Reports: Global warming science is sound

[RandomGuy]

The controversies in climate science

Science behind closed doors
Two new reports say the science of climate change is fine, but that some scientists and the institutions they work in need to change their attitudes
Jul 8th 2010

THE winter of 2009 was a rough time for climate science. In November, in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate conference, over 1,000 private e-mails from and to researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), a part of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Britain, appeared on the internet, presumably after being stolen. At the same time a controversy was bubbling up in India over a claim in the 2007 assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the Himalayas could lose all their glaciers in 25 years, which was wrong. These events seemed to provide evidence of embarrassing incompetence, at the very least.

Explanations were demanded and committees were formed to deliver them. This week two of those committees reported. For the CRU and what became known as “climategate”, an independent panel was created by UEA and chaired by Muir Russell, a former vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow. The Dutch environmental-assessment agency was asked to look for other errors in the regional analyses of the IPCC’s report. Both the reports conclude that the science of climate is sound and that the professional characters of the scientists involved are unimpeached. But they raise important issues about how to do science in such an argumentative area and under new levels of scrutiny, especially from a largely hostile and sometimes expert blogosphere.

The Dutch agency found a few errors in the relevant chapters of the IPCC’s report, though none amounted to much. It also raised questions about concentrating on bad or worst-case possibilities rather than a range of outcomes. The agency did not say this was a bad thing—policymakers need to have the most critical information flagged up—but it thinks it would be better to explain more clearly what is going on.

Martin Parry, who in 2007 was co-chair of the relevant IPCC working group, says there was not a conscious decision to highlight negative effects, but to highlight important ones, as measured by such things as scale and irreversibility. The important effects are negative ones: this is why people are worried about climate change. A tendency for the IPCC process to produce outputs more worrying, at the margins, than its inputs does not necessarily show bias. It may reflect accurate expert assessment. But the risk that it is a sort of self-reinforcing groupthink merits attention.


Open to criticism

A form of groupthink certainly seems to have been at work in the climategate e-mails. The Russell committee was most exercised by a lack of openness at the CRU, in part explained, but not excused, by a sort of a siege mentality. The committee found that the scientists committed nothing close to fraud. It showed that the data needed to reconstruct CRU’s temperature records were widely available. Informed by a warts-and-all account of peer review from Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, a medical journal, the committee took the researchers’ harsh behaviour towards critics and leniency towards allies not as unduly partial or aggressive, but as part of the “rough and tumble of interaction in an area of science that has become heavily contested.” As an eminent historian of science put it to a naive scientist when the story first broke, “Everything you believe to be true once looked like this.”

But the committee did criticise the researchers for an unwillingness to pass on data to their critics, for failing to specify which weather stations they were using, for keeping quiet IPCC discussions that should have been public, and so on. This flowed through into “clear incitement” to delete files rather than have them surrendered under Britain’s freedom-of-information act. The committee found UEA’s procedures on freedom of information poor.

Rather remarkably, neither the Russell committee or the university has asked Phil Jones, who ran the CRU, whether he actually deleted e-mails with the intention of foiling subsequent requests under the act. The university says it takes very seriously the need to improve its openness. At the same time it has appointed Dr Jones to a new position as director of research at the CRU—“definitely not a demotion”—while abolishing the role of director and integrating the unit more fully into its school of environmental sciences.

In doing this UEA accepts that Dr Jones’s role in one of the most famous aspects of climategate—his “hide the decline” e-mail—was “misleading”, as the Russell report puts it, without deliberately intending to be so. The growth of some trees, as recorded in their rings, tracks temperature from the 19th century to the 1960s, but then ceases to do so: the two records diverge. In a graph prepared for the World Meteorological Organisation in 1999, Dr Jones cut off the divergent part of one set of tree-ring data and spliced on data from thermometers. The scientific literature contained full discussions about the problems of divergence and various ways of dealing with them, but Dr Jones’s chart had no readily accessible explanations or caveats.

The Russell report is thorough, but it will not satisfy all the critics. Nor does it, in some ways, fulfil its remit. One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored.

And then there is the science. An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of Shell, would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job. So, for verdicts as to whether the way that tree-rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia were treated by the CRU produced good results, those following the affair will have to look for future developments in journals and elsewhere. The mode of production has been found acceptable, but the product is for others to judge. Science, in the normal run of things, should do that; and if it does so in a more open, blogosphere-inclusive way some good will have come of the affair.

-----------------------------------------------

Reminds me of the famous quote from Mr. Clemens: Rumors of the death of man-made climate change is greatly exaggerated.

[Wild Cobra]

So you have more people on the same band wagon looking for fuel.

So?

Not going to change the real scientific facts of real geoscientists.

[RandomGuy]

So you have more people on the same band wagon looking for fuel.

So?

Not going to change the real scientific facts of real geoscientists.

I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

[CosmicCowboy]

And the climategate whitewash continues. Inbdependent panel? :lmao

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html

[RandomGuy]

And the climategate whitewash continues. Inbdependent panel? :lmao

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html

You realize you sound just like 9-11 conspiracy theorists who talk about panels being "whitewashes" when they say something they don't like, right?

[DarrinS]

Here's how you know when a person has no solid argument.


You realize you sound just like 9-11 conspiracy theorists who talk about panels being "whitewashes" when they say something they don't like, right?

[DarrinS]

This doesn't help.


Climate Panel Urges ‘Distance’ From Reporters

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/climate-panel-urges-distance-from-reporters/




Andy Revkin reports at Dot Earth that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, faulted in the past for a siege mentality, has urged its participating researchers to “keep a distance from the media” and send any press questions about their group work to supervisors.

[CosmicCowboy]

You realize you sound just like 9-11 conspiracy theorists who talk about panels being "whitewashes" when they say something they don't like, right?

Wall Street Journal dude.

Not exactly some anonymous right wing blog.

[Nbadan]

Wall Street Journal dude.

Not exactly some anonymous right wing blog.

:rolleyes

The WSJ is as wing-nut as M$M gets....

Proof: other articles from the WSJ...

Wall Street Journal: Gun-owners happier, richer than non gun-owners

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856454897828049.html

American Dream 2: Default, Then Rent

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126040517376983621.html

Wall Street Journal columnist basically sez "The poor should pay more so the rich can play more"

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/08/moore-tax-poor/

Wall Street Journal: Oil Spill Is a Failure of Government

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/15/876116/-Wall-Street-Journal:-Oil-Spill-Is-a-Failure-of-Government

I could go on all night...the WSJ is a conservative/GOP/Wing-nut mouthpiece

[Nbadan]

Curiously common occurrence: 1-) woman faints 2-) Obama pauses speech to ask for help

http://www.online.wsj.com/article/SB120300929392268785.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Toda y

In 2008, Rupert Murdoch's company, News Corp, generated $33 billion in revenues, which is more than TimeWarner, Viacom or CBS. Only GE and Disney generate more revenues, and GE has a subtantial amount of non-media operations. Given the wide range of assets within the control Rupert Murdoch, you have to wonder when the GOP refers to the liberal media, what exactly are they referring to?


Publishing:


Magazines: Barron’s, SmartMoney (50%), Big League, InsideOut, donna hay, News America Marketing (In-Store, FSI (SmartSource), SmartSource iGroup, News Marketing Canada), Alpha, The Weekly Standard, The Weekend Australian Magazine, sundaymagazine, body + soul, STM (WA), home, TVGuide, News Magazine (Australia).

Newspapers:
Australia/Asia: More than 150 titles including: The Wall Street Journal Asia, the Fiji Times, Daily Telegraph, Nai Lalakai, Shanti Dut, Gold Coast Bulletin, Herald Sun, Newsphotos, Newspix, Newstext, NT News, Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (63%), Sunday Herald Sun, Sunday Mail, Sunday Tasmanian, Sunday Times, Sunday Territorian, The Advertiser, The Australian, The Courier-Mail, The Mercury, News Limited, The Sunday Mail, The Sunday Telegraph, Weekly Times, The Weekend Australian, MX, Brisbane News, Northern Territory News, Cumberland (NSW), Leader (VIC), Quest (QLD), Messenger (SA), Community (WA), Darwin Sun/Palmerson Sun (NT).

United Kingdom: News of the World, The Sun, The Sunday Times, The Times, News International.

United States: Newspaper holdings include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, MarketWatch and Dow Jones Newswire; News Corp. also acquired the Ottoway group of community newspapers through its takeover of Dow Jones in 2007.

Free Press (http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main)

[Wild Cobra]

I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.
You know better. You have seen me show how the numbers pan out.

[Wild Cobra]

One thing for sure about topics like this, people will accept the publications and preconceptions they have, unless they actually understand the science themselves.

[RandomGuy]

I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.


You know better. You have seen me show how the numbers pan out.

It was a rather toungue in cheek comment. :lol


I see you explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

I have seen you post numbers that you believe are correct and support your case yes.

I have also seen you commit some rather astonishingly bad logical fallacies and display a blatant confirmation bias, causing me to give your assessments on this topic little weight.

You are far too biased and predisposed to believe anything that refutes man-made global warming/climate change/whatever. You apply rigorous analysis and skepticism to anything that comes out of the AGW camp, but completely fail to apply the same rigor to things you are predisposed to agree with.

That said, my post was more tongue-in-cheek than actual sentiment.

I do think your criticisms of the science have some merit, and you make some valid points. Your problem, and it is one you share with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, is that you NEVER admit someone you disagree with might have a valid point or two as well.

[Veterinarian]

So you have more people on the same band wagon looking for fuel.

So?

Not going to change the real scientific facts of real geoscientists.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Hey, brah. How did you explain this one away again?




National Academy of Sciences: "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1)."

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao



































:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao







































:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao





















































































































































































:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1).
Hey, brah. How did you explain this one away again?

I explained that in another thread. Please notice, it does not specify greenhouse gasses, just the last 30 years. Black Carbon from Asia is the most significant factor these last decades. there is also the EPA laws since the 70's clearing reflective pollution from the air that cause the global cooling scares of the 70's.

Remember how the liberals said were were going to destroy our planet with global cooling back then?

[Winehole23]

I explained that in another thread.Link? Or are you just rationing your keystrokes?

[Wild Cobra]

Link? Or are you just rationing your keystrokes?
Well, it's not in this thread, and I know I composed it. I'm not going to look for it. I have at times forgot to hit the "Submit Reply" button, it it's actually possible that happened.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it's not in this thread, and I know I composed it. I'm not going to look for it. I have at times forgot to hit the "Submit Reply" button, it it's actually possible that happened.

:lmao

You use excuses like this so damn often.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

You use excuses like this so damn often.
Maybe two other times in the last two years?

That sure is damn often!

[Wild Cobra]

My previous statement (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4499992&postcount=77)

Manny...

Stop being such a dumb-fuck please.

[DarrinS]

Has there ever been a branch of science that has tried so hard and for so long to validate itself?


Serious question:


Is there any objective measurement over a given period of time that would dissuade an AGW catastrophist? For example, if the average global temperature anomaly had a flat or slightly negative trend for the next 50 years, despite a positive linear trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, would you start to doubt that CO2 drives temperature? If you say no, then you are are not basing your belief on science, your are basing it on faith.

[Winehole23]

Well, it's not in this thread, and I know I composed it. I'm not going to look for it. I have at times forgot to hit the "Submit Reply" button, it it's actually possible that happened.So then you admit you could be using a non-existent post as a excuse not to respond to a request for information. How considerate.

[Winehole23]

Has there ever been a branch of science that has tried so hard and for so long to validate itself?Has there ever been a ST poster who spends so much time tilting at strawmen, loading the dice, and basically talking to himself?

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe two other times in the last two years?

That sure is damn often!

Twice my ass. When confronted with someone wanting proof on something you default to the "search for it then - its not my job" excuse constantly. Its your MO. When you have nothing to back up what you're saying you default to the "its not my burden of proof" or don't be lazy tactic to cover your tracks.

Feel free to keep using it, but I'm fairly certain the (few) objective posters here see right through it every time.

[MannyIsGod]

Has there ever been a branch of science that has tried so hard and for so long to validate itself?



What does this even mean?

[MannyIsGod]

Is Darrin actually asking if there has been any branch of Science that has tried to counteract its critics? Is he going to next ask if there is ever a thunderstorm that has produced rain? Perhaps he wonders if there is a fire that has ever been hot?

[Winehole23]

What does this even mean?It means DarrinS either relies on the ignorance of his audience or magnanimously generalizes his own.

[SnakeBoy]

:rolleyes

The WSJ is as wing-nut as M$M gets....

Proof: other articles from the WSJ...

Wall Street Journal: Gun-owners happier, richer than non gun-owners

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856454897828049.html

American Dream 2: Default, Then Rent

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126040517376983621.html

Wall Street Journal columnist basically sez "The poor should pay more so the rich can play more"

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/08/moore-tax-poor/

Wall Street Journal: Oil Spill Is a Failure of Government

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/15/876116/-Wall-Street-Journal:-Oil-Spill-Is-a-Failure-of-Government

I could go on all night...the WSJ is a conservative/GOP/Wing-nut mouthpiece

That's an awful lot of effort just to avoid discussing anything in the article.

[RandomGuy]

Has there ever been a branch of science that has tried so hard and for so long to validate itself?


Serious question:


Is there any objective measurement over a given period of time that would dissuade an AGW catastrophist? For example, if the average global temperature anomaly had a flat or slightly negative trend for the next 50 years, despite a positive linear trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, would you start to doubt that CO2 drives temperature? If you say no, then you are are not basing your belief on science, your are basing it on faith.

To which I would counter with an equally serious question:

Is there any objective measurement over a given period of time that would dissuade an AGW denier?
For example, if the average global temperature anomaly corresponded almost perfectly to that of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations, would you start to believe that CO2 drives temperature?

If you say no, then you are are not basing your belief on science, you are basing it on faith.

To answer your serious question:
If the weight of the science tilts against it, I would be happy. I have no personal investment in the theory, and would be somewhat releived if the worst did not come to pass.

Until then, I think a prudent and conservatively risk-mitigating approach is to take some steps to mitigate potential risk, rather than some radical "do nothing" approach that seems to be favored by most "deniers".

[RandomGuy]

I push especially hard for limits on CO2 because limiting CO2 generally means using less fossil fuels and more renewables, something that is better for the economy in the long run than "doing nothing".

Reducing CO2 output mitigates the worst risks of man-made climate change AND the coming fossil fuel depletion crisis.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Wild Cobra]

So then you admit you could be using a non-existent post as a excuse not to respond to a request for information. How considerate.
No, I responded again because I wasn't certain that I actually posted my reply.

I really get tired of your assumptions when I consider mine explained.

[bigzak25]

The ozone is depleting and the ice is melting.

What more science do you all need to see?

[Wild Cobra]

Has there ever been a ST poster who spends so much time tilting at strawmen, loading the dice, and basically talking to himself?
He has a valid point. After all these years of government grants looking for it, AGW still has no proof.

[Wild Cobra]

Twice my ass. When confronted with someone wanting proof on something you default to the "search for it then - its not my job" excuse constantly. Its your MO. When you have nothing to back up what you're saying you default to the "its not my burden of proof" or don't be lazy tactic to cover your tracks.

Feel free to keep using it, but I'm fairly certain the (few) objective posters here see right through it every time.
How is that similar to be saying I thought I completed a post but might not of, or didn't?

I only remember one time before that i didn't make a post i thought I did.

Yes, I have asked people to search things themselves. I don't deny that. I've done it several times.

How small of you changing the argument like that.

[Wild Cobra]

To which I would counter with an equally serious question:

Is there any objective measurement over a given period of time that would dissuade an AGW denier?
Yes.


For example, if the average global temperature anomaly corresponded almost perfectly to that of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations, would you start to believe that CO2 drives temperature?

Sure, if CO2 lead temperature rather than lagging, over the long term.


To answer your serious question:
If the weight of the science tilts against it, I would be happy.
But it does.

I have no personal investment in the theory, and would be somewhat releived if the worst did not come to pass.

Then be relieved.


Until then, I think a prudent and conservatively risk-mitigating approach is to take some steps to mitigate potential risk, rather than some radical "do nothing" approach that seems to be favored by most "deniers".

Mitigation would be to do all we can to stop black carbon emissions. It is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels like CO2 is. It is scrubbed out easy enough. CO2 is not the problem of combustion. Unburned components of the fuel are.

[Winehole23]

No, I responded again because I wasn't certain that I actually posted my reply.Prove you already posted it, or rehash it for us. Is that so hard?


I really get tired of your assumptions when I consider mine explained.I really get tired of your lazy excuses for non-responsive posts. Considering your assumptions "already explained" without providing any links or quotation is a symptom of that laziness.

[DarrinS]

To which I would counter with an equally serious question:

Is there any objective measurement over a given period of time that would dissuade an AGW denier?
For example, if the average global temperature anomaly corresponded almost perfectly to that of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations, would you start to believe that CO2 drives temperature?




Yes. When their computer models start predicting reality on a regular basis, I will have more faith in their science.

[MannyIsGod]

deleted post

[MannyIsGod]

Prove you already posted it, or rehash it for us. Is that so hard?

I really get tired of your lazy excuses for non-responsive posts. Considering your assumptions "already explained" without providing any links or quotation is a symptom of that laziness.

WC,

See?

Thanks

[DarrinS]

Is Darrin actually asking if there has been any branch of Science that has tried to counteract its critics? Is he going to next ask if there is ever a thunderstorm that has produced rain? Perhaps he wonders if there is a fire that has ever been hot?


You and WH could learn a thing or two from RG. He actually posts some compelling arguments from his viewpoint.

I just think the AGW community tries to sell "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" a little too hard. (witness scare monger #1, Al Gore).

Ask yourself this: Why did the IPCC TWICE reduce it's model predictions in a 10-year period? ANSWER: It wasn't agreeing with reality.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin I would bother engaging you the way RG does but every time I've done so in the past you never respond when presented with something that counteracts the oversimplified out of context shit you post. In the post above you post something completely out of context in order to discredit a theory. If you have a disagreement with the theory, then engage the science and the theory itself not what the IPCC has or has not done.

THAT is what science is about.

When you learn that, then maybe I will bother engaging you in a serious manner. I've learned my - and I suspect WH is coming from the exact same angle - lesson with you. So instead of telling us what we can learn maybe you should take your own advice? God knows WH and I have both put forth an exponentially greater amount of substance than you.

[Winehole23]

You and WH could learn a thing or two from RG. He actually posts some compelling arguments from his viewpoint.I learn things from RG all the time, but I'm an AGW agnostic. So disagreeable are the two main camps to me, that I'm more or less content to let others do the heavy lifting and heckle from the sidelines.


I just think the AGW community tries to sell "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" a little too hard. (witness scare monger #1, Al Gore).Guess it depends on what you mean by "AGW community," but in a broad way I can agree with that.


Ask yourself this: Why did the IPCC TWICE reduce it's model predictions in a 10-year period? What would you have done, if reality kept showing up your model?

Stick with it?

Or would you examine, then revise, your various assumptions?

[Winehole23]

God knows WH and I have both put forth an exponentially greater amount of substance than you.On this topic my contribution is nil. I drink too much and heckle the flow of play. Like I did back in my competitive soccer days. :hat

[Wild Cobra]

You and WH could learn a thing or two from RG. He actually posts some compelling arguments from his viewpoint.

I just think the AGW community tries to sell "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" a little too hard. (witness scare monger #1, Al Gore).

Ask yourself this: Why did the IPCC TWICE reduce it's model predictions in a 10-year period? ANSWER: It wasn't agreeing with reality.
No kidding. I cannot wait for the 5th report, showing black carbon to contribute around 0.3 watts or so. I wonder if they'll fix solar, and end up reducting CO2 to below 1.0? It would surprise me if they reduced CO2 to where it belongs though, around 0.2 to 0.4.

[RandomGuy]

Ask yourself this: Why did the IPCC TWICE reduce it's model predictions in a 10-year period? ANSWER: It wasn't agreeing with reality.

So what you are saying here is that they revise their estimates based on new data.

Isn't that what real science is supposed to do?

[MannyIsGod]

So what you are saying here is that they revise their estimates based on new data.

Isn't that what real science is supposed to do?

Yes but then idiots like Darrin come back and use that as some kind of evidence that their models weren't exactly accurate and then demand you engage them in an actual debate.

[RandomGuy]

I learn things from RG all the time, but I'm an AGW agnostic. So disagreeable are the two main camps to me, that I'm more or less content to let others do the heavy lifting and heckle from the sidelines.

Guess it depends on what you mean by "AGW community," but in a broad way I can agree with that.

You should spend some time watching Greg Craven's series of videos on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

He picks apart the whole debate in great detail with a fair perspective.

It starts with an interesting lecture series by a math professor who teaches in Colorado. He points out that it is a statistical impossibility for us to keep producing more and more coal/oil/gas etc to keep up with economic demand, then goes on to point out some of the depletion problems coming up in the coming decades for "fossil" fuels.

The fact that we will be producing/consuming less and less of the things that cause CO2 and other forms of pollution is something that a lot of the "alarmists" tend to miss. CO2 emissions will have to moderate at some point.

We are still producing exponentially more CO2 than we were 30 or 40 years ago though. The only real question we need to grapple with is what will happen as we go through the next 30 to 40 years.

That is where sound risk management comes into play, and it is the principles of risk management that completely blow away most "denier" arguments. The principles of risk management in their application to AGW is a reason why the Society of Actuaries, the people who study risk for a living for private industry, advocate doing something to limit CO2 and other greenhous gas emissions.

As Mr. Craven points out, it boils down to who to believe on the subject.

He also correctly points out that risk has TWO dimensions. Probability and magnitude.

The real ambiguity exists when it comes to probability, and that is where most of the real argument happens. It is also where you can start seperating the real scientists from the dogmatic quacks in both camps. The more you see statements of absolute certainty, the more you should turn on your sense of skepticism.

The thing that seals it for me though, is not the arguments about probability. We will get better data on that as time goes by, so we will get better at the probability estimates. The fatal weakness in the "denier" argument is that they are really really bad about the magnitude of the risks faced.

"Deniers" invariably will play down the potential risks posed by climate change, and play up the risks of doing something about it, and do so on the basis of extremely scant, outdated, and poor quality evidence.

"we will ruin the economy" by reducing CO2 emissions, they say. When asked to quantify that to any reasonable degree, they almost invariably hem, haw, and ad hominem. DarrinS, to his credit, gave me the best evidence I have seen to support the "ruin the economy" estimation of worst possible outcomes, but that was a study done in 1998, that really had some serious holes in it.

The thing that the "ruin the economy" arguments also completely fails to encapsulate is that we will be FORCED to emit less CO2 NO MATTER WHETHER WE ARE CHANGING OUR CLIMATE THROUGH EMISSIONS OR NOT, simply due to the coming depletion, mentioned at the beginning of this post.

This will change our economy anyways.

As any good cost accountant will tell you when considering options, you must ONLY weigh the differences in options, because that is the only logical way to get some quantification on costs/benefits.

Given that we MUST start emitting less CO2, and the only difference between courses of action (do something or do nothing) is WHEN, we are then left contemplating much more minor differences.

If your argument is "it will ruin our economy" then you are, in essence, saying that the coming depletion will also "ruin our economy", because declining fossil fuel supplies coupled with substantial increases in underlying demand will just as certainly drive prices up and change the way we get energy, just as surely as if we taxed carbon now.

We are faced with a choice similar to that of the fellow with the crappy old car who must choose between fixing the old one and buying a new one.

It is cheaper in the short run to fix the old one. Eventually, however the costs to keep it running will really add up and then it will definitely be cheaper to buy a new one.

The other variable not considered in this problem is that of income. If the fellows income is steady or growing, then going with the cheaper "fix it until it falls apart" option is probably better. He can save and put aside money for a down payment on a new car in the future and be better off.

Here comes the big BUT, if his income is likely to go down at some point in the future, he will be faced with having to replace his car at the exact time he can least afford it. He would be better off buying a new car and trying to get it paid off as quickly as possible before his income goes down.

The PROPORTION of our income that we have to spend on energy will have to rise, reducing our ability to pay the costs of switching over AND keep using energy.

All of this serves to essentially make the "they are not right about AGW" thrust of the "denier" camp irrelevant.

In my discussions here, as elsewhere, I liken it to a battle wherein red has completely outflanked blue, but blue keeps driving up the middle, oblivious to the unraveling of their entire order of battle.

[RandomGuy]

Wall Street Journal dude.

Not exactly some anonymous right wing blog.

The WSJ, especially since its takeover by Rupert Murdoch, has had a rather distinct shift in its editorial policy, and the article quoted was a straight up editorial, not a full-out article.

I trust the WSJ to tell me about business and market conditions, as those are a bit less open to playing politics with facts.

The sad thing for me is that I see something I really enjoy reading slowly succomb to groupthink in the manner that makes the Fox "news" network nearly useless when it comes to informing me about current events that don't involve the latest celebrity scandal.

They aren't there by any stretch, but I stopped reading the op-eds years ago.

[DarrinS]

The scientists themselves sure seem confident.


"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.... Our observing system is inadequate."


"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data, but in reality, the situation is not quite so simple."


"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant."


"For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling."

[RandomGuy]

The scientists themselves sure seem confident.


"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.... Our observing system is inadequate."


"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data, but in reality, the situation is not quite so simple."


"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant."


"For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling."

I was thinking more of the formal analysis, not the non-issue "gotchas" of "Climategate".

Do you want me to start going through your, and WC's, posts and showing how you both consistantly fail to assign any such language to your pronouncements about what the data shows?

I could then contrast that with the IPCC's much more report stating "it is more likely than not" "probably" etc.

Quite frankly, reading through that selection, although it probably seems like some smoking gun to you, makes me feel a bit better about the whole affair. If that is the worst you could dredge up, it is pretty milquetoast.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you want me to start going through your, and WC's, posts and showing how you both consistantly fail to assign any such language to your pronouncements about what the data shows?

Let me get this right. There is factual evidence that the science is not clear, that they cannot explain certain things. Now you expect us to know the science 100%?

Science is about hypothesis, then theorizing. Then you go to do everything you can to find holes in the theory. There is no absolute end fact. However, the facts that have come to life shows the current concept about AGW if false.

[LnGrrrR]

The WSJ Op-Ed page has been right-wing for quite a while now. A few years, at least.

[Wild Cobra]

The WSJ Op-Ed page has been right-wing for quite a while now. A few years, at least.
True, but just the Op-Ed.

[LnGrrrR]

True, but just the Op-Ed.

Agreed; that's why I made sure to qualify it.

[RandomGuy]

Let me get this right. There is factual evidence that the science is not clear, that they cannot explain certain things. Now you expect us to know the science 100%?

Science is about hypothesis, then theorizing. Then you go to do everything you can to find holes in the theory. There is no absolute end fact. However, the facts that have come to life shows the current concept about AGW if false.

Case in point

In one sentence you quite clearly proclaim "the science is not clear", then in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, you say "the current concept about AGW is false".

You don't say "is likely false", or "is probably false" or question the IPCC assessment of probability, you just say "it IS false", leaving no room for the distinct possibility you are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Case in point

In one sentence you quite clearly proclaim "the science is not clear", then in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, you say "the current concept about AGW is false".

You don't say "is likely false", or "is probably false" or question the IPCC assessment of probability, you just say "it IS false", leaving no room for the distinct possibility you are wrong.
It is factually false, the idea that CO2 accounts for 1.66 +/- (?). We know that because we can subtract factors that are known. With the known warming, there just isn't enough left over to assign nearly that much to CO2.

We don't know enough about all the factors, but have solid science on others.

When you eliminate all possibilities you can, what remains is what you should look at. CO2 is eliminated.

[RandomGuy]

It is factually false, the idea that CO2 accounts for 1.66 +/- (?). We know that because we can subtract factors that are known. With the known warming, there just isn't enough left over to assign nearly that much to CO2.

We don't know enough about all the factors, but have solid science on others.

When you eliminate all possibilities you can, what remains is what you should look at. CO2 is eliminated.


I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

[DarrinS]

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

[RandomGuy]

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif


I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

[DarrinS]

RG,

What's your beef with the graph?

[MannyIsGod]

For one, scale. sti

But really, the entire premise of the graph is flawed as hell - especially in the manner you use it. You see, this is exactly what I talk about when I say that you pull things completely out of context, Darrin.

If I'm to understand things correctly, you're trying to point out that in the past the earth was hotter than it is now and that levels of CO2 where much higher then as well.

Both of those statements can be true and there can still be AGW. You seek to somehow supersede AGW theory and make it irrelevant with your incredible tidbit of information contained in that graph. It's so simple that one wonders why everyone doesn't see things in this manner and then is led to the obvious conclusion that any scientist who supports AGW theory has motives and agendas of his/her own.

You may as well have posted a god damn youtube.

In any event, as I said above, the information in your graph can be completely correct and there can be AGW. So maybe you can elaborate (lol and maybe pigs can fly) on your point?

[DarrinS]

For one, scale. sti

But really, the entire premise of the graph is flawed as hell - especially in the manner you use it. You see, this is exactly what I talk about when I say that you pull things completely out of context, Darrin.

If I'm to understand things correctly, you're trying to point out that in the past the earth was hotter than it is now and that levels of CO2 where much higher then as well.

Both of those statements can be true and there can still be AGW. You seek to somehow supersede AGW theory and make it irrelevant with your incredible tidbit of information contained in that graph. It's so simple that one wonders why everyone doesn't see things in this manner and then is led to the obvious conclusion that any scientist who supports AGW theory has motives and agendas of his/her own.

You may as well have posted a god damn youtube.

In any event, as I said above, the information in your graph can be completely correct and there can be AGW. So maybe you can elaborate (lol and maybe pigs can fly) on your point?



How do you like this graph?

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/_wp_generated/wpd3b451b8_0f.jpg

[RandomGuy]

RG,

What's your beef with the graph?


I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

[RandomGuy]

How do you like this graph?

http://www.sustainableoregon.com/_wp_generated/wpd3b451b8_0f.jpg


I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

[DarrinS]

RG,

The last graph was the corrected "hockey stick" graph.

The original hockey stick graph was complete and utter bullshit.

[DarrinS]

RG's last two responses to me:

http://myapologies.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/white-flag.jpg

[RandomGuy]

RG's last two responses to me:

http://myapologies.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/white-flag.jpg


I see your explanation as utter fabricated bullshit, and having zero merit.

[RandomGuy]

RG's last two responses to me:

http://myapologies.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/white-flag.jpg

So... what you are saying is... that when I shut down all attempts to actually address what you posted, and simply wave my hand dimissively by calling your point "utter bullshit", that is, in essence, surrender?

I would agree with your assessment.

[DarrinS]

So... what you are saying is... that when I shut down all attempts to actually address what you posted, and simply wave my hand dimissively by calling your point "utter bullshit", that is, in essence, surrender?

I would agree with your assessment.



Keep the faith, brother.

[CuckingFunt]

The thing I can never understand in this argument is how/why such a large segment of the population seems to need scientific proof -- from THEIR specific, accepted scientists -- of something that I consider to be such common sense: essentially that living beings have an effect on the environment in which they live. If you bought and filled a fish tank but had no fish, would the water get dirty on its own? Well of course it would. Eventually. But it would happen a lot faster when you start adding fish.

It's unfortunate that it's become so heavily politicized. It's unfortunate that it's become so heavily moralized. I think that, on some level whether conscious or unconscious, some people hear the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are negatively impacting the planet and mistake it for the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are inherently evil and doing evil things and MUST abandon all of our comforts and the nifty things to which we've become accustomed. It's silly. And stands in the way of ever reaching consensus and working together toward finding a way to both enjoy our creature comforts and be mindful of our impact on the environment.

[boutons_deux]

"MUST abandon all of our comforts and the nifty things to which we've become accustomed"

apart from you, who says that?

[CuckingFunt]

"MUST abandon all of our comforts and the nifty things to which we've become accustomed"

apart from you, who says that?

No one, to my knowledge.

Not even me:


I think that, on some level whether conscious or unconscious, some people hear the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are negatively impacting the planet and mistake it for the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are inherently evil and doing evil things and MUST abandon all of our comforts and the nifty things to which we've become accustomed. It's silly.

[admiralsnackbar]

The thing I can never understand in this argument is how/why such a large segment of the population seems to need scientific proof -- from THEIR specific, accepted scientists -- of something that I consider to be such common sense: essentially that living beings have an effect on the environment in which they live. If you bought and filled a fish tank but had no fish, would the water get dirty on its own? Well of course it would. Eventually. But it would happen a lot faster when you start adding fish.

It's unfortunate that it's become so heavily politicized. It's unfortunate that it's become so heavily moralized. I think that, on some level whether conscious or unconscious, some people hear the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are negatively impacting the planet and mistake it for the argument that we, as a species, through our lifestyle and consumption choices are inherently evil and doing evil things and MUST abandon all of our comforts and the nifty things to which we've become accustomed. It's silly. And stands in the way of ever reaching consensus and working together toward finding a way to both enjoy our creature comforts and be mindful of our impact on the environment.

I also find it fascinating that the argument is framed as a simplistic tree-hugger, hippie-ish, almost-Pagan notion, as though the Earth is the thing that needs saving. The Earth doesn't give a shit about how we treat it -- it's not going anywhere. The lifestyle changes in question are only posited to help us -- and the ecosystem we subsist on -- survive.

To use your example, the fishbowl will have life in it one way or another. Advocates of green living are only trying to assure that we have more control over the fishbowl and our lives therein, be it with respect to climate change or just health issues and energy (and thus economic) independence from others in our species.

[admiralsnackbar]

Well, it's not in this thread, and I know I composed it. I'm not going to look for it. I have at times forgot to hit the "Submit Reply" button, it it's actually possible that happened.

:lol

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll320/snackbar50/dog_ate_my_homework_shirt.gif

[bigzak25]

the only thing that must be abandoned is our selfishness.

[bigzak25]

wouldn't hurt to abandon our egos as well.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll320/snackbar50/dog_ate_my_homework_shirt.gif
Lamer...

I linked the thread I said it in 45 minutes later. Knowing someone idiot like you would say I cried wolf otherwise. You are really late on this remark. I already proved I made the statement. On the 13th!

[admiralsnackbar]

Lamer...

I posted my remarks and linked the thread I said it in 45 minutes later. Knowing someone idiot like you would say I cried wolf otherwise. You are really late on this remark. I already proved I made the statement. On the 13th!

My bad, WC -- don't come here often enough to keep up with every post, so props for digging out your argument. I just thought your original deflection was so absurd that I couldn't resist posting the pic.

I mean c'mon! You said you may have typed it and then deleted it, and that that was as good as having posted it! I'm not trying to break your balls, but you have to admit that's some funny shit, man! :lol

[CuckingFunt]

I also find it fascinating that the argument is framed as a simplistic tree-hugger, hippie-ish, almost-Pagan notion, as though the Earth is the thing that needs saving. The Earth doesn't give a shit about how we treat it -- it's not going anywhere. The lifestyle changes in question are only posited to help us -- and the ecosystem we subsist on -- survive.

To use your example, the fishbowl will have life in it one way or another. Advocates of green living are only trying to assure that we have more control over the fishbowl and our lives therein, be it with respect to climate change or just health issues and energy (and thus economic) independence from others in our species.

Nicely put.

[RandomGuy]

Keep the faith, brother.

Inherent, of course, in my statement is that when WC dismisses an argument as "utter bullshit", he is, in essence surrendering as well, as you so aptly note.

Thanks for pointing that out, and again, I agree.

[Wild Cobra]

Another good read:

The Greenhouse Gas Theory Under a Cloud
Climate Change, the Sun and the Albedo Effect
Mar 29, 2010 John O'Sullivan
(http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/clouds-and-the-greenhouse-gas-theory)


Our Sun is Key to Global Warming Theory
Climate Scientists Concede the Sun's Influence on Warming
Mar 28, 2010 John O'Sullivan
(http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/global-warming-is-caused-by-our-sun)

[RandomGuy]

Another good read:

The Greenhouse Gas Theory Under a Cloud
Climate Change, the Sun and the Albedo Effect
Mar 29, 2010 John O'Sullivan
(http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/clouds-and-the-greenhouse-gas-theory)


Our Sun is Key to Global Warming Theory
Climate Scientists Concede the Sun's Influence on Warming
Mar 28, 2010 John O'Sullivan
(http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/global-warming-is-caused-by-our-sun)

Would you like some sugar with your confirmation bias?

[RandomGuy]

Another good read:

The Greenhouse Gas Theory Under a Cloud
Climate Change, the Sun and the Albedo Effect
Mar 29, 2010 John O'Sullivan
(http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/clouds-and-the-greenhouse-gas-theory)


Our Sun is Key to Global Warming Theory
Climate Scientists Concede the Sun's Influence on Warming
Mar 28, 2010 John O'Sullivan
(http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/global-warming-is-caused-by-our-sun)

mF_anaVcCXg

[DarrinS]

So, that's guy's video is basically arguing that we take action to limit greenhouse emissions, destroying an already weak economy in the process, because the risks of Al Gore's doomsday scenario are just too great? (even though Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise described in his sci-fi horror drama is 12 times greater than the IPCC's worst case scenario and IPCC's models have already diverged from objective measurments over the last decade)


Sounds reasonable to me.


How about we strengthen our economy first?

[RandomGuy]

So, that's guy's video is basically arguing that we take action to limit greenhouse emissions, destroying an already weak economy in the process, because the risks of Al Gore's doomsday scenario are just too great? (even though Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise described in his sci-fi horror drama is 12 times greater than the IPCC's worst case scenario and IPCC's models have already diverged from objective measurments over the last decade)


Sounds reasonable to me.


How about we strengthen our economy first?

Such actions won't harm our ecomomy. Quite the opposite, it would help it, and we would be better off.

That is what I must assume until you can provide some support for the statement:

"taking action to reduce CO2 emissions will destroy our economy"

I call bullshit. Prove it or withdraw the statement.

[Wild Cobra]

So, that's guy's video is basically arguing that we take action to limit greenhouse emissions, destroying an already weak economy in the process, because the risks of Al Gore's doomsday scenario are just too great? (even though Al Gore's 20 foot sea level rise described in his sci-fi horror drama is 12 times greater than the IPCC's worst case scenario and IPCC's models have already diverged from objective measurments over the last decade)


Sounds reasonable to me.


How about we strengthen our economy first?
That's Random Propaganda for you...

[RandomGuy]

That's Random Propaganda for you...

I noticed you did not answer the question, though.

Can you prove, to a reasonable degree, that the economy would be harmed by lowering carbon emissions?

[DarrinS]

"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago." -Keith Briffa

[boutons_deux]

"I believe..."

... now there's real solid science for ya, solid as creationist science.

[DarrinS]

"I believe..."

... now there's real solid science for ya, solid as creationist science.


You're saying that about a very prominant climatologist and AGW cultist.

He was confiding with his fellow warmists in what he thought was confidential email.

:lmao


EDIT> Briffa's temperature reconstruction contained the decline they were trying to hide by using "Mike's Nature trick". Mike, being Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy.

[Wild Cobra]

I noticed you did not answer the question, though.

Can you prove, to a reasonable degree, that the economy would be harmed by lowering carbon emissions?
You mean by carbon trading, right?

Any money mandated to be spent elsewhere takes away from our rights to spend as we choose. Isn't that enough for you?

Anything energy related will cost more. The costs will be passed along to us consumers. This will drive down everyone's standard of living. If you cannot see these simple truths, then there is nothing else to discuss. just because i cannot quantify it, doesn't make it any less real. There will be a price to our standard of living with such things implemented.