Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

re: "will not come to a conclusion here. it will cause arguing and be disruptive sooner or later and is my primary reason for not participating in this redundant subject matter. what good will this discussion do?"

perhaps so we can raise consciousness enough so that, instead of just avoiding or complaining about uncivil behavior, folks will undertake their individual responsibilities for civil discourse and use peer pressure to inhibit dishonest or uncivil discussion and promote an open minded approach to discussion of ideas honestly put forth.

in re Hansen and climate theory - the question is to define that theory. Hansen has not proposed a theory, he proposed a concept and then proceeded, despite ethical questions regarding his position at NASA, to engage in civil unrest and other destructive behavior.

The 'theories' of folks like Hansen raise more questions than answers. You can see that in this thread. What we know is that global temperature change as measured (and this is well agreed upon) is on the order of a degree over a person's lifespan in recent years. Yet we see here some folks claiming tens of degrees and we see others (like Hansen) claiming certitude about coming doom and gloom and TEOTWAWKI resulting from this sort of change.

In these forums, it is not only the AGW hypothesis that generates heated and close minded dialog that rapidly gets uncivil. Look for instance as some of the battery threads where I raised some issues that did not toe the PC line. What we learn here is broader than just one single topic.

The key is behavior. Observable behavior.

Behavior was described in the stimulus for the OP and used as a measure of the quality of the argument it was being used to advance. Behavior is something that each of us has in our own realm of control. If we want civil and productive discussions where we can learn something, it is up to each and every one of us to keep track of our feelings and how they influence our behavior. We have to be open to strange ideas and put our efforts on learning the basis for them rather than just rejecting them outright. We need to make sure we are not expressing denial - often seen as ad hominem or other logical fallacies. We need to make sure we discriminate between opinion, preference, and measure. We need to accommodate and allow for the uncertainties and the variabilities in measure and observation and not confuse precision with accuracy.

Science sometimes has the reputation of being stodgy because of the image of it not being emotionally driven (think Spock). That is a goal but it has never been that way (think Newton versus Liebnitz). What we can do, though, is to use that goal as a referent, much as Lewis did, to evaluate what is placed in front of us. We can also use it to evaluate our own efforts in discussion. The mark of a good scientist is not that he doesn't get emotional but rather that, after a good knock down drag out when he has had time to mull over what has been discussed he learns and he doesn't hold grudges (much!).

So, maybe we can consider a discussion like this a lab experiment where we can take a look at ourselves and how we participate and use that to help foster greater civility and integrity in discussions by making our own contributions better.

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

russ wrote: »

What is missing are scientists to dıscuss/argue the points. I have yet to read anything except repeated points and buzz words.

Everyone wants to discuss what they have exceedingly little knowledge of and most of that was gained from other blogs.

In the event someone here is really qualified as a climate scientist by education and work experience, then my apologies to them. I don't think I am going to need to be apologizing.

I'm going against my better judgement and chime in even though I see this conversation going exactly where I predicted it would.

I know a few things to be true. First, the vast majority of climate scientists (and you can find the links to cite this post, I am not going to!) believe that climate change is real, it is being caused to some great extent by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere which serve to insulate the earth. Humans have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2 by over 1/3 since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Second, there has been what I believe to be an orchestrated, organized well funded climate change denial cabal that has tried to plant any seed of doubt so as to be able to under mine the basic science. Even the evidence that came out of the "climate change e-mail" scandal reveal little to undermine the science, only the reporting thereof.

The core of the denial campaign is based largely on the idea that people are afraid that government will mandate solutions that will cost them (or their industries) money. If you follow the money trails, it is pretty easy to see where the denial community starts! (Once again, link and citations are easy to find!)

Finally, in my opinion, the consequences are likely to be severe in the coming decades (I personally think we are beginning to see them in the higher latitudes!) and every day we wait, the costs get greater. Also IMHO, the solutions are actually a win/win/win.

For example, most of us here know that an investment in PV/RE has an up front cost, but a long term benefit. We also know that due to a variety of reasons, the cost of energy is likely to continue to go up going forward, and finally we are more and more dependent on unstable off shore oil.

So by moving robustly to alternatives, we stimulate the economy now (Win) we by long term energy stability (Win) and we by a huge measure of national security. (Win)

If the billions we spend annually to protect our off shore oil, were to be redirected in some measure for RE the need to protecting that oil becomes (more) moot.

So I would ask anyone who thinks that climate change is not significant. Are you prepared to bet you, your children's, you grandchildren's future on that assumption? Are you prepared to risk all the worlds children in some fashion for that belief?

Please read the source documents instead of MSM or industry provided information. Look at what is happening at higher latitudes, and understand that while you may have had a colder winter last winter, what is happening in the high latitudes is exactly what the models predicted, and nears the tipping point. (Melt the permafrost, and the amount of CO2 released jumps uncontrollably!) Put aside your politics, and even your religion and look at the sources. Understand that the vast majority of climate scientists, those that should really know understand the severity of this issue.

That my friends, will in all likely hood be my final comment on the subjet.
'
Tony

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Two more things to add, (even though I wasn't going to get involved).

First, no climate scientist has suggested that "climate change" will consist of strictly global warming, but rather some areas will warm, others will cool, some areas will be wetter, some drier. The classic argument from the last year or so, was "we got so much snow in the N.E last winter, how can there be global warming" not being aware that this is as much a symptom as not, being aware that there are many other parts of N. America (and indeed the world) that had abnormal climatic conditions last winter, like we did,, in spades.

Second, if DWH admits that there is an Orchestrated disinformation campaign doesn't that speak legions about the corrupting influence? And let's not let this degrade into who funded what studies. Look at the studies, in their peer reviewed sources, and evaluate them on their merits, instead of using the media and the organizational forces that tend to skew the data.

And finally, (I know that is three) This very thread is the very reason that I didn't want to let this forum devolve into these kind of discussions. There are too many avenues for he said/she said to take over.

All for now,,, all forever I hope!

Tony

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

Who was it that said something about predicting being hard, especially about the future?

I don't "support the nay-sayers". I "oppose the certitude of the proponents", which is a different thing altogether.

I think this is the 'debate' in a nutshell but look at what we have here.

On the one hand we have dire predictions about the future, assertions of authority, assertions about money, assertions about groups with certain opinions, and assertions about science. On the other we have very little to no backing for such assertions.

Yes, the physics about the greenhouse gas effect is solid but that isn't linear, it doesn't explain the time trends between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperatures, and it is only a part of the entire atmospheric engine. -- ever hear the story of the spherical chicken?

When I look at the views of the most prominent of what have been labeled "deniers" here such as McKitrick, Pielke, Montford, Watts et al, I don't find any of them denying that there is climate change. Why such a contrast to assertions made with force and conviction in this thread?

When I see assertions about that group being well funded, I am again confronted with a contrast between what is plainly visible and what is strongly asserted.

Then there is the strong belief about what the future will bring, a future for which there is no precedent. Again, a strong contrast between reality and assertion.

There are two ways these sorts of conflicts get handled. One is to examine the evidence carefully and qualify or correct the perceptions and convictions. The other is to engage in psychological defense of untenable positions. What is sad to me is that I see more of the latter and very little of the former. It seems to be a cancer in our society.

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

At huge environmental cost, Natural gas burning/CO2 emission/ water pollution/ destruction of boreal forest.

If you wish an eye opening vision of tar sands oil I suggest you might read:
http://www.amazon.ca/Tar-Sands-Dirty-Future-Continent/dp/1553654072

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

The question becomes why, if all these terrible things are happening, we have more such forest now than 200 years ago.

I'm sorry, but you are looking at this issue from a very North American centric eye. Deforestation is a problem world wide from a variety of reasons! The earth may be a big place, but it does have finite limits. The real FACT is, humans have been belching CO2 into the atmosphere in great quantities since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The atmospheric concentration has risen by about 1/3 in that time frame.

Considering the known fact that CO2 is an insulating greenhouse gas, it is only logical to assume that given similar heat input (solar) over that time, the increased insulation would add to global (net/net) warming.

Once again, I would urge those that have legitimate skepticism about climate change to ignore mainstream media sources, and look at the original peer reviewed studies! Even if you are not enough of a scientist to understand all the journal entries, you can certainly can find compilations that are not filtered through those that have an axe to grind, or a vested interest in the outcome and I believe most will come away with a renewed feeling about the veracity of the science! If one only reads (or listens to FOX or the "american thinker" on the one hand, or the GreenPeace journal on the other hand you are not likely to get un-biased sources.

The sad fact of the web is that you can spend the entire day searching the web, finding publications/blogs etc that only confirm your own point of view! (on any subject) .

Once again, I will try to shut up!

Tony

PS I would also suggest that people take a virtual tour of environments other than the ones in which they live. As I have suggested, the effect of climate change is likely going to be very different in various places, East Asia, parts of Africa, as well as the obvious high latitude issues.

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

re: "There is a lot of scientific basis, and it all supports the conclusion -- beyond any doubt -- that we're messing with the environment." -- See Mark Roberts on stewardship (Sunday's blog posting), maybe? 'Messing with the environment' is biblical so that isn't at issue. The issue, what makes it worthy of discussion here, is what is implied by the use of loaded terms like "messing" (much like Lewis noted in the use of the term "incontrovertible").

re: "you are looking at this issue from a very North American centric eye." -- true enough. But it is against the US where most of the 'save the planet' effort is directed (not to mention the adjective that was used to describe the forests). Very little is directed at the third world where devastation of the forests is the major problem. That gets into the unpleasant reality (for some) that it is the wealth and economic system in the US that has done most for effective stewardship of the environment, which is another sticking point for those who think the US is 'messing' up the planet.

re: "Considering the known fact that CO2 is an insulating greenhouse gas" -- an example of where learning is needed. The greenhouse gas effect is not insulating, it is a a matter of selective energy absorption and radiation. That is why I made the note about nonlinear. We are at the knee of that point on the curve where it takes a whole lot to make a small bit of difference - and we haven't seen differences that correlate well to the curve we measure in the lab.

What is to be learned is that we need to be very careful about our biases and presumptions as seen in the words we use and we also need to be careful about the fact that sometimes our perceptions, even of measure, observation, and theory, may be a bit off. That is why we need to be self aware and keep an open mind.

Re: Professor says Global Warming a Scam

See why I didn't want to go here? Opinions and passions are strong when informed/uninformed/right/wrong/political/apolitical etc.

If you accept any notion that there is a real issue, the causes and solutions become very political both locally and internationally.

Tony

PS I must add, the the reason that North American gets the "bulk of the Save the planet" effort is multifold, but the net result is generally the same. North Americans use more of the worlds resources per capita than nearly anyone else in the world, often many multiples more. Second, there is a much greater level of what I will call denial (others may call skepticism) to the issue in N. American, particularly in the US, for reasons I have stated elsewhere. The Europeans and to some lesser extent the Canadian's (levels of governments per se) have a greater recognition of the problem and the potential solutions than does the US. Additionally, North America has the resources (wealth/industrial base and educated populace) such that it should be able to afford the resources to combat the problem that they are a greater contributer to than average, and North America should be in a position to benefit from the conservation efforts and new technologies that emerge as solutions. Instead (IMHO) we are too concerned with what it will "cost us today" and we ignore the benefits going forward. We are often all too willing to sell ourselves (in this case to the Chinese) for short term balance sheet gains, but long term security/financial loss!

So in short, we are bigger contributers to the problem, we have the resources to combat the problem, what we lack is the political will to do so. I personally feel that all the talk about "Government control" or "Government just wants to get ahold of your money from a "carbon tax" is nothing but a red herring designed at it's core to kick the can down the road. If we don't have to pay for our choices today, we don't have to worry about it,, we will let our kids worry about paying for it!.

We can argue from now until the ice caps melt as to the extent and the speed of the climate change, but in the real world it really doesn't matter. 1degree C over a century will bring significant changes, 5 degrees more so. One might not consider 1C very significant, but if you are permafrost, and that one degree represents staying frozen or melting it is very significant! Please note that melting of permafrost will release CO2 due to methane release much faster than humans are currently releasing, very likely creating a feed back loop that is fundamentally uncontrollable. Additionally, the potential for ocean methane releases if Ocean temps rise above a certain point is also a very real possibility. (Ocean acidification due to CO2 is also considered a very serious problem).

Once again, I would urge all those that "don't believe" or who think this is some vast "left wing/socialist/green/tax grabbing conspiracy to do some research independent ouf your usual sources. In short, I think that is is extremely selfish to potentially risk your grandchildren's futures for the sake of beginning to do something now. Even it it turns our we are wrong, the money invested in the solutions will be generally money well spent, as it will in all likely hood lead to net/net cheaper, more secure energy going forward.

One final note. Nearly every environmental regulation has been met with nay sayers who have said it would bankrupt the country, it would be too expensive, would cost more to solve the problem than the solution was worth. I challenge anyone to look at the real record. Nearly every major environmental regulation and the technology to implement it has cost way less than predicted, and had a much higher benefit. The perfect example is Catalytic converters on cars. It was said it would cost $1000s per car and not have any appreciable benefit. The cost turned out (economy of scale) to be a few $ per car, and the benefits were huge. It is estimated that the public health savings alone exceed the cost of Cat cons by a factor of ~10. (Sometime I will post a link, but the sat is too slow right now!) The same is true of SO2 scrubbers of coal plants. Much cheaper, much better benefit.