Anthropogenic Global Warming Still Debatable
Writing in the Boston Globe, conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby nails the biggest hole in the insistent lobby that demands all debate about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) be ended:. In addition to highlighting the growing numbers of scientists (not all of whom can be dismissed out of hand with the AGW lobby’s usual bag of rhetorical tricks), Jacoby makes the same point that I have made here:
If the case for a war on carbon dioxide were unassailable, no one would have to warn against debating it.
The fact that AGW believers (including a couple of regular commenters here at PoliGazette) spend so much time and energy trying to shout down skeptics with absolutist proclamations shows a certain lack of confidence in their own case. AGW believers who compare skepticism to crimes against humanity or “treason”, as Paul Krugman did this week, betray their own uncertainty. Overcompensation is one of the best “red flags” for hidden uncertainty. Believers treat unbelievers in the exact same way that religious extremists treat heretics, and thus reveal that theirs is a faith-based movement, as least in its extremist form.
This is not to deny that the preponderance of evidence continues to be on the side of the global warming hypothesis (the “anthropogenic” part of the case remains much weaker, though the two sets of questions are almost always conflated by believers in their efforts to reinforce their case). The primary focus of debate should be on what can or should be done that could address potential problems from global warming in a cost-effective manner. But the efforts to short-circuit debate by extreme rhetoric like Krugman’s should be called out for what they are — unhelpful and intellectually dishonest. The fact that they are pretending to save the planet does not constitute an excuse for bad argument or a justification for bad policies.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
“If the case for a war on carbon dioxide were unassailable, no one would have to warn against debating it.”
That’s not a point. The reason people like me are warning against debating whether reducing CO2-output is important is because there is not so much time left, and the people who want to debate have so much facts in front of their noses it can be said their skepticism amounts to denial instead. All their reasons for wanting to have a debate about *whether* to have a “war on carbon dioxide” fall apart under scrutiny, and considering how the poorest countries will be struck first by accelerated AGW, it does make sense to warn against placating those who want their skepticism to have privileged status.
“The fact that AGW believers (including a couple of regular commenters here at PoliGazette) spend so much time and energy trying to shout down skeptics with absolutist proclamations shows a certain lack of confidence in their own case. ”
I’ve seen plenty absolutist statements about AGW proponents and those who want to address AGW, and this one above is just the latest. I’m perfectly confident I am right, I am just not confident that an average person is capable of seeing that addressing AGW is important due to the undue attention and credibility skeptics and denialists enjoy in the old media. It’s just like DADT or gay adoptions – I’m not angry because the resistance makes me doubt the importance and justice of my case, I’m just frustrated because self-centered fear-mongers and wannabe-martyrs complaining about left-wing oppressors are given attention.
From what I’ve seen skeptics in response to proponents can be just as aggressive, upset and doom-preaching as any economist-turned-pundit.
“Believers treat unbelievers in the exact same way that religious extremists treat heretics”
Belief is when you act as if something is true without being able to prove it in a solid manner. It’s “knowledge” but without anything sufficiently empirical. With this in mind AGW-proponents don’t have to “believe”, while the skeptics most certainly have to. I can say I know AGW is a fact, a skeptic simply has to *believe* the 97 % of active climate scientists don’t count because…
“The primary focus of debate should be on what can or should be done that could address potential problems from global warming in a cost-effective manner.”
Do you honestly think the people who remain the biggest obstacle against this sort of debate are the AGW-proponents?
Let me guess, the fact that I tried to refute you like this is evidence that your article made me nervous. Sure, in the same sense that just because group-think and media pressure can influence the scientific process thousands of scientists the world over *must* have been influenced by it to a great degree.
and the people who want to debate have so much facts in front of their noses it can be said their skepticism amounts to denial instead.
Actually its not true that skeptics are deniers. What they are more likely is realists and pragmatists. I do not begrudge reducing co2 and methane and pollution as much as possible. What I do begrudge is the way in which we do it.
1. Cap and Trade is a punitive way to reduce co2 by 4-8 percent….THIS itself is highly debateable given the fact that our nation continues to expand its economy and use up more and more resources to produce energy.
2. The fact that those who are true believers when given license to do as they please (Barak Obama and the democrats) we end up with a bill that is beyond punitive and which does nothing to address the core problems of Global Warming.
So while you continue to pound on your keyboard with blinders on I would encourage you to visit some oil fields, gas fields in the near future and see what the real solutions to Co2 emissions are all about. If the government actually took every penny from Cap and trade and pumped it into carbon sequestering then we would make a real difference in co2 emissions.
Facts are simple. AGW is a dual headed hydra with a certain group that could give a flying flip about Global warming. They simply want more money to spend on their social programs and those are the people who are squashing the global warming solution….not the so called deniers.
Kastanj,your assertion that 97% of active climate scientists believe in AGW, I assume, is based on the survey conducted by Prof. Doran from the University of Illinois. Alas, his conclusions are flawed.
The good professor sent out over ten thousand questionaires but compiled his statistics only from the one third who chose (the operative word) to respond. That methodology is comparable to the various call-in surveys one sees on cable news shows and cannot be relied upon.
Those who believe in catastrophic AGW should lead by example. I mean, if you truly believe that AGW will have a devastating impact on innocent life forms, then it would be immoral not to take it upon yourself to do the following:
1). Go completely “off the grid.” Sell your automobile(s), televisions, and other consumer goods that are big contributors to your CO2 footprint. You could keep your computer and wireless connection as means of spreading the word, but you should try to live as close to a model lifestyle as possible.
2). Put all of your savings into eco-friendly technology investments.
If you can’t convince YOURSELF that the situation is critical and therefore LIVE accordingly, how can you have any credibility when you go to non-believers and try to convinve those people that they’re the ones who should be making the sacrifices?
Another suggestion: Al Gore should also go off the grid. He should travel from town to town on his bicycle, spreading the word. That way, he would actually get a lot more publicity for his cause – major PR score. So, if he really cares about the planet, it’s a no brainer! Of course, he’d have to do it at least as long as Forrest Gump and probably just keep doing it for the next 3-4 years, or he might look like a phony. I realize that this project would entail a lifestyle that would completely cancel out the benefits he now enjoys from his multimillion dollar green gigs, but we are talking about one of the geratest crises in human history. Also, if he publicly disavows any future profits from cap & trade schemes or his other eco-friendly investment vehicles, that would also go a long way toward convincing possible skeptics that he is honestly looking out for future generations.
Patrick, you forgot to mention that if Al Gore were to pull a Forest Gump, he could bring back the beard. By not shaving, he would save water and eliminate the carbon emissions from the production of blades,cream and cologne.
Facts are simple. AGW is a dual headed hydra with a certain group that could give a flying flip about Global warming. They simply want more money to spend on their social programs and those are the people who are squashing the global warming solution….not the so called deniers.
I cant stress this enough. I hope people will wake up and begin seeing that the Fascist socialist in our country are using the AGW as a spearhead to gain the money they need for their social programs.
They could give a flying flip about global warming.
Right Jason, and why are the reports by folks like Alan Carlin being hushed? He filed an internal report at the EPA on anthropogenic global warming, Carlin knows what he is talking about, he is an MIT-educated senior research analyst with 38-years under his belt. The report contained several inconvenient conclusions regarding the recent EPA declarations of their intent to regulate greenhouse gases. Carlin works specifically at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), he prepared a report that is highly critical of this impending decision. Here is one quote..
“…As of the best information I currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to conform to real world data makes it necessary from a scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it (see Section 2.1 for the exact quote). Unfortunately this has not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made….”
Here is his full report..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/
Carlin’s report was rejected, with officials claiming in internal emails that this research would have “a very negative impact on our office.”
Reports like this give credence to the “we need to stop and think about this a little bit before we do anything drastic” viewpoint. The debate is not over. Although I do agree that cutting greenhouse emissions is a good thing, Cap and trade, as well as drastic doomsday scenarios for justification just don’t cut the mustard. Too drastic, too soon without enought real debate (as evidenced by the squashed story above).
Actually, Alan Carlin shoud watch out, he is getting up there in years too, like Walpin he may also get a vote of “no confidence” as well from Obama
Sure thing Glenn, and when catastrophic AGW sets in I’m taking all the money involved in repairing the damage out of your pocket?
That’s not how it works. I can pollute as much as I want and if I can get the votes to force you *and me* to pay more taxes to combat AGW then you will surely be taxed. Conversely, when AGW starts setting in, I will give my fair share as well. We live in societies and will share certain costs and responsibilities. Leading by example is a way for me to gain credibility, but it’s actually not an intrinsic *moral* imperative of demanding cuts in CO2-output.
@Jay_C
Ah-tah-tah-tah! Everything points towards the conclusion that Carlin was *not* censored out of the report because he was a dissenter. Like most (if not nearly all) of climate skeptics who didn’t make the cut, he was edited out of the report not because of AGW-proponents hatred or fear of dissent, but because his science did not pass the bar under the scrutiny of peers.
“Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.
So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.
If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself …”
The rest of the debunking: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691
Also:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/30/epa-suppressed-report-endangerment-alan-carlin-cbs/
To quote Mark Shapiro:
“Alan Carlin, a denier burrowed into the EPA, plagiarizes some junk science, and fraudulently passes it off as science in a draft comment, which is properly rejected.
CEI, Roger Pielke, Jr., and others then fraudulently claim that this editing was “censorship”.
CBS and other MSM outlets buy the lie, get spun, and run with the “controversy”.
Science loses a round to frauds and screamers.”
Carlin was not edited out for the wrong reasons, from my POV. I’d like for you, Jay_C, to look at the debunkings of Carlin, see if you can successfully defend him and retract if you cannot. After all, you did mention Carlin because you felt the scientific process had been undermined? Well, here’s your shot to take a stance for scientific principles and see if the facts support your conclusion that Carlin was edited out because his skepticism was rejected because of political bias.
At the beginning of the environmental movement, the emphasis was how mankind’s alteration of the earth affected both it and the humans living upon it. Slowly, the emphasis has shifted from the effect on humans to the earth itself. In other words, giving “Mother Earth” priority over humans.
Here is one question that has been nagging me. In the mid-1970’s, catalytic converters have been standard on all cars sold in the U.S. Since 1981 these converters have a “three-way” system. The convernt nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and oxygen. They also convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide, and unburned hydrocarbons to carbon dioxide.
Sure, catalystic converters have reduced smog in major cities, but now their main output is considered a danger to humans by the EPA.
So why has the government not instituted a program to remove these devices from ALL vehicles? Sure, people might be inconvenienced…even suffer…but what price is that compared to saving the planet? The above question should be grasped by anyone worried about AGW and action should be demanded.
This debate masks something that is not articulated because our society has devolved into an intellectual sandbox of “correctness.” I am astounded for Kastanj to state that those expressing skepticism are deniers. Or to “those who want their skepticism to have priviledge status.” I could point out that a citizen has a DUTY to be skeptical of government action.
This new environmental movement is a recurrence of the failed social experiment 90 years ago known as Prohibition. Again, it’s for our own good. Again, no dissent or skepticism is allowed. Just shut up and pass the admendment. Just fall in line and CONFORM. This is anethema to the American spirit, one we are supposed to be celebrating July 4th. But independence, as a concept, has been suborned by a school of thought that is, in the end, without thought.
As regards fear-mongering, it is safe to say that mantle rests with those warning of the end of life unless their methodology is followed. Few remember now how Al Gore started freaking about the ozone hole in the 80’s, blaming CFC’s for the problem. So, after billions on research, developement, retro-fitting, etc., CFC’s were supplanted by HFC’s. But wait….they are greenhouse gases!! When HFC’s are banned no one has a thought or care for the great unwashed who will not have the option of climate control for their homes or cars. I guarantee anyone that Mr. Gore et al will never be without comfort while explaining to the masses that they must suffer for the greater good.
This is no longer a “debate.” It is a struggle between those who wish to be left alone against those who cannot leave others alone. There must constantly be a war against something on a global scale. How else can one form a world government without constant crisis?
If you notice today. With the Obama administration at the helm that ALL debate is cut off. EVERYTHING is decided.
It has been a tactic of the left now for about 5-6 years. The Fascist left government of Barak Obama is about their agenda and to hell with everyone else. They will not tolerate debate. Ridicule anyone who wants to have a debate and state unequivocally that their facts are THE facts of the matter and that anything else brought into the debate is debunked.
Example of this was lil tidbit that was printed during the Campaign leading up to the election from another blog.
But, again, I must say — NONE of this is nearly as important as the notion of the American People potentially voting an al-Qaeda, Hamas, PLO, Taliban, and Bill Ayers-ish “Weathermen terr’ist” sympathizer
Of course referring to Barak Obama. This is their tact. They self flagulate to the extent that any debate is seen as nothing more then whining and crying because people are so used to seeing them do their own whining and crying that they are turned off by anyone whining and crying.
Reverse psychology. Thus goes the Debate on health care, AGW and Cap and trade. The tact has worked so far but the one thing they continue to take into account that you can throw words around all you want and people will go…”So”.
Pick their pockets and take away their money and they beat feet to the polls. Always have and always will. I truly wonder if the democrats are feeling invincible right now? They have the opportunity to lead with a moderate and fair hand and instead they have lost their freakin minds. I wonder if the politics of self destruction is contagious?????
Kastanj, comedian Groucho Marx once asked a contestant on his game show if having thirteen children wasn’t a burden. “Well,” she replied, “I love my husband.”
“Lady, I love my cigar but I take it out every once in a while” he replied.
I love my favorite internet sites but I realize, present site excluded, they tend to be biased in one direction or another. I find it helpful to take out own my own and do some independent research before cementing an opinion. The sources you seem to rely on are wedded to the AGW agenda. They may be right. I am simply acknowledging credible scientists can disagree, the scientific method is not infallable and scientists are as dogmatic as anyone else.
The real issue to consider is what the United States can do to have the most desired effect on planet. I would like very much to hear your ideas.
“The sources you seem to rely on are wedded to the AGW agenda.”
I realize this, but there are two possible explanations – their scientific approach gives them their “alignment” or their alignment results in cherry-picked science. At least they are accountable by presenting all their work, and they read through skeptic reports in order to see if it can be debunked or not. Considering the internet is open, it is not in their interest to have skeptic arguments and data floating around without them having at least tried to criticize it *and* exhibit their doing so.
“The real issue to consider is what the United States can do to have the most desired effect on planet.”
Well, the measurable/quantifiable unwanted effects of CO2-emissions are, according to the science, damage to all kinds of resources, damage to land value, damage to property and lives etc. It’s an externality, one that has so far remained untaxed or accounted for. This is a problem, because humans aren’t prone to take the long perspective, and so taxation is the best way to get the message across. If it weren’t for the fact that all humans share a collective climate anyone could pollute to their hearts content, but you can’t force others to suffer the effects of your pollution. Well, the pollution is having an effect, so since we live in a society the cost of pollution has to be shared fairly.
I guess what I want is for the US, being what it is, to prove that it is possible to create a search for a solution in circumstances where politics follow the science of climate *and* economy side-by-side, with no room for ideology. In China there is much investment and government support for all possible solutions, and their contribution to total CO2 through history is one-tenth of the US’. The problem is that China is an authoritarian state. In other OECD countries there is (more or less) respect for democracy, so China isn’t a good role model.
In both the EU and the US there is much resistance to a real “free and fair capitalism” approach due to the weight of particular interests. I would hope this will change now that Sweden assumes EU presidency, but I won’t hold my breath. In a decent system there would be a calculation on how much CO2 humanity can emit before we reach 2 degrees celsius, and then each country would be allotted a share of CO2 and be punished if it exceeded this limit. However, every country could buy the share of poorer countries. However, in the US this was not even allowed on a national level. One plan was to have all corporations and emitters auction freely and fairly for emission allowances but this was resisted.
I guess that’s what I am asking for, for the US to showcase a decent debate where facts and all concerned are given due weight in pursuit of a solution. Furthermore, there needs to be a start to discussing what will be done with climate refugees if things aren’t controlled quickly enough. Whatever ideological aims cause AGW-activism or resistance, they need to be forgotten. Everybody who can do the hard math and hard scrutiny necessary to eke out the best possible reform (this includes representatives from corporations and consumer groups) must be put at the forefront, and they have to operate with less regard for the ideological posturing that goes on in the media.
The ACES bill wanted to cut deforestation, which is extremely important. But there needs to be more concern for utilizing all the natural gas. Naturally, this will see most of the GOP (and coal-state “centrist” democrats) go to arms but it needs to be done.
One does not need to be an “active climate scientist”* to find real holes in the GW claims. Anyone with a solid background in the pitfalls of applying complex theoretical models to real-world events is qualified to poke holes in what is essentially empirically unverified complex modelling.
However, many “active climate scientists” such as both Roger Pielkes and William Gray are among the most vocal critics of catstrophic AGW theory. Indeed, some of the most vocal critics are reviewers and former revieweres for IPCC, who have noted over and over again that IPCC IV is essentially a political document, not a scientific one, and is replete with major errors and misrepresentations.
[* -- "active climate scientist" = "my grant funding and livelihood probably depends on this being perceived as a major crisis"]
Kastanj
What is it your global warming people are trying to accomplish with the reductions of co2 by the United States?
What effects do you believe this cap and trade bill will have on the co2 emissions world wide?
What are going to be the results of global warming that have people so alarmed?
Almost the entire United States was at one time underwater. How do you suppose that happened? Don’t you guys realize that Mankind is nothing but a species that will exist for awhile and then become extinct as mother nature rids herself of the virus known as man?
Why do you suppose the earth heats up and cools down? Cycles of extremes perpetuate the world and if its being exacerbated by mankind then how do you propose that 7 billion people readjust to a life without technology which feeds the planet?
Rather global warming is or is not occruing because of man is immaterial. Mankind is a doomed species. We are going to be extincted. Earth, nature and the cosmos will guarantee that. We are not unique. We are not special.
Eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow you die. Or I suppose you could delay the inevitable for a couple decades but to what extent?
The worst thing that happened to mankind was civilization. Once we became civilized and stopped killing each other then the planet was doomed to the virus known as man. Unless we kill each other off then mother earth will do it for us.
Either way man is a doomed species. You can buy that or not but no amount of carbon reduction is going to save mankind from multiplying at such alarming rates that the host has no recourse but to turn loose the antibodies that will destroy the virus that is eating her alive.
We are nothing more then a virus in the cosmos and Mother Earth will soon be rid of us. In the meantime we can reduce our carbon output by 4 percent and pat ourselves on the back and shout hallelujah. We have saved the planet!!! God Bless Barak Obama.
Doomed: I thought I was a cynic! You have me beat 100-fold.
You have one thing right, though. All the environmentalists (even the non-crazy ones more in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt) say, “we have to save the Earth.” What they really mean is, “we have to save ourselves.”
The Earth has survived crashes by huge meteors, eras of volcanic activity, eras of extreme cold, eras of extreme hot, and millions of species. It will certainly survive anything we can do to it, even if it becomes a wasteland for a couple hundred million years.
The global warming crowd needs to start admitting that it’s not about Earth, it’s about us.
I made a post and it didn’t get through. Most upsetting.
Anyway, Pielkes is guilty of touting a bad report as scientifically solid and then claiming it was rejected because of bias rather than its poor quality.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/30/epa-suppressed-report-endangerment-alan-carlin-cbs/
Pielkes himself is mostly focussed on how to address AGW rather than deny its existence, so, yeah.
Gray is a retired professor of some repute who has done a lot of research on hurricanes. I don’t know what he’s done lately. He’s torn apart here, but it’s from 2006 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/)
As for models, they offer a mixed bag. On some factors they are irregular, on some they are accurate. They don’t account for positive feedback cycles, which could be the reason so many predictions turn out to be too optimistic.
The IPCC is definitely not an impeccable document but I haven’t seen proof that it is flawed enough to not be taken as important guidance.
“[* -- "active climate scientist" = "my grant funding and livelihood probably depends on this being perceived as a major crisis"]”
Yeah, prove it. You can start with these guys as an easy start!
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Yeah Michael My name says it all.
Once again Kastanj you seem to be missing the point. Whether people believe or dont believe in Global warming is rather immaterial. The point is in the science.
Assumption number one….planet is heating and Co2 is causing that….
okay…..fine.
Solution?
Kastanj,
You are in profound denial that there are people out there who disagree with anthropogenic global warming on honest intellectual grounds.
This is a matter of intellectual maturity, and a reason why your side is losing the polling with unprecedented media support. You are losing because you lack the intellectual maturity to deal with the reality of intelligent people disagreeing with you for intelligent reasons. It is sort of pathetic.
@Kastanj
“Ah-tah-tah-tah! Everything points towards the conclusion that Carlin was *not* censored out of the report because he was a dissenter. Like most (if not nearly all) of climate skeptics who didn’t make the cut, he was edited out of the report not because of AGW-proponents hatred or fear of dissent, but because his science did not pass the bar under the scrutiny of peers.”
Sure, and it just so happens that NONE of the dissenters had “Good Science” as seen coveniently through the eyes of the AGW-proponents, to back up their claims. Have you looked at Carlins claims? Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have measurably declined. How do you explain that Kastanj, without being intellectually dishonest?
Also Kastanj, I am not a scientist, but I’d at least like to see both sides of the story debated at ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC (and not from the White House), and not have to go to Fox News all the time to always get the other side of the story, that is my main point.
I’d like to point out that to be fair, The Carlin controversy is similar to one under the Bush administration — only the Bush administration was taking the opposite stance. In that case, James Hansen claimed the administration was trying to “keep him from speaking out” and calling for reductions in greenhouse gases.
In that vain, it is interesting that in the Carlin case, predictably, the instant response team from the global warming community focused on his lack of scredentials in climate science. On the other hand, Paul Krugman has also written on global warming. However, to the extent that I understand the science of global warming, I wonder how the people who object to Carlin on the basis of his profession will react to Krugman? Why do I sense that “that is OK” but Carlin is not.
Krugman writes that ‘deniers are betraying the planet’ referring to the debate last week on the cap and trade bill which narrowly passed through the House of Representatives. He goes on to say,
“To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research.
The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.”
Interesting, that is funny, I have dug on the internet (not on MSNBC, ABC, CBS yeah, they don’t talk about it this …as a fact anyway….) While the Arctic ice cap shrunk, as it has before, but is now recovering, as it has before. The Antarctic ice cap on the other hand, is growing at the rate of 10,000 square kilometers per year. As for deserts in China and Africa deserts are actually shrinking. MIT computer models did project a potentially high temperature rise for the end of this century, this is disputed by climate scientists, including Richard Lindzen of… MIT. It also is quite different from projections of the IPCC.
In Krugman’s blog posts, he excoriates ‘deniers’ for focusing on short term trends, especially the stabilization of temperatures since 1998. He notes correctly that temperatures have risen since the late 1800s and seems to think that the skeptics ignore that. My reading of what’s out there, both on websites and published documents, suggests otherwise.
It comes down to this I think… Efforts to limit the debate to a closed “priesthood of scientists” is wrong. Scientists receive taxpayer money and are expected to inform policy debate. But nobody will give them the keys to the car–they won’t decide policy. So interaction from citizens, politicians and even economists is not only inevitable, it is desirable–it helps shape policy and evaluation of policy mechanisms.
One more thing Kastanj , I always thought that the scientific method was the failure to disprove something? Not the ability to prove something. If a point of view is given that may potentially poke a hole in a scientific theory, and seems viable at face value, I would think it should be looked into and studied before shoving policy down the throats of the tax paying citizenry, don’t you think? In fact, disproving a specific potential hole (rather than ignoring it, or laughing it off) would, if PROVEN FALSE, would further strengthen the AGW-proponents stance, don’t you think? The days of “It has to happen now” are over, Bush started it… now, we need a breather from it.
@RAGGEDSTEP
what if….
the debunkers have a clue, and things keep on cooling?
What then?
Kastanj doesn’t understand the science himself, or the modelling, and is thus reduced to regurguitating the sniping of others. Pielke’s work (both of them) stands firm. As do the numerous and reputable deconstructions of the problems inherent in the global climate models, which continue to fail to correspond to reality.
Oh, and the scientific method relies on the continual questioning of results and causation. Notice what it is that the AGW zealots do their utmost to suppress.
yes….
einstien never accepted quantum mechanics…
galileo never accepted the church’s view….
budha said long before hawkins, that only nothing is forever…..
Notice he never replied to this. And even if he did I’d fully expect the canned lefty response that the supposed good that Gore does outweighs his use. Similar to the kudo’s Travolta got after flying his jet across the ocean to talk about conserving energy.
But yeah – it’s been screaming – the sky is falling, the sky is falling for far too long. It’s not all for loss though, environmentalists had many good points over the years – fear of over logging, over fishing, etc. Those items had real tangible facts, not hypothesis that are no longer valid. Or at best – strained to still see it as a possibility.
Kastanj, according to all of the – the end of the world is coming – folks – the amount of CO2 is already out there? And that all so-called scientific studies proclaim to reduce future emissions? Why then completely minimize China’s role when it’s future emissions far exceed the United States? Why exactly did you neglect this glaringly obvious item? Just more U.S.A. bashing?
Exactly Doomed. The earth has had warming and cooling periods for millions of years before Man set foot on it. We can no more control that than we can reverse the effects of gravity by producing less plastics.
Despite what Kastanj, Jeb and the like want to admit – if man were still in the stone age – global warming would still be taking place. I’d agree that Man is most likely increasing the speed of it – but that is not something that their ilk would want to admit in the first place.
As he’s said time and time again – there’s no time to study it.
“Notice he never replied to this.”
Sure I did.
Perhaps my comments aren’t posted because they are too long… Part1
“You are in profound denial that there are people out there who disagree with anthropogenic global warming on honest intellectual grounds.”
What the heck, guy? I look at the names the others give me and look at their histories, seeing if they have something important to add. I’m fully aware of Inhofe’s list (which happens to contain lot of people who aren’t scientists) etc., yet you spout the lamest possible accusation. You are obviously the one in denial.
“Have you looked at Carlins claims? Carlin’s report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have measurably declined.”
Yes. Have you looked at the *debunking* of his claims? If his claims came from a proper synthesis of facts there is nothing to prove he would have been edited out of the report. Again: Look at the debunking, see if you can defend him and fully retract if you can not. I’m not making an outrageous demand here.
“Also Kastanj, I am not a scientist, but I’d at least like to see both sides of the story debated at ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC”
You have obviously not looked at either of the two debunkings I offered, but one site that has debunked him are a bit inquisitive as to why “Liberal” networks take the EPA “controversy” at face value: http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/30/epa-suppressed-report-endangerment-alan-carlin-cbs/#more-8549
They have more criticism of “biased liberal” news sources who ignore AGW evidence or let thoroughly debunked “skeptics” (can they be called skeptics if they make the same claims after they have been fisked?) take up lots of space because the media is afraid of being called biased and feels obliged to have controversy and contrarians on every issue. Yet this was all in vain since there will always be obviously fact-rejecting folks who still see them as so biased that they have to hide over at Fox News to escape the “alarmists” and get “both sides on the issue”. This is getting ridiculous. Either start contending with my facts (like I did with yours) or at least stop leveling accusations against me.
“While the Arctic ice cap shrunk, as it has before, but is now recovering, as it has before. The Antarctic ice cap on the other hand, is growing at the rate of 10,000 square kilometers per year.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-cherry-pick-your-way-to-Antarctic-land-ice-gain.html
“However, what the article fails to mention is that while parts of the East Antarctic interior are gaining ice, it’s also losing ice around the edges and overall, is in approximate mass balance. So with West Antarctica losing ice and East Antarctica in balance, Antarctica is overall losing ice. But all The Australian does is cite the size of East Antarctica, mention that parts of it are cooling and the inference is East Antarctic ice gain must outweigh West Antarctic ice melt. It’s clever persuasion but very misleading.”
As for the Arctics, if you bothered to provide a link we could see if your source deals with the facts here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-melt-natural-or-man-made.htm
They acknowledge that the ice grows and retracts regularly but that the trend is now tipping downwards. If you look, you’ll see that their graph has regular periods of ice growth that still cannot stop the trend – is your source seeing a reversing of the trend or is it trying to pass of a regular, temporary growth as a trend? See, I can’t know anything about your “bias-free” information unless you post links like I did.
That did the trick. Part 2.
“As for deserts in China and Africa deserts are actually shrinking.”
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/04/20/china-environmental-refugees/5048/ The Chinese government has been successful in fighting desertification, but that is merely evidence that it is possible to something about the effects of AGW. The desertification would have continued if it was not for Chinese action taken against it. However, they still suffer huge costs as a result of AGW – something which the Eu and the US should pay for.
http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2009-06-25_125345332.html
Signs that the desert is jumping over the Mediterranean to Italy, and that Egypt and countries on Africa’s north coast are also bound for trouble.
http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/06/21/desertification-devastates-african-economies-ghana-loses-5-of-agricultural-gdp/
The serious costs on already impoverished nations because of desertification. That should be paid for by developed nations with a history of emissions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/30/china-climate-change-warning
More on China’s ambiguous results in fighting the impact of climate change. Do you have a link or something? I can’t find anything completely clear on the state of desertification in either Africa or China.
In short, ACES is a flawed bill but it does what must be done – internalize an externality to change behavior. That’s economics 101 – if there are costs caused by a market or consumption then we can’t saddle other nations or other people with those costs. The cost has to be imposed by a government in this case.
“. “If a point of view is given that may potentially poke a hole in a scientific theory, and seems viable at face value, I would think it should be looked into and studied before shoving policy down the throats of the tax paying citizenry, don’t you think?”
Scientists try all the time to poke a hole in their own reasoning and methodology. Science itself is basically about criticism and skepticism.
“Kastanj doesn’t understand the science himself, or the modelling, and is thus reduced to regurguitating the sniping of others.”
That came out of the right mouth, sure.
“Pielke’s work (both of them) stands firm.”
Link? AFAIK Pielkes thinks AGW is a fact and he is focussed on debating how to reduce emissions.
“Why then completely minimize China’s role when it’s future emissions far exceed the United States?”
Because the future is yet to affect us while the past is already affecting us. The US (and the EU) has much more responsibility for the effects of CO2. Yet, the Chinese dictators are focused on combating emissions and the effects of them while there are several politicians in America who remain wholly irresponsible and even laughably ignorant. The eight GOPers who voted for ACES are now out in the cold. How’s that for threatening dissenters?
Part 3.
“The earth has had warming and cooling periods for millions of years
before Man set foot on it.”
True.
We can no more control that than we can reverse the effects of gravity by producing less plastics.”
False.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Basically; we are supposed to be *cooling* right now, according to your “warming and cooling periods”. Yet we are *warming*. You’ve basically trapped yourself by claiming that we should look to the natural cycles – according to these very cycles, we should be getting colder. Yet these natural, cyclical factors have not been shown culpable by investigations!
“The usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past 3 decades of warming. This doesn’t mean by itself that CO2 is the main cause of current global warming – you don’t prove anthropogenic warming by eliminating all other options. But the primary causes of commonly cited climate change in the past have played little part in the current warming trend.”
“if man were still in the stone age – global warming would still be taking place.”
Wrong. Right now we *would have been* cooling, if it weren’t for anthropogenic CO2. Scientists come to this conclusion by eliminating other factors and through modeling. Their models cannot account for this rise in temperature if they take away the values for man-made CO2. You make the same claims again and again without bothering to compare your statements with facts, as if you are too good to respond to criticism. You say you are skeptical of AGW because of natural swings in climate. I then respond and say that scientists have accounted for cycles and found that right now we should have been cooling, yet we are not. Now, if you make the same claim again without bothering to respond, you are no longer showing skepticism, but denial.
“As he’s said time and time again – there’s no time to study it.”
It’s been studied. You say skepticism deserves a chance, but the essence of all scientific pursuits is criticism and skepticism. If a scientist cannot explain how he can be sure his variable is the one responsible for the changes, his work won’t be allowed to reach the forefront of the field, and there wouldn’t be so many scientific institutions claiming AGW is a fact. Why is this so hard to understand?
Interested: “We can no more control that than we can reverse the effects of gravity by producing less plastics.”
Me: “False”
I retract – I was totally wrong! Of course you are completely correct here, Interested. Indeed, we can’t actually control these natural cycles. However, these natural cycles don’t cause these quick temperature changes *and* right now we should have seen cooling because of these natural, cyclical factors. Yet, we are warming. So we are at the behest of climate-changing factors beyond our control, but we are doing a much better job of altering our climate.
It’s just like a rocket engine getting a satellite into space – we are not controlling gravity, we are just overpowering it with a stronger force.
Anyway, here is Pielke getting chewed out for ppor science. Apparently, he is guilty of smearing people who dissent against his unfounded claim that there is no link between AGW and extreme weather.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/02/al-gore-no-exaggeration-roger-pielke-andy-revkin/
http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/02/al-gore-no-exaggeration-roger-pielke-andy-revkin-2/
Yet he and people like George Will are regularly featured even in “politically correct” venues like the NYT. Let’s not even mention The Australian and it’s repeatedly fisked repetition of denier’s talking points. Jay_C, Isn’t it time to admit that you don’t have to turn to Fox News in order to get a dose of contrarianism?
@Kastanj
“Yes. Have you looked at the *debunking* of his claims? If his claims came from a proper synthesis of facts there is nothing to prove he would have been edited out of the report. Again: Look at the debunking, see if you can defend him and fully retract if you can not. I’m not making an outrageous demand here”.
Yup, I already responded, the “debunking”, as I wrote above, his main question still stands….Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have measurably declined. How do you explain that Kastanj, without being intellectually dishonest?…
The debunking article you provided does the typical, “Attack the credibility of the man and his sources, not the question” tactic, and poorly at that.
I have looked at the arguments against Carlin’s claims. Some of the criticisms of his side points may be credible, but I would think you would at least concede that the data in the meat and potatoes of his report (the ones that generated his now “famous chart”) is based on credible scientists, and is no more flimsy than the data that the AGW-scientists have put into their modeling scenarios. (His chart actually contains their modeling for comparison)
Look, let’s face it, this has nothing to do with scientific “peer-review” (even as ridiculous as that process has become). This has everything to do with assessments sponsored by the US Govt or the UN which *consistently* fail to include serious published research that disagrees with the PC view.
“Assessments” (and this is what Carlin’s report was) are summaries of the relevant science as reflected in scientific studies which *have already been peer-reviewed* and published. Secondly, scientists have thoroughly documented their frustrations with regards to assessments which ignored their own published work. Indeed, a number of scientists who worked on previous IPCC assessments have resigned in frustration because of this problem. See Chris Landsea as an example.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
And here is a great article, that gets to the crux of the issue and presents additional new arguments against AGW advocates:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d27-Next-generation-questions-for-global-warming
Here is a snippet…#’s 5 and 6 are my favorite.
Data gathering and analysis
1. Anthony Watts of Watt’s Up With That has surveyed 80% of the USHCN surface temperature measurement sites and found that only 11% of them meet sitting specifications. The surface temperature increase that partially gave rise to concerns about global warming coincided with a move to tethered electronic measuring devices (um, I think that means thermometers) that forced the movement of many stations closer to buildings and developed areas, causing warming that may not have been corrected for.
2. Urban heat bias occurs when temperature measurements are influenced by development of heat sources near the thermometers. There are questions about whether this is accounted for correctly in analyses of surface temperatures.
3. Indeed, the NOAA has stopped correcting for urban heat bias altogether, and their surface temperature record is diverging from other sources. This is further complicated by the drop out of a large number of measurement stations.
4. Many temperature measurement records show a trend break at the same time that the measuring methodology has changed. Skeptics ask whether this has influenced the records arbitrarily.
5. The data from 3,000 Argos buoys appear to show a loss of heat in the ocean since 2003. This would seem to have important implications for AGW theory, if confirmed.
6. AGW theory predicts a warming of the tropical troposphere that has yet to be found. Again, if this warming is not found it would appear to have important implications about the efficacy of other projections of future climate.
Does uncertainty about the accuracy of measurements threaten AGW theory? Or does a verified rise in temperatures matter more than the exact start and stop points?
And it’s not like we are talking about rocket science here (though the methods involde are over my head) but we can relate to tempearture. if evidence can be shown (using the thermometers above) that Urban areas are causing their temps to rise and hence the data from those thermometers is invalid, and other Argos buoys appear to show a loss of heat in the ocean since 2003, how is that not a piece of the puzzle that needs to be rectified (before we jump 500 steps to the conclusion that we need to pass Cap and Trade, now?)
Great comment from the boston Globe article”
davidtheeconprof wrote:
Lincoln, you should follow the links in the article and see what they have to say. From the WSJ article:
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)” and the Fortune article. They were well written (and accurate).
Interesting:
Do a google news search for the past week on “Jim Inhofe skeptic scientist”
http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Jim+Inhofe+skeptic+scientist&as_qdr=w&as_drrb=q&cf=all
and lo-and-behold the only credible new sources covering this are:
Washington Times
Wall Street Journal
and in the not necessarily credible area, (depending on your point of view, Fox News), and a handful of blogs…
Why no NY times? No MS(NBC)? no CBS, ABC? Golly, it makes you wonder, doesn’t it.
Must just be me I guess, I’m overreacting.
“global temperatures have measurably declined.”
Carlin based this assertion on debunked research by others who started measuring in 1998 (El Niño: hot global temperatures) and ended on a La Niña (low global temperatures). That’s very convenient for them but it is conscious cherry-picking and is not only unscientific but even childish. Another person Carlin relied on while making his work was that of an astrologer who believed the rise of Hitler and Stalin was because of cosmic cycles.
Here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
Carlin’s questions do *not* stand.
“The debunking article you provided does the typical, “Attack the credibility of the man and his sources, not the question” tactic”
So it’s wrong to hold the previous lapses in scientific thought against someone who aims to have scientific claims a second time? They hold the history of people like Carlin or Pielkes against them.
“Look, let’s face it, this has nothing to do with scientific “peer-review” (even as ridiculous as that process has become).”
Sigh. Now *you’re* the one smearing all the peer-reviewing scientists (baselessly) rather than criticize their science.
““Assessments” (and this is what Carlin’s report was) are summaries of the relevant science as reflected in scientific studies which *have already been peer-reviewed* and published.”
You’re wrong again – here’s one of the items on the list of “scientific” sources Carlin used: a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray
@Kastanj
when I said “global temperatures have measurably declined.” this was corrobarated by the evidence pulled together by Anthony Watts, et al.
Another person Carlin relied on while making his work was that of an astrologer who believed the rise of Hitler and Stalin was because of cosmic cycles.
Yup, and I give you this comment:
“I have looked at the arguments against Carlin’s claims. Some of the criticisms of his side points may be credible, but I would think you would at least concede that the data in the meat and potatoes of his report (the ones that generated his now “famous chart”) is based on credible scientists”
“The debunking article you provided does the typical, “Attack the credibility of the man and his sources, not the question” tactic”
So it’s wrong to hold the previous lapses in scientific thought against someone who aims to have scientific claims a second time? They hold the history of people like Carlin or Pielkes against them.
No, but that is not what is happeing here. what is happening is ignoring his question that sill stands, how do you answer the question that multiple (3000) measurements show a downward trend in temp, and was corroberated by data collected by Scientists, and analized by Watts.
““Assessments” (and this is what Carlin’s report was) are summaries of the relevant science as reflected in scientific studies which *have already been peer-reviewed* and published.”
You’re wrong again – here’s one of the items on the list of “scientific” sources Carlin used: a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray
And again, I said “I have looked at the arguments against Carlin’s claims. Some of the criticisms of his side points may be credible, but I would think you would at least concede that the data in the meat and potatoes of his report (the ones that generated his now “famous chart”) is based on credible scientists”
“Look, let’s face it, this has nothing to do with scientific “peer-review” (even as ridiculous as that process has become).”
Sigh. Now *you’re* the one smearing all the peer-reviewing scientists (baselessly) rather than criticize their science.
No, I am not smearing ALL the peer-reviewing scientists. Just the ones that choose to call squelching of ideas, peer-review. Like the other 700 scientists that call this theory bunk, I want to hear the other side in the media and as I wrote in my last post with the google search, that is not happening anytime soon)
As I said before, I just want both sides of the story exposed in the media. I want 2 credible scientists one for and one against, on ABC or CNN, etc. It is not such a crazy idea to think that real scientists can oppose this, and there may be evidence from non-scientists that will be in line with what these scientists are saying.
Also, just to set the record straight, Theodor Landscheidt happens to be an amateur Climatolgist. (aside from his astrology) I used to work with a guy that performed astrology, I thought it was bunk and he had some nutty ideas as well, but he was a VERY good UNIX systems engineer! Again, don’t atack the person and try to smear them because of unrelated parts of their lives, answer the question they are posing.
Peer-reviewed articles
Landscheidt, T. 2000. River Po Discharges And Cycles Of Solar Activity – Discussion. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques 45 (3): 491-493. Times Cited: 4
Landscheidt, T. 1999. Extrema In Sunspot Cycle Linked To Sun’s Motion. Solar Physics 189 (2): 415-426. Times Cited: 15
Landscheidt, T. 1988. Solar Rotation, Impulses Of The Torque In The Suns Motion, And Climatic Variation. Climatic Change 12 (3): 265-295. Times Cited: 7
Landscheidt, T. 1987. Cyclic Distribution Of Energetic X-Ray Flares. Solar Physics 107 (1): 195-199. Times Cited: 1
Landscheidt, T. 1981. Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, And Climatic-Change. Journal Of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research 12 (1): 3-19. Times Cited: 5
Next should we smear scientists scientific conclusions that believe in ghosts, the supernatural, UFO’s and God, because of their beliefs outside of science?
“The usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past 3 decades of warming
Ah yes but the new data being released on forest fires is alarming at best. A single forest fire in a state can produce as much co2 as the state can in one entire year.
But then I supposed the stock answer is that its our fault we have so many more fires now….well thats the truth.
(CBS) It was 20 years ago that firefighters got their first glimpse of what was to come. In 1988, a third of Yellowstone National Park burned.
The policy was to put out all fires immediately. “Because we so successfully fought fire and eliminated fire from this ecosystem for a hundred years, because we thought that was the right thing to do, we’ve allowed a huge buildup of fuel in these woods. So now, when the fires get going, there’s a lot more to burn than historically you would’ve seen in a forest like this,” Boatner explains.
In other words the more man interferes with mother nature the more we tend to screw things up. The earth can take care of herself. And will.
The Solar Grand Maximum that went on for about 70 years appears to have ended. The 30 year or so Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) uptrend that combined with the Solar Grand Maximum to produce the late-20th-century temperature run-up has started its 30 year downtrend. The PDO downtrend combined with the quiet sun is resulting in continued planet cooling. (The cooling will be slow because of the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans) The sun has not been this quiet this long since 1913. The Little Ice Age coincided with few sunspots. Sunspot changes appear to be a catalyst for cloud changes and therefore have much greater influence on average earth temperature than total solar irradiance (TSI).
Many Climate Scientists appear to be completely uninformed of some relevant science and appear to understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). With understanding of the missing science and knowledge of accepted paleo temperature data it is trivial to show that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the evidence, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century.
“In other words the more man interferes with mother nature the more we tend to screw things up. The earth can take care of herself. And will.”
Excellent point Doomed, we shouldn’t meddle with trying to “take care” of the Mother Nature. The earth has always figured it out, and always will until we are swallowed by the sun, and probably longer than we humans inhabit it. That is not to say that we shouldn’t impart the least bit of negative effect as possible in our efforts to become a greater more financially stable and prosperous country (Making sure we more closely follow the rules of Capitalism that we have for the past 20 years or so).
Unfortunately, being in a recession, “Improving the public and private sectors financially stability and prosperity
(Which should be separate undertakings by the way, we need to cut out the public-private “partnership” stuff)
just isn’t possible with the cost of cap and trade, and a public health insurance option on the middle class.
Furthermore, centralizing the planning of and forcing Americans to “taking care” of the earth is not feasible, in fact it is a ludicrous undertaking in this recession. Sure, we could set an “example” for China, et al. but why do I get he sense that our “nice guy” attitude here will put us in last place financially?
On the other hand, perhaps we actually could have pulled all this off if…
We didn’t have a Congress that planted the seed for this meltdown in the first place, (Barney Frank, etc.)
and if we had a financial services sector that didn’t “dance with the devil” and just played by the rules Frank and company set. The financial sector should have known better to take advantage of this setup for the private financial services industry.
Global warming since 1880 is a well documented fact. AGW is possible, but not a fact. The only factual way to know for sure would be to conduct a science experiment with 2 identical Earths of the same age and solar environment. Then have humans occupy one planet and leave the other planet uninhabited. If the uninhabited planet is cooler than the inhabited planet, then we could say as a fact that AGW was the cause.
The 25-30 year cycle cited by Gray is supported by NOAA experts and even published as fact on NOAA web sites. We seem to be tilting into a period of global cooling. (It is a fact that the cooling periods are smaller in magnitude than the warming periods- a case for AGW.) It will be interesting to see if the trillions of dollars we’ll spend to counter AGW will get the credit if the planet is cooler in 2020, or if it would’ve cooled down anyway. We’ll never know for sure. One point worth noting however, the earth did cool down from 1945 to 1975. and we didn’t do anything to counter AGW activities. In fact, vehicles had the highest level of GHG emissions, coal fired power plants were dirtier than ever, (acid rain was a major problem in the east) and by 1975 people were talking about the perils of global cooling and what to do about it.
Another fact worth noting is that Antarctica is cooling and the sea ice has grown slightly larger since 1980, while the Artic sea ice has been reduced significantly. Why only on one pole? I haven’t heard a good explanation of why they are different.
Finally, on CO2, as it increases we’ll have more vegetation, larger agricultural areas, be able to feed more people, and use less energy to heat our homes in winter. We’ll have 100 years to relocate people from coastal flood areas which may be an economic engine world wide. Global cooling on the other hand would reduce agricutural area and increase energy usage in winter. History has shown that the global climate is always changing and always will independent of AGW effects. Being from New Hampshire, I’d rather have global warming than cooling any day!