor in cloud-free regions enhancing the warming from extra CO2. The jury is still out on this.
Tim Ball is a vocal critic but he is not a credible scientist.
Comment by olegt — February 24, 2010 @ 8:38 am
February 24th, 2010 at 8:48 am
China has already pledged to substantial reductions in emissions. The problem of anthropomorphic climate change can only be addressed globally. That includes India and China. It can be difficult for poor countries, but it is essential for sustainable growth to address pollution at all levels. One day they won't be so poor, and their children will have to live in the world they make.
Industrialists have far far more money and influence than environmental groups.
Rapid climate change will result in reduced economic growth, agricultural failure, flooding of highly populated coastal areas, dislocation, disease, migration, mass extinctions, political instability and human suffering.
Draw the distinction, then. Is there scientific support for anthropomorphic climate change? If so, can we reasonably predict the effects on the environment? If you deny anthropomorphic climate change, then obviously a discussion of remedial measures is irrelevant. So be clear in your position. Is there scientific support for anthropomorphic climate change?
Comment by Zachriel — February 24, 2010 @ 8:48 am
February 24th, 2010 at 9:22 am
As for Lindzen, the evidence is still somewhat ambiguous, but the Iris effect apparently doesn't result in as significant of cooling as hoped.
Comment by Zachriel — February 24, 2010 @ 9:22 am
February 24th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca
Jeffrey A. Dorale,1,* Bogdan P. Onac,2,* Joan J. Fornós,3 Joaquin Ginés,3 Angel Ginés,3 Paola Tuccimei,4 David W. Peate1
1 Department of Geoscience, University of Iowa, 121 Trowbridge Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
2 Department of Geology, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, SCA 528, Tampa, FL 33620, USA; and Department of Geology, Babes-Bolyai University, Emil Racovita Institute of Speleology Cluj, Romania.
3 Departament de Ciències de la Terra, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Carretera Valldemossa km 7.5, Palma de Mallorca, 07122, Spain.
4 Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche, Università di Roma III, Largo St. Leonardo Murialdo, 1, 00146 Roma, Italy.
…
Stratospheric Water Vapor Is a Global Warming Wild Card
See also:
Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 9:32 am
February 24th, 2010 at 9:37 am
ID Guy;Now if we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere then it must be at the expense of something else as there can only be 100% concentration at the end of the day.
So what is CO2 kicking out?
Say you take a glass of water that is 100% full- right to the brim- and start adding rocks to it.
What would happen then?
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 9:37 am
February 24th, 2010 at 9:40 am
What is the scientific data which shows us what the temperature of the earth should be?
That didn't even address the question.
Once again Zachriel would rather deal subterfuge than to actually answer what was asked.
BTW there isn't any evidence for rapid climate change.
The climate change we are now experiencing is a recovery from the little ice age.
A warm Earth is good for humans.
A cold Earth is bad for humans.
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 9:40 am
February 24th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Perhaps your question was poorly phrased. Did you mean what *would* the temperature be without human activity?
Most climatologists would disagree, but that is a scientific question that needs to be addressed before considering policy.
Stability is good for humans. If the globe warms, it will mean agricultural failures, disease, pestilence, and the flooding of densely populated coastal areas. This will result in migration, less available land, and that will result in political instability.
Comment by Zachriel — February 24, 2010 @ 9:50 am
February 24th, 2010 at 9:54 am
To sum up-
We have temperatures from Russia that do not represent the entire country.
We have the same in the USA:
What top say to a global warming alarmist:
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 9:54 am
February 24th, 2010 at 10:00 am
What is the scientific data which shows us what the temperature of the earth should be?
Very simple question and not poorly phrased.
BTW there isn't any evidence for rapid climate change.
There has only been a slight increase in temperature over the last 100 years. And that is because there was a little ice age just before that.
Thank you chicken little.
If the globe warms it will mean more land for agriculture.
It will mean more time for crops to grow.
It will mean more water for the crops and humans.
And if people cannot adapt to the change, they will die- boo hoo.
A new coast will be formed.
Greenland may become habitable.
Antarctica may become habitable.
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 10:00 am
February 24th, 2010 at 10:02 am
That is not even relevant.
However we do know the Earth has been warmer in the past- before humans were burning fossil fuels.
We also know it has been at least as warm in the past even though the C02 concentration was lower.
And we know that C02 is only a minor player.
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 10:02 am
February 24th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Claim That Sea Level Is
Rising Is a Total Fraud
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 10:04 am
February 24th, 2010 at 10:27 am
No.
There is political support- and chicken-little support, but scientific support is noticeably absent.
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 10:27 am
February 24th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Comment by Zachriel — February 24, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Zachriel:
Pledge, schmedge. Judge by actions, not words. China is on the road to full economic equality with the USA. That means substantial economic growth. That does not occur in the absence of increased energy usage.
GE being one of many industrial concerns banking on a piece of the pie. Industry follows and adapts to social change. Unlike environmental critics, it is not poised against alarmism.
That question does not recognize a distinction between tolerable change and catastrophe. It looks to obscure the difference.
Comment by Bradford — February 24, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
This is too funny!
Zachriel makes a post by just quoting me:
Was that supposed to mean something mr anti-IDist?
Isn't that what YOUR position preaches- adapt or die?
Do you have something against natural selection?
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
I like how Zachriel has wedded himself to the alarmist scenario:
Conversely, one could say "If the globe warms, it will mean longer growing seasons which would result in more available and diverse crops available for consumption, which would result in a healthier and more robust population more able to resist diseases." But I digress. As for the other "scare" items (disease, pestilence, flooding), and here I thought only "religious" people were apocalyptic!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 24, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
LOL!
Comment by chunkdz — February 24, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
What Zachriel sees as a possible tragedy And if people cannot adapt to the change, they will die– boo hoo.- I see as an opportunity to hand out millions of "Darwin Awards".
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
There will certainly be areas of the world that would benefit from climate change—at the expense of others.
Humans can and will adapt. There would just be widespread suffering and a damaged environment left to future generations. Depends on your values.
Comment by Zachriel — February 24, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
ROFL!
Comment by chunkdz — February 24, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
China has not agreed to legally binding limits to emissions. Then again, neither has the U.S.
China needs to advance. The use of energy is not the issue, but the use of obsolete carbon-emitting sources of energy. China knows that their long term growth depends on finding sustainable energy sources. And as the world moves forward on the climate change issue, China's trading partners are going to demand changes. Those that develop and implement green energy will be best positioned for economic growth.
You said you wanted to draw the distinction between warming and catastrophe, but you just can't seem to make the distinction. Maybe you mean that humans are changing the climate, but the effects are manageable. But we shouldn't have to guess at your position.
Is there scientific support for anthropomorphic climate change? If no, then there is no need to worry about the consequences. If yes, then we need to determine the effects of human activity on the environment and determine the appropriate actions depending on the severity of the problem.
Comment by Zachriel — February 24, 2010 @ 7:48 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
1- There isn't any evidence the sea level is rising
2- Temperature gathering processes are highly suspect
3- The Earth has been warmer in the past without human involvement
4- Sea levels have been higher even though the CO2 has been lower
5- Stratospheric water vapor has a bigger effect on the Earth's temperature than CO2
6- Plants need CO2- Did Zachriel consult with them or did Zachriel consider their suffering with less CO2 to live on?
And if people cannot adapt to the change, they will die- boo hoo.
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Zachriel:
The problem with this is its contrast with reality. China has invested heavily in fossil fuel development. That's not what you do when you are attempting to convert to renewable energy sources.
My position was stated in response to comments made by Olegt when I pointed to an interview of a climate scientist indicating that likely warming scenarios were tolerable with respect to their effects. The science behind the catastrophic model is very much weaker than the science for a warming model and that is a big problem for global warming activists.
Comment by Bradford — February 24, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Too heavily. Shoddy plants and mines have led to massive waste and pollution.
Sixteen percent of China's energy comes from renewable sources. They are the fourth largest producer of wind energy, and manufacture 30% of the world's photovoltaics. Chinese scientists are quite aware of the problem of climate change and are recommending increased efforts in green energy. China has instituted a national action plan to modernize their energy infrastructure.
Nobody wants to deal with the climate change issue. But that won't make the problem go away.
EPA: Climate Change, Health and Environmental Effects.
Comment by Zachriel — February 24, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
The problem is the climate change alarmists.
The issue is they don't appear to be able to support their claims.
They think a naturally occurring gas is a pollutant.
That is pretty retarded.
Comment by ID guy — February 24, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Why? Because you disagree with him?
Comment by chunkdz — February 24, 2010 @ 11:48 pm
February 24th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Turn on your brain, Chunk. If that were my criterion, I would not consider Lindzen a credible scientist. Yet I do.
So, you need to go back to the drawing board.
Comment by olegt — February 24, 2010 @ 11:58 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:09 am
olegt considers Lindzen a credible scientist?
Richard Lindzen From Logical Science
Why the double-standard olegt?
Comment by ID guy — February 25, 2010 @ 8:09 am
February 25th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
But what if the benefits of a warming planet outweigh the costs? No one has done a serious cost-benefit analysis. All I've seen are self-serving panic attacks by so-called environmental groups who have done perhaps irreparrable damage to their cause by putting all their eggs into an alarmist basket.
My values include allowing gifted and innovative people the freedom to try new ideas on the free market with no or minimal gov't interference. This is a proven method of "helping" the most people at a given time. My values do not include scare tactics to ensure enslavement of the populace by a select group of people. My values do not include giving large sums of money to dictators and despots as a hollow gesture of "doing something for the earth". My values definitely do not include
stealing from those who earn by producing and creating wealthwealth distribution.Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
What has Tim Ball done to make you doubt his credibility?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Wrong question, Chunk. Here is the right one.
What has Ball done to be considered a credible scientist?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Here's a better one:
Why did you say that Tim Ball is not credible?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 2:46 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Olegt claims he is sympathetic toward Abby. What has Abby done to be considered a credible scientist or was that an expression of deep devotion?
A slght correction Olegt actually wrote:
Maybe he means he sympathizes with her figure. What do you mean anyway?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 2:51 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Abby:good
Mazur: bad
Ball:bad
Solomon:bad
No, Olegt's not an ideologue or culture warrior.
Comment by Pez — February 25, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Pez, Abby is younger than Mazur. That might play into it although she has left the swamp for more fertile territory. She seems to have been bored by the swampy banter. Oh well.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Bradford,
I have never met either lady in person. But I can tell you that one is competent in her trade and the other isn't. Guess which one is which.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 3:00 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Uh, excuse me Olegt but what exactly is Abby's trade and if it has something to do with science what is the measuring stick you are using?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
I do not care about Abby's scientific competence except with respect to the issue of Tim Ball. If the former is deemed competent and the latter not then we should be able to see a common measuring stick.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Bradford,
Abbie is a science blogger who knows the subject she writes about—evolution of viruses. (That's the reason why she has been invited to write at Science Blogs.) If you doubt her qualifications, perhaps I should remind you that it was she who made Behe concede an error: one, instead of zero. Behe does not mention her by name in that post because it was presumably too embarrassing for a tenured professor to be corrected by a beginning grad student.
In contrast, Mazur does not know her subjects well. I can give you specific examples, but they have already been discussed here, so I am sure you can look them up.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Is this the benchmark of credibility then? Would Tim Ball become credible in your eyes if he were to point out an error in a published work?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Chunk,
I have no idea why Pez and Bradford decided to drag Smith and Mazur into this. Their credibility is completely irrelevant to this topic. Ask Bradford.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 3:33 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
It's because you won't tell us what your criteria for credibility is. When someone makes an assertion and then won't backup said assertion we can do two things: write you off as just another partisan crank, or play the "hot – cold" game to try to guess what you really meant.
Which do you prefer?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 3:40 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Chunk,
If you paid attention AND switched on your brain you'd already know my answer. Do I need to translate that for you?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
EPA: Health and Environmental Effects
Why would you think that? In any case, agriculture requires stability. And flooding of highly populated coastal areas is hard to discount.
Have you looked? Consider that most major scientific organizations in the world that have looked at climate change see it as a significant problem requiring responsible cooperation.
That's fine. Just don't dump you greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is a shared resource. This is no different than people upstream taking all the water and dumping their wastes into a river. It's a form of wealth distribution, but inherently unfair and unsustainable.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Sorry, I still have no idea why you said Tim Ball is not credible. How has Tim Ball not met your credibility threshold?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Chunk,
Credibility has to be earned. What has Tim Ball done to earn credibility as a climate scientist?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Olegt, you've pointed out that Abbie's credibility lies in her blogging abilities and the knowledge enabling her to be an effective blogger. Part of that effectiveness lies in her ability to identify mistakes. These are important benchmarks for competence as knowledge alone rather than papers published would indicate credibility based on your argument.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
From Zachriel's EPA "State of Knowledge" link:
And what scientific papers do they reference?
In light of recent findings, I don't think I'd be using the IPCC as a reliable source of science.
So let's try this again. I've stated before that the alarmists need to show two things:
1. Provide evidence that withstands scrutiny that humans are the cause of a global warming trend*.
2. Provide evidence that withstands scrutiny that the warming trend is catastrophic.
Thus far, all "evidence" provided is akin to the so-called Malthusian evidence of Paul Ehrlich's "population bomb". And we all know what a quack he turned out to be.
*It's easier to prove a global warming trend than "changing the climate" since the latter is a convoluted concept. GW is more concrete and easier to identify the human variable amongst the other variables.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Um, what are you going to do? Call the fart police?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 4:48 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
From Zachriel's link:
Where was the cost analysis?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Ya know JJS, I think the design hypothesis behind climate change is junk science.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
The IPCC is not a research organization. Most major scientific organizations in the world that have looked at climate change see it as a significant problem requiring responsible cooperation.
The vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields have found the claim of anthropomorphic climate change to be well-supported. Scientific evidence can be found in scientific journals.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
That's the core issue behind the climate change movement. A failure to establish this point is the death knell for the movement.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
The same thing that happens when people upstream take all the water and dump their wastes. Political solutions have to be found. Divvying up water rights was a primary reason for the growth of civilization.
Comment by Zachriel — February 25, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Exactly. Yet that was the only "reference" the EPA link provided! Yet you linked to the EPA site as support for your argument. So please try again or go to the back of the line.
Gee, that sounds a lot like "an argument from authority". Isn't that what you accuse those wacky creationists of?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I'll admit I've never heard that one before. Reference, s'il vous plait?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 5:17 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Maybe they meant "design inference", eh?
Actually, I always thought that the core issue of the greenies was wealth re-distribution. From Ehrlich, to Suzuki, to Hansen & Gore, and so on, and so on, and so on, until the end of time we'll have to put up with their whines and groans.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Ok, so in your opinion Tim Ball has not earned credibility. But we still do not know what Tim Ball would have to do for Olegt to call him credible. We only know that Olegt does not trust Tim Ball for unknown reasons.
Isn't there a term for strong accusations that are only supported by subjective opinion?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Stop it chunkdz. You do know. If he catches an ID luminary making a mistake, trash talks ID, gets a sex change and looks like Abby in a dress and then hangs out with the boys in the swamp, he'll become credible.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
500 peer reviewed papers in 157 professional journals.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
If data were to indicate a cooling trend and a threatening ice age would a climate change movement encourage fewer government regulations on emissions and more burning of fossil fuels. My instincts tell me the answer is no. The appeal of ever larger government leading a herd movement is very attractive to some.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 6:44 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
From chinkdz's citation list:
“Analyses of planets, the Moon, the solar wind, solar flares, the solar photosphere, and ordinary meteorites show that our Sun is actually the violent, ill mannered remains of a supernova that once ejected all of the heavier elements on Earth and in the solar system and now selectively moves lightweight elements into a veneer of H and He that covers the Sun’s energetic neutron core [18]. This brings the IPCC conclusions into question and, more importantly, the draconian solutions that some policymakers advocate.”
Do you really think this is credible and lends support to your position?
Comment by Acipenser — February 25, 2010 @ 7:00 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Also from chunkdz citation list:
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Ooh here's one!
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Number 18, pp. 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
According to Olegt, these scientists are credible because they have found an error in published literature.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Where's the irrefutable scientific evidence for catastrophyism?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
chunkdz while you are considering the ramifications of holding up something clearly so out of line with known scientific evidence and thought, i.e., that the sun is actually a neutron star, you might also consider why the references from the Pielkes (Jr. & Sr.) were included in the list. Those gentleman are clearly not AGW skeptics and one wonders what criteria were used to select the titles for the list in the first place.
I still get a kick everytime I read the lunacy in the section I quoted. How could anyone take something that bizarre as being representative of skepticism of global warming? Well it's your reference, chunkdz, so I guess you own it now.
Comment by Acipenser — February 25, 2010 @ 7:29 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Chunkdz wrote:
Fixed that for ya.
And to answer your burning question, yes, credibility, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I personally find some people credible, just like I find some writers great. Your and my set of credible scientists may not be exactly the same.
Nonetheless, in order to be a credible scientist, a person must have done something to deserve people's trust. What has Tim Ball done? Why do you consider him credible? Just because he does not believe in AGW? What has he done as a scientist? Lindzen, at least, has left a trail of good science. That's why I consider him credible. Tim Ball? Not so much.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Actually they only think they found an error but aren't really sure which is why they used the term "may" instead of something more definitive. Do you know if they ever submitted a manuscript for peer-review and publication that outlines their complaints/criticism of the research?
Comment by Acipenser — February 25, 2010 @ 7:35 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Are you saying that Ball's science was shoddy?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 7:37 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Olegt:
Chunkdz wrote:
Olegt, you have asserted that Abbie is competent and in explaining this pointed to her ability to blog well and her a finding a mistake by Behe. Are you now saying that one can be competent but not credible or only that one's credibility is linked to culture war stances?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 7:41 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Sounds like the typically circumspect language used by researchers who are aware of the limitations of science.
I haven't read the paper.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
500 peer reviewed papers in 157 professional journals? O really?
R. C. Balling, Jr., A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming, Env. Sci. 7, 213 (2000), is not a peer-reviewed article. It's an abstract of an annual meeting of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Anyone can submit anything to a meeting like that and it will be accepted (I sort abstracts for the American Physical Society). No peer review is involved.
What does The Electricity Journal (the leading policy journal for the U.S. electric power industry) have to do with the science of climate change? How about Iron and Steel Technology, a trade magazine?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 7:46 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Bradford,
I explained why I find ERV, but not Mazur, a competent writer. That is all.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 7:48 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
I love the cherry-picking going on here. I bet if chunkdz, Bradford, et al. looked through the alarmists' peer-reviewed papers, there'd be similar findings.
Cherry-picking makes for bad arguments and woosie hockey players. Move on!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 7:52 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Actually I agree with the idea that human CO2 can enhance the greenhouse effect. I just don't think it matters much since the earth is currently cooling anyway and the little ice age will be upon us very shortly.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
What are you trying to insinuate?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
I don't agree with that statement. Any further increases of CO2 in the atmosphere will have minimal, if not negligible, effects on the temperature (see "Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can").
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 25, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
chunkdz wrote:
Not shoddy, Chunk, practically nonexistent. ISI's Web of Science turned up a total 4 published papers by T. F. Ball on climate and ecology, one of which was a reply to a comment. My graduate students have better publication records.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Olegt:
You went beyond this. You emphasized Abbie's knowledge and raised the obvious question, why is knowledge not the standard by which credibility is assessed? We know Abbie is young and has not had time to establish a track record as a researcher. But if her knowledge counts, so does the knowledge of anyone else.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Olegt:
Of what relevance is this to an assessment of broader issues related to theories of catastrophyism?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 7:59 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
JJS P. Eng. wrote:
I bet not. But please go ahead.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
How many papers had Einstein published by 1905 when his Special Theory of Relativity was published?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Bradford wrote:
For some reason, chunkdz seems to think that Tim Ball is a credible scientist and wants me to explain why I disagree. I just did.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Bradford wrote:
Twenty-two.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 8:10 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Olegt:
Then let's move on to a broader question. There are credible scientists who do not endorse global warming theories and many more than that who do not hold to catastrophe theories correct?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
I don't think Ball has actually done much science. His publication record is sparse to say the least and given his problems with credential inflation and fabrication there is good reason to question his motivation and any conclusions he is trying to propagate.
Comment by Acipenser — February 25, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
the citation you quoted was a letter in a publication not a manuscript/article and was published in 1997. If they never bothered to follow up with their results/criticisms with any formal publication there must not have been much to their complaints in the first place.
Comment by Acipenser — February 25, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Acipenser, you get the same question I directed at Olegt:
There are credible scientists who do not endorse global warming theories and many more than that who do not hold to catastrophe theories correct?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Sure, Bradford, there are credible scientists (Richard Lindzen) who do not share the majority view on AGW. What else do you want to know?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Olegt:
If there are credible scientists who do not share the prevailing view on AGW is there a plausible theory, held by a majority, that AGW leads to global catastrophy?
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
We'll try to get there, Bradford, but let me first ask you the same question you asked me:
There are credible scientists who agree with the view that the AGW is real, correct?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 8:53 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
At last a clue. Apparently there is a threshold of some number x where x>4 and x= the number of peer reviewed publications which someone must have written in order to be cinsidered credible. Care to tell us the value of X?
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 9:45 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
First, you don't have to have to be a researcher to be a credible scientist. Second, credential inflation and fabrication would be good reasons to assume that a person was not a credible person. But to call someone "not a credible scientist" requires impugning their scientific output.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I don't think one way or another about somebody until I have gathered enough evidence to make a judgement.
Critical thinking and all…
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Chunk,
There is no minimum. As I said, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. But still, credibility is something one earns. Tell me what makes Ball a credible scientist in your eyes. I'm all ears.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Chunkdz wrote:
That's the silliest thing I've heard today, and I've read a number of Joe's posts at AtBC.
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 10:06 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Regarding what JJS said earlier about the effects of CO2. Interesting.
http://www.int-res.com/article...
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 10:08 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
How would I know if he's a credible scientist? I haven't read a single paper or attended a single lecture of his. I just wanted to know YOUR basis for such an accusation, and now we know.
Low # of research papers = not to be trusted.
Brilliant.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Poorly worded, I admit. I meant that a scientist as broadly interpreted to be an expert in the sciences doesn't need to be in the trenches of the scientific method and peer review to be an expert or even credible. There are plenty of experts who forego the research route to pursue teaching, history popularization or philosophy of science. Sagan comes immediately to mind.
The point being obviously that I find your benchmark of "number of peer reviewed papers" to be a rather shallow measure of "credibility". But that's just me.
Comment by chunkdz — February 25, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
If there are credible scientists who do not share the prevailing view on AGW is there a plausible theory, held by a majority, that AGW leads to global catastrophy?
Why would you try to get there? What is the attraction to doomsday politics? Why not try to get at the truth instead?
Of course. That's why the question I posed above is crucial. You don't call the fire department when the temperature of the room increases because the weather is hot. You call when there is a fire. If there is no fire sensible people do not want trillions of dollars needlessly diverted when resources are very finite.
Comment by Bradford — February 25, 2010 @ 11:26 pm
February 25th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Bradford wrote:
Yes, there can be, at least in principle. Here is an example from recent history of science. In the mid-1960s, the overwhelming majority of astrophysicists accepted the reality of the Big Bang. There were a few dissenters, among which was Fred Hoyle, a credible scientist by any measure. Hoyle remained a skeptic of the Big Bang until his death. Sal may argue that this casts doubts on the reality of the Big Bang but it hardly matters.
On AGW, the situation is like that with a patient who visited 10 credible oncologists. 9 of them told him it's likely that he got cancer. 1 says no, he didn't. What should a rational patient do? Follow the consensus and get chemotherapy or pin all his hopes on the dissenting doctor and do nothing?
Comment by olegt — February 25, 2010 @ 11:53 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Olegt:
I don't think you and most other global warmists get it. That's why you keep asking if I believe there is evidence of warming and not grasping the difference between that and catastrophe scenarios.
Have you studied the costs of proposed remedies for global warming? Maybe I should have asked if costs mean anything to you because so often progressives have a Santa Claus approach to government. The faucet is unending in its supply and there are no consequences for foolish spending in the eyes of some. Or at least they behave that way.
JJS brought out an excellent point earlier. There is a lack of credible, in depth cost analysis studies comparing the costs linked to plausible warming effects and the costs linked to efforts to change the earth's climate. It's little wonder there are so many problems in the public sector. A privately run company would go out of business if it operated like this. But most public officials simply get reelected.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2010 @ 12:10 am
February 26th, 2010 at 7:58 am
You are bragging about one new binding site?
Your positioin can muster one new binding site and you think that is cause for celebration?
Your position is more pathetic than I realized.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 7:58 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Let's see:
1- There isn't any evidence the sea level is rising
2- Temperature gathering processes are highly suspect
3- The Earth has been warmer in the past without human involvement
4- Sea levels have been higher even though the CO2 has been lower
5- Stratospheric water vapor has a bigger effect on the Earth's temperature than CO2
6- Plants need CO2 and humans need plants
So the question should be is why do any scientists agree that AGW is real?
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 8:00 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Bradford wrote:
Really? Or maybe you haven't looked hard? What do we make of this?
Comment by olegt — February 26, 2010 @ 8:29 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:40 am
It references the IPCC- garbage in- garbage out.
1- There isn't any evidence the sea level is rising
2- Temperature gathering processes are highly suspect
3- The Earth has been warmer in the past without human involvement
4- Sea levels have been higher even though the CO2 has been lower
5- Stratospheric water vapor has a bigger effect on the Earth's temperature than CO2
6- Plants need CO2 and humans need plants
So the question should be is why do any scientists agree that AGW is real?
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 8:40 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Yes I see now-
olegt's method of debate- beat the messenger, not the message- is so easy everyone should use it.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 8:41 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:44 am
The village idiot is out early today…
Comment by olegt — February 26, 2010 @ 8:44 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Yes you are- why is that?
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 8:52 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Bradford, as the globe warms, sea levels rise. As the globe warms, forests die. As the globe warms, there will be less available water. As the globe warms, overall agricultural yields will decline.
But just start with the first one, sea level rise. Thermal expansion is a direct result and occurs even if there is no glacier melt. Warm water has a higher volume.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 8:55 am
February 26th, 2010 at 8:55 am
From one of many links provided:
This type of analysis would fit within a sub-topic of sociology. The points made can be interesting and at times informative but lack the type of accounting scrutiny needed to tackle real cost/benefit scenarios.
We are told, in suitable academic style, of GDP factor breakdowns including such things as the labor force and its productivity which breaks down further to the number of working-age people and hours worked per worker, productivity, technical changes and capital-output ratios. Sounds like a good preface for introducing the numbers needed on specific financial concerns. But this would not be what a decision maker would need to evaluate comparative costs.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2010 @ 8:55 am
February 26th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Except the sea levels are not rising.
Not only that they were higher before when CO2 concentrations were lower than today.
So according to Zachriel the globe is not warming…
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 9:01 am
February 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
From a link by Zach:
The case of India is particularly interesting because many farmers in that nation are dependent on technology prevalent in the USA in prior generations. India has made up its mind (correctly) to bank on technological advances and industrialization as the best way to advance productivity.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2010 @ 9:03 am
February 26th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Claim that the sea level is rising is a total fraud
I can't force Zachriel to read it…
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 9:33 am
February 26th, 2010 at 9:57 am
You link to an interview on LaRouche Publications. To top it off, Mörner believes that water dowsing has a scientific basis. Let's take a short detour to argumentum ad verecundiam.
Anyone can point to a contrarian to support their position. That doesn't constitute a valid appeal to authority because it is not a consensus in the field. You could say it indicates such a consensus has not yet been formed, but in the case of climate change, virtually every major scientific organization in the world has already made their views known that humans are having an effect on the climate. There is just no valid appeal to authority for climate change contrarians.
That leaves the evidence and arguing that the consensus view is wrong. Sometimes that does involve citing an expert in the field. But simplistic arguments that have already been considered by the scientific community are rarely going to have any merit.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 9:57 am
February 26th, 2010 at 10:02 am
You cannot have a sea level rise and have less water avaiable.
You do realize that we humans have mastered desalinization?
You do realize that we humans can build more resevoirs- right? You know to hold the run-off that may come sooner.
And geez that would put more Americans back to work!
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 10:02 am
February 26th, 2010 at 10:06 am
Well I know scientists who think that genetic mistakes can, via cumulative selection, bring about profound biological change.
And without any scientific data to support them!
Also I noticed that you didn't address the evidence that shows the sea level is not rising.
Also it is very telling that you cannot support the claim of AGW.
All you can do is to appeal to authority and some consensus- as is science is done via a consensus.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 10:06 am
February 26th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Typical attack the messenger tactic:
And therefore Zachriel doesn't need to deal with the evidence that refutes his claim that the sea level is rising.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 10:20 am
February 26th, 2010 at 10:28 am
University of Colorado: Sea Level Change.
NASA: Sea level could rise 40 to 65 cm by the year 2100, due to predicted greenhouse-gas-induced climate warming. Such a sea level rise would threaten coastal cities, ports, and wetlands with more frequent flooding, enhanced beach erosion, and saltwater encroachment into coastal streams and aquifers.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 10:28 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Just a few examples: With a 0.25 meter rise in sea levels, 60% of the population of Alexandria would be under sea level as well as half its industry. In Bangladesh, a one meter rise would displace 10 million people and destroy essential rice production. Trillions of $US in insurable assets would be at risk with a 0.5 meter rise.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 11:01 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Zachriel:
This is better. Land masses below sea levels exist now and some are sustained by man made barriers. The sea level rises are gradual and populations mobile. Insurance rates will adjust to any physical changes. A good policy maker would want cost stats on options including adaptations to predicted physical conditions. Proposals are also valued in the trillions.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2010 @ 11:20 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I guess time will tell.
I have relatives who live right on the water in Florida.
Perhaps they are just denialists but they haven't reported any change- and I have been asking. And they have marks on their sea-wall that records the height of the tides.
And since this alarmism has gripped the nation they have been paying very close attention.
Their boat dock? The water level is the same since it was installed in the 70s.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 11:35 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:46 am
ID guy wrote:
Your relatives wouldn't be able to see changes on the scale of a decade because the current trend is about +2 mm per year, or +2 cm per decade. It's easily masked by tides that are of the order of a meter.
One needs to keep meticulous records to spot the trend. Here they are: Mean sea level trends for stations in Florida.
Comment by olegt — February 26, 2010 @ 11:46 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Another reason the IPCC should be disbanded and previous reports should be either ammended or discarded altogether: Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 26, 2010 @ 11:47 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:48 am
From Zachriel's 1996 NASA article:
The climate changes people.
The tilt of our axis has something to do with it also.
That is because, for example, there was and will be a time that when the earth is above the solar eccliptic that the Northern Hemisphere will be tilted towards the Sun and when the earth is below the eccliptic it will be tilted away from the Sun.
This is opposite of what happens today.
There has and will be times that when we pass through the eccliptic (equinox) we will not have equal day and night because of the tilt.
It's called precession. And we know about it.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 11:48 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:50 am
It's been more than four decades.
Also seeing we are coming off of a little ice age I would expect some increase.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 11:50 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:53 am
0.8 feet in 100 years
I will contact them in about 1000 years to tell them to move.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 11:53 am
February 26th, 2010 at 11:56 am
JJS P.Eng., so let's say we disband the IPCC. Then what?
Comment by olegt — February 26, 2010 @ 11:56 am
February 26th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Form a team with scientists from both sides of the aisle and have them start over.
Have keen oversight. Have open accountability.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
olegt, disbanding the IPCC is a first step in separating science from politics. The IPCC has been used as a bludgeon against so-called "dissenters" and "deniers" to muzzle the debate (and there is a debate. Ironically, it is the alarmists who are deniers of this).
Second, it has to be recognised that peer review is not the be-all and end all. There is an excellent article on Stephen McIntyre that shows how independent reviews can occur outside of peer review. Working in the mining industry has given McIntyre experience in spotting potential manipulations of mining data (see Bre-X for example). This experience cannot be dismissed out-of-hand, but was by the alarmists (who are the ones that sometimes act like the real deniers).
Politically, government regulation of CO2 should be dropped and abandoned. Cap-and-trade has failed in Europe and been shown easy to defraud. A carbon tax would add yet another (unnecessary) burden on the private sector at a time when it is needed more than ever to stimulate the economy instead of failed Keynesian policies. Bottom line, politicians should drop AGW/CC like a hot potato, if not throw it far away like a hand grenade.
As for the science, there is still no conclusive evidence that humans are having a significant statistical effect on global temperatures/climate. The hockey stick was the best proof, and it has been broken multiple times (bad statistics, faulty graph generation, cherry-picking, etc.). Other so-called proofs don't prove anything either way. I've put the challenge out before and no one has provided proof that withstand even a modicum of scrutiny. All I get is hand-waving and "Denier! Denier! Pants on fire!" That may work in the playground, but in the grown-up world, maturity and actual proof is needed for actual persuasion.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 26, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
JJS P.Eng. wrote:
You lost me right there. IPCC included dissenting voices (Richard Lindzen, for example). They just turned out to be a small minority. If you form another panel along these lines, its makeup will be similar.
We're not talking about peer review here, we're talking about a panel of experts whose task is to provide advice to policy makers.
That's the bottom line, I suppose. We don't need no stinkin' science.
Comment by olegt — February 26, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I never said another panel should be formed.
Also, the IPCC panel does not solely consist of scientists. So the alleged "minority" is larger than it seems. As well, science is not a democracy.
Actually, you're talking about "a panel of experts". I'm talking about the bigger picture, and peer review is part of that.
Your ignorance and elitism is on full display if you think I'm summarily dismissing science as a whole by questioning AGW/CC. As an engineer, it would be ridiculous and foolhardy to do so.
What we don't need is no stinkin' politics masquerading as science.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 26, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
This is worth a chuckle or two.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — February 26, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Ten million Bangladeshi farmers can grow rice in your neighborhood on their own farms.
It simply isn't fair for wealthy nations to continue to fuel their growth at the expense of poor rice farmers in the developing world. Keep in mind that coastal flooding in only one of the many problems caused by climate change.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
That's a bogus point. Virtually all the advances in agricultural technology, medicine, and technology of every kind, which the third world benefits from, comes from the developed world. Countries like Bangladesh would have no chance of emerging from poverty any time soon without the developed world.
There are major problems endemic to spending trillions to cut down on carbon emissions. It's all academic anyway. The third world will not hold back their industrialization efforts. Nor would I expect it.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
You didn't address the point. As sea levels rise, it will displace millions of people and destroy arable land.
Of course they will. It's in their own best *long term* self-interest. And as the world becomes more and more economically intertwined, then trade will depend increasingly on meeting international standards.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
We have the technology to create new arable land.
We should be doing that now- more plants to keep the CO2 down would be a good thing don't ya think?
Heck we could easily bleed-off .8 feet every hundred years just by tapping into the existing river systems.
More jobs!
Then we build more deslaination plants and pump the water from the Indian and Atlantic into Africa to help them help themselves.
More jobs!
And people to man the new farmlands- more jobs!
Look at that- I have the world back to work, doing something very constructive and solving the, ahem, sea level rise at the same time and thereby saving millions of rice farmers!
Super
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 5:07 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
JJS P.Eng:
I was under the impression that multiple, independent temperature reconstructions show warming, not just the original hockey stick. Further, a steep rise in global temperatures in the 20th century coincides with increased burning of fossil fuels. Finally, CO2 is known to contribute to warming and radiative forcing models fit measured temperatures. There might be nitpicks to make on each of these, but what is compelling enough to discard all of it?
Comment by woodchuck64 — February 26, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
woodchuck64-
1- Cherry-picked temperature readings from the USA and Russia
2- Evidence that the the sea-level was higher even though CO2 concentrations are lower
3- Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas but the Earth isn't a greenhouse
4- The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is less than 0.05%
If that atmosphere is that sensitive then we are doomed anyway so why not just party down?
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 6:18 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
I addressed the fairness point. The third world benefits from the industrialized west.
If they rise during the next 100 years there are coping mechanisms.
Bradford: The third world will not hold back their industrialization efforts. Nor would I expect it.
Their long term interests are best served by increased industrialization and the increased energy use that entails.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2010 @ 6:25 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Which are? Does it include a large international organization that can marshall the required resources to relocate and train millions of displaced landowners? And if they don't like your plan to flood their homelands and demand changes? Or will this be the plan?
It isn't necessary to sacrifice progress in order to address climate change. Indeed, like the problem of pollution, addressing the problem is necessary to sustainable growth.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
ID Guy:
All 12 of the reconstructions?
There's also evidence that CO2 concentrations were higher in the past while temperatures were lower, which doesn't necessarily mean CO2 has no effect, just that it is one of several variables that affect global temperatures. But the point was that CO2 is known to contribute to warming as a greenhouse gas and models can only match current measurements by taking it into account (while also taking other variables into account as much as possible as well).
Yes, but trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse affect.
Is it obvious and easily shown that global warming is a myth, or does it require a considerable investment in reading and understanding the scientific details?
Comment by woodchuck64 — February 26, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Bradford: If they rise during the next 100 years there are coping mechanisms.
Sea levels don't rise that fast Zach. No need to push panick buttons.
Bradford: Their long term interests are best served by increased industrialization and the increased energy use that entails.
Of course you are going to sacrifice. That's why alternative energy is not used now. It's a lot more expensive. They are not worried about fossil fuels in the third world. They have more basic concerns.
Comment by Bradford — February 26, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
woodchuck64-
Yes if all 12 reconstructions used the available data- the data from checkpoints not properly placed to get a good over-all look- then they would all be faulty.
IOW the cherry-picking came in to play when placing the stations or deciding which station temps to make available or which stations to check in the first place.
The fact remains we are recovering from a little ice age and warm is good.
Also it is a fact that climate changes and the cold periods outlast the warm.
We should be happy.
And if people cannot adapt to the change, they will die- boo hoo.
Meaning if we are too stupid to do the few things I mentioned earlier then I say fine- get the Darwin Awards ready as we will have multiple winners- in the millions.
How hard can it be to dig a trench and form new resevoirs?
Surely we can match 0.8 feet/ 100 years of ice pack meltoff.
And if we can't then we deserve Zachriel's extremist decline.
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Another messenger to attack:
Update on Global Drought Patterns (IPCC Take Note)
Another failed prediction of the IPCC and some error correction thrown in- that's the reason for the failed prediction…
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 8:29 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
And yet another messenger to attack:
A Pending American Temperaturegate
It looks like when adjusted the temperture rise in the last 100+ years is a whopping 0.5 C or about 0.9 F.
Break out the suntan lotion winter is ovah forevah…
Comment by ID guy — February 26, 2010 @ 8:39 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I'm surprised that the influence of global warming on ocean circulation systems have not been discussed. It seems clear from a number of lines of evidence that the ocean conveyor system can, and has, shut down in that past in relatively short periods of time…a decade or less. This disruption brings catastrophic scenerios into the limelight and would present a formidible challenge to adapt to especially with the collapse of agriculture in N. America and Europe.
Nature 411, 927-930 (21 June 2001) | doi:10.1038/35082034; Received 24 November 2000; Accepted 19 April 2001
Bogi Hansen
William R. Turrell
Svein Østerhus
Faroese Fisheries Laboratory, PO Box 3051, FO-110 Tórshavn, Faroe Islands
FRS Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK
Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and Geophysical Institute, N-5024 Berge
Decreasing overflow from the Nordic seas into the Atlantic Ocean through the Faroe Bank channel since 1950
AbstractThe overflow of cold, dense water from the Nordic seas, across the Greenland–Scotland ridge1 and into the Atlantic Ocean is the main source for the deep water of the North Atlantic Ocean2. This flow also helps drive the inflow of warm, saline surface water into the Nordic seas1. The Faroe Bank channel is the deepest path across the ridge, and the deep flow through this channel accounts for about one-third of the total overflow1, 2. Previous work has demonstrated that the overflow has become warmer and less saline3, 4 over time. Here we show, using direct measurements and historical hydrographic data, that the volume flux of the Faroe Bank channel overflow has also decreased. Estimating the volume flux conservatively, we find a decrease by at least 20 per cent relative to 1950. If this reduction in deep flow from the Nordic seas is not compensated by increased flow from other sources, it implies a weakened global thermohaline circulation and reduced inflow of Atlantic water to the Nordic seas,/blockquote>
Comment by Acipenser — February 26, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
ID guy wrote:
Have you read the paper, Joe? Not the blog entry, but the paper discussed in it? What are its main findings?
Sheffield, J., K.M. Andreadis, E.F. Wood, and D.P. Lettenmaier. 2009. Global and Continental Drought in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century: Severity–Area–Duration Analysis and Temporal Variability of Large-Scale Events. J. Climate 22, 1962 (2008).
doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2722.1
I'll help you by providing the abstract and highlighting two key sentences in it:
Let me know what you think of it.
Comment by olegt — February 26, 2010 @ 10:39 pm
February 26th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
That wasn't the question.
You kept insisting upon specific effects of climate change. Though there are lots of effects, we pointed to one incontrovertible problem if global temperatures increase—rising sea levels, which will result in millions of people being displaced. In reply, you offer no solutions. It's simply not tenable to pretend that abandoning thousands of square miles of arable land, and dispersing millions of refugees into other countries, is a solution.
Comment by Zachriel — February 26, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 12:44 am
There are already places on the globe where the sea level is greater than the land near it. The land is still there. What is untenable is spending trillions on a problem that may never exist.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 12:44 am
February 27th, 2010 at 9:51 am
That's not an answer. We know coastal areas will be flooded. A large part of humanity lives on coastal plains.
So that returns us to this question.
Draw the distinction, then. Is there scientific support for anthropomorphic climate change? If so, can we reasonably predict the effects on the environment? If you deny anthropomorphic climate change, then obviously a discussion of remedial measures is irrelevant. So be clear in your position. Is there scientific support for anthropomorphic climate change?
Comment by Zachriel — February 27, 2010 @ 9:51 am
February 27th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Zachriel,
I have provided a solution to the rising sea level.
Do you think that by ignoring it it doesn't exist?
Is that how you debate by ignoring what other people say and babbling on regardless?
And if the people living on the coast are as ignorant as you appear to be then they deserve whatever fate is coming down the pipe.
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 11:18 am
February 27th, 2010 at 11:21 am
I see the global warming of only 0.5C has olegt's and Zachriel's panties in a knot.
Hey oleg if you have something to say then say it.
I know you don't get tired of acting like a pompous ass but I am tired of dealing with your childish behaviour.
So if you have something that supports the IPCC from the paper in question, present it.
Or is playing childish games the best you have to offer?
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 11:21 am
February 27th, 2010 at 11:22 am
No and 0.5 degree C increase in over 100 years is nothing to worry about.
Heck just before that was a little ice age…
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 11:22 am
February 27th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Joe, from your answer I take it that you haven't read the article and don't understand its main claim. So let me translate that for you.
Sheffield et al. found a direct correlation between the sea surface temperatures and the number of droughts. Global temperatures did not rise in a steady fashion during the last century. They dipped in the 1960s and 70s. Precisely as expected, there were fewer droughts during that period. So the paper, contrary to the claim of the silly blogger, actually supports the IPCC claim of a link between global warming and an increased frequency of droughts.
Let the next round of verbal insults commence.
Comment by olegt — February 27, 2010 @ 11:56 am
February 27th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Who is donating the land? The transformation? The infrastructure? The training? The homes?
Yes, protecting rain forests, a primary carbon sink on land, is part of the solution.
Not sure what that means. Most fresh water resources will be tapped for the human populations, and many fresh water resources will be threatened. And rain in Brazil won't help people in the Sudan.
Desalinization requires large amounts of energy. Distributing water from oceans to inland areas requires energy and infrastructure. Are you proposing a large international bureaucracy with the power to tax rich nations in order to address the problem?
We're talking about millions of people being displaced, many of them poor but independent landowners, who would lose their cultural foundations, their ways of life.
Comment by Zachriel — February 27, 2010 @ 11:58 am
February 27th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
For those who reject AGW, I was wondering if that conclusion is obvious from the scientific data or does it require a huge investment in reading and understanding the minute details? So far, many objections I've seen in this thread seem to have easy and ready answers from climate research resource sites such as RealClimate.
ID Guy:
You are referring to the claim that the CRU made reconstructions by picking only the warmest Russian stations? This is incorrect as far as I can tell. There's a graph from the IEA-report (Moscow) reproduced here that shows hardly any difference if you include all the stations. In fact, including all stations shows more warming. If you have more information, let me know.
Can you point me to evidence that the other temperature reconstructions referenced in the IPCC graph are cherry-picked or are you implying that they're all based on the same CRU data?
It's not clear that the Little Ice Age was actually a global cooling event. But even if it was, temperatures are increasing in the latter half of the 20th century faster than can be explained by solar activity alone. As I said in my original post, CO2 seems to be the only factor that explains that increase.
While maybe true that warm is good, I think the larger problem with climate change is the sheer speed at which temperatures are rising. Without knowing what effects such a rapid change will cause, it makes sense to attempt to slow it as much as possible until we know more.
Comment by woodchuck64 — February 27, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Amazing-
I provide a viable solution to both CO2 and sea-level rise and Zachriel responds with subterfuge.
We have the technology to create new arable land.
There are vast explanses of open land in many countries.
All we have to do is irrigate it.
The transformation is going to take work- IOW it would create jobs.
The new infrastructure would create jobs.
I am not sure what you mean by "new homes"
You just about be throwing a hissy fit actually.
We should be doing that now- more plants to keep the CO2 down would be a good thing don't ya think?
Protecting the rain forests doesn't have anything to do with what I said.
If we create more arable land then we can plant more plants which will be in addition to the existing rain forests.
Heck we could easily bleed-off .8 feet every hundred years just by tapping into the existing river systems.
Actually according to a recent SciAm article rain in Brazil can certainly help people in the Sudan.
You should try getting out more often there is a world of solutions out there.
I also said "existing RIVER systems".
Do you not understand that almost all of the world's rivers dump their lods into the oceans?
So all we have to do is bleed-off some of what they carry- to the tune of 0.8 feet every hundred years- to match the sea-level rise from ice-pack melt-off.
Then we build more deslaination plants and pump the water from the Indian and Atlantic into Africa to help them help themselves.
New plants will be self-sustaining via renewable energy such as solar and wind.
Also I am sure if we really try we could figure out a low-energy solution.
Job creation.
I didn't propose anything but a solution to your extreme alarmist position.
Yeah in a thousand years or more at the current rate.
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
What speed would that be?
Are you saying that it is rising faster than 0.5C over the last 100 years?
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
No you do not know this. The earth is one big lab and you have a hypothesis which is falsifiable. Science 101.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
You believe whatever you want regardless of the evidence.
Apparentl you don't understand- did you even read the blog I linked to?
The following is the last two sentences:
The question you need to respond to is:
Did the paper in question support claims of increasing drought activity?
IOW have droughts been increasing over the past 6 decades?
What does the paper say?
I don't care about the correlation I want to know if that is what we are seeing- an increase of droughts.
As for that unsteady temperature rise, well that doesn't fit the alarmist position at all.
We should observe a steady increase.
If we don't then CO2 isn't the cause of the increase.
0.5C in the last 100+ years- is that all you have?
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
woodchuck:
This is not about science. Spending hundreds of trillions is politics. Pure and simple.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Bradford,
Zachriel is looking at it as if the worst-case scenario is not only inevitable if we don't change our ways, but coming soon.
IOW Zach is that special breed- an extreme alarmist- think chicken-little with its head cut off.
Comment by ID guy — February 27, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
This video progressively zooms out on a graph of ice core data indicating temperature going back more than 400,000 years. I would say it is fairly obvious that the globe routinely undergoes a spike in temperature roughly every 100,000 years.
So that immediately undercuts the idea that the current increase (right on schedule, but not yet as high as its predecessors) is uniquely due to man-made effects, rather than an underlying climate pattern that has been operating over hundreds of thousands of years.
CO2 does not provide a good explanation for the increase, especially in light of the recurring increase over long periods of earth history. Though it can be an effect, it is not the cause.
Correlations, even if real, do not indicate the direction of cause and effect.
When we see temperature increases preceding CO2 increase (both ancient and recent), as well as the recent absence of temp increase for more than a decade (despite continued CO2 increases), that further undercuts CO2 as the cause. It is far more likely that the ancient correlation reflects CO2 release (e.g. from oceans) as a possible side effect of warming, not the cause.
Computer models of climate that make CO2 the cause of warming do not correlate to what has been happening for more than a decade. Some of the recently released email correspondences acknowledge the discrepancy. AGW advocates can't have it both ways — saying both that CO2 is clearly the cause due to correspondence with models, and then (as is usually done) explain lack of correspondence due to appeals to the complexity of the global system, how we don't understand it all, etc., etc. If the failures of the model are because we don't understand it all, that admits the models may not reflect reality. It undercuts the hypothesis that human released CO2 is the cause. The models are wrong about the nature of the cause.
If mankind had never existed on planet Earth, the ice core data indicates we should expect the latest spike of global warming would have happened regardless. Our actions are not the cause. The AGW hypothesis fails. If our presence has made some difference, it would appear to be that the current warm period is not as high as the other regular spikes that preceded it.
Comment by eric — February 27, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
It should be unnecessary to constantly repeat large sections of comments to keep the discussion on track. If the oceans warm, sea levels will rise and coastal areas will be flooded. Thus far you have provided no reasonable solution. ID guy has brainstrormed a few ideas, but they vary between the wildly impractical to letting them die "boo hoo."
Draw the distinction, then. Is there scientific support for anthropomorphic climate change? If so, can we reasonably predict the effects on the environment? If you deny anthropomorphic climate change, then obviously a discussion of remedial measures is irrelevant. So be clear in your position. Is there scientific support for anthropomorphic climate change?
Comment by Zachriel — February 27, 2010 @ 10:17 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Zachriel:
These estimates are not carved in stone and the variation in them is significant. The climate scientist I heard interviewed saw a likely increase in sea level which was half that of many other estimates and the time frame encompassed by this was 2100. The difference is huge in terms of the resulting coastal flooding. In addition we could reasonably expect explosive technological advances comparable or exceeding that which marked the difference between 1910 and 2000. Given the huge outlays of money demanded by the global warming movement I am unpersuaded that better uses of our resources is not in the cards. The approach I would favor is much less disruptive and costly and yet steers us toward renewable energy.
Comment by Bradford — February 27, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
February 27th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
There are all sorts of effects from global warming. The idea was to get you to respond to specifics by choosing something incontrovertible. If the globe warms, sea levels rise. If sea levels rise, then people will be displaced. This creates economic losses, political instability and human suffering.
The claim (a claim supported by the majority of the scientific community from nearly every academy of sciences in every country that has studied the problem) is that emissions are progressively damaging the climate. It's not enough to just pretend that this consensus doesn't exist. Or to pretend you can solve it later after the damage has been done. Given the scientific consensus, countermeasures need to be considered because the lag time is very long.
Nor are the changes required beyond the reasonable capability of the world community. Many of them just make good sense for long term development. But because the atmosphere is a shared resource, the incentives have to be universal.
Comment by Zachriel — February 27, 2010 @ 11:17 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 8:12 am
My ideas are very practical.
Just because you lack the ability to think for yourself doesn't mean my ideas are impractical.
Your extreme alarmism is impractical and borderline hysterical.
Global warming- less than 1 degree F over 100 years.
It makes me feel warm all over…
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 8:12 am
February 28th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Science is not democratic.
Consensus sciuence is useless science.
Science requires EVIDENCE not consensus.
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 8:13 am
February 28th, 2010 at 9:51 am
You say that, but you won't answer the simplest questions about them.
Who is donating the land? Where? Who is paying the cost of the transformation? How much does it cost? The infrastructure? The training? The homes? What if people don't want to move? Won't that create political instability?
Quite the contrary, the problem will not be that diffucult to solve with coordinated action, and many of the proposed solutions have long term advantages (conservation, new technology) beyond mitigating climate change. The difficulty is mostly political.
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2010 @ 9:51 am
February 28th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Or if the globe warms sea level rises will not be enough to cause significant political instability or human suffering.
The above is laden with assumptions that are not necessarily valid. The first is that the proposals put forth by the global warming movement are optimal with respect to the hypothetical problem presented. The belief that severe and costly economic regulatory measures put into effect now would be the best means to avert the political instability and human suffering you previously alluded to is highly dubious. It's an approach that has been much more widely evidenced among the PIGS of Europe than the relatively much more economically viable nations like China and the USA. We see great political instability in Greece today and great concern that it will spread to the other PIGS not because of natural disasters but rather due to man made economic mismanagement. If you are hoping that innovation will induce technological advances favoring more efficient energy sources then the best means of promoting this would be by fostering conditions favoring greater economic and political freedom rather than less of it. Using tax incentives rather than carbon offset strategies is a better means of encouraging innovation and production breakthroughs.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2010 @ 2:47 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
We need one word will solve the problem here. Dikes.
Using very primitive technology, the Dutch started building them back in the Middle Ages.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — February 28, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
My ideas are very practical.
Who are you to ask questions?
Are you an engineer? Doubtful.
Are you in charge? No.
All you do is complain.
I solve problems and you complain.
Guess which type of person the world needs more of?
As I have already told you there is plenty of open land available.
All we have to do is irrigate it.
And we do that by tapping into existing river systems.
All you can do is ask childish questions.
Geez my five year old doesn't act as bad as you.
Your extreme alarmism is impractical and borderline hysterical.
So running araound like a chicken with its head cut off is OK.
Right.
Who is going to pay for your coordinated action?
Who is going to pay for the new technology?
Who is going to stop the rain forests from being cut down?
See I can play childish games too- but that doesn't get anything accomplished.
My plan would feed the world- what does your plan do? Does it have any guarantees?
IOW what happens if we curb CO2 emissions- CO2 level drops to 300 ppm and we still warm because that is just the way nature is?
I bet I know:
"We were too late"
Do what I say and people can stay on the coast becauser guess what? We are keeping pace with the melt-off AND we can feed the world!
Or we can whine like Zachriel…
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
You said you had practical solutions, but apparently not.
Like those in New Orleans. More than likely dikes will be one solution to rising sea levels. They may be more practical in some places than others.
The Netherlands has struggled with floods over the centuries. Their scientists confirm the broad scientific consensus, and they are concerned that long term sea level rise will require new technologies.
(By the way, Dutch water boards were an early form of democratic institution. This is similar to how irrigation projects were the glue that led to the formation of ancient civilizations and governments.)
Comment by Zachriel — February 28, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
February 28th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
I do.
All you can do is ask childish questions as if you are in some position of authority.
So the "apparently not" applies to Zachriel- Does Zachriel even understand what i posted? Apparently not.
I could be putting people to work and feeding the world- all the while mitigating that sea-level rise- a whopping 0.8 feet per 100 years.
I call for new technology but my new technology- cheap desalination using renewable energy- isn't good enough.
Here is another question for Zachriel to ignore:
What has the temperature rise been in the past 100 years? The last 50?
Please reference your answers.
Thanks
Comment by ID guy — February 28, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
March 1st, 2010 at 9:24 am
Is this how we get Zachriel to disappear- ask questions that if answered will show his position to be nuthin' but chicken-little chickenshit?
Now I know…
Comment by ID guy — March 1, 2010 @ 9:24 am