BBC Global Warming show

[helene_t]

I don't have any qualified opinion about this issue. All I can do is to take notes on the level of argumentation and the range of support that either side can gather. If one side comes up with only crappy arguments, it may suggest that no good arguments are available. This would make their case weak. And if one side is supported only by parties with clear financial/political interests, it suggests that no neutral scientist would reach their favorite conclusion.

 

This kind of reasoning doesn't prove anything, of course. It could be that all arguments are crappy, just some more obviously than others, and that all scientists are sponsored by interest groups, just some more obviously than others. Or it could be that the best arguments just happen to lead to the wrong conclusion in this case.

 

One thing I observe is that environmentalists that I know often (far from always) have strong anti-capitalist sentiments. Brent Spar comes to mind. I know from primary sources that the mere facts that USA is the per capita largest CO2 emmitor, that energy companies tend to big, privately-owned and often US based, that oil is traded in dollars and that the car is an icon of the American Dream are more than enough to make many environmentalists "know" a priori that CO2 is bad.

 

If environmentalists genuinely wanted to contribute to a solution of climate problems, they would take serious any initiative that would help solving them. Not at all costs, of course, but at least the potential of nuclear energy, tradeable emission rights (or CO2 taxing) and CO2 sequestering should be acknowledged. This is often not the case. A grotesque example was a speech held by Knud Vilby, chairman of the Danish Third-World support organization MS and said organization's general assembly in 1997. Titled "Methane - an example of environment imperialism" he hammered against the theory that the farts of Third-World cows contribute to global warming, while the Truth (my capitalization) is that global warming is caused by First World capitalists. Note that "Truth" with a capital T is ideological or religious Truth while "truth" with a lowercase is scientific or commonsense truth, and the two should not be confused.

 

And then there are Ben's concerns which I can only second.

 

Now Todd starts this thread by bringing our attention to a pseudo-scientific video full of logically flawed, outdated or even counterfeited "evidence" against the greenhouse hypothesis. Completely on par with the "scientific" arguments against evolution, against the viral cause of AIDS, against the carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke etc. The filmmakers making up quotes from a reputed scientist in "support" of their own agenda reminds on all the claims you can find of "Darwin dismissed his own theory".

 

So far, the stand is, AFAIAC, 2-1 in favor of the greenhouse hypothesis. The cases for it stink of a not-so-well-hidden agenda, but the cases against it are worse.

 

Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is well worth reading. He debunks many of the partisan claims made by the environmentalist lobby. He may be a partisan himself, but that's not his fault but rather to blame on a scientific debate which has been hijacked by politics and leaves no niche for genuine science. The scientific community's fierce reaction tells a lot - Scientific American devoted a whole issue to Lomborg-bashing. But interestingly, Lomborg does not refute the greenhouse hypothesis, he just argues that the political appreciation of it is irrational.

[inquiry]

Damn you Todd for posting this link. I have soooo much more to do than read all this global warming stuff so that I can have an informed opinion. And reading both sides, I have less of an opinion today than before I started... but ok...Let's take one small slice of the argument from the video posted and the response to that argument and lets see how it goes.

 

The video shows Al Gore standing in front of a huge chart that shows a CLEAR and undeniable relationship between CO2 levels and antartic temperature over 100's of thousands of years. What is apparently not said in the Gore movie is that the CO2 rise follows tempeature rise. The video attacks this oversight and describes the lag in the increase in CO2 as proof that greenhouse gasses (well at least CO2, the one measured) does not drive temperature increases but rather follow it.

 

First, let's evaluate the claim and the science, the conclusions, and how this might affect the hypothesis that man-made green house gasses might add to climate change.

 

1. Does CO2 lag behind temperature change historically?

 

The fact is there is a historical lag between C02 levels and increase in temperature, and both sides of the debate agree on this. A couple of peer-reviewed and published studies confirm this. One available on the web is Sciencs 2003. This article showed a delay of 800 years between the rise in temperature and a rise is CO2. In a more recent study *don't have a link, but I do have a copy of the article as I subscribe to Science* suggest the delay was more like 1900 years between these two events (Siegenthaler, U., et al 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310: 1313-1317)

 

In web-published "rebuttals" to the video (btw, the VIDEO and the rebuttals are not scientific evidence, they are attempts to use science without showing it to use to refute each others positions).. people refer to this "lag" as "old news" and one quote called the lag "discredited". Well the data goes back 400,000 years, so yes, it is really OLD NEWS ( :unsure: ), but, the science is not discredited. The data is what the data is, it is the assumptions you can draw from that data and how it affects your view on the hypothesis of man-made greenhouse gas adds to climate change. In otherwords, the man-made GHG hypothesis has to also explain the reason for this lag or why the lag is not relevant to the central hypothesis. Yoo simply can not ignore the lag.

 

I will not accept that the science in these papers has been discredited. There has historically been a lag in the order of 1000 years between warming "cycles" and rise in CO2. So the question becomes not if the data is real, but what does this do for the hypothesis? Well, maybe we should state a working hypothesis and see what affect this data has on the hypothesis? (for my purpose, the hypothesis will be that "There is a discernible human influence on climate caused by man-made green house gasses, most notable CO2 whose change in atmospheric concentration is a major cause of climate change"

 

Ok. Working with this hypothesis, what does the data show and how might this hypothesis be changed to based upon the available scientific data? Well, one might say that since temperature had RISEN in the past before CO2 levels did, that increase CO2 levels did not cause the increase in global temperature but rather was a "marker" of the change and the increase in CO2 was a consequence of, not a cause of, the rise in temperature. This is the conclusion reached in the video, and they suggested a source of this CO2 was due to escape (or greatly reduced solubilization) into the ocean. It is a well known fact of physics that less gasses are disolvable in warm water than cold water, so they drew up a new "hypothesis" to explain the observed phenomena.

 

However, the scientist who found the 800 year and 1900 year lag between CO2 and temperature reached a different conclusion which should, at least, be factored into anyones discussion of the imapct of green house gasses on global warming. In the first article, the authors concluded that since global warming periods last about 5000 years, and the lag was only 800 years, the last 4200 years may have been maintained and added too by the rise in CO2. So that 5/6th of global warming could be affected by high CO2.

 

So the argument goes like this.. Some process (not CO2 related) causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This results in an eventual rise in CO2 ~800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties.

 

In the second Science article (when I say science article, I mean published in Science magazine) which noted a 1900 year lag in CO2 production, the authors state... "[that the current data] do not cast doubt [...] on the importance of CO2 as a key amplification factor of the large observed temperature variations of glacial cycles".

 

So here we have the data. One group (those in the video) use it to draw a completely new hypothesis (warming oceans account for increase in global CO2), another group (web-based environmentallist) dismiss the science and "evidence" in the video as "old news" and "discredited". And the actual authors take the view that the data mearly suggest that CO2 levels is one factor in global warming and both groups suggest that CO2 could be an amplifying affect to maintain higher temperatures (see quotes above).

 

So let's return to our "hypothesis" which was, "There is a discernible human influence on climate caused by man-made green house gasses, most notable CO2 whose change in atmospheric concentration is a major cause of climate change". First, we will agree that man-made additions to green house gasses 100's of thousands of years ago were nil. So do we ignore the data from these "lag" experiments? No. Can we say that CO2 was a major contributor to the initiation of the global warming in the past? No. In fact, historical global warming periods were NOT initiated by CO2. On this the data is clear.

 

However, people challenging the role of green house gasses in global warming should not over-reach with their conclusions yet either. All this data says is that initiation of periods of global warming has not been historically related to CO2, but rather CO2 increases have followed an initial global warming event. It does not say that should CO2 rise precipitously it would be followed by global warming. Looking at the data, I think the hypothesis on man-made green house gases would have to be modified to say something like...

 

"There is a discernible human influence on climate caused by man-made green house gasses, most notable CO2 whose change in atmospheric concentration is a one contributor to climate change", Now the quetion becomes, how much a contributor (or if it is a contributor) is still left open for discussion, observation, and experimentation.

 

And any solid hypothesis on green house gases and current temperature will have to try to uncover the other factors involved in global warming in the 800 to 1900 years prior to past increases in temperatures, and determine if any of those factors could be involved in the current rise in global temperture. Anyone wanting to disprove the climate change potential of green house gases will have to try to explain why increased heat sinks like CO2, methane, nitric oxide, and chlorocarbons in the atmosphere would not cause a raise in temperature.

 

It will be very difficult for either side to disprove the other's views. But one thing is clear, past lags in atmospheric CO2 compared to temperature change does not mean that if the CO2 rise add to warming, or that CO2 increase could comes before temperature increases in the future.

 

A more interesting view would be see if there is evidence of decreased global tempeature in the past while CO2 level remain high. That would be harder to explain based upon the theory of the role of CO2 in climate change. As I look roughly at some of the charts, it does seem that global cooling occurs before the fall in CO2. Perhaps a global increase in cloud cover over thousands of years might explain the phenoma, but I would like to see the data before speculating on how such data may effect the various hypotheses.

[DrTodd13]

Sorry for wasting your time Ben. :unsure: I agree with what you say though. The more I read the less sure I am. There aren't any disinterested parties here and I don't know how to really draw a good conclusion short of becoming a climatologist. GW proponents even admit

 

The lag is a fact. Even on here I've got GW proponents to admit to this but they trot out the "well maybe the first part of the warming has some other cause but that latter 4/5 is definitely from the CO2." This result violates Occam's razor so you better have a damned good reason for believing this to be the case. Does anybody have any documents which refutes the stuff presented in this documentary with scientific papers? I'm a bit surprised the whole cosmic ray influence made it into this documentary because I only heard about that for the first time pretty recently. I thought it was based on a pretty new paper.

[Al_U_Card]

There is also the recent work on methane generation that may be a whole new "x" factor in the equation.

 

Just looking at the Vostok temperature graphs....why the hell arent we in the start of the most recent ice-age???? The forces at work are deep, dark and mysterious but man has a penchant for looking into the nooks and crannies of nature to satiate his curiousity....time will tell

[helene_t]

The lag is a fact.  Even on here I've got GW proponents to admit to this but they trot out the "well maybe the first part of the warming has some other cause but that latter 4/5 is definitely from the CO2."  This result violates Occam's razor so you better have a damned good reason for believing this to be the case.

I noticed that as well. Indeed it sounds like a bad excuse for something. Anyway, something must account for prehistorical rises in CO2. Assuming that the dinos used coal in their power plants would violate Occam's razor as well.

 

But the greenhouse effect is a fact. What may be debatable is its importance relative to various other effects. Consider this cyclus:

 

1) It is cold and CO2 levels are low.

2) Some external factor causes temperature to rise.

3) CO2 is released from the warming oceans. CO concentration rises. And evaporation increases, leading to more cloud coverage and more rain.

4) More rain, warmer air and more CO2 leads to more forrest growth. The greenhouse effect accelerates the warming.

5) Forrests suck up CO2 while the deep-sea CO2 deposits get depleeded. The CO2 curve flattens.

6) Phytoplacton suck CO2 out of surface water (and thereby indirectly from the air) while organic material falling to the seaflour drains carbon from the biosphere. The CO2 level decreases.

7) Decreasing CO2 leads to lower temperature.

8/1: Next time some external factor comes along, the cycle restarts.

 

As I understand it, this is basically how it's supposed to work. I don't know how important each of the mechanisms is, how long the lags are, and what other mechanisms should be included. Nor do I know how much is known about all this and how good the predictions agree with empirical data.

[Al_U_Card]

Apart from the "snowball" earth that existed way long ago, we are talking about the fairly recent history (last million years or so) where the precipitous but cyclic climate changes occurred with regularity.

 

Whether it be sun output, or ocean composition or orbital variation related, the only concern is really are we able to modify our habits in such a way as to benefit our current situation. Do we want a higher global temperature and with the CO2 where it is, it looks like it should eventually come down with the arrival of the ice age....... I am still waiting to hear about more recent measurements of the gulf-stream operation.....if it continues to shut-down....

[hrothgar]

The lag is a fact.  Even on here I've got GW proponents to admit to this but they trot out the "well maybe the first part of the warming has some other cause but that latter 4/5 is definitely from the CO2."  This result violates Occam's razor so you better have a damned good reason for believing this to be the case.

I noticed that as well. Indeed it sounds like a bad excuse for something. Anyway, something must account for prehistorical rises in CO2. Assuming that the dinos used coal in their power plants would violate Occam's razor as well.

Real Climate has a lot of good information about the relationship between C02 and temperature. The following article provides a basic introduction to the subject matter.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...2-in-ice-cores/

 

I am going to try to provide a condensed summary:

 

1. The relationship between temperature and C02 is a very complex and involves lots of different types of feedback. Its well known that C02 can trap solar radiation and cause an increase in temperature. However, there are also a number of mechanisms by which increases in temperature can cause C02 levels to rise. We also suspect that there are some balancing loops in place (a simple positive feedback loops with no corresponding balancing mechanisms will cause the system to explode. In the past, something has eventually kicked in and dampened the system)

 

2. We know that the Earth has experienced a number of warming cycles and cooling cycles in the past. There are a number of different theories about what type of actions tigger these cycles. People have proposed mechanism that include changes in solar activity as well as subtle changes in the Earth's orbit.

 

3. Current theories suggest that warming cycles are triggered by some external event. Once the warming cycle kicks off, you'll see an increase in C02 level (approximately) 800 years after the start of that warming cycle. This lagged increase in C02 levels then causes additional warming to take place.

 

As the Real Climate article notes, c02 is not driving the start of the warming cycle, but serves to amplify the magnitude of this cycle. However, what we are seeing right now is an example where artifical increases in c02 levels are thought to be driving a warming cycle.

[inquiry]

3.  Current theories suggest that warming cycles are triggered by some external event.  Once the warming cycle kicks off, you'll see an increase in C02 level (approximately) 800 years after the start of that warming cycle.  This lagged increase in C02 levels then causes additional warming to take place. (emphasis added)

I have seen this arguement, I even quoted it above.It is often presented even more strongly than your "additional warming" which could be inturpted to suggest prolonged heating.

 

But when I look at the data of the charts of CO2 lags versus temperature such as in the AL Gore movie it is clear that the rise in CO2 is not then accompanied by a subsequent increase in temperature. In fact in virtually every case the temperature maximum occurs BEFORE the CO2 maximum, and often before CO2 increases significantly. This does not mean CO2 didn't add to the temperature rise, nor that maybe in the past methane which wasn't measured was elevated earlier accounting for the temperature rise, for instance.

[Al_U_Card]

Interestingly, much of the current info indicates that the polar regions react BEFORE the rest of the globe.......we are seeing a very short term effect but that may be just the precursor of the eventual rise. Don't forget that the "temperatures" recorded in the ice were from the poles (even tho they are O2 isotope ratios etc. there may be another factor at play here)

[hrothgar]

But when I look at the data of the charts of CO2 lags versus temperature such as in the AL Gore movie it is clear that the rise in CO2 is not then accompanied by a subsequent increase in temperature. In fact in virtually every case the temperature maximum occurs BEFORE the CO2 maximum, and often before CO2 increases significantly. This does not mean CO2 didn't add to the temperature rise, nor that maybe in the past methane which wasn't measured was elevated earlier accounting for the temperature rise, for instance.

In all seriousness Ben, do you understand what the following sentences mean?

 

We also suspect that there are some balancing loops in place (a simple positive feedback loops with no corresponding balancing mechanisms will cause the system to explode. In the past, something has eventually kicked in and dampened the system)

[luke warm]

so given all this data, and given the scientific infighting over this issue, why do some still insist that GW is man's fault? why are scientists who are skeptical about this conclusion ridiculed? i suspect it's to shut them up, to make them less inclined to decry pubically their skepticism... if that's the case, why?

In all seriousness Ben, do you understand what the following sentences mean?

 

We also suspect that there are some balancing loops in place (a simple positive feedback loops with no corresponding balancing mechanisms will cause the system to explode. In the past, something has eventually kicked in and dampened the system)

from all ben's written on this subject, i suspect he understands it at least as well as you do

[helene_t]

so given all this data, and given the scientific infighting over this issue, why do some still insist that GW is man's fault?

It does sound plausible, doesn't it? After all, we know that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and the amount of CO2 emited since the beginning of industrialization is easy to estimate and to compare to the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The theory is currently put forward for political reasons but the theory as such is much older than the current political controversy. I recall from the seventies, when some people were afraid of a new ice age. A possible solution was to increase CO2 emitions. Some Soviet scientists advocated the same, not to prevent an ice age but to make Siberia more suitable for agriculture.

 

why are scientists who are skeptical about this conclusion ridiculed?

I think this question has been answered sufficiently already in this thread. Some are ridiculed because they make a....s out of themselves, some because they are sponsored by the oil lobby, and some just because they challenge a theory that has been succesful in generating grants for other climate scientists. Which of the three factors is more important obviously depends on one's perspective.

 

Personally I find it difficult to understand all this fuss. What could USA loose by signing the Kyoto protocol? I'm not saying that they should, but given the enormous energy expenditure of the U.S., it should be easy to reduce it by a few percents without any adverse impact on the economy. Richard's pet instrument, the emision tax, would generate revenues that could replace other taxes. It wouldn't surprise me if the net effect would be more jobs and higher standards of living.

 

On the other hand, why is it so important for the enviromentalists to mute their opposition? Science needs debate, if I were a climate scientist I would quit immediately and find a job in a dicipline where it's still allowed to think independently. I can understand that they want politicians to be concerned about climate so that they allocate funds to climate research, but aren't they shooting themselves in the feet? Aren't they afraid that their sponsors get tirred of that grant drain that only produces agreement?

[boris3161]

One of the interesting implied criticisms in the original programme went as follows:

1/ Modelling the climate is complicated - a lot of assumptions are put together to build a model

2/ People have assumed CO2 increase leads to temperature rise

3/ If any of the assumptions in the models are wrong the results can be wrong (and the models are mostly "chaotic" i.e. small changes in inputs can lead to large changes in outputs)

4/ The assumption that CO2 leads to temperature rise is wrong

5/ Therefore the output from climate models is wrong.

 

They also asserted that the input parameters were deliberately distorted to make the effects more dramatic.

 

There is no doubt that the output from the climate models is simplified and condensed for publication but I really hope that the researchers using the models have done a better job than the programme suggests.....

[hrothgar]

On the other hand, why is it so important for the enviromentalists to mute their opposition? Science needs debate,

Hi Helene,

 

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that environmentalists are trying to mute their opposition?

 

From my own perspective, I'd be thrilled if the whole global warming hypothesis could be disproved... From what I can tell, the global warming hypothesis looks to be true and the biosphere of this planet is royally *****ed. We're in for some very ugly times in the years ahead. We can certainly mitigate the damage, however, this is going to require substantial investment. I want this all to be wrong. I'd be thrilled to see that all the scientific studies about the relationship between C02 and temperature could be disproved.

 

However, to date, the global warming skeptics haven't produced much in the way of sound science. They have, instead, chosen to focus on a series of propaganda pieces that are deliberately designed to poison the chances for intelligent debate. Take a good look at the hack job that Dr Todd linked on the forums. Many of the experts involved are knowingly presenting outdated information that has already been refuted by the scientific community. For example, when Christy makes his obligatory comments about the how quickly the troposphere is warming he seems to be ignoring the following:

 

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

 

In a similar fashion, the BBC show regurgitates tired old disproven arguments like "volcanos emit more C02 than humans".

 

I think that its entirely right and proper to attack these types of propaganda pieces. I have nothing but contempt for the people who foist this kind of crap on the general populace. For the record, this extends to folks like DrTodd who use this stuff trying to promote their own little libertarian fantasy world or to attack anything that might actually require government action.

 

(BTW, I will say the following: I'm quite glad that DrTodd is a global warming skeptic. Given his political philosophy he'd probably be launching terrorist attacks against coal plants if he believed in global warming...)

[Finch]

In defence of the BBC

Please stop calling this a "BBC" Global Warming show.

It was broadcast on Channel 4.

 

Channel 4 is a commercial TV channel.

BBC is directly funded by the British people and the UK Government.

[luke warm]

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that environmentalists are trying to mute their opposition?

here are a few quotes (again) that some might have missed the first time i posted them... while it's true that both sides have agendas, only one (that i've found) admits that it's okay to lie... most of these are pathetic, and show the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of the ones involved

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

 

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)

(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

so having an agenda outweighs honesty? it appears so...

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

 

Petr Chylek

(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)

Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.

(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

making things bigger than they really are? is that the same as lying?

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

 

Dr. William Gray

(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )

(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated."

 

Dr. David L. Lewis

(27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda)

(in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)

those last two make sense to me... i don't know why anyone would object to the concepts

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

 

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.

After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs

sheesh... what a dolt

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

 

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada

recent quote from the Calgary Herald

justice? equality? brought about by climate change? so go ahead and lie your ass off, the ends justify the means, especially if the ends are *your* ends

[hrothgar]

here are a few quotes (again) that some might have missed the first time i posted them... while it's true that both sides have agendas, only one (that i've found) admits that it's okay to lie... most of these are pathetic, and show the intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) of the ones involved

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

 

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)

(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

so having an agenda outweighs honesty? it appears so...

Just for the record Jimmy, given that you're so concerned with honesty you might want to consider providing a more complete version of Schneider's quote:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

One might make the claim that you presented an isolated snippet that was (largely) taken out of context... Hell, I'd go so far as to say that you were that you were misrepresenting Schneider's position in order to try to score a political point.

 

This doesn't really strike me as particularly honest.

 

(BTW, I'm completely prepared to believe that you were simply parroting some quote you found on another web site and were too lazy to bother doing a background search. I suppose that "lazy" is probably better than "liar")

[Gerben42]

Let me summarize my opinion:

 

* There is not enough understanding of climate change.

 

* The biggest human CO2 producers are not going to decrease their release significantly, thus rendering European and other measures useless.

 

* Global warming is not going to "end the world". Life will always survive and humanity will survive. There is no evidence that the Earth can reach Venus-like conditions with just 1300 W / m^2 of solar input. Certainly the current human CO2 production won't be enough to trigger it, otherwise it would already have happened.

 

* Regardless of what the global temperature will be, overpopulation and unequal distribution of the already insufficient basic needs like food and water will be the biggest problems at the end of the century.

[luke warm]

(BTW, I'm completely prepared to believe that you were simply parroting some quote you found on another web site and were too lazy to bother doing a background search.  I suppose that "lazy" is probably better than "liar")

i've been accused of laziness before, and sometimes it's been warranted... i don't think this is such a time though, but i could be prejudiced (seeing as how it's me i'm talking about)

 

on the quote you chose to use from my post, how do you take schneider's (contextual) comments? do you not see that his argument is internally inconsistent? on the one hand (as he might put it) he gives lip service to the scientific method... on the other, he wants to offer up scary scenerios in order to get media coverage in order to get broadbased support in order to see a better world (climatically speaking)

 

but there is a problem with his logic.. the means he chooses (offering up scary scenerios, etc) to reach his end belies the scientific method... the things he wants to accomplish, and the lengths he goes to do so, can only be undertaken (if he wants to be consistent) *after* the scientific method, not before

 

so it doesn't strike me as particularly honest on your part to accuse me of not being particularlly honest... read it again and tell us all how schneider can actually adhere to the scientific method when he reaches conclusions apart from and ahead of their results.. you're right, there is dishonesty afoot, but it isn't from me... i've only posted a few examples of those who *admit* that lying to obtain their goals is the right thing to do...

 

i agree with gerben, mankind has plenty of things to work on apart from this tempest in a teapot

[hrothgar]

on the quote you chose to use from my post, how do you take schneider's (contextual) comments? do you not see that his argument is internally inconsistent? on the one hand (as he might put it) he gives lip service to the scientific method... on the other, he wants to offer up scary scenerios in order to get media coverage in order to get broadbased support in order to see a better world (climatically speaking)

Jimmy:

 

Are you able to admit that the sections of Schneider's quote that you obmitted change the meaning substantially? If nothing else, do the words

 

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

 

give you pause for thought?

 

The hypocrisy here is staggering...

 

You are selectively presenting evidence trying to discredit Schneider. You are using precisely the same tactics that you claim makes Schneider a liar.

[luke warm]

Jimmy:

 

Are you able to admit that the sections of Schneider's quote that you obmitted change the meaning substantially?  If nothing else, do the words

 

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

 

give you pause for thought?

i answered them above, i also asked several questions you didn't address... my answer, quoted from above, is "... tell us all how schneider can actually adhere to the scientific method when he reaches conclusions apart from and ahead of their results.."

 

this quote from schneider, "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." should convince any but the most delusional - he merely *hopes* that being effective and being honest are inclusive, but it isn't *necessary*... and richard, his isn't the only quote i provided... so when you speak of hypocrisy and of agendas, don't leave off the only people who actually admit to having an agenda, and who admit that lying to further that agenda is perfectly acceptable... i find that not to be worthy of anyone, much less of someone enamored of the scientific method

 

does the other side have an agenda? i would suppose so... do they admit to lying, or admit that lying is okay to further that agenda? i haven't found anyone who does

[hrothgar]

Jimmy:

 

Are you able to admit that the sections of Schneider's quote that you obmitted change the meaning substantially?  If nothing else, do the words

 

Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

 

give you pause for thought?

i answered them above, i also asked several questions you didn't address... my answer, quoted from above, is "... tell us all how schneider can actually adhere to the scientific method when he reaches conclusions apart from and ahead of their results.."

 

this quote from schneider, "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." should convince any but the most delusional - he merely *hopes* that being effective and being honest are inclusive, but it isn't *necessary*... and richard, his isn't the only quote i provided... so when you speak of hypocrisy and of agendas, don't leave off the only people who actually admit to having an agenda, and who admit that lying to further that agenda is perfectly acceptable... i find that not to be worthy of anyone, much less of someone enamored of the scientific method

 

does the other side have an agenda? i would suppose so... do they admit to lying, or admit that lying is okay to further that agenda? i haven't found anyone who does

I think that it is useful to distinquish between two separate and distinct operations:

 

1. The application of the scientific method

 

The scientific method is a research technique based on proposing and testing a hypothesis.

 

2. The presentation of results to an audience of laymen

 

Take a look at what Schneider is actually saying. He never claims that scientists should compromise their research methodology. This is something that you have invented and are projecting onto his comments.

 

Schneider does state that scientists who believe in global warming have an incentive to shape their presentations to heighten dramatic effect. (once again, this is precisely what you are doing when you leave out significant portions of Schneider's quote. I find it remarkable that you are attacking for the behaviour that you yourself are practicing)

 

As for his concluding sentence, when I read his words I think that his construction indicates that he believes that scientists should be honest. He chose an un necessarily complex construction.

[luke warm]

I think that it is useful to distinquish between two separate and distinct operations:

 

1.  The application of the scientific method

 

The scientific method is a research technique based on proposing and testing a hypothesis.

 

2. The presentation of results to an audience of laymen

 

Take a look at what Schneider is actually saying.  He never claims that scientists should compromise their research methodology.  This is something that you have invented and are projecting onto his comments.

that is not true, but others can judge for themselves... also, this is where you seem to be missing the point... look again at your #2, and look at my quote from above: "... the means he chooses (offering up scary scenerios, etc) to reach his end belies the scientific method... the things he wants to accomplish, and the lengths he goes to do so, can only be undertaken (if he wants to be consistent) *after* the scientific method, not before..."

 

so when you speak of him offering up "results" you prove my point... what results? those obtained through the scientific method? i say no, that he's offering scenerios he *wants* to be true, ones he believes to be true, but not ones proven to be true...

 

in any case, i've provided enough evidence (imho) to support my contention that only one side in this debate has admitted that lying is perfectly acceptable when it accomplishes their aims... others reading these posts are perfectly able to form their own opinions as to these things, as they can compare your arguments vs. mine... even those who might agree that mankind is the root of GW must admit that only one side admits that the truth is not the most important thing

Schneider does state that scientists who believe in global warming have an incentive to shape their presentations to heighten dramatic effect.  (once again, this is precisely what you are doing when you leave out significant portions of Schneider's quote.  I find it remarkable that you are attacking for the behaviour that you yourself are practicing)

again, others reading can decide for themselves if that's what i'm doing, but i deny it... i have used the full quote you provided, and there is no contextual justification for reading it any differently than i originally interpretted it... he believes a thing to be so and tries to convince others of this belief, in "heightened dramatic" verbiage, apart from and ahead of the full testing of hypothoses... is that true or not? is that what he is doing or not?

[Al_U_Card]

When in doubt I always apply the "Which makes more sense?" metric.

 

We do something and clean up after ourselves with a minimum of crap left behind.

 

OR

 

We are very messy and do nothing to put things back the way they were.

 

I vote for acting to reduce our CO2 emissions etc. as a matter of principle.