Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 12:41:06AM -0400, Dave Kumar wrote: Actually, the reason the article talks more about the politics and not the science is because the Newsweek article is about the politics of climate change, i.e., how those who oppose regulation to address the problem are funded. If it is funding we are concerned about, the obvious response to that would be similar to Marc Morano's[1] - that the proponents of man-made global warming have received way more funding than the skeptics. I think this is something that the general public isn't really aware of. And while I wish the discussion could be purely about the science, the non-Utopian in me recognizes the importance of questioning the credibility of the witness, so to speak, in addition to questioning what the witness says. Fair enough. And there'll almost definitely be some scientists definitely who come up with studies to fit the required agenda. However, the impression the Newsweek article conveys is that all skeptics are funded by oil companies. Any skeptic who holds his ground, however impeccable his credentials may have been, gets tarred with the same brush. And all that the skeptics, at least the reputable ones, are doing are questioning the same science and pointing out the loopholes in the same studies that are being used to build a case for anthropogenic global warming. Also, if oil companies are funding all the global warming skeptics, they seem to picked a remarkably incompetent bunch. There are very few reports in mainstream media which question the consensus. On the other hand, the ones which present the case for anthropogenic global warming are so prevalent, kids are apparently losing sleep over it.[2][3] As someone who lives in DC and has a DC job, the Newsweek article struck me as spot on in terms of its description of the effect special interests have in the DC political/policymaking space. I would contend this would hold for both sides of the debate. Also FWIW, I thought the Noel Sheppard article was nonsense, pretty much Which parts? Venky. References: [1] http://tinyurl.com/yp822w [2] http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=24717 [3] http://tinyurl.com/37xgpp
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 06:21:41PM -0700, Divya Sampath wrote: The consensus on the question 'is the climate changing?' *is* based on observable facts from a wide range of sources - satellite evidence, polar melt, Antarctic ice core analysis, rainfall records, sea sediments, etc. - and IMO is a valid argument in the same way that the broad consensus on the theory of evolution is (again, based on observable facts). *Causality* is where the controversy lies. True. The measures I'd support are the same as the one I'd support irrespective of whether global warming turned out to be anthropogenic or not - reducing emissions and fuel consumption of vehicles, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, harnessing solar energy, etc. I would actually support those and other measures from motives beyond just CO2 emission control: sustainable and renewable energy that is not based on finite oil reserves, cheaper (ultimately) energy available to more people on the planet, cleaner air for us all to breathe, and so on. To me, concern about climate change is one part of broad concerns about environmental issues- another biggie happens to be the adverse effect of human intervention on bio-diversity. Agree with you there. My main concern is that the rate at which the hysteria is building up, we are rapidly losing perspective. A simple example would be the issue of replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs. Personally, I think it is a good idea, but then I'm no expert. And there is little debate about the dangers of CFLs (recycling, mercury content, etc.) because you have the threat of annihilation due to global warming if you don't switch! Scepticism is one of our most valuable tools in science. I think we agree that the pursuit of facts should not be subverted by emotion, religion, politics, or 'the accepted view'. That said, I stand by my belief about pragmatic action to contain chemical emissions (not just CO2), in the face of our current state of knowledge about how human interactions are affecting the environment. No contest. Measures like reducing emissions are no-brainers. Am not so sure about schemes like carbon credits. As Charles Krauthammer mentions[1], they seem awfully similar to the indulgences sold by the medieval Catholic Church! And it seems to be working pretty good for Al Gore![2] :) Pollution affects us directly and there are really no reasons why we should not be working to contain chemical emissions. Whether it is affecting the planet as a whole still remains to be seen, in my opinion. Venky. References: [1] http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599714,00.html [2] http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
--- Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Newsweek Disgrace: 'Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine' By Noel Sheppard | August 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET I find it interesting that this article appears to be more critical of the politics behind the position than the actual science. I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b) is it probable that the climate change is attributable to human interference ? AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a), with some dissenters suggesting global cooling rather than global warming, and much more variance on (b), with opinions ranging across - yes, we can and should so something to correct it - yes, but nothing we do will change things enough - maybe, we should get more data to be sure - maybe, but the human factor only accelerates something that nature already started - no, nature is responsible Good science means all these hypotheses can and should be examined and tested. As of now, the majority of the scientific community does seem to believe that human intervention is at least a significant contributor to global climate change. Given that we all have a significant stake in maintaining decent living conditions on the planet, wouldn't the pragmatic view be to act as though that were true, until and unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary? cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b) is it probable that the climate change is attributable to human interference ? AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a), Not sure I'd accept consensus as an argument. Normally, consensus would be based on facts, and these are the facts that I'd use to judge the issues involved. The arguments used to disprove the conclusions of the Flat Earth Society[1] are based on hard incontrovertible evidence, even though the consensus would be more complete here. I don't believe the proponents of global warming need to provide hard evidence for every aspect of their theories. But I'd expect them to explain some basic questions like, if CO2 is what drives the increase in temperature, why are the cause and effect reversed, with an 800-year lag between temperature increase and the corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2. I'm yet to come across a convincing answer. RealClimate has an explanation[2] which is not very convincing: Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. There could be better explanations - I just haven't come across them yet. And this is just one of the many questions I still have about the anthropogenic global warming theories. Given that we all have a significant stake in maintaining decent living conditions on the planet, wouldn't the pragmatic view be to act as though that were true, until and unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary? Sure, though it sounds awfully like Pascal's Wager. The measures I'd support are the same as the one I'd support irrespective of whether global warming turned out to be anthropogenic or not - reducing emissions and fuel consumption of vehicles, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, harnessing solar energy, etc. The only problem with accepting the current global warming theory without debate and more research is that we could end up scaring ourselves enough to lose perspective. Bjorn Lomborg's TED talk[3] does a good job of addressing this. Venky. References: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 [3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
--- Venky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. The interesting thing to ask, IMHO, is: what does the majority scientific community position on (a) is the climate changing? (b) is it probable that the climate change is attributable to human interference ? AFAIK, there is a very broad consensus on (a), Not sure I'd accept consensus as an argument. Normally, consensus would be based on facts, and these are the facts that I'd use to judge the issues involved. The consensus on the question 'is the climate changing?' *is* based on observable facts from a wide range of sources - satellite evidence, polar melt, Antarctic ice core analysis, rainfall records, sea sediments, etc. - and IMO is a valid argument in the same way that the broad consensus on the theory of evolution is (again, based on observable facts). *Causality* is where the controversy lies. the increase in temperature, why are the cause and effect reversed, with an 800-year lag between temperature increase and the corresponding increase in atmospheric CO2. I'm yet to come across a convincing answer. 'CO2 causes global warming' is definitely one of the areas that there is both a justified amount of debate as well as an unwarranted amount of hysteria and scare-mongering. Sure, though it sounds awfully like Pascal's Wager. Surely not :-) In this case, there is a strong possibility some of us would be around to observe (and communicate to other interested parties, without benefit of Ouija boards or divine revelation) measurable results or non-results of any actions we take today... The measures I'd support are the same as the one I'd support irrespective of whether global warming turned out to be anthropogenic or not - reducing emissions and fuel consumption of vehicles, replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, harnessing solar energy, etc. I would actually support those and other measures from motives beyond just CO2 emission control: sustainable and renewable energy that is not based on finite oil reserves, cheaper (ultimately) energy available to more people on the planet, cleaner air for us all to breathe, and so on. To me, concern about climate change is one part of broad concerns about environmental issues- another biggie happens to be the adverse effect of human intervention on bio-diversity. Scepticism is one of our most valuable tools in science. I think we agree that the pursuit of facts should not be subverted by emotion, religion, politics, or 'the accepted view'. That said, I stand by my belief about pragmatic action to contain chemical emissions (not just CO2), in the face of our current state of knowledge about how human interactions are affecting the environment. cheers, Divya
Re: [silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
On 8/6/07, Divya Sampath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Gautam John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Newsweek Disgrace: 'Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine' By Noel Sheppard | August 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET I find it interesting that this article appears to be more critical of the politics behind the position than the actual science. I do agree that attributing scepticism to bad science or bad intentions is deplorable. Actually, the reason the article talks more about the politics and not the science is because the Newsweek article is about the politics of climate change, i.e., how those who oppose regulation to address the problem are funded. I think this is something that the general public isn't really aware of. And while I wish the discussion could be purely about the science, the non-Utopian in me recognizes the importance of questioning the credibility of the witness, so to speak, in addition to questioning what the witness says. As someone who lives in DC and has a DC job, the Newsweek article struck me as spot on in terms of its description of the effect special interests have in the DC political/policymaking space. (The tone may have been slightly harsh.) Also FWIW, I thought the Noel Sheppard article was nonsense, pretty much -- and a quick google search reveals this one to be one of many similar articles (such as the ones in which he accuses the NY Times of treason for disclosing some of the Bush administration's spying programs). Dave
[silk] Global Warming Alarmists?
Newsweek Disgrace: 'Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine' By Noel Sheppard | August 5, 2007 - 13:43 ET Manmade global warming alarmism took a disgraceful turn for the worse this weekend when Newsweek published a lengthy cover-story repeatedly calling skeptics deniers that are funded by oil companies and other industries with a vested interest in obfuscating the truth. In fact, the piece several times suggested that publishing articles skeptical of man's role in climate change is akin to misleading Americans about the dangers of smoking. Despicably titled Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine, the article painted a picture of an evil cabal whose goal is to thwart science at the detriment of the environment and the benefit of their wallets. Worse still, the piece's many authors painted every skeptical scientific report they referred to as being part of this cabal while including absolutely no historical temperature data to prove that today's global temperatures are in any way abnormal. Maybe most disingenuous, there wasn't one word given to how much money corporations and entities with a vested interest in advancing the alarmism are spending, or who they are. Yet, in the very first paragraph, one of the main participants in this evil cabal was identified (emphasis added throughout): As [Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California)] left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new [IPCC] report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. I realized, says Boxer, there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up. But that was just the beginning: Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry, says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress. How utterly disgraceful. So, scientists all around the world who have devoted their lives and their careers to studying and writing about climate and related issues who don't feel man can or is impacting such are akin to folks who misled the public about the potential dangers of cigarette smoking. How disgusting. Frankly, these journalists should be asked by every skeptical scientist on the planet for an immediate apology. Sadly, as one won't likely be forthcoming, these folks were just getting warmed up with their disgraceful accusations: As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began, says historian Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego. Individual companies and industry associations-representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance-formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact, and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research. Disgusting. But it gets worse as the authors then began to personally attack prominent skeptics: In what would become a key tactic of the denial machine-think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers-the report was endorsed in a letter to President George H.W. Bush by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. Lindzen, whose parents had fled Hitler's Germany, is described by old friends as the kind of man who, if you're in the minority, opts to be with you. I thought it was important to make it clear that the science was at an early and primitive stage and that there was little basis for consensus and much reason for skepticism, he told Scientific American magazine. I did feel a moral obligation. [...] Groups that opposed greenhouse curbs ramped up. They settled on the 'science isn't there' argument because they didn't believe they'd be able to convince the public to do nothing if climate change were real, says David Goldston, who served as Republican chief of staff for the House of Representatives science committee until 2006. Industry found a friend in Patrick Michaels, a climatologist at the
