Global Warming Now 24/7 at Climate Debate Daily

Ronald Bailey | January 30, 2008

Denis Dutton, who teaches philosphy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and founded the wonderful Arts & Letters Daily, co-created the new Climate Debate Daily. Its mission:

Climate Debate Daily is intended to deepen our understanding of disputes over climate change and the human contribution to it. The site links to scientific articles, news stories, economic studies, polemics, historical articles, PR releases, editorials, feature commentaries, and blog entries. The main column on the left includes arguments and evidence generally in support of the IPCC position on the reality of signficant anthropogenic global warming. The right-hand column includes material skeptical of the IPCC position and the notion that anthropogenic global warming represents a genuine threat to humanity.

Many sites on the Internet, including some of those listed at the far left of the page, take firm views for or against the threat of anthropogenic global warming. As a matter of editorial policy, Climate Debate Daily maintains a studied neutrality, allowing each side to present its most powerful and persuasive case. Our object is to allow readers to form their own judgments based on the best available information.

Climate Debate Daily will offer new material toward the tops of its main columns most days of the week. Occasionally, the page may remain unchanged over a day or two. Items in the columns will also be reordered now and again, to keep what are in the editors' estimation more important items on the page for longer periods. Many links, especially those to news periodicals, have limited shelf life, and we urge readers to save or print out contributions they regard as important.

There are plenty of sites that take the climate-change-is-catastrophic approach and others that claim climate-change-is-not-such-a-big deal. Now you can get it all at one handy site.

Check out Climate Debate Daily here.

Comments

fyodor|1.30.08 @ 11:24AM|#

I'm paranoid! No I'm not! I'm paranoid! No I'm not!

|1.30.08 @ 11:28AM|#

There is a debate on this? But the "science has spoken". Isn't that kind of like the oral at Delphi? How dare these people. They must be funded by the oil industry.

|1.30.08 @ 11:29AM|#

Oracle at Delphi

|1.30.08 @ 11:30AM|#

Here's the top of the right column...

Essays and research challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity, that it poses a serious threat, or that the vagaries of earth's climate are within human control.

Those three positions could all be true, but it might still be better to spend no significant wealth in fighting global warming if that wealth is better invested in making humanity wealthier in the future.

If I may suggest a fix...

...or that the vagaries of earth's climate are within human control or worth the opportunity cost to repair.

|1.30.08 @ 11:31AM|#

There is a debate on this?

There's a debate on evolution, too. There are lots of debates.

Danny|1.30.08 @ 11:38AM|#

That's quite the Freudian slip, John.

jackanapestarian|1.30.08 @ 11:42AM|#

The science is settled! (tm)

|1.30.08 @ 11:44AM|#

Yes joe, we're all better off not questioning the orthodoxy.

Maybe if prominent AGW proponents didn't take debate cues from Torquemada, there might be less skepticism.

|1.30.08 @ 11:47AM|#

Ah, "the orthodoxy."

I've never seen so many different terms made up to replace "what most scientists have concluded" before the window closed on global warming denial.

But hey, a reference to religion! Really hitting those talking points.

|1.30.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Oh, and go ahead and question all you want, JW.

Putting the argument for and against the IPCC/scientific consensus position side-by-side is not something the IPCC needs to be afraid of.

|1.30.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Isn't that kind of like the oral at Delphi?

So that explains the long lines at the temple.

|1.30.08 @ 11:58AM|#

Joe, when you play a dick, it makes me not want to agree with you.

|1.30.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Part of me wants to see global climate catastrophe. I like surprises.

Oh, wait.

|1.30.08 @ 12:00PM|#

I've never seen so many different terms made up to replace "what most scientists have concluded" before the window closed on global warming denial.

The worst type of denialist is the one who denies that he could possibly be wrong.

Unlike you, my mind remains open. Skeptical to the bleatings and interpretations of lifetime-tenured bureaucrats, but open.

Because, gosh, wouldn't it be cool if the world *didn't* end as predicted and we didn't throw all those valuable and useful resources away for nothing?

|1.30.08 @ 12:03PM|#

Every time I read a post on H&R about global warming, it makes me recall having to explain to a friend about why people from Cato were in a documentary he was watching supporting the dumbest, most retarded arguments against global warming (please don't ask me to reproduce the documentary or remember the arguments... I just remember the instance)

I ask you all, now, to please not make me rehash these memories by spewing senseless garbage just because you think if global warming was real it would mean that you had to do something about it on a federal/international level.

So far so good, though.
Thanks.

Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Not a single one of those scientists who agree with the alleged "consensus" is actually capable of proving the theory to be true.

|1.30.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Seems like a good thing to me.
But what do I know?

|1.30.08 @ 12:06PM|#

Because, gosh, wouldn't it be cool if the world *didn't* end as predicted and we didn't throw all those valuable and useful resources away for nothing?

So you're letting your policy preferences influence your opinion of the science.

Good to see you get that out there right at the beginning.

Here's the deal: the scientists aren't making this up, there is a deep and broad agreement among them, and how convenient or inconvenient you consider that for your political program doesn't matter.

BTWs, falsely insisting that a point has not been proven is just as biased and closed-minded as falsely insisting that a point has been proven. Simply taking the "I don't know" position is not an innoculation against bias.

|1.30.08 @ 12:10PM|#

Let's just assume for a moment, global warming is the result of human production. What are some libertarian solutions? I assume no one here besides joe wants to involve the government, so what would we propose?

|1.30.08 @ 12:13PM|#

Yes, yes, I know, we're all going to die and only our confession of faith in our lord and savior Al will save us from the apocalypse to come.

Tell you what, if the world ends and we all die horribly, I owe you a Coke.

Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 12:13PM|#

"Here's the deal: the scientists aren't making this up,"

Neither you nor they can prove that they aren't doing exactly that.

Mike Laursen|1.30.08 @ 12:14PM|#

... why people from Cato were in a documentary he was watching supporting the dumbest, most retarded arguments against global warming ...

I know what you mean. I'd have been more upset about Pilon's pro-domestic spying piece the other day, but Cato's dumb global warming arguments made me realize years ago that I could no longer simply point people to Cato and tell them, "What Cato said."

|1.30.08 @ 12:15PM|#

Uh, yeah, repeatedly using words with religious connotations to describe conforming one's opinion to the best scientific evidence doesn't actually make that evidence less credible.

Just yourself.

Tim Lambert|1.30.08 @ 12:20PM|#

From the back cover of Ron Bailey's book "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death":

"A stunning riposte to the eco-alarmists. Beyond debunking environmentalist scare mongering, Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths is the clearest explanation in print of the promise that eco-friendly technology offers to the human race. A must read for anyone who wants to know how we can build a healthy world environment for our children and grandchildren." Denis Dutton, editor of Arts & Letters Daily on the Web and professor, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Gee, Ron Bailey forgot to mention which side of the debate Dutton was on.

|1.30.08 @ 12:23PM|#

Mine, Tim. Mine. (evil laugh)

|1.30.08 @ 12:26PM|#

So you're letting your policy preferences influence your opinion of the science.

No, I'm letting experience guide my acceptance of what people say. Unless there is some guy in TJ known for removing bias for cheap, I'm betting that there might a group or 2 that you might have trouble taking at face value.

I'm also looking at the AGW crowd and how they react to opposing opinions and viewpoints. By and large, they're not acting like people with the science of their side. More like folks with a hankerin' for a good burning.

|1.30.08 @ 12:28PM|#

Nick -
Seeing as no libertarian solution (i.e. do nothing) will ever take place, I find it easier to think in terms of what we would steer toward. On this site a carbon tax has been supported, and I know other libertarians who would be ok with a cap-and-trade system.

If it were up to me, we wouldn't be subsizing that things that emit CO2, methane (subsidizing feed for cattle, etc.), but I don't have enough information about what the end-balance of those emissions would be when all is said and done to really know what the actual result would be.

Personally, I'd go for some combination of the two, since it's silly to tax something they subsidize.

|1.30.08 @ 12:28PM|#

Maybe instead of looking at the speakers, you should look at the evidence.

|1.30.08 @ 12:29PM|#

It shouldn't be about which "crowd" you like better.

|1.30.08 @ 12:34PM|#

please excuse my typos, i'm only about 60% here today

|1.30.08 @ 12:55PM|#

Maybe instead of looking at the speakers, you should look at the evidence.

I like to look at *all* the data. When the mob is screaming something about burning the witch, my hunch is that they're missing something, despite how overwhelming their evidence is that she's a witch.

|1.30.08 @ 12:56PM|#

Two questions:

Who says that a warmer world isn't a better world?

If humans can't control the weather what makes you think they can control the climate?

jackanapestarian|1.30.08 @ 12:56PM|#

This libertarian will simply move northwest, to higher ground. That is, I would if were still here in 1000 years when sea levels will be what--3" higher? As it is I think I'll stay put and let the people of 3008 worry about it.

|1.30.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Oracle at Delphi

This is a close one, but I'm calling R.C.'z Rule on John.

Let's just assume for a moment, global warming is the result of human production. What are some libertarian solutions? I assume no one here besides joe wants to involve the government, so what would we propose?

Start buying inland real estate?

|1.30.08 @ 1:00PM|#

Incidentally, I think there should be three columns.

In the middle is the IPCC consensus. On the right, as before, are those who don't think it's that bad.

But much media and political discussion on global warming is dominated by those who think that the IPCC position is too conservative. A column should be added on the left to contain the wackos among the global warming proselytizers.

|1.30.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Here's an example of why I remain a skeptic.

I looked at item #12 in the left column, which complained that skeptics are 'misinterpeting' the temperature graphs. The authors of this paper then show their graph which begins in 1980 (which follows a period of cooling they thus conveniently ignore) and give an analysis based on 8-year trends. (Why 8 year trends? No explanation is given; this thus appears ad hoc, and therefore unscientific). They then admit that the warming trend is nearly equivalent to the statistical deviation, and provide no analysis or discussion regarding the significance of this.

Having complained that the 'skeptics' are comparing data from different timetables, the authors provide a paper that does exactly the same thing.

|1.30.08 @ 1:10PM|#

RC Dean, that was my initial thought but since over 1/3 of the world's population lives in coastal areas, and the flooding is gonna come hard and fast (if Greenland and the West Antarctic ice shelf continue rapid melting), that's 2 billion people heading inland encroaching on 4 billion people pretty darn quick. And, we still need farmland for food, so I think then we can pretty much kiss our asses goodbye. My question was more about stopping the rapid sea rise, rather than coping. Not to mention the expected inland droughts due to fresh water shortages...

But, eh, I guess libertarians would just bitch about what politicians did or did not do rather than lead the way in preventing doom.

I think we're totally fucked. I think billions will die. Even if it's not man made (I think is is) this will all still happen and we'll be back to small nomadic groups of people wandering around following any surviving animals looking for water. We've allowed ourselves to be dominated by the gods we've created and the slef-proclaimed kings that pay lip service to them. Fuck us. Maybe we deserve to start over from scratch.

|1.30.08 @ 1:10PM|#

Joe,

I don't have an issue with scientists who think the climate is a-warmin' and try to extrapolate likely consequences (both good and ill) that might arise from this.

I don't really even have much of a problem with scientists who think there's enough data/evidence to link the climate warming with us driving our Hummers and usin' incandescent lights.

I do have a problem with those who take those mild scientifically based claims and then add outright lies or hype up things exponentially so that the earth will flood, the seas will burn, dogs and cats will live together, etc, and we will all die at the hands of Gaia unless we agree to do whatever they say we should do.

|1.30.08 @ 1:12PM|#

I think we're totally fucked. I think billions will die. Even if it's not man made (I think is is) this will all still happen and we'll be back to small nomadic groups of people wandering around following any surviving animals looking for water. We've allowed ourselves to be dominated by the gods we've created and the slef-proclaimed kings that pay lip service to them. Fuck us. Maybe we deserve to start over from scratch.

Once again, I wish I could post images here. This definitely deserves the jerk-off gesture.

|1.30.08 @ 1:20PM|#

Virgil, it's my understanding (and granted they've done a shitty job explaining this) that the cooling period in the middle of the 20th century is due to the cycle. It gets warm, then cold, then warm, then cold. This is natural. The industrial revolution kicked the warm up a notch before the cold cycle followed as it normally would. Then the current warm cycle is kicked up another notch above that, and we may very likely get another cold cycle to catch our breath and the deniers can say "I told you so."

Then, the following warming cycle will have been emboldened by the deniers victory and subsequent lack of action. The current cycle may not be the warming cycle that breaks the whole system, but the next one very likely could be. (This one could be it, though.) The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica can handle some warming but not extended warming of a couple higher degrees. The ice melts too quickly before getting replenished in the cold season. So, the sun melts it further any time there is darker ground exposed for longer periods instead of white snow and ice which reflects it. The ice melts into the sea and the sea retains heat from the sun and thus the whole warming excelerates. It is an exponential exceleration not a linear one. We're fucked.

Maybe we're past the point of no return already.

|1.30.08 @ 1:20PM|#

the earth will flood, the seas will burn, dogs and cats will live together, etc, and we will all die at the hands of Gaia

Sounds good to me.

Gilbert Martin|1.30.08 @ 1:21PM|#

There is no such thing as an "expert" in any subject on this earth where the veracity of the claim being made cannot be unequivacly quantified as being 100% accurate by measurement in the physical world.

Anything not proven with absolute definitiveness is not proven at all.

The man-made global warming theorists can't do so.

|1.30.08 @ 1:26PM|#

Warty, I think we're fucked because people are irrational, not because it's an impossibility to live with a warming earth. It is our nature to overreact and then trust someone to make it all better. Hell, most of the people will think God or the Devil is trying to destroy us and thus we will destroy ourselves.

Do I think global warming is real, yes, I do. Do I think we could do something to manage things and not have such a catastrophe. You and I might be able to, and the other smart people in this room, but 6 billion scared people? No, I have no hope for that scenario and that is why we're fucked.

jackanapestarian|1.30.08 @ 1:33PM|#

If my relatives of the future will have gills, that would be way cool.

adrian|1.30.08 @ 1:35PM|#

i have 2 reasons for being skeptical.

1.) Liberals are the driving force. Whenever liberals take up a cause i become skeptical (or worse).

2.) Ockham's Razor.

|1.30.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Nick -
can I share a boat with you? :)

|1.30.08 @ 1:57PM|#

since over 1/3 of the world's population lives in coastal areas, and the flooding is gonna come hard and fast (if Greenland and the West Antarctic ice shelf continue rapid melting), that's 2 billion people heading inland encroaching on 4 billion people pretty darn quick bidding up house prices.

Point made.

|1.30.08 @ 2:05PM|#

"that's 2 billion people heading inland encroaching on 4 billion people pretty darn quick bidding up house prices.

Point made."

...or bringing their fear and weapons with them and not giving a shit about property rights.

I really need to learn HTML. Sorry guys.

|1.30.08 @ 2:09PM|#

Reinmoose, we're already on Rainbow Puppy Island* with the perimeter well defended. The grill still works. :)

*volcanic island - lava adds land providing us with some room to grow, and fertile, too.

|1.30.08 @ 2:13PM|#

Tim Lambert: Tim, Tim, Tim, there you go again. Imagining conspiracies that don't exist. I did suppose you and others who visit the site can read. Dutton tells you right on his site that he's skeptical--no secrets at all. Climate Debate Daily even hosts a link to your stuff at Deltoid.

|1.30.08 @ 2:46PM|#

Wait, is Rainbow Puppy Island the libertarian island where land ownership was decided at random after the most fertile ground was sectioned off all in one parcel? And we were discussing fish and watermelon and brewing things? Or is this someplace different?

|1.30.08 @ 3:21PM|#

Rainbow Puppy Island was the island we set up in protest to that hypothetical one that would never happen because libertarians aren't that stupid. RPI has the grilled fish and beer, yes. I think it was you, me, P Brooks...I forget who else.

|1.30.08 @ 3:25PM|#

oh, good. I am happy to be on such an island.

Do you think it's as big as Oahu? That would be a good size.

|1.30.08 @ 3:25PM|#

I thought Rainbow Puppy Island was the one where topless Czech women feed me steak and beer and massage my feet.

Lord Jubjub|1.30.08 @ 3:25PM|#

Nick,
There has been evidence that the cooling in the 1950s was due to sulfur pollution from the post-War expansion. Remember acid rain? They established a cap-and-trade system to reduce sulfur pollution and have largely succeeded here in the West (China is having serious problems now). This sulfur pollution would have increased the energy reflected into space. There is other evidence that a long term decrease in solar output might have started during this period and is only now starting to seriously effect the climate.

|1.30.08 @ 4:19PM|#

There is no such thing as an "expert" in any subject on this earth where the veracity of the claim being made cannot be unequivacly quantified as being 100% accurate by measurement in the physical world.

That could have been penned by a dumbass creationist.

|1.30.08 @ 4:53PM|#

The current cycle may not be the warming cycle that breaks the whole system, but the next one very likely could be. (This one could be it, though.) The ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica can handle some warming but not extended warming of a couple higher degrees.

See? This is why the Climate Debate Daily format should be three columns. The IPCC estimate for ice sheet collapse is 1000 years. Nick's learned estimate is the next warming cycle -- unless, of course, it's this one.

There are positions on the pro-do-something side every bit as wacky as the wackiest on the anti-do-something side.

|1.30.08 @ 6:06PM|#

That could have been penned by a dumbass creationist.

It was. Gil denies evolution, too. And on the same grounds.

|1.30.08 @ 6:07PM|#

The IPCC estimate for ice sheet collapse is 1000 years.

That was in the last report; since then, it has been established that ice loss in Greenland is accelerating faster than the estimates they used to come up with the 1000 year figure.

Neu Mejican|1.30.08 @ 6:07PM|#

Gilbert Martin,

Anything not proven with absolute definitiveness is not proven at all.

Can you prove that is always true?

MikeP,

Yes, there are two ends to the continuum. And there is the assessment over time of the IPCC's earlier predictions. These all go in one direction...the IPCC predictions are overly conservative. This is not a surprising result given the process they use. They are likely to get conservative predictions out of their process.

Now, what is needed is a website for those on the extreme ends of the debate to yell at each other without disturbing those who want to have a reasoned discussion.

Let's just assume for a moment, global warming is the result of human production. What are some libertarian solutions? I assume no one here besides joe wants to involve the government, so what would we propose?

I will again link to these guys, cuz I think they are the best game in town.

http://www.rmi.org/

Neu Mejican|1.30.08 @ 6:12PM|#

A good place to start

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid67.php

Neu Mejican|1.30.08 @ 6:13PM|#

Another,

http://www.esource.com/

Grammar Rock|1.30.08 @ 6:21PM|#

I note this about the linked site:

Essays and research supporting the idea that global warming poses a clear threat to humanity, that it is largely caused by human activity, and that solutions to the problems of climate change lie within human reach.

Versus

Essays and research challenging the view that the world warming that began around 1880 is caused by human activity, that it poses a serious threat, or that the vagaries of earth's climate are within human control.

Conjunction junction what's your function?

|1.30.08 @ 6:26PM|#

reply to this