Comics I Don’t Understand

Aarif Jan 22nd 2010 at 01:13 pm 1

The graph isn’t even labeled correctly, time should be on the horizontal axis, and temperature on the vertical.

And oh, I don’t see any joke.

Jon88 Jan 22nd 2010 at 01:23 pm 2

It’s a preaching-to-the-converted anti-global warming cartoon that vaguely relates to the e-mail scandal of late last year. I think.

Pinny Jan 22nd 2010 at 01:33 pm 3

Re: #2

Depending on the lead time, it may also also in response to the revelation this week that…:

[Extract from Time Magazine, Thu, Jan 21, 2010]
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1955405,00.html

“Faced with criticism of a widely quoted piece of analysis from its 2007 climate assessment that warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was forced to admit to relying on dubious scientific sources, apologized and retracted its earlier estimate. That estimate of the rate of Himalayan glacier loss because of warming, which appeared in the same assessment that earned the global body a share of the Nobel Peace Prize, was “poorly substantiated,” the IPCC said.”

[snip]

“To say the least. The controversy stems from a single paragraph in Chapter 10 of the report’s second section, which claimed that glaciers in the Himalayas were receding faster than in any other part of the world, and that “if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 or perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at its current rate.” Glaciologists have been doubtful of that 2035 date since the report came out. Although they are melting, there are tens of thousands of Himalayan glaciers, and it’s hard to imagine them all disappearing in less than 30 years.”

“It turns out the 2035 estimate came not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper but from an interview conducted in 1999 by New Scientist magazine with the Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain. The article, which included a “speculative” claim by Hasnain that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035, then became part of a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund — and that report, apparently, became the source for the IPCC claim. For his part, Hasnain says he was misquoted in the New Scientist article and claims that he had said that only a subset of the Himalayas’ glacial cover might be gone in 40 years. (In my own interviews with Hasnain for a recent TIME article on Himalayan melting, he made no mention of 2035 and emphasized the need for more field research before we could be certain just how quickly the glaciers were disappearing.)”

Tim Jan 22nd 2010 at 01:36 pm 4

The short explanation: the proof for global warming is right here, where we made it up. Agree with the idea of “fudged numbers” or don’t, that’s the joke. (Although, if you agree, you’re probably going to find this funnier than if you don’t)

Kit Jan 22nd 2010 at 01:55 pm 5

I’m partial to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation. Pastafarians believe that there’s an inverse relationship between the number of pirates and global temperatures. Fewer pirates created warmer temperatures. Now, with the rise of the Somali pirates, we’re seeing some record cold this winter. May we all be touched by His Noodly Appendage!

paperboy Jan 22nd 2010 at 02:05 pm 6

The warming of the NorthWest Passage will allow underwater fiber-optic cable to connect the U.K. and Asia. This will shorten the delay of financial transactions between London and Tokyo from 140 milliseconds to 88 milliseconds. Still think there’s no benefit from global warming?

Kate C Jan 22nd 2010 at 02:44 pm 7

The little weasel thing in the corner saying “oopsie” made me laugh because it is so utterly hacky. It almost looks like a parody.

Nicole Jan 22nd 2010 at 02:52 pm 8

global warming is all a lie … Bwaaaaa haaaa haaaa

Actually — that the world is getting warmer is not really in question.
Report: ’00s were globe’s warmest decade on record
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2010-01-18-global-temperatures_N.htm

The question is “Is climate change caused by human activity ?”

Kay Shawn Jan 22nd 2010 at 03:21 pm 9

Could I just ask why the right gets so “hot under the collar” about global warming? What does a scientist have to gain for doing research about this fact [see Nicole comment above]? Industrialists have lots to lose, of course, and those folks mostly are conservative-leaning, but what does the right think the left has to gain exactly? I have never been able to figure this out.

Tim Jan 22nd 2010 at 03:40 pm 10

Kay,
I have heard environmentalists referred to as watermelons: Green on the outside, but red on the inside. “Global Warming” is seen as the latest attempt to give government control over industry and private business.

Kay Shawn Jan 22nd 2010 at 03:48 pm 11

Tim: Thanks for the response…but still, I fail to see what scientists are supposed to be gaining by stating climate facts…? I doubt many scientists are commies!

Chyron HR Jan 22nd 2010 at 04:45 pm 12

Tim,

I have also heard that the President is an illegal alien, that the “Cash For Clunkers” program was a government plot to take control of our computers, and that the ultimate goal of the health care bill is genocide.

I suspect the reason that we have heard these stupid, crazy things is because the individuals saying them are stupid, crazy people.

az Jan 22nd 2010 at 04:57 pm 13

The joke here is that the artist is ignorant of science.

Nicole Jan 22nd 2010 at 05:12 pm 14

Tim …. You say “government control over private business ” like it is a bad thing.

Reagan was wrong when he said that “government is the problem” Corporations are the problem. They have proved over and over that without oversight and regulations they will run roughshod over anyone and anything in pursuit of profits.

The most recent example is the debacle on Wall Street, and let’s not forget Enron.
Deregulation has never delivered what it promised .. prices were not lower, there was not greater competition. What we saw was companies swallowing up other companies.
Simply put the unfettered free market does not work.

If that makes me a Watermelon that is ok with me .. That just means I am sweet and wet

docdonn Jan 22nd 2010 at 06:26 pm 15

this comic is pretty mysterious:
1) As Aarif pointed out above, if this is the “hockey stick” graph, the ordinate not the abscissa is temperature… but this graph is plotting “temperatures”
2) The graph displays a different periodicity prior to where they “made up a bunch of stuff” than it does after they made up the stuff, so they’re not very good at falsifying data, which may explain why they both appear to be blushing
…. or am I reading too much into what is just an ignorant cartoonist taking one piece of evidence, out of context, and using it to “disprove” a very convincing stack of unrelated evidence?

But mainly I’m wondering what is the fat guy doing with his right hand to the guy behind him to make that fellow sweat and grin?

Adam! Jan 22nd 2010 at 06:37 pm 16

The joke is a play on the two different interpretations of “created by man”, conflating its ’caused’ sense with its ‘fabricated’ sense. The climate scientists in the comic are sheepishly pointing out that, even if global warming is not ’caused’ by man, the idea of AGW was technically ‘created’ by man (specifically, the scientists).

What I can’t figure out is why there’s so much extra space in the main word bubble. Did something get redacted?

bookworm Jan 22nd 2010 at 08:29 pm 17

“Temperatures” is the title of the chart, not the label of the horizontal axis. I haven’t made up my mind on this issue, so I’ve read a lot written by both sides, and it seems to me that the greater majority of qualified people do not believe that humans have caused global warming. Global temperatures have cycled for the life of our planet, and we’re due for a warming cycle. But those same people don’t make a big noise about it, because we humans really do need to clean up our act and stop messing up our environment so much. What is causing global warming isn’t really important — definitely not worth arguing over.

src666 Jan 22nd 2010 at 09:47 pm 18

book, I would love to know who you consider to be this majority of qualified skeptics, because most of the reputable, qualified scholars and scientists accept that humans are a major factor in the current warming trend.

Adam! Jan 22nd 2010 at 09:48 pm 19

“…the greater majority of qualified people do not believe that humans have caused global warming”

Uh, [citation needed].

S.P. Charles Jan 22nd 2010 at 10:06 pm 20

More to the point, define “qualified people.”

Mark M Jan 22nd 2010 at 10:37 pm 21

Okay global warming alarmists. How about if you prove global warming is caused by humans instead of you asking us to prove that isn’t. When a relatively new theory is introduced, usually doubters aren’t asked if they can disprove it.

Nicole Jan 22nd 2010 at 10:56 pm 22

Mark M

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html

While I know I am repeating myself, no denier seems to want to answer this question

Lets say after cleaning up pollution and creating alternative energy sources etc, we find out that humans are not the cause of climate change — we still get a cleaner environment and less dependency on foreign oil. What exactly is the downside here ?

MrKenneth Jan 22nd 2010 at 10:59 pm 23

Scientists need to eat, too. Keep the misleading info going and they get more grants, etc. Some of it may be perfectly innocent that got out of hand and could not be stopped. To possible destroy economies over questionable data would be very shortsighted (read Bjorn Lomborg).

Nicole - Wall Street did, indeed, game the system and should have had greater regulation. Maybe banks should never have been allowed to become brokerage houses. However, please remember the system that got gamed was our government insisting that these banks make questionable loans to people who would never be able to make the payments. A fine idea (more people owning houses, particularly lower middle class) with severe unintended consequences. Speculators flipping property until they got caught and are now broke. Still Messers Frank and Dodd continue to insist that Fannie and Fred should continue to support these iffy loans.

Kay Jan 22nd 2010 at 11:29 pm 24

Why do those on the right always accuse the scientists of selfishly searching for gain? Global warming is about perpetuating grants?! I still wonder if any of those accusers actually know any real scientists. They are interested in searching for facts. They aren’t a total bunch of venal plotting crazies trying to wreck the world. They are merely pointing out that the world is being wrecked, in many instances by ourselves. The deniers don’t want to be told we’re fouling our own nest. They don’t want to hear about it so they won’t have to do anything about it, because — get ready — it’ll be difficult! Oh well, just my 2 cents about an unfunny cartoon–and yeah, what is that guy doing behind the man in front?!

Adam! Jan 23rd 2010 at 12:14 am 25

Nicole: some people object to the idea of being tricked, coerced or forced into supporting a cause, regardless of the cause’s merits; alternately, some people feel that the proposed solutions to AGW will disproportionately harm developing nations.

A subset of these people are global warming deniers.

Carl Jan 23rd 2010 at 08:35 am 26

@Adam!, it’s very hard to take Lomborg seriously if you actually do read his stuff. He’s smart but he also cherrypicks more than illegal Mexican farm workers.

docdonn Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:17 am 27

bookworm says ” …and we’re due for a warming cycle.” ? We’re currently in an interglacial now, about due for a glacial (if “about due” can refer to a zero to 10,000 year range).
bookworm says “What is causing global warming isn’t really important — definitely not worth arguing over.” If you don’t understand what’s causing a harmful effect, how can you effectively mitigate the effect?
But everyone is still missing the critical issue in all this:
what is the fat guy doing with his right hand to the guy behind him to make that fellow sweat and grin?

src666 Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:23 am 28

The sad thing about this is that the deniers are so bleeding obvious in their attempts to distract people from the truth. Anyone who can read numbers or look at a chart can see that we are plainly in a warming cycle. Whether it’s caused by us or not, it’s true.

But they aren’t satisfied with claiming we didn’t do it. Every time it snows somewhere, they say “So much for global warming”. If we have a year that isn’t hotter than the last year, they say “So much for global warming”. In an attempt to deny any responsibility for causing the problem (which is, at least, honestly debatable), they deny the very fact of warming, which is NOT.

padraig Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:25 am 29

I think the punch line is that conservatives have NO sense of humor.

As previously established by Mallard Fillmore pretty much every frickin’ day.

Mark M Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:47 am 30

Nicole @22 Really, no denier has ever answered that question? The obvious downside is cost. There are ones such as convincing everyone to buy fluorescent light bulbs which are more expensive and require a Hazmat team if you break one. Or Cash for Clunkers which was sold to us as a way to be more friendly to the environment but has been proven to do little more than put us into more debt. I don’t have a problem with recommending that we recycle more, take fewer car trips, etc. I do have a problem with a politician sending the country into a panic based on unproven theories.

Elyrest Jan 23rd 2010 at 12:20 pm 31

“I do have a problem with a politician sending the country into a panic based on unproven theories”

Isn’t this how we ended up in Iraq?

I think the guy in back is just sweating because he is the guy who made up all the stuff. The guy in front probably just has his hand behind his back, but he could be giving the other guy the finger (the one Betty was using on her mouse).

Tim Jan 23rd 2010 at 12:21 pm 32

Kay @24,
If you really think “science is about looking for facts,” you haven’t known many scientists. I have a degree in science, and have worked in enough academic settings to have seen things from the inside. There is a common saying: “Publish or perish.” If you don’t put out enough papers, or if you don’t bring in enough grant money for the school, your career is at peril. And if you want to get published, you can’t say anything too far away from what is accepted.

Another saying that doesn’t get as much publicity is, “Data that supports your conclusion goes in the paper. Data that’s not too far from your conclusion goes in a footnote. And data that contradicts your conclusion gets buried.” If you think that things are as unified as the news media portrays it, then you’re as guilty of “accepting whatever you’re told” as you accuse others of being. There are thousands of scientists who deny that there is any man-made global climate change, but if they get any publicity, it’s only to make them look like kooks.

Carl Jan 23rd 2010 at 01:43 pm 33

@Mark M.

I don’t have a problem with recommending that we recycle more, take fewer car trips, etc. I do have a problem with a politician sending the country into a panic based on unproven theories.

Oh, look, the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

@Tim

And if you want to get published, you can’t say anything too far away from what is accepted.

Lie. Sorry, that’s what it is. Want thousands of examples? Read the history of science.

There are thousands of scientists who deny that there is any man-made global climate change, but if they get any publicity, it’s only to make them look like kooks.

Utterly misleading. There are thousands, probably, out of the millions of scientists, and almost none of them actual climate scientists. I don’t care what known crank Shockley has to say about this and neither should you.

MrKenneth Jan 23rd 2010 at 01:54 pm 34

Mark @ 30. You could not be more right. There is a huge difference in being a denier and one who wants to be responsible about all things ecological but does not believe the sky is falling. Tell me where it makes sense to “buy” carbon credits and still use the energy (see Al Gore’s home electric bill).

The life of a fluorescent lamp is negatively impacted by turning it on and off and GE would not tell me if they had a life cycle based on 15 minutes/start. You will probably save money and electricity with those curly suckers but do not believe the long hours of life unless they burn a long time (in which case you will save a ton of money). If you live in cold country, they also do not work so well at this time of the year outdoors.

Autumnal Harvest Jan 23rd 2010 at 02:21 pm 35

Tim, I also have a degree in science, and have been a professor, so I’ve also “seen things from the inside.” It’s untrue that you can’t get things published if you say things too far away from what’s accepted. If you say something that contradicts the accepted theories, and you can make a good case for it, that’s a great way to make a name for yourself. Actually, one might say that successfully trashing accepted theories is the only way to make a really big name for yourself - that’s how science progresses.

You still haven’t explained what incentive the scientific community has to promote global warming. Yes, it is indeed true that scientists need grants (MrKenneth, #23), need to publish (Tim, #32), and, being human, emphasize data that supports their opinions (Tim, #32). The simple observations that scienists are humans with human motivations, and human fallibilities, don’t in any way explain why scientists would be pushed in favor of global warming. You could just as easily use these observations to dismiss any scientific finding that you don’t like - e.g. that tobacco causes cancer, that dark matter exists, etc. . . But we generally trust scientific research to be a pretty good, if fallible, process, for determining realtity, and making decisions. What makes scientific research in climate change any different?

The only explanation in this thread that is specific to pro-global-warming is the statement at #10, that “Global Warming is seen as the latest attempt to give government control over industry and private business” — which, as Kay points out, only makes sense if you think that all scientists are commies.

docdonn Jan 23rd 2010 at 03:05 pm 36

kay…re: “Another saying that doesn’t get as much publicity is, “Data that supports your conclusion goes in the paper. Data that’s not too far from your conclusion goes in a footnote. And data that contradicts your conclusion gets buried.” ” kay, it’s absolutely true that some scientists self-select data …but, for the big questions that lots of us are working on, any monkeying with the data becomes apparent very quickly… ask yourself if scientists, with the outsized egos we have, would pass up a chance to demonstrate that a colleague is fudging or is wrong… it’s how reputations are made and lost… the internet, computers and statistical packages make it to hard to cherry pick. As to your other point…the need to “publish or perish”, if you publish cooked data…it’s really “publish AND perish”
Finally re: “There are thousands of scientists who deny that there is any man-made global climate change, but if they get any publicity, it’s only to make them look like kooks.” why would the media… in this one single instance, want less controversy? Controversy draws eyeballs! This isn’t the 1600’s and NOAA isn’t the Vatican.

Kay Jan 23rd 2010 at 06:51 pm 37

docdonn: I think you are answering Tim, not me. But regarding false data, cheating in papers, etc–I’m not talking about how cutthroat science is. I’m simply asking why the right insists that the overwhelming evidence provided by mountains of research and facts means that the scientists are all in an evil cabal to raise grant money, destroy capitalism, inflame fear, etc. I think there’s way too much “kill the messenger” stuff going on here. A lot of screaming about the persecution of the warming-deniers is a method of distraction—”Nothing to see here, folks!”

1415DR Jan 23rd 2010 at 07:11 pm 38

Why do people get so worked up over Gloabl Warming comics? Like any political cartoon they exaggerate the argument. I guess Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is too sacred of a cow to make jokes about.

“This comic showing George Bush eating a map of the Middle East is funny, but this one showing snow is not. It must have been made by a stupid person who doesn’t vote the same way I do.”

Tim Jan 23rd 2010 at 07:39 pm 39

Carl @33,
I have no idea who Shockley is, so obviously I haven’t been following him. I think you need to look at the history of science; there are countless examples of people distorting or outright lying to push an agenda in the name of science. Google “ernst haeckel” for a single example.

David N Jan 23rd 2010 at 07:44 pm 40

src666 and kay hit it- it’s distraction they are best at. They seek to blame someone else or something else, because they know they can get sheep to look that way and fixate. And not just on global warning - just look at MrKenneth’s and MarkM’s comments, pulled right from the standard talking points. To heck with the real cost and real issue, score cheap political points wherever possible. Repeat often and spread.

Cost, Mark M? Really? Isn’t it cheaper to dispose of hazardous waste by dumping it? Asbestos is cheaper than current materials, why shouldn’t we use it? Lead worked pretty darn well in paints you know. Catalytic converters and emission tests have done more to clean air than talk radio, that’s for sure. According to you, these probably cost too much. Is cost a concern? Absolutely. Does it have an impact on economies and countries? Absolutely. Should this all be discussed and debated and understood better? Absolutely.

Same as the abolition of slavery, the Industrial Revolution, nuclear energy, and the advent of Silicon Valley.

Dave Jan 23rd 2010 at 08:18 pm 41

This is one of my daily strips… i knew as soon as I saw it that i wouldn’t need to send it in here!

Nicole Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:08 pm 42

Adam #25 … first thank you for answering the question — I was tired of it being ignored.

Regarding being tricked into supporting a cause — I can understand this concept. But this raises the question why aren’t the same people who are upset about being tricked into supporting global warming solutions aren’t upset about being tricked into supporting the war in Iraq?

Third world countries should not follow our example regardless of climate change. The idea of letting a country or group of countries pollute with abandon just to create another consumer economy is insane. Goals for growth that do not destroy the environment or exploit people must be created along with the technology to reach those goals.

Mark M # 30 — cost is not a reason not to do something if it is the right thing to do. There is this strange idea that in the richest country in the world we don’t have enough money to do anything. B.S. We have more than enough money in America … the problem is that it is all concentrated a small percentage of American families — the top 10% has 70% of the wealth and the bottom 40% less than 1% of the wealth
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
And if you think I am pro taxing that top 10% much heavier than they are right now — You bet. Am I pro redistribution of wealth ? … absolutely. Do I believe in the common good over ‘every man for himself’ … yep … I am proudly, unabashedly very very liberal.

1415DR #36 — it actually isn’t the comic that upsets people .. it is that they all for the most part play the same note of “it is snowing so global warming is a fake” recently they deniers have a new note –”some people may have faked data … .so ALL data must be fake” neither is a legitimate argument, but they want to be taken seriously based on them

Mark M #40 — pollution and use of fossil fuels are without a doubt harmful — regardless of whether or not it causes or adds to climate change. I am not even going say the logical next statement.

As far as criticizing democratic leaders go … as I have said elsewhere, it is very easy to find prominent voices on the left criticizing Obama, Harry Reid (don’t get me started on Harry), Nancy Pelosi and the democratic party in general, we don’t need any help from the right, we do fine on our own.

Nicole Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:09 pm 43

Oh… I apologize for lumping all my responses together — that is what happens when you are out all day.

Carl Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:12 pm 44

Interesting. Mark M, do you not know what the false dilemma is, or are you just left without an argument since it’s so obviously what you’re doing?

@Tim, Shockley won the Nobel prize? Invented the transistor? Was famously a racist? Maybe you’d prefer Kary Mullis, who developed the Polymerase Chain Reaction, the most useful single bit of technology since the transistor IMO, but also is both an AIDS denialist and a global warming denialist?

I’m a one-time bio grad student, I know who Haeckel was, but don’t know what you’re referring to. The inaccurate drawings?

Nicole Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:30 pm 45

Here in upstate NY , the high for January 24th is predicted to be 53 degrees. If that isn’t proof of global warming I don’t know what is

Nicole Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:31 pm 46

oops .. tha twas supposed to be the 25th

Tim Jan 23rd 2010 at 10:59 pm 47

Carl, I thought you brought up this Shockley guy because you thought I was getting my opinion on global warming from him. Point being, I’m not listening to one guy and ignoring every other “real” scientist, like some were implying.

Haeckel is well known for advocating “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” and nearly every biology textbook, at every level, reprints his embryo drawings. Middle school, high school, undergraduate level, all show the same drawings as evidence of evolution. When you get to the graduate level, the argument will never be made; at that level, it’s well known that these drawings are beyond “inaccurate”; they’re faked. Along the same lines, the famous “British peppered moth” pictures are faked; peppered moths fly by night and sit under the leaves, never on the trunks.

It would be great if scientists were as pure and honest as you believe; welcome to the real world.

Elyrest Jan 23rd 2010 at 11:49 pm 48

“Elyrest, I hope you are just making a joke and not using the typical left response to any criticism of a democratic leader, which is “Bush did the same thing”.

Mark M (40) - It was a joke, but I was unaware that anyone was talking about democratic leaders in this discussion. When you mentioned using unfounded theories and panic it did remind me of a previous administration though. I have to admit that when someone uses the phrase “typical left response” they lose all credibility though. There is no such thing. You’re just throwing jargon around.

Carl Jan 23rd 2010 at 11:54 pm 49

@Tim, you are simply incorrect about Haeckel. He was wrong about ontogeny and phylogeny, and older texts are likewise wrong. That has nothing to do with some sort of phantom conspiracy that prevents dissident voices from appearing in Nature. Your implication that Haeckel was deliberately dishonest is unsupported by much of anything. He drew inaccurately. Period end of sentence. He wasn’t trying to fool anyone, he was trying to illustrate what he sincerely believed was the reality.

Do you accuse Schiaparelli of “faking” the Martian canali, instead of merely fooling himself into thinking he saw them?

I brought up Shockley as an example of an eminent, brilliant scientist who nevertheless was utterly wrong and could safely be ignored. How about Pauling, the greatest chemist of the Twentieth Century, on vitamin C?

Dave in Boston Jan 24th 2010 at 01:36 am 50

How exactly is forcing aging smokestack industries to clean up their act (and incidentally improve their operational efficiency) going to wreck the economy?

Adam! Jan 24th 2010 at 01:47 am 51

Carl #26: the only Lomborg I know of is from Office Space. Anyway, while it’s POSSIBLE that some scientists falsify data with malice aforethought, the more likely scenario is that bias and poor methodology selects data that confirms the hypothesis. These conclusions are further coloured by the lens of unscientific reporting.

Nicole #41: I’d imagine that most US and UK citizens who abhor the idea that deception has been used to support the global warming movement would feel the same way about the idea that deception was used to support their countries’ involvements in Iraq. If you meet someone who does not, I’d suspect their car/truck/suv takes precedence over their ideals.

“Third world countries should not follow our example regardless of climate change.”

As a thought experiment, imagine how that sounds from the perspective of a developing nation: “MY country had the good fortune to industrialize early, leading us to become the global superpower we are today and destroying the environment in the processes. Whoops. Now that we’ve seen the error of our ways, YOU need to pay for it–literally–by stunting your nation’s technological and economic progress or facing sanctions.” Some consider this environmental imperialism.

Dave in Boston Jan 24th 2010 at 02:00 am 52

Yeah, every third world country has the right to allow industrial dumping of petrochemicals and have kids dying of cancer.

I know this has no relevance to CO2 emissions, but this particular point annoys me.

Winter Wallaby Jan 24th 2010 at 03:15 am 53

Tim, I commented earlier, but my comment seems to have been lost (don’t think it would go into moderation, it didn’t have any links or anything).

Nothing you’ve said answers Kay’s question of what scientists have to gain by making up a fake climate change story. Yes, scientists need to publish. Yes, scientists need grants. Yes, scientists are human, and like to emphasize things that support their case. And yes, there are historical cases of scientists who have committed fraud. All of that strikes me as completely nonresponsive to Kay’s question/point, since none of that has anything specific to do to a pro-climate-change agenda. While the scientific process has it’s flaws, most rational people consider it the best way we have of determining reality, and base their decisions about reality on the consensus of the scientific community, unless they can produce convincing reasons that the scientific process has failed in that particular case. Rational people don’t generally just say “Well, scientists are fallible humans, and they need grants, so I guess everything I can just dismiss everything scientists find without giving any explanation as to why the scientific process has failed in this case.” Everything you’ve said - “Wow, scientists need to publish” - could just as (un)reasonably be used to dismiss scientists who say that tobacco causes cancer, or that the universe is full of dark matter, or that the Earth goes around the Sun. Your only explanation of bias specific to climate change is your comment at #10, that “‘Global Warming’ is seen as the latest attempt to give government control over industry and private business,” which as Kay points out, only makes sense if you think all scientists are commies.

I have a degree in science, and have worked in enough academic settings to have seen things from the inside. . . And if you want to get published, you can’t say anything too far away from what is accepted.

I’ve been a physics professor, and have also seen things from the inside. If you say something that is not accepted and you can make a good case for it, you most certainly can get published. In fact, that’s how scientists make a name for themselves, so they have every incentive to do this.

Tim Jan 24th 2010 at 07:15 am 54

@Carl #49,
Schiparelli was mistaken. I don’t know of anybody who says otherwise. I never said that scientists were never mistaken. Similarly, I suppose, Schockley and Pauling; scientists who were wrong. What does that have to do with the price of beans in Boston? Schiparelli drew what he saw, and was simply mistaken about the interpretation of the data.

Haeckel, on the other hand, drew things that weren’t there so it would fit his theory better, and (perhaps the greater point) his faked drawings are used to this day, when they are known to be wrong. Embryos at those stages don’t look like that; they don’t have the structures pictured.

This does illustrate perfectly, I suppose, the difference between data and interpretation of data, though. Schiparelli saw lines on Mars - data. He thought that those lines were canals or channels (depending on translation) - interpretation. Weather is different than it was 50 years ago - data. Man caused the change - interpretation.

Nicole Jan 24th 2010 at 08:07 am 55

Adam 51!

How about this for a thought experiment :

Our countries have had the good fortune to industrialize early, and we have become some of the richest nations on earth through this good fortune. During that time, through ignorance and sometime malice and forethought, we have created environmental damages to our planet that will take years to rectify.

In order to not compound those damages, we the richest nations on the earth, pledge to use that wealth to do all we can technologically and financially to help the developing world to reach the goal of being an industrialize nation while not committing the same mistakes we have made.

Jeff S. Jan 24th 2010 at 08:11 am 56

Not really wanting to step in the middle of this, but today was the first time I had ever seen Haeckel’s drawings… or in fact, ever heard of the man, and my father was a biology professor for some 40 years.

I’m not sure if I should be embarrassed by my ignorance or proud of the teachings I received.

Carl Jan 24th 2010 at 08:52 am 57

Schiaparelli and Haeckel bot drew structures that weren’t really there. Why do you insist that Haeckel was lying but Schiaparelli was deluded, anyway? And Haeckel’s drawings simply are not still in use that I can tell–that’s contrafactual, unless you mean that some school districts can’t afford to replace obsolete texts. And to repeat myself, neither supports the idea of some kind of conformance-enforcers in science in any case.

Carl Jan 24th 2010 at 08:53 am 58

“Both”. Dammit.

Wordpress is now telling me I’m posting too fast and to slow down. CIDO Bill, can you maybe add a “f*ck you, WordPress” button? Or the ability to edit my typos?

John DiFool Jan 24th 2010 at 12:29 pm 59

“The little weasel thing in the corner saying “oopsie” made me laugh because it is so utterly hacky. It almost looks like a parody.”

Poe’s Law strikes again.

Aaron Jan 24th 2010 at 12:40 pm 60

Explain to me how the notion of “saving money is more important than saving the human species” isn’t . . . let’s not sugar coat it . . . a notion of an genuinely bad person.

It truly gets my goat that deniers, who at this point in the game have obviously came to their conclusion prior to considering facts, have done so because it’ll hurt their pocketbook. Matt, et. al., have said as much here.

Dude! This isn’t an intellectual disagreement. It’s wicked.

Nicole Jan 24th 2010 at 01:23 pm 61

Here is an interesting article about Jimmy Carter’s energy policy — say what you like about him, he was on the right track here … regardless of climate change

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm

what I find interesting is this short statement in the article -

“And Ronald Reagan’s first official acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter’s solar panels from the roof of the White House, and reversing most of Carter’s conservation and alternative energy policies.”

Elyrest Jan 24th 2010 at 02:05 pm 62

Nicole (63) - This has driven me crazy for years. A lot of what Carter did energy wise was on the right track. Just imagine where things would be now if the Reagan administration had continued to support what he had started. We would not be so beholden to all those oil producing countries and we would have cleaner energy.

Kay Jan 24th 2010 at 02:27 pm 63

Glad the discussion is still going…thanks to everyone, on all sides, commenting here, because this issue has truly bugged me for years. I had a brother-in-law just out of Stanford in on the ground floor of solar energy development in the Carter years, and we all watched the slow motion train wreck as Reagan dismantled and repudiated and basically shat on environmental responsibility. Hell, I remember when the RIGHT promoted carbon credit schemes [in more progressive times]. Folks on the leftier side said, figure out how to cut down polluting; don’t merely hand off the damage for money. And all this while I still don’t get the hysteria against acting prudently, responsibly, cooperatively, possibly even proactively, about not wrecking the environment. It truly seems to boil down to money [commies! socialists! imperialists! grant money! That stuff’s mostly about money. “Freedom” is more complicated.] Sigh. But hey, thanks for all the comments, folks! Now back to “Lio.”

docdonn Jan 24th 2010 at 04:08 pm 64

kay …my comment #36, yours # 37… you i correct, i WAS responding to tim… my apologies

Tim Jan 24th 2010 at 09:51 pm 65

@Carl #59,
Fine, if it makes you feel better, let’s assume that Schiparelli was lying. It makes my point even stronger. However, I understood (and I might be wrong, considering I never spoke to the man directly) that Schiparelli saw lines on the surface of Mars, and accurately drew the lines he saw.

@ Jeff #58,
If you’ve never seen Haeckel’s drawings before, then you haven’t looked at many biology books. Sorry, but they’re in nearly every one of them.

@Wallaby #55,
I’m not against the scientific method; I agree that it is the best way to learn about the world. However, there are certain assumptions that are made; in mathematics, they are called lemmas. These assumptions may or may not be correct; Einstein made some of his discoveries by questioning the assumptions of Newton. There are some assumptions, however, that are accepted and people are mocked who even question them; consider the case of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis. Global climate change is a “sacred cow,” and any scientists who question that men are the cause are mocked as “not *real* scientists”; just look at the comments on this thread. I do not believe that “all scientists are commies,” but I do believe that socialism/communism is at the heart of the environmentalist movement; look at the stated goals of the most vocal groups.

I’m not saying that we should reject everything that scientists say, just because a scientist said it; I’m saying that we should not automatically accept everything that a scientist says, just because it’s a scientist that said it.

Carl Jan 24th 2010 at 10:45 pm 66

@Tim, actually my point is that it’s possible to be sincerely wrong. I have no idea how you could misread what I wrote like that. Haeckel was also sincerely wrong. Perceptions are not reliable, that’s why we use stuff like instruments.

Einstein didn’t question Newtons’ explicit assumptions so much as realize the unstated ones and question those.

Semmelweiss was mocked because he was a huge jerk who everyone hated, and who did in fact have real mental problems, which led to his refusing to show anyone his raw data. When the climate scientists do that (hint: never) go ahead and mock them.

BTW, have you noticed that Communist countries are against carbon dioxide restrictions? It’s the capitalist ones that are pushing for them. And not, of course, there is no uniformity.

Winter Wallaby Jan 25th 2010 at 02:42 am 67

Tim, you’re still not saying anything specific to climate change. Yes, scientists make assumptions (in mathematics they’re called postulates, not lemmas), and yes, scientists can be wrong. But a rational person who wants to argue that scientists are wrong about some specific problem gives some explanation as to why the scientific process, normally so successful, is untrustworthy in this specific case. Everything you’ve said works just as well to say “Bah, those scientists claim that AIDS is caused by HIV, but just because scientists say it, doesn’t make it so. After all, I can name some scientists in the past who’ve made mistakes, or even committed fraud! Plus all those scientists who do AIDS research need grants, and worry about publishing! So none of that AIDS research is really trustworthy.” I guess that’s a good way to dismiss any scientific result you like, but it’s a poor way to form public policy.

bookworm Jan 25th 2010 at 02:52 am 68

Global warming, if it exists, is either caused by totally natural forces or by what humans in industrialized nations are doing. If you don’t believe it exists, can’t we still clean up? If you believe it exists and that it’s caused by natural forces, can’t we still clean up? And if you believe humans cause it, then let’s clean up!

Most problems are not solvable until you know the cause, but with this one, it doesn’t matter — we can only do something about one of the two causes, so if we do that anyway, we’ve done all we can do. Solutions are more important than rhetoric. Figuring out what needs doing and how to do it is more important than generalizations, name-calling, and pointing fingers.

Humans may never agree on the cause, even if the earth starts cooling off. Did the above discussion change anyone’s mind? Can we discuss solutions now?

Winter Wallaby Jan 25th 2010 at 02:55 am 69

BTW, I agree that Haeckel’s drawings are better explainable as fraud, rather than error (although it’s certainly arguable). But your obsession with Haeckel, and how he must have committed fraud, make me suspect that you don’t believe in evolution. Please, please tell me that I’m wrong, and that you’re not a creationist.

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 08:07 am 70

If I might bring us back to climate change for a moment … I am curious about the denier’s comments on this news item

NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=42383

Tim Jan 25th 2010 at 10:46 am 71

@Bookworm #70,
The difference is, if the current “climate change” is just a natural cycle, then there’s nothing to “clean up.” If that is the case, then there is no reason for the government to take over industry. And we’re not talking about “pollution,” we’re talking about “CO2″; if you really think that’s pollution, commit suicide for the good of the planet.

@Wallaby #71,
I tossed out Haeckel because he’s a well-known example of scientific fraud. Again, I’m not against the scientific process; I’m against people rejecting a conclusion without looking at the evidence. There are large numbers of scientists who look at the same data and reach different conclusions; should the minority immediately be labelled “crackpot” simply because that’s where the evidence leads them?

And for the record, “evolution” is a vague term. “Microevolution” is a known and accepted fact - people took canine stock and bred Great Danes and Chihuahuas. “Macroevolution” is antiscientific, unsupported by history or science, and only remains because it is the official religion of some scientists.

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 11:05 am 72

Tim #74

There is nothing to clean up ??? Really ????

Anything in significant enough quantity can be a poison … not to long ago a woman died of water poisoning trying to win a radio contest. The idea that pumping millions of tons of anything in to the atmosphere has no effect on the planet just doesn’t make sense.

The reason for government control of idustry is simple — they are slimeballs that will do anything for profit.
The reason for government control of industry is simple

Carl Jan 25th 2010 at 11:24 am 73

Tim is a creationist? Tim, couldn’t you have just said so in advance so we’d have know you were, you know, an irrationalist evidence-denier?

Aaron Jan 25th 2010 at 11:39 am 74

How does a belief in, and love of, God and Jesus map to protection of big business? Seriously. I wanna know!

Winter Wallaby Jan 25th 2010 at 12:38 pm 75

Tim, I’m not sure what else to say. You seem to think that you can make the case against climate change research without ever actually saying anything about climate change research. I disagree.

And really, the fact that you claim that evolution, one of the most wildly successfull and well-supported scientific theories of the past two centuries, is an “unsupported” “official religion” of “some” scientists makes me seriously doubt your ability to evaluate any scientific evidence that doesn’t lead where you want it to.

Becky Jan 25th 2010 at 01:09 pm 76

Wow… just wow. I’ve read through all of this seeing both sides points and can’t believe the way people are willing to treat each other! The last few posts are the ones that bother me most though. Personally, I think Global Warming is real, but I don’t know that humans really caused it. Does that make me a “denier”? I personally don’t believe that macro-evolution should be taken as scientific fact. Some of you people really need to look up the meaning of the word “theory”. What evidence exactly would Tim (or I) be denying when stating that he doesn’t buy into that theory? When someone brings me a skeleton of a half monkey half human that isn’t debunked in 5-10 years, I may reconsider my opinion, but I have seen no real evidence of macroevolution. I hate to drag that on as part of this discussion, but I would rather throw out any of your comments about Global Warming knowing that you are an irrational non-evidence acceptor than his for not buying into every single THEORY that science puts forth!

By the way, not everyone that denies that humans are responsible for the climate change thinks that we shouldn’t change the way we’re living. I know a great deal of people who may see the warming of the Earth as part of a natural cycle, but still feel that we have an obligation to take care of the planet and do what we can to make sure it remains livable for the future generations.

Elyrest Jan 25th 2010 at 01:20 pm 77

“Some of you people really need to look up the meaning of the word “theory”.”

Becky (79) - I think you may be making the common mistake of confusing the definitions of Theory vs theory.

Theory - A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something. This means it is scientifically proven - eg.The Theory of Gravity.

theory - your own opinion about it which you cannot prove but which you think is true.

Carl Jan 25th 2010 at 01:26 pm 78

Becky, it’s perfectly reasonable to wonder whether global warming is caused by human actions.

Evolution, though, is a settled matter. There are literally millions of pieces of evidence in favor of “macroevolution” and none against. I’d be glad to provide many hundreds of references. The mechanism is only partly understood but the historical facts are simply the historical facts.

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 01:26 pm 79

Here is a rather extensive right up of what we mean when we call evolution a ‘theory’
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 01:26 pm 80

As well as evidence for macro evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 01:27 pm 81

And in particular for human macro-evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#past_biogeography_ex3

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 01:32 pm 82

and if you are interested in human evolution in general
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Aaron Jan 25th 2010 at 01:43 pm 83

@Nicole 85,

You just hit the nail on the head! Deniers of evolution (henceforth known as “they”) have NO INTEREST in human evolution. They peruse the echo chamber of the denier community, at best, and exposure to the outside world (in regard to that school of thought) is merely stumbled up on in forums like this.

Not that you did, but just to be clear, there is pretty close to zero chance that you will change their minds. Your links are great, but will fall upon deaf ears. Even if they read them (most won’t), their arguments against them are archaic and/or otherwise faulty because they have no interest in evolving their thoughts.

Winter Wallaby Jan 25th 2010 at 01:54 pm 84

Becky, I don’t know with certainty that global warming is caused by human activity. It’s just that since the overwhelming consensus of climate change research scientists is that it is, we should base public policy on that consensus - and if someone thinks that consensus is wrong, they should give actual reasons as to why the scientific process has broken down, rather than just stating that scientists can make mistakes. But yes, it’s possible that the scientific community could be wrong about global warming.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a different matter. The theory of evolution is sa well tested and established as Newton’s theory of gravity, or Einstein’s theory of relativity. (As Elryst points out, when scientists call something a theory, they don’t mean that it’s uncertain whether it’s true.) It’s essentially impossible that these scientific theories are wrong - they’ve been so well-tested, and used to explain so many disparate observations, in so many different fields, that there’s no way to think they’re wrong without thinking that science is generally a bunch of bunk.

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 02:04 pm 85

Aaron #86

I wasn’t actually trying to change minds, just point out that there is actually a wealth of evidence out there supporting evolution.

Adam! Jan 25th 2010 at 02:27 pm 86

Nicole #57: This. This is exactly the solution. The developed nations, specifically the US, have a global reparation to pay for their war on our planet. Sadly, I suspect the solution is not economically plausible, and becomes downright impossible when one includes China on the list of developing nations. Doesn’t mean we can’t try, though.

Adam! Jan 25th 2010 at 03:38 pm 87

Elyrest #80: “Theory - A theory is a formal idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain something. This means it is scientifically proven - eg.The Theory of Gravity.”

Theories can be either supported or falsified, not proven. There are many “Theories of Gravity”, the most commonly accepted one being General Relativity. However it is far, FAR from settled fact, due primarily to its incompatibility with quantum mechanics.

bookworm Jan 25th 2010 at 03:59 pm 88

Adam! #89, I agree. And Becky #79, I agree with your 2nd paragraph — that’s what I was trying to say in #70. But I can’t agree with you on evolution. The research into the mechanism Carl #81 refers to has fascinated me most of my life.

I have a question, and I hope you all will offer your opinions about it: Why is the cause of global warming so strongly associated with right/left politically? Why is it liberal to believe humans cause it and conservative to believe it’s natural forces? I might accept that it’s because conservatives believe God is taking care of us, but that would mean that liberals are atheists, and I know way too many religious liberals. (I realize I’m speaking in gross generalities which normally I abhor, but for the sake of this discussion it’s acceptable to me.) I personally agree with some issues of each political side, and I cannot align myself completely with either, so there are many issues I have this question about, but to keep this discussion simpler, I’ll ask about just this one. Sometimes it looks like if someone on a particular political side comes out on a particular side of an issue, everyone else on that political side goes along with it, but there are too many thinkers for that to be true. Many thinkers have commented here. (Great discussion!)

Jeff S. Jan 25th 2010 at 04:11 pm 89

Tim @67 — “If you’ve never seen Haeckel’s drawings before, then you haven’t looked at many biology books. Sorry, but they’re in nearly every one of them.”

Well, I took biology in high school AND college, helped my father grade papers, and I STILL have a wealth of biology books, including those books specifically on the topic of human reproduction.

Absolutely NONE of them have his drawings in them. It appears the textbook editors neglected to include the illustrations, for whatever reasons. They simply aren’t in there. Personally, I’m going with the “proud of the education I received” part.

Jeff S. Jan 25th 2010 at 04:11 pm 90

I knew there was a reason I didn’t want to get involved in this discussion…

Carl Jan 25th 2010 at 04:17 pm 91

I have a question, and I hope you all will offer your opinions about it: Why is the cause of global warming so strongly associated with right/left politically? Why is it liberal to believe humans cause it and conservative to believe it’s natural forces?

Bookworm, I think it’s because the “professional” right-wing work for big business, and they instinctively look for arguments that let the support their desire to be pro-business.

Kay Shawn Jan 25th 2010 at 04:25 pm 92

Bookworm #91–
Indeedy! This essential question, which you’ve boiled down much better than I did, prompted my own question way upthread in the first place. Issues about global warming and the environment seemingly boil down to right/left boundries and I still haven’t a clue why. God is in there, yes, economics is in there, yes, but what makes this subject so darn touchy? It IS as touchy as evolution/creationism [I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster myself] or gay marriage, to name two flashpoints. The science is an accumulation of facts, and they can be interpreted various ways. [I know–”The facts are biased!”] But impuning the motives of all scientists rather than discussing issues seems to be a favored interpretation by some. Leaving out how the mess we’re in came about in the first place, why is it a left/right issue to be responsible about the environment? I guess more regular folks have to speak out on this issue that don’t have a direct interest–the general public are letting the scientists and the so-called tree-huggers take the culture war heat.
This discussion is great, more please!

src666 Jan 25th 2010 at 04:28 pm 93

Adam (#90) is splitting hairs with the gravity argument. Yes, there are issues to be resolved in the low level mechanics of Gravity, but that doesn’t change the fact that the theory is proven, testable, and applies to the observable phenomena in the universe.

There isn’t a competing theory of gravity that says objects fall up, or sideways, or at different rates based on your mood. Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean we don’t know _enough_.

Likewise with the climate change. We don’t know everything. We know enough to realize that stuff is happening, we are making some of it happen, and we can predict where it will end up if we don’t stop.

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 05:30 pm 94

SRC666 is right …. Gravity is a fact, we may have details to work out about the mechanism but that doesn’t change that gravity is a fact — or a Batty in Ferngully said “Gravity works’

Likewise evolution is a fact, and yes we may have details to work out about the mechanism of evolution (the theory part) , but it doesn’t change the fact of evolution.

Adam! Jan 25th 2010 at 05:34 pm 95

src666 (#96): “Adam is splitting hairs with the gravity argument. Yes, there are issues to be resolved in the low level mechanics of Gravity, but that doesn’t change the fact that the theory is proven, testable, and applies to the observable phenomena in the universe. There isn’t a competing theory of gravity that says objects fall up, or sideways, or at different rates based on your mood.”

No. Gravity is possibly the BEST example of a theory in flux: it is one of the most active areas of research in physics today. There are SO MANY competing theories (Loop Quantum Gravity, MOND, scalar field gravity, entropic gravity, literally ALL of string theory), and most (hopefully all) of these make different predictions about how gravity behaves.

Comparing evolution or global warming–the mechanisms behind which are understood very well–to gravity–the mechanisms behind which are understood possibly-not-at-all–muddles the issue.

Winter Wallaby Jan 25th 2010 at 06:39 pm 96

Adam, you’re comparing apples to locomotives. Yes, there are competing theories of gravity, which may or may not be true, but as src666 and Nicole say, that doesn’t mean that anything goes. Newton’s theory of gravity is, beyond a doubt, true. If we still have a civilization 10,000 years from now, we’re still going to be teaching that the gravitational attraction between objects is proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. We’ll still be using that to plot the paths of planets. Newton’s theory of gravity is just not up for debate. People sometimes say that Einstein showed that Newton’s theory of gravity was wrong, but that’s not a resonable way to look at it. Newton’s theory of gravity was essentially correct in the regimes that he was able to test it in (low spacetime curvature), and it’s not like after Einstein’s theory of general relativity came out, we had to go back and rip pages out of physics textbooks; we just had to add new stuff, in addition to Newton’s theory of gravity, to the curriculum. Similarly, we know that the theory of general relativity can’t be the whole story about gravity, but we have enough evidence that it’s certainly correct in appropriate limits and regimes.

The thread topic has drifted a little. . .

Bob Jan 25th 2010 at 07:09 pm 97

Whew - all I can say is “wow, this is getting heated.” Does that statement support or refute global warming?

Elyrest Jan 25th 2010 at 07:42 pm 98

“The thread topic has drifted a little. . .”

I personally like to come here because the thread topic often drifts on this site. Sometimes it floats away altogether.

Adam! Jan 25th 2010 at 08:45 pm 99

Wallaby (99), I have made no comparisons. I am pointing out what I feel is a very important distinction between Theory, Hypothesis, Law and Fact. Becky (79) used the word Theory to mean Hypothesis; although ey defined it perfectly, Elyrest (80) subsequently used the word Theory to mean Law; Nicole (97) referred to gravity as a Fact, which it of course is, while src666 (96) and I (90) referred to GR, the current accepted Theory of gravity. If no distinction is made between the four, we’re bound to run headlong into the equivocation fallacy.

To bring things back to the topic at hand:

GRAVITY:
Fact: Things fall.
Law: Massive objects attract one another.
Hypothesis: Mass curves space.
Theory: Same as above, but supported by gravitational lensing.

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING:
Fact: Instrumental records show a recent increase in global temperature.
Law: Greenhouse gasses raise the temperature of the earth’s surface.
Hypothesis: The greenhouse gasses produced by Human activity are the primary factor driving the rising global temperature.
Theory: Same as above, but strengthened by the fact that subsequent temperature measurements have not falsified the hypothesis.

That’s all grossly simplified to fit into single sentences, but it should serve to illustrate the distinction between the four terms.

Nicole Jan 25th 2010 at 11:07 pm 100

Becky #79 — actually one of the things that amazes me about this site is how generally civil people are. Yes on occasion people do lower the bar, but at our worst we are Sesame Street compared to some of the blogs/list out there.

Just a little reality check

src666 Jan 25th 2010 at 11:19 pm 101

Sorry, Adam, but you are still splitting hairs. The fact that there are still issues to work out along the margins of Gravity Theory doesn’t mean that there room for argument that Gravity Theory is incorrect or inapplicable to our lives. When you jump out of an airplane, you don’t really care if Gravity is defined best by String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, or whatever. You just need to know how fast you are going to be headed down. We don’t have to know exactly why it works to understand how it affects us.

Likewise, the current warming trend is a fact. Exactly why this is happening does have bigger margins than GR or Gravity Theory, but those margins are being filled in by observation and experimentation, and every year there is less and less real room for argument that man’s activity has contributed to it. The extent remains to be determined, the exact outcome remains to be determined, but the direction and influence is plain.

Our options are to sit on our butts and wait to see how it turns out, or act to reduce our contribution to the problem. Personally, I would prefer to open the parachute and try to survive the landing.

MrKenneth Jan 26th 2010 at 11:00 am 102

Thread still going and growing. Check this out: http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010. Discussion of where Americans put Global Warming on the list of things to work on. Dead lst and falling.
RE: The Left?Right question: While most people would agree that we need to care for our earth, the far left find no problem in spending huge quantities of money on anything without much thought for the unintended consequences (see War on poverty in the ’60s to “affordable housing for the poor and stopping of redllining”—both worthy causes) while the far right would love to have incredibly small government with little regulation (the last of which allowed Wall Street to game the housing plan above).

Nuclear energy my friends. As a wag once said long ago, “More people died at Chappaquidick than have ever died in a nuclear power plant in the US.” Reprocess what we have lying around and a whole lot less waste to worry about going to Yucca Mountain after Harry moves back.

Detcord Jan 26th 2010 at 06:12 pm 103

Because I’m new to CIDU, and am not able to visit often, I was dismayed to find a really interesting and topical discussion had begun – and I’d missed it. I think it’s great that it is in fact, still going on (maybe?)

First, the cartoon is indeed topical and the humour is ironic. The Climate Research Unit (CRU), based in East Anglia, UK, is the premier facility supporting the IPCC’s Global Warming theme. At least, it was until ClimateGate broke. The revelations emanating from the CRU’s exposed emails have thus far been devastating for those who support the anthropogenic theme associated with the Global Warming hypothesis. The punch line, “where we made up a bunch of stuff” is pretty close to what those emails appears to be saying. Hence the irony.

I noticed that some contributors to this thread have been claiming facts that are actually assertions. Nicole’s link to the Union of Concerned Scientist contains many of these assertions. For example, no one really knows what the actual impact is from human-generated Carbon Dioxide (CO2), as most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of natural causes, such as volcanoes. Only about 4.5% can be attributed to human activity and eliminating the “noise” from the natural CO2 is something scientist have not yet managed to achieve as it is incredibly complex. CO2 is acknowledged to be a minor greenhouse gas with water vapour and methane having a much higher impact.

I could go on, but I don’t really need to. Why? Because the field of science has some very simple, but exacting rules. First, anyone can make a guess, though scientists like to call a guess a hypothesis. Combine a hypothesis with some facts and one has the beginnings of a theory. However, it is not called a theory until it is able to make accurate predictions and is published to the wider scientific community, facts and all, so it can be tested. That means everybody, not just one’s pals.

In order to become an accepted theory its predictions must be consistently accurate, especially when tested by sceptics, who will have a go at it and either tear it apart or acknowledge that, at present, it seems to work. This is essential, and if the latter case happens, it becomes the currently accepted theory – and that’s as good as it gets in science. No theory, no matter how accurate it’s predictions, ever becomes “fact”.

The only “fact” we have, with regard to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) model is that no such theory or – equally importantly – verifiable predictions have been published to the wider scientific community for analysis and verification. This places the AGW theme in the realm of a guess, and nothing more. Basing significant – and expensive – government policies on such a guess is nothing short of malfeasance on a global scale.

To those who’ve already commented on this thread, I would like to add that, though ad hominem attacks and pejoratives such as “Global Warming Denier” (with its Holocaust connotations) can be great fun (for some) they have no place in scientific discussions. Their usage, in scientific forums, usually indicates that the argument has been lost – though they are considered a clever tactic in political ones.

Kay Jan 26th 2010 at 10:58 pm 104

Just one point I wanted to throw in on my own behalf, re the above comment #96–your comments are spot on, and well worth a swell debate. In my own posts, I did mention “deniers” in the sense that there are people about saying that since it’s snowing out, that means the last decade wasn’t the warmest on record. I want to discuss what’s causing warming, and what to do, and if there is anything TO do; but those who refuse to discuss that by dismissing out of hand recorded temperature statistics for convenience’s sake do tick me off a bit. Nothing to do with the Halocaust. Anyway, this thread has been great fun to read, you’re right!

src666 Jan 27th 2010 at 07:31 am 105

Detcord, they can and are making predictions and testing the theory. However, the only forward looking predictions that are valid are long term (i.e. arctic ice will retreat by X% over Y years), as opposed to the deniers “It snowed today, so global warming is a lie”.

Since they can’t make forward looking predictions, they are reviewing what historic records they are to see if there are correlations and patterns that apply, making backward looking predictions (at times when atmospheric CO2 was X%, temperatures changed by Y degrees). That’s hard to do accurately, but they are hitting more than they miss.

However, they can’t do backwards looking predictions based on events that never happened before. They can’t look for long term historical trends based on non-CO2 emissions other than sulfur, because there didn’t used to be coal fired power plants, cars, planes, etc, all spewing their own unique blend of pollutants. There didn’t used to be chlorofluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere. There used to be continents covered in forests. So they make the best guesses they can.

Whether you agree with it or not, the scientific process IS working.

And if you want people to stop using the word “denier”, then stop calling it “climategate”. Someone applied some statistical analysis tricks to tree ring data over a limited period of time. That’s it. No big conspiracy. It didn’t alter ANY of the other historical record being used, no data was lost, stolen, removed from the community, etc. Someone wanted to emphasize a graphic. You guys go ahead and forgive that, and I’ll forgive one TV network for saying “It’s cold in florida today, what global warming?” last week.

src666 Jan 27th 2010 at 07:35 am 106

Edit, 2nd paragraph: “Can’t make short term forward looking predictions”.

Really wish there was an edit function

Detcord Jan 27th 2010 at 02:47 pm 107

src666 (108) – You make some interesting assertions. I know of no published and testable Global Warming theory and I very much would like to see one – especially if it is making verifiable predictions. The exposed emails suggest that the CRU team was doing its very best to suppress any such publication requests. If you’ve found one, that would be fantastic.

I appreciate your acknowledgment that, “they can’t make forward looking projections”, and since this is mandatory for a hypothesis to progress to the theory stage, may I assume that you agree with my basic premise that the AGW model is a Hypothesis (i.e. a guess) and not a Theory that can be tested? If “yes”, then we are making progress, from a scientific perspective.

Please note that scientists do not make backward projections (an oxymoron). However, they do use historical data to calibrate and vet their models. As you correctly note, there is no AGW model that can explain the historical temperature variations that have been recorded. Not sure why you think scientist would want to test their models with historical data that, “never happened before” though. I assume that sentence was a typo resulting from typing too fast?

I do agree with you that “the scientific process IS [now] working”. Scientists from several disciplines are pouring over the exposed AGW models and discovering all sorts of things. For example, it has recently been asserted that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been, “strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Centre”, and ”…intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.”

If these, and more detailed, allegation prove true, then the assertion (though claimed as fact in this thread) that the world is getting warmer is false and climatology as a discipline is in a very deep chasm that only the most rigorous and strict application of accepted scientific protocols over a considerable period of time will amend.

I am sorry you dislike the term “ClimateGate”. It’s a term coined by the media to quickly reference a plethora of breaking events and news concerning the AGW theme. The term “denier” is, I understand, designed to denigrate those who disagree with the currently popular AGW concept, which is not exactly the standard scientific approach. However, as my notes above indicate, I most certainly do “deny” that proper scientific principles have been applied to AGW, so I cannot further object to your continued usage.

Carl Jan 27th 2010 at 03:04 pm 108

Detcord, can you source that quote? Or any of the extremely questionable assertions you made in the previous message?

Detcord Jan 27th 2010 at 03:49 pm 109

Carl (111) – Yes I can.

First though, I am curious about your phrase “…extremely questionable assertions you made in the previous message.”

Which assertions do you consider, “extremely questionable”? Most of my commentary relates to basic scientific principles that one can source in any High School textbook. A large portion of the remainder of my text simply acknowledges the points src666 made.

The remainder, I believe, will in time emerge as fact, but at this stage I prefer to use the word “assertion” until I have seen more details – standard practice in science. Here’s a link to the “quotes” I believe you are requesting. Let me know if I’ve guessed wrong.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html

Please accept my apologies for not making the link active. If you know the trick, please share. Thanks.

Detcord Jan 27th 2010 at 03:50 pm 110

Carl - Never mind. I see now that the link is made automatically.

Carl Jan 27th 2010 at 05:00 pm 111

First, the cartoon is indeed topical and the humour is ironic. The Climate Research Unit (CRU), based in East Anglia, UK, is the premier facility supporting the IPCC’s Global Warming theme. At least, it was until ClimateGate broke. The revelations emanating from the CRU’s exposed emails have thus far been devastating for those who support the anthropogenic theme associated with the Global Warming hypothesis.

Neither assertion is true.

Only about 4.5% can be attributed to human activity and eliminating the “noise” from the natural CO2 is something scientist have not yet managed to achieve as it is incredibly complex. CO2 is acknowledged to be a minor greenhouse gas with water vapour and methane having a much higher impact.

Again, neither assertion is true.

Carl Jan 27th 2010 at 05:01 pm 112

Sorry, hit “Submit” too soon. Also, can you cite something other than a far-right opinion piece in support?

src666 Jan 27th 2010 at 05:41 pm 113

Detcord, you can, indeed, make backwards looking predictions. If you couldn’t do that, the entire field of astrophysics would pretty much fall apart, since all they have to work with is historical data (stuff that happened in the past).

Here’s how it works: You make a prediction, then you review the historical record to see if your prediction holds. Easy.

For instance, if you are reviewing CO2 and temperature data, you can make a prediction that a certain level of CO2 increase is linked to a certain level of temperature increase. From there, you can review the existing data (ice core samples, etc.) to see if your prediction holds up over time.

In science, a prediction is a statement of expected outcomes from one or more stated events. It doesn’t matter a whit if the events or outcomes are in the past, present or future.

The fact that you blithely ignore this basic scientific method indicates quite a lot about the bias you approach the subject with. The fact that you count 2 emails as a “plethora” also tends to bolster this view.

MrKenneth Jan 27th 2010 at 06:08 pm 114

Detcord is the best screen name ever! Also your reasoning is the most sound on this thread. Not being a scientist, I do recall reading that some of the readings were being taken in areas near cities, etc where temperatures would naturally rise as populations grew.

Again - it would seem to make sense to continue to monitor what is going on, remember that we have only been keeping score on temperatures for a fraction of the time that the earth has been in existence and avoid at all costs the idea that the sky is falling.

Detcord Jan 27th 2010 at 06:33 pm 115

Carl (115)

“Neither assertion is true.”

Hmmm. Well, you say it, so it must be so, right? Well, no, it doesn’t quite work that way Carl. At the very least, you ought to try to meet your own expressed standards. You asked for a link supporting the … assertions I made, and I provided it. Did you read the links within? Or did you just dismiss them as “far right”, whatever that means. Facts are facts, Carl, regardless of the source. By all means challenge the facts. That’s science. But do it with evidence – as you demanded of me – and not unsupported assertions such as, “Neither assertion is true”. That reply gets us nowhere.

So, from my side, my CRU assertion is easy to prove – and you could (and should) have done it yourself. I assume you’ll accept this source, as it is from the IPCC’s own website.

http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/cru_climatologies.html

Here’s one http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm from a site, that, from my perspective, seems to support your anthropogenic CO2 theme, so I hope it meets your “acceptable” source requirement. Their handy little chart shows CO2 input from 3 general sources (i.e. 26 gigatonnes from humans, 439 gigatonnes from vegetation and land; and 332 gigatonnes from the oceans). I did the maths on their figures and, you’re right, I was a bit off. Humans account for a whopping 3.6% of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. Wow!

If you reply with some evidence of your own, please excuse me if I don’t immediately respond. I am 5 hours ahead of CIDU and it is now “late” for me. Oh, and in keeping with your requirements; no “far left” stuff – whatever that means.

Ciao

Detcord Jan 27th 2010 at 06:56 pm 116

src666 (116)

Predictions? Don’t take my word for it. Just use the Princeton.edu definition.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=prediction

Predictions relate to the future. That’s what the definition says. The past is fixed. Making predictions about the past is like shooting fish in a barrel. Good target practice, and useful for model calibration, but that’s as far as it goes. Yes, the whole field of astrophysics is about peering into the past, from a relativistic perspective. But for us on Earth, that past hasn’t happened yet, from a viewing light beams perspective. So, for our version of reality, those distant beams of light arrive in our future and hence we can make “predictions” about them. Pardon the pun, but this isn’t rocket science anymore.

…and now, as it is nearly midnight (my time) I really must go. Thanks for the confab

Detcord Jan 27th 2010 at 07:10 pm 117

Src666 (116)

I can’t resist. What 2 emails are you talking about? If it is about the hundreds of CRU emails that were exposed, a simple web search will confirm the fact. This is so easy-peasy that I must assume you are talking about some other 2 emails, but I cannot imagine what they are. Enlighten me, politely, please.

Ta!

Aaron Jan 27th 2010 at 08:17 pm 118

MrKenneth #105

thank you for at least being refreshingly honest for stating that mitigating the cost of saving the planet is the right’s priority over saving the planet and the life that lives upon it.

Refreshingly honest. I’ve always suspected that was the REAL reason.

Detcord #120
Off the top of my head, I’m not sure which is the second one, but I assume one of the emails Src666 is referring to is the infamous “trick” email, in which Dude1 told Dude2 that he was using Dude3’s trick (an algorithm, as I recall) to get the result he was looking for. I think reasonable people would be apt to allow for multiple meanings of the word “trick.” I’m pretty sure he meant it in an innocuous way, but I don’t see any point in trying to change minds. As long as you’re willing to concede that he COULD have meant it the way I read it way, I’m happy.

src666 Jan 27th 2010 at 09:48 pm 119

Detcord, yeah, there were hundreds of emails released. Of which, ALL but one or (I thought) two were totally innocuous. But once they found the “trick” statement, the deniers immediately started claiming that the hundreds of emails exposed some sort of fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If you contend that the emails, as a whole, support the deniers’ claims that global warming is a fraud, then please do link to a nice sample. Otherwise, that subject is binned.

You can use past data to validate your predictions. Maybe my terminology was inaccurate, but the point is dead on. If you predict a causal relationship, then any time the predicate act occurs will produce data that can either validate or refute the prediction. Doesn’t matter when it happened, the data is real.

As for the earth, the past has happened, from a warming and cooling perspective. So we can look at past warming events, and see if the factors that we are currently linking to warming also applied then. But I suspect you already know this, and would rather just argue definitions rather than actual science.

As for the quantity of CO2 released by man, yeah, it’s a small percentage of the total. But if the ecosystem can’t absorb it, then that small percentage pushes us out of balance. And you know that, too, but it’s not in line with the point you are trying to make, so you don’t address the balance of CO2 emissions and uptake, just that we “only” do 3.6% (or whatever the figure actually is). I know that you know this, because it is stated plainly on the very page you linked to.

How about including ALL of the science, instead of just the science you like?

MrKenneth Jan 27th 2010 at 10:14 pm 120

Aaron - please, be nice. I am only saying, and not trying to be left or right, that charging into enormous costs without considering how little you are going to accomplish is shortsighted and foolhardy. To take the extreme position that many do about nuclear energy and/or the damage to caribou if we drill on that postage stamp on a football field location we call ANWAR is just plain nuts.

The fine folks that live on the MA shoreline do not want a windfarm off their shore but complain about energy costs.

People, think clearly, breathe deeply and all will be well.

Dave in Boston Jan 27th 2010 at 10:42 pm 121

In particular, “charging into the enormous cost” of drilling in the refuge without considering “how little you are going to accomplish” is “shortsighted and foolhardy”. The same goes for the costs of a reactor meltdown, except probably more so.

Most of these supposed appeals to rationality point both ways.

Meanwhile, let’s also keep in mind that while global warming has only been a politically visible topic for a couple years, it’s been a matter of clear concern for well over twenty. All this time nothing has been done, and now we’ve reached the point where the weather is clearly and unarguably behaving strangely, and still it “requires more study”. Doubtless some people will still be saying that when the ocean floods Manhattan.

So here’s a question for those of you who think nothing should be done: what would convince you? *Is* there anything?

Nicole Jan 27th 2010 at 11:07 pm 122

Actually … I have a different question :

Lets say you go ta a doctor and he tells you that he THINKS you have boola-boola, a disease that if allowed to progress with do horrible damage to your body. He also tells you that the longer you wait the more difficult it will be to treat.

Enter Dr. #2 .. who tells you taht he does not think you have boola-boola and that what you are experiencing is a natural part of aging and no treatment is necessary.

Dr. #1 tells you that regardless of whether you have boola-boola he can guarantee the treatment will indeed make you healthier.

Dr #2 insists that you wait until you are sure you have boola-boola to begin treatment, but further testing might take months or even years.

So .. the question is .. which medical advice would you choose ?

Aaron Jan 27th 2010 at 11:43 pm 123

Nicole’s comparison doesn’t quite hit the issue: the question is if the doctor was diagnosing you or your neighbor. If it was your neighbor, some of us would question the diagnosis (especially if I was expected to pay for some of the bill).

And sorry if you didn’t think my comment wasn’t nice, MrKenneth. Question is, was it *wrong*?

Arvy Jan 28th 2010 at 12:17 am 124

Nicole,

While I agree with you on this topic (and, it seems, just about every other one discussed on CIDU), I think a little modification is necessary. To keep the analogy true, Dr. 1 also has to tell you that the treatment may have an extrodinarily negative impact on your financial well being and he can’t really guarantee that the treatment will make you healthier. I know you’ve made the point that the benefits of addressing the problem are ends in and of themselves (engergy independence, cleaner air, etc, but the fact is, regardless of the level of investment in alternative fuel technologies, there is no guarantee that we will ever find viable substitutes that are globally scalable, and it is also possible that we’ve already passed a tipping point.

But Aaron’s point needs some modification too. The doctor isn’t diagnosing your illness or your neighbor’s illness - he’s diagnosing your children’s illness - because that’s what this is really about. If the people who insist that this is all a big lie are wrong (and I believe the evidence that suggests they are wrong), then it is our children and their children who will pay the price if we don’t act.

Dave in Boston Jan 28th 2010 at 02:53 am 125

There was an estimate a few months ago that there could be as many as 700 million climate refugees by 2050. 700 million! That’s more than twice the population of the US.

Ok, so that’s probably alarmist and the combination of a bunch of worst-case estimates of other things… but even a small fraction of that would be catastrophic for the whole world, both in human and in economic terms.

Anyone who thinks this is about “your neighbor” is fooling themselves.

Nicole Jan 28th 2010 at 08:10 am 126

Arvy #127 — how is this about ‘your neighbor’ ? Do you live on a different planet ?

Dave #127 Fair enough, but if we are going to keep the analogy true, then we have to add that the vast majority of Doctors who specialize in this disease think there is a high likelihood that you have the disease.

Even if there was no guarantee that the treatment will make you healthier, I still think the analogy holds. The reasoning is this, if you have the disease, you will surely suffer terrible pain and possibly die a slow lingering death, the longer you wait for treatment the less likely the doctors will be able to cure you.

To actually find out if you have the disease, may take years .. in fact make take so long that by the time you find out for sure it may be too late for treatment.

While, it may be true that you have reached the point of no return, there is no way to know without the long term testing mentioned above.

And yes the treatment might put a financial strain on you. Keeping in mind that most Doctors agree that there is a high likelihood that you have the disease, the question is are you willing to risk a long painful incurable disease to avoid the cost ?

If there is no guarantee that that we will find alternative energy sources that will globally scalable, what do we do, not bother looking ? I am not sure what the point of this part of your argument is.

BTW — again — I will say that there is plenty of money to do
this — we found the billions to go make war on a country that posed no threat to us and we found billions to bail out the financial institutions. We can find the money to do this if we want.

Carl Jan 28th 2010 at 09:34 am 127

Detcord (#118), you make assertions, I challenge them, you then give a worthless and biased political piece as support and say “Well, now disprove it. If you don’t do research to find my references, that proves they exist.”

No.

Hey, an incredibly irrelvant citation. Again, your assertion that the CRU is “the premier facility supporting the IPCC’s Global Warming theme” is just false. It’s one of many. And the idea that the released email has been “devastating” is just risible, stupid, idiotic. It has been embarassing to perhaps as many as three scientists. It has been useful to many unprincipled and/or stupid politicians and pundits, but not much else.

Let’s accept arguendo the idea that human-generated CO2 represents 3.6% of current emissions. Let’s further assume that this represents a 3.8% increase in CO2 production (math!). Over a 10 year period, assuming no change in the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere by the oceans and biosphere, that would raise atmospheric CO2 by almost 40%. Did you even think about this?

(Aside: as a biologist, I’m also very concerned about the absorption of all this excess CO2 by the oceans, which is making them more acid and has already begun to affect those organisms that make hard shells out of calcium carbonate, such as corals and molluscs.)

FWIW, my partial solution to CO2 overproduction is building dozens of new nuclear power plants. The tech exists and is incredibly safe, pollutes way less than coal, etc.

bookworm Jan 28th 2010 at 10:42 am 128

Arvy, I agree with your modification of Nicole’s analogy, but I would suggest another that would be more important to me. It depends on the side effects. I would probably get treatment, but maybe not the treatment Dr #1 suggests. If it affects other parts of my body negatively, I would have to decide whether that would make life unbearable.

Arvy Jan 28th 2010 at 11:01 am 129

Nicole, I think you either misread my post or are mis-attibuting. I didn’t introduce the concept that your analogy should be based on “your neighbor,” I corrected Aaron’s point by saying that it isn’t as though it’s you or your neighbor who is potentially affected, it is more like it is you or your own children who would be affected. I base this on the fact that since “deniers” tend to skew older, it there is a greater likelihood that a greater percentage of them will not be around to suffer the worst of it but the next generation will.

At the same time, I do think there is some validity to Aaron’s point because, I suspect, there are many people who read that developing nations and the coasts are the ones who are most at risk and interpret that as meaning that they themselves don’t have to worry. (of course anyone who thinks this way is ignoring a) the interconnectedness of the world, b) a basic human principle that we should all care about one another, and c) the fact that even areas far from the coasts would be adversly affected (check out the projections of what happens to the supply of fresh water in the west as the result of just a small reduction in snowfall in the Rockies).

Bookworm, if we’re still talking about an anolgy to climate change, I’m not sure what potntial side effects (besides cost) you’re talking about, unless you count cleaner air, innovation, and energy independence as side effects.

Nicole Jan 28th 2010 at 12:00 pm 130

ARVY #132 — See that is what happens when you try to respond to stuff before coffee …
The references to neighbor was meant for Aaron #126

There may be a form of logic behind Aaron’s point, but I disagree that it is valid. As you pointed out, that line of thought ignores the fact that we are all in the same boat.

Dave in Boston Jan 28th 2010 at 01:06 pm 131

Arvy: the claim I believe is that “unnecessary” environmental regulation will bankrupt industry worldwide.

For example, Soviet steel mills and coal mines, which never had to contend with environmental regulators, were that much more efficient, more profitable, and safer for the workers than their Western counterparts… er… actually they were none of those things, not even close, so go figure.

Aaron Jan 28th 2010 at 01:08 pm 132

Supposin’ your premise is true, you still can’t deny that you are saying that watching the cash flow is more important than taking care of the environment (i.e., saving everyone’s lives).

I love that y’all are shirking this simple point.

Detcord Jan 28th 2010 at 03:40 pm 133

Aaron (121)

I agree that a couple of emails referencing a “trick” would not be thought damning by most reasonable people. Since there is clearly an enormous brouhaha boiling up about these emails, I think those same reasonable people would also conclude there must be something more to it than just that. As I wrote earlier, scientists are now pouring over those emails and I am content to await their verdict. I will ask you this though. Would Professor Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Unit, stand aside until the completion of an independent review of his unit if there weren’t significant allegations to answer? That unit is the one so prominently displayed by the IPCC’s own website – which I linked to earlier. There are other research stations, of course, but only one CRU, which makes this investigation pretty important.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/phil-jones-steps-down/

Granted the Professor’s stand-down is not an admission of guilt on his part. However, his action is an acknowledgment that serious and disturbing questions about his unit have come to light that need answering. The links I provided are just a tip of the iceberg (sorry about the inadvertent pun).

I won’t bother with more links because all of mine are “tainted” – apparently. I love a good argument, and really enjoy it when I learn something new. Sadly, there are some in this thread who have chosen to refute my and others’ links, not with evidence of their own, but with ad hominem attacks and epithets. Nice! This approach is possibly a winner in political discussions, but an admission of failure in scientific ones.

The English biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley, said, “The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence.”, and I agree 100%. He also said, “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” That one I sorrowfully acknowledge.

So I will not further argue with my erstwhile antagonists. I believe it was Mark Twain who gave this bit of good advice. “Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”

There are many here who do not fit that description, so you’ll hear from me again, for as long as it’s fun.

Aaron Jan 28th 2010 at 09:15 pm 134

Nicole, the fact that you disagree with my statement is the point. It was intended to point out the absurdity of the right wing POV, which is that there *is* no boat. Come to think of it, it’s more of a “the leak’s on your side, I’m not interested in paying for it.” The problem is that they lie and pretend that they don’t believe the leak is there.

By the way, “they” in the above statement is the pundits. The followers may legitimately believe there’s no leak, but only becaue uncle Glenn told them so so.

IMHO any argument re: global warming is automatically null and void when they start talking about cost. The fact that they consider that at all, not to mention the fact that they put it above the coat of life is purely immoral.

Mark M Jan 28th 2010 at 10:22 pm 135

“Supposin’ your premise is true, you still can’t deny that you are saying that watching the cash flow is more important than taking care of the environment (i.e., saving everyone’s lives).

I love that y’all are shirking this simple point.”

I would call that point oversimplified, not simple.

Nicole Jan 28th 2010 at 11:34 pm 136

Aaron #137 — I get it … we agree

bookworm Jan 29th 2010 at 03:04 am 137

Arvy, I was referring to the safety, reliability, actual benefit, etc. of any changes that would reduce the polution and degradation of our environment. The only example my tired brain can come up with right now is the possibility that nuclear power plants might attract terrorist bombers. That’s not to say I’m against those plants, just that cost isn’t the most important consideration to me. I know the money exists, though not in the US budget right now — we need to reduce the deficit or we’ll be of no use to anyone. The private sector is doing a lot and can do more.

MrKenneth Jan 29th 2010 at 09:18 am 138

Our President is going to announce today a huge quest for nuclear energy construction. Go, Barry!

MrKenneth Jan 29th 2010 at 04:40 pm 139

By BJøRN LOMBORG

With most of the world still reeling from the worst recession in 40 years, this week some 2,500 members of the international political, business and media elite are descending on Davos, Switzerland. The occasion is the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum, that well-publicized Woodstock for movers and shakers. The point of Davos is to swap big ideas about big issues, and this year’s theme couldn’t be bigger: “Improving the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild.”

If you detect a whiff of “back to the drawing board” in that slogan, you’re right. There is a growing consensus in policy circles that if the recent economic carnage has taught us anything, it’s that our 20th-century prescriptions are not up to the challenges of our 21st-century world.

This kind of intellectual humility would certainly be welcome in my particular area of interest: the debate over how best to cope with man-made climate change. For nearly two decades, environmental policy makers have been single-mindedly marching down the same road, trying without success to get the governments of the world to endorse a binding agreement to drastically reduce carbon emissions. Just last month, we saw this strategy fail again when yet another global climate summit convened and adjourned without accomplishing anything. Yet policy makers refuse to change course.

There is a superficial logic to the conventional wisdom that the only serious way to stop global warming is to get governments to either force or bribe their citizens into slashing their reliance on fuels that emit carbon-dioxide. After all, if carbon emissions cause global warming, shouldn’t eliminating them cure it?

Yes, it would. The question is at what cost? The fact is that whatever prosperity we currently have or are likely to achieve in the near future depends heavily on our ability to acquire and burn carbon-emitting fuels such as coal, oil and gas.

Right now, developing nations like China and India are most vocal in their opposition to cutting carbon emissions—and it is not hard to see why. Compared to other forms of energy, fossil fuels are abundant, efficient and cheap. In order to make drastic cuts in their carbon emissions, developing countries would have to pull the plug on domestic economic growth—thus consigning hundreds of millions of their citizens to continued poverty.

But the developed world has an interest at stake here as well. All the major climate economic models show that to achieve the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature rises under two degrees Celsius, we would have to impose a global tax on carbon emissions that, by the end of the century, would cost the world a phenomenal $40 trillion a year. Even the wealthiest of nations would have trouble paying that price.

Viewed in this light, it’s no wonder so many governments are skeptical of the idea that environmental salvation lies in just saying no to fossil fuels. So what’s the alternative? I believe it’s time to take a page from the World Economic Forum’s book and rethink, redesign and rebuild our climate policy.

Despite all the optimistic talk about solar, wind and other green-energy technologies, the alternatives we currently have aren’t anywhere close to being able to carry more than a fraction of the load fossil fuels currently bear. For two decades, we’ve been putting the cart before the horse, pretending we could cut carbon emissions now and solve the technology problem later. But as we saw in Copenhagen last month, that makes neither economic nor political sense.

If we really want to solve global warming, we need to get serious about developing alternatives to coal and oil. Last year, the Copenhagen Consensus Center commissioned research from more than two dozen of the world’s top climate economists on different ways to respond to global warming.

An expert panel including three Nobel Laureate economists concluded that devoting just 0.2% of global GDP—roughly $100 billion a year—to green-energy R&D could produce the kind of breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.

Mr. Lomborg is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming” (Knopf, 2007).

MrKenneth Jan 29th 2010 at 06:50 pm 140

…and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

src666 Jan 29th 2010 at 07:13 pm 141

Well golly gee, how unexpected! An article ripping the efforts to curb carbon emissions from a person with a history of opposing efforts to curb carbon emissions.

What next, an article from Ralph Nader telling us how dangerous the Chevy Corvair is?

My point isn’t that he’s a loon, it’s that his position is well known, and he has a stake in the game. He’s not an unbiased reporter, he is pushing his own agenda (like most of us).

And in many cases he’s right - we should be devoting more to developing long term energy strategies that will eliminate our dependence on carbon emitting fuels. But his position is that we abandon any effort to mitigate the damage we are doing TODAY, on the hope that we find a better solution TOMORROW. How about we do both? And if we do that, then the expense of curbing carbon emissions goes down over time, because newer methods of power generation will be replacing the old ones.

As any follower of energy policy knows, there is no real private sector incentive to find new methods of power production as long as the current method is cheaper. That’s where the cost of cleaning up the emissions HELPS the search for newer alternatives. When it costs LESS to buy “green” power from your utility than it does to buy dirty power, that’s the tipping point.

Detcord Jan 30th 2010 at 05:00 am 142

MrKenneth (142)

I looked up BJøRN LOMBORG (The Skeptical Environmentalist) on the web (Thanks for the hat tip). He sounds like an interesting fellow, with a different take on the climate question than the usual warm-monger. I note, in 2003, he was accused of scientific dishonesty by some environmental scientists and charges were lodged with the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD). He was “subsequently found guilty of being scientifically dishonest, but … not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question”. Hmmm.

However, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD’s decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DCSD. On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors:… [here’s a link to the whole, for those who are interested] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#cite_note-15

On March 12, 2004, the Committee [DCSD] formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

A few, such as Kåre Fog apparently haven’t given up their attempts to blacken Lomborg’s name. Kåre even has a website http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ documenting what he calls “Lomborg’s [alleged] errors”. I discern a number of logical fallacies in Kåre’s site (e.g. If the concrete information given by Lomborg is correct and balanced, then it follows that his main conclusions are also correct.) Well, the Geocentric Model of the middle ages was balanced and correct, until the invention of the telescope provided an ugly fact that refuted it – blowing the whole theory. So that’s a Non Sequitur.

The treatment of that telescope wielder (Galileo Galilei) was intellectually very similar to Lomborg’s – though factually much more harsh. He was threatened with death (by the Pope no less) if he didn’t recant, or permanent house arrest if he did – a typical behaviour for the Middle Ages – and one I’d hoped we’d gotten past.

My experiences on this site suggest we humans have a ways to go yet. I will leave you with a link to a conversation I found very enlightening and honest. It comes pretty close to my own (current) thoughts on the subject. It’s called Sensible Scientist. http://plato-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/sensible-scientist.html

Hope you find it useful.

Detcord Jan 30th 2010 at 06:47 am 143

Bill - apologies for the link double-post.

MrKenneth Jan 30th 2010 at 10:22 am 144

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

src666 - wind (for example) is a wonderful idea and should be developed where it can be, but its impact will still be small in the grand scheme of things. Ditto solar, but keep going for development at a pace that makes sense.

Another terrific and studied read is reviewed here: http://cravenspowertosavetheworld.com/

There is plenty of incentive and energy companies are spend ing a great deal of money on research. Nuclear is a proven technology, that needs to be used with care and safeguards. Hey, even our current president is in favor.

Detcord Jan 30th 2010 at 11:10 am 145

MrKenneth (147)

There also this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm Nuclear Fusion. It’s not just for kids anymore.

bookworm Jan 30th 2010 at 02:05 pm 146

Solutions at last! Thanks Detcord and MrKenneth! That book Power to Save the World looks like an intersting one. And Detcord, that video of the Sensible Scientist is a good one. But another Little Ice Age soon? Could be. The next decade will be interesting.

Comics I Don’t Understand

I have no idea whether ”The Stars Are Indifferent to Astronomy” is a good album, but I might have to buy it just on the basis of its awesome name

Cru Check

146 Responses to “Cru Check”

Leave a Reply

comics

Other Sites of Interest

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Meta

January 2010
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Dec				Feb »
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31