A Climate Skeptic’s Conversion

Environment • Views: 6,120

Here’s a good piece at The Times Online by Bryan Appleyard, explaining how he changed from climate skeptic/denier to accepter of the scientific evidence for global warming: Global warming is real.

No wonder opinion polls show a majority of the population are sceptical about global warming. Just scanning the papers, the internet or watching TV is enough to convince anyone it’s just the usual apocalyptic hype. And, if they want to dig deeper into their own disbelief, there are shelfloads of books to give them a hand. There’s Nigel Lawson, ex-chancellor of the exchequer, with An Appeal to Reason. There’s Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North. There’s Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. There was even a very serious documentary on Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle with some serious-looking science guys pouring cold water on the warming atmosphere.

Just a couple of weeks reading and watching and you can be out there, crushing dinner-party eco-warriors with devastating arguments based on cold, hard facts. You will be a stern, hard-headed denialist, your iron jaw set firmly against the tree-hugging, soft-headed warmists in their irritating hats.

That was me, once. I thought global warming was all bog-standard, apocalyptic nonsense when it first emerged in the 1980s. People, I knew, like nothing better than an End-of-the-World story to give their lives meaning. I also knew that science is dynamic. Big ideas rise and fall. Once the Earth was the centre of the universe. Then it wasn’t. Once Isaac Newton had completed physics. Then he hadn’t. Once there was going to be a new ice age. Then there wasn’t.

Armed with such historic reversals, I poured scorn on under-educated warmists. Scientists with access to the microphone, I pointed out, had got so much so wrong so often. This was yet another case of clever people, who should have known better, running around screaming, “End of the World! End of the World!” and of less-clever people finding reasons to tell everybody else why they were bad. And then I made a terrible mistake. I started questioning my instinct, which was to disbelieve every scare story on principle.

I exposed myself to any journalist’s worst nightmare — very thoughtful, intelligent people.

Thus began Appleyard’s conversion. And the process Appleyard describes is very similar to my own rethinking of the subject.

I was also a “skeptic” for a long time, although that word implies a reasoned opposition that really wasn’t the case. In truth, I had been fooled by the massive amount of anti-AGW propaganda being fed into the national debate by right wing groups. Almost two years ago, I began detecting a distinct fishy odor, when I read articles debunking the British documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” pointing out the numerous errors and deliberate deceptions in the film. And since it was clear that the issue was going to be a serious point of contention in the US I made a determined effort to educate myself. Instead of getting all my information from “skeptical” blogs and news sources, I started reading books and scientific journals and everything else I could get my hands on. I’m kind of obsessive when I get interested in a subject. (OK, not “kind of” — “definitely.”)

At some point during that process I began to realize that I couldn’t deny any longer, and that my opinion had changed from unreasoning “skepticism” to acceptance of the scientific evidence. I didn’t go into this expecting to come out as a proponent of AGW, but the vast weight of the evidence forced me to accept it.

The kinds of policies that need to be implemented to stave off the danger are another matter; my main focus right now is providing as much factual information as possible to try to get past the first hurdle — the huge, ongoing campaign of disinformation and denial.

Read the whole thing…

Jump to bottom

182 comments
1 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:26:30pm

And I'm glad you shared this information with us, Charles. Many of us who were also skeptical took a look at what you were pointing out to us about the propaganda and lies of the deniers. Because of that, we also started looking at the evidence for ourselves. We might not have had that nudge without your guidance. Thank you so much.

2 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:29:50pm

Someday I'll tell you about my conversion to Catholicism. It involved thoughtful, intelligent people, too.

3 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:33:59pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

And I'm glad you shared this information with us, Charles. Many of us who were also skeptical took a look at what you were pointing out to us about the propaganda and lies of the deniers. Because of that, we also started looking at the evidence for ourselves. We might not have had that nudge without your guidance. Thank you so much.

I am glad to see this information that Charles posts. It has certainly caused me to become interested in a important issue, and I am learning more every day.

I know I don't agree on every point (not yet), and there is a lot I don't understand, I do agree this is not something to me ignored, and no one should just dismiss this out of hand.

4 spbaker90  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:35:59pm

Charles, the key point was where you said: "I made a determined effort to educate myself". It takes effort to research, read, and learn. Too many are just too lazy and would rather sit on their rear ends, mindlessly watching Beck et al tell them it's all a hoax.

5 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:37:43pm

re: #3 Walter L. Newton

The site I've been reading was pointed out to me by Freetoken, and it does a good job at explaining the science and history of the issue without being difficult or dumbed down:

The Discovery of Global Warming

I continue to share this link in the hope it will help others.

6 Kragar  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:38:45pm

The one thing that keeps infurritating me on this issue is the passive agressive response the leaders of the world seem to be taking, trying to turn back the clock and hoping to make things better by reducing standards of living and industrial output, rather than pushing for systems to ensure survival and producitivity in a changed world. The future will belong to those who step up to the challenge, not those sitting back and pining for better days.

7 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:39:12pm

OT: The mayor of my former town, Baltimore, has been convicted of corruption. Sheila Dixon can now be called the criminal she is without the word "alleged" being interposed.

Among other things, she used gift cards intended for poor people to pay for thousands of dollars' worth of perks for herself.

This has already cost Baltimore millions, as the Obama administration rightly distanced itself from her pending the outcome of the trial.

8 John Neverbend  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:39:25pm

The best line in the whole article, made by Appleyard in response to a comment by Nigel Lawson. "Actually, er, bollocks."

9 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:39:32pm

There is a huge difference between skepticism and denial.
The day that skepticism becomes a dirty word is the day scientific inquiry begins its conversion to dogma.

10 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:40:47pm

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Upding for the word "infurritating".

11 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:40:47pm

Unfortunately, for every diligent introspection such as Appleyard or Charles write there is an entire movement, a social phenomenon, out there to lie to themselves on this issue (as well as others, of course.)

Even today over on the Von Mises website (to which I won't link given their affiliations with the notorious such as Rockwell and North) there is yet another article on how AGW is a "bum rush on free enterprise" and how "the" hockey stick is errant, and so forth.

It is just a bunch of rubbish (complete with graphs, to fool the ignorant.)

The ideological war against science, real science, in this case the science of AGW, is quite pronounced and real in our society. We don't have an exclusive on this, but American culture thrives on conflict (witness the popularity of team sports) and we would rather have a good conflict to watch than accept what is depressingly real.

12 brookly red  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:41:05pm

re: #9 Spare O'Lake

There is a huge difference between skepticism and denial.
The day that skepticism becomes a dirty word is the day scientific inquiry begins its conversion to dogma.

the word denial is a huge turn off...

13 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:42:02pm

re: #9 Spare O'Lake

There is a huge difference between skepticism and denial.
The day that skepticism becomes a dirty word is the day scientific inquiry begins its conversion to dogma.

Far too many people who do deny global warming label themselves as skeptics, though.

To me:

A skeptic is someone who hasn't seen the evidence.

A denier is someone who has seen the evidence and made the mental effort to ignore it-- or someone who goes out of his way to avoid looking at the evidence.

14 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:42:54pm
15 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:43:45pm

re: #2 Cato the Elder

Someday I'll tell you about my conversion to Catholicism. It involved thoughtful, intelligent people, too.

Intelligence is not necessarily a measure of what a person will believe in or not believe in. I worked for 13 years with scientist in the renewable energy research field, and it was not unusual to come across researchers who believed in all sorts of paranormal anomalies. Bigfoot, UFO's, ancient astronauts and that whole range of related topics.

16 brookly red  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:44:11pm

re: #14 Cato the Elder

A certain hockey mom being beaten with a certain hockey stick would be something I'd pay to see.

beating women is un-cool, period.

17 osprey34229  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:46:18pm

Drudge is reporting Phil Jones is on leave!

18 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:46:20pm

I really don't know shit about the topic and that's not likely to change, but I do believe that there is a lot of propaganda being generated to create skepticism. And I know that that is colossally stupid.

19 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:46:42pm

re: #15 Walter L. Newton

Intelligence is not necessarily a measure of what a person will believe in or not believe in. I worked for 13 years with scientist in the renewable energy research field, and it was not unusual to come across researchers who believed in all sorts of paranormal anomalies. Bigfoot, UFO's, ancient astronauts and that whole range of related topics.

You even meet atheists who believe in ghosts and whatnot, which is just... why? I know atheism is technically only not believing in a deity, but to me, a ghost isn't really much different from a deity, and the supernatural is the supernatural.

20 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:47:20pm

re: #16 brookly red

ditto. Tsk, Cato, tsk.

21 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:48:19pm

re: #17 osprey34229

You would have known that if you checked the links here (which have two links on the subject).

Drudge is to news what Brittney Spears is to arias.

22 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:49:23pm

re: #21 freetoken

What black velvet is to art?

23 Lawrior  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:49:52pm

re: #1 Sharmuta

Agreed.

24 Ben Hur  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:50:27pm

re: #14 Cato the Elder

A certain hockey mom being beaten with a certain hockey stick would be something I'd pay to see.

WILL THIS BE TOLERATED ON THIS SITE?

25 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:50:37pm

Shameful hatefulness being spewed by a certain outspoken member of this forum is something that I'm no longer surprised by. Disgusted, yes. Surprised, no.

26 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:50:40pm

re: #15 Walter L. Newton

Intelligence is not necessarily a measure of what a person will believe in or not believe in. I worked for 13 years with scientist in the renewable energy research field, and it was not unusual to come across researchers who believed in all sorts of paranormal anomalies. Bigfoot, UFO's, ancient astronauts and that whole range of related topics.

The people I am talking about have names like Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, John Paul II, Thomas Merton, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, William of Ockham, Dorothy Day, Daniel and Philip Berrigan (whom I know/knew personally), Hans Küng (whose lectures I attended at Universität Tübingen), and G.K. Chesterton.

This is not an argumentum ad auctoritatem, merely a list. Take it for what it's worth.

27 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:51:32pm

re: #16 brookly red

beating women is un-cool, period.

It's a notional hockey stick and a notional beating. Calme toi.

28 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:52:20pm

Oh, for Pete's sake, people. I'm talking about a hockey stick shape on a graph. Get a life.

29 Kragar  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:52:57pm

re: #22 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

What black velvet is to art?

What Pauly Shore is to comedy?

30 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:53:40pm

Someone downstairs essentially just called Charles a stooge of Alinsky...

Wow.

The right-o-sphere is not only the ugly-o-sphere, it is also the stupid-o-sphere.

31 brookly red  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:55:05pm

re: #28 Cato the Elder

Oh, for Pete's sake, people. I'm talking about a hockey stick shape on a graph. Get a life.

I get it... but it is what it is.

32 John Neverbend  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:55:37pm

re: #26 Cato the Elder

The people I am talking about have names like Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, John Paul II, Thomas Merton, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, William of Ockham, Dorothy Day, Daniel and Philip Berrigan (whom I know/knew personally), Hans Küng (whose lectures I attended at Universität Tübingen), and G.K. Chesterton.

And not Anselm of Canterbury?

33 soflauthor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:55:44pm

Interestingly, the real debate isn't whether AGW exists. Human activity affects the climate. The real debate is over whether human activity is a key driver in climate change or just one of potentially dozens of variables. With all due respect to Charles, the is no clear scientific evidence that human activity is a primary driver of climate change, only that it contributes to climate change. The real debate is over whether the contribution is large or small.

That's why many of us are concerned about policies that (1) assume that human activity is the primary driver and (2) design policies that will expend trillions of dollars to address the human component without any clear indication of whether these trillions will actually result in benefit to humans or to the planet.

Richard Fernandez of the The Belmont Club sums this up nicely when he writes:

The main objective criticism of the carbon-based warming model is that it is not proved. That’s different from saying it’s not true. It may or may not be true. However, until it is conclusively shown to be true and the results can be reproduced, it would be unwise public policy to embark on a trillion dollar amelioration program, with far-reaching economic, social and environmental effects. Government normally intervenes when there is a compelling public interest to do so. It should never intervene on the basis of an uncertain bet. Government is not the racetrack where bureaucrats can bet taxpayer money on the horses they fancy.

Nor can the “precautionary principle” be rationally invoked without recognizing the possibility that the climatologists, deprived of a real fact base, may in fact be getting their prescription wrong. The precautionary principle would assign danger to both the chance you may get a cough and the possibility that the brown liquid in the unmarked bottle may not be what you think it is, because the label has peeled off long ago. Is it Nyquil or is it Drano? And do you feel lucky today? Robert de Niro and Christopher Walken illustrated the principle of dangerous living in the Deer Hunter. “Climate change. Click.” Then spin the cylinders again. But the question must be asked, is the world allowed to peek in to the chamber? Isn’t it allowed that much? Can we have the data please?

As a consequence of "climategate," even proponents of AGW are beginning to ask questions about the objectivity of some of the scientists whose models were used by Al Gore and the UN IPCC.

As Fernandez asks, "Can we have the data please?" Once it and the climate models are made public, and the results are verified and reproduced, some of us who are still skeptics may have the same conversion that Charles has had. Until then, I'm not willing to commit trillions of dollar on an uncertain bet.

34 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:55:54pm

re: #24 Ben Hur

I'm guessing... nope.

35 Spare O'Lake  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:57:00pm

Orangutans are skeptical of changes in their cages,

36 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:57:46pm

and the zookeeper is very fond of rum

37 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:58:27pm

re: #19 Obdicut

You even meet atheists who believe in ghosts and whatnot, which is just... why? I know atheism is technically only not believing in a deity, but to me, a ghost isn't really much different from a deity, and the supernatural is the supernatural.

I rather say bullshit is bullshit, sounds better, doesn't it. I'm an atheist, and I know exactly what you mean, I've come across that myself with some people I know. It's one of those hand/slap/head moments.

38 Kragar  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:58:33pm

The banjo becomes angry at midnight

39 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:58:45pm

re: #4 spbaker90

Charles, the key point was where you said: "I made a determined effort to educate myself". It takes effort to research, read, and learn. Too many are just too lazy and would rather sit on their rear ends, mindlessly watching Beck et al tell them it's all a hoax.

It's not fair. He can blog, play fusion guitar and understand the Keeling Curve!

40 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:58:51pm

re: #31 brookly red

I get it... but it is what it is.

Maybe you don't. Since I'm guessing that Palin probably qualifies as a climate-change denier as defined above, I'm merely suggesting that she have the data drubbed into her. In a manner of speaking.

41 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 1:59:05pm

re: #28 Cato the Elder

Is it irony when a man who beats people up for misuse of language posts something like that?

I am sure you meant no harm by that post, however, as a stand alone comment, it, well... sucks.

42 robdouth  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:01:10pm

re: #4 spbaker90

Actually there are some of us who don't know, and won't claim it's a hoax, but will say that drastic legislation that could cripple the economy is probably unwise. I think the political machine behind AGW is the hoax. I am neither smart enough, nor tireless enough (thanks Charles) to do the research Charles has done, Where I jump off is where Charles said "as for policy..." and I take up there, where there isn't enough research on what can be done to fix the problem. We are all stuck in phase one of people arguing that there is or is not a problem. Even if we all acknowledge (unlikely) that there is a problem, they'll argue even harder if it's solvable, and if so, how to solve it.

I always go back to Dennis Prager's brilliant 4 point checklist on AGW. You have to believe all 4 of these things in order to believe that (emphasize first word) catastrophic AGW is real and we should do something about it:

1. It's real - I think we can agree or mostly agree with only differences of degree that it is.

2. It's man made - I think most would sign on to this, but contention may be as to how much is man-caused.

3. It will lead to catastrophy - I don't know this answer. Anyone else?

4. We can stop it, without killing our economy - Again I don't know this answer either.

But hey, simplify it into those who think like Glen Beck, and those of you who are brilliant. That's a smart way to do it right? No areas of grey there. No room for debate not on the science, but the policy? That's where the bulk of the debate is in Congress (exception Inhofe.) It's easy picking to bitch about the Beck's, it's much harder to argue those middling ground points. That's why you see a lot of just hating simpletons, because it's easy.

43 Cato the Elder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:01:28pm

re: #41 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Is it irony when a man who beats people up for misuse of language posts something like that?

I am sure you meant no harm by that post, however, as a stand alone comment, it, well... sucks.

I'm not going to get into a big defense of my peculiar sense of humor. Suffice it to say that it stood, not alone, but in the context of a discussion of the famous/infamous "hockey stick" and its validity.

I hereby apologize to anyone who took it literally.

44 brookly red  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:01:45pm

re: #40 Cato the Elder

Maybe you don't. Since I'm guessing that Palin probably qualifies as a climate-change denier as defined above, I'm merely suggesting that she have the data drubbed into her. In a manner of speaking.

mom & beaten in the same approving sentence is a technical foul.

45 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:02:17pm

re: #40 Cato the Elder

Maybe you don't. Since I'm guessing that Palin probably qualifies as a climate-change denier as defined above, I'm merely suggesting that she have the data drubbed into her. In a manner of speaking.

Hahahaha, I get it! Double meaning! On one hand, you're drilling information into someone's head. On the other hand, you're BEATING A WOMAN. BEATING A WOMAN!! HAHAHAHAHAHA BEATING WOMEN IS FUNNY!! HAHAHAHA! You're disgusting.

46 Sam N  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:03:02pm

re: #33 soflauthor

Interestingly, the real debate isn't whether AGW exists. Human activity affects the climate. The real debate is over whether human activity is a key driver in climate change or just one of potentially dozens of variables.

You are absolutely wrong in your assessment. Oh, how I wish the debate were limited to whether human activity is a key driver in climate change, it would allow scientists to focus the debate and address a far more limited number of ridiculous claims. I wish there was even that much good faith on the skeptics side. Have you paid attention to comments posted even on this blog? Lots of people still question whether or not warming is even occurring. The fact such questions are being asked is illustrative of a clear anti-science agenda.

47 John Neverbend  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:03:11pm

re: #19 Obdicut

You even meet atheists who believe in ghosts and whatnot, which is just... why? I know atheism is technically only not believing in a deity, but to me, a ghost isn't really much different from a deity, and the supernatural is the supernatural.

"Every time you've heard someone say they saw a ghost,...is the system assimilating some program that's doing something they're not supposed to be doing." From The Matrix Reloaded.

48 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:03:17pm

Back in the early '00s, I was skeptical as well, not so much about what the scientists were saying, because I really didn't know what they were saying, but about the ultimate doom of the planet. I was in on the Y2K hubbub, telling my IT customers that the problem would not be as bad as the media was claiming those in the know were saying. I reassured them if they did what was necessary by updating the BIOS of their systems and updating their software any subsequent problems would be small and easily handled. I also told them that the same was happening in all of the areas that needed work, so excessive worrying was not necessary.

My thoughts about AGW were similar, based on the idea that no matter what we do we could not destroy the Earth. Of course, with Y2K I did a bit of research and had a head start in my personal knowledge base because I was part of the field, but I was not so lucky with AGW, all my information was from the media, not personal research.

I spent a fair bit of time arguing with creatards from about 2002 on, which forced me to read and understand opinion, information and even papers I would normally have ignored. It sharpened my ability to draw information from experts and to give an internal coherence to my thoughts (sort of), skills I started applying to AGW in late '07.

What I found was that my initial concept, that the Earth cannot be destroyed by our actions, was likely correct. I also found that the destruction of the planet is not really the problem. As has happened many times, the ideas that had wiggled into my mind from the words of the media were ill founded and simply wrong, the problem isn't the destruction of the planet but the destruction of our standard of living and possibly our culture. People tend to move from areas where existence is difficult to areas where it is easy, but unfortunately, when those areas become over populated and can no longer support the mass of humans, culture and standards can disappear.

Two things kept me from understanding this, the information from the media and my disinterest in the issue.

Charles, you and a number of other bloggers are doing a great job in piquing interest in the issue and dismantling the misinformation coming from modern media; well done. I have a blog that I intended to use for the same purpose but realized quite quickly that others are much better at it, so I'll just add my tiny little voice to theirs.

49 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:04:07pm

re: #43 Cato the Elder

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said "I'm sure you meant no harm". I am sure you did not. We do not wish physical harm upon others that aren't OBL or his evil minions.

It's cool. You're a smart guy and I respect you.

50 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:05:18pm

re: #33 soflauthor


As Fernandez asks, "Can we have the data please?"


Guess what, you've got it. You've had it for quite some time.

Your complaint, though better written than most, is still baseless.

51 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:06:00pm

I have to admit that I'm still a skeptic. I'm just not convinced that, if global warming is occurring, that it's anthro... antrhropom... anthropamorpo...

manmade.

You have inspired me to do some better research.

52 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:07:08pm

re: #19 Obdicut

You even meet atheists who believe in ghosts and whatnot, which is just... why? I know atheism is technically only not believing in a deity, but to me, a ghost isn't really much different from a deity, and the supernatural is the supernatural.

You have to be kidding. Please?

53 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:12:18pm

re: #33 soflauthor

Interestingly, the real debate isn't whether AGW exists. Human activity affects the climate. The real debate is over whether human activity is a key driver in climate change or just one of potentially dozens of variables. With all due respect to Charles, the is no clear scientific evidence that human activity is a primary driver of climate change, only that it contributes to climate change. The real debate is over whether the contribution is large or small.

Aside that no one has claimed human activity is the only driver, it is the only driver we have control over.

All drivers contribute to the warming and the warming will contribute to human suffering. If restricting our influence does nothing more than slow down the warming until we find more efficient solutions, including just moving populations, it is well worth our time to do so.

54 bosforus  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:12:33pm

re: #48 b_sharp

What's a creatard?

55 karmic_inquisitor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:15:43pm

FWIW, I was originally on board with AGW and saving the rainforests (something that fell away from public concern about 10 or 15 years ago - not sure why). I spent gobs of money on renovating a house to make it all green and off-grid - it is even all white to reflect back as much light as possible along with every all-white car I have owned over the last 15 years.

My doubts crept in when Mann's hockey stick got published. I had a very hard time believing that the past was so climatically steady. Then the Deming revelation kicked in and Global Warming Swindle (which I first learned of here) put me over the top.

Later lostlakehiker and freetoken kicked my ass on a few threads and got me re-examining things.

I guess there are those who are still hell bent on classifying anyone who isn't morally certain of the most catastrophic of scenarios as being a denier while there are those hell bent on classifying anyone who says there are greenhouse gases and that CO2 is one of them is a 'warmist" who is being duped by an international cabal.

Industrialized civilization is altering the climate and making it, in aggregate, warmer. Ice sheets are thining (about 30,000 cubic kilometers worth of net ice melted in the last 15 years) and ocean levels are rising (where did that water come from), but the numbers don't confirm the most catastrophic scenarios, IMO. 30,000 cubic kilometers of ice represents 0.06% of the ice volume of the terrestrial ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. There are other factors than just CO2 (such as land use - remember those rainforests?) that affect climate and which add uncertainties to current policy prescriptions. Ultimately there will have to be policy changes both at local and national governmental levels to have a sustainable planet where future generations can enjoy prosperity just as we have. And it won't be a one time solution - we will learn what policies are effective and which aren't and make pragmatic adjustments.

Core point: don't shit where you eat. The planet is a closed system supporting larger and larger populations of hopefully more prosperous and healthy people with bright futures. We need to manage the outputs of how we live just as we do the inputs as the planet gets "smaller". AGW, while carrying uncertainties, is real and won't go away.

56 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:16:47pm

re: #52 b_sharp

You have to be kidding. Please?

No, not kidding.

It makes sense in a bizarre logical way: someone who doesn't believe in a deity, but does believe in the mystical force or something, is technically, technically an atheist.

Hell, atheist just used to mean 'doesn't believe in the dominant god of the region'. The Christians were called atheists in Rome.

Atheism doesn't imply anything about why the person is atheist, sadly.

57 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:17:00pm

re: #54 bosforus

What's a creatard?

A rather nasty name for actively stupid creationists.

58 harrylook  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:17:49pm

I'm not smart enough to read the data and understand it. I'm definitely not ready to sign onto at-all-costs "solutions". I still want to know how much a particular alleged solution to AGW will cost, and how much of a benefit it will bring.

59 ED 209  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:22:32pm

re: #2 Cato the Elder

Someday I'll tell you about my conversion to Catholicism. It involved thoughtful, intelligent people, too.

So what I can conclude from this is that thoughtful, intellignet people can be wrong too?

60 acacia  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:23:46pm

Charles, I know you try but frankly, it's hard, if not impossible, to separate the science of global warming from the clearly political decisions of what to do, if anything. It's all about prioritization of values. That's why this is so controversial. People have different values and get testy when others challenge those values. It applies to everyone no matter what one's view of the "science."

61 William of Orange  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:31:41pm

Oh my, I think the server is about to go up in flames! This page won't load porperly.


On topic:
Here in the Netherlands we noted another record high temperature for the month of November. It's the second warmest November month ever. Flowers which are supposed to bloom in spring are popping up and small critters like hedgehogs are still not in hibernation. Seems we're skipping winter from now...

62 ED 209  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:41:27pm

re: #59 ED 209

So what I can conclude from this is that thoughtful, intellignet people can be wrong too?

err make that intelligent.
Spell check is my friend but sometimes I forget my friends.

63 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:41:57pm

Charles, I'm really curious about what made you change your mind re: AGW. Was there some piece of evidence that was the "tipping point" (pun intended) of your thought on the subject, because I really don't see it.

64 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:42:08pm

William M. Briggs has posted an excellent summary of what is and isn't evidence of AGW here:[Link: wmbriggs.com...]

The Earth’s climate has never been static It has always changed. And nobody—not a soul—knows what an ideal climate is.
AGW is not the only theory of climate change There are many rival theories, but you have never heard of them. One—or even none—of them might also be true and could be useful in predicting future climates.
The accuracy of historical temperatures is questionable We do not have direct measurements for most of the Earth’s history, and have to rely on statistics—-God help us!—to impute the missing records. This process is fraught with error and uncertainty. Anyway…
Historical temperature changes are not direct evidence of AGW Because it was cooler, or hotter, in the past is not direct evidence that AGW is true. Any historical temperature observation is consistent with all known rival climate change theories. Thus, past temperatures are, at best, indirect evidence for many different climate change theories, and not just AGW.
Statements of what happens when it is hot outside are not evidence that AGW is true If you heard that an iceberg melted when it was exposed to hot air, you have learned what you already knew: ice melts when it is hot. Absolutely no observation of any plant, mineral, or animal is direct evidence of AGW. Thus, every horror story you have heard about small fish whose native waters got uncomfortably warm, about a species of grass that was stressed under the harsh sun, or that a small town in Argentina set a record high temperature on Tuesday, or another in Pittsburgh was especially wet one afternoon, and on and on, are not direct evidence that AGW is true. They are only statements of what happens when it gets hot out or when it rains or fails to.
Every statement about what might happen if AGW is true is worthless Horror stories about the evil, wretched future that awaits us once the “tipping point” has been breached are useless as evidence for AGW. They are empty of any kind of proof. “Studies” that claim future awfulness due to AGW are inappropriately and disingenuously used by scientists (and other forms of life) to hint that AGW is true. This is naughty of them. This behavior is equivalent to the Tokyo scientist who solicits his government for a Godzilla-studies grant because of the havoc the old nuclear fire breather could cause if he were real. This grant is not evidence of Godzilla’s existence.
The best indirect evidence for AGW is the fit of climate models to historical data AGW climate models can reproduce some of the historical data in some regions fairly well, but they cannot do so in all times or areas. And many of those rival climate change theories fit the historical data equally well. Thus, the ability to reproduce historical data to an arbitrary level of goodness is not especially strong evidence in favor of AGW.
There does not exist direct evidence for the truth of AGW The only possible direct evidence would be if the AGW models skillfully predicted future climate data. These skillful predictions would tell us that the theory underlying the models is likely to be true. But no AGW climate models have yet skillfully predicted new data. However, some rival climate change theories have. Thus, according to the best direct evidence available, it is more likely that these rival theories are true than is AGW theory.

65 LizardAbroad  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:42:42pm

Charles, that article is awful. It's like something Maureen Dowd would write in full snark mode. Plus for all his "investigations" he seems to have learned very little science. Unfortunately "God save us from our friends" seems to be particularly applicable to the debate over how much the earth has warmed and how much of that is attributable to the release of carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere. (Brevity may be the soul of wit, but "Global Warming Debate" is insufficiently specific...however useful it may be to those wearing all persuasions of hats, tin, Tibetan, or others. You see, I really did read the damn article).

@William of Orange: Here in Germany November was cold and wet and miserable and completely normal.

66 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:45:02pm

re: #64 nomra

Please go to www.skepticalscience.com for quick and easy refutations of those common canards.

67 robdouth  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 2:56:21pm

re: #53 b_sharp

Human suffering? Please, though still skeptical about the catastrophic, I am ok with the science behind the theory, but I've still not seen the line drawing this all into human suffering.

The catastrophy part of AGW has always seemed like the Underpants Gnomes to me:

1. AGW
2. ???
3. Human suffering and the end of the world.

also to say whatever we can do is worth our time, leaves a huge question. What do we have to do to fix, or lessen the problem? How much will it cost? Will it actually fix the problem, or lessen it, and if so how much help for how much cost? I'll go up to the edge of the cliff where the data leaves off, you can jump over the cliff of what we should do because of the data.

68 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:01:27pm

re: #67 robdouth

When the climate changes, we can't grow food anymore, rivers change their courses, and species die.

69 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:02:33pm

re: #66 Obdicut

Actually that looks like a pretty good site for the AGW position. I'll check it out in depth.

70 Unakite  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:05:23pm

re: #13 Obdicut

Far too many people who do deny global warming label themselves as skeptics, though.

To me:

A skeptic is someone who hasn't seen the evidence.

A denier is someone who has seen the evidence and made the mental effort to ignore it-- or someone who goes out of his way to avoid looking at the evidence.

Not totally true. Science is both about the data and interpretation of the data. Not trying to jump in on one side or the other, but a skeptic (in the true sense, not politicized) is someone who can look at the data and disagree with the interpretation.

71 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:09:40pm

re: #68 Obdicut

When the climate changes, we can't grow food anymore, rivers change their courses, and species die.

Sorry that's rubbish. A warmer, wetter (more evaporation), CO2 enriched atmosphere should make it easier to grow food. That's always been the case in the past.

72 Gus  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:16:40pm

re: #71 nomra

Sorry that's rubbish. A warmer, wetter (more evaporation), CO2 enriched atmosphere should make it easier to grow food. That's always been the case in the past.

Uh, normanl CO2 content is around 0.03%. Anything above that is toxic. We're not plants and even a high CO2 content alone would cause health hazards well beyond AGW.

# 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.
# At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.
# At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath. In addition at this concentration panic attacs may occur.
# At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes

It might be great for plants within certain parameters but it's toxic to humans at higher levels and at thresholds that are already rather low. So there are limits to Monckton's "CO2 is plant food" meme.

The original PR campaign behind this pseudo-scientific claim was created by Western Fuels Association.

73 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:20:01pm

re: #13 Obdicut

Far too many people who do deny global warming label themselves as skeptics, though.

To me: A skeptic is someone who hasn't seen the evidence.

A pretty poor definition of a skeptic. If you're going to make things up why don't you just call skeptics morons? Thanks for the link Skeptical Science.

74 Unakite  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:22:29pm

re: #73 BruceKelly

A pretty poor definition of a skeptic. If you're going to make things up why don't you just call skeptics morons? Thanks for the link Skeptical Science.

Agree.

75 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:24:44pm

re: #72 Gus 802

The original PR campaign behind this pseudo-scientific claim was created by Western Fuels Association.

Yes, one of the funders of the CO2-is-good-for-you campaign.

It's amazing how a few million dollars sent down the right ad-agency channel can get you, isn't it?

76 Gus  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:27:09pm

re: #75 freetoken

Yes, one of the funders of the CO2-is-good-for-you campaign.

It's amazing how a few million dollars sent down the right ad-agency channel can get you, isn't it?

I'm sure you've seen the ad. I saw a clip of it on Frontline's "Hot Politics." It's actually pretty funny and looks and sounds like something from The Onion. Of course they were being seriously deceptive. Pure bunk.

77 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:27:28pm

re: #64 nomra

Good lord, what a load of garbage.

78 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:31:23pm

re: #76 Gus 802

Search Youtube for co2isgreen.

79 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:31:46pm

re: #72 Gus 802

Uh, normanl CO2 content is around 0.03%. Anything above that is toxic. We're not plants and even a high CO2 content alone would cause health hazards well beyond AGW.

# 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.
# At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.
# At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath. In addition at this concentration panic attacs may occur.
# At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes

No scientist, not even the most alarmist, asserts that our production of CO2 will ever lead it to being anywhere close to 1%.

Better luck next time.

80 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:32:28pm

Here it is:

Nomra would approve, I think.

81 Gus  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:34:38pm

re: #72 Gus 802

Great. My factual comment was down dinged.

If that doesn't prove a point.

82 Gus  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:38:16pm

re: #80 freetoken

Here it is:


Nomra would approve, I think.

There's one and a newer one. The one on "Hot Politics" is older and has some "regular folks" talking about CO2 like it a good cut of fine cheese.

"Why CO2 iz plant food. It's good for you. In fact higher CO2 levels will lead to a greener Earth. That's why I enjoy my tank of Western Fuels Association unleaded premium."

Reminds me of the old anti-pollution control advertising. They'd probably argue that emission controls on cars are harmful to the environment according to their upsidedown logic.

83 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:39:32pm

re: #80 freetoken

Nomra would approve, I think.

Actually, I don't approve of conflating the politics with the science (doesn't matter who's doing it) but keeping them separate seems to be a lost cause.

84 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:42:53pm

re: #77 Charles

Good lord, what a load of garbage.

Proof by assertion.

85 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:45:05pm

re: #81 Gus 802

Great. My factual comment was down dinged.

If that doesn't prove a point.

Sometimes it happens.

86 SilentAlfa  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:45:35pm

re: #71 nomra

Sorry that's rubbish. A warmer, wetter (more evaporation), CO2 enriched atmosphere should make it easier to grow food. That's always been the case in the past.

I agree. We should follow China's lead and begin mass construction of coal plants to accelerate the warming of the Earth. Perhaps that way, when I grow old, I won't have to move all the way to Florida.

87 Varek Raith  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:48:15pm

re: #86 SilentAlfa

Please, tell me you're joking.

88 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:48:38pm

re: #79 nomra
For Gus and his buddies who down-dinged that post.
What's 1% in parts per million? Figure it out and get back to me with the "science".

89 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:51:13pm
90 Gus  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:53:01pm

re: #88 nomra

For Gus and his buddies who down-dinged that post.
What's 1% in parts per million? Figure it out and get back to me with the "science".

10,000

91 Gus  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:53:28pm

re: #89 pilot-in-fla

Flounce!

92 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 3:56:44pm

re: #89 pilot-in-fla

Karma: -3

pilot-in-fla

(Logged in)
Registered since: Nov 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm
No. of comments posted: 1
No. of links posted: 0

You've been saving that comment for a long time. Must have been painful. I hope you feel better now.

93 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:00:07pm

Professor Lindzen brilliantly explains why climate hysterics are in fact - anti-science.

"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate."

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

94 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:01:41pm

re: #71 nomra

Sorry that's rubbish. A warmer, wetter (more evaporation), CO2 enriched atmosphere should make it easier to grow food. That's always been the case in the past.

That makes no sense.

We currently have corn planted somewhere. If the climate changes so that corn can't be grown there, and the farmer has to completely change what crops he grows, that's not good.

Certain crops take certain climates. Currently, we're set up to take advantage of the climate. If it changes, all that infrastructure is lost.

95 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:02:03pm

re: #90 Gus 802

10,000

Correct, now where's the "science" claiming that man-made emissions will raise the CO2 in the atmosphere to anywhere near that?

Are you also going to assert that if the air became sooo humid that it turned into water, we'd all drown?

96 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:06:38pm

These comments are proving my point better than I could. One long-debunked denialist talking point after another.

The right wing has completely internalized the climate denial BS -- to the point where just about any self-labeled "conservative" can recite a rote list of nonsense at the drop of a hat. It's pathetic.

97 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:07:50pm

Don't be so shy!

TexasAlien

Karma: 0
Registered since: Jul 26, 2009 at 6:48 pm
(Logged in)

No. of comments posted: 0
No. of links posted: 0
Recent comments

98 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:11:37pm

re: #94 Obdicut

That makes no sense.

We currently have corn planted somewhere. If the climate changes so that corn can't be grown there, and the farmer has to completely change what crops he grows, that's not good.

Certain crops take certain climates. Currently, we're set up to take advantage of the climate. If it changes, all that infrastructure is lost.

Why is that not good? The new crops he can grow might be better/more profitable/more variety than corn. If so, the farmer will have no problem adjusting. I'm not saying that will necessarily be the case, but it's silly to only look at the downside. If AGW is real, and a mild GW certainly is, we need to do a real cost/benefit analysis -not just doom mongering BS.

99 cliffster  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:13:53pm

re: #98 nomra

Wait, I thought the point that skeptics make is that "we can't be precise enough to know one way or the other". How can you do a cost/benefit if you can't be even remotely sure of the inputs?

100 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:18:00pm

I saw Glenn Beck, briefly, this evening with some idiot Brit agreeing with him. He now has full blown proof that the whole concept of AGW has been a conspiracy from the start.

The man is really nuts; even more so than Limbaugh.

(or, he knows the ignorants he appeals to, and many they are)

101 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:20:02pm

re: #96 Charles

These comments are proving my point better than I could. One long-debunked denialist talking point after another.

The right wing has completely internalized the climate denial BS -- to the point where just about any self-labeled "conservative" can recite a rote list of nonsense at the drop of a hat. It's pathetic.

You're a bit too defensive Charles...and way too dismissive.

102 karmic_inquisitor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:21:35pm

re: #98 nomra

Why is that not good? The new crops he can grow might be better/more profitable/more variety than corn. If so, the farmer will have no problem adjusting. I'm not saying that will necessarily be the case, but it's silly to only look at the downside. If AGW is real, and a mild GW certainly is, we need to do a real cost/benefit analysis -not just doom mongering BS.

Well here are some of the structural costs to consider:

Water supply systems are built based on existing rainfall patterns and snow melt. Those on reservoir based systems (most of the western united states) will have to replumb their water supply as existing reservoir capacity assumes that a certain amount of the water supply is stored as snow on mountain sides.

For places that depend exclusively on rainfall, if they get more rainfall then good for them. But areas that see less will have to build more reservoir capacity and aqueduct systems to deliver the water over longer distances.

Reservoirs and aqueducts are very expensive and you can't move an existing one somewhere else. So as you do the cost benefit, figure in huge public works projects adding to public debt.

And that is just one cost and not one from a catastrophist scenario.

103 Varek Raith  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:22:38pm

re: #101 Blotto

Well, when you keep hearing things that have been repeatedly debunked into oblivion...

104 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:24:07pm

re: #99 cliffster

Wait, I thought the point that skeptics make is that "we can't be precise enough to know one way or the other". How can you do a cost/benefit if you can't be even remotely sure of the inputs?

You're mixing up two different issues. You're confusing past climate records (which have to be created out of proxies) vs what to do given an uncertain future situation.

If one assumes climate change is happening, you'd create a hypothetical scenario and determine your cost/benefits based on how likely it is -nobody seriously disputes this. The point is, you don't just determine the costs and there will inevitably be arguments about how likely a given scenario might be.

105 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:24:09pm

re: #95 nomra

Correct, now where's the "science" claiming that man-made emissions will raise the CO2 in the atmosphere to anywhere near that?

Are you also going to assert that if the air became sooo humid that it turned into water, we'd all drown?

The science doesn't say that. What is your point in posing questions that have no relevance?

As to the second comment, presumably you think it is clever.

106 axegrinder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:27:47pm

I'm jumping in without reading all the posts up there but I sure hope someone has mentioned the 'debate' on whether the earth was trending warmer is really no debate at all. It is. No one with even a casual interest in keeping up with the facts argues this point. It's all about how much this really matters and, to a much, MUCH smaller extent, how much is caused by human behavior. I doubt our ability to cause long term cataclysmic damage to our climate by burning oil or coal or releasing refrigerants into the atmosphere. I have seen little credible evidence I should be even a little bit worried. Al Gore's movie has done more harm then good for the GW cause. Alarmist propaganda is mistrusted no matter where it comes from.

107 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:28:05pm

re: #104 nomra

You're mixing up two different issues. You're confusing past climate records (which have to be created out of proxies) vs what to do given an uncertain future situation.

If one assumes climate change is happening, you'd create a hypothetical scenario and determine your cost/benefits based on how likely it is -nobody seriously disputes this. The point is, you don't just determine the costs and there will inevitably be arguments about how likely a given scenario might be.

You sound like a wannabe accountant who failed the finals, because this makes no sense at all (on the other hand, maybe your problem is writing composition).

108 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:29:46pm

re: #103 Varek Raith

Well, when you keep hearing things that have been repeatedly debunked into oblivion...


I agree...now...address Professor Lindzen point and realize that distilling the immense complexity of our climate system to a single factor (temperature) being effected by a single forcing (CO2) as the sole cause of all climate disasters sets the science of climate back. I'll go one further...it debases the science of climate...cheapens it...renders it a cartoon.

109 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:30:44pm

re: #106 axegrinder

I doubt our ability to cause long term cataclysmic damage to our climate by burning oil or coal or releasing refrigerants into the atmosphere.

Ignorance is blissful, isn't it?

110 axegrinder  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:36:07pm

re: #109 Naso Tang

Ignorance is blissful, isn't it?

I'm trying to learn something here. Try less ad hominem and try to find a part of this issue we can all agree on. It establishes trust. Otherwise you just come across as a jerk and get ignored or cussed out. This helps no one.

111 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:41:18pm

re: #106 axegrinder

I'm jumping in without reading all the posts [...] I have seen little credible evidence I should be even a little bit worried. ...

Do yourself a favor, go read.

Specifically, read quality material, such as the AIP's Discovery of Global Warming.

112 allegro  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:49:54pm

What I'm seeing is major ignorance of the ecoSYSTEM that we share with many other species of plants, animals and insects that make it possible for all of us to survive. "Adapt" is a lovely term that we seem to think humans can do quite easily. To a point this is true. For other species, not so much. We don't know the cost of losing even a single other species. To ignore that demise when there is something we can do to alter our corruption of the ecosystem, is unwise.

113 nomra  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:53:46pm

re: #105 Naso Tang

The science doesn't say that. What is your point in posing questions that have no relevance?

Ask Gus he seems to think it is: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

As to the second comment, presumably you think it is clever.

Dihydrogen monoxide will kill us all! Don't deny it you nasty denier!

114 RRFan  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 4:59:09pm

KISS (Keep it simple Stupid!)

A long time ago ice sheets covered much of New York state and formed Long Island. The earth is getting warmer!
A long time ago the earth was molten rock with no solid surface. The earth is getting colder!

115 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 5:05:53pm
The kinds of policies that need to be implemented to stave off the danger are another matter;

They're one of the drivers of denialist sentiment. The fear that the only answer on offer is to make everyone live at the standard of North Korea will breed resistance to the idea that AGW is happening. Illogical but natural.

Unfortunately, we're in a bit of a fix. If we go on as we have been, things could get ugly. Lots of prime riceland under water, Kansas a desert, etc. Even if much of Alaska gets warm enough to be farmed, Alaska simply doesn't get enough sunlight to be a big producer, and the growing seasons will remain short barring catastrophic levels of warming.

If we decide to ration our way out of the problem, it definitely gets ugly. The first steps are relatively harmless belt tightening. Who needs that H3 anyhow? Who needs a 50-inch TV? Who, other than me, that is? (just kidding)

But assuming resistance can be stamped out, the rationing soon gets more drastic. Jimmy Carter mandated 58 degrees in public places---think bridge tournaments where the players wore their winter coats indoors. Been there, done that. But that's not sufficient either. When the ration coupons run low enough, everybody has to walk or bicycle to work, electricity is rationed to a few lamps per household, and living standards collapse.

Efficiency is great but there simply must be a massive increase in green electric capacity. But whence, and when? Nuclear is feasible right now, at a price somewhere in the same ballpark as coal-fired electricity. Wind is competitive in some places. Solar photovoltaics isn't quite there yet, and there are nagging problems of supply of trace elements needed to make the cells. Solar thermal, etc. etc.

Before we can make a decisive move to these sources, now used only in trace quantities apart from nuclear, we need to do some more R&D. In the meantime, we can't escape using coal, oil, and natural gas.

Fund research. Fund it heavily and steadily. Fund it intelligently, with competitions and prizes for hitting milestones. Build pilot projects and work out the kinks. Now, while we still have energy to burn, while our industry is half idle. Now, before the fuel must be taken from heating homes that are already chilly. Now, so we'll be in a position to actually make the move before it has to be done on a crash basis.

116 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 5:42:24pm

re: #110 axegrinder

I'm trying to learn something here. Try less ad hominem and try to find a part of this issue we can all agree on. It establishes trust. Otherwise you just come across as a jerk and get ignored or cussed out. This helps no one.

I have seen little credible evidence I should be even a little bit worried.

This is not an education forum for those too lazy to learn basic principles everywhere else.

If you want to learn here, read and keep your mouth shut until you think you know what you are talking about, and don't bother to admit your ignorance. It is redundant.

117 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 5:43:24pm

re: #114 RRFan

KISS (Keep it simple Stupid!)

That you do.

118 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 5:45:06pm

re: #113 nomra

Ask Gus he seems to think it is: [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

No he didn't.

119 Unakite  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 5:45:42pm

re: #88 nomra

For Gus and his buddies who down-dinged that post.
What's 1% in parts per million? Figure it out and get back to me with the "science".

10,000ppm, but I haven't read further.

120 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 5:59:46pm

re: #116 Naso Tang

This is not an education forum for those too lazy to learn basic principles everywhere else.

If you want to learn here, read and keep your mouth shut until you think you know what you are talking about, and don't bother to admit your ignorance. It is redundant.


Nice...I noticed you're one of the people who voted negative against my gentle comment that Charles was too defensive and too dismissive. And yet...you can't bring yourself to defend the fundamental premise of your position as brilliantly destroyed by Professor Lindzen. So I will post it again:

"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate."

Charles went from "ignorant skeptic" to "enlightened believer"...and immediately adopted the overly-defensive bunker mentality that is so common among "believers". The salient issue on this and all such threads is how much hysterics over-compensate for their flimsy house of cards with the arrogance of self-assumed certainty. In so doing...you debase "science" and put yourself squarely in the camp of anti-science.

I posted a SINGLE sentence from the world's most important climate scientist. Not a single person addressed the issue. I've seen a herd mentality charging into the deep weeds of meaningless non-sequiturs. Not a single person has dared attempt to address Professor Lindzen's brilliant point. If you can't defend the central premise of your religion...all the mindless incantations of approved scripture means nothing.

Now...like the trained seals that you are...honk, clap and vote this comment "negative" (as if THAT proves...well...something...whatever...)

121 Stanley  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:18:36pm

The article is very telling. Especially the "carbon and temp. are linear..."Not the most believable part of AGW calculations. (Funny how they never publish the actual math) Then he explains how the atmosphere can be non-linear. How shocking! A non-linear fluid dynamic environment. Who'da thunk?

Until I see the math, including things like entropy and phase changing fluids...I'll reserve judgment.

I did agree with one of the things Bryan pointed out. AGW is real...it's going to happen even if the world holds steady in carbon output or even reduces. Flooding...droughts...melting. He says if you were putting your kid on a plane and the pilot says 1 in 100 it's gonna crash...you don't put your kid on the plane.

Either the government knows for a fact that our environment is going to change no matter what, causing large decreases in the population, or they are just using this "theory" to institute world-wide taxation without representation. I don't mind either way. I'd just like to be told the truth. In one case, the goverment should outlaw internal combustion engines. And fossil fuel power plants. If static levels of carbon are going to doom people, they should shut it down completely. (You can't get a permit to run a nuclear powered engine...That would be silly and dangerous) In the second scenario the government is just exerting their power in a broader way. Also ok with me...just tell the truth about what you're doing.

Before the election, Obama said he would work to make fossil fuel power generation unprofitable. I would be ok with that. But he doesn't say that anymore. He must not believe the "science" behind AGW. But I wouldn't either...honestly. A scientist saying things like "glaciers are disappearing". lol The water just vanished. It was destroyed without a release of energy! (try looking in the atmosphere...water...another greenhouse gas)

122 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:21:59pm

re: #115 lostlakehiker

Your comment about Charles was trite and boring, which is why it deserved no more than a ding. Opinions without backup don't go far.

I did comment on your hero in an earlier thread, Lindzen


without recognizing that he is the "world's most important climate scientist" (which, by the way is another of your opinions).

Yes, I read that phrase, and it sounds like goobledygook, manufactured for the benefit of people like you; specifically, reduce the issue to a sound bite that makes a vague intuitive sense without meaning anything else, and one can be called the most important.

Regardless, so much of everything else he says is rubbish, that I have no choice but to dismiss him, along with his groupies.

123 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:29:05pm

re: #120 Blotto

I don't know how that happened, but this is the post I responded to above.

124 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:32:21pm

re: #64 nomra

William M. Briggs has posted an excellent summary of what is and isn't evidence of AGW here:[Link: wmbriggs.com...]

The Earth’s climate has never been static It has always changed. And nobody—not a soul—knows what an ideal climate is.

First comment, first irrelevancy. It's obvious Briggs hasn't a clue.

No need to go further.

125 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:39:29pm

re: #122 Naso Tang

Your comment about Charles was trite and boring, which is why it deserved no more than a ding. Opinions without backup don't go far.

I did comment on your hero in an earlier thread, Lindzen
Wow...talk about anti-intellectual non-sequiturs...you're responding to me through lostlakehiker? If you can't keep something as simple as a we thread straight...how much value should we place in your superior understanding of Earth's climateS (plural...don't ask...you'll get a headache).

Your response to Lindzen was amusing...in a Bobo the Clown sort of way. Sadly for you...I asked you to respond to a SINGLE sentence from the article. Here it is again...for the third time:

"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate."

Now...focus...a simple sentence has been presented to you. Please address IT (without the childish defense of Charles and his new found anti-intellectualism).

[As an aside...I've been a registered member for many years and have precious few posts...please consider THAT before you ban me...tashakur, bamone khoda...)

126 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:39:43pm

re: #124 b_sharp

First comment, first irrelevancy. It's obvious Briggs hasn't a clue.

No need to go further.

"Nobody knows what an ideal climate is". Is this a joke?

If the question was restated as "does anyone today know what an ideal climate is where they are?", then the answer becomes self evident.

127 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:43:17pm

re: #123 Naso Tang

I don't know how that happened, but this is the post I responded to above.

Fair enough...stuff happens in cyberspace...I retract my commentary regarding this error (not the rest...just the dig...you dig?)

128 kittysaidwoof  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 6:59:20pm

"The kinds of policies that need to be implemented to stave off the danger are another matter" - I think that is the most important issue. I recognize I will never have 5-6 years to spare to become a climatologist and really have an informed opinion on this matter so I will always have to rely on faith in either one or the other side of the argument who both have ample reason to distort the picture.

So for me the vital question is what do each side want me to do about it and what they say how can I know what we're doing is having an effect. Here is also the biggest problem for me, since the GW proponents seem all to push forward their pet agenda to deal with the problem. Huge wealth distributions as the solution seem to be the norm as well as heavy governmental regulation. At the extreme end we have people calling for the end of democracy and population reductions by at first one child policy with compulsory abortions and ending with genocide by poisoning water supplies. While I don't think the latter has much chance of ever becoming policy (although it might spur up terrorist groups) the former two are horrible enough that I'd rather risk the worst that GW can offer even if it is death by suffocation than accept them.

So we have governments making grand speeches about how the CO2 emissions will be cut by 50 or more percents in a decade or two with very little understanding how they plan to arrive there other than the immediate taxes they are enacting. There's even less understanding what effect our possible bankruptcy will have on a global scale, especially if what the recent articles I've read about agriculture being the main culprit are true.

129 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:04:01pm

re: #126 Naso Tang

"Nobody knows what an ideal climate is". Is this a joke?


OK...let's examine the joke: During the Roman warm period...Pax Romana civilized all of Europe and North Africa. The cold dark ages, beginning with Justinian's Plague...wiped out HALF the population of Europe and allowed the Muslims to begin their assault on Byzantine. Then...the Medieval Warm Period doubled the population of Europe, led to the age of the Gothic Cathedrals and a period of unbridled optimism and prosperity. That was followed by the Little Ice Age that wiped out a third of the population of Europe and produced 100 famines in France during a 150 year time frame. The little ice age led to the "recovery" which we now disucss as "global warming"...a period where the population of the planet has quadrupled ...where life expectancy has doubled (since 1900), where infant mortality has been slashed by 98% and where food production has increased by 500% producing for the first time in histoy an environment where according to the UN...OBESITY is a larger health concern than MALNUTRITION!

Obviously...warm = good...cold = bad.

The entire historic record of this INTERGLACIAL time-out from the ONGOING Ice Age...shows that mankind thrives during warm period and collapses during periods of cold.

If you want to prove your new religion...show me a period in the historic record where the world was TOO WARM. I've just shown you several where the population was destroyed by being too cold. Show me ONE...where the population was destroyed from being TOO WARM!

130 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:06:26pm

re: #125 Blotto

Wow...talk about anti-intellectual non-sequiturs...you're responding to me through lostlakehiker? If you can't keep something as simple as a we thread straight...how much value should we place in your superior understanding of Earth's climateS (plural...don't ask...you'll get a headache).

Your response to Lindzen was amusing...in a Bobo the Clown sort of way. Sadly for you...I asked you to respond to a SINGLE sentence from the article. Here it is again...for the third time:

"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate."

Now...focus...a simple sentence has been presented to you. Please address IT (without the childish defense of Charles and his new found anti-intellectualism).

[As an aside...I've been a registered member for many years and have precious few posts...please consider THAT before you ban me...tashakur, bamone khoda...)

By now I presume you have noticed that the hamsters did it, and perhaps also that you don't know how to used blockquotes or other formatting.

The "notion" that the globally averaged temperature anomaly (known to everyone else as warming) is somehow a step backwards, makes little sense in any obvious context, except that of manufacturing sentences that can be used as slogans.

Your hero readily admits there has been warming, and some 30% increase in CO2, and that it can be attributed to man, and that some 2 degrees of warming can be deduced from that in the future.

As to the forcing, real climatologists do not actually attribute all effects to CO2 from humans, that is simply the one area that is clearest and has the potential to be addressed.

Linzen sounds very much like the same type as that professor at Harvard who made a name for himself by promoting the idea that alien abduction was a real phenomenon, based on the concepts that millions of delusional people can't all be wrong.

Let's see, then we had cold fusion by two evil twins, we had a guy doing stem cell research in Korea, some young genius at Bell Labs going to revolutionize electronics, and these were just recent cases of scientists gone bad.

Yes, scientists can go bad, or stupid, but what you miss is that they are always a small minority. Your camp think they are all either idiots or criminals, if they don't back you up.

Does that sound like a familiar scenario to you, in other contexts?

131 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:07:07pm

re: #129 Blotto

You missed my point altogether. Try again.

132 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:09:03pm

re: #93 Blotto

Professor Lindzen brilliantly explains why climate hysterics are in fact - anti-science.

"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate."

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Lindzen's brilliance is in constructing, mounting and burning a straw man argument.

133 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:09:59pm

re: #95 nomra

Correct, now where's the "science" claiming that man-made emissions will raise the CO2 in the atmosphere to anywhere near that?

Are you also going to assert that if the air became sooo humid that it turned into water, we'd all drown?

Um, that wasn't his point.

134 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:12:54pm

re: #101 Blotto

You're a bit too defensive Charles...and way too dismissive.

I think he is not dismissive enough.

Everyone gets defensive when repeatedly struck by rubber chickens.

135 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:15:18pm

re: #107 Naso Tang

You sound like a wannabe accountant who failed the finals, because this makes no sense at all (on the other hand, maybe your problem is writing composition).

Does anyone really want to be an accountant? (My dad was one).

136 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:18:25pm

re: #129 Blotto

I'll help you. Climate change in the distant past was either slow in coming, allowing adaptation, or affected far fewer people than today because there were far far fewer people around, and most of them grew their own food. The little ice age period came rapidly however (reasons uncertain), and killed millions before they readapted, to harsher conditions.

The ideal climate today is simply whatever causes the least disruption to very large populations, and which does not, in the worst case, flood every coastal region on the planet. Even if the latter took decades it would devastate economies worldwide which would forever be playing catchup to replace what was lost.

Harping about the past is irrelevant, except to the extent that it helps us understand the present. Simply saying there has been change in the past is meaningless unless you can prove the causes are the same as today.

137 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:20:56pm

re: #135 b_sharp

Does anyone really want to be an accountant? (My dad was one).

I was referencing the harping on cost benefit calculations, but I'm sure your dad passed the finals.

138 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:22:03pm

re: #121 Stanley


Before the election, Obama said he would work to make fossil fuel power generation unprofitable. I would be ok with that. But he doesn't say that anymore. He must not believe the "science" behind AGW. But I wouldn't either...honestly. A scientist saying things like "glaciers are disappearing". lol The water just vanished. It was destroyed without a release of energy! (try looking in the atmosphere...water...another greenhouse gas)

I think this may help you: [Link: www.criticalthinking.org...]

139 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:24:21pm

And yet...nobody addresses the actual point Lindzen makes.

This is quite instructive. Defensive lip-twiddling with anti-intellectual non-sequiturs is central to the alarmist agenda. As such...par for the course. Will someone dare to address the painfully simple deconstruction of the very foundation of your new Medieval Church of Anti-Intellectualism known as "global warming"...that Lindzen posed?

Do you...or do you NOT believe that distilling the immense (and as of yet, totally misunderstood) complexity of Earth's dynamic, robust and MYRIAD climate sysyems (plural) down to the singlular effect of a singular variable (temperature) by a singular forcing (CO2) as being solely responsible for the total of ALL climate catastophies (effects)...is reasonable...scientific...rational..and valid?

It's not hard. Suspend your overly defensive (and rightfully so) bunker mentality and address this painfully simple PREMISE of your entire thesis. Is tempertaure all there is to this? Is CO2's effect on temperature all there is to this?

Yes or no...it's not hard. DARE to stake out an ACTUAL position...

140 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:26:51pm

re: #136 Naso Tang

I'll help you. Climate change in the distant past was either slow in coming, allowing adaptation, or affected far fewer people than today because there were far far fewer people around, and most of them grew their own food. The little ice age period came rapidly however (reasons uncertain), and killed millions before they readapted, to harsher conditions.

The ideal climate today is simply whatever causes the least disruption to very large populations, and which does not, in the worst case, flood every coastal region on the planet. Even if the latter took decades it would devastate economies worldwide which would forever be playing catchup to replace what was lost.

Harping about the past is irrelevant, except to the extent that it helps us understand the present. Simply saying there has been change in the past is meaningless unless you can prove the causes are the same as today.


Too stupid for comment. Serious responders only...please.

Dismissed.

141 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:28:59pm

re: #132 b_sharp

Lindzen's brilliance is in constructing, mounting and burning a straw man argument.

Identify the "straw man".

I dare ya...

142 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:29:52pm

re: #129 Blotto

OK...let's examine the joke:

The joke is, you missed the point.

Nobody is pining for the ideal climate any more than a dead parrot pines for the fjords, because the 'ideal' is relative. What we are concerned about is how quickly we will have to adapt and how well we will do it.

The entire question of 'ideal climate' is irrelevant to the issue.

143 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:33:11pm

re: #139 Blotto

And yet...nobody addresses the actual point Lindzen makes.


You're confusing a long-winded, overly wordy obfuscation for an "actual point".

His entire opinion piece is a straw-man. It is pretty classic really: define what supposedly the opposition says, then knock it down.

144 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:33:45pm

re: #139 Blotto

And yet...nobody addresses the actual point Lindzen makes.

This is quite instructive. Defensive lip-twiddling with anti-intellectual non-sequiturs is central to the alarmist agenda. As such...par for the course. Will someone dare to address the painfully simple deconstruction of the very foundation of your new Medieval Church of Anti-Intellectualism known as "global warming"...that Lindzen posed?

Do you...or do you NOT believe that distilling the immense (and as of yet, totally misunderstood) complexity of Earth's dynamic, robust and MYRIAD climate sysyems (plural) down to the singlular effect of a singular variable (temperature) by a singular forcing (CO2) as being solely responsible for the total of ALL climate catastophies (effects)...is reasonable...scientific...rational..and valid?

It's not hard. Suspend your overly defensive (and rightfully so) bunker mentality and address this painfully simple PREMISE of your entire thesis. Is tempertaure all there is to this? Is CO2's effect on temperature all there is to this?

Yes or no...it's not hard. DARE to stake out an ACTUAL position...

Nobody is answering the question in the way you want because the question is nothing but a straw man.

145 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:39:50pm

re: #142 b_sharp

The joke is, you missed the point.

Nobody is pining for the ideal climate any more than a dead parrot pines for the fjords, because the 'ideal' is relative. What we are concerned about is how quickly we will have to adapt and how well we will do it.

The entire question of 'ideal climate' is irrelevant to the issue.


Wow...really? OK...I live in Los Angeles which 120 years ago was a barren desert occupied by a couple of orange groves and a cow-path to the sea. In the last hundred years of catastophic warming...it has grown to the megalopolis of over 14 million people...representing a catastophic mass-migration of over 100 million people (if you factor the death rate of three generations). In short...it IS the very reality you all so fear. A place where multi-million dollar mansions are bought and TORN DOWN so that something bigger and better can be built on the lot. I'm supposed to freak out that the new house will have to built two inches further inland because of all this horrific sea rise?

Meanwhile...as a child of plate tectonics...I happen to know for a fact that plate tectonics can alter in 30 seconds, land's relation to the sea in a way that all this hysyterical man made climate change would take thousands of years. Sumatra is not four feet higher thanks to the 2004 Earthquake/Sunami. In 30 seconds...seismology OFFSET ten thousand years of hallucinated man-made sea level rise...

Stop boring me...bring me something interesting to address...

146 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:40:47pm

re: #139 Blotto


It's not hard. Suspend your overly defensive (and rightfully so) bunker mentality and address this painfully simple PREMISE of your entire thesis. Is tempertaure all there is to this? Is CO2's effect on temperature all there is to this?

Yes or no...it's not hard. DARE to stake out an ACTUAL position...

Why don't you stop sounding so stupid and explain your point. Yes, temperature is what it is about and CO2 is a major player, although not the only one. If you read about AGW other than through Lindzen that would be obvious.

147 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:42:11pm

re: #140 Blotto

Too stupid for comment. Serious responders only...please.

Dismissed.

Is that code for speechless?

148 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:43:35pm

Wow...OK...so far several people have chimed in with the trained seal honking and clapping of "straw man".

Magically,...NOBODY has identified the straw man.

So let's have it. Where is Lindzen wrong? Explain to me that the central premise of your scam is NOT that the single variable of temperature, effected by the single forcing of CO2 is responsible for all the Earth-ending holocausts you so desperately need?

149 Achilles Tang  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:44:27pm

re: #145 Blotto

Hoo boy. Do a flounce please, just to round the evening off. You are not worth the effort.

150 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:47:21pm

re: #148 Blotto

First: You write terribly.


Second: Forcers are forcers; they force effects. So, your very usage of it is self-contradictory. If CO2 is a forcer-- which it is-- then it can, indeed, singlehandedly disturb the equilibrium of the system.

Third: You didn't go to charm school.

151 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:48:38pm

re: #146 Naso Tang

Why don't you stop sounding so stupid and explain your point. Yes, temperature is what it is about and CO2 is a major player, although not the only one. If you read about AGW other than through Lindzen that would be obvious.


"Major player"? Really? Only a major player? What a delightful capilutalion.

So temperature as CONTROLLED by CO2 (man-made of course) is what's going to warm the planet and ruin us?

OK...as I asked previously...please cite for me any period in human history where too much WARM has resulted in the DOCUMENTED diasters of too much cold.

Enjoy the warming while you can...it's a brief nano-second recovery from the four billion year long trend of cooling on this Earth which allows us to thrive as we have over this brief ten thousand year INTER-GLACIAL period...

152 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:49:43pm

re: #151 Blotto

You sound like you're fun at parties.

153 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:50:35pm

re: #149 Naso Tang

Hoo boy. Do a flounce please, just to round the evening off. You are not worth the effort.

Of course not...anybody who has swallowed the blue pill in order to remain in the matrix thinks as much.

I asked a simple question...you wilted in the face of this obviousness. I graciously accept your capitulation.

154 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:53:27pm

This kind of ignorant nonsense is what climate scientists have to deal with day in and day out. I don't know how they do it.

155 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:56:18pm

re: #154 Charles

This kind of ignorant nonsense is what climate scientists have to deal with day in and day out. I don't know how they do it.

My fiancee remains determined to do cancer research despite people taking colloidal silver, refusing vaccinations, and depending on god to save them.

She does it because nothing makes her as amazingly excited as science. It's a wonderful thing. She deals with it with more science. Science is her kingdom. They can't touch her there.

I don't think that those people who accuse scientists of being in an ivory tower realize that they're there because it's too utterly painful to see the their science tortured in the realm of the media and the masses.

That's anecdotal evidence, of course.

156 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 7:59:52pm

re: #150 Obdicut

First: You write terribly.


Second: Forcers are forcers; they force effects. So, your very usage of it is self-contradictory. If CO2 is a forcer-- which it is-- then it can, indeed, singlehandedly disturb the equilibrium of the system.

Third: You didn't go to charm school.

No...but I do have a degree in applied mathematics from MIT and am one of LA's most prominent session guitarists. My writing may be terrible...although the dollars ASCAP collects for me might challenge you in that regard...none of which deflects me from the salient truth:

How can the intensely complex reality of Earth's robust climate systemS be distilled by children to just temperature/CO2/we're all gonna die?

Climate science is at its core a statistical exercise...the IPCC has violated 72 of the 127 principles of statistics. All of your lip twiddling in the deep weeds of defensive self-assured arrogance relying on anti-intellectual non-sequiturs devoted to advancing a premise that is laughable on its face does not negate the simple truth:

warm = good
cold = bad

I'll take warm

157 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:02:57pm

re: #156 Blotto

No...but I do have a degree in applied mathematics from MIT and am one of LA's most prominent session guitarists.

I am impress.

158 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:04:03pm

re: #120 Blotto

Nice...I noticed you're one of the people who voted negative against my gentle comment that Charles was too defensive and too dismissive. And yet...you can't bring yourself to defend the fundamental premise of your position as brilliantly destroyed by Professor Lindzen. So I will post it again:

"The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate."

Charles went from "ignorant skeptic" to "enlightened believer"...and immediately adopted the overly-defensive bunker mentality that is so common among "believers". The salient issue on this and all such threads is how much hysterics over-compensate for their flimsy house of cards with the arrogance of self-assumed certainty. In so doing...you debase "science" and put yourself squarely in the camp of anti-science.

I posted a SINGLE sentence from the world's most important climate scientist. Not a single person addressed the issue. I've seen a herd mentality charging into the deep weeds of meaningless non-sequiturs. Not a single person has dared attempt to address Professor Lindzen's brilliant point. If you can't defend the central premise of your religion...all the mindless incantations of approved scripture means nothing.

Now...like the trained seals that you are...honk, clap and vote this comment "negative" (as if THAT proves...well...something...whatever...)

Lindzen sets up a straw man. Nobody is saying that the climate depends solely on CO2. Nobody is saying that catastrophes, which by definition are outlier events, don't depend on a complex mix of bad luck on top of the loading the dice against ourselves that too much CO2 represents.

He shreds that straw man brilliantly. But the straw man is not our real guy. Our real claim is that putting extra CO2 into the air loads the dice against the stability we all hope for and have, some of us, unwisely come to expect is vouchsafed us no matter what we do.

We're seeing the Greenland icecap lose mass at a stunning pace. Arctic sea ice likewise. The worst case outcomes from the models are being outstripped by reality. But not to worry. Lindzen is here to sooth your fears. He can do that. He can't stop AGW.

159 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:08:50pm

re: #156 Blotto


warm = good
cold = bad

That's just beautiful in its idiocy.

A warm place

160 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:17:15pm

re: #158 lostlakehiker

Lindzen sets up a straw man. Nobody is saying that the climate depends solely on CO2. Nobody is saying that catastrophes, which by definition are outlier events, don't depend on a complex mix of bad luck on top of the loading the dice against ourselves that too much CO2 represents.


Wrong...that is ALL thay is being said. Why does every fraudulent Hockey Team chart have CO2 as an accompanying series?

Please...do not attempt to concoct a false straw man by manufacturing one yourself. The five pillars of anti-intellectual leftism START with leftist pillar #1: ALWAYS be most guilty of the very thing you accuse others.

Now...with YOUR false straw man effortlessly dispensed with...please address Lindzen's point: how can the ENTIRETY of Earth's intensely complex and robust climate systemS be distilled down to just temperature effected by CO2?

161 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:20:24pm

re: #159 Obdicut

That's just beautiful in its idiocy.

A warm place


Ask Charles how THAT desert could be magically converted into the world's most important metropolis in a mere blink of the geological eye!

Then come back at me and tell me why I should soil myself over a meaningless recovery in global temperatures from the little ice age that wiped out a third of Europe!

162 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:22:15pm

re: #141 Blotto

Identify the "straw man".

I dare ya...

The straw man is that a scientist, any scientist, out there claims rising CO2 is the only driver of warming. Further, there are no scientists out there that claim warming is the only driver of climate disasters.

Lindzen's argument revolves around negative feedbacks roughly equaling positive feedbacks, yet the very existence of climatic changes beyond short term natural variability such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions shows that there are times when positive feedbacks overcome negative feedbacks, at least until a new equilibrium settles in.

BTW, in that same article Lindzen repeats as fact multiply debunked claims about the CRU emails and papers.

163 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:31:50pm

re: #162 b_sharp

The straw man is that a scientist, any scientist, out there claims rising CO2 is the only driver of warming. Further, there are no scientists out there that claim warming is the only driver of climate disasters.

Lindzen's argument revolves around negative feedbacks roughly equaling positive feedbacks, yet the very existence of climatic changes beyond short term natural variability such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions shows that there are times when positive feedbacks overcome negative feedbacks, at least until a new equilibrium settles in.

BTW, in that same article Lindzen repeats as fact multiply debunked claims about the CRU emails and papers.


Sadly for you the entire literature of climate hysteria refutes your assertion. According to the fraudulent Nobel winning, Oscar winning Al Gore...CO2 "pollution" is the problem. It has to be..and you know it. Without CO2...they can't assault our fuel, our food and our individual liberties.

You can pretend that some obscure paper in some corrupt "peer reviewed" periodical happens to mention water vapor and sulphur crystams...but the salient fact remains: YOU have devoted TWO DECADES to relentlessly pounding home the fraud that human CO2 is driving temperature and that this temperature means we're all gonna die.

So I ask a simple question: Are you REALLY so simple that you think a SINGLE variable effected by a SINGLE forcing can dominate the robust planetary climate systems in a way that only Charles' most treasured "creationists" could concoct?

164 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:40:56pm

re: #145 Blotto

Wow...really? OK...I live in Los Angeles which 120 years ago was a barren desert occupied by a couple of orange groves and a cow-path to the sea. In the last hundred years of catastophic warming...it has grown to the megalopolis of over 14 million people...representing a catastophic mass-migration of over 100 million people (if you factor the death rate of three generations). In short...it IS the very reality you all so fear. A place where multi-million dollar mansions are bought and TORN DOWN so that something bigger and better can be built on the lot. I'm supposed to freak out that the new house will have to built two inches further inland because of all this horrific sea rise?

Meanwhile...as a child of plate tectonics...I happen to know for a fact that plate tectonics can alter in 30 seconds, land's relation to the sea in a way that all this hysyterical man made climate change would take thousands of years. Sumatra is not four feet higher thanks to the 2004 Earthquake/Sunami. In 30 seconds...seismology OFFSET ten thousand years of hallucinated man-made sea level rise...

Stop boring me...bring me something interesting to address...

I have no idea what all this has to do with the 'ideal climate' straw man but, hey, if this is what you want - fine.

A falling meteorite can destroy thousands of buildings faster than I can burn down 10 houses with a match and excelerant. By what you have said above, my burning 10 houses down is OK when compared to nature because nature can do it faster and better than I can.

How many people, world wide, are within a couple of meters of current sea level, and how many people are fed by food grown in areas prone to drought? How much will it cost to move these people and replace crops?

165 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:43:51pm

re: #154 Charles

This kind of ignorant nonsense is what climate scientists have to deal with day in and day out. I don't know how they do it.

A 12 year old with a head filled full of nonsense from comic books would make better arguments. I don't know how they do it either.

166 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:47:25pm

re: #156 Blotto

No...but I do have a degree in applied mathematics from MIT and am one of LA's most prominent session guitarists.

Can we give this guy a cookie or something, surely his accomplishments outside of climatology which have made him a better climatologist than the climatologists, deserves something.

167 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:49:46pm

re: #160 Blotto

Wrong...that is ALL thay is being said. Why does every fraudulent Hockey Team chart have CO2 as an accompanying series?

Please...do not attempt to concoct a false straw man by manufacturing one yourself. The five pillars of anti-intellectual leftism START with leftist pillar #1: ALWAYS be most guilty of the very thing you accuse others.

Now...with YOUR false straw man effortlessly dispensed with...please address Lindzen's point: how can the ENTIRETY of Earth's intensely complex and robust climate systemS be distilled down to just temperature effected by CO2?

I would be careful of that precipice if I were you, it looks a long way down.

168 b_snark  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:51:34pm

re: #163 Blotto

Sadly for you the entire literature of climate hysteria refutes your assertion. According to the fraudulent Nobel winning, Oscar winning Al Gore...CO2 "pollution" is the problem. It has to be..and you know it. Without CO2...they can't assault our fuel, our food and our individual liberties.

You can pretend that some obscure paper in some corrupt "peer reviewed" periodical happens to mention water vapor and sulphur crystams...but the salient fact remains: YOU have devoted TWO DECADES to relentlessly pounding home the fraud that human CO2 is driving temperature and that this temperature means we're all gonna die.

So I ask a simple question: Are you REALLY so simple that you think a SINGLE variable effected by a SINGLE forcing can dominate the robust planetary climate systems in a way that only Charles' most treasured "creationists" could concoct?

Are you so simple you cannot understand what climatologists are saying?

169 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:54:48pm

re: #164 b_sharp

I have no idea what all this has to do with the 'ideal climate' straw man but, hey, if this is what you want - fine.

A falling meteorite can destroy thousands of buildings faster than I can burn down 10 houses with a match and excelerant. By what you have said above, my burning 10 houses down is OK when compared to nature because nature can do it faster and better than I can.

How many people, world wide, are within a couple of meters of current sea level, and how many people are fed by food grown in areas prone to drought? How much will it cost to move these people and replace crops?


Ah yes...the desperate appeal to the extreme...

A classic tactic of the anti-intellectual climate hysteria camp.

You justify your hyseria by citing the extreme of a meteor wiping out Earth. Now...what would be good...is if you could conjure up the same Medieval superstition that ascribed every weather even to being God's vengence on a sinful humanity to that meteor. At least then you would be consistent.

As for the people who live close to the ocean and are soon to be victims of catastrophic sea level rises? Look to all the cities buried a hundred feet down in Greece. They TOO had to deal with sea level rise...magically...we're not only all still here...we're here in numbers that would have BLOWN THEIR MINDS...

So OK...a hundred million people migrated to Southern California in the last hundred years...it's all good. Some of them live in mansions on the beach that their next buyer will tear down. That buyer will have to locate his new house two inches further inland.

Wow...I'm in tears...we really need to seize the global economy...enact global government and make sure that THAT holocuast never happens again! (even though we can't)

170 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 8:57:33pm

re: #169 Blotto


Wow...I'm in tears...we really need to seize the global economy...enact global government...

Well, at least the truth is starting to surface. You don't really give a damn about the science, as has been evident in all your postings. What we have finally discovered is that you are one of those Monckton-ites who are deathly afraid of the Global Socialism monster coming to take your economy away from you.

171 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:01:46pm

re: #166 b_sharp

Can we give this guy a cookie or something, surely his accomplishments outside of climatology which have made him a better climatologist than the climatologists, deserves something.

Ah yes...the desperate appeal to authority so central to leftist anti-intellectualism. Leftist Pillar #5 demands that "Who is saying something is more important than what is being said".

So you can dismiss what I say, without reflection...yet cling to in desperation what Al Gore, a non-scientist who sponged the taxpayers for millions in super-fund clean up money on HIS personal zinc mine (with zinc being the critical component of the batteries used in the hybrid cars he insists we all drive)...because he's a self-annointed "expert" who has declared the "science" to be settled as he accepted his terminally corrupt poltical reward AKA Nobel Peace Prize.

Right...glad to see you fixated like a laser on "the" science...

172 Blotto  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:08:06pm

re: #170 freetoken

Well, at least the truth is starting to surface. You don't really give a damn about the science, as has been evident in all your postings. What we have finally discovered is that you are one of those Monckton-ites who are deathly afraid of the Global Socialism monster coming to take your economy away from you.


First...your robotic incantation of "THE" science establishes you as an alter-child of scientism...which is NOT science...but the neo-religious pretense of science.

Secondly...your attempt to link me with another person (in this case Monkton) without having a clue who I am...is a classic violation of logic known as "attacking the man". As such...it is a classic tactic used by the overly defensive and frightened con artists perpetrating the climate fraud.

Dare to address the issues I have plainly set forth...spare me your silly third rate anti-intellectual psycho-babble. Serious responders only...please.

Dismissed.

173 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:20:05pm

re: #172 Blotto

First...your robotic incantation of "THE" science establishes you as an alter-child of scientism...which is NOT science...but the neo-religious pretense of science..

You're right, I should have said "you don't care about science" since it has become abundantly clear to the participants in this thread that you are an ideologue out to smear everyone else.

Your absurd assertion that everybody concerned about AGW only has one topic to discuss (CO2) or that it is based on Al Gore, etc., is a sign that you really really don't want to listen.

Heck, yesterday I posted the link to the British Antarctic Survey's latest summary of climate change and the Antarctic, which is hundreds of pages long and covers an extremely large range of subjects relevant to climate change.

You are blind to that of course, as well as any other actual substantial presentation of the science, as you have plucked out your own eyes with prejudice that would make Inhofe proud.

You are not long for this blog, I surmise. It will only get worse for you here as you stomp around in you blind rage against Al Gore... Are you jealous of him?

174 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:28:44pm

I had to block Blotto's account, because every time he posted I could feel a few more brain cells dying. I don't have any more to spare.

175 kittysaidwoof  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 9:43:58pm

Too bad. The entire blogosphere is getting less and less interesting to read as all the blogs, left, right and center increasingly seem to become echo boxes with only a limited set of arguments allowed per blog. Good thing Hot Air still has Allahpundit, but their comment sections are as one-minded as everybody else's these days.

Oh well, I suppose its the natural evolution of things. I just need to wait until some new new media pops up.

176 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:07:05pm

re: #175 kittysaidwoof

Arguments are one thing. Stupidity is another.

177 ragnwald  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:35:57pm

As a scientist, I can only say: well done. A major part of science is to change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. Or, as someone once put it: the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

178 kittysaidwoof  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:14:49pm

oh, I readily confess my ignorance. I am not a climatologists as everybody else seems to be. I for one thought Blotto made several valid-sounding points and it made the discussion more interesting for somebody at my level of intellect.

For people like me who will never become climatologists the matter is ultimately about faith. Do I believe the guys whose billion dollar industry depends on it or do I believe the guys whose million dollar industry funded by billion dollar industries depends on me believing them? Unfortunately this isn't an easy-peasy matter like evolution where all you have to do to convince yourself that it makes a lot of sense is visit the Calapagos islands. Of course I admit that my belief in evolution is also a matter of faith as I am no biologist and cannot rely on my own expertise on the matter.

While whether I believe in evolution or not has little serious consequences (there's no serious contention about the matter here and the discussion is relevant here merely as comedic material, something to make fun of Americans), the AGW issue has very serious consequences.

As it stands now, it sometimes seems like the question being asked is how would I like to commit suicide. This is why I think the question of what's to be done to AGW and what really are the nasty things that are going to be the consequences of GW is more relevant. I don't have to believe in AGW to agree to some sensible precautions, but even if I did believe in AGW, I would still not agree to some of the measures proposed to combat it.

Also I think it is a folly to ignore our many very real ordinary threats to existence, such as war or even total economic collapse, which could wipe us out much more quickly, at the expense of something that might do something very nasty sometime in the unforeseen future. I understand that this is not a real problem for you in the core of the free world, but it is for us at the fringes.

179 Solomon2  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:43:08am

Personally, I "converted" about six years ago when NASA recalibrated their satellite data to show that warming was real. But unlike the chlorofluorocarbons issue, climate change calculations are extremely complex and even counter-intuitive.

For example, planting the wrong type of trees in the wrong climate can actually increase greenhouse emissions, rather than decrease them. Another example is that cleaning up sulphur pollution from coal actually increases the greenhouse effect.

To put things in perspective, it may help to remember that a volcanic eruption overwhelms man's effects for a year or two.

180 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:25:50pm

re: #178 kittysaidwoof

oh, I readily confess my ignorance. I am not a climatologists as everybody else seems to be. I for one thought Blotto made several valid-sounding points and it made the discussion more interesting for somebody at my level of intellect.

If you want to eat up deceptive, ridiculous denialist talking points about global warming, there are plenty of websites where you can find them. And there's plenty of honest debate on this subject going on at LGF. But there's a point beyond which I'm not going to let denialists just keep dumping bullshit on my site, and "Blotto" passed that point several comments back.

181 darthstar  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:49:06pm

re: #106 axegrinder

I have seen little credible evidence I should be even a little bit worried.

I've seen little credible evidence that the earth isn't flat...oh, wait, yes I have...I just choose to ignore it.

Sheesh.

182 Stanley  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:29:01pm

re: #138 b_sharp

re: #138 b_sharp

I think this may help you: [Link: www.criticalthinking.org...]

I browsed a few of the links, but didn't find anything about the topic at hand. Got a link with the equations they are using to predict AGW outcomes? I'm willing to listen to the science of global warming, but it's completely drowned out by all this religion.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
3 hours ago
Views: 44 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 160 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1