The idea of a point counterpoint discussion makes sense. I would suggest having someone like Dr. Briggs. Ph.D., Statistics, Cornell University, 2004. M.S., Atmospheric Science, Cornell University, 1995.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/10/us-senate-report-over-400-skeptical-climate-scientists/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But climatology has, unfortunately, become a different sort of creature. Far too much speculation shows up in the headlines. Prominent scientists have taken to using the press as a bludgeon to discourage reasonable dissent. An example: R K Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, and now co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has compared anybody that dared question mad-made climate change to those who believe in a flat earth.

“Well, there will always be some skeptics,” Pachauri said. “As you know, there is still in existence something called the Flat Earth Society. There are people — a very limited number, thank God — who believe the Earth is flat.” Source: Washington Post

These excruciating comments are asinine and irresponsible, and they must be answered publicly.

I am not skeptical that man causes changes in his environment; in fact, I argue man must cause changes (see this post). I am only skeptical about the extent of these changes and about our ability to understand them. I am skeptical of the results from climate models that are used to posit large and harmful shifts in the earth’s temperature.

The vast majority of pronouncements about climate change are based on forecasts, guesses made about the future which are conditional on the multitude of assumptions underlying the models being true and on the forecasts having only small error. My specialty is in forecast evaluation (not just climate models, but any kind), and I do not feel that climate models have shown their ability to make accurate predictions thus far. This is why I said that the “error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models.”

Overconfidence is a common human trait, and it holds in scientists just as much as it does with civilians. Typically, however, the excessive surety of scientists is tempered by the peer-criticism process, which has the effect of reducing, but never eliminating, prediction error. But this service won’t work well if experts are made to feel squeamish about making their critiques because of a public browbeating by autocratic scientists, politicians, and “activists.”

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Of course. Why would anybody question your expertise on so many--if not all controversial subjects, Craigie...

Jedediah, just to make sure that you understand the full depth (and depth is an appropriate term here) of the situation, my understanding is that Craig got his education in theatre arts and ended up working as a photographer. Despite his constant jumping in to trash discussions on environmental science topics, I don't believe he has any structured education in any serious technical field, except perhaps what he learned listening to John Stokes. We will ultimately look back on the fact that the net is so egalitarian as both its saving grace and its downfall...

Dr. Running's Nobel prize is equal to Al Gore's, and co-held with hundreds. One or the other is riding someone's coat tails. My prejudice.

Several of the climate academics and professional weather people where I live have dismissed much of what is proffered as global warming truth, and for their efforts, have been soundly thrashed in the press by liberal Democrat politicians who have zero idea of what science is or is about. So much for scientific dissent. It leaves you open to political retribution. Oregon's Governor has tried to erase the Oregon State U. climatologist's job because he is not walking with Running. Hypocrisy rules the day!!

I find it very distasteful that Oregon's gerrymandering, initiative signature dismissing Sec. of State, Bill Bradbury, is a certified Avon salesman for the AlGore Global Warming Medicine Show. Have diatribe, will travel, reads the card of the man. I had no idea he was elected to be the travelling salesman for global warming and the offical State of Oregon finger pointer of human caused climate change. Evidently, the Party faithful march to drums not all can hear. My warning: Don't buy carbon credits from shills for a pyramid scheme based on odorless gases and electron active elements. They are tough to collateralize in the secondary market, and are the subprime mortgages of environmental consciousness.

This issue that the Supt of Schools presented was one of equal access to differing views. He, representing his School Board (an elected body), thought better of having a presentation of one side of a controversial issue. If both sides of the issue were to be presented, then I would think it just to expose students to the controversy.

One would think the freedom to hear a particular point of view comes with a parallel freedom of not having to not hear a particular point of view. If the constituents do not agree with the Supt of Schools, or the Board that hired him, then they have redress in that they can recall the Board or prevail on the Board to have him act in favor of those who participate in the democratic process. It is not yet Montanastan as far as I know.

And thanks to New West, I got to throw out some differing points of view.

Climate change skeptics contend that human caused climate change models are replete with uncertainities. So what's new? Cancer research models are also replete with uncertainties. Cancer & climate change research use identical rigorous approaches to their investigations.

No one knowns better than scientists that many of their reseach models will be disgarded as better data is collected. However, the majority of the data shows troubling climate warming trends that should not be ignored due to the terrible downside if the "skeptics" are wrong.

Most climate change skeptics don't actually do research. Many of the skeptic comments are more political than scientific. The news media for some perverted sense of "fair play" gives as much attention to a few climate change skeptics as to the thousands of credible climate change scientists.

Richard Someville, with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography wrote: "The skeptics tend as a group, to approach the problem like lawyers, making the best case for a client who has a preconcerived position, rather than like scientists, which is to examine the climate system with the idea of figuring out how nature works, not to substantiate a preconception that one comes in the door with". It is aways easier to "stand back & throw rocks".

The global warming skeptics--are in essence--at "war' with science". Climate change models improve with each passing day, and with mathamatical certainty, the proof of human induced climate change is being fine tuned.

Although, I can't prove the following, I would bet that the majority of climate change skeptics also believe that "creationism" is science & evolution is bunk. The good folks of Choteau would also prohibit the teaching of evolution.

Steve Running, R K Pachauri and their ilk spread absolute and intolerable lies about humanity. Mankind is not, and could not be the cause of Global warming. Nor did man evolve from apes, as some so called scientists and heretics insist. Only GOD has dominion over the earth, and only GOD can influence our world. If our planet is heating, perhaps it is a warning from the one true GOD that our secular scientist worshiping society has fallen out of favor and hell fire awaits those that do not accept Him as their savior.

(... However, recent sightings in Texas clearly prove the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence.)

Meanwhile, as the rest of the civilized world (including initially skeptical ceos of the largest multi-nationals) are convinced by the scientific evidence and move to act on it, New West continues to be a forum where yahoos dominate the blog. The discussion that has been going on here about climate change is laughable.

When I read strident demonizations of skeptics I think about all those Pashtun kids bobbing like autistics as they memorize the Koran in Arabic, a language they neither understand nor speak.

I certainly don't want American kids to be bobbing at their desks memorizing climate change claims without any thought of questioning what they are being told.

Our public schools are/were based on local control and direction. I would think that value is still appropriate.

When I think of multinational American CEOs, my only thoughts are of how they think they will profit from climate change. They are not True Believers. They are covering their bets and financial asses. Spreading the risk. I still remember DotComs, Enron, Martha Stewart. In the last few weeks, Countrywide , Citibank, and the rest of the hot rod mortgage lenders who actually thought that lending, with ARM loans, more money than a house was worth to someone who could not make the payments if interest rates went up at all have proven some multinational CEO's are dumber than a bucket of rocks, and of little value in evaluating the science of global climate change, let alone assigning blame for its origins.

The climate change train may have left the station, but nobody has reported that a flash flood of new information might take out the roadbed down the tracks. I trust that besides the people pushing on the throttle, there are some to pull on the brakes if needed.

All this BEFORE anyone has listened to what Running has to say. Fear, supression and censorship rule the day. Science has always been controversial. Listen and learn. Plugging one's ears and screaming is utter madness.

Global Warming as rigorous science? Ah, yeah, some real scientific method there. They build computer models that--surprise--show exactly what they want them to show. Garbage in, garbage out.

Public schools should be a forum for ideas. So bring in somebody to talk about what the data show, pro and con, and leave this preacher for the U.

This is part of a letter to the editor published in the Great Falls Tribune from Kip Barhaugh, a senior at Choteau High School. Pretty powerful stuff from the younger generation, especially the last sentence.

"Our school leaders seem to be under the impression that high school students are not able to hear about what some deem 'controversial issues' and form individual judgments. This raises the question of what public high school education is. Is it the spoon-feeding of information to America's next generation or is it presenting this generation with all the facts and allowing students to decide how those facts are interpreted? To the Choteau school board and some of the Choteau community, I hope you realize that our school is probably one of the few districts in the nation to deny a Nobel Peace Prize winner the right to speak to its students."

I think Mr. Barhaugh's letter pretty much answers Craig Moore's point about "The idea of a point counterpoint discussion makes sense." So does the following statement from Dr. Running that was in the Missoulian's coverage of the issue. How exactly would there be a counterpoint to giving our young people an inspirational speech about the jobs of science?

"The thing that's ironic is that I wasn't even going to talk about global warming to the kids. I was just going to try to give an inspirational speech for young people about the jobs of science. But I guess that's pretty scary stuff." - Dr. Steve Running, University of Montana Nobel laureate climate researcher in the Missoulian

Bearbait, it's amazing how there is so little respect for dissent. Dr. John Christy would also make an excellent counterpoint to Dr. Running's point. The student's letter that sparked the NYT article reflects the inexperience of youth. We don't learn by only hearing reinforcement of strongly held beliefs we may have. We learn by debate and challenge. So is the way of true scientific advancement.

The WSJ had this article on Dr. Christy: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119387567378878423.html

>>>>>>>>>
My Nobel Moment
By JOHN R. CHRISTY
November 1, 2007

...I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)

It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
<<<<<<<<<

Having a discussion between two Noble Laurates on differing sides of the same work which received the award, and have a highly credentialed PHD satistician such as Dr. Briggs opine on what the data means from the perspective of his professional expertise may help educate all who have the opportunity to experience such a debate. Students should neve close themselves off from such opportunites by saying they don't need to hear dissenting opinion. They should demand it.

Matt, your post came in as I was finishing mine. Look at the title to this column, "Choteau Cancels Running’s Climate Change Speech." Perhaps if Dr. Running had other intentions NewWest should correct the title.

To have the 2 sides of an issue always presented together is pretty hard to do - maybe an opposition speaker can come later or do they want a debate. Now, it seems, that the students suffer - with no pt. of view from one of the world renowned experts in the field!
This smacks of the School District in Oregon that banned a Dr. Suess book in Elementary schools - why was the "Lorax" banned? It didn't agree with the local industry's pt. of view! Come on - an Elemenatary school book; not required reading, but banned from the Library! Someone is REALLY Scared about what a 3rd. Grader reads and thinks?? Again - WHY??

Craig, All I know regarding the intent of the Choteau speech was what Dr. Running said in the Missoulian, which was, "The thing that's ironic is that I wasn't even going to talk about global warming to the kids. I was just going to try to give an inspirational speech for young people about the jobs of science. But I guess that's pretty scary stuff."

Fact is, Choteau students had a chance to hear and see a living Nobel Peace Prize winner from their own state right in their own school talk about science. What an opportunity! Would you have wanted that opportunity when you were young? Would you want your kids to have that opportunity?

I agree with Craig that "Having a discussion between two Noble Laurates on differing sides of the same work which received the award...." would be outstanding. I'd certainly buy a ticket for that! However, I highly doubt this discussion would take place at Choteau HS.

No matter your views on climate change, the kids of Choteau, MT missed out on what is likely a once in a lifetime chance to personally meet and hear a Noble Peace Prize scientist talk about science. That's the real shame.

Matt, I think Dr. Running is just down the road in Bozeman. I'm sure some of those students will go there.

In this age of teleconferencing, videoconferencing, MS Netmeeting, and the like, people don't need to share the same physical area to have a discussion shared by others. If such could not be accomplished in Choteau, how about Great Falls or Missoula? I think it would make a great senior project for any of these students to arrange if Choteau requires senior projects for graduation. Perhaps NW could assist in the effort.

Obviously no one writing on this blog including me have the expertise or the access to actual scientific data required to decree that global warming is or is not caused by man. Information provided by our paparazzi (oh, sorry, I meant media) is all based on sound bites because they are more concerned with what Brittney is or in not wearing today. My opinion is that if this is the issue that the American people need to get behind to clean up the pollution we spew into the atmosphere and into the ocean and to rid ourselves of dependence on fossil and foreign fuels, then so be it.

How did we get here? Used to be, everyone had a right to their opinion...let alone "dissent." Solutions were reached upon listening to all sides of an issue, then a search for common ground and a beginning. Now days the media fattens us like geese going to slaughter, by cramming us full of information they deem as "good for us." Has "objectivity" been labled as non-PC, therefore unworthy if it doesn't support OUR ideas?

So...what was Brittney wearing or not wearing today? You left me hangin'.

Regardless of how one feels about global warming, I'm from Teton County (where Choteau is) and I'm ashamed to admit I'm a product of an academic system that would prohibit students from listening to a Nobel Laureate. It's just embarrassing. If it was so objectionable the school should have scheduled a counter-point lecture. I want to return to Teton county to raise my children someday but now I'm not so sure. Home school is looking better and better. Would they have cancelled Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela, simply because some people complained. The fact is we have a lot to learn from people we don't agree with. In fact, we probably have the most to learn from the people we don't agree with.
By the way, I'm also a property tax payer in Teton County and I help fund this school. I'm getting more embarrassed the more I write.
People who read this: please don't judge everyone from Teton County and the Choteau area like we are all ignorant or afraid of controversy. Some of us actually enjoy learning and debate.

The next time you want to question science and the empirical, intellectual enterprise take a real stand. Don't take your medication, don't eat your food, don't use a machine (car, telephone, etc), run through each and every red light you see as fast as possible. Do you ask for counter point lectures about the efficacy of biomedical treatments when you are on an operating table and there is an effective treatment available? People don't generally live their lives by the "we-need-to-provide-an-opposing-view" mentality (let's have dinner tonight, but let's have an opposing view!). There are a few people in this world that can legitimately make statements about the questionability of the global climate science, but you are probably not one of them.

"Several of the climate academics and professional weather people where I live have dismissed much of what is proffered as global warming truth, and for their efforts, have been soundly thrashed in the press by liberal Democrat politicians who have zero idea of what science is or is about. So much for scientific dissent. It leaves you open to political retribution. Oregon's Governor has tried to erase the Oregon State U. climatologist's job because he is not walking with Running. Hypocrisy rules the day!!"

On the other hand, a whole lot more scientists have thrown in with the notion that global warming is associated with human activities.

My question to you would be--what are the qualities of the 500 or so scientists who challenge the notion, as opposed to the qualities of those who support it which lead you to take the position you are taking?

One of the correspondents suggests that Craig Moore's support for the nay-sayers originated with hate-radio's Stokes.
My own prejudices tend also to support that notion.

I am reminded of Spiro Agnew's chronic ridicule of pointy-headed intellectuals; and wonder if you and Craig may not be simply the ideological descendents of Spiro and his anti-intellectual cohorts...

"Steve Running, R K Pachauri and their ilk spread absolute and intolerable lies about humanity. Mankind is not, and could not be the cause of Global warming. Nor did man evolve from apes, as some so called scientists and heretics insist. Only GOD has dominion over the earth, and only GOD can influence our world. If our planet is heating, perhaps it is a warning from the one true GOD that our secular scientist worshiping society has fallen out of favor and hell fire awaits those that do not accept Him as their savior.

(... However, recent sightings in Texas clearly prove the existence of UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence.)"

This appears to be the most intellectual argument I have run into vis-a-vis this entire controversy...

"When I read strident demonizations of skeptics I think about all those Pashtun kids bobbing like autistics as they memorize the Koran in Arabic, a language they neither understand nor speak."

Oddly-- I experience an equal and absolutely opposite reaction...

By JC, 1-17-08
Global Warming as rigorous science? Ah, yeah, some real scientific method there. They build computer models that--surprise--show exactly what they want them to show. Garbage in, garbage out.

Public schools should be a forum for ideas. So bring in somebody to talk about what the data show, pro and con, and leave this preacher for the U.

An absolutel rational response...

I am consistantly amazed at how ignorant we have become, mistaking ideologicaly driven "experts" for the real scientists. Sorry, all the hot air from the "idiotology" denying the reality of climate change may be half the problem...

"Bearbait, it's amazing how there is so little respect for dissent. Dr. John Christy would also make an excellent counterpoint to Dr. Running's point."

For whatever its worth, here is what his biography says:
I was particularly fascinated by the last paragrph.

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/john_bio.html

The most cursory iinvestigation usually produces some fairly telling evidence of prejudices of pretty obvious kinds...

"The student's letter that sparked the NYT article reflects the inexperience of youth."

Really Craig? I think it reflected the willingness to get perspective and make a choice all his own. I wouldn't call that the "inexperience of youth", rather the hunger for knowledge. How do you know what opinions that individual currently had on the subject?
You didn't.
But, his willingness to want to be enriched, fueling either side of his thinking is key - and it seems that you and others want to somehow, "burn the books" to prevent that sort of critical thinking from happening.

jedidiah, you prove the point how bias loves to build on bias. The poster 'mike' asserted his opinion. When he has done this before I challenged him. He never offers support for that erroneous opinion but continues posting it when he feels it necessary to make it personal. I don't even know who Stokes is.

Doesn't seem relevant to this discussion to go down that road in discussing point-couterpoint.

Drylander, this column links to the NYT story. It quotes the student as saying:

"“I was insulted as a high school student prepared to enter the world I need to hear both sides of the story,” the student, Kip Barhaugh, 17, said in an interview Tuesday. “I don’t feel there is another side. Global warming is not a controversial issue, it’s a fact. We need to be prepared to deal with it.”

Now I would say that student gave a rather clear indication what he thought.

Craig,

And the kid is right - global warming (climate change, etc) is a fact, it's the cause we are unsure of. We know there is climate change, but the debate is about what's making that change...

At least the student knows what the crux of the argument is about. And, if he want to hear more about what might be causing it - then that's what I'd call "gaining perspective".

Why are you (and others) so afraid of that?

If you are afraid your theory will never get equal time, mail him some dissenters material, so you can feel better that he became more well-rounded on subject... In YOUR time frame.

No fear on my part whatsoever. It's not black and white as you and others suggest. No one that I know of disputes that earth's climate has cycles alternating from warm to cold and back again. The real dispute is what Dr. Briggs and Dr. Christy suggest as I have posted above.

I know that people in Missoula are proud of Dr. Running's connection to the Nobel Peace Prize, but in reality, it is incorrect to call him a Nobel Laureate, because the award was given to a group, and not to Dr. Running personally.

If all members of a prize winning group were to be considered a Nobel Laureate, then we need to count all the members of Amnesty International as of 1977 or all the military personnel who were members of the United Nations Peacekeeping forces during 1988 and earlier years.

For the official list of Nobel Laureates, see:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/

As someone who is familiar with with some of the scientific information in terms of climate change I feel I should present some facts:

1) Why do non experts of this scientific field of study feel they are better versed than those that have worked in the field for 20 years? If a geneticist says that DNA is the molecule of inheritance does the layman what to contest this statement?
2) In terms of Oklahoma senator Imhofe’s list of 400 climate skeptics; all you have to do is look at the names and some of the creative accounting used to bulk up the list. For example, they’ve added pretty much all of the names of Lomborg’s “Copenhagen consensus,” even though most are not scientists. Then, there’s the trick of including, say, all the co-authors of the article, even though some of them certainly would not describe themselves as skeptics. There are a few real scientists plus a lot of nonentities whose lack of credentials you can spot just by running their names through Web of Science. If this is the best 400 names that Inhofe can scrape together, then the denialist crowd is really in bad shape. I don’t think it needs any more comment than that. Sure some competent climate scientists are skeptics. For example, Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences. But even he admits to the following (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds. Incidentally, Lindzen is a heavy smoker and doubts that smoking is a contributory factor to lung cancer. John Christy who was at Alabama then headed the group that was taking satellite data and measuring the temperature in the troposphere. Their results showed that the temperature was cooling not warming contrary to the results from climate models. Unfortunately, Christy’s group had made a sign error in an equation, essentially taking temperatures in the dark and not daylight conditions. This is rather complicated to explain to the layman. However when corrections were done the troposphere had indeed warmed and fitted the data predicted by climate models. Christy, an evangelical and former missionary, agrees to the changes that he had wrongly published.
3) The atmosphere is making temperature measurements of the troposphere With no CO2 in the atmospheres 0.03811% CO2 and ~1% water vapor. the earth’s mean temperature would be 33 degrees Centigrade cooler. The physics of warming by CO2 is an unassailable fact.
4) One argument that climate skeptics use is to ask the question “”How do you explain the lag between temp. and CO2? Isn’t this an argument against causation? The answer is that rising CO2 is not the initial cause of interglacials, but rather a feedback to the initial warming caused by increasing solar insolation, as are changes in albedo as the ice retreats. But then this increase in CO2 leads to yet more warming through the greenhouse mechanism, until equilibrium is gradually reached. [Note: equilibrium is a dynamic state, not a static one. Since we’re nearing the end of the current interglacial, we’ve been at this natural equilibrium for a long time now. The CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil carbon fuels is clearly not a feedback to an already underway warming, it is a new forcing.
5) The statement of the ice increasing in Antarctica is not a fact. Snowfall has increased inland, but ice around the perimeter is decreasing. Climate models predict this. For what is happening in Antarctica ice losses see this note in Nature Geoscience http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo102.html It is extensive and large.
6) If you want to follow what is going on in terms of the latest scientific debate go to realclimate.org.

Charles, as I've said I'm all for having representatives of the different points of view on the same dais go at it. The rest of us can sit back with a sack of popcorn and learn something.

I agree with you when you say:

"4) One argument that climate skeptics use is to ask the question “”How do you explain the lag between temp. and CO2? Isn’t this an argument against causation? The answer is that rising CO2 is not the initial cause of interglacials, but rather a feedback to the initial warming caused by increasing solar insolation, as are changes in albedo as the ice retreats. But then this increase in CO2 leads to yet more warming through the greenhouse mechanism, until equilibrium is gradually reached. [Note: equilibrium is a dynamic state, not a static one. Since we’re nearing the end of the current interglacial, we’ve been at this natural equilibrium for a long time now. The CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere by burning fossil carbon fuels is clearly not a feedback to an already underway warming, it is a new forcing."

I wll add that there are other natural released sources of GHC's that are far greater emitters than mankind. I have believed that certain gases amplify the warming that had already been underway. That being said, there are both positive and negative forcings. What I wonder is how either a cooling or warming cycle starts and why does it have a certain sustaining momentum before negative and positive forcings come to play to pick up the speed.

For bearbait,

I know George Taylor of OSU--nice guy, but not a climate scientist, but rather a climatologist. He keeps climate records for the state of Oregon; he does not do any basic research in climate science. He would be the first to tell you this.

CM,
Realclimate.org is no more "unbiased" as a source than Sierra Club. The site is registered to Environmental Media Services, which in turn is a spinoff of the Fenton Communications leftie spin house...the folks that brought us the great and truly scientific Alar hoax.
As for Running, let's not forget that his trip to Choteau was sponsored at least in part by the Sonoran Institute, which in turn has quite the social and political agenda. Steve's talk cannot be taken aside from such a context.
I have met Running, and I would like to talk with him again, as I have a number of questions about public statements he has made.
As for now, I see him as an advocate with a science degree, not as a scientist.
One thing not realized by many in the science professions is that their science in the end operates in a social context. If the undegreed riffraff don't go along with the program, or if the arguments can't be made in a completely comprehensible manner to the lay person, then the policy eventually corrects itself -- or is never implemented in the first place.
And Todd, I'm disappointed in you. You of all should understand the corporatists probably do not believe in "GW" but nonetheless are seeking a means of profiting from the issue no matter which way it goes.
As for Jim Robbins' reporting this bit....he has always ill-served the readers of the NYT and Montana with his slanted, lazy work. This article was the biggest concession I've ever seen that maybe not everyone on the Front is a slavering fan of Gloria Flora.

This article and the response points out one of the big failings (ultimately) of the environmental agenda. Debate on any environmental issue is not about this fact and it's meaning versus that fact and it's meaning, but rather on if you disagree with us you are not just wrong, you are bad, and all of the more colorful adjectives that environmentalists have to go along with bad.
This becomes even more troubling when it comes to schools. what is happening to students for instance in Jay's classes if they disagree or present a dissenting view? I have been thinking of that ever since I read Jay's statement that his students have the answer as to how environmental groups have gotten such power, and it is because everyone else is bad. It has been a good many years since I was in my formative years, but I would never have been allowed to get away with such a simplistic demeaning answer to a complex question. Yet I get the impression that Jay not only encouraged that answer, he would have accepted nothing else.
If climate models are so accurate, what happened to the last 2 years of record breaking hurricanes due to global warming.
What is happening this winter? This is shaping up to be a pretty nasty winter. By the first of December, 2007 was the warmest year on record....uhhh well the 6th as it turned out, but what about the very cold December, when or is it ever going to be figured in, or does that jsut not count?
I spent my life working in medicine, and believe me facts, not consensus is what counts there.

I'm curious about something. How would folks feel if the students at Choteau HS had an opportunity to listen to an in-person talk by George W. Bush? Or Dick Cheney? Or Conrad Burns? One could certainly argue that these people are very controversial figures, political even.

For those who believe it was right for Dr. Running's talk to students on the job of science to be canceled, I'm curious to know if you would apply to the same set of rules to Bush, Cheney and Burns.

Would you only allow them to speak to Choteau HS students if there was someone else invited that could provide balance or a counter-point? Who would that be exactly?

I grew up in a rural Wisconsin town of about 1,000 people made up of mostly farmers and factory workers. My dad has been a house painter for 40 years and still paints houses at 63 years old and my mom is a RN at the hospital in Sheboygan. Our high school only had about 200 kids in the whole building. All things considered, probably not that different than Choteau.

To this day I still remember back in the 1980s when our school had the great opportunity for an all-school assembly to hear and see an in-person talk about politics and the workings of government from Congressman Tom Petri (R-WI). Very controversial topics were brought up at the assembly, including the Iran-Contra affair. Even though I wasn't real keen on Congressman Petri and his position on most issues (despite the fact that my grandparents were long-time GOP delegates in WI) the experience had a big impact on me as a 16 year old growing up in a rural town. We just didn't get opportunities like that very often, if ever.

I would have hated to have had one of the school board members or school superintendent cancel Congressman Petri's speech because he was controversial, or not a democrat, or no counterpoint was offered. But thankfully Congressman Petri was only a politician, towing the republican line about Iran-Contra and other topics of the day...and not a Nobel Peace Prize winning scientist.

Troll alert!
Dutiful trolls like Craig and bearbait can always be counted on to voice skepticism about global warming, because that is part of their political package of conservatism, anti-regulation and pro-corporations. It really has nothing to do with the science or the emerging mountains of facts on the ground.
The reason that conservatives so dislike the "liberal" media, "pointy-headed" educators and "junk" scientists is that journalists, educators and scientists have the bad manners of communicating uncomfortable and inconvenient truths that upset the paleo-neanderthal thinking (or what passes for it) and bundle of biases that typify conservatives.

I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to work a horse pack trip that included Dr. Running. During this trip, I had ample opportunity to talk with him about his research, which addresses changes in global net primary productivity and the causes of those changes.

I found Dr. Running to be a highly intelligent, perspicacious, dedicated, and meticulous professional scientist who had extensive facts and well-grounded theories at his fingertips to explain climate change.

On the other hand, I don't find that any of Dr. Running's critics possess those qualities.

Who is doing the anme calling here? I see some references and facts being presented by Craig and bearbait. I see slurs being presented by others.
I do think that the solution the school came up with is probably as controversial as the speech. A better solution would have been for the teachers fo the various kids to require each of their students to either write their impression of how the research was done, what facts were fed into computers, the criteria they used to evaluate those things etc, or specific questions on the same things.
I see too little critical thinking being promoted in schools and way too much dogma, the young people only are able to spit out what is fed into them. We need to promote questioning and thinking for one's self.

"A better solution would have been for the teachers fo the various kids to require each of their students to either write their impression of how the research was done, what facts were fed into computers, the criteria they used to evaluate those things etc, or specific questions on the same things.
I see too little critical thinking being promoted in schools and way too much dogma..."

Finally, Marion, something I can agree with you on. This would have been the solution - to get critical thinking generated. That's the heart of this issue... Are we as a people so afraid to challenge our children to take in all facts and begin to learn how to separate the fact from fiction? By taking away the material, how can we expect them to learn anything at all, or to begin the thinking process? Anything else seems like censorship to me - unless that's the sort of thinkers we want to produce... the "hear no evil, see no evil", ignorant variety, incapable of thinking at all.

Wow! The spasms of apoplexy seem to be growing in intensity. I started off the comments here by saying having a point-counterpoint forum makes sense to me. However, like Matt I feel something of tremendous value is lost by denying Dr Running to speak. I understand what the superintendent was responding to and how he would like to go forward. That makes sense to me given the public interests he has to live with.

NOW, there is a tremendous opportunity to take another crack at this situation and work within the point-counterpoint requirement and make such an event much better than originally contemplated. Like dealing with most challenges, they are gifts that raise the bar and open opportunities that we didn't see at the beginning.

I suspect you righties wouldn't know a dogma if one bit you in the butt...

jedidiah, instead of continuing the barking moonbat comments and insults, seize the opportunity.

As a follow-up to my last comment, I suggest everyone who has connections, contacts, pull, or other levers they can pull, call or write the superintendent and simply ask, "How may I help you make this happen and make it a success?"

I am finished here until the conservation takes a more constructive tone and direction.

A very hot day, July 25th, 1925, Dayton, Tennessee.

Scope's Monkey Trial......Where is Clarence Darrow when you need him?

Back then we could fight life and death battles over ideas, without having to worry about their effect on the sea levels and the future of life on earth. Man, what a luxury.

I recently got a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Man, the editorial page is almost completely devoted to why nobody should ever do anything. There are editorials devoted to pointing out the stupidity of new low wattage light bulbs, the idiocy of alternative fuels, why car manufacturers are fools to try and make a more efficient gasoline engine, and so on. I've only read the WSJ at the news stand before- and I don't get there often. I had never reallized that it was such a profoundly negative production, like an angry little Eyore. But I do see the parallels to so many of the comments I read, here at New West and elsewhere (being a comment junkie). Anybody else noticing this stuff? Like Thomas Sowell, I mean is that guy the biggest sourpuss on earth now? What's with all these folks? What's with the anti-anti anti-everything? Why are these folks in Choteau so lost in anger that they would not let Running speak to the highschool? What is the real basis of the outpouring of all this fear and negativity?

I mean, come on, your President has been in office for almost eight years, you basically owned Congress until recently, oil consumption is at record highs, coal is screaming (Massey just got a piddling $20 million fine in the Virginias, but that's just the cost of doing big, serious business) with mountain top removal in full swing, coal fired power plants are in a boom, the troops are still in Iraq, Blackwater and Halliburton still raking in the profits,...seems like you would be happy. Shoot, it seems like you'd all be ecstatic. Why the gloom and doom? Why not let Running speak at the high school? It won't change a thing, I promise. Ya'll can just tell the kids when they get home that science is big bunch of liberal hooey.

That Dr. Running is more than a competent scientist is known. Nowhere have I demeaned him or his science. I respect his work, as I do that of all folks in science who do basic research. My problems with science usually are when it is acted upon by bureaucrats and politicians before time has allowed imperfections to surface. The old good intentions, unintended consequences scenario.

I do know that there is a big picture in this issue of global climate change that none can paint with absolute certainty, and that is why attempts to find the truth involve modeling. Modeling is a process fraught with failure because design is so hard to perfect, imputs are so imperfect. The local weather forecast is based on modeling, and often is spot on, and at other times, inaccurate at the least.

There is no one person with THE answer at this time. If you read accounts of the Gore global warming campaign, you are led to believe that is not the case. Political polarity is now at extremes, and this does neither side of the climate discussion particular good at this time. I am no fan of Bush and the science of his administration, nor have I shown any obeisance to the Gore medicine show. Also, I have a lifetime experience of not buying what True Believers have to offer, and I am better off for it. Gore is a True Believer. I find that scary.

I am a contrarian, and have been since second grade when I looked at a mercator projection of the earth and told the teacher that it all was one piece at some time, because it appeared to fit together like a puzzle. I was promptly told that I had better things to do than gaze at maps and I should be reading my primary reader. I had read that at home when I was four, so it and school were pretty much a boring event until recess.

The issue with most discussions like this one is not one of knowing the answers but knowing what questions to ask. I still agonize over having Robert Oppenheimer as a 5th grade speaker for an afternoon, and I had no questions to ask. Others did, and of course they were about physics. Mine, today, would be directed at how he was able to harness all those great minds, many who did not agree with war in principle, to go from essentially nothing, and in 4 years have made a uranium bomb and a plutonium bomb, and have both work successfully. His has to be the premier human capital management story of the 20th century. Or at least it would appear so, as this 60 year old technology has yet to be replicated by many nations trying hard to do so.

In my post college beginning experience in working for a living, I was working for Weyerhaeuser, attending a seminar on power house workings, and the speaker described a new fire bed that had been installed in a by-product fueled furnace. I asked how it worked and was told "Real good." My intent was to find out what was new, better about the moving fire bed, and the manager was a product of production efficiency demands. I want to know how and why, and his concern was that it worked good. Again, my question was not framed well enough to elicit a meaningful answer. Or, as I feared, the manager was ill equipped to disclose any information, nor was he willng to. He was a good soldier. For the issue of global climate change and warming, I am not a good soldier. Gore is.

I responded to the Running-Choteau story as one where the Supt of Schools might be wrong, but this is America, and even if he is wrong, he is still working for an elected school board. The citizenry can take both the Board and the Supt to task for the decision, which was not criminal, but one of interpretation of community values. It is Choteau's school, and they can run it how they want. I respect that right, in spite of what others might think of me.

I have a career spent in logging, and have been damaged by "best science" too many times. And when NGOs use "best science" to insert their ideas of land management into the equation, the issue becomes political and the font of litigation. The most egregious was the BOD of woody material in streams. The interpretation of "best science" was that woody debris caused a "biological oxygen demand", and thus, all woody debris that was in a stream should be removed in the logging process to save invertebrates and small vertebrates. Actually, it was supposed to be that woody debris that resulted from logging, but since much was not distinguisable from that put there by windstorms, detritus drop, natural events, all was removed. At great expense, I might add. Now, millions of dollars are being spent each year to place woody debris in streams, and they call it logging restoration. It was public land management agents who called for its removal, and I would prefer to call the replacement of woody debris "Federal Misguided Science Correction Work." That is but one of the many bad decisions in land management that resulted from "best science" being found to be not the case. Consequently, I am skeptical of any "best science" that does not have long term results, cause and effect records. In fact, when "best science" says go right, my first inclination is to go left and explore.

Any kid in Choteau who has an interest in education beyond high school ought to read (just google his name) the Nobel biography of Carl E. Wieman. He was a small town kid from the West whose family was rural and blue collar. He won the Nobel in Physics in 2001. His interest today is how to make science education more available to kids. It is a good read, as are all the Nobel biographies.

I appreciate that, bearbait. It's good stuff.

I had the very same reaction to Mr. Gore, who I know is an intelligent man. He seems like a utopianist to me, as you say, a true believer, and those folks have caused more trouble than the Black Plague, terrifying and sometimes ruthless in the perception of their own righteousness.

Your position as contrarian- and I know contrarians are born, not made- is valuable, especially as it is informed with a lifetime of experience and inquiry.

I have alot of questions about humanity's role in global warming, too, and what would be needed to actually address the problem. What worries me is the polarization you refer to- it has some very bad precedents in history, and right now, one side - say, the folks that supported the current Administration, seem to be hell bent on stagnation, on rolling back, on doing nothing. It is as if so many people have experienced what you refer to as "Federal Misguided Science Correction work" or had examples of that shown to them, over and over, that they now have contempt for all science, all attempts to make any improvements, be it in appliance efficiency or new energy sources, or whatever (the one place nobody seems to question science is when Big Pharma wants to put them on a new daily dose of an expensive drug to be taken for the rest of their lives, but that's another story). And I am watching some very expensive campaigns- coal, especially- take advantage of and cultivate that new contempt for science among the citizenry. It's not a good development.

And, from somebody who is not far from the story, the community of Choteau did not reject the invitation of S. Running to the high school. A few board members, who have this new contempt for science, did. That is why it is so controversial, that and the fact that many parents are worried that such contempt for science will bode ill for the future of their children and for the US.

bearbait, excellent points. I am concerned that kids are not being encouraged to ask and ask and ask, if it was not really encouraged when we were kids, what about now? I am most concerned though about kids being afraid to question prevailing ideas. Look at the replies on this blog by some to anyone who is not paying obeisance to the "consensus" of the day.

Hey Robert Hoskins,
I'd sure like to know the context of your trip with Running. Who sponsored it and what was the purpose? Were any journalists along?

"I am finished here until the conservation takes a more constructive tone and direction."

Thats refreshing, Craigie. I always hang around until I am expelled...

From either side of the great schizm, Hal, if you keep doing this long enough the host(ess) will sooner or later take such umbrage as to silence you.
I find it hard to believe this is the same crowd--their posterity, anyway--who carried on those enormously devisive discussions which led to the mythos of this nation...

From the way you describe yourself, Bearbait, I am confused as to whether you were the youngest PhD in recent years; or if you are a throwback to Luddism.
My perspective on what you seem to be saying is simply that laissez faire capitalism has so disjointed our racial memory that publication deadlines have replaced peer review in priority...

Jedediah,
Huh? wha?
Hal

JD,
What the heck are you raving about? What the heck do you mean referring to BB as a Luddite? Boy, are YOU mistaken. Hoooo. And Hal is probably doing the best defense of a middle ground, taking bullets from both sides. Shame on you.
Hal, The perverted fact IS that many agency and academic scientists have allowed themselves to become advocates and bent the science. Badly. James Hansen is certainly one. John Weaver is another beauty in that department. It's a bipartisan deal.
The crux of the matter is, scientists can develop loyalties to their field as well as a desire for self-perpetuation that overrides any feelings of responsibility for the consequences of their work. That is a fact.
It is also pretty clear to me, and I'd have to waterboard people to find out, that way too many scientists are aware of the fact that lay people or nonspecialists can sometimes be rather intimidated by the prospect of calling BS on a specialist or "expert." If you feel that the likelihood of being second-guessed or called to task for faulty conclusions --
For one thing, peer review has serious weaknesses, especially in hyperspecialized journals where everyone review's one another's work in the clique, in a self-reinforcement cycle. For another, no lay person is going to rationally lay out the big bucks for 45 buck a pop journal pdf files and actually READ a biblio reference.
Now, if you have crappy ethics and an ax to grind, what are you gonna do? I've seen it done, more than once. And when I call people on it, I get the "How DARE you question ME" treatment.
That's a betrayal, pure and simple, of the ethical responsibility of science practitioners to the society at large that funds and supports their work. It is the right and duty of society to question science.
I should send you the Evergreen I did on the Donato-Law salvage "science" fiasco in southern Oregon. I was stunned at the interlocking relationships between the political players involved. Lots of funny business there that flew in the fact of established fact back by millions in research. Had I been wrong with what I wrote, the lawyers would be lining up. Instead, there has been dead silence.

Good attorneys always look at what might be gained or lost through their actions and do their best to avoid wasting their time in entangled with tar babies. Thus, lots of slanderous or libelous things that are said or written are never challenged because 1) the source does not have enough credibility for the offense to do any harm and 2) the source may be such a ne'er-do-well that he or she has no assets worth going after for redress. In some cases, the sources of slander or libel can actually have such outrageous backgrounds and bad reputations themselves that attacks by them are actually produce valuable sympathy. We should never mistake silence from an attorney for agreement.

For Marion:

The data is in, and 2007 finished as the 5th warmest year on record for the globe, according to figures released by the National Climatic Data Center. For land areas only, 2007 ranked as the warmest year on record. For the oceans, 2007 was the ninth warmest year on record.

Make sure of your data before you post.

Charles, here is what NOAA says: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html


>>>>>>>>>>
NOAA: 2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for U.S. and Globe


The year 2007 the 10th warmest year for the contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895, according to preliminary data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The year was marked by exceptional drought in the U.S. Southeast and the West, which helped fuel another extremely active wildfire season. The year also brought outbreaks of cold air, and killer heat waves and floods. Meanwhile, the global surface temperature for 2007 was the fifth warmest since records began in 1880.

U.S. Temperatures
The average U.S. temperature for 2007 was 54.2°F; 1.4°F warmer than the 20th century mean of 52.8°F. NCDC originally estimated in mid-December that 2007 would end as the eighth warmest on record, but below-average temperatures in areas of the country last month lowered the annual ranking. For Alaska, 2007 was the 15th warmest year since statewide records began in 1918.
<<<<<<<<<<

Also during 2007, Australia, I believe, had it's coldest winter June month on record whild both South America and parts of Africa suffered from severe cold. See: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

Okay, Mike,
You win the innuendo prize for this series. Good shot.

It is also a good idea to consider the source of the data one depends on, Charles.
We are all inclined to listen to our own choirs...

Good to see you're back, Craigie...

Criag cites the US data; about 1 paragraph down is the global data which gives measurements exactly as I cited them. The National Climatic Data Center and NOAA are one and the same--they are part of the US government in the Dept. of Commerce. We pay for these agencies with our tax dollars.

The relative position of 2007 in terms of global temperatures is not that important rather that it fits the trends of the last 20 years as having most of the warmest years on record. Antidodal evidence that it sure has been snowy and cold where I reside does not speak to climatic conditions globally.

I have no preconceived notions. I just try to present the facts as they are published in the literature.

Charles, look at the last sentence of the first paragraph of the NOAA material that I quoted. It says again, "...the global surface temperature for 2007 was the fifth warmest since records began in 1880."

When NOAA first published it's projection for 2007 on December 13th, they said 2007 would be the 8th warmest for the US. Now with December history in the data, 2007 slipped to 10th. Not exactly reassuring that with just over 2 weeks left in the year that they could not more accurately forecast the outcome. The explanation was that NOAA did not foresee the colder than expected December month.

Now what's interesting is that NASA just published it's take on 2007 and the historical data. It varies from NOAA's. Since these research scientists are in disagreement, what explains this lack of consensus? 1934 caused much embarrassment to NASA and that is still evident.

This is makes perfect sense: let Choteau school officials present the other side of the argument, fine.

I just hope they can procure the following speakers to give the other side of these important topics high schoolers have to hear about.

Drugs = Keith Richards

Safe sex = Steve Garvey (Paris Hilton is booked to give the "Stay in School" address in Florence.)

Drunk Driving = Mel Gibson

Smoking = Philip Morris

Healthy Eating = The Hamburglar

Climate Change = Michael Crighton

Sadly, the most lasting lesson taught by all this is that a Nobel Prize doesn't mean jack shit in Choteau.

THAT'S a great lesson for any high school kid to learn.

Nate, the greatest lesson from keeping an open mind and entertaining the competing perspectives is to understand the process of how the visually impaired touch the elephant in different places and describe that experience. We get to watch how they project those learnings into fervently held statements of what that elephant looks like and where it might be heading. I get a sense from Dr. Christy's column in the WSJ that he is struggling with this. If the prospect of spending trillions of dollars and fundamentally remaking societal processes and structures were not on the table, this discussion would not matter much.

Gosh, Craig, were you as vehemently opposed to "the prospect of spending trillions of dollars" to "fundamentally" remake "societal processes and structures" when your party took us into Iraq or is it just this issue that has you spending this much blog time in trying to block it?

Gosh, mike, I thought PHD types like you were more careful in confusing their biases with facts. I don't belong to any political party. By the way mike, please tell us which D's voted against and which D's voted for the Iraq resolution that opened the door to Iraq if you think it add's value to this column.

You are delusional if you believe anything written here will enable or block national policy.

As a claimied PHD type, perhaps mike you can explain how the trillions of dollars of investment will arrest climate change with a reasonable certainty of success. For that kind of money I suggest something in excess of a 70% confidence factor.

Craig, the fact is that fossil fuels, even coal, are finite. Various analysts predict "peak oil" will hit in ten years or fifty years or has already hit; but, our fossil fuel reserves will run out whether climate change gets us first or not. When "peak oil," which is the point at which supply will drop as demand continues to climb, hits, the economic impact will result in a genuine and genuinely ugly "remaking" of "societal processes and structures." Some want to delude the market into believing that coal will save us; but, so many of these projections are ludicrous in the face of global consumption patterns. Coal will only postpone, by far less than the amount of time the coal shills pretend, and not prevent the inevitable. The smart strategy is not to go after the last few decades of fossil fuel by ruining the country side or bankrupting the country with idiotically imprudent military adventures or even holding our breath until we turn blue in the hopes that reality will go away. The smart strategy, as the EU has shown, is to realize that, climate change or no climate change, it is time for prudent governmental leadership and catalyzing investment in other energy sources. Yes, coal will be part of the transition mix; but, allowing the coal industry to lead us down another self-serving rabbit-hole and distract us from the bigger need to invest in longer term development of other, yes renewable, sources is, again, going to postpone and magnify the problem and not solve it. Yes, nuclear will need to be in the mix; but, again, knowing as I do the kind of hucksters that are attracted and attached to that industry, I don't want to see us stampeded entirely down that path either. The EU has this kind of strategy down already. Germany and Denmark are heavy in wind and PV; France is heavy in nuclear; other countries are still using coal; and energy is traded across as the grid fluctuates. The EU is way ahead of us on this kind of strategy and our current economic mess reflects it in part. Our problem is not technology, but leadership and public education. Picking a balanced and complete strategic portfolio for the future will require the kind of disinterested technocratic leadership that government is best structured to provide and the market, by itself, is not. Implementing this kind of strategic portfolio is hindered by crackpots, like yourself and Marion and Dr. Coles, who stir up wild hares just because they can.

Craig, you say that I'm "delusional" to "believe anything written here will enable or block national policy;" but, again, implementing this kind of strategic portfolio will require public solidarity and your crackpot potshots truly do serve to dismantle our national will to get on with it.

Craig, if you had the level of intelligence that would entitle you to troll these sites to any good end whatsoever, I wouldn't have to explain this all to you; you would know it already and be saying it without any prompting from me or anyone else. The fact that you don't is why I am so consistently contemptuous of your "contribution" here.

Looking for governmental leadership at the present time seems a tad absurd.
And your post has pretty well eviscerated any hope that leadership could be provided by the corporate world.
I'm beginning to think the Neo-Con notion may come to fruition; and actually result from an alliance between Russia, China and North Korea.
Very much like past empires, I think the American Empire is suffering from a terminal paucity of leadership...

Dr. mike, I made a simple request and you digress into peak oil and personal nastiness. Neither is even remotely germane to this topic. However, it is in keeping with your MO.

Now, as I envision you standing there with your pockets turned out having a PHD hissy fit, I am left wondering if it's just not possible to justify trillions of dollars in climate arresting schemes with a business plan that demonstrates to the investors how such an undertaking coupled with societal dislocations and re-engineering will accomplish the goal of climate stabilization. Rather, as you demonstrate, we get moralizing in lieu of analysis, a smokescreen of digression into yeah-buts, and name calling.

Here are only a few of the questions the business plan should address:

1. Put forward an offer of proof that demonstrates the percentage of temperature rise since the last ice-age, the last 500 years, and the last 100 years are directly attributable to humankind's GHC emissions versus naturally occurring emissions.

2. If humankind invests $X trillions on climate arresting schemes, what degree of confidence will we have that the climate will stabilize, and what will be the conditions (temperature, moisture, etc,) of that perfect stable climate?

3. What will happen to Earth's normal climate cycles if humankind intervenes in this cycle?

4. What portion of the trillions will be invested in adaptation schemes that address humankind's ability to survive and prosper in a world that changes before achieving climate arrest?

5. What types of disruption to present day home life and personal living will be acceptable to accomplish climate arrest?

6. What will the future look like in a climate arrested environment and what sacrifices will be required by everyone to get there?

7. What are the risks and rewards of climate intervention?

8. What are the risks and rewards of forgoing climate intervention?

Seriously Dr.mike, can't you see the importance? A trillion dollar teacup dip out of any lake does remove a certain volume of fluid, but the effect is imperceptible. Explain how the AGW remedies are better than teacup dips in the atmosphere given the overriding volume of naturally exhausted GHG's and water vapor.

By the way, your comment on peak oil is disputed. See:

Anyway, I'm no cheerleader for the oil and coal industries. I do believe that many important environmental issues are addressed by a switch to nuclear like France for community power needs and fuel cells like Iceland for transportation vehicles. The sooner the better. But that's just my opinion. Your lazy obfuscation attempts to browbeat me into submission reveal much and don't change that opinion. That laziness is what Dr. Briggs objected to. See my first comment on this column.

So I suspect you will continue being you as I will be me. Perhaps we can engage without the nastiness and insults, but that is up to you.

Peak oil disputed: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23073345-5005200,00.html

>>>>>>>>>>
Carl Mortished | January 19, 2008
DOOM-LADEN forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark, according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, will drive the oil market.

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: "We will be able to grow supply to well over 100 million barrels per day by 2017." Current world oil output is in the region of 85 million barrels a day.

The optimistic view of the world's oil resource was also given support by BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, who dismissed theories of "Peak Oil" as fallacious. Instead, he gave warning that world oil production would peak as demand weakened, because of political constraints, including taxation and government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, Mr Davies said peaks in world production had been wrongly predicted throughout history but he agreed that oil might peak within a generation "as a result of a peaking of demand rather than supply".

He said it was inconceivable that oil consumption would be unaffected by government policies to reduce carbon emissions. "There is a distinct possibility that global oil consumption could peak as a result of such climate policies," he said.

The BP economist's remarks were echoed yesterday by Mr Jackson. "It is the above-ground risks that will influence the rate (of oil output)," he said.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

"... the net is so egalitarian as both its saving grace and its downfall..."

'Nuff said. The comment captures the essence of the thread ... and more. Twenty years ago a major event in tech marketing saw the displacement of multiple layers of participants in supply chain delivery. If A traditionally sold to B, B to C, C to D, and so on, by 1990 it became clear in the tech arena that B, C, and D could be, and were, made extraneous to the entire process. A sold directly to M, and M to the end consumer Z. In hindsight, someone came up with the term 'disintermediation' to describe the process by which 'n' middlemen were culled from the delivery system. M no longer sleeps well at night, but dances like a dervish while trying to adhere to Andy Grove's principle: Live paranoid to survive.

It's a competitive world.

The same tsunami of disintermediation is maturing in content/information delivery, as the traditional sources of credibility find themselves - sometimes for good reason - becoming increasingly irrelevant; while we, the end consumers, find ourselves ever more isolated and awash in raw data, while the delivery systems collapse. Knight-Ridder: gone. Trib Co: an unfolding bloodbath (but you probably should not lowball any offers for Wrigley Field and the Cubbies). WSJ: reduced page columns to cut print costs, introduced ads to online front page, then sold to Murdoch's posse. FoxNews: bad; CNN: good. But something fundamental has changed in the CNN delivery model: the staid old Atlantans are now at least as shrill as the people at Fox. The only news left worth watching is MSNBC's Olbermann, and the only reason for watching him is for the comedy. But wait!
Why watch him at all? Colbert's a lot funnier. And for that, Olbermann, you - like Charlie Manson - are hereby X'd-out.

"We has seen the enemy, and it is us" seems apt. Empowered as we are by silicon connected to silicon to data, with B, C, D, and all the letters through Y no longer credible, all that remain are A and Z.

Thanks to egalitarianism, A's days are probably numbered.

I am legend.

AccuWeather's Paul Yeager has an interesting take: http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&blog=yeager&date=2008-01-22_14:36&month=1

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Skeptics and Deniers are Different


For those of you who, despite reading my definitions, believe that skeptic and denier are synonymous, I can understand why you would believe that the definitions are too limiting. They certainly would be if I had two categories for one group of people. It would be analogous to: What's your favorite color? Is it blue, red, green or blue? I, however, made a clear delineation between the denier and skeptic, and the key point is that a skeptic will consider the validity of all evidence presented. The key word is consider. A skeptic does not reject all evidence; he rejects the evidence that doesn't make sense and is, therefore, very confident of the evidence he does accept.

The way I defined the categories, neither a denier nor an agw proponent will consider evidence since they're certain that they already know the answer. Their goal is more to convince others of what they believe to be the truth than it is to consider the validity of information being presented.

That blatantly dismissive approach serves no purpose.

Even the most ardent agw proponent should understand that we need to know how much warming has occurred or will occur in the future, the precise role man is playing (so that we can slow the process), what is being affected by it, and the long-term implications of the warming. We're not going to answer those questions through blind acceptance of every piece of information about warming--rather than considering it all and accepting the valid evidence.

It can be argued that those who believe that warming is not occurring, or that man is not (or could not possibly) affecting any warming, might be better served by this closed-minded approach. Their opinion is, "It's not happening, so why should I consider any evidence?" However, how many times in our lives have we been absolutely convinced that we were right when we weren't? It's happened to all of us, and considering the amount of evidence being presented that man might be affecting the amount of warming, it is only logical to at least consider it. There is nothing to lose by considering the validity of all evidence if you're confident that man is not influencing the climate.

The point, though, is that many, many skeptics actually believe that man is causing global warming, at least to some degree; a skeptic is not a denier.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

It would interesting to hear Dr. Running explain why he is not a skeptic as defined by Mr. Yeager.