Slashdot Mirror
Climate Contrarians Seek Leadership of House Science Committee
An article at Ars examines three members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are seeking chairmanship of its Committee on Space, Science, and Technology. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said in an interview, "My analysis is that in the global warming debate, we won. There were a lot of scientists who were just going along with the flow on the idea that mankind was causing a change in the world's climate. I think that after 10 years of debate, we can show that that there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have come over to being skeptics, and I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming." James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has a similar record of opposing climate change, as does Lamar Smith (R-TX). Relatedly, Phil Plait, a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer, has posted an article highlighting how U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, has declined to answer a question about how old the Earth is, calling it "one of the great mysteries."
Mark my words. If you continue tilting at this climate change windmill, your quality of life will be lower. Less energy, less technology, fewer rare earth metals to make your fancy toys ... take your pick. In the end, the fact remains. You are killing our children's chances at being as successful as we were. Lose these hippy bullshit fantasies. Lose them now.
"You mean like Richard Muller who quite famously denounced anthropogenic global warming only to come to the same conclusion by his own means? Yeah, that opinion piece by him opens with 'Call me a converted skeptic.'"
You mean the same Muller whose co-researcher, immediately after his "revelation", accused him of fudging his research?
That Muller?
"Everyone who has taken the time and effort to build a model has come to the same conclusion."
You mean all those models that rely on the concept of back-radiation, which is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Those models?
Just asking.
It also ignores the real skeptics: scientists.
The same ones who are just as skeptical as a Republican congressman, but just happen to be playing for the other side? Tell me more.
To be blunt, there's more money and power riding on proving AGW is an urgent problem than there is money against it from the fossil fuel side. It doesn't help to ignorantly speak of the science without understanding that there are vast forces biasing that science.
The problem is, we've turned most every science question into a political one and so its turned into:
If AGW exists and it will negatively impact my quality of life if new legislation is enacted, then it only makes sense that those people will deny that AGW exists, irrespective of the evidence for or against AGW.
If AGW doesn't exist and it will negatively impact my quality of life if the government doesn't do something (for example, if they don't subsidize "alternative" energy and you've got a large stake in said "alternative" energy), then it only makes sense that people will say that AGW exists, irrespective of the evidence for or against AGW.
Even "unbiased" scientists will never truly be "unbiased" because like everyone else they act in their own self interest and creating predictions that will lead to more funding (or recognition of their deeds) will benefit them.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I learned how human CO2 production has been increasing exponentially.
What is the rate of increase?
I learned how small shifts in ocean temperatures put far more moisture into the air, producing more severe storms.
Given no one else has "learned" that, I'm going to have to say that you're wrong here.
the other half still leads to the same conclusion: Our society is royally screwed because of global warming, and we're making it worse every day.
Based on what evidence? If one looks at actual evidence and predictions, there's no such claim made. You've again learned something that just isn't so.
Regardless of what preposterous scare-tactic forecasts are made, there is still too much evidence for me to ignore.
I don't think you're as successful as you think you are.
We should strive to make our pollution as harmless as we can, and keep our industrial processes as flexible as we can to allow future change if similar problems are discovered.
No. We have other priorities than simply less harmful pollution.There's seven billion people on this planet which we are helping out of poverty and despair. That's far more important than slightly less CO2 in the atmosphere.
"It's amusing to realize that if Latour was arguing for the greenhouse effect, you would treat his utter failure to defend his arguments with the utmost skepticism, but all your "skepticism" goes out the window when it's a guy on 'your side'."
Um, just no.
As I mentioned to the other... well, let's call him critic... please explain to us all where the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is in error. If you can do that, I will give your criticism credence. But I rather doubt you can.
And unless and until you can, YOUR argument is just so much hot air.
Hey, that's actually kind of funny.
"'Back-radiation'? Are you saying that Earth doesn't radiate heat? Or that Earth's atmosphere doesn't radiate downward?"
No, "back radiation" is the concept that clouds (or just water vapor, or CO2), for example, can radiate heat back downward to the earth, even though those gases are cooler than the earth. It seems intuitively obvious that this occurs but the actual mechanism is quite different.
The problem with this idea, which is relied upon by almost all Anthropogenic Global Warming models, is that it can't happen. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, unless the substance in question is an ideal "black body", which is a perfect absorber (and radiator) of energy, and which frankly does not exist, it's just impossible. Warmer objects cannot, and do not absorb lower-energy radiation from cooler objects. Please go back up this thread and read the articles to which I linked: "Yes, Virginia" and "No, Virginia". Those explain in more rigorous terms.
"What the heck? What is this nonsense? If it can't exist, why is it possible to measure it?"
What the heck? Did you even bother to read the articles being discussed, before deciding to comment about them? (The answer is obviously no.)
The issue isn't that "back radiation" does not exist at all. It's that the AGW version of it doesn't exist. Of course it actually exists... everything radiates. You would have to be a fool to deny it.
No, the real issue is whether the earth can absorb that back radiation. And the answer is no. Please go back and read those articles, which this discussion is about, before presuming to have a valid opinion on the matter.
Thanks and have a nice day.
There are thousands of universities... all learning stuff about the universe.
Nonsense. The big money for most such universities (which happen to be in the US) is loan subsidies and guarantees from the federal government and the uncritical research funding through NSF, DOD, and similar bodies. Climate change money is substantial and I believe it has corrupted the scientific integrity of the entire field of climatology, but that's peanuts compared to the vast river of funding from the federal government.
Why is it that the two major scientific disputes that have now have one side with a huge vested interest in keeping science down?
As I noted in my original reply, the AGW side has the better funding and engages in remarkably unscientific debate, even among its scientific supporters.
Scientists faced exactly the same forces in the past when they tackled the dangers of asbestos, as well as tobacco smoking. Even back then the motives of scientists were questioned to discredit the message. Who turned out to be right then? Your idea that there is more money in proving AGW is not backed by historical precedent.
There has been a vast increase in public funding for pro-AGW activities such as carbon markets and renewable energy. As to the tobacco smoking and asbestos issues, it is worth noting that there turned out to be big money in lawsuits and similar activities. And this did distort the science in those two fields (witness the hubbub about third hand smoking, for example).
"When (to cut through the misunderstandings) Spencer offers him a simple observational experiment he can do himself to prove the theory, he dodges it and accuses Spencer of shifting the goalposts. It's no wonder Spencer (a practicing climatologist with better things to do) didn't bother to engage further."
Quite an astounding analysis.
But everyone here seems to keep forgetting: Latour isn't relying on his own analysis. He's using long-known and oft-proven principles. Among them (which I have found it necessary in this discussion to raise several times) the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law.
I notice that EVERYONE on the AGW "side" of the argument has ignored that the models violate this specific law... and none of them have offered an explanation of this.
So... as I have asked several times here on Slashdot... please show me how your pet theory gets around this law. Then I might be motivated to actually accept it. But you must do that first.
"Hilarious. My Ph.D. is in statistical thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is not in error. Nor does it disprove the greenhouse effect or any other well known result in radiative transfer physics."
Hey, that's great! I also have a degree in Thermodynamics, a Ph.D. in Quantum Dynamics, and in addition to that I'm also a supermodel who is regularly fucking Robert Downey, Jr.
Show us or shut up. Your bald claims mean nothing. Show that Latour is wrong. Or go away.
Thats over a third of Exxon's revenue for 2011!
Revenue != profit. If traders in those markets can get carbon emission credits to cap under actual demand consistently, then they can drive up the volume to far higher and scoop profits that make the oil business look like chump change.
Also, ever wonder why oil is seeing record profits at this time? AGW mitigation is coupled with all sorts of stuff that restricts competition in the fossil fuel industry, such as regulation that has prevented any new refineries from being built in the US for decades. Why should they oppose AGW?
If Germany is increasing its power exports with a $130B investment (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasingly-exporting-electricity-to-nuclear-heavy-france/), Imagine what they could do with $500B.
It's called throwing good money after bad. I'm not at all impressed with how Germany can squander half a trillion dollars.
As for political motherlodes, what do you call the 10's of millions the Koch brothers spend on lobbying every year?
Pocket change, especially since they don't spend that much. They've supposed spent just under $200 million in total on various things, including anti-AGW stuff. That's slightly more than a year's funding for the World Wildlife Fund, one of the larger AGW advocates.