OT: Global Warming - Real or Contrived?

[RandyM]

Thirty or so years ago I recall universal agreement that there were 9 planets in our solar system and now Pluto is getting shafted! I don't know enough about global climate and science to really form an opinion one way or the other, but I do feel the "chicken littles" hurt the cause the most. Last year everyone was claiming the end of the world because of all the hurricanes. How many Cat 4 or 5 did we have this year? For that matter, how many *named* storms did we have past hurricane season.

I live in Tampa, so this hits close to home. I actually bought a generator for last year's hurricane season. It's not been taken out of the box (though I suppose i ought to at least read the manual!).

Something to keep in mind. A bunch of angry environmental protestors demonstrated outside the NOAA HQ DEMANDING that the president of that entity RESIGN because he didn't feel there was sufficient evidence ot link global warming with hurricane activity. It was "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!" along with the predictions of the most active hurricane season ever. Instead it was a dud. Other climate factors came in and blew the hurricanes apart before they could threaten us. But wait, they used advanced computer models that take into account all these factors to make their projections. But the models didn't work did they? I'm a software engineer. I know something about writing code. I also know something about statistics and correlation. I also know that if you go in wanting to get a desired result, you can tweak and fudge to get the outcome you want. You can make a computer model do anything you want.

The only barometer of the success of these computer models is how well they hold up against reality. Every time I look back at a computer model projection of climate, it's WRONG. And not just a little wrong, but VERY wrong. And yet these projections are used as the basis for telling policy makers to spend grandiose sums of money on the assumption that these models are right. We all know the jokes about the inaccuracy of weather forecasts...and those are just within the next week or so. We consider it to be a good forecast if it's even approximately right. And yet, amazingly, the climate keeps surprising us with its complexity and sheer unpredictability.

So yeah, I'm getting very sick and tired of people who clearly have not nailed down all the variables nonetheless they are certain they understand the causes and effects and are ready to point fingers over it.

Randy

[Brando70]

"The vast majority of the scientific community believes that global warming is being strongly influenced by human fuel consumption."

I don't think that the facts bear this out. Just because someone claims that 'the vast majority says' or (dare I say it) a 'consensus exists' doesn't make it so.

You might check out the Oregon Petition online. It's rather on the large side. The problem isn't that there isn't a large # of dissenters, it's that a propaganda machine worthy of Goerbbels is taking whatever measures are necessary to silence, intimidate and punish those dissenters.

It would be interesting to see how many people would get these questions right:

a) What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas?
b) What are the top contributors to greenhouse gases, in order of magnitude?
c) What has a bigger impact on hurricane strength and frequency? El Nino or Global Warming?
d) Were sea temperatures in the mid-atlantic and gulf of mexico warmer or cooler in 2006 than 2005?\
e) True or False - global warming projections are based upon observations and measurements?

You'd be amazed at how many people cannot answer these questions correctly, thanks to the misinformation being delivered uncritically by a media which has a socialist agenda of moving wealth.

Randy

I shouldn't even bother in light of that last statement, but all of those questions you're asking are complete and utter horseshit strawmen used to try and discredit global warming.

What we're talking about here is not just warming or year-to-year changes or hurricanes or the other things those who put business needs ahead of the environment use to discredit the theory. It's long-term climatology effects such as the melting of the ice caps that point to accelerated climate change at the same time that production of artificial greenhouse gasses have increased.

The vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject support the theory. Doesn't make it law, but the evidence supporting it is more numerous and convincing than what doesn't. I am sure there are scientists who disagree, but I don't see how that disproves the theory.

It's the media that's skewed the debate against global warming, not for it, because it's much easier for the Milloys of the world to fool journalists than actual scientists. Those claiming global warming is a myth use the same deceptive tactics evolution opponents use, hoping to confuse people who aren't familiar with the subject into ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence that support those theories.

And if you're suggesting that the global warming "conspiracy" ressembles the Nazi propaganda machine, I suggest removing your tinfoil hat before posting.

[JackB1]

Save the owls!!!!

Should we not cut a forest because two spotted owls live there? Hell no. But should we continue to tighten emissions standards and use more alternative fuels? Hell yes.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

Wow, didn't go for a 'light' topic here, huh?

If you want to find out the other side of the story that the media doesn't like to cover, try http://www.junkscience.com

A few quick notes...first, the guy who writes junkscience.com is a paid advocate for Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, and was a lobbyist for the oil industry. Although this doesn't invalidate his views, it sheds some light as to where he's coming from.

As for his own views, he's posted articles saying the ozone hole is not man-made, linked to work saying that the theory of evolution is an atheist plot, celebrated the death of an environmental scientist on his website, etc. Here is a page about some of his work...and here's a quote from a review of his book in the Skeptical Inquirer: "The real problem is that Milloy, as judged from his writing, simply doesn't understand statistical techniques well enough to be able to write cogent criticisms of the poor statistical techniques used to support various health scares." The guy has an agenda and isn't very good at understanding science. It's not a good combination.

The abuse of science to further social engineering ambitions is one of the scourges of our time, and scientists themselves, needing grant money, tenure and jobs, are all too often being corrupted into doing what the puppetmasters say, or have their professional lives ruined by speaking out. It leaves the public dazed and confused, not sure who to believe. It's tragic, but I don't know how we get out of this mess. The biggest worldwide politicians promoting radical change and treaties to stop global warming have been caught saying on the record that they really do see global warming as the gateway to global governance and a more socialist system, and that should speak volumes.

As a scientist, I can tell you from first-hand experience that what you say above here makes no sense. There aren't "puppetmasters" out to silence critics of global warming. The problem is that most of the global warming critics are either political hacks or sub-par scientists. Their stuff gets rejected because it's flawed, demonstrating a lack of knowledge of statistics, experimental design, etc. There's no global socialist conspiracy, no puppetmasters, etc. etc.

[JackB1]

Great discussion here boys! lots of great info and thought about this very confusing and polarizing topic. It's weird how things like this become "political" topics, where the truth is that the politicians probably know less about this subject than we do. I thnk it stems from the fact that this Republican administration has done very little for the environment, conservation, etc. and that many very visible Democrats have spoken out on climate change and environmental issues.

Your political views should have nothing to do with your views on this topic. Since there is no proven argument about what is going on with global warming, poeple tend to make up their minds based certain things they have heard ot WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE to make them feel better. The "ice age" argument doesn't apply, because we are concerned with the next hundred or few hundred years here. The world may heat up and then turn to ice again and continue this cycle, but mankind cannot survive throught these processes.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence that the warming is having a large impact on the planet. The debate seems to be about whether or not there is anything we can do about it. I think we owe it to our future generations to keep looking into this before the damage is completely irreversable. But I agree with an earlier post that says that people wont care about this until it has a direct impact on their immediate situation.

I don't see the harm in taking steps towards reducing the amount of harmful and destructive gases we emit into the atmoshere. It can only help. Dismissing the whole thing and carrying on with blinders on is not the way to go.

[pk500]

But when someone's defense of their position is to attempt to silence or marginalize their opposition, it says something about the strength of their position (or lack thereof).

The same can be said about Bush and the war, as Dubya and Cheney calling those who don't support it unpatriotic. The spin goes both ways.

Your post proved how much the politics of this issue have obfuscated and dominated the scientific part of it. It contained mention of nearly every hot-button issue of the day -- CEO salaries, patriotism, the war, power grabs, wealth transfer. Hell, all that was missing was gay marriage and abortion.

Where you and I differ is that I not only want to end dependence on foreign oil, I want to end dependence on oil, period. I fully support alternative fuels, not searching for current fuels (oil) on our shores.

Sure, alternative fuels may cost a bit more in the short term, but like any other product, larger adoption rates and competition will improve manufacturing and distribution processes, and prices will drop.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

I love Carlin as a comedian, but not as a speaker on serious issues. His argument that the "planet will fix itself" is ridiculous. He is right however that most people dont give a sh*t and can't even fix their own lives. Carlin takes the approach that we as people are too small in the whole scheme of things and I think it's dangerous to think that we can't have a huge impact on this planet. The planet may survive and "fix itself", but it may have to do it by getting rid of the problem........us.

Every time I hear the for and against arguments for global warming I am reminded of George Carlin's "The Planet is Fine" material. Someone transcribed it here: http://www.chaparyan.com/2005/04/george ... s-fine.php

[RandyM]

I shouldn't even bother in light of that last statement, but all of those questions you're asking are complete and utter horseshit strawmen used to try and discredit global warming.

Nice try.

It's long-term climatology effects such as the melting of the ice caps that point to accelerated climate change at the same time that production of artificial greenhouse gasses have increased.

The issue isn't melting - it's whether WE are causing it, and whether WE can stop it.

The vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject support the theory.

First of all, peer review doesn't impress me anymore. It used to, but you can't beat me with THAT stick anymore. If you actually look into peer review, you'll see see that these days peer review is a methodology for locking out anything that's not 'orthodox'. There are numerous documented accounts of articles not even being peer reviewed at all because the journal in question didn't like the conclusions being reached, or certain scientists being omitted from peer review because the journal editorial board did not want to hear what they had to say. All that having been said, I can cite that in spite of the best efforts at filtering out dissent, I have seen peer reviewed studies that get through. (the flap at the Smithsonian where one person's career was nearly destroyed for letting an unorthodox viewpoint get out for that magazine should be sufficient evidence of that).

Doesn't make it law, but the evidence supporting it is more numerous and convincing than what doesn't. I am sure there are scientists who disagree, but I don't see how that disproves the theory.

It doesn't. I didn't say that it does disprove the theory. What it does say is that the science is not 'settled'. The debate is not 'over'. And the attempts to intimidate and bully dissenting scientists and climatologists has to STOP.

Those claiming global warming is a myth use the same deceptive tactics evolution opponents use, hoping to confuse people who aren't familiar with the subject into ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence that support those theories.

Give me a break. Once again, I'll remind you that the issue is not WARMING per se. It's ANTHROPGENIC global warming.

And if you're suggesting that the global warming "conspiracy" ressembles the Nazi propaganda machine, I suggest removing your tinfoil hat before posting.

So I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the The Weather Channel saying we shouold revoke AMS certifciation for anyone expressing skepticism about man-made global warming. I'm sure you have a perfeclty reasonable explanation for the letter I posted the link to resigning from the IPCC because of its politicized atmosphere and the fact that ignored science. I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why none of the computer models projections from previous IPCC's have borne out in reality, and I'm sure you have a perfectly reasonable explanation why we should still believe these computer model projections after last year's hurricane season.

That there is warming, I'm ready to buy into. That we're causing it, I am NOT ready to buy into. Sorry. I just see too much hysteria from policymakers and 'journalists' (note the quotes) who are doing all they can to create the impression that there is no debate and no reason to question their conclusions.

I would simply ask this question of you. Show me where these climatological predictions of the past have come true, and I'll be more amenable to believing that their predictions of the future hold true.

Randy

[RandyM]

A few quick notes...first, the guy who writes junkscience.com is a paid advocate for Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, and was a lobbyist for the oil industry. Although this doesn't invalidate his views, it sheds some light as to where he's coming from.

Do you mind if we follow the money trail on the other side of the fence too? You know, of course, of the money that Hansen from NASA, one of the most often quoted global alarmists, has taken a rather sweet pile of cash from the HEINZ Foundation. "although this doesn't invalidate his views, it sheds some light as to where's coming from" AS YOU PUT IT.

The guy has an agenda and isn't very good at understanding science. It's not a good combination.

Actually, I like JunkScience.com more for the links to external sites. I use it as more of an aggregator. But if you don't like that you can go to any other aggregator, drudge report or what have you, and find similar articles.

As a scientist, I can tell you from first-hand experience that what you say above here makes no sense.

You would.

There aren't "puppetmasters" out to silence critics of global warming. The problem is that most of the global warming critics are either political hacks or sub-par scientists.

Would you care to explain then why one of the submitters of the last IPCC reports resigned in protest of the politicization of the process and the abuse of science? Was he a hack or sub-par scientist when he was contributing to the IPCC? Or did he get a demotion in status after he quit?

This is just a classic case of "if you can't debate 'em, ridicule 'em". You've used it a lot. Money is money, Jared. You can't argue with the fact that it can be used to distort science on all times, and often is. The money Hansen took from Heinz is no more clean or dirty than the money given by an industry to a different scientist. And often it's those scientists who don't have tenure or enough stature to withstand the storm who have to shut up or risk having their careers ruined. By the way, some of the most famous scientific breakthrough papers in history got NO peer review, or were initially rejected as 'poor science' by their peers initially.

Their stuff gets rejected because it's flawed, demonstrating a lack of knowledge of statistics, experimental design, etc. There's no global socialist conspiracy, no puppetmasters, etc. etc.

Uh huh.

So when Jacques Chirac said this in November of 2000 that Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance.", then we should just 'move on...nothing to see here, citizen'. Yeah he said it , and it's on the record...

And there's no conspiracy even when "Margot Wallstrom, the EU’s Environment Commissioner, takes a slightly different view, but one that’s instructive about the real motives of Kyoto proponents. She asserted that Kyoto is about "the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide."

Really? I thought Kyoto was about global warming? Must be my fevered conspiracist imagination.

Really, it's sad (albeit predictable) that in the first few sentences you trot out, you go for the "look who is paying them" approach (throwing rocks from within a glass house), and then follow up with trying to deny the existence of any kind of intimidation or silencing attempts at critics of the global warming alarmist agenda. (There are enough quotes out there from those doing the silencing to make this fact self evident...but I'm you have a perfectly reasonable way of explaining them all away).

My position is actually pretty easy. I'll just wait another 20 years or so and while I'm getting ready to retire I'll listen to the alarmists pretend that all this global warming stuff never happened as they begin again predicting a new ice age, how all scientists are in agreement about it, and those that aren't are just a bunch of industry-paid shills.

That is, if they don't succeed in shipwrecking the economies of most nations before we get that far.

Randy

[RandyM]

The same can be said about Bush and the war, as Dubya and Cheney calling those who don't support it unpatriotic. The spin goes both ways.

I suppose. I don't want to get into a war discussion here. If we're gonna go down that road, we'll soon not remember what the topic of the thread actually is.

Your post proved how much the politics of this issue have obfuscated and dominated the scientific part of it. It contained mention of nearly every hot-button issue of the day -- CEO salaries, patriotism, the war, power grabs, wealth transfer. Hell, all that was missing was gay marriage and abortion.

Oops, I'll try to remember to include that one next time!

Where you and I differ is that I not only want to end dependence on foreign oil, I want to end dependence on oil, period. I fully support alternative fuels, not searching for current fuels (oil) on our shores.

Actually we don't differ at all. I fully want to end dependence on oil as well...but I don't want to wreck the economy to do it. I also see drilling domestically as an intermediate solution to get off of depending upon middle east dictatorships for our oil while we come up with a better solution.

As a race fan, I actually think it would be cool for more large scale racing series to start running on alternative fuels. I think racing technology is the engine of development. I think putting a ton of rich innovative and smart people in the racing community to work looking for more performance and economy from a given fuel will work better than 100 government grants (sorry Jared).

So, no we don't even disagree on that. But I think national security comes first, and alternative fuels second. Obviously if we could all switch to something NOW we could kill two birds with one stone, but I don't think we're there yet. So in the meantime, let's take some common sense measures in that regard.

Randy

[Blublub]

You know, I'm not sure I can bear to read the thread. I can pretty much tell you what it will contain without. There will be a bunch of folks saying, "hmmm...is this a real problem? If it is, shouldn't we be worried?" There will be others that will point to the fact that the IPCC represents ALL of the world's reputable climate scientists. But invariably there will be one or two right-wing whackos who will go on about "the science is unclear" and post links to that moron at MIT funded by the oil industry. These nutjobs, long since discredited by real science, continue to be given a forum by those with vested interests in carbon-producing industries and by (often well-meaning) members of the media in their desire to give "both sides of the story."

Holocaust denial is still a growth industry, which should demonstrate that the "debate" won't end anytime soon. Meanwhile we have long since passed the point of no return for small islands and low-lying coastal areas.

FWIW, I've spent the last 15 years of my life working on the issue, and the "debate" today is no different than it was then. I would expect it will be no different 15 or 50 years from now either. Anything this complex and this gradual is going to leave all sorts of doors open for people to deny causality.

I would say, if you are still in the middle on this you'd do fairly well to see "An Inconvenient Truth." I positively cannot stand Al Gore, but if you can look past those parts of the film his traveling road show on the issue is pretty sound.

If you want a more serious read, check out the latest IPCC report summary. Hell, check any of their summaries from the past 20 years. Granted, unless you are a published climatologist you probably won't be able to confirm or refute the findings.

Then again, it's threads like this that remind me that we should probably stay away from such hot-button topics on a sports video gaming site and stick to stuff like "is there really a lefty bug in MVP Baseball 2004?"

[RandyM]

There aren't "puppetmasters" out to silence critics of global warming. The problem is that most of the global warming critics are either political hacks or sub-par scientists.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

So how many of the 17.200 scientists that signed onto this petition do you want to smear as "hacks or sub-par scientists"? Do you outqualify them, Jared?

[RandyM]

There will be others that will point to the fact that the IPCC represents ALL of the world's reputable climate scientists.

Do you seriously believe that? Or do you have a different definition of 'reputable' than most ?

But invariably there will be one or two right-wing whackos who will go on about "the science is unclear" and post links to that moron at MIT funded by the oil industry.

or that moron at NASA Hansen who took $250,000 from John Kerry's wife's Heinz foundation and publicly endorsed Kerry? Is leftist money a different shade of green?

Randy

[RandyM]

By the way, time IS on my side on this one.

By the way, here's a link to the graph showing IPCC projected temperature increases agianst what actually happened. Darn that reality..it keeps messing up our models!!!

http://www.oism.org/pproject/fig11.gif

Randy

[Jared]

Randy,

I don't care about the money argument. I believe that this stuff should be debated based on the merit of the science behind either side. My point is this: You bring up that scientists are tainted by chasing grant money, yet ignore the fact that the people on the other side of the debate (like Milloy, who is not a scientist) are heavily funded by companies who could lose millions if they have to change what they do. If you want to complain about the money behind scientists, it's disingenuous to ignore the money supporting quacks like Milloy. Bringing up the money behind Milloy was to show you that the money argument is stupid. Hence why I said it doesn't invalidate his views. And hence why I then laid out some examples of the crap he passes off as scientific discussion.

And when you link to junkscience.com, a site ran by a quack that links to other crappy science...that's not very supportive for the other side of the issue. And trust me, I am not "ridiculing" people like Milloy because I (or others) can't debate them. If they promote crap science to further their own agenda, I'm going to say so, and am more than happy to back it up.

As for the person that left the IPCC, that would be Chris Landsea, who disagreed with some of his colleagues on global warming and hurricanes in the Atlantic (still a topic of debate). Chris Landsea is also believes that there is anthropogenic global warming. Again. He is NOT a critic of global warming. His debate is w/other scientists on the role of global warming in hurricane frequency and intensity.

Again, I care about the science. And when you're presenting Milloy and his ilk as a counter to actual climate scientists...well, that speaks for itself.

[Brando70]

That there is warming, I'm ready to buy into. That we're causing it, I am NOT ready to buy into. Sorry. I just see too much hysteria from policymakers and 'journalists' (note the quotes) who are doing all they can to create the impression that there is no debate and no reason to question their conclusions.

I would simply ask this question of you. Show me where these climatological predictions of the past have come true, and I'll be more amenable to believing that their predictions of the future hold true.

Randy

Okay, so you agree there is warming. You are just not sure if it's manmade.

Why wouldn't you want to be cautious about it? Why wouldn't you want business and the government to pursue a careful approach, adopting standards to reduce emissions etc., until we know more, rather than just saying that we shouldn't change anything now because the jury is out? Because if the scientists are right and humans are either causing or increasing climate change, the impact is going to be far greater than if they are wrong.

Also, the publishing of academic knowledge, in any field, is founded on peer review. Does this make the process flawless or perfect? No. But it is a safeguard for preventing bad scholarship from being published. Usually the people who cry about "bias" in peer review are the ones trying to publish glorified op-eds as academic research.

[RandyM]

I don't care about the money argument.

Yes, I can see you waited a long time to bring it up.<sarcasm intended>

I believe that this stuff should be debated based on the merit of the science behind either side. My point is this: You bring up that scientists are tainted by chasing grant money, yet ignore the fact that the people on the other side of the debate (like Milloy, who is not a scientist) are heavily funded by companies who could lose millions if they have to change what they do.

Nope, I don't ignore it at all. I acknowledge it. Money and Science unfortunately cannot be separated. As long as human beings are performing science and human need for material security and/or outright greed exists, so will scientists and money, and the influence issues it creates. It is simply a fact of life. Neither side is honest when they deny its influence or its existence, or attempts to create the illusion that THEIR side is pure while the other is corrupted. The question is not the funding, then. It's how do you get the truth when both sides are on the take and/or have agendas that require them to 'bend' science to fit the desired result.

As for the person that left the IPCC, that would be Chris Landsea, who disagreed with some of his colleagues on global warming and hurricanes in the Atlantic (still a topic of debate). Chris Landsea is also believes that there is anthropogenic global warming. Again. He is NOT a critic of global warming. His debate is w/other scientists on the role of global warming in hurricane frequency and intensity.

This is true. But it is also irrelevant to the point I was making. I was mentioning the issue that the IPCC is not as politics free as its true believers portray. Are you familiar with the expression: "If he'll cheat on his wife at home, he'll cheat on you in his job"? (I'm paraphrasing). The point here is, you have examples of blatant dishonesty in terms of how the IPCC report is prepared and presented. The Landsea letter is an example of how they got called on it. You do not dismiss Landsea as a hack or sub-par scientist (though I wonder what you would say if he reversed his position as some other scientists have).

In point of fact, your use of the phrase "hacks and subpar scientists" simply demonstrates exactly what I'm saying. If a credentialed scientist or meteorologist or climatologist turns against the tide for global warming, he is immediately and thoughtlessly attacked using phrases like the one you just uttered. Do you feel sooo confident in your superiority that you feel like you can slander other scientists this way without knowing them or their work? I would be very careful, if I were you, about making these kinds of sweeping generalizations about people you don't know and are not in a position to evaluate. You work in the field of cognitive science, which I'm not aware of as a 'hot issue' area of scientific study...but I'm sure you would not at all be pleased to find yourself on the receiving end of remarks like this if you felt your research led you to a different conclusion than the 'accepted consensus'.

Again, I care about the science. And when you're presenting Milloy and his ilk as a counter to actual climate scientists...well, that speaks for itself.

So the idea now is to play the game of "my scientist can beat up your scientist"? If so, I guess we can score you a point for Milloy. Now it's your turn to bring up a famous name, and I'll go out and find out where he gets his funds, who he voted for for President, and discredit him, too. Is that the road we're heading down? Because if you are telling the truth ("I care about the science') then each argument should be looked upon on its own merits, rather than say "It's on site XX written by person YY so it's a crock of crap and I don't need to think about it anymore". That's NOT the response of a person who truly "care about the science". If you wish to take a given article and point me to a paper that refutes its arguments then we have something to talk about. But smear tactics just won't cut it with me on this one. If you care about the science, present the science. If you care about smearing and money trails, we can play that game too (though I personally am not interested).

Randy

[Jared]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

So how many of the 17.200 scientists that signed onto this petition do you want to smear as "hacks or sub-par scientists"? Do you outqualify them, Jared?

About that petition, from Scientific American

Many conservatives regard the "scientific consensus" about global warming as a media concoction. After all, didn't 17,100 skeptical scientists sign a petition circulated in 1998 by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine? (See www.oism.org/pproject and www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html on the World Wide Web.)

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

Though again...my concern is not with petitions, or global socialist conspiracies, or nefarious Heinz money, etc. I'm concerned about the science. If you want to discuss the science, then go right ahead.

[spooky157]

What would be the IPCC's motive for furthering a "global warming conspiracy"? Are these guys flying around in their own private jets with money they received for research into global warming? What kind of greed are they exhibiting? Because I can certainly see where the greed would come in from the other side of the debate.

But of course I think CEO's make way too much money. Give it all to Scarlett Johansonn.

[RandyM]

Why wouldn't you want to be cautious about it? Why wouldn't you want business and the government to pursue a careful approach, adopting standards to reduce emissions etc.,

I would want them to act to curb local pollution because I don't like seeing yellow crap over our cities or have dirty water, etc. Contrary to the whole "you must be an evil conservative" stereotype, I actually have children and love nature.

until we know more, rather than just saying that we shouldn't change anything now because the jury is out?

I am saying we don't commit economic suicide. I'm saying we don't muzzle skeptics or engage in smear campaigns against them. The day we stop listening to skeptical scientists, is the day science as we know it screeches to a halt.

Because if the scientists are right and humans are either causing or increasing climate change, the impact is going to be far greater than if they are wrong.

There's more than one kind of impact. If there were no economic cost and consequence to doing nothing, I'd say knokc yourself out. You're right - no harm no foul, and the air is a little cleaner. But on the other hand, even many of those who DO believe in Kyoto and anthropogenic warning have stated that even if we all do the Kyoto dance, we'll buy maybe 5 years 100 years from now (that's the latest estimate I read). So let's wreck our economies with the idea of buying 5 more years before we're totally screwed? Hmmmm....

Also, the publishing of academic knowledge, in any field, is founded on peer review. Does this make the process flawless or perfect?

There is a difference between 'flawed' and 'corrupted'. Any process we make is going to have its flaws. Peer Review as a system of ensuring good sciencie is a good thing in its basic design. But like most human creations, if it begins to be a tool for manipulation and repression and control, it becomes a bad thing. The same can be said for most institutions, whether it's a church, a labor union, a charity, etc. Unfortunately, what I've been seeing is an increased incidence of peer review being a method of being both the gatekeeper and the executioner. A boys club, as it were. I create a system whereby if you don't pass my peer review (and I get to pick the 'peers') you don't get published. And when you do not get published, I then ridicule you for not being a real scientist because you didn't get your paper in a peer reviewed journal. It's a great scheme....as long as no one wises up to the fact that you're loading the deck.

Now, I'm going to say in many cases these is not a conscious desire to censor or a conspiracy to shut someone out. However, people tend to desire to read and respect things they already disagree with. If someone comes along and upsets the apple cart, the human tendency is to want to shut that out or be more critical of it than you would a paper that comes along whose conclusions you already agree with or which re-inforce accepted 'orthodoxy'.

I'm speaking in theory, but unfortunately it has become a reality and there are documented cases in many fields where those who write a paper whose conclusions are contrary to the 'accepted' theories have a VERY difficult time getting published. People do NOT like to let go of theories in which they have invested their blood sweat and tears. It is very instructive to read correspondence between great historical scientists as they argued over their papers. It is fascinating to see how old beliefs die hard, and are often defended to the bitter end by those who promoted them.

No. But it is a safeguard for preventing bad scholarship from being published. Usually the people who cry about "bias" in peer review are the ones trying to publish glorified op-eds as academic research.

If it were not for the cases of peer-review process abuse, I'd be inclined ot agree with you. But the situation won't change until someone peer-reviews the peer-review process!

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why I should believe the IPCC and global warming alarmists NOW, and why I should not have believed the 'coming ice age' consensus back in 1977?? Also, to your point of why we shouldn't play it safe and address the issue, are you aware that back then one of the suggested remedies to the cooling problem was to put coal black on the surface of antartica to absorb more heat? Should we have done that?!?!?! Where would we be now if we'd tried?!

The bottom line for me is...climate alarmists have such a terrible track record, and their models and predictions are always blowing up in their faces, so I'm just not jumping on the bandwagon. That boy has cried wolf too many times. Maybe the boy is right now. we'll see, but I doubt it. I think it's far more likely that 11 year cycles of the sun are going to influence temperatures far more than any human-generated CO2. But of course that's just my opinion, and we'll have to wait another few years to see such a cooling trend, and a few years after that for the 'consensus science' community to actually admit that it is cooling. I just wish we'd learn from our past instead of repeating it.

Even if you divorce all the sociopolitical issues from it (global governance, socialism and enviro-whackos run amock), and just look at the science, the track record as PREDICTION goes is just horrible. I can't think of a branch of science which has a worse record at prediction the future than climatology/meteorology. You'll just have to be patient with me if I don't feel like turning our economy over to an international environmental UN body for safekeeping.


Randy

[RandyM]

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

I read this already - so you're not telling me anything new. Maybe instead of 'crudely extrapolating' they should actually finish the job.

This is what the Oregon Petition wrote about its signature statistics:

"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist."

So where's the truth? Probably somewhere in between. There is undoubtedly a % of these people that for one reason or another should not be counted, but I Don't buy the Sci Am 'survey' as definitive here.

Randy

[RandyM]

What would be the IPCC's motive for furthering a "global warming conspiracy"? Are these guys flying around in their own private jets with money they received for research into global warming? What kind of greed are they exhibiting? Because I can certainly see where the greed would come in from the other side of the debate.

But of course I think CEO's make way too much money. Give it all to Scarlett Johansonn.

Spooky, greed and a need to make a living are often confused. The politicization of science means that government funding, in the form of grant money, will go more towards scientists who reinforce what policymakers want, and less will go towards scientists who don't. This is true regardless of where the grant money is coming from. You don't have to be a millionaire to be affected by the need to make a living.

Unless you're Bruce Wayne and have your own self-funded batcave, you are not your own master. You go where the grant money is. For those on the skeptic side, they don't find a sympathetic ear from policy makers and college administrators, because academia leans left (Jared can deny this all he wants, but he knows its true and is a living example of it!) . So scientists in private industry who need funding get it from the places that will give it to them, e.g. the oil industry/conservative think tanks etc. Whereas a guy like Hansen at NASA doesn't turn away $250,000 from the Heinz foundation.

It's naive to assume that the source of funding has no affect on the 'purity' of science. You cannot on one hand say that science funded by industry sources is 'bad science' while science funded by the Heinz foundation or a college faculty is 'good science'. Money is money, and people are people.

My personal opinion, and I'm just being honest about this--my personal perception is that many of the scientists who contribute to the IPCC report are probably decent enough scientists, who work within the prevailing paradigm and make a decent enough living at it. The grants come in, the bills get paid, and leave the rhetoric to the policymakers. It's sort of like trying to say that the guy who made the atomic bomb in the Manhattan project intended to murder Japanese people. You could make a case that he was responsible for it or that he wasn't. I think it's likely he was just doing his job as a scientist and leaving the policy decisions to others. I believe it's the same thing. There are many good scientists just doing their jobs, and when you actually go beyond the rhetorical flourishes of the 'Summary for policy makers' you find that the actual science is nowhere near as dramatic or alarmist as was presented.

Keep in mind that the IPCC report is NOT out today, contrary to the way it's portrayed. It doesn't come until May. Only the summary was released, and the good folks at the UN IPCC panel will now spend a few months EDITING the scientific paper to reflect the SUMMARY! Doesn't that scare you? Really? Changing the scientific paper to back up what the gloom and doom forecasters are saying?! Shouldn't it be the other way around?!

Randy



"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken

[bdunn13]

http://carbonplanet.com/blog/?p=14

Thats old but pretty much sums it up. You can say anything about the warming/cooling and be right. There is no way to do true scientific tests since there is only one Earth and no way to isolate any/all of the independent variables.

[Teal]

contrived. I know you don't like that it's 'become' a political issue, but it always HAS been a political issue. We are not going to destroy the earth, because God won't let us. Whether you believe in God or not is another matter entirely, but then again, I don't know that it is. I don't know...to be honest, this is very, very low on my radar screen. The solutions to 'global warming' lie almost exclusively in the hands of bigger government...and I find that alarming. I have no use in the argument, because these same people were warning of a global ice age not 30 years ago...

[emelki]

First of all, sorry for my English.
There is one thing that a few people here missunderstood. The weather and the predictions of it is one thing, and the studies about the global warming, tha causes and the consequences is another thing. So please, don't say things like...If they can not predict tomorrows weather how can I trust them with the future?...
You can find a lot of information and images about the change in the last year. Yes the weather in the earth is changing constantly, but when you see that a Glaciar in Alaska has melted in less than a century, you know that there is something different. If you see that in less that five years, three iceberg with the size of Texas has been displaced, and that didn;t happened since the Glaciar Age. You have to ask yourself if that is not weird. If you see how in the South of Spain (my country) the desert land has increase in more than 200% in the last 12 years...don't you think that we have to ask ourself what is happening.
I am not going to enter in issues like, the scientist and famous people like M. Crickton being paid by the big oil companies, to say the oposite, or the pressure that the government is impossing to scientis to use different words in their reports. Or the last study in California that says that there are more young people dying of respiratory problems in the last five years that in more than were between 1900-1975, seventy five years!!!!.
We can close our eyes, vote for Republicans or Democrats (until now none of them has made anything about it) but the problem is there, and it is more important that we can imagine if we don't change soon.

Thanks for your comprehension with the language.

Alex