Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them This week's question at NexGen asks us about what policies are necessary toward diversification of energy sources on a national and international level. Are we ready--economically, politically, and technologically--to accept and expand in so many directions?
I immediately thought of Al Gore's speech on energy at Netroots Nation this week. Once again, he repeated his challenge to our country to produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy and clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years. He also called on bloggers to help achieve that goal, saying we are on the leading edge of reclaiming democracy for the grass roots.
Many have predictably taken issue with Gore's vision toward 2018, and I discussed the challenge with friend and colleague Eric Roston--author of this summer's must read, 'The Carbon Age'* and blogger at Carbon Nation. We agree that plunging into the science, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that what Gore proposed is the correct magnitude of transformation to shoot for. Global warming is a unique geological event, more akin to the scale of nuclear war than saving the spotted owl. So why are we treating it as if it is a spotted owl? As Eric eloquently described, 'climate change is an all-hands-on-deck affair'.
You see, it's time--no, it's past time--for energy changes on every level of social organization, from local to global economy.
This is not a technology problem. We have the ability now to utilize solar, wind, biofuels, and more where possible as we continue to develop new alternatives. Yes, there are many technologies not yet available, but the only thing we're lacking is a reaction commensurate to the threat.
How do we prepare? We act. Now. Let the nations and people who are ready take the lead. Others will follow. We need to be smart. We need to get the word out that this is important and will impact all of us. We need to bang the drum, blog, write our representatives, and make a raucous loud enough that everyone takes notice and recognizes this is our 11th hour.
Fast.
* If you haven't picked 'The Carbon Age' up yet, do! Roston's book is an excellent read and I'll have a review up at The Intersection tomorrow.
Comments
Everything you write in the papagraph, How do we propare?,
is right on. Count me in.
Also, that cartoon strikes a universal chord.
Posted by: Sciencefan | July 23, 2008 11:36 AM
There are a huge number of people in the population -- in the US, the UK, and elsewhere -- who do not see it as a threat, and/or do not believe that human activities have anything at all to do with it. Before you get any kind of real response, you have to deal with that.
It's easy, when you are working in the halls of academia or relevant industry, to think that actually, the data are clear and the conclusion legitimate. It's easy to disregard those who don't know that/don't see that/don't think that, as being on the fringe of the issue and unimportant, or cranks. To illuminate the breadth and depth of the real public problem, a few hours on the Yahoo message boards ought to cure you of your illusions.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 23, 2008 11:42 AM
Luna,
I think you have Sheril all wrong. I've known her a while, and she is VERY aware of the "real" feelings and beliefs about climate change among the masses. Taking potshots at her because she currently works in academia shows that you haven't been paying attention to who she is. So stop making assumptions, and deal with the facts.
Second, you are correct that most people don't see this as a huge deal. As the cartoon illustrates, gas prices are a huge deal because they have near universal impact. That said, scientists are in a great position to draw the link between gas prices, global climate change, and the need for alternative technological responses. The transportation sector, after all, is the one place where the petroleum based economy and global warming intersect cleanly.
Finally, please consider that, as the old adage goes, if we aren't part of the solution we are part of the problem. If Sheril's blog turns up in the search of one person unfamiliar with the subject, and they read it gain new understanding, that's good. IF they then tell 10 people, who each tell ten people, and so on, that's change. So why not start here, now. Which ten people outside of the Scienceblogs universe, are you going to tell today? If you write your two Senators and your Congressmen, you have three down . . . . .
Posted by: Philip H. | July 23, 2008 12:33 PM
"Global warming is a unique geological event"
No it is not. The earth has warmed and cooled many times throughout its history in greater magnitudes than we are seeing now. I suppose you think that the Vikings who colonized Greenland 1000 years ago thought it was a terrible thing that it was warm enough to live so far north, and it was good thing that it got cold enough 300 years later to force them to abandon Greenland. Read "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Singer and Avery for the historical record.
Posted by: Novathecat | July 23, 2008 12:49 PM
IMO, what needs to be done is something akin to the Apollo or the Manhattan projects: set a goal to develop the technologies to generate electricity with renewable sources that are competitive with coal (or at least with gas or nuclear), appoint an Energy Czar to oversee the project and then (sigh, the hard part) sink a good 10-15 billion dollars on the project. I seem to remember the US has spent something like 60 billion for the F-22, (which will likely NEVER see action against enemy fighters, btw), so I'm sure the money IS there.
Of course, getting international partners to chip in would also be pretty neat.
This proposal would not only have the direct effect of getting us some much needed investment in needed technologies, but the very fact that a major world power is flat out working it's ass off to produce a solution could create a very powerful catalytic effect on other nations (and individuals) to follow suit. So for every dollar you put in, you're also making some other government put another dollar in a similar effort.
Posted by: Santiago | July 23, 2008 2:17 PM
@Novathecat:
"The earth has warmed and cooled many times throughout its history in greater magnitudes than we are seeing now."
This statement is correct and as such it is misleading. It's a common misconception. When scientists talk about, well, most anything, they look at magnitude and/or rate. What is astonishing from a geological perspective about manmade climate change is the rate -- which Robert Berner of Yale has estimated as at least 100 times faster than the global carbon cycle's churn over many millions of years. The reason the rate is so important is that many species will not be able (are not able) to adapt with the speed of changing conditions.
So this point about magnitude is correct, but unfortunately, immaterial.
Posted by: Eric Roston | July 23, 2008 5:06 PM
Let me help detect the economic poison in the above remedies prescribed by you alchemist quacks:
1. "...what policies are necessary toward diversification of energy sources on a national and international level"
Diversification by fiat, by coercion, by extortion? Free markets diversify naturally and efficiently. Government kills the Golden Goose in so many ways that it borders on thrill killing.
2. "Are we ready--economically, politically, and technologically--to accept and expand in so many directions?"
Expansion, by contracting first? Nauseating double talk. Gore has always been about ban-first-invent-later. His analogy to the moon program is an insult to Kennedy and the Apollo program. Al, you're no Jack Kennedy.
3. "We agree that plunging into the science, it's hard to come to any conclusion other than that what Gore proposed is the correct magnitude of transformation to shoot for."
Here's another Gaia-worshipping masturbation in the echo chamber. What about the 31,000 scientists who just published their skepticism on climate catastrophe? There is no consensus on the significance of AGW. I'm all for a "Transformation" if the market demands it, and it DOES. Just not enough for the enviro-zealots who want TRANSFORMATION NOW. Funny that Gore didn't clamor that climate catastrophe was driving his 2018 deadline, he only implied it with his "75% chance" of total icecap melting in 5 years...he really has gone all the way towards total carbon demonization dogma. He doesn't even bother to argue that CO2 in the air is bad, he just states it as an irrefutable fact. Infallible Al the First.
4. "scientists are in a great position to draw the link between gas prices, global climate change, and the need for alternative technological responses."
Scientists shouldn't be studying prices, or concluding that we "need" anything. They should stick to validating the HYPOTHESIS that gas burning is linked SIGNIFICANTLY to global warming, which they haven't managed to to yet.
5. "if we aren't part of the solution we are part of the problem."
Markets solve economic and technological problems. Unfettered, they also sometimes create negative externalities like smog. Smog was proven to be harmful to public health, so emissions were regulated. CO2 in the worst foreseeable concentrations has not proven to be harmful to public health, so no Manhattan project is necessary to prevent bad health. You could argue that such a big project could be undertaken to improve battery technology or natural gas propulsion to make electric cars and renewable energy sources more beneficial, but I'd rather see the market draw it out naturally.
In conclusion, some of you guys have pollyannic wet dreams that rely on taking away freedom and technology now to enable a vague potential to gain freedom technology in the future. It's a parasitic power grab, and I've got my can of Raid out (special formulation for Ludds). Yes, if you advocate banning a tech that is not proven a danger before the economically feasible substitute alternate tech is ready, you are a Ludd. You hurt tech and the economy more than help. Your emotion and/or ambition for your new pet tech and/or ambition for a strong central government is clouding your judgement, and hurting your credibility.
For an antidote to your Ludd infection, visit Joeypanto.com for some good ol' meaty libertarian soup that'll stick to your ribs.
Joey Panto
The Luddunter
Posted by: Luddhunter | July 23, 2008 5:08 PM
Okay, I'll play if you want to forget any science angle for a while - indeed forget the primary objective of the blog it seems.
The day that any political incumbent (not excluding Al Gore or perhaps, through science, James Hansen) manages to show they have gained strong and lasting influence (without overt or covert financial inducement) over the decisions of other major influences in the energy market - China, Russia and India come immediately to mind. Perhaps a positive nod from Venezuela as well?) is the day that the USA might, just about, be seen as having enough reliable long term influence to effect the general changes you seem to be hinting at.
If I were a betting man I would be prepared to wager a large sum that it will never happen but I suspect that the odds maker would make the bet an unattractive proposition.
Of course I guess you could resort to force - it might also help with the population problem.
Posted by: Grant | July 23, 2008 6:09 PM
Philip H.: -- you misunderstand me. I wasn't indending to take potshots at Sheril, I like and respect her a great deal. However, the problem I described IS one which gets frequently forgotten, and is simply the main barrier to getting any proportional response. Saying "we have to do [x]" means nothing if how to overcome public apathy to do [x] is not addressed in detail.
Joeypanto -- why don't you actually post a reference to your "31,000 skeptical scientists" here? Nobody is stopping you, but you need to back up your claims, rather than fling insults and names hither and yon. Also, you might contemplate the possibility that there is some science out there that you don't understand -- a good faith effort to accept that you MIGHT POSSIBLY not know everything about the science, and a similar good faith effort to understand what people here talk about, would really help you out a lot.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 24, 2008 5:02 AM
Gah, "intending", not "indending".
Oh, for the record, Philip? I also work in the halls of academia these days, and would not take potshots at someone "because" they worked in academia, anyway. That would be really stupid.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 24, 2008 5:39 AM
Joey Panto -
Maybe you'd like to prove the hypothesis that free markets always provide the most efficient solution? (Not just for TVs or other consumer products, for EVERYTHING?)
Thought not.
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM
Luna, et al., the 31,000 is an interesting figure if you look in to it any. The following link talks some about the qualifications of the signers and has the link to the list of the names (et al.)
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html
I've done a longer initial look over at my blog. There'll be a part 2 on Monday or so (depending how fast I can do the matchups).
In brief, to take that number as meaningful, you have to:
* Consider all engineers to be knowledgeable about climate science (over half the signers are engineers -- though they obscure this fact by distributing 40% of the engineers to other areas)
* Consider all MDs, DVMs, and other 'medical' personnel to be knowledgeable about climate science
* Consider a signing rate of under 1% to be a lot.
Something else you have to do is not limit yourself to the living. They collected 17,000 signatures about a decade ago, so this is adding only 14,000 or so . But people do die, and people who have completed their educations are older than average, so probably more of them are dead. For a specific case, I checked to see if Edward Teller (the signer of the sample form they show on the main page) was a) still alive and b) still listed as one of their '31,000'. He is indeed dead (about 5 years ago), and he is indeed still listed as part of the count.
I can't find anything on their site to suggest that they did an entire restart, and the presence of dead people suggests that they didn't. So you also have to ignore the question of whether the people who signed a decade ago (to a different statement) would sign again to the current.
At best, fewer than 1% of the living people the project considers qualified agree with the project. (They do make it very easy to send back the form.)
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | July 24, 2008 1:30 PM
31,000 skeptical scientists:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
Ok, Luna, if the science is what is being debated, then STOP MAKING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. I'll gladly step aside, not being a scientist, if you'll step aside when pols are debating POLICY. You can't have your cake and ban it too.
Andrew, do I have to prove gravity, too? It's well established that a COMPETITIVE marketplace distributes goods most efficiently. So now we can debate competitiveness ...Pope Al wants carbon free electricity by 2018. All well and good, if he can show us the formula for cold fusion today. Short of that, he will say we have to begin restricting carbon emitting power plants NOW, in order to force the innovation to get to a carbon free power base by 2018. This is LUDD ambition at work. Ban first, think later, praise Gaia.
Al won't stop until were all back in the cave eating lice out of each others fur again.
Posted by: Luddhunter | July 24, 2008 2:13 PM
31,000 scientists? What nonsense.
This is the sort of deliberately misleading thing that the worldnetdaily regularly engages in. That, however, is no reason why you should uncritically pass it along. For example, over 10,000 of them are engineers. And while I like engineers, they are not scientists.
Almost 13,000 of them are BS degrees. They are not scientists.
In your first comment you claimed "31,000 scientists...just published their skepticism." This too, is deliberately misleading. The number is rediculous, as I have already stated, and they didn't "just publish" this. That list has been 10 years in the making.
What you may have there is some hundreds of scientists who really are sufficiently trained to make judgements about climatology and paleo-climatology. And while that is not insignificant, it is rediculously far from the claim that you made.
Worldnetdaily does this sort of thing regularly. For example, in their article they note the PHDs are "in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment." They conveniently don't mention Nuclear Engineering, mechanical engineering, petroleum engineering. And they too, like you, loudly proclaim in their headline "31,000 scientists reject..." Quite clearly a misleading claim if you just look behind the curtain.
I would be happy to consider evidence, but an article in worldnetdaily is not evidence.
Further, your derisive and abusive tone betrays you.
Do you have any direct references to the work of these thousands of scientist that might bear on the question being discussed? Offhand, I'm guessing you don't. People who would actually read the science are not likely typical readers of worldnetdaily.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | July 24, 2008 3:48 PM
Jim51,
My point was that there is no consensus. I don't need to quote science from the hundreds in the group that you say yourself have credibility, because this thread is NOT ABOUT SCIENCE. It's about policy recommendations. I didn't start it, Sheril did. Policy arguments about Pope Al's edict hinge on consensus, just like arguments about his movie do, because Al himself has declared that there is consensus, and that all who dissent are not credible scientists.]
Joey Panto
The Luddhunter
joeypanto.com
Consensus-busting article:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311
The American Physics Society has dissent in their ranks:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm
NOTE: The internal dissent was disclosed July 17, then on Jul 22 the APS issued a statement saying that the "APS position" still believes that AGW is significant, but this is clearly at odds with some in their rank and file, as their website admits.
This is typical. Companies and organizations support AGW dogma by "position statements", but a first-year reporter can find a dissenter inside the organization within 5 minutes on site...or even by going to the website! Pure politically correct posturing designed to dontinue to be invited to soires and suck brie with government elites and keep the grants and subsidies a-comin'. Must not be cut off from Mommy government's big titties! So to you dissenters in the ranks: Don't ask don't tell. Shut the F up and you keep your job.
It is far easier to prove non-consensus than consensus. Neither I nor Worldnetdaily need to examine the science. That's the job of the alarmist scientists who are (not coincidentally) dependent on making alarmist conclusions to get their next grant. You are free to start another thread to attack the science cited by the hundreds of skeptics you have granted credibility to, but I suspect you will find that the arguments they make (for example, about the accuracy of the climate models that alarmists cite) are valid, and justify their skepticism.
Having established there is no consensus, I choose to attack the dogmatic fervor and ridiculous Kennedy-fantasy of setting a national technological goal that your Pope is under the influence of.
I then assert that this whole campaign, supposedly born out of a brave public service ethic, and selfless love for Mother Earth, is really a statist regulatory power grab, which has now successfully extorted verbal support from big companies who now realize that a good percentage of the populace has been indoctrinated into "green love" (in the spirit of the free-love 60's) by the teary-eyed mystical nativist fanaticism of so many celebrities. In the face of this new celebrity-fueled pagan uprising, to say the whole AGW-is-killing-us case is a pile of crap is to be an Earth-hater who likes to lynch polar bears for fun.
Eye on the ball, my Ludd friends, supporting Al's 2018 wet dream relies on consensus that CO2 above 380 ppm or so is BAD BAD BAD, and there just ain't no consensus.
Posted by: Luddhunter, Hermosa Beach, CA | July 24, 2008 6:37 PM
Jim51,
I think both of you have missed the point of this post.
Read the first paragraph of Sheril's post again. Indeed read the entire post.
Where does it mention science or even suggest that science has a need to create further influence?
What is now important is how many politicians are suitably influenced to take a stand on the hard issues that they face as representatives or controllers of their people.
Whether science has a full proof for the problem or not matters little, just as so often in the past.
This is and always has been a political movement. Finding a few politically motivated scientists to move it forward was a benefit at the time, but largely irrelevant now.
Posted by: Grant | July 24, 2008 6:54 PM
Grant,
I don't think I understand your comments, but I do think I understand the need to act expressed in the post.
And yes, political action is required but lets don't imagine that defending the science has no influence on politicians.
I was reacting to a poster making rather sweeping claims that action on such an issue was entirely unnecessary because of other sweeping (and misleading) claims made in a non-scientific source. If such things stand unchallenged they may influence people. People influence politicians, at least I think they do.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | July 24, 2008 7:42 PM
Jim51,
I think the other poster was simply providing one quick and easy reference for look up that happened to be a source you feel is unsatisfactory. There are other sources offering the same information. He could have used those but I doubt they would prove any more satisfactory for you.
In the same way a number of people consider the IPCC, often cited as a sole point of reference and authority, to be unsatisfactory in respect of its claims about science that supports its political nature. But at least it recognises that the problem it has defined can only be addressed as a political problem.
However one gets the impression that some may hope to promote the UN, through the IPCC as one of the catalysts, into some form of global controlling organisation. One has to assume that this would, in effect, demote the role of politicians even assuming there was some political role left to fulfil.
It would be logical to assume that if such an arrangement can be forged the result would have enough power and authority to enforce whatever policies were thought to offer the best opportunity for problem resolution, having reviewed which problems were the most important to be corrected.
Presumably decisions about technology or population control would be easiest to make and apply under such an arrangement.
For a reliable outcome (and for the purpose of power retention) a policy of population reduction would seem to have the most predictable effect since reductions are likely easier to engineer in the population than augmentation of technology and energy capacity would be from technological advances.
For a strong handling of the situation it would be best to avoid elected politicians.
Posted by: Grant | July 24, 2008 8:05 PM
Jim51,
My last post got spiked by the moderator. Classic Goebbels move. Can't take the truth huh, tyrant?
I'm keeping a record of spikes by Ludd tyrants.
Basic message was: no consensus. This thread ain't about science. It's about Ludd propaganda.
APS dissent proves it.
Spike this, Goebbels (pointing to my crotch)
Joey Panto
Posted by: Luddhunter | July 24, 2008 10:03 PM
A note to Luddhunter:
When comments contain multiple links, the filter sometimes assumes they are spam. These are automatically held in a separate folder for approval. For this reason, you experienced a delay before publication.
Posted by: The Moderator | July 24, 2008 10:19 PM
Do we get to call 'Godwin's Law' in blogs? Luddhunter's speedy accusation would qualify on usenet.
In any case, I posted yesterday afternoon a comment that was swallowed by the spam filter. Apparently the 'multiple' limit is 2 or more as I only had 2.
The filter is even-handed in that I was commenting on the great lack of significance of the petition. Greater length is at my blog. Briefer here. to consider the petition meaningful, you have to:
* consider the opinion of dead people on current science meaningful (look up Edward Teller's status on the petition and in biography)
* consider a junk-mail response rate to be very large. (Under 1% of the people the project considered qualified have agreed to their mass-mailing and Internet campaigns)
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | July 25, 2008 8:03 AM
Oops. I now see that my earlier comment did get posted. It hadn't by something like 8 hours after I wrote it.
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | July 25, 2008 8:05 AM
Ah, I had a very strong suspicion that those "31,000 skeptical scientists" would have as much credibility in the field of climatology as the "skeptical scientists" touted by creationists. I see I was not wrong.
Ludd, why does the idea that policy ought to be based on the most accurate scientific information possible offend you? Why do you have the idea that scientists who investigate relevant issues should have no political influence? Why do you think that politicians shouldn't have to listen to the most qualified experts and base policies on their recommendations? Why do you think that having unqualified people with distinct political agendas trying to undermine the actual science, not to mention actions which may be necessary for long-term health and prosperity, is a GOOD thing? How very...odd.
Re: the whole APS kerfuffle -- I am very well aware of it, being as I am a member of the APS. I can tell you, the so-called "peer-reviewed" piece by Monckton was nothing of the sort, it was simply selected for inclusion in a (non-peer-reviewed) newsletter by an editor, to provoke discussion (which it has certainly done, but I think the editor involved was naive and/or an idiot), the piece is scientifically and mathematically wrong on multiple fronts, and represents "internal dissent" in the ranks of relevant scientists not at all.
~The denialists have to ignore the bulk of the actual science, which is in actual fact extensive and spread over many fields and many organisations in many different countries which many different political/social/economic affiliations, and it all still points in the same direction. Denialists aren't being oppressed, you are being ignored as being simply wrong, or mocked for being dishonest idiots. We have a perfect right to do that.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 25, 2008 9:16 AM
Just to clarify, I am aware that the APS has now made plain that Monckton's piece was not peer-reviewed; this was done in response to Monckton and his sympathizers claiming that it was.
I know which "side" of this debate lies more. It isn't the real climatologists.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 25, 2008 9:46 AM
Luna_the_cat,
You may be able to help me here.
I thought I understood (from a long time friend who holds a chair in a science subject) pretty much what 'refereeing' a paper meant but now that term has been replaced with the term 'peer review' does it mean their has been a change in the working of the practice?
You seem to know a lot about it, are you able to point me to a definitive document that fully describes the expected steps in the process?
I would be grateful if you can.
Posted by: Grant | July 25, 2008 12:14 PM
Luna,
Addressing your questions:
Ludd, why does the idea that policy ought to be based on the most accurate scientific information possible offend you?
It does not, as long as the range of accuracy of future projections includes bad consequences of current policy that have a high probability of occurring. In this case, there is enough dissent on the probability of catastrophe that a policy maker cannot responsibly set a new policy which does great damage to the economy, which is what your pontiff is proposing. Even the predictions of sea level rise by the IPCC and others range from 17 inches over 90 years to 20 feet in 10 years. Even granting the 17 inches, that ain't a catastrophe if it happens over 90 years. Hence, low probability of catastrophe, best policy is stay the F out of the way and let the market innvoate.
Why do you have the idea that scientists who investigate relevant issues should have no political influence?
I do not. It's just that when scientists recommend policy, they should be prepared to debate non-scientists on consensus, technological constraints, and economic consequences of their recommendation, and not try an discredit non-scientists for challenging non-science issues. Degree of Consensus is not a scientific issue, it's a policy issue because it directly informs the policymaker's decisions. In this case, there is not a consensus. Y'all nitpicking my mis-speak on "31,000 scientists" is a grasp at straws. By Jim51's admission, some of the 31,000 (at least 100's) have credibility, and by extension, valid skepticism based on questionable probability of catastrophe. Why are you spending so much time putting lipstick and lingerie on the pig you call Consensus, when the only people that will make love to it are your fellow ideologues and government dependents?
Why do you think that politicians shouldn't have to listen to the most qualified experts and base policies on their recommendations?
They should. Let's just separate science debates from policy debates. Earlier in the thread you condescendingly tried to discredit my policy attack because I may not understand all the science. But this thread is not about a science issue, though it's in a purported science blog. You came in my mudpen, I'm not dumb enough to go into yours.
Why do you think that having unqualified people with distinct political agendas trying to undermine the actual science, not to mention actions which may be necessary for long-term health and prosperity, is a GOOD thing?
Sounds like your pope. He's cherry-picking his bought-and-paid-for scientists to tell the chicken little story, manufacturing fake consensus, and propsing actions which undermine long term prosperity and health (which can only be grown by free market evolution) by overregulating or banning technologies under the doublespeak of "promoting innovation". It's like amputating half the population's legs in order to promote innovation in the wheelchair industry. He's a dangerous shaman, a charlatan faith-healing, televangelist who thinks he's on a mission from Gaia. If it's fraud you want to argue, note the glass house y'all are usin' for this delightful Ludd love-in. Besides, even if you're right, more global warming = more female skin showing all year 'round. Not so catastrophic to me.
Joey Panto
Posted by: Luddhunter | July 25, 2008 12:56 PM
Retraction of calling moderator Goebbels and "tyrant snatch" on my Luddhunter blog. Had downed 3 Jack and cokes just before, and was gettin' ornery.
Posted by: Luddhunter | July 25, 2008 1:10 PM
Grant, there is no one universal process for peer review. For my end of things (oceanography/glaciology/meteorology), which seems relevant to matters at hand ...
The process of conducting the peer review is the refereeing. Regardless of label used, the journal in question, or at least that section of the journal, has to conduct peer review (referee) the submissions. The editor who recieves the paper may look at it and say this just isn't science, or maybe it is, but not for this venue, and reject it himself. If the paper passes this fairly lenient standard, the editor sends it out to 2-5 people he thinks are knowledgeable about the area of the paper. If it crosses areas, then reviewers who are knowledgeable about at least one of the areas.
The reviewers then rip the paper to shreds.Er, read the paper carefully and make comments to the editor about whether the paper is good, original, suitable to the journal; and then comments to the author about hishideous writing, sloppy logic, and failure to bathe often enough. Er, how the writing could be improved and what arguments need to be strengthened.The editor then looks at the assembly of comments and decides whether the paper should be published as is (almost never), published after the author makes some revisions (and sends reviewer comments back to the author), or requires such extensive revision that it should be revised and sent in as a new paper (again, reviewer comments go back to the author). The author may debate with the editor about the merit of some of the reviewer comments (it isn't unusual for reviewers to disagree with each other, particularly on the writing side but also the science side, for instance). Sometimes I (er, the writer), wins the debate, and sometimes have to suck it up and make the changs. Or publish elsewhere. There being approximately a trillion journals, this isn't as onerous a deal as when there were 3.
What peer-review isn't is a seal of wonderfulness. The paper's writing was good enough and work original/interesting/supported enough to warrant showing it to the rest of the scientific community. No more.
In Monckton's case, the work wasn't even peer-reviewed. Just a bit (apparently) of editor effort to get the author to write readable sentences and paragraphs.
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | July 25, 2008 1:15 PM
Grant -- Robert Grumbine beat me to it, and I can't improve on his answer.
I would like to second the fact that there is no "universal" system, and there is some variation in whether or not things are anonymized; for example, for some journals, the author's name is redacted, as are the reviewers' (referees') names, whereas for some journals only the reviewers' names are withheld, and for some journals all names are open. And I've seen reviews come back with everything from substantive criticisms of methodology, to scribbled comments about the fact that numbers are "screwy" (but with no explanation of how or why), to (in one case) a line-by-line critique of not just numbers, methodology and conclusions but also the word and comma usage for the entire paper (no idea what that reviewer was smoking, but I suspect it involved cocaine) -- and everything in between. On the other hand, every so often a "peer-reviewed" paper crops up in an otherwise reputable journal where you wonder if anyone was even awake when they reviewed it. But the process that Robert describes is it, really.
I would also second the fact that it is quite common to get completely contradictory feedback from two different reviewers, and that often you have to pick and choose and make a case to the editor that you've done the best thing possible.
Joey Panto/Luddhunter -- "consensus" is invoked by science under specific circumstances -- that being, when a conclusion widely accepted by people within a field on the basis of the soundness and quantity of evidence, comes under attack by politically/religiously/economically motivated non-scientists who wish to misrepresent the science in order to influence the voting public (usually with a few fringe scientists from the field thrown in to lend them an appearance of scientific credibility). This is not just the case for climate science and AGW, it is also the case with evolution and AIDS and vaccination, to name a few.
The problem you seem to be missing is that you are believing the people OUTSIDE the field in preference to the people inside the field; invoking some kind of grand conspiracy, I suppose, and ignoring the fact that, actually, the consensus really, truly does exist (and is readily apparent in the mainstream literature). The "science" contesting this consensus relies on certain data being ignored, other data being misrepresented or lied about, and the "costs" of accepting consensus exaggerated out of all recognition while the costs of ignoring the consensus are made to conveniently disappear.
99.9999% of all biologists accept evolution, and 99.99999% of all creationists have no understanding of biology beyond one crappy high school class, in my experience. Do you think this is because of some "conspiracy" of biologists to lie to the public? (Please don't be stupid, here.) Now, similarly, the vast majority (>90% at least) of people who study climatology/paleoclimatology/biogeography/related fields, accept and support the idea that AGW is happening and represents a problem. Opposing them are a handful of people mostly from outside the field, largely with very dodgy and dishonest backgrounds, and people who stand to obviously profit from the status quo. And this tells you nothing?
The problem of AGW was being flagged up long before there was any money even to study it, and even now, funding would be one heck of a lot easier to get if people could produce evidence for the world's governments and large corporations that the human influence was negligible and business-as-usual could continue. That can't be done, however, because evidence to that effect simply doesn't exist. So the people who profit more from the business-as-usual model have to try to kick pieces out of the case against them, instead, in precisely the way outlined here about some other contentious subjects.
The problem is, additionally, that you are buying the line that it is all about the uncertainty of the science and the "high cost" of listening to scientists calling for action; you seem to buy without question the assertion that the business-as-usual model will be more profitable/less costly in the long run; you adhere to an a priori belief that a free market can fix everything (itself unsupported by any strong evidence); you believe the denialist distortions of the state of the science; and worst, you fail to accept that you could be wrong on the science and thus apparently see no need to learn anything more.
If you were willing to accept that maybe you didn't know the "truth" about this already, I think we would be seeing more evidence of you trying to learn more in good faith. Instead, you pretty much march in here with a declaration that climatologists and scientists are dishonest loons who hate the free market and technology -- itself a stupid straw man, and a sign of blatant hostility towards the field and a certainty that "you know better".
"It's just that when scientists recommend policy, they should be prepared to debate non-scientists on consensus, technological constraints, and economic consequences of their recommendation, and not try an discredit non-scientists for challenging non-science issues." -- you know, I have no problem with that; what I have a problem with is your idea that it doesn't happen. I'm a member of the AGU, and thus receive their newsletter EOS, and I read Nature and Science regularly, and there's scarcely a week goes by that I don't see several pieces about initiatives to bring solar electric and better stoves to Africa and India, or debates over feasability and costs of carbon sequestration technologies, or condemnation of biofuel boondoggles and greenwashing, and suggestions for minimising costs to local communities. But the fact that you aren't aware of this is partly the scientific community's fault, maybe, for not trying harder to bring that information to the public's attention, as well as the mainstream media's fault for ignoring "boring" things like that, which don't make nearly as good headlines as Death! Fire! Catastrophe!.
Just to close though, I'm going to make a plea I've made plenty of times before, to a lot of people: Please, please do not assume that just because you don't know about something, that it doesn't exist. Try to find out if it exists, first. You might be surprised.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 26, 2008 4:10 PM
Robert Grumbine, Luna,
Thanks for the information about your experiences with peer review. They were much as had concluded from my contacts in academia. Indeed having recently had two offspring passing through the university system one might observe that the entire process seems quite similar.
Robert, at one time, as a mature but non-academic simple member of the great unwashed public, I thought the a refereed or peer reviewed paper could be nothing but 100% right so far as currently known facts were concerned. A few years ago I came to realise the that was not the case and indeed that many scientific papers were not about presenting facts but rather theories. The way that educational funding and success measuring has progressed (a term I use loosely) in the last couple of decades gives me little hope that quality will have been pushed as preferable to quantity. Your comment "What peer-review isn't is a seal of wonderfulness." is something I slowly came to accept a few years ago.
Robert, you mention Monckton piece in the context of peer review. According to Monckton this was a piece the APS asked him to contribute that, so far as he knows, was assessed by the editor AND by someone (or some people) the editor selected to review it. He was asked to make some changes and correction and clarifications, which he says he did, and the article was accepted and published.
That seems sort of close to a peer review as you and Luna describe it, certainly for a 'commissioned' article.
So they published. And then had second thoughts. Rather than retracting the publication the APS handled the situation somewhat clumsily. So a double error really, publishing something that they did not feel was good enough in the first place and then making a hash of responding to the resulting objections (presumably from members).
Unless of course that was pretty much what they intended to do in the first place when they asked for a contribution.
But we digress since none of this is really relevant to the purpose of this blog as initially described.
In relation to the discussion about future energy sources one thing that strikes me is that the secondary argument re carbon output is that, come what may, existing fossil fuel sources will soon run out so we may as well plan for a non-fossil powered future anyway. Presumably this is the hypothesis driving Shell's interest here.
This suggests that;
a) Carbon output will be bound to decline in the not too distant future even if we do nothing now.
b) The worst long terms scenarios will never come to pass.
Now, unless the 'Twin Peaks' experts are being less than honest about their estimates, it occurs to me that the AGW angle that so often comes up in these threads is, by consensus of available stored reserve limitations, now quite irrelevant.
Absent some new way of rapidly converting the energy arriving from the Sun into usable energy (and perhaps being more efficient in the way it is done to top up the potential retentions) something less then pleasant for human survival will occur in the near future come what may.
One way or another we are likely to see that population reduction.
Of course it may not happen or we may find that the fossil reserves can be extended for use a while longer.
On the other hand the Gore plan would seem to simulate the effect much sooner than that and would seems to pretty much guarantee some social discomfort. I guess it would pretty much eliminate the 'grandchildren' worry though.
Ultimately it may mean that people will simply have to use what is available. So maybe the current sources (possibly absent nuclear ...) if the population has reduced as one might expect or maybe just chop down trees and burn them.
Assuming a rule of law persists a urgent investment in forest land might be in order.
Posted by: Grant | July 26, 2008 9:55 PM
Grant --
While peer review is not a guarantee of wonderfulness, what it is supposed to do (and indeed, often does) is basic fact-checking of what one puts forward in support of one's hypothesis. For example, on one paper that my husband reviewed (he is also an academic), the author had done a statistical analysis of a population where the statistics were simply wrong -- she had obviously run in SPSS, but had chosen an inappropriate analysis, and probably had a faulty input somewhere, and came out with numbers which made no sense for what she was claiming. That got knocked back.
Editors tend not to do that kind of thing. All they usually do is check for coherent sentences and a relevant theme. And Monckton ought to have at least enough experience with peer-review to know what kind of technical analysis it involves, and also to know when it is being done -- when an editor says "I've sent that off for review". That is open. No, people really do know that there is a difference between "editor selects" and "peer reviewed", both in process and effect. And he lied about it. (He also lied about the fact that he thought someone else had looked at it, if he claimed that, because there is absolutely no evidence of that anywhere.) That is obviously done to claim credibility in the public eye, where people didn't know any better, but it doesn't exactly make him smell of roses.
As a side note, "fact" and "theory" are neither mutually exclusive, nor does one morph into the other. I think you really need to review usage of these terms in science. "Facts" are observations or measurements, which are used to support hypotheses, which are tested and, if they pass the tests, go into support of a theory, which is an overarching explanatory framework for the observations. That >80% of glaciers worldwide are melting is a fact. That the entire atmosphere is warming is hypothesised as the explanation, and tested against other observation and measurement. That the atmosphere is warming as a result of the addition of greenhouse gases, primarily as a result (direct or indirect) of human activities is the theory. (Yes, this is an oversimplification. However, I hope that you see how this fits together.) Individual papers take specific observations and examine them against detailed hypotheses which fit into a theory.
Now, as for carbon -- actually, there is one heck of a lot of natural gas, oil shale, and coal left in the ground -- enough that, if we switched back to coal technologies, we could probably keep going for centuries. Your assertion that nature itself will force us away from all fossil fuels soon doesn't work. But also, I'm afraid the evidence is strong that many of the effects of changing global temperatures are being underestimated, not over; it's all those pesky little positive feedbacks we're still finding out about. So the pollyanna view is very likely to lead to disaster.
I have a brother and sister-in-law who have consistently planned their lives around the assumption that the best-case or near-best-case scenario is likely to happen. As a result, they leave themselves no fallbacks, no cushion of savings, and no disaster management plan -- and the couple of times that disaster has hit, they have ended up deep in the hole and destitute, and needed family members to bail them out. Earth doesn't really have family members to bail us out, you know? Taking things right up to the line on the assumption that it will all work out (especially when flying in the face of the evidence that it will in fact work out badly) is a stupid way of dealing with the future.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 27, 2008 9:12 AM
The assertion that there is enough natural gas, oil shale, and coal left in the ground to "keep going" for centuries, is both a truth and a lie. For example, at current rates of consumption, there might be around 250 years worth of recoverable coal in the United States, but that figure decreases rapidly if even modest growth is factored in. The problem with oil shale, to take another example, is not the absolute amount, but energy returned on energy invested, water requirements, and "flow" rates.
Further, the concept of peak is widely misunderestood. It does not mean "running out," but topping over the all-time production into an irreversable depletion phase. Even more immediate than energy scarcity is the havoc played on world economies and financial systems. Recent oil spikes and price volatility are just the beginning. The overture to the symphony. It is my opinion--just that--that peak oil is a far more immediate and in many ways equally dangerous condition to the welfare of human socieites as climate change.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | July 27, 2008 10:21 PM
Good comments on peer review and theory from Luna.
Grant is far too optimistic about no carbon source other than oil being used. We're already using non-oil carbon fuels. There is 'a lot' of such fuel available. But for climate, the concern is less one of exactly how long we could keep burning carbon fuels than how much carbon it would put in to the atmosphere. Whether carbon usage peaks or plateaus or rises, the reserves are equivalent to something like 12 times pre-industrial atmospheric carbon levels if I remember rightly. Whether the usable energy from hitting oil shales and tar sands is low, the carbon would still be sent to the atmosphere.
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | July 28, 2008 4:19 PM
Robert,
"Grant is far too optimistic about no carbon source other than oil being used. We're already using non-oil carbon fuels."
Sorry if I gave that impression, it was certainly not intended. Can you point me to the offending words and I will clarify.
Posted by: Grant | July 28, 2008 5:39 PM
Luna,
Your tale of your husband's peer review experience reminds my of a story my late father-in-law told me some years ago. In essence it was about a time before computers when calculators had become accepted in accounting and one of his planners in a large organisation came up with some
calculations that showed a 9 million saving rather than a 4 million cost. A problem of general numeracy in that the planner (an accountant) just didn't question the result from an infallible calculator.
The Editors in the Monckton case seem to offer a potentially ambiguous interpretation and, now (or at least as of what I could find last night), some disagreement between them. Since it was the second editor, Al Saperstien it seems, who asked Monckton to make some changes one might
understand how Monckton could construe that to some degree the paper had some measure of peer revue associated with it, Saperstien being a Professor of Physics and much of what Monckton wrote being Physics related. As I read the information presented I thought it described yours and RG's otline of peer review quite closely. At least, closely enough to be adequate for the Forum publication as part of a debate.
Of course Monckton perhaps should have investigated whether Saperstien might know enough about climate to be in a position to peer review anything on the subject. Having discovered Saperstien was a Professor of Physics only it would have been clear that he was not qualified to peer review. But in that case perhaps the entire Society (or rather the Forum?) has no one qualified to peer revue a paper ostensibly about climate. In which case the Society's
'positioning' statement and the message that was added to Monckton's accepted piece without an advisory to Monckton seems, shall we say, ill-advised. How can you have a 'debate' without at least starting with balanced scales? If there is still to be no debate then they should simply
withdraw both papers and say they have changed their minds.
I find the American (I assume) preference for deploying the 'lie' word rather self defeating. It is certainly divisive and leaves little room for civil discussion as events unfold. Clearly it is one of those words that has the same spelling but a different ultimate application in different versions of the English language. It can probably be reasonably employed across the English speaking population to describe Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein and Richard Nixon. Maybe others. But widespread use just devalues its importance.
I thank you for confirming my understanding of the connections and differences between hypotheses, theories and facts. As a minor point I'm not convinced that saying 80% of glaciers are melting is entirely accurate. I would suggest that 100% melt at some point during a year.
However I assume that you would agree if I said '80% are receding' would be a suitable substitute phrase for the reported observations you are referring to? That could still be questionable as an outright fact since glaciologists seem to imply that it is true of the glacier they are studying or glaciers they have studied in recent times but many other glaciers remain unstudied at first hand - so there is room for adjustment of the figure after observation. I seem to recall there are also some questions about whether the melts and their effects are all consistent over a long period or relatively short at their most melting phase.
Whilst there seem to be probabilities associated with the theories few if any of them are, so far as I am aware, completely proven with no aspects not understood. Please correct me if I am wrong about that.
The danger in assuming that what may appear to be close to an answer is THE answer can be that resources are expended on solving the wrong problem. That seems to be a common human trait over the period of recorded history. Mostly such matters seems to have had relatively local or personal impact in former times leaving options for 'recovery' if the approach was wrong. But then, in recorded history, there has never been such a global extent in all things as exists today, nor the need to make such an encompassing 'one size fits all' solution.
You wrote:
"Your assertion that nature itself will force us away from all fossil fuels soon doesn't work."
As I originally identified, this is really not my assertion but simply my reporting of observations made by those who are involved with such things - primarily people who perceive that oil and then coal resources will be in decline soon (if not already) and therefore can be discounted as an issue in the carbon footprint debate. Personally I find that suggestion surprising but then I am not claiming any expertise. Just an opinion based on wide reading and that could certainly be wrong. Once again it is an area where 'facts' are rather loosely defined and to some extent malleable since we certainly don't know all there is to know.
You also wrote:
"But also, I'm afraid the evidence is strong that many of the effects of changing global temperatures are being underestimated, not over; it's all those pesky little positive feedbacks we're still finding out about."
Indeed.
I find that quite strange since, over geological time scales, the system seems to have 'balanced', in terms of oscillating within certain (variable) bounds, which suggests that, no matter what has been going on, any positive feedback must eventually have been balanced by
negative feedbacks and vice versa. Compared to what people have reported as changes over geological time - quite often huge variations - the current short scale perturbation, if we can call it that, seems almost unmeasurably small.
But then we are once again drifting off the blog's master topic.
The reason for this blog, surely, was not to debate the basis or otherwise of global warming or climate change but to discuss the option for future energy generation and, by inference, distribution of that resource.
So far all of the options raised seem to require enormous investment in generation technology and distribution infrastructure. If the necessity is as immediate as some are claiming then any approach with half a chance of success, single source or diversified making little
difference, seems likely to require the total commitment of all available fiscal and engineering resources with scientific research activity to support them.
So - no spare capacity in the construction pipe.
In which case if the attack proves to be misdirected due to incomplete information or lack of resources (worldwide remember, otherwise the concept has inherent faults), the whole activity could end up being more catastrophic, sooner, than would otherwise be the case.
As for the analogy of your brother, I too know and have known people who lived their lives like that. Others who had planned and structured approaches and went with the waves, the troughs and the current. But a few, often the successful few, who oscillated between the top and bottom and ultimately worked out how to come out at or near the top and stay there. None were dealing with the future in any way that was guaranteed, except perhaps those at the bottom.
I see no evidence of any successful planned-from-'above' major projects (and I mean really major projects of the like that have never been previously attempted ) on the scale and complexity being proposed by some here. Certainly not in the time frame being pushed.
War ordnance build up, often referred to as a development model for the 'war' on climate change, was by no means the same thing. For a start it was mostly expendable small unit
production built without long term infrastructure deployment in mind. If it wasn't much good it didn't matter much as far as the investment was concerned. If a thing survived the battle it would become obsolete in a couple of years or excess to requirements when the war ended. Not so
Climate Change 'war' expenditure - unless another Ice Age descends very rapidly! If you are going to invest a few trillions per country you likely want to feel comfortable that you can write it off over a few decades.
On the other hand, get the economics wrong and, in one form or another, you will likely achieve the dramatic population reduction needed to buy time using fossil resources ...
Or not, should things go really badly.
Posted by: Grant | July 28, 2008 9:00 PM
Eric the Leaf -- The assertion that there is enough natural gas, oil shale, and coal left in the ground to "keep going" for centuries, is both a truth and a lie.
No, it's simple truth. I'm factoring in ALL fossil fuel, and globally. That is enough to keep us going with a fossil fuel based technology for multiple centuries, especially as recovery techniques will very likely improve and be expanded as they have in the past due to the push of improving technology in general, and price of fossil fuels. Given the carbon load this will put into the atmosphere (among other things) I am officially labelling this Not A Good Idea, however.
Grant -- forgive my brusqueness, here, but -- lots of words, not so much understanding evident.
First, Monckton has a long history of deliberate falsehood (e.g. claiming to be a member of the House of Lords -- he isn't -- or claiming that he won £50,000 in a libel case against the Guardian -- he didn't). These are not things that he could simply be "mistaken" about, there is simply no way he could have genuinely thought this, unless he is mentally ill. Similarly, with this, there was NEVER any representation made that this was peer-reviewed; Monckton has claimed to have had experience with peer review in the past (although this too bears questioning), and there is absolutely no excuse for someone mistaking the editor's comments for critical peer review. And, yes, there are climatologists who are members of the APS; if peer review were being done, they had the choice of going to other members, or even going to climatologists outside the APS and asking for comments. One does not have to be a member of a professional body before that body will ask for help reviewing a technical paper. So, either Monckton has followed his previous pattern of lying about something to give himself status in the public eye (past history does get to influence our current judgement), or he's a delusional idiot. Granted, these are not mutually exclusive, but I fail to see why you're trying to make excuses for him.
Second, sure, I'm fine with saying that >80% of glaciers are retreating, rather than "melting"; your point on that is well made, and too, a glacier can be melting in one area and growing in another. But "retreating" or "receding" more accurately captures what I meant to convey. However, anything that reaches 100% melt at some point in the year is not a glacier, by definition; seems like you need a little more familiarity with that field to be making informed opinions.
And we now have photographic evidence/ satellite coverage of better than 95% of the world's glaciers, so yes, we do actually know. We don't have to have someone out there walking them every year. We also have records of the extent of many (if not most) land glaciers which goes back centuries. Honestly, we do know.
Third, as to the extent of available fossil fuels: Once again it is an area where 'facts' are rather loosely defined and to some extent malleable since we certainly don't know all there is to know. Ah, the old "nobody really knows" gambit. Sir, we do not know the full extent of all the fossil fuels still in the ground; however, we do know the what the lower limit is. This is the idea of "proven reserves". Given that I used to work for BP and have probably been following this issue for a decade or so longer than you have, I'm perfectly happy insisting on this as well. As of 2006, the global proved recoverable reserves of coal were around 850 billion tonnes; in order to claim "we really don't know", it doesn't matter if you can prove we have more, you somehow have to make all the knowledge from current surveys of currently recoverable deposits go away.
Third, yes, we are nicely "balanced" in between Snowball Earth and a climate almost twice as hot as what it currently is. Yay for earth. We weren't there and trying to survive for most of the fluctuations -- all of recorded human history, the growth of civilisations and the massive growth of human populations have all happened in a period of remarkable calm and stability, climate-wise; and during that period, even a few fluctuations of a degree or two (such as from the 6th C. eruption of Krakatoa) were enough to seriously disrupt the existing cultures.
Which brings us nicely to: fourth, while past geological ages have had far greater temperature and ocean level fluctuations, past geological ages have also not had a human population of near 4 billion living on the coastlines of almost every major landmass. See, speaking personally, I think that the kind of economic disruption which comes with major coastline flooding, mass economic immigration, and the impact of natural disasters in vulnerable areas is a bad thing. One Katrina-type event was bad enough; what happens to the world economy if/when similar events start hitting places like Miami or Bombay? Not to mention, what happens to the people who actually live there?
Fourth: you still seem to be assuming that mustering a voluntary technological change will be more difficult and expensive than dealing with the results of business-as-normal. Um. No. This is very much the point of this discussion.
And, we have the option of starting to deal with both changing the technology and ameliorating the effects now (which is already years later than we ought to have), or scrambling for half-assed solutions when the flooding and food situation is decades worse, which is pretty much guaranteed to raise the price of everything. Once again, a bad way of "planning" for the future.
The biggest problem with mustering the voluntary technological change necessary is convincing people like you that it is necessary. We certainly have the technological ability to do so. And we have mustered similar levels of effort in the past for wars or public-health programmes, so it is psychologically possible if people see a need. You are, incidentally, wrong about war buildup not involving major infrastructure deployment; the scale of road and rail building for WWII, for an example, in fact assumed that such things were not just needed then, they would be needed for the future, and the Interstate Highway system for the US was completed during peacetime.
But that's all for now. In general, I have to say, your whole objection seems to boil down to (a) "but you don't know!", (b) "we just have to wait for the population to die off!", and/or (c) "it will all work out according to natural fluctuation, we shouldn't need to make a huge expenditure right now." Forgive me for saying, but in my mind this seems to translate to "it's too big for me to think about, and I don't really want to believe the problem is real and I don't really want to have to worry about it, much less actually do anything." If I've mischaracterised you I apologise, but that sure is what it looks like to me. Your arguments about the data have indicated more along the lines of ignorance of what we have, than counter-evidence.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 29, 2008 12:22 PM
The thing that makes it hardest for me to take Al Gore seriously is when he jets around the globe to speak at "GREEN" functions. One comparison I read rated air travel emissions at 600 times the GWP(Global Warming Potential) per person as the same travel by automobile.
He contributes more to the problem than I do. That's the REAL inconvenient truth.
Posted by: Joseph Brenner | July 29, 2008 6:55 PM
Luna,
I'd like to see you report a few numbers and apply some arithmetic to support your argument. Take for example coal. At current rates of consumption, how long will that 850 billion tonnes last? Figure in a 1, 2, 3, or 5 percent growth in consumption? What happens then? Also, since you seem well-versed on the subject, what has been the percentage increase in recoverable reserves over the past forty years that can be attributed to technological innovation?
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | July 30, 2008 12:10 AM
Luna_the_cat,
You are right about too many words - one of my many faults, verbosity.
The subject coverage per post is getting too broad. I'll break things up into separate posts and try and keep them shorter.
Let's start here and I will close the matter from my perspective since it is well off topic for the purpose of this blog.
Monckton/APS stuff.
I don't believe I set out to defend Monckton at all other than to observe that it seemed strange that certain events happened AFTER initial publication. Given the parties who seem to be most directly involved on each side I was merely trying to imagine how misunderstanding could have occurred from Monckton's point of view and wonder why matters seemed to be handled rather clumsily by the APS Unit involved.
A storm in a teacup perhaps. I see that the original red ink statement has been modified, reverts to black ink and that the other alternate view paper now has the same prefixed message. A semblance of balance then.
If the original stated intention of developing a debate (albeit maybe that was an idea of one of the editors working autonomously) was honest, as it seems to have been so far as the editorial words are concerned, then this seems like a sensible way to present things. Assuming there may be any future articles a sensible environment to host them now seems to be in place.
As far as the saints and sinners discussions are concerned I think it very easy to point fingers at almost anyone with a relatively public profile should one choose to. By implication that also means criticism of anyone whose advice the criticised subject may have sought for part of their published article it those persons have not objected to the resulting content. So be it. Surely modern science has always been like that?
On the other hand if the author is, in the view of representatives of the members of the society (the editors and the editorial board this case?), so tainted one way or another, why even consider publishing the piece in the first place?
No doubt some will see this as a conspiracy of some sort somehow for some purpose.
I suspect it may just be a screw up as the result of incompletely considered likely outcomes. Unfortunate but in no way uncommon. All part of the discourse.
I imagine that everyone reading here would agree that humans, too often for the reader's individual comfort areas, get things wrong. Any disagreements seem to be about what those wrong 'things' are, which of them are the most important and then the efficacy of the proposed resolutions, as discussed on this blog.
(Seems like I failed on the verbosity reduction front.)
Posted by: Grant | July 30, 2008 7:38 AM
Luna_the_cat,
I was slightly puzzled when I first read your response "Second" above. Then I realised that what I had written was not as clear as I would have wished.
I wrote:
"I would suggest that 100% melt at some point during a year. "
What I should have written to be absolutely clear about what I meant to say was;
"I would suggest that 100% of glaciers have some aspect of melt at some point during a year."
Does that make more sense to you as a sentence?
It is a trite sentence from me of course, given your expertise in the these matters.
I fully accept your assertion that what is know is what there is to know about glaciers - there is no reason why I would not. But, as one of the masses who have no special knowledge but do have in interest I would observe that the connection between glacier understanding and climate can still raise questions about cause and effect.
Currently, from what I have read, there do still seem to be some variations on opinion in the papers that reach publication. I would expect that.
When all published papers confirm that everything is well understood and things are no longer 'linked to' but are firmly 'part of' the observations will look even more convincing.
At that point I would guess that funding would be deemed unnecessary and research would stop. Hmm. Actually in terms of science that might worry me (and probably many more of the general population).
Posted by: Grant | July 30, 2008 1:30 PM
Luna_the_cat,
Your Third point - Part 1
Again I will defer to your greater knowledge and involvement.
But my point was based on my reading various people's reported understanding of 'proven' oil (always seems to be about 40 years for reasons we probably don't need to discuss) and coal (less often discussed but most commentators seem to accept about 150 years availability as a minimum, other much longer.)
You are right, you probably have been following the subject longer than I have - it is not something I can say I have constantly monitored. But I do recall various press reports and TV news items from somewhere around the late 60s and early 70s that offered quite similar proven reserves numbers to those proffered today.
I have no idea how realistic the number and predictive rates of use might be.
However the point I was trying to make is that SOME commentators who claim expertise see a much shorter period of availability for both oil AND coal than you suggest. Personally I go with your numbers based on predictions and outcomes over the last 40 years, but IF the shorter period proves more accurate or, more to the point, policy evolves which is based upon that short period of availability (irrespective of the efficacy of extended fossil fuel use) THEN much of the discussion becomes moot.
From a purely POLICY CREATION perspective it would seem like a god idea to obtain agreement in this area. Actually, better, to be rather sure about the numbers in order to assess the realism of any proposals.
Posted by: Grant | July 30, 2008 1:56 PM
Luna_the_cat,
Your third point part 2.
An interesting and informative statement. I must confess I was thinking in much more general terms about historically reported climate change analysis and without any regard, at that point, to any human factors.
I agree with what you say about human development in periods of relative climate stability.
(One might speculate that, since humanity's rate of development seems to have been spectacular in the last few thousand years and especially stellar in the last 200 years or so, such situations may also have developed, in one form or another, in previous relatively recent interglacial periods. It seems very unlikely that we would ever know of course.)
As with most creatures I suppose there is some drive in the human reproductive cycle towards safety in numbers for species continuity. Perhaps such a natural policy leads to over-population before a correction. In the past there have clearly been enough humans around (and members of some other species) to survive any threatening events, albeit with reduced numbers resulting. We would not be here otherwise.
At each stage of development humanity has managed to develop improved 'defences' to the catastrophes if has recognised. Yes there are still losses and the potential scale of losses in the current age is unimaginable and abhorrent. Nevertheless similar potentially catastrophic threats - say those of earthquakes in Japan and California - don't seem to motivate people enough to stop them living with the threat and developing a social and material infrastructure.
Bear in mind the threats there are likely instant events with little if any warning and, as threats, are unmanageable. If they are going to happen they will happen, nothing humans can do about it.
New Orleans seems to be a similar gamble that went bad. Mainly a planning and engineering failure; perhaps also some questions about investment based on the reports I have read.
When I look my side of the pond I see no good ability to plan well, invest wisely and engineer more reliably than those I perceive in the USA. Yet many of the proposed immediate solutions for the climate control activity must, apparently, and be completed in the next 10 years would demand exactly those activities.
I think we humans are always likely to be better placed, on balance, to defend and attack than make a pre-emptive strike. But that is just a personal view.
We have drifted into your Fourth Part 1 so I'll continue with it here.
"... past geological ages have also not had a human population of near 4 billion living on the coastlines of almost every major landmass."
True, so far as we know.
But unless there was some very sudden catastrophic event (meteorite for example) the biggest threat to human health and wealth would seem to be investing in infrastructure and moving en masse to live in places at risk. That does not have to be the way it is of course, but people seem to like living by water.
The USA has some special consideration - tornado threats for example - that do not exist elsewhere and that might make logical changes in urban locations (leave the sea and move inland) less obviously beneficial than such a policy would be elsewhere. There would likely also be conflicts between land for habitation and land for food production. But such a movement is doable today with some investment.
However, use that capital to invest in technology to control the climate, leaving the 4 billion by the sea as is their preference, and then find that things are moving on anyway and the coastal regions are still under threat ... then what do you do? Accept the immediately inevitable and order a billion mobile homes? That may be all that available fund would allow for. That and building replacement off-shore wind farms.
In my opinion setting out to fix any problem without something very close to a well thought through more or less obvious proven solution usually results in a good chance of failing and as a policy decision is of marginal value even at a personal level. From a central politically controlled starting point it is a recipe for disaster.
Cynically one might say that if wrong war was fought, changes still occurred in the climate, sea levels rose and people insisted in living in unwise places it would be their choice and those who perished, especially if en masse, would ultimately be part of a population reduction solution, sad though it may be to see things develop in that way.
This is heading towards your the fuller content of your Fourth part 2 section so I will break here and give thought to your interesting points in that section in a while.
Posted by: Grant | July 30, 2008 7:18 PM
LUNA - MY EMBEDDED RESPONSES IN CAPS (EASIER TO DISTINGUISH FROM YOUR WRITING, NOT SCREAMING). AGAIN YOU KEEP PLAYING THE I-KNOW-MORE-SCIENCE-THAN-YOU CARD. IF YOU COULD STOP USING YOUR DEGREE TO MOVE DIRT YOU COULD MOVE MORE DIRT. THE RIGHT TOOL HERE IS COMMON SENSE. COMMON SENSE SAYS IF SCIENTISTS ARE UNSURE OF FUTURE DISASTER, DON'T CRIPPLE YOUR ECONOMY TO PREVENT A DISASTER THAT MAY NEVER HAPPEN.
Joey Panto/Luddhunter -- "consensus" is invoked by science under specific circumstances -- that being, when a conclusion widely accepted by people within a field on the basis of the soundness and quantity of evidence, comes under attack by politically/religiously/economically motivated non-scientists who wish to misrepresent the science in order to influence the voting public (usually with a few fringe scientists from the field thrown in to lend them an appearance of scientific credibility). This is not just the case for climate science and AGW, it is also the case with evolution and AIDS and vaccination, to name a few.
"SCIENCE" AS A MONOLITH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INVOKING CONSENSUS, AT LEAST FOR THE ILL THAT I AM ADDRESSING IN THIS THREAD. CERTAIN HUMANS FROM THE VERY SPECIES THAT YOU NAME (POLITICALLY MOTIVATED NON-SCIENTISTS) ARE INVOKING CONSENSUS TO INFLUENCE THE VOTING PUBLIC, AND CERTAIN HUMANS OF THE SAME SPECIES (INCLUDING ME) ARE COUNTER-CLAIMING NON-CONSENSUS. THE BURDEN OF CONSENSUS PROOF IS ON THE CLAIMER. GORE CAN'T JUST CLAIM CONSENSUS, AND HE MAKES AN EFFORT IN HIS MOVIE TO SHOW 928 SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT AGW IS THE MAIN CAUSE OF RECENT WARMING AND WILL CAUSE MORE, LIKELY CATASTROPHIC WARMING. I AM SIMPLY CITING THAT A GROUP OF CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS DO NOT AGREE WITH GORE'S SCIENTISTS ON THE PROBABILITY OF CATASTROPHE, AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON HIGH PROBABILITY OF CATASTROPHE. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THEY ARE WRONG. BUT IS IS TO SAY THAT LEADERS AND THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW WHAT THE THEORY IS CONTROVERSIAL WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
The problem you seem to be missing is that you are believing the people OUTSIDE the field in preference to the people inside the field;
MY PROOF ABOVE SHOWS THIS IS NOT TRUE. I BELIEVE IN LOW PROBABILITY OF CATASTROPHE, BASED ON INACCURACY OF CLIMATE MODELS
invoking some kind of grand conspiracy,
NO, JUST A GENERAL ALLIANCE OF CONVENIENCE THAT BENEFITS IF TECHNICAL DECISION MAKING BECOMES MORE GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED
I suppose, and ignoring the fact that, actually, the consensus really, truly does exist (and is readily apparent in the mainstream literature).
THAT'S YOUR OPINION, OR DO YOU POSSESS A CONSENSUS-O-METER?
The "science" contesting this consensus relies on certain data being ignored, other data being misrepresented or lied about, and the "costs" of accepting consensus exaggerated out of all recognition while the costs of ignoring the consensus are made to conveniently disappear.
THE SAME ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE FOR THE POPE'S CASE:
1. THAT CO2 IS A SMALL FRACTION OF OVERALL GHG, AND THE POPE MADE IT SEEM LIKE THE ONLY ONE THAT IS RELEVANT
2. THE POPE MISREPRESENTED CO2 VS TEMP: HE IMPLIED THAT THE CO2 RISE LEADS THE TEMP RISE, WHEN IN FACT, IT LAGS IT
3. IMPLYING A HIGH PROBABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER WHEN THE PROBABILITY IS REALLY LOW IS ALSO IRRESPONIBLY PREDICTING HIGH COST OF DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU WANT. OVERREGULATION DOES KILL ECONOMIC GROWTH, WHICH IS A HIGHLY FACTORED FUNCTION...LOWER ONE FACTOR (LIKE PRODUCTIVITY) OR INCREASE COST OF DONG BIZ TOO MUCH IN A HIGHLY INTERDEPENDENT ECONOMY, AND YOU KILL GROWTH.
99.9999% of all biologists accept evolution, and 99.99999% of all creationists have no understanding of biology beyond one crappy high school class, in my experience. Do you think this is because of some "conspiracy" of biologists to lie to the public? (Please don't be stupid, here.)
STRAW MAN COMPARISON. CREATIONISM FAILS ON COMMON SENSE AS WELL AS SCIENCE EVIDENCE. AGW SKEPTICS ARGUE THAT CO2 IS NOT POLLUTION, AND MORE OF IT MAY NOT BE HARMFUL, WHICH IS AT LEAST PLAUSIBLE. AN OLD BEARDED GOD WHIPPING UP THE EARTH IN 6 DAYS CAN'T BE FAIRLY COMPARED TO AGW SKEPTICISM.
Now, similarly, the vast majority (>90% at least) of people who study climatology/paleoclimatology/biogeography/related fields, accept and support the idea that AGW is happening and represents a problem. Opposing them are a handful of people mostly from outside the field, largely with very dodgy and dishonest backgrounds, and people who stand to obviously profit from the status quo. And this tells you nothing?
I'LL GRANT THE DISPROPORTION, BUT SOME OF THAT DISPROPORTION IS DUE TO WHERE YOUR BREAD COMES FROM. HOW DO YOU NORMALIZE THE DEBATE WITHIN THE FIELD, WHEN THE VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS WITHIN THE FIELD DEPEND ON APPROPRIATIONS FROM ENDOWMENTS CONTROLLED BY LEFTISTS, AND GOVERNMENT MONEY APPROPRIATED BY COMMITTEES CONTROLLED BY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS? WELL, A GROUP OF INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS (BOTH FINANCIALLY AND POLITICALLY) COULD EVALUATE THE AGW-BAD PAPERS AND THE AGW-INSIGNIFICANT PAPERS ON MERIT AND ISSUE A REPORT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE EXPERTS HAVE BEEN LARGELY POLITICIZED BEYOND REPAIR.
The problem of AGW was being flagged up long before there was any money even to study it,
AGAIN, EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT, THE IPCC LOW-END PREDICTION OF 17 INCHES OF SEA RISE OVER 90 YEARS IS NOT A CATASTROPHIC PROBLEM. BUT IS IS A PROBLEM, JUST NOT WORTH ZEROING GROWTH OVER.
and even now, funding would be one heck of a lot easier to get if people could produce evidence for the world's governments and large corporations that the human influence was negligible and business-as-usual could continue.
DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CLAIM. WHY IS FUNDING SCARCER FOR CLIMATOLOGISTS, WITH ALL YOUR MARXIST BUDDIES RUNNING THE APPROPRIATIONS?
That can't be done, however, because evidence to that effect simply doesn't exist. So the people who profit more from the business-as-usual model have to try to kick pieces out of the case against them, instead, in precisely the way outlined here about some other contentious subjects.
I THOUGHT THE "CASE" WAS AGAINST UNCLEAN TECHNOLOGIES, NOT AGAINST CAPITALISM ITSELF. YOU BEAT ME TO THE SCOOP. CAN WE MEET IN A PARKING GARAGE WITH BOB WOODWARD AND WILL YOU REPEAT THE REAL AGENDA OF THE CASEMAKERS?
The problem is, additionally, that you are buying the line that it is all about the uncertainty of the science and the "high cost" of listening to scientists calling for action; you seem to buy without question the assertion that the business-as-usual model will be more profitable/less costly in the long run;
I DIDN'T SAY I WAS AGAINST GOVT-FUNDED RESEARCH INTO ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES, JUST NOT FOR THE BAN-FIRST APPROACH. ONE STEP BACK TOWARDS THE CAVE DOES NOT GUARANTEE TWO STEPS OUT LATER, AND THE DISRUPTIVE EFFECTS OF INCOHERENT TECH BANS AND REGS HAS AN OVERALL KILLING EFFECT ON INVESTMENT, ESP BY SMALL BIZ AND LOW-BUDGET INVENTORS
you adhere to an a priori belief that a free market can fix everything (itself unsupported by any strong evidence);
DIDN'T SAY THAT. SOME PROBLEMS NEVER GET SOLVED...SOME THAT SUFFER GET DE-SELECTED BY THE MARKET, AS ANY GOOD EVOLUTIONIST KNOWS. THE FREE MARKET IS GOOD FOR OUR SPECIES. GOVT CAN AND SHOULD BAN TRULY DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGIES, SO I DON'T ADVOCATE A PURELY FREE MARKET.
you believe the denialist distortions of the state of the science;
ARE ALL DISSENTERS DENIALISTS? WHY DO YOU CAST A ONE-SIZE FITS-ALL TERM? AVOID THE DOGMA MY FRIEND, VICIOUS DOGMAS USUALLY TURN ON THEIR MASTERS. I DON'T DENY WARMING, I AM SKEPTICAL ABOUT CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCES OF AGW, NOT GW IN GENERAL. I THINK IF GW WARMED US 7 DEGREES IN 5 YEARS, WE WOULD BE IN BIG TROUBLE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE MAN'S FAULT.
and worst, you fail to accept that you could be wrong on the science and thus apparently see no need to learn anything more.
MY LAST INSERT SAYS I ADMIT I COULD BE WRONG. IT'S JUST NOT LIKELY. AND NOT WORTH KILLING GROWTH FOR UNTIL AGW IS PROVEN TO BE CATASTROPHIC.
If you were willing to accept that maybe you didn't know the "truth" about this already,
I DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, BASED ON NON-CONSENSUS OF SCIENCE
I think we would be seeing more evidence of you trying to learn more in good faith. Instead, you pretty much march in here with a declaration that climatologists and scientists are dishonest loons who hate the free market and technology -- itself a stupid straw man, and a sign of blatant hostility towards the field and a certainty that "you know better".
ONLY THOSE WHO DECLARE CONSENSUS WHERE THERE IS NONE ARE BEING BIASED AT BEST, DISHONEST AT WORST. NOT LOONS, PERHAPS IDEOLOGICALLY UTOPIAN, PERHAPS JUST VERY CAUTIOUS AND WORRIED FOLK...THE KIND THAT FRET EXCESSIVELY OVER WHETHER THEY TURNED THE BURNER OFF. HATE THE FREE MARKET? NO, BUT YOU DISTRUST IT, AND DRAW COMFORT FROM A GUARANTEED BENEVOLENT TYRANNY IN CERTAIN QUARTERS OF SOCIETY. HATE TECHNOLOGY? NO, YOU LIKE TECH AS LONG AS THE "RIGHT" TECHNOLOGIES ARE SELECTED BY 3RD PARTIES WHO "KNOW BETTER". I'M NOT HOSTILE TO SCIENCE, ONLY THE CORRUPTION OF IT. "KNOW BETTER"? I'M CERTAIN I KNOW WHAT CONSENSUS IS, AND AGW CATASTROPHE IS NOT AGREED BY 100% OF CREDIBLE CLIMATOLOGISTS.
"It's just that when scientists recommend policy, they should be prepared to debate non-scientists on consensus, technological constraints, and economic consequences of their recommendation, and not try an discredit non-scientists for challenging non-science issues." -- you know, I have no problem with that; what I have a problem with is your idea that it doesn't happen. I'm a member of the AGU, and thus receive their newsletter EOS, and I read Nature and Science regularly, and there's scarcely a week goes by that I don't see several pieces about initiatives to bring solar electric and better stoves to Africa and India, or debates over feasability and costs of carbon sequestration technologies, or condemnation of biofuel boondoggles and greenwashing, and suggestions for minimising costs to local communities. But the fact that you aren't aware of this is partly the scientific community's fault, maybe, for not trying harder to bring that information to the public's attention, as well as the mainstream media's fault for ignoring "boring" things like that, which don't make nearly as good headlines as Death! Fire! Catastrophe!.
I DO NOT DOUBT THAT YOU AND OTHER SCIENTISTS TRADE OFF ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THEY MAKE, AND YES, THE MEDIA DOES AID THE POLITICIZATION IN ORDER TO SELL ADS....BUT STATIST POLITICAL LEADERS WANT TO ENACT DRASTIC TECH CUTBACKS WITHOUT READY SUBSTITUTES, AND THAT'S THE KIND OF LUDD POLICY THAT SENDS GREAT CIVILIZATIONS BACK TOWARDS THE CAVE. YOUR POPE HAS MADE YET ANOTHER DRASTIC PROPOSAL WHICH BANS FIRST, INVENTS LATER, AND CENTRALIZES ECONOMIC DECISION MAKING TO BUREAUCRATS. THIS BAD FOR GROWTH AND AGGREGATE WEALTH, AND IS WHY I ATTACK THE CONSENSUS SHAM.
Just to close though, I'm going to make a plea I've made plenty of times before, to a lot of people: Please, please do not assume that just because you don't know about something, that it doesn't exist. Try to find out if it exists, first. You might be surprised.
IN ANY DIVERSIFIED ECONOMY, MOST DON'T HAVE TIME TO LEARN THE SCIENCE. WHAT WE DO HAVE TIME FOR IS TO WEIGH THE CREDIBILITY OF RIVAL CLAIMANTS ON POLICY ISSUES, AND DETERMINE WHETHER A POLICY IS BEING ADVOCATED FOR THE TRUE PUBLIC GOOD OR FOR A LARGE INCREASE IN POLITICAL POWER. THE LEFT IS CLEARLY IN THIS CASE TRYING TO FOCUS FORCES ON A WEAK POINT TO LEVERAGE A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING FROM FREE COMPETITORS AND POWER USERS IN THE MARKET TO UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS AND ESTABLISH A DE-FACTO NATIONALIZATION OF THE ENERGY INDUSTRY, AND USE THAT POWER TO EXTORT PREFERRED BEHAVIORS FROM THE BIGGEST USERS OF THAT ENERGY, THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR. THIS IS A LENINIST STRATEGY, AND IT MUST BE STOPPED. THAT SAID, I DO WANT TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL AND INCREASE CHOICE FO ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES. BUT POPE AL'S PLAN AIN'T GONNA GET US THERE, AND WILL MAKE US MUCH LESS FREE.
Posted by: Luddhunter | July 31, 2008 7:06 PM
Ludd, the SHOUTING genuinely doesn't make you any more readable. I would suggest using
tags to quote instead, and then respond as normal.However, there's not a lot that you say which is worth responding to in any detail. I've harped on the theme of "I understand this" a few times, I admit, but that is because I have been trying to make clear to you -- I DO understand the science. I AM following the evidence. From the point of view of someone familiar with the data, we are ALREADY moving into catastrophe and action now IS common sense. When I tell you, this is what the science is, it's not because I want to cripple the world economy because I'm leftist and all leftists are inherently against the free market, or bullshit strawmen like that -- it is because, this is genuinely what the science is, there IS a consensus, and your refusal to look beyond your own ideologically-favoured sources to find out if they are concealing something from you makes you a total idiot. (As does your assumption that "Pope Al" has any fucking thing whatsoever to do with what I believe. Way to make obnoxious irrelevant assumptions, much?)
You have not demonstrated any good faith attempt to understand the problems here. Instead, you just repeatedly parrot your unsupported talking points about how we are "Marxists" and how we feel about technology and "benevolent tyranny" and we must hate your freedoms (or whoops, was that the terrorists?) -- and how you think that nobody knows enough because you don't want to spend the time on it to understand what we do know, or how or why we know it. Yes, the vast majority of "dissenters" are in fact denialists, because the position rests on denying information that we genuinely already have.
You don't have the time to learn everything, that I understand. You decide who to believe on the basis of who tells you the things you like the sound of most, rather than even learn to evaluate the basic soundness of information or even ascribe any value to professional reputations -- again, that just makes you an idiot.
I have enough idiots in my life. I don't have the time to waste. Give honest conversation a crack and we might pick this up again. Until that point, nah.
Grant -- forgive me, I'm working two jobs at the moment, so I don't have the time to comment every day that I would like. I'm also going to try to be brief, on some of this at least. And forgive me, it's all getting stuck in one post. (And I'm not going to try to number my points, given that I was apparently unable to track how many "three"s and "four"s I had in my last post. :-/ )
Re: The situation with the APS and Monckton. The FPS editor Al Saperstein makes a few statements here which may give you some insight as to how and why this was done. I will add my own comment that the immediate (and unprecedented) disclaimer was slapped onto Monckton's piece because of the immediate and unprecedented press releases that Monckton spread hither and yon advertising his "peer-reviewed" publication and that "the APS has dumped its consensus on global warming!", leading within hours to further press releases like this. This was damage control against lies, pure and simple.
I think the editors were naive. And it was all handled fairly badly. And I think that perhaps we can put that particular question to bed, now?
Re: glaciers --
I fully accept your assertion that what is know[n] is what there is to know about glaciers -
No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO.
That is NOT what I said.
You argued (I quote)
I replied to the effect that, no, given the nature of our records and evidence, it doesn't matter if we have scientists out there measuring every glacier every year, we can still say that we know that over 80% of land glaciers globally are retreating. In absolute terms, not just seasonal melt.
NOWHERE in that statement did I claim that we know everything there was to know about glaciers. I claimed (accurately) that this is one thing we do know, an observed fact.
There are mechanics and feedbacks to glaciers which we don't understand. We observe behavior that we don't understand. We turn up new things. We learn. But nevertheless, observations point to real and consistent and measurable trends, and claiming uncertainty about things that are fairly certain is also more than a little counterproductive. Yes? No? Am I being clear enough?
Re: proven oil --
That would be improved recovery technologies, primarily. Improved well injection techniques to maintain pressure in depleted wells. Horizontal drilling (of over 5km!) to enable recovery where you can't plant the rig directly above the reservoir. Vastly improved drill fluids, which enable deepwater drilling and recovery from below challenging salt layers. Improved seismic mapping techniques had a lot to do with discovery, as well, of course, but "proved reserves" aren't simply reserves we know about, they are reserves which can be recovered with available technology. And the technophile in me has to admit, some of the currently available technology is pretty damn clever.
(For Eric the Leaf, as well) Sorry, I'm going to wimp out on doing a year-by-year analysis of coal demand and extraction under different growth scenarios, for just now, at least. I simply haven't got the time, though who knows, if this thread rumbles on long enough. I will comment that the shortest estimate for coal comes from Germany's Energy Watch Group, which projected "Peak Coal" for 2025 at 30% above current production. Their growth estimate for coal use is high, but not completely outwith the realm of possibility; however, their numbers for recoverable coal deposits are regarded as drastic underestimates by industry. The more general industry view (from companies like BP and Shell, and adopted by the EIA) is that peak coal would probably come closer to 2100, with recoverable hard and soft coal deposits enough to keep us going for between 133 - 180 years depending on growth and demand.
This only takes into account extracted coal, however, and discounts any potential technologies such as underground coal gasification, which would add roughly another 1.4 trillion tonnes of coal to fossil fuel reserves. There are actually about 10 trillion tonnes of coal in the ground, overall, but much of that is not extractable with our current mining methods. There are organisations actively pursuing underground coal gasification and similar non-extractive technologies with rather more fervor than I see for hydrogen fuels, however, so I would not like to discount this entirely.
That's a big damn "if". Personally, I think that holding off on policy formation until there is complete agreement rather than planning for the worst-case scenario ahead of time, and/or dealing with the fact that we need to start thinking about switching technologies for a variety of other reasons, is just inviting disaster. Physical systems have this nasty habit of proceeding on with physical reactions without waiting around for people to make up their minds, and when there are strong political and economic interests in play arguing can and will go on forever, possibly to the end of time and the heat death of the universe.
Besides, as I was trying to point out before: waiting until you are at the end of your resources and embroiled in an undeniable crisis is guaranteed to raise both the difficulty and expense of switching paths, and will only encourage half-assed amelioration measures which would probably start adding their own problems before long. Desperation never made a good bargain. And in many ways, we've left it very late and are starting to hit that desperation level already; leaving it until we are well and truly embroiled in crisis, why that would just make it better, yeah.
Re: coastline settlement --
Um, maybe you are unaware of just how strongly the availability of large bodies of water nearby STILL influences shipping and commerce? Picking everyone up and moving them away from the coastlines would mean the destruction of most of our international shipping infrastructure, not to mention what we have left of the fishing industry, which (still) contributes a significant proportion of the world's protein. A simple commerce reality check is in order here, I think. Seriously, as Alexis Carrel observed, "A few observations and much reasoning lead to error; many observations and a little reasoning to truth." Observe more about our current global economic system before you start reasoning about what is going to be more expensive, I think. Take into account that the majority of planners consider it multiple orders of magnitude cheaper to implement measures to protect settlements on the coast than to try to move cities and shipping, and that even includes measures to try to minimise a rise in sea level.
Please also take into account that in many, if not most, of the major cities in the world there are hundreds of millions of people there for the simple reason that they are poor and there is nowhere else for them to be, and these centers of commerce offer them the best chance not to starve to death, as narrow as that chance is. They aren't necessarily there because they "like" being by the ocean; there is a great deal of economic necessity involved already. Given that commerce follows shipping, what do you propose that would replace large bodies of water for that purpose? Getting goods by rail from China to the US might prove an...interesting...technical challenge....
If there is anything here I haven't addressed, I'll have to come back to it later. It's late, and this is already way too long.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | August 1, 2008 5:01 PM
Luddhunter, that was meant to [blockquote] and [/blockquote] tags I suggested to you, replacing [ with <, but I previewed the post and then the browser went ahead and interpreted the tags. Doh.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | August 1, 2008 5:04 PM
Luna,
No response is expected since you have dismissed me as an ignorant imbecile without addressing my points. Ad hominem looks good on you, it matches your biodegradable pocket protector.
At the risk of contaminating myself by assaulting a dead horse, since you refuse to address my simple argument that there is credible dissent within your elite omniscient field of climatology man-gods, and therefore NO consensus, I will assume the rest of your arguments are simply red herrings to distract the massive audience of this cerebral blog from the broken linchpin of the credibility gearing in your kluge of alarmism.
It doesn't matter if you understand the science if there are others who have the same credentials who disagree with your forecast of doom. You don't have consensus, so why not admit it, and stick to the scientific arguments you know so well and compete them fairly before objective arbiters?
YOU may not want to cripple the economy. I call Gore "your pope" because you are helping him mislead the public.
You are supporting his claim of consensus, which makes you an accessory to propaganda production in support of an economy-slowing policy. You can't agree with Gore on impending doom, using consensus as the linchpin argument in public statements and then hope to not be accused of being one of his propaganda minions.
You refuse to address the low-end of the most-oft quoted "consensus" science, the IPCC prediction of 17 inch sea rise over 90 years, and simply state if you think that is a catastrophe, no proof expected. This smacks of arbitrariness of the numbers, another sign of dogmatic fervor.
You are assuming I only read libertarian sources, I look at left-leaning sources like the NY Times and the Washington Post to verify the "consensus" numbers like the IPCC predictions, and I read left-leaning blogs like this one and consider the facts and opinions before opining myself, but if you mean do I read science papers, no, and if you expect most people to in order to have an opinion on consensus or catastrophe, then you are
an elitist. Calling me an idiot does not help your credibility as a debater either.
[You have not demonstrated any good faith attempt to understand the problems here. ]
We are talking about different problems. You, I think, are talking about the climate problem as you see it, and I am talking about the problem with calling for drastic limitations on economic activity to prevent an enviromental disaster which is predicted by unreliable and inaccurate analytical models, but is being sold as a sure thing.
[Yes, the vast majority of "dissenters" are in fact denialists, because the position rests on denying information that we genuinely already have.]
You have predictive information, not factual information. Your predictive information has uncertainty, as does all predictive information. Your has a lot of uncertainty, even just looking at the IPCC data. Reasonable leaders should not act drastically on excessively uncertain information.
[You don't have the time to learn everything, that I understand. You decide who to believe on the basis of who tells you the things you like the sound of most, rather than even learn to evaluate the basic soundness of information or even ascribe any value to professional reputations -- again, that just makes you an idiot.]
Just because you dismissed my source citing credible professional scientists dissenting from the so-called consensus doesn't make you correct. I am referring to them, not my science understanding, to make the case for non-consensus, which I can easily and credibly do because consensus is hard to prove.
[I have enough idiots in my life. I don't have the time to waste. Give honest conversation a crack and we might pick this up again. Until that point, nah.]
You wouldn't have gotten heated up if I didn't strike a nerve of weakness in your policy arguments. Not comfortable ground for you. You'd rather argue thermal coefficients I'm sure. Maybe you should stick to that and get off the doom wagon. It's already so crowded with idiots that are so willing to trade freedom for a utopian promise that you're bound to get your polyester white shirt soiled with tofu and bong resin.
Posted by: Luddhunter | August 1, 2008 9:37 PM