Well? Which is it? Do you want to know about Global Warming, Global Climate Change, Anthropometric Climate Influences? Sure the climate is changing, only idiots and hair splitters are left on that. Are people responsible? Maybe but anyone who says yes absolutely has a social agenda that has very little to do with climate they wish to force on you.
Robert, scientists always have doubt. Luckily on global warming, the evidence is overwhelming. Follow the link to the realclimate site and question those climate scientists.
Excerpt:
"Two worlds are set on a collision course. One is the world of science... In that world, what counts is finding the truth and adjusting your actions and, if need be, changing established industries accordingly.
But in the world of politics, what is most important is what you have previously decided you are going to hold to. Anyone who threatens those goals has to be blocked, for they get in the way of what you consider the greater good. Often that is for the best just think of any political change or institution you especially like that had to be pushed through against strong opposition.
The problem comes when the two worlds collide. For in the short-term, the world of politics almost always wins. Politicians are good at pressing the buttons of emotion, or group feeling, or character assassination, or selective evidence... Very few scientists can fight back. Although in their private lives they might be psychologically astute, their profession teaches them that arguments are ultimately won by appeals to the truth. That is their reflex: it is what they are habituated to do. Against spin doctors, leaked governmental whispers, smooth lobbyists and the like they have scarcely any defence.
There is an added twist. These two worlds operate on different timescales. Scientists are exceptionally good at picking out small indicators of what is happening in the outside world, and accurately foretelling their consequences. That is the enormous power that centuries of development in instrumentation and analytic technique have given them. Politicians, however, naturally take more of the laymans attitude, where only evidence that is large-scale and immediately obvious is truly important."
Well said.
Do I want to know more about Global Warming? Sure. I've already read extensively about the subject and spent some time dicussing current research with Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland. I just don't think this blog is the place.
Please feel free to visit realclimate.org if you have questions about the subject.
CR,
You are a patient man. And interesting to learn that you conversed with a Nobel laureate. Care to elaborate?
Unfortunately, people have their minds made up just the way they scream at each other across political aisles.
But while on the topic of science, there is never certainty and when there is a shift in thought especially with big new theories, history is filled with instances where the naysayers do not admit defeat. Old theories die along with their practitioners (literally) -- I didn't say that, Thomas Kuhn did. (An example is where Mach viciously opposed Boltzmann for his theories of the atom and Boltzmann, who eventually committed suicide, was vindicated only after his death).
But this scientific debate is so easily misused external to the community.
Many laymen feel that the problem of climate history is too staggering a problem to resolve to any reasonable degree of confidence. To counter that, as one example, suppose you were told that it can be proved that earth does not have a measurable velocity with respect to an imaginary ether, would you think that it was a solvable problem? The Michelson-Morley experiment was one of the most careful experiments ever conducted whose null result gave rise to the theory of relativity.
Regardless, I am sure that this problem will be solved after a crisis has occurred because of human nature. Just as with Katrina, it will be a pay now, or pay more later, but we will pay more later and get it done. Hopefully, we will not have caused any irreparable harm along the way.
The biggest dogs in the fight have huge interests in maintaining the status quo by every means possible: ad homonym attacks, denigration, fear mongering, etc. None the less, the tsumani of economic collapse arising from the unintended consequences of delay and misallocation of resources (cheap gas and building trillions in sprawled infrastructure) will trump all the political posturing.
Waiting casts a brighter light that will reaveal all the details that obfuscating pol's are currently able to shroud via propaganda.
I note that Michael Mann, of the infamous and now thoroughly discredited "Hockey Stick" chart is one of the main contributors to realclimate.org. This is a site biased towards one side of the scientific debate and by no means represents a consensus view of climate scientists. If you want to elicit dicussion of economic policies, instead of making inflammatory statements like "now that the debate is over (except for industry shills)", focus on your economic analysis of proposed GW mitigation policies. I would add that then you would also be within your stated area of expertise as an economist and former SR executive.
There is only one way to conduct a discussion on the economics of global warming:
All contributors must accept a priori that global warming is real and that we are here to discuss only the economic implications and approach.
The contrarians can either accept the assumption or go elsewhere for that particular discussion.
Otherwise, every economic discussion of global warming will be sabotaged repeatedly.
When I ask a number of people to come to my house to discuss an important topic, I do not invite those to whom the very idea of the topic is anathema--and who will invariably destroy the entire discussion and its purpose.
I, for one, have waited a long time to see economists involve themselves in the problem.
Their expertise is absolutely critical to whatever we do. The oft-maligned science has a serious role to play.
Not only do they bring welcomed understanding to economic principles but also they serve as conduits to those pursuing business activities, activities that lie at the heart of our dilemma.
The great insurance companies are already thinking seriously about the issue. The economic consequences in this regard are already apparent.
BR, Dr. Rowland was one of my professors when I was an undergraduate student at UC Irvine. My undergraduate degree is in Chemistry. About 2 years ago, I was lucky enough to talk with Professor Rowland, mostly about global warming.
He is very low key and matter of fact - no histrionics or exaggerations. The following is my recollection of our discussion. Any errors are mine!
He explained that the basic science of how the earth is warmed and cooled is pretty well understood. There are many factors that can impact on the warming / cooling of the earth, from greenhouse gases to the amount of particulates in the air.
As an example, he said if we burned more coal without environmental controls that might lead to less warming - because the particulates reflect the sunlight. He doubted that people would want to trade more polluted air for less warming. Also large volcanic eruptions could lead to more particulates and cooling.
He said there was clear scientific agreement that the earth was warming and that the earth is warming at an historically rapid rate, and that anthropogenic emissions are the primary cause. He had some interesting graphs on the historical record - there have been other periods of rapid rise / cooling that were clearly not caused by humans.
The percentage of warming attributable to anthropogenic emissions is being debated, but the scientific community is in pretty solid agreement that anthropogenic emissions are the leading cause of the current warming trend. How fast the earth would warm into the future is also being debated.
We also talked about the ozone layer - and the evidence that it appears the ozone layer is recovering. Rowland received his Nobel (with others) for his discovery that chlorofluorocarbons were damaging the ozone layer.
See this article: Ozone layer making a recovery. Rowland told me how difficult it was to make political progress on the CFC emissions (that article makes it sound simple).
I asked him about the impact of global warming, and he said it wasn't his area of expertise. Then I asked him to compare the certainty of anthropogenic global warming to CFC damaging the ozone layer - he said global warming is far more certain now then the ozone science when CFC were banned - and he was pretty certain then.
Finally I asked him his major concerns (other than politicians doing nothing). First he said there is new evidence that warming will accelerate faster than expected. And second, he thinks the lag times might be very long from the time action is taken to the time warming slows down.
It was an interesting discussion - at least for me!
CR:
I have enjoyed your blog enormously and have learned a great deal from it. On this topic, as usual, I agree with you. (This comment is directed more to climate change than to your Sasha video, but I'm a happily married man, and it would be best if I direct my attention to global rather than other types of warming!) My brother is a climatologist, and his exact words to me on global warming echoed yours: "as far as climate scientists are concerned, the debate is over."
But, since science never really has "the answer" let's say there is still some viable doubts about global warming. Would any of the skeptics still argue that auto exhaust and coal plant emissions are something we want more of? Would they happily stick their face into an auto tailpipe and breathe deeply? Why not admit the reduction of such emissions is a desirable goal, regardless of its impact on global warming, and direct the power of markets to reduce such emissions? I must confess myself deeply frustrated on this, and many other issues, that the important pragmatic, policy discussions are being sidetracked by idealogues.
JAC, I am friends with Sasha's family - so naturally I'm a big fan and subject this blog's readers to an occasional video of her!
To expand on your point: I'd argue there are at least two strong arguments for reducing the consumption of petroleum products: environmental issues and geopolitics.
"... if anything has surprised me as secretary of state, it is the degree to which the kind of search for hydrocarbons is distorting international politics."
I am optimistic that we can find a clean alternative source of energy - and I think a carbon tax will prod the market to find the solution.
I also think the pessimists are wrong: we can do something about global warming and we can do it in a way that doesn't hurt the economy.
Since I mentioned CFCs and the ozone layer in my earlier comment - I remember when the pessimists opposed banning CFCs because it would hurt the economy and end affordable air conditioning. They were wrong.
It is natural for people to oppose change (especially change they do not control) and it seems appropriate to be cautious about scientific discoveries. But I think the time has arrived to start moving forward to solve this issue.
Thanks for the link to realclimate.org. Interesting site. I had to laugh when I read their "for dummies" post on the hockey stick paper. "For dummies who've had a few graduate-level statistics classes" would be more accurate. Won't be sending that one along to mom.
CR,
Interesting info. BTW, you will find an interactive graph of climate history in this NASA link as well: Feature Articles
Obviously, if temperatures are cyclical and if they tended in only one direction or another we would either be Mercury or Neptune. That there are these cycles is not being questioned.
That should read "Obviously, temperatures are cyclical".
I am always interested to know why people oppose the notion of global warming because we will not make progress otherwise. From your posters, I learnt that one more of the reasons for opposition is that "the warmist agenda is to enact a redistribution of wealth." Frankly, I didn't even think of that. It is important for voices such as yours to be heard to stimulate those who are open to reason.
Michael Mann, who used a statistical analysis algorithm that predicts "hockey sticks" out of random numbers, WHOA BIG SURPRISE he found a hockey stick in historical surface temperature reconstructions. What else do you need to know?
damn! love the video. when did u go all soft-core on us? more video, less talk!! (or less talk from those who dispute basic and now settled scientific understanding)
Well? Which is it? Do you want to know about Global Warming, Global Climate Change, Anthropometric Climate Influences? Sure the climate is changing, only idiots and hair splitters are left on that. Are people responsible? Maybe but anyone who says yes absolutely has a social agenda that has very little to do with climate they wish to force on you.
Robert, scientists always have doubt. Luckily on global warming, the evidence is overwhelming. Follow the link to the realclimate site and question those climate scientists.
On politics, I think David Bodanis said it well: Scientists have no chance against spin doctors
Excerpt:
"Two worlds are set on a collision course. One is the world of science... In that world, what counts is finding the truth and adjusting your actions and, if need be, changing established industries accordingly.
But in the world of politics, what is most important is what you have previously decided you are going to hold to. Anyone who threatens those goals has to be blocked, for they get in the way of what you consider the greater good. Often that is for the best just think of any political change or institution you especially like that had to be pushed through against strong opposition.
The problem comes when the two worlds collide. For in the short-term, the world of politics almost always wins. Politicians are good at pressing the buttons of emotion, or group feeling, or character assassination, or selective evidence... Very few scientists can fight back. Although in their private lives they might be psychologically astute, their profession teaches them that arguments are ultimately won by appeals to the truth. That is their reflex: it is what they are habituated to do. Against spin doctors, leaked governmental whispers, smooth lobbyists and the like they have scarcely any defence.
There is an added twist. These two worlds operate on different timescales. Scientists are exceptionally good at picking out small indicators of what is happening in the outside world, and accurately foretelling their consequences. That is the enormous power that centuries of development in instrumentation and analytic technique have given them. Politicians, however, naturally take more of the laymans attitude, where only evidence that is large-scale and immediately obvious is truly important."
Well said.
Do I want to know more about Global Warming? Sure. I've already read extensively about the subject and spent some time dicussing current research with Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland. I just don't think this blog is the place.
Please feel free to visit realclimate.org
if you have questions about the subject.
Best Wishes.
CR,
You are a patient man. And interesting to learn that you conversed with a Nobel laureate. Care to elaborate?
Unfortunately, people have their minds made up just the way they scream at each other across political aisles.
But while on the topic of science, there is never certainty and when there is a shift in thought especially with big new theories, history is filled with instances where the naysayers do not admit defeat. Old theories die along with their practitioners (literally) -- I didn't say that, Thomas Kuhn did. (An example is where Mach viciously opposed Boltzmann for his theories of the atom and Boltzmann, who eventually committed suicide, was vindicated only after his death).
But this scientific debate is so easily misused external to the community.
Many laymen feel that the problem of climate history is too staggering a problem to resolve to any reasonable degree of confidence. To counter that, as one example, suppose you were told that it can be proved that earth does not have a measurable velocity with respect to an imaginary ether, would you think that it was a solvable problem? The Michelson-Morley experiment was one of the most careful experiments ever conducted whose null result gave rise to the theory of relativity.
Regardless, I am sure that this problem will be solved after a crisis has occurred because of human nature. Just as with Katrina, it will be a pay now, or pay more later, but we will pay more later and get it done. Hopefully, we will not have caused any irreparable harm along the way.
"It's the economy, stupid!"
The biggest dogs in the fight have huge interests in maintaining the status quo by every means possible: ad homonym attacks, denigration, fear mongering, etc. None the less, the tsumani of economic collapse arising from the unintended consequences of delay and misallocation of resources (cheap gas and building trillions in sprawled infrastructure) will trump all the political posturing.
Waiting casts a brighter light that will reaveal all the details that obfuscating pol's are currently able to shroud via propaganda.
I note that Michael Mann, of the infamous and now thoroughly discredited "Hockey Stick" chart is one of the main contributors to realclimate.org. This is a site biased towards one side of the scientific debate and by no means represents a consensus view of climate scientists. If you want to elicit dicussion of economic policies, instead of making inflammatory statements like "now that the debate is over (except for industry shills)", focus on your economic analysis of proposed GW mitigation policies. I would add that then you would also be within your stated area of expertise as an economist and former SR executive.
by no means represents a consensus view of climate scientists
I suppose we should first ask actual climate scientists for their opinion. On that note, heres one article pertaining to those questions.
Back to our regularly scheduled blog.
There is only one way to conduct a discussion on the economics of global warming:
All contributors must accept a priori that global warming is real and that we are here to discuss only the economic implications and approach.
The contrarians can either accept the assumption or go elsewhere for that particular discussion.
Otherwise, every economic discussion of global warming will be sabotaged repeatedly.
When I ask a number of people to come to my house to discuss an important topic, I do not invite those to whom the very idea of the topic is anathema--and who will invariably destroy the entire discussion and its purpose.
Just a suggestion, CR. This is your home.
I, for one, have waited a long time to see economists involve themselves in the problem.
Their expertise is absolutely critical to whatever we do. The oft-maligned science has a serious role to play.
Not only do they bring welcomed understanding to economic principles but also they serve as conduits to those pursuing business activities, activities that lie at the heart of our dilemma.
The great insurance companies are already thinking seriously about the issue. The economic consequences in this regard are already apparent.
We have to start somewhere; we can start there.
But we simply have to start.
Oh, so my analogy with automobile insurance on the other thread is not that laughable after all!
BR, Dr. Rowland was one of my professors when I was an undergraduate student at UC Irvine. My undergraduate degree is in Chemistry. About 2 years ago, I was lucky enough to talk with Professor Rowland, mostly about global warming.
He is very low key and matter of fact - no histrionics or exaggerations. The following is my recollection of our discussion. Any errors are mine!
He explained that the basic science of how the earth is warmed and cooled is pretty well understood. There are many factors that can impact on the warming / cooling of the earth, from greenhouse gases to the amount of particulates in the air.
As an example, he said if we burned more coal without environmental controls that might lead to less warming - because the particulates reflect the sunlight. He doubted that people would want to trade more polluted air for less warming. Also large volcanic eruptions could lead to more particulates and cooling.
He said there was clear scientific agreement that the earth was warming and that the earth is warming at an historically rapid rate, and that anthropogenic emissions are the primary cause. He had some interesting graphs on the historical record - there have been other periods of rapid rise / cooling that were clearly not caused by humans.
The percentage of warming attributable to anthropogenic emissions is being debated, but the scientific community is in pretty solid agreement that anthropogenic emissions are the leading cause of the current warming trend. How fast the earth would warm into the future is also being debated.
We also talked about the ozone layer - and the evidence that it appears the ozone layer is recovering. Rowland received his Nobel (with others) for his discovery that chlorofluorocarbons were damaging the ozone layer.
See this article:
Ozone layer making a recovery. Rowland told me how difficult it was to make political progress on the CFC emissions (that article makes it sound simple).
I asked him about the impact of global warming, and he said it wasn't his area of expertise. Then I asked him to compare the certainty of anthropogenic global warming to CFC damaging the ozone layer - he said global warming is far more certain now then the ozone science when CFC were banned - and he was pretty certain then.
Finally I asked him his major concerns (other than politicians doing nothing). First he said there is new evidence that warming will accelerate faster than expected. And second, he thinks the lag times might be very long from the time action is taken to the time warming slows down.
It was an interesting discussion - at least for me!
Best Wishes.
CR:
I have enjoyed your blog enormously and have learned a great deal from it. On this topic, as usual, I agree with you. (This comment is directed more to climate change than to your Sasha video, but I'm a happily married man, and it would be best if I direct my attention to global rather than other types of warming!) My brother is a climatologist, and his exact words to me on global warming echoed yours: "as far as climate scientists are concerned, the debate is over."
But, since science never really has "the answer" let's say there is still some viable doubts about global warming. Would any of the skeptics still argue that auto exhaust and coal plant emissions are something we want more of? Would they happily stick their face into an auto tailpipe and breathe deeply? Why not admit the reduction of such emissions is a desirable goal, regardless of its impact on global warming, and direct the power of markets to reduce such emissions? I must confess myself deeply frustrated on this, and many other issues, that the important pragmatic, policy discussions are being sidetracked by idealogues.
JAC, I am friends with Sasha's family - so naturally I'm a big fan and subject this blog's readers to an occasional video of her!
To expand on your point: I'd argue there are at least two strong arguments for reducing the consumption of petroleum products: environmental issues and geopolitics.
Dr. Rice has said:
"... if anything has surprised me as secretary of state, it is the degree to which the kind of search for hydrocarbons is distorting international politics."
I am optimistic that we can find a clean alternative source of energy - and I think a carbon tax will prod the market to find the solution.
I also think the pessimists are wrong: we can do something about global warming and we can do it in a way that doesn't hurt the economy.
Since I mentioned CFCs and the ozone layer in my earlier comment - I remember when the pessimists opposed banning CFCs because it would hurt the economy and end affordable air conditioning. They were wrong.
It is natural for people to oppose change (especially change they do not control) and it seems appropriate to be cautious about scientific discoveries. But I think the time has arrived to start moving forward to solve this issue.
Best Regards.
Thanks for the link to realclimate.org. Interesting site. I had to laugh when I read their "for dummies" post on the hockey stick paper. "For dummies who've had a few graduate-level statistics classes" would be more accurate. Won't be sending that one along to mom.
CR,
Interesting info. BTW, you will find an interactive graph of climate history in this NASA link as well:
Feature Articles
Obviously, if temperatures are cyclical and if they tended in only one direction or another we would either be Mercury or Neptune. That there are these cycles is not being questioned.
That should read "Obviously, temperatures are cyclical".
I am always interested to know why people oppose the notion of global warming because we will not make progress otherwise. From your posters, I learnt that one more of the reasons for opposition is that "the warmist agenda is to enact a redistribution of wealth." Frankly, I didn't even think of that. It is important for voices such as yours to be heard to stimulate those who are open to reason.
To the first poster, the technical term is "Anthropogenic". Anthropometric has a different meaning.
Anthropometry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"I note that Michael Mann, of the infamous and now thoroughly discredited "Hockey Stick" chart is one of the main contributors to realclimate.org."
You mean the Mann hockey stick that keeps getting validated with results from the latest studies?
Report Affirms 'Hockey Stick' Climate Change Data; UMass Amherst Climate Scientist Comments
-Hype
We have been playing with this issue at bit at our "Ecological Economics: A cross-disciplinary disucssion" site
Ecological Economics
I keep tabs on your site, and will watch to see what develops here. Some of you may want to visit our site..
Michael Mann, who used a statistical analysis algorithm that predicts "hockey sticks" out of random numbers, WHOA BIG SURPRISE he found a hockey stick in historical surface temperature reconstructions. What else do you need to know?
damn! love the video. when did u go all soft-core on us? more video, less talk!! (or less talk from those who dispute basic and now settled scientific understanding)
Sure, less talk from dissenting viewpoints, all the better to facilitate your liberal groupthink.
FoolsMate, I have no problem with dissent. Please post a link to a published, peer reviewed, dissenting scientific study. I don't think there are any.
Best Wishes.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Barton/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/Influence_of_Solar_Changes_HCTN_62.pdf
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Esper/Climate_past_ranges_future_changes_2005.pdf
Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
Please also note the latest analysis by three eminent statistician of the Mann statistical methodology.
Link