Researcher Cliff Mass's thoughts on "Climategate". Sample:
This defensiveness has now gotten unhealthy for both the science and society. Scientists who attempt to publish material indicating the global warming due to manmade causes is not evident or weak, or who doubt the severity of the problem, are not treated well by some. I have had first had experience with this. I am known as somewhat of a skeptic regarding global warming effects in the NW--although I do believe that greenhouse gases are a serious problem in the long-run. A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist and the media went wild . . . we called it Snowpackgate . . . and it got national attention. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it . . . the denier types would take advantage of it!
We then wrote a paper on the subject (the main contributor being Mark Stoelinga) and submitted it to the Journal of Climate. I have published a lot of papers in my life (roughly 100) and I never had problems like we had with this paper.
Read the whole thing.
On one important point I disagree with Professor Mass. He sees this as an argument with two sides, with himself somewhere in between the two. Though I have sometimes described myself as a "lukewarmist", that is, someone between the extremes of "coldists' and "warmists", I have come to think that a continuum, with "warmists" on the left end, "coldists" on the right end, and a few people in between, is not a good way to describe the debate.
The subject is too complex to treat in a brief post, especially while I am still trying to sort out my own thoughts on the subject, but I can mention one example, which will show you why I don't think a simple warm-cold continuum is a good way to understand the climate change debate. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, accepts the UN panel's predictions on global warming. Does that put him in Al Gore's camp? Not really, because Lomborg then goes on to argue that we would be better off accepting some warming, and spending money on more serious problems, such as providing clean water for the poor in developing countries.
(Incidentally, Lomborg generally uses numbers from the UN to make his arguments.)
In short, Lomborg accepts the diagnosis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but then rejects their proposed cure, because it doesn't meet a simple cost/benefit test.
Lomborg is not the only important figure who doesn't fit neatly on to a warmist-coldist continuum. Both Pielkes, father and son, would probably reject a simple continuum, though for different reasons than Lomborg would.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at December 18, 2009 09:04 AM | Email ThisNo bias there! Seems like there's a difference between "skeptics" and "people that have already made up their minds before seeing any evidence".
I believe human activity has increased cardon dioxide levels. That said, it's a huge leap from that assertion to the claim that the world is growing warmer solely because of it.
The Earth would be completely uninhabitable without the greenhouse effect from CO2, and there has been a demonstrable increase in carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere. What exactly do you propose as an alternative? Sunspots? Changes in the Earth's orbit? Jesus smiling just a little brighter on us?
Posted by: demo kid on December 18, 2009 09:53 AM#2 "people that have already made up their minds before seeing any evidence".
demo kid, the evidence was thrown away.
And we know that without silicon, computers wouldn't work. Does that mean throwing more silicon into a computer will make it run faster? "Velma, toss a handful of silicon into the kajigger, th' computer's boggin' down agin!"
and there has been a demonstrable increase in carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) in the atmosphere
We know that CO2 levels have drastically changed over the millennia. Why attribute recent increases to man? And where's your evidence that CO2 is causing warming, and not the other way around (especially since we know that CO2 rises have *followed* warming trends by many years in the past)?
What exactly do you propose as an alternative?
Wrong question. Science demands you prove your hypothesis in order to call something a fact; it doesn't allow that you can call something a fact just because you lack the creativity to envision an alternate hypothesis.
All evidence is there. I'm waiting for the proof of a massive conspiracy to hide data.
@5: And we know that without silicon, computers wouldn't work. Does that mean throwing more silicon into a computer will make it run faster? "Velma, toss a handful of silicon into the kajigger, th' computer's boggin' down agin!"
Take a goddamned class in meterology, then. I'm not going to waste time explaining basic concepts in science to people that don't bother with actual principles.
We know that CO2 levels have drastically changed over the millennia. Why attribute recent increases to man?
Because the recent changes have not followed other defined cycles, or any other type of mechanism. Does it mean that this CANNOT be a natural phenomenon? No... but given that there's a large artificial input of CO2 (and methane, and HCFCs, and SF6, and so forth), human influence is a pretty obvious culprit.
Science demands you prove your hypothesis in order to call something a fact; it doesn't allow that you can call something a fact just because you lack the creativity to envision an alternate hypothesis.
Read what I wrote, pudge. If you cannot come up with a BETTER hypothesis, I'm at a loss as to how you can disprove one that has a pretty substantial amount of evidence behind it.
Posted by: demo kid on December 18, 2009 11:26 AMNo, it isn't. Dr. Phil Jones threw away the raw data they used to create the reconstructions.
Proof? He admitted it.
What the hell...
Posted by: Gary on December 18, 2009 11:39 AMBefore you put up a comment, please read Cliff Mass's post. I think almost everyone -- regardless of their position on this issue -- will find something of interest there.
We've all heard the usual arguments from Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh, so there is no need to repeat them. Instead, think about what Mass said. (And some of you might even try responding to my argument.)
Posted by: Jim MIller on December 18, 2009 11:50 AMRather than trying to nitpick easily manipulated data, it is more revealing to look at the people behind the "global warming" scare. They are nearly all on the far left, a group of folks not exactly known for telling the truth.
Love how it is snowing in Copenhagen. As my wife said, "God has a sense of humor".
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 18, 2009 11:51 AMWhenever anyone on either side of the climate debate talks about their belief I tune out as it most likely I will be getting another dose of someone else's belief system rather than the facts.
One of the big problems with climate science is that so little is actually known. We know for instance that CO2 absorbs short wave radiation which results in CO2 molecules heating whatever environment they happen to occupy. This represents so called "rock solid" basis of climate science.
What we don't know is how this phenomenon affects climate. Much of today's climate science, including the climate models that are too often thought of as predictors of the future, is built on the assumption that this known CO2 property has a huge impact. We don't in fact know this. It is not a fact, but an assumption - or in other words a "belief".
If that belief is right, and if the models other assumptions are correct, then there might be something to worry about if we free all the carbon trapped in hydrocarbon fuels.
Climate science has not however shown that these assumptions are supported by real world observations. Other theories (actually mere hypotheses) for the known warming of the last century and a half hold as much or more weight, particularly those that propose a solar source of warming.
This is why many scientists, like myself, do not support radical solutions such as Cap & Trade, climate taxes and CO2 regulation. They are premature, far too extreme given the limited amount of warming we have seen (less than 1 degree F over 100 years), and there are alternatives that are supported by equal or greater evidence.
Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and the whole lot of the AGW faithful are trying to impose their belief system on a world that is not buying it. They are not buying it because they know these folks are exaggerating their story.
All evidence is there. I'm waiting for the proof of a massive conspiracy to hide data.
Hey, the CRU and ringleader Phil Jones admit they threw away the original data. Consider yourself better for knowing the facts.
I'm not going to waste time explaining basic concepts in science to people that don't bother with actual principles.
Apparently you don't either, because the one professor who's model is accurately reflecting the current cooling trend says it's the sun driving the climate, which you dismissed in post 2. Apparently you're quite ignorant of the basic principles, maybe you need to go and learn?
If you cannot come up with a BETTER hypothesis, I'm at a loss as to how you can disprove one that has a pretty substantial amount of evidence behind it.
Hmmm... The "it's CO2" group threw away their data, and even then the data apparently was cherry picked and falsified before being tossed. They literally make data up for their graphs, blatantly ignoring their own data. And they cannot even account for the current cooling trend, which distresses them greatly.
Then there's Don Easterbrook and a few thousand other scientists (including many who resigned from the IPCC over the fraud being perpetrated) who say it's most likely the sun. Their models are matching up nicely with the past, and the current conditions.
Really, it's pretty clear to anyone with a scientific background - the whole AGW group have been shown to be frauds, charlatans, and liars of the highest degree. Their models do not reflect reality, the data they use is falsified, and they ignore data when it's inconvenient to them.
And as anyone with a background in science knows, the presence of contrary data means your model is wrong. Well, right now we're cooling, and the models say it shouldn't happen. The scientific method says you have to change the model and your hypothesis, not ignore the data (like the IPCC and CRU and that whole cabal are attempting to do).
Richard Feynman said it best:
The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
The current exception is cooling trend we're experiencing. That alone proves the rule that "CO2 is causing us to warm" wrong.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 12:18 PMThe AGW crowd are the same types that declared the coming ice age back in the 1970's, and did that happen? Nope. The truth is, we don't know enough to predict anything in the future so lets stop with the hyperventilating, mouth-breathing "denier" language already.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 18, 2009 12:25 PM"How to Manufacture a climate Consensus:"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html#
Conversely, Cliff Mass is ducking an dodging to maintain his grant appeal. In my opinion he is honest and ethical.
Posted by: Paddy on December 18, 2009 12:26 PMScience is about nuance and rigorous self-examination, but many of these scientists know that without action the world will suffer deeply and every paper not "on-point" could damage the prospects of literally saving the world. But the principles of science are important, and even in the face of cynical, partisan doubt there should never be an attempt to subvert the publication of topics like Cliff Mass spoke about.
I think some scientists act inappropriately and need to have their ethics re-evaluated but some may believe that the survival of the world's populations is dependent on their dogged advocacy for the scientific consensus. I think on a human level I can understand that, though it does irk me deeply to hear scientists acting unprofessionally.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 18, 2009 12:38 PMScience is NOT about nuance - you simply "believe" that is so. Science is about facts. Models are not facts. Ideas are not facts. Facts are not nuanced. They either are or are not.
Posted by: deadwood on December 18, 2009 12:49 PMThey're something else.
Posted by: Gary on December 18, 2009 12:51 PMBeyond that, the "science" of Global Warming™ doesn't meet the common sense test, hacked data or not. For starters, man's contribution of CO2 is beyond minuscule at best. I like visual representations because they illustrate so much better than an obscure number (217,000 tons, etc.). So, if you represent the earth's total atmosphere as a square that is 6 feet to a side, man's percentage of CO2 (2% of 3.67% of 3.97%) is a bit smaller than a period (.) on this web page.
I just find it hard to believe that such a minuscule amount of plant food could cause all of the havoc that Al Gore says it does. And witnessing Al's many distortions, lies and general misunderstandings (to say noting of his monetary involvement) I doubt he has a very good grasp of it either. In fact I am of the ever increasing camp that Mr. Gore has a serious mental defect of some sort.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 18, 2009 12:56 PMYou would not call that man a scientist. You would call him a fraud, because he *purposefully* deletes that data which does not fit what he wants everyone else (his benefactors?) to *believe*.
The folks in the UK also chose to *not* include data from temperature stations that did not show warming.
That's not a scientist wanting to save the planet, because he already knows the plant is no danger.
Fraud. Crook. Leech.
Not a scientist.
Of course science is nuanced. Everything in the real-world is nuanced and complex. Some years are colder than others while still exhibiting an upward trend, for example. The last fifty years have shown warning, but a la nina year can still be among the coldest in the last twenty.
I am not arguing that people are entitled to their own facts, but I understand on a human level why these is such fear of releasing data that could be used by climate skeptics. That doesn't make it right but it does make scientists human. We can still hold them accountable to a higher standard, of course.
But climate change skeptics haven't exactly proved their ever-loving commitment to the scientific method. They want to focus on five years and ignore two-hundred. Some ignore that many of the last ten years have been the hottest on record. Some view a climate graph end-to-end instead of looking at the full picture. The biggest "scientific advancement" in the skeptic movement has been hacking into an email server and leaking embarrassing emails (that show no manipulation of the underlying data). That's not science, that's public relations.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 18, 2009 01:38 PMShaking my head. People learn nothing.
"Let me start with my bottom line points:
Were some of the climategate emails inappropriate? Yes
Have some scientists exaggerated the implications of human caused global warming? Yes.
Are many global warming deniers unreasonable and expressing opinions that are not based in facts or rational thought? Yes.
Is the basic science of climate change now in question because of the climategate emails? No.
Has the whole business gotten too political? Surely.
Are scientists human and sometimes doing things out based on human emotion or group think? Yes.
For instance:
"Have some scientists exaggerated ..."
vs:
"Are many global warming deniers..."
Are not "deniers" also scientists? Do you see the trick they employ?
Posted by: Gary on December 18, 2009 02:05 PMDo you call him a scientist? Is it no wonder the world is getting hotter when your thermometer is right next to the exhaust of an air-conditioner?
And this particular example is the roof of the building of the national New Zealand climate center.
Hello?
cience is about nuance and rigorous self-examination,
Simply put: BULLSH!T. Science is about bare, naked facts and hard, pushed-to-see-if-they-fail theories. If you find facts - empirical evidence - that doesn't follow your theory then science DEMANDS you throw out your theory and start over.
That's not what happened with the CRU or IPCC. Inconvenient facts were ignored and thrown out. The model was sacrosanct, regardless of what came about to show it to be false (the current warming trend being just one such "problem" that invalidated the models).
Science is quite rigorous and demanding; there is little nuance needed. Read this quote by Richard Feynman and reflect on what it demands:
There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in "cargo cult science." It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can - if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong - to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
Those "scientists" leading the AGW movement are an embarrassment and insult to the title "scientist" which they claim.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 02:50 PMI would not. I'm not a scientist, but it is my opinion that the readings would be faulty.
I read an AP report one day about a weather satellite that was sent up to "measure warming". I asked the writer if she should have said "measure temperatures" instead.
She said, "no".
See the mentality here?
But you are a smart guy so maybe you can answer this question: In the last 1100 years planet temperatures have varied widely. At one point, wine grapes were being grown in Britain and at another point in time they were skating on the Thames. At both of these extremes mankind got along quite well as did animal kind. What I don't understand it what makes this climate so important that it must be preserved at all costs? What makes the climate we have now the right one?
This lashing out is an example of when someone knows they are losing the debate. There's no proof that man is the cause of catostrophic global warming. It's merely a hypothesis with much science still to be conducted. And certainly no crisis warranting economy crippling action. The only way left for these folks to be heard is through emotional outbursts. That's what we witnessed from Stanford's Schneider last week. And that's what the sycophants are parroting here in the comments.
A "pushed-to-see-if-they-fail" theory is not a fact. It's a theory that stands up to repeated tests. One day a test can fail (see: Newton's Law of Gravity), dislodging the theory. Facts do not get dislodged.
Science is pursuit of the facts. It cannot determine them, only pursue them. Eventually we reach a degree of certainty that makes the discussion academic, but that is no reason to get as angry as you typically do ("BULLSHIT.").
I don't know what the hell people's problem with the word "nuance" is, but nuance and fact do not disagree.
The theory is that "man-made greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to climate change." This theory is difficult to test on its own, so scientists have tested against a million different theories. One theory: Snowpack melting in the Cascades. Very simply to prove or disprove, to be sure. But the nuance comes here: one potential measure of climate change in the Cascades does not reject the theory of climate change. Of course, deniers do sometimes point to isolated data-points like this in isolation to make their point. (As do climate activists, to be fair.) The complexity of science allows the latest study to be misused by either side without evaluating the top-level theory.
Are we really going to argue that science is "simply and easy" rather than "nuanced and complex"? I'm not making some controversial point here. The world is a pretty complex beast. To blindly scream that "MODELS AREN'T SCIENCE" because they don't answer a yes or no question is really stupid.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 18, 2009 03:08 PMBut showing just that first graph, why that's what passes for climate science today while the research of Mass and Lindzen and McIntyre is delayed for years, if it ever "passes muster" and gets published in the "right" journals.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 03:14 PMI'm concerned less about the net end-game for humanity in terms of survival. Between now and the time society successfully restructures to a new climate (that will continually shift dramatically; so is there ever an end?) there could be wars over resources, mass starvation, and whatever other impacts you'd expect on a species in a chaotic environment. It's kind of easy to say that mankind will survive after the flooding and fall of Manhattan, but we won't be better off for the loss of wealth, would we?
So if climate change is happening and will have dramatic impacts over the next century or more, there are pretty disastrous consequences. I think that's why those opposed to cap-and-trade argue that climate change isn't real, not that it is real but won't be a big deal since mankind will survive.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 18, 2009 03:19 PMIf you have a point to make, please make it. I do not respond to your leading questions.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 18, 2009 03:27 PMA "pushed-to-see-if-they-fail" theory is not a fact.
Read again what I wrote; I did not write nor imply what you are apparently trying to criticize.
The FACTS are there, and when you have a THEORY (such as man-made global warming from our CO2 output) that comes to odds with FACTS (such as the current cooling trend) then the THEORY gets changed.
What you and your fellow "man is evil" Algore acolytes refuse to do is throw out your precious theory. Real scientists take the facts, take the data, and change the theories to match; they do not throw out the data.
The theory is that "man-made greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to climate change."
No, that's what you LIKE to say it's about, and no one's denying it. Basic laws of thermodynamics state that merely our presence causes a change in the system. You won't find anyone who will logically deny it.
But the real theory of you AGW acolytes - that started with Mann and his hockey stick - is that man is NEGATIVELY impacting climate change, and our CO2 output is the primary cause of any climate change. A position that the FACTS do not support.
Why does the IPCC still use models that do not reflect the current situation? Why are decisions being made with patently bad theories and models? Scientists like Mass, Easterbrook, Lindzen, and thousands more who stand up and state this are ignored and shunned...
Yes, climate change is now all about politics. Real science is now relegated to the closet. And your President, and your Senators, and your Governor are buying into it because it represents a way to further expand their power. Science be damned, they'll use provably wrong models and theories to ram through what they want...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 03:33 PMI'm concerned less about the net end-game for humanity in terms of survival. Between now and the time society successfully restructures to a new climate (that will continually shift dramatically; so is there ever an end?) there could be wars over resources, mass starvation, and whatever other impacts you'd expect on a species in a chaotic environment. It's kind of easy to say that mankind will survive after the flooding and fall of Manhattan, but we won't be better off for the loss of wealth, would we?
Wow. Chicken Little, anyone?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 18, 2009 03:37 PMHis comments show that "climate change" is simply a leftist political tool. Manhattan isn't going to be flooded, the polar ice caps are not going to disappear, and John Jensen, Al Gore and the rest of them know it. They are nothing more than dishonest liars who use fear in an attempt to impose socialism.
They are going to go totally nuts now because most people have finally had enough of them.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 18, 2009 04:14 PMSee WUWT for story:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/18/guardian-headline-low-targets-goals-dropped-copenhagen-ends-in-failure/
The teleprompter failed the great one and he was unable to convince the Chinese and Indians that forsaking development was a good idea. Who would have thought?
Having now failed twice in Copenhagen - he had to skedaddle home to beat the blizzard (sweet irony strikes again - thanks Al!). Once back he faces defeat again for his great domestic policy piece of destroying health care in America.
Only 11 month remains for the left and two more major pieces of legislation (Cap&Trade and Immigration) to defeat before the Dems are defeated and Congress will be able to fight back more effectively against the regressive left.
Keep up the good work Obama, you are the right's greatest asset.
Yawn. It's not the basic concepts that I have a problem with (indeed, I know them significantly better than you do, as this discussion has proven): it's that no one has used the scientific method to demonstrate that man is causing any significant warming. That's a fact.
Because the recent changes have not followed other defined cycles, or any other type of mechanism.
That is not a scientific reason to attribute man as the cause. It's a reason to form a hypothesis, but does not stand as evidence for that hypothesis.
Does it mean that this CANNOT be a natural phenomenon?
Um. Sorry to break this to you, but if man is causing it, it's still a natural phenomenon. Man is as natural as anything else on Earth. I know this is beside the point, but it's important to note.
given that there's a large artificial input of CO2 (and methane, and HCFCs, and SF6, and so forth)
Again: there absolutely is not. You're completely misusing the word "artificial." There is nothing artificial about man's output of CO2, nor anything else that man does.
human influence is a pretty obvious culprit.
False. Again: science has not demonstrated this, in any way, shape, or form. It is basic concepts, indeed, that you misunderstand: science has never been used to demonstrate that additional CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperatures as you have described. It's a hypothesis, without significant evidence to back it up. Yes, really.
If you cannot come up with a BETTER hypothesis, I'm at a loss as to how you can disprove one that has a pretty substantial amount of evidence behind it.
Wow. It's hard to imagine anyone would think to write such a nonsensical sentence. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. You have it completely wrong: no one has to come up with a better hypothesis to attack an existing hypothesis. If I go to a magic show and someone cuts a woman in half on stage, and I see the body apparently split, and I see blood ... and then the magician puts the two pieces of the woman back together and she is unharmed ... I do not need to have a hypothesis for how he did it to claim that it wasn't magic, despite the substantial evidence behind it: the saw, the split body, the blood, the rejoining of the body.
(Also, I never said I would, or could, disprove your hypothesis, only that I find it severely lacking; also, there isn't much evidence behind it, which is precisely the reason why I find it lacking.)
"Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, accepts the UN panel's predictions on global warming. Does that put him in Al Gore's camp? Not really, because Lomborg then goes on to argue that we would be better off accepting some warming, and spending money on more serious problems, such as providing clean water for the poor in developing countries."
I tend to side with Dr. Mass. He is saying there is evidence that arouses skeptics on both sides of this issue. However, more paramount is the solutions being proposed to offset the human influence. Having read the books mentioned, I found Lomborg's solutions to be the most feasible, cost efficient, common sense and economically friendly.
Why in the hell is the US Government willing to donate $100 billion/year of taxpayer money after 2020 to rogue nations who will undoubtedly use very little of this money for restoring the environment ? Congress should at least be able to vote on this, although the current makeup of congress stinks to high heaven.
Posted by: KDS on December 18, 2009 08:23 PMWe have been working for years to do that and have been successful in many cases here in the United States! The Copenhagen proposals on Climate Change (Global Warming) are totally useless and people need to understand that!! Pollution Stewardship is a good thing as it will improve our health of people and animals throughout the World. We would be wise to spend our monies in doing so to help but we need to be in total control of that money and how it is spent!! If a country wants to improve their stewardship then we can provide help to do so with scientists and business leaders.
Posted by: Tim on December 18, 2009 10:19 PMPeople seem to misunderstand this offer, which I'm not sure was even accepted.
The United States would help raise those funds. Most Western nations would have to pay into the fund, according to the agreement. US taxpayers wouldn't foot the bill.
Business interests like that, actually, because it gives them a way to buy "credits" for a cap and trade program.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 19, 2009 12:05 AM"The United States would help raise those funds . . . US taxpayers wouldn't foot the bill."
Just because a tax is hidden in the cost of goods doesn't mean taxpayers won't pay it.
Posted by: deadwood on December 19, 2009 06:26 AMThe United States would help raise those funds. Most Western nations would have to pay into the fund, according to the agreement. US taxpayers wouldn't foot the bill.
All across our political and government beaches lie the giant dying whales of Democrat bailout, entitlement, welfare and stimulus. And yet these true believers are so sure that this time, yes this time, it won't end another failure on the balance sheet of the US. Yes, this time, every last dollar of the billions will be spent wisely.
Mr. Barnum was right, there is indeed a sucker born every minute, and one to take his place.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 19, 2009 07:10 AMAnd what exactly is that? The clean air and clean water acts of the 1970's worked. Is that what you are referring to?
Are you referring to something along the lines of Gregoire's Puget Sound Partnership? If so, what is it exactly that we need about this? Is it the funding of hundreds of flaky leftist enviro groups with our taxes?
Posted by: deadwood on December 19, 2009 07:13 AM
Here is the original quote from Jensen:
"Yes, the tragedy of four police officers being murdered is greater than someone being temporarily homeless. But that mean that being homeless is somehow easier or less bothersome."
Here was my response to his claim and his subsequent response:
Me:
BTW, nice contradiction in your own post, wherein you state in one sentence that the tragedy of four lost lives is much greater than being temporarily homeless, then in the very next sentence you state that being homeless is no easier or less bothersome than that tragedy.
Jensen:
I meant that it's no easier nor less bothersome for the aunt.
It is pointless to argue with someone who has no real concept of tragedy and loss.
Just ignore him.
Posted by: komodo_dragon on December 19, 2009 07:22 AMGood lord. Yes we would, John.
Deadwood - In my earlier comment I mentioned that we have been successful in many cases in cleaning up pollution and preventing new pollution which you referenced with "The clean air and clean water acts of the 1970's worked.". Those ideas are exactly what we need to continue with down the road. Those do not need to be replaced with 'Cap and Trade' or the 'Copenhagen Treaty'!!! We do not need to give away $100 Billion dollars on a yearly basis for the 'leftist' views!! We do need to 'sell' Pollution Stewardship' to the rest of the world!
Posted by: Tim on December 19, 2009 07:29 AMDid the agreement even get accepted? It was contingent on some changes from China.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 19, 2009 07:30 AMWhy should we foot ANY of the bill? The science isn't close to settled, that's what this entire thread is about, including Dr. Mass' original post.
And the cost/benefits need to be weighed regarding where to place our resources, much like Lomborg's excellent books point out... The payoff to society is MUCH higher, and the cost MUCH lower to simply work for clean water for all, rather than mitigating CO2 emissions (which are far from proven as the driving force behind global warming, as global warming isn't even proven to be driven by man).
But hey, we'll only cover $25 billion a year or so (based upon our share of the UN), and that's not a lot at all so why not, right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 19, 2009 08:15 AMhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
Pollution, we came to learn from experience, is something that can be mitigated and reduced in an industrialized and developed society.
Developing countries are learning these lessons the same way we did. In some areas they have benefited from our experience, but by and large they are learning the hard way.
Many of us in developed countries ask what seems a reasonable question - why do the Chinese and Indians choose to develop in what appears to be the messiest most polluting way?
The answer is really quite simple. They don't have the wealth and infrastructure necessary to do it the clean way - yet.
In developing countries they look at their choices as (1) Improving the lives of their people in the fastest and least costly way and worrying about cleanup when they can afford it, or (2) Taking two or three times as long by the much more expensive path we are currently following.
I don't think our preaching to them the benefits of approach (2) are very persuasive when the benefits of approach (1) are quite apparent (look at China over the last 30 years).
Posted by: deadwood on December 19, 2009 10:56 AMHow to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
The outrage that caused one of the e-mail writers to say "Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted."?
As Mr. Michaels notes in the article, "He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost primary warming data." Too funny...
Posted by: Bill on December 19, 2009 12:54 PMWe can help developing countries but giving them that much money is totally ridiculous as those people in charge would have a most wonderful time personally spending the money. We need to spend the money to ensure accountability but we don't need to spend or give away 100 billion dollars a year. China has 2.3 trillion dollars of our bonds already. How quickly can China 'put us under' if they wish to do so!!
Your first sentence:
"Pollution, we came to learn from experience, is something that can be mitigated and reduced in an industrialized and developed society."
can be taught to developing countries so they do not have to go through the same turmoil of killing hundreds and thousands of the population with pollution and wasting billions of dollars trying to clean up the pollution mess they have made!!! That is part of Pollution Stewardship!!!
Your next sentence:
"Developing countries are learning these lessons the same way we did. In some areas they have benefited from our experience, but by and large they are learning the hard way."
They do not need to learn the hard way through bad experience!!!
Posted by: Tim on December 19, 2009 01:40 PMOf course the other option is for us to pay for everything. Oh yeah, that's what we just promised them. With $100 billion per year of money we have to borrow no less. And did you read today that China is not going going to lend it to us?
As for learning the hard way - it IS the best way, it how people learn.
Posted by: deadwood on December 19, 2009 02:09 PM"Kind of arrogant of us to insist they do things as we say - not as we do, isn't it?"
Your remark is is totally unremarkable!!!
And your next sentence:
"Of course the other option is for us to pay for everything."
Is only your personal remorse that we should pay the rest of the world for being successful... That is also totally unremarkable!!!
You have suddenly come out as an extremist progressive that because you feel we can not help other countries that we should go into so much additional debt that we become third world!! How totally ridiculous!!
Posted by: Tim on December 19, 2009 03:37 PMWhen these clowns can predict the weather NEXT WEEK, I'll start worrying about what these lying scum say about next year... or next decade.... or next century.
Until then, I'll recall the time 30 years ago when these same morons were predicting an Ice Age we were supposed to be in, well, right now.
Meanwhile, we're led by a complete moron who wastes more fuel in one month then most families will in the entirety of their lives. Rank hypocrites like Gore who do nothing but make tans of millions telling us to do what he says, but not what he does... using lies and gross exaggerations all the while.
And the anti-American, racist bigot in the White House with his weekly parties and golf dates while the rest of Rome burns.
Scum... the entire lot of them.
Posted by: Hinton on December 19, 2009 10:46 PMYou wrote "Kind of arrogant of us to insist they do things as we say - not as we do, isn't it?"
If you meant disparaging the current Obama government then fine and I apologize for misunderstanding you!
We do not need the current cap and Trade nor any agreement made in Copenhagen. We do need to manage the Earth with Stewardship which we as the United States have been working on for years successfully in many cases. That "Pollution Stewardship' should be where we are headed and espousing to the rest of the world not Obama's philosophy of spending a Trillion dollars in ten years and reducing man-made CO2 emissions to the level we had in the 19th century.
"There is an almost tribal separation going on today between the scientific community and their "allies" (generally of a liberal persuasion) and the denier and critic crowd (many of them of a conservative bent). The denier folks have become angry, with conspiracy theories and accusations of far-left agendas. Whenever there is an article on climate change in newspapers, these people leaves large numbers of online comments. And few of them are well informed about the science."
Jim, read the comments on your post or any post where global warming is discussed, and tell us
Do you really not see this separation? In the very terms Cliff Mass does?
"It is sobering to note that the uncertainty in climate predictions has not declined over the past decades. Our models are much better now than thirty years ago, but key aspects of the modeling systems...like how they simulate clouds... are not as realistic as we would like...and this is very important for climate change work."
The models are now better than they were thirty years ago and yet the results are just as uncertain as then.
What business do you know of that would invest in technology for thirty years that did not provide any improvement in results? How many people that you know would still have a job thirty years later if thehe had been zero improvement in their production? Yet the money still flows into the same organizations and people with astonishing regularity, and apparently no requirements of increased return on the investment.
Posted by: bob on December 20, 2009 09:01 AM"What business do you know of that would invest in technology for thirty years that did not provide any improvement in results?"
as compared to: "few of them are well informed about the science."
Tragically funny bob.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 20, 2009 09:46 AMI ask you, what is the temperature at the boundary between rock and ice, under crushing pressure, 5000 feet below the surface of an icesheet, and what does temperature mean in an environment like that? Is it affected by the temperature of the air that is so far away? (No) The answer to the first question is that the temperature of the ice and rock is much lower than the freezing point of water because the ice is under pressure. Yet water still forms there. What really happens is that the intense pressure itself causes a small amount of ice to melt (even though the temperature is less than the melting point (just as the intense pressure under an ice skate blade causes a small amount of the ice under it to melt, which is what makes you glide with very little friction over the ice). This water flows downhill, turning into rivers that exit alongside glaciers, and it lubricates the rock and soil on which the icesheet and glaciers lie, allowing the ice to flow (and calve into icebergs if they extend to the water).
What causes an increases and decreases in melting? Increased or decreased pressure. What causes that? Its the long term change in the thickening or thinning of the ice (more snow at the surface over time causes it thicken, which increases pressure so more ice turns to water underneath, which thins the sheet from below.) There is an equilibrium that fluctuates over time, like all dynamic natural systems; it is not affected to any great extent by atmospheric surface temperature. Most importantly, the icesheets are not melting away (measurements have shown that they are getting thicker, actually).
As for the melting of the polar ice cap, which may well happen just as it has happened many times in the past, due to atmospheric and ocean warming from non-human causes, the conversion of the FLOATING ice to water (increased density) would lower the average sea level (imperceptibly), not raise it.
People like Demo Kid and John Jensen do not want to actually think about the world and synthesize knowledge from different natural sciences, or perhaps they are incapable of it. They prefer to bully people and attempt to frighten them with stories of impending doom due to causes that most people lack the knowledge to independently analyze. Best to ignore them.
Posted by: srogers on December 20, 2009 10:14 AMSo you have no answer. Typical of you/jensen/demo. Never address the issue or the facts, under any circumstances, whatsoever. Always do your "Yay Team" routine, because you are unable to actually contribute anything to society, much less an actual discussion.
Be proud.
So I assume that you have settled on this time frame in Earth's history as the "right" temperature for human habitation. But what about the Medieval warm period? I'll quote another voice on this (Lawrence Solomon): "The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history -- it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition." So John, why didn't you pick THAT time period as optimum for human habitation? Because it was substantially warmer than what we have now? If you want the best temperature for human history, the Medieval Warm Period was probably it. Why didn't you pick that time frame? It has been speculated by others that a few degrees of global temperature rise would increase crop yields by pushing arable land further north. Substantial parts of Canada would turn into a bread basket, same with Russia. More people would be fed. How is that a bad thing?
So what I am saying here is that on top of the bad science of AGW™ and the fact that they think that they can control the temperature of the earth, the eco-Nazis, for whatever reason, have decided that the temperature we had at the end of the century is the right one. Apparently, it has been picked out of thin air simply because they are living in it. How is THAT good science?
If we can control the Earth's temperature (and we can't but I'm just sayin') why don't we have a debate about what temperature is best and work for that? Pick when mankind was most comfortable and able to grow the most crops (within the available science of the time) and go with that temperature? We don't because it isn't about temperature any longer, it's about preservation of grants and control.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 20, 2009 10:32 AMYeah, what do physicists and climatologists think they can learn and speak about compared to the knowledge and profound fundamental musings of bob on December 20, 2009 10:16 AM ??
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 20, 2009 10:50 AMFurther proof that you are clueless about anything and everything. Perhaps you could actually attempt to address the issue? That way we could have some additional entertainment.
LMAO
I see the separation and I assume Jim does, too, but Mass's characterizations of the two "camps" are nonsense. The "Allies" are virtually all in favor of increased government control of human activity, and they are overwhelmingly strident, radical environmentalists. They are angry at being questioned, and they are demonstratively skewing observed data to fit their hypotheses and using political power to isolate the skeptical scientists who do not accept their orthodoxy.
Whenever there is an article on global warming, especially one that calls for human sacrifice to "stop" the warming, there are "large numbers of online comments" from both camps. And few of the commenters on either side are particularly well versed in science. The skeptical scientists, however, and the commenters who think independently and also skeptically (a hallmark of scientific thought, unlike religious thought), are by far the most scientifically rigorous of the bunch.
Posted by: srogers on December 20, 2009 11:08 AM"Perhaps you could actually attempt to address the issue?"
Yes, I already did address the issue of Cliff Mass's referenced post. The issue is being unable to have a reasonable discussion about the implications of global warming due to denier folks angry, conspiracy theory rhetoric where few, if any' of them are well informed about the science.
Your nonsensical comments comparing basic research to business, and hypothesizing about causes for warming show Mass's analysis more correct than he'd want.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 20, 2009 11:15 AMNo, you have not addressed anything I said. You have simply spouted your usual BS, hoping it would be construed as intelligent dicussion. You fail, still.
Are you and Jensen the same person, or perhaps closely related?
My guess is you are direct descendents of each other.
LMAO.
If you should ever decide to actually engage in discussion, let us know. Otherwise, you're done.
buh-bye.
Our SP science expert says:
"My guess is you are direct descendents [sic] of each other."
I don't know which is better; your way with words or your way with logic.
Ignorance is BLISS, right bob? :-D
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 20, 2009 11:38 AM
Pretty sad. I'm sure your mother still loves you, though.
LMAO
Yes, clearly mother jokes are less of nonsense on the topic of worthy study of climate change and the accompanying rhetoric than anything I said. Thank-you for pointing that out to me. I stand corrected.
You have not offered any facts to back up your assertion, but then again neither did Mass.
But I'm curious, do you classify Cliff Mass as a strident, radical environmentalist?
He does begin his post with some bottom line points, one of which is
"Are many global warming deniers unreasonable and expressing opinions that are not based in facts or rational thought? Yes."
I don't know for sure, but I infer from his use of the words some and many in the post that he chose those words carefully.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 20, 2009 12:15 PM"The skeptical scientists, however, and the commenters who think independently and also skeptically (a hallmark of scientific thought, unlike religious thought), are by far the most scientifically rigorous of the bunch."
Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by "scientifically rigorous" and how that compares to the rigors of people like Cliff Mass in the field of Atmospheric Sciences?
Thanks
Disagree with the facts I presented if you wish, I don't really care. But if you do - then please tell me which law of physics or which characteristic of icesheets and glaciers I have gotten wrong. Don't say I did not present facts to back up this discussion: that is a lie.
As for my second comment about the nature of the "allies" and the relative scientific acumen of the two camps - these are just my observations. I was an applied scientist (an aeronautical engineer and a pilot) for 15 years and I have a pretty extensive scientific education in many other areas directly impacting this discussion (premedicine, for example, with its emphasis in chemistry and biology). My observations are more meaningful than yours (I assume, I do not know your background, of course) and certainly more meaningful than most.
Posted by: srogers on December 20, 2009 12:45 PMLet's assume you do have some experience and some education in the area of aeronautical engineering roughly equal to 15 years.
Let's assume you are sincere.
Tell me srogers, as an engineer, who has more credibility in the area of Atmospheric Sciences, you or Cliff Mass, a known published Atmospheric Sciences scientist for over 25 years?
You see, srogers, if the topic were aeronautical engineering, and Cliff Mass called you an alarmest in your field, I'd find that just a wee bit incredible.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 20, 2009 04:50 PMThese people at Copenhagen don't care about common sense and economic solutions. The elitists are hucksters and only want to control people. Further regulations may be necessary, not by para-one world governments like the UN though, but from individual nations.
Posted by: KDS on December 20, 2009 07:48 PM"Further regulations may be necessary, not by para-one world governments like the UN though, but from individual nations."
So, like instead of the "fascism rampant by the UN"at the UN hosted conference in Copenhagen, they should have gotten representatives of individual nations together and tried to work out some sort of treaty and then gone back to their individual nations and worked it through their individual national processes.
Interesting idea. Wonder why no one thought of that before. Darn fascists!