Socialized Health Care in the USA

[weakwarrior]

Some of your points confuse me a bit.

Do you think we know everything there is to know about the Earth's climate? You don't think it is possible that there may be some mechanism in this complex system that we do not understand or misunderstand?

The point I made, which Pete responded to, was that we never know everything and we have to make do with what we have. The possiblity of error is part of being human. Btw, at Pete, see it was the opinion of people on this thread and not just the "republicats".

He may have studied the topic more than you have... It may be there, and masked by some other climactic event (like cloud cover, or ice melts cooling ocean temperature) which will only reveal itself in some number of years or decades.

I was responding to Pete's comment where he said I had put words into Carlin's mouth. You don't seem to disagree with me that Carlin is suggesting (the possibility that) global warming may not be real so I'll move on. But just for the record you are saying you think global warming may not be a real phenomenon?

He is reacting to the idea that projections always assume a linear or (usually) exponential rise in production and therefore emissions. He is critiquing a particular EPA paper that was made before the current recession, so it assumed a world GDP (and carbon production) that is false, therefore makes false assumptions for this year, and every subsequent year into the future. It doesn't invalidate the long term trend, only the financial burdens and the criticality of making changes now. Recognizing that there is a problem and requesting Congress act is one thing, but having the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant with the force of the Clean Air Act is quite another.

Not sure I get you here. It hardly seems like a critique of a environmental paper to say they had been assuming no recession and there was a major one. However, more to the point (and also a point I made in my last post) if this recession ends and production levels go back to where they were before then we're right back in the same problem. Fine the problem will be stalled by 10 years because of this recession but how does that affect the general problem and whether the U.S. (and the rest of the world) needs to curb their emissions etc.

Personally, I prefer to choose win-win options and move quickly (like having the DOE build many nuclear power plants and implement a waste recycling program as is done in Europe.)

I'm all for win-win situations.

So, these projections based on bad reasoning are wrong, just the way that population projections from the 1960's were vastly wrong (see The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich). Ehrlich was a sensationalist of that era, just as Al Gore (and his junk science) is sensationalist now. I would like us all to make reasonable decisions based on *real* information, and not based on hypothetical nonsense (otherwise we'd all end up with a survivalist bunker in Oregon).

Wow! I love how this part starts with the word 'so' as if it follows from something said before. There's a lot to pick at here. What do Ehrlich's mistakes prove exactly? Why is Al Gore's science junk? I know one of his slides was a bit off, but that hardly makes the whole package junk science. For the most part, as best I can tell, scientists think his points are good. You seem to contrast real vs. hypothetical nonsense. I assume by hypothetical you mean predicted? If so, then I'd rather we avoid *real* disasters in advance and not just wait till they come. Then there is the conclusion of putting all people who believe in the "hypothetical nonsense" you disagree with into the "survivalist bunker in Oregon" group - something I thought you yourself asked people not to do with looney toons and what not.

[Jester]

Has anyone looked at why this "eleven year" figure seems to come up a lot? It seems like a very strange interval to use. It's not a moving average, it's not a round number, it's just an arbitrary period. So why pick that one?

It's the oldest trick in the "lying with statistics" book: pick your interval carefully. Measuring from peaks to troughs shows declines, and measuring troughs to peaks shows increases. 1998 was an anomalously warm year, so any trend measured from that peak is going to appear to go downwards. It depends heavily on which data set you use, but however you slice it, always starting in 1998 is going to perpetually skew results downwards.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The point I made, which Pete responded to, was that we never know everything and we have to make do with what we have. The possiblity of error is part of being human. Btw, at Pete, see it was the opinion of people on this thread and not just the "republicats".

I may be the one confused then. I thought you were implying that it was wrong to question science, since we know all the answers. I am not in the camp of people who believe that by not knowing everything we cannot do anything. I am in the camp that says before we head to the caves, and abandon our modern world we should be sure of the imminent melt down. That means to me, reasonable measures taken in response to solid predictions on very likely outcomes.

I was responding to Pete's comment where he said I had put words into Carlin's mouth. You don't seem to disagree with me that Carlin is suggesting (the possibility that) global warming may not be real so I'll move on. But just for the record you are saying you think global warming may not be a real phenomenon?

There have been both warmer and cooler periods, so yes I believe the climate fluctuates. Is it due to anthropomorphic sources? I'm not sure if the science clearly says that, however, it is possible that a possible outcome would be much higher global temperatures. Another outcome might be the diffusion of excess energy into violent storms. There are many theories, but due to the complexity, very few firm conclusions. I am like Carlin in that I believe that human activity impacts the climate and we don't really know for certain where it goes from there. Should we change our behavior? Undoubtedly, for many reasons including this one.

Not sure I get you here. It hardly seems like a critique of a environmental paper to say they had been assuming no recession and there was a major one. However, more to the point (and also a point I made in my last post) if this recession ends and production levels go back to where they were before then we're right back in the same problem. Fine the problem will be stalled by 10 years because of this recession but how does that affect the general problem and whether the U.S. (and the rest of the world) needs to curb their emissions etc.

The government (EPA) needs to react to potential harm to people. If any harmed party can show that the EPA rules are based upon just the possibility of harm in 100 years, the EPA will get sued and lose. The difference is that of a program (which deals with current emissions), versus a penalty imposed by the EPA.

What do Ehrlich's mistakes prove exactly?

That there is always meaningless white noise in any public debate. It is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Why is Al Gore's science junk? I know one of his slides was a bit off, but that hardly makes the whole package junk science. For the most part, as best I can tell, scientists think his points are good.

Well, according to the British court,

1. The film claimed low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but there was no evidence of any evacuation<>
   
2. It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor". The judge said according to the IPCC, it was "very unlikely"<>
   
3. Gore claimed two graphs plotting C02 and temperature showed "an exact fit". The judge said "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"<>
   
4. Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was attributable to humans. The judge said that could not be established<>
   
5. The drying of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"<>
   
6. Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"<>
   
7. Gore referred to a study showing polar bears that drowned. The judge said "the only scientific study indicates four polar bears recently drowned because of a storm"<>
   
8. The film said that coral reefs were bleaching because of global warming. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing and pollution, was difficult<>
   
9. The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. The judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"<>
   [st]

   You seem to contrast real vs. hypothetical nonsense. I assume by hypothetical you mean predicted? If so, then I'd rather we avoid *real* disasters in advance and not just wait till they come.

   Hypotheses that are based upon non-scientific guesses are nonsense in my book. For example, to suggest that because temperatures are lower for 11 years means we may be entering into a new ice age.

   Then there is the conclusion of putting all people who believe in the "hypothetical nonsense" you disagree with into the "survivalist bunker in Oregon" group - something I thought you yourself asked people not to do with looney toons and what not.

   No, you misunderstood. There will always be someone who exacerbates or exaggerates the possible outcomes or leads everyone to believe the worst case scenario is the most likely. It is the "End of the World" craziness that leads some to check out of society in advance to "be prepared" for the post apocalyptic "Mad Max" world. In risk management you always couple upside and downside risks with the likelihood of occurrence.

[kandrathe]

Has anyone looked at why this "eleven year" figure seems to come up a lot?

Yes, if you looked at a 20 year trend we'd be slightly higher. If you look over 100 years, we'd be much higher which also doesn't account for the fact we are still emerging from the little ice age.

What Carlin was saying (as I guess everyone else) is that temperature has many factors of which CO2 may be a lesser problem. There appears (based on the 11 year trend) that there is not a direct correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Maybe our bigger problem is aerosol emissions. Then in 5 or 10 years, after we've chased this rabbit, the science will reveal we've ignored the bigger threat for the red herring of CO2 abatement.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Has anyone looked at why this "eleven year" figure seems to come up a lot? It seems like a very strange interval to use. It's not a moving average, it's not a round number, it's just an arbitrary period. So why pick that one?

Actually, nature picked it. It's the sun spot cycle. Or, more accurately, half of the cycle, but the two halves are almost identical, so the 11 year cycle is often used.

It's the oldest trick in the "lying with statistics" book: pick your interval carefully.

Generally true, but not in this particular case. Any discussion of weather needs to take the solar cycles into consideration. Failure to do so is an indicator of either ignorance or of "lying with statistics".

--Pete

[Jester]

What Carlin was saying (as I guess everyone else) is that temperature has many factors of which CO2 may be a lesser problem.

Right. And when he's got some peer reviewed science that actually supports changing our conception of the role of CO2 in climate change, rather than just taking various bits and pieces off peoples' websites, I'm sure he'll look a lot more secure in his conclusions.

The part of this discussion that is really disturbing to me is the general irrelevance of expertise. Someone's an economist? They must be qualified to judge the earth sciences, eh? Someone's a physicist? Sure, that must be about the same thing, right? Someone's a known shill with no relevant experience at all? Attack the ideas, not the person! But if someone's a climate scientist, or relies on them for their opinions? Well, the whole discipline must be biased! It's all Al Gore and the climate conspiracy, spinning out junk science!

It all seems a little topsy-turvy, no?

There appears (based on the 11 year trend) that there is not a direct correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Maybe our bigger problem is aerosol emissions. Then in 5 or 10 years, after we've chased this rabbit, the science will reveal we've ignored the bigger threat for the red herring of CO2 abatement.

Let me count the ways in which this is wrong.

First, as I explained, looking at the "11 year trend" is specious. If you took random data, and cherry picked your start or end dates, you could find all sorts of "trends" that aren't trends at all, just statistical artefacts. Take a 10 year period, take a 15 year period, whatever, and you end up with more normal results. 11 in particular is poor because of 1998 being a peak year.

Second, CO2 emissions could have a direct, one to one causal relationship with temperature, and you still wouldn't see perfect correlation. (It doesn't, but that's another issue.) The "11 year trend" might prove that CO2 is not the *only* thing affecting climate variability, but that's a stupid position that nobody has ever held.

Third, if you seriously have any good evidence that CO2 is a "red herring", then publish it. Peer-reviewed journals are where science discussion takes place. Since (of course) you have no such evidence, then you should probably be at least a little hesitant before flat out declaring you know where the science is going to be in "5 or 10 years", especially when that result is suspiciously in line with what you'd like to be true, and completely against the vast majority opinion of climate scientists.

-Jester

[Jester]

Actually, nature picked it. It's the sun spot cycle. Or, more accurately, half of the cycle, but the two halves are almost identical, so the 11 year cycle is often used.
Generally true, but not in this particular case. Any discussion of weather needs to take the solar cycles into consideration. Failure to do so is an indicator of either ignorance or of "lying with statistics".

If this is true, and that this is the reason we are measuring in 11-year chunks, then my critcism is wrong. I don't really think it is, and climate "critics" have been measuring from 1998 since before 2009. They just keep using that year as the baseline because it's so anomalously warm, and therefore perpetually makes their arguments look good. If you go back to the previous solar-equivalent year, 1987, there is substantial and obvious warming. This is true of almost every 11-year pair or set, with one major exception: the current one, from 1998 to 2009, driven by the 1998 maximum and the 2009 minimum.

If we're going to go with this argument, then things not only will become clearer, as next year the window moves past the 1998 startpoint, (we'll see if it stops showing up in denialist arguments; I'd put my bottom dollar on not...) but that it already is clear enough: nearly any construction that doesn't start at 1998 shows clear warming, even taking the last 10 years into account.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, as I explained, looking at the "11 year trend" is specious.

No, it's not. Read my post.

Peer-reviewed journals are where science discussion takes place.

No, they're not. Science discussion takes place at seminars, colloquia, and conferences. It also takes place over the phone, in personal communications, and occasionally at the local pizza joint. Believe me, as a lifelong scientist, and a card carrying one for 36 years, I know. Peer reviewed journals are where established results are permanently archived.

--Pete

[Jester]

No, it's not. Read my post.

Just been looking this stuff up, actually. Turns out, the solar cycle is a fickle mistress, and while 11 years is normal, it's not 11 years this time around. It's a little late.

So, if we really want to take the solar cycle into account, what we need are the actual data for solar cycles, not just to roll back by 11 years, which is (apparently) not appropriate in this particular case. Cycle 23 began in 1996, so 1998 was the third year into a cycle, whereas 2009 is not yet even year one, so far.

No, they're not. Science discussion takes place at seminars, colloquia, and conferences. It also takes place over the phone, in personal communications, and occasionally at the local pizza joint. Believe me, as a lifelong scientist, and a card carrying one for 36 years, I know. Peer reviewed journals are where established results are permanently archived.

Fine. If Kandrathe wants to present at seminars, colloquia, and conferences his remarkable evidence about CO2 being a "red herring" prior to publishing, then my comments stand, duly amended to include these other methods of scientific discussion.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The part of this discussion that is really disturbing to me is the general irrelevance of expertise. Someone's an economist? They must be qualified to judge the earth sciences, eh? Someone's a physicist? Sure, that must be about the same thing, right? Someone's a known shill with no relevant experience at all? Attack the ideas, not the person! But if someone's a climate scientist, or relies on them for their opinions? Well, the whole discipline must be biased! It's all Al Gore and the climate conspiracy, spinning out junk science!

Ok, so then Tim Ball, a climatologist and known global warming skeptic. Richard Lindzen an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT. Sallie Baliunas an astrophysicist (who maybe understands things like the sun, and planetary processes). Mark Z. Jacobson an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. OR, Gerd-Rainer Weber... There are many science trained, people who are qualified to question the supposed consensus on climate catastrophe. Now, I'll fast forward here. You will attack them as a biased pro-industry sources. But, it seems to me that one of the problems here is the whole pro- and anti- bias in the first place. How can I trust your sources? They are biased against industry to the detriment of humanity. No one is claiming that the whole discipline is biased, however just as you find some scientists may be swayed by their funding source, so do I (as Pete noted, they do know which side of the bread is buttered).

First, as I explained, looking at the "11 year trend" is specious. If you took random data, and cherry picked your start or end dates, you could find all sorts of "trends" that aren't trends at all, just statistical artifacts. Take a 10 year period, take a 15 year period, whatever, and you end up with more normal results. 11 in particular is poor because of 1998 being a peak year.

Sure, I agree. The short term cooling period was unfortunate in making the claim that CO2 results in warming. Obviously there is something more complicated involved. To understand the data, you need to look at a longer period. But, then, if you choose one convenient to show warming you will find other anomalies due to larger cycles, such as solar radiation variability, distance from the sun, geologic activity, and other climate processes we might not understand very well.

Second, CO2 emissions could have a direct, one to one causal relationship with temperature, and you still wouldn't see perfect correlation. (It doesn't, but that's another issue.) The "11 year trend" might prove that CO2 is not the *only* thing affecting climate variability, but that's a stupid position that nobody has ever held.

It might. And, then there might be something else that would have resulted in an even larger drop in global temperature, but didn't due to atmospheric CO2. But, no one has pointed at the last decade and explained to me why it has been cooler. (although, I suspect it has to due with solar radiation and albedo effects).

Third, if you seriously have any good evidence that CO2 is a "red herring", then publish it. Peer-reviewed journals are where science discussion takes place. Since (of course) you have no such evidence, then you should probably be at least a little hesitant before flat out declaring you know where the science is going to be in "5 or 10 years", especially when that result is suspiciously in line with what you'd like to be true, and completely against the vast majority opinion of climate scientists.

No. No. No. You've got this backwards. Shouldn't science be able to some what conclusively prove to us that what they say is fact before we jump in to spend trillions of dollars and reduce our standard of living resulting in millions of additional human deaths over the next decade? Politically savvy snake oil salesmen have taken us down these roads before resulting in decades of needless regulation and wasted productivity. What makes this time different?

I'll end here by quoting from a recent article by Prof. Lindzen in EcoWorld, <blockquote>"For a much larger group of scientists, the fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding provides little incentive to complain about the spin.

Second, most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science. For a basically political movement, as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important task is to coopt the sources of authority. This, the global warming movement has done with great success.

Thus, for over twenty years, the National Academy had a temporary nominating group designed to facilitate the election of environmental activists. The current president of the academy is one of these. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public advocates for global warming alarm. Holdren is now President Obama’s nominee for science advisor. There are numerous further examples. How often have we heard a legitimate scientific argument answered by the claim that the alarmist scenario is endorsed by, for example, the American Physical Society (regardless of their lack of expertise in the issue)? How often have you heard innocuous claims by some society or another taken as endorsements of alarm? How often have you heard that any particular argument has been dealt with by realclimate.org (a clear advocacy website designed to assure warming alarmists that the basis for alarm still exists)?

Thirdly, the success with respect to the second item also gives the climate alarm movement control over carrots and sticks – which, in turn, is what makes it expedient for most scientists to go along. Note that the carrots are as important as the sticks, though the sticks matter a great deal when grants, publication and promotion are at stake."</blockquote>

[kandrathe]

Fine. If Kandrathe wants to present at seminars, colloquia, and conferences his remarkable evidence about CO2 being a "red herring" prior to publishing, then my comments stand, duly amended to include these other methods of scientific discussion.

I would, but then, I'd need to go back to the University to get my Phd in atmospheric science before you or anyone would listen to me. :lol: Then, after my first seminar I'd be branded a heretic, denied tenure, and listed on Source Watch as a Global Warming denier. End of short career.

[Jester]

I would, but then, I'd need to go back to the University to get my Phd in atmospheric science before you or anyone would listen to me. :lol: Then, after my first seminar I'd be branded a heretic, denied tenure, and listed on Source Watch as a Global Warming denier. End of short career.

There are climate scientists who do not join the broad consensus, who still get published, who still have careers, who are doing just fine, albeit not widely agreed with. Roger Pielke is one.

So, entertaining as your scenario may be, there is certainly room for climate scientists coming to conclusions that are not in line with a global warming scenario. Now, those results also have to be contrasted with a much larger body supporting it, but things are not as bleak as you make them out to be.

What is not generally appreciated is politically motivated dilletantes from other disciplines cherry picking bits and pieces of evidence, claiming they have "overturned" decades of climate science, despite their own lack of appropriate advanced degrees, research experience, scientific publications, or any other helpful qualifications.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I would, but then, I'd need to go back to the University to get my Phd in atmospheric science before you or anyone would listen to me. :lol:

To get that Ph.D. you'd have to do some 'original' work acceptable to your financial sponsor, your dissertation adviser, and your graduate committee. Fat chance of getting anything controversial accepted (unless, like de Broglie, you have an Einstein in your corner). Then, before you get to speak at any colloquium, you need to establish a bit of a reputation by publishing something somewhere. Again, good luck getting funding for controversial work, or even enough funds to pay the page charges for a refereed journal.

Then, after my first seminar I'd be branded a heretic, denied tenure, and listed on Source Watch as a Global Warming denier. End of short career.

Unless you buy in to the standard model of your specialty, or fake it well, you'll never even get this far. Maybe, if you established a big reputation in your field and argued your heresy very cleverly over a long period of time, you might survive. Or you might not. You'd be better off putting everything you own on double zero and let the wheel spin.;)

--Pete

[Jester]

Ok, so then Tim Ball, a climatologist and known global warming skeptic. Richard Lindzen an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT. Sallie Baliunas an astrophysicist (who maybe understands things like the sun, and planetary processes). Mark Z. Jacobson an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. OR, Gerd-Rainer Weber...

Hey, some scientists! Some of them are climatologists, even! At least it's better than Milloy. Now take that list, adding as many as you can, and compare it to the list on the other side, and see where the weight of consensus is. It's not hard to see.

There are many science trained, people who are qualified to question the supposed consensus on climate catastrophe.

Yes, and they are outnumbered about 10 to 1 by those who support the "supposed" consensus. This isn't a democracy, the question is the weight of the arguments. But, given just how much money has been thrown into clouding the waters by the obvious beneficiaries (coal, oil, gas industries, mostly), and how politically charged the issue is, it's actually kind of surprising that there aren't more climate scientists lined up against. Maybe this is a funding issue, and no doubt that has some effect, but there are obvious sources of funding for contrary positions as well, as a quick perusal of denialists' funding sources will almost always reveal.

You will attack them as a biased pro-industry sources. But, it seems to me that one of the problems here is the whole pro- and anti- bias in the first place. How can I trust your sources? They are biased against industry to the detriment of humanity. No one is claiming that the whole discipline is biased, however just as you find some scientists may be swayed by their funding source, so do I (as Pete noted, they do know which side of the bread is buttered).

Where do you get this Dr. Evil thing from? Are they supervillains? Do they get their "anti-industry" bias from anywhere in particular, or did they just all collectively decide on it one day?

Pro-industry bias is easy to detect: they're being given money. Like Lindzen. (Whaddaya know? Maybe you're better at predicting than I give you credit for.) But to just assume anti-industry bias? Where is this supposed to originate from, exactly?

Sure, I agree. The short term cooling period was unfortunate in making the claim that CO2 results in warming. Obviously there is something more complicated involved. To understand the data, you need to look at a longer period. But, then, if you choose one convenient to show warming you will find other anomalies due to larger cycles, such as solar radiation variability, distance from the sun, geologic activity, and other climate processes we might not understand very well.

This is what the whole field of climate science is knee-deep in, and while further refinements are obviously in the works, they are more or less absolutely sure that there is warming, and that CO2 causes warming. Now, the precise amount of warming attributable to that forcing, as opposed to others, is up for debate. But there is zero disagreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its atmospheric concentration raises the temperature.

Again, if you have evidence that one of these other factors is really driving the climate, please, present it. Get it out there. It would be a great relief to know that we are not really in any danger from the climate. But so long as it's just your opinion about what is or isn't driving the warming, rather than well-researched science, there's not really any reason for me to change my opinion here.

The period climate science uses to show warming is... well, almost any period. Look at the 50 year graph. The 100 year graph. The 1000 year graph (insofar as it even means anything going back that far). Look at almost any set of years, and you see the trend. It's only when you start slicing the data thin (like looking at the last 11 years exactly) that you see "cooling", although apparently even that interval shows a slight warming, though hard to percieve at a glance.

No. No. No. You've got this backwards. Shouldn't science be able to some what conclusively prove to us that what they say is fact before we jump in to spend trillions of dollars and reduce our standard of living resulting in millions of additional human deaths over the next decade?

Science doesn't "conclusively prove" things. But the overwhelming majority of those who study these topics tell us that the warming is real, and that it is anthropogenic. Nearly every major scientific organization has publicly expressed their agreement. What level of "proof" do you need here? Because it sounds like you're willing to cling to any doubt at all, because you've already decided that this is "junk science", "snake oil", and whatever else, regardless of the actual state of the science.

Also, millions of deaths? Are you kidding me? You chide us for talking about apocalyptic scenarios, and then throw this into the mix? Where are these millions of deaths supposed to come from, exactly? The third world is being asked to pay almost nothing for climate change. You're really telling me that first-world countries are going to experience millions of deaths over this?

Politically savvy snake oil salesmen have taken us down these roads before resulting in decades of needless regulation and wasted productivity. What makes this time different?

Because it's driven by the weight of climate science first, and politics second.

You can take a look at Lindzen yourself if you like. He ain't exactly squeaky clean.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

There are climate scientists who do not join the broad consensus, who still get published, who still have careers, who are doing just fine, albeit not widely agreed with. Roger Pielke is one.

Which doesn't stop the abuse and attacks he gets for stating his (or their - Jr. & Sr.) scientifically sound judgments, which happen to be politically unpopular. Tom V. Segalstad is another former IPCC member disillusioned with a politically driven, unscientific process which is pressing for the "consensus". The whole "consensus" language, and vilification of "GW denial" is evidence of overt politicization which is unbecoming and detrimental to science. Truth will out.

So, entertaining as your scenario may be, there is certainly room for climate scientists coming to conclusions that are not in line with a global warming scenario. Now, those results also have to be contrasted with a much larger body supporting it, but things are not as bleak as you make them out to be.

I could try to get through as Pete suggested as a Trojan Horse, then reveal my true opinions once I'm securely tenured after a decade or so of pandering to the liberal forces. But, this sounds very droll and a monumental waste of energy only to be rewarded as a pariah with derision and hatred by the public, politicians, and my peers.

What is not generally appreciated is politically motivated dilettantes from other disciplines cherry picking bits and pieces of evidence, claiming they have "overturned" decades of climate science, despite their own lack of appropriate advanced degrees, research experience, scientific publications, or any other helpful qualifications.

What is telling actually is the fervor to which "science" has embraced climatology, which is a fairly new science (I credit Helmut Landsberg for the modern version) based largely upon measurements in local meteorological changes. The programmers I knew who worked on super computers writing cloud and weather models for West Germany back in the 1980's worked with meteorologists and physicists. Environmental sciences is a fairly new fad in professions. Also, climate, is a complicated subject which spans many potential disciplines from astronomy, to geology, to biology, to meteorology, to vulcanology, to chemistry, to physics. I'm not going to give as much credence to a geologists view on photosynthesis, or a meteorologists viewpoint on sunspots, but I will listen to their point of view. Genius shouldn't be limited to an ivory tower credential.

[Jester]

Truth will out.

Funny, talking to you, one almost becomes convinced that whomever this Truth person is, she shares your politics.

I could try to get through as Pete suggested as a Trojan Horse, then reveal my true opinions once I'm securely tenured after a decade or so of pandering to the liberal forces.

Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap. There are scientists actually working in the field who would love nothing more than to overturn AGW and replace it with their pet theory, be it solar variation, distance from the sun, geological change, whatever else. These theories have not done so well so far, we'll see how they do in the future. If you really think one of those was true, and that *millions* will die (your words) if the AGW crowd gets their way, wouldn't it be a whole lot more than a "waste of time" to devote yourself to saying so? I would feel rather ethically obligated, myself. But then again, hot air is just hot air.

I'm not going to give as much credence to a geologists view on photosynthesis, or a meteorologists viewpoint on sunspots, but I will listen to their point of view.

... and accept it if it fits in with your view that global warming is a hoax, and ignore/reject it if it doesn't. Even your (and Pete's) hypothetical "Trojan Horse" strategy is scientifically bass ackwards: No PhD student or researcher should *ever* start from an idea like "I'm going to prove global warming is a hoax" and then go out and try to do it. You study the literature, examine past data, find new evidence, and then weigh it in light of the new things you've learned to judge the theories. The way you seem to have it figured, you already know the truth, wouldn't learn a damn thing doing an advanced degree, and the only question is if your preconceptions would be accepted by the community. Doesn't that seem kind of... intellectually dishonest, or something? Rather cocky, at least.

Genius shouldn't be limited to an ivory tower credential.

These geniuses are who? And how do you judge that they are the geniuses, and the ones with the "ivory tower" credentials (???) are not? You seem to have taken a lot on yourself, to have penetrated so deeply into a discipline that isn't yours. At least I have the excuse that I'm casting my lot with the majority of climate scientists, scientific organizations, and journals.

-Jester

[Alram]

It is late and I am tired. This thread's title looked interesting to me. Because of the lateness of the hour I skipped from the 1st page to the last without reading the intervening pages and I find that it is now about global warming instead of Socialized Health Care in the USA. Fascinating. I'll have to read the whole thing to see how it went off track once I get the sleep off of my brain.

[eppie]

It is late and I am tired. This thread's title looked interesting to me. Because of the lateness of the hour I skipped from the 1st page to the last without reading the intervening pages and I find that it is now about global warming instead of Socialized Health Care in the USA. Fascinating. I'll have to read the whole thing to see how it went off track once I get the sleep off of my brain.

Haha, same here. But because I like disccusinbg global warming I will just react on that.


Kandrathe; your remark about scientists that have to prove things before taking drastic measures....CO2 has been the main contributor to global warming....it was like that when the dinosaurs walked the earth and it is like that now. (well that or maybe in the carboniferous the sun was just very hot :huh:)
During the carboniferous period it was very warm and there was a lot of CO2 in the air, which lead to much plantgrowth, which then lead to the burial of huge quantities of biomass that became our oil. Because of this oxygen concentrations got really high towards the end of this period, and temperatures dropped (CO2 gets removed form natural cycle by burial under ground).
At the moment we are doing the opposite, in a relatively short period we are shifting the CO2 balance because of removal of oil and coal from underground to above the ground.

The fact that global warming can happen because of other factors than human activity does not mean that what we see now is not because of human activity.

And about your number tricks with amounts of scientists: global warming has been researched more intensively than most other disciplines in science if you don't doubt evolution, genetics, catalysis, and particle physics I wouldn't doubt global warming.:D

[weakwarrior]

Genius shouldn't be limited to an ivory tower credential.

Who said anything about genius? On the other hand, assuming that people who've spent years studying something know more about it than people who haven't seems like a good place to start.

[kandrathe]

Funny, talking to you, one almost becomes convinced that whomever this Truth person is, she shares your politics.

I'm just noting that science is about the pursuit of truth, not popularity.

Blah blah blah. Talk is cheap. There are scientists actually working in the field who would love nothing more than to overturn AGW and replace it with their pet theory, be it solar variation, distance from the sun, geological change, whatever else. These theories have not done so well so far, we'll see how they do in the future.

<blockquote>“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”-- Physics Professor William Happer</blockquote>The debate is over, because the political mass has declared it to be so. And, yes, of course, Happer has also been linked to the evil AGW corporate funding.

If you really think one of those was true, and that *millions* will die (your words) if the AGW crowd gets their way, wouldn't it be a whole lot more than a "waste of time" to devote yourself to saying so? I would feel rather ethically obligated, myself. But then again, hot air is just hot air.

I'm guessing, because I have no idea how punitive the EPA and the government will get in enforcing a ban on CO2. I just know that every time there is a shortage of heating oil, people die. Every time the electricity goes out during a heat wave, people die. Then, we can start thinking about the 3rd world too. Less fuel for farming means less food, or more expensive fuel for farming means more expensive food (which means less food). I take it for granted sometimes that people understand how energy (and energy price) is linked to population.

... and accept it if it fits in with your view that global warming is a hoax, and ignore/reject it if it doesn't. Even your (and Pete's) hypothetical "Trojan Horse" strategy is scientifically bass ackwards: No PhD student or researcher should *ever* start from an idea like "I'm going to prove global warming is a hoax" and then go out and try to do it. You study the literature, examine past data, find new evidence, and then weigh it in light of the new things you've learned to judge the theories. The way you seem to have it figured, you already know the truth, wouldn't learn a damn thing doing an advanced degree, and the only question is if your preconceptions would be accepted by the community. Doesn't that seem kind of... intellectually dishonest, or something? Rather cocky, at least.

Yes. The reality is that currently the popular theories are a sacred cow of climatology. To question them is heresy. It is just as unscientific to form a consensus, or label those who don't subscribe to your theory akin to holocaust denial.

These geniuses are who? And how do you judge that they are the geniuses, and the ones with the "ivory tower" credentials (???) are not? You seem to have taken a lot on yourself, to have penetrated so deeply into a discipline that isn't yours. At least I have the excuse that I'm casting my lot with the majority of climate scientists, scientific organizations, and journals.

I was thinking of all the scientists who turned out to be right after suffering ridicule during their lifetime (and longer), only to be vindicated many years later.
<blockquote>"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift</blockquote>So, to summarize what I think my issues are with the current hysteria;

1. The climate models do not reflect reality. Even when the data is changed to fit the models, the models continue to fail to predict actual temperature. Clearly we don't understand *all* the mechanisms of temperature within the climate.<>
   
2. Findings confirm that global climate can change dramatically within a very short period without anthropogenic sources.<>
   
3. Environmentalists are quick to point out the causes of CO2, but fail to recognize or model the natural processes of mitigation of CO2.<>
   
4. Ice core analysis show global temperature varies independent of CO2 levels.<>
   [st]In fact, my skepticism is very much like that of Roger A. Pielke, Sr or Claude Allegre.
   
   So, what to do about it, rather than just warm our planet with more hot air? Here is my list;
   
   1. Stop subsidizing all fuels.<>
      
   2. Eliminate barriers to nuclear plant construction.<>
      
   3. Better land management.<>
      
   4. Require cities to develop a zero sum environmental plan.<>
      [st]