There can’t be a solution until there is a problem.
It’s time to do your civic duty. Al Gore says that man-made global warming is real, and his analysis has been validated by the folks over there in Sweden who award Nobel Prizes for good thinking like this.
Never mind that John Christy,1 co-winner of the 2007 Al Gore Peace Prize, said that, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never ‘proof’) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.” Al believes it. The great minds of Hollywood have reinforced that belief. And now the guys in Sweden have validated it. So, it must be true.
All this presents a problem, though. As bright a mind as Angelina Jolie possesses, and as deep thinking as the guys in Sweden are (the same guys, incidentally, who gave the same Nobel Peace Prize to a Middle eastern terrorist a few years back), what if it’s not true? What if the people who actually study these things, and form scientific opinions on the basis of facts — not “consensus” — doubt that man, and man alone, is contributing to global warming?
So as not to cause Al Gore the embarrassment that is certain to come when history looks back on his less-than-visionary pronouncements, we have a civic duty to try our best and increase the so-called carbon footprint to help prove Al right. Never mind that this will be akin to exhaling forcibly as a hurricane approaches in the hope of diverting its path. We all need to do whatever we can to add to the earth’s natural climatic cycle so a .000001% increase in temperature might one day be perceived as a result of human activity, and Al Gore’s theory can be validated in spirit — though not necessarily fact.
Since conservatives have no problem using the earth’s resources for the betterment of mankind, what I’m about to propose will appeal more to those who identify themselves with the Liberal camp. We can’t use a market-driven cost-benefit analysis to appeal to the liberal mind, so we’ve got to think outside the box a little to help our liberal friends engage in more theoretical global-warming activity while simultaneously feeling good about themselves for reducing their own personal carbon footprint. Normally, such a dichotomy would drive a normal person insane. Fortunately, however, the Liberal mind can compartmentalize opposite points of view, so that where others see conflict they only see harmony. How else can one explain a commitment to free speech that allows for only politically correct conversation; a support for a woman’s right to choose — as long as the choice is limited to abortion not life; or a belief in the inviolability of the Constitution while only supporting 9 of the first 10 Amendments?
The trick when appealing to the liberal mind is to craft a proposal that (a) makes them feel good about themselves regardless of whether or not the proposal makes practical sense; (b) allows them to project their moral superiority over others who do not march in lock-step with their proposal, and thus be perceived by others as caring more deeply about things than you do; and most important of all (c) make sure the proposal will collapse of its own weight before the liberal him/herself is made to suffer any real consequences for pursuing such a foolish course of action.
In one sense, the very logic of a liberal proposal will insure that outcome (c) is achieved. Human nature being what it is, the people who want to save the earth will follow the advice of their eco-spiritual leaders and do their bit to curtail their carbon footprint. That is, until they discover that it’s not just the “rich guys” who will have to pay higher taxes and/or dramatically curtail their lifestyle. At this point even the best-of-intentions liberal will resist paying a $10/gallon fossil fuel surtax, use more than one square of toilet paper per wipe, and drive a car instead of bicycling 20 miles through a rainstorm to get to work. The human-induced carbon footprint will thus continue to grow, just as it has through the last 10,000 years of naturally occurring global warming and global cooling, and just like it has over the past 10 million years when no people were around to influence the earth’s climate.
Achieving outcome (c) naturally may take dozens of years, however. So what I propose is a way to speed up the inevitable collapse of the latest liberal save-the-earth policy while still preserving the liberals’ need to be seen as caring more about our children’s future than you do. I can’t promise that the earth will actually get any warmer than its natural cycle would produce anyway. But, I can guarantee that following the 5 carbon footprint-reducing prescriptions I propose below will actually have the opposite effect. Since success or failure is not the measurement of liberal policy, we only need to look at “good intentions.” In this case, the intention to reduce our individual carbon footprint — supposedly to reduce global warming, but in reality just to give government another reason to tax us at a higher rate and further micromanage our lives — will be offset by the real-world impact of each action, which will actually increase carbon output.
Dump enough new carbon into the atmosphere and Al Gore can create another phony correlation showing that the polar ice is melting when in fact it’s actually thickening. It won’t be real science, but since real science has been replaced by consensus science, the higher carbon output will do just fine. As long as there’s more carbon in the atmosphere this year than last year, Al Gore can point to any weather pattern (hot, cold, wet, dry) and claim new evidence of man-made global climate catastrophe.
In short, to help Al validate the pseudo-scientific basis for receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, I offer 5 ways for everyone to increase the planet’s overall carbon footprint while simultaneously professing that they, personally, have reduced the impact of “man-made” global warming.
1. Hold a “Save the Earth” concert. This will make you feel as if you are really doing something important. Never mind that the people you want to reach with your message will be tuning in to reruns of Barney Miller or Everybody Loves Raymond. Even though you’ll be talking to yourselves, you can still take credit for raising global consciousness about the impending climactic disasters that you’re sure are on the way. Of course, as you go through these mental calculations, not only must you ignore the fact that nature isn’t exactly cooperating with your predictions (remember the massive global warming-induced hurricanes that were supposed to follow Katrina in 2006 and 2007?) you can put out of your mind the incredible waste of energy it took to bring all the performers and participants to the concert, broadcast it worldwide, return the people to their homes once the concert ended, and clean up the mess created by holding the concert itself. Just plant a few trees that in 20-30 years might reduce the naturally-occurring methane from a dozen cows flatulating, and you’ll offset any mythical carbon units you created that are still floating around the stratosphere.
2. Adopt a child. Not any child though. You need to travel to Africa or Asia and find a genuine, certified, third-world child. Think of all the extra man-made global warming energy you’ll expend on behalf of this noble cause. Of course, if you really want to help a child in a foreign country, you could give money to a responsible organization like the Christian Children’s Fund which has resources already there in place on the ground. $25 a month will do a lot of good for that child and their family. Unfortunately, going this route will deprive you of the opportunity to get a lot of great international press. That is, unless you’re Madonna and forget to ask the parents of your newly adopted child if you can take him with you, at which point you just look like a sleazy kidnapper.
3. Contribute to a political candidate. No, we’re not talking about a $50 Internet contribution. To do it right, you need to run around the country bundling contributions from dubious sources for your favorite liberal candidate — who will deny knowing anything about you once you’re caught despite the photographs of you together, and the numerous strategy meetings you’ve held. And when you’re exposed, you can use even more global warming resources to race around the country trying to escape from the law, as well as turn on the TV set to hear your former candidate friend simultaneously denounce you, and invite those contributing illegally to her campaign to let you keep the money anyway.
4. Take a long hike in the mountains. Get rid of those modern energy-sucking devices that complicate your life and harm the environment. Get back in touch with nature. Get lost. Mobilize the local authorities and National Guard to search for you. Attract CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and ABC to the search area for redundant live remote broadcasts. Learn nothing from your stupidity, and continue leading an eco-friendly life — until you get your butt in trouble another time, and all those dastardly devices you’ve ranted and railed against come to your rescue again.
5. Insist on smaller, lighter cars. Drive responsibly, saving fuel and the environment as you do so. Plaster your bumper with “I care and You Don’t” stickers and feel very good about yourself, until the tin can you’re driving doesn’t quite negotiate a turn and you end up in a Care Flight helicopter being airlifted to a trauma center 100 miles away. If you are still conscious and able to focus out of at least one eye, look down as you travel and see the magnificent planet on which we live, and ask yourself a simple question. Short of exploding the entire arsenal of the earth’s nuclear weapons at the same moment in time, do you really believe that man can permanently and inexorably affect the earth’s climate by his actions, and his actions alone?
Or is it best to follow the advice of Nobel Prize Winner John Christy, who said in the same article I quoted above: “Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, 'Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with ‘At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
Endnote
1. November 1, 2007; Page A19 Wall Street Journal. John Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
“My prediction is that if gnarlyeric does in fact respond again … none of the substance that you, or Paul, offered will be addressed.”
*** Can I call it, or not! When substance is on your side, argue the facts. When it’s just your own opinions that you have to offer, speak in endless platitudes. At least on this level, Gnarly doesn’t disappoint.
gz9gjg
This is not a debate on abortion. Please do not make it so. There are plenty of articles withon IC in whicj you may express them.
Phil
Since I m only on here once a day, I’m going to comment on a few previous posts (like 20 posts ago!).
Whoever said that the standard temperature and pressure was 59 F and 29.92″ Hg. This is for a one or two lyer climate model. Without greenhouse gasses, the erth would obviously be much colder than it is. Well below 0 C (I’m Candian thus metric). Withe the green house gsses, it is 59F and 15 C. It might actully be a litte warmer than that. Those who point to venus nd say earth could be like that is barking up the wrong tree. Venus is closer to the sun and thus much warmer nyway because of that. All of their water is loched up in the tmosphere vapour form, never to fall s rain (too hot and will thus evaporate). This hsn’t been part of the argument so far. Just an aside.
Mr. Sabin
Mny thanks for your post #33. Here is the best that I can do to answer your questions.
There must be thousands of variables in a climate model and almost all of them must be parameterized. Prameterizations re themselves, highly idealized equtions that may only be the result of a feild study or two.
>>2. How sensitive and non-linear are these models? For example, in some of the models used by my company, there are squared relationships with some variables. This means that if a variable has an uncertainty of +/-100, the result will have an uncertainty of +/- 10,000. I am suspicious of not only the uncertainty in the raw values of some of the variables used in climate models, but also the cumulative uncertainty that is introduced by the non-linearities of the model itself (I am assuming it is highly non-linear). To have an accuracy of +/- 20% in some of our models, we often require sensors that are capable of 0.1% accuracy. I suspect that climate models are even less forgiving.
Correct. All meteorological/climate models of even moderte complexity re non-linear. Cummulative errors can be quite staggering. It would be quite embarrssing to have model tell you that the global change in temperature would be 5 degrees in 10 years with standrd error of 10 degrees. Ooops! In many cases, raw model out put in weather models for a given location can be quite high. One of the saving graces is to massage the raw dat with colimatology to get more acceptabe number. With the exception of the Arctic, wind speeds and direction and temperature, away from rugged terrain re quite good. No such thing can exist in climate model. I’m sure Good Ole Al didn’t give any errors in the climate models he was getting dta from.
3. Initial conditions: How sensitive are these models to initial conditions? For instance, if we change any single variable’s initial value by 30%, how does this affect the model outcomes? What if we change all the model variables by 30% in various directions? How does this affect the model output? We never see error bands around much of the input/output data presented and this bothers me considerably.
Initial conditions re essential to climate and weather models. Without them, we would have no useble forecast. If the initial conditions are bad, the forecast will lso be bd. Grbage in equals garbage out. Getting initial conditions into weather models is an incredibly complex process. The initial conditions for wether model contain both model dat from the previous forecast and real data. Sometimes the model will reject actual dt becuse it thinks the model dat from the previous forecst is better. For example all of the data from surface stations in North America will be rejected by the model and will not be used in the forecst. Bet that caught your attention!
One thing we like to use for longer term forcasts is ensemle modeling. What we do here is tweak the initioal contitions little fore a certain variable and note how the forecast would be affected by this. This is done for many variables including temperature, precipition amounts nd surfce pressure. There is never ny mention of this type of model tweaking or “ensem,ble” modeling in the mainstrem literature/media.
I have much more I want to sy, but time is short for me today. I’ll try to write some more later tonight.
Paul
Phil,
Now don’t be so hard on gnarly-face, he actually effected a presentation that followed some semblance of development and logical progression. The fact that it is full of unsubstantiated assertions, stereotypes, and flawed premises is beside the point.
He has this idea about conservatives, a straw man that is a filter for everything he reads here. He is such a one dimensional thinker that he cannot see past his own prejudices (he is “…profoundly uncomfortable with any culture that differs from [his] own”). He knows for a fact that all of what he has written is true, but he cannot get to the next step and back it up with actual evidence.
And notice, when he is backed into a corner or shown to be in error, he just moves on. He never has a response to a question. He never goes point by point with a rebuttal. He simply returns to his tired rhetoric, tosses a few more bombs, and thinks he has shredded the opposition.
Look at the foolishness. “…conservatives are deathly afraid of any change from the status quo.” But when challenged on his status quo on global warming, well, the pot is calling the kettle black. “…conservatives have an implacable need to tell others how to think.” How ironic that this man is so happy to tell us how we should think and lambast us for thinking wrong, yet is telling us that it is conservatives that do this! “…conservatives have an implacable need to dictate the actions – and morality – of others.” Again, he is more than willing to tell us how we should live our lives, what he thinks is evil about us, all from his own moral high horse.
The thing is, he’s a True Believer. Everything he has been told about conservatives (at least, from the MSM and the kook left of the democratic party) is received as gospel truth. And because he is a True Believer, he cannot stand the cognitive dissonance of reason and logic. He knows conservatives, he thinks. But the more he writes, the more vapid he reveals himself to be.
One last desperate appeal to gnarled: Answer the quiz in #14, and give a point-by-point refutation of #22. Time to step up to the plate and show us that your smug superiority has some warrant.
Mr. Bovis,
Thanks for your reply in post #52. My already miniscule confidence in long-term climate models has now officially moved to zero.
And I’m sure this will spur gnarlyeric to yet another round of completely orthogonal pontificating. He reminds me of a Donald Trump doll my brother-in-law owns. Pull the string and you’re randomly treated to one of 20 insults. It’s good for laughs, but not much else.
–Steve
gnarlyeric says,
“For a minority to go around insisting they are right is downright silly.”
*************************
Uh, perhaps what is downright silly is for a group of people to parade around shouting “debate is over” when their models are worth less than the paper they’re written on.
Have a look at posts #33 and #52 and then carefully consider the house of cards you are relying upon as a foundation for your insistence that global warming is due to man and its effects can be accurately projected. Better yet, flex those high school debate muscles and refute the details that have been provided here. We’ve given you ample targets to fire at and I would think it should be child’s play if the matter is as much of a slam-dunk as you purport it to be.
” ‘Looney Liberal Chronicles’ – now there’s a really substantive ‘intellectual’ definition! . . . ”
” ” ** Does this clown ever read anything before he criticizes it? Does he even know what the LLC consists of? Why am I wasting my time responding to a guy who thinks global climate change can be measured by looking out his window, and who won’t respond substantively to the funding/philosophy issue I raised?” ”
- – - – - -Sorry – all you have done is labeled – and raised claims. Both are juvenile signs of a lack of a coherent argument. I’m still waiting for something substantive, and something not cherry picked.
“I’m not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be one . . . .”
” ” *** What an incredibly vapid comment in light of the detailed review I presented in my “Myth of man made global warming essay”, and the comments of the one scientist who has joined the discussion.” ”
- – - – - ‘Vapid’ because I’m not a scientist? Your ‘detailed review’ merely repeats your own totally unproven claims along with your cherry picked ‘opinions’. So much for your ‘review’!
” I don’t ‘cherry pick’ opinions that conform with my own opinion . . . . .”
” ” ** Of course you do, which is why we’re all laughing at you! You have yet to do anything other than state your opinions and pull “95%” figures out of the air, and tell us all that ‘every’ scientists believes what you do. You don’t even have the ability to support your position by offering evidence as I’ve done to support my claims. This is the classic definition of an empty suit.” ”
- – - – - – Not ‘every scientist’ believes as I do – and please show me where that was stated! But, I do go with the great majority. If you’re going to ‘debate’ at least be honest with yourself. Your ‘evidence’ is merely more of your claims supported by certain (minority) opinions that agree with your position. That is neither scientific nor is it honest. But, it is very sophomoric.
” But, the only rational choice for any layman like me is to go with the VAST MAJORITY, . . . . .”
” ” ** You haven’t done anything of the sort. You don’t even recognize that the so-called “majority opinion” has been formed by non-scientists in control of things like the NRDC! You just keep repeating your opinions. And you know what they say about opinions …” ”
- – - – - Of course I don’t recognize your specious claim, repeated ad nauseam about ‘non-scientists in control’, etc., etc., presented with not one shred of factual evidence. Where is the evidence of this great liberal conspiracy to stampede others to their position – and, exactly to what end pray tell? In fact, you try exactly that yourself, except your’s is an exceedingly weak position. I guess you’ll bring the black helicopter theories out of your quiver next.
” I can pick any ‘opinion’ you care to name out of a hat, and given a little time and money, find some ‘scientific expert’ to contest it with ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ . . . . .”
” ” ** This is possibly the stupidest line of reasoning I’ve ever come across to support the fact that you have no objective basis for believing the things you do, other than you’ve been told that a lot of other people believe the same things.” ”
- – - – - My objective basis is to go with the majority opinion – since I don’t pretend to be a scientist, nor expert. I’ve stated this several times now. Your doctrinal blinders continue to seriously hinder your ability to read and understand apparently. Your own ‘objective basis’ is merely a repetition over and over of the same tired old unproven dogma. Both you and our brilliant current president ought to learn that simply saying something is so does not make it so, no matter how much you may wish. ‘Intellectual conservatives’ indeed!
” But, keep pumping each other and yourself these circular arguments, and watch while the rest of the world marginalizes you and passes you by. ”
” ” ** Is this a joke? Is someone pulling our leg and writing this stuff to see how inane they can sound while pretending to offer an argument? ” ”
- – - – - unfortunately for everyone, it is no joke reasoning with intransigent set-in-stone, closed minded ideologues who have lost the ability to do so. But it is very entertaining to watch them chase their tails when faced with realities.
I am particularly gratified these days to watch as the ‘conservative’ ideologues abandon their heroic ‘War President’ in wholesale lots. What a joke!
A real conservative would take precautions if he even suspected something were wrong. He wouldn’t wait until it was too late to do anything. When the engine is thumping, and the steam if rolling out from under the hood he’d pull over to check things out.
That’s why the subscribers to the ‘global warming myth’ are in error – and therefore they aren’t conservative as I understand the word. They would have us keep the pedal to the metal when no one really knows who is right or wrong. But, the warning signs are all there in spades.
Ask NASA what can happen when you ignore obvious warning signs.
Only the truly reckless would keep going without checking to make sure. The majority are saying ‘slow down’ or ‘pull over’. A minority are saying ‘posh’ – for whatever reason and calling the cautious ‘loonies’ and stupid and worse. How smart is that?
Remember – their kids are in the car too.
I apologize if this is too basically simplistic for you ‘intellectual’ conservatives to understand.
gnarlyerik is the emptiest suit I’ve ever encountered. We’re at comment #56 and he still has offered nothing of substance to support his contentions — only platitudes and personal opinions.
Is this guy really incapable of formulating a coherent thought, or just unconcerned with addressing any points that differ from his preconceived world view? I suspect it’s a combination of both.
To those of you who missed the 60′s, this is the kind of hippie-speak that used to drive us all nuts. All that’s missing from gnarlyeric’s screed is an occasional “wow, man,” or “fer sure”.
It’s mystifying to me. It’s like gnarly is on another planet. He’s totally oblivious.
I don’t know how someone could get to 60 + years of age without learning how to engage in interpersonal relationships, especially the kind of relationships we all encounter where the other party disagrees with us.
Gnarly hasn’t seemed to learn the most basic parts of how to have a conversation.
I’m tired of trying to make sense of him. I’m writing him off.
MM — sound advice. There’s nothing more to to be gained from conversing with a man who can’t even support his own logic.
In the words of Vinny Gambini, “I’m tru with dis guy” too.
Thanks goodness Mountain Man is writing me off – for refusing to indulge in his little fantasies I guess. I’ll leave that to him – and hopefully hear no more from him – not that I’ve heard anything making sense yet. But frankly, I would rather be written off by a better class of folks. But what the heck anyway, wow man, & fer sure!
And our dear Mr. Phillip Ellis Jackson – now, there’s an august example for you – ridiculous to be sure. Here’s the pontificator who seeks to point out perceived traits in others which fit him exactly instead. The biggest empty suit that blatherer ever encountered is the one he dons himself methinks. Such a poor, pitiable loser . . . .
And Steve Sabin – what can I say? Just more of the same – a dittohead? Another one who wants you to acknowledge the validity of his ‘argument’, or otherwise accuse you of platitudes? Please.
But hey! It’s sure easy to get their drawers all knotted up for ‘em! Entertaining too!
These boyos can’t or won’t debate or argue intelligently for all the spittle spewing out. They deserve each other – and all the condemnation that can be heaped on their teeny, pointy little heads. Ah me? Why I think I’ll have me another little nip o’ that sweet, dark rum!
Whoo Hoo!
To All
Fisrt of all, I have to apologize for my attrocious spelling in my last post. I thought I had put in the spell checked version. I hadn’t. Also, the “a” key isn’t working well on my laptop. Again, my apologies.
To gnarlyerik
As a fellow liberal, please listen to me at least. There is very little doubt that global warming is occuring. Of that we can be sure. The real issue here is how much man is contributing. As far as I’m concerned, that is an answer that is almost impossible to address. If you read my two previous posts (52 and 29), I point out the issues with modelling in general and climate and weather forecast models in particular. Did you read those or not?
By a few examples I outlined the flaws of short term models (out to 48 hours from the present time) and how climate models cannot be accurate witin acceptable levels and errors.
This is not to say that climate modelling hasn’t got it’s uses. It does. The problem is that GW has moved climate modelling into the political arena and has been hijacked by both sides of the political aisle for their own sordid ends. Numbers are all that matter and not where they came from. Please try to understand this.
The “look out the window” argument will not work with me and presonally I find it offensive. If you are not going to at least listen and read what we have to say, then I am not going to listen to you anymore.
To All Again
Back in my university days when I was working on my Masters degree in Meteorology, there was a panel discussion held by the Atmospheric Science teachers about GW. Many of them said that they beleived that GW was occuring (none of them started to speculate on how much was man made though), but one professor had a different spin. He said that GW was an important issue, but there were far more important short term issues that should be addressed first such as photochemical smog (read air pollution) which is something that we know quite a lot about and know how to prevent. This issue, when solved, would actually diminish man’s contributions to GW and it can be done with far less pontificating from the political throne.
To Steve
Sorry that I didn’t address all of the questions that you aked. I’m also sorry that your confidence in climate models is now zero. Climate models do have their uses for a whole range of topics, not just GW. If the research is done properly and it is made known what errors are contained in the calculations then we have firmer ground in which scientists may undergo proper acedemic discussions about said research. This happens quite frequently in the scientific climate journals and I invite you to read them. Not all climate research is bunk.
Paul,
Small clarification: I didn’t say my confidence in climate models was zero. I said my confidence in long term climate models was zero.
To Paul Bovis – I do not consider myself a liberal – though these days I describe myself as a ‘progressive conservative’ – mostly to remove myself from the present day connotation for ‘conservative’, i.e., close-minded, backwards lookings, scairdy-cat reactives. See my post #56 for my basic, essential position.
I will admit however, that I have run like crazy away from today’s ‘conservatives’ – who have placed everyone else far to left of them. From that standpoint, I guess I am ‘liberal’. Whoo boy!
I find it offensive & silly that the supposed ‘intellectual conservatives’ main thrust is to malign/impugn/insult anyone who disagrees with their theories – the defining marks of an immature, deficient argument. That’s not a debate – that’s a diatribe.
Also, the presentation of pseudo-science by a person who’s reputation is based on writing fantasy & science fiction (Phillip Ellis Jackson) somehow seems quite eerily appropriate for his present declamations. For a frame of reference, Jackson is also the same person who allowed himself to be pictured standing before the Arc de Triomphe in Paris holding a big sign reading ‘Honk If You Love Bush’. Well, it may have seemed stupid, but it was pure chutzpah for sure!
He has also described GW Bush as ‘intelligent’. That may be so, but Bush has yet to prove it – six years and counting.
On, the other hand, William F. Buckley called Jackson ‘a left-wing neocon going around pretending to be a conservative’. Steve Sabin in called his ‘cheerleader’ – and Mountain Man seems to fit there too. I guess you must look at the entire package.
I have, and I come away with ‘nut jobs’.
As for looking out of the window – I have for over sixty years now, and have witnessed some momentous changes – I live in Alaska by the way. Of course I don’t know the full story yet – no one does. But I do find it important that the most drastic changes (IAW, geological records, i.e., the ‘hockey stick graph’ ) are ocurring since the onset of the industrial revolution.
I believe it’s time to sit up and take note.
Phil, did you know that William F. Buckley, Jr. has called you–you!–”a left wing neocon going around pretending to be a conservative?” I had no idea your articles have so enraged Mr. Buckley. Straighten up and fly right.
Steve, take off that cheerleading outfit! Buckley commands you! Mountain Man, same goes for you!
I do think that when there is a certain amount of unanimity in the scientific community about a certain point, the lay person, such as myself, is wise to follow the consensus. Sure, there’s the risk of being wrong. But I’d face that risk either way, because I don’t have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the evidence myself. I’d rather be wrong having listened to the overwhelming majority of people whose guess was more educated than mine than be wrong having ignored that majority.
But–and this is important–it seems manifestly false to me that such a consensus exists in the scientific community. And it is manifestly false that all scientists who disagree with the “consensus” are on Exxon-Mobile’s payroll. It just ain’t so. Though I think a sufficient agreement among knowledgable people exists for Katzen the Lay-man to say that the earth is warmer than it is, I don’t think the verdict is in on (a) the likely consequences of the warming, (b) man’s role in causing the warming, or (c) what, if anything, we can do about it.
I suspect that scientists who doubt the predictive acuity of climate models may be right. In other professions, practitioners frequently overestimate their ability to make calculations about the future. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if scientists were susceptible to this. But there’s a flip-side to this coin. In other professions, nonpractitioners sometimes underestimate practitioners’ ability to make calculations. I don’t want to make this mistake. I don’t understand climate models well enough to pronounce them useless.
It seems to me that a lot of people here, on both sides of the issue, could benefit from using the three most magic words in the English language: “I don’t know.”
But we live in a democracy, where the fundamental principle is that policy should be made by people who don’t know what they’re talking about. So what policy do I propose? Hedge our bets. Gas tax. Pollution permits. Nuclear power. Make fun of Al Gore. Invoke Bill Buckley in particularly off-point ways. Things that will do something about greenhouse gas emission but which won’t cause an economic disaster–and all the pleasant side-effects: unemployment, malaise, and third-world starvation, etc.
Call it I Don’t Know Act of 2008. It’s the policy for people who don’t know a thing about science, but want to avoid both species exinction and socialism.
Paul —
You are a breath of fresh air in this conversation. I’m not sure how long you’ve been looking in on the IC, but we have a long history of treating decent people decently, and treating kooks as kooks — regardless of their political leanings. I, personally, have had some of my most rewarding exchanges debating people like Raymond Ingles (who is decidedly not a “True Conservative”) on the true nature of human morality. Even though our views are miles apart, he approaches his position honestly and attempts to justify his beliefs with more than his opinion. You’ll notice that people like MM, Steve Sabin, Sedonaman and Katzen don’t feel compelled to assign someone to the seventh rung of Hell because someone merely disagrees with their positions. Instead they do what all people of substance do. They support their point of view with facts and reasoning, and actually have a debate about the issue.
I wrote an essay not too long ago about “Who’s Crazier — the Far Left or the Far Right?” One of the themes was that when the crazies on either side of the political spectrum get really far out, they tend to converge on the same policy objectives (though for decidedly different reasons). Gnarly is just another version of the True Conservatives who frequent this site and claim that they, and they alone, have a lock on the truth, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a phony conservative (or worse — Marxist, Leftist, neocon, etc.). Like Gnarley, though, they never seem to be able to get beyond their rhetoric and offer real policies. I put the challenge to the former Number 1 Empty Suit (he’s now #2, replaced by Gnarley) several months ago to give me one actual policy that comes out of his True Conservative philosophy, rather than simply offering a bunch of slogans. He said he would, but hasn’t yet — because like Gnarley, he can’t.
I tend to attract the real crazies on both sides of the political spectrum for some reason. The ultra-libs don’t like my Looney Liberal Chronicles (where I reproduce my debates with them using their own words to highlight their shallowness and inconsistency). The “True Conservatives” think I’m a commie sympathizer because I haven’t bought into their “race is all that really matters” garbage. Gnarley represents a new, third leg in this stool. A self-professed Non-Conservative Conservative who thinks it’s wrong to call Looney Liberals looney. As for the rest of his observations, I like everyone else don’t have a clue why he believes what he believes, other than he believes what he believes and we’re all ignorant for doubting him.
Anyway, just a note to thank you again for contributing to the substance of this debate, and encourage you to chime in on future issues where you don’t necessarily agree with the basic premise of an article. You’ve proven to be a man of integrity and substance, and we’d welcome your comments on other matters.
By the way, my mother was born in Alberta. Drop me a note off line if you get a chance. I’d enjoy getting to know you better.
Take care, Phil
Katzen —
Yeah, I’m still trying to figure out when Bill Buckley and I crossed paths! Maybe it was when I got my Ph.D. in Science Fiction (you didn’t know the University of Chicago offered this degree, did you?)
I’m still not completely convinced that you, Sabin, Sedona and MM haven’t collaborated to invent this guy just to have some fun with all of us. I know you are all bright enough to do it, but no one would be so cruel as to inflict this kind of delusional 1960’s logic on an unsuspecting public, so in the end I must therefore conclude that Gnarley is real.
By the way, the “Honk if You Love Bush” sign I held up in Paris in 2004 must have worked. Just look at the outcome of their last election.
You, know I really enjoy conversing with Phil, Katzen, Sedona, Steve, and you others who can all have a intense conversation, disagree, go point-by-point, and still remain civil while being passionate about your beliefs. Truly stimulating. Oh, and welcome to Mr. Bovis.
Gnarly hasn’t risen to the occasion, because he can’t seem to distinguish between people who disagree, like we do at times, and people who are caricatures of what is evil and wrong in the world.
Phil, I wish I could say I was clever enough to invent him, but he is real. I am saddened that we couldn’t elicit from him a single rationale or discern how he arrived at his bizarre conclusions.
We still don’t know why he believes what he believes, and we still don’t know the root of his bitterness. I guess I still have hope that he can figure out a way to express himself.
Phillip Ellis Jackson accuses others of using ‘empty rhetoric’ and ‘offering a bunch of slogans’. This same learned scribe (‘intellectually’) describes his opposition as “Loonies”, “Crazies”, Kooks”, “Empty Suits”, while inventing and putting words in their mouth such (they) “and claim that they, and they alone, have a lock on the truth . . “
Very disseminating and dishonest – and not at all illuminating to a discussion – except perhaps to the already doctrinally converted. I realize it may be against most Neocons’ core values system, but it would be more helpful if a pseudo-intellectual, using pseudo-science would not resort so much to predictive propaganda. And, it would indeed be more honest.
The simple fact is that the global warming issue is not settled – but a huge amount of data has been amassed indicating some serious problems (may be)(probably are) in our future. A sane and sober course is to recognize there may be a problem and look further into it – and take what reasonable precautions we can.
Instead, the ‘myth of global warming’ theorists continue to shout down the data, rely on cherry-picked data, scream at, insult and impugn sincerely concerned people, muddy the water for everyone, and thereby potentially place everyone in jeopardy.
And, please pardon me for saying that is neither honest, scientific nor intelligent.
Got this from a friend of mine —
WSJ Online 11/20
“The Scientists Speak,” reads the headline of the New York Times editorial, which informs us that there is no question the New York Times editorialists are right:
The world’s scientists have done their job. Now it’s time for world leaders, starting with President Bush, to do theirs. That is the urgent message at the core of the latest–and the most powerful–report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,500 scientists who collectively constitute the world’s most authoritative voice on global warming.
Released in Spain over the weekend, the report leaves no doubt that man-made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (and, to a lesser extent, deforestation) have been responsible for the steady rise in atmospheric temperatures.
There is no doubt! These are scientists, after all, and they’re working for the U.N. They don’t make mistakes!
Or do they? Here’s a news story that also appears in the Times today:
The United Nations’ AIDS-fighting agency plans to issue a report today acknowledging that it overestimated the size of the epidemic and that new infections with the deadly virus have been dropping each year since they peaked in the late 1990s.
We’re so confused. Didn’t the scientists speak? How could they have gotten it so wrong? After all, they’re scientists!
Here’s a quote from the Washington Post that may shed some light on the matter:
“There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda,” said Helen Epstein, author of “The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS.” “I hope these new numbers will help refocus the response in a more pragmatic way.”
Could it be that we are watching the same phenomenon with the whole global-warmist hysteria? Our bet would be yes.
************
Scrappleface.com:
UN: Millions Not Suffering AIDS Now Doomed to Drown
Posted By Scott Ott On November 20, 2007 @ 7:57 am In Global News, Science
(2007-11-20) — Top United Nations’ scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they wildly overstated the size and the spread of the AIDS epidemic, but that all the millions of people who don’t actually have AIDS will soon drown in the rising tide caused by man-made global climate change.
Faulty methodology caused the scientists to miss the fact that AIDS has been in decline during the same decade when U.N. reports about its rapid, unchecked spread boosted AIDS funding 30-fold, to about $10 billion per year.
“No matter how you look at it, the news is tragic, and more funding is needed,” said Peter Piot, the Belgian scientist whose U.N. AIDS agency reports have driven fund raising. Mr. Piot has previously reported that …
“the pandemic and its toll are outstripping the worst predictions”
the epidemic threatens to burst beyond its epicenter in southern Africa to generate widespread illness and death in other countries
in China alone, there would be 10 million infections — up from 1 million in 2002 — by the end of the decade.
Now, Mr. Piot said, the fate of countless millions has gone from bad to worse.
“A man who might have died quietly in his bed of AIDS,” said Mr. Piot, “now faces the terrifying specter of watching his neighbors slip from their rooftops one-by-one, screaming until the rising deep muffles their voices, knowing that he faces the inevitable moment when his fingers slip from the chimney, the brine subdues his own shrieks and the sea becomes his tomb.”
Mr. Piot denied accusations that he makes alarmist statements to serve a political and fundraising agenda rather than following rigorous scientific processes.
“My alarmist statements have resulted in billions of dollars in funding for research,” Mr. Piot said. “I’m making sure scientists get paid. What could be more scientific than that?”
That’s “myth of MAN-MADE global warming”, just to be accurate.
But when you’re on a roll telling people they HAVE to do something because there MIGHT BE a POSSIBLE problem (which, by the way, there’s no real evidence to indicate that man is responsible for, and plenty of evdence to suggest that other causes are at work), these are the kind of details that tend to get overlooked in one’s haste to just DO SOMETHING FOR GOD’S SAKE!
Mountain Man, you summed up the root of the matter very well. Everyone have a great Thanksgiving.
Models
Over the years I have watched many satellite images of hurricanes. They seem to start in the tropics and then head northwest for a while. Then when they get to cooler water they turn east. I never plotted a course. I never converted the images to numerical points. I just saw the same thing time after time and it formed a pattern. Now I see plots on the TV showing me where the hurricane is heading. Without a model I could draw the same map by free hand. I see the track change almost daily. Which to me means they don’t have a clue where it is going. Now I know that hurricanes and global warming are different animals in the same zoo. So when I see more accurate predictions of the path of hurricanes then I will take notice of climate models.
Notwithstanding the risk of being randomly defined (yet again) by several ‘Intellectually Conservative’ (but not very intellectual) definitions such as, “loonie liberal, single digit IQ, kook, clown, vapid, idiocy of position, empty suit, crazie, etc., etc”., I’ll quote the augustly PH’d Phillip Ellis Jackson’s own not-very-intellectual words:
** “But when you’re on a roll telling people they HAVE to do something because there MIGHT BE a POSSIBLE problem (which, by the way, there’s no real evidence to indicate that man is responsible for, and plenty of evdence to suggest that other causes are at work), these are the kind of details that tend to get overlooked in one’s haste to just DO SOMETHING FOR GOD’S SAKE!”
However, these are the facts concerning scientific opinion. (I‘d provide the URL for this information, but deniers seem to have a problem with that):
“The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.”
(Note that this refers to ‘ALL of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries’.)
“In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:
“It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”
That mankind influences climate change is not some crackpot notion by illiterate people with nothing better to do with their time, or with some secret agenda. The crackpot title goes to deniers who perceive some insidious collusion among the overwhelming numbers of scientists who see a problem – and believe in dealing with it before it is too late.
And, maybe the crackpot crowns should go to the ones who advocate increasing one’s ‘carbon footprint’! I’ve never read such a ridiculous ‘essay’ – but of course I’ve only read a couple by my friend Phillip Ellis Jackson so far.
Paul: You should consider asking for a refund for your education. The Gnarleyman thinks only crackpots deny the indisputable fact that Man is responsible for global warming. (He’d volunteer his source for this undeniable fact, but he can’t quite bring himself to do that since checking it would show that it’s the result of agenda driven scientists coupled with agenda-driven non-scientists who rely on the discredited notion of consensus, rather than objective evidence to support their conclusions). But hey, what do you know about these things? It’s only your field of expertise. How can you be expected to know more than a big-ticket salesman with a magic window?
What follows is a partial listing of fellow crackpots who don’t hold Gnarley’s opinion. (By the way, not one of them works for Exxon or Mobil Oil.)
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.” Baliunas and Soon wrote that “there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content.”
• Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: “It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
• Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.”
• George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: “global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035″
• William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.” “So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”
• George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: “What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.”
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.”
• Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.”
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
• Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”.
• Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: “So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.”
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3′s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.” His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.” “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…”
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.”
Scientists in the following section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.”
• Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.”
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.”
• William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, “It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system.”
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.”
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.”
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.”
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: “We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.”
” … advocate increasing one’s ‘carbon footprint’! I’ve never read such a ridiculous ‘essay’ …”
Hey guys, are you getting the same impression that I am that the G-man thinks my original essay was a policy prescription instead of political satire? Is he really not capable of telling the difference between the two?
I think a lot of this guy’s problem is that he believes everything he reads from “the internet, newspapers, [and] periodicals” literally (Comment 24). If Al Gore went to the trouble of making a movie about GW, then by God what he says must be real. There can’t be any political agenda involved. If the UN issues a proclamation about GW, then it’s got to be the truth because otherwise why would a body consisting of all the world’s politicians act politically? If the Union of Concerned Scientists has both the word “Concerned” and “Scientists” in their title, then they must all be objective and actual scientists (even hack lobbyists like the Natural Resources Defense Council).
How can you argue with this logic? It’s like asking Monk to drink from a public water fountain. No amount of counter evidence will convince him the water isn’t tainted unless it comes from the one brand of bottled water he perseverates on.
Now I get it. Now everything Gnarly says makes sense (at least, I can make sense of why he says it).
Phil,
Gotta give gnarly a little credit again. He actually quoted someone to back up his position. But of course, it’s an anonymous source.
However, trading quotes with him is not going to accomplish anything. But I do see some hope that he actually might be coming around to engage the issue intellectually and not emotionally.
It’s still ironic to me that he objects to our characterations of him, yet it was he who entered the fray with both guns blazing on the Ann Coulter article. If he doesn’t want to be called names, I suggest he refrain himself.
Oh, one other thing. He persists in describing himself as a “true conservative,” but he has never told us what this means, and he has never told us what it is that he believes, or how that makes him a “true conservative,” or why.
MM — yeah, you’re right. I didn’t really expect to accomplish anything of substance with the G-man. It’s just so easy to knock down his straw men that I can’t help but point out things like his reliance on the American Association for the Advancement of Science neglects the fact that membership is open to everyone, not just “scientists” ( http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/), so their consensus positions reflect the opinions of garbagemen, store clerks, high school biology teachers, political activists, and everyone who pays a $50 membership fee to join the organization — not objective scientific inquiry.
I’m out for the next couple of days visiting relatives, so I’ll make this my last entry. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Well gee – let’s see about name calling, shall we? I called Ann Coulter a ‘dingbat’ in a different, earlier discussion. Aside from that, the name calling has all been from the opposite side. (Well, OK, I did slip up and mention ‘nut jobs’ once).
I did not even enter the discussion on carbon footprint until dissed by Steve Sabin in his comment #16:
“Gee. Between ibbleblibble, gnarlyeric, and dave_patriot, the mean IQ of this site has dropped at least 30 points in the last 2 weeks, but I guess that’s what happens when you add single digits to the mix. . . . . Is November “spread the ignorance” month or something? “
Then, for good measure I suppose, Sabin comes back in his #23 with his ‘educated guess’ to criticize my Gnarly name! (GREAT scientific mind that!), I wish I had taken his bet – he was wrong in 5 out of 6 guesses! Sabin says I come in with ‘both guns blazing’ believing ‘you guys are idiots’ – problem is I never said that – those are his words, but they do make me think, nah, forget it . . . He also objects to my providing a URL as ‘an airtight Q.E.D.’ Wowee, a very intellectual argument – and hence my later comment about attribution in #73, also for which I thereby get flack! (It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t! Geez, aren’t you guys ever satisfied?)
Then the very intellectual Phillip Ellis Jackson piles on (#25) with his ‘Loonie Leftist Chronicles’ which pretty much identifies his doctrinal mindset, as does his ‘satire’ on the carbon footprint. He also claims to have presented ‘substantive evidence’ – yet wants everyone to ignore the far more massive, and substantive body of evidence – as if it didn’t exist. He says those are my ‘opinions’. How intelligent is that? Then he identifies me as an ‘empty suit’! Brilliant, educated, highly intellectual argument!
In #26 Sabin comes back in to ‘welcome the opportunity’ for a serious discussion ‘based on science’. The only problem is he only recognizes his flavor of ‘science’ as ‘vigorous, fact-based, scientifically sound’, ignoring the huge bulk which disagrees with his version. Very intellectual indeed. In fact, that pretty much defines ‘head-in-the-sand’.
Then the ‘Mountain Man’ (intellectually, clever username that!) chimes in in #28 defining me as the ‘kook you are’. I am castigated for refusing to engage in a ‘discussion’ using only your ‘evidence’. He demands I take a ‘poll’ by responding ‘point-by-point in an adult way to post #22’ – otherwise, ‘please go away’. His ‘survey’ is so juvenile and doctrinally silly no rational adult would give it more than a glance – and not one of you has leapt forward to defend it either. But, he can’t leave that alone and comes back to it in #53 – with his ‘desperate appeal’ along with calling a few more names, and throws in #22 for good measure. That’s what I mean about the doctrinally blinded and circular arguments.
Mountain Man is back in #34 dredging up all manner of completely unrelated nonsensical examples of consensus error. And, Sabin does exactly the same in his #39! I suppose the logical defense to that would be to relate the innumerable time that consensus opinion HAS BEEN CORRECT – but there’s not enough space or time on the planet for that. However, my position continues to be ‘idiocy’ according to MM.
Then of course the PH’d Phillip Ellis Jackson is back with his intellectual comments in #35 – going on about my being a ‘clown’ and ‘vapid’, and me not recognizing his specious assertions with no proof about ‘the so-called “majority opinion” has been formed by non-scientists in control of things like the NRDC!’ In fact that is Jackson’s own ‘opinion’ and to use his words, ‘And you know what they say about opinions . . . . He also ‘reserves the right to ‘call a fool a fool’ – by his own definition I can only surmise.
Sabin is back in #54 going on about ‘orthogonal pontificating’ and ‘pulling a string’ to be treated to one of 20 insults. Methinks, however, a look at the evidence in this thread will quickly prove exactly the opposite. You want to take a survey – try that!
Then in #55 Sabin (boy, he really IS a cheerleader isn’t he?) insinuates that I claim the ‘debate is over’ – which is not my claim at all.
Not to be outdone however, the PH’d Jackson comes back in #58 with a repeat on this ‘empty suit’ theme! Wow! Talk about your platitudes and personal opinions, not to mention ‘a preconceived world view’! Oh, sorry, I forgot – he’s one of those ‘Intellectual conservatives’ who insists on ‘substantive’ debates isn’t he?
MM brings in the extraterrestrial in #59 – but then, also thankfully, ‘writes me off’! (whew!) Amazingly, the highly PH’d Phillip Ellis Jackson does the same in #60!!! – only to return time and again in #66, 67, 74 (putting words in my mouth about ‘undeniable facts’, etc. and my being a big ticket salesman with a magic window – but, hey, when the argument is bankrupt, deniers are famous for using anything at hand).
Jackson attacks yet again in #76, #78, and alas, MM can’t resist either, and comes back on the attack in his #68 and #77. (sigh).
But, I never really expected to be able to engage so-called ‘Intellectual Conservatives’ in a discussion which included logic instead of foregone conclusions. They may not be debaters, but they sure are good at labeling, unfounded assertions, and insidiously accusing opponents of exactly their own tactics. They also seem to have a problem with exactly ‘what my position is’ (other than the fact it disagrees with their own). On the whole it has been rather entertaining to witness the extent to which this group has attacked someone with a contrary opinion – and a thick skin as well. I hope you haven’t enjoyed this as much as I have!
My position is probably – undoubtedly – too simple to be easily understood by ‘Intellectual Conservatives’ such as yourselves, but once again for the record, to quote from an earlier post:
“But, the only rational choice for any layman like me is to go with the VAST MAJORITY, of prevailing scientific opinions. To do otherwise is to stick one’s head in the sand – and to label anyone as a ‘looney liberal’ who disagrees is pure doctrinal, close-minded silliness. Actually, that’s quite stupid.”
Now, pardon me while I have another nip o’ that sweet, dark rum . . . .
Gnarly,
Try to keep your facts straight. I did not call you a kook. From #22 I said: “Really, if you don’t start engaging in a dialogue and back up your “opinions” with some sort substance, people are going to start ignoring you for the kook you are more and more seeming to be.”
And here’s my “attack” from #68: “I am saddened that we couldn’t elicit from him a single rationale or discern how he arrived at his bizarre conclusions. We still don’t know why he believes what he believes, and we still don’t know the root of his bitterness. I guess I still have hope that he can figure out a way to express himself.”
And my other “attack” from #77: “But I do see some hope that he actually might be coming around to engage the issue intellectually and not emotionally.”
Oh, how mean I am. Poor Gnarly!
Meanwhile, let’s go back to the beginning and see how Gnarly introduced himself, and the tone that he set. We can then see if his outrage and injury is feigned:
“…the term ‘Intellectual Conservative’ is an oxymoron – used by the intellectually challenged and doctrinally blinded.”
“No one has a franchise on dogmatic dingbats. That’s very evident by the Mountain Man’s posts on this topic.”
“…you also quickly demonstrate how intellectually incompetent you really are.”
Well, that’s settled. Yes, Gnarly, you came here to have a nice conversation, didn’t you, and those arrogant, self-deluded “intellectual conservatives” rained on your parade, right? Clearly you came in as a gentleman, completely polite and unassuming. That’s right, isn’t in Gnarly?
You only made some innocent comments, asked for some information, and came here to see what other people thought. Isn’t that true? And everyone ganged up on you, polite, thoughtful Gnarly.
Hmmm. Might be a little fond of the rum, it seems.
Eiyee! Yepper – just count ‘em up Mr. Mountain Man – you like polls and surveys, so please, just do one. Incidentally, I haven’t said you are ‘mean’ – just intellectually challenged and doctrinally blinded – but I’ve always said so in the most sincere, heartfelt and polite way. And I’ve never asked you to ‘just go away’ – though when you ‘wrote me off’, my heart DID jump for joy. But, that turned out to be premature.
Without taking a ‘poll’, I believe most open-minded folks would say ‘Intellectual Conservative’ as demonstrated on this site so far by the GW deniers is a definite oxymoron.
And, oh my yes, I think I will now have me just another teenie, teenie little nip o’ that sweet, dark rum . . . . yum, yum!
Follow-up to above comment:
“Without taking a ‘poll’, I believe most open-minded folks would say ** ‘Intellectual Conservative’ as demonstrated on this site so far by the GW deniers is a definite oxymoron.”
**(I’m not the only one who thinks the term is oxymoronic – here are others who use the exact same words – going back many, many months – and, note – this is an open, NON-political site:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/urlarchive/20/www.intellectualconservative.com/)
Funny, I have never expressed my views on global warming. Isn’t that interesting? Yet another fantasy land production from Gnarly-ville.
Gnarly, I had hopes for you, that you would somehow come forward and act like a grownup. That you would act like your 60+ years of age. That you would somehow, sometime, somewhere, actually advance an issue that could be examined, debated, and dealt with.
But you persist in infantile taunting, the complete avoidance of any substantive exchange, and a total lack of comprehension of just how stupid you sound. How can anyone be so totally oblivious? I sit here and wonder if you even have any friends, because you are so persistently unpleasant on this website that it would be amazing that anyone would want to spend time with you.
I could be wrong, but all the evidence you’ve presented points that way. What a cry-baby.
Go away. Come back when you grow up.
Outta here.
Doesn’t this website have any standards for contributions to this discussion? It is painfully clearly that gnarlyerik has nothing of any value to contribute to this topic. He repeatedly states his own opinion without responding to any of the points raised by others while labeling the evidence presented by others to support their positions as opinions. Whoever used the term vapid to describe his participation was being overly-generous. I am not taking the side of those who have expressed doubts about man made global warming, rather I am offering what I suspect the majority of us feel who come to this website for an informed debate. When a person appears unwilling or not capable of participating in an intelligent give and take why is so much time wasted treating that person seriously instead of ignoring him? All gnarlyerik seems interested in is mouthing off about his personal philosophy. He isn’t the least bit serious about having a real conversation.
‘Informed debate’ normally means all sides can be fairly represented – but the weight of comment on this site first demands their ‘evidence’ be accepted at face value, while the huge mass of evidence contrary to their position is airily dismissed as ‘political’, ‘special interest’ or the result of some kind of nebulous conspiracy. That’s neither a ‘debate’, nor is it in the least honest, i.e.:
“Funny, I have never expressed my views on global warming. Isn’t that interesting? Yet another fantasy land production from Gnarly-ville.” – Mountain Man (#83)
Exactly! Pretty much all MM has done is attack someone who has opinions which differs from his own pre-conceived notions. Being in ‘opposition’ to those ‘notions’ (for that’s what they are), mostly what I’ve seen so far on this site is a piling on by (mostly three) posters who try to shout down all contrary ideas. Insults, cute names, disparagement, assertions, etc., are the medium, all masquerading as ‘intelligent discussion’. It’s sad really. Discussion is apparently the last thing wanted – IC’ers simply want their notions reinforced – usually by each other – and all contrary ideas should just ‘go away’. That’s an intelligent discussion or informed debate?
Thoughtful commentary is lauded if in agreement with IC notions, while anything else is defined as ‘crackpot’, ‘taunting’ or ‘stupid’. Methinks actually, it’s the other way around.
I’ll note too, that this thread is based on the subject of ‘carbon footprint’ and in spite of his claim in #83, Mr. Mountain Man jumped right in with his comment #2, complaining of ‘global warming alarmists’. While he may not have ‘expressed his views’, he’s certainly defined his doctrine loud and clear – and the tenor of this thread of ‘discussion’.
I assume that the “Intellectual Conservative” is open to all in the exchange of opinions – and until I am banned as a heretic, or worse (which I kind of expect), I’ll put in my bit here and there as I see proper. I’m not one to leave bald assertions unchallenged. Besides, it’s very entertaining for me to see all those panties getting knotted up on the “Intellectual Conservative’ side.
Mountain Man: Are you really, truly ‘outta here’ this time, or are you just getting my hopes all up again with yet another false alarm?
Good gravy people
What are you guys doing on here? It’s Thanksgiving down there isn’t it? Aren’t you guys supposed to be eating Turkey or shopping at JC Penny’s or something ;-). OK, since I am bored on night shift, here are some responses to a few posts. Again, since gnarlyeric hasn’t said anything new, I’m ignoring him.
Phil
First, I want to thank you for responding to my email. Perhaps we can discuss some of the Iraq stuff soon. Here are a few comments on your sources back in post #75
Sallie Baliunas: Quite the controversial figure that’s for sure. Her argument, in a nutshell, is that any resultant warming must be due to the increase in sun spots and not carbon dioxide. This seems to be partially true, but certainly isn’t the sole reason. She seems to have been broadly condemned for her work within the climate community, but their criticisms are not all unfounded. Sallie is also wrong in her statement that “measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years”. This is clearly not the case as evidenced by this graph ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png ). I have seen many like this figure in my day. Sallie is a well known and respected astronomer, but GW is outside her field of expertise.
Reid Bryson: Seems to echo my concern . . . “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”. A good little piece on him can be found at http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1
Robert Carter: Like Bryson, Carter points to many well known graphs showing that there have been warming trends in the past that are larger than the one we are experiencing now such as the medieval warming period.
George V. Chilingar – look here: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/01/are-humans-involved-in-global-warming/ for a good explanation of the paper you got that quote from.
Ian Clark: look here (http://www.nrsp.com/clark_letter_22-03-04.html ) for an explanation of your quote. Again, he agrees with the fact that GW exists, but disputes the human contribution. He also points to past warming and cooling trends.
Don Easterbrook: See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss for an NY Times article mentioning him. This is an article about those who refute Gore’s arguments.
William M. Gray: Seems to have been doing a lot of name calling lately. Anyway, he attributes global warming to changes in ocean currents. Oceans are a major player in influencing global climate. El Nino and La Nina (sort of the opposite of El Nino) are almost purely due to changing ocean currents in the Pacific.
George Kukla: believes that many ice ages actually began at the tail end of GW. Um . . DUH? Anyway, here is an article from Gelf Magazine: http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/an_unrepentant_prognosticator.php .
David Legates: Apparently David came under fire for his contrarian views about GW. He has been criticized by the governor of Delaware (he is the state climatologist) for is views against man-made GW. As if Gov. Ruth Ann Minner is a specialist in this field!
Anyway, I could go on here, but my night shift is starting to wind down and I’m tired. Thanks to Phil for all this. Wikipedia has some good info and links regarding pretty much all of these characters. Several of these scientists have criticized Gore for his ignorance of past warming and cooling cycles, even over the past 600 years.
I, personally, am all for reducing vehicle and industrial emissions, but for different reasons. Although it is difficult to prove that these emissions have a significant effect on GW, it is known that various nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds resulting from human activities have a significant effect on photochemical smog (basically a near surface soup of nitrous oxides, ozone and suspended particulates). Smog can have dire consequences for people with respiratory problems and can be devastating to agriculture. Also, certain industrial sulphurous emissions, when mixed with water, can cause acid rain, which can have a disastrous effect on animal and plant life. This is what needs to be addressed first, in my mind.
-Paul
“gnarlyerik” writes: “Of course I don’t know the full story yet – no one does.”
Even though no one “knows the full story yet,” he advocates massive changes in our whole economy and everyone’s lifestyle just on the outside chance that he might be right. If we all do what the “gnarlyeriks” of the world want and accidentally remove too much CO2 from the atmosphere, what will we do when all the plants start to die off and become extinct?
I for one believe the veracity of a movement can be measured by how much its leadership lives by what it advocates. (That’s why I’m not a Democrat.) Like Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy don’t oppose tax cuts so they will have to pay more taxes, Al Gore, et al, are not pushing for the government to “do something” about GW so they will have to live according to the way they want the rest of us to.
Until 2004, I was a true believer in global warming. Not because I had studied it. Not because the information that was presented to me on the topic was dispassionate and scientific. Not because the preponderance of the evidence was overwhelming.
No, it was simply because I had been told over and over and over again that AGW was real, was serious, and was our fault (hence the A in AGW). I simply had no reason to think otherwise, that what I was being told might have serious cracks in the foundation. Newsweek, nightly news, newspaper, radio news, commentaries…even pop culture and cocktail party chat. “Would you look at that…no snow on the mountains and here it is late November…those poor ski areas will be bankrupt” followed by the cluck of the tongue and the lament that global warming was to blame.
So it was with much skepticism that when a well-known conservative commentator expressed his belief that AGW was not sound science that I set about to prove him wrong. “Sheesh,” I thought, “why does this guy have to discredit himself by the modern-day equivalent of insistence upon a flat earth. He’s going to totally marginalize himself.”
But as I began to look into it, I found many, many problems. I have already commented above about my concerns regarding the models. This is not mere nit-picking, for it is the numerical models that are at the absolute heart of this debate. If they are flawed (and they are deeply suspect) then the entire AGW argument collapses. It isn’t simply one pillar in the argument, it is the only pillar.
So, an individual with a masters degree (Mr. Bovis), takes the time to weigh in on this topic and confirm my suspicions that the models are indeed deeply flawed.
But, for some, such as gnarlyeric, this isn’t worth even a microsecond’s pause. It’s so much easier to paint with a roller and lump everyone who disagrees into the same bucket. Hmmm. How then do we deal with the Mr. Bovises of the world, who by his own admission is on the left of the political spectrum. Or the Bjorn Lomborgs? Or myself, for that matter – an AGW “true believer” until I took the time to examine the hypothesis and the evidence?
I mentioned in an earlier post that I have a degree in electrical engineering. What I did not mention is that I use that degree in a marketing capacity where I am responsible for promoting and positioning highly technical products. In a professional capacity, I understand the elements of a very effective marketing campaign when I see it. Thus, when I see the same thing outside of my professional capacity, I can readily identify it for what it is.
I’m ashamed to say that I was the victim of a very effective marketing campaign, because that is precisely what AGW has become. What was once a reasonable question to ask has now become undisputed fact. Not through evidence, mind you, but simply through rote repetition and well-financed assistance from the likes of Mr. Gore.
Here’s the mantra. Repeat after me:
1. The earth is currently warming up.
2. This is bad.
3. Man is to blame.
4. It will continue unabated unless we intervene.
Number 1 is true. Number 2 is not necessarily true. Number 3 is based on models so poor as to be of no real value, particularly for policy-making purposes. And number 4 is unbelievably presumptuous in light of factual evidence of equally significant climate changes in the historical record that could not have possibly been man-made.
But like all good marketing campaigns, AGW starts with a kernel of truth to establish credibility and then begins actually trying to influence your reality rather than just imparting facts. And like all good marketing campaigns, it taps into that part of your brain that is all about how you feel, not the actual facts. It is all about what you perceive to be true versus what is actually true.
I have concluded that AGW is not good science. But it is very, very good marketing.
I am puzzled why ‘Intellectual Conservatives’ seem to need to put words in my mouth over and over again. Maybe it is simply a poor reading of my words, Or, perhaps IC’s need to prop up weak or specious arguments and cherry picked ‘data’. That’s suspicious at best, and worse, very dishonest.
The latest is Sedonaman in #87 who says I ‘advocate(s) massive changes in our whole economy and everyone’s lifestyle just on the outside chance that he (I) might be right’
What my posts actually advocate is to ‘apply the brakes’ (#18 – metaphorically speaking) and ‘slow down’ (#57) and that we should ‘sit up and take note’ (#64) based on the overwhelming mass of date indicating potential GW problems. Hardly ‘massive changes . . . on the outside chance I may be right’!
But, it obviously sounds good when preaching to the IC choir.
Sedonaman himself also says “T = f($), where T=truth and $ = funding supplied. I witnessed this myself in my employ in the government. Also, Dr. Jackson is right: given a few numbers, you can make them say anything; I know because I got very good at it.” (#40).
To which I might add a quote relating to IC’s resident Ph.D and ‘expert’, the highly Ph’d Phillip Ellis Jackson:
“To every Ph.D, there is an equal and opposite Ph.D”
- B. Duggan
It is dishonest to automatically disparage any argument but your own – ‘on the outside chance you may be right’. That’s the very definition of doctrinal blindness.
‘Intellectual’ Conservatives indeed!
gnarlyerik:
However you define “apply the brakes” and “slow down” and “sit up and take note”, you want us to do all these things even though you admit you “don’t know the full story yet” — a story “based on the overwhelming mass of date [data?] indicating potential GW problems”.
If you don’t see the absurdity of this position, you don’t have much room to criticize others.
The real absurdity is to charge ahead with so many indications there may be a serious problem – though not yet proven to the satisfaction of all, there’s more than enough evidence to be very worried. And, ’tis always wise to err on the side of caution.’ In case you don’t recognize it, that’s ‘conservatism’.
The other problem I have with ‘deniers’ is that if you hue to the old adage of ‘follow the money’ – it is very hard to understand the motivation of the people urging caution. Sure, maybe there is some money in the grants coming to those who study the phenomenon, but that pales to insignificance in comparison to the selfish interests of those who want to deny it – at the potential expense of all the rest of us.
And, I’m not content to go along for that ride without speaking up.
gnarlyerik
Okay, I’ll bite and treat you like a serious person, and see if you have the capability to respond.
Gnarlyerik: “The real absurdity is to charge ahead with so many indications there may be a serious problem – though not yet proven to the satisfaction of all, there’s more than enough evidence to be very worried. And, ’tis always wise to err on the side of caution.’ In case you don’t recognize it, that’s ‘conservatism’.”
*** I wrote 30,000 words on this very subject “An even more inconvenient truth — the myth of man-made global warming”. It’s in the IC archives. I addressed the science behind how these “worrisome” calculations are derived. Have you read it? You say that you want to understand the issue, and that you personally are searching for “the truth”. Okay, here’s a dissenting position. Will you read it (footnotes and all), or just keep repeating your “concern?”
If you doubt my credentials, Paul Bovis has offered several issues that directly speak to your concern. Yet, you’ve never once addressed any of these issues. This is why I claim that all you do is mouth platitudes. If your concern is “real”, then you should be able to challenge the counter-claims, just as those who deny that man is responsible for GW have challenged that assertion.
Gnarlyerik: The other problem I have with ‘deniers’ …”
*** The issue is not global warming. It is the contention that MAN accounts for the global warming, not the natural climatic cycle on Earth, or the increased solar output from the sun that we are currently experiencing (that’s melting the ice caps on Mars). You conveniently ignore the MAN-MADE issue every time you respond with a blanket statement about Global Warming. These are two different questions. Does GW exist? And if so, what is causing it?
Gnarlyerik: “… is that if you hue to the old adage of ‘follow the money’ – it is very hard to understand the motivation of the people urging caution. Sure, maybe there is some money in the grants coming to those who study the phenomenon, but that pales to insignificance in comparison to the selfish interests of those who want to deny it – at the potential expense of all the rest of us.”
*** I cover this issue extensively in my GW essay. I worked in Washington for several years, and I know exactly how these grants are awarded. I also hold an advanced degree, and I know how post-doc grants are awarded for university research. I’m not offering a theoretical opinion. I substantiate my positions with evidence. All you do is raise a hypothetical objection. You don’t even cite anyone who supports your beliefs (other than things like the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But you don’t even appear to know that membership in this organization is open to everyone, not just “scientists”, so their consensus positions reflect the opinions of anyone with a $50 membership fee — which includes, as I said earlier, garbagemen, store clerks, high school biology teachers, political activists, etc. Their consensus opinions do not reflect objective scientific inquiry.
On what basis of education or experience do you draw your conclusions, since you won’t cite any real evidence to support them? [And “citing evidence” isn’t just quoting organizations without understanding how they actually function.]
Gnarlyerik: “And, I’m not content to go along for that ride without speaking up.”
*** This isn’t the Daily Koz where all you need to do is feel something deeply to express an opinion. You haven’t addressed any of the substantive challenges to the theory of MAN MADE global warming, and admit that we don’t really understand what is actually happening. Yet you insist that we ACT NOW to solve a problem that may not even be something that man is (a) responsible for, or (b) can really affect even if he wanted to.
No one is saying that you shouldn’t do whatever you want personally to lead a green life. The subject here is government-mandated policies to enforce collective action. It’s not an unreasonable thing to require some level of proof that both (a) and (b) exist before changing public policy.
The “science” behind your concerns is not settled. It’s not even close to being indisputable (see http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html). I gave you a partial list of prominent climatologists and scientists who dispute the Man-Made global warming theory. You reply by attacking me and others for daring to question the orthodoxy of scientific consensus.
You asked for a real discussion. Here it is. The onus is on you to support your position by addressing the points that have been offered in defense of the opposite view. We’ll see now how serious you are about “seeking truth”, or whether all you want to do is endlessly repeat your personal opinions.
gnarlyerik:
Like Dr. Jackson said, no one is stopping you from “applying your brakes” and “slowing down”. (I will grant that you are “sitting up and taking note”, but no real changes in your lifestyle are required to do that).
As a group, liberals love to catch Christian leaders in the act of sinning because it reduces the credibility of the Gospel. Well, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I challenge you and all the leaders and other members of the Church of What’s Politically Correct Now is to “repent” and stop your own “sinning” first and then you might be in a better position to convince others to do the same. Until that day comes, no one on this side will take you all seriously.
I heard on the news today that here in Tucson we may have the warmest November on record. It seems that a low pressure system and a high pressure are next to each other in Mexico and warm air is being pushed up to warm the state. Last year it snowed in Tucson and closed the airport because we just can’t deal with that white stuff. What does this have to do with global warming? Nothing at all. How boring the world would be if we knew what would happen tomorrow. Change is constant and welcome. This whole argument is over the cause. Now when we go back in time we see change in each age we look at. Something caused the change and it was not man. Why would we now conclude that man is causing a change? Without mountains of proof we would have to conclude that today is just like yesterday. Twenty years ago I heard we were heading into an ice age. Now it is a warming age. Who knows, I will either buy a jacket or shorts.
Okay Phil -
I have read your essay on the ‘myth of man-made global warming’ – which sets the tone straightaway in the title. My observation is – as I’ve said several times before – you cherry pick your ‘examples’ to make your point – but ignore the huge amount of contrary science – and then claim a lot (if not ‘most’!) is from non-scientists. While this may be desirable in a debate, it does not get at the truth – and remains pure dogma. As you observe, it’s very easy for anyone to make assertions – and then claim them as ‘truth’.
Your quoting a some examples of ‘consensus’ being in error illustrates my point. It’s easy to do so, because they’re the exception to the norm – while most other ‘consensus’ views go unremarked – because they are normal and unremarkable – because they usually hold true.
Likewise for dissenting views on the ‘global warming debate’. Deniers claim their position, while greatly in the minority, is the only correct one – and insult or disparage anyone who disagrees – just as the majority of ‘opinions’ on the IC web site have done with myself and a couple others. You do so by quoting as ‘fact’ many issues that are in serious dispute. I find this both immature and silly – but greatly in concert with the current neo-conservative approach to any issues they concern themselves with, i.e., abortion, religion, social, immigration, civil rights, etc.
Anyone may hold strongly felt opinions, indeed I do myself – but that does not automatically translate into what is ‘true’. I don’t care what kind of ‘advanced degree’ one holds.
As a layman and non-scientist, the only rational choice for me is to go with the vast amount of consensus. And, I’ve no doubt many of the scientific groups contain many non-scientists – just as groups on the deniers side do.
Remind me once again what your ‘advanced’ degrees are in?
“Remind me once again what your ‘advanced’ degrees are in?”
I have a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, a Masters Degree in public policy from the State University of New York at Albany (full scholarship — room, board, and tuition), and a BA from SUNY Albany (graduating Magna Cum Laude). I’ve taught graduate level courses on public policy at DePaul University and the University of Chicago. I’ve worked in Washington DC for the top political firm (Cassidy and Associates), reporting to Bob Beckel who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign, Jimmy Carter’s Press Secretary, a former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several former congressmen of both political parties, and two former cabinet officers. I was the primary staff support for the final negotiations of an international treaty, dealing directly with individuals like John Negroponte. I also ran the government affairs office of a Trade Association for 11 years, dealing with state as well as national issues. I’ve been personally briefed on legislation by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and gave expert testimony before a Federal Judge on a civil rights case. I was staff to a US congressman during his election campaign (I wrote his speeches and developed his issues). I was the chief of staff to the committee that re-wrote the charter for the City of Dallas. I was Executive Director of 6 public-private sector management studies of governmental institutions that documented $125 million in taxpayer savings, certified by a Big 8 accounting firm. For this I was invited to the White House twice to receive personal recognition from two different Presidents of the United States, whose staff used my program to help develop a national template for other communities to follow. And when I turned 40 I left all this behind to start a marketing firm that represented the national offices of the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society and Easter Seals, among others. I sold my interest in that enterprise 5 years later, started three more successful companies, and retired in my early 50s.
This is the education and experience I draw upon to frame my judgments. Now kindly illuminate us as to your credentials. My suspicion is that you don’t have anything comparable to draw upon, which is why you “don’t care what kind of advanced degree anyone has.”
My so called cherry-picked evidence are data analyses (did you actually look at the footnotes?) that looked at the actual scientific evidence regarding the theory of man-made global warming, which you still continue to refer to as the “global warming debate” to downplay this critical distinction. You refute my work not by showing me where my statements are in error, but by talking about all “opinions” being equal, so in the end nothing is provable. This is pure sophistry designed to get out of an argument you’ve lost, not demonstrate the validity of your points.
If you don’t think my credentials give me any right to talk about how the NRDC manipulates public policy, you still have the statements made by the one person who entered this discussion with a degree in the field of climatology: Paul Bovis. You won’t address his points about climate modeling and the like because you can’t refute them. Instead you fall back again on platitudes to make your point.
Now give us all an in-depth look at your credentials, as I’ve done with mine, so we can all judge whether there is anything of value to glean from your judgments on this matter, or whether, in the end, you’re just another empty suit shooting off his mouth about a subject you know nothing about.
This is a test of some basic HTML tags, and only a test. Please disregard substance.
Test of various HTML entities: < > … © ® ™
Test of unordered lists:
Coffee
Tea
Test of unordered lists:
Coffee
Tea
This is a test of how the IC filter handles certain types of HTML tags and other formatting, and only a test. Please disregard substance.
Test of various HTML entities: < > … © ® ™ “ ” ‘ ’
The following is an ordered list:
1) This is item #1
2) This is item #2
3) This is item #3. Please note that this line is long enough so that it wraps. If the IC filter accepts this item as is, the second line will appear under the ‘This’, and not under the “3)”
The following is an unordered list:
o This is item #1
o This is item #2
o This is item #3. Please note that this line is long enough so that it wraps. If the IC filter accepts this item as is, the second line will appear under the ‘This’, and not under the bullet.
End of test.
gnarlyeric, if we were living in a society that respected individual rights, then the consensus could carry on their way, and leave the few individuals of rational outlook to prepare sensibly, by building their nuclear power plants and giving the masses the option to hook up to them. Unfortunately, those of us who disagree are not to be permitted to go our own way, but are to be FORCED to go yours.