…and this is a 
Powerline really shouldn't ever mention science
Category: Kooks
Posted on: February 8, 2007 5:07 PM, by PZ Myers
They invariably get it wrong. This time they've noticed it's cold outside, and they see an news report about colder temperatures in the Antarctic, so they leap to the conclusion that global warming is bunk. Or rather, they always held that conclusion (on faith, no doubt), and are overjoyed to see any scrap of out-of-context evidence that they can play up to bolster their confidence.
Comments
The most common misconception that is being further spread and supported by anti-science numbnuts in America is the idea that Climate = Weather. It's amazing to see even university students unable to understand that weather and climate are totally different things.
Posted by: Zohn | February 8, 2007 5:10 PM
There is a good reason why right-wing bloggers rarely allow comments on their blogs. They can continue to indulge their own delusions of intelligence and sense.
Posted by: tacitus | February 8, 2007 5:21 PM
They don't want to be confronted with any sort of truthiness.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 8, 2007 5:28 PM
No, you mean facts. They give out "truthiness" like candy.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 8, 2007 5:29 PM
I'm guessing the little guy in the corner outside the ring is supposed to be Al Gore, thus an attempt at pushing the wingnut laugh button harder. Their humor and satire is as lacking as their thought processes.
For a group of politicos that also identify with the rapture-right, it's odd and ironically counter-intuitive that they have such a fetish for cold weather. I thought we were all going to burn in hell, not freeze. That is, unless I've stumbled upon an undercurrent in their midst we in the land of brains are not usually privy to...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 8, 2007 5:30 PM
I used to know someone who would deride competitors as performing "cartoon science." In other words he accused them of starting with an assertion and finding some evidence to support that assertion--similar to how "science" is portrayed in cartoons. This is literally "cartoon science" at its finest.
Posted by: Sir Oolius | February 8, 2007 5:32 PM
The Powerline idiot bases his argument on the ozone hole scenario, but that is a non-starter right out of the gate. It *USED* to be one concentrated hole. Anyone who looks at it now knows it has dissipated and, while still hanging over Antarctica, is much less of an opening and is more accurately described as a thinning of the ozone.
These guys don't waste a nanosecond on processing anything. It's an either/or situation 24/7/365 for them. How does anyone live like that? Seriously?
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 8, 2007 5:34 PM
Since I'm not knowledgeable in the field, would you like to direct me to a good place to learn that sort of thing, Zohn? I've been relying on (hopefully legitimate) arguments from authorities, and it'd be nice to get a bit closer to the data and theories.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 8, 2007 5:34 PM
For once, I don't think this is exclusively a rightwing thing. I've seen plenty of good liberals say that unseasonably warm weather suggests global warming.
I think people simply don't understand the notion of climate
Posted by: D | February 8, 2007 5:42 PM
Since I'm not knowledgeable in the field, would you like to direct me to a good place to learn that sort of thing
If you like a good dose of snark with your science, I direct you to Deltoid, also on scienceblogs. Go to the left sidebar and the category "Global Warming".
For more thorough dealings, try RealClimate, for background hit "Highlights" on their right hand sidebar.
Hope those help.
Posted by: Graculus | February 8, 2007 5:47 PM
from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250980,00.html gah! sorry, its fox news.
Posted by: zwa | February 8, 2007 5:54 PM
BronzeDog, Here are two sites to get you started:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/climateweather.html and http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html.
Posted by: Zohn | February 8, 2007 5:56 PM
Rohrbacher was essentially saying... "That's not the answer I intended to hear. You're lying. The Oil/Auto Lobby told me something different."
Posted by: Steve_C | February 8, 2007 6:01 PM
` Oh for muck's sake....
Posted by: Spoony Quine | February 8, 2007 6:06 PM
So since Rohrabacher can't subtract 90 from 100 in his head and get 10, the answer was dishonest? Either that or any number that doesn't match the one he has in mind must be a lie.
Listen, just because you are a politician, you don't have to be dishonest.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | February 8, 2007 6:07 PM
You know, it's a scientifically proven fact that every time anyone reads Powerline, their IQ drops 3 points. PZ can probably spare a few, but I'm running low already.
Posted by: alwsdad | February 8, 2007 6:10 PM
This is the same tired bottle of whine as Paul Harvey's "Eggs are good for you? Last year those stupid scientists said eggs were bad for you!"
Mr. Assrocket likes to pretend that his demonstration of how complex systems continue to defy his simplistic conceptions of them brilliantly debunks the underlying science.
Posted by: melior | February 8, 2007 6:10 PM
If that report of Rohrabacher's comments was accurate, then in fact he's asking a clever question. While Susan Soloman saw that and tried to restate it, Rohrbacher was right that she wasn't answering his question: she was answering a much more relevant question.
In fact, most greenhouse gasses are produced naturally. However, it's not the total number of greenhouse gasses produced that is important. It's the difference between what is produced and what is absorbed. Since the amount produced has been increasing, and the amount absorbed has not been increasing as fast (I don't actually know if that is going up or down), the amount left sitting in the atmosphere is going up. It is that increase that is currently being dominated by human produced CO2.
Posted by: dkary | February 8, 2007 6:20 PM
Note: when I said that Rohrbacher's question was clever, I meant that it was politically clever, even if scientifically misleading.
Posted by: dkary | February 8, 2007 6:22 PM
Zohn: "The most common misconception that is being further spread and supported by anti-science numbnuts in America is the idea that Climate = Weather."
As it happens, Rush Limbaugh was making exactly the opposite point a couple weeks ago, back when much of the US was having unseasonably warm weather. Limbaugh made the same observation as D, above, that many people wrongly attribute warm weather to a warming climate.
The funny thing is that Limbaugh made his point by citing a counter-anecdote, a news story about excessive snowfall in Anchorage, AK. He correctly, for a change, observed that the weather is not the climate. The reason this is funny is that, the day he mentioned this, it was over 50 degrees F in Anchorage. (Though that doesn't mean much, either; we always get a warm spell this time of year.)
Posted by: Grumpy | February 8, 2007 6:41 PM
People are termially stupid about global climate change. And I mean TERMINALLY stupid. But then the majority of people in the world don't understand that when it is winter in the northern hemisphere, that it is summer in the southern hemisphere. So I don't expect many of them to come to grips intellectually with climate change.
I once had someone from the northern hemisphere (the country will remain unnamed to protect the innocent), who couldn't understand and refused to accept that in Australia it is summer at christmas time. He couldn't fathom that December could be any other season except winter.
So, we expect people to understand the theory of biological evolution, or global climate change and its possible ramifications? Tell 'em they're dreamin'.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | February 8, 2007 6:42 PM
Sh*t. I wish I had spelled "terminally" correctly the first time. Haha
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | February 8, 2007 6:49 PM
How is the question misleading? It is very important to know what percentage of C02 is natural. If it is 99% or 1% our response would be completely different.
Posted by: John W. | February 8, 2007 6:51 PM
The politician was right. And those of you who are castigating him for being stupid and only seeing (or hearing) what he wanted to perceive failed to perceive that - because you're only seeing and hearing what you want to perceive.
It's a good thing irony overdose isn't lethal, or these forums would have killed me years ago.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 8, 2007 6:54 PM
Kruger-Dunning Effect run rampant.
MYOB'
.
Posted by: MYOB | February 8, 2007 7:04 PM
Heinlein had it right with "climate is what you expect, weather is what you get".
I'm noticing that the deniers I run across are at least admitting there may be a possibility of global climate change, but "of course there's no proof it's human caused. It's all part of natural cycles". I also have trouble getting them to believe that we're actually talking global climate CHANGE (not necessarily global warming world-wide), and some places may get colder, not warmer. Or drier, or wetter, or we just don't know yet where it might all lead.
Posted by: emkay | February 8, 2007 7:26 PM
It is very important to know what percentage of C02 is natural.
All of it. Humans are, after all, natural, and I've never hreard of "artificial" CO2.
Which is why the ecosystem collapse is going to really suck for us.
Anyways, the question is meaningless, as a lot of things have to be clarified before the answer means anything. How about the raw, rough, numbers:
Current CO2: 380 ppm. Amount of that due to human activity since 1750.... 100 ppm. Amount of that due to human activity since 1973... 50 ppm. I leave the math as an excercise for the reader.
Posted by: Graculus | February 8, 2007 7:29 PM
Well, it all depends what you call a greenhouse gas, and what you mean by 'natural'. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; it blocks almost all of the thermal radiation below 400 wavenumbers. So if you include water vapor in the list and measure just bulk quantities, you come up with the number that > 95% of greenhouse gases are 'natural'. Of course, this is weaseling. Water vapor pressure, while it mostly comes from 'natural evaporation', is affected by CO2 emission (though nobody really knows exactly to what extent).
The real key is that the earth's lower atmosphere has an IR transmission window between about 750 and about 1300 wavenumbers, through which most of the heat is lost to space. The lower edge of that window is the upper edge of the CO2 bend vibration band(mostly from vibrationally and rotationally excited states of the CO2 bend vibration). When you increase CO2 concentration, you shut down that absorbtion edge a little more. Not by much, but it doesn't take much to increase the average temperature by 1 C. CFCs and some other trace gases also absorb in that window.
When people ask how we can predict climate, when we can't predict weather, I say I can't predict the next spin of the roulette wheel, but I know that in the end the casino's going to make money.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | February 8, 2007 7:33 PM
How is the question misleading? It is very important to know what percentage of C02 is natural. If it is 99% or 1% our response would be completely different.
CO2 has increased by 40% since the industrial revolution, iirc. But wouldn't the magnitude of expected effects be important instead of the percentages?
Posted by: windy | February 8, 2007 7:33 PM
They are both important. Why didn't the question that was asked get answered? Why do people immidiatly assume he was wrong? The question he asked was a good question and he got a misleading answer.
Posted by: John W. | February 8, 2007 8:16 PM
Because the scientist didn't want to give an answer that could be perceived by those looking to ignore global warming as a minimization of our effects.
She was being dishonest, of course.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 8, 2007 8:41 PM
They are both important. Why didn't the question that was asked get answered? Why do people immidiatly assume he was wrong?
He wasn't wrong about the numbers, and he made a clever quip about the scientist's statement. However, I don't think the chairwoman of the IPCC would try to cover up the fact that 5-10% of the total amount of greenhouse gases are made by humans, that would be very silly of her. This amount seems perfectly adequate to cause global warming.
Posted by: windy | February 8, 2007 8:51 PM
The question he asked was a good question
It was a meaningless question. That's why he asked it.
Without some kind o frame of reference the answer would mean nothing, so the question would mean nothing.
Posted by: Graculus | February 8, 2007 9:00 PM
They are both important. Why didn't the question that was asked get answered? Why do people immidiatly assume he was wrong? The question he asked was a good question and he got a misleading answer.
They are not equally important. In fact, the question was not a 'good question'. Percentage by what measure? Percentage by mass? volume? relative absorbtivity?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | February 8, 2007 9:14 PM
She wanted him to ask a slightly different question because it has a more dramatic number and is a better quantifying question when you have a better understanding of the science. But why is she afraid of the numbers? why didn't she tell the truth?
In reality he asked a valid question and she gave him a PR answer. In a hearing he has a right to ask that question and get it answered.
The point is if the science is so sound why doesn't the scientist just tell the truth. In fact she is proving him right by having a preconceived agenda and answering the questions by trying to show the urgency that she is obviously feeling.
Posted by: John W. | February 8, 2007 10:45 PM
The problem I see with his question is that it isn't clear; it could be taken several different ways. It could be asking for the "directly caused by humans" part, or the "all human activities part", or it could be asking for the percentage of the delta in either of those.
That's the whole problem I see here: asking such a question open to various interpretations is obviously going to be problematic for a witness, and it's perfectly fair for them to clarify, as part of the answer, which question they think they're answering. You can call that dishonest if you like, but I really don't think so. If the witness clarifies in their answer what they think they're answering, it leaves open to the questioner the opportunity to clarify what it was they really wanted to know in a follow-up question. It's not like they can't take as long as they want.
So why was he pissed? Is it because he couldn't get the answer, or because he couldn't get it while asking a question open to subsequent reinterpretation?
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | February 8, 2007 11:39 PM
Here's a link I found:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
I'm not sure if someone has posted that site before. Figure 2 and the paragraph preceding it seem to point to what Mr. Rohrabacher is looking for. Basically it is stating that since humans are adding a positive increase over nature's typical balance, there is a cumulative effect year to year that has been building, and this is the cause.
The numbers aren't dramatic (they seem generally to be in the single digits, with partial points attached), so maybe this is why Ms. Solomon was stressing the anthropogenic aspect, rather than using hard figures. Figures sell well, and if people hear anything under say 15%, then the focus will be just on that number and not on the bigger picture. The point is that the effect has been building over time, not that a few percentage points within the last few years is the issue.
I'm just speculating though. I have no idea what Ms. Solomon did or did not know or what her intentions may have been. I will say that Rohrabacher loves to harp on specific details, rather than the total picture. That Fox story quoted him bringing up the volcano point again, which is one of the anti-GW hallmark "arguments".
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 9, 2007 12:13 AM
Q: What percentage of greenhouse gases are caused naturally rather than by human beings?
It is a pretty simple question the only unsure aspects are time frame and exactly what is meant by greenhouse gas. It is pretty obvious they meant CO2 as the general greenhouse gas because that is what is usually meant by the general public and she jumped to that conclusion as well.
For the time frame, If I asked:
"What percent of America is athiest rather then religious?"
and you answered that over the last 257 years over 90% of the increase in athiesm is from christian deniers. Does that answer the question that was asked?
The subsequent interpretation that she applied was to answer only about the increase over a random period of time.
Why would she jump to that strange interpretation?
She knew those numbers were very impressive and she was determined to make sure they were heard.
When someone asks a question without a timeframe included it always means currently, doesn't it?
Posted by: John W. | February 9, 2007 12:15 AM
Now you're dodging the question, John W. What percentage? Percentage by mass? Percentage by volume? Percentage by relative absorbtivity?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | February 9, 2007 12:20 AM
Look, she was able to give a percentage without clarifying it wasn't she? She only said 90%, what was she talking about? probably ppm just like almost everybody does when they speak of percents and AGW. She didn't even clarify if that 90% included any CO2 released by feedbacks or directly from humans. She just threw out a big number because it sounds good or actually it sounds really really bad (scary).
Posted by: John W. | February 9, 2007 12:52 AM
John W.,
what is the upper bound of percentage increase of absolute temperature that is predicted within the next 100 years?
And, is that number bad?
And, if I asked that same question, leaving out the word "absolute", would it change the answer, and would it leave the result open to subsequent misinterpretation?
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | February 9, 2007 1:42 AM
If you go with the upper limit of 6.4C I get about ~98% increase for absolute temperature and ~143% increase for temperature over the next 100 years.
They mean the same thing just different units and of course they are interpreted differently which is the point I am trying to make also.
Her answer was a selected number that leads to an obvious conclusion. I feel like that is what this whole 'debate' has broken down to simply the use of uncontexted numbers to scare or calm people. The issue is so polarized now that no side is trying to be fair about the numbers.
It supposed to be science. Is the number good or bad I don't know but you asked that question to show how easy it is to bias numbers, which is what I have been trying to point out.
Posted by: John W. | February 9, 2007 2:31 AM
She was being dishonest, of course.
Since her statement was true, she was not being dishonest, idiot.
I feel like that is what this whole 'debate' has broken down to simply the use of uncontexted numbers to scare or calm people. The issue is so polarized now that no side is trying to be fair about the numbers.
People who think there is a real controversy over global warming are the stupidest people on the planet, even more stupid than those who think there is a real controversy over evolution.
Posted by: truth machine | February 9, 2007 6:13 AM
Personally I think that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Comparing Climate and Evolution isn't even close to apples and oranges.
FYI, I was pointed over here from the GIFS (God is for suckers) blog. My personal leanings, I'm not a republican, not a democrat, complete atheist, but I think the science is NOT settled when it comes to global warming, or climate change if you prefer.
Are there stupid people on both sides of the argument? Certainly. Does that make a dissenting view invalid? No, nor does it make the "mainstream" view valid or invalid. I think we don't know enough to take ANY action. I AM convinced that CO2 just can't do what's being attributed to it. It's warming capability is absolutely trivial as compared to Water Vapor and Methane.
The computer models which come up with these predictions rely on CO2 warming triggering Water Vapor warming as an unmitigated positive feedback, and into a "runaway" greenhouse effect. If that were possible, it would have happened any time ANY warming had occurred (meaning warming is warming, there is nothing special about CO2 warming that it is the only thing which would cause water vapor warming). This also means it would happen in either hemisphere during the normal seasonal changes in temperature (which are TOTALLY driven off the angle of the sun hitting the earth).
I think a lot of important research is coming to light regarding cloud cover and how it is created and how it is influenced by solar irradiance and cosmic ray flux.
Another thing which throws grave doubt on the models, is the recent ocean cooling. They didn't predict that.
A question I also would like an answer to is: If climate models can only account for recent warming via increased CO2 and Water Vapor feedback, how would they account for previous warm periods such as the early part of the 20th century, the Medieval Warm Period, etc, where CO2 levels were more "normal"?
I'm willing to believe, folks, but all we have is circumstantial evidence. We get reports such as "Glaciers are melting = man-made warming". That's a tremendous logical leap to make.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 7:47 AM
Early warm periods were due to a mixture of factors such as solar output and orbital changes of the earth. But these have not been found to be operating just now to change the climate.
Posted by: guthrie | February 9, 2007 8:26 AM
Fascinating to see there are still some super-hardcore denialists carrying on even after Exxon Mobil, fer chrissakes, has given up the game. Guess they haven't gotten the memo yet that the recalcitrant industries whose propaganda they parrot have shifted tactics from denial to lobbying for the future carbon emission regulations, whose advent they now recognize to be inevitable, to treat them as favorably as possible.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 9, 2007 8:56 AM
We had orbital changes during the early-mid 20th century? I believe solar irradiance is higher than it has been in a long time, and graphs I've seen from peer-reviewed journals show that solar irradiance tracks extremely well with our best guess at global mean temperature. Better than CO2, especially during the 20th century where we had a cooling during the 50s 60s and 70s even though CO2 was still rising the entire time.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 9:05 AM
Fascinating to see there are still some super-hardcore denialists carrying on even after Exxon Mobil, fer chrissakes, has given up the game. Guess they haven't gotten the memo yet that the recalcitrant industries whose propaganda they parrot have shifted tactics from denial to lobbying for the future carbon emission regulations, whose advent they now recognize to be inevitable, to treat them as favorably as possible.
What does any of that have to do with science? ExxonMobil and many other companies are simply bowing to gestapo-like pressure, much like the above statement.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 9:07 AM
That's hilarious! If the response was true it wasn't dishonesty. Simply brilliant!
Remind me to call you on this the next time Bush responds to a question with a true non sequitur.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 9:13 AM
I see. You stand for truth and justice, whereas the actual experts from all over the world who serve on the IPCC are the Gestapo. Oooookey dokey. You know, there are medications that can help with such disorders.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 9, 2007 9:18 AM
Because I don't want you to give GIFS or atheists a bad name, I gotta shoot you down: You apparently base your lack of belief in global warming on what you see as defective computer modeling. I highly doubt you can make such claims as to their unreliability, unless you are an actual climatologist writing said models. I have actually worked on models that took into account all of the effects you cite and many, many more effects, in vastly complicated feedback and interaction scenarios, and do not rely on "triggering Water Vapor warming as an unmitigated positive feedback." And the ones I worked one were just a side show for the real modeling work. Are the global working climatological models a prefect reflection of reality? No. Are they the cumulative sum of the most advanced experts and knowledge in their respective fields and the best understanding of mankind? Yes, absolutely. Does all this, as well as the "circumstantial" evidence weigh in on the decision to believe? Yes. Failure to believe in CO2 induced global warming is either lack of acknowledgment of the evidence at hand, or unreasonably high demands of the hypothesis' probability of truth. I wont hold the latter against you, but the former is just plain ignorant.
Posted by: MLE | February 9, 2007 9:24 AM
This may seem like a silly idea, but...
Whether global climate change is happening or not, and whether it's caused by human activity or not, is largely irrelevent.
If global climate change is happening, and is related to the increase in CO2, let's find ways to decrease the emissions of CO2.
If global climate change is not happening, CO2 emissions are still pollution and something we should be concerned about elimiating.
It's, to some extent, a framing problem. If we call pollution a 'greenhouse gas' we can argue for decades about it's long term effects on the environment. If we call pollution 'pollution', there will be support to reduce it.
Show people the immediate benefits of reducing pollution through cleaner air and water and get the side benefit of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions.
Let talking heads argue over the results of large-scale climate models, and the polluters are going to continue to pollute.
Posted by: Flex | February 9, 2007 9:29 AM
I AM convinced that CO2 just can't do what's being attributed to it. It's warming capability is absolutely trivial as compared to Water Vapor and Methane.
Then you need to unconvince yourself. In the crucial upper part of the window for terrestrial black-body radiation, which is where the earth loses most heat to space, neither water vapor nor methane have substantial absorbtion. All three water vapor vibration modes are well above the main energy band of earth's thermal radiation, and water vapor's rotational absorbtion is much lower in energy and absorbtively saturated. The same goes for methane, with the additional caveat that methane's concentration is much lower.
Sheesh, guy, you think atmospheric physicists haven't thought this through? Or that your two-bit opinion is likely to be better than the work of someone who's spent a lifetime researching it? This is where the comparison with creationists is valid, IMO. It's the same 'hoo hoo hoo, here's something those stupid scientists haven't thought of' attitude.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | February 9, 2007 9:33 AM
I have no response to revenant's comments--I'm not a climate scientist--but I do have one for John. In discussions like this, I lose respect for someone who uses certain rhetorical games as you have done here, in particular "playing dumb" as you have. John, you know why Rohrbacher asked the specific question he did, and you know why Solomon gave the answer she did.
You accuse Solomon of seizing an opportunity to throw out a "scary number" thus inappropriately lobbying her side of the debate. I would argue that this is precisely what Rohrbacher was doing; that he sought to embarass the scientist by forcing her to state a less-relevant and "non-scary" number. I would further argue that Solomon's "trick" was much less dishonest than Rohrbacher's, and was largely defensive, having sensed what Rohrbacher was angling for.
You certainly may (as I think Revenant might) argue that the causes of the increase are not as Solomon claims, or that they are largely irrelevant because CO2 is not the bugbear most of us think it to be. As I said, I'm not a climate scientist (though I trust them at present). And I apologize if you truly don't see the trick I'm accusing you of. Nevertheless, I see it, and I have a very hard time believing you don't.
Posted by: rrt | February 9, 2007 9:36 AM
I see. You stand for truth and justice, whereas the actual experts from all over the world who serve on the IPCC are the Gestapo. Oooookey dokey. You know, there are medications that can help with such disorders.
I suppose i stand for truth and justice, but not subjective truth.
So, you think that all the scientists who too part in examining data for the IPCC agree with the Summary for Policymakers? That would be a grave mistake. There are many who have spoken out agains it. Those 2500+ scientists do not get to take part in the SPM, that's only a handful of scientists and bureaucrats. You're being spoon fed and you're accepting it. Haven't you noticed that the IPCC estimates have gotten less and less catastrophic data-wise, but not in wording? Why is that?
Sorry MLE, but I believe it's ignorant to think the science is settled, as it was thought in the 70s for global cooling. Just ask Schneider. I have no experience in modeling, so I can't answer any of those questions. I only know what I hear from scientists, some of which are modelers. The best estimates I hear are that we know about 10% of what there is to know about global climate, the rest is hypothetical guesswork. We don't even have an accurate measurement of global mean temperature. The margin of error is greater than the warming we've seen in the last 150 years. Am I wrong? Could be. I just think that solar activity better explains the warming we've seen than CO2 increase. Does that mean CO2 doesn't have an impact? No, it does. But it is not a primary driver of climate or temperature, there is simply no evidence of that.
And FYI, I do not deny climate change. I KNOW the climate is changing. If for some reason it STOPS changing, then we have something to be alarmed about.
Flex. It is a dangerous thing to call CO2 a pollutant, it is most definitely not.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 9:41 AM
The politician was almost certainly setting a trap - and by doing the obvious thing and trying to avoid it, the scientist fell right in it.
Being dishonest only gave him ammunition and an opening, whereas answering the question accurately would have led to the scientist being able to explain why the relative percentage of greenhouse gases isn't as important.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 9:46 AM
Funny how you fail to provide any arguments beyond bashing their religious faith (as you see it) and simple contradiction to counter Power Line, PZ. Yep. No need to actually prove why very cold weather here in the States and the Antarctic getting colder are actually proof of global warming.
Posted by: DSM | February 9, 2007 9:48 AM
Gerard wrote: Sheesh, guy, you think atmospheric physicists haven't thought this through? Or that your two-bit opinion is likely to be better than the work of someone who's spent a lifetime researching it? This is where the comparison with creationists is valid, IMO. It's the same 'hoo hoo hoo, here's something those stupid scientists haven't thought of' attitude.
I'm not stating my two-bit opinion, but research from climate scientists. Hasn't Richard Lindzen of MIT been researching this his whole life? How about Philip Stott? I know, you'll find a strawman or ad hominem to knock them down somehow, but that doesn't dimimish legitimate scientific research. I suppose those guys are just fringe lunatics.
That's fine, though, I expected to be attacked instead of having a reasonable debate. The comparison of creationism is just a cheap shot, trying to lump me in with religious morons. Won't work.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 9:48 AM
DSM wrote: Funny how you fail to provide any arguments beyond bashing their religious faith (as you see it) and simple contradiction to counter Power Line, PZ. Yep. No need to actually prove why very cold weather here in the States and the Antarctic getting colder are actually proof of global warming.
The funny thing is, I have no religious faith to bash! lol!
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 9:50 AM
Caledonian- this is indeed exactly the kind of trap defense attorneys try to set for expert witnesses and that naive or inexperienced witnesses may fall into. What you do in such a case is 1) answer the actual question asked, forthrightly (in court, the judge will insist on this); 2) sneak into your answer as much as you can get away with (which quite often is none) of context explaining why the question is misleading; 3) for the rest, rely on your prosecutor to bring out that context on redirect (if they're not competent enough to do so, too bad for them, not my problem.) In Congressional testimony it's the non-denialist members of the committee who should play the latter role.
Can't really blame Solomon too much, she's unlikely to have had much experience of this sort of game.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 9, 2007 9:53 AM
Lindzen's views are in the extreme minority in the climate science community. You'll practically never find 100% of the relevant scientists agreeing on almost anything. Dissent is a good thing- the consensus always could be wrong. But the reality is, that's a very rare occurrence, indeed vanishingly rare when the consensus is as strong and broad as it is on climate change. You'll lose not only your shirt but your whole wardrobe betting against those odds.
I second the suggestion made above that you spend some time on realclimate.org, including raising your questions on relevant comment threads there.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 9, 2007 9:58 AM
Gerard Harbison: "Sheesh, guy, you think atmospheric physicists haven't thought this through? Or that your two-bit opinion is likely to be better than the work of someone who's spent a lifetime researching it? This is where the comparison with creationists is valid, IMO. It's the same 'hoo hoo hoo, here's something those stupid scientists haven't thought of' attitude."
I couldn't have said it better. It drives me insane when non-scientists of any political stripe start asking questions that they think immediately unravel the theories and works of thousands of scientists worldwide. I don't visit the local brain surgeon weekly and incessantly probe him or her with a thousand "oh ya? what about this?!" questions in an attempt to uncover some sort of alleged and conspiratorial malpractice in their job.
We can keep bringing up such questions within the scope of these blogs and bicker back and forth about one fact or another, but the simple truth is almost none of us here really have anything close to a clue because we *are not doing the actual work*. Personally I'm inclined to trust people who work in the field every day, and work on the issues in an attempt to get them solved. I do not find it productive to spend my time researching a counter-argument just for the sake of doing so. Are there scientists that disagree with the GW stance? Of course. There are dissenters of all stripes on even the most conclusively proven things in our world. It doesn't mean they deserve instant credibility because they ARE dissenting.
And this gets to one of the serious, underlying psychoses of the conservative movement that I find most distressing: open distrust of everything and everyone that is not of the same reasoning. Seeing everything and everyone as a possible conspirator in a plot against your life is a very unhealthy way to live, and it sickens me that the right has been so successful at pushing this sort of reality-phobic mindset.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 9, 2007 10:00 AM
I don't think Lindzen's views are in as small a minority as you suggest. Especially since he has witnessed grant fund dry up for those who don't toe the alarmist line, and scientists who are afraid to speak up for the same reason, and fear of losing their jobs. No, you find it's the old stodgy ones who have nothing to lose who speak out, the youg guys tend to be more conservative in their approach. And many I would say are simply afraid of being ridiculed.
I think we can both agree that carbon taxes, credit trading schemes, etc will not do a thing to prevent global warming.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 10:03 AM
You may not think that, but you'd be wrong.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 9, 2007 10:05 AM
Wow, sure glad you know everything, Steve. Try spending some time at places OTHER than RealClimate and maybe you'd have a more balanced view.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 10:11 AM
Second Gerard Harbison and BlueIndependent! Revenant, if you want to continue to deny CO2 causes global warming, you need to go out and write your own climate model (including the never before thought of "angle of the sun hitting the earth" or the warming capability of water vapor) and show different results. But since you seem to think 90% of the models are guesswork anyways, indicating you don't understand how they are designed and validated and often run under a probabilistic, realization basis, I doubt you have the capacity. And make sure you include some never-done-before statistical analysis of the importance and sensitivity of the model parameterization against solar irradiance data so you can show us the "true" cause of global warming.
Posted by: MLE | February 9, 2007 10:16 AM
Revenant wrote, "Flex. It is a dangerous thing to call CO2 a pollutant, it is most definitely not."
From Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary;
Pollutant, n. Something that pollutes; especially a harmful chemical or waste material discharged into the water or atmosphere.
Or, for the meaning impaired;
Pollutant, ... a ... waste material discharged into the water or atmosphere.
Don't assume that I mean harmful when I don't. Harmful or not, I would rather not have waste materials discharged into the water or atmosphere. And I don't think I'm alone in that feeling. Urine is not a particularly harmful liquid, but if I pissed into your soup I would be polluting and I would expect you to be upset with me.
Posted by: Flex | February 9, 2007 10:20 AM
Irrespective of any of the comments above, I agree with the post. Powderline (misspelling intentional) is a political blog authored by lawyers who obviously have no education in science, and they are incompetent to opine on matters scientific.
Posted by: raj | February 9, 2007 10:28 AM
Way up at comment 44 we see a reference to ocean cooling, which has been popping up recently in GW skeptic argumentation. Revenant says it throws "grave doubt" on models of climate change. One thing it certainly does is introduce uncertainty into models of ocean temperature change. However, the cooling observed since 2003 is (so far) just a fraction of the overall warming observed over the last 50 years. On top of that, a short cooling period was observed in the early '80s. It lasted a few years. Interesting? Yes. Enough to cast grave doubts on the current view of climate change? Hardly.
Posted by: Comstock | February 9, 2007 10:37 AM
I'm not stating my two-bit opinion, but research from climate scientists. Hasn't Richard Lindzen of MIT been researching this his whole life
Lindzen is pretty careful about how he couches his criticism. His principal scorn is for the extreme models; he doesn't deny that AGW is occurring. Or at least he hasn't been denying it recently.
The difference is, Lindzen really is a skeptic; he can be convinced by evidence.
Anytime you want to discuss the scientific points I made, I'm ready to do so. By the way, I am a political conservative, who was a global warming skeptic for a long time. I maintain I still am, in the sense that I can be swayed by legitimate new data. But what I can't be swayed by is the kind of superficial, un-thought-through arguments dished up here.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | February 9, 2007 10:39 AM
The popularity of ideas like runaway greenhouse warming and 'methane fireballs' is driven by propagandists who seek to misrepresent scientific findings, and by clueless reporters who think every news article must include silly action movie elements. It serves only distract people from genuine dangers of global warming, such as precipitation changes, sea level rise, and, most importantly, the movement of crop regimes, which will force farmers to change crop varietals every few years, and will result in famine where appropriate crop varietals are not available.
Posted by: llewelly | February 9, 2007 11:11 AM
Ok folks, It's apparent all your minds are made up. I've already said I'm open to contrary evidence, which I see all the time on both sides, so which am I to believe?
I just can't help but feel we're being sold a bogus bill of goods. I mean, I have nothing to gain by denying AGW, nothing at all. But the alarmists have everything to gain by pushing this agenda. Is that a strawman? Perhaps, but I think it bears serious consideration.
I will check out some of the information above, specifically with respect to models and forcings. Thanks for that information.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 11:20 AM
From Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary;
Pollutant, n. Something that pollutes; especially a harmful chemical or waste material discharged into the water or atmosphere.
Or, for the meaning impaired;
Pollutant, ... a ... waste material discharged into the water or atmosphere.
Don't assume that I mean harmful when I don't. Harmful or not, I would rather not have waste materials discharged into the water or atmosphere. And I don't think I'm alone in that feeling. Urine is not a particularly harmful liquid, but if I pissed into your soup I would be polluting and I would expect you to be upset with me.
Well, in that case we'd better ban oxygen... "Waste material" is a relative term. Waste to us is food for some other form of life. If we classify CO2 as a pollutant, then it becomes illegal to breathe.
Posted by: Revenant | February 9, 2007 11:26 AM
"But the alarmists have everything to gain by pushing this agenda."
That may have some grain of truth to it, but think of how much more money there is in climate change denial.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 9, 2007 11:33 AM
The author to the article obviously does not understand basic science, let alone the advanced conepts involved with Global Warming. Global Warming will not turn the Earth into another Venus. It will make the weather patterns change as the Earth's ecosystem makes adjustments to attempt to compensate for changes in the Earth's atmosphere. So the prevailing scientific view (as I understand it) is that cold places will get colder, dry places will get drier, and wet places will get wetter. Seasons and weather will become more extreme, which includes extreme cold. It also includes extreme summers, which is when the icecaps melt. The concern is that more ice is melting in the summer than is being replaced in the winter. The process is accelerating as less and less heat energy is being reflected back to the Earth. I'd also like to remind the author that south of the equator, winter comes during Jun-Aug, just in case they think that it's the same south as it is north...Wait! You guys already know this...maybe I should teach a remedial class on global warming and invite the author to attend as my special guest...
Posted by: Screech | February 9, 2007 11:45 AM
Just a note about funding for climate change science. It's very hard right now for extreme climate change skeptics to get funding from the standard funding sources--for the perfectly good reason that they can't convince other scientists of their claims. However, they can get huge amounts of grants from ExxonMobil and other industry sources. Examples include Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, who have a hard time getting published in peer-reviewed journals or earning NSF funds, but have no problem getting energy-industry money.
Posted by: Craig | February 9, 2007 12:42 PM
Just in case no one has mentioned it yet, colder stratospheric Antarctic temperatures, the ones that exacerbate ozone depletion, are caused by global warming. One of the predictions of increasing GHG concentrations is that the stratosphere will cool, thanks to more heat being retained by the troposphere.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | February 9, 2007 12:45 PM
Revenant wrote, "If we classify CO2 as a pollutant, then it becomes illegal to breathe."
Tal