In 50 years we're all going to be living in sod huts and drinking our own urine. Be afraid. Do what you're told.
I think it says much more than they intended that CNN began their story Friday on the release of the IPCC's report on global warming with the words "the debate is over." To a large degree that sentence summarizes the history of global warming as a political issue, because the focus of global warming supporters has always been more on silencing debate than on proving their arguments. If no one dares speak out against you for fear of losing endowments and being pilloried in the press, the standard of proof for your theories suddenly becomes much easier to meet. Peer review no longer has the same meaning in a climate of fear and intimidation.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - troll
Al - what is damned is Dave's spun misstatement...if you reread my comment you will find no claim that the report proves anything
what the quote from the report says is that scientists have become more confident that the recent heating trend is 'due' to anthropogenic greenhouse gases
27 - markie
what is interesting, as aside, about all of this is that there isn't a theory of global warming.
28 - Doug Hunter
The models are sure but they don't include cloud effects and the resulting water vapor variations which as pointed out, is 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Solar radiation and cloud formation have a strong correlation and recent (see Danish National Space Center Sky experiment) scientific research has proven the mechanism by which cloud cover is effected. Of course, the IPCC just simply left this information out of their models and reports which smells strongly of bias to me.
If your going to ignore the effect of clouds, which any laymen can witness effect climate and temperature, then your model is pretty much useless IMHO.
29 - Clavos
@#25:
To wit, all the scientists who support the theory are using it to get money to support the research. This is an attack not on their scientific data but on their motivations. How does one answer an attack like that? Such arguments should be ignored as the product of small minds or of people whose mouths are where their money is. Lindzen and Michaels on the other hand are known to receive financial support from organizations that in turn receive their funding from Exxon-Mobil, the Western Fuels Association and others with a strong financial incentive to delay consensus on global warming.
What's the difference? They're both gaining financially from their points of view. And don't kid yourself, the moneys involved are already huge and stand to increase enormously.
NONE of us laymen should just take the scientists' word on faith: we need to question EVERYTHING; there's too much at stake either way.
30 - Aku
"molecules have no politics."
Yes, but those who interpret molecules do. There in is the rub.
Having spent quite a few years in academia, I can tell you PhDs are not some great neutral arbiters of truth. Their preference for certain theories, political ideologies, and sources of funding all play into their work. This is true for both sides of this debate. The sooner all sides acknowledge this the sooner some modicum of real debate can be held on this topic, namely are humans to blame for Global Warming, and if so what should we do?
The fact that a majority of leading scientists believe one way or the other means nothing to me. The majority of leading scientists one thought Einstein’s theories were rubbish.
31 - Natalie Bennett
So Dave, when the world's top scientists, (not spin doctors) all get together and agree a _consensus_ report - this is what they absolutely agree on) that isn't enough for you Dave. What would be enough to convince you? (Just out of curiousity.)
Does the water have to be lapping around your toes? Or your knees? Or your waist?
32 - Doug Hunter
"What would be enough to convince you?"
Perhaps if the models included basic effects like clouds for instance they'd be more believable. Do you think that'd be too much to ask before spending trillions?
When they leave something basic like clouds, which have a cooling effect, out it appears they're trying to push one answer above all others and ignoring anything contrary.
33 - Clavos
Um, Natalie;
The "consensus" has been wrong before.
Remember the freeze we were headed for in the seventies?
How about Paul Erlich? The whole world thought he was right, too.
Thomas Malthus?
I'm not saying the IPCC is wrong; just that we shouldn't accept blindly.
34 - John
Joe- you should probably look up more information on how even the extra, seemingly small contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by the burning of fossil fuels can have an effect on climate change. Yes, the ocean produces somewhere around 90 billion tons of CO2 a year, which dwarfs the 10 billion produced by the burning of fossil fuels. However, after all the carbon sinks are finished their job of taking CO2 out of the air every year, there is still around 3 billion tons left that couldn't be dealt with. That doesn't seem like a lot, until you multiply that by, say even just 30 years, and that number becomes 30 billion (atmospheric lifespan of CO2 is 50 -200 years). That's 30 billion tons of CO2 that has built up over 30 years that isn't going anywhere. You can't expect the current carbon cycles to be able to deal with carbon that is millions of years old.
Also, yes, water vapor is the most abundant and most power GHG. However, you should look up how an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere actually has a direct effect on the amount of water vapor. So, although you could say 'water vapor is responsible for global warming' and you would be correct, it is only half the story. You also need to mention that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (our fault) is increasing the amount of water vapor.
35 - Thomas Lee Elifritz
"Preponderance of astronomers worldwide believe that the Earth orbits the sun; some say, just look up in the sky, silly!"
"Scientific community concurs on gene theory; naysayers point out their blue-eyed child."
"Most researchers in the field conclude that the Earth is billions of years old; some maintain it is 6000 years."
"Majority of scientists agree that theory of gravity is correct; minority say the Earth sucks."
I say Dave Nalle sucks, but he's from Texas, so we don't expect much from him anymore.
36 - Al Barger
But Troll, it matter not a bit how confident any number of scientists FEEL. The statement is still not any kind of evidence, no matter how that dirty Elitist Pig spins it.
37 - Aku
"So Dave, when the world's top scientists, (not spin doctors) all get together and agree a _consensus_ report - this is what they absolutely agree on) that isn't enough for you Dave. What would be enough to convince you? (Just out of curiousity.)"
Yes because we should surrender our will and reason to scientists just as some of our ancestors did to priests of various gods.
Thus dissentions from them should be met with inquisition adn ridicule, right?
38 - Bliffle
Only the USA can destroy the USA. that's the good news; the bad news is that we are doing it, we're destroying our own civilization. On every front we are throwing away all the advantages built up over many civilizations. Whether our belligerent Total Global Alienation, suicidal destruction of our army in the desert on a useless war, destruction of the value of the dollar or destruction of the industrial power that beat the nazis and the communists, any one of them alone would be sufficient to undermine a system. But we are doing ALL of them!
As Pogo once said, paraphrasing John Paul Jones IIRC: "We have met the enemy and he is us".
We are the biggest debtor nation in history with $15trillion in foreign debt. We have nothing to sell that anyone wants except for our net capital assets, which amounted to a puny (but once strong) $45trillion. Foreigners own 1/3 of our country. Would we have allowed a foreign army to occupy 1/3 of our geography? Then why allow them to have mortgage on 1/3 of our houses, buildings, factories, machines, etc.?
Jimmy Rogers on Wall Street Journal Report With Maria Bartiromo says that the USD$ is a terrible investment and will go lower. Even the 25% stock market gain in the last 4 years becomes a zero when discounted for USD$ devaluation.
Why has this happened? Is it because theUS Powerful have earned big fees and profits while selling out? Without telling anyone, let alone having an open discussion, even a vote? I'm afraid so. But aren't they cutting their own throats? Not if they have soft landings abroad and Euro or Yuan secured and denominated investments. It helps to have dual citizenship, like Clavos and I and some others, like my children.
Who will be left holding the bag? With no USA assets and nothing but liabilities?
Stay tuned.
39 - moonraven
Ridiculous, Clavos: You blindly accept everything your bedbuddy Dave writes--yet scientists are to be disbelieved on principle?
40 - Dave Nalle
Respected organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists
Do you not even think about the things you say? The UCS jump on every anti-capitalist lunatic alarmist fantasy that comes their way.
There ARE legitimate groups that support global warming, but when you drag out the single craziest group on the planet and call it'respected' you make it damned hard to take you seriously.
Dave
41 - Dave Nalle
So Dave, when the world's top scientists, (not spin doctors) all get together and agree a _consensus_ report - this is what they absolutely agree on) that isn't enough for you Dave. What would be enough to convince you? (Just out of curiousity.)
Natalie, where in the article did I say that I don't believe in global warming? I agree that the evidence supports it. I even said that in the first paragraph.
What concerns me is the effort to spin it into a crisis tailor made for expanding globalist power, redistributing wealth, assets and resources and limiting US sovereignty.
Dave
42 - Zedd
Yes Dave and we never really sent a man to the moon.... I know, there there....
43 - moonraven
We SHOULD have sent Dave to the moon!--but apparently he was only a 4 year old whippersnapper then. The full scope of his venality had not yet shown its total panorama....
44 - Nancy
Dave, I am severely disappointed with you, as the polite phraseology is; I'm afraid I can't put on here my real feelings about your editorial duplicity. I expected better of you as an editor, a 'pro' writer, & an educated (if politically misguided) person. Apparently, like far too many Republicans in congress & the WH, you consider honor to be expendable as long as you can spin trying to screw with everybody - truly you've absorbed your lessons from Karl "Maggot" Rove. You've lied to us; how can we believe anything you say from now on?
45 - Lumpy
Nancy what on earth are u raving about? Don't tell us you've been drinking the wine of madness from moonraven's cup of fantasies again? Here's a hint. Nothing she says is true.
U need a common sense content filter on this and most other blogs. So you son't take cranks like shark and moonraven seriously and end up looking as foolish as they do.
46 - John Bickelhaupt
There was never any scientific consensus in the seventies about an impending ice age. I was there and that's a myth. A few scientists presented it as a possibility and it made good copy so it received coverage out of all proportion to its credibility.
I first read about global warming in the seventies. It made sense to me then and has only acquired credibility by orders of magnitude since then. How anyone can continue to deny it is happening when the melting of glaciers in Europe, Alaska, Africa and South America has been documented, when the sea ice at the North Pole is melting away, when glaciologists are documenting the accelerating reduction in ice pack in Greenland and Antarctica, when biologists have documented the movement of species to higher elevations and more northern latitudes, when indigenous peoples of the far north are seeing species that they don't even have names for, when Pacific Islands are being evacuated because of rising seas, when winter all over the Northern Hemispere is coming later and spring is coming sooner, when the spruce forests of Alaska and forests in Canada are being decimated by beetle species that now have extra breeding cycles, when tropical diseases are moving out of their normal areas into regions they've never been seen before..., if you have any awareness of all these changes and you still insist global warming is not occuring, then you are a fool. If you are not aware of them and profess to have a valid opinion about it, then you are willfully blind.
47 - Dave Nalle
John B. Again, this article is not about whether or not global warming in happening, but about the use to which fear of global warming is being put.
Dave
48 - Dave Nalle
I hate to encourage this to drift off topic as discussions here so often do, but some things cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged:
Foreigners own 1/3 of our country. Would we have allowed a foreign army to occupy 1/3 of our geography? Then why allow them to have mortgage on 1/3 of our houses, buildings, factories, machines, etc.?
Bliffle, you know better than this. I expect repetitiion of the Dobbsian drivel from others, but you can do better. Foreign interests do NOT have a mortgage on anything. They own US government debt instruments which don't give them any ability to call in that debt prematurely, or any collateral value like a mortgage, and there's no ability to file a lein or have any claim on anything in the US except repayment at the stated rate of interest at the stated term.
Dave
49 - Bliffle
Dave sez:
"The most notable recent example of this is the crusade to remove the accreditation of dissenting climatologists in broadcasting by Dr. Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel. "
Curious to see the viciousness and magnitude of this crusade against poor little cowering dissenting climatologists, I followed Super Daves link to the cited article. How many people have joined the crusader mob to decertify dissident meteorologists? None, that I could find. How many meteorolgists has Cullen personally fired? None.
50 - lono
Nalle,
I have to take issue with one of your comments:
What those of you who are gung-ho about global warming miss about this article is the main point, that the global warming issue is no longer about science, it's now all about politics.
Wrongo! It is exactly opposite. It has ALWAYS been about politics with this administration. They denied it and denied it and denied it because they thought it was about politics. Finally, the GOP acknowledges it and calls it 'climate change'.
I don't care what you call it, or what party you are from. Let's address it. Let's put politics aside and get to work. In fact, here is my offer - we'll (Dems) start calling it 'Climate Change' instead of 'Global Warming' if you guys stop putting all your energy into pretending it doesn't exist.
deal?
51 - Dave Nalle
Lono, I'm not one of 'you guys' whoever you think they are.
The issue is going to remain political whether you like it or not, and from both sides. It's just as political for those who support it as it ever was for those who question the assumptions on climate change.
The energy isn't being put into pretending it doesn't exist, it's being put into mounting a defense against those who want to abuse science in the service of a political agenda.
dave
52 - Clavos
Why is it that when you simply question what may lie behind the IPCC report and the motivation of some of the more extreme alarmists, it's automatically assumed that you don't believe global warming exists?
I've seen several posts in this and the other thread accusing those of us who have the temerity to question motives and suggest the possibility of hidden agendas, of being "deniers". That choice of word is no accident; it implies a similarity between the skeptics and holocaust deniers.
I'm also amused by the certainty in the "predictions" from the climatologists about what will happen fifty, a hundred, and even several hundred years in the future, when we can't even predict what next hurricane season is going to be like with any real degree of accuracy.
I will keep my skeptic's radar on for now.
53 - Club of Rome
The problem that increasing levels of CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, that is just a smoke screen to divert you from the real agenda. The problem that the United Nations sees is that increased levels of CO2 will expand the human food supply, allowing more humans to exist without starving, and for those who want population control, it is a real problem.
54 - Dave Nalle
Re. #53. Very well put. What I find bizarre is that whenever I write on this topic, no matter what I actually write, if it's not just laying out nightmare worst case scenarios, I get accused of being a denier or unscientific. Even this article which starts right out endorsing global warming, immediately drew responses claiming I was part of some sort of conspiracy to suppress global warming theory.
This kind of reaction raises the question of why the defenders of this overwhelmingly proven science are so damned defensive about it.
Dave
55 - bob
"Then we can leave the rest of the world squabbling among themselves over who can have the remaining resources and who to blame for their fouled rivers, clouded skies and starving people."
Not be taken personally but, that is probably most puerile and narrow-minded comment I have seen in a while on blogcritics
56 - D'oh
An appeal to Reason here.
If one has accepted that some kind of change is occurring to our climate(which the data does bear out, and most appear to accept), then even if one rejects the idea that Man is a primary cause...
Can we at least look at the concept that what Man has wrought is a contributing factor, and that by getting sane about a few things could help the situation rather than continuing to exacerbate the problem?
That's just sanity, rather than the bullshit bickering and making the Issue "political", perhaps looking at the problem, and bending the considerable power of our scientific knowledge and aptitude for problem solving...a positive result can possibly be achieved.
As for the political, methinks they dost protest too much.
As far as I am aware, there's only one source willing to pay for people to make this a political issue, rather than finding an answer, or even determining the extent of the problem...much less how to deal with it.
This link has the info.
Don't think of it as political, or decide to stick with your team (no matter what "side" you are on), but rather take a moment, if the problem will only grow worse if we don't change and we can improve the situation by working on it rather than bitching and arguing...why not try working together to solve the Issue?
So to the extreme "greens" on one side, and the data "deniers" on the other...shut your fucking pieholes for just a second...think about it, and be part of an answer rather than just another obstacle.
Your grandkids will thank you.
Some might say "but it's hard!". well, yeah...solving problems can be difficult, but theonly other answer is "learn to swim".
I should put some snappy closing one liner here, as has been my wont...but this bullshit just disgusts me, and I'm weaning myself off of this nasty typing habit...smack would be more fun.
57 - Dave Nalle
As far as I am aware, there's only one source willing to pay for people to make this a political issue, rather than finding an answer, or even determining the extent of the problem...much less how to deal with it.
Then you did not read the article. There's more than one way to persuade people to your political position, and cash is usually the most obvious and least effective.
Don't think of it as political, or decide to stick with your team (no matter what "side" you are on), but rather take a moment, if the problem will only grow worse if we don't change and we can improve the situation by working on it rather than bitching and arguing...why not try working together to solve the Issue?
Because the side which currently dominates the issue and shouts down and intimidates every concerned question which is raised includes among its membership people whose preferred solutions to the problem include exterminating half of the population of the planet or on the more moderate end, driving the developed world into poverty while allowing the third world to pollute at ever higher levels.
And there clearly is no 'working together' with these people. That's why this argument exists. They will admit to no heretical input. It's either their way or the highway.
So to the extreme "greens" on one side, and the data "deniers" on the other
Ah, and you didn't read any of the comments either, because you repeat the same fallacy. No one here is denying any data. We're just looking for open dialog and reasonable solutions instead of alarmism and extreme solutions.
Dave
58 - troll
Al #36 - understood...but it does make a difference how confident scientists are in the underlying science which the participant now describe as 'highly confident'
to get to the 'evidence' one might read the studies cited in the report
59 - Doug Hunter
"As far as I am aware, there's only one source willing to pay for people to make this a political issue, rather than finding an answer, or even determining the extent of the problem...much less how to deal with it."
So we're back to square one. You just can't see that the climate change industry and it's expected multitrillion windfall would in any way corrupt research but a $10K payment would. That's why this bickering is an utter waste of time.
60 - troll
Dave says - *What I find bizarre is that whenever I write on this topic, no matter what I actually write, if it's not just laying out nightmare worst case scenarios, I get accused of being a denier or unscientific.*
or a propagandizing cherry picking liar
61 - Maurice
I notice nobody brings up CFCs anymore. Some used to believe that CFCs contributed to GW.
62 - Clavos
Maurice,
I think that's because the program to eliminate them has been largely successful, at least in this country.
Here's a National Geographic article from 2003 that alludes to that.
63 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, now the anti-spam system is picking on you. I've unblocked your comment and it should be appearing above imminently. Remain calm!
64 - Maurice
Thanks for the link, Clavos. It is interesting to note that as recent as 4 years ago people had a passionate belief that an inert gas heavier than air could travel 6 miles into the atmosphere, be converted to chlorine and diminish the ozone layer.
Glad we have no such nonsense going on these days (wink!).
65 - Clavos
Yes, indeed, Maurice.
66 - Clavos
Sorry, forgot to say thank you, Chris.
67 - Clavos
I bet the anti-spam software for a public blog site that allows anyone to comment is a tricky batch of code, the sifting can't be easy...
68 - Jesse Miksic
Dave, et all, there are mudslinging extremists on both sides of this debate. "Propagandizing cherry-picking liar" isn't much worse than "And there clearly is no 'working together' with these people." Best approach: if it isn't argued, ignore it.
However, there's a reason people see your politization of the debate (your framing it in explicit political terms) as a form of denial. Those of us who allow that global warming is a problem on which humans (fault aside) can have an affect, then see it as a logical progression that humans SHOULD be held to behavioral standards, both socially and by way of regulation, so we can get started making real-world compromises to restore the system that's gone into tailspin.
You may not be denying science or evidence, but you're obfuscating the essential question: blame aside, politics notwithstanding, should we be taking action to change this environmental phenomenon?
Now that I've done the "broad view" thing, I'd say I've only seen two or three credible arguments in this whole comment thread. These include John B's comment, which illustrates the enormous disposition in the scientific community toward accepting the significance of climate change; and troll's post back up around #2, which actually cited the words of the study, demonstrating that it's not sweeping alarmist conjecture, but rather a researched and qualified argument based on statistics and preponderance of data.
Like it or not, this country's whole political system has been built on the enlightenment ideal of scientific authority and progress. Political accusations won't stick to scientists as well as they stick to other politicians. Science is a powerful, traditional institution, and scientists are not priests or desperate ideologues... they're people who have been brought up in a culture of strict subservience to testable evidence and balanced hypothesis. When the vast majority of the community makes a strong statement, it deserves some benefit of the doubt.
69 - Maurice
Jesse,
please reread #9. I think you have misunderstood Dave's position.
70 - nugget
I've always thought that scientists were kind of morons. Desperate morons. That's my take.
71 - troll
Jesse - I pointed out a clear misstatement in the article in #2 and I've read no correction from the author...therefore my #60
72 - Clavos
should we be taking action to change this environmental phenomenon?
That's not the question, simply because no one disputes it (including those on this thread): action should be taken; the questions are:
What action?
How much action? (Needs to be considered on a cost/benefit basis)
Who takes the action?
Who pays for it?
Who monitors it?
etc., etc.
...a researched and qualified argument based on statistics and preponderance of data.
This is the part I'm most inclined to question.
For starters, because what most of the public (including me) and government officials has seen is a "summary" of the actual report, which runs to hundreds of pages; so at this point, we're taking the interpretation of the date on faith as to its accuracy and slant (and yes, even scientists slant their data, though, as we were all taught in school, they're not supposed to). Have you read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg?
I, for one, would like to see more input from some of the "skeptical" scientists before we all jump off the bridge and start committing trillions of dollars to hastily set up programs.
73 - troll
I used to buy the argument that it would be too expensive to implement a crash program to reduce/eliminate our dependence on greenhouse gas producing fuels
but not since our half trillion investment in war
74 - D'oh
Ok, about what I had thought.
#37 - Dave, you can't seem to read anymore, or you might have noticed that no one in specific and about extremists on BOTH sides.
Thanks all you knee jerk typists for affirming my cynicism, reason and discussion are worthless versus partisan blinders and dogmatic adherence to the party line...Stalin would be so proud of some of you.
To those who don't enjoy muddying the waters, and who want to make things better, look it all up yourselves....turn off the noise machines, and when some bastard who should drink bleach and die in a fire speaks up tries to tell you it's all ok, ignore science and data that would hurt some special interest....just follow the money.
Some here have tried to allude that it's the scientists whose money is in trouble here, others things like the last two years record profits by oil companies.
Look it up for yourselves, most of those scientists are academics who have tenure...nothing is to be gained by their work except advancement of their knowledge...whereas others are motivated by aforementioned record profits....or stock options.
Nobody is going to be convinced by what I type, either way...but ponder this.
The same people who said Iraq would be a cake walk are saying this warming is no big deal, and that we shouldn't do ANYFUCKINGTHING about it, they refuse to even consider diminishing Man's impact on the situation, or even to realistically look at the information.
Consider the sources.
That about does it for me.
75 - alessandro nicolo
First, as a Canadian I agree with Peter regarding Richard Tardif's comments. While this country has improved its standing on issues of aid and the environment we're still an 'all talk no action' county. As for the capitalism bit, the idea that we innocent Canadians imported American capitalism is somewhat misplaced. Canada has always been, for the most part, capitalistic. The theory of the non-interventionist state was stronger here than in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Ironically, our socialist character was, in part, imported from the U.S. with stuff like the 'Square Deal' and 'New Deal' as an influence. Last, the global warming issue is in the hands of special interest now. Scientists are caught in the middle. I wonder how Roger Bacon would regard special interest regarding scientific progress.