Dude:
"Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out."
Didn't you read that? We don't have to prove that it's wrong; they just have to prove it's right. You crazy Bush dudes! Always expecting other people do your work for you! Shameful!
Posted by: bloodstomper at February 12, 2007 01:22 AM
Mark,
You seriously believe that the consensus is collapsing because a single scientist in England has his doubts?
You know what global warming skeptics hate? An intergovernmental panel concluding that the probability that global warming is anthropogenic is over 90% and that its negative effects are already being felt.
Gar Wood
Posted by: Gar Wood at February 12, 2007 09:11 AM
Pollution Is The Solution... to Global Warming!
Perhaps we need MORE POLLUTION to counter the "alleged" greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide, or at least that's what some scientists are now proposing... and as any good liberal can attest, if a scientist says it, it must be so... it must be good!
"... prominent scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner, have come up with a controversial proposal during the UN conference on climate change. They raise the idea of creating a 'shade' of pollution to cool the earth. It's like creating an umbrella of black smoke to prevent the sun's heat from reaching the earth. It has to be reintroduced regularly, as the pollutants fall back into the Earth through rain and other means. It is a temporary relief while experts are looking for more permanent ways of dealing with the problem."
You can find other stories on the "pollution proposal" using Google. I've also included a few more links on the subject in some earlier comments at Pollution May Control Global Warming:
http://aaropinionsmore.blogspot.com/2006/11/perhaps-we-need-more-pollution-to.html
People really do need to read and be told about the solar cycles, historical climate change, historical periods of warming and cooling, and understand that THE SUN itself has a great deal to say about how hot or cold the Earth and it's climate are at any point in time! Democrats (Liberals) don't want that message discussed, however, because that would keep their message of fear and hysteria from having its (their) desired effect! Perhaps "greenhouse gases" are "contributing" to the increase in global temperatures, but just how much?
If sea levels are rising, Democrats (Liberals) will quickly blame and chastise a person who pours a bucket of water in the ocean and accuse them of contributing to the rise in sea level. True, that bucket of water may have "contributed" to the rise in sea levels, but the effect of that bucket of water and it's infinitesimal effect is lost in rounding, and in that case, would be ZERO!
And if the Earth is warming, is that all bad? Perhaps the net effect will be positive! Yes, maybe New Orleans had better consider building and re-building above sea level, but perhaps much of the rest of the world will benefit and more plants will flourish!
I'm not saying that we don't need to look at and work toward reducing our use of fossil fuels -- from an economical standpoint if nothing else -- but it needs to be done in a rational manner, over time, and considering factors such as the economic impact. Democrats don't want that approach. Democrats want to create panic as a means of getting it done THEIR WAY!
And what are we going to do when the sun "decides" it's time for a period of global cooling -- another ice age? Rush to burn more fossil fuels and produce more greenhouse gases?!!!
AAR
Posted by: AAR at February 12, 2007 10:46 AM
Since this first started being a hot (pun intended) topic a few years ago, I've read more about it than any other subject. I started out by reading mostly articles that supported my own view that it not as big a deal as the alarmist side would have everyone believe. The more I read, the more curious I got about the actual science behind the claims on both sides. But I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, so I read more. I challenge everyone who likes to debate this topic to read every scrap of information that you can find on the subject, even articles that disagree with your point of view. If you're like me, you'll discover that there is still an awful lot about our planet that we don't know.
If you really dive in with both feet, one of the frustrating things you'll discover is that many, if not most, of the actual studies referenced in newspaper, magazine and blog articles are hidden behind a subscription firewall. So, if you read an article in "Nature "or "Science" or at RealClimate.org or WorldClimateReport.com, you can't tell for sure if the referenced study actually supports the point of view in the article or if the author just cherry-picked the data that conformed to his viewpoint.
For those of you who aren't sure you even understand the parameters of the debate, Ricorun emailed me this Boston Review article which he nick-named "Climate Change for Dummies." It's a long read but an exceptionally balanced presentation and not so technical that the average layman can't understand it. If you come away from it without saying to yourself "now I didn't know that" a dozen or so times, then you are extremely well informed on this issue.
One of the things you'll discover, if you read this article, is that there are some basic observations over the last century on which there is pretty near universal agreement within the scientific community: actual measurement of temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations and that some of the increase in greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, is a result of human activity. I'm still reluctant to use the word "consensus" because it denotes an absence of leadership and has no place in science. The other thing you'll discover is that there are still areas of uncertainty and disagreement. The scenarios presented by climate models are just all over the place with predictions by the end of the century for temperature increases of 2 - 11 degrees and sea level increases that vary from inches to feet. How can those in positions of government authority formulate policy with variations like that? That's like telling someone my age (62) that there is near universal consensus that I'm going to die sometime in the next 30 years, and I need to plan accordingly.
Posted by: Retired Spook at February 12, 2007 11:03 AM
You know what drives a liberal insane? Challenge any "absolute leftist truths" with fact or evidence to the contrary. These so called warriors of truth hate to be doubted or questioned in any way. Just like good communists, they always have our best interest in mind and since they are smarter than the masses, we just need to trust them. So please don't point out to them that New York has received more than 100 ft. of snow this week, or that it isn't just "one scientist in England" who opposes the global warming scare but a multitude who have nothing to gain from the hysteria that brings huge government grants. "The debate is over, you right wing extremist!" It's hot, that's global warming! It's cold, that's global warming! Nothing's happening, that's global warming being sneaky and lying in wait! --Reminds me of a little thing called the "Red Scare". Just try to tell a liberal that Joe McCarthy was right, that there were hundreds of Soviet spies nestled in our government with the tacit support of many democrats! "The debate is over, you right wing extremist! Our history books clearly state that Joe McCarthy was crazy and so many poor innocent communists suffered under his mallicious reign". And that is how they re-write history. Just like it has been all but forgotten that the democrats ALSO voted to get us into war with Iraq. It wasn't just Bush. What warriors of truth these liberals are, just like Dan Rather.
Posted by: BUSHWON at February 12, 2007 11:07 AM
Spook,
Exactly. This is what the loony left cannot grasp. We are not arguing that their are climatic variations and we are certainly seeing warmer temps right now (although much of the midwest would currently disagree I suppose). Our position is simply that we should be careful on what actions are taken (if any) to redress the situation. Wrecking our economic engine to correct a problem about which we are still learning is foolhardy in the extreme.
Why is this so hard for the left to grasp?
It's like the democrats implementing the 9/11 commission's recommendations without any discussion on the feasibility or costs of said implementation. Check every container coming into this country? I mean, COME ON!
Posted by: GOP 4 ME at February 12, 2007 11:55 AM
"or that it isn't just "one scientist in England" who opposes the global warming scare but a multitude who have nothing to gain from the hysteria that brings huge government grants."
BUSHWON,
Mark only cited this one scientist as evidence that the "consensus" is "collapsing." I would be very interested in hearing from a source or sources that have done more research and have more credibility than the IPCC Report.
Gar Wood
Posted by: Gar Wood at February 12, 2007 12:56 PM
"Our position is simply that we should be careful on what actions are taken (if any) to redress the situation."
GOP 4 Me,
Your side refuses to acknowledge that humans have caused these variations. I agree that caution is needed, but we're not going to get anywhere until your side accepts that the current global warming is due to human activity.
Gar Wood
Posted by: Gar Wood at February 12, 2007 12:58 PM
Gar,
Respectfully, I take issue with your statement that my side refuses to acknowledge that humans have caused these variations.
This statement is misleading.
My side is simply saying that before we do anything drastic and cause great harm to our economy, let's look at all options. Do I think humans have played a part in climatic change? Certainly. It would be foolish to say otherwise.
What I am arguing is how do we know the relative size of our collective human footprint? Nobody can can say with absolute proof that there are not other, and possibly greater, contributing causes. The scientist Mark refers to is exactly what I am talking about.
The problem is, as soon as someone tries to expand the argument to include other factors, your side simply sticks their fingers in their ears and refuses to even listen to a view that is inconsistent with its beloved anti-capitalistic world view. You simply brand someone who disagrees as an oil industry shill. Your side's lockstep adherence to the global warming "cause" would make any union boss proud.
In my opinion, you folks are the flat earthers while we continue to explore and discover and search for answers.
For example, how about this article? Should we kill all cows on the earth????
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
Posted by: GOP 4 ME at February 12, 2007 01:11 PM
Gar,
No, what I said is that I can see a consensus collapsing...you should keep in mind that I'm 42 and global warming is about the third of fourth bit of "world coming to an end" bit of scientific "consensus" I've seen in my life. It is hard to get worked up at the fourth attempt to convince me that we're all going to die...and what the scientists noted in the article have done is quite interesting and would explain the warming of the 20th century (such as it was) much better than the concept that anthropogenic CO2 (a very tiny part of the total makeup of the atmosphere) is the cause of it.
As we skeptics keep saying - consensus isn't science...it is politics. If you want to rule your life by politics, then you go right ahead...but in matters scientific, I'm going to let science rule.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 12, 2007 01:44 PM
It would be interesting to hear from all who like to debate this issue just what you've done in your personal lives to behave in a more environmentally responsible way. For example, I assume that Cyberactor drives an electric car, or at the very least, a Hybrid or Flexfuel vehicle. I assume he's replaced all the incandescent light bulbs in his house with compact fluorescents. I'd like to know what else he's done.
I work out of my house, and my wife and I don't travel much, so the kind of car we drive is not as important as it is for someone who commutes to work, but last year I decided to see what I could do to lower the amount of electricity my wife and I use in our home. By making some simple, common sense changes, we reduced our electrical consumption in 2006 by nearly 14% compared to 2005. Can you imagine if everyone in just this country reduced their electrical use by 14%? We might have to debate something else, like how we're going to fix Social Security and Medicare.
Posted by: Retired Spook at February 12, 2007 02:00 PM
Wrecking our economic engine to correct a problem about which we are still learning is foolhardy in the extreme.
GOP4ME, I think the "wrecking the economy" meme is somewhat of a red herring. If the Dems win the White House and maintain or increase their control of Congress, I guess they could "wreck the economy" if they went off the deep end with carbon taxes, regulation and mandates. OTOH, a few tax "incentives" could go a long way toward spurring technological breakthroughs in alternative energy sources. From a lot of what I've read recently, I think we're sitting on the brink of an energy revolution, the likes of which this planet has never seen. The forces to drive it just needs a nudge in the right direction. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the potential career and profit opportunities are just mind-boggling. I know a lot of Conservatives are gonna yell at me, but the best thing that could happen right now is if oil would spike to over $100.00 a barrel and stay there for a while.
We are the country that made a committment 45 years ago to put a man on the moon in less than 8 years and then DID IT, and did it with computers that were less powerful than most cell phones today. What we need is an Apollo Program for energy independence. Since the GW alarmists have said we've got a 10 year window before it's too late, then our goal ought to be less than 10 years. If we can't be at the forefront of developing carbon neutral energy sources, then we don't deserve to be the world's lone super power.
Posted by: Retired Spook at February 12, 2007 05:52 PM
"As we skeptics keep saying - consensus isn't science...it is politics. If you want to rule your life by politics, then you go right ahead...but in matters scientific, I'm going to let science rule."
Mark,
You included the word "consensus" in this headline and post, yet you later criticize the word as unscientific. Please clarify, and forgive me for being a bit skeptical. Based on your statements regarding evolution and the origin of the universe, I have strong reason to question your commitment to "[letting] science rule" in "matters scientific."
Question: What more evidence would it take to convince you that global warming is mostly caused by humans and that we are in the middle of feeling its effects? Also, if the latest IPCC report had generally conformed to your point of view regarding global warming, would you not cite this as compelling evidence that your perspective was correct? What makes Nigel Calder's article any more persuasive than the IPCC, other than it conforms to your understanding of global warming?
Gar Wood
Posted by: Gar Wood at February 12, 2007 05:59 PM
"Nobody can can say with absolute proof that there are not other, and possibly greater, contributing causes. The scientist Mark refers to is exactly what I am talking about."
GOP 4 Me,
There is no "absolute proof" of anything in science - doubt and testing always exist. That being said, we have a responsibility to rely on the most comprehensive and persuasive conclusions that science provides, even if it is not what we want to hear. Right now that science shows that we need to make significant changes to our CO2 output or face dire consequences. Nobody who takes global warming seriously is sticking their fingers in their ears to the skeptics - we are merely relying on the best scientific information that we have at the sake of the untested, non-peer-reviewed perspectives of people like Mr. Calder.
Gar Wood
Posted by: Gar Wood at February 12, 2007 06:13 PM
An intersting critique of the Svensmark article can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
Basically. what the critique says is that although Svensmark, et. al.'s hypothesis has potential merit, there are a number of questions that need to be answered, such as: (1) does the mechanism demonstrated in the laboratory actually happen in the atmosphere, and; (2) if so, is it likely to have a significant effect?
Posted by: Ricorun at February 12, 2007 06:25 PM
Hey Gar, go to drudge and check out the article on the Czech President's opinion on Global Warming. He addresses the IPCC's findings, reffering to them as less like a scientific research group and more like a "political body with a green flavor". Hardly an altruistic, objective group, much like the U.N. which tends to abhor anything American. Remember one of the many problems with Kyoto was that it targetted America and was ignored by other large countries like Russia, India, and China.
Posted by: BUSHWON at February 12, 2007 07:43 PM
Ricorun,
Fine - and lets now take some of our current global warming research dollars and look into it...think Al Gore, et al will be ok with that?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 13, 2007 01:04 AM
Gar,
But you're really not getting science...you're insistent that 90% of all climate scientists are on board...but what, exactly, makes a person a climate scientists? How many are there in the world? How was it determined that 90% of them agree?
Go ahead and search far and wide for answers to these questions - you won't find them. The alleged consensus is phony. A number has been repeated endlessly - so often that you can "source" it back for ages, but you'll never find an actual, rock bottom source for the claim.
Certainly, a lot of people who are identified as climate scientists have signed on to anthropogenic global warming...and just how many dissenting scientists got jobs with the IPCC? Isn't it the least bit important to you that the study, so-called, is being made by people who all agreed beforehand what the conclusion would be? Aren't you the least bit concerned that if you want an easy government research grant, you merely have to say you're studying anthropogenic global warming, whereas if you say you're study non-anthropogenic warming you'll have to scratch for every dime?
Stop and think a bit - you lefties are supposed to be the great skeptics, but you've bought global warming more readily than an illiterate peasant bought stories of fairies in the woods.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at February 13, 2007 01:12 AM
Gar,
Here some books for you. You could even read them first prior to burning them...
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,
Shattered Consensus, edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of “everybody.”
I mean there are two sides to every story...
Posted by: GOP 4 ME at February 13, 2007 03:31 AM
Gore is barely a college graduate? Didn't Mr. Noonan only get as far as high school?
Posted by: R A Pendergast at February 13, 2007 07:56 AM
Mark: "Fine - and lets now take some of our current global warming research dollars and look into it...think Al Gore, et al will be ok with that?"
You might want to check out the article I cited, as well as the comments associated with it. One of the commenters (Martin Enghoff) is a co-author of the paper in question. Apparently he enjoys the RealClimate.org web site. With regard to the press release you cited at the top of this post, he says, "Since I´ve been down at CERN preparing our next experiments I´ve had nothing to do with the whole press release thing and frankly I am not sure exactly how it was made. We all agreed in the group that we did not want it to be another GCR [galactic cosmic rays] vs. GHW [greenhouse warming] debate but it seems to be this angle that the media is most interested in (sadly, but somehow understandable). I hope that at least in the scientific community it will be the science and not the spin that will be the main focus."
He goes on to say, "Press release or not, I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research."
As for my impression, it seems that if you want to say that cosmic ray fluctuations affect low atmosphere cloud covers, which affect global temperature, you might want to start out demonstrating a correlation between cosmic ray fluctuations and global temperature. After all, if that relationship doesn't exist, spending a lot of time, effort, and money searching for a mechanism seems rather pointless (at least as applied to global warming: it still might have effects on local levels though). And as it turns out, the relationship between cosmic rays and global temperature is the subject of considerable dispute. Calder, though, implies it isn't.
Posted by: Ricorun at February 13, 2007 10:50 AM
I believe that we are a big part of the problem but I will agree to the following; there is a chance that I am wrong. So, where does that leave us ladies and gentlemen? Should we go on like before and just hope for the best or should we listen to the vast majority of science who say we have a mostly man made problem. Shouldn’t the 1% doctrine be applicable here? If there’s a one 1% chance that something harmful will happen we have to act as if it is a certainty that it will happen? Well, in this case I would say there’s a 50% chance, so what are we waiting for?
Posted by: Rasmus at February 13, 2007 11:36 AM
Spook,
you wrote: It would be interesting to hear from all who like to debate this issue just what you've done in your personal lives to behave in a more environmentally responsible way.
comment: I live in Barcelona which has excellent public transportation so I don’t have a car. I take the Metro (subway) to work and tend to walk a lot as well. I do however travel quite a lot by plane. There are lots of things I could improve. I sometimes forget to turn my light off and I tend to use a new plastic cup every time I drink coffee. I will make changes.
Posted by: Rasmus at February 13, 2007 12:16 PM
Yet another scientist is falling away from the "consensus."
Seems the glaciers haven't actually been checked, and the theories are suspect. Didn’t Retired Spook say the same thing about a week ago?
Posted by: Rathaven at February 13, 2007 02:12 PM
Rathaven, your link is yet another illustration that much still has to be learned about this sphere we call Earth.
If there’s a one 1% chance that something harmful will happen we have to act as if it is a certainty that it will happen?
Rasmus, you sound like a decent person, and I'm not trying to make light of your comment, but I'm also a pragmatist. How much of your own money would you be willing to invest in a venture that had a 1% predicted chance of success? How about 50%?
Posted by: Retired Spook at February 13, 2007 03:12 PM
Dude:
"Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out."
Didn't you read that? We don't have to prove that it's wrong; they just have to prove it's right. You crazy Bush dudes! Always expecting other people do your work for you! Shameful!
Mark,
You seriously believe that the consensus is collapsing because a single scientist in England has his doubts?
You know what global warming skeptics hate? An intergovernmental panel concluding that the probability that global warming is anthropogenic is over 90% and that its negative effects are already being felt.
Gar Wood
Pollution Is The Solution... to Global Warming!
Perhaps we need MORE POLLUTION to counter the "alleged" greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide, or at least that's what some scientists are now proposing... and as any good liberal can attest, if a scientist says it, it must be so... it must be good!
"... prominent scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner, have come up with a controversial proposal during the UN conference on climate change. They raise the idea of creating a 'shade' of pollution to cool the earth. It's like creating an umbrella of black smoke to prevent the sun's heat from reaching the earth. It has to be reintroduced regularly, as the pollutants fall back into the Earth through rain and other means. It is a temporary relief while experts are looking for more permanent ways of dealing with the problem."
You can find other stories on the "pollution proposal" using Google. I've also included a few more links on the subject in some earlier comments at Pollution May Control Global Warming:
http://aaropinionsmore.blogspot.com/2006/11/perhaps-we-need-more-pollution-to.html
People really do need to read and be told about the solar cycles, historical climate change, historical periods of warming and cooling, and understand that THE SUN itself has a great deal to say about how hot or cold the Earth and it's climate are at any point in time! Democrats (Liberals) don't want that message discussed, however, because that would keep their message of fear and hysteria from having its (their) desired effect! Perhaps "greenhouse gases" are "contributing" to the increase in global temperatures, but just how much?
If sea levels are rising, Democrats (Liberals) will quickly blame and chastise a person who pours a bucket of water in the ocean and accuse them of contributing to the rise in sea level. True, that bucket of water may have "contributed" to the rise in sea levels, but the effect of that bucket of water and it's infinitesimal effect is lost in rounding, and in that case, would be ZERO!
And if the Earth is warming, is that all bad? Perhaps the net effect will be positive! Yes, maybe New Orleans had better consider building and re-building above sea level, but perhaps much of the rest of the world will benefit and more plants will flourish!
I'm not saying that we don't need to look at and work toward reducing our use of fossil fuels -- from an economical standpoint if nothing else -- but it needs to be done in a rational manner, over time, and considering factors such as the economic impact. Democrats don't want that approach. Democrats want to create panic as a means of getting it done THEIR WAY!
And what are we going to do when the sun "decides" it's time for a period of global cooling -- another ice age? Rush to burn more fossil fuels and produce more greenhouse gases?!!!
AAR
Since this first started being a hot (pun intended) topic a few years ago, I've read more about it than any other subject. I started out by reading mostly articles that supported my own view that it not as big a deal as the alarmist side would have everyone believe. The more I read, the more curious I got about the actual science behind the claims on both sides. But I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, so I read more. I challenge everyone who likes to debate this topic to read every scrap of information that you can find on the subject, even articles that disagree with your point of view. If you're like me, you'll discover that there is still an awful lot about our planet that we don't know.
If you really dive in with both feet, one of the frustrating things you'll discover is that many, if not most, of the actual studies referenced in newspaper, magazine and blog articles are hidden behind a subscription firewall. So, if you read an article in "Nature "or "Science" or at RealClimate.org or WorldClimateReport.com, you can't tell for sure if the referenced study actually supports the point of view in the article or if the author just cherry-picked the data that conformed to his viewpoint.
For those of you who aren't sure you even understand the parameters of the debate, Ricorun emailed me this Boston Review article which he nick-named "Climate Change for Dummies." It's a long read but an exceptionally balanced presentation and not so technical that the average layman can't understand it. If you come away from it without saying to yourself "now I didn't know that" a dozen or so times, then you are extremely well informed on this issue.
One of the things you'll discover, if you read this article, is that there are some basic observations over the last century on which there is pretty near universal agreement within the scientific community: actual measurement of temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations and that some of the increase in greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, is a result of human activity. I'm still reluctant to use the word "consensus" because it denotes an absence of leadership and has no place in science. The other thing you'll discover is that there are still areas of uncertainty and disagreement. The scenarios presented by climate models are just all over the place with predictions by the end of the century for temperature increases of 2 - 11 degrees and sea level increases that vary from inches to feet. How can those in positions of government authority formulate policy with variations like that? That's like telling someone my age (62) that there is near universal consensus that I'm going to die sometime in the next 30 years, and I need to plan accordingly.
You know what drives a liberal insane? Challenge any "absolute leftist truths" with fact or evidence to the contrary. These so called warriors of truth hate to be doubted or questioned in any way. Just like good communists, they always have our best interest in mind and since they are smarter than the masses, we just need to trust them. So please don't point out to them that New York has received more than 100 ft. of snow this week, or that it isn't just "one scientist in England" who opposes the global warming scare but a multitude who have nothing to gain from the hysteria that brings huge government grants. "The debate is over, you right wing extremist!" It's hot, that's global warming! It's cold, that's global warming! Nothing's happening, that's global warming being sneaky and lying in wait! --Reminds me of a little thing called the "Red Scare". Just try to tell a liberal that Joe McCarthy was right, that there were hundreds of Soviet spies nestled in our government with the tacit support of many democrats! "The debate is over, you right wing extremist! Our history books clearly state that Joe McCarthy was crazy and so many poor innocent communists suffered under his mallicious reign". And that is how they re-write history. Just like it has been all but forgotten that the democrats ALSO voted to get us into war with Iraq. It wasn't just Bush. What warriors of truth these liberals are, just like Dan Rather.
Spook,
Exactly. This is what the loony left cannot grasp. We are not arguing that their are climatic variations and we are certainly seeing warmer temps right now (although much of the midwest would currently disagree I suppose). Our position is simply that we should be careful on what actions are taken (if any) to redress the situation. Wrecking our economic engine to correct a problem about which we are still learning is foolhardy in the extreme.
Why is this so hard for the left to grasp?
It's like the democrats implementing the 9/11 commission's recommendations without any discussion on the feasibility or costs of said implementation. Check every container coming into this country? I mean, COME ON!
"or that it isn't just "one scientist in England" who opposes the global warming scare but a multitude who have nothing to gain from the hysteria that brings huge government grants."
BUSHWON,
Mark only cited this one scientist as evidence that the "consensus" is "collapsing." I would be very interested in hearing from a source or sources that have done more research and have more credibility than the IPCC Report.
Gar Wood
"Our position is simply that we should be careful on what actions are taken (if any) to redress the situation."
GOP 4 Me,
Your side refuses to acknowledge that humans have caused these variations. I agree that caution is needed, but we're not going to get anywhere until your side accepts that the current global warming is due to human activity.
Gar Wood
Gar,
Respectfully, I take issue with your statement that my side refuses to acknowledge that humans have caused these variations.
This statement is misleading.
My side is simply saying that before we do anything drastic and cause great harm to our economy, let's look at all options. Do I think humans have played a part in climatic change? Certainly. It would be foolish to say otherwise.
What I am arguing is how do we know the relative size of our collective human footprint? Nobody can can say with absolute proof that there are not other, and possibly greater, contributing causes. The scientist Mark refers to is exactly what I am talking about.
The problem is, as soon as someone tries to expand the argument to include other factors, your side simply sticks their fingers in their ears and refuses to even listen to a view that is inconsistent with its beloved anti-capitalistic world view. You simply brand someone who disagrees as an oil industry shill. Your side's lockstep adherence to the global warming "cause" would make any union boss proud.
In my opinion, you folks are the flat earthers while we continue to explore and discover and search for answers.
For example, how about this article? Should we kill all cows on the earth????
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
Gar,
No, what I said is that I can see a consensus collapsing...you should keep in mind that I'm 42 and global warming is about the third of fourth bit of "world coming to an end" bit of scientific "consensus" I've seen in my life. It is hard to get worked up at the fourth attempt to convince me that we're all going to die...and what the scientists noted in the article have done is quite interesting and would explain the warming of the 20th century (such as it was) much better than the concept that anthropogenic CO2 (a very tiny part of the total makeup of the atmosphere) is the cause of it.
As we skeptics keep saying - consensus isn't science...it is politics. If you want to rule your life by politics, then you go right ahead...but in matters scientific, I'm going to let science rule.
It would be interesting to hear from all who like to debate this issue just what you've done in your personal lives to behave in a more environmentally responsible way. For example, I assume that Cyberactor drives an electric car, or at the very least, a Hybrid or Flexfuel vehicle. I assume he's replaced all the incandescent light bulbs in his house with compact fluorescents. I'd like to know what else he's done.
I work out of my house, and my wife and I don't travel much, so the kind of car we drive is not as important as it is for someone who commutes to work, but last year I decided to see what I could do to lower the amount of electricity my wife and I use in our home. By making some simple, common sense changes, we reduced our electrical consumption in 2006 by nearly 14% compared to 2005. Can you imagine if everyone in just this country reduced their electrical use by 14%? We might have to debate something else, like how we're going to fix Social Security and Medicare.
Wrecking our economic engine to correct a problem about which we are still learning is foolhardy in the extreme.
GOP4ME, I think the "wrecking the economy" meme is somewhat of a red herring. If the Dems win the White House and maintain or increase their control of Congress, I guess they could "wreck the economy" if they went off the deep end with carbon taxes, regulation and mandates. OTOH, a few tax "incentives" could go a long way toward spurring technological breakthroughs in alternative energy sources. From a lot of what I've read recently, I think we're sitting on the brink of an energy revolution, the likes of which this planet has never seen. The forces to drive it just needs a nudge in the right direction. As I mentioned in a previous thread, the potential career and profit opportunities are just mind-boggling. I know a lot of Conservatives are gonna yell at me, but the best thing that could happen right now is if oil would spike to over $100.00 a barrel and stay there for a while.
We are the country that made a committment 45 years ago to put a man on the moon in less than 8 years and then DID IT, and did it with computers that were less powerful than most cell phones today. What we need is an Apollo Program for energy independence. Since the GW alarmists have said we've got a 10 year window before it's too late, then our goal ought to be less than 10 years. If we can't be at the forefront of developing carbon neutral energy sources, then we don't deserve to be the world's lone super power.
"As we skeptics keep saying - consensus isn't science...it is politics. If you want to rule your life by politics, then you go right ahead...but in matters scientific, I'm going to let science rule."
Mark,
You included the word "consensus" in this headline and post, yet you later criticize the word as unscientific. Please clarify, and forgive me for being a bit skeptical. Based on your statements regarding evolution and the origin of the universe, I have strong reason to question your commitment to "[letting] science rule" in "matters scientific."
Question: What more evidence would it take to convince you that global warming is mostly caused by humans and that we are in the middle of feeling its effects? Also, if the latest IPCC report had generally conformed to your point of view regarding global warming, would you not cite this as compelling evidence that your perspective was correct? What makes Nigel Calder's article any more persuasive than the IPCC, other than it conforms to your understanding of global warming?
Gar Wood
"Nobody can can say with absolute proof that there are not other, and possibly greater, contributing causes. The scientist Mark refers to is exactly what I am talking about."
GOP 4 Me,
There is no "absolute proof" of anything in science - doubt and testing always exist. That being said, we have a responsibility to rely on the most comprehensive and persuasive conclusions that science provides, even if it is not what we want to hear. Right now that science shows that we need to make significant changes to our CO2 output or face dire consequences. Nobody who takes global warming seriously is sticking their fingers in their ears to the skeptics - we are merely relying on the best scientific information that we have at the sake of the untested, non-peer-reviewed perspectives of people like Mr. Calder.
Gar Wood
An intersting critique of the Svensmark article can be found here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
Basically. what the critique says is that although Svensmark, et. al.'s hypothesis has potential merit, there are a number of questions that need to be answered, such as: (1) does the mechanism demonstrated in the laboratory actually happen in the atmosphere, and; (2) if so, is it likely to have a significant effect?
Hey Gar, go to drudge and check out the article on the Czech President's opinion on Global Warming. He addresses the IPCC's findings, reffering to them as less like a scientific research group and more like a "political body with a green flavor". Hardly an altruistic, objective group, much like the U.N. which tends to abhor anything American. Remember one of the many problems with Kyoto was that it targetted America and was ignored by other large countries like Russia, India, and China.
Ricorun,
Fine - and lets now take some of our current global warming research dollars and look into it...think Al Gore, et al will be ok with that?
Gar,
But you're really not getting science...you're insistent that 90% of all climate scientists are on board...but what, exactly, makes a person a climate scientists? How many are there in the world? How was it determined that 90% of them agree?
Go ahead and search far and wide for answers to these questions - you won't find them. The alleged consensus is phony. A number has been repeated endlessly - so often that you can "source" it back for ages, but you'll never find an actual, rock bottom source for the claim.
Certainly, a lot of people who are identified as climate scientists have signed on to anthropogenic global warming...and just how many dissenting scientists got jobs with the IPCC? Isn't it the least bit important to you that the study, so-called, is being made by people who all agreed beforehand what the conclusion would be? Aren't you the least bit concerned that if you want an easy government research grant, you merely have to say you're studying anthropogenic global warming, whereas if you say you're study non-anthropogenic warming you'll have to scratch for every dime?
Stop and think a bit - you lefties are supposed to be the great skeptics, but you've bought global warming more readily than an illiterate peasant bought stories of fairies in the woods.
Gar,
Here some books for you. You could even read them first prior to burning them...
Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years,
Shattered Consensus, edited by Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, which contains essays by others who are not part of “everybody.”
I mean there are two sides to every story...
Gore is barely a college graduate? Didn't Mr. Noonan only get as far as high school?
Mark: "Fine - and lets now take some of our current global warming research dollars and look into it...think Al Gore, et al will be ok with that?"
You might want to check out the article I cited, as well as the comments associated with it. One of the commenters (Martin Enghoff) is a co-author of the paper in question. Apparently he enjoys the RealClimate.org web site. With regard to the press release you cited at the top of this post, he says, "Since I´ve been down at CERN preparing our next experiments I´ve had nothing to do with the whole press release thing and frankly I am not sure exactly how it was made. We all agreed in the group that we did not want it to be another GCR [galactic cosmic rays] vs. GHW [greenhouse warming] debate but it seems to be this angle that the media is most interested in (sadly, but somehow understandable). I hope that at least in the scientific community it will be the science and not the spin that will be the main focus."
He goes on to say, "Press release or not, I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research."
As for my impression, it seems that if you want to say that cosmic ray fluctuations affect low atmosphere cloud covers, which affect global temperature, you might want to start out demonstrating a correlation between cosmic ray fluctuations and global temperature. After all, if that relationship doesn't exist, spending a lot of time, effort, and money searching for a mechanism seems rather pointless (at least as applied to global warming: it still might have effects on local levels though). And as it turns out, the relationship between cosmic rays and global temperature is the subject of considerable dispute. Calder, though, implies it isn't.
I believe that we are a big part of the problem but I will agree to the following; there is a chance that I am wrong. So, where does that leave us ladies and gentlemen? Should we go on like before and just hope for the best or should we listen to the vast majority of science who say we have a mostly man made problem. Shouldn’t the 1% doctrine be applicable here? If there’s a one 1% chance that something harmful will happen we have to act as if it is a certainty that it will happen? Well, in this case I would say there’s a 50% chance, so what are we waiting for?
Spook,
you wrote: It would be interesting to hear from all who like to debate this issue just what you've done in your personal lives to behave in a more environmentally responsible way.
comment: I live in Barcelona which has excellent public transportation so I don’t have a car. I take the Metro (subway) to work and tend to walk a lot as well. I do however travel quite a lot by plane. There are lots of things I could improve. I sometimes forget to turn my light off and I tend to use a new plastic cup every time I drink coffee. I will make changes.
Yet another scientist is falling away from the "consensus."
Seems the glaciers haven't actually been checked, and the theories are suspect. Didn’t Retired Spook say the same thing about a week ago?
Rathaven, your link is yet another illustration that much still has to be learned about this sphere we call Earth.
If there’s a one 1% chance that something harmful will happen we have to act as if it is a certainty that it will happen?
Rasmus, you sound like a decent person, and I'm not trying to make light of your comment, but I'm also a pragmatist. How much of your own money would you be willing to invest in a venture that had a 1% predicted chance of success? How about 50%?