Draft U.N. Report on Man-Made Global Warming Leaked by Skeptic of Catastrophic Climate Change

Every five years or so the United Nations agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), puts together a huge report that tries to foresee the future course of man-made global warming. The next report is due out this coming September. Now climate change skeptic Alec Rawls has posted a draft version the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) online at StopGreenSuicide.com. (which is apparently inaccessible at the moment). Rawls is highlighting statements (calling it a "gamechanger) suggesting that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation has a big influence on temperature trends.

New York Times' superb Dot Earth blogger Andrew Revkin points out that both skeptics of and believers in man-made global warming have been guility of leaking IPCC reports. In fact, he was the beneficiary of just such a leak from a believer:

That was the case in 2000, when I was leaked a final draft of the summary for policy makers of the second science report from the panel ahead of that year’s round of climate treaty negotiations. As I explained in the resulting news story, “A copy of the summary was obtained by The New York Times from someone who was eager to have the findings disseminated before the meetings in The Hague.”

More importantly, Revkin asks the right question with regard to scientific transparency:

Here’s a question I sent tonight to a variety of analysts of the panel’s workings over the years:

The leaker, Alec Rawls, clearly has a spin. But I’ve long thought that I.P.C.C. was in a weird losing game in trying to boost credibility through more semi-open review while trying to maintain confidentiality at same time. I’m sympathetic to the idea of having more of the I.P.C.C. process being fully open (a layered Public Library of Science-style approach to review can preserve the sanity of authors) in this age of enforced transparency (WikiLeaks being the most famous example).

I completely agree.

For the skeptical take on the signficance of this leak go to Watts Up With That. For a believer's take check out Skeptical Science.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • T o n y||

    Scientists believe X. Uninformed morons believe Y. We report, you decide.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Scientists believe X. Uninformed morons believe Y.


    Skeptics prefer not to believe. Tony prefers to believe, along with his fellow uninformed morons.

    Catch this and the weather, at 9 PM.

  • Russell||

    Here to refill heads sucked empty of science by reliance on WUWT is this year's Tyndall Lecture, from last week's meeting of the American Geophysical Union ( a very open shop despite the name) :

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogsp.....ience.html

  • Cnk||

    No one cares about your whores-for-the-alarmists nonsense website.

    The fact that you not only try to pass yourself off as another website, but ignore the fact that you sound like a raving imbecile, means your opinion is worthless.

  • iggy||

    We've already had a good number of commenters say that they believe climate change is real, but that the prescriptions on how to fix it would be so hugely damaging as to be useless.

    Yet Russell still thinks our problem is our hatred of science. Okay.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony's first reaction being a classic appeal to authority fallacy--what were the odds of that happening?

    Even money?

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony confuses fallacy and phallus, so he fellates them both with equal vigor.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's just amazing to see someone who is so ignorant and yet so sure of his knowledge--that he goes around making fun of other people for being sure of themselves when they don't know what they're talking about.

  • T o n y||

    What if you're wrong and the scientific community is right? (A ridiculous notion, I know.) What do you think is the appropriate punishment for people who stonewalled progress on mitigating global disaster? Making fun of seems pretty light.

  • iggy||

    Hey, Tony. What would you do to decrease the amount of carbon being released that wouldn't utterly obliterate global production? Because you always talk about how much you care about poor people, unlike those mean ol' libertarians, but whenever you talk about climate change you seem to want us to drive the price of energy and production up as high as possible.

    Do you know who suffers the most from that? Cause it ain't the rich.

  • T o n y||

    The poor will also suffer the most first from catastrophic warming. I would think libertarians would prefer energy be priced appropriately and not heavily subsidized by transferring its costs to the environment.

  • Cnk||

    you didn't answer the question

  • Ken Shultz||

    "What if you're wrong and the scientific community is right?"

    Then it would never be on the basis of an obvious fallacy!

    By the way, I'm a global warming believer, Tony. It's just that ignoramuses like you going around saying stupid things in defense of global warming probably does more harm politically to the cause of protecting the environment than anything climate change deniers do.

    In fact, if you really want to do the cause of environmentalism some good, become a climate change denier and go around making them look stupid for a while.

  • T o n y||

    They don't need help from me looking stupid. What would be useful is for them not to be so well-funded.

    I am not going to copy and paste peer-reviewed studies on a message board. If people really want to know where current science is on this subject, there is an entire Internet out there and, presumably, brains capable of discerning reliable sources.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.14.12 @ 12:02PM |#
    "They don't need help from me looking stupid."

    No, it'd be hard to out-stupid you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "They don't need help from me looking stupid."

    They may not NEED the help, but you'd help plenty!

    "What would be useful is for them not to be so well-funded."

    Who funds your stupidity, Tony? Who pays you to do this?

  • Rasilio||

    First off the "Scientific Community" is only in general agreement about the basic fact that the earth is warming and that anthropogenic causes is responsible for at least some of that warming.

    There is absolutely no agreement or consensus within the scientific community as to how fast the earth is warming, what percentage of the warming is from anthropogenic causes, and most assuredly not whether it will lead to a global disaster.

    Further even if we assume that the worst case predictions of the actual scientists are true (~3.5 degrees of warming by the year 2100 with somewhere around a 2 foot rise in sea levels) we cannot look to those same scientists for the correct path to mitigating that disaster because that is not a scientific question to be answered. Attempting to do so begs the question that avoidance is the best course of action when there are many other possible mitigation strategies.

  • The Original Jason||

    There is absolutely no agreement or consensus within the scientific community as to how fast the earth is warming

    Or what to do about it…

    But there are plenty of businesses out there that'll sell you a solution!

    That solution, of course, being a subsidy or tax break for them. :-D

  • ||

    Punishment? For disagreeing? Don't worry T o n y, there's some people you'd fit right in with.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    What if you're wrong and the scientific community is right?


    It would not matter ONE IOTA either way, Tony. First of all, the fact that there's Global Warming does not automatically translate to "problem." The fact that scientists agree there's global warming does not mean they agree the solution is to make everybody poor - only the most recalcitrant of socialists think that.

    What do you think is the appropriate punishment for people who stonewalled progress on mitigating global disaster?


    How about fire and brimstone, and the dead walking the Earth again?

    Millenarist idiot.

  • ||

    What if you're wrong and the scientific community is right?

    The scientific community says global warming will not effect anything for 100 years.

    Even if they are right we have plenty of time.

    The problem is dipshits saying tropical storm Sandy was caused by global warming and dipshits saying the oceans will rise 20 meters and the dipshits like you saying that the people saying these stupid things are the scientists.

  • sarcasmic||

  • deified||

    I don't know if anyone cares but Alec Rawls is the libertarian (AnCap?) son of the late lefty philosopher/Giant John Rawls. (There is seriously no overestimatng John Rawls's influence on anglo-american analytic philosophy in the last quarter of the 20th C.)

  • Russell||

    And no underestimating Alec Rawls influence on much of anything. He knows about as much climate science as Ted Kaczynski and has done for analytic philosophy abiut what Skinner's daughter did for behaviorism

  • T o n y||

    Appealing to experts for the best information on the subject of their expertise is not an "appeal to authority fallacy."

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Scientists believe X. Uninformed morons believe Y. We report, you decide."

    That's what you wrote.

    Here's what Wikipedia says:

    "Because the argument from authority is an inductive-reasoning argument — wherein is implied that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises — it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._authority

    Not that Wikipedia is authoritative! Maybe you need a scientist to explain it to you--'cause everything they say is necessarily true?

  • Ken Shultz||

    End italics--Shazam!

  • T o n y||

    You do realize that same article confirms that appeals to authority (with legitimate expertise and an expert consensus) can be a strong inductive argument.

    We are not in Logic 101 class, we are talking about where current science is. How do you do that for any other subject? Do you reject experts because they are experts in any other field?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You do realize that same article confirms that appeals to authority (with legitimate expertise and an expert consensus) can be a strong inductive argument."

    You didn't use it inductively, dummy!

    The same article also explains what a deductive argument is--and you still don't know what it is or why you're wrong.

    Arguing with you is like boxing with a paraplegic--except you think you're winning! I have never in my life seen someone in so desperate need of reading about Socrates...

    Why did Socrates think he was the wisest man in Athens, Tony?

    Hint: It wasn't because the Oracle said so.

    When you start understanding why Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, and start applying that to yourself, you will become ten times smarter than you are right now. Right now, you're an intellectual invalid. That's why you make everything you argue for look stupid in this forum.

  • iggy||

    It's amazing how incapable Tony is of answering a question. You ask a question of his beliefs and he nibbles around the edges without ever confronting the issue at hand.

    I ask him how centralized action can possibly solve climate change or decrease carbon emissions without crushing production and his response is 'Well it totally will, we just have to do it now because more will eventually be necessary if we don't!'

    He's incapable of arguing any point.

  • Restoras||

    iggy, socks don't answer questions...because they are socks.

  • Cnk||

    "It's amazing how incapable Tony is of answering a question."

    that has as much to do with the questioner getting sidetracked by his stupidity as anything else.

    hold him to it. don't take his bait. refuse to engage other than to remind him he didn't answer the question.

  • T o n y||

    How will it crush production? If it's true that we cannot have a decent lifestyle and robust economy without carbon emitting energy sources, then we're basically fucked no matter what.

    Vast investment in a new energy infrastructure can only be good for production, seems to me. There is nothing to be gained from hanging onto a finite polluting resource against all reason.

  • iggy||

    It crushes production because renewable energies are still much more inefficient than fossil fuel. If they weren't less efficient, you could expect businessmen to fund renewable energy, without relying on government subsidies.

    If you clamp down on fossil fuel usage and attempt to enforce renewable energy through government dicta and subsidies, you can expect higher energy prices, as well as higher taxes to support the subsides.

    In addition to hurting the poor, higher energy prices leave businesses with two options: Stay in America and produce more inefficiently, or leave the country.

    Do you see how I am supporting my arguments without backpedaling or making vague, unsubstantiated arguments about human extinction? This is how grownups talk.

  • Dana69||

    Your statement: "Vast investment in a new energy infrastructure can only be good for production" shows how little you know about economics. You might want to 'bone-up' on the "Broken Window Fallacy" to understand the wrongness (sic) in your views.

    I'm guessing your of the same ilk that believes government stimulus spending increase GDP.

  • fish||

    .....and he nibbles around the edges

    Yes he does.

  • T o n y||

    You are not responding to any argument I've made, the only one being "current science says global warming is real, human-caused, and potentially catastrophic." That's all I believe, and I believe it because I trust the scientific process, just as everyone on this board does for less controversial issues. To treat this field differently from any other is to be affected by politics.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    the only one being "current science says global warming is real, human-caused, and potentially catastrophic. [sic]"


    That last part is NOT the consensus at all. Most scientists that subscribe to AGW think there may be potentially catastrophic consequences to GW but NO one is going to tell you that the science SAYS it will be so. Your argument in that regard is wrong.

    The second contention is disputed, as the IPCC report grudgingly suggests.

    You keep conflating these issues as if they were one and the same. One can argue that many scientists agree there's GW, but not that all of them agree that it is entirely man-made and, worse, there's no agreement that there are detrimental consequences to GW. What's detrimental, in the first place? Climate always changes, and man has always coped with these changes, so to say that one condition is bad but the other is not ends up being a question of taste, not science.

  • iggy||

    "The longer we wait, the more heavy-handed centralized action will have to be." - You at 12:12

    Here you are arguing that the way to counteract global warming is through centralized action. This directly contradicts your statement that the only argument you made is 'current science says global warming is real, human-caused and potentially catastrophic.'

    I don't necessarily disagree with your arguments as they relate to the science, but you're using global warming to actively argue in favor of specific policies. To claim that you're just arguing in favor of the science is a blatant lie.

  • Cavpitalist||

    That's all I believe, and I believe it because I trust the scientific process

    Oh, you respect the scientific process, cool. Show us the repeatability, falsifiability or predictive ability of the "humans causing warming that will lead to catastrophe" "consensus".

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    We are not in Logic 101 class


    So you feel justified.

    we are talking about where current science is.


    Science is based on logic and reason. Guess the problem is with your aversion to logic and your penchant for facile and emotional conclusions.

  • Cnk||

    "We are not in Logic 101 class"

    and yet you've still failed.

  • T o n y||

    What is a fallacy is falsely equating the factual authority of so-called skeptics and the scientific community.

  • tarran||

    What is a fallacy is falsely equating the factual authority of so-called skeptics and the scientific community.

    Actually, it's a terrible mistake to conflate the IPCC with the scientific community

  • iggy||

    I don't know enough about Climate Change to bother having an opinion. What I DO know is that virtually every 'solution' being bandied about is either going to have no impact on global carbon emissions or will have a catastrophic effect on energy prices and production.

    For example, let's say all the western nations implemented large carbon taxes. Either production would move out of the countries, in which case global carbon emissions would not be changed since those emissions would simply be happening in other countries, or production would seriously suffer. Both of these would have a guaranteed and immediate negative impact, whereas any negative effects of climate change can probably be mitigated when they arise.

    So Tony, how do you plan on doing anything to stop climate change, when any solution is bound to be an economic catastrophe?

  • T o n y||

    I think there's good reason to believe that the longer we wait to do anything, the more costly the problem will get. That's cost in terms of dollars and human freedom as you guys define it. The longer we wait, the more heavy-handed centralized action will have to be. That's something to think about.

  • iggy||

    Why do you assume centralized action is necessary or will have any impact? The only way centralized action would work is if we force our views on the third world. Otherwise, any action we take will just push production to the third world.

    In other words, the only way your solution will have any impact on global carbon emissions is if we imperialistically force our will on the third world. Are you willing to do that?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Why do you assume centralized action is necessary or will have any impact?"

    Why do you assume Tony has any reasons for the things he believes?

  • iggy||

    I know he's probably gone, since he's a coward, but I'll just leave these here.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi.....-emissions

    That's an article pointing out what a total lack of effect the Kyoto Climate Protocols have had on the CO2 emissions of member countries.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....ears_.html

    Here's an article explaining that United States carbon emissions are at 20 year lows because of fracking.

    Tell me again how central solutions work and the free market doesn't?

  • T o n y||

    Authoritarian action on a global scale is a very bad thing... but it's possible it's not quite as bad as the consequences of global warming. I'd like to avoid that outcome, but concerted action of free societies is the alternative, and they're not getting their act together quickly enough unfortunately.

    My solution is heavy investment in clean energy technology and the deployment of that technology as rapidly as possible. What's yours? To say there are a billion Chinese industrializing on a vast scale, so fuck it let's party till we die?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Authoritarian action on a global scale is a very bad thing... but it's possible it's not quite as bad as the consequences of global warming.


    That conclusion makes no sense, Tony. You cannot pretend to know the consequences of global warming.

    My solution is heavy investment in clean energy technology


    In time you will see that whenever the market offers cleaner or more environmentally-friendly solutions, the statists will still not be satisfied and find ways to demonize the new solutions. Take the change from whale blubber to kerosene to light houses at night: The Market saved the whales. The environmentalists are not satisfied. We have nuclear energy, no emissions - the environmentalists are NOT satisfied. We may still find awesome batteries and more efficient solar panels - still the environmentalists WILL NOT BE SATISFIED.

    You keep missing the point, Tony - the enviros are NOT interested in the progress of man or the welfare of man. They never were.

  • T o n y||

    The ass you're talking from doesn't know what it's talking about. You've obviously invested more mental energy in building stereotypes of environmentalists than in doing a cursory review of current science on this subject. Until you do the latter we have nothing to talk about.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You've obviously invested more mental energy in building stereotypes of environmentalists than in doing a cursory review of current science on this subject.


    You're a shifty one, Tony. YOU were not talking about science but about investment in clean energy solutions. I am pointing out the obvious fact that environmentalists and the other peddlers of "solutions" are not being serious, and then you go and fly off a tangent like that.

    Clearly, I am beginning to think you slept the whole time during your stint at Logic 101.

  • iggy||

    Yet still the primary arguments against nuclear power are environmentalists and they wouldn't build a solar plant, something that is supposedly necessary to save the world, in order to protect one endangered turtle.

    Those aren't stereotypes of environmentalists. These things actually happened.

  • fish||

    The ass you're talking from doesn't know what it's talking about.

    You are a fabulous cliche. I should send you a gift!

  • iggy||

    HAHAHAH! You really are liberalism in microcosm aren't you? There is no way authoritarian action on a global scale will be better than global warming. Sorry. We would have to force the Chinese, all of Africa, all of South America, the Middle East, and most of Asia to halt their industrialization and live in squalor for ever.

    Heavy investment in clean energy? Point me to a single place where that has had the slightest impact on carbon emissions.

    My solution is to party and then NOT die because global warming's impact will not be as dire as you're claiming. Where's your evidence that 'we're all going to die?'

    I present evidence that the only positive impact on CO2 emissions have come from free market sources, not government dicta. You ignore my argument and go back to assuming that the only way to combat climate change is central authority. You present your argument with no evidence. Do you people think you aren't worth arguing with?

  • T o n y||

    Where's your evidence that the effects will be minimal? That's every bit as much of a claim, and unfortunately it doesn't have nearly as much justification. It's just wishful thinking.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Where's your evidence that the effects will be minimal?


    Where's your evidence that the effect will be detrimental as you believe?

    For years the notion that the world would suffer continent-wide droughts and other catastrophes was peddled and yet the predictions totally and miserably failed to come to be. The world has not warmed at all since 1998 (at least not at the rate predicted - which is a BIG DEAL.) And, worse, there hasn't been any extraordinary climatic events; not even Sandy comes close to be the biggest to hit the East Coast - the only reason it was so devastating is because of high population density, not because of volumne of water or energy.

  • iggy||

    You have not offered a single scrap of evidence for anything you've ever said. Yet when I offer evidence that the free market has been more effective at dealing with the problem, you claim that it isn't ENOUGH evidence. I'll tell you what, when you use one scrap of evidence to support something you've said, then you can criticize the evidence I present.

    I'm searching my post in vain to find where I used the word 'minimal.' I said 'not as dire as you claim.' You're arguing that it will cause the extinction of humanity. That's an argument that needs evidence, Tony. There's an awfully big gap between 'global warming will have a minimal impact' and 'it will be an event that causes human extinction.' Either one of those assertions requires evidence, which you have not provided.

  • T o n y||

    If the free market were sufficient, it would have solved the problem by now.

  • iggy||

    If governments were sufficient, they would have solved the problem by now.

    Free markets have done more to solve the problem than government, largely as the result of more efficient engines and cleaner burning fuels.

    Nice argument without argument though, Tony. I would expect nothing less.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I think there's good reason to believe that the longer we wait to do anything, the more costly the problem will get.


    The problem here is with your assumption that there is problem to begin with.

    You assume that all those misleading reports regarding snowless Alps coming from popular journals or student papers mean something. Ignoring facts about past warming periods and confirmation bias (especially when clinging to the notion of superstorms) only indicate your passion and not your wisdom.

    That's cost in terms of dollars and human freedom as you guys define it.


    The mistake YOU make, Tony, is equating freedom with "freedom from want" and "freedom from change."

    The only freedom YOU and everubody else possess is freedom to ACT. As long as people are free to ACT, then they can cope with almost whatever nature throws at them except, maybe, a supernova.

    The longer we wait, the more heavy-handed centralized action will have to be.


    Not at all. There is historical recorded facts that show that centralized action copes LESS successfully with crisis than individual and free action .

  • ||

    I think there's good reason to believe that the longer we wait to do anything,

    Short of starting a trade war with China and India there is nothing we can do.

    CO2 emissions in the US are dropping like an anvil thrown off the empire states building.

  • Dana69||

    You're emotionally projecting an opinion here when you state: "I think there's good reason to believe that the longer we wait to do anything, the more costly the problem will get."

    Also, you fall dangerously close to engaging in the "is / ought" fallacy.

  • Tim||

    You've left out the informed morons.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 12.14.12 @ 11:34AM |#
    ..."Uninformed morons believe Y."...
    Yes, shithead, we're well aware of your condition as an uniformed moron.

  • Torontonian||

    Tony,

    You're ordinarily pretty good at pointing out when someone promoting an idea has a financial interest or other conflict, and thus treating their arguments with skepticism. (e.g. "Of course rich people will promote lower taxes, and we should obviously be skeptical of what they say on the matter.")

    Yet, you seem to be unaware of the literally billions of dollars annually that fuels the climate change activism industry. And even that ignores the hundreds of billions of dollars in "prize money" they're hoping to collect if they can somehow get rich countries to agree to carbon taxes or "reparations" for past emissions.

    I'd say they have a pretty strong incentive to be as alarmist as possible and cover up contradictory evidence. (e.g. "hide the decline").

  • Torontonian||

    BTW, before you accuse be of being a "denier", for the record, I believe that:
    1) the planet has warmed (0.76 C since 1850 when reliable record keeping began)
    2) that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases have contributed to that warming,
    3) sea levels are rising (3.1 +/- 0.4 mm/yr),
    4) ocean pH has declined (around 0.1 pH units total), and
    5) that Greenland's ice cap is shrinking (~200 km^3 per year).

  • Torontonian||

    I also believe that:
    1) the land-based surface temperature records show some amount of warming bias due to urbanization and poor met station siting,
    2) adjustments to raw climate data further increase the reported warming trend,
    3) because the actual amount of warming has been overstated, scientists are attributing too much of it to man-made GHG increases, and therefore overestimating the man-made impact,
    4) the direct radiative forcings of GHGs are known with high confidence and not subject to change, so the feedback multiplier and total climate sensitivity gets overstated,
    5) due to overestimated climate sensitivity, past predictions from climate models have overstated the amount of expected warming vs. actual observations,
    6) prior periods of the earth's recent history (last million years) have been much warmer than present, without having resulted in runaway warming or "tipping points",
    7) earlier periods of the earth's history (last billion years) had much higher levels of atmospheric CO2 (15x higher than today) without resulting in runaway warming,
    8) climate sensitivity is lower than currently estimated and catastrophic "runaway" warming is unlikely,
    9) the economic costs of restricting emissions exceed the potential damages of doing nothing,
    10) absent any man-made warming effects, the planet would most likely be transitioning back into an ice age in the next few thousand years, which would be far more detrimental to humanity than man-made warming would.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Hear, fucking hear. Nice synopsis, Torontonian.

    You're wasting your time sending it to that web traffic-driving duplicitous, sack of shit, sock puppet, but I appreciated what you had to write.

    I'll probably end up cribbing a lot of it, and adding some cites, when I end up arguing with my shithead, parasitic environmental consultant nee-brother in law this Xmas weekend.

    Joy. I can hardly wait...

  • iggy||

    ^^^ I basically agree with everything Torontonian said. It really is sad that we've reached a point where disagreeing over policy can result in someone being labeled 'anti-science.' I've been called a climate change denier before, not because I disagreed with the idea that climate change is real, but because I thought the prescriptions being offered would have such detrimental effects on human existence that it would, in all likelihood, be worse than climate change itself.

    You clearly know more about the science than I do, so thank you for posting.

  • Torontonian||

    Tony,

    You're ordinarily pretty good at pointing out when someone promoting an idea has a financial interest or other conflict, and thus treating their arguments with skepticism. (e.g. "Of course rich people will promote lower taxes, and we should obviously be skeptical of what they say on the matter.")

    Yet, you seem to be unaware of the literally billions of dollars annually that fuels the climate change activism industry. And even that ignores the hundreds of billions of dollars in "prize money" they're hoping to collect if they can somehow get rich countries to agree to carbon taxes or "reparations" for past emissions.

    I'd say they have a pretty strong incentive to be as alarmist as possible and cover up contradictory evidence. (e.g. "hide the decline").

  • Lord Humungus||

    fascists gotta be fascist.

  • Cnk||

    "Scientists believe X."

    No they don't. Scientists, when it comes to science, don't believe anything.

    You were thinking of "whores who pass themselves off as scientists."

  • Cavpitalist||

    Awwww...him is confused on the difference between "consensus" and "science". How positively leftist of him, yes him is!

  • ||

    Scientists believe X. Uninformed morons believe Y

    What is X?

    Scientists believe the global temperatures have not risen in 16 years.

    Scientists believe IPCC models have over estimated warming.

    Scientists believe ocean acidity has no correlation with modern CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

    Scientists believe sea level will rise about 32 cm over the next 100 years not 20 meters.

    Scientists believe hurricane activity and severity has been unchanged from past activity and severity.

    Scientists believe CO2 emissions in the US have dropped to 1992 levels and will probably continue to drop.

    Scientists believe the recent US drought was not caused by global warming.

    Scientists believe global temperatures 1000 years ago were as warm or warmer then now.

    Scientists believe the little ice age was the coldest period of the past 1000 years.

    Scientists believe the 70s were colder then the 60s and 50s and 40s and 30s and colder then it is now.

    Scientists believe the Atlantic ocean oscillation has peaked and is expected to cool in the coming years.

    Scientists believe that without the modeled increases in h20 green house gases that global warming with CO2 alone will be mild.

    Tony, why are you an uniformed moron?

  • OldMexican||

    Every five years or so the United Nations agency Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts together a huge report that tries to foresee the future course of man-made global warming.


    Millenarists write again about incoming doom prophecy.

    News at eleven.

  • ||

    Every five years or so the United Nations agency Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts together a huge report that tries to foresee the future course of man-made global warming.

    How good has the past 4 reports done at predicting anything over the past 20 years?

    The answer is: Terribly.

  • R C Dean||

    As a non-scientist, I've always understood that the Sun is actually a (mildly) variable star, and always wondered why variations in solar radiation never seem to show up in the "consensus" theorizing over the variations in global temperature. It seems like an obvious source of variation in our climate, which has been variable, after all, for far longer than Americans have been driving SUVs.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: R C Dean,

    I've always understood that the Sun is actually a (mildly) variable star, and always wondered why variations in solar radiation never seem to show up in the "consensus" theorizing over the variations in global temperature.


    Didn't you hear? Only deniers would think that the sun has anything to do with climate. The AGW zealots told us so!

  • ||

    RC,

    According to the IPCC numbers, when you graph solar activity and global temperature the curves don't match. Solar activity has been more or less constant since 1980 while temp continues to rise*. Therefore they conclude that solar activity has a negligible effect when compared to other factors.

    *and, yes, I'm aware that this is disputed.

  • Spartacus||

    I don't see how this proves that solar activity is not a factor, just that it isn't the only factor. To see whether solar activity influences temp, we would need to see some actual variation in activity to see if there is any effect.

    if rainfall remains constant and crop yields fluctuate, this does not prove that rainfall is irrelevant to crop yields.

  • ||

    I don't see how this proves that solar activity is not a factor, just that it isn't the only factor

    This is correct. However, it is more correct to add that other factors (greenhouse gasses in particular) have an overwhelmingly greater effect on temperature than the Sun.

    It's similar to how the earth is affected by the gravity of both the Sun and Moon. Though the Sun has far larger mass, the Moon exerts far greater gravitational pull due to its proximity to Earth.

  • WTF||

    However, it is more correct to add that other factors (greenhouse gasses in particular) have an overwhelmingly greater effect on temperature than the Sun.

    Has this actually been proven, or is it conjecture?

  • ||

    My impression is that this conclusion is based largely on measurements that show the near-earth atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling. If the Sun's shortwave radiation were the greatest factor, we'd see warming throughout the atmosphere.

  • Cnk||

    You didn't answer his question. I suspect (know) that is because you're a shill.

    The answer is NO, it has never been proven nor anything close to proven, and YES, it's totally conjecture.

    "My impression is that this conclusion is based largely on measurements"

    Then your impression is wrong, unless you replace "measurements" with "statistical modeling"

  • Spartacus||

    We know this because the inverse-square law for gravity is well understood. The GW case is more like trying to tease out the relative effects of sun and moon (and other planets) just from orbital anomalies, without having an understanding of inverse square laws.

    You cannot know, even as a first approximation, what effect changes in X have on something if the data you have all have the same value for X.

  • ||

    Agreed. I think climate science is young, and our understanding is still developing.

  • WTF||

    According to the IPCC numbers
    Which I would not assume haven't been fudged to advance their agenda. Also, there would likely be a lag between solar activity changes and temperature, as time is needed for the effects to be felt, just like a pot of water doesn't instantly boil when you turn on the heat underneath it.

  • Torontonian||

    There's a difference between total solar irradiance ("TSI", or the amount of radiant energy the sun emits) which has changed very little, and solar activity (or changes in sunspot count, solar magnetic field, and charged particle emissions) which is highly variable.

    Solar activity follows approximately an 11 year cycle, but with significant variability around peak levels, and some notably weak cycles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum).

    The current hypothesis is that changes in solar activity (as opposed to solar irradiance) impacts the earth's climate, possibly by blocking out some amount of cosmic radiation getting through to the earth's atmosphere, which may affect cloud formation and temperatures.

  • R C Dean||

    Solar activity has been more or less constant since 1980 while temp continues to rise*.

    Its not really in dispute that temps haven't continued to rise in the last several years, is it?

    And if a lack of a tight correlation between a variable and temperature rules out that variable, then why is CO2 on the table? The correlation between temperature increases and CO2 concentrations is notoriously weak, after all.

  • ||

    Its not really in dispute that temps haven't continued to rise in the last several years, is it?

    Climate researchers point to the continuing rise of ocean heat content as proof that warming is continuing. They have trouble explaining why the atmosphere hasn't warmed lately.

    why is CO2 on the table?

    First: because both theory and laboratory work support it.

    Second: there are certainly short periods where temps are steady (or even fall) while CO2 continues to rise. Over the long term, though, temp and CO2 curves match. Therefore the argument is that, though transitory events (like El Nino) can exert massive influence over temperature, continued rise of CO2 ensures that the climate will "rezero" higher each time.

  • R C Dean||

    Over the long term, though, temp and CO2 curves match.

    They do?

    Regardless of whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 have any measurable on global climate the true deceit of the IPCC is clearly shown by the statement that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are the source of observed 20th century global warming. Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.

    It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming.

    http://astuteblogger.blogspot......oling.html

  • R C Dean||

    Over the long term, though, temp and CO2 curves match.

    Actually, its over the long term that they don't match.

    The answer is often yes on “medium” timescales, but no on “short” timescales and also no on the very longest timescales of all. If one looks at all three timescales, overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....-al-paper/

  • Cnk||

    You're debating a shill who is pretending not to be a shill RC.

  • R C Dean||

    Imagine my surprise.

  • Not an Economist||

    "Climate researchers point to the continuing rise of ocean heat content as proof that warming is continuing. They have trouble explaining why the atmosphere hasn't warmed lately."

    I seem to remember researchers saying that was the theory but also remember hearing ocean temperature measurements don't quite back that up.

  • ||

    Therefore they conclude that solar activity has a negligible effect when compared to other factors.

    I turn on burner with a pot of water on it.

    When i first test the temperature the water is cool.

    5 min later the water is boiling....according to the IPCC is was CO2 and not the burner that heated the water.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I’m sympathetic to the idea of having more of the I.P.C.C. process being fully open (a layered Public Library of Science-style approach to review can preserve the sanity of authors) in this age of enforced transparency (WikiLeaks being the most famous example)."

    This dovetails nicely with Bailey's post yesterday about how we're all getting smarter.

    It's harder for authorities to hide stuff and fool the public with noble lies, etc., more than it used to be. That doesn't mean whatever authority in question can't ever accomplish a noble lie or won't still try, but if people aren't as easily hoodwinked as they used to be--for whatever reason--then that's another example of people getting smarter.

  • ||

    This dovetails nicely with Bailey's post yesterday about how we're all getting smarter

    I have read letters written by my great grand parents.

    Those letters do not seem to have been written by functional retards.

    Just saying.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I met one of my great grandparents. She wasn't stupid when she was 100.

    That doesn't mean the average IQ isn't increasing.

    I've watched pygmy chimpanzees up close. My grandparents were a lot smarter than chimps. If those chimps and my grandparents had a common ancestor, chances are that common ancestor wasn't as smart as my grandparents.

    My grandparents somehow got smarter. Noticing that the process is continuing and perhaps accelerating is pretty interesting. And no one's saying that any one particular person had a low IQ generations ago. My understanding is that we're talking about trends and averages, here.

    Maybe the relatively dumb people are starting to catch up. Maybe your grandparents were never among the dumb.

  • OldMexican||

    Rawls is highlighting statements (calling it a "gamechanger) suggesting that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation has a big influence on temperature trends.


    Doesn't matter. Tony and his ilk are still going up there to throw a few virgins into the Volcano God to ease his wrath.

  • Jordan||

    This just in: the Sun affects the Earth's climate!

  • Restoras||

    Sorry, Jordan, that's the wrong answer and totally unpossible.

  • sarcasmic||

    Variability in cosmic rays are unpredictable, and therefore must be omitted from the computer models.

    See? The computer models show that cosmic rays have no effect on the climate!

  • Ken Shultz||

    The great thing about science is that all its conclusions are tentative and revised with new and conflicting data.

    Unless you're Tony. In which case, science is something scientists tell you, which makes it permanently true.

  • T o n y||

    And you're not going to believe what scientists are saying until they say what you want to hear.

  • Tim||

    Unless of course the scientists are saying that genetically modified foods are perfectly safe to eat.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Tony can't understand basic logical fallacies. He's probably seen this stuff before, he's just incapable of understanding basic logical fallacies.

    He doesn't know I'm a climate change believer either--despite having responded to my comments on the issue for over two years now.

    He's worse than oblivious. He's incapable of independent thought, and he can't fathom data that contradicts his preconceptions. I tell him I'm on board with climate change--but it's like talking to a Moonie.

  • T o n y||

    I studied logic too. I can tediously name drop logical fallacies too. If you are on board with current science, then why are you bitching at me? What more can I do but say go read some reliable sources on the subject?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure you can list off logical fallacies. Any moron can regurgitate information. Understanding the information is what you lack, because you have no intelligence. You're just a trained monkey.

  • iggy||

    I believe in global warming too, so this is the first time I've ever sort of agreed with you. And yet you're still insufferable.

  • Cnk||

    "What more can I do but say go read some reliable sources on the subject?"

    I'd answer "fuck off and die"

  • Brett L||

    You know, I read the summary linked on WUWT by Rawls, and decided that I was going to withhold judgement until reading the two cited chapters in their entirety. I'm pretty good at reading technical reports, and what he he quoted seemed not to be the gamechanger by itself that he was touting it as. He claims that it says observed solar radiance variation was waaay outside (and on the high side) of the predictive models' forcing, thus invalidating the models. I didn't see the first part, and while it might make the models wrong, it might not do so in the direction of the non-anthropic crowd. I want to read it first, because I'm more against cherry-picking and selective quoting than I am for or against AGW.

  • Ron Bailey||

    BL: I would like to associate myself with your remarks. No cherry-picking by anybody!

  • Canman||

    I notice that the Skeptical Science post has a scary looking rising temperature graph (11 year average, NASA GISS), while skeptic sites usually show a sort of flattened at the end, satellite graph like UAH, which is, well, what you show every month. Is this cherry picking, and if so, how do you justify it?

  • ||

    I would like to associate myself with your remarks.

    They why didn't you read the chapters yourself and report your findings in your article?

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not so much a matter of being for or against AGW, but of having a functioning bullshit detector.

    A functioning bullshit detector sees AGW for what it is: a doomday cult.

    The fact is that consensus is not part of the scientific method. These so-called scientists are operating backwards from conclusion to hypothesis, and rejecting any and all skepticism. That is not science. That's a mix of politics and religion.

    If you can't see that then your bullshit detector needs to be re-tuned or replaced.

  • T o n y||

    You don't know what you're talking about and you're embarrassing yourself.

    However finely tuned your bullshit detector, what you're talking about is a vague feeling or intuition, which you're substituting for some very easy reading on where current science is. You are quite obviously the one putting conclusion before evidence.

  • sarcasmic||

    ALL HAIL KING OF THE DERPS!

    HIP HIP HOORAY!

    HIP HIP HOORAY!

    HIP HIP HOORAY!

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A functioning bullshit detector sees AGW for what it is: a doomday cult."

    I think people are often talking about different things when they talk about AGW.

    Some of them are talking about science, and some of them are talking about the collective solutions that are assumed to be on the table.

    So, when people say they believe in AGW, some of them mean different things. Some of them believe in the government doing treaties, implementing crushing regulation, etc.

    I "believe" there's a problem from the science, but don't believe in the collective solutions that are assumed to be on the table. So, in political parlance, I guess that makes me an AGW skeptic? ...even though I believe in the problem?

    This is what happens when science becomes a public policy issue. This is like the Catholic church getting involved in what Galileo saw through his lenses. It's just political biases interfering with the science instead of religious biases. Galileo couldn't speak the truth without religious implications, and climate scientists can't speak the truth without political implications anymore.

  • ||

    From the WUWT link:

    but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

    Hunh -- these experts Tony "believes" in are discounting the possibility that the SUN might affect climate and the weather? They are saying that all changes in climate are due to humans, and not to that mildly variable source of heat called the sun?

    "We think that pot boiling on the stove isn't really affected by the electric burner turned on under it."

  • Brett L||

    I read that, but I'm not sold on whether the analogy holds. The source quotation is pretty vague, and I don't trust anything anyone says at this point without reading the original first. Tarran has a very valid point below, and I'm not defending the IPCC, but poor behavior by your enemies does not justify selective quoting and gotcha leaking. Rawls may very well be 100% correct, but he's got an agenda and I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon without reading available source documents.

  • tarran||

    Honestly, until the science of cloud formation is understood, scientists will really be incapable of predicting how the Earth's climate will behave.

    One of the most persuasive arguments I have read on the subject argues that clouds, particularly thuder-clouds act like a relief valve, when the air gets moist and hot enough, clouds transfer via convection the heat up to the 20,000 feet where it radiates out to space. The interesting thing was a chart showing that on hot days in the tropics, the midmorning temperature correlated with how early in the day the thunderstorms came, and the temperatures at dusk tended to be far more uniform.

    Of course, the problem is that how a cloud gets started is not known at all. The cosmic ray hypothesis (a cosmic ray ionizes a trail of molecules in the Earth's atmosphere, creating a nucleation point for steam to condense into water) is one very interesting candidate, especially in light of some experiments done two years ago at a particle accelerator that appeared to show the phenomenon actually working. If so, it would provide a neat explanation as to why solar activity seems to affect temperature - the Earth's magnetic field controls the cosmic ray flux, and in turn is affected by solar weather.

    Those experiments, BTW, were blocked for ten years by people who were concerned that it would distract the world from focusing on CO2.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't understand!

    There is a consensus!

    They kicked out the skeptics and then had a vote!

    How could they be wrong!

    They're like all smart and stuff!

    Consensus!

  • $park¥||

    Of course, the problem is that how a cloud gets started is not known at all.

    You see, when a mommy cloud and a daddy cloud love each other very much...

  • ||

    Or when a mommy cloud gets veeeery drunk at the bar, and a smooth talking man buys her drinks ...

  • $park¥||

    Are you suggesting cloud rape? That would never happen, clouds are above all that.

  • Tim||

    What do you think a tornado is?

  • Lord Humungus||

    I see what you did there.

  • Raven Nation||

    How much Rohypnol would you need to take care of a cloud?

  • Stevie OneLeg||

    More importantly, Revkin asks the right question with regard to scientific transparency:

    In my limited experience, questions usually end with question marks, and include certain words like "what", "when" and "how" (and/or a few others).

    Here's an example of a question: Where's the question?

  • Delroy||

    I'm just generally skeptical of the models. That's based on personal experience with doing modelling myself. In my Engineering Masters program I had to do a couple models of systems.

    In one case, I could never get the model to work - even with the assistance of the professor. I showed him all the different ways I tried to get the model to work, showed how I could get pieces of the model to work, but couldn't get the overall model to work, he said, "huh, I guess it can't be done." (meaning it couldn't be done with the modelling software we had available).

    In another case, I was taking the modelling program from a professor's previous student (done as part of his thesis) and then was going to do some futher modelling beyond that. Unfortunately, we only had a printout of the program, so I had to hand-enter each line of code. The program never worked. I had multiple people check my code for potential typos/errors - none were found. I tested parts of the program and those parts would work, but the overall program wouldn't. I concluded that the previous student faked his results and did so in a manner that was convincing to the professor. I never told the professor this - he adored that student. I ended up taking some real-world data and using that as an input instead.

    The models I was working with were very simple compared to something like the Earth's climate.

  • sarcasmic||

    Computer models are only as smart as the people who design them.

    Since no one really understands how the climate works, modeling it is simply not possible.

  • WTF||

    Hence the failure of the climate models to account for the lack of warming since 1998.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That is blasphamy. You are hearby shunned from the climate change (formally know as global warming until that didn't work out) religon. Please turn in all of your Paul Erlich books.

  • Delroy||

    That's a good point - if you don't really understand the detailed working of the system (the climate in this case), then the best your model can be is guess based on perceived trends.

    We've seen how well that works with economic forecasts.

  • Brett L||

    Eh. Our meteorological models work pretty well short term and that system is too chaotic to be well modeled, its just that the general trends dominate and we have a very good idea of first order effects v. second or third order effects. I would prefer a more balanced discussion where people can honestly discuss what the primary effect variables are versus other variables that contribute orders less to the changes, but playing gotcha with the models doesn't move the science forward.

    Climate science is turning into alchemy where everyone goes off and does their work with a few acolytes, and any published record is full of intentional deceptions and errors to keep out the perceived "others". My statements above are my contribution towards moving this back to traditional science where people can be wrong without being hung from the lampposts. Granted, the participants made their own bed, but I don't see why we should all have to lie in it.

  • Cnk||

    "Our meteorological models work pretty well short term"

    No, they really don't.

  • Gray Ghost||

    The European Met Office has a pretty good hurricane model, at least for periods of time less than ~96 hours in advance. The HWRF one isn't bad either, as are the ones the NWC uses to produce their various their hurricane products. Forecasting hurricane impacts has improved dramatically over the last few decades and that forecasting couldn't happen without the time and money put into modern numerical weather models.

    None of which says that what the IPCC et al are predicting has much to do with what will actually happen.

  • Not an Economist||

    ^this + 1000

    While I haven't developed a model, I've used them a lot and had a bunch of rules about using them correctly. One big one is not to a model to predict the future unless it has been proven to be accurate in predicting the future. From what I have seen the climate models haven't managed to predict the future yet.

    Climate science is a multi-disciplinary science requiring expertise in many different areas to be successful. I have a feeling most climate scientists are not as experts in the disciplines as they claim.

  • $park¥||

    This is interesting but I have to say, if you think supermodels everywhere you used the word models it sounds a lot funnier ... and darker.

  • Almanian.||

    Ooo - this is fun! Well played!

  • DWC||

    The earths climate has changed drastically and regularly over the course of the history of the earth and it will continue to do so, largely unpredictably, forever and ever regardless of what mankind does. The idea that man's CO2 output makes any significant contribution to climate variation is as idiotic as believing anything we do is going to prevent the climate from changing as it will.

  • mememine69||

    Climate Blame and Reefer Madness share the same page in the history books now. Nice job girls.
    We owe it to our children to be authentic and intelligent progressives again who doubt, challenge and question all authority in order to legitimize that authority, especially an authority that condemns our own children to the greenhouse gas ovens of climate change. So explain how the world of science would all get together and lie we ask? Because they only agree it is happening, not that it is a real crisis. Not one IPCC report isn’t qualified with “could be” etc. The scientists didn’t lie, we exaggerated and now former believers make better planet lovers.
    *In all of the debates so far, Obama hasn’t planned to mention climate change once.
    *Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses nor any of the debates.
    *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.

    *Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
    We need to stop loving the planet with fear and demand that the millions in the global scientific community finally say in one voice that it will or will not happen, not might happen. Only a comet hit could be worse and let’s save the little tiny catastrophic climate crisis for Harry Potter movies.

  • R C Dean||

    You lost me early on, not necessarily when you called on everybody to be a progressive, but when you did what progressives do, and call for the legitimation of authority.

    No thanks. That's the last thing we need.

  • robc||

    Because 2012 is nearly over and I havent done it enough this year. And to celebrate the fact that he is still alive at age 102 (in 15 days):

    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE
    COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE COASE

  • $park¥||

    Is he the guy that was putting pictures of a stretched out asshole all over the Internet?

  • Cnk||

    Why would someone post pictures of robc all over the internet?

  • Cnk||

    Why would he post pictures of robc all over the internet

  • Almanian.||

    But....SCIENCE!

  • Russell||

    Given Watt's inability to articulate a scientifically cogent critique of the first four IPCC reports ( he also leaked the last one ) it is hardly remarkable he should denounce the fifth before it exists to be read. in print.

    Rawls is a very amatuer astrophysics crank, while Watts is in a snit at the overthrow of his bad weather station narrative by Muller's work - the Koch's BEST buy so far in the Climate Wars

  • Redmanfms||

    I'm really having trouble ascertaining exactly what your position in all of this is. Your solitary contribution to Reason on the subject of climate change science indicates you think the solutions proffered by the environmental movement will mean an instantaneous destruction of quality of life, yet from your mock blog and what you post here you seem to be solidly on the "science is settled" side of the AGW table.

    Would you care to elaborate?

  • Russell||

  • Canman||

    AFAIK, neither Muller or Watts have passed peer review and been published.

  • ||

    AFAIK, neither Muller or Watts have passed peer review and been published.

    Nor has the IPCC reports.

    Mann's thoroughly discredited hockey stick has been reviewed and published though....

    Looking at the record of published and unpublished climate studies and comparing it to other fields of science one might come to the conclusion that climate science can't get its shit together.

  • Cnk||

    "Given Watt's inability to articulate a scientifically cogent critique of the first four IPCC reports "

    That's actually your poor reading comprehension.

  • SAL||

    I'm skeptical of complex models in general, but I think libertarians should at least be open to the possibility that anthropogenic global warming is real, and that it may be a huge negative externality. In such hypothetical case, the moral thing to do would be to internalize it; but would it be feasible, especially in a world with 200 nations?

  • Rasilio||

    Some of us are, where most of us have a problem is actually seeing even the worst case predictions as being catastrophic issues.

    The most realistic projections (that is they come from models which closest match observed reality in the past) put the temperature increase between now and the year 2100 at 1.5 to 3.5 degrees Celsius and sea level rise between 2 and 4 feet.

    Certainly a 4 foot rise in sea level will be problematic for a handful of low lying areas and a 3 deg rise in temperature will change some growing patterns for vegetation possibly leading to some small scale extinctions in sensative ecosystems but it certainly does not appear to be any sort of global catastrophy.

    This is especially true given that we are talking about a time 88 years into the future, 88 years ago we had just exited WW1 and the Model T was the pinnacle of technology. It is entirely reasonable to believe that 88 years from today we will have technology to at least mitigate the negative effects of climate change

    On the flip side what would the cost be of trying to mitigate climate change in advance by restricting further emissions?

    Honestly I do not see how it can be accomplished without cutting the human population of the earth by at least 2 Billion pretty much immediately

  • SAL||

    I agree with you that, from a practical point of view, tradeoffs need to be examined. But AWG really bugs me because it seems to be utterly unsolvable from a deontological libertarian point of view. If I own a small island that disappears and it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it wouldn't have disappeared if it weren't for AWG, theoretically every entity that's a net emitter of CO2 owns me a compensation proportional to its emission. The same would apply to an infinite number of harmful (whether catastrophic or not) changes caused by AWG. I don't see how even an approximate solution could be achieved.

  • SAL||

    *AGW

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I will take any man made global warming to push off the occurrence of an ice age, and to make land in northern latitudes more habitable.

  • JeremyR||

    Yup. Bring back the Medieval Warm Period, I say.

  • Canman||

    Until someone shoots a hole in it, this graph looks like it should bring a sigh of relief:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....us-a-poll/

  • ||

    So the the authority of scientific consensus that Tony keeps talking about says that the authority of scientific consensus has been terrible at predicting global warming.

    Brilliant.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement