What Climate Change?
Al Gore received an Oscar for a documentary about global warming; more and more people realize that global warming is a major problem; Europe is willing to take the lead; America, meanwhile, continues to act as if nothing is wrong.
The US has rejected any prospect of a deal on climate change at the G8 summit in Germany next month, according to a leaked document.
Despite Tony Blair’s declaration on Thursday that Washington would sign up to “at least the beginnings” of action to cut carbon emissions, a note attached to a draft document circulated by Germany says the US is “fundamentally opposed” to the proposals.
The note, written in red ink, says the deal “runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple ‘red lines’ in terms of what we simply cannot agree to”.
Chuck Adkins writes:
What he’s really saying is, “If it causes the oil companies and the big businesses I am protecting, any kind of pain or inconvenience, I’m not going to support it”
I wouldn’t go that far. It’s a nuanced, difficult subject: global warming is bad for business. Thus no global warming is good for business. Thus, there is no global warming.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
45 Responses to “What Climate Change?”
What? Global Warming is an entrepreneur’s dream! I’m already purchasing cheap scrub land in central Florida that will be worth millions once it’s beach front property!
[...] Moderate Voice Al Gore received an Oscar for a documentary about global warming; more and more people realize that global warming is a major problem; Europe is willing to take the lead; America, meanwhile, continues to act as if nothing is wrong. [...]
Entropy better hope it isn’t dried up swamp.
Global warming fears certainly aren’t bad for all businesses: notably it’s good business for Al Gore’s carbon offset company.
“I wouldn’t go that far. It’s a nuanced, difficult subject: global warming is bad for business. Thus no global warming is good for business. Thus, there is no global warming.”
Ironically, you spanked him for a simplistic, formulaic, even paranoid analysis, then offered your own version of the same thing. Ugh.
I have yet to be convinced that Global Warming is anything more than the Apocolypse Dejour. A convenient hoax. Warning – those who seek to scare you are really trying to control you.
Ha! My own simplistic, formulaic & paranoid analysis. But my prediction is that in 20 years, we’ll look at Global Warming in the same way of every other leftist apocolypse that was predicted in the 50′s 60′s & 70′s that never came to pass. Remember the cover of Time in the 70s that predicted “the coming ice age?”
Do yourselves a favor. Let the scientists do their jobs – and make sure to fund contrarian research – none of this “the debate is over” crap.
I do hope that people realize that I was ironic, right?
Heh. It would have helped if I had paid attention to who wrote it.
Mule: I do believe that global warming is NOT a myth, that the earth is warming and that human activity increases it, however, I know that the objections to the ‘theory’ aren’t that simple. There are people who mean well, but who simply don’t believe global warming to be true (or at least not significantly increased by human activity).
And there are people who believe that warming is real and some of it is anthropogenic, but not necessarily driven primarily by carbon.
And those who believe that even if carbon is a major driver, we have to find sensible ways to reduce emissions without risking collapse of the global economy and without hampering development in third world countries.
It’s a serious issue that deserves real thought, not fearmongering, soundbites and ridicule of anyone who doesn’t tow the ‘consensus’ line. (I’m not directing that at you, Michael, because I did get your irony and I’m seconding your opinion).
Enough with the accusations of fearmongering like it’s a pandemic, CS. They are ridiculed when they shovel BS. Then they deserve it, frankly. Most of those who “believe” that carbon isn’t a major driver have yet to be able to come up with credible alternative explanations. Most of what I hear them propose are things that are already known to the reputable climate scientists and have been accounted for no matter what the counter-claims may be.
Jim: The IPCC is way too political IMO. In some cases their own reports have overstated the negative impacts and fail to correct the media when it overstates, yet they always seem to point out mistakes from anyone who disagrees with their consensus.
And as far as proposing alternative theories? Since when does the scientific method say that a theory between cause and effect should become universally accepted without proof of causation unless someone else can come up with a better explanation for the correlation?
“Most of those who “believe†that carbon isn’t a major driver have yet to be able to come up with credible alternative explanations.”
Here’s a thought, maybe scientist should have to prove a theory instead of “disprove”. To me they will have “proved” the theory when they can tell me what amount of global warming is caused by what factors. “Significant” or any of the other buzz words used to qualify the effect of CO2 on the temperature is not good enough. Is that 10% or 90%? What effect would reducing out greenhouse emissions by 10%? Any?(because that’s probably the best we could do) So you have some scientist that are pretty sure that greenhouse gases has an effect on global warming but they can’t say how much or what, if any, effect reducing emissions will have and “the debate is over?” Give me a break. I’m not even saying they are wrong, but they haven’t even come close to proving anything, but the opponents are somehow less credible than the nuts who think that not wearing deodorant will save mother earth?
Global warming will never be proven 100% just like evolution or the holocaust, it will always have its hordes of deniers, who find it easier to dither about whether the theory has been proven than to take any action. ON this issue, I am glad I am not a conservative, because they seemingly come up with reason after reason for inaction. As far as the G-8 goes, when you have 2 oilmen in our administration, their ties are always going to be stronger to the industry than to environmentalists or ecoscientists. They are protecting their own, governing for their base as they have for the past 7 years.
No one is asking for 100% proof, Kim. But what Jim said is that instead of the scientists looking at skepticism in a healthy way, they are saying that unless an alternative theory can be proven then their consensus one is true by default. That’s not science, that’s politics. In effect, they’re saying that they have to invoke cloture and no more debate will be permitted. As important as this is, the most important part is getting the first step right, and if they’re wrong about carbon emissions being a major driver of climate change then we’re going to misspend billions without having any positive result to show for it. Like Bones, I’m not saying that the carbon emission AGW theorists are wrong, but the fact that they’re trying to move the issue into the political realm instead of continuing to test the theory doesn’t sit well with me at all.
Except that the US carbon emissions just dropped for the second time in 6 years.
Meanwhile, Europe, Asia and India all increased.
Another inconvenient truth.
Hate to break it to you, but we ultimately know the causation of almost nothing. [On a philosophical level we know causation for nothing, since even in physics and chemistry where macro-level causation is provable, it fails at some micro-level.] In fact many scientists are of the opinion that it is unknowable for most things. That goes ten billion times over for anything that is a dynamic system. There is an extremely strong correlation between increased CO2 and temperature increases, with the CO2 slightly lagged. The theory is that in low temperatures have some catalyst for making them rise, which increases CO2 rapidly and that increase starts a (nearly) irreversable process that eventually causes other things like water vapor and other stuff to increase. CO2 is like the second stage in a three stage rocket to climate change.
The worry then is that we have astronomically high levels of atmospheric CO2 right now. Even if this causes a relatively small increase in temperature, the ability for the ocean to hold the CO2 (which is bad because it has the most) decreases rapidly, releasing a ton more CO2. That would then start the glacial melts and put in more water vapor — which is basically the ultimate greenhouse gas. “They” have done a terrible job of relating the fact that it’s not CO2 that does all the heavy lifting, it’s the feedback loop. This is where a lot of unfounded criticism arises.
The science on this is a consensus. Sure it might change, but the recent observations of temperature increase are worse than expected so I doubt it will any time soon. I personally wish people would trust the scientists (while constantly being critical and making sure they are testing alternative hypotheses) and start debating policy issues. For instance, I think the guys at stubbornfacts have done a reasonably good job of convincing me that all the current proscriptions are terrible from both an economic and scientific perspective, and that to do anything that would be scientifically valid is probably cost prohibitive. (I also personally think that if we started working on the ideas then we might be creative enough to get around this and emerging technologies and a commitment on the scale of WWII could change the equation.)
Bones: you ask reasonable questions. Unfortunately I can virtually guarantee that the answers are impossible to know due to the way dynamical systems operate. The best you can do is create predictive models and constantly refine them. Right now those models aren’t looking too optimistic.
Ultimately everything comes down to energy. If all the billions were spent in getting on renewable energy the “right way” (i.e. corn ethanol is about as wrong as you can go and hydrogen fuel cells unless created by solar energy aren’t much better) it’d eventually be the biggest boon to the economy we’ve ever seen. There are plenty of arguments about the cost/benefit question in how you go about it the “right way” since obviously you can’t spend 90% of your GDP making solar arrays in the desert because you have to think about surviving in the near term.
But considering that a lot of the leading macro-scale energy generation technologies cost nearly the same as current oil prices and they are nascent, I am a lot more optimistic than I used to be. Also, with nanomanufacturing, and advances in architectural design and geothermic heat pumps, there is a huge opportunity to massively increase building/appliance efficency. Again, it’s figuring out how to make these cheaply and balancing tradeoffs. As of right now, a lot of stuff is the “same” price as gas over its lifespan but has a huge capital construction cost. Obviously this is a problem since sometimes you’re fronting 30 years worth of energy before you get one joule out.
CS-As I see it they have been studying the problem and have reached a consensus in their own minds. Many scientists have been hired by the oil industry to reach a different conclusion, so that action can be postponed. The rest of the world is ahead of us in facing this problem head on. So there’s a lot of frustration with our continued inaction.
The issue for me is not one of whether global warming is real or whether human activity is responsible, it’s the effectiveness of strategies in coping with the changes.
Practically all of the actual reductions in carbon output in the U. S. and Europe over the last ten years have been a byproduct of exporting our manufacturing to China. That’s a shell game—not an effective strategy for dealing with the problem. Once carbon production is moved to China the problem becomes completely intractable.
Here’s what I don’t get: why oppose changes to technology which are going to be needed anyway just because you don’t like the political leanings of the persons advocating them?
Oil is a finite resource, yes? Of course it is – everything on Earth is finite. Whether we’ve reached Peak Oil already or not, there is going to come a day when we unquestionably do.
So: as oil becomes scarcer, economic and political instability will increase. Can we agree on that? Because most of the readily-available oil is in places that are already unstable, and I don’t see any reason that’s going to change for the better anytime soon.
Still with me? OK: now, as oil becomes scarser, there’s also going to be competition for it among the end-users. Oil isn’t just for running transportation equipment. It’s also used to make medical equipment (modern surgical devices, prostheses, implants), building materials, and consumer goods (from shampoo bottles to personal electronics). And there is not, so far, anything that can replace oil-derived plastics for those uses. Unlike transportation equipment, for which there’s a large array of replacement fuels.
So: even if your argument is that there’s no global climate change… or there is, but it’s not human-caused… or there is, and it’s human-caused, but there’s nothing we can do about it –
Why would you still oppose policies, innovation, and new technologies that:
1) Make sense anyway
2) Will be needed anyway;
3) Will, in fact, lead to new industries, new jobs, and new ways of making money
Why? Is Al Gore that horrible, that you need to cut off your nose to spite your face?
If leadership is signing treaties that you then ignore, yes, Europe is “leading”.
“Why? Is Al Gore that horrible, that you need to cut off your nose to spite your face?”
I’m afraid for some folks that’s become the case. A pity science has that parasite politics dogging it so much these days. It’s almost as though someone opened a wormhole between Washington and the 17th century. Ah well, I guess it wasn’t so long ago that scientists paid huge prices for challenging conventional “wisdom”; human nature hasn’t changed so much, only the props.
I think it would help if Al Gore can start finding other faces to accompany him or represent the issue separately. Leo DiCapprio doesn’t count. I’m not sure offhand who this should be; however, it should be possible to find people of different political persuasions to unite on this one cause. Evengelicals are starting to take environmental stewardship quite seriously in some places. I’m sure someone can be found.
After all, virtually all popular scientific knowledge is based on a notion of authority – that what this person is telling me is likely true because this person is an expert on this topic and I can trust her. I believe that E=MC2, even though I have no ability to judge this statement’s accuracy, because I trust Einstein on physics, and the hundreds of physicists who back him up. The truth is that millions of Americans don’t believe global warming because they don’t believe the Leftists. It will be crucial to keep adding faces that more and more people trust to the cadre of famous figures calling for action. It’s not just an unfortunate situation, but a necessary one. Most people have no idea what a simulation or a non-linear dynamic system is, nor should they necessarily. You have to go on trust.
There was an article in New Scientist posted a while back that discusses about twenty different arguments against global warming, including the “in the 1970′s everyone predicted global cooling” argument – see http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
While I think Al Gore and others do more harm than good when they use apocalyptic language to describe global warming, I agree with others in this thread who have stated there are so many good arguments for reducing America’s dependence on fossil fuels that it’s hard to see the hostility to taking ANY action as anything other than a “cut off your nose to spite your face” response. Whether it’s decreasing our dependence on the Middle East, reducing asthma by replacing polluting plants with clean energy, or simply saving money by reducing energy bills, I honestly can’t see how trying to reduce fossil fuel usage is a bad thing. And yes, I’ve heard the “reducing fossil fuel usage will destroy the economy” arguments, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that providing incentives to develop alternative energy, increasing fuel economy standards, or promoting conservation will in any way affect the economy negatively, and there have been studies that have in fact shown that developing new industries would benefit the economy positively.
I think Gore uses apocalyptic language because otherwise the problem won’t be viewed with any urgency. He knows that to overcome natural inaction and the interest groups that naturally oppose the new technology he has to raise awareness. And he’s done that with his movie and new book. I wish the folks in DC could act like grownups on this issue and at least treat it with intellectual honesty.
“I think it would help if Al Gore can start finding other faces to accompany him or represent the issue separately. ”
But he has- Arnold Schwarzenegger is the spokesman for his state and ex governor Jerry Brown is suing the feds to change California’s standards. Maybe Gore would gain a larger audience if he hadn’t run against Bush in 2000. But, I place the blame on people like Inhofe who have their heads up their rear ends on this issue, and I don’t understand why no one calls them on it.
I’m not sure that an issue has to be “the single greatest threat to our society” to be viewed with urgency, and toning down the rhetoric would likely go a long way to make the message more palatable. Telling people that “the planet is getting warmer, and that warming is causing changes that will have destabilizing effects around the globe” is an abstract enough idea that a lot of people don’t see how it will affect them personally, and apocalyptic rhetoric won’t change that. As an example, note the glib “I’m just gonna buy land in the middle of Florida and wait until it’s beachfront property” responses – people may get that seas will rise, but they can’t wrap their minds around the problems that will cause. It will only be when fish stocks move out of traditional fishing grounds and destroy local industries, or glaciers melt and surrounding communities lose their water supply that people will fully grasp the seriousness of the problem.
There are a ton of good reasons to take global warming seriously, and a ton of things that can be done now to start addressing the issue. However, the stubbornness of the far right, and the hysteria of the far left are both major barriers to taking even the simple steps to address what is going to be a very serious problem.
CS posts with incredulity and ignorance that
She then claims that this is politics, not science. Wow, this shows complete ignorance of science as much if not more than any other post she’s ever made. It’s not politics. That is precisely how science works. If you have an alternative idea then you have to prove it to the rest of the scientific community in your field. How the heck else did you think it worked, CS? How else do you think it could work? The English language lacks words to describe how foolish that post was. I could say many other things about it less complimentary but I’m trying to hold myself back. But yes, once the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field believe that an explanation has been found for a given phenomenon has been found you have to prove it wrong before your alternative is going to be accepted. Frankly, there is no better way to do it or else we’d stilll be accepting the geocentric view of the universe.
Leave it to you, Jim, to turn a reasonable discussion into an ad hominem attack. My point, of course, is not that other people shouldn’t have to prove alternative theories but that the first theory itself is lacking in proof of causation. Correlation does not equal causation, no matter how strong the correlation is. No one has offered a shred of proof, as far as I’ve been able to find, that CO2 is significantly causing a major amount of warming and in fact much of the causal relationship may be the other way around (as temperature rises, CO2 goes up as a result of the warming.) The process that Mikkel describes of CO2 being the driver of the second stage of warming is plausible, but more evidence is needed to either support or refute that explanation (in other words, it should be falsiable). Likewise, no one has offered any evidence that a decrease in CO2 levels has EVER caused a decrease in temperature, only that there is correlation. What the consensus scientists are saying is that even though we only have the circumstantial evidence of CO2 levels correlating with temperature changes, we HAVE to assume that the CO2 caused the latter UNLESS some other theory is proven which explains what else may have actually been the main driver of the temperature change. That would be like Darwin saying that he had no real evidence of evolution except that it was one possible explanation of his observations of species changing over time, but that everyone should accept his theory unless someone else could prove a different theory. Whoever makes an assertion has to assume the burden of proof, not tell others that the burden is theirs to prove the assertion wrong.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using CO2 as a main driver of warming as a working hypothesis, but the scientists who do so should recognize that without some evidence of cause and effect, there are other plausible explanations and over time, a new explanation may develop which might better explain the observations. They are not correct to say that since no one has yet been able to do that, it lends more credence to their hypothesis- it remains just one of several possible explanations.
mikkel said:
I have to quibble with the ‘(nearly) irreversible’ part. Every time that temperatures rose in the past, they also fell eventually without any human intervention. So obviously this process has an endpoint (although admittedly, probably not an end point that we could live with- even if the temperature was compatible with human life there would likely be catastrophic geographical changes). But it seems to me that it’s key to figure out what has happened historically when temperatures have peaked and then begun to fall. If the answer is that this only happens after all carbon in the natural cycle has been released then yes, the key is going to be to handle our carbon emissions (because if we’re putting more carbon into the atmosphere than the natural cycle would, then we’re really exacerbating the upswing of the cycle). But if they key is something else (wator vapor increasing and then increased cloud cover beginning to have more of a cooling effect than a warming one, for example- or quite possibly, some other factor that we just haven’t even grasped yet), then there may be other ways to intervene that would be far more significant (and maybe less costly) than attempting to manipulate CO2 levels.
Ryan- Well I do think that whatever initial baby steps we can take without bringing down our economy should be taken.But acting like an obstructionist at these conferences so we can stall and say that we cannot accept the approach that the rest of the world is taking is worse than making it sound like the biggest problem of our time. If we do nothing it may very well turn into the biggest problem for our time. I agree that fearmongering, which has worked with terrorism is a poor tactic, but Gore HAS created a huge following.
@anyone who talks about proving a negative.. In short. . . Um… no you can not.
What you can do is come up with another hypothesis (most people think this is what the word theory means), a test that should fail if your hypothesis is wrong – and does not (falsifiability), and repeatabiliy. At that point you may have the beginnings of a theory like gravity, or evolution…
The problem here is that the system is large, complex and dynamic as has been stated. Best we are likely to do is indeed ‘strong correlations’, which we have quite a few of. And nothing else so far has come along that is a better explination of what is happening than global warming that is at least partially resulting in man made.
I will also point out that the money to be made (funding) scientifically is damn easy if you are anti-global warming, and much harder to raise otherwise. Let us add that we have an administration in the past that has allegedly gone as far as telling public Uni’s that they should un-invite pro-global warming researchers, and has threatened to cut funding various research projects if they don’t.
Now think that the money says ‘no global warming’, the politicos pressure uni’s that there is no global warming… And, still the vast majority of scientists accept global warming now. That does not make them right of course. But, it does put some perspective on it.
Oh there definitely are other ways CS that are far far easier to do and more effective than CO2 modulation. It involves pumping a ton of reflective particles into the atmosphere, for instance sulfur. Of course if we pumped enough sulfur up there to stop the process i’m not sure there would be much left down here to save.
Also volcanoes and asteroids do a wonderful job because they fill up the sky with so much dust. In fact that was what my “(nearly)” specifically was referring to. The idea (which I personally think is reasonable with what we know) is that CO2 is a catalyst for creating an enormous increase in water vapor due to feedback loops. Sure it eventually comes back, but not until the cycle is completed. That’s why the Younger Dryas event was such a noticeable phenomenon and if the asteroid theory is right it fits in with our current knowledge.
More or less the only way we know to stop it is from catastrophic external events/modulation or we could make giant devices to lessen solar power coming down or something but that sounds very unfeasible and I don’t know what consequences it’d have.
Jim, you’re being way too hard on CS or else you’re missing what she’s saying. First of all, she’s exactly right that there isn’t enough done to correct media overstatement about global warming, and I have heard numerous climatologists that are concerned about this. They are rightly worried that the doomsday scenarios are so extreme or simply presented that it repulses people away from the immediate dangers. For instance the “seas will rise 20 feet” deal that people like to quote so much. There is the perception that Gore said this will happen in 100 years or less (I dunno I haven’t seen it maybe he did) and so they point to the IPCC that says it’ll only rise a few inches and say Gore is therefore wrong about everything. Well elsewhere in the report it talks about extreme events and explains the 20 feet is from Greenland melting and the Antarctic shelfs breaking off completely, and that is a catastrophic event with some nonzero probability that will only increase as it gets warmer and warmer. I think they said it would take several hundred years before there was a good chance of that happening, but that’s not too long.
And she is right that science shouldn’t accept things as true for lack of alternatives. No matter how good a scientist one is, they are improved immensely by knowing when to say “I don’t know.” I’ve noticed that done properly this gets you immense respect…even from the scientists that seem unable to admit it themselves. If you have a hypothesis about something new, it shouldn’t be accepted until there is sufficient evidence. What her view comes down to is a lack of understanding about what science in the real world looks like. The common idea of science comes almost entirely from physics. But for most complex problems there is no “universal” reference frame that makes all measurements simple, let alone closed form solutions and you’re constantly groping for straws. [This caused my physics minded turned research doctor coworker to have an existential crisis.]
What she (and the mainstream public, and many scientists themselves don’t want to think about) fail to understand is that at this point the bulk of our operational scientific knowledge about biology and other systems is entirely based on correlations, and the study into the underyling “cause” is done primary to identify new elements to test for correlations. From my (admittedly rough) understanding, I’d say that we are about 3-4x more sure of the CO2 “cause” with the climate than even some of the most rudimentary biological systems. Definitely more than about how breathing works, which is where I work…but that hasn’t stopped us from developing techniques that have saved hundreds of thousands of people or helping train athletes better or even giving insight into evolutionary processes.
Mikkel,
Yeah, I get that the solutions thus far imagined other than carbon manipulation aren’t really teneble, but the point is that exploring all options can lead to a novel solution while putting all eggs in the carbon basket limits the scope of the solutions being explored (particularly in terms of the resources needed for such large scale solutions). And given what you’ve already acknowledged, that trying to effectively control carbon emissions isn’t really possible anyway from a scientific and economic perspective, then shouldn’t we look in another direction?
And in case anyone is wondering, I do think that we should put massive effort into moving away from oil dependency, but I feel that way mainly for all of the other reasons besides global warming (other pollutants, scarcity of remaining reserves, dependency on mideast oil, etc). I think we’d be better off if the global warming part was put into perspective because those who overstate the case for it only give ammunition to those who oppose them (like the oil lobby).
“I think we’d be better off if the global warming part was put into perspective because those who overstate the case for it only give ammunition to those who oppose them (like the oil lobby).”
Amen to that. This is why I am cautiously excited about the growing business and foreign policy interest in alternate energy. I think in as little as five years there will be a convergence across ideologies/concerns. Then we can spend all our time saying things like “stupid cornies” for the ethanol backers and raging debates about D-D vs D-T fusion reactors.
Thanks for the support Mikkel but I’m not too concerned about Jim’s ‘attack’. In a way it proves my point because I think most people know that when someone has to resort to insults it’s a sign that he doesn’t have a more substantive argument.
I think the point on which I differ with you on the ‘real world science’ is just one of degree (when the discussion moves to the realm of solutions, I realize that people have to decide to stop debating cause, but the pure scientists shouldn’t stop questioning). And, in your comparison of climate science vs. biological systems, I almost feel that it’s worse to have a real world approach with the climate science because the theories don’t lend themselves to falsifiability well so there’s more danger of the theory taking on a dogmatic character. I read this recently, and it articulates my point more clearly than I can:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.htm
CS I read it and thinks it supports my points more. The central hypothesis is “On close inspection both Popperian crucial experiments and Kuhnian revolutions turn out to be myths: what normally happens is that progressive research programmes replace degenerating ones,” which is exactly what has been happening over the last 20 years. It’s secondary point is that the progressive ones are the ones that make novel predictions that are backed up by observations. Well this model made in 1988 didn’t do too badly especially because the place it messed up (91-95) was due to a volcanic eruption that was in the model but predicted to errupt in 95 instead of 91! [The question from this prediction is whether B or C is better]
Oh I read a bit more in the comments to see the differences between A,B and C in the above link and they are different predictions for forcing (i.e. greenhouse gases change). A was exponential increase, B was linear and C was linear but even off in 2000. More or less they were the different economic scenarios. [At some point other forcings due to feedback will jump in, so take that's where uncertainty comes in. In my view the point of this model was to give strong evidence that the warming since 88 has been largely due to to our understanding of CO2.]
OK sorry. I just lied. Scenario A and B have the same CO2 concentration estimates and the difference was in “changes in concentration of chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide and volcanic eruptions.” So actually it was evidence about forcings in general rather than CO2 in specific. You can summarize it by saying that in 1988 we knew enough that if we knew the forcings in the future we could predict the temperature. B was the best guess of the future forcings and turned out to be accurate.
I’m amazed how many ‘scientists’ there are posing serious-sounding questions about global warming. All you have to di is read a blog here and an article there, and you’re ready to take on the international science community with a rsounding “I don’t believe it’.
Of course, I’m not surprised. We are, after all, still debating the theory of evolution in this country.
As far as I’m concerned, the debate is over.
The only legitimate area to examine is how best to address the problem. Luckily, the number of businesses and state/local governments interested and acting on the advice or real scientists is increasing. in spite of all the doubtintg ‘scientists’.
CS,
If you don’t want posts critical of what you write so you can claim its an ad hominem attack don’t write things that justify it. You write
In fact you’ve made this claim before and the articles that counter this claim of yours have been linked to. You choose to ignore those citations and make the same claim again. Why shouldn’t you be criticized for this deception? Shall we go through it again?
Here’s an article by Spencer Weart on the site for the American Institute of Physics discussing the history of research on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Here is a much more abbreviated summary of some of the earlier discoveries from a series on NPR and a series of answers to questions from listeners in the same series. As far as bringing up the question of CO2 increase lagging temperatures, this article has also been pointed out before. All of this has been pointed to before in response to your earlier identical claims. Apparently you choose to ignore them because you certainly haven’t pointed out any decent sources that invalidate them.
Sorry, the article I mention last is here.
Jim,
The Realclimate article that you’ve linked to here is a newer one which appears to more completely answer the question I’ve been asking. The ones you’ve directed me to before, on that site and others, generally have responded to the question “how do we know CO2 has been a significant causal factor in warming trends rather than just being correlated with it?” by saying basically that there’s no proof that it hasn’t caused it. That kind of circular argument is one reason that I’ve been skeptical. I’ll continue to read the rest of the material that you and Mikkel have linked to (your historical review from Spencer Weart looks interesting as well).
As to my complaint about ad hominem attacks, as you can see I have no problem with you responding to me with legitimate criticisms and providing evidence to refute something that I say.
Doma,
Science is better when other scientists and the general public are skeptics. Scientists aren’t gods or high priests who should be above questioning; they may have more specialized knowledge but we should be careful not to elevate their status to the point that their conclusions are beyond our questions.
CS-
Oh, boy, you have discovered that science is better when scientists are sceptics. For heaven’s sakes, scepticism is actually a good definition of science. That’s why scientists argue with one another, review and critique each others’ work and compete with one another
It even happens that what scientists accept one day is later disproved by other scientists. That’s why when a new scientific theory is proposed, it takes a period of testing and questioning an vetting and arguing before it is mature enough to be accepted by an overwhelming consensus among scientists.
In the case of global warming, however, we are not talking about a scientific theory developed yestesday. It’s been around for decades, debated and tested and improved.
And that is precisely why it is so meaningful that a broad consensus has been reached.
As it is a SCIENTIFIC theory, it will continue to be examined and debated and improved; that’s part of the scientific method.
In contrast, many critics draw conclusions without going through this laborious scientific process .
doma,
You’ve twisted my words. What I said is that science is healthier when scientists AND the general publilc are skeptical. My point is that not only should scientists who advance a theory be able to articulate it in a way that stands up to peer review (of course no one would argue that point) but that also, scientists should be able to articulate the basis of their theory and the supporting evidence to the public. Your earlier comment implied that people who aren’t climatologists have no business talking about this subject, and I strongly disagree with that.
If the questions that are posed by the public are silly or lacking in substance due to lack of background knowledge, then there are ways that the concepts can be explained in lay terms. Some scientists have chosen to try to do that, but my complaints have been that so far I haven’t found them to be doing a great job of it- though Jim’s recent link seems to fill in some of the blanks that I’ve been seeking.