A Few Things Ill Considered

Not time to quit after all

It was feeling for a while that the faux debate over climate change was waning and maybe engaging in it was more distraction than a constructive effort. That feeling started after the very striking change in mainstream climate change coverage that followed An Inconvenient Truth.

It got a bit stronger with the election of Obama and his reaffirmation of carbon controls and alternative energy as important goals.

But In it for the Gold has some bad news on that one and the denialist blogosphere is really picking up steam, so perhaps that was a bit of premature jubilation…sigh. Maybe when the current “global cooling” ends….but I won’t count on it!

Comments

  1. #1 llewelly
    January 14, 2009

    Maybe when the current “global cooling” ends….but I won’t count on it!

    Since said ‘global cooling’ is a delusion, when will it end?
    Belief in ET visitors was ridiculous 50 years ago, as it is today, yet there are people who have fervently believed in ET visitors for 50 years.

  2. #2 Crakar14
    January 14, 2009

    Sigh………….Where do i begin here.

    To llewelly, 3 lines of text, one talks about delusions the other two about the existence of UFO’s is this your level of knowledge on the subject of AGW?

    Question, how many years between 1999 and 2008 were hotter than 1998? Take your time, count them up and then get back to me with a detailed (not computer model predictions) explanation as to why temperatures are dropping even though C02 has continued to rise.

    To Coby, after reading Taminos post on more than one occaision now i still cannot find any reference to proof man made C02 is causing anything at all.

    The document is factually incorrect as Tamino states himself that he would be highly suspect of any data without noise. OK fair enough, so he then explains the temp drop or “short term lull” as you like to call it is just noise, noise is what is being seen over the past ten years.

    But hang on what about the period of warming between 75 to 98, he attributes it solely to man made C02, where is the noise?

    Using Taminos logic the data from 75 to 98 should be treated as highly suspect should it not. Why has he not calculated the amount of noise for that period? Can you tell me why?

    Sorry i forgot you avoid logical debate, you prefer to post links to one of the 44 scientists that make up the IPCC consensus (the old bullshit baffles brains mentallity).

    Its ok Coby you dont need to reply as i already know the answer, i understand now why when the temp drops like in 1940-70 period or the current one it is just noise, but when the temp goes up it is because of AGW.

    If i said to you the warming from the 70′s to 1998 was caused at least inpart by the +pdo, multiple very strong El Ninos and the most active sun in over 1000 years (lets call all this noise)then you would have to quantify all this noise as a figure of temp and then deduct this figure from the actually temp rise and what is left (if any) could be caused by AGW agreed?

    Of course the reason why you dont do this is because you have absolutely no idea how to do it. The models could not predict tomorrows weather let alone anything as complicated as the climate. This is also why people like yourself aviod using the word La Nina or PDO, AMO, ENSO, SOI etc for to acknowledge their existence would raise unanswerable questions. It is much easier to fool the public by saying all the warming is because of C02.

    The climate has been warming for 300 years, at least 250 years of that was not our fault, so please enlighten us on what caused this warming and then tell us why it suddenly stopped and C02 miraculously became THE ONLY THING TO CAUSE THE WARMING.

    By the way in reference to your glee at Obama being elected, the deputy opposition leader of Australia has stated that he will NOT support any cap and trade efforts.

  3. #3 ThinkLife
    January 16, 2009

    Coby, thanks for the great blog. Very informational, educational. I love “How to talk to a climate skeptic.”

    What strikes me about global warming contrarians–I know a few in my work and family–is that they don’t really consider all the evidence for global warming. They’ve got their viewpoint, and they’re stickin’ to it.

    They seem to hang onto a few talking points–most of which are covered in this blog–and argue them to death. They keep hanging onto the same beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. It seems to be almost a cult-like phenomenon.

    Being a global warming skeptic fits with the way many contrarians seem to see themselves: as conservatives, as business supporters, as free market advocates. It fits with their worldviews, and the worldviews of those like George Bush and Rush Limbaugh, who they seem to admire and identify with.

    Global warming skeptics seem to have a black/white worldview that polarizes things without due cause. If you’re “green,” you’re anti-business. If you don’t like SUV’s, you’re a tree-hugger. These things don’t need to be polarized. We could gray the SUV area by making SUVs hybrids or green in other ways that save fuel, just to give one example.

    The same phenomenon happens with people who tend to believe religious doctrine outright. The supposed facts of, for example, Jesus’ resurrection, are stated in the Bible and presented as Truth, but there is no scientific inquiry into how the evidence was gathered, by whom, was it tested, double-checked, triple-checked, replicated by others, etc.

    In the religion I grew up with, Catholicism, there was never any scientific explanation of how Jesus performed miracles or rose from the dead. Being a logical person, interested in science, I couldn’t just accept these statements as facts. I can’t be a Christian based on claims that Jesus will save my soul, for example. Aren’t we all responsible for our own actions? How can his death take away guilt for misdeeds? It just doesn’t make sense.

    I worry about kids who grow up with religious traditions, because the scientific method they learn in school contradicts what many religions state to be true. This results in either questioning authority (good), extreme confusion (bad) or a distorted, confused mind that thinks logically at times and may believe any kind of dogma, depending on the source, at other times (bad).

    It seems possible to believe one thing in one part of the mind and believe the opposite in another part of the mind. But the two must reconcile somehow, and without such reconciliation, does that result in a kind of insanity–a splitting of the mind in harmful ways?

    I also wonder if the split between secular education and religious dogma is partly responsible for a polarized worldview in some people. Just speculation.

    Anyone who wants to read a great expose of the myth of Jesus should read “The Age of Reason,” by Thomas Paine. I just started delving into it, and it looks like a wonderful analysis of the Christian myths and how figures in authority use them to promulgate religious organizations and their dominion over the thoughts and beliefs of those organizations’ members/believers/followers.

    The goal of these myth-supporters seems to be to keep the organization in a position of authority and power, and to keep the organization growing, which supports (financially and personally) the organizations’ leaders.

    The connection between religious dogma and global warming contrarians and their arguments is this: some of the same methods of promoting disinformation are used by the disinformers, or opinion leaders of the contrarian movement or worldview. They rely on “believers’” flawed thinking processes to gain followers and support.

    It’s pretty clear, after doing some online research, that vested interests want to just keep producing oil and coal, in the face of the evidence that doing so is killing wildlife, fauna, us and destroying ecologies in many ways. These same vested interests are the ones promoting global warming contrarianism. Small wonder: their current profits depend on individuals and businesses burning massive amounts of oil and coal.

    These vested interests include ExxonMobil and the Western Fuels Association.

    One great resource is Antonia Juhasz’ book, “The Tyranny of Oil.” It exposes abuses, scams, shady practices and the influence of Big Oil in politics and economies all over the globe.

    Another resource worth promoting is Oil Change International, which exposes political connections between Congresspersons and Big Oil, among other useful information. Find it at: http://priceofoil.org/

    Finally, historian of science Naomi Oreskes explains the tactics the Western Fuel Association uses to confuse the public about the science of global warming at:
    http://smartenergyshow.com/node/67

    Doing things in the same dirty ways will only kill us, it’s clear. And there is mounting evidence that economies will be disrupted if we don’t roll down the green road to a sustainable economy and ecology. So any economic arguments against the greening of the planet are just incorrect, insofar as we can predict–which, as you know, will never be 100% correct.

  4. #4 David
    February 6, 2009

    I still think you need to add “Limiting CO2 is unfair (and eceomoically catastrophic) to third world countries” in your How to talk to a sceptic list. I was not kidding when I wrote that this argument tends to come up, every time. Check http://www.greenoptimistic.com/ , http://www.metaefficient.com/ and http://www.jetsongreen.com/ for a start at hard data for debunking this. I can’t see how helping thirld world countries be less dependent on other powers by rebuilding with renewables from the start is unfair. But I can see why western powers with a habit of exploiting these countries would want us to think so…