Paleoconservative movement and global warming

[swansont]

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?

 

There are a number of people out there who are misusing the word, to the point where saying, "I'm a skeptic" or "I'm skeptical" means very little. Because there are some "skeptics" who will not be convinced even when presented with a reasonable amount of evidence, or will attack/dismiss evidence on nonscientific grounds.

 

The scientists who did the research that appears in the IPCC can rightly be called skeptics, as well. Being a skeptic does not mean you are unconvinced.

 

So defining how you are using the term "skeptical" is a good thing. Now the questions become what evidence would convince you, and what's deficient about the evidence that is available from scientific sources?

[Aardvark]

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.

 

When science and politics mix then a degree of doubt is necessary.

 

 

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:

 

No i have not. I have not 'attacked' the science, i have pointed out how the scientific data has been consistently misused and distorted for political ends. That is a quite different thing.

 

 

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.

 

A 'denialist' Oh no! A nasty label to stick on me! (It's always easier to stick a label on someone than to actually engage their argument isn't it )

 

If you actually bothered to read and understand my posts, you would see clearly that i haven't attacked any science. I have attacked the distortion and misrepresentation of science to make claims that are not properly substantiated.

 

The scientists who did the research that appears in the IPCC can rightly be called skeptics, as well.

 

Indeed, but when the IPCC has been established under the auspices of the UN, an organisation renowned for it's staggering corruption, and when a person such as Christopher Landsea states that he saw the IPCC "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound'' then i won't just access it's conclusions as unvarnished gospel truth. In addition, it has been well documented that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure from the Bush administration on behalf of the oil industry, yet another example of politics interfering with supposedly objective science.

 

When scientists linked to the tobacco industry issue research on the relationship between tobacco and human health they are subjest to greater scrutiny than usual. Yet when scientists, whose research grants are dependent on political organisations, issue research on global warming we're supposed to simply accept that there couldn't be any resultant bias or distortion, even unconsciously.

 

I'd like to see some clear cut, independently verifiable predictions. That would work for me. Not yet more statistical analysis and interpretation that can be interpreted in various ways.

[swansont]

Indeed, but when the IPCC has been established under the auspices of the UN, an organisation renowned for it's staggering corruption, and when a person such as Christopher Landsea states that he saw the IPCC "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound'' then i won't just access it's conclusions as unvarnished gospel truth. In addition, it has been well documented that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure from the Bush administration on behalf of the oil industry, yet another example of politics interfering with supposedly objective science.

 

When scientists linked to the tobacco industry issue research on the relationship between tobacco and human health they are subjest to greater scrutiny than usual. Yet when scientists, whose research grants are dependent on political organisations, issue research on global warming we're supposed to simply accept that there couldn't be any resultant bias or distortion, even unconsciously.

 

I'd like to see some clear cut, independently verifiable predictions. That would work for me. Not yet more statistical analysis and interpretation that can be interpreted in various ways.

 

 

But the bias from the oil industry would be against an anthropogenic origin, so when the conclusion is the opposite, how does bias enter into it?

 

And who is going to do "independent" research?

[bascule]

I have not 'attacked' the science, i have pointed out how the scientific data has been consistently misused and distorted for political ends.

 

Okay, let's have a look at some more of your anti-scientific statements:

 

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.

 

The uncertainties are calculated as part of the analysis. The natural fluctuations are investigated scientifically then checked in models. Present theory surrounding climate change is well substantiated by present evidence. It's not just a "hypothesis."

 

The mentality here is a common one: the climate system is too big and too complex with too many factors involved for science to possibly understand. That mentality is unscientific and wrong.

 

. 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.

 

The anomalies are not being overlooked. The bad data was thrown out, and the corrected data is now being used in its place.

 

However, given how little of Earth's surface area the affected data impacted, it is practically irrelevant. There's no conspiracy here to brush this under the rug. NASA stated outright there was an error in the data, and *gasp* noted that there was poor reporting regarding things like the ordering of the hottest years.

 

You are, in fact, repeating claims which are the result of poor climate science reporting, while rebuking others for doing so.

 

A 'denialist' Oh no! A nasty label to stick on me! (It's always easier to stick a label on someone than to actually engage their argument isn't it

 

I think you've been consistently engaged throughout this thread. Your arguments have been deconstructed and shown to be false. Nobody's slapping a label on you because they don't want to hear what you have to say. They're sticking a label on you because it's more apt than the "skeptic" label you wish to stick upon yourself.

[iNow]

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.

 

Wouldn't the more reasonable approach be to remain skeptical of the groups misusing the science?

 

 

 

 

Indeed, but when the IPCC has been established under the auspices of the UN, an organisation renowned for it's staggering corruption, and when a person such as Christopher Landsea states that he saw the IPCC "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound'' then i won't just access it's conclusions as unvarnished gospel truth.

Which conclusions from which studies specifically do you question and why? The science of global climate change is not generally done using sign language, yet we so often see a bunch of handwaving from self-proclaimed "skeptics" as if that act alone somehow negates the conclusions grounded in the science.

 

 

In addition, it has been well documented that the IPCC has been subject to political pressure from the Bush administration on behalf of the oil industry, yet another example of politics interfering with supposedly objective science.

Again, the science hasn't been interfered with. It would be a breath of fresh air if you could cite specific studies which support your assertion.

 

 

When scientists linked to the tobacco industry issue research on the relationship between tobacco and human health they are subjest to greater scrutiny than usual.

I'm glad you brought this up. You should watch the following presentation:

 

 

 

I'd like to see some clear cut, independently verifiable predictions. That would work for me. Not yet more statistical analysis and interpretation that can be interpreted in various ways.

This is why the suggestion has been made that you are a denialist. There are mountains of "clear cut, independently verifiable predictions" available, yet you appear to be completely ignoring them.

[Realitycheck]

I am predicting that the temperature will go up, even further.

 

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

 

You see what happens is when you keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, it keeps getting more and more concentrated. Right now it is still at a mere 386 ppm, on a worldwide average. However, in populated areas, in the morning before the sun stirs things up, actual concentrations are recorded at about 1,500 ppm, bordering harmful to the human body ... already. If you take a moment to watch this video, the data will be extremely supportive. 173,000 hits and counting.

 

 

Does anybody know how these cycles tend to come about (in the past)? I coming up with a couple of scenarios.

 

1) The planet goes through a gradual cooling trend for a hundred thousand years or so. Then, something happens which drives the temperature up relatively quick, and also drives up CO2. Logic says that, in a cooling trend, more and more foliage should die off and decompose, releasing more and more CO2 that exists in the atmosphere. However, according to the data, CO2 levels go down with the temperature. Obviously, there are other factors that predominate.

 

So I guess I am just thinking out loud, unaware of the essential factors to make this case. However, it seems to me that it is essential to describe the driving factors behind these histories of temperature and CO2 levels and their relationship (if any) in order to properly make this case. Of course, it is obvious to me that it is a problem today that needs to be dealt with, but I am curious about what drives this relationship throughout the past.

[iNow]

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/climate_patterns/

 

Although the basic causes of climate change are still not fully understood, many clues have been collected. Possible causes include:

 

• Changes in solar output
  
• Changes in Earth's orbit
  
• Changes in the distribution of continents
  
• Changes in the concentration of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere
  

We will separately consider climate changes over several different time scales: 1) the long term (100's million years); 2) medium term (1 million years); 3) short term (160,000 years) and 4) modern period (last few centuries).

 

 

Also, here is a good link with visualizations like animations and images:

http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/visualization/collections/Climchg.html

[Realitycheck]

One of the things I am seeing is that it seems that the CO2 spikes tend to lag behind the temperature spikes. Who knows what makes the temperature go up so quickly, but for some reason, it seems that the CO2 follows it. Of course, 1,500 ppm just is not going to cut it.

 

I think that even Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson can agree on that.

[SkepticLance]

To agentchange

 

it is a shame that you used two separate graphs. When the two are graphed on the same sheet, using the same time scale, it becomes clear that warming precedes CO2 rise. In fact, by about 800 years on average. In other words, the warming is the cause and the CO2 rise is the effect. Though people will jump on me and say that the increase in CO2 becomes the cause, driving warming further. The data is clear. Initially at least, the warming occurs before CO2 increase. Thus, at least at first, the warming is cause and CO2 increase the effect.

 

How can this happen? The best explanation I have seen is related to gas solubility in the sea. As the sea warms (for whatever cause), the CO2 dissolved in it loses solubility and gases out, increasing the level in the atmosphere.

[bascule]

How can this happen? The best explanation I have seen is related to gas solubility in the sea.

 

Oceanic solubility is a big part of it, but such observations must be juxtaposed with the fact that no known natural source of atmospheric carbon in recent (geological) history comes remotely close to man-made emissions.

 

So I guess I am just thinking out loud, unaware of the essential factors to make this case. However, it seems to me that it is essential to describe the driving factors behind these histories of temperature and CO2 levels and their relationship (if any) in order to properly make this case. Of course, it is obvious to me that it is a problem today that needs to be dealt with, but I am curious about what drives this relationship throughout the past.

 

The other important thing to note from those graphs is that increases in both temperature and CO₂ are relatively abrupt. What you should take from this is the idea that there are tipping points which, when crossed, begin to create feedback loops in the climate system. CO₂ dissolved in ocean water is certainly one of these, but there are many other cases where carbon is trapped in some form due to the present temperature. Ice and frozen organic material are some examples (frozen organic material melts, decomposition begins/continues, CO₂ is released as a result).

[Aardvark]

One of the things I am seeing is that it seems that the CO2 spikes tend to lag behind the temperature spikes. Who knows what makes the temperature go up so quickly, but for some reason, it seems that the CO2 follows it. Of course, 1,500 ppm just is not going to cut it.

 

 

It is difficult using the past to predict the future in normal circumstances, when the human impact on CO2 levels appears to be without precedent and when past warming spikes have been followed by rising CO2 levels rather than vica versa then it becomes even more tricky.

 

Cause and effect are confused, perhaps a slight rise in ocean temperatures lead to release of methane from methane hydrate in the ocean bed which then lead to some sort of chain reaction in global warming, but the causation is still speculative and doesn't account for the increases in atmospheric CO2, possibly increased ocean temperatures affected the carbon cycle in some way.

 

There still aren't clear answers for why warming preceded CO2 rises in the past, let alone sufficent understanding of todays climatic interactions to support definitive conclusions on this matter.

[Saryctos]

Hmmm, is it ironic that the last(current) temperature spike on those graphs just so happens to start around 6000 years ago?

[Pangloss]

Bascule, your post #50 is a perfect example of what I complain about when I talk about PCness on this issue. First I want to give you credit for this, though:

 

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.

 

Cool, great point. But then you leap into this unfair personal characterization that is unnecessary and counterproductive:

 

 

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:

...

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.

 

So what are these the horrible quotes from Aardvark that attack science? Well let's see:

 

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.

 

Those quotes -- which came straight from his quote area in your post -- are not attacking science, they are questioning it. Those quotes do not indicate "denialism" -- they indicate valid questions that deserve objective answers. If you have those answers, fine, toss 'em out there! Several posts above went on to do that, and you often do as well -- great, more power to you, but that's not what you did in that post, you just pointed and said "hey look everyone, it's another denialist!"

 

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say we need to do better.

[bascule]

Read back, Pangloss. Those quotes are all horrible strawmen, and I've repeatedly deconstructed them. Since you apparently missed it, here it is again:

 

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

 

Data Flaw

 

Finally' date=' we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). 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. 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.

 

[img']http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig4_correction.gif[/img]

 

Figure 4, above. Global and U.S. temperature anomalies with and without the data processing flaw.

[Rev Blair]

Getting back to the political side of things:

 

I notice that several on here seem to think that capitalism can and will address emissions problems. Given that the world economy has been oil-based since shortly after WW1, capitalism's poor environmental record, and the fact that most corporations presently externalize the environmental costs they cause by either ignoring the problem or letting government (that'd be you and me paying for it) clean up after them, why would you think for a second that capitalism would even try to clean up the problem? If they have the ability, why have they so far worked so hard to keep us going in the other direction?

 

I also notice that the discussion about why conservatives (paleo, neo...doesn't really matter) tend to deny global warming science never delved into religion. You have a group that doesn't believe in evolution...many of whom believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Global warming science...the entire bit about GHGs...is very much tied up in evolutionary theory and an old earth. The idea of their god creating a perfect earth is shot to hell. Many of these guys can't accept global warming without questioning their own religious beliefs.

 

Then there's the greed/class factor.

 

There has never been a technological shift or advancement in our history that hasn't made us richer in some way and those advancements have generally spread the wealth around. The really serious shifts caused great hardship for the already wealthy and powerful though.

 

What happens to the oil barons and the politicians they own...mostly right-wing politicians if you do the math...if people quit being dependent on them for energy?

 

Do you think your coal company wants you to put up a windmill and solar panels? Do you think Exxon wants people to consider taking public transit instead of driving SUVs?

 

I want to address the claim that the left just wants to introduce new taxes and laws as well.

 

The left, at least in Canada, has been very clear that any carbon tax has to be revenue neutral...the government doesn't get any more money. So anybody who adopts a cleaner lifestyle will see a tax reduction.

 

The left, at least in Canada, has also been the side of the political spectrum that has stood up for individual rights and freedoms. The political right has attempted to trample those things while giving corporations more rights and freedoms.

 

Anyway, that's my two bits. If capitalism and a lack of regulation and/or taxation can solve this problem, then why hasn't it?

Now if this site is like so many others, and I hope it isn't, somebody will accuse me of being a communist, thus exhibiting their own ignorance of the political spectrum.

[swansont]

But then you leap into this unfair personal characterization that is unnecessary and counterproductive:

 

Those aren't personal characterizations, they are descriptions of the arguments being used.

 

So what are these the horrible quotes from Aardvark that attack science? Well let's see:

 

 

 

Those quotes -- which came straight from his quote area in your post -- are not attacking science, they are questioning it. Those quotes do not indicate "denialism" -- they indicate valid questions that deserve objective answers. If you have those answers, fine, toss 'em out there! Several posts above went on to do that, and you often do as well -- great, more power to you, but that's not what you did in that post, you just pointed and said "hey look everyone, it's another denialist!"

 

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say we need to do better.

 

As bascule notes, the claims are factually incorrect. Conclusions drawn from them are strawmen. Accepting incorrect information as being correct is not consistent with skepticism. As you note here, bascule went through several steps of debunking incorrect information first, and only then used the term "denialist" because it's clear that the "skepticism" isn't being based on the quality and quantity of scientific evidence.

[Pangloss]

Read back, Pangloss. Those quotes are all horrible strawmen, and I've repeatedly deconstructed them.

 

They're the quotes YOU gave from his post, so you're dodging the issue, and the rest of your reply to me is just changing the subject.

 

 

Accepting incorrect information as being correct is not consistent with skepticism.

 

Whatever he's done in subsequent posts, that's not what he was doing in those quotes. Bascule front-loaded an attack, and maybe he scored a winning game against a true denialist by pot luck (which I don't think has been established at all), but that doesn't even by a hair refute my point.

[iNow]

...but that doesn't even by a hair refute my point.

 

Which appears to be nothing more than this:

 

"If you apply the same scrutiny to the claims of people who deny global climate change as you would to someone in other branches of science, then you are PC bigot and should be ashamed of yourself."

[Pangloss]

I would not have used the word "bigot". Attack is your tactic, not mine.

[swansont]

Whatever he's done in subsequent posts, that's not what he was doing in those quotes. Bascule front-loaded an attack, and maybe he scored a winning game against a true denialist by pot luck (which I don't think has been established at all), but that doesn't even by a hair refute my point.

 

How is it a "front-loaded" attack when it took several exchanges before the "d-word" was used? From what I can see, it was a conclusion, not an accusation. The evidence that this is consistent with false skepticism was already present.

[ParanoiA]

In all fairness though, those quotes weren't exactly an "attack on science". They certainly aren't an endorsement and I can see some room for suspicion but he didn't trash the scientific method. I could see all of those quotes really directed at reporting, a little carelessly worded.

 

What I did see though, is throwing out the politics card for every single point. That's fine, I suppose, if one believes that global warming cannot be trusted due to the forced marriage of politics and science. But if that's the case, then why even respond or say anything beyond that? What's the point of arguing specifics if you're inevitably just going to reject everyone's points due to "politics and science"?

[bascule]

In all fairness though, those quotes weren't exactly an "attack on science".

 

Oh come now, what about this:

 

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.

 

He's claiming climate scientists are using data in a hugely oversimplified way to make assertions that aren't supported by the data.

 

How is that not an attack on the science?

[ParanoiA]

Honestly Bascule, I don't know that he isn't referring to the media as guilty of oversimplifying data. I'm not really defending him, I just think it isn't clear cut exactly who he is talking about here.

[SkepticLance]

To Rev

 

Ignoring all those ridiculous posts between yours and this one .....

 

Not really arguing with you, but I think you may be just a wee bit negative on things.

 

First : Our environment record. I don't think it is as bad as you make out. Things have actually improved a lot over the past 100 years in the western world. You may recall the old 'pea-soup' smogs reported in literature for London 100 years ago. Those are now a thing of the past. The River Thames was then quite toxic. Today salmon swim in it. The same applies to the whole east coast of the USA. Once toxic. Now much cleaner.

 

The real environment problems today are in those nations going through the stage of development that the west did 100 years ago. ie. China and Eastern Europe. And they are working to clean things up.

 

Second : Capitalism. It is not the function of capitalism to clean up the environment. Their function is to make money and get it to their shareholders. However, responsible capitalists have as a guiding value the requirement to obey the law. Thus, it is the law (ie government) that has the role of driving the cleaning of the environment.

 

This was true in the past, and is now true for the reduction of carbon emissions.

[Pangloss]

How is it a "front-loaded" attack when it took several exchanges before the "d-word" was used? From what I can see, it was a conclusion, not an accusation. The evidence that this is consistent with false skepticism was already present.

 

Unless "Aardvark" used to be called "Blade" that's not true, it was their first exchange. There may have been exchanges in other threads, but again, Bascule responded to a very specific set of quotes, insisting that they labeled him a denialist. That is what I mean by "front-loaded". But I'm not even saying that Aardvark isn't a "denialist" -- perhaps his later/other posts indicated that, I don't know. I'm only saying that that attack was not warranted, and the fact that it was not challenged has been noted for the record.

 

Now I know you guys don't like it when I don't let your angry retorts toward me become the last word on this subject, so do you have any other questions, or can we move on, the point having been made, even if it has not been acknowledged by the relevent parties?