With so many compelling problems facing the world--from cancer to world poverty--I cannot understand why liberal leaders such as President Obama are so eager to immediately start spending so massively in perpetuity in an attempt to cool the planet when average global temperature has gone up just 1/2 of one degree since 1880 and flat or declining for the past decade, even if we don't count the aberrantly warm year of 1998. Here's another chart, this one from MIT, reporting that there's been essentially no increase since 1995!Insisting on immediately and massively spending to try to cool the planet seems particularly foolish because key evidence suggests that even that 0.5 degree warming since 1880 is at least partly natural variation, not man-made. For example, there has been a major CO2 increase during most recent decade, a period in which temperatures have been flat or declining. Atmospheric CO2 is a proxy for man-made hydrocarbon emissions. If man-made behaviors were causing global warming serious enough to justify the world making massive efforts to cool the earth, global temperatures should not be declining. Even if other factors are masking the man-made contribution to global warming, the amount and rate of global warming is small, far less than predicted by Al Gore and his anti-corporation-motivated allies. And remember the climate change alarmists' data is based heavily on highly conjectural computer models: garbage in-garbage out.
Another untested assumption: Even if, over the next 50 years, average global temperature were to reverse trend and rise, would the net effect be so negative as to justify an immediate and massive indeed quixotic effort to slow it? For example, many areas, for example in Canada and Russia, previously too cold to grow crops, would become farmable. An article in Germany's leading magazine, Der Spiegel makes the case that it's impossible to predict whether global warming, if any, will yield a net positive or negative effect on the earth.
Perhaps the most dispositive reason to watch-and-wait instead of, right now, spending massively to try to cool the planet, is the extraordinary difficulty, indeed unrealism, of trying to get the worldwide spending of incomprehensibly large amounts of money, curtailment of development and of travel in perpetuity that would be required to possibly achieve even a one- or two-degree decline in average global temperature.
Charles Siegel of preservenet.com commented on today's New York Times editorial that said:
"The hope is these [Copenhagen] talks will produce commitments from each nation that, collectively, would keep temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. That will require deep cuts in emissions — as much as 80 percent among industrialized nations — by midcentury." Siegel commented, "In reality, it requires at least an 80% cut in emissions in the entire world by 2050, not just from the industrialized nations." Is it realistic to do that?
There are only so many fiscal and human resources to go around. If we immediately and forever spend so massively on trying to cool the globe, we will have to shortchange initiatives with a higher probability of improving humankind--such as a true war against cancer or world poverty.
Of course, some efforts to cool the planet also facilitate energy independence, for example, nuclear energy and conservation efforts that minimally impinge on our freedom such as higher CAFE standards. I support both of those measures. But the sorts of permanent massive spending and incursions on our freedoms (for example, restricting road building thereby encouraging gridlock, and eliminating already scarce city parking spots, forcing us into inevitably time-wasting mass transit) being proposed by President Obama and other liberal world leaders is incomprehensible to me.
It seems to me that in light of the 15-year flat global temperature and below-average extreme weather such as hurricanes despite the CO2 increase (the opposite of what Al Gore and the IPCC's politically stacked panel predicted,) and that the money and effort could be diverted to better address the world's enormous pressing needs, a few years of watch-and-wait, accompanied by continuing, non-politically-motivated research on the above questions, along with private-sector research into improved alternative energy sources is a wiser path than immediate massive spending to try to cool the planet. What am I not understanding?
22 comments:
Marty,
It seems that the commonly accepted fact in this debate is anything but. As you point out, there is strong evidence to suggest that global warming is virtually non-existent, and that even if global warming is occurring it is difficult to track the cause.
So why are so many in the environmental movement insisting on propagating this as indisputable science? Some suggest corporate greed on behalf of the green industry. Some say it is the influence of Earth First types who insist that mankind is a scourge on the planet.
What is your opinion? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the rationale behind the agenda.
I believe the movement is primarily spurred by the anti-development, anti-corporate hard left. They're largely an assortment of of socialists, 60s-style "ecology" hippies, and younger anti-corporatists, who believe that one of the best ways to stick it to corporations is to claim they're ruining the planet.
Of course, society's mind control vehicles (the colleges and the media)have, since the 60s, been taken over by the left and so they've been "educating" the public to embrace such positions so now, even moderate Democrats and Republicans are mouthing the "climate change" mantras, with no understanding of how frighteningly flimsy the dispassionate scientific case for trying to cool the earth is.
Dispassionate science is too often trumped by the frenzied enviro-religion. Such scientists are pushed off and to the side of important organizations such as the United Nations' ICPP and the U.S. Govt's NOAA, forced into marginalized roles at such peripheral think tanks as the Heartland Foundation and the few colleges that will consider hiring and promoting faculty who present non-liberal findings.
Heartland Institute, I think you meant, rather than Heartland Foundation.
I see you're still citing my favorite scientific climate change personality, Richard Lindzen, in this instance using one of his graphs as one of your linked articles.
How is it that you don't see the irony in one of your experts' view that tobacco smoking is only weakly linked to lung cancer and that health risks passive smoking are heavily overrated as well?
If Lindzen sees smoking as weakly associated with lung cancer, why are we to take his opinions as valuable on other statistical associations?
(I was floored by huge effect indoor smoking bans have on heart attack rate. A 30% decrease in heart attacks after three years, according to Circulation, the journal of the American Heart Association. A much stronger effect than I'd have expected. Why was I floored? Well, in part it was because I'd found the Penn and Teller argument about passive smoking to sound persuasive.)
Most recent anonymous, why would you stoop to the Right-wing-like action of attacking people rather than data. The Republicans continue to attack Obama because of his associations past and present. Just because Lindzen, who has a named chair at MIT in Atmospheric Science) and did research that found only a weak link between second-hand-smoke and cancer doesn't mean he can't report the average global temperature changes accurately. After all, THAT is his field. More important, look at the totality of evidence cited in this post and the logic inherent and you can do no better than to ignore all of it and question one of the researcher's past bits of research on a subject having nothing to do with this?
There lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Depending on how data is presented, you can often support almost any conclusion you'd like. The problem is, everyone seems to have an opinion before they start looking at the data (though I admit, the onus is on the "global warming is happening" advocates to show that it is, indeed, happening). I simply do not have the expertise or time to look at the data myself and make an interpretation, and I have a hard time trusting the impartiality of most sources on both sides. So what to do? I've decided to adopt many of the suggestions to stop global warming simply because they are good ideas regardless of what impact they have on the temperature of the planet. Wasting gas, for example, makes the air less pleasant to breathe (try living in a city and then driving to the country and taking a deep breath -- if you cannot tell the difference, you are a liar). It also wastes a precious, limited resource and increases our dependence on countries I would rather we not depend on. In fact, all resources are ultimately limited in some way, so I am in favor of conservation on virtually all fronts. I also love nature; the more forests the better. It's not because I hate corporations -- I just want my kids and their kids to be able to enjoy the outdoors. In general, the only argument I can see against most anti-global warming initiatives is that money is a limited resource, and protecting the environment may not be the best use of it at times. But the fact is, so many people are selfish and short-sighted that unless you tell them the world is on fire (or even if you do), they will not change their behavior. Eventually, that will ruin resources that truly cannot be replaced. So maybe global warming is a con, but at least many of the outcomes of the initiatives to counteract it have positive results.
Dr.Nemko, I wanted to emphasize something you touched on in your article. In talking about the green economy, there is so much technology, product development and eventually large cash flow that will come out of it.
I'm concerned that the U.S. is being left behind in that regard. In several examples, we innovate but then don't cash-in. For example, much of the wind-generated technology was developed in the U.S. but Europe is taking the lead in turning it into usable product. The U.S. was the inventor of the LED, however, Japan may take the market in developing low-cost LED-based lighting. Devices such as the photovoltaic cell that drive the solar panel industry have stemmed from U.S.-developed semiconductor technology. Here, we're letting China use the technology we developed to beat us to market and develop large-volume solar panels.
These are technologies that the U.S. should be turning into product, not necessarily because they're green, but because they will generate cash, a lot of it.
Most recent Anonymous,
Certainly, new products that would lead to cleaner air are worthy of research whether or not climate change is meaningfully anthropogenic and realistically controllable.
But many businesses are creating products and services merely in the service of attempting to control "climate change."
Those could well be wastes of enormous brainpower and money, which could have been better spent on problems more certain to improve humankind: whether to cure disease, reduce world poverty (e.g, high-protein corn), or simply to entertain us more.
I'd argue that the Wii (especially when you consider how many millions of people use it to keep them motivated to exercise) has done more to improve humankind than most businesses aimed at trying to control the world's climate.
My big question, Dr. Nemko, is not with whether or not there is something called "global warming" or "climate change," but why are we as a culture so interested in questioning our scientists? I've seen a number of lists of scientists who disagree with the theory of global warming, and usually these consist of people qualified in one area of science (such as physics or geology or engineering) but not in climate science. Why would I listen to these people? I would not, for instance, listen to a physicist tell me about my high blood pressure - I would go to a doctor. I would not ask a mechanical engineer about a volcano in my back yard - I would ask a geologist. So why are we so eager to believe some marginally qualified or unqualified person's opinion about something as potentially important as global warming? I have heard that no "peer reviewed" publications doubt the effect of global climate change? The doubt is usually expressed in non-scientific, popular press publications and, I hate to say it, online blogs by non-climate-scientists. Do you believe this to be true?
There are MANY climate scientists with grave doubts about the issues I raise in my post, including, Willie Soon at Harvard and Richard Lindzen at MIT, for example.
I guess then, Dr. Nemko, my question would be - why are you or I weighing in? Neither of us have the qualifications to judge the facts and theories about climate change?
I personally don't know what to believe - but I know that I do not know.
Wouldn't this debate be better left to scientists without our (generally politically inspired) voices clouding the debate? After all, I hate to point this out, but when I looked at your blog, I found a list exactly like the one I mentioned earlier...
Because it is a public policy question, there is value in presenting scientists' views in plain English to the general public, especially views that the mainstream media, for whatever reason, chooses to deemphasize or censor. To adopt your position, journalists would never report on anything--they do not have content expertise. They are, or should be, primarily scribes.
I hate to simply disagree with you, Dr. Nemko, but I am afraid I must simply disagree with you -
"Global warming" is not a "public policy question," it is a matter of science - either their is global climate change or there is not; public policy has nothing to do with what is actually happening or not happening in the atmosphere. What we chose to do about global climate change - whether we decide to act or not to act - that is public policy.
But we are in danger of making bad public policy decisions if we cloud the scientific issue - in other words, if we conflate science with our political leanings and our own layman's interpretations of science, we may (or we may not) be putting the environment and ourselves in danger because we believe "public policy" will change "science" - when in fact these are two totally different things.
Which still does not address the problem of laypeople like you and me debating whether or not climate change is a "hoax" - that is a strong term which designates a very particular thing, namely that the science presented by scientists is a sham (not to mention, this term clearly implies an opinion which someone, in this case yourself, has come to). But how do you or I know this? How can we make a "public policy" about global warming if we don't adequately understand the science? THAT is the big question facing us.
And I still don't see how we can post lists of "scientists" who disagree with global warming theories on our blogs when these people are not qualified to comment on the subject.
Nor, frankly, do I understand the comment about journalists as "scribes" - good journalism, I was taught, has to do with objective reportage - who is censoring and how do we know they are censoring? How do know that the media is not objectively reporting what scientists tell us?
Anonymous, there are many solid climate scientists, like the aforementioned Richard Lindzen at MIT and Willie Soon at Harvard who doubt the "consensus" Mr. Obama claims. It is writers' special responsibility to ensure their voices are heard. I agree that it is sad that most mainstream journalists are so steeped in the liberal biases that drew them into the profession that they are consciously or unconsciously unwilling to fairly present all sides of the issue. This post of mine is an attempt to provide some balance to their liberal bias. If the media were biased in the direction of saying, "There is no climate change problem," I'd be writing articles presenting the side arguing that it could be a problem. Fact is, it is very unclear whether it is worth making a massive effort to try to cool the globe.
So, Dr. Nemko, if I understand correctly, your entire post and the following ripostes are all done in the name of leveling the playing field on an issue that you perceive as misrepresented in the "liberal" media. You simply want to play devil's advocate.
But I have to ask one more time and then I will leave you alone - how are you, an expert in education and job counseling, at all qualified to judge whether or not the media (or anybody else) is biased toward climate change? Soon argues not so much that there is no global warming but that it is caused by an increase in solar radiation; Lindzen argues that climate models have not taken into account water vapor rates at the equator if the planet does continue to heat - very complicated stuff which I did not do a good job of explaining because I do not truly understand their arguments. Do you suppose you understand what they say well enough to be certain that what they say is legitimate? Again, the devil's advocate has no business questioning scientific fact.
I do not want to pick on anybody, but "Jeff" here actually asks your opinion as if you are an authority on the issue. I suspect he wants to hear an answer that will confirm his own already formed beliefs. Can you prove that "ecology hippies" alter scientific data?
And again, why would you publish a bogus list of unqualified albeit highly educated people as if they were prominent voices in the appropriate field? That is not debate - that is deliberate misinformation.
And why - since Lindzen and Soon truly appear to be voices in the wilderness who get a good deal of media attention because of their counter arguments (making it somewhat difficult to argue that "liberal bias" is censoring anyone) - do you suggest there is not a "consensus" among scientists? Are you sure that there isn't a consensus? And if there is consensus among scientists, shouldn't we listen to them?
You ask about my qualifications to comment. I have a Ph.D. from U.C. Berkeley during which I took and got A's in six five-unit graduate-level statistics and research methodology courses. As I read the work not only of Lindzen and Soon but others who cast thoughtful and troubling questions on the quality of the data and assumptions that go into the multiple regression prediction models as well as other quantitative and qualitative analyses used to justify spending massively to attempt to cool the globe, I have become convinced that the many (not just Lindzen and Soon) climate scientists who are very worried we're making a mistake are NOT getting fair hearing in the major media.
As a blogger, one of my responsibilities is to present important perspectives that are otherwise not heard. To merely re-present the widely promulgated pro-massive-spending arguments would render my efforts meaningless. I am NOT being a devil's advocate for its own sake. I am attempting to present important information that has largely been censored because of the political biases of the kinds of people who tend to enter journalism.
There is a reasonable argument that can be made for spending big to try to cool the globe but the mainstream media is doing a most thorough job of doing that so I needn't take that position.
I do not take a contrarian position merely to be a devil's advocate. For example, just because the media clearly supports evolution doesn't mean I'll write about "creation science." The latter is in my view, unreasonable and so I have no interest in promulgating it to the public. But the science and logical arguments for a watch-and-wait approach regarding spending massively to try to cool the globe is an underreported, responsible perspective that, in my judgment, is worthy my writing about.
Enough said. Probably much more than enough.
But Marty, what is your PhD in? "A"s are good - I've gotten more than a few myself - but that does not qualify you in anything other than your field of expertise, which I believe is education...
And why not make your case with specific, verifiable information - peer-review it, Marty, and prove your point rather than simply blogging generalities.
As a Ph.D. you should understand the value of presenting your material to the world for evaluation...if you can't do so, what are you doing?
P.S. - what about the list of bogus scientists?
The following 880 page synthesis of the dissenting research, conducted by hundreds of climate scientists is persuasive enough to me to justify a watch-and-wait strategy. Here's the link: http://www.nipccreport.org.
With regard to your characterizing the list of 31,000 scientists also urging watch-and-wait as "bogus" merely because many of them are not climate scientists, that is unfair. Intelligent people from related disciplines have opinions that shouldn't apriori be dismissed. I mean, in nearly all fields, we welcome interdisciplinarity, triangulation, as a wiser approach than siloed scientists in a narrow field.
Especially when the number of signatories is so large and the issue of whether to spend massively to cool the planet is of such import, I believe it is appropriate that we not dismiss as "bogus" the presence of 31,000 dissenting scientists.
I really have spent too much time on our tete-a-tete here so I'll end by reiterating that I am NOT saying we should ignore the issue. I'm saying that there is sufficient credible dissent that a few years of watch-and-wait while we conduct more solid, not-politically-motivated research seems to me a prudent approach. Clearly, you disagree and so we must, alas, agree to disagree.
Fair enough, Dr. Nemko, I too have other fish to fry - and for the record, I will once again say I do not know what I believe on the issue.
I do hope that if we "watch-and-wait" we do not make a colossal blunder that future generations will pay for all for the sake of the almighty dollar.
By the way - your list of 31,000 scientists is not the one I was referring to...I suspect you know where the other one is - but this is up to your conscience to work out.
I have no idea what other list you're talking about. I must admit feeling dispirited when my efforts to present information in as professional a way as I can yields snarky queries which deflect attention from the core science and logic related to the problem .
Your post on…
Monday, March 30, 2009…
Sub-Titled…
“The list of climate change skeptics grows”…
Contains the following list, incompletely listed below.
Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation – this man is an engineer and businessman, not a climate scientist.
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania – this man is a business professor, not a climate scientist!!!!!!!
Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC – another business man, not a climate scientist..
Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir - ???? the only place this person appears on the web is this list / and it is not clear what the “U of Kashmir” is. Is he a climate scientist?.
Colin Barton Csiro – again, it is unclear who this person is; presumably he works for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia. Is he a climate scientist?
David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association – this man is a botanist, not a climate scientist..
John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory – unclear who this man is, but he seems to be an electrical engineer or computer scientist.
Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma – this man was a petroleum engineer
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull – tangentially qualified: she is a geographer
Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008 – this guy is a TV weatherman.
Enough. First ten on the list are either unqualified, unknowns, marginally qualified, or are business people with, presumably, irons in the fire. Several commentators on March 30 pointed out the lack of legitimacy. Frequently your responders this lackof care in your posts.
Your response on this day indicated that there are a great many respected scientists in this group...there are only a few.
I do not mean to be disrespectful, snarky, or to dispirit you. But unless you are a more responsible blogger you will attract responders like myself.
And now, I really must be going.
I do not understand why you're focusing on these few. There are the hundreds of climate scientists who contributed research to the non-governmental IPCC report I just cited, the 31,000 scientists who signed the petition against the "consensus," and this additional list is just another group of people (who you diminish unfairly) to add to the contention that there is not a clear enough consensus to justify massive spending to attempt to cool the planet. And yes, please, let us move on.
First of all, I wouldn't give the Oregon Petition any credence. One guy did an analysis degree by degree, and found that only a handful were qualified enough to be considered climate science experts. From what I've read, they were all given a mock "research paper" to read that went against the consensus, and were told to sign it if they agreed. Intelligent people? Yes, if all of them indeed had a math or science degree, they are intelligent enough to get that degree, but basically it was a survey of an uninformed opinion. I saw the "paper" once, and it was sort of a cut/paste job, and although neatly done, it wasn't real research out there if you dig.
Second, I don't know of any scientific field where there is a consensus. Part of science is to find holes in the theories. Even the theory of gravity continues to evolve. Although not a 100% like the politicians say, I'd say there is a vast majority of consensus among climate scientists.
I don't want to clutter this with a bunch of links, so I'll try to be as sparse as possible, but these may interest readers. I've been trying to keep an eye on the real research out there and not be swayed by Al Gore or any other politician for or against.
Here is a good general article on the state of the research as of the beginning of this year from Science Magazine, a reputable and peer-reviewed journal:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html
Here is a good general blog done by climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Here are a couple skeptic sites. Although they are biased toward the evidence of global warming, they give a comprehensive list of all the evidence out there (not just computer models):
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I think the temperature in the last 15 years is much too small of a window to look at. If it keeps going down or steady in the next 50, then I'd say we had something there. One of the things people confuse is the comparison of climate versus weather. Weather is much more chaotic and unpredictable, whereas climate is average weather over a long period of time.
The argument about the northern elevations being warmer and allowing more crops and tourism at first sounds plausible, but what if the weather becomes so volatile, erratic and having extreme events that on the average it really doesn't matter, because you'll have droughts and floods in other parts of the world while northern climes are enjoying their new found warmth.
Also, one of the phenomenon that may happen is not that there will be more hurricanes, droughts and other extreme weather events, but the probability of a much more extreme occurrence will be much greater when they do happen.
As far as wait and see, I have a feeling we'll be doing that anyhow. Although Obama is pushing it, I doubt anything will be done very soon. The economics of it is just too enormous. The fear among scientists, of course, is if there comes a tipping point, and hoping we have enough warning to react and not become a planet like Venus, which had a runaway greenhouse effect (of course all living now will probably never see it, on Earth, that is).
By the way I have a masters degree in statistics and work with mathematical models, but A) this does not make me a climate expert and B) I suspect the climate models are much more complicated than my direct marketing ones :)
My hope is that the real scientific evidence makes its way into the general public somehow, but as a nation, we are not very good at researching on our own and do rely too much on the media and politicians.
Post a Comment