Image: Courtesy of William Hewitt
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Editor's Note: Excerpted from A Newer World—Politics, Money, Technology, and What's Really Being Done to Solve the Climate Crisis, by William F. Hewitt. With permission from the publisher, University of New Hampshire Press. Copyright © William F. Hewitt, 2012. (University of New Hampshire Press is an imprint of University Press of New England, www.upne.com.)
A concerted, focused, and well-funded campaign of disinformation has been waged against climate change.
This attempt to discredit the science, to instill a sense of doubt about the conclusiveness and the extent of the agreement within the scientific community, is a story well told by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in Merchants of Doubt. Oreskes looked at 928 — 10 percent — of all the papers published on climate change in peer-reviewed science journals over a ten-year period. She chose the 928 papers at random. Not one disputed the view that manmade greenhouse gases (GHGs) were causing a catastrophic environmental crisis.
Greenpeace, for one, has published well-documented reports on the funding for climate change denial by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, among others. Journalists James Hoggan and Ross Gelbspan have also done considerable spadework in uncovering the campaigns mounted by fossil fuel special interests to discredit climate science. Hoggan writes, for instance, that "it's a story of deceit, of poisoning public judgment — of an anti-democratic attack on our political structures and a strategic undermining of the journalistic watchdogs who keep our social institutions honest."
Gelbspan says, "The reason most Americans don't know what is happening to the climate is that the oil and coal industries have spent millions of dollars to persuade them global warming isn't happening." Greenpeace notes that the ongoing "campaigns against climate science continue to receive funding from big oil and energy interests — not just ExxonMobil, but a raft of other companies and foundations whose profits are driven by the products that cause global warming."
A prominent public relations consultant, Frank Luntz, wrote a memo in 2000 that was widely circulated among conservatives seeking to debunk climate science and blunt any public policy progress on the issue. "Voters believe there's no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
The problem lies in the fact that even though the misinformation and doubt promulgated by the denialists flies directly in the face of the unequivocal evidence produced by scientists over more than 30 years — and wholly accepted within the scientific community — the media has too often taken the misinformation at its face value. At best, the media has continuously opined that there is a "debate" in scientific circles. At worst, they have broadcast the most outrageous of the claims being touted.
As early as 1994, Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer saw the danger: "What they've done is try to take scientific understanding and put it on the same level with political opinion. After all, if scientific understanding is the same as political opinion, then everybody's opinion is equally valid. There are no facts. And if there are no facts, there is no extra validity to acting on environmental problems than not acting." (As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.")
See what we're tweeting about
219 Comments
Add Comment?????????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis passes for a legitimate question? It's akin to the bias agenda put forth my global warming cultists.
Quoting 'Greenpeace' but then complaining about bias? The irony is dripping.
Do you accept the science of climate change is a lot like do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Regardless of one's opinion, this type of journalism is a discredit to the science of Scientific american.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe they are quite different questions... accepting 'the science of climate change' means that one has read the peer-reviewed literature and waded through the research on the question out there and has had the opportunity to make an informed decision about the veracity of the work. It has nothing to do with belief or opinion, as your presumed analogical question is based on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Do you accept the science behind X' is not the same as 'Do you accept X'. The former question probes whether you know the basis for an argument or not.
I accept that climate change "science" is a corrupt, biased and self-serving exercise with more in common with a mind-controlling cult than real science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI accept that real science, debate and independent thought are unwelcome in climate science.
I accept that multibillion dollar NGO's are sucking taxpayer money away from legitimate scientific pursuits.
I accept that SCIAM is in the bag for the Alarmist Community.
I accept that Climate Change Science is about as scientific as Scientology.
Have I made myself clear?
I am Joe, and I am a Climate Scientology heretic.
I am afraid that Joe Shoshin and many others like him may not be capable of recognizing science, thanks to decades of distortion by various special interests, starting with Big Tobacco. These special interests, in their pursuit of corporate profits, have undermined respect for science as a profession, for scientists as professionals, and ultimately have threatened one foundation of our democracy, an informed populace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreenpeace may be too much a member of the choir for its conclusions about the science to be accepted, but if one trusts its investigation ("well-documented reports") into the big-money spent to persuade American media that the science is NOT correct, or is not broadly concurred in by scientists, then Greenpeace may contribute valuably to the POLITICS and PROPAGANDA of the issue -- if not to the science, which appears to be as widely accepted by scientists, as, say, the-earth-is-not-flat and apples-fall-to-the-ground-when-dropped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo science is no different than religion? Did you really mean to say that, or in your anger with the article did you misread the title and fail to notice that it asks if one accepts the "science of climate change." That would mean accepting that science can study the phenomenon, can do experiments and collect data that test hypotheses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe repeated attacks on Scientific American whenever they publish climate change stories make me think someone somewhere is keen on the trying to convince Scientific American to shy away from reporting about climate change. That would be a tactic one might expect from an industry interested in keeping people confused and in doubt about what the evidence says.
Sorry Sciam, I don't plan to drink the coolaid no matter how many times you thrust it at me. Why not stop with the one-sided, hair-on-fire, hand-wringing and get the liars together in one room?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know your agenda and frankly your credibility on politically charged issues is pretty thin. I want to know the truth. Sciam continuously screaming one side of the argument is not going to convince me.
Global climate change is observable and measurable, as such it can be accepted as a fundamental scientific phenomena. The roll of human activity is much more difficult to measure and depends to a significant degree on mathematical models of climate dynamics which include analysis of atmospheric thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and albedo. I work in this field and am quite familiar with the difficulties involved in producing a reliable model that can be extended to future events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy biggest problem with the notion of anthropogenic climate change is how neatly it fits with certain political agendas and how diametrically opposed it is to others. As a scientist I am extremely distrustful of politicians and their motives. Because of the potential for global disaster from a runaway climate change politicians see this as a powerful tool for the acquisition of power. This makes maintenance of scientific objectivity very difficult. The majority of politicians are lawyers and as such make poor scientists. It is dangerous to trust them with scientific conclusions because they lack the expertise to fully comprehend the significance of the concepts involved. They do, however, recognize a cause celeb when they see one and are quick to attach themselves to it if it is consistent with their ideological agenda.
As long as we are still spending our energy, effort and resources debating whether or not we recognize the scientific consensus on climate change, then the global warming denialists have won their campaign.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActual steps to initiate the dramatic changes that will be necessary to address climate change take a back seat and continue to be delayed, which is the primary goal of the denial factions.
SciAm needs to clearly take the position that the time for debating the consensus has come and gone, and put its focus on where we need to prioritize research resources, how we accelerate movement of new technologies from university to practice, what technologies offer the most reduction in greenhouse gas generation and how we put taking action on climate change at the top of the national agenda.
"The problem lies in the fact that even though the misinformation and doubt promulgated by the denialists flies directly in the face of the unequivocal evidence produced by scientists over more than 30 years — and wholly accepted within the scientific community."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes! In spite of unequivocal evidence, in spite of the acceptance of the science in the scientific community at large and all major scientific organizations, there are still a fairly large number of folks who delight in denying everything about the science. Quite a few of them seem to dominate this site. They are not entitled to make up their own facts but they sure try. Since peer-reviewed articles cannot support their denial they resort to other sources that do not come from actual experts in the field who are doing actual research. It is like getting advice on how to treat cancer from a “new age” health enthusiast.
Then why do you keep coming here Bill? Is it to evangilize your anti-science agenda? We're bored of right wing nut jobs such as yourself pretending you have a clue what you are talking about. You have nothing to contribute to this debate. You are an ignorant sociopath who sees the end of the gravy train.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is it about climate science that incites such extravagant denial and hand-waving from you? Why would you assume that a scientific question must have two sides, with equal credibility? I don't seem to hear demands for the representation of both sides for many other scientific questions such as the theory that the earth is round...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, there are some credible hypotheses (e.g. works by Svensmark, Shaviv and Lindzen) out there which have tried to account for non-anthropogenic warming, but these haven't been able to account for the entire extent of warming, both witnessed and predicted. The dual factors of carbon dioxide concentrations and solar-forcing accomplish this job admirably.
The job of SciAm is merely to circulate science, not to produce it, and does not claim to do so, unlike some of the prophets of the blind, denialist movement that preach based on their beliefs.
If there is indeed another side to the question of climate change, science will unearth it (which is the beauty of science, by the way). As of now, that does not seem to be the case.
@Shoshin, but then again, you're an idiot and a liar so what you think, if you do think, really doesn't matter. The fact that you believe that thousands of people from around the world are perpetrating a fraud to score grant money shows just how much of an idiot you are. You need to get back on your meds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad SciAm is not discouraged by the rantings of the denialists. This is one of the most important issues facing humanity today. Please keep this issue on the front burner!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's hilarious that after the article about "published well-documented reports on the funding for climate change denial by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, among others...." the denialist trolls immediately rush to the comments, thereby providing convenient examples to support the article's claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccept the science of climate change? As soon as there is some actual science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccept the computer programmers and mathematicians made a really complex computer model, Sure they have done this, kudos to them.
Too bad all the data going into these models is assumed, plugged and based on yet more statistics that are little better than clinical trials that "prove" some goofy pill will reduce fat or clean out free radicals from a human body.
The problem with your science Warmists, is the fact you have to ask for acceptance, if the fantasy you created was real, then the question would not have to be asked.
There is climate change, that is about all you have.
Humans do in fact negatively affect the planet in many ways. You know that too and this is about all you know.
Your "science" is marred by the fact that every single outcome of all your so called experiments via model is the creating conditions where your theory is never wrong. True experiments to find facts will be designed for any outcome not rigged and analyzed to produce a desired outcome.
Plus your insistence that the only result of climate change is a variety of extinction level Armageddons, which is not accurate. We have had a much warmer period called the PETM, while 56 million years ago, did not wipe out the mammals that evolved into us humans.
Finally and probably the most damaging to your dogma and its acceptance is the solutions. Every single solution involved the governments being handed power and money and by extension any global warmists feeding this hysteria. Then whatever the government doesnt take, every other solution is only from whatever companies and non-profits set up by who, warmists and their followers.
Basically, if your answer is always we must take money, then whatever it is your selling is snake oil.
I too am a heretic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes we are the ones who cant recognize science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you drink the dogma of global warming as predicted by computer models all programmed to produce the same outcome and any followers must start to pay the priests of this prophecy through tax, regulation, purchasing snake oil from some green company or just give them money while they claim to plant trees to reduce your carbon foot print while handing you a breathing permit. Not really much different from a 13th century Bishop in europe taking "donations" to get on the fast track to heaven via the bishop.
The only people brainwashed by misinformation here would be warmists that believe Armageddon is coming.
Pid: "Accept the science of climate change? As soon as there is some actual science. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's the center of it all. There is specualtion, politics, and everythig else passed off as science. Most of it is anything but science. Now this article relies on Greenpeace. So pathetic.
Bill: "Sorry Sciam, I don't plan to drink the coolaid no matter how many times you thrust it at me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the tactic of all cults. icluding the globa warmists, since the beginning. Scream louder and louder. Up the ante. The consequences of not 'believing' are elevated to a biblical plague state: Believe or perish.
Sciencefirst: "Quoting 'Greenpeace' but then complaining about bias? The irony is dripping."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the global warming groupies must be embarrassed by this one. Greenpeace is now the arbiter of what is acceptable science? Shiver.
rspngr:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you accept the science of climate change is a lot like do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior."
The gospel according to tinpot dictators in basketcase countries. Global warming is real...send us your money. Now that's science at its best.....not.
Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I accept that multibillion dollar NGO's are sucking taxpayer money away from legitimate scientific pursuits.
I accept that SCIAM is in the bag for the Alarmist Community."
SCIAM has fallen from a voice of science to a shill for the agenda of the 'in crowd'.
What is pathetic is low lifes such as yourself, prid and shoshin who think you can lie away the facts. Just because you claim there isn't any supporting science doesn't make that true. The fact that you need to lie to advance your ideology tells us that you don't even believe it. Fortunately, most people here don't get their science from psychopaths. All that you have succeeded in proving is that the denier camp is populated exclusivly with ignorant and irrational snakeoil salesmen. But we already knew that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree Professor. I am tired of political hyperbole and want to clearly understand what is known, preferable from an unbiased source. As near as I can tell we have the extraordinary claims of imminent harm, but I am not certain we have the ability or the data to produce extraordinary proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Sciam wants a credible role in this they need to put away their agenda and present the discussion evenhandedly. One more inflammatory article from one more true believer does not help.
An informed public needs facts. The leaked IPCC report again shows we have been fed fiction for years in a fact wrapper. Those of us who have tried to point out the fiction in fact disguise have been demonised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatch the scramble to 'explain' the leaked report. the explanations will be as convoluted as the explanations for the email scandal.
profitchuck said, "Because of the potential for global disaster from a runaway climate change politicians see this as a powerful tool for the acquisition of power."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm... Are we seeing much debate about cap-and-trade or any other legislation to curb CO2? About as much activity there as legislative debates for gun control.
A much more accurate statement would be, "because of the potential for economic disaster from a runaway deficits, politicians see this as a powerful tool for the acquisition of power."
...but I guess that would be off-topic.
What would actually convince you then Bill? What do you really think the agenda is here? When in doubt follow the money. And who makes money from less pollution control? Scientists?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe is no debate about climate change. You can debate the causes of it until the cows come home, but the earth is warming. The impacts are already being felt and they will get worse. I can give you a TON of referenced evidence this is true. Where is your evidence its not?
On a personal note, even if climate change weren't threatening humanity, wouldn't it be cool if we stopped treating our planet like a big toilet? Just my .02
"The problem with your science Warmists, is the fact you have to ask for acceptance, if the fantasy you created was real, then the question would not have to be asked."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-------------------
The title of this article was fashioned just for you. You and the rest of the cult fell for it.
That makes no sense. I'm not asking for your acceptance. You can think the world is flat too and I wouldn't waste too much time on you if you weren't willing to listen to the evidence it's not. If you want to have a discussion then present your evidence. Saying "is not", isn't a discussion, its just a tantrum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. And I am not even denying that human caused climate change could be occurring. Just denying their so called science because it isn't science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do realize the denier camp isnt actually selling anything? It is your warmist and its religion with all of the green companies, breathing permits and other snake oil you really are selling. Again with warmists and their lack of seeing reality. We deniers sell nothing, get accused of it while the accusers are taking loans and grants to fund solar companies and who knows what else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeniers also dont have an ideology, I think you warmists blind following of the ideology as written by computer models is more than enough of non-thinking kool-aid drinkers in this debate.
You also realize debates and terms like consensus actually proves your science has no facts. The earth is known to be round from direct observation and measurable proof without any statistics. So a belief, vote or acceptance of this is not required to make it true. You warmists cant prove anything except vague possibilities which means you need consensus. How does that work out? well it was a consensus Clovis first was it for populating the Americas until someone found actual evidence to the contrary, making the consensus wrong. It was also the consensus we would run out of oil by now, a new ice age would occur and the planet could not support more than 1 billion people, all proven wrong by reality.
Sorry friend, but I don't spread lies, I simply do not accept others passing off as fact, their theory and then trying to take my money or regulate my breathing as a result of their theory.
@priddseren, like a tired old parrot you keep repeating the same nonscense over and over. There are mountains of scientific research from all over the planet. The papers have appeared in all the respected journals after being thoroughly peer reviewed. Your claim that it isn't science is idiotic at best but simply an outright lie. I have challenged you to provide science to support your claims and you failed to do so. Is this really the best you can do? Is the only thing you have to support your ideology is your own claim that there is no science? I guess if you claimed that the earth was flat because there is no science to say it isn't you would think you won the debate. I don't know who you think you are talking to, those who believe are shills like you, everyone thinks you're a liar and a fraud. Congratulations, this is what you have accomplished with your life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelittles others for questioning the conventional wisdom and terms such as "denialist" is counterproductive and runs contrary to what good science tries to achieve. No "fact" is sacred, and no topic can be out of bounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn these difficult economic times I want to understand clearly what is known before we spend billions or trillions on mitigating climate risks. Frankly, I suspect we can't know fully what man's role is in climate change. I want to see both sides of the issue presented with a clear and equal voice.
"My biggest problem with the notion of anthropogenic climate change is how neatly it fits with certain political agendas and how diametrically opposed it is to others."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo your biggest problem with AGW is something that has nothing at all to do with the actual data or scientific analysis. You should think long and hard about THAT.
Having followed climate change for a long time, I believe you are way off base. If you're looking for a reason there is such a dichotomy between the two political parties on this issue, at least part of the answer has to be the reluctance of one of those two parties to accept scientific evidence when it conflicts with their personal beliefs. The parallels with the creation-evolution "debate" are compelling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Bill from AZ, "Belittles others for questioning the conventional wisdom" no Bill the anger and impatience is directed at individuals who have consistently lied and misrepresented the science despite being directed to volumes of work that disprove their claims. These people have a political ideology they are trying to advance using the FUD principal, fear, uncertainty and doubt. Their objective is to give people the impression that the science is less than clear about the issue. These people have no interest in knowing the truth, in fact they already know it, they just don't like it. People such as prid, shoshin are examples of the lowest of the low. They repeat the same lies over and over no matter what facts present themselves. It takes a psychopath to be that malevolent. But in a way that only helps our cause. When you see firsthand the low moral character of the denier camp you have to question the validity of their cause. One doesn't need to create lies to defend a well supported argument. Now you are either one of them or a victim of their FUD campaign. I can tell you though, you aren't going to find any answers here in the comment section. If you are really interested in the truth, read the science, not the opinions of psychopaths.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you to Scientific American for refusing to cave to the pressure of the denialist lobby who would rather not have the media report what scientists are uncovering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEureka!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave we finally found the CO2 smoking gun. CO2 induced increased food production causing this? :)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/
Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980.
So much for declining food production.
I am sorry, but manufactured "leaks" don't prove anything. Sounds like a conspiracy theorist at work, is that what you want to sound like? Grabbing at straws, hoping that this time you've got the answer you've been looking for. As I said another time, I hope you're right. But I'm not willing to let the doubt lobby mislead our children about what science is, how it works, and how it's best used to protect our health and the health of the ecosystems that provide us with life support services. But I hope the evidence comes in tomorrow that shows all of us that global warming is going to turn around and we will not suffer any more ill effects of climate change!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You do realize the denier camp isnt actually selling anything? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh yes, they are. The fossil fuel industry is selling the need to keep buying their products; bad things will happen if you don't. Various individuals are selling ad space on their web sites. Other individuals are selling their fear of change; if we all pretend it isn't happening, it will go away. Still more are selling the idea that it isn't their fault; no matter what happens, it isn't our fault.
Denial is an emotional response; it is not based on reason. It's natural, and sometimes it is useful, but in this case, it is causing the problem to get worse.
To dubay.denis, I think you hit the nail on the head. The anti science crowd are almost always motivated by profit: tobaco companies, BP and Chevron, televangelists and other media perveyors of paranoia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo profchuck, I'm surprised that you are deeply suspicious of the political power motive on the part of climatologists, but not concerned with the combination of political power and profit motives on the part of well funded denialists and their sponsors.
The ongoing argument against studying any science: evolution, geology or climatology is exactly why the USA is falling behind the rest of the world in science and technology. Outside of the most desperate of third world countries, one would be hard pressed to find senior statesmen claiming that the planet is only 8000 years old, Darwin was a liar and the activities of the most wide spread of mega fauna cannot effect the enviroment and therefore the climate; cause the Bible tells them so.
Imagine that I were to propose a vast and intricately detailed conspiracy involving (for example) virtually all of the world's genetics experts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my fevered imagination, thousands of scientists working across dozens of disciplines in hundreds of different institutions all over the world, are united in a common conspiracy to hoodwink the general public in a get-rich scheme devised by their reptilian overlords from the planet Jupiter...
Would the admins delete my remarks as plainly silly, irrelevant and delusional?
If I left out the stuff about the reptilian overlords, would they let my comments stand?
Since Carlyle wants to talk about a draft report that is not due to be finalized till September 2013...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us begin with the Summary for Policy Makers:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/SummaryForPolicymakers_WG1AR5-SPM_FOD_Final.pdf
From the Introdcution:
"The evidence that formed the basis for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report ... has further strengthened."
Funny how that one line is in total disagreement with WUWT and its flunkie portrayal of what the draft reports say.
In the section titled Atmospheric Observations I find the following:
"Widespread warming is observed from the surface of the Earth throughout the troposphere and cooling is
identified in the stratosphere. Globally averaged near surface temperatures have increased since the
beginning of the 20th century and the warming has been particularly marked since the 1970s. Each of the last
three decades has been significantly warmer than all preceding decades since 1850."
So much for the lie that the Earth is cooling.
From the same section:
"There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that the It is likely that the number of heavy precipitation events has increased in more regions than it has decreased since 1950."
From Sea Level Observations:
"It is virtually certain that over the 20th century the mean rate of increase was between 1.4 to 2.0 mm
48 yr 1, and between 2.7 and 3.7 mm yr–1 since 1993."
Uh, oh! Looks like Sisco the Sicko has got some explaining to do.
But he is not alone in his disinformation delusion. Here is a special one I found just for you.
"There is very high confidence that oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has resulted in gradual1 acidification of seawater evidenced by a decreasing pH in surface waters at a rate of between 0.015 and
0.024 per decade since the early 1980s."
And here is one of my favorites:
"Long-Term Perspective from Paleoclimatic Records:
Analyses of a number of independent paleoclimatic archives provide a multi-century perspective of Northern Hemisphere temperature and indicate that 1981–2010 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last800 years.There is medium confidence that in the Northern Hemisphere 1981–2010 was the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years."
And:
"There is high confidence that the Medieval Climate Anomaly, about 900 to 1400 CE, shows inconsistent temperature changes across seasons and regions, in contrast to the widespread temperature increase of the late 20st century."
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is that you swallow with full credulity all of the crude that WUWT spews forth? Your admission is a product of you and you cohorts fervid minds.
7.4.5.3 Synthesis
"Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong arguement against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change."
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch7_Clouds-aerosols_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch07_All_Final.pdf
So once again Carlyle, why is it that you clowns accecpt uncrtitically this patent nonesense?
An article like this makes me very sad. The author may be correct about the science of global warming. But when he goes off on a rant about oil companies he just makes himself look ridiculous. Is China which is now producing much more CO2 (28% more) than the US, now owned by Exxon Mobil? Must have missed that buy out in the business news. It is precisely that kind of irrationality that has made it so easy to dismiss people who have the actual science on their side. And their absolute refusal to come to terms with the fact that it is the consumers of energy rather than the producers of it that are at the heart of the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently you have not read the posts from the "denialist" camp on this site. Prid is one of the leaders of the charge against science, and, reality in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFortunately the global warming groupies aren't getting their way at Doha. Timpot dictators who oppress their people aren't going home with bags of money. Sanity is slowly returnig.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent 1492:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNOAA's latest measurements on sea level change show no increase outside the realm of natural variation.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html
Now NOAA is contradicting the IPCC as well. Looks like time to jump off the bus before it careens off the cliff and the rats all lose their credibility. Pretty soon we'll have the IPCC claiming things all by itself with no scientific community around it to back it up. Oh sure, the NGOs, Alarmists and the Third World dictators will cry "foul" as their "so close that they could taste it" unearned and undeserved payday escapes them, but they'll have to get over that. Just think how much better the world would be if the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and WWF spent their money on feeding the poor, clean water for children or fighting AIDs or malaria. Not much to be gathered in donations for those though, the END OF THE WORLD is a much better promo.
As to the rest of your comments, I have seen numerous peer reviewed papers that that contradict your views, so your fixation on consensus is even more under attack. Not that consensus is relevant anyone other than Alarmists anyway. Real scientists know that science is no respecter of consensus, rank, titles, or status.
The floodgates on research counter to IPCC views has opened. Time to clean out the Godhead's AGW fouled stables by letting the river run through them. What if anything remains after a good cleaning may be worth re-examining, but until then, AGW is more stench than substance. It needs a scrubbing if it has any hope of being taken seriously by anything other than a fringe element of eco-Alarmists and hopelessly compromised NGOs and their lap-dog researchers.
rspgr: "Do you accept the science of climate change is a lot like do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Regardless of one's opinion, this type of journalism is a discredit to the science of Scientific american."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed. Global warming followers are a cult of believers.
"Greenpeace, for one, has published well-documented reports..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoopidoo. Greenpeace. Now there is an unbiased scientific source of info.
You wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is China which is now producing much more CO2 (28% more) than the US, now owned by Exxon Mobil? Must have missed that buy out in the business news."
------------------
Actually, Exxon is investing heavily in China, in more ways than one. Seeing that China leads the globe in coal fired electrical power, and that the coal market is becoming more global, why the hell not?
From some business sections:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6510445.stm
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/06/06/Exxon-Mobil-to-explore-coal-seam-gas/UPI-57741339002431/
'Conservative opposition to Kyoto..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHint...every DEMOCRAT senator said they would not support it. All but 3 House members said they would not support it.
Quit it with the "Hockey Stick" BS refutations. From a blog?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo I accept it? No. I'm an atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerican Thinker:
"Global warmists have an unshakable faith that man-made carbon emissions will produce a hotter climate, causing natural disasters. Their insistence that we can be absolutely certain that this will come to pass is based not on science, but on faith."
Religion and global warming:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the Mayan moon goddess Ixchel to bless the Cancun Climate Summit in December 2010"
Why not?...this article invokes Greenpeace as a relaible source.
I accept that the solar system is warming and that chemtrails are attempting to cool the planet eath
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaughable R. It would stun me if you have even read both sides of the argument. True believers never look to the other side, they resort to insult and vilification. Have fun, you're part of a big club.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you and Hockey Schtick claim NOAA is saying and what NOAA is actually saying are two different things:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
From the NOAA Fact Sheet:
"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate
World Map Showing One Global Ocean
This movie shows the effects of a 150 meter (492 foot) rise in sea level from NOAA's Science on a Sphere®.
There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.
While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.
The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.
Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.
This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."
Why do you clowns lie about such easily verifiable information? In the Age of Google it is an idiots undertaking.
BTW,how is that quest to show Michael Mann is responible for every Hockey Stick study ever done going? I never heard back from you.
Hello Charris, I doubt many of us who question climate change want to see the earth treated as a toilet, I don't. I am not sure where you picked up the idea that I am against a clean Earth? Or even that others are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have 30 years of science that confirms your believes. Buck the conventional wisdom and read the other side. They make some excellent points. But when I ask about them, I am chided and derided. Science? No. Science speaks, it's faith that shouts.
BTW, what would convince me is intelligent scientific debate from experts on both sides of the debate. I am not a climatologist, but anti-warming climatologists do not appear to be crazies. I have read their comments. They make sense. If this issue is important to you should read them too. I think it's about time the true-believers took some time off and let the grown ups intelligently compare notes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sound like a Fox News viewer, speaking about the conservative side of politics. The fact is, arguments as such are ignorant attempts to refute reality, as there are no "two sides" on the issue of climate change. The sides that are of debate revolve upon what is to be done about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry Karen, but I don't smoke and I know cigarettes cause cancer, I get 42 mpg, I can't even name a televangelist, and the largest perveyors of paranoia and spreaders of FUD that I see tend to be rabit global warming supporters. I know evolution to be true, I support science and educate my kids and bore my friends with it constantly. I don't read Sciam for the ads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you said and did in your post is typical of what I see when a person raises their hand and says "I have questions about man-made global warming." Sorry, but if you want billions to support your agenda and there are intelligent and qualified people saying it's wrong, I want intelligent answers that are stronger than "it's an evil corporate thing" (there is plenty of room on both sides of the argument for evil corporate things).
If raising my hand and asking makes me what you call a denyer, then count me in.
Trent, in the age of Google you can find a study to support just about anything you believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, brilliant refutation. How about the thousands of peer-reviewed studies supporting AGW? Those are referenced via Google as well; They, though, are not linked to denialist blogs and slick websites funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Moss, I'll take a wild guess that you have never read the other side. It is amazing to me how quickly true-believers look to handily classify and dismiss other viewpoints. It's not surprising though. Most people go to research looking to confirm what they already believe based on their own emotional bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've read both sides and walked away confused and angry. Someone is lying and I want facts, not more fertilizer on the pile. But, the only ones I see looking to shoot the questioners are the warming supporters. Maybe you could learn to calm the climate-nazi thing and address the questions?
Of course humans are warming the planet; any idiot can see that, and if you can't see that then you are beyond idiot and I will laugh at you as human civilization crumbles under the onslaught of global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming deniers are like people in a crowded movie theater that is on fire yelling----"Everyone stay in your seats----there is no fire.
Global warming deniers should be locked up for the safety of everyone and every living thing on the planet.
Hello Moss. I didn't realize science was democratic. I suppose we needn't listen to dissenters because they have been outvoted? They can't be right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, guys. This is a waste of time and dinner is waiting. Good night.
It's not asking questions that makes you a denier. It's repeating nonsense from denier web sites over and over and over. People who know better get frustrated with having to defend every little detail over and over! It's just like the creation-evolution debate. It's easy for creationists to come up with all sorts of stuff they think proves their case that either the Earth is 10,000 years old, or that macro-evolution has never happened. But it would take a biologist much time to do the research to refute each and every little tidbit a creationist found on a web site or heard in a speech somewhere. And the web makes it so easy to spread this stuff all over and make it look so professional, when it's not. It's the same with global warming and climate change, even if you think it's not because you understand evolutionary biology. This crazy climate change debate is at about the same place now as the creation-evolution debate was a decade or so ago. Only the web is so much more developed and sophisticated, there may be no way to really overcome the disinformation campaign at this point. It might take a string of climate near-catastrophes to turn the tide, but by then it might well be too late to do much about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience does depend on the weight of the evidence, especially when deciding whether and when to take action to prevent potential health or environmental damage. It's not a matter of "prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt." Consensus is crucial, because final absolute proof is very elusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Sorry Sciam, I don't plan to drink the coolaid no matter how many times you thrust it at me. Why not stop with the one-sided, hair-on-fire, hand-wringing and get the liars together in one room? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a call for objectivity and truth? No amount of evidence will convince you, the signature characteristic of the false skeptic.
The same crowd will claim that X percentage of people who have doubts means there is a legitimate debate. I guess you can have it both ways when it suits you, eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Mann is a non-issue now. He made himself a laughingstock amongst his own dendrochronologists when he claimed that trees in Northern Europe HAD to have stopped growing for a number of years as the real world tree ring data didn't agree with his computer model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt never occurred to him that maybe, just maybe, his model was wrong.
Even his fellow researchers coughed up a chunk of lung on that one.
Mann is irrelevant. Always has been, but Alarmists loved his work anyway as it reinforced their self-delusions.
Again, there are increasing studies showing that sea-level rise is also vastly overblown and equally irrelevant as Mann's delusions. Sorry, but no apocalypse.
Actually, they have evidence, enough evidence to convince a skeptic like Muller, someone who certainly had no "unshakeable faith".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry if this shows up twice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of you who are self-proclaimed dingbats regarding the fallacy of the AGW “gravy-train”:
Average salary for Professor in Natural Resources and Conservation (closest I could find in respect to comparison to those in the energy industry): $93,375.
http://chronicle.com/article/Average-Faculty-Salaries-by/126586/
Average salary for a chair in a university engineering department: $112,679. (Potentially, the highest level one may obtain with a PhD in their field working in a university department.)
http://work.chron.com/average-salary-department-chair-engineering-1242.html
Potential salary for professional engineer in the oil and gas industry: $215,000:
http://www.careersinoilandgas.com/working-in-oil-gas-/pay-and-benefits-in-oil-and-gas-/pay-salary-information-.aspx
Median pay of U.S. university presidents 2012: $436,000:
thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/college/
Average pay for an oil CEO: $13,700,000.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313381721585032.html
It seems that the oil and gas industry has more to conserve than do the reputable scientists that are merely attempting to provide the truth.
Bill from AZ said, "BTW, what would convince me is intelligent scientific debate from experts on both sides of the debate. I am not a climatologist, but anti-warming climatologists do not appear to be crazies. I have read their comments. They make sense. If this issue is important to you should read them too. I think it's about time the true-believers took some time off and let the grown ups intelligently compare notes."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill dismisses 97% of climatologists. Bills then summarizes the basis of his belief in the science from "anti-warming climatologists" -- I HAVE READ THEIR COMMENTS. THEY MAKE SENSE.
Wow! I don't think I even need to comment on that! Just replay his words.
Bill from AZ wrote: "True believers never look to the other side, they resort to insult and vilification."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSort of like your post, quoted below.
8. Bill from AZ 02:33 PM 12/14/12
Sorry Sciam, I don't plan to drink the coolaid no matter how many times you thrust it at me. Why not stop with the one-sided, hair-on-fire, hand-wringing and get the liars together in one room?
It just keeps weirder and weirder. Now more and more IPCC authors are starting to throw cold water on the AGW thing from different sides. Everything from lack of warming to The IPCC now contradicting istelf to lack of agreement between IPCC models and water vapor data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/
Is there ANYTHING that the IPCC can possibly get right?
So far, no.
As I stated earlier, No Apocalypse.
Bill from AZ on "anti-warming" climatologists:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read their comments. They make sense.
WUWT? . . . What is up with that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDenialist blog funded by the Hartland institute is what is up with that.
Try harder, Shoshin.
T-Bone Watts is a hack.
Sciencefirstandforemost
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed, Greenpeace have been Terrorists when they get worked up - like pouring Concrete into the wetwell of a Sewage Pumping Station that served hundreds of people.
All in the name of the Envirenment.
Just how do the true believers explain this graph from the IPCC report that unambiguously shows the measured temperatures in contrast to what was predicted?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
"I'll take a wild guess that you have never read the other side."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike I wrote, there is not another side of reality.
The problem with those that believe what you do is that every piece of information that is held in your less than full quiver has been refuted by those who know much more regarding the subject. Scientists (and it is demeaning to refute them with your limited knowlege), are in awe that you have the beliefs that you do; The question I pose is "Are you willing to put both your unfounded beliefs, and the future sustainability of the human race upon your ignorant assumptions?"
If "we" are wrong, no big deal (and the global economy could be shown to be productive based upon "green energy"). If "we" are correct in our findings (which majority points to), then where does that leave us?
In response to several comments on my earlier post. I am not denying the presence of anthropogenic climate change I am just saying that it is much more difficult to model than most people realize. I am an astrophysicist by training but have spent much of my recent years involved in meteorological analysis driven by satellite images and computer modeling. I have some degree of familiarity with the problems facing the generation of models that predict weather and future climate conditions. (weather and climate are somewhat analogous to tactical and strategic planning, different but closely related).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the climatological models I have reviewed are fundamentally static in that they assume that an increase in atmospheric CO2, for example, will not be met by a response from the ecosystem. Vegetation is voraciously opportunistic when it comes to the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere so it represents a powerful carbon sequestration mechanism. Nearly all of the carbon found in the cellular structure of plants is extracted from the atmosphere and yet very few of the studies regarding atmospheric CO2 increase take this into consideration. The response is not always what one might expect but it does occur and must be taken into account. Unfortunately it is very difficult to do this.
I am not saying that human activity does not influence the biosphere only that the degree and nature of the contribution is much more difficult to calculate than most people realize. The fact that politicians find that the subject provides ideal grist for their particular mill makes scientific objectivity even more difficult.
So I am skeptical when scientific "findings" agree closely with political agendas. Especially when those scientists are funded by those self same politicians.
Praise the Lord...'Accept'...drink the kool-ade. no need to actually 'think'. Have faith in the Church of Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want a reasoned explanation of the story about the leaked draft from the IPCC, read this report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/a-contrarian-spin-on-the-next-big-climate-report/
Believers will all be pleased to pay a tythe to send to Third Word countries so they can be 'appeased'....India needs that cash!....after all they don't have much in the cookie jar after spending billions on nuclear weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour observation that plants take up CO2, and suggestion that they may take it up more rapidly as it increases in concentration, is certainly reasonable. However, consider that there is no question at all about the increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 we have seen since instrumental measurements were begun by Charles Keeling in 1960. No computer models are involved in this measurement. It is a real undeniable fact. Plants have been around since 1960, and if they are taking up CO2 faster and faster, they are still not taking it up fast enough to stop the levels from increasing faster and faster still. That is, the rate of CO2 increase continues to increase, as it has since the 1960s. So I don't think there is much chance plants alone are going to stop the CO2 levels from continuing to increase. We are going to have to play our part, and stop burning fossil fuels so fast. And we also need to stop cutting down forests so that enough plants will be around to take up all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere once we stop dumping so much into the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the scientific "findings" that agree most closely to any single political agenda out there are the ones that suggest climate change is a hoax. That single finding would make an awful lot of industries associated with the mining, refining, and selling of coal, oil, and natural gas very happy. And being, in aggregate, far and above the richest industries in the world ever, it's not surprising they would find many ways to influence this "finding."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate Depot:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (UN), a papacy, (IPCC), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting ghgs became the new holy grail'
so true
Thanks for your contribution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is difficult for people such as yourself to express those opinions publicly. Vilification from those who earn their living trying to justify their jobs rather than objective research is the usual response.
Scientists I know scramble to distance themselves from the AGW supporters but have been cowed into public silence. Unfortunately the disgracefull paid lemming behaviour of many climate scientists reflects badly on all science'
To further your argument:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
Increased plant growth as a result of increased CO2 is a myth. Though, we do need to reduce deforestation, for obvious reasons.
I am guessing the scientists you "know" may not be climatologists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUpdate:
Stop using lemmings as a metaphor for suicide.
http://animal.discovery.com/tv/a-list/creature-countdowns/myths/myths-01.html
CO2 levels are indeed increasing and the response by vegetation is real but appears to be slow to respond. It is possible, at least in principal, to view the dynamics of the ecosystem as a giant multivariate servo mechanism. Considering this it may be possible to model stimulus-response with something akin to "root locus analysis" a tool that can be used to evaluate the performance of such systems. I have examined the requirements for such a system and am convinced that it is within the current state of art of computer technology, albeit just barely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour point about cutting down forests is well taken, regardless of your position on global climate change destruction of natural resources is foolhardy in the extreme. While most of the carbon sequestration process is thought to be performed by marine biota forests play a critical role in the operation of the ecosphere and are threatened at our peril. I would like to see an alternative to fossil fuel combustion as an energy source if for no other reason that burning petroleum smells bad. It is for this reason that I support alternate energy sources such as wind and solar and am trying to find ways to effectively introduce their contributions to the power distribution grid.
Lemming. Frequently used metaphor in reference to people who go along unquestioningly with popular opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSound familiar?
Hello Dubay, thanks for taking the time to reply thoughtfully in posts 71 & 72. I am familiar with the precautionary principle, but as Truzzi said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." We are spending billions that could be going to health, education, and other critical expenditures. AGW proponents should have to justify their spending just like everyone else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I a look at climate science it appears that we have very incomplete historic data based on a very small period of geologic time or small geographic areas. Going back a long way we can only talk about averages over eons. We learn nothing meaningful about climate in detailed direct observations limited to a few generations of experience.
We are talking about a poorly understood chaotic system and we are projecting this system 30 years into the future. Even believers admit that that we don't thoroughly understand all of the factors that drive climate. Let's face it, even weather reports can only look forward about 10 days. You can't possibly believe there is no room for error in these models, and the scientists who run them are the first to admit that there is.
Then I hear some of the warming models don't include factors like solar activity, water vapor and cloud cover, and methane supposedly because they are not well understood yet. Yet still we will spend billions?
Even if you accept the torrent of data thrown at you from AGW proponents, you then have to accept that warming would be an environmental disaster that justifies the expenditure, and action now will fix it. Agin, I don't believe we know. Nigel Lawson discussed this in some depth in his book. (http://www.amazon.com/Appeal-Reason-Cool-Global-Warming/dp/B008SLKRA6)
This is why I have asked in several conversations, have you read the other side? So far no one has said yes, just referring to oil company propaganda and slick web sites. This makes me angry. If you don't trust Exxon, why in hell would you trust Greenpeace? Or stopgreensuicide.com? Or even the Arctic Council?
True believers have slick web site too. There are green magnates as well as oil magnates. Al Gore won a nobel. Lots of people have self-serving reasons to dig in their heels on both sides, but question oil and you are a hero, question AGW and you are a neanderthal.
This is wrong. Science is a human system prone to human foibles like conventional wisdom and group think. No idea is sacred. No question is invalid. I don't want to see Sciam's latest conspiracy theory. I want to see science, both sides, warts and all.
How about the scientists that you "know"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy reference was a sidenote, and was one regarding your trite ineptitude in relation to science in general.
Please document your friends' attempt to distance themselves from scientific fact.
"When I a look at climate science it appears that we have very incomplete historic data based on a very small period of geologic time or small geographic areas."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are kidding, right?
Right after you answer my post 84. Strange how no one on your side can answer that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Moss, so you haven't read the other side. I am not surprised. No bother, I was certain you hadn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd no harm???? We are possibly spending billions of dollars and dedicating our best minds and huge amounts of time to doing something that will just result in a new industry? Maybe we could consider curing cancer if "you're right?"? That sounds like a good new industry. Maybe restoring our educational system to where it should be? Reducing tuition? More teachers? Even reducing taxes?? Just a thought???
Aren't you? Did you catch the word "geologic"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually Boss, I should be more patient. Humanity has only existed for an eye blink in geologic time. Climate change can take place over a period of tens of thousands of years. The global systematic recording of weather data is incredibly new. Before satellites, climactic conditions were recorded mostly in heavily populated areas and by hand. Older samples can go back further, but are from small areas through tree rings or ice cores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have a lot of data, but it is nothing close to a complete picture. I am sure the professor can elaborate on that better than I can.
A concerted, focused, and well-funded campaign of disinformation has been waged promoting the theory of "Global Warming" or climate change. Certainly no one denies that our planet is warming. However, what the warming promoters and their media pals neglect to mention is that our planet has been warming since the Ice Age. Our planet is recovering form the effects of a catastrophic incident which caused severe global cooling. This is an indisputable fact. The "Global Warming" promoters, and their lemming-like followers, have chosen a path of deceit and lies in an effort to dupe the unsuspecting, uneducated and poorly informed public into handing over more cash which they probably don't actually have and will be forced to borrow. This hogwash is clearly an element of a socialist-communist-Marxist conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCat got your tongue moss boss? Where are all your like minded friends? Why don't they help you out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore interested in abuse than science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Bill from AZ,
Shoshin made the claim that NOAA found no change in sea level rise. Suspiciously enough Shohin does not cite a source from NOAA to substantiate his claim, but cites a fake skeptic blog. To verify his claim I go to NOAA itself and find the polar opposite of what Shoshin claims.
What is Shoshin's response? Silence.
What is Bill's from AZ response? Evidence! Schimidevence! Who needs facts when you all you need is opinion?
Bill you come across as one of those clowns who thinks everyone is entitled to their own set of facts.
While the scientists contained in this report (http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf) hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]
“Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."
See (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore) for more
What is your response to post 84?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have repeatedly pointed to you over two dozen times that the Hockey Stick has been replicated by a dozen different studies from various researchers using different methodologies and proxies and all coming to the same conclusion.
Medieval Warm Period:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Your response? Ignore the fact that a multitude of researchers have replicated his findings using different proxies and methodologies and claim with NO EVIDENCE that Mann is behind ALL of the studies.
Your grasping at nonexistent straws now. Why do you so transparently lie?
Another lie that you can not wiggle out of is the fact that NOAA says that contrary to fake skeptic claims sea rise IS happening and IS accelerating. No matter how many blogs you cite about what NOAA says, NOAA itself refutes the claim. Have you no shame?
Further, contrary to the transparent falsehoods you so willing tell without a hint at concious; recent peer reviewed studies show sea level is not only rising but accelerating.
Sea Level Rise: Faster than Projected:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035
That is peer reviewed science not some pulled out of thin air claim. Again, have you no shame? Are there any boundaries that you will not transgress in the name of your ideology?
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is so dumb. Too spite the fact that you have been explictly shown that WTFUWT has consitently misreported the IPCC findings you continue to cite said site with out a hint of skepticism. There are concussed hamsters with less skepticism.
How many time do I need to cite the the draft to make the point that WUWT is lying through its teeth?
Considering the hour where Shoshin lives he could well be off line but you are not so why do you refuse to answer the question I posed in post 84 or do demands for a response only apply to you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea level is not rising
Professor Nils-Axel Mörner
Main points….
In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour nonesense has already been debunked before you presented it in the earlier posts which I extensively quoted. In short, the IPCC has not only reasertted its earlier finding but says many of them have been strengthened.
Denying those posts exists does not make them go away.
So is the graph correct or not? Not rheems of verbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not seen any post from you that directly refutes it.
Hello Trent, I recall seeing the original data information that Shoshin is referring to, but I also recall seeing a news item stating that a more recent NOAA study did not support Shoshin's position. I don't have a historic link for you, but I do have a life and this is your religion not mine, so don't expect me to cite chapter and verse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you want to spend my money to appease your gods, so I'll say (and you know damn well) that sea level data has absolutely nothing to do with AGW. Remember the A in A-G-W? The A is the whole point. Sea level is one factor in a complex global system that we don't fully understand, and it can be influenced by things that have nothing to do with people.
As is often the case with true believers, you look at the moon, see it always faces us, and proclaim that we are cursed by the the god's. Sorry, it's more complicated than that.
Also recall from my post above (you did read it?) that there is more to the question than the reality of AGW. You also have to tell me that throwing money at this today will change something tomorrow(many people say it will not, particularly without China and India's buy in), and that we will suffer if the temperature goes up a few degrees. I don't believe the NOAA sea level data said anything about that, but I could be wrong.
Rather than obsessing over details with questionable evidentiary value and calling people names, why don't you take the time to see what the AGW critics are really saying? If you are capable of putting aside your bias you may be impressed. I know it's herasy, but I promise not to tell anyone.
Hey everybody! I have a game to play! I call it the Carlye-Shoshin-Sisco the Sicko's Game of Wack-A-Mole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is how it is played.
Make an outrageous claim involving a conspiracy of several thousand scientist that has been on going for over a century. Cite nutty blogs by retired weather presenters. Swallow said claims no matter how self contradictory they are from each other. E.G:
It is cooling!
It is warming, but entirely natural!
It is warming, but the seas can not rise! Melted ice can not raise sea levels apparently.
CO2 is a trace gas!
CO2 is already saturates the atmosphere!
The greeenhouse theory has been falsified
Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas!
The science isn't settled.
Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate.
Temp record is unreliable
Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected.
Temp record is unreliable.
Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong.
Temp record is unreliable.
Models exagerate projected temperature rise.
Temp record is unreliable
Solar Cycle Length proves its the sun.
Temp record is unreliable
It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low.
Temp record is unreliable.
It has not warmed since 1998.
CO2 is just a trace gas.
CO2 is plant food.
Mars is warming.
It has not warmed since 1998.
We're coming out of an ice age.
We are heading into an ice age.
Mars is warming too.
The temperature record is unreliable
Other planets are warming.
Its cooling.
Models are unreliable
Climate sensitivity is too low.
And no matter how many times each falsehood is debunked and the contradictions are pointed out just simply wait a few more posts and repeat.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php
Good night all, not that it hasn't been fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Bill from Az,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt really is this simple. Shoshin made a claim about NOAA and sea level rise. Going to NOAA shows that NOAA states the exact opposite of what Shoshin has claimed.
You have dismissed this evidence of a lie told by going bloviating about obsessions. It seems Bill that you and your friends really have no concern for the facts.
It is a fact Bill that NOAA has said that sea level is rising and is accelerating. Lying about that fact, dismising the evidence does not make those inconvenient truths go away.
Get over it.
Well I take it you have no explanation for the graph I refered to in post 84. You keep slip slidin away when you get a question you do not like. You prefer to bluster & bully. Well we are on to you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way. Your responses to my early posts re the IPCC report merely refered to sections of the report by different authors with differing views. How can that be? Surely the science is settled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you continue to insist on being further humliated about temperature trends I have decided to move on to chapter 2 of the draft. Now let us see what the draft says in opposition to what Carlyle and his fellow travelers slavishly swallow at over Anthony's den of lies:
http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch2_Obs-atmosur_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch02_All_Final.pdf
Temperature Globally averaged near surface temperatures have increased since 1901. This warming is virtually certainand has been particularly marked since the 1970s. The global combined land and ocean temperature data show an increase of about 0.8°C over the period 1901–2010 and about 0.5 °C over the period 1979–2010
when described by a linear trend. The warming from
1886–1905 (early-industrial) to 1986–2005 (reference
period for the modelling chapters and the Atlas in Annex 1) is 0.66°C ± 0.06°C (5 to 95% confidence
interval)."
Gee! Who would have thunk it? The draft say over half the warming that has occured has happened since the 1970's. How would anybody know that if they simply followed the simpletons over at WUWT.
Now going on further:
"AR4 concluded global land-surface air temperatures (LSAT) had increased, with the rate of change in the
14 most recent 50 years being almost double that in the last 100 years."
Gosh darn it. There they go again making the disciples of WUWT look credulous morons. How dare they contradict the mighty intelllectual midgets at Anthony's fun house.
But wait we got more. As we all know Anthony and the other traveling clowns put a lot of stock in photos of weather stations. Anthony has claimed they overestimate through poor siting temperature (Where is that ground breaking report, Tony? I am STILL waiting for it). anomalies.
Here is what the draft says:
"Particular controversy since AR4 has surrounded the LSAT record over the United States. A new automated
homogeneity assessment approach (Menne and Williams, 2009) was developed that has been shown to perform as well or better than other contemporary approaches (Venema et al., 2011). Current station siting
has been well documented for the USA (Fall et al., 2011) , 2012)... Williams et al. (2012) produced an ensemble of realisations and concluded through assessment against plausible test cases that there existed a propensity to under-estimate adjustments."
Why it must be opposite day. The draft contrary to what
Tony and the other tigeretes say concludes that temperature trend is probably being underestimated.
I wonder why Tony and friends are not highlighting this?
@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see. While the sections I cite from the draft are the product of mere error prone mortals; those very, very highly selected portions that WUWT cites are the DEFINITIVE Holy Scripture and that no other possible interpertation is permitted. Those other portions of the draft are beneath notice.
Forgive me Lord Anthony for I have sinned! Your Holy Writ shall not be contravened.
Carlyle, please, please go get a life.
So you are claiming the graph featured in the IPCC draft is wrong? In other words we can not trust the IPCC's earlier figures? You are withdrawing your unconditional support for the IPCC?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee:
Take a look at Figure 1.4 from the AR5 draft (shown below). The gray bars in Fig 1.4 are irrelevant (because they flubbed the definition of them), the colored bands are the ones that matter because they provide bounds for all current and previous IPCC model forecasts, FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4.
Here is the caption for this figure from the AR5 draft:
Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
Anyone interested in this debate must go to the link above & actually look at the graph I am referring to in order to make sense of this debate. Then judge for yourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA review of the first ten comments shows 3 climate change believers, 3 climate change deniers, 4 no position/position unclear. Fifty-fifty is just an apalling ratio of scientific realists (the believers, obviously) vs. ideolgical neanderthals, especially posting at a science related site. If there are really that many ignorant or uneducated people in this demographic what hope is there of reaching the Fox Noise nitwits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh wonderfull. Someone who is confident of their superiority. Could you please explain the meaning of the latest disclosure relating to the Higgs boson. Also I have some queries about quantum mechanics. There are also some intriguing questions relating to astronomy that I am sure are within your vast range of expertise. I have a working knowledge in these spheres. I would love to compare notes. Lets start with Schrodinger's cat shall we? In five minutes would suit. We would not want to cheat would we. Alternatively, where exactly does your area of expertise lay? No where? I thought so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is much more simple then stated here. Instead: simply walk the walk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen people get money via salary and funding for their science, I am skeptical. The science appears compelling, but I have yet to hear any significant monetary or lifestyle changes the supporters have taken. Given the supposed magnitude of the issue, I would expect many, many scientists, etc. would have taken this "necessary" step. Instead they protect funding, go to very expensive conferences, and ask me to change my lifestyle and economics.
You argue for taking no action until we have proof. First, science cannot deal in proof, science deals in probabilities. There will ALWAYS be uncertainties. If the risk is high enough, and the hazard is serious enough, at some point you take action even in the face of that uncertainty. Professional scientists who have spent years in training and years more doing their job have accumulated a mountain of evidence that the globe is warming due to our burning of fossil fuels. Their evidence also indicates that this global warming is causing increasingly disturbing changes to our climate. I have spent over 30 years reading that evidence, and for at least a decade or so I was not convinced it was a big deal. Now I am convinced
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou ask have I read the "other side." I read all the evidence I can find, whatever it says, and wherever I can find it.
Draft reports are drafts. I'll examine the final report when it's out and figure out what it means. In any case, I would not trust WUWT with presenting an unbiased report of anything, and I am disappointed that you do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the meantime, the atmosphere is very thin compared to the oceans. The oceans hold most of the heat energy on the planet, so looking just at air temperatures gives an incomplete measure of the buildup in the overall heat/energy content of the planet (i.e., global warming). Things like ice melting are important as well.
@Carlyle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCookConfident of my superiority? Well, yes, and I have you to thank. You and your head-up-your-ass comrades make it difficult to feel anything but superior. I can't even let my cat read your drivel because you're giving him a big head — and he's only average smart for a cat. You want to discuss the Higgs [sic] boson? I can't wait to be enlightened. You have "queries" about quantum mechanics? Yeah, I'll just bet you do. If your "working knowledge" extends all the way to Schrodinger's Cat, how is it that global climate change completely evades you? I can converse intelligently on all of these topics, though I've not claimed expertise in any of them. There is one thing, however, that I can do extremely well. I can spot a bullshit artist from a mile away on a foggy day – and buddy, you are a veritable font of bovine byproduct.
For the most part you are talking about university professors or EPA/NOAA/NASA scientists. These are not rich people, and their job is to report their study results, not the details of their private lives. So your demand that they "walk the walk" is unrealistic and difficult not to view as simply trying to sow doubt. If you want to talk about how money might influence this "debate," you might want to talk about the industries that make greater profits than any others in the entire world. How have they behaved in all of this? Have they ever tried to influence the discussion one way or the other?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, Carlyle; I was sleeping. You tend to have that effect on me and others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy reply to your question is that you are a dipshit. Any asshole can cherrypick from an abundance of factual sources, as your demi-god Tony Watts has done.
Would you care to comment on this graph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg
You state that there is "An abundance of peer-reviewed studies (that) continue to debunk rising CO2 fears".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease name them.
Also, your citation of Jelbring is inadequate, as he has not written one peer-reviewed paper. To continue, Rutan is an aero-space engineer, not a climatologist (one of two points that he readily admits in his speeches; the other is that he has a "clear bias" when discussing AGW).
Rutan is an engineer. He is far more aware of what constitutes real science than most "Climate Scientists".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is that?
Simple reason. As an engineer, if he screws up, people die.
Sorry,but the grasp of what is and what is not science lies in the integrity and understanding of a person's mind, not in their academic training and certainly not in the # of papers they've published. I know a large number of academic researchers who are focused on the LPU (Least Publishable Unit). Their goal is to get their names on as many papers as possible. Why? Publish or perish.
Take Mann's hockey stick. It spawned a cottage industry for scores of scientists to repeat his calculations and all used his data set and get the same result. All that it means is his math was not incorrect. This does not mean that his premise, mathematical method or data set were not flawed. Other researchers just kept repeating the same mistakes he made over and over and over again.
This replication of Mann's mistakes doesn't make Mann correct. Real scientists look for examples of how to disprove their theories, not just look for more evidence that they are correct. Only Theologians look for examples to bolster their faith.
The Alarmist community is solely concerned about proving themselves correct and cannot countenance any views to the contrary. That is why "Climate Scientology" is a religion, not a science.
There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what constitutes "Science". There was no science in this article and very little in the commentary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is a field generated by the rigid application of the scientific method. Science does not exist without it.
A theory with no observations to support it is called a conjecture. If there are observation (measurements) that seem to support the underlying theory, we then elevate the premise to an hypothesis. This is where the current hypothesis of anthropogenic caused warming resides. It will remain a hypothesis until a model is produced which can run forward and backwards, through time, with the same initiating data input. No actions can be prudently undertaken until then, as we have no idea what consequences will result, or any way to assess the progress of such actions.
Until then, we must assume the null hypothesis (climate change is a natural variation). It is the requirement of the AGW hypothesis to disprove the null hypothesis NOT the other way around.
This is how science works within the scientific method. Right now, the entire AGW HYPOTHESIS is in danger of falling back into conjecture, as more data indicates natural cycles and waves at work. Catastrophic AGW... Never made it out of the gate. GK
"Simple reason. As an engineer, if he screws up, people die."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to get off on a tangent, but, an almost identical quote came from the WUWT website.
It is somewhat ironic, as well:
http://www.space.com/4123-explosion-kills-mojave-air-space-port.html
No. I'll wait until there is actual 'science'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrspgr:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you accept the science of climate change is a lot like do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Regardless of one's opinion, this type of journalism is a discredit to the science of Scientific american."
so true.
rspgr:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you accept the science of climate change is a lot like do you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Regardless of one's opinion, this type of journalism is a discredit to the science of Scientific american."
so true.
Carlyle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unfortunately the disgracefull paid lemming behaviour of many climate scientists reflects badly on all science'
Unfortunately environmnetal science is tarnished by the same brush,
If one believes the measurable data, for example current levels of CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses. And if one has to the best of one's abilities tried to make oneself aware of the geologic/climatic mechanisms by which heat is generated (internally or otherwise), absorbed(as from external sources) and then radiated by the earth back into space. And if one is truly concerned that human activities along with naturally occurring processes may be changing stable historic parameters in these mechanisms. But if one has some doubt as to the soundness of the present models used to predict the details of this change. Then is one also a climate change doubter? Or if one accepts the modeling as being close enough, but disagrees with many in the scientific comunity about what should be done and done and by whom. And who has the legal authority to detrmine who should pay whom (as that seems to be alot of what the argument is about)? Does questioning any of the assumptions outside the raw data make one a doubter? Does the preference for having greater certainty of the details of climate change before one considers spending vast sums of money and dramitcally changing society make one a doubter? I am in no means making light of the situation or giving aid to those who donot accept those things which can be presently measured. Just looking to see how far the moniker "climate change doubter" extends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisendo_alley,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUncertainty is part of science. All climatolgists know there is uncertainty in their models. Estimating the level uncertainty is a major part of science (see the Higgs boson with confidence level at the five-sigma).
Doubt is not scientific and has to do with a person's beliefs. Doubt is closer to the tendency of disbelief than to belief. Most GW or AGW deniers appear to be absolutely certain that GW or AGW is not occurring.
If you want to look at climate change in a way similar to a religious belief (or disbelief) then I guess you are free to call yourself a "climate change doubter." If you feel there are uncertainties in the models, so does every scientist.
I can see you now. Reading & re reading your post. Chortling at your cleverness. Such an incisive & clever riposte! You remind me of a dog I once had. Used to chase his tail & occasionally catch it. Then he would sit & grin at his own stupidity. Are you still at the chortling stage or have you progressed to the grin?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that we have established how cleverly you are, how do you explain the IPCC graph I have repeatedly asked other experts such as yourself about? It clearly shows the divergence between predicted temperature increases & the actual measured record. It also shows no warming & a probable cooling over the past 15 years. Certainly nothing in excess of the long term average. So was the IPCC wrong before or wrong now. Or is it like the famous cat. As soon as you try to determine its position… well you know the rest.
Climate is one thing and weather is another. Global warming and human behavior reducing it is another. One's person politics is another person's science. Like weather, climate change has been the case ever since there has been a climate. Wildebeast excrement, volcanos, and global forest fires caused by lightening stikes have a far greater effect on the extent of global warming than the burning of carbon based fuels by humans. Those who believe that puny humans affect the global-scale climate are as arrogant and ignorant as those that believe reality exists with humans as its curator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"More than 30 years", and how old do you believe the climate to be? Climate change is as old as climate itself. The error is blaming human activity, and believing that controls on human behavior will control the climate. The local effects of not building dikes against flooding or tides is not the same as reducing the rate of global warming. To do the latter, it would be more effective to slaughter Wildebeast on the African plains, stop volcanoes and sunspots.
What infuriates me as a scientist with a background in air quality is the way people who I will call deniers for convenience at this moment, use various web sites to find a variety of picky things to poke at and claim that these things invalidate the consensus of the vast majority of climate change scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it comes to what we do about climate change, I will be the first to admit that scientists may or may not be the best qualified to help us decide. But when it comes to the science, they are hands down the ones I trust.
So it is fine to argue that it might be too expensive or counterproductive somehow to address climate change by pushing renewables or instituting a carbon tax, or that we can't afford to worry about the next couple generations and they will have to figure it out for themselves.
However, when I see ridiculous assertions made about the science that people are getting from some web site somewhere, that is just plain wrong. You need to learn how to distinguish between information that comes with an obvious bias and that which is more objective.
The tobacco industry perfected the technique of manufacturing doubt to delay or prevent regulations. Some very clever people are doing the very same thing with climate change science, and a bunch of conservatives have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Or for all I know, some of you are part of the conspiracy. In any case, to sow doubt about the science when there is very little doubt is to mislead and misinform the public. It's a way to win the policy debate without ever having to fight it. You just manufacture sufficient doubt about the science, easy to do when most folks are not very science-literate to begin with. Arm them with some science-sounding bytes, convince them you're on their side, and let 'em loose.
So when I publish a link to an IPCC report that unambiguously shows not only that their prior predictions are radically wrong but that there has been a 15 year cooling trend you would call that pickie? Talking about the emails is pickie? You are happy to only teach your students one side of the debate? You call yourself a scientist? How are you different to teachers who teach creationism? Some of them call themselves teachers too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you teach about solar, do you also teach about thermodynamics, in particular the Carnot cycle? The area that would have to be covered by PV cells or mirrors to supplant a conventional power station & the environmental effects of covering that area. Do you teach them that the life expectancy of a PV system is about 30 years on average but some will last less & some more and that as PVs age their efficiency drops off? Do you teach them that the nameplate values given by manufacturers are for ideal condition & do not account for dew or dust or in desert regions, abrasion let alone cloud or night? That there is NO viable method of electrical energy storage that is available for any type of generation produced from any source except niche areas where a nearby dam is suitably situated? Petty is it? I call it honesty.
Pollution is a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChemicals heat up the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a fact. I'm sorry that you don't see the truth.
There has been a global "staying warm" trend. The percieved flattening has been explained numerous times, but you don't seem to get it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOff to bed now, again.
Tired of your usual diatribe.
Ok fine. What about cleaning up water that's too polluted to be used for anything living. Look up water. Is that fake too?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't recognize a problem that needs money to be fixed. It's not about smarts, it's CHEAP!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are saying the IPCC predictions were accurate? That global warming predictions have stayed in lock step with CO2 increase? Laughable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPity I can not paste the actual graph but those who are interested can look it up & they will.
Carlyle, please ... you can't shake the faith is someone's religion by posting endless instances where their predictions failed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlarmist-Religio Zealots (ARZ's) are only interested in finding examples that are consistent with and support their faith. That is why we are treated to endless pictures of swimming polar bears, melting glaciers and stories of butterflies never before seen in some obscure part of the bush. Causation is only demonstratable to their satisfaction through the use of divine computer models. But the real world refuses to co-operate and spring forth with confirmative data of CO2 amplification, so like Michael Mann, the ARZ's assume that the computer models are infallible and the real world data are wrong. Clear demonstration of unshakeable faith,but science? Not so much.
No one of any intelligence doubts that the climate has, is and will always changed, people or not. The Alarmist Zealots believe with all their heart, however that every northward or southward flap of a butterflies wings is caused by me filling up my Harley and then laying a strip of rubber half a block long as I leave the gas station.
Natural cycles, the Sun, or even admitting that they do not possess perfect knowledge is not in the schema of the ARZ's. I have often commented that I wish that I was as certain of everything in my now later years as I was in my youth. I'd probably be raising the flag of ARZ-dom myself. But as I got older I started asking too many questions and began to care less about the status of the person who answered them. I just wanted to know if the answers made sense.
The curse of age; you no longer give a damn if somebody thinks you know something or not, you just want a straight answer and are unwilling to settle for gobbledygook.
Just for fun this beautiful Sunday a.m. after having coffee and doing a fire burnout on my Harley, I Googled "CO2 Forcing mechanism". Guess what I found? Not much. Just a few papers quoting that CO2 is ASSUMED to be able to force temperatures (but that NO ONE knows what the mechanism is) and a bunch of other stuff outlining the parameters that modelers use to force CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNowhere has anyone claimed to have isolated, identified and measured the claimed CO2 Forcing mechanism that lies at the crux of this issue. I find that strange. Hundreds of billions of $$ spent talking about the CO2 and climate and no one has yet been able to prove HOW CO2 works it's magic????? Surely the isolation of the CO2 forcing mechanism is worthy of research?
Weird. Try this experiment at home, Google "CO2 Forcing Mechanism" and tell me what you find.
Shoshin, what answers are you looking for? That CO2 is a triatomic molecule that is able to absorb infrared radiation given off by the Earth? And N2 and O2 are diatomic molecules that are not able to absorb infrared radiation? Or proof that this absorption is not saturated as a radiative forcing factor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany commenters seem to be suggesting that humans should not study climate? Why study anything? Why study cosmology? Why build telescopes? ...nothing going on in space matters to us humans, right? Why build the LHC? Yes, climate varies and many factors besides CO2 cause this variation. Should we make no attempt to study all these factors? Should we not attempt determine when the stable climate of the Holocene epoch might end? In the last 10,000 years we have been in a warm period that is somewhat rare over the last 2.5 million years. Lower temperatures of glacial periods are more the norm. Should we not do research to understand this?
Carlyle seems to believe IPCC AR5 graph shows something new. Everyone knows that temperatures have been relatively constant over the last 16 years. The Daily Mail article published in October by David Rose is brought up constantly. This AR5 graph says nothing different.
Is this somehow proof that CO2 is not a significant factor in climate change?
I find it illogical that some people are certain that OTHER FACTORS are much more significant to climate change than CO2, but when climate change does not exactly match CO2 concentrations or climate models, then no OTHER FACTORS can be the cause without CO2 also being insignificant. [And temperatures are definitely not declining to any significant extent.]
Why do so many people believe with certainty that CO2 is not a significant factor in climate change?
@Shsohin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are you busy back again writting mindless copy pasted screeds cribbed from WUWT when you can not even admit to your earlier lies?
I have shown you that NOAA says EXPLICTY that sea level is rising and ACCELERATING. You also have yet to demonstrate that Michael Mann is behind every global and hemispheric reconstruction.
Why do you think you are immune to evidence?
Why do you think eveyone is going to forget your multitude of lies?
Why is it you will not admit that you lied about what NOAA says about sea level rise? I have shown you a link directly to NOAA saying contra to what you claim.
Why the transparent lies?
Say all, Excerpts of the leaked draft in question is up on a different page, right here on SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor your further education: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMain points
- At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all.
- Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.
If you do not like blog sites, use the link direct to a PDF file of the report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Notagain,
We have become too populous and our technology too obtrusive, unfortunately. Your argument would correctly apply 100 years ago. Nor is technology the only cause to blame (a mere 65%) once 35% GHG emissions come from land use alone. Even if we were medieval peasants, but there were billions of us as today, we would be screwing up the biome. Picture a swarm of locusts, or a colony of bacteria on a petri dish.
Dear Shoshin,
CO2 ‘forcing’ (horrible term, yuk, we should drop it) or actually greenhouse effect was described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. It is not considered controversial by anyone serious that I know of.
Dear Carlyle
Good to have you back! Is your pseudonym a reference to the Thomas Carlyle of the Victorian age? I came across him when re-reading ‘The Affluent Society’ by Galbraith.
The IPCC is only human and, of course, prone to error. I know many educated, serious people are climate skeptics such as my uncle, a doctor, but these rarely debate over something they know is not in their area. I also see a lot of hair splitting by what seems to be skeptics with vested interests related to the oil industry.
Do you seriously suggest no climatic disorder at all is in effect; that Sandy in New York and the freak storm of 2011 near Rio de Janeiro that killed 1000 people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2011_Rio_de_Janeiro_floods_and_mudslides) are routine events; that we should not seriously demand massive public investment in clean energy technologies if only to prepare for the ultimate dwindling supply of oil, that a post-oil power matrix based on renewable sources (I am not fond of biofuels made from edibles, though) will be healthier and safer for everyone?
Dear Everyone
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the COP18 result and Europe’s heroic effort to set an example (shame on American blind selfishness) the answer to the question “what can 15% do”, the answer is, the same as 2% - MAKE OIL OBSOLETE and outcompete the dinosaurs.
Electric vehicles (and those on compressed air, flywheel ‘batteries’ and other composite methods) such as the fine GM EV1 seen in California in the late 90s, running on electricity from a Geothermal / Thorium matrix complemented by the ‘soft green’ portfolio (wind, sun and sea), will do the job.
Geothermal must be expanded to include ultradeep fields (12-16 km deep) – which will work not only in the currently few surface geothermal sites, but just ANYWHERE.
Thorium, several times more abundant than uranium may be used in two ways (‘cycles’), one of which has a great (non-)proliferation profile, and is perfect for mini-reactors (the size of a house, not the size of a building like uranium ones) which can be put in every neighborhood, underground for extra safety if need be.
The aware public may also help by demanding a far sterner push toward nuclear fusion research, such as a “Fusion Now!” movement. One of the current bottlenecks is developing a new generation of supermagnets to boost confinement.
Sea level as an indicator of a warming planet? Perhaps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that speaks nothing as to cause. Surely you don't believe that a rise in se level or a fall for that matter PROVES that CO2 is responsible?
Without some IDENTIFIED, QUANTIFIED MECHANISM demonstrating how CO2 can FORCE temperatures much many times higher than through it's own anemic direct effect, saying something as silly as sea levels as an indicator of CO2's direct cause is as silly as saying that the sky is blue, therefore, CO2 causes global warming.
NO FORCING MECHANISM; NO EVIDENCE THAT CO2 IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN PLANT FOOD.
Don't like my attitude? Fine. Science ain't a popularity contest. Your opinion doesn't make me wrong. Prove me wrong. Find the Force, Luke, and win a Nobel Prize. I dare you.
Mark656515:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour post is ignorant (in the polite sense of basic science). Yes, of course CO2 is capable of trapping heat. However the physics of CO2 clearly demonstrate that CO2's trapping effects are non-linear. 80% of the trapping effect occurs with the first 20 ppm. after that the added effect drops off quickly and flattens to almost zero at 400ppm. What this means is that we could double CO2 to 800 ppm and have maybe a 1 degree C increase. That's it. That's the physics. I encourage you to look it up, as this is not a matter of debate; it just is.
This brings in the need for a forcing mechanism to multiply CO2's effects, as without this forcing mechanism CO2 is too weak to heat anything much past what we have now. Again, this is a fact, not open to debate. All Climate models use a forcing mechanism to multiply CO2's effects. Again, a fact, not open to debate.
What is also not open to debate is that the nature, character, magnitude or even existence of the forcing mechanism has never been found by any of the climate modelers. They all just assume that it exists and construct their models using this assumption. The forcing factor has NEVER been found in nature.
Mark656515:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApologies; fat fingers. hit the wrong button before I finished.
So now, we have a bit of a mess on our hands. We have no way of demonstrating exactly how CO2 can "pump" up something else to trap heat (the assumption is that it amplifies water vapor, but no has been able to figure out if it really does or not), but we have built a massive industry of climate NGOs, government agencies, Wall Street brokers, and god knows how many others all with a vested interest in this forcing mechanism, which may not even be real.
We are on the verge of proving the existence of dark matter. It should be easy as pie to prove that this forcing mechanism is real and explain in detail its characteristics. But NO ONE has been able to do that.
Why is that? It should be the greatest discovery of our time and investigation into it or proof of it goes ignored?
Identify the Force, win a Nobel Prize. Should be easy, no?
Or maybe, just maybe, it doesn't exist. I'll wait until someone finds it. Once they do, I'll happily change my mind.
Wow! Wow. I am so glad I read these comments as they reveal the depth of deception in America. And that depth is due to the concerted efforts of the polluting corporations. History will show how modern civilization was destroyed by greed and misinformation. In 30 years, the people responsible for blocking efforts to correct global warming may be hunted as Nazi war criminals are today. Not 100 years, 30.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really have the attitude of shoshin, you would study the layer model of greenhouse gases. Your theory of saturation (by Knut Angstrom) was widely accepted in the first half of the 20th century. I would give you references but your attitude of mushin would prohibit you from studying anything that would distract you from your fight. With a shoshin attitude you should at least be open to studying how your "enemies" (i.e. scientists to the rest of us) think.
google: CO2 absorption saturation
If you're open-minded (i.e. shoshin), you might learn something new and will understand why there will be no Nobel prizes for this science.
@Shoshin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just can not seem for some reason to get you to even write the letters NOAA. What happened? You were putting words in the organization's mouth some posts earlier.
Could it be because I have provided links directly to NOAA saying exactly the opposite of what you and the other disciple of Pope Anthony have saying.
Oh, I forgot Pope Anthony is infallible. What is Pope Anthony's latest contradictory word that you hang onto for succor?
What is today's theme? Is it:
"Is warming but it all natural"
"It is cooling"
"The temperaure record is unreliable?"
Which one of these mutually contradictory themes are spouting off today like a good little zealot?
And No Shoshin, however, how many times you stomp your fat little feeties and threaten to hold your breath. The sea is still rising at an accelerating rate.
Sea Level Rise: Faster than Projected:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035
I know, I know the Pontiff of Denial Blogs insists otherwise. But I got news for you King Knut: The sea is rising at an accelerating rate how ever vehemently your charlatan of a holy man says otherwise.
Now run along now I am sure you got Denialist Communion to attend too or something.
You are outdoing yourself today. You even have doubts if warmer temperatures makes sea level rise or if it makes ice melt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we should hold a fundraiser for you and Carlyle and send you guys back to elementary level science class.
i've only read a few of the comments to this article. all are strange variations on climate change denial. i didn't think climate change denialists read science articles. i suspect they are over represented in comments due to their passionate beliefs, which are they perceive as under attack by this and other rational discussions on the challenges of dealing with their syndrome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to say Mark656515, you brought up some of the solutions I think are the most promising. With all the effort spent on improving battery technology to store and distribute electricity from renewables; I don't understand why we don't just work on improving the old tech of air compression. No toxins, the energy stays stored without any ongoing energy input, any energy source can power an air compressor and air tanks are every bit as portable as gas tanks. I have to point out too that my pancake compressor is technologically no better than my Grandfathers, Surely we could make them much more energy efficient, if we put our minds to it. And I too have serious reservations about turning foods into fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you go to the top of this page, type Energy Storage in the Search ScientificAmerican.com box you will find numerous previous articles on the subject. They all have one thing in common. They do not work economically. Perhaps one exception is water pumping to a high dam a reasonable distance from the power generation. What is never acknowledged are the energy losses from one form of energy conversion to another then back to electricity. The most energy efficient is battery power but limited cycle life plus enormous initial expense for large capacity make it uneconomic. Compressed air has enormous energy losses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no 12 step program to help you. But you do need help.
@ profchuck
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou claim to be a scientist. Why are so so completely incapable of seeing the science of climate change? Why are the politics more important than the science to you? Sorry, you have no credibility.
As others have noted, the forcing effect of CO2 on the globe's energy balance is well known and not at all controversial or debatable. It's simply physics. CO2 is transparent to visible sunlight but it absorbs infrared radiation. The sunlight passes in, warms the planet, but the infrared radiation coming up from the warmed planet is absorbed by CO2 and water vapor, those gases in turn become warm, and further warm the planet. That's the greenhouse effect. The "forcing" refers to the fact that CO2 can influence the balance between incoming sunlight energy and outgoing infrared energy. So can water vapor, clouds, particulate matter in the atmosphere, ice on the planet's surface or dark asphalt on that surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the degree of CO2 forcing that is in contention. No one can seriously dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the models that are so obviously wrong. Otherwise how do you explain the missing heat? There are plenty of theories but no on can find it. Also the fact that global temperature predictions do no match temperature reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi Carlisle, actually I meant just storing the compressed air and using that to turn a motor directly, without converting the stored energy back to electricity. I have read about hobbyists running a retrofitted auto, using compressed air to drive the pistons instead of internal combustion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you repeat such utter tosh for? Recently two different studies of past models projections from the IPCC reports of 1990, 2001 and 2007 and have found that they are reasonably accurate.
Frame and Stone (2012) has reconfirmed the accuracy of the temperature projections:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1763.html
Rahmstorf et al found that the climate models used in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) and 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) predicted the ensuing global surface warming to a high degree of accuracy, while their central sea level rise predictions were too low by about 60%:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article
As more time passes it is becoming increasing clear that the projections were on the upper end of the projections or above. Just saying "It ain't so!" and linking to a propaganda blog does cut the rational ice.
The last sentence in my last post should read:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Just saying "It ain't so!" and linking to a propaganda blog does NOT cut the rational ice."
Hi Karen. Yes I have read about that too. What they do not tell you is the amount of energy it took to store the compressed air. It is difficult to explain in a few words. I will add a link in case you want to study it in detail. Basically when you compress air, like with a bicycle pump it gets hot, heat is given off to the surrounding atmosphere & that energy is lost. The end result, because of that & other more complicated reasons is that you get less than half the energy back than went into compressing the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately there are no easy solutions but do not let that stop you thinking about it. If you follow ideas through you always lean things along the way.
http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/3473
profchuck says 'As a scientist I am extremely distrustful of politicians and their motives. Because of the potential for global disaster from a runaway climate change politicians see this as a powerful tool for the acquisition of power. This makes maintenance of scientific objectivity very difficult. The majority of politicians are lawyers and as such make poor scientists.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis may all be true - certainly it's true in Britain where most of our politicians have a background in law or economics or public relations. (Other countries may have more truly representative governments, with more people who actually know about the actual physical world, not just about fantasy invented worlds such as economics.)
But what may be more relevant is to look at who has far more power and wealth than most politicians (at least in more democratic countries where it's harder to get elected just because you're rich enough to buy more advertising than the opposition).
The fossil fuel businesses and the rich people with shares in those businesses probably don't want to see their wealth and power taken away by people and companies and governments using less energy and switching to renewables.
So when it comes to motives for the crime of disinformation, I'd bet on the likely culprits being the people with the most to gain.
That's why I'm sceptical of the claims that politicians want to promote the idea that climate change to be caused by human action (and because they do precious little about it, in fact). It's more likely that fossil fuel businesses want to promote the idea that climate change either isn't happening, or that if it is then human action has nothing to do with it.
Oh, and the small matter that I trust climate scientists far more than I trust politicians - let alone the world's most obscenely rich and powerful people - to tell the truth.
And what song does the government want climate scientists to sing? Careful, much of the research pointing to climate change was done during the terms of Bush1 or Bush2. I will submit government wants to know what is happening, which is what climate scientists also want to know. Fossil fuel industries want to maintain the status quo even if that might mean higher costs in the long run, and even if it sacrifices the quality of our environment and that of our children and grandchildren. That is their bottom line, and I don't fault them for watching out for it, though I do fault them for misleading us about the science to further their short-term financial goals. Government and government regulations are required to balance those short-term financial interests of industry so we don't all end up living in the waste stream of industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of the politicians were gullible & swallowed the propaganda. To curry favour with the electorate which also initially swallowed the propaganda, like Al Gore's film, they began outbidding each other to get on the bandwagon. Now they are finding it hard to get off without admitting they have been suckered, but they will. The example I gave above will see an electoral wipe-out of our Labor socialist government when elections are held within the next twelve months.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKoch Industries "donated" or rather "invested" $72 million in "think tanks" that promoted anti-climate change propaganda. They also spent $42.2 million promoting the oil industry through lobbying the Senate and House.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about some others?
Exxon-Mobil spent $16 million just to try to refute climate change in the late 1990's.
http://monthlyreview.org/2012/05/01/petroleum-and-propaganda
How about the CEI?
How about the Hartland Institute, which (ironically) funds your dipshit disciple? ($100k last year)
How about Craig Idso? Climate bullshitter that receives $140k from Hartland?
BTW:
Mann is correct. There have been numerous studies that have confirmed it.
Like I have posted before, you are a jackass.
How about 80 BILLION from the US government for green schemes plus tens of billions from other governments around the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/reports/whos-winning-the-clean-energy-race-2011-edition-85899381106
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPDF Executive summary gives a summary of how much is being spent on CO2 related programmes. Naturally every company or university researcher conected to this money tree is not going to say it is a hoax. The gravy is too rich. How about 263 BILLION last year?
Carlyle:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGovernment funding is in the name of science. Propaganda funding is in the name of both industry that has a lot to gain from promoting misinformation, and in the name of people like you who believe the shit.
Not only have you been misinformed, but you have been duped by the oil industry.
Take a look at post #77; the gravy train is about oil interests, and they receive billions in tax deductions aside from their record profits.
How does that make you feel?
Happy. Otherwise we would have to pay more for our gas. So who do you think is profiting from that 263 Billion. The biggest share actually goes to business. the remainder to researchers advertising agencies & spin doctors. Energy companies have nothing to gain by arguing against this largess. They get their share of it too. Look at their advertisements extolling their green virtues. it is just the mug taxpayer who is the loser & for what? Anything we do will be trumped by China & India who also get our heavy industries because they do not have to comply with the restrictions that our industries have to bare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle is "happy" about subsiding fossil fuel industries with tax payer dollars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting that Carlyle does not believe in free markets especially for the most profitable industry on Earth.
Carlyle seems to have a narrow focus blaming everything on the climate change. That's the real fear mongering by attempting to tie climate change to budget deficits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change was not the only motivation for investing in desalination plants in Australia -- I don't even believe the primary motivation. The primary motivation was 10 years of drought. I guess Saudia Arabia is also a big investor in desalination plants also because of climate change -- yeah, right.
Climate change is not the only motivation for investing in alternative energy. The primary reasons are energy independence and the reduction of economic risk to the US economy.
Carlyle please provide your source for the $80 billion in subsidies from the US gvmt. Please also provide any reference that shows subsidies to alternative energy has been more than subsidies for fossil fuel energy. And we don't even have to consider miltary and geopolitical expenses.
If you are interested look here. The $80 billion US investment was multi year. Did not save the source. The report below refers to just 2011. The figures are staggering & do not include the cost to taxpayers of tax eductibility for companies investing in alternative energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. [PDF]
GLOBAL TRENDS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY INVESTMENT 2012 ...
fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/.../globaltrendsreport2012final.p...
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's what I thought -- you made it up.
You referenced a Bloomberg report on global investments in renewable energy. There is nothing in that report on the amount invested by the US government.
First, you have decide what type of spending (capital investments vs subsidies). You did not specify that in your original comment. Regardless, the US government spends much more to support fossil fuel energy than it does to support alt energy.
Here's a study on US subsidies to energy:
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf
More than half the alt energy subsidies is for corn ethanol. That was greatly expanded by Bush. And I would be very happy to see that go. Subsidizing corn ethanol also doesn't have much to do with climate change. The purpose was to decrease dependence on foreign oil.
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust find me any reference at all that shows the US government is spending more on alternative energies than on fossil fuel energies. [And that doesn't even have to include military spending which subsidizes fossil fuels.]
Claims about subsidies to fossil fuel companies infer that there is a net gain to these companies. In fact they are mostly if not all tax breaks to encourage risky exploration & developments. Energy companies still pay huge taxes, unlike the alternative energy sector. Also they actually deliver. By the way my earlier comment saying I was happy about the subsidies was because of the above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour assertion that there is no net gain through tax breaks for oil companies is a fallacy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://uppitywis.org/blogarticle/buy-gallon-gas-and-you-just-paid-more-federal-tax-these-oil-comp-1
Also, regarding a post you had on another article, why would you choose to outright lie?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fiji-hammered-by-severe-cyclone-no#comments
You are a liar, Carlyle, and a jackass to boot.
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll business investments are risky. Open a restaurant, it will most likely go bust. Try to develop new solar technology, it's unlikely you'll ever make a profit. What makes 100 year old oil exploration companies any different? Do you not understand free markets? Adam Smith's invisible hand?
100 years ago the railroad industry was much more profitable than the airline industry. And therefore railroads paid more in taxes than airlines. Railroad companies "actually delivered" 100 years ago as compared to airlines. Similar statements about fossil fuel companies will sound just as ridiculous 100 years from now.
Your statements are ridiculous. It understandable that Moss Boss believes you are liar -- nobody that could read and write could so stupid as to make your statements.
Re the Cyclone. I watched a TV report from an on the spot reporter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo deaths, minor damage. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/8099027/Fiji-looks-to-post-cyclone-clean-up
Nearly all major hotels in Fiji have reported only minor damage and the Coral Reef area was close to fully operational, Powell said.
Mr.Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI protest about your statement about the Railroad Industry being more profitable than the Airline Industry.
It makes now sense as there were NO Airlines 100 years ago.
Aircaft were still wood with canvas over it,with unreliable engines ,and the fatality rate of pilots was high.
Just thought a little light relief from this highly charged subject would help.
So I made it up did I?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
Your reply on the lack of effect of CO2 past 20 ppm, if true, is quite relevant. (Let us not forget methane is as important as CO2 now the arctic is thawing - the major tipping point we have past). Would you have a reference to cite, such as a link? One by a credible instituition (any university or public agency, not a blog?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you only cite blogs? Is there no credible source (university, public agency) to back up your claims?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what is it with investment in clean energy and climate research? Do governments not spend billions with the military, services, even oil subsidies?
You forgot peer reviewed & you forgot to criticise post #94 or is it only wrong to cite filthy blogs if they express views or evidence you dislike?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am positively quaking in trepidation. Help! I am being attacked by the Holy Trinity.
Moss Boss, Cramer & now – wait for it –Mark65651. Truly representative of the quality contributors on the AGW team.
Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you made it up and then you data dredged the internet to find something close to your number. In your last post you focused on capital investments, now you found a number looking at basic research all the way back to 1989. Where's the comparison of fossil fuel vs alt enery subsidies?
$33.5 billion of your $79 billion number is a result of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 which requires the USGCRP to report its findings to Congress every four years. Funding for this research began at approximately $1 billion per year and has not kept up with inflation. This $33.5 billion in funding over 20 years includes funding to all federal agencies such as NOAA and NASA. For example, the NASA satellites that collect sea level data is included in this funding -- yes, those satellites cost money.
Are you saying that we should not research climate change? How about other basic science research such as being conducted at the LHC? Do you think it would be profitable for private companies to fund this type of research?
Maybe the Koch brothers and Exxon should launch their own satellites to study global temperatures and sea level rise.
Elderly,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have become very slow-witted in your old age. I was making fun of Carlyle's comments about the fossil fuel industries being so much bigger and better than alt energy industries.
If humans continue to advance, future generations will look back in amazement of how we burned dead stuff for energy. We've been burning dead stuff for energy since the first control of fire by Homo erectus one-half million years ago (maybe longer).
It is off topic but I agree anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is that when a scientific finding agrees closely with a political agenda you must consider the possibility that objectivity has been compromised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChuck replies to my comment but does not answer the question: Are we seeing much debate about cap-and-trade or any other legislation to curb CO2?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChuck wrote, "...you must consider the possibility that objectivity has been compromised."
I consider a person's biases when it comes to any decision or opinion. People are stupid: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
Cap and trade is an economic shell game and intelligent CO2 management legislation would require that the legislators understood the science. Most politicians are retread lawyers and it is well established that lawyers make poor scientists and even worst economists. I worked in Washington DC on the science advisory staff for two different administrations and most of the politicians I knew wouldn't know the difference between a partial differential equation and a partial dental plate. They have little or no understanding of science but they do have an excellent understanding of power. They recognize that control over vital resources such as energy represents a great deal of power and in Washington everything is about power. Most scientists are idealists and as such are easy prey for politicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChuck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou did not answer the question.
You said absolutely nothing of value (it's either obvious or irrelevant).
You seem to find it neccessary to present your credentials (which is not impressive and makes most roll their eyes).
So a man is proud of his achievements. You will never experience that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou hysterical and unintentionally hilarious rightwingers can continue rejecting the science and believing the political distortion. Nobody cares anymore. The measurements and the numbers, for example the results of the Koch funded BEST study, which showed exactly the opposite of what the rightwing claimed and expected, (and led to the public statement by former skeptic Dr Muller that global warming was in fact happening and that the measurements were in fact valid) continue to show you are being foolish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou will continue to stay in your bubble of false and bad information - we understand that, and don't care anymore.
Nobody can "prove" global warming is happening - a basic principle of scientific method is falsification - that is, that theories cannot by definition be proven true, they can only be demonstrated to be not proven false.
But as each year passes, the measurements continue to support the theory, and the theory is refined and corrected to reflect the measurements. The scientific method is stronger than your short term politically motivated complaints and whining.
We dont care that you come to a website like this one and whine anymore. You are no longer relevant. We understand, you are unhappy that we are saying you are no longer relevant, and that public opinion has turned against you.
There's a solution for that - step out of your bubble of misinformation and look at the numbers yourselves, instead of simply believing what fox news tells you to believe.
The measurements and the numbers trump your whines and your beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am afraid you have not answered a single argument yet and seem to be losing your flair. Perhaps you should go a little slower so as to not sacrifice quality for quantity.
“You forgot peer reviewed”
You are correct; I did forget ‘peer reviewed’, or scientific journals. And quality mainstream media has a lower but not inexistent credibility too, followed by sites of the professional media in general.
“& you forgot to criticise post #94 or is it only wrong to cite filthy blogs if they express views or evidence you dislike?”
‘Animal Planet’ as a source of facts on lemmings seems reasonable, and is not a blog, either. I dare say it does not even seem filthy.
Nevertheless, I would not include unknown blogs and minor websites to substantiate
pearls such as “Sea level is not rising” such as http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog - when on http://climate.nasa.gov/ it says otherwise.
Now, is a rational person going to believe in NASA, or in that ridiculous joke of a ‘Science & Public Policy Institute’ site, that looks like a high school student computer lab project?
“Executive summary gives a summary of how much is being spent on CO2 related programmes” (...) yackety-yak billion.
Yup. Whereas oil industry staff, on the other hand, are all volunteers and work for free.
Also, if you could stop referring to quotes by number, perhaps this would enhance the present forum’s readability. And it was not post 84, but 83 – on the graph. So the IPCC will err. This does not affect the fact the Northwest Passage, long sought by Lewis and Clark, has opened for the first time in history, or all the freak storms that have started to occur. I’m optimistic Sandy will work as a ‘climatic Pearl Harbor’ and as a wake-up call.
So NASA is the last word on things scientific. http://www.scribd.com/doc/62621882/Nasa-Et-Contact
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists at Pennsylvania State University predict that humans and aliens from Zeeba will make direct contact with each other by the end of 2012.
Jessica Wygal-Markum of NASA’s Planetary Science Division and her colleagues compiled a list of plausible outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity “prepare for actual contact”.
In the report, “When Humans Meet Zeebans,” the researchers divide alien contacts into three broad categories: beneficial, neutral or harmful.
Beneficial encounters were productive and peaceful meetings held with extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). These meetings will help us advance our knowledge and solve global problems such as hunger, poverty and disease.
A section of the document warns that if we do not change our wicked ways, aliens could wipe us out.
12. dwbd in reply to LENRworks 12:32 AM 12/19/12
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the USA, Federal subsidies for non-carbon emitting electricity, 1950-2006, (renewable subsidies have increased exponentially since 2006):
See the full post at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=clean-energy-victory-bonds
Who do you think you are instructing me how to post?
The north West Passage opened for the first time in history?
In 1940, Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen was the second to sail the passage, crossing west to east, from Vancouver to Halifax. More than once on this trip, it was unknown whether the St. Roch a Royal Canadian Mounted Police "ice-fortified" schooner would survive the ravages of the sea ice. At one point, Larsen wondered "if we had come this far only to be crushed like a nut on a shoal and then buried by the ice." The ship and all but one of her crew survived the winter on Boothia Peninsula. Each of the men on the trip was awarded a medal by Canada's sovereign, King George VI, in recognition of this notable feat of Arctic navigation.
Later in 1944, Larsen's return trip was far more swift than his first; the 28 months he took on his first trip was significantly reduced, and he took 86 days to sail back from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Vancouver, British Columbia,[40] setting the mark for having traversed it in a single season. The ship followed a more northerly partially uncharted route, and it also had extensive upgrades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
Judging from the usual volume of noise from the peanut gallery, I'd say the answer is no for loud ignorant people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou mean "So NASA is the last word on things scientific" - as compared to an entirely unknown and anonymous ‘Science & Public Policy Institute’ from nowhere???
Usually things called 'Institute’ are related to a university or something. It’s not a volunteer association or a club. An anonymous interest group isn’t an ‘Institute’ just because it would like to call itself so. Of course NASA is the authority in measuring sea level change using satellites.
If a university or the space agency of another county would like to dispute NASA’s findings, then that would be worth a look at. An unknown anonymous pompous-sounding group, however, hardly.
On Henry Larsen and the journeys of the St. Roch – Roald Amundsen had done it too. But until 2009, pack ice prevented regular shipping lanes most of the year. Ever since, the pack ice has reduced to a point the waterways are navigable. A simple history is available in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage (which, not being an authoritative source, you may point out errors in if you find any). The fact is that there was a major non-cyclic change in the Passage from 2007-2009 on.
They did not have the advantage of satelite pictures to guide them through as modern ships do. Without such guides only heavy ice breakers would try. Even with those aids, mostly the ships that have gotten through have been escorted & aided by ice breakers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dispute this NASA finding just for starters: The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASAPlanetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt divides projected close encounters into "neutral," those that cause mankind "unintentional harm" and, more worryingly, those in which aliens do us "intentional harm."
Extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) "could attack and kill us, enslave us, or potentially even eat us. ETI could attack us out of selfishness or out of a more altruistic desire to protect the galaxy from us. We might be a threat to the galaxy just as we are a threat to our home planet," it warns.
NOTE: This has since been deleted from their study.
another minor matter that cost a few billion dollars was when NASA engineers mixed up metric & imperial systems resulting in a Mars lander crashing
Nasa is also launching a new satelite for sea level measurements because of anomalies found with the existing. Sure. NASA is never wrong.
I agree with the concept that the media should be further encouraged to steadily report actual facts, not merely opinions, on the subject of climate change. The vast array of disinformation currently in circulation has created a false security blanket, so to speak, over the non-scientific community in respects to climate change. This ‘blanket’ envelops our thinking so as to persuade us that the effects of global warming are either nonexistent, not our fault, or will not be felt for many years to come. Unfortunately, the repercussions are already being felt, in terms of the acidification of the ocean, melting polar caps, and ever-expanding ozone hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisamen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this