The other moment in the debate that struck me as quite strange was Biden's comment that he is certain that all global warming is manmade and that manmade global warming is what is melting the polar icecap:
BIDEN: Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden — Gov. Palin and Joe Biden.
If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.
Here's a summary of the IPCC conclusion on this point:
A UN panel of 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations said it was "very likely" — or more than 90% probable — that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.
It goes without saying that "90% probable" that "most warming" is caused by human activities, that is not the same as "we know" that "the cause" of all warming is manmade.
Palin's answer was much more nuanced and consistent with science (not to mention being absolutely correct about what to do it about it as a policy matter, focus on the impacts and the mix of policies to respond to climate change):
I'm not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?
It is obvious that there are cyclical temperature changes on the planet (in addition to other natural variances, such as sun spots, cloud cover, etc.). We have had ice ages and tropical periods. I have tried to find some nuance or qualification in Biden's statement that he understands the difference between "all" and "most" or the possible role of natural causes, but I don't see it. He seems to just be wrong about his understanding of what the science actually says on this point. And again, his strident confidence and patronizing attitude seems completely unfounded (as with this assertions about the legislative role of the vice president).
Of course the only "strange" or "bizarre" moments in this debate came from Biden.
Why should we talk about how Palin answered about 80% of the questions? Completely misunderstood the "achilles' heel" question (though that was probably in part Gwen's inartful question structure)? Didn't know a lick about McCain's record other than the talking points she was given?
It's quite revealing that the "all warmning is manmade" part of your "quote" is actually not part of Biden's quote. Biden said that the cause is manmade, he didn't say that that was the sole cause.
If the extra word were irrelevant, as I suspect you will say, then why do you have the world "all" in your sentence? Doesn't add something?
The problem with the manmade global warming speculation is that, while world man made CO2 emissions have soared, there has been no global warming regardless of cause since 1998 and over the past 18 months global temperatures have fallen nearly a degree centigrade as sun activity has slowed down to the lowest recorded level since 1913.
In fact, there is no scientific proof actually backing up the manmade global warming speculation. The scientific method involves offering a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis against reality to arrive at scientific proof. The manmade global warming speculation is based entirely upon computer models. However, computer models are actually hypotheses and not proof. In fact, when these models are compared to actual weather, none of them have been able to explain past weather or predict future weather. None, nada, zip. Thus, under the scientific method, all manmade global warming hypotheses have been disproven to date.
It doesn't really matter if climate change is anthropogenic or not. Really.
If we're getting warmer, for any reason, reducing greenhouse gases would help--theoretically and without considering what's wrong with slightly warmer and what it would cost to avoid. Since what we do is only at the margins of the fringes anyway, we may as well insist that new blacktop be less black. Roofs must all be white. Our only tactics would be the same whether it was natural or anthropogenic.
Ditto colder.
Playing a mind game here. If it were proven that all global warming, 100% of it, were natural, what would be the difference? Infinitely less concern. Because it would be harder to blame the usual suspects for it, nor insist that Joe Lunchbucket reduce his lifestyle by a third, nor transfer huge shiploads of currency to India and China. When you think about it this way, it's clear that AGW is a tool, not a concern. And if it were N (natural)GW, it would be far less useful, even though the results would be exactly the same.
Blaming Dems and Repubs for a lack of vision - they let us slip into this financial mess because they couldn't bother to understand all the causes or to take corrective action before the mess forced this bailout reaction on all of us. The causes aren't important?
I am no scientist or even a competent policy writer, so I cannot prove climate change causes, etc. I do know that it would be useful to understand what the causes are in order to understand how to avoid the negative impacts.
There's a bank of supercomputers in Japan (the Earth Computer I think) that is working on building a climate model to help understand weather patterns and shifts.
If I were able to demonstrate what caused a certain weather event, it would help that predictive model and give me a heads up when, say, a typhoon was going to hit my shores stripped of mangroves or something else that's quite a policy problem.
If like most scientists believe, climate change is driven by man, then the argument for serious cuts in CO2 emissions would have more heft and would be understood as a causal means of reducing global warming that should not be occurring. If as Palin suggests, we're actually seeing warming that is due in part or large part to 'natural cycles' or some other hypothesis, then it might actually be counterproductive to have emission caps at certain levels and other policies to limit CO2 emission with respect to the ability to reduce rising temperatures versus negative economic impacts. If you truly believe that anthropic climate change isn't true then any actions you take are likely to be for show because they pretty much wouldn't drive climate change anyway.
As for the eventual argument that climate change isn't driven by man, I hope those making the arguments look to see whether their argument has already been addressed here before making it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
an extremely aggressivea normal read of the word "the."Fixed.
Before last night, I thought that Biden was just a normal, if unusually gaffe-prone, politician. After last night, I think he may actually be the dumbest person to run for national office in my lifetime.
How do you interpret the phrase "There is something to be said for man's activities?"
Obviously, "something" can be a lot or a little. Do you think she intended it to mean "a lot?" If not, isn't Biden's statement, especially if read as a boad view, rather than as something to be picked apart meticulously, much closer to the IPCC's position?
I'm also curious whether you agree with Palin that understanding the causes of a problem is not important in trying to figure out how to solve it.
Consensus for action?
A risk-management approach is what is called for, and it's easier to get there from where she is (given the trade-offs involved and public opinion) than where Biden is. I.e. agnosticism over causes lets the focus turn to clear and present impacts and ameliorative action, while unwarranted certitude over causes and its attendant bullying of heretics keeps us stuck fighting that battle.
Once the short-term is competently addressed through action backed by political (and not just institutional) consensus, credibility will build for long-term action to reduce risk built on similarly wide consensus.
Was Palin pandering to Biden when she said that as President of the Senate she'd support those with special needs?
In other words, the original post is trying to split hairs when there isn't any hair there at all.
Focusing on humans as the cause of global warming is important from a political standpoint, since then we know what we must do: punish humans! If warming has natural causes, then we are not so inclined to punish humans for what they were not at fault in causing. Biden wants to punish humans, Palin nominally seems otherwise inclined -- though it's tough to say given her semi-answer.
Consensus for Action and Risk Management are meaningless when one doesn't even agree on or claim to know what the problem is. Without knowing the source of the problem there's no basis to accurately assess risk and outcomes.
Let's not be insensitive to the follically-challenged.
He should know that over the most recent 130 years, there is no correlation of CO2 increase and global temperature changes. Without correlation there can be no cause-effect (with correlation there may be (or may not be) cause effect). Temps went up from 1880 to 1935; CO2 stayed constant; temps went down from 1935 to 1975 CO2 went up; temps went up from 1975 to 2000 CO2 went up; temps went down from 2001 thru present, CO2 went up.
The IPCC has based its forecasts of temperature increases on climate models. Climate models have been unable to replicate the ups and downs of temp that have occurred while using actual increases in CO2 concentrations.
The liberal template is "Damn the facts. On with the solution."
"I'm not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.
But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?"
The first paragraph misunderstands the causal question -- no one thinks that every activity of man is due to the climate. And it's refreshing to know that other things may be said for man's activities, and for cycles; one wouldn't want either to be without an upside.
In the second paragraph, the supposedly dead-on last sentence is nearly unintelligible. The issue isn't how to positively affect the impacts.
To be clear, I would not fault Palin for any of this; all of us speak in roundabout or inexact ways. But it's very odd to fault Biden's inexactness and not her's.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
Unless I am missing something, this seems to be exactly right. Let's say we have added 100 units of C02 to the air since industrialization began, and in the next 50 years we will add 100 units more (which is way off, but it doesn't matter for these purposes).
If we believe that adding 100 units of C02 over the past 100 years has not had an effect on climate change, and that adding another 100 units would also not have an effect on climate change, why should we scale back our activities? If 200 units of C02 total won't make the Earth warmer, how is scaling back to 180 units total going to arrest the naturally occurring cycle?
Unless you believe that there is a very strong chance that human activity contributes to the majority of climate change, scaling back human carbon emissions in an attempt to reverse global warming is as pointless as sacrificing a goat.
As for the point of the post, in political discussions the saying it is "90% probable that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years" is functionally the same thing as saying "human activity caused global warming." Biden isn't writing a technical paper in a scientific journal; he's addressing a lay audience in a 90 second soundbite. If everything that either of them said was backed with a 90 percent certainty that it was mostly correct, that would be a triumph in any political setting.
BUT even if "the" means "the only," then isn't this really picky. Because Biden said "the" and not "a" we are going to devote a whole post to it?
What's that smell....ah, the bitter aroma of desperation in a losing game...
Also, her argument that she can fix the problem without knowing the cause is inane. If it's manmade, then man must change; if it's not, then man need not. If it's caused by calico cats making sweet love at midnight, then the cats have to go. I mean, her position is the epitome of cop-out.
Personally, I find it's much easier to get through life by doing your best to interpret everyone's statements in good faith, but it's tiresome when people will say "well of course, this is what she really meant" for their political allies yet not for others.
"But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?" from Palin's comments
From a scientific pov there is nothing terribly nuanced about that statement. It certainly avoids a simplistic dichotomy, it avoids painting a manichean script with cartoonish "good guys" and "bad guys" and that is refreshing in and of itself. It serves as stark contrast with the fear-mongering and hyperbole posing as science and fact emanating from other well known quarters.
But from a political pov, it's a deftly and rightly handled statement, one that does reflect sufficient levels of nuance, one that reflects proportion and balance. It's a responsibly and empirically attuned statement, rather than an ideologically magnified statement.
Maybe I'm slow, but how do we 'positively affect the impacts' if we don't know the causes? Suppose it's natural, and not caused by emissions - what can we do about that?
My concern is, what does she think we should actually do? She didn't say. It sounds to me like, apart from a quibble about the full range of likely causes, she and Biden have the same view. So why are we making this post attacking Biden with tremendous zeal? Oh yes, yes, bare partisanship. I don't mind the partisanship when it comes with a decent argument attached, but lately it's been dangling quite freely!
The common language meaning of the phrase X is the cause for Y simply doesn't require X to be a sufficent condition for Y or even guarantee Y occurs. It's something closer to being a convincing explanation of Y relative to some contextually determined background but analyzing cause is a notoriously difficult problem (I think it's an epistemically primitive notion)
Of course whenever the effect is some vague predicate like 'warming' (how much warming) we use our normal conversational skills to determine the speakers intent. Would you say someone was being misleading if they said they went bald because of radiotherapy if they still had a few wisps of hair on their head and you knew male pattern baldness probably caused 10% of their hair loss? That would just be idiotic and if you asked someone whether they meant that radiation was the only thing that had caused them to lose hair they would think you were an idiot.
No reasonable person would take Biden to be to insisting on the weird strong thesis you attribute to him. I mean did you think even for a minute that Biden probably denies the existence of natural variation in the Earth's tempration?
Your argument about 90% certainty and "know" is even weaker. The truth is we say we know things all the time when there is some minor probability for error. I won't bother with examples because this is just downright silly. Next couple times you say you know something ask yourself if you would take 10:1 odds on it.
That's utter hogwash. The harshness of the russian winter was the cause of Napolean's devastating defeat but it surely wasn't the sole cause. Napolean's failure to better equip his troops for that winter was also a cause.
The cause indicates that something is the most salient or informative causal factor. The sole cause goes much farther in suggesting it is a sufficient condition (tho not quite even that).
I mean this post would be a great way to settle a bet to see if you can get VC conservatives to accept any ridiculous interpratation of facts to defend their canidates.
You notice that the countdown is running. How important is it to figure out which start button was pressed? Should you be dusting them both for fingerprints?
Searching for a target to blame global warming on is as useless to solving the immediate problem as searching for culpability in the financial crisis is.
It may help in the very long term to prevent a repeat of the crisis, but it won't help in the short to medium term to deal with the current crisis.
If the Sun were putting out more energy and we had to reduce our CO2 to compensate, we would still have to reduce our CO2 or suffer the consequences of the warming.
Of course, we can argue over how much reduction in anthropogenic CO2 will reduce in how much reduction of the warming over what time frame. Investigating what fraction of the current warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 does help us answer that question.
But you don't need to know, and don't care, who started a fire when you're trying to put it out.
The same sorts of things we can do if it is caused by emissions, really. Research technology toward efficient carbon sequestration and cheap non-carbon-burning energy sources as fast as we can. Possibly build giant orbital mirrors to reduce solar heating. If a space elevator or other cheap ground-to-orbit technology is workable, move as much industry as possible outside of the atmosphere.
(If the cause is humanity, then there's no real way to attack the cause other than working toward slaughtering 90+% of the race. Current proposed solutions that implicitly require the invasion and permanent occupation of India nad China along with a global policy of enforced perpetual poverty for the majority of humanity are only marginally more moral and orders of magnitude less workable.)
A more interesting issue is the question whether you can solve a problem without knowing its cause. Of course you can. People do it all the time. Doctors treat symptoms and hope to discover the cause. Sometimes the patient gets better before that happens. People with learning disabilities no one has identified work really hard and pass anyway. Artists, businesses, salesmen, athletes, and writers often succeed with spurious ideas how that happened.
I have nothing against seeking causes - I am a lover of sabermetrics after all - but this insistence that Biden is right on this score is misplaced. Palin may be correct for bad reasons on this, but she's correct.
And everyone should go back and read David Warner's and Richard Aubrey's posts again.
Four temperature monitoring stations have shown no increase in temperature beginning in 1998. Last year, 2007, was cooler by 0.7 degrees Centigrade. This year, 2008, is showing the same cooling trend.
The globe may be experiencing a climate change, which includes a temperature change, but that is normal. There has never been a time when climate was not changing whether we are aware of it or not.
There has been a change in the Sun's radiance, but the IPCC "scientists" say that has a negligible effect on the Earth's climate. Imagine, the primary source of the Earth's energy has no effect on the Earth' climate.
The atrocity is that, with no proof whatsoever, green-house gases are blamed for global climate change, especially man-made CO2, which is a minuscule part of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC report says that natural CO2 emissions are 30 times greater than man-made CO2. The rational is that the natural emissions are balanced by Nature and that man-made CO2 is upsetting the balance. Think of that each time you exhale.
If Algore is appointed Secretary of the Department of Energy, the cost to the tax-payer for a US$700 billion bail-out is small potatoes compared the cost of eliminating your "carbon foot-print."
Ask yourself, in a constantly changing environment, who made the decision that we are now in an ideal environment and we must sacrifice, in vain, to maintain it?
Trivia: It was reported last week that a Polar Bear swam 200 miles across open water to reach Iceland. His reward was that he was considered a danger to the population and the male bear was killed.
This hubristic notion that humans are somehow above nature always pushes my buttons.
We are, in fact, 100% natural and all of our acts are 100% natural...even the creation of cities and the production of styrofoam.
To think otherwise is the height of arrogance.
The real focus should be on the potential harmful results of some of our acts and how we can incent ourselves to reduce those acts.
Who here likes clean breathable air? [raises hand]
Who here likes woodland scenes, snowpacked mountains, bubbling brooks? [raises hand]
Who here likes the observation and occasional culling of a variety of animal and plant species? [raises hand]
However, we are a natural species and when/if nature needs to balance us out, it will.
Biden's personal opinion is that the problem is manmade.
This says 2,500 scientists from 130 nations at least agreed to language that stated that at a minimum it is 90% probable most of the warming was manmade.
So what? This is an apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing the opinion of one person versus what 2,500 people agreed to? If 2,500 people agreed that it is 90% probable that most is manmade, then I would bet that a good chunk of them have Biden's position. Probably a much smaller chunk have Palin's position (at least 50/50 natural cause).
Think about it, you have 2,500 people from 130 countries, probably some real skeptics in there too, and they all agreed with the position that it is 90% likely most of climate warming is manmade. Biden, using the most uncharitable reading, is 100%, or just 10% more. Where would Bush, Palin (when not reading note cards), and most American conservatives? 10%, 0%? Who seems to be disconnected from reality and science?
I read a monograph about global warming written by a Frenchman. The conclusion he reached was "computer models are not reality, Nature is reality."
One tailors his computer model to give the desired result.
The famous "hockey-stick" model has been debunked.
One area which man-made influences abound is urbanization.
I find the attitudes of both parties in regard to global warming/climate change troubling, especially since the SCOTUS decided that CO2 is a pollutant in Massachusetts v. EPA.
This chart shows the relationship between CO2 and global warming. Note that there is R^2 correlation of only .001. In other words, CO2 does not cause global warming.
Well, there must be global warming! Al Gore says so. No. Five government science agencies are recording the fact that global temps continue to rapidly decline, despite rising beneficial carbon dioxide levels.
Well then, what about sea levels? Biden says low lying coastal areas will be impacted. As usual, Biden is wrong. Sea levels continue to decline.
Government bureaucrats have a vested financial interest in fanning the global warming hysteria, because when they do, grant money flows: currently, ~$5 billion is allocated to "global warming" research.
The result: note the difference between the Draft map and the Final temperature map; the temps stay the same, but the Final weather maps -- those provided by the gov't to newspapers -- have turned a scary red.
Same thing with the data manipulation of the government's Arctic ice cover chart. See the raw data, vs the "adjusted" data.
So, folks, who are you gonna believe? Al Gore? The UN/IPCC?
Or your lying eyes?
*by litte brainwave detectors that know what evil lurks within the hearts of knaves
In my lifetime there was a "consensus" that most peptic ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods. I would imagine that many people who have suffered from ulcers are really glad that the "consensus" did not terminate debate before it was shown that infection by Helicobacter pylori was the cause (no, I'm not going to engage in debates about [non]use of words like "the", "cause", "proximate", or "ultimate") in the majority of cases.
Oh, and there was that guy Copernicus also...
[1] Of course, excluding those who participated in the studies at some point in time but disagreed with the final report and had to threaten a lawsuit to get their names removed from the report even though the report had been changed substantially after signoff by the participant.
So she does not believe that the activity of man can be attributed to changes in the climate?
Nuanced?
This however seems not to be very true to scientific methods where "correctness" rather than "consensus" is the goal.
Best comment on the thread.
Fixed."
A.S.: The problem is there are two viable meanings (or, more specifically, two things Biden possibly could have meant), one of which makes the statement completely absurd, and one of which makes it an entirely sensical and uncontroversial statement.
Its a silly and somewhat insincere approach to parsing language to assume that someone meant the stupid and nonsensical version instead of the logical and non-controversial version.
(And yes, I realize there are plenty of commenters here, both liberal and conservative, who seem to honestly believe that the people on the other side of the aisle from them are either spectacularly stupid or spectacularly evil, but, well, those commenters are unified in their wrongness.)
Feel free to, you know, provide some kind of countering argument. Explain how we are not natural creatures. Explain how our actions and creations are not natural?
First, we wouldn't waste time and resources trying to curb carbon since it has nothing to do with the issue.
Second, we wouldn't waste time and effort trying to change something we cannot control.
Third, we would devote our time and resources to accomodating ourselves to the anticipated change.
1. I am not aware of anyone who says that we should stop exploring the issue. If you mean, "before we start taking steps based on a well-founded scientific consensus," that's almost a reverse-precautionary principle -- there are few scientific issues with public policy implications on which there's such a clear consensus. And I don't see the warrant for casting the prospect of man-made (in relevant part!) global warming into the same category as a Hadron black hole.
2. The notion about paying special attention to the minority seems in tension with your suggestion that "'correctness' rather than 'consensus' is the goal" -- their concerns have no necessary scientific validity. In general, it suggests that idiots get a veto.
I will not take Adam J's position here, esp. since you were pretty rapidly topped. But could we just stipulate that there is "human cause" and "other natural causes"? Would that unpush your buttons? I am a little puzzled by your prior concluding remark that "we are a natural species and when/if nature needs to balance us out, it will." One might read that as a trust-the-fates (or Gaia) kind of remark, but I assume you meant more that we could end up screwing ourselves.
Wrong as to needing to find the cause--blame the usual suspects--instead of the real cause.
If, and I say if, CO2 is driving global warming which isn't happening, then reducing CO2 would be a good idea. Even if man's contribution is too small to make a difference. What if somebody figured out a way to cheaply capture CO2 without forcing massive changes in the economy, and in society, and give more power to governments?
Burn his sorry ass at the stake.
Wrong again. Carbon is the same--you can check it on the periodic table--whether it's in the atmosphere from a spewing SUV, or the exhalations of fuzzy bunnies.
And if carbon is the issue, doing something about it is the solution.
But if it's entirely natural, how can you force the lumpen into urban warrens and make them take the bus?
I refer you to the link http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html which contains a DOE table 1 showing changes in green-house gases since the pre-industrial base-lines. Notice the importance of the green-house gas never mentioned - water vapor - which accounts for 95% of the green-house effect.
"human-cause" is inconsequential when compared to "other natural causes." Ego seems to demand that humans must be the causal force.
In comparison to the 2,500 "scientists" who signed the IPCC report, 31,000 plus American scientists signed the following petition and submitted it to the Congress in an apparent futile effort. because, for one, Senator Boxer's knowledge is superior. http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Note There are other emitters such as volcanic eruptions and metamorphism. There are scavengers like silicate weathering that remove carbon. These other processes produce cycles with extremely long periods, >100,000 years. These cause those fluctuations you see in ice core records.
I think I would disagree with your assessment that "there are few scientific issues with public policy implications on which there's such a clear consensus". For example, it seems the consensus is much stronger that lung cancer risk is substantially increased by smoking. Although to a lesser degree (due to substantial uncertainly about the validity of models related to damage caused by low level radiation exposure), the consensus that "nuclear waste is very harmful to human life if not contained" seems much stronger than the GW consensus. Really, the consensus doesn't seem all that strong for the degree to which the planet is warming and the degree to which human activities are responsible. Clearly the majority opinion is in line with the IPCC conclusions, but it's mostly a hypothesis at this time. I would agree that it's very difficult to prove or disprove the premise due to the chaotic nature and complexity of the systems involved so we will have to decide to act/not act based on a lower standard of proof than exists for the smoking:lung cancer relationship.
Perhaps it wasn't clear -- I feel the "minority" whose views should be paid special attention to (and whose research should be well funded) are actual scientists. Certainly crackpots without relevant scientific training, insight, or experience are excluded. The goal is to get to a correct solution, not a popular one.
A fairly simple thing to do that should (albeit somewhat grudgingly) satisfy those on all sides would be to declare a ten year test period based on current theory and models (i.e., no refitting curves to match new data). During the test period, measurements of temperatures and greenhouse gases (and other inputs/predicted outputs to/from the model) would be done in a pre-agreed upon way. Also, agree on a maximum variance between "actual" and "predicted" results which will be considered to be supportive of the theory. Then, at the end of the test period, crank the inputs into the model and compare the outputs to the actual results and apply the pre-agreed upon variances to draw a conclusion about validity of the models. During the test period, public policy decisions relying upon the theory would be limited to research and development on GW and solutions (such as improved solar cells) - not mandated deployment of such solutions (such as cap-and-trade or tax credits for wind power deployment).
Obviously those who favor the current models would not mind the test period (they have confidence in the models so believe the outcome will be favorable to them) except to the extent it causes a delay of a few years in the solution. Note though, that the delay would be substantially shorter than the full ten year test period since public support of R&D of GW and solutions to GW would continue. Also, private enterprise, if convinced of the GW threat and the impact of greenhouse gas on GW, would have every motivation to push forward aggressively with technology so when (or even before) the test period was over their products would be well situated.
In response to Volokh Groupie, let me say again: when confronted with the fact that humans produce a relatively insignificant amount of CO2, your website argued that this doesn't matter since nature is "balanced" and eats up as much CO2 as nature itself produces. Thus, all CO2 produced by humans goes straight into increasing CO2 levels, thus causing warming. But, as I explained, the fact that CO2 levels are not constant, and have never been constant, proves that nature is NOT balanced, and does not automatically eat up all the CO2 that nature produces. Sometimes it eats more than it produces, and sometimes it produces more than it eats up. Hence, natural CO2 could easily be the cause of a lot more warming than humans are - not to mention the other 92-95% of the warming effect caused by other stuff.
Carbon dioxide is beneficial. It is not a pollutant, despite Gore's and SCOTUS's scientific ignorance. We are made of carbon.
Currently, the atmosphere is starved of CO2, which has historically been above 7,000 ppm [compared with the current <400 ppm].
Don't take my word for the beneficial contribution of carbon dioxide. Listen to Prof. Freeman Dyson, who co-signed the OISM statement along with over 31,000 other American scientists [read especially Dyson's second paragraph].
Guessed:This is way too easy.
First, what "consensus"? The UN/IPCC's band of 2,500 sociologists, psychologists and other financially motivated 'scientists'?
Please.
The OISM Petition linked above is restricted to only accredited U.S. scientists with degrees in the physical sciences: physics, climatology, mathematics, meteorology, etc.
The UN/IPCC's "consensus" is based on the "Emperor's Nose Fallacy", in which numerous people are asked to estimate the length of the Emperor's nose. The results are then tabulated and averaged, and *voila!* we have a consensus on the length of the Emperor's nose. The fallacy is obvious: the result has no relation to the Emperor's nose, or to anything else. There isn't even an Emperor! But there surely is "consensus" about the length of his nose.
Next, Mr. Guessed complains that, "In general, it suggests that [the skeptical] idiots get a veto."
Guessed may never have heard of the Scientific Method: It is the duty of those putting forth a new hypothesis, such as Al Gore's "CO2/runaway global warming/climate cartastrophe" hypothesis, to prove their hypothesis [which has repeatedly failed to withstand falsification in the peer-review process].
It is not the duty of the overwhelming majority of U.S. and international scientists, who acceppt that the climate is well within historical parameters, to prove that the climate is fluctuating normally.
The AGW/runaway global warming hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. As Albert Einstein said when 100 eminent scientist wrote to him saying that his Special Theory of Relativity was wrong: ''To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.'' AGW has been repeatedly falsified via the Scientific Method. It is completely discredited.
Moreover, Al Gore's putative 'consensus' is non-existent. If anything, there are at least twelve times as many professionals in the hard sciences who agree with Freeman Dyson, than who agree with the UN or Al Gore.
So, Mr. Guessed: Where is your god now?
Now there's an idea! Just so long as we get to eat the goat afterward.
(If the cause is humanity, then there's no real way to attack the cause other than working toward slaughtering 90+% of the race. Current proposed solutions that implicitly require the invasion and permanent occupation of India nad China along with a global policy of enforced perpetual poverty for the majority of humanity are only marginally more moral and orders of magnitude less workable.)
But if the cause isn't - or isn't mainly - humanity (everybody knows it's polar bear farts), then Palin's answer - that we need to affect the impacts - while poorly phrased, comes down to figuring out ways to jack New Orleans up above the water level, etc., etc.
You are correct. To simply wait for nature to smack us down would necessarily result in us being smacked down.
I prefer 'enlightened self interest', wherein we do what is 'right' by aligning that with our self interests.
Global warming isn't the greatest of names, because it is more of an environmental change, not just the climate!
It would be inaccurate to say that Palin is "the cause" of five children.
Climate is inclusive of temperature.
What is a meteorologist's answer to the question of why, after a hot day in the desert, does it get so cool at night? Low humidity (low concentration of water vapor, the predominate green-house gas) allows the heat to escape.
Your post doesn't accurately describe the way scientists or policymakers - even our own Republican administation - look at climate change.
You seem to be using a different definition of causation than either scientists or lawyers use. Virtually all scientists believe that but for human activities, we would not have the current phenomenon of rapid climate change. Biden's comments more accurately describe what scientists believe, and what policymakers worldwide - including here in the US - rely upon.
Her comment that she doesn't want to "argue about the causes" is just ridiculous. Knowing the cause is essential to figuring out the solution - if climate change truly were not human-induced in a "but for" sense, emissions reductions would be senseless, but if human causes play a major part, emissions reductions would be (and are) essential. There is nothing "nuanced" about this comment of hers. It is head-in-the-sand at best.
Why is this important? For one thing: Palin's comment emphasizes coping with the impacts of climate change. Policymakers worldwide, including our own Republican administration, now believe we have to make policy to reduce GHG emissions, not just adapt to the impact (though we have to do that too). She did. after that, offehandedly say she supports emissions reductions - but why would she support such reductions if she doesn't care about, or know about, human causation of the problem? At the least, this internal inconsistency betrays a lack of knowledge about the subject (certainly not "nuance").
There is absolutely zero proof -- zero -- that human activity causes any measurable change to the climate. I say again: Zero.
If courtwatcher or anyone else disputes that, I would like to see a peer-reviewed citation showing conclusively that AGW has been proven to exist [hint: the always-inaccurate computer models, which can not predict today's climate, even when utilizing all past climate data, don't pass the proof test; to the contrary, they tend to falsify the AGW hypothesis].
For those interested in visiting rational sites that discuss these issues in depth, see Climate Audit [which won last year's "Best of the Web Science Blog"], or WattsUpWithThat, which has thoroughly discredited NASA's Surface Station temperature recording stations.
The UN/IPCC's runaway global warming hypothesis is based almost entirely on its always-wrong computer models. If those models could predict the climate, which is much more complicated than the relatively small universe of stocks in the financial markets, does anyone think those UN bureaucrats wouldn't be retired in Tahiti by now?
I worked in a Metrology lab for 30 years. My specialties [among others] were temperature and relative humidity measurement and calibration. Our lab had over 140 engineers and technicians. We all received the literature from N.I.S.T. [formerly the National Bureau of Standards], and I do not recall one engineer or tech ever arguing that humans were altering the climate. Rather, we laughed at the conjecture whenever someone mentioned it. But now it's become serious, because big money - tax money - is involved. That is the motivation for the globaloney scare.
I've provided easy to understand links to charts and other visual aids, which no one ever refutes. I have plenty more. [And I can provide excellent peer-reviewed papers that falsify the AGW/CO2 hypothesis. But I generally don't, because people's eyes tend to glaze over.] Unfortunately, we only hear the parroting in the media of uninformed non-scientists on the baseless speculations issued by Al Gore and his pals in the UN.
Astonishingly, people still think that Gore [who got a D in college science, and flunked out of Divinity School!!] is a climate expert. He is not. He is a modern day Elmer Gantry, and maybe by painting a 100-foot arrow on your own farm road, you too can make it rain.
You would spoil a huge number of schemes.
I know you were being facetious, but your comment gives me the opportunity to point out that those who put forth a new hypothesis have the burden of proof, not those who accept the long accepted position that the current minor fluctuations in the climate are entirely natural and well within historical parameters.
And note that although I've flung the gauntlet down, no one has picked it up and challenged me with any proof -- or challenged me at all, for that matter.
I am chomping at the bit, hoping that a putative scientist will take the bait.
Check out the U.S. Global Change Assessment, which sets forth the Bush administration's best attempt to sort out the state of the science.
I suppose this presidential report on climate change was influenced by Al Gore? Smokey, your idea that Gore, rather than hundreds of scientists' research, is responsible for this is just laughable. All your name-calling and belittling can't change the facts. If you really believe that most of the world's scientists and policymakers have been duped by Al Gore, I'm not sure what to say.
It is risible to refer to a pure propaganda site like RealClimate, which routinely deletes comments from any scientists who question the discredited AGW hypothesis. It is run by leftist cheerleaders feeding at the public trough. Deleting all opposing views is not science. Or do you disagree?
I have posted this chart on RealClimate at least a dozen times, sometimes without any additional commentary, but only to refute the claim of continued global warming. In every instance, it has been arbitrarily deleted. Do you call that science? Why is RealClimate so terrified of the truth?
Many comments I have made to that site -- 90%+ -- have been arbitrarily deleted without any explanation, ever. Those comments are no different from my comments on this page, with citations that show the globe is cooling, not warming. Real Climate is the DailyKos of the global warming contingent. Their minds are made up and closed tight; they brook no contrary view. How is that science? Explain, please.
Open-minded sites like Climate Audit [which absolutely destroyed Michael Mann's bogus "hockey stick" showing rapidly rising temperatures], and Surface Stations.org [which forced the NOAA to
retract[oh, 'scuse me, to 'adjust'] its data from its decrepit temp recording stations -- which showed temps up to eight degrees F higher than satellite measurements [the most accurate measurements of all]. Neither Climate Audit nor Surface Stations nor WattsUpWithThat deletes any opposing posts [unless, of course, they are insulting or engage in name-calling]. Why does your RealClimate site allow only pro-AGW posts? Can you credibly answer that? Well, can you??Face it. When someone deletes all opposing points of view, they are engaging in propaganda, not science. Why does Al Gore [and NASA's James Hansen, , and Michael Mann, and the entire UN/IPCC for that matter] absolutely run and hide from any debate, with their tails between their legs? The answer is clear: they do not have the data to back their hypothesis, and they know it.
Michael Mann is a case in point: Mann refuses to disclose the taxpayer-funded data and methodology he used to invent his discredited "hockey stick" chart. Explain why the taxpayers are not permitted to view his work product, which they paid for. Go ahead, explain that one to this taxpayer. I want to hear your answer. This is climate data we're talking about, not nuclear secrets.
The answer, of course, as detailed in the Wegman Report to Congress, is that Michael Mann ginned up his data, and now refuses to disclose it because the world would see that he fabricated both his data and his methodology.
Because AWG is a religion -- a belief system requiring no validation relying on the scientific method -- and Mann is one of the prophets. You don't expect a religion to reveal the basis for their mysteries do you?
Or maybe it's government censorship by Gavin Schmidt, who runs the site and moderates it throughout the day -- while supposedly being on the clock, paid by taxpayers. In other words, Gavin Schmidt is a stealing from the public. He's been repeatedly called on this, and his response is to clam up and hide out.
Many, many other scientists have also noted that Schmidt's RealClimate site deletes their posts questioning AGW. That fact is well documented. So Schmidt isn't just picking on me, he's censoring everyone who disagrees with his repeatedly falsified AGW/CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis. Censoring contrary viewpoints is his only option, since the facts don't support his failed climate catastrophe hypothesis.
Your defensiveness is understandable, but my statement was not ad hominem. You didn't make a statement, you asked a question:I answered that only a fool would believe otherwise. Your response to that is akin to someone picking out a hat from a hat rack, putting it on, and saying, "Hey, this hat fits me perfectly! So this must be my hat!" You ad hominemed yourself.
And speaking of Al Gore, as usual, he's wrong again.
I am only partly facetious. Hansen wants oil company execs prosecuted.
Ecoterror doesn't scruple at murder.
But one poster may be right: The government is moving forward.
Too many schemes depend on this.
This thread is an embarrassment to the Volokh Conspiracy. I can deal with most of the anti-Obama nonsense, because hey, lots of people are some combination of stupid and evil.
But to attack Joe Biden for BEING RIGHT and praise Sarah Palin for SOUNDING RETARDED? Is this bizarro world? Palin's answer is barely responsive, and she still manages to get it wrong!
Thanks for all that in-depth science. So, what in your opinion has more effect on the climate, the PDO or the AMO? Or maybe the Milankovitch cycle? Is the MSU, or the Argos buoy system more accurate? Is Hadley or GISS more credible, and why? Inform us, chief.
Your post just goes to show that globaloney is politics, not science.
But thanx for trying to wing it.
"I'm not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate." Okay, she probably meant that she is not one to attribute changes in the climate to activity of man (rather than attributing the activity of man to climate change).
"There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet." I am assuming the "something to be said" is meant to convey that man's activities are, at least in part, causally related to climate change and the something to be said for "cyclical temparature changes" must mean that some of the global warming documented is due to global temperature cycles. But she did not actually say anything here.
"But there are real changes going on in our climate." Okay, coherent and true. But Biden agreed with this non-nuanced point.
"And I don't want to argue about the causes." Okay. This too is coherent, but only goes to her subject desires.
"What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?" How are we going to get where? Oh, did she mean, how are we going to reduce the impact of global warming on mankind? Again, we can assume she meant something like that, but what she said was gibberish.
Can you really claim that incoherence and nuance coexist in the same sentence? Perhaps, such garbled grammar is accurately described as nuanced, but only in the sense that the listener can read his own nuanced views into the gibberish.
Of course, if we are going to read between the lines, then lets.
Biden was not saying, "we know with 100% certainty that man has caused 100% of the global temperature change." He was saying, I believe the scientific consensus that man has played a part in global warming and we must take steps to deal with it (i.e. signalling his support of various environmental initiatives).
Palin was saying: Those crazy scientists think man did this, but it is all part of a global temperature cycle (i.e. signalling her suspicion of science generally, of environmentalists more specifically, and of any proposed man-made "solutions" to the, in her base's view, largely natural temperature cycle).
In that sense, both were sopping to the base. Neither was "nuanced".
I find it amusing that Todd would pick an essentially unintelligble quote from Palin to demonstrate how "nuanced" her thinking is. Oh, it's nuanced alright.
But it would certainly be a problem to describe a cause as "the cause" when there was another cause in the same conceptual category. The word "the" means the only one.
You can call Roberts "The Chief Justice" because he is the only one. You cannot call them "the Justice of the Supreme Court" unless you follow it with something that makes him the only one in the category being discussed. He may be "the Justice of the Supreme Court who is currently Chief", for example.
I agree that this is very nitpicky though. This smacks of a well-calculated phrase put in to appease radicals without offending moderates. People will generally assume you agree with them if you say something that admits that interpretation.