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

 
Global Warming: Preparing for the new hysteria
Posted by: McQ on Monday, February 05, 2007

I offer this article from a Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology, Dr. Timothy Ball, as food for thought. Dr. Ball's Ph.D (Doctor of Science) is from the University of London, England and for 32 years he was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg.

You need to read the article in its entirety. However, there are a couple of parts I want to highlight:
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Ball does not deny that warming is taking place. But he does says the evidence that it is caused mainly by man is not at all convincing. And I think his point concerning the genesis of this belief - and to this point that's all it is - is compelling.

However, more chilling than consensus being accepted as science is the political nature of the debate today. That and how skeptics who point to the bad "science" involved are being characterized as belonging to a group like holocaust deniers.

Ball says there is no compelling evidence that man is the major contributor to global warming. But saying that labels him as a "denier". And being a denier carries an ominous meaning within scientific circles today. For whatever reason, a skeptic, which all good scientists should be, is now a "denier" on this particular subject area. That's a dangerous development, and, as he notes, has led to numerous personal attacks against him.

The second point:
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
Ball reiterates what has been said many times by true scientists - consensus among scientists does not make something a scientific fact. As he points out, consensus among scientists as recently as 30 years ago claimed global cooling was occurring (although, apparently, they didn't try to pin that on man).

Anyway, this is presented as the other side to the political hysteria which will soon wash over us all as those who know the least about all of this decide what to do about it.

Read Dr. Ball's article and don the skeptic's hat before buying into "consensus science", and oxymoron if ever there was one.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
But those cute polar bears are DYING I tell you! We HAVE to sign Kyoto now to save them- and save ourselves from the wrath of Gaia!

Don’t tell me about global warming please, it was 8 degrees this morning. If global warming is responsible for destroying the polar ice, you’d think it would be a tad warmer than 8 degrees, no?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
There are scientists who don’t believe in the big bang, and you can find biologists who don’t believe evolution (though that’s more rare). One of the authors of the report in describing the detail they went through in getting and dealing with comments noted that it is a consensus, one of the most broad agreements in the scientific community today, but there will always be some who are of a different opinion. I suspect many listen more closely to those few dissenters not because of the science, but because of their political leanings. That is not rational. Clearly in science courses across America, this is being taught as a fact of science (just as the Big Bang theory is, and evolution).

Moreover, when you look at all the CO 2 that has been dumped in the air, model the impact you’d expect that to have, and then compare it with the data, the evidence is extremely powerful. But people can choose to hold beliefs about science based on their political convictions. We have the freedom to be stupid.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Don’t tell me about global warming please, it was 8 degrees this morning.
Well then, it’s settled.

*sigh*

I have a tough time with this debate because I simply do not have the technical/scientific expertise to do anything more than parrot the words of people who know what they are talking about (from either side of the debate).

The politicization of this debate is most frustrating, with ideologically inclined people always finding science to back up their point of view.

I tend to agree that the consensus is accurate, that human activity is contributing to global warming, but I am also content to fight that consensus until or unless it is inescapably proven... and THEN we can sign the Kyoto Treaty. Maybe it will be too late then... but if that’s the case, it’s quite possibly too late already.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Even if you don’t know, you can consider using the Precautionary Principle to advocate less emissions.

I have a question for the economists:

With free trade for example, even if the other country is protectionist, you are still better off free trading with them, no?

Then shouldn’t the same apply in the situation of global warming? Shouldn’t Europe and others strictly curtail their emissions no matter what the US does?

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Awww geez guys...the earth has been warmer before, it’s been cooler before. Before we were even down out of the trees.
The geologic record demonstrates the overall temperature usually is, on the average, warmer than it is now.

The weather forecasts can’t even get a good prediction on a weekly basis, and yet you’re prepared to lock yourself into predictions that are going to span years and decades. Best of all, prepared to spend massive amounts of money, and alter economies based on your ’hopes’ because man, mostly Homo-UnitedStatus, essentially evil, needs to be brought down a peg or two and stop acting all high and mighty (and rich).

Are you, Dr Erb, and Captain Sarcastic prepared to give up your California Chardonnays and your Wisconsin cheeses at your intellectual parties? Are you prepared to drastically alter your life styles to help save the climate? After all, your social consience should put you in the fore-front of cutting back on anything that causes carbon emissions (like trucking cheeses and wines from Wisconsin and California to Orono Maine, Dr Erb). Are you pledged to carbon neutrality in all things?
No, probably not, it’ll be for the prols to sacrifice, you thinkers will of course not be subject to the standards of the common (evil Red State Republican voting mindless) man.

But I’m not surprised you’d have the hubris to think we can stop the activities of natural forces, after all, you have the hubris to think man (again, mostly Homo-UnitedStatus) is the primary cause of it all.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice the simularities between the runup to the "Iraq War" (now believed to be a mistake by some) and the argument and possible runup to the "War on Climate Change".

Both were/are a "rush" (LOL). The "Iraq War" (was actually a continuation of the 12-year old Gulf War) was simmering 12+ years. The "War on Climate Change" is an even bigger rush in the standard time units governing climate measurements.

Both were/are/will require a large commitment of resources. Billions for the "Iraq War". Trillions for the "War on Climate Change."

Best of all, the same bozos who were "misinformed" on the "Iraq War" will make the commitment in regard to the "War on Climate Change." What makes anyone think that they won’t be "misinformed" again ?

Hey .. it’s not their trillions that they will authorize. Most of it will come out of your pocket .. and your kids.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Sometimes the dissenters are correct. Sometimes the dissenters are just wrong. If a dissenter from a consensus viewpoint happens to agree with your own gut feeling on an issue, how do you evaluate the trustworthiness of the counter-majoritarian analysis?

I’m not entirely sure. But here’s a few tips:

1. Do the dissenters have an internally consistent and logical theory of their own?

2. Do they have an explanation as to why the majority is wrong?

3. Do the various dissenters band together or are they willing to be blunt that factions within the dissenters are wrong?

4. Can the majority, in a calm and measured manner, respond concisely to the arguments raised by the dissent?

5. How does the dissent respond to the majority’s comments?

Using this approach, it appears to me that both the HIV —> AIDS dissenters and the Anthropogenic Climate Change dissenters are both incorrect. Your mileage may vary. But try reading RealClimate.org’s history of posts and comments or try Tim Lambert for a while before being too sure that there’s a vast conspiracy of communists/socialists who want to tax the US into oblivion.


 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
It is nice to see someone reference Thomas Kuhn"s "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." I actually believe that humans are contributing in a number of ways to global warming, but in acknowledging that any one who has read Kuhn has to be concerned with the way the science is being portrayed, the eliding of significant issues about what global warming (or climate change in general) means and the unwillingness to express doubt or even honest debate about what the implications are.

For example, Roger Pielke and a number of others produced a paper that claims that of anthropogenic influences CO2 is responsible for less than 30% of the warming observed so far (if I understand the paper correctly.) If true, and it seems intuitively obvious that a vast number of things we as humans do affect the climate (as do other species) the range of policy choices are very different.

Unfortunately few people remember Kuhn it seems in this whole debate.

Even if you don’t know, you can consider using the Precautionary Principle to advocate less emissions.
Hmmm, given the huge cost versus disagreement about what exactly is causing rising temperatures mightn’t the precautionary principle argue against expensive policy changes now? There are unanswered questions that could lead to significant differences in the impact of continued CO2 emissions regardless of the underlying agreement. Thus causing sure damage for an uncertain benefit is a bad deal under the precautionary principle.

For one thing, the models have now been made to approximate what has happened so far, a big improvement though still disturbingly inexact to me. However, many of the projections for the future are based on speculation that they cannot adequately test. This leads to other scientific disciplines issues with the climate researchers. Historians, geologists and other researchers keep bringing up the Medieval warm period. James Hansen argues the evidence that this period was warmer than today has not been proven, but even if so, it has not been disproven and so is an issue in estimating the impact of warming. I also think it is interesting how smug he (and others at Real Climate) are about asking people to move forward based on incomplete, if compelling, science, but are unwilling to account for the science and overwhelming historical evidence of the medieval warm period and its implications because it is "unproven."

How is this issue (and only one) of import? Well, if many of the claims of rising sea levels depends on the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice sheets (Only the parts on land count, the melting of ice sheets on water don’t change much, and the press constantly misses this. Remember Archimedes in the bath tub.) it is a pretty big issue that the world was not in catastrophic shape at a time when historians and others claim that Greenland was, well, Green!

So contrary to Erb’s self satisfied crap about consensus science there are huge issues in analyzing this, and handing it all to climate modelers and ecologists is a big issue. This is being addressed in fits and starts, but the precautionary principle cuts both ways, though proponents rarely acknowledge that.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Don’t tell me about global warming please, it was 8 degrees this morning.
Well then, it’s settled.

*sigh*
Yes, it is. Whenever it’s a slightly warmer than usual day, all we hear is "it’s global warming!" so I feel quite good about rebutting it in the exact science-less way
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Clearly in science courses across America, this is being taught as a fact of science (just as the Big Bang theory is, and evolution)
Well, hopefully, science teachers have a better grasp on this than does Erb.

Evolution comprises both fact and theory. The fact that we share common ancestors with other species is the FACT of evolution. However, the THEORY of evolution undergoes constant change as we are better able to explain how evolution takes place.

Likewise, there are accepted facts about how the universe has changed over time. The Big Bang is a THEORY explaining how those changes probably occurred.

So when you claim that evolution and the big bang are taught as "facts" you’re oversimplifying how they are taught by competent teachers.

Of course, we’ve seen many times how Erb’s definition of a "fact" is quite different than how most people use the word, so we shouldn’t be surprised by this.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I suspect many listen more closely to those few dissenters not because of the science, but because of their political leanings. That is not rational. Clearly in science courses across America, this is being taught as a fact of science (just as the Big Bang theory is, and evolution).
Or that people are joining the consensus because of their political leanings. In Erbys world, only those who disagree with him have suspect reasons.

Of course, consensus a few decades ago was all global cooling hysteria. And prior to that, overpopulation.

Keep picking one, you may be right eventually.
Moreover, when you look at all the CO 2 that has been dumped in the air, model the impact you’d expect that to have, and then compare it with the data, the evidence is extremely powerful
Oh please, they can’t even model a "simple" thing like the weather next week. Computer modeling is a great tool but is not the end all be all. Garbage in, garbage out as the saying goes.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
”… it is a consensus, one of the most broad agreements in the scientific community today, but there will always be some who are of a different opinion... That is not rational. …Clearly in science courses across America, this is being taught … “
Well, well. Our resident “libertarian” “read the books and form your own opinion” guru once again has independently arrived at a conclusion that just happens to agree lock, stock and barrel with the Liberal Narrative. One more in a long string of coincidences. And he is enthralled by the consensus and broad agreement. And certainly it is relevant that it is being taught in campus courses across the country (checked the content of humanities courses on your local campus lately?). I am no scientist, but I prefer the logic in Mr. Frank’s post to that contained in Professor Erb’s (non-political, of course) comment. Poor, deluded holocaust-denier me (just thought I’d beat Professor Erb to that punch). Given his political leanings, Professor Erb is very rational to jump on board the Narrative, despite the fact that he knows not what it is.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Well, well. Our resident “libertarian” “read the books and form your own opinion” guru once again has independently arrived at a conclusion that just happens to agree lock, stock and barrel with the Liberal Narrative
Amazing how that happens, isn’t it?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
1. Do the dissenters have an internally consistent and logical theory of their own?
2. Do they have an explanation as to why the majority is wrong?
3. Do the various dissenters band together or are they willing to be blunt that factions within the dissenters are wrong?
4. Can the majority, in a calm and measured manner, respond concisely to the arguments raised by the dissent?
5. How does the dissent respond to the majority’s comments?
1. 10,000 + years of sunspot activity matching global temperature trends.
2. A) The original post B)The majority claims 100 years of data, but other than European and American stations, there has only been consistent monitoring for 50 years tops. This may be due to the predominant ’Eurocentric View’ of the West, it doesn’t really matter why
3. Majority wins on this question. As stated earlier, no one has proven predictions for global temperatures and weather can’t be forecasted more than a week in advance. The point of the dissenters is to get the majority to try evidencing first, then theory, not solving the entire mystery of the climate before presenting a case.
4. As shown in the original post and on the Weather Channel, CNN, etc.: NO
5. In the rare cases where #4 is a Yes: By going back to long term evidence.

Using this approach, the dissenters have four points out of five. Welcome to the dissenters, Francis.

 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
I will relate this to you all, because the basics of it bear rather directly on this topic;

Recently I was advised by one of the left that the whole global warming thingw as too much population. I responded:

How would you prefer we address the problem? Seriously. Various forms of birth control have ravaged the various cultures that have tried it. Take China, as an example. The free rein of abortion has all but removed the French and Germans from the face of the planet, and per capita birth rates are already down in the US. I mean, really… what’s your solution? Are we going to kill off a few billion people to re-attain this rather arbitrary population density?


Of course at that point the discussion wandered into: "It’s already too late, we’re doomed’.

The point I’m making is one looker makes... these people never look at the consequences of what they propose.

Nor do they, for whatever reason, explain why despite our "sins" against the environment, we’re still here, even.

With so large a disconnect, it’s logical to ask if there is not some other motive.. and Boortz addresses this one well...
Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don’t feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.
A quick look at those arguing for the continuance of the myth of global warming in here, should show a rather nice meshing between their politics and Boortz’ description.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Shark:

It’s going to be 80 degrees in Los Angeles today. In the middle of "winter". We’ve only had about 5 or 6 rainy days since Spring of last year.

I’m scared.
 
Written By: Mandatory Global Warming Classes Now!
URL: http://www.petitiononline.com/gorefilm/
Scott Erb wrote:
Moreover, when you look at all the CO 2 that has been dumped in the air, model the impact you’d expect that to have, and then compare it with the data, the evidence is extremely powerful. But people can choose to hold beliefs about science based on their political convictions. We have the freedom to be stupid.
I freedom which I believe you are giving quite a workout in this case.

Unless something has changed dramatically in the last six months, we have no models which can replicate the present based on the data we have concerning the past; not to within the accuracy required to make predictions about the future, not on the order required to estimate anthropogenic global warming.

Hence I will not be surprised if in thirty years we’re all supposed to be in a panic about global cooling.

Once again then, leftists will demand that we not just stand there, that we do something.

Something collective, compulsory, and relatively impoverishing.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Are you.... Captain Sarcastic prepared to give up your California Chardonnays and your Wisconsin cheeses at your intellectual parties?
Beer, preferably an India Pale Ale, and chicken wings (perferably about a 20000 Scoville rating) for me.

More importantly, how do you justify this reponse...
"After all, your social consience should put you in the fore-front of cutting back on anything that causes carbon emissions (like trucking cheeses and wines from Wisconsin and California to Orono Maine, Dr Erb). Are you pledged to carbon neutrality in all things?
No, probably not, it’ll be for the prols to sacrifice, you thinkers will of course not be subject to the standards of the common (evil Red State Republican voting mindless) man.

But I’m not surprised you’d have the hubris to think we can stop the activities of natural forces, after all, you have the hubris to think man (again, mostly Homo-UnitedStatus) is the primary cause of it all."
To this statement from me...
I tend to agree that the consensus is accurate, that human activity is contributing to global warming, but I am also content to fight that consensus until or unless it is inescapably proven... and THEN we can sign the Kyoto Treaty. Maybe it will be too late then... but if that’s the case, it’s quite possibly too late already.
Do you need to break it down and simplify?

I said we should NOT take any major steps now and keep contesting the global warming science until or unless it is irrefutable.

In other words, I am probably in agreement with you as to what we should DO NOW.

Do you just assign points of view to people without actually paying any attention to what they say?

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
It’s going to be 80 degrees in Los Angeles today. In the middle of "winter". We’ve only had about 5 or 6 rainy days since Spring of last year.

I’m scared.
RUN, RUN FROM THE WRATH OF GAIA!!! MUHUHAHAHAHA!

Oh yeah......this:
Jan 16, 8:35 PM (ET)

By OLIVIA MUNOZ

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked the federal government Tuesday for disaster aid because of an ongoing cold snap that has destroyed nearly $1 billion worth of California citrus, and industry officials said shoppers will feel the sting through higher prices for oranges, lemons and other produce.....
And a question regarding this:
February 2, 2007

Global warming unstoppable for centuries

By SETH BORENSTEIN

PARIS (AP) - Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world’s leading climate scientists and government officials. Yet, many of the experts are hopeful that countries will now take action to avoid the worst scenarios
So Erb, if this is your precious consensus, why do we even need to bother? If we can’t stop it for centuries, why shouldn’t I at least enjoy my comfortable SUV?



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Wait a minute:

The latest U.N. report shows the "warming" debate is far from settled.
”The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions… More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions.
…It’s worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel’s work.”
Sigh. Just another of my "All substantive, all the time" comments.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
It’s going to be 80 degrees in Los Angeles today. In the middle of "winter". We’ve only had about 5 or 6 rainy days since Spring of last year.

I’m scared.
Heh - you’re scared - contact the Anasazi about choosing to live and build cities in certain locations and how that works out in the long run.
And these dudes in ancient Peru too -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0723_elninoperu.html

Here’s the other problem with the Global warming alarmists -
You seem to think that because the climate (in your area, perhaps) has been conducive to your lifestyle up until this point in your existence that Nature must maintain that climate as is for the remainder of your lives, and the lives of your children.

So, like California wanting power for their lights, but NOT the power plants for producing it, and the water for their pools, but at the expense of people on the upstream end of the aqueducts, the Global Warming alarmists are certain to want THE REST OF US to change with, if you please, minimal impact on their lifestyle to ensure this guarantee they expect from Mother Nature that they will continue to enjoy balmy skies, days at the beach and cool evenings spent in intellectual pursuits.
I foresee a massive group of east and west coast NOT IN MY BACKYARDers dictating to the rest of us how we should cut back and suffer for the(ir) common good.
Do you just assign points of view to people without actually paying any attention to what they say?
guilty, as charged, in this instance.
But Cap - No, I apologize for tossing you into the hand wringer pit, clearly I was wrong to do so. I’ve obviously gotten ahead of myself in rushing to judgements, rather ironic under the circumstances.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
1. Do the dissenters have an internally consistent and logical theory of their own?
2. Do they have an explanation as to why the majority is wrong?
3. Do the various dissenters band together or are they willing to be blunt that factions within the dissenters are wrong?
4. Can the majority, in a calm and measured manner, respond concisely to the arguments raised by the dissent?
5. How does the dissent respond to the majority’s comments?
1. The anthropogenic warming dissenters have something better than a logical theory, and that is actual temperature measurements. Temperatures over the last 60 years have not tracked at all with anthropogenic CO2 emissions or any other known forcing.

2. Why should dissenters be required to explain actual temperature measurements? The scientific method requires the believers in anthropogenic warming to explain the lack of temperature data backing up their claims, not the other way around.

3. Since when does the scientific method require consensus or organization?

4. In some cases yes, in some cases no. When a meteorologist from the Weather Channel calls for the decertification of dissenters, that’s not very calm.

5. While certainly a goal to strive for, what does civility in discourse have to do with the scientific method?
 
Written By: BrianOfAtlanta
URL: http://
…It’s worth noting that many of the policymakers who tinker with the IPCC reports work for governments that have promoted climate fears as a way of justifying carbon-restriction policies. More skeptical scientists are routinely vetoed from contributing to the panel’s work.”
But....but....according to Erb, only those who dissent from the consensus are doing it because of their own irrational political leanings. Now you tell me that some of the people pimping out this consensus are doing so because of their political leanings?

SAY IT AINT SO!!!!!!

I am now shedding a single tear, American-Indian style for the death of the rationality of the blessed consensus
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Can someone point me to a graph or some data that shows a constant increasing of Co2 levels with a corresponding constant increasing of global temperatures lasting for longer than 40 years.

Also, can someone please explain why most of our increase in planetary temperature took place before 1940 at the start of the industrial revolution, but not as much since that time when CO2 levels skyrocketed?

Also, can anyone explain to me why the global temperature has been decreasing for the last 10 years as China is getting ready to pass the US as the worlds largest contributor of greenhouse gases?

Thanks.
 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
Moreover, when you look at all the CO 2 that has been dumped in the air, model the impact you’d expect that to have, and then compare it with the data, the evidence is extremely powerful.
Eh? CO2 forcing performs as the log of CO2 concentration, with the most forcing per ton of CO2 at lower concentrations. Yet contrary to what we would expect from CO2 forcing, there was a general lack of warming from the 1940s to 1970s. That’s hardly "extremely powerful" evidence.
 
Written By: BrianOfAtlanta
URL: http://
"...people can choose to hold beliefs about science based on their political convictions. We have the freedom to be stupid."
Got that irony meter fixed again. Found the above stuck in the evaluator matrix.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
That’s hardly "extremely powerful" evidence.
It is if you WANT it to prove your theory.

Some people are waiting for the world to end in Revelational Apocalypse.
Some are waiting for Lucifer’s Hammer (the dinosaur killing comet or asteroid).
Some are waiting for Yellow Stone to blow half the continental US away.
Some are waiting for Global Warming to cause tornado’s, hurricanes, coastal flooding, plague, famine, whatever.

(Some are waiting for the computers to cause massive failures at Y2K...)

Did I say waiting? Sorry, I meant hoping.

And these people will make fun of guys buying guns and building bunkers in Montana.

Some want it to happen because they want control, at least I can understand this sort.
The rest? I don’t know - but consider the immense popularity of ’end of the world’ movies. Maybe they figure they’ll be the happy ending survivors after the rest of us have been eaten by the walking global warming zombie dead before Dustin Hoffman comes up with the cure?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
3. Since when does the scientific method require consensus or organization? It doesn’t, but public health policies do.

What vaccinations should be given? At what age? Should free-riding (i mean, voluntary non-compliance) be allowed, or is this an area where consent is a condition of citizenship?

how much arsenic should be in drinking water? how much lead?

what standards should be imposed on emissions of sulphur oxides, nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds into the air?

what are the safe levels of pesticide in foods?

etc.

Consensus is critical to establishing public health policies. the alternative is, literally, TB wards and polio kids.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
"Moreover, when you look at all the CO 2 that has been dumped in the air, model the impact you’d expect that to have, and then compare it with the data, the evidence is extremely powerful."

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could state what percent of the atmoshere is CO2. Feel free not to include water vapor. Then we can see for ourselves what the above statement really means.

thanks
 
Written By: OdysseusInRTP
URL: http://
Tim Ball: "CFC’s were never a problem.... it’s only because the sun is changing." (Source)

Now that’s a scientist I know has to be correct! Especially when he writes an essay about global warming and cites no actual scientific evidence in it.
 
Written By: George
URL: http://www.gimme-five.com
Consensus is critical to establishing public health policies. the alternative is, literally, TB wards and polio kids.
Okie fine, so, just as they proved that polio was preventable, and that polio treatments would work -
1) prove that man is the primary cause of global warming.
2) Demonstrate that the recommendations to be implemented will halt or minimize Global Warming to a degree worth the investment made.

Notice, I’m granting to 95% certainty that Global Warming is, in fact, taking place, so there’s no need to prove that to me.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
How many of these scientists could spend thier time reseaching ways to make the planet cleaner without hurting humans existence? They all seem to have been caught up in the whole global this or that thing instead of just inventing stuff to help.

If I had the choise between funding a person who was trying to make a new technology and funding someone who spent thier time trying to figure out how messed up we our, I would choose the technology person.

They sure are spending alot of man hours on doing nothing instead of coming up with answers.
 
Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://
I tend to agree that the consensus is accurate, that human activity is contributing to global warming, but I am also content to fight that consensus until or unless it is inescapably proven... and THEN we can sign the Kyoto Treaty. Maybe it will be too late then... but if that’s the case, it’s quite possibly too late already.
Sign Kyoto? Whatever for? The projected results from Kyoto are so small that it’s a joke.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I find the idea, that "climate change" must be, in large part, to human activity, a completely narcissistic fanasty, that should be filed right next to the "earth is center of the universe" theory.

 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
3. Since when does the scientific method require consensus or organization? It doesn’t, but public health policies do.

What vaccinations should be given? At what age? Should free-riding (i mean, voluntary non-compliance) be allowed, or is this an area where consent is a condition of citizenship?

how much arsenic should be in drinking water? how much lead?

what standards should be imposed on emissions of sulphur oxides, nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds into the air?

what are the safe levels of pesticide in foods?

etc.

Consensus is critical to establishing public health policies. the alternative is, literally, TB wards and polio kids.
Erm.......wha? Most of what you state here really isn’t based on consensus, but facts. I mean, politics aside, I’m fairly confident that we know what the optimum age for innoculations is, and how much arsenic in our water will kill us if we take a drink
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I mean, politics aside, I’m fairly confident that we know what the optimum age for innoculations is, and how much arsenic in our water will kill us if we take a drink
In the last days of the Clinton administration, they tightened rules on arsenic in drinking water. The Bush admin rolled back the Clinton rules, with good reason: more people were likely to die from the Clinton rules than were saved.

Reducing arsenic in drinking water isn’t cost free. Consequently, costs and benifits have to be weighed. But you are right: it isn’t about consensus, it is about facts and analysis.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Unless something has changed dramatically in the last six months, we have no models which can replicate the present based on the data we have concerning the past; not to within the accuracy required to make predictions about the future, not on the order required to estimate anthropogenic global warming.
Amazing how people ignore and denigrate science when it conflicts with their political program. Such refusal to accept reality reminds me of how the Communists similarly put theory ahead of reality even as their reality was collapsing around them. Beware of political dogmas and strict ideology-driven beliefs. That is usually a path to irrationality.

What to do about this is unclear; I am not promoting Kyoto. But we have to accept reality and take science seriously. Science has done a lot of good.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott,

I suggest a scientifically and logically appropriate response to this:
Unless something has changed dramatically in the last six months, we have no models which can replicate the present based on the data we have concerning the past; not to within the accuracy required to make predictions about the future, not on the order required to estimate anthropogenic global warming.
would be this, or something like it:
"Why yes, see the model presented by Dr. Relaxen undVach Dasblinkenlyts. It replicates the recorded temperatures vs sum of inputs to within 0.1 degree with no known contradictory results."
Instead you wrote:
Amazing how people ignore and denigrate science when it conflicts with their political program. Such refusal to accept reality reminds me of how the Communists similarly put theory ahead of reality even as their reality was collapsing around them.
Which is nothing more than sad, frantic handwaving on your part. You’re blowing smoke since you cannot reply to the fact that no models of climate now existing can take the known conditions of the past and arrive at a solution which is consonant with the present.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
But we have to accept reality and take science seriously. Science has done a lot of good.
Dr. Erb - A.D.2007
KNOWLEDGE IS GOOD
EMIL FABER
FOUNDER - A.D.1904
We are taking science seriously, which is why many of us would like to see some applied before we dash off, Queen of Hearts like and implement the sentence before we have gotten the verdict.
Amazing how people ignore and denigrate science when it conflicts with their political program. Such refusal to accept reality reminds me of how the Communists similarly put theory ahead of reality even as their reality was collapsing around them. Beware of political dogmas and strict ideology-driven beliefs. That is usually a path to irrationality.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument
.
Nice job there convincing me that you and the Global Warming ClimaTerrorists have got a lock on things.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Which is nothing more than sad, frantic handwaving on your part. You’re blowing smoke since you cannot reply to the fact that no models of climate now existing can take the known conditions of the past and arrive at a solution which is consonant with the present.
Do you want me to post the UN report? Sheesh. It was a massive study, generated over 30,000 comments, all of which were dealt with, with oversight from a variety of scientific organizations. I’m reacting to their detailed study. You are the one handwaving. Since I am not cut and pasting the specifics of the report, you say I can’t reply?!? Face it, global warming exists and people have caused a good portion of it. Or deny it, but you deniers are looking more and more like those who don’t think Apollo 11 landed on the moon. But hey, if you don’t take seriously anything that disagrees with your premises then clearly your opinions are set, reality be damned!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

Do you want me to post the UN report?
No, just the part that predicts 2008’s mean temperature.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
Do you want me to post the UN report? Sheesh. It was a massive study, generated over 30,000 comments, all of which were dealt with, with oversight from a variety of scientific organizations. I’m reacting to their detailed study.
The detailed study hasn’t been published, yet. All we have now is the summary compiled as much by politicos as by scientists. When the detailed study comes out, we’ll have actual numbers to argue. Until then, I’ll stick with what we know from the thermometers, no matter what the IPCC Summary says.
 
Written By: BrianOfAtlanta
URL: http://
Ryan, dude you are brutal. You can’t expect a leftist to deal with reality.
No, just the part that predicts 2008’s mean temperature.
Three points, man.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
how much arsenic should be in drinking water?
Barring any study recently concluded or presently underway, science indicates that the present level is fine. Of course when Bush rescinded Clinton’s running-out-the-door Executive order, Bush was eviscerated - on bad science. Extrapolating from studies showing positive health benefits in a reduction from 200 ppb to 50 ppb (arsenic in drinking water), Clinton, and the WHO decreed that further reductions from 50 ppb to 10 ppb must be better. This however, is scientifically unfounded - it may be true, but until research shows this, it is merely politically expedient conjecture. Remember, Fluoride can kill yet we brush our teeth with it every day.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Better yet Scott, where’s the part of that report which predicts the average of the last five years as a function of human activity and will predict the temperature average of the next five years as a function of human activity?

It’s not a fair question, I know no such model exists.

That’s why for all it’s length and the names on it, that report is a political and not a scientific document.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Do you want me to post the UN report?
Since you mentioned it Scott....

February 2, 2007
Global warming unstoppable for centuries

By SETH BORENSTEIN

PARIS (AP) - Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world’s leading climate scientists and government officials. Yet, many of the experts are hopeful that countries will now take action to avoid the worst scenarios
So again, the report you’re waving around as gospel says that global warming is unstoppable for centuries. So I ask you, why should we bother with it then?

Since we’re screwed, lets enjoy our SUV’s, yeah?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Or deny it, but you deniers are looking more and more like those who don’t think Apollo 11 landed on the moon
AD HOMINEM!
Amazing how people ignore and denigrate science when it conflicts with their political program. Such refusal to accept reality reminds me of how the Communists similarly put theory ahead of reality even as their reality was collapsing around them. Beware of political dogmas and strict ideology-driven beliefs. That is usually a path to irrationality
AD HOMINEM!

That makes you a hypocrite x2!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I must conclude that, like a typical liberal, you do not read links, or you would not have the temerity to post:
”Do you want me to post the UN report?”
Followed by:
But hey, if you don’t take seriously anything that disagrees with your premises…”
Your premise is (apparently) that the UN report is the be-all and the end-all of this matter. I would suggest that (which I linked above)this:
”Last week’s headlines about the United Nations’ latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. …The IPCC report should be understood as one more contribution to the warming debate, not some definitive last word that justifies radical policy change. It can be hard to keep one’s head when everyone else is predicting the Apocalypse, but that’s all the more reason to keep cool and focus on the actual science. [my emphasis]
disagrees with your premise. You are obviously not taking it seriously, or you would be refuting it instead of posting:
”Do you want me to post the UN report?”
How can we take you seriously when your own comments - damn your own comments? And you are so arrogant (or, in this case, ignorant) that you don’t even notice?
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Sorry. I meant to bold FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL SCIENCE in the above quote. As opposed to the political hyperbole favored by Professor Erb.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
While I can’t vouch for the site, there is a seemingly good case made on the site linked below that there was, in fact, no scientific consensus on global cooling in the 1970s. The they-were-wrong-before argument is an appealing argument and arguments of the type can sometimes be right in the Thomas Kuhnian Structure-of-Scientific-Revolutions sense.. but the entire argument is predicated on an apples to apples comparison. If there was no consensus then and there is consensus now, the situations are meaningfully different.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

=darwin
 
Written By: Darwin
URL: http://www.nuclearbeef.com
Cycles.

Around 2 months ago someone at Q&O Blog declared glowball warming was real and ridiculed dissent, as I recall, and today McQ presents an alternate case.

The inferred record of temperatures from ice cores, tree rings, agriculrural sites, and other sources extends back with some general reliability in the northern hemisphere many thousands of years. The variation seen in the last several thousand years is not unusual, nor is the variation in the last 100 years. There are books and papers on this, but most are in libraries, not on the internet.

The celebrated "hockey stick" has been questioned on statitical methodology by qualified commenters and seems to have been quietly withdrawn. The most recent media articles were based on a draft written by policy types and lacking the underlying scientific assessments. Some of the scientists raising objections in earlier versions have been banned from contibuting to this version. Grant money flows to those proclaiming doom, but not to those questioning doom. We are beginning to see a popular delusion developing. Must we also endure the madness of crowds before this too passes?

Alternate explanations, including the influence of the sun and its cycles and other factors, are mostly ignored. Since the irreversible warmers contend that anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses released by population and technology are principally responsible for influencing temperature, make a case that takes us from the cycad coal swamps of Illinois to the present where these factors are primal.

Saying "Interesting theory, but you have not proven your case" is not denial but rather the Missouri motto: Show Me.
 
Written By: Tee Jay
URL: http://
Here are the two extremes:

1. We do nothing, and find out later that it was real. Sorry about that Madives vacation we had planned.

2. We do something (but that does not necessarily mean Kyoto) and if we are proved wrong, then we are left with a bunch of nuclear power plants and less reliance on oil - gee that’s horrible.

I guess there could be the result that we do everything in our power and it still happens due to natural events...


 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Harum;
The ’environmentalists’ pushing for extreme action on global warming are mostly the same ones opposing nuclear power, so #2 is not really an option. And no one arguing that humans are causing global warming says it can be reversed without extreme action.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
2. We do something (but that does not necessarily mean Kyoto) and if we are proved wrong, then we are left with a bunch of nuclear power plants and less reliance on oil - gee that’s horrible.

I guess there could be the result that we do everything in our power and it still happens due to natural events...
If you want to limit your actions to nuke power and less usage of oil, that’s sensible and something we should be doing regardless of any global warming. But it’s when the proponents start to talk about economy killing drastic measures that it’s over.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Do you want me to post the UN report?
So, you actually have a copy you can post?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
An interesting discussion of whether or not libertarians can get along with liberals could use the behavior of Professor Erb on this thread as an example:
”Why not… try to forge a common bond between libertarians and liberals?
Briefly, my answer boils down to two points.
...2) I find it a challenge trying to persuade religious conservatives to loosen the relationship between their religious beliefs and their political agenda. However, I find it even more of a challenge to deal with the Left, where their political agenda IS their religion.”
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
could use the behavior of Professor Erb on this thread as an example:
What behavior is that? You’ve been quite personal in your attacks, I’ve avoided that and tried to stick with issues. Perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror, you are sabotaging any attempt at reasonable discussion by refusing to actually deal with an issue and instead simply insulting.

I note one thing which apparently irks you. People tend to search for evidence that supports their political bias or ideology rather than trying to keep an open mind and consider the evidence. The fact that so many people want to simply ridicule what one person called ’global climaterrorists’ rather than say, "gee, if so many scientists are convinced, and the data seems unequivocal to the vast majority of experts, might now something be there?" No, apparently that violates your pre-determined political position. And the scientific consensus is not just among liberal scientists. Most people don’t see the world through lenses that define everything as liberal or conservative.

I am not liberal, conservative, libertarian, or anything. Ideologies are straightjackets that tend to simply give people an interpretation of reality into which they try to jam all evidence and data, defending their beliefs rather than thinking critically, with a willingness to change position.

Also, given the potential ramifications if the predictions of most experts are true, wouldn’t it be prudent to take them seriously? Why simply dismiss such a broad scientific consensus because there are some scientists who might question it? Why not work towards more clean coal, more nuclear power, other alternate sources? The White House and President Bush has gone along with the UN report, and the President has said global warming is a serious challenge. Why are some so hesitant to actually admit that there could very well be a problem, and one that humans have had a role in creating? Are you really looking at the science, or are you being driven by your political preferences?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
What behavior is that? You’ve been quite personal in your attacks, I’ve avoided that and tried to stick with issues
We’ve cited several instances of you doing the thing you decry every 5 seconds.
Are you really looking at the science, or are you being driven by your political preferences?


One could ask you the same thing. You don’t even seem to know exactly what the science in question is.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Why not work towards more clean coal
I’m guessing you’re not a professor of chemistry. You do know that coal is comprised of carbon, right? And when you burn carbon you get...wait for it....carbon dioxide.

Tom Perkins has tried to engage you rationally by pointing out that there is no existing climate model that can take known data from 50 years ago and come up with anything close to today’s climate. Given that fact, how can anyone state with any degree of certainty what the climate will be 50, 100, or 150 years from now? But you step around that question.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"KNOWLEDGE IS GOOD
EMIL FABER
FOUNDER - A.D.1904"

Great line. It took me a while to remember that.

***************************
"The detailed study hasn’t been published, yet."

Right, only the summary produced by the political hacks, and look at all the sound and fury it has generated. I look forward to the publication of the actual scientific study, and predict a resounding silence when it is.

***********************

"how much arsenic should be in drinking water?"

It depends on whose drinking water you are talking about.

********************************
"I’m guessing you’re not a professor of chemistry."

No, it is Political Science. You will note that the ’P’ word precedes the ’S’ word. And it has always been my contention that linking the two words is a corruption of the second word in service of the first.


"The inferred record of temperatures from ice cores, tree rings, agriculrural sites, and other sources extends back with some general reliability in the northern hemisphere many thousands of years."

I have often wondered how much actual geography all those cores, rings, etc. cover. There may be considerable difference in measurements over a relatively small distance. Is there one source that can provide, for example, a map showing where all these samples were taken? And what about the oceans? There is a rather substantial portion of the Earth’s surface where such samples would seem to be, to me anyway, rather difficult to take.

******************************
"Why not work towards more clean coal, more nuclear power, other alternate sources?"

We already were, even before the Global warming hysteria. The problem is that environmentalists oppose any use of coal or nuclear power or, as we see in Mass., other alternate sources.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Regarding alternate sources of power.
There is a geothermal electricity generating plant in Hawaii that I am familiar with. It has been opposed on, among others, religious grounds. Wind power is opposed not only for its scenic pollution but for its detrimental effect on migrating fowl and bats. The only kind of electrical energy approved by some environmentalists is static electricity, and that only if produced by organic materials produced and processed in an earth friendly way.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
’global climaterrorists’
Catchy ain’t it? Wish I’d coined it, but alas.

What am I to call these people who first tell us we’re causing global climate change, then tell us we must stop it, then tell us that even if we stop what we’re doing that’s allegedly causing it, it’s going to continue for hundreds of years anyway, and we’re all going to....well, whatever.

It strikes me that when you make dire predictions, backed by imprecise science, and are prepared to savage economies, cause turmoil and scare the be-jesus out of people nationwide, if not world over, with (uncertain, and unverifiable) predictions of massive weather disasters to come, you’re practicing a form of terrorism.

You may see it as Science, I see it as scare mongering.
Much the same as I see telling small children they’re going to hell because you don’t want them stealing cookies from the cookie jar.

What you cannot accomplish by reason, you implement by perpetuating a climate of fear.
Terrorism.
And worst of all, they won’t ever be held accountable for it should they turn out to be wrong.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Suggestion for Professor Erb. Print a copy of this thread. Take it to one of your friends in the Psychology Dept. Explain to that person what you think you are doing here. Hand them the printed thread. Allow them to digest it. When they begin to speak: Listen.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Some afterthoughts on your discussion with a professional. When you prepare the printed copy, circle this:
“I am not liberal… “
Not that there is anything wrong with that. Oh, and ignore any comments about other commenters.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Damn! I should had said: "any remarks from the professional" instead of "comments". Sh*t. making jokes on the internet is different, that’s all I can say.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
You do know that coal is comprised of carbon, right? And when you burn carbon you get...wait for it....carbon dioxide.
Do a google search on clean coal technology. It reduces carbon dioxide emissions considerably. Perhaps you shouldn’t jump to insults. Clean coal technology is burning coal WITHOUT the CO2 emissions.

And another poster wrote:
Suggestion for Professor Erb. Print a copy of this thread. Take it to one of your friends in the Psychology Dept
Why do you only troll? You don’t engage, you just insult and evade. It’s OK for people to disagree, and if they engage each other and listen to each other, then perhaps they can have a productive discussion. I’ve been convinced to change my mind by such talks. But you just insult and evade. Why?

And yet another poster:
What am I to call these people who first tell us we’re causing global climate change, then tell us we must stop it, then tell us that even if we stop what we’re doing that’s allegedly causing it, it’s going to continue for hundreds of years anyway, and we’re all going to....well, whatever.

It strikes me that when you make dire predictions, backed by imprecise science, and are prepared to savage economies, cause turmoil and scare the be-jesus out of people nationwide, if not world over, with (uncertain, and unverifiable) predictions of massive weather disasters to come, you’re practicing a form of terrorism.
Actually, the writers of the UN report are careful to point out that they don’t want to fear monger, they just want us to think about next steps. I think we should take it seriously, even if we can be critical of the findings. I don’t think it makes any sense at all to just attack the findings of such a large number of respected scientists, or to turn this into a political football. This seems to be a problem; what should we do? Is Kyoto an answer? Nuclear power? Can clean coal technology provide energy without the CO2 emissions? It can’t hurt to take this issue seriously. It makes no sense to view it from a political standpoint rather than one informed by the science.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Do a google search on clean coal technology. It reduces carbon dioxide emissions considerably. Perhaps you shouldn’t jump to insults. Clean coal technology is burning coal WITHOUT the CO2 emissions.
What did I say that was an insult? Are you a chemistry professor, after all?

I did do a search, and the "clean coal" technologies still produce carbon dioxide. They just store the CO2 and pipe it off somewhere else. Color me unimpressed. One of the things they do with the CO2 is use it to produce more oil...kinda funny to me.

It’s impossible to not produce CO2 when burning coal. That’s just a fact of chemistry. What’s done with the CO2 afterwards hardly mitigates the production.

You still haven’t addressed the contention that there’s no existing model that can accurately predict climate changes with historical data. I’ll bet a nickel that you won’t ever addrss that point (most likely because you know it’s a loser for you).


 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Professor Erb, you slut, (there’s another adjective there, but I don’t remember it). I AM engaging. See above for my substantive link that you have ignored. It is YOU who have chosen not to engage. I suggested professional help because you truly seem to not be aware that you are not responsive to information that is inconsistent to your original thesis. YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIVE TO INFORMATION THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR ORIGINAL THESIS!
OK, due to simple projection, you accuse everyone else of NOT BEING RESPONSIVE TO INFORMATION THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR ORIGINAL THESIS.
Ugh, I know that I am wasting my time. You cannot process the above information. Your lack of response to prior comments (not mine!) confirms the diagnosis. Get some help.
In the alternative, re-read my prior comments and discern my substantive disagreement with your thesis and make some attempt to rebut it. A mere twitch of a finger will suffice at this point. I am sure that we are all cheering for you. You can do it.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Tom Perkins has tried to engage you rationally by pointing out that there is no existing climate model that can take known data from 50 years ago and come up with anything close to today’s climate.
The man still says out loud that leaving South Vietnam in the lurch was the best decision to be made at that point—even now that we have the benefit of hindsight.

You can’t expect much.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I don’t think it makes any sense at all to just attack the findings of such a large number of respected scientists, or to turn this into a political football.
Two points -
1) there are considerable engines at play attacking respected scientists who disagree with the premise that Global Warming is being caused by man. To the point where a government employed weather scientist has essentially recommended they be defrocked (if not tarred and feathered) for daring to question or argue.

2) The UN, being a political body, can do nothing BUT make it a political football.

Wish as one may - it will be turned into a political effort to level the playing field, forcing the haves to trade their emissions with the have nots in some bizarre Kyoto like scheme where each country owns portions of atmosphere that can be traded (and of course some collection of someones will profit immensely from this scheme). The developed nations will be forced to scale back, or invest in new technology at great economic expense, which they’ll be obligated to hand to the have nots, while the have nots will be allowed to continue their generation of green house gases, unabated or increased as if their CO2 is somehow less harmful, because scaling them back might bruise their economies. As an interesting sidebar in doublespeak the planners will tell us these efforts won’t drastically damage economies while telling us the have-nots cannot change their ways because it will drastically damage their economies.

And all this will be done as a result of using predictive models that can’t accurately tell you what the temperature or weather will be next month, let alone ten years from now and founded on the principle that the cycle is man made and can be halted, rather than natural, cyclical and unstoppable.

I’m eager to hear someone explain how it will not be politicized.

Notherbob - the adjective you were seeking was ’ignorant’.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I AM engaging. See above for my substantive link that you have ignored. It is YOU who have chosen not to engage.
OK, I’ll engage. We’re not going to prove or disprove the consensus view in a blog debate. I originally was skeptical about global warming theories, especially in the early nineties. What really convinced me was talking to scientists about it, as well as looking at the preponderance of evidence and the way that in the last five years the scientific consensus has grown. Those are facts that you can’t deny; linking to one dissenting voice doesn’t make those facts any less real.

So we can skip that. The real question is: what do we do? Does the existence of some dissent, as small as it may be, mean that we should ignore the broad consensus? Or is the evidence strong enough to warrant taking this issue seriously? If so, how should we as individuals respond, what should policies be? My view: a) personally try to use less fossil fuel and live a more energy modest lifestyle — I’ll reduce my consumption by 20% in ten years like the President asked; b) I would like to see more investment in clean coal technology (designed to reduce or eliminate green house gases from coal), nuclear power (uranium is limited and fusion unlikely, but this can serve a niche), with expansion of solar and other alternative energy sources.

Although I’m skeptical about the value of the Kyoto protocols, I’d sign on in part to pressure countries like China and India who ultimately could be punished if they don’t work to have cleaner development (China is already realizing the need for this thanks to their massive pollution problem). Anyway, the protocols have been weakened so much that it won’t cost the economy much, but might be a good way for shared efforts at improving technology.

If all this is done, and it turns out that the few dissenters happened to be right (unlikely, but possible) then we’ll still be less dependent on foreign oil, and have a more sophisticated and developed energy sector.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Now address the potential that it’s natural, and that we can’t halt it.
Many of us aren’t trying to deny it may be occurring. We’re concerned that rather than spend the money trying to learn to live with it, we’re about to be forced to spend the money to try and stop it when it cannot be stopped..

Think of it as believing we are better served spending the money to build boats to rise with the tide, as opposed to spending money to employ thousands of workers to pointlessly shovel sand against it.
In a figurative sense if you play the cards right, when the sudden realization hits that the water is rising regardless of what we are doing to halt it, we may have crippled our capacity to build boats for everyone courtesy of our attempts to scale civilization back.
who ultimately could be punished
By the way, everyone is not going to work together on this, so, factor that into your plans.
I would be curious to know what sort of punishment you have in mind? The sort of punishment we give to North Korea? Perhaps the punishment we’re giving Iran for their seeking of nuke tech? The punishment we gave Saddam Hussein between 1991 and 2003? The punishment the United States gave Cuba once Castro came to power? What ’punishment’ do you perceive to be effective against rogue countries who will not cooperate? After all, I know imperialist aggression and country building won’t be a viable alternative for you, so I’m wondering what ou have in mind for this punishment plan.
You will surely need it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hey Scott,

Here’s China’s canned response to your pressure:

China’s view of Kyoto

China calling eco-Luddites:

"Fvck you!"

Because the models we have are not accurate enough to recreate the present from the past, they justify no alarms, they justify no policy, they excuse nothing.

Until Global Warming (TM) survives it’s version of Michelson’s experiment, it is nothing more than the aether. Something the scientific community commonly assumed existed, because,
"it figgered" according to "commonsense" rules of thumb that, "everyone knows" are true.

I’m embarrassed for you. Sorry, I am.

Even if the Global Warming people today turn out to be right, in 100 years it will regarded as coincidence.

You are someone who’s mind is so open (to new leftist ideas) you’ll let anything in. And to old received leftist wisdom—the rightness of screwing ourselves in Vietnam—there your mind is closed.

If you are not a perfectly doctrinaire leftist, you are 90% there.

You are being foolish.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
If all this is done, and it turns out that the few dissenters happened to be right (unlikely, but possible) then we’ll still be less dependent on foreign oil, and have a more sophisticated and developed energy sector.
And government coercion will have compelled spending for political as opposed to economic reasons, and we will all be poorer as a result.

Read Bastiat re the "Broken Window" theory of economics.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
We’re not going to prove or disprove the consensus view in a blog debate.
Translation: I don’t have any way to counter the facts you have provided, so I’m going to declare the subject closed.


With every post of yours, I become more relieved that my daughter isn’t thinking of attending college in Maine.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
I originally was skeptical about global warming theories, especially in the early nineties. What really convinced me was talking to scientists about it, as well as looking at the preponderance of evidence and the way that in the last five years the scientific consensus has grown. Those are facts that you can’t deny; linking to one dissenting voice doesn’t make those facts any less real.
Scott, that isn’t very impressive. Your facts seem to be other people’s opinions.

What convincecd me that GW has been occuring is that they figured out the discrepancy between satallite and ground data.

Now we need to resolve the extent it is man-made, what probably impacts are, and what we can and should do about it.
Until Global Warming (TM) survives it’s version of Michelson’s experiment, it is nothing more than the aether. Something the scientific community commonly assumed existed, because,
"it figgered" according to "commonsense" rules of thumb that, "everyone knows" are true.
Depends. If you mean GW as a recent measured trend, then there is solid data to back it up.

If you mean GW as a significant man-made problem we must solve, that’s another story.

Besides, Einstein notwithstanding, it just doesn’t make sense that light can have a fixed speed regardless of reference frame. There just has to be either . . . there has to!!!!
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Translation: I don’t have any way to counter the facts you have provided, so I’m going to declare the subject closed.
You don’t know how to translate (or else you are dishonest). It is pointless for non-scientists to pick and choose either from those few dissenters or from the vast consensus on global warming certain posts, link them, and demand the other side "disprove" that link. That is absurdity. To do that is your attempt to run away from the FACT that this is a wide scientific consensus, and that means something. You are the one running away, and refusing to deal with the issue at hand.

I’m embarrassed for you. Sorry, I am.

Methinks thou doth protest too much. Face it, there is a broad scientific consensus on global warming, you don’t want to believe it, so you search for articles that support your position and try to avoid reality.

Reality bites. Look at Iraq.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Reality bites. Look at Iraq
.

Right and as McQ pointed out -

Where there was a broad international intelligence agency consensus that the Iraqis were working on, and possessed, WMD.
Right up to the point where we invaded.

I don’t suppose we’ll be discussing the accuracy of that consensus however.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
It is pointless for non-scientists to pick and choose either from those few dissenters or from the vast consensus on global warming certain posts, link them, and demand the other side "disprove" that link. That is absurdity. To do that is your attempt to run away from the FACT that this is a wide scientific consensus, and that means something. You are the one running away, and refusing to deal with the issue at hand.
No, the "scientific" community is running away in endorsing the "consensus" that global warming is both substantially human induced and that it is also worth our while to spend the resources to stop inducing it. There is no proof of this contention. In fact, there is only a little contested evidence of that contention.

The dissenters point out flaws in the reasoning, data, and models underlying—emphasis on lying—the consensus; and then the people upholding that consensus do not answer the dissenters.

This means it more than reasonable to choose to side with the dissenters in this matter.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://

Where there was a broad international intelligence agency consensus that the Iraqis were working on, and possessed, WMD.
Right up to the point where we invaded.
Not really, a lot of Europeans weren’t as convinced as people now claim.

In any event, that isn’t the same as science.

Look, there is no rational way to simply dismiss the scientific community — a very successful community over the past century — when they reach such a broad consensus. To find dissenting voices and simply say that is enough to reject the consensus is irrational. McQ’s post was using Kuhn, who argued that there are simply different paradigms (rather than objectively progressive science). I find that an oddly post-modern move to try to rationalize rejecting the scientific community.

Now, it is of course possible that this consensus is wrong, but you can’t assume experts to be wrong. And when it looks like the reason for rejecting the experts who have spent years gathering and studying data is just political bias, then that simply is not rational. It is a rejection of reason. Even President Bush has recognized that, and in both the SOTU and in numerous interviews (including signing on to the UN report) has noted the challenge of global warming. Seriously, people who reject this level of science out of political bias discredit themselves.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Now address the potential that it’s natural, and that we can’t halt it.
Many of us aren’t trying to deny it may be occurring. We’re concerned that rather than spend the money trying to learn to live with it, we’re about to be forced to spend the money to try and stop it when it cannot be stopped..
That’s legitimate, but I’m not sure how much money you think we’re going to be forced to spend. And the report does suggest that we can mitigate some of the worst possibilities. But before we can argue about whether certain ways of handling it make sense or not, we have to at least accept it exists, and CO2 emissions are likely at least a partial cause.

This is serious stuff. It is something that should transcend political ideology and bias, and should get everyone thinking creatively. I think we’re heading that direction, Bush’s admission was a big step. But you are right — we need to think seriously about what to do, and I could be talked out of Kyoto if I saw better options.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
One of my chief objections is the premise that the world must remain as is - that the glaciers, the Arctic, etc, remain, as is.
This is an extremely unrealistic way to engage the issue.
My expectation based on your experts conversations is they wish to maintain status quo, which, given warming may be a natural function of earth’s rythmns is impractical at best.
Hence my view that we are going to squander treasure in a vain attempt to keep the polar bears cold, the sea at a satisfactory level (only 8 feet above New Orleans), and so on.

As the situation becomes progessively more obvious, I expect the rhetoric to become progressively more shrill, the predictions more dire, the demands of the enviro-status-quo-terrorists more strident, and the government tendency to meddle more frequent.

In reality, if the world is becoming warmer, the sea deeper, I believe the normal market forces, the same ones that we saw take advantage of plentiful petro stocks in the last century, will address the issues as they arise without the need for massive government intrusion.

And yet, there are already cries for the government to ’do something’, as if flailing around in random attempts to address the problem is productive.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
One of my chief objections is the premise that the world must remain as is - that the glaciers, the Arctic, etc, remain, as is.
This is an extremely unrealistic way to engage the issue.
So far, we are in agreement.

My expectation based on your experts conversations is they wish to maintain status quo, which, given warming may be a natural function of earth’s rythmns is impractical at best.
Hence my view that we are going to squander treasure in a vain attempt to keep the polar bears cold, the sea at a satisfactory level (only 8 feet above New Orleans), and so on.
They know we can’t maintain the status quo, that’s clear in the report. And to me the issue is not polar bears or glaciers, but coastline cities, possible famines in Africa that would create a massive migration problem, and other human impacts. Perhaps the best thing to do is just to prepare for these changes; however, it seems that if we can move towards alternative energy sources we can reap other benefits such as not being so dependent on foreign oil, and perhaps avoiding an economic disaster when oil reserves start declining (peak oil theory says that’s soon, oil companies say that’s not for a long time, but why not diversify now and not be vulnerable)?

As the situation becomes progessively more obvious, I expect the rhetoric to become progressively more shrill, the predictions more dire, the demands of the enviro-status-quo-terrorists more strident, and the government tendency to meddle more frequent.
Perhaps, but I think a pragmatic approach would avoid either closing our eyes to the possibility our actions could help make the problem less severe or embracing some kind of radical environmental "status quo" policy.


In reality, if the world is becoming warmer, the sea deeper, I believe the normal market forces, the same ones that we saw take advantage of plentiful petro stocks in the last century, will address the issues as they arise without the need for massive government intrusion.

And yet, there are already cries for the government to ’do something’, as if flailing around in random attempts to address the problem is productive.
I don’t share your faith in the market alone to handle this. However, I can respect that position — that global warming is happening, it might have something to do with human activity, but the environmentalist demands are misguided and we should let markets handle it — as it is not trying to simply deny reality. I would prefer government policy that works with market forces and nudges them towards alternative energy sources. Markets are good at dealing with short term demand and supply issues, but handling environmental change that takes decades to really be felt and which can’t be affected for a maybe half a century isn’t something market forces alone can handle. Markets aren’t magic, after all.

But no solution now really gets at the heart of the problem: third world development is likely to increase the heavy polluting (such as China now). That is really where the problem is, and the only reason I lean to Kyoto is it has a mechanism for bringing in third world states (and recently China has signalled a change in heart, though officially they say they won’t talk until the US joins).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"With every post of yours, I become more relieved that my daughter isn’t thinking of attending college in Maine."

Yeah, but don’t you think you had also better find out where he got that doctorate?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Now, it is of course possible that this consensus is wrong, but you can’t assume experts to be wrong. And when it looks like the reason for rejecting the experts who have spent years gathering and studying data is just political bias, then that simply is not rational. It is a rejection of reason.

I don’t know, Scott. I don’t believe it’s a case of siding with dissenters, but rather rejection of "experts" reaching consensus without adherence to the scientific method. If one does not follow the method and still reach a conclusion, isn’t that a rejection of reason and irrational to a degree?
Further, to reach out and find folks who would agree without the hard evidence, would it be out of line to assume these folks would be more inclined to believe we are poor stewards of natural resources to begin with? Maybe these folks tend to believe it can’t be left up to private industry to effectively perform this function, we need some heavy government involvement. So could it be the very consensus itself is the product of political bias? Prehaps the rest are embracing reason and actually rejecting the bias?
 
Written By: happyfunball
URL: http://

Yeah, but don’t you think you had also better find out where he got that doctorate?


A doctorate is no more important than, say, a Mechanic’s certificate. It’s just proof that you learned your specialty. But mine is from the U. of Minnesota, a great school. Go Go Gophers (watch them go, go, go...)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
However, I can respect that position — that global warming is happening, it might have something to do with human activity, but the environmentalist demands are misguided and we should let markets handle it — as it is not trying to simply deny reality.
Funny thing is Scott, you’re saying you respect my position.

I’ve never said the globe isn’t warmer over the last century, I’m saying Global Warming (TM) is a hoax.

And it is.

Your interpretation of China’s stance is remarkably rosy.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Funny thing is Scott, you’re saying you respect my position.
Great, but not this part:
I’ve never said the globe isn’t warmer over the last century, I’m saying Global Warming (TM) is a hoax.
As conspiracy theories go, claiming that scientists from all over the world, from every political stripe, are all working together to create a hoax has to be one of the most wild. That’s up there with the "no moon landing" claim.

Another poster tried to claim that all these experts and scientists "aren’t using the scientific method." Apparently we are to believe that in these decades of work the scientists didn’t do science. The very absurd nature of these kind of rationales for rejecting the scientific consensus makes such attacks non-credible.

Look, a scientific consensus can be wrong. One this broad probably is not, but it’s possible. Yet one can’t ignore it, or simply seek dissenters and cite them as somehow invalidating the work of all the other scientists. That’s not rational. None of this addresses what we can or should do, if anything, about the problem. I’m simply amazed that people are so willing to not want to believe something just because it goes against their preconceived notions.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"possible famines in Africa that would create a massive migration problem,"

Yeah, we better hope that famines never happen in Africa.

"I would prefer government policy that works with market forces and nudges them towards alternative energy sources"

Sort of like what we have been doing since about 1973? Not to worry, though, I have it on good authority that nuclear fusion will solve all our energy problems within about 20 years(from 1974). We are on the verge of increasing confinement times by orders of magnitude in the next year or two(from 1974). Solar energy is only a few years away from being cost-competitive, wind...., nuclear..., blah blah blah. Does your retirement plan by any chance involve heavy investments in lottery tickets?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"I would prefer government policy that works with market forces and nudges them towards alternative energy sources"

Sort of like what we have been doing since about 1973? Not to worry, though, I have it on good authority that nuclear fusion will solve all our energy problems within about 20 years(from 1974). We are on the verge of increasing confinement times by orders of magnitude in the next year or two(from 1974). Solar energy is only a few years away from being cost-competitive, wind...., nuclear..., blah blah blah. Does your retirement plan by any chance involve heavy investments in lottery tickets
Hmmm, your logic is "alternative energies weren’t developed after 1973 so they probably will never be developed."

My advice: if you study up on these, you’ll find they aren’t just a few years away in most cases, and it would take considerable work. Yet would it not make sense to diversify our energy sources and not be so dependent? Or are you just a pessimist about technology and human ingenuity, believing oil is all we can rely on, and once it runs low, we’ll be out of luck? Given our past, it seems bizarre to think a belief in technological improvement is the equivalent of buying lottery tickets. Are you a ludite?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Hmmm, your logic is "alternative energies weren’t developed after 1973 so they probably will never be developed.""

Wrong. Try again.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Wrong. Try again.
Nah, if you can’t make a clear, cogent, argument, then it’s not worth it. I do think the US really should have invested a lot more in alternative energy back in the 90s when low energy prices could have subsidized a real effort to diversify and build to energy independence.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
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