Let’s hear more from the president’s science adviser, John P. Holdren, Nobel laureate energy secretary Steven Chu, the National Academy of Sciences and other authorities. The public will learn to appreciate that the scientific community is working urgently, rigorously and ingeniously to better understand the complex climate system, for our shared safety and well-being.
This article was originally published with the title Breaking the Climate Debate Logjam.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentIn the reasons you list for public skepticism, you include several easy-to-dismiss ones: vested interests of the coal and oil industries, the failure of politicians interested more in votes and pork than in a solution, those charging a conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you left out some of the tough ones. Conspiracy or not, e-mails from prominent climate scientists show an organized effort to squash dissent, to hide or obfuscate original data, and to keep from the public eye information that, by law and by any ethical standard, should have been made available.
There's a growing conflict of interest in the field, with anthropogenic climate change proponents on the receiving end of grants and positions not as available to skeptics.
Like "intelligent design" proponents, manmade-climate change adherents interpret any observable data as supporting their position: cold? warm? wet? dry? All these are declared compatible with the theory. What evidence would cast doubt on the theory? None, it would seem - and falsifiability is an important aspect of a scientific theory.
Even if we take at face value the predictions, the solutions proposed would do very little (offsetting a degree or so o warming over a century) at great, great cost in dollars that could do far more to fight much more cost-effective things like hunger, potable water, dysentery ...
Kevin - those comments submitted without any references to support them is not helpful. If you have credible references to back your claims, please include them for a more intelligent debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKevin_K's comments are not surprising. I see them frequently. Here are two references:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/61525
In the former, Phil Jones (who is at or near the center of the email scandal at U. East Anglia's Climate Research Unit tells the BBC that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 15 years. In the second, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco clearly dodges a direct answer to the question of what she thinks about Jones' comments (she *did* answer, just not directly and clearly). The skeptics seized on those two items of news to trumpet that global warming is a fraud. To make matters worse (in the eyes of the skeptics) the mainstream media completely ignored these stories and largely ignored the CRU email scandal, the controversy over whether completely erroneous data about Himalayan glacier melting was included in an IPCC report deliberately or accidentally, and many other similar stories (I receive them via email from my AGW skeptical brother on a regular basis). The point about these stories being ignored by the mainstream media and by climate scientists and by pro-AGW politicians is this (and Sachs alludes to this point in his commentary): IT LENDS AN AIR OF SUSPICION OF COVER-UP AND/OR FRAUD ON THE PART OF AGW PROPONENTS.
People can argue that the claims of skeptics are so out of kilter with the evidence and facts that the skeptics are not worthy of being addressed, but that is PRECISELY the wrong response. Such a response reinforces the skeptics' distrust of AGW science, of the mainstream media, and of pro-AGW politicians. To be credible, AGW proponents need to make highly visible, point-by-point rebuttals of the skeptics (regardless of the weirdness of the claims) in language that the average non-scientific layman can comprehend. To do anything less concedes the fight to the skeptics.
From Charlie Martin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne primary public relations argument for the warmists has been the threat of the Himalayan glaciers — which are the source for many rivers in India — disappearing by 2035. That turned out to be based on a conversation, reported by a journalist, repeated by the World Wildlife Fund , and included, without citation, in the IPCC AR4.
This showed up on Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog. It spread through numerous outlets, and the IPCC was forced to withdraw that statement. Further digging found that the WWF’s unreviewed position papers were used dozens of times to support the “peer reviewed” assessment reports.
Roger Pielke Jr. then demonstrated that peer reviewed research showing there was no evidence that AGW was causing increased storm intensity or storm damage was published by the IPCC as concluding the exact opposite.
An increasing body of evidence suggests that the methods used to “homogenize” global temperature data were very effectively adding a warming bias to that data — a “thumb on the scale” that appears to account for a good bit of the observed warming. Opaque methodology and poor data archiving make it very difficult to reliably, repeatably reconstruct even the homogenized temperatures. And the Climategate emails revealed ways in which people whose research contradicted AGW were marginalized and isolated.
There is more — much more — to come on the science and how it has been distorted.
Climategate files: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climatedate-document-database-from-pjtvpajamas-media/
Himalayan glaciers: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/
World Wildlife Fund: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/wwf-the-para-governmental-organization-at-the-epicenter-of-climategate/
admitted: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dV4tvvZD
Reading your article Breaking the Climate Debate Logjam makes me wonder where I have been considering the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLeading climate change scientist Phil Jones now acknowledges that the earth may have been warmer in medieval times than now and Jones also conceded in an interview with the BBC that during the past 15 years there has been no statistically significant warming. and that The data have been used to support efforts by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to urge governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions and to produce the hockey stick graph that shows temperatures relatively stable for centuries before rising sharply in recent decades.
So, one would conclude that this erroneous data was used to support IPCCs stance to, in effect, tax the richer countries for their carbon footprint while other countries, who pollute more, like India and China are exempt.
But wait, there is more:
Rajendra Pachauri who has served as the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002,defended the prediction of the IPCC that glaciers would disappear from the Himalayas by 2035, but then had to admit that an error was made when it was revealed that credible scientists like Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service said: "There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements." This not to mention that the report that said the glaciers would be essentially gone by 2035 was based on a nonscientific 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund which has a bit of a bias I believe.
Then there is the interesting article in this months Harpers magazine titled Conning the climate: Inside the carbon-trading shell game that shows how carbon trading really works.
With all this in mind isnt it interesting that Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri shared a Nobel Peace prize based on erroneous, misleading data?
Conclusion:
This whole effort was a scam to generate revenues from what would be the equivalent of a global tax via the UN, which has been one of their major goals for at least the last 20 years. Further, scientists who purposely and knowingly supported this fraud using known bogus data should be prosecuted for fraud, in my humble opinion.
The politicization of science is a sad thing, but alas it is a fact. Scientific American has been at the forefront of this for many years by supporting left wing political goals by the selection of articles that they print, which is why I let my subscription lapse after 35 or so years or so.
Thought not peer reviewed, you might like to consult these articles:
Global warming sentiment: a tipping point
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2010/02/20/global-warming-sentiment-a-tipping-point/17895/
U.N. climate chiefs apologize for glacier error
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/20/glacier.himalayas.ipcc.error/?hpt=Sbin
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
UN climate chief Rajendra Pachauri 'got grants through bogus claims'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
As for the science having been settled and no credible scientist not supporting GW:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40749822.html
Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
Further references can be found anywhere on the Internet via Google
I am one of those that is not convinced that the AGW theory has been proven; or that it is a tremendous concern to humanity overall even if true. I do accept that the earth has gotten somewhat warmer, I merely am not convinced that is necessarily bad, and I am uncertain of the degree of that warming that is due to human activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll that said.......I, and many others are in agreement on most of the steps that we should be taking now for the well being of the United States for the future. When you get down to discussing the specific actions that we should be taking, you will find much more agreement from both sides of the discussion than you think.
This discussion is an example of what is wrong in the United States today.......people focus excessively on what they disagree on vs. implementing improvements in areas where agreement can be obtained. Let's focus on what we can agree upon.
1. Most agree that we need vast amounts of new electrical generation capacity. So build them as quickly an cleanly as reasonably possible. It is good for the economy both in the short term and long term. A variety of new types of electrical generation will be needed in different parts of the country.
2. Our electrical distribution system is old, obsolete and needs to be upgraded. Build a modern national electrical distribution system....now.
3. Continue to study the data on the environment, and with time the issue will become clearer to all sides of the issue. In the meantime, we would have accomplished sometime useful
I find it remarkable how someone at an Ivy League school could so fundimentally wrong about something as basic as the fabled "global warming" aka "climate change," which I recall was called "global cooling" in the 1970's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis calls for a "predictable carbon tax" show the true basis of debate. It's not about the environment. It's about controlling the lives of Americans.
If environmentalists were truly worried about carbon emissions, we would have Yucca Mountain open in stead of cancelled, and hundreds of nuclear power plants instead of delays. Instead we have calls for solar and wind energy. I can't wait for those dark, still nights so that I can light a candle and read by the fire light.
Good article. I wholeheartedly agree that a carbon tax would be much simpler. Environmentalists need to get their act together too. I think the science on the topic is clear. Go to Wikipedia and check on "Scientific Consensus on Global Warming" to see the list of scientific organizations that have lined up in support of climate change theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of those who believe in AGW are also strong advocates of the environmental movement overall, and are really anti human development. My example of this is the latest position of some members of the "Sierra Club". They are protesting against the construction of an electrical generation facility powered by natural gas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan't everyone agree that more electricity needs to be produced? (if you can't I suggest you are either ill informed, overly idealistic, or simply stupid) It is stupid to not build more planets because none are perfectly non polluting. When proponents of AGW theory are so unreasonably roadblocking of any progress, they risk everything they say being shut out of consideration.
There is what I see as irrefutable evidence that today's temperatures are the highest in over 5000 years: the remains of Oetzi, the Ice Man, which were discovered in a melting alpine glacier in 1991. The only denial I've seen is that he was "rafted" by the glacier from a higher elevation, but a "river of ice" would shred anything so fragile. He was found where he died, in a depression that allowed the glacier to flow over him. Given the time and magnitude correlation of rising greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures, we are incredibly unlucky to be living just when natural forces caused warming or humans are on a potentially disastrous course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnorm--your conclusion may be incorrect....or perhaps right, but so what??? What do you think we should be doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat concerns me is Dr. Sach's failure to acknnowledge what has become known as Climategate. The villains? Public opinion, "vested interests" (odd when Chevron advertises in SciAm), and the "free-traders" on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone familiar with the good doctor's work as an economist knows that he prescribed "shock therapy" aka free-trade as an economic remedy for the economic woes of post-communist Russia and Poland. Russia hasn't done so well - probably because of the curency manipulation/profit-taking by George Soros in 1998.
George Soros and Ravendra Pachauri are advisers to the Earth Institute at Columbia. Sachs and Pachauri are both advisers to the Asian Development Bank.
This latest, faddy theory of "sustainability" has been thoroughly, and entertainingly, debunked at the National Association of Scholars.
Watch the fun as Peabody takes the EPA warmists to court. Sachs advocacy of EPA mandates under the Clear Air Act is going to force scientists to prove AGW.
GISS's Dr. Andrew Lacis (they partner with the Earth Institute):, referring to the 2007 IPCC report: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary . The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are being made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed for any greenhouse skeptics. Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptics criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda."
When AGW backers such as Walter Russell Mead go after the so-called "science" as done by the CRU, you need to rethink your defense.
Sisko--If you have evidence that I am wrong, please present it. My point is that the arguments against AGW must attribute today's higher temperatures to natural causes. If not humans, then what? It is highly improbable that such causes lay dormant for 5000 years, then appeared just in time to coincide with rising GHGs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should stop wasting time and impeding the shift to sustainable energy. Arguments about Al Gore, Climategate, suspect motives of AGW proponents, etc. only reveal a greedy and selfish attachment to the conveniences and toys of a fossil fuel addicted society. The cost of developing and implementing sustainable energy will no doubt be high. The cost of not doing so, allowing atmospheric CO2 to rise to twice and more than any the world has seen since there was no polar ice, could be catastrophic. No, I'm not certain, although the undisputed melting of glaciers and bleaching of corals are very bad omens. We are running a very dangerous experiment with no place to hide if it goes wrong. I'd be very happy to see evidence that runaway global warming is benign, but nobody has been there and unsubstantiated denials are not reassuring.
On a personal level we should minimize our energy consumption: insulate our homes, buy efficient appiances, shift from meat to vegetarian foods, electrify transportation, avoid unnecessary travel, etc. On a public level we should demand climate change awareness and action from our government. I believe most elected officials understand the need for action. Arnold Schwartzenegger, John McCain and George Bush have publicly declared so. The Climate Action Partnership, a consortium of oil, car and energy companies, among many others, "has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change." Politicians who express doubt are pandering to the vocal skeptics. We should let them know we care about our future and that of our children and their children.
Norm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe core of your argument seems to be that if someone can not prove an alternate cause, the AGW theory must be correct. I am sorry, but that logic is very flawed. I also believe humans have effected the environment, I am simply uncertain as to the degree of that effect. There is certainly no modelling that has accurately demonstrated what the effects of higher percentages of carbon in the atmosphere would have on a specific location's weather over time. We do know there have been other causes of changes in climate over time that have not been a result of human causes factors, therefore your core argument that AGW must be the ONLY cause is simply unfounded. If the ice caps melt, it is not necessarily a bad thing for humanity. Would you accept that it is possible that the higher percentage of carbon in the atmosphere is not the driving cause of a warmer earth......remember I said possible? Is it possible that a warmer earth might be better for the human species overall???
Unfortunately, you appear to hold the rather extreme positions in wanting humans to change their basic attributes for the sake of climate change. Expecting humans to stop eating meat is not a realistic solution. The rate of consumption of resources in developed parts of the world is not the real issue (although being more efficient in those areas is a good idea....it is not the real issue)......the issue is that people in undeveloped areas undeniably over time, wish to obtain something similar to the lifestyle of those in the developed areas; and therefore consume vastly greater amounts of energy. The true core issue is.....the rising population of humans who want/need energy produced.
Humanity wants and needs energy produced. It is naive to believe otherwise. People protest about building all forms of power production, but the fact is we all want the benefits of energy, but some like to protest while enjoying the benefits of that power.
Personally, I believe we should be discussing/debating what our goal should be. I float this out for consideration/comments:
"Get the United States to be energy self sufficient within 15 years in a manner that disturbs our environment to as small a degree as economically possible."
Norm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe core of your argument seems to be that if someone can not prove an alternate cause, the AGW theory must be correct. I am sorry, but that logic is very flawed. I also believe humans have effected the environment, I am simply uncertain as to the degree of that effect. There is certainly no modelling that has accurately demonstrated what the effects of higher percentages of carbon in the atmosphere would have on a specific location's weather over time. We do know there have been other causes of changes in climate over time that have not been a result of human causes factors, therefore your core argument that AGW must be the ONLY cause is simply unfounded. If the ice caps melt, it is not necessarily a bad thing for humanity. Would you accept that it is possible that the higher percentage of carbon in the atmosphere is not the driving cause of a warmer earth......remember I said possible? Is it possible that a warmer earth might be better for the human species overall???
Unfortunately, you appear to hold the rather extreme positions in wanting humans to change their basic attributes for the sake of climate change. Expecting humans to stop eating meat is not a realistic solution. The rate of consumption of resources in developed parts of the world is not the real issue (although being more efficient in those areas is a good idea....it is not the real issue)......the issue is that people in undeveloped areas undeniably over time, wish to obtain something similar to the lifestyle of those in the developed areas; and therefore consume vastly greater amounts of energy. The true core issue is.....the rising population of humans who want/need energy produced.
Humanity wants and needs energy produced. It is naive to believe otherwise. People protest about building all forms of power production, but the fact is we all want the benefits of energy, but some like to protest while enjoying the benefits of that power.
Personally, I believe we should be discussing/debating what our goal should be. I float this out for consideration/comments:
"Get the United States to be energy self sufficient within 15 years in a manner that disturbs our environment to as small a degree as economically possible."
Sisko
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say my logic is very flawed because there have been other causes of climate change. You are ignoring my assertion that no cause other than human driven GHG emissions has coincided so closely with rising temperatures. A valid refutation must identify some other cause and show why it didn't happen for 5000 years and then did.
Yes, a slightly warmer earth might benefit some parts of the biosphere, including humans. Higher CO2 levels have been shown to increase the productivity of some plants. The risk is that higher temperatures will melt vast areas of carbon rich permafrost, especially as it contains a lot of methane, which has ~20 times the greenhouse effect of CO2. This runaway greenhouse could, theorectically, release some of the enormous stores of methane in subsea clathrates. Warming of a few degrees, although it will increase the energy, and therefore the turbulence and variability of weather systems, might be just tolerable. Large tracts of Canadian forest already show severe distress. Along with rising temperatures, the increase of CO2 in oceans has already raised their acidity, bleaching coral reefs and endangering much ocean life. For a much scarier picture try searching "global warming 5 degrees".
My suggestions for personal changes were clearly idealistic. I have adopted all of those changes and it was not difficult, although getting an electric car ten years ago was somewhat down to luck. Knowledge of the danger has been the main impetus. You're quite right that people are not going to make lifestyle changes eagerly. I hope that full awareness of the consequences of not changing, even though the worst of them will be inflicted on our descendents, will inspire increasing numbers to expand their adoption, however gradually, of energy and other resource efficiencies. The first step must be to counter the misinformation and confusion spread by skeptics. My hope on that front is that government leaders exercise vision and leadership and that industry groups such as the Climate Action Partnership take advantage of their newly granted free speech rights and fund a campaign to inform and warn America. There is the alternative of hoping things don't get really bad in my lifetime.
Mr. Sachs, you must consider that the American people, in particular, and I assume that is primarily whom your article addresses have not been given the complete information. What we do know, today, is that much of the "science" data was either distorted, misunderstood, is missing and not necessarily "peer reviewed". Because of that, we understand that there is much to clear up and redo. Demotions, removals and now the UN itself wants to have portion redone, is clear enough to anyone willing to listen. Global warming advocates wish to shove it down our throats much like healthcare...at this rate the choices are clear: dead broke and bankrupt and unable to help anyone, anywhere or, in 100 years plus, the planet dead broke and bankrupt. I choose not to go monetarily bankrupt. We are innovative people and if not socialized, we will find answers as we have done for decades. Have some confidence in us, because if we are forced to swallow both of these debacles, the only country in the world in the history of mankind will pass from this earth. Where will you and the world be then?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. Where I said "luck" (an unexplainable benefit) I meant "good fortune" (being ready for it.) I saw a GM EV1 ad in SciAm. Thanks to all of you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOverall I am very pleased to see "debate" in the title. Yes, there is debate. That is quite an admission.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot much in the article actually advises HOW to break the logjam, to me the process should be trivial -- engage science the way it is supposed to be engaged.
Jeffery says: "...even though the Gulf is probably already experiencing damage from rising hurricane intensity."
Should not a Scientific American author not be more precise? There is no need to say "probably" when the world has in its possession detailed satellite and weather history. Although various sources disagree (no surprise) it does seem that hurricanes have diminished in frequency and intensity these past 5 years or so.
From: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes
"In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic."
Comment: This is interesting and a pretty good article overall. The author clearly wishes to have found evidence of human caused hurricane damage increase, but is forced by the data to conclude that such change is not detectable (or more precisely, cannot be isolated from other possible causes of observed variations over time).
Same source:
"human activity may have already caused some some substantial changes that are still below the "detection threshold","
If a change is below detection threshold, how can it be called "substantial"? That's the "politically correct" thing to say.
Norm: " today's temperatures are the highest in over 5000 years: the remains of Oetzi, the Ice Man, which were discovered in a melting alpine glacier in 1991."
Indeed, but you are perhaps deliberately ignoring the larger meaning -- for this man to have been buried by a glacier 5000 years ago, the planet had to have been at least as warm as it is now, but without human caused greenhouse gasses (or negligible amounts I suppose). In other words, glaciers are retreating to a state they have previously occupied and which obviously allowed Homo Sapiens to become more sapient.
Good grief, some of the responses to your article are even more stupid and without basis. We are not getting warmer, we are getting colder. We are not having more hurricanes and their intensity is not increasing. We don't need a carbon tax, carbon is good for the earth, it makes plants grow better, and less people die of starvation during warm periods. The earth is one big feedback control system and right now we are in a cooling trend. If you want to be more believable then wait for a warming trend before you write such 'gobbly gook'. Why do you University guys have to get into politics? Shame on Scientific American for becoming a Time or a Newsweek.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrilliant repartee. Love the way you and the other deniers righteously proclaim you know better. Your interpretation of the science is what we should all acquiesce to.
Far be it from you to pose any alternative theory or present any facts, just tell us that the scientists are all biased and stupid, that people at universities should keep their research findings and conclusions to themselves. If they should happen across some tidbit like X causes cancer, or we seem to be radically experimenting on our ecosystems with little foresight or understanding they should just keep quiet. Nobody wants to hear about it, and certainly nobody wants to consider that the status quo was rather arbitrarily and ignorantly derived and has never included much consideration for long term consequences.
For all Sharinlite’s bravado history is littered with the remains of civilizations that failed to adjust to the rapid ecosystem decline they caused. Why should we be any different? Concerns about DDT and environmental toxins, water pollution, air pollution, ozone depletion, species extinction while true have just been part of a secret agenda to tax everyone to death and a secret UN cabal to take over the world.
Thanks for adding such constructive insight and wit to a conversation about the quality of life your grandchildren will be made to deal with.
Not only is "man-made global warming" a fraud, but it will result in the extinction of the human species. We are thousands of years overdue from an ice-age. If you study the physics behind ice-ages and solar cycles, you will notice that global temperature changes LEAD changes in CO2, NOT follow them. In other words, increases in CO2 do NOT increase global temperature, but rather that increases in temperature increase atmospheric CO2. All of the Global warming idiots, in their attempt to seize power and money through the creation of 'regulation' to solve their 'crisis,' will cause the extinction of our population as we head into an ice-age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll you have to do is look at the charts that the very same global-warming fakes use to support their claims - but look at the chart extended over the last million years or so. There's an ice-age, followed by a short warm period every 100k years or so. That warm period is now ending. Man's contribution to global warming is a bunch of garbage, and the 'scientific' models they use are anything but.
As the typical communists have done, they have created a false 'crisis,' demanded special 'powers' to solve the crisis, but some how, the 'crisis' will never seem to go away, so they need indefinite SPECIAL powers. They need your money, so you pay more taxes, and they need power, so they regulate everything. You're a brainwashed liberal slave. Stop giving power to these baffoons every time they claim that there is an 'emergency.'
"Brilliant repartee. Love the way you and the other deniers righteously proclaim you know better. Your interpretation of the science is what we should all acquiesce to."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely, except of course I would prefer everyone to acquiesce to my own interpretation of science, once I have obtained an interpretation, which itself is waiting for sufficient uncontaminated science.
Your statement would make more sense if we knew what exactly you meant by "denier". Is it denying global warming? Denying global cooling? Denying Himalayan glaciers will be all gone by 2035? Denying that any glacier will be gone, ever?
"Deny" just means opposition; you can oppose or deny truth and you can oppose and deny falsehood. which is yours?
It would be better to label each other "warmists" and "coolists" or "unchange-ists" or "natural change-ists" or "natural with a touch of human change-ist" . I suppose one could say "not-warmist" which includes all options other than warmist, and "not-coolist" which includes all options other than imminent ice age of which you are sure is not imminent.
I daresay other options exist but what is a debate with more than two options?
A discussion!
Norm: " Arnold Schwartzenegger, John McCain and George Bush have publicly declared so."
Now there's a roster of scientists to believe in! (/sarcasm).
"Politicians who express doubt are pandering to the vocal skeptics" Perhaps other options exist, as for example, expressing doubt without pandering to anyone at all. I have many doubts and am so low on the social scale there is nobody under me to pander TO.
Norm: "Arguments about Al Gore, Climategate, suspect motives of AGW proponents, etc. only reveal a greedy and selfish attachment to the conveniences and toys of a fossil fuel addicted society"
Such as using your computer to write comments to Scientific American, using energy very likely created by fossil fuels. How very ironic.
Your sweeping generalization does not include me. My concerns about Al Gore have nothing to do with my convenient toys which I don't deny using this very moment. My concern with Al Gore (as a TYPE of person, not necessarily limited to Al Gore personally or specifically), is utilizing his bully pulpit and political office for huge personal gain, effectuated by changing global economic systems so they are centrally managed (Socialism) and thus more amenable to his control. He cannot personally control a free market, but he CAN control sufficient elements of government (he's been VP after all)... well you get the idea I hope.
Norm: "Politicians who express doubt are pandering to the vocal skeptics"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI meant to add (but ran out of space) it is exactly as correct to say "Politicians who do NOT express doubt are pandering to the warmists."
Pandering is what politicians DO.
Is this a complaint about pandering?
The same behavior can also be called advocacy. It is the warmists of the left, seeking socialism, that cast all dialog in emotional terms. It is my pleasure to "uncast" such terms.
A person that is not a scientist, displaying caution in the face of uncertain science that is itself contaiminated with scandal, is to me showing wisdom. A person that quickly chooses a side in this debate, when he is not equipped to evaluate the data, and has made no attempt to do so, THAT person is "pandering" either to his own emotions or to someone else's emotions.
I want my public officials to be as cautious in spending my tax dollars as I would be. If not, I will help try to find some other politician that will be prudent.
I can't believe the much revered Scientific American regurgitating one of the 35 lie, errors & omissions in Gore's film that Hurricane's are getting worse. After Katrina 5 years ago what intense hurricanes. You should have been aware of a recent study & report by a gov. hurricane watch group that said it ain't so and there''s been an actual decline in severe storms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext, your pushing of Cap & Trade needs upgrading. A British Think Tank 3 months ago published their report that the much vaunted European Cap & Trading effort the past 10 years is a sham. The only group benefiting from this stupid system are the energy companies raking in billions while the citizen of the EU get poorer with higher electricity costs. You really want that for our country?
Thirdly, once the hypocrites in the environmental movement get real about zero carbon output and champion nuclear power as the best source of clean, cheap energy until Fusion comes along, Americans can and will back a plan that won't rip them off. Once these "WATERMELONS" (green on the outside & red [socialist] on the inside) stop trying to dictate and tie us down to their New World Order we will listen. Our freedom is paramount!
bernsten69, the causality CO2 and warming in the past is interesting and useful, but it doesn't describe today's conditions. There is no evidence that past warming was caused by the burning of gigatons of fossil fuel. The possible significance of rising temperatures driving CO2 emissions is the positive feedback effect of melting carbon reservoirs such as permafrost. That is what makes a 2 degree rise so dangerous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismggordon, you are evading my point. The Ice Man evidence proves that today's temperatures are extraordinary.That, after 5000 years, natural causes could be occurring only now is incredible. Nobody has been able to deny that. Unless you have contrary evidence, you must acknowledge that anthropogenic warming is a fact.
I was concerned by the increases of "greenhouse gasses" until I learned of the work of Dr. Henrik Svensmark of Denmark. His pioneering work is in part the study of how our clouds are formed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBriefly, we have been taught the sun evaporates water which rises and forms the clouds. But, it seems the process is a bit more complicated then this. Dr. Svensmark has found the sun's "sun-spot" activity has a lot to do with some rather important cloud formations.
This is because the solar wind created by the sun spots is a current flow causing magnetic fields which in turn controls cosmic particles which enter the atmosphere. These cosmic particles in turn act as catalysts that form aerosols which in turn coalesce into clouds. So, when you look at a satellite picture of the earth showing cloud formation, consider that these patterns reflect the magnetic fields formed by the sun-spots. It answers a lot of questions.
Dr. Svensmark has suggested long ago that these clouds which reflect the suns warming rays, when present, may well have much more influence on the earths temperatures then CO2. If so, then computer models we hear about cannot possibly be correct since they cannot model the suns activities. There is no model for the suns future sun-spot activity.
In the middle of 2007 the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine issued a report on carbon in the atmosphere. I like this link to this scientific report to counter the claims of a link to CO2 as the cause of warming:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
You could also visit:
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_divisions/Sun_Climate.aspx
for information on Dr. Henrik Svensmarks pioneering research regarding cloud formation.
Despite Al Gores claims, the debate is not over. The link to CO2 as a major warming agent has not been scientifically proven. Though many have suggest this link. It is currently a hypothesis, and not a fact by any means. Scientists do not know the cause of warming is CO2, but they claim or rather suggest this might be the cause without proof.
A very many articles have been presented showing the signs of warming that have effected many areas of our planet. Each time, the author will suggest the cause is CO2, but without any evidence of a link. Somehow, many such articles somehow translates to proof. Well, just how?
Remember, evidence of warming is just evidence that warming has occurred, it is not proof that CO2 is the cause. Something else may be the cause.
Doug C., if "something else may be the cause", why is it happening now but not in the previous 5000 years? Anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the only cause that answers that question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "evidence of a link" is that CO2, CH4, and SF6 absorb short wavelength light and reradiate heat, trapping the energy in an atmospheric greenhouse. Water vapor is a potent GHG but, being highly transient in the air before precipitating, it can't be a long term cause, but rather the result of other phenomena.
Only ongoing human behavior and our cumulative effects on the environment explain the recent global temperature rise.
I think Sach's article was quite prescient - he seems to have anticipated the storm of mis-informed (and much debunked) comments that his writing has attracted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNorm Rhett has been fighting the good fight - answering the most outlandish repeating of anti-science lies with the quiet confidence of someone who has read the actual scientific papers. However, I don't know that it will do any good. Serious "denialists" are not convinced by reference to science. They prefer fringe material from bogus (and sometimes industry funded) sources like the "Oregon Institute" and repeat random snide comments from other anonymous bloggers. These debunked memes show up again and again, repeated by the same dedicated gang of mis-informed mis-informers, anonymous and un-embarrassed for having been debunked.
Many of them seem to be afflicted by the "DaVinci persecution syndrome", in which they imagine themselves to be part of a heroic minority who suffer from the ridicule of the scientific majority but who will carry on regardless - because they know the "truth".
To add to these (probably insurmountable) obstacles of insufficient science education and mis-information belief, many of them are also victims of paranoid conspiracy delusions. This last condition is the hardest to overcome, as nothing that anyone can say will crack their belief that the scientists, communists, Al Gore, liberals, the UN, the Bilderbirgs, the Masons, and the Catholics - (and quite probably all of these groups combined) are conspiring to create a body of scientific knowledge out of thin air simply as a means to control the world. If we demonstrate that such a theory is absurd, they will simply accuse us of being in on the deal.
Mr. Sachs is correct. The people who actually know what they're talking about must do a better job of communicating with the non-scientific public and our elected representatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Norm Rhett: You clearly did not examine the link to the carbon report paper on the OISM.ORG website which I listed in my comments. Had you looked at it you would see that the earth has been both warmer and colder from 1850 looking back over the previous 1000 years. Also, 3000 years ago temperatures were a whopping 2°C warmer (See Figure 1 of the referenced report).
Where you get your data that the earth has not been hotter for the last 5000 years, I don’t know. I can’t keep track of all of the bogus information floating around. Someone must have just made the claim without data to back it up. It is hard enough to keep track of correct data let alone bogus claims.
Keep in mind that many proponents of warming or “climate change” simply want an additional tax stream to spend on pet projects. And, when they changed to suggesting that any climate change can be blamed on carbon, then that should have been a clue that linkage to carbon is really weak or non-existent.
Please, go to the two links I left on my original blog statement, and study this information.
Also, I will concede that carbon can capture more heat than other gas molecules, simply because it is a heavier molecule, but this is not as significant as warming proponents claim. The paper I referenced suggests that carbon in the atmosphere will be limited to about 600 ppm without ill effects on the earth. It is now at less than 300 ppm. Also, our food plants grow better at higher levels which is actually a benefit. Cutting down carbon may well not have any effect at all on average temperatures if the sun spot activity continues to warm the planet. We could reduce carbon, at great economic cost, and still find temperatures going up. Also, the climate models are worthless since they cannot predict the sun-spot activity.
Fortunately, over the last 15 years our planet has remained rather steady in its average temperature, and it might have even cooled a bit, despite the carbon sources we now have. There is so much “cooking of the data” that it is hard to tell now what has truly occurred.
Doug,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe OISM paper you referenced shows a graph of sea surface temperatures inferred from isotope ratios of marine organism remains at the bottom of the Sargasso Sea. This is known as a proxy measurement. See Wikipedia article "Temperature record" for an explanation of proxies and a rather different temperature graph of the last 2000 years.
Dr.Svensmark claims that cosmic rays effect cloud formation and, therefore, climate change, but According to our research, it does not look like reduced cosmic rays leads to reduced cloud formation , says Jon Egill Kristjansson, a professor at the University of Oslo. In any case, because past cosmic ray flux cannot be measured directly, it is another proxy argument.
The temperature measurement I am using is not a proxy. It is a human body that was frozen 5300 years ago and did not melt until 1991, as described in my earlier comments. Unless anyone can identify a natural cause and show how it could work like that, anthropogenic climate change is a fact.
Yes, some plants grow better with increased CO2, but any benefit will likely be far outweighed by the disruption of weather patterns on which current agriculture depends.
To Norm Rhett: Many measurements used in science are proxy measurements. That does not make them less valid, only less direct. It is difficult to find data for the same time period which could be considered a direct measurement, such as coming from a thermometer, which is rather a recent invention. We do have other indirect information about some periods, such as the Medieval warm period (approx. 900 to 1200 AD), or some rather cold winters during the 30 years war in Europe (1618 to 1648 AD). Also, George Washington was at Valley Forge with his troops during the Little Ice Age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven some of the recent direct measurements we are now finding have been tampered with, or were taken from temperature locations that were skewed by surrounding features that would falsely increase the reading (part of the climate-gate issue).
As for the cloud research, this is rather a young area of science. It is important since we know that clouds have the capacity to reflect much the sun’s rays back into space when present. We all know that a cloudy day will likely be a cooler day for this reason. That does not take much convincing, since we regularly witness this result. Clouds are like the shutter in a film camera, blocking out radiation from striking the earth, or warming lower atmospheres and reflecting it out into space.
The mechanism has to do with magnetic flux produced by the sun. If you look at a satellite image of the earth by going to the Dish channel, for those who have Dish television service, or perhaps a similar Direct TV image, you see swirls of cloud formations that may well be the result of that magnetic flux.
The Oregon Institute paper notes the correlation between atmospheric temperatures and the sun’s activity, and the Danish research may well explain why these clouds follow the sun’s activity.
Taking another look at the greenhouse hypothesis of we are asked to accept that these gasses trap the thermal infrared radiation that might otherwise escape the earth. Actually there are two separate claims, one that suggests CO2 contributes about 20% of this trapping, and another that suggests about 1%. The truth is probably between these two extremes. The IPCC accepts the 20% figure. In either event, water vapor is understood to be the largest factor, and even skeptics would agree with this. One researcher suggests that if it were not for water vapor, our planed would be 14 degrees C cooler. But, what is the differential effect of CO2 changes? That is the question at hand. How do we keep all other factors constant, and just change CO2 then measure the results? We can’t. It is difficult to devise a laboratory experiment that will answer the relevant questions.
If one looks at the available temperature averages and compares the trends to the sun’s activity and CO2 changes, one comes to the conclusion that the sun’s activity overwhelms the CO2 contribution. So, the bottom line is: we don’t know how much CO2 contributes to warming, it is hard to measure. I simply choose to accept the Oregon Institute’s conclusion that CO2 changes in our atmosphere are not a threat.
Additional comment to Norm Rhett:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of the papers that highlight evidences of warming, whether glaciers, warming permafrost, forest changes, or polar caps prove that CO2 is the cause of the warming, though the author generally suggests it is the cause. What they all do show is that warming has occurred. Could it just as well be the sun-spot activity?
I also choose to accept that we need to reduce our oil, natural gas and coal consumption, but for other reasons entirely. We don’t need a punitive carbon tax to do it.
As for your fellow stuck in the ice some 5300 years ago, I don’t see why this proves anything except he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It does sound interesting though, I would like to read more about this discovery.
Doug,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 5300 year old remains are called Oetzi or The Ice Man.
Because they require time correlation and calibration with the values of interest, in this case temperature, proxy measurements are inherently less reliable than direct ones. How can you dispute the assertion that Oetzi's body provides a direct record of temperatures below freezing until the present warming?
You and other skeptics steadfastly pursue natural causes of warming without showing any clear evidence of long term time and magnitude correlation. You clutch at proxies of proxies: solar flux distorts earth's magnetic field which effects cosmic rays which effect clouds which effect temperatures. Warming has occurred just and, for the last 5300 years, only when humans have dramatically increased GHG emissions. Why do you deem this most obvious correlation unacceptable?
To Norm Rhett:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, I don’t know much about where this poor fellow became frozen, but there are lots of places on the earth that have been frozen for more then 5000 years. Except near the poles, these places are normally at high elevations. The record of receding glaciers are studied and mentioned in the OISM report, though only for the last 200 years. Your frozen fellow only proves that his resting place was frozen over 5,000 years. It does not say much about other places.
There is a separate issue of soot and ash released into the atmosphere by some industries. This material can effect glaciers in a local area more then others far away. This soot can cause more heat to be absorbed by the glacier. Could this explain something about this Ice Man? Recent soot accumulation at his location?
The OISM report also shows that glacier receding started before the industrial revolution. So it is difficult to prove man’s release of CO2 is the only cause since hydrocarbon use was very low prior to this time. And, there is little doubt that if the earth were to cool again then glaciers would regain some of this lost length. If this were to occur, would you then concede that CO2 has had little to do with temperature changes, assuming we still are at a higher level of CO2?
As for accuracy concerns, of course any measurement either direct or indirect has a uncertainty associated with it, and a good scientists will take that uncertainty into account. Indirect measurements will generally have more error then direct measurements. The Sargasso Sea data ended in 1975, though published in 1996 so the OISM authors added 0.25 degree C to the end date of that graph to show a 2006 value (the OISM report is dated July, 2007). I don’t know what was claimed for accuracy, perhaps we can get a copy of the original report and find out how the authors handled the temperature uncertainty.
As for your last statement that humans have only recently increased temperatures, and before, back to when the Ice Man was frozen, it was much colder, all I can say is that many historical records indicate warmer periods then today. There are clearly other warmer periods then the present time recorded in written history. That carries more weight then your Ice Man. The Medieval warm period when Greenland and Iceland were colonized until cold weather forced them out is one example that comes to mind.
One thing is for sure; the subject is much more complicated then can be handled by such limited communication means that we have at our disposal. And, the whole earth is our laboratory which makes data gathering very difficult. This is why politics may well get it wrong, because it is a popularity contest by mostly non-scientists. Even scientists don’t agree, but the OISM website lists over 31,000 scientists who do not agree with the alarmists that man has caused warming or climate change. So clearly, scientists are not unified on this subject.
As you acknowledged, Oetzi remained frozen for the whole 5300 years. You imply that his resting place was anomalously cool, but the map on the first page of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/ shows the alpine temperature 1 degree warmer than today. As you might guess, I doubt the calibration of the chart, but skeptics consider the Medieval Warming to have been worldwide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assume your speculation about soot and ash is that they melted Oetzi's glacier, but that seems very unlikely at 10000' in the Alps.
Greenland was so named by Eric the Red to entice settlers. It was not abandoned but rather collapsed some time after 1400, a century after the Medieval Warming (900-1300). Galileo invented a water thermometer in 1593, so there could be no accurate prior temperatures. The growing of grapes in England proves nothing. Grapes have been grown in New York since 1677. I have lived both places and can assure you that New York is colder.
Unless you can show otherwise, Oetzi provides the only direct evidence of past temperatures, which is that today's are extraordinary.
I'd be very happy to see a long term reversal of the warming trend, but that's not what the Climate Action Partnership expects. "USCAP is an expanding alliance of major businesses and leading climate and environmental groups that have come together to call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions." USCAP membership includes all of the major car companies, Alcoa, Shell, BP America, Duke Energy, PG&E, and about 20 other corporations and environmental groups. Perhaps they are just covering themselves against liability for having contributed to an climate disaster, but theirs is a dispassionate busines perspective. They have seen enough to be convinced.
You are going to have positive and negative data streaming on any major topic like climate change, and that is healthy. We need to look at both sides before hypothesis can reach a conclusion. A person would have to be mentally blind not to see that what we are doing to our environment is destructive. I believe it is dangerous and destructive to use fossils like coal, oil, and radiation in large quanity to produce energy, but we need something that can produce large abounts of energy without producing large abounts of damage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFossil fuel cars produce an incredible amount of pollunts in every aspect of our environment and no one can deny that fact. Just converting our cars and trucks over to electricity would stop greenhouse gases enough to where our environment could probably return to somewhat normal. That is a easy and affordable step to take and it would give us a little more time to find a solution for our fossil fuel burning power plants.
Soccerdad is right when he said that global warming is not a totally bad thing. Sure, it will produce famin, droughts, extentions, and maybe a mini ice age somewhere in some parts of the world, but the ones of us who survive it will stay a little warmer and our utility bills will be a little bit less.
To Norm Rhett:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not suggesting that the resting place for Oetzi Man was anomalously cool, but rather some anomalously warming event happened to expose him when it did. It was just a suggestion to look for evidence of this. I dont know what happened to him, but it does not prove global warming at all.
Thank you for finding evidence of the medieval warm period, and the collapse of the Greenland settlers later. Dates for the warm period, both its start and ending are approximate. The settlers must have braved the ever cooling temperatures at the start of the Little Ice Age until forced to leave their homes. It sounds like good material for an HBO movie.
As for the worldwide event statement, I dont think anyone suggests that temperatures were the same worldwide. Probably average temperatures were higher at similar latitudes around the earth when higher in Europe. We cant know given the lack of evidence. Perhaps average temperatures at polar caps were a fraction of a degree C higher, while Europes average was a full degree C higher. Who knows? It is just speculation. The point remains that the average temperatures have been both colder and warmer then those of the recent time. It would have to get quite a lot hotter to equal the Medieval Warming Period. And comparing the suns activity with temperature changes together with CO2 changes, I choose to accept the sun has had much more to do with the changes then CO2. That is the point. Controlling mans release of CO2 may well have little or no effect on the worlds climate changes.
Let us all get the data and message clear before we impose huge new taxes on our economy, or to plant trees to earn carbon credits, or pay foreign governments to avoid changes in their lands, or many other nifty plans (I support saving the Amazon, but for the right reasons.).
Also, reducing hydrocarbon use is a worthy goal, simply because it has a limited supply, and we import too much as a nation. I accept that. But, do it for the right reasons.
I dont know what to say about the grape growing seasons, our you experience relative to different areas.
Pointing to a group of CEOs that have succumbed to political pressure about climate change, and their willingness to accept financial harm to their companies is an interesting separate subject about group think or group hysteria or some other study of sociological science. Have at it. Count me out of this scientific endeavor.
Norm,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am I really to believe the entire AWG theory now rests on your adamant belief in the defrosting of one body 1991, and this MUST be a direct cause-effect of man made global warming? This is your argument? Oetzi man defrosted, the ONLY thing which could have possibly warmed the earth and defrosted him is man-made carbon, therefore accept the AGW theory or I will discourse you into submission. That is probably the most ridiculous logic I have ever come accross in over 20 years of reading debate.
And you wonder why there are skeptics?
The Last Straw,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour charge of "ridiculous logic" needs some support. The question is whether humans have caused global warming. There are four steps to the logic: 1) an exposed body remained frozen for 5300 years and then thawed, 2) no natural cause of warming has been presented that could account for the observed timing and magnitude, 3) anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are unprecedented, 4) greenhouse gases cause warming. QED. Which of these steps is ridiculous? Please include evidence, preferably in the form of links to objective sources. I would be very happy to be proven wrong.
Norm:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo we have to prove a negative: That this man was not preserved as you suggest because of your four steps. Otherwise, man-caused warming is true. Is this your scientific method?
I am not a scientist, I'm just one of the 'unwashed masses' who has questions, and when I ask, I get snapped at.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess I'm just baffled by the whole situation. Perhaps Norm or one of the more enlightended AGW'rs can help me understand.
My question is simple:
If we have INCREASED CO2 levels in the atmosphere (this is Norm's assertion, I did not look it up - sorry no reference) then why aren't we warming?
According to Mr. Jones there has been no significant statistical warming in the last 15 years. Here's my reference to satisfy Norm- http://www.rateitall.com/i-3169685-professor-phil-jones-admits-no-significant-warming-1995-through-2009.aspx
I know I am not a higher thinker and I can't get all scientific on anyone, but it makes no sense to me how the two sets of data can coincide in reality. How is our atmosphere rising in CO2, but temps are not rising?
And then to throw in Oetzi man as evidence of global warming is even more bizarre for me. (But I digress) I visit this site to gain information, and frankly the skeptics come across rational and well-informed. They raise very compelling data-backed questions which cannot easily be dismissed. The AGWrs simply want everyone to just believe. (or else)
So I appologize for the 'ridiculous logic' label, and I will await an explanation on how this situation of high CO2
and no warming can exist together. And if Oetzi man is the ONLY source of evidence you have to try to compel me to believe in AGW, please refrain. It's just too much of a stretch for me (and it looks like many others as well)to follow.
Thanks in advance!
One thing we can predict with certainty: a carbon tax would have a dramatic negative impact on the economy. What we can't predict with any meaningful degree of certainty: that the global temperature will be warmer than it is today in 10, 30, 50 or 100 years (though I'm sure James Hansen and his computer models would beg to differ).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about we do more science first before we make potentially disastrous policy decisions? So far there isn't a lot of compelling evidence that warming is happening, that it's unprecedented, that it's caused by CO2, and that humans are causing it.
Before you "cite references" people get excited, do a little surfing on the Internet yourselves and you will find plenty of peer-reviewed studies drawing no conclusion as to warming (even in the IPCC reports), and plenty analyzing the more outstanding claims and refuting them.
Meanwhile, until we're more certain, instead of wringing our hands over an imaginary apocalypse, let's do what homo sapiens have always done when confronted with any kind of change: adapt.
"e-mails from prominent climate scientists show an organized effort to squash dissent"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSigh, the was NO "organized effort, there is just antis who seize upon phrases that dont mean what you think they mean
There's a growing conflict of interest in the field, with anthropogenic climate change proponents on the receiving end of grants and positions not as available to skeptics."
Because skeptics don't have the same preponderance of evidence so aren't viewed by their peers as being as serious
"Like "intelligent design" proponents, manmade-climate change adherents interpret any observable data as supporting their position"
Bullshit! because you dont understand the mechanisms doesnt mean the scientists dont.
"the solutions proposed would do very little (offsetting a degree or so o warming over a century) at great, great cost in dollars"
Again evidence? Most economic treaments that project over many years with tech trends indicate the opposite
If you've chosen to deny climate change, you've chosen to pick and choose which science is convenient for you. Just like there were scientists willing to prove the health benefits of smoking, there is psuedo-science to comfort you in this area. But let's clear one thing up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a fact:
U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ci�ncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Acad�mie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascars National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
lAcad�mie des Sciences et Techniques du S�n�gal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a fraud:
American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemens Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
If the information available to me is correct:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Ted Turner has publicly stated his wish for a 90% reduction in human population.
2. Ted Turner contributed 1 billion dollars to the U.N.
3. The funding for global warming research has been provided by the U.N.
It only seems reasonable to me, if those to whom the contribution was made were in philosophical disagreement with Mr. Turner, he would not have made the contribution.
Is any of the information available to me incorrect?
Was Dr. Michael Crichton wrong?
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
To Splant:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly, politics is a popularity contest, while science is no such contest.
Many on your list will change with the administration so were of the opposite view under Bush. Even independent groups bend under pressure to accept a popular view they may be skeptical about.
Thank you for listing those of opposite view, at least you show some balance.
A few scientists can be correct, while the majority is still being taught the incorrect but popular science. I believe that is happening in the science of cloud formation right now.
Dr. Henrik Svensmark of Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen Denmark may well change the textbooks on the science of cloud formation in a few years. So, we my well watch the few teaching the many in cloud science what is really true in this science, and what was wrong with past beliefs. Most of us will watch from the sidelines and either accept or reject this new science, hopefully based on good scientific arguments. I find this exciting to watch.
It happened with the invention of the transistor. A group of four scientists invented it, and then taught the many about this new science.
There is no doubt that an unlimited number of examples exist where the correct science starts with one or a few scientists and then moves to the many.
It is the nature of the subject, and sometimes entrenched attitudes get people a little hot under the collar.
Galileo met anger when he tried to get others to change their view from the popular science of the day that the world was flat, stationary, and the sun moved over the flat earth. He was persecuted for having a new and unpopular scientific view, though Galileo was correct. Would anyone now suggest that Galileo’s view of the world as a sphere turning on its axis and moving around the sun is not correct? The many are now convinced that one person advanced the correct science against an angry mob many years ago, and few if any now suggest the world is flat.
What we must have in science is adherence to good scientific principals that prove linkage in a scientific way. Either there is good scientific methods, or there is poor methods. Sorting out which is used in any paper is difficult even for scientists, so peer reviewed papers may not sort out problems with a scientific report.
Trying to agree on what constitutes proof in Atmospheric Science seems to be the problem. We often get it wrong in Medical Science too, but our batting average in medicine seems to be slightly better but not infallible.
None of these groups have changed their view as a result of the change in administration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we learn something new in science, whether it be with clouds or whatever, that changes the way science is percieved. There will be detractors and supporters within the scientific community. Industry has no place in that discussion, yet it makes a place for its self in the climate science.
I would like to point out that it is usually cultural inertia that slows down the few correct scientists, such as in the case of Galileo.
To answer your question, yes, The Flat Earth Society challenges Galileo's claim that the earth is round, and they recently reopened for new membership in October 2009. They have their own psuedo-science to back up their claims.
My point is that this has not been a scientific debate for a long time, but a political one. Science is clearly on one side, while greenhouse emitting industries are on the other. One side is driven by science, the other is driven by profit, and all around them are people who have made choices about what they want to believe. That's the truth of it, and we need to face that in order to move forward.
Also, Mr. Crofut, Dr. Michael Crichton was a fiction writer, not a scientist, and yes he was wrong, and The UN has no policy of 90% population reduction.
"Fourth, it's time to step up the response to the climate skeptics, who have misled the public. The Wall Street Journal leads the campaign against climate science..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------
No doubt, ever since murdoch's news corp bought another propaganda outlet, they have been leading the denialist charge with endless anti-science opinions from the manufactured doubt industry. Of course their anti-science editors would not want to debate real scientists, and they would rather just engage in a huge conspiracy theory short on facts, but heavy on propaganda.
the last straw: "If we have increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, then why aren't we warming? According to Mr. Jones..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-----------------
It's just so hilarious to see so many skeptics or denialists using Phil Jones' statement out of context, after belittling and demeaning him for his work at the CRU. In the same BBC interview, Jones did say that "there has been a positive trend of +0.12C per decade," and that he's "100% confident that the climate has warmed." Jones also said, "I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950's is due to human activity."
It also bears remembering that the HadCRUT record that Phil Jones was referencing, only covers about 80% of the globe. An analysis by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) as well as NASA GISS find that the areas omitted by HadCRUT are some of the fastest warming regions in the world. Consequently, the HadCRUT record that Jones used, underestimates the warming trend, as demonstrated by the NASA GISS record which covers the whole globe.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Another skeptic, dr. roy spencer, has shown that Jan. 2010 was the warmest January in 32 years of satellite records with a +0.63C global temperature anomaly, and that Feb. 2010 was the 2nd warmest February in 32 years of satellite records with a +0.61C global temperature anomaly. It's very easy to see a warming trend over the 31 years of satellite global temperature records on his page here:
www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Simply by using someone's words out of context to base your entire comment, is not only ridiculous by irresponsible, since the decade of the 2000's that just ended was the warmest globally on record -- hardly making a case for cooling!
To Splant:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe “Flat Earth Society” is simply a group of people who like to get together and party. Their name and view is essentially “tongue in cheek” when conveyed. They no doubt relish the idea that they can say such outlandish things with a straight face. There is no doubt in my mind that privately they understand the truth.
You are correct that the debate has largely become political, but it needs to be a serious scientific debate. Those who deny this “climate change” at least deserve some modicum of respect.
The late Dr. Michael Crichton was also a medical doctor who graduated at the top of his class (summa cum laude from Harvard). Commenter Bill Crofut referenced a serious view he had on this subject, which was as much about the scientific process he saw being used in many areas of research as it was about “global warming.” The “aliens,” if you get his drift, are those who shortcut science with hunches and theories, including computer models, which cannot be validated. They are “alien” to good science. When he wrote fiction, he labeled it as such. Perhaps some scientists should at least label their “leaps of faith” as a kind of fiction when their papers cannot be validated. I say that with some reluctance because I know they are well intended, though I believe they are wrong. It is simply an honest difference of opinion.
Finally, for Iakota2012, I have subscribed to the Wall Street Journal for decades now. I read it every business day. I find it to be reasonably balanced with regard to this subject. They have presented both sides of the argument consistent with their publication format. It is the science journals and popular media channels who have been unbalanced on this subject, giving short shrift to skeptic opinions and suppressing any science that might lead to another result.
Wonderful and respectful exchange of views, but why don’t we just dispense with this science gobbledygook and look at realities?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne the one hand we have the Pluribus Pluribum Cabal (PPC); working for world government through the UN. There are direct links between Maurice Strong, a few Rockefellers, the Stockholm 1972 conference, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Rio 1992 conference, Naomi Oreskes, James Hansen, the Kyoto Protocol and Al Gore. This is all about using the environment to enslave free people. Socialists, even Communists, one and all.
On the other hand we have the Feudalist Libertarian Conspiracy (FLC); working for unfettered private rights. Funded by Big Tobacco & Big Oil, It started with Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, Patrick Michaels, and continued with Ross McKitrick, Steven McIntyre and James Inhofe. This is all about using disbelief in science to free enslaved Atlases (a shrug will do it). Capitalists, even Liberalists, one and all.
Maybe a duel between Gore and Inhofe will fix it?
doug c.: "I find it to be reasonably balanced with regard to this subject."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------
Since news corp bought the WSJ, I find it just as one-sided today as the Fox Nooz propagandists, and certainly believe that they have a need to push the economics of "cap and trade" more than the real science. Whether or not you believe it, murdoch and ailes have an agenda through their news corp propaganda outlet, and it's easy to follow the MONEY!
"One primary public relations argument for the warmists has been the threat of the Himalayan glaciers which are the source for many rivers in India disappearing by 2035. That turned out to be based on a conversation, reported by a journalist, repeated by the World Wildlife Fund , and included, without citation, in the IPCC AR4."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's just a lie. I'd use milder language, but there's no way around it: you're repeating a lie. Either you're lying (which I doubt) or some so-called climate-change "skeptics" are lying to you and you're naively believing them instead of skeptically checking facts.
The claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035 is a two-sentnece comment in a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2 of the IPCC report, written by authors from the region. It was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is *not* the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the IPCC report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice, with the authors including leading glacier experts. There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 ( Global Climate Projections ), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCCs glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that some people in IPCC Working Group 2 (studying impacts of change), instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their Working Group 1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.
Yes, in the thousands of pages of IPCC report, two sentence about the Himalayan glaciers was wrong. What's a lie is the claim that this mistake was a "primary public relations argument" for warmists. For god's sake, try googling up any reference to this claim from before the current fuss arose about it being false - you'll find almost nothing. If it had been being talked about earlier then the glacier experts would have corrected it earlier.
This lie shows what's wrong with this debate. The IPCC reports are vast. Of course any work that large will contain a few minor mistakes - life is just like that. But a couple of incorrect sentences in a huge-multi-volume piece of work is blown out of proportion by people simply lying about their importance.
How can one possibly have real debate in the face of such outright dishonesty by climate change deniers?
Why do we need more energy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe present situation in the US is a failed free market,
as long as I could understand, not a production problem
necessarily...
Amazing that what was once the World's intellectual powerhouse has turned out to be a mess of quibbling ninnies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on Uncle Sam, buck up!
To Doug C. :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour reference was published after 2007 and conveniently ignores data from 2000 and beyond with shows a negative correlation with solar activity. This is an old discredited argument. See: ^ Benestad,, R. E.; G. A. Schmidt (21 July 2009). "Solar trends and global warming". Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres.
doi:10.1029/2008JD011639. "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980.".
I'm not sure where you are getting your CO2 data, but the last time I checked, the May peak for this year was 393 - up from 390 from last year. Please provide any data you may have to demonstrate cooling over the last 15 years.
Also please provide sources for your assertion that proponents of "climate change" simply want an additional tax stream to spend on pet projects.