New at Reason

January 16, 2007

Cathy Young asks why the tone of the global warming debate is hot enough to melt glaciers in under 60 seconds.

Comments

|1.16.07 @ 12:07PM|#

Yup, it's a Cathy Young column. She sets up equivalency among people who accept that global warming is occuring and those who deny it, based on both having agendas beyond the pursuit of truth. She tells us about industry shills paid to discredit the science, and of environmental activists with an ideological motivation to oversell the science. (She can actually point to an example of industry funding shills, namely Exxon-Mobil, who underwrites the Competitive Enterprise Institute, where Ron Bailey used to hold a chair in environmental studies; while we have to take her word for it that there are distortions being put out there by the environmentalists. But ok.)

There are two problems here. First, the "skeptics" are just as likely to have an ideological bias as their opponents, so it's more than a little unhelpful to discuss ideological bias only as problem greens suffer from. How many Reasonoids, Ron Bailey included, have told us that they are dismissive of global warming simply because environmentalists are on the other side?

Second, any attempt to frame the debate as lefty green activists vs. righty brown activists misses a rather important point; the movement to recognize and respond to global warming is driven by scientists, not greenie activists, and the scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement about the reality, cause, and severity of the problem.

:-|1.16.07 @ 12:15PM|#

the movement to recognize and respond to global warming is driven by scientists, not greenie activists

The debate is driven by both entities cited, joe, and many more that don't fit neatly into your tidy worldview.

thoreau|1.16.07 @ 12:20PM|#

I stopped as soon as I read this:
Global warming is the subject of intense debate. But if ideology is getting in the way of science, maybe both sides of the debate are letting that happen.

Whatever one might think about the issue, I don't need another round of "Look, I found some people using bad debate tactics on both sides!" Yeah, we know.

|1.16.07 @ 12:20PM|#

"and the scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement about the reality, cause, and severity of the problem."

Another missive from Joe world. They are not anywhere near agreement about the cause or severity. That is just the point. The issue is can global warming be managed and adapted to or is it a problem which only gross decreases in consumption can solve if it can be solved at all. That is a pretty tough issue. Joe you are utterly incapable of seeing any flaw in anyone who agrees with you. Every issue from the war to tax policy to global warming is a battle of perfect right thinking people on your side versus evil fanatics on the other. There can never be a middle ground. It is just amazing. What are Kleinman and Mooney part of the vast right wing conspiracy to? Two people who are self admitted liberals and think global warming is a problem, but unlike you are willing to admit that people on their side are just as capable of letting their ideology override their better judgment.

|1.16.07 @ 12:21PM|#

"Whatever one might think about the issue, I don't need another round of "Look, I found some people using bad debate tactics on both sides!" Yeah, we know."

You may know it, but Joe apparently doesn't.

thoreau|1.16.07 @ 12:25PM|#

You may know it, but Joe apparently doesn't.

I think even joe would concede that Cathy Young can find some people who agree with joe but use bad tactics. For that matter, I think joe would concede that Cathy Young can find idiots on both sides of any other issue that one might name.

The thing is, does it really matter? There will always be people with bad tactics and little credibility, but is one side making a better case overall, in spite of the fact that it has some supporters lacking credibility?

|1.16.07 @ 12:25PM|#

Whatever, John. Being called biased by you is just an indication that I'm onto something.

|1.16.07 @ 12:26PM|#

"First, the "skeptics" are JUST AS LIKELY to have an ideological bias as their opponents, so it's more than a little unhelpful to discuss ideological bias ONLY as problem greens suffer from."

More with the reading comprehension, please.

|1.16.07 @ 12:35PM|#

the movement to recognize and respond to global warming is driven by scientists, not greenie activists

Utter bullshit. A "movement" to "recognize and respond" is by definition political, so anyone participating is by definition an activist.

They may also be scientists, of course.

the scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement about the reality, cause, and severity of the problem

Not so much. The projections vary wildly about what the current warming trend may turn out to be. There is still no convincing explanation or model of how this warming trend is unique in all the thousands the planet has experienced. There is certainly no consensus on how CO2, a pretty minor greenhouse gas as these things go, plays into the current warming trend, much less how man-made CO2 plays in. There is a state of almost total ignorance about what kinds of feedback loops might exist to mitigate (or exacerbate) the current warming trend.

And, of course, we have absolutely no idea whether a mild to moderate warming trend would be, on net, harmful or helpful to mankind and/or the planet. This last question is not a scientific question at all, but the inability to distinguish science from politics is one of the hallmarks of the global warming "movement".

|1.16.07 @ 12:36PM|#

"How many Reasonoids, Ron Bailey included, have told us that they are dismissive of global warming simply because environmentalists are on the other side?"

I give up. And when did Mr. Bailey tell us that he was dismissive simply because...etc.?

|1.16.07 @ 12:38PM|#

I think it is worthwhile to point out that self-declared environmentists are ideologically bent to do something about global warming. But the real issue is not that such a bias will cause them to select and promote bad science. The bigger issue is that they will push the notion that the science itself is enough cause to promote government action. It isn't.

When an environmentalist discusses a carbon tax, it is generally large and punitive. When an environmental economist discusses a carbon tax, it is modest and, applied to gasoline today, is actually less than the current gas tax in the US.

|1.16.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Second, any attempt to frame the debate as lefty green activists vs. righty brown activists misses a rather important point; the movement to recognize and respond to global warming is driven by scientists, not greenie activists, and the scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement about the reality, cause, and severity of the problem.

One problem with that argument is that 6 out of 7 scientists are left of center (if not out and out liberals). Because of this, any research proposals (for federal funding) that don't include the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has a much worse chance of getting funded (research proposals are peer reviewed). That induces a bias on the science toward AGW. (One could argue that the admittedly biased research funded by corporations is acting to correct the AGW bias, but that's not quite right either because biased science is bad science no matter how you look at it.)

Another point is that you have to be very careful about consensus science. ~90 years ago, the overwhelming majority of scientists (including Albert Einstein) rejected Quantum Mechanics because it is so odd and unintuitive, but they were wrong. Global climate research is much more complicated than Quantum Mechanics due to the overwhelming myriad of variables, the inability to reduce it to a simple model, and the inability to run trial experiments (we have only one earth).

|1.16.07 @ 12:44PM|#

"A "movement" to "recognize and respond" is by definition political, so anyone participating is by definition an activist."

They may also be scientists, of course."

That's an odd relationship to have with the truth. If a scientists is telling truth, the ohjective, scientific truth about matters he has researched within his professional field of expertise, it makes her a political activist. And hey, there are political activists on both sides, and political activists have an interest in pushing their side, so their pronouncements should be treated with caution.

All you've done is play with definitions, so that even objective science is merely the opinion of activists.

'the inability to distinguish science from politics is one of the hallmarks of the global warming "movement".' You've pretty much demonstrated whose "hallmark" that is with your own comments, RC.

sage,

The answer to your first question is "a lot," and the answer to your second is "in the post in which he stated that the reconcilliation of the surface and atmosphereic dats convinced him that there really is a warming trend."

|1.16.07 @ 12:45PM|#

I'm often a Cathy Young fan, but this one smells a bit to me. I've noticed that years ago people against global warming said "it's not true, we are not getting warmer." Now they say "well, of course we are getting warmer but the cause/severity/solution, etc. is debatable." It reminds me of the social conservatives: "contraception for anyone is wrong" few decades later: "well of course contraception is OK for married folks, but not singles" few decades later: "of course contraception is OK, but abortion is wrong..." I have to beleive that either a large group of scientists (nearly all who study the topic) are in some sort of ideological blinded state or that think tanks, pundits and businesses who have a stake in the matter are in some sort of ideological blinded state. I'm afraid I know who I would go with...

|1.16.07 @ 12:47PM|#

"Whatever, John. Being called biased by you is just an indication that I'm onto something."

Yeah me and about six other people after me. You would help yourself a lot if you would just stop defending the indefensable and admit that people can be mistaken even if they agree with you.

NAL,

You are absolutely right. If there is one term that wish would be banned from all debate it is "scientific consensus". Who gives a fuck what the consensus is? Show me hard facts, predictions and observations that confirm those predictions. Those things are really hard to come by in climatology. They are hard to come by for good reason; it is a really hard problem. It being hard and the models being flawed is one thing. It is another thing to live in denial of that reality and drawing your own cartoon version of it because it fits your political views. That is not so forgivable.

|1.16.07 @ 12:50PM|#

"I have to beleive that either a large group of scientists (nearly all who study the topic) are in some sort of ideological blinded state"

I don't think you have to believe that. Maybe they only have part of the sollution. Maybe the problem is a really difficult one that isn't going yield easy answers. In short, maybe the science is being oversold because "we are not sure" doesn't get you many grants or get you tenure? Indeed, when people like Mooney are getting skeptical, not about warming, but the way the science and spinned an portrayed, you have to wonder.

|1.16.07 @ 12:50PM|#

The thing is, does it really matter? There will always be people with bad tactics and little credibility, but is one side making a better case overall, in spite of the fact that it has some supporters lacking credibility?

Thoreau -- You're right in that Cathy's column doesn't add much to the debate among Reason readers. But because it was printed in the Boston Globe, its centrist POV may help lever some left-liberals off the view that any global-warming research findings beneficial to business interests must be bad.

|1.16.07 @ 12:51PM|#

"Yeah me and about six other people after me."

I respond to serious people with defensible ideas with serious answers. Hence, the difference in the tone of my responses to you vs. the others.

"You would help yourself a lot if you would just stop defending the indefensable and admit that people can be mistaken even if they agree with you." Still not much with the reading thing, I see. I don't need to "admit" that - I stated it openly in my very first comment.

|1.16.07 @ 12:54PM|#

Because of this, any research proposals (for federal funding) that don't include the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has a much worse chance of getting funded (research proposals are peer reviewed).

I believe this is true. Without exception, all of the grant proposals as well the research proposals for academic position I have written hype the anthropogenic cause of GW. It doesn't matter that I am skeptical; I want a job.

|1.16.07 @ 12:56PM|#

...and you still don't have one?

Ever considered the possibility that you've misjudged your audience?

|1.16.07 @ 12:58PM|#

NAL--Albert Einstein did NOT reject quantum mechanics per se. There were parts of it where they tried to map from the quantum level up to the macro level (the Copenhagen interpretation) that he felt were sloppy and erroneous.

Turns out Einstein was right.

W.r.t. global warming, far too many of the so-called skeptics sound exactly like the shills from the tobacco industry denying any link between smoking and cancer. When they turn out to be getting paid money by Exxon-Mobil and the like, one ends up taking their so-called skepticism as less of prudent hesitation and more of paid shilling.

May I point out that we only have one planet to live on and if it turns out we've ended up screwing up things it's not like we're going to migrate anywhere?

For myself, I'd push nuclear power, more conservation and more energy-sipping technology. The Japanese, due to their high energy costs, have ended up developing a lot of technology that they can now sell around the world as separate products.

I thought you guys liked efficiency?

fyodor|1.16.07 @ 1:02PM|#

The thing is, does it really matter? There will always be people with bad tactics and little credibility, but is one side making a better case overall, in spite of the fact that it has some supporters lacking credibility?

I think the relevant questions are how much credibility do those who are "driving the debate" in the political sphere have -- for examining the political dynamic -- have and what is being said by those who have not very little but in fact a great deal of credibility? This, I think, would make a relevant and, to whatever degree possible, objective story on the subject. Of course, if you ARE a climate scientist with plenty of credibility, that would also make for an objective story, theoretically. I say "theoretically" because of course any scientist writing on the subject would naturally insist he or she is overflowing with credibility. This is where a good journalist could provide a service for those of us who don't have the time to research who does or doesn't have credibility on the subject. When Cathy Young appears to merely find dubious folks and/or statements on both sides of the debate (or any debate), she fails, unfortunately, to serve much purpose.

thoreau|1.16.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Thoreau -- You're right in that Cathy's column doesn't add much to the debate among Reason readers. But because it was printed in the Boston Globe, its centrist POV may help lever some left-liberals off the view that any global-warming research findings beneficial to business interests must be bad.

I don't read the Boston Globe, so I don't know if the readers are just as tired of her "Look! I searched hard enough and found bad arguments on both sides!" schtick, but I'd be willing to bet that there's some frustration there as well.

If one side of a debate really is populated entirely by shills or frauds or whatever, then fine, bring it into the conversation during the debunking. A little ad funderem is always fun if presented along with more serious debunking. e.g. Show how the crazies/shills/whatevers are using bad statistical methods to make the cases that their sponsors/voices in heads/whatever told them to make.

But for almost every subject that she writes about, Cathy Young makes a point of digging for crazies, finds them (and they may or may not be representative of the larger movement that they belong to), then says "Look! Idiots on both sides!" and leaves it at that.

It's getting tiresome.

Jennifer|1.16.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Is the earth round or flat? On the one hand, there are some truly insane flat-earthers like that Saudi mullah who declared a flat-earth fatwa back in the 60s. On the other hand, Hitler and Stalin both believed the world was round, and they were far more evil than the mullahs in terms of numbers of people killed. In conclusion, only an inflexible fanatic would have a firm opinion on the matter.

creech|1.16.07 @ 1:04PM|#

Let's see, if one study can overturn the overwhelming evidence that increases in minimum wage leads to job losses, then it stands to reason that one study showing that global warming is not man-made, should lead to.....

thoreau|1.16.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Do endothelial cells respond more strongly to matrix-bound growth factors or soluble growth factors? Well, on the one hand, I found that some of the scientists working on the matrix-bound side of the debate are missing some key points. I also found that some of the critics of the matrix-bound side don't know what they're talking about. And there are pharmaceutical companies with stakes in both sides of the debate.

So there you go. I've settled the matter.

|1.16.07 @ 1:11PM|#

creech,

There never was "overwhelming evidence" that minimum wages cause job losses. There was thin evidence, and heavy theory (perfectly logical and consistent theory, but theory just the same). Pointing at a demand curve is not evidence of anything actually happening the objective world outside our minds; it's theory.

|1.16.07 @ 1:12PM|#

...and you still don't have one? Ever considered the possibility that you've misjudged your audience?

I don't know if this was aimed at my job prospects, but ... My last proposal was funded with a multi-million $ grant from the Department of Energy. As far as the post graduate job market goes, there is something like a 10% unemployment rate for chemists, likely more for theorists. I do believe that working the global warming angle will give me an edge. A university is looking for a hire that can build an externally funded research program. So it is beneficial that there is growing funding predicated on the notion of anthropogenic GW.

|1.16.07 @ 1:21PM|#

creech,

http://www.epi.org/minwage/epi_minimum_wage_2006.pdf

Hundreds of economists, including 5 Nobel Lauriates, signed this letter in support of the minimum wage hike.

I'm pretty sure that they were not split off from some behoemeth of a consensus by a single study.

|1.16.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Let's see, if one study can overturn the overwhelming evidence that increases in minimum wage leads to job losses, then it stands to reason that one study showing that global warming is not man-made, should lead to.....

Hmm. For a second there, I thought you were going to make the obvious connection, which I was about to announce:

Global warming is real. And it is caused by increasing the minimum wage. There is definitely a correlation there.

I'll be back later. Now I have two checks to pick up.

|1.16.07 @ 1:24PM|#

John wrote:
>> "and the scientists are overwhelmingly in
>> agreement about the reality, cause, and
>> severity of the problem."

> They are not anywhere near agreement about the > cause or severity.

This is certainly wrong with respect to the "cause." The greenhouse effect has been known since 1827, and the climate sensitivity of the earth's atmosphere was first calculated in 1896. With what parts of these calculations do you disagree, John?

Better yet, what do *your* calculations show for the climate sensitivity of the atmosphere, viz. the temperature change with a doubling of CO2 levels and their equivalents?

|1.16.07 @ 1:25PM|#

I recommend a wider view, i.e., Bjorn Lomborg's recent conference that recommended resource allocation by the degree of the threat.

The point is, if you want to use finite resources to help people, eradicate AIDS, malaria, other diseases, and then poverty by encouraging economic growth in the developing world.

When those are fixed, then worry about human contributions to global warming, if they can in fact be ascertained.

tomWright|1.16.07 @ 1:27PM|#

NAL:

One problem with that argument is that 6 out of 7 scientists are left of center (if not out and out liberals). Because of this, any research proposals (for federal funding) that don't include the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has a much worse chance of getting funded (research proposals are peer reviewed). That induces a bias on the science toward AGW. (One could argue that the admittedly biased research funded by corporations is acting to correct the AGW bias, but that's not quite right either because biased science is bad science no matter how you look at it.)

I disagree. I'll bet that scientists are fairly close to being evenly divided between right/left, just as the population is. (if you count libertarians as right and greens as left). I'll also bet that they are more likely to consider alternatives like green or libt.

I think their bias is not left right, but funding/non-funding. Since the governemnt has distorted, if not usurped the private sector so far a funding science goes, they have little choice but to write grant proposals in language that plays to the current political hysterias.

How much money is likely to be issued for either of:
Something that sounds threatening, especially if it can be used to sway voters in a certain direction.
OR
Something that is not a problem, may be a actually be beneficial, and can not be affected by humans without ruinous expense, if it can be affected at all?

Politics being what it is, I think the bias is towards scary stuff and a 'who cares' attitude towards the non-scary stuff.

So far as peer review goes, remember that those peers are in the same boat as the reviewee. The more studies that support their own proposals the better for them. Sort of like expecting all the board members of wall street firms to hold down CEO bonuses when al those board members are CEO's as well, all expecting their own bonuses, (bonii???). NOT gonna happen.

Government science, like corporate governance, is just one giant incestuous circle jerk.

Michael Chrichtons comments on how to reform the government science funding problem are worth looking at, and looking up, IMHO.

|1.16.07 @ 1:27PM|#

"There never was "overwhelming evidence" that minimum wages cause job losses"

Unless of course it relates to the micronesian tuna fish industry. I am sure you are outraged Joe over Pelosi getting an exception to the minimum wage law for the tuna industry there? How dare she allow those companies to expoit their workers? Which is Joe, does the minimum wage increase unemployment and Pelosi was right to exempt micronesia and saved their economy doing so or is Pelosi and evil shill for the Tuna industry?

Sounds of crickets chirping.

|1.16.07 @ 1:30PM|#

"This is certainly wrong with respect to the "cause." The greenhouse effect has been known since 1827, and the climate sensitivity of the earth's atmosphere was first calculated in 1896. With what parts of these calculations do you disagree, John?"

Ask an intellgient question and I will give you answer. The issue is how much warming does human activity cause and what is the effect of that warming. The mere fact that the calculations show that it can exist mean nothing. The climate models have been notoriously inacurate at predicting the actual rise in tempature, especially the really apocolyptic ones.

|1.16.07 @ 1:32PM|#

NAL--Albert Einstein did NOT reject quantum mechanics per se. There were parts of it where they tried to map from the quantum level up to the macro level (the Copenhagen interpretation) that he felt were sloppy and erroneous.

He thought the probability amplitude interpretation of the wave function was wrong or at least incomplete ("I refuse to believe God plays dice.") He also was very dubious of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Both of those have held up to scientific scrutiny till 2007 as far as I know.

Anyway, the point is that science is not a democratic process. The consensus of scientists has not always been a good indicator of truth.

Jennifer|1.16.07 @ 1:59PM|#

I think I've figured out the overriding theme of Ms. Young's columns! Here it is:

A viewpoint is only as valid as the thought processes of the most insane person who holds it.

Heywood Jablome|1.16.07 @ 2:07PM|#

Exactly 0 hurricanes hit the US last year. Hurray, global warming is over!!!

|1.16.07 @ 2:17PM|#

"Exactly 0 hurricanes hit the US last year. Hurray, global warming is over!!!"

No, we didn't get any huricanes because it was an El Nino year, which is caused by global warming. When it is an historically active year, global warming is the cause because global warming is going to produce super hurricanes. When it is an inactive year, global warming is the cause because we are goign to get El Ninos more often. Give it one more down year in the Atlantic basin and then look for the "scientific consensus" to be that the U.S. is under threat because of the effects of the lack of hurricanes caused by global warming. (Yes, hurricanes do fulfill a valuable role in the climate and things would be a lot different and less temperate in North America without them).

Jennifer|1.16.07 @ 2:23PM|#

However, John, meteorologists predicted that we'd see lots of ass-kicking hurricanes in 2006. The meteorologists were wrong. Therefore, we can safely discount anything meteorologists say, ever again. As you said earlier:

The climate models have been notoriously inacurate at predicting the actual rise in tempature, especially the really apocolyptic ones.

thoreau|1.16.07 @ 2:26PM|#

I think I've figured out the overriding theme of Ms. Young's columns! Here it is:

A viewpoint is only as valid as the thought processes of the most insane person who holds it.

You can't take her seriously, though. I mean, just look at some of the crazy people out there calling themselves libertarians!

On the one hand, we have reasonable, thoughtful publications like Reason. On the other hand, there are trolls in the comments gallery of their blog.

|1.16.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Jennifer, would you bet say 2% of the GNP on the meteorologists getting the hurricane predictions right for 2007? Or better yet 10% of your gross adjusted income this year? If not, aren't you just discounting them because they were wrong this year?

|1.16.07 @ 2:59PM|#

I am pretty much fed up with the zealots on both sides of this argument.

Anyone that says you can pump hundreds of millions pounds of pollutants into the atmosphere with no effect is an idiot.

Anyone that predicts an imminent catastrophe based on the current trends is reckless if not also an idiot.

The earth has been in a mostly stable equilibrium for a couple of billion years. That does not mean that biosphere has been conducive to human life for all that time, but it does cycle back and forth around a fairly constant mean temperature.

It appears likely that greenhouse gases are accelerating a warming cycle. This may have near-term (hundreds of years) effects that humans won't care for. But I don't see things spinning out of control and leaving the earth uninhabitable.

And I feel fairly confident that as long as people can become obscenely rich from creating new technologies that improve living standards while reducing our impact on the biosphere that global warming will be mitigated within in the next several generations. I can't see how dramatic government intrusion into the process will provide any significant value in this arena.

|1.16.07 @ 3:14PM|#

I agree with Jennifer about this particular article. I so wish Ms. Young would take the law school seminar I had on questioning expert witnesses entitle "How to tell if your opponent's expert is, in fact, an idiot." I mean, some context as to whether any of these people have a point might be nice. Also, that a physicist has weird opinions on, say, race relations, doesn't necessarily render his physics work unreliable.

That having been said, I love being able to comment on a global warming thread on a day when my city, which is on the same latitude as Cairo and has a median January high of 61 degrees F, is shut down due to an ice storm and hasn't been above 30 since Sunday night.

|1.16.07 @ 3:28PM|#

That having been said, I love being able to comment on a global warming thread on a day when my city, which is on the same latitude as Cairo and has a median January high of 61 degrees F, is shut down due to an ice storm and hasn't been above 30 since Sunday night.

One of the predicted outcomes of global warming is that extreme weather becomes more extreme. So colder, harsher winters do not discredit global warming.

|1.16.07 @ 3:30PM|#

"The climate models have been notoriously inacurate at predicting the actual rise in tempature, especially the really apocolyptic ones."

They've proven to be a lot more accurate than the assertions of "skeptics."

"Anyway, the point is that science is not a democratic process. The consensus of scientists has not always been a good indicator of truth."

Quite right, NAL. Which makes the existence of the climatological consensus so compelling - none of those scientists arrived at that position because it was popular. They all engaged in vigorous research and debate, and almost to a man, they ended up in the same place. Not through democracy, but because the evidence led them there.

"Jennifer, would you bet say 2% of the GNP on the meteorologists getting the hurricane predictions right for 2007?"

I'd make that bet, if you changed the time frame to 2010-2020. A prediction can be both accurate and a have a high degree of variability at the same time.

I'll bet you 100 bucks Manny Ramirez hits 40 home runs if he plays a complete season next year, but I wouldn't bet a cent on how many home runs he's going to hit on July 7.

thoreau|1.16.07 @ 3:46PM|#

I'll bet you 100 bucks Manny Ramirez hits 40 home runs if he plays a complete season next year, but I wouldn't bet a cent on how many home runs he's going to hit on July 7.

That is an excellent synopsis of how we use statistics in many areas of physics, joe.

|1.16.07 @ 3:47PM|#

carrick, I've read that global warming, because it increases the energy in the atmosphere, means worse weather but not necessarily warmer weather. Actually, if just meant a few more snow days in Texas I'd be fine with it. The problem is that it also means we have 110 days in the summer, which is miserable.

Jose Goldberg|1.16.07 @ 3:49PM|#

"The climate models have been notoriously inacurate at predicting the actual rise in tempature, especially the really apocolyptic ones."

They've proven to be a lot more accurate than the assertions of "skeptics."

If they are inaccurate they are completely wrong. If they have made a bad prediction it must mean there is no global warming.

In order for science to be correct it must be politically correct besides scientifically correct. There is no other energy source besides oil that we can ever use and we could never run out because the supply in infinite. There is an infinite amount of hydrocarbon molecules in the earth. It is because of economic theories we know this to be correct.

|1.16.07 @ 3:55PM|#

"none of those scientists arrived at that position because it was popular."

Oh really Joe? Have you talked to all of them? Is anyone in a labcoat automatically above question? I am sure questioning global warming is a great way to get tenure. That is dumb statement even for you.

"I'd make that bet, if you changed the time frame to 2010-2020."

You would only make that bet because it based on historic trends in the Atlantic basin. You would not be making a bet on the global warming models or really any model of the climate other looking at history and projecting forward. It is not like anyone knows or understands why there are up and down periods to the Atlantic hurricane season, they just know that they happen.

A good bet would be, "I bet Nancy Pelosi make a corrupt sellout amendment for the Tuna industry sometime in the next year". What are the odds of that Joe?

VM|1.16.07 @ 3:55PM|#

Wanna bet that's Jane/Juanita there? (Jose Goldberg). Or at least it's as batshit insane as that... thing (prisoner transfer from cell block 1138)

"Anyone that says you can pump hundreds of millions pounds of pollutants into the atmosphere with no effect is an idiot.

Anyone that predicts an imminent catastrophe based on the current trends is reckless if not also an idiot."

hear hear!

miniature American flags for some!

thoreau|1.16.07 @ 3:57PM|#

VM, I've been meaning to say this for a while:

It's good to have you back! How are things?

|1.16.07 @ 4:04PM|#

John, you're really cute when you get worked up.

|1.16.07 @ 4:07PM|#

"John, you're really cute when you get worked up."

It is nice to know someone out there has a crush on me.

|1.16.07 @ 4:11PM|#

The only thing that concerns me about the Global Warming debate is the danger of groupthink.

In the '70s and '80s, there was intense study on how stress caused stomach ulcers. So much study, that every reputable scientist (except for one or two in Australia) just assumed that it had been proven that stress caused ulcers.

|1.16.07 @ 4:56PM|#

"In the '70s and '80s, there was intense study on how stress caused stomach ulcers. So much study, that every reputable scientist (except for one or two in Australia) just assumed that it had been proven that stress caused ulcers."

Yeah but that guy was just a paid thug for the antacid industry. Don't you know that the scientific consensus is never wrong.

|1.16.07 @ 5:02PM|#

joe and John, why don't you two just get a room and get it over with.

|1.16.07 @ 5:16PM|#

Don't you know that the scientific consensus is never wrong.

Scientific consensus is right . . right up until it is wrong. One of the features of a peer-reviewed environment.

Someone is up for a Nobel when a well-entrenched consensus is shown to be "not right" anymore.

|1.16.07 @ 5:35PM|#

"That having been said, I love being able to comment on a global warming thread on a day when my city, which is on the same latitude as Cairo and has a median January high of 61 degrees F, is shut down due to an ice storm and hasn't been above 30 since Sunday night."

The difficulty of introducing comments like this (even if you're joking) is unfortunately people have so little understanding of how climate works, they simplistically compare two cities at the same latitude on one day, find a huge difference in the temperature of the two cities and frantically cry, "Global Warming!" If latitude were the only factor in determining a city's climate, shouldn't San Diego, CA, and Savannah, GA, have the same temperature every day?

Climate is monumentally complex. Climate change is even more complex. Because the physical processes are so poorly understood, climate modelers try to model the effects (a process called parameterization). The parameterizations are often wild guesses, and many of theses parameterizations are responsible for the apocalyptic predictions.

Anyone who doesn't see wide disagreement on this issue between actual scientists isn't looking very hard. They probably get all their scientific understanding from blogs like this one.

|1.16.07 @ 5:44PM|#

argh! too tired to argue.

I'll have to actually read the thread later...but I'd like to point out that a grenie website devoted to greenie more or less freemarket consumerism and real enviro-solutions has a small article on Ron Bailey:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/ronald_bailey_n.php

|1.16.07 @ 5:57PM|#

I personally wish the libertarians would leave the skeptic side of the debate. i don't want them to become like the green activists/extremists on the left but this is whole being in the center doesn't accomplish anything in this case.(not that there's anything wrong with being in the center) this IS a problem and that's what the scientists are saying. i'm not saying to follow blindly but..they're scientists. definately scrutinize their motives to see that they're on the up and up and don't have other motivations but why even have scientists if we're going to assume we know better then them cause we want to stick to a certain position? libertarians are usually so pro-science anyway as far as keeping religion out of high school science classes and stem cell research..they're right there with the scientists on those positions.

|1.16.07 @ 6:06PM|#

TJ,

I'm NOT a libertarian, and I AM an atmospheric scientist, and I AM a skeptic of the entire global warming hysteria, specifically because I have been following the actual science of this issue since 1989.

If you think that scientists are beyond being politically or financially motivated, I believe you haven't observed many scientists. There is no such thing as an unbiased observer. Everyone has his or her own preconceived notions, and some people (even some scientists) are willing to use their "prestige" for their own political and financial gain.

|1.16.07 @ 6:26PM|#

i'm not saying to follow blindly but..they're scientists.

But, even as scientists, they have no special or superior understanding of either economics or public policy. So why do scientists' pronouncements on what must be done to forestall global warming get magical status?

First, prove that anthropogenic global warming exists. Second, prove that that warming causes harm. As you say, people who normally defer to scientists may even go ahead and stipulate these two points.

But you can't jump from that consensus to the statement "We must do whatever we can to stop global warming!"

Keep the chain of reasoning going beyond the first and second links above. Third, whatever is done to address global warming must not be more harmful than simply allowing global warming. And fourth, whatever governments do to address global warming must be doable without excessive deadweight loss from the public process itself.

The case for government action on global warming is far from proven.

|1.16.07 @ 6:57PM|#

It is nice to know someone out there has a crush on me.

Now, THAT'S funny.

tj, I wonder if libertarians embrace skepticism, because anything that would seem to validate hairshirt anti-capitalists is unthinkably awful.

My main concern about possible actions on warming is that developing nations and regions could be negatively affected. How does this look from a Salvadoran farmer's point of view? A taxi driver in India? A woman working in a factory in China? If they hear, "No air conditioning, iPods, or disposable ziplock baggies for you!", are they going to laugh or get angry?

Mike Laursen|1.16.07 @ 6:59PM|#

I personally wish the libertarians would leave the skeptic side of the debate.

I agree with you, assuming that what you really meant by "skeptic" is "denier".

A true skeptic is pro-science and can be convinced of the truth of an assertion. True skeptics are ultimately doing climate scientists and environmentalists a favor by demanding to see solid evidence before becoming convinced of global climate change claims.

Deniers are just annoying.

VM|1.16.07 @ 7:36PM|#

Hi Thoreau!

Whenever the "military lawyer" gets his cockels (sic) in a baunch (sic), I'm there!

(But he's best when he absolutely takes "frootkake freaker" (that batshit insane HCFS guy, whose name escapes me at the moment. thank gawd) apart. He absolutely took him to the cleaners on that one thread last week. Kudos! Where he and joe were making excellent points, pretty much on the same side! THAT was one of the best examples of great discussion)

woo hoo!

And then it's time to distribute mini American Flags to some. I deep fry mine in HCFS, but since I'm a stooge of the military industrial, flesh-eating male complex, it's totally okay, provided you have a side of horny owl. Um... HORNED. Horned owl. On the side. That's it.

It's just that... well, my Noam Chomsky blow up doll got punctured. And the person who gave it to me, "AGF", moved to Florida. And he got plastic surgery to look like Jorja Fox, but with George Eads's chin. He said something about, "having trouble contextualizing those sensations".

So I ate mini flag. Tasted like chicken.

Catch you later!
:)

VM

|1.16.07 @ 7:43PM|#

Yes, any time there is an accepted scientific fact, every scientist should unanimously agree to that fact, because anything less does a disservice to the world.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go back to my certain-to-win-a-Nobel-Prize research regarding phlogiston.

Tym|1.16.07 @ 8:26PM|#

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go back to my certain-to-win-a-Nobel-Prize research regarding phlogiston.

Why not research phrenology while your at it.

|1.16.07 @ 9:26PM|#

The fact that agriculture has returned to Greenland has convinced me that the earth is warming.

I was,and still am, a skeptic about the anthropogenic nature of global warming. To me, it always seemed like a perfect storm for the hard left. All of their solutions just happened to be things they have wanted to do for decades.

Also, the nature of the Kyoto treaty, i.e: exemption of China and India, made me even more dubious.

Are any of the prominent global warming alarmists advocating the replacement of CO2 spewing coal and natural gas plants with nuclear plants?

I feel we should treat excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as an engineering problem. Let's find a way to remove it.

Finally, there is evidence of global warming on Mars, Jupiter, and Neptuen. Is that being caused by my SUV?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

|1.16.07 @ 9:56PM|#

i far from claim to know what i'm talking about on this topic. and i don't want to seem like i'm against skeptism or capitalism cause i'm not especially skeptism. if someone showed me something strong and clear so i could understand why global warming is a myth i would open to it. i just think a better case has been made against the far right skeptics. the only strong case i've seen against the envirementalists were some points made in the episode of penn and teller's showtime show "bullshit!" that covered the general topic.

Aristotle|1.16.07 @ 10:10PM|#

I really hope t.j. is a troll.

We don't live in a Technocracy....yet.
Fuck those fucking science fucks...

Global Warming proponents are there own worst enemy with all the Scientists Know-don't question
bullshit. Thumping their "peer reviewed journals"
like illiterate Christians with a Latin Bible
pleading and whining...
"This says it..I believe it..That settles it"

|1.16.07 @ 10:35PM|#

i just think a better case has been made against the far right skeptics.

As bad as holding up wacko environmentalists as proof that global warming is not a serious problem is holding up wacko far right skeptics as proof that global warming is a serious problem.

|1.17.07 @ 12:02AM|#

tomWright

I disagree. I'll bet that scientists are fairly close to being evenly divided between right/left, just as the population is.

I haven't seen that yet,and I've worked with a lot of scientists.

Engineers tend to be evenly split, or maybe lean a little to the right. Scientists in my experience definitely lean left.


I think their bias is not left right, but funding/non-funding.

That statement is more true than many, many scientists would like to admit.


MikeP,

The case for government action on global warming is far from proven.

Well said.

|1.17.07 @ 12:10AM|#

You know, Cathy just can't win around here anymore. For once she picks a subject where it just about deserves an open ended stance, and she still gets lambasted.

So do let me be the next in line. My problem with this article isn't that she left it too open ended (she's probably hitting closer to the truth than either side is). My problem is here:

To those who dislike a social system based on high and growing consumption and the economic activity that supports high and growing consumption and maintains high and growing demand (a dislike with which I have considerable sympathy), to those who think that the market needs more regulation by the state

Exactly. There are people who "don't like" our level of economic activity, and they're hell-bent on shutting it down. Any "the sky is falling" excuse will do. And Cathy says she's sympathetic to this....which is my beef.

We all scream "open the gates and let the immigrants in, we can assimilate them". And then in the next breath we're going to shut down the engine (i.e. economy) that makes it possible for us to assimilate them? Maybe the truth is more nearly "I can't stand seeing all this success and I'm going to do my part in trashing it."

But in fact I should commend Cathy for at least being honest about having a problem with our "consumption society". The average lefty isn't usually so open about it.

Actually, I thought Cathy did good this time. Maybe she doesn't hit the mark with people around here, but with society at large I think her message is badly needed.

|1.17.07 @ 12:33AM|#

Genghis, I think the UCLA prof Cathy Young was quoting in the article said that, not Cathy herself.

|1.17.07 @ 2:20AM|#

I think you're right, my mistake.

Russell|1.17.07 @ 4:46AM|#

Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy studies at UCLA and a self-identified liberal, noted this recently on his blog. Writes Kleiman, "To those who dislike a social system based on high and growing consumption and the economic activity that supports high and growing consumption and maintains high and growing demand (a dislike with which I have considerable sympathy), to those who think that the market needs more regulation by the state, to those who think that international institutions ought to be strengthened . . . global warming is a Gaia-send" -- since it justifies drastic worldwide public action to curb production and consumption."

CY _ Reason_ 2007

"The salvation of the world affords an enchanting pretext for those predisposed to societal intervention . They have already raised the abolitionist banner, pointing to the prospect of Bangladesh awash and waterskiing down the Mall to the Capitol-a prospect no more likely in my lifetime than nothing happening."
RS _The National Interest_ , Summer,1990

|1.17.07 @ 9:03AM|#

I thought the most interesting and controversial thing that Cathy Young wrote in her article had nothing to do with global warming.

She wrote:

Many conservatives and gay rights activists, for different motives, have exaggerated the fairly tiny risk of HIV infection from heterosexual sex.

This is a very politically incorrect thing to write! Everyone knows that "the virus does not discriminate" and that "everyone is at risk". Are people outside the AIDS industry starting to question these once-sacrosanct axioms?

uncle sam|1.17.07 @ 10:48AM|#

If there is any one factor that reduces the efficiency of human societies, it is the political process.

Commuters spend at least two days of every week emitting CO2 and NO compounds merely to support their share of govenment revenues.

Now most adherents of the GW catastrophe theory are seeking to scare voters into supporting an increase in government power (and size and cost) to the detriment of the developments that will improve energy efficiency and reduce our impact on the environment.

It's a lot easier to start a stampede than it is to stop it.

|1.17.07 @ 10:55AM|#

Nah, all you need is a cliff.

|1.17.07 @ 5:39PM|#

I remember that I had nightmares about the coming ice age back when I was in the third grade. The pleasant Chicago-land suburbs would be rendered a freezing tundra and the ensuing scarcity would lead us all to club one another like so many sartorially-challenged baby seals.

To see what people (who matter) really think, follow the money. The large insurers and reinsurers have lamented the fact that global warming would render catastrophic events more extreme and more common, thus forcing them to bump up premiums considerably. As someone who has dealt with insurers for a long time, I can assure you that if the industry thought global warming was a problem (rather than a milk cow) they wouldn't be insuring for catastrophic events at any price. Tip: go long on the insurance sector.

|1.18.07 @ 4:21PM|#

FWIW, Gristmill grinds Ms. Youngs article to little eety esssential bits:
http://tinyurl.com/35rgo5
"This is how the far right colonizes the debate: they caricature a far-left strawman position, attribute it to "some" on the other side, and then cast their own position as the "center" between the far-right position and the mythical or marginalized far-left position. They've done this dozens of times, on a whole panoply of issues.

To help in the process, they enlist the aid of people on the left who bash other people on the left. Sure, Pielke Jr., Mooney, and Kleiman all had their own idiosyncratic reasons for bashing dirty hippies. But do you think it's an accident that Young stripped all those idiosyncratic reasons away and left only the hippie-bashing? Far from it. That was her whole intent."

in short, Save the Hippies, Save World!