September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Everyone's a critic | Main | Kids today »

Dec 27, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Beelzebubba

2 points for bob

cheripicker

I will admit my late-night search for a balanced global-warming site was hurried and horrible. I will try to do better this time. The only thing I can really conclude from these relatively untainted organizations (Natural Resources Defense Council, Heartland Institute, Sierra Club and National Center for Policy Analysis) is that one side seems way more sure of itself than the other. I guess when in doubt, common sense would dictate we'd better go with them.

"Let's be clear here-there is no debate on the science of climate change"---Natural Resources Defense Council

"Often wrong, never in doubt"---anonymous

RBM

@ cheripicker

balanced global-warming site

Why ? greg's comments aren't sufficient ?

cheripicker

Sorry, my sarcasmometer isn't working today. My answer is either 1.) LOL or 2.) No

Beelzebubba

we'll be warm enough soon enough and laughing about what we were concerned about the most was not what killed us.

RBM

I'm a user of the sarconal tag so you will know ( unless I forget)if I am being sarcastic.

Since you didn't elucidate let me make an offer - from TED.

David Keith:

Environmental scientist David Keith proposes a cheap, effective, shocking means to address climate change: What if we injected a huge cloud of ash into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and heat?

And

David Keith studies our climate, and the many ideas we've come up with to fix it. A wildly original thinker, he challenges us to look at climate solutions that may seem daring, sometimes even…

I only listened to a couple minutes since I don't need to be shocked (see above). This video presumes there is a problem. I guess you don't think there is.

Still TED is a good learning source, IMVHO.

cheripickr

RBM, thanks for the links, much appreciated. For disclosure, I do not deny that global warming has occurred, nor that human behavior has likely contributed to it, nor that its continuation could cause real problems some day. However, the likelihood and magnitude of this is speculative, and the assumption that we could prevent it, by limiting a any manmade component, is flimsy, and seems to imply that the non-manmade part would be impressed and join with us.
It is the leaps of faith, logic and dubious predictive powers of science required to justify prioritization of finite societal energies and resources toward this potential problem, over more dire and imminent global crises of more measurable magnitude and clearer, achievable solutions, as discussed HERE, that warrants your thoughtful scrutiny and skepticism. (Don't mean to beat this into the ground, but his book is better).

The relative allocation of resources toward the world's various crises has tremendous implications, both practical and humanitarian. Annoyingly inconvenient to some people, cost-effectiveness and economics are paramount in this equation. I find it weird and disturbing that the public has had so little exposure to this intuitively sensible way of approaching the world's challenges, yet nearly everyone in the world is completely up to steam on the so-called plight of the polar bear.

greg

The Stern Commission addressed the issue of cost-benefit:

The former World Bank chief economist warned that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.

However, taking steps now could limit the damage to the world economy to 1% of total gross domestic product (GDP).

And that was before oil was $150 a barrel.

cheripicker

Always coulds, ifs and mights. Now its economists AND scientists whose predictions have a proven track record?
Also, see Dec 31, 4:33 PM post

RBM

@ cheripicker

See Benoit Mandelbrot's The (Mis)Behavior of Markets. Mandelbrot often compares markets to the weather--turbulent, unpredictable, wild.

It would seem you have a real uncomfortable time with the weather, you know, the

coulds, ifs and mights

And I'm being serious - lest you wonder. Since that would once again leave you with

coulds, ifs and mights

cheripicker

"Mandelbrot often compares markets to the weather--turbulent, unpredictable, wild. Katrina gave us the perfect metaphor of where the blind adherance to market theology leads us. Mandebrot published his book in 2004, well before Katrina or the market meltdown of 2007-2008. But the devastation wrecked upon those who ignore, or deny, the nature of either weather or the markets, and fail to prepare for either of them, is extreme:"
That is a beautiful illustration of my point that if we can't even predict the weather beyond a week at best (or the financial markets over any period), despite a glut of experts in both fields, why believe we can predict climate patterns a century in advance? Thanks.

Beelzebubba

I sleep so much better at night knowing that the crackjack troops and policy makers which handled the Katrina preparation and aftermath are the same futtercluckers which will make policy concerning something that may or may not be occuring after everyone alive now is dead.

bobthesurgeon

....in my honest opinion, and i dont have a dog in this fight, the facts of global climate change are irrefutable...from a strictly paleoclimatology perspective it has happened before on planet earth and it is bound to happen again ( I learnt that word from one of my current patients , who is a professor at the esteemed Lamont-Doherty laboratory)anyone who disputes this is likely to also believe that the world was created about six thousand years ago in 6 days......

cheripickr

What then, exactly are these facts, going forward, which we should not dispute, a fact being a statement that is true? Which of the various claims for the future, specifically, are you referring to, because what I have heard predicted is all over the map, and rather vague in terms of ultimate consequences. Are we all going to drown, burn up, starve or just have to move inland, and when?

I'm sure I can accept many of your facts, past and present, but a prediction is just a prediction, not a fact, and as I have tried to emphasize, there is no precedent in human history for forecasting conditions a century in advance to warrant similarly far-ranging global policy to address them, which for all we know could as likely be detrimental as beneficial to our species.

Your swipe at Creationism bears no relevance to any argument that has been made in this thread, pro or con, except possibly Mandelbrot's caution above against blind adherence to (market) theology, which I suppose could be extrapolated to this climatologic faith, as well as religion in the broader sense.

Assuming your faith is as unshakable going forward as it is in the past and present, then in your view every statement, person, blog and organization on the left side of this webpage simply represents the truth, while those on the right are either symptomatic of some epidemic mental disorder or a vast, well-coordinated global network whose goal is to destroy the planet. In fact, the creator of the website would have to be on it to lend such a clever disguise of legitimacy to these radicals.

BTW, are we closing in on the Britney Spears record yet?

bobthesurgeon

....simpletons abound, even if blessed with first rate educations: ill use an analogy relevant to NC geography: think of pigs in a slop, they lay around eating their own waste, , unable to move, the ankles bowing under such strain...would u live in an EPA condemned site, would you drink water from a contaminated well, or would you, darwins child, have me do that as you quaff gallons of ozark and poland spring? i am not on the left or right of this, in fact the left position will be to deny it as well, saying we can legislate our way out of inevetibility, saying that it is mankind, the human, which has the brain to fix this and rise above the history of dinosaur bones and dust.... Only the wise man sees nature as the devil, nature is the cruelest sort, look at this cancer cell, it grows without restraint, it takes over the body, it is all natural, 100 percent organic....

cheripicker

?????????????????????????????????????

greg

Cheripicker: I appreciate your point about the difficulties in predictions. For example, how much CO2 will be emitted over the upcoming decades? Predictions have undoubtedly changed due the financial crisis--although cheap gas may counter-act some of that...) And these changes make for uncertainty in the IPCC predictions.

However, uncertainty should not lead to paralysis. You can still take action.

You can assess what is the most likely option; or you can examine scenarios, such as, 'if nothing changes' then what...?'

You can also examine what the various outcomes are if one assumption is valid versus the other.

With climate change the outcomes are arguably asymmetric.

If climate change occurs at the level predicted, then what happens... here the IPCC does a good job of reviewing the scenarios... most are not pleasant for humans.

Versus, what if climate change isn't happening and yet we spent all this money for nothing... how much have we suffered.

By asymetric, I mean that the suffering in the two scenarios will not be equal. Humans will suffer much more if climate change occurs and we did nothing to stop it.

So I would argue (as does the Stern report) that we are foolish to gamble that the second option is correct and we shouldn't spend the money.

We're foolish because:

1) There's good reason to believe that CO2 can affect the climate. (This is why there is scientific consensus on the matter -- including by Bush's 'Science Czar')

Note that Nobel Prize-winning chemist Svante Arrhennius had eludicated the basic theories of climate change (with laborious pencil and paper calculations rather than the shortcut of computers) by the end of the 19th century.

Scientific America discussed the science of climate change back in 1959:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dioxide-and-climate

2) Just because it is difficult to predict doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

I haven't read Mandelbrot for a long time, but as I remember it, he's worked on fractals, linked to chaos theory. Chaos theory doesn't say that things are unpredictable, just that the relationships are incredibly complex and the initial conditions are important to outcome.

Which is to say that there may be complex relationships, but that doesn't mean that human-induced CO2 isn't important.

Ignoring something just because you don't understand it (or worse, you don't like it) is foolish.


3) Despite the concerns about our predictive ability, the models seem to be relatively robust.

A year and a half ago (Aug 2007), the UK made the first relatively robust predictions for a decade:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm

"Writing in Science, Met Office researchers project that at least half of the years between 2009 and 2014 are likely to exceed existing records.

However, the Hadley Centre researchers said that the influence of natural climatic variations were likely to dampen the effects of emissions from human activities between now and 2009."

Which is interesting given the relatively cooler winter we're having in the north.

Likewise, the IPCC report demonstrates the ability of the models to 'back-cast' -- start them 100 years ago and then without any information about the next 100 years, see how well they do at predicting the known climate trend.


4) Even if climate change isn't human induced, or if it is and there's nothing we can do about it, there are still (profound) benefits that would come from the actions that we would take to combat climate change.

Namely:
- reduced particulates and other pollutants, who's reduction would have positive health effects;
- increasing our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil (esp in the middle east and west africa, where dictators are sitting on the oil; not to mention russia)
- jump-starting a hi-tech economy, as T Freidman has promoted (for economic reasons, people will be looking for fuel-efficient vehicles, for example. Toyota's stock is down much less than Ford's.)

----

While you can't predict the future with certainty, you can "Be Prepared"


RBM
"Be Prepared"

Even this has some uncertainty - just like the weather - and life!!

I'm just learning about Billl McKibben but he certainly seems to be of the school of action, 'Be Prepared'.

His Foreign Policy article Think Again: Climate Change is a revisit to the subject within a summary format.

I keep on eye on this stuff for trends that might help me get a job with a brand spanking new AAS in HVAC/R.

scharrison

"Your swipe at Creationism bears no relevance to any argument that has been made in this thread"

There is some relevance, Cheri. The Young Earthers attach great significance to scientific mistakes to prove their ideas and to call science (as a whole) into question. The missing several feet of dust on the Moon stands out as an example.

In my opinion, many GW denialists focus their efforts on pointing out occasional flaws in data or research to impugn all data and research.

Ed Cone

Climate and weather are not the same thing.

Inability to model complex systems with assured accuracy is not an excuse to blindly accept the future as it comes.

The Economist wrote two years ago: "[A]lthough the science remains uncertain, the chances of serious consequences are high enough to make it worth spending the (not exorbitant) sums needed to try to mitigate climate change."

Other threads have drawn many more comments than this one.

cheripicker

So who are the "young earthers" in this thread and what were their arguments relevant to that belief?

bobthesurgeon

..why the heck do people have to continually analyze, reanalyze sift through and stall, stall stall......i once asked a drug representative if your new wonder drug is so safe , here, take a few, ...he declined...i ask cheripicker if its ok for me to run my old diesal generator, can i connect a pipe to it and have you smoke that pipe for 10...just 10 minutes...if your answer is no than please focus your considerable intelligence on something more meaningful to the human condition

cheripicker

As a physician myself, I find your annoyance at my failure to conveniently simplify an inherently complex topic, and your increasingly bizarre analogies worrisome. What was that wonder drug you were offered?

cheripickr

“Climate and weather are not the same thing.”
Exactly my point. At last we agree. Weather is much more inherently predictable, partly because a prediction for one location is partly based on what is already occurring at another. That is a hugely unfair advantage for weather over climate! Even so, it is no good beyond a week or two, tops. Also, because weather predictions are made continually and play out quickly, their accuracy and reliability, unlike those for climate change, can easily be measured, and the limits of their usefulness and reliability knowable.

“Inability to model complex systems with assured accuracy is not an excuse to blindly accept the future as it comes.”

Nor is it an excuse to blindly ignore that same inability in favor of making policy based on flawed models held only to the standard of being “the best we have at present”

"The Economist wrote two years ago: "[A]lthough the science remains uncertain, the chances of serious consequences are high enough to make it worth spending the (not exorbitant) sums needed to try to mitigate climate change.""

You are so busted. The woman you quoted , Emma Duncan , is the deputy editor of The Economist. Although she is listed as having a degree in economics, she claims no economic or scientific research credentials regarding climate change and is basically a full-time journalist, author, free-lance writer, etc. She organized and wrote the introduction from which you quote for the special issue dedicated to global warming. In fact her bio seems to suggest this is her biggest accomplishment, which raises the question, when writers specialize in covering a certain subject, does that qualify them as authorities in that field? Does her opinion really carry any more weight than anyone else's with a brain, interest and access to the research, i.e. yours and mine?

Here are excerpts from six main articles comprising the body of the special issue with references to the authors where I could find them. Ms Duncan’s statement is in no way a summary of the various articles or a consensus statement of the contributing experts. I seriously doubt it represents any official position of the magazine itself:

1.)“BILL GRAY, a professor of meteorology at Colorado State University, who runs a hurricane-forecasting centre and is the man America always turns to when a big hurricane threatens, doubts the methods of the climatologists. "I'm a great believer in computer models," he told the 27th Conference on Tropical Meteorology earlier this year. "I am--out to ten or 12 days. But when you get to the climate scale, you get into a can of worms. Any climate person who believes in a model should have their head examined."--------professor emeritus and head of Atmospheric Science, Colorado St, MS Meteorology BS Geography

2.)“Nobody knows what is happening to the mass balance of Antarctica. Greenland's does seem to be shrinking very slightly--by around 0.4mm a year, in sea-level equivalent. That would be only 4cm a century, if the rate stayed constant. But there is no reason to think that the rate will stay constant--nor, if it did accelerate, that anything could be done to stop it.” TED SCAMBOS-----lead scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center, pHD, Univ Colorado at Boulder

3.)”The baffling complexity of the climate--and thus the difficulty of predicting what is going to happen to it--arises principally from its feedback loops. Scientists are finding out about ever more of them, which is why things don't seem to be getting much clearer over time. Feedback loops may be either positive, thus reinforcing warming, or negative, countering it. Most of the main ones scientists have identified are positive; others are little understood and might go either way.” —RICHARD LINDZEN-Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and professor of Meteorology at MIT

4.)“Professor Wunsch is not a climate-change sceptic. He believes that there will be "serious future climate change: it's almost guaranteed," and he thinks there should be attempts to mitigate it. But he is fed up with too much being read into thin research.”

5.)“Nobody knows which is likelier, for the climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible. It's not just that the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear. It's also that warming has countless indirect effects. It may set off mechanisms that tend to cool things down (clouds which block out sunlight, for instance) or ones that heat the world further (by melting soils in which greenhouse gases are frozen, for instance). The system could right itself or spin out of human control.”

6.)“Average temperatures in Greenland have risen by 1.5°C over the past 30 years. The barley is back. Several farmers in southern Greenland are now farming potatoes, turnips and iceberg lettuces commercially. Mr Hoeth is trying out other crops: he is pleased with his Chinese cabbage, which he says is particularly crispy. The weather has helped sheep farming, too. Sheep are kept in barns all winter and have to be fed with hay or other fodder. Because grass grows more plentifully these days, sheep farmers need to import less fodder, so costs have fallen. The only downside, says Mr Hoeth, is bugs: caterpillars are proliferating. But, he says, "generally the warming is good for us."

cheripicker

Nice mentor you've latched on to, RBM. Am noticing a pattern here as of late among some (not all) of the faithful: you talk science but primarily link to or quote activist writers. This guy once led a stand-in around the White House at the precise point where Al Gore predicts the sea level will be shortly. I think they got arrested because they had to scale the building to get to the right spot. I will give you a pass this time because of my equal but opposite offense in linking to this site. Hey, it's not where you start, but where you end up, right?

Beelzebubba

"who's yo daddy? who's yo *G&^D%$M(@F daddy? say my *&M&%F name!"......"OK..OK, your name is environmental paternalism." ......"dats right..and i'm yo new daddy"

cheripickr

Beelze, how do you do it? you're a self-described smartass, deliberately provocative, expose all the rest of our self-important ridiculous viewpoints for the hot air it is, yet you never get pissed on or draw fire. It's like you're walking between raindrops. (or the scene in 'Little Big Man' where Dustin Hoffman walks across the middle of the battlefield untouched.) How do you do it?

RBM

@ cheripicker

I didn't call him a mentor !!!!

What you got against activists anyway, huh, huh ??

Nor is it an excuse to blindly ignore that same inability in favor of making policy based on flawed models held only to the standard of being “the best we have at present”

It happens. Who are you gonna call ?

@ Beelze

environmental paternalism

Yup, some greedy mo-fo's mess up MY NEST and need to be held accountable.

Now where's my chalk so I can draw that line they better get behind ?

cheripickr

RBM, shouldn't you be out clubbin' instead of hanging out here with us old married farts? Gotta go sit in the recliner a while. My back's hurtin again.

RBM

Maybe this will calm your palpitating heart /sarconal

This is a prediction ... for 2009 ... by NOAA.

But it is a short term prediction of one potential consequence of GW that could prove something. Or not.

Afterall, making long term evaluations on ONE data point is errrmmmm not rigorous methodology.

cheripickr

RBM, you always manage to expose my inner denseness. Is it the tide tables themselves you are using to illustrate a prediction or does this data show some rising trend compared to the previous year(s) that I am not seeing?

Beelzebubba

cheri, compared to the rats running in this maze, i'm a squeaky little mouse. I'm no threat to their models. My slant does not cause enough dissonance, and i receive mostly polite responses and inquiries, when someone bothers. This has been a fun maze to observe for the last several months. I am fascinated by the maze runners' effort to preserve and protect the forces which are trying to atomize them into a carbon spec and employ something as sinister as imagined Authority to force others to comply. The prostate treatment model may be the best one here. Leave the cancer untreated and allow something else to kill you, as the treatment for the disease will be much worse than the symptoms. I hope your back feels better.

RBM

@ cheripickr

I don't know what is your 'inner denseness', yet.

I thought it would be interesting to note if they were wrong in the same way that a lot of other models were wrong - the interpolation was too low.

cheripickr

RBM, I just meant that sometimes I'm a little slow in grasping someone's take-home message, which is mildly embarrassing to admit, but I get over it quickly, then overcompensate by trying to pretend I'm an expert.

cheripickr

“Climate and weather are not the same thing.”
Exactly my point. At last we agree. Weather is much more inherently predictable, partly because a prediction for one location is partly based on what is already occurring at another. That is a hugely unfair advantage for weather over climate! Even so, it is no good beyond a week or two, tops. Also, because weather predictions are made continually and play out quickly, their accuracy and reliability, unlike those for climate change, can easily be measured, and the limits of their usefulness and reliability knowable.

“Inability to model complex systems with assured accuracy is not an excuse to blindly accept the future as it comes.”

Nor is it an excuse to blindly ignore that same inability in favor of making policy based on flawed models held only to the standard of being “the best we have at present”

"The Economist wrote two years ago: "[A]lthough the science remains uncertain, the chances of serious consequences are high enough to make it worth spending the (not exorbitant) sums needed to try to mitigate climate change.""

You are so busted. The woman you quoted , Emma Duncan , is the deputy editor of The Economist. Although she is listed as having a degree in economics, she claims no economic or scientific research credentials regarding climate change and is basically a full-time journalist, author, free-lance writer, etc. She organized and wrote the introduction from which you quote for the special issue dedicated to global warming. In fact her bio seems to suggest this is her biggest accomplishment, which raises the question, when writers specialize in covering a certain subject, does that qualify them as authorities in that field? Does her opinion really carry any more weight than anyone else's with a brain, interest and access to the research, i.e. yours and mine?

Here are excerpts from six main articles comprising the body of the special issue with references to the authors where I could find them. Ms Duncan’s statement is in no way a summary of the various articles or a consensus statement of the contributing experts. I seriously doubt it represents any official position of the magazine itself:

1.)“BILL GRAY, a professor of meteorology at Colorado State University, who runs a hurricane-forecasting centre and is the man America always turns to when a big hurricane threatens, doubts the methods of the climatologists. "I'm a great believer in computer models," he told the 27th Conference on Tropical Meteorology earlier this year. "I am--out to ten or 12 days. But when you get to the climate scale, you get into a can of worms. Any climate person who believes in a model should have their head examined."--------professor emeritus and head of Atmospheric Science, Colorado St, MS Meteorology BS Geography

2.)“Nobody knows what is happening to the mass balance of Antarctica. Greenland's does seem to be shrinking very slightly--by around 0.4mm a year, in sea-level equivalent. That would be only 4cm a century, if the rate stayed constant. But there is no reason to think that the rate will stay constant--nor, if it did accelerate, that anything could be done to stop it.” TED SCAMBOS-----lead scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center, pHD, Univ Colorado at Boulder

3.)”The baffling complexity of the climate--and thus the difficulty of predicting what is going to happen to it--arises principally from its feedback loops. Scientists are finding out about ever more of them, which is why things don't seem to be getting much clearer over time. Feedback loops may be either positive, thus reinforcing warming, or negative, countering it. Most of the main ones scientists have identified are positive; others are little understood and might go either way.” —RICHARD LINDZEN-Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and professor of Meteorology at MIT

4.)“Professor Wunsch is not a climate-change sceptic. He believes that there will be "serious future climate change: it's almost guaranteed," and he thinks there should be attempts to mitigate it. But he is fed up with too much being read into thin research.”

5.)“Nobody knows which is likelier, for the climate is a system of almost infinite complexity. Predicting how much hotter a particular level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible. It's not just that the precise effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear. It's also that warming has countless indirect effects. It may set off mechanisms that tend to cool things down (clouds which block out sunlight, for instance) or ones that heat the world further (by melting soils in which greenhouse gases are frozen, for instance). The system could right itself or spin out of human control.”

6.)“Average temperatures in Greenland have risen by 1.5°C over the past 30 years. The barley is back. Several farmers in southern Greenland are now farming potatoes, turnips and iceberg lettuces commercially. Mr Hoeth is trying out other crops: he is pleased with his Chinese cabbage, which he says is particularly crispy. The weather has helped sheep farming, too. Sheep are kept in barns all winter and have to be fed with hay or other fodder. Because grass grows more plentifully these days, sheep farmers need to import less fodder, so costs have fallen. The only downside, says Mr Hoeth, is bugs: caterpillars are proliferating. But, he says, "generally the warming is good for us."

RBM

LOL !

Since I do it also, I'd guess it's common. Through the years I've tried to address it. Some never do.

cheripickr

Greg, if you’re still out there, sorry it’s taken so long to reply to your last post.

As usual, your well-considered statements are hard to disagree with in and of themselves.

It’s increasingly clear that you and I aren’t diametrically opposed on these issues but are merely at two points along a spectrum of reasonable disagreement and uncertainty.

If someone holding your positions with your rationales were in charge of policy on this I wouldn’t be so worried.

It’s where the science and reasonable concern about GW is drowned out by 1) exploitation of public fear by exaggerated doomsday scenarios beyond what has even been predicted (Al Gore biggest offender-he sickens me),2) blanket dismissal of outside- of- immediate-peer-group peer review by the IPCC and stifling of legitimate debate, 3) political opportunism, , and 4) ideologue-driven feel-good environmental cult theology, (Greenpeace, Sierra, etc) all fueled by our natural “don’t just stand there do something” inclinations, that I fear will ultimately drive policy on all of this.
Therefore, I continue to push back, against even your reasonable but by no means bulletproof arguments.

The Stern report has been disputed by people with legit
credentials
.. I’m not saying that they are right and Stern is wrong, just that like every other aspect of this controversy, there are two legitimate sides to it.

The Copenhagen Consensus approach to multinational corroboration to most effectively address human suffering, makes A LOT of sense to me, even if one can dispute some of its methodology or conclusions.

You said in a previous post,
“Uncertainty should not lead to paralysis. You can still take action.” I say, uncertainty should lead to patience. There is a big difference.

Let the IPCC put its money where its mouth is and subject it’s best model to a prospective 10 year trial for forecasting accuracy, unless it already has data to show that Doomsday can be averted, given 100, but not 90 years advance notice. EVERY scientist knows that the propective trial is the scientific method in its purest, most powerful and authoritative form. The only possible argument against it would be that we don’t have enough time. Again, with over 400% variability in the various models’ predictions, how could anyone make a serious claim that (X), but not (X minus 10) years would give us the time we need to prevent catastrophe? I implore you to look inside your own noggin for the answer to this one. For any supporting source you could dash out and find, you know I can just as easily find a counterargument.

You also previously imposed some legitimate conditions required for you to be able to take my arguments seriously. Fair enough.

I look at the controversy about global warming this way. There are two camps, generally referred to as believers, and deniers or skeptics. While the term skeptic is appropriate, the other two are misleading in that they imply that the skeptics do not “believe” in global warming, which is not the position of mainstream, rational skeptics. The more accurate terminology, and I mean this without a trace of sarcasm, would be “onesiders” vs “twosiders” to reflect how many sides of the issue they recognize. If you in anyway subscribe to “the debate is over” delusional omniscience, which has been declared by more than one influential one-sider, then I cannot take YOU seriously. However, I don’t sense that this is the source of our disagreement.

Finally I agree with your points about keeping down gas prices and decreasing our dependence on middle east dictators as great arguments…….for domestic drilling….but I guess that is a topic for a whole new thread.

cheripickr

Looks like at least for policy purposes, the debate over global warming is pretty much over

cheripickr

No hockey stick graph analysis here , and despite being the founder of the Weather Channel, he has no strong scientific credentials, but as far as the history, psychology, and the monetary and political shaping of the global warming movement, his sounds like a pretty good perspective. And look Mom, no Exxon funding.

The comments to this entry are closed.