GUEST COMMENTARY
Is the Sun Finally Setting on Climate Change Skepticism?
By Todd Tanner, Guest Writer, 4-08-10
Photo by Todd Tanner
Over the last few years I’ve noticed something interesting about our ongoing climate change discussions. It used to be that logic and knowledge were the keys. We looked at the best available science, weighed the predicted costs of action versus the predicted costs of inaction, and then considered the most appropriate alternatives. Businesses use this kind of approach all the time. It’s called a “cost-benefit analysis.”
Recently, though, our climate discussions have slowed and even stalled. Not because of the science, which remains irrefutable, or because of the proposed solutions, which are generally still feasible, but because so-called climate skeptics are doing their best to muddy the water and raise doubts about the issue.
Let’s be clear. By its very nature, skepticism implies a reliance on reason, logic and empirical data. A true skeptic will say, “I’m not sure you’re right, so show me why I should believe you.” That’s not cynicism or negativity, that’s a healthy approach to most any controversial issue.
As Congressman Willard Vandiver of Missouri said all the way back in 1899, “I come from a country that raises corn and cotton, cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I’m from Missouri, and you have got to show me.”
You can’t argue with that kind of statement. It makes too much sense.
But what doesn’t make sense--not even for a second--is when climate skeptics refuse to accept the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence. That isn’t skepticism; it’s denial. And it’s the same kind of response we hear time and again from people who’ve fallen into alcoholism or drug addiction.
“No way. I don’t have a problem.”
Or in the case of the climate deniers, “No way. We don’t have a problem.”
Here’s an interesting anecdote. Not long ago a bright, well-informed “skeptic” e-mailed me an essay that disputed conventional climate science. When I responded, I told him that my opinion wasn’t set in stone and that I’d be happy to alter my views--just as soon as the scientists modified theirs. Then I asked him two simple questions: What would it take for him to change his mind? What would have to happen before he’d agree that we have a major problem on our hands?
You’d think he’d be able to offer a reasonable answer, something centered on a near-unanimous scientific consensus, or dramatic new empirical evidence, or people he trusted changing their views. Nope. Nothing. He has gone radio silent. As best as I can tell, he’s simply not open to anything except denial.
Nor are most other “skeptics.” They’re past the point where scientists can convince them or where logical arguments can persuade them. They’ve become ideologues, and whether they’re driven by religion or politics or their distrust of the science is ultimately irrelevant. They’ve hardened into intransigence and their skepticism is nothing more than a thin veneer of respectability plastered over an otherwise indefensible position.
Not that we can fault them. They rely on fossil fuels. They’re addicted to fossil fuels. Of course they’re going to deny that they --or we--have a problem. That’s what addicts do.
But we need to realize that this isn’t a normal case of addiction. There’s more than one life, or one family’s well-being, at stake. Our collective future is on the line. Our kids and our grandkids will live well, or poorly, or not at all, because of the decisions we make over the next year or two. Which means it’s our responsibility to make the best possible choices about climate and energy legislation.
Here’s what we need to know. The science is clear and unequivocal. We are dumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, and all that carbon is warming the planet and making our oceans more acidic. Our dependence on fossil fuels has created a worldwide crisis that threatens every single aspect of our lives.
Fortunately, there’s hope on the horizon. Green energy development (such as wind and solar) has the potential to drive our economy and create millions of high-quality jobs--jobs that can’t be shipped overseas. Energy conservation can cut our carbon emissions while it saves us money on our utility bills and at the gas pumps. And if we stop sending our petro-dollars to the Mid-East, we can stop funding rogue regimes who promote international terrorism. It’s a win/ win for America. We have the ability to strengthen our economy at the same time we protect our security--but only if we pass strong climate and energy legislation.
Real skeptics figured this out a long time ago. And now they agree with the 97 percent of climate scientists who insist that climate change is a real threat. They agree with the 76 percent of Americans who are worried about global warming and want the federal government to address the problem. They agree with the 55 percent of Americans who want the USA to sign a binding global treaty that would require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
In short, they side with the science--and with common sense.
As for the climate change deniers who are shouting down the experts and telling us not to believe our own eyes, well, they’re addicts. And we all know what that means.
Todd Tanner writes about conservation and the outdoors from his home in Montana’s Flathead Valley.
After the comments, Tanner writes:
Hi folks. Thanks for taking the time to read both my essay and the subsequent comments. There are a couple of important themes in this thread that I’d like to acknowledge and address.
Global Temperatures The scientists at NASA recently released a paper titled “Current GISS Global Temperature Analysis.” (You can find the PDF version at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0319.pdf
The NASA paper states, “We conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.” The NASA paper also says, “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade.” Finally, NASA makes the following prediction: “We conclude from these data that a new record global temperature, for the period with instrumental measurements, should be set within the next few months as the effects of the recent and current moderate El Nino continue. This new record temperature will be particularly meaningful because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect.” Let’s be clear. One of the most respected scientific bodies in the world just made a definitive statement that the planet is continuing to warm. I recommend that anyone who disagrees with NASA’s assessment reads the entire report before commenting further.
Ocean Acidity A year and a half ago, I interviewed Dr. Richard Feely, a senior research scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. (NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) We had an in-depth conversation about ocean acidification and it’s impact on various ecosystems. Dr. Feely assured me that ocean acidification is real, that it’s happening right now, and that it’s poised to be a huge problem. You can read more about ocean acidification and its relationship with anthropogenic carbon dioxide at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
Scientific Consensus/ Polling Numbers The most authoritative survey of scientists that I’m aware of was released by Peter Doran of the University of Illinois at Chicago on January 19 of 2009. As Science Daily reported, “A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Science Daily also noted that, “In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.” Think about that for just a second. 97 out of 100 climatologists actively studying the earth’s climate believe that global warming is real, and that humans play a role. 97%. If that’s not an overwhelming consensus, I’m not sure what is. (You can read the entire Science Daily story at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm Hacked Emails/ Professor
Jones/ “Climategate” The British House of Commons just investigated the entire incident and found no wrong-doing or malfeasance on the part of Professor Jones. Nor did they find any reason to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. You can read the entire British report, which was released on March 31, 2010, at:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf
Or as Time Magazine put it: “The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Shame on you.
Look to the east to see just how ecological these wind turbines really are. Most of the set-ups on land are being proposed for mountain/hilltops. Where the wind is. Take a good look at the destruction of the natural habitat that occurs to place these wind farms. Some areas look like clear-cut forest practices.
Once these "green" power producers are installed, how many permanent, high paying positions are needed to keep them serviced?
Look, it makes sense to get alternative energy sources going, but not at the cost of the natural enviroment. And still, no one has shown me a hard research paper about all of these millions of new jobs. They can't, because these jobs are just an illussion. Look to Spain, you will see what really happens when you try to make this illussion into reality.
Oh, and by the way, the Arctic ice extent is at its' highest value for this date since 2002, and global sea ice is in "positive" territory, but let's not mention this, as it may disturb the fantasy of CO2 produced warming......
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
You see, some of us "deniers" actually look into these claims made by consensus, and find things not quite what they say....
I see so much climate propaganda in the form "if this type of (weather event) gets worse with increasing GHG things are going to get really get bad".
I will say one thing about the global warming effects. I really appreciate the fact that you are helping me reduce my electrical bill to near zero for basically forever. Thanks to federal tax subsidies, a state rebate, and trade in renewable energy credits I was able to install solar panels(made in the USA). Last month we got billed for 2 kwh per day. For the year the REC will offset all of my remaining electrical bills. So thanks for your support. It never would have made sense without global warming hysteria.
A real threat to what? Of what? That the oceans will continue to rise? That the polar bears will eventually decline rather than continue to increase?
That the oceans will boil away into the atmosphere, creating a soup-like atmosphere?
Just what is it they're certain is going to happen with a warmer climate?
Do they believe the next ice age will commence because of climate change?
Well, ice ages have come and gone, and not because of man!
Just WHAT IS IT they're absolutely sure (or just minimally sure) is going to happen?
Personally, I'm glad there's a slight improvement in the temperature, and I'm glad the earth has backed away from the minimal level of CO2 that plants need to survive. Because back in the last ice age, the CO2 levels were barely enough to do that. And during the last ice age, geologic markers tell us the continents were dry, dusty, dreary places less hospitable than they are now.
Can someone tell me why we should be that worried about some WARMING? Isn't that good? I'd love to see more rain, more luxuriant plantlife, more foodstuff production, and greater forests. It won't happen if the earth cools down again. It will just get worse if it does that.
So again, what are the climate scientists sure is going to happen? What are they afraid of, if not fear itself?
First, the people behind AGW reveled their hand at Copenhagen... Just follow the money trail straight to the World Bank.
Actually skepticism has gotten a real shot in the arm recently Now thanks to the abuse of the peer review system reveled by the leaked e-mails, papers are being published without the required statement "But these findings in no way refute CO2 as the primary cause of Global Warming....." And yes there was abuse
500 peer reviewed papers that support skepticism of Global Warming.
On top of that the IPCC reports has been examined and many problems have been found:
"The Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who re-wrote key conclusions and injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus document."
Here is a very technical dissection of the problems with the temperature record by a NASA scientist: "What I will do in this long and technical leaning post is identify where the global human induced warming (AGW) math completely falls apart, bringing down the entire house of cards that is the AGW theory." http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12246
I really suggest you look at the other factors that influence the Earth's Climate before you swallow the tale that a minor gas is the earth's major thermostat.
In this graph note the whole pink area is what you get from 300ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. The thin yellow bands are the EXTRA that you get if you go from 300ppm up to 1200ppm. To get an increase big enough to notice when plotted you to multiply the CO2 quantity by 4. This is exactly what any normal engineer, chemist (which I am) or physicist means by a saturating function, it does not mean that the function gives nothing back for large inputs, it means that the function gives most of the return for small inputs and gives diminishing returns for increasingly larger inputs. Graph:http://www.realclimate.org/images/CO2Abs4x.jpg
"Page 446 of the IPCC text, “ Ice core records show that atmospheric CO2 varied in the range 180 to 300 ppm over the glacial-interglacial cycles of the last 650kyr"
However stomata data by Wagner, Aaby and Visscher prove conclusively that the ice core data is seriously in error. The ice core data can be corrected using J.J.Drake’s correlation, the profile does not change but the ppm values do so the analysis is still valid... http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011.full.pdf
To put it bluntly the level never got to 180 ppm and that should have been obvious to any scientist with the least bit of common sense. If it had for the period of time shown in the ice core data most of the plant life on the planet would have died and the animals would have starved, basically plants stop growing at 200 ppm and dies at 180 ppm.
All this fuss over the 3% CO2 that mankind adds to the 97% that nature puts out! (Stats according to the USA Dept of Energy)
You're kidding - right?
Well it still will not take my references, so I will try two references. The 500 peer reviewed papers can be seen at
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
The synopsis of all the problems with the latest IPCC report can be seen at:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/06/lawrence-solomon-ipcc-beyond-the-himalayas.aspx
Now in hiding and praying he isn't indicted RICO criminal government employee, Phil Jones said that.
The thing is, he was claiming all along it had been getting statistically, significantly, warmer.
And in 2009 just before the release of the climategate emails, we have documentation of Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, and many others in a string of emails, admitting it's not warmer: admitting the CERES satellite put up to measure radiation into and out of the world showed what it always had: which they had assumed meant warming: but that it wasn't warming and that it was a travesty they couldn't even determine what, why, or how.
The lid is blown off: the crimes of a group of government employees have been discovered; and the world, caught unawares, is busy DICILY extricating itself from massive MASSIVE contractual problems caused by the MASSIVE FRAUD perpetrated by Mann, Hansen, Jones, Schmidt, Briffa, Schneider, et al.
And there ARE going to be indictments. There ARE going to be people who either go to jail or lose their jobs and nearly go to jail.
So you can say the sun set on something: but it's not on the solid science which showed for years, PUT UP ON THE WEB that the world's thermometers raw information was not showing warming.
A HUGE hoax; and one very well found out just as it seemed to it's perpetrators they were going to get away with it.
But they didn't.
Watch and see what I say about indictments. Massive monies have been embezzled using the hallowed grounds of science to do so: similarly to the way bigot organizations used the hallowed grounds of religion for years and their freedom of speech to breed crime.
It's time for some indictments.
Much has changed since the poll numbers came out. Climategate e-mails made public last fall showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. We also learned that the IPCC used various bogus claims in its reports, including one that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. This came from a pamphlet published by the World Wildlife Federation, and was not based on science at all.
Thus, it is no surprise that public perceptions of global warming have dropped dramatically. Contrary to the poll that said 76 percent of Americans see it as a serious issue, a recent Gallup poll said 32 percent now see it as a serious issue.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx
Americans are being rational in becoming more skeptical the more they learn. Global warming advocates want them to make major changes in lifestyle and spend trillions of dollars, and many press these changes with an intensity that's akin to religious evangelizing.
Personally, I believe the planet is warming, and man is contributing to that warming. But I'd like to hear the scientific "consensus" on how much man has contributed to warming and how much solar activity, water evaporation and countless other things have contributed. I don't believe climate scientists fully understand those things and how they interact. It is rational for society to want to learn more, given the resources, etc involved.
Unfortunately, climate scientists who have dominated public discussion and have controlled the IPCC have tried to rule out any discussion of these sorts of issues, saying the consensus is what they say it is, and the deniers must shut up and open their wallets.
I guess going forward we'll see how that works out.
If you look at all the comments, you should feel ashamed that you are not open for discussion. Your opinion has been set many years ago and you do not want to accept manipulation of data and misinformation!
The words denial or scepticism should belong to you and not to persons, who are accepting that the Climate Change is more complex than only through man-made CO2, like professor David Lindzen who was even involved with IPCC until 2001.
You must be an activist becoming really religious.
I would really encourage you to check out a book—any book—that drinks the Kool-Aid and describes (1) what the "AGW conspiracists" would at least like you to believe, and (2) the evidence they claim to have that supports that belief. You might also want to double-check critics' claims about whether the IPCC "ignores" something, which you can easily do for yourself right here (you know, the way a "skeptic" would): http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm.
Then you will have a better idea of the types of objections and arguments that would be necessary to really confront the theory as a whole. The ones offered here are simply insufficient. You can quickly prove this to yourselves on line, if you're really interested—if you're arguing in good faith. (The basic idea of "skepticism" is to find the best versions of the arguments for and against something and compare them, not to mindlessly take in the claims of other "skeptics" and then look for/accept only evidence that agrees with them.)
As for me, I've had lots of discussions about this topic, and I decided recently that—even if I could convince every self-styled "skeptic" (most of them not skeptical enough by half) of what I think are the error of their ways—it's too big a job to do for free.
This is because, in my experience, the skeptic tends to set an impossibly high standard for pro-AGW evidence but has virtually no lower limit on the quality of the anti-AGW evidence they will accept.
More specifically, before they will be convinced, they demand to see it proved that—unlike any other scientific discipline (or, indeed, any other complex human enterprise in general)—the field of climate science does not include at least some charlatans or incompetents, or that there is not a single weakness (if only intuitively apparent to non-specialists) in any component of the theories proposed or data used.
I can't prove any such things, of course, but even if I could, I'd still have to respond to criticisms like "but Al Gore lives in a big house" or "but Obama burns fossil fuels when he flies around in Air Force One" or "but bankers have figured out a way to get rich from global warming just like they have from everything else."
In fact, I have often looked into objections raised by skeptics, and have never needed more than a few minutes of searching to understand what they have overlooked, or how little effect their claims would have on the validity of the overarching theory even if true. This is because the edifice that is the theory of AGW is very large and complex, and it is built on a broad, deep foundation consisting of hundreds of years of data from dozens of fields. The building will not fall down, in other words, just because someone pulls out a few bricks.
I know my saying this won't necessarily be enough to convince anyone that AGW is real—it's not meant to convince anyone of that—but I hope you are all critical enough thinkers to avoid concluding that my unwillingness to rehearse the entire theory of AGW before your eyes means that I'm not credible, and that you will continue to ask challenging questions of any sources you consult on this topic. Good luck in your ongoing studies!
temperature fluctuations of a few decades would never be preserved in the sediment record - and ice preserves the record of air - well - where it's cold.
Real climate change requires centuries of the same kind of weather.
We don't know for sure yet.
There are actually very few atmospheric and weather science experts in the world. Some are pumping climate change for their own agenda. Many leading experts in this field do not agree on the causes of climate warming. But hundres of so called scientists signed off on this warming issue that do not know a belch from rectal gas
I have to call BS on your thinking Koch has had much of an impact with a budget of less than five mill a year.
Contrast that with Climateworks, founded out of the skeleton of the Energy Foundation. 600 million a YEAR annual budget pimping for climate change last I looked, funding "think" tanks, "inoculating" against coal plants by funding "grassroots" political opposition -- paid Astroturf of the first order.
I think when the funding ratios are 20 to 1 and more, one would expect there to be a SOCIAL as well as "scientific" consensus, that is, if any of the theories were demonstrably correct. They aren't, but in the words of that great Senator Tim Wirth, even if the science is wrong, "it's still the right thing to do."
As for green energy driving the economy, you need people who can afford to buy it and be willing as well. Bankrupting folks through punitive energy taxes in an energy-based economy is not gonna work.
Another way to reduce humans emmissions would be to reduce the growth in human population. Cows emit more methane than an SUV. So will India be willing to reduce the cow population.
Using wind and solar to generate electricity is very inefficient. A better approach would be to develope an alternative to electricity.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick/
A survey of 32 industrialized countries, including the US, asked the following question: "Did the earliest humans live at the same time as dinosaurs"? The United States ranked just below Turkey, at 40 percent , as having the greatest number of citizens who believe that this statement is true. In other words 40% of our citizens believe that the "Flintstones" is not a cartoon but reality!!!!! (Sweden, at 9 percent, had the lowest number of citizens who believe in the above mythology).
Global Temperatures The scientists at NASA recently released a paper titled “Current GISS Global Temperature Analysis.” (You can find the PDF version at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0319.pdf The NASA paper states, “We conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.” The NASA paper also says, “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade.” Finally, NASA makes the following prediction: “We conclude from these data that a new record global temperature, for the period with instrumental measurements, should be set within the next few months as the effects of the recent and current moderate El Nino continue. This new record temperature will be particularly meaningful because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect.” Let’s be clear. One of the most respected scientific bodies in the world just made a definitive statement that the planet is continuing to warm. I recommend that anyone who disagrees with NASA’s assessment reads the entire report before commenting further.
Ocean Acidity A year and a half ago, I interviewed Dr. Richard Feely, a senior research scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. (NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) We had an in-depth conversation about ocean acidification and it’s impact on various ecosystems. Dr. Feely assured me that ocean acidification is real, that it’s happening right now, and that it’s poised to be a huge problem. You can read more about ocean acidification and its relationship with anthropogenic carbon dioxide at: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
Scientific Consensus/ Polling Numbers The most authoritative survey of scientists that I’m aware of was released by Peter Doran of the University of Illinois at Chicago on January 19 of 2009. As Science Daily reported, “A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Science Daily also noted that, “In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.” Think about that for just a second. 97 out of 100 climatologists actively studying the earth’s climate believe that global warming is real, and that humans play a role. 97%. If that’s not an overwhelming consensus, I’m not sure what is. (You can read the entire Science Daily story at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm Hacked British Emails/ Professor
Jones/ “Climategate” The British House of Commons just investigated the entire incident and found no wrong-doing or malfeasance on the part of Professor Jones. Nor did they find any reason to dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. You can read the entire British report, which was released on March 31, 2010, at: http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf Or as Time Magazine put it: “The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.”
I am 58 years old. I was using wind and solar 40 years ago. By-products of industrial activity have been known to adversely affect our environment for decades. This is not a new concept, but one that has been re-packaged. People stand to gain enormous sums of money and political capital by promoting renewable or non-renewable energy. This is one of the many things some of us consider when trying to understand how we can best conduct our lives to benefit others, now and into the future. Another consideration: Why are proponents on both sides compelled to give condescending emotional lectures on a scientific matter?
You seem to be caught up in a blame game mentality which accomplishes nothing but the alienation of people who might otherwise take you seriously. It's not clear what you want except to have everyone agree with your assessment of the climate change debate. Are you suggesting that you produce a smaller carbon footprint than the rest of us because you are enlightened and we should lock step with you because you’re better informed? The biggest hypocrites I know are my “green” friends who drive Priuses and fly in private jets. How about some concrete ideas on how to improve the human condition while the climate changes?
To paraphrase Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC in a March 2010 interview: We have no conclusive evidence of man's role in climate change (he goes on to recommend we control industrial carbon output to be prudent in the event of future discoveries)
Careful skepticism is not denial.
Careful skepticism is still skepticism. Denial, on the other hand, is quite a dangerous unstable situation. Let's not parse that too closely . We only have one chance at this, and only one world. And by the way , Who gave the human species the rights and the license to do as they wish with the whole darn biosphere , lithosphere, atmosphere , and hydrosphere anyway... ?
To work in this field i had to go to school for the maintenance, calibration and repair of electronic and other instrumentation of any kind. People of my background understand data gathering, analysis and storage.
The two way communicatons field is riddled with examples of atmospheric temperature creating interference: from tropospheric and ionospheric alterations of transmission/rejection coefficients to simple weather events, these things are chronicled in excrutiating detail by an enormous swath of telecommunications from amateurs who skip signals through the atmosphere to sophisticated satellite and microwave communications.
If the atmosphere was heating
we'd know and there would be no stopping the talk of it.
Everybody in the two way telecommunications field knows there's no warming going on. Everyone who can read a thermometer or a web page can see the raw data posted online before it gets washed: the data that matched Phil Jones' description of ''no warming and in fact some cooling since nineteen ninety eight" precisely. What-
he just happened by a fluke, to describe the precise conditions shown by the raw data?
No because he knew that was what the real temperature is.
Only people who can't read instruments believe in global warming, much less man made global warming. Those, and people weak minded enough to be told, ''that's not what that thermometer said'' when it's posted online, and suddenly waver and disbelieve their own eyes.
It's a government employees' scam, to breed funding for government employees, being covered by government employees so they can keep their jobs; and some of them are trying to keep from being indicted.
A magazine is an inert object and therefore not capable of rendering an opinion. An individual writer is. The article's author may be no more qualified to render a scientific conclusion than Albert Einstein would be qualified to perform brain surgery. How about some specifics on the author's background?
Why is denial dangerous and unstable? To me, skepticism is the unwillingness to take a leap of faith given one's own collection of credible information. Specifically what is it you would like to see from skeptics? And what term would be most appropriate for those who are neither skeptics or deniers?
I am not aware of any entity that has the global authority to grant rights or license to regarding human behavior...yet. Although, it has been proposed by some European leaders that a 'carbon rationing card' be issued to every person on the earth. Our planet and its organisms, including humans, are a result of a natural course of events. That may be beyond the control of anybody.
1. Unlike the ego driven mainstream media elsewhere , The Economist Magazine does not name its authors ...never has...many writers collarborate on the stories and other editors compile them. The entire magazine speaks as if it were written by one person in a long narrative.
2. The Economist has ALWAYS been 2/3rd reporting of facts and 1/3rd opinion of what those facts are telling them ( you ). The upshot is you always know where they are coming from whether you agree or not. I happen to in this case. Approaching climate change from a business standpoint, for starters. You cannot find a more thorough reputable journalism outlet.
3. The Economist can and does admit its mistakes and alter its perceptions . It evolves.
Of course you'd actually have to read an issue to see all that for yourself. "Inert" my royal duff.
I was probably reading the Economist since before you were born. I continue to get every issue from my neighbor who holds a BA from Williams and a masters from Wharton. The Economist is not my sole source of information. I did not "debunk" the magazine, but I simply may view it in a different context than you.
You seem set on assuming things about others which may or may not be true. But you truly are a prejudicial character who appears to draw conclusions from insufficient data. You didn't answer any of my questions. For all you know I am an extreme greenie. Or perhaps just someone trying to sort out the facts and looking for an even tempered voice of reason.
Attacking the intelligence and sophistication of someone because they may not hold the same view is quite revealing. It indicates a tainted source of information and a frustrated person with an elevated need for validation or belonging. I think if you changed your approach some of us might learn from you. Otherwise you are only preaching to your own choir and accomplishing nothing.
Again, juvenile insults and prejudiced rants offer no clarity. Oh...I've owned and operated my business for almost 30 yrs. so I have some understanding of the "business approach". Maybe you can elaborate.
My comments stand as written , in context. Sorry you feel so hostile about , but I'm not the one with " issues" here.
We put buttons on the outside so they don't hurt themselves trying to use em.
And I told the other people reading along as well as yourself, who aren't familiar with what we do in two way wireless telecomms.
Your lack of experience in the field of electromagnetic energy isn't something i feel like tackling; there'd be no way to explain to you the many, many, many obvious defects with that hodgepodge hypothesis i watched be cooked up on national media since the late eighties.
There wasn't anything there then
And there's not anything there, now.
That's just, the way it is.
Since you aren't trained in electronic or other instrumentation, circuits & systems analysis, or electromagnetic energy in atmospherics, I'll give you a simple example of how immediately ridiculous the claims you try to get me to give the nod to, are:
Scintillation. It's what you call the stars twinkling at night, it's got a single cause: atmospheric heat. It's severity is proportional to the heat in the atmosphere from the outer limits thereof, to the face of the instrument looking up through the atmosphere.
In all these years: it's been thirty: why is it that not one word has ever: EVER been uttered saying the radically sensitive optical astronomy field is noticing increasing starlight wobble - scintillation, through their instruments?
Since the eighties we've had mirror flexing motors which apply flexing to the mirrors of optical telescopes, to reduce this scintillation through atmospheric air.
Why is it that not one, single astronomy professional ANYWHERE in THIRTY YEARS of some of the most attentive and detail oriented scientists on earth, using these instruments:
not ONE professor, professional telescope maintenance engineer, not one student, looking for that big relevent paper for an easy grade: NOBODY
has ever just gone and gotten photographs through telescopes without scintillation reduction circuitry: or even with, the circuitry can't remove all anomalies , all the time -
and just brought out the photographs of sections of the sky showing how the starlight has become more, and more distorted by the atmospheric heat, government employees are claiming are there?
Why is that? Because nobody ever thought of looking? In all this time, we're the first two human beings to consider it ... huh ?
No. There IS no growing atmospheric distortion relative to optical astronomy.
On, and on, and on, these criminal, government employees, claim, there's NO TEST, to see if they are lying.
We who are in the business of measuring electromagnetic energy in every spectrum from d.c. electricity to laser'd light, know differently.
So Dewey: i wasn't asking you what you thought, I was telling you what the professionals in the relevent working field think. None of us believe in it because we ply the atmosphere with broad spectrum electromagnetic energy all day everyday around the world, from ultra low frequency submarine communications to satellites using several gigahertz signaling;
in a huge variety of power ranges and a wide variety of modulation methods.
I'm not going to belabor the many, many, MANY falsities that can be shown in that sorry bag of hodgepodge attempts to justify a falsified hypothesis through the years. Tropopause as thermostat standing between us and destruction, to the C.E.R.E.S. showing in crystal clarity, that the core group of government employees making these bombastic claims of impending end of the world, can't tell what the WEATHER is going to be much less CLIMATE.
Phil Jones SEEN saying "I'll never tell it stopped warming in 1998.
Michael Mann SEEN saying, "you have CRU issue a statement, I'll get on realclimate and say something, and let's see about getting a TELEVISION CAMPAIGN started to deny: that it stopped warming in 1998.
I'm not going to take the liberty of educating you on electromagnetic instrumentation and propagation in atmospherics the way i'm not going to frenziedly, link you to the C.R.U. emails and data.
I'm not under the assumption you're technically proficient in a field highly suited to make these kinds of decisions.
I'm telling you that among those of us who are, there's zero belief in the Michael Mann Magic Money Milking Melting Machine.
Period.
None.
And there's not a qualified electronic engineer who is going to come in here and say they regularly ply the atmosphere with electromagnetic signals and power, who says they do, either.
Michael Mann can't tell you who will claim he's right, but i can tell you who won't. Those of us who WORK in the field: not MODEL in it.
It's one of the very first lessons you get taught in science in school due to the lack of complexity to the phenomenon.
Look folks there never was anything to this. These are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES saying ''oH ! Oh ! the magic boxes only WE have, and only WE can read, said the world's ending, everybody stop fighting we have to save the earth together !!"
These data, every single bit and byte they process through those government machines, belongs to the public, except copyrighted data:
and federal law says that if there are designated processes which must be followed, the public has the right to review them.
the government employees are reFUSIng to O.B.E.Y. the L.A.W.
duH.
The WORLD is ending, and "I can't SHOW you, because it's MINE?"
But, nevertheless they're all concerned for the END of the WORLD?
People, the raw data is posted by law, ONLINE. On LiNE. By LAW.
The "continued" blah, blah, blah, is the MASSAGED data.
Why aren't the governments of the world, freaking out?
Because people, WATCH the BIRDIE: when Phil Jones said, "Ok it
has, but it's only seven years' data and it isn't statistically
significant," what that could ONLY mean was the most normal and obvious thing:
the instruments as DEVISED FOR THEM by EXPERTS in INSTRUMENTATION operate FINE. They were giving back raw info that Phil Jones - and by extension the people in the long string of back&forth;email messages directly pertinent -
KNEW was CORRECT. They all sat there silently because they KNOW IT, TOO. That's why no one said ''Yes Phil but actually it's WARMING."
Because THEY KNOW.
And that's WHY, in October of last year a month before that data was released, in the Email where Trenberth said "It's a travesty we can't account for lack of warming at the moment" (paraphrased, it's called the ''most damaging" email because of the SERIES of admissions in it -
that's WHY, it was so incriminating: THAT email from kevin trenberth, came as part of a string of emails between him, Michael Mann and Steven Schneider (author of the "the answer is blowing in the wind" paper, where Schneider, claimed to have modeled temperature based on wind speed proving that the satellites and aircraft and radiosonde thermometers were all broken - and that there is in fact equatorial, tropospheric warming)
where they PLOTTED a TELEVISION campaign against a BBC reporter who said: what?
He said it hadn't warmed since 1998: the exact thing Jones had said in 2005 to the group in an email.
This isn't complicated. They have made claim after claim, and those claims have been shown to be false over and over, and they keep on cycling papers saying the same thing between about the original 10 to 14 of them and there are hangers on who want(ed) to get papers published who were duped or in awe or didn't care..
there's no more physics here than some house of horrors in a traveling fair. Well, there's smoke and mirrors...
that's why no one was able to make them cough up the goods when they said the world is gonna end.
And yet ''their intellectual property was their own?"
While the world ended????????????
WhaT ?????
Why do you think they are all sitting around taking pummeling after pummeling, as people ridicule them... Gore won't give interviews with regular media,
carbon credits started out at 22 dollars a ton, current value Z.E.R.O...
But Al Gore, who advised the world we'd all use these, doesn't want to talk about that...
Because he is dodging indictment himself.
And he,
and everybody else,
know it.
This whole thing has been a scam from the beginning. People who constantly tell you the world ended
or that they just discovered a perpetual motion machine
always tell you their design is copyrighted/trademarked and cover
it. With tarps, with specially constructed tables, with refusing to
hand over the goods that show how they get
from A
to B.
That's how you know they're faking because they are ALL trying to hide and claim it's a super secret GISS or NOAA or whomever method.
Only problem is, we own all that data and the ones they own that they claim should influence policy must be transparent by law, and they ALSO got caught saying they would delete what they had rather than release it.
Over the end of the world.
Yes, government employees told you they found out about the end of the world, and you need to give them special powers to tax and or not tax this and that, crushing entire arms of civilization
but their special algorithms are super secret and they can't let em out....
and every time they're reviewed the people doing it say they find it strange
they won't
associate with
any mainstream statisticians.
But the world's ending, and they're going to run command and control from their ''private website'' where ''the news that's too hot for N.A.S.A." (where they're employed) can be "properly put out for everyone to know."
PaLease.
Indictments are coming people. This has been a hoax of enormous proportions and the enormity of the contractual obligations entered into before they were all busted with their pants down on GOVERNMENT EMAIL SERVERS is, simply staggering.
And they KNOW they are hiding behind their status as scientists because typically a scientist's "opinion" is protected legally, in order for important facts to be safe to tell without being placed in fear of prosecution. It's a scam as old as government.
Thank you for your thoughts - they've been incredibly enlightening. I do have one question. At the very beginning of your first comment, you used the term, "indicted RICO criminal government employee."
It was part of this sentence. "Now in hiding and praying he isn't indicted RICO criminal government employee, Phil Jones said that."
Could you explain what you meant? I haven't been able to find any reference to "indicted RICO criminal government employees" on the web, and I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting your statement.
Many thanks.
That leads me to think that British legislative inquiries are no more credible than partisan pap pumped by our evenhanded Congress (both sides).
The inquiry further did not address the science itself, just the conduct, which they found wanting.
Another striking thing is the assumption (unquestioned) that Jones has fired off over a million Emails. Holy cow, how does he find the time to do any research?
From the conclusions:
"we consider that his (Jones) actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies."
and
"Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”.184"
But guess what, "It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU." so they are taking Beddington's word for it, for now.
In short, based on a limited inquiry into transparency, they said these guys need to be more transparent, but the inquiry itself wasn't intended to check out the validity of the "consensus."
So this ain't over yet.
I’m guessing this thread has played out and the vast majority of folks have moved on, so I’ll stick my head back in and address the e-mail stuff a little further. If you discard the “let’s throw as much mud as possible and see what sticks” approach of the right and the knee-jerk, “nothing to see here” response on the enviro side, you’re left with a bunch of scientists who were doing solid research and who were annoyed that unqualified laymen were wasting their time with poorly researched papers and the British equivalent of FOI requests.
I’m not aware of one single unbiased group who’s looked at the situation and said that the e-mails are indicative of a larger problem with the research. At the same time, any number of news and scientific organizations have investigated the entire mess and decided that the scientists were guilty of nothing more than general crankiness.
By the way, the most informative piece I’ve read on the matter is at: http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1567 It offers a true insider’s perspective.
At the end of the day, the British e-mail “scandal” will likely prove similar to all the hoopla over the Himalayan glacier mistake in the most recent IPCC report. They both attracted a bunch of attention, and they both offered hope to people with a vested interest in casting doubt on the scientific process. But because they’re all smoke and no fire, they won’t have any lasting impact, at least not outside of the right-wing echo chamber.
"Despite all the spinning and hot air, the science is solid and global warming is a real, deadly serious concern. It's time to deal with it."
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6959247.html
Actually, what YOU just did was echoing.
The scientists said it (then got caught admitting it wasn't true)
The media says it (then got caught saying it doesn't matter, they got caught admitting it wasn't true)
so I'll say it. (Ignoring they said it isn't true, and ignoring the media said it doesn't matter if they got caught admitting it wasn't true)
That's echoing.
I'll tell you what. Why don't we start back at the beginning, and you (or, if you prefer, YOU) can explain to me exactly what you meant when you wrote: "indicted RICO criminal government employee."
Or am I echoing again?
“3,146 earth scientists overwhelmingly agree that mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures...climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.”
And we have here a bunch of people pasting arguments from right-wing and carbon industry web sites, pretending to be knowledgable, and casting doubt on or out-and-out denying this consensus. What the hell about 97 percent don't you get? What, you need 100%?
What a farce. What a tragedy that people like this are helping stall action on this problem and making it harder and more expensive for our children and grand-children to deal with. I wonder what they'll think of us.
Everyone will take your alarmist tone as evidence you've got something to lose if eco-terrorists don't loot the public government coffers of three countries.
You didn't get that email: they admitted they made the whole thing up.
They admitted when they thought CERES was giving back global warming information
it was situation normal information
because they couldn't read the instruments they'd been provided.
Sorry, guess it sucks to be an eco-terror fairy tale believer nowadays.
And for anyone who still cares about the science, the AP and CBS News reported earlier today that last month (March, 2010) was the planet's warmest March on record, going all the way back to 1880. I guess those climatologists knew what they were talking about after all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/15/national/main6399278.shtml
I had already reached my own conclusions about this iAmDigitap; but, as a check, I directed some colleagues to NewWest and to this thread. These colleagues are some of the world's top minds in exactly this field and certainly not a bunch of raging liberals and they reached the same conclusion ...that, politely speaking, this iAmDigitap seems to a bit of both technical credibility and mental stability.
All seriousness aside, my colleagues did bring up a very sobering factor relevant to this topic. If the current Icelandic volcanic activity spreads, as it historically usually does, form the current activity at a side vent to the main system vent, a volcano known as Katla, and Katla throws as much atmospheric debris as it almost always does, then we actually might not need to worry about global warming for a couple of decades. If Katla really goes off, as it sometimes does, our current global economic woes won't seem so bad by comparison either. Those who believe that a significant reduction in human population would benefit the planet might also get their wish. Katla can be very nasty.
The desperate hinting at secret but intimate concourse with "the world's top minds" who "told me to tell you," by posers is stuff of scam legend, and already an internet joke.
The appeal to religion: beginning by crying out the name of someone's God, then ending with "what will the children think"
Trying to change the subject and claim there was global warming but now the volcano messed it up, so they can't prove it...
It's always the same patterns with peddlers of doomsday kool-aid and perpetual motion.
The demands that everyone suspend disbelief and just obey
The foul mouthing.
The lack of capacity for grasping even primary universal laws,
The repeated, apparently zombie-like attempts to translate desperate emotion into validated fact;
It's all got the upholstery of a scam because it always was a scam, from the earliest days of it when Hansen was claiming the tropopause was a gigantic, world thermostat being charged with CO2, waiting to run amok and bake the earth as in an oven.
I will invite the readers to compare what is being said by these people to these two personality types, and be the judge for themselves, of what it is they think they are seeing:
Compare the way the reader sees AGW wackos act with this: Is it a cult?
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html
Many of these people also show traits similar to a sociopath; creation of a victim class, demands for gratitude from the putative victims, and so on.
Appeals to religion and the need to "save the world" even admitting it.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
These kinds of people have been around since at least the days of Greece, when from time to time, groups of strong young men would burst into town, overturning things and disturbing the peace, claiming there was no use in carrying on as before since the world was ending soon anyway; sometimes these people would have to be actually killed before they stopped assaulting the trappings of civilization they found around them.
It's neither new nor unheard of for these people to act this way; in fact it's textbook scammer cult activity.
Let's start again. You, claiming to have some technical expertise, proclaimed that, if global warming were real, then astronomers and technologists working in communications would be reporting that it was having a completely out of the norm effect on their activities due to its never previously encountered impact on the scintillation phenomenon.
I responded by asking how the amount of atmospheric warming that could be expected to cause some truly serious climate change problems could cause such never previously encountered problems in these technical fields when such an amount of atmospheric warming would only be a perhaps 5 degree variation in the error bars for the ~20 degree diurnal temperature shifts and the ~80 degree seasonal temperature shifts that genuine technologists in these fields deal with on a normal basis. You responded that "It's one of the very first lessons you get taught in science in school due to the lack of complexity to the phenomenon." Well, iAmDigitap, that's not an answer to my question. That's just a deflection and, if you know this topic so well and it's as easy a subject, then why do you need to deflect the question?
Then, when I pointed out that you did not answer my question, you responded with some insulting rambling about kool-aid, secret intimate "concourse" in scams, religion, what children think, my reference to an Icelandic volcano, primary universal laws, zombies, sociopaths, Greece, and cults. You still haven't answered my question. If you are what you say you are, just answer the question.
Now I could certainly be off base. Maybe Digitap will prove me wrong and answer your question. But if I had to wager, I'd bet my next paycheck that he won't come back with anything approaching a rational response. Because he can't. He doesn't have anything to back up his assertions. He's far more likely to tell you that it's all a moot point because the scientists - who, by the way, are about to be indicted - have already admitted that the whole thing is a scam.
Alarmism junkies have known for months, the government employees running this scam recognized they were running one.
Alarmism junkies have known for years, the raw data from temperature measurements must be posted by legal mandate online: and these show no warming for a dozen years.
Alarmism junkies in here have claimed they aren't capable of looking up scintillation online and satisfying themselves that the field which helped Einstein etch general relativity in stone
by measuring the deflection of starlight as it passed our sun in the early 1900s: the optical astronomy field
can discern whether atmospheric heat has magnified visual artifacting through their instruments.
And now wish/demand to be entertained with having why the stars twinkle at night, explained to them at length.
Rather than go through that
You're dismissed.
And just like that, hicks from the sticks are left where they belong.
Abandoned in some unknown corner of the internet, barking and posturing about having "the world's greatest minds in this very field"
who - just as I predicted: don't dare write a word supporting manmade global warming.
For those of you who think you have points to make pro or con, I and others discuss this on a continual basis at a news site called Topix;
It's unmoderated so be prepared to protect yourself.
Global Warmers don't do well when there's not someone to stop them being ridiculed for lack of grasp of even
the most basic fundamentals.
If you get into trouble there will be no one to save you. You don't have to register just show your face.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming
Further, TT, I must comment on your allusion to "unqualified laymen were wasting their time with poorly researched papers and the British equivalent of FOI requests."
I would posit that science has a double responsibility to "unqualified laymen" which is being neglected. The first is, not to treat the lay public as "unqualified." The simple fact is that science is conducted in a social context, and scientists ignore that fact at their peril.
Second, it is incumbent upon scientists tasked with presenting to an "unqualified" lay audience, that they not manipulate the public as a result of the presentation. To do so is an egregious breach of the public trust laid upon science professionals.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Let me address them point by point.
You mention that there’s a gap between the left’s perception of global warming and the right’s perception of the same, and that’s certainly true. But you’re way off base when you say “If this were a true science issue, then there would be no clear divide between right and left.” Your logic is faulty. There’s nothing in our political DNA that forces either liberals or conservatives to accept a valid scientific theory. A case in point - the vast majority of scientists say that the Earth is several billion years old. At the same time, any number of conservative Christians (at least those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible) claim that the planet is only 6000 years old. As best as we can tell, the Earth is in fact several billion years old. But despite the scientific certitude, there’s still a huge chasm between the two sides.
While I wish that science would always trump ideology, that’s simply not the case. People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of what the experts say. And when you throw in “experts” who are paid to muddy the water and protect the corporate bottom line, it’s easy for people who don’t want to believe in climate change to dismiss it out of hand.
As for your thoughts regarding “unqualified laymen” - I agree that scientists should do a better job of communicating with the general public. But while they need to be clear, forthright and accurate, it’s not their job to present their finding in a particular social or political context. Say you’re a scientist studying volcanoes in Iceland and your data indicates that the largest volcano in the area is about to blow. Do you say to yourself, “Well, the people who live in the village at the base of the volcano are skeptical of science and resistant to change. I wonder how I should present my findings?” No, you go to the village council and say, “The best available data indicates that your volcano is about to erupt. You need to get the hell out of here.”
You’re absolutely right that scientists have an ethical obligation not to manipulate the public. I don’t think anyone would argue with you on that. But there’s no indication that that’s what is happening here. In fact, the opposite is true - scientists have fulfilled their duty by laying out the overwhelming evidence of climate change, and now some members of our society (led by people who’ll see their profits slashed if our culture steps back from fossil fuels) are doing everything they can to create doubt about the scientific evidence. It’s the whole industry-sponsored “We don’t know enough to say that cigarettes cause cancer.” charade all over again; albeit on a much larger scale.
To put it succinctly, a fair number of conservatives have chosen to dismiss the scientific consensus on global warming out of hand. In doing so, they’ve deliberately placed our future at risk. That’s not moral behavior. Nor is it ethical behavior. Rather, it’s the single most blatant combination of hubris and myopia our nation has ever witnessed.
I’ll lay it out in black and white. Global warming deniers are willing to bet our collective future - including the lives of our kids and our grandkids - that our scientific experts are wrong. Not a few of our experts. Not a third of our experts. Not even half of our experts. No, climate deniers are willing to bet our shared future on the unlikely possibility that 97% of our climatologists - the very scientists actively engaged in climate research - don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
By any standard, by any measure, that’s obscene.
Dave there is ample historical evidence that "true science" is often, if not almost always, politicized and it is almost always the right, representing the status quo, that does the politicizing as a means to prevent "new" science from upsetting "old" power structures. For example...
Copernicus, Galileo, and heliocentrism drove the "old" power structure, the Church, to bring in the Inquisition and eventually place Galileo under house arrest. In those days, as now, religion was the "old" power structure.
Spontaneous generation was still a very hot religious/political topic as late as the mid-1800s.
Darwin didn't exactly get a warm reception for his analysis of creation and speciation and the Scopes Trial ultimately brought out William Jennings Bryan to do battle with Clarence Darrow. That was about as political as it gets ...and, although the Tennessee justice system ruled for your side, history has not. Even today, your side is very active in harassing and obstructing the teaching of evolution in public schools as a very political show of force.
Your side also maintained support for a wide variety of now debunked racial science concepts well into the 1960s, up to and including forced sterilization and the use of lobotomies on the basis of racial type, and that was certainly a case of politics and power being acted out in a science versus pseudo-science venue.
The fight over tobacco has certainly been a case of politics versus science.
The fight over the effects of lead in everything from paint to bullets and fishing weights has been politicized, by your side, despite firm science.
There has been "a yawning, gaping chasm of opinion, support, belief" on every one of these "true science" issues. The forces of the "old" power structure and the status quo, the forces on your side of the climate change question, always fight the science ...and eventually always lose.
But the volcano is a lot more direct...swarms, history and whatnot. As far as I'm concerned, the lay public is literally being asked to take things on faith -- which, ironically enough, is central to the division upon which you rest your case.
When I'm talking context, I'm referring to the purpose of science. Why do scientists do science? Is it science for its own sake, or is it science for the benefit of humanity, or for the benefit of the earth's, um, er, ah, collective future?
Science does all three, in varying proportions -- at least legitimate science. Then there are the charlatans and agenda mongers....the eugenicists which fake Mike dredges up, and the tobacco hacks as another example. That's not science.
It is further important to note that the scientific discoveries given most accolades are those which either directly or indirectly contributed to improvement of the human condition. Norman Borlaug? How you see him (or her) depends on your outlook. Jonas Salk? Pasteur? Curie? Von Braun? Bessemer? Fermi, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Teller?
As for betting the "collective future" -- yes, if that's what you want to believe, and if you want to believe that the cost of avoiding some unknown, or not-necessarily-bad, future is never too high.
What would be the response if CO was causing cooling? I admit I am ambivalent either way. Cooler might be more and better pow in the winter. And we'd see pika on the valley floors and bull trout taking over. You know, Darwin/adaptation/six billion versus six thousand years?
Look, God didn't put those Lake Missoula shorelines up there to test our faith --- or did he? Or she? Or did Gaia do it? Was Lake Missoula good or bad? If it existed today, how would we be responding to "global warming?"
A friend of my Dad put the issue of faith in perfect form..."I don't want to believe. I want to know."
As for you, Mike, your response only shows what happens when a monkey learns to type. Never mind that, according to most reference sources, William Jennings Bryan would be on YOUR "side" these days.
I have a column I need to wrap up this afternoon, but let me address a few of your points first.
“the volcano is a lot more direct” - Well, yes and no. Climate change won’t typically cause molten lava to shower down on our heads, but it is having a major impact in the Rockies right now. Reduced snowpack. Earlier run-off. More extreme forest fires. Longer, more severe droughts. Dying forests.
Take the forests, for example. Since the snow melts earlier, trees have less available moisture, which reduces their resiliency and makes them more prone to insect infestation and disease. At the same time, pine beetles, which don’t do nearly as well when the temperatures drop down around 30 below, love the warmer weather. The result? Forests from Colorado up through BC are dying off at rates we’ve never seen before. BC alone has lost 35 million acres of trees. That’s more acreage than the entire state of Wisconsin. And we’re not just talking pines. Aspen, birch, fir, spruce, etc., are all being impacted by this witch’s brew of drought, disease and insects.
But enough about forests. What happens when our mountain snows melt earlier and run-off moves up by 4 to 6 weeks? All sorts of things. Rivers crest earlier and drop quicker, leaving farmer and ranchers without the water they need for irrigation. The trout take it on the chin when flows drop and water temps soar, which impacts everyone from guides and outfitters to restaurants and motels. Hydro dams can’t produce as much electricity. Fire seasons start earlier and end later. I’m not sure how much you get outside, but you’d have to be awfully unaware to live in the Rockies and not see the impacts of climate change happening all around you. And we’re just getting started. Fun stuff, eh?
“ the lay public is literally being asked to take things on faith” - No, the public is being asked to accept the informed conclusions of our scientific experts. Just like when we go to the doctor.
Here’s a good analogy. Let’s say my ass hurts. So I go in to my regular physician and she says that it’s probably ‘roids, but that I should get checked out by an expert. So I go see a proctologist and he confirms the initial diagnosis. But because I’m awfully worried and I want to make sure he’s right, I decide to spend the next month visiting every proctologist and gastroenterologist between here and San Francisco. The final tally? Ninety seven say ‘roids, three would like to do more tests.
So am I really being asked to take the prevailing diagnosis on faith? Let’s see - my butt is sore and 97 out of 100 experts have just told me I have ‘roids. You can argue if you want, but it’s pretty clear what’s going on with my posterior.
Okay, let’s get to the crux of it. We all have our own personal cosmology; our way of looking at, and making sense of, the world around us. My personal cosmology is fact-based. Which means that when something new pops up, I look at it - whatever it may be - and I see where it fits into the way I view the world. Most of the time I don’t have any problem. But once in a while this new thing is completely at odds with my notion of reality. Which leaves me with a choice. I can either adjust my notion of reality, or I can choose to ignore this new thing because it contradicts my world view.
In case you haven’t picked up on it yet, I’ve just described one of the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals. I realize that I’m generalizing here, and there are obviously any number of exceptions to the rule, but my personal experience is that most liberals seem inclined to change their world view when presented with facts that cast doubt on their personal cosmology. Conservatives, on the other hand, simply discount the facts and go on believing what they’d like to believe.
Hard as it is to swallow, I actually empathize with conservatives on issues like climate change. You’re in an impossible position. On one hand the word has come down from on-high that climate change is a socialist plot designed to bring about a one-world-order and/ or enrich the greedy, dishonest scientists and/ or turns us into smelly hippies and/ or redistribute the wealth. On the other hand, it’s really hard to dismiss both the vast body of science and the empirical evidence that’s constantly in front of our eyes. It’s a huge conundrum, and it’s made worse by the fact that if you’re wrong about this one thing - if, for example, you’re wrong about climate change - then you have to consider the possibility that you’re wrong about all the rest of your conservative dogma.
And that, as I’m well aware, is simply too much for most conservatives to contemplate. It’s much easier to simply dismiss climate change as so much liberal hooey and turn the radio on to Rush.
In all honesty, you really do need to reread your last posting. It truly did give me a bit of deja vu about something iAmDigitap might have posted.
In the early 1980s when I was just becoming a safe-energy activist, by paying job was as a mental health practitioner in Chicago. One day at lunch I as reading our DSM-III -- and made the following discovery, which I have used in presentations ever since:
"So -- You Think You're NOT an Energy Addict?" ;
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/DiagnosisofEnergyAbuse.pdf
Enjoy!
Dave Kraft, NEIS, Chicago
Kyoto and Copenhagen were pointless drafts, no matter what your position was, while the industrialized nations cut back, third world nations could increase emissions proportionately. Seems to me, that we would just be spinning our wheels then. Wouldn't a across the board cut be smart then? I highly doubt the world will improve if one half of the world cuts, while anbother expands carbon emissions.
The deal depends on third world (easily bribeable) officals monitoring emissions in their nations and not exceeding protocols. It creates huge oversight on a world stage, creating bureacracies NOT accountable to anyone, not exactly to democratic. And I want at least some say in how this is run.
There can be a effective job creating substainable rebuilding of this planet. Even if you do not believe in global warming, face it, oil is on its last leg. How many years til we run out? How many wars to secure the remaining supplies? Pay at the pump buys nukes for iran, ieds for al-qaeda.
Even if you discount the environmental concern, the political and economic concerns are worth it. If global warming is right, we are well on the way to fixing the problem. If not, we are at least well on the way to a better, more stable economy.
Kilcannon - an interesting question and some good points. So here's a question for you. Is it possible for two diametrically opposed groups to reach a consensus when one of the groups has a vested interest in never agreeing with the other?
And that lies the rub! And the answer is simply, the average person on both sides may be interested. But the driving forces behind it are interested in winning the argument. To them the argument is not as important as the prize. It is winner take all and the control of this planet for decades, possibly centuries is at stake. It may sound paranoid, but ask yourself who stands to make money and who stande to lose it.
On one hand, the Arab and other oil states DO not want an end to their monopoly of oil
On the other hand, Al Gore has made half a billion and recent years from investments, how much more is he poised to make?
In the end both sides would see this planet destroyed rather than have the other win. Unfortunately, WE pay the price
James R. Barrante, Ph.D.
Author: "Global Warming for Dim Wits: A Scientist's Perspective of Climate Change."
The last time the PDO went from negative to positive was 1978, the beginning of the warming trend. These warming and cooling cycles have nothing to do with carbon dioxide
"How much effort do you think the federal government in Washington should put into dealing with the serious problems the world will face in the future if nothing is done to stop them?"
This is an entirely different question! If I were asked this poll question, I would immediately think of the threat of terrorism and the government's obligation to deal with that threat.
Todd Tanner uses the same misleading tactics most "climate scientists" use. They extrapolate data from summaries based on false premises. EXAMPLES LIKE THIS IS EXACTLY WHY WE'RE SKEPTICAL. As long as rabid environmentalists continue mislead, the public will continue to question them.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but money must be a little tight in Connecticut if you're trolling for book sales on NewWest. Although I certainly admire your entrepreneurial spirit. Climate deniers seem to stop by here on a regular basis, so it’s probably as good a place as any to hawk your book. Here, let me help you out.
Hey folks, our friend Dr. Barrante, formerly of Southern Connecticut State University, is trying to make a few bucks off his new book. Why not break out your credit cards and buy your own personal copy of “Global Warming for Dim Wits.” It’s obviously well written and insightful.
While I’m thinking about it, I should also mention that Dr. Barrante took issue with my “arrogant assumption” in his earlier comment. My apologies, Dr. Barrante. I didn’t mean to come across as arrogant. But since we’re on the subject, lets try this one on for size. Here’s a list - excuse me, a partial list - of the organizations you think “have it wrong” on the science of climate change.
NASA, NOAA, the USGS, the AAAS, the National Academy of Sciences, Britain’s Royal Society, the American Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the American Quaternary Association, the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the European Geosciences Union, the European Science Foundation, the French Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Natural Scientists, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of London, the Indian National Science Academy, the Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the International Union for Quaternary Research, the Network of African Science Academies, the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Society of Canada, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Science Council of Japan.
I have to hand it to you, Dr. Barrante. Most people would be afraid to stand up and state for the record that they were right and every major scientific organization on the list was wrong. But not you. No, you enjoy a well-founded belief in yourself. Bravo!
1) Demonstration that any one of the computer models accurately forecast the past 12 years of static / slightly-declining global temperatures
2) Warmists demonstrating that they have 'balanced the energy budget'. That is, that they have accounted for every possible factor in the climate system which may transfer (or otherwise) the energy we receive from the sun.
3) Warmists demonstrating a perfect / complete knowledge of our climate feedback system, and from that being able to conclude that feedback on earth is net positive. (Let's be clear: one or two elements which are positive feedbacks do not constitute a 'net' positive for the entire global climate system.)
4) An actual debate between two of the leading advocates of their beliefs. Perhaps James Hanson v Lord Monckton? It would need to be two people who are good at debating and know what they're talking about. Afterall, we don't want the loser to walk away saying, "Oh that's just because our guy wasn't very good at public speaking." And of course, the warmist would need to win to convince me to change my position.
5) This one probably wouldn't sway my mind either way, as it's only a step in the reasoning and not crucial to either side. But I'd like to see it nonetheless. I'd like to see the global temperature sets independently verified. In particular, I'd like someone with credibility to show that all the adjustments which have been made, were done so accurately and without a pre-judged bias.
6) Evidence why the recent warming (1980s-2000s) was unprecedented and unnatural. In demonstrating this, you would need to show several things. Firstly, that the warmings in the 1890s and the 1930s were different to the latest warming. (I don't believe they were - they had exactly the same magnitude and rate; only they began at a lower starting point, as one would expect as the earth emerged from a little ice age). Secondly, you would need to demonstrate that the planet's recent warm spells (medieval warm period, roman warm period, and other warm periods going back to the last full-on ice age) were cooler than today. Of course, I believe the opposite has been demonstrated in numerous studies (that is, I believe the current warm period is actually cooler than the medieval warm period and the roman warm period) - but I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if you could demonstrate the above.
They're just a few topics off the top of my head.
I'm willing to reconsider my views on AGW.
Are you?
"When I responded, I told him that my opinion wasn’t set in stone and that I’d be happy to alter my views--just as soon as the scientists modified theirs."
I know quite a bit about global warming, but I don't have the technical training or the background in climate science that would allow me to answer all the detailed scientific questions by looking at the raw data. Since that's the case, I rely on the scientists themselves. So when NASA, NOAA, etc., tell me that I need to change my opinion, I'll definitely do so. But until then, I'll take the experts at their word.
By the way, it definitely helps that the current scientific consensus tracks almost exactly with the empirical evidence I see on a regular basis. I suspect I'd be far more conflicted if the scientists were telling me one thing and my eyes were telling me something else. But that's not the case.
I am a little disheartened though. The bedrock of your belief in AGW appears to be the alleged scientific consensus. For all the reasons given by others in the comments above, I think this is a dangerous decision.
Firstly, I don't believe there is a genuine consensus. It's something we've been told exists, but if you scratch below the surface, it most certainly isn't genuine. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the consensus. Some do so vociferously, and they've been pilloried for it. Some do so quietly, by publishing studies which challenge a pillar or two of AGW.
Secondly, truth is not determined by committee or popular vote.
Thirdly, it is a dangerous approach for something as important as AGW. The costs of being wrong (either way) are enormous. If all us lay people sit back and defer to an alleged consensus, it allows those within the consensus to do what they like - safe in the knowledge they won't be challenged. This can naturally lead to distortions in what the 'consensus' decide is settled.
To expand on that third point - if we do nothing, and mankind's emissions really do drive the planet to catastrophic warming, then the costs will be huge. However, if we drastically reduce our emissions now, the costs to all countries will be enormous. If we then find out that the atmosphere is not sensitive to our emissions, those costs (and the impacts on developing countries in particular) will have been wasteful. This is such an important topic, that we can't simply defer our judgement to a supposed consensus. We all have an obligation to investigate, to demand to see the data and to question every unspoken assumption.
What is even more troubling is when we see those within the supposed consensus behaving poorly. I include UEA and Penn State in that, and also the profiteering of Goldman Sachs, Al Gore, Rajenra Pachauri and others. Given the few glimpses we've had of their internal workings (and the devastating insights the world gained through such glimpses), I have to ask, How much trust do they deserve?
As you can tell, this is not a situation in which I want to rely on others. I hope you would feel the same.
Let me answer your points directly.
One -- I suppose we all have to reach our own conclusions about the scientific consensus on the climate, and about the scientific community in general. My experience is that people on the conservative side of the political spectrum seem to have a much harder time believing scientific data.
Two -- No, you’re absolutely right. Truth is not determined by committee or popular vote. But since we have no independent means of verifying the truth, aside from the scientists and from whatever empirical evidence we come across, and since I have no logical reason to distrust the scientists, I think it makes far more sense to go with the consensus.
Three -- I’m going to have to disagree with you here. After reading your argument several times, it seems as if you’re equating the financial costs of unnecessary climate action with the potential of massive human suffering. Yet there’s no moral equivalency. We can’t compare billions of dollars to millions of human lives. The potential economic loss pales in comparison to the potential suffering and loss of life.
By the way, I’m not deferring to an alleged consensus, I’m deferring to the climate scientists who know more about the subject than anyone else.
You also make the following assertion. “If we then find out that the atmosphere is not sensitive to our emissions, those costs (and the impacts on developing countries in particular) will have been wasteful.”
I don’t believe you can support that kind of statement with either fact or logic. Whether or not you find climate change to be a pressing issue, we’ve already blown through about half the planet’s oil; the half that proved easy to find and recover. If we don’t begin to transition away from fossil fuels in the very near future - the exact same transition that many of us are already advocating to help address climate change - we’re going to run up against resource limits and energy shortages. The status quo is simply unsustainable.
Another thing you’re not taking into account is ocean acidification. Even if all the CO2 we’re dumping into the atmosphere had no impact on global temperatures, we’d still be poisoning our oceans for the next million to two million years. The oceans are a CO2 sink, which is the main reason the original climate models called for more warming than the scientists were measuring. I’m going by memory here, but I believe the oceans pull in roughly a third of all the CO2 that humans put into the atmosphere.
When that CO2 mixes with sea water, it produces carbonic acid. Our oceans are already 30% more acidic than they were 150 years ago. If we continue down this path, we could literally destroy most of the fish on the planet.
And then there’s the moral argument. Let’s stipulate just for the heck of it that the scientists are overstating their case and there’s only a 30% chance that we’re going to experience catastrophic warming if we continue down our current path. Are you willing to take that chance? I’m not. If a traffic expert told me there was only a 30% chance my kids would be killed if they played on the highway, would I let them? Of course not.
Which leads to one of the most important questions we can ask ourselves. What is an acceptable level of catastrophic risk? 10 percent? 5 percent? 1 percent? And how does that number compare to what the vast majority of scientists are telling us about the future?
So here’s where I end up. I’m confident that the scientists are right about climate change. I also know that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and that if we don’t start transitioning away from them soon, while we still have the energy resources to make the necessary changes, our civilization will suffer incredible hardship. And I also know that we will poison our oceans if we keep burning fossil fuels and changing the chemistry of our sea water.
I hope that clarifies my position and explain why I take this issue so seriously.
However, my three (or three-and-a-half) points were all simply to say that you shouldn't rely on the 'consensus' for your views on AGW. The topic really is too important for us all to hand over decision-making power to a group of climate scientists.
In any event, here's a question for you. What would it take to convince you that your views on AGW are wrong? I listed six or so items which would satisfy me that I was wrong. How about you?
Also, I might add a little post-script to my item #4 - a debate between leading 'sceptics' and 'alarmists'. Such a debate was recently held at the Oxford Union (part of Oxford University, England). The 'sceptics' won.
1) If the glaciers up the road from me in Glacier National Park start growing instead of shrinking.
2) If the forests that are dying all over the western U.S., and which the scientists I've interviewed unanimously attribute to global warming, start becoming healthier.
3) If the mountain snowpacks I can see out my window stop melting a month early in the spring.
4) If the Nobel Prize-winner I interviewed about ocean acidification calls up and tells me he was wrong, and that our oceans are not getting more acidic because of anthropogenic CO2.
5) If the U.S. National Academy of Sciences retracts last week's statement that global warming is a "settled fact."
I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get my point. When my choice is between believing both the scientists and my own eyes, or believing a handful of non-experts with an ideological axe to grind and no apparent understanding of physical reality, it's an easy call to make.
By the way, here's the U.S. National Academy of Sciences on the subject:
"Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
1) "If the glaciers up the road from me in Glacier National Park start growing instead of shrinking."
This is just a demonstration of whether the world is warming or not. It says nothing about who (or what) has caused the warming. It neither proves nor disproves that human emissions of CO2 are the culprit.
Further, it shows only that the world is warming - as you would expect as the planet pulls itself out of the little ice age.
2) "If the forests that are dying all over the western U.S., and which the scientists I've interviewed unanimously attribute to global warming, start becoming healthier."
I've not heard anything about the forest across the Western US dying. But then again, I'm not a US resident.
Have scientists "unanimously" attributed it to human-emitted CO2? I for one would have thought extra CO2 improved plant growth. There's a nice website (http://www.co2science.org/index.php) which links to numerous studies on various issues. One such issue is enhanced plant growth demonstrated in controlled studies with enriched CO2 levels.
In any event, your question is once again handing over judgment to scientists when I suspect you could probably make up your own mind. You might need some journal subscriptions, but all the evidence is there.
3) "If the mountain snowpacks I can see out my window stop melting a month early in the spring."
This is the same as the first question, and my response is the same. You're only demonstrating that the world is warming, not what the cause is.
Let's also be clear, the response "well if it's not CO2, then what is it?" is not a valid proof that it is CO2. Just because we can't identify what causes global temperatures to rise and/or we can't model changes does not automatically give us the right to pin it on CO2. An argument from ignorance is not proof of something (except our ignorance).
4) "If the Nobel Prize-winner I interviewed about ocean acidification calls up and tells me he was wrong, and that our oceans are not getting more acidic because of anthropogenic CO2."
I haven't yet investigated the ocean acidification issue yet. It's something I'll get to (time permitting). However, my own experiences lead me to be somewhat sceptical of this. I once had a backyard swimming pool (those were the days!). I remember the vast amounts of chemicals I had to pour in each week just to change to pH level by a quarter of a point. And that was only a few cubic metres of water.
I haven't done the calculations, but I wonder how much CO2 it would take for the oceans to change their pH levels. It must be extraordinary.
If we assume that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution, and that they're now somewhere around 400ppm (or will soon be), that's an increase of 120ppm. But remember that's parts per million. So we've increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 0.000012% in the past 150 years. (Is my maths correct?).
How much of that is sinking into the ocean? Certainly not all of it. So we're talking about a miniscule percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, of which an even smaller portion is sinking into the ocean.
Can that really change the pH levels of the world's oceans? There's a whole lot of water out there. My instincts tell me that the theory is rather fanciful. It doesn't seem anything like on the scale of what I had to do with my swimming pool to bring about minor changes to the pH level.
5) "If the U.S. National Academy of Sciences retracts last week's statement that global warming is a "settled fact.""
Well, I have nothing to say about that. I'm not convinced by others' opinions. I'm more convinced by evidence.
By the way - you shouldn't be so dismissive of the sceptics. We're really not such a bad bunch. Most of us don't have an ideological axe to grind. Most of us have never received a penny from an oil and gas company.
Remember - ad hominem attacks work both ways. Sceptics (mostly) choose not to use such attacks because it doesn't help anyone discover the truth. And that's what (most of) us sceptics want.
I only have a few minutes, so I’ll be as brief as possible.
Most skeptics and/or deniers don’t seem to agree with you that the world is warming. I’m sorry for inadvertently lumping you in with the folks who have been saying the planet has been cooling since ’98. I obviously shouldn’t have done so.
So now we can state unequivocally that the planet is warming, and the question then becomes “why?”
My understanding is that CO2’s heat trapping properties are well-known, and that the scientist (I can’t remember his name off the top of my head) who discovered the phenomena back in the 1800s predicted a gradual increase in global temperature over the centuries because of anthropogenic CO2. If that’s the case - and I invite you to check the actual scientific record and see if my memory is correct - then we’re dealing with a matter of “when” and “how much” rather than “if.”
To put it another way, if atmospheric CO2 has heat trapping properties, then increasing CO2 beyond certain levels will, of necessity, increase the planet’s temperature compared to what it would otherwise be.
I’m stating this because your argument doesn’t seem to be with the underlying science that suggests CO2 (and methane, water vapor, etc.) trap heat. I believe those basic physical principles are undisputed.
So assuming that you’re not disputing the physical properties of greenhouse gases, the question becomes whether we’ve added enough carbon to the atmosphere to make a significant difference with global temperatures, and whether that carbon is likely to cause problems in the future. Is that the crux of it? Or am I wrong about that?
I’ll wait for your response before adding anything else on this subject.
As for ocean acidification - here’s part of a column I published back in 2008. I suggest you read it before we continue this discussion.
TT
Whatever your opinion on global warming, there’s another major problem associated with fossil fuels. We know that when we burn gasoline (or coal, or diesel fuel, or home heating oil, or natural gas, or jet fuel) we put carbon dioxide into the air. It’s an inevitable byproduct of combustion.
We also know that our oceans are absorbing a tremendous amount of this CO2. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates that our oceans have soaked up more than 500 billion tons of CO2 - almost a third of the carbon dioxide we’ve created so far.
Unfortunately, all of our anthropogenic CO2 is changing the water’s chemistry. When you mix carbon dioxide with sea water, you produce something called carbonic acid. This carbonic acid has made our oceans 30% more acidic than they were at the start of the industrial age. If the trend continues, we may see a 150% increase in acidity by the end of this century.
Even worse, the Seattle Times recently reported that scientists are finding acidic, or “corrosive,” sea water on the continental shelf a full hundred years earlier than they expected. I spoke with oceanographer Richard Feely of the NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Program and he was blunt in his assessment. He told me that the low acid, high PH ocean water our planet has enjoyed for the last 25 to 30 million years is changing. Our oceans are becoming acidic enough to damage coral reefs and dissolve the protective shells of plankton, pteropods and other calcifying organisms. There’s also laboratory evidence that acidic sea water kills juvenile fish and fish eggs.
Dr. Feely, whose recent scientific paper “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive ‘Acidified’ Water onto the Continental Shelf” documents the phenomena all the way from northern Mexico to central Canada, described the situation as “astonishing and disturbing.” He also said “the decisions we make over the next generation will affect our ocean ecosystems for millions of years.”
I am convinced the world has been warming up since the 19th Century. For example, the last time the Thames (in London, UK) froze over properly was 1814. That year, the Thames River Frost Fair lasted only four days, and included all sorts of activities on the frozen river. The river has never frozen over again. Quite clearly, the world has warmed up since those days (thank goodness!).
So yes, the world has been warming. As a matter of statistics, it has stalled since about 2000, which is neither here nor there when discussing the reality (or otherwise) of anthropogenic global warming.
The only point it demonstrates is that the global circulation models produced in the 1990s were wrong. None of them predicted a levelling-off of climate for ten years (and counting). It surely leads one to question how correct they are in predicting the future 100 years from now... but that is another issue.
Now, back to your main point. Yes, in the laboratory, CO2 causes warming. If there were no feedback factors in the climate, it's widely accepted that a doubling of CO2 (from 280pppm to 560ppm) would cause a 1C increase in temperatures (perhaps 1.2C, depending on who you ask).
However, take that analysis out of the laboratory and put it in the real world (which has feedbacks, both positive and negative), and you get a much different story. You get a supposed warming from CO2 which is completely overwhelmed by other forcings. In fact, the signal from CO2-induced warming becomes completely indistinguishable from the noise in the rest of the system.
From 1860 - 1880, the planet warmed. It warmed at a rate of 0.163C per decade.
Then the planet cooled.
From 1910 - 1940 the planet warmed again. It warmed at a rate of 0.15C per decade.
Then the planet cooled.
From 1975 - 1998, the planet warmed again. It warmed at a rate of 0.166C per decade.
Then the planet cooled (or at least ceased warming).
Which period of warming was caused by CO2 and which wasn't? The IPCC seems to think that only the last period (1975 onwards) was caused by CO2, as there simply wasn't enough in the atmosphere before then to have an effect. But, as you can see, the rate of change is no different to the previous two periods of warming which were not caused by CO2. Why then attribute the last warming to CO2 when it was identical to the others?
I am convinced that whatever effect CO2 has on temperature, it is completely overriden by other factors (cloud cover, water vapour, land use changes, sulphates, etc). So yes, CO2 should be warming the planet according to laboratory experiments, but its effect is so miniscule in the real world that it is being overcome by other factors - to such an extent we can't even distinguish its signal from the noise.
Now, irrespective of whether we can attribute any one period of warming to CO2 or not... the theory remains that a doubling of CO2 should (without influence from feedbacks) cause 1C of warming. So once we get to 580ppm, we should've had 1C of warming. To get the next 1C of warming, we'll need to be at 1160ppm.
What is there to worry about?
The answer is feedbacks. If feedbacks are net positive, the warming will be far greater. If the feedbacks are net negative, the warming will be less (possibly much less).
This all comes down to feedbacks.
Can you name three, long-term stable systems with net positive feedbacks?
1) Melting arctic sea ice (less energy reflected back into space leads to faster ice melt, which leads to even less energy reflected back into space, etc.)
2) Melting permafrost releases large quantities of methane (a more potent greenhouse gas, which leads to more melting permafrost, which leads to more methane releases, etc.)
3) Increased water vapor due to increased evaporation (increased water vapor raises air temperatures, which, in turn, leads to more evaporation and more water vapor, etc.)
Positive climate feedbacks are indeed a huge issue; especially since we’re seeing them take hold right now. I’m curious, Ben. Can you name a single major negative feedback loop that is currently reducing global temperatures? Particulates from pollution and volcanic eruptions are certainly reflecting light (energy) back into space, but they don’t form a feedback loop. Neither does plant intake of CO2, which, according to the latest studies, is near or at it’s maximum, and which is now proving problematic for tree and plant health. It also impacts people on a more visceral level, as the nutritional value of a plant falls as its CO2 intake goes up.
You’re absolutely right that we should be focused on feedbacks, but all the major feedbacks we’re seeing now are positive - which, as you just pointed out, is a huge problem.
On the temperature front, NASA just released a report stating that global temperatures have not declined or stabilized over the last decade. They’ve continued to rise, with 2005 the hottest year on record and 2009 tied for second. (Of course, all indications are that 2010 will set a new record.) You might want to double check your numbers, as they’re simply not correct.
I also noticed that you didn’t bring up global acidification. Have you had a chance to look at the issue yet? And if so, what are you discovering?
By the way, I chuckled at your response to the U.S. National Academies of Science statement on global warming. I understand your dilemma. There really isn’t much you can say when the world’s preeminent scientific body states that climate change is a “settled fact.”
Finally, if you can bring yourself to watch an American scientist completely demolish a British climate skeptic, here’s a fascinating presentation put together by John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas (in Minnesota). Professor Abraham literally goes through and checks Christopher Monckton’s talking points against the actual facts. He does this by, time and again, displaying a paper that Monckton cites in his climate presentation and then quoting the actual paper and contacting its author(s). It is one of the most devastating rebuttals I’ve ever witnessed. I can’t imagine it will be easy for you to sit through the entire 83 minutes - which I did - but no one who does so will ever take Lord Monckton seriously again.
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
By the way, I’m happy to continue this discussion, but I’m going to wait for you to go through the Abraham presentation first. Many of Professor Abraham’s points address issues that you yourself have raised, and I’m curious to see how your opinion changes after being exposed to so much new scientific information.
Cheers.
But I did grab this definition of pH from Utah State University. Not sure if it’s correct:
“pH is measured on a scale of 0 to 14. Water that is neutral has a pH of 7. Acidic water has pH values less than 7, with 0 being the most acidic. Likewise, basic water has values greater than 7, with 14 being the most basic. A change of 1 unit on a pH scale represents a 10 fold change in the pH, so that water with pH of 6 is 10 times more acidic than water with a pH of 7, and water with a pH of 5 is 100 times more acidic than water with a pH of 7.”
The basic mathematics / physics needs to answer the following question:
How much CO2 needs to be pumped into the atmosphere, for it to then fall into the ocean, to mix with the salt water, in order to change the pH level of the oceans by 0.1 unit?
There are a few elements to that question. So….working backwards:
1) What is the current pH level of the oceans?
2) Three parts to this next question:
a. How much carbonic acid is required to change the pH levels of the world's oceans by 0.1 unit?
b. How much carbonic acid is required to change the pH levels of the world's oceans by 1 unit?
c. How much carbonic acid is required to change the pH levels of the world's oceans by 2 units?
3) How much CO2 needs to fall into the oceans to create the required amounts of carbonic acid?
4) How much CO2 needs to go up into the atmosphere, to then fall into the oceans to create the required amounts of carbonic acid? (This assumes that some of the atmospheric CO2 will be taken up by land mass. I wouldn’t like to guess that 70% falls into the ocean, simply because the oceans cover 70% of the surface of the earth. That kind of estimation seems to crude for a complex planet like ours.)
5) Finally, how much CO2 have we put in the atmosphere since 1850?
My recollection to the last question is 80ppm, but I could be wrong. Converting that into actual mass, I seem to recall a figure of something like 174Gt of carbon added to the atmosphere since 1850 – but again, that could be wrong. Happy to be corrected.
I just want to know whether the basic proposition is even worth investigating. Can 174Gt of carbon really change the chemistry of the oceans… by even 0.1 units?
If we agree that the basic maths stands up, we then need to address a different set of questions. And your friends’ studies will come into it here.
1) What amount of change in pH will affect sea-based organisms? How will they be affected? Are they resilient or fragile?
2) What does the historical record show for ocean acidity?
a. Have levels been more and/or less acidic in the past?
b. How have sea-based organisms coped in the past?
I’ll get back to your AGW points soon… as soon as I get a spare moment from work!
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
You might also want to watch the excellent documentary film, A Sea Change, which focuses on the subject. (There's a short clip of the film linked on the NOAA site.)
Did you make it all the way through Professor Abraham's presentation?
Anyway, I note that the link you sent through is merely a presentation. While these sorts of things are useful, they are not debates. Thus Christopher Monckton did not have the chance of replying. For me, it is through good-faith debates between knowledgeable people that we can uncover the truth. One-person presentations do not do that. And that is something which has been terribly lacking in the AGW movement - a genuine willingness to engage with sceptics. Indeed, there are a number of people who are labelled 'sceptics' who aren't really doubtful of the proposition at all - they simply don't believe one or two conclusions. I'd put Steve McIntyre in that group. And yet the AGW-ers don't want to debate anyone. It gives the impression that they don't want anyone to question their findings and discover their flaws.
In any event, I notice that Lord Monckton has written a short reply here:
http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/
and that he'll be writing more thoroughly to Prof. Abraham.
What I would like to see is the two of them go head-to-head on each point. That way, presumably, there will be areas of agreement, and areas of disagreement Then I can make up my own mind on whom to believe for the areas of disagreement.
Now, getting back to ocean acidification - I did a quick search for through those links, but couldn't find specific figures to answer my questions. Maybe you could help out?
Cheers,
Ben
In Question #4 I asked how much CO2 falls into the ocean, as opposed to the land.
IPCC AR4, 5.4.2.2
The IPCC estimates between 37 and 42% falls into the oceans. But this is the percentage of all CO2 in the atmosphere, not just human-emitted CO2.
The relevant IPCC's quote is:
"The fraction of the net CO2 emissions taken up by the ocean (the uptake fraction) was possibly lower during 1980 to 2005 (37% ± 7%) compared to 1750 to 1994 (42% ± 7%); however the uncertainty in the estimates is larger than the difference between the estimates (Table 5.1). The net CO2 emissions include all emissions that have an influence on the atmospheric CO2 concentration (i.e., emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, land use change and the terrestrial biosphere response)."
So, less than half of all CO2 in the atmosphere falls into the oceans. It seems like we have to emit an ENORMOUS amount of CO2 to change the chemistry of the oceans.
Without knowing all the answers to my questions, I'm guessing that the mathematical principle behind ocean acidification is pretty weak.
Ben, I understand why you would want to listen to a debate and then make up your mind. But it’s a poor way to ascertain the truth. A good debater who advocates an erroneous position will usually prevail over a poor debater who advocates the actual facts. (This happens all the time in our court system here in the United States.) In the end, we’re left scoring the debater’s skill, not the validity of his or her argument.
And that assumes it’s truly a “good-faith debate.” My point with Professor Abraham’s presentation is not that it’s the final word on climate change. My point is that he proves beyond a reasonable doubt - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that Chris Monckton is intentionally misleading the people who listen to his talks.
Let me be clear. In my mind, that makes Chris Monckton a fraud and a liar. And I have absolutely no use for frauds or liars. I’m not going to waste my time on a man who habitually misrepresents the science and misleads the people who listen to him.
So here’s my challenge to you. I am stating for the record that Chris Monckton is a fraud and a liar, and I’m basing my allegations on Professor’s Abraham’s presentation. I’m not making this statement as an intellectual exercise, or to prove a point. I’m stating this because Professor Abraham’s presentation is so comprehensive and so compelling that I don’t believe it’s possible for an unbiased individual to come to a different conclusion.
Here’s my challenge to you. Listen to the entire presentation and then tell me where Professor Abraham’s critique is wrong or misleading, or where I reached the wrong conclusions about Chris Monckton, or why any of us should give Monckton the benefit of the doubt. Because I don’t think you can do it. The evidence against Monckton is far too overwhelming and far too damning. As far as I’m concerned, he’s been exposed as a con man and a charlatan.
Here’s your chance, Ben. I’ve stated my opinion in the clearest possible manner, and now I’m giving you an opportunity to respond. All you have to do is go through the Abraham presentation and tell me where he’s wrong, or why I shouldn’t believe him. Are you up for the task? Or is it too much to ask of you?
Let me tell you how I propose to tackle your challenge. The first is to watch Monckton's presentation, which I haven't seen. I assume it must be pretty long.
The second step is to watch Abraham's presentation - all 83 minutes of it.
Then I would need to go back and check whether Abraham correctly quoted / referenced Monckton. I have my doubts about whether this is the case. Monckton has already written a short reply, stating that Abraham misquoted him on a number of point - see here:
http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/
(Also note, Monckton will be issuing a more thorough response shortly.)
Next, on those points where Abraham and Monckton do actually go head-to-head (instead of, say, setting up straw men), I would need to investigate both guys' references and see what they say.
Next, I would need to do my own research, to see if there are other sources which can help resolve any conflicts.
And then (finally!) I could answer your challenge: "tell me where Professor Abraham’s critique is wrong or misleading, or where I reached the wrong conclusions about Chris Monckton, or why any of us should give Monckton the benefit of the doubt."
All in all, I'd say that's a month's full-time work - possibly longer. Or am I overestimating the work required?
In any event, I've issued you a similar challenge - to come up with the basic numbers required to assess the "ocean acidification" claim. I imagine that's a far simpler task. But I'm assuming you're as busy as I am, and that it is similarly too much work for you.
Now, getting back to Monckton and Abraham. In Monckton's brief reply, I get the feeling he's actually welcoming the challenge. He (and most skeptics) are welcoming the idea that an AGW believer is actually engaging with skeptics. I suspect Monckton will want to debate the issues with Abraham. I think that is a good thing. No - it is an excellent thing. For too long, the issue has been pronounced as 'settled' and any reasonable discussion shut down.
I know you're fond of the NAS, and their 'settled fact' position. However, the Royal Society has recently recanted from it's 'the science is settled' stance, and is revising its position. This is a good thing. There are far too many uncertainties (which even the IPCC acknowledges) for the science to be 'settled'.
And as to your point about debates, I think it's a rather naive conclusion. We may judge political 'debates' on style as much as substance. And indeed, that is right and proper. When watching your potential president or prime minister, you're wanting to see how he/she handles criticism and challenge. Because, not only are you voting for his/her policies, but you're voting for him/her as leader - knowing that unexpected events will occur during their time in office, and that they must be emotionally and intellectually capable of rising to the challenge. So for political debates, I believe style is important.
However, when it comes to scientific debates, style means very little. And I think the public knows that. No one cares how convincing someone sounds - if their theory doesn't stack up according to the evidence, it's all a lot of hot air. I think you need to give the public some credit. I suspect most people can see who uses peer-reviewed references, and who uses spurious arguments (such as appeals to authority, ad hominem attack, etc)... no matter how good someone's style.
If you really hoped to learn more about climate change, you’d jump at the chance to watch the Abraham presentation. You’d want to see what he had to say, and whether his critique of Chris Monckton stood up to strict scientific and academic standards.
Please keep in mind that I haven’t asked you to take my word for anything. I’ve simply offered my opinion and then asked you to listen to Professor Abraham and make up your own mind. But you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested. In fact, you’ve created an elaborate mental construct; an “I don’t have the time” rationalization that allows you to skip the Abraham presentation entirely.
The facts here are pretty simple, Ben. I sat through the entire Abraham presentation. I read Chris Monckton’s response. And then I read Professor Abraham’s response to Monckton.
You’ve apparently read Chris Monckton’s letter, but (to the best of my knowledge) you haven’t watched the Abraham presentation or read his follow up letter to Monckton. I’m afraid your reluctance to consider both sides of the argument speaks for itself.
By the way, I’m certainly open to being proven wrong - which you can do by watching the Abraham presentation in its entirety, and then offering your opinion - but for now I’m going to assume that you’re not interested in challenging your personal biases or discerning the actual facts about climate change. Which is a shame.
Thank you for the conversation. It’s been enlightening.
I did watch the Abraham presentation (well, the first 48 minutes). It was very enlightening, and left me with a lot of questions.
But my previous response (my 'mental construct', as you called it) was not about the presentation. It was about your challenge. I will quote your challenge here again:
"tell me where Professor Abraham’s critique is wrong or misleading, or where I reached the wrong conclusions about Chris Monckton, or why any of us should give Monckton the benefit of the doubt."
For that, I simply don't have the time. I explained the reasons why it would take me so long. I explained the steps I would need to go through to provide you with a substantial response. Indeed, you should note that I still haven't seen the Monckton presentation which Abraham purports to refute. Let me state it again for the record - I don't have the time to answer your challenge.
And I note that you probably don't have the time to investigate my 'ocean acidification' questions. Or do you?
Even though you have never even acknowledged those questions that I asked, I'm not accusing you of being "unintersted in challenging your personal biases or ascertaining the actual facts about climate change." I'm not stating that your lack of time or effort is a "shame". And I would prefer if you didn't claim that of me either. Apart from this brief, faceless conversation online, we have not met each other, and so cannot question each other's motives.
It always seems strange to me that AGW believers so quickly resort to ad hominem attacks.
Maybe you can explain something for me, Ben. Your "ad hominem attacks" line is quickly becoming a standard response with deniers and skeptics. I haven't done so, but I'd bet you could read this comment thread, along with the parallel thread at Truthout, and see the exact same term at least 20 other times. And I believe you've used it before as well. Why is the phrase "ad hominem" so popular with skeptics and deniers?
Oh, and I'd truly appreciate if you'd point out the "ad hominem attacks" you're referring to in the last line of your comment. I've looked and looked, but I can't find them.
Just so we're clear - if I want to dispute or discredit someone's position, I don't need to resort to an ad hominem attack. I can make my case without bringing in unrelated or extraneous data.
And why such a thin skin? You called my opinion on debates "rather naive," but while I don't agree, I certainly didn't get upset.
Finally, there are two reasons I didn't address your ocean acidification challenge. The first is that it simply takes too long to go through and address every point you make or issue you raise in your comments. We'd get bogged down in short order and the conversation would stultify. Second, I prefer to control the direction of our discussion, and while you raised a valid point, I didn't want to go off on a tangent. I wanted to stay focused on the Abraham/ Monckton issue, which is much closer to the heart of this particular discussion.
What I said was:
"And as to your point about debates, I think it's a rather naive conclusion."
I made no comment about you as a person. It was your conclusion which was naive.
What you said was:
"But you’ve made it clear that you’re not interested. In fact, you’ve created an elaborate mental construct..."
and
"but for now I’m going to assume that you’re not interested in challenging your personal biases or discerning the actual facts about climate change. Which is a shame."
More recently you asserted I had "thin skin".
And of course, in your actual essay you wrote:
"Nor are most other “skeptics.” They’re past the point where scientists can convince them or where logical arguments can persuade them. They’ve become ideologues, and whether they’re driven by religion or politics or their distrust of the science is ultimately irrelevant. They’ve hardened into intransigence and their skepticism is nothing more than a thin veneer of respectability plastered over an otherwise indefensible position."
and
"They’re addicted to fossil fuels. Of course they’re going to deny that they --or we--have a problem. That’s what addicts do."
and
"As for the climate change deniers who are shouting down the experts and telling us not to believe our own eyes, well, they’re addicts. And we all know what that means."
To which, my original comment stands. You don't know me; I don't know you. Let's keep this about the facts, and not make claims about each other's feelings, motives or skin-density.
Is that okay with you?
Now, to the issues which are relevant...
Yes, I agree that the Abraham / Monckton issue is relevant. Afterall, I did say that a debate between a warmist and skeptic was once of my game-changers. So now, we've had round one of that debate. Monckton has given a talk, Abraham has responded. I expect round two to be even more insightful, and I look forward to watching it.
However, I'm in no position to declare a winner yet. (I still haven't seen Monckton's original presentation afterall.) I expect to declare a winner after round three, which is typical for debates.
As to the questions on ocean acidifcation, I appreciate your honesty that you also don't have the time to investigate them. I also suspect (though you could correct me) that you have never seen these equations answered satisfactorily. Otherwise, I assume, you would have sent me a link to the answers. No?
If my assumptions are correct, then you need to stop and consider what you're writing to the world at large. You mentioned ocean acidification several times on this webpage (the article and all the follow-up conversations). I assume you've mentioned it elsewhere on the web, and perhaps in print or in person. Your story is that CO2 emissions are causing ocean acidification and therefore we should (perhaps dramatically?) reduce our CO2 emissions. And quickly?
However, this whole situation casts you in a bad light, Todd. You're telling the world this alarming, scary story and trying to convince everyone to change their behaviour... and yet you've never even bothered to check the basic proposition. Is it even physically possible for our CO2 emissions to change the chemistry of the oceans?
You don't know the answer to that question. Yet you're willing to tell everyone to give up their carbon 'addiction', on faith that the proposition is true.
Now, I suspect you will try to put this back on me. So let me pre-empt this.
Unlike you, I am not out there writing articles, trying to convince the world to give up carbon-based energy. I am not an activist, as you appear to be. (Though please correct me if that's a wrong label for you. And, of course, I apologise without hesitation if that label causes offence.)
Since I am not an activist, I do not need to have answered the basic question. I am not the one telling the story, or asserting the proposition. You are. Therefore it is your job, and not mine, to do the homework and ensure the proposition is correct.
If you have not done the homework, I have to say that you have no right to tell the story.
Let me clarify my role once again. I'm a skeptic. I listen to the story and wonder whether it's true. I don't have an alternative story. I don't need to. I'm just trying to find holes in other's stories. And I've found a gaping chasm in yours. The basic mathematics appears to be missing.
Indeed, I suspect it is a fundamental flaw in the theory.
I'm not sure if you're still monitoring this website, however Monckton has finally given his reply to Abraham's talk.
See here:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.html
It sounds like Abraham made some serial misrepresentations, setting up straw-men, and the like.
I look forward to Abraham's reply.