I am somewhat impressed at how you've managed to continue this argument with someone so completely ignorant and unwilling to provide any evidence to back up his ridiculous claims. I salute you. A few matters of fact, however. At one point in your debate with hackus you said:
Greenhouse gas sources in the oceans are relevant to predicting climate change in the future, to estimate how much gas the oceans may source or sink.
I'll grant you that at some level that's true, but I'm not sure why you say "source or sink", when it seems pretty clear that it's all sink. I.e., the oceans have been absorbing significant amounts of CO2, resulting in a decrease in the pH (i.e., becoming more acidic) due to the reaction H2O + CO2 => H2CO3 (carbonic acid). I suppose what you might be thinking about is sometime in the future, after we've hopefully stopped dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans will slowly begin to become a source of CO2, instead of a sink, in an attempt to reach partial pressure equilibrium.
Secondly, your argument about the solar output not having had a measurable impact on past climates might not be right. That said, your point that it's largely irrelevant to the current argument is right.
All opinions should be seriously considered, without trying to second guess motivation. If a scientist, paid or unpaid, uses bad science to publish something, he will be caught in peer review.
The problem is that these people aren't "publishing" in peer-reviewed journals. They're "publishing" on the web and then their unscientific opinions are paraded in front of the ignorant as if they have any merit. Try explaining to the typical citizen why "timecube" is hogwash.
His name will be worthless afterward.
So, do you agree then that afterward, his opinions should not be as seriously considered? Most of these scientists have already been "caught" in "peer review". For example, the work by McIntyre and McKitrick has been discredited by Rutherford et al. (Don't be thrown off by the realclimate URL - that link is to a PDF of the article they published in the Journal of Climate. Also note that M&M's original article was rejected by Nature, so they published it in Geophysical Research Letters. Not exactly apropos.)
Let me draw a parallel: Sulfate aerosols. Twenty years ago... BAD! Spend five billion dollars on a five million dollar problem by requiring major changes to industry by amending the clean air act. Now, twenty years later, the same environmental crowd that fought against sulfates so vigorously tell us sulfate aerosols are keeping global temperatures down and should be intentionally put into the atmosphere. Keep in mind, they don't want to lift clean air act restrictions. They want to spend more money (pocket more grants) seeding it with jet airplanes, balloons and artillery cannons... I still haven't heard how this is supposed to avoid the production of acid rain, but there it is, staring you in the face. Twenty years ago, you would have told me to stuff my sulfate conspiracy theories too, I suppose.
Um, yes. Sulfate aerosols are bad. Do you dispute that? A single scientist (yes, he's a nobel laureate) is now proposing injecting them into the atmosphere. And you equate that with the "same environmental crowd" how? Are you even listening to yourself?
So you say a temperature switcheroo in a few decades is impossible?
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying - barring, of course, some obvious change such as putting a space sunshade in orbit (not that I expect that to happen).
Suppose they just throw up a two or three page "debunking" over at realclimate and continue on their merry way. Would that pass your sniff test?
No. No it would not.
As for your final comment, let me point out that you are citing the same Pat Michaels that, despite receiving large sums of money from the coal industry, has recently said:
Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about.17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century.
His "solution" of course is to just wait around for the problem to fix itself:
That number is significantly low, and it suggests to me that this becomes a self-limiting issue in the following way: 100 years from now, the technology that runs our society, and powers our society, is going to be radically different than it is today. It will almost certainly be a more efficient, maybe not even a carbon-based fuel society.
How convenient that his solution is good for the people who recently gave him so much money. Just a coincidence though, I'm sure.
As for previous IPCC predictions being alarmist, I'll send you to this link which points out that the 2001 IPCC was too conservative, if anything. (Although the temperature increases did stay within the bounds given, they were on the high end of the predictions.)
No climatologist - not Pat Michaels and not Richard Lindzen - is denying that anthropogenic global warming is happening. The only dispute is to how hot and how quickly - oh, and what to call it.
It's not so much naivety as a lack of clarity. What I meant to say is that unlike many businesses, governmental funding is not contingent on what you can publish in other avenues. Sure, unfortunately the government might edit/censor what you say through official channels, and might even put other pressures on actual government employees (as opposed to merely grant recipients). However, I am not aware of any instances of them not allowing grant recipients to publish their results in journals due to those results not being favorable. By comparison, that does happen with corporate funding (and this is no secret).
Worth noting: King George is not alone on the phrase "global warming." Even the fine gentlemen over at realclimate.org don't want you calling it "global warming" any more. They prefer "anthropogenic climate change" now. That way, they can claim victory regardless of the direction temperatures actually go...
Nice conspiracy theory you got going there, but it fails the sniff test. You can't claim victory when you've made very deliberate predictions that temperatures will go up, and then refine those predictions (still going up but in a narrower range), if temperatures actually go down. So, no, you are incorrect that they can "claim victory regardless of the direction temperatures actually go" now that they've renamed "anthropogenic climate change". That statement is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
Here's another discussion of federal funding, initiated by comments from Lindzen. Note that someone on that thread also says:
Following the funding >> climate-alarmism logic, then Lindzen must be an alarmist, for I believe he receives federal funding for his research.
To answer that question, I found a recent article (may not be viewable by all) of his, where he writes:
Work reported here was done cooperatively with E. Schneider, C. Giannitsis, and D. Kirk-Davidoff. This work was supported by Grant 914441-ATM from the National Science Foundation and GrIant NAGW 525 from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ten percent of this research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Institute of Global Environmental Change (NIGEC) through the NIGEC Northeast Regional Center at Harvard University (Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement DE-FC03-90ER61010) and through the Computer Hardware, Advanced Mathematics and Model Physics program. Financial support does not constitute an endorsement by the Department of Energy of the views expressed in this article.
So, yes. You can dissent and still be funded by the government. (To be fair, he's only dissenting with the "alarmism", and not the general science.)
I'm in the same boat as you. (I'm currently waiting to hear whether my latest grant to the NIH has been accepted.) You're right that there's always a certain amount of group think. However, if you had already done much of the research and could show to the group that your results convincingly challenged the status quo (which many of these pseudo-scientists claim), then you would stand a very good chance of getting funding. If all you were claiming is that you have a theory and you need funding to do the research, then, sure, the flavor-of-the-month mentality will come into bear.
Also keep in mind that both Lindzen and Michaels receive at least some funding from the government. To say that you can't get funding unless you toe the line is therefore patently false.
So, if you ignore all research funded by environmental groups and all research funded by ExxonMobil and friends, what are you left with? Research that universally supports the idea that global warming is real and anthropogenic. So universal, that even Lindzen seems genuinely surprised that anyone would doubt that:
[Gregg Easterbrook] concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.
If you are a climatologist and get a grant to study the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate, and you found that the effects were negligible and that reducing emissions wouldn't have an impact, then you WOULD most certainly have trouble getting grants. If there was nothing more we could do, why would the government spend money on even more research?
Because you are doing good research that demonstrates that the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate is negligible! If that's not worth funding, I don't know what is!
Don't tell me scientists are so far above everyone else that there isn't a single one who wouldn't consider that because there are for sure.
Absolutely. There have been a couple recently uncovered in particle physics. A real shame. However, they are the exception and not the rule. However, do you really think that an entire field (climatology) would be so "bought"? (Assuming that you're initial belief is right, which it's not.) If you read the recent statements from the darlings of those that would cast doubt on climate science, you'll note that even Lindzen and Michaels don't actully say that humans don't have a significant (negative) impact on global warming. The best these people can say is that others exaggerate the problem. Not only don't say that there is no problem, they'll tell you that humans do contribute significantly to global warming.
He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.
Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about.17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century.
How is that different
From any other scientist who accepts a grant from a company - or from a government?
Well, many companies will control what can be published from the research they pay for, but when it comes to the government, that is not the case at all. They give you money to do research in a particular area. They do not give you money to reach particular conclusions. If they knew the conclusions you were going to reach, they wouldn't be funding you. Now do you see the difference?
The problem with most institutions like CEI is that when they fund the research, they typically add a clause that says that the results of the research cannot be published without their explicit authorization. (This happens in other fields, as well.) This is most likely not the case with either Branson or the Sierra Club. If it is, I'll gladly call shenanigans on them, as well.
Also, Senator Inhofe is not exactly the best source for such information. His position on the relative importance of the environment is well documented.
How about when a scientist is funded to point out the ways in which another (paid!) scientist's conclusions may be either wrong or taken in a politically-driven context that's all about fear?
Other than the media-circuit, when is this ever done? Sure, you might have a scientist who is funded by the government who writes an article pointing out how another scientist's conclusions were wrong, but he wasn't paid to write that specific article. He was paid to do research, and to report the results of that research, regardless of what those results are. That's the difference between government funded research and privately funded research. Privately funded research often has the proviso that the results cannot be published without first being authorized by the funding agency. Do you understand how that causes bias?
You should be delighted that scientists are being offered money to publicly challenge the conclusions of other scientists. If the challenge is weak, the other scientists' findings are strengthened. If the challenge prevails, then it was essential that it was done. What's not to like?
Because these scientists are not actually finding real problems. They just speak in a language that mere mortals don't understand in such a way to suggest that there is doubt. Even when, couched in their own language, they say there is no doubt. Take a look at this article written by Richard Lindzen, provided to me by someone who was arguing against anthropogenic global warming. Ostensibly, he's saying that the global warming alarmists are all wrong. However, read closely and you'll find this gem:
He [Gregg Easterbrook] concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested.
"Never been widely contested"? Then, what exactly are you saying? Oh, just that certain claims by certain climatologists might not be accurate. Not that the overall picture is wrong, just that some/many of the details are. Next time you read an article by Lindzen, keep this in mind. See if he ever actually disputes the main point. Case in point. If you notice, Lindzen is very careful to stick to the Gulf Stream argument. That way, it looks like he's in disagreement with the basic science, without actually having to say anything unscientific. Clever.
If you could scientifically (key word) demonstrate that humans made no significant contribution to global warming (within a certain margin of error, of course), you'd have no problem getting grants - especially from the current administration. (OK, maybe not "no problem". You also have to be able to write halfway well. Let's just say it'd be easier than if you were just a conformist scientist who didn't produce any novel research.) They do ultimately control the purse strings, and if there was some grand conspiracy going on, do you really think that Bush and friends wouldn't be using their influence to end/replace it?
Offering nominal fees for paper and pen to write reports is one thing but when the incentive is a large percentage of my yearly income, I think Exxon should be ousted as scientifically backwards assholes.
I wonder if ExxonMobil is actually still funding the American Enterprise Institute. Late last year they announced their intention to stop funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and I was assuming (I know, dangerous) that they were going to stop funding all similar institutes. Here is their official try-to -please-everyone-without-admitting-any-guilt statement for those who are interested.
I'm too tired to Google so I'll grant you the numbers as you don't seem the type to make stuff up.
Here's a short article that discusses it. I hate to have anyone trust me, because although I'm not the type to just make stuff up, I am the type that sometimes gets things wrong.:) For example, it's the C13/C12 ratio, not the C13/C14 ratio.
Are the higher CO2 levels caused by SUV's and private planes, or the shrinking of the rain forests around the world? Either way, what can we do?
Well, the two issues are related and somewhat difficult to separate. See, the C13/C14 ratios I was talking about tell you the ratio of CO2 gases in the air that came from fossil fuels. However, one might argue that those fossil fuels stay in the atmosphere longer because of the shrinking rain forests. The short answer is: (1) Stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere (or at least stop dumping as much), and (2) Stop cutting down trees in the rain forest. (This is a "global" you, of course. I suspect that you, personally, have cut down very few trees in the rain forest. Not more than 1 or 2 dozen, I'd wager.)
Since water vapor is a much more effective green house gas than CO2, won't ideas like fuel cells, which have water vapor as exhaust, make the problem worse?
Not really. Water, unlike CO2, saturates quite readily in our atmosphere. Then, it rains. (When's the last time you remember it "raining" (or even sublimating) CO2?) You can't add more water to the atmosphere without warming the atmosphere first. Of course, I assume you see the feedback inherent in that system. As we heat the atmosphere, it can (and will) hold more water - thus allowing it to hold more water. Luckily, it's a limited (i.e., sublinear) feedback, so it won't "tip", like some alarmists might claim.
Won't more CO2 be beneficial to plant life around the world, causing more plants to grow... thus releasing more O2 and balancing things back out.
Some plants will benefit from increased CO2, and others will not. Most will. The net effect is, in fact, expected to generate a negative feedback. Just like with the water vapor I mentioned in my previous paragraph, it's also sublinear. (Here's an interesting article on what might happen with some of our food crops. Yes, there's a lot of speculation, but it is interesting.)
I'm not saying that'll happen, but who knows? I guess no one does for sure, which is why I don't want to trade my Toyota in for a bicycle just yet!
See, here's my problem. It's easy for us (as humans) to go from "I don't understand" to "no one understands". And, yes, no one can be 100% sure. However, people who have spent their full time career understanding what will happen should be given some deference here. Granted, trading in your Toyota for a bicycle won't fix the problem - largely because you're only one individual. This is a problem that needs to be tackled collectively. (Ayn Rand fans might attack me here.)
Here's the thing, though. (And I know far less about economics than I do about climatology. At least with climatology, I can fall back on my physics background which is at least somewhat relevant.) When one person decides to ride his bike to work, it's a huge sacrifice. One reason is that our society is not built around such an idea. If you ride you bike on ordinary roads, people driving their cars will get upset with you for clogging up traffic. In fact, by clogging up traffic you might actually be making things worse. Personally, I walk to work - but that's because I can. Charlottesville (not suprisingly) is much more friendly towards pedestrians (and bike riders - although there are still many places where riding a bike in C'ville is not recommended). Anyways, my
ANWR's not a big issue for me. It's more a symptom of the problem. We lay aside land and call it protected. Then, big business bribes our congress-critters to de-protect it. It's the principle of the matter as well as the precedent it sets/reinforces. As for your "steps", you're assuming that oil companies will follow through with their side of the bargain, and that politicians will actually put teeth into the regulations to make them. (It's a two-sided problem.)
OK, here's the reverse analogy: A family buys a gun. A year later, a child dies. They know that guns kill people and they own a gun, therefor the gun must have killed the child. (man produces cars, cars produce CO2, the earth is warming, it must be man's fault).
Only in this case, we found the bullet. Not only are CO2 levels at around 370 ppmv (cf. historical levels over the last 800,000 years ranging from 170 ppmv (ice ages) to 270 ppmv (previous "record" highs)), but we can also measure the amount of CO2 that we're putting into the atmosphere vs. the rate at which it is reabsorbed and measure the C13/C14 ratio in the atmosphere and compare it against the C13/C14 ratio coming from both living courses and fossil fuels. That ratio is a "smoking gun" that makes it quite clear that we're responsible for that increased CO2. (Although the fact that we know approximately how much fossil fuels are burned and how much CO2 they contribute means that we don't really need that smoking gun.) So, if you found that the gun was still smoking and a bullet was in that child, wouldn't you assume that the gun (or bullet) killed the child, or would you claim that since no one saw the gun fired we can't really be sure?
One of the problems with the environmental movement is that it attracts loonies. (I do brain modeling, so I hope you don't mind me using the scientific term "loony".) I also happen to be a vegetarian (well, to be precise a pesci-vegetarian). As a result, I often attend our local vegetarian festival. It's amazing how many crazies come out to this thing! If you've never been to one, you should go. Unfortunately, it might just reinforce your current world-view, but at least you should find it entertaining.
What you have to realize is that a lot of sane, educated people also are raising alarms here. Even if you read what the least alarmist climatologists have to say (I'm thinking RichardLindzen and Pat Michaels), you'll not find a single climatologist (that I'm aware of) who denies the significance of the human impact on climate change. (You do, however, have to read Lindzen and Michaels carefully to see where they admit this. I'll be happy to provide the exact quotes from these articles if you can't find them. Well, the second Lindzen article is actually more about what he doesn't say.)
Dick Cheney spoke at my wife's graduation at Michigan State U. There was a protester there handing out fliers that told of the evils of Halliburton and oil. No one seemed to mind Halliburton until Cheney became the VP, then, all of a sudden, Halliburton is worthy of this girl's attention.
Yes, it's amazing how many people don't realize that Halliburton was a major contractor during the Clinton administration as well. Doesn't mean that Cheney isn't gaming the system. Doesn't mean he is, either. As a rule, I don't trust politicians regardless of political party. I like to point out to my liberal friends who are horified that I voted for Dole in '96 that if Dole had won in '96, we wouldn't have had Bush during 9/11. (In re-reading that, the last sentence seems like quite a bit of a non-sequitor. It stems from the fact that I didn't trust Clinton, either.)
We can't drill in ANWR because of caribou. Do you really think that liberals care about caribou? Do they take trips to go see the migration of the caribou or follow their progress on the Internet? Of course not. They don't want someone making money by drilling for oil.
Well, I'm also against drilling in ANWR, for two reasons - neither one of which is the caribou. First of all, I see very little gain (except for a few oil companies - definitely not for the average American when you look at the small size of the ANWR reserve compared to how much oil we consume annually) and a not insignificant risk. Oil companies do not have a good record when it comes to living up to their promises with respect to the environment. I can give you some examples if you like. Secondly, and far less importantly (because there is relatively little oil in ANWR), more oil = more CO2. However, let me ask you this? Which is more likely: oil companies will lie about the environmental impact because they're greedy OR environmentalists will like about the environmental impact because they don't want "someone making money"? I won't say that environmentalists won't lie (every group has liars as members). However, I think their greatest tendency for lying is by exaggerating the risk in order for people to take the real risk seriously (a very dubious strategy, mind you) - and not just to keep people from making money. I honestly don't think most of them are that petty.
Yes, I know that cars release CO2 and that CO2 is a global warming agent. However, CO2 levels have been higher at times when the average global temperature was lower that it is today. I also understand that the reason we are not still in one of the many ice-ages of the past is that the earth warmed, also known as Global Warming. My car was not around during any of the previous warming trends, why is it suddenly responsible now?
CO2 levels have not even been close to current levels for over 800,000 years (and likely longer than that). Actually, I'm not aware of any times when the average global temperature was lower when CO2 levels were higher, but I think I have heard of the reverse (global temperature was higher when CO2 levels were lower). Even that, however, happened on an Earth hundreds of millions of years younger. Trying to compare models of the current climate to models of the climate hundreds of millions of years ago is often an attempt to put the UD in FUD. (Not accusing you of this, just mentioning why it's so often mentioned.) Here's a useful analogy: people have died from natural causes for thousands of years. If someone had their fingers around your throat and you felt your life-force leaving you, would you say, "oh, it can't be this person causing my death, because he's only been here for a short while, and people have been dying for thousands of years?" Likewise with global warming. Yes, it's happened in the past and we were not responsible. That in no way implies that we are not responsible now.
I want to put a Bush sticker on a plug-in hybrid or hydrogen powered car (the Bush sticker is to really confuse the tree-huggers)
Although I think Bush is the worst president in my lifetime with respect to the environment ("clear skies" initiative, "healthy forests" initiative, redefining water ways, supporting the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, etc.), I'm always in favor of trying to confuse people who want to pigeon-hole others. I like to call myself a "Charlottesville Conservative". (Charlottesville is an extremely blue dot in the red state of Virginia.)
Why is it cool to question authority, but not question popular science?
Well, first of all, I'm not really much of an anti-authority person in the first place. (See previous paragraph.) However, it's also a matter of how one questions science. If someone is truly interested in questioning science, one should first try to understand the current scientific viewpoint. Most people who like to "question science" (timecubers, creation scientists, etc.) don't have the mathematical ability to understand it in the first place.
Personally, I've looked at both sides. I'm not a climatologist so I am not qualified to to say who is right. I've heard predictions that say once we pass a tipping point, the earth will continue to warm until the earth looks like Venus, and we are almost there! I've also seen charts where the earth's CO2 level was exponentially higher than it is today (still, we are not Venus!) I've heard how melting the ice caps will cause the oceanic current conveyor to stop... causing large ice caps (uh... wouldn't that restart the conveyor?).
Yes, I've heard such things as well. The Venus stuff is pure hogwash, to the best of my knowledge. The oceanic current conveyor stuff is an interesting theory that should be studied, but is still quite tentative. (The problem, as I understand it, comes from the fresh water in the ice caps diluting the salinity of the oceans. I can't say I understand how this plays in with the conveyor belts. I've read enough to know that it's not ludicrous, but not universally accepted, either.) And, of course, politicians are politicians, and John Kerry is one of the most political, IMNSHO.
As for actual solutions, I don't know what they are. Kyoto obviously has flaws. However, acknowledging that there is a problem is an important first step. (That doesn't mean others can't be working on steps 2, 3, etc.) What amazes me is people who go straight from saying that there is no problem to saying that it's too late to do anything about the problem. Unfortunately, part of that latter sentiment is fueled by the FUD from global warming "believers".
Then I realized that you're just pulling a Colbert. There's no way you don't know what's wrong with your statement. Either that or you're a troll. I prefer to think you're pulling a Colbert.
First of all, I deny that your statement is true in general. However, as I thought I made it painfully clear from my statement: "There are global warming skeptics (those who are truly undecided) and global warming deniers (those who are trying to spread FUD). There's a difference." I'm not denying that when I use the phrase "global warming denier" it is meant to distinguish them from being a global warming skeptic because they are trying to spread FUD. Trying to spread FUD is dishonest and should make one feel guilty. (Knowingly) rehashing the same old tired arguments that have been debunked repeatedly is dishonest.
Is it because "denier" has a negative connotation associated with, such as "holocaust denier" and "non-believer" has a anti-religious connotation to it (anti-religious being a good thing on slash-dot, of course unless the religion involves spaghetti)?
Right. I'd never use the word deny in anything but the most extremely negative connotations. Never. Just wouldn't happen. Deny is such a loaded term. You never hear that word thrown around outside of references to the holocaust. In fact, the word was created by Nazis just so they could deny the holocaust.
That's what your sensitivity to "denial" sounds like. (Yes, that previous paragraph was sarcasm in case you missed that.) Also, it doesn't seem to bother you at all that the original comment I was responding to quoted that paragon of virtue Senator Inhofe in making allusions to the Nuremburg trials. What is it with you types and your love of comparing global warming "believers" and Nazi history? (The list of "you types" now seems to include JavaLord, you, and Inhofe.) I guess it's just a persecution complex.
If you really think they just inserted those particular phrases (e.g., "miserable failure") directly into the search engine's code, then please -- try another Googlebomb.
How about "french military victories"? It still "works".
That's a peak in the black line near 1950, not a dip. The dip comes later. Each of those tick marks is 50 years. It helps if you make your browser smaller so that you can scroll left and right to line it up exactly on the edge of your browser.
Slashdot Mirror
I am somewhat impressed at how you've managed to continue this argument with someone so completely ignorant and unwilling to provide any evidence to back up his ridiculous claims. I salute you. A few matters of fact, however. At one point in your debate with hackus you said:
I'll grant you that at some level that's true, but I'm not sure why you say "source or sink", when it seems pretty clear that it's all sink. I.e., the oceans have been absorbing significant amounts of CO2, resulting in a decrease in the pH (i.e., becoming more acidic) due to the reaction H2O + CO2 => H2CO3 (carbonic acid). I suppose what you might be thinking about is sometime in the future, after we've hopefully stopped dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans will slowly begin to become a source of CO2, instead of a sink, in an attempt to reach partial pressure equilibrium.
Secondly, your argument about the solar output not having had a measurable impact on past climates might not be right. That said, your point that it's largely irrelevant to the current argument is right.
The problem is that these people aren't "publishing" in peer-reviewed journals. They're "publishing" on the web and then their unscientific opinions are paraded in front of the ignorant as if they have any merit. Try explaining to the typical citizen why "timecube" is hogwash.
So, do you agree then that afterward, his opinions should not be as seriously considered? Most of these scientists have already been "caught" in "peer review". For example, the work by McIntyre and McKitrick has been discredited by Rutherford et al. (Don't be thrown off by the realclimate URL - that link is to a PDF of the article they published in the Journal of Climate. Also note that M&M's original article was rejected by Nature, so they published it in Geophysical Research Letters. Not exactly apropos.)
Um, yes. Sulfate aerosols are bad. Do you dispute that? A single scientist (yes, he's a nobel laureate) is now proposing injecting them into the atmosphere. And you equate that with the "same environmental crowd" how? Are you even listening to yourself?
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying - barring, of course, some obvious change such as putting a space sunshade in orbit (not that I expect that to happen).
No. No it would not.
As for your final comment, let me point out that you are citing the same Pat Michaels that, despite receiving large sums of money from the coal industry, has recently said:
His "solution" of course is to just wait around for the problem to fix itself:
How convenient that his solution is good for the people who recently gave him so much money. Just a coincidence though, I'm sure.
As for previous IPCC predictions being alarmist, I'll send you to this link which points out that the 2001 IPCC was too conservative, if anything. (Although the temperature increases did stay within the bounds given, they were on the high end of the predictions.)
No climatologist - not Pat Michaels and not Richard Lindzen - is denying that anthropogenic global warming is happening. The only dispute is to how hot and how quickly - oh, and what to call it.
It's not so much naivety as a lack of clarity. What I meant to say is that unlike many businesses, governmental funding is not contingent on what you can publish in other avenues. Sure, unfortunately the government might edit/censor what you say through official channels, and might even put other pressures on actual government employees (as opposed to merely grant recipients). However, I am not aware of any instances of them not allowing grant recipients to publish their results in journals due to those results not being favorable. By comparison, that does happen with corporate funding (and this is no secret).
Nice conspiracy theory you got going there, but it fails the sniff test. You can't claim victory when you've made very deliberate predictions that temperatures will go up, and then refine those predictions (still going up but in a narrower range), if temperatures actually go down. So, no, you are incorrect that they can "claim victory regardless of the direction temperatures actually go" now that they've renamed "anthropogenic climate change". That statement is either ignorant or deliberately misleading.
So, yes. You can dissent and still be funded by the government. (To be fair, he's only dissenting with the "alarmism", and not the general science.)
I'm in the same boat as you. (I'm currently waiting to hear whether my latest grant to the NIH has been accepted.) You're right that there's always a certain amount of group think. However, if you had already done much of the research and could show to the group that your results convincingly challenged the status quo (which many of these pseudo-scientists claim), then you would stand a very good chance of getting funding. If all you were claiming is that you have a theory and you need funding to do the research, then, sure, the flavor-of-the-month mentality will come into bear.
Also keep in mind that both Lindzen and Michaels receive at least some funding from the government. To say that you can't get funding unless you toe the line is therefore patently false.
Because you are doing good research that demonstrates that the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate is negligible! If that's not worth funding, I don't know what is!
Absolutely. There have been a couple recently uncovered in particle physics. A real shame. However, they are the exception and not the rule. However, do you really think that an entire field (climatology) would be so "bought"? (Assuming that you're initial belief is right, which it's not.) If you read the recent statements from the darlings of those that would cast doubt on climate science, you'll note that even Lindzen and Michaels don't actully say that humans don't have a significant (negative) impact on global warming. The best these people can say is that others exaggerate the problem. Not only don't say that there is no problem, they'll tell you that humans do contribute significantly to global warming.
Lindzen
:Michaels
:Well, many companies will control what can be published from the research they pay for, but when it comes to the government, that is not the case at all. They give you money to do research in a particular area. They do not give you money to reach particular conclusions. If they knew the conclusions you were going to reach, they wouldn't be funding you. Now do you see the difference?
The problem with most institutions like CEI is that when they fund the research, they typically add a clause that says that the results of the research cannot be published without their explicit authorization. (This happens in other fields, as well.) This is most likely not the case with either Branson or the Sierra Club. If it is, I'll gladly call shenanigans on them, as well.
Also, Senator Inhofe is not exactly the best source for such information. His position on the relative importance of the environment is well documented.
Other than the media-circuit, when is this ever done? Sure, you might have a scientist who is funded by the government who writes an article pointing out how another scientist's conclusions were wrong, but he wasn't paid to write that specific article. He was paid to do research, and to report the results of that research, regardless of what those results are. That's the difference between government funded research and privately funded research. Privately funded research often has the proviso that the results cannot be published without first being authorized by the funding agency. Do you understand how that causes bias?
Because these scientists are not actually finding real problems. They just speak in a language that mere mortals don't understand in such a way to suggest that there is doubt. Even when, couched in their own language, they say there is no doubt. Take a look at this article written by Richard Lindzen, provided to me by someone who was arguing against anthropogenic global warming. Ostensibly, he's saying that the global warming alarmists are all wrong. However, read closely and you'll find this gem:
"Never been widely contested"? Then, what exactly are you saying? Oh, just that certain claims by certain climatologists might not be accurate. Not that the overall picture is wrong, just that some/many of the details are. Next time you read an article by Lindzen, keep this in mind. See if he ever actually disputes the main point. Case in point. If you notice, Lindzen is very careful to stick to the Gulf Stream argument. That way, it looks like he's in disagreement with the basic science, without actually having to say anything unscientific. Clever.
If you could scientifically (key word) demonstrate that humans made no significant contribution to global warming (within a certain margin of error, of course), you'd have no problem getting grants - especially from the current administration. (OK, maybe not "no problem". You also have to be able to write halfway well. Let's just say it'd be easier than if you were just a conformist scientist who didn't produce any novel research.) They do ultimately control the purse strings, and if there was some grand conspiracy going on, do you really think that Bush and friends wouldn't be using their influence to end/replace it?
I wonder if ExxonMobil is actually still funding the American Enterprise Institute. Late last year they announced their intention to stop funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and I was assuming (I know, dangerous) that they were going to stop funding all similar institutes. Here is their official try-to -please-everyone-without-admitting-any-guilt statement for those who are interested.
ZDNet has also covered the story.
Here's a short article that discusses it. I hate to have anyone trust me, because although I'm not the type to just make stuff up, I am the type that sometimes gets things wrong. :) For example, it's the C13/C12 ratio, not the C13/C14 ratio.
Well, the two issues are related and somewhat difficult to separate. See, the C13/C14 ratios I was talking about tell you the ratio of CO2 gases in the air that came from fossil fuels. However, one might argue that those fossil fuels stay in the atmosphere longer because of the shrinking rain forests. The short answer is: (1) Stop dumping CO2 into the atmosphere (or at least stop dumping as much), and (2) Stop cutting down trees in the rain forest. (This is a "global" you, of course. I suspect that you, personally, have cut down very few trees in the rain forest. Not more than 1 or 2 dozen, I'd wager.)
Not really. Water, unlike CO2, saturates quite readily in our atmosphere. Then, it rains. (When's the last time you remember it "raining" (or even sublimating) CO2?) You can't add more water to the atmosphere without warming the atmosphere first. Of course, I assume you see the feedback inherent in that system. As we heat the atmosphere, it can (and will) hold more water - thus allowing it to hold more water. Luckily, it's a limited (i.e., sublinear) feedback, so it won't "tip", like some alarmists might claim.
Some plants will benefit from increased CO2, and others will not. Most will. The net effect is, in fact, expected to generate a negative feedback. Just like with the water vapor I mentioned in my previous paragraph, it's also sublinear. (Here's an interesting article on what might happen with some of our food crops. Yes, there's a lot of speculation, but it is interesting.)
See, here's my problem. It's easy for us (as humans) to go from "I don't understand" to "no one understands". And, yes, no one can be 100% sure. However, people who have spent their full time career understanding what will happen should be given some deference here. Granted, trading in your Toyota for a bicycle won't fix the problem - largely because you're only one individual. This is a problem that needs to be tackled collectively. (Ayn Rand fans might attack me here.)
Here's the thing, though. (And I know far less about economics than I do about climatology. At least with climatology, I can fall back on my physics background which is at least somewhat relevant.) When one person decides to ride his bike to work, it's a huge sacrifice. One reason is that our society is not built around such an idea. If you ride you bike on ordinary roads, people driving their cars will get upset with you for clogging up traffic. In fact, by clogging up traffic you might actually be making things worse. Personally, I walk to work - but that's because I can. Charlottesville (not suprisingly) is much more friendly towards pedestrians (and bike riders - although there are still many places where riding a bike in C'ville is not recommended). Anyways, my
ANWR's not a big issue for me. It's more a symptom of the problem. We lay aside land and call it protected. Then, big business bribes our congress-critters to de-protect it. It's the principle of the matter as well as the precedent it sets/reinforces. As for your "steps", you're assuming that oil companies will follow through with their side of the bargain, and that politicians will actually put teeth into the regulations to make them. (It's a two-sided problem.)
Only in this case, we found the bullet. Not only are CO2 levels at around 370 ppmv (cf. historical levels over the last 800,000 years ranging from 170 ppmv (ice ages) to 270 ppmv (previous "record" highs)), but we can also measure the amount of CO2 that we're putting into the atmosphere vs. the rate at which it is reabsorbed and measure the C13/C14 ratio in the atmosphere and compare it against the C13/C14 ratio coming from both living courses and fossil fuels. That ratio is a "smoking gun" that makes it quite clear that we're responsible for that increased CO2. (Although the fact that we know approximately how much fossil fuels are burned and how much CO2 they contribute means that we don't really need that smoking gun.) So, if you found that the gun was still smoking and a bullet was in that child, wouldn't you assume that the gun (or bullet) killed the child, or would you claim that since no one saw the gun fired we can't really be sure?
One of the problems with the environmental movement is that it attracts loonies. (I do brain modeling, so I hope you don't mind me using the scientific term "loony".) I also happen to be a vegetarian (well, to be precise a pesci-vegetarian). As a result, I often attend our local vegetarian festival. It's amazing how many crazies come out to this thing! If you've never been to one, you should go. Unfortunately, it might just reinforce your current world-view, but at least you should find it entertaining.
What you have to realize is that a lot of sane, educated people also are raising alarms here. Even if you read what the least alarmist climatologists have to say (I'm thinking Richard Lindzen and Pat Michaels), you'll not find a single climatologist (that I'm aware of) who denies the significance of the human impact on climate change. (You do, however, have to read Lindzen and Michaels carefully to see where they admit this. I'll be happy to provide the exact quotes from these articles if you can't find them. Well, the second Lindzen article is actually more about what he doesn't say.)
Yes, it's amazing how many people don't realize that Halliburton was a major contractor during the Clinton administration as well. Doesn't mean that Cheney isn't gaming the system. Doesn't mean he is, either. As a rule, I don't trust politicians regardless of political party. I like to point out to my liberal friends who are horified that I voted for Dole in '96 that if Dole had won in '96, we wouldn't have had Bush during 9/11. (In re-reading that, the last sentence seems like quite a bit of a non-sequitor. It stems from the fact that I didn't trust Clinton, either.)
Well, I'm also against drilling in ANWR, for two reasons - neither one of which is the caribou. First of all, I see very little gain (except for a few oil companies - definitely not for the average American when you look at the small size of the ANWR reserve compared to how much oil we consume annually) and a not insignificant risk. Oil companies do not have a good record when it comes to living up to their promises with respect to the environment. I can give you some examples if you like. Secondly, and far less importantly (because there is relatively little oil in ANWR), more oil = more CO2. However, let me ask you this? Which is more likely: oil companies will lie about the environmental impact because they're greedy OR environmentalists will like about the environmental impact because they don't want "someone making money"? I won't say that environmentalists won't lie (every group has liars as members). However, I think their greatest tendency for lying is by exaggerating the risk in order for people to take the real risk seriously (a very dubious strategy, mind you) - and not just to keep people from making money. I honestly don't think most of them are that petty.
CO2 levels have not even been close to current levels for over 800,000 years (and likely longer than that). Actually, I'm not aware of any times when the average global temperature was lower when CO2 levels were higher, but I think I have heard of the reverse (global temperature was higher when CO2 levels were lower). Even that, however, happened on an Earth hundreds of millions of years younger. Trying to compare models of the current climate to models of the climate hundreds of millions of years ago is often an attempt to put the UD in FUD. (Not accusing you of this, just mentioning why it's so often mentioned.) Here's a useful analogy: people have died from natural causes for thousands of years. If someone had their fingers around your throat and you felt your life-force leaving you, would you say, "oh, it can't be this person causing my death, because he's only been here for a short while, and people have been dying for thousands of years?" Likewise with global warming. Yes, it's happened in the past and we were not responsible. That in no way implies that we are not responsible now.
Although I think Bush is the worst president in my lifetime with respect to the environment ("clear skies" initiative, "healthy forests" initiative, redefining water ways, supporting the Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act, etc.), I'm always in favor of trying to confuse people who want to pigeon-hole others. I like to call myself a "Charlottesville Conservative". (Charlottesville is an extremely blue dot in the red state of Virginia.)
Well, first of all, I'm not really much of an anti-authority person in the first place. (See previous paragraph.) However, it's also a matter of how one questions science. If someone is truly interested in questioning science, one should first try to understand the current scientific viewpoint. Most people who like to "question science" (timecubers, creation scientists, etc.) don't have the mathematical ability to understand it in the first place.
Yes, I've heard such things as well. The Venus stuff is pure hogwash, to the best of my knowledge. The oceanic current conveyor stuff is an interesting theory that should be studied, but is still quite tentative. (The problem, as I understand it, comes from the fresh water in the ice caps diluting the salinity of the oceans. I can't say I understand how this plays in with the conveyor belts. I've read enough to know that it's not ludicrous, but not universally accepted, either.) And, of course, politicians are politicians, and John Kerry is one of the most political, IMNSHO.
As for actual solutions, I don't know what they are. Kyoto obviously has flaws. However, acknowledging that there is a problem is an important first step. (That doesn't mean others can't be working on steps 2, 3, etc.) What amazes me is people who go straight from saying that there is no problem to saying that it's too late to do anything about the problem. Unfortunately, part of that latter sentiment is fueled by the FUD from global warming "believers".
Then I realized that you're just pulling a Colbert. There's no way you don't know what's wrong with your statement. Either that or you're a troll. I prefer to think you're pulling a Colbert.
First of all, I deny that your statement is true in general. However, as I thought I made it painfully clear from my statement: "There are global warming skeptics (those who are truly undecided) and global warming deniers (those who are trying to spread FUD). There's a difference." I'm not denying that when I use the phrase "global warming denier" it is meant to distinguish them from being a global warming skeptic because they are trying to spread FUD. Trying to spread FUD is dishonest and should make one feel guilty. (Knowingly) rehashing the same old tired arguments that have been debunked repeatedly is dishonest.
Right. I'd never use the word deny in anything but the most extremely negative connotations. Never. Just wouldn't happen. Deny is such a loaded term. You never hear that word thrown around outside of references to the holocaust. In fact, the word was created by Nazis just so they could deny the holocaust.
That's what your sensitivity to "denial" sounds like. (Yes, that previous paragraph was sarcasm in case you missed that.) Also, it doesn't seem to bother you at all that the original comment I was responding to quoted that paragon of virtue Senator Inhofe in making allusions to the Nuremburg trials. What is it with you types and your love of comparing global warming "believers" and Nazi history? (The list of "you types" now seems to include JavaLord, you, and Inhofe.) I guess it's just a persecution complex.
You might - it depends on the author. ;)
However, you're correct that you won't find it in his autobiography.
Still - good point about the page actually containing the phrase that was being searched for.
That's a peak in the black line near 1950, not a dip. The dip comes later. Each of those tick marks is 50 years. It helps if you make your browser smaller so that you can scroll left and right to line it up exactly on the edge of your browser.