So: Whenever I have a new book out--or an old one out in paperback--I tend to do a lot of radio shows. And as a result, I've noticed a particular phenomenon that has started to get on my nerves a bit: Some hosts like to throw open the telephone lines, and whenever they do, you suddenly get a huge flood of callers who doubt human induced global warming and spout wild contrarian claims like the following (all of which I heard on the Jim Bohannon Show last night):
1. It's warming on other planets too, so isn't it something about the sun?
2. Sea level has been rising for 6,000/8,000 years.
3. Mt. Pinatubo's eruption put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than anything human activities can do.
4. Carbon dioxide is just a small fraction of the total greenhouse effect; other gases like water vapor are far more important.
5. NASA just revised its data and it turns out the 1930s were warmer than now.
6. We'll wreck our economy, and who's to say that a few degrees of warming isn't a planetary optimum amount?
The ratio of "skeptic" to non-skeptic callers is usually something like 10:1. And these people aren't well-informed skeptics, like, say, Bill Gray. They aren't scientists by any stretch. But they've heard something, somewhere--I suspect rightwing blogs or talk radio--and have taken it up and run with it as if it's some kind of new truth that no one else ever discovered until now.
They don't provide references or sources for the claims. They don't seem to understand that talk show and blog hearsay aren't the same as published scientific research--and moreover, that huge bodies of scientific knowledge are rarely upended by sudden new revelations proving that everybody was totally and utterly wrong all this time.
Sigh...I really don't know what to do with these kinds of callers. I try to patiently explain things to them as best I can, even though some of their claims I've never even heard of and don't know how to address (especially as I doubt their factual accuracy). But I try to talk about the scientific method, the powerful consensus that has developed in this area. Honest to God, though...it's depressing. The gap between the scientific community and much of the public on this subject is huge, and there's no way I can bridge it through my necessarily brief sound-bite answers.
If I can just be brutally honest--and more than a tad pessimistic--for a minute: I increasingly fear that no matter how much temperatures rise, a lot of the non-scientist global warming "skeptics" that have been bred up by our politically polarized and misinformation-rich culture may wind up impossible to convince on this subject for many years to come.
- Log in to post comments
Chris,
You encourage those that are convinced that AGW is a serious threat to the planet to "get involved" and to "speak out". You shouldn't be too surprised that those of us that don't see AGW as settled science would do the same.
Advocates of CO2 mitigation have proposed large scale punitive actions, such as carbon cap and trade schemes, that would have profound effects on the worlds economy.
Despite your claim that AGW is based on "huge bodies of scientific knowledge", the fact is that AGW proponents have all of 0.6-0.8 degrees C of warming over the last century to point to as hard evidence to back claims of future "catastrophic" warming. The rest of the "huge body" consists mainly of theoretical climate models and pure speculation.
I find it interesting that you characterize evidence that does not support AGW as "misinformation". This shows your bias as does your constant use of the term "denialist".
We live in an open society where you are free to write books and give talks based on your personal opinion and the facts as you see them. Others, that hold different opinions based on their review of the evidence, share that same right.
You could send them to one of the two "skeptic" websites that people have set up. Just give them the URLs on the air:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Or
http://environment.newscientist.com (There's a link there for "Climate change: A guide for the perplexed")
99 times out of 100, anything coming out of the rumor mill has been addressed there...
Chris...it is depressing. I've tried to go on some of the blogs and keep a cool head with the most nonsensical and irrational types. Basically, their rigid political ideology requires them to refute AGW...no matter what.
I've had comments of mine that aren't at all inappropriate to the discussion removed from threads because they aren't "aligned" with the general tone. The best way to have your comment removed is to point out their partisanship while not displaying any. They can't take that...they want the "battle"...it's like all the other issues. It's the absolutism, the with-us-or-against-us worldview. If they can make it a debate like everything else then they think they can "win" through the usual propaganda and misinformation channels. It's like there's no reality.
It is depressing, but you are doing a good job. I think it behooves all of us to try and keep the discourse above the ideological bickering...but it can be very difficult.
The rest of the "huge body" consists mainly of theoretical climate models and pure speculation.
It's absurd to assert that the White House-appointed NAS and the IPCC bases its conclusions on "pure speculation."
Lance, on the other hand, bases his conclusions on Steve Milloy's Junkscience.com.
Do you really think the examples Chris gave above qualify as "evidence" against AGW?
Jon, thanks for the links. It's useful to have something analogous to TalkOrigins for refuting common erroneous claims.
Chris,
I feel your pain.
For a sense of what kind of thinking we are up against, read some of the comments at two of my old blog entries regarding effects on other planets:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/neptunes-brightness-and-solar-variation-…
and
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/another-denialist-argument-bites-martian…
The Neptune story is particularly interesting, in that it leaves open the possibility for some solar effect that we may not be taking fully into account. But it also stresses that such an effect is certainly minor.
Some people hear hoofbeats and, despite horses all around them, look for zebras. Some even look for unicorns.
I guess I can tolerate those who look for zebras as exercising their scientific skepticism. But the unicorn-seekers are so wedded to their doubts that they ignore the horses altogether.
Chris, there are a lot of great sites, but instead of listing them all off on air, maybe you should post the best 4 or so right here on your site (in a sidebar, at the top) so that you only have to direct them here. And for those people who don't trust GW guides like the one at Grist, you can list government ones like http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html .
And this link is for people like Lance, who do not find the evidence for AGW compelling: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Bucky and Satchel discuss the skeptical callers in today's Get Fuzzy. On their scale, I'd guess you were receiving some Level 3 callers last night.
www.unitedmedia.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20070816.html
I know what you mean, even from a relatively few post on AGW on my own blog. "Skeptics" like this one (his own blog is here) keep regurgitating the same canards over and over.
Chris, the best you can do is prepare yourself for them. I go through it as well.
For the solar system claims, I slam dunk that one here: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-i…
And the 1930s/1990s one here: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/08/10/is-it-hot-in-here-or-is-i…
Just find a way to crank out a two or three line debunking -- "First, if the Sun is causing it why aren't ALL the objects in the solar system warming? And second, if the Sun were warming Pluto enough to measure, the Earth would melt." Something like that oughta do it. :-)
Thanks everyone.
Lance, care to offer proof that I am in "constant" use of the word "denialist"?
The fact is, most Americans would rather not be bothered. So the skeptics and denialists offer them comfort. "No, you don't have to change anything. Don't believe those scary stories." And enough of them are resentful of the threatening forecasts that they call in to assert themselves.
We no longer have the best educational or health systems in the world, and I wouldn't say that America's democracy is known for having exercised wise judgment over the past few decades. We are, most of all, a consumer society.
Sympathies Chris. Denialists infuriate me too. But of course many don't or can't assess evidence properly and therefore do not conclude rationally. They are more inclined to "believe" on the basis of some political philosophy, for instance, "free" markets can do no wrong and government intervention is always bad. Or because AGW/CC is too scary to contemplate they get into, I don't want to believe it's true ... therefore it's not true mode. George Marshall at http://www.climatedenial.org/ has explored denial usefully especially with reference to the recent "Swindler" Durkin's dangerous denialist drivel. Check it out.
In the longer term the denialists will be marginalised not least because of events but of course the worry is that we don't have the luxury of the longer term to delay dealing with this planetary emergency.
Douglas Coker
London ... soon to be relocated ;-)
One way we nonclimatologists can fight the battle is noting the similarities between global warming denialists and evolution denialists, and making it known in these debates. The problem these people have isn't with global warming, that's just one manifestation. Their real problem is with science per se, which is why you see so much overlap between IDers/creationists and global warming deniers (on uncommon descent's front page, there are now 4 AGW skeptical articles). Just take Lance's post above, cut n paste a bit, and presto, a pro-ID screed:
"You encourage those that are convinced that Intelligent Design is a serious threat to 'get involved'. You shouldn't be too surprised that those of us that don't see evolution as settled science would do the same. Despite your claim that evolution is based on 'huge bodies of scientific knowledge', the fact is that evolution proponents have little hard evidence. The rest of the "huge body" consists mainly of theoretical models and pure speculation. I find it interesting that you characterize evidence that does not support evolution as "misinformation". This shows your bias as does your constant use of the term "denialist". We live in an open society where you are free to write books and give talks based on your personal opinion and the facts as you see them. Others, that hold different opinions based on their review of the evidence, share that same right.
See? That was too easy. All rhetoric and no science. Same shit, different cheap tux.
"The facts don't matter" folks LOVE talk radio. I was a big talk radio fan in the '70s and '80s, but gave it up as the ditto-heads took over and I got more interested in the Internet.
I vividly remember hearing a radio talk show out of Columbus in about 1981, where two or three different people claimed that the government was about to tatoo our Social Security numbers on us. Then someone called and pointed out this was some belief being perpetuated by a very out-there fundie group.
I think one of the major problems is that some (not all) of the denialists will not be swayed with any evidence. Those that are true skeptics in a scientific sense are more likely to have a constructive discussion about the data and evidence.
But those who outright deny, the ones who say things like "I just don't believe it" are more difficult to deal with. They actually think that their 'belief' matters.
What's the strategy for dealing with this type of denialist...the non-scientific person who is trying to win what they think is a battle of ideas?
Science Avenger has a good point, and I am definitely on the same wave length. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders recently wrote an article on how people who are concerned about global warming are always trying to stifle or censor dissent. It's the same charge that creationists are always making against evolutionists as they try to smuggle Genesis into the science curriculum. ("Teach the controversy", eh?) She doesn't have much of a clue. [Link]
My catch-all response is that even the oil companies, George Bush, and every important Republican presidential candidate other than Fred Thompson have acknowledged human-caused warming, and they wouldn't do this unless the science were irrefutable.
Re Debra Saunders, I challenged her ages ago to bet me over global warming, and never heard a response:
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/06/open-letter-to-to-debra-sau…
I'm probably one of those you'd label as "Skeptics" or "Denialists" (I've never called into a radio show though).
And this is a lousy forum to debate whether AGW is real or not, so I'm not responding for that reason. For the record, I'm not a religious person at all, believe very strongly that natural selection is fact, and am a proponent of most modern, mainstream scientific findings and theories, and vote for candidates all over the political spectrum.
What turns me off to most AGW arguments is the zealotry of the supporters. When dissent and minority opinions on the matter are shouted down, ridiculed, and whitewashed out of hand any chance of a reasonable discussion of the matter is swept away and it becomes a polarizing issue.
The fact that I'm not entirely swayed one way or the other on AGW will get me labeled as a tool of industry, religious kook, or ignorant savage and counted amongst Al Gore haters, SUV drivers, and polar bear killers by the AGW believers.
Not the case! Not at all!
I just think that the science of Global Warming is much, much bigger and more complicated than the AGW proponents would have me believe. And that having drawn a *conclusion* in merely a decade (or two, or even five) and planning on a solution is shortsighted. To me AGW is -- and will probably be for the rest of my lifetime -- the Theory of AGW.
I have a neighbor who get his information on Global Warming from Michael Savage (must be right because he is educated.) Now, my neighbor is also educated, but is a heads down, hard worker and gets his political news on the car radio.
Chris:
I think we just have to keep up the good fight, as you have been doing. Having so many (and so active) a population of nutcases is really frustrating. As with most of your list of cited proofs/alternatives most are based on 1/4 truths, or facts that are interesting but largely irrelevant. As an emample:
Water vapor is the most important GHG!
Yes it is, and it tends to increase with temperature. This means that any forcing due to human GHG, is amplified by the extra water vapor that the higher temps induce. Water vapor is not considered as a primary forcing, but rather as a factor that increases the sensitivity to GHG.....
If you can turn it into a discussion of interesting climate related science, at least some in the audience will be inclined to follow. And at the very least it establishes that you know very much more than the skeptic. I try to lead with something like, I'm glad you brought it up, it poinys out some very interesting phenomena...
(i.e. you haven't insulted the skeptic by calling him an idiot, but use his question as a lead on to something useful...)
Of course (usually) the guy keeps coming back with more nonsense, and my patience only goes so far!
I've gotten into several of these on "liberal" blogs, even among liberals we have a fair amount of misinformation to dispell (as well as trolls to slay).
Science Avenger wrote:
Uncommon Descent, the website for William Dembski's Intelligent Design synchophants. Here are three of their warming skeptic posts:
One
Two
Three
Chris, are you looking for a way to frame your argument for the uneducated global warming-skeptics?
Tell them point blank, if you think they've been lied to or misled: "It sounds like you've been lied to." Then ask for their source. Then point to your other book "The Republican War on Science" so they can learn something about who is lying to them and why.
Chris,
A quick search of your archive only turned up one instance of you using the word denial as an adjective to describe republican attitudes toward AGW, and no use of the word "denialist" as a pejorative noun.
I was wrong to claim that you "constantly" use the word. I do recall a post where you defended the use of the word denialist or denial to describe those of us that don't prescribe to the idea that we face "cataclismic" warming from anthropogenic CO2, although I couldn't find it.
Do you recall that post or am I confusing you with another poster?
At any rate the word appears frequently in this blog, several times in this thread alone. Also I see that you put the word "skeptic" in quotes. This is a common derogatory technique. I'm sure you are aware that this is meant to be sarcastic and demeaning.
The fact remains that you are not a frequent user of the term denialist and I stand corrected.
ClintP said: And this is a lousy forum to debate whether AGW is real or not...
Actually, any forum is a bad place to debate science. There is a reason scientific discussion is done in peer-reviewed journals and not in debates.
When dissent and minority opinions on the matter are shouted down, ridiculed, and whitewashed out of hand any chance of a reasonable discussion of the matter is swept away and it becomes a polarizing issue.
Personal experiences may differ, but AFAICT AGW isn't polarized because of the way dissention is handled. The dissenting group itself is polarized. It is made up almost entirely of American political conservatives. They get ridiculed because like most denial groups, they do no science, and instead play semantic "gotcha" games.
Again, personal experience may differ, but I've never seen a scientist or science blogger ridicule someone for asking questions about climate science. What I have seen, however, is people who aren't much interested in data, who get their science from Republican political sites, and who spew a lot of ignorant nonsense like "Mars is warming too!", get ridiculed, and for the most part they deserve it.
I just think that the science of Global Warming is much, much bigger and more complicated than the AGW proponents would have me believe.
What are your scientific accomplishments, experimental data, and/or qualifications supporting such a claim? Climate scientists after all, are not idiots, and I've seen no evidence that there is some sort of worldwide conspiracy to misinform. So without any sort of supporting data or credentials, you would be asking us to believe that an educated layman unblessed with academic or practical accomplishment in a field is capable of casually observing the data and noticing something all those PhDs missed. I find that an idea worthy of ridicule.
To me AGW is -- and will probably be for the rest of my lifetime -- the Theory of AGW.
Just like Atomic Theory will remain Atomic Theory for the rest of your lifetime. Your point?
One thing I'm curious about in the debate about global warming is why does climate change seem to be restricted to the last couple of decades? Human beings have been pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Even if you don't buy the science of global warming, isn't it logical to conclude that the relentless pumping of pollutants into the atmosphere for several centuries is going to have a negative effect on the climate? I was wondering if the past weird weather patterns; such as the dust bowl of the 30's, that apparent "warmer" decade, could also be due to global warming?
It's a crude example and one I think has been used before. If you look at the planet Venus and it's thick, solar reflecting cloud cover, it's still wins for having the hottest surface temperature of any planet in the solar system, all because of it's thick CO2 atmosphere.
Science Avenger -- "all those PhDs"? Do you really believe there are no PhDs who question catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? And must we all meekly sit back and accept as a monolithic edifice, all claims made in the name of AGW? Does the scientific expertise grant "all those PhDs" additional expertise in politics, public policy, economics, and foreign relations? Even if all of the assumptions of AGW are granted, does "is" imply "ought"?
I'm with Phil and bigTom. The important thing is to remember that the callers may be 10:1 this way, but the listeners are probably not, and if they hear you reply politely, briefly, and convincingly, that silent majority will come away a little better informed. If you get flustered or appeal to authority then they will become more suspicious. So it would be really nice to develop a site, maybe a wiki, where people in this position could put together the *short*, clear and compelling ways they have found with which to respond to the most frequent questions (of which you identify a good few already). The grist and new scientist answers are far too long for this; they need to be things you can say clearly, in 30 seconds, that are unassailably true and easily digested. And then we learn to say them -- and to remember that we're talking to the audience, not the callers.
You guys think you have it tough with talk back callers? Here in Australia, we have politicians spouting this drivel:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/global-warming-theories-leave-di…
Although I guess you Yanks have Inhofe, who relies on science fiction writers to set policy:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/inhofe-and-cricht…
My main issue is not with the questioning of estabilished scientific theories. It is that the same arguments get rolled out again, and again and again, no matter how many times, by how many independant sources, they are debunked. Often, they are troted out by people who have obviously not read the primary literature who form ill-informed opinions, and then complain that their views are not given credence by the scientific community.
Susan:
Actually, the discussion has always included a lot of historical perspective.
Click my name for a review of The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 by Brian Fagan.
Chris, I think patience and a calm assessment of science is exactly the right response. As someone said above, some listeners will respond to that even if the caller can't.
I used to try to debate with people in comment sections, but most of them are not interested in debate. As long as people can just assume that "your" scientists are money-grubbing whores and "my" scientists are poor, oppressed truth-seekers, there is really no place for a debate to go.
Fortunately, most people are now open to credible information on global warming. Most people are realizing that other reasonable people are taking this seriously, so maybe they should look into it too. These are the people we are talking too. The increasingly small minority of people with their fingers in their ears are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
Science Avenger,
Your mocking analogy is quite strained.
"You encourage those that are convinced that Intelligent Design is a serious threat to 'get involved'."
The controversy over AGW theory is not related to the ID vs. Evolution debate other than in your slanderous attempts to throw anything and everything, including holocaust denial, at people that disagree with your religious adherence to climate catastrophism.
The topic of this thread was how "sick" Chris, and apparently other purveyors of climate alarmism, are with those that continue to resist the heavy scare tactics and weak scientific evidence of "catastrophic climate change".
Evolutionary theory has over a century of well developed, multi-discipline, evidentiary science to back it up. AGW is a theory constructed to fit the evidence of a less than one degree Celsius increase in temperatures over the last century correlated with an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Neither of those points is in dispute. What is in dispute among the scientific community, despite dishonest attempts to indicate otherwise, is whether the large increases in temperature predicted by some theoretical climate models, and the techniques they employ, are valid.
There is not a "consensus" amongst the scientific community that we face "catastrophic" warming. Attempts to illogically and immorally conflate an honest debate about the merits of the science with discredited and repugnant issues like ID and holocaust denial reflect poorly on your objectivity, and motivations.
Hate to say it, Chris, but one of the biggest public services you can perform is developing crisp, succinct replies to the "average skeptic radio callin". If they are ones motivated to call in (and the screeners are willing to put them on), we need a set of responses that work in the sound bite media.
"It sounds like you've been misled/lied to" is a decent response. "What would it take to convince you that climate change is real?" is another. So Lance, what would it take to convince you that the earth is warming and humans are the cause?
I want to point out that it takes real arrogance to disagree with the consensus on climate science. Check out Coby Beck's list of scientific societies that have issued statements on AGW. Denialists are seriously lacking in humility.
Lance wrote:
Right, quite a bit of that CO2 and then there's the fact that the Arctic is melting:
The merits have been debated for decades and the "skeptics" have lost. At this point it is absolutely appropriate to label them as "deniers" because that's what they are. They are not Holocaust deniers. They are AGW deniers. If people don't like the word, they need to take a look at their own objectivity and motivations.
It is not difficult to look at the body of peer reviewed science and come to the conclusion that legitimate challengers to AGW theory are in the extreme minority. If you are a policymaker and are presented with this kind of consensus, only the most wreckless idealogue would ignore this in favor of holding on to the hope that an increasingly smaller roundtable of "skeptical" scientists are correct, and everyone else is wrong.
The article at badastronomy.com was an excellent reference. Here is an excerpt that, seems to me, applies to *both* sides of the AGW question: the believers as well as the skeptics...
----------- begin excerpt
Is it possible that the Earth's warming is caused by our nearest star?
Of course it's possible. There are links to the Sun's behavior and Earth's climate (look up the Maunder minimum for some interesting reading), and it would be foolish to simply deny this. However, this is a vastly complex and difficult system to understand, and simply claiming "Yes it's due to the Sun" or "No it's not due to the Sun" is certainly naive.
But we do have some facts:
* The Earth is getting warmer.
* We are dumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
* A little greenhouse effect is a good thing (otherwise the average temperature of the Earth would be below the freezing point of water). Too much, however, is Venus.
* Some of this global warming is due to human causes. This is fact. The question is, how much?
* There are political and ideological ramifications of global warming, and a lot of people -- politicians, in fact -- have a lot at stake and are known to twist science to meet their needs.
------------------- end of excerpt
Good points for both sides of the political debate to heed, wouldn't you agree? Philip Plait does not provide "slam dunk" proof that the sun has nothing to do with GW, wouldn't you agree? [And regarding the first two bullet point facts above: Those who are motivated by science instead of politics will note that correlation does not imply causation; the crowing rooster does not cause the sun to rise, for example.]
I have a few questions:
⢠Is it just a coincidence that most AGW believers also seem to hate "Republicans"?
⢠Is it impossible that some "Republicans" are seeking the truth, and trust the scientific method as the best method of finding it? Or are "all Republicans" simply ignorant right-wing religious fanatics intent on ignoring or suppressing the truth?
⢠Chris Mooney's Seed Magazine article, Emotional Rescue, was based on an appeal to the bandwagon (everybody is a true believer except for the right-wing wackos). Is the bandwagon appeal a new addition to the scientific method? If so, then why aren't we still "curing" disease via bloodletting, a therapy to which almost all 19th century doctors subscribed?
John P. wrote a question that a lot of us have asked in one form or another.
I hope Lance answers that, and I hope he will comment on my assessment of what I see in his posts here:
Lance is an extreme skeptic. He's more cautious than he used to be, no longer pointing us to "Junk Science." He no longer dredges up old arguments about DDT and raptor eggs like he did last year, though he never told us whether he gave up his skepticism about that when several well-informed posters laid out the science for him.
When presented with IPCC reports, he still seems to see a political AGW bandwagon forming, rather than a consensus of skeptical scientists. And thus he can't buy into cce's point that distinguishes policymaking from the science that it is based on: "If you are a policymaker and are presented with this kind of consensus, only the most wreckless (sic) idealogue would ignore this in favor of holding on to the hope that an increasingly smaller roundtable of 'skeptical' scientists are correct, and everyone else is wrong."
None of my disagreement with Lance is personal, including this, which I base on seeing his posts over a long time: he seems to be either wedded to his doubts to the point of near-total denial, or he is simply enjoying being the resident doubter too much to reconsider the consensus as the evidence continues to build.
In my review of Storm World (click my name), I note that Chris Mooney "leaves readers wondering whether Colorado State University's William Gray's legacy will be that of a brilliant and widely admired skeptic or as a man whose once open-minded approach was replaced at the end of his career by intransigence on the most important climate science issue of his times."
Despite the fact that Gray is probably 40 years older than Lance, I see strong similarities. Lance's mind isn't closed, but he often seems perilously close to crossing the line from skepticism to intransigence.
We have satellite measurements of solar output since the late seventies. It is not the sun.
The stratosphere is cooling as AGW theory predicts. If it was the sun, the stratosphere would be warming. It is not the sun.
If it were the sun, there would be a greater difference between day and night time temperatures. It is not the sun.
Neuroconservative said: "all those PhDs"? Do you really believe there are no PhDs who question catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
No, nor did I say anything that implied that. What I said was that I don't see any reason to give a layman credibility when he claims all those PhDs got it wrong, sans actual contrary evidence.
You guys can't have it both ways. If you are going to make an authoritative argument about the PhDs you have on your side, you get trounced, because the AGW side of the debate has 100X or more PhDs on theirs.
Lance Said: Your mocking analogy is quite strained...The controversy over AGW theory is not related to the ID vs. Evolution debate other than in your slanderous attempts to throw anything and everything, including holocaust denial, at people that disagree with your religious adherence to climate catastrophism.
LMFAO. I realize thinking disturbs your predjudices Lance, but I don't have much of a personal adherance, religious or otherwise, to any climate theories. I got involved in the AGW debate because I noted such stark similarities between the rhetoric used by AGW deniers and that used by evolution deniers (an issue I am very interested/involved in).
Your own posts provide my best evidence to date, for as I demonstrated, you can replace "global warming" with "evolution" in your screeds and come up with something that is identical to what the evolution deniers say. Don't shoot the messenger for noting the shoddy company you intellectually keep.
In short, if your case is so much stronger than the IDers case, then why do you talk exactly like they do?
Welcome to the world that economists have inhabited for the last, oh, 200 years, regarding the benefits of global free trade. --sw
Steve - although there might be many people who 'hate Republicans' who post on Scienceblogs, its a sad fact that the partisan divide over AGW is largely US based (OK - Tim Lambert can bring up some Aussie cases as well). The rest of the world accepts reality, no matter what their politics.
In the UK, the Tory party has no problem with AGW at all (although one MP, John Redwood, was a little strange on the subject a while back, but he's a bit strange anyway). There is no political divide on the causes of climate change, going back to Thatcher, whose scientific training equiped her very well for raising the subject in public as soon as climate scientists briefed her on the possibilities.
Its tragic that there is this divide in the US, although I'm sure that there are many Republicans who do believe in AGW, but its not that AGW is a 'liberal' thing, its simply that many on the right have simply refused to listen to the evidence, and have become deniers of the scientific truth. Some might do it because of religion, some out of idealogical purity (anything that Al Gore says...), and some just for the money. Thats sad, because the effects of climate change wont care how people vote, it will simply punish us all.
@Steve
Funny. One of the most vocal "AGW believers" on the political scene is one Angela Merkel, PhD, in her position as chancellor of the federal republic of Germany (and chair(wo)man of the German Christian Democrats). I have no love for her policies in general, but it could hardly be argued that she "hates Republicans". In fact, she was hell-bent on trudging off to war with Dubya back in '03 -only that back then, she wasn't in power.
As for "trusting the scientific method", I don't think that the Republicans attacking global warming "theory" have any idea what it looks like. They certainly don't trust any "scientific method" accepted by the scientific community.
John P.,
You ask, "So Lance, what would it take to convince you that the earth is warming and humans are the cause?"
First of all let's not confuse the issue. I have no problem accepting the evidence that the earth has warmed, 0.6-0.8 degreed C, over the last century. Nor do I doubt that human activities have had some effect.
The issue is whether all, or at least most, of that warming is due to anthropogenic CO2, AND whether climate models predicting much larger increases are accurate. These are not settled issue nor are they trivial points.
What I have NOT seen is evidence indicating that the modest warming of the last century is anything other than one would expect from the planet emerging from the little ice age. Are you so alarmed by a less than one degree warming that you are ready to proclaim a "climate catastrophe"?
One post above references the recent melting in the arctic. If one were to read only the popular press, and over heated blogs, one might get the idea that "scientists" were certain that it was a clear sign that AGW was real and rapidly melting us towards oblivion.
A more careful examination of the study reveals quite a different story.
In the Paper: Arctic decadal and interdecadal variability by Igor V. Polyakov (International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks) and Mark A. Johnson (Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks) they come to the following conclusions:
The recent retreat of arctic ice requires an understanding of whether the ice reduction is a persistent signature of global warming due to anthropogenic impact on climate or it is a minimum of a low-frequency natural climate oscillation. Numerical models of Earth climate system [Vinnikov et al., 1999] and direct observations [Rothrock et al., 1999] show substantial ice decline in the recent decades. Vinnikov et al. suggested that the observed decrease of arctic ice extent is related to anthropogenic global warming. However, Vinje [2000] using observations over the past 135 years showed that the recent decrease in ice extent in the Nordic Seas is within the range of natural variability since the 18th century. A combination of century- and half-a-century-long data records and model integrations leads us to conclude that the natural low-frequency oscillation (LFO) exists and is an important contributor to the recent anomalous environmental conditions in the Arctic. This mode of oscillation is related to fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic [Delworth and Mann, 2000]. Comparison of the century-long NAO index time series and half a century time series of the polar region SAT, SLP differences, and wind vorticity index shows the existence of the LFO mode in the latter time series. There is evidence that the LFO has a strong impact on ice and ocean variability. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.
Now John P. did you read the remarks of the actual "climate scientist" stating that it was "most difficult" to "detect any possible long term trends induced by greenhouse gases"? In other words it is entirely possible, even likely, that nothing other than the ordinary cyclical natural variablity of the arctic climate system is at play.
It is my experience that whenever I look at the actual science, rather than the hyperbolic political head lines, the case for AGW gets weaker and weaker.
I am not a "gasp" Republican or (children look away) a "conservative". I am a scientist that looks at the evidence and finds no reason to accept the theory that we face catastrophic consequences from CO2 emissions.
Science avenger is typical of the self appointed defenders of the faith. He is more interested in smearing me than engaging me in a discussion of the actual evidence.
If you are of his (her?) ilk you will come back with a dismissive ad hom. If you are a sincere thinking person you will address the "peer reviewed" scientific information I presented.
If you are forced to a hushed appeal to the "precautionary principle" I will know that you are only looking for a pseudo-scientific pretext to justify your personal political agenda.
Chris and Sheril are nice young people trying to "make a difference". They are both clearly convinced that AGW is a real danger to humanity and the planet. I don't happen to agree with them. I could just hang out at websites where people agree with me, but I can't resist commenting when I see people making statements and policy suggestions that I feel are not supported by the facts.
I have no personal stake in the matter other than following what I consider to be the facts.
Lance will now explain to us how each of these nine CO2 signature studies are wrong, and how all the authors of these studies, and all the experts participating in the IPCC and NAS, etc., have misjudged them. Right?
But hey, maybe Lance has his own way of doing science, just like Steve Milloy.
Lance quotes the key sentence from a seven-year-old article, which strengthens my earlier point about his inclination to approach things like Bill Gray, who discounts results from computer models and relies heavily on empirical trends.
"Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult."
First: Does anyone who knows the Arctic science literature know whether seven additional years of data has led to re-evaluation of that conclusion by the same authors? I'm sure there's been plenty of criticism of the article from others, but I'm wondering if the authors have added anything new.
Second: The article doesn't dispute GW or the projections that we may see an ice-free Arctic in 30-35 years. It merely says that looking at empirical trends rather than climate models, one can't tease out the human component from the data. Policy makers need to consider all scenarios, and that includes projections of many climate models as well as empirical studies.
Third: I don't dispute that Gray has had a great career, but I maintain that he has gone beyond skepticism to intransigence on the issue of AGW.
Fourth: I think Lance is proving my point that he, too, is going beyond skepticism toward intransigence. Intransigence causes one to think he is not intransigent, so I doubt Lance will accept my perception. He is adamantly skeptical of such a conclusion :)
Jon Winsor,
Do you think you could make one post in responce to me, although of course not directly to me, that doeasn't try to smear me by association to Steve Milloy?
Your link is to " The Heat is online" inspired by the book "The Heat is On" by climate alarmist, Ross Gelbspan. Oh, by the way his other book, also on sale at the website, has the equally calm and rational title "Boiling Point".
I would be glad to answer each study individually if time and space allowed, although this is perhaps an inappropriate forum for such a lengthy discussion. I will only note that two of them are climate proxie studies of dubious (can you "hockey Stick") value and with absolutely no voice as to causation.
All of them fail to rise to the claimed "smoking gun" level as hyped at the website. The point of the website of course is not to present a rational examination of the scientific evidence but to give the false impression that the science is "settled" and that we must act NOW to avoid disasterous consequences.
I note that you didn't respond to my peer reviewd study about melting in the arctic and comments from its conclusion.
Jon, you enjoy playing the "gothcha" cut and paste antics of most AGW bloggers. I have repeatedly tried to engage you in honest discourse. You have repeatedly responded with hit and run ad homs.
Oh and Jon my favorite Onion story is,
God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy
'No,' Says God
Ross Gelbspan wrote those 9 studies? Please, Lance.
And it's not ad hominem to point out the types of sources you've relied on to make your arguments in the past.
Lance said: Science avenger is typical of the self appointed defenders of the faith. He is more interested in smearing me than engaging me in a discussion of the actual evidence.
LOL, ignoring what people say and equivocating with little catch-phrases like "defenders of the faith" is not exactly the way to persuade people you aren't a crank. The Intelligent Design cranks are known for too you know. ;)
If you are of his (her?) ilk you will come back with a dismissive ad hom. If you are a sincere thinking person you will address the "peer reviewed" scientific information I presented.
Thinking sincere scientists do battle in the peer-reviewed journals. Denialists haunt blogs claiming the unknown truth, and academic accomplishments they don't have. Cranks also love to toss scare quotes all over the place.
Better be careful Lance. You keep doing such a perfect personification of my descriptions of cranks, people are going to think we're intimate.
Lance wrote:
That was me, so I'll point out how pathetic Lance's point is. Lance writes:
Please note the dates on the papers Lance chooses, [Vinnikov et al., 1999], [Rothrock et al., 1999], Vinje [2000]. No paper written before 2003 or 2005 could possibly address the major phenomena in the article I linked, which is that the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, which had been around for 3,000 years -- so it can't be part of any century- or half-a-century-long cycle -- only started cracking in 2000. Within two years, (which is 2002, which is years after all the papers Lance notes), it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.
I am forced to wonder if Lance even read the article I linked.
Norman Doering writes,
"No paper written before 2003 or 2005 could possibly address the major phenomena in the article I linked" OK Norm, here's one from June of 2006. Is that recent enough or does the ink still have to be wet?
Chylek et al Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L11707, 13 June 2006, doi:10.1029/2006GL026510
"Abstract:
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995 - 2005."
Yet another study that concludes that the recent warming in the arctic is not unprecedented even in the last 100 years.
Also changes to the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf have been observed for decades and are just what one might expect after emerging from the little ice age.
And yes Norman I read your link to the NRDC website. Nothing much there except the usual fearmongering including a picture of polar bears with the sad caption "What can kids do to save the north pole".
Polar bear populations are in very good shape thank you and polar bears obviously survived the holocene climate maximum when the arctic ocean was free of ice and global temperatures were perhaps 3 degrees C warming than present. Oh and another species managed to do quite well during that time, maybe you've heard of them, Homo sapiens?
Fred,
So if I rely on current research that disputes alarmist overstatements I'm intransigent? Sounds to me that you are the one that has dug in his heels on the issue. Maybe you have read one too many James Lovelock polemics and not enough peer reviewed articles.
Lance says:
Sounds to me that you are the one that has dug in his heels on the issue. Maybe you have read one too many James Lovelock polemics and not enough peer reviewed articles.
Delivering ad hominem responses does not behoove one who complains about them.
As noted earlier, intransigent people don't see their own intransigence. Judge whether I'm intransigent from this:
Not being expert, I read only a few peer reviewed articles. I rely on the scientific consensus in the form of the IPCC reports. The process that produces them is imperfect and not entirely free of politics, but it seems to be a reasonable process with proper respect for skepticism and variant interpretations of data. If that is the same as digging in my heels, I plead guilty.
Until you explain why you discount that consensus in favor of a few variant papers that were nonetheless included in the IPCC process, the evidence tells me that, yes, you are dangerously close to intransigence.
In any case, most of my comments relate to the proper response of policy makers to the body of evidence. Ignoring the IPCC consensus and focusing on a few contrary interpretations does not seem wise to me.
Fred,
I find it inconsistent that when you call me intransigent it is valid criticism but when I refer to your behavior as intransigent it is an "ad hominem" attack.
If I actually read climate studies, and then come to my own conclusions based on the scientific evidence, instead of defering to the IPCC Report for Policy Makers I am intransigent? Do you suppose there is anything in those studies that is beyond our training as physicists that we should take it on faith?
That sounds like plain old intellectual laziness to me, not to mention antithetical to the scientific method. As you note the IPCC process, especially the formulation of the statement for policy makers, is highly political and fraught with error.
You go ahead and put your "faith" in the so called "consensus". I'll continue to scrutinize the evidence and make my own judgements.
It's too bad Lance has decided to turn to insults, like "intellectual laziness."
No one--not even Lance--can read everything, and we all make judgments about how to select our reading material.
I happen to trust the IPCC's consensus process because it makes room for skeptics and alternative interpretations. More importantly, I want policy makers to use that consensus as the starting point of their deliberations.
As to whether Lance is intransigent or just skeptical, I leave that to the judgment of others. I have been trying, in what I thought was a friendly way, to hold up the example of Bill Gray for Lance to use as a comparison.
I guess he took that as a personal attack and decided to respond in kind. Except for this defense against the charge of intellectual laziness, I'm done with this discussion.
Lance writes:
It may be current, but the summary I found here doesn't mention the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf... It doesn't really take the Artic into account -- it's about Greenland.
You have no data to back up your claim about the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf. Instead you post any old off topic paper. You just threw in a comment about the ice shelf with no supporting data. For all I know you're a liar and you made it up.
Your replies are still pretty pathetic.
Norman,
Check a map. Greenland is in the arctic. It is hardly "off topic". My remark about the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf began with "also" which means it is in regard to a separate point.
I would be happy to provide you with links to information about the history of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf and the little ice age but you no doubt have a computer and access to Google, although you seem to favor alarmist websites.
I see you quickly sink to spewing ad homs when faced with information that offends your AGW sensibilities. Using words like "pathetic" and "liar" indicates your inability to form a cogent reply.
Fred,
You bruise easily. Imagine if someone had tossed words like liar or pathetic at you.
Folks,
This is getting unfriendly and I'm stepping in.
I've published all comments up to now (which I probably shouldn't have done) but any further ones containing any sort of personal attack will not appear.
cm
Lance,
First, sorry to have called you names, but you do seem to be blindly missing the point in a very suspicious way. If a 3,000 year old ice sheet is breaking up and melting that can not be attributed to any century long cycle, which is what you did do in your first reply to me, maybe a cycle that takes a few millennium -- but you didn't say that. 3,000 years isn't going back to old Europe, that goes back to the time of Egypt and Moses.
If you're going to challenge the data you've got to challenge the claim that the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf is really 3,000 years old. If we're losing a 3,000 year old ice shelf that's a major change to this planet and something to worry about.
You write:
Please do. I haven't found anything yet that does a reasonable job. In fact, the warming skeptic sites seem to present the evidence of global warming as if it were their evidence against it -- they simply do not make sense or acknowledge all the facts, they are very much like ID arguments -- for example, this site's evidence against that evidence is this: [Al Gore's film] "Portrays the cracking of the Ward Hunt ice shelf in 2002 as a portent of doom, even though the shelf was merely a remnant of a much larger Arctic ice formation that had already lost 90 percent of its area during 1906-1982." And that doesn't mean anything reasonable. Yes, the ice around there has been melting for a long time, and we've been burning carbon-based fuels while our population has boomed for longer ago than 1906. You can't attribute it to the end of a short century fluctuation "little ice age" when the ice is 3,000 years old -- a fact that site simply ignores. Is ignoring that "dishonest" or not? You decide.
When this exchange was not quite at its nasty peak, it led me to ask this question:
Where is the line between skepticism and intransigence on any scientific topic?
Here's the answer that I've come up with. Anyone who thinks I'm referring to anyone in particular here is wrong. I intend this as a completely philosophical discussion.
I'll start with a couple of obvious points:
Scientists are skeptics because they have an appreciation for the consensus--which is why they want to challenge it. The theory becomes stronger either by withstanding the challenge or by modification based on the challenge.
We teach kids in school that they should consider their hypotheses subject to change. Having stated a hypothesis should not prejudice one in favor of it when the evidence comes in. In other words, science is not in the business of trying to support your pre-conceptions.
Here's something I think is less obvious:
It is easy to over-learn that message, which leads to mis-learning it. Science is equally not in the business of trying to overturn someone else's hypothesis. It is only in the business of evaluating hypotheses.
If someone becomes enamored of the challenger role in science, it is easy to think in terms of overturning a hypothesis rather than simply challenging it.
Once the desired result--support or overturning--becomes more important to a person than the challenge, the person is on the way to intransigence.
And of course, once the desired result is more important than the challenge, it is easy to get personal and ugly.
I think Storm World does an outstanding job of capturing the good things that happen when scientists relish open questions and challenge each other, and an equally good job of capturing what happens when the answers become more important than the questions.
Norman,
Don't worry about it. I wasn't offended. This is a subject that people have strong feelings about and I have come to expect some heated discussion. I'm glad a calmer tone has prevailed and perhaps we can discuss things more rationally.
Here are quotes from NASA and Wikipedia about the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf.
Wikipedia- "The Ward Hunt ice sheet began breaking up approximately 100 years ago, but was believed to have stabilized by the early 1980s."
NASA- "By looking at historical RADARSAT data, Mueller, Vincent, and Jeffries determined that the ice shelf actually began to crack as early as April 2000, culminating a CENTURY LONG DECLINE in the shelf's extent." Emphasis added.
Note that the break up had begun over a century ago when CO2 levels were at or near pre-industrial levels. It stabilized during the 60's and 70's, a period of cooling, but still increasing CO2, and then continued its decline when the cooling period ended and warming returned.
To claim this as solid evidence of AGW is simply not supported by the facts. Why would you assume that anything but a natural process was at work? Temperatures in the arctic were as high, or higher, than present in the 1920's and 1930's.
Here are the comments of one of the scientists quoted in the article, Mark C. Serreze, about the investigation of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf break up.
"How much change can be attributed to human activity is difficult to estimate. "We know the climate can vary on many different time scales due to natural processes," said Serreze. "But when we look at the longer-term record of paleoclimate information, the warming we're seeing does appear to be very unusual. Carbon dioxide concentrations in ice cores today are probably the highest they've been in 400,000 years. There's a growing consensus between the things we're observing and climate model projections of change. I'm still a fence-sitter, but I'm leaning more to the side of human causes for at least some of what we're seeing."
Notice hat he is "stil a fence sitter" about the validity of AGW theroy and is "leaning" toward human causes for "some" of the melting.
Now if a scientist involved in the research is still a "fence sitter" why would you insist that AGW is the cause and that we should panic and declare CO2 the culprit?
...would you insist that AGW is the cause and that we should panic and declare CO2 the culprit?
It has nothing to do with panic. Concluding that CO2 is a culprit has to do with science:
Jon,
Isaac Newton demands action on climate change huh? Putting aside the fact that a certain young patent clerk went against the "consensus" and knocked down Ol' Isaac's laws of motion, there is nothing like a solid consensus that we face catastrophic climate change from anthropogenic CO2.
Your unattributed cut and paste argument, no doubt from NonSmogBlog or some such alarmist site, jumps from sound premise to nonsequittor conclusion.
The fact that most climate scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 plays some role in the small increase in temperature in the last 100 years does NOT lead to the conclusion that we "must act now" or face dire consequences.
All the insulting remarks about "denialists" does not change this simple, demonstrable fact.
Why didn't you comment on the remarks of the scientist, Dr. Mark C. Serreze, in the NASA article I posted? He certainly has seen as much, if not more, of the scientific evidence that you claim points to AGW yet he remains on "the fence".
Is he a denialist?
Following on to Jon's response to "...would you insist that AGW is the cause and that we should panic and declare CO2 the culprit?"
In my most recent blog entry (click my name), I call for "judicious urgency."
It's the same matter of political perception that has some people characterizing calls for action as "necessary warnings" while others see them as "alarmist."
I like Chris' statement (though I can't remember where he said it) that the proper response is to worry. Worrying is a constructive activity, because it allows us to plan for problems.
Not liking troubles, I hope those who call the calls for action alarmist are correct. But I'm too busy with constructive worrying to accept their perception.
That doesn't mean I am panicking by any means.
Click the link. The column I linked to was originally in the LA Times. And Dr. Mark C. Serreze is not a denialist.
Clicking links. Using the Google. It's not that hard. It really makes you wonder if you're interested in an honest discussion, Lance.
This will be my last comment.
Lance wrote:
I Googled the sentence frag: "Mueller, Vincent, and Jeffries determined that the ice shelf actually began to crack as early as April 2000," and got this nasa site:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/wardhunt/
and this site:
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/audience/foreducators/postsecondary/features/F_O…
So, you've taken those quotes from what is an essentially pro-AGW article and ignored most of the pro-AGW data.
The site you quoted (but did not link - I found it) even points to what I've been saying about the ice being 3,000 years old:
Alright, I'll give you there's a century long decline of some ice that has been there for 3,000 years. But according to the article you quoted, (but didn't link), it's not declining as rapidly as it is now, declines DO happen at different rates. This has accelerated. Here's what your nasa earthwatch source says:
Why did you leave that out?
When ID people do what you just did, leave out the context of a quote, we call it "quote mining." Why are you quote mining a nasa site to make it appear they either oppose AGW or are neutral "fence sitters"?
I don't think you've grasped the implications of the fact that it is 3,000 year old ice and the 3,000 year old Disraeli Fiord that was lost. And I don't understand why you're not getting it. If you have grasped the implications then why are you playing this game with me and acting like you haven't?
You say:
It didn't just continue. The article says it accelerated.
Suppose that you were right, in part, about what you've called "a minimum of a low-frequency natural climate oscillation," or as you phrased it for me: "... changes to the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf have been observed for decades and are just what one might expect after emerging from the little ice age."
To understand why that fails you need to know what ice was contributed by Europe's mini ice age. I believe you're talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The little ice age can't still be ending now. That ice is all gone now. What you'd expect to lose is what you had gained during that little ice age. Events preceding the little ice age, starting in the 13th century, saw pack ice advancing southwards in the North Atlantic and glaciers in Greenland. Those things would not be 3,000 years old, only 700 years old. The fact that this ice is more than 3 times older shoots that idea of yours down... doesn't it?
Perhaps one effect of global warming is that we've prevented a mini ice age that should have started by now and saved that ice. Those mini ice ages might have kept that old ice there for 3,000 years... but when you lose more and older ice you've got a different problem.
You're sort-of-right. That little data point about a lost ice shelf alone isn't enough. But it's not the only one and the article you quote also noted climate models and the highest CO2 levels in 400,000 years.
Well, you found the only skeptical remarks in that entire article and you've neglected most of the comments like this:
And other statements that support AGW computer models.
Because the ice that melted was 3,000 years old. Think about it. Or read this from the article you quoted (but didn't link):
Losing a 3,000 year old ice shelf is an example of a radical, catastrophic event. Something hit a "tipping point." If we continue as we are doing, putting greenhouse gases into the air, we could get worse radical and catastrophic events that we didn't anticipate. That's what it comes down to in the end. Are we going to limit greenhouse gases? Do you think we should let the CO2 rise because you have some doubts about AGW?
Sorry for the long post. I think that's enough for now.
With all this talk about the "Little Ice Age," I think a pointer to a book on the topic would be useful. Click my name to get my review of The Little Ice Age: How Climate Changed History by Brian Fagan (Basic Books, 2000).
Norm,
You make a big deal of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf being 3,000 years old. You are aware, I assume, that 3,000 years is not very long in geological terms and that over the course of the earth's climate history that things get cooler and then they get warmer. The article does go into some conjecture supporting global warming almost exclusively appealing to climate models. So what. Climate models are not evidence of anything. Alsoh how exactly is the ice shelf melting a "catastrophe"?
Was anyone injured? Any huge monetary loss? Some fresh water that was damned up behind it apparently gushed out. Big deal.
You are also aware that ice shelfs float on the surface of the ocean and therfore their melting does not raise sea level?
Let's cut to the chase. You say, "Are we going to limit greenhouse gases? Do you think we should let the CO2 rise because you have some doubts about AGW?"
If it were an issue of flipping a switch from a petroleum based economy to some other one I would say "Sure let's go!" but, obviously it isn't. There would be real consequences to radical changing the world's energy policy.
So you had better be damn sure that CO2 is the bogey man that you claim its is. Simply put, I don't think there is evidence to support that kind of action. Nor do many other people.
Now you can get nasty and call me names or you can accept that we have an honest difference of opinion on the matter.
Nice chatting.
To get to the kicker
Lance wrote:
Yes, I am making a big deal about it, for several reasons. And one reason you're missing, and thus forcing me to be insultingly direct, is that you had said in this post:
I'm no expert on the little ice age, but what I'm reading points to the fact the statement you made was an example of you talking out of your ass. You were trying to sound like you knew what you were talking about when you were actually clueless about what the little ice age even was. But only someone who knows climate and the little ice age well can say for sure -- so it's a clever pretension, a clever lie, as far as I can tell.
While there may be a "long-term" warming trend that's been going on since the Little Ice Age, and some loss can be attributed to it, you cannot, as you claim, expect after emerging from the little ice age to loose more ice than you gained during that ice age. You need another climate cycle, not the little ice age.
Would you finally care to support your little ice age claim? Does your little ice age start over 3,000 years ago? Is there some data to support that?
What climate expert claimed this? Just you? Can you provide some expert source that will prove you were not just talking out of your ass at that moment?
I'm highly suspicious of that claim. I think it exposes you as a bit of a fraud.
I'm using the word "catastrophe" badly. I mean it in a computer model, chaotic systems, sort of way. A sudden radical change in a system that has only experienced gradual change previously, a "tipping point," a point where slow and gradual change causes a system to break down.
But on to the meat of the debate, you say:
And that's where I have my strongest and most relevant disagreement with you.
No, you do not have to be "damn sure." You only need reasonable probabilities. Life is a gamble and it smart to play the odds.
I think a lot of Al Gore's ideas on what to do are NOT going to cost our society much. Just those companies that are funding the anti-AGW think tanks. And some of Gore's ideas are also worth doing for reason's that have nothing to with AGW. For example, a carbon tax, locked in, replacing some income tax, that is just enough to assure us that wind, solar and other new energy generating technologies can displace coal and gasoline. Just enough to tweak the energy production economy into making alternatives profitable. It will also have the side effect of reducing our use of mid-east oil and encourage technological innovation.
What bad thing will happen if we do that?
What bad thing will happen if we do that?
Will it be a catastrophe, Lance? Should we panic?
Norman,
It was hard to read beyond "talking out of your ass" but I did.
You are so emotionally wed to catastrophic AGW that you can't even extend the most rudimentary civility to anyone that dares question it. Look through my replies to your previous posts. Do you see anything remotely as hostile as your remarks?
I started to compose a lengthy reply to your tyriad when I realized I had more productive things to do. Pretty much any activity would qualify. You don't acknowlegde even the slightest possibilty that you could be wrong. Instead you try to shout down any evidence that doesn't comport with your view and then retreat to the totally emotional, and wholly irrational, "precautionary principle".
You have only reinforced my conclusion that the majority of AGW supporters are more interested in intimidating and insulting those that question it than engaging in productive discussion.
Take care.
Let's hear it for Lance everyone, for his textbook demonstration of how denialists act. The perfect dismount of evading substantive counterargument via the Ad Hominem Gambit*, and spending three paragraphs explaining why he doesn't have time for substantive rebuttal, were classics, right according to the script. And they wonder why we don't take them seriously.
====
* Making idiotic statements, and then when one's opposition makes a substantive rebuttal and calls you on that idiocy, ignoring the substance of the response and claiming that is justified based on the moral high ground you've earned by not saying such naughty words.
Science Avenger gloated--correctly--but still gloated:
Let's hear it for Lance everyone, for his textbook demonstration of how denialists act.
While it's true that Lance did indeed provide a textbook model, several of us goaded him with unnecessary insults.
If we really care about honest science, we need to offer less bait and rise to it less often when it is offered.
True skeptics are welcome and necessary, as far as I am concerned. Lance is still young enough that I have hope that he will learn the proper role of skepticism and how it relates to consensus-building.
This may sound like I'm a condescending old codger, but I'd rather work on guiding Lance toward productive skepticism (and away from obstinacy) than on hooting him off the stage, even when he is at his most irritating.
Fred Bortz wrote:
That's true, and I'm guilty -- but why do you assume he is young and can be guided? For all I know Lance might work for a think tank. Considering how PZ Myers got conned into being an an ID film and how Chris Mooney's books are effective in spreading the pro-science message I think we should also be on guard against think tank employees targeting these blogs.
They can't really be guided, their paid not to be.
Maybe I'm just paranoid but I got the impression Lance wasn't just wrong or misguided -- he was jerking us around.
Norman Doering asks, re Lance, "why do you assume he is young and can be guided?"
He's indicated that he is a graduate student.
I don't know whether he can be guided.
I just hope he can get past the animosity to see the truth in Science Avenger's descriptions of his actions and Jon Winsor's very effective skewering on the ice shelf issue.
There are lessons to be learned from both, but he has to see them for himself.