global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[Rev Blair]

JohnB, Though I do not recall it as such, I will accept your statement that global cooling was not as widely accepted in the 70's as global warming is accepted today. Still, it cannot be denied that this false cry of destruction has resulted in a loss of credibility for climatologists. They were wrong then, perhaps they are wrong today.

 

If I remember correctly, there were seven papers on cooling (mostly having to do with particulates blocking sun light), and over 40 on warming during the 1970s.

 

The popular media...most notably News Week...picked up the cooling theory because it sold magazines, but the characterization that climatologists, or scientists in general, thought there was going to be massive cooling is really a creation of media sensationalism, the political right and their creatures, and a lack of real public discourse about the science.

 

As for the political aspect of this: If global warming is happening, and the vast majority of scientific evidence suggests that it is, then we need to change the way we do things. Those changes will happen through politics, not science. Scientists don't set policy, politicians do.

 

I believe that part of the discussion should happen in the political forums though, not the science forums.

[SH3RL0CK]

As for the political aspect of this: If global warming is happening, and the vast majority of scientific evidence suggests that it is, then we need to change the way we do things. Those changes will happen through politics, not science. Scientists don't set policy, politicians do.

 

I believe that part of the discussion should happen in the political forums though, not the science forums.

 

Well, if we don't have the science right before we start implementing policy, I don't see how the policy set forth by politicians can possibly be correct (take Iraq as an excellent example where poor information led to a bad policy). This is why I suggest moderation (not the status quo iNow seems to believe is my stance) in our actions until we truly understand this global warming mystery.

[iNow]

Well, if we don't have the science right before we start implementing policy, I don't see how the policy set forth by politicians can possibly be correct (take Iraq as an excellent example where poor information led to a bad policy). This is why I suggest moderation (not the status quo iNow seems to believe is my stance) in our actions until we truly understand this global warming mystery.

 

Sh3rlock,

 

You should spend some time and watch this video:

 

[Rev Blair]

Tell me what the right science is.

 

The Greenhouse Effect has been accepted for how long now? How intertwined is evolutionary theory with that very effect? When did that Swiss (??? think he was Swiss) scientist first put forth global warming theory...189?.

 

I'm getting really tired of the debate. I learned a lot of the basics of this back in grade 4...about the time Newsweek was publishing that cooling article.

 

In the late eighties...enthralled with huge motors and pick-up trucks...I set out to convince myself that global warming wasn't happening. I'm not a scientist, but I'm not stupid either. I ended up understanding that global warming was happening and that we were the cause.

 

Everything I've seen from the other side looks like bullshit to me.

 

I tend to look at these things with a writer's eye. Not just a journalist's eye, which searches out fact (I get money for that), but a guy who writes fictional dialogue enough to know when something sounds kind of off.

 

If I were to write a fictional story about self-interested people screwing over the planet for greed, the global warming saga would be a pretty good model.

 

I'd have to beef up the veracity of the claims of the denialists a bit to make it believable, and downplay the science to make it more interesting than a bad sitcom, but there's a certain trend in the overall discussion, and those who claim global warming is not happening seem to be...let's be generous and say they're wrong.

[JohnB]

Rev Blair, how about looking at what the sceptics are really saying rather than demolishing strawmen?

 

Nobody is denying the climate has warmed over the last 100 years. If it hadn't we'd still be in a "Little Ice Age".

If I were to write a fictional story about self-interested people screwing over the planet for greed, the global warming saga would be a pretty good model.

You mean like an ex politician that advocates carbon trading schemes to "save the planet" that he will coincidentally happen to make mega bucks from?

[Rev Blair]

You mean like an ex politician that advocates carbon trading schemes to "save the planet" that he will coincidentally happen to make mega bucks from?

 

Geeze, talk about strawmen. Al Gore, a rich man from a rich family, is making a profit, so the theory must be flawed.

 

In addition to that, he has been working on this problem, in one way or another and without much success, since before the time the cooling papers were published.

 

Rev Blair, how about looking at what the sceptics are really saying rather than demolishing strawmen?

 

Nobody is denying the climate has warmed over the last 100 years. If it hadn't we'd still be in a "Little Ice Age".

 

I have looked at what the skeptics are saying. They are saying that the theory, which is backed up by mounds of data is wrong.

 

When they lose that argument, they claim that the theory might be right, but that we aren't the cause.

 

When they lose that argument, they claim that it isn't that bad, may even be good. A modified version of the theory being wrong.

 

When they lose that argument they argue minute details and claim those details invalidate the entire theory.

 

When they lose that, they say that it' all political.

 

I hope everybody here understands that in science when there are more than one competing theory, the strongest one generally becomes more accepted because evidence builds to support it over time.

 

Warming theory has been around for over century. In that time, a lot of evidence has been amassed showing that it's a solid theory and that it's happening. In the last couple of decades that's really picked up.

 

The opposition to it is largely political, not scientific. Those who call themselves skeptics are all too often anything but. A skeptic is asking for evidence, not ignoring the evidence that exists to support some pre-determined bias.

[SH3RL0CK]

Tell me what the right science is.

...

 

I certainly would if it were known. But that is part of my point, no one really understands global warming. We know the climate has warmed, we suspect this is at least partially due to increased CO2. Beyond this is no longer science but speculation.

 

 

I'm getting really tired of the debate. I learned a lot of the basics of this back in grade 4...

 

I'm getting tired as well. I'm not disputing science, but I'm not accepting claims which are not proven either.

 

If I were to write a fictional story about self-interested people screwing over the planet for greed, the global warming saga would be a pretty good model.

 

Agreed, On both sides of the GW debate! This is EXACTLY why we need the science to be absolutely correct.

 

I'd have to beef up the veracity of the claims of the denialists a bit to make it believable, and downplay the science to make it more interesting than a bad sitcom, but there's a certain trend in the overall discussion, and those who claim global warming is not happening seem to be...let's be generous and say they're wrong.

 

When did I ever say it wasn't happening? I am questioning things like how much warming? how much due to CO2? how much due to other things? If due to other things, what things and why? what will the consequences of GW be? what can/should we do about it? The answers to these questions are not known for certain and the estimates from all the experts are all over the map.

 

Let's be generous and say those who don't want to ask these questions are passionate

 

iNow, I haven't looked at your video yet, I will take a look at your link when I get some time.

[iNow]

iNow, I haven't looked at your video yet, I will take a look at your link when I get some time.

Right on. Sounds good.

 

I think you'll find pretty plainly how it counters your opening two sentences in that post.

 

 

I certainly would if it were known. But that is part of my point, no one really understands global warming.

[Rev Blair]

I certainly would if it were known. But that is part of my point, no one really understands global warming. We know the climate has warmed, we suspect this is at least partially due to increased CO2. Beyond this is no longer science but speculation.

 

Have we known about the greenhouse effect since the late 19th century? Yes, that is established science.

 

Do we know that CO2 and methane are ghgs? Yes, that science has also been established for a very long time.

 

Do we know the role water vapour plays? Yes, since the 1930's, if I remember correctly.

 

Do we know that we've been dumping GHGs into the air for a very long time? You bet we do.

 

Did the Johnson administration look into this and consider it a threat? Yup, and so did every US government until Bush Jr.

 

iNow, I haven't looked at your video yet, I will take a look at your link when I get some time.

 

Please spend an hour or so and watch it. Oreskes gives a good timeline of the science in the first half and covers some of the denial industry in the second half. She only hits the main points...it is only an hour, after all...but it will give you a good idea of how well-established the science is and how political the alleged disagreement is.

[JohnB]

Rev, not a strawman. I'm naturally bloody suspicious when someone promotes a scheme that they stand to make millions out of. Puts me in mind of snake oil salesmen, that's all.

 

Some simple questions.

 

How much of the warming in the last 100 years is due to natural causes and how much is anthropogenic? Figures please.

 

What are the values of the forcings acting on the climate right now? Quantities please and references, not guesstimates.

[iNow]

That's a pretty big and broad request, John.

Are you asking over land only? Over ocean? Over some specific part of the globe?

 

Also, how detailed of a response are you expecting? I see your question akin to asking how many times everyone on the planet has masturbated ever... It's tough to answer because it artifically sets the goal posts at an impossible distance.

 

 

Your second question is a bit easier, since we measure these things (except, it's generally based on annual summary), while your first question is asking for exact values (which themselves must be calculated). This link is a good one, but there are others:

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

 

 

From that link:

 

 

[Rev Blair]

Rev, not a strawman. I'm naturally bloody suspicious when someone promotes a scheme that they stand to make millions out of. Puts me in mind of snake oil salesmen, that's all.

 

So what? Gore is one guy, a politician not a scientist. And don't you think the deniers have a vested interest? You bet they do, much more than Gore does.

 

Some simple questions.

 

How much of the warming in the last 100 years is due to natural causes and how much is anthropogenic? Figures please.

 

What are the values of the forcings acting on the climate right now? Quantities please and references, not guesstimates.

 

As iNow pointed out, those questions aren't really that simple. The answers you seek can be found at the IPCC site though.

 

In the Summary for Policy Makers they state:

The combined radiative forcing due to increases in

carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is +2.30

[+2.07 to +2.53] W m–2, and its rate of increase

during the industrial era is very likely to have been

unprecedented in more than 10,000 years

[swansont]

I've never understood the "vested interests" argument. Regardless of the answer, scientists will still study climate. If one issue is solved, there's plenty of other stuff to study. And you don't need "green" to advance alternatives to fossil fuel, since it also promotes energy independence.

[Rev Blair]

The vested interests are basically the oil companies, swansont, although the mining and ag companies have a stake too and play a lesser role. They have a financial interest in keeping the oil economy going.

 

Then there are the ideologists who are just against regulation of any kind. They see that any solution to global warming will require global warming and deny the science as a result.

 

Finally there are those with a religious conflict. Fundamentalists have a big problem with global warming science because the greenhouse theory is very much tied up with greenhouse theory. Many of them also believe that their god gave man dominion over the earth.

 

These three groups (and I don't mean organised groups) make up a loose coalition that kind of feed off of each other, but it's not like a conspiracy or anything...just people looking after their own interests.

[swansont]

Sorry, I neglected to include a quote — I was referring to the "GW is real" vested interests JohnB was referring to. I can certainly see any specific implementation being suspect because of vested interests; someone set to cash in on trading carbon offsets is going to push carbon offsets. But there's the whole conspiracy agenda that the government/university scientists can't be trusted because they have a stake in the outcome. And I just don't see it.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

There are vested interests on both sides of the debate. Since Rev has described the interests opposing restrictions on fossil fuel burning, I will describe those on the other side.

 

There are many in both science and politics. Al Gore is a good example - making both $$$ and political reputation. Scientists who are into climate research are a very powerful vested interest. 30 years ago, climatology was an obscure little discipline ekeing out a scanty existence on meagre research funds. Today it is a gravy train. Billions of dollars are potentially available to anyone who credibly claims to be doing research into global warming. Many climate scientists write best seller books. Many others make big money on the lecture circuit. The benefits to those scientists who promulgate the global warming story - both truth and myth - both in money and reputation are very clear.

 

Ditto for politicians and bureaucrats, especially in the UN. The big money feeds them at least as much as, and possibly more, than the climate scientists. These 'parasites' will oppose fervently any suggestion that they are not 'saving the world' since that is now their bread and butter.

 

There are heaps of business people who see $$$$ in the 'fight' against greenhouse gases. Those who make wind turbines, or nuclear reactors, or act as carbon brokers etc. There is big money in global warming.

 

Of course, having vested interests does not make you right or wrong. Those with something to gain, or something to lose, on either side of the debate, might be correct, or telling lies, or mistaken, or downright corrupt, or the exact opposite. Only good scientific data can show the difference.

[swansont]

To swansont

 

There are vested interests on both sides of the debate. Since Rev has described the interests opposing restrictions on fossil fuel burning, I will describe those on the other side.

 

There are many in both science and politics. Al Gore is a good example - making both $$$ and political reputation. Scientists who are into climate research are a very powerful vested interest. 30 years ago, climatology was an obscure little discipline ekeing out a scanty existence on meagre research funds. Today it is a gravy train. Billions of dollars are potentially available to anyone who credibly claims to be doing research into global warming. Many climate scientists write best seller books. Many others make big money on the lecture circuit. The benefits to those scientists who promulgate the global warming story - both truth and myth - both in money and reputation are very clear.

 

Who's writing these best sellers? I look at Amazon.com and search on "global warming" and I see one book by John Houghton. I see many books and videos from the denialist camp, I see many books by people who are not atmospheric scientists.

 

Doing research into global warming — does that mean that the funding goes away unless they reach a particular conclusion? That's a hell of a conspiracy, since it relies on other scientists not blowing the whistle, and ignores that one of the big players in research — the US — hasn't been supportive of global warming initiatives. Why haven't the US researchers been finding that global warming is bunk? It would seem that that result would have secured funding for them.

 

The reality is that falsifying research is a death knell for your career, if you're a scientist. If you're not, and you want to take the "battle" to the people and duke it out in the op-eds and in books, you're free to make stuff up.

 

Of course, having vested interests does not make you right or wrong. Those with something to gain, or something to lose, on either side of the debate, might be correct, or telling lies, or mistaken, or downright corrupt, or the exact opposite. Only good scientific data can show the difference.

 

The issue at hand is the smear against the scientists producing the data. People don't like the data, so they impugn the reputation of the scientists by claiming that they are biased by the availability of funding.

[Rev Blair]

I read a lot, spend way too much time in bookstores spending money that should be reserved for cigarettes and beer. There are some notable books on global warming.

 

The thing is, they are all by scientists who are already prolific authors, or by science journalists who would have written them anyway. All are extensively footnoted and the studies cited are all peer reviewed.

 

I'm sure these people are pleased their books are selling better than usual, but they would have written them anyway.

 

The only book I can think of that remotely fits the claim that somebody was just trying to cash in is an S/F novel by a Canadian scientist who almost lost his career because of our government's anti-science stance.

 

As for the funding claim...the Bush government is notorious for underfunding global warming research. The Canadian government has cut all science programs, but was especially brutal with climate research. I just don't see where the cash grab is.

 

One of the profs/researchers here at the University of Manitoba pointed out to a few of us that if was in it for personal gain, he'd be way better off writing for "Friends of Science," or some similar place.

 

He's managed to hang on to most of his funding for his research in the north. The thing is that he doesn't get anything for that. It pays for travel, equipment, etc., but he just gets his prof's salary. He'd get that anyway.

 

The same is true of scientists employed by the government. Environment Canada doesn't give you a bonus when they fund your research, they just supply the funds to do that research. Your salary stays the same.

 

Unless you are doing private research...and there doesn't seem to be a lot of that when it comes to climate research in Canada, at least...your personal income is not terribly dependent on global warming. There would be some sort of job there anyway.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont and Rev

 

There are literally thousands of people making careers out of climatology today. Once, as I pointed out before, it was an obscure little subject with a very small number of people supported by minimal research grants by a few universities. All is relative, and compared to that past time, climatologists today are doing very well, both in terms of supporting their careers, and in terms of status.

 

It is rather biased to accept that a vested interest exists to oppose climate change, while refusing to believe that one exists to support it. My assertion is that both exist. If you refuse to believe that, you are being either naive or pig headed.

 

And in response to swansont's statement about besmirching the reputation of scientists, you should be aware that this is a dirty trick played by both sides of the debate. I have seen, right here on SFN, some rather shocking attacks on climate scientists who are sceptical about the more extreme versions of climate change.

 

You should be aware that the whole debate is a two sided coin, with both correct and incorrect views on both sides, and general nastiness coming from both sides.

[Reaper]

Ducking the issue does not relieve you of your responsibility to your claims, SkepticLance, nor does it make the "other side" any more valid.

[Rev Blair]

There are literally thousands of people making a living in computers, genetic research, and digital photography. Is that just greed and avarice, or did changes in knowledge and technology create new opportunities in existing fields?

 

I just wrote a manual on operating the new equipment at a local micro-brewery. Does that my purchase of beer suspect? I have a feeling that part of the reason I got that gig was because I'm familiar with their products (except for the pale ale...I dislike pale ales), and a supporter of the theory behind those products (craft-brewed in small batches). Does that make what I wrote for them suspect?

 

Of course not. I wrote about how their new system works according to the available data. I didn't embellish, I worked from the facts. This machine is now controlled by this computer. It adds x and keeps a constant temperature of y.

 

Have Exxon and other vested interests supported the publication of non-factual arguments, often presented to the public as science, because of their interests? You bet they have.

 

And there's the split. It's just like the creationists and the IDers teaching the controversy. It's just like the tobacco companies hiring people to lie for them.

 

Do ya really think GreenPeace was able to pony up the cash to bribe every scientist doing original work? Did the environmentalists and the socialists bribe the editors of Nature to manipulate the peer review process? Did Al Gore's forebearers pay people to create a theory just in case one of their progeny needed a gig one day?

 

There's a Canadian man named Maurice Strong who regularly gets accused of championing the Kyoto Accord because he's now importing Chinese cars to Canada. Never mind that the Chinese didn't have an auto industry when Kyoto was being negotiated, or that they have tighter emissions standards than either the US or Canada, good old Mo apparently hatched this conspiracy single-handedly back in the 80's, then created climate change theory, manipulated the UN, and influenced everybody involved in the original agreement just so he could import cars 20 years later.

 

When I hear the argument that there's some sort of conspiracy to promote climate change, I always think of Mo and his detractors.

[SkepticLance]

Rev

Please don't over-react. I was trying to introduce a bit of balance here. We get lots of people, enthusiastic about promoting the harm of global climate change, who accuse their debate opponents of being vested interests, or influenced by such. I am pointing out that there are, as always, two sides to any story. Just as there are vested interests in the oil industry etc., there are also vested interests in the newer industries that claim to reduce carbon emissions. Those whose careers depend on public interest in global climate change are also vested interests.

 

This is not an attack on anyone. It is just introducing a bit of balance. There are two sets of vested interests, supporting two sides of the debate. Simple.

[iNow]

Just because there are two opposing sides to an argument does not mean that the truth resides directly in the middle. Sometimes, there are opposing sides, and one side is simply wrong.

[SkepticLance]

iNow

I did not make that claim. Sometimes the truth is somewhat elusive and slippery. Hence these long debates.

 

All I am saying is that there are vested interests on both sides of this argument. If we are honest, we will recognise that fact.

[swansont]

iNow

I did not make that claim. Sometimes the truth is somewhat elusive and slippery. Hence these long debates.

 

The debates get longer when claims are made without supporting evidence being presented, and questions go unanswered.