Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The War Against Climate Science Unravels
The skeptic case against climate change is unraveling before our eyes like someone walking away from an old sweater, thread in hand.
For those who have ever put the skeptic arguments to the test, it has always been clear that their criticisms rarely stand up to even the most basic level of academic rigor. But last week's release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study delivered a decisive blow to the edifice of climate skepticism.
The key skeptic pillar, summarized by arch skeptic Anthony Watts, has always been this: "How do we know if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the temperature record?"
His 2009 study of US weather monitoring stations argued that many were located in areas where temperatures were likely to be higher than in surrounding areas, suggesting that estimates of warming were exaggerated. So the BEST study, partly funded by the climate denial industry, was undoubtedly meant to corroborate Watt's fundamental tenet.
NASA Goddard, 2010
Instead, the BEST study confirmed quite the opposite -- that rapid warming trends found by previous studies of climate change are in fact correct. While the study must still undergo peer review, it is a climate change denial killer for two reasons:
• The research was led by a prominent climate skeptic with funding by denial bankroller Charles Koch. It was given the seal of approval by Watts and other skeptics. Watts: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." Fred Singer, another long-term denier said: "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project -- a very difficult but important undertaking."
• It annihilates the "climategate" accusations. Skeptics claimed that climate scientists had tried to hide discrepancies in the temperature record which were inconsistent with global warming trends. Even though every one of the six independent inquiries has exonerated the scientists as well as the science, deniers have been relentless. BEST shows that these discrepancies are inconsequential.
It's important to remember, however, that climate denial is not about getting at the truth. It is a well-funded, carefully orchestrated campaign to block regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. So once the skeptics realized their own study was going to fly in the face of their main talking points, they figured BEST would have to be neutralized somehow. Indeed, Watts has been back-pedaling for months, ever since the preliminary findings were known. Their counter-strategy generally went like this:
1) Create Confusion and Sow Doubt: On October 19, the day of BEST's release, climate denier command central Heartland Institute ran a story headlined: "GAO Confirms: Anthony Watts Is Right, UN Temperature Data Rigged To Show Warming"
Was the timing a coincidence? Hardly. The GAO study in question (PDF) was more than six weeks old and had already been reported widely in the blogosphere based on a distorted press release issued by the skeptics' very own Sen. James Inhofe. (And Heartland further distorted it beyond all recognition, I might add. Rigged data? GAO didn't even imply this, let alone confirm it.)
So why the sudden re-release of an old story, but this time focused specifically on vindicating Watts? Because it was his work that BEST eviscerates. As Watts himself admits, "I knew that behind the scenes, they were planning a media blitz" (and he of course is scrambling to cast doubt on the findings). It was a preemptive strike meant to imply that there were two sides to the story. And why refer to "UN temperature data" when the story had nothing to do with the UN? Because tapping into public mistrust of the UN is part of the denial narrative.
2) Change the Subject: The press didn't buy the standard "two sides" gambit. Virtually every major media outlet ran stories with headlines like this one from The Economist: "The heat is on: A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming."
So the next move was to pretend this was never a key tenet of the denier argument. The day after publication, Heartland's line was:
The mere assertion that the planet has warmed some tells us absolutely nothing we didn't already know... Few skeptics claim the earth has not warmed during the past 100 years...What defines global warming skeptics is the assertion that our present warming is not a crisis (human-induced or otherwise) - not an assertion that the planet has not warmed.
Um, right. I Googled "Earth is cooling not warming" and got 13 million results. The Urban Heat Island effect has been a lynchpin argument of the deniers, led by Watts, for years.
Perhaps the most blatant example comes from the very man who coined the term climategate, James Delingpole. Just one year ago, in a piece titled Global Cooling and the New World Order, he wrote "the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming..." The same guy last week?
'The planet has been warming,' says a new study of temperature records, conducted by Berkeley professor Richard Muller. I wonder what he'll be telling us next: that night follows day? That water is wet? That great white sharks have nasty pointy teeth? That sheep go "baaaa"? ...It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend."
Outright denial is increasingly hard to defend, so the new talking point is "Yes, there is some climate change, and yes, a little might be man-made, but don't worry, most of it is natural so we don't need to do anything about it." This friendly face of climate denial is backed up by Heartland's insidiously deceptive "Encyclopedia" on Climate Change.
3) Silence Climate Scientists: climate scientists have been subjected to a veritable witch hunt. As a bunch of people understandably deficient in PR craft, they've proved an easy target for the skeptics. The most recent attack can be found in an obscure amendment (SA 862) to a Senate "minibus" budget bill (HR 2112). The amendment would prohibit federal employees (including scientists from NOAA, NASA, and other government institutions) from participating "in any password-protected electronic forum that involves the participation in a process or production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Of course the IPCC uses password-protected fora. Anyone who has ever used online tools (like Google docs) to work on joint papers knows they are far more efficient than using email. Having draft versions in the public domain would simply create confusion (see 1 above). It would be like conducting climate science as if it were a reality TV show, with every spat judged in the court of public opinion, although in this case the public is far less qualified to pass judgement than on whether Britney should be voted out of the house.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
63 Comments so far
Show AllThe deniers always have fall-back positions. First, the climate wasn't warming, Then it was, but it wasn't us doing it. Then it might be us, but it will turn out to be a good thing. This latest setback doesn't mean a thing: they will just say, "So what?" All of this tells me that rational argument is wasted on these people. They are certain that individualism/rampant capitalism is fundamentally correct and they do not need to change their actions one bit. After all, why should they? It might cost them money as they turn their backs on oil and coal, the cash cows that made them rich in the first place.
"So what?" IS the correct answer. Nothing will be done on a national level on this because the Democrats don't control the presidency or the congress and even if they did, I doubt they'd do anything. If we want a climate solution, we have to rely on the rest of the world and ourselves not the US government or corporations.
This fight between global warmers and deniers is World Wide Wrestling.
The issue used to be corporations must stop polluting...and now the issue is how much should we tax Joe Six Pack because after careful study the experts have concluded the sun is rising in the east.
Anyone discussing climate change without mentioning the proliferation of air-crafts spraying god knows what - worldwide, which really is affecting the weather is either blind or an operative.
In British Columbia, we are already being charged a 15% global warming tax on gas utility bills. Nevermind, that our winters are now longer and colder than 10 years ago.
That's too bad about your 15% carbon tax on home heating gas, because it won't do squat to help reduce carbon output... Some may start using electic heaters or getting a wood burning stove, but people will still heat their houses and water, one way or another and Co2 emissions won't reduce to any measurable degree.
A few who can afford it may put on solar panels or wind turbin generators and that works to reduce carbon output.
The regressive tax money will go for some other "usrful" purpose, like hiring a few more government employees to shuffle papers or harrass the public in some manner or build some new roads or a new city hall complex, maybe a bigger jail, etc.
If you are not quite sure of what is causing (global warming) and the resulting dramatic climate changes, get a-hold of a good high school or college science text book that has a chaper or chapters on how Earth's atmosphere works.
You will find that when greenhouse gases, such as Co2 and CH4 are too high in the atmosphere, above the 320 ppm range, global warming begins to be worrisome.. When it pases 350 ppm we have a serious problem and when they are not high enough an ice age results.
That is the (basics), the text books will explain it all in much further detail...It is well established, well proven physics, which we cannot alter. and (*nobody*) should argue it,,, or (*deny*) it... But for monetary reasons,,, some do (*deny*) the well established physics.
At the present time, the atmospheric Co2 level is above 391 ppm and that (does not) include atmospheric CH4,,, and unless stong sensible atction is taken (now) to reverse that dangerous situation, we will all be royually scerewd... CH4 or methane is the "Grim Reaper" and our "asses" are the grass... We must prevent a trillion plus tons of methane, CH4, from escaping from the rapidly thawing Arctic's permafrost... Or else!
That is not my idea btw, it is well established physics and what many very highly qualified scientists have learned from studying the Arctic over the years and it is (how it is). ..We cannot stop a speeding bullet by igring it, or (*denying*) it.
The Professional Global Warming Deniers, and the Koch Brothers, CEOs of oil, gas and coal corportions, should all be rounded up and sentenced to live the rest of their pitiful, corrupt and totally stupid lives on some uninhabited South Pacific atol or island, where they can observe the continual rising waters, as the fresh water ice from the Arctic and Antarctica are now rapidly melting away.
"As a bunch of people understandably deficient in PR craft, they've proved an easy target for the skeptics."
They certainly are deficient in PR skills. After all, when the deniers say that the scientists claiming warming is occurring are just trying to keep the government grants coming in, why don't they counter with "who is paying the bills for the deniers? If they mentioned that every time they deal with the media, eventually, a reporter might look into the matter and actually publish the sources of the deniers' funds. The source is obvious to anyone with a grain of common sense, but common sense is not a characteristic of those who get all of their information from the MSM.
A mostly irrelevant rant:
I don't consider that "PR" at all. Also, even if people mention this stuff (a lot of people do), it will not pass the layers of filters (definitely not nearly often enough) that separate people from truth. This is just about media that is subservient to power simply keeping facts off the table, not about the lack of PR skills of individual scientists.
Thing is, science is completely antithetical to PR: one is about searching for the truth and the other is about making people believe lies. PR is built on dishonesty, malevolence and assymetry of knowledge - science is built on shared knowledge (that is its single most important property: reliable shareability), goodwill and a search for truth. PR (formerly known as "propaganda") has no justifiable use whatsoever - any civilisation that relies on them in decision making is fundamentally fucked and definitely sick. Which is why it makes no sense to call for people still engaged in work that has retained some degree of intellectual honesty and integrity to give it up - which accomodation of PR "skills" (which are basically skills of manipulation and lying) will inevitably lead to. Propaganda is poison. Manipulation has no place in a democracy. Lies and keeping the truth secret from masses of people is evil. PR is fucked up as it is. No one should call for more of it, imo :-/
Science, in my opinion, is something that a civilisation has to grow up to. Its power is greater than people are used to handling and thus people have to be careful with it and respect its rules - not the other way around. If science has something to say, we should respect that and not complain that it didn't repeat it often enough or didn't keep shouting it long enough.
Not that there aren't loads of problems with how science (and especially technology) work in society, and how scientists and especially engineers could do much better (because they are doing pretty badly). But the solution is not adopting this fucked up evil crap.
I'm interested in the passage from the article above: "...amendment (SA 862) to a Senate "minibus" budget bill (HR 2112). The amendment would prohibit federal employees (including scientists from NOAA, NASA, and other government institutions) from participating "in any password-protected electronic forum that involves the participation in a process or production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
I know of a state employee who works for an environmental office that is part of the NOAA, who is also a member of Patriot Action Network and the state chapter of the local Teaparty. This person has stated in their profile at PAN one of their biggest concerns is "climate alarmism" implying global warming is a hoax.
Since PAN is a password protected site, and this person is an employee in an administrative position at an NOAA environmental agency, isn't it a conflict of interest for the NOAA to hire such a person? Or is this exactly the kind of employee NOAA seeks: those who dismiss global warming as a real threat, one worthy of scientific investigation?
But then government 'environmental protection' became an oxymoron long ago.
The article did not actually say that the bill with this amendment had passed both houses and been signed by Obama. But the implication is that you will be correct if those things happen.
It is an impossible task to convince deniers with facts.
thanks Miss Manners
"climate denial is not about getting at the truth. It is a well-funded, carefully orchestrated campaign to block regulations on greenhouse gas emissions."
The federal government was captured by fossil fuel interests back in the 1870s. John Bacher in "Petrotyranny" makes an excellent argument for Big OIl being at the root of our global political malaise and numerous wars. Here're two political cartoons from 1879 and 1880 that could easily be from yesterday, http://superitch.com/?p=7808 http://superitch.com/?p=8314 "Bosses of the Senate" is another example, http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-97llGfN_E3w/Te2hr6ld21I/AAAAAAAABQY/A6Nj0FdH6xg/s1600/Bosses-Of-The-Senate.jpg
Amazing stuff! Nice find.
There's a particular cartoon I wanted to post a link to, but I can't find the darned thing. But here's another nice series of 6 that are great, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/power/text1/octopusimages.pdf along with some great stuff from "Puck" here, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma96/PUCK/home.html Then there's the Ding Darling Collection with over 11,000 cartoons, http://digital.lib.uiowa.edu/ding/
It is an impossible task to convince deniers with facts.
The professional global warming deniers are not going to give it up, they are well paid by Exxon, Koch and othrs to do their corrupt and incredibly ingonrant writing... WhY?
Well for one thing, an assassin can only be stopped if someone pays them more than they are already receiving.
I believe the major reason is the oil barons are extremely pleased to see global warming cause the Arctic sea ice to rapidly melt off so that they can drill for oil in one of the few places on Earth they haven't spoiled, it is PROFITABLE. They do not give a damn about the enviroment or the end result of what global warming will eventually do to life on Earth.
The few professional global warming deniers such as Anthoney Watts, managed to totally destroy the very important Copenhagen Conference and have managed to cast strong doubt with many, if not the majority of our elected, who have the power to do things that would be productive to reduce our carbon emissions.
That old saying "ignorance is bliss" is just as appropriate now as it ever was... The serious problem there is, that blissful ignorance unless knocked out of our leaders heads, is going to insure the beginning of the end for humanity and the end is not by 2100 or a hundred years. It is going to be much sooner if we do not act now.
When the Arctic is ice free all summer long by 2015, as is now predicted by many of out top scientists, we will see multi billions of tons of Ch4, methane gas, erupt into our atmosphere from the Arctic's shallow sub sea permafrost.
When that event occurs,,, and it has already started,,, global warming will then be totally out of control, it will "trigger a tipping point of no returen for global warming and a "runaway" global warming WILL occur.
There will be nothing at all we then will be able to do to reverse what we have done to our atmosphere... "Runaway" means "runaway",, no do-overs, no turning back. Once a trigger is pulled the speeding bullet is going to be loose.
We must have some very, very stron and immediate action taken to reduce our carbon output by at least 40% and it has to begin now, or very, very soon. That's how it is.
I base my opinions entirely upon the words of some of out top scientists.. They have warned us and our leaders,,, our leaders are ignoring them... And in Texas they are gagging them... Of course our leaders campaigns are highly financed by the same ones who finance Anthony Watts and the other professional GW deniers,,, who are well paid assassins.. Stupid assassins,,, most hired guns don't also shoot themselves in the head.
WayneWR,
Agreed. Here's some more very bad news about methane that I just dug up.
Snippet:
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a methane-rich area that encompasses more than 2 million square kilometers of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean. It is more than three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Shakhova's research results show that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is already a significant methane source: 7 teragrams yearly, which is equal to the amount of methane emitted from the rest of the ocean. A teragram is equal to about 1.1 million tons.
"Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilization already," she said. "If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger."
Shakhova notes that Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=7624&method=full
Perhaps aleph null will read it and realize his reliance on a gradual change scenario is flawed.
Hi ~agelbert~ Welcome aboard and thank you so very much for the much needed support which you, Webwalk and others gave me on the other thread... Very much appreciated.
Yes, that information about the methane threat,, or the Arctic's "ticking time bomb'',, is not good... In fact it is downright scary... I fear that as the Arctic perennial sea ice melts off, far more during the next three years, we are going to see far more than just 2% of the methane released.
Top climate, earth scientists, oceanic bio-chemist scientists and geologists have stated emphatically that if only 1 or up to 2% of the methane now safely stored in ice escapes, that (runaway) global warming (will occur),,, no question in their minds about that coming disaster... And they add, "when", not "if", (runaway) global warming occurs, there will then be nothing we will be able to do to prevent another mass extintion of life like that which occurred 55 million years ago, or even worse, the really bad one of 260 million years ago, when all life on Earth nearly died.
Now how much more dramatic comments can scientists make than that? And hardly anyone cares!! __ We have three to five years, perhaps less, to stop the Arctic's trillion plus tons of methane from releasing and how are we going to manage that? __ Scientist had better find a way and quickly, or find a way to fly faster than the speed of light, so we can escape and find another water world to fuck up.
We have so many ignorant world leaders who have bought into the professional global warming deniers lies... I readily admit I am very frustrated and angry about it all for the fact that so few seem to care... It's almost like most everyone is already 85+ years old and have no children or grandchildren to care about,
Bu that is not how it really is, the citizens of our world have to be educted about the truth of what is happening; and how do we manage that?
WayneWR,
Glad to be of service. We realists have to stick together. It seems too many people think they can shape their own version of reality. On these threads we often find a combination of folks who got snowed by that book from the 80s, "The Power of Positive Thinking". When we keep throwing reality in their face, they then switch to acting out another corporate BS book they read in the 90s, "Winning By Intimidation".
Thank you for continuing to give it to the deniers with both barrels.
They're causing Global Warming on purpose, think of all the money these already bloated bastards will make once they've melted those pesky icecaps getting in the way of their precious resources. And don't forget the real estate magnates. The shipping companies are already enjoying the benefits of newly opened arctic shipping lanes.
Articles like this one discredit us.
I'm no climate-change skeptic, but this article contains a great deal of bad thinking and misrepresentation, as well as one falsehood. To begin with the falsehood:
"[E]very one of the six independent inquiries has exonerated the scientists as well as the science, ... "
This is false. You can read the investigation report from IOP here:
http://www.iop.org/policy/consultations/energy_environment/file_41855.pdf
You can also read what BEST Director Richard Muller says about the manipulation of climate-change data:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/qa-with-richard-muller-a-physicist.html
Some IOP heads tried to water-down the investigators' conclusions later, but the investigators' own report is damning. The Climategate emails that I've read myself sustain the investigators' conclusion that the emails constitute a prima facie case for scientific misconduct.
By the way, we're quick to attack heads of organizations or government agencies for watering-down reports from their own investigators when those reports concern Monsanto or the Department of Energy. Why do we give them a pass in this case?
As an example of Kelly Rigg's bad thinking, consider this statement:
"While the study must still undergo peer review, it is a climate change denial killer for two reasons:"
Those reasons are (1) the aforementioned "exoneration" of climate scientists who were accused of manipulating data, and (2) the backiing that BEST has received from prominent climate-change skeptics. The quoted statement from Rigg asserts that those two reasons make BEST's study "a killer" no matter what scientific errors might happen to be present (and perhaps eventually identified by peer reviewers) in that study.
Is it really necessary to point out what's wrong with that thinking?
Another example:
"For those who have ever put the skeptic arguments to the test, it has always been clear that their criticisms rarely stand up to even the most basic level of academic rigor. But last week's release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study delivered a decisive blow to the edifice of climate skepticism."
"Rarely"? Does that word concede that some of the criticisms are, indeed, valid? If so, which? Did BEST's study address all of them? If not, then how was BEST's study a "decisive blow"? Especially since BEST confirmed only the warming itself, and did not investigate whether it's anthropogenic?
Really, we need to do better than this.
Tell ya what ~SSJJ~, forget the reports you cite. "he said,,, she said". .. If there were NO climate scientists ever on this little blue and white water world,,, what is occurring with our atmosphere and with the current global warming would be occurring just as it currently is, as long as we burned fossil fuels to produce electricity.
And no, nukes are just as bad in other ways... We need a masssive program implimented now to have clean energy and stop burning coal and oil to produce our electrical power... For starters.
"Tell ya what ~SSJJ~, forget the reports you cite."
In other words, I don't need to look at anything that might not agree with you because YOU'RE RIGHT.
That's the same thing the deniers tell me in their forums.
I recognize your PSY-OPS. The meme suggesting we hold climate scientists to the same standards as those we deride was the EXACT one used by someone who likely works for the same source you do. I've seen it before in these threads. Other common Memes of inversion also include: 1. Make it about The Individual (particularly if that can help to discredit the issue under discussion) 2. Shoot the messenger (find anything to expand a chink in the armor of the individual being targeted). 3. Suggest that their FACTS and opinions are "hysterial." While you assume the apparent mantle of fairness, what you're ultimately doing is seeking a way to discredit what any sane, educated mind realizes as true on the subject of climate change.
I can't recall which article it was, but the same premise, "that we should hold OUR guys to the same standards as those we criticize" was the officially unspoken MEME utilized. Its modus operandi is designed to purposely cast suspicion onto those who are largely beyond it. I have an excellent memory, and am sensitive to the FRAUDS who masquerade on C.D. pretending to be ONE amongst us, as if they are concerned with the same causes, when in reality, they are here to tarnish cases, shoot holes through important arguments when not aiming at the persons/celebrities associated with specific positions. These are notably those important to the Left and/or Progressives.
Your fraudulence (and/or mental flatulence) will catch up with you.
Nope, ~~SSJJ~... You mis-undertand what I meant with what I wrote in reply to you. I will attempt to clairify.
It does not really matter what is written by (anyone) about global warming,,, either pro or con... Because if there were no climate scientists, no published papers at all about global warming or the resulting dramatic climate changes, GW and climate change would still be occurring as they currently are occurring.
So we can all actually forget anything written about GW, becasue it is happening and if some write it is, or some writes it is not, doesn't matter, because it is happening regardles of any written words on the subject.
For example:... 260 million and 55 million years ago, very severe global warming happened and eventually almost all life on Earth was eradicated... There were no climate scientis then writing about it,,, there were no global warming deniers denying it and writing about it... It happened without any written word about the global warming issue... That is all I meant with what I wrote in reply to your comments ~SSJJ~.
I am also not saying written words on any issue are not important, but if there were none, it wouldn't change anything,,,unless we took notice and action on the written words of the vast majority of the scientific community scientist's credible words written and shitcanned the professional and corrupt deniers written words.
Does that clarify it for you SSJJ? __ Not that it matters.
Forget about the reports. I worked for a consulting firm once and noticed that whatever the details in the body of the report, the abstract and the executive summary always parroted what the client expected.
A normal person, who does not get a paycheck from the petroleum or coal industries should be able to understand the following point. Even if it is true that the observed warming started from a natural climatic variation (whatever "natural" means), Carbon Dioixide is a greenhouse gas, which means it traps heat that is trying to go out into space. If a greenhouse gas is not trapping heat, what is it doing? And does it make sense to put more in the atmosphere?
"Forget about the reports."
And just listen to you, no doubt
"And does it make sense to put more in the atmosphere?"
No. Never said it did. All I said is that (1) the article contains factual inaccuracies and bad thinking, and (2) we let those defects slide when the article agrees with us.
I demonstrated point 1 in my post, and you demonstrated point 2 in yours.
Ya know what ~SSJJ~? __ Well, if you don't know "what",,, let me say this what to you.
WHAT the author has written in this very informative and published article, is far, far more "accurate" and educational and meaningful to honest thoughtful people, than anything you have posted here ~SSJJ~.
Of course that is just my humble and reasoned opinion, which is based upon honest facts of the matter.. I do hope that you understand the meaning of what I have written in reply to you ~SSJJ~.... Not that it matters,,, to me anyway.
SSJJ, Hang in there. When it comes to climate, there are pitifully few rational posters here. The environmental left desperately needs a nuanced discussion on climate change. If I try it, I just get called a denier. End of discussion.
BEST makes a good case for man made climate change. But read the whole thing, especially what happens to the diurnal temperature variation. There has to be a man made effect greater than green house gases.
A few things:
- A nuanced scientific discussion may be way, way too slow to effect needed change. As far as I can see, and I think a lot of people share this opinion, the probability of climate change being true and actually happening is easily enough for real action to finally start. With such a distorted picture of this complex issue, the best that people can do is some sort of "meta analysis" that takes into account not just science but also other global issues (eg. a probably coming resource crunch) and possible economic and other consequences and alternatives.
- Decision making does not care about the "nuances" of scientific debate at all, the way concentrations of power abuse science make people pretty doubtful about the actual scientific process, and the complete lack of meanigful change compared to the possible problems this lack of change may cause is obviously imbalanced.
- There are a few other possible ecological crises along with global warming, from ocean acidification to topsoil and water issues, species extinctions and so on. Most of these issues are not consequences of global warming but consequences of the same behaviour that may be causing it and their solution would be helped a lot by mostly the same changes in the economy as would be required to manage global warming.
So overall, a scientific discussion, while very important, is not something that should have a large effect on actual decisions whether to take climate change seriously or not from this point on. I think that's most people's problem: ok, man, whatever, but isn't the risk too big anyway? Why the fuck are we taking it? Would we really be so much poorer if we actually did something against it? Imo science doesn't have too much to say about this issue now. If we are headed for a cliff, the accurate path we'll take while crashing or the difference between crash times calculated by different methods is probably not really all that important when deciding whether to brake or not.
I think you are absolutely right about scientific thinking and rigour and integrity, so I'm not trying to defend the distortions you listed (not that I know wheter you're right or not). But what science has already said, and what seems to be its current opinion, whatever that means, the knowledge we already gained, is more than enough for society to start making actual decisions. It's not about science any more but politics, how to take action.
ATOM: With posted opinions like this one, I would not be surprised if the Koch Brothers recruited you for a job regulating the EPA. Sad.
Err, maybe you misunderstood my post? If so, that's probably because it's not exactly clearly written, sorry about that. All I wanted to say was that there seems to be a large enough probability of climate change being true to finally start doing something and not just wait for more science and that there are other very large problems that would require the same actions to solve as global warming. Basically, I said that what we know now should be enough even for a "sceptic" to finally start doing something. But if you didn't, could you explain what the problem with it is?
Also, I probably couldn't take a job with the EPA, not being American, and I don't think it is nearly powerful enough to even begin addressing environmental issues :-) A complete reorganisation of the economy resulting in a huge decrease of material waste (and inevitably production in general) is needed. Environmental regulations - especially if they can be avoided with money by paying insignificant fines - are simply not enough, by far.
Alright. I'll take you at your word. There ARE paid pundits for "the industry" who show up to muddy this debate, and your language was ALL over the place. Incidentally, that's one of the "plausible deniability" applications of veribage used to both seed the SEMBLANCE of agreement (with the cause under discussion), while simultaneously acting to invert it. This topic (severe climate change) is too important for the usual frauds and liars to defecate upon. In my view, that's what their posts constitute. Oh, and their usual comeback to my exposing them (and their suspect motives) is to suggest that I am a difficult person who vehemently puts down anyone who doesn't agree with me. Again, they make it about the person, in this case, my alleged character flaws, to dissuade readers from the TRUTH of what my arguments/posts expose.
The great thing about watching how this works for THREE years now, is that the patterns are so damned obvious to me. What they have on their side, apart from someone paying the tab for the LONG hours they post, is the capacity to use a number of screen names. To those who are naive, the "new names" reinforcing the OLD memes suggest a body of advocates where only a handful or so actually exists. It's a mind fuck all the way... and I thank the Goddess that I have the intelligence, integrity, and fortitude to stand up to it... because TRUTH is THAT important to me and humanity.
Hanging would be a reasonable though ~Inh~.
SSJJ-- Hmmm.... Maybe you are no climate change skeptic..........but you move the goal posts like one.
The question that they hoped to disprove was proven to be correct.
"SSJJ-- Hmmm.... Maybe you are no climate change skeptic..........but you move the goal posts like one."
I did not "move the goal posts". What I did do was point out the authors' bad thinking and factual inaccuracies.
Apparently that's a fau pas here when the author is on "our side".
"The question that they hoped to disprove was proven to be correct."
Actually, BEST looked at more than one question:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/qa-with-richard-muller-a-physicist.html
But according to some people here, you needn't read that article and see for yourself what it says. They can tell you all you need to know.
How many times have you heard this one, "Even if there is some global warming it is not man made and there isn't anything we could do about it anyway." We will be a truly notorious footnote in human history and we deserve all the scorn that is going to be cast upon us. I can feel that heat even now.
In the not too distant past, there was an article on the web about the fellow who was found urinating in a huge public drinking water supply pond. He was caught, and I believe punished, but the article discussed the dilution factor and the fact that the amount of contamination was really too low to measure, required no special reactions and it was below the level that happens anyway with birds and animals having access to the pond.
Global warming by human-released CO2 has similar measurements. The computer simulations have consistently over-estimated the actual changes in the atmosphere and climate. This has been proven by their failure to make predictions come true over the last decade.
The two major ideas that 1- is there really a warming of the climate? and 2 - it is caused by humans and is it big enough to worry about, make up the climate controversy. This article is a huge disappointment because it suggests that both 1 & 2 are proven by a collection of data that seems to support 1 only. To say that proves the whole is the sloppiest kind of thinking and reflects upon the poor editorial control of CommonDreams. It is equivalent to saying "my car does not go fast because my brakes are bad." It is enough to keep me from making monetary contributions to CD. Perhaps that will influence you too.
So, to match the fellow in your story, you drop your turds into the punchbowl.
but the article discussed the dilution factor and the fact that the amount of contamination was really too low to measure, required no special reactions and it was below the level that happens anyway with birds and animals having access to the pond.
Global warming by human-released CO2 has similar measurements"
Your ignorance of (very) basic math is showing.
First. the CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere is not "too low to measure". In fact, scientists can and have been measuring the atmospheric CO2 content very accurately for over 50 years (Keeling started the measurements in the late 50's). And those measurements, which have documented "changes in the atmosphere" (specifically increase in the Co2 content) have nothing whatsoever to do with "computer models".
Second, the vast majority of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere over that time is due to burning of fossil fuels. We know this because we humans have been emitting about twice the amount of CO2 that has stayed in the atmosphere through our burning of fossil fuels.
It's a very simple math problem. No climate (or rocket) science required.
Why is it you have such a problem with it?
Never learned elementary mathematics?
And BTW: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it "traps" heat radiated toward space by the earth (like a blanket) and makes the average temp of the earth go up. That's very basic physics that has been known for over a century.
But then again, I would not expect you to know any physics seeing as you can't even do simple math.
Land fill: The best possible use for climate change deniers.
Good idea Galenwainwright... As long as the landfill is on an unihabited South Pacific island wth the highest elevation at six feet.
I hear Bikini Atoll is almost inhabitable again...
Yes, there are now several South Pacific islands where the rising sea level has invaded their fresh water wells, leaving them without drinking or bathing water and they have had to move homes to higher elvations or evacuate the island.
Before long they will have to evacuate many of thee islands. Some islands have already been evacuated, their once Bali like paradice homes we'd possibly all love to have for our homes... And it has only just begun, the storm of storms is coming and it won't be fun. . .
GAIA to humans
Where in this ecologically diverse closed system is there another creature such as you humans who think just because you have the cranial capacity to house a brain to think and reason that, as sure as my travels thru this galaxy , you do not use to any great effect. You have to ask why that is so? You have the nerve to question what is evident to any thinking entity that can see all that your heart desired from the land, sea, air has made it a growing desolation. Do you think that you can go to the Moon or Mars for sustenance after being done here? The arrogance leaves me stupefied; you have science that says, in the future we will be able to do all you wish and there is nothing wrong with wishful thinking but do not forget that this is not the future and you are destroying now what you are wishing for the future.
Is the human populace ready to see all the Sea’s rise because of the changing weather patterns and lands that are needed for food being used to grow fuel for machines, made by you of course, cant even take care of your own; who birthed you and put you here? Are there any regrets from this Creator of you? I will probably survive you but you have been a pain in my ass. Take this talk of a Northwest Passage and it sounds so good because shipping will be so much easier and cheaper to go from one part of the world to the other and so who cares if the glaciers are melting? You say that is the way things are they change; not realizing that things do change but not all at once and not with this intensity. It is not logical and not very scientific and you folks are all about science, right?
Anyway back to that passage; this is just one example, the gulf Stream which takes warm water up that place you call North America on the east coast up to and around Greenland and then comes down the east coast as cold water. Don’t want to get to “scientific” here but if the glaciers are melting where is the cold water going to come from? If you know anything about ocean currents then you will know that without them you cannot live. It is as simple as that and these currents run all over the world. It is not for me to make you believe. So much life out there that asks nothing but to be left to live. Think on that.
Tony
Since this is on climate science and "the lobby", as I used to call the denial campaign, I thought I'd add something to the conversation.
From the book "Fixing Climate" (2008), by Wallace Broecker, dean of climate science one might call him, and Robert Kunzig, who helped Wally write the book:
"Thermodynamical principles and model calculations indicate that the amount of [water] vapor in the atmosphere will go up by 7 [seven] percent for each degree Celsius of temperature rise. Evaporation and precipitation - the flows into and out of that larger atmospheric reservoir - will increase by a lesser (and less certain) amount, perhaps around 2 [two] percent per degree Celsius..."
- page 164, hardcover edition, Chapter "Megadroughts of the Past"; square brackets mine.
-----------------------
I see there is discussion of methane in the comments, and rightly so.
But I thought I'd emphasize water vapor, an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, much more so than CO2, for example. A recent scientific report from the Berkely group, confirmed in spades the accuracy of both NASA's and NOAA's land temperature record. Over land, the temperature has risen about one degree Celsius since 1950, according to the Berkley group, NASA and NOAA.
Water vapor, I find, is an often overlooked and major positive feedback, and a fast one at that, so I bring it up here for those who might not be aware of its importance.
From Calgary,
Manysummits
======
Whenever severe global warming has occurred in Earth's past, such as 250 to 260 and then again 55 million years ago, it was caused by heavy volcanic activity, which eventually over a million of more years, loaded the upper atmosphere with Co2. It took more than a million years for the planet to warm enough to cause extreme global warming in those two events and finally mass extintions of most life.
We humans have managed to put the amount of Co2 into the atmosphere to cause severe global warming in less than 200 years by burning fossil fuels and loadng the upper atmosphere with Co2... The US Geologicl Survey has determined with careful long term measurments, that human activity produces as much Co2 as that of 17,000 active volcanoes the size of Mt.Kilaleau.
Now the atmospheric level of Co2 is over 391 ppm... That does not include the far more potent, CH4, (methane), which is 72 times more potent than Co2 for the first 25 years it is in the atmosphere's greenhouse gas mixture.
When the Co2 level is below the range of 220 ppm, we have the start of a severe ice age, when it begins to climb past the 340 ppm level, we are in the beginning stages of a serious global warming event... When it goes over 380 ppm range, we start to have serious thawing permafrost in the Arctic region and huge amounts of methane begin to release into the atmosphere.
It was discovered by top level scientists in 2003, that methane in the atmosphere casued (one third) of the temerature rise of the planet, not just a sixth as was previously believed... Therefore; methane releasing into the atmosphere is a far more serious issue than was previously believed and methane has also been discovered to be far more potent as a greenhouse gas than was once believed.
Without a suffecient amount of Co2 and or methane in the atmospheric greehouse gas mixturre, we have an ice age,,, too much in the mix and we have global warming... It is actually that easy or simple for a child to understand.
One commenter here wrote about "pissing in the water supply" and tries to equate that with emmitting Co2 into the atmosphere... There is no HONEST or reasonable comparrison... Earth's atmosphere is very thin and very delicate, relatively minor changes of greenhouse gases in parts per million can cause major changes in Earth's temperature.
If we want to equate pissing in the water supply to Co2 emmissions, let us do the same ignorant thing and equate a 150 pound person being poisoned by an almost undetectable amount of poison from a Bark scorpion strike.. That tiny amount of poison will drastically alter the human's body functions,, a couple of strikes could kill the person and the actual amount of poison administered would be nearly immeasurable... But those types of comparrisons are not valid with atmosppheric greenhouse gases and their effects on the plant's temperature.
Apples and oranges are different, so is pissing in a fountain and burning a lump of coal or being struck by a scorpion... Only an ignorant global warming denier would attempt to compare the two, to try to prove an invalid point.
I always wonder if professional global waming deniers have any family, any children and care at all about their children's future... Bu then, assassins likely only care about themselves and theiir money... I would seriously suggest to those professional GW denying assassins, to buy diamonds with their ill earned money and shove them up their ass so that when they go, they can take it with them.
Thank you, Wayne & Tony. To the ones seeking to still stir doubt on this subject of life-threatening gravity (and seriousness) to us all, I hope you face a serious storm or weather event and then when up against that power, let's see if your advertising campaign BS still holds up. They say atheists have no one to pray to on the battle field. I'd say the same holds true for climate change deniers when it's their turn to face the next great flood, earthquake, volcano, tsunami, hurricane, fire, or tornado. Brace yourself, frauds... it's gonna be a rough ride.
It is disheartening to hear rants bashing anyone who has a doubt about the complex notion of Climate Change, formerly entitled, Global Warming. I for one, morn the state of the planet, equally I morn for the state of the Human Condition. I believe most comments are well intentioned, but I do not agree with the Bashers or those peddling the CO2 Climate Change Propaganda. I believe the Green Movement has mostly been co-opted by the worst industrial polluters and climate offenders. I believe the general good intentions of earth's citizens will be used to further enslave them to the ruling class. To simply agree with the idea of carbon taxes as a solution to Global Warming is to make a deal with the devil. Of course, the devil is in the details. Not the details of Climate Change, but the contract and binding laws that will ensue with the over-simplistic notion that CO2 emissions alone are the root cause, or that Greenhouse gases are the biggest threat to the planet.
Strangely absent from the conversation is rampant and unrestricted unending militarism consuming massive amounts of resources too vast to list in the short comment section offered here. Not only disproportionate consumption of fossil fuel resources used to feed gas guzzling war machines, but the wonton dumping of Depleted Uranium in every bullet and bomb the US drops. Nuclear Power, folded in as a "green solution" will be the ultimate death of the Species, yet not a cry of opposition from the Climate Change Trusters.
While Hot Particles silently bombard us with an invisible "slow kill," Trusters would have us sign on to a control-grid bondage where every breath you take could and would be taxed and every crumb of leftovers we eat is monitored to see if we are exceeding the allotted quota. Move us all onto reservations for the sake of precious Gaia, while the elite are exempt from all scrutiny. "Cap and Trade" should be a warning sign of the chicanery afoot. A shell game we cannot win.
Absent from the conversation are the GM Frankenfoods ravaging mother nature's balance carefully built over a millennium. Killer crops modified by Monsanto and friends to exterminate heirloom crops and species to be replaced by those genetically designed to survive in a geo-engineered brain-killing nightmare of heavy metal soil that is nutritionally barren.
No, I do not deny that society's leaders have betrayed humanity, I deny that those betrayers have any solution whatsoever, or that they have any intentions other than our ultimate slavery or untimely demise.
Of course, Tusters believed Obama was somehow for Hope and Change. Chump Change and Hopeless, the Nobel Peace Prize winner propagates and perpetuates eternal war aka eternal profit and control. No, I will not trade my gold for wooden nickels, yet I have little faith that Trusters could possibly resist such a deal when packaged as Eco-friendly.
There are far too many issues of treason left within the foundations of our governments for me to bestow such authority as to what to do with Climate Change. No, not until the Truth of our times becomes the corrective lens through which we all see. The Truth is that we are all being murdered, murdered by those posing as our saviors. Who are the Deniers, and who are those in Denial. In this age of deception, every step taken has the potential of fatal consequence. The first step in avoiding a trap is being aware of its existence. Are you aware of the trap or do you trust your betrayer? Do you have the courage to take the knife out of your back?
~~Tiberius Bond~~
There is a MAJOR difference between a global warmng doubter or "skeptic" and a Professional Global Warming Denier... "Bashing" on a computer screen of the Professional GW Deneir asassins' is far too good for them for what they actually deserve... They have caused irrepairable damage for everyone on the planet. They are worse than a Hitler, Stalin, Gaddafi, Tojo and our brain damaged Bush Jr, Rumsfeld and Cheney all combined.
And any doubters or "skeptics" of AGW should get themselves well educted on the issue and stop being skeptical,,, becaue AGW is a slam dunk fact of life,
The coming world wide, catastrophic disaster of the release of just 2% of the Arctic's methane, due to thawing permafrost, because of (global warming) is the most serious issue humanity will ever have faced in Earht's history.
So if you "doubt" AGW, get yourself educated, if you care about your family, or yourself if you don't have any family.... I see you are interested enough to post a comment about it here, but defending the professional GW deniers is non-productive. It makes you appear to be rather ignonant or foolish and I'm sure you aren't... Right?
Hello Tiberius - interesting choice of name?
You make many good points, and there are many more, as detailed, for example, in Martin Rees' book, "Our Final Century" (ca 2002) Martin Rees is the head of the Royal Society, the UK's analogue to the US National Academy of the Sciences, and Astronomer Royal of Great Britain.
Lorna Casselton, Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society, had this to say just last year:
"The world now faces challenges on an unprecedented level, which we are unequivocally failing to address."
----------------
You have to admire the succinct nature of that last statement..
I take it you would add the consistency of human nature to that list, from all that you have said.
While we may never shed entirely the chains you speak of, perhaps our purpose is to try?
Manysummits, in Calgary
========