And what about Lindzen? He receives funding from at least 3 different government or other public (non fossil-fuel sources). On one hand, he proves the point that it's quite possible to receive funding from non fossil-fuel sources without "preaching" the AGW gospel. On the other hand, he also proves that it's possible to receive no funding from fossil-fuel companies (as I understand it, he no longer receives any money from fossil-fuel companies) and still come to the conclusion that AGW might not be as serious as most believe. (Granted, his most damning "evidence" seems to demonstrate a lack of proof either way, and not proof that some other source is responsible for global warming.)
Also, keep in mind the source of the comments you've posted. Not to pick on Lindzen too much as we all have biases, but clearly he's biased towards believing that those firings were because he questioned "the scientific underpinnings of global warming" and not merely because he was incompetent (or even for other political reasons).
Finally, I doubt very much that Griffin was in any danger of losing his jobs due to the beliefs of a subordinate of his. Rather, I suspect it's very much the other way around.
There's more, but it's late and this is a dead thread anyway.
Agreed, and no doubt we won't see eye-to-eye for at least another decade, and probably more.:) Still, it's great to keep the conversation civil.
I see you idea working for public policy makers, but not for scientists. They need to be free to study controversial ideas, even if they seem as silly as Big Foot. (Here at UVA, home of Pat Michaels, we also have an Anthropology Professor studying Big Foot.)
(a) I do work in academia (I'm a Ph.D. student and have written two grants myself), and (b) Richard Lindzen gets funding from these same sources. You do not need to claim to be studying anthropogenic global warming to get funding from climate science sources.
he actual global warming research being performed from grants in gov't agencies and whatnot? Billions.
Those submitting grant proposals to fossil fuel companies are going to be influenced by the demands of those fossil fuel companies. However, those submitting grants to the government, etc., do not need to do so (as Richard Lindzen can attest).
I agree 100% with what you're saying, and I don't think anybody (in science) thinks we should close the book on global warming. However, when you have people like Inhofe and Crichton bringing up global conspiracy theories, that's counterproductive.
And, prey tell, how many similar books (as opposed to blogs, short news articles, etc.) refer to the consensus on global warming? (Admission: I used the safety word "similar" to exempt books like Al Gore's. I'm referring to books similar to Richard Dawkins - i.e., written by experts in the field.)
There is one physics-related field, however, when you can hear about the consensus. It is every now and then invoked by the proponents of nuclear energy, for example when they want to convince you that less than forty people died as a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe. And who knows?
Having studied nuclear physics myself, I'm not aware of any text books that refer to consensus when trying to present the material. Are you? It seems you're comparing apples (serious books on evolution) to oranges (fluff books, pamphlets, blogs, etc.).
Rush Limbaugh is dead from the neck up. And he is not a scientist.
Sure, but if you want to limit it to scientists (in the appropriate fields), who does that leave? Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels? Both of them admit that humans contribute to global warming, but they're not sure that humans are the dominant cause. Note how that's worded: they're not sure humans aren't the dominant cause, either. It's really easy to construct experiments that yield no conclusive results either way.
As for cooling, four things. First, kudos for finding three climatologists who stated that in the 1970's. (Seriously.) Secondly, I'm sure you will acknowledge that these scientists were not the consensus view. Thirdly, this demonstrates another example where the consensus view was the correct one (unfortunately, it's usually easier to point to the exceptions where that's not the case, than examples of the "rule" where it is). Finally, part of the reason global warming was not significant during the era prior to the 70's was because of the enormous amounts of truly vile air pollution (aerosols, etc.) we were putting into the air. When we fixed that pollution problem, the signal from this other problem (greenhouse gases) became clearer.
I think the best strategy is not trying to stabilize the unstabilizable, but on adaptation and lifting people out of poverty that makes them less susceptible to climate change one way or the other. But climate change will happen because we live on a dynamic world.
There's 6.5 billion people on the Earth. I think we have the mental resources to focus on both problems (while simultaneously also working on space travel, curing diseases, etc.).
I appreciate the reference, and I do believe you (about the numbers, not the general sentiment). However, that link is broken. I tried finding where it moved to, but unsuccessfully.
Personally, it really boils down to the fact that I'm a conservative (in the truest sense). I believe that change is usually bad, and that swift change is usually worse. On geological time-scales we're looking at a swift change in temperatures. It won't be good.
Anyways, I'm signing off for the night, and I do want to compliment you on keeping it civil. It's sad that I feel the need to compliment someone for that, but it seems more the exception than the rule in these parts.
I agree completely. First of all, not all appropriate solutions will necessarily save money. However, many solutions are unnecessarily expensive and/or difficult to implement - especially considering their effectiveness.
They're also advocating the some of the most alarmist idiotic rhetoric be toned down.
I agree completely.
Warming does not increase storminess or desertification - cooling does. That's one of the most fundamental axioms of meteorology because weather is fundamentally a function of the difference in heat energy between one part of the atmosphere and another.
From that axiom, it would seem that both significant warming and significant cooling would increase storminess or desertification.
Defending the Niwa record, Dr Renwick said his organisation was doing as well as any other weather forecaster around the world. He was quoted by the country's leading newspaper, the New Zealand Herald as saying: "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well." Later on New Zealand radio, Dr Renwick said: "The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two."
I'm sure you've heard the difference between climate and weather, so maybe you're not making that mistake - but it sure seems like you are. Of course, in your defense, it sounds like Dr. Renwick isn't helping matters.
Anyways, if you want to read up on prediction verification, here's an interesting article.
On one hand, you have scientists paid to do research by the government and other public organizations, with no instructions on what they can and cannot publish. These scientists are not paid more if they find that global warming is anthropogenic than if they find that it's not. If you think otherwise, you're drinking the Crichton kool-aid, and are subscribing to the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.
On the other hand, you have scientists paid to do research (sometimes out of their field) by fossil-fuel companies who are not allowed to publish their data without first passing it through those doing the funding. Interestingly enough, these scientists don't find evidence that global warming is non-anthropogenic. No, they only seem to be able to show that it's not necessarily primarily anthropogenic. Two key terms there: "not necessarily" and "primarily". That is, they know that humans contribute to global warming, there's no way to interpret the science otherwise, even when being funded by fossil fuel companies. They also know that it's possible that humans are the primary contributors to global warming. However, if they do their research just right they find that there's not enough evidence to say that humans are definitely primary responsible. Of course, it's not to hard to find a lack of evidence.
Why does it matter what Gore says? He's not a climatologist. I don't go to Gore for my science, and neither should you. Don't use him to point out any perceived fallacies in global warming. He's not a climatologist. I enjoyed his movie, and I thought it brought some much needed attention to the subject. Yes, he's not perfect, but you know what? He's not a climatologist.
That is NOT to say that the underlying stuff about climate change is not there, it's just that the "hype" has gotten SO big that it's actually hurting the movement.
I agree.
I agree with supporting those ideas above including the issue of addressing IF POSSIBLE climate change. I often DO NOT agree with the politics of those groups above.
The beauty is that (as I'm sure you already realize), you don't have to agree with their politics. A lot of the things that we can do to help the environment will also help our pocketbooks. Of course, it does require looking out a few years sometimes to see the dividends - something that many people aren't willing to do.
First of all, without documentation, I'm not going to accept your claim at face value (no offense intended, but that's an easy statement to make without evidence). Secondly, there's more than one way to destroy Tuvalu.
Except that they (and I assume you mean skeptics) have never denied that there has been warming over the 20th Century...
Really? How old are you? I remember Rush Limbaugh, for one, making exactly those comments in the early 90's. To wit, he brought up these new satellite results that were able to measure the effect of the full moon on temperatures and then claimed that it was funny that with such sophisticated techniques they still weren't able to measure global warming. There were plenty of ditto-heads who took that statement and ran with it.
But climate alarmists have: it's called the Mann Hockey Stick and its a scientific fraud whose sole purpose is to minimize historic natural climate change while maximizing the changes of the 20th Century
Why don't you do a little personal research on the Mann Hockey Stick? Try to go to sites that cover actual science and not just politics though, okay? Also avoid sites that admit to being junkscience.
Those were the climatologists of the 1970s some of whome were claiming that we were about to go into another Ice Age. I have the quotes because I have the books.
Please provide the book title and such a quote. Also, don't confuse "a climatologist from the 1970s" with "the climatologists of the 1970s". A lot of people who bring up "global cooling" seem to do that. (I do see, however, that you were good enough to qualify that only "some" were claiming that.)
There's absolutely a deeper understanding to be had of global warming. Much more so than for gravity even. There's also a deeper understanding to be had of evolution and of gravity. For the latter two cases, that deeper understanding is extremely unlikely to overturn previous results in any meaningful way, just as Newton's theory of gravity is still a pretty darn good approximation even though we know it's not exactly right. Global warming is very likely to be in the same camp, albeit with more room for increased understanding, since it's a newer field than gravity or evolutionary biology.
So, are you advocating that we do nothing until we have the deepest possible understanding of global warming, or are you just pointing out that it's a field that should be researched further? I doubt anyone would disagree with the latter sentiment.
Scientists are saying "you'd better open that parachute pretty darn quick" while the global warming deniers are still arguing about whether they fell or they were pushed.
Or whether being on the ground will be such a bad thing. Things have been falling off of buildings for a long time, you know. Have you seen everything that's fallen off that building? If not, how do you know that things always get damaged by the fall?
These days it's tossed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with Al Gore.
There are no climate scientists who take their cue from Al Gore. Just thought you should know. Al Gore is just reporting the science (and might occasionally get it wrong), he's not the one actually doing the science. It must be convenient to have an easy target now, though.
You know it's possible to accept the science behind global warming without having to like Al Gore. My father's done that, and I'm sure you can, too.
The only reason anyone ever goes to the scientific consensus argument is because either (a) the person making the argument doesn't understand the science, or (b) the person being argued to doesn't understand the science. In the case of (a), that person typically is assuming that the scientific question is solved, and it's now time to address the complicated political questions. In the case of (b), how else do you try to convince someone incapable of (or unwilling to) understanding the science behind global warming? The strongest scientific critics you will find against global warming (Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen) argue that they're not sure if humans are the primary cause of global warming, but that they acknowledge that humans are a factor in global warming - and even these critics are a small minority of climate scientists.
There are lots of places that address the basic science behind global warming, but if you're unwilling to try to understand that basic science, then it makes more sense to accept the wisdom of the majority than the wisdom of the minority under the theory that sometimes the minority is right. (Sometimes they are, but that's the exception and not the rule.)
Heck, there's already been a shift in certain circles towards the next "stage" in avoiding responsibility for global warming. First, they denied the warming. Then, they denied that humans were responsible. Now, they've moved on to the coup de grâce: who's to say warmer won't be better?
(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics. No, it's not a threat to democracy.)
I think I'm too cynical these days to even try escalating such things these days. Granted, if it were more serious (e.g., if they had my whole identity and not just my now-canceled cc number), I might have fought my cynicism. However, the more people who do escalate it, the easier it makes it for others to escalate (or so I assume). So, again, good for you!
Slashdot Mirror
And what about Lindzen? He receives funding from at least 3 different government or other public (non fossil-fuel sources). On one hand, he proves the point that it's quite possible to receive funding from non fossil-fuel sources without "preaching" the AGW gospel. On the other hand, he also proves that it's possible to receive no funding from fossil-fuel companies (as I understand it, he no longer receives any money from fossil-fuel companies) and still come to the conclusion that AGW might not be as serious as most believe. (Granted, his most damning "evidence" seems to demonstrate a lack of proof either way, and not proof that some other source is responsible for global warming.)
Also, keep in mind the source of the comments you've posted. Not to pick on Lindzen too much as we all have biases, but clearly he's biased towards believing that those firings were because he questioned "the scientific underpinnings of global warming" and not merely because he was incompetent (or even for other political reasons).
Finally, I doubt very much that Griffin was in any danger of losing his jobs due to the beliefs of a subordinate of his. Rather, I suspect it's very much the other way around.
Agreed, and no doubt we won't see eye-to-eye for at least another decade, and probably more. :) Still, it's great to keep the conversation civil.
I see you idea working for public policy makers, but not for scientists. They need to be free to study controversial ideas, even if they seem as silly as Big Foot. (Here at UVA, home of Pat Michaels, we also have an Anthropology Professor studying Big Foot.)
Those submitting grant proposals to fossil fuel companies are going to be influenced by the demands of those fossil fuel companies. However, those submitting grants to the government, etc., do not need to do so (as Richard Lindzen can attest).
I agree 100% with what you're saying, and I don't think anybody (in science) thinks we should close the book on global warming. However, when you have people like Inhofe and Crichton bringing up global conspiracy theories, that's counterproductive.
Sure, but if you want to limit it to scientists (in the appropriate fields), who does that leave? Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels? Both of them admit that humans contribute to global warming, but they're not sure that humans are the dominant cause. Note how that's worded: they're not sure humans aren't the dominant cause, either. It's really easy to construct experiments that yield no conclusive results either way.
As for cooling, four things. First, kudos for finding three climatologists who stated that in the 1970's. (Seriously.) Secondly, I'm sure you will acknowledge that these scientists were not the consensus view. Thirdly, this demonstrates another example where the consensus view was the correct one (unfortunately, it's usually easier to point to the exceptions where that's not the case, than examples of the "rule" where it is). Finally, part of the reason global warming was not significant during the era prior to the 70's was because of the enormous amounts of truly vile air pollution (aerosols, etc.) we were putting into the air. When we fixed that pollution problem, the signal from this other problem (greenhouse gases) became clearer.
I appreciate the reference, and I do believe you (about the numbers, not the general sentiment). However, that link is broken. I tried finding where it moved to, but unsuccessfully.
Personally, it really boils down to the fact that I'm a conservative (in the truest sense). I believe that change is usually bad, and that swift change is usually worse. On geological time-scales we're looking at a swift change in temperatures. It won't be good.
Anyways, I'm signing off for the night, and I do want to compliment you on keeping it civil. It's sad that I feel the need to compliment someone for that, but it seems more the exception than the rule in these parts.
I agree completely. First of all, not all appropriate solutions will necessarily save money. However, many solutions are unnecessarily expensive and/or difficult to implement - especially considering their effectiveness.
Why do you keep calling it a fakery, when its the "debunkers" who were ultimately debunked?
I'm sure you've heard the difference between climate and weather, so maybe you're not making that mistake - but it sure seems like you are. Of course, in your defense, it sounds like Dr. Renwick isn't helping matters.
Anyways, if you want to read up on prediction verification, here's an interesting article.
On one hand, you have scientists paid to do research by the government and other public organizations, with no instructions on what they can and cannot publish. These scientists are not paid more if they find that global warming is anthropogenic than if they find that it's not. If you think otherwise, you're drinking the Crichton kool-aid, and are subscribing to the biggest conspiracy theory of them all.
On the other hand, you have scientists paid to do research (sometimes out of their field) by fossil-fuel companies who are not allowed to publish their data without first passing it through those doing the funding. Interestingly enough, these scientists don't find evidence that global warming is non-anthropogenic. No, they only seem to be able to show that it's not necessarily primarily anthropogenic. Two key terms there: "not necessarily" and "primarily". That is, they know that humans contribute to global warming, there's no way to interpret the science otherwise, even when being funded by fossil fuel companies. They also know that it's possible that humans are the primary contributors to global warming. However, if they do their research just right they find that there's not enough evidence to say that humans are definitely primary responsible. Of course, it's not to hard to find a lack of evidence.
Why does it matter what Gore says? He's not a climatologist. I don't go to Gore for my science, and neither should you. Don't use him to point out any perceived fallacies in global warming. He's not a climatologist. I enjoyed his movie, and I thought it brought some much needed attention to the subject. Yes, he's not perfect, but you know what? He's not a climatologist.
First of all, without documentation, I'm not going to accept your claim at face value (no offense intended, but that's an easy statement to make without evidence). Secondly, there's more than one way to destroy Tuvalu.
Really? How old are you? I remember Rush Limbaugh, for one, making exactly those comments in the early 90's. To wit, he brought up these new satellite results that were able to measure the effect of the full moon on temperatures and then claimed that it was funny that with such sophisticated techniques they still weren't able to measure global warming. There were plenty of ditto-heads who took that statement and ran with it.
Why don't you do a little personal research on the Mann Hockey Stick? Try to go to sites that cover actual science and not just politics though, okay? Also avoid sites that admit to being junkscience.
Please provide the book title and such a quote. Also, don't confuse "a climatologist from the 1970s" with "the climatologists of the 1970s". A lot of people who bring up "global cooling" seem to do that. (I do see, however, that you were good enough to qualify that only "some" were claiming that.)
There's absolutely a deeper understanding to be had of global warming. Much more so than for gravity even. There's also a deeper understanding to be had of evolution and of gravity. For the latter two cases, that deeper understanding is extremely unlikely to overturn previous results in any meaningful way, just as Newton's theory of gravity is still a pretty darn good approximation even though we know it's not exactly right. Global warming is very likely to be in the same camp, albeit with more room for increased understanding, since it's a newer field than gravity or evolutionary biology.
So, are you advocating that we do nothing until we have the deepest possible understanding of global warming, or are you just pointing out that it's a field that should be researched further? I doubt anyone would disagree with the latter sentiment.
I'm pretty sure that Tuvalu thinks that warmer won't be better.
We're just coming out of a sunspot minimum. The primary cycle is 11-years long. The 10 hottest years on record happened in the last 10 years.
The fact that Kyoto is a messed-up treaty has nothing to do with whether or not global warming is anthropogenic.
Al Gore is not one of the climate scientists in question. Please remove him from your equation.
There are no climate scientists who take their cue from Al Gore. Just thought you should know. Al Gore is just reporting the science (and might occasionally get it wrong), he's not the one actually doing the science. It must be convenient to have an easy target now, though.
You know it's possible to accept the science behind global warming without having to like Al Gore. My father's done that, and I'm sure you can, too.
The only reason anyone ever goes to the scientific consensus argument is because either (a) the person making the argument doesn't understand the science, or (b) the person being argued to doesn't understand the science. In the case of (a), that person typically is assuming that the scientific question is solved, and it's now time to address the complicated political questions. In the case of (b), how else do you try to convince someone incapable of (or unwilling to) understanding the science behind global warming? The strongest scientific critics you will find against global warming (Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen) argue that they're not sure if humans are the primary cause of global warming, but that they acknowledge that humans are a factor in global warming - and even these critics are a small minority of climate scientists.
There are lots of places that address the basic science behind global warming, but if you're unwilling to try to understand that basic science, then it makes more sense to accept the wisdom of the majority than the wisdom of the minority under the theory that sometimes the minority is right. (Sometimes they are, but that's the exception and not the rule.)
Heck, there's already been a shift in certain circles towards the next "stage" in avoiding responsibility for global warming. First, they denied the warming. Then, they denied that humans were responsible. Now, they've moved on to the coup de grâce: who's to say warmer won't be better?
(Oh, and this argument against scientific consensus could just as easily be made against evolution, general relativity, or even quantum mechanics. No, it's not a threat to democracy.)
I think I'm too cynical these days to even try escalating such things these days. Granted, if it were more serious (e.g., if they had my whole identity and not just my now-canceled cc number), I might have fought my cynicism. However, the more people who do escalate it, the easier it makes it for others to escalate (or so I assume). So, again, good for you!