Sure, BJ, 16 whole scientists? Come on. It's a well-established fact that the earth's climate is changing, and just because the Bible-thumping Republican creationists don't want to admit it because somehow that will disprove the existence of God doesn't change anything. I mean, Hitler had scientists on his side too, do you think the WSJ would defend Hitler?
Sure, BJ, 16 whole scientists? Come on. It's a well-established fact that the earth's climate is changing, and just because the Bible-thumping Republican creationists don't want to admit it because somehow that will disprove the existence of God doesn't change anything. I mean, Hitler had scientists on his side too, do you think the WSJ would defend Hitler?
Clearly the climate is changing. Any idiot can recognize that (no, I'm not talking about you specifically Dave. I know you're not just any idiot.) What these scientists are saying is that the drastic action prescribed by climate chicken littles isn't justified. Their models have failed to accurately predict climate since the IPCC has come into existence. There's no reason to bet the future of civilization on the predictions of people who have been unable to get even the basics right.
Oh, sure. Let's agree that it's changing, but we'll just argue about how to fix it for the next 20 years until the damage is irreparable. Sounds like a great plan. It's not like there are any other downsides to our massive dependence on foreign oil or anything.
I'm confused. The climate is clearly changing, but no one has accurately predicted, what exactly?
Look in the very first quoted paragraph from the OP. There you will find the answer which you seek.
But the 2nd quoted paragraph claims temperatures aren't increasing (or at least for 10 years). Which was pretty much the source of my confusion. Is the claim that the climate changing, or has there been no change?
The first paragraph makes the claim the some scientists think that global warming will destroy civilisation. This has never seemed the case to me. If it were, I would hope for significantly more action from them than at the moment.
Last edited Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:53 pm (Total Number of Edits: 2)
This article is impressive in that it seems to use every argument possible:
1. Nothing is happening - "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now."
2. Something may be happening, but it is natural - "the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years"
3. Even if people are causing it, it isn't worth doing anything - "the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls"
4. It is good for you - "And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet."
The facts are that the climate has not changed to the extent that the chicken littles predicted. The climate is always changing. It has since the beginning of time.
Well, no. The claim is that the climate has not changed in the last 10 years, and that scientists claimed it would.
Whether the first half is true is of course the main question. But the second half seems pretty important too.
I know a little bit about past climate change as I have a bit of an interested in geology. If we were seeing significant temperature change in 10 years, I would have thought that our general way of life would be much more in danger than any chicken little might predict.
10 year is an absurdly short time for world temperature change. The change we see in 30 years is alarming, a change in 10 years would be something else altogether.
Ummm. If they're scientists and they've got evidence that the models/research/findings are wrong, shouldn't they be publishing those in scientific journals?
As to whether there hasn't been warming in the past decade, publicly available data makes that claim highly questionable. Although the temperature may not have grown year-on-year, it's not like it's dropping back to 1970 levels or anything. I want to say that I'd read a couple articles that noted that 9 of the ten hottest years on record are post 2001, which would seem to indicate that it's warmer than it was.
Seems like a blatantly political statement with little to do with the science to me. But hey, the campaigns are just warming up so I'm sure it's just the opening salvo.
There's an article in the WSJ showing a letter signed by 16 scientists who believe that certain climate scientists have their panties in a bunch unnecessarily with their dire predictions of a changing climate.
Quote:
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
Despite the failed predictions of the IPCC and climate chicken littles, dissent in the scientific community is still stifled.
Quote:
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
When we call these warmists "watermelons" (that's green on the outside, red on the inside for those slightly behind the power curve) for their support of top-down, government-run solutions to climate problems, I didn't realize how much they had in common with their Soviet heroes of days gone by. Not surprisingly, the warmists also appear to be quite greedy and unwilling to let facts get in the way of their funding.
Quote:
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
So, now that we've exposed the warmists intentions, what do they recommend we do to address the climate change that is occuring? Well, they believe that any solution needs to be economically justified. Shocking analysis, I know, but it's a simple point that the chicken littles and 10-10-10er's seem to miss.
Quote:
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
The closing paragraph is wonderful. If only we had politicians who made value judgments like this on a regular basis.
Quote:
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Absolutely unfucking believable.
Keep living in your right-wing bubble. The rest of us will roll up our sleeves and continue living in and dealing with the real world.
But the first quoted paragraph claims temperatures aren't increasing (or at least for 10 years). Which was pretty much the source of my confusion. Is the claim that the climate changing, or has there been no change?
The facts are that the climate has not changed to the extent that the chicken littles predicted. The climate is always changing. It has since the beginning of time.
Ummm. Please find me a prediction from a reputable scientist that didn't look out at least 30 years, if not looking out 100 years. Further, please find me a prediction from a reputable scientist that attempted to forecast the annual temperature growth we would experience over a decade.
Then we can discuss the accuracy of these predictions (which I don't believe you'll find).
I should have started a pool about how many posts it would take for that piece of BS from the other side of the argument to show up.
You do realize that there's a difference between actual scientific findings and the way that the press/media/advocates/activists present them, right?
Wow, you're even in denial about the murder fantasy propaganda that warmists put out? Come now Ken.
I'm in denial about nothing, BJ. I'll thank you not to insult me by implying that I am. I haven't thrown any names your way even though you linked to what can best be called "propaganda" since it's completely devoid of any citations, facts, figures, or data.
BJ, seriously, this "letter from concerned scientists" is a rehashing of the same climate-skeptic song-and-dance that we've been seeing for years. It even includes the oh-so-popular quote from a real climate scientist's email stolen in "Climategate." Here's what the actual scientist has to say about that quote, by the way:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.
The "travesty" is the deterioration of monitoring and measuring systems, which would help distinguish between short-term variances and long-term trends, as he discusses in the close of the paper in question: "A climate information system that firstly determines what is taking place and then establishes why is better able to provide a sound basis for predictions and which can answer important questions such as ‘Has global warming really slowed or not?’ Decisions are being made that depend on improved information about how and why our climate system is varying and changing, and the implications."
The science behind global climate change has been addressed in this forum far better by others far more expert than I. I'll leave it to them to chime in if they so desire. But there's nothing in this WSJ piece that is especially convincing, especially when they write stuff like "Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically." So are they speaking as scientists, or as economists? One thing's for sure - most of them are not climatologists.
I am not panicking. I want a front row seat to the end of this world so I am burning at least a tire a day in my brick oven so to contribute more than my share of greenhouse gas.
I highly recommend you do not get your science from politics or religion (and certainly not the WSJ!) Check out the National Center for Science Education if you want to learn more:
BTW, I skimmed through the names of the scientists in that article and it's not even 16 climatologists! I see some engineers, physicists, chemists, and an astronaut/senator in a pear tree (I cannot confirm the validity of his taking up residence in a pear tree as of this writing.)
I should have started a pool about how many posts it would take for that piece of BS from the other side of the argument to show up.
You do realize that there's a difference between actual scientific findings and the way that the press/media/advocates/activists present them, right?
Wow, you're even in denial about the murder fantasy propaganda that warmists put out? Come now Ken.
I'm in denial about nothing, BJ. I'll thank you not to insult me by implying that I am. I haven't thrown any names your way even though you linked to what can best be called "propaganda" since it's completely devoid of any citations, facts, figures, or data.
I think it's hilarious that BJ has his panties in a wad about an ad campaign that was up for less than 24 hours and generated a fair amount of controversy not only on the denialist side of the issue, but among realists as well. If that's all you've got on "murder fantasy propaganda," BJ, have a seat on the swooning couch and unclutch your pearls. It was all over along time ago, and nobody's going to come blow you up for leaving your pickup running in the parking lot while you run in for another carton of Camels.
The Guardian had a pretty interesting recap of the aftermath of that campaign.
I highly recommend you do not get your science from politics or religion (and certainly not the WSJ!) Check out the National Center for Science Education if you want to learn more:
BTW, I skimmed through the names of the scientists in that article and it's not even 16 climatologists! I see some engineers, physicists, chemists, and an astronaut/senator in a pear tree (I cannot confirm the validity of his taking up residence in a pear tree as of this writing.)
Well, to be fair, the astronaut/senator is also a geologist. He'd know if the earth was getting warmer... at least the parts that are made of rocks.
Writing articles in the Wall Street Journal (which publishes anti-science articles weekly) is what you do when you don't have any real research to present in scientific journals. There are a couple of active researchers on that list, but by and large, they are retired and/or in non-climate fields. The WSJ has published some of the most insane attacks on science lately, that nothing they write should be taken seriously.
If there is "dissent" in the scientific community it will play out when scientists are evaluating peer reviewed evidence. Otherwise it's just propaganda aimed at manufacturing controversy among the public. The reason AGW is such a strong scientific theory is because of the weight of the evidence, not the claims of a few individuals. The denier strategy of finding a few outliers to create doubt in the mass media has been used for years. If there was real dissent, you would see a gradual shift in the publications generated by climatologists.
I highly recommend you do not get your science from politics or religion (and certainly not the WSJ!) Check out the National Center for Science Education if you want to learn more:
BTW, I skimmed through the names of the scientists in that article and it's not even 16 climatologists! I see some engineers, physicists, chemists, and an astronaut/senator in a pear tree (I cannot confirm the validity of his taking up residence in a pear tree as of this writing.)
Well, to be fair, the astronaut/senator is also a geologist. He'd know if the earth was getting warmer... at least the parts that are made of rocks.
Geologist does not equal climatologist. It's like going to a proctologist because you have a toothache. Geology has, at best, a tangential relationship with climatology. Geologists are not inherently qualified to give expert information on climatology.
Posted Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:29 pm
