I don’t think it’s a “hoax,” in the sense of “send this to ten of your friends and Bill Gates will give everyone $100!” or even loony (haha! loony!) “faked moon landing” hoax theorism. I do think it’s become one of those fads that, regardless of any underlying truth, is now more about what people say than what’s actually going on.

Thankfully, the planet will actually get warmer — or not — regardless of the stupidity to which we are subjected in daily society. I’d hate for the Pygmalion effect (I expected the Earth to get warmer, and it did!) to be valid in geology and meteorology the way it is in psychology and education.

(and counting scientists who’ve said one thing or another on this subject strikes me as about as useful as parading military veterans who are for or against a particular war.)

Sarah, I agree with you completely on the “hoax” thing. I was being deliberately provocative, just trying to stir things up a bit. “Fad” is a much better word.

The only reason I engaged in counting scientists is that you regularly hear Al Gore supporter saying stuff like: “all scientists agree the Earth will be destroyed in 20 years if we don’t do something now to cut CO2.” Well, as the attached clearly shows, all scientists DON’T agree on that, and in fact they are becoming less sure all the time because Al Gore has been predicting disaster since 1992, and it hasn’t happened.

Once people calm down and look at the issue more dispassionately, we can have a good discussion on this issue. Should people drive cars that get better gas mileage? Yes. Should the government force them to? No. Should we be concerned about the environment? Yes. Should we freak out about global warming and scare our kids into thinking the world will end tomorrow? No.

One of the issues that needs to be discussed dispassionately is how to continue economic growth without shutting down all industry.

Reasonable people can come to reasonable decisions. My target is the fearmongers and hysteria creators.

I feel most bad for the kids, who don’t have any way to tell that they are being fed over-hyped propaganda a lot of the time. I remember being a kid and being scared to death about the impending “killer bee” disaster. I thought by the time I was an adult we would be able to go outside anymore without risking our lives. Kids just don’t have the ability to keep these long-term disaster scenarios in proportion so it is shameful the way we feed them all the global warming stuff. If Al Gore believes we will all be burning up (or drowning, or freezing, or whatever it is global warming will lead to) in 15 years it is his own fault for being an idiot, but the third and forth graders shouldn’t have to be terrified.

It’s been 8 years since the treat of Y2K. Did anyone ever remember that one? I made a little money from Y2K. But to my friends I wouldn’t tell them to pay for anything.
If someone is making money, I mean a lot of cash, on something, look at them long and hard to see if they have your interests in mind.

If Al Gore will change his stance from Pro-Life to Pro-Choice with one conversation with Bill Clinton, then he just might change his stance on this thing.

What if the glaciers are an anomaly? A sign of global cooling? And now the globe, being an ever changing sphere is just balancing it all out.

What they should really say is. . . . Hey if you keep messing with this earth it will be ok but it just might shake ups off this “krazy thangâ€

Climate Change is the biggest farce (now Gore sees it) on this planet

Jacob J, that is exactly my point. Thanks! Wow, it’s nice when people understand the point you are trying to make!

I’d be somewhat careful on this. There have been earlier surveys and most scientists overwhelmingly support the idea. Admittedly this includes the 2004 study that this study purportedly criticizes (and uses the same data)

Right now though the paper in question isn’t available so it’s hard to be able to criticize it since we don’t know the criteria he is using. As soon as the paper is made public I suspect there will be many criticisms of it since it contradicts most studies of this sort.

For prior studies copy the link since this blog still doesn’t allow links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Clark, yours is one of the opinions I respect the most on this issue. If I might say something very respectfully, based on our past conversations, I think you have a tendency to take at face value what many scientists report when it might be a good time to be more skeptical. You know how important grant money is for scientists, and you know that global warming fanatics control the purse strings these days. And we keep on getting new information that directly contradicts the worst claims of the global warming fanatics. First, the hockey stick was shown to be a myth, then it turned out a lot of the climate studies were too localized, and their data incomplete and skewed, and now NASA stats are off.

Clark, I really, really urge you to read the articles in the National Post. It won’t take more than 30 minutes or so to go through them all.

One of the great untold stories of our generation is how we have allowed a group of anarchists, opportunists and some well-meaning but misguided people to substitute critical thinking for hysteria on the issue of climate change.

I hope you’re sitting down, Geoff, because you and I completely agree on this issue.

Your number three does not seem to be significant. If you can accept a NY Times article, see this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26climate.html

Or this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

Or this: scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php

1934 and 1998 have gone from a statistical tie to a statistical tie, with no effect on the global trend.

I’m no fan of the frothy-mouthed climate worriers, but don’t fall into the trap of paying too much attention to the story about the bad data. At a minimum, your interpretation “It turns out NASA’s numbers were wrong: it was hotter in the 1930s than now.”

The recalculation changes the average temperature since 2000 by one-thousandth of a degree, and it doesn’t negate the findings relative to the 1990s and 2000s. The recalculation does create a local minima in the graph for the 1930s, which presents new opportunities for analysis, but it doesn’t change the observations for 1998-2005.

The task now is for the climatologists (and those that like to keep them honest) to determine the significance of the 1930s minima.

I continually maintain to clients and students that “right answers by wrong reasons are wrong answers.” Like I said, I’ve got issues with the approaches of the global warming Chicken Littles, but don’t set yourself up by making too much of the calculation problem. It’s not an effective weapon in the fight, unless you’re adopting the same scare tactics of the fearmongers.

Comment got cut off. In my first paragraph, I was trying to say:

At a minimum, your interpretation “It turns out NASA’s numbers were wrong: it was hotter in the 1930s than now” is a bit overblown.

a tendency to take at face value what many scientists report when it might be a good time to be more skeptical.

Good scientists try to be dispassionate about data, and spend their time being skeptical as to the bias, the methodology of collection, and the interpretation.

In other words - If the reading says X and there’s no problem with the equipment, fine, it’s X. Now, why does the reading say X and what does that mean?

That’s the part of science non-scientists don’t get.

The problem with some neocon hype over the data is that they have basically tried to cancel all arguments for global warming on the strength of a calculation error. OK, fine - so fix the calculation error. Now it’s time go go back and reanalyze the data — and this needs to be done by both sides.

I equate this to some of the early reaction to Bushman’s book. A lot of people I know read things Bushman wrote and said, “AHA! The Church isn’t true!” A lot of people I know read that and said, “AHA! Bushman is a hack!” The correct approach should have been, “OK, let’s assume Bushman and his extensive research is correct. Now what does that really mean?”

The week after the Newsweek story on global warming, Newsweek published an article by Robert J. Samuelson that gets to the heart of the issue - if global warming is real, there is not much we can do about it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/

So we really ought to be grateful that a degree or two rise in temperatures or a foot or two in sea level is not the end if the world. Otherwise we would likely turn the economy upside down trying to stop it, and make little or no difference to the final outcome.

Mike, #8, I have officially popped the cork on a Martinelli’s sparkling apple juice to celebrate the fact that you and I agree on something.

So what are we supposed to do after we “calm down”?

For me, global warming has not been the impetus to own a hybrid vehicle, fill two recyclers, take re-usable grocery bags to the grocery store and use cloth diapers.

The biggest reason is that oil reserves are finite and smog makes people sick. And I’ve driven past dumps, and many communities have a limited space available for our garbage.

So even if this is true, this is not an excuse for you Rich Republicans to continue driving your SUVs and sneer at recycling.

I’m not sure if most SUV-driving Republicans (I’m thinking of my parents) “sneer” at recycling, but I do agree that a good impetus for change would be hitting people’s checkbooks with oil prices.

The earth’s warming may just be a limited trend. However, if we continue to try and be “environmentally friendly” (which mostly means trying to do much more with the same amount coal, oil, and gas that we use) we’ll see ourselves in a better position politically, economically, and health-wise in our respective nations. To me, THAT is the benefit of trying to lower carbon emissions. The earth may not care; our nation should.

Naismith, I’m not sure where in this post I have sneered at recycling (I assume you’re calling me a rich Republican, even though you have no clue of my financial situation). In fact, I just got through taking my recycling out to the curb this morning, and I support recycling and some of the other measures you mention.

I would ask you, in the most sincere voice possible, to actually read my first post and the links up there. The point of this post is not to make fun of environmentalists but instead to make fun of the global warming alarmists who turn every heat wave or hurricane into new evidence that global warming is upon us. The science simply doesn’t support this view, and I’m tired of the Al Gores of the world alarming my kids for no reason. (Did you know that Al Gore admitted he deliberately exaggerated the facts in “An Inconvenient Truth” for political reasons? I can provide you a link if you are interested.)

One of the most interesting things if you study the history of energy use is that it’s the marketplace that brings innovation. I agree that our oil reserves are finite (not as limited as the GW fanatics say, but still, yes, eventually we will run out). So, if we want energy, we have to come up with new sources. The technology of solar cells is advancing at a breakneck pace, primarily because finally we are getting to the point where the stuff is profitable. There are lots of houses now that are solar/wind powered and they are getting off the grid. That, to me, is a wonderful thing. I would do it in a second if I could, but the economics don’t work for my house yet.

So, don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because somebody has studied the science and doesn’t believe in global warming that he is somehow sneering at recycling. Just the opposite. But I want to concentrate on solutions that actually resolve problems rather than succumb to the hype.

1–I’d like to see Schulte’s article before trumpeting about its’ conclusions, either way.

2–Very few scientists I know agree with Al Gore 100%. Actually, none agree with him 100%. But, while you may disagree with his conclusions (which many scientists do), his science is sound. Most scientists I know who are working in climate science aren’t all that doom and gloomy (nobody reputable believes climate change will destroy the Earth), but we are very aware of likely consequences of global warming (more severe drought in some areas, more rain in others; permafrost melting; displacement of species). Life will go on, but it’s going to be different. The real question is, are we going to be proactive or reactive to those changes?

And as for the National Post–some of those articles are absolutely laughable. The one about Svensmark is particularly bad. The chemistry he describes is well-known, and causes cooling, not warming.

3–NASA’s numbers were off by a small enough margin (a less than a tenth of a degree, I seem to recall, but can’t find) that it doesn’t change the conclusion that the Earth is, on average, and not just in its extremes, warmer than at any other time since we started measuring.

“You know how important grant money is for scientists, and you know that global warming fanatics control the purse strings these days.”

How cynical. You must not know many scientists if you believe this. Yes, grant money is important, and to some extent we have to follow scientific “fads” in order to get paid; that said, people who are scientists aren’t scientists to make money, or somehow bilk the system. Most of us are genuinely curious souls who don’t mind a lot of hard, boring work in the pursuit of asking questions, or finding out new information. If global warming weren’t an issue, we’d find something else to study.

Kristine, here is an article on NASA’s numbers:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2271629.ece

Here is the key point:

=====================================

In a posting on his blog, Mr McIntyre wrote that Nasa records for the hottest 10 years on file had been dramatically changed in the US as a result of his research.

“Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999),” he wrote.

“Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.”

The Goddard Institute claimed that the cause of the error was a switch to a new data-collection system in 2000. This led to an incorrect assumption that the old and new methods matched, which was proved to be untrue.

According to latest figures, 1934 is now the hottest year on record in the US at 1.25C higher than normal. 1998, the previous front-runner, is now second at 1.23C, followed by 1921 at 1.15C.

The old system put 1998 first, with 1.24C above normal, with 1934 at 1.23C. Next was 2006, now relegated to fourth place, which was placed at 1.23C.

===========================

My point is this: climate alarmists were using incomplete and wrong data. The 1930s were, on average, hotter than now. There are some valid issues to consider there, and one of them is the role that CO2 supposedly plays in global warming.

Well, there’s significant evidence that the roll of CO2 has been way overblown:

http://www.dailytech.com/Latest+Research+Erodes+CO2s+Role+in+Global+Warming/article8588.htm

I agree that Schulte’s article needs to be analyzed. It hasn’t come out yet. But I’ll make you a bet: no matter what it says, the results will be discounted by global warming alarmists, who are completely invested in the global warming hype. I hope the dispassionate scientists come forth and drown out the biased ones. But somehow I doubt it.

I’m not saying that scientists are bad people, which your last comments seems to imply. Most of them toil away in low-paid jobs studying somewhat dull information because they are, as you say, “genuinely curious souls.” However, at the end of the day, they can’t keep on studying things unless they get funding. So, who controls the funding? I’ll let you answer that yourself, but we both know that the vast majority of people who control the funding want results that favors the global warming “consensus.” Nothing cynical about that, it’s simply reality.

for a far more nuanced and, I would say, accurate portrayal of what scientists think about global warming, check out:

http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

Neoconservativism:

Hysteria about terrorism good

Hysteria about global warming bad

Threadjacks? Maybe OK.

Neoconservatism:

Sober, level-headed analysis of terrorists who have attacked the United States and are plotting to attack again.

Sober, level-headed desire to make sure global warning alarmists don’t stop economic growth, poverty reduction and cause hysteria among the young.

Threadjacks? Not OK.

Geoff–the average of the last decade is still warmer than the average of the 1930’s. That hasn’t changed.

“But I’ll make you a bet: no matter what it says, the results will be discounted by global warming alarmists, who are completely invested in the global warming hype. I hope the dispassionate scientists come forth and drown out the biased ones. But somehow I doubt it.”

and

“So, who controls the funding? I’ll let you answer that yourself, but we both know that the vast majority of people who control the funding want results that favors the global warming “consensus.”"

Here you are claiming scientists are bad at science. You seem to think Michael Asher at the Daily Tech is a better scientist, or at least is reporting on better, more dispassionate science. He’s not. You also apparently think the only dispassionate scientist is one who agrees with you, and you seem to question the integrity of anyone who disagrees with your preconceived notions.

I realize pesky “facts” aren’t relevant to a discussion of this sort, but NASA’s temperature record aside, there’s still an impressive array of evidence showing average temperatures are warmer than they’ve been in centuries, if not thousands of years. You have Lonnie Thompson’s tropical glaciers that are melting back further than they have in thousands of years (at least 50,000 years in one case in I believe Peru); you also have permafrost melting at high latitudes that we know hasn’t melted in hundreds to thousands of years because we can carbon date the material preserved there; you can see plant and animal habitat ranges shifting; and there are many other lines of evidence. The USDA plant hardiness zone map has changed recently, with hardiness zones moving northward. Borehole temperatures, which have been proven to very accurately respond to air temperature changes, show significant degrees of warming–more, in fact, than Mann’s infamous hockey stick (which has been, incidentally, replaced with much better, truly multi-proxy reconstructions). These things aren’t happening randomly. They are a result of average temperatures increasing, in particular, average temperatures at high latitudes.

“My point is this: climate alarmists were using incomplete and wrong data. The 1930s were, on average, hotter than now. There are some valid issues to consider there, and one of them is the role that CO2 supposedly plays in global warming.”

No, the extremes were higher in the 1930’s. the average is still higher today. The readjustment of the NASA data changed the average by about a tenth of a degree for North America, and by less than a hundredth of a degree world-wide.

I have to second Kristine. Global warming naysayers like to pick out a few facts that are wrong in a minor fashion as if that discredits the whole array of data. That’s most unfortunate. As I said, the paper in question isn’t publicly available yet. When it is I’ll lay really good odds it’s discredited just like all the other anti-warming claims have been.

Note that the replies are already coming. Sorry for the complex links since the blog doesn’t support anchor tags.

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/08/oreskes_responds_to_schulte.php

Note this is the response from the author of the original paper in question that supposedly has been revisited.

A few more:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/survey_less_than_half_of_all_p.php

When folks criticizing global warming consistently are so misleading I think it really behooves one to ask why one is listening to these guys. I stopped paying attention to the debate years ago because every time I’d investigate one of the supposed knock out punches the arguments would fall apart. Scientists had good answers to skeptics. Skeptics didn’t have good answers to the climatists. I just don’t have time to waste on the topic anymore. It lost interest much like debating Evolution doubters.

At this point it is established science. Realistically it has been for about a decade. I was a big skeptic in the 90’s but the evidence is there.

So what are we supposed to do after we “calm down”?

For me, global warming has not been the major impetus to own a hybrid vehicle, fill two recyclers, take re-usable grocery bags to the grocery store, use cloth diapers, etc.

The biggest reason is that oil reserves are finite and smog makes people sick. And I’ve driven past dumps, and many communities have a limited space available for new dumps.

So even if your “facts” about global warming were true, it would not be an excuse for you Rich Republicans to continue driving your SUVs and sneer at recycling.

You’re better off getting one of those high efficiency diesels than a hybrid. Most hybrids only get a few mpg better than the base vehicle. And you end up paying a $4000 premium for it. The diesels can get up to 50 mpg. Although admittedly the Prius does pretty good. (Lots of folks get 40 mpg)

We’ve had our Prius for almost two years. We average 45 mpg. In some situations, though, we’ll average 55 mpg (e.g., on a trip to the Florida Keys, where the speed limit is 45 mph, it seemed to be optimal for the car).

We didn’t pay any more for our Prius than we would have for a Matrix, factoring in only last year’s tax credit, not even accounting for the gas savings, which have been more than expected due to higher-than-expected pump prices.

We refused to pay the “dealer premium” (cost above sticker to get an in-demand car) and instead left our name on a waiting list. The dealer called us when they were trying to meet a quarterly sales quota, and said that if we could “arrange our own financing,” we could have the car tomorrow, a one-time offer. Because we save money towards a new car every month instead of making a car payment, we could just write a check (a testimony to all that church advice about staying out of debt).

But for us, there are other advantages to the hybrid. The Prius has a “big car feel”; it has a more stable ride than a lot of econoboxes because of the weight of the batteries. And the “stealth mode” is so quiet that one can run the air conditioning all night without bothering one’s neighbors, something that has been a great blessing to my husband on the various camping trips he needs to attend as part of his calling. Oh, and the seats lie down totally flat so that one can sleep in it, with the air conditioning running. This feature has allowed him to be totally functional the next day at work.

Plus, in the town where I live there are very few diesel pumps, mostly on the outskirts of town, so I don’t know how easy a diesel would be here. Our car in Brasil used alcohol fuel, and it was fine.

I’m not half as concerned about federal fuel efficiency standards as I am about federal horsepower standards.

It has been amply documented that higher powered cars kill. They facilitate more aggressive driving which leads to horrific highway accidents. The death toll each year is staggering and dwarfs all other causes of American death including the War in Iraq.

Unfortunately, American auto-makers are aware that horsepower sells, and are stuck in an arms-race with each other for more and more powerful motors. Our lives and those of our families are being put at risk by this.

Oh, and incidentally, lower horsepower means better fuel efficiency.

Naismith, I’m not sure why you posted the same comment twice. My response to your #15 and your #28 is #17.

Yeah, our rush to use ethanol has been a wonderful result of global warming hysteria. It has pushed up food prices of all kinds of items and, guess what? Ethanol is less environmentally friendly than plain old gasoline. This is what you get when you allow global warming hysteria to replace logical thinking.

See here, and if you don’t trust the source just google ethanol and food prices and start looking at the results.

http://www.energyxxi.org/xxi/resources/facts_ethanol.htm

Clark: When folks criticizing global warming consistently are so misleading I think it really behooves one to ask why one is listening to these guys.

This statement could so easily be reversed.

Clark, I’ll admit I’m getting a bit off-track going after scientists when, as you and Kristine point out, the majority of them are honestly trying to do their jobs.

My real target are the people who take that data and try to scare people with it. As I’ve posted before, Al Gore admitted in an interview that he deliberately exaggerated the effects of global warming for political reasons. Now, kids are forced to see his movie several times a year by overzealous teachers.

Can’t you spare a little scientific wrath for the dishonest shysters who are trying to scare the public with outright lies and exaggerations?

Kristine, Clark and Naismith,

Because you have set yourselves up at the main defenders of the global warming theory, I have a few questions for you:

1)The world’s temperature has gone up and down throughout history. Could you please tell me what the optimum world temperature should be? Is it the temperature of the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1960s or the 1600s and 1700s (when we had a mini ice age)?

2)If we are heading toward global cooling in the 22st century, for example, should we all pump more CO2 in the air to raise the worldwide temperatures?

3)All of the scenarios of lowering CO2 involve huge changes in worldwide industry. Industry gives people jobs, which helps them escape poverty. So, how many millions of people have to lose their jobs until you would be happy that we are fighting global warming effectively?

4)Have you ever considered that a small increase in worldwide temperatures may have some positive impacts? Do you know how many people a year die from the cold and diseases related to the cold? Have you considered the worldwide impact on crop production by slightly higher temperatures, which would allow food to be grown in areas it cannot be grown now?

5)Are you in favor of exaggerating the effects of global warming (as Al Gore has himself admitted he has done) for political reasons?

6)How many times a year should school children be forced to see “An Inconvenient Truth?” I know children who had to see it three times last year. My children had to see it twice. Can you see why people may begin to react negatively to their kids being forced to see dishonest propaganda?

Spare a little too for the “honest” shysters who, in the name of humanity, believe industrialization to be the sole cause of all calamity–and therefore jump on the global warming band wagon with just as much zeal-without-knowledge as those white wig-wearing wacko warming naysayers.

Spare a little wrath, that is.

“An Inconvenient Truth” is being shown in public schools? One more reason to home school I guess…

Aluwid, check this out: In Canada, some kids were forced to watch it in four different classes:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f7806f79-bf1f-4bd1-8d33-c904feb71047

1–There is no optimal temperature for the Earth. There are optimal temperatures for different species, which is what causes habitat ranges to shift as temperatures shift.

2–My personal opinion (not my scientific opinion, since I don’t study this question at all) is that geoengineering is something that should be approached very, very carefully. There are always unintended consequences to actions that act on such a broad scale.

3–Not a fair question.

4–Yes, there will be benefits to global warming for some areas. In fact, last tuesday I heard a talk about who the prospective winners and losers are in global warming. Turns out the US is in pretty good shape. Depending on what metric you use China and India may be okay, or may be totally screwed. The paper’s submitted to PNAS (Proclamation of the National Academy of Sciences), and I’d be happy to tell you about it when it gets published. The authors actually admitted they were a little hesitant to publish the paper because there are a lot of countries who, at least based on this analysis, don’t have much to worry about. The political scientist in the group pointed out getting those countries on board (including us) will be harder when it’s pointed out the major impacts of global warming won’t affect them (us) greatly, even though some countries really will see significant impacts.

To ask you somewhat of the inverse question, is it fair to saddle a developing country with a costly local environmental catastrophe in order to support our cheap, consumption-heavy lifestyle?

5–No.

6–I’d leave it up to the parents and the school districts. I watched enough trash in high school I’d consider An Inconvenient Truth an improvement. As I said before, the science Gore presents is solid. The implications of the science, and his suggestion of what we should do, are a valid part of the debate. I think it is fair to expose kids to multiple viewpoints along with the logic behind those views, and then expect them to analyze and defend the viewpoints they choose.

I’m with you on the ethanol thing too–it’s a farce. Again, most scientists I know roll their eyes at the suggestion we could replace oil with ethanol. Ethanol has a much lower energy density, and even if we turned every piece of arable land in the country over to corn for ethanol production we couldn’t supply enough ethanol. But farmers are a powerful lobbying group and they know a cash cow when they see one.

“…is it fair to saddle a developing country with a costly local environmental catastrophe in order to support our cheap, consumption-heavy lifestyle?”

This is where the rubber meets the road in this debate. What kind of a reliable consensus is there among scientists as to the impact of industrialization on global warming? Do we know beyond a reasonable doubt that a less “consumption-heavy lifestyle” in the U.S. (and the like) will significantly reduce the possibility of “environmental catastrophe” in said (intimated) developing countries?

Kristine N.,

The U.N. projects a sea level rise of 23 inches in the next century. The National Academy of Sciences says between 4 and 35 inches. Al Gore says 20 feet. You consider that solid science?

Geoff: Could you please tell me what the optimum world temperature should be?

Depends what you want. What a Canadian might wish is different from what a person in Africa or the gulf coast might say. The issue is ultimately what effects are going to happen with rising temperature. A rise is temperature will melt glaciers which will cause the coasts to rise slightly. However as I’m sure you’re aware a slight rise is height can really affect many areas. For instance where I lived in Louisiana was about 100 miles from the coast but less than a foot above sea level.

Geoff: If we are heading toward global cooling in the 22st century, for example, should we all pump more CO2 in the air to raise the worldwide temperatures?

I don’t think there’s too many serious concerns about that. But it would certainly be easier to handle global cooling than global warming.

Geoff: All of the scenarios of lowering CO2 involve huge changes in worldwide industry. Industry gives people jobs, which helps them escape poverty. So, how many millions of people have to lose their jobs until you would be happy that we are fighting global warming effectively?

I think the economic issues are complex. Further the cost/benefit calculation has to include costs due to changes in agriculture, having to put levies up in 1st world countries (to save the Gulf Coast regions and parts of Europe), costs due to expected wars and famines, and so forth.

What I personally think is going on is that many conservative doubters (not you) don’t like the economic discussion so they spread fud on the scientific issue.

My personal feeling is that most countries won’t take the steps to ease global warming. Look at Canada which is far more liberal and environmentally conscious than the US. Yet it has horrible stats on the issue. (Admittedly strongly biased due to the tar sands - but there you go) The rich countries would rather spend the trillions to react to changes than deal with it. And they are rich enough to be able to do this. So the poor will bear by far the brunt of the problem. Of course the result will be more pressures on immigration.

Geoff: Have you ever considered that a small increase in worldwide temperatures may have some positive impacts?

Of course. I’m Canadian. If nothing else the opening up of the northwest passage will have a huge effect on the costs of transport - especially between Asia and Europe.

Geoff: Are you in favor of exaggerating the effects of global warming (as Al Gore has himself admitted he has done) for political reasons?

Not in the least. I think there’s plenty of fud on both sides.

However look at what has happened to conservatives who have unwisely politicized science. Now as a whole many people just don’t trust them and discount what they say out of hand even when they say good things. I think that this has happened to many (Gore among them).

Straight talking is the best policy.

Geoff: How many times a year should school children be forced to see “An Inconvenient Truth?

I don’t like videos like that in class myself. I’ve never seen the film in question so I don’t have any opinion on it really.

Naismith, as I said, the Prius does well. I was more thinking of the Civic, Expedition and others for which you pay a huge premium with relatively shallow benefits.

First of all, thanks Kristine and Clark for your answers.

Kristine, re your answer 4 in #40, there are some things you may want to consider. If the Latin America, Asia and Africa are going to get to Western-style living standards (which is what just about everybody wants), they most go through a phase of industrialization. This phase involves pollutants, including CO2. Just as an example, China has now passed the United States in CO2 production. Any worldwide attempt to decrease CO2 will not just affect the United States. It will have to cause a huge slowdown in industrialization in China, India and other countries, such as South Africa, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico. These countries have the highest percentage increase in CO2 in the coming years because of a higher potential for new industrialization.

From the perspective of these countries, it is incredibly short-sighted and unfair to clamp down on their development so a bunch of greens from rich countries can “protect the environment.” We already have our riches, and we’re going to prevent other countries from growing their economies out of starvation?

At the same time, it is industrialization and entrepeneurship that allows innovation, which allows new things to be built. These new things always have the potential of being more environmentally friendly than older technologies. Think of how much cleaner to the environment Silicon Valley technologies are compared to smokestack technologies. So, if we try to stop industrialization in rich countries, we are 1)preventing the development of new environmentally friendly technologies and 2)preventing Third World countries from getting new technologies that may help them as well.

I have already decided where I am on this debate. I like the fact that businesses are trying to be environmentally friendly, but the only solution for our current problem (if, indeed, it is a problem, which is still up for debate) is industrialization and innovation, which will allow new technologies that will be cleaner and better for the Earth. One small example: recent advances in the commercialization of solar power have primarily come from entrepreneurs in CHINA. Eventually, the market will resolve everything.

In the meantime, there has been an unprecedented decrease in poverty worldwide in Asia and Latin America, which is a good thing all around.

I am extremely concerned that global warming alarmists will attempt to stop innovation, stop industrialization and eventually stop the poverty reduction revolution that is taking place. This would be much worse than a one-foot rise in the sea level (if, indeed, that happens, which I personally doubt).

“Naismith, I’m not sure why you posted the same comment twice.”

Because of course, your comments posting was acting wonky (yet again), and I did not think it had posted. It had gone into a “not available” screen and I couldn’t access your blog the rest of the day.

This happens a lot.

“Because you have set yourselves up at the main defenders of the global warming theory, I have a few questions for you:”

My answer is basically that I have no opinion. I refuse to answer your “How long have you been beating your wife?” questions. As I stated before, I think there are are reasons OTHER than global warming to think that we should be changing the way we live and do business.

The other point is that a social scientist married to a biological scientist, I actually respect the work of scientists and understand the strengths of the peer-review system. I am not arrogant enough to play dueling scientists the way some are so comfortable doing. I will fight tooth and nail in defense of the BMJ estimates about Iraqi deaths because I know the principles involved (and one of the reviewers was a friend). On this, I don’t have firsthand knowledge of the science.

“At the same time, it is industrialization and entrepeneurship that allows innovation, which allows new things to be built.”

But this should all be done in a moral way. It should be done in a way that respects the workers, by providing health insurance for them if it is in a country that uses a system of employer-provided health insurance and not making them work in unsafe conditions, and also in a way that respects the earth.

It is the morality issue, rather than global warming per se, that would cause me to oppose some of the wanton growth that you champion.

A couple fantastic books to read are Natural Capitalism and Cradle to Cradle. They talk about the ways that industry can both embrace sustainable systems and make a profit. Fascinating stuff.

Geoff, I think regarding third world nations its in their best interests to control pollution. Further it’s an old wives tale to suggest they have to go through the same steps of industrialization we did.

Right now probably the biggest problem in China is its pollution. They are running out of clean water and more importantly it’s affecting the peasants who still make up the majority of the population. I’d lay really good odds that global warming will affect China more than us and that China is worried about this. (Thus the build up in nuclear power)

Geoff–you’re right that it would be incredibly hypocritical for us first world nations to restrict the industrialization of third world countries over global warming concerns. However, nobody who actually thinks about this subject seriously thinks we should do that. Every proposal I’ve ever of how to deal with third world industrialization suggests we first world countries should help third world countries “leap-frog” over the carbon-intensive technologies to less carbon intensive technologies. I personally think it’s a really good strategy–not only do we slow carbon dioxide emissions, but we also create markets that aren’t based on carbon and thus won’t be competing for scarce fossil fuels. It’s likely that everyone will have to switch over to non fossil fuel based energy production within the next century, and nations that have at least some infrastructure based on energy sources other than fossil fuels will probably see an easier transition when we truly star running out of hydrocarbons.

Cynical? Who is cynical? In the 1930’s huge numbers of intellectuals were communists and unabashedly so. After all didn’t every intelligent person know that communism was a way out of the horrific problems caused by capitalisn?

Well here we are and communism is fully discredited (except for a few lunatics). So what is the new fad for the ills of capitalism? Environmentalism. But its not a cure suited for most of our “intellectual friends”. (Look at Al Gore’s utility bill. [But he bought carbon offsets! Oh yeah I can get you some shares of Enron])

It is a full fledged and horribly cynical device to get control over others while the pigs take over the farmhouse.

The truth is there are natural cycles of warming and cooling that have no anthropogenic component. The world has been both much colder and somewhat hotter than we have experienced in our generations and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. But we can pretend to do something about it by letting Al Gore and his CYNICAL cronies extort us.

Just say NO!

Georged #51,
Your “every intelligent person in the 1930s” strawman also believed in evolution (then far more scientifically tenuous than now), relativity, quantum theory, vaccination etc. You can’t simply discredit a position shared by an overwhelming majority of climatologists (i.e. that there is an anthropogenic component to current warming trends) by saying that at x time intellectuals believed y and y turned out to be wrong so what intellectuals believe today must, therefore, also be wrong. That logic is so juvenile that its fallacy is self-evident. “Mormons once believed that Christ was coming in the early 1890s; therefore, what Mormons believe today is wrong.”
Global warming is a salient issue. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic components have made the question more salient. Salient issues (like terrorism) can be more easily exploited to acquire and exercise power than non-salient issues.
Nobody who takes seriously the hysterical rantings of the Glenn Beck crowd about the apocalyptic threat that Muslims are on the verge of imposing Sharia law globally is allowed to complain about the irresponsible people who hysterically rant about a different global threat.

Furthermore, no one dissatisfied with the fear-mongering, proof-textish ax-grinding of the Kraukaeurs and September Dawns of the world gets to take the Glen Becks of the world seriously and simultaneously retain credibility.
Geoff’s complaints about the melodramatic style and abuse of peer-reviewed scholarship in Gore’s work are fine. There IS overwhelming scientific consensus (to the extent that such is even possible) on the anthropogenic component to global warming patterns. There is no such consensus as to the ideal mechanisms for dealing with the problem, the feasibility of such solutions, the desirability of such solutions, the impact that various posited solutions might produce in other spheres (i.e. whether or not restricting third world industrialization or prodding it in less CO2 intensive directions will exacerbate global poverty). Mr. Gore is entitled to his opinions. So is Geoff. So am I. But the fact that Gore and other activists misuse hard science is not grounds for dismissing said hard science any more than the impoverished film-making and ridiculous agenda behind Sept Dawn is grounds for pretending MMM never happened or the absurd rantings of Sean Hannity and Christopher Hitchens constitute grounds for dismissing the threat of terrorism.

Brad,

Well said–though one must admit that science in the socio-political arena has always been more problematic than science in the science community. I don’t think there’s a clear consensus on what climate conditions would be like without an anthropogenic influence; there really may be nothing we can do to thwart a warming trend. And yet here we all are doing back-flips over politicized assumptions rather than facts.

I agree Brad. While enviro hysteria has its own definite problems, I find it striking how similar the arguments of the anti-global warming crowd are to the arguments of anti-Mormons. Same bad logic, same old punching bags, same old fallacies.

By the way Geoff, that’s not a shot across your bow. I know you were only criticizing the overhyped rhetoric accompanying the environmental agenda.

What’s the current scientific consensus on whether or not Israelites lived in the Americas before the time of Christ? I think many of us choose to disbelieve current scientific paradigms for various reasons, having a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon is an example of one reason why we might set aside the current secular ideas of our age and assume that further knowledge will be received later.

Regarding Global Warming, I’m only Joe Average so consider that while reading my opinion, but I find it hard to be persuaded by any amount of scientific consensus for three reasons:

1. I find it very hard to believe that humankind truly understands as much about our climate and all it’s variables as we claim to. Give it another couple decades with the same degree of consensus and no large change in the theories, and this reason should diminish for me.
2. The harsh rhetoric used against those that disagree. Those that equate global warming doubters with holocaust deniers are not doing the cause any favors. It seems like there are emotional reasons to avoid theorizing against the grain.
3. The drastic measures that often accompany the rhetoric. If this was just an abstract theory that people were talking about then I wouldn’t have the emotional investment to care one way or another and would just fall in line with what the scientists are saying. But acceptance is being pushed as the first step towards concrete societal change. Perhaps it’s needed, perhaps it’s not, but it does cause more reluctance on my part to accept the theories that are being presented.

Anyway, like I said, I’m just Joe Average, not a scientist, but perhaps my reasons above will help some understand why many resist this particular topic.

Hey Geoff, interesting conflicting topic once again hehe.

It’s sort of interesting how you mention that Al Gore says that Global Warming will be the end of the world and on and on.. I’ve heard him speak several times and my personal impression is that he’s trying to bring awareness in the way that we are consuming the planet that we live in, in “disproportionate” ways, and I think that’s what we ought to focus too.

I think that we all know that Global Warming is a cyclical pattern that has happened over and over, and what’s on question now is how much effect do humans have on it right? But leaving that aside, why not support the idea of stewardship with the earth ? Isn’t that one of our duties anyways? and why fight against a good idea for a good cause regardless?

It seems to me that a lot of the discussion in here is about the supposed “fear” about GLobal Warming. Iceberg’s are melting and the ocean is rising and there’s no doubt on that, so if you guys believe that Global Warming is not Human caused, that’s that make you stop been a good steward with our planet? does that not make you be more environment consciencious ? That’s all Al Gore asks, and in my humble point of view, I would much rather prevent.. if it’s not true GOOOOD ! the initiative to take care and push all nations to do a good cause would do good anyways, but if Al Gore is right then we might all be regretting. So I rather prevent then regret. Overall this is a topic that’s far wider then just the theory, because it leads you to think twice on how you consume and take things for granted.