Long before I got a political science degree, before I became the blogger and founded the Vanguard, my passion was weather and in particular tornadoes. It is a well known quasi-joke in my family that I dream to go on a storm chase in the Midwest, going after serious twisters.
What I saw astounded me. I could see the rotation and it extended downward from the cloud towards the ground, but never getting close to the ground. Eventually and quickly it would dissipate.
I got home and quickly sent the picture to the local news. I got a call from Channel 10 and there I was, being phone-interviewed about a funnel in a storm they were actually already tracking over Davis. Shortly after I got home, we got bombarded with heavy rain and hail. The cell would move east, and spawned at least two or three other funnel clouds, as well.
There would be tornadoes that actually touched down to the north in Marysville, but they kept showing my picture on Channel 10, as it was so clear and vivid.
I had already been following the tornado season, as I have a number of friends in Missouri. What we had is nothing compared to what struck in Joplin a few weeks ago, and before that down in Alabama.
The fact is that this country has been rather fortunate that more tornadoes have not struck populated areas. Neither Joplin nor Tuscaloosa, Alabama, are particularly huge urban areas, both are around 90,000 in population. But it is really only a matter of time before a major city like Kansas City, St. Louis, Dallas, Memphis or somewhere else is hit by a major tornado that does damage not in the hundreds, but the thousands or tens of thousands of fatalities.
In Alabama, it is particularly frightening that, prior to the fatal tornado in Tuscaloosa, there were three major tornadoes that were described as long-track. Most tornadoes are like the one I saw, very brief and short-lived, often a matter of minutes. These three stayed on the ground for over 60 miles, and the three combined stayed on the ground for 200 miles.
None of those hit major urban areas, however. Both Tuscaloosa and Joplin had about 24 minutes warning before the tornadoes hit. However, they were so powerful that they were not survivable for most people. Generally, if you do not have a storm cellar or safe room, you are advised to get into an interior room, pad yourself, and get into a fetal position to protect your head, neck, and vital organs.
However, the tornado was so powerful and on the ground so long it merely swept home after home off their foundations, meaning even the interior walls would not save people.
The question is whether these storms are the cause of climate change, or merely a pattern of normal but extreme weather.
An article in this morning’s Sacramento Bee suggests that “climate change may [actually] be cooling California.” That is, of course, one person’s theory to explain nine tornadoes, cold weather, and rain in May and June in California.
“It’s what I call global weirding,” said Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. “This has been a very strange year all over the planet.”
The article goes into issues such as La Nina (a cooling of the Pacific Ocean) along with Artic oscillations. What has happened is that the Arctic was warmer than usual this year and pushed cold air and a strong jet stream into the US.
“It’s a great snow producer, rain producer and tornado producer when it’s in that pattern,” Mr. Patzert said. “Nobody knows exactly what causes that.”
“One theory gaining traction is that climate change, in fact, may be to blame,” the Bee reports. “The theory was developed in several published papers by Judah Cohen, an atmospheric scientist in Massachusetts.”
Professor Cohen argues that “ice melt in the Arctic has produced more snowfall across Siberia. All that snow creates a giant cold air mass that diverts the jet stream, contributing to the negative Arctic oscillation.”
“Colder and snowier winters caused by global warming? It may be one of the counterintuitive consequences of climate change,” he said.
Meanwhile, this past week’s Newsweek issue links climate change to increased incidence of freak storms.
“Even those who deny the existence of global climate change are having trouble dismissing the evidence of the last year,” the magazine reports.
“In the U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 tornadoes have ripped across the heartland, killing more than 500 people and inflicting $9 billion in damage. The Midwest suffered the wettest April in 116 years, forcing the Mississippi to flood thousands of square miles, even as drought-plagued Texas suffered the driest month in a century,” they continue.
And globally, they write, “Worldwide, the litany of weather’s extremes has reached biblical proportions. The 2010 heat wave in Russia killed an estimated 15,000 people. Floods in Australia and Pakistan killed 2,000 and left large swaths of each country under water. A months-long drought in China has devastated millions of acres of farmland. And the temperature keeps rising: 2010 was the hottest year on earth since weather records began.”
The article lays out a series of terrifying consequences in the next decade, including impacts on California.
They then note, “Yet only 14 states are even planning, let alone implementing, climate-change adaptation plans, says Terri Cruce, a climate consultant in California. The other 36 apparently are hoping for a miracle.”
They add, “The game of catch-up will have to happen quickly because so much time was lost to inaction.”
Indeed, I have often questioned why there is resistance to plan for the worst while hoping for the best. The downside of climate change not happening, while preparing, is that we undertake changes that we probably need to do in the long run, in the absence of any climate change.
The Newsweek article is more pointed and blames both sides of the aisle for inaction.
“The Bush administration was a disaster, but the Obama administration has accomplished next to nothing either, in part because a significant part of the Democratic Party is inclined to balk on this issue as well,” says economist Jeffrey Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. “We [are] past the tipping point.”
“Climate-change adaptation was a nonstarter,” says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center. “If you wanted to talk about that, you would have had to talk about climate change itself, which the Bush administration didn’t want to do.”
While the Newsweek article was quick to blame government for inaction, it did little to education the public on the link between severe storms and climate change.
One problem that persists is that the earth’s climate system is so dynamic. At a local level, changes may seem counterintuitive, for instance, why would California become cooler as the result of global warming?. And that is just one possibility.
For a couple of decades there are also theories that changes in salinity in the ocean may impact the salt-exchange system in the North Atlantic, which would divert the Gulf Stream southward and produce a colder climate in Europe, which would have a huge impact on the entire Northern Hemisphere’s climate and, ironically, produce an ice age.
The bottom line, for the tornadoes as well as other severe weather, is that warming the atmosphere has two primary impacts. First, it increases the moisture-carrying capacity, which increases the amount of energy. And second, it can increase the variance between cold air masses from the north that are more likely to be pushed down by a warming arctic and warm air masses from the south. The result is more severe weather and stronger storms.
Unfortunately, the global warming deniers appear to be more organized and with a stronger message. The result is a polarization on global warming and a larger number of people in denial about global warming, even as scientists have become more united.
Writes Newsweek, “So what lies behind America’s resistance to action? Economist Sachs points to the lobbying power of industries that resist acknowledgment of climate change’s impact.”
“The country is two decades behind in taking action because both parties are in thrall to Big Oil and Big Coal,” says Sachs. “The airwaves are filled with corporate-financed climate misinformation.”
Says Daniel Sarewitz, a professor of science and society at Arizona State University: “Not to adapt is to consign millions of people to death and disruption.”
But perhaps it would be better if we just continue to debate and play politics with these theories, rather than work on solutions that all sides could agree to.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
When I lived in tornado prone North-central Texas, I was always struck by the fatalistic attitude of many of the natives to these awesome storms. To a one, when discovering I had lived in California, they asked, “How do you live with those earthquakes?” Like Rosanne Rosana Dana used to say,”It’s always somethin'”
“But perhaps it would be better if we just continue to debate and play politics with these gains rather than work on solutions that all sides could agree to.”
lol, as if the democrats weren’t playing politics with climate change theories? Al-Gore’s superstar status complete with book and movie deals? How many democrats have brought it up during their political campaigns?
Quite frank, I think this global warming deal is so certain politicians don’t have to discuss the real issues, namely the economy because they don’t have a way to fix it.
you don’t think the solar and wind industries see dollar signs when they see global warming? the sierra club?
you don’t think those people who work at universities don’t see government grant money in mind when they do their research?
I don’t see that the Democrats have been a whole lot better on a national level of taking leadership on this issue and putting forth policies to deal with global warming.
DMG: “So what lies behind America’s resistance to action? Economist Sachs points to the lobbying power of industries that resist acknowledgment of climate change’s impact.”
and what of the “lobbying power” of the wind industry, solar industry? sierra club? money seeking climate change researchers at universities?
the global warming is a politcal movement masquerading as a scientific one.
David: I just think we are the proverbial frog in boiling water, and most people will not know we are in hot water until it’s too late. You can play games with semantics and dodge the issues all you want, but that’s what it boils down to.
[i]the global warming is a politcal movement masquerading as a scientific one.[/i]
Those kinds of comments were said about a sun-centered solar system a few centuries ago.
Global warming is something you can measure. If you decide to have kids, then by the time they’re graduating from high school, the impact will become clearer. At least we had the sense to ban chlorofluorocarbon use.
Like tobacco companies before, commercial interests dependent on petroleum use have thrown up enough doubt to delay action.
[quote]n article in this morning’s Sacramento Bee suggests that “climate change may [actually] be cooling California.” That is, of course, one person’s theory to explain nine tornadoes, cold weather, and rain in May and June in California.
“It’s what I call global weirding,” said Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. “This has been a very strange year all over the planet.”
The article goes into issues such as La Nina (a cooling of the Pacific Ocean) along with Artic oscillations. What has happened is that the Arctic was warmer than usual this year and pushed cold air and a strong jet stream into the US.
“It’s a great snow producer, rain producer and tornado producer when it’s in that pattern,” Mr. Patzert said. “Nobody knows exactly what causes that.”
“One theory gaining traction is that climate change, in fact, may be to blame,” the Bee reports. “The theory was developed in several published papers by Judah Cohen, an atmospheric scientist in Massachusetts.”
Professor Cohen argues that “ice melt in the Arctic has produced more snowfall across Siberia. All that snow creates a giant cold air mass that diverts the jet stream, contributing to the negative Arctic oscillation.”
“Colder and snowier winters caused by global warming? It may be one of the counterintuitive consequences of climate change,” he said.
[/quote]
It never ceases to amaze me how tortured the logic becomes to explain weather phenomenon that doesn’t quite fit the global warming theory, as evidenced in the above quote. When we had colder winters than usual, the global warming theorists suddenly posited a new explanation – that global warming was not discredited by the cooler temperatures, bc the new and convenient explanation was that global warming caused weather to be more extreme than normal. This somehow explained away those annoying colder temperatures, which didn’t quite fit in with the global warming theory. No matter what the weather pattern was that did not conform to the global warming theory, somehow slavish global warming adherants would come up with an explanation for various anomalies to make sure their preconceived model of global warming still remained intact – rather than concede that perhaps the theory is incorrect or needs deeper investigation.
Musser makes an excellent point. A lot of people are making big bucks and political hay from the global warming theory, which has more holes in it than swiss cheese. It is much more logical to say we as a nation want to work towards cleaner air, because it is not healthy to breathe polluted air. That mantra makes perfect sense, was started years ago, so is nothing new. But lets face it, politicians like Al Gore can’t make political inroads with a more benign and simple anti-pollution campaign. The global warming theory is a lot more politically charged, and has duped many, many local gov’ts into spending inordinate amounts of money on solar panels (even if they are a more expensive alternative), hybrid cars (even if the gas mileage saved is minimal compared to the increase in price for the hybrid model), etc ad nauseum.
As yourself a very simple question: Why is the desire to breathe cleaner air not sufficient enough a reason to want to reduce GHG emissions; why must we believe in the half-baked global warming theory that constantly predicts the “sky is falling”? The only reason I can think of is political, pure and simple…
Dec. 2010: It’s Cold Now, but 2010 Was Warmest on Record Globally
[url]http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/16/its-cold-now-but-2010-was-warmest-on-record-globally/[/url]
ERM: [i]why must we believe in the half-baked global warming theory that constantly predicts the “sky is falling”? The only reason I can think of is political, pure and simple… [/i]
Some climate scientists may say the “sky is falling”, that we’re looking at more immediate consequences. There is disagreement on the level of the impact. There is no disagreement that Earth is warming, though. It is measurable and the trend continues.
As to whether there is a political agenda or not, D. Greenwald’s article summarizes that there is next to zero political interest in this issue right now. So your point doesn’t make much sense, Elaine.
The world’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time. I don’t think that is really debatable nor should it be surprising. What is at the center of our debate is the cause, and the ultimate impact. I wasn’t aware of an argument (before this morning’s Sac Bee article) that suggested CA was going to get cooler rather than hotter. As to cause, I’ve seen the data regarding CO2 levels, and it seems like a significant change is happening. I don’t think the higher CO2 level has been connected in a provable way to changing climates. Historical climate change has been very, very significant with much less impact from industry or man.
[quote]As to whether there is a political agenda or not, D. Greenwald’s article summarizes that there is next to zero political interest in this issue right now. So your point doesn’t make much sense, Elaine.[/quote]
Zero political interest? You’ve got to be kidding! I’m on the TCIP committee – and it is very much a topic of conversation when determining how we are going to address transportation issues in Davis over the next 25 years. Obama just came out with a statement about lowering car emissions bc of global warming, and the car companies are furious. Politicians at all levels are very much keeping the global warming theory front and center…
[quote]The world’s climate has been changing since the beginning of time. I don’t think that is really debatable nor should it be surprising. What is at the center of our debate is the cause, and the ultimate impact. I wasn’t aware of an argument (before this morning’s Sac Bee article) that suggested CA was going to get cooler rather than hotter. As to cause, I’ve seen the data regarding CO2 levels, and it seems like a significant change is happening. I don’t think the higher CO2 level has been connected in a provable way to changing climates. Historical climate change has been very, very significant with much less impact from industry or man.[/quote]
Nicely said…
[img]http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/co2growth1.JPG[/img]
[img]http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/temp-mean.gif[/img]
CO2 goes up. Temperatures go up. Not that hard to understand.
Adam S.: [i]I don’t think the higher CO2 level has been connected in a provable way to changing climates. Historical climate change has been very, very significant with much less impact from industry or man.[/i]
Higher CO2 levels have been connected to warmer global climates in geologic history (I’ll dig up some references a little later).
The issue in the current connection between CO2 and climate change/warming is that there is a direct correlation (increase in CO2 goes with an increase in temperature). There are many reasons why climate trends change. The most viable reason for the current trends is CO2. If you disagree, then the most effective counter-argument is to present other more plausible procesess(es). If you’re game, fire away.
The reason that science emerged from superstition is that we were able to create a method that separated rational thought from our hunches and biases.
Jumping from an observation or two about tornados to a conclusion that global warming is responsible is the opposite of a rational approach.
Personally I believe that man-made global warming is very probably around, but not certainly, However the same scientific evidence that indicates this (without certainty), indicates that the effect of the greenhouse gas reductions that are being proposed will be negligible. In other words, those who propose radical greenhouse gas reduction are not doing so based on scientific data, as the models predict global warming is irreversible by any actions that the US can reasonably take.
My conclusion is that there are political and economic motives behind the global warming advocates, but they are fundamentally not scientific.
Rifkin: [i]CO2 goes up. Temperatures go up. Not that hard to understand.[/i]
And to be more current, this info is the latest:
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
[url]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/[/url]
GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis
[url]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/[/url]
J.R.: [i]My conclusion is that there are political and economic motives behind the global warming advocates, but they are fundamentally not scientific.[/i]
What do you think are those specific political and economic motives?
[i]”My conclusion is that there are political and economic motives behind the global warming advocates, but they are fundamentally not scientific.”[/i]
Given that there is a nearly 100% consensus among atmospheric scientists about the basics of global warming theory–I would challenge you to name one major atmospheric scientist who is heterodox on this basic question–it seems to me that you observation that the scientists are motivated by politics is far more likely a description of your own motives than theirs.
My own view is that religious conservatism drives much of the anti-science viewpoint on global warming. Why that is I don’t know. But the same crowd is equally skeptical of biological evolution. That is, the more religious conservatives in a population, the greater the doubt about evolutionary science and equally about global warming science. Ultimately, it seems to be a widespread political-religious dislike of science:
[img]http://www.thedeets.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/evolution-belief.png[/img]
Don Shor: If this graph screws up this page, please remove it:
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/45/186562810_1c2f6aab96_o.jpg[/img]
Rifkin: Good points. I’d be interested to check out if there is similar info young Earth creationism, that Earth is ~10,000 years old.
DMG: “David: I just think we are the proverbial frog in boiling water, and most people will not know we are in hot water until it’s too late. You can play games with semantics and dodge the issues all you want, but that’s what it boils down to.”
yes, I am well aware of the scare tactics used to coerce people into supporting extreme environmental causes. but lets address the issue shall we?
your article claims that climate change (or was it global warming?) is happening because of the extreme weather today. Somehow, if CO2 is released into the atmosphere by automobiles, and weird weather happens at the same time, that weather is caused by the CO2. Umm….. yes. that all adds up.
See how easy that was? You could have simply said all that in one paragraph.
DMG: ” I just think we are the proverbial frog in boiling water, and most people will not know we are in hot water until it’s too late.”
actually, if you google Richard Nixon and climate change, he made strikingly similar doomsday predictions in 1969, and said that by the year 2000, washington DC and much of the east coast would be under water right now.
and you expect me to buy it all now? fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
“What do you think are those specific political and economic motives?”
There are those who look for any excuse to expand government powers.
“Given that there is a nearly 100% consensus among atmospheric scientists about the basics of global warming theory–I would challenge you to name one major atmospheric scientist who is heterodox on this basic question–it seems to me that you observation that the scientists are motivated by politics is far more likely a description of your own motives than theirs.”
First of all, you are incorrect about the level of consensus.
Secondly, there are many examples of when almost universal scientific consensus was later found to be wrong.
For example:
The Eugenics movement
The belief that stress was the main cause of ulcers
The belief that women should not gain weight during pregnancy
Those who believe that global warming is proved beyond doubt simply don’t understand the scientific process.
Nonetheless, I do agree that there is very strong evidence for human caused global warming. That said, the issue becomes what one can do about it. And all the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that all the feel good actions proposed by environmentalists will have no significant effect on the projected rate of global warming.
Somehow we should all be good scientists when believing the predications of the global warming models.
But when we look at what those same models predict about the effects of carbon reduction schemes, somehow we should ignore them.
That is what I call political opportunism masquerading as science.
” would challenge you to name one major atmospheric scientist who is heterodox on this basic question–“
Prof. Richard Lindzen, an Atmospheric Scientist at MIT.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Your graph is complet nonsense. What exactly is an “expert”. The graph claims 100% agreement on global warming by experts. Anybody who has spent any time actually looking at the science behind global warming (which I agree is extensive, though tainted by some fraudulent claims) would know that there are many experts who don’t agree with the consensus.
What you are doing is arguing by authority. While this is fine for religions and for bullies, it is not a scientific approach.
Richard Feynman, one of the great physicists of recent decades, had a good way of summarizing these ideas.
He said
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
In an article he wrote called “Cargo Cult Science” he wrote:
“There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in “cargo cult science.” It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
It is exactly this kind of integrity that is missing in some leading global warming theory advocates.
J.R.: [i]My conclusion is that there are political and economic motives behind the global warming advocates, but they are fundamentally not scientific.[/i]
wdf1: [i]What do you think are those specific political and economic motives?[/i]
J.R.: [i]There are those who look for any excuse to expand government powers.[/i]
Based on what?
Do you suggest that a climate scientist whose work concludes global warming based on CO2 build up is looking to expand government powers?
By the way, climate scientists who conclude global warming are not necessarily engaged in proposing legislative policy. James Hansen, sure. But most are just reporting their findings.
[i]In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
It is exactly this kind of integrity that is missing in some leading global warming theory advocates.[/i]
Then to give integrity to healthy skepticism, what information is missing that we should consider?
“Then to give integrity to healthy skepticism, what information is missing that we should consider?”
It seems you haven’t been following the actual science that underlies the claims you hear.
See for example
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7347658/Climategate-professor-admits-to-withholding-information.html
“Prof Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, is accused of withholding raw data behind his research on global warming. In emails stolen from the university he asks one climate change sceptic: “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?””
“Do you suggest that a climate scientist whose work concludes global warming based on CO2 build up is looking to expand government powers?”
I don’t see where I suggested that.
What I am saying is that certain politicians and activists see a way to expand government powers using global warming as an excuse.
Just ask yourself this: If you believe that global warming is a deadly threat to the planet, why not support the one realistic method of radically reducing greenhouse gases? Do you even know what it is?
(Hint: Carter and Bush couldn’t pronounce it).
J.R. – you are certainly being very coy with us today.
[quote]What I am saying is that certain politicians and activists see a way to expand government powers using global warming as an excuse.
Just ask yourself this: If you believe that global warming is a deadly threat to the planet, why not support the one realistic method of radically reducing greenhouse gases? Do you even know what it is?
(Hint: Carter and Bush couldn’t pronounce it). [/quote]
So, are you talking about carbon sequestration, or something even more radical? Some of us would really like to know.
Speaking of credentials…what are yours? Are you a trained scientist? Why should we give you credence in what you claim? If you don’t think experts and climatologists should be listened to because of some conspiracy theory, then why should you give credence to any experts in any field?
The next time you need major surgery of any sort, please contact me. I can provide those services at a much lower rate than board certified doctors. I could use the money, and you certainly shouldn’t worry about whether I’m an expert in the field.
Don – how many minutes will this be up before you bounce my comment off the blog? ;-)>
Hint: Jimmy Carter worked on a nook-yoo-lur sub.
Rich offered up a simplistic data chart, I think to suggest that the public is poorly informed. The problem is that in a longer term view that data regarding the causes of climate change is far from perfectly correlated and the issue is very complex. Seeking a single causal agent is probably the wrong approach. Further, I could come up many other correlary factors that could be equally good or poor explainers of the rise in global temperatures. How do you think a graph of the US national debt vs global temperatures would look? Probably very much the same, but I have little confidence that if we lower the debt that global temperatures will recede. Obviously, I say this in jest, but with a serious point to be made.
While there is much to quarrel about in this entire debate, I think Rich Rifkin’s graph offers the most compelling reason why any or all of us should question the link between CO2 and temperature. 36% of experts (whatever that means)disagree that consensus that global warming even exists. That suggests that there is serious debate amongst the “experts”, and therefore, it should also exists amongst us, the non-experts.
Thanks, Don. Has anyone done an analysis as to whether there is enough nuclear fuel in the world to replace all the fossil fuels? And this solution would require an all electric auto fleet, which is anathema to many “conservatives.” Finally, would you want a nuke plant in your back yard, figuratively speaking?
Just askin’.
[url]http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/joe-romm-finally-gets-his-math-right.html[/url]
It would take a few nuclear plants to take care of the carbon problem. About one a day.
[i]”36% of experts (whatever that means)disagree that consensus that global warming even exists.”[/i]
You misread the graph. The 36% figure applies to the public. Among scientific experts, there is a near (though not 100%) concensus. Bryan Weare*, a UCD atmospheric scientist, told me that there is no other major theory in the atmospheric sciences with as high a degree of concensus as with global warming theory.
That is not to say there are not disagreements over some related matters within the theory, including debate about the modeling. The IPCC scientist who J.R. pointed out is one who doubts the degree of warming which will take place over the next 100 years as CO2 and other gases build up in the atmosphere. There are disagreements over how much the sea levels will rise and so on.
But given that almost every serious scientist who has looked at this issue agrees that greenhouse gas build-up is having and will have into the future serious climatic consequences, I think it would be absolutely stupid for me, a non-scientist, to side with a 1% minority.
*Weare has extensively studied what effects climate change will have on agriculture, water supply and so on in the Central Valley and No. Calif.
“Indeed, I have often questioned why there is resistance to plan for the worst while hoping for the best. The downside of climate change not happening, while preparing, is that we undertake changes that we probably need to do in the long run, in the absence of any climate change.”
I think whether or not you believe in global warming the right thing to do is to be responsible about how you care for the place we all inhabit. We should all just take greater care of the earth and be more responsible with our own individual actions simply because it is the right thing to do. Respect one another and respect your home, which is the earth. If we have that attitude in the end we will all search for better solutions instead of arguing.
A big part of the problem in moving forward with climate change [i]adaptation[/i] is that the political leadership worldwide has been focused on [i]mitigation[/i] solutions. Cap and trade is a complete non-starter; it will never pass the U.S. Congress, nor will China or India agree to meaningful caps. A carbon tax is even less likely. A Copenhagen-style agreement is dead. Expansion of non-carbon option simply can’t happen fast enough to be meaningful (see nuclear option, above).
So the entire focus needs to be on adaptation and expanding technological solutions. Adaptation means regional cooperation, identification of key risk areas (Bangladesh flooding, for example) and developing global resources for preventing them. Technological solutions certainly require government funding at a massive level.
So while intergovernmental organizations and federal funding may be anathema to conservatives, they are probably less philosophically repugnant to them than anything that looks like a tax, or which might require significant lifestyle changes. But until the present environmental and political leadership stops fixating on taxation and international agreements as the solutions, nothing will happen. Liberals have to give up on their pet solutions; conservatives have to swallow some expanded federal role.
Rich – You’re right, I did misread the chart. My mistake
[quote]But given that almost every serious scientist who has looked at this issue agrees that greenhouse gas build-up is having and will have into the future serious climatic consequences, I think it would be absolutely stupid for me, a non-scientist, to side with a 1% minority. [/quote]
At one time, just about all scientists believed the world was flat! That didn’t make them right!
[quote]I think whether or not you believe in global warming the right thing to do is to be responsible about how you care for the place we all inhabit. We should all just take greater care of the earth and be more responsible with our own individual actions simply because it is the right thing to do. Respect one another and respect your home, which is the earth. If we have that attitude in the end we will all search for better solutions instead of arguing.[/quote]
Well said!
To Don Shor: interesting observations…
[quote]The problem is that in a longer term view that data regarding the causes of climate change is far from perfectly correlated and the issue is very complex. Seeking a single causal agent is probably the wrong approach.[/quote]
I’m with you on this one…
[i]At one time, just about all scientists believed the world was flat![/i]
That is a popular misconception.
[url]http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm[/url]
[quote]At one time, just about all scientists believed the world was flat!
That is a popular misconception.
http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm%5B/quote%5D
LOL That is a new one on me!
Okay, how about scientists who believed the sun orbited around the earth? See wikipedia: “Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. In February 1616, although he had been cleared of any offence, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as “false and contrary to Scripture”,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.[11][12]”
The point is that scientific theory is not absolute – it is a mere model to explain phenomenon, which is often tweaked or discredited in the future if found to be inaccurate. There is no absolute proof of global warming… bc there are just too many variables, too little a time frame over which temperatures have been measured…
[i]”At one time, just about all [b]scientists[/b] believed the world was flat!”[/i]
In addition to what Don Shor posted (09:50 AM), your assertion does not seem to appreciate what science is and is not. The concensus opinion on global warming is continually being tested, revised, retested, attacked, defended and so on using scientific methods. It is true that some smaller questions which were thought to be one way 20 years ago are now thought to be another now after critical, scientific study by hundreds or thousands of scientists relooked at a question. But the amazing thing is that since global warming theory–which says that A) human activities, such as burning coal and oil, are increasing the atmospheric greenhouse gases; and B) that a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will gradually warm the planet–was first postulated in the 1960s, all of the research into this question have confirmed the basic theory.
In that sense, it is much like Darwinian evolution: Far, far more is known today about evolution than when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. Some things which were thought to be one way 50 years ago are thought to be another, today. However, everything that has been discovered in the science of biology–everything!–in the last 150 years has confirmed the basic theory of evolution.
Despite the scientific concensus on global warming and that on evolution, there is a popular misunderstanding of the science reflected in your comment. That was very likely the case regarding a flat earth in the late middle ages. Scientists, as they studied the evidence, came to know otherwise. But the masses took a long time, probably even beyond 1492.
As it happens, I was just reading a short biography of Dr. William Harvey, the Englishman most famous for his discovery of how the heart and circulatory system works to pump blood throughout the bodies of animals. Before Harvey, most “medical” doctors did not know that the blood circulated. And Harvey came along in the 17th C., more than 100 years after Columbus. The point of mentioning this is that science as science is not all that old. So if there was a time when nearly 100% of the smartest people were wrong on a major topic in science, it is likely the case that most of those smart folks were not yet practicing anything we would regard as science.
ERM: [i]At one time, just about all scientists believed the world was flat![/i]
Elaine, if you are still sticking to that statement, then please name a couple of reputable physical scientists of their time who genuinely asserted the world was flat.
If you read about the history of science as a field, one of the first major recorded breakthroughs was that of Eratosthenes of Alexandria in calculating the circumference of Earth in ancient times (Don Shor references that in his 9:50 link). The initial assumption that he made was that Earth was round. It is one finding that helped to define science as a field early on.
The practice of science is to make observations, experiment, and attempt predictions based on hypotheses. Out of it all, you choose the simplist explanation to account for all that is observed. You go with that until you encounter further observations that indicate a modified explanation.
You might like to frame credible professional scientists as being somehow stuck stubbornly to old ideas, and some of that goes on. But there is enough ambition, excitement, and ego in newer generations of scientists who are generally unafraid to upset older conventions, if there is a basis to do so. If you feel certain that global warming is a hoax, then you’ll find inklings of dissent if you look at the work of younger scientists. Right now I don’t see it. As it is, we keep running the same predictive test — are global mean surface temperatures increasing as CO2 levels increase? (so far, yes) and is there anything else out there that can explain the temperature increase? (so far, no)
Science is a self corrective field, and it will get to where it’s supposed to go.
If you want a good example of a researcher whose findings were initially rejected, read Simon Winchester’s The Map That Changed the World. The Geological Society of London rejected his premise at first (that the strata were consistent throughout the UK and represented the order in which fossils were deposited), in part because it conflicted with the doctrine of special creation. At a time when nearly every geologist was a Christian creationist, the obvious implications of his map were problematic. But as time went by his results were confirmed by others and his conclusions were inescapable, even when they contravened existing dogma.
Note that this process took a couple of decades, at a time when information traveled very slowly and science organizations were very hierarchical by social rank. Now anomalies can be debated instantly on the internet and experts from outside the field can analyze the data or provide different perspectives. You do see this happening in climate science.
Don Shor: [i]If you want a good example of a researcher whose findings were initially rejected, read Simon Winchester’s The Map That Changed the World.[/i]
The book is about William “Strata” Smith, who lived from 1769-1839; yes, it’s a good book. For reference, Darwin published [u]On the Origin of Species[/u] in 1859. Another couple of important scientists who were influential to this set of emerging ideas were James Hutton and Charles Lyell who established that Earth was much older than recorded human history.
NY Times, 6/5/11: A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?_r=1[/url]
[i]” Science is a self corrective field, and it will get to where it’s supposed to go.”[/i]
This is a convenient myth and indicative of almost religious attributes being assigned to the opinions of government-employed scientists. Frankly, it is hogwash because scientists are not deity; they are just falible humans.
A popular left political view is that business and political interests combine to form a corruptive influence. However many denie the same consideration for climate science and political interests even though the vast majorities of climate scientists work for the government and get their funding exclusively from public sources.
Climategate: the hacked emails from East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit are all we need for evidence of corruption and to justify distrust of the work and conclusions of climate scientists.
[i]” there is enough ambition, excitement, and ego in newer generations of scientists who are generally unafraid to upset older conventions, if there is a basis to do so. If you feel certain that global warming is a hoax, then you’ll find inklings of dissent if you look at the work of younger scientists.”[/i]
I agree with the ambition and ego part because these are natural human tendencies. It is also why we should be suspicious of the current consensus among climate scientists. It is unprecedented that these theories so extremely transformational to public policy would not be more vigorously debated within the scientific community. It is easier to understand this lack of debate when you follow the money trail. Who would fund the work of these young rebel scientists with theories debunking anthropogenic global warming? Maybe a few oil companies? Environmental wackoism as already wiped out most of the private-sector scientific competition.
The coordinated change from “global warming” to “climate change” is another indication of media-powered politicized climate junk science at work. More recently, the global warming alarmists have taken advantage of the incidents of higher rainfall and tornadoes in the US to coop the water vapor theory. Water vapor (i.e. the stuff that forms into clouds) is the primary greenhouse gas and it is created exclusively by the evaporative process of sunlight on the earth’s wet services. Water vapor is 100% natural origin as are 99.75% of all other greenhouse gases. When including water vapor, only one quarter of one percent of greenhouse gases are human-made. Now, even though there is no conclusive evidence to support it, TV programs and news reports have started spouting a theory that human-made carbon emissions are responsible for more water vapor because the earth is warmer. In other words, anthropogenic global warming caused the floods and the tornadoes. Amazingly, these same reports also blame human-caused global warming on all the hotter and dryer weather in other places. These scientists have all their bases covered, don’t they?!
The theory that man can cause more water vapor and that water vapor can cause more greenhouse gas never been accepted; in fact the opposite theory is the conventional wisdom of scientists… that increased water vapor in the atmosphere reflects sunlight before reaching the earth’s surface… basically supporting an inverse effect and regulating earth’s temperature. Just step outside and note the cooling effect of cloud cover if you doubt this theory.
Climate scientists’ models cannot account for all natural variables. They don’t know how seasons of the sun may contribute to warming and cooling trends. They don’t know how earth’s core changes and may be a factor. They don’t know more than they know, but we are being told to believe them. I will more apt to believe them when more of them start debating more and disagreeing with each other. The stakes are much too high to suffer the fate of lemmings.
[i]would not be more vigorously debated within the scientific community.
…
I will more apt to believe them when more of them start debating more and disagreeing with each other.
[/i]
They are, and do. Need some links? Disagreement among climate scientists is not uncommon.
[i]Climate scientists’ models cannot account for all natural variables.[/i]
The process of developing a model is one of seeking those variables and accounting for them. Some are better accounted than others. I have no idea what you are referring to with “seasons of the sun” and “earth’s core changes.” Clouds are one of the forcings over which there is less certainty than others. But many aspects of global warming are not disputed among climatologists.
Maybe it would be easier to discuss this if you would tell us which parts of the global warming theory you don’t believe.
[i]”I have no idea what you are referring to with “seasons of the sun”[/i]
[img]http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png[/img]
Jeff Boone:[i]” Science is a self corrective field, and it will get to where it’s supposed to go.”
This is a convenient myth and indicative of almost religious attributes being assigned to the opinions of government-employed scientists. Frankly, it is hogwash because scientists are not deity; they are just falible humans.[/i]
Science is a tool. Agreed that it is a tool used by humans who can be fallible. But it is a process that mediates observations and conclusions made by humans.
Science can be used for good or bad. Science can help you make choices in your life — how to live a healthier life, for instance. It cannot help you make all the choices in your life, but some of them.
There is always uncertainty in science, and that is often exploited by folks who are uncomfortable with certain conclusions. There is scientific uncertainty about gravity (it happens to be extremely small).
Again, I say science is self-corrective. Over time we will get a better sense and perspective of the picture if we keep studying it. We can wait out the rest of our lives to see if the warming trend continues or not. We don’t have to do a damn thing about it, although if the warming continues, and there’s nothing else out there to explain it but continued GHG increases, it’s possible that subsequent generations might wonder why we didn’t do anything.
Jeff, give me an example of where science, over time, does not self-correct? It seems almost unfathomable, because science is continually sel-correcting on the margins.
I can think of a famous example ([url]http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/03/24/rockybarker/cold_fusion_scientists_dont_give_gather_utah[/url]) where it did and how it does which might be of interest to you: Back in 1989 two scientists at the University of Utah, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, claimed they had successfully created “cold fusion.” So for a second and a half, that was the science of the day. But there were problems, not least of which Pons and Fleischmann never submitted their research to a peer-reviewed journal. And once other scientists reviewed their work, they immediately saw the problems in it and proved that whatever the Utah scientists observed, it was not cold fusion.
[i]”give me an example of where science, over time, does not self-correct?”[/i]
Economic science failed to sufficiently predict the financial market collapse. There are many examples where half-baked environmental science has resulted in lost freedoms (there goes my incandescent bulb!) and definitive economic damage to humans. Medical science and nutritional science are notorious for arming government with justification for telling us what we should not eat or do, only to then cite the next study that refutes the previous. One of the newest hits from the global science community is to claim cell phones cause cancer.
You can make the case that these things are self correcting, but in many cases the correction comes too late and the damage is too far done to be repairable. Making the case that science self-correcting seems no different than making a case that free market capitalism is self-correcting (it is, if competition is abundant and government doesn’t meddle). The point is how much suffering can we tolerate while we wait for the fix?
Were climate scientists and their political benefactors to get their way, struggling third-world economies would be decimated, and the US would be even more hamstrung competing against the emerging global economy.
One final point… assuming the earth’s climate is on a permanent warming trend, science cannot predict the outcomes well enough to say this is a bad thing. They can only alarm us that it MAY be a bad thing. But they go further… the alarm us that it IS a bad thing.
Quote from Algore:
[quote] “Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”[/quote]
This was his justification for his money-making ideological movie, “Inconvenient Truth” to graphically demonstrate a big lie that by 2100 sea levels would rise by 20 feet. The IPCC predicts a 2 ft rise.
Jeff, you’re clinging valiantly to that life preserver of denial, but it’s no use. You’re underestimating or unappreciative of the role of atmospheric carbon on earth’s atmospheric energy balance. As we pull tons of carbon out of the earth and put it back into the atmosphere from whence it came millions of years ago, we effectively turn the clock backward atmospherically. It’s not hard to understand, but it is hard to accept the enormity. I think you may not be trying hard enough.
Comment by Gore’s interviewer for that original quote:
[url]http://www.grist.org/article/pat-michaels-slanders-al-gore-on-foxs-hannity-colmes[/url]
[quote] If you feel certain that global warming is a hoax, then you’ll find inklings of dissent if you look at the work of younger scientists. Right now I don’t see it.[/quote]
That’s bc you don’t want to see it…
Secondly, we have only taken temperature readings since the 1700’s or later. The earth is how many years old? The temperature readings are mere blips in time that mean very little in regard to the entire scheme of things…
Thirdly, why is no one “allowed” to doubt the global warming theory? Because there is too much invested in it politically?
ERM: [i]That’s bc you don’t want to see it…[/i]
Elaine, then please enlighten me. I’m serious. This is a topic I work with frequently. If there’s some credible research out there, I’d like to know.
ERM: [i]Thirdly, why is no one “allowed” to doubt the global warming theory?[/i]
It’s a free country. No one is disallowing you to doubt anything. It certainly makes for engaging blogging from my point of view to wait for you to present a reasonable alternative. You can doubt gravity, if you like. But you might be wasting time and credibility to convince others of your doubts.
As it is, Rifkin as pointed out the basic data trends. What do we see? Rising CO2 & rising temperatures. How else do you recommend understanding it?
I think what is not appreciated is the physics, the mechanism of why atmospheric carbon (CO2 is not the only carbon compound that is a problem) traps energy. Yes, carbon is rising, but I don’t think I saw anything in the posts that describe what carbon in the atmosphere means. That is the point of tracking CO2 as an indicator. There are other carbon compounds that are adding to the problem as well. Maybe that will help. Anyone?
[quote]There are other carbon compounds that are adding to the problem as well. Maybe that will help. Anyone?[/quote]
This is my problem with the entire global warming theory – there are just so many variables at play. It is entirely possible CO2 emissions are causing a rise in temperatures – if there is even a “true rise” in temperatures. But won’t we look silly if the earth’s temperatures decrease say 50 years from now, despite CO2 emissions? (But then the global warming theorists will come up with some half-baked explanation to explain that problem away.) Why do I have to believe in this half-baked theory? Why am I not free to believe that air pollution is not a good thing, and we should do what we can to cut down on it? Seems simple enough to me…
Re secondly: Numerous proxies.
Re thirdly: plenty of people debate aspects of the global warming theory. You can find ongoing discussions at blogs by Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr. (environmental science) and Roger Pielke Sr. (climate scientist), Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre), RealClimate (the hockey stick team), Hans Van Storch, DotEarth (Andrew Revkin), The Yale Forum on Climate Change. Take your pick. And that doesn’t even include the denialists.
[quote]Elaine, then please enlighten me. I’m serious. This is a topic I work with frequently. If there’s some credible research out there, I’d like to know.[/quote]
My son has written an entire treatise on the subject, but we have given up offering any information to skeptics, bc it is just dismissed as somehow “not credible”. If my son wishes to answer you, he can. But I would strongly urge you to read Michael Crichton’s book on the subject (can’t think of the name of it – my son will know). Michael Crichton is a fiction writer, to be sure, but the book is well researched and poses a lot of interesting philosophical questions which resonated with me. Then my son delved more into the subject of global warming, and was astounded at the degree of politicization that has occurred on this matter – so much so that scientists got caught fudging the data.
Being a mathematician/scientist myself, I have a healthy skepticism of scientists. I was frankly appalled when I read some articles about how unreliable peer review is. Then I became an attorney, and then I believed almost nothing! Both law and science have a lot in common, believe it or not. Both are living, breathing bodies of knowledge that is ever changing – and far too often politics gets involved. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if we could keep politics out of science and the law?
Jeff Boone: [i]The theory that man can cause more water vapor and that water vapor can cause more greenhouse gas never been accepted; in fact the opposite theory is the conventional wisdom of scientists… that increased water vapor in the atmosphere reflects sunlight before reaching the earth’s surface… basically supporting an inverse effect and regulating earth’s temperature. Just step outside and note the cooling effect of cloud cover if you doubt this theory.[/i]
I’m not sure where you got this, but…
Water vapor is an invisible gas. It will not inherently reflect more sunlight. Clouds are not water vapor. Clouds are the liquid form of H2O. Clouds are suspended droplets of water. Imagine walking or driving through fog and the water droplets you’d get on your face or car windshield. You’ve got to use the right terminology, here, or you won’t get your point across.
Formation of clouds means you have the right conditions for condensation and formation. It doesn’t necessarily say how much water vapor is in the atmosphere.
The hotter it is, the more water vapor the air can hold. H2O can go in and out of the atmosphere, depending on temperature changes. CO2 concentration is not dependent on temperature in that way. CO2 concentrations can just keep rising.
Crichton’s novel on the subject is State of Fear. One review of his assertions is here: [url]http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm[/url]
[i]”Comment by Gore’s interviewer for that original quote:”[/i]
Come now Don, just admit it. Gore’s movie demonstrated graphically a 20 ft. rise in sea level. It doesn’t matter that he is given a pass by those that subscribe to his environmental religion, he grossly distorted the facts. The reason?… a 2 ft. rise in sea level over 100 years was not going to cause enough sensationalism to serve the ideological purposes intended by his propaganda.
It is not so much that he did this that damages the global warming cause; it is the lack of outrage by those that claim science is on their side.
The brainless media sucks up this stuff. It propagates the junk science until it becomes conventional wisdom. The news parrots it, politicians parrot it, teachers parrot it… people are brainwashed to believe their homes are going to float away on a rising sea. Meanwhile 85% of the world economy runs on carbon dioxide-producing energy and there are not enough viable alternatives. Forcing change through cap and trade or a global carbon tax will reduce economic activity, shrink GDP, and destroy jobs.
[quote]” I think whether or not you believe in global warming the right thing to do is to be responsible about how you care for the place we all inhabit. We should all just take greater care of the earth and be more responsible with our own individual actions simply because it is the right thing to do. Respect one another and respect your home, which is the earth. If we have that attitude in the end we will all search for better solutions instead of arguing.”[/quote]
Don, I 100% agree with this. I also agree with you that we need to be much more aggressively exploiting nuclear power.
But, this gets me to another problem I have with the climate scientists. Their theories generally lack an economic component and they lack solutions. What fun it must be to sit safely on the sidelines lobbing climate fear grenades without owning any responsibility for recommending viable solutions. Scientists are failing to gain enough public support for their theories of global warming because they only see a climate problem… when the real problem is an economic problem.
Well, just to clarify: that quote isn’t mine (though I agree with it), and I see many problems with trying to aggressively exploit nuclear power at this time. In fact, I suspect nuclear power will wane for a few years now. Germany and Switzerland are scrapping their programs in the wake of the Japan disaster. But I think future designs might make nuclear an option in about 3 to 4 decades. In the absence of massive government commitment to nuclear power in smaller plants, more dispersed, and with newer technology, private enterprise cannot take the risks and it won’t be developed. More nuclear power will only happen with a much more aggressive, direct federal role.
Al Gore and Jim Hansen have done considerable harm, IMO, to the subject of AGW because they have politicized it and given the opponents convenient targets. I do NOT want climate scientists doing economic analysis or suggesting solutions. Climate scientists should do climate research. The solutions are economic and political, and generally involve inter-governmental cooperation. The IPCC should stick to providing summaries of current research. The UN Framework Convention (UNFCCC) needs to be revisited, since Kyoto and Copenhagen have failed completely. That approach simply will not work, now or ever, and it is long past time to move past it. But the structure of governments meeting and producing action items is set up (talk about a cumbersome bureaucracy, but that’s the way it works). So governments need to start developing site-specific adaptation plans. Possibly some multi-lateral mitigation treaties could be negotiated, but no developing country will agree to cut its economic growth in the name of carbon reduction.
[i]” I do NOT want climate scientists doing economic analysis or suggesting solutions.”[/i]
Don, I would tend to agree with you except that climate scientists have stepped in a big pile of doggy doo doo with their human-made global warming claims. At what point did they modify their climate models to include cause estimates for human-procuded carbon? At that point they altered their role and established new performance expectations.
[quote]Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if we could keep politics out of science and the law[/quote]
Amen Elaine!
Jeff Boone: [i]At what point did they modify their climate models to include cause estimates for human-procuded carbon?[/i]
Why would you not want climate scientists to offer an answer or some commentary on that? They might be the best able to offer an answer; you wouldn’t want to ask that question of lawyers or economists, would you?
How much warming is due to human activity is less certain than is the conclusion that at least some warming is attributable to human produced GHG. There is uncertainty, there (human-connected warming), and it is fair to consider that uncertainty (e.g., compare Lindzen to Hansen).
When deciding whether or how to respond, then politicians and economists might fairly weigh in.
[quote]Crichton’s novel on the subject is State of Fear. One review of his assertions is here: http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm%5B/quote%5D
Thanks Don, for this link and the name of the book. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the criticism of Crichton’s book, bc so often the author had to admit Crichton was correct in his analysis and then use tortured logic to explain why Crichton must have been wrong! LOL The bottom line is that Crichton’s book does not stand for the proposition that global warming is not a correct theory, but more for the proposition there is no actual proof it is true – it may or may not be. All he did was question the conventional wisdom of the politically motivated – that global warming somehow must be true, and therefore we as a nation must spend billions to address “the issue” – including millions to con artists like Al Gore for instance. The city itself spent something like $100,000 on a solar panel project that was an abysmal failure bc it did not work and a colossal embarrassment – the city didn’t even get their money back for the defective panels is my understanding. This is the kind of nonsense that happens when you buy into half-baked scientific theory that has not been proven with sufficiency…
And by the way, this is a statement directly from the Pew Climate organization, which pretty much tells you what their agenda is, and why they are so upset at Chrichton’s book: “Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Through analysis and dialogue, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change is working with governments and stakeholders to identify practical and effective options for the post-2012 international climate framework.”
Oops, something happened to the formatting on the above comment – it is NOT A DIRECT QUOTE, other than the last statement which is encapsulated with quotation marks.
I couldn’t resist putting this paragraph in from the Pew Climate organization, attempting to criticize Chrichton’s book State of Fear:
[quote]Glaciers – Are they retreating? Crichton’s characters also attack the prevailing wisdom that glaciers worldwide are in retreat via three arguments: a) we don’t have data for all of the world’s glaciers, b) we have long-term data for even fewer, and c) some glaciers are advancing. All of the above are true. Scientists are not able to monitor all glaciers throughout the world, and the advance of glaciers in Norway, for example, is well documented and appears to be due to increases in regional precipitation (i.e., snowfall). Nevertheless, as documented by the IPCC and the recent Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a consistent pattern of glacier retreat has been documented at low- mid- and high-latitudes in North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. Of the numerous glaciers that are currently being monitored about 90% are decreasing in size. [for more on this, see World Glacier Monitoring Service at http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/ [5] ] Crichton’s characters also challenge the assumption that the snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro are wasting away due to global warming. The literature does suggest that the decline of Mt. Kilimanjaro’s snows started over a century ago when the climate of the Mt. Kilimanjaro region became abruptly more arid. Dryer air around the mountain resulted in less snowfall, which was necessary to maintain the mountain’s ice fields. As such, Mt. Kilimanjaro may not be the best poster child for the effects of human-induced global warming.[/quote]
The Pew Climate organization admits we don’t have data for all the world’s glaciers, have long term data for even fewer, and that some glaciers are advancing and not receding. Yet somehow Pew argues away Norway’s advancing glacier as “increases in regional precipitation”. And of course of the current cherry picked glaciers that are being monitored, 90% are shrinking. But that does not tell us one single thing about what percentage of all glaciers are shrinking/advancing, now does it? So the 90% figure is absolutely meaningless. Notice how Pew just has to dismiss Kilimanjaro as just “not the best poster child for the effects of global warming”. Why? Because it doesn’t conveniently fit Pew’s model?
This is why skeptics are completely fed up with global warming theorists, who are disingenuous, and self-servingly motivated…
To put it bluntly: &%$&()_%#$%^&$%()*^)^__(&_&_*+
Odd glitches on the formatting recently. I got it.
ERM: [i]The Pew Climate organization admits we don’t have data for all the world’s glaciers, have long term data for even fewer, and that some glaciers are advancing and not receding. Yet somehow Pew argues away Norway’s advancing glacier as “increases in regional precipitation”. And of course of the current cherry picked glaciers that are being monitored, 90% are shrinking. But that does not tell us one single thing about what percentage of all glaciers are shrinking/advancing, now does it? So the 90% figure is absolutely meaningless. Notice how Pew just has to dismiss Kilimanjaro as just “not the best poster child for the effects of global warming”. Why? Because it doesn’t conveniently fit Pew’s model?
This is why skeptics are completely fed up with global warming theorists, who are disingenuous, and self-servingly motivated…[/i]
Wow. You want to focus on a few trees and not look at the forest? Sure focus on all the puny alpine/valley glaciers in the world if it gives you satisfaction to win a few argument points against Pew’s criticism of Cricton.
The real action is taking place with the two largest glaciers on Earth — the Antarctic ice cap ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet[/url]) and the Greenland ice cap ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet[/url]). Their collective meltback absolutely dwarfs anything you want to argue about with all the other glaciers in the world.
Cherry picking a few of small advancing glaciers to make your argument of contradictory evidence to global warming is like me arguing one way or another about whether we’re going into a recession or a recovery based on how the stock market moved on one day.
Carbon Release to Atmosphere 10 Times Faster Than in the Past, Geologists Find
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110605132433.htm[/url]
Well, if you are really really convinced that global warming is occurring and dangerous, then I assume you are not driving a car.
Otherwise everything else you say is so much hot air.
Sort of like Al Gore, who flies around in his private plane urging the little people to use less carbon.
JR: It makes no difference if I do or do not drive a car. What matters is what the entire population does and as such, I think it’s more important to change the driving behavior of the entire population than it does trying to reduce my spit in the ocean impact.
“It makes no difference if I do or do not drive a car. What matters is what the entire population does”
An there it is in a nutshell.
J.R.: [i]Well, if you are really really convinced that global warming is occurring and dangerous, then I assume you are not driving a car.
Otherwise everything else you say is so much hot air.[/i]
I also continue to refer to the sun rising and setting, even though I also accept that the sun really isn’t moving through the sky.
I don’t mind having the discussion over whether we should do anything about global warming or not. But I mind the argument that global warming is not happening because the concept of responding to it is too difficult. That’s what I see a lot of.
The Koch family and other oil industry connected interests would like to minimize or reject any possibility that global warming might have a human cause so that their economic interests will not be impacted. It reminds me of how the tobacco companies continued to reject that their products caused health harms long after almost everyone accepted the causal link between smoking and lung cancer and other ailments.
I drive a car. One of the factors I consider when choosing a car is its gas efficiency.
Since carbon emissions are a long-term problem requiring long-term solutions, what matters regarding automobiles (which are just one component of the emissions problem) is the availability of lower-emitting vehicles so people can make choices. That means, as a nation, that we adopt a policy that increases the nation’s auto fleet mpg. Generally that has required federal standards for the industry, since U.S. automakers won’t voluntarily increase their fleet mileage.
It’s true that driving an efficient car, or a hybrid, results in less carbon emission,
But driving no car results in even less.
I know at least one Davis family that doesn’t drive a car or even take rides in one.
If you believe in taking personal responsibility, and leading by example, and serving as a role model for reducing carbon emissions, and that it is a serious threat to the world, then don’t drive.
Otherwise everything else is just hot air.
No, “everything else” is not just “hot air.” That is dichotomous thinking. One doesn’t have to take absolute positions in order to effect change.
Driving less, driving a more efficient car, mandating better fuel economy overall are all part of how we reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power may be, too, as are the alternative energy sources.
[quote]Wow. You want to focus on a few trees and not look at the forest? Sure focus on all the puny alpine/valley glaciers in the world if it gives you satisfaction to win a few argument points against Pew’s criticism of Cricton. [/quote]
In other words you want to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit the global warming model as somehow “unimportant” or “puny” as you put it? And you wonder why there are skeptics of this theory? LOL A good scientist accepts the anomolies, tries to explain them or deal with them in some way, not just dismiss them out of hand as “not significant”. To do so is intellectually dishonest … just as global warming theorists fudged data that was “inconvenient” to their premise…
[quote]I drive a car. One of the factors I consider when choosing a car is its gas efficiency.
Since carbon emissions are a long-term problem requiring long-term solutions, what matters regarding automobiles (which are just one component of the emissions problem) is the availability of lower-emitting vehicles so people can make choices. That means, as a nation, that we adopt a policy that increases the nation’s auto fleet mpg. Generally that has required federal standards for the industry, since U.S. automakers won’t voluntarily increase their fleet mileage.[/quote]
Now this makes sense. Cutting down on gas emissions will help in cutting down on air pollution. But I don’t have to believe in global warming to know that air pollution is not a good thing. So why is it so important that I believe in global warming to adherents of this theory? Because they have a political investment in making sure their half-baked theory is accepted as gospel. Sad…
[i]” Cutting down on gas emissions will help in cutting down on air pollution.”[/i]
And reducing energy use per car could help to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If the two major parties were interested in moving forward with energy policy and climate change policy, it would be pretty easy to find areas of agreement. But in both cases the leadership would have to buck the more rigid ideologues in their own parties.
ERM: [i]In other words you want to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit the global warming model as somehow “unimportant” or “puny” as you put it? And you wonder why there are skeptics of this theory? LOL A good scientist accepts the anomolies, tries to explain them or deal with them in some way, not just dismiss them out of hand as “not significant”. To do so is intellectually dishonest … just as global warming theorists fudged data that was “inconvenient” to their premise…[/i]
Global warming more immediately addresses average global surface temperatures, not necessarily precipitation changes. It also doesn’t say that every single place on Earth will warm uniformly.
If you want to talk about more “anomalous” Norwegian glaciers, glacial growth isn’t only dependent on temperature. And also, temperatures can also increase and still be in a range that is favorable to the growth of glaciers (imagine the average temperature going from 26 degrees F to 29 degrees F; it’s warming but still pretty cold). It is also dependant on the amount of snow fall. If very little snow falls in a certain colder area for many years, glaciers will shrink. If lots of snow falls in a certain colder area for several several years, you might see glacial growth. Slope gradient is another factor that would affect glacial movement. It’s not necessarily dependent on temperature. See [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciers#Formation[/url]
I’ve explained to you the anomalies that you question. But again, these effects are small compared to larger scale meltbacks at high latitudes (nearer the poles) in Greenland and Antarctica.
But what we’re arguing about is the secondary effects of global warming, whether you see them or not and why. It still does not change the fact that CO2 levels are increasing and average global surface temperatures are increasing with it.
ERM: [i]I don’t have to believe in global warming to know that air pollution is not a good thing.[/i]
Air pollution might be a good thing if you believe in global warming. 😉
See: [url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/understanding-global-dimming.html[/url]
So here is what anyone trying to forge a compromise is up against.
On the left: [url]http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/07/22/206465/the-failed-presidency-of-barack-obama/[/url]
On the right; [url]http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/05/global-warming-charlatans-feel-heat.html[/url]
If the U.S. government (in the GW Bush admin.) didn’t ask for any tax increases to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (in fact they lowered taxes during that time), in response to a clearer threat to U.S. security (terrorist activity from religiously-inspired extremists), and most folks seemed okay with it at the time, then I’m not sure that there is enough political or civic will to make the necessary sacrifices to alleviate or remedy any perceived consequence of global warming.
Any changes that do occur will be more incrementally gradual than flying airplanes into skyscrapers.
wdf1: The perceived consequences following the terrorist attacks on 9-11 were definitive and quantifiable. Conversely, the perceived consequences of global warming are speculative and debatable. However, the consequences of government mandates to reduce CO2 emissions while we lack viable energy alternatives are also definitive and quantifiable.
This is the problem… We cannot quantify the risks of climate change. We cannot identify the absolute causes. We don’t know more than we know, yet we are being told we need drastic change at a profound cost.
J.B. : And by the time risks are better defined, it could be too late and too big to do much.
If you frame the behavior change as a sacrifice, people will not sustain it for a long period of time. Americans were willing to drive more slowly during the OPEC oil crisis in the 1970’s, for awhile. But not for very long. On the other hand, people have accepted substantially more energy-efficient refrigerators, without really noticing it, and have probably paid somewhat more for them as a consequence of the mandated efficiency standards. If you call for a tax on something, for little perceived benefit, people will oppose it (rightly so, I’d say). If you simply mandate the desired change, and leave it to industry to figure out how to effect it, you can get your results with little protest.
Don,
You bring an important element into this discussion.
There is no dispute that the earth has warmed in the past 100 years; it is clear from the data record.
Where there is plenty of room for legitimate scientific debate is how much (if at all) will the earth continue to warm in the future, what factors have (and may continue to, or may soon start to) substantially contribute to global warming, and how much of this is attributable to human activity?
I think the political marketing (and creation of public confusion) about this issue is related to the fact that most of the “easy oil’ in the world has been depleted; most of the remaining petroleum reserves are more difficult (and expensive) to access and retrieve the oil from, and generally the oil is of lower quality ($ to refine and clean it up for fuel and other uses). At the same time world demand for oil is increasing relentlessly; and it is inevitable that oil is going to continuously increase in price substantially over the next couple decades (and beyond); unless there is an alternative energy breakthru of some sort–as we slowly are forced by higher price to wean off using oil in such high quantities; there will likely be associated decreases in our standard of living–and I believe that Don is right that it is more politically tenable to market the situation of using less oil by framing it as a voluntary sacrifice, rather then an inevitability reflecting finite physical limits on earths readily extractable resources. It seems to me the (real) global warming phenomena is being recruited in this effort; the real elephant in the living room is depletion of ‘easy’ oil; identifying it as the culprit is more immediate and frightening and may cause problems in marketing of US policy in the middle east (which we generally like to think of as a noble cause rather than something as ‘crude’ and banal as need for that black gooey stuff).
Another example of the left-media global warming propaganda machine at work:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/09/summer-temperature-warmer-hotter-climate-stanford_n_873373.html[/url]
Quote from the article:
[quote]U.N. predictions suggest that there may be 50 million environmental refugees by 2020. This past year alone, natural disasters displaced 42 million people, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. According to the organization, over 90 percent of the disaster displacements were caused by weather incidents that were probably, to some extent, impacted by global warming.[/quote]
I don’t make this stuff up.
Seems Hitler would have recognized and appreciated this type of “reporting” (just substitue the culprit), and Algore would like it too.
Joanna Zelman is a blogger for HuffPost. I can find you any number of nutty blog posts on the subject of global warming and climate change from all ends of the political spectrum. Spend some time on Tea Party forums on that topic, for example.
So if I see a blog post of interest, I go in and find the link to the original study. She was citing this article:
[url]http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/permanent-hotter-summers-060611.html[/url]
Again, not the original study, but an article about it, without the blogger editorializing.
From that article:
[i]To determine the seasonal impact of global warming in coming decades, Diffenbaugh and Scherer analyzed more than 50 climate model experiments –including computer simulations of the 21st century when global greenhouse gas concentrations are expected to increase, and simulations of the 20th century that accurately “predicted” the Earth’s climate during the last 50 years. The analysis revealed that many parts of the planet could experience a permanent spike in seasonal temperatures within 60 years.
“We also analyzed historical data from weather stations around the world to see if the projected emergence of unprecedented heat had already begun,” Diffenbaugh said. “It turns out that when we look back in time using temperature records, we find that this extreme heat emergence is occurring now, and that climate models represent the historical patterns remarkably well.”[/i]
Retrospective modeling can be useful in making future predictions. The prediction that hot summer areas will have hotter summers doesn’t seem particularly surprising, but for reasons of human health planning and agriculture it is useful to quantify these things.
The blogger at HuffPost then went and found some more alarmist stuff, and at that point I usually don’t feel like checking all of the sources. But Hitler analogies are way off base here IMO.
On the other hand, here is some reasoned discourse from the tea party:
[i]”No, nothing will ever be enough for these extremists. Because it really isn’t about saving the planet in the first place. It’s about pushing a socialist agenda to cripple the capitalist nations of the west. It’s about wealth redistribution and socialist schemes under the guise of environmentalism.
While nothing will ever be enough to straighten out the socialists and other Koolaid drinkers, we have more than enough for the American people to force our government to stop treating us worse than foreign dictators and stop this cap and trade global warming tax nonsense in the Senate.
We should not allow our economy to be devastated based on a bunch of nonsense.”[/i]
Don Shor: [i]On the other hand, here is some reasoned discourse from the tea party:
etc….[/i]
I take that your comment is meant to be sarcastic. Because language like that definitely will not foster reasoned discourse if the point is to figure out if and what response is reasonable.
I note that June weather finally arrived today.
[i]”But Hitler analogies are way off base here IMO”[/i]
Yes, you are probably right there. However, I was making the comparison of a political movement that manufactured a single culprit and used propoganda to enflame a population against it.
The “reasoned discourse” you quoted from the Tea Party source somewhat speaks to this point.
As you mentioned, Al Gore did significant damage to the AGW cause by taking it from a primarily scientific-driven one to a politicized one. Unfortunately we have that climategate emails adding to this sense that global warming (or climate change) is more a source of an ideological war than it is a scientific movement. Too bad the scientific community didn’t speak out more about the lies in Algore’s movie or the climategate emails… that was their opportunity to win back the credibility they lost. These HP articles and copious other media lies about global warming are the icing on the cake of zero credibility.
Rick Santorum: Man-made climate change is liberal ‘junk science,’ in sharp contrast to Mitt Romney
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/09/2011-06-09_rick_santorum_manmade_climate_change_is_liberal_junk_science_in_sharp_contrast_t.html?r=news[/url]
Rick Santorum:
Santorum continued that the idea of man-made climate change may be part of a liberal conspiracy: “To me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.'”
“It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life,” he added, “and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Pawlenty:
GREGORY: Is climate change real?
PAWLENTY: The climate is obviously changing, David. The more interesting question is how much of it is man-made and how much is as a result of natural causes and patterns. Of course, we have seen data manipulation and controversy, or at least debate within the scientific community.
GREGORY: Three years ago you said anyone who questions it is not right.
PAWLENTY: There is no question the climate is changing. The more interesting question is how much of that is man-made versus natural causes. And the way you address it is we should all be in favor of reducing pollution. We need to do it in ways that don’t burden the economy. Cap and trade, I think, would be a disaster in that regard. The real breakthrough here is transformative technologies, moving forward with nuclear, moving forward with the technologies that will give us batteries to move forward with fuel cell technology or hybrid technology for battery-powered cars. We also need to have an appreciation for clean coal.
Palin:
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a “bunch of snake oil science” Monday during a rare appearance in California.
Romney:
“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer,” he said. “I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that. I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know that there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe we contribute to that.”
Romney added that “it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors.”
Responding to Romney:
… Conservatives4Palin.com, a blog run by some of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s more active supporters, posted an item charging that Romney is “simpatico” with President Obama after he “totally bought into the man-made global warming hoax.”
“Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”
Bachman:
“Carbon dioxide, Mr. Speaker, is a natural byproduct of nature,” Bachmann said. “Carbon dioxide is natural. It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular lifecycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as a part of the fundamental lifecycle of Earth.
“As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas. It is a harmless gas.”
Cain:
“I don’t believe global war– global warming is real. Do we have climate change? Yes. Is it a crisis, no.”
[i]”carbon dioxide is a harmful gas”[/i]
“Liberal politicians backed by scientific data on climate change demand humans take fewer breaths to limit Co2 emissions”
On a more serious note, the real conflict here is ideological. It is too bad that Democrats swept into power using a platform blaming business and capitalism. It was a convienient opportunity for them to channel voter anger about the economy toward their favor. The growing number of people disbelieving AGW are largely a reaction to this. It established that Democrats do not support free market capitalism. And, since the economy is still a mess and most of the financial “problems” that caused the Great Recession still exist and are worse today. These things combined with the great number of prominent Dems spouting off about global warming has led many to conclude it is a politically-motivated power grab.
J.B.: [i]It is too bad that Democrats swept into power using a platform blaming business and capitalism.[/i]
When Morgan Stanley, AIG, Bear Stearns, and other banks fail, based on shakey home loans, and they get bailed out but individual homeowners don’t, what is the alternative narrative?
[i]”When Morgan Stanley, AIG, Bear Stearns, and other banks fail, based on shakey home loans, and they get bailed out but individual homeowners don’t, what is the alternative narrative?”[/i]
If they cannot understand or accept government culpability in the Great Recession, then I at least recommend that Democrats accept the principle “no good deed goes unpunished”.
From my perspective, I was working in banking during the 80s. So was my brother. Early in our careers we didn’t spend much time talking about diverse mortgage products because there was only three: traditional (30-year fixed), jumbo (larger principle loans with adjustable rates) and a single type of equity loan (requiring 70 or 80 LTV and fantastic borrower credit history). The way our employers made their money was building capital through deposits and/or stable investments, and then building a quality portfolio of loans that returned interest.
CRA got heated in the late 70s and early 80s. Both my brother and I remembered our banks getting hammered by the federal regulators for having too few minority borrowers. It was around this time that banks started developing new mortgage products that allowed them to skirt their credit standards to loan to less qualified borrowers. The problem with this, if you understand the business of lending, is that the portfolio quality grade would drop and the reserve requirements would then increase. So, capital would dry up. The only way banks could be encouraged to accumulate more substandard mortgages was for them to sell off the loans and free up capital to lend again. What allowed them to do this was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae… two government supported enterprises that were allowed to grow to mega size buying up all these toxic subprime mortgages. Now add the repeal of Glass Steagall.
The sum point of all of this?… government was a major contributor to the problem. Without CRA, banks would have kept selling their same old boring mortgage products and conformed to conservative credit standards. Without Freddie and Fanny, banks would have had to keep all their loan assets and then would have to reduce their credit risk appetite to soften their reserve requirements. They also would have lacked capital to keep lending to sub-standard borrowers. Finally, without repealing Glass Steagall, commercial banks and insurance companies would not have been able to get so involved in investment banking.
Politicians corrupted the free market system of real estate and banking. As if this was not bad enough, many politicians used the economic crash to blame the GOP for adhering to the principles of democratic free market capitalism. These same politicians and their supporters then got very selective with their blame – attacking only those involved in the real estate and mortgage business, and not the buyers that equally pursued (equity) profit… even though they lied about their ability to pay and walked away from their mortgage debt obligation if they could benefit financially.
Other than honesty and hard work, I view free democratic free market capitalism as the most important American principle to honor and protect. Democrats that attack DFMC appear as haters of America to me. AGW appears as just another of their tools for transforming America into a socialist state.
I’ll let someone else rebut your points, since this is standard conservative fare since 2009.
[url]http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3669[/url]
Amazing how the lending institutions appear to be passive players in your narrative.
Not much point in continuing this discussion once you’ve resorted to broad-based ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint. I don’t hate America and am sick and tired of the “socialist state” canard. Anthropogenic global warming has considerable scientific evidence. Falsification of the principles is nearly non-existent. The fact that the overwhelming majority of those who study the issue accept the basics of the theory, while continuing to vigorously debate the details within the usual format of scientific inquiry, tells me a great deal. I come from a family of scientists and engineers, including geophysicists. They aren’t conspiring, don’t hate America, and aren’t socialists. Most of those who speak out against it have no scientific background. In fact, it is the opponents of AGW who are most likely to have economic and political reasons for their positions, and rarely provide objective analyses.
But again: once you’ve characterized those who disagree with you in such disparaging terms, it pretty much ends the discussion.
Don, did your relatives speak-out against Algore’s lies or the climategate emails?
JB: I remain impressed how the Republicans are also passive in this narrative. They held the presidency and majority in Congress for a good critical six years before the meltdown.
wdf1: Republicans lost their way. It is interesting to me that W was supportive of many policies favored by the left, yet they didn’t find a thing to like about him.
JB: Just had an interesting conversation with a Yolo Co. farmer this afternoon whose family has a long history of farming in these parts. His conclusion on global warming/climate chage? That climate change denyers are basically full of crap; that you can tell the effects of climate change locally and globally as you try to run a farm. Not the political response I expected from this gentleman, but he volunteered that info, unprovoked by me. Makes me wonder what other long-time farmers think.
[i]Republicans lost their way. It is interesting to me that W was supportive of many policies favored by the left, yet they didn’t find a thing to like about him.[/i]
I really wanted to see a balanced budget, but all he and the Republicans could do was raise spending and cut taxes at the peril of our deficit, and now in a Republican mindset, we’re to understand that restoring those taxes is an awful thing, even if it does bring you a balanced budget. If Clinton could do it, then surely a Republican congress and president could have balanced the budget.
“Just had an interesting conversation with a Yolo Co. farmer this afternoon whose family has a long history of farming in these parts. His conclusion on global warming/climate chage? That climate change denyers are basically full of crap; that you can tell the effects of climate change locally and globally as you try to run a farm. “
Well, that pretty much decides it. We are discussing the the scientific basis for global warming, and wdf1 puts forward an unnamed farmer’s hunch as a relevant piece of evidence.
Couldn’t have a better example of how non-scientific are some of the arguments for global warming,
JB: [i]Well, that pretty much decides it. We are discussing the the scientific basis for global warming, and wdf1 puts forward an unnamed farmer’s hunch as a relevant piece of evidence.[/i]
Jeff, I just suggest a source to pursue for interesting perspective on the issue, take it or leave it. Farmer’s generally care about weather patterns more than you or I normally would. Perhaps in your business connections you run into a few farmers? If so, why not ask what they see? Scientific? Probably not, but it may broaden the way you consider the issue, and what potential impacts could be considered. or not.
wdf, you are mixing J.R. up with Jeff.
Local observations are interesting, but tend to be very random and often about as useful as “eyewitness” testimony. I remember when the USDA tried to modify climate zones (used by gardeners and farmers) to reflect ‘observed’ changes in winter low temperatures. Unlike Sunset climate zones, USDA zones strictly refer to whether a plant will survive winter cold. Within a couple of years it was apparent that the changes were not valid. Global climate is not local weather.
One interesting climate researcher working on local land-use patterns and their impact on local climate, and vice versa, is Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. [url]http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/[/url] Alarmists don’t like him because he is too nuanced in his statements. Deniers don’t like him because he’s too complicated.
Thanks for clarifying, Don. And for the link.
My point in bringing up farm data is as a potential intersection of science and economics to begin measuring impacts.
I don’t pretend that my farmer’s anecdotal experience settles the issue of global warming, but that it’s interesting that someone like him would take that kind of visceral interest in the issue.
Thanks for clarifying wdf1. I mistakenly thought that when you quoted a farmer as saying
“you can tell the effects of climate change locally and globally as you try to run a farm”
that you were implying that the farmer’s experience settled the issue of global warming.
Media-scientific-political intelligista… are they our saviors or destructors?
[url]http://www.cnbc.com/id/41475393/SURVIVING_THE_FUTURE_WILL_PREMIERE_ON_FEBRUARY_25TH_ON_CNBC[/url]
Watching the replay of this show and I am impressed at the sophistication of the doomsday propaganda. Bush should have hired them to develop a program demonstrating the human and global risk of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. Libs would have screamed.