Global Warming's Real and Capitalism's the Best Antidote: Ron Bailey at Flood Wall Street

Reason's science correspondent on climate change, markets, and Naomi Klein.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Global Warming's Real and Capitalism's the Best Antidote: Ron Bailey at Flood Wall Street

HD Video Download

"Human additions to greenhouse gasses are increasing the average temperature of the globe," Reason's Science Correspondent Ron Bailey told Kmele Foster (who was reporting for Reason TV) at yesterday's Flood Wall Street Protest. There's a "scientific consensus" on that point. "The question is," says Bailey, "how long do we have before things become catastrophic, and there's not a consensus about that."

Bailey says that ironically many of the most promising solutions to climate change—nuclear power, improved solar panels, a carbon tax—rely on the very market mechanisms that the protesters oppose.

Check out Ron's reporting from yesterday's "washout" event (there were "about 1,000 protesters," most of them "nostalgic Occupy Wall Street veterans"), his dispatch from Sunday's massive People's Climate March, and his terrific review of Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

Shot and edited by Jim Epstein.

About 4:20.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Comments

[Drake]

"There has been a pause... the climate models simply did not predict this and to this day cannot account for this... many "Climatologists" think..."

I like how he repeats this drivel with an almost straight face.

[Clich? Bandit]

many "Climatologists" think..."

Citation needed.

[Poppa Kilo]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[The Other Kevin]

That pause is evidence of deadly man-made global warming climate change climate stagnation.

[Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!]

"Human additions to greenhouse gasses are increasing the average temperature of the globe," Reason's Science Correspondent Ron Bailey told Kmele Foster (who was reporting for Reason TV) at yesterday's Flood Wall Street Protest. There's a "scientific consensus" on that point.

Sigh... Mr. B's faith is strong.

[Drake]

If you had proof, you wouldn't need faith. What kind of religion would that be?

[DesigNate]

I'm really starting to lose faith in Ron since he continues to believe the nonsense that greenhouse gasses are increasing the average temperature.

At least he acknowledges that there could be other factors, but hasn't that hypothesis been disproven by 17 years of no increase?

[Zunalter]

And by other factors, do you perhaps mean...the sun?

[DesigNate]

Yup, that's a pretty big one.

[Ketogenic Paleo]

the sun's sunspot activity affecting cloud formation due to Earth being within the Sun's "atmosphere"

[mtrueman]

"nonsense that greenhouse gasses are increasing the average temperature"

Greenhouse gases trap heat. That's been established science for over 150 yrs.

[Clich? Bandit]

A. I think we all agree that no matter what is going on we DONT want the gubmit involved in any "solutions"

B. I have a hard time believing a "scientific" claim that has yet to provide any substantive evidence to support it. "Greenhouse gasses" may work in Greenhouses but the Earth is a giant mud ball flying around the sun at 66,600 mph while spinning at 1,000 mph, surrounded by Giant planets, comets, asteroids, stellar debris, space dust, and Klingons. The notion that it is a closed system is flawed. TONS of rock and water are added to the earth EVERY DAY! And we lose about 50k tons of mass each year.

C. All that being said, lets look at the scientific process: make a claim (Warming Earth caused by man). Test it (Look at temps). Evaluate (Nope, last ten plus years we have added more and more Man stuff and seen no warming). This does not mean there is no AGW but it means your original assumptions are wrong. So Back to the Drawing board.

D. When the "scientific community" (whatever that is) starts to talk about solar activity, cosmic radiation ionizing the atmosphere, the loss of energy (and mass) due to the Earth's core cooling from radioactive decay, albedo from clouds, Klingons, THEN I will listen more closely. As long as they bleat the same tripe without any supporting evidence (model != evidence) and plenty of counterexamples then I will happily go on driving my car and farting.

[Heroic Mulatto]

I too am curious as to why our scientists don't look at the evidence of how the destruction of Praxis led to increased surface albedo of Qo'onoS.

[Clich? Bandit]

Tell me about it. And don't get me started on why they ignore the invasive species of tribles running rampant.

[mtrueman]

"C. All that being said, lets look at the scientific process: make a claim (Warming Earth caused by man). Test it"

Don't know why nobody hasn't thought of this before. All we have to do is construct a replica of the earth, identical to this earth in every respect except for its absence of humans. Take its temperature, wait ten years and take its temperature again.

[Jackand Ace]

Well, Ronald, kudos to you. I'm all for letting the solutions to the problem of climate change get hashed out, and I for one would not endorse Naomi Klein's belief that it would need to be at the expense of capitalism. But kudos to her as well for at least being at step 1, which is admitting there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Sadly for most commenters here, they are not even at step 1 yet.

[Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!]

We have this hang up called "wanting proof".

If you have to resort to tricks to hide the decline, won't produce data, rely on obviously wrong models, resort to hysterics against anyone who doubts you...you have a problem you have not admitted to.

[Suthenboy]

Arguing with a fanatic is an exercise in futility.

[Jackand Ace]

Ronald isn't a fanatic.

[DesigNate]

Congratulations, you're at a step that doesn't even exist.

Here's a unicorn.

Make sure to capture it's farts as those are the only REAL source of renewable energy that doesn't affect the climate.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

LOL...a theorem that can't predict anything is useless - dumbass.

If it disagrees with experiment, its wrong

[Suthenboy]

"There is a consensus among the climatological community...."

Having lots of scientists agree about something means nothing. If you think it does then you don't know what science is. Or logic. Now all we have to do is get the climate to join the consensus, right?

Jesus Ron. Go back and read the transcripts from the 1975 climate conference.

Having the primary proponents of the climate change movement avowed commies, closet commies, malthusians and totalitarians of nearly every stripe isn't a hint for you? Yeah, the climate is changing but statistically no differently than it ever has.

Maybe hearing you say that surrounded by those people should be a hint for me. I am deeply disappointed.

[Suthenboy]

There was once a very strong scientific consensus that all was filled with the ether. The ether, a substance indistinguishable from nothing at all.

Now we have a consensus on AGW. AGW climate change is indistinguishable from non-AGW climate change.

Both are unfalsifiable. The difference is that one of these is driven by political correctness, money, and an insatiable desire to enslave mankind. Given how difficult it was to see the other one extinguished, I fear we are doomed.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

Ether made a comeback in that empty space is not really empty...though not exactly ether as was surmised in the past.

[Suthenboy]

I suspect the Climate crisis will do the same...debunked and reincarnated in a form not exactly as it was surmised in the past.

Wait, it already is doing that. Over and over.

[Juice]

The luminiferous ether was falsifiable and was falsified by experiment.

[Ron Bailey]

All: My reading of the scientific literature tells me that the balance of the evidence indicates that extra GHGs in the atmosphere have boosted the globe's average temperature over what it would otherwise have been. I am definitely not parroting the "consensus," just offering my best interpretation of the evidence. Over the course of this century there is a nontrivial chance that the warming could become a big problem. Of course, that alone does NOT prescribe what should be done about it. See my article, "Climate Change Costs By 2100: Doing Nothing Has the Same Price Tag as Doing Something."

What each of individual who is grappling with this issue must ask himself or herself: is there any evidence that would cause you to change your mind? If so, what is it?

For some slightly dated background on why I changed my mind about man-made global warming, see my "Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore."

I also lay out more the evidence and my reasoning about how to handle global warming in my chapter "Can We Cope with the Heat" in my upcoming book The End of Doom.

I hope that you all will give me the benefit of a doubt: I am trying to remain as objective as possible in reporting a thoroughly politicized science.

[Tman]

RON: I think everyone wants to give you the benefit of the doubt as you are pretty thorough in your research based on the articles you've posted here (those in doubt please take the time to read some of his prior work, in particular his exhaustive reviews of the various forms of renewable energy and their efficacy).

That being said the latest data in regards to global temperature have destroyed the "consensus" on Global Warming due to the models predictions being wrong on a variety of levels. If we are to believe the "consensus" from a scientific standpoint then someone has to make a prediction THAT ACTUALLY COMES TRUE. That is what science is all about.

Most people would agree that GHG's play a role in climate change, but I think most would also agree that the science is clearly NOT settled in terms of its actual impact on said climate.

And again, "consensus" is not science per se.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

There is no consensus dipshit. The temps are not hidden away in the deep ocean, the theory as stated has been refuted by the data...it's wrong.

[Ron Bailey]

EBC: With regard to heat being "hidden" in the deep ocean, there is not much data since measurements just began in the last few years. Honestly, a lot of the explanations that try to wave away the "pause" do often sound like Ptolemaic astronomers adding epicycles in order to maintain the view that the sun and the planets circled the earth.

But the measurements are now being done and if they do show significant increases in the temperature of the deep oceans, what will you think then? As for me, I will await the measurements.

[jester]

Tom Petty: The waiting is the hardest part.
I too, Ron, am patient. I can wait. Let's hope the crazies can as well.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

It is what it is. Although its impossible to get concentrated pockets of heat to even begin to measure. The heat will spread out...2nd Law.

The theory is wrong on many fronts...tropospheric hotspot, polar amplification, increased tropical activity/power, temp response to CO2, etc, etc. When they can predict something then I'll listen. Science is about predicting. Do I need to add ANOTHER link to the Feynman lecture on the Scientific Method?

Talking to you people is like a conversation with the wrongest man in the Galaxy...Paul Ehrlich (and his suck buddy Holdren). These morons are the real kooks.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

...and nobody really knows what the sensitivity to double CO2...and they don't really know if the water vapor forcing is positive or negative. A bunch of wrong all the way round.

I've looked at the code in one of the older models...Model E. Talk about steaming pile of shit. Academics are known for writing bad code. I'm sure the practice still continues.

[Ayn Random Variation]

"But the measurements are now being done and if they do show significant increases in the temperature of the deep oceans, what will you think then?"

Significant increases from what to what? If the measurements are new, then what are they going to be compared to to prove that the deep oceans are warmer now than, say, 100 years ago?

[mtrueman]

"As for me, I will await the measurements."

http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc.....t-28898223

Researchers say they have found more than 500 bubbling methane vents on the seafloor off the US east coast. (August this year)

[GeneDoc]

I really appreciate your open-mindedness, Ron and your willingness to engage with commenters.

Oceans are almost certainly the answer. Clearly changes in surface heat content must eventually be equilibrated into the oceans (can we predict the rate? Do we know enough about what brings on the decadal oscillations in the Atlantic and Pacific? Why do El Ninos appear?). Measuring any significant temperature changes, especially in the giant heat sink that is the deep ocean, is an enormous challenge that no one currently knows how to solve. The Argo floats show flat ocean temps, but they aren't up to the task (too sparse, too shallow, inadequate precision). Keep in mind that the heat content of the entire atmosphere is the equivalent of the top 10m of the ocean. The vast majority of the ocean is below 4 C. It will take a very very long time to heat that up, and we currently have no instrumentation that can approach measuring deep ocean temperature changes with anywhere near the necessary precision.

If you can't measure it, it's not science. So instead we have "climate scientists" attempting to determine an average surface temperature by massaging sparse thermometer readings, averaging daily highs and lows (not integrating for heat content), ignoring urban heat islands and blithely declaring "the hottest August on record!" based on statistically meaningless measurements.

[Corning]

My reading of the scientific literature tells me that the balance of the evidence indicates that extra GHGs in the atmosphere have boosted the globe's average temperature over what it would otherwise have been.

Bullshit.

How hot it have been? how hot is it above that now? how much hotter will it be in 100 years given different concentrations of GHGs?

You can't answer that with any confidence and you know you cannot and you know no one on the planet can.

You do not understand how science works Ron. You are full of bullshit.

[Corning]

How hot it have been?

correction:

"How hot would it have been?"

[Mike M.]

It's a fucking joke, isn't it?

This is the exact same kind of bullshit that the Paul Krugmans of the world constantly pull in the realm of economics. "Sure, unemployment was higher than we said it would be, but it would have been even HIGHER than that if we hadn't passed that trillion dollar stimulus!"

Reason should be embarrassed.

[Ron Bailey]

C: Perhaps I am full of it. But regard to how hot it will be in a 100 years given different concentrations of GHGs depends on the crucial (and quite controversial) issue of climate sensitivity. Sadly, 30 years of research has failed to nail down that issue.

[jester]

For the guy who wrote Ecoscam and later accepted AGW, you see better than anyone how precarious your position is working for the Kochtopus.
Science is politicized (wow! who'd a thunk) and I think you've given it it's call of bullshit such as unabashedly giving forum to pariah Lomborg. Who else does that?

[Corning]

Sadly, 30 years of research has failed to nail down that issue.

Yes we do not know. We do not know given different input and output scenarios of heat in our atmosphere that climate sensitivity is always positive. We only know CO2 in a test tube absorbs heat and you extrapolate from that that the human race has warmed the highly complex and reactive system of the earth's atmosphere.

For all you know the CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere has cooled the earth, through a complex system of feedbacks, to a lower temp then it would otherwise be.

You have zero proof and are only nodding your head to the word of self proclaimed experts and their politically motivated best guesses.

[Suthenboy]

"What each of individual who is grappling with this issue must ask himself or herself: is there any evidence that would cause you to change your mind? If so, what is it?"

Of course. If the climate were to change in a fashion that matches or closely mimics the changes predicted by the AGW theory. I will not hesitate to change my mind and gladly say so from the rooftops.

Given the excellent reporting that you have done in the past ( I admit you made me a fan some years ago, and I am not usually a fan of anyone) and your profession of intellectual honesty....ok, I will give you the benefit of doubt.

I have yet to see a hypothesis that is strongly supported by empirical evidence or has stood up to testing. I have yet to see a theory (grown from said flawed hypothesis) that makes a single accurate prediction. There are competing theories ( solar activity ) that explain what we see more betta.

[Suthenboy]

Throw out the computer models and stop using the term 'scientific consensus'. It is just another way of saying 'the science is settled'. The instant I hear it I immediately think "this person does not know what science is", and dammit Ron, I know you do.

Oh, and standing next to some obviously insane person ( not Foster ) who is waving a sign that says "Save the climate, End Capitalism" doesn't help much in the credibility department. (Throw out the politics)

Whatever contribution we are making to climate change I am not convinced that it is non-trivial.

Make a solid case, I will not hesitate to change my mind.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Over the course of this century there is a nontrivial chance that the warming could become a big problem.

To whom? Predictions suggest that East and Southeast Asia would see a crop yield increase of around 30 percent and Northern European would see an increase of around 15 percent.

Cui molestia?

[Heroic Mulatto]

*molestiae

[jester]

Big problem to rich beachfront estate owners who don't think their estates disaster insurance is subsidized enough?

[DesigNate]

Over the course of this century there is a nontrivial chance that the warming could become a big problem.

If, and that's a mighty big if, the current trend of, what, +0.19 C per DECADE continues, in 100 years we'll have warmed a whole 1.2 C.

Can you explain how that is "catastrophic"?

[american socialist]

You mean we'll have warmed 1.9 oC, right? 0.19x10= 1.9oC. Co2 concentrations currently aren 't linear. Would you expect temperature increases to be linear in response to a non-linear independent variable?

[DesigNate]

Except the fucking data shows that CO2 has increased over the last 17 years and there hasn't been a corresponding spike in temps.

(But yes, that was a typo. Congratulations on focusing on that and not explaining how it might be catastrophic.)

[Corning]

in 100 years we'll have warmed a whole 1.2 C.

Every day it is like 10 to 20 degrees warmer then it is at night at my house.

The raining frogs, tidal waves, fires, and droughts it causes runs havok through my garden.

Also when does that trend start? 1950? 2001? 48BC?

That trend can go from positive to negative depending on where you start from.

[Anon E. Mouse]

If one looks at the actual historical record, there's very strong evidence that we're headed for another period of glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere caused by variations in the Earth's orbit collectively known as Milankovitch Cycles. There's real evidence that within 7000 years, most of North America will once again be under a sheet of ice. If one looks at the long-term, maybe warming things up a bit really isn't a bad thing.

[Sevo]

Ron Bailey|9.23.14 @ 3:10PM|#
"My reading of the scientific literature tells me that the balance of the evidence indicates that extra GHGs in the atmosphere have boosted the globe's average temperature over what it would otherwise have been. [...] Over the course of this century there is a nontrivial chance that the warming could become a big problem."

I'm also persuaded there is warming and that humans play some role, although the 17-year stagnation has me wondering again.
But what do you see as a 'big problem'?

[GeneDoc]

You're right, it's completely, nastily politicized, and the practitioners of climate phrenology are mostly at it to keep the government gravy train flowing ($20 billion/year!). As a scientist, it offends me to the core that anyone refers to climatology as a science, or that anyone could be persuaded by the "consensus" that they yammer about.

Go read Steve Koonin's piece from Saturday's WSJ. The uncertainties around the climate response to added CO2 are huge, and he's done a great job pointing out how incredibly little we understand. It's not just that the models are poor. We know so little about what causes the natural variability of the climate system. It is complete hogwash for any "scientist" to state that "since we can't account for any other factor that could be causing the increase in temperatures, it must be the CO2 increases that are responsible". I was floored when I saw that this was the crux of the argument. The "pause" only underscores the depth of the ignorance (and to call it a pause is pretty hilarious on it's own--talk about using language to shape thinking!). Plateau? downturn? It has not warmed by any measure for nearly 20 years, despite continued CO2 increases. If natural variability is responsible for suppressing the warming--why don't we know how that works? How do we know it wasn't responsible for the warming before that? And for how much of the warming? The ignorance is very deep.

[Jackand Ace]

The ignorance is surely deep, and alas, its owned by you.

You're a scientist? Let me ask you a couple of questions. Exactly what government gravy train are you speaking about? Where on earth did you get $20B funneled to climate studies? If what you say is true, exactly why, when GOP deniers controlled the Oval Office as well as both Houses (that would be under Bush the son), why were scientists saying the same exact thing about the climate? That we were headed to trouble. How was it possible that gravy train was still flowing when the deniers controlled ALL the purse strings?

And the "pause"....yikes. Do you even understand that temperatures have been rising for the past 100 years, regardless of the past 15. Try looking at a graph. Do you see in the past 100 years "pauses" for even longer periods of time? Try looking at the years between 1942 and 1965. And then guess what? Temperatures went right back up again. This "pause" you are speaking about...do you know its paused at the highest temperatures we have had for over 100 years? What magic do you believe in that it suddenly has stopped when it has paused before?

Tell us what science you are trained in...so I can tell my kids to avoid it.

[GeneDoc]

Thanks for the ad hominem attack! Always a winning strategy!

US federal spending on climate change averaged a bit more than $20B in the last three fiscal years (Table 1):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/site.....ngress.pdf

About $2.5B was counted in this report from the current white house as research (mostly NASA, NSF, EPA and DOE). A major fraction of the $20B is "clean energy" support (Think Solyndra, A123, etc). I don't have access to numbers from prior administrations, but I would bet they're not dissimilar. The Bush administration was on record supporting AGW, and while different administrations try to change science funding priorities, it's very difficult to change. James Hansen at NASA complained about being muzzled by Bush and that his dire warnings were toned down by political appointees, but he kept his position until he retired last year despite his rather over-the-top behavior for a federal employee (activism that included being arrested more than once). Administrations come and go, but the entrenched bureaucrats soldier on.

[GeneDoc]

On the 100 years of warming: Yes, it's warmed for a century or more. And? Temperatures were low in the early to mid 1800s (something referred to as the Little Ice Age). The earth's temperature has been recovering from that since about 1870, let's say 140 years. The first half of that increase in temperature occurred without any increase in CO2. Indeed, temperatures in the 1930s were similar to those today, although the records make it difficult to say with any precision which decade was hotter. Yes there were periods of increases, decreases and plateaus. To my inquisitive mind, these all beg the question: why? To the AGW proponent, they seem to indicate something else, but I can't fathom exactly what?

[Jackand Ace]

What they indicate is that unlike CO2, which rises in a fairly straight line each and every year (or alternate years), temperature does not. No one ever said temperature was purely a function of man-made CO2.

The Bush administration was FAR from supportive of the dangers of AGW. Regardless, the GOP Congress has always been skeptical, and its not the President who initiates the spending.

Here is the problem for deniers...you just can't get beyond the fact that science in its near totality accepts AGW, and is warning about its potential dangers. And when you have nothing else to rely on, you rely on conspiracy theories.

Where do you get that the first part of the rise in temperature was without an increase in CO2?

http://www.ametsoc.org/amschap.....lefig3.jpg

You tell me if CO2 was increasing at the beginning of the century, and you tell me if the rate of increase has been in line with temperature increases.

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, the problem you ignore is the rate of temperature increase we have undergone. Its a rate of increase that some scientists say has not occurred in millions of years (Stanford).

We have seen a rise in temperature since the industrial revolution, about 100 years plus, of 1.3 DF, when in the past it has taken 5,000 years to see that kind of increase.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/08/.....d-atypical

[GeneDoc]

Ah yes, the Marcott paper. Are you unaware of the problems with that study? This provides a pretty good summary:

http://opinion.financialpost.c.....ederated=1

But if you don't have time to wade through the interesting details of how the study was done and what the flaws are, let me boil it down to one sentence:

The proxy data used to reconstruct Holocene temperatures cannot distinguish temperature changes on a scale less than 300 years.

Do you see the problem with your use of this study to support the claim that the past 100 years are unprecedented? Dr. Marcott does, even though numerous news outlets (like NPR) and even the NSF were happy to trumpet from the roof tops that current warming is unprecedented:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot......ience.html

It's not a conspiracy, it's merely groupthink and inadequate attention to the details, coupled with a need to keep the funding coming. Look at the data, make your own conclusions. That's what I do. Consensus is a herd instinct that's unbecoming of a serious scientist.

[Jackand Ace]

Ah no, not much of any problems, as you suggest. Are you aware that Marcott answered them. In case you only do shallow research sticking to Pielke Jr. (the PhD. in Political Science), then here you go:

http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....ott-et-al/

No problem here, since other scientists have said the same. Here, Stanford research that says the rate of temperature increase is 10X faster than at any point in millions of years:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/.....80113.html

But I know, they weren't political scientists, they were only CLIMATE scientists.

I've looked at the data, and its easy to see why nearly 100% of all climate scientists have come to the same conclusion...the same one Ronald has come to.

But keep trying.

[Jackand Ace]

And Ross McKitrick? The economist who strongly urged all to believe in the urban heat island? Which has now been nearly universally accepted as just a myth?

You do know that Koch funded the Berkeley Earth group to look at such a theory, and Muller et. al., much to their own surprise, validated the temperatures and found no urban heat effect...much to the dismay of McKitrick.

Come on...your the scientist.

[Jackand Ace]

I'll tell you what...since you used and economist and a poli sci major, I'll see that shallowness with a review of the Marcott paper by a statistician, Grant Foster (aka Tamino- save your complaints, I know all about the charges made against him by deniers). Regardless, he did publish a good analysis of Marcott, found his own problems, and yet concluded:

"The dangerous part is that it has happened so fast. In the span of a century or two, man-made changes to the atmosphere wiped out 5,000 years of natural climate change. People can argue about the uptick at the end of the Marcott reconstruction ? I'll do so myself ? but for most who do so, it's just an attempt to divert attention from the fact that global temperature really has increased in the last century, at a speed not seen in at least the last 11,300 years. We know this, thermometers have made it plain, only those in denial still deny it."

http://tamino.wordpress.com/20.....g-picture/

[GeneDoc]

Ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. Well done. Irrelevant.

From Marcott from your link:

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. ***Any small "upticks" or "downticks" in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.***

[GeneDoc]

You ignored my point about the paper, which was that temperature changes similar to those seen in the last century that might have occurred during the last 11,000 years could not have been detected in the study by Marcott. Yet the interpretation of Marcott's work (Tamino, others) is that current warming is unprecedented. Marcott says that's not what his paper says.

Instead of dealing with the concern I raised, you merely attacked me and the sources I linked to.

This is the usual climate alarmist tactic. It's really quite tiresome and highly counterproductive (see Koonin on this point). It does nothing to advance the debate.

I'm done. You may have the last word if you'd like, but I'll quit answering since you clearly have no interest in understanding data, how it's collected and analyzed and how it can be properly interpreted. You seem to only be interested in defending your beliefs. As I tell my students, believe is a dirty word in science.

[Jackand Ace]

Enjoy your day.

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, I might add, Marcott did say it. Let me quote him:

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

But stick to your guns.

[Sam Grove]

"how long do we have before things become catastrophic, and there's not a consensus about that."

IF, IF things become catastrophic.

[Lady Bertrum]

We have reached peak retard.

This "demonstration" along with the RFK jr interview proves the enlightenment might as well not happened.

The sun goes 'round the Earth. The same as it ever was.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

Cook's consensus paper has been shredded by both social scientists and statisticians. The AGW hypothesis has not predicted anything, they are wrong on just about everything. Why does Reason keep posting this stupid shit?

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

...should be CAGW

[Lady Bertrum]

Because Right Thinking People know climate change is real, so it is.

[Corning]

There's a "scientific consensus" on that point.

Bailey is full of bullshit just like the climate change consensus.

[Suthenboy]

I just saw President 'Not my fault' say to the U.N. that the climate is changing faster than ever. (It is not )

One of the essential elements of a con is to create a sense of urgency in your mark. "There is no time to think! Act now!". Acting always means writing a check.

So...what happened about the antarctic ice sheet already collapsing and that it is too late to do anything about it? This is the equivalent of saying that a huge asteroid is headed our way and will kill and displace billions, yet it made headlines for a few days and 'poof' disappeared.

Those morons are true believers and dont understand how all this works. Someone must have sat them down and told them to shut the fuck up.

[Heroic Mulatto]

One of the essential elements of a con is to create a sense of urgency in your mark. "There is no time to think! Act now!". Acting always means writing a check.

In Erving Goffman's research on confidence games, he refered to the processes of "warming-up" and "cooling-out" the mark.

Coincidence?

[Suthenboy]

"Coincidence?"

No, it is not.

Ok, y'all, as much as I have enjoyed spending time here again, I must go. Ladies night and I am the designated driver.

My wife keeps telling me what time it is.

[HazelMeade]

One thing bothers me:

Why do climate scientists allow people like Naomi Klein to represent them to the general public? Why do they allow this assortment of left-wing cranks and hacks control the agenda?

Are there any serious people who just want to deal with climate change in a serious way, instead of hitching every pet cause to it like bit was a prize oxen?
Go climate change! It can pull socialism, and anti-GMO and anti-nuke, and anti-fracking and freeing Mumia all at the same time!! Let's LOAD THTt BITCH UP!

[Paul.]

Hey, leftards! Your president just started bombing a new country in the middle east without Congressional approval!

[jester]

Electoral College?

[Juice]

Imagine the carbon footprint.

[american socialist]

I was going to post that I don't find it reassuring--at all-- that an ex-Forbes energy sector writer cum libertarian doesn't 't know if and when global warming will be catastrophic. To be honest, I was hoping for more denial and techno optimism.

But given the nature of the comments I think I would just say that extremist political movements tend to eat their moderate fringes. If you can't say in a sentence... Gee, I think it's getting hot outside in a magazine without a reader throwing down his computer and sending in his cancellation you know something is terribly wrong. You guys are having your Symbionese Liberation Army vs. the Weatherman internecine squabble. Groovy. Enjoy it!

[DesigNate]

Derp da derp da tiddly terp.

[Loki]

Commie Fucktard's theme song.

[GILMORE]

Temperatures havent risen in 17 years.

Do you feel confident in your "end of the world" forecast? if so, when?

[Tony]

Just because you cherry pick an exceptionally hot year as your starting point and note a hiatus in the rise of warming since then doesn't mean there is no such thing as global warming. How do you account for the decades and decades of warming outside of this range? Do attempt an answer.

You would be embarrassing yourself if anyone else here bothered to read anything but bullshit talking points on this subject.

[GILMORE]

You are ducking MY point.

I don't disagree that there is 'something' called global warming. that is your bullshit claim, attempting to imply that other people 'deny' anything.

I'm pointing out = given that the 'experts' have been wrong about even *near term* expectations ... what confidence do you have in *any* estimates as to 'when, if ever'" we face a 'crisis'?

50 years? 100 years? 150 years? Pick one and make a case.

[Tony]

What expert says that we can predict or expect a certain rate of warming over less-than-decadal time spans? You're taking a cherry picked range (beginning with an exceptionally hot year) in order to make a broader point about the science overall. You know that's what you're doing. Everyone thinks that's what you're doing.

We are facing a crisis this very moment. Effects of warming are happening now. That you aren't dead right this second doesn't mean it's not happening. You have to be able to imagine global problems over many decades. Not easy for your average toddler, I get it, but it should be graspable by an adult willing to go where the evidence takes him.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

What expert says that we can predict or expect a certain rate of warming over less-than-decadal time spans?

Al Gore did. He did invent the Internet after all. Didn't you hear? He said so himself. And he won a prize. That makes him an expert.

We are facing a crisis this very moment.

The Three Faces of Tony are facing a crisis, did you say?

That you aren't dead right this second doesn't mean it's not happening.

The End Is Near!

That is what you sign says, at least...

[GILMORE]

"Effects of warming are happening now."

What?

Nothing is 'happening' now that wasn't 'happening' 100 years ago.

Show me your 'evidence', please.

in related news! YOU ARE DYING!!! sometime in the next 80 years, you will suddenly die!! OMG panic!

[NotAnotherSkippy]

The rate of warming from 1970/80-2000 is indistinguishable from the rate of warming from 1910-1940. We are told that the latter is mostly the work of human GHG emissions and the latter occurred before significant CO2 emissions.

Further, Tung and Zhou show that human forcing and natural variability are approximately equal which is a serious blow to the CAGW mythology. So in less than one century we already have empirical evidence that natural fluctuations can be on the order of the "unequivocal" human forcing.

To make matters worse, the models which go into the CMIP analysis fail to predict the 1910-40 warming. Think about that--I know, thinking hard--the models upon which you place all of your faith cannot capture a natural warming event on the same order as the recent (last ~30years) warming event. This is a clear indication that the physics contained within the models is wrong. The only remaining question is how wrong.

[Paul.]

Any day now. AAaaaany day.

[OldMexican]

Re: american stolid,

doesn't 't know if and when global warming will be catastrophic.

But, you DO know, right?

You heard it here first, folks!

[GILMORE]

What was the march 'about' again?

Kmele says it was "For climate change". Which i understand is a thing, similar to saying we're out here 'supporting the rotation of the earth'; or was it, "opposing climate change"? which i suppose is the same thing, just more like, "a rally demanding that water be less wet".

I am just not that into having conversations on that level at all, because - call me crazy - it seems sort of dumb.

[jester]

Homo sapiens (a term coined by Linnaeus in 1758) has hardly ever agreed on anything in 'its' evolutionary existence. People like Tasmanians became isolates as a result of early forms of 'climate denial'. Okay, that is presentism but explain how 'we' as Homo sapiens have truly surpassed acting locally but failing to think globally?

[GILMORE]

"Okay, that is presentism but explain how 'we' as Homo sapiens have truly surpassed acting locally but failing to think globally?"

Try again, only in English.

To be as clear as possible = make a point in short, simple sentences, rather than bullshit rhetorical gestures. please.

[jester]

Sorry, I was just ranting incoherently as usual. You said nothing wrong. Your comment just set off a reaction. The question is rhetorical and certainly NOT aimed at you. I'd try again. But what would be the point? A poorly conveyed comment is always ripe for derision. (Although I am rather fond of it after reading it again.)

[Sevo]

You shouldn't be.

[toolkien]

One can believe what the wish and use persuasion upon others. As long as no Force is used in ANY situation where danger is not clear and present. 100 year out predictions based on models is no where near clear and present.

But just as I have to live with people who believe in Ghosts and Faeries, I have to live with people who believe man made heating of the planet. But will not tolerate the use of Force. Unfortunately, for very many, it's a short bridge between "I have a superstition but I'll allow that you don't have to follow the tenets I follow to make myself feel better" to "I have a superstition and I'm going to hire an agent on my behalf to put a collar on you so you behave properly". But, such is life when you share a planet where 95+% of the people follow some superstition or other. You just never know when they're going to go rabid.

[Zunalter]

That would be 100%...the other 5% are superstitious of superstitious people becoming rabid.

[toolkien]

Concentration camps and gulags aren't a superstition. Babies getting their faces blown off by Barney Fife isn't a superstition. Jails filled within non-violent/non-property crimes is not a superstition. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace isn't a superstition. Thinking anything is going to happen to me tomorrow because a black cat crossed my path, would be superstition.

The fact that superstitious people hire agents to mail fists around is stone cold fact.

[GILMORE]

Ron Bailey on Naomi Klein =

"...Its a little incoherent..."

Master. of. Understatement.

[jester]

I got my Master of Understatement at Boise State University. Class of 1989! More universities need to offer that degree. Just sayin'.

[Anon E. Mouse]

The fact is this: Climate changes. That's what it does. There have been countless Ice-Ages, and countless periods of desertification, the seas have risen and fallen by hundreds of feet, what is now barren ice, was once forest, and what is now forest was once barren ice. Climate has always changed, and it will always change, with or without mankind. Only those things that can adapt to change survive. Maybe that's why some people fear the inevitable.

"The measure of intelligence is the ability to change."
? Albert Einstein

[unperson]

this is your meat, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv1xvwk3tfI

[C. S. P. Schofield]

""Human additions to greenhouse gasses are increasing the average temperature of the globe,""

Since when? Last time I looked that wasn't true for the last decade and a half, or slightly over.

"There's a "scientific consensus" on that point."

Is there now? That's interesting. Because in the 1950's there was "Scientific Consensus" that continental drift was hogwash.

Consensus proves what is socially acceptable in certain circles. It does not prove what is true. Appealing to consensus tells me that you feel your data is shaky.

I'm willing to accept that the climate changes constantly. I'm willing to posit that man could influence this. I am ready to debate whether he does in any measurable fashion. I am ready to discuss where the human cost of trying to offset any influence we may have is a worthwhile use of resources.

And I am ready to resist, with all the power at my disposal, any swine who calls to "climate change deniers" to be imprisoned. Because such a person is a would-be slaver.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

I for one have always welcomed some warming.

It's just too cold in Montreal in the winter.

[Tony]

It is astounding how long the hiatus nonsense has sated you people.

A hiatus of less than 2 decades does not prove that all the warming that's been happening for the 100 years before and encompassing it didn't happen. Does that make sense to you idiots? Hello?

What's the claim? That after decades of greenhouse-gas-induced warming, something magical happened that made the greenhouse effect stop being real? You have to try really really hard to be this stupid.

It really doesn't take much does it? Just one crumb of a talking point and you can sleep at night thinking you're on the right side of science (which is somehow on the other side of all the scientists).

[Tman]

Who you callin "YOU PEOPLE"?

[SMcBride]

It just looks bad, Tony. I'm ready to believe, but I'd like an accurate model before I consider giving more power to the elites.

If you want to use AGW as impetus to discuss market-driven green technologies, though, that's a different story.

[Tony]

It doesn't look bad, not if you know what you're looking at. Read the link I posted above. You're being fed bullshit by con artists. Among all the difficult things in politics, one of the easiest is figuring out what science says and what it doesn't.

[Sevo]

Tony|9.23.14 @ 5:50PM|#
..."Among all the difficult things in politics, one of the easiest is figuring out what science says and what it doesn't."...

Lies, damn lies and lies by stupid pieces of shit.

[GILMORE]

Again, tony =

you are avoiding the specific criticism and pretending that someone is making a different point

you are defending the "entire idea" of warming

the criticism is that "the specific rate of warming" is WRONG.

If the rate of warming is in fact, FAR FAR LESS than currently assumed, then there is far less of a case for demands for rapid 'crisis' response simply to say someone 'did something'

First-world carbon reduction is a pretty silly policy, given the lack of control anyone has over china/india/russia and myriad other developing economies

Better would be long term investment in technology.

This is the discussion you constantly aim to avoid, because you'd rather paint actual 'thinking people' as 'deniers'. Because you're a silly little shit who doesn't actually care about 'the environment', and cares only about political opportunism.

[Tony]

the rate of warming is in fact, FAR FAR LESS than currently assumed

Citation for this? Please, something credible.

What does current science say about the risk potential here? Go find a reliable source and read it. Stop throwing tired talking points at me! I'm familiar with them.

China is doing more than the US to deal with this crisis. Do you really want it to be demonstrated that a command economy run by communists is better equipped to deal with this than our relatively free market?

[Tman]

"China is doing more than the US to deal with this crisis."

I don't even know what to say to this.

[Tony]

The thing about this topic is that the facts of the matter are so well established that I can link you all day long, and all that will happen, should I persist long enough, is that the thread will die and you people will go crawling back to whatever wacko con artist you prefer getting your science from.

[Tman]

The very next post at Reason:

"U.S. and China Both Pledge Nothing at U.N. Climate Summit"

Well done Tony.

[Anon E. Mouse]

"China is doing more than the US to deal with this crisis."

Wow, you went full-retard on that one. You never go full-retard.

[GILMORE]

Just above you say

"We are facing a crisis this very moment."

based on *what*? you dont even have the confidence to say whether there are any actual consequences of human action now, or 150 years from now.

For all your claim of being on "the right side of science" you seem remarkably unsure of what this 'science' is actually saying.

I'm saying the data shows a far more reduced 'threat' than previously assumed, which provides at least a lifetime of further research before we know what the actual 'impact' will be from any action.

You don't have any answer. Is there any data that you think shows *danger* within...50 years? 100years? 150 years?

Which, and why? show your work

[GILMORE]

"China is doing more than the US to deal with this crisis."

LOL

"In his remarks, Zhang also repeated China's dogged insistence on adherence to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In that treaty, China and a bunch of other developing countries have no firm obligations whatsoever to do anything about their emissions. That treaty was adopted in 1992 when China's was much poorer and its emissions hovered around a third of what they are today. In other words, Zhang seems to be insisting that the world's biggest emitter should be given a "pass" with regard to making any commitments toward actual cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile Zhang also declared that "developed countries need to intensify emission reduction and fulfill their commitment of annual financial support of 100 billion US dollars and technology transfer to developing countries by 2020.""

Tony, you can be so amusing at time.

[Anon E. Mouse]

You're so full of shit. Where exactly is this evidence that any warming IS "greenhouse-gas-induced", and where exactly is the evidence that this "greenhouse-gas-induced warming" is caused by man? The evidence actually points to Solar Minimums and Maximums, and Milankovitch Cycles as being the prime causes of climate change. Of course, you can't change or control that, so you've GOT to blame mankind and "corporations", because THOSE you can control, right?

The climate has undergone radical changes long before mankind ever arrived on the scene, and I suspect it'll continue to undergo radical changes long after mankind is extinct. You can't stop it, and no matter what mankind does or doesn't do, the seas will continue to rise and fall, ice sheets will cover continents that are currently heavily populated, and deserts will be dry, hot deserts, only in different places. Climate changes, and it can't be stopped. The "why" is somewhat irrelevant.

[Tony]

Here's some

[Corning]

A hiatus of less than 2 decade

The hiatus period is as long as the warming period dumb ass.

Or didn't you know that CO2 consecrations from human activity did not start until the 50s and the 70s saw a cooling period.

I want to tell you to learn to read a graph but I suspect you have not even looked at any of them.

[OldMexican]

Re: Tony,

A hiatus of less than 2 decades does not prove that all the warming that's been happening for the 100 years before and encompassing it didn't happen.

So Tony now extended the previously-reported period of warming by a factor of THREE, unilaterally. Before we were told that the planet began warming since the 70s. Tony is here telling us that the planet has been warming since the Second Boer War.

[Corning]

Tony is here telling us that the planet has been warming since the Second Boer War.

The thing is it has been warming since the Boer war...yet from 1900 to 1950 none of that warming can be attributed to increases in CO2...and no climate scientist has explained why it warmed.

Which sort of damns their explanation for any warming that occurred from 1950 onward.

[Juice]

decades of greenhouse-gas-induced warming

This is either confusing correlation with causation or begging the question. It warmed (according to the adjusted and continually adjusting temperature record) at the same time CO2 emissions increased. It's also taken as an indisputable fact that pre-industrial CO2 levels were at or below 285 ppm based on proxies alone. Never mind that it also warmed for 100 years before 1880 without massive human CO2 emissions. Never mind that it also cooled for 40 years (~1940-1980) during this period of massive human CO2 emissions. Never mind the fact the human emissions are at most 2% of all emissions at any given moment. That extra 2% apparently means utter doom in 100 years or something. Never mind that no one knows what the "climate sensitivity" parameter is. Never mind that they don't know how to model clouds. Just remember that humans are killing the planet with their power plants and engines and that's all you need to know.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

Jones himself said a 15 year hiatus would invalidate the models...dumbass

[Jack Decker]

If Ron is your "science" reporter, you guys just flunked science.

1) There is no "global warming crisis" as there hasn't been a increase in global temperatures for 17 years and last year there was a decrease.

2) Both surface ice and ice depth of the Arctic and Antarctic are increasing.

3) There has not been any increase in extreme weather.

4) Not a single climate change computer model has EVER been able to correctly predict ANYTHING. All ... let me repeat that ... ALL have made horribly wrong predictions. Do remember that these are the same idiots who cannot predict the weather a week out.

5) No climate change computer model has EVER been able to explain the Medieval Warming Period. That was the period BEFORE the evil Industrial Revolution when farmers were growing crops in Siberia.

6) You know the other side is losing when they keep trying to change what they call the problem. "Man-made Global Warming" - "Man-made Climate Change" - now "Man-made Climate Disruption." What's next? Man-made Climate Stagnation?

7) Any "scientist" who says the debate is over isn't a scientist. That's the mark of a religious nut.

8) Environmentalists are totalitarians. After the fall of communism, those control freaks became environmentalists.

9) As for the scientists, follow the money. Here's my bet. Climate change "scientists" know there is no crisis. Why they say there is a crisis because they know that's how they get research grant money. No crisis = no grant money.

[Tony]

Every one of those bullshit talking points is addressed thoroughly here. Are you gonna read through and see how you're mistaken? No, no you're not! Are you?

Because you're the skeptical, scientific one.

[OldMexican]

Tony, sweetheart - none of those points were addressed thoroughly in that link you provided. There HASN'T been an increase in extreme weather. None. NONE of the computer models came close to predicting the current level of warming. NONE. A link that pretty much screams "Unbelievers!" is not going to amount to much.

Please, for everybody's sake, stop lying.

[Corning]

Please, for everybody's sake, stop lying.

Not sure he is really lying. More like clutching onto to the lie like a life preserver that if he lets go he will drown in a sea of libertarians being right about something and him being wrong about it.

It is OK Tony. Libertarians can be right about one small thing and the world will not fall apart because of it. You can still cling to your other socialist bullshit if you like.

Also it might not even be his distaste of libertarians...but conservatives have also claimed climate change to be wrong...which to agree that a conservative is right about something is a bridge not only to far but 30 light years past being to far for the likes of Tony.

[Tony]

Libertarians are not right about this, and it's not inherently libertarian to be a flat-earther on this or any issue (except economics). You're just embarrassing yourselves, and you'd know that if you ever bothered to step outside the bubble for one second of your lives.

But you can't even be bothered to read very basic information about current science on an issue you insist on posting opinions about.

[Tony]

You didn't read a single goddamn word did you?

[Corning]

"It hasn't warmed since 1998"

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

Amusing. 1998 was the hottest year on record. Not only is your link simply wrong but out of date. They have stopped denying the hiatus about 2 years ago tony. Now they have 52 reasons why there is a pause in warming.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....-up-to-52/

[Tony]

Step outside the bubble. It's good for you.

[Ron Bailey]

JD: You are right on extreme weather, the UN even agrees as I point out in my article, "Weathering Man-Made Climate Change." With regard to the models predictive accuracy, see my article, "Can We Trust the U.N. IPCC's Climate Models."

Regarding polar ice - (sorry our system only allows 2 links in responses) - arctic ice was just announced today to be the 6th smallest extent since the satellite records started. Earlier this month Antarctic sea ice had grown to its greatest extent ever measured.

[Sevo]

I asked above; what 'big problems' do you see?

[The Knuckle]

If the AGW acolytes were smart (I know, I know) they would proclaim victory in the fight against warming. They could say their efforts were successful which explains the lack of warming, but then how they get you to lower your standard of living and control every aspect of your life.

[The Knuckle]

*would

[lbyron]

Ron: Current data says no global warming, no shrinkage of sea ice, no increases in fire or drought, etc, etc.

Global warming that occurred was thought by some non-consensus folks to be due to other factors that were naturally occurring. Global warming advocates said that it couldn't be that, the CO2 levels and other GHG were too powerful. Now they claim that the fact that there has been no warming for more than 15 years despite rapid increases in CO2/GHG, that it has been prevented by other naturally occurring factors. It's not possible for naturally occurring factors to be causing warming, but it's not warming because of naturally occurring factors. Can't have it both ways.

The reality is that the climate has been warming, with periods of ups and downs for 13,000 years or more of the current inter-glacial period of our 250 million year long ice age (IIRC).

Personally, I prefer the warmth of our inter-glacial period. It's what allowed civilization to exist.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

"The reality is that the climate has been warming, with periods of ups and downs for 13,000 years or more of the current inter-glacial period of our 250 million year long ice age (IIRC)."

Not exactly. We've actually been generally cooling since the Holocene Climate Optimum around ~8000 years ago. About every 1000-1500 years we get some short term peaks (Minoan, Roman, Medeival Warm Periods) with some cooler than average periods in between. Interestingly enough each of those cool periods correspond with relative global dark ages which hint that a warmer Earth is a better Earth for us, not to mention the fact that CO2 fertilization is a well accepted fact that deniers like Tony won't accept. Funny how those two facts are never mentioned by the climastrologists and their devoted followers.

[lbyron]

One doesn't have to believe in 'anthropogenic climate disruption' in order to adapt to climate changes. The climate changes. That's a fact. It just does, and we adapt. Not doing so leads to death. So no one is advocating doing nothing. We just think that many of the suggested options are by the climate fear mongers are either very, very costly, minimally, if at all, effective, or totally against economic laws and reality and so are destructive. Or all three.

[Libertopian]

Reason constantly feels the need to make big concession to leftists it seems. I don't get it, why not talk about the inaccuracy of the AGW proponents' climate models throughout recent years instead of this? Is it because you want the leftist protesters to like you?

[alieastonlyl]

my best friend's mom makes $64 an hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her pay was $14591 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this web-site....

???????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Stephdumas]

The staff of PJMedia with Michelle Fields interviewed RFK Jr and Leonardo DiCaprio. RFK Jr. losed his cool when he got asked about his cellphone.
http://youtu.be/zDKWRRnS-BQ
http://youtu.be/wQxia_M-NkU