You’re Being Duped By the Climate Denial Industry

Environment • Views: 3,850

Since a whole lot of right-wingers gleefully trumpeted George Monbiot’s article in which he called for CRU head Phil Jones to resign, I wonder if they’ll be equally eager to promote his latest article — which documents the enormous amounts of money the climate denial industry is spending to trick people into believing there’s no threat from global warming: The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it’s working.

I’m guessing … not.

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal. You can see it in the measured temperature record, which goes back to 1850; in the shrinkage of glaciers and the thinning of sea ice; in the responses of wild animals and plants and the rapidly changing crop zones.

No other explanation for these shifts makes sense. Solar cycles have been out of synch with the temperature record for 40 years. The Milankovic cycle, which describes variations in the Earth’s orbit, doesn’t explain it either. But the warming trend is closely correlated with the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The impact of these gases can be demonstrated in the laboratory. To assert that they do not have the same effect in the atmosphere, a novel and radical theory would be required. No such theory exists. The science is not fixed – no science ever is – but it is as firm as science can be. The evidence for man-made global warming remains as strong as the evidence linking smoking to lung cancer or HIV to Aids.

The third observation is the contrast between the global scandal these emails�have provoked and the muted response to 20 years of revelations about the propaganda planted by fossil fuel companies. I have placed on the Guardian’s website four case studies; each of which provides a shocking example of how the denial industry works.

Two of them are drawn from Climate Cover-Up, the fascinating, funny and beautifully written new book by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. If every allegation it contained could not be traced back to leaked documents (I have checked all the sources), their findings would be unbelievable. Nothing exposed by the hacking of the Climatic Research Unit’s server is one tenth as bad as the least of these revelations.

When I use the term denial industry, I’m referring to those who are paid to say that man-made global warming isn’t happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped. Reading Climate Cover-Up, you keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts which you can see every day on the comment threads. The book shows that these memes were planted by PR companies and hired experts.

The first case study I’ve posted reveals how a coalition of US coal companies sought to persuade people that the science is uncertain. It listed the two social groups it was trying to reach – “Target 1: Older, less educated males”; “Target 2: Younger, lower income women” – and the methods by which it would reach them. One of its findings was that “members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others’ motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions on scientific issues”.

Remember this the next time you hear people claiming that climate scientists are only in it for the money, or that environmentalists are trying to create a communist world government: these ideas were devised and broadcast by energy companies. The people who inform me, apparently without irony, that “your article is an ad hominem attack, you four-eyed, big-nosed, commie sack of shit”, or “you scaremongers will destroy the entire world economy and take us back to the Stone Age”, are the unwitting recruits of campaigns they have never heard of.

The second case study reveals how Dr Patrick Michaels, one of a handful of climate change deniers with a qualification in climate science, has been lavishly paid by companies seeking to protect their profits from burning coal. As far as I can discover, none of the media outlets who use him as a commentator – including the Guardian – has disclosed this interest at the time of his appearance. Michaels is one of many people commenting on climate change who presents himself as an independent expert while being secretly paid for his services by fossil fuel companies.

The third example shows how a list published by the Heartland Institute (which has been sponsored by oil company Exxon) of 500 scientists “whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares” turns out to be nothing of the kind: as soon as these scientists found out what the institute was saying about them, many angrily demanded that their names be removed. Twenty months later, they are still on the list. The fourth example shows how, during the Bush presidency, White House officials worked with oil companies to remove regulators they didn’t like and to doctor official documents about climate change.

Jump to bottom

123 comments
1 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:03:32pm

No I’m not.

2 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:03:42pm

I shot the clerk…
- My Cousin Vinny

3 Sharmuta  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:07:00pm

Here’s a great example of how you’re being duped:

4 windsagio  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:07:28pm

re: #1 Cato the Elder

Oh you totally are!

5 jaunte  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:07:40pm
…people claiming that climate scientists are only in it for the money…


You would think people could figure out that being a climate scientist is not exactly an easy road to wealth.

6 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:08:22pm

Noob question here. Where do I find the number comments I’ve made? And how many is it before I can use my dingy thing?

7 Sharmuta  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:08:48pm

re: #6 Jadespring

Click your football/avatar.

8 Sharmuta  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:09:22pm

re: #6 Jadespring

Oh- and 50 comments to get your dinger.

9 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:09:34pm

I’m guessing … not.
I’m guessing “not” either

It is 100% normal for people to highlight things that butress their side of a debate and ignore, twist, obfuscate, deny and outright lie about the opposing ‘facts’

10 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:11:11pm

re: #9 sattv4u2

I’m guessing … not.
I’m guessing “not” either

It is 100% normal for people to highlight things that butress their side of a debate and ignore, twist, obfuscate, deny and outright lie about the opposing ‘facts’

No, actually, it’s not “normal” for everyone to do that. It’s “normal” for liars to do that. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who aren’t liars.

11 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:11:25pm

re: #8 Sharmuta

Thanks. I see now why I couldn’t find where. Since I’m on dial-up I have image load turned off for faster loads and the avatar box doesn’t show up.

12 jaunte  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:11:50pm

There’s a good capsule history of the science of human-induced global warming at this link:

…by the 1950s, it was starting to become clear that human activity was causing CO2 levels to rise and that this rise would reduce the loss of heat into space. The implication seemed clear: provided all the other factors affecting the climate did not change, the Earth would warm.

It is worth stressing that this conclusion depends only on atmospheric physics and oceanic chemistry. It does not rely on the study of past climate.

But it was a conclusion scientists were reluctant to draw. There were many uncertainties and complexities involved. And at the time other climate factors had changed: the world had cooled slightly after 1940, due mainly to sulphate emissions. It was only in the late 1970s that a handful of scientists, including Wallace Broecker, began to warn that global warming was an imminent problem.

Why does this history matter? Because it shows that scientists, now united in agreement, were once the greatest climate change sceptics.


[Link: www.newscientist.com…]

13 Sharmuta  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:12:28pm

re: #11 Jadespring

Did you access it? You’re at 41 comments.

14 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:13:04pm

re: #13 Sharmuta

Yep I did! Almost there!

15 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:13:10pm

re: #1 Cato the Elder

No, you’re not!
And neither am I.
I read LGF & have all the latest information, so I can make my own decision!

(Turtles all the way down, BTW…)
///

16 Pepper Fox  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:14:09pm

re: #10 Charles

No, actually, it’s not “normal” for everyone to do that. It’s “normal” for liars to do that. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who aren’t liars.

They just aren’t in politics.

17 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:14:22pm

re: #15 Floral Giraffe

No, you’re not!
And neither am I.
I read LGF & have all the latest information, so I can make my own decision!

(Turtles all the way down, BTW…)
///

Unless you have a background in science, you’re very much lacking in information.

18 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:14:30pm

re: #10 Charles

No, actually, it’s not “normal” for everyone to do that. It’s “normal” for liars to do that.

Then let me amend that.
It is normal human behaviour to highlight things that buttress their side of a debate and marginalize the best they can an opposing view

19 windsagio  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:14:39pm

re: #5 jaunte

You would think people could figure out that being a climate scientist is not exactly an easy road to wealth.

my crazy conservative Aunt insists its a conspiracy by the Green power lobby.


Seriously!

20 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:15:12pm

re: #5 jaunte

You would think people could figure out that being a climate scientist is not exactly an easy road to wealth.

B-B-B-But Al Gore!

21 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:15:31pm

re: #18 sattv4u2

Then let me amend that.
It is normal human behaviour to highlight things that buttress their side of a debate and marginalize the best they can an opposing view

That is indeed a better way to say it, and you are quite correct.

22 jaunte  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:17:01pm

re: #19 windsagio

Boone Pickens?

23 srjh  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:19:52pm

And, unsurprisingly, the comments there prove his point better than he can.

24 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:20:26pm

I don’t think scientists are in it for the money. I do think there are a lot of opportunists using non-scientists and the climate situation (both sides of it) to their own ends, including money and power.

Sifting thru it all is more than frustrating.

25 FemNaziBitch  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:23:44pm

have a great evening all!

26 Achilles Tang  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:23:47pm

This is good:

“members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others’ motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions on scientific issues”.
27 Racer X  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:25:21pm

There is an awful lot of hypocrisy being displayed in Hopenhagen.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the “summit to save the world”, which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

“We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” she says. “But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report.”

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”

28 SteveC  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:25:52pm

re: #1 Cato the Elder

No I’m not.

re: #4 windsagio

Oh you totally are!

OK, both opinions covered. Thread over - and pass the Aspirin!

//

29 Mark Pennington  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:26:12pm

re: #5 jaunte

You would think people could figure out that being a climate scientist is not exactly an easy road to wealth.

Revenue in 2007 of the top 9 integrated oil companies: 1.6 Trillion dollars.
You want a “follow the money” scenario? Follow the 1.6 TRILLION Dollars per year. Compare it to the amounts of grants of a TOP climate scientist.

30 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:26:57pm

The only ones I’ve ever really been duped by were 1) a car salesman (I was young, I had my first job that paid more than squat, and I needed wheels) and 2) when I got ill a few years back and some “friends” told me about the magic of acupuncture and moxibustion and that stuff, and I willingly spent thousands in hope of relief. I wised up and they showed me the door.

The crappy car gave a lot more value for the overinflated price I paid.

Anyone who feels like trying to dupe me today, just ask and I’ll eagerly await your proposals.

31 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:26:57pm

re: #10 Charles

No, actually, it’s not “normal” for everyone to do that. It’s “normal” for liars to do that. Believe it or not, there are people in the world who aren’t liars.

Right, but when someone becomes heavily invested in a particular position, then there is a natural tendency to protect that position…within reasonable limits imposed by one’s morality or professional ethics.

32 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:28:21pm

re: #30 Cato the Elder

The only ones I’ve ever really been duped by were 1) a car salesman (I was young, I had my first job that paid more than squat, and I needed wheels) and 2) when I got ill a few years back and some “friends” told me about the magic of acupuncture and moxibustion and that stuff, and I willingly spent thousands in hope of relief. I wised up and they showed me the door.

The crappy car gave a lot more value for the overinflated price I paid.

Anyone who feels like trying to dupe me today, just ask and I’ll eagerly await your proposals.

Two that you know of.

33 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:28:46pm

I put a link up (in the spinoffs) to a recent Australian interview with James Hansen, which covers lots of topics, including this:

TONY JONES: But why do you think there’s been a revival of scepticism against the science? You must have been disturbed yourself recently by the leaked email exchanges between your fellow scientists at Britain’s climate research unit.

Now sceptics are using these emails to support their case that scientists are trying to hoodwink us, that scientists are falsifying data or hiding away evidence that disproves their arguments.

JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, these are very desperate efforts by the contrarians and those who are supporting the business community that wants to continue business as usual. But, you know, the data that is used to determine the temperature change over the last century or so, that data is available to everybody.

If there was anything wrong with the analyses that showed the magnitude of this warming, don’t you think that these contrarians would quickly show, do their own analysis and show that there really wasn’t any warming? Of course not because they know very well.

You know, they’ve tried to examine or data and they did find one flaw, which turned out to be 3/100ths of a degree and was an easily explained mistake, but that’s the kind of thing, they’re looking for nitpicking. They try to find small things and then they question the integrity of the scientists.

But in fact, there’s the evidence for climate change, and the analyses is very strong. It’s true that in some of these email exchanges that some of the scientists did some things which I think they probably regret.

For example, we should always make our input data available to the community, to anybody, so that they can check our analysis. But, in fact, we’ve been doing that for many years, and as I say, nobody can find anything that disproves proves our analysis.

What one notices from this Australian broadcast is that the questioner is informed and allows Dr. Hansen to give complete answers. If only all the media were that way.

34 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:28:49pm

re: #29 beekiller

That 1.6 trillion p/y. Is that profit, profit margin, before or after EBIDTA? How much of it is spent on R & D of new and/ or renewable? How many people does that employ? Good salaries? benefits??

35 SteveC  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:29:34pm

re: #31 Spare O’Lake

…within reasonable limits imposed by one’s morality or professional ethics.

You’re not up to speed on how this game is played, are you?

///

36 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:30:55pm

re: #33 freetoken

Was it radio or tv?

37 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:31:25pm
38 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:31:45pm

re: #34 sattv4u2

That 1.6 trillion p/y. Is that profit, profit margin, before or after EBIDTA? How much of it is spent on R & D of new and/ or renewable? How many people does that employ? Good salaries? benefits??

That’s more than the climate scientist get paid was the point. Regardless of the benefits, those companies have 1.6 trillion reasons to maintain the status quo.

39 Racer X  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:32:36pm

re: #27 Racer X

Part of the problem:

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners’ apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. “If Martin Luther King had come along and said ‘I have a nightmare,’ people would not have followed him,” he said.

40 Gus  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:32:52pm

re: #37 trojans

23 comments since 2006 and you’re bored?

41 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:33:26pm

re: #37 trojans

Piss off.

42 windsagio  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:33:37pm

re: #27 Racer X

wait, how does caviar have anything to do with Global warning?

Is it a ‘rich effete liberal european’ thing?


You are right tho’, all those world leaders are total effin’ hypocrites unless they come in Kon-Tiki rafts and pedal-busses!

43 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:34:02pm

re: #30 Cato the Elder

Want to buy a bridge?
LOL!

44 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:34:50pm

re: #36 Jadespring

I believe it is Australian radio.

45 badger1970  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:34:58pm

re: #24 ggt

I don’t think scientists are in it for the money. I do think there are a lot of opportunists using non-scientists and the climate situation (both sides of it) to their own ends, including money and power.

Sifting thru it all is more than frustrating.

Agreed to the potential of greed.

46 SteveC  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:35:25pm

re: #40 Gus 802

23 comments since 2006 and you’re bored?

Wake up Gus802! He’s never seen a truck wreck like this before! :)

47 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:35:25pm

re: #38 McSpiff

That’s more than the climate scientist get paid was the point. Regardless of the benefits, those companies have 1.6 trillion reasons to maintain the status quo.

Sorry, but I saw it as another demonization of “big business”

two editorials of note I posted in this

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

What is the ultimate end game?

48 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:35:35pm

re: #37 trojans

I’ll go clear out the freezer. It’s too cold to grill right now.

49 Mark Pennington  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:36:02pm

re: #38 McSpiff

That’s more than the climate scientist get paid was the point. Regardless of the benefits, those companies have 1.6 trillion reasons to maintain the status quo.

Exactly. Not to mention, all those jobs reliant on money flowing from the continued burning of fossil fuels. Is it any wonder that so many people stick their fingers in their ears and say “no climate change, no climate change, lalallalala” Their livelihoods are dependent on the status quo.

50 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:36:08pm

Every time one of these idiots pops up and posts a comment like that, I’m more certain than ever that I want nothing to do with the right wing.

51 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:37:59pm

re: #44 freetoken

I believe it is Australian radio.

Ah okay. I’m still waiting for the link to load. Dial-up is a drunk turtle this evening. If it’s the ABC then then they’re pretty good and doing in depth interviews. I occasionally catch some of their broadcasts on late night radio that plays international reports.

52 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:39:14pm

re: #50 Charles

Every time one of these idiots pops up and posts a comment like that, I’m more certain than ever that I want nothing to do with the right wing.

I haven’t gone that far, but the constant flow of crazy from the right is pushing me away. I don’t want to associate with people who enjoy spitting hate and rage.

53 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:41:40pm

re: #52 Dark_Falcon

I haven’t gone that far, but the constant flow of crazy from the right is pushing me away. I don’t want to associate with people who enjoy spitting hate and rage.

And thats exactly what pushed and h kept me away from the left all these years. Seems as if this middle ground is getting smaller and smaller!

54 Gus  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:44:17pm

re: #27 Racer X

There will be approximately 17,000 attendees to COP15. 1200 limos represents 7% of the total. What of the other 93%? It would be assumed then that the vast majority did not arrive by either private air or limo which would be by regular air transport, train, rental car, etc. The number of limos also does not define the purpose of the COP15 attendee which means some could be used by journalists or those with industry interests.

55 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:44:35pm

re: #52 Dark_Falcon

I haven’t gone that far, but the constant flow of crazy from the right is pushing me away. I don’t want to associate with people who enjoy spitting hate and rage.

I just really, really, really strongly think that at this moment in time, we need scientists more than anything else. Well, scientists, engineers, and people who can convince the public to trust the scientists— and convince the engineers, too.

Humanity has spent most of its cultural life just waking up. The scientific method has barely had any time, and the advances we’ve made are incredible, but one of the first things we’ve been able to discover is that the planet is not for us, it wasn’t custom-made for us, we’re one evolved species and 99.9% of all species that ever lived our dead.

The main thing we know is that staying alive is hard.

And climate change is just, biologically, a thing that kills species. It’s the most natural enemy of any adapted entity.

56 Irenicum  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:45:07pm

Wow. And once again. Just wow. Thanks Charles. I can think of dozens of my friends back in fundie territory that repeat these memes over and over again, thinking they’re thinking their own thoughts. All the while regurgitating fossil fuel talking points. It’s sad that the corporate psychs get paid the big bucks to figure out how to “talk to” the conservative street. What can real science do to talk to regular folks in a way that they’ll actually listen and then accept the reality of climate change, but also evolution, etc.? I want to speak honestly to my friends, but damn, it seems that in this environment, the only things that work are rhetorical slight of hand. I don’t want to stoop to that. But it seems that most folks don’t have the attention span to listen to a reasoned argument. Sorry for the rant, but this really sucks.

57 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:45:45pm

re: #43 Floral Giraffe

Want to buy a bridge?
LOL!

Yes.

To Lisbon.

Listen and tell me I’m wrong. A Western-facing country with great wine and its empire long gone. Where else would an old turd like me want to wind up?

58 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:45:49pm

Ah well ,,, seems a tad slow here tonight. Think I’ll go catch 10 winks ( a little nap)
Beleive it or not, at 3 (eastern) this morning, i have to send this weeks WWE wrestling shows to several european countries.

Oh joy ,,, Fuax Wrestling with Spanish, Italian and French commentators

59 Racer X  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:46:41pm

re: #55 Obdicut

I just really, really, really strongly think that at this moment in time, we need scientists more than anything else. Well, scientists, engineers, and people who can convince the public to trust the scientists— and convince the engineers, too.

Where the scientists are failing is the ability to counter the Anti-AGW crowd. They need a better PR team. Gore was too polarizing, too political.

60 holeinone#7@pebble  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:47:58pm

I just read an interesting article at American Thinker regarding the manipulation of computer programming codes to get the results desired to prove AGW.

61 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:48:47pm

re: #47 sattv4u2

Sorry, but I saw it as another demonization of “big business”

two editorials of note I posted in this

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

What is the ultimate end game?

Its the same point Charles has raised many times (yay appeal to authority by McSpiff…). As you point out, these companies are big business. A lot of people depend on them making money. Some people make a lot of money from them (CEOs, major shareholders) and some make less, but many thousands make their livelihood off of them. Totally respectable, well established industry. I’m assuming we’re in agreement at least this far.

So when a large group of people begin to threaten that livelihood, these companies (i.e the thousands of people mentioned in the previous paragraph) are going to do whatever they feel they need to go to maintain this status quo. So whenever you see scientific research or “grass roots” groups tied to these companies, you need to keep these motivations in mind.

The following is a general statement, not really in reply to your last comment. I also use Exxon as a catchall for Big Oil, because I think its a nifty name.

Unfortunately Exxon’s desire (and really Exxon is just people, like every other company) cannot influence reality. And the reality is that Exxon’s product is causing our ecosystem to undergo dramatic shifts that will negatively impact our species. So while I fully agree that we should be skeptical of any proposed solutions coming from the politicians, we should be even more skeptical of any “science” or groups supported by companies like Exxon. Because they very much have a vested interest in attempting to shift reality.

It reminds me of that scene in 1984, where O’Brien tries to prove to Winston that 2 + 2 = 5. Exxon’s trillions of dollars, and our dislike for many of the people in Copenhagen can’t change the basic science. It’s not a nice reality, it’s not one I’d choose but its the one we live in. So if we don’t like the solutions coming out of Copenhagen, we need to demand an alternative solution, not just sit back and claim that 2 + 2 =5.

62 Racer X  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:49:10pm

Things are not looking good:

Copenhagen climate change conference

China: the US and EU must present deeper cuts
Chinese climate official blames the US, EU and Japan for too low ambitions on emissions cuts.

63 Gus  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:50:52pm

re: #61 McSpiff

Paradigm shift.

64 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:51:29pm

re: #60 holeinone#7@pebble

I just read an interesting article at American Thinker regarding the manipulation of computer programming codes to get the results desired to prove AGW.

You just read a pile of bullshit, you mean.

65 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:52:04pm

re: #55 Obdicut

And climate change is just, biologically, a thing that kills species. It’s the most natural enemy of any adapted entity.



If I could play with that a little bit…
Climate change is change in eco-system functions that can kill species if they fail to or are unable to adapt.

66 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:52:09pm

re: #60 holeinone#7@pebble

I just read an interesting article at American Thinker regarding the manipulation of computer programming codes to get the results desired to prove AGW.

And if you think there is any thinking going on at “American Thinker”, I have a sure-fire audition at “American Idol” you’ll be interested in bidding on.

But hurry! Time is the enemy of opportunity! If you call in the next ten minutes, I can get you into the top twenty-thousand ranking!

67 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:52:48pm

re: #63 Gus 802

Paradigm shift.

It’s amazing how much I can write when I should be studying ;-)

68 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:52:55pm

re: #57 Cato the Elder

Yes.

To Lisbon.

Listen and tell me I’m wrong. A Western-facing country with great wine and its empire long gone. Where else would an old turd like me want to wind up?

Looks good to me!

69 Irenicum  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:53:07pm

re: #31 Cato the Elder

There’s this bridge I know about that you just might be interested in…
///

70 cenotaphium  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:54:12pm

re: #60 holeinone#7@pebble

I just read an interesting article at American Thinker regarding the manipulation of computer programming codes to get the results desired to prove AGW.

Don’t play the “interesting” rethoric. Maybe try to give a link, excerpt or a summation of your own instead?

71 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:54:32pm

re: #61 McSpiff

So if we don’t like the solutions coming out of Copenhagen, we need to demand an alternative solution, not just sit back and claim that 2 + 2 =5.

There have been many ‘solutions’ proposed, and each and every one of them is opposed by the same poolitical class that is on board with kyoto and/ or copenhagen

France gets 75-80% of it’s energy from nuclear. Why can’t the largest industrial power the world has ever seen do the same? Wind farms were proposed off the coast of Cape Cod. One word from Senator Kennedy scotched that idea. We have the room to build solar farms out west, but cannot build the transmission lines that would bring that energy to major cities because we might disrupt some birds migratory flight path

72 Dancing along the light of day  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:54:36pm

re: #69 Irenicum

HAH!
He already spent his money on my bridge!
(GMTA!)

73 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:56:07pm

re: #62 Racer X

The deep political rifts are showing.

The Danes have written a draft of an agreement that is essentially political in nature.

This has caused quite an uproar, especially among the G77. Here is yesterday’s presser by the G77:

[Link: www1.cop15.meta-fusion.com…]

Al is going to try and get the parties back on track:

Gore attempts to defuse ‘Danish text’ dispute

74 Irenicum  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:56:47pm

re: #41 Charles

May I suggest a suitable prophylactic for this poster?

75 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:57:09pm
76 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:57:19pm

re: #73 freetoken

Al is going to try and get the parties back on track:
Is he going to bellow

“THEY PLAYED ON OUR FEARS ,,, “

77 SteveC  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:57:41pm

re: #71 sattv4u2

…cannot build the transmission lines that would bring that energy to major cities because we might disrupt some birds migratory flight path

With the economy shot to hell, even the birds are having staycations.

78 windsagio  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:57:46pm

re: #71 sattv4u2

linky linky the flight path thingy. I’ve heard that one before, always thought it was crazy.

It is funny tho’, in the west where we apparently can’t build powerlines, we have a ton of windfarms, with more going in constantly. Its pretty big business!


Altho’ you do have something of a point abut nuclear power, the rest of it is… well more “Its actually the lefts fault!” crap.

79 Basho  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:57:54pm

I wonder what noted climatologist Sarah Palin thinks about this.

80 Basho  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:59:12pm

re: #60 holeinone#7@pebble

I just read an interesting article at American Thinker regarding the manipulation of computer programming codes to get the results desired to prove AGW.

Your first mistake was to read anything from that terrible website.

81 SteveC  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:00:14pm

re: #79 Basho

I wonder what noted climatologist Sarah Palin thinks about this.

STOP!

You used the word “Palin” and “Think” in sequence. Is that even possible?

82 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:01:09pm

re: #60 holeinone#7@pebble

Problem is that isn’t what the code in question was used for. It was not used to “prove” AGW. The code (and I am a qualified computer geek with 30+ years of programming experience) was only part of larger code bases (not everything was made available) and the two code bases appear to be the Bifra paleoclimate processing and the other the smoothing and plotting of the HADCRUT temperature series. Bifra’s has the “don’t use after 1960” references and the HADCRUT has the “fudge factor”.

Both the Bifra study and the HADCRUT series could be thrown out in whole and you’d still have other data sources and studies that support AGW. I pored over that code looking for a smoking gun, found some dumb mistakes, some shoddy engineering and some unethical data manipulation. But nothing that reverses the current understanding of how the system works.

While I have been someone who questions the statistical certainties that some advocates present (namely, certainty about sensitivity) the fundamental physics are there - CO2 is a greenhouse gas, concentrations are increasing, and - over time you will see temps creep up and up. How quickly? That is still debated. Will it ever happen? No longer debated. And the code doesn’t undermine that even though I thought it might.

83 McSpiff  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:04:26pm

re: #71 sattv4u2


So if we don’t like the solutions coming out of Copenhagen, we need to demand an alternative solution, not just sit back and claim that 2 + 2 =5.

There have been many ‘solutions’ proposed, and each and every one of them is opposed by the same poolitical class that is on board with kyoto and/ or copenhagen

France gets 75-80% of it’s energy from nuclear. Why can’t the largest industrial power the world has ever seen do the same? Wind farms were proposed off the coast of Cape Cod. One word from Senator Kennedy scotched that idea. We have the room to build solar farms out west, but cannot build the transmission lines that would bring that energy to major cities because we might disrupt some birds migratory flight path

I’m in training to be an electrical engineer. Last time I talked with one of the kyoto types I ended up yelling “If we can’t kill fish, then we’re killing humans wether we like it or not” during a discussion about Hydro. Believe me, there is three or four major hydroelectric projects* in Canada that should have been started last thursday. Although this country is getting better for that, now that we’re gorging on the tar sands cash, environmental concerns have taken a backseat. I’m totally with you on this one. I’m not a hippy environmentalist type. I think people like me (and I hope you!) can separate the AGW concerns from the “save the rare spotted manatee” concerns and actually get some progress done on something that you know, matters.

I’m not in this for wealth redistribution or for everyone’s pet species. I’m in this because I’m concerned about millions or potentially billions of people facing large scale disruptions in their ability to live productive lives.

* Hydro in Canada already provides something like 60% of the nations industry. And I’m talking about nuclear power plant sized installations. Real solutions in my opinion. Although nuclear is good too, same with large scale solar.

84 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:05:47pm

re: #78 windsagio

the rest of it is… well more “Its actually the lefts fault!” crap
For weeks, pressure has been mounting in Congress to approve more domestic oil drilling, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has held the line, using her power to block a vote on offshore drilling.
[Link: www.sfgate.com…]

Alaska Senator’s Bid to Block Wind Farm Linked to Kennedy

[Link: www.redorbit.com…]

85 Irenicum  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:07:45pm

re: #60 holeinone#7@pebble

You really should stop reading Amerikan Sphincter.

86 holeinone#7@pebble  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:08:03pm

#70, The article is called , Revenge of The Computer Nerds. For those who have not read it and can call it a ” pile of bullshit”, good luck with that open minded argument.

87 Cato the Elder  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:08:22pm

re: #69 Irenicum

There’s this bridge I know about that you just might be interested in…
///

If it goes to Lisbon, I’m interested.

88 Gus  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:09:59pm

re: #84 sattv4u2

Jeb Bush was against offshore oil drilling. I don’t need to reference that since it’s known fact. It probably doesn’t mean much of anything just like the never ending reference to Ted Kennedy’s objection to wind farms in Nantucket.

89 srjh  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:11:47pm

re: #51 Jadespring

Ah okay. I’m still waiting for the link to load. Dial-up is a drunk turtle this evening. If it’s the ABC then then they’re pretty good and doing in depth interviews. I occasionally catch some of their broadcasts on late night radio that plays international reports.

Aussie here - it’s actually a political TV show, but it is from the ABC. Highly recommended, and I think that segment itself is available online:

[Link: www.abc.net.au…]

Checking it out now (hope it’s not restricted to Australians).

90 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:13:01pm

re: #88 Gus 802

The banning of drilling off of Florida, itself a questionable prospect for oil, is purely due to the Floridians not wanting it.

Likewise, the banning of drilling off of California, which would more likely lead to a small production of oil, is due to the Californians not wanting it. Reference the Santa Barbara oil disaster, etc.

The residents of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and LA counties don’t want to see oil rigs from their windows, and indeed the drilling would be quite close to shore.

91 holeinone#7@pebble  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:14:06pm

#82, Thank You for an intelligent reply.

92 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:14:08pm

re: #89 srjh

Thanks, I’m not familiar with the Aussie media. Oh, and I’m downloading the mp4 now.

93 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:14:21pm

re: #89 srjh

Aussie here - it’s actually a political TV show, but it is from the ABC. Highly recommended, and I think that segment itself is available online:

[Link: www.abc.net.au…]

Checking it out now (hope it’s not restricted to Australians).

Cool. Thanks. Even better that it’s on tv.

94 windsagio  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:16:04pm

re: #84 sattv4u2

wait, OIL DRILLING?


The best you can come up with is a link to the left blocking oil drilling? I mean c’mon, that has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR PREVIOUS POST!

Where in there does it talk about blocking nuclear development, or wind power, or powerlines or anything?

The second link is something maybe, I always worry about links from sites I’ve never heard of tho’. I’ll meet you halfway and say its possible that a Kennedy would pull something like that, they’re a little entitled.

but seriously. I ask you about wind and nuclear ect (and birds and powerlines), and you come at me with oil drilling.


Disingenuous or delusional?

95 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:23:24pm
I’m guessing … not.

Actually, I love it.

Even if you were to exclude every line of evidence that could possibly be disputed – the proxy records, the computer models, the complex science of clouds and ocean currents – the evidence for man-made global warming would still be unequivocal.

I’ve been trying to say the same thing. But he says it far better.

96 Gus  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:27:01pm

re: #90 freetoken

The banning of drilling off of Florida, itself a questionable prospect for oil, is purely due to the Floridians not wanting it.

Likewise, the banning of drilling off of California, which would more likely lead to a small production of oil, is due to the Californians not wanting it. Reference the Santa Barbara oil disaster, etc.

The residents of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and LA counties don’t want to see oil rigs from their windows, and indeed the drilling would be quite close to shore.

Yes. In the case of Florida the tourist dollar is the largest source of revenue. When you come down to it, Floridians don’t want to sacrifice that source of revenue for the sake of oil production which would add little to that revenue. There is also plenty to recover outside the existing buffer zones.

The point is also moot right now. The SCOTUS directed the EPA to determine if particular greenhouse gases violate the Clean Air Act. To date the EPA has determined 6 greenhouse gases to do as such. While there are rumblings with the current discussions at COP15 with regards to the US, China (who is hiding behind a developing nation status) and India.

Already states and utility companies have placed in motion alternative energy sources such as wind and solar to replace existing fossil fuel sources. While there is still a long future with fossil fuels the momentum has already been put in place for its eventual replacement short of lubricants.

This will not take place overnight and practically speaking we’re looking at a time frame of approximately 50 to 100 years where 50 years marks an optimal state.

97 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:28:04pm

Related -

I’ve posted here a couple of times about how China and India are playing a bit of a shell game regarding carbon caps and are making some phony commitments to “cuts” (which they nonetheless want regarded as non binding) in order to come out of Copenhagen able to do Business As Usual (BAU)

China has announced a well publicized “commitment” to “cut” carbon intensity by 45% over the next 10 years while the US has pledged a seemingly more modest cut in actual emissions of 17% in the same period.

I ran some numbers through a spreadsheet and found some interesting facts:

1) If China renewed its “cut” of 45% every 10 years while continuing its current GDP growth rate, it will belch out more CO2 in year 2040 than all of the world does now.

2) China would also produce more carbon per person (even after accounting for population growth) in year 2040 than the US does now.

3) In the same period the US will have cut its emissions almost in half, and its carbon intensity by 75%.

Just the same, China is demanding that the United States help subsidize the Chinese economy with tax payments (because they are a “developing nation”) and the anti-American sentiment at the conference has been whipped up to a “rich versus poor” frenzy that has China laughing all the way to the bank.

Under the current “constraints” being discussed, China will be able to grow her GDP to a mind boggling $135 trillion and emit 28 Gigatons of CO2 (what the whole planet emits now) in 2040 and still meet a 45% intensity cut every 10 years.

What a joke.

98 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:31:17pm

re: #97 karmic_inquisitor

Do you know from whom they learned the “carbon intensity” two-step?

Us.

The whole “carbon intensity” argument was kicked around for awhile among the conservatives (well, the few that took climatology seriously) and the administration of GWB. Eventually it sort of went by the wayside as the mood in the US changed.

Yet, it was not a lesson that went unlearnt by the Chinese.

99 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:31:32pm

re: #90 freetoken

Likewise, the banning of drilling off of California, which would more likely lead to a small production of oil, is due to the Californians not wanting it

Not that “Californians” not wanting it, more like the Cal Assembly not wanting it. They even expunged the vote which showed 28 Assemblymen voting FOR drilling

[Link: articles.latimes.com…]

100 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:34:44pm

re: #99 sattv4u2

The California Assembly is a representative democracy.

If Californians really wanted to allow offshore drilling, they would express it by voting in Assembly members to represent that.

I for one don’t really care that much, though the oil spills were non-trivial and if drilling were ever allowed again I would propose the most stringent of regulations overseeing it.

101 Rakkasan  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:38:12pm

Until we - all of us - stop indulging in the god-damned fantasy that one side’s motivations are pure and blameless and the other is wholly corrupt and evil, we will contribute nothing but confusion to the public discourse. We sure as hell are not going to solve anything with this idiotic idea that the only people who oppose us are paid shills or lunatics. Personally, I believe that AGW is a problem, and I wish to God it was being addressed in a serious way and not being latched onto by political leeches seeking to twist it to their own ends. But can we truly blame people for being skeptical after years and years of one fraud after another crying wolf? After all the scare stories trotted out by both sides of the spectrum - each claiming that we’re doomed if we don’t give them more power - is it any wonder, really, that people might be getting just a little tired of it?

102 karmic_inquisitor  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:39:28pm

re: #98 freetoken

Do you know from whom they learned the “carbon intensity” two-step?

Us.

The whole “carbon intensity” argument was kicked around for awhile among the conservatives (well, the few that took climatology seriously) and the administration of GWB. Eventually it sort of went by the wayside as the mood in the US changed.

Yet, it was not a lesson that went unlearnt by the Chinese.

There is a much larger field to play from for developing countries. An intensity cut of, say, 10% by the US at a 2% to 3% GDP growth rate still forces an actual cut in emissions. We start from a sub 500 benchmark of tons CO2 per $1M GDP. The Chinese start at 1,500. Russia is at a whopping 5,000.

103 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:42:08pm

re: #100 freetoken

The California Assembly is a representative democracy.

If Californians really wanted to allow offshore drilling, they would express it by voting in Assembly members to represent that.

I for one don’t really care that much, though the oil spills were non-trivial and if drilling were ever allowed again I would propose the most stringent of regulations overseeing it.

Yeah, becasue the elected officials ALWAYS vote the will of the people!

104 freetoken  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:46:15pm

re: #103 sattv4u2

Yeah, becasue the elected officials ALWAYS vote the will of the people!


If it is important enough to the electorate, then yes, the elected reps will vote to represent their constituents.

The truth here is simple: oil drilling is not important enough to the electorate of those districts of the Assembly members who voted against drilling.

105 iheartbolton  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:47:15pm

quick, who discovered longitude?

106 sattv4u2  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:51:42pm

re: #104 freetoken

If it is important enough to the electorate, then yes, the elected reps will vote to represent their constituents.

The truth here is simple: oil drilling is not important enough to the electorate of those districts of the Assembly members who voted against drilling.

We have less than 50% of registered voters show up to NATIONAL elections! Apathy and ignorance coupled with an antiquated one WEEKday voting day. Incumbents have a distinct advantage becuaus of this hold the upper hand in every election.

107 Jadespring  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:53:40pm

re: #105 iheartbolton

quick, who discovered longitude?

Proposed it or figured out a way to properly measure it?

108 iheartbolton  Wed, Dec 9, 2009 10:55:00pm

properly measure of course

just saying - it was a good book

109 kittysaidwoof  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:01:22am

re: #101 Rakkasan

Until we - all of us - stop indulging in the god-damned fantasy that one side’s motivations are pure and blameless and the other is wholly corrupt and evil, we will contribute nothing but confusion to the public discourse. We sure as hell are not going to solve anything with this idiotic idea that the only people who oppose us are paid shills or lunatics. Personally, I believe that AGW is a problem, and I wish to God it was being addressed in a serious way and not being latched onto by political leeches seeking to twist it to their own ends. But can we truly blame people for being skeptical after years and years of one fraud after another crying wolf? After all the scare stories trotted out by both sides of the spectrum - each claiming that we’re doomed if we don’t give them more power - is it any wonder, really, that people might be getting just a little tired of it?

I completely agree. A little less confrontation and a little more action please.

110 BartB  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:09:50am

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that all the Emails are innocent, all the oil people are robber barons and liars.
So, what does that have to do with the cost of the Yuan in China?

How was the data collected, and how was it prepared? Can the process be verified and duplicated?

If the software takes data and predicts the future, let’s run it and see if it can predict the past. For as many years as we can, how many predictions
matched the actual events? What is the average error?

After all, if the climatologists cannot accurately predict the past, why would we believe it can predict the future?

These are my “gold standards” for credence. As far as I know, these standards have not been met.

111 freetoken  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:15:23am

re: #110 BartB


If the software takes data and predicts the future, let’s run it and see if it can predict the past. For as many years as we can, how many predictions
matched the actual events? What is the average error?

After all, if the climatologists cannot accurately predict the past, why would we believe it can predict the future?

It’s called “hind-casting” and is done regularly.

Indeed, the third generation large “coupled” global climate models hind-cast the changes in the 20th century fairly well.

112 windsagio  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 12:36:36am

re: #99 sattv4u2

I’m unable to explain away the brainfart that led me to link the wrong right wing talking point. I’d better ignore it and hope it goes away!

113 lostlakehiker  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 7:42:41am

re: #110 BartB

Ok, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that all the Emails are innocent, all the oil people are robber barons and liars.
So, what does that have to do with the cost of the Yuan in China?

How was the data collected, and how was it prepared? Can the process be verified and duplicated?

If the software takes data and predicts the future, let’s run it and see if it can predict the past. For as many years as we can, how many predictions
matched the actual events? What is the average error?

After all, if the climatologists cannot accurately predict the past, why would we believe it can predict the future?

These are my “gold standards” for credence. As far as I know, these standards have not been met.

The question of whether global warming is real is different from the question of whether the models are good. Just a look at the world’s glaciers as they are now, and a look at photos from 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 years ago, is enough to prove that the warming is real.

The models cannot predict the specifics of the past. They cannot predict Katrina from 20 years out. Or two weeks. CLIMATE models model climate. That is, the broad statistical outlines of the weather. So when you test a model, you check whether the overall trends match what has been seen.

Most of our models have undershot the truth as it unfolded over the last 20 years. CO2 is up more than predicted. Temperatures are up more than predicted. Arctic sea ice is down more than predicted. How could that have happened if the scientists were alarmists bent on scaring us by any prediction necessary? They weren’t. The predictions were conservative. The conservative style is to warn of X rise in sea level, when you think it’ll probably be 1.5X but you’re more confident of at least X. That way, whatever happens when the results come in, you don’t lose credibility.

114 [deleted]  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 8:18:12am
115 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 9:48:31am

And another idiot bites the dust.

116 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 9:52:43am

re: #111 freetoken

It’s called “hind-casting” and is done regularly.

Indeed, the third generation large “coupled” global climate models hind-cast the changes in the 20th century fairly well.

It’s always a hoot when someone posts a comment saying, “You know, I just haven’t seen the kind of evidence that will convince me. For example, why don’t the scientists do [insert pet talking point]?”

And then we discover that not only do the scientists do that, they’ve been doing it for many years, quite routinely.

What this shows: a whole lot of people are simply repeating nonsense they’ve heard from denial websites or books or Fox News, without making the slightest effort to find out the truth for themselves.

117 billbrent  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 10:22:04am

Correct me if I’m wrong, Charles, but your position on the purloined EAU CRU emails and data has been, and continues to be, that “there’s nothing there.” The only point I’ve ever made about Monbiot is that with his call for the resignation of Phil Jones, he does not agree with you. Monbiot’s position does not seem to have changed with this article. He writes:

I believe that all supporting data, codes and programmes should be made available as soon as an article is published in a peer-reviewed journal. That anyone should have to lodge a freedom of information request to obtain them is wrong. That the request should be turned down is worse. That a scientist suggests deleting material that might be covered by that request is unjustifiable. Everyone who values the scientific process should demand complete transparency, across all branches of science.

These beliefs seem to come from thinking there IS something there.

118 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 11:08:54am

re: #117 billbrent

I know you’d like to think this proves that global warming is a hoax, but it’s incredibly obvious that Monbiot’s statements about the CRU emails and data are purely for political purposes — not because there’s anything in them that demonstrates any kind of fraud or cover-up.

119 claire  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 11:33:57am

Year and a half old Zogby poll- Who supports Nuclear Power.

The good news and the bad news, I guess.

120 badger1  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 6:51:35pm

I am not being duped.

I remain skeptical of the proposed immediate solutions to long-range problems which have not been convincingly proven to my satisfaction.

You may ask, quite reasonably, why it should matter that I be convinced.

As an actively participating citizen of the United States I am involved in the national process of self-government. As an employer and taxpayer I am being asked to pay for the policies. It is critical that people just like me be convinced that this is a disaster of such epic proportions that we must re-order our entire world economic system, and that a reasonable cost-benefit analysis can be presented supporting this.

Calling those who disagree with your opinion “dupes” doesn’t advance the debate very much in my opinion.

121 EE  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 7:02:57pm

Let’s cut the money motive for taking positions on climate change, by cutting out the funding for those on both sides of the controversy concerning the cause of climate change. By the way, the heterodox view is NOT that there is no climate change; on the contrary, they generally have the view that climate change is constant throughout the past million years and more. It’s not the heterodox that have been trying to “contain” the Medieval Warm Period, as a CRU email says needs to be done.

Of course the global-warming-alarmism industry is fabulously funded at this time, so they would never agree to hear of anything of the sort.

122 BartB  Thu, Dec 10, 2009 9:30:58pm

re: #113 lostlakehiker

re: #113 lostlakehiker

The question of whether global warming is real is different from the question of whether the models are good. Just a look at the world’s glaciers as they are now, and a look at photos from 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 years ago, is enough to prove that the warming is real.

The models cannot predict the specifics of the past. They cannot predict Katrina from 20 years out. Or two weeks. CLIMATE models model climate. That is, the broad statistical outlines of the weather. So when you test a model, you check whether the overall trends match what has been seen.

Most of our models have undershot the truth as it unfolded over the last 20 years. CO2 is up more than predicted. Temperatures are up more than predicted. Arctic sea ice is down more than predicted. How could that have happened if the scientists were alarmists bent on scaring us by any prediction necessary? They weren’t. The predictions were conservative. The conservative style is to warn of X rise in sea level, when you think it’ll probably be 1.5X but you’re more confident of at least X. That way, whatever happens when the results come in, you don’t lose credibility.

O.K. Historic plots I’ve seen (but cannot produce at this time) show that the increase in temperature preceeds the increase in CO2 regularly over thousands of years.
If global warming is happening, that does not prove that it is man-made.
The correlation between CO2 and temp in the last 100 years is pretty weak, and even weaker over the last few thousand years.
Greenland got that name for a reason, as did Vineland. There is no known andropogenic connection to the Medieval Warm Period. I do not consider the case closed on the question. Neither do 31,000 qualified scientists, Algore notwithstanding.

Some say that no data has been lost, strayed or stolen. However, comma, the original data from which the IPCC reports were produced cannot be provided. The original data may exist, but not the selection and processing of that data to the data that was actually used.

Further, if I understand correctly, the tree-ring data has been withdrawn, and the report produced from it.

So, let us continue to ask questions and try to find the truth, but let us not engage in personal attacks on each other.

123 tskier  Fri, Dec 11, 2009 8:23:59am

Remember:
The issue is never the issue.
The issue is control.


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
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 118 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
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
2 weeks ago
Views: 279 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1