Beware the church of climate alarm
smh.com.au
smh.com.au
But I know it ain't science. It's fun, it's speculative, and it's entertaining. It ain't science.
What I don't like is when religion joins with theories that can not be reliably tested and scare-mongering under the rubric of science. Then they deny being the pseudo science that they are. Seems like it combines the worst of everything: end-of-days, a call for repentance, smearing the critics, and smarmy self-righteousness.
That's just my opinion, mind you. I really think if you've only got one earth, a hugely complex environment and some kind of computer modeling system that a little degree of humility probably is a good idea. I'm happy with saying "I don't know." Seems like even (or especially) if you take a large grant that should be a fine response.
Global warming may be true and deadly. But that still doesn't make it science.
I'm looking forward to the new Czech pol. Discussion and skepticism is a good thing, especially when it comes to science.
So what you are saying is that if scientists comment on the apparent societal consequences of their research, it is religion or pseudoscience?
At the same time, if someone who's not a scientist comments on those things, people will say that they are unqualified and doesn't know what they are talking about. That's a nice recipe for making science irrelevant to society, it seems to me.
What is science but the study of physical truth? Isn't the ultimate aim of science to be able understand the way the things work so that it is possible to project the conseqences of different actions into the future? Your position is irrational and stupid.
My belief is that thinking people should take a tougher line on ignorance, irrationality and stupidity. By choosing to engage with these type of opinions with a 'neutral stance' you are giving strength and legitimacy to their arguments. You are essentially saying 'Although your argument seems reasonable, I disagree for the following reasons'.
So maybe I went too far. But I do think there should be a cost for making spurious arguments. Also I feel the casual viewer of arguments shyould be left in no doubt as to the validity of the original statement.
"There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature". Please.
The real shame is that although I believe that global warming is man-made I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise. But I've yet to hear a counter argument that isn't self contradicting, dishonest or full of cherry-picked data and ad hominems. It suggests the 'climate-skeptic' camp is dominated by people who have (perhaps involuntary) ulterior motives.
Sure humans have affected the climate, but I'm scared by the level of religious language and fanaticism:
"Repent of your carbon emissions!"
"The world will be destroyed in ten years!"
It used to be like 75 years but I guess people didn't really care so now they employ all these fear tactics. New York will be under water in our lifetime? Seriously? Many alarmists employ the same language that Pat Robertson does about the second coming and that Bush does about the terrorists.
As soon as I think I'm being manipulated by fear I get really skeptical. Al Gore IS a politician and his messianic message is demagogy as much as anything.
I really see no connection.
Regardless of the merits of the climate change argument, Al Gore is in it for the political mileage and that's all.
I'm old enough to remember when the Green lobby was worried about global cooling, a new Ice Age. The things they prescribed - massively increase regulation and taxation - strangely are exactly the same despite the problem being the opposite! Doesn't that seem odd too? Almost as if it was never anything to do with the environment...
Klein observes that Chait’s riff here is the equivalent of those people who attack Al Gore for being a global-warming crusader even though he rides in cars and uses light bulbs. Of course it is; the point of such attacks is, first, to deride anyone who says anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, and second, to establish that we need listen to radical truths only if they’re spoken by people who live lives of saintly renunciation. Since such people are very rare, this guarantees we won’t be frequently disturbed.
In light of those claims, I find it strange that you (the fictional Ron-Al McGore) are not really changing your eating habit of at least 4 Big Macs at every meal.
Al Gore is arguing for an across the board tax increase. He thinks that everyone should pay more taxes. On the other hand, he's not donating his money to the government. If Al Gore really thought it was a good idea to raise taxes, wouldn't he pay them whether the government mandates it or not?
That illustrates more clearly the fact that action on global warming is collective, the same way that taxes are. In fact, you could probably implement action on global warming as a tax increase, by requiring people to purchase carbon credits. I hope you see why it's not required for you to donate extra money to the government in order to argue for a tax increase. Given that, I hope you see why it's not required for you to preemptively stop consuming carbon to argue for government action on global warming.
So why would you do something you think is stupid...? unless you're stupid?
But the point is that Al Gore is not advocating that you live like a hermit. He's advocating that hermits live like hermits on renewable power, that lawyers live like lawyers on renewable power, and that millionaires live like millionaires on renewable power. Which he does, to the extent that the infrastructure makes it easy. And then, because he's neither a back-to-nature homesteader nor a backyard engineer, he wisely invests his time and energy in what he is good at: lobbying for better infrastructure so that we can all create less CO2.
The irony is that if Al Gore did live like Saint Francis he would be less effective. He would be accused of being some kind of scary hippie socialist. That script is just sitting on the shelf waiting to be used. "What does Al Gore have against the average middle-class millionaire?" would be the cry. "He wants to force you to live like a hermit even after you make ten million dollars!" Or maybe they'd just make fun of his hair. That never gets old.
[1] Wikipedia entry on "Al Gore". I'm not about to descend farther into the research chain, dodging propaganda all the way. Talk about a waste of CO2. It's not like facts are going to do any good in this thread anyway.
By your argument you could discount everyone who is arguing that global warming is real by saying that they are driving and flying and emitting carbon. Face it -- in the US today you have to drive and fly to do anything, including trying to change that fact itself.
I don't know anything about his residence, but that is anyway a complete ad hominem attack. The characteristics of his home have nothing to do with the merits of his case.
Can we name concrete names of those rich scientists, please? I'm pretty sure Jim Hansen's gains have been limited to the risk of losing his job and of not being allowed to publish his results.
And saying that "it used to be 75 years but people didn't care so now they say the world will be destroyed in 10 years" is spectacularly dishonest. First, scientific facts change. If you follow the research you'll know that evidence is accumulating that effects like deglaciation are happening faster than models used to predict.
When better data become available, scientific predictions will change. Arguing that this proves that science is flawed or scientists are dishonest is like calling people changing their mind about something with more information "flip-floppers" -- but it's the only rational thing to do.
Second, who is saying that "the world will be destroyed in ten years"? As far as I know, reputable scientists are saying things like "unless changes are made within ten years, we will reach a point where it will be too late to stop climate change from reaching a point with likely bad effects". That's a very different thing. Those bad effects won't happen for a long time, like 50-100 years, because of the thermal inertia of the planet, but that also means we must start slowing down now. It's like driving a car, you'd better start slowing down before you get to the curve, trying to do it when you realize you're heading off the road is too little, too late.
Oh, and Al Gore is not a politician. He holds no office, and does not work for a political party. I guess it would be fair to call him a lobbyist, but his financial gain is much less than that of other "lobbyists" like the wall street people. In my eyes, he has way more credibility in his current position than any of those who have large financial stakes in influencing people.
You're right, these predictions are going to change. They are going to change forever because there are infinitely many variables that go into the climate. For someone to take guesses at what the values are for 70 of them and call that model "science" is bull crap.
I live in England, wet, dark miserable England - yet in Roman times there were vineyards and olive trees here. Are you going to tell me next that the bad old Roman Empire was emitting clouds of toxic waste?
I don't agree with that statement, but it's a valid argument for a climate skeptic. "The scientists are just trying to keep the gravy train going" is not a valid argument, because it applies equally to all heavily researched areas. So please, don't use that specific argument again, and understand why it is incorrect.
Any debate on England and Rome is entirely beside the point.
Channel 4 did a documentary on this phenomenon not long ago.
Do you trust the scientific process that has led to an overwhelming support for climate change theories in the scientific communities? Do you think that there is sufficient possibility that the process has been corrupted?
Human nature leads to politics, which leads to consensus. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to separate science from consensus.
Tommy Kuhn, we miss you.
I'm not saying take it at face value. I am saying that in the absence of a personal ability to test & verify & delve into the research, your best bet is a bit of meta research.
Of course, it is not popular to discuss costs and benefits when discussing Global Warming. The kind of leftists who are the big green alarmists don't look kindly on economic arguments. However, I believe they are essential to making rational decisions. We should all have the goal of doing more good than harm.
Here's his TED talk on the subject.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...
Believing is irrational. Given enough time, charisma and persuasion anyone can be made to believe anything.
> I am genuinely open to being persuaded otherwise
Read on the recent research into the abrupt climate change that is now thought to have caused the demise of the Egyptian civilization. Specifically they uncovered the evidence that there was a few degrees jump in average temperatures in a scope of few years.
Discovery covered this half a year ago or so. Ironically enough they were airing it right after yet another fart-less-save-the-earth special.
Because some beliefs are irrational and the result of charisma and persuasion, the act of believing itself is irrational? Really?
I find it ironic that you immediately follow that statement with a persuasive argument that you seem to believe.
What was uncovered were the facts demonstrating severe climate changes in ancient times. This requires no believing in, merely accepting that archeologists didn't fake their findings.
believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
Your "acceptance" of "the facts" is "believing" by the definition above, pure and simple.
As recently as about 30 years ago, scientists were freaking out about Global Cooling which, at the time, had been going on since the 40s. Before that, they were concerned about the warming trend that started in the 1880s.
Here's a delightful article from Newsweek in the 70s: http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Moreover, even if "Global Cooling" was not the lie it is, this argument is meaningless. History is littered with discarded scientific theories. This is not cause for concern. It is the way that science works. What matters is whether current theories are correct. It is interesting to note, then, that current climate models accurately describe--among many other things--the cooling period you mention.
Finally, the statement, "Climates have always changed and they always will," is not informative. It's a blatantly bunk argument that since climate change is a normal occurrence, any change in climate is normal.
<sigh> You're right. Good thing no one made that argument. Too bad you didn't read what I wrote about that, which was, approximately, that most people really don't that (sadly, most people also can't point at Mexico on a map). No one is arguing that because climate normally occurs that all climate change must be normal. They are just pointing out, "Hey guys-- this isn't the first time that climate HAS changed-- so let's not rush to conclusions".
Scientific consensus 30 years ago was for warming? After Source? Here's a quote from that article (admittedly from Newsweek):
Meteorologists disagree [!] about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous [!] in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_global_wa...
Is a good read... Opinions seem more varied than a lot of people think. I don't really have an opinion. I don't have enough facts, but I have to say that the "torch and pitchforks" feeling I get from the scientific mob rub me the wrong way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Interesting video displaying this point, but I think towards the end it gets a little preachy.
But those are not the only options, so more thought need be given to what action to take, at what expense and to whom, and at what opportunity cost, and to the (relative) detriment of other pressing problems.
The speaker refers to his approach as a silver bullet; it's more of a silver lollipop.
There is a difference between people who irrationally disagree with relatively conclusive evidence and those who are skeptical about outcome.
Is global warming even happening?
Is man-made CO2 causing it?
Will reducing man-made CO2 help?
Is the best way to mitigate this to stop emitting CO2, to research green tech, nuclear or to look into measures allowing us to live in a hotter world? And why? How is "best" defined?
Then you'll need impartical referees. When side D claims that no recent study shows that X is true, and side G says there is, who's right? What exhibits are allowed, and how?
But never the less, this form of debate exists and thrives, it's called peer-reviewed journals. Too bad that the climate debate is too much in a hurry to use them.
"Looking after yourself means everyone is looked after." Now beat me.
Why would the temperature today be the best for the people? Is there something about the current temperature, or is it just any kind of change from the current temp would cause so much chaos as to outweigh any benefits?
I guess if you wanted what was best for people, you'd want the temp that had the most arable land, right?
In general, a warmer climate is good for us. We're at a geological-historical climate high right now, and it comes with lots of available farm land and pleasant temperatures. Raising it yet further, beyond anything human beings have experienced previously, is projected to bring some good things (Canada will be a huge farm!) and some bad things (malaria will spread its range massively, large increase in hurricanes). Raising it rapidly, however, gets us lots of the latter immediately, and the benefits if any emerge much more slowly.
So should we really be afraid of global warming? On the balance, I think a controlled, intentional warming might be a good idea, although I have no idea who would have the authority to say so or execute on it. Is the current out-of-control, unintended warming dangerous? Almost certainly.
So there is this number, concept, or metric, called "climate". What is it? Debatable. Let's say it's average overall global temperature -- just for simplicity's sake. It's okay now, and it's always changing and that's okay too. We just need it to change at a slower rate than it is now.
How can we measure the change in an unknown/non-standard metric? Sure -- anecdotally, we can observe things like less sea ice in the Arctic, or the decrease in ice coverage around Antarctica, but correlation and causality are completely different things. We just kind of "connect the dots" to join up global climate change and observations. So there's a number out there, in the void, and it's bad enough now, but at the current rate it is changing it's going to be awful soon unless we act now.
Ignoring the details (which are murky, at least to me), we're still left with a version of the argument which says that "who are we to determine (or heck, measure for that matter) how fast the climate should change?" People in Canada and Russia have a lot of new farmland that could be put to use, the sooner the better.
I'm still not sure global warming beats the coming ice age. I am sure that the global climate is not something that we have anywhere near understanding or mastery over. But its an interesting discussion anyway.
- I don't really understand this whole "global warming" thing.
- Even climatologists, who do claim to at least understand global warming, don't have complete understanding of or mastery over the global environment.
- So despite the fact we are probably causing extremely rapid, geologically exceptional warming to levels not seen since before the dawn of mankind, we should do nothing. Climatologists who believe this warming will have large negative effects far outweighing the positive are wrong, or at least not certain enough to be right that we should act.
Implicitly this seems to be saying "One should only act with complete mastery, after achieving total understanding of the situation". That seems like it an overly heavy burden of proof to me, much heavier than you'd normally require of a claim. In fact, it would be completely paralyzing to require this level of proof in the general case, because almost never do we achieve either mastery or true understanding.
The argument I was examining was "who are we to decide?" I think it was answered nicely.
To respond:
Science is not about "a good feeling" about something. It is about mastery. Constructing a model that can be tested. I mean, just think about it -- when I drop a hammer, I can tell you each second how far away it is going to be, its velocity, and its momentum. It's complete mastery to our degree to measure. That's science.
I object to scientists becoming social activists, no matter what the cause. Social activism involves fear mongering, public opinion manipulation, politics, and "messages" instead of information. Science involves none of this, and if scientists continue to confuse their jobs and their art with others, then science will become cheap and politicized even more than it is today. We'll have "conservative" scientists and "liberal" scientists and each group will have the usual internet echo chambers to talk into. It's already heading that way.
As far as the chicken little, "why risk it?" argument, I'd refer you to Occam. We can either believe that the climate will continue along some course and the associated ecosystems will adapt as they always have or we can start adding all of these variable like sea level or ice cover and then draw some alarming conclusions. I like to KISS.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion....
Also, the 20-page "executive summary" is voted on, line by line, by politicians, who (as politicians do) have every other motive than actually objectively figuring out the truth. We have politicians deciding which science is right. If that's not BS, I don't know what is.
While we can argue about the process behind the IPCC reports, your link smells of paranoia to me. For one, those politicians voting include reps from the oil-producing Gulf states and to think that they would be predisposed to wanting the finding to be that oil is bad seems far-fetched to me. I'm sure the representatives for the U.S. government wasn't exactly pushing to acknowledge global warming either.
Besides, I must argue with the basic premise of your comment. The politicians are the ones who get things done, and in the end they, just like everyone else, will have to choose what conclusions to draw from the science. Given that the IPCC is at least made up by an assembly of scientists who are trying to synthesize and summarize a whole body of research for those politicians, I think that's about as good a process as one can imagine. It's certainly better than deciding, apparently on their own, that the science on global warming is inconclusive like a certain outgoing US administration appears to have done.
Even in the case where one side is clearly correct, I think its position can only be strengthened in the public eye if its arguments are compared to the best opposing arguments. Only if people assume the opposite can I see a good case for one sided propaganda, but I don't know of a good reason to assume this.
But we've just seen a couple of guys debate the next four year of one country in a very public way. It took them a year, not to reach any kind of common ground, much less agreement, but to get to the point where a few pct.pts. likes one guy better than the other. This was even made easy by pre-defining that there will only be two sides to the debate.
The climate debate discusses the future, not of one country, but of the entire earth, and if we end up on the side of the "alarmists", we're not trying again in 4 years - this is a 20-50 year plan.
So, yes, I agree with you, but my pragmatic practical side (the one that will not be allowed in a brainstorm session) argues that it's just not practical.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151
But whether even that helps is another question.
More generally, I would offer http://www.realclimate.org as a blog which offers excellent scientific discussion of climate change.
"Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational"."
Strange thing is, I only ever see this kind of article from the "no-global-warming" camp. I don't recall reading any articles bashing the "no-global-warming" people's personalities. Could be my selective memory, could be something else...
I read it, and it is very eye opening just how many of the major scientific "facts" and causes rest on pretty shaky, if not outright false, foundations.
> Whichever side of the argument you fall [..]
Be that as it may, if it develops as a result to market impetus you can be generally confident that it will be a response to actual demand. Whereas as soon as the government gets involved we lose our valuing mechanisms and get locked into what the geniuses in the capital think is going to happen. Also, it depends which fuels you pour your energy into and whether this is actually a good choice. If you invest in a bad route there for political reasons (e.g. ethanol) you'll have the effect of increasing world hunger as a side-effect. Nuclear is another option which is difficult to separate from political concerns.
Sure, supernovas too, but if there was one on the way and we had a chance to stop it we'd be damned fools not to pay attention.
"There's nothing we can do about it."
Bullshit.
Facts please.
It was an interesting talk.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_...
We have one planet to experiment with and we will have to live in it for the foreseeable future. Until that changes, I will favor lower-energy experiments.
And, BTW, the whole idea of reducing carbon footprint, building more efficient cities, transportation and generally living consuming less resources is a great idea in itself. Remember, by the next 100 years, we will have a whole lot more people hanging around.
But, wait. Apparently we DO understand the climate well enough to know that global warming is happening because of the small percentage of CO2 emissions caused by humans, and that by cutting our emissions, we can stop the warming.
Based on that, we must have an extremely thorough understanding of our climate, and it should be trivial to simulate a vulcano going off and see if it cools the climate.
You do need considerable understanding of how cars work if what you want is to interfere with the engine functions to, say, increase its mileage.
We do understand enough to point to CO2 emissions as the probable cause of global warming (the less heat we radiate back to space, the warmer we get - it's that simple) but to manipulate the climate to a given objective while avoiding uncontrollable side effects would require a much better understanding of how the climate really works.
As Mark Twain cleverly said, it's not what you don't know that kills you. It's what you are absolutely sure that just isn't that way. Would you take that gamble?
Or turn it on during winter. ;-)
Im on this train! Are you?
For any of the people who don't believe in climate change, I say to tell yourself the story of how the rainforests disappeared and thousands (scientists say millions) of species were lots for ever, and why.
Go look at a strip mine, and try not to feel like what we are doing is wrong.
This summer a small plot of trees across from where I have coffee was mowed down for an olympic ceremonies park. Now I have no qualms about actually taking down that small plot of trees (it's maybe 1.5-2 acres), in a prime retail spot, and I live in a rain forest so loosing an acre to us isn't a big deal, we're surrounded by trees. But the sound of those trees coming down, we were all in shock, and really when you see all the dead trees lying there on the ground, you feel ashamed to have supported it.
I also say to tell yourself the story of how your car runs, from the first bit of oil being drilled to the moment that your tires spin, and if you can honestly convince yourself that that is an efficient energy system, then you're an amazing debater.
I honestly believe there are huge errors in the science which is spread publicly, but it is the sensationalism of this science which is grabbing attention and causing people to take notice. The negative effect is the backlash of non-believers have ammunition.
Statistics are like standards: there so many to choose from.