What is not certain, and is described in even in the IPCC report as only 'likely' is that humans are directly responsible for a worldwide trend of global warming. What is even more speculative is the theory that the imposition of harsh environmental restrictions can reverse any natural or human-generated trends in the environment. In fact, restrictions on human output of hydrocarbons proposed by environmental groups likely fall enormously short of what would be necessary to slow or even reverse climate change trends. To actually stop or reverse climate change might require the total destruction of industrial civilization as well as the extermination of at least half the human population. Virtually no lesser methods could reverse changes which have been building for hundreds of years.
Climate scientists like Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, who do not agree with the majority views on human agency in climate change, have become pariahs and are persecuted for their beliefs. 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. A common accusation against climate heretics is that they accept funding from oil and energy companies or from groups which get their support from the energy industry, and therefore their beliefs are tainted. Political pressure does come from both sides, and some global warming advocates have claimed, and it was recently the focus of an investigation in the U.S. House of Representatives, that government pressure has discouraged them from pursuing climate change research.
There is certainly some evidence that political and financial influence is shaping the arguments of some of those who don't enthusiastically support the most alarmist positions on global climate change. If you accept that much of the argument against the theory of human agency in climate change is politically or financially motivated, then why is it not also reasonable to look at the financial and political interests of those who support the idea of human causation in global climate change?
The IPCC, which leads the charge on global climate change, works under the auspices of the United Nations. They are charged to provide "a balanced reporting of existing viewpoints," yet their sources are restricted solely to those who support the theory of human agency in global climate change. Their methodology is inherently unscientific, because they rule out of consideration any research with results which don't conform to their expected results.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
When Republicans mention terrorism on the campaign trail they're "using politics of fear to scare people into voting for them." But when when Democrats tell everyone that the planet is going to become an in hospitable fireball in the near future if we don't do exactly as they say.......well that's just honky friggen dory.
2 - troll
'likelihood' is formalized in the report as follows:
*6 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result:
Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very
unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%. (See Box TS 1.1 for more details).*
and the crux of the report is:
*Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an
advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is
likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.*
Dave's spin in this inaccurate statement - *What is not certain, and is described in even in the IPCC report as only 'likely' is that humans are directly responsible for a worldwide trend of global warming.* - leads me to the conclusion that he has little of value to add to the conversation
3 - Nic
The six stages of denial Gobal Warming version:
1) It isn’t happening/doesn’t exist
2) Ok it's happening but it's because; of sunspots/the orbit of Jupiter/guano mining on Fiji/...
3) Ok it happening because of the obvious reason but it's not important because the effect is too big/small/wide/shallow/hot/wet/cold/dry…
4) Ok it is happening for the obvious reason and it's important but there is nothing we can do about it.
5) Ok it's happening for the obvious reason and it is important and there is something reasonable we can do about it but I'm unhappy and I blame the democrats/liberals/media/big government/taxes/Clinton/peace protestors...
6) I don’t care to discuss it anymore
So we’re making progress. Which is what really pisses dave off.
4 - richCares
here is link to Bush White House statement on IPCC summary. It seems that the White House agrees with the IPCC. Richard Lindzen, isn't he the one who testified that tobacco smoke is not harmful.
5 - Clavos
Excellent analysis, Dave.
Here are some interesting reactions by world leaders, as published in the Toronto Star:
PARIS " The bleak outlook of a major new report on climate change shifted the onus onto governments and even mankind to take action, with dire warnings Friday from around the world that drastic, rapid change is needed, not least from the United States.
"We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible," warned French President Jacques Chirac, who called for an economic and political "revolution" to save the planet.
"While climate changes run like a rabbit, world politics move like a snail: either we accelerate or we risk a disaster," said Italy's environment minister, Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio.
Campaigners and governments pressed industrialized countries, some specifically naming the United States, to significantly cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Others said the threat was not simply to the environment, but to international peace, prosperity and development.
There were calls for urgent talks to hammer out a new worldwide agreement to stop global warming. The Italian minister called for a global tax on carbon emissions and a "strong" United Nations organization for the environment.
South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said failure to act would be "indefensible." His Indonesian counterpart said "drastic steps" were needed to slow rising temperatures.
... The South African minister said the report "is a wake-up call to the world's largest emitter, the United States."
...Campaigners said emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases must be reined in. Friends of the Earth said industrialized countries ``must lead the way" and help less-developed countries develop sustainable, low-carbon economies. The European Union's environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said that by 2020, developed countries should cut their emissions to two-thirds of the level they were in 1990.
The world may have finally found the way to bring the USA to its knees, and all without firing a shot.
6 - richard tardif
Up here in Canada, get your head out of your asses and look North, where enough hydrocarbons have left the smokestacks of Pittsburgh, Milwaukee and Detroit in the last 50 years to killed 10,000 lakes, we don't blame the U.S. We blame ourselves for allowing U.S bullshit capatilism to creep in. Woe is a country that fears soemthing like climate change as a threat to their way of life? Have you looked at the rivers and forests in the U.S? Oh right, the river flows into your house, and the forests are scattered about in your overheated, overstocked homes. Wake up---the IPPC report calls for everyone to wake up, not just USA okay jingoists living in their own dream world.
7 - Mark
I like how it's reached the point where no matter what study is released, if it says we are responsible for global warming, then it is political propaganda, no matter who published it or who funded it. I like how there is no possible way that the reason why so many scientists have come to that conclusion is because it could be real. Instead it is only because they get to have a fake science continued to be funded. But I suppose that makes sense, as I'm sure every scientist who studies global warming and says we are responsible must all be millionaires who have lined their pockets with the money of the ignorant and gullible public. They are all rich, aren't they?
Oh and Nic- your comment made my day.
8 - Owl
Pity such a well-written article has all the content of a pile of spitballs thrown at the wall to see if something sticks.
Squire, it doesn't matter squat if you don't like 'their' science, 'their' scientists, 'their' organizations, or 'their' cooperation. The air conditioning is breaking down and you don't want to stop it, slow it, or fix it. 'You' are now part of the problem.
9 - Dave Nalle
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.
As it said quite clearly in the first article, neither I nor anyone else - including climate change dissenters is arguing that global warming doesn't exist. We've all moved beyond that. What we're arguing about now is whether global warming will be used as an excuse to destroy national sovereignty, discourage capitalism and impose draconian and repressive government on developed nations to redistribute wealth and establish some sort of artificial 'social equity' all of which really has zero to do with global warming.
Dave
10 - Dave Nalle
Richard Lindzen, isn't he the one who testified that tobacco smoke is not harmful.
That's a gross misrepresentation. Lindzen used cigarette smoking as an example of how you could scientificaly analyze causality, and detractors have tried to distort it an use it against him ever since.
Dave
11 - Aku
To be scientific truth, there must be experiments that prove the truth in question (people are responsible for global warming and the fault lies with industrialized countries). Instead, what you see is allot of theory and conjecture. When truth is not established, yet such forceful claims are made, how can one not come to same conclusion as Dave? Politics is the motivating factor.
12 - Dave Nalle
Good point, Aku, but I'm not sure that controlled experiments are absolutely essential if you have enough reliable and comparable data to base your theory on. And remember, global climate change is and will always be a theory - like evolution - because it cannot be duplicated and you cannot create a controlled experiment to produce definitive proof to take it beyond being just a theory.
Dave
13 - Joe
Arch Conservative- I guess 9/11 did not happen, nor did the Marine Barracks bombing? Terrorist attacks have happend, Manmade global warming is still up for debate.
Facts- The number one greenhouse gas is water vapor which makes up 95% of all greenhouse gas of which 99.9% is natural. C02 makes up 3.16% of which man creates 0.11%.
All of man's contributions to Green house gases (water vapor, Co2, Nitrogen, methane and misc gases)is 0.28%.
So it would appear that the debate is a false debate about man's contribution to Global Warming, the study's leave out water vapor which is the largest greenhouse gas at 95%.
14 - troll
so...as to the so called main point - when was the issue not about politics and spin - ?
remember this Dave - ? it's still for you
the d'oh of taos
15 - softwareNerd
A Canadian newspaper just published an excellent series describing the details fo some reputed scientists who object to the political spin around Global warming. Well worth a read.
16 - Dave Nalle
so...as to the so called main point - when was the issue not about politics and spin - ?
Never, but some people need to be reminded that the spin goes both ways, and in fact leans heavily in the direction which gets less criticism for it.
Dave
17 - Dave Nalle
Nerd, that's a pretty good series. It's not as one sided as you might think. Several of the articles in the series present very good, even crushing cases against climate change theory and its flawed methodology. The first one on Wegman's dispute of Mann's statistical analysis is particularly good.
It has some great quotes, especially the quote from Wegman's congressional testimony where he says: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."
dave
18 - lorcan
molecules have no politics. you have no education in climate science, obviously. people who enjoy political variations on old-fashioned avoidance of information that may be unsettling are wasting the time of those of us who are willing to do our homework and understand complex science. please confine yourself to arguments on topics where opinion means something. pondering opinion when it's time to understand forces of nature is laughable except for how dangerous it is. NATURE BATS LAST
19 - Dave Nalle
So the perversion of science to serve political ends is just fine with you, Lorcan?
And while I may not be a climatologist, I do understand politics and can tell a hawk from a handsaw.
Dave
20 - Mohjho
Hey Dave, we'll leave the perversion of science to the nut bag creationists, the nut bag politicians get the politicized version.
I see a Prias in your future...the horror!
21 - Al Barger
Troll, I want to point out that this statement you cite so damningly is NOT evidence or proof at all, but merely a claim "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".
22 - Lumpy
Apparently mohijo hasn't heard about dave's ecotruck.
23 - Peter
Richard Tardiff,
If you are claiming moral superiority as a Canadian you better look to your own house first. You govenment signed Kyoto, but as of 2004 you are 34.6% over your agreed target. Canada has a much greater growth in greenhouse gas emmisions than the US, and now realizes that it will take a drastic cut in the Canadian economy to achive your targets. At least the US was honest enough to not sign something we knew we would not be able to live up to.
24 - cward1140
thanks to our wonderful education system, we've produced a generation of trial lawyers and chicken littles. if the sky is falling, there must be somebody we can sue. what's happened to this once great country ?
25 - John Bickelhaupt
All the reason in this debate is on the side of the scientists, an overwhelming majority of whom accept that humans are causing the current incidence of global warming. Opponents utilize the techniques of attacking global warming adherents that they accuse them of using. 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. All you have to do to see this is to google their names. Respected organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists are being painted as "radical" or "left-wing" or "anti-capitalist" when all they are really doing is promoting their virtually proven viewpoint that our species has taken grave risks with its future and needs to modify its behavior to assure its survival.
I'm sure that if your portfolio depended on people believing that the earth is flat, you would use the same techniques to undermine scientific arguments supporting a spherical planet. My attitude towards those who indulge these kinds of polemics has evolved to one of disgust. And a previous comment on this post that sees emerging global consensus on climate change as an attack on the United States is just plain certifiably paranoid. Where is a strait jacket when you need one?