Top 10 warming skeptic arguments

The BBC has a nice piece listing and refuting the top 10 arguments used by global warming skeptics, while Richard Black has surveyed the 61 "scientists" who signed a letter opposing action to prevent warming.

More like this

Yes, I encourage people, when writing letters-to-editor, or countering silly things in blogs, to avoid refighting every argument, and just giving the numbers of the standard arguments from one of the good lists that are around. I especially recommend John Cook's:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

because it has a nice dense list of ~50 arguments in one place, with links to a page apiece, plus references, and it does get updated.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

Yes, I encourage people, when writing letters-to-editor, or countering silly things in blogs, to avoid refighting every argument, and just giving the numbers of the standard arguments from one of the good lists that are around. I especially recommend John Cook's:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

because it has a nice dense list of ~50 arguments in one place, with links to a page apiece, plus references, and it does get updated.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

While I don't want anyone to think this is just a "John" thing, I too would recommend John Cook's site that John Mashey links to.

John Cross

By John Cross (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

The BBC? Well, there's a surprise! I only got as far as their, er, refutal of the MWP, part of which was based on their being very little evidence from the rest of the world to support a warming period elsewhere. Well, heavens to Betsy, you mean all those natives in Africa, Austrolasia, the American Indians, to say nothing of the tribes of central Asia, failed to keep written histories? Honestly, you can't rely on anyone these days, or, I guess, those days, either!

#5 David

The BBC is correct, but it has relatively little to do with native records, but rather various paleoclimate record that provide a mixed picture.

The BBC says:
"Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe."

Wikipedia has a [reasonable discussion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period)

And of course, see the IPCC AR4:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Download Section 6, read part 6.6, pp. 466-483, but especially GBOx 6.4 on p.468, and Figure 6.11 (a), which shows the proxies used for 1000AD.

I haven't seen anyone lately dispute the existence of the MWP in Europe and North Atlantic, and the records are fairly clear. Outside that area, there is less evidence, it often doesn't match the MWP in timing, duration, or direction.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

Proxies? I see! You mean tree rings and ice cores, that sort of thing. Alas, I wouldn't bet the deeds of my house on them, nearly as dodgy as the BBC. Of course, if the leading exponenets, who seem to be remarkably secretive lot, were to open up their sources and codes for others to check, well, then I might take a second look. I used to sell second-hand cars, you see, and its made me a tad distrustful of people.

Hmm, I'm sure I've seen david duff around spouting pseudo middle class stuff and nonsense about the palce before. I just cannot recall where.

Re. David Duff, please could you provide some links to the peer reviewed papers that you have had published on palaeoclimatology, given that, from what you say, you are clearly far more knowledgeable about the subject than any other palaeoclimatologist?

By Dave Rado (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

I haven't seen John Cook's site - I'll have a look now - but I'm sure ScienceBlogs' own Coby Beck's excellent encyclopaedia of skeptic arguments and scientific refutations of them at http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics deserves an honourable mention.

Well then, if there are no historical records, and proxies are unreliable, then we can all agree that there is no evidence of a MWP outside of Europe.

re: Coby's material: yes, for sure, and good depth.

I reference Cook's site because there's a nice dense list on one page, with #s /identifiers.

It's nice to be able to point at a standard website with a terse list of references, as in:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/…

It's especially useful for sites (like the TimesOnline) that have short word-limits, or LTEs (often 125-200 words), as it is much easier to spray nonsense than it is to refute them in a short space.

This is related to that earlier topic here on dealing pro-actively with the press.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

CCE in #12 wrote; "Well then, if there are no historical records, and proxies are unreliable, then we can all agree that there is no evidence of a MWP outside of Europe."

I hope that you are not a teacher cce for I'm sure you would give very poorly balanced arguments to your students! It doesn't take much research to find that there is plenty of evidence for a MWP outside Europe ..... even in Wikipedia. The following is a direct lift from Wikipedia:

"The climate in equatorial east Africa has alternated between drier than today, and relatively wet. The drier climate took place during the Medieval Warm Period (~AD 1000-1270).[15]

An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, clearly identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[16] The core clearly shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000-1100, neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term, and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.

Corals in the tropical Pacific ocean suggest that relatively cool, dry conditions may have persisted early in the millennium, consistent with a La Niña-like configuration of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation patterns.[17] Although there is an extreme scarcity of data from Australia (for both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age) evidence from wave built shingle terraces for a permanently full Lake Eyre[18] during the ninth and tenth centuries is consistent with this La Niña-like configuration, though of itself inadequate to show how lake levels varied from year to year or what climatic conditions elsewhere in Australia were like.

Adhikari and Kumon (2001) in investigating sediments in Lake Nakatsuna in central Japan have verified there the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.[19]"

Yes, that's very nice work by you at the Times John.

Hey Tim,

You figured out that one argument in favor of AGW was circular. Why aren't you self-publicizing? Steve McIntyre even cited you favorably on his blog. That's not blogworthy? :)

Like the man said, since we don't trust proxies and the historical records outside of Europe are poor, then we have no evidence of a MWP outside of Europe. We are "skeptics" after all.

But for some reason I imagine we are supposed to trust only the proxies that show a MWP and ignore the ones that don't.

IanP quote mines like a creationist.

For his own sanity, I do hope he believes the earth is only 6000+ years old.

Ah.... Ian P, ice cores, lake sediments and corals are all proxies for temperature.

As CCE says, if we ignore proxies, as David Duff suggested, then there is scant evidence for an MWP outside of Europe.

"Well, heavens to Betsy, you mean all those natives in Africa, Austrolasia, the American Indians, to say nothing of the tribes of central Asia, failed to keep written histories? Honestly, you can't rely on anyone these days, or, I guess, those days, either!"

Umm David, the MWP was smack in the middle of the high-points of very literate Mayan Empire in the Americas and the Malian empire in west Africa.

That's before we get to India and China.

So even if your argument wasn't invalid for other reasons it still falls on its face.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

Ian P writes: "There is plenty of evidence for a MWP outside Europe ..... even in Wikipedia".

Well, there you have it. Wikipedia, the definitive source. Forget peer-reviewed studies. Forget actual empirical research. If its in Wikipedia, it must be so.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry (probably a bit of both).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Nov 2007 #permalink

#19 Ian, do we have Indian or Chinese written records that refute the existence of the MWP ?

As to the Mayan or Malian empires, they may have been "very literate" but don't provide much if at all literature.

IanP:

It doesn't take much research to find that there is plenty of evidence for a MWP outside Europe ..... even in Wikipedia. The following is a direct lift from Wikipedia:

"An ice core from the eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula, clearly identifies events of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period.[16] The core clearly shows a distinctly cold period about AD 1000-1100, neatly illustrating the fact that "MWP" is a moveable term, and that during the "warm" period there were, regionally, periods of both warmth and cold.

Corals in the tropical Pacific ocean suggest that relatively cool, dry conditions may have persisted early in the millennium, consistent with a La Niña-like configuration .."

So the MWP was warm in a few places and cold in others. Thanks IanP for letting us know that the M"W"P was warm in just a few places.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 13 Nov 2007 #permalink

Demesure,

IanP is doing what most of the denial camp do. Focus on pedantics. Irrelevant details. Obscure arguments. Let's say for arguments sake that there was a warm spell during the Medievel that was quite geographically widespread. What does that tell us about the factors underlying the current warming episode? Nix. What does it tell us about the factors behind the warming period between 1880 and 1940? Nix. Most importantly, whgat does that tell us about the effects of the current rapid warming on natural systems, given that these generate conditions (aka 'ecosystem services') that make the planet habitable for humans? Nix.

What is conveniently ignored by the denialists is in comparing the biosphere 500 years ago with its current state. First of all, human impact in circa 1500 was a fraction of what it is today. Our species had simplified ecosystems on a regional scale, but the all-out assault on these systems has only has occurred since about 1900 and especially since 1950. Natural systems have already been greatly altered by a suite of anthropogenic activities, with AGW being just one. Given the importance of nature is sustaining civilization, there's no doubt that there will be (read: are) consequences to human-induced global changes across the biosphere.

When IanP talks about 'balance', he's basically saying that a very small and controversial minority view in science should be given equal footing with the view of most of the scientific community (me included). Since the denial lobby appear to have an unlimited amount of financial resources that is being used to ensure we consider on the current collision course our species is on with natural systems, it is utter folly to talk about 'balance'. Science is being twisted and distorted to promote a political agenda (that is, 'business-as-usual').

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Nov 2007 #permalink

The BBC's comment on the MWP (no. 3, incidentally: we should rejoice that David Duff managed to get through two whole points before making a fool of himself) illustrates nicely how strengthening an argument weakens it.

The main argument, which the BBC (and Jeff) does make, is that the MWP is an irrelevance. But by adding 'we think it didn't really happen anyway', they lend credence to the idea that if you can establish that there *was* a MWP, that would undermine the argument that we are warming the atmosphere ourselves.

It's like a bunch of people in an accelerating car. "Hey, driver, not so fast!" "I heard about a car that rolled downhill by itself once. Maybe that's what's happening." "Ah, but that wasn't a very *steep* hill, and the people who claimed to see it were drunk at the time!" "Are you saying that anyone who has had a drink is an unreliable witness?"

No. Look out the window. It's happening.

Proxies? I see! You mean tree rings and ice cores, that sort of thing. Alas, I wouldn't bet the deeds of my house on them

Tree rings are quite difficult to interpret, but you can bet the deeds, the house itself, and your whole family on ice cores. You can only win. (If, that is, you find anyone who's ignorant enough to bet against you.)

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 13 Nov 2007 #permalink

If I can expand just slightly on Jeff's excellent piece above, when denialists are rightfully ignored or shunned in their quest for 'balance', they have a ready reply: their immmmmportant voices are being silenced (by a cabal, by a conspiracy, by robed priests, by faith warmers, by the alarmism industry, by green environazis, by, by, by).

It is important to acknowledge two things.

Their denialist small-minority voices are not being silenced. They are being ignored because this ground has been gone over 100 times before and they offer nothing new. Our human natures allow the whack-a-mole to continue (yes, Dano does it too) and thus keeps the thing alive.

Second, the denialist camp is small and shrinking. Their voices are loud (and seemingly in the Colorado Front Range newspapers every week) and the loudness makes it seem as if they are everywhere.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Best,

D

Jeff Harvey,

The obvious point that is demonstrated by the MWP is that natural climate variability has produced warming on the same scale or greater than the current warming without any human influence, or any great devastation of the world's ecosystems.

Jeff, I share your concerns on habitat loss and other negative consequences of human interference with ecosystems. I think the over-emphasis on global warming serves to distract from efforts to address those other issues. Mitigating CO2 by clearing and cultivating vast tracts of forest and natural grassland for "biofuels" is only going to make things worse.

The global warming battle has become a political and cultural struggle quite separate from the scientific issues. If you could choose to end habitat loss, water pollution or CO2 emissions would you focus your energy on CO2 mitigation? Can you honestly say that there is convincing evidence that points to CO2 as the greatest threat to the biota of the planet?

Here in my home state of Indiana the White and Wabash rivers are choked with agricultural run-off and sewage. For a fraction of the investment needed to overhaul the regions coal fired electrical plants the cities on the rivers could be outfitted with zero effluent sewage treatment plants and wetland buffers could placed along agricultural tracts. I have no doubt which action would have the greater ecological benefit to Indiana.

Some will say that this is a false choice, that we can do both. The reality is that public resources are limited and we must choose wisely when spending our mutual capital. As a scientist I am far from convinced that our first priority should be CO2 mitigation.

Lance,

You said: "The obvious point that is demonstrated by the MWP is that natural climate variability has produced warming on the same scale or greater than the current warming without any human influence, or any great devastation of the world's ecosystems".

First of all, as I said earlier, the world was very different 500 years ago. Human impacts were far less on a global scale. Since humans have greatly altered and simplified natural systems since 1950, the effects of warming, even if they were similar in magnitude to the MGW, will be far greater on nature.

Secondly, there are very few researchers of note who believe that the Medievel period was as warm as it is now. As I and Dano said, this is the latest thin thread of denial by the sceptics. And its a weak one.

Finally, you wrote: "Some will say that this is a false choice, that we can do both. The reality is that public resources are limited and we must choose wisely when spending our mutual capital. As a scientist I am far from convinced that our first priority should be CO2 mitigation".

Since when are funds limited? The US government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars in an illegal war in Iraq, a war which has ostensibly destroyed the country and left perhaps a million people dead. It is investing billions now in preparing for an illegal suicidal war against Iran. Of course the money is there. The will isn't. When the interests of the poor conflict with power and privilege, they become effectively 'unpeople' (to quote British historian Mark Curtis).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Nov 2007 #permalink

Forgive an ignorant, foolish, ex-second-hand car dealer interrupting yet again, but if there are no written historicial records, and if the proxies are as dodgy as my old bangers used to be, then it neither proves nor disproves the proposition that a global MWP took place. So a pox on both your houses!

"second-hand car dealer" You mean profession liar.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Glad that we can all agree that the notion of a global MWP has no valid supporting evidence, based on our high, high scientific standards. Strange that so many "skeptics" believe in it, however.

Forgive me for going slightly off topic, but I would point out to 'Elspi' that whilst it is a truth universally acknowledged that second-hand car dealers bend the truth like Beckham bends a ball, it is equally true that there is not a bigger liar outside Washington or Westminster (or even, begging our host's pardon, Canberra) than a private punter trying to sell *his* car!

Back on topic, I do sometimes wish, given these periodical global scares (earth freezing, earth warming, bird flu, Y2K, invasion by tooth fairies) that some of the protagonists would deploy the same amount of scepticism as the hard-nosed characters I had to face when selling my wonderful, one-little-old-lady-owner, only 15k on the clock (well, that wasn't a lie, just not quite all the truth because the other clock had 150k on it), cheap at the price, collecter's piece of a car.

You see, in truth, when I sold a car I had to produce a certified service history with it, otherwise no-one would buy it. Some of you global warmers should try telling that to Mann and co, and Hanson, and the rest of them. Or, to put it another way, would you buy a used car from any of them!

Jeff,

You kind'a swerved off the tracks with that Iraq war rant. Then you went into Marxist babble with, "When the interests of the poor conflict with power and privilege, they become effectively 'unpeople' (to quote British historian Mark Curtis)." It is no accident that the forward to Curtis' book, "Unpeople" compares him to Noam Chomsky.

Why is it that discussions of AGW inevitably lead back to left wing ideology?

Used Car Guy sayeth

when I sold a car I had to produce a certified service history with it, otherwise no-one would buy it. Some of you global warmers should try telling that to Mann and co, and Hanson, and the rest of them.

Hmmm ... the words "peer review" come to mind. You seem willing to buy uncertified denialist pseudo-science, while dismissing certified (peer-reviewed) science, yet you tout the benefits of certification in your own business.

I do sometimes wish, given these periodical global scares (earth freezing, earth warming, bird flu, Y2K, invasion by tooth fairies)...

Let's see ...

1. earth freezing - a denialist lie
2. bird flu - killed millions in after WW I
3. Y2K - cost business a huge amount of money to prevent the kind of chaotic scenarios your dismissing from playing out if they had adopted a denialist point of view.

Y2K: I'm an *old* computer guy. The press may have overplayed it, but if a whole lot of people hadn't worked very hard for years, it would have been a mess, and it would have been way more expensive, just like when you skimp on bridge maintenance and it falls down. [Of course, regarding computer dates, we still have 2038 coming, although I won't be around to see it, and I already did my part.]

Some people actually have experience with complex systems engineering, in which the users never notice how much work it took to make it work flawlessly or near-flawlessly. People only notice when it breaks...

Complex systems that work well only do so because smart people:
- assess risks with the very best science they've got
- make sensible cost/risk tradeoffs
- examine every serious failure mode they can find and figure out how to stop it, and if some failrue mode is *really* serious, devote incredible efforts to stop it.

This is how Rickover did nuclear submarines, and how the Bell System did the US phone system. It's how car companies have made cars much more crashworthy [simulate, simulate, simulate], but you'll never know until those results happen to save your life.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 13 Nov 2007 #permalink

Lance @33: Probably because both are true. Also, because you asked "But where will the MONEY come from to fix this problem?", so Jeff Harvey gave the most obvious answer: from the giant money sink that is our subsidy of dumb-assed wars like the one in Iraq. We could improve vastly more lives around the world by putting all that money that's going into Iraq into solving the problem of AGW.
Unfortunately there appears to be no choice, as when given the choice to either do something with long-range benefit to the world's entire population, most of whom are poor, or make a cheap buck for Bush's corporate cronies, we'll inevitably choose the latter. That's why the socioeconomic status of the beneficiaries is relevant.

Taking my 'customers' in order:

'Dhogaza" writes: "You seem willing to buy uncertified denialist pseudo-science, while dismissing certified (peer-reviewed) science". How many papers on AGW are reviewed by people who doubt AGW? Equally, of course, many scientists who doubt it agree with each other. So no change there, then, scientists being human (give or take)! You pays your money and you take your pick. I had no pre-conceptions on the subject but I read as much as I can, and I'm afraid your side failed to convince me - yet.

"earth freezing - a denialist lie". Excuse me! I remember reading and hearing about it at the time.

"bird flu - killed millions in after WW I" Um, this might come as a shock, but that was 90 years ago and there have been a few changes in medical science and western living standards since then. However, if you just enjoy the thrill of being scared, London was regularly hit by the plague in the 16th/17th centuries which killed hundreds of thousands. Gruesome, eh?

"Y2K - cost business a huge amount of money to prevent the kind of chaotic scenarios ..." Hurrah, we can agree! Big-ish problem, not the end of the world as so many, er, peer reviewed experts warned us, but still, a problem, and goodness me, business sorted it. (Er, there's a lesson in there somewhere, 'Dhogaza', if you'd only look!)

Mr. Mashey, please e-mail your comment to 'Dhogaza', he needs to understand that the end of the world is not nigh, or even nearly nigh. When companies see a problem coming that might effect the cash flow, they sort it - God bless 'em!

Now, can I interest any of you gentlemen in a very rare example, only one aristocratic owner ... whose name I am not permitted to disclose ...

"bird flu - killed millions in after WW I" Um, this might come as a shock, but that was 90 years ago and there have been a few changes in medical science and western living standards since then. However, if you just enjoy the thrill of being scared, London was regularly hit by the plague in the 16th/17th centuries which killed hundreds of thousands. Gruesome, eh?

I hate to break it to you, but in terms of our ability to fight the flu, medical science hasn't advanced very much since then. We can shave a few days off it if we take the right medication on time, but that's about it--not necessarily enough to save your life if another bad one starts spreading rapidly. Not at all like plague, which responds quite well to conventional antibiotics.

How many papers on AGW are reviewed by people who doubt AGW?

In the beginning, when Hansen first start publishing and making noise, ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

Let me guess ... you didn't know that.

Trrll already answered you regarding the flu. The fact that you'd compare a bacterial disease (which in so many cases are treatable with conventional antibiotics) with a viral one, which aren't, says something about your general level of knowledge.

So perhaps you might think about posting less, and learning more ...

How many papers on AGW are reviewed by people who doubt AGW?

In the beginning, when Hansen first start publishing and making noise, ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

Let me guess ... you didn't know that.

Trrll already answered you regarding the flu. The fact that you'd compare a bacterial disease (which in so many cases are treatable with conventional antibiotics) with a viral one, which aren't, says something about your general level of knowledge.

So perhaps you might think about posting less, and learning more ...

Y2K - cost business a huge amount of money to prevent the kind of chaotic scenarios ..."

Hurrah, we can agree! Big-ish problem, not the end of the world as so many, er, peer reviewed experts warned us, but still, a problem, and goodness me, business sorted it. (Er, there's a lesson in there somewhere, 'Dhogaza', if you'd only look!)

What the hell do you think we want? ACTION. Precisely as happened with Y2K. Acknowledge the problem (rather than deny it) and ACT ON IT.

BTW, nice dodge there. First you claim that Y2K warnings were an example of false alarmism, now you're suggesting ...

Well, what exactly? That acknowledging Y2K and fixing it somehow supports denying AGW and not working to fix the problem?

I'm having a bit of trouble with your logic, to be honest.

#37 Duff

Can you cite the *peer-reviewed experts* who warned us that Y2K was the end of the world? In which peer-reviewed journals? Which peer-reviewed computing journals do you read?

By John Mashey (not verified) on 13 Nov 2007 #permalink

Mashey;

Don't be a ninnie even the Fed Chairman was very worried aboutY2K enough so to ease the Fed funds rate just prior to the turn of the year.

Oops, sorry, sorry, so bird flu is viral and we can't cure it, my God, and it's been out and about for several years now so they must be dying like flies ... hang on ... where are the bodies? In fact, just how many people have died with bird flu? Well, never mind, it's a good scare story to make the kids go to bed when they're told.

Peer review! Two little words that mean so ... well, bugger all, actually! This whole notion of peer review is soooo last century, don'cha think? *This* medium, the internet, is the only sort of review I'd place bets on. Here, the whole world and his uncle can review the entrails of any proposition. Some of it will be from the scientifically ignorant (like me!), some exceedingly expert (er, not very like you, as it happens). The important thing is that the cosy little club has been smashed open and the oiks have been allowed in. Our host is a pefect example, curious, capable (up to a point), but with the ability to provide links that will take you further and further into a subject that 20 years ago would have been closed to the outsider.

And incidentally, some one might care to tell me how the likes of Hansen, Mann 'et al' could have been peer reviewed when they refused to disclose their codes? Also, how carefully reviewed was Hansen seeing that he recently had to change his 20th century temperature figures having been caught by, er, a blogger? I mean, if he can't get those right, how much trust would you put in his MWP stats? Frankly, if he told me the sun was shining I'd take an umbrella!

Honestly, I wish I'd had a few trusting suckers like you lot when I was flogging my old bits of shrapnel!

Lance,

Please try to avoid such dumb-ass remarks as 'left wing babble' and 'Marxist ideology'. It does not become you. You do what many - or most - in the denial camp do. You veered away from the parts of my post that you could not answer - with respect to changes in the state of the biosphere over the course of the past 500 years, and how this will enable the current warming to have disproportionate effects on contemporary systems - and make effectively fatuous comments suggesting that western foregin policy is benign. Well I have news for you kiddo: read some of the declassified planning documents from US and UK archives (I have) and you'll learn something. You'll learn, for instance, that the neoliberal order and Washington Consensus ain't about creating social justice and equity in the world. But this should be obvious. There are volumes of evidence showing it, except that the mainstream media prefer manufacturing consent amongst the masses (e.g. promoting the 'status quo'). It is highly relevant to the discussion on global environmental change because there is a very powerful lobby that is promoting the very policies that are driving climate change and other assaults on nature and this lobby does not want things to change: they and pushing 'business-as-usual' as the ONLY business. In other words, state-corporate planners are not at all concerned about the next 30 or 20 or even 10 years, but about the next fiscal quarter or year at most. Their priority is about investors returns.

If you bothered to look, you'd see that, whether you like it or not, the global economy is based on serving about 20% of the world's population. Calling this 'Marxist babble' is indictive of your take on these issues. Just as when you espoused Lomborg-speak about financial priorities. As I said, the money is there. But only when it serves the needs of powerful, elite groups. If the US government spent a fraction of the money saving people instead of killing them, then I'd say real change was afoot. But the Iraq war - a war effectively about control of a resource-rich region that will end of costing more than a trillion dollars to US taxpayers - should nakedly expose the fiscal priorities of those commanding power. This is but one example; the evidence is all around you if you bother to look.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Nov 2007 #permalink

Forgive me intruding on the other argument going on hee which is really none of my business but I couldn't help noticing this remark from Mr. Harvey above:

"the global economy is based on serving about 20% of the world's population"

A global economy, in fact, any economy, does not "serve" anyone. It is merely an aggregate of trillions of billions of transactions in which buyers and sellers satisfy, more or less, there requirements by the exhange of goods and services and money. This activity creates wealth which governments steal, oops, sorry, tax, and they may, or may not, use these taxes to "serve" other people - whatever "serve" means in that context. In my experience, mostly they don't, and the bit that they do is usually aimed at anyone who will help keep them in power!

Jeff Harvery says:

(" If you bothered to look, you'd see that, whether you like it or not, the global economy is based on serving about 20% of the world's population. Calling this 'Marxist babble' is indictive of your take on these issues.
No no. calling it Marxist babble is exacty the right. In fact its embarrassingly simplistic babble.

Dear old Jeff, You never quite geddit it do ya?

What would happen to your dearly beloved biodiversity etc if all governments did commit to the loony reduction targets of the EU et al. at Bali?

Let me tell you. Currently, according to Canadell & Raupach (in PNAS, 2007, twice, and both are lead authors/contributors - and sharers in Al's Nobel - to the IPCC's AR4 WG1), the average sources of atmos. carbon amount in 2000-2006 to 9.1 GtC p.a., while the average uptakes by the oceans and land amount to 5 GtC. Given that over that period the average annual increase in atmos CO2 was 2.035 ppmv, this implies, pace Crass O'Nowall, that the average increase in CO2 in ppmv was 2.105 per 1 GtC of net emissions.

Now let's reduce emissions at once NOW by 90% of the 2000 level as demanded by the Australian Conservation Foundation et el et al, (and hopefully (?!) adopted and immediately implemented by the goons at Bali)we have emissions down by up to 0.617 GtC, while uptakes continue at the Canadell-Raupach rate of 5 GtC (and growing at their rate of c.1.5% p.a.). That means atmos. CO2 in ppmv declines by over 4 GtC p.a., or over 8 ppmv. That in turn means that the current atmos. CO2 concentration of 381 ppmv reduces by more than 8 ppmv a year, so that by 2021 we have atmos. CO2 down to 270 ppmv. That was last seen in 1750 or so, when the world's population was less than 1 billion, and food production was much more than pro rata less than now (there is something called photosynthesis, albeit dismissed by Stern and given just 3 pages by the IPCC's AR4 WG1 Report in its 985 pages). If you think that current wheat and rice yields etc will be the same at 270-280 CO2 ppmv and concomitant cooler temperatures than now, sleep well. But I fear for all our grandchildren - and even you would have to agree that biodiversity has always done worse from cold rather than warm temperatures.

Tim,

I got news for ya pal. Without my 'dearly beloved biodiversity' you wouldn't exist. Not that this bothers me, but then again, Homo sapiens wouldn't exist either. And it isn't absoulte temperature that matters. It is the rate of change. Sure, many individuals, populations and species benefit from warmer temperatures (whereas many don't). But the current warming is occurring far more rapidly than would occur naturally under most circumstances, and it is set against a background of a huge suite of other anthropogenic changes. Humans are ploughing, paving, damming, dredging, chemically altering and slashing and burning our way across the biosphere. There isn't a single system that is not in decline - not one. The current warming episode is but one human assault, and given that many systems are already seriously stressed, we can expect consequences. Some are liable to be serious, and we won't be able to fix them with technology, given that there are no technological substitutes for most ecosystem services that permit humans to exist and persist. The gobbledegook about increased atmospheric CO 2 enhancing crop yields (totally dispensing with the chemical ecology of multitrophic systems involving consumers as well as plants)could only be expressed by those lacking any fundamental understanding of ecophysiology. This has been dispensed with so many times yet the sceptics still dredge it up. Tim, please find another straw to grasp.

As for David Duff and JC, we know where their talk is coming from. And it isn't from their mouths. Dispensing with their innane comments is so easy that I won't even expend the effort.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

I'd avoid that embarrassing comment to Jeff. Let's just move on. I promise I won't mention it again. Your secret is safe with me. Scouts homnor.

This one caught my eye:
10

The Kyoto Protocol will not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases noticeably. The targets were too low, applied only to certain countries, and have been rendered meaningless by loopholes. Many governments that enthuse about the treaty are not going to meet the reduction targets that they signed up to. Even if it is real, man-made climate change is just one problem among many facing the world's rich and poor alike. Governments and societies should respond proportionately, not pretend that climate is a special case. And some economists believe that a warmer climate would, on balance, improve lives.

Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside the realms of science, although it certainly will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as far or as fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact of man-made climate change will on balance be deleterious, particular to the poorer countries of the tropics, although colder regions may see benefits such as increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency, new energy technologies and renewables are likely to benefit the developing world.

What a great dodge. The one big "solution" isn't science so the BBC thinks it is outside its ambit. What a bunch of pathetic lying twits.

But they were so stupid they almost gave the game away.

They're suggesting that the cooler regions will benefit while the warmer and poorer regions won't. Who is kiddding who here.

The inference is that global warming could actually be GDP positive because close to 85% of world GDP is created in the cooler climes where they will gain the most.

Which means of course that if we do nothing there is a good "risk"the world's GDP will do even better.

Way to go BBC. We're signing on to a treaty that they almost admit is friggen useless and world GDP could actually gain with AGW as a consequence of where it (GDP) is situated.

And the BBC's solution for the third world?.... renewables.

I kinda wish the BBC would run on renewables, maybe they would be off the air most of the time.

Jc might want to go to those colder climates in Florida, Texas and California, maybe Italy and Spain. OTOH, Siberia will be toastier.

Ladies and Gents,

Eli recommends using the term European Warm Period, EWP for short because

a. It is more accurate based on the evidence we have and
b. It enrages the wingnuts.

Rabbet:

"particular to the poorer countries of the tropics,"

This is what it says. Is it wrong?

What your saying is that people in Italy, Spain, Cal, Fl and Tx wouldn't be able to survive in the same climate as say Singapore which is slap bang on the equator.

We expereinced a huge migration from the cooler regions in the US to the sunbelt over the past few decades but couldn't envisage a reverse migration back east. The move to the Sunblet was a big economic positive but a move back would be a thought too horrible to imagine.

Let's not forget the huge open expanse of Siberia, the canadian northern territories and Alaska. Migration to those regions would be just too shocking to even think about.

Is this insane or what.

Rabbet:

The BBC has inadvertently admitted that AGW is an economic poistive and here you are putting yourself in the position of a secptic. You denialist you. Who would ever have thought you would open the door to the closet and jump out. Too funny for words.

Alas, I wouldn't bet the deeds of my house on them

Let's just bet that gobal warming will have wonderful consequences. Taking risks is so much fun.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

"Let's just bet that gobal warming will have wonderful consequences."

Well, it *will* for some! And if it's me, why should I try and put it off, and why should anyone else try and take it away from me?

Hi Jeff,

I try to steer clear of overtly political discussions that inevitably arise during discussions of AGW. While it is impossible to completely divorce the scientific issues from the surrounding politics it quickly injects emotion and bias that distract from rational discourse.

The word "babble" was poorly chosen and obviously offensive. For that I apologize. I was just disappointed that our discussion had veered into political waters. It is clear that AGW has become a highly politicized topic.

This only serves to cloud the issue at the heart of the debate, namely whether anthropogenic CO2 is going to produce catastrophic warming. I do not see credible evidence to support that hypothesis.

If you would like to discuss the attendant political issues I would be glad to do so. I find them fascinating. I think it is what is really driving the issue.

You might be surprise to learn that I am not a conservative and have never voted for a republican president including George W Bush. That said, I don't think his motivations for invading iraq were as sinister as you have implied.

I think he, and the other "neoconservatives" in his administration, believed that the invasion would be easy, and that a democratic Iraq could quickly be assembled.

Their first assumption was correct, the second was tragically naive. I pretty much agree with Christopher Hitchen's opinions on the matter. His views are easily accessed on the web.

Again I think this is a distraction from the issue of AGW, but it is interesting to discuss.

Lance says: "I pretty much agree with Christopher Hitchen's opinions on the matter." That would be the same Hitchens who enthusiastically promoted, for "humanitarian" reasons, a war that has killed maybe a million Iraqis.

Sorry to intrude - again! But up above some one was trying to tell me that we could rely on ice core analysis to prove global warming. They may be right, the only ice I'm ever interested in is the one I pour my dry martinis over, but anyway, back in 2002,apparently, some one called Lonnie Thompson took an enormous ice core out of Alaska - well, it sounded enormous to me, I wonder that Alaska hasn't imploded - but, for some unknown resaon he failed to actually archive or print the results. I wonder why? Could it be that it failed to provide the required supporting evidence for 20th c. warming? I don't know, but you can find out over at a site, the very mention of whose name will have sundry commenters here reaching for the garlic, so I will simply tell you that it begins with a 'C' and an 'A'!

See, 'Service with a Smile', it's always been my motto.

Sure David, the vast AGW conspiracy is hiding it in one of their black helicopters. Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?

Oops, sorry, sorry, so bird flu is viral and we can't cure it, my God

That's true, we can't.

As usual, misrepresenting reality. Bird flu is a THREAT that will arise if it mutates into a form that is easily transmitted to humans. It hasn't, thus far. The press I've read - not the supermarket tabloids I imagine you rely on - have accurately reported this threat. Your characterization of the "scare story" is a lie, pure and simple.

Tim,

As I'm sure you know, but never acknowledge, the vast majority of those killed were killed by other Iraqis. Also what was the alternative to "regime change"? That would of course be the continued brutalization of the Iraqi people by Sadam and his boys for the foreseeable future. Hey anybody is better than Bush right?

The US civil war claimed more American war dead than all other US wars combined. Perhaps we should just have let Jefferson Davis and his pals keep the south? I'm not sure many African Americans would agree with that one but any military intervention by the US is bad right?

Oh, except Kosovo, because Billy boy invaded not "W".

Lance says "the vast majority of those killed were killed by other Iraqis". Oh well, I guess they don't count as really dead then.

The US civil war claimed more American war dead than all other US wars combined.

That's not true, though it was true until part way through the Vietnam War.

I'm not sure many African Americans would agree with that one but any military intervention by the US is bad right?

If you intend to stand on this analogy, then you must believe that Iraq declared war on the US before we invaded...

Oh, darn, I should've said "attacked" rather than "declared war".

Though maybe Lance is arguing that both the South's attack on Fort Sumter and our invasion of Iraq were morally justified ...

dhogaza,

I didn't say killed in action. I meant total number of Americans that died as a result of the civil war. Imagine if the Lancet were to study that little fracas. The numbers would be astronomical. Of course Americans killing Americans probably wouldn't get their attention.

Oh, Mr. Lambert, you are a tease! And of course, I accept that the word 'gullible' may not be in *your* dictionary, you being an Aussie, and all, but it *is* in my OED, although why you should raise the matter is beyond me because I haven't used the word.

Now to the point: Did Thompson drill a 460 meter ice core into an Alaskan mountain and then, having analysed 5,600 samples, *forget* to publish, or to archive them? Is that true or not? And if it is, why did he do it?

It's a simple question, Mr.Lambert, and you don't even need a dictionary.

Okay, who brought the ice holes into this discussion.

Fargin ice holes!

And of course, I accept that the word 'gullible' may not be in your dictionary, you being an Aussie, and all, but it is in my OED...

Ha! He made you look, didn't he? Went right over your head, didn't it?

I didn't say killed in action. I meant total number of Americans that died as a result of the civil war.

Ah, indirect as well as direct deaths, etc.

You sure you factored in the number of deaths due to the "Spanish" (bird) flu after WW I?

Chinese kept good records; apparently they either forgot to notice the MWP, or failed to document it as part of their longstanding plan to destabilize the economies of the western world with this climate change hoax.

Dunno about ice holes, but I am simply amazed that the Rabbet has suddenly turned denialist on us. I mean what a turncoat.

jc, check your dyslexia at the door please. You may have noticed that there is a considerable investment in real estate in the southern US and Europe. When that goes down the tubes people will be jumping off buildings. OTOH, you don't appear to be the thinking sort.

Rabbet

The history of humanity is one of inexorable movement.

Economics:

The East and Mid west has expereinced some pretty big proportional drops in population with the move to the West and then the Sunbelt and I have not once seen an economic commentator suggest this was an economic negative.

You are looking at only the wealth destrroying effects of what is left behind without taking into account the wealth creating effects of what opens up.

Stop being so silly.

It's the reason why even taking Stern's report at face value and accepting his science estimates the economic answer is to do nothing. This even though he used a discount rate 1/70 below what is commonly used in long term economic predictions and cost of capital.

Global warming is happening alright, but doing something is not necessarily the answer.

It's rate of change and the rate of adaption that is important, Rabbet.

"As to the Mayan or Malian empires, they may have been "very literate" but don't provide much if at all literature."

The primary sources of climate data aren't from literature - they're from stuff like census records; tax collections (in grain and cattle); and records of droughts, floods and unusual weather events.

"The raind falls at Chakal so the king of Chakal attacked his neightbours and stole their grain." isn't exactly literature.

In a brief google search I saw at least some evidence of a medieval warming period recorded in Chinese documents. But they come from indirect sources such as books on wild plants showing changes in the northern-most occurrence of frost-sensitive plants over time.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

"Why is it that discussions of AGW inevitably lead back to left wing ideology?"

Why is it discussions with "skeptics" inevitably lead back to accusations of left-wing bias?

The answer starts with "project-" and ends in "-ion".

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink
Let's just bet that gobal warming will have wonderful consequences.

Well, it will for some!

A risk-free guarantee from David Duff. Worth every cent that you paid for it.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

"Peer review! Two little words that mean so ... well, bugger all, actually! This whole notion of peer review is soooo last century, don'cha think? This medium, the internet, is the only sort of review I'd place bets on."

Yes I'd much rather drug safety was determined by discussions on blogs rather than peer-reviewd double-blind studies.

Facts are SO last century.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

"Though maybe Lance is arguing that both the South's attack on Fort Sumter and our invasion of Iraq were morally justified ..."

Well JC would doubt explain that the lower IQs of black ameircans meant they were incapable of running their own affairs and were better off being helped by their intellectually superior white owners.

Plus I'm sure he's outraged that Big Government took billions of dollars of valuable private property away from their lawful owners without compensation.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

"What your saying is that people in Italy, Spain, Cal, Fl and Tx wouldn't be able to survive in the same climate as say Singapore which is slap bang on the equator."

No JC he's saying that the countries already on the equator will suffer the most.

"Is this insane or what."

Quite possibly but you should consult a qualified mental heath therapist.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

Gouldiechops

You're losing it dude.

Gouldie has found another racist iunder the bed.

1. IQ does not measure humans worth. Possibly this is a strange concept to you, but its true and something I believe in . It does mean that someone with an IQ of 85 will most probably not make a good neurosurgeon but they may easily do your job, Gouldster.

2. Removing the illegal confederate government was a noble act.

--------------------

(No JC he's saying that the countries already on the equator will suffer the most.

And the point I'm making after reading the BBC report is that the countries in the cooler climes will benefit the most. And the countries in the cooler climes produce about 85% of World GDP. AGW would be a net benefit to wrold GDP going from what the BBC is saying.
Read it again Gouldiechops.

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire - You should look it up, they weren't called the dark ages for fun. Only someone who knows no history thinks anything is inexorable.

Lance, you said, "As I'm sure you know, but never acknowledge, the vast majority of those killed were killed by other Iraqis". Under international law and the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is not only signatory but helped to formulate, the occupying force is responsible for providing security. This means that EVERY violent death in Iraq as a result of the [illegal] invasion is the responsibility of the occupier. Moreover, you are verifying everything I said in earlier posts. How many Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of US bombing, anti-insurgent activity etc. in Iraq. One hundred thousand? Two hundred thousand? (This ignores the US-UK sanctions regime which probably killed a million more). How would such carnage be received in the US if Iraq was the aggressor and occupier and the victims were American citizens?

What this reveals is what John Pilger said in "The New Rulers of the World". We are worthy victims. The lives of those we kill are unworthy victims. We are conditioned to see the world through a one-way moral and legal screen. When we are attacked, the world is coming to an end; when we attack and kill others, its business-as-usual.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Nov 2007 #permalink

Geneva Conventions are *so* 20th century, now we can use the Internet to decide what's right and wrong.

David - the used car dealer with no scientific background, also pokes his ignorant nose into something of which I was well involved with. Y2K. As has been stated previously, the media hyped it and the survivalists relished a failure to remedy and charlatans got rich out of it, but it was as a very real problem. I personally went through 10 transitions from 1999 to 2000 in parallel testing environments within the same company and each time but the last two we found massive failures in some code path or even something as simple as PC BIOS failures. At 12:00:01 on January 1st 2000 I was at work and had to personally verify the functionality of the systems and report to the executives (most of whom were having a great old time at a party).

Don't tell me that it was alarmist and fruitless. My company handled around a billion dollars in billings annually. What were *you* doing about about that time? How much is the earth's species worth - this time though there are no dry runs. Fix it or die.

JC writes, "What your [sic] saying is that people in Italy, Spain, Cal, Fl and Tx wouldn't be able to survive in the same climate as say Singapore which is slap bang on the equator".

I am sure that human populations could adapt to such changes if our species were somehow exempt from the laws of nature. We aren't. Thus, the problem is JC, if such changes occurred in the time frame I think you're suggesting, then the existing ecosystems in these regions would be devastated. Destroyed. Vanquished. Extinction on a mass scale, and the consequent loss of vitally important ecosystem services. Comprendez? And if this happened, human beings would go down the drain too. No ifs or buts.

What this shows is that JC, man, you ain't losin' it. You never had it to begin with. But then again most of us posting here knew that some time back.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Nov 2007 #permalink

Jeff

I'm more optimistic than you are in terms of our ability to adapt.

Europe was devasted after WW2. Some countries were virtually wiped out and had no economcies to speak of. Yet over a short space of time: 15 years for palces like Germany , Itlay etc- they were powering away again.

Don't be so depressed about things.

What you need to do is qunatify the loss but also take into account the benefits. If you do that the story is quite different. The cost benefit analysis may show it is best to do nothing and allow GDP to rise to a level where it becomes less of a problem when quantified against GDP.

JC,

I don't deny that humans can adapt to many changes. I don't underestimate human ingenutiy but I don't overestimate it either. The fact is that if the changes you suggested occur in such a time frame, our survival would be pretty well out of our hands. If nature melts down (metaphorically speaking) as it would given such a drastic short-term change, then no amount of ingenuity or its attendant technology will save us. If there is a broad systemic collapse under the stress of the human assault (of which AGW is one important factor), then our species will exterminate itself. This isn't a pessimistic assessment; given human dependence on freely supplied services from nature, its concrete reality.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Nov 2007 #permalink

You know, I am not nearly as pessimistic as Jeff. I think a lot of people, as in maybe millions, or even a couple of hundred million would survive. Fools think they will be lucky. Of course, fools don't realize that under those conditions the living will envy the dead.

Eli,

Excellent post. Spot on.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Nov 2007 #permalink

Jeff,

As I said I am not a conservative or fan of "W". I would not have invaded Iraq, either time. That said, I think much of the criticism of the Iraqi invasion and subsequent occupation is overly vitriolic and politically motivated.

Let us agree that the security situation after the invasion was mishandled. This situation was not helped by the fact that the UN abdicated its responsibilities after its head quarters were bombed and it fled. The european nations, other than Brittian, refused to help for largely political reasons. Not to mention regional powers such as Iran and Syria funding and facilitating violence. Then there is Al Quieda. So there is plenty of blame to go around.

What is your answer to the situation? War crime trials for Bush and his buddies? While I'm sure this would delight you and others here at Deltoid, how exactly is that going to help the average Iraqi?

Eli,

Dr. Strangelove is my favorite movie, I think your paraphrase of president Merkin Muffley's,

"Wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?"

is almost as funny as his.

Perhaps you fear that CO2 will contaminate your "precious bodily fluids".

Lance,

Good to know that you aren't a fan of 'W'. Given the man and his administration's record in pursuing a war (actually the wrong word - it was pure and simple aggression) that violated the Nuremburg Code and international law, I wonder how the criminals in the DC junta have any support at all. But, of course, since the US is something of a plutocracy, and a lot of people have made a lot of money from the aggression, its not surprising that certain sectors of the establishment have been very much behind it. The corporate media have also been pretty well gung-ho from the start.

As for the UN, as 'crazies' like John Bolton have more-or-less said time and time again, when it does as it is told by the world's leading rogue state, it is relevant. When it doesn't it is ignored. I don't disagree that European opposition - at least from France - was very much based on political factors. France has a pretty horrendous record when it comes to its foreign policy of plundering and looting (its up there with the US and UK in this regard, soon to be joined by China). But the bottom line was that the invasion was based on an economic agrnda - read control of oil - and the real miracle is how the media have managed to somehow obfuscate and distort this fact.

But you claim that there plenty of blame to go around - are you serious? What the hell do Iran and Al Queda (the latter a creation of the CIA) have to do with Iraq? Iran hasn't aggressed against a neighbour in over 300 years. Al Queda despised Saddam Hussein's regime - they hated secular nationalists like Saddam. For that matter, the US gave huge economic and diplomatic support for Saddam when he committed his worst crimes. It was only when the brutal tyrant became upptiy and no longer followed orders from Washington that he was deemed a liability. Moreover, no one with half a brain denies that Al Queda are a bunch of vile killers, but they were that when they were nurtured by the US back in the 70's as part of Zbignieuw Brezinski's Afghan trap aimed at creating Russia's own Viet Nam war. The US has had a history of supporting fundamental Islam because it has always been terrified of secular nationalism. In other words, Washington has been terrified that countries in the Middle East would develop independent of their control, and since this region is vital to the US economy, this could not be allowed. Witness the fate of other secular nationalists - Arbenz, Goulart, Lumumba, Mossadegh, Sukarno, Allende and others. When planners like Kennan stated that any country controlling the Middle East had 'Veto power over the global economy", they were telling the truth. Too bad the media are so biased and weave other myths.

To say there is 'much blame to go around' for the carnage the US and its UK poodle have inflicted on Iraq is utter folly. That's like saying there was much blame to go around for the misery the Soviet Union inflicted when it invaded Afghanistan, or even when Germany invaded Poland and the Sudetenland precipitating WW II. The only way such a statement can be seriously considered is under the premise that the US runs the world. How else could Iran be blamed for interfering in a country that the US illegally invaded and occupied? The blame for the Iraq disaster lies with Washington, pure and simple.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Nov 2007 #permalink

Ok Jeff , you present a gloomy scenario. However you haven't offered the one salient fact that puts everything into perspective. What is the rate of change?

Here's my back of the envelope rate of change.

At .4% Co2 release it will take about 344 years to reach what some people have said is the tipping point of 1500 ppm.

Now I'm more optimistic than you. The world will change like nothing we could envisage over that time. Hell I couldn't imagine what the world will look like tech wise in 50 years time. You thought we would be conversing like this over continents in 1990?

And why the assumption that the world will be carbon based 50 years hence. 50 years from now even.

Humanity may not exist, as we know it in 100- 200 years time. It could actually be robots that "live" much longer as we voluntarily revolutionized ourselves outta existence.

What a lot of you don't wish to recognize is that a large part of the problem is economics- bad economics and bad decisions made over environmental issues. Nuke power is one. The US was well on its way to being largely nuke powered but 3 mile Island stopped it dead in its tracks. It could have been 80% nuke by now operating with much more advanced technology because that decision also prevented R&D. Subsidies are another issue which simply promote bad outcomes. The resistance to GM crops in certain parts of the world would allow for more land reclamation yet a good part of the environmental movement is against GM. The environmental movement is now part of the problem. Period.

"Iran hasn't aggressed against a neighbour in over 300 years."

Oh Please. Iran has been at the forefront of terror activities since the late 80's.

Are you simply just wilfully ignoring its intentions to ensure Isael no longer exists? Let me know what other fury little friends you have that you're not disclosing.

Jeff,

I'll be glad to see "W" gone, which is scheduled to occur in a little over 13 months. That doesn't mean I agree with your portrayal of the US as a hegemonous "rogue" state.

You paint with quite a broad brush when you claim that Bush and his neo-con pals are part of a colonialist conspiracy that puts them in bed with Zbignieuw Brezinski.

Brezinski has been an outspoken critic of the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

Also if control of Middle Eastern oil was the objective it has failed miserably. Iraq effectively produces no oil for export.

I think it is much more likely that Bush and his neo-con pals thought that an Iraq that was friendly to US interests could be assembled. This would provide a base, both military and political, from which their vision of a democratic Middle East could be fashioned. While this goal was overly ambitious and poorly thought out I don't think it was motivated by visions of a colonial, oil producing, client state.

In the beginning I had hopes that they would pull it off. I mean are you really against the idea of the Iraqi people forming a democratic state?

In the beginning I had hopes that they would pull it off. I mean are you really against the idea of the Iraqi people forming a democratic state?

Not me. Nor am I against the idea of a scotty "beam me up" device that let's me see my girlfriend in spain whenever I want.

Both were equally likely before the invasion.

You'd have to be as clueless about the ethnic make-up of Iraq as you are about AGW in order to believe there was any chance that a quick invasion would be followed with a "poof, now we're all getting along in a sweet and kind western democracy" event.

dhogaza,

While I wasn't expecting anything via "poof" I did have some hope that the various factions would realize the opportunity they had to move their country out of the nightmare it had endured during Sadam's brutal regime.

I still think they have an historic opportunity in their midst. Ethnic and tribal differences are obstacles that have been overcome in other regions of the world. Would you condemn them to perpetual fratricide as the only alternative to dictatorship?

dhogaza, or whatever your name might really be, you go right for full throttle vitriol as a response to any post to which you disagree. While I am certainly prone to the occasional sarcastic response I try to make a rational post here and there. Maybe you should consider an anger management class.

Maybe you should consider an anger management class.

Maybe you should mind your own bleeping business.

Ethnic and tribal differences are obstacles that have been overcome in other regions of the world.

Doesn't mean they will be any time soon in Iraq. You have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. Where's your evidence that Iraq is ready for such golden times? Surely the post-invasion reality provides no such evidence. It was a pipe-dream before the invasion and many people knew it. I've not been the least bit surprised as to what's happened, but then again I read up on the history during GWI. Clearly, our President and his advisors did not.

Would you condemn them to perpetual fratricide as the only alternative to dictatorship?

I have no basis for claiming that our invasion has condemned them to PERPETUAL fratricide, but clearly it's condemned them to some years of fratricide, with horrible consequences. That's the reality today, they've been condemned to ongoing fratricide as the only alternative to dictatorship. Are you proud of that?

Bush the Elder and his advisors refrained from overthrowing Saddam largely for this reason.

According to SoD (Son of Duff), I am a boring old fart, so you won't be surprised if I actually go back to the original conversation (I use the word loosely in the Australian dictionary sense!)

Mr. Gould, for example, a peer-cuddling lover of reviews, scoffs at my scoffing and points to drug testing. (No, I don't know why, either!) You see drugs are not peer reviewed. Drugs are developed in (mostly) private labs and are tested by the people who developed them, first on animals and then on people,and finally the the government checks the sums. Scientists at GSK are not in the habit of handing over their drugs to AstroZenneca - or at least, I bloody well hope not because I own shares in GSK.

When it comes to the 'peerless' scientific advocates of AGW, alas, such peer review as can take place, does so without the assistance of the codes neccesary to fully understand the original theories. As some one above, apparently much wiser than me by their own estimation, pointed out, I am just an ignorant, old, car dealer but, I would suggest, that such, er, peer reviews are worth about the same as the service histories for cars produced by a dealer mate of mine who, in the days before computers, had official rubber stamps for every make of car in the top drawer of his desk! So much for Mr. Gould who could do with an advanced course in Kuhnian philosophy which will not teach him much science but will tell him a lot about scientists and their tricky, sociable, not to say, downright, herd-like, little ways. (If they could bleet, they would.)

Andrew, whose motto is "No point ever knowingly not missed", tells us that Y2K was a problem; not nearly as bad a problem as many experts, as well as non-experts, told us, certainly not the end of the world as so many implied. He goes on, perhaps in the hope of a medal or something, to tell us that he, and others, in private industry worked jolly hard and, hey presto, the problem went away. Soooo - DON'T TELL ME, ANDREW, GO TELL IT TO ALL THOSE CONTROL FREAKS WHO WANT TO BOSS ME AROUND BECAUSE THEY THINK THE END OF THE WORLD IS COMING! It isn't, and even if it is, their cure is worst than Armageddon. Just read the eye-ball swivelling Mr. Harvey, and be afraid; very, very afraid!

Shorter David Duff

I am just an ignorant, old, car dealer

We already knew that David. Why do you insist on proving it over and over again?

Ah, Mr Dhogaza, the well know spelling mistake! Always a pleasure to hear from you, particularly when it's limited to two lines.

some people have said .. the tipping point is 1500 ppm.

Hmm, warming most probably in excess of 7 deg C. Now we know the sort of nutcases we're dealing with.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 15 Nov 2007 #permalink

David,

You've never seen me; how do you know that my eyes swivel? Just because I say what should be patently obvious? Because this contrasts with your jaded view of the world?

Oh, you're just an ignorant, old car dealer. That nails it.

For the millionth time and more, the US did not oust Saddam's brutal regime out of any humanitarian intent (particulalry as the UN sanctions regime - instituted largely by the US and UK - killed more than a million Iraqi civilians between 1991 and 2003). I am sorry to dent your corporate-media generated world view on this Lance, but this should not be that difficult to discern, given the US record of supporting despots. Twenty out of twenty five of the leading recipients of US military aid are regimes with appalling human rights records. As I said before, the US armed, aided and abetted Saddam right through the period in which he committed he worst atrocities. As long as he was a useful pawn in their conflcit with Iran, then he could do what he liked. Did Washington insiders know? Of course they did. They just didn't care. Just like they knew of the atrocities Suharto was committing while they supported him militarily and economically. A Clinton aide called Suharto, "Our kind of guy" in 1996. They knew full well that Suharto was one of the leading torturers and mass murderers at the time and previously, perhaps even worse than Saddam. Did that matter? Did that stop them? Heck, as late as 2002 Paul Wolfowitz apparently was suggesting that he should never have gone.

As far as Iran is concerned, the US has unremittingly punished that country for over 50 years. They helped overthrow a democratically elected leader Mossadegh in 1953; they supported the Shah's regime, one of the world's worst, for the next 26 years until it was overthrown from within. Then they did everything to help Saddam in waging a war with the country, a war that may have killed more than one million Iranians. In 1982, the Reagan administration managed to get Iraq taken off of a list of nations that officially sponsor terrorism so that they could support his war with Iran. Again, all of this should hardly be considered trivial. But to many western pundits, its all gone down their memory hole.

Consider this. The US has military bases surrounding Iran. The US Air Force regularly makes flights into Iranian airspace. The US has deployed aircraft carriers and destroyers to the Persian Gulf. How are the Iranian people supposed to view this? More importantly, how would we feel? Let's say hypothetically the Iranians had aircraft carriers stationed off of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Lets assume they also had military bases and airfields stationed along the Canadian and Mexican borders, and that their fighter aircraft regularly overflew parts of American airspace. At the same time, we read that their political leadership - by this I mean Ayatollah Khomeini who controls power - were openly making threats about attacking US targets and cities (as Bush and Cheney are regulalry doing in the US media). How would Americans feel about that? How would the US government respond to it? Let's also say that Iranians were known to be funding political movements in the US that wanted to overthrow the government, as US agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Republican Institute etc. have been doing in countries like Venezuela, and only a few years after beiung involved in an actual coup attempt there that failed. How would people in the US feel about that? Why is any of this irrelevant? Its only irrelevant because we are not supposed to see the world as others at the receiving end of our policies see it. Those holding the sticks are not supposed to understand what it is like for those who are getting bashed by the sticks.

Let me be clear that I know that Iran has a pretty poor record with respect to support for international terrorism. I also know that many domestic freedoms are almost non-existent there. But does this justify more agg4ression by the west? More illegal wars that shred international law? Again, as international law attorney at Princeton Richard Falk once said, we (meaning Americans, but also people in Europe) are conditioned to see the world through a one-way moral/legal screen. Its time we started to try and understand better how those at the receiving end of our policies feel.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Nov 2007 #permalink

"You see drugs are not peer reviewed."

Really?

"the UN abdicated its responsibilities after its head quarters were bombed and it fled."

you mean when the Occupying Powers abdicated their responsibility to protect NGOS?

And the UN never fled Iraq, UN projects continued throguhout the period.

I might have3 more patient for this particular argument if at the time I wasn't hearing Americans gloat about how Al qaida and their "allies" at the UN had somehow fallen out and how the Eurotrash UN appeaser scum got what they deserved for sabotaging the noble crusade to liberate the downtrodden Iraqis.

Of course, most5 of the pe3opel making those comments at the time, now claim they were never pro-war, much as you do.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 16 Nov 2007 #permalink

"Mr. Gould, for example, a peer-cuddling lover of reviews, scoffs at my scoffing and points to drug testing. (No, I don't know why, either!) You see drugs are not peer reviewed. Drugs are developed in (mostly) private labs and are tested by the people who developed them, first on animals and then on people,and finally the the government checks the sums. Scientists at GSK are not in the habit of handing over their drugs to AstroZenneca - or at least, I bloody well hope not because I own shares in GSK."

Seldom if ever has so much ignorance been packed into so little space.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 16 Nov 2007 #permalink

Gouldiechops says:

"Seldom if ever has so much ignorance been packed into so little space."

He's right, Gouldmeister. Peer review and drug testing are entirely different process. Substanitiate your absurd claim or do the right thing and apologise to david as it's the right thing to do and you always.

Obviously jc has never heard of the review panels that evaluate and monitor the drug tests and allow them to continue to the next phase or the drug to be used.

Ah actually I have, Rabbet. But how is that the same as peer review?

Drug reviews as done in such a way that they more resemble an audit process. Are you actually trying to spin the line that peer reviews are done the same way? Say it ain't so, Rabbet.

Jeff,

Blow back is a bitch. To quote Mr. Newton "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Global brinksmanship is prone to more Monday morning, arm chair quarterbacking than any other pursuit.

My wife is Ethiopian and I have many Ethiopian and Eritrean friends. Any action taken by the US in their region of the world is second guessed, and later blamed for bad consequences, by people on both sides of the conflict. Often these viewpoints are inconsistent and self-contradictory. There is no oil or other valuable commodities there so that should keep you from claiming that the US is raping them for their goodies.

After WWII the US supported Haile Selassie by endorsing a UN mandated "federation" between an emerging Eritrea and Ethiopia which had lost the land now called Eritrea to Italian colonization. The US's interest was to prevent Ethiopia from coming under Soviet influence.

This pissed the Eritreans off (and still does). Of course if you ask an Ethiopian they will tell you that the US didn't back them up against the Eritreans. After years of bloody conflict (there was also a period where a brutal Marxist, Soviet backed regime, The Derg, had a little reign of terror in there but I don't have the time to go into every nuance), Eritrean rebels threw off their Ethiopian cousins domination.

While the US actions were motivated by self interest, they were also aimed at preventing the eventual bloody civil war that claimed hundreds of thousand of lives on both sides. My review of the decision of the US in the matter indicates to me that it was the best solution at the time. Ultimately both the Ethiopians and Eritreans blamed the US for many of their problems. So damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Also don't think that inaction will let you off the hook either. Consider Rwanda for example.

The point I am making is that people, such as you, will read what they wish into every action or even inaction, to suit their "world view".

You claim that I have a "corporate media generated world view". Of course I would disagree with that assessment. You have mistaken my criticism of your US as "evil empire" scenario as endorsement of the policies of which you complain. I just think things are far more complicated than the "rich and powerful western elites" oppress the "innocent foreign little guy" model you propose.

I'm all for a clear "leave us alone and we won't come kill you" foreign policy. I would pull troops out of Korea, Kosovo, Germany, Japan you name it. I would just make it very clear that we have no interest in meddling in the rest of the world's business but they had better make damn sure they didn't mess with ours. I favor a small but mobile military that would deter aggression by promising a quick and deadly response to any attack on US interests. No nation building just quick and deadly pay back.

Isolationist? Perhaps. Self interested? Surely. But if the escapades of the last fifty years of intervening in the affairs of far away places has taught us anything it should be that no good deed goes unpunished. Since people are going to be pissed and find fault with whatever you do, I say we stay home, save our money and not get our young people killed.

Actualy, JC is wrong:

"Drug reviews as done in such a way that they more resemble an audit process."

Drug reviews consist of much more than simply checking to see that process was followed and documented, and the numbers done correctly.
Drug review committees are composed of experts in the relevant fields of biology, physiology, medicine, and tox/pharm. Their job is to evaluate risk and reward, and they bring their knowledge to the job. When reviewing an application, they look at the data presented, check it out, but they also ask whether the drug might have additional risks not covered int eh data, if this is a new or known clas o drugs and whether that might require additional studies, and on and on. They do a REVIEW.

It is not unusual for a review committee, to require aditional studies orwork for a clinical study transition, or for a NDA, even if all stated requirements were met and properly analyzed and documented, if in their review they identify a possible risk fa ctor that want considered. I personally know a research head in a small drug research company that had to recently lay off 3/4 of her staff, when the FDA turned down a new drug application and required additional clinical research - the company shifted all resources to those new clinical trials. FDA praised the submitted work, it was properly done, it was properly analyzed, it meant what the company said it meant - and FDA found that there was a possible unidentified risk in this entirely new class of drugs, and required the company to go back and do more studies to check that out.

That isnt just an audit, it isn't checking to see that things wer properly done and documented, it is review, a process of adding the reviewer's knowledge to the process.

JC is wrong

This blog software needs an autoresponse feature that automatically provides this answer for each of JC's posts...

No, Eli, what JC and DD meant to say was, "Drugs are not peer reviewed, at least they wouldn't be if it weren't for you pesky interfering communistical scientists! Grrr!"

Hoggise:

Stick with your competetency which is repairing computer programs and leave this to the adults.

Rabbet:

Let me know if it is the same thing as a clinical trial, FDA approval and various other checks of efficacy when into-ing a drug compared to peer review on the interesting feature of the pranceas of an african fluck.

Stop spinning as you'll lose you balance and fall.

I'm still wondering what magic trick of logic is used to make it seem that the arguments "there is no warming" and "the warming is caused by solar changes" are considered to be in some way synonymous.

So JC which co drug tests more closely resemble - peer review or an internet free-for-all of the sort David Duff advocayes.

Of course, we all know that on that blessed days when the degenerate "illiberal democracies" are replaced by Hayek's much-beloved liberal dictatorships, all these petty tyrannies upon the free market will be cast away and anyone blaspheming against the merits of such fine products as Thalidomide will be carted off to the sub-basement of the Ministry of Freedom to pay for their crimes against economic freedom.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 17 Nov 2007 #permalink

It's your friendly, neighbourhood, car dealer again - yes, yes, I know but don't say it too loud, I might hear!

Dear old 'Rabbett-Rabett' and '21-carrot Gould' still don't seem able to grasp the difference between a scientific proposition subject to 'peer review', and a commercial product subject to government testing to ensure that it is safe. Think 'cars', gentlemen! Ford produce 'em, and the government tests 'em. Ford makes no claims that this car has altered the Kuhnian paradigm of cars because it runs on fresh air, and even if it did, the government couldn't care less just so long as they can be sure after testing it that it will not career off the road and kill some one.

The same thing applies to drugs. GSK (a particularly fine company, if I might say so, and the fact that I own a teensy-weensy few shares in it has nothing to do with it!)might produce a pill that they claim will grow hair on a billiard ball. The government could not be less interested what it does, just so long as it doesn't kill anyone. So it TESTS IT to make sure it is safe, not whether it grows hair. Regrettably, as we all know, quite often they don't test things very well, in fact, in that respect their tests, and scientific peer reviews, all done by cronies in the same racket, ooops, sorry, the same field, are worth about, er, the same.

In summary, all scientists are communists and should be gassed like badgers. Except the ones who make me some money.

*BZZZTTT*
Guilt by association fallacy.
Thank you for playing, Duff. Next!

" The government could not be less interested what it does, just so long as it doesn't kill anyone. So it TESTS IT to make sure it is safe, not whether it grows hair. "

Youre ahead of yourself here, a bit: here's why the rightwingers are suggesting that the (US) government should STOP testing drugs for efficacy (and let the enlightened consumer decide, possibly postmortem):

"Nonetheless, Congress took the occasion to expand the FDA's responsibilities to include testing for efficacy as well as toxicity.
Efficacy testing adds years and hundreds of millions of dollars to the approval process. Desperate patients wait indefinitely while FDA regulators chew their pencils and scratch their heads, looking for more convincing evidence. Meanwhile, with the spread of information on the Internet, clinical trials for efficacy are becoming more and more difficult to complete. Say you're dying of cancer. Would you be willing to participate in an FDA trial where there is a 50 percent chance you will be receiving a placebo? "An increasing number of trials are now falling apart as soon as there are perceived results," says Tom Miller, health policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "It's also getting harder and harder to recruit volunteers."
Rather than allowing an orderly progression of new products at reasonable prices, efficacy testing has turned the industry into a casino. For every 5,000 new compounds the industry screens, 250 are chosen for preclinical testing, according to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Five of these will enter long-term clinical trials. Only one will be approved, says Joseph DiMasi of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Thus, each marketed drug must earn back on average $1 billion in FDA testing costs. But only three of ten marketed drugs earn back even their own investment. "
http://www.discovery.org/a/1485

Actually, David, scientists hired by the drug company test first for safety then for efficacy.

After each step, their results are submitted to government scientists who review the results which are then published.

By Ian Gould (not verified) on 18 Nov 2007 #permalink

Shorter summary of last 129 posts
'There's no warning, and it's all the sun, and besides all scientists are fools and frauds, and warning is good for most of us, and we can just buy a new planet'
'You're a fool'
'Not, me, you! And science is so old hat anyway'
Do we need to play this game? Ideologues refuse anything that doesn't fit their ideology - in science-based discussions, they have the same role as my dog, as a mascot or a distraction, but not a contributor.
I enjoy the science-related discussions here, but no-one's ideology hs changed as the result of an argument. In fact, not changing ideology despite being trounced in an argument is a sign of honour.
Fuhrer-Ex, by Ingo Hasselbach, does provide some description on how to change an ideology - it's an internal, not an external, process.
A digression - absolutely, but perhaps more productive and less tedious (how many times have we been over this ground - and to what accomplishment?) than responding to comments by many of the posters.

Stewart,

The mean temperature of the planet cares not a wit about ideology. The next ten years will tell the story. China and India alone will provide enough CO2, no matter what the west does, to continue the upward trend. If things heat up measurably it will strengthen the claim of AGW. If the temperature remains flat or decreases it will falsify the theory.

Of course if there is no warming, or a decrease in temperature, some people may try to save the theory by claiming more "aerosol" cooling or some such other cobbled up excuse.

If the temperature increases substantially, as predicted by AGW theory, this will be hard to ignore. There will of course be some people that will claim that the warming has other causes.

Satellite measurements of the temperature of the tropopause will also be something to watch.

"Satellite measurements of the temperature of the tropopause"

Wow, I didn't know they could pick out that small an altitude range.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 Nov 2007 #permalink