A Millennium of Climate Change Predicted

|

That's what is in store for humanity if we don't begin to scale back our emissions of greenhouse gases soon, according to a new study being published later this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. According to the press release describing the report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia.

The study notes that decreases in rainfall that last not just for a few decades but over centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by region. Such regional impacts include decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts. Dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in regions of rain-fed farming, such as Africa, would also be affected.

The study claims that the effects will last at least a thousand years largely because, while the ocean buffers global temperatures by absorbing heat-trapping carbon dioxide, it also soaks up extra heat which it will slowly release back into the atmosphere over the coming centuries. 

The lead researcher, Susan Solomon, from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in in Boulder, Colo., told the AP news agency:

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year—that's not true." 

Note: An economist buddy once told me, "There are no 100-year problems." I can imagine what he would say about a 1,000-year problem. Why did he make such a pronouncement? Because there is no way to adequately forecast the level of technological development, wealth, and competency of social institutions that far into the future. It may be possible to predict long-term climate changes, but such scientific predictions don't tell us what is the best way to make a better future. 

Whole AP article available here

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.

355 responses to “A Millennium of Climate Change Predicted

  1. Utter bullshit.

  2. missed it by that much ๐Ÿ˜

  3. We can’t predict whether it will rain tomorrow, but the 1000 year forecast: dead certain. Our models tell the whole story. I heard this type of certainty once before – from my financial modeling professor.

  4. I still have yet to see one of these AGW fundies explain why an increase in CO2 wouldn’t simply lead to an increase in plant growth and Oxygen levels?

    Anyone?

  5. Sorry, but there is no way to determine with any level of accuracy above a guess what will happen with the climate in a thousand years.

  6. Gee, great thread, folks.

    Ron,

    You see what you get when you throw pearls into H&R?

    I wonder, how much of this nonsense that greets your recent reporting on this issue do you think can be traced to your previous reporting?

  7. On a slightly more philospohical level, I seem to recall being taught that anything that isn’t falsifiable can’t, by definition, be science.

    Since there is no way to prove or disprove these thousand-year climate predictions (or, for that matter, hundred-year climate predictions), doesn’t that mean that they aren’t, by definition, science?

  8. Taktix,

    Well, some plants would see such an increase, other plants would be adversely effected. On a warmer planet you’d probably have more bugs, but you also might have more bug eaters.

    One thing that is important to stress is that for most of the Earth’s history we lacked polar ice caps.

  9. So the sudden cooling of the earth around the 13th and 14th centuries after several hundred years of consistently warm weather was a random fluke, right?

  10. I wonder if they are assuming that most of the developing world will still be using wood for heat and cooking? That’s actually pretty funny.

  11. R.C. Dean,

    They aren’t perhaps amenable to immediate disproof; however, they can be disproved over time (and over a time period that geologically speaking is fairly short in duration). There are lots of areas of science like that.

  12. I predict flying cars in a 1,000 years. That, or flying monkeys.

  13. Since nothing short of nuclear war will reduce emissions in China, India, and Africa, maybe they should focus on geoengineering.

  14. joe,
    Assuming you’re not a spoof on this thread, maybe it’s the fact that many scientists who are recognized as experts in their fields confidently predict things which are later proven to be utter bullshit.

  15. TallDave,
    Everyone knows that windmills and solar panels will magically provide us with all the energy we’ll ever need.

  16. economist,

    Sorry, that was my spoof.

    But if they think a little spoofing is going to drive me off, well, they don’t know Thresdwinner Joe.

  17. I’m pretty sure the astrophysicists who predict that our sun will someday go red giant are, in fact, doing science, RC.

  18. joe, we’ve got to get that sand out of your snatch, it’s making you cranky.

  19. joe wins the thread.

  20. Oh, yay, it’s so much fun when you do this to every thread.

    Your call, Welch: is this how you want H&R to be, or not?

  21. “Thresdwinner joe”?
    Did you mean “Threadswinner joe”?
    Or is it a vague reference? I really don’t know.

  22. While we’re on the subject of thread reform: Matt, can we use sock puppets?

  23. my models predict that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an unallayed boon to human beings and polar bears, who have, after all, been increasing in numbers. My models are quite similar to those of the greenhouse gas alarmists–I pluck results from my fundament.

  24. “On a warmer planet you’d probably have more bugs, but you also might have more bug eaters.”

    That’s why I’m investing heavily in Groovie Candies, a division of Sugar Memories, LLC:

    http://www.groovycandies.com/V2ProdDetail1.asp?Product_ID=1395

  25. And can we ban any handle that’s in ALL CAPS?

  26. econ,

    Hey, 100% of theologians believe in God.

    You know, oddly enough, there’s a lot of opposition to geoengineering from AGW enthusiasts, even though everyone know we can’t limit emissions. It’s almost like the whole thing is just a front for general environmental crusade against modern industry.

    Seward,

    I have heard geologists argue there is an upper bound on warming due to the fact we have a continent (Antarctica) surrounded by water at one pole.

  27. Calling Reason staff!

    I want to hear a big drumroll followed by the “regular” handle of the person who is spoofing joe. C’mon, out with it.

  28. The nice thing about making predictions about life a thousand years into the future is you’re not around to feel like an idiot when you’re wrong.

  29. And, finally, can we still spoof Lefiti?

  30. sage,
    “I wonder if they are assuming that most of the developing world will still be using wood for heat and cooking? That’s actually pretty funny.”

    no but they are assuming most of the developed world won’t mind going back to using wood for heat and cooking.

  31. sage,
    That might be a little hard. Joe has several spoofers. On two occasions I have spoofed joe. But I always made it far-out enough to be identifiable as a spoof by anybody familiar with joe’s posts.

  32. Sigh. Another thread full of my valuable contributions, ruined by spoofing.

    When there’s a comment rating system, then we’ll see who the troll is.

  33. Global warming, my ass. I had to scrape ice off my windshield three mornings in a row last week.

    In Florida.

  34. can we still spoof Lefiti?

    Why bother? The guy’s pretty funny all by himself.

    -jcr

  35. Well, the American people did vote for Change

  36. “no but they are assuming most of the developed world won’t mind going back to using wood for heat and cooking.”
    Actually, I assumed that they thought most of the developed world would be okay with living with central heating or air, cars, planes, electric lighting, or heated water.

    However, it is apparently still OK to ride the bus and use the internet.

  37. No, you may not spoof me.

    I am unspoofable!

  38. I’m pretty sure the astrophysicists who predict that our sun will someday go red giant are, in fact, doing science, RC.

    I’m pretty sure they can roughly estimate the mass of the sun and thus the amount of hydrogen contained in it, observe nuclear processes at work in the Sun and observe other stars which have undergone the same transformation many thousands of years ago.

    Exactly like predicting a chaotic planetary climate 1,000 on, except for being completely different and all.

  39. jcr,
    It is through constant spoofing that we protect the blog from the REAL Lefiti. He just gets pissed off that he can’t write anything that doesn’t look exactly like the spoofs, so he never comes back. And we get to have a little chuckle at his expense with every spoof.

  40. joe | January 27, 2009, 12:47pm | #

    Sigh. Another thread full of my valuable contributions, ruined by spoofing.

    When there’s a comment rating system, then we’ll see who the troll is.

    At this point, she’s just pretty much mocking the site admin.

  41. Climatology. Meh. What’s next, a food pyramid? Damned if I can tell the difference between climatology’s mood swings and nutrition science’s.

  42. Isaac Bartram,
    Don’t you know that cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere is a sure sign of Global Warming? Didn’t you ever see The Day After Tomorrow?

  43. I’m pretty sure they can roughly estimate the mass of the sun and thus the amount of hydrogen contained in it, observe nuclear processes at work in the Sun and observe other stars which have undergone the same transformation many thousands of years ago.

    None of which has anything to do with the question RC asked.

    But make sure you let us know you don’t find the field of science that happens to be politically inconvenient for you to be reliable in every single comment, because it’s so incredibly important to make sure that point gets repeated over and over.

  44. joe,
    How do you know it’s a she?

  45. When there’s a comment rating system, then we’ll see who the troll is.

    Actually, that would probably save us from having to read any of the various joes.

    Slashdot has a pretty good system. Something like would be good.

  46. Going back and forth between he and she is more polite than “it.”

  47. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.

    Allow me to cut to the chase,

    Using essentially 19th century technology, mankind has raised global temperatures. Lowering global temperatures using 21st or 25th century technology is impossible.

    That is supremely arrogant and fucking stupid simultaneously.

  48. “I want to hear a big drumroll followed by the “regular” handle of the person who is spoofing joe. C’mon, out with it.”

    Seconded.

  49. Spoofer at 12:54. Reason, please fix this.

    I’m pretty sure they can roughly estimate the mass of the sun and thus the amount of hydrogen contained in it, observe nuclear processes at work in the Sun and observe other stars which have undergone the same transformation many thousands of years ago.

    True. Sorry, I should have realized there are millions of observable stars but no observable Earth-like planets. I stand corrected.

    Maybe it’s time to re-evaluate the accuracy of predictions in this field. I will give it some serious thought.

  50. Predictions about the future can obviously be scientific if they are falsified by the prediction failing to happen. If a scientist predicts that because the sun has characteristics X, Y and Z, it will turn into a red giant, and then it (or, more plausibly, many other stars of X, Y and Z nature) does not, that scientific prediction is falsified.

    A prediction that with CO2 level X we might have desertification in regions A, B and C in 1000 years is falsifiable, but predictions that with CO2 level X we might have desertification, drought, increased rainfall, higher temperatures, cooler temperatures, deadlier storms and/or uglier women are not. I haven’t RTFA, so dunno how broad are the claims in this study, but AGW as a package, since it has a confirming explanation for every possible future climate event, is not falsifiable/scientific.

    A good essay about falsification by Karl Popper, who made it diagnostic for scientific claims.

  51. economist,

    right as to the assumptions of the study – i was speaking more to the unspoken assumptions that would coincide with their draconian and ruinous remedies.

  52. “I want to hear a big drumroll followed by the “regular” handle of the person who is spoofing joe. C’mon, out with it.”

    Seconded.

    Thirded, with the caveat that if its’ more than one person they are all listed.

  53. joe,
    Climatology is unreliable. Part of it has to do with simply being a “younger” science, and some of it might actually have to do with the agendas of many of its practicioners.

  54. because the best trolls are always female

  55. “I want to hear a big drumroll followed by the “regular” handle of the person who is spoofing joe. C’mon, out with it.”

    Thirded..ed…

  56. forthed – whoops

  57. Oh, shit, I’m about to be outed!

  58. Now hear this!

    Spoofing is infantile behavior.

    That is all.

  59. Will you also be needing my alter ego?

  60. On the other hand, the spoofer gives me the opportunity to write as much rude shit as I want without worrying about damaging my reputation.

    (PS, it’s SIV.)

  61. “joe | January 27, 2009, 1:03pm | #
    On the other hand, the spoofer gives me the opportunity to write as much rude shit as I want without worrying about damaging my reputation.

    (PS, it’s SIV.)”

    For real?

  62. “A Millennium of Climate Change Predicted”

    Change We Can Believe In!

  63. Isaac,

    Me, too. Fortunately, I kept my ice scraper from my years in the U.S. portion of the Great White North. Everything’s back to normal, now–it’s 80? outside.

    Any science that deals with chaotic or complex systems that aren’t easily reducible is going to have problems. I don’t think we should give up, but I think we need to be cautious about buying too many conclusory statements. What’s interesting is that the practitioners should know better–the validity of core assumptions, the accuracy of much of the data, and the limitations of computer modeling still present a substantial amount of error.

    I object to spoofing that isn’t clearly identifiable as a parody. For instance, using a different e-mail handle than joe would be one way to do it.

  64. When do we get the difinitive study that says it’s too late, allowing us to get back to our regularly scheduled lives and say, “fuck it Dude, let’s go bowling”?

  65. It’s interesting the same people that believe in global warming are the ones who believe in evolution. Why is one crazy and the other isn’t?

    Denial of either seems to be agenda driven rather than science driven. Is it that libertarians just haven’t come up with a reasonable way to solve the problem when 6 billion people and counting have to be on board to solve it? I know we don’t want government to mandate anything, but anyone know of a better way if it’s determined that global warming, is in fact, man made? I’m asking seriously.

  66. Yes, I think it’s SIV. Haven’t seen him for a while, have we?

    BTW, you libertarian fuckheads claim the mantle of reason like it was your fucking crib blankey, but when the scientific evidence is inconvenient for you, you turn into Ben Fucking Stein in “Expelled.”

    Cunts.

  67. It’s Tuesday. I say that every Tuesday.

  68. Still waiting for who is spoofing joe.

  69. Guys, once again, chill with the spoofing. Here’s why. I’ve said this before in another thread. I’ll say it again:

    Some of us work in places where there may be 1000 or so employees behind a single IP. *raises hand*

    And within those cases, some of us know of other people within our organization which are occasional H&R posters. So here’s the bottom line, if you’re down the hall in accounting (or more likely, sales), you might be fucking someone elses shit up, to put it delicately.

    So stop.

  70. R C Dean

    On a slightly more philospohical level, I seem to recall being taught that anything that isn’t falsifiable can’t, by definition, be science.

    That is true but its not just a philosophical question but also a pragmatic one. If you can’t ever make a measurement that can prove a hypothesis wrong, how do you know its right? Without a means of conclusively destroying a hypothesis the hypothesis may only appear correct due to chance.

    ACGW suffers greatly from the inability to test its assertions. We can’t even falsify the temperature records on which it is based. We can argue that the records show this or that but no one can propose an phenomena which if observed would prove the temperature records inaccurate. Likewise, cannot disprove that increased CO2 levels are the primary driver of our current warming. I have ask several dozen scientist running sites about global warming what we could observe that would prove that ACGW wasn’t happening. No one can answer. There is no phenomenon that cannot be seen now if CO2 will cause extreme warming in the future.

  71. That was uncalled for, troll.

  72. Evolution, si; anthropogenic global warming that requires the world stopping now, no. On the latter point, I’m willing to be convinced, and I think the evidence of a warming trend is significant, but that’s about it.

    Science is a wonderful tool, but just because an area of investigation is labeled “science” doesn’t make its conclusions The Truth. In many disciplines, the generally accuracy of the science is obvious–physics, chemistry, even biology to a lesser extent (and Zod no, I’m not talking about evolution which is really not debatable as a biological mechanism). But when you venture into irreducible (or not easy to reduce) and not fully understood areas like psychology, nutrition, meteorology, climatology, etc., well, I think bald pronouncements should be taken with a few grains of salt.

  73. This alleged “study” is just part of the full court press propaganda effort to generate a sense of panic in the public sufficient to generate support for massive government increases in power over everyone’s lives and the economony.

    Hey Ron, how about a post on the 650 climate scientists who stood up at a conference in Poland and said that man-made global warming is a hoax?

    Or have you done one on that already?

    If so, I didn’t see it.

  74. Hogan, great link.

    would anyone like to defend AGW in light of Karl Poppers 7 conclusions about scientific theory? It’ll be hard going…

  75. RC,

    Interestingly, you can falsify certain aspects of the models. It is a completely fair question to ask if the current temperature trends are statistically consistent with the model results given some threshold of certainty. Lucia over at The Blackboard covers this. Currently most of the models are not looking like they predict future conditions very well.

    I would also think it is generally wise to be skeptical of those who do science by press release. In the more serious disciplines, there are career consequences for those who are loud and wrong. You can generally get a feel for the seriousness of a field by examining how they deal with loud and wrong individuals. Compare and contrast how the physics community dealt with Fleischmann and Pons to how the ecological community dealt with Ehrlich

  76. I know we don’t want government to mandate anything, but anyone know of a better way if it’s determined that global warming, is in fact, man made? I’m asking seriously.

    I’ll assume for the purposes of your question, that when you say “man made”, you really saying “100% man made”. Because the further complication of this whole warming thing is that the world cools and heats up cyclically, with no help from us humans. So assuming that yes, 100% of all the warming we’re seeing is due to human activity, something should be done.

    Honestly, I’m far less worried about developed countries doing *something* about it, than I am about the third world. Developing countries are already taking care of the problem (and will continue to do so) by increasing efficiencies through a multitude of technologies.

    Third world countries really have to go through their respective industrial periods until they build the wealth necessary to become introspective about climate and efficiency, and spend less time worrying about putting food on the table.

    I know that doesn’t provide a difinitive ‘answer’ to your question, but it’s a beginning.

  77. Let me tell you fuckheads something else: Ron Bailey is trying to save your sorry asses. As hard as he tried for so long, he couldn’t bring himself to keep clinging to denialism, but he has enough brain cells bumping into each other to realize that it just wasnt’ tenable.

    So now, he’s very politely, very cautiously, and with lots of hand-holding and team-building and references to common cultural touchstones, trying to keep you cunts from being completely fucking discredited, not just in the area of global warminig, but as a whole. He’s doing everything he can to try to coax your sorry asses out of the intellectual bunkers he helped you build.

    I hope he fucking fails. I hope you make it point of sacred fucking honor that you will defend Mt. Denial or die trying, because it’s completely fucking indefensible, and the more thoroughly you’re killed off the better.

    Fuck it, don’t listen to me. You know a lot more about climate science than those socialists with their fancy degrees. Not one step back, retards! Not one fucking step back; that’s how heroes win!

  78. I have ask several dozen scientist running sites about global warming what we could observe that would prove that ACGW wasn’t happening. No one can answer. There is no phenomenon that cannot be seen now if CO2 will cause extreme warming in the future.

    A good example is the recent news that a model incorporating the PDO suggests we won’t see any warming for another 10 years (then of course warming takes off).

    Presumably, in 10 years, there will be another model that says “Oops, looks like that big warming is now another 10 years away.” They can do this ad infinitum.

    There’s a good analogy in the recent sunspot cycle. We were supposed to be well on our way to large sunspot numbers in Cycle 24 by now. Every month it doesn’t happen, and every month scientists release a new graph where the rise is pushed back.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/15/sunspot-lapse-exceeds-95-of-normal/

    Fortunately, they aren’t asking for trillions of dollars.

  79. 1:22 is a spoof, of course. You’re not fooling anyone with your ridiculous parody.

    I’ve heard a lot of good arguments in this thread and am seriously re-considering based on the facts on this issue.

  80. None of which has anything to do with the question RC asked.

    Actually, that was you, joe.

    The physical sciences can use the observable universe around them, and known physical laws, to make realistic predictions of stellar events, since they have all of these identical laboratories cluttering up the galaxy. Cosmological predictions are relatively easy to determine falsifiability by looking at other stars of the same mass, age and composition.

    Climatologists, OTOH, can look at a much more limited set of data, stick a finger in the air and make a wish about how things will be in a thousand years, with no way to real back up the claim.

  81. We know you well enough to detect it, joe. Unless you started channelling Rod Blagojevich, 1:22 is clearly a spoof.

  82. “because the best trolls are always female”

    Females shouldn’t troll at all. It’s not lady like. It’s something only whores do.

  83. “Paul | January 27, 2009, 1:30pm | #
    We know you well enough to detect it, joe. Unless you started channelling Rod Blagojevich,”

    Or Lefiti.

  84. Nick,

    I, for one, am also little confused by the denial of many libertarians when it comes to man-made climate change. It seems to me that the evidence points pretty strongly to the conclusion that carbon emissions are having an effect on the climate.

    We shouldn’t try to ignore these facts, and I actually believe that this data should be well known so that individuals can plan for it if they feel like they need to. What is disturbing, however, is that those who produce the data often-times call for some kind of intrusive government action as the only way to deal with this impending peril.

    I have faith that a free society is best equipped to determine the degree of peril and how to react to it. Government action is not only slow and inefficeint, but it may actually throw wrenches into the workings of a free society, actually making it more difficult for individuals to “fix” the problem.

  85. I called it a long time ago that “nobody you know…” was SIV. The guy is pretty obvious. Posts incapable of reaching more than two or three sentences, thought incapable of reaching past the second or third grade level. This is what happens when you nourish your brain on talk radio and Michelle Malkin.

  86. joe wins the thread.

    And now you libertardians see why they call me Threadwinner Joe.

    I can’t wait till we get a comment rating system so everyone sees the proof of my threadwinning ways.

  87. The physical sciences can use the observable universe around them, and known physical laws, to make realistic predictions of stellar events, since they have all of these identical laboratories cluttering up the galaxy. Cosmological predictions are relatively easy to determine falsifiability by looking at other stars of the same mass, age and composition.

    Climatologists, OTOH, can look at a much more limited set of data… And draw conclusions in the same manner as evolutionary biologists, who also don’t have any other planets to compare to our own, but oddly, whose ability to understand their subject and draw conclusions aren’t denounced by “skeptical” libertarians.

    Odd, that.

  88. fuckity FUCK – not only am I being impeached, now these fucking libertarians are shit fuckity accusing me of spoofing! FUCK!

  89. “anyone know of a better way if it’s determined that global warming, is in fact, man made?”

    That’s a mighty big “if”.

  90. I’m curious, do the folks here just think this is some big conspiracy by the National Academy of Sciences? Or do ya’ll think these folks with about ten years of higher ed training and then umpteenth years of working in the field who are recognized by their peers as doing great work have missed something that you amateur Einsteins have hit on?

    Jesus. Just say “I don’t like the implications of global warming because some people are going to try to use it for government programs I am ideologically opposed to” and save everyone some time.

  91. The spoofer has ruined this thread.

  92. Since there is more atmospheric CO2 when the earth warms and less when the earth cools due to the varying ability of water to hold CO2, all we need to do is cool the earth. If we can do that, then we won’t have the problem of CO2 causing global warming.

    First thing is to increase global dimming. I suggest we start by bypassing the catalytic converters on our cars. Also, every home should have a fireplace. This will help a lot and will also be of value as we approach the apocalypse and have no electricity for heat.

    Next, we cut down all the forests and burn them in a low-oxygen environment.

    Then we need to tell
    these people
    to start conserving.

  93. And now you libertardians see why they call me Threadwinner Joe.

    Can anybody think of a formerly-frequent commenter who I’ve made look like a fool enough that he’d have a grudge against me, but not want to argue with me or put his name on posts taking exception to me?

    McCain landslide! Sexism, Panic, Flat-footed! John Kerry was leading on this date in 2004! People LOVE Sarah Palin!

  94. I’ve heard a lot of good arguments in this thread and am seriously re-considering based on the facts on this issue.

    Which actually raises an interesting question (to me at least). You seem to be a pretty typical AGW type. What would make you reconsider this position ? Anything ?

  95. joe’s 1:22 comment is dead on guys, really you can’t see this is what’s happening? Bailey gets paid to tow to libertarian nonsense, but the man has to go to Charlottesville and DC events with folks not raving about the evils of the US Census and the illegal nature of the 16th Amendment, and denying AGW is getting pretty out there for more and more scientists, so the guy is bravely and correctly trying to help you guys not get laughed at quite so much. I don’t mean to be harsh, but this thing is becoming your creationism. Really. You should switch to talking about what can be done to address this in the least-liberty restrictive way.

  96. joe | January 27, 2009, 1:08pm | #

    Yes, I think it’s SIV. Haven’t seen him for a while, have we?

    So joe-troll (Lefiti) is trying to start a fight between joe and SIV?

  97. Joe, did he carve the “B” backwards too?

  98. We have a spoofing troll on thesd threads, Artifex.

    I haven’t heard anything on this thread that is any more convincing than the lest set of denialist talking points, which just like every other iteration, were quickly refuted and forgotten, just as these will be.

  99. Oh lord, don’t get worked up about it, let the fool spoof. Anyone can tell who is really who, I mean c’mon. Just scroll down and laugh.

  100. I am so fucking popular here I should have gone to Hit&Run Comments High School.

  101. AGW is getting pretty out there for more and more scien

    This is 2009. This year it’s genetically modified foods.

  102. And draw conclusions in the same manner as evolutionary biologists, who also don’t have any other planets to compare to our own, but oddly, whose ability to understand their subject and draw conclusions aren’t denounced by “skeptical” libertarians.

    Oddly enough, the evolutionary biologists aren’t asking for trillion-dollar government programs based on their conclusions.

    Oddly enough, the evolutionary biologist weren’t coming to the exact opposite conclusions in the 1970s that they are now.

  103. And draw conclusions in the same manner as evolutionary biologists, who also don’t have any other planets to compare to our own, but oddly, whose ability to understand their subject and draw conclusions aren’t denounced by “skeptical” libertarians.

    I’m sorry, can you link for us the evolutionary biologists who are making questionable predictions about what man will evolve into in a thousand years?

    Yes, it is odd, you conflating a science that draws conclusions of what *used to be*, largely dependent on fossil records, with that of an unrelated science making 1,000 year predictions of chaotic systems based on a completely different set of data and dependent on computer models.

    It almost makes me think you don’t have any idea of what you are talking about.

  104. I am assuming my accuser is the joe spoofer and not the real joe. The only commenter here who accuses me of posting under another handle(that I don’t actually use) is BDB.That might be a “clue”.

  105. MNG,

    They think that no one will give a job to a scientist who draws conclusions that are at odds with the consensus about global warming.

    Not universities. Not research centers. Not government atmospheric agencies. Not the AEI, CEI, Marshall Institute, Exxon-Mobile – nobody.

    No, scientists know they will end up starving in the streets if they collect solid information that undermines the evidence for global warming, because that’s how the scientific community works, and lord knows there’s no support for such a message outside of the universities and scientific agencies. So they keep quiet.

  106. “I’m curious, do the folks here just think this is some big conspiracy by the National Academy of Sciences? Or do ya’ll think these folks with about ten years of higher ed training and then umpteenth years of working in the field who are recognized by their peers as doing great work have missed something that you amateur Einsteins have hit on?”

    Wouldn’t be the first time…

  107. Oddly enough, the evolutionary biologists aren’t asking for trillion-dollar government programs based on their conclusions.

    That this is considered a respectable point to make when considering the state of science tells you all you need to know about global warming denialism.

  108. R C Dean | January 27, 2009, 12:32pm |
    Since there is no way to prove or disprove these thousand-year climate predictions (or, for that matter, hundred-year climate predictions), doesn’t that mean that they aren’t, by definition, science?

    I know this has been covered-ish above, but the Falsifiability thing has to do more with “in principle” than “it is really hard/takes a long time to get the results.”

    Shannon Love,

    The fact that you have been ignored does not indicate that these scientists do not work with falsifiable hypotheses in their research.

    Just saying.

  109. Guys, my troll is trying to make me look close-minded and insulting. I think those of you who know me know I am polite, reasonable and open-minded.

    Should be pretty obvious who the troll is.

    Which actually raises an interesting question (to me at least). You seem to be a pretty typical AGW type. What would make you reconsider this position ? Anything ?

    Thanks for asking. Well, you know, like most AGW proponents I was relying on what’s called “argument by authority” — surely all those scientists couldn’t be wrong. Then some people here pointed out there are lots of expert predictions being proven wrong all the time. So I’m going to have to think about that and look at the data for myself.

  110. “SIV | January 27, 2009, 1:44pm | #
    I am assuming my accuser is the joe spoofer and not the real joe. The only commenter here who accuses me of posting under another handle(that I don’t actually use) is BDB.That might be a “clue”.”

    Nope, not me. BTW, I’m far from the only one who accused you of posting under another name.

  111. Yes, it is odd, you conflating a science that draws conclusions of what *used to be*, largely dependent on fossil records, with that of an unrelated science making 1,000 year predictions of chaotic systems based on a completely different set of data and dependent on computer models.

    Good thing the evolution of life isn’t chaotic, and that we have such a complete fossil record…

    Oh, wait…

    Funny how “but there’s holes in the record!” pops up exactly where you’d expect it to.

  112. Also the fact that spoof joe and I just posted simultaneously pretty much rules me out.

  113. the Falsifiability thing has to do more with “in principle” than “it is really hard/takes a long time to get the results.”

    Some AGW predictions have already been falsified. Check out sea ice, for example.

  114. Most scientists, like Derbyshire has written on NRO, are just not that political. They really spend a ton of their waking time doing science (well, and trying to get grants to do that). It’s incredible to assume that most of them are involved in some goofy conspiracy or are missing something that dude’s with engineering bachelors degrees and bookmarks to Tech Central Station…

  115. The first SIV comment on the thread, which is also the first one in days maybe weeks, consists of him denying that he’s the spoofer.

  116. Because SIV is smart!

    One word: strategery.

  117. It almost makes me think you don’t have any idea of what you are talking about.

    That was rude and uncalled for. Just because I brought up a ridiculous analogy from a science that makes no predictions of any import doesn’t mean you have to insult me.

    If you can’t make valuable contributions like me, you should leave the thread.

  118. You know, appeals to Galileo are really stupid in this context, as the Church leaned on him. There was no system of peer reviewed and independently funded science in his day as there was now.

    And interesting, Galileo’s theory “won” in the same way that AGW is winning, it slowly but surely convinced more and more folks until it became the consensus.

    Of course the very fact that nearly all experts think X doesn’t mean one can absolutely conclude that X is true, that is really all the “argument from authority” fallacy holds (how many people that throw that out have taken more than into-to-logic at State U for christsakes?). But it would be really strange to take as a general rule for your life or for national policy “all expert consensus is wrong.” In fact, it would be madness.

  119. No, no, that can’t be true!

    The guy who used to pretend to only be concerned with cock

    fighting laws, and who spent the entire campaign repeating McCain’s talking points and telling us that Sarah Palin was going to deliver the election is both too honest and too intelligent to spoof like that, and then screw up and out himself.

  120. Alright, guys, it was me all along

  121. joe | January 27, 2009, 1:49pm | #
    The first SIV comment on the thread, which is also the first one in days maybe weeks, consists of him denying that he’s the spoofer.

    Clearly not the real joe as I kicked the real joe’s ass the other day on denying Obama said a word on invading Pakistan.

  122. Regardless of who is spoofing, this combined with “nobody u no” and “lurkerbold” makes me think we can coin the term “Joe Derangement Syndrome” now.

  123. I’m sorry, can you link for us the evolutionary biologists who are making questionable predictions about what man will evolve into in a thousand years?

    I can. I just don’t want to.

  124. joe isn’t here or he is spoofing himself.

  125. But it would be really strange to take as a general rule for your life or for national policy “all expert consensus is wrong.” In fact, it would be madness.

    They don’t, of course.

    They just make one exception, which just so happens to apply to an issue which is a political football.

  126. Ok, i’m starting to believe it’s SIV.

  127. False,

    ome AGW predictions have already been falsified. Check out sea ice, for example.

    Well, you would need to be more specific than “sea ice,” but, yes, some specific hypotheses about sea ice have been falsified.

    I wonder how people imagine that these complex models get developed in the first place.

    It seems some here picture a cabal meeting in the star chamber to put together a plausible hoax.

  128. JOE IS JOE BUT ISN’T JOE AND IS JOE BUT NOT. EXCEPT WHEN HE IS AND ISN’T; A SUPERPOSITION OF JOE, IF YOU WILL.

    TROLLING IS A LOST ART, FOR TODAY’S TROLL’S SIMPLY IMITATE. A TRUE TROLL CREATES ORIGINAL INSULTS AND ESCHEWS REASONING FOR AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND VERBAL (AND NOT SO VERBAL) ‘BATING.

    HOWEVER, THE URKOBOLD HAS NOT ARRIVED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU FOOLS THE DECADENCE OF MODERN TROLLING. NO. HE HAS COME TO EXPLAIN WHY THE WORLD IS GETTING HOTTER. IT’S BECAUSE GAIA IS A LESBIAN AND HAS PERCEIVED THE EXISTENCE OF DENISE MILANI.

    GET THEE TO MY BUNKERY!

  129. The only person I can think of that has a real personal vendetta against joe, really, would be TallDave.

  130. As joe said though it is not uncommon for a variety of scientific fields to make predictions far into the future.

    I mean, when that sun burns out think of the government programs that may be proposed to address it! You guys better get to denying that stuff all ready, for the good of liberty…

  131. …and he keeps defending his honor, after not writing a word until called out for being the spoofer.

    You’re like James Bond, SIV, except the opposite.

  132. I don’t believe that the comment above me is really joe either.

    For my part, I hope that it’s Gary Gunnels or whomever blowing off a couple of days’ worth of steam.

  133. Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population.

    “I want to testify today about what I believe is a planetary emergency-a crisis that threatens the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.”

    Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action. Also, Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited.

    “Just six weeks ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is unequivocal. Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause.”

    “The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now. The debate is over! There’s no longer any debate in the scientific community about this.” (from An Inconvenient Truth)

    Bandwagon: Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking”. Also, Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

    “Today, I am here to deliver more than a half million messages to Congress asking for real action on global warming. More than 420 Mayors have now adopted Kyoto-style commitments in their cities and have urged strong federal action. The evangelical and faith communities have begun to take the lead, calling for measures to protect God’s creation. The State of California, under a Republican Governor and a Democratic legislature, passed strong, economy wide legislation mandating cuts in carbon dioxide. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have passed renewable energy standards for the electricity sector.”

    Flag-waving: An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. Also, Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action.

    “After all, we have taken on problems of this scope before. When England and then America and our allies rose to meet the threat of global Fascism, together we won two wars simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific.”

    Ad Hominem attacks: A Latin phrase which has come to mean attacking your opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments. Also Demonizing the “enemy”: Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman.

    “You know, 15 percent of people believe the moon landing was staged on some movie lot and a somewhat smaller number still believe the Earth is flat. They get together on Saturday night and party with the global-warming deniers.” (October 24, 2006, Seattle University)

    Appeal to Prejudice: Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

    “And to solve this crisis we can develop a shared sense of moral purpose.” (June 21, 2006, London, England)

    Black-and-White fallacy: Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice.

    “It is not a question of left vs. right; it is a question of right vs. wrong.” (July 1, 2007, New York Times op-ed)

    Euphoria: The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale:

    Live Earth concerts organized worldwide in 2007 by Al Gore.

    Falsifying information: The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization. Pseudo-sciences are often used to falsify information.

    “Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” (May 9, 2006 Grist interview)

    Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. Also, Obtain disapproval: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience

    “There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it’s no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.” (January 15, 2004, New York City)

  134. I’m sorry, can you link for us the evolutionary biologists who are making questionable predictions about what man will evolve into in a thousand years?

    It’s a good think global warming deniers never applied their studied ignorance and conspiracy theories to refuting climatologists’ observations about a warming trend, and only started to deny the science when it made predictions, or this argument would be completely worthless.

    Oh, wait…

  135. Clearly not the real joe as I kicked the real joe’s ass the other day on denying Obama said a word on invading Pakistan.

    Yeah, but then I brought up Sarah Palin, so POW! you lose.

    And that’s why they call me Threadwinner Joe.

  136. Of course it’s SIV. He was “nobody you know…” too as I said weeks ago.

    Cock fighting just doesn’t have that same umph it once did, and there’s a young Georgian in an identity crisi right now. Let him work it out and let’s get back to the topic.

    Leave spoofs and the funny stuff to the Urkobold, Mighty Lord, though he be Legion may his Taint Never Stain! As Sheen Easton said, Nobdy does it better…

  137. I propose the following: if in five years there are still no sunspots, and we have witnessed a precipitous decline in global temps – all you AGW advocates get to suck it hard, and vow never to post on science ever again.

  138. nice spoof @ 1:26

  139. I LOVE BIG COCKS. THEY ARE CONTAGEOUS.

  140. OK, let’s please, please clear this up.

    Citing the conclusions of experts in the relevant field as a reason to think something true is simply not a fallacy of logic or reasoning. Please! Take a f*cking logic class, there is a university or community college NEAR YOU (some with virtually no placement tests).

  141. On one hand, I do believe AGW is happening. OTOH, I don’t think its nearly as bad as Al Gore et al. are making it out to be.

  142. I also think natural climate cycles play a role, and that we’re just piling on.

  143. ” But it would be really strange to take as a general rule for your life or for national policy “all expert consensus is wrong.”

    Circular logic.

    If someone cannot definitivly prove what they are claiming is true, then there is no proof that they are an “expert” on the matter to begin with.

  144. ..and there’s a young Georgian in an identity crisis right now…

    But WE’RE the real Americans! WE are! Not THEM, US!

    How can this be happening?

    I hate you, joe p boyle. Oh, how I hate you…

  145. Guys, you don’t get it. You can trot out all your facts and quotes, but I win because I can just call you “denialists.”

  146. domo
    What if we would have met that bet with all the folks who, denying AGW now, denied GW period five years ago?

    They’re all like “well of COURSE the climate is changing, we just can’t know what man’s role…”

  147. Not the first thread I’ve stumbled into to see if there were any interesting comments and find people are talking about me.BDB and MNG are the usual suspects.There is another one posting on thsi comment thread as well.joe, not too likely unless he is trying to list “GOP shills” for the War on Terror or something.

  148. I propose the following: if in five years there are still no sunspots, and we have witnessed a precipitous decline in global temps – all you AGW advocates get to suck it hard, and vow never to post on science ever again.

    Let’s be clear on the bet.

    1) NO SUNSPOTS (NONE, not a one, nil, nada)
    2) Precipitous decline in global temps in FIVE YEARS…meaning that the long-term trend is wiped out by a single data point…in other words ICE AGE IN FIVE YEARS.

  149. Citing the conclusions of experts in the relevant field as a reason to think something true is simply not a fallacy of logic or reasoning. Please! Take a f*cking logic class, there is a university or community college NEAR YOU (some with virtually no placement tests).

    Thank you!

    Also, calling someone a rude name is also NOT a fallacy of logic or reasoning. Again, same logic class.

  150. I once got spoofed. I felt a little violated.

  151. Citing the conclusions of experts in the relevant field as a reason to think something true is simply not a fallacy of logic or reasoning

    Right, like for instance 100% of theologians believe in God, and they’re the experts. Therefore, God exists.

    If you understood logic like me and MNG, you could have a jacket with “THREADWINNER” on it like I do.

  152. If I thought theology was a science, I wouldn’t want to use my real name, either.

  153. I haven’t heard anything on this thread that is any more convincing than the lest set of denialist talking points, which just like every other iteration, were quickly refuted and forgotten, just as these will be.

    I couldn’t imagine you would be swayed by white noise on a political blog, but that really does not answer the question. As a AGW believer, what data would convince you otherwise ? Some possibilities include:

    The models are statistically falsified ?

    James Hanson has a “Road to Damascus” moment and recants ?

    30 future years of flat temperatures ?

    Wait 1000 years and see ?

    What is the set of data that would cause you to reevaluate ?

  154. It isn’t you, SIV, I’m pretty sure its TallDave.

    “TallDave | January 27, 2009, 12:44pm | #
    econ,

    Hey, 100% of theologians believe in God.”

    Followed by spoof joe:

    “Right, like for instance 100% of theologians believe in God, and they’re the experts. Therefore, God exists.”

    Yeah. There you go.

  155. No, Gilbert, all those PhDs in the relevant fields, who got super high SAT/ACT/GRE scores, accomplished ten years of higher education at challenging universities, then published paper after paper in peer reviewed journals and got grant after grant, and became tenured professors at top universities or top researchers in scientific organizations, no reason to think those guys and gals know what the fuck they are talking about on stuff like this. Yep. That would be illogical thinking.

    Incredible.

  156. I gotta say, with all the trolling H&R has gone downhill from when I started joining you all about two years ago. Too bad, really.

  157. Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population.

    I’m not afraid of global warming. I’m concerned. That’s totally different.

  158. Once again, what are the odds?

    “TallDave | January 27, 2009, 12:44pm | #
    econ,

    Hey, 100% of theologians believe in God.”

    “[spoof]joe | January 27, 2009, 2:04pm | #

    “Right, like for instance 100% of theologians believe in God, and they’re the experts. Therefore, God exists.”

  159. OK, this is me are you happy now?
    First time I ever used his email

  160. I gotta say, with all the trolling H&R has gone downhill from when I started joining you all about two years ago. Too bad, really.

    “This forum has gotten a lot worse since I started contributing to it.”

  161. What’s funny about this is how little experience SIV has with academe. I’d bet most theologians at non-religious academic institutions DON’T believe in God. But of course more on point theology is not the study of demonstrating the empirical existence of God, so the analogy is terribly bad.

    And you have to love the misunderstanding of the hominen fallacy. Calling someone a rude name is not what its about, it’s drawing a conclusion about a point from insulting the maker of it.

    Yeah, nobody has that talk radio-ish pseudo-intellectualism like our SIV.

  162. Two decades with a net reduction of temperatures, based on robust data and not cherry-picking an extreme outlier for the starting point, even as atmospheric levels of GHGs continued to rise, would be a serious rebuke to the existence of global warming.

    Someone discovering that carbon dioxide doesn’t actually increase an atmosphere’s ability to trap heat.

  163. Close tags, you fucking douche.

  164. I’ll fifth, or bajillionth the call for knocking off the trolling…

    Especially when they don’t close their tags.

  165. MNG, I’ll take bets, it’s what I do. No AGW advocates EVER bet ANYTHING on making a prediction that can be disproven or fail to come true. Hearkening back to Hogan’s post, I insist that this place climate “science” clearly in the realm of pseudo-science, even as I reiterate Poppers point that sometimes pseudo science an be “right by chance.” Until there is some predictive risky assertion that AGW scientists make and can confirm, I feel free to assert it’s no better than astrology-with-supercomputers, and focus on stuff I can do something about forthwith.

  166. Hey, all the posts just went all Boldy…

  167. I don’t know if you are the real or fake MNG – (not that there is much difference anyway) but as I have said before:

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

    So PHDs, etc. don’t mean diddly squat in the determination of it. The only thing that counts as proof is actual definitive proof.

  168. The open tags were me. Spoofing joe? Why waste my time himself he does a fine job.

  169. BDB,

    TallDave has never shied away from saying unpopular things in his own name; why would he shy away from insulting me in his own name?

    As opposed to SIV, whose very first action as a commenter was to choose a handle in order to mislead the readership.

    TallDave has original ideas and a pretty sharp mind; SIV is a dull-witted fellow who very rarely wrote something that wasn’t copied from another web site.

    TallDave filters me.

  170. Urkobold?,

    YOU APPROACH GREATNESS BUT STILL YOU FAIL. . .”CONTAGEOUS?” AND WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO HOT, BUSTY WOMEN? FAILURE TO YOU, APPARENTLY, IS AN OPTION. TSK, TSK.

  171. So, TallDave, you’ve been spoofing joe?

  172. “TallDave filters me.”

    So he says.

    Really, though, both TallDave and your spoofer used the exact same talking point! Come on. That’s just too obvious.

  173. No AGW advocates EVER bet ANYTHING on making a prediction that can be disproven or fail to come true.

    That’s just false.

    Flat out.

    Unless the odd term “AGW advocate” refers to some special class of people who never make predictions that can be proven false.

  174. Two decades with a net reduction of temperatures,

    Oops, looking back at the temperature record I just realized I’ve disproven AGW.

    Can I get a mulligan on that?

  175. Hmmm. Not too exciting to be 158th in line, but, Ron, I’m sure you’ve been reading all of these, hoping to find mine. I love the comment from lead researcher Susan Solomon, “People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 year – that’s not true.”

    We go from Bush pseudo-science to Al Gore supercilious science. There is no such thing as “normal.” Temperatures a thousand years ago, more or less, were warmer than they are now, and temperatures 500 years ago were colder than they are now. The Bush people distrusted science because they didn’t think it would give them the answers they wanted. The Obama people love science because they make sure that it does give them the answers they want.

  176. Besides I’m still pretty sure he has a chip on his shoulder about the “B Girl” thread.

  177. Hell of a fan club I’ve got here.

    You’re Welcome

  178. We can’t predict whether it will rain tomorrow, but the 1000 year forecast: dead certain

    I predicted that this thread would get stupid by comment #25. Do I get a prize for this?

  179. Domo
    Where do you get that claim? Seriously, who are the global warming advocates you are talking about that you’ve read?

    The IPCC report for example makes quite specific statements about this stuff.

    But more to the point: were this true, you don’t think all those experts in the scientific community have noticed this (I mean, these guys know all about Popper and such)? And you don’t think they’ve had to ask for and get an answer that satisifies them? I mean, all they under some collective madness from eating the same mushrooms at some conference? It boggles the mind…

    I mean really, let’s show some humility.

    And before anybody wets their pants, its a big difference to say “hey, let’s show some humility before we assume the experts are wrong” and “hey, let’s show some humility before we assume the experts are right.” The whole idea behind the humility is that the folks without the expertise have much more reason to show it!

  180. BDB,

    So he says.

    There were a couple of threads where I completely refuted a fairly long string of his comments, and he never attempted even indirectly to defend them.

    Also, SIV’s lack of independent thought would lead him to frequently repeat statements other people make that he agrees with.

  181. People used to behave semi-civilized here, mostly kinda sorta. What happened, fucktards?

  182. Well, whatever. There’s only one way to be sure, its to ask the admins.

    I have a feeling there is going to be registration soon.

  183. Hmmmm, well, of the spoofees, joe can prove himself easily enough. Just ask him to operate heavy HTML ?

  184. Oops, looking back at the temperature record I just realized I’ve disproven AGW.

    BZZZZZZZT!!!!

    I’m sorry, disqualified for cherry picking.

    Taking any of the following years as your starting point shows a dramtic increase in temperature:

    1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000.

    It is only if you take an extreme outlier year, 1998, as your starting point that you can even make the case that temperatures are flat – flat, not even cooling, just flat.

  185. People used to behave semi-civilized here, mostly kinda sorta. What happened, fucktards?

    I happened.

    Get used to it. I’m Threadwinner Joe and cannot be stopped. Rawr!

  186. I do wonder if the troll crap is way out of hand because of the imminent threat by REASON of screwing up the comments format. Are we going to have to post full contact ifo like Dondero and lonewacko?

  187. NM,

    “Let’s be clear on the bet.

    1) NO SUNSPOTS (NONE, not a one, nil, nada)
    2) Precipitous decline in global temps in FIVE YEARS…meaning that the long-term trend is wiped out by a single data point…in other words ICE AGE IN FIVE YEARS.”

    Lets.

    1)IF there exists a level of sunspots far below the value predicted by 11 year cycle – recognized as being an irregular cycle by applicable solar scientists.

    2)AND there has occurred a precipitous decline within the context of the temprature increases currently being claimed by pro-AGW scientists. ie. if 0.2 degrees a decade is good enough for you, it’s good enough for me too – only fair.

  188. And, of course, the devoted “skeptics” of science don’t ever seem to find anything odd about the fact that the people whispering what they want to hear always start at 1998.

    Because they’re skeptics, you see. I’m a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

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

    That is quite possibly the dumbest statement I’ve heard on this site masquerading as intelligent talk that I have heard around here since TAO’s “if something is necessary then it is good” bullshit. What the fuck do you think you mean by this? Do you realize how many fields achieve this “unequivocal quantification as 100% accurate by physical measurement in the physical world?” Hint, a lot less than you probably think and act on every day of your life.

  190. I have a feeling there is going to be registration soon.

    Defeatable but usually not worth the effort.

  191. And of course it’s well known Man was not releasing any CO2 before 1980.

    If you look at 1938-1958, say, then you might see a cooling trend, but that’s what we call Inconvenient Truth and can be safely ignored.

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

    Oh, and by the way, you need to take Econ 101.

  193. That is quite possibly the dumbest statement I’ve heard on this site masquerading as intelligent talk that I have heard around here since TAO’s “if something is necessary then it is good” bullshit.

    MNG, Gil Martin. Gil, Mister Nice Guy.

    I thought you two had met.

  194. I hope someone figures out the silver bullet of energy, which as far as I can tell would be a proton-boron fusion reactor with a very high power density.

    I also hope that someone is a Red-stater who loves NASCAR, because when he throws his new invention in his lifted Hummer with four-foot mudders replete with No Fear, Jesus Saves, and Dale Earnhardt stickers to a Tobey Keith concert to show it off.

    That will put the AGW crowd in one panty-twisting fit, because what they REALLY hate is the H2 with mudders at a Tobey Keith concert, and all the culture that picture suggests. And now they’ve lost the supposed moral reason to make it illegal. Ooooh, I can at least dream.

  195. “No AGW advocates EVER bet ANYTHING on making a prediction that can be disproven or fail to come true.

    That’s just false.

    Flat out.

    Unless the odd term “AGW advocate” refers to some special class of people who never make predictions that can be proven false.”

    What risky Popper-qualifying prediction has been made by Climate science? Cite please.

  196. If you look at 1938-1958, say, then you might see a cooling trend

    Which, btw, is in the middle of a century-long warming trend.

    So, cooling trends show that there isn’t a warming trend, except when they don’t. Well, the current cooling trend shows there’s no warming trend, except it doesn’t exist.

    This would all make sense, if only you were skeptical. Like me.

  197. Whoever is spoofing is trying (with slight success) to troll me. Look at who is doing the same thing under their own handle.If the spoofer is totally html illiterate that would be MNG.
    I doubt it is him or the spoofs would be long, rambling,and contain a high degree of ad hominem.
    After 5:00 they’d show signs of intoxication:)

  198. If registration comes with the ability to post pictures, I’m all for it. I will flood this place with lolcats macros and 4chan seizure gifs. And my tagline will be long, inane and Ringu-like in its ability to kill you after 7 days.

  199. I just got a Teaching Company newsletter that provides some free materials. Among those highlighted this time is 38 Ways to Win an Argument from Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Art of Controversy. What’s funny is how many of these techniques–which are entirely focused on argumentative victory, not on uncovering the truth–are used around here. Schopenhauer failed to anticipate #39: “Pretending to be your opponent”, but they only had the barest beginnings of the Internet back in the early-to-mid 1800s.

  200. “People used to behave semi-civilized here, mostly kinda sorta. What happened, fucktards?”

    All the women left.

  201. That’s it completely Hal, I hate Tobey Keith, and that is why I oppose AGW!

    All those scientists and their scientific associations that say it’s true, that’s just window dressing!

    Besides, seeing as how Dale was a pussy who did not drive a real car (Ford) except for one brief stint that I recall there is good reason to hate that guy anyway.

  202. Which, btw, is in the middle of a century-long warming trend.

    So now you don’t accept a 20-year cooling trend?

    Just curious.

  203. If SugarFree does that, I’m going straight to meatspin gifs and gooatse guy. I AM BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.

  204. If one more person refers to falsifiability as the definition of science, I will strangle someone. Popper’s dead. Try picking up The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, or Science and Pseudoscience. To quote the latter:

    [The hallmark of empirical progress is not trivial verifications: Popper is right that there are millions of them. It is no success for Newtonian theory that stones, when dropped, fall towards the earth, no matter how often this is repeated. But, ] so-called ‘refutations’ are not the hallmark of empirical failure, as Popper has preached, since all programmes grow in a permanent ocean of anomalies. What really counts are dramatic, unexpected, stunning predictions: a few of them are enough to tilt the balance; where theory lags behind the facts, we are dealing with miserable degenerating research programmes.

    If someone wants to talk about whether 1000-year predictions count, then by all means. But let’s not talk about falsifiability any more please.

  205. Were my philosophy not so much scribbled nonsense and a collosal piece of mystification, I would demonstrate the utter falsity of that rogue’s Schopenhaur’s brilliant ideas on the will.

  206. Which, btw, is in the middle of a century-long warming trend.

    And there you have it: they won’t accept any evidence. They’ll just say it’s not part of the larger trend.

  207. I see the comments looking like Althouse, McCardle etc.

    I decry the recent unpleasnatness that has befallen the comments but if the response is a sucky registration scheme I advocate mayhem and war by proxy.If you are bored and have the time and skillz anyways.

  208. Christian
    Please don’t confuse the children, they’ve come across Popper’s idea somewhere and, having found it, simply must use it. That philosophy of science is a complex subject and even Popper’s ideas are hotly contested therein is not something a polite person would bring up here.

    I mean, you’re dealing with people who have noted the fatal Popperian failure of all the peer reviewed findings that all of these experts foolishly and haughtily have overlooked!

  209. So only the regular liberals here actually believe in science. And I’m supposed to take your guys’ advice on economics? Give me a break with this crap. If it’s not “it’s not falsifiable!!” it’s “Here is my interpretation of facts based on common sense, which is obviously more trustworthy than a worldwide scientific consensus.” And the variations on the old standard, “if we don’t know everything, we know nothing.” Of course no one can touch the supreme logic of “utter bullshit.”

    You can’t have a workable economic theory by applying your personal experiences to the whole world, and you can’t look out your window and disprove global warming because it’s snowing. The lack of scientific literacy here actually surprises me.

  210. Not “if” Warty… when.

    And my avatar will be an animated gif of the guy’s head exploding in Scanners. And I will make your eyes rue the day they first opened.

  211. Christian Brown, I don’t get it, the quote seems to have as much in common with Poppers view that bold predictions that can be tested and refuted ar ethe important thing, as it does at odds with it. Is that intentional?

  212. So now you don’t accept a 20-year cooling trend?

    Good point: A 20 year cooling trend that isn’t immediately followed by a warming trend would have to occur for there to be reason to doubt that global warming is happening.

    Shorter-term cycles and variability have produced such wobbles throughout the past 100 years, but they overall trend has still up sharply upwards.

  213. Again you conclusively prove your love for barnyard animals, Wilhelm.

    I win! I win!

  214. And there you have it: they won’t accept any evidence. They’ll just say it’s not part of the larger trend.

    Note that the question of whether a cooling trend actually is, or is not, taking place within a larger warming trend just doesn’t matter to “Falisification.”

    It should; but it doesn’t.

    Clearly, this is somebody who takes seriously the truth, and a proponent of a rigorous approach to the data.

  215. The only person I can think of that has a real personal vendetta against joe, really, would be TallDave.

    What about John?

    Not only have I not seen him lately, but he’s probably pretty sore that Obama won…

  216. Zounds, must I always be bested by the quick wit and good looks of that scoundrel! Arthur, I curse you and the Zeitgeist of the times!

    Oh well, at least I had such an influence on that bright young chap Karl. He’s bound to make the world a better place someday!

  217. No, John doesn’t strike me as a troll at all. He argues honestly, and admits to being a partisan Republican (though he can go overboard). He’s just Mirror Universe joe, not a troll.

  218. MNG,

    Wait, so now your saying that Popper doesn’t matter, and that I was a silly silly fool to have placed any stock in his ideas whatsoever. That sounds a lot like, “I can’t find any evidence to refute my opponents claims upthread, so I’ll make ad hominem attacks instead.”

  219. *shrug*

    I think the evidence for man’s contribution to global warming is pretty compelling.

  220. There is a way to put these predictions to a test of sorts, just to gauge how accurate they are. The Climate Priests spend lots of time and money into super-computer simulations of climate cycles. I am sure that NOAA study this thread is about bases its findings on some piece of silicon running a lot of code.

    Like I said in the last H&R post regarding AGW, I don’t see why anyone doesn’t take these computers and the data-sets we have available, and run a simulator, but starting from deep in the past, incorporating what we know regarding both geologic and anthropogenic inputs over that time. If the prediction of this NOAA is a thousand years in the future, wind the clock on Simulator.exe back to 1009 and then let’er rip. Compare what the computer predicts with what was observed. That is testable and offers a quantified margin of error, which if anything predicts how accurate the program is in, well, predicting things.

    This is why I am a AGW skeptic. If any of those computer models were as good as their makers seem to think about making predictions in the future, then we would understand why Europe got cold for a couple hundred years in the Middle Ages for instance, because the computer would have told us why. I never see anyone trumpeting about how close their computer models have been with simulating the past, so I can’t credibly believe them when they tell me with a straight face that it can predict a very unknown future.

  221. For a while “Other Matt” was the person most bizarrely obsessed with joe. It seemed like he brought joe up in virtually every thread he commented on, whether joe was also commenting there or not. I dunno if he’s gotten over it though.

  222. I’d be stunned it if turned out to be John.

  223. So it came to pass, when all the regulars were spoofed and ignored from among the commenters, that SugarFree spoke to me, saying, you are to look at Tubgirl and Goatse this day. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

  224. It doesn’t matter whether AGW is true or false, because the rapture will occur well before the Earth gets too hot to worry about.

  225. Domo
    You strike me as a pretty serious guy, so let’s discuss this.

    I actually like Popper, my point was that whether his falsification test is the correct test is hotly contested. Is that what you want to discuss, because it is interesting.

    But I think rather we should discuss my main point: given that the issue of Popperian falsification is a complicated one, and given that all of these experts making AGW claims are surely aware of this question and that the scientific and philosopy of science community is well aware of this, don’t you think if this indeed were some fatal flaw for the theory somebody would have brought this up and these people would know about it before you and I would? You know the jobs me and you hold and work at all day five days a week? This IS those people’s job. They have probably addressed this question to everyone who knows a lot about this complicated subject, to their satisfaction.

  226. Reading this thread is like standing in front of a big cage full of talking mynah birds.

    And, if reason actually did go to registration, I would get a lot more work done.

  227. Hal-9000,

    Well, that type of work is done all the time, so I am not sure what your gripe is.

    It is, of course, tricky to make a fair test that “predicts” past results. Blinding the predictor to the results is difficult to do…bias has a tendency to creep in in unexpected places.

    If I were to guess (without RTFA), I would say it is likely that the model used to make these future predictions was developed using a variation on the methods you propose PRIOR TO making the current predictions.

  228. You do know that the falsification charge is used by creationists quite a bit. It goes like this “since nobody was around at the time of mans evolution or origin we can’t possibly know blah blah blah.”

  229. Schopenhauer failed to anticipate #39: “Pretending to be your opponent”, but they only had the barest beginnings of the Internet back in the early-to-mid 1800s.

    Otoh, Plato made an entire career out of spoofing Socrates.

  230. domoarrigato:

    I am a bit unclear on what you are willing to bet on. Are you saying that the bet is null and void if there are sunspots ? What is the period of the bet ? Is this a simple bet that the IPCC low end of 2C per decade does not happen or are you actually betting on cooling ?

    joe:

    So would it be reasonable to assume that starting in 2000 if we see cooling by 2020 you are ready to chuck AGW under the bus ? So what about middle ground ? Suppose we see some small amount of warming but less than those IPCC folks are predicting ? I seem to recall that the IPCC was predicting 90% chance at 2C per decade. So if we hit 2020 and we read global temps as 2C higher (1C per decade) and don’t agree with the models, what then ? Do you still hold it is AGW ?

  231. What I think it interesting is that whatever else can be said about climatology, these points can certainly be made about the field of science that undergirds libertarianism: economics. Economists do a shitty job of predicting the near future, much less the far future; they create these computer models divorced from the real world; their models can’t fully explain all past periods; etc.

  232. You can see it’s pointless to debate AGW with denialists.

    They’re like people who claim deficits are caused by gov’t spending, not tax cuts. I don’t know how you can even talk to people that unreasonable.

  233. Those economists, they can’t even predict what markets will do tomorrow!

  234. So if we hit 2020 and we read global temps as 2C higher (1C per decade) and don’t agree with the models, what then ? Do you still hold it is AGW ?

    Are we assuming that nothing is done to reduce the rate of CO2 released and the rate of increase in the mean time?

  235. Economists do a shitty job of predicting the near future, much less the far future; they create these computer models divorced from the real world; their models can’t fully explain all past periods; etc.

    Good thing they aren’t asking for trillions of dollars in government spending, then.

  236. For what it’s worth, I know it’s not Epi. He’s been computerless for a few days. And the fake joe spells fairly well and doesn’t use big words so s/he sounds all fancy-like, so that should rule me out.

  237. Here’s my problem with the complaining about the spoofing: if you can’t immediately tell the real joe from his dimwit spoofer, then you need to pay attention more.

    Conservatives have ever been ignorant of good humor. It’s all that reverence for tradition and authority I should guess.

  238. MNG,

    Even better, the predictions of the economic consequences of addressing AGW are used as an excuse not to address AGW in the same breath as the claims that climate science can’t make predictions with enough accuracy to be useful.

  239. MNG,

    You’re using technique #38. I’m firmly opposed to all of this Creationist nonsense and think evolution is clearly demonstrated by the historical record and by our understanding of genetics. So do a number of people around here. You can suggest that we’re all blind hypocrites, of course, but for most of us, the claims made seem to greatly exceed the evidence. That isn’t true with evolution, where the evidence is compelling unless you simply have faith that it’s wrong.

    That said, I agree that economists and climatologists are in bed together. Or should be, anyway.

  240. AGW proponents,

    I hate to be associated with Troofers, IDers, and other conspiracy/NWO dummies, but on the subject of AGW I am a “denialist”. Your theory is “the Earth is getting hotter and there’s only one explanation: too much economic activity!” I deny that. Look at the temperature chart for the Grand Canyon over the past 100 years, on this page. No upward trend. There are many temperature stations around the world which have taken data for over 100 years and shown no upward trend.

    Now, some stations (and data sets) have shown higher than normal temperatures. There are a lot of problems with the data and the hundreds of sets of data fed into state-of-the-art climate models. The “urban heat island” effect has already been accounted for, some scientists assure us. Well, I’m not so sure about that. What if CO2-related effects have been over-accounted for? It just seems like scientists are plugging a lot of numbers into a computer until they arrive at the result they’re looking for, without much ability to falsify their predictions.

    You say the Earth is experiencing unprecedented warming. How can we be sure about that? Temperature records only go back a few hundred years at most. You simply cannot compare today’s climate with that of 1,000 or 10,000 years ago and say with certainty that it’s much hotter today. You can look at proxies like ice cores and tree rings but that’s comparing apples to oranges. That’s what the “hockey stick” graph was, an apple grafted to an orange.

    Now, let’s assume the Earth has been warmer than normal in the past few decades. How can we determine this is “mostly” due to human activities, as the IPCC asserts? They say there are “fingerprints” of CO2-induced global warming, but some of those fingerprints exist only in models.

    The Earth has been through peaks and troughs in both temperature and CO2, and while there is correlation between the two, I would argue that causation goes the other way from what Gore is arguing.

    But you still believe humans are warming the planet? Then you have to believe that the Earth will get so hot that it will cause a catastrophe like submerging Florida. Nobody has been able to make a reasonable guess as to how likely this is, but it’s probably close to 0. Or to make it ever clearer, the odds of humans being able to avert a catastrophic sea level rise is very close to 0 (sorry, Barack on June 3rd).

    Because if you only believe that higher temperatures will make things slightly more/less comfortable in various places around the world (and not cause a catastrophe) then you have a high hurdle get over convincing me it makes more sense to cut emissions than to simply pay the price/reap the benefits of higher temperatures.

    You can scoff at me for denying AGW, but I think I’ll have the last laugh.

  241. Oh yeah, no economists pushing for billions of taxpayer moneys to be spent on certain things or government tweaking of the economy or credit markets.

    Nope, nothing like that.

    Interestingly though these type of posts betray what is really on GW deniers minds: me no like implications!

    That’s so stupid, it’s like not accepting that people are sometimes violent because the implication is that we might have to raise taxes for a police force…

  242. “That said, I agree that economists and climatologists are in bed together.”

    Eww, Pro Lib, I expect rough and tumble arguments, but let’s keep the obscenity to a minimum, OK?

  243. At least I didn’t include psychologists, who belong in that bed, too.

  244. Are we assuming that nothing is done to reduce the rate of CO2 released and the rate of increase in the mean time?

    I think we assume the current rate of increase of CO2. I would need to check the IPCC report again or have someone who actually knows pipe up., I don’t remember their assumptions

  245. Pro L
    Seriously though, my point is not that deniers of AGW are creationists (in fact I was counting on the fact that many are not), but that the “falsification” charge is used on evolutionists because they make claims about non-present empirical realities, and many deniers of AGW do the same. My point was this: scientists that everyone accepts often make claims about events that we can’t jump to.

  246. AGW is good for me. Soon enough, I’ll be able to grow viniferous grapes in the upper midwest. Who really cares if a bunch of dark-skinned people in coastal areas of Asia get flooded out.

  247. Artifex,

    So would it be reasonable to assume that starting in 2000 if we see cooling by 2020 you are ready to chuck AGW under the bus ? So what about middle ground ? Like I said, only if it wasn’t followed by a warming trend. I wouldn’t chuck AGW, unless that period wasn’t immediately followed by a warming trent that, 20 years out, made the entire 40-year period a net warming trend

    Suppose we see some small amount of warming but less than those IPCC folks are predicting? I seem to recall that the IPCC was predicting 90% chance at 2C per decade. There is a great deal less certainly about how much warming there will be than whether there will be warming.

    So if we hit 2020 and we read global temps as 2C higher (1C per decade) and don’t agree with the models, what then ? Do you still hold it is AGW? Yes, the speed and pattern of warming have been highly variable over any 20 year period over the past century.

  248. Pro L
    You just made me conjure up my undergrad econ prof and my 10th grade earth science teacher doing reverse cowgirl, and for that sir you shall pay!

  249. At least I didn’t include psychologists, who belong in that bed, too.

    But who’s going to run the camera?

  250. MNG

    don’t you think if this indeed were some fatal flaw for the theory somebody would have brought this up and these people would know about it before you and I would? You know the jobs me and you hold and work at all day five days a week? This IS those people’s job.

    A very good point–I do think they would know about it–but I do not know that it’s been addressed (at least with my googling skills). And if it has, where has it been addressed ?
    Anyone?

    On a slightly different tangent, I would really like to see the data set which led to the “1000 year” prediction made in today’s article.

    And yes, the troll/spoof thing has gotten worse, but I can tell the real Joe from his spoofer, and I think anyone else familiar with his writing can also. Best thing is just ignore and carry on.

  251. MNG,

    I won’t argue that Popper’s test is definitive – I support the idea that it is very helpful in seperateing the wheat from the chaff.

    As far as those making AGW claims being aware that there is some fatal flaw and for some reason covering it up – I would argue the best evidence is precisely that it is their job. Now don’t interpret this as some kind of broad tin-hat claim of fraud – just look at it from the viewpoint of incentives.

    I think back to what I see as a vary similar period of groupthink in the financial industry. When I started out, we had models, models and more models. We learned them, could argue for and against them, knew how to generate them, and sell the products that they enabled. Questioning them at a fundemental level DID happen. It didn’t stop anyone from printing that last 20 bn CMO deal, nor did it prevent hedge funds and even banks that might have known better from buying it up. I mean, this last is an amazing piece of self delusion when you think about it. Why did all this occurr and progress to such a state? Simply because it kept working. The models work until they don’t. Then everyone looks around in retrospect and says “of course, it was obvious all along that this is what was really happening” This is the power of groupthink, and the primary reason (imho) that some sort of striking predictive value needs to be deomnstrated in modelling of any discipline. AGW claims are no different, and subject to many of the same groupthink pressures, incentives, and lack of refutable claims.

  252. And now psychology! Thanks Pro L, I had a psych prof, a woman, that had actual jowls my friend. Now I have a menage a trois image that is certified to leave me impotent for months. You’ll be hearing from my wife’s attorney mister!

  253. @Neu Mejican:
    “Well, that type of work is done all the time, so I am not sure what your gripe is.

    It is, of course, tricky to make a fair test that “predicts” past results. Blinding the predictor to the results is difficult to do…bias has a tendency to creep in in unexpected places. ”

    I have never seen “that type of work done” in any published deliverable that I can read. There are many contentious debates in the Ivory Towers about past climate anomalies in both the recent and deep past.

    And as far as bias goes, that doesn’t apply so much here. We are talking about a physical system with physical laws we are measuring. The more you understand a physical system – any physical system – the more you can predict not just where its going but where its been. The past should be calculated with a very high degree of accuracy given the claims here. After all, such confidence implies that these people understand the physical system at work here to a very, very precise degree. There is no “fair” test of ideas concerning such systems, they are correct or they are not. That’s just a cop-out for what I am guessing are some questionable results these simulators spit out in such scenarios, given you can measure what they predict relative to an actual reality we can study, which I imagine is an inconvenient ding on the crediblity for these simulators. Given the data released on these climate-models is controlled by people with a bias, that silence is telling.

  254. Your theory is “the Earth is getting hotter and there’s only one explanation: too much economic activity!”

    I have never seen a global warming scientist attribute the rise in temperatures to “too much econmic activity.”

    On the other hand, there are a couple dozen comments just on this thread from deniers that argue that the economic impact of efforts to address global warming are a good reason to doubt its existence.

  255. On climatology and economics as predictive scientists: in chaotic systems, it is actually easier to make big predictions than small ones.

    I can’t tell how many home runs Manny Ramirez will hit on July 17, to any degree of accuracy. I can make a more confident prediction about how many he will hit in July, and a more confident one still about how many he will hit in June-July-August, and a yet more confident one about how many he will hit in 2009.

  256. The sunspots not appearing has historical precedence. It’s not the first time. Whether it coincided with global temperature changes, I have no friggin’ idea.

    It would seem that predicting “weather” on the sun (a ball of hydrogen with a dash of helium)to be an easier task than doing so on the Earth.

    Just sayin’.

  257. Domo,

    I will play devils advocate for a moment and suggest that the level of “Groupthink” in the commercial financial services sector is probably much greater than the influence the Groupthink effect would have amongst different researchers, all around the world and at different institutions. Rival institutions, no less.
    That most of these researchers would come to very similar conclusions regarding the effect of AGW is one of the more compelling arguments I’ve heard in favor of the influence of AGW.

  258. Matthew
    I’m not quite sure which claims Domo is talking about being non-falsifiable, so I can’t answer that for sure. IIRC NM may have some stuff on that.

    Domo
    We probably agree on the Popper stuff, that’s how I see his test, as a useful tool for someone like me who does not have the time or maybe the capacity for ten years of philosophy of science study.

    I see your point about the groupthink, it is a powerful thing (at last we are on my field, social science!).

    Let me ask you two questions that may help me answer you:

    1. Is it your position that the only thing cited in support of global evidence is computer models?

    2. Is it yoour contention that these computer models are never based on empirically derived data (satellite temperatures, site collected temperatures, known geological data, etc {frankly I don’t know, this stuff is obviously not my field})?

  259. >i>I can’t tell how many home runs Manny Ramirez will hit on July 17, to any degree of accuracy. I can make a more confident prediction about how many he will hit in July, and a more confident one still about how many he will hit in June-July-August, and a yet more confident one about how many he will hit in 2009.

    Only if you assume no dramatic changes that will cause a deviation from past trends. If poor Manny gets injured in May, your predictions of June-July-August will be useless.

  260. frickin tags ๐Ÿ™

  261. That’s true, kinnath. If Manny pulls a hammy, all bets are off.

    If someone discovers cold fusion tomorrow, likewise.

  262. joe,

    “On the other hand, there are a couple dozen comments just on this thread from deniers that argue that the economic impact of efforts to address global warming are a good reason to doubt its existence.”

    if you were referring to me among those, let me be clear that I see economic arguments as a good reason to not do anything drastic to try and reduce it – even if my skepticism could be overcome.

  263. joe,

    from deniers that argue that the economic impact of efforts to address global warming are a good reason to doubt its existence.

    I think they mean that some of the more draconian measures being contemplated to counter the influence of AGW mean that it’s all the more important to be sure of the influence of AGW before proceeding, not that the potential economic impact of such measures could have anything to do with the existence of AGW, per se.

  264. Matthew, Wall st. had is “rival institutions” too – they were/are all in bed with each other as long as the sausage making factory was up and running.

  265. “That most of these researchers would come to very similar conclusions regarding the effect of AGW is one of the more compelling arguments I’ve heard in favor of the influence of AGW.”

    That’s really the heart of why I “believe” it. I honestly know very little about what climatologists, geologists and meteorologists do. But I also know that I don’t know. I also know that even if I start reading up on that stuff it would take me years to know wtf is going on.

    So the fact that most people who do know a bunch about it say X gives me a very strong reason to think X.

  266. Because there is no way to adequately forecast the level of technological development, wealth, and competency of social institutions that far into the future. It may be possible to predict long-term climate changes, but such scientific predictions don’t tell us what is the best way to make a better future.

    So we should assume that “technological development” will assuage the none too pleasant consequences of climate change? I’m sorry, but responding to research like this with a “Well, that’s all very far in the future” is not really a substantive response. It’s hardly more useful than denialism.

  267. This is my point about policy-makers. What would you expect a policymaker faced with 95% of experts in a field saying X and 5% saying Y to do? I frankly cannot imagine the argument for him doing Y. How would that be generally applied?

  268. P Brooks,

    Operating a video camera effectively is a professional skill, I’ll have you know.

    MNG,

    Reverse cowgirl? I’m not sure I want to know.

    Overall, my opinion is that climatology will, in fact, improve and become more effective in making predictions. That’s really what we’re arguing about, and Mr. Dean’s position above about falsifiability is more about making climatologists (and, more to the point, AGW advocates) toe the line on claiming that everything points to AGW. That’s obviously nonsense and the fact that it’s not more clearly called nonsense is a bad sign. I’ll grant that at least some climatologists have publicly rejected claims about, for example, increased hurricane activity being definite proof of AGW, but that type of dissension in the ranks seems a little too rare. Compare with physics where everyone quibbles about everything–and that’s a far more established science!

  269. If someone discovers cold fusion tomorrow, likewise.

    I have posted in the past that I think mankind is having an effect on the climate; however, I pretty much disagree with every “plan” I see to combat AGW.

    I don’t trust any of the predictive tools being used today even if you assume no dramatic changes in the inputs to the model.

    Nor do I see anyway for these tools to model any future technical breakthroughs that could mitigate climate change.

  270. Woman on top; facing away from man. Duh

  271. Reverse cowgirl? I’m not sure I want to know.

    It’s not that bad: Man prone, girl on top and facing away. Her legs can either be tucked between his for full effect, or she can straddle.

    Position of the Day: Sex Every Day in Every Way

  272. MNG,
    Let me ask you two questions that may help me answer you:

    1. Is it your position that the only thing cited in support of global evidence is computer models?

    2. Is it yoour contention that these computer models are never based on empirically derived data (satellite temperatures, site collected temperatures, known geological data, etc {frankly I don’t know, this stuff is obviously not my field})?

    1. Not remotely. My position is that models have been used to extrapolate real data all out of proportion to the predictive value contained therein.

    2. As far as the data goes, I contend that it’s far from unassailable, and has, in point of fact, been messaged itself in many known instances.

  273. MNG, are you sure it’s 95/5? My understanding is that there are only like 20 climatologists around the world qualified to make inferences about the Earth’s climate in the next 100 years or so (and I’ve already suggested that it’s impossible to do that anyway).

    Maybe the AGW advocates are just louder and have more funding?

  274. At least I provided a link, you premature interlocutioner.

  275. Matthew, domo,

    That you two can come up with a rational way to look at the economic impact doesn’t mean all deniers have.

    Look back through the thread; most of the comments about economic (and worse, political) impacts are not nearly as sophistical and intellectually defensible as what you just wrote.

  276. At least I provided a link, you premature interlocutioner.

    Company computer; web traffic monitored; and I don’t have a URL in my head.

  277. I will play devils advocate for a moment and suggest that the level of “Groupthink” in the commercial financial services sector is probably much greater than the influence the Groupthink effect would have amongst different researchers, all around the world and at different institutions. Rival institutions, no less.

    I don’t think there’s any basis for that. The financial services wallahs were working for rival institutions, and were actually in direct competition with each other. If anything, finding a flaw in a competitor’s model, or in the underlying assumptions of all the models, was almost a sure ticket to wealth.

  278. Sophistical.

    I’m calling RC’z Law on myself.

    If you understand the reference, you just aren’t terribly sophistical.

  279. joe, I think what really stokes up the skeptic in many of us isn’t the economic impact per se, but the fact that the remedies being touted by many AGWistas just happen, by coincidence, to be the same policy prescriptions that the hard greens have been making all along, which raises the question of whether AGW has been adopted as a pretext for doing what they want to do anyway.

    Not to mention that skepticism about a given policy and its price should be strongly correlated, in any event.

  280. Domo
    I don’t feel qualified to comment on how good the data is that AGW supporters put out (let tme qualify that re Pro L’s good point with: what good proponents put out, the ones that seemingly influence so many scientists and their associations), since I am not even sure what data they point too. I assume it involves things like recorded temperatures from satellites and surface stations and certain geological data and such. If you bring up specific data claims that some proponent has made then I may know something about it or be able to debate from just common sense (as joe says I know enough to know that citing some given year and saying “it was cooler” can’t disprove the theory).

    Like I said, and I mean this in no way as an insult as you obviously know more about this than I do, my point is that I’m willing to bet that whatever fault you have found in the data has been addressed satisfactorily by people who know far, far more than you or I on the subject. And I think this because of the public stances these many experts and groups make. And I think it more likely that you and others here are wrong somehow (bias, honest mistake, lacking the requisite competence, groupthink, whatever the cause) than that they are.

    See what I’m saying?

  281. “This is my point about policy-makers. What would you expect a policymaker faced with 95% of experts in a field saying X and 5% saying Y to do? I frankly cannot imagine the argument for him doing Y. How would that be generally applied?”

    The biggest indicator of someone giving credibility to AGW hypothesis is their political disposition, irrespective of their education or profession. Given the well-earned lefty reputation within the Ivory Towers, I don’t find the “95%” number to be that strange. That in itself makes the whole thing suspect. You don’t see that social pattern determining credibility for any hypothesis in physics, chemistry, geology, or any other hard science.

    Its also why every “solution” for AGW proposed involves the government getting to tell me what to do and forcing me to subsidize that power over me with my money. Show me a scheme to combat AGW that does not involve the government enriching or empowering itself at my expense, FIRST with no guarantees of “success” in reversing AGW.

  282. Hal-9000,

    Again, the type of studies you are asking for are part of how the climate models are created. They are validated on the past prior to being used to predict the future.

    As for the “no bias” in the study of physical systems thing, well, that is just poppycock. Any study predicting past states of a complex system is relying on proxy data to “represent” some conceptual notion like “temperature” unless there is already an unbiased data set covering the time-frame of interest. For predicting a 1000 years of the past, there are lots of ways to have bias creep in.

    But even if you assume complete knowledge of the past, the design has to be careful not to use “known” data to predict itself. This can happen if, for instance, some data used in the prediction model is, in fact, a direct/or close proxy for the thing being predicted.

    Yadda yadda.

  283. Interestingly, I now work for a financial firm that is getting involved in carbon trading. The guy heading up the group, who was until several months ago a hard core denier, now wears carbon neutral underwear, and installed solar panels on his house. He spends 30 minute a week trying to get me on board. It’s amazing how incentives change perceptions – that’s why I try and be as stubborn and ornery as possible, even when it hurts me ๐Ÿ˜‰

  284. Show me a scheme to combat AGW that does not involve the government enriching or empowering itself at my expense, FIRST with no guarantees of “success” in reversing AGW.

    Look to the work of the Rocky Mountain Institute, for a starter.

  285. Mark
    I base that on the sheer number of scientific professional assocations that have come out with statements or findings in support of AGW relative to the paucity of the opposite. And I know journalists are stupid a lot, but they would really have to be mass dropping the ball to be wrong when they note with such frequency on this consensus.

    Hal
    The lefty dominance in academe is really not so strong in the natural sciences, and to the extent that it exists it’s just not very deep. Most scientists in academe and research are geeks that are really into their research far more than any political ideas. Really. If it were English Departments pushing this only then yes I’d be very skeptical…

    Mark
    I cannot imagine how the interests threatened by anti-AGW measures could not be financially bigger than those that will be furthered by it, hence I doubt it’s an imbalance in funding that drives this mass agreement…Maybe it’s because of the evidence, huh?

  286. “carbon neutral underwear”

    WTF? Is that like the longjohns the Mormons wear?

  287. MNG,

    Like I said, and I mean this in no way as an insult as you obviously know more about this than I do, my point is that I’m willing to bet that whatever fault you have found in the data has been addressed satisfactorily by people who know far, far more than you or I on the subject. And I think this because of the public stances these many experts and groups make. And I think it more likely that you and others here are wrong somehow (bias, honest mistake, lacking the requisite competence, groupthink, whatever the cause) than that they are.

    I can understand completely why you would reach this conclusion. After all, I’m not, and don’t purport to be an expert on climate science – monetary policy and inflation is my bag. I can only point out that while in my mind, I humbly accept the possibility (always) that I am wrong – I have to press where I think the wall is weak. What I have read convinces me that there are some catastrophically soft spots in the AGW hypothesis. Not to belabour the Popper point, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask that global warming scientists sucessfully make some striking, risky, refutable predictions that their science enables them to make before we reorganize the entire economy of the western world and undo many decades of economic progress.

  288. Pro Lib’s point here: “I’ll grant that at least some climatologists have publicly rejected claims about, for example, increased hurricane activity being definite proof of AGW, but that type of dissension in the ranks seems a little too rare. Compare with physics where everyone quibbles about everything–and that’s a far more established science!”

    is a big one for me, I mean, when I was an engineering student, I watched two professors argue for hours over the effect placement of thermocouples would have on the conclusions drawn by a wind tunnel test. Climate science has at least two orders of magnitude more variables, and is far more chaotic and less developed. When I see widespread agreement among scientists, I think fad.

  289. . . . to ask that global warming scientists sucessfully make some striking, risky, refutable predictions that their science enables them to make before we reorganize the entire economy of the western world and undo many decades of economic progress.

    Thank-you, good post. What I’ve been trying to say.

  290. “As for the “no bias” in the study of physical systems thing, well, that is just poppycock. Any study predicting past states of a complex system is relying on proxy data to “represent” some conceptual notion like “temperature” unless there is already an unbiased data set covering the time-frame of interest. For predicting a 1000 years of the past, there are lots of ways to have bias creep in. ”

    So are we admitting that there is bias in these computer simulations? Finally!

  291. “That is quite possibly the dumbest statement I’ve heard on this site masquerading as intelligent talk that I have heard around here since….”

    blah’ blah, blah.

    I don’t really care what you think about it MNG – since you have never accomplished anything whatsoever in your entire life that proves you know any more about it than I do.

  292. For better or worse I missed this discussion and its associated trollerrhea. Re: Popper, I didn’t mean to offer his promotion of falsifiability as the be-all end-all of science, but it’s certainly an extremely important check on the validity of a claim. And I think it’s integral to Kuhn’s philosophy of science, too, in that he didn’t discount ensuring the accuracy of claims, and falsification continues to be the strongest accuracy verifier we have.

    I understand MNG’s issue with relying on the authority of experts, and I used to. I only became skeptical of AGW a few years ago when I took the time to become better acquainted with the research and data and felt that even the most humble predictions being made significantly departed from the strength of their evidence.

    Anyway, I was put in mind of these two quotes.

    Re: relying on experts, Bakunin –

    A society which should obey legislation emanating from a scientific academy, not because it understood itself the rational character of this legislation (in which case the existence of the academy would become useless), but because this legislation, emanating from the academy, was imposed in the name of a science which it venerated without comprehending – such a society would be a society, not of men, but of brutes. It would be a second edition of those missions in Paraguay which submitted so long to the government of the Jesuits. It would surely and rapidly descend to the lowest stage of idiocy.

    Re: non-conspiratorial unsound motivations of experts, Tolstoy –

    I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life.

    Anyway, I am a skeptic but persuadable if the evidence gets stronger. I’m concerned that, should AGW be discredited, that will more broadly discredit scientific claims and environmental sensitivity among the general public.

  293. The IPCC predicts 2- to 5 degrees C per century, not decade. Only off by a factor of 10, pretty good for this crowd.

  294. RC,

    joe, I think what really stokes up the skeptic in many of us isn’t the economic impact per se, but the fact that the remedies being touted by many AGWistas just happen, by coincidence, to be the same policy prescriptions that the hard greens have been making all along, which raises the question of whether AGW has been adopted as a pretext for doing what they want to do anyway.

    And unless the non-leftists do what Ronald Baily is doing, take their heads out of the clouds, and admit some inconvenient truths about climate change, the lefties are going to dominate environmental, economic, and energy policy, becasue you all will have ceded the field.

    Frankly, I think that you all have ceded the field because there is simply no ideologically-acceptable way to combat climate change for you; that is, only liberal and leftish ideologies are capable of addressing the problem in a manner that doesn’t clash with their political and philosophical values.

    It’s quite a pickle you find yourselves in.

  295. well I said 0.2 degrees per decade – let me check… click click click yup 2 degrees/century.

  296. A Millenium of Climate Change Predicted

    This has to be the stupidest title I’ve ever seen. Earth’s climate has been changing for approximately 4.54 billion years uninterrupted.

  297. So are we admitting that there is bias in these computer simulations? Finally!

    The question is whether there is significant bias that invalidates the conclusions.

    Are you claiming that climate sciences do not pay attention to basic issues of bias? Are you claiming that the bias explains the results completely?

    Or are we admitting that climate science is like all science in that the models it uses are imperfect and that they will only improve through pain-staking hard work that pays attention to sources of bias?

    Shorter: What’s your point?

  298. joe

    that you all have ceded the field because there is simply no ideologically-acceptable way to combat climate change for you

    I truly don’t believe there is any effective way to combat climate change and I believe this article says as much.

    So no pickle, really. Except of course, for our imminent environmental apocalypse, if it occurs.

  299. And unless the non-leftists do what Ronald Baily is doing, take their heads out of the clouds, and admit some inconvenient truths about climate change, the lefties are going to dominate environmental, economic, and energy policy, becasue you all will have ceded the field.

    This is troubling, but at least now I know what it feels like to be a pro-lifer. Everyone’s arguing over what trimester is acceptable for abortion and I’m shouting “life begins at conception!” (Analogy: you want to cut carbon emissions, I want to build more coal plants)

  300. “Frankly, I think that you all have ceded the field because there is simply no ideologically-acceptable way to combat climate change for you; that is, only liberal and leftish ideologies are capable of addressing the problem in a manner that doesn’t clash with their political and philosophical values.”

    Assuming AGW to be true, there are tons of ideas I can think of to sequester carbon easily. Planting trees isn’t a bad start. Give me $1000 in Treasury bonds, in exchange I plant fifty trees. In ten years, (the maturity of the Treasury), I validate in some notarized document that my trees are still standing, and that now I have built a small carbon sequestration facility that takes tons and tons of carbon out of the atmosphere…EVERY YEAR! Then I collect. Run that program through for a couple decades. But that isn’t on the table because it means I as an individual take control of this and am paid for it by the state. Not as much fun for the statists, who want me to pay by subsidizing them to take care of it by telling me how to live my life, down to the car I drive, the food I eat, and the prices I pay for ALL of those things. Bullshit.

  301. And to be clear, by “combat climate change” I mean effectively cause the warming trend to cease or reverse, thus maintaining our “normal” temps.

  302. Ok, serious question here. Why do believers need to convince the non-believers anyways? Say the breakdown is 85/15 with 85 believing in AGW. Wouldn’t 85% of the population cutting back (driving hybrids etc) be good enough to save the earth? Does the other 15% really matter that much anyways? It would seem to me that there should be no issue if enough people believe in it to get the problem solved?

    Seriously, if you want to ride your bike to work that’s fine. But if 1 guy doesn’t it shouldn’t make that big of a deal right?

  303. joe,

    I would be ok with that.

    And unless the non-leftists do what Ronald Baily is doing, take their heads out of the clouds, and admit some inconvenient truths about climate change, the lefties are going to dominate environmental, economic, and energy policy, becasue you all will have ceded the field.

    If AGW turns out be dead right, and the worst thing since the Black Death, then you are bang on. Thing is, the converse is true too. If lefty idealists pin their hopes and justifications for their environmental, economic, and energy agendas on this one hypothesis, they will go down faster than a prom queen if their hypothesis crashes and burns in the court of public opinion.

  304. adrian,

    When we get to 85% of Americans significantly reducing their carbon footprint, you have a point.

    The question is how best to get there.

  305. Pat on the back, for being so self aware uch so than those vile conservatives.

    MNG | January 27, 2009, 2:57pm | #
    Here’s my problem with the complaining about the spoofing: if you can’t immediately tell the real joe from his dimwit spoofer, then you need to pay attention more.

    Conservatives have ever been ignorant of good humor. It’s all that reverence for tradition and authority I should guess.

    Then an ironic remark is made by someone —

    econ | January 27, 2009, 2:56pm | #

    Good thing they aren’t asking for trillions of dollars in government spending, then.

    Which our humor impaired hero doesn’t get!

    MNG | January 27, 2009, 2:59pm | #
    Oh yeah, no economists pushing for billions of taxpayer moneys to be spent on certain things or government tweaking of the economy or credit markets.

    Nope, nothing like that.

    Interestingly though these type of posts betray what is really on GW deniers minds: me no like implications!

    That’s so stupid, it’s like not accepting that people are sometimes violent because the implication is that we might have to raise taxes for a police force…

    Let’s just call it MNG’s Law

  306. Hal-9000,

    You program sounds like one where the state endorses a particular method for addressing the problem. It seems MORE statist than setting carbon targets or imposing a carbon tax.

  307. Adrian,

    Actually it’s currently about 41% of the populace that believes in AGW and the trend is toward a lower percentage.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

  308. NM: So are you saying believers won’t start really cutting back until they see non-believers being forced too as well? What is their true motive if this is the case?

  309. “You program sounds like one where the state endorses a particular method for addressing the problem. It seems MORE statist than setting carbon targets or imposing a carbon tax.”

    Not at all. If you want to participate, participate. If not, don’t. It makes planting and sustaining whole forests a tax shelter instead of a tax. No bureaucrat tells me how much carbon I can consume or not consume, or what is a “bad” car I can’t have versus a “good” car I am “supposed” to drive. No bureaucrat fills his coffers with this plan, nor appropriates more power to tell me how to live. No new market-by-fiat for the Wall Street crew to construct and skim another stupid securities bubble.

    Oh, and no pig-mud-wrestling for special interests in appropriation bills. No big bucks for academia. No more subsidies and corporate welfare for biofuels, solar panels, or wind mills. No fun for the statists or Establishment at all.

  310. Adrian,

    Actually it’s currently about 41% of the populace that believes in AGW and the trend is toward a lower percentage.

    Ok, so if we have faith in democracy (mob rule) then this really isn’t an issue right? majority says no it must be no.

  311. This has to be the stupidest title I’ve ever seen. Earth’s climate has been changing for approximately 4.54 billion years uninterrupted.

    Well, they can’t say “global warming” or commentators here will really throw a hissy fit.

  312. Domo

    than a prom queen if their hypothesis crashes and burns in the court of public opinion.

    That’s the problem–HOW exactly can it “crash and burn” – What would be the event(s)/data that falsify (sorry don’t know a better word) it?

    And yes, high school was fun.

  313. Sometimes a certain question tends to get at someone’s true motivations. I like asking “what if AGW is proved wrong?” If you get a response like that of Bob Park at U Maryland:

    Suppose, I asked myself, that the deniers are right and the CO2 thing is a mistake? What will happen if the world takes the CO2 thing seriously, adopting common sense measures to counter anthropogenic warming and there never was any warming in the first place? 1) there will more non- renewable resources to leave to our progeny; 2) we will breath cleaner air and see the stars again, the way we saw them half a century ago; 3) we could stop paving over the planet, and 4) cut down on the number of billionaires. If we’re wrong we could have a party. We could have a party either way.

    … you’re dealing with a Watermelon: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

  314. Adrian,

    Ok, so if we have faith in democracy (mob rule) then this really isn’t an issue right? majority says no it must be no.

    Only for potential legislation, Science has nothing to do with majority rule.

  315. Mark,

    As RC said, ” but the fact that the remedies being touted by many AGWistas just happen, by coincidence, to be the same policy prescriptions that the hard greens have been making all along,

  316. @mark

    “… you’re dealing with a Watermelon: Green on the outside, Red on the inside”

    Truly awesome. +10.

  317. … you’re dealing with a Watermelon: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

    The implication being that if you favor seeing the stars, you’re a communist?

    This sort of thinking is exactly why people such as yourself are marginalized in the global warming “debate.” You simply can’t be taken seriously.

  318. HOW exactly can it “crash and burn”

    People just stop repeating it. Probably because the end up having bigger problems to worry about – like getting fired and not being able to afford the mortgage. This breaks the momentum of public opinion. Several years later, things are better, but alternate evidence is out there, and the whole thing looks a bit silly in retrospect. On that day you won’t be able to find anyone who will admit to having been an AGW supporter.

  319. Xanthippas

    The implication being that if you favor seeing the stars, you’re a communist?

    It wasn’t the stars thing, it was his obvious loathing of the modern world–and anyway what do billionaires have to to do with AGW?

  320. NM: So are you saying believers won’t start really cutting back until they see non-believers being forced too as well?

    No. I am not saying that.

    Hal-9000;

    A fair response, I suppose.
    Compare and contrast to a carbon-credit based system.

  321. “The implication being that if you favor seeing the stars, you’re a communist? ”

    The implication being that if you think “seeing the stars” is every bit as good a justification as “cooking the planet” to roll back 50 years of industrial progress – you are probably just trying to roll back industrial progress at any cost.

  322. Also, snippy, non-substantive assertions like “You simply can’t be taken seriously.” demonstrate your own lack of seriousness.

  323. NM: so now that the # is 41% do you believe is those 41% drastically cut back it would make no difference or not enough difference? Where is the tipping point, 60,70,80, 100?

  324. @Neu Mejican:
    “Compare and contrast to a carbon-credit based system.”

    This would be the “new market-by-fiat for the Wall Street crew to construct and skim another stupid securities bubble” I alluded to in my previous post.

  325. What I don’t understand is why we don’t just work harder on promoting scientific and technological advances in relevant areas. That’s the real solution. Energy production and uses that release lots of pollutants are inherently inefficient. Give me some fusion or some other advanced method. Lots of fission reactors might be a good intermediate step, too.

    The other technological option that we should be working on if Earth is going to get screwed up is developing cheap access to space.

    Another thought, though one a little more out there than the others, is to work on climate control. We’re playing with the idea of terraforming other planets; surely if things get awful here, something along those lines would be much easier to do on Earth.

  326. “What I don’t understand is why we don’t just work harder on promoting scientific and technological advances in relevant areas.”

    This is where the gravy is, its also where the hard work with verifiable results kicks in, which is a big turn-off to the solution-by-fiat crew.

    This is a nation that cranks out far, far more “ologists” of some kind than actual engineers in regards to college students. That ratio is even more depressing when you realize all the foreign imports who come here to get the “real” degrees and now increasingly leave once they have acquired that degree. Take them away and all we crank out seemingly are soft-science humanities majors, sharks, and MBA’s.

    A country where we want everyone else to get their hands dirty building the things we want to buy and consume, all the while borrowing money from them to do it. And now this.

  327. “.Take them away and all we crank out seemingly are soft-science humanities majors, sharks, and MBA’s.”

    Don’t forget lawyers. Which is where the smart humanities majors go later on.

  328. HAL-9000,

    Well, don’t open the pod bay doors for me, because I betrayed an Apollo-era engineer father and an aptitude for science and technology to become a shark. But I’ll be damned if I’m allowing any of my kids to do the same.

  329. No Xanthippas,

    You can’t be taken seriously.

  330. Hal-9000,

    Now compare and contrast to a carbon tax or other tax based on material throughput.

    Pro Lib,

    You sound like a mainstream environmentalist with that post…at least the first paragraph.

  331. @BDB:
    “Don’t forget lawyers. Which is where the smart humanities majors go later on.”

    This would be the sharks I was referring to.

    @Pro Liberate
    “Well, don’t open the pod bay doors for me, because I betrayed an Apollo-era engineer father and an aptitude for science and technology to become a shark. But I’ll be damned if I’m allowing any of my kids to do the same.”

    Just to clarify, I don’t “hate” lawyers or humanities majors to be sure. But I find it tiring that so many of these types of people have an increasing say over very technical issues like what kind of propulsion mode is best for my car, the “danger” of genetic crops, anthropogenic climate change (how’s it going Al Gore?), and religious nuts cavorting in molecular biology.

    And of course my favorite: We depended on an endless supply of soft-degree wonks to do things like, oh, ascertain whether certain countries are developing nuclear weapons, and then having these same folks – with no command-military experience or training – prosecuting a war in response to their erroneous conclusions.

    It costs us in the end. I don’t call a rocket scientist when I need to beat a rap in court; why do we keep calling lawyers and humanities wonks to deal with things like the future of energy, or which path is best to fusion? It just doesn’t make any sense.

  332. adrian | January 27, 2009, 4:39pm | #
    NM: so now that the # is 41% do you believe is those 41% drastically cut back it would make no difference or not enough difference? Where is the tipping point, 60,70,80, 100?

    I would go with “not enough” with the target for how many people being, of course, dependent upon how drastic the cut is.

    The IPCC target is 80% reduction by 2050.

  333. @Neu Mejican

    “Now compare and contrast to a carbon tax or other tax based on material throughput. ”

    It all seems so simple. Look at how simple the income tax was going to be. I mean, income is income, right? Forty-thousand pages of Dungeons and Dragons make-up-my-world-rules horseshit later, and its not so simple.

    The Treasury-bond thing is powerful because its a contract. You sign or you don’t. The government is compelled to honor its bargain the same way it is with the Chinese Central Bank. The government can’t break contracts with Treasury securities it issues to other parties without potential civil and credit-rating consequences, which is why the “Treasury Securities” in the SS Trust Fund are owed to an organization (SSA) which ironically is controlled by the debtor (Uncle Scam); kinda like Enron.

    Taxation is power, and as everyone can see – no matter your ideology – the power to tax is a corrupting power. Put the government in debt to me for what I do vs. the government levying debts on me to do as it pleases, I’ll take option number one.

  334. That is quite possibly the dumbest statement I’ve heard on this site masquerading as intelligent talk that I have heard around here since TAO’s “if something is necessary then it is good” bullshit.

    Shorter MNG: “Please come play with me, TAO! I’m bored and I think you’re SOOOO sexy.”

    you’re creepy, MNG. Please push me out of your mind: I think we should see other people.

  335. Another day, another model. I wonder how many free variables in this one.

  336. Hal and Pro Lib-

    In my experience, engineers tend to think that they know more about the law than lawyers do and that they are better lawyers than lawyers. Even sharks know that they are not as cute as dolphins.

  337. @libertymike
    “In my experience, engineers tend to think that they know more about the law than lawyers do and that they are better lawyers than lawyers. Even sharks know that they are not as cute as dolphins.”

    This is true. The hubris of engineers as know-it-alls is pretty legendary. But we live in a society that wisely does not let engineers pretend to be lawyers. But its not a two-way street. Lawyers – especially in the guise of politicians – get to play engineer, mortgage broker, doctor, you name it, with predictably tragic results. And it is a problem.

  338. I don’t hate lawyers, either, but I think we have a massive brain drain in this country to the various paper-pushing professions. Unmutual development, that.

    libertymike,

    That’s my experience, too. I first worked in a technical think tank, filled with computational chemists, engineers, and physicists. The scientists generally let me be the legal expert, but the engineers often figured they knew better. They didn’t, of course. I think the problem for some engineers is conflating their belief that they could learn the law (which, of course, is usually perfectly true) with the actual fact of knowing the law.

    As an aside, one mathematician I worked with told me that he respected any terminal degree (including the JD) except for education.

  339. Hal,
    That Watermelon comment was from friesian.com.

    When you say you’re ok with AGW turning out to be false because at least there’d be fewer billionaires (any why would that ever be a worthy goal?) then you need to check your motivations.

  340. The legendary hubris of engineers is, well, legendary.

    They not only know more than the lawyers, they know more than the “ologists,” and they know more about your area of expertise than you do…just ask ’em.

    As a man that is more smug than most, I started my education as an engineer (EE)…seemed like a good fit. Despite good grades, I went on to other things partly because the mind-set of the engineering community was so, well, incurious.

    We need good engineers, don’t get me wrong. But there is a difference between engineering and science. Partly it has to do with the difference between “knowing” and “understanding.”

    If that makes sense.

  341. I hate to generalize, because I view this criticism as more true of the more plodding types of engineers, not of the upper echelons. I know some profoundly brilliant engineers who are polymaths and could’ve done just about anything, including physics.

    I also think the problem is more acute with engineering students than with the practicing variety. Students are arrogant little fucks, sometimes.

  342. Pro Lib,

    ;^)

    Fuckin’ students.

    I want to emphasize that we need good engineers. And that it takes a smart muther fucker to be a good engineer. But engineers are not engaged in science anymore than lawyers or politicians are engaged in science.

    Hal-9000,

    Don’t get me wrong. Your idea is one that should be added to the tool box.

    To me, a carbon tax is an animal much different than an income tax. It provides for a much different power dynamic between the government and the carbon user than an income tax places between the government and an earner.

  343. HAL-9000, Neu and Pro Lib-

    I do agree that lawyers have played a humongous role in wreaking havoc in so many areas of life. Please do not take offense Pro Lib as there are lawyers who do make positive contributions such as the folks at IJ. I am sure that you are no shark.

  344. Watts Up With That?
    January 27, 2009, 16:38:11

    James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’
    January 27, 2009, 16:16:06 | wattsupwiththat

    This is something I thought I’d never see. This is from the Senate EPW blog of Jame Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:

    The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    EPW press release below – Anthony

    ——————————————————————————–
    Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

    Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

    “I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

    “Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! – See: Don’t Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom – Get the Facts on James Hansen – UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says ‘lock up the oil men’ – June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for ‘high crimes against humanity’ for spreading doubt about man-made global warming – June 23, 2008 ]

    Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

    “As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]

    Gore faces a much different scientific climate in 2009 than the one he faced in 2006 when his film “An Inconvenient Truth” was released. According to satellite data, the Earth has cooled since Gore’s film was released, Antarctic sea ice extent has grown to record levels, sea level rise has slowed, ocean temperatures have failed to warm, and more and more scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made climate fears as peer-reviewed studies continue to man-made counter warming fears. [See: Peer-Reviewed Study challenges ‘notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming’ & New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears ]

    “Vice President Gore and the other promoters of man-made climate fears endless claims that the “debate is over” appear to be ignoring scientific reality,” Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee.

    A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 details over 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears promoted by the UN and yourself. Many of the scientists profiled are former UN IPCC scientists and former believers in man-made climate change that have reversed their views in recent years. The report continues to grow almost daily. We have just received a request from an Italian scientist, and a Czech scientist to join the 650 dissenting scientists report. A chemist from the U.S. Naval Academy is about to be added, and more Japanese scientists are dissenting. Finally, many more meteorologists will be added and another former UN IPCC scientist is about to be included. These scientists are openly rebelling against the climate orthodoxy promoted by Gore and the UN IPCC.

    The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Reports from the conference found that Skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ ( See full reports here & here ] In addition, a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” More evidence that the global warming fear machine is breaking down. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices.”

    The scientists and peer-reviewed studies countering climate claims are the key reason that the U.S. public has grown ever more skeptical of man-made climate doom predictions. [See: Global warming ranks dead last, 20 out of 20 in new Pew survey. Pew Survey: & Survey finds majority of U.S. Voters – ‘51% – now believe that humans are not the predominant cause of climate change’ – January 20, 2009 – Rasmussen Reports ]

    The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”

    On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Spotless Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Global sea ice; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

  345. Above post was from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

    There is no debunking of the Gaian Death Cult’s latest Apocalypse at Reason anymore. Try National Post, or the award Winning Watts Up or Reference Frame.

  346. Eric,

    Try an excerpt and a link.

    And, Watts ain’t really the sharpest tack in the box on these issues. He doesn’t seem to understand the basic methods or the stats very well, based on what I have read on his blog.

    See these notes on what Watts posts, for example:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/antarctica-warming/

  347. Take an Engineering student, if he’s all thumbs, make him a scientist.


  348. Using essentially 19th century technology, mankind has raised global temperatures. Lowering global temperatures using 21st or 25th century technology is impossible.

    The TTAPS study showed that global temperatures could be lowered with 20th century technology.

  349. @Eric Gisin

    That post of yours is pretty cool from my POV I have to admit. Rock on! Another fellow in NASA who got in some PC-trouble over a under-enthusiastic AGW attitude in certain interviews and such was the outgoing Director, Dr. Michael Griffin.

    However I think in this case the science cuts both ways. What’s going on at NASA is whats going on at all Fedracracies: The Incoming Administration Purge. As the former bums are forced off the ship to make way for new Big Man’s bums they alight flame wars not more different than the threads here.

    There is one empirical example of AGW I can think of, and it was an inadvertent experiment: The decrease in temperatures following the suspension of aircraft operations in the USA following 9/11. Nothing but USAF-type machines flew for a week, and temperatures dropped that week below average across the country by 4C. That’s a big number in this context.

    I’ve always been surprised the AGW crew wasn’t more conscious of that fact in their arguments in cultural output like this thread, amongst other things. I personally do not think it was because of C02 reductions, but because jets flying so high roast tons of ice crystals into water vapor – far more than CO2 in weight and per weight much more “warming” than CO2 in its properties. Thousands of jets doing this over the whole country (way more contrails in the sky today than when i was a kid) and I think it acts like a big humidifier. But the effect is not sustainable, that’s why those temps dropped so fast so quick, and then came back to the rising “normal” once the jets began flying again.

    Given those facts, I do not find such dynamic behavior indicative of a thousand year effect, and frankly I find it a blow to the AGW-by-CO2 hypothesis, but nonetheless this stuff is fascinating science that shouldn’t be discounted and diluted by political motivations. And these climate-priests and the interests anxious to benefit from their hubris I do not

  350. libertymike,

    Nah, I’m no shark. I’m an in-house counsel, so I’m more of a fixer than I am a parasite on society.

    Just to be clear, if I were stimulating the economy, I’d waste the money by paying Americans to get hard science and technology degrees, including engineering. It’s still an immoral and unconstitutional use of federal power, but at least it might do some good. The one hope for our continued dominance in the world is our technological supremacy. Which we’re beginning to give away.

  351. I’m an in-house counsel, so I’m more of a fixer than I am a parasite on society.

    True dat. In-house counsel are the white blood cells of our legal system.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.