Slashdot Mirror

Pat Michaels, for instance, has said (in a C'ville article) that humans are responsible, but that he thinks technology will automatically fix the problem. It seems to me that Lindzen says things that can be taken either way. I.e., he's deliberately vague. Maybe it's just me, though. You've taken the time and given me a lot, and I appreciate it. However, I've decided that I'm going to try to bow out of this debate. For whatever reason, I am too emotionally involved in it.

Let me draw a parallel: Sulfate aerosols. Twenty years ago... BAD! Spend five billion dollars on a five million dollar problem by requiring major changes to industry by amending the clean air act. Now, twenty years later, the same environmental crowd that fought against sulfates so vigorously tell us sulfate aerosols are keeping global temperatures down and should be intentionally put into the atmosphere. Keep in mind, they don't want to lift clean air act restrictions. They want to spend more money (pocket more grants) seeding it with jet airplanes, balloons and artillery cannons... I still haven't heard how this is supposed to avoid the production of acid rain, but there it is, staring you in the face. Twenty years ago, you would have told me to stuff my sulfate conspiracy theories too, I suppose.

Um, yes. Sulfate aerosols are bad. Do you dispute that? A single scientist (yes, he's a nobel laureate) is now proposing injecting them into the atmosphere. And you equate that with the "same environmental crowd" how? Are you even listening to yourself?

So you say a temperature switcheroo in a few decades is impossible?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying - barring, of course, some obvious change such as putting a space sunshade in orbit (not that I expect that to happen).

Suppose they just throw up a two or three page "debunking" over at realclimate and continue on their merry way. Would that pass your sniff test?

No. No it would not.

As for your final comment, let me point out that you are citing the same Pat Michaels that, despite receiving large sums of money from the coal industry, has recently said:

Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about .17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century.

His "solution" of course is to just wait around for the problem to fix itself:

That number is significantly low, and it suggests to me that this becomes a self-limiting issue in the following way: 100 years from now, the technology that runs our society, and powers our society, is going to be radically different than it is today. It will almost certainly be a more efficient, maybe not even a carbon-based fuel society.

How convenient that his solution is good for the people who recently gave him so much money. Just a coincidence though, I'm sure.

As for previous IPCC predictions being alarmist, I'll send you to this link which points out that the 2001 IPCC was too conservative, if anything. (Although the temperature increases did stay within the bounds given, they were on the high end of the predictions.)

No climatologist - not Pat Michaels and not Richard Lindzen - is denying that anthropogenic global warming is happening. The only dispute is to how hot and how quickly - oh, and what to call it.

If you are a climatologist and get a grant to study the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate, and you found that the effects were negligible and that reducing emissions wouldn't have an impact, then you WOULD most certainly have trouble getting grants. If there was nothing more we could do, why would the government spend money on even more research?

Because you are doing good research that demonstrates that the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate is negligible! If that's not worth funding, I don't know what is!

Don't tell me scientists are so far above everyone else that there isn't a single one who wouldn't consider that because there are for sure.

Absolutely. There have been a couple recently uncovered in particle physics. A real shame. However, they are the exception and not the rule. However, do you really think that an entire field (climatology) would be so "bought"? (Assuming that you're initial belief is right, which it's not.) If you read the recent statements from the darlings of those that would cast doubt on climate science, you'll note that even Lindzen and Michaels don't actully say that humans don't have a significant (negative) impact on global warming. The best these people can say is that others exaggerate the problem. Not only don't say that there is no problem, they'll tell you that humans do contribute significantly to global warming.

Lindzen

He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.

Michaels

Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about .17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century.

One of the problems with the environmental movement is that it attracts loonies. (I do brain modeling, so I hope you don't mind me using the scientific term "loony".) I also happen to be a vegetarian (well, to be precise a pesci-vegetarian). As a result, I often attend our local vegetarian festival. It's amazing how many crazies come out to this thing! If you've never been to one, you should go. Unfortunately, it might just reinforce your current world-view, but at least you should find it entertaining.

What you have to realize is that a lot of sane, educated people also are raising alarms here. Even if you read what the least alarmist climatologists have to say (I'm thinking Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels), you'll not find a single climatologist (that I'm aware of) who denies the significance of the human impact on climate change. (You do, however, have to read Lindzen and Michaels carefully to see where they admit this. I'll be happy to provide the exact quotes from these articles if you can't find them. Well, the second Lindzen article is actually more about what he doesn't say.)

Dick Cheney spoke at my wife's graduation at Michigan State U. There was a protester there handing out fliers that told of the evils of Halliburton and oil. No one seemed to mind Halliburton until Cheney became the VP, then, all of a sudden, Halliburton is worthy of this girl's attention.

Yes, it's amazing how many people don't realize that Halliburton was a major contractor during the Clinton administration as well. Doesn't mean that Cheney isn't gaming the system. Doesn't mean he is, either. As a rule, I don't trust politicians regardless of political party. I like to point out to my liberal friends who are horified that I voted for Dole in '96 that if Dole had won in '96, we wouldn't have had Bush during 9/11. (In re-reading that, the last sentence seems like quite a bit of a non-sequitor. It stems from the fact that I didn't trust Clinton, either.)

We can't drill in ANWR because of caribou. Do you really think that liberals care about caribou? Do they take trips to go see the migration of the caribou or follow their progress on the Internet? Of course not. They don't want someone making money by drilling for oil.

Well, I'm also against drilling in ANWR, for two reasons - neither one of which is the caribou. First of all, I see very little gain (except for a few oil companies - definitely not for the average American when you look at the small size of the ANWR reserve compared to how much oil we consume annually) and a not insignificant risk. Oil companies do not have a good record when it comes to living up to their promises with respect to the environment. I can give you some examples if you like. Secondly, and far less importantly (because there is relatively little oil in ANWR), more oil = more CO2. However, let me ask you this? Which is more likely: oil companies will lie about the environmental impact because they're greedy OR environmentalists will like about the environmental impact because they don't want "someone making money"? I won't say that environmentalists won't lie (every group has liars as members). However, I think their greatest tendency for lying is by exaggerating the risk in order for people to take the real risk seriously (a very dubious strategy, mind you) - and not just to keep people from making money. I honestly don't think most of them are that petty.

...even Pat Michaels no longer claims that global warming is not due primarily to anthropogenic factors.

Could you point me in the right direction to find that reference? I've only read The Satanic Gases, not his more recent stuff.

But the theory of global warming itself, and the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere... Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about .17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century. That number is significantly low, and it suggests to me that this becomes a self-limiting issue in the following way: 100 years from now, the technology that runs our society, and powers our society, is going to be radically different than it is today. It will almost certainly be a more efficient, maybe not even a carbon-based fuel society.

I think that if one is familiar with the science, the science can stand on its own irrespective of the funding. However, for people who are not science literate (or even people who don't have time to wade through the details), it is helpful to point out why one might expect expert A to disagree with experts B-Z when expert A is being funded by fossil fuel companies. Also, as others have pointed out, even honest researchers are affected by their source of funding.

The whole central problem behind the "carbon" tax is that with the lack of consensus over whether or not fossil fuel emissions are increasing the Greenhouse Effect and producing global average temperature rise -- and frankly, I don't see how it couldn't be having some impact -- there is little or no "tangible" effect that anyone can point to.

If you subtract those people who are receiving money from fossil fuel companies, then as far as I know there is a total consensus on this issue. In fact, even among those people who DO receive money from the fossil fuel companies, you'll find several scientists who admit that fossil fuel emissions are increasing the Greenhouse Effect. (Go to the bottom of this article and see Pat Michaels arguments against Global Warming. Basically it's that "That number [the amount of global warming] is significantly low, and it suggests to me that this becomes a self-limiting issue in the following way: 100 years from now, the technology that runs our society, and powers our society, is going to be radically different than it is today. It will almost certainly be a more efficient, maybe not even a carbon-based fuel society.")

Now, I know people will call this an ad hominem attack, but if it is, it's valid. Just as it was valid to point out that those scientists who denied that smoking was bad for were being funded by tobacco companies. I say it's valid because for the majority of people who don't actually understand the science themselves, they need to consider the biases of those who provide the information. One on hand you have scientists being largely funded by an administration that has very weak on climate issues, but who still find very strong evidence to support the greenhouse gas theory, and on the other hand you have scientists being funded by ExxonMobil and friends who try to find faults with those arguments. It's also worth pointing out that this same group of scientists first denied global warming was happening, then suggested that it's not due to greenhouse gases, and is now claiming that it's not really that big of a problem. So, if you don't understand the science, who do you believe?

Personally, I understand the science fairly well. But it's hard to convince those who don't understand it without pointing out to them why some scientists might be deceiving them (either deliberately or otherwise).

..only two newspapers in America even permit e-mail at the end of all reporters stories.

I'm calling your bluff. Which two are you talking about, and what makes you think they're the only two that allow it? The paper I write for (C-Ville Weekly) not only allows but encourages its writers to be accessible by e-mail. I can't believe we're one of only two newspapers that that's true of.

Perhaps you meant "major" papers, but even in that case, my challenge to you still stands. As for Peter Jennings and World News Tonight, try this feedback form that took me all of a minute to find on abc.com. It may not go straight to Peter Jennings, but guess what: he just reads what he's told to read for the most part, so he's not the person you want to address comments on the news content to anyway.