ABC News had a special report Wednesday night on the end of the world. I caught little more than the last segment, which focused on what was presented as the greatest threat to human existence: global warming.
Among the claims that were repeated multiple times (by Al Gore and others) were that there was no scientific debate over whether the cause of global warming was humans. Not only did ABC liken those scientists who did not accept this orthodoxy to Holocaust deniers and to scientists who claimed that cigarettes were not associated with cancer, but ABC actually showed witness after witness for tobacco companies claiming that tobacco did not cause cancer, as if it were not enough merely to mention the analogy in passing. (Query whether that airtime could have been devoted to at least one reputable expert who disagreed with ABC's smugly certain experts?)
ABC showed experts claiming that the reason that scientific dissenters were unwilling to accept the orthodox opinion is that they were being paid by major polluters to take those positions.
ABC also reported increased hurricane activity as if it were an established scientific fact that there were now more hurricanes and that they were caused by global warming.
ABC trotted out various group studies about the impending environmental disaster, as if ABC was unaware of just how inaccurate group environmental predictions had been in the 1970s and 1980s.
Last, ABC's experts seemed quite confident that global warming could be solved by human changes, as if the main question were a lack of will. The ABC report never considered whether the drastic GNP losses associated with steps that would be predicted to make a significant difference would cause more death, poverty, and destruction than the likeliest global warming scenarios.
I was struck by how different ABC's report was than Alex Beam's latest Boston Globe column on "MIT's Inconvenient Scientist," Richard Lindzen:
In the debate over climate change, [Stanford climatologist Stephen] Schneider said [to reporters 10 years ago], there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man-made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.
Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.
I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? . . . What am I not supposed to know?
Here's the kind of information the "scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming--but they also might not.
"We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as "the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," "the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and "Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why." . . .
I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a "Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator. He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil-fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since.
He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits. . . .
For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global-warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto-emissions standards. California et al. have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.
"We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science, he should present it to the MIT provost's office. Otherwise, he should shut up.
"This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.
Several aspects of this comparison of stories were striking to me.
First, I found Lindzen's claim that "the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average" to be shocking--and (in my ignorance) implausible after everything I've read or heard in the press (including in ABC's report). Obviously, I'm not an expert, but I'd like to see Lindzen's support for this claim.
Second, Lindzen must be speaking metaphorically, rather than literally, when he claims that scientific dissent is being criminalized.
Third, I thought it questionable for ABC to present as evidence of man-made global warming an increase in category 4 hurricanes. Our weather satellites are much better than they were 30 years ago (thus missing fewer large storms), our wind recording instruments are much more widely dispersed, and the annual natural variation in big storms must be large. It is good that scientists are beginning to explore in the scholarly literature whether there might be more storms today, but for ABC to present both the supposed phenomenon and its possible cause as if they were established seemed to me to go too far--especially since it was presented along with saying that anyone who disagreed with the science they presented was like a holocaust denier or a denier of a link between cigarettes and cancer.
Fourth, from the public debate it appears that the number of reputable scientific experts who think that global warming may not be primarily man-made is small but not trivial. No historical expert believes that the holocaust did not occur. Some climate experts do not think that the evidence that global warming is primarily man-made is yet persuasive (and a few even doubt that any uncommon warming is occurring). Thus ABC's analogy to holocaust denial is inapt.
Arguments that the scientists who disagree with ABC's experts are being paid by polluters to say what they are saying is irresponsible and false if Lindzen is telling the truth. Paying someone 11 years ago to be an expert witness does not mean that he is being paid now to express opinions discussing data, some of which were compiled long after he was paid for his expertise. Generally, scientific experts are hired because of their pre-existing opinions, not the other way around.
Further, as Michael Crichton argues in Aliens Cause Global Warming, science does not work by consensus. It is based on evidence. Those scientists who try to intimidate other scientists, such as some of ABC's experts, show such little respect for the norms of science that it is hard to take their scientific opinions as seriously as they probably merit. Heavy-handed attempts to bludgeon dissident scientists into submission does not advance the cause of science, even if (as seems more likely than not to me) those doing the bludgeoning are probably correct about the main cause of global warming. And, of course, even if much of the orthodox view of global warming eventually turns out to be correct, the cure for global warming may be worse than the disease.
I don't know what he's referring to, but it may be reports that there is more ice accumulation centered on poles at the same time that melting occurs on the borders. If that is what he's talking about, that's actually predicted by several global warming models.
Heavy-handed attempts to bludgeon dissident scientists into submission does not advance the cause of science, even if (as seems more likely than not to me) those doing the bludgeoning are probably correct about the main cause of global warming.
I wonder how you feel about the role of the Intelligent Design types. They're clearly wrong, and extremely manipulative. Is it your position that they should be given a seat at the table, because they have an opinion? If so, what's the bright line rule - should the FSM people have a stake as well? If so, sign me on as a flying spaggeti monster devotee!
And, of course, even if much of the orthodox view of global warming eventually turns out to be correct, the cure for global warming may be worse than the disease.
Sure. Cost/benefit should be employed. It would be helpful, though, if you defined terms. Obviously, the cure can't be worse than the disease if it means the extinction of humankind. So you can't mean that. What, though, do you mean? Taking Gore at face value (this is for argument; I don't do so), suppose a 20 meter rise in the waterline over (some fairly near timeline; I don't remember what he's claiming). Who has done a C/B on the destroyed coastal cities, homes, businesses, and shipping lanes and compared that to the benefit of industry heating our environment? Can you point to one?
If you're positing some other situation, can you describe it, and maybe point to some data that supports it?
You are going to be burned at the stake heretic.
The following has some links which talk about ice cap growth/shrinkage and how it fits into global warming theories (though the scientists at real climate feel research has at least presented substantive evidence for man made global warming- so you can take it with that grain of salt-though they generally tend to operate on a purely scientific level):
link to real climate
first- there will definitely be gcm's that predict ice sheet growth. however there are so many different versions of gcm's and other simulations with such a complicated matrix of variables and feedbacks, that at this point the fact that one or several models may predict a certain feedback of global warming doesn't necessarily prove a causation.
second- i'm not sure whether your trying to be snarky or honest in your comparison of fsm and intelligent design with those who don't necessarily agree with certain views on global warming from a scientific perspective. The main problem with your line of argument is that lindzen and the bevy of other scientists (and there are several at harvard and other universities across the country) base their disagreements on empirical, scientifically viable theories. FSM and ID are not theories which fall under this criteria, so it's really unfair to compare the two.
third- youre right about cost/benefit analysis. for all those who claim that reactions towards compensating for global warming may be too costly, it would be very helpful for social scientists to start to put out some analyses of just those possible scenarios. of course there are many problems with this: the unknown nature of global warming (in terms of it duration, magnitude, etc), the unknown global AND regional effects of possible global warming, possible feedbacks of methods of combatting global warming and the time scales they would operate on, etc.
in some ways then such analysis may not be that helpful outside of using them for political advantage
They have a few columns with strong refutations of Lindzen, and a good FAQ for those who are interested but don't know much about the subject.
The supervolcano threat was simply poorly put together compared to the stuff done by National Geographic.
Frankly, the global warming threat should not have been ranked #1, IMO. It should have been rated #2 with plague ranked at #1 instead.
Lastly, maybe it is because I have only just finished reading Steve Fuller's "Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science", but I only just recently became aware of Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". So I find it a little wrong to say that science does not work by consensus. Ideally, sure. But the world of academic scientists have been living in a world shaped by Kuhn's book ever since.
If I may quote from a Scientific American review of Steve Fuller's biography of Kuhn,
I appears to me that skepticism regarding Global Warming is usually caused by skepticsm of the motives of those behind the message, but maybe it was just me. I am no longer skeptical of Global Warming, but I am still very skeptical of the people who appear to be hijacking it as a vehicle to advance another agenda.
I understand what you mean in some senses. However, a particular view on how one should react to what could potentially be global warming should not necessarily be mistaken for an agenda.
Scientists can legitimately scientifically question whether the earth is experiencing runaway global warming which has been at least partially driven by man made causes, especially with regards to the current timescales of warming and considering the uncertainty in climate modelling (which is incredibly substantial).
However, there's nothing wrong with believing that at least some minimal effort should be made to decrease possible negative impacts man may be having on the climate. While this is cost/benefit dependent I don't think there is anybody who would disagree with the idea that decreasing pollution is a good thing. The positive externalties of such actions would probably extend into areas beyond global warming. So, while its fair to be questioning of global warming or is sources, not every single belief on how to react to it should be pigeonholed into an agenda.
Is there any scientific evidence for ID? I haven't seen it. Most of the "scientific" argumentation by ID adherents merely critiques evolution; it doesn't provide support for ID.
Obviously, a 20 or 40 foot increase in the oceans, which I believe is what Gore was talking about on ABC, would be catastrophic and would justify drastic reductions in GNP to prevent.
I don't have a link for it, but I believe that a large number of scientists (I believe over 100) signed on to a report a couple years ago that looked at the likeliest global warrming scenarios (not the most extreme ones) and concluded that it would require raising some bridges and abandoning some coastal areas, but this would happen gradually. And since existing warming seems concentrated at the cooler climes (very little has been measured at the equator), more, rather than less, of the world would become appropriate for agriculture. I can't judge this work, but not all of the effects of global warming would be negative (it's net effect on agriculture might be positive).
As for cost/benefit analysis, the place to start is with the Skeptical Environmentalist, which argues that global warming is occurring, but that the cost of most measures to prevent it would not be worth the costs. Despite the vitriol directed at its author, there has been little careful work critiquing his C/B analysis, and most of his analyses are based on public reports and public data accepted by environmentalists. The attack on the book in Science is embarrasingly badly done. He might well be wrong--after all, most experts think he is--but their arguments against him are remarkably weak IMO.
Another heretic to be burned at the stake!
The challenge of developing a scheme for controlling climate and then choosing a target climate for the planet is roughly analogous to the challenge of central banking: controlling the value of a currency and a national debt thru time. The economy is almost completely a human "caused" affair, and may be less complex by an order of magnitude or two, than the climate. Developing the institutions to control money took over 300 years, from the founding of the Bank of England in the 17th century. Various theories of money were proposed in that time. A misplaced faith in the value of specie led to deflationary policies, that proved disastrous. A misplaced faith in fiscal policy led to an inflationary policy that got out of hand. In the whole WWII policy, the basic imperative to never, ever invert the yield curve, remains controversial, despite repeated lessons in its wisdom.
In all the 300 years in which macroeconomic monetary policy was discovered and developed, there have been conservatives arguing against it. The same, inevitably, will true of climate control.
That is, of course, an assumption, that because "things" have been changing "gradually" recently, they will do so in the future.
The report you're referring to might (you're description is a little to vague for me to be sure) be the ipcc climate report, in particular its section for policy makers: ipcc policy report
and your claim that global warming may actually create new arable land has some support behind it: article on greenland
however, considering many of the areas that would be under the sea under many global warming areas are highly developed and populated areas, its unlikely that the increase in arable land would offset any of the negative effects of global warming. the potential costs of combatting hypothetical global warming may still be too great however
The C/B analysis is not the costs and benefits of global warming itself but any solution to global warming. It's entirely possible that the (probable) costs of fixing global warming could outweigh the (probable) benefits of the solution. This is likely the case if there is no solution with even a moderate chance of success (i.e. we're already doomed, so spend it if you got it). Also, it may just be cheaper to build cities on moutains and floating cities than to stop polluting. WHO knows. No one has seriously talked about any response other than reducing emissions.
It's still not appropriate. The scientific burden is always on the claimant of a theory. Thus it is the the theory of global warming which has to be verfied to such a substantial degree that it is accepted without any serious questions about its verity. In fact the only way to scientifically test theories is to put them under the stress of applying the theory under numerous novel and unusual circumstances. If this wasn't the case classical mechanics would still be the uncontested king.
As for minor quibbles, I can ensure you that many of the objections to particular theories of global warming (there isn't a concrete one endorsed by say a majority of scientists) are very substantial. Remember that climate data records don't exist that far into the past and much of the science done in the area is done by modelling. Modelling requires assumptions to beging and consequent feedbacks (which play an enormous role in climate modelling) are also subject to assumptions.
In fact, trying to claim that genuine scientific skepticism of a theory can just be reduced to either 'minor claims' or 'unnecessary complication' is more of a danger to the science done here and more analagous to ID and FSM than the opposite.
However, despite the past few paragraphs, there is still very good science which comes out of modelling as most scientists try to anticipate as many possible effects of assumptions as possible (which explains why programs like EBM's are still even used). This means, that while its fair to be skeptical of global warming advocates, they do have a substantial amount of evidence in favor of the theory.
I don't think we want to get involved in a pissing contest about global warming here - there's more than enough on other sites that one can find anything they want. Me, I follow what the science says.
This is false. Most working scientists have a healthy disdain for philosophers of science - Kuhn being one of them. The exception to this is Popper - who enjoys something of a positive reputation amongst scientists who are philosophically aware and even those who are not.
Peter Lipton made the point at a Royal Society Medawar Lecture sometime ago that there were more scientists interested in Popper's work than philosophers, and that the converse was true for Kuhn. Indeed, Peter Medawar himself regarded Popper as "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science ever" (similar claims may be found in Peter Munz's fascinating book _Beyond Wittgenstein's Poker_ as well as Malachi Hacohen's biography of the the early Popper in fin de siecle Vienna). I would concur.
Do you know of any validation studies that have been done on these modeling programs? I know that there are these predictions that go out for years, but where is the validation of these programs? Are they nothing more than an elaborate set of known variables and educated guesses all packed into Rube Goldberg supercomputer?
The reason I ask is because I make my living in the medical field. The human body is another closed system about which much is known. Probably a great deal more (porportionally) than is known about long-term climate patterns. Nevertheless, there isn't a computer program out there that I would trust to come within a million miles of a patient. Computers are just not good at "thinking outside the box," which is what you need to be a good clinician.
I just am skeptical that computers have the ability to exercise judgment, or to operate in the complex world of multi-factorial decision making. Regarding global warming... I wonder. So many variables, that interact in ways that are not immediately obvious. Where are the validation studies?
This is exactly the type of sensationalism that gives rise to climate change skeptics in the first place. The UN's ICPP, a generally recognized international authority on climate change, predicts no more than a 1 meter increase in sea level through the year 2100. fishbane, you do your side a disservice.
What do we use instead of fossil fuel for cars and trucks? A liter of gasoline has about 34 million joules of available energy. That’s a lot. Compare that to our most advanced battery, the lithium-ion (used in modern laptops), which has an energy density (by volume) between 2 and 19 million joules per liter. These batteries are very expensive, and they wear out fairly quickly. There are other approaches like hydrogen, but it too has lots of problems, like safety. The capital costs of a switch over to a new transportation fuel system will be horrendous.
As for Al Gore, what qualifications does he have to make any comments on pollution, global warming or anything else technical? Has he ever run any kind of business? Does he know any physics or mathematics? I have never heard him make what I would consider as an intelligent statement (ditto for Bush). He should shut up, I wouldn’t trust him to mail a letter.
Original post:
"The ABC report never considered whether the drastic GNP losses associated with steps that would be predicted to make a significant difference would cause more death, poverty, and destruction than the likeliest global warming scenarios."
So how much of developed economies would have to be destroyed to precipitate massive "death, poverty, and destruction?" 30, 40% of current GDP (spread over, say, the next 2 decades)? More?
As far as cost-benefit analysis, comparing expected values of different courses of action is nearly pointless in the presence of high uncertainty in valuation (certainly the case here) or near-infinities (small probability of utter catastrophe).
Sounds familiar, just like the argument made about the refusal of academic evolutionists to debate evolution skeptics made in comments to a post a few days ago. We were told it is okay for evolution professors at Columbia and academics elsewhere to refuse to debate their skeptics publicly because they would lose the debates to tricksters. Evolution is just too complicated a subject, even to debate in front of a friend audience of Ivy League students.
I hope that whatever their personal views of evolution and global warming the readers of this blog have enough intellectual integrity to be consistent in their epistemology. That is, those who think evolution is too complicated for a fair debate to be possible, should take the same view of global warming. I don't know which subject is more complicated than the other, but I am sure their levels of complexity are similar enough for purposes of this point.
Ultimately, this view says the public is just too stupid. The public just needs to trust the experts. Which experts? The ones favored by the media, apparently. Oh, so the media editors are the highest authority? Well ... This is the logical consequence of a refusal to debate certain subjects. Not only the undermining of the view of intellectual discourse on which the academy is based but also the undermining of the basis for not only democracy (otherwise known as mob rule, which most of the founding fathers hated) but also republican government, which was given to our posterity.
Thus there are bigger issues at state than evolution or global warming when people say these topics are not worthy of continued debate, that we must just accept them as true. On authority of the experts. On ... faith. Yes, faith. Just like religion. It all comes down to faith. Even the experts in these areas must begin with faith in certain things they cannot prove independently and continue in such faith.
Ultimately the question is not whether science and reason will triumph over dogma and irrationality (provided they can be shieded from public debate) but which faith and which dogma are favored by the dominant elites. At the moment, the dogmas favored by the ruling class include evolution and global warming. The favored dogmas of tomorrow have yet to be determined; hence the vigorous efforts to discredit and silence the skeptics for reasons other than reason.
Thing is, with a civil suit, there is no double jeopardy issue, or at least not if you frame the thing differently each time.
This is intimidation by legal fees.
There is a website which I believe is funded by pro-fossil fuel people. Society for CO2 or something. They do two things, mainly. One is to find scientific papers on evidence for previous global warming (The Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm period,etc), or cooling (The Little Ice Age, The Dark Ages Cold Period, etc.). These are papers written by scientists who are out there doing research. The scope of the paper is generally small, as is the case with many papers. So somebody will be measuring stalagmites in South African caves and come to the conclusion that it was wetter a thousand years ago--or drier, or something. Or sea levels in New Zealand over the last forty thousand years. Or pollen counts in northern China covering the last fifty thousand years. THe accumulation of evidence continues to solidify the picture we have of the last ten thousand years as a continuation--thankfully less vigorous--of the usual climatic variation. IOW, our current situation may be regressing to the recent mean from the Little Ice Age, rather than a matter of man's efforts, or, man's efforts are puny. And, from time to time, the writers ask just how bad were things during the Medieval Warm Period, which was warmer than today. Ditto the Little Ice Age, a rotten time for Northern Europe.
The other thing they do is collect papers on plant growth in conditions of additional CO2.
It's an interesting exercise in combining an agenda and the facts.
Speaking of an agenda, I used to dismiss the assertion that green has red roots. But, from time to time, one of the greenies is caught before coffee or after wine and slips.
Give us a plausible scenario for controlling the problem, otherwise its just more hot air!
BTW there are reports that global temps have been flat since 1998. But try to find a global temp graph for the past 8 years...betcha you can't. Why is that info good or bad being suppressed? An inconvenient truth? LOL.
Don't get me wrong, I believe global warming is real. I just don't think there are politically plausible solutions at this time and I damn sure don't want the UN involved.
My brother used to do climate modeling at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. His interpretation of what he saw in the climate modeling industry was that most of the time the findings were driven by research funding. Given that the models include 20 or 30 variables, it was easy enough to plausibly change one or two assumptions to get the outcome preferred by the those funding the research (which was almost always federal government proponents of global warming, who wanted to find it, if only to increase their budgets from Congress to solve the global crisis predicted by the models).
Because there is so much guesswork underlying the models anyway, why not choose assumptions that lead to better funding? That way the scientists would get expensive new computing tools they could use for real research when not running the climate simulations...
A little OT, but we know ID exists, at least in ourselves; not just because we do genetic engineering but through classical animal breeding techniques and even through deliberately choosing our mates.
The logical problem is, given parsimony as a rule of thumb, the assumption that we're made of the same 'stuff' as the rest of the universe and the existence of ID in us, what evidence is there that ID is not the general case?
Climate modelling is a scientific endeavor but you have to have the right model and you will never know the "truth" of your model until it has predicted the future for thousands of years. The physics underlying the climate models would in no way be undermined if the climate models predicting extreme global warming turn out to be false.
Could any of this be related to the Sun? Could the sun cycle hotter and cooler? I have read that Mars is also hotter today than it was 20-30 years ago. That could also be caused by the sun. The Weather is one of the most complex systems in the world. So is the human body, and we are still not sure what are the correct things to eat. Are you telling me that this complex system can be disected easily put into a computer model and accurately say it is Human activity? Humans which are nothing compared to the size of the Earth.
Color me skeptical.
Yes, it seems that the US with its vast stockpiles of tens of thousands of missiles would probably be the cause of WWIII, due to an accident. A war they were quick to point out would be the end of the world as we know it.
Cliche? Sure, why not.
My money is on increased activity on the sun.
1. That global warming is occurring
2. That it is caused by man
3. That it is very very bad
4. That it can be stopped and reversed if only we adopt the correct policies.
Just ignoring the politics of it all, and looking at the data myself, and the predictions of various models, and knowing something about data analysis, model development, and the scientific method, I don't find the evidence cited for any of those four propositions very persuasive at all. I am on the fence about number one - we may be going through a period of warming, but there is plenty of contrary data. The other 3 propositions seem extremely dubious to me.
Fortunately, I am persuaded that none of it matters, because there is not much in our history to suggest that we will ever really do anything serious about global warming, other than adapt to it should it occur. Humans are pretty good at adapting. And in my judgement, that's about all that needs to happen.
Well, yeah. Evolution is fundamental to biology. There's not much that's similarly fundamental in other sciences.
For that very reason, it's not a terribly fair comparison (which may be your point?).
If they say "no", they either think that global warming is really no worse than say a chernobyl every fifty years or so, of they're simply anticorporate.
If they say "yes", they probably really believe what they say they believe and want what's best for the planet. They could be wrong, but they're not red.
-dk
I know it's hard for me to buy it when 2 of our last six winters (in Ohio) were 2 of the 5 coldest on record.
"They could be wrong, but they're not red." - good point but there is red and there is useful idiot; if the green movement is actually a watermelon, there may be many well meaning greens who are moving forward what amounts to a red agenda, and may lapse on certain issues (notice that the left is now open to both vouchers and nuclear power in many circles though they be very un-red policies).
That last thought should constitute the proper public debate, and it's hardly ever mentioned by anyone.
So far, the debate at large seems to hinge on a guilty doubt whether it's wrong to direct anything at all, especially a "natural" thing, and then who has more legitimacy to not direct it. In that climate even conversation about the weather is muddled by religious and political concerns.
It's a real challenge for some to incorporate the anthropological truism that our very existence has always shaped the environment. Either way, does anyone nowadays really doubt that we can affect the global environment if we wanted to? The question then becomes ineluctable: What is the climate we ought to wish for?
Only when the sanctimonious acknowledge that NOT directing something is also a kind of directing will we be able to ponder together whether any cure could be worse than its disease.
In the meantime I'd have preferred directing the millions spent on deciding whether Pluto is a planet on R&D for carbon sequestering instead. Common sense dictates that in the end it will be better to have the tools at our disposal than not.
But making the usual supposition central in the debate, that the warming (which Lindzen himself acknowledges) is anthropogenic in nature, is not the clearest way of approaching whether warming is a problem, or even how to address it if it is. Al Gore is totally blind to that.
Several areas within science come to mind. "String theory", which was thought to be a correct interpretation of the sub-partical world because of its "beauty" may in fact be coming to the end of the road. However, the very best and brightest minds of a generation were lured into that blind alley and have careers in something that may well be a failed theory.
"Dark matter" scientists have careers, yet as some Israeli Technicon scientists have pointed out, "dark matter" is not necessary to the universe, and some slight modifications of the Newtonian equations are all that is needed. How many PhD's were based on "dark matter" theses?
Thomas Huxley once said he feared for humanity because he had calculated the sun's mass and brightness and determined that there was only enough coal left to heat the earth for a few more years.
Please take global warming in the same light. The theory may be true, false or modifiable. Or it could be, "not even wrong."
And it's a good thing that the antiglobalwarming people want to have a real debate, about whether we should ignore what scientists have to say because their commie scum. I mean, the scientists want to shut down that debate with facts, but let's be honest, they're just backing a hidden agenda that controls them - not like the anti-global warming guys at Tech Central Station (the fact that they're funded by BP and ExxonMobil is just a huge coincidence, as BP and ExxonMobil really have no financial incentive at stake here or anything).
Oh, and even if global warming exists and is caused by man, so what? Has anyone ever stopped to think that altering the Earth's climate which has sustained life for humans for 50,000 years over a narrow band of temperatures upon where human life could exist would be harmful? Naaaah :)
VC needs an edit function.
No, what I meant was whether the climate models predicting extreme global warming underlie something else that everyone is very confident about, such that if those models were shown to be unreliable or flawed, that something else would then also be undermined. It *seems* to me that there is no such "something else" in the case of climate models, whereas there is a very large variety of "something else" in the case of evolution, and therefore the two are not analogous and it's disingenuous for people to claim that skeptics of the climate models and evolution skeptics are in some sense intellectually equivalent.
Well, yeah. Evolution is fundamental to biology. There's not much that's similarly fundamental in other sciences.
For that very reason, it's not a terribly fair comparison (which may be your point?).
Yes, that was my point.
On another note, I read an editorial in Car &Driver last month that at least purportedly poked a hole in the "man-made theory." From what I remember the article went something like this:
Under global warming theory, CO2 is the primary cause for global warming. CO2 is emitted from man-made sources. Therefore, man causes global warming.
But this is only true if either ALL or a SIGNIFICANT amount of the overall CO2 being emitted is man-made. The C&D article went on to argue that of the overall CO2 emitted, only a small amount of it is man-made, the rest being caused by the earth's natural vapors.
Of course, global warming proponents could chalk up the article as being merely the Voice of Detroit, and maybe rightly so. But a quick wikipedia search for 'global warming' reveals the following language:
"The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming."
Now correct me if I'm wrong but that sentence seems misleading. Do increased levels of CO2 really CAUSE people to burn more fossil fuels? Or are CO2 emissions just the primary COMPONENTS of human-induced warming? Either way, the suspicious side of me wonders whether the above excerpt reflects a carefully constructed attempt to imply causation between human emissions and the overall rise in CO2 levels. If the word 'effect' were inserted instead of 'cause' the statement would take on a whole new meaning. I suppose after all, it is just wikipedia...
The problem with people who are skeptical of global warming is that they say things like this and forfeit all credibility. One google search found this
Again, I don't know the provenance of this paper, but it shows that 1998 is the hottest year on record. So, of course, measuring from the hottest year, you don't find any increase. What was the second hottest year? 2005.
Obviously there is plenty of evidence of global warming, ad you don't need to posit a world-wide communist conspiracy to suppress contrary evidence to explain why the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that it is real. Sure, it might be an exaggeration to say that those who disagree are holocaust deniers, but there is very little question that man-made global warming is real.
In any case problems 1 and 2 may not have disastrous results, but they are problems that we have never encountered before and they do need to be considered and dealt with while they are manageable.
Yes, I believe nuclear power is a good idea. Burning hydrocarbons for energy is like burning $100 bills for heat. We need that stuff to make plastic which pretty much everything is now made out of.
Right on o' connuh j about Kuhn and Popper.
In my experience, when the computer models return a conclusion that disagrees with the physicians who commissioned the study, the ask me to do it over and keep correcting it until it tells them what they want to hear. I have seen one model go through seventeen sets of 'fixes' until it helped the physicians get what they wanted.
I am confident the same thing applies to all the activists and 'scientists' who have computer models of climate systems. Computer models are just elaborate games.
People used to say 'the camera never lies'. But between digital cameras and photoshop now we know that digital photos lie constantly. It's the same with computer models.
Maybe I'll start to feel some confidence in computer models of climate after they have models that accurately predict the weather next year. Predict when there will be drought, predict where it will be too wet, that will be valuable. But the climate scientists and models all said 2006 will be a worse year for hurricanes than 2005. So far they've been prefectly wrong.
Why should I trust your forecasts for 100 years away are more accurate than your failed forecasts for 2006.
The anti-Global warming crowd is too unscientific. For example, they:
-Ignore evidence that CO2 levels are increasing.
-Question any evidence that shows temperatures are rising and cling to evidence to the contrary.
-Refuse to believe that CO2 can be a greenhouse gas (even though it well proven).
The pro-Global warming crowd is more scientific but often ingnore the critical questions. For example:
-How much of current and future global warming is due to human activities?
-How high will temperatures really go at current rates?
-What will be the costs of the increase in temperatures?
-How much of a reduction in greenhouse gases is needed to reduce global warming by X%?
-How much will that reduction in greenhouse gases cost?
Too often, both sides seem to be playing to their stereotypes:
-Anti-Global Warming crowd wants the government to always leave commerce alone (regardless of the effects).
-The pro-Global Warming crowd believes that pollution is a sin. Therefore, our goal should be zero greenhouse gases (regardless of the costs).
And here's where I stand:
1. Climate change over the centuries/millenia is still quite poorly understood. Climate data over the past few hundred years are quite good, but the time frame is insufficient to make any hard and fast conclusions.
2. The weight of the evidence suggests, quite clearly, that global mean temperatures are rising.
3. This is not doubt due to various factors, some of which are created by humans, and some of which are not.
4. The weight of the evidence suggests, somewhat less clearly, that human activity is contributing to the global warming trend. The percentage of the trend attributable to humans is unknown, and is extremely difficult to determine.
5. Because global warming threatens dire consequences to life on earth, prudent measures to arrest or control the impact of human activity on global warming are called for.
6. Right now, it is difficult to determine whether the measures proposed (Kyoto) are prudent. Whether such measures are prudent is more a question for economists (measuring the costs of implementing such measures against their likely benefits in decades and centuries in the future, appropriately discounting for future benefits and the uncertainty that the warming pattern may reverse without human intervention).
I'm amazed by how few people seem to agree with these 6 propositions. I really don't think they are controversial.
Remember, the merits of the cases are not what this thread is about, but how they are argued.
Of course, he provides no evidence that his other basepoint is correct, and Hansen apparently couldn't be bothered enough to provide sufficient documentation in his paper to allow the graph to be reproducable! If Hansen has simply done his paper with due diligence, we wouldn't even be arguing over the matter.
The AGW debate is a fascinating scientific debate, but the actions of many of it's proponents are absolutely reprehensible. A slog through the major papers supporting AGW is an exercise is poor science, shoddy mathematics, and an attempt to hide any data that might prove them wrong.
The reason they keep insisting there is "scientific consensus" is to keep people from realizing that the Emperor has no clothes.
The SEC won't let you claim oil reserves off of dynamic models akin to those used in Global Warming, yet they are supposed to represent evidence for which we must restructure our whole economy? As history matching is validation of a numerical model, they're not even good ones!
Worse I think both sides don't pay enough attention top some of the points raised by commenters here including a) the sun and b) the lack of good evidence as the actual temperature and climate data over the past millenia and longer and c) ability to predict.
Both sides need to address these concerns carefull and make testable predictions. The anti-warming crowd ought to be treated better as they can simply refute the pro-warmers and say "we can't predict, but that's the point." However, too many treat them like anti-evolutionists although the pro-evolution crowd has not only predicted and tested many of the components of their theory but has also provided much evidence over millenial periods and has nothing like the sun which could explain away their theory.
I agree with 1 through 4 and 6, but I can't agree with No. 5. Large portions of this planet are not settled by man because of extreme cold. Think of Canada, with more territory than the United States but only about 1/10th the people. The polar regions seem to be experiencing the most warming and I would think that the people there would welcome it.
Your proposition No. 5 assumes that current temperatures are ideal. That is conjecture.
1. That global warming is occurring
2. That it is caused by man
3. That it is very very bad
4. That it can be stopped and reversed if only we adopt the correct policies.
What's bothered me about the whole debate is the very (over)emphasis on cause. It seems to me that once a consensus develops on 1, 3 and 4 above, that would be more than sufficient to warrant action to stop global warming (or, failing that, to adapt to it). 2 (that it is caused by man) is only relevant to the extent that it points to the appropriate specific actions to be taken, not that such actions are necessary in the first place.
To put it another way, if global warming really does spell the end of the world, then unless we can stop or adapt to it, we'll all still be just as dead either way. So, what difference does it make whether it's caused by nature or by man? This is the real trouble with proponents of the "orthodox" view of global warming: their primary argument is a PC appeal to environmental guilt, whereas you'd think an appeal to civilizational self-preservation would be a lot more convincing.
Priests did the same thing hundreds of years ago, telling people what to do to appease the gods and get better weather. So Gore and his ilk are just the latest in a long line of frauds trying to gain power by claiming to be able to control the weather.
I didn't watch the ABC show, but I have a problem with anyone claiming that even the most radical global warming scenarios would result in extinction of humanity. Severe dimunition, maybe, but extinction? Someone's been watching "Waterworld" too many times!
Two years ago the thinning ice shelf of Iceland was definitive proof of Global Warming and very shortly all the polar bear would die. This year, the thickening ice caps of Iceland are definitive proof of Global Warming but the shrinking testicals of polar bears is the fault of man and they will all die anyway from lack of sexual interest of the female polar bears.
Five years ago, the hurricane inactivity was the fault of man and would lead to runaway global warming because hurricanes help circulate and diffuse heat. Last year, increased hurricane activity was the fault of man and was a direct result of global warming. This year's revised hurricane schedule is the result of Global Warming as well. In 2005, they predicted a hurricane season that would not be as bad as 2004 was. In 2005 they predicted another season similar to 2005 for 2006. Both have been way wrong. The question that raises for flat Earth people like me is if they can not predict hurricanes to any great reliability six months in advance, how can they use hurricanes as evidence of anything? Hurricanes tend to follow cycles, a very noticable valley occured in the late 90's, and it's picking up since then. I have often pondered that hurricanes are affected by sun storms. I have reasons to think this. Katrina was an ordinary storm until a sudden HUGE storm on the Sun occurred. Last year was a banner year for people who love SOHO. This year has been a dud. So has the hurricane season. Coincidence? Al Gore would not allow that discussion. Period.
It goes on and on and on. CO2's a bad thing? It's not even a greenhouse gas. Some scientists you're not allowed to listen to are even pondering something called "Global Cooling". It is documented, they have tons of facts, and easily understood data that makes a compelling argument.
Understanding the Earth's climate is not an easy thing to do. If you ask an ecologist, they shrug off the affects of the universe. If you ask an astronomer, the sun rules all and what happens on Earth is simply a reaction to it. To me, it's a mix of everything and every aspect of it needs to be explored and understood as much as possible before making rash decisions. Solar cells were the answer to all that ails the ecology ten years ago, now there is speculation the increased hydrogen release could be more harmful than CO2. Global Cooling states that particles in the atmosphere ( soot if you will ), collects moisture and therefore blocks some of the sun's radiation thereby off-setting the effects of man-made global warming. THe problem that presents is IF it is correct, eliminating all air-born polutants will CAUSE runaway global warming. This COULD be the flaw in the Hockey Stick, that's man's pollution actually helps the Earth balance itself. Al Gore doesn't ponder things like that.
And lastly, Al Gore doesn't allow people like me to wonder why the Earth was so much warmer BEFORE MAN than it is now.
Al Gore has done much more harm to the Global Warming cause than good simply because of his arrogance. In the real world, when someone gets as defensive about a topic as Al has, it means they can't answer your questions.
I have a lot of questions. I believe Global Warming is real, but it is not the exclusive result of Man. I also think that IF the world starts heating up, Man will adjust his ways accordingly or die. The Earth will continue on and recycle man's genes as it sees fit. I also believe it is amazingly naive to the point of stupid for SOME people to assume that the ever changing environment of the Earth is somehow, for some reason now, the whim of Man. It's going to change as it has for millenia. We are not gods that can stop it at 72 degrees. It's not up to us to figure out how to stop it or even affect it. It's up to us to figure how to survive as it does change.
That's all.
I don't see that lung cancer is going to cause the end of the world. Can anyone fill me in on the chain of cause and effect?
Imagine if that happened today. It would be instantly blamed on climate change and George Bush.
New thought, based on a recent trip down the Yangtze: The water level in the river is planned to rise by 30 METERS or more in the next three years. The Chinese are quietly moving a million or two people to new villages higher up the mountains in anticipation that their existing villages will be flooded. It's not a catastrophe, it's only a problem, and it is being solved.
Another thought: My understanding is that the rise in ocean levels over the next century is expected to be inches, not feet. What's the big deal?
Seems right.
Others have pointed to the nuclear war threat, that the show posited that the likeliest outcome would be from a USA/Russia nuclear MAD, not Iran or NK... yet the segment also said that as few as 20 nukes would be necessary to put the planet into a nuclear winter. Why it is more likely that USA/Russia would trade nuclear blow instead of Iran, Pakistan/India, North Korea acquiring more than 20 nukes is beyond me.
And the Global Warming threat. They seemed to imply that man-made warming would send Earth's climate spiraling to Venus-like weather. Then didn't really bother to explain how fast it would get there, or even if it could be reversed into Global Cooling. It would have been nice to see some reference to methane on the greenhouse effect, but barely a nod.
"I wonder how you feel about the role of the Intelligent Design types. They're clearly wrong, and extremely manipulative. Is it your position that they should be given a seat at the table, because they have an opinion? If so, what's the bright line rule - should the FSM people have a stake as well? If so, sign me on as a flying spaggeti monster devotee!"
If you are going to persuade portions of the general public that your views are correct, you will need to explain why your position is correct and your opponents are mistaken based on evidence and logic. This may be tedious when you believe that your position is obviously correct and your opponent's position is obviously wrong. Nevertheless, you will loose the public debate if your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority (i.e. all expert agree) In fact, take a look at public opinion polls regarding evolution v. intellgent design. Very few people believe in naturalistic evolution. The vast majority believe in "theistic evolution" (which is a watered-down variant of intelligent design) or intelligent design.
Gore isn't pedalling anti-corporatism he's peddling belief in the importance of man and the individual, and who doesn't want some of that, even if important = bad.
Let's not consider that we're irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, if you have a tantrum and hold your breath you CAN change the world ;)
Then there's the entire scientific fraud of the Mann et al. Hockey Stick, which is why I called it a global warming faith. According to the original hockey stick there was no Medieval Global Warming (650AD-1315AD) and no Little Ice Age (eight weeks after Easter in 1315AD to sometime in the 1850s See Brian Fagan's _The Little Ice Age_ and _The Long Summer_ for good climatic histories.) In fact, the Domesday Book records vinyards in England's Northumbria region when my ancestors invaded and kicked the shit out of Harold and his Saxons. The proxy data the Mannists use (no one had thermometers in 1000 AD so the data has to be interpolated) come from the tree rings of bristlelcone pines. Now tree ring dating is superb, each ring records a specific year, but what causes tree rings to have different widths? It's multifactorial (remember, Antartica is even more of a desert than the Sahara!) The proponents of global warming have also tested modern tree rings against recorded temperatures to prove thier theory and been astounded by the "Modern Discrepency." For some reason, perhaps because of the total evilness of George Bush (Think Time Bandits!), modern bristlecone pine tree rings do not record modern temperature data. How strange.
Will the world get warmer? Probably. Possibly. Global temperatures respond to a little item you can see up in the sky called the sun. During the Medieval Warming it was about 2 degrees centigrade warmer than now. In the Little Ice Age it was about two degrees colder (Charles II went ice skating on the Thames, and launched the Hudson's Bay Company to get furs to keep warm. The slushy 1940s movie _Forever Amber_ was historically accurate.) At earlier periods of Earth's history it was warmer still, and sometimes far, far colder. There's a Russian astronomer at Pulkovo who believes solar cycles are going to give us Little Ice Age conditions later in this century. Our politicians about 2030 may be demanding that we increase our production of green house gasses, but I have no doubt some people will blame the glaciers that take out Toronto on Global Warming even then.
http://www.climateaudit.org
For a continuing look at the major holes and gaps in the AGW arguments. And Pielke's site presents a more technical look at the problems
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu
Both of these sites allow both sides of the discussion to be heard unlike Real Climate.
One of the biggest problems with the AGW arguments is that the scientists on that side refuse to publish their raw data. How can we evaluate their claims unless we can see the data that they are using to make those claims.
They also admit to 'cherry picking' data, that is they throw out any data that does not fit their preconceived hypothesis.
Most opponents accept that temps may be rising, but the baseline is the LIA (Little Ice Age) a period of very cold temps that lasted for hundreds of years and ended around 1870 or so. Since then the earth has been getting warmer, but is just returning to the normal temps or is it abnormal? We do not know.
As for sea level, there is plenty of evidence that sea level has been rising at 1.5 to 2 mm a year since at least Roman times. That would be 3 to 4 meters (10-13 feet) increase of that time span. There are plenty of roman coastal towns and cities that are now under water because of this sea level rise. Alexandria in Egypt for one.
Don't forget that we are in an interglacial period and are recovering from the last glaciation 10 or 12 thousand years ago. If you look at long term historical temps we are in a quite cool period and have been for a long time.
This could go on fro many pages but I'll cut it off here.
1. Since water expands when it freezes and 9/10 of glaciers are below the surface, won't the ocean levels decrease if the glaciers melt?
2. If global temperatures rise, won't increased evaporation cause ocean levels to decrease?
Get your harpoons!
We don't need Kyoto, we need Ahab.
Even if they could, there are still problems. I'm an expert in this part of data analysis, and you need to be careful of a modeling flaw known as "data mining" (not to be confused with the database analysis technique with the same name.) I can guarantee a model that is 100% reliable on historical data, if you let me have enough variables. The problem then becomes that you have over-corrected the natural statistical variance by incorporating it into your model. A consequence is that to achieve that accuracy, you have factored in variables that are actually random in real terms, but can be given huge weight to correct for natural variations. You then carry that huge weight into your predictions for the future.
Perfect examples of this phenomenon can be found by searching for "mechanical investing". There are some excellent stock market prediction formulas over at the Motley Fool that demonstrate the pitfalls of data mining.
strategichamlet:
Unscientific faulty dilemma. If you start out from this point of view, you have already closed your mind to the possibility (remote, I'll admit), of "something good". If you implicitly close your mind like that, what else have you missed?
I think you are talking about icebergs rather than glaciers. Icebergs are located in the water whereas glaciers are located on land. If an iceberg melts, then the volume of water in the ocean shrinks because you’re replacing frozen water with liquid water. If a glacier melts, then the volume of water in the ocean increases because you’re adding new water from the runoff.
A foppishly fatuous tendentiousness.
Indeed, given the issues and disciplines involved - from public policy to highly arcane and abstruse metaphysical, epistemological, philosophy of science, etc. debates - virtually stooge-like and nullish in its presentation of the options available. May as well suggest the three options are: the smart option, the dumb option and the dumb option which pretends to be the smart option.
Oh wait, that is what you're suggesting. Shocked, I'm shocked ...
I do, however, deny that a rise in temperature is going to cause cataclysmic changes in the climate over short periods of time. It's simply not sensible. People keep saying "if the sea level rises forty feet, then San Francisco would be underwater!" - but it's not going to happen overnight. It will happen by inches over decades. We will have plenty of time to do small, sensible things to deal with what is essentially... if you'll pardon the pun... a true inconvenience.
We do not need to radically alter our way of life to deal with global warming. Everything is going to be fine, not because nothing is happening, but because human beings are a resourceful and industrious species with a strong survival instinct. We will deal with it as it happens, and life will go on.
Now, be fair. Harold and his army had just kicked some Viking butt and had to quick-march down to Hastings. Kinda tires you out! :)
Longer growing seasons in Russia and Canada?
Of course you remember that 30 years ago we were being told by these same scientists (yes, the same) that we were supposed to be buried by glaciers by now. Oops, guess they were *gasp* wrong!
Do you remember all the hub bub in the 1980's from the ecojihadis about how we are destroying the rainforests and we are all going to die if we don't stop because the rainforests are "the lungs of the earth"? What happened to that? Well, a couple inconvenient truths were brought home to the ecojihadis. 1. The rainforests are not the lungs of the eart, the plankton in the oceans are. 2. It is not Halliburton and the "evil republikkkans" who are destroying the rainforests-it is the "noble savages", the indiginous people who use slash and burn farming techniques.
One would think that if Al and the Global Warming jihadis were so concerned by all this they would lead by example. By example does not mean screwing in a couple florescent lightbulbs, Al. It would mean giving up the SUV's you ride in, the private jet you fly in, 3 of your 4 houses and selling off that $20 million of Occidental Petroleum stock you own. That would be just for starters, of course.
Robert Kennedy jr. would be out there helping them build the cape cod wind turbines instead of vigorously opposing them because it will "spoil his view" from the family compound in Hyannisport.
Until I see the Al, Bobby jr. and Global Warming jihadis walk the walk instead of just talking the talk I will not take them seriously because I see all this global warming shinola for what it is. Pure politics.
Now...
The inconveneint truth is that we are not that THE PROBLEM in the greater scheme of things. Do we have an effect on the ecology? Of course we do, just like every other lifeform on the planet. Are we the main culprits in all of this? No. Do we play some part in it? Yes, but not in the way the Al Gores and the Global Warming jihadis want you to think we do.
The inconvenient truth for Al and his Global Warming jihadis is that the thing that is contributing the most to the rise in CO2 gasses are not "gas guzzling SUV's" or Halliburton. No, it is the overfishing of the oceans which is causing the collapse of the ecosystem of the oceans from the bottom of the food chain. No fish eating eating the zooplankton means there are more of them with no predators going after them. More zooplankton means they eat more phytoplankton. Less phytoplankton means less of them converting CO2 to O2. More CO2 means the temperature rises and so on and so forth and scooby-doobie-doo.
The inconvenient truth in that is that Al and his Global Warming jihadis is that they can not use overfishing and the alteration of the ecosystem of the ocean as a domestic political tool. To attempt to repair