I am taking pain killers today (non-recreational), so I have not really read through this blog and I may be posting gibberish, but my log-in ID and password permit me to do so.

I am skeptical. It just strikes me as odd that scientists who deal with incomplete information, hypotheses, confidence intervals, etc. are so certain of their conclusions that it is not uncommon for them to demonize those who question their position. Maybe I'm getting the scientists and politicians mixed up, but I have heard the term "global warming denier" more than once, and what those conveying the label are getting at there is not about contradictory scientific conclusions. And of course, the "solution" seems to center on placing large amounts of wealth under the control of politicians.

I'm certainly not claiming that there's any obvious solution to the problem, other than taking symbolic actions such as raising the gasoline tax (with credits for low income people)

My point above having been stated, there are obvious social costs associated with the consumption of gasoline (include national security along with the environment - even if there is no warming, there is an environmental impact). A tax increase on gasoline would be more than symbolic - it would decrease usage more effectively than all the CAFE standards and ethanol pork. But as a practical matter, gasoline prices get the American people a lot more worked up than do videos of melting icebergs.

I am taking pain killers today (non-recreational), so I have not really read through this blog and I may be posting gibberish, but my log-in ID and password permit me to do so.

I am skeptical. It just strikes me as odd that scientists who deal with incomplete information, hypotheses, confidence intervals, etc. are so certain of their conclusions that it is not uncommon for them to demonize those who question their position. Maybe I'm getting the scientists and politicians mixed up, but I have heard the term "global warming denier" more than once, and what those conveying the label are getting at there is not about contradictory scientific conclusions. And of course, the "solution" seems to center on placing large amounts of wealth under the control of politicians.

I'm certainly not claiming that there's any obvious solution to the problem, other than taking symbolic actions such as raising the gasoline tax (with credits for low income people)

My point above having been stated, there are obvious social costs associated with the consumption of gasoline (include national security along with the environment - even if there is no warming, there is an environmental impact). A tax increase on gasoline would be more than symbolic - it would decrease usage more effectively than all the CAFE standards and ethanol pork. But as a practical matter, gasoline prices get the American people a lot more worked up than do videos of melting icebergs.

I am taking pain killers today (non-recreational), so I have not really read through this blog and I may be posting gibberish, but my log-in ID and password permit me to do so.

I am skeptical. It just strikes me as odd that scientists who deal with incomplete information, hypotheses, confidence intervals, etc. are so certain of their conclusions that it is not uncommon for them to demonize those who question their position. Maybe I'm getting the scientists and politicians mixed up, but I have heard the term "global warming denier" more than once, and what those conveying the label are getting at there is not about contradictory scientific conclusions. And of course, the "solution" seems to center on placing large amounts of wealth under the control of politicians.

I'm certainly not claiming that there's any obvious solution to the problem, other than taking symbolic actions such as raising the gasoline tax (with credits for low income people)

My point above having been stated, there are obvious social costs associated with the consumption of gasoline (include national security along with the environment - even if there is no warming, there is an environmental impact). A tax increase on gasoline would be more than symbolic - it would decrease usage more effectively than all the CAFE standards and ethanol pork. But as a practical matter, gasoline prices get the American people a lot more worked up than do videos of melting icebergs.

Oops.

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.

Does that read to you that humans are primarily responsible for warming? It doesn't to those who wrote it. In fact, they rejected two (or perhaps three, the reports are differing) forms of stronger wording before they arrived at this wording.

It does when read in the context of the report.

As to the alarmist point -- I agree that excessive scaremongering isn't helpful. I don't agree that arguing dispassionately and without firm opinions is the best way to convince people. That's just reality. This goes back to Shredder's point about Iraq -- scaremongering works. Now, I'm not saying those concerned about global warming should twist the facts to make their points, but that also doesn't mean they need to constantly qualify their comments and give both sides of the argument. "I think global warming is a serious problem and is caused primarily by human activity" is a perfectly reasonable statement in a policy context.

I wasn't quoting in 309 to make any point, I just thought it was humourous, as I think all scaremongering is. And if you read the post, I didn't quote the hack novelist Michael Crichton, I quoted the reknowned climatoligist, Michael Cruchton.

Touche.

But as a practical matter, gasoline prices get the American people a lot more worked up than do videos of melting icebergs.

Is this a surprise? Many Americans view driving as a necessity, as they are living and working in areas that have ineffective public transportation. I think you could more effectively convince the public to accept a general tax increase than a higher gasoline tax... it's almost like taxing food.

I want what Lastings is having...

“a century is a long way off, and I won’t be available for comment in a hundred years when it becomes a problem.’’

Dominant cultural attitude that's bigger threat than global warming.

I think global warming is a serious problem and is caused primarily by human activity" is a perfectly reasonable statement in a policy context.

I can definitely agree to that. I want to learn the facts before I decide how much humans are affecting global climate change but feel that instead of doing nothing until we a certain we should be taking steps until we are certain. So in the "policy context" I would say until we can be sure of our involvement in global warming we should consider it a serious problem.

Fourth, who gives two ***** what the earth's optimum temperature is, however we define it?

Evidently, the people who think that it's either too high now, or going to be too high in the near future, as the result of anthropogenic global warming. Such as yourself. Obviously if the optimum temperature is hotter than now, mutatis mutandis, then it would hardly make sense to try to slow down or reverse global warming. It's hard to believe that we live in a Panglossian best of all possible environmental worlds, such that <u>any</u> change to the environment is a negative -- but that's what one would conclude from listening to many environmentalists.

You may be right on the 1 or 2%, but where did that info come from? If it's an educated guess, say so.

No, it's fact. You can go to ExxonSecrets and see what the amount of money contributed is (according to Exxon's critics, anyway); you can go to GuideStar and look at AEI's budget.

And a think tank is worse than a lobbying group for the purposes of this discussion. Think Tanks act as echo chambers to amplify and--in some cases--create ideas. They are the perfect vehicles to "manufacture uncertainty." I think that the AEI is going to be looking a lot more at the report's "weaknesses" than its strengths, and I think those weaknesses are going comprised of ad hominem attacks on the researchers as we've already seen from Tom Poquette on this thread and inferior scholarship and appraisal suitable only to produce doubt.

Well, that's a rather wordy way of putting your hands over your ears and yelling "Lalalalalalala Ican'thearyou lalalalalala." Of course if they produce something that's dishonest, that's a reason to condemn them. But to condemn them before they produce anything on the grounds that you don't want to hear any dissent isn't science; it's religion.

Were I to read the paper they produce I would judge it by its merits, of course. I would also hold it to a much higher critical standard than a comprable paper, simply because it was produced as a product of science for sale.

Apparently you think the members of the IPCC work for free? Newsflash: all science is "for sale" in the sense of the people being paid for their work. That's all that's at issue here. To review the IPCC's report is not like dashing off an op-ed for a newspaper; it's going to require a lot of work. Who's going to do that for nothing?

"I think global warming is a serious problem and is caused primarily by human activity" is a perfectly reasonable statement in a policy context.

No question. But not with the add-on of something to the effect of "and anyone who disagrees with me either in degree or kind is a denier, ignoring a consensus of scientists, and has their head in the sand." This need not be an explicitly stated add-on, but many people (some in this thread) imply that those who aren't in agreement are pigheaded, short-sighted, and/or selfish. When did skepticism become a bad word?

Many Americans view driving as a necessity, as they are living and working in areas that have ineffective public transportation.

For many Americans, driving is a necessity. The country was built around the automobile.

Now, most people don't need SUVs, but they do need some form of transportation, and like it or not, the car is currently the dominant mode. I don't currently have a car, but I'm in a small minority for adult Americans.

Some criticism of the 2001 IPCC report from some contributing authors; apparently some on here want us to believe that this new report has fixed all the problems the first three reports had:

The IPCC claims its alarmist “Summaries for Policymakers” represent a consensus of the scientists who worked on the underlying report.

This is simply not true. Several distinguished scientists who have worked on all three of the huge IPCC Assessment Reports have spoken out against the bias and alarmism of the Summaries.

In early 2001, the government functionaries who comprise the IPCC approved Summaries of the Third Assessment Report (TAR). Their “big news” was that the upper limit for warming in the 21st century had been jacked up by almost 50 per cent since last year’s draft - to an alarming 5.8 degrees C.

The co-author of the relevant Report chapter, Martin Manning, said “Many of us in the WG I community think the A1FI [fossil-fuel intensive] emissions are unrealistically high”.

Then Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT, weighed in. He had once again been a lead author of a Report chapter. He scoffed at the idea that the Summaries for Policymakers represented a consensus of scientists. “The truth is”, he said, “that we are not even asked”. Lindzen then gave a public lecture showing how the Summary had misrepresented what the scientists had said, and exaggerated the authority of “undistinguished scientists” who backed the IPCC line.

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, and another lead author of the TAR, then told the London Times that the 5.8 degree model result was “not going to happen” and added that climate models “are not the real world. They have many shortcomings - the sort of tiny shortcomings that can make long-term predictions suspect.” Christy also debunked alarmism about droughts, floods, tornadoes and the spread of malaria.

Another problem with the debate is that the "alarmism" only goes in one direction. We hear worst case scenarios for failing to mitigate global warming, but not worst case scenarios for full mitigation of global warming: e.g., hundreds of millions of people dying because of increased poverty. Those who want to apply the precautionary principle only apply it to technology, not to government.

Some criticism of the 2001 IPCC report from some contributing authors; apparently some on here want us to believe that this new report has fixed all the problems the first three reports had:

'Consensus' doesn't mean total agreement. OF COURSE some of the 200 contributors are going to be unhappy that the consensus doesn't correlate positively /their/ own research. Like I wrote earlier, the latest group of IPCC contributors included research from many researchers who are very critical to present weather models. Moreover, the final report was written in conjunction with government representatives from US and other nations. They used the most cautious language they could get away with. The IPCC report is, as Daryn wrote earlier, it is an incredibly responsible document.

It's courageous, Tom, that you'd acuse me of cherry-picking quotes, then going ahead and cherry-picking quotes. Nobody's arguing that the GW models the IPCC is presenting is 100% accurate; even they don't claim that. But to argut that the three scientists' words here should outweigh everyone else's conclusions simply because they agree with you (or you with them) is pretty weak. If we're just going to pull quotes from different scientists on their opinion of how GW pans out, the GW guys are going to easily outnumber.

Apparently you think the members of the IPCC work for free?

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do.

Tom, you realize that Christy and Lidzen are among the only reputable "skeptics" in the country? Among the climate science community there are probably hundreds of us who believe in anthropogenic warming, and, and I am not exagerrating, less than 10 who disagree.

If that's not consensus, I don't know what you want.

I have a fantastic Dick Lindzen story if anyone cares....

'Consensus' doesn't mean total agreement.

Actually, it does. But it's one of those words that has been bastardized through decades of misuse. But that's just nitpick. More substantively, I think many people think that it does mean that -- that there's complete agreement on AGW.

Apparently you think the members of the IPCC work for free?

Actually, I'm pretty sure they do.

Ah. And I guess you figure that their families eat the approbation of the liberal intelligentsia for dinner? Or do you think they're all independently wealthy and can afford to spend extensive periods of time without income?

We hear worst case scenarios for failing to mitigate global warming, but not worst case scenarios for full mitigation of global warming: e.g., hundreds of millions of people dying because of increased poverty.

I'd think 'full mitigation of global warming' == 'status quo' or something pretty close, wouldn't it? If the status quo has come up with a solution to the problem of millions of people dying because of increased poverty, it's news to me. Death by poverty is a completely non-unique, as any number of things can and do cause mass poverty. Death and poverty due to mass displacement due to rising waters, that's something unique to GW.

And it's not as if we didn't know that much of what our industries have put into the land, sea and are were bad for the environment. I'm fine with the argument that it was necessary for the growth of industry, but the technology to cut down on pollutants exist, and we use it already. I don't see why further applications of cleaner technologies is so controversial -- it's an industry that's just waiting to explode, and we should be eager to foster that industry and reap the economic as well as environmental rewards. I'd love it if, in two hundred years, instead of Big Oil, people were also complaining about Big Solar and Big Nuke.

I wonder how many people on this site agree (at least to some extent) with Dick Cheney's 1% doctrine -- i.e., that we have to take preemptive action against an enemy like Iraq or Iran if there's even a 1% chance that they'll nuke us. If so, what's the threshold for taking preemptive action against global warming? Is it a 20% chance of serious problems? 50%? 75%? Should the standard be different in those two cases?

I have a fantastic Dick Lindzen story if anyone cares....

Let's hear it.

'Consensus' doesn't mean total agreement.

Actually, it does.

No, it really doesn't. At the rist of getting into a definitional argument (at which point this thread will surely die), it's general agreement, or a judgment arrived at by most, but not necessarily all of those concerned, according to Mirriam-Webster.

Rist? Risk.

Ah. And I guess you figure that their families eat the approbation of the liberal intelligentsia for dinner? Or do you think they're all independently wealthy and can afford to spend extensive periods of time without income?

Give me an f***ing break. Of course they have jobs and salaries. So do the scientists the AEI is recruiting. The issue is whether they're being paid extra to work on the IPCC, just as the scientists the AEI is recruiting are being offered $10K in addition to their regular salaries. Comparing the $10K to the IPCC scientists' regular salaries is not an apples to apples comparison.

American Heritage Dictionary - con·sen·sus (k?n-s?n's?s)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

But I guess this is the "bastardized" definition.

So my Dick Lidzen story:

Lidzen is the only "real" scientist who's a skeptic; I mean, other guys are out there, but they're either really old (like Bill Gray) or at shitty second tier universities....Lindzen is undenably brilliant, has a great faculty position (its easier to get research funding if you're a skeptic if you have a brain, so I suspect that's what drives the handful of guys at third-tier type schools to be skeptic).

Anyways, so I was talking to some of the people I work with about Lindzen...I saw him speak once, he struck me as a bit of an ass, but, I mean, many famous profs are arrogant asses, so that's nothing new. What they told me, universally, was that, and I quote, "Dick Lindzen is the biggest ####### in the world...he's so convinced he's smarter than everyone else that he'll go against the grain just because if he's right, he'll look like a genius. He'll never agree with consensus, ever". (Keep in mind, this was said by one of his colleagues at MIT).

Ok, so fast foward to a holiday dinner at my parents house. One of my dad's friends knows I study climate. He asks me, "what have you heard about dick Lindzen?" I reply "well, he's the only major skeptic.." and my dad's friend says, "I know that...but what do people make of him?"

I retell the above story about Lindzen being an #######, but including the name of the MIT professor who told me that he was a jerk...when I finish, my dad's friend gives me a little smile and says,
"I'm really good friends with Dick. He was my roommate in college."
My jaw drops.

"But don't worry about it. He is exactly that kind of #######."

A consensus is total agreement among the members of the group. You cannot reach a consensus if one member of the group does not agree to it. People sometimes call it a consensus when a group of 100 people decide to do something because 94 of them think it is the right thing to do. But a consensus requires everyone to agree. This definitional hairsplitting becomes pretty important if you are a member of a partnership, for example, in which you have agreed to only do certain things if a consensus is reached.

Tom, you realize that Christy and Lidzen are among the only reputable "skeptics" in the country? Among the climate science community there are probably hundreds of us who believe in anthropogenic warming, and, and I am not exagerrating, less than 10 who disagree.

If that's not consensus, I don't know what you want.

Yeah, but the skeptics aren't wasting their time posting at a baseball site.

A consensus is total agreement among the members of the group.

This is unquestionably right. The other view is "majority" opinion, not consensus. There was no consensus in 12 Angry Men. Everybody must sign on to the agreement. This is why seeking consensus will often produce compromise documents or legislation. That's consensus.

And 'zop, no offense, but I really hate the dismissal of scientists (or any scholar) b/c they work at 2nd tier universities. That's just circular ########. It's not science.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind, none at all, that this can't be accomplished with making the job situation even better. That's the problem with Bush, he sees every change as a dead end, not as an opportunity for renewal and growth.

That's what is so exciting about climate change. Like war, it should be causing all sorts of incredible technological improvements -- starting with the electric car and all things that might improve about electrical power as a result of creating a pure electric car. Climate change fear hopefully will push us into an era of invention and creation so that our world is so vastly different 50 years from now that these global warming threats seem then to be as anachronistic as every previous doomsday threat that we have managed to avoid seems now.

I mean, really, do we need to make MP3 players any smaller? Let's work on something of value.

Softball, let me explain what you did with IPCC report in baseball terms: If Pecota predicts at the 95% percentile that Albert Pujols is going to hit 80 home runs, then your methodology will state "Albert Pujols is going to hit 80 home runs according to Pecota."

You deliberately ignored the less alarmist '.4 meter rise in ocean water per century', choosing instead to cite the doom and gloom scenario listed later in the paragraph. You did likewise with the predicted tempurature rise; instead of 3.5 to 7 degrees increase, you used "up to 7 degrees, even 8" comment. That tactic is completely different than my quoting skepticism with the IPCC report from some writers on the project.

Here's a paraphrase of what has been learned so far:

1) There is a consensus global warming is occuring
2) There is no consensus as to how much mankind is affecting global warming
3) There is no consensus to the consequences of global warming

Settle point 2 and 3, then we'll talk. Until then, it is just alarmism from the same environmental crowd that has been preaching doom and glood for 40 years now (I'm not talking about the scientists...just the media cheerleaders and the "wasn't it great when we all didn't have air conditioning" crowd.)

Consensus doesn't mean total agreement, Daryn. In a group large enough, you could never achieve consensus using that definition.

That may be how it is practically used in some circles, but I can tell you at least in Canada, legally, it means total agreement. Whole areas of partnership law are based on this definition. I'd be surprised if partnership agreements in the states were interpreted by the courts differently, but I don't know. There are three primary typs of votes in partnerships - consensus, super-majority and majority, and consensus requires everyone.

I'd think 'full mitigation of global warming' == 'status quo' or something pretty close, wouldn't it? If the status quo has come up with a solution to the problem of millions of people dying because of increased poverty, it's news to me. Death by poverty is a completely non-unique, as any number of things can and do cause mass poverty. Death and poverty due to mass displacement due to rising waters, that's something unique to GW.

You misunderstand David's point (I think). The world gets some benefit from the emissions that are generating the greenhouse gases that appear to be causing global warming. If the world wasn't getting some benefit, then everybody would have signed the Kyoto Treaty, China and India would have volunteered to be included, and we'd all be holding hands and singing Kumbaya. That benefit is economic progress - we benefit from the internal combustion engine, for example, by being able to go where we want to go, have stuff delivered to us, etc. So, there's clearly going to be an economic cost to reducing greenhouse gases - at least in the short run.

In the long run, Kevin could well be right that new technology will lead to increased economic growth (I think he is). But, from Kevin's example, I'm quite sure that those who worked in the livery stables were pretty upset when the car drove those stables out of business.

And 'zop, no offense, but I really hate the dismissal of scientists (or any scholar) b/c they work at 2nd tier universities. That's just circular ########. It's not science.

It is science. That's not to say that there isn't good work done at 2nd tier schools, or #### coming out of the fancy places. But the difference in average quality between the two is astounding.

There are some 2nd tier schools with brilliant programs: Oregon State has an ungodly glaciology program. Minnesota is home to Larry Edwards, who basically invented speleothem-derived climatology with his U-Th dating work. Texas A&M has a superb oceanography school.

But there is, in general, a substantial difference in quality of work as you move down the food chain, I think more so in science than in the humanities (where the job market is tighter).

There is no consensus as to how much mankind is affecting global warming.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself. Basically, it's made up of two separate words — "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

I should add (to #360), if it's really true that the developer of a clean, viable alternative fuel will become the richest person on the planet, then the "invisible hand" will lead to cleaner alternative fuels. In which case the appropriate role of government is largely to make sure that such research is not DIS-couraged and that "Big Oil" isn't being subsidized. And, of course, there are excellent arguments for both of those things that don't really need one to accept the alarmist view of global warming.

Daryn, I think it's more a definitional mix-up than anything else. The American dictionary definition has a different take on 'consensus', and it's the definition I and some others are using.

The other view is "majority" opinion, not consensus. There was no consensus in 12 Angry Men. Everybody must sign on to the agreement. This is why seeking consensus will often produce compromise documents or legislation. That's consensus.

You don't need unanimity to produce legislation, of course. Often, just a legislative simple majority and the chief executive is enough.

There's a difference between the legal use and the venacular use of 'consensus'. In legalese, a consensus is indeed total agreement. I hope we can agree that the conventional dictionary use of the word can be accepted here without people freaking out.

For instance, I didn't realize how economical wind power is in certain parts of the country. With a modest investment, stated like Montana and the Dakotas could easily provide for 100% of their electrical needs by exploiting their wind resources.

Some parts of the country are wind dead, like the southeast. But anywhere there are significant mountains or large bodies of water or swaths of prairie nearby, there's gold in them thar winds.

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more.

Unfortunately, it seems as though whenever somebody advocates constructing a wind farm in an area where it actually makes sense to do so, you either end up with some powerful limousine liberals complaining that the turbines are going to ruin their pristine view from their palatial multimillion dollar compounds, or you get a wing of the environmental lobby that tries to kill it because the turbines pose a potential threat to flocks of migratory birds. In fact, you usually get both, and the wind farm dies on the political vine.

It's garbage like this that makes some of us wonder if the environmentalists are really people that should be taken seriously, or if they're just plain mental.

Unfortunately, it seems as though whenever somebody advocates constructing a wind farm in an area where it actually makes sense to do so, you either end up with some powerful limousine liberals complaining that the turbines are going to ruin their pristine view from their palatial multimillion dollar compounds, or you get a wing of the environmental lobby that tries to kill it because the turbines pose a potential threat to flocks of migratory birds. In fact, you usually get both, and the wind farm dies on the political vine.

the post was talking about montana and the dakotas, which are, you know, a bit different from nantucket sound.

1) There is a consensus global warming is occuring
2) There is no consensus as to how much mankind is affecting global warming
3) There is no consensus to the consequences of global warming

Settle point 2 and 3, then we'll talk. Until then, it is just alarmism from the same environmental crowd that has been preaching doom and glood for 40 years now

On the opposite end of the spectrum from the "doom-and-gloom alarmists" are those people who refuse to do anything about anything unless they "get all the facts". You're never going to have unanimity on any issue, whether it be war or energy or the Three Stooges. Climate modeling isn't an exact science, so someone who doesn't buy into GW or its possible effects will always have an out.

I just wonder why the same people who are so circumspect about GW are so cavalier in other legislative areas. It would cost us nothing to shift government subsidies from large multi-national energy corporations who don't need government funding to survive towards R&D of a multitude of clean, environmentally friendly fuel alternatives.

the post was talking about montana and the dakotas, which are, you know, a bit different from nantucket sound.

Great Falls, Montana

"Environmental and transmission concerns have prompted the Texas-based developer of a major commercial wind farm in northeast Montana to propose a much smaller project."

"Conservation groups also raised concerns because of the size of the project and its proximity to the Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area."

"Mark Good, field coordinator in Great Falls for the Montana Wilderness Association, said MWA supports wind power but has concerns about a "gigantic project" bordering a wilderness study area. The area's open space makes it special and serves as a reminder of what plains once looked like, he said.

'There's a place for them,' he said of larger wind projects, 'but maybe it's not every place.'"

That sounds exactly like what Joey was talking about.

Whenever I see a wind turbine, I think "Ah! Free electricity!".

I think the same exact thing whenever I see a hydroelectric dam.

For my money, the Hoover Dam is one of the greatest creations in the history of mankind, and Three Gorges in China will be even more impressive.

But even there, you have to go through all of the typical big political battles over the salmon and all the other local environmental issues.

It's garbage like this that makes some of us wonder if the environmentalists are really people that should be taken seriously, or if they're just plain mental.

Or it could suggest that "environmentalism" is a fairly imprecise label for a variety of different causes, ranging from hunters and fishers concerned about conservation to housewives concerned about the local factory to hard core Greens, and lots of people in between.

It's as precise as calling someone a Christian.

That sounds exactly like what Joey was talking about.

sounds a lot more like a rip at kennedy.

Or it could suggest that "environmentalism" is a fairly imprecise label for a variety of different causes, ranging from hunters and fishers concerned about conservation to housewives concerned about the local factory to hard core Greens, and lots of people in between.

A fair point, of course. But regardless, the point is that alternative energy sources come at a cost, even "free" ones like wind, and some, if not most, of that cost is coming from people on the same general side as the global warming alarmists. If your choice is windmills in your backyard or catastrophic climate change, that seems to be a fairly simple choice to make.

I'm a big fan of wind turbines as well. I saw a few while vacationing in WV a few years ago and had to stop the car to get a better look at them.

I think somebody should point out to Teddy that the Dutch don't regard their windmills as eyesores. In fact, they regard them as tourists attractions.

My easy solution for people like this. If they don't want wind turbines near their homes, rip out all the power lines. They get no electricity.

Give me an f***ing break. Of course they have jobs and salaries. So do the scientists the AEI is recruiting. The issue is whether they're being paid extra to work on the IPCC, just as the scientists the AEI is recruiting are being offered $10K in addition to their regular salaries. Comparing the $10K to the IPCC scientists' regular salaries is not an apples to apples comparison.

When you find "IPCC scientists" that exist solely off "regular salaries" and don't get grants to subsidize their work, please let me know, okay?

And 'zop, no offense, but I really hate the dismissal of scientists (or any scholar) b/c they work at 2nd tier universities. That's just circular ########. It's not science.

It is science. That's not to say that there isn't good work done at 2nd tier schools, or #### coming out of the fancy places. But the difference in average quality between the two is astounding.


No, it isn't science. JC wasn't talking about the quality of work that comes out of the various tiers. FWIW, as a 2nd (or 3rd, even) tier guy, I agree with you about the average quality coming out of places. However, when a big-name guy at a top tier school publishes a piece it shouldn't be judged as "right" because he's a big-name guy at a top tier school. It should be judged right only if it checks out. Too often throughout science - not just in climate debates - the opinion of someone at the top-tier school is used as proof and the opinion of someone at a lower tier dismissed without any checking of facts or data.

Now, of course it is very human to trust the opinions of those who are highly credentialed and have achieved much. It is even a good bet. However, the highly credentialed, high achievers of this generation are the guys the next generation proves wrong. Certainty based on the opinions of the big names is a false certainty.

Again, I don't think this makes you wrong on this particular issue, but simply designating folks worth based on where they work a) won't win many friends and allies (as there are few top tier guys) and b) sets you up for dramatic falls.

I'd think 'full mitigation of global warming' == 'status quo' or something pretty close, wouldn't it? If the status quo has come up with a solution to the problem of millions of people dying because of increased poverty, it's news to me. Death by poverty is a completely non-unique, as any number of things can and do cause mass poverty. Death and poverty due to mass displacement due to rising waters, that's something unique to GW.

As to your second statement, it's unclear to me why uniqueness is interesting. As to your first, economic growth, combined with what people nowadays seem to call "globalization" but which I've never quite figured out how it differs from plain ol' free trade. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty (not by American standards, of course, but by absolute standards) as a result of these over the last two decades.

This is a false trade-off.

Whenever there's been large-scale technology turnover, that has created jobs, not diminshed them.

Think of the transportation industry. Are you really, really lamenting the loss of all those livery stables? Do you think the invention of the automobile, the railed locomotive and the airplane are really such a tragedy in the efforts to sustain zero unemployment?

No, the exact opposite. But then government didn't declare by fiat that the equestrian industry would be driven out of existence in favor of mechanized transport.

The fallacy in your comparison is that you're describing turnover that happens as the result of natural economic forces, whereas now we're talking about turnover mandated by government. To argue that the latter is the same as the former is the Broken Windows fallacy. Hey, if that logic held, government could order microchips to be phased out of the economy over the next decade, and we'd all get wealthier because it would represent "large scale technology turnover."

I just wonder why the same people who are so circumspect about GW are so cavalier in other legislative areas. It would cost us nothing to shift government subsidies from large multi-national energy corporations who don't need government funding to survive towards R&D of a multitude of clean, environmentally friendly fuel alternatives.

How about the even better alternative of cutting the subsidies entirely and passing that savings on to the American people in the form of lower taxes?

But assuming that's not possible, I have no problem with the government reallocating its money to development rather than corporate welfare.

'Consensus' doesn't mean total agreement.

Traditionally, Quakers make decisions by 'consensus.' As I understand it, one unrelenting dissent can prevent a decision being made; the person dissenting needs to take back his/her objections, or the group must find a way to adapt the idea in such a way as make it palatable to the dissenter. Consensus may be defined differently elsewhere, but that's (what I understand to be) the Quakerly way of defining it. (I might cynically suggest it's why so many Quakers believe in autocracy -- they've had to endure too many lengthy group discussions needlessly prolonged by one person's concern).

I would think you would approve of that, David, seeing as how you are a big advocate of free enterprise. I see the role of government in this area of simply greasing the skids.

Then you really don't grasp libertarian views. Corporate welfare is the antithesis of free enterprise. Government picking winners and losers is not "free enterprise."

(That doesn't mean that there may not be a role for government in certain contexts, but that's not "free enterprise." And that role should be as limited as possible. For instance, in the context of global warming, the only reasonable approach is a carbon tax, which is a neutral stance that allows the market to sort out the best technologies without letting government "grease the skids" in favor of the politically connected.)

Railroads didn't prosper because government gave them land; railroads prospered because they happened to be a good idea. History is replete with examples of government "greasing the skids" in favor of lousy technologies, thereby setting back progress.

I think it's more a definitional mix-up than anything else. The American dictionary definition has a different take on 'consensus', and it's the definition I and some others are using.

Unless I am just getting cranky in my middle-age, it seems like dictionaries are becoming increasingly liberal in their allowance of colloquial definitions and pronunciations. If enough people misuse or mispronounce a word, it becomes a new standard. Obviously, that is how language evolves and it is not a new phenomenon; but it does seem to me that is becoming increasingly common, and that the English language is losing some precise definitions.

Crosbybird-- I read through your links, and one thing I noticed (aside from two of them being from before 2002) was that the same names keep popping up. I'm no climate scientist (Biochem student), but I'm familiar up to my eyeballs with evolution deniers. Their claims I can recognize in a minute. Here, I'm not so certain of my abilities to tell crap from meaningful science. But one thing that pops up whenever you're dealing with a minority position (or a position of kookery) is that the same names pop up over and over in the reading.

Take Richard Lindzen, for example. He appeared in several of the links you provided. So I plugged his name into the search engine on Realclimate.org and read a few posts. He seems to be a guy that the staff over at realclimate disagrees with, but he does seem to be an actual scientist.

However, Lindzen also makes several calls that I've heard too many times, and which are part and parcel of attempts by special interests groups (tobacco, exxonmobil, republicans) in "manufacturing uncertainty." Among these claims are the need for "more research," the cherry picking of qualifying points in the articles to make it seem that there is more doubt about their conclusions. I saw numerous instances of these tactics in each link you cited. In one link, they quoted four experts: three of them were Lindzen! And not one before 2002, once again. These patterns (outdated research, cherry-picking quotes, ever increasing burdens of proof, lack of response to new data) give me cause for doubt in Lindzen.

I've just now finished reading the Deming article. He's spouting coverup conspiracy theories. Claiming vast conspiracies to coverup the truth in science (And go against your pet ideas) is akin to comparing yourself to Isaac Newton or Galileo: It marks you as an instant crackpot.

The Marshall paper is simplistic and unconvincing. I assume it was written as a policy piece, because it certainly couldn't have been published as one of science. It scatter a bit of doubt, but only in a narrow sense. Places where it cannot place doubt it ignores. It's just not a very good paper.

I have not read the de Freitas paper, as its 31 pages long. I just haven't got the time. I will try to tackle it later today.

I noticed many patterns in those papers that I'm all too familiar with. No, these are not legitimate markers of dissent within the scientific community, with the possible exception of the de Freitas paper, though it is published the Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology.

No question. But not with the add-on of something to the effect of "and anyone who disagrees with me either in degree or kind is a denier, ignoring a consensus of scientists, and has their head in the sand." This need not be an explicitly stated add-on, but many people (some in this thread) imply that those who aren't in agreement are pigheaded, short-sighted, and/or selfish. When did skepticism become a bad word?

When it became synonymous with "manufactured uncertainty." Crosbybird, you've been played like a violin. These organizations--like the AEI--that produce doubt as a product know that rebellion and skepticism are valued traits in our society, and they're playing on your emotions to guide your opinion. And it's worked. They took an issue (global warming) created and funded several separate opposing viewpoints, and played on your sense of fair play. Sir, if you don't mind, I'll toss my chips in with the scientists, not with the experts for sale.

In the real world, if the sea level rose an inch a year, it would (very) gradually render coastal areas unlivable, allowing more than enough time for the people there to live somewhere else.

This costs cash-money. What if you live on a low lying island, or on an impoverished delta? What if you haven't got anywhere to go? I hate to be blunt, but you're only seeing one sliver of the problem, and you're not even addressing that fully.

To all those posting about "alarmists," no one on this thread is an alarmist. I've read the posts, pages 3 to 4. None of the posts that appear can be characterized as alarmist.

I am a global warming skeptic. It just strikes me as odd that scientists who deal with incomplete information, hypotheses, confidence intervals, etc. are so certain of their conclusions that it is not uncommon for them to demonize those who question their position. Maybe I'm getting the scientists and politicians mixed up, but I have heard the term "global warming denier" more than once, and what those conveying the label are getting at there is not about contradictory scientific conclusions.

Lastings, you're getting science and politics mixed up. You've fallen for the "manufactured uncertainty" ploy. Those who "manufacture uncertainty" as a product know that if they sow enough doubt persistently, people without an intimate knowledge of the scientific situation will favor political solutions--compromise and promises of more study. It's good politics. It's bad science.

And if you read about scientists being ticked off, they should be. They've got well funded organizations whose sole purpose is to puncture and deflate their work, using tactics of confusion and obfuscation. Biologists have already gotten pissed. Climate Scientists are getting there. If you don't like reading about angry scientists in the coming years, shut your eyes.

Well, that's a rather wordy way of putting your hands over your ears and yelling "Lalalalalalala Ican'thearyou lalalalalala." Of course if they produce something that's dishonest, that's a reason to condemn them. But to condemn them before they produce anything on the grounds that you don't want to hear any dissent isn't science; it's religion.

Apparently you think the members of the IPCC work for free? Newsflash: all science is "for sale" in the sense of the people being paid for their work. That's all that's at issue here. To review the IPCC's report is not like dashing off an op-ed for a newspaper; it's going to require a lot of work. Who's going to do that for nothing?

David, they're going to produce something dishonest. Stop denying that, it's true. Second, the members of the IPCC don't have to say something their sponsors will agree with. They won't be fired or punished in any way for producing honest work. If the guys being offered $10,000 by the AEI want to get a crack at that $10,000 dollars again they'll have to produce work that agrees with AEI's position. This should be obvious. It is obvious. And now you know.

#336 - Tom, I addressed all those points in the above post, since you took them all from the worst one of crosbybird's links.

Tom, you realize that Christy and Lidzen are among the only reputable "skeptics" in the country? Among the climate science community there are probably hundreds of us who believe in anthropogenic warming, and, and I am not exagerrating, less than 10 who disagree.

Huh! It's always nice to be told you're right. I guess my hunch on the nature of this debate was correct.

2) There is no consensus as to how much mankind is affecting global warming
3) There is no consensus to the consequences of global warming

2) This is splitting hairs. We've talked about how, over geological time, warming during the industrial revolution has been unprecedented. We're having a great deal of effect.

3) The consequences will suck. Read this thread.

Unfortunately, it seems as though whenever somebody advocates constructing a wind farm in an area where it actually makes sense to do so, you either end up with some powerful limousine liberals complaining that the turbines are going to ruin their pristine view from their palatial multimillion dollar compounds

Yes. yes...all those "limousine liberals" in the Dakotas, in their "palatial multimillion dollar compounds." Rush, is that you? Lay off the Oxytocin, man!

It's garbage like this that makes some of us wonder if the environmentalists are really people that should be taken seriously, or if they're just plain mental.

It is Rush. Or Michael Savage, I'm not sure. But they're dead wrong, whoever they are.

Joey B--I love dams, too. Been to see a few in my lifetime. The problem is that the dams we have aren't being utilized properly. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has turned the Mississippi into a series of lakes. The sediment that would travel down to the marcses by New Orleans no longer does, contributing to the loss of land in that area to the ocean.

In the real world, if the sea level rose an inch a year, it would (very) gradually render coastal areas unlivable, allowing more than enough time for the people there to live somewhere else.


This costs cash-money. What if you live on a low lying island, or on an impoverished delta? What if you haven't got anywhere to go? I hate to be blunt, but you're only seeing one sliver of the problem, and you're not even addressing that fully.

To all those posting about "alarmists," no one on this thread is an alarmist. I've read the posts, pages 3 to 4. None of the posts that appear can be characterized as alarmist.

I'm not denying that it would cost money; I was contending that I wouldn't characterize that as cities being "destroyed." This is just splitting hairs, but when I read "destroy" I think of a "Day After Tomorrow" ice storm burying Manhattan.

That's also where I start to sense some alarmism -- in the choosing of words to characterize an issue that, in my uninformed opinion, don't quite seem to match up with the actual claims.

But all in all, for various reasons generally not involved with climate change, I think cleaner emissions is probably a good idea. I also feel like as fossil fuels become more expensive, this will more or less naturally happen. My mom is a VC, and funding for alternative energy source startups is going through the roof. I don't think this makes me part of an "ostrich brigade."

Theoretically, I could get behind a gas tax to help spur this along, as fundamentally it would be a tax on the social cost of the possibility of the extreme outcomes mentioned earlier. So to the extent that fossil fuels should be phased out because of global warming, that's my position, as of now.

Did anybody catch C-Span yesterday?
Subject: Funding to rebuild Iraq
Quick summary:
Rep.Waxman-"Can you tell us how the 8 billion dollars was distributed"
Chief Auditor---- "No"

THAT,boys,is a greased skid

oooooh, I am looking forward to the global warming thread.

When you find "IPCC scientists" that exist solely off "regular salaries" and don't get grants to subsidize their work, please let me know, okay?

So you don't dispute that scientists were not getting paid for their participation in the IPCC, right?

This may be right. But I can't imagine a crook like David Legates being employed at a top-tier school.

With so much financial incentive for someone with a middling career to become "contrarian", I think that one needs to look very carefully at someones credentials and motivations before accepting them as an unbiased voice.

No, it isn't science. JC wasn't talking about the quality of work that comes out of the various tiers. FWIW, as a 2nd (or 3rd, even) tier guy, I agree with you about the average quality coming out of places. However, when a big-name guy at a top tier school publishes a piece it shouldn't be judged as "right" because he's a big-name guy at a top tier school. It should be judged right only if it checks out. Too often throughout science - not just in climate debates - the opinion of someone at the top-tier school is used as proof and the opinion of someone at a lower tier dismissed without any checking of facts or data.

Now, of course it is very human to trust the opinions of those who are highly credentialed and have achieved much. It is even a good bet. However, the highly credentialed, high achievers of this generation are the guys the next generation proves wrong. Certainty based on the opinions of the big names is a false certainty.

David, they're going to produce something dishonest. Stop denying that, it's true. Second, the members of the IPCC don't have to say something their sponsors will agree with. They won't be fired or punished in any way for producing honest work. If the guys being offered $10,000 by the AEI want to get a crack at that $10,000 dollars again they'll have to produce work that agrees with AEI's position. This should be obvious. It is obvious. And now you know.

Of coarse that is how it will work! Honestly you claim everything that is not the way you think it is to be dishonest. I work for a company that does sponsor studies in which sometimes comes out making us look negative. We DO hire those scientists back even though their previous findings did not help our bottom line. There is a line to be crossed but it is not when they disagree with us it is when they take the money and use it to campaign against us. I have seen many scientist/Dr.s return after writing papers that make us look bad.

Why do ask them back? Because they are reputable not because they are yes men/women.

Honestly you claim everything that is not the way you think it is to be dishonest.

should read: Honestly you claim everything that is not the way you think it should be to be dishonest.

It is Rush. Or Michael Savage, I'm not sure. But they're dead wrong, whoever they are.

Joey B--I love dams, too. Been to see a few in my lifetime. The problem is that the dams we have aren't being utilized properly. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has turned the Mississippi into a series of lakes. The sediment that would travel down to the marcses by New Orleans no longer does, contributing to the loss of land in that area to the ocean.

Unfortunately, it's true: every existing means of creating energy (or converting energy into electricty) has some costs and side effects, unless you're powering your home with a generator hooked up to a stationary bike and you're pedaling your own electricty. If you build a windmill, unfortunately there's some chance that a bird might fly into the blades. Building dams carries ecological side effects. Nuclear power is pretty good, but you still have to deal with the waste.

There's no more free energy any more than there's a free lunch. Maybe nuclear fusion will one day solve all the problems? Perhaps, but it hasn't been invented yet, and even there you might have unforeseen side issues.

I'm not sure what the alternative is for serious people, other than maybe gradually reverting civilization back to a more primitive state where we're all farmers and hunter-gatherers once again. Overall, I believe that technological progress has been a net plus for mankind and will continue to be. Without it, how are we going to keep exchanging ad hominem attacks here over the Internets?

David, they're going to produce something dishonest. Stop denying that, it's true. Second, the members of the IPCC don't have to say something their sponsors will agree with. They won't be fired or punished in any way for producing honest work. If the guys being offered $10,000 by the AEI want to get a crack at that $10,000 dollars again they'll have to produce work that agrees with AEI's position. This should be obvious. It is obvious. And now you know.

More lalalalalalala. What's "obvious" is that you're not interested in honest discussion. You don't even know what "AEI's position" is, but you've already decided that it is "something dishonest."

And as for the IPCC thing, you're either extremely naive or extremely... naive. Grants that come from foundations or the government are not less "tainted" than grants that come anybody else. If you produce something saying, "It's not a problem" when they want you to find a problem, you can look elsewhere for your next grant. But in either case, the work must be judged on its own merits, not based on assumptions of bias.

I'll freely admit to not giving a sh!t about migrating birds, but if you're going to build something that purports to be eco-friendly, then it might not be the worst thing in the world to, you know, not kill off the local fauna. (I would be far more riled up if the technology killed fish, because fish are delicious.)

Two technologies related to this aspect of wind power come to mind. One group is adapting ultrasonic sound waves as a barrier to keep animals away from the area, a pretty bloodless solution. Another is using old off-shore platforms and adapting them to station floating wind turbines. Both avoid the two biggest objections to turbines, NIMBY and bird killing. After all, the choices aren't between wind turbines and birds, but wind turbines and GW.

As to your second statement, it's unclear to me why uniqueness is interesting. As to your first, economic growth, combined with what people nowadays seem to call "globalization" but which I've never quite figured out how it differs from plain ol' free trade. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty (not by American standards, of course, but by absolute standards) as a result of these over the last two decades.

Nobody here is arguing against plain ol' free trade, unless you're going to make the argument that the advancement of warming-mitigating technologies will tamp down trade. You're right, though, on one thing: I don't know of any research showing what would happen if we successfully controlled global warming. I don't why you'd think hundreds of millions of people will die if that happened. I DO know hundreds of millions of people die right now because of crushing poverty that has nothing to do with global warming.

David, I'm too experienced to be convinced by that non-argument. I've seen enough doubt manufactured in my time to know when and where there's honest debate and when and where there's manufactured debate. I've seen this pattern before, and whether you admit it or not, there is no debate as to the main points of global warming. And organizations--like AEI--are trying to manufacture that debate. AEI has set out to poke holes in the IPCC study, reread the letter you posted. They have a vested interest, the scientists working the IPCC report did not.

Thank you, sir, but I'll take the side of science.

Without it, how are we going to keep exchanging ad hominem attacks here over the Internets?

Sorry Joey, seems my rhetoric has overheated.

Biscuit-pants: Well you work for an excellent company. I have no idea whether AEI follows such principles.

Well, so are birds. Think chicken, turkey, pheasant, quail and duck.

Man, I don't care 'bout no chickens! When farm-raised poultry start migrating, I'll be concerned.

You're right, though, on one thing: I don't know of any research showing what would happen if we successfully controlled global warming. I don't why you'd think hundreds of millions of people will die if that happened. I DO know hundreds of millions of people die right now because of crushing poverty that has nothing to do with global warming.

Controlling global warming costs money. That money could instead be spent on other things, such as "trade" (free or otherwise) or poverty-reduction programs. It's a classic economics problem - hell, it basically is THE economics problem. We have finite resources - money, natural resources, human capital - and unlimited wants - better lifestyle, less poverty, cleaner environment, cooler Earth. There's a tradeoff - choosing to spend more of our limited resources on one of our wants - a cooler Earth - likely leaves less to be spent on other wants - e.g., reducing poverty.

I have no idea whether AEI follows such principles.

But you will assume that they do not because you think they might contradict your definitive answer on the issue.

Look, I'm not even saying the IPCC is wrong. To be fair, I lack the particular knowledge and inclination to properly review their work records. I'm saying that there isn't a consensus (because there are those who disagree), that the problems may be exaggerated (as evidenced by some quotes earlier in the thread to the effect of "we know it's not THAT bad, but we want to scare people into action"), and that the political movement has eclipsed the science as those with dissenting opinion are often treated like Flat-Earthers or Holocaust deniers.

Real scientists should not bother to question the motivations of a dissenter's research; the motivation of true science is fully irrelevant. How much they were paid and whom they were paid by is irrelevant. The results will speak for themselves. The questions as to methodology are either legitimate or they are not, and no amount of money will change that.

Unless one is to believe that these opposition scientists are producing fraudulent results (an exceptionally strong accusation), the reality is that much of this issue is theoretical and not yet established scientific fact. That doesn't mean it may not be the BEST theory, or that we should do nothing, or that they have pants that are on fire. It means that discussion/debate/questioning is appropriate.

Controlling global warming costs money. That money could instead be spent on other things, such as "trade" (free or otherwise) or poverty-reduction programs. It's a classic economics problem - hell, it basically is THE economics problem.

This goes back to the Copenhagen Consensus Center comments from pages 2 and 3, where major economists designated which problems we should be solving first. And as I said in my previous post on the subject, I'm all for following the CCC's suggestions and addressing disease and malnutrition long before global warming. The problem clearly isn't that we're addressing global warming ahead of disease or malnutrition, it's that until gas in the USA got expensive and Al Gore made a movie, we didn't really address it at all.

Moreover, we exactly achieved blockbuster moves in controlling AIDS and HIV in the Third World, or solving famine. I'm not blaming First World nations for not solving everyone's problems -- I'm just pointing out that if we have to wait until all those other problems are completely solved, we'll never, ever address global warming issues. Human beings can walk and chew gum at the same time; we should be able to address more than one need at a time, especially since we've put so little into addressing those needs as it is.

David, I'm too experienced to be convinced by that non-argument. I've seen enough doubt manufactured in my time to know when and where there's honest debate and when and where there's manufactured debate.

And I know the difference between honest argument and attempt to squelch debate.

I've seen this pattern before, and whether you admit it or not, there is no debate as to the main points of global warming. And organizations--like AEI--are trying to manufacture that debate. AEI has set out to poke holes in the IPCC study, reread the letter you posted. They have a vested interest, the scientists working the IPCC report did not.

Of course they did/do. Science may be neutral, but scientists are not. And you re-read the letter I posted. They're not trying to "manufacture debate." They're looking to see the implications of applying the IPCC report to policy discussions.

Well, so are birds. Think chicken, turkey, pheasant, quail and duck.

Well, I'm not an ornithologist, but I doubt many chickens are going to be flying into windmill blades.

Nobody here is arguing against plain ol' free trade, unless you're going to make the argument that the advancement of warming-mitigating technologies will tamp down trade. You're right, though, on one thing: I don't know of any research showing what would happen if we successfully controlled global warming. I don't why you'd think hundreds of millions of people will die if that happened. I DO know hundreds of millions of people die right now because of crushing poverty that has nothing to do with global warming.

And that number is getting smaller every year, because of economic growth. Reversing global warming will cost money directly, money which could have been spent on other things, and lead to a slowdown in growth.

Controlling global warming costs money. That money could instead be spent on other things, such as "trade" (free or otherwise) or poverty-reduction programs. It's a classic economics problem - hell, it basically is THE economics problem. We have finite resources - money, natural resources, human capital - and unlimited wants - better lifestyle, less poverty, cleaner environment, cooler Earth. There's a tradeoff - choosing to spend more of our limited resources on one of our wants - a cooler Earth - likely leaves less to be spent on other wants - e.g., reducing poverty.

I'm no economist. This does seem simplistic, though. Wouldn't an Earth that warms more slowly be an excellent thing in terms of saving money? That way you don't have to rebuild cities on higher ground, spend more money to move roads, possibly lose farming production. Seems to me that the only smart buy is to deal with global warming to save money down the road.

Moreover, we exactly achieved blockbuster moves in controlling AIDS and HIV in the Third World, or solving famine. I'm not blaming First World nations for not solving everyone's problems -- I'm just pointing out that if we have to wait until all those other problems are completely solved, we'll never, ever address global warming issues. Human beings can walk and chew gum at the same time; we should be able to address more than one need at a time, especially since we've put so little into addressing those needs as it is.

But the issue with respect to global warming is that it may be the case that addressing global warming could exacerbate some of these other problems. At it's most basic level, if taxes are increased in the developed world to pay for global warming, that leaves First Worlders less money to spend on other things, e.g., to give to charity to help fight AIDS, HIV, and famine. If the United States imposes restrictions on agriculture that reduce farming output, for example, this could make it harder to fight famine. If more scientists are drawn to the search for alternative fuels, there may be fewer scientists left to search for a cure for AIDS.

If the choice is between a cool Earth with all of Africa ravaged by AIDS and famine or a hot Earth with the U.S. coastline moved inland 10 miles, is that really an easy choice to make? Personally, I think it is - but it's not the choice the global warming community is arguing for. (and, in case it's not obvious, I'm arguing in pure hypotheticals here)

Moreover, we exactly achieved blockbuster moves in controlling AIDS and HIV in the Third World, or solving famine. I'm not blaming First World nations for not solving everyone's problems -- I'm just pointing out that if we have to wait until all those other problems are completely solved, we'll never, ever address global warming issues. Human beings can walk and chew gum at the same time; we should be able to address more than one need at a time, especially since we've put so little into addressing those needs as it is.

It isn't an issue of "walking and chewing gum" as if the question is whether we pay attention to both needs. It's money, which is finite. You can't spend the same money on two different things.

As for HIV, malnutrition, etc., those are symptoms. The disease is poverty. (And continuing the metaphor, the infectious agent is misgovernance.)

until gas in the USA got expensive and Al Gore made a movie, we didn't really address it at all.

It seems important enough to get hybrids on the market here in the US long before the gas spikes and the Al Gore movie.

1999: The Honda Insight becomes the first mass-produced hybrid car sold in the United States.*
2002: The first major spike in gasoline prices, as US average crosses the $1.30 threshold.**
2006: An Inconvenient Truth released***

This is the kind of statement that makes the global warming movement so frustrating. We've been doing things to reduce the negative effects of industry on pollution for decades. We may not be addressing it quickly enough, or with the gravity some think it deserves, but there is a conscious effort from even this administration to discuss and to address environmental issues. Those in good positions to change the situation are not merely ignoring the problem.

*Source
**Source
***Source

Wouldn't an Earth that warms more slowly be an excellent thing in terms of saving money?

I'm no climatologist, so, honestly, I don't know.

That way you don't have to rebuild cities on higher ground, spend more money to move roads, possibly lose farming production. Seems to me that the only smart buy is to deal with global warming to save money down the road.

But this brings us back to possibilities. We KNOW that people are dying of AIDS in Africa. How sure are we that we're going to have to rebuild cities, move roads, and lose farming production? Again, I'm no climatologist, but it doesn't make economic sense to plan for a worst-case scenario if the cost to prepare for it is exorbitant and the odds of it happening are minimal.

I'm no economist. This does seem simplistic, though. Wouldn't an Earth that warms more slowly be an excellent thing in terms of saving money?

Probably. Ceteris Paribus. Only ceteris ain't paribus. We don't have a choice between the earth warming slowly or quickly. We have a choice between the earth warming quickly and us making lots of money or the earth warming slowly and us making less money.

That way you don't have to rebuild cities on higher ground, spend more money to move roads, possibly lose farming production. Seems to me that the only smart buy is to deal with global warming to save money down the road.

Moving cities gradually, or building levees gradually, may be much cheaper than, say, slashing our economy now. And "down the road," the wealthier we are, the easier it is for us to deal with the effects of global warming.

Keep in mind that when Zip Code blithely talks about "dealing with global warming," he rather glosses over the difficulty of doing so, making it sound as if all we have to do is put our foot down and say, "Now we're going to stop emitting carbon dioxide." If only it were that simple.

The U.S. government has been very antagonistic towards reducing emissions. But the difference between the U.S. and other countries in that regard is just that we're more honest about it. Nobody thinks Kyoto is sufficient -- but the only countries that are meeting their Kyoto obligations are the ones that don't have any obligations under Kyoto. European nations aren't doing so. (Some of the former Soviet bloc nations whose economies collapsed post cold war have involuntarily reduced emissions, but only temporarily.) China is growing rapidly in emissions.

Moreover, people can talk about electric cars until the cows come home -- but where do people think that this electricity is coming from? I'm not even talking about the fact that electricity is also generated from fossil fuels; that's true, but there are economies of scale that don't exist with cars. Of course, we could build nuclear plants, but most environmentalists are opposed. I'm talking about the fact that, well, has anybody calculated the amount of electricity needed to supply our cars? We would have to go on a power-plant-building-spree, because we don't have enough electric capacity now. And even if we did, do people realize how long a time lag there would be before we saw the positive effects of this?

until gas in the USA got expensive and Al Gore made a movie, we didn't really address it at all

We aren't addressing it now either. Here's the problem with people wanting action on global warming. By letting Al Gore take the lead on these types of things, it politicized the whole debate. If Al Gore believes something deeply, half the country already is on the other side, regardless what the subject is.

Sure the global warming stuff is getting some media attention. But it doesn't do your side any good. A new poll comes out saying 1/3 of all Americans believe America is responsible for at least half the global warming. Obviously not true, but that's the effect of the spooky messages coming out.

The sad part for the alarmists is that most Americans don't want the government to intervene with mandated carbon reductions. Fifty-two percent believe advances in technology will solve any problems from global warming. So what's the best way to "wake these people up?" Scare the #### out of them. As a result we have dumb-ass movies like The Day After Tomorrow and an Inconvenient Truth, along with studies showing the US being out of the wheat business in 90 years and mosquitos spreading everything from herpes to cancer. Do you really think those tactics work?

Good point David. I haven't heard too many detailed solutions to the problems out of the Global Warming crowd. What are they, and what is the price?

Again, I'm no climatologist, but it doesn't make economic sense to plan for a worst-case scenario if the cost to prepare for it is exorbitant and the odds of it happening are minimal.

Here we hit the crux: that's not a worst case scenario. All those things--rising sea levels, changed climate patterns--will happen. The only debate is by what degrees they will happen.

Moving cities gradually, or building levees gradually, may be much cheaper than, say, slashing our economy now. And "down the road," the wealthier we are, the easier it is for us to deal with the effects of global warming.

Sure, but then you run the risk that something really bad happens, like a collapse of the carbon buffer system or a positive feedback loop on temperatures, resulting in an accelerating warming. Then what? All the wealth we could possibly accumulate by not building wind turbines will buy us...what?

The fact is that this planet--and the people on it--exist as complex systems. Perturbations to those systems will be expensive. I think it would be smarter to change the system ourselves, even marginally, than to allow global warming to institute numerous changes in crops and population movement for us. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put our future in the hands of nature or fate when we can control it.

Of course they did/do. Science may be neutral, but scientists are not. And you re-read the letter I posted. They're not trying to "manufacture debate." They're looking to see the implications of applying the IPCC report to policy discussions.

The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports.

And I know the difference between honest argument and attempt to squelch debate.

It's tough to squelch legitimate debate about the main points of global climate change when there is none.

I'm saying that there isn't a consensus (because there are those who disagree) [1], that the problems may be exaggerated (as evidenced by some quotes earlier in the thread to the effect of "we know it's not THAT bad, but we want to scare people into action")[2], and that the political movement has eclipsed the science as those with dissenting opinion are often treated like Flat-Earthers or Holocaust deniers[3].

[1] I don't think there is debate as to the main points of global climate change. I've made that point on this thread.
[2] I read these, and I don't believe they've been interpreted properly. I remember discussing them back on the third page of this thread. I actually have no idea where they came from.
[3] No, neither of those groups manufactures doubt. Flat-Earthers are crazy, Holocaust deniers are bigots. Nobody takes either of those groups seriously, and holocaust deniers are morally repugnant. But neither of them have the political wherewithal to invent debate out of thin air, which both the creationists and the opponents of global climate change do have.

I'm just sick of these debates fashioned from whole cloth. They get tiresome. And like I said, I'm no expert on global climate change. But I've seen enough of these "chaff debates" or "muddy the waters" debates to not be familiar with them. I spent last winter working for the Paleontological Research Institute in Ithaca, and they're some of the leading folks against creationism in public policy and schools. They also produced the "Docents' guide to Intelligent Design Creationism" which they distribute to any museum that wants it. And that I see some--not all--but some of the same arguing styles here with global warming opponents makes me about as receptive to their ideas as I am to the idea of using broken glass as dinner seasoning.

I want what Lastings is having...

Maybe. I had Curt Schilling sugery yesterday.

Scare the #### out of them. As a result we have dumb-ass movies like The Day After Tomorrow and an Inconvenient Truth, along with studies showing the US being out of the wheat business in 90 years and mosquitos spreading everything from herpes to cancer. Do you really think those tactics work?

Show me studies about mosquitoes spreading herpes or cancer, of any variety. Also, Hollywood makes movies that make money, which is what the "Day after tomorrow" was. It didn't make a lick of sense, but neither did Batman Begins. The only movie with a political agenda was an inconvenient truth, and I'm OK with that, since that's how it was billed.

Good point David. I haven't heard too many detailed solutions to the problems out of the Global Warming crowd. What are they, and what is the price?

I'm not an expert and even I can answer this: raise emissions standards for automobiles. Switch SUVs from being designated as trucks to cars. Invest money that would normally go into carbon energy subsidies instead into green energy. I'm pretty sure the IPCC report, on the last page, lists some recommendations. Nope. I checked, no recommendations. Well, those are my ideas.

The U.S. government has been very antagonistic towards reducing emissions. But the difference between the U.S. and other countries in that regard is just that we're more honest about it. Nobody thinks Kyoto is sufficient -- but the only countries that are meeting their Kyoto obligations are the ones that don't have any obligations under Kyoto. European nations aren't doing so. (Some of the former Soviet bloc nations whose economies collapsed post cold war have involuntarily reduced emissions, but only temporarily.) China is growing rapidly in emissions.

If this is the case we should just sign it and ignore it. Considering, as has been said on this thread before, that the U.S. emits 25% of the world's greenhouse emissions, maybe other countries don't feel like making changes until we're on board, which is rather the same way we--or you, specifically--feel about china.

I spent last winter working for the Paleontological Research Institute in Ithaca, and they're some of the leading folks against creationism in public policy and schools. They also produced the "Docents' guide to Intelligent Design Creationism" which they distribute to any museum that wants it. And that I see some--not all--but some of the same arguing styles here with global warming opponents makes me about as receptive to their ideas as I am to the idea of using broken glass as dinner seasoning.

We are even then... I find the global warming citation of the IPCC report as the Truth about as comical as fundamental Christians citing the Bible as the complete Truth. Instead of the non-believers getting sent to hell, skeptics are simply called oil whores and morons.

Moreover, people can talk about electric cars until the cows come home -- but where do people think that this electricity is coming from? I'm not even talking about the fact that electricity is also generated from fossil fuels; that's true, but there are economies of scale that don't exist with cars. Of course, we could build nuclear plants, but most environmentalists are opposed. I'm talking about the fact that, well, has anybody calculated the amount of electricity needed to supply our cars? We would have to go on a power-plant-building-spree, because we don't have enough electric capacity now. And even if we did, do people realize how long a time lag there would be before we saw the positive effects of this?

There are lots of reasons why electric cars make sense.

1) Internal combustion engines are inefficient in the way they harness energy from gasoline
2) There is no need to retrofit fueling stations
3) Electrical motors are ideally suited to cars
4) Battery technologies of today are sufficient for ~70% of drivers

Plus, there are all of the climate related reasons.

Generating clean power for our electric cars is another problem, but that is a separate problem (and not an insurmountable one by any means).

Show me studies about mosquitoes spreading herpes or cancer, of any variety. Also, Hollywood makes movies that make money, which is what the "Day after tomorrow" was. It didn't make a lick of sense, but neither did Batman Begins. The only movie with a political agenda was an inconvenient truth, and I'm OK with that, since that's how it was billed.

Hopefully I won't have to use a 'mosquito gave me herpes' excuse in my lifetime. I do recall Al Gore jumping into bed with Moveon.org to promote the piss out of the Day after Tomorrow. One article said "Gore explained that the movie's timeline of events is fictional; but he said it's "accurate in giving the impression that the consequences can be extremely serious".

I'm not an expert and even I can answer this: raise emissions standards for automobiles. Switch SUVs from being designated as trucks to cars. Invest money that would normally go into carbon energy subsidies instead into green energy. I'm pretty sure the IPCC report, on the last page, lists some recommendations. Nope. I checked, no recommendations. Well, those are my ideas.

I'm all for that...those are reasonable, productive ideas that everyone should be able to get behind.

But as a practical matter, gasoline prices get the American people a lot more worked up than do videos of melting icebergs.

Is this a surprise? Many Americans view driving as a necessity, as they are living and working in areas that have ineffective public transportation. I think you could more effectively convince the public to accept a general tax increase than a higher gasoline tax... it's almost like taxing food.

I beg to differ in that I think that most Americans have a strong preference for private transportation. I read somewhere that demand elasticity for gasoline is about .30, which suggests that it is not quite a necessity. The reason taxing gasoline is viewed as similar to taxing food is due, in part, to the peception that we are entitled to an unlimited cheap supply of a scarce resource.

One effect of a gasoline tax would make substitute fuels more economically feasible. To this end, its a lot more politically palatable to throw subsidies at agribusiness and others than to institute a tax.

Instead of the non-believers getting sent to hell, skeptics are simply called oil whores and morons.

I haven't called anybody either of these things, nor has anybody else. Let's keep it civil, eh?

But if you want to "pull authority," I'll say that I'm very familiar with the arguing and media tactics individuals and groups use to sow doubt. I'm also familiar with the methods individuals and groups use to create panic.

Here's an example of each:

Creating panic against science with "science for the media": mercury in vaccines causes autism
Sowing doubt against science with "science for the media": intelligent design creationists

I only see one group here using the techniques I'm familiar with, and it's not those who wrote the IPCC report, which seems to me to be a well grounded, thoroughly researched and conservative document.