Palin: In the Ideal Position to Fight Back?
In a Washington Post op-ed this morning, Sarah Palin blasted the “cap & tax” bill, and in the process she fired a shot across the bow of the progressive political-media complex.
In criticizing the cap & trade bill, Palin makes two smart moves: first, she appropriately credits the Obama administration for the initiative (not Waxman et al); second, she explains why the bill will be a burden to working families. Palin reminds readers that U.S. prosperity was built on abundant, affordable energy – an idea that resonates with voters, many of whom will always have an affinity for V-8 engines, open highways, air conditioned mega malls, and unapologetic industrial dynamism. She contrasts that vision with the costs of cap and trade: new energy taxes, job losses, and higher costs for doing business. In turn, working families will have to pay more for home energy, food, and other consumer goods. Palin writes that Americans have long been both economic and environmental leaders. By tapping into our “God given resources” – oil, gas, coal – and by building new nuclear power plants, we can decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources without having to destroy our economy in the process. In this op-ed, Palin is playing to one of her strengths – energy policy.
At the same time, Palin’s op-ed successfully links Americans’ anxieties about the economy and rising deficits to the elite political-media complex:
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
Usually, politicians are hesitant to take on the “progressive” elites, fearful of what they can do to their political enemies. After already being brutally savaged by the political-media complex, though, Sarah Palin might now be in an ideal position to fight back. Really, what else can they say about her, or do to her, at this point? If progressive media and political hacks respond to Palin’s policy arguments with more ad hominem attacks, that would only discredit their cases.
Sure, they will now hammer away with the “quitter” label, but Palin won’t be acting like a quitter. Besides, people nowadays have very short attention spans/memories. The American public loves underdogs and comeback stories. There is a law of diminishing returns on most things, including smear campaigns. Palin’s opponents have spent most of their ammo and now it’s her turn to take aim and, for a while at least, she gets to pick the issues on which she wants to engage.
If the progressives respond to Palin on the issues instead of relying on dishonest attacks, they will lose political traction the more they talk. After all, when you get down to the details, how do you defend something like the Waxman bill, which is an energy tax larded up with hundreds of rent seeking scams? The Obama/progressive blitzkrieg is predicated on the idea that you ram through a major expansion of government while few people are paying much attention – including the Congressmen. Well, one of the biggest celebrities in America is paying attention and now she has more latitude to speak her mind.
Obviously, things could change if the promised major scandal ever surfaces, but the odds of that seem quite low. Why would Palin write a Washington Post op-ed about cap & trade if she knew that the hammer was about to drop on her?
One irony is that the vicious, dishonest attacks on Palin convinced even more G.O.P. elites to come out against her. Now, as Palin begins to counterattack the progressive’s political vulnerabilities, it will be more difficult for her opponents to portray Palin as a partisan attack dog, establishment figure, or to dismiss her as carrying water for the “same old failed Republican policies.” Perhaps that is why Palin went on the record to say that she would help conservatives regardless of party affiliation. Palin has the potential to become an anti-establishment voice for the middle class and tea party voters in general and anti-leftists in particular.
AJ Strata believes that Palin will now position herself as a center-right “moderate” politician. That’s quite possible, but I doubt it. If the economy does not improve within the next few years, the likely political backlash will once again leave centrists holding the bag. Palin has been dishonestly attacked by progressives as being an archconservative “Christianist” on social issues, which is far from the truth. But she has given every indication that she gravitates toward classical liberal economics. In her op-ed this morning, she even wrote: “The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.” Considering that progressive political and media elites have been able to convince many low-information voters that free market policies are responsible for much of our economic problems, Palin’s op-ed is not an example of playing it down the middle.
“In her op-ed this morning, she even wrote: “The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.” Considering that progressive political and media elites have been able to convince many low-information voters that free market policies are responsible for much of our economic problems, Palin’s op-ed is not an example of playing it down the middle.”
You’re right, that statement is certainly not an example of Gov. Palin playing it down the middle. In fact, it’s a typical barb from conservatives to liberals that can be found on any number of Internet forums where the two factions are debating.
The irony is that Palin completely misses the real economic debating points of the cap and trade issue:
1) Whether or not a market-oriented solution can effectively reduce pollution
and…
2) Whether revenue from auctioning off permits will offset costs that would otherwise raise the price of energy too high for consumers
Now, if Palin doesn’t believe that we even have a pollution problem, thus, rendering the whole objective of the bill pointless, her column was an ideal opportunity to explain this in thoughtful, compelling detail. She didn’t. In fact, she didn’t mention the word “pollution” even once. (She also didn’t mention why she’s done a complete 180 on her previous support for capping emissions.)
Of course, Mr. Glenn doesn’t seem interested in discussing the actual premise of cap and trade, either. Rather, he’s more interested in how well the column politically positions Gov. Palin.
It’s economics 101 to tax something that effects the property and lives of others. If consumers and producers have gotten used to polluting without having to pay up for it, then it’s because they’ve been coddled by populists and irresponsible politicians who try to tell their constituents that everything is hunky-dory.
You cannot haz cheezeburger, basically. It’s economically senseless and very non-republican to demand something for nothing. Well, you can’t have the comforts and consumption of yesterday without addressing the effects of these comforts on other people. If it was only the American soil and climate that would be affected by your pollution, then you could do whatever you want.
Now I hear that us AGW-proponents have to stop using electricity (or something) before we force others to follow ACES. Sure thing, and then when the people in south Asia no longer get any drinking water because poor John Q won’t survive without his super-cool American V-8 engine, we’ll kick him out of his house and give it to climate refugees? That’s not how democracy works. We need to get ACES through congress and if we do you all have to do as it says. Cause and effect, economics 101 and personal responsibility. Every republican politician in US history has championed such lessons, so let’s apply them.
Also, good luck using the natural gas in the US with all the coal lobbyists running around. Coal is unsustainable and irresponsible, and the oil is insufficient, so the fact that the natural gas reserves remain unendorsed is a sign that there really is no economic or realistic thinking left in the political class. They do what the lobbyists want, and screw the constituents.
“Besides, people nowadays have very short attention spans/memories. The American public loves underdogs and comeback stories.”
Um, an underdog that chooses to lose his or her office because it is more personally suitable isn’t an underdog and will never be an underdog. What is this?
“After all, when you get down to the details, how do you defend something like the Waxman bill, which is an energy tax larded up with hundreds of rent seeking scams?”
You’ve ever been to the Maldives?
herewegoagain: you’re right, Palin did not wish to use her op-ed space to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and likewise my comments did not focus on the bogus premise(s) of cap & trade, but I am happy to do so now.
First, I do not agree that CO2 should be regarded as a pollutant. Such a designation should be predicated on the assumption of very strong scientific support for the AGW alarmist position – i.e. that global warming is BOTH caused by humans AND is likely to have very negative consequences. I don’t think that science should be done by consensus, or that it should be politicized, especially not by the scientists, themselves (see: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1621-2004.18.pdf). But, if you’re into such things, there is absoltuely no consensus for the alarmist position, although the AGW position in general is quite popular.
Even if I were to accept the AGW alarmist position, for sake of argument, the Waxman bill would be a very poor instrument for reducing CO2 emissions. Greenpeace was against the bill because it thought that the targets were well below what was necessary and might give people a false sense of having taken care of the problem. What significance would the bill have if it were to very slightly reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. while emissions keep rising in places like India and China?
As for your two points:
1). Whether or not a market-oriented solution can effectively reduce pollution: I agree with you – in general theory – that market solutions can be quite effective in redcing pollution, but that does not mean that the Waxman bill itself will reduce CO2, or that it is remotely like a real market solution.
2). Whether revenue from auctioning off permits will offest costs that would otherwise raise the price too high for consumers: In 2008, Obama stated that energy prices would “syrocket” in the short-term under cap & trade and EPA regulation of CO2 as a pollutant, but he said that over the long-term the price pressures would spur greater efficiencies and new technologies. The Waxman bill includes rebates to consumers. Are these rebates also going to “skyrocket” to keep pace with the skyrocketing energy prices? If so, then Obama’s price pressures will be “offset” and therefore there will be insufficient pressures spurring efficiencies and innovation, right? On the other hand, if the rebates do not “offset” the skyrocketing energy prices, then lower-to-middle income consumers will indeed take it on the chin for a while and probably much longer than the “progressives” advertise.
Palin also blames Washington bureacraats for delays in Alaska’s 3,000 mile pipeline? (“if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.”).
The problem is not Washington, it is economics. Last July, the natural gas forward price curve was predicting gas prices of $10-$14 in the near term and over $10 as far out as 2014. One year later (June 2009), natural gas is priced $4-$6 / mmBtu, and the forward curve has prices from $6-$8 out to 2014. See Ferc.gov market oversight.
Wellhead prices for April 2008 were $8.94/mmBtu, with over $10 prices mid-summer. Wellhead prices for April 2009 were $3.43 /mmBtu.
Since the pipeline was largely privately financed and very expensive, it made economic sense with gas prices $10 and higher. Add to that the vast resources located in the Barnett Shale area near Dallas, and in British Columbia, and the trans-Alaska pipeline looks less and less profitable, let alone break-even. In short, economics, not “bureacrats” have impeded the pipe.
Just a few days ago, Alaska Daily News published an article about competition the pipeline faces.
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/pipeline/story/861753.html
Palin the energy wizard tries to lecture Obama, what a joke. there is a very interesting related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
No. She’s not. Face it, she’s gone and she ain’t never coming back.
I do not believe she even wrote the op-ed piece herself. Secondly, she supported Cap and Trade when it was part of McCain’s energy plan.
What do you say to that Patrick?
We need to get ACES through congress and if we do you all have to do as it says. Cause and effect, economics 101 and personal responsibility. Every republican politician in US history has championed such lessons, so let’s apply them.
Your Right Kastanj Republicans do champion personal responsibility…….We just dont champion stupidity…..ACES is stupid from the get go and theres nothing responsible about it.
Its nothing more then a ploy for the social left to raise money to pay for their social agenda and they could give a flying fig leaf about Global warming or pollution.
Additionally the energy industry is already doing more to sequester carbon then this bill is asking us to do.
This bill is a sham to raise money….it has no intention of doing anything about Global warming.
She was McCain’s running mate. It would have been bad form to come out against cap & trade during the campaign. I’m not aware of what position she took prior to the campaign. Anyway, I would have no problem with her chaning her mind, especially now that she has arrived at a more sensible position.
Anyway, Palin’s detractors said that she did not have a good grasp of policy issues. Well, she acquaints herself with the Waxman bill, discovers that it’s a disastrous rent-seeking scam, and now you want her to remain intellectually static?
And here we go again with the double standard: Palin is accused of not writing her op-ed, but we rarely hear the same accusation about male politicians?
How many of Obama’s op-eds (or for that matter books) has Obama written?
While we are at it, how many times has Obama flip-flopped on his campaign promises? Palin is a free agent now. She doesn’t have to go along with McCain’s platform, or worry about how her policy pronoucements might impact the State of Alaska. On the other hand, Obama was voted into office on the basis of public trust, yet his lies keep piling up.
By the way, I would not necessarily support Palin as a future candidate for higher office. We’ll have to see. But as long as she is fighting against the “progressive” statist project, I feel that she has the potential to do a lot of good work.
@Kastanj
“It’s economics 101 to tax something that effects the property and lives of others. If consumers and producers have gotten used to polluting without having to pay up for it, then it’s because they’ve been coddled by populists and irresponsible politicians who try to tell their constituents that everything is hunky-dory.”
Bad things economically will occur in the U.S. if the government keeps upping the ante on taxing (or causing an increase in the cost of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services like it is) We see this espiecially with cap and tax. This is being pushed by progressives for personal economic gain (AL Gore, General Electric, etc…and you thought Haliburton was bad) under the populist guise of “making the world a better place…and fast”
On the other hand, plenty of reputable scientists disagree with AGW, so it is a little premature to assume that all this “needs to happen now”, if at all, and even if this all would make a difference given China’s ability to reduce their carbon footprint in time.
The Obama administration and progressives telling me to “suck it up and deal”, it is what it is” just doesn’t have that ring of really wanting to debate seriously.
sorry, I should have said China’s IN-ability to reduce their carbon footprint in time.
” Such a designation should be predicated on the assumption of very strong scientific support for the AGW alarmist position – i.e. that global warming is BOTH caused by humans AND is likely to have very negative consequences.”
I don’t think I should have to join a debate where I have to accept the designation “alarmist” off the bat. Raising alarm over something “alarming” doesn’t make anyone alarmist – that’s like labeling someone a “gluttonist” or an “eatist” because he eats when he’s hungry.
Stating that that position makes for an “alarmist” would be like me labeling you a “denialist” by default.
“I don’t think I should have to join a debate where I have to accept the designation “alarmist” off the bat.”
No, but avoiding debate means that the “other side” of the debate wins by default. Basically, you are not taking part because you felt like you were called a name? I would think you would want to defend your position further.
“No, but avoiding debate means that the “other side” of the debate wins by default.”
Not if that side actually needs a debate in order to get its opinions out more. If one side demands a framing of the debate where a certain group of people are “alarmists” or something comparable by default (I myself have divided the other side in the discussion between skeptics, who actually have a good-faith reason to doubt and don’t presume any ill will or incompetence on the part of AGW-proponents, and denialists, who have seen enough to be swayed but never wanted to change their position anyway) then that side is not approaching the debate in good faith and can be locked out. Credibility is a commodity, and society can’t be frivolous with it.
What basis of authority do you use to be able to determine when another person has “seen enough to be swayed but never wanted to change their position anyway”?
You seem to claim remarkable powers of omniscience about the inner thinking and feelings of everyone you disagree with. It comes across as very arrogant.
As Palin becomes less “radioactive” (i.e. immediately engenders intense reactions) I believe she will become more like a rorschach, we will see what we want to see.
I haven’t the faintest idea what her political aspirations are but being a rorschach doesn’t prevent political success, note our present President.
First, let us set aside the ad hominem labeling of those who disagree with you. Then let us debate the science.
Here is some reading for you to begin with:
Schmidt et al. (2006) Present-Day Atmospheric Simulations Using GISS ModelE: Comparison to In Situ, Satellite, and Reanalysis Data. Journal of Climate 19: 153-192
Karl and Trenberth (2003) Modern Global Climate Change. Science Vol. 302. no. 5651, pp. 1719 – 1723
Parmesan and Yohe (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37-42Peterson et al. (2002) Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change scenarios. Nature 416, 626-629
Visser and Both (2005) Shifts in phenology due to global climate change: the need for a yardstick. Proc. R. Soc. B vol. 272 no. 1581 2561-2569
Golding, N., and R. Betts (2008), Fire risk in Amazonia due to climate change in the HadCM3 climate model: Potential interactions with deforestation, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB4007, doi:10.1029/2007GB003166
Strassman, Platner, and Joos (2008) CO2 and non-CO2 radiative forcings in climate projections for twenty-first century mitigation scenarios. Clim Dyn
DOI 10.1007/s00382-008-0505-4
Keith et al. (2008) Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models. Biol. Lett. vol. 4 no. 5 560-563
That entirely depends upon how you define the ‘alarmist position’. If it is simply
Then there is a strong consensus among both climate scientists and scientists in general as the polls that have been linked here several times indicate.
Much more important than that consensus is the evidence that the consensus is based upon. There are now reams upon reams of scientific literature that all point to the extreme likelihood of AGW and its negative environmental and human impacts. The contrary position is, to put it mildly, poorly supported.
Bring your evidence and let’s have a real discussion on this.
“What basis of authority do you use to be able to determine when another person has “seen enough to be swayed but never wanted to change their position anyway”?”
Well, impressions accumulate. I can’t claim to have made an exhaustive, broad study regarding the general scientific solidity of the case by either side. All I can go by is my own experiences and impressions, and admit that my opinion is based on them. I have to defer to authority, as I can’t do the science myself. What I can see are regular debunkings made by the AGW blogs, while the skeptics rarely meet the criticism, repeat the same claims over and over to the point where it becomes plausible that they probably know better but won’t change their view based on facts. When all else fails, they basically stick to themselves and complain about how things are unfair or highly suspicious for some reason. Again, just because I’m ready to make a claim that the skeptics in general have less solid work on their side doesn’t mean I expect anyone to take things for gospel.
The thing is that all this talk about climate scientists all surrendering to group-think and funding fever, that this somehow casts their consensus into partial doubt… It’s a completely useless and empty line of questioning without investigation following it, because who can say that all the skeptics complaining about the group-think and the funding-related bias aren’t victims of exactly those factors themselves? I don’t want anecdotes or invented scandals about “repressed” studies – I want investigations or studies or I’m not really interested.
But in the end I do not care at all about the Maldives or the fate of third-wold countries. I’ve given up on being able to resonate with all the human suffering in the world. I didn’t get interested in the debate because I want my kids to be able to visit Holland or Bangladesh, or because I fear for my own survival or that of others. I just don’t want less thorough people (and so far I think the skeptics have much less on their feet) to get their way – I want them to be defeated (and sometimes humiliated) by their superiors; politically, culturally and scientifically. I don’t care one bit about the environment but I’ll be damned if less scientifically impressive people are going to get away with anything or even feel good about themselves. It’s my tribal nature to want to see superior people make the decisions and get the most credibility and attention.
Bring your evidence and let’s have a real discussion on this.
I will point to one bit of evidence that the AGW people refuse to even discuss.
The build up of Co2 follows a global warming episode and does not proceed it. This is and has been determined extensively with core samples taken in the artic as well as the coral fields in Tahiti which have never seen glaciation.
Additionally man is hindering mother nature from doing her job by refusing to allow forest fires to burn out aged timber which is not conducive to removing co2 from the atmosphere. In addition ancient forests are protected and these forests should be allowed to burn and be replaced with growing timber which actually devours co2 and produces oxygen and nitrogen.
Is man responsible for a build up of CO2? Yes but not in ways that the AGW people want to admit because to admit to the truth will deny them things such as cap and trade which will give them tons of money to spend on social projects that have absolutely nothing to do with saving the planet.
Kastanj and Jeb: fair enough, I can appreciate that you would not wish to be associated with alarmism of any kind.
Please note, though, that I did have a fairly well contained definition for “alarmists”: those who accept AGW as scientifically proven (and, I should clarify, I don’t just mean those who think that humans contribute to GW but only in a relatively minor way; I mean those who think that humans are the main significant contributors and/or human contributions create some kind of feedback that is the determining factor); AND, at the same, those who are convinced that AGW is likely to have very negative consequences. I can see, though, that someone might accept the premise of catastrophic AGW without necessarily being an alarmist, so I should not use catastrophic and alarmist as interchangeable. We have heard a lot of alarmist talk, nevertheless, from the likes of Gore, Prince Charles (96 months), and many, many others, including scientists and policymakers. Meanwhile, scientists and non-scientistis who do not think the science should be considered anywhere close to being “settled” are accused of being Hollocaust-type denialists and traitors to the planet.
Jeb: you name dropped (or cherry picked) a handful of climate studies, but I would prefer you show me summary “polling” data of scientists, which demonstrates that there is a “consensus” of scientists who accepts all three of the assumptions: 1). AGW; 2). human contribution is the main driver; 3). catastrophic. Otherwise, your “consensus” does not warrant drastic action, or for that matter rent-seeking scams like the Waxman bill. The subject does warrant further study.
As you know, I’m not a scientist. As it is, I have a lot of reading to catch up on that quite thankfully does not include 7 year old studies based on computer-model generated projections of what will happen to Mexican fauna assuming catastrophic AGW. However, again thankfully, Alan Carlin via Ken Gregory (2008) and Singer (2008) looked at over 30 studies – many peer reviewed – that pointed to inconsistencies in the science of global warming in his report: http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf.
I’ll let the relevant scientists hash out the technical aspects of the related sciences, but I don’t need to be a scientist to see that the science is far from “settled” anymore than I need to be an oncologist, for example, to conclude that we do not have sufficient proof that eating GMOs is deleterious to one’s health.
In some previous warming episodes CO2 did begin to rise after warming began. In those cases the warming tended to accelerate with the increased CO2. Given the current evidence on solar irradiance (down) and the poor match between sunspot data with weather and climate since the 80s it appears we are dealing with different causative phenomena. In the current case the rise in CO2 preceded the warming seemingly because of a variety of anthropogenic factors.
Given how many of the fires are human caused and that most fire control is to protect human habitation, I am skeptical of this as a major contributing factor.
Naturally occurring forest fires should generally be allowed to burn when there is not some other overriding factor (say the destruction of San Diego).
Then in the future you should restrict yourself to that and stop making mind-reading-based attacks on the personal integrity, sanity, and character of people who just happen to disagree with you. I am tired of warning you and having you just edit out the warning and ignore it. Next time there won’t be a warning, it will just be a ban.
Based on current solar irradiance we should be cooling. Sunspot data does not explain this away. Global temps increased despite a relatively strong El Nino. The usual suspects for natural warming are simply not there.
I pointed you to some studies that support this and I can point you to dozens more.
The cherry picking accusation is nonsense. I do not have to cherry pick since virtually every published study supports the argument I am making.
As for the polls, I have done this here before and was treated to yet another round of science is not settled by consensus, but here are a couple of the polls again.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Nice attempted dismissal. I offered you several articles from 2003-2008 detailing climate predictions, effects if those predictions came to pass, and effects that are currently being felt due to climate changes already experienced. I offered to provide you with more upon request and you dismiss all of this as “7 year old studies based on computer-model generated projections of what will happen to Mexican fauna” rather than interact with the data provided. I can easily provide you with dozens of cites to peer reviewed scientific studies that support the argument I have been making. I don’t need to cherry pick to support my argument, can you say the same?
I have yet to make my way through the entire report, but have already found one glaring error. It states in point 1 of the executive summary on page iii that,
Given how many of the fires are human caused and that most fire control is to protect human habitation, I am skeptical of this as a major contributing factor.
Of course you are. Because you guys on the AGW bandwagon have closed minds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071101085029.htm
There is only one evil…….CORPORATIONS…corporations must be punished
On November 21, 2002, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Spencer Abraham announced a new phase of the Department’s research program solely devoted to the development and deployment of viable carbon sequestration technologies. The research is part of President Bush’s Global Climate Change Initiative, which is designed to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012. The two-year Phase I study utilizes a regional approach to determine what options exist for sequestering carbon dioxide, should such a program be needed in the future.
18 percent vs. 4 percent for Obama…..amazing. I wonder what the government is going to do with all that money…….
Hint……health care anyone????
In some previous warming episodes CO2 did begin to rise after warming began. In those cases the warming tended to accelerate with the increased CO2. Given the current evidence on solar irradiance (down) and the poor match between sunspot data with weather and climate since the 80s it appears we are dealing with different causative phenomena. In the current case the rise in CO2 preceded the warming seemingly because of a variety of anthropogenic factors.
?
Additonally I will ask you what is the harm if the world warms up 3 degrees in the next 100 years?
What happens?
Doomed,
The article you linked argues against your original assertion about burning our aged timber.
In my comment #23
“Global temps increased despite a relatively strong El Nino.”
should have read La Nina rather than El Nino.
The article you linked argues against your original assertion about burning our aged timber.
Which is exactly the point of pointing to this article. That AGW people can take information about pouring 4 percent of our co2…which is an assumption by the author…..and turn it anyway they want to in order to make a point that AGW is happening, happening now and no contradicting research is going to assuage us from our mission.
Additonally any projections of what is to happen is purely that. Their is no historical data to support anyones conclusion. Its just postulates and assumptions.
So I ask again. What is the harm in the earth heating up 3 degrees?
What is the harm in the earth heating up 3 degrees?
However let me point out this fact.
You have concluded that 4 percent co2 is trivial and plays no part in the overall scheme of things.
However this is the number being floated by the Obama Administration. Reduce our footprint by 4 percent.
Significant or not?
When its your bill and your man shouting from the roof tops 4 percent is a massive effort to curb co2 emmissions.
However if its something that you are skeptical of…then 4 percent is trivial.
So goes the AGW debate.
You attempted to use it as proof that preserving old growth adds CO2 to the atmosphere. I pointed out that the article said no such thing. I made no comment as to the veracity of anything in the article.
You pointing to this article in support of any of your arguments makes little sense to me.
Not my bill and my man only in so far as he was the best choice on the ticket.
Why don’t you tackle what I say rather than tackling straw men?
There articles out there and I have cited a couple. My research has dealt primarily with corals and I can confidently tell you that reefs are in serious danger from even a 1-2oC increase in average temperatures that would send up highs over 33oC more often and for greater durations causing more bleaching and greater die-offs. Many tropical Pacific populations rely on those reefs for their sustenance and many of those same populations are located close to sea level.
@Kastanj
“Well, impressions accumulate. I can’t claim to have made an exhaustive, broad study regarding the general scientific solidity of the case by either side. All I can go by is my own experiences and impressions, and admit that my opinion is based on them.”
As Friday said on Dragnet, just the facts m’am..
Debates are not won on conveying your feelings and impressions, ya gatta convince ‘em with the facts.
So, about that debate..
“Meanwhile, scientists and non-scientistis who do not think the science should be considered anywhere close to being “settled” are accused of being Hollocaust-type denialists and traitors to the planet.”
By how many from the other side? How regularly? Do you have a study? Once again, I don’t bother with anecdotes. AGW-proponents are accused of only wanting funding or cushy jobs by inflating the threat, or of being marxist dark horses or indulgent dreamers who will destroy economies. Once again, those are just anecdotal examples, but I want to show that we can’t make hens out of feathers. Krugman and Hansen were both out of line regarding skeptics (and denialists like Broun) but AGW-proponents also receive ludicrous accusations. I recognize the analogues to holocaust-denial, but you can’t say such rhetoric is employed by one side more than the other.
“Of course you are. Because you guys on the AGW bandwagon have closed minds.”
See, Glenn? I’m not claiming all skeptics are as baseless in their claims as Doomed, I’m just showing that dumb accusations will always be leveled in any discussion, and one side can’t really claim to be under heavier duress than the other.
You attempted to use it as proof that preserving old growth adds CO2 to the atmosphere. I pointed out that the article said no such thing. I made no comment as to the veracity of anything in the article.
Quoting from the article…..Overall, the study estimates that fires in the contiguous United States and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning.
Additionally from this article…..”The fires that are burning today in the United States are part of the legacy of the past century of fire suppression,” says Neff, an assistant professor of environmental studies. “Our attempts to control fire have had the unintended benefit of sequestering more carbon in our forests and reducing the impact of human combustion of fossil fuels. But as these forests now begin to burn, that stored twentieth century carbon is moving back into the atmosphere, where it may compound our current problems with CO2.”
Common sense tells us that AGW crowd is nothing but alarmists. Sorry you cannot follow my logic Jeb. You asked to point to evidence and yet when presented you try to cast dispersions upon me personally by saying that I make no sense and then turn the very article that was posted around to say it doesnt say what it says.
This is why there is no longer any debate about Global Warming. Its simply cherry picking articles from the internet to prove or disprove ones point.
Again I ask….So what if the world warms up 3-5 degrees in the next 100 years.
So what?????
Jeb: The STATS survey actually proves my point. Maybe you didn’t think I’d check it out. According to that survey, only 41 percent of respondents “believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.” In other words, there was a “consensus” that climate change does not pose a significant danger. Besides, there should be a heavy burden of proof on those who are arguing on behalf of policies that are very likely to damage the economy and which require countless rent-seeking favors to get enacted.
To refute Alan Carlin, you link to James Hansen’s data, yet we already know that Hansen is not very careful with his numbers. Using 1998 as a starting point, I’ve seen different trends lines using different methodologies. They vary between slight cooling and slight warming (at the same time, urbanization has not remained static – the global mean temp could be distorted by local environmental changes). Yet CO2 levels have increased a lot since then. To reconcile that inconsistency, the catastrophic AGW proponents renamed it “climate change” and argued that it should have been even cooler, given natural factors. But, then, AGW is a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Now, you say that we can dismiss solar irradience after a couple of years. Well, then, why couldn’t we dismiss AGW after the year 2000? There are a lot of different hypotheses being tested. Climate is extremely complex – actually, a universal theory of climate is probably far beyond the grasp of human comprehension. Thus, your argument works both ways: maybe the solar irradience hypothesis is true, but this factor is just one of many other “natural” causes (i.e. it would have been warmer without it). In truth, our understanding of climate is still very limited.
I can understand that you would prefer not to use 1998 as the starting point, although a 10 year analysis would be 1998 – 2008. You’d prefer to pick another year that better makes your case. Yes, 1998 was an anomoly. But it was also a year during which the catastrophic AGW folks made all sorts of dire predictions. Well, we’ve seen that the computer models have had woeful predictive value. If I relied on a computer model that was designed to pick winners in horse races that performed even half as poorly as the catastrophic AGW models, I’d have declared bankruptcy about five times since 1998.
As far as I can tell, if you plot “best fit” slope lines for global mean temperature since 1980, without making all the self-serving magical “adjustments,” the increase is about .2 celcius – and that during an overall warming period that includes 1998. Please forgive me if I’m not ready to accept drastic measures that harm the economy based on that trend, which still pales in comparison to past warming periods.
“there should be a heavy burden of proof on those who are arguing on behalf of policies that are very likely to damage the economy and which require countless rent-seeking favors to get enacted.”
Exactly, AGW proponents need to answer everyone questions from the scientific community, to the degree that the majority of average American people can say yeah, your right, you shot down all the criticisms that I have heard, not ignored them, or passed the legitimate questions as coming from kooks.
Patrick – you are correct that if opponents attack her ad hominem on her cap and trade policy statement then they don’t look good. Unfortuantly for Palin, there are so many untrue and flat-out misrepresentations in her op-ed they can simply stick to the facts and make her look like the policy amature she is.
Face it, she has no substantial private sector military experience, was a mayor of a town of 9,000 where the mayor doesn’t have the power manage the school system or fire department, a governor of a state where the powers of the executive are relatively weak for 2 years. She sat on the AK oil and gas comission for 1 year. So there you have it, maybe 3 years as a governor and on a energy committee and she thinks that kind of resume makes her qualified? You could harldy get a middle level management job in energy policy with those credintials.
And as for polling scientists to get a consensus on whether man-made global warming is fact or fiction – I type this live from the meeting of the UN IMO Marine Environment Committee where 1,000 scientists from all over the world are working on reducing carbon emissions from ships. Should I ask the Chairman to take a vote? No need as the consensus here is that something needs to be done. What is really interesting is listening to the US delegation support the initiative. And guess what, the same delegate, Jeff Lantz worked under the Bush administration and was not objecting to it then. Most people in the US have no idea that in some international forums the US government position for a long time is that we need to take action sooner rather than later. I know you love to use the term rent-seeking, it makes you sound so sophisticated, but lets keep the scientific debate between scientists. And that doesn’t include you.
Oh, and I forgot, if the survey would have asked scientists what threat they thought GW posed 100-200 years out I’m sure it would almost be unanimous that it is a grave danger. You fall for the Socratic folly – only thinking in the short-term. And when it comes to climate change, 50-100 years pretty short. And with CO2 staying in the atmosphere for around 100 years, we better cut back now before we get up to 400, 500, or 600ppm of CO2 – surpassing the level of the hottest period in history, the Carboniferious.
Johnny, you agree that “if opponents attack her ad hominem on her cap and trade policy statement then they don’t look good, ” then you immediately proceed with a straight down the line ad hominem attack on Sarah Palin, not refuting a single point that she made in the op-ed. Of course, when you weren’t attacking the messenger, you did at least provide some variety by mixing in another logical fallacy: appeal to authority.
Johnny, the scientists should keep testing hypotheses, expanding our very limited knowledge of climate science, and debating the science. However, when the science is used (and politicized) by scientists and non-scientists to argue in favor of legislation, you better believe that the discussions (and policy implications) include me and every other citizen of the United States. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
Then you top it off with: “Oh, and I forgot, if the survey would have asked scientists what threat they thought GW posed 100-200 years out I’m sure it would almost be unanimous that it is a grave danger.” I guess the 13 percent of respondents who see relatively little danger from AGW just needed the pollsters to add 50 years or so to the time horizon? Aside from the absurdity of expecting 400 – 500 scientists to reach “unamimous” agreement, and your ability to read minds, at what point do folks like you get embarassed about always having to move the goal posts? And, as for the long-term, yes, let’s put this era in proper geological context, but without assuming that we can predict the weather 150 years from now.
@Johnny D
“I type this live from the meeting of the UN IMO Marine Environment Committee where 1,000 scientists from all over the world are working on reducing carbon emissions from ships.”
So your “UN IMO Marine Environment Committee” doesn’t answer to its constituents back home? The scientists just decide, this is what we are going to do?
Let me guess, if you join the “UN IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee” it is understood that you are a scientist that already agrees that PROTECTION of the earth from humans in regards to AGW is a given, and if you are a respectable scientist who disagree with this you therefore would never have joined this Environment PROTECTION Committee, right? Sounds like a well rounded group to me (snark)
@Johnny D
“Oh, and I forgot, if the survey would have asked scientists what threat they thought GW posed 100-200 years out I’m sure it would almost be unanimous that it is a grave danger. You fall for the Socratic folly – only thinking in the short-term”
So, what is it, we need to do something now?, or we have a while? Can’t have it both ways. Furthermore, who are these scientists? Not all of those respected in the world agree with AGW to begin with. you bring up 1000 on the UN IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, a just a person on the street, I can give you 700 that disagree..
“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.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
Rather than attacking the WSJ or the reporters, or this politician, or these scientists individually, can you explain this group of 700 scientists valid concern?
Patrick
Which is 85% who see it as a moderate to great danger as opposed to 13% who see it as posing relatively little danger. Is the loss of 50%+ of the earth’s coral reefs does not pose a serious danger to most people, but it is a likely consequence.
I linked to NASA’s GISSTemp numbers. These are not “Hansen’s” numbers. The primary author is Dr. Makiko Sato. Do you want to cast aspersions on him as well or is all of NASA compromised? I notice that you provided no cite or link to these numbers that are supposedly falling.
NO. It has been called global climate change in scientific circles for longer than it has been used in the common parlance (in the 90s). The reason for the change in nomenclature was because of the many varied effects on global climate from increasing global temperatures. Some places will heat and others cool, some places will become wetter and others will become drier, etc.
If you do not want people imputing negative motives to you and those who argue your side perhaps you should extend the same courtesy.
NO. I stated that if shifts in solar irradiance were currently the dominant driver temperatures would be dropping now.
No one is arguing that solar irradiance does not effect climate. It is included in all current models. The thing is that solar irradiance is relatively low now and we would be COOLING if it were the dominant driver.
and a 20 year analysis would start in 1988 and a 100 year analysis would begin in 1908. 1998 has been the preferred starting year for almost every person arguing against AGW I have encountered for at least the last 3 years. I don’t think that it is a coincidence.
NO. I would just prefer not to have a year cherry picked to make yours. I would much prefer a minimum of a 50 year trend and preferably longer. I would also prefer that we look at the trend line for 3 or 5 year averages of global temperatures to ’smooth out’ El Ninos, La Ninas, and other anomalies.
Stupidity by one group does not excuse stupidity by another.
I linked to one of the latest model evaluations above (in that group you dismissed). Read it and you will see that its predictive value was/is quite good.
If you looked at the odds listed for each prediction and bet accordingly you would actually be doing quite well now.
1) The current warming is faster than previous warming periods.
2) Modern humans were not around for the more drastic warming periods to which you refer.
The scientific debate has been going on for ~20 years and most scientists are now convinced that the theory is sound. At what point would the science merit action?
Jay,
Many of those have no specialty in or study of climate. The other lists include even dentists as scientists with ’serious doubts’ on their lists. Cut those lists down to scientists with relevant degrees and the numbers shrink dramatically. Meanwhile the accusations of cherry picking by those arguing the AGW position continue.
You linked to an opinion piece in the WSJ and that piece does not cite where any of the numbers it used come from. It is far from convincing. It claims that “Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans”, yet cites none of them. Citing the actual research, assuming it exists and says what it is claimed it does, would be much more convincing.
Sorry, above #42,
“~20 years” should read “>25 years”
and
“Is the loss of 50%+” should read “The loss of 50%+”
A review function to catch typos and formatting errors would be great.
@Jeb
“Many of those have no specialty in or study of climate. The other lists include even dentists as scientists with ’serious doubts’ on their lists. Cut those lists down to scientists with relevant degrees and the numbers shrink dramatically.”
Ok, fair enough,
I listed “numbers” as that was what seemed to be driving the logic and apparent legitimacy of the stance held by Johnny D. But what of the scientist that remain? Are their questions less vaild? or deserving less time for debate? Last I checked, “numbers of scientists agreeing” wasn’t the determinant for disproving or failing to disprove something, the scrutinizing conflicting theories through debate (regaredless of the number of scientists backing it) was the determinant for disproving or failing to disprove. Not ignoring the evidence. If “numbers of scientists agreeing” was the determinant, then much of what we take as leading theories today, would never have come to be, science would be stale.
It all comes back around to…again… That the questions and open debate still need to happen! How can you deny that?
“A review function to catch typos and formatting errors would be great.”
we can agree on that Jeb
Jeb, I envy your use of the blockquotes stylistically, but as for content, you seem to have a habit of dropping key clauses from sentences.
For example, I first wrote, “. . . I would prefer you show me summary ‘polling’ data of scientists, which demonstrates that there is a ‘consensus’ of scientists who accepts all three of the assumptions: 1). AGW; 2). human contribution is the main driver; 3). catastrophic.” You respond by blockquoting me, but leaving out the part about meeting all three assumptions, and provide a link to the STATS survey, which indicates that only 41 percent of the respondents would appear to meet all three assumptions. I point this out to you and you respond by saying, in essence, that 85 percent see it was a moderate danger. So, are you conceding my original point? Again, I don’t think that enactment of economically destructive measures like the Waxman bill and EPA regulation of CO2 as a “pollutant” are warranted unless one accepts all three assumptions and even a “random sampling” of climate scientists who took the effort to mail back the STATS survey could not reach consensus on the catastrophic AGW position.
I nhad oticed that the primary author was listed as Dr. Makiko Sato. And right below that it says if you have any questions about the data, call Hansen. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/nasas_global_warming_misinform.html.
For linear trend from 1998 – 2007, see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm. The three trend lines range between flat and slight increase. See also: http://www.hyscience.com/Global%20Cooling%20Graph.jpg. As this year’s data keeps rolling in, the recent trend lines are likely to slope downward.
I had never heard anyone use the terminology “climate change” prior to around 1999 – 2000, but I’ll take your word for it that it was in use among a small clique before then. You seem to make my point again by writing that “the reason for the change in nomenclature was because of the many varied effects on global climate from increasing global temperatures. Some places will heat and others cool, some places will become wetter and others will become drier, etc.” In other words, for whatever reason it was originally coined, the new nomenclature was useful for to “educating” people who were getting hammered by frigid winters not to jump to conclusions, etc.
Jeb, Hansen and the Goddard Center have made some of the dire predictions, including during 1998. If they have exhibited their “stupidity,” why did you link to their stuff and why were you so defensive about them?
“No one is arguing that solar irradiance does not effect climate. It is included in all current models. The thing is that solar irradiance is relatively low now and we would be COOLING if it were the dominant driver.” Ugh, no one is arguing that humans do not affect climate. The thing is manmade CO2 “pollutants” are really high now and we would be HEATING if it were the dominant driver.
Jeb, I agree, let’s look at climate within the context of geological time. It’s faster now? That’s the argument? Okay, that proves it.
I’ll get back to you on the predictive value of catastrophic AGW computer models, but I suspect that some folks found some of those magical “adjustments” I referred to above.
NO. I stated that if shifts in solar irradiance were currently the dominant driver temperatures would be dropping now.
Would this not be equally devastating to the planet as we know it?
Solar irradiance is quiet. The planet should cool. Its not.
Okay. So mankind might be helping the planet remain warm during a cycle in which the planet should be going into an ice age.
My contention is that we have roughly 20,000 years to figure out what to do. Because were mankind not on this planet right now, we would be plunging into colder temperatures and seeing a build up of the ice sheets.
We are not. Mankind is actually aiding our survival by slowing the plunge into ice age until we can be better prepared to deal with it.
So conversely as the planet should be cooling its actually warming slightly or maintaining status quo. As a result the cooling of the planet is slowed dramatically by the build up of Co2.
With a planet in a natural cooling cycle but being disrupted by co2 build up the cooling vs the warming are actually offsetting each other.
Additonally if the planet were plunging into an ice age with colder temperatures the coral reefs would be dying off as well. They are rather sensitive to temperature changes and their would be this massive movement led by Conservatives to burn more fossil fuels to heat up the planet.
Thus ends your physics lesson for the day. Go shout it from the roof tops. The planet will not die from global warming. It might die from over population but not Global Warming.
Patrick,
85% see probable moderate to grave danger. Moderate danger includes such things as loss of some coastal cities (with associated mass translocation), loss of 50%+ of the world’s reef ecosystems, and significant increases in serious storms, droughts, etc.
Grave danger includes the loss of Shanghai, New Orleans, and large parts of New York, LA, the Netherlands, along with massive extinctions and destruction of even moderately robust ecosystems.
That clique included most of the people studying climate and those studying species potentially or currently effected by climate change. It was largely in the 90s when the broader implications of rising global temperatures were recognized and the new term was coined. It was used primarily by scientists and largely ignored by others.
If memory serves Bush was an early adopter of the term climate change among the lay population. His reasons I think had more to do with focus groups finding the term climate change less ominous than global warming though.
I don’t accept your assumption that a cap and trade scheme, carbon tax, or other measures to limit GHG emissions must be economically destructive. They will likely slow growth, but the costs of ignoring the issue look to be far graver. I don’t know that the Waxman bill is the way to go, but no other serious attempt is on the table right now. Any bill needs to undergo serious cost benefit analysis before being enacted.
So if Hansen’s name is in any way attached you will immediately dismiss the data in favor of data from websites devoted to falsifying AGW?
The article you link points out that when errors in data were found they were promptly corrected. I remember the incident and the correction to the data did not alter the trend line.
The first of the two links shows that there was continued warming post 1998 and the second is a graph with no explanation of why its results are different than those posted in the first.
and we are heating despite low solar irradiance. We had one of the hottest years on record in 2007 despite low solar irradiance and a La Nina cycle both of which should have seriously depressed global average temperatures.
Doomed
I have never said that research or debate should stop. I have said that enough evidence is in to warrant action. The research and debate have been going on since the early 80s.
What evidence would be required to change your mind?
At what point would you be satisfied that action was warranted?
No.
yes
Evidence is pointing to global cooling and not global warming.
But of course this just doesnt sit well with the Global warming crowd who want their expensive cap and trade taxes to fund their social programs. They only pretend to care about the atmosphere when in fact their coat tail ride on the AGW bandwagon is simply expediency to fund massive welfare and social programs.
We are in a solar trend that will see the planet cool even though the cooling is actually being offset somewhat by the build up of C02. In the end the build up of CO2 will not be enough to offset the lack of heat from the sun.
This will force the earth into a global cooling cycle which will be far, far worse then anything the Global Warming crowd could ever imagine.
If you doubt this look at the history of the Mini Ice age and extrapolate that out many fold.
@Jeb
“I have never said that research or debate should stop. I have said that enough evidence is in to warrant action. The research and debate have been going on since the early 80s.
What evidence would be required to change your mind?
At what point would you be satisfied that action was warranted?”w
I already said when I would be satisfied, When the valid data of the climate scientists that are not so sure about AGW is placed into the mix, and not ignored. (Yes, the “remainder” of the 700 scientists that are critical of AGW) Then I (and the many other Americans that are skeptcal of AGW) will feel satisfied (either we will support AGW or we wont) but until then, I will be increasingly skeptical the more these legitimate non-AGW scientists are ignored in the mainstream. Sound fair Jeb?
Then you should be satisfied now. All the available data is in the mix for the scientific debate regardless of who is and is not heard in the pop culture debate.
Cite? (a real one, not just some crank website)
Apart from simply labeling everyone you disagree with pre-emptively, what criteria can you apply for differentiating valid sources from invalid “cranks”, etc, Jeb?
And wouldn’t you object if those you disagree with starting putting mandatory limits on what you were allowed to cite?
Double standards much?
you conveniently left this out Jeb:
“(Yes, the “remainder” of the 700 scientists that are critical of AGW) Then I (and the many other Americans that are skeptcal of AGW) will feel satisfied (either we will support AGW or we wont) but until then, I will be increasingly skeptical the more these legitimate non-AGW scientists are ignored in the mainstream. Sound fair Jeb?
”
These are the folks that I wants answered, if I have to pay into this, you bet your butt I want to know more than just what what your scientific debate says. I want that data expressed to me, sell it to ME and everyone else like me, we are the ones that are going to be paying higher energy prices! How can you not get that Jeb?
Additonally people are being fired or threatened to be fired because as we know most of Academia is left to far left and they have all bought into the AGW thing full guns because they have an agenda that is driven by more then just the climate.
Remember the meteoroligist who was threatened to be fired by the state of Oregon for saying perhpas AGW was in error?
Science does not say….the debate is over…the evidence is in….As the AGW crowd is contending. Squelch debate. Use the Assumption closing. Sell to the American public a bill of goods that is a LEMON.
Science is never content with what is….they always want to know more and better and deeper and farther into the realm of the quark, neutrino and black matter of the universe…. At least any scientist I’ve been associated with.
“Apart from simply labeling everyone you disagree with pre-emptively, what criteria can you apply for differentiating valid sources from invalid “cranks”, etc, Jeb?”
Well, since he hasn’t been presented with a site that has a chance of being “crankish” or not in his eyes, he hasn’t had a chance of showing his criteria, has he?
Anyone can label someone a crank provided one actually argues well for it.
Jeb wrote, “Moderate danger includes such things as loss of some coastal cities (with associated mass translocation), loss of 50%+ of the world’s reef ecosystems, and significant increases in serious storms, droughts, etc.” Did the STATS survey explicitly define “moderate danger” to include loss of coastal cities, etc., or did they leave it up to respondents to gauge for themselves what moderate would mean? If it’s the latter, then we cannot assume that respondents share your definition of moderate, which seems to fit with the catastrophic outlook, as in, “we’ll be lucky if only half of the coastal cities are buried underwater . . .”
I’ve done some very brief internet research and I see you’re right that the term “climate change” appeared in the scientic journals in the 1990s. One curious thing was that some folks blamed GW Bush and his former pollster Frank Luntz for popularizing the climate change nomenclature. Yet, as you say, the preferred scientific term is climate change. If Bush and Luntz had tried to popularize the term “sunny days” to replace global warming, would the catastrophic AGW crowd have gone along with it? I remember this plot by Bush and Luntz being helped along by academics, scientists, environmentalists who often corrected students and laypersons when they used the wrong term global warming instead of climate change. I am concerned about the convenient lack of precision inherent in this notion of climate change, which encompasses any possible future scenarios: no matter what happens, the climate is always changing, just like we said it would.
On the predictive value of AGW computer models, see:
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
Jeb wrote, “I don’t accept your assumption that a cap and trade scheme, carbon tax, or other measures to limit GHG emissions must be economically destructive. They will likely slow growth, but the costs of ignoring the issue look to be far graver. I don’t know that the Waxman bill is the way to go, but no other serious attempt is on the table right now. Any bill needs to undergo serious cost benefit analysis before being enacted.”
If the policies effectively “slow growth,” then they are by defintion economically destructive. Economic growth means new jobs created, additional goods & services produced, additional entrpreneurial activities, innovations, etc. Deliberately slowing growth means fewer jobs and goods/services produced, fewer entrepreneurial activities, less innovation. That’s destructive in my book. In addition, I’d be gravely concerned about any governmental regime that would deliberately slow down economic growth: the costs to society of being governed by such a regime would extend far beyond the immediate loss of economic opportunities.
I agree with you that the Waxman bill, EPA regulation of CO2 as a pollutant, and other similar AGW austerity measures will slow growth. I suspect that the great majority of Americans would agree with us, too. On the other hand, only a small minority of Americans is convinced that the “costs of ignoring the issue LOOK to be far graver [heck, even you had to hedge your bet with LOOK instead of WILL BE].
Jeb, I think you do understand that the Waxman bill is a travesty. Serious cost benfit analysis? We could only dream! The House passed the bill without any members having read it. Maybe you haven’t read all 1,500 pages yet. Neither have I. But as they say in the computer modeling industry: garbage in, garbage out.
Jeb also wrote, “So if Hansen’s name is in any way attached you will immediately dismiss the data in favor of data from websites devoted to falsifying AGW?” Yes, Hansen’s data has proven to be very spotty on multiple occasions and studies published under the Goddard Center umrbella would accrue some connection to its “chief” Hansen. But, I agree that it would be a logical fallacy to dismiss all Hansen-connected data/studies. Likewise, it is a logical fallacy when catastrophic AGW proponents automatically dismiss or discount data/studies–many of which are peer reviewed–that are associated with institutions/affiliations that they think are tainted or illegitmate, not properly credentialled, etc.
Jason
That entirely depends on the limits and the argument. As the argument I am making is about the science I see it as entirely reasonable to differentiate between scientifically rigorous cites and some uncorroborated web site. You can find someone somewhere on the internet that will say anything. I have seen you shoot people down for citing Wikipedia. Why is it then unfair of me to shoot someone down for citing web sites with even less rigor?
In short, no.
Jay
They have not been frozen out of the scientific debate. The political debate has proceeded much as all political debate in America has proceeded since I began keeping track in the 80s, and all evidence I have seen points to this going back much further. Exclusion and demonizing the opposition are typical tools of both sides in virtually every political debate in America that I have seen. It does not make it seemly or right, but it does mean that requiring that this end prior to making a decision means that no decision will be made (a decision in itself). Read at least the synthesis literature on the subject. ‘Science’, ‘Nature’, and other scientific journals regularly have literature reviews that distill most of the research on a given topic and are at least somewhat accessible to a lay audience. This is not something that I expect most to do, but you are engaged in the debate and so should pursue this.
Patrick
Some ≠ half or even near half. Please respond to what I actually write.
I think that the upset was on a few levels.
1) The focus grouping used to choose terminology for political gain (despite it’s greater accuracy).
2) It came from Bush and Luntz.
It is a bit ironic (in its common usage) that this term that Bush brought into popular usage (because it focus grouped better) is now being used as a club to beat scientists and others who argue that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
From the cite you provided.
Did you read the evaluation of the GISS model I cited above? It is free for download.
My understanding of the term is different.
If you simply mean that economic growth would likely be slowed, then we are in agreement. Then it is all about degree which is why rigorous cost benefit analysis is in order.
and a big dream it is.
A habit of training.
The data is made publicly available which is how the (2 or 3) mistakes were caught and those mistakes were quickly corrected. I believe it took about a week in each case and did not alter the trend lines.
‘Very spotty’ is not accurate and ‘on a few occasions’ would be more accurate than ‘on multiple occasions”.
That is the evidence I have been asking people for every time I have debated this subject. Please provide cites.
Who funds the research should not matter as long as the research is properly reviewed. The publishing institution is a more critical matter. I would not accept at face value (and neither should you) anything published by an industry or environmental interest group. For example, I wouldn’t accept at face value a study on climate change funded and published by either Exxon or the Sierra Club. If that same study underwent peer review and was published in a respected scientific journal that would be a different matter.
What I object to, Jeb, is that your particular definition of “rigor” in this area appears coterminous with agreeing with you. In short, anything that you agree with is “rigorous” automatically and anything that disagrees with you is NOT “rigorous” automatically.
And I think that is not either a fair or honest way to approach a debate.
The largest problem I have with ACES is that its disingenuous at best and a downright deception at its worst.
Statement issued by Greenpeace.
“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions.
The carbon sequestering that the industry is already embarking upon is going to make the Cap and trade look silly in the years ahead. Its nothing but a tax to pay for social programs and its a sham at the very best.
They want to fix the Co2 emissions for this country?
3 percent surtax on every thing energy wise and throw that money at the carbon sequestering programs that are working right now. Spend the money on coal scrubbers that will reduce the co2 output by 90 percent.
This bill is a sham. There are so many better ways to fix whats wrong that will make a huge difference and sincerely will reduce our footprint by 18-22 percent along with bringing green jobs online which will further errode our carbon signature on the planet.
It requires open minds as to what can really fix the problems.
As I type this Im looking at a windfarm that stretches as far as the eye can see with 21 new towers being built right now. Its being built by California and Im in Wyoming right now. Green is happening. We dont need regulation….
We need cooperation.
Jeb, for more on the reliability of climate models, see:
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
Gary Strand, a software engineer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), regularly comments on the website Climate Audit. He’s usually on there defending the value of computer modeling. And, on a long-term and general basis, I agree that these models have tremendous potential not just for modeling the exceptionally complex dynamics that influence climate changes, but in using computers to model other systems. A month or so ago, he admitted that the climate models had a very long way to go, admitting that the software “doesn’t meet the best standards available.” In the short-term, then, as they are used to promote measures like the Waxman bill and EPA regulation of CO2 as a pollutant, these climate models unfortunately cause more harm than good. The scientists share some of the blame for politicizing the science. As I linked to before, see: Roger A. Pielke, Jr. (2004), http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1621-2004.18.pdf.
As for the half v. some, I did not intend to misquote you – I wasn’t really quoting you at all. I meant that as one version of what moderate danger could mean to a catastrophic AGW believer, given the few examples you had given.
I still don’t see how Bush and Lutz can be given much credit for influencing whether environmentalists, climate scientists, and catastrophic AGW believers use GW or CC. If so, that might be the only time Bush had any sway with those folks.
In theory: given the time and resources to thoroughly scrutinize the methodology, the authors’ backgrounds and who funds the research does not matter at all. The data speak for themselves. In the absence of a thorough methodological review, knowing about who wrote and funded a study can be a useful shorthand for gauging where it’s coming from, etc. Of course, a certain amount of bias will influence certain aspects of even the most rigorous scientific approaches, but that’s unavoidable.
In practice: the peer review process is not always as rigorous as we’d like it to be, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1. Recently, we learned that some scientific journals were charging for submissions, then not reviewing the materials before publication. I wonder, given the popularity of climate science, whether the issue might go in the other direction: They get many more submissions than they can publish, in which case there would be an editorial selection process. Are we cultivating a healthy climate for scientific inquiry and debate? Climate scientists and computer engineers, on a net basis, are presented with very strong incentives to pursue certain types of inquiries. See: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf.
Jason,
Not at all. Rigor is determined by process, not outcome. I have cited a number of peer reviewed scientific studies and offered more. I have been told here that there are peer reviewed scientific studies that come to a different conclusion, but have yet to see one of them cited here. At the point they are cited, I will read them and will either agree or disagree with their methodology and conclusions and will respond either with agreement or with arguments based on the work cited and backed up by evidence that will be supported by other peer reviewed scientific studies. This is entirely appropriate when discussing the science of climate change.
When we are discussing the economics of plans to mitigate the potential dangers posed by climate change I expect arguments to be backed up by solid economic theory (such as it is) and the opinions of economists particularly those whose work has survived peer review to be given more weight than the opinions of armchair pundits.
Doomed
Sequestration should be part of any plan to limit GHGs.
Carbon taxes are another potential method that should be seriously considered.
Updated emission controls for coal plants and other industry should also be part of the response.
That’s great and there needs to be more of it.
We need both. I am willing to bet that regulation (whether in the form of tax credits and/or emission demands on power companies) played a large role in those 21 new towers being built.
That is certainly true and unfortunately those are in short supply among our political class.
I am trying to get hold of the article cited in the Science Daily piece, but need to get to a better library to do so. I am working through the ITIA presentation and am looking for a full article that I assume the presentation was based on. I have some initial concerns about their limiting the data to only 8 stations, but am withholding judgment until I can digest the full articles.
Danger in this context is generally based on loss of life, property, and ecosystems relative to the current global system. Among the modelers and climate scientists I have known (only a few dozen so this is anecdotal) the examples I gave comport with their understanding of moderate danger and severe danger as related to climate change.
They did not effect the terminology of climate scientists (it had already changed), but they did help usher the term climate change, as opposed to global warming, into the common parlance. As for use by environmentalists I can’t say but I suspect that some time after fuming about the shift in language from the WH they accepted what was already accepted among the climate scientists. Either way the change in terminology was not a ploy by scientists or environmentalists to ensure non-falsifiability. Some overzealous supporters of AGW theory may have attempted to use it as such, but that is an entirely different issue.
Nor is any process. When looked at in the whole and particularly in the premiere journals like ‘Science’ and ‘Nature’ the peer review process does remarkably well (better in fact than any other review process I have seen or heard of).