Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Global Temperature Trend Update
Every month University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report the latest global temperature trends from the satellite data. Below are the newest data updated through May 2009. Interestingly, there has been essentially no warming trend for nearly a decade now.
Cal Lipigian|6.9.09 @ 11:52AM|#
This just proves that we need the government to take over the economy to fight the threat of Climate Stagnation!
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.9.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Interestingly, there has been essentially no warming trend
for nearly a decade now.
No shit.
|6.9.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Interestingly, there has been essentially no warming trend
for nearly a decade now.
To me, the chart shows temperatures essentially flat through 2001,
then a stretch of a few years that seem .3 C warmer on average,
with that warm period fading. Which seems completely inconsistent
with Ron's interpretation.
This, I'm supposed to get into a panic about.
|6.9.09 @ 12:01PM|#
LIES!!
I had to push an inch of slush off my deck, Saturday morning. This
is an obvious and incontrovertible proof of global warming.
|6.9.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Maybe because I'm used to looking at stock charts, but to me it would be informative to see lines for trailing averages, say 5, 10, and 20 years.
|6.9.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Forget the last decade, go back to 79. Basically, we had one hellacous El Nino in the late 90s, one volcanic erruption in the early 90s and stable temperatures otherwise. that is 30 years for Christ sakes.
|6.9.09 @ 12:14PM|#
If this trend of normal continues, and no carbon-credit bill is passed, expect the computer models to begin "predicting" a period of relative calm for the next...five years maybe? Just enough to try and maintain the fear of Hell on Earth at any minute, but at the same time excuse the current lack of such.
Jozef|6.9.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Global temperatures are cyclical, and global warming occurs only once every 23 years when Manbearpig wakes from its slumber and feeds.
|6.9.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Nanny is the only commodity who's supply is
infinite.
The more you have, the more you need!
Mike M.|6.9.09 @ 12:25PM|#
There are no little black spots on the sun today. It's the same old thing as yesterday.
stuartl|6.9.09 @ 12:25PM|#
An El Nino is in the forecast,
doesn't this mean we will see a few warm years?
R C Dean is right, are there any mathematically smoothed charts
that would help make sense of the data?
|6.9.09 @ 12:27PM|#
P Brooks, don't you remember, it's the COOLING that PROVES that we're experiencing global warming!
|6.9.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Maybe because I'm used to looking at stock charts, but to me it would be informative to see lines for trailing averages, say 5, 10, and 20 years.
So should I go long on global warming? The trend line with the two
tops shows a little upside potential in global temps. Anyone want
to set up some option hedges for global warming? I sense a new
bubble! Let's get in on the ground floor!
|6.9.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Silentz,
t's the COOLING that PROVES that we're experiencing global
warming!
Oh so long ago, joe called me an asshole for saying that exact
thing. Good times.
I tried to find the thread, but it seems to be one that went down
the memory hole.
|6.9.09 @ 12:32PM|#
"Interestingly, there has been essentially no warming trend for
nearly a decade now."
And yet at 1:30 pm CDT, I have to attend a departmental meeting
geared to get me to reduce my carbon footprint in both my
professional and private life.
How much lost productivity has all this climate change bullshit
produced?
|6.9.09 @ 12:33PM|#
stuartl & RC Dean: You might want to take a look at the smoothed trends here. Keep in mind that the folks at World Climate Report have been denounced as "climate change deniers." ;-)
Tim Lambert|6.9.09 @ 12:34PM|#
The warming trend for the last decade with the data you posted the graph of, is 0.1 per decade. This is not significantly different from the trend for the whole data set. It is not correct to describe it as "no warming trend".
|6.9.09 @ 12:34PM|#
At some point in the next twenty or thirty years, the evidence against global warming will be overwelming. I fear what that will do to people's belief in science. The up side will be the hillarity that will ensue as lefties rewrite history. The party line will be that no one ever advocated drastic action over global warming. They just wanted more study and a few sensible precautions. Accusations of hysteria will be just right wing myths.
|6.9.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Tim: So good to hear from you! I did describe it as "essentially no warming trend."
|6.9.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Tim,
1. The trend such as it is, is not accellerating.
2. Even if it remains constant, a big if, it only equals one degree
C per century. Hardly the end of days stuff the global warming
religion is selling.
|6.9.09 @ 12:38PM|#
So should I go long on global warming?
No, it looks like a head and shoulders top formation (although the
right shoulder is questionable) in 2008, so I would short it with
tight trailing stops if I were to trade it at all. Still, its a
volatile fucker with no long-term trend I would be money on; if
this was a stock I wouldn't touch it with a fork.
I sense a new bubble!
You bet your ass. The cap-and-trade bill is going to move some
serious wealth around. As soon as it gets some detail and I get a
feel for who will be on the winning side, I plan to allocate a few
bucks that way.
Muttley|6.9.09 @ 12:39PM|#
as a rule of thumb, I wouldn't trust any scientist that publishes his research on his own website.
|6.9.09 @ 12:44PM|#
as a rule of thumb, I wouldn't trust any scientist that
publishes his research on his own website.
That's not really a rule of thumb. A rule of thumb would be more
like "I only trust a scientist whose research has been published on
two different websites, neither of which are his."
|6.9.09 @ 12:45PM|#
"as a rule of thumb, I wouldn't trust any scientist that
publishes his research on his own website."
What about a non-scientist that publishes his research on his own
website? You know, like Al Gore.
|6.9.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Muttley: FYI. All of the groups that measure global temperatures -- UAH, GISS, Hadley, RSS -- publish their monthly updates on their websites.
DADIODADDY|6.9.09 @ 12:46PM|#
So you're saying I don't need that crappy sweater I got for Christmas?
Patrick|6.9.09 @ 12:50PM|#
"You bet your ass. The cap-and-trade bill is going to move some
serious wealth around. As soon as it gets some detail and I get a
feel for who will be on the winning side, I plan to allocate a few
bucks that way."
I'm actually really looking forward to this amazing rent-seeking
opportunity. Of course, I will not be able to sleep at night, but I
will have tons of money to pay for some pills!
|6.9.09 @ 12:52PM|#
as a rule of thumb, I wouldn't trust any scientist that
publishes his research on his own website.
Those are the lower-atmosphere data in that graph not the results
of research. Are you implying that he's fudging the data? That
would be pretty dumb as it would be easy as pie for anyone with
eyes to prove wrong.
|6.9.09 @ 12:54PM|#
RC,
My plan is to start an alternative energy business with a black
disabled veteran. If the treasury is going to be looted anyway, why
miss out on the opportunity?
Deacon Lambert|6.9.09 @ 12:58PM|#
DENIALISTS! THE CLIMATE RAPTURE IS ALMOST UPON US! THOSE WHO
TURN AWAY FROM MOTHER GAIA WILL BE LEFT BEHIND TO BURN IN THE FIRES
OF GLOBAL WARMING!
REPENT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!
|6.9.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"black disabled veteran"
I believe African-American, handy-capable, baby-killer is PC.
Muttley|6.9.09 @ 1:01PM|#
@Ron & sage: well, that's more or less what I had in mind. If I see a graph that's been validated by scientific collaborations, I tend to trust it more than graphs with a corny URL address on it. But I understand that DrRoy is a valid scientist, albeit with a bad taste for web layouts ;)
|6.9.09 @ 1:07PM|#
If the treasury is going to be looted anyway, why miss out
on the opportunity?
My take precisely.
On that note, I brought my allocation to precious metals up to 2/3
today. The pressure on the dollar is relentless, inflation is
inevitable, the commodity complex in general is going up, and the
central banker's ability to suppress the price of gold is coming to
an end. The current dip as the market manipulators try frantically
to exit their short positions is likely to be the best buying
opportunity we will see in a long, long time.
creech|6.9.09 @ 1:08PM|#
See, already President Obama has defeated the global warming crisis! Is there anything this superman can't solve?
|6.9.09 @ 1:10PM|#
As a rule of thumb, I wouldn't trust any scientist who doesn't publish his research by broadcasting it into space. For review by Type II civilizations or better.
Gilbert Martin|6.9.09 @ 1:13PM|#
"Interestingly, there has been essentially no warming trend for
nearly a decade now."
Which is why the hucksters have changed the term from "global
warming" to "climate change"
in their screeds.
|6.9.09 @ 1:13PM|#
"On that note, I brought my allocation to precious metals up to
2/3 today. The pressure on the dollar is relentless, inflation is
inevitable, the commodity complex in general is going up, and the
central banker's ability to suppress the price of gold is coming to
an end. The current dip as the market manipulators try frantically
to exit their short positions is likely to be the best buying
opportunity we will see in a long, long time."
I would buy Oil big. It is priced in dollars. Even though supply is
up and demand is down, the slide in the dollar will still drive up
the price.
Gilbert Martin|6.9.09 @ 1:16PM|#
"The cap-and-trade bill is going to move some serious wealth
around"
And that is the only real objective of it.
Tacos mmm...|6.9.09 @ 1:18PM|#
I don't think that there's much, realistically, to draw from a single graph. Nor are the opinions here particularly educated. Science is not politics, and it frequently takes years to be able to understand the arguments in play, and even more years before one is able to comment intelligently on them. Lawyers and pundits, who feel that they should be able to argue about anything with ten minutes of study, seem rather poorly situated to understand this.
Solanum|6.9.09 @ 1:22PM|#
PL, so that's the deal with the giant radio dishes I saw on the campus of Takei University at Taintsville. I always assumed they were for keeping tabs on the Shat.
|6.9.09 @ 1:22PM|#
Which is why the hucksters have changed the term from
"global warming" to "climate change"
in their screeds.
Just wait - eventually they will be forced to assert that climate
change is a local phenomenon. This will enable them to cite the
fact that river levels in lower missisippi have inundated the
crested tit-mouses habitats as evidence of climate change. Just
change the definition until it fits the facts. As long as you can
maintain the fear while doing so, the effect is the same.
|6.9.09 @ 1:26PM|#
"I don't think that there's much, realistically, to draw from a
single graph. Nor are the opinions here particularly educated.
Science is not politics, and it frequently takes years to be able
to understand the arguments in play, and even more years before one
is able to comment intelligently on them. Lawyers and pundits, who
feel that they should be able to argue about anything with ten
minutes of study, seem rather poorly situated to understand
this."
So I guess we should just trust our white coated overlords and give
up our standard of living and spending trillions? I mean it is not
like science has ever been wrong about anything or that global
climate isn't like the most complex system anyone has ever tried to
analyze. I mean really, how can we not trust them?
|6.9.09 @ 1:35PM|#
"Takei University"
I hear it has the best glee club and broadway theater program in
the galaxy.
|6.9.09 @ 1:39PM|#
Higher average highs and higher average lows than the previous
decade. It is warmer than the previous. But if your trying to talk
trends using decades, you need more than three.
It looks like it's testing the lows and the fundementals says the
support should hold and the temps should rise for about the next
month or two.
Yes, do go long in the short term, but be ready to get out of the
trade by the middle of August. ;-)
Mike M.|6.9.09 @ 1:43PM|#
I don't think that there's much, realistically, to draw from
a single graph.
I couldn't agree with you more, and that's exactly what the global
warming hysterics have been doing: drawing the most incredible
apocalyptic conclusions from a single graph. A graph which contains
a sample size of about 100-150 years of detailed data out of
billions of years of earth history.
That isn't real science, that's laughable rubbish.
ed|6.9.09 @ 1:45PM|#
it would be informative to see lines for trailing averages,
say 5, 10, and 20 years
Not to mention 50, 100 and 1000 years. Still insignificant, given
the age of the earth, but perhaps slightly more meaningful?
Solanum|6.9.09 @ 1:45PM|#
TU, continually expanding the frontier of genetically modified haggis, as well as being on the cutting edge of Saf-T-Taint research and development.
|6.9.09 @ 1:49PM|#
That isn't real science, that's laughable
rubbish.
Mike M. you've got it all wrong - once you have a PhD, you are
definitely allowed to draw shocking conclusions from a single graph
- in fact it's encouraged. It's how careers are made. Only the
layman is prohibited from this activity.
|6.9.09 @ 1:56PM|#
it's...volatile...with no long-term trend I would be[t] money on
Isn't this kind of side-ways market good for puts and covered
calls?
Harpoon|6.9.09 @ 1:58PM|#
"Interestingly, there has been essentially no warming trend for
nearly a decade now."
Yet atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily risen. Wasn't there
supposed to be a correlation there?
|6.9.09 @ 1:58PM|#
It looks like it's testing the lows and the fundementals
says the support should hold and the temps should rise for about
the next month or two.
I would say that support is pretty well established at -0.2, and
resistance at +0.5. Its traded in that range with only one very
short breakout on the upside since 1999. Right now its in the lower
end of that range, with a strong bearish trend going.
The fundamentals say temp returns from the northern hemisphere
should be up, temp returns from the southern hemisphere should be
down, over the next few months. Call it a wash.
Solanum|6.9.09 @ 1:59PM|#
Correction - genetically modified haggis fritters
(The legal trolls in TU's PR dept are not a forgiving lot)
Tacos mmm...|6.9.09 @ 2:00PM|#
So I guess we should just trust our white coated overlords and give up our standard of living and spending trillions? I mean it is not like science has ever been wrong about anything or that global climate isn't like the most complex system anyone has ever tried to analyze. I mean really, how can we not trust them?
To a great extent, yes. That's what you do when you use the
services of other experts, such as physicians or lawyers. Yes,
there are smart people who second guess their doctors and make
their own correct diagnoses, or defend themselves in court and get
it right. But most of people who decide to be their own doctors or
lawyers just make a big hash of it. And most aspects of medicine or
law are simple compared to the questions posed here.
The experts may be wrong, but they're less likely to be wrong than
you are. And if you are right, it's luck.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 2:05PM|#
It should be noted first that I am an advocate of doing
nothing about AGW.
However, doesn't common sense tell us that an increase in CO2 will
have some effect, no matter how marginal, on the atmosphere and
probably the ambient temperature of the earth?
|6.9.09 @ 2:08PM|#
AGW may be real, it may be a problem, and there may, possibly, be something we should do about it. Turning the panic dial to '11' without more knowledge, however, is not science and is not rational.
|6.9.09 @ 2:09PM|#
That's what you do when you use the services of other
experts, such as physicians or lawyers.
But we aren't using their services to decide a narrow question,
Tacos, we are putting them in charge of what is essentially a
massive economic question. They know a lot about science, but
NOTHING at all about the economic realities that come along with
their propositions.
My professor used to say "science is easy, engineering is hard."
The scientist dreams up all these fancy theories, but the engineer
has to figure out how to construct the damn thing. Every useful
scientific theory suffers massive limitations at the hands of
reality - but somehow we don't even question the effects climate
scientists' proposals will have in real life.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 2:10PM|#
I wonder how many denialists are smart enough to realize that
they get virtually of their data from four people (Spencer &
Christy, Lindzen, and Singer)? Four people out of hundreds...that
doesn't sound too impressive.
There is nothing wrong with this data in particular, but it isn't
new either. I wonder why Ron chose to show it. S&C's data tends
to show the least warming of the four data sets the IPCC uses
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2008/04/common-climate-misconceptions-global-temperature-records/
and their commentary is always loaded with spin. At least they were
honest to label 1998 as an large El Nino (which drives up temps),
but they weren't honest enough to label the last couple of years as
a large La Nina. We are also in a low solar activity phase
(sun-spot minimum), which also keeps the planet cooler. When these
natural trends reverse, as they do every few years, the temperature
will rise again.
Seriously. I will take bets with anyone that the next year that is
considered an El Nino will be the hottest on record. Any
takers?
Tacos mmm...|6.9.09 @ 2:12PM|#
I couldn't agree with you more, and that's exactly what the global warming hysterics have been doing: drawing the most incredible apocalyptic conclusions from a single graph. A graph which contains a sample size of about 100-150 years of detailed data out of billions of years of earth history.
Oh bullshit. Temperature change is just one aspect of global
warming. You can have tremendous heat inputs into a system without
the temperature of the system rising measurably if the heat energy
is going into doing other work. Think of a block of ice on a hot
plate - if you turn on the hot plate, the temperature of the
surface won't change much until the ice has melted because the
energey is being used to produce a phase change from ice to water,
not to raise temperature.
The earth has a lot of surface water and ice, which give it a good
deal of thermal inertia, dampening rapid temperature changes.
|6.9.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"To a great extent, yes. That's what you do when you use the
services of other experts, such as physicians or lawyers. Yes,
there are smart people who second guess their doctors and make
their own correct diagnoses, or defend themselves in court and get
it right. But most of people who decide to be their own doctors or
lawyers just make a big hash of it. And most aspects of medicine or
law are simple compared to the questions posed here."
You are an amazing idiot. First, this is not a yes no question.
This is not "should I stop drinking a bottle of vodka a day". This
is an amazing complex scientific subject where the amount of
information available is quite limited. Scientists are wrong about
hard questions all the time. Science is only as good as the next
piece of data.
Further scientists have political and personal agendas as well. If
and when global warming becomes undeniably false, a huge number of
careers are going to end. Scientists have every reason to beleive
and no interest in doubting. That effects their reasoning and their
data.
More importantly, the existence of expert opinion does alieviate
the need for common sense. If you really do unfailingly beleive
anything an "expert" tells you, my advice to you is to stay out of
public life and whatever you do please don't vote.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 2:13PM|#
domoarrigato | June 9, 2009, 2:09pm | #
That's what you do when you use the services of other experts, such
as physicians or lawyers.
But we aren't using their services to decide a narrow question,
Tacos, we are putting them in charge of what is essentially a
massive economic question. They know a lot about science, but
NOTHING at all about the economic realities that come along with
their propositions.
Go ahead. Argue the economics - that is politics. But quit arguing
AGAINST 97% of the scientists on their own turf. You look like an
idiot, and are simply wrong.
|6.9.09 @ 2:15PM|#
"Seriously. I will take bets with anyone that the next year that
is considered an El Nino will be the hottest on record. Any
takers?"
What you got chad? Even money? First, it is not even clear that it
is going to be an El Nino year. Second, even if it is, the chances
are very small it will be as hot as 98. I will take as much of your
money as you are willing to give away.
|6.9.09 @ 2:15PM|#
The satellite data goes conveniently back to about a year after the 1977 Pacific Phase Shift which made El Nino seasons more prevalent (along with Artic ice melt and Antarctic ice gain BTW).
|6.9.09 @ 2:16PM|#
First, this is not a yes no question. This is not "should I
stop drinking a bottle of vodka a day".
God I hope the right answer to that question is "no"...
sockjoe|6.9.09 @ 2:17PM|#
You people are not qualified to make statements on climate
change. You only hear and see what you want to see and hear, and
cherry pick your data. Me, on the other hand, I listen to the
experts.
[walks away, swishes tail side to side, pony tail flops in a
countercyclic fashion]
Tacos mmm...|6.9.09 @ 2:19PM|#
My professor used to say "science is easy, engineering is hard." The scientist dreams up all these fancy theories, but the engineer has to figure out how to construct the damn thing. Every useful scientific theory suffers massive limitations at the hands of reality - but somehow we don't even question the effects climate scientists' proposals will have in real life.
I think it's a good idea to question the policy implications, but
I'm not seeing much of that here. What I'm seeing a lot of is "I
don't like the policies proposed to deal with global warming, so I
won't accept the evidence for global warming."
That's just ignorance. It echoes the reasoning of fundamentalists
who reject evolutionary theory or geology because they don't like
the implications for a literalist interpretation of the bible.
|6.9.09 @ 2:19PM|#
The scientist dreams up all these fancy theories, but the
engineer has to figure out how to construct the damn
thing.
And then the engineers wonder why no one will buy their creations.
"But it gets 120 MPG! Sure, it provides no real safety in an
accident, or shelter from the elements, and doesn't have any
storage capacity, and only carries 2 people, at 25 MPH, but it gets
120 MPG!"
|6.9.09 @ 2:20PM|#
I've yet to have any one of my MMGW friends disprove any of
this:
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Most proponents of MMGW seem to have a composition of pedantic
instances. This easy to understand science is really good at
wrapping it all together.
|6.9.09 @ 2:20PM|#
"However, doesn't common sense tell us that an increase in CO2
will have some effect, no matter how marginal, on the atmosphere
and probably the ambient temperature of the earth?"
No.
herky|6.9.09 @ 2:20PM|#
If you go to a site he links it shows the 3000 foot temperature
has been warmer this year and last than the records from 1978-98.
The 15,000 feet are about average and I believe going up in the air
a little further they were below average. This actually supports
the idea that there are more severe thunderstorms than in years
past, which I was skeptical of (since the large difference in
temperature means the atmosphere is less stable, allowing more and
faster updrafts and more severe thunderstorms).
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
|6.9.09 @ 2:22PM|#
That's just ignorance. It echoes the reasoning of
fundamentalists who reject evolutionary theory or geology because
they don't like the implications for a literalist interpretation of
the bible.
joe! You're back!
Chad|6.9.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Pro Libertate | June 9, 2009, 2:15pm | #
What, pray tell, are 97% of scientists agreeing upon?
That the earth is warming and we are the primary cause.
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html
Big SG|6.9.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Historically, humans have grasped towards some type of
millenarian/end of days fantasy. With the decline of christianity
in the western world, we find that the book of revelation/judgment
day (bible, not terminator) fades to irrelevance.
So us humans come up with new millenarian fantasies based around
our faiths - material rationalism (climate change/ global warming),
spiritual reclamation (2012), or technological utopianism/ludditism
(singularity/rise of the machines).
Chad|6.9.09 @ 2:24PM|#
However, doesn't common sense tell us that an increase in
CO2 will have some effect, no matter how marginal, on the
atmosphere and probably the ambient temperature of the
earth?
Common sense? No.
19th century physics? Yes.
|6.9.09 @ 2:25PM|#
Go ahead. Argue the economics - that is politics. But quit
arguing AGAINST 97% of the scientists on their own turf. You look
like an idiot, and are simply wrong.
P.S. Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad
homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish,
anti-intellectual nature.
|6.9.09 @ 2:25PM|#
What I'm seeing a lot of is "I don't like the policies
proposed to deal with global warming, so I won't accept the
evidence for global warming."
More like "I am deeply skeptical of the claims of global warming ,
because these claims are put forward by activists in the service of
pre-existing political/cultural/social agendas."
The scientists, BTW, are backpedaling, as far as I can tell. And
with good reason. They can't explain historic temperature cycles;
how can they explain this one?
|6.9.09 @ 2:26PM|#
"Science is only as good as the next piece of data."
Science is only as good as the last piece of data.
FTFY
1970\'s Chad|6.9.09 @ 2:30PM|#
"But quit arguing AGAINST 97% of the scientists on their own
turf."
Everyone knows that humans are causing massive global cooling that
will result in famines, massive droughts, flooding, and
psoriasis!
Tacos mmm...|6.9.09 @ 2:30PM|#
You are an amazing idiot. First, this is not a yes no question. This is not "should I stop drinking a bottle of vodka a day". This is an amazing complex scientific subject where the amount of information available is quite limited. Scientists are wrong about hard questions all the time. Science is only as good as the next piece of data.
I don't claim to know that global warming is happening or not. I
just believe that you don't, either, seeing as you have both less
expertise in climate science and less data than the researchers
drawing the conclusions. And if I have to pick between a global
community of climate scientists and a message board of blathering
amateurs, I'll have to go with the former, at least for now. If
that's unbelievably stupid, then so be it. But so far I've done
quite well in life letting lawyers handle my legal issues, doctors
take care of my medical ones, and a good mechanic fix my car.
Further scientists have political and personal agendas as well. If and when global warming becomes undeniably false, a huge number of careers are going to end. Scientists have every reason to beleive and no interest in doubting. That effects their reasoning and their data.
How do you know global warming will become undeniably false? I
think that the most honest position it to admit to a degree of
uncertainty.
More importantly, the existence of expert opinion does alieviate the need for common sense. If you really do unfailingly beleive anything an "expert" tells you, my advice to you is to stay out of public life and whatever you do please don't vote.
Oh come now. I don't believe everything experts tell me. But I do
trust experts over anonymous internet posters on political
websites.
|6.9.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Chad--if that's your real name--even if they do agree that there
is some level of AGW, that's not to say that they agree on the
proposed economic and political "solutions." I'll bet you most of
them don't think we can do much to change the situation, either,
which is something Gorites and fake trolls like to pretend isn't an
issue.
I've also seen quite a bit of evidence that many--probably
most--climatologists don't buy into catastrophism. They don't all
have an axe to grind, you see.
Tacos mmm...|6.9.09 @ 2:39PM|#
More like "I am deeply skeptical of the claims of global warming , because these claims are put forward by activists in the service of pre-existing political/cultural/social agendas."
It's clear to me that both sides of this debate have political
agendas; the sides are split pretty evenly by political
affiliation.
|6.9.09 @ 2:40PM|#
Take a hard look at that graph: The moving average shows at least a 0.2 degree increase since 1979. Also, global climate change predictions aren't based upon a "globally averaged" temperatures. Face it, global climate change is real. Some areas of the globe will cool, some will warm, some will get drier, some will get wetter. The bottom undeniable fact is that global climate temperatures are rising faster and more than most predicted. Change IS happening, at least a good portion of the change is human induced, the impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, and economies will be dramatic, and there is no down side to living more sustainably on this earth.
|6.9.09 @ 2:43PM|#
It's clear to me that both sides of this debate have
political agendas; the sides are split pretty evenly by political
affiliation.
Ok then - so if you acknowledge the political agenda that is
driving both sides - don't try and claim the scientific moral high
ground! It's been pointed out - but very FEW of the 97% of
scientists who agree to some form of AGW support drastic measures
to correct it.
Bill|6.9.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"It's clear to me that both sides of this debate have political
agendas; the sides are split pretty evenly by political
affiliation."
95% of the time, when people claim they have no agenda, they are
bullshitting.
Mike M.|6.9.09 @ 2:47PM|#
Take a hard look at that graph: The moving average shows at
least a 0.2 degree increase since 1979.
Using selective endpoints in a tiny sample is so freaking dumb and
unscientific. Shift the end of the graph to the left by one year,
and from '79 to '08 there's no difference at all. Heck, from '98 to
'09 there's a decrease of about 0.7 degrees!
Do you see now how stupid this game can be?
Cranky today|6.9.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Oh so long ago, joe called me an asshole for saying that
exact thing.
Fuck joe. Asswipe that he is.
Do you see now how stupid this game can be?
But, the jobs saved or created!
I've also seen quite a bit of evidence that many--probably
most--climatologists don't buy into catastrophism. They don't all
have an axe to grind, you see.
I think we need a climatologist czar.
|6.9.09 @ 2:51PM|#
No selection bias here. After all, Alabama is known for its
scientific achievements. And the fact that Christy and Spencer are
climate change contrarians is OK since Reason posts about all those
reports on the consensus of most climate scientists.
Hell Spencer is an Intelligent Design proponent, but that's OK
since this article is placed in the context of all available data
and wasn't specifically chosen because it was an
outlier.
O,Really?|6.9.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Chad | June 9, 2009, 2:10pm | #
I wonder how many denialists are smart enough to realize that they
get virtually of their data from four people (Spencer &
Christy, Lindzen, and Singer)? Four people out of hundreds...that
doesn't sound too impressive.
how
bout:
Take Warsaw-based Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, famous for his
critiques of ice-core data. He's devastating on the IPCC rallying
cry that CO2 is higher now than it has ever been over the past
650,000 years. In his 1997 paper in the Spring 21st Century Science
and Technology, he demolishes this proposition. In particular, he's
very good on pointing out the enormous inaccuracies in the ice-core
data and the ease with which a CO2 reading from any given year is
contaminated by the CO2 from entirely different eras.
Or take Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, of St. Petersburg's Pulkovo
Astronomical Observatory. He says we're on a warming trend but that
humans have little to do with it, the agent being a longtime change
in the sun's heat. He predicts solar irradiance will fall within
the next few years mainly based the well documented sunspot cycle,
and therefore we may well face the beginning of an ice age very
shortly, as early as 2012. The Russian scientific establishment is
giving him a green light to use the nation's space station to
measure global cooling.
Now read Dr. Jeffrey Glassman, applied physicist and engineer,
retired from California's academic and corporate sectors, who
provides an elegant demonstration of how the absorption and release
of CO2 from the enormous carbon reservoir in the earth's oceans
controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This absorption and
release is very much a function of the earth's temperature and
Glassman shows how the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the
consequence of temperature, not the cause.
Move to that bane of the fearmongers, Dr. Patrick Michaels, on
sabbatical from the University of Virginia, now at the Cato
Institute, who has presented in papers and recently, in his book
Meltdown, demolitions of almost every nightmare scenario invented
by the greenhousers, particularly regarding hurricanes, tornadoes,
sea rise, disappearing ice caps, drought and floods. A qualified
climatologist, he analyses the data invoked to buttress each of
these scenarios and shows the actual climate history not only fails
to support the claims but also that in the majority of cases the
opposite is true.
hen there's Christopher Landsea. A research meteorologist at
the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he described to Lawrence
Solomon (author of a very interesting series on "The Deniers" in
Canada's National Post in February of this year) how the IPCC
utterly misrepresented his work to concoct a scare scenario about
warming and increased incidence of hurricanes and
cyclones.
The geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta, was
once a passionate adherent to the theory of anthropogenic global
warming. He even started to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the
UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. These days
he's changed his views entirely and indeed has written a book, "The
Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global
Warming."
The astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's scientists,
also abandoned his belief that manmade emissions were driving
climate change.
and, many, many, others.
Nah, science is defined by a lack of skepticism, right? So long as
you can pull 97% of all scientist out your ass, you hardly need to
look at the evidence.
|6.9.09 @ 2:52PM|#
The bottom undeniable fact is that global climate
temperatures are rising faster and more than most
predicted.
Far from being undeniable, there is actually decent evidence that
suggests the opposite. Simply placing strong words in a sentance
about it is just so many inconvenienced electrons.
Change IS happening,
Well, duh...
at least a good portion of the change is human
induced,
Define "good portion", as agreed upon by 97% of scientists.
the impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, and economies will be
dramatic,
There is virtually NO agreement on that.
and there is no down side to living more sustainably on this
earth.
Apart from dramitcally lower living standards, gutting first world
productivity, directing resources away from other efforts. All of
the above would result in greater poverty in the 3rd world, higher
mortality, less efforts spent on fighting the real killers of this
world (diarrhea, malaria, parasite, malnutrition)
Global warming alarmism has an human face, it gets NO attention
from the do-gooders becaus ethey are so hell bent on their
irradiation model, and fake hockey stick graphs.
|6.9.09 @ 2:52PM|#
But so far I've done quite well in life letting lawyers
handle my legal issues, doctors take care of my medical ones, and a
good mechanic fix my car.
This is only a fair comparison if you have teams of lawyers,
doctors and mechanics spread out over the globe, not working in
concert with one another and have a series of politicians and UN
bureaucrats interpreting their work and prescribing what your
legal, medical and automotive problems are and what you should do
about them.
I understand the desire to defer to authority on matters outside
your training and yes, I do it all the time as well, but I still
don't accept everything my doctor, lawyer and mechanic tell me
without a healthy dose of skepticism and questioning to arrive at
the best answer.
|6.9.09 @ 3:00PM|#
"No selection bias here. After all, Alabama is known for its
scientific achievements"
Dissing Alabama is so weak.
|6.9.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Tony, you ignorant slut, do you even know what's in Huntsville?
You might want to find out before you insult it as being "in
Alabama." Okay, I'm kidding about the slut thing, but since my
father was working on Apollo--in Huntsville, along with thousands
of other engineers and scientists--when I was born, I think you may
be in error. For a long time, and it may be true today, it had the
highest education per capita of any city in the U.S.
I read the Junk Science piece that Jim referenced above. Pretty
interesting and quite reasonable. Here's the summary, but I
recommend reading how they got there (there's a bunch of
analysis):
What are the take-home messages:
* The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
* The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 °C.
* The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
* The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
* There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
* The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
* Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
* Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
* Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
* There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
* Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
* Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
O,Really?|6.9.09 @ 3:01PM|#
But so far I've done quite well in life letting lawyers
handle my legal issues, doctors take care of my medical ones, and a
good mechanic fix my car.
And that would also explain why your auto repair bill is five times
more costly than mine.
Other Matt|6.9.09 @ 3:04PM|#
"No selection bias here. After all, Alabama is known for its
scientific achievements"
Pro beat me to it...I was right there too...
Gilbert Martin|6.9.09 @ 3:05PM|#
"But so far I've done quite well in life letting lawyers handle
my legal issues, doctors take care of my medical ones, and a good
mechanic fix my car."
Goody for you, but the nature of the expertise in any one of those
professions is in no way analogous to any alleged expertise in
making about global climate.
|6.9.09 @ 3:05PM|#
But so far I've done quite well in life letting lawyers
handle my legal issues, doctors take care of my medical ones, and a
good mechanic fix my car.
Thats funny - So far in life, I've done quite well in life by
getting second opinions when doctors say something that sounds
crazy (avoiding expensive, painful, and needless tests that would
have been orderred to run up the bill to the insurance company),
learning to fix my own car (saving myself from getting ripped off
at the mechanics), and avoiding Laywers whenever humanly
possible.
|6.9.09 @ 3:06PM|#
At PL
It's also worth noting that Europe was cooler during the Dark Ages
and warmer during the Renaissance. Warmer temps are good for
humanity.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 3:06PM|#
This is only a fair comparison if you have teams of lawyers,
doctors and mechanics spread out over the globe, not working in
concert with one another and have a series of politicians and UN
bureaucrats interpreting their work and prescribing what your
legal, medical and automotive problems are and what you should do
about them.
You have less than zero idea how science works. Seriously. There is
nothing with its level of rigor anywhere on earth. I wonder how
many people on this thread have ever gotten something published in
a serious academic journal before.
|6.9.09 @ 3:09PM|#
Pro,
That's not analysis that's a bunch of tired denier talking
points.
I'm definitely not a climate scientist but these lame recycled
articles of faith on the denial side are getting really easy to
spot. Thing is you're no expert either, you just think you have all
the answers because some contrarian reports explain it in simple
language. Newsflash: Ayn Rand wasn't right because she was simple
and neither are the deniers.
I have a proposal. How about Reason get out of the science
reporting business since it does such a hatchet job of it. Get back
to your sociological fairy tales and leave science to places that
understand it.
After all I still don't understand why it is libertarian to deny
scientific consensus on this issue and to peddle contrarianism. And
nobody can explain it to me. Forgive me if I smell a CATO-sized
rat.
|6.9.09 @ 3:12PM|#
There is nothing with its level of rigor anywhere on
earth.
I can tell Chad hasn't read the article linked above, which
discusses the level of "rigor" very dispassionately. To summarize:
the data only supports very moderate warming from anthro CO2 will
within the observed historical assumptions, and the catastrophic
claims are based on stacked assumptions that are laughable.
|6.9.09 @ 3:13PM|#
"You have less than zero idea how science works. There is
nothing with its level of rigor anywhere on earth."
My brother is a PhD (and has a post-doc from Columbia) His
specialty is organic chemistry.
My neighbor and good friend also has a PhD. It's in cellular
biology.
I barely made it out of high school, but I have a pretty good idea
how science works.
But to your point, "There is nothing with its level of rigor
anywhere on earth".
Unless you can cite something to back that up, you're just peddling
hogwash.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
how bout:
Take Warsaw-based Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski...
...
...The astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's scientists,
also abandoned his belief that manmade emissions were driving
climate change.
and, many, many, others.
What, you are up to 10 now? Does your "many many" get you all the
way to 15, 20? Out of hundreds?
Wikipedia even maintains a list of denalists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
That's a pretty short list. And note how large numbers of these
people are emeritus professors, which means they are no longer in
the business.
|6.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
That's not analysis that's a bunch of tired denier talking
points.
It comes at the end of a very nice piece of analysis.
|6.9.09 @ 3:14PM|#
I wonder how many people on this thread have ever gotten
something published in a serious academic journal
before.
I bet you are just WAITING for this one:
Why, have you?
|6.9.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Jeez, Chad, you must be angry at your lack of achievement in life. You can't even troll well. FAIL.
|6.9.09 @ 3:17PM|#
Tony,
You didn't read the article, did you? Honestly, I don't see how you
can ignore everything they said. One big problem is the
multiplier/fudge factor that's being used to promote the
catastrophic warming story. It may be entirely baseless. Isn't that
a problem?
In the climatologist community, it sounds like there may be some
real feisty debates going on between the people who collect data
and observe the environment and those that are spending all their
time on climate modeling. Even the most fervent catastrophic AGW
adherent should know that those models are based on a large number
of assumptions, all of which cannot be true. That's a problem,
especially since the results change dramatically with those
assumptions.
Chad,
I'd publish in a serious journal, but they won't accept my
submissions. I'm from Huntsville.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 3:18PM|#
After all I still don't understand why it is libertarian to deny
scientific consensus on this issue and to peddle contrarianism. And
nobody can explain it to me. Forgive me if I smell a CATO-sized
rat.
Exactly. Any honest libertarian should be taking the best available
scientific consensus and using it to formulate policy. That
consensus is that under a business-as-usual emissions profile, the
planet will likely warm 2-3C this century and could warm more than
5C.
Anyone who does not accept this as a starting point is simply
letting partisanship get in the way of facts, and should be ashamed
of themselves.
|6.9.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Tony,
I would encourage you (and everyone) to read "Personal Knowledge:
Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy" by Michael Polyani:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226672883/reasonmagazineA/
Editorial Review:
In this work the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher,
Michael Polanyi, demonstrates that the scientist's personal
participation in his knowledge, in both its discovery and its
validation, is an indispensable part of science itself. Even in the
exact sciences, "knowing" is an art, of which the skill of the
knower, guided by his personal commitment and his passionate sense
of increasing contact with reality, is a logically necessary part.
In the biological and social sciences this becomes even more
evident.
The tendency to make knowledge impersonal in our culture has split
fact from value, science from humanity. Polanyi wishes to
substitute for the objective, impersonal ideal of scientific
detachment an alternative ideal which gives attention to the
personal involvement of the knower in all acts of understanding.
His book should help to restore science to its rightful place in an
integrated culture, as part of the whole person's continuing
endeavor to make sense of the totality of his experience. In honor
of this work and his The Study of Man Polanyi was presented with
the Lecomte de Noüy Award for 1959.
|6.9.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Dammit, that's the second time today I mistyped my cognomen. Must be that time I spent in preschool in Huntsville. With the von Braun children (okay, just kidding about that. Or not--how would I know?).
O,Really?|6.9.09 @ 3:20PM|#
What's a matta, Tony? Events are not comporting with your skewered fantasy world, either in political-economics with the massive failure of the Obama plan, or in the environment where measurements validating your dreams of apocalypse have proven naught and the scientist are derisive of you? It must hurt to know you have wasted so many personal resources on being 'carbon negative' as you once put it, when you could have been driving around in a Humvee with a sauna in the back instead of treading up a pair of sandals.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 3:20PM|#
Fine, Tony and Chad, I'll bite. Assume that the consensus is
true, accurate, inarguable, yadda yadda...
Now what?
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 3:21PM|#
EAP - would that be the Polanyi who was close friends with F.A. Hayek?
|6.9.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Any honest libertarian should be taking the best available
scientific consensus and using it to formulate policy.
Do you understand what libertarianism is at all? I'm starting to
get the idea that you typed the wrong URL into your browser.
|6.9.09 @ 3:22PM|#
Pro,
I'm willing to admit that I'm not equipped to judge climate data in
its entire context. All I can do is what I (and you) do for every
single other branch of science: trust the scientists who are doing
the legwork. I have nothing against contrarians and I have no
desire to see them suppressed. All I'm asking is for an honest
assessment of all of the data and not such an obvious selection
bias from Reason and its patrons. If you come to this science
already having concluded that climate change is a fantasy then
you're not being scientific in the slightest. Maybe the skeptics
are right. Then it's the job of the scientific process to sort that
out. If the data backs them up the consensus will change. But that
consensus, broadly, has been around for decades, been ruthlessly
suppressed by interested industries and their puppets in Congress,
and completely ignored at places like Reason. That denial of
climate change happens to benefit some of the largest powers on
earth is a good reason to be skeptical of it on its face. Until
denial approaches some sort of consensus rather than exist at the
fringe gives us no other choice.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 3:23PM|#
domoarrigato | June 9, 2009, 3:14pm | #
I wonder how many people on this thread have ever gotten something
published in a serious academic journal before.
I bet you are just WAITING for this one:
Why, have you?
Of course.
|6.9.09 @ 3:24PM|#
Re: smart people in Huntsville.
I love how the climate do-gooder demographic meshes so perfectly
with the north-eastern-liberal stereotypists who thinks that
everyone below the mason-dixon line is by definition borderline
retarded.
|6.9.09 @ 3:26PM|#
"EAP - would that be the Polanyi who was close friends with F.A.
Hayek?"
Yes.
Stunningly fantastic book, BTW. All of my siblings have read it.
First learned of it in the Harvard Business Review back in 1986.
Bought a copy and went -- Whoa!
|6.9.09 @ 3:26PM|#
domo,
Oklahoman born and raised, and I happen to know for a fact that
most people down here are borderline retarded. And I know that's a
more honest assessment than the one most southerners have of
themselves: that only they know the truth and the rest of the
civilized world is in a giant conspiracy to oppress them and their
truth (of Jesus).
|6.9.09 @ 3:27PM|#
"If you come to this science already having concluded that
climate change is a fantasy then you're not being scientific in the
slightest"
Polanyi disagrees with you.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 3:29PM|#
The Angry Optimist | June 9, 2009, 3:20pm | #
Fine, Tony and Chad, I'll bite. Assume that the consensus is true,
accurate, inarguable, yadda yadda...
Now what?
I don't need to assume that it is either accurate or inarguable. I
simply assume it is the best guess we have.
At this point, the data concerning the possible outcomes and their
respective odds (provided by science) should be fed to economists,
who can attempt to calculate the costs and benefits of various
policy choices. Then we or representatives should vote on policies
which provide the best outcomes.
What we should NOT do is say "I don't know squat about science, but
their data indicates a policy that conflicts with my ideology may
be the best choice, and therefore I will deny their data".
|6.9.09 @ 3:29PM|#
"Oklahoman born and raised, and I happen to know for a fact that
most people down here are borderline retarded."
QFT
|6.9.09 @ 3:29PM|#
Of course.
We'll then, how about this for a proposition.
I'll defer to you on matters pertaining to your specific area of
expertise (is it climate science?)
And you defer to me on my assessment of the economic impacts of
massive increases in effective energy costs - which is an area I am
published in.
Deal?
Mike Laursen|6.9.09 @ 3:29PM|#
Just finished articles in National Geographic about drought in Northern California and Australia. The articles had lots of references to bad water management policies and graphs showing totally random climate history, but yet they still threw in a "could this be an indication of global warming? in each article.
O,Really?|6.9.09 @ 3:32PM|#
The Angry Optimist | June 9, 2009, 3:20pm | #
Fine, Tony and Chad, I'll bite. Assume that the consensus is true,
accurate, inarguable, yadda yadda...
Now what?
Well, since you asked, Murphey, assumes, okay, so what if
everything the climate panel consensus has agreed to is true, and
we only apply mainstream economic measures to that analysis, what
should be done:
http://www.mises.org/story/3491
(To lazy to hyper it this late in the day)
|6.9.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Look, Al Gore says emphatically that we MUST ACT NOW to save
ourselves from a climate horror.
Barack Obama says emphatically that we MUST ACT NOW to save
ourselves from a financial horror.
MUST ACT NOW is what salesman say in Bass-o-matic infomercials.
|6.9.09 @ 3:35PM|#
Tony,
The article Jim linked to agrees that AGW is real, it just disputes
the catastrophic claims. Which plenty of climatologists have done,
too. The conflation of whether we're affecting the climate and
whether we're on a course to disaster is the big problem
here.
One interesting point that they made is that the global emphasis
may be seriously misguided. The global affects of AGW may be netted
out or inconsequential given natural variability in the climate
over time, but the local effects may be a more serious concern. I'd
be much more sympathetic on attempts to limit localized effects,
which would require less draconian measures and would have the
likely side effect of reducing pollution and other unpleasant
consequences of burning stuff for power.
I'm skeptical of most extraordinary claims, particularly when they
aren't backed by very good evidence. The "proof" right now is
strictly in the modeling, which, among other things, has a poor
track record in predicting anything. I don't say ignore it all, but
I do say we're still too ignorant about the environment to start
taking definite steps. I'm all for more advanced and cleaner
energy--fission, fusion, solar, etc.--but that will come without
any particular mandate to move that direction.
|6.9.09 @ 3:38PM|#
EAP,
Okay I am equipped to deal with the philosophy of science, and had
to sit through mind-numbing courses on Polanyi, Kuhn, Feyerabend,
etc. I happen to reject them almost totally, with the caveat that
they raise some interesting points. Scientific relativism acts
against a straw man of science.
Polanyi had some ideas about biology that probably sounded
interesting at the time, but make no sense in the context of the
information available from modern science. Life is, in fact,
reducible to chemistry, and I hope he'd have recognized that if he
lived beyond the 1970s.
Syd|6.9.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Ron Bailey | June 9, 2009, 12:36pm | #
Tim: So good to hear from you! I did describe it as "essentially no
warming trend."
On the other hand, the right hand of the graph is pretty
consistently about .2 degrees higher than the left, all the coldest
seasons are on the left, and all the warmest are on the right, so
there is some indication warming has occured. You'd probably want
another solar cycle or two before concluding there's no warming
trend.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Pro Libertate | June 9, 2009, 3:35pm | #
I'm all for more advanced and cleaner energy--fission, fusion,
solar, etc.--but that will come without any particular mandate to
move that direction.
I don't think people are calling for a mandate. They are just
calling for this industry to be subsidized at the same level as the
fossil fuel industry (preferably zero for both, but that would
never happen).
Did you see that in the latest climate change bill, the coal
industry got $500 million just to do administrative paperwork for
clean coal? What the hell?
Coal's free-public-garbage-dump subsidy is worth hundreds of
billions of dollars per year worldwide. If renewables had that for
just a few years, there is no telling what would happen.
It really is simple in the end - polluters need to pay. This is
textbook Econ 101 and I have no idea why libertarians object to
this principle.
|6.9.09 @ 3:51PM|#
How does short-term warming and cooling correlate with the
increase in CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases?
Hey! I can't make a subscript here? I was not angry since I came to
France Hit & Run. Until this instant.
|6.9.09 @ 3:52PM|#
EAP,
While not everything about the brain is understood, it is now
generally accepted that the brain is capable of producing emotions
through purely physical processes. Both the survival instinct and
human empathy are in principle explainable by reductionist
means.
Anyone who wants to assert otherwise has a heavy burden of
proof--not the other way around, as the postmodernists would have
it. Science produces things. It actually has results, and explains
things in satisfying and consistent ways. It could all be an
illusion but that's just another claim that needs evidence.
Another claim that needs evidence is about the reality of climate
change. Either it's happening or it isn't. Just because you may
believe in postmodern scientific relativism doesn't bolster the
case for either side.
|6.9.09 @ 3:54PM|#
Chad,
I'm not keen on the way the government interferes in the energy
mark. Without subsidies and regulatory barriers on entry, we'd
likely have a much different system than we have today. No ethanol,
for damned sure, but probably a net improvement all around.
Tony,
Ah, that would be Anthropomorphic Global Warming, as opposed to the
Anthropogenic variety.
creech|6.9.09 @ 3:56PM|#
I'd like to agree with Tony, but then I'd have to give up the $1,000/mo. check that the Koch brothers send me to post here. I know you very active posters get a lot more. I wonder what they'd have to pay to get Tony to cave?
|6.9.09 @ 3:58PM|#
It actually has results, and explains things in satisfying
and consistent ways.
So do fiction novels. Science is about prediction. While Brain
science might be able to predict things (I have no idea) its a shoe
in that climate science can't.
Trying to put the burden of proof on someone else is an
intellectual shortcut. Prove your own assertions - don't just
appeal to authority and then try and move the goalposts when it's
the other teams turn. Lazy lazy...
Cal Lipigian|6.9.09 @ 3:59PM|#
First Tony writes....
But that consensus, broadly, has been around for decades, been
ruthlessly suppressed by interested industries and their puppets in
Congress, and completely ignored at places like Reason. That denial
of climate change happens to benefit some of the largest powers on
earth is a good reason to be skeptical of it on its face
Then he writes....
that only they know the truth and the rest of the civilized
world is in a giant conspiracy to oppress them and their
truth
Priceless.
|6.9.09 @ 3:59PM|#
I wonder what they'd have to pay to get Tony to cave?
Surprisingly little. I hope they're reading. I would gladly
sacrifice any and all of my intellectual principles if the price is
right. Although I'd never be enough of a tool to do it for
free.
|6.9.09 @ 4:00PM|#
That's a pretty short list. And note how large numbers of
these people are emeritus professors, which means they are no
longer in the business.
Which could be an indication that once you have left the active
field you are a lot more free to speak your mind.
|6.9.09 @ 4:00PM|#
It really is simple in the end - polluters need to pay. This
is textbook Econ 101 and I have no idea why libertarians object to
this principle.
I have no idea why you think libertarians object to this
principle.
O,Really?|6.9.09 @ 4:04PM|#
creech | June 9, 2009, 3:56pm | #
I'd like to agree with Tony, but then I'd have to give up the
$1,000/mo. check that the Koch brothers send me to post here. I
know you very active posters get a lot more. I wonder what they'd
have to pay to get Tony to cave?
They pay you $1000/mo.? I only get $600 plus a $1.25 commission
every time someone not at my URL post a FTW after my post. For that
I turned my back on Lew?
Thanks, now I feel cheap.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Um, I am a libertarian and I object to the notion that
"polluters" need to pay. Human breathing produces CO2. I
actually object to the notion that CO2 should be considered a
pollutant in any sense of that word, in order for the word
pollutant to continue to make sense.
It's on par with calling oxygen a "pollutant".
Here's how this is going to go:
1. The United States (and, through shame, the Western World,
likely) will unilaterally impose higher energy costs. The rest of
the world won't follow suit. Loser: the Western World, with the
added bonus that the largest "polluters" are still emitting
CO2.
2. The United States and the Western World get tired of "doing the
right thing" while those nations that are visibly making the
problem worse get a free pass. This inevitably leads to trade wars
and, possibly, real wars as a mechanism of enforcement.
Unless The Day After Tomorrow is actually going to occur,
there is no world where trade wars and real wars are worth it to
mitigate a 4 degree Celsius increase over the next 100-200
years.
None.
|6.9.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Tony,
The reason I brought up Polyani in the first place is because he
"demonstrates that the scientist's personal participation in his
knowledge, in both its discovery and its validation, is an
indispensable part of science itself. Even in the exact sciences,
"knowing" is an art, of which the skill of the knower, guided by
his personal commitment and his passionate sense of increasing
contact with reality, is a logically necessary part."
Historically, scientits have hung on to some totally errant
beliefs, which they continued to support due to their personal
blindness to scientific reality. IMHO, AGW scientists have fallen
into this trap.
Think of headlines like "Scientists Discover Universe is Twice as
Large as Originally Believed"
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Now, if the Democrats want to do what I call a "double good", they could end our two wars and effectively obliterate the massive "carbon footprint" those operations have.
|6.9.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Of course, CO2 (dammit!) is a marginal contributor to warming, with water vapor being the big culprit. As a result, I have unilaterally decided to release sandtrout to set into motion the complete desertification of Terra. I am also, simultaneously, starting a company that will sell water and stillsuits to consumers.
|6.9.09 @ 4:16PM|#
Some conspiracies are real, you know.
If everybody puts on a parka at the same time it might be a
conspiracy or it might mean that it is getting colder.
|6.9.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Historically, scientits have hung on to some totally errant beliefs, which they continued to support due to their personal blindness to scientific reality. IMHO, AGW scientists have fallen into this trap.
That scientists get it wrong sometimes is trivially true. But it
doesn't count as evidence for anything; it doesn't mean they are
wrong about this. I'm sure you'd agree, and that you have valid
reasons for believing scientists are wrong about climate change.
But the fact that they are sometimes wrong doesn't mean they are
wrong in any particular case.
|6.9.09 @ 4:19PM|#
TAO,
Is it possible you don't object to the principle that polluters
should pay, so much as, the assertion that CO2 is a pollutant? Say
we were talking about dumping raw sewage into rivers - what about
the principle?
Some way of eliminating negative externalities via markets is a
very libertarian idea.
|6.9.09 @ 4:19PM|#
# It really is simple in the end - polluters
# need to pay. This is textbook Econ 101 and
# I have no idea why libertarians object to
# this principle.
No objection here. It is the definition of "pollution," to which I
object, if anything. It is insanity to label CO2 as a "pollutant."
It is a natural consequence of animal respiration, just as oxygen
-- which we need -- is a natural consequence of plant respiration.
When you classify CO2 as a "pollutant," you basically categorize
animals (including humans) as being sources of pollution -- to be
"capped" as necessary. I hope you catch my drift and understand
where this whole trajectory leads.
|6.9.09 @ 4:22PM|#
Swillfredo-
Didn't you get the memo? If they take the parkas off, it's evidence
of global warming, if they are putting them on, it's evidence of
climate change.
It's kind of like "create or save jobs."
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:22PM|#
domo -
well, a little of Part A and a lot of Part B. The idea that CO2 is
a "pollutant" is patently ridiculous. Doing anything about CO2 is
going to cost more than keeping the status quo.
On the other point, though, I do wonder sometimes: if it's the case
that industry is what has more than doubled our lifespans,
essentially giving us all of these wonderful technologies that
increase the quality of life, etc...might it be that the
externalities are overall positive?
|6.9.09 @ 4:23PM|#
This "animals breathe CO2 therefore it's not a pollutant"
business is staggeringly ignorant. Did any of you learn science
beyond the 9th grade?
I mean you don't even have to have numbers to realize that there is
such a thing as too much of a "good" thing. Greenhouse warming is a
"good" thing in that some level of it is necessary to keep earth
warm enough for human life. But too much means the earth is too
warm for human life. Does this really go over your guys' heads or
are you just being deliberately stupid?
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Tony - I have much larger and more academic / policy points you need to address. Kindly untwist your panties and propose a solution that doesn't involve a tragedy of the commons (which your buddy Chad here has acknowledged previously).
|6.9.09 @ 4:26PM|#
I see our posts "crossed in the mail," domo. Let me add that the libertarian thing is to insist that people pay for the damage they do, and the harm they inflict. Definitions of "pollution" and laws addressing same often assume damage and harm by the mere presence of pollutants, whether or not there is anyone (or their survivors) who can step forward and demonstrate that they were, in fact, harmed or that their property was damaged. That is going about things a bit backwards, in my individual libertarian opinion.
|6.9.09 @ 4:27PM|#
Also CO2 is definitely not the whole story--it's just one among
a number of chemicals that contribute to the greenhouse
effect.
Talking about burden of proof--to me it stands to reason that
somebody would have to have pretty solid evidence that dumping
massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over a
century would have no harmful (or only mildly harmful) effects
before he should be allowed to do it. Don't you think?
Unfortunately it's already happened, and now we have a bunch of
pretty pollyannas running around saying such a radical change in
the atmosphere's chemistry is no big thing, and that there exists
some standard above and beyond the consensus of most experts in the
field that must be met in order for them to believe such a radical
notion.
|6.9.09 @ 4:28PM|#
TAO,
I think the generalized case - the tragedy of the commons - is a
well documented form of market failure. Assuming the "tragedy" part
is a real harm to people it's a type of aggression - albeit without
malice. There is nothing unlibertarian about thinking the
government should intervene in the least restrictive way. In my
opinion a pollution tax, or a cap and trade system are both good
ways to do so, in principle.
|6.9.09 @ 4:30PM|#
TAO,
Assuming with some level of unjustified optimism that the problem
can be solved, the simplest and most effective solution is to put a
price on emitting greenhouse gases, and make it high enough so that
investment in clean energy sources becomes a market necessity. See,
a magical market solution. That should please everyone here.
Everyone except the paid shills for Shell Oil, that is (and I know
you're out there!)
|6.9.09 @ 4:32PM|#
"Talking about burden of proof"
Speaking of which, do you ever post supporting links? Maybe you do
and I have just not been paying attention.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:32PM|#
domo - but without global governance, the problem is
categorically unaddressable. The "commons" in this case is the
entire global atmosphere. If it were the case that Ohio
CO2 emitters were causing global warming in some kind of Ohio
biodome, that would be a different thing entirely and something I
might be able to support.
however, we're talking about a global problem that involves
oligopolistic behavior on the part of all industrialized and
industrializing nations. All of them have to agree "not to cheat"
on CO2 emissions.
|6.9.09 @ 4:33PM|#
To quote Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, on this very
topic:
"'Consensus' is not a science word; it's a political word."
|6.9.09 @ 4:34PM|#
James Anderson Merritt
whether or not there is anyone (or their survivors) who can
step forward and demonstrate that they were, in fact, harmed or
that their property was damaged.
This is a more minarchist view than I individually subscribe to. It
strikes me as more of a legal argument than a libertarian
one.
I believe market failures that harm a broad spectrum of people can
be identified, and should be addressed - though gently. But then
I'm the guy on this board that always gets the job of defending the
Fed - so you can probably tell I tend more towards the "cosmo" end
of the libertarian spectrum.
|6.9.09 @ 4:34PM|#
"Assuming the "tragedy" part is a real harm to people it's a
type of aggression - albeit without malice."
My friend tom worked the oil rigs in the Niger Delta. Believe you
me there harm to the native Nigerians and it is full of malice.
Dr Manhattan|6.9.09 @ 4:36PM|#
When environmentalist were enthralled with the trivial Three
Mile Island incident and the China Syndrome scare, I warned that if
we turn our backs on nuclear energy we are going to have to turn to
coal, and as a result we'll create a warming climate like we have
never seen before. You see that graph, THAT is a +0.04 increase in
temperature for March of this year, hardly trivial. I have been
vindicated! Only now do you environmentalist pretend you were with
me all this time, and pretend to be out front on issue. You called
me an outlier before but now you just recon away the facts and
pretend you got there first.
You'll have to get Mars first before you can brush away the steps I
already placed in the dust.
DADIODADDY|6.9.09 @ 4:36PM|#
domoarrigato
AS REQUESTED YOUR AD HOM ATTACK..." YOU G%^&&**,
MOTHERF%^$ing DIRTY ROTTEN B&*^%$"
|6.9.09 @ 4:37PM|#
TAO,
oligopoly/cheating/biodome etc.
Word - I stipulate all of this. Buuut, the US is the biggest
emitter by FAR. IF (big if) CO2 is fucking up the planet - the US
is on the hook.
|6.9.09 @ 4:37PM|#
No doubt that the fact that we lack a global governing mechanism to address this problem is a huge issue. But some such thing is necessary to address the problem--assuming we can agree there is a problem in the first place.
DAIODADDY|6.9.09 @ 4:37PM|#
TAO
Alright everybody on the count of three, hold your
breath...forever.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:38PM|#
the simplest and most effective solution is to put a price on emitting greenhouse gases, and make it high enough so that investment in clean energy sources becomes a market necessity.
A "price" meaning a tax. Imposed by whom? Where does the money go?
How do you get China and India to *not* consume the "excess"
oil?
Essentially, any unilateral scheme by the United States will
decrease US productivity, do nothing to solve the "problem" and
effectively subsidize production in China and India.
|6.9.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Of course, CO2 (dammit!) is a marginal contributor to
warming, with water vapor being the big culprit. As a result, I
have unilaterally decided to release sandtrout to set into motion
the complete desertification of Terra. I am also, simultaneously,
starting a company that will sell water and stillsuits to
consumers.
Mark my words, you just wait until hydrogen cars come onto the
market in large numbers. Seeing how they emit no CO2, but do emit
water vapor as a product of energy generation, the AGW crowd will
again move the goal posts, nibble around the edges and decry the
evils of continuing to use hydrogen-based products.
Can you imagine the cognitive dissonance protests? BETTER TO GLOW
THAN USE H20!
|6.9.09 @ 4:42PM|#
TAO,
I get what you're saying. If we jump first we'll suffer
economically. But China and India have shown more initiative on
this issue than the U.S. has so far, and we are by any measure the
biggest responsible party. If nobody does anything because they're
worried about economic effects then we're all gonna suffer much
more than a loss in productivity in the long run. Nobody claims
this won't take mature, global action, and that it won't be
hard.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:46PM|#
If nobody does anything because they're worried about economic effects then we're all gonna suffer much more than a loss in productivity in the long run.
[citation needed]
Tony, from 1850 - 2004 (according to the IPCC and NASA), the
temperature change was .7 degrees C. Less than 1 degree C during
the height of the Industrial Revolution and into the modern age.
That's with two World Wars and massive combustion inefficiencies (I
cannot recall now where it was, but I remember reading that it used
to be the case that we only derived something like 30% of the
available energy out of a gallon of gas, and that we're now in the
80-90% range).
You should read that Mises.org link up there. Even assuming the
worst (a 4 degree C change in the next 100 years), you're talking
about reducing global output by 5-10% to mitigate the worst. The
cure is worse than the disease.
|6.9.09 @ 4:48PM|#
"""The fundamentals say temp returns from the northern
hemisphere should be up, temp returns from the southern hemisphere
should be down, over the next few months. Call it a wash."""
lol.
I'm still holding that global cooling trade from the 80's.
Worthless. ;-)
Dr Manhatten|6.9.09 @ 4:49PM|#
When I was a sponsor for Big Atom, I did a commercial one time
with my friend, a Gray, and we dived into a containment pool like
Olympic Swimmers.
The tag line they had me say was, "I Glow, and I use H2O!"
Why they had us doing a water conservation commercial never quited
added up.
|6.9.09 @ 4:52PM|#
# Tony | June 9, 2009, 4:23pm | #
# This "animals breathe CO2 therefore it's not a
# pollutant" business is staggeringly ignorant.
# Did any of you learn science beyond the 9th
# grade?
Take your thinking to the next level of abstraction, boy. Obviously
CO2 and raw sewage are both products of animal life-processes. And
obviously, both can be put to good use, usually by plants. Just as
obviously, too much of either can be harmful to humans and other
living things. Yes, yes, we have all that.
What you don't seem to have, and the reason I use the word
"insanity" to describe political CO2 policies, is the understanding
that CO2 is an essential component of life-as-we-know it. Indeed,
life-as-we-know-it is a significant source of CO2 in our biosphere.
In essence, to presume to regulate CO2 production is to regulate
life -- especially human life -- itself. You have eyes. You have
seen how the political authorities, when given an inch, take the
proverbial mile. We have ways of dealing with or treating raw
sewage (and indeed, ultimately turning it into fertilizer for land
and ocean based plants is a very good way of handling the
material), but there isn't much that animals can do to reduce their
biological CO2 "footprint": ya gotta breathe. So at one point, if
this "GHG crisis" escalates, the only tenable approach will the to
require animals (almost certainly including people) to breathe
less, no longer breathe at all, or never start breathing in the
first place. It is insanity, in other words, to invest government
with the authority to decide who gets to breathe and who doesn't,
but that is at the heart of the assertion that CO2 is a
"pollutant."
To draw back a bit from the extreme argument, the current focus of
regulatory effort is on energy usage. But we have also acknowledged
that energy use (which, given the most commonly-used energy
sources, correlates with CO2 production) is essential to reach and
maintain a modern lifestyle, not to mention improve it. So, even if
we're not at the point of regulating breathing yet, we are
certainly at the point where governments, by exercising authority
to regulate CO2, are deciding who gets the benefits of a modern
lifestyle and who must give them up, or never get them in the first
place. Often, such decisions literally mean the difference between
life and death. It is insanity to give that much authority to
governments, who have shown, over and over again, incompetence and
faithlessness in their exercise of such authority.
It's not that you couldn't make the literal, technical,
small-minded argument that CO2 is a "pollutant," but that we are
better off to leave that argument alone -- to pursue it is
nose-amputation-to-spite-the-face insanity. C02 is not a pollutant
in the sense of being an active toxin. It merely crowds out oxygen
that we need, but is in fact otherwise neutral (or even benign, at
to plant life). In that sense, WATER is a pollutant. You'd do best
to avoid making THAT argument, too.
Dr Manhattan|6.9.09 @ 4:53PM|#
Dr Manhattan, Dr Manhatten, there are days that I am
just so apathetic about my superhero identity, I just don't care to
put ano
ah, whatever
|6.9.09 @ 4:53PM|#
"'Consensus' is not a science word; it's a political
word."
Platitudes are no substitute for wisdom.
Consensus is what it is, and should be taken at face value. Doesn't
mean it's right. Doesn't mean it's wrong either. But it's not
nothing.
|6.9.09 @ 4:54PM|#
The cure is worse than the disease.
TAO, I was going to wait until Chad accepted my offer of
professional deference upthread before hammering this line of
reasoning, but it's obviously never going to materialize.
After you, sir.
|6.9.09 @ 4:54PM|#
"The fundamentals say temp returns from the northern hemisphere
should be up, temp returns from the southern hemisphere should be
down, over the next few months. Call it a wash."
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that in the
Northern Hemisphere, we are approaching summer and in the Southern
Hemisphere, they are approaching winter.
And then there's this:
"According to Long Range Expert Joe Bastardi, areas from the
northern Plains into the Northeast will have a "year without a
summer." The jet stream, which is suppressed abnormally south this
spring, is also suppressing the number of thunderstorms that can
form. The ones that do form in areas of the Ohio Valley and West
are forming in places with very cold temperatures..."
http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=netweather&traveler=0&zipChg=1&article=9
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 4:57PM|#
domo - oh no, I am nothing more than a dilettante in the field of cost/benefit analysis vis-a-vis AGW. I insist that you, as the published expert, take it away. :P
|6.9.09 @ 4:59PM|#
James,
You're way too hung up on semantics. Forget the word "pollutant."
All pollutants are just chemicals anyway. I'm sure you're aware
that at certain levels even CO2 (that fundamental thing of life) is
indeed toxic. Water's toxic at certain levels too. Hell oxygen is
in principle hugely toxic to life (until life evolved to figure out
how to use it).
All anyone is talking about is maintaining a status quo in the
makeup of the atmosphere so that it remains able to sustain human
civilization as we know it.
Although I must say your argument is novel to me. The fear that
since governments always go too far, they will inevitably end up
reducing CO2 levels to an extent that we can no longer breathe is
certainly, uh, something to consider.
|6.9.09 @ 5:01PM|#
TAO, I totally would - but in my current role as economic
practitioner, I have learned to give nothing away for free. In any
case, the joys of $150 oil should be recent enough in everyone's
memory that I doubt I would face much more than token
opposition.
That and it's totally Miller time.
O,Really? |6.9.09 @ 5:02PM|#
domo, don't worry about Chad. Climatologists John Christy and
Roy Spencer offer satellite data, and what does Chad offer as a
rebuttal. A claim that Christy and Spenser are denialist.
Satellite data, or biography? What is the more convincing? You
decide.
|6.9.09 @ 5:03PM|#
"Life is, in fact, reducible to chemistry"
"All pollutants are just chemicals anyway"
So in essence, what you are saying, Tony, is that all life
ineluctably pollutes?
|6.9.09 @ 5:06PM|#
So in essence, what you are saying, Tony, is that all life ineluctably pollutes?
No, I don't think so. I'm saying I enjoy human civilization and I'm
pretty sure my grandchildren will too, and that if there is a
global threat to that I'd like to see it addressed. Just think of
greenhouse gases as terrorists. Big puffs of terrorists.
O,Really?|6.9.09 @ 5:08PM|#
But, hey he is published, yet seems to believe emeritus is indicative of having less knowledge, and not more on a subject. Some confusing contradictions there. It's Miller Time best not to over think it.
|6.9.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Talking about burden of proof--to me it stands to reason
that somebody would have to have pretty solid evidence that dumping
massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere over a
century would have no harmful (or only mildly harmful) effects
before he should be allowed to do it.
Of course, we aren't dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gases
into the atmosphere - only a few percent, half of which gets sunk
back out of the atmosphere, and much of which probably doesn't
contribute to warming because of the saturation effect of
greenhouse gases - after a certain point, more gas doesn't have any
warming effect.
So, there's that.
Forty-Two|6.9.09 @ 5:20PM|#
All anyone is talking about is maintaining a status quo in the makeup of the atmosphere so that it remains able to sustain human civilization as we know it.
Really? That's all? Such a tiny thing like
controlling a system with trillions upon trillions upon trillions
of independent agents, most of which are acting in chaotic and/or
turbulent ways? A system that honest scientists will tell you we
don't really understand? A system that our bestest of
supercomputers can't model? That's all you're talking about
taming?
Tell me, what are some possible negative repercussions of forcing
the planet's climate into an unprecedented steady state?
|6.9.09 @ 5:25PM|#
Tell me, what are some possible negative repercussions of forcing the planet's climate into an unprecedented steady state?
I dunno, what are the possible negative repercussions of altering
its chemical makeup over many decades? That doesn't seem to be a
concern to anyone.
Of course the atmosphere is chaotic and has changed radically in
history. But human civilization is very young, and probably was
only able to exist in the first place because of an unusually
stable climate. We'd have enough to worry about just from a natural
shift in the climate--the fact that we're radically altering it
well beyond what would have happened naturally should be at least
as much of a concern to you as is altering it to a pre-industrial
state.
|6.9.09 @ 5:30PM|#
"the fact that we're radically altering it well beyond what
would have happened naturally should be at least as much of a
concern to you as is altering it to a pre-industrial state."
[citation needed]
O,Really? |6.9.09 @ 5:32PM|#
You should read that Mises.org link up there. Even assuming
the worst (a 4 degree C change in the next 100 years), you're
talking about reducing global output by 5-10% to mitigate the
worst. The cure is worse than the disease.
The worst part about it, TAO (best name acronym evah), or the
tragic irony of it all, if you will, is the technology to
effectively physically remove CO2 from the atmosphere will go down
in price to the low billion range in the next decade or two to
come. Whereas, they, the Tony's, Bush's, and Obama's, would
still prefer to waste trillions of dollars
annually on the most expensive scheme to hit the human race since
the Obama budget. Tragic, and so uselessly destructive.
|6.9.09 @ 5:39PM|#
EAP,
To answer your earlier question, I rarely provide citations. This
is a fuckall blog and I'm lazy and I don't care. I'll provide
citations when I say something that's controversial and you that
can't discover for yourself with a quick perusal of Wikipedia.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 5:44PM|#
whether or not there is anyone (or their survivors) who can
step forward and demonstrate that they were, in fact, harmed or
that their property was damaged.
Since the leading scientific bodies consider it very
likely that humans are causing climate change, I think the
standards of a civil suit are easily met.
Of course, six billion people suing each other would be a mess. It
would be much easier to set appropriate policy instead.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 5:48PM|#
A "price" meaning a tax. Imposed by whom? Where does the
money go? How do you get China and India to *not* consume the
"excess" oil?
The same way we handle every other prisoner's dilemma that comes up
in international relations - diplomacy. It is a pain but it is the
only way. To stick our heads in our sand, let all sides defect, and
wind up in the worst-case scenario is not an option.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 5:49PM|#
Chad - again, you're talking about appropriate global
policy, which is essentially unenforceable and costly.
Look, enough is enough. There have been at least five people on
this thread willing to stipulate to AGW, and have asked "What now?"
and we've essentially been met with "global policy: it's a tough,
hard slog, but the cost in productivity is worth it!"
No, it isn't.
|6.9.09 @ 5:57PM|#
No, it isn't.
You can only hold that position if you believe climate change isn't
the threat it's generally perceived to be. And a much harder
problem to solve than global diplomacy on energy.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 6:00PM|#
Tony - what, specifically, are the "threats" perceived
to be with respect to global warming?
Chad and Tony - I'm China. Give me one good reason to voluntarily
cut production and increase the price of energy. Sell me.
|6.9.09 @ 6:00PM|#
The same way we handle every other prisoner's dilemma that
comes up in international relations - diplomacy.
Diplomacy will never convince China or India to crater their
economies.
|6.9.09 @ 6:16PM|#
Diplomacy will never convince China or India to crater their
economies.
Or in looser terms, go back to the pre-1990s.
We Americans may be fat, lazy and happy with our multi-century
prospering economy, but the current generations in those 2
countries will remember how shitty it was in their own lifetimes,
before market liberalization and cheap energy, and tell you to
stuff it.
How do you say "stuff it" in Chinese?
|6.9.09 @ 6:20PM|#
Well, if the Chinese won't comply, then we'll have to nuke them.
For the environment.
China, India, etc. are really the answer. They won't do anything,
so there is no solution (assuming for the moment that catastrophic
change is in the air), other than coming up with something
game-changing, like fusion.
Chad|6.9.09 @ 6:21PM|#
The Angry Optimist | June 9, 2009, 6:00pm |
Chad and Tony - I'm China. Give me one good reason to voluntarily
cut production and increase the price of energy. Sell
me.
1: In the medium run, you are going to have to do it anyway. Your
fossil fuel resources are mighty thin.
2: Your people will suffer every bit or more than ours from the
mess you will be making.
3: Enormous money is going to be made in this industry. Good luck
winning a game that you aren't playing.
4: We will help you and do our fair share, which is a lot, as we
are more responsible than anyone for the carbon already
emitted.
5: History will not look upon you kindly if you knowingly continue
down a destructive path.
6: If all else fails, sanctions and tariffs.
And RC Dean, please quit the "cratering economy" hyperbole. More
like "I'll have to settle for a small car rather than an SUV"
economy. Seriously, that's about the magnitude of change that
people would have to make. The savings from buying the smaller car
would offset any increased prices of other goods.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 6:33PM|#
Oh, Jesus, Chad, none of that is remotely convincing.
1. Not really. We're the largest producer of coal in the world.
There are not many trends that indicate our Northern Provinces will
run out any time soon.
2. No, they won't. You still can't even tell us what the potential
threat is.
3. Letting the United States sink a significant amount of its
treasure and labor into being "first adopters" of green technology
allows us to let the US make all the mistakes. Given our massive
industrial base, there's no reason we cannot convert into an
"enormously" profitable venture, if it turns out to be so.
4. Like how? With more foreign aid? you're already up to your neck
in debt to us.
5. Mmm, yes, history. Have you been to Tienanmen? Next.
6. you can "sanction and tarriff" your way all the way to the bank.
you're just providing more black markets in our goods and letting
other countries who aren't so sanctimonious buy our stuff.
The Angry Optimist|6.9.09 @ 6:37PM|#
Meanwhile, if I'm China, I'm thinking oh sure, United States, go ahead and make your purchases of oil more expensive. Meanwhile, we'll just falsely report the numbers on how we're "cutting down" on emissions (we've done it before) and get oil more cheaply thanks to your indirect subsidies of us..
|6.9.09 @ 6:56PM|#
My understanding of this issue comes basically down to three
things:
1. The theory that increased C02 levels can cause the planet to
warm. This seems pretty solid foundationally.
2. The theory that man is causing a warming trend noticeable and
distinguishable from the random noise that would exist even if we
had no effect. This one looks interesting, but there's more data to
be collected and analyzed.
3. The theory that we must do something to stave off warning now or
face global catastrophe in the next 100 years. This appears to be
pure assertion and I've seen nothing in the way of evidence to
suggest this. It is at best, theoretically possible, but it seems
all of the most recent data points to that scenario being more and
more unlikely. Some of how claimed that future adaptation costs
would dwarf the costs associated with the "do something now" costs,
and possibly be more effective at dealing with the problem as
well.
Mr. Chartreuse|6.9.09 @ 8:57PM|#
[i]After all, Alabama is known for its scientific
achievements[/i]
Yeah, I mean what kind of idiot makes a rocket that can travel to
the moon?
Mr. Chartreuse|6.9.09 @ 8:58PM|#
Apparently, I'm the kind of idiot who forgets how to use tags correctly.
Logfile|6.9.09 @ 10:18PM|#
And RC Dean, please quit the "cratering economy" hyperbole.
More like "I'll have to settle for a small car rather than an SUV"
economy. Seriously, that's about the magnitude of change that
people would have to make.
What? According to current models, even if every human being on the
planet stopped driving automobiles tomorrow there would still be
significant global warming.
Moving from SUVs to small cars would cause something on the order
of 0.1 degrees C less warming over the span of 100 years than doing
nothing. In other words, it would have no real effect.
The only way to actually make a significant dent in the amount of
warming that will occur without significantly reducing standard of
living will be to replace nearly all instances of burning fossil
fuels with an energy source that does not release greenhouse gases
and is comparable in costs.
|6.9.09 @ 10:56PM|#
# Tony | June 9, 2009, 4:59pm | #
James,
# You're way too hung up on semantics. Forget
# the word "pollutant." All pollutants are
# just chemicals anyway.
I'm not the one who is hung up on semantics, nor the one who put
the word "pollutant" on the table the discussion. Note the
contortions and gyrations that the GHG fanatics have recently used
-- are continuing to use -- to be able to attach that pejorative
word to CO2, precisely because it gives them leave to use force in
"preventive" and certainly punitive ways. The police power of
government was extended to dealing with pollutants, so far from
forgetting "pollutant," the GHG squad uses it as a key tool to tap
into government police power.
# I'm sure you're aware that at certain levels
# even CO2 (that fundamental thing of life) is
# indeed toxic. Water's toxic at certain
# levels too. Hell oxygen is in principle
# hugely toxic to life (until life evolved to
# figure out how to use it).
Weren't you all but accusing people of flunking post-Frosh HS
science a few posts back? Better go back for remedial instruction,
yourself.
CO2 is a largely inert waste product of our respiration. It
typically hurts us by crowding out the oxygen we need, not by
actively bonding with molecules in our bodies or attacking our
systems as proper toxins (such as chlorine and carbon monoxide) do.
It is no more "toxic" than a pillow used to smother you. Yes, the
pillow and the CO2 will kill you, but it is a misuse of language to
talk about either being "toxic" in the same, chemically aggressive
sense as CO, for instance. Not to say that CO2 can't react with
other things, of course -- obviously it is central to plant
photosynthesis, for just one example -- but not generally during or
in the context of animal life processes; it is too stable a
molecule. Oxygen, on the other hand, is HIGHLY toxic in too high a
dose, regardless of the fact that, at lower doses, life has evolved
to use it and even require it. Oxygen aggressively bonds with all
kinds of things, encumbering or dismembering organic molecules with
abandon (not to mention causing iron and other metals to
rust).
# All anyone is talking about is maintaining a
# status quo in the makeup of the atmosphere
# so that it remains able to sustain human
# civilization as we know it.
It's fine to talk about such things, but unwise to do anything
about them unless you are really sure what you are doing. If you
start actively "maintaining status quo," then that raises the
question of what "status quo" would be optimum for humans, anyway,
and should man intervene to keep things "sustainable" if mother
nature -- in the form of decreased ozone layer, volcanic eruption,
increased sun radiance, and other phenomena, just to name a few --
begs to differ?
Earth's climate has never stopped changing. Sometimes the global
thermostat was set lower than now, sometimes higher. The only way
we have any hope of intervening effectively is if we understand the
outcome we want; that is dependent as much on values as on science.
Science, unfortunately, is of limited utility in informing us of
the likely consequences of our actions, much less recommending the
actions we should take. But our fearless political leaders, knowing
a good scam when they see it, whip up the crowds and propose all
manner of freedom-reduction to address the problem, far in advance
of anyone's ability to make competent recommendations about how to
proceed. They know they'll be out office before the scam is busted,
just as most of those who paved the way for our current fiscal
crisis knew they would not have to answer for the consequences of
their actions, if they were later proven to have guessed
wrong.
# Although I must say your argument is novel
# to me. The fear that since governments
# always go too far, they will inevitably end
# up reducing CO2 levels to an extent that we
# can no longer breathe is certainly, uh,
# something to consider.
More likely, they will simply decree reduction in births, which
will have the twofold effect of reducing the biological component
of CO2 generation, as well as the industrial component, as one less
birth is one less person who needs a high-energy/high C02
lifestyle. But good for you, for seizing on the part of my argument
that I admitted upfront was at the extreme end, thus consistently
and faithfully upholding the GHG gang's custom of marginalizing any
opponents in debate, lest any credibility accrue to the other side
by virtue of the merits of their case. If you've paid any attention
to history, and if you are being honest, you KNOW in your heart
that the government will take this thing too far, in the way that
they have exploited every other opening presented to them. The only
question is, will either of us live long enough to see them reach a
given predicted point X?
|6.10.09 @ 3:03AM|#
John | June 9, 2009, 12:34pm | #
At some point in the next twenty or thirty years, the evidence
against global warming will be overwelming. I fear what that will
do to people's belief in science. The up side will be the hillarity
that will ensue as lefties rewrite history. The party line will be
that no one ever advocated drastic action over global warming. They
just wanted more study and a few sensible precautions. Accusations
of hysteria will be just right wing myths.
The funny thing is that you wrote this right after Tim Lambert who
has been trying to rewrite the lefts hysteria over DDT and delete
the left's responsibility over countless Malaria deaths.
Next up from Lambert: "You don't agree with me...you must not
believe in evolution!"
After that i think he normally claims to be the god of evolution or
something.
Lambert is such a fucking idiot.
|6.10.09 @ 3:24AM|#
6: If all else fails, sanctions and tariffs.
Wait are you talking about China?
Buahahahahahahahaha!!!
Boy that would be fun if the Dems got the US into a trade war with
China....i don't think you would see one get elected for 20 years
after that.
Of course after that there may no longer be any elections in the
US....
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|6.10.09 @ 4:56AM|#
"On that note, I brought my allocation to precious metals up to
2/3 today. The pressure on the dollar is relentless, inflation is
inevitable, the commodity complex in general is going up, and the
central banker's ability to suppress the price of gold is coming to
an end. The current dip as the market manipulators try frantically
to exit their short positions is likely to be the best buying
opportunity we will see in a long, long time."
Oh, I see. So, is there anything to worry about yet Deanie? It
seems some months back when we had our initial conversation, you
didn't seem too concerned about the state of economy. Yeah, I can't
imagine the concern now either.
Of course, as we know, this is all the result of Obama's
telekinetic market manipulation. You guys need to lay off the
knee-jerk prophecies for a while. They can come back to haunt you
in this information age.
A circle jerk if I ever saw one.
|6.10.09 @ 7:52AM|#
I'm not the one who is hung up on semantics, nor the one who
put the word "pollutant" on the table the discussion. Note the
contortions and gyrations that the GHG fanatics have recently used
-- are continuing to use -- to be able to attach that pejorative
word to CO2, precisely because it gives them leave to use force in
"preventive" and certainly punitive ways. The police power of
government was extended to dealing with pollutants, so far from
forgetting "pollutant," the GHG squad uses it as a key tool to tap
into government police power.
JAM--This may belong over on the Heinlein thread, but this whole
thing is starting to sound more and more like Niven/Pournell's
Fallen Angels every day.
We may need that lunar colony sooner than later.
|6.10.09 @ 3:50PM|#
We Americans may be fat, lazy and happy with our multi-century prospering economy, but the current generations in those 2 countries will remember how shitty it was in their own lifetimes, before market liberalization and cheap energy, and tell you to stuff it.
Well for about 750 million of those Chinese life hasn't changed all
that much for the better. Most Chinese have experienced the last
couple of decades as a move from peasant farming to sweatshop
working.
But as for the minority who are prospering, they seem to be a
little more aware than the fearmongers on this thread that it's in
nobody's best economic interests to stick with the coal and
petroleum status quo.
Although it's nice to see libertarians affirm that economic
interests can be self-destructively myopic, it's not like China
isn't thinking about these things (at least as much as the U.S.
is).
sun tzu|6.10.09 @ 4:06PM|#
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|6.10.09 @ 8:56PM|#
For a long time, and it may be true today, [Huntsville, AL] had the highest education per capita of any city in the U.S.
I believe it's been superseded in this area by Los Alamos, NM. But
they're still no slouches up there.
Michael Ejercito|6.11.09 @ 1:34PM|#
But as for the minority who are prospering, they seem to be a little more aware than the fearmongers on this thread that it's in nobody's best economic interests to stick with the coal and petroleum status quo.
We could reprocess nuclear waste if the Greeniac lobby did not get
in the way.
Damn President Jimmy Carter
|6.12.09 @ 1:04PM|#
"'Consensus' is not a science word; it's a political
word."
Platitudes are no substitute for wisdom.
Exactly what stage of the scientific method is "wisdom," Tony (you
don't have to answer that; Dr. Moore is an ecologist, and I'm
assuming you're not)?
And don't be so quick to denounce platitudes; apart from some
highly-theoretical (not to mention conjectural, in the most
tortured-logic sense of the word) computer "projections,"
bumper-sticker sloganeering is ALL THE ANTHROGENIC GLOBAL-WARMING
EVANGELISTS HAVE. At least dance with the one who brung you, Tony,
and don't try to pretend that your movement has made an ounce of
headway through anything other than emotionalist appeals.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245