Paleoconservative movement and global warming

[abskebabs]

The Global Warming theory is used by many on the left/liberal political spectrum to push for increases in government power and control over all aspects of peoples lives.

 

That is why so many so called 'paleoconservatives' (nice use of perjorative and biased language there) have a problem with the 'consensus' on global warming. especially as so many of the demanded solutions are completely ineffectual or even counterproductive.

 

Interesting. Do you think these people, whatever you would like to call them, would not vocally reject global warming occuring as much if; in the political and public spectrum, it was recognised that big government solutions cannot be used to combat it.

 

I guess really I'm interested if rejection of science is based on ideology concerning the way the economy should function? So in a way global warming is like a "sacrificial lamb" in a debate it has nothing to do with it, ultimately.

 

This is the crux of what I wanted to get at with my OP.

[bascule]

The Global Warming theory is used by many on the left/liberal political spectrum to push for increases in government power and control over all aspects of peoples lives.

 

Can you give an example of the "control over all aspects of people's lives" angle as it relates to climate change?

 

That is why so many so called 'paleoconservatives' (nice use of perjorative and biased language there)

 

The phrase "paleoconservative" is intended to provide juxtaposition to the term "neoconservative".

 

I don't see a pejorative angle to it at all. If anything I think there's a pejorative connotation to neoconservative nowadays. Given how ridden in scandal and contempt the current administration is, I don't see how anyone can still take neoconservatism seriously.

 

Ron Paul is a paleoconservative, and I certainly respect him. Limited government, fiscal responsibility, non-interventionism, and pursuit of freedom are all noble goals.

 

have a problem with the 'consensus' on global warming. especially as so many of the demanded solutions are completely ineffectual or even counterproductive.

 

It sounds like you don't have a problem with the scientific consensus on the climate so much as you have a problem with suggested policies stemming from the science. I believe it's incredibly important to keep the two distinct. One is science, the other is politics.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule said

 

"Can you give an example of the "control over all aspects of people's lives" angle as it relates to climate change?"

 

Increased taxes.

 

Bascule also said :

 

"It sounds like you don't have a problem with the scientific consensus on the climate so much as you have a problem with suggested policies stemming from the science. I believe it's incredibly important to keep the two distinct. One is science, the other is politics."

 

That is the problem I have with global warming also. The basic science is clear cut. However, people get 'enthusiastic' about some of the interpretations. We get unrealistic projections and predictions. Where sea level is rising (true figure) at 3 mm per year, we get some of those obsessed with catastrophe predicting all coastal cities being flooded within 100 years. This also is politics.

[Aardvark]

Can you give an example of the "control over all aspects of people's lives" angle as it relates to climate change?

 

I have read several calls for such things as 'Carbon rationing' and for the phase out of private transportation and the taxation of airtravel with the purpose of ending all so called 'cheap' holidays. These calls have been made by influential and respected figures.

 

Check out George Monbiot if you really are interested.

 

 

 

The phrase "paleoconservative" is intended to provide juxtaposition to the term "neoconservative".

 

No, the use of the term "paleoconservative" clearly comes across as perjorative, regardless of your personal political sympathies.

 

 

It sounds like you don't have a problem with the scientific consensus on the climate so much as you have a problem with suggested policies stemming from the science.

 

I remain unconvinced. I read reports like the IPCC and i see scaremongering. The science has become inextricably interwoven with politics. That makes me very suspicious that bad science is happening. My suspicions grow when i see the degree of intellectual and political bullying that is applied to this subject, the level of personal denigration leveled at any scientist who dares to question the consensus.

 

I believe it's incredibly important to keep the two distinct. One is science, the other is politics.

 

Unfortunately, they have become inextricably intermingled.

 

Interesting. Do you think these people, whatever you would like to call them, would not vocally reject global warming occuring as much if; in the political and public spectrum, it was recognised that big government solutions cannot be used to combat it.

 

Absolutely.

 

I guess really I'm interested if rejection of science is based on ideology concerning the way the economy should function? So in a way global warming is like a "sacrificial lamb" in a debate it has nothing to do with it, ultimately.

 

If you consider most of the proposals to 'combat' climate change, you will see that they are generally ineffective. When this is pointed out the reply is that they are 'symbolic' or give a 'moral high ground'.

 

The Kyoto agreement so lauded by the 'Greens' even if obeyed in full would have had no measurable impact of global warming, it would however have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and kept millions in poorer countries in desperate poverty.

 

 

On a completely unrelated note, for the last 10 years the Earths climate has been cooling and the hottest decade in the 20th century was the 1930's.

[swansont]

No, the use of the term "paleoconservative" clearly comes across as perjorative, regardless of your personal political sympathies.

 

Given that bascule has stated an opinion to the contrary, this is clearly not an absolute truth.

 

 

On a completely unrelated note, for the last 10 years the Earths climate has been cooling and the hottest decade in the 20th century was the 1930's.

 

How about a completely related citation for this, as it is a purely scientific claim?

 

 

NASA data seems to disagree

 

[iNow]

I remain unconvinced. I read reports like the IPCC and i see scaremongering. The science has become inextricably interwoven with politics. That makes me very suspicious that bad science is happening. My suspicions grow when i see the degree of intellectual and political bullying that is applied to this subject, the level of personal denigration leveled at any scientist who dares to question the consensus.

Then perhaps you can use those suspicions as motivation to research the data more closely for yourself. Your simple association with scientific results and politics has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accuracy of the science generating those results.

 

What gets most tiring is the continued and consistent attempts to sway opinion against human induced global climate change using a bunch of hand waving and appeals to conspiracy, then to further complain about censorship when these illogical and unfounded appeals are mocked and shot down.

 

If people attacked the science using science, there would be ABSOLUTELY ZERO "personal denigrations" being levelled.

[Aardvark]

Given that bascule has stated an opinion to the contrary, this is clearly not an absolute truth.

 

Absolute truth? You do understand that we are discussing semantics don't you?

 

 

How about a completely related citation for this, as it is a purely scientific claim?

 

 

NASA data seems to disagree

 

You do know that NASA got their data wrong don't you? They have publically (although very quietly) admitted it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/eaclimate116.xml

http://www.thestar.com/article/246027

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_1804986.php

 

NASA now accept, without any of the usual fanfare that accompanied the original announcement that the 1990's were the hottest decade on record that, yes, the 1930's were the hottest decade in the 20th century.

 

And yet when it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year on record (as opposed to 1934), that was shouted from the rooftops as evidence of the major crisis facing the globe. Now, that has been shown to be false, silence. That's odd, it smacks of vested interests rather than an honest approach to the data.

 

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309102251

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

 

Then perhaps you can use those suspicions as motivation to research the data more closely for yourself.

 

You have no idea how closely i have researched this area.

 

 

Your simple association with scientific results and politics has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the accuracy of the science generating those results.

 

You are wrong. Politics can easily distort science.

 

What gets most tiring is the continued and consistent attempts to sway opinion against human induced global climate change using a bunch of hand waving and appeals to authority,

 

I haven't made any appeals to authority at all. And as for handwaving.....

 

then to complain about censorship when these illogical and unfounded appeals are mocked and shot down.

 

No one here has mentioned censorship.

 

If people attacked the science using science, there would be ABSOLUTELY ZERO "personal denigrations" being levelled.

 

It's just a shame that isn't the case and that personal denigrations are so quickly resorted to. Just ask Bjørn Lomborg.

[bascule]

You do know that NASA got their data wrong don't you? They have publically (although very quietly) admitted it.

 

[...]

 

NASA now accept, without any of the usual fanfare that accompanied the original announcement that the 1990's were the hottest decade on record that, yes, the 1930's were the hottest decade in the 20th century.

 

Those figures are for regional mean surface temperature North America, not the global mean surface temperature.

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

 

2005 is the hottest year on record, with 2007 being second (tied with 1998)

 

2007 had the hottest January on record.

 

And yet when it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year on record (as opposed to 1934), that was shouted from the rooftops as evidence of the major crisis facing the globe. Now, that has been shown to be false, silence. That's odd, it smacks of vested interests rather than an honest approach to the data.

 

After correcting the error, the change in regional mean surface temperature (for the US) was less than 1%

 

The change in global mean surface temperature is not even worth noting (less than thousandths of a percent)

[iNow]

You do know that NASA got their data wrong don't you? They have publically (although very quietly) admitted it.

Yep. One data point. One error, which they corrected the moment it was brought to their attention. Gosh... how COULD they!?!

 

 

You have no idea how closely i have researched this area.

You're correct, because you're posts have not shown a focus on the data as I suggested above.

 

 

 

I haven't made any appeals to authority at all. And as for handwaving.....

I meant appeal to conspiracy, and have corrected my post. Thanks for pointing out my error and giving me the chance to correct it.

[Aardvark]

Those figures are for regional mean surface temperature North America, not the global mean surface temperature.

 

True, i made a mistake there, just like NASA But my point stands.

 

 

After correcting the error, the change in regional mean surface temperature (for the US) was less than 1%

 

The change in global mean surface temperature is not even worth noting (less than thousandths of a percent)

 

 

That is my point. A huge amount is being extrapolated from very small variations in very complex data. When it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year in the 20th century (in the USA) it was used very widely as supposedly powerful evidence of the immediate crisis of global warming. A tiny change in the data and suddenly it is giving completely different results and the hottest year of the 20th century is supposedly 1934.

 

That is a pretty clear indication that data is being used in a HUGELY oversimplified way to make assertions that it can't safely substantiate. Which is why i remain sceptical. Too many headlines shouting about the end of the world and too many scientists who know that their research grants will only keep coming if their results back up the consensus. The politics has become too wrapped up in the science.

 

I meant appeal to conspiracy, and have corrected my post. Thanks for pointing out my error and giving me the chance to correct it.

 

You've just discredited yourself. Well done

[swansont]

That is my point. A huge amount is being extrapolated from very small variations in very complex data. When it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year in the 20th century (in the USA) it was used very widely as supposedly powerful evidence of the immediate crisis of global warming. A tiny change in the data and suddenly it is giving completely different results and the hottest year of the 20th century is supposedly 1934.

 

If you mean a tiny change in the data is giving a completely different political result, I agree. It gives those with an agenda an opportunity to trumpet out exaggerations and falsehoods based on misrepresentation of the data and events. You've given several examples in this very thread. (mistaking data from the USA as being representative for the world, exaggerating the magnitude of an error, questioning the validity of the science based on that error, etc.). People who trumpeted 1998 as being anything more than an anomalously high data point in an increasing trend are guilty of similar political manipulation. One expects data to be scattered in scientific analysis, and also expect the occasional data point to deviate by a large amount (i.e. several standard deviations).

 

However, if you check the scientific sources, I'll bet you see trendlines that average the data over some period, to smooth out the fluctuations. That's one way to tell the difference between scientific presentation of the data and someone attempting to manipulate it for political reasons. If the data are cherry-picked, it's often an indication of the latter. An extrapolation using only ~1992 through 1998 to predict massive temperature increases would be guilty if the same error. But I haven't run across any; I'd be interested to see them. OTOH, I've seen several extrapolations using 1998 as an endpoint, purportedly showing a subsequent downtrend.

[Aardvark]

If you mean a tiny change in the data is giving a completely different political result, I agree.

 

Yes, that's the point i'm trying to make. I see big headlines, the London Evening Standard actually had a headline that the world is ending when it reported the IPCC findings. A lot of very bold claims have been made, followed by demands for the most draconian of actions, all based on such data.

 

It gives those with an agenda an opportunity to trumpet out exaggerations and falsehoods based on misrepresentation of the data and events.

 

Exactly. Which is why i choose to keep a certain scepticism concerning this subject. (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider)

 

You've given several examples in this very thread. (mistaking data from the USA as being representative for the world, exaggerating the magnitude of an error, questioning the validity of the science based on that error, etc.).

 

I made one mistake, to confuse data relating to the USA with data relating to the world. It doesn't alter my point at all. My point is, that data was used very publically and vocally as 'proof' of the crisis of global warming when it was thought that the hottest decade in the USA was the 1990's, when the data was corrected and it was found that the hottest decade was the 1930's, suddenly it is all irrelevant and just a matter of anomalies to be overlooked.

 

That is CLEAR evidence of misuse of science.

 

 

People who trumpeted 1998 as being anything more than an anomalously high data point in an increasing trend are guilty of similar political manipulation. One expects data to be scattered in scientific analysis, and also expect the occasional data point to deviate by a large amount (i.e. several standard deviations).

 

Which makes it all the more reprehensible that the data is misrepresented in such an overly simplistic and misleading way, being used to make firm conclusions and statements of fact which it simply doesn't support.

 

However, if you check the scientific sources, I'll bet you see trendlines that average the data over some period, to smooth out the fluctuations. That's one way to tell the difference between scientific presentation of the data and someone attempting to manipulate it for political reasons.

 

Unfortunately, the Earths climate undergoes a great deal of natural fluctuation which complicates any attempt to draw a trendline. This leaves a great deal of uncertainty and room for different inferences. And yet, we see opinions and hypotheses in these areas reported as conclusive fact.

 

If the data are cherry-picked, it's often an indication of the latter. An extrapolation using only ~1992 through 1998 to predict massive temperature increases would be guilty if the same error. But I haven't run across any; I'd be interested to see them. OTOH, I've seen several extrapolations using 1998 as an endpoint, purportedly showing a subsequent downtrend.

 

I also have seen several extraplations, supposedly 'proving' that we are on the verge of a new ice age. Trying to draw trendlines and then using them to predict the future is fraught with uncertainities. Yet the matter id=s presented as settled fact and very serious public policy decisions are being made on that basis.

 

So forgive me if i remain dubious, there are simply too many vested interests concerned for any faith to be placed in the consensus.

[swansont]

I also have seen several extraplations, supposedly 'proving' that we are on the verge of a new ice age. Trying to draw trendlines and then using them to predict the future is fraught with uncertainities. Yet the matter id=s presented as settled fact and very serious public policy decisions are being made on that basis.

 

So forgive me if i remain dubious, there are simply too many vested interests concerned for any faith to be placed in the consensus.

 

One thing is that the scientists, in general, aren't the ones simply extrapolating based on the data points on the graph. That's either an error or manipulation done by people with an agenda — choosing a smaller set of data and using it to support your point. (which is a political tactic rather than a scientific one)

 

Two lessons from this are: don't rely on journalists for accurate scientific reporting, and policy-makers need access to impartial scientific analysis, like was provided by the Office of Technology Assessment, which was disbanded in 1995.

 

Which prompts the question: is the IPCC an impartial body? And when one answers, one should justify that answer with some substantive support.

[Aardvark]

One thing is that the scientists, in general, aren't the ones simply extrapolating based on the data points on the graph. That's either an error or manipulation done by people with an agenda — choosing a smaller set of data and using it to support your point. (which is a political tactic rather than a scientific one)

 

And yet the conclusions drawn from this inadequate data is used widely and stated as established fact. The scientific process has become hijacked by the political.

 

Two lessons from this are: don't rely on journalists for accurate scientific reporting, and policy-makers need access to impartial scientific analysis, like was provided by the Office of Technology Assessment, which was disbanded in 1995.

 

Unfortunately, the policy makers do not seem in the slightest bit interested in impartial scientific analysis, instead the entire matter, conclusions and actions, are based on headlines and blatant propaganda.

 

Which prompts the question: is the IPCC an impartial body? And when one answers, one should justify that answer with some substantive support.

 

And the answer to your question is?

[SkepticLance]

I was reading through one of Bascule's references :

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

 

and I came across something interesting and (to me) amusing. The past decade has seen little temperature rise overall. 1998 was a very hot year, and it was exceeded marginally by 2005. However, the period overall really showed no, or next to no overall warming.

 

This period involved significant increase in CO2, and the greenhouse effect should have resulted in an increase in temperature of 0.18 Celsius or thereabouts. It did not. Why?

 

The answer is simple. The last 5 years have been years where sunspot activity has diminished substantially. This has countered the expected warming. Bascules reference says :

 

"Several analyses have extracted empirical global temperature variations of about 0.1 C associated with the 10-11 year solar cycle.

 

Just pointing out to Bascule, Swansont etc that sunspots DO have a substantial effect on global temperature. Of course, over the next few years, with sunspot activity increasing, there will be a sizeable warming.

[iNow]

I was reading through one of Bascule's references :

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

 

and I came across something interesting and (to me) amusing. The past decade has seen little temperature rise overall. 1998 was a very hot year, and it was exceeded marginally by 2005. However, the period overall really showed no, or next to no overall warming.

 

Either you did not read post #36 by swansont, or you did not comprehend it.

[swansont]

I was reading through one of Bascule's references :

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

 

and I came across something interesting and (to me) amusing. The past decade has seen little temperature rise overall. 1998 was a very hot year, and it was exceeded marginally by 2005. However, the period overall really showed no, or next to no overall warming.

 

This period involved significant increase in CO2, and the greenhouse effect should have resulted in an increase in temperature of 0.18 Celsius or thereabouts. It did not. Why?

 

The answer is simple. The last 5 years have been years where sunspot activity has diminished substantially. This has countered the expected warming. Bascules reference says :

 

"Several analyses have extracted empirical global temperature variations of about 0.1 C associated with the 10-11 year solar cycle.

 

Just pointing out to Bascule, Swansont etc that sunspots DO have a substantial effect on global temperature. Of course, over the next few years, with sunspot activity increasing, there will be a sizeable warming.

 

 

Choosing 1998 as one endpoint is cherry-picking, as it was an anomalously high value. Choose 1997 or 1999 and re-do the analysis, and see what you get. One year shouldn't make much of a difference, should it? In fact, one really should use 1996-1997, as that's the low spot of the previous solar cycle. You get a ~0.2 ºC increase if you do that.

 

And note that this is the variability over a single cycle, which is a different argument than the longer, multi-cycle trends, which were the topic of previous discussions.

[bascule]

Just pointing out to Bascule, Swansont etc that sunspots DO have a substantial effect on global temperature. Of course, over the next few years, with sunspot activity increasing, there will be a sizeable warming.

 

Nobody's arguing that the solar cycle doesn't affect the climate. That's a red herring.

 

When it was thought that 1998 was the hottest year in the 20th century (in the USA) it was used very widely as supposedly powerful evidence of the immediate crisis of global warming.

 

First: anyone using the contiguous 48 states as any sort of indicator of the global climate is an idiot. From the NASA citation:

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

 

This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area.

 

Second, the flaw did not affect the ordering of the hottest years on record:

 

Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said

 

"Choosing 1998 as one endpoint is cherry-picking, as it was an anomalously high value. Choose 1997 or 1999 and re-do the analysis, and see what you get"

 

The proper approach is to use the five year running mean. This shows a small warming over the past decade, but less than the previous two, which is what I pointed out.

[swansont]

Swansont said

 

"Choosing 1998 as one endpoint is cherry-picking, as it was an anomalously high value. Choose 1997 or 1999 and re-do the analysis, and see what you get"

 

The proper approach is to use the five year running mean. This shows a small warming over the past decade, but less than the previous two, which is what I pointed out.

 

The NASA data I posted earlier shows between 0.15 ºC and 0.2 ºC for the last decade graphed. Exactly what you stated it should for CO2. It shows about that range for the previous two decades as well.

[Aardvark]

First: anyone using the contiguous 48 states as any sort of indicator of the global climate is an idiot. From the NASA citation:

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

 

I heartily agree. It's unfortunate that it has been used very widely as an indicator, as proof infact, of a crisis in the global climate. The science has been abused, twisted and distorted. Important policy decisions and public opinion are being formed on the basis of headlines which appear absolutely conclusive about things where there is still a great deal of uncertainty.

[ydoaPs]

I heartily agree. It's unfortunate that it has been used very widely as an indicator, as proof infact, of a crisis in the global climate. The science has been abused, twisted and distorted. Important policy decisions and public opinion are being formed on the basis of headlines which appear absolutely conclusive about things where there is still a great deal of uncertainty.

???????

YOU just tried to use it as evidence AGAINST global warming!

[bascule]

I heartily agree. It's unfortunate that it has been used very widely as an indicator, as proof infact, of a crisis in the global climate. The science has been abused, twisted and distorted. Important policy decisions and public opinion are being formed on the basis of headlines which appear absolutely conclusive about things where there is still a great deal of uncertainty.

 

Can you show us an instance of someone using the regional mean surface temperature of the contiguous 48 states (or even North America as a whole) as an indicator of how the global climate is changing?

 

I think you're arguing against a strawman here...

[Aardvark]

???????

YOU just tried to use it as evidence AGAINST global warming!

 

No i did NOT. I have NOT argued that global warming is not taking place. I have argued that much of the 'evidence' presented in the public sphere for global warming is highly suspect due to political pressures. As such, i remain open minded about the matter.

 

Can you show us an instance of someone using the regional mean surface temperature of the contiguous 48 states (or even North America as a whole) as an indicator of how the global climate is changing?

 

I have read several newspapers where those figures were quoted in editorals in support of the idea that not only was global warming a completely proven certainty but that it was a desperately urgent crisis.

 

I think you're arguing against a strawman here...

 

I think you still don't understand my point. I have read many distortions and misrepresentations of the science concerning global warming. It is clear that there are many groups with vested interests in using the global warming theory to promote there own interests. Therefore i remain sceptical of the theory.

 

Just to clear up a surprisingly common miscomprehension, the word sceptical does NOT mean i disbelieve, it means i remain unconvinced at this moment. I take it you are capable of understanding the distinction?

[bascule]

I think you still don't understand my point. I have read many distortions and misrepresentations of the science concerning global warming. It is clear that there are many groups with vested interests in using the global warming theory to promote there own interests. Therefore i remain sceptical of the theory.

 

There's nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism of climate science reporting. Often it is wrong or distorted. However, just because the science is poorly reported doesn't mean you should doubt the science.

 

Just to clear up a surprisingly common miscomprehension, the word sceptical does NOT mean i disbelieve, it means i remain unconvinced at this moment. I take it you are capable of understanding the distinction?

 

You've consistently attacked the science throughout this thread, arguing that climate scientists analysis of the data is flawed in order to drive political ends:

 

A huge amount is being extrapolated from very small variations in very complex data.

 

[...]

 

A tiny change in the data and suddenly it is giving completely different results and the hottest year of the 20th century is supposedly 1934.

 

[...]

 

That is a pretty clear indication that data is being used in a HUGELY oversimplified way to make assertions that it can't safely substantiate.

 

Attack the reporting all you want, but when you attack the science out of ignorance, you're not being skeptical, you're just a denialist.