Climate Data Re-examined (updated)

Kyoto and policies by erik+umenhofer · 2003-11-04 21:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

The poblem with most of these policies is they put rules in place on 3rd world countries that can't afford to put in technology to fix the problems they have, then they sell of thier clean air units to other countries to make cash.

basically it works like this. every country has to make quotas. but the stupid thing is you can TRADE them. Lets say the US it polluting too much, it can buy "clean air quotas" from another country who doesn't pollute as much. It's kinda interesting but lame at the same time.

Re:Kyoto and policies by cluckshot · 2003-11-05 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Cut the Crap! This stuff about 3rd world countries not being able to affort to clean up their act belies the reality that they are selling themselves as an "Out" to the restrictions of the US and others. In reality much of the "Prosperity" of China at this moment is as a result of their attracting poluting industries from the west.
While the Environmentalist nuts have been hornswoggling the press and the politicos here in the west they have been quitely blinking at the massive pollution increases in the east. China and India have increased their Carbon Dioxide emissions a total exceeding total US Output by some 5 times(Each)! The south east asians have polluted the Pacific Ocean to the point where about 10% of it is DEAD and I have seen it flying over it!
These Eco-nuts go on saying that the only country to actually be cleaning up is the problem. The USA has stabilized its output of pollution and in some areas reduced it. This while increasing its population by almost 25% in the period!
If we continue to listen to such crap about 3rd world problems nothing is going to get cleaned up and we are all going to die in the mess. There are no limits on the pollution from India, China and much of the world under Koyoto. The industrialists will simply scoot out to the 3rd world and build their smoky dirty plants and ignore pollution controls unless we wake up. The problem is not the USA. The problem is elsewhere. But that is the whole problem with the Koyoto Treaty in the first place. It attempts to blame the USA and shut it down rather than deal with problems. This is of course justified by doctoring numbers and generally lying. Lies are so deep in Koyoto Treaty work that nobody is even looking at the real problems.
I have worked to get pollution cleaned up and in fact I worked for over 20 years to get the 2nd worst (Per EPA List at the time) pollution site in North America cleaned up. Not once in the period did I get the Sierra Club or Friends of the Earth or any of the other "Green" organizations to even turn their ear to the problem. This site had Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Contamination to the limit. Could the "Greens" even look? Not on your life! Have they turned and looked since the EPA listed the site... NO!
I think that people aught to look at what is going on. The Eco-nuts are not Eco at all. They are powered by Political Aims and internationally they are unified by "Anti-American" sentiments. They view the solution to be that of destruction of the USA rather than looking at their own areas. The China Coal burning as of now is approaching 5 Billion Tons a year and US consumption of coal has dropped to 0.7 Billion Tons from a high of 1.2 Billion Tons. The USA has rivers and streams recovering with new fish and much good going on. The Indians and Chinese are in grave danger of having their rivers and streams killed. The "Asian Brown Cloud" did not happen over Toledo Ohio and it didn't happen over Birmingham Alabama. Yes I can remember when these sites had such but the "Asian Brown Cloud" was this summer. America is the example for what to do to clean up not what is wrong.
Does anyone remember the "Acid Rain" issue. It turns out much of the evidence was of natural causes and not related to mankind. Worse yet the scrubbers actually caused Acid rain by bringing out the alkali ash and letting the acid gas go. The issue of "Acid Rain" was caused in most part (95% or more) due to the Terminal State of the Forrest in the East USA after its regrowth from low levels in the 1930's. The fully grown trees emit much acid. This is why the "Smoky Mountains" and the "Blue Ridge" were named and they were named before the industrial era.
The greatest CO2 emission in north America in 2003 was the fires in California and these owe to the Eco-Nuts who would not even let a DEAD tree be cut. They would not allow disease control or even controlled burns. The ecosystem of the forrest there is "Fire Dependent" and frankly needs regular burns. So 3400 homes burn

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.

Re:It's possible, after all by erik+umenhofer · 2003-11-04 21:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

agreed, polluting is bad, but making huge policy changes and other expensive modifications without probable cause is also bad. I don't want to make changes because of some bad data, I want to make changes to better the planet. Not to advert some mythical killing of the planet which some said would happen at the "alarming rate" at which our temp was rising.

Kyoto treaty is still a good thing by emkman · 2003-11-04 21:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

We shouldn't stop protecting the environment just because some analysis was wrong. Its funny that we even need justification in the first place to preserve the planet.

--
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)

Re:Kyoto treaty is still a good thing by Jan-Pascal · 2003-11-04 21:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is that we do not know if keeping to the Kyoto agreements _is_ protecting the environment. This paper suggests that there is no evidence that climate change is human CO2 production. That means that the environment might be better off if we would spend the time, money and energy on other things than reducing CO2 output, like reducing water pollution. Or even if we would not focus on short-term CO2 reduction like storing CO2 under the sea.
Re:Kyoto treaty is still a good thing by BrokenHalo · 2003-11-04 22:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its funny that we even need justification in the first place to preserve the planet.
No. What's really wanted by governments both in the US and here in Australia is a good line of flummery to justify not ratifying an arrangement to which they have already agreed.
Most individuals (one hopes) believe that reducing pollution is a Good Thing(tm). However, in countries where the big dollars control government policy, the real push is to keep burning the candle at both ends until there's nothing left to save.
Re:Kyoto treaty is still a good thing by Simon+Lyngshede · 2003-11-04 22:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

One the other hand, we don't know what will happen if we're not keeping to the Kyoto agreement. I see the main difference between the US and the rest of the western world as being willing to take a chance. The US focuses mostly on the fact that nobody can prove CO2 to be the cause of global warming. Europes main argument is that you can't prove that CO2 is not to blame. We're not willing to take the chance and tries to limit our C02 polution, just in case that CO2 is the bad guy. The US seems to don't give a damn about reducing CO2 polution until somebody proves it to be dangerous.

I don't understand how somebody care so little about the environment. If there is even the smallest chance that something could destroy our planet, we should try to avoid it, even if it is later proven to be harmless. If you're not sure, you shouldn't take the chance.
Re:Kyoto treaty is still a good thing by DCowern · 2003-11-04 22:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here, here. While I'm definitely not a professional Earth scientist (i.e. in the broad field containing biology, geology, and their bretherin), I spent enough time studying geology to learn a few things from (mostly) non-biased, non-fanatical people who rely on more than FUD to make their assessments and I agree whole-heartedly with your interpretation of these results.

The fact of the matter is that the Earth does make rapid dramatic shifts in climate. For example, the magnetic poles could swap on us with very little warning. (In fact, I think we're overdue for such an event right now... it'll probably happen within the next few thousand years if I remember correctly.) Anyway, we should be figuring out how much we're changing the climate and taking /appropriate/ action.

If we're not hurting the environment that much and drastically reducing emissions is going to severely impact technological progress, slow or halt the development of third world countries, put millions of people out of work, and/or take money away from other more worthwhile environmental initiatives, it probably isn't going to be worth it. We should instead be focusing on technology to supplant current harmful technologies*.

The problem is that most of this kind of legislation is pushed by one of two kinds of extremeists; the doomsday environmentalists and the motown oil executives. Both of these groups feed off of pure FUD. Those that have a clue are rarely involved in the process (unless they've been paid off by one of the above groups).

Besides... even if we do pollute the Earth so badly that it becomes uninhabitable, geologic processes are extremely effective at cleaning such messes up. The earth would probably become habitable again in a couple tens of thousands of years and a race of super-intelligent cockroaches could succeed us as overlord of the planet. ;-)

* - Again, this really needs to be thought through. Now that we're to the point where we have the ability to analyse the impact our technologies have on the environment, we really need to use that ability. For example, I recently read an article about how hydrogen fuel cells could dramatically increase the size of the hole in the ozone layer due to the amount of free oxygen they'll contribute to the atmosphere.

Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 21:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're comparing filling a very small space with a very toxic poison to putting a tiny bit of pollution into a very vast atmosphere.

The analogy doesn't even come close to being correct.

Re:It's possible, after all by pe1rxq · 2003-11-04 21:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

The temperature is rising in an alarming rate....
Current earth models predict that at this rate around 2050 there will be a critical point reached where the greenhouse sink holes will break down and become greenhouse sources (breakdown of the amazon rain forest and far worse the release of methanhydrates from the ocean floor). At that point the process will accelerate itself and climate will change drasticly.

What this study shows is that it might not be man's fault but have a natural cause.
Fact remains that our current behaviour is driving this in some degree. It might be the main force or completly negligable. It might be the last little push to disaster.

Jeroen

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/

Good result, though hardly surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 21:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

The "hockey stick" graph has been roundly criticized for years -- and yes, legitimate scientists criticize it, not just "neo-cons" or whatever.

Unfortunately there is immense political pressure placed upon anyone who says something that could be seen as weakening the Kyoto protocol or the "global climate consensus." I expect the authors of this paper will see quite a lot of heat about this.

This is a shame, because the fact that the "hockey stick" graph is flawed absolutely does not imply that human-influenced global warming isn't a problem! Sure, people may misuse these results to argue that global warming is somehow disproven, but the potential misuse of a result is no reason to suppress it. On the contrary, pressuring people to keep quiet about their findings will only hurt the credibility of the entire field in the long run. So it is very good to see that this is published.

And remember -- there is no "final word" in science. The most vital element of science is results can be tested and disproven. Nothing is above criticism, including the hockey stick graph, this paper, and any other paper written about climate change or any other scientific subject. That is what science is all about.

The Political Climate... by JaredOfEuropa · 2003-11-04 21:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

I wonder if the results are skewed because of mistakes, or if the numbers have been wilfully embellished. Neither would surprise me: almost every lobby group for every side of every issue, from Greenpeace to the car industry lobby, have been known to juggle the books a little in order to support their own beliefs. In some cases, outright fraud has taken place.

What scared me about Kyoto is not so much the conclusion that was drawn, nor the way scientists had arrived at that conclusion, but the zealous belief of many governments in these conclusions. In Europe, scientists or governments (the US) who were sceptical about the Kyoto paper became the brunt of scorn and vilification in the media. It again showed how deeply environmentalists have become entrenched in the decision-making bodies of government... it reminds me of the case where two scientists were fired from the Dutch government environmental agency, for publishing reports that proved the official line on acid rain was wrong.

The reactions to this article will tell us if the political climate has changed... if the policy-makers are still only accepting opinions that fit their own world view, or if we have a more open climate where scientific discussion rather than dogma holds sway.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...

Re:The Political Climate... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-05 05:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

If the world wants to take action, go ahead. But guess what, if you want me to take action, you have to show me why I should and convince me. All these Euro-threats of me not being a good guy because I won't do what you say is just bull. If you can really prove your point, then prove it, don't just call me names. And why don't these oh so noble countrys take action on Kyoto now, if it means so much to them? Why do they have to wait for everyone else to take action?

Re:Interesting paper by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 21:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

You may be interested to know that the Earth was warmer over the vast majority of its history.

CO2 levels are, over the long term, in decline. This has, among other things, resulted in the evolution of grasses, which are far more efficent with their use of CO2, than their predicessors.

We are at the serendipitious end of an ice age, it's stupid of us, with our short life spans, to assume the world was and should always be thus. It is the hieght of conciet for us to always expect it to be so.

First man thought the universe was immutable, and earth was at the exact center. Then we came to know that not only was it not at the center, neither was our solar system, or galaxy, and there wasn't really a center to speak of in any case. Now we just expect the Earth's enviroment to convienently, and indefinately hover at we have come to consider an ideal. Seriously, it's time we got over ourselves as a species.

You might be interested to know, that the raw data is considerable, for the most part not normalized, and if Joe Six pack has a beowulf cluster of supercomputers available to federate and interperate the data they would. But since the aliens only delivered supertechnology and not magic when they crashed we'll just have to make do with faking moon landings and tinfoil hats.

Re:I know what will happen now... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 21:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

So: terrible catastrophes causing trillions of dollars in damage and hundreds of millions of deaths may be averted, and this is "a Bad Thing?"

Gee, thanks Zog.

Political fallout by HalfFlat · 2003-11-04 21:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Taking this referenced paper as being on the mark, do look at their corrected temperature graph. One can't say that the recent warming has been unprecedented based on that graph, but you could claim that there's been nothing like it in 500 years.

It seems almost certain that this news will be welcomed by certain governments (US, Australia, ...) as a good reason to dispute the need for CO2 emission controls. Yet they would still (IMO) be misguided. As evidenced by the hole in the ozone layer, human industrial activity can have significant long-term effects on the global environment. Given that we only have the one planet, it seems only good sense that we should be cautious when it comes to activity that has the potential to seriously change the environment.

The warming trend in the last 100 years may have very little to do with industrial emissions - but as yet we can't tell. That there is a correlation indicates we should err on the side of caution: if it is indeed a matter of causation, then we're essential pissing on our own future.

Regardless of quality of life issues, it makes sense as an economic one, when viewed in global terms. We will have to deal with the effects of climate change whether it be due to human activity or not, but if there is a significant component that we're responsible for, continuing in this behaviour is going to make a very large problem a great deal worse, with attendant very high costs to amerliorate it. It is risk management. Putting heads in the sand and saying that there's doubt about the link, does not make the risk of that link magically disappear. Even a 5% chance of the link being actual may be sufficient for a purely economic assessment to indicate that emissions should be sharply curbed.

If there were alternative policies being adopted by those governments against the Kyoto accords, then that would be an indication that their objections were based on more than short-term economic growth (or worse, given the somewhat incestuous relationships between governments and industry.) Yet Australia for example has not even managed to reduce its rate of growth of emissions (not the emission levels themselves!) to targets that had been set earlier.

If the Kyoto accords are not a step in the right direction, then the continuing increase of CO2 emissions is certainly not a preferable alternative.

Follow the money... by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-11-04 21:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

A recent study by Arctic researchers showed that the polar ice cap isn't just shrinking in terms of land mass, it's shrinking in terms of depth too, by 4cm a year.

All that water's going somewhere, and that somewhere is the oceans. Global sea levels are rising, and you only have to look at the situation in Tuvalu in the Pacific or Venice, Italy to see that the threat of rising tides isn't a myth.

People can harp on about "not enough data" or "inconclusive evidence" all they want but if entire nations vanishing beneath the waves or historic cities sinking isn't a wake-up call then I don't know what is.

Frankly, there are some people who will bury their heads in the sand over this issue just as long as they can make a profit by ignoring it. Oil companies and big business are never going to recognise that they are part of the problem until the last possible moment, at which time they'll just shrug their shoulders and say "Who knew?", just like the tobacco industry before them.

But, unlike tobacco, this isn't a problem that will affect just a handful of people, or a problem that will be easily settled by the courts - billions in punitive damages are useless when your country is underwater. The last time I checked there wasn't a court on the planet that could push back the tides.

I'm sure there are dozens of readers out there that will right off this comment as yet more half-baked environmental doom-mongering but I find it funny that these same people will demand more money to scan the heavens for deadly meteors - it seems that extinction Armageddon-style is trendy but the possibility of extinction because of our own actions just isn't sexy enough.

If you really want to be objective about these issues try to look beyond the smoke and mirrors. Ask yourself how objective the research is - there are far more people out there funded by big business than you'd imagine. Ask yourself who stands to profit by presenting a negative picture of climate change? Who stands to lose if the problem is tackled head-on? And who stands to profit if it's ignored and the situation is allowed to continue unchecked?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:Interesting paper by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 22:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

1. Who are these guys. There are no affiliations listed and the research sponsor is not listed.

Who they are should be fairly irrelevant. The important question is: are they right?

2. MBH98 is not the only paper. It was one of the first ones. After that more detailed research was done and it did not refute any of the claims.

Can you give references?

3. Is the ice melt in the arctic a figment of my imagination?

The ice may well be melting. The question is why. This paper would seem to suggest that its not because temperatures are higher than we have ever seen before. Did the ice melt in the 1400s? If not, we have a very interesting conundrum.

4. Is the retreat of South American Glaciers a figment of my imagination?

see answer to previous question

5. Why doesn't NOAA put all the data for public consumption so that anyone can see who is right and who is wrong?

Indeed. It would help everyone.

This paper seems to be of a high quality: it references correctly, it explains what its doing, it limits its conclusions to the data and the results obtained. If you want to criticise it then criticise the science.

Irrelevant by moderators_are_w*nke · 2003-11-04 22:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is irrelevent anyway. Unless it says that continuing to exploit non-renewable energy at the current rate (or faster) and emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate is actually good for the environment.

People need to look at the big picture and stop arguing over the small print.

--
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward

Does this result anger you? by rufusdufus · 2003-11-04 22:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry. ~ Thomas Haliburton

I have found many people will get angry when you say that global warming isn't real. Are you one of these people?
Do you hold on so dearly to this notion that evidence to the contrary outrages you? Isn't this a symptom that just maybe you might be wrong?
When I look at any of the graphs used to back up the global warming story, I do not see evidence of warming. Usually the graphs are zoomed in and incorrectly based. People like to imagine that they can 'see' a signal in the noise just like the stock graphs on the nightly news. But its not there, it is an illusion. Weather is a chaotic system so you will see fluctuations. Fluctuations are indicative of nothing.
Making the case that just because there is no evidence of a problem that reducing CO2 emmisions is still a good idea is an invalid argument. There are many things that might be true but have no basis, such as the idea that you should give me all your money if you want to go to heaven. Taking action on imagined crisis is foolish.

Just because the neo-cons are assholes does not imply that everything they say is wrong. In this case, the evidence is on their side.

Re:I know what will happen now... by larsl · 2003-11-04 22:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll bet you a dollar that Europe would start competing for 'our' Mexican and Venezuelan oil supplies if Gulf production shut down.

reckon?

Debunking already debunked by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 22:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

See the authors' reply here
http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/EandE PaperP roblem.pdf
and Kevin Drum's comment here:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002564.ht ml
"In laymen's terms, they say that their critics are completely full of shit and wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ozone layer."

Re:It's possible, after all by TheTreeFrog · 2003-11-04 22:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

What I never hear discussed is why global warming is supposed to be a bad thing. Look at what global warming is supposed to do: slight increase in average atmospheric temperature, melting polar ice caps, increase in tropical climate zones, decrease in polar climate zones, and increasing sea levels.

From the point of view of every other species on the planet, aren't these good things? More shallow ocean area (where most marine organisms live), more tropical areas (where most land organisms live), and a return to the warmer temperatures more prevalent throughout most of the richer periods of Earth's evolutionary history. For the animals it's win win win.

For humans isn't it really just a straight cost/benefit analysis? Benefits of industrial CO2 emissions versus the costs from rising sea levels (Holland anyone?) and costs from having to relocate crop lands due to shifting weather patterns (remember melting polar caps means MORE overally rainfall - not worldwide deserts). It's a question to be answered but the problem with Kyoto was always that it crippled the First world economies (why no first world nation, not even signatories is even pretending to implement it) to very little actual effect.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that for the cost of Kyoto we could wall in all the coastal cities of the world, provide agricultural assistance to affected areas and still come out ahead.

But I guess straight economics isn't PC...
Seriously, why isn't Canada pumping out CO2 as fast as possible?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater by Gunark · 2003-11-04 22:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

While climate change may or may not be caused by human activity, there is other much more obvious and pressing proof that we are in fact destroying this planet. For example, there is little doubt that the mass extinction and loss of biodiversity we are currently seeing is unprecedented (save maybe for the extinction of the dinasaur era 65 million years ago). The danger here is that some may be tempted to use the results of this climate study as some sort of proof against environmentalism in general.

While a reduction of CO2 emissions is nice, the real effect of Kyoto would have been to boost renewable, non-polluting sources of energy. The benifits of this go far beyond just greenhouse gasses. By getting off oil we could do everything from reducing cancer rates (less air pollution), to decentralizing the power grid, to shifting global power away from terrorist states like Saudi Arabia. It really is a win-win situation for everyone -- except those who are currently in power.

Re:I know what will happen now... by tm2b · 2003-11-04 22:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's strange to hear you argue that we shouldn't be dependent on foreign oil...and then rip on GWB, one of your strongest allies for that cause.

Right. Because the easiest way to end dependence on foreign oil is to annex some places that have oil, making it not-so-foreign any more...

--
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny

Re:This is Mann's fault by henrygb · 2003-11-04 23:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The original 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes was not in error. McIntyre and McKitrick screwed up their data when they published this paper. Somebody exported the raw data in the original paper to Excel but somehow exported 159 columns of data into a 112 column spreadsheet.

It is a pity that the original MBH paper you link to states (page 1 top right) "112 indicators back to 1820" and (page 3 middle right) "the reconstructions from 1820 onwards based on the full multiproxy network of 112 indicators". 159 does not appear in the paper except in the date 1599.

one paper. by flyingdisc · 2003-11-04 23:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

The scientific literature is something that is being continuously developed. It's something that the media don't understand. There just needs to be one paper published which disputes the scientific concensus and every journal runs with it, while there are maybe 10 other papers which support the consensus.

This is a normal part of the peer review. We will have to see if this new paper stands up or has flaws itself. Don't hold you breath. The way we view the world has not suddenly just changed. There is just a new strand to the science to be looked at and investigated in more detail.

Biased Bush administration energy whores? by caitsith01 · 2003-11-04 23:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nooooooooo....

I believe we're still waiting for the documents relating to the oil companies' 'consultations' with Archduke Cheney over energy policy, aren't we?

Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards? Not dying? Is there some secret Globex-EnviroCorporation Inc in which all tree hugging hippies have undisclosed shares? Or is it possible that they simply understand the value of erring on the side of caution when the stakes are so high?

I love it that people think that they are able to be so 'skeptical' about the environment. Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out. After all, you can never be sure so better to do nothing, eh?

Don't worry, go ahead and doubt environmentalists. I'm sure businessmen whose entire job is making profits for their own companies are *much* more reliable at telling you what the state of the environment is.

--
Read Pynchon.

Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by binaryDigit · 2003-11-04 23:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards? Not dying? Is there some secret Globex-EnviroCorporation Inc in which all tree hugging hippies have undisclosed shares? Or is it possible that they simply understand the value of erring on the side of caution when the stakes are so high?

No, they have an agenda. They have a belief that they feel strongly about, and they want others to either believe it too, or at least be held to the constraints that those beliefs create. This is every bit as greedy has having that "belief" be that my bank account should be the biggest or that Globex-MegaCorp's belief that their balance sheet is the most important thing in the world. Remember, having what one thinks in ones brain is a "good" motive does not justify acts that potentially harm (physically, financially, or otherwise) others.

Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out. After all, you can never be sure so better to do nothing, eh?

Or like getting chemo just because you found a bump on your arm? A situation where the "cure" can be worse than the perceived disease? Shall we have put all AIDS patience on an island, after all, better to be safe than sorry right? The problem with your statement is that you're ignoring the fact that there is a gray area. The problem is that the signs are far from "obvious" and the actions being taken are truely massive in scale and affect the lives of millions. So it is something that warrants careful study, and re-study, and checks and balances to come about to a proper conclusion (or as close as you can reasonbly get).

Don't worry, go ahead and doubt environmentalists. I'm sure businessmen whose entire job is making profits for their own companies are *much* more reliable at telling you what the state of the environment is.

Funny you say that when the article mentions NOTHING about any business being involved in the contradicting studies. As far as I can see, YOU'RE the only one even mentioning business or the profit motive into this equation. I would say that anyone completely believing in EITHER side is just as bad as anyone completely believing in the OTHER side.
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by caitsith01 · 2003-11-05 00:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is every bit as greedy has having that "belief" be that my bank account should be the biggest or that Globex-MegaCorp's belief that their balance sheet is the most important thing in the world.

Without meaning to be too offensive, this is a total load. Whilst I am fully aware that at a basic philosophical level this is an arguable point, I will believe that moral relativists actually exist when I see them living accordingly. I don't believe you are one, either, unless you truly and honestly believe that there are no absolute truths at all.

A situation where the "cure" can be worse than the perceived disease?

And how exactly would living off renewable energy be 'worse' than the whole planet dying?

the actions being taken are truely massive in scale and affect the lives of millions.

Yeah, hopefully for the better. I don't wish it on anyone, but if the whole populations of China and India live like Americans do today in 50 years, we are more than screwed. I think the point is that the lives of millions need to be affected, especially one group of about 250 million that I can think of.

As for the business stuff, I am talking more generally about the arguments strongly put foward against greenhouse reduction etc., especially in a political context, having a constant and disturbing connection to the influence of certain major oil companies.

I would say that anyone completely believing in EITHER side is just as bad as anyone completely believing in the OTHER side.

At least we agree on one thing :). Although, as is often misquoted, all that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing...

--
Read Pynchon.
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by TSage · 2003-11-05 00:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we many have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest." (emphasis added)
Dr. Stephen Schneider
Professor of Biological Sciences
Stanford University
Author of Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Cenutry

To say that there are not biased environmentalists ignores the fact that they are human and guess what, humans are biased! I'm biased right now by responding to your post in this way and you were biased in trying to paint environmentalists as only caring about saving the human race from the brink of destruction.

I agree we need to be cautious, but to what extent? There are a number (not in the majority obviously) of extreme environmentalists (whom you conveniently ignored) that would like to see a return to agricultural societies so that we stop 'pillaging the Earth'.

There are people who feel that the western way of life is inappropriate (on some accounts I'd even agree with them) or perhaps think capitalism is destroying everyone and everything. How many people who are extreme environmentalists are also on the extreme left in politics? How many of those would like to see capitalism fall flat on its face?

All I'm saying is that there is no such thing as an unbiased human. We can be far removed from a situation such that we are just about unbiased, but bias is just part of being human.

TSage
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by Guppy06 · 2003-11-05 00:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway? What are they biased towards?"

People (especially young people) like to have a cause they can feel passionately about, one they feel all but defines their lives. A titanic struggle against "The Man," something a lot more exciting than an otherwise mundane life. They have an emotional investment in all this.

"Can't you see that the logical way to be skeptical about it is to assume that the warning signs mean something significant until you can be sure they don't? Otherwise you're acting like someone with half the symptoms of cancer who wants to wait until they have them all before getting it checked out."

Interesting analogy. You do know that most of the methods we have for fighting cancer is almost as bad as the disease itself, right? Personally, I'd like to find out for sure one way or the other before starting chemotherapy. If the diagnosis is wrong, all I'd be doing is heaping more problems on top of doing nothing about whatever the real cause of the symptoms are.
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by Guppy06 · 2003-11-05 00:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

"And how exactly would living off renewable energy be 'worse' than the whole planet dying?"

Because environmentalists want to change a lot more than power generation. The big sources of greenhouse gasses aren't power plants so much as factories, the ones that make the things than we use to maintain our standard of living.

But even ignoring that, renewable energy sources have their own problems environmental associated with them. Going all solar or all wind, for example, means clearing a lot of land that might otherwise be natural wilderness. It's hard to say that's better than a coal-fired plant, and I know I personally feel that it's worse than a nuclear power plant.

"I don't wish it on anyone, but if the whole populations of China and India live like Americans do today in 50 years, we are more than screwed."

Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day. The Kyoto Protocols restrict the greenhouse output only of developed countries that have already moved on to more efficient (and therefore cleaner) means of energy production. China and India as "developing" nations are exempt. In many ways the Kyoto Protocols increase the greenhouse output of these countries, hobbling local manufacturing in the industrialized world and making the cheapier and dirtier manufacturing operations over there seem all that more attractive.

"As for the business stuff, I am talking more generally about the arguments strongly put foward against greenhouse reduction etc., especially in a political context, having a constant and disturbing connection to the influence of certain major oil companies."

This looks a little like hypocricy. You don't want us to be prejudiced against the views of environmentalists because of who they are ("tree-hugging hippies looking for a cause"), but you seem to be prejudiced against the views of non-environmentalists because of who they are ("money-grubbing fat cats looking for a quick buck").
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-05 02:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

"Environmentalists just hate people too much for people to trust their advice."

Glad you are able to keep things in perspective, anyway.

I love it how any suggestion that things could be done better is an 'attack on the American way of life.' Land of opportunity my ass, you have the most self-reinforcing culture I have ever seen.
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-05 03:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ofcourse, the reason environmentalists in general dislike the american consumption culture is that it's unsustainable behaviour. The only way for americans to use so much, is for other people to either die or starve. The earth isn't big enough to give everyone the life an average american enjoys. Even things that are considered very basic, like eating meat, is impossible to realise on a global scale. Meat is too wasteful as a food for everyone to be fed with it.

There are three ways out of this, radical advancements of technology (and given how radical they'd have to be, this one is unlikely), killing off the surplus population of the planet (sorry people, we want your food, now die!), or adapting the lifestyle of the average first-world citizen to be more sustainable.

Unless one of those three things is done there will always be those who are starving, no matter how much the rest of us donates to the red cross.
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by Tackhead · 2003-11-05 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

> > Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest." (emphasis added)
>Dr. Stephen Schneider Professor of Biological Sciences
> Stanford University
> Author of Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Cenutry
Dr. Schneider, if you're in a business where you have to "balance" being "effective" (pushing your personal agenda) and being "honest" (maintaining your scientific integrity), kindly stop dignifying what you do as science.
If the truth conflicts with your agenda, and you make any concessions to truth whatsoever, you are a politician and a propagandist, barely worthy of the title "professor", and what you profess is not science.
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by mrosgood · 2003-11-05 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or like getting chemo just because you found a bump on your arm? A situation where the "cure" can be worse than the perceived disease?
Exactly how is polluting less worse than polluting more?
Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores? by GlassHeart · 2003-11-05 07:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

as oil reserves dwindle (gradually, over time), the cost of oil-based energy will go up. At various points, other energy sources will become more ecnomical than oil, and development of those sources will begin to accelerate.
At the same time, because the oil consuming machinery cannot turn on a dime, the high prices of oil will allow us to drill literally everywhere for it. The environmentalist fear is that by the time the market forces an alternative energy source into the mainstream, we'd have drilled holes in every backyard and national park.
We'd be saving our children (or grandchildren, or whatever) the cost of conversion, by taking that cost on ourselves. But it seems likely that our descendants will have more wealth available to pay those costs than we do.
Is that why these are the same politicians who are borrowing money to cut taxes for the same descendants to pay? The question to me is not whether they will or will not be richer, but whether we can already afford to start doing something right now.
On a philosophical scale, if you can't leave the earth a little better than you inherited it, why do you exist? Just to consume?

Re:Global Warming by pipingguy · 2003-11-05 00:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think we're seeing that now in the data.

Yes, 10 years worth of data on climate change is relevant. After all, I remember that when I was a kid 30 years ago it never snowed this much/so little, therefore there must be climate change because I perceive it to be so (in addition to being told incessantly by news media whose attention span sometimes exceeds "oooh, look, shiny", frequently doesn't know what its talking about but knows that fear sells newspapers.

But that's faulty reasoning by Sycraft-fu · 2003-11-05 00:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because the same thing could be applied to anything that lacks proof, but would have a consequence if true. The oldest example I know of this kind of thing is Pascal's wager. It's an argument for the belief in god that goes like this:

There is a 2x2 matrix, where you either believe or don't believe in god and he does or doesn't exist. You then fill in the boxes with values for benefit or penalty for the situations. Now what Pascal argued is that in the "does exist" column the values are infinite, positive for belief, negative for disbelief since teh reward and punishment are infinetly greater than anything in this world. So it doesn't matter what is in the "does not exist" column since it will be finite. Well, you don't want to risk it, so you should jsut believe in god.

This is, of course, hugely problematic and easy to poke holes in. There are tons of other cases we could argue including that it ISN'T infinite in the "does exist" column, that god can tell between real and faked belief, that there is a different god, etc.

Now the problem is applying that kind of "you can't risk it" logic to everything lets psuedo science get teh same creedence as real science, and in that, swindlers. Like suppose I come to you with a bunch of graphs n' numbers n' daigrams and stuff. I tell you that this is data on my new drug that can cure all forms of cancer. All I need is $10 million to develop it. You look over my data and realise that it in no way justifies my claim. My response? "Yes, but can you really risk it? I mean what if my data IS right and I CAN make the drug? Can you risk on missing out on that oppertunity, not to mention depriving society of that benifit?" If you find that compelling, well then I have some graphs n' numbers n' daigrams to show you...

Basically, before comitting to something as a fact, and making large changes becaues of it, it needs to pass scientific (strong inference) muster. Otherwise, we get into a really bad situation.

Re:It's possible, after all by Dashing+Leech · 2003-11-05 00:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

It however doesn't mean that we should not pollute.

But that's the problem. Kyoto isn't about pollution, it's about greenhouse gases, most notably CO2. The argument I hear from many scientists is that the efforts to enforce Kyoto will take away from efforts to reduce actual pollution -- that is, chemicals that are harmful to humans, animals, and plants. CO2, and other greenhouse gases, do not fit this description.

Enforcing Kyoto could actually make pollution worse. That's why it's paramount that it be clearly demonstrated that:

Global warming be demonstrated as a real phenomenon. (This appears to be true, but it hasn't been shown this isn't a natural cycle.)

Global warming is shown to be caused by greenhouse gases. (This definitely hasn't been shown to be true.)

Damage from global warming is a higher priority than other polluting chemicals that harm living organisms. (This definitely hasn't been shown to be true.)

What most people fail to consider in these debates by Illserve · 2003-11-05 00:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is that by bottling up the sub industrial nations with environmental regulations, and thereby slowing their advance through the industrial stages, we may be making the problem worse in the long run.

The best way to get people to care about the environment is to get them beyond the point of having to worry about food, clothing and shelter. People worried about their next meal really could care less about pollution.

Kyoto and similar measures threaten to force sub-industrial nations to submit to burdensome restrictions that will make it harder for them to blossom into a wealthier economy.

Furthermore, it's grossly unfair to prolong the poverty of such nations by dictating how they can and can't develop so that we can sleep easier at night.

Remember, we didn't have any such restrictions when we went through this stage.

Re:It's possible, after all by T5 · 2003-11-05 01:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Local variance in temperatures over a short time span (our lifetimes) does not equate to "global warming". We had an unusually mild summer here. Am I to assume that an ice age is right around the corner? We're not talking about localized changes in weather patterns here. We're talking about the entire planet potentially increasing in the amount of heat - fractions of a degree, yes, but in a large storage system this amounts to a large quantity of heat. If (and this is a big if) this is because of greenhouse gases, then we need to take some sort of action. But, until we're sure, kneejerk reactions based on local fluctuations is intellectually vapid and scientifically invalid.

Everyone wants to blame environmental problems on either (1) industry or (2) governments, both playing politics. One has to remember that science is largely politically driven as well. What should be an objective, truly scientific process often turns into personal agenda promotion and/or a dash for cash from (1) or (2) above. Science is not above political ambition, although it should be. Scientists that are not above political ambition/agenda promotion aren't to be trusted.

What we need, and by definition cannot get, is an objective, non-biased, scientifically valid analysis of untainted data to determine what, if any, global impact greenhouse gases have had. There are big problems here, however. No one understands the natural variations in global temperatures. You can't remove the other variables from the system (solar activity, global windfield changes, ocean current variations, etc.). You can't establish a control (no second earth - darn!). We can't devise an experiment to perform any valid testing ("Let's release gigatons of CO2 this year, and then readsorb it all next, year, and study the results."). Even if you had these conditions covered, or cleverely circumvent the need for them, you can't get unbiased funding, and that taints the process unacceptably. Unbiased researchers are hard to come by as well. They exist (although in fewer numbers and in relative anonymity to the known players), but they're unlikely to be trusted based on the funding sources. Therefore, political statements like the Kyoto Accords are based on sketchy science at best, politics at worst, and shouldn't be considered to be solutions to a problem that may not even exist.

You're forgetting one thing.... by JackJudge · 2003-11-05 01:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comparing the agendas on both sides may well be valid, but what about comparing the consequences if either side is wrong ??

If the tree huggers have got it wrong we see smaller profits, disgruntled share holders and short term job losses. Boo-hoo.

If the Megacorps have got it wrong (or more likely are simply covering up) then we've screwed up the planet.

The stakes are a little bigger.

Re:It's possible, after all by amightywind · 2003-11-05 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

He found out that ther chemicals that impregnated the ice are similar only to the ones which emanates from the General Motors factories, in Detroit, US.

The chemicals couldn't be from the automobile factories in southern France, could they?

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Re:Thought of evaluating the data, not the biases? by JWW · 2003-11-05 03:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Enough clear evidence? You're kidding, right?

Geologically we know for a fact that Ice Ages have occured off and on in the last few million years. Every Ice Age involves substancial global cooling and then substancial global warming to come out of. The last Ice Age was only tens of thousands of years ago, which a rather small number when talking about geological time. It may be that we just have not reached the peak temperature after coming out of an Ice Age.

I think its amazing how much credit we give ourselves on our impact on the climate. While I agree that cleaner fuels, and more importantly power generation are good things. Our impact is still insignificant on many levels. Just one volcano can have more climactic impact than all the people on earth. Yellowstone's caldera volcano, if (or when) it erupts again will have more impact on the climate than mankind has had throughout the entire industrial age.

We should minimize our impact on the environment, but we could well find that the climate is just doing whatever it wants and we are exaggerating in the extreme what we can do about it.

Hell, we're currently perplexed at what the sun is doing right now and its the root cause of all global warming.

Global warning by Alomex · 2003-11-05 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I had a chance to ask an expert on climate change and Nobel Prize winner about the climate change controversy. His response, summarized was:

1. Evidence of some warming is incontrovertible.
2. This warming may or may not be due to C02 emissions.
3. At this point in time, since evidence is still preliminary, he estimates the chances of the greenhouse effect being a real, scientific fact at about 10%.
4. In day to day life, we buy insurance for, say, a house fire, at much lower odds than that (chance of your house catching fire is 0.01%).
5. Hence he supports a moderate version of the Kyoto protocol as insurance against the possibility of the greenhouse effect being real.
6. That was his recommendation to President George W. Bush: sign Kyoto.
7. Bush chose not to follow his advice.

What about the Little Ice Age? by Phronesis · 2003-11-05 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

The data presented by the researchers indicate that the late 15th century was warmer than the 20th. This is a bit strange, given that historical records from that period (e.g., diocesan annals, crop records, etc.) report sudden and significant cooling and glaciation starting around 1450. This is reflected in the "erroneous" record in Fig. 8 of the paper, but has been "corrected" out.

So were all the 15th century records of cold weather and advancing ice phony? Was the world really warmer and milder than today? Was there a vast conspiracy in the late 1400s to record phony accounts of the weather in order that 20th century environmentalists would believe in Global Warming? I don't think so!

Re:The actual figures, if you care by York+the+Mysterious · 2003-11-05 04:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

So are you saying that if you produce 10 million gallons of say PVC (this is based off a real situation here) and in doing so you kill several hundred workers, irreversible the water supply of a town, cause irreversible health effects for the town and the majority of your workers, etc etc then that's ok since the bum probably burned some plastic in his steel drum? I understand efficiency, but efficiency isn't an excuse to cause environmental damage. I breath the air and I breath the water. This is mine too and you don't have the right to mess it up for me. In economic terms it's called externalizing costs. Pollute to make money and wait for the public to pay the health and environmental costs. It must be accepted that pollution to some extent is unavoidable, but using the excuse of efficiency to allow unlimited pollution or to justify ridiculously high levels is unacceptable. There are ways for companies to continue to be profitable while reducing their pollution significantly. They just have to try and of course pay. There just aren't many companies out there that see that as an important investment.

--

Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land

Re:Thought of evaluating the data, not the biases? by 2marcus · 2003-11-05 06:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Its amazing how many people cite volcanoes when dismissing human influence on the climate.

Yes, a single volcano (Pinatubo for example) can cause global scale cooling by throwing particulates into the atmosphere. Then the particulates settle out, and in a year or two temperatures return to normal.

This is compared with CO2, which lasts 100+ years in the atmosphere, and during each and every one of those years is adding a little bit of extra heat to the planet. We have changed the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 30%!!!

The forcing caused by that extra 80+ ppm of carbon dioxide is much larger than the observed variability of solar forcing. It is _not_ insignificant. Think about it. Please.

-Marcus

You want more examples? by jmichaelg · 2003-11-05 07:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your point is valid - one sample doesn't represent a population. So let me sketch in a few more points...

Club of Rome. Back in the early 70's there was an outfit called the Club of Rome. They ran their computer models and claimed that the world would run out of gas in 1985. Got a lot of press when they made their claim. None of them were around in 1985 to admit they were wrong.
Ehrlich and Simon. In 1980, Julian Simon (Univ. of Maryland) challenged Paul Ehrlich (Stanford) to a bet. Erhlich had been harping on how with the exploding world population we were going to run out resources real soon and prices were going to skyrocket. Simon called him on it and let him choose any list of goods he wanted. If the basket of goods 10 years later was higher, Ehrlich would win, if the basket was cheaper (in real dollars) then Simon would win. Oil, gold, silver, wheat, and a lot of other goods went into the basket. Simon was right - the basket's price declined over the 10 year span.
Global Warming. There's a graph that oxygen isotope variations over the past 500,000 years. The data are derived from ocean sediment cores and are a useful surrogate for temperatures. The isotope ratios are inversely proportional to temperatures and closely track interglacial warming periods. I can't find the original paper but you can see the data graphed on page 10 of this NOAA document. The graph shows a roughly 100,000 year cycle to global temperatures with periods warmer than today. We're right on track right now towards a global uptick just like the past 4 times over the past 500,000 years. We weren't around 410,000, 320,000, 200,000 or 120,000 years ago to cause the last temperature spikes but they happened anyway. The earth may be getting warmer right now but it's not likely that it's due to us pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Look at the CO2 and Methane data and the temperature correlation isn't all that great.
Weather forecasting. In 1963, Lorenz demonstrated that you can't make reliable long term weather forecasts even when you have a perfect weather model and all the data accurate to 6 decimal places. It was a key finding and yet you still have people making global warming forecasts for the next 100 years as if Lorenz hadn't already demonstrated they can't possibly know what they're talking about.

The environmental movement has done a lot of good in making us take stock of how we're disposing of our waste. Los Angeles air and San Francisco Bay are a lot cleaner today than they would have otherwise been had it not been for the hoopla. But at the same time, you have to be very skeptical when someone tries to tell you we're going to destroy the earth if we keep doing what we're doing. In geologic terms, we've been around for a brief moment and the earth has managed some amazingly self-destructive feats without us and yet here we are.

Re:You want more examples? by gowen · 2003-11-05 23:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

It was a key finding and yet you still have people making global warming forecasts for the next 100 years as if Lorenz hadn't already demonstrated they can't possibly know what they're talking about.
Repeat after me 100 times:

Climate is not the same as weather
Climate is not the same as weather
Climate is not the same as weather
Climate is not the same as weather
Climate is not the same as weather...

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.

M&M and science by tprugh · 2003-11-07 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Global warming believers and deniers alike should welcome the paper from McIntyre and McKitrick, and the argument it has started. This is normal science at work: observation, accretion of data, and the formulation and challenging of theories. Here at Worldwatch Institute we're hoping people will remember that the data "M&M" refer to are but one element of a much larger case, built up over many years, supporting the conclusions that the Earth is warming and that human economic activity (especially burning fossil fuels) has a lot to do with it. Even without the threat of climate change, there are so many other reasons for a rapid conversion away from fossil fuels--local pollution, health effects, impending shortages, security--that it would still make great sense. (Incidentally, the claim that the disputed Mann data were "a pillar of the Kyoto accord" is not true; they were published the year after the Kyoto Protocol was drafted.) A lot more information on these topics is available via our website (www. worldwatch.org); click on Energy.

Slashdot Mirror

Climate Data Re-examined (updated)

53 of 784 comments (clear)