« Looking for a Good Blog on Duesseldorf and More? | Main | A Sane Voice About Earth Warming »

Comments

(feel free to add other branches)
Germany and socialst Europe wanting to keep and increase the "Eco-taxes"

People living in caves on Mars? Edgar Rice Burrough was right!

Martian cave dwellers survivors of Martian global warming? Good grief. Sounds like the National Enquirer has invaded the scientific world. Hysteria masquerading as science.

Well, of all the climate scientists in the world, there is basically almost not a single one who says that there is no manmade global warming. They have all different theories about how much it is going to go up, but you'll have to look very hard for dissenting voices and so it is easy to understand, why the oil industry has said it will pay 10 000 USD to anybody who proves the contrary. They are desperately looking for someone to tell that that it's simply not true.

Now, you could say, if almost all the scientists say there is manmade global warming, then there must be something about it.

Well, but you could also say, it's all a bad bad conspiracy of the leftist science mafia (which doesn't exist, but who cares), you could say, they're doing it all just for the money (as if they received money based on the results of their research, which is bullocks) and then you could do the big salto mortale and state, that it is big money and the industry who are interested in results proving global warming, which is absolute nonsense, as it is exactly the industry who is for years and years trying to block any measures against global warming, and as the oil industry has even set out a prize for scientists who prove the IPCC report wrong. You could say so, indeed. But then you would only be talking ideology.

Note from David: Interesting misunderstandings. I referred to "doomsday predictions", not to predictions of minor climate warming. Also, I didn't claim it's "all a bad bad conspiracy of the leftist science mafia".
So - who's "talking ideology"?

"After all, if only George W. Bush would sign "Kyoto"..."

I know that was a facetious remark, but let's put this baby to bed once and for all, for those who actually believe this. It would be *meaningless* for George Bush to sign the Kyoto Treaty (just like it was meaningless when Al Gore "symbolically" signed the treaty back when he mattered), because the US Senate has NOT ratified the treaty. Until that happens, there's nothing for Bush to sign.

In 1999, PRESIDENT CLINTON announced he would NOT send the treaty to the Senate for ratification after the US Senate indicated that they would NOT ratify the treaty. The main sticking point was that the treaty exempted developing economies (most significantly, it exempted China). The Senate said that was unacceptable and that they would vote against ratification if it showed up for a vote in its current form. President Bush has taken the SAME stance as CLINTON with regards to sending the treaty to the Senate for ratification. The conditions that prompted CLINTON to refuse to allow the Senate to vote on ratification have not changed.

Therefore, it's not going to happen. And, it's not Bush's fault. In fact, Clinton and Bush have both tried to accomplish with Executive Orders some of the same things the treaty advocates (which, of course, is another hotly debated issue).

There is no final proof of man-made global warming and its extent, there just seem to be a lot of pointers - and that's what gets experts and politicians alarmed. But suggesting that scientists across the world that support the theory of man-made global warming are money-hungry opportunists, bought and sold by a leftist conspiracy cooperating with (parts of the) energy/insurance/computer industry (not to mention the German media), is in the same ballpark as the 9/11 conspiracy theories - just a wee bit paranoid.

Note from David: Where does the posting claim that "scientists across the world ... are money-hungry opportunists (etc.)..."?

"Note from David: Where does the posting claim that 'scientists across the world ... are money-hungry opportunists (etc.)..'"

Exactly. Think about it, Hans. You and sheenzmesaits have just accused David of claims that, if you actually read his post, you will find he never made. Who, then, is trying to transmute science into ideology? You need to get your own house in order before you start playing the usual game of striking poses of superior virtue. The fact is that the left has so politicized the climate warming debate that anyone who dares to suggest that the politically orthodox view may not be entirely accurate is immediately shouted down as a "global warming denier," and relegated to the ranks of the morally impure. When a scientist can no longer support a dissenting view without fear of being demonized and villified, as, for example, Bjorn Lomborg was demonized and villified when he published "The Skeptical Environmentalist," then science no longer exists. It has been replaced by a quasi-religious orthodoxy.

That is precisely the situation we are in at the moment. As a physicist, I am very well aware of the mechanisms by which energy from the sun might be trapped by excesses of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I am also aware of recent climate data, not to mention the pervasive faking of the significance of such data documented in "The Skeptical Environmentalist." In my opinion, the issue of human-induced global warming is of critical significance. We need to find out the truth about it, but we will never be able to do so unless the integrity of the scientific method is maintained. It cannot be maintained if the issue is hedged about with political orthodoxies, and transmuted from science to ideology. Yet that is precisely what the left has done.

I happen to think it likely that human-induced global warming is a reality. I am far from convinced that anyone really knows the significance of that reality in terms of potential effects on the global climate. I have found, personally, that if I diverge in any way from the prevailing orthodoxy in a conversation with one of the global warming true believers, red flags go up immediately. If I continue to question the divine truth, I risk being classed among the infidels. This, to say the least, is not good science.

This is a subject that has become the substitute of religion for some people. And yes, leftists do use the issue for their own agenda. The US can be glad that "Kyoto" has not been ratified. And I can only warn against giving more power to (especially) a UN organisation to "fight" against "the climate catastrophe". Our European leaders will probably once surrender to the left-wing internationalists. Hopefully, the US, including the Democrats, will resist.

@sheenzmesaits
so it is easy to understand, why the oil industry has said it will pay 10 000 USD to anybody who proves the contrary.

You really should get your facts straight. As should the Guardian and Independent, which were the originators of this calumny.

For those of you who haven't been following, those papers printed stories that said the American Enterprise Institute, which receives some funding from ExxonMobile, was offering up to $10,000 to scientists if they would dispute the IPCCs conclusions.

Those stories are false.

To put ExxonMobil's funds for AEI in perspective, it has contributed less than 1% of AEI's budget over the last decade.

Nor was AEI trying to suborn scientiests with cash. AEI sent letters to some climate scientists asking them to participate in a symposium that would cover "a range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension." One of the scientists was Steve Schroeder, who is a big believer in global warming as a serious problem.

This is standrad practice by 'think tanks', universities, etc. - people are paid for work. What a concept.

Almost forgot (I do that a lot).

From the WSJ:

Bribery can be a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime may well be defamation. A company spokesman says Exxon has written a letter to the Independent demanding a retraction

Getting accurate science stories from reporters is like getting Formula One lessons form Helen Keller.

There’s not one reporter in a thousand that can read a science journal, let alone follow or research a controversy.

Al Gore wouldn’t know physics if he got thrown off a cliff. The guy flunked out of Divinity College in the midst of the Vietnam War. He must have been the only American to do so.

I often tell people that mathematics and science are the easiest of all subjects to learn. Of course most people tell me the opposite. I have to explain that is because most people live cryptic mythological lives, and that logic and reason interfere with their dream illusions.

The left loves a good belief story masquerading as science. Communism, eugenics, Nazism, Global Warming all are secular pseudo religions with cargo cult adaptations of misused and not understood scientific terms as ornaments.

sheenzmesaits:

Here is an award winning scientist form Oregon who was thrown off the committee of the 1,000 scientist who signed the IPCC document because of his dissent.

http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/wallace_johnmichael1999.html

Carl Spackler:

"Al Gore wouldn’t know physics if he got thrown off a cliff. The guy flunked out of Divinity College in the midst of the Vietnam War. "

LOL....But he did graduate from Harvard.....after all, Tommy Lee Jones was his roommate (true) and Eric Segal modeled the two characters in his novel "Love Story" after him and his wife Tipper. (not)


German pettiness knows no bounds............

The automobile critics, (Obviously authorities on the climate), at Focus magazine criticize that some hotels and restaurants in the US have open fire places. That’s right, let’s close down Olive Garden!

http://www.agu.org/inside/awards/bios/wallace_johnmichael1999.html

@David

Note from David: Where does the posting claim that 'scientists across the world ... are money-hungry opportunists (etc.)..'"
I think I found the culprit. In your posting you do say
Using the "follow the money" analysis that has served me well during most of my lifetime, I detect these beneficiaries of climate hysteria:
* Scientists (driven by an interest in funding of their research)
If you take the "driven by an interest in funding" as "money-hungry opportunists" you have the link. Would you please clarify, what you meant by your line cited above; I think this will be helpful.

@helian
Hey, another physicist. Out of curiosity: What field do you work in? I myself am in thin film magnetism.
Back on topic. Do you consider the ruling of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty to be part of the demonizing and vilifying of Lomberg?

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty.

In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

I know the ruling is controversial as one could argue that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is not a scientific publication and hence not subject to the DCHS's scrutiny; this discussion divided the DCHS as documented in the link. What tipped amongst others the scales was that the book was listed as a "research monograph in the University of Aarhus Yearbook for 2001".

@all:
I myself think that we do have anthropogenic global warming. I do not believe in doomsday prophecies, as in threatening our existence, however I expect to be "inconvenienced", for less developed countries it may be hard to cope with changes.

You all are aware that the changes proposed do have major economic implications. I do not think it comes as a surprise that massive disinformation campaigns are under way as well. I found a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists interesting:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
The material presented in the appendices does show IMHO that Exxon Mobile is intent to influence the public view. They seem not to be interested in research, but in muddying the public's perception.

@blue

"Hey, another physicist. Out of curiosity: What field do you work in?"

My degree is actually in nuclear engineering, but I have worked in the field of computational physics during most of my career, mainly modeling the physics relevant inertial confinement fusion.

"Do you consider the ruling of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty to be part of the demonizing and vilifying of Lomberg?"

I have read Lomborg's book, and regardless of whether one chooses to define it as a scientific work or not, the Court of Star Chamber that constituted itself as the "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty" was a shameful collection of political hacks who allowed themselves to be exploited by ideological zealots, and whose members, or at least those who have not disavowed their membership in the Committee and its outrageous persecution of Lomborg, are infamous as the perpetrators of one of the most disreputable and truly dishonest acts related to science that I have ever heard of. That is a fact and will remain a fact, regardless of how many ideological bigots posing as "scientists" have signed their names to petitions against Lomborg. I am confident the politically motivated persecution of Lomborg will go down in history as one of the blackest days for Danish science. I hope that history will mark those who participated in that persecution with the infamy they deserve. Is that clear enough for you?

One can tell the sort of foul swamp these accusations come from when one reads their "justifications" in publications such as "Scientific American," a once respectable journal that has now become a political screed run by professional ideologues. They no longer even attempt to take issue with the actual facts set forth in "The Skeptical Environmentalist," but instead have resorted to such ludicrous assertions as the claim that the facts seem, at least to them, to support "incorrect" points of view. As anyone who has actually read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" knows, Lomborg does not deny that global warming is taking place. Rather, he demonstrates in case after case after case how the relevant data has been manipulated by lying swindlers posing as "scientists" who know their work will be published in the usual journals if it supports certain foregone political conclusions. It is hardly surprising that these same swindlers have now formed a united front against Lomborg and accused him of "dishonesty." Let history judge who is really dishonest.

Let history judge who is really dishonest.

Oh, HELL, no.
Let me.

blue, you may not be aware of this but a woman with the broadcast meteorologicial assn wants to yank the credentials of anyone who disagrees with the 'man made' global warming thesis.

There's a lot of that going around.

This is not the behavior of honest people, I don't care what the field is.

So, even for a layman like me, completely unqualified to evaluate the science presented, I can pretty much bet the ranch that people who will go to great lengths to professionally ruin others and stifle dissent about their scientific holy grails are probably - you know - lying.

And now it has come to this.

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers,

This is not science. It's the Cult of Gaia.

Steven Milloy (Junkscience.com) has made some interesting comments about the IPCC political report:

As everyone is probably by now aware, Friday, February 2, 2007 marks the release of the IPCC's political document: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers (.pdf as originally released Feb. 2, 2007 and as quietly edited to correct some of the most egregious errors Feb. 5, 2007). The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis -- this is regrettably neither true nor even close to the truth.

Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to facilitate editing --
to suit the summary! IPCC procedures state that: Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter (Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) -- this is surely unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field (witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US climate reports).

Under the circumstances we feel we have no choice but to publicly release the second-order draft report documents so that everyone has at least the chance to compare the summary statements with the underlying documentation. It should not be necessary for us to break embargo and post raw drafts for you to verify a summary of publicly funded documentation (tax payers around the world have paid billions of dollars for this effort -- you own it and you should be able to access it).

Reluctantly then, here is the link to our archive copy of the second-order draft of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. The second-order draft was distributed in 2006, 5 years into what has so far been a 6 year process and these copies were archived last May.

I think Milloy alsö does a decent job of explaining the science in layman's terms (admittedly, I still had to read some stuff several times in order to get it through my thick skull :-) ).

Thanks for the background, helian. I wasn't aware of that.

Threatening to yank credentials - that is plain and out despicable. However, I would like to offer another explanation for that kind of behavior, where you try to silence dissenters by all means available: They "know The Truth" and for the Good Course (TM) anything goes - Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel. And no, this behavior isn't any better than lying.

I found the testimony of Dr. Hans von Storch from the 'hockey stick' House Committee hearingworth reading, especially the part "A Climate of Staged Angst" (p. 18-23), which directly pertains to this blog entry. He is convinced that mankind indeed does change climate (hockey stick or not), however he criticizes the way media and too many scientists hype the issue.

-- but you'll have to look very hard for dissenting voices and so it is easy to understand, ----

There's a reason for this, they're not allowed to speak. The Canadian Broadcasting System refused to run a contrarian documentary.

What about 1 of Russia's foremost scientists? He's been sounding the alarm for awhile now?

Heretics aren't allowed to contradict the new religion.

Also, junkscience.com is really, really good.

There are other sites, as well.

I found a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists interesting:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
The material presented in the appendices does show IMHO that Exxon Mobile is intent to influence the public view. They seem not to be interested in research, but in muddying the public's perception.

----

If you're talking about the UCS, I agree w/you.

Congress has also sent a cease and desist letter to Exxon - how dare they!

You should read Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. Unless we can control the sun, exploding stars, or the earth's wobble, we need to live with it.

But since the atheists believe that's there's nothing bigger than themselves, they are G*d, they believe they can.

Well, I guess there are some positive aspects of the IPCC summary:

-Sea level rise has been revised downward to a range of 7 to 23 inches over a course of a century--a third lower than the previous report.

-The "hockey stick" has apparently been deemphasized. Now, we may get our Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age back.

-Activists that want to blame Katrina and other hurricanes on "Global Warming" are probably not going to be happy with this report.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1351.cfm

Thank you for pointing out that junkscience.com made the second-order draft of the IPCC report available. However, I would like to caution all of you about junkscience.com, I consider it to be a propaganda outlet, a careful mixture of truths and lies.

Compare
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.htm
to
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
and you will see what I mean. realclimate.org is run by scientists working in the field of climate research. I recommend it as a reference, if you want to see the side of those scientists who are convinced of man-made global warming.

I doubt we will see MWP and ALI again, as they were not global events, IIRC.

A further caveat about junkscience.com
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
I don't ask you to take it verbatim, but at the very least do ponder the allegations.

@blue

"I found the testimony of Dr. Hans von Storch from the 'hockey stick'..."

Interesting link. I wish there were many more like him. I tend to agree with his conclusions. Human induced changes to the environment are, in general, not a good thing, and it would be nice to avoid them if possible. In the end, it all comes back to the "root cause" of overpopulation of the planet. If we could crank it back to a total of, say, a billion people, the problem would probably look a lot more benign. It's pie in the sky at this point, but if more nations keep developing nuclear weapons, the problem may turn out to be self-liquidating, as it were.

As my personal contribution to the climate of fear mongering, I offer this. Uranium and thorium, gentle readers, emit exactly the same kind of radiation as the polonium that killed the former Russian spy. Mercifully, they have a much longer half life, so, instead of killing you outright, they just cause cancer. Think of all the bombs we could have made with all those tons of U235 that are just pumped into the atmosphere willy-nilly. What a waste!

@Sandy P

"There's a reason for this, they're not allowed to speak. The Canadian Broadcasting System refused to run a contrarian documentary."

Allow me to ride nobly to the rescue of our maligned Canadian friends. They did allow this article by an evil holocaust...er, global warming denier to slip past the inept censors. I don't entirely agree with Shariv, but I tend to get really, really upset when people like him are villified by the professionally righteous.

@Pamela

And now it has come to this:
"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers,"

It's scary to think that Ellen Goodman's columns appear regularly in some of our greatest papers. It's not that I disagree with her. In fact, I admire the intelligence of many people I disagree with. It's just that she's just such a hack. I've honestly never seen anything particularly intelligent, useful, or thought provoking in anything she's written. It's not like there's a huge lack of bright people around, regardless of which political flavor you prefer. I think our real crying need is for decent editors. I used to like to read the Sunday "Outlook" in the WAPO until the old editor died. After she was gone, it went completely to hell.

"After all, if only George W. Bush would sign "Kyoto"..."

I had a science professor at OSU about a decade ago who actually partook in the Kyoto study along with reading the final document (10,000 pages). He said the conclusion of mankind having an impact on the enviroment was inconclusive as there simply wasn't enough evidence to make such assumptions. He said the political ramifications were immense and the actual scientific conclusion was re-written to what you currently here regurgitated as fact today.

Kyoto is nothing more than a transference of wealth, mainly from America, to poorer nations disguised as "fair green initiative" where the US "purchases the right" to be productive. This is nothing more than theft through a falsly held belief, not fact, which is not binded in terms of a loan or grant from the US govt. (taxpayers)-- its America's purchase of another country's fabled greenhouse gas emissions to continue being the number one economic power house. Despite the evidence of US reduction in said emmissions (through technolgoy, not bureaucracy), that old dead horse (since 1998 in US years) Kyoto still won't die. Fah!

For the record: the biggest polluters.. China and Russia... are exempt. How big of them to sign on. Does anyone wonder why informed Americans recognize what nonsense Kyoto really is and why we will NEVER support it?

Global warming-- right up there with the Protocols of Zion. What hokum.

"After all, if only George W. Bush would sign "Kyoto"..."

I had a science professor at OSU about a decade ago who actually partook in the Kyoto study along with reading the final document (10,000 pages). He said the conclusion of mankind having an impact on the enviroment was inconclusive as there simply wasn't enough evidence to make such assumptions. He said the political ramifications were immense and the actual scientific conclusion was re-written to what you currently here regurgitated as fact today.

Kyoto is nothing more than a transference of wealth, mainly from America, to poorer nations disguised as "fair green initiative" where the US "purchases the right" to be productive. This is nothing more than theft through a falsly held belief, not fact, which is not binded in terms of a loan or grant from the US govt. (taxpayers)-- its America's purchase of another country's fabled greenhouse gas emissions to continue being the number one economic power house. Despite the evidence of US reduction in said emmissions (through technolgoy, not bureaucracy), that old dead horse (since 1998 in US years) Kyoto still won't die. Fah!

For the record: the biggest polluters.. China and Russia... are exempt. How big of them to sign on. Does anyone wonder why informed Americans recognize what nonsense Kyoto really is and why we will NEVER support it?

Global warming-- right up there with the Protocols of Zion. What hokum.

Via Instapundit:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_04-2007_02_10.shtml#1171057432

The Senatorial Inquisition of AEI: Spurred by the allegations that the American Enterprise Institute sought to "buy scientists" to challenge the IPCC report, four Democratic Senators wrote to AEI President Chris DeMuth to challenge AEI's actions and demand an apology. In their letter, Senators Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry, alleged that if the published reports that AEI sought to "bribe" scientists were accurate, "it would be both disappointing and inexcusable." The Senators further proclaimed that they "would not stand silently by while organizations attempt to undermine science through offers of significant amounts of money." The letter concludes:....

Despite the evidence of US reduction in said emmissions (through technolgoy, not bureaucracy)
A reduction? Would you please give a cite for this claim.

@blue

LOL...this is a great example of ideological differences. ;-) I give a source from somebody who has "connections" to FOX NEWS, PHILLIP MORRIS and EXXON MOBILE...oh, let's not forget the CATO INSTITUTE; then, you provide links that use MEDIA MATTERS, WIKEPEDIA, and the GUARDIAN as sources. When I read RealClimate, I get the BIG GLOBAL WARMING feeling.

I honestly don't know if ALL of what Milloy of Junkscience says is true. But, if there is one thing I've gotten a nose for over the years is that when somebody is trying to discredit a person because he had "connections" with this and that person or organization instead of directly confronting that persons arguments...that somebody is normally full of crap. That's the feeling I get when reading Source Watch and Realclimate. Sorry.

Have you tried to see if Milloy has rebuttals to Realclimate claims before you consider it a propaganda outlet?

Milloy has this to say about Realclimate:

The "Hockey Stick" graph, along with its seemingly immediate and rapturous adoption by the IPCC, is certainly contentious although few have been sufficiently adventurous to challenge the orthodoxy by kicking the tires and checking under the hood of this modern bandwagon (brief description of some of those who have here and here). Such reticence is understandable given the defence mounted by advocates of the new climate paradigm, their cheer squad and acolytes. Members of these somewhat exclusive groups (the "hockey team", "high stickers" and sometimes a few less benevolent names) talk to each other (preach to the choir?) on a blog called "RealClimate.org". They do post some interesting items (such as questions on GCMs) although readers should be aware that dissent or open inquiry is not encouraged and the site is moderated with a heavy hand.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html

More from Milloy on Realclimate:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/medley.html

Then there is this:

Mann has obviously decided to defend his graph(the hockey stick) to the bitter end. Not too long ago, he and his team launched a weblog, www.realclimate.org, in which they strike back very aggressively. Mann's main criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick's previous calculations is that they should have expanded the list of North American PCs from two to five, so that the bristlecone pines in the fourth PC (PC4) could be included.

Not surprisingly, McIntyre is unfazed by the criticism: "Mann claims that his PC1 (essentially the bristlecone pine series) represents a dominant trend in the North American network. Using his incorrect standardization, the PC1 does account for 38% of the NOAMAER [North American] network variance. However, in a correct calculation, the bristlecones are demoted to the PC4 and only account for 8% of the variation. Hardly a dominant trend, like Mann claims. His argument to increase the number of PCs is simply a desperate move to salvage the hockey stick.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/lone_gaspe_cedar.html

Don't get me wrong. Humans are probably influencing the climate in some fashion. The million dollar question is "How much?"

Is warming necessarilly a catastrophe, or is it actually beneficial? Should we be pouring billions of dollars into trying to prevent the inevitable, or, would we be better off using that money for preparing for the changes?

"A reduction? Would you please give a cite for this claim."


http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press204.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/emission.html

James, please take my word and trust me, that I do not want to put me above you or ridicule you with the following. However, it is much less a matter of ideology in this case but one of education in science. I happen to be a physicist, I can read and understand the two links I put up regarding climate sensitivity. I can see the BS junkscience is feeding there. And it's not the first time I have seen it on that site. The trouble is, without an education in phyics, you simply can't. Milloy is too clever for that.

And please note: I put modifiers on my links, I told you up front what kind of people is behind realclimate and told you not to take sourcewatch at face value, I just asked you to not dismiss it out of hand.

In your response, you rely solely on junkscience. Do you trust them that much?

Is warming necessarily a catastrophe, or is it actually beneficial? I have yet to see a reliable source seeing global beneficial developments in global warming.
Should we be pouring billions of dollars into trying to prevent the inevitable, Who says its inevitable. And remember it is not just a simple yes or no. It could be worthwhile to at least limit the effect.
or, would we be better off using that money for preparing for the changes? This finally is a valid point. This is something that indeed needs discussion.

@buckeyeabroad
Despite the evidence of US reduction in said emmissions (through technolgoy, not bureaucracy),
From your link http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press204.html

The decline in carbon dioxide emissions can be attributed to a combination of the following factors: a reduction in economic growth from 3.8 percent in 2000 to 0.3 percent in 2001; a 4.4-percent reduction in manufacturing output that lowered industrial emissions; warmer winter weather that decreased the demand for heating fuels; and a drop in electricity demand that reduced the growth in emissions from electricity generation. The drop in electricity demand can be attributed primarily to the slowing economy and the downturn in manufacturing. These economic factors were enough to more than compensate for the warmer summer that increased air-conditioning demand and related electricity consumption.
Feel free to correct me, but from this I conclude that neither technology nor bureaucracy are to blame.

Furthermore, please have a look here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/figure_1.html
referenced from this page:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

2001 was an exception, it was the first and only reduction since 1991.

@blue

First, don't underestimate my knowledge of science. You have no clue about my interests. And, you're wrong about needing to be a physicist in order to understand the scientific jargon. Is it difficult? Yes. Impossible. No. The information is attainable for those who are interested. Are you a climate scientist? By the way, there are people, who also have an education in science, who are on the other side of the argument.

And please note: I put modifiers on my links, I told you up front what kind of people is behind realclimate and told you not to take sourcewatch at face value, I just asked you to not dismiss it out of hand.

I didn't "dismiss it out of hand." That's why I read your links...that start off by basically attacking Milloy as part of tabacco, drug, and oil etc... In other words, don't believe a word he says. That simply raises red flags for me.

In your response, you rely solely on junkscience. Do you trust them that much?

Well, maybe that's because you were casting doubt on none other than...Junkscience. So, it seems logical to me that I would provide to you with some links where Milloy has responded to Realclimate. Furthermore, I did say, "I honestly don't know if ALL of what Milloy of Junkscience says is true." However, did you even bother to enquire if Milloy had a response to Realclimate (Mann and co.)?

I have yet to see a reliable source seeing global beneficial developments in global warming.

Well, I guess whether we are warming or cooling, there will be those who benefit and those who suffer from the changes (as the Earth constantly does). Do you need a source for that? I think it's just common sense and logic. For example, areas of the world that are frozen tundra could perhaps be used for farming under warmer conditions. There may be fewer cold related deaths...just from the top of my head.

Should we be pouring billions of dollars into trying to prevent the inevitable, Who says its inevitable. And remember it is not just a simple yes or no. It could be worthwhile to at least limit the effect.

Do you think that change in the Earth's climate, regardless in which direction, is NOT inevitable? That would be a first for the Earth in billions of years. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to just go willy nilly and pollute at will. I separate my trash and use only the lights I need and drive a small car etc.... However, like others, I believe that many environmentalists, politicians, scientists, or whoever are not in the game for purely altruistic reasons.

Also sprach helian: "I happen to think it likely that human-induced global warming is a reality. I am far from convinced that anyone really knows the significance of that reality in terms of potential effects on the global climate".

I agree. How come they can't tell me with any certainty if it will snow in Boston four days from now, but they're sure Boston will be underwater in the 22nd century?

Also, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has moved the Doomsday Clock forward because of environmental concerns. Assuming we should really take this clock of theirs seriously, what are atomic scientists doing assessing long-term environmental impact? Don't they have enough on their plate?

Via Samizdata:

Weather reports from Mars indicate there is a danger global warming will soon ruin their enjoyment of the winter sports season on the Red Planet.

Apparently those little green men in their SUVs have been causing so much carbon emissions that the polar ice caps are melting.

Meanwhile a congress of Martian scientists all agree that apparent warming on neighbouring planet Earth is localised and entirely caused by the recent increase in solar radiation and nothing to do with the activity of its primitive monkey-descended inhabitants.

@blue
Thanks for clarifying the link between "driven by an interest in funding" and "money-hungry opportunists".

@helian
I did not accuse anyone of anything, I said it seems paranoid to link (especially global) scientific consensus to leftist conspiracies. In fact I agree with the majority of your post, demonizing dissenting scientists is bad practice which has never helped science.

btw: The often criticized "Stern" and "Bild" are what I consider tabloids - much alike Michelle Malkin's blog ;) - I wouldn't take their featured stories too seriously. Try "Die Welt", "Die Zeit", "FAZ", "Der Spiegel" (sometimes) and you'll find more scientific, balanced and better written articles about "hot" topics and politics.

@blue: "I have yet to see a reliable source seeing global beneficial developments in global warming."

Check your history books. The period known as the Medieval Warm Period was an era of plenty. Mediterranian grapes were growing in Scotland, the UK had a massive wine industry, the Vikings were viking, the Norsemen were out exploring, and crops were abundant.

We are presently nowhere near as warm as we were during the MWP. The Norse established a colony on the coast of Greenland which is now covered in ice. The colony once grew crops and raised animals. That isn't possible now. There were very few reports of serious storm systems. While storms require warmer water to develop, they ALSO require COLD upper atmospheric conditions to develop into a major system. It is the warm/cold clash that creates the storm, not just the warmth.

Just for argument, let's say that there IS global warming, and that it's being caused by excess CO2.

Is that really bad?

Consider this:

Think of CO2 as airborne plant food.

Think of longer growing seasons.

Think of warmth causing more evaporation, causing more rain.

What is "bad" about that? That's pretty much what happened in Europe and China during the MWP.

The real discussion here is about the politicalization of science.

I am not naive. I've posted many times about the European theory of 'degeneracy' of the New World, as have others, so I know wielding 'science' as a club is nothing new.

It is beside the point to speculate whether or not warming results in longer growing seasons.

The point is that today's scientists have apparently accepted computer models predicting weather decades out as holy writ.

I don't get this. I was a software developer for over 25 years and although I know nothing about climate change I do know a bit about statistical models.

As far as I can tell, there are some climate scientists who are not defending the science but defending the models that they are honorably convinced represent the science.

But not one - NOT ONE - can give anybody a statistical model that predicts the weather accurately 10 days out.

This is not a facetious criticism. Models that consider conditions for 10 days out do not require too much extrapolation. On the contrary, there is so much information, the question is how much weight to give each parameter.

But the decades-ahead models used to 'predict' - note the quotes - climate conditions in the future are somehow sacrosanct?

Forget the political arguments and the cultural head-butting.

On its face, the argument is based on a hypothesis that cannot be tested and cannot be reproduced. When we get good weather predictions for the next 10 days, I will revisit this particular complaint.

Whatever it is, it isn't science.

"The point is that today's scientists have apparently accepted computer models predicting weather decades out as holy writ."

No one can snow you better than a computational physicist. Take my word for it. I am one. I've witnessed the meetings of federal advisory committees composed of some of the most brilliant scientists around, people whose work I've read and been awed by. Computational physicists snow them, too.

One time, a very capable scientist was challenging the predictions of a computer model at one of the national labs. His criticism was right on the money. I knew, because I knew the model in the code, and had written similar models myself. It wasn't even mathematically capable of accurately modeling the relevant physics. The labs still won the debate. They had a big code, and the guy challenging them just had the back of an envelope.

The same thing is now going on with climate modeling. We are trying to model a problem with literally billions of degrees of freedom, and we don't have even close to a good historical record of all the parameters we would need to construct an accurate model. The big codes are garbage in, garbage out. The good news is that computational physicists have started to realize they're up against it. They are actually looking at radically new ways to address the problem. The same thing is happening in a number of other areas in addition to climate modeling. The usual approach in the past has been to discretize everything in site and try to solve problems by brute force, usually using models that were quite dated. For example, in my specialty, radiation transport, models are still regularly used that were developed in the 50's, and some of the most "recent" stuff is just incremental improvement of models that were developed in the late 60's. The hubris of the computational physicists is starting to wear thin. When you go to 3D geometry and problems with complex physics, even the fastest modern computers running parallel code are brought to their knees. The whole climate change thing, along with some other very difficult and complex problems that depend on "stochastic" variables, that is variables that are not fixed but that can vary according to some probability distribution, has led to some very exciting new initiatives.

For example, climate is being treated as a "system," or black box with inputs and outputs. Classic systems identification models, mainly used by engineers up to now, are being applied, and analytic mathematicians, the old-fashioned kind who work with pencil and paper, are being called in to derive theories to predict the error in the models. Once the system has been "identified," techniques such as Kalman filtering, also mainly a specialty of engineers in the past, can be applied to predict how it will evolve in the future. I know, it sounds a little complicated, but its REALLY EXCITING for guys like me. Could be nothing whatever will come of it, but it's nice to finally see things moving and shaking for a change. We've needed this kind of a kick in the pants for a long time.

Via Bros. Judd:

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml.

--blue: "I have yet to see a reliable source seeing global beneficial developments in global warming."--

Rise of the Roman Empire, when it got cold again, it fell.

Via Bros. Judd:

In this dust-choked region, long seen as an increasingly barren wasteland decaying into desert, millions of trees are flourishing, thanks in part to poor farmers whose simple methods cost little or nothing at all.

Better conservation and improved rainfall have led to at least 3 million newly tree-covered hectares, or 7.4 million acres, in Niger, researchers have found. And this has been achieved largely without relying on the large- scale planting of trees or other expensive methods often advocated by African politicians and aid groups for halting desertification, the process by which soil loses its fertility....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/11/news/niger.php

Helian, remember when Chaos theory first started to become popularized in the public sphere? I've forgotten the phrase used to describe the phenomena, but the take-away story was that of a butterfly flapping its wings half a world away and thereby affecting the weather in say, China.

Model that one.

A wealth of interesting comments here :). Helian, GREAT explanation of what is wrong with computer models. I've been involved with computers in one way or another since around 1966, and have difficulty explaining my own misgivings about GCMs without slipping into Conversational Cobol.

The short version is that when I first heard that a lot of scientists in the world were basing their belief in AGW on computer models, my immediate reaction was, "You've gotta be kidding...!"

The simple fact is that when the parameters are largely unknown or fuzzy, what a GCM is going to produce is a picture of whatever the programmer BELIEVES is the truth... a "gee-whiz!" version of his own personal opinion, NOT a scientific tool. There isn't any other way that it COULD be. We don't know enough about climate to model it on a literal-minded machine like a computer. Computers don't accept fuzzy parameters very well, demand clarifications, and if the answer is actually unknown, then the programmer will install his "best guess". A "best guess" will always lean toward his own personal opinion. GIGO.

The biggest problem I have with the models is that all of them are based upon the idea that CO2 increase causes warming. In fact, the only thing we're certain of is that CO2 increase and warming sometimes occur simultaneously. Even as I type this, there are scientists all over the world who are starting to believe that warming (possibly solar warming?) causes CO2 increase, not the other way around. Or that there might be another connection that no one has yet thought of. If warming causes the CO2 increase, then every model in existence is bass-ackwards at its most basic level. And that's just ONE of my problems with it.

I am horrified at the number of scientists who can be bamboozled into thinking a system as complex as climate can be modeled when we don't even know what the parameters should be! :O

@James W.
It is my impression, that I have offended you by refering to the need to have "an education in physics". I am sorry for that, it was not my intention. Chalk it up to poor wording, I did not mean "you need to be a physicist", but "you need to understand the physics" without implying whether or not you do. Again, sorry if I have tread on a toe.

Am I a climate scientist? No, as stated in a previous post of mine on this very page I'm working in thin film magnetism.

Back on topic. You trust junkscience because, I tell you it's propaganda. Fine. Maybe I should have recommended junkscience to you to get the desired effect. ;-) You are correct, the realclimate site would be better off with less mocking and on the hockey stick they are defending Mann's reconstruction. Anyhow, let's focus on the physics in junksciennce, see for yourself.

My point of view may color the rest of this post, so I will it address explicitely.

  • I have read and thought about the "This warming thing ..." page up to and including the paragraph "Calculating using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant", at which point I gave up on it, as I found the reasoning unsound and misleading to a degree, that I find it hard to not consider it to be willfully deluding. And it is cleverly done. More on that below.
  • I have seen too many misleading articles on both the skeptic and the alarmist side that I trust an unknown source without further research. Try to go to the primary source whereever possible. Quote-mining is rampant. Misrepresenting cited sources is rampant.
  • Judging the message by judging the messenger can be a valuable tool in life. In climate science it is my observation that it falls flat on the face, sorry. You need to look at the quality of the science presented or lack thereof, you can't sidestep that. If I am wrong on this and you heed it, at worst you are wasting time. If I am right and you don't heed it you, could be gravely misled. Your choice.

Now let me provide some hints that I deem relevant to judging Milloy's article. I ask you to not take my word for it but to look for yourself. Please pick up a copy of chapter 6 "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change" of the Third Assessment Report. It was the one relevant when Milloy published his page (he even uses part of the TAR for his presentation) and I have page numbers at hand for my hints. The chapter is part of "The scientific basis" in that report.

  • You will find the definition of "forcing" and "climate sensitivity parameter" as well as the rationale behind them on pages 353-355 in chapters 6.1 - 6.2.2
  • On page 358 you will find the formula cited and used by Milloy on forcing by CO2 abundance ( ΔF = αln(C/Co) ) in table 6.2. Please note that on the very same page you will find table 6.1 where the abundances of CO2 are reported for 1750 as 278ppm (pre-industrial) and 1998 as 365ppm. That is an increase by approximately the factor 1.3.
  • Ask yourself: is a black body a good model of Earth with regard to climate modeling (consider and weigh e.g. the response to comment #10 on the realclimate page)
  • Ask yourself: Do you expect CO2 forcing to have feedbacks or not.
Now, for the part of "This warming thing ..." that I have had a look at. I have these questions to ask:
  • Are the back of envelope calculations presented relevant and adequate?
  • Does Milloy use "forcing" the way it is specifically defined in the TAR and used in climate simulations?
  • Does he implicitly (and wrongfully) equate forcing to climate sensitivity and neglect feedback not in mention but in application?
  • Does he imply that climate scientists use a doubling of CO2 to be the difference between pre-industrial and today? Could Milloy have missed table 6.1 mentioned above?
By the wording of the questions you can probably guess my answers. So go there and judge the science for yourself. From here it is up to you to decide.

@blue

It's okay. I wasn't offended. I was just pointing out that you don't necessarilly need to be a scientist in order to understand the jargon.

Back on topic. You trust junkscience because, I tell you it's propaganda.

Blue? How often do I have to write,"I honestly don't know if ALL of what Milloy of Junkscience says is true." In my original post, I provided relevant comments from Milloy about the most recent IPCC summary. I also said that I think he does a decent job of explaining the science--that may be the Haken in our discussion. It may have been better for me to say that Milloy does a good job of explaining the terminology.

I think Pamela's nailed it,"The real discussion here is about the politicalization of science." It may be that Milloy is politically skewing his arguments--I have not seen proof of that, YET. However, I do believe that the IPCC and Realclimate are, by and large, politically motivated. One example: Mann refused to give certain data to other scientists that would allow them to reconstruct the "hockeystick". Is it not typical for scientists to allow their work to be checked by their peers? Mann, from what I hear, is also a founder from none other than...Realclimate. So, is it any surprise that Realclimate would support the "hockey stick"? It seems, according to the Heritage Foundation at least, that the latest IPCC report is de-emphasizing the "hockey stick" due to criticism within the science community (Could Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre have anything to do with it?). BTW, what happened to the medieval warming period in the "hockey stick"?

So yes...in my eyes, the data provided by Realclimate and, of course, the IPCC, has to be taken with a grain of salt. Actually, Realclimate is not new to me--I've actually visited the site occaisionally over the last year or two.

I will look into the questions you've asked. Perhaps I will learn something. Thanks for the time you've invested.

@Helian

"Helian, GREAT explanation..."

Great explanations seem to have become standard for you. Well, you just wait. We're not gonna let you off so easily next time. :-)

@Pamela

"Helian, remember when Chaos theory first started to become popularized in the public sphere? I've forgotten the phrase used to describe the phenomena, but the take-away story was that of a butterfly flapping its wings half a world away and thereby affecting the weather in say, China."

If memory serves, Chaos Theory, at least in its modern form, was discovered by Lorenz of "Lorenz attractor" fame while he was running a computer model of, you guessed it, the weather. He wanted to see a particular sequence again, and decided to save time by starting the code in mid-run. The results evolved completely differently from the first run. It turns out that it's not too difficult to understand at least the basics of Chaos Theory. Anyone who did reasonably well in high school algebra can understand the approach to chaos. If they can do a little elementary programming, they can even recreate the famous "butterfly" and some of the other cool attractors. I suspect you can find the programs on the web by now. Computer models are no more infallible now than they were then. That's not to say they're useless. Just go to any recent animated movie, and look at the graphics. See the realistic shadows, rippling water, smoke, fog, realistic skin tones and reflections, etc., etc.? What you're really looking at is number crunching using computer models of light propagation that would boggle your mind.

"The short version is that when I first heard that a lot of scientists in the world were basing their belief in AGW on computer models, my immediate reaction was, 'You've gotta be kidding...!'"

@Mama

I know! Running big computer models is really an art form as much as a science. If you don't have any physical intuition, and just turn the crank, GIGO is guaranteed. The biggest weakness of computer models is predicting the future, especially when the future is likely to be completely different from any "benchmark" from the past. When I see hack journalists like Goodman comparing people who dare to question global warming models with holocaust deniers, I am, I must admit, somewhat shaken. On such occasions I begin to worry about the sanity of all humanity, and suspect, by association, that I might really be a little crazy myself. Well, what can you do but, as they used to say in the Army, take two salt pills and drive on?

@Helian
It turns out that it's not too difficult to understand at least the basics of Chaos Theory. Anyone who did reasonably well in high school algebra can understand the approach to chaos. If they can do a little elementary programming, they can even recreate the famous "butterfly" and some of the other cool attractors.

I did and I did. Algebra I 'got', but wave a trig text book under my nose and I make like a fainting goat.

[CLUNK]

I just loved writing and running the code. On my employer's dime, no less.

But that's not why I'm posting on a days old dead thread. I want to complete the record.

@sheenzmaisets, I wrote, quoting the WSJ:

Bribery can be a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime may well be defamation. A company spokesman says Exxon has written a letter to the Independent demanding a retraction

Guess what?

ExxonMobil

"In Editorial and Opinion on Saturday (3 February) we wrote that 'ExxonMobil is attempting to bribe scientists to pick holes in the IPPC's assessment (on climate change). We now recognise that this statement is incorrect and we withdraw it."

a href="http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2007/02/a_day_at_the_in.html" target="_blank">link

You may need to scroll down - The Daily Ablution does not have permalinks. Please note that this statement was not on the website - only dead tree.

Cowards and liars.

Pamela, I agree 100% with you that the discussion about climate has become politicalized. However I do see the science in the background, as well. As for weather vs. climate forecast, I have an (admittedly poor) analogy: predict the winnings/loss of a specific player at a slot machine in Las Vegas for his next three games vs. predict the average monthly percentage turnover generated at slot machines that will stay with the casino - you get the idea. And no, I do not want to imply, that climate science has that level of predictability.

The retraction may have been taken from the paper edition, however at least now you can find it online, as well. The offending passage has been edited out of the leader, but the article does not contain a link to the retraction.

There is an interesting read on the website of the Royal Society: Royal Society and ExxonMobil. Especially the letter by Nick Thomas on behalf of the Royal society, page 2, last paragraph: "My analysis indicates that ExxonMobil last year provided more than $2.9 million to organisations in the United States which misinformed the public about climate change through their websites." (read the pdf for details)

@ James W.
Glad you're not offended.

I will look into the questions you've asked. Perhaps I will learn something. Thanks for the time you've invested.
Good, mission accomplished. ;-) Take your time.

@ Helian
Thanks for the interesting comments on the computing.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31