Newsweek has a good story on the global warming denial industry:
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
The Australian arm of the denial industry (e.g. Lavoisier, the IPA, the Australian and to a lesser extent the CIS) is documented in a new book High and Dry:
In this damning account, Liberal Party member, lobbyist and former Howard-government advisor Guy Pearse takes us behind the rhetoric he once helped write. He reveals that the government has no plans whatsoever to reduce Australia's emissions, and explains why this is bad for Australia's economy. He exposes a prime minister wilfully blind to Australia's real Interests - a man who has allowed climate change policy to be dictated by a small group of Australia's biggest polluters and the lobbyists they fund.
Yeah, I pattern what I do after the "tobacco industry". It couldn't be that I have reviewed the science and decided that we face no impending catastrophe.
For all the smoke and noise of the AGW campaign you have all of 0.06-0.8C of, so far benign, warmth to point to. I am not surprised that recent surveys have shown that people are beginning to tune you out. They have the ability to look up and see that the sky is NOT falling.
Of course the answer is louder and even more shrill propaganda. I wonder what you will turn to after Hansen's "ten year window" of doom closes? Maybe he'll claim that "aerosols" have given us another ten years to "repent" of our carbon sins.
It's a fact that several of the leading denialists used to work for the tobacco industry. You're not a leading denialist. You're not part of the "industry" being discussed in the article. The statement is true for those being discussed.
Nothing odd about that, since leading climatologists don't say we're facing an "impending catastrophe", but rather a *potential* catastrophe if we don't start taking steps to lower GHG gas emissions.
Not surprising to see you lie about what is being claimed, though.
Benign is arguable, we're already seeing large-scale changes in the biosphere due to warming.
And, of course, the problem is that warming will accelerate, and uptake of carbon by the oceans will slow, no matter what we do, something that a little basic physics makes clear.
This is simply a lie.
A man who claims to have a scientific background stating that peer-reviewed science is "shrill propaganda".
Precious.
dhogaza,
You throw that "lie" word around quite loosely. Here is a poll that shows that all the scaremongering is beginning to back fire.
BBC Tuesday, 3 July 2007, 00:25 GMT 01:25 UK
"The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found."
How about a little retraction? The poll sample may wrongly reflect the views of the public but calling me a liar is not supported by anything you have shown.
As for your claim that "large scale changes in the biosphere" is concerned, it depends on what you call large scale. Certainly biospheres change all the time. It is only in enviromentalists fantasy Gaialand that there is some mythical "static balance" of biospheres.
I also never said peer reviewed scince was "shrill propaganda". Surely you can tell a Newseek article from peer reviewed science. Or maybe not.
I wouldn't call you a liar yet, but you don't seem to be dealing with the issues surrounding the AGW debate in a very forthright way.
> exaggerated to make money
Yep.
Crichton
The movie industry, _Day_After_Tomorrow_
The TV industry, whatsisname the marxist libertribble with his video in Britan
How to profit? By setting up a straw man and filming yourself while knocking him down.
If it is proved anthropogenic beyond even unreasonable doubt, the next stage is to argue that the effects are beneficial.
The story is way overblown. There is a lot of money going into the pro GW story, a lot of organization and beauracracy and expensive overseas trips and faculty positions and the like.
Really, the story should have been written about how amateur the deniers are.
Stop getting so buttclacked about someone starting a site. That's the net.
TCO HAS SPOKEN!
TCO, did you know that STeveM over there at CA has labeled what you do as 'sui generis trolling' of his site?
"Yeah, I pattern what I do after the "tobacco industry". It couldn't be that I have reviewed the science and decided that we face no impending catastrophe."
Ever hear the expression "useful idiot"?
Ian, thats great. Certainly nothing intimidating about discussing something on the net... All opinions welcome here!
I really enjoy trolling and the attention it gets. But am trying not to be so vain. So am not responding to morons who whine about me.
OConeelC, are you familiar with the origin and meaning of the expression?
"Ever hear the expression "useful idiot"?"
Yeah, usually applied liberally to Hollywood Liberals.
I note with pleasure that the Newsweek piece was written by Sharon Begley, whose weekly science column in the Wall Street Journal was (until she changed jobs in March) one of the high points of that newspaper.
She could have written this article for the WSJ, if only her employers had assigned her the topic. I wonder why they didn't?
Yes, I've heard it before. Basically, you use it when you don't want to talk about what anyone is saying, so you attack them.
Lance, you wrote first:
"I am not surprised that recent surveys have shown that people are beginning to tune you out."
This is a claim of a trend over time. It's not possible to support this claim with a single data point.
You'd have to agree with TCO about CA where the latest fad is weather station chasing.
"Yes, I've heard it before. Basically, you use it when you don't want to talk about what anyone is saying, so you attack them."
No, I use it when someone says "I'M not funded by the coal industry" as a way of saying "True. But the people who you get your "facts' from are."
Incidentally, I must have missed the posts where you objected to JC's repeated personal abuse and Peter Bickle's accusations of deliberate fraud. Unless, that is, you apply a different standard to people who happen to agree with you.
You'd have to agree with TCO about CA where the latest fad is weather station chasing.
Holy cr*p. I haven't visited the fever swamp in a while (who has the time to waste?).
I guess we can see the new totem being built, in front of our eyes.
Gosh, I wonder what the temp issues are at each site...hmmm...we aren't measuring temps....hmmm...
Ah, well. We know how to address totems, don't we?
Best,
D
Ian, I guess we must be in the same boat. First, I apologize for not reading every post in every thread. Especially the one where you and JC spent several days calling each other poo poo heads. At a certain point, when you see who is writing, you start to skip over.
I also notice that you feel the same way. I see you were able to comment on the thread between dhogaza and I about the efficiency of mercenaries, but you missed him calling me names. Oh, you must have missed his post where he first called out someone else about calling names and then proceeded to call names at every opportunity. I even waited a bit before I called him out on it. I guess his hypocracy got to me. You are right. I shouldn't have bothered. Although, the number of names he has called me since has dropped a bit, so I can't say I am disappointed.
Maybe I shouldn't have called you out on it here, but it just seemed odd that in a thread where the theme seemed to be hypocracy, your first post would be to use the word "idiot" to describe someone who disagreed with you. Sorry.
Thanks to JBL for beating me to the punch.
Interesting that a "science guy" doesn't understand something so basic.
Classic strawman argumentation.
Most environmental activists don't argue that the biosphere is static. However, large scale deforestation (to pick an example) is far beyond the rate of change that forest ecosystems have, for the most part, evolved to respond to. Rate-of-change arguments underly most conservation concerns.
As far as the current rate of change being "benign", you're simply arguing by assertion, no data to back it up. We're seeing decoupling of prey/predator species reproduction cycles in the insect/bird world that has a lot of ornithologists and ecologists seriously concerned, for instance. That's just one for instance. You could spend the rest of your life reading what's already been observed in regards to warming-caused changes in the ecology of natural systems and not scratch the surface. And given that warming will accelerate ...
Of course, what I'm sure you mean to say is that since biological systems aren't static, and since extinction takes place regardless of human activities, then any level of extinction caused by human activity is OK. Sort of the "since people die every day, there's nothing wrong with murder" argument.
then ...
Given that Hansen's a scientist, not a Newsweek journalist, it's not clear that I'm the one with the recognition problem...
"There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found"
Oh, so they asked that, did they. "Do you agree that the problem has been exaggregated in order to secure funding?" Are you familiar with the term push-poll, Lance?
Well, no, I actually complained about JC ad hom'ing rather than respond to comments made by posters.
Well, such questions are useful if you're trying to measure the effectiveness of the denialist smear campaign.
Lance claims that people answer "yes" because "They have the ability to look up and see that the sky is NOT falling."
But one has to ask: why would a disbelief in global warming lead to the particular belief that scientists are exaggerating the problem in order to secure funding?
There's really no connection here.
On the other hand, we know for a fact that denialists have been repeating that lie loudly and repeatedly, and recently that lie was featured in "The Global Warming Swindle" shown on British TV.
So I read the poll as simply confirming the fact that the lie has taken root with many respondents, most of whom probably have no real notion as to how science works.
Lance has also missed something important: people might simultaneously agree that scientists exaggerate the problem in order to secure funding, and that the problem is real and problematic. There is nothing inherently contradictory in the two positions.
So his claim that people are starting to disbelieve the science isn't supported by the poll question/response he quotes in the first place.
Hi all
It's in Newsweek, it must be true then.
There is no point having reasoned debate with this lot as it is like talking to Johovahs Witnesses, 'it says that in the bible, so it must be true.' No wonder they call GW the new religion.
I am a denier if I must be called so. At least at CA the debate is based on observations, and questioning dodgy behaviour, not this shitsack of a site with the gall to call it scienceblogs, should be shitblogs.
Seen the latest crap climate measuring devices, another quality site, yeah right.
Regards
Peter Bickle
depp=true
notiz=[Disemvowelled by Tim]
Lance said, "For all the smoke and noise of the AGW campaign you have all of 0.06-0.8C of, so far benign, warmth to point to".
There's a bucketload of empirical evidence - if Lance bothered to look - showing that his 'benign' warmth is having a highly deleterious effect on a large range of ecological processes. This includes phenological effects on tightly linked interacting species in food webs,and other effects on fitness-related traits that are sure to reverberate through food webs in time. Moreover, since we are only able to study an infintisimally small percentage of actual interactions at the level of communities and ecosystems, there is no doubt that the situation is much more dramatic. The second major concern is that the large scale ecological systems do not instantaneously respond to changing climate: there is a temporal lag in the response of a generally deterministic system any kind of change that many not be manifested for decades or even centuries. Bob May and David Tilman referred to this as the 'extinction debt' in their Nature paper some years ago. Again, their argument is supported empirically.
The problem is that Lance, like the vast majority of humanity apparently, dispenses with the natural economy and his comment suggests that he thinks the laws of nature do not apply to us. In other words, humans can continue with a slash-and-burn approach to the biosphere with little consequence for the material economy.
Aside from my research, I have spent the better part of the past ten years countering sycophantic statements like that made by Lance here on the virtues of 'benign warmth'. Forget the growing evidence that the rate of climate change - unprecedented in perhaps several hundred thousand years or more, and occurring against a background of a suite of other human-induced stresses inflicted on already simplified systems - is having serious consequences on the functioning and stability of food webs and ecosystems. Forget the lag effects of change. Make scientifically vacuous statements and then ride them out.
I find the whole exercise exasperating, because when one argument distorting science and promoting the status quo is vanquished, another ten are instantly made and promoted by those with a vested interest in denial. This explains why the denial lobby - a very small subset of the scientific community - has made such political gains. They are being given a metaphoric megaphone to distort the science that those sponsoring them hate. This explains why I am often confronted with lance-like statements from the general public. The corporate-state mainstream media are doing their best to make the whole aspect of climate change appear as if it is embroiled in controversy. This sells; consensus doesn't. Moreover, the denialists don't need to win the scientific debate; all they need to do is to sow enough doubt amongst the public as to render any action to mitigate AGW mute.
Thus, when I read a statement as blase as Lance's 'benign warmth', and coming freom someone who claims to be a scientist, I realize how much there is to be done to reliably inform the public on the causes and consequences of climate change. This is a herculean task.
Has anyone complaining about the bias in the poll actually tried to go out and find it and just see what the questions really were?
"Oh, you must have missed his post where he first called out someone else about calling names and then proceeded to call names at every opportunity."
I didn't miss it but I'm not the person who in this thread is going "Oh Ian you mustn't call people names".
"your first post would be to use the word "idiot" to describe someone who disagreed with you. Sorry."
No I called himm a "useful idiot", a term used by cynical Russian communists to describe well-meaning but naive westerners who'd been taken in by Soviet propaganda.
Prominent examples include Bertrand Russell and HG Wells, neither of whom were exactly idiots in the common sense.
Here is a question fron the Ipsos poll that didn't get a lot of attention or emphasis from the press:
Another wee tibbit from that Ipsos-Mori poll:
"The government should take the lead in combating climate change, even if it means using the law to change people's behaviour"
Strongly agree: 27%
Tend to agree: 43%
Ya didn't pick that up, did ya Lance.
"Has anyone complaining about the bias in the poll actually tried to go out and find it and just see what the questions really were?"
Yes. And, frankly, the BBC buried the lede. That 70% of people in the UK want the gubmint to enforce changes in behaviour is a bigger deal than 56% thinking that some experts question AGW. It suggests that people know our knowledge is contingent, but understand that the uncertainty doesn't mena there is no risk.
Thanks to the magic of google, the question was:
"Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change"
It's a badly worded question: "Many leading experts" is a pretty vague term.
Heck, if you throw in a "significantly contributing", I'd agree with it, because while I don't agree with Lindzen, Christy and Spencer, I'd still have to call them "leading experts". But while there might be a eight or dozen or so of them (hence 'many'), I'd have no problem saying that they're still a tiny minority of experts in the field.
URL for sample results from the survey:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2007/climatechange.shtml
Sock Puppet, thank you. I'm reminded of a previous post where two poeple just kept making statements about the size of government revenues, with neither interested in just posting a source for their information.
Lance: "I am not surprised that recent surveys have shown that people are beginning to tune you out."
JBL: "This is a claim of a trend over time. It's not possible to support this claim with a single data point."
Lance talks about the science allegedly not supporting global warming, and then switches to polls - but not polls of the relevant scientists.
And, as it turns out, a poll that directly refutes his statement.
Funny!
Ian, I understand. You consider yourself the equivalent of a Russian communist and Lance is someone you have fooled into believing your propaganda.
oconnelc,
Might I suggest you leave the subtleties of irony to those with a defter touch, and stick to your role as courtesy monitor.
I told Steve that he should use some of the Exxon travel grant money and go to the Beijing conference on statistics in climate. ;-)
OT: Milloy issues a challenge. Anyone up for it?
Is it true what Eli is saying about Climate Audit moving onto Science Blogs?
Was surprised to see that as SB seems to have a pretty left lean and CA the reverse. But it makes a lot of sense financially.
You guys seen the film the great global warming swindle on bbc?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
seen hiv fact or fraud?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916
Grab some popcorn and enjoy some free movies with the whole family!lol
Regarding Milloy's contest:
In other words Milloy gets to say "no, you didn't win because I say so" for any reason whatsoever.
Valid point JBL. I'm currently gleening the long list of past polls showing how concerned people are over AGW. Of course I am trying to limit my list to ones that are of the British populous and are similar to the one in question.
As for being a "useful idiot", well at least it's nice to be useful.
Jeff, even if the observed warming is real and not an artifact of the data your remorseful recounting of the fragility of natural ecosystems is incoherent.
If the increase is due to natural causes it is just so much sentimental claptrap on your part. Even if we are soley responsible for the heat and even if it's going to increase in the future I have news for you biology boy. We are PART of the ecosystem. Any actions we take are part of our evolutionary adaptation to our environment and are by definition "natural".
Jeffy, have you had a look at the fossil record lately? Look back, Oh say twenty million years, merely a few pages in the long evolutionary history of our little blue world. Look around Harvey, see many species that you recognize? No? Well that's because the ones here today adapted better to the conditions in thier ecosystems and pushed the others into extinction.
Now, will our CO2 emmissions push humans into extinction? Hardly, we survived the last ice age with stone age technology. Will it cause a large scale collapse of the ecosystems around us? There is little evidence of that either, despite your whining.
So back off Harvey and go count butterflies or whaterver it is you do in your "research". The planet will be fine.
hmmm...
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
The contest seems like a parody, actually. It simply says "no amount of evidence can win this contest".
These things can't be measured for today's world, much less 2100.
It's got to be a joke.
Oh, this is so comforting to those who realize that our industrial society is only a couple hundred years old.
Twenty-million year timescales are SO relevant.
I think comments of this sort pretty much put an end to whatever claim to credibility you might have had left.
I second dhogazas comment. Lance, you've just lost any last shred of thought I had that you might be intelligent. After all, if we are so natural, there is no reason at all to assume we will be around in the next 20 million years, let alone the next 200.
Global warming is to atheists what the the "Left Behind" series is to Christians.
Christians tell me I can save myself by believing in a man or idea. Atheists tell me I can save myself or future generations by believing in man made problem. Weird.
Um, right. What journal was Left Behind published in, again?
Lance says:
"Jeffy, have you had a look at the fossil record lately? Look back, Oh say twenty million years, merely a few pages in the long evolutionary history of our little blue world. Look around Harvey, see many species that you recognize? No? Well that's because the ones here today adapted better to the conditions in thier ecosystems and pushed the others into extinction."
Is this supposed to be somehow comforting?
A fossil record of extinctions, many caused by inability to adapt to changing environment, tells us that we don't need to worry that we are causing rapid changes in environment to something outside that we evolved in, built our civilizations in, in which the ecosystem services we are dependent upon evolved?
Yes, extinction is' natural.' So is social collapse due to loss of ecosystem services - lots of examples in human history of the latter. The fact that these are 'natural' does not mean I'm willing to blithely accept an increased probability of them happening. Rather the opposite, in fact.
re 45, dhogaza.
lance said "the planet will be fine." He is in fact precisely correct - global warming ain't gonna harm the planet at all. Long term, it wont even harm life on the planet. The planet doesn't give a damn if we humans, our civilizations and cultures, or the ecosystem services upon which we are dependent, are around. Not one whit. So the planet will remain fine even if we aren't. It's nature, dude.
So, what's your problem, dude? Got something against nature? When its time for our cultures and civilizations to take a hit, just get with the program and let it happen - the planet doesn't give a shit, and will be fine.
/sarcasm (in case it wasn't obvious enough for some readers)
The postmodernists seem to have been right after all. The foundational principle of scientific method is "He who shouts loudest wins the debate."
dhogaza, you AGW believers are the ones claiming that we need to stop producing CO2 to "save the planet". So pardon me for pointing out that the planet doesn't need saving.
Now Lee (thank you for using a capital letter to start your name) claims that man made CO2 will lead to "social collapse due to loss of ecosystem services". Uh, care to show some evidence of that?
So far AGW theory has just given those looking to blame western industrialized countries for all their problems a good scapegoat. Note the recent proclamation by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that climate change was the real "underlying" cause of the conflict in Darfur. My wife is from neighboring Ethiopia and people who live in the region are quite aware of the actual cause of the genocide in the region and it aint my sports car.
As usual all you have is unsupported, over-heated doomsday scenarios.
As I said before 0.6-0.8C over a one hundred year time scale is nothing to get panicky about. Jeff is either purposely obtuse or deceptive with his claim of "growing evidence that the rate of climate change - (is) unprecedented in perhaps several hundred thousand years or more". To be fair he didn't say "credible" evidence.
Here's a little tid bit for you carbo-phobes to chew on. The average temperature of the planet, accepting for the moment that there is reliable data for such a thing, has not moved upward for ten years. The CO2 level has kept right on increasing. Why no new warming? Let me guess...
hotdogza - "Don't you know that aerosols can mask whatever warming we decide is missing whenever we need it to, you cretin!"
gutterweed- "Don't be an imbecile! Ten years is not enough of a sample to establish a trend. You need 30 years, starting and ending where we choose, to make a sensible statement about a climate system that has been around for 4 billion years."
I can hardly wait.
Traffic cops are to speeding cars as Jason is to bad analogies.
Traffic cops say that running out in front of a speeding car might hurt me, and Jason says that's 'weird'.
Lance says:
"Now Lee (thank you for using a capital letter to start your name) claims that man made CO2 will lead to "social collapse due to loss of ecosystem services". Uh, care to show some evidence of that?"
Perhaps you could take a boat trip through Australia's breadbasket up the Murray River to see for yourself.
Oops! That's right, you can't. There's not enough water for boats anymore.
Lance,
Since when did "an increased probability" (me in 49) come to mean "will lead to" (Lance in 52)?
If you're trying to salvage your credibility, you might want to wait more than 3 posts after they said it, before badly and blatantly misrepresenting what someone has said.
I wonder if Steve's recent useful work with Hansen was part of Tim's decision to push for Climate Audit to be part of Science Blogs...
Lance,
Lance,
I'm extremely interested in what you do to be so dismissive of people who "count butterflies" or pursue other "research".
Lance told us he was a scientist, does anyone still believe he was telling the truth?
Lance:
Um, not save the planet, but to minimize very costly and painful adjustments in human society.
And I'm not an "AGW believer". I am someone who has a bit of faith in scientific research.
dopey:
Of course not. I don't know if that was his first lie, but it's his biggest lie.
Though this lie is a bit of a draw-dropper:
Lance, do you really think posting lies does anything but make you look like an idiot?
Oh, wait, oconnellc is going to whine that I'm being impolite again.
Oh, I get it. If a politician references science in a way that you disapprove of, then the science itself is false.
In other words, we know that evolutionary biology is a load of hooey because Hitler made vague references to "survival of the fittest" and the like in his racist rants.
The quality of your logic is impressive.
Looks like a lot of paving, a/c unit installation, and veg cover growing has been going on in the last twelve months, because those AGW whackos have successfully falsified a bunch of data again:
If the commie AGW conspiracy forces manage to bias so many temperature recording stations in such a small amount of time, oh my oh my, those poor photographers trying to document increasing bias won't be able to keep up.
"The average temperature of the planet, accepting for the moment that there is reliable data for such a thing, has not moved upward for ten years."
The 14-year average has moved up every year without fail since 1976. Shorter term averages are affected by short term phenomena such as El Nino.
Lance has exposed his ignorance of population ecology, littered with the usual pedantic insults and jibes. But I experience this crap all of the time from lay naysayers. First of all, the biosphere is not a single ecosystem but consists of a huge number of interacting and non-interacting ecosystems over variable spatial and temporal scales, including largely anthopogenic ones. Before Lance mouths off he should at least learn some basic ecology; his rant was of grade school level science.
First of all, nowhere did I say that ecosystems are fragile. Clearly they must be pretty robust to have withstood the human assault thus far: humans have plouged, paved, dammed, dredged, burned, logged, doused in synthetic chemicals, biologically homogenized, eutrophicated and otherwise simplifed natural ecosystems to a great extent. There's no doubt this has resulted in the loss of genetic diversity of populations and has kick started a major extinction episode, although thus far the effects on the material economy have not been significant. But clearly your physics brain exhibits the same kind of ecological lag effects that I discussed yesterday. The effects of human-induced simplification are not instantaneous but will be delayed. Thus we have no idea what the current effects of human actions on nature will be, given that changes in the functioning of systems (e.g. climate control, nutrient cycling etc) are probably the result of human-induced changes carried out several decades ago. The prognosis is therefore not good.
More importantly, what might not be so robust though are a critical range of ecosystem services that sustain humanity. I have discussed this dozens of times in related threads and if Lance had even a shred of scientific credibility he would understand how important these services are. Princeton ecologist Simon Levin makes the point in his seminal book, 'Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons' (1999) which I reviewed for Nature. Effectively, given our understanding of the factors underpinning the functioning of complex systems is quite rudimetnary, we have very little idea how far we can simplify natural systems before these systems fail to deliver a critical range of ecosystem services: water purification, mitigation of floods and droughts, pollination, renewal of the atmosphere, nutrient cycling, maintenance of soil fertility etc. This is the crux of the matter. We know, for instance, that clam beds in Chesapeake Bay were once so extensive that they could filter (e.g. purify) the bay in a single week, but due to pollution and over-harvesting the beds have been reduced and they take more than a year to perform this vital function. We know that an anole lizards in the Caribbean Islands are vital in controlling insect pests of cocoa, bananas and coffee; a study conducted in the 1990's concluded that only a 1% drop in the lizard population would cost the local economies more than half a million dollars due to increased pest damage. The material economy is littered with natural subsidies of this kind, that are effectively worth trillions of dollars. And we also know that as human continue to simplify nature, the cost rebounds on us. The final price of this will be staggering.
Basically, Lance's point is that, because humans are part of nature, any human-induced changes constitute some natural evolutionary process. This is pure claptrap. I find it embarrassing to have to answer it, but I will. Basically, if any organism undermines and destroys its own life-support systems, that is not even vaguely a 'natural evolutionary process', but effectively 'maladaptive suicide'. This is exactly what humans are doing: effectively conducting a one-off experiment on systems of unimaginable complexity whose functioning we barely understand but which we know provide conditions that permit us to exist and to persist. Lance's arguments, if one may call them that, underpin the human condition: our species is simply not genetically programmed to respond to what we perceive as gradual, incipient change. We are programmed to respond to instantaneous threats: an earthquake, a bear crossing our path, etc. But we have difficulty responding to changes that occur over the course of our lifespans (e.g. 80 years) which we perceive as gradual. But the current rate of climate change, combined with a suite other rapid anthrpogenic changes, are occurring at rates that are unprecedented in many millions of years. These changes are stressing natural systems in multiple ways, and at rates well beyond the capacity of species and populations to adapt. The consequences on the functioning of larege scale systems - which are, of course made up of communities, populations, and individuals - is likely to be significant. And it is rebounding on us (and will continue to do so at an accelerated pace).
"Ian, I understand. You consider yourself the equivalent of a Russian communist and Lance is someone you have fooled into believing your propaganda."
No I believe that Lance, and you are repeating as fact lies that have been planted in various news media by people paid by the coal and oil industries.
If you are so sure that humans are respnsible for global warming, then here is your chance to prove it and make a lot of money!
http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/ prove what you believe or.....
fred,
I'll give you one BILLION dollars if you can prove global warming is not caused by humans. It's the Ultimate Denialist Challenge (UDC).
Entrants acknowledge that the concepts and terms mentioned and referred to in the UDC hypotheses are inherently and necessarily vague, and involve subjective judgment. Boris reserves the exclusive right to determine the meaning and application of such concepts and terms in order to facilitate the purpose of the contest.
If you are so sure, you can prove it and make some money too.
Good luck!
Oh, and don't forget your $15 fee :)
Actually, I'm wondering if Milloy's little contest is legal. He's charging $15 for a contest that can't be won. Anyone know anything about contest law?
Boris, don't forget that having proven absolutely and 100% (not that namby-pamby socialistic 99% proof accepted by IPCC) than greenhouse gas emissions cause warming to the satisfaction of the eminently fair and neutral folks at junkscience.com you then also have to prove to the same degree of certainty that such warming will result in net negative economic and ebvironmental effects.
Jeff, you seem to enjoy filling paragraphs with irrelevant drivel. Your whole argument is nothing more than a weak manifestation of the "precautionary principle". You meander through woeful examples of man's interference with the grand balance of nature and then chidingly proclaim "our species is simply not genetically programmed to respond to what we perceive as gradual, incipient change".
You of course have somehow risen above our genetic limitations to sound the clarion call to save us from ourselves. Thanks ever so much.
Despite your attempt to cloud the issue with anole lizards and Chesapeake clam beds it is really quite simple. Either CO2 from human caused emissions is causing the atmosphere to warm to dangerous levels or it isn't.
I, and many other scientists, do not see evidence to support this contention. It is just that simple. Now were ceasing emissions of CO2 a net zero sum gain I would happily agree to the measures being proposed as solutions to our carbon "problem". Quite clearly they are not.
The standard of living and life expectancy of the western industrialized world has risen to levels unprecedented in human history. The rest of the world is well aware of the advantages of our modern energy driven lifestyle and is rightfully interested in emulating our successful strategies.
At the present fossil fuels are the predominant energy source of these economies. To reduce CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels would require draconian, government imposed restrictions that would have profound effects on those economies. To claim otherwise is either naive or dishonest.
I have family in Africa and have traveled there many times. Clean drinking water and other basic necessities of life are not available to the majority of the people of that continent. They rightfully envy our quality of life and are working to install the infrastructure and other engines of economic vitality that have provided industrialized countries the many advantages they enjoy.
China is now the leading producer of CO2 in the world. They are not going to easily give up the modern advances made possible by energy intensive industries and utilities.
You, and others, have arrogantly positioned yourself as enlightened saviors of humanity and indeed all of the earth's flora and fauna. Like you I studied zoology before pursuing a career in physics. I am not indifferent to the creatures that share this planet with us. I do not want to live in some industrial waste land. However, CO2 is not as industrial pollutant no matter how you and other misanthropic zealots try to represent it.
There is simply no convincing evidence that the world faces catastrophic warming. Your attempts to obfuscate the issue and smear me don't change that fundamental issue.
You haven't even given me the courtesy of replying to me directly. Rather, you cowardly prefer to belittle me in the third person. If you have any compelling evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is going to lead to devastating consequences I'd be glad to evaluate it.
You have presented only naked unsupported assertions, irrelevant asides, and personal attacks. Sadly this is what I have come to expect in these encounters.
Lance, its clear to me that I might as well be arguing with a brick wall. You are one of those whom Paul Ehrlich described a few years ago who, after jumping off a 100 story building, falls 70 floors, looks up and says 'everything's fine'! You just cannot see the delayed link between cause and effect.
Moreover, I belittled you because your last response was, quite frankly, childish, ignorant and rude. Talk about calling the kettle black, suggesting I am smearing you. As a senior scientist with considerable experience in my field of endeavor, I think that this kind of response deserved a riposte in kind. Jibes like 'Jeffy', 'Biology Boy' and 'go count butterflies or whaterver it is you do in your "research", pretty well finished off any credibility you might have had.
Furthermore, you just don't understand non-linear complex systems so you dispense with any notion that our existence hinges on them. You describe my post as 'drivel' because you do not fathom the link between human welfare and a huge range of provisioning services that emerge from nature and make the material economy (and the unprecedented wealth of 15% of the world's population) a possibility.
You write mimbo jumbo like:
"The standard of living and life expectancy of the western industrialized world has risen to levels unprecedented in human history. The rest of the world is well aware of the advantages of our modern energy driven lifestyle and is rightfully interested in emulating our successful strategies".
The statement is correct but it totally fails to address the political and environmental consequences of this disparity. Our species arrived on the scene when natural systems provided a bounty of biological and non-biological resources but, thanks to technology and the overconsumptive habits of the privileged few, we spend it as if there is no tomorrow. Every important ecological indicator is in decline: deep rich agricultural soils, fossil age groundwater supplies, and biodiversity are being lost far faster than they are being replaced as a result of human activities. Climate change is likely to be the final nail in the coffin simply because it is synergised with a number of other anthropogenic stresses.
As far as Africa is concerned, I suggest you read economist Patrick Bond's book, "Looting Africa", because it nakedly exposes the lies behind the west's so-called altruism to the continent. I've spent three months in Africa since 2004, and its clear to me that western foregin policy is more about pludering the resources of the continent and less about creating social justice. When planners like the late George Kennan argued that the US should embrace policies maintaining wealth disparity between the have's and have-not's, using straight power concepts, he was more than hinting of the real western policies, which have always been about theft and occupation.
Whether you like it or not, there is considerable evidence that climate change is going to have a huge and potentially catastrophic effect on many of the planet's ecosystems and their inhabitants. Just because you don't understand the ecological effects and mechanisms does not mean that it isn't so.
We are lucky that no one is proposng cutting emissions to pre-industrial levels. That was a close one.
CO2 is a pollutant in enough quanitity that it creates an undesirable effect, such as its current atmospheric concentration wrt warming. Ever heard of light pollution or noise pollution or thermal pollution?
Lance, one last point: I don't hide behind a pseudonym. I'd like to know who you are, and where you do research. Or is this too much to ask? Moreover, your initial response in this thread - a dig at James Hansen - sheds more light on the hypocrisy of your last post.
"#25Lance said, "For all the smoke and noise of the AGW campaign you have all of 0.06-0.8C of, so far benign, warmth to point to"."
Benign? Don't you people live in Australia?
Science is probably the "somehow"; much of scientific methodology is designed to work around cognitive biases of various sorts.
Well, that really depends on what one means by "catastrophic". No-one here is speaking of extinction, and Lee spoke only of an "increased probability" of social collapse. Does an increase in famines and genocides count as "catastrophic"? How about more intense hurricanes? Likewise, there is a large range of mitigation strategies between doing nothing and reducing CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels.
Speaking of naked unsupported assertions, have you found any evidence yet that "people are beginning to tune [us] out" or that "the average temperature of the planet, ... has not moved upward for ten years"?
There's a cure for intellectual blindness.
It's called education.
You show no sign that you know squat about climatology, even the basic physical underpinnings which is pretty amazing since it's simple physics, and you claim to be a research physicist.
Which no one believes at this point.
Oh, I get it ... I need to trade in my fuel-efficient small car for a hummer, stop working from home and commute daily to work, and otherwise increase my carbon footprint in order to increase clean drinking water in Africa...
Here we see Lance parroting a typical denialist talking point (Christie uses it himself, though his variant starts "as a baptist who's done missionary work in Africa...").
Lance, do you have an original thought in your head?
The "possibility" that industrialization caused CO2 emissions leads to harmful global warming implies we should reduce fossil fuel use. The "possibility" that we are running out of oil implies we should reduce fossil fuel use. The "possibility" that we are setting ourselves up to being blackmailed by regimes in the Middle East by being dependent on their oil implies we should reduce fossil fuel use (or at least oil use). One could go on.
Jeff,
Thanks for at least addressing me directly. Lance is my real name and while I would prefer to openly identify myself I think that you can understand, from the hostility of many of the responses to my post, that I prefer to remain somewhat anonymous.
If you would care to correspond directly, and would agree to keep it private, I would be glad to email you from my university email.
I have a BS in physics and am currently completing my PhD in physics. My research is in Electron Spin Resonance of biological dynamics and the conformation of macromolecules in liquid solutions.
Of course who I am is not the point. Unless you are just looking to impress the fan boys in here with a "my credentials are more impressive than yours" argument.
As for your argument, again it appears that you continue to argue that the consequences of AGW are so dangerous to the biological systems that support human life that we should take action. What action you don't specify.
You presuppose the existence of AGW, while making only snide remarks like, "Whether you like it or not, there is considerable evidence that climate change is going to have a huge and potentially catastrophic effect on many of the planet's ecosystems and their inhabitants" to back up your claim.
I have reviewed what is usually presented as "considerable evidence" and "whether you like it or not" have found it unconvincing.
As for the "hypocrisy" of my "dig" at James Hansen, I merely referred to his quite public remarks that we have only a ten year window to avoid catastrophic climate change. When that time frame passes without substantive decreases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which looks to be inevitable, and there are no "catastrophic" consequences I, and others, will make sure that Hansen is held accountable for this scaremongering.
BTW "held accounatble" meaning pointing out that he was very very wrong. Of course the beauty of AGW is that you can always argue that the consequences are still in the future. I only hope to live long enough to come back in here someday and give many of you a hearty "I told you so."
Whomever,
Hey, if you have another readily available and economical fuel source let me. I have no pemotional attachment to petroleum.
Umm, Lance, Jeff "presupposes" the existence of global warming because that is what the science says. No handwaving you do will get away from this point. Pretending at this stage that the issue is not settled is foolish, especially, as has been pointed out, when you don't seem to know anything about the science.
Or to put it another way- you can patronise me all you like when you catch me speaking junk about electron spin resonance. But you won't find me doing so, because I'll have read up on it first before opening my mouth.
This would be an excellent time for Lance to tell us
1. what sources he's reviewed
2. his specific disagreements with the scientific case that's made in those cases
Since Lance claims to be a scientist, I would hope the quality of his disagreements go beyond "people in africa need to drive hummers in order to improve their lifestyle".
Thus far, all I've seen is handwaving. "The evidence doesn't satisfy me", no specifics.
Along with some very basic misunderstandings of the importance of healthy environmental systems.
A PhD in "spin" does seem useful for a science denialist, I must say ...
Here's some of the easy stuff available on the effects of the warming:
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/07/how_global_warming_disrupts_bi_1…
A scienceblogs post on the effects the increasing temps have on plants and animals.
This is a nice simple thing to make you think:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6200114.stm
Note where wheat production is forecast to be by 2050- i.e. within your lifetime. The small problem with this is that the soil in Canada is poor and thin, seeing as it is the Canadian shield, the source of much of the sedimentary rocks here in Scotland. So, if it affects the Wheat that much, think about all the other plants.
Lance,
Google Enhanced Geothermal Systems.
There are lots of energy efficiencies that can make a difference at the same time as they create new entrepreneurial opportunities. Green building methods, solar, tidal and wind power, personal rapid transit systems, etc., etc., etc. If government policies are chosen that prime the pump as they have historically done for things like rural electrification, air transport and the internet, then totalitarian tendencies and threats of war due to finite constraints on resources can be avoided.
The notion that AGW amelioration implies economic destruction is as facile as the notion that the possible rise in average global temperatures of >6C if business as usual policies continue do not.
dhogaza,
Do you really expect me to recount every paper I have ever read on climate change and then go about laying out my objections to each one?
Here's a better idea. Why don't you point out one or two that you feel make the strongest case that 1) Anthropogenic CO2 is going to significanlty heat the planet's atmosphere and 2) the resulting heat will cause dire consequences.
I'll review them,if I haven't already, and present my critque in a short annotated essay. Would that satisfy you, or were you just trying to score rhetorical points?
some references for Lance:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/08/02/simple-model-of-greenhouse-gases/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-i…
and comment 24 by Barton Paul Levenson.
Anything by Tamino: eg open mind
http://tamino.wordpress.com/
Chapter 2 of IPCC AR4 WG1
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
global warming art is also nice. Mauna Loa, ice ages, and more.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/
wikipedia's global warming article is good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Climate change page Royal Society
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278
Well ... yes. Why not? I can't imagine it will take you long.
God only knows why Lance is bothering to study for his PhD to become a scientist and some day contribute something to physics when he knows everything about everything already. It's a little difficult actually to believe that his professors look forward each morning to having him arrive at school to lecture them on all that science outside their own field that he is so expert about. Enough of the small talk though, I hereby prophesy that Lance with anywhere near his present degree of smugness, disrespect for others and self-delusion will never make any worthwhile contribution to his present or any other scientific field of enquiry.
"Here's a better idea. Why don't you point out one or two that you feel make the strongest case that 1) Anthropogenic CO2 is going to significanlty heat the planet's atmosphere and 2) the resulting heat will cause dire consequences."
Jeezus. God knows how many papers in like 20 distinct fields, everything from quantum effects on IR absorbtion of CO2 at differing pressures to spread of disease vectors into new territories all pointing to a single unifying hypothesis which just happens to not only predict climate quite well over the past two decades, not only have no other model which predicts climate for the past two decades with even the most remote degree of accuracy; but also meets Occam's Razor in terms of parsimony and needing the minimum number of handwaving unknown factor acts of God compared to all the other "hypotheses"; and you ask which one or two make the strongest case?
Tell ya what. Pick out the one or two papers that make the strongest case that gravity exists, and then I'll see how well you have proved it.
"Hey, if you have another readily available and economical fuel source let me."
Well, there's that old standby fuel, insulation. And the new miracle fuel, dontdriveabigfuggintwotontruckium.
"The standard of living and life expectancy of the western industrialized world has risen to levels unprecedented in human history. The rest of the world is well aware of the advantages of our modern energy driven lifestyle and is rightfully interested in emulating our successful strategies".
-(Great)^n grandfather, explaining why it would be a grievous error to attempt to prevent humans from defecating in the drinking water.
"The standard of living and life expectancy of the western industrialized world has risen to levels unprecedented in human history. The rest of the world is well aware of the advantages of our modern energy driven lifestyle and is rightfully interested in emulating our successful strategies".
-Greatgrandfather, explaining why it would be a grievous error to reduce the amount of horseshit dropped into the streets by modern transportation.
"The standard of living and life expectancy of the western industrialized world has risen to levels unprecedented in human history. The rest of the world is well aware of the advantages of our modern energy driven lifestyle and is rightfully interested in emulating our successful strategies".
-Grandfather, explaining why it would be a grievous error to attempt to reduce the amount of choking, sooty smoke from coal burning spewed into the air every day.
etc.
"One could go on."
You mean, like the possibility that by increasing the efficiency of our fuel use, we will not only save enough money to pay for the investment required, but extend the twilight of fossil fuel technologies and the slope of the brick wall we do hit; not to mention getting a head start on the big selling technologies of tomorrow for once, rather than becoming the last purveyors of highly refined buggy whips in the world?
Naw; I figure it's like this; if only we could disprove this global warming thing, then fossil fuels will provide us with clean, cheap energy derived from sources controlled by democratic, friendly nations, until the end of time.
re 88
the size of the talk page is telling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming
Denial, people who claimed that they were expirementing on blacks during the tuskegee expirement were called "conspiracy nuts"
Anyways here is a link for the film Loose Change, the most watched movie ever on the internet about a 9/11 conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
youll can also have a good time reading about the mycoplasma incognitus biowarfare testing program. Dr shyh ching Lo published much on this, it killed every animal injected (this doesnt happen in hiv) and was found by pcr in GWI/CFS/aids. A book revealing the massive testing program uncovered by Dr garth/nancy Nicolson.
http://www.projectdaylily.com/
Lance wrote in #80: "As for the 'hypocrisy' of my 'dig' at James Hansen, I merely referred to his quite public remarks that we have only a ten year window to avoid catastrophic climate change. When that time frame passes without substantive decreases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which looks to be inevitable, and there are no 'catastrophic' consequences I, and others, will make sure that Hansen is held accountable for this scaremongering."
This is pretty funny. You claim to be a scientist, and yet you don't even understand Hansen's argument.
Seen it. Conspiracies do sometimes occur, but _Loose_Change_ is just plain stupid. You can find more of my commentary here, and there's no shortage of fiskings to be found on the web.
Some parts of the film are out there, but others are pretty convincing.
Like the collapse of building 7, in order for that building to fall at near symetry, all 90 columns would have to fail at the same time, not only that but this symetrical/simulteanous failure would occur at several places on the building.
First all 90 columns would have to fail at the same time on the 5th floor, then the tenth floor, then the 15 floor............etc.........explosives could easily explain this, fire/ damage has never caused a building to collapse, and if it did its hard to imagine fire weakening all the columns at the same time.
The empty ditch in shankesville is very strange, 99% of the plane is gone, look at the pics, according to popular mechanics the crash was at high speed, thats the reason for the lack of debris, but they found a terrorists passport, and pristine bandana in the ditch!
I realize not too many experts have spoken out, but experts tend to go along with the states propaganda, like they did in Germany and Russia.
Cooler -
Apart from the obvious 'Why on earth destroy WTC7 in the first place' question, you will note that the collapse of that building started under the penthouses (i.e. the north side/center) before becoming global; by the time the south side (which is what the videos show) fell, the north and interior of the building had already collapsed.
Getting your information from YouTube and Google videos isn't really the best way.
Lance,
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. No more jibes from me. I'd be happy for you to write to me my email address and to discuss AGW and other environemtnal issues.
First, although I am a scientist, I wouldn't ever claim to fully understand the array of complex forcings that regulate climate patterns over variable scales. But I do defer to the expertise of the vast majority of climate scientists who do. I think their position is pretty unambiguous: the prime forcing comes from the human combustion of fossil fuels, with other positive feedbacks associated with that. I know that there are outliers, some scientists who take a different position. But you know, as a scientist, that science does not function by consensus. We are the most self-critical lot that one can imagine. At a conference I attended in Sweden last week, on plant-insect interactions, there were all kinds of hypotheses presented, with the speakers providing empirical support for some and refuting others. What is clear is that, at the relatively small scales at which most of my research is done, there will rarely be generalities that can be elucidated empirically. In other words, when one researcher provides evidence supporting a hypothesis, another will refute it. I made this point during questioning.
I've learned - from ecologists like Brian Maurer in his book 'Untangling Ecological Complexity' - that rules typically only emerge over large spatial and/or temporal scales. Look at cycles of nitorgen, carbon, phosphorus etc. These cycles - until humans started disrupting them - were pretty stable over large expanses of the planet. It's the same with respect to climate. When someone claims that AGW is a myth because they are having a cool summer in their part of the world, they are mistaking stochasicity (unpredictability over a short time frame) with determinism (predictable phenomena). Thus, we need to look for trends over approaite scales of space and time. This is what most climate researchers are telling us now. The global climate is largely deterministic, and it should take a major forcing to lead to the kinds of rapid changes that have occurred since about 1980. If you look at the ten years preceding the 1998 'spike' in temperature, and the nine following years to the present day, a worrying pattern emerges. Perform a simple linear regression and it becomes clear that climate change is a reality; for such a deterministic system to have changed by 0.50-0.70 degress in the mere space of 30-50 years is quite exceptional, given the size of the system. Of course, some regional variations are much more extreme than that.
I agree with you that nature is pretty resilient and pliable, given the suite of stresses that have been inflicted on it, particularly over the past 100-200 years. Climate change occurs against a background of these changes which have certainly led to a huge reduction in the population sizes of many species (concurrent with an inevitable rise in extinctions). Let's be brutally honest here, but humans have pretty much been conducting an experiment on systems that we barely understand. These systems function in profoundly non-linear ways: thus the change in one minor component in the system (such as the introduction of an exotic species, or the fragmentation of a system, interfering with the movement of pollinators and seed dispersers) has been shown to reverberate through the system and to have significantly negative effects on the functioning (and persistence) of the system. I think it was Donald Strong and the late Gary Polis who argued that ecology is the most complex of the sciences because of ecological systems function non-linearly. This means that we can alter and simplify systems considerably without noticing any kind of effects until there is a sudden and dramatic shift: more flooding, more hypersalinity, a failure in the nutrient cycle. What I can say with anthropogenic changes is that we should expect surprises: big, nasty ones.
Climate change is likely to excerbate other stresses that humanity is inflicting on complex adaptive ecological systems across the biosphere. I don't think its prudent to experiment on systems that sustain us to the breaking point - do you? Hence, until we better understand how these complex systems function, I believe that the precautionary principle is appropriate. Otherwise what we are doing is crossing our fingers and hoping that technology will undo any of the problems that technology and excess consumption amongst the priviliged few have caused in the first place.
I have been confronted by sceptics who argue that we need 100% proof before any kind of mitigation should be considered. Without this proof, they claim that the 'problem does not exist'. I've faced this type of logic on issues such as acid rain, loss of biodiversity, and climate change. But, as I said above, our understanding of the functioning of ecosystems - given their immense complexity and the lack of enough people to study every subtle and not-so-subtle nuance in them - is in its infancy. To fully understand the effects of the human assault across the biosphere would cost many billions of dollars - never to be funded. We do have evidence of very worrying trends, which in my view, given the importance of these systems in sustaining us, should be enough to prompt swift action. But, against this background are those who profit from 'business-as-usual', those who think about the next year (or quarterly) profit margins. They are doing everything in their power to maintain the status quo, irrespective of the costs to future generations who will inherit a biologically impoverished world. The costs of continuing along this course are likely to be enormous. This world will be more prone to environmental disasters, and everyone will suffer. Do you not think that it is prudent to do everything in our power to ensure that this does not happen?
Hans gives the latest in scientific evidence against AGW:
By that kind of measure, evolutionary biology is being seriously threatened by young-earth creationism.
But Hans is right, the size of the talk page is telling. It tells us there are a lot of people who have been convinced by the denial industry.
Boris, Many people who know very little about science but want to believe in the tooth fairy don't need a lot of convincing. They want to believe that humans can continue to consume ad nauseum, and go on pretty much the way we are and that there won't be any costs. They want to believe in denial, so its an easy message to sell.
Jeff,
I found your well reasoned and thoughtfully rendered reply disarming. You certainly have made a compelling and insightful case that we should take the threat of climate change seriously.
I cannot argue that the ubiquitous presence of humans in almost all biospheres has put pressure on those habitats. In most cases those pressures have threatened the biodiversity and sustainability of those systems.
Before deciding to pursue a career in physics I was actually a biology major. I found the study of biological organisms and systems to be overwhelmingly complex. I retreated to the less complex, if mathematically challenging, landscape of physics. My research field is sometimes called biophysics. My current research is in conjunction with the medical school.
I agree that humans have disrupted ecosystems with little thought for the long term impact of their actions. I was once a member of the Sierra Club and the World Wild Life Federation. I discontinued my membership in those organizations when I began to see what I perceived as politically motivated and counterproductive strategies becoming their priority. I am still an active member of The Nature Conservancy and several other small, locally focused, environmental groups.
I believe our views only diverge on the issue of whether the current state of climate science provides a clear picture of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere and the impact of the human caused component of that CO2 on future climate conditions.
I am not a climate scientist. Nor do I claim that we need 100% proof that human caused CO2 will lead to substantially higher global temperatures before we take action. Also, I defer to your obviously expert knowledge of the possible detrimental ecological feedbacks from substantially higher global temperatures.
I am not however willing to take on authority alone that human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are going to cause large increases in temperature over the next one hundred years. While I am not a "climate scientist" I am a trained physicist.
The case for AGW, as I see it, is weak. I would be glad to go into a detailed discussion of the various arguments made to support AGW theory, and the problems I find in those arguments, but I think this post is long enough.
It is my hope that the political nature of the discussion on this topic can be diffused and a more reasoned and measured discourse can proceed. I think much common ground on ecological issues could be found, if the political maelstrom that surrounds this issue could be quelled.
I'm glad we have cooled the tone of our discussion and look forward to reaching some measure of agreement on future strategies.
Best Regards,
Lance
This is a common right-wing criticism of conservation organizations that work on public lands issues.
A simple question - how do you increase conservation efforts on public lands WITHOUT politically motivated strategies?
I can't imagine you're unaware of the money spent on anti-conservation efforts by natural resources industries.
I wonder, though, if you're aware of the fact that the timber industry successfully lobbied the Reagan administration to ignore the National Forest Management Act's requirement that logging be on a sustained-yield basis? (eventually the USFS admitted the fact, but not until after a decade of logging at twice the sustained-yield level).
I could go on and on and on. This administration is much worse than the Reagan administration when it comes to following conservation law (and has accumulated an impressive number of court losses in the process).
Are you one of those who believes that industry should have a greater say in the management of our public lands than the 70% or so of the American public who support strong conservation measures?
The Nature Conservancy's a great organization, I've done volunteer work for them (as well as the USFS, USF&W, and BLM, all capable of doing great conservation work when friggin' republican anti-conservation shitheads don't stop them from doing so). But the Nature Conservancy's strategy of buying and protecting sensitive private lands is not sufficient in the American West, where public land ownership stands well over 50%.
Great! Then explain in detail why the physics underlying GCMs, for instance, is bogus.
Shouldn't be much of a problem for you.
Actually, you should do so over at Real Climate, since some of the people responsible for those models (as well as other climatologists) run the site.
If you have valid points, I have no doubt that they'll be eager to incorporate them into their models and calculations.
The question is, though ... are you able to admit that you're wrong, if proven wrong? I seriously doubt you're going to raise any issues they've not heard from the denialist camp hundreds of times before.
But heck, who knows? Maybe you'll turn atmospheric physics on its head and be up for a future Nobel. It's worth a shot for a youngster with a BS in Physics...
dhogaza,
You have made some assumptions about me that I think are unfounded. I am in favor of federal lands enjoying maximum protection for future generations and NOT in favor of industry or local populations that seek to exploit the land for short term gain.
It was the change in focus of the Sierra Club from land protection to environmental extremism that led me to end my membership in that organization.
Statements such as "All technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent," by past Sierra Club leader David Brower marked a move away from the original themes of the club as set out by founder John Muir.
As for the physics underlying GCM's is concerned, it depends on which one. Good luck getting even the basic algorithms they use let alone the actual code.
Sadly, I am no longer a "youngster" and though I haven't completed my PhD I am not ashamed of having a BS in physics. What, prey tell, are your scientific credentials?
Andrew,
I know the east penthouse collapsed first, but no one can explain how that progressed to the simultanous cutting of the 90 columns on several floors that produced the rapid and symetrical collapse, explosives are the easiest explanation, thats why nist hasnt given an answer for years, the lead invesigator Dr. Sunder said he was having extreme difficulty on getting a handle on b7.
It will always be difficult when you rule out the easiest explanation.
Id rather get my news from you tube than Fox news anyday
Hey Lance! [Here you go](http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/models/):
>The Community Climate System Model (CCSM) is a fully-coupled, global climate model that provides state-of-the-art computer simulations of the Earth's past, present, and future climate states.
Damn, Tim beat me to it :)
Lance, anything else you're not quite up to speed on?
Another hand-waving assertion with no specifics other than a *past* leader of the Sierra Club, David Brower, made an extreme statement.
Got anything else?
I broke with the Sierra Club a very specific reason: they agreed to work with Senator Mark O. Hatfield to oppose endangered species protections for the northern spotted owl in return for his support for wilderness protection for a bit of rock 'n ice, back in the late 1980s.
While source code for all GCMs aren't available, the physical assumptions are available, you could start by looking around Real Climate for information.
Please give us some specific things about those physical assumptions you disagree with, since you've studied the science underlying climatology and have concluded it's bogus.
Surely you wouldn't be claiming to overturn an entire field of science without being able to point out some very specific, very basic errors which underly that branch of science, would you?
Fame awaits you!
So, let's see...
You imply the basic algorithms they use, let alone the actual code (despite the availability of one in source code, but we'll leave that alone for this post), are unavailable.
Yet you state:
As for the physics underlying GCM's is concerned, it depends on which one.
You just implied model details are secret. So
HOW DO YOU KNOW they aren't all built using the same physical assumptions?
If you *do* know, that means you know the physical assumptions underlying at least two models (you need two to compare).
So, just tell us what's wrong with those two, OK?
Because I can't imagine you've decided the science is bogus without examining the physical assumptions that underlie GCMs, not after claiming you've studied the science.
dhogaza,
You must have a lot of time on your hands.
Here are just some of the parameters whose effects must be acounted for by any climate model hoping to even remotely approximate the climate system of the earth.
Anthropogenic:
Carbon dioxide · Climate sensitivity · Deforestation · Global dimming · Global warming potential · Greenhouse effect · Greenhouse gases · Keeling Curve · Urban heat island
Natural:
Cloud forcing · Glaciation · Global cooling · Ocean variability · Orbital variations · Plate tectonics · Radiative forcing · Solar variation · Volcanism
Some people in this post have tried to imply that there is no reliance of these models on coupled non-linear systems of differential equations. That somehow, stochastic methods magically simplify the process such that specific temperature projections can be obtained with actual error bars that have some derivable meaning. This is pure fantasy. The climate system of the eearth isn't simply an adiabatic vessel of kinetic particles that is stochastically determininate.
I don't claim to know the underpinnings of all these models. Indeed there are a large number of them that vary from one liners like (1 â a)SÏr2 = 4Ïr2εÏT4 to obscenely complex ones that have a variety of mechanisms to try to simulate the earth's climate system.
The GCM's are the ones typically referred to by AGW theorists and specifically the IPCC. Here is how Wikipedia describes them.
"Three (or more properly, four since time is also considered) dimensional GCM's discretise the equations for fluid motion and energy transfer and integrate these forward in time. They also contain parametrisations for processes - such as convection - that occur on scales too small to be resolved directly.
Atmospheric GCMs (AGCMs) model the atmosphere and impose sea surface temperatures. Coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs (AOGCMs, e.g. HadCM3, EdGCM, GFDL CM2.X, ARPEGE-Climat[8]) combine the two models. The first general circulation climate model that combined both oceanic and atmospheric processes was developed in the late 1960s at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory [9] AOGCMs represent the pinnacle of complexity in climate models and internalise as many processes as possible. However, they are still under development and uncertainties remain."
Now, did you notice the line about "...GCM's discretise the equations for fluid motion and energy transfer and integrate these forward in time. They also contain parametrisations for processes - such as convection - that occur on scales too small to be resolved directly." That means they are attempting to use an iterative process with indeterminant systems of coupled non-linear differential equations integrated forward in time and then fudge in some adjustments for things they can't even approximate with integration techniques.
Anyone that is familiar with this type of calculation knows the inherent limitations of this type of process and it's extreme depedence on intital conditions. Google "Non-integrability and chaos of a conservative compound pendulum" if you want to get a taste of what this involves on an infinitely less complex, but still daunting, scale.
Perhaps the last sentence is the most instructive, "However, they are still under development and uncertainties remain."
That is putting it mildly.
And yet, Lance, if you set up a GCM and let it run, you get out put that resemble the real world. An ITCZ emerges, for example. When a natural perturbation such a Pinatubo occurs, you can (they did) model that perturbation and get ensemble results that look recognizably close to the real world results - and the models have gotten a hell of a lot better since Pinatubo. Hansen's 1988 model runs have done a nice job so far of bracketing reality.
Implying that is it impossible, in the face of results showing that it is being done, is quite absurd you know.
Lee,
To say that models occasionally give results that are similar to real world conditions is not the same as saying they are good at predicting the climate 100 years hence.
Also your words "bracketing reality" cover a lot of real estate. If I say I have a model that shows that the Dow is going to close at 1389.87 + - 1000pts and then it closes at 1294 I guess I "bracketed reality".
The other Andrew has already noted that the columns did not, in fact, fail simultaneously. But they did all fail within a short timespan. That's not hard to explain; the beams will redistribute weight from failing columns to columns that have not yet failed, increasing the stress on them. And the distortions to the building structure caused by falling floors will pull the columns out of alignment. A column with a bend in it is much, much weaker than one without. Both mechanisms might lead to rapid horizontal progression of the collapse, and my uneducated guess would be that both were important in this case. See also the conversation between me and Porlock Junior in this thread. Providing a possible answer to your question is easy, but NIST wants to make sure they get the answer right, and in detail. That's a different matter.
Lance, you apparently either have not actually looked at how Hansen's model compares to real world temps so far,or you are simply comfortable giving wildly misleading alleged comparisons.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen06_fig2.jpg
Teh fact is, the models, through multiple scenarios and multiple runs and multiple iterations, overwhelmingly show problematic warming going forward. They are consistent with real world results so far. They are consistent with basic physics indicating the warming is to be expected. They mirror the real world through natural perturbation experiments.
Are they perfect? Of course not. But we have to make decisions NOW about what kind of world we're going to leave to our children and grandchildren, and what kind of RISK (not certainty - there is no certainty in the future) what kind of risk we are willing to heap onto their potential world.
Those models predict arctic sea ice loss - and the real world now is experiencing such loss at rates FASTER than the models predict. they predict glacier loss - and we see glacier loss. They predict responses subsequent to Pinatubo, and we see responses similar to the predictions.
Is there a chance rates are off somewhat, or magnitude of change? Of course- but that risk is in both directions. It could be WORSE than predicted, or better. What is certain is that we're seeing rapid change right now, and that the model predictions are consistent with those changes. WE know for certain now that very rapid sea level rise is possible, fro example - and likely at temperature just barely above where we are now, right where we seem to be rapidly pushing world temps. And that is not a good thing for those of us looking at what kind of world we want to leave to the future.
Just today, we see that the Yangtze dolphin is gone - yet another large species lost in a tremendously rapid burst of extinctions. Just today, we see a report that the world's corals are in much worse shape than we suspected. Just today's news. Lots pr pressures, lot of causes - and we're arguing that maybe this one wont be as fast as it looks like it already is, so ignore it, is just an example of the kind of thinking that is costing us the worlds fisheries and the worlds coral reefs, and the worlds rain forests, and wetlands and...
And so, how much have the temperatures of the oceans increased in the last 50 years? How much have the world's glaciers melted in the last 50 years? How much has the land air temperatures gone up in the last 50 years? How much have the artic ice melted in the last 50 years? How much has the sun's output gone up in the last 50 years? How do they all correlate togethers with each other? Or pick some other time frame from 15 to 200 years and give numbers of what the system doing. Simple system simple answers no? What are today model telling us should have done in the time periods given and what it really did? co2 in ocean gives rise and warmth no? We need the number from this no?
Karl, to whom are those questions addressed, and what is their point?
To anyone are they addressed. Point is lot of talk going on, but no numbers. If data shows things, show data and source. If not is it just some talk argue for entertainment?
Consistency...
What I don't get is why people consistently point to the catastrophic consequences that follow IF a hypothesis is correct as if this were some sort of evidence that the hypothesis IS correct. The presumed evidential link is non-existent.
One can, quite consistently, support policies aimed at radically reducing human reliance on carbon-based fuels while finding the science behind AGW less than persuasive.
re 122,
i can see why you don't get it, bob - because that is nto what I;m doing.
I'm saying the data and scientific support for AGW is strong but not conclusive - not much ever is in science - and here are the consequences if AGW is happening. Those are inputs to a risk analysis. If somethig has a substantial probability of happening _not certainty, but substantial possibiity - and the consequences are serious, then one must think about dealing with the risk.
The risk of my dying in the next 5 years and leaving my family without my support and income is quite low, IMO way, way lower than that of substantial costs from AGW over the next century, but I still carry life insurance even though it limits my ability to invest in other things.
Risk analysis. It has two parts. What is 1) the chance of the possible event, and what is 2) the cost of that event.
When we point to consequences, that is part of looking at 2) the cost in a risk analysis, not offered as evidence of 1) the probability of the event. But the cost does matter - because if the cost 2) is sufficiently high, the probability 1) at which one decides to take action is likely much lower.
Thank you, Lee, for the mini-refresher course in the rudiments of risk assessment. But I'm not puzzled about how risks are assessed. What puzzles me is why, when somebody questions the evidential warrant of a hypothesis (its probability, if you prefer), instead of addressing that issue people go on and on and on about what follows IF the hypothesis is accepted.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Thursday, August 9, 2007 - New historic sea ice minimum
Today, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area broke the record for the lowest recorded ice area in recorded history. The new record came a full month before the historic summer minimum typically occurs. There is still a month or more of melt likely this year. It is therefore almost certain that the previous 2005 record will be annihilated by the final 2007 annual minima closer to the end of this summer.
In previous record sea ice minima years, ice area anomalies were confined to certain sectors (N. Atlantic, Beaufort/Bering Sea, etc). The character of 2007's sea ice melt is unique in that it is dramatic and covers the entire Arctic sector. Atlantic, Pacific and even the central Arctic sectors are showing large negative sea ice area anomalies.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Climate audit is down. Is that part of the move to Science Blogs?
TCO, I'm unaware of any move to Science Blogs by CA. I would imagine that's it down because they can't handle the traffic from McI's discovery a mistake in the GISS US temp data.
Maybe they need to get absorbed by the blog. Exxon is obviously not paying enough for good servers.
Nice list. Now, of those which aren't unpredictable (i.e. large volcanic eruptions), which of these do they:
1. Get wrong, while telling us they're getting it right.
2. Have a large enough effect to significantly impact model predictions.
Remember, Lance, you're the one claiming that they're wrong. You have to be specific. Simply saying "these are the things that they have to get right, and I don't believe they do, even though I don't know how they account for them" is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.
Surely you can do better than the Young Earth Creationists in their criticisms of evolutionary biology, no?
Hmmm, I'm probably asking too much, because the rest of your post boils down to personal incredulity, too - "modeling this stuff's really hard, so they can't possibly be doing it well enough to produce meaningful results".
That's a bullshit, handwaving argument if I've ever seen one.
SPECIFICS, Lance. SPECIFICS.
Stop cut-and-pasting the same denialist crap we've been seeing for 20 years.
And so do Boeing's models, yet ... the 787 flew the first time.
Amazing, that, ain't it?
Oh, Lance, it also dawns on me that electron spin resonance is a difficult subject.
So difficult that I can't imagine your being able to solve any significant problem in the field.
Therefore, whatever results you come up with in your thesis work will be wrong, and your PhD based on fraud.
See how easy the personal incredulity game is to play?
Tim -
Either that or the DDOS attack that the mildly paranoid folks at CA seem to expect.
I like the gradual conflation of '1934 hottest year in US' (pace error margins) with '1934 Hottest year in world'. No doubt we'll be correcting that one for the next decade or so.
On the Arctic subject, anyone have any idea what could happen to Greenland if the Arctic ice sheet went? And how would the lack of multi-year ice affect the amount of winter ice?
I believe ddos attack is going on now there.
Of course 1934 just USA. GISS not doing world. But still big error for them to make.
I heard the DDOS attack was designed to encourage Steve to get hosted on Science Blogs.
It seems to me that the large number of obdurate AGW deniers active on every discussion forum that I have visited, cannot be adequately explained as merely members of the public who have been persuaded by the Denial Industry funded by Big Oil & Big Coal.
It would seem that there is more to this, it's almost certainly a coordinated campaign and part of Exxon et al.'s strategy to undermine Kyoto, the IPCC, GW science and key climate scientists, as revealed by the leaked American Petroleum Institute memoranda.
As Upton Sinclair famously noted: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."