Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Climate Science
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Let's set the record straight on two items.

(1) Contra McQ, the claim is not that there is a 'consensus' that "man has played a significant role" in global warming. I thought I'd explained that often enough, but I suppose it bears repeating until it sinks in. The claims, in descending order of certainty, are that:
  • Global warming is happening. (scientific consensus)

  • Human activity contributes to global warming. (scientific consensus)

  • Human activity plays a significant role in global warming. (broad agreement, but not absolute consensus)

Note: 'scientific consensus' does not mean "nobody at all disagrees". There is 'scientific consensus' that Young Earth Creationism is nonsense, despite the fact that some people still argue for it.

Nor is this merely attributing to man what might be the result of normal variation. As Gregg Easterbrook points out in his layman's explanation of the issue [pdf] "if natural variation were causing obserbed warming, then one would have to explain how large amounts of heat-trapping gases could enter the atmosphere and yet have no effect." What's more, "recent studies have shown ocean warming to be in progress, suggesting that oceans will soon stop holding back global warming and start contributing to it."

Those are identical to the conclusions of the Scientific Academies [pdf] of the United States, Great Britain and many other countries, and consistent with the 2001 IPCC. And speaking of the IPCC...

(2) Dale Franks recently cited Dr Pielke, whose conclusions he seemed to think were "far more reasonable and measured" than my own argument that there was a substantial anthropogenic component to global warming.

Fine. Let's see what kind of reasonable scientific position Dr. Pielke takes...
The use of the term “climate skeptic” inaccurately describes my perspective on climate change. [...] Our research, and that of my colleagues, has documented a diversity of first-order human climate forcings. I agree with the findings and conclusions in the 2005 National Academy Report “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties” . The very significant implications of this Report in the discussion of the human role in climate variability and change have been completely ignored by the media.

I am not skeptical of a substantial human forcing of climate change including the subset of climate change that is referred to as “global warming”!

Well, on to the next scientist, report or evidence that can be mischaracterized.

UPDATE: For a good overview of the state of the research, with citations, see parts I, II, and III of this FAQ on Global Warming Myths and Facts. [pdf] It provides an overview of the research on some of the more common skeptics arguments.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What is the difference between "broad agreement" and "consensus"?
My dictionary gives "general agreement" as a definition of consensus. Is that close enough to "broad agreement", or is there some significant difference I can’t seem to grasp?

Perhaps if people like Al Gore would stop using this "consensus" on global warming as a launching point for assertions of current catastrophic climate changes caused by this consensual warming(and as long as it is consensual, why is it bad?), the global warming thing would have a little more credibility. I have only seen a clip from Big Al’s movie, but I put it in the same class as "The Day After Tomorrow", given Al’s well known dementia.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
A day or so ago you said:
While most scientists agree that human contribution is very significant, explaining all or even more than all of the recent acceleration in global warming, there’s no concensus on the specific degree.
So you’ve said "most scientists agree" human contribution is "very significant" and that they attribute most of the most recent warming acceleration to humans, there’s no "consensus on the specific degree".

If there’s no consensus on the specific degree how does this majority maintain that the contribution is "very significant?" On what scientific basis given it seems scientific consensus is necessary to validate whether this is all happening or not.

Seems to me knowing or agreeing on the degree of human contribtion would be integral in determining if the human contribtion were negligable, fairly significant, significant or "very significant".

So, again, how did they determine it to be "very significant"?

And consensus, as I understand it means a "generally accepted opinion" which could very easily be characterized as ’broad agreement’. So when you say "broad agreement" is that just a degree short of "consensus"?

So when you say:
Human activity plays a significant role in global warming. (broad agreement, but not absolute consensus)
Aren’t you really claiming consensus without really saying it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
What is the difference between "broad agreement" and "consensus"?
Yeah, that caused me to blink once or twice as well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"My dictionary gives "general agreement" as a definition of consensus. Is that close enough to "broad agreement", or is there some significant difference I can’t seem to grasp?"
Well, there’s a specious difference Jon must insist on to try and save face.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
So now there is only "broad agreement", but not "absolute consensus" (um, what’s the difference between broad agreement, scientific consensus, and absolute consensus?), that humans play a "significant role" in global warming?

You previous approving cited Tyler Cowan’s statement that it is "by now pointless to deny that global warming is man-made to a considerable degree."

I don’t see why it is "pointless to deny" something if there is not "absolute consensus"? Maybe just pointless to deny it because denying it would further some bad political agenda?

Howabout we change your point 3 to something resembling the truth:

3. The climate changes naturally without any human effect and there is a great deal of variablity ("noise") in natural climate change; the degree to which humans cause global warming is very controversial; and there is no reason to believe that the contributions of humans to global warming are anything distinguishable from natural "noise".
 
Written By: A.S.
URL: http://
Consensus means all of the scientific evidence points in one direction; that the research has been consistent and there is scientific unanimity. (which does not mean scientists don’t disagree, but they don’t do so scientifically)

Broad agreement means there’s some debate — and this is acknowledged in the IPCC report — but that the vast majority agree that the human contribution is correct. Scientists are uncertain about the degree to which humans contribute — estimates range from a few small percent to more than 100% of the recent acceleration in global warming.

The fact that you can find some pop literature questioning global warming does not disprove what I’ve writte. Debate about science is not constitute "scientific debate". The fact that you can find some scientists who argue that human contribution is not the most significant factor doesn’t remotely contradict what I’ve written. If they didn’t exist, that position would be ’consensus’, too.
If there’s no consensus on the specific degree how does this majority maintain that the contribution is "very significant?"
I think Bob poured 4 gallons of water in my gas tank last night. You think Bob poured 2 gallons of water in my gas tank last night. Some guy on the internet argues that we can’t be certain precisely what effect water has on a gas tank.

There’s disagreement over the specific degree to which Bob contributed to my car problems today. There’s broad consensus that Bob made a significant contribution. Despite the open questions, there’s no ’scientific debate’ over whether my car has begun running poorly or that Bob contributed to it.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Well, there’s a specious difference Jon must insist on to try and save face.
You inability to read plain english, or unwillingness to comprehend nuance is not my fault.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
I think Bob poured 4 gallons of water in my gas tank last night. You think Bob poured 2 gallons of water in my gas tank last night.
Well then this should be very easy to answer. Does "very significant" mean 4 gallons or 2 gallons? And in comparison to what?

If you gas tank is 10 gallons, Bob’s contribution is "very significant". If it’s 200 gallons, not so.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
There’s disagreement over the specific degree to which Bob contributed to my car problems today. There’s broad consensus that Bob made a significant contribution. Despite the open questions, there’s no ’scientific debate’ over whether my car has begun running poorly or that Bob contributed to it.
If that’s the open-ended standard you want to use, there’s no difference between spitting in the ocean and the Exxon Valdez..
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Well then this should be very easy to answer. Does "very significant" mean 4 gallons or 2 gallons? And in comparison to what?
Either would be significant. I drive a car, not a battleship.

Similarly, the evidence indicates that man’s contribution is significant. Apart from the scientific research on actual effects, as Easterbrook argues, "if natural variation were causing obserbed warming, then one would have to explain how large amounts of heat-trapping gases could enter the atmosphere and yet have no effect."

Please read the FAQ to which I linked. The research indicates that none of the natural phenomenon can possibly explain all of the acceleration in warming.

And that’s part of the problem. You appear to be unaware of the actual scientific research. You’re well aware of the criticisms, but you make criticisms as if scientists researching this sort of thing had never looked into it. As if they’d never considered modeling problems, natural variations, solar variations, etc.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Jon,

Um... if you are saying the debate on human contribution is over the precise amount, similar to your gas tank example, then you misunderstand the debate. That seems odd since you say above that the agreement ranges from a few percent to 100% of the change in temperature is manmade. That seems a far bigger and more meaningful difference than your gas example. Both examples may show consensus, but the climate one shows a range which has startlingly different implications, the gas tank example doesn’t. If the 1 degree change in temperature is only 25% due to human activity then it is a non issue, or at least it is a non-issue to change human behavior. We still might want to alter the climate to offset the natural rise, but I digress. Smaller amounts become laughable. If all you mean by consensus is that the vast majority of scientists believe that humans have influenced climate to a trivial degree then there never has been a debate and everybody should just go home. You have told us nothing we didn’t already know.

As I have stated before, I am generally in agreement with you, primarily for the reason expressed in Easterbrooks quote you cite. However, If you take everyone whose data and conclusions as scientists challenge the narrative of groups such as RealClimate and use their similarities as saying they largely agree, then of course their is consensus and I don’t see any reason to argue any more. Obviously however, they are arguing. One thing Dr. Pielke is arguing is that whatever he believes (in that sense he is similar to myself) we are nowhere close to being able to intelligently understand or diagnose the issue. Pielke regularly challenges the certainty you seem to feel is justified by the "consensus."

Now during this whole exchange you have regularly claimed that you are saying nothing more than the three claims you make above, but you are actually saying something more. You are saying that those who are in that consensus have a strong enough case to warrant the kinds of actions you advocate. Pielke however is within that consensus and rejects that conclusion at this point. He rejects as settled many of the implications of the consensus you say has been achieved including how warming affects climate and whether the climactic and/or warming patterns are harmful. Will sea level rise? Pielke isn’t sure, whatever he may believe. Pielke seems to understand the difference between proof and belief, Hansen, who is a wonderful scientist, doesn’t.

More importantly I find the claim Pielke is being misused tough to take. Once again, Dale saying he found his view more reasonable than yours in no way means Dale agrees with Pielke. Nor is it relevant. Pielke has several points in his view that Dale finds interesting. Mr. Pielke doesn’t get to claim foul (not that he would) because Dale uses his points or beliefs in ways he wouldn’t approve. I find this tactic tiring and it is used all the time. Skeptics look at research which calls into question some aspect of the catastrophic global warming case and then Real Climate runs the scientist out to denounce those who are misusing their research, because of course they believe in global warming accompanied by some reasonable explanation as to why the data isn’t necessarily damaging to the case. That is pathetic. It is poor argumentation and even worse science. The recent findings on the arctic are a problem for global warming. Can they be explained? Yes. Does that mean the sea won’t rise more than otherwise? No, but it means the models and other science will have to account for the data, and it may mean that warming or no warming we don’t know what will happen to the arctic and self satisfied claims that those who are not sufficiently alarmed or want to leave the case open a while longer are no better than the Intelligent Design crowd may have to wait. More importantly, scientists and others have a right to use the research without being accused of misusing the scientists research and misleading people.

You can’t take the unobjectionable stance of a consensus plus broad agreement that you outline above and make it sound benign while throwing all those who fall out of one or all of the points as equivalent to evolution deniers or flat earthers. The science is nowhere near that strong yet. I don’t see how we can pump all this gas into the atmosphere and not affect the climate, but I am not ready to claim Dale needs to join William Jennings Bryan in the scientific slammer beause you, Real Climate and Al Gore have decided to bulldoze away all the areas of deep ambiguity. The consensus has been way off before, nothing in our present society makes me believe it can’t happen again whatever my level of belief.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Either would be significant. I drive a car, not a battleship.
Well we’re talking about the globe’s gastank, not yours, so how big a tank is that? And what are we contributing?

What constitutes "very significant" to that tank?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Jon, you’ve overstated your claims and made a fool of yourself. There is no meaningful nuance between "broad agreement" and "consensus".

Deal with that.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And that’s part of the problem. You appear to be unaware of the actual scientific research. You’re well aware of the criticisms, but you make criticisms as if scientists researching this sort of thing had never looked into it. As if they’d never considered modeling problems, natural variations, solar variations, etc.
But Jon, you seem to be claiming that because they can’t explain the rise by use of these variables that that proves something, but it doesn’t. The fact is they can’t explain the rise due to anthropogenic factors either. At this point they are just saying that because we can’t explain things whatever is left must be anthropogenic. Maybe, maybe not. The fact is we don’t understand the variables well enough to claim any such thing. Are they doing some good work to narrow the chase? Yes. Case closed? That is silly. What they are doing is known as data mining, sophisticated data mining, but still data mining. It doesn’t prove what you think it does. All it does is lay out the possible parameters provided we understand the other variables relatively well. The skeptics would rightly point out that we are not sure we understand the other variables or how they interact, and even if we did what if there are vaiables unaccounted for?
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Look,

You can quite possibly smoke two packs a day for sixty years and still never get lung cancer or heart disease. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Look around, Global Warming is but one aspect of the plethora of problems brought on by our dependence on fossil fuels. Even if there is no consensus regarding how much we are contributing to the problem, it’s still a great idea to begin figuring out a solution.

But hey, I work in the oil bidness and I’m just loving $70.00 a barrel oil and all the goodies that come with it. So if everyone chooses to keep their head in the sand it’s perfectly OK by me.

I’ll be able to afford the air conditioning and filtration systems.
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had."

— Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming" (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html)
 
Written By: Jonathan Ellis
URL: http://
Greetings from 1750!

Claim:

Combustion is caused by the removing of pholgiston from the inflammable substance. Things stop burning in sealed containers when the air has been saturated with phlogiston. (scientific consensus)
 
Written By: Thaddeus
URL: http://
Greetings, from 1850!

Claim:

Light travels as a wave through the luminiferous aether.. (scientific consensus)
 
Written By: Thaddeus
URL: http://
We’re all generalist here. We have no choice but to debate this subject in generalist terms using generalist tools and conventions. We’re not going to be able to use a general debate to arrive at a specialized conclusion any more than specialists can use a specialized debate to arrived at a general conclusion. This also relates to Hayek’s distinction between between large complex phenomenon versus small complex phenomenon.

The biggest problem I have with the general debate as Jon is presenting it is that he cites a consensus of polling where specialists are asked general questions and then their general answers are in turn are presented as evidence of a specialized conclusion: the general consensus of climatologists that we are seeing global mean temperatures increase and that some portion is anthropogenic means that a CO2 driven (and to a lesser extent methane driven) greenhouse effect is the cause of the warming and can and should be mitigated with government regulation.

No offense, seriously, but this is bullsh*t.

Second, after slogging through all of the links Jon and others have provided I am, as a generalist, more convinced than ever that we are looking in wrong place to find an understanding of anthropogenic global warming simply because the light is better. Or, more accurately, the government money is better.

Any of us can look at the temperature maps on the nightly weather report and see right in front of our faces indisputable evidence of anthropogenic global warming: Cities and towns are always several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. Yet this "heatsink effect" is barely mentioned on the IPCC’s website. The IPCC, like most other sources of global warming study, is focused like a laser on the idea of CO2 driven global warming, and heatsink/land use data, as well as various hydrologic data (such as it exists), are all thrown into a bit-bucket of also-ran variables in the CO2 models. In general, these other areas of study lag years behind the CO2 (and to a lesser extent, methane) studies.

My point here is that the science isn’t the only thing driving Jon’s scientific "consensus." There is also a huge technocratic political component directing the science with their funding toward a predetermined set of conclusions that— surprise!— feeds the technocrats’ political interests, making the effect of the technocrats’ influence over the conclusions of the science difficult to understate.

Hey Lance!

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
[Dale’s response, which belongs in comments or in its own post]

"Jon’s treatment of my use of Dr. Pielke is false and pejorative. My only characterization of Dr. Peilke was that he was a "Colorado State university climatologist and professor". Jon implies that that I mischaracterized Dr. Pielke’s position on climate change, by using the tag: "on to the next scientist...that can be mischaracterized". Dr. Pielke’s view of the scientific consensus, which I quoted, is at the top of every page on his web site. This is a dishonest and unfair representation of my use of Dr. Pielke, and I resent it.

This is also the second time on this issue that Jon has taken what a fair reading of the text indicates is a cheap shot at me. (He changed the first instance at my private request.)

I don’t particularly care how we snipe at each other in the comments, but if this is the type of low blow that can be expected on the front page of this blog, then I recommend a ban on this particular subject. Obviously, it is one that evokes such strong feelings in some of us that it hinders civility."
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
In response to Dale:

You argued with my assertions about the degree of consensus and the state of the scientific evidence. In doing so, you cited a scientist whose conclusions you thought were much more ’reasonable’ than those I’d put forward.

It just turns out that he doesn’t actually disagree with the points I made about the state of the science. Now, I’m sure you didn’t intentionally mischaracterize him. He certainly believes what you cited, but that is neither particularly responsive to the arguments I’ve made, nor a comprehensive list of his views. As it turns out, a more comprehensive list indicates that he agrees that there is a "substantial human forcing of climate change including the subset of climate change that is referred to as “global warming".

As with the "hockey stick fraud" so often cited (by others), I’m sure you didn’t intentionally mischaracterize it. But the characterization was misleading and incomplete.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"absolute consensus"

Come on, that’s a joke, right?

"and there is scientific unanimity. (which does not mean scientists don’t disagree, but they don’t do so scientifically)"

Hah! I was right, this is a joke. The more I read this, the funnier it gets. I must admit, this is funnier than my theory of air conditioning & refrigeration, which is at least coherent. I’m done, on to the next thread, where hopefully there will be a rousing discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Have fun.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Jon,

I am sorry, but Dale is right. If Roger Pielke’s view of human influence on warming is correct then Pielke disagrees with you. He believes human produced GHG emissions have accounted for at most, read that again, at most 28% of the observed warming trend. He also questions the implications of such warming. Dale says this view is more reasonable than yours. How the heck can that be a mischaracterization? If Pielke’s view is where science will ultimately settle then he is an eye lash from Lindzen. If that is your point we can say there are no skeptics and who the hell have you been attacking? You can win the argument over what you meant then but it is irrelevant because this whole discussion is pointless. Your original posts were irrelvant because you were saying nothing. If the tent is so large as to include Lindzen and Pielke then you, Dale and McQ have no argument and you need to seriously work on how you express yourself.

Of course I don’t believe that for a second. I am worried that the contribution far exceeds 28% so far. If it doesn’t then we have nothing to worry about and there is no problem. I believe that is what you are arguing for as well, and the case is decent, though not solid. It is decent enough to pursue some no regrets policies at minimum and argue for nuclear power. If you are only saying that human’s have likely had a small impact on temperature trends then why send us to Real Climate and Environmental Defense who are arging for something far more serious?

Finally, I reread the Environmental Defense and Real Climate discussion of the Mann controversy. Pathetic. There are kernals of truth in there, but mostly it is spin. Mann’s models may eventually prove to be fairly close to the truth, but the summaries you have pointed us to have almost none. Spin is actually being too kind to some of what the Environmental Defense article claims. Some is just plain old falsehood. I wouldn’t be tossing out anything about people mischaracterizing that controversy if the sources you point to are these. Houses, glass, throwing stones.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Lance wrote:

"If that is your point we can say there are no skeptics and who the hell have you been attacking? You can win the argument over what you meant then but it is irrelevant because this whole discussion is pointless. Your original posts were irrelvant because you were saying nothing."
Give that man a kewpie doll!!!

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Lance, I’m not sure where you jumped in, so I’m not sure what your perception of the controversy is. The specific percentage that Pielke attributes to greenhouse cause is fairly irrelevant, especially since the difference is not in whether humans contribute a significant degree, but the specific kind of anthropogenic mechanism in which he believes. I made no comment at all on the specific anthropogenic mechanism.

In any event, I’ve repeatedly stated that opinions vary on the degree, so calling my position unreasonable by pointing to a fellow who is solidly within the spectrum that I said existed is an absurd way to disagree with my unreasonable positions.

I’m not sure what you objection is on the hockey stick issue, either. That particular paper is corroborated by quite a few others, so even if the error was not relatively minor and we threw it out entirely, it does not change the other research.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Jon,

I have been following the entire way. If Pielke is in your tent of reasonable objections than what are you arguing for? I remember you suggesting this was a significant problem caused by anthropogenic green house gases requiring policy changes to combat and those denying this were right up there with those pushing intelligent design. Pielke is denying that, or at minimum feels it is highly unlikely. Pielke doesn’t like the term "climate change skeptic, or denier" which I completely understand. The terms are misleading since essentially no one is arguing the climate isn’t changing or that humans do not effect it. The argument has been to what extent is it a problem, to what extent is it caused by human activity, what kind of human activity is altering the climate, and what kind of ations can we take and are appropriate? Your view as you expressed in the post that started this recent QandO row is significantly different than Pielke’s. Dale feels comfortable with his view and not yours. That seems pretty darn reasonable, moreso because as I have allowed these posts to drag me back into the research I am coming to feel closer to Pielke than you and Environmental Defense. Regardless of my evolving view, how has he misused Pielke?

You say that you have repeatedly said opinions vary on degree, but nobody is disputing that, or that you said it. Degree matters for the same reason dosage matters in looking at pesticides. People who feel we overegulate cancer causing compounds are not arguing that they don’t cause cancer, but that at the levels we regulate it is not an issue. Right or wrong that is the argument. If someone got up and said "science’s consensus view is that this is a major problem requiring government intervention" and justified the statement by saying everyone agrees that the compound causes cancer I would know to safely ignore them. He could produce all the surveys showing scientists all agreed it causes cancer they wanted, but it is he who is mischaracterizing the science. The same applies here. Lindzen, Pielke, Singer and a host of others have been challenging the science and bristling at the suggestion of consensus by some scientists and environmental organizations. Their issue is that matters which have essentially never been controversial are used to justify positions on matters for which there is a great deal of controversy. In the Global Warming camp Pielke is solidly off the reservation as is Lindzen. Dale used him appropriately and you should admit this. Emotions on this are running high and you were unfair. Dale has been unfair in the past, no big deal, but unfair you were.
I’m not sure what you objection is on the hockey stick issue, either. That particular paper is corroborated by quite a few others, so even if the error was not relatively minor and we threw it out entirely, it does not change the other research.
I am not sure I agree that it has been effectively corroborated, but maybe so.

My point was about you claiming people were misusing the Mann controversy. On this issue I am pretty set, it is Environmental Defense, Real Climate and their allies who have misused this controversy. They have slandered the critics, misrepresented the arguments, tacitly given in on many points while still claiming the critics are arguing in bad faith and refusing to acknowledge the critics were right and take back the smears and then pretended they have answered all the objections when they have manifestly not. Real Climate has been dishonest about this and their behavior from the get go. Mann still will not fully release the data and algorithms used and Environmental Defense has the gall to act as if the problem is that the critics didn’t use the right data and algorithm’s? A large part of the critics complaint is that they have to reverse engineer everything to figure out what Mann is doing. The upshot is that it is very unfair of you to claim that people are misusing the Mann controversy while endorsing the dishonest claptrap on the issue from those you link. As I said before, Mann may in the end be shown to have been close to the mark whatever the problems with his paper, but Mann and his defenders are the problem, not his detractors.

To sum it up, Dale hasn’t been guilty of what you charge. He may be wrong on the science, time may tell, but he has not been unfair in endorsing what he feels are the more reasonable views of Pielke as compared to yours whatever superficial similarities may exist between you and Pielke’s present view. If you feel your views actually are closer to Pielke’s than we all seem to be assuming here then what you really need to do is apologize for being unclear and withdrawing the policy suggestions you made in the first couple of posts. Why? Because they don’t make sense if there is no GHG caused crises. If all that has happened so far is less than 1/3 of a degree of warming due to anthropogenic GHG’s only no regrets policies make sense, sea levels will not rise appreciably more than they would otherwise, the impact will be minimal. Obviously you don’t believe that or you wouldn’t have said otherwise, but if I am wrong clear it all up and just say that in retrospect the difference between you, Dale and McQ is minimal and irrelevant because there are no major policy differences.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Better that I learn to breathe underwater than ever give in one inch to environmentalist commies.

So the "science" doesn’t really matter, does it?
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://www.no-treason.com
Pardon me for saying so, but the document by the EDF is bogus. First of all, consider the source. The EDF is essentially a political organization of the far left:

http://discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6940

Not only do they have a political axe to grind, but they stand to benefit financially from people believing that that environmental calamities await us at every turn.

Their rundown of the science is obviously biased. For example, the largest greenhouse gas is water vapor, which is around 3-5% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is around .035%. Water vapor has at least 100 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide, yet the phrase "water vapor" is not even uttered in the EDF document.
 
Written By: Joe Williams
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider