House Approves Obama’s Useless Climate Change Bill
Friday, the United States House of Representatives approved president Barack Obama’s, Rep.Waxman’s and Rep. Markey’s climate change bill. With the bill, Obama delivers on his promise to radical leftists last year to ‘fight global warming’ by driving entire businesses into bankruptcy.
The 1,200 page bill — formally known as the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” — will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes.
The House climate bill, approved by a 219-212 vote Friday evening, would mandate that 15% of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020, potentially expanding the market and profit potential for companies in those sectors. Towards that goal, it seeks to boost nascent industries such as wind-generated electricity and solar power.
Which means that Al Gore will make even more money.
The bill is absolutely horrendous. As Heritage explains:
The 1,200-plus page Waxman-Markey climate change legislation is nothing more than an energy tax in disguise that by 2035 will raise:
Gasoline prices by 58 percent Natural gas prices by 55 percent Home heating oil by 56 percent Worst of all, electricity prices by 90 percent
Think that’s bad? Fear not, there is more:
In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.
But on second thought, cap and trade is much more than that.
It Kills Jobs: Over the 2012-2035 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). Particularly hard-hit are sectors of the economy that are very energy-intensive: Manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, electrical equipment and appliances, transportation, textiles, paper products, chemicals, plastics and rubbers, and retail trade would face staggering employment losses as a result of Waxman-Markey. It’s worth noting the job losses come after accounting for the green jobs policymakers are so adamant about creating. But don’t worry, because the architects of the bill built in unemployment insurance; too bad it will only help 1.5% of those losing their jobs from the bill.
It Destroys Our Economy: Just about everything we do and produce uses energy… The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.
It Provides Red Meat for Lobbyists: Businesses, knowing very well this would impose a severe cost on their bottom line, sent their lobbyists to Washington to protect them. And it worked. Most of the allowances (the right to emit carbon dioxide) have been promised to industry, meaning less money will be rebated back to the consumer. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey; they just shift them around…
There’s one thing the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill doesn’t do: Work. All of the above-mentioned costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree Celsius in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. In the name of saving the planet for future generations, Waxman-Markey does not sound like a great deal: millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature.
To summarize: this is one terrible bill.
I made a very long post on this that criticized the usage of Heritage as a good source for analysis of this bill (and HC reform) and I also added my own POV as to why the GOP failed to stop the bill and why these kinds of bills are important in the long term and not so bad in the short term. The internet took it, so with some annoyance I will only repost the links. I consider this analysis to be a good response to that of the lobbyist-beholden and far-right Heritage source:
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/whats_the_point_of_reducing_carbon_emissions.php
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/csteger/distorting_waxmanmarkeys_costs.html
Climate change is a win-win for Democrats. If the planet heats up, ice melts, and oceans rise, they win because they told us so. If their predictions are wrong and none of that happens, they win because it’s their legislation and activism that stopped it.
If the planet heats up, ice melts, and oceans rise, they’re as screwed as the rest of us. If their predictions are wrong and none of that happens, they will have some ’splainin to do considering they can’t prove the causation of a negative unless they have some science under their belts (and explaining yourself with science is somehow unacceptable to most voters in the world).
As I can hardly bear to address this issue without citing “far-right”, “lobbyist-beholden” sources, I’ll use the MIT study that when studied estimates household costs of roughly $3,128 by the year 2015. The study actually analyzes a number of plans, but the Sanders-Boxer plan detailed in the study is the one most analogous to Waxman-Markey. What is striking to me is the remarkable similariry to the study Wharton did 10 years ago reviewing the costs of adherence to Kyoto (which the “far-right” senate voted against 99-0, as I recall):
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf
BTW, while I often disagree with Brookings Institute’s analysis of various issues (or even more pointedly and further left, Center for American Progress), they are clearly within the mainstream of left-of-center thought, and I would not seek to mischaracterize them as “far-left”; although I would certainly characterize CAP as very liberal. Then again, in the Age of Obama, I suppose any position that opposes the destruction of the American energy industry and the subsequent impoverishment of millions of citizens looks positively reactionary in relative terms.
A 1500 page bill that robs red states to shift major money to blue states while doing almost nothing to afffet carbon levels, while inevitably driving even more industry offshore and impoverishing Americans. Gee, what’s not to love? If you hate America and Americans, that is.
Did ANYONE in the House actually read the thing? If so, they would have had to be major speed readers, as the final form was not available until 3am before the vote. In the last week alone it grew by about 600 pages.
Why most find unacceptable, Kast, is:
1) Claiming absolute truth to scientific theories that remain controversial and only partially supported by data. (Also, constantly lying about the fact that the supporting data is incomplete.)
2) Acting in ways that cause devastating economic damage while even at best providing no significant change in CO2 levels even if the AGW theory is true.
3) Loading up the debate with moralistic, self-righteous proclamations that insult those that disagree with you instead of actually debating their arguments.
Unfortunately, climate-change activists make a regular practice of all 3 of the above and then are shocked and dismayed when most voters in the world reject them.
Yes, but your only reason for rejecting them as a source was that you disagree with them ideologically. That is a really bad basis for rejecting them, since it results in automatically rejecting any source you disagree with.
Hardly new for you, but I’m going to call you out on it anyway.
Further elaborating on Tully’s point, 300 of those pages were added at 3:09 AM EDT, 15 hours before the voting process began in the House. If the bill could stand on its merits, there wouldn’t be the rush to push it through without a proper debate.
This, however, is the MO of the Obama administration – push through extremely complex, poorly written (regardless of ideology), contradictory and politically motivated regulations without debate or discussion, before anyone has a chance to find out what is actually in the legislation. We saw this on porkulus (or spendulus, if you prefer – just don’t insult anyone here by calling it stimulus), we saw it with the GM/Chrysler bailouts, are seeing it on health care, and we just saw it on cap-and-trade in the house.
Heritage does have a strong political agenda and so any report that they publish should be taken with a grain of salt (the same can be said of CAP). It does not necessarily mean that their analysis is wrong, but it does mean that I will not accept its conclusions without looking at the sourcing and underlying analysis.
Jason,
1) AGW is well supported by the data. Absolute truth or certainty is an impossible standard in both science and life in general. If we are to act rationally we must do so based on the preponderance of the evidence, not just the lack of certainty.
2a) The devastating economic damage is a hypothetical as well.
2b) On what do you base the claim that cap and trade will ‘at best provide no significant change in CO2 levels?
3) I see both sides ‘Loading up the debate with moralistic, self-righteous proclamations that insult those that disagree with you instead of actually debating their arguments’.
Right here in this thread we have,
and,
all in the space of the first five comments.
4) I also see a startling lack of understanding of the current science by most on both sides. This is particularly exemplified by the breathless coverage of record high days and record low days as though a single day or single year constituted a trend. It is idiotic rambling in search of political point scoring.
I don’t like the continued trend of long complicated bills rushed through congress without time for debate and discussion. As for the contents of the bill, I like most in congress have not yet read it so will reserve comment on its value for later.
“Claiming absolute truth to scientific theories that remain controversial and only partially supported by data. ”
Not very controversial if one asks the scientists most involved in the research of the particular field. AGW can definitely be considered a fact when one considers the future and economic equations. Once we reach 450 ppm, the effects will indeed be “devastating”. NASA’s leading scientist say the limit lies at 350 ppm, and we are currently at 385.
“Acting in ways that cause devastating economic damage while even at best providing no significant change in CO2 levels even if the AGW theory is true.”
If you ask Heritage (why would you, though?) this is indeed “devastating”. But in reality it is possible to tax and/or demand change in a way that gives mixed rather than “disastrous” economical results in the short term and is a wise decision in the long term.
“Loading up the debate with moralistic, self-righteous proclamations that insult those that disagree with you instead of actually debating their arguments.”
Me calling Heritage for what it is should be no more insulting than you describing other entities as far-left.
“Unfortunately, climate-change activists make a regular practice of all 3 of the above and then are shocked and dismayed when most voters in the world reject them.”
All three of your supposed accusations are far too general to encompass climate-change activism. It’s inaccurate regarding the consensus on AGW, it’s incredibly one-sided as to the economical realities of addressing climate change and it’s perfectly sensible to call Heritage both lobbyist-beholden and ideologically skewed to the point where they merely default to opinions rather than provide valuable analysis. As for your unanimous decision that I reflect these supposedly common sins of the environmental agenda, I have no interest in disputing your accusation because it lacks substance. It’s just straight out of the blue, completely arbitrary. It’s as interesting to me as a truther’s account of the 9/11 events. Climate-change activists do these three things? Sure, whatever you say. Did you know that Britney Spears and Bush are the same person?
When you cherry-pick out only the pieces that agree with your predetermined conclusion, it is easy to edit out all controversy.
If you cook the books and ignore basic economics, I am sure you can make it appear that you can artificially limit and tax energy production without raising its cost. But that’s ideological fantasyland, not reality.
Very interesting. This is your agreement that any entity that is “far left” is automatically wrong and need not even be allowed into the discussion, then? So you’re asking to have all your current and future comments ignored?
And if your position continues to be that they should be ignored at the point you label them as such, I can only assume that in fairness you will concede that YOU should be ignored because you are activist-beholden and ideologically skewed yourself.
Oh, wait. You want to be treated differently than you treat others? Imagine that. Double standards.
P.S. the off-topic subject change in your comment was edited out as will all similar efforts to redirect threads to your fave ranting points.
1) Available evidence shows that temperatures have leveled since 2001 while CO2 levels have continued to grow unabated. Sweeping claims that the preponderance of evidence supports AGW can’t overcome problems in the basic data. Also, since the IPCC and many other funding entitites grant funding exclusively to scientists who agree not to challenge the AGW theory, the political thumb on the scales makes just counting studies to be a bad way to measure the true state of scientific opinion on the subject. I flatly charge that some AGW proponents are cooking the scientific books and lying about it when challenged.
2a) All analyses, even those provided by cap-and-trade proponents, point to decreased economic growth as an inevitable and even sometimes essential and desirable part of the campaign to reduce CO2 emissions. Leaving aside empty rhetorical claims created for purely temporary public-relations campaigns, there is simply no evidence-based debate about economic impacts.
2b) Again, I am only using the actual numbers provided by the cap-and-trade proponents themselves. They suggest only a trivial impact to CO2 levels, especially since U.S. action does nothing to limit growth of CO2 emissions elsewhere in the world (and may even promote it by driving manufacturing to areas where they will not be limited by cap-and-trade as well as by other pollution limits). Also, the fact that CO2 reductions produced at trillions of dollars in cost from cap-and-trade will not be deemed sufficient even by AGW believers (who always point to the need for additional CO2-reducing policies down the nose — by their own words, cap-and-trade is just their camel’s nose under the tent) demonstrates that cap-and-trade won’t produce the impact thought necessary to solve the problem. (Edit: I found the actual analysis here. Unless, of course, the policy of ignoring everything from a dissenting source is a blanket policy, in which case I call “BS” on the whole thread.)
3) It is certainly true that both sides have people who use inflammatory labels as part of their arguments. I would argue, however, two things: First, the other side being bad does not mean it is ok for your side to do it. Second, only the AGW-believing side has made demonization of all opposition a consistent, universal, and central part of its public advocacy. AGW skeptics have been compared (unfavorably) to Nazis and mass murderers and these comparisons have not come from random people on comments threads, but from leaders in the AGW-believer movement.
4) I agree with this, but again find that the bad practice is far more common from the AGW-believing side. AGW-skeptics ask only that sound, non-politicized science be the foundation. AGW-believers consistently demand that normal scientific processes are too constraining in this case and demand that they be thrown aside whenever they conflict with their predetermined policy agenda. AGW skeptics call for more data. AGW believers try to whip up fear and hysteria to justify throwing all further scientific evaluation overboard. I don’t have a hard time picking sides here.
The temperature graphs (GIS etc) and analysis I have read do not back up that claim. The average yearly temps and 5 year averages of same are still trending up. 2008 was a dip and 1998 was a big blip (strong El Nino).
Do you have hard evidence for this?
Relative to current levels or projected levels?
Our position in regards to calling for other nations to limit their emissions is strengthened by our taking those initiatives. My understanding is that there are proposed greenhouse gas production tariffs included to discourage offshoring of greenhouse gas production. I’m not sure that language will survive the Senate, but it has been addressed.
No, but it removes it as a distinguishing characteristic.
I disagree entirely with that assessment.
Again I disagree with your assessment. The people who are most knowledgeable on the subject (those who study it) seem to come down overwhelmingly on one side. As far as the general populace goes (including the politically active) most do not seem to even understand what science is or have even a basic understanding of statistics. Without that base all they can do is make arguments based on authority.
What normal scientific processes have been thrown aside?
and some always will regardless of the amount of data collected. At some point (and I would say we have reached it) the data is compelling enough to call for action. Regardless of what actions we take we should and will continue to collect data and will continue to refine the theory.
What legitimate scientific evidence and evaluation has been thrown overboard?
Since the pro-AGW side uses definition tricks, denial of funding, and demonization (calling them “Nazis” among other things” to exclude every dissenter from the dataset of “people who are most knowledgeable on the subject”, that is unsurprising but also meaningless.
Discussion and debate about contrary findings, for starters. At the point that all dissenters are compared to “Nazis” by leaders of the AGW-believer movement while others suggest that they be put in jail, I think the normal process of scientific debate is definitely being short-circuited.
Again with the sneaky standard thrown in — of course, since the AGW-believing lobby has defined ALL dissent as illegitimate, you can safely ask the question that way.
Of course, I don’t have the time or expertise to do a comprehensive review of the literature on
global warming“climate change” (a new term was needed in order to make the hypothesis non-falsifiable, apparently). But after more than a decade dealing with what makes a good argument versus a bad argument in a variety of contexts, I am fairly confident when detecting efforts to cover up an argument that even the arguers know is weak. And the kind of name-calling, distraction, and breathless hyperbolic exaggeration that is the day-to-day NORM among “climate change” believers is the most clear case I’ve ever seen of an argument that the arguers themselves KNOW is weak. If they were really confident in their case, they would not feel the need to rig the game by trying to drive all skeptics out of the field of tolerable discussants. If their case were really strong, AGW believers would simply engage the arguments, openly and forthrightly. The fact that they are afraid to do that says more than their actual words.P.S. The one-tenth-of-one-degree finding of total benefit from Waxman-Markey was against projected gains. Yes, that’s over a trillion dollars of cost for essentially no gain. But hey, it’s THE END OF THE PLANET AND WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!
P.P.S. The idea of punitive tariffs during a time of global economic downturn is startling. Smoot-Hawley must not even be taught in American schools any longer.
“Since the pro-AGW side uses definition tricks, denial of funding, and demonization (calling them “Nazis” among other things” to exclude every dissenter from the dataset of “people who are most knowledgeable on the subject”, that is unsurprising but also meaningless.”
Can you know for a fact that your own empirical experience is enough to show that more AGW-activists have used such language against skeptics than vice versa? Can you know for a fact that your experience is proof that money is influencing and abetting one side over the other? The best definition trick I’ve seen so far is when random people were called skeptics and then thrown together as a sort of anti-consensus triumph. You’re saying one thing about millions of people and another about the other million. Why the heck should anyone consider you a judge about the lack of meaning in the consensus?
“At the point that all dissenters are compared to “Nazis” by leaders of the AGW-believer movement while others suggest that they be put in jail, I think the normal process of scientific debate is definitely being short-circuited.”
Again, what proof other than your own apparent indignation do you have that the power balance is warped to the point where the debate is short-circuited? Just recently a large Australian paper published a series of skeptics’ columns that were fisked completely by a lone blogger. Monbiot, Lomborg, Will – all use exaggerated language and claims people like me will destroy the economy or whatnot, and they get plenty airtime, despite being fisked by bloggers (an inversion of your claimed David/Goliath dynamic). You are making a pretty extensive claim about the capacities of these AGW-activists regarding the controlling of thousands of scientists the world over. You have had nothing to back it up so far rather than some Godwin anecdotes, unsourced. The consensus is not meaningless and both fiscal and verbal methods of coercion cannot be shown to have been employed by one side to a higher degree than by the other from what I’ve seen so far. Studies? Reports? Media analysts with a good record? No, you can just decide which side is worse and have the worst arguments from your own personal experience. How incredibly interesting.
As for comparing me with Heritage – I’m not receiving money from Al Gore or any of your shibboleths. Nice try though, you seemed pretty satisfied with your gotcha.
So far every anecdote about someone scaring people with exaggerated claims about the end of the world can be met with an anecdote about someone claiming every attempt to address AGW is driven by every bad impulse in the world, has come to pass due to some unprecedentedly huge conspiracy that reaches across the globe and will lead to a mixture of Stalinist Russia and the great depression.
You can say whatever you want about AGW activists – I still have no reason whatsoever to see your claims as anything but meaningless. You claim you have more than a decade of recognizing people who can’t back up their words and so up the stakes, making grander claims and bigger accusations. Heh, well…
In short, your side is not very well represented among the people actually at hard work studying the matter because you fail, not because the scientific process all over the world has somehow been altered by the long hand of… Um? Arguments about the non-existence of AGW have been heard by people like Hansen and they were weeded out by very smart people just as objective and independent as scientists in other fields, because they didn’t make the cut. I make these grand claims because the scientific process at work here should be no different from that in other fields and there is nothing substantial other than blogosphere complaining suggesting this isn’t the case. Scientists are not removed from tenure, censored or harmed by the great evil movement. There does not appear to be anything other than sheer criticism holding your side back among the people who are active and studying the matter of climate change.
There is no realistic possibility of skewing the scientific process the world over either by fiscal incentives for the right people or scare tactics used against the wrong people. If there is, you have not provided even a sliver of actual proof that this is happening.
There are imperfections everywhere. There is poor thinking, blunt tactics and a lack of skepticism inherent in both sides. You are merely making claims about the magnitude and inequality in distribution of these imperfections that are not backed up by anything. My skepticism tells me that your claims are completely uninteresting, because your decade of experience in dealing with scoundrels with weak arguments does not count once we start looking at the scope of hundreds of thousands of people the world over.
Every one of your anecdotes can be matched by a countering one. Is there any independent and very broad media/academia analysis suggesting the AGW side has been at work altering the scientific process of pure criticism that is right now ending up with the result that AGW is a fact that should be countered before it is too late? Like I said – shenanigans are perpetrated by both sides. What could possibly persuade anyone of a critical mind that all your generalizing or sweeping statements are true?
Right. Because government agencies have NEVER been known to privilege one kind of research or discourage another.
Once again, Kast, your total ignorance of history is showing.
Pots and kettles, Kast. I cannot think of a single issue where you have EVER engaged in detailed debate drawing on the specific details of an issue or arguments drawn from history and research. Instead, the ENTIRE CORPUS of your comments is comprised of “generalizing or sweeping statements”. LOL
P.S. You don’t have any idea what “my side” on this issue is. You assume you do because, like with all other issues, you assume that anyone who disagrees with you in ANY amount must by definition be a member of your stereotype of the “other side”. But since you are apparently ignorant of the details and nuances of most issues and since you never feel any obligation to ask questions or draw distinctions before jumping to, um, “generalizing or sweeping” conclusions, you continue to blunder about making a fool of yourself with idiotic presumptions.
What is the consequence of global warming?
What would happen if the earth warmed up 3-5 degrees in the next 100 years?
What would happen if the co2 content in the lakes and iron sinks saturated? What are the results?
IF as you say AGW is happening…what are the long term repercussions? What are we going to do about it…what can we do about it?
generate 15 percent of our electricity by 2020?
Drive battery cars that use electricity to recharge?
What is China going to do about it? India? Russia? Developing Eastern Europe? Somalia? Iran?
“Because government agencies have NEVER been known to privilege one kind of research or discourage another.”
Sure thing. Now is the time for proof that this is happening on the scale you are claiming. Proof that it was the money that created the impression that one side is more credible, rather than the possibility that the credibility of one side (and the dire predictions their credible work provided) caused them to receive more government funding. It is just as likely that the government funded these scientists (I don’t even know if they did because you do not wish to prove that this is the case) because they came up on top in the unmolested scientific process. All scientists in the world are not beholden to the same government, their funding is different and their media environment is wildly different. Why should anyone believe that the IPCC report reeks of money to the point where it can be ignored? What proof do you have that all the brave dissenters have been bullied to silence or obscurity?
“Pots and kettles, Kast. I cannot think of a single issue where you have EVER engaged in detailed debate drawing on the specific details of an issue or arguments drawn from history and research.”
So you won’t answer my claims with a defense or proof of your own claims, instead you bring up your regular complaint about me, now generalized to the last extreme: none of my statements or claims in the history of this site are borne through by argumentation or sourcing. See, even if you could support this exhaustive and grand accusation with a detailed and equally extensive critical approach (judging by your history I don’t think you will) that would make it more than useless and baseless, it would still not make my criticism of your statements in this thread less valid. LOL away – your pot/kettle response is completely irrelevant to my criticism of your unfounded statements about the status of the scientific climate. Your accusation is of no matter to anyone because it is not probable you will satisfy anyone’s critical faculty by actually supporting it substantially.
Again, and now imagine someone else just asked this question (I don’t have to point out that the most demented liar in the world could ask this question without the validity and appropriateness of the question being harmed): What could possibly persuade anyone of a critical mind that all your generalizing or sweeping statements are true?
Why should I have to address your accusation or consider it relevant when I cannot think of a single issue where you have EVER engaged in detailed debate drawing on the specific details of an issue or arguments drawn from history and research?
“You don’t have any idea what “my side” on this issue is.”
You’ve said there is no consensus about AGW, that AGW is only partially supported and that the prominence of it is caused by manipulation of the scientific process. That places you somewhere – the side that says that the consensus is not reached fairly and that therefore changes meant to address AGW are fiscally irresponsible in many cases. That side is not well represented among people with authority because it does not survive scrutiny. Of course, then you label this authority as meaningless, but you can’t back up these claims about the corruption of said authorities.
Illustrating example follows. It is merely an anecdote, and I cannot say it can be projected further.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/17/the-breakthrough-institute-shellenberger-nordhaus-waxman-markey/
The institute discussed above is fisked. Hard.
The NYT of all newspapers gives a senior fellow of that institute, who is a skeptic, a column. That column gets fisked as well:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/22/roger-pielke-jr-denier-john-tierney-link-climate-change-extreme-weather/
Yes, I appeal to the authority of the fisking blogger. Once again, merely an anecdote, but isn’t it important that a liberal (maybe even a progre**ive) newspaper gives a skeptic who obviously has nothing substantial or credible to offer a column? The actual criticism is supplied by a blogger. How’s that for a story about a brave skeptic barely managing to be heard over the klaxons of dominating and threatening AGW zealots?
The anecdote is just that. I consider it an example, but I can’t find a broad analysis of the media and the comparative quality of the skeptics/AGWers featured.
hmmm – really?
Although I’d have been more concrete if I were them and say that man did and does not cause global warming.
This bill – by all appearances will serve to hurt the general populace. GOP would do well to remind them of this fact come 2010.
Outlaw trees!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-canada-trees_wittjan02,0,539661.story
<block
Since you have apparently decided to discount all agreement among scientists on the subject and dismissed the peer review process that determines publication as hopelessly biased, how do you propose that we determine whether or not anthropogenically induced climate change is or is not occurring?
Are you saying that the majority of scientists in not just the US, but the entire world have been fooled by this or are participating in it? That scientists have willingly conspired to suppress scientific data to support a unified political position?
Have the editors of ‘Science’, ‘Nature’, and the rest of the prestige scientific journals subverted their ethics in support of weakly evidenced claims? Even stopping well short of that, it would be an epic conspiracy. Do you have any hard evidence that this is occurring?
That is not happening where the scientific debate is happening.
It certainly happens on blogs and in other political contexts, but it is absent in the scientific literature, where the real scientific debate is happening.
How is this sneaky? Whether climate change is happening and why it is happening are scientific questions and attempts to answer need to be scientifically rigorous. It is not sneaky or disingenuous to ask for legitimate scientific scientific evidence.
Could you provide a cite for this?
But you are alleging something on a scale that would require the cooperation of dozens of governments, NGOs, and private agencies. I simply do not think that is feasible. Have you been to a scientific conference? If you haven’t, I suggest that you do. Even if you don’t understand the information presented the back and forth should be instructional on why I doubt your position.
In short, if your argument requires a large multinational conspiracy including most of the world’s scientists, then you should really reexamine your argument.
I have heard about this list and a few others. Each time I have looked at one I have found poor verification of signatories and inclusion of anyone who claims a science degree of any kind. If memory serves there were over 1000 dentists on that list. All of the polling of scientists and climate scientists points in one direction, not surprisingly in the same direction as almost all of the peer reviewed literature.
BTW, I am not an expert in the field, but some of my research peripherally touched on the subject (its potential impacts on zooxanthellae populations) and at that time (a little over a year ago) I read quite a bit of the literature and I had access to a few good modelers to help me get through it and that is where my opinion comes from.
PS The term climate change was adopted because rising global temperatures effect climate differently in different areas. Some places will become colder with rising global average temperatures, some places will become wetter, others drier, etc. This is yet another example of scientists propensity to modify their language in an attempt at clarity and only making it clearer for themselves. Unfortunately it is also an example of political opponents of what that evidence shows using that change for political advantage.
Your original claim, that cap and trade would
That is a far sight more than decreased economic growth.
It will probably cause some short term slowing of economic growth, beyond that we simply do not know. You do seem here to give more credence to the predictions of some economists than the predictions of most climate scientists. Why is that?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/global-warming-is-just-hoax.php
That article features a list of all the people who apparently say that AGW is real and a serious issue due to supposedly dubious and unscientific reasons. That’s a whole bunch of entities, so if you want to claim that their consensus is meaningless you have your work cut out.
The fun part is how outwardly Exxon Mobile and ChevronTexaco are in fact saying that AGW is real and a problem. They let the economic doomsday reports come from the foundations they donate to instead. How did the environinjas infiltrate these corporations?
Here’s two anecdotes to counter your unsourced anecdote, Jason.
http://www.webcitation.org/5cclvfDYl
Arthur Herman from the CIS compares AGW proponents to Nazis.
A skeptic/denier called Monckton compares AGW to Nazi eugenics: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/monckton_reckons_gore_is_the_s.php
So where’s my persecution sympathy and indignation? When am I allowed to call the consensus among all the skeptics useless?
History of the earth would be a good start.
To summarize your position – you dismiss any view against the one you *think* is correct (without any actual facts). Your second sentence is categorically false. (not to mention flies against your earlier statement that you dismissed studies).
Still looking for something credible from your links Kastanj
I fully expect you and Jeb to dismiss it out of hand because of the word – conservative. To which I reply – Have you contacted the 48 state climatologists yourself – put a lefty view on the same data if you will.
And that one bit right there – is totally, completely and fully undeniable – as history has proven time and time again.
Jeb,
In addition to being highly hypocritical in light of your earlier complaints, your constant adding of words and even entire phrases to what I argue may also serve to create a useful caricature of my argument that alleviates you of any difficulty in actually responding to it (especially since your responses usually consist of just a demand for proof rather than an actual response to the substance), but it does not constitute a good-faith response on your part.
I don’t reject all AGW theory as false, “hopelessly biased”, or conspiratorial. What I have been criticizing from the AGW side is ONLY the constant claim that it has a “consensus” and that no dissent is allowed and that drastic policy action should be taken without any further study or debate of any kind. In particular, I have criticized the practice of refusing to fund research that might challenge AGW and the practice of labeling AGW skeptics as Nazis along with the suggestions that they be jailed for endangering humanity. I also criticize the notion that all anti-AGW research be ignored because of its supposedly suspicious funding sources (apparently a belief in “epic conspiracy” is just fine with the pro-AGW side when it serves them) while all pro-AGW research is to be considered pristine in spite of its own biased funding sources. As you should have noticed by now, self-serving double standards really piss me off.
You say that these things only occur in non-scientific political contexts, but I’m saying that politics and science are mixed together in AGW research and thus the chilling effect is real. It does not require an “epic conspiracy”, only the natural effects of group-think reinforced by funding rules that privilege certain kinds of projects as presumptively important and discourages others as presumptively dangerous. Having sat through the graduate seminars on research ethics, I have noted with dismay how many are willing to endorse the suppression of scientific research that they fear will reveal socially “bad” findings.
And yes, I have also been to “a scientific conference” so your attempt to take a personal attack on me is both noted and rejected. I’m not attacking your personal qualifications to be allowed into the discussion and you shouldn’t be trying to do that to me. The fact that you do, however, tends to validate what I have said in criticizing the practices of AGW proponents in trying to marginalize and exclude all dissent from the discussion in order to manufacture the illusion of “consensus”. It is really easy to have “consensus” after all the dissenters are kicked out of the room, right? But that is, unfortunately, not the scientific method. It is the political method of authoritarians.
My bottom line is that I am not closed to the idea that AGW might be real nor do I oppose all policy actions that might be motivated by it. All I want to have is a REAL science-based debate, including input from skeptics, as to the nature and scope of AGW and then policy actions that are motivated by cost-benefit analysis instead of manufactured hysteria. The fact that such modest demands are intolerable to AGW advocates is a strong indication that my criticisms of them are valid.
P.S. Here is the cite AGAIN for the article about how only one-tenth of one degree of CO2 levels can be expected from Waxman-Markey. A follow-on analysis shows that even if it were extended worldwide, it would only result in one-half of a degree improvement versus projected levels. I hope you engage with the argument instead of just using exclusion to dismiss the argument out of hand as “illegitimate” merely because it dissents.
“History of the earth would be a good start.”
This is where you have to prove that scientists have not accounted for this in their work. I’ll gladly provide a debunking article where such an arguments is destroyed by people who are aware of the scientific process.
“Still looking for something credible from your links Kastanj”
You make a claim, this is where you show why you make it. Why do you question the credibility? You’re just saying things, which is completely useless to everyone.
“And that one bit right there – is totally, completely and fully undeniable – as history has proven time and time again.”
Except now humans are causing it, and we can’t handle too much warming. Life always, survives, but civilization and welfare is more brittle. NO AGW-proponent is claiming that the temperature has never changed or that human-produced CO2 is the only factor. When are you going to realize that none of your statements come as a surprise to the scientists? They. Have. Accounted. For. It.
“In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy”
Someone is finally bothering to present some decent material to try and debunk the consensus. But here is a later survey with a much larger pool of respondents, and it is therefore superior to your survey, especially when you consider that the CES also received donations from Exxon and the like.
“A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”"
tl;dr: My survey is better than your survey and is a better account of the degree of scientific consensus.
“What I have been criticizing from the AGW side is ONLY the constant claim that it has a “consensus””
That’s not a good criticism when consensus does exist and not provenly as a result of a manipulation of the scientific process that takes place all over the world.
“that no dissent is allowed”
Strawman. Dissent incorporates both sound skepticism and denialism. Apart from the breaches of Hansen at one point, you have no proof that in general AGW proponents think that either skepticism or denialism should be banned rather than mocked, discredited and ejected from the scientific debate (only to be unquestioningly picked up by the MSM). What is happening is that “skeptics” like Broun (a politician who is supposed to offer his constituents a fact-based grasp of the issue rather than make decisions for them based on ideology) again and again dispute basic facts and spread completely unfounded rumors about AGW being a hoax.
No matter how many times they are discredited and then told that their claims are useless until they bother to make scientific criticism, I see people like Lomborg, Monckton, Will and many others make the same claims again and again, in established media, without responding to exhaustive criticism. Slowly but surely they are giving me the impression that they are not skeptics but rather denialists, and that for various reasons they make these claims not out of concern for people to make the best decisions and be informed, but rather to prevent addressing of AGW at any cost no matter what the science says.
“that drastic policy action should be taken without any further study or debate of any kind.”
So far nothing really drastic has happened, and even if it were the onus has been shifted to the side of those who do not want any drastic policy action. Now the matter is one of economics – maximum prevention of AGW-related costs and suffering with a minimum of change and costs involved.
“I have criticized the practice of refusing to fund research that might challenge AGW”
Why are they refused funding? Do you have a comprehensive case for the notion that the funding is denied them not as a result of their work being inferior or ultimately specious despite their good faith but instead due to some form of shenanigans?
“practice of labeling AGW skeptics as Nazis”
Mmhm! This is where you now have to make an account that even suggests that you can call out one side for generally having a certain practice. That is a lot of work that has to be done. Again, I only supplied two sourced anecdotes but that is more than you have offered. Your accusations are baseless and completely wasteful to both write and read, and no, not because you can be dismissed automatically because you “dissent” (you can’t).
“along with the suggestions that they be jailed for endangering humanity”
That’s one NASA scientist, Hansen, stepping out of line (his statement have been hacked down to a scary-sounding sound-bite but I found his statement dangerous and unscientific nonetheless). One anecdote versus my two Godwin anecdotes. Again, can you show that AGW-proponents in general have a history of being more prone to call for jail-time or any real repercussions other than mocking and irrelevance?
“also criticize the notion that all anti-AGW research be ignored because of its supposedly suspicious funding sources”
Please. Michael and Interested both offered their own study in defense of their views and both studies came from a think-tank funded by people with a financial interest against economic changes due to AGW. If there are better studies, I’d be delighted to see them – I just think there must be truly independent sources of anti-AGW if the case is to be strong. I don’t only offer studies and surveys from think-tanks funded by people who work with CO2-sequestration or anti-pollution technology. I don’t think I ever have. If I have, now is the time to be specific, like I was.
“It does not require an “epic conspiracy”, only the natural effects of group-think reinforced by funding rules that privilege certain kinds of projects as presumptively important and discourages others as presumptively dangerous. ”
If what is taking place is on a much smaller scale than that of an “epic conspiracy” then it should be a mean feat to make some sort of case of its existence. I’ve supplied a list of institutions and entities that think AGW is real and a problem. Why not check and see if your narrative is applicable to one of them? Just because you describe a set of factors doesn’t mean you can claim the overwhelming consensus is a result of them. The onus is on you.
“I have noted with dismay how many are willing to endorse the suppression of scientific research that they fear will reveal socially “bad” findings.”
This is akin to me saying AGW is real because Stockholm is boiling today. You’ve said it happens, and I believe you. Surely there are AGW proponents who’ve come to their conclusions and policy recommendations not due to proper scientific praxis, I think this is the case. The problem is that there are so many AGW proponents. Now show how it can be the origin of the obvious consensus.
You see, it seems to me as if you are claiming that every case of a scientists saying AGW is true is somehow dubious by default because of the existence of group-think etc. You have to make an investigation that constitutes actual data now.
“All I want to have is a REAL science-based debate”
Check. You’ve offered no proof as to the “unreality” of the debate that actually exists.
“including input from skeptics”
Check. Seeing as there is no strong evidence to suggest the scientific process is manipulated, I think that they’ve had their chance and many of them enjoy undue attention in the old media.
“as to the nature and scope of AGW and then policy actions that are motivated by cost-benefit analysis instead of manufactured hysteria. ”
Not all policy recommendations are sound, not all statements reflect the strength of the findings, but your strawman is of no interest. There is cost-benefit analysis, there is hysteria, I’m not making a case as to which is more prominent and you’ve not shown why you have a reason to do so either.
“The fact that such modest demands are intolerable to AGW advocates”
That’s because they are not interested in hearing you make unfounded claims that skeptics are unscientifically silenced, proponents come to their positions from groupthink and therefore you think that there is no consensus and policy changes are uncalled for until the debate has improved from this supposed “manufactured hysteria”. Your demands are utterly arrogant considering all you have shown as reasons for your demands are theories, baseless statements and anecdotes.
“I hope you engage with the argument instead of just using exclusion to dismiss the argument out of hand as “illegitimate” merely because it dissents.”
There is good dissent (skepticism) and bad dissent (denialism, baseless claims of being unheard because of discrimination, same arguments made again despite debunking). I believe (*believe*) most skeptics try to create a strawmen of AGW proponents as incapable of addressing well-made and inane dissent separately, in order to hide the fact that most dissent begins or ends in the latter category. From what I can see, no one is dismissing you or the oppressed “anti-hysteria” dissenters, especially not to the degree and scope you are claiming. I have seen them tried and found wanting (with nary an ounce of basic humility) many times, but I am not going to accuse them of general hackery based on my personal anecdotes.
Kastanj,
Where did Doran and Zimmerman get their funding from?
Unless you are willing to apply scrutiny to the funding received by ALL the authors, you should not try to apply it to anyone. Otherwise, its just more double standards from you. If you don’t think that academics also have an “economic interest” in their findings, you are obviously just as ignorant of how grant funding works as you are about pretty much everything else in the entire world.
Then again, since your entire comment (and your entire corpus of comments) is a gold mine of double standards, hypocrisy, and “pot-and-kettles” moments, I’m sure it doesn’t bother you much.
I would ask again.
IF Global warming is occuring just what exactly is the USA going to accomplish by curtailing co2 emissions by 10 percent?
Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions account for over 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
With China screaming past the USA as the number one culprit in green house gas emissions the fact that the USA will curtail 10 percent of it carbon emissions will have ZERO, Zilch, NADA effect on the supposed AGW.
The only thing CAP and TRADE is all about is to socialize America. Not affect global warming in any meaningful or significant way.
I should thank you – by inspiring me to go around on the net and look up more facts I am learning as well as strengthening the AGW in my mind with each click.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
I didn’t know this. Even they are on the “bandwagon” now. They were obviously forced onto it, but still!
Wikipedia is not a valid source for anything. You have no idea who the (most recent) author was, for example. That means using Wikipedia means you have no way to know the validity of any information found in addition to the fact that it is by definition always an example of plagiarism. I prohibit its citation by students in my classes.
I am glad that I am provoking you to move beyond vague sweeping statements of your moral and intellectual superiority to do actual research, however. Perhaps you could start by accessing the “external links” section of Wikipedia for a start. And, if you want to do intellectually honest research instead of just confirming your own biases by cherry-picking sources that you agree with, you should also make an effort to seek out the dissenting literature specifically.
If you really want to look up stuff on wikipedia, it is of at least marginal utility in providing basic definitions and background information. Given your history of intellectual dishonesty and obvious ignorance about the scientific method and its potential pitfalls, I would recommend you start with “confirmation bias”.
If the end consequence of an honest program of research is to strengthen your belief in AGW theory, I have no objection to that. My problem with you is the process by which you seem to reach and express your beliefs, not with the content of the beliefs themselves.
“I am glad that I am provoking you to move beyond vague sweeping statements of your moral and intellectual superiority to do actual research, however.”
That must be your decade dealing with what makes a good argument versus a bad argument in a variety of contexts at work.
“And, if you want to do intellectually honest research instead of just confirming your own biases by cherry-picking sources that you agree with, you should also make an effort to seek out the dissenting literature specifically.”
I see it debunked by reputable blogs who are committed to at first simply taking apart anti-AGW arguments and then make fun of those who won’t address the disassembling but rather complain of the powerful agenda, Gore’s fortune or make the same claim again without addressing the criticism. These sites seek out the literature and then there are commenters who provide their own links etc. My approach is not scientific or exhaustive, but it is acceptable as a basis of forming an opinion.
“I would recommend you start with “confirmation bias””
I think that the sites I visit manage to avoid insulation by reaching out to debunk skeptic arguments and mock denialists, and they do have a comment section for added accountability. I get the skeptics every time I take a look at the old media anyway. There is always this supposed current of dissenters with some credible but unsung arguments, but the people who represent them in the big settings are always people like Will or Monckton, or why not potty-mouthed Boehner or conspiracy theorist Broun? Why can’t they offer up better representatives?
If the best you have done is to read blog commenters, you’re not likely to find the best representatives of anything, especially not in a technical scientific area like
global warmingclimate change.And I don’t think either side of this political movement can brag much about its skill in promoting even-handed and intelligent commentators. Any intellectually honest program of researching an issue will dig deeper than the purely derivative surface level of punditry.
It will be interesting if your research ever produces comments from you that actually discuss details of the issues instead of just vague conclusive statements of confirmation of your pre-existing opinions. For example:
Would you care to describe specific examples instead of just making vague sweeping claims of what you have allegedly seen and concluded? I have no reason to believe your claim to be working honestly to avoid confirmation bias if you do nothing more than vaguely assert confirmation.
“I don’t think either side of this political movement can brag much about its skill in promoting even-handed and intelligent commentators.”
I’d say there is a disparity in quality, related to the dominance of scientists who are not skeptics, but I’ll gladly take this agreed ground seeing as it is a step backwards from claiming one movement uses Godwin and greenbacks to get its way across more often than the other side.
“Would you care to describe specific examples instead of just making vague sweeping claims of what you have allegedly seen and concluded?”
I provided an example over at post #21.
I disagree, but let’s break it down.
Where is your evidence that funding is denied to scientifically rigorous climate research?
The latest survey of climate scientists in the US surveyed members of the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. Do you have any evidence that these associations exclude people who disagree with prevailing scientific opinion on climate change?
The most recent global poll of climate scientists contacted more than 10,200 experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s “Directory of Geoscience Departments.” Do you have any evidence that this directory has been scrubbed of dissenting voices?
Again, not where the science is being done. If you are alleging bias, incompetence, or malfeasance it is on you to show it.
I repeat, how is this sneaky? Whether climate change is happening and why it is happening are scientific questions and attempts to answer need to be scientifically rigorous. It is not sneaky or disingenuous to ask for legitimate scientific scientific evidence.
Again we are talking about dozens of governments, NGOs, scientific journals, and private organizations. Your assertion would require them to all work in concert.
Consensus merely means
Sorry Jeb, but unless you can show examples of pro-AGW scientists being threatened with being fired for their failure to comply with demands that they shape their scientific findings to political criteria like AGW skeptics are, I’m not inclined to accept your claims of equivalency or your blanket denials that any skeptics are being persecuted.
I am also finding it extremely frustrating that your responses clearly indicate that you have either not fully read my previous comments or you are willfully ignoring parts of them. Either way, if that continues, I have very little reason even trying to respond to you any more.
P.S. That is the second time you have offered the definition of “consensus” and then proceeded to selectively ignore the “unanimity” part of the definition while highlighting the other parts. Definitional cherry-picking is not exactly the most honest form of argument.
Anyway, I concede the preponderance argument — it is true that a majority of working climate scientists appear to believe in AGW. (I disagree with your overly charitable interpretation of the shift in terminology to “climate change” since I have witnessed first hand it being used to create non-falsifiable hypotheses.) But it is also true that given their preponderance, it should not be NECESSARY to try to stifle skepticism. The fact that they do so anyway betrays a lack of confidence and the presence of a very weak, possibly false and financially motivated reason underlying the “consensus”.
Here is one and here is another and there are more. Hansen was also told to route all press corespondence
What specific parts of your argument do you think I am ignoring?
Because unanimity is not required for consensus. There is even near unanimity among actively working climate scientists (~97%). You have not shown that there is any reason for this other than their analysis of the available evidence. Absent that there is no reason to dismiss this consensus (short of unanimity
).
If you claim that the system is ignoring valid scientific criticism then it is up to you to show it. You have yet to show that there is any systematic stifling of scientific dissent. The report I linked above does provide some evidence that the reverse has been the case in US government agencies.
That blog commenters, advocates, and politicians can be intemperate is not new and does not show a stifling of scientific dissent (certainly not a systematic stifling). At most it could show stifling of dissent in some political arenas, but given the prevalence of climate skeptics in the blogoshpere, congress, and the popular media I am skeptical of even that claim.
Allegations of research being suppressed by a now-out-of-power administration does not constitute a response to my allegation of scientists who dissent from “climate change” “consensus” being threatened with outright firing.
You keep throwing in those little convenient modifiers, don’t you? Of course, if scientists who dissent are subject to denial of funding and even, that makes it a lot easier to build a “consensus” among those that are “actively working”, doesn’t it?
In research, this is known as conforming your dataset to fit your hypothesis and it is considered unethical research practice. You are cooking your definitions of who is considered as legitimate/active climate scientists in an effort to exclude anyone who dissents from the available dataset. I’ve caught you at it three times now. You want to give it a rest and concede that, while there is a preponderance of scientists that believe in AGW, it falls far short of unanimity and the LEGITIMATE debate can continue?
This is a laughably inaccurate claim on its face. The blogosphere is dominated by the political left, where AGW is an article of faith held with almost religious fervor and dissent is not allowed even in small peripheral issues. Any review of AGW-related articles on Memeorandum using he color widget will show an overwhelming preponderance of blue.
Congress is controlled by Democrats and the House just passed Waxman-Markey without even being allowed to read it first. Your claim that AGW skepticism dominates in Congress is thus an extremely poor fit with the data.
Popular media treatment has been pro-AGW ever since Time made it a crusade over a decade ago. I challenge you to find any of the flagship press outlets other than the Wall Street Journal that takes a skeptical view and any of the major broadcast and cable outlets other than Fox that does so.
“where AGW is an article of faith held with almost religious fervor and dissent is not allowed even in small peripheral issues.”
Hurrhurr whatever you say.
“since Time made it a crusade”
Strawman. I’ve yet to see Time magazine send people to kill unbelievers in a far away country. Beep me when they do.
“I challenge you to find any of the flagship press outlets other than the Wall Street Journal”
The Australian and the NYT comes to mind. Question, why do you think skepticism deserves a second chance (when almost all scientist in the proverbial loop think is a serious fact) and what do newspapers have to do in order to be skeptical enough? You’re just tossing adjectives about. The thing is that the skeptics give me the impression that they will never have enough despite their insistence on merely being cautious anti-fad. It’s not about whether 97 % of scientists can be trusted to the point where we should talk about how bad AGW will be and how we can answer effectively. No, the skepticism is taken into overdrive – even this consensus is called bogus (you, Jason, is once again being more sensible than most others that share your POV) and words like “alarmism” are tossed about with not an ounce of skepticism or humility. The cake is definitely taken when conservative columnists say that Greenland used to be green and it’s snowing outside as they are writing. I’ve seen those arguments and I barely survived to tell the tale.
I see denialists being treated as skeptics simply because the media is obliged to match any view with contrarianism and create drama. The major players on the skeptic side are debunked often.
You brought up a single firing allegedly due to AGW skepticism and I countered with evidence of a systemic suppression of research and comment by climate scientists on AGW by the US government over near 8 years. I think that my evidence is far more indicative of government coercion than is yours.
In the interest of accuracy and precision yes and I will continue to be as precise as I can in my phrasing.
Which you have in no way shown to be the case.
It falls short of unanimity and I never claimed otherwise. Whether 90% and 97% respectively are far short of unanimity I would debate. I would say that 97% agreement on an issue by all scientists working in a field is about as near to unanimity as one is likely to find.
I have at no point said that legitimate debate could not or should not continue. I have said that the current state of evidence is strong enough to act.
No, I have not. I included the figures on active climate scientists in order to illustrate that those who are actively studying this phenomenon are in near unanimous agreement about what the data shows. You claim that this is an effort to exclude legitimate dissenting voices, yet you have provided no evidence that skeptics are being systematically excluded from this category. Absent this evidence this looks like evasion, not engagement.
Yet the magic of Google allows me to find 10s of 1000s of hits criticizing AGW theory and they not only remain but grow in number by the day. In every blog discussion on climate I have seen there is never a shortage of skeptical voices. Climate skeptics are regularly seen in the popular media whenever the topic comes up for debate.
Yet the Republicans in congress still feel free to deny AGW. There voice has not been silenced and their ability to effect legislation is every bit as strong as the pre-2006 Democrats. For over a decade prior to the Democratic take over of congress in 2006 the congress was dominated by Republicans, most of whom deny/denied AGW theory. It was over this decade that the consensus (- unanimity
) grew. Republicans held every lever of power while scientific opinion on AGW theory formed, yet that theory did not conform to their political agenda.
You talk about scientific opinion being (unfairly) skewed, but you have not yet shown any evidence of a systematic skewing. Absent this evidence you are simply making a bald assertion and expecting that to disqualify the near unanimity of informed opinion on the issue by active climate scientists. That is not a claim that can be taken seriously without real evidence to back it up.
This discussion has to this point focused on everything but the actual science. I would love for the debate to move in that direction.
I would suggest the following to begin,
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/
Most of the journal research requires subscription, but I would be happy to delve into that with anyone.
I could respond that you don’t compare numbers nor do you account for the way in which every one of those critics seems to receive 10-fold the number of responses lambasting them, insulting them, cussing them out, or threatening them. But this “who’s got it worse” debate is really getting stupid and I regret starting it. My only real point about it is this:
Is it not your claim that all of these skeptics are illegitimate and therefore excluded from what you would consider the valid parameters of continuing debate? If so, then I still think you are cooking the books. If not, we can drop this issue and move on to the more important one:
To do what, exactly? What is your advocacy anyway? Or is your chosen role here simply to play the critic, disparaging others’ efforts to take a position while conveniently refusing to be tied down to one yourself?
Given the high economic cost and the extremely low reduction in projected global temperatures that would be produced, I renew my argument that Waxman-Markey is a very bad form of action to take. Since you claim that there is enough data for action and that you want to move the debate to focus on specific science, perhaps you could fulfill that promise by backing up your claim with some specific ideas that you are actually willing to defend.
NO, and I have in no way said that either explicitly or implicitly. What I have said is the vast majority of those who are most knowledgeable about the issue think that the weight of the evidence points in one direction. Research should and will continue.
1) A substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions makes sense. Cap and Trade is one method, a direct carbon tax is another, there others. I am not married to any of them.
2) Greenhouse gas emissions need to be addressed globally.
3) The US needs to take a leadership role in addressing this
4) The US is in a stronger position to take a leadership role if we are actively addressing the issue at home
5) I am open to additional measures that could help
I don’t know what the economic costs of the bill are and am perfectly willing to look at cost benefit analysis. Analysis from the Heritage Foundation though should be taken with as much salt as you would take with analysis from CAP. CBO and other non-partisan sources on costs are welcome and should be considered. I also question the validity of a desktop widget in predicting temperature outcomes. I would like to see the numbers run through GISS GCM ModelE and/or other scientifically rigorous models. I would also like comprehensive review of the research to determine likely changes in local climates and their biota. I think that this would give us a much better view of costs and benefits. I support waiting on final passage of the bill until such time as this can be done.
I have not supported the Waxman-Markey bill because I have not yet read it. I do think that it was passed too quickly and that more time should have been allowed. Fortunately the bill is not law and there will be time for people to read and digest the bill before the Senate acts and certainly before the House and Senate bills are reconciled.
Two separate issues. I am willing to debate the science point by point. I also think that there is enough data to warrant action and there has been for several years. As to the specific course of action I have laid out a few bullet points but do not have a specific and comprehensive policy to endorse at this time. I think that Kyoto was a step in the right direction, but without US and Chinese support it was doomed to be ineffectual. I am even open to some of the more exotic solutions* put forward, though they require considerably more research into unintended consequences.
* sulfates sprayed into the upper atmosphere etc.
That’s not advocacy of a policy, it is a menu of possibilities. You don’t seem prepared to defend any of them. Any defect anyone identifies with one of them simply allows you to shift to another. That’s weasel-y.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force him to commit economic suicide. you might be strong on the hard science, but we’re on my turf when we start talking about the sometimes grim realities of international conflict and cooperation. This is a classic example of a tragedy of the commons problem. What incentives could be given to prevent free-riding and failure to keep commitments? The failure of the European signatories to meet their Kyoto commitments is an illustration of what we could expect — promises but no willingness to actually pay the cost of decreased economic development. U.S. and Chinese non-participation may be an excuse, but history clearly indicates that non-compliance and evasions are the most likely outcome even with U.S. participation. Free-riding is a constant feature of these kinds of problems. And you have no apparent idea on how to obtain Chinese (and Indian) agreement OR compliance.
Again, you aren’t advocating a policy here, you’re hoping for a magic wand and demanding that the United States fall on its economic sword as a first step. I think that is unreasonable. And in 1998, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 (not just the evil Republicans) expressing the same sentiment. It is not in U.S. interests to sign up for a treaty that would impose heavy economic costs on us while allowing other countries to either not participate at all (Kyoto gave an exemption for China, for example) or to just plain cheat.
This is an empty rhetorical statement. What do you mean? How does U.S. “leadership” mean anything more than keeping out commitments even when other countries don’t keep theirs (and thus not solving the problem)?
Again, no details on how a “leadership role” will do anything other than allow the U.S. to be the sucker in a global Prisoner’s Dilemma game. You’re making empty statements, not practical or detailed proposals.
In short, you have no ideas of your own beyond your magic fairy dust about a “leadership role”.
I’m not saying that to mock you, but to make a serious point — AGW advocates are demanding action, but they have no ideas that will actually address the problem at anywhere near the scope that will provide ANY significant benefit to justify the costs (somewhere between “high” and “extreme”). Given the level of cost and lifestyle change they are demanding, it is reasonable to insist that they provide much better details with regard to EXACTLY what they can PROVE they will achieve as benefits. Fairy dust about “leadership” is very, very weak tea.
Remember the Cold War? “Our” rocket scientists/engineers were better than “their” (the Soviets) rocket scientists.
Science is science. Research may differ but the scientific method is supposed to reach an eventual consensus. But, politics is politics, and the current Global Warming debate is immersed in politics up to its neck. When politics (and politicians) take over the microphones, then all reasonable discourse is dead.
I will make this argument: I don’t CARE whether there is warming or not; whether manmade or not. I DO care that the economy currently dependent upon the casino mentality of the commodities markets and nefarious governments controlling oil….will continue to suffer the effects of unreliable and cheap forms of energy.
There are numerous technologies to explore. The require imagination which is NOT found amongst those in power. The end result could be increased wealth, disproportionately split between the haves and have-nots. Unfair, but such is life.
The key though is that wealth would be created. Waxman-Markey will be destructive to economic activity, as well as assuring further government intrusion into the tiniest aspects of peoples’ lives. It’s a bad bill. Jason rightfully points out the tariff provisions that will “punish” unwilling nations to live according to American rules.
Develope an energy base to replace the current one….solar/wind/biomass etc. are either not enough or unproven on the scale required for global energy needs. It’ll be expensive, but nothing approaching the disastrous consequences of Waxman Markey.
Bad analogy, actually. The one thing that the Russians consistently excelled over the United States in was rocket technology.
Not so much with telemetry, though.
Explore, yes. But there is no energy technology (save nuclear, which is rejected for ideological reasons) that is currently deployable in sufficient quantity to make a meaningful difference. The ONLY way to reduce CO2 emissions for at least the next decade will be a reduction in overall power consumption — read: large decreases in economic activity. This is why it is necessary to not move hastily (unless, of course, the greenies would suddenly recover enough sanity to consider nuclear power as a bridging technology).
Controlled fusion is a pipe dream. That is because rather than aggresively pursuing it, it is easier to simply eliminate the current source of energy, as you stated.
That is why this bill makes no sense to me. Eliminate the carbon-based energy sources AFTER a viable alternative has been up and running. I believe putting the cart before the horse would be approprate.
And Jason, I will concede your rocketry point to this extent: “Our” GERMAN rocket scientists were better than “their” German rocket scientists.
Show me where humans caused the other ones and I’ll listen to what you have to say.
Actually, Michael, we got different sets of Germans. We got the ones who specialized in telemetry and miniturization, the Russians got the ones that actually built the rocket engines.
“Show me where humans caused the other ones and I’ll listen to what you have to say.”
http://www.amazon.com/Speed-Violence-Scientists-Tipping-Climate/dp/0807085766
Basically: Swift changes in the climate has happened before with predictability. Right now, from the historical POV and the pattern observed so far, the Earth should have been cooling. It is warming instead, and faster than it has ever done before.
We didn’t cause the previous swings in the climate. We are causing this one.
Since the end of the “little ice age” was a geologically minuscule 400 years ago, I am fairly certain that Kastanj is completely wrong (as usual) in his factual claim that natural historical patterns would have the Earth cooling right now.
It is true that no historical pattern should have led to warming at the rapid rate observed (on average) over the last half-century, but that is a different and more nuanced argument that Kastanj is, in his characteristically absolutist and vague style, presenting.
Perhaps so, but my primary gripe here was the characterization of the science and the characterization of costs. I have repeatedly stated that I don’t have a position on the current bill and think that there needs to be a real cost benefit analysis, so I don’t think that your criticism of my position is fair.
Well since this is your bailiwick, assume for the time being that AGW is a real problem with potential economic and ecological damages in the trillions. Assume also that significant reductions in greenhouse emissions will mitigate these damages. What do you do?
I mean that if we do nothing it makes it much more difficult for us to demand that China, India, and the rest do something.
Again, I have called for a real cost benefit analysis. Frankly you do not know any better than I what the costs of this bill or some other bill that could be effective would be nor do you know any better than I what benefits either would have.
Based on solar irradiance we should be in a cooling period right now.
From the GISS 2007 temperature report,
I am leaving internet contact for the next couple of weeks and so will not be able to respond.
Cheers.
* perhaps your adjective was different but amounted to near the same thing
The ultimate fact that mankind is a new factor on earth and is responsible for emitting new sources of methane and Co2 can hardly be questioned. In fact yes. We human beings are emitting new and moderately large amounts of Co2 and methane into the atmosphere.
The question I have for anyone who would listen, rather then argue their preconceived notions of Global warming is this:
If the USA pumps into the atmosphere 17 percent of all CO2 expelled world wide what is going to be gleaned from harshly penalizing our society by reducing our emissions by 4-8 percent in the next 20 years? That will reduce our percentage of emissions from 17 percent to 16 percent.
Does anyone really believe that this will change one single factor? Especially since China will eat up that 1 percent in the next 2 years and double it every 2 years from now until we can all no longer breath.
Facts are it will not. China is killing our planet while the USA tries to find new and inventive ways to save her. I suggest the AGW crowd stop trying to penalize America and go after the real culprit in this. China.
The only way to get international cooperation on the scale required is to actually persuade the major economic powers (current and future) that the costs of doing nothing outweigh the costs of reform. That requires making two core arguments in a manner that is persuasive rather than coercive or abusive:
1) The actual AGW mechanism is true and not either mistaken or exaggerated
2) The ability of a given reform package to actually solve the problem
Rhetorical excess, hyperbole, name-calling, threats and exclusionary tactics towards dissenters, and misrepresentation of data (like the misreporting of Russian temperature data last year) seriously undermine the first argument. This is why I focus on the rhetorical aspect of the issue — EVEN IF the AGW theory is true, the rhetorical excesses of so many of its advocates actively undermines humanity’s ability to build a true consensus in favor of an illusory pose of consensus that results in the end just in cheating like happened with Kyoto. If not actually persuaded, policymakers simply respond with empty promises that pander and then back out when the actual bills come due. This practical problem exists independently of “the other side is worse” types of responses. AGW advocates need to clean up their collective act on the political side for their OWN best interests, not just out of some vague sense of fairness.
Making the second argument requires a reexamination of the environmental movement’s own goals and priorities, in particular their misunderstandings about what really motivates state leaders and their approach towards low-CO2 technologies like nuclear power. Continuing to insist on purist options like deindustrialization and anti-nuclearism simply guarantees their political failure. The fact is that asking countries to actually make massive cuts in their economic growth is not practical — they might sign some piece of paper committing to vague “goals” for massive CO2 reductions, but they won’t actually fulfill those commitments if it requires huge economic pain. In this area, responding to AGW faces the same visible-costs/invisible-benefits problem that free trade advocates have struggled with and failed to overcome for decades. (These dynamics are exactly what will probably kill Waxman-Markey in the Senate.) The only way I can think of to even partially overcome the problem is to (1) massively promote the international development and deployment of new energy technologies and (2) reevaluate the environmentalists’ opposition to nuclear power in favor of endorsing its use at least as a bridging technology while we wait for the maturation of other technologies.
But the most important thing that AGW advocates could do in the short term is clean up their own rhetorical act. The improvement in their credibility in the political sphere that would result from their rejection of hyperbole would make their policy proposals much more influential. As it stands right now, they make the skeptics’ rhetorical job pretty easy, regardless of whether or not that is “fair”.
“I am fairly certain that Kastanj is completely wrong (as usual) in his factual claim that natural historical patterns would have the Earth cooling right now.”
More insulting knee-jerking. Be a little patient rather than assume I’ve missed out on a the bigger picture. It’s fun how you have to step up your accusations – to the point where you have to drive a default disapproval of everything I say – when I started demanding some rigor from you following your wild statements about the scientific consensus and process.
“Earth’s climate undergoes 120,000 year cycles of ice ages broken by short warm periods called interglacials. The cycle is driven by Milankovitch cycles. Long term changes in the Earth’s orbit trigger an initial warming which warms the oceans and melts ice sheets – this releases CO2. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes further warming leading to interglacials ending the ice ages. For the past 12,000 years, we’ve been in an interglacial. The current trend of the Milankovitch cycle is a gradual cooling down towards an ice age.”
In short, according to the pattern observed over a long period of time (longer than, say, four centuries) we should be cooling. We ain’t.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp.gif
“But the most important thing that AGW advocates could do in the short term is clean up their own rhetorical act. The improvement in their credibility in the political sphere that would result from their rejection of hyperbole would make their policy proposals much more influential.”
I only see very strong rhetoric used against those who are arguably not acting in good faith but have simply decided to ignore AGW since they don’t like even the smallest political or economical ramifications. People like you deserve a different approach and level of respect than obvious morons like Broun.
I agree that much rhetoric is indeed off and that certain predictions have been too vaguely “catastrophic”. I don’t think rhetoric is needed at all, instead I think it is important to meet the politicians head on and invite them to really see how solid the science is. That is, separate them from the right-left divide and hubbub of the media and the realm of politics, and just place the facts in front of them and let their faculties sort out what kind of calculations they have to make. China has massive GDP growth and has to spend a decent chunk of that growth on dealing with ecological issues. How much money is lost when people die of heatstroke at a higher percentage, or can’t work in the industry with the same productivity due to lung problems? Then there’s the issue of massive migration forced by dust-bowling, glaciers no longer supplying drinking water and of course Bangladesh and the Maldives simply disappearing. Last time I checked Australia not working properly would also be a problem for world growth. Somehow we have to persuade politicians to not see themselves as beholden to short-term ideology or “pragmatic” issues like public complaints, but simply consider what would happen if everybody saw AGW as a “hoax” or thought that doing something right now is too much of a hassle.
I think some people are actually holding back in order to pre-empt criticism of hysteria or inflating the threat in order to get attention (a vain act, since this criticism will always be leveled); every time a summary of all the investigation are made it turns out the last predictions were naively optimistic. It’s basically Copenhagen or bust, so I’m pretty relieved the US could be taking a small but symbolical first step using ACES. It’s just a shame that the ideological grousing and power of money in politics turned the auction system away from fairness and towards coddling the biggest corporations, but that’s contemporary “fair and free capitalism” I guess.
EVEN IF the AGW theory is true, the rhetorical excesses of so many of its advocates actively undermines humanity’s ability to build a true consensus in favor of an illusory pose of consensus that results in the end just in cheating like happened with Kyoto.
True, some say hey, look at Germany and the UK, they have reduced greenhouse emissions quite a bit actually and are now under the levels set by the Kyoto protocols. But what we don’t hear are the reasons why. A closer examination suggests that this optimism is misplaced. When you take out the UK and Germany, whose emissions decreased due to factors outside of the Kyoto or EU climate and energy policies (UK emissions declined precipitously only after Margaret Thatcher broke the coal miners union in the 1980’s and the UK switched over to North Sea natural gas. German emissions declined only when East German heavy industry collapsed, the remaining 13 advanced developed economies in the EU saw their emissions INCREASE by almost 12 percent between 1990 and 2005. With full implementation of existing policies, projections for 2010 are in fact marginally worse among these nations, exceeding 1990 emissions by over 12 percent.
As for your information about the problems of curtailing CO2 – Absolutely. I’m myself convinced we will see more than a 2 Celsius increase simply on our own accord, and when that happens the feedback cycles will start getting each other activated no matter what we do. I wonder how many multiples of ACES that will cost America, and how many Katrinas that will amount to across the planet (no, I’m not trying to say that Katrina can be connected to AGW). Our choices now range from “intensified duress for all of humanity” to “Well, we had a good run”. Just at 2 degrees the oceans will be more acidic, taking out the plankton and everything that relies on them etc. There will be more 2003 summers, like the one that killed 30′000 people across Europe. There will be more water problems everywhere, and about a third of all species can say goodbye.
hum de hum.
If the USA pumps into the atmosphere 17 percent of all CO2 expelled world wide what is going to be gleaned from harshly penalizing our society by reducing our emissions by 4-8 percent in the next 20 years? That will reduce our percentage of emissions from 17 percent to 16 percent.
Waiting on a response to my question from AGW advocates here.
See the fact of the matter is simple when I talk to my Global warming colleagues I ask them a simple question.
IF AGW is indeed happening…given the current climate of economic and geopolitical factors…what can be done to prevent AGW from becoming a true crisis.
Answers vary from curtailing emissions by 50 percent and getting China on board the clean air bandwagon. Essentially everyone to a man or woman suggest that the only real way to prevent global warming from becoming a crisis is to eliminate fossil fuels all together.
So the question I then put to them is that if the Cap and Trade legislation passes what impact will it have.
Answer….it will provide an impetus to go green.
Very good but what impact will it have on Global warming and the emissions of Green House gases?
Answer….it will get us in the mind set of not burning fossil fuels and giving the oil shieks profits to kill us…
No thats not the question….what will be the effects on the atmosphere.
Well in the beginning it will be insignificant…….but it will provide more jobs for the green industry….
You see where this is headed….It will do NOTHING to lower co2 and methane entering the air. It is simply a feel good Kyoto bill that will give democrats money to spend while raping the American economy.
Summation……..this bill will do not a damn thing to aid the reduction of green house gases into the air other then cutting a token amount of co2.
In the mean time we have already been told that pickup trucks by 2012 will cost us in the neighborhood of 70-100k dollars each. So bubba gets to pull no 4 wheelers around. Boating dealers are going out of bidness. RV dealers are done for. Workers who have to buy pickup trucks to come to your houses to work are going to quadruple their prices. That 2500 dollar plumber will be 10k in 2012.
Their is an economic crisis in America all right and its leader is Barak Obama and the Democrats who are sacking the American public while we sleep.
Fear not. We will wake up in the next 18 months. Good Bye democrats. Barak Obama is getting you to sign on board with your own IRAQ.
Meanwhile the complicit press is cheering on the invasion of the American pocketbook without so much as a “Uh wait a minute Mr. President…perhaps???”
http://casperstartribune.net/articles/2009/06/30/news/wyoming/f99980f878f4d997872575e3007681b4.txt
YOu might find this interesting. I work for the oil and gas industry through out a four state area of Wyoming, Montana and South Dakota and North Dakota.
While it might sound like I am opposed to Green. I really am not. My job will be around for a long time because of projects like the one in the link.
Carbon sequestering is the key to the long term viability of taking co2 thats produced and sequestering it so that we can actually make it work for us and we can vastly reduce CO2 admissions this way rather then spending ungodly amounts of money on cap and trade.
This process is paid for by private industry and it used to actually lower prices by extracting more oil.
There are many things at play here the AGW crowd doesnt want you to know because they want cap and trade to pay for their social projects.
What if….
AWG is real, will anyone talk about the real cure?
dropping the earths’ population by at least half?
@Doomed
Excellent, and notice the crickets from the AGW supporters in regards to your question. Even if we did everything cap and trade is supposed to do, and we got China on board the planet still wouldn’t cut it enough to make their supposed deadline of doomsday. If we are in fact done for (which I don’t think we are) why bother? I say live it up in the meantime