That was certainly an interesting read. Thank you for posting that.
That was certainly an interesting read. Thank you for posting that.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Just back up a second, and consider. This is only his opinion of people he is referring to, with no evidence whatsoever. It is pretty well worthless as a statement of fact. He is entitled to his opinion, but it is nothing more than that.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
He makes the "They're all in it for the grants" slander again. If I was a scientist after a few easy dollares, being a global warming denier is just as good a way to make money as global warming advocate.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
He does agree with the basic science.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is increasing.
The effect of CO2 is not linear, that is, if you double CO2, you do not double the warming effect. You do, however, increase the warming effect.
He quibbles about the models not being able to accurately predict the effects of water vapour, which is a very powerful GHG. That is, it is hard to model, but he acknowledges implicitly that it is a powerful part of the warming effect. This is a part of the problem, it only takes a small increase in temperature to increase the amount of water vapour, which will increase global temperatures. Hence, a postive feedback, which will accellerate warming. He derides the scientists for not being able to say exactly how much by, but he knows that the effect is going to be large.
He also acknowledges the effects of aerosoles, which, once again, are still hard to model. These contribute to cooling.
So, on the one hand, warming is being cause by GHG, dimming by aerosols. The GHG CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time, aerosols for a short time. We are unintentionally producing an unstable atmospheric balance, which will tip one way quite dramatically if the production of aerosols is reduced. That is, if we were to suddenly cut the production of CO2, no change would be evident for a long time, if we were to cut the production of aerosols, change would be evident much sooner.
Aerosols, however, were investigated in depth following 9/11. The temperature increased when no jets were making their aerosol trails.
He said that he finds generally that the perceived implications of climate change are much inflated.
It has certainly made me want to read some more. This is clearly someone who knows a great deal about the climate and when he says (effectively) that climate change isn't likely to be "the single greatest threat to humanity" - something I hear often - I can't just discount that; I need to learn more. It is just the skeptic in me.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
He makes points, then can't help himself by making stuff up, eg, that scientists are just on the gravy train.
What a coincidence. I haven't read the JREF forums for a couple weeks, and here this is on the night after Al Gore was just here on campus with his travelling global warming slideshow. I'll describe it in some detail tomorrow with an edit of this post.
Just curious about something. Looking at his sources, some of them are from 2005, meaning this article was written within the last year or so? So are you saying that he completely left out the investigations on aerosols? Could you link me to those investigations so I could take a look at them. I'm pretty curious now, I mean if he left them out after they were pretty deeply investigated, that would be dishonesty on his part.
ntech
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 809
I don't believe that there is any doubt by anyone that the earth is in a warming phase. What I hear debated is whether we are accelerating it and where the tipping point is to cause a catastrophic effect on life here, including us. I also agree with Carl Sagan who felt in the 70s that we had a limited time to stop contributing to our own demise as a species. What gets me is with the CIA declaring that dramatic climate change is the biggest threat to the US national security, we have a government which ignores the data and lacks interest in the science at all. What we may be able to do is slow the change and prolong the ability for human life to exist. We were faced with the destruction of the ozone years ago and we took steps to correct this. This year it was announced that we have stopped the deterioration of the ozone layer because of those efforts. You would expect that we would care enough to do the same for global warming.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The "agw" is intended to indicate which of the sources touch on the topic of agw, no more no less. If you let me know which source(s) I indicated incorrectly I would be appreciative and I will correct the error in the original thread.
True, several of the 20 cited sources are interviews and opinion.
Fair enough. And I take it that you also neglected to go through them when you proclaimed them debunked.
How about a citation for your claims about the cooling?
(And I fail to see why those are weasel words.)
Hmm. I'll look into this and get back.
No citation.
I never said the words that you quote and wish you wouldn't attribute false quotes to me.
I did however say that he was an oil industry businessman. (Seeing as he was president of an oil exploration company!
) I am content to stand on the written record from the prior thread.And in turn M&M were refuted here and here.
Citation?
Your original statement:
Based on your sparse, largely unsupported replies above I think it's fair to conclude that your original statement was a knee-jerk.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Geckko,
That paper is not scientific. It was written to further an agenda (almost like else somebody got a grant while he didn't). Why else include diatribes against public audiences and that 'cartoon?'
It's not the position of skepticism to deny something based on assertion. I'm skeptical of Lindzen's position, which is what? "Don't panic?" "Prepare to adapt?" "Climate change scientists are money grubbers, forcing the old guard out?"
World hunger might be a bigger problem in the near term than climate change... or might not. Famine, disease, pollution such as ground-level ozone, energy consumption and ultimately climate change are all inextricably linked. I am doing a bit of hand-waving about the first two, so take those with a grain of salt.
However, my day to day work is exposing me to exactly how pollution, energy and climate change are intertwined, at least at a regulatory level. In the nuts-and-bolts work of implementing Kyoto, in order to reduce CO2 equivalent emissions (climate change), ALL options are on the table, including renewable energy and lower-polluting systems. Everything from switching to higher efficiency rail locomotives and cleaner diesel to hybrid and electric vehicles are being studied. As it stands, I don't think we'll be able to meet even the 'weak' targets of Kyoto.
That's why these discussions get under my skin. Everything is being folded into Kyoto discussions. Often, it seems, that when people object to climate change, or Kyoto, or anything, they are not proposing good alternative solutions to any of the problems of pollution, energy consumption or climate change. In fact, too often, a "do nothing" approach is advocated.
So. Okay. Choose a problem: climate change (if you believe it exists), pollution, energy consumption, famine, disease, some political cause, whatever. Prioritize, if it makes you feel better, just be aware that solutions to one are being considered and would serendipitously be solutions to others.
I'm still waiting for Diamond...
Diamond, what's your point?
Last edited:
Geckko,
That paper is not scientific. It was written to further an agenda (almost like else somebody got a grant while he didn't). Why else include diatribes against public audiences and that 'cartoon?'
It's not the position of skepticism to deny something based on assertion. I'm skeptical of Lindzen's position, which is what? "Don't panic?" "Prepare to adapt?" "Climate change scientists are money grubbers, forcing the old guard out?"
World hunger might be a bigger problem in the near term than climate change... or might not. Famine, disease, pollution such as ground-level ozone, energy consumption and ultimately climate change are all inextricably linked. I am doing a bit of hand-waving about the first two, so take those with a grain of salt.
However, my day to day work is exposing me to exactly how pollution, energy and climate change are intertwined, at least at a regulatory level. In the nuts-and-bolts work of implementing Kyoto, in order to reduce CO2 equivalent emissions (climate change), ALL options are on the table, including renewable energy and lower-polluting systems. Everything from switching to higher efficiency rail locomotives and cleaner diesel to hybrid and electric vehicles are being studied. As it stands, I don't think we'll be able to meet even the 'weak' targets of Kyoto.
That's why these discussions get under my skin. Everything is being folded into Kyoto discussions. Often, it seems, that when people object to climate change, or Kyoto, or anything, they are not proposing good alternative solutions to any of the problems of pollution, energy consumption or climate change. In fact, too often, a "do nothing" approach is advocated.
So. Okay. Choose a problem: climate change (if you believe it exists), pollution, energy consumption, famine, disease, some political cause, whatever. Prioritize, if it makes you feel better, just be aware that solutions to one are being considered and would serendipitously be solutions to others.
I'm still waiting for Diamond...
Diamond, what's your point?
I don't see "solutions" as a reason onto themselves. First there is a policy need and then we look for Kyoto agreements or whatever thrown into the mix to address the problem. I find this viewpoint highly relevant, just as I do that of James Hansen, another emminent climate scientist I have come across who appears to have opposiing views.
Lindzen's point, to me anyway, is that he is attempting to communicate to the public and policymakers what he sees (as an expert) as the likely bounds of the implications and costs of climate change.
His bottom line seems to be that there is widerspread misunderstanding of a complex and broad topic and generally speaking it is not the threat to humanity that seems to be commonly perceived by lay people. I would tend to characterise Lindzen's paper as a well informed opinion, rather than an unsupported assertion.
It makes me want to learn more.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Can't edit after logging in again, eh? Okay, sorry about the double post. Regarding Richard Lindzen's agenda, one clue might be:
"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC."
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
One article is not conclusively damning, but I'm given over to the impression that climate change skeptics are very like the so-called experts supporting ID (few in number, and with an axe to grind)!
I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that first there is a need for policy, then a policy like Kyoto is created? My understanding is that Kyoto is an agreement that drives individual national policies. So, in individual ratified countries, Kyoto creates a need for policy.
On the other hand, are you saying, first identify a problem, then look for solutions? I've listed several. Many of them don't have workable solutions. Kyoto is not a good solution... it is the only policy driving solution we have right now, though. National bodies, like the U.S. EPA have identified pollution issues on a local or regional scale. Solutions like using additives such as MTBE and ethanol have worked on pollution. At the same time, there is potential to reduce lifecycle GHGs. Synergy!
Question: is opponent X of global climate change also opposed to EPA info Y about local/regional issues?
Learning more is awesome, but again, don't let someone suck you into a complete, "do nothing about anything" approach.
"Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC."
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
One article is not conclusively damning, but I'm given over to the impression that climate change skeptics are very like the so-called experts supporting ID (few in number, and with an axe to grind)!
I don't understand this sentence. Are you saying that first there is a need for policy, then a policy like Kyoto is created? My understanding is that Kyoto is an agreement that drives individual national policies. So, in individual ratified countries, Kyoto creates a need for policy.
On the other hand, are you saying, first identify a problem, then look for solutions? I've listed several. Many of them don't have workable solutions. Kyoto is not a good solution... it is the only policy driving solution we have right now, though. National bodies, like the U.S. EPA have identified pollution issues on a local or regional scale. Solutions like using additives such as MTBE and ethanol have worked on pollution. At the same time, there is potential to reduce lifecycle GHGs. Synergy!
Question: is opponent X of global climate change also opposed to EPA info Y about local/regional issues?
Learning more is awesome, but again, don't let someone suck you into a complete, "do nothing about anything" approach.
Last edited:
My problem with this line of debate is that I have a very strong aversion to any form of ad hominem attack.
If you have genuine concerns about the academic honesty of a tenured preofessor at MIT I suggest you write to the Vice Chancellor, or Dean or whatever they have in the US. MIT is far far to distinguished to want its reputation sullied by such an individual.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
First, I don't care to write to anybody, because I'm not an activist.
Second, I wasn't suggesting he was engaging in misconduct. The corporatization of science is an issue amongst research scientists. Universities want to pull in money, and some is increasingly coming from the private sector. The integrity of the practice of science is at stake (and being debated)... but that doesn't mean an individual has committed academic misconduct!
An agenda might lie in presenting data, whereas misconduct might lie in manipulating it. I actually don't know, and right now I'm not involved in any meaningful discussion on academic/professional misconduct.
I suppose I was applying this definition:
Kyoto being an intergovernmental plan to reduce GHG emissions relative to a reference point, which is intended to influence actions etc.. Ergo policy.
What I am saying is do we need a policy to control the population explosion of giant pink mice invading our homes. First show me the problem, enumerate the costs, then decide what we should about it.
I am not letting anyone suck me into anything. I haven't even communicated in this thread what I presently believe. What I have said was the Richard Lindzen seems to be a very emminent scientist in the field of climate science and he does not seem to be as alarmist as the articles I tend to read in the paper or on the TV.
I'll answer this in the order of the questions:
1. Global warming (generally) is happening, but it depends on which timescale. It is generally warmer now than it was in the 1960s, but not as warm (in the Arctic) or as warm (temperate latitudes) as it was in the 1930s. It's certainly warmer than the early 1700s and certainly not as warm as it was between 1000 and 1100AD, when glaciers retreated a lot further than they have today.
The problem is the term "global warming" has be co-opted to imply "human-caused global warming". Nobody knows whether human-caused warming is even measureable since as the IPCC admitted in the last review, the warming since 1880 (the instrumental period) is within the natural variation of climate.
2. Humans are undoubtedly contributing greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. No question about it. But the total amount contributed is about 3%, the rest being from natural sources. But so-called "greenhouse warming has never occurred even in geological times when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was many times it's modern value and much higher concentrations of carbon dioxide have been deduced from past Ice Ages. Bear also in mind that the earth's climate is a non-linear system with large negative feedbacks, so it is far from clear that rising carbon dioxide causes warming. For example carbon dioxide rose most steeply in the mid 20th Century yet temperatures worldwide fell and scientists warned of a return to ice age by the 1970s. Even if the effects of temperature with rising carbon dioxide are unknown, the effects on plant growth are very linear : more carbon dioxide =more plant growth. it's the world's greatest source of free fertilizer.
3. The issue is certainly politicized, and polarized. The assumption that liberals believe in human-induced global warming and conservatives are in denial of this "fact" is simply false. Scientific journals have not been neutral on this topic and there is great substance to charges of censorship and ideological control by converts to alarmist views of the environment.
4. If the models were so good why don't they even agree with each other? Why don't they make even one good prediction of the near climate? Because they are a persistent fallacy of linear behavior in a non-linear system. But don't they have physics equations and real world data pumped into them? Yes, but their output is highly chaotic and controlled by non-physical parameters that damp down the behavior to something the modeller thinks is "reasonable". But it could be a self-fulfilling delusion, nobody knows.
5. The Kyoto Protocol, even if fully participated by everybody, would make a reduction in the modelled rise of 0.07C. Medical thermometers for humans have a bigger error than that, never mind the Earth's atmosphere! What a waste of resources!
6. Climate change from cold to warm and back again is my completely confident prediction, and our best strategy is adaptation through the use of technology and economic growth. Without a doubt, the worst effects of inevitable climate change are felt by the poor of the Third World who cannot afford to look further than their next meal or their next growing season. That's where the money saved from not bothering with Kyoto Protocols and similar economic pacts should be spent. I do not advocate rapacious capitalism or the felling of tropical rainforests across the globe to do it, but the greatest source of environmental degradation is undoubtedly the grinding poverty of some third-world nations.
My essential point is that climate change has been vastly overhyped to the detriment of other projects that would vastly benefit the poor of the world and the environment. We cannot stop, slow down or alter change in world climate - that is the real conceit of the modern environmental movement. Certainly abandoning adaptation in favor of trying to control the uncontrollable would be a disastrous course.
The written record is a false statement.
Here's what Steve Mcintyre himself says about his business:
CGX Energy (as ar as I can tell) does have licenses for oil exploration and some holdings in petroleum resources, but as far as I can tell is mainly concerned with capitalization of small and medium oil and gas explorers in the stock market to raise funding for exploration and production. But Steve McIntyre has never worked for CGX Energy as an employee, as far as I can tell.
So the answer is: put up or shut up. Demonstrate to any of us that Steve McIntyre has ever been an "oil industry businessman".
I won't be justifying myself with any more citations until you do. And besides, it simply a waste of time producing them since you never read them anyway.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
We generally agree on some things.
Q4. - Modelling complex systems is extremely difficult and requires big crunching power. Although I don't actually know, I would not be surprised by conflicting results from conflicting models. Important considerations would be the nature and degree of conflict (ex. will a non-linear event happen in 2012 or 2013, vs will it warm or cool)
Q5. - I believe Kyoto is weak. I also personally believe that ratifying parties will have difficulty meeting those weak targets! Thirdly, I believe that Kyoto is the only thing of its kind on the table, so we should go with it. The current alternative is not spending money on the poor, the alternative is nothing. Our government wants to repeal Kyoto. Mark my prediction: any alternative they suggest will be worse, more lax, or something equally ineffective!
Q6. If you don't accept global (human induced) climate change, at least accept that regionally, desertification continues in Africa. They have a right to be concerned about the next growing season!
You're right, we will have to adapt, regardless of whether or not we can mitigate climate change. As I've already suggested, however, regional environmental efforts can be subsumed into global efforts like Kyoto. You mentioned deforestation... well... what about credits a country might get for leaving a big carbon sink intact? Save your rainforest, while contributing to a global GHG plan? Hey! Somebody's gotta win somewhere.
It's a fallacy to think pulling money out of Kyoto will mean more money to the poor. Companies only do environmental work in response to, or anticipation of, regulation. Other money is either reinvested, or taken as profit.
Q4. - Modelling complex systems is extremely difficult and requires big crunching power. Although I don't actually know, I would not be surprised by conflicting results from conflicting models. Important considerations would be the nature and degree of conflict (ex. will a non-linear event happen in 2012 or 2013, vs will it warm or cool)
Q5. - I believe Kyoto is weak. I also personally believe that ratifying parties will have difficulty meeting those weak targets! Thirdly, I believe that Kyoto is the only thing of its kind on the table, so we should go with it. The current alternative is not spending money on the poor, the alternative is nothing. Our government wants to repeal Kyoto. Mark my prediction: any alternative they suggest will be worse, more lax, or something equally ineffective!
Q6. If you don't accept global (human induced) climate change, at least accept that regionally, desertification continues in Africa. They have a right to be concerned about the next growing season!
You're right, we will have to adapt, regardless of whether or not we can mitigate climate change. As I've already suggested, however, regional environmental efforts can be subsumed into global efforts like Kyoto. You mentioned deforestation... well... what about credits a country might get for leaving a big carbon sink intact? Save your rainforest, while contributing to a global GHG plan? Hey! Somebody's gotta win somewhere.
It's a fallacy to think pulling money out of Kyoto will mean more money to the poor. Companies only do environmental work in response to, or anticipation of, regulation. Other money is either reinvested, or taken as profit.