Bjorn Again

Tim Cavanaugh | February 4, 2005

The San Francisco Examiner gives a two-page Q&A to Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Sample:

Q: There are advantages to global warming?

A: Absolutely. I come from Denmark, and there it's pretty cold. The environmental assessment of the impact of global warming in Denmark is that overall it will be slightly positive. We'll have better agricultural production. We'll probably have better forestry. We will, however, also have more flash rain. That will be a negative.

One of the most typical examples we're told is that people will die from heat waves from global warming. That's true. People will die from heat waves. What you really seem to forget is in most advanced countries, the cold deaths outweigh heat deaths two-to-one.

And of course while you will get more heat deaths, you will also get many fewer cold deaths, and actually a research team looking at the cold and heat deaths around Europe estimated that for Britain global warming will mean 18,000 fewer deaths.

Ron Bailey gave a thumbs-up review to The Skeptical Environmentalist, and took a look at the attacks on Lomborg that followed. When Denmark's "Committees on Scientific Dishonesty" pronounced anathema on Lomborg, Chuck Freund was there with his bell, book, and candle. And of course, that Lomborg is getting a forum right in the City of Saint Francis suggests my own vision of a conservative San Francisco may already be coming true.

Comments

|2.4.05 @ 8:28PM|#

Heat deaths? You've got to be kidding me.

He's asked about the estimated impacts of global warming, and he starts talking about deaths in heat waves?

Lol. Hack.

|2.4.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Not to mention, increased storm activity that occurs in the winter months, disruptions in air and water currents that warm western Europe, and a colder north Atlantic resulting from ice caps melting and releasing more cold water are all realistic global warming scenarios that could result in more cold weather deaths in England.

I'm a city planner, and I know this crap. Lomborg may be a martyr to the evil Danes, but he's still a hack.

|2.4.05 @ 8:45PM|#

Joe...you be full of shit. As usual.

|2.4.05 @ 8:47PM|#

"There are a number of statements in informal writings that are not supported by climate science or projections with high-quality climate models. Some of these statements may appear to be physically plausible, but the evidence for their validity is weak, and some are just wrong. There are assertions that the number of storms, hurricanes, and typhoons per year will increase. That is possible, but there appears to be no credible evidence to substantiate such assertions."

-Science 278:1,416-17 "Uncertainties In Projections Of Human-Caused Global Warming"

Franklin Harris|2.4.05 @ 9:17PM|#

Don't confuse the issue with facts!

|2.4.05 @ 9:21PM|#

What about skin cancer? Don't forget that.

Horace Greely|2.4.05 @ 9:33PM|#

noname,
I've had the cuteness removed from my left cheek (upper) because of skin cancer.
I've been making plans for years now now to go north young man, go north.
Before I die, I've been planning to report anything funny between Santy and Rudolf.

|2.4.05 @ 9:45PM|#

And here I thought that as a rule libertarians weren't utilitarians. :)

|2.4.05 @ 10:06PM|#

Ozone gas in the upper atmosphere blocks some of the ultra-violet radiation that causes skin cell mutation and thus cancer. There are 'holes' centered over the polar caps where ozone levels are lower. These may have been worsened by CFCs (from refrigiration, they bond with ozone and neutralize it) although as they have been there ever since satellites could monitor them, nobody really knows. As ozone is poisnous to humans, pollution control may really be at fault. Skin cancer has NOTHING to do with the theory of global warming.

|2.4.05 @ 10:12PM|#

Thank you Jeremy Nimmo. But for Gunnels and Joe and the rest of these clowns facts like that don't matter a whole lot. Global warming will result in them getting skin cancer, more tornados, hurricanes and earthquakes as well as their group having more cavities.

|2.4.05 @ 10:23PM|#

The issue of Science magazine that jawbreaker quotes is 7 years old. The level of knowledge changes. In addition it is a selective quote to make the nay-sayers feel good, completely ignoring many other negative consequences that the author considers to be fairly likely. Allow me to point out some other items in the article.

Virtually Certain "Facts"

These key aspects of our knowledge of the climate system do not depend directly on the skill of climate model simulations and projections:

Atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases are increasing because of human activities.

Greenhouse gases absorb and re-radiate infrared radiation efficiently. This property acts directly to heat the planet.

Altered amounts of greenhouse gases affect the climate for many centuries. The major greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from a decade to centuries. Also, the climate itself has considerable inertia, mainly because of the high heat capacity of the world ocean.

Changes in other radiatively active substances offset somewhat the warming effect of increased greenhouse gases. Observed decreases in lower stratospheric ozone and increases in sulfate particles both produce cooling effects. The cooling effect of sulfate particles remains insufficiently quantified.

Human-caused CO2 increases and ozone decreases in the stratosphere have already produced more than a 1oC global average cooling there. This stratospheric cooling is generally consistent with model predictions.

Over the past century, Earth's surface has warmed by about 0.5oC (�0.2oC).

Virtually Certain Projections

These projections have a greater than 99 out of 100 chance of being true within the predicted range (6):

The stratosphere will continue to cool significantly as CO2 increases. If ozone continues to decrease, the cooling will be magnified. There is no known mechanism to prevent the global mean cooling of the stratosphere under these scenarios.

Global mean amounts of water vapor will increase in the lower troposphere (0 to 3 km) in approximately exponential proportion (roughly 6% per 1oC of warming) to the global mean temperature change. The typical relative humidities would probably change substantially less, in percentage terms, than would water vapor concentrations.

Very Probable Projections

These projections have a greater than 9 out of 10 chance of being true within the predicted range:

The global warming observed over the past century is generally consistent with a posteriori model projections of expected greenhouse warming, if a reasonable sulfate particle offset is included. It is difficult, but not impossible, to construct conceivable alternate hypotheses to explain this observed warming. Using variations in solar output or in natural climate to explain the observed warming can be appealing, but both have serious logical inconsistencies.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 over preindustrial levels is projected to lead to an equilibrium global warming in the range of 1.5o to 4.5oC. These generous uncertainty brackets reflect remaining limitations in modeling the radiative feedbacks of clouds, details of the changed amounts of water vapor in the upper troposphere (5 to 10 km), and responses of sea ice. In effect, this means that there is roughly a 10% chance that the actual equilibrium warming caused by doubled atmospheric CO2 levels could be lower than 1.5oC or higher than 4.5oC. For the answer to lie outside these bounds, we would have to discover a substantial surprise beyond our current understanding.
...
Probable Projections

The following have a greater than two out of three chance of being true:

Model studies project eventual marked decreases in soil moisture in response to increases in summer temperatures over northern mid-latitude continents. This result remains somewhat sensitive to the details of predicted spring and summer precipitation, as well as to model assumptions about land surface processes and the offsetting effects of airborne sulfate particles in those regions.

Climate models imply that the circum-Antarctic ocean region is substantially resistant to warming, and thus little change in sea-ice cover is predicted to occur there, at least over the next century or two.

The projected precipitation increases at higher latitudes act to reduce the ocean's salinity and thus its density. This effect inhibits the tendency of the water to sink, thus suppressing the overturning circulation.

Very recent research (7) suggests that tropical storms, once formed, might tend to become more intense in the warmer ocean, at least in circumstances where weather and geographical (for example, no landfall) conditions permit.

Moorlock|2.4.05 @ 10:24PM|#

Ever wonder how the war in Iraq would hold up under Lomborg's cost-benefit analysis?:

http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=28Jan05

|2.4.05 @ 11:24PM|#

John,

Its generally well know here (because I've written it enough times) that I am skeptical of claims regarding anthropogenic climate change.

In the future, before making assumptions about my opinions, ask me about them. :)

|2.4.05 @ 11:27PM|#

John,

The only clown here is you as far as I can tell. After all, only a clown would fabricate statements made by others out of whole cloth like you do.

|2.4.05 @ 11:35PM|#

Seeing as Copenhagen is a city built on a cluster of islands a la Venice, the Danes can't really afford to listen to hacks like this unless they enjoy the vision of submerged streets.

|2.4.05 @ 11:36PM|#

joe,

Our knowledge of any future impacts of rapid climate change (if indeed it is underway - an argument I remain skeptical of) is pretty limited. Indeed, its fairly arrogant to assume that we can make such predictions beyond a fairly short window. This is one of the reasons why fifty year predictions are so fraught with unknowns, uncertainty and a lot of fudging.

Jim S.,

It is difficult, but not impossible, to construct conceivable alternate hypotheses to explain this observed warming.

Its not difficult at all; here are two that readily come to mind:

We're in a natural warming period following the "little ice age."

Increased solar activity has been the primary cause of the 0.8-1 degree uptick.

|2.4.05 @ 11:41PM|#

cdunlea,

Its pretty easy - technically - to mitigate any sea level rise for coastal cities in the West. Now, for the Maldives or Fiji (if indeed rapid climate change is underway) it might be a different issue.

___________________________________

Anyway, Lomborg is merely stating a truism; climate change brings benefits as well as costs. Many "environmentalists" tend to ignore the former while beating the "global catastrophe" version of the latter into the ground.

Mark Bahner|2.5.05 @ 12:15AM|#

Jeremy Nimmo writes, "There are 'holes' centered over the polar caps where ozone levels are lower. These may have been worsened by CFCs (from refrigiration, they bond with ozone and neutralize it) although as they have been there ever since satellites could monitor them, nobody really knows."

It's almost certain that CFCs have been responsible for depletion of the ozone layer. That's why the two men who came up with the theory that CFCs cause ozone depletion (Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina) were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

"As ozone is poisnous to humans, pollution control may really be at fault."

Oy, vey! No, that's nonsense. You're confusing ozone in the stratosphere (the "ozone layer," which is good for humans) with ozone in the troposphere ("smog," which harms health, especially at high concentrations). There's no way that the pollution controls on cars and industries, which reduce "smog" (tropospheric ozone...ozone in the lower atmosphere) have caused depletion of stratospheric ozone. They are two seperate locations.

"Skin cancer has NOTHING to do with the theory of global warming."

That's right; ozone depletion (which can increase the incidence of skin cancer, by allowing more ultraviolet light to reach the ground) is not the same issue as global warming (which has probably at least partially been due to increases in carbon dioxide and methane concentrations since the start of the Industrial Revolution).

Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)

fyodor|2.5.05 @ 12:39AM|#

Of course there'll be pros and cons to global warming. But if either the speed at which it happens or the degree (no pun intended) to which the atmosphere warms is unprecedented, I think it's only rational to expect there to be more cons than pros simply because that is what we should expect from introducing a random element into a system that is already working satisfactorily, and it's absurd to think we could calculate all the effects. When I brought this up on a thread a while back, someone pointed out that evolution is based on adaption to just such random elements. It wasn't until the post and associated thread left the front H&R page that I got to responding. My response was that evolution operates on death. The best thing that ever happened to evolution was the meteor that killed almost all life on earth. Evolution is not our friend. The status quo is much better.

None of this is meant to say that human-caused global warming is a fact. That's obviously a different issue.

fyodor|2.5.05 @ 12:41AM|#

I should have said:

"...and it's absurd to think we could calculate all the effects beforehand."

|2.5.05 @ 12:58AM|#

Gary, the section of my post that you quote isn't me saying something. It's from the same article in Science magazine that jawbreaker quoted from. I notice that you attempt to ascribe the "uptick" to solar activity, ignoring the sentence from the article just after the one you quoted, which is "Using variations in solar output or in natural climate to explain the observed warming can be appealing, but both have serious logical inconsistencies.".

Frankly, I find that people who say (or post) the things that you do tend to be absolutely immune to reason. You believe what you want to believe. By the time there would be enough evidence that you would consider solid it would be too late to take any corrective action. Lomborg and others who attempt to list the possible benefits of warming actually have no basis for knowing the "benefits" of the scale of warming that might occur, especially if we do nothing to mitigate the increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. If you want to speak of the little ice age, you might want to read this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Frankly, it's questionable whether the little ice age was really a global event. It's not agreed on by any means and the Wikipedia link to the article that tries to claim it was a global phenomena links to a web site of a group that would never admit any possibility of global warming.

My attitude is simply that we should immediately take some reasonable steps and that there are strong secondary reasons for some of what I'd like to see us do, like decreasing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

|2.5.05 @ 1:25AM|#

Jim S.,

Of course I ignored it, since it appears to be throw-away language.

Frankly, I find that people who say (or post) the things that you do tend to be absolutely immune to reason.

I am not immune to reason. I am immune to scare tactics and chicken-little banter.

You believe what you want to believe.

I believe what I find credible.

By the time there would be enough evidence that you would consider solid it would be too late to take any corrective action.

Before we spend billions or trillions of dollars on the issue, some greater surety than we already have would be helpful. Furthermore, note that the article that you cite admits a range of 1.5-4.5 degrees; I'm dubious of claims with such wide variances in outcomes.

|2.5.05 @ 1:32AM|#

In other words, global warming isn't happening, and the warming we see is natural and not caused by human, and the warming we cause will be good for us anyways. Lovely.

I am aware this problem is eagerly pursued by a certain breed of environmentalist because it allows them to call for a return to pre-industrial society or strict centralized planning of all CO2 and methane output. I also realize that any solutions are going to be costly and drag down economic growth. I am unconvinced however that just because someone owns a smokestack they have a license to pour shit into the atmosphere and fuck up my biosphere.

|2.5.05 @ 1:57AM|#

Jim S.,

Frankly, it's questionable whether the little ice age was really a global event.

Quite frankly, the difference is that the "little ice age" is better documented in the Northern Hemipshere; its a bias issue.

...the Wikipedia link to the article that tries to claim it was a global phenomena links to a web site of a group that would never admit any possibility of global warming.

I doubt that is true. As climatologists they are likely readily open to the notion of climate change, since the Earth has experienced so much of it over its long existance.

Here's the website (since you weren't kind enough to provide it yourself): http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2001/hockey1.htm

|2.5.05 @ 2:08AM|#

Great. My one refuge from the chicken littles of the world is Reason. Toss up a blog mentioning Bjorg and the Chicken Littles swoop in. Sheesh.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to global warming. It'll help me exercise my claims to land in Greenland that my distant relatives used to farm a few hundred years ago before the zealous plants (or whatever it was) swooped in and created a sudden case of Global Cooling.

|2.5.05 @ 8:52AM|#

I think global warming is real, and I don't quite understand the mindset of those who say that our pumping millions of pounds of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere each year won't have any effects on the climate.

I don't think places like the US or the Scandinavian countries will be too adversely affected; however, I'm wondering more of the political fallout from this. Bangladesh is barely above sea level already--where will those hundreds of millions of people go when their land is flooded out? There's the added irony that, generally speaking, the countries which will suffer the worst from global warming are the ones who benefited least from the industrial revolution which caused it.

I don't think humanity, or civilization, will die out, but things will get quite ugly. Bear in mind that even the Pentagon under George W. Bush did a study saying that in the 21st century, climate change will be more of a threat to America than even Islamic terrorism. Pentagon planners can't be so easily dismissed as "hippie tree-huggers."

|2.5.05 @ 9:17AM|#

Hmmm, still no snow on the pass and the daffodils are blooming. Oh, look at the nice blossoms on the plum tree. Got started on my tan this week. Too bad its Feb 5th! ;)

Seattle s.a.m.

|2.5.05 @ 9:42AM|#

Here's a link discussing the Pentagon's view of things. In light of the people reading this blog, I didn't bother getting a link from Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or any such group, instead, I took a link from the very conservative, capitalist bastion that is Fortune magazine:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584-1,00.html

|2.5.05 @ 10:00AM|#

The editor of Science magazine was on C-span last week discussing this issue, and he got his clock cleaned. He was asked three times about the ratio of CO2 from Mt. Pinatubo to man-caused CO2, and he never would answer the question. He also tried to claim, between nervous coughs, that the increased solar activity that we're seeing has very little effect on temperature. If the editor of Science magazine can't offer any believable facts, besides computer projections, there mustn't be much on the issue.
And Joe: my brother in law is an urban planner, and he's a fucking new growth idiot, with absolutely no concept of individual freedom.

|2.5.05 @ 11:15AM|#

Gary, they're not climatologists, they just play them for the oil companies. The Greening Earth Society is just what's called an astroturf organization, that is a fake group that is a front for an industry that wants to put forward some fake science or fake public support for their viewpoint. From the Center for Science in the Public Interest:
"GREENING EARTH SOCIETY

The Greening Earth Society was created by the Western Fuels Association and holds that industrial evolution is good, and using fossil fuels to enable economic activity is as desirable. GES promotes the benign effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the earth�s biosphere and humankind. The Society provides information about CO2 and fossil fuels to educators, students, business and media representatives, community leaders and policymakers. Information is provided to the public through the biweekly World Climate Report, the annual State of the Climate Report, the video �The Greening of Planet Earth� and �The Greening of Planet Earth Continues� and its website. (http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/ 5/9/01)"

The CSPI isn't the only place to find the information on what the GES really is. You just fell for them hook, line and sinker as I would expect you to.

james, If you're going to call people idiots might I suggest looking in a mirror while you do it. Oooooh, Mt. Pinatubo produced some CO2? Hate to tell you this but it probably can't be answered because Mt. Pinatubo's eruption was a short term event. In the case of any catastrophic eruption such as Pinatubo's any CO2 release is FAR outweighed by the particulate matter projected into the upper atmosphere. Even that, which can circulate through the upper atmosphere for a year or more in amounts great enough to affect weather is short term compared to the continuous production of gases for decades by human activity. And yes, he's right about the current levels of solar activity NOT being enough to account for current warming.

|2.5.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Jim S.,

One wonders why ASU pays them to be climatologists then. :)

|2.5.05 @ 11:50AM|#

Jim S.,

BTW, thankyou for the example of a nice genetic fallacy. :)

One wonders whether I should judge the merits of climatologists who argue that rapid climate change is underway by the nature of their organizational support, or by the merits of their arguments. So far all you've done is the former.

Jennifer,

I think global warming is real, and I don't quite understand the mindset of those who say that our pumping millions of pounds of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere each year won't have any effects on the climate.

This would be an interesting comment if anyone had actually claimed this. But no one has. Indeed, I suspect it does have some effect. However, any remotely familiar with climate science will tell you that single input is hardly the end of the story when it comes to understanding climate change. For example, there are numerous factors which actually inhibit or cancel out the effects of "greenhouse gases."

Its the Pentagon's job is to research even remote threats to the U.S.

I'm not a subscriber to Fortune.

|2.5.05 @ 12:04PM|#

Jim S.,

Your basic argument boils down to this: I don't agree with you, therefore you are a fool; or in the alternative, you're on the take.

So much for reasoned discourse. :)

|2.5.05 @ 12:22PM|#

Jim S., I'm still waiting for an answer to Mt. Pinatubo's CO2 emmissions. You bring up particulate matter to cloud the issue, but how much CO2? The Science editor used that technique to duck the question too. And about how much of that whole one degree might the sun account for? I don't know, but if it is any part of the warming then man's contribution through burning fuel for energy can be seen as a great trade off for the number of human lives that the energy has improved.

|2.5.05 @ 1:23PM|#

The reason why the scientific consensus on global warming can't be trusted is that the scientific community is operating in groupthink mode, and hopelessly biased toward the left.

Libertarian bloggers, on the other hand, are independently and dispassionately sifting through evidence to get at the truth of the matter.

Right.

|2.5.05 @ 1:24PM|#

The argument that in "cold countries" (e.g., northern Europe) global warming (for present purposes let's assume that man-made global warming does exist, as Lomborg believes) would be a net positive could actually make lefties *more* intent on stopping it. Why? Because if in warm countries (mostly Third World) it leads to a net loss of life (because of heat waves among many other things) whereas in cold countries (mostly First World, with the obvious exception of Russia) it has a net positive effect, doesn't that mean that, whether it helps or hurts overall, it increases the *gap* between the First and Third Worlds?

|2.5.05 @ 1:41PM|#

thoreau,

Is there really a "scientific consensus" on the matter? How "deep" is this consensus? Having done some reading on these matters for coursework I quickly discovered that even those who agree that anthropogenic climate change is underway disagree as to its overall importance, effects, etc. Since that is the case, why is there is a need to suddenly short-circuit discussion on the matter?

|2.5.05 @ 2:01PM|#

jimmy,

What's especially strange is how folks at the IPCC fail to explain the poor predictive quality of their models. They don't account for their past failures in other words.

James Hansen the Goddard Institute goes into some detail on these matters in: A brighter future. Climatic Change, 52, 435-440.

|2.5.05 @ 4:19PM|#

Even if he's not entirely on the ball, Lomberg is still one of the more reputable general spokesmen in the global warming arena, because he has demonstrated the ability to evaluate his position and alter it according to facts and reason, an ability that seems to be substantially lacking on both of the issue.

No reasonable person should have any doubt that there is clearly an anthropogenic component to global climate. Whether that component supersedes all others is still far from certain, all diatribe on both sides notwithstanding.

We should definitely be making all reasonable efforts to ameliorate the effects of human contributions to the climate.

We should, for example, engage in a program to replace coal and gas power generation plants with nuclear power plants. Using the characteristics of nuclear power plants to produce heat and electriciy, we can then produce hydrogen in sufficient economical quantities to allow it to start to supplant gasoline in cars and other transportation.

What we do not need to do, and what will fail catastrophically, both at its stated purpose, and in terms of significant detrimental side effects, is to engage in solutions that are nothing more than income redistribution systems.

Attempting to solve the problem before we really know what the problem truly is, is irresponsible and stupid. There are meaningful steps we can take with our current levels of knowledge, but the predictive power of the current models are fundamentally inadequate to provide a workable basis for an entire solution set based on those inadequate models.

|2.5.05 @ 4:55PM|#

foobie,

No reasonable person should have any doubt that there is clearly an anthropogenic component to global climate. Whether that component supersedes all others is still far from certain, all diatribe on both sides notwithstanding.

We should definitely be making all reasonable efforts to ameliorate the effects of human contributions to the climate.

Sorry, these two statements don't jive.

We should, for example, engage in a program to replace coal and gas power generation plants with nuclear power plants.

Natural gas plants are relatively clean from a CO2 standpoint. Coal plants can engage in carbon sequestration measures if its really necessary; indeed, with current technology we could do that pretty easily.

Further, you seem to be suggesting that nuclear power doesn't have a downside, when in fact it does - storage of nuclear waste. Also, reprocessing has not been shown itself to be as useful or as cost-effective as once thought; and the process itself is fairly dangerous and produces its own soup of deadly waste.

|2.5.05 @ 5:00PM|#

Memories, in the corners of my mind...

'"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is 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."'

Global Warming denial in 2004 is in the same position as denial of the smoking/lung cancer link in 1990. Pimp harder, "Green Earth Society," the window's closing.

|2.5.05 @ 5:11PM|#

Joe, heat means life. However else it fucks up your supremely planned city, the variety of species on earth will only increase in a warmer climate. I get enough of city planners spurning energy usage in the name of control. More energy to me is more power to me, and you just hate that.

|2.5.05 @ 5:13PM|#

joe,

So, is there a "scientific consensus" or not? Because the material you quoted doesn't answer that question; indeed, at best it discusses the political strategy of people don't believe that its been settled.

|2.5.05 @ 5:18PM|#

joe,

Or are you suggesting that people shouldn't have political strategies about the things that they find credible (or not)? Because the quote hardly undermines the position of those who are are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change.

My suggestion is that you actually do some research on the issue instead of leaving your knowledge up to others. :)

|2.5.05 @ 5:25PM|#

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed."

Not "the public debate," or "the political debate." "The scientific debate."

Even GW deniers, the ones who know what they're talking about, admit in their honest moments that the facts are against them.

|2.5.05 @ 5:27PM|#

Gary, that's because Moorlock thoroughly demolished jawbreaker through the magic of re-contextualizing the statement he selected from the article.

|2.5.05 @ 5:29PM|#

"The modus operandi of some environmentalists is to claim that the world is coming to an end unless we do X."

BTW, did you know that there will be no automobile manufacturing in the United States after 1975 if the federal government bans leaded gasoline?

Phil|2.5.05 @ 5:34PM|#

Jennifer, that Pentagon report has been being pimped by environmentalists for about a year now, Unfortunately, it doesn't say what they, and you, claim it does. The authors of the report repeatedly emphasized that the scenarios they described were "extremely unlikely," absolute-worst-case ideas. Google around and you'll find a lot about it. Here's one good source.

foobie|2.5.05 @ 5:36PM|#

Sorry Gary,

But those two statement do indeed jive. Even if human contributions aren't the predominant factor, that in no way indicates that reasonable efforts to reduce human contributions aren't worthwhile. It does, however, mean that we should be running around in a blind panic to do something just because there might be an automobile still running somewhere.

Second, my suggestions for nuclear energy as a replacement for fossil fuels was merely intended to be one suggestion that indicated that other avenues are available, not necessarily that it is the only one.

However, even though storage is a potential issue, you should realize that a coal fired energy plant releases more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear plant does. Even if you're completely sequestering the entire post combustion emission byproducts of coal burning, the radioactive characteristics of the sequestration imply that it would most likely have to be stored in much the same manner as nuclear plant byproducts.

The use of new technology and proper selective use of current technology is a valid approach to ameliorating even the potential issues of anthropogenic contributions.

Economic redistribution and a blind fervor to engage in any activity merely to be seen to be 'doing something' are not valid approaches to anthropogenic contributions.

foobie|2.5.05 @ 5:39PM|#

It does, however, mean that we should be running around in a blind panic to do something just because there might be an automobile still running somewhere

should say:

It does, however, mean that we shouldn't be running around in a blind panic to do something just because there might be an automobile still running somewhere

Preview is your friend :)

|2.5.05 @ 5:46PM|#

Scientific debate notwithstanding, If the Democrats say it is so, it must therefore be wrong.

|2.5.05 @ 5:47PM|#

And joe,

Can you promise me the earth won't take a turn for the colder, making us wish we had driven our SUVs more frequently?

Global warming is a prediction. What are the odds for these possibilities:

1. We do not implement your solutions (kyoto, etc) and the world gets hot as hell, mass disaster ensues

2. We do not implement your solutions, and nothing drastic happens (same shit, different day)

3. We do not implement your solutions, and the world has another ice age (to which we would say, "damn! good thing we didn't sign the kyoto thing - it's cold enough!)

4. We DO implement your solutions, but it gets hot as hell anyway and disaster ensues

5. We DO implement your solutions, and we maintain a static, harmonic relationship with gaia and, to paraphrase Tenacious D, "no more pollution - we'll all travel in TUBES! (tube technology)"

6. We DO implement your solutions, and the tempurature plummets and disaster ensues

7. While putting all of our resources into efforts to control the weather, we all die from AIDS/Malaria/starvation/???

If you could get back to me with those odds, and the odds of other possibilities I surely missed, I'd appreciate it.

foobie|2.5.05 @ 5:47PM|#

BTW, did you know that there will be no automobile manufacturing in the United States after 1975 if the federal government bans leaded gasoline?

joe,

you do realize that wasn't even a common statement among even those who opposed the change?

Even though it wasn't all that big of a deal to change over, there really wasn't even that much of a consensus concerning the overall effects of lead. Additionally, some of the additives that were tried during the transition were arguable worse than the lead was.

I'm fully in favor of reasonable steps to address human contributions to possible climate change, even if they don't prove to be a primary contribution to the overall climate. However, the 'solutions' that are currently on the table (Kyoto, et.al.) are not reasonable.

|2.5.05 @ 6:25PM|#

did a little searching - found this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/628515.stm

Are the chances of global warming disasters greater than the chances the caldera under Yellowstone will explode?

"The eruption throws cubic kilometres of rock, ash, dust, sulphur dioxide and so on into the upper atmosphere, where they reflect incoming solar radiation, forcing down temperatures on the Earth's surface. It's just like a nuclear winter.

"The effects could last four or five years, with crops failing and the whole ecosystem breaking down. And it is going to happen again some day."

IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. So shouldn't we be heating this sucker up to get ready?

|2.5.05 @ 6:35PM|#

joe,

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed."

Which merely illustrates - of course - that debate remains open on the matter.

Gary, that's because Moorlock thoroughly demolished jawbreaker through the magic of re-contextualizing the statement he selected from the article.

Now you are just starting to fib.

Regarding predictions, all one need do is look at President Carter's "Global 2000 Report" to see how far off lefty environmentalists like you have been over the years. Or you can look at the much celebrated (at the time) report by DH Meadows and crew; they too have been shown to have been flat out wrong (as Kaysen argued they would be). Indeed, the prediction quality of lefty environmentalists is flat out laughable; in part this is due to their ignorance of basic economics.

foobie,

Even if human contributions aren't the predominant factor, that in no way indicates that reasonable efforts to reduce human contributions aren't worthwhile.

Reasonable efforts are of course already underway, and are market-driven. Note that the IPCC predicted that CO2 use would grow in the 1990s by twice the rate that it actually did grow (they failed of course to admit their error in later reports - raising questions of basic scientific honesty).


However, even though storage is a potential issue, you should realize that a coal fired energy plant releases more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear plant does.

Yes, that's true, but coal-fired plants release so little as to unimportant. The danger of nuclear power plants lies largely in storage, and to discount the many and numerous problems with this waste smacks of dishonesty from the nuclear power community.*

...the radioactive characteristics of the sequestration imply that it would most likely have to be stored in much the same manner as nuclear plant byproducts.

Not really. You can sequester carbon in naturally occuring pockets in the Earth's crust; much as natural gas is stored underground today. For solid nuclear waste you simply can't do that. You have two options - digging a big hole in the ground and storing the waste as if it were in a warehouse, or deep-bore hole drilling. The latter entails drilling a very deep hole and then dropping a few barrels (or other storage device) into it. Neither of these options is like carbon sequestration.

*Note that nuclear power producers often ignore these costs in their flashy fliers and presentations.

|2.5.05 @ 6:41PM|#

foobie,

Some proposals call for sequestering CO2 in the ocean. In essence there are very deep ocean currents that take quite a long time to run their course (decades as I recall); you pump the CO2 into these currents and let it travel with the current until you can recapture it many years later.

Thanks for the comment on the phase-out of leaded gasoline, you beat me to it. :(

|2.5.05 @ 7:14PM|#

Gary,

"Regarding predictions, all one need do is look at President Carter's "Global 2000 Report" to see how far off lefty environmentalists like you have been over the years."

Leftys like me? I'm on your side!

I don't want you to give me your predictions. I want joe to give me his. To make statements like

"Even GW deniers, the ones who know what they're talking about, admit in their honest moments that the facts are against them."

indicates he (thinks he) knows something I don't. I want to know how certain he is that GW is something we need to DO something about.

My proposal is simply this: let's get as wealthy as we can (via free markets) so the most people possible will have the means of minimizing/avoiding the fallout from any kind of disaster - "natural" or otherwise. Warming or cooling.

The whole notion of thinking we can control the weather of the entire globe with the same institution that keeps us Drug Free and Leaves No Child Behind seems a little stupid in a Unicorns will fly out of my butt sort of way.

|2.5.05 @ 9:45PM|#

Bjorn Lomborg is not a libertarian.
He is, in fact, a leftist Eur� with a s�cial planning agenda.
That doesn�t prevent him fr�m being a tr�th-sayer. Bj�rn is fully dedicated to punching out cost-benefit analyses that pass scientific standards (almost wrote pass the global test)... Governments can use that data to be irrational or not but they can�t pretend they never herd �f straight-up d�ta. When he held his Copenhagen seminar on wh�t the best interventions into the global economy would be from a c-b-perspective it was all in the "let�s fix things for the c�mm�n good with taxpayer m�ney" spirit. Recommending govmnt spending to curb aids, TBC etc.

And it brought the wrong conclusions for the rabid left pack who actually oppose growth and would be kings of killing fossile fuel, namely that gas might pay more than enough to pay for the damage it causes.

So he was chastigated. By the orthodoxy of greenish leftist who rule climate research. None of whom read his book. Read it!

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/reasonmagazineA/ Sceptical Environmentalist[/URL]

|2.5.05 @ 9:46PM|#

Sorry, your site didn�t take well on scandinavian o-with-slash or a-combined with e.

|2.5.05 @ 9:49PM|#

And whats up with the HTML iterpretation?

|2.5.05 @ 10:00PM|#

Bjorn Lomborg is not a libertarian.
He is, in fact, a leftist Euro with a social planning agenda.
That doesn't prevent him from being a truth-sayer. Bjorn is fully dedicated to punching out cost-benefit analyses that pass scientific standards (almost wrote pass the global test)... Governments can use that data to be irrational or not but they can't pretend they never herd of straight-up data. When he held his Copenhagen seminar on what the best interventions into the global economy would be from a c-b-perspective it was all in the "let's fix things for the common good with taxpayer money" spirit. Recommending govmnt spending to curb aids, TBC etc.

And it brought the wrong conclusions for the rabid left pack who actually oppose growth and would be kings of killing fossile fuel, namely that gas might pay more than enough to pay for the damage it causes.

So he was chastigated. By the orthodoxy of greenish leftist who rule climate research. None of whom read his book. Read it!

The Sceptical environmentalist

|2.5.05 @ 10:43PM|#

I couldn't find the specific amount released by Pinatubo but I did find some general information on volcanic carbon dioxide production versus human.
From the USGS:
"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons). Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

Another interesting effect of volcanic eruptions on climate is reported on in this article:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20011210co2absorb.html

|2.5.05 @ 11:00PM|#

Gary, I never said you were on the take. The people running The Greening Earth Society are another matter, however. In one place they cite a small portion of something said by James Hansen. If you are interested in Hansen's real opinion on the global warming debate I suggest you read this instead: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/.

drf|2.5.05 @ 11:14PM|#

this lost me at the first fucking sentence:

the dude claims it's "cold" in denmark. i lived there. for five long years. i've lived in philadelphia (one year), cleveland, and am in chicago. copenhagen, odensee, aarhus, toender - those cities are new york/ philly/ dc cold no big deal. not cold at all. a few chilly mornings, but not at all cold. not like montreal or something.... not chicago or cleveland or milwaukee cold even, not to mention minneapolis or anything.

summers are like at the soo: try being in the northern adirondacks or in maine or in the cascades or in norhtern mi or mn or wi. sorry. he can fuck himself with those comments.

hint #1: if you want to be credible in an argument, stick to the facts. i lived there. what he says about it being "cold" there is utter bullshit.

hint two: remember the rules:
"First rule is: The laws of Germany
Second rule is: Be nice to mommy
Third rule is: Don't talk to commies
Fourth rule is: Eat kosher salamis. "

i don't think bh is a problematic figure, but his claim, furthering the myth that denmark is "cold" is bullshit. if his research is anything like that claim, i'd say you could throw his research along with that old "skiderik" bjorn out the window.

|2.5.05 @ 11:14PM|#

You know what the Green Earth Society and the Reason Institute have in common?

Lots of Olin and Scaife money.

drf|2.5.05 @ 11:34PM|#

...and jennifer:

stockholm, copenhagen, and oslo are on the water - they'd be in trouble moreso than DC or philly even. and before you think it, no, helsinki is not in scandinavia. nor is iceland. they're nordic. not scandinavian. although beowulf spoke something like icelandic or fereoese.

|2.6.05 @ 3:20AM|#

Several things strike me...

Weren't all of the greenies who are now predicting doom the same ones bitching about the expansion of nuclear power generation in the late 70s and 80s?

Also, whether or not man-made contributions to CO2 are going to cause global warming, they are certainly not a positive thing. Having said that, unless someone comes up with an alternative to petroleum-based power and transportation, it's not going to improve.

Kyoto was bad news not only because it would have hamstrung the U.S. economy. What Kyoto puts in place will hamstring emerging economies well into the future. When the good and noble Americans and Europeans eventually move to hydrogen, there will still be lots of little, poor countries (not to mention biggies like China and India) left on the petroleum teat.

Given the choice between breaking Kyoto and continuing to expand (thereby heading off starvation and civil unrest) or being good global citizens, the choice will be to go for the growth. That in turn will put the good and noble Americans and Europeans in the position of enforcing Kyoto. War for oil in another context.

Finally, in between naps as an undergrad, I seem to recall being told that the earth used to be a lot warmer, and during that period carried as many or more species as today. And so natural selection marches on.

Be it asteroid, super germs, or global warming, something will eventually get us. So until there is conclusive evidence of global warming, why not spend all that money on problems we know we have, rather than ones we think we will have?

|2.6.05 @ 7:20AM|#

Reminds me of the "King of the Hill" episode where Dale says that global warming will be good because then we could grow oranges in Alaska. To which Hank responded something like: "We're in Texas. If it gets one degree hotter I am going to kick your butt."

|2.6.05 @ 9:43AM|#

DRF-
Sure, all the rich Westernized countries have some valuable cities and land on their coastlines; however, these nations are wealthy enough, and have space enough, to handle the problem. There's ample room for settlement inland in rising water levels change our coastlines.

Besides, any places that become unlivable will likely do so gradually. People in Florida or Manhattan won't go to bed one night and then wake up next day to find they're part of the ocean. There would be some time to implement certain measures.

Maybe we'll even go the Dutch route and build an elaborate system of dikes to keep out the sea. Who knows? We could afford to do this if we really had to.

But not places like Bangladesh, and folks there can't move inland to higher ground because they're isn't any.

So I'm just thinking, even if it turns out that humans have NO responsibility in regards to the melting of global ice, the ice still does appear to be melting. What will happen to the citizens of countries that will be flooded out of existence on the map?

|2.6.05 @ 12:36PM|#

I think that Huskermet hits the nail on the head when he says that new energy sources are the only solution. And while regulation might be able to speed up the transition somewhat (not saying that it should, just that it could), regulation would be pointless until a clean and cost effective alternative emerges. At which point regulation will be nothing more than a very slight accelerant on a trend created by innovation.

Also, regardless of what one thinks about global warming, there are other very good reasons to transition away from petroleum in the long term.

So it all comes down to a need for innovation. To me, the green future will probably be a combination of:'

1) Solar and nuclear power for electricity (that's right, I said the n-word).
2) Biodiesel for vehicles.
3) Hydroelectric will no doubt continue to play an important role in the economy, and various other renewables like wind may play a role in locales suited to the task.
4) Some day, superconductivity may vastly improve the efficiency of the grid, reducing the power losses in transmission, but that day is far off.

The problem with hydrogen is that you need to get the energy to generate it from somewhere. And once you have it, you need a distribution infrastructure. Biodiesel (diesel made from plants) doesn't add any new CO2 to the atmosphere (the CO2 released upon burning was originally taken out of the atmosphere to grow the plants, so it's carbon-neutral). In terms of distribution networks, the networks used to distribute gasoline could be reconfigured to biodiesel with minimal adjustments, whereas hydrogen would be a drastic change.

|2.6.05 @ 2:05PM|#

First a question:

Which is better; a hybrid that gets 45 mpg and sometimes doesn't use any gas at all, or an ultra low emmissions vehicle that only gets 28 mpg?

And a solution:

The answer to global warming? Nuclear winter!!

|2.6.05 @ 2:54PM|#

You know what the Green Earth Society and the Reason Institute have in common?

Lots of Olin and Scaife money.


And this means something?

|2.6.05 @ 2:57PM|#

joe's basic argument boils down to this: I don't understand climate science so I'll try to impugn the character of people I don't agree with.

huskermet,

No, that can't be! It'll be a catastrophe! The Earth will die!!! We're doomed!!! :)

thoreau,

Duh. That was Kaysen's whole point back in the 1970s when lefty enviromentalists (like DH Meadows) were predicting global catastrophe based on some macro-limit to growth. It turns out that DH Meadows and crew were simply wrong; that their dire predictions of catastrophe didn't come to fruition. With that sort of poor track record there is good reason to question the veracity of their current predictions and prescriptions.

Lefty environmentalists nearly always ignore solutions founded on technological change and markets and jump to government regulation instead.

Jim S.,

Sure you are arguing that someone is on the take; indeed, that was the entire point of your earlier statement.

|2.6.05 @ 3:00PM|#

Isaac Bertram,

Money is evil except when Democrats get it from their supporters, then the giving of money is "democracy in action."

|2.6.05 @ 3:25PM|#

I would have an easier time believing that there is a consensus about climate change if at least two members of the IPCC had not written articles warning readers to be skeptical of the executive summary of the report (the only part most people - including reporters - have read) and the media stories about the subject and another had not resigned over polticization of the panel's work.

|2.6.05 @ 3:28PM|#

...then the giving of money is "democracy in action."

I'm sure Working Assets will soon be out telling us how trading in carbon credits is a sign of social conscience. :)

|2.6.05 @ 4:41PM|#

Gary, try learning to read. In my last post I said quite clearly that I was not claiming that you were on the take. You simply choose to believe that an organization that most definitely IS on the take is the one telling the truth. Be honest. If twenty years from now the average global temperature was still clearly increasing and the Arctic ice had melted by over 10% more while solar activity had declined and we were in an unprecedented period of low volcanic activity you still would choose to ignore any arguments in favor of anthropogenic contribution to global warming.

As far as the wingnut cliches floating around here, my personal opinion is that there is no one solution to the problem. Yes, existing power plants should have to install scrubbers. The planting of trees or any plants that would help absorb carbon dioxide should be encouraged. More research on safe methods of nuclear fission including how to deal with the waste should be done. Nuclear fusion research should get more funding. Wind power farms and other energy generation methods that don't get that much publicity should also be encouraged. How many have even heard of tidal power systems or ocean temperature power systems that use the temperature differential between surface water and deep water to help power turbines? I think the people who are dismissive of any environmental concerns and those who say that the only thing we can do is turn the clock back to some kind of pre-industrialized nirvana (that exists only in their mind) are just two sides of the same coin.

|2.6.05 @ 4:51PM|#

Everyone who works for a living is on the take.

|2.6.05 @ 5:25PM|#

As I understand it taking a grant from a private entity will cause you to lie in it's interests. Taking money from the government will make you a paragon of integrity and incapable of misrepresenting anything in the interest of increasing government power (or improving the possibility of getting another government grant). :)

|2.6.05 @ 6:32PM|#

Isaac, how about if you quit lying about what I said? Because make no mistake you are lying about it. The Greening Earth Society is NOT taking a grant from a private entity. It was founded by and is completely controlled by the Western Fuels Association. That is NOT the same as taking a grant from someone. And let us also speak of the difference between taking a grant from someone and that grant or ones like it being your sole source of funding. If a group tries to claim scientific skepticism still based in objectivity but the only source of funding they have is from a group or groups that have a vested interest in the outcome of the debate then their funding becomes a valid question in the debate.

|2.6.05 @ 7:19PM|#

Gary-

I agree that most of what I wrote is common sense. But it's common sense that needs to be constantly reiterated. People right now are latching on to hydrogen as the Big Solution, and somebody needs to remind them that at best H2 is a very clean battery, but charging that batter still requires energy.

And at some point we'll have to overcome our fear of the "N-word". Nuclear power is, in principle, of limited supply (there's only so much uranium on earth), but the "limited" supply will still go for an incredibly long time. I have seen estimates of how much space it would take to meet all of the energy needs in the US with solar, and it just isn't practical. We'll need some form of nuclear to supplement solar. I'm all for coming up with safer designs for nuclear reactors and whatnot, but one way or another we'll need some nuclear power.

(And, fwiw, a while back in Science I read an excellent article observing that crashing a 747 into a nuclear reactor would barely make a tiny dent in the very thick protective wall. So while I'm all for making the things even safer than they currently are, let's not underestimate just how safe they are at the moment.)

|2.6.05 @ 7:39PM|#

Didn't thoreau want to have solved this question by last December?

|2.6.05 @ 7:42PM|#

Yeah, I meant to, but I've been busy.

At some point I do want to do a calculation to establish for myself that the consensus is plausible. There's no way I can sort out all of the many, many variables to get a definitive answer, but I can at least do a simple calculation to ask whether the amount of energy needed for a typical warming scenario is consistent with the energy that could be trapped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

I promise that some day I will do that calculation.

|2.6.05 @ 7:53PM|#

You'll let us know, though - right, thoreau?

|2.6.05 @ 8:56PM|#

Jim S.,

I can read, but you apparently can't comprehend the statements of others. I haven't written a word about you accusing me being on the take (if I have, do point it out). I have written comments where I responded to your accusations regarding character of others however.

Note that you claimed that members of the aforementioned organization weren't climatologists. When I responded with a question about their presence at ASU as climatologists you shut your trap about the issue.

If twenty years from now the average global temperature was still clearly increasing and the Arctic ice had melted by over 10% more while solar activity had declined and we were in an unprecedented period of low volcanic activity you still would choose to ignore any arguments in favor of anthropogenic contribution to global warming.

I haven't chosen to ignore any arguments. I wrote that I am a skeptic (indeed I've stated this many times over I believe). You on the other hand are a true believer, you can't be dissuaded from your opinions, whereas I can be.

Yes, existing power plants should have to install scrubbers.

Existing plants already have scrubbers on them for a variety of agents. Scrubbers for carbon eradication aren't a solution (any scrubbing system would be quickly overwhelmed by the volume of carbon involved - duh). That's why carbon sequestration is the optimal choice for coal-fired power plants.

The planting of trees or any plants that would help absorb carbon dioxide should be encouraged.

Trees and plants are relatively poor carbon sinks. However, such proposals do smack of the sorts of things one hears from the lefty environmentalist crowd.

More research on safe methods of nuclear fission including how to deal with the waste should be done.

Nuclear fission by itself is relatively safe. I'm curious how many more hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars you want to spend researching nuclear waste disposal issues? Is the $300-400 billion we've (meaning the U.S. alone) already spent on the issue not enough (in all honesty, how deep of a blackhole we have here is unknown due to rather slapshod accounting procedures)? IMHO, the nuclear power industry needs to carry its own weight and stop depending on the government teat.

Nuclear fusion research should get more funding.

Than the billions it already has? One thing nuclear fusion geeks always say is that they need more money. Its only ten years off they promise. :)

Wind power farms and other energy generation methods that don't get that much publicity should also be encouraged.

They get plenty of publicity, especially from the lefty environmental crowd. They are going to be minor parts of any energy portfolio.

How many have even heard of tidal power systems or ocean temperature power systems that use the temperature differential between surface water and deep water to help power turbines?

I have. Tidal power systems are used in a number of places around the world (indeed, the use of tidal power stretches back to at least medeival Europe).

I think the people who are dismissive of any environmental concerns...

Who would that be? Not I. You like to paint people as they are not I see. You like to lie in other words.

BTW, regarding you comments to Isaac, you do know that he was responding to joe's comments, right? Oh wait, you're the idiot who can't comprehend what others write. :) BTW, do you have any actual evidence that the climatologists in question have colored their views based on their affiliation? Or is it simply the fact that they came to their conclusions independently, and the organization in question hired them because of their views?

I also note that instead of discussing Isaac's points about the statements of members of the IPCC you chose to attack him personally and ignore these important cogent points.

thoreau,

In principle I have no problem with nuclear power. However, given the industry's dependence on government handouts, etc., I'm skeptical of its overall economic viability in the short run.

|2.7.05 @ 1:04AM|#

Gary,
His evidence is from a group whose director "is proud about finding something wrong with practically everything.". A handy site, note the quote about CSPI from Reason. Mainly focuses on its "food police" operations.

|2.7.05 @ 6:37AM|#

Jeremy Nimmo,

The article on MADD was especially good.

|2.7.05 @ 11:23AM|#

Gary, I've found that reasoning with global warming deniers is about as useful as reasoning with creationists, so I've stopped bothering.

Pointing out the corruption and intllectual shoddiness of their "scientific" backers, on the other hand, is a pretty effective way to demonstrate to people on the fence which way is up.

Don't worry, I intend to nod politely when you spend the 30s, 40s, and 50s arguing that the success of public policy at reducing greenhouse gasses would have been surprassed by the private market.

|2.7.05 @ 11:57AM|#

joe-

Am I a denier? My stance is that I'll trust my colleagues on this as soon as I get the chance to do a simple calculation that will verify that the energy scales involved are plausible. Given the stakes here (worldwide catastrophes if the problem is real and we do nothing, and heavy regulation and economic consequences if the problem is illusory but we act anyway), I think it's perfectly acceptable to suspend judgement.

I promise to do that calculation...when I get the chance. But whenever I do, I'll post to H&R and let people know (1) My result and (2) whether this result is robust against small changes in parameters.

|2.7.05 @ 12:09PM|#

joe,

Nice cop out. :)

Pointing out the corruption and intllectual shoddiness of their "scientific" backers, on the other hand, is a pretty effective way to demonstrate to people on the fence which way is up.

When you start actually doing this, we'll be here waiting.

|2.7.05 @ 12:13PM|#

thoreau, as a researcher in physics, you probably have the resources necessary to sort out good science from bad.

However, I don't, and 99% of the people posting on this thread don't. I do not have the education to distinguish, on the claims being made, a quality scientific publication from an advocacy piece gussied up to look like a quality scientific publication. In fact, since the former is written for an audience of highly education experts, and the latter for members of the general public with the proverbial "little bit of learning," it is likely that the latter would be more persuasive to me. The "Green Earth Society" and the RPPI vs., well, the overwhelming mainstream of research climatologists, would be a good example.

In addition to deferring to the consensus of experts, it is important to evaluate the credibility of the dissenters. The mainstream of a scientific field can be wrong, and so deferring to them is not an ironclad method of judging truth. So before I start trying to judge between competing conclusions about a field I'm not qualified to judge, I have to decide whether a dissenter's charges warrent my attention. If the dissenters receive large amounts of funding from sources with a financial interest in having the debate come down on one side, that's a strike against them. If they go out of their way to mischaracterize the consensus position (for example, by saying "One of the most typical examples we're told is that people will die from heat waves from global warming," when such an outcome is not in any way "one of the most typical" predictions of those climatologists concerned with global warming), that's strike two. If they posit a grand global conspiracy replete with crypto-communists, that's strike three.

|2.7.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Jeremy, for God's sake haven't you ever heard of whois? CSPI simply had a good summary of what multiple organizations had to say about The Global Warming Society. Their web site is registered by the Western Fuels Association. That's pretty good proof right there of the relationship I pointed out.

Gary, once again I suggest you learn to read. The people running the globalwarmingsociety.org site are NOT the climatologists at ASU. They underwrote the research that the ASU people claim to have done. Why do I phrase it that way? Because in spite of a disclaimer on their web site that would allow for further publication in peer reviewed publications of the ASU research there hasn't been any such publication. Frankly, if the research is any good that's very unusual. Perhaps it failed peer review. That would say something right there.

|2.7.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Well you see, Jim S., mainstream scientific magazines won't run the truth about the global warming conspiracy, because 1) they're all run by "watermelons," just looking for a new hook to sell Stalinomics, and 2) a research report that effectively and demonstrably challenges a prevailing scientific consensus, and suggests that there is a large body of research that has been neglected, just doesn't hold much appeal to scientists and researchers.

|2.7.05 @ 12:31PM|#

Jim S.,

I can read just fine. If I couldn't read then I would be unable to respond to your comments. Your pathetic attempt at an insult is noted. :)

The people running the globalwarmingsociety.org site are NOT the climatologists at ASU.

I'm curious. When did I ever write anything about those who "run" the organization? Is this part of ever continuing effort to change the subject? Note that the original URL I posted was written by a fellow who is a climatologist at ASU. I never made any claims about the organizational structure of the organization.

You have this incredible ability to jump to rather hairbrained conclusions, I might add.

joe,

Hell of a shift from your "global warming denier" screech.

|2.7.05 @ 12:33PM|#

joe,

Science and other like credible journals have been more than willing to publish the work of climate change skeptics. Do some reading.

|2.7.05 @ 12:36PM|#

joe,

Let's note in an effort to dishonestly paint as something I am not (you're a leftist that's simply what you people do), you labelled me a denier, when in fact I am a skeptic. If you can't understand the difference I suggest you get your butt back into highschool. Either that or simply stop lying.

|2.7.05 @ 1:24PM|#

Wow... I find myself mostly agreeing with Gary on this one. But it seems thoreua has the best handle on it.

The funny thing is that from what I can tell, no one can really tell if warming is real or not. If it is real, no one seems to know whether that would be a "net good" or a "net bad."

Sounds like a good reason to suspend judgement, await further information, and not resort to calling people names.

Also, it seems like a good reason to not start passing laws and regulations, but that seems like a good idea 99.9% of the time anyway.

|2.7.05 @ 1:32PM|#

Gary, I've found that reasoning with global warming deniers is about as useful as reasoning with creationists, so I've stopped bothering

Who, exactly, is asking whom to prove a negative.

Dan H.|2.7.05 @ 2:44PM|#

There are several issues here, which conveniently get ignored by one side or the other of this debate. Let's break them down:

1) Is warming happening? No doubt. It has gotten warmer.

2) Is manmade emissions the cause? At this point, anyone who reasonably claims to follow the scientific method would have to accept that the evidence shows that at least some of the warming is from man-made causes.

3) How much hotter will it get? Probably between 1.5 degrees and 4.5 degrees C over the next century.

4) Is this damaging? Studies I've seen indicate that overall warming below 2.5C will not have a net negative economic effect on the planet. There will be economic losses in equatorial regions, which would be overcome by lower heating costs in the northern regions, longer growing seasons for crops, more useful land in developed areas, etc. For net warming above 2.5C, the net economic effects on the planet would almost certainly be negative.

5) What can we do about it? Here's the tough question that always seems to get ignored or simplified. Let's assume that warming is happening, that there's at least a 50% chance that it will be worse than 2.5 degrees, and therefore cause us an economic loss. What can we do to stop it? The dirty little secret is that the answer is "nothing". Nothing, that is, short of dismantling industrial society. The Kyoto treaty, if fully implemented, would be very expensive, and yet after 100 years the net effect of Kyoto would be to push warming off by four or five years (i.e. with Kyoto it'll be about as warm in 2104 as it would be in 2100 without Kyoto). And even Kyoto is proving to be politically impossible.

The hidden debate in all this is a cost/benefit analysis. The intelligent way to approach the problem is to work out an 'expected cost' for warming that includes economic modeling of all the various climate outcome scenarios, then averaging the result over the likelihood of each scenario happening. The end result should be a number, like "Our best guess is that global warming will cost us 20 trillion dollars over the next century." That number at least gives you a yardstick you can use to measure the efficacy of programs that have costs. If the state of modelling today is such that we can't come up with numbers that are even in the ballpark, then we need more science.

The environmental movement is terrible with cost-benefit, and many deny that it's even applicable. The precautionary principle prevails. Thus, we banned DDT to prevent eggshell thinning in raptors, and wound up with millions of extra malaria deaths, mostly children. We banned CFCs so that rich sunbathers in the north wouldn't have to worry about skin cancer, and neglected to consider the effect of costlier refrigeration on poor societies. How many stomach cancer and food poisoning deaths were the result of CFC banning? How has the decreased energy efficiency of poor CFC alternativies effected the environment? How about overal nutrition in the 3rd world? The environmental movement refuses to consider the negative effects of their prescriptions.

Global warming is too important, and too expensive to fix to approach without consideration of all the costs and benefits of each course of action. We should not let alarmists and fanatics rush us into sweeping changes before we understand the nature of the problem and the costs of the solutions.

gaius marius|2.7.05 @ 3:03PM|#

1) Is warming happening? No doubt. It has gotten warmer.

i've yet to see the evidence for even this, mr h.

|2.7.05 @ 3:26PM|#

"The Kyoto treaty, if fully implemented, would be very expensive, and yet after 100 years the net effect of Kyoto would be to push warming off by four or five years."

The purpose of the Kyoto treaty, and its importance, is not the reduction in global warming that will occur from meeting its goals, but the much greater reduction in emissions that the technology and practices created in order to meet its goals will engender.

The assumption behind the high cost/low benefit description of Kyoto is that the reductions will occur entirely through the continued use of existing technologies, but with less fuel available and human activity scaled back. But the market has never responded to regulation by just accepting a cut in activity. Instead, it has always responded by allocating more resources into figuring out how to maintain and expand operations without running afoul of the new laws. For example, cars get much better gas mileage now than they did before leaded gas was banned, and before CAFE standards were invented - and yet they are also safer and more plentiful (exactly the opposite of what the anti-regulation lobby predicted).

The division of possible solutions into "technological advancement" and "regulation" is phony - environmental regulation, properly implemented, works as a spur to technological advancement, by creating a powerful profit motive for research.

|2.7.05 @ 3:39PM|#

I know that people here will jump all over joe's latest post, but he actually has a point: People regularly put considerable effort into finding ways around regulations. Frequently those efforts contribute little to the advancement of science and technology (e.g. bribes and legal loopholes), but now and then some real gems come about.

The question is whether people would work around Kyoto with innovation or loopholes. Or, are those innovative solutions the exceptions or the rule?

|2.7.05 @ 3:44PM|#

joe,

Kyoto is dead. Most of the signatories will opt out of it in 2010. As one might expect from lefty environmentalists, it was a poorly designed plan.

thoreau,

The perverse consequences of regulation are hardly a reason to support it.

gaius marius|2.7.05 @ 3:46PM|#

even if it turns out that humans have NO responsibility in regards to the melting of global ice, the ice still does appear to be melting.

ms jennifer -- the problem is in determining causation and the understanding of the ununderstandable system.

not only, to my education, is there no definitive answer on whether warming is really underway. there is essentially zero understanding of the mechanism. and knowledge of the mechanism is essential to reliable modeling and prediction (which is why there is no good model in existence, regardless of what it predicts -- as every engineer in lab has said at some point, "garbage in, garbage out"). one can model the earth with a tennis ball and a flashlight -- a level our climatological models are much closer to than to reality -- but that doesn't mean its predictive power is worth anything. we should admit to ourselves the possibility that no model we are capable of designing will ever be adequate to give predictions because we will never fully understand the irreducable complexity of the system.

if we don't know what's causing it and how -- if, say, warming does exist but it a result of variable solar output -- we may undertake vast efforts to resolve "problems" that may have mitigated or even be moving in the opposite direction.

this seems rash to me when ten more years of study may yield orders of magnitude more certainty.

gaius marius|2.7.05 @ 3:48PM|#

environmental regulation, properly implemented, works as a spur to technological advancement, by creating a powerful profit motive for research.

i agree with mr thoreau -- they CAN work this way, but usually not by design or in the intended fashion.

|2.7.05 @ 3:50PM|#

gaius marius,

Lefty environmentalists always ignore the oppurtunity costs, etc., involved in taking actions today instead of waiting for greater certitude tomorrow. Indeed, this is a characteristic of the left in general, and describes why Stalin was obsessed with "results" today when it came to economic production; same thing with Castro and his 1970 sugar campaign. .

gaius marius|2.7.05 @ 4:03PM|#

agreed, mr gunnels -- it's a human failing. we don't discount anything well at a distance in time, either forward or backward.

more interesting publication on solar-output climate modeling. the figures at bottom are particularly interesting, imo.

|2.7.05 @ 4:44PM|#

gaius marius, the nature of complex, dynamic systems is that additional energy added to the system does not distibute itself smoothly, leaving the underlying patterns in place but with a higher level of energy. Instead, the energy gets incorporated into the complex system, which becomes even more dynamic.

"Even more dynamic" and "weather" are not terms we want to see together.

|2.7.05 @ 4:45PM|#

For example, cars get much better gas mileage now than they did before leaded gas was banned,...

Banning leaded gas had nothing to do with fuel economy. Lead is a dangerous poison with objectively demonstrable dangers.

Being poisonous alone does not make something bad per se. After all, the dose makes the poison (even for lead, contrary to popular scare tactics) and poisons can be contained.

However in the case of using lead as an antiknock compound, the cost/benefit ratio caught up (increasing volumes of cars, the availability of less toxic substitutes etc) and tetraethyl lead lost out.

There is also the possibility that in the 20s when lead first started to be used its drawbacks were glossed over in the aggressive marketing campaign by GM, Standard Oil and Dupont.

Fuel economy suffered after the ban because compression ratios were lowered and cars had to be detuned to overcome knock. This provided an incentive for developing new antiknock compounds and higher efficiency engines.

Whether lead use would have been discontinued without the EPA ban is a valid question. I tend to think not. I am also not sure that leaded gas is that harmful, though I tend to lean to the affirmative.

However regulation not directed at objectively definable harm leads to crony capitalism and the misdirection of investment capital through the usually perverse incentives created. So far climate research has failed to produce anything like the evidence required for the type of action called for in Kyoto.

gaius marius|2.7.05 @ 4:46PM|#

finally -- i think my point regarding irreducable complexity was made clear in this paper:

The scary scenarios rely on computer models that attempt to quantify mathematically the multitude of phyisical, chemical, biological and geological factors, both natural and man-made, that play a role in the climate system. Such models are necessarily reductionistic and deterministic. Many climate forcing factors and feedbacks are not or incompletely understood -- for example the roles of clouds, the biosphere, and the most important natural greenhouse gas: water vapour. The different factors influential in climate change also operate at varying scales of time and space and are extremely complex, even when they function by themselves. When they act together, or are coupled, the complications multiply greatly. The models have to cope with numerous feedbacks simultaneously. Climate is a non-linear, chaotic system, and small changes in one factor can produce large, but unpredictable changes in the result. The long-term forecasts by the computer models represent essentially a "virtual reality".

This is now also recognized by James Hansen from NASA's Goddard Institute. In 1988 he initiated the greenhouse warming doomsday scenario with his testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, but in 1997 he and 42 co-authors stated that

Scientists and lay persons have a predilection for deterministic explanations of climatic variations. However, climate can vary chaotically, i.e., in the absence of any forcing. The slightest alteration of initial or boundary conditions changes the developing patterns, and thus next year's weather in an inherently unpredictable way. This behavior results from the non-linear fundamental equations governing the dynamics of such a system. (Journ. Geoph. Res. 102, D.22, 25,679-25,720, November 1997).

This paper, reporting about experiments with three major computer models, shows that climate is chaotic at all scales and thus effects of long-term forcings, such as a changing concentration of greenhouse gases, are essentially unpredictable.

the furor over climate change seems to me to have much to do with scientism -- the inability of many indoctrinated to belief in science to admit the method's limitations in human application -- an insufficient (entirely human) appreciation for time and complexity.

gaius marius|2.7.05 @ 4:59PM|#

gaius marius, the nature of complex, dynamic systems is that additional energy added to the system does not distibute itself smoothly, leaving the underlying patterns in place but with a higher level of energy. Instead, the energy gets incorporated into the complex system, which becomes even more dynamic.

mr joe, this betrays a misunderstanding of chaotic systems. it isn't simply uneven but predictable distribution of outputs as a result of inputs -- that's a cannon.

in chaotic systems, virtually no difference in input can yield massive differences in output -- there is no prospect of prediction. it's putting immeasurably more or less of powder in the muzzle and getting shellfire, explosion, sky turning pink or rain -- with no experimental reproducability because the system is not linear.

it is exactly NOT leaving the underlying patterns in place but with a higher level of energy. nonlinear dynamic sets have no repeating "pattern" under minutely differing initial conditions. that's why they are chaotic.