From CO2 Science: "A 221-Year Temperature History of the Southwest Coast of Greenland"
The following appears here
A 221-Year Temperature History of the Southwest Coast of Greenland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Vinther, B.M., Andersen, K.K., Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R. and Cappelen, J. 2006. Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006810.
What was done
Combining early observational records from 13 locations along the southern and western coasts of Greenland, the authors extended the overall temperature history of the region - which stretches from approximately 60 to 73°N latitude - all the way back to AD 1784, adding temperatures for 74 complete winters and 52 complete summers to what was previously available to the public.
What was learned
In the words of the authors, "two distinct cold periods, following the 1809 'unidentified' volcanic eruption and the eruption of Tambora in 1815, [made] the 1810s the coldest decade on record." The warmest period, however, was not the last quarter century, when climate alarmists claim the earth experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past two millennia. Rather, as Vinther et al. report, "the warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record [was] 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s [were] the warmest decades." In fact, their newly-lengthened record reveals there has been no net warming of the region over the last 75 years!
What it means
With approximately half the study region located above the Arctic Circle (where CO2-induced global warming is suggested by climate models to be most evident and earliest expressed), one would expect to see southwestern coastal Greenland's air temperature responding vigorously to the 75-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has occurred since 1930, even if the models were only half-way correct. However, there has been no net change in air temperature there in response to the 25% increase in the air's CO2 content experienced over that period. And this is the region the world's climate alarmists refer to as a climatological canary in a coal mine? If it is, real-world data suggest that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been hugely overestimated.
Reviewed 28 June 2006
Comments (117)
Uh oh, another TokyoTom lure.:~)
Published: June 27, 2006 1:00 PM
"CO2 Science" is funded by Exxon. Come on, you guys are usually such independent thinkers--you can do better than rehash this stuff.
Published: June 27, 2006 1:00 PM
I wouldn't care if CO2 Science was funded by Karl Marx. Debate the evidence. If the evidence is flawed then show that it is.
Published: June 27, 2006 1:11 PM
Brian:"CO2 Science" is funded by Exxon." So you suggest they have a conflict of interest? What about the university scientists who promote global warming? Could it be possible that they want to exaggerate the danger in order to keep the taxpayer money coming their direction, as well as promote their leftist agenda?
Published: June 27, 2006 1:31 PM
There may be externalities with Greenland which went cold in the little ice age, and became depopulated as much due to deforestation.
But, go to Anchorage Ak and find the Portage Glacier. Huge recession there, as well as other ice formations in Ak.
One data point.... is like saying the Green Zone is safe so Iraq is safe.
Published: June 27, 2006 1:35 PM
"Showing that the evidence isn't credible means that we don't have to debate it."
And the only honest way to do it is to present evidence of the contrary. Is there anyway to get rid of self-interest in a scientific study?
Probably not, but I tend to agree with those that make their living not stealing my money, and finding rationalizations for that theft.
"But, go to Anchorage Ak and find the Portage Glacier. Huge recession there, as well as other ice formations in Ak."
Why even go that far. The ice tray I accidentally left sitting out of the freezer yesterday is completely liquid. The culprit: global warming.
You are correct, but its wrong to not take evidence into account in a place that 'predictions' show it should be the other way around.
"It's easy to see that the evidence isn't credible. A good start might involve typing "co2 science" into Wikipedia and seeing what comes up. If you don't belive that evidence, then keep Googling. It's worth keeping an open mind, sure, but not so open that your brains fall out."
Why is this credible and the other not?
Published: June 27, 2006 2:13 PM
CMB,
Apparently you have found the logical fallacy of attacking the source to be an easy way out on this debate. It is precisely this attitude in most of academia that keeps this issue at bay rather than actually exploring all of the data available.
I'm not claiming to have any expertise on global warming, nor am I an advocate of any particular position as to whether or not human activity is *causing* global warming.
But surely your quick, back-handed dismissal of Co2 Science must strike you as too easy a way to end the debate?
(I suppose if Philip Morris tells us that smoking is unhealthy--with statistics and all--we ought to ignore anything they have to say over neutrality issues).
Published: June 27, 2006 3:05 PM
I doubt you'll find anyone "disinterested" enough to be a credible source on either side. All you can do is examine their methods and results. Then make up your own mind. Personally, I have found the methods of the alarmists to be much more questionable than those of the other side.
Published: June 27, 2006 3:14 PM
I'm willing to concede that warming is occurring. And CO2 levels are easy enough to measure.
I am somewhat more skeptical that the cause of the warming is anthropogenic. Correlation is not causation.
So far, the predictions that have been issued have been shaky. No one I am aware of has been on the money using any of the various models.
Anyway, assume this is true too. We see an X ppm increase in CO2, and we see a Y degree rise in average temperature. We believe this is definitive evidence. What then?
How could such a problem be addressed in a libertarian (or anarcho-capitalist) framework? How would a restoration of private-property rights vis-a-vis pollution work in contrast to the super-statist recommendations of the doomsayers? What is the state apparatus doing or permitting to be done right now that would cease to be in a purely free market?
Published: June 27, 2006 3:45 PM
Using melting glaciers as a sign of global warming is an incredibly simplistic argument. There is this study, for exmple, that shows that Andean glaciers are far more susceptible to recession due to increased sunspot activity than CO2 levels.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/24/8937?etoc
Published: June 27, 2006 3:48 PM
Another point that should be mentioned is the choice of the base period upon which to make comparisons. One can argue that the base period chosen to "prove" global warming was an unusually cold one.
Also, the energy emitted by the sun is absolutely enormous, and minor changes in sun spot activity can have significant effects on the earth's climate. (The sun spot influence was mentioned in posting above.)
In addition, the earth's atmosphere is immensely more complex than a simple, controlled greenhouse, and given the predictive record of climatologists and meteorologists, I believe it is fair to say that there is much that they still do not reasonably understand regarding climate dynamics.
Finally, as I have mentioned previously, the geologic record contains evidence that many dramatic changes in climate occurred long before man evolved. Also, the earth warmed up substantially from its last major ice age of roughly 10,000 years ago, long before man emitted any carbon gases of consequence.
Published: June 27, 2006 8:47 PM
The global warming crusade is a good example of how command science invariably distorts what should be a search for truth, into a qwest for power. In the Seventies, Steven Schneider, patron saint of the Green movement, and his ideological allies were screaming about an impending Ice Age, caused, they insisted, by man's polluting the earth's atmosphere. However, temperature readings in the next several years failed to back up their thesis. By the early Eighties, persuaded that their crusade against capitalism based on a Crises of Ice was going nowhere, Schneider and his fellow Greens switched directions, proclaiming that now the world faced a NEW crises of global warming. But their philosophical outlook remained unaltered: once again, man's "polluting"--this time in the unlikely form of C02 formation--was said to be responsible for this updated version of impending doom.
In spite of extravagent and fawning press coverage of the "science" behind the global warming ideology, the "computer models" that supposedly prove something are bogus. The theory that greenhouse gases are directly responsible for changes in the earth's climate and temperature, and that man's activities are distorting nature's supposedly delicate balance, is unproven and incredible propaganda. For consider the components of the greenhouse gases that comprise our atmosphere: 98% of greenhouse gases are water vapor, and roughly 2% are C02. Of this 2% component, man's activities are estimated to contribute perhaps 5%! So man accounts for roughly 1/10 of one percent of the earth's greenhouse gas. A doubling of man's output is supposed to presage climate catastropy.
Unfortunately for the Green Faithful, temperature readings do not support their religious outlook. We hear a lot about the Hockey Stick history of global temperature, whereby temps have supposedly climbed to "unprecedented" heights since 1900 or so. But the Hockey Stick history, made famous by its incorporation (following political wrangling)into a UN report in 1996, has been demonstrated as bogus science in recent studies. The Hockey Stick was based on gaps in historical sequences, distortions of data, arithmetic errors, and other blunders accidental or intended. There is abundant evidence from ice core and earth core analysis that today's temperatures are not unusually warm; earlier periods featured higher temperatures, (or lower temperatures with vastly higher concentrations of C02).
Moreover, there is good evidence that temperatures have been trendless, or even cooling slightly, since 1940. Land-based readings are favored by Green ideologues, but those readings which show a small rise are distorted by the heat island effect (where cities expand around weather stations at airports, increasing temperatures.)Temperature readings from weather balloons and satellites show NO RISING TEMPERATURE TREND.
The increase in C02 from man's activities has been greatest since 1940, following the Depression and leading into the great wave of economic progress since that year in the US and Europe. However, the temperature increases the Green's claim to fear occurred PRIOR TO 1940. So much for causation based on correlation.
The supposedly frightening phenomena of melting glaciers "all around the globe" is misleading reporting, to characterize it charitably. Of the earth's ice covering, 90% is represented by the Ice Cap covering Antartica; 5% is represented by the Greenland Ice Cap. Both the Antartic and Greenland ice concentrations are adding mass and thickness every year, despite reports of huge ice bergs spliting off the Antartic ice cap and supposedly rising temperatures across Antartica. The truth is that the melting ice cap and rising temperatures we read about are confined to a comparatively small portion--a peninsula--of the Antartic, that comprises about 5% of the continent! Across the rest of the Antartic, temperature readings have been dropping. The Russians recently had to abandon an Antartic weather and research faciltiy, because over the years it has been buried under something like 100 feet of accumulated new ice!
Published: June 27, 2006 10:10 PM
Dennis,
I bet you fill your car's gas tank up at Exxon! This probably being the case, all of your "arguments" and doubts about anthropromophic climate change are not credible.
Published: June 27, 2006 10:15 PM
Wikipedia is TRASH!
Published: June 28, 2006 12:04 AM
Even if we go back to the exticntion on the dinosaurs 60 million years ago, (when, incidentally, the CO2 levels were 3000ppm - more than 10 times the current levels), 200 years represents a mininiscule amount of time. To try to infer the dynamic climate model from such a small amount of data is preposterous. Recent studies of arctic ice cores reveal relatively recent times when the arctic climate was tropical.
None of the climate simulation programs can reproduce this sceneario.
Incidentally, the observation that a change in CO2 concentration produced no climate change is actually consistent with the "real scientific theory". Warming by man-made CO2 is predicated on the false assumption that the solar flux is constant. Once this error is corrected, the change in global temperatures is accounted for variations in the flux of energy from the sun. This change in solar flux accounts for the change in temperature of Uranus. (When confronted with this, Al Gore joked the he didn't even know that we had sent a rectal thermomenter into space! Good one AG! ). However, joking aside, this is evidence that the solar flux constant is not in fact constant. If variation in the solar flux explains the change in temperature, then the change due to manmade emissions of CO2 has to be zero, which is exactly what George's article shows.
Published: June 28, 2006 12:49 AM
Dear Professor Reisman:
Thank you for posting a small piece of actual climate change science! Allow me in the posts to follows to help you in your efforts to expand our understanding of this matter, which it will not surprise you to note that I consider to be somewhat more of a serious concern than you.
1. Let me note first that Greenland and the Artic are important places to look for evidence of global warming – evidence which, unfortunately, is piling up at a rather convincing rate [note to self: do not say “alarming�]. Here are some recent summaries, which I have no doubt you will also be very interested in:
From the State Dept in November 2004:
http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Nov/08-21489.html
“A four-year study of the Arctic by international scientists shows that the region is warming at nearly twice the rate as the rest of the globe and that increasing greenhouse gases from human activities may make it even warmer in the future, according to a November 8 press release from the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).
At least half the summer sea ice in the Arctic is projected to melt by century's end, along with a significant portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet because the region is projected to warm by another 4-7 degrees Celsius by 2100.
The changes will contribute to global sea-level rise and intensify global warming, according to the ACIA final report.
The ACIA -- with participation by the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Sweden -- was initiated in 2000 at a ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Alaska. The Arctic Council commissioned the assessment.
Findings and projections were released November 8 and will be presented in detail at a scientific symposium in Reykjavik, Iceland, November 9-12, 2004.
"The impacts of global warming are affecting people now in the Arctic," said ACIA chair Robert Corell. "The Arctic is experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth. The impacts of climate change on the region and the globe are projected to increase substantially in the years to come."
Climate change is a serious long-term issue, according to the U.S. government position, that calls for a science-based global approach.�
Further, NASA satellite data show the Arctic sea ice on a whole has declined by 25% since 1978 (8.5 percent per decade). http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html
This melting has apparently reached a tipping point. http://www.physorg.com/news6897.html
According to that damnable pack of fire-breathing liberals, the American Geophysical Union, it looks like there will be an open Arctic Ocean in a few decades, for the first time in 800,000 years. Here's a recent press release and here's the short paper, authored by 21 scientists. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0530.html
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~dcn/reprints/Overpeck_etal_EOS2005.pdf
As for Greenland, although some interior portions are building ice as more snow falls (more moisture), huge portions of the ice sheet have been melting away. http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/
Scientists believe Greenland's glaciers are sliding into the ocean much faster than earlier thought – about twice the rate of only five years ago: http://www.physorg.com/news10948.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=267
More bad news can be found by simply Googling “Greenland melt 2006�
2. Allow me to make a few comments on the partiality of “CO2 Science�, the site to which you linked. I presume you are aware
that the proprietors of the site, who are agricultural scientists, are hardly impartial. The Idsos are funded by Exxon and coal interests, have devoted the site both to propounding the “upside� to increased CO2 levels while denying that global warming is occurring. They co-authored one of the infamous and discredited “hockey stick is broken� papers (which have subsequently be shredded post-publican by peer reviews) which take the position that as there were warm periods in the past during pre-industrial periods, it is impossible that the climate change which is now in evidence could be due to human activity despite our heavy and continuing emissions of GHGs. It is no small wonder that the Idsos enjoy funding from those industries that have the most to gain from continued inaction on climate change.
Here are some links on the Idsos, their funding and their shoddy work on climate change: http://www.knowmore.org/index.php/ExxonMobil:_Opposing_the_Science_of_Global_Warming
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
http://www.answers.com/topic/center-for-the-study-of-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change
http://heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4309&method=full
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/draft-do-not-post/#more-109
In a following post I hope to add a few more handy references to climate change science generally.
Sincerely,
Tom
Published: June 28, 2006 7:28 AM
Those who have been following the "hockey stick" discussion about the temperature record might note that Mann and his co-authors have been vindicated by the National Academies recent report to Congress specifically on this issue, which says the following:
"It can be said with a high level of confidence
that global mean surface temperature was
higher during the last few decades of the 20th
century than during any comparable period
during the preceding four centuries.
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the
Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during
at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has
subsequently been supported by an array of evidence
that includes both additional large-scale surface
temperature reconstructions and pronounced
changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such
as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers
around the world, which in many cases appear to be
unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.
Not all individual proxy records indicate that the
recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger
fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced
exceptional warmth during the late 20th century
than during any other extended period from A.D.
900 onward.
Based on the analyses presented in the original
papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting
evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the
Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last
few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium.
Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence."
The NAS report, which was approved at the highest levels, can be found here:
http://fermat.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/Surface_Temps_final.pdf
http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf
Regards,
Tom
Published: June 28, 2006 7:36 AM
As to the science more generally, I am sparing you all extensive links and quotes, but here's a post of mine at RedState that may be helpful. If anyone is really interested, of course I can provide more.
http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/2/17/85716/1778/228#228
Regards,
Tom
Published: June 28, 2006 7:42 AM
The general argument of the "Greens" on this blog is an appeal to authority: Only scientists, and only those scientists of whom they approve, have valid opinions on the subject. It's not much different from appealing to the Pope to solve a religious arguement.
If the Greens have a valid case, they should present it in such a way that intelligent people can make up their own minds about it. After all, it's not rocket surgery! But they have failed to do that, so they try to pull rank on the rest of us.
BTW, I haven't read anyone mention methane. Someone above mentioned that water vapor is the greatest source of greenhouse gasses. That's true, followed by methane. CO2 is a very small part of the equation. Why don't Greens talk about water vapor and methane, the main greenhouse gasses? Because they're not produced by capitalist societies. Nature produces both. I read recently that the jungles (rainforests to the Greens) produce far more methane than the CO2 they absorb. So chop down the Amazon jungle if you want to stop global warming!
One last point. How long have glaziers been melting? Since the last ice age! At one point they extended below the Great Lakes. Is it possible to say that the earth has been warming since the last ice age?
Published: June 28, 2006 8:50 AM
"Tom", whomever you are,
Your comment, which is reproduced below, is worthless to the discussion. Grow up.
************************************************
"Dennis,
I bet you fill your car's gas tank up at Exxon! This probably being the case, all of your "arguments" and doubts about anthropromophic climate change are not credible.
Posted by: tom at June 27, 2006 10:15 PM"
Published: June 28, 2006 10:48 AM
Global warming is a socialist political movement not a scientific fact. Check out this article by Michio Kaku which talks of increases in energy usage.
http://www.mkaku.org/articles/physics_of_alien_civs.shtml
Published: June 28, 2006 10:59 AM
"But you've got to ask whether it can really be the case that a global conspiracy with that kind of scope involving so many scientists who surely have an overriding interest in getting to the bottom of things and involving the need for so much coordination can really be what is behind all the talk of global warming."
I would respond that for years the Western academic/scientific consensus did not recognize the existence of the Soviet Gulag and the tens of millions of humans that perished in it. Nor did this same consensus recognize the fact that Mao had killed 50 or 60 million people in his Cultural Revolution. In fact, during the 1960s Mao was a darling of many of the left-wing chic. It was in the professional and ideological interest of many of those in this consensus not to come to terms with the reality that these atrocities took place under socialist regimes.
Published: June 28, 2006 3:16 PM
"Professor's Reisman's post was based on an "appeal to authority."
No, he was just presenting evidence for us to weigh. An appeal to authority would have required him to assert that the authors are the best authorities, which he didn't.
I intended to use "Greens" in this blog to refer to those who think global warming is human caused. It was just short hand. Sorry if I offended.
"I can't speak/write for Toyko Tom, but he was pointing out that those with the training to work this stuff out seem to be in agreement that something is amiss and that humans are probably causing it or making it worse."
You're correct that the majority opinion among scientists is that global warming is human caused. After all, the National Academies of Science of the leading eight industrial nations have come down on your side. But as with Austrian economics, the minority is often proven right in the long run. A minority of scientists disagree. We see evidence of political motivations in the majority. I've studied the issue for over 20 years, read everything I can get my hands on and I still have to side with the minority. I think they present a better case.
Published: June 28, 2006 4:13 PM
By definition, a man cannot “step out� of his humanity and then cast a judgement upon it simply from “outside�. It’s reminding of all the bogus common evolution knowledge about “mankind comes from ape�. In order to think that concept you have to think yourself basically as a non-human. Again, I seriously doubt this is possible. You could say however “ape comes from mankind� talking about a common evolution lineage, but it’s curious how one never hears anybody ever say that! They want you to understand that a human being is no better than a monkey “if you just step out of your human skin for a second and look at it with the eye of …a God�. But in fact, if you’re human, you are “better� than a monkey, even if your name is Darwin!
Global warming politics does a bit of the same except it is not the whole mankind, just industrialization that’s questioned “from outside�. No doubt that a horse and carriage is more lovely than a car with engine from a certain point of view, why it’s alive, and still, industrialization is a process that starts “inside� men. No centralized government should be trusted to annihilate that.
Published: June 28, 2006 5:31 PM
Dennis, doesn't this other Tom's first post above show that his response to you is purely tongue-in-cheek?
Now what was I suggesting to you about perception on Reisman's prior thread? Just because you don't like a fella's name you get all bent out of shape, and fail to discern that he's on your side!
Regards,
TT
PS: I'm on your side, too.
Published: June 28, 2006 8:56 PM
Artisan:
Not sure where you're going with your denial of evolution or our ability to theorize on it, but I would agree with you that there are funadamental limits to our abilities to perceive and to understand ourselves and the world.
However, I think you would also concede that we have proven immensely clever and, by biting the forbidden fruit in the garden, have harnessed knowledge and technology to improve our understanding of the world, the laws by which it operates and our material surroundings. We're also smart enough to perceive and, with effort, to correct, the ways in which our own behavior is counterproductive.
I agree that no centralized government should be allowed to destroy industrialization, but if that's what you think this is about then this conversation is rather dificult.
My own perspective is rather that this exercise is about understanding generally how some of our insititutions can be improved to better address irresponsible private behavior (irresponsible simply from the view that while it may represent the best interests of the decision-maker, imposes uncompensated costs on others due to lack of clear or adequately enforced property rights) that cumulatively can have very serious negative consequences.
We fail to address and solve such problems at our own peril. That we can capably solve such problems without destroying either our country or our economy, and without sliding into communism, should be evident from our rather successful attempt at addressing the rampant air, land and water pollution problems of the 60s, 70s and 80s (that we can also greatly improve the cost-effectiveness of our existing environmental laws is also evident, but besides the point). The problems remaining in the West are, domestically, rather small issues relating to government ownership and mismanagement of "public" resources. but there are a whole passel of transborder, international and foreign issues - largely also cases where there are lack of effective private property rights regimes - that remain unsolved. Global warming is one of them.
Just as a wise driver pays attention to the condition of himself, his vehicle and the road up ahead, so should we be paying attention to what is happening to the global environment. Right now, we are accelerating rapidly in a car that we have no current ability to break. You seem to advising that not only do we keep the pedal to the metal, but put on a blindfold as well.
Pray tell, who is advocating a road to ruin?
Regards,
TT
Published: June 28, 2006 9:32 PM
Are these Climate Scientists also "young earth scientists" of the same ilk as "Creation Scientists"? In other words, do they believe that the eath was formed in 4004 BC or there abouts? If not, why is there little or no reference to other geologic epochs in any of their cited research? Or is this just a cynical ruse so as to not alienate the religious right, whose votes are required to get the Kyoto Protocol implemented in the US?
Published: June 28, 2006 11:12 PM
We read and hear continually that "glaciers all around the world are melting", a claim advanced to "prove" that global warming is both reality and a looming crises. And since man is the official villain in this drama, enlightened political "leaders" must impose draconian restrictions on man's "addiction" to fossil fuels and other "wasteful" activities. Almost never does one encounter comment or fact that contradicts this claim, which is endlessly repeated by the political establishment at top volume. But as I will point out below, this claim is bogus; there is abundant evidence to the contrary that receives the silent treatment from the establishment.
Naive people assume that if the most prestigious institutions and famous spokespeople support the idea of anthropological global warming, it's got to be true. And so the trusting and naive wonder to themselves, who are we--any of us--to question proclamations issued by the National Academy of Sciences?
What this outlook misses, however, is that when a culture absorbs a lot of philosophical confusion and misconceptions about very abstract fundamental stuff--dealing with issues such as "what is the nature of the universe?" or "of man?" or "of man's attempts to acquire knowlege?" or "of the nature of knowlege and whether or not knowlege is really even possible?"--such confusion and misconceptions misdirect the teachings issued by damaged institutions. This intellectual damage becomes entrenched corruption when the State coercively subsidizes "correct science" and punishes "deviant science". The crusade for global warming is a prime example of the hazards of command science, just as was the "science" of eugenics underwritten by the German State prior to the Second World War, just as were Lysenko's bizarre biological claims that, under Joseph Stalin, reached a pinnacle of prestige and influence for decades in the USSR.
Now back to the claim that the world's glaciers are melting, and that mankind faces a crises of unprecedented proportions. Please go to the following link, which opens on several articles written by various sources, all of which document that the ice mass in the Artic,inclduing Greenland, and the Antartic, are growing thicker every year to the tune of hundreds of billions of tons: http://iceagenow.com/Antartic_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm
I could post other links to authorities who have proven the "Hockey Stick" history of "global" temperatures is a prestigious falsehood. But this is enough for one evening.
Published: June 28, 2006 11:19 PM
Not sure where you're going with your denial of evolution or our ability to theorize on it
I didn't think it was a denial of evolution; I think it was saying that the vulgar idea of evolution, of "man evolved from apes" is wrong. Which it is; humans and apes have a common ancestor, and we might call that ancestor an ape I suppose, but it's not the same as modern apes. Saying "apes evolved from man" is just as good as "man evolved from apes"
Published: June 28, 2006 11:53 PM
Robert:
You say that "Global warming is a socialist political movement not a scientific fact."
Don't let your own rhetoric fool you. Are theinvestors, major corporations and Republican representatives noted below all socialists? If not, what other reason can you come up with to dismiss outright what they have to say? (This is not a rhetorical question - I'm seriously interested so I can avoid wasting my time on them, too.)
Hank Paulson, whom Bush has designated as Treasury Secretary: "We don't have a lot more time to deal with climate change." http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/06/01/treasury/
Rupert Murdock: http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=822; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/10/nyregion/10hillary.html?ex=1304913600&en=ff6d1ba374427b83&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175036,00.html
Bill Gates: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13390519/site/newsweek/page/2/
Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR)- two-dozen institutional investors, managing more than $1 trillion of assets: http://www.incr.com/
American Enterprise Institute:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.8393,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
These corporate members of the PEW Center on Global Climate Change:
ABB
Air Products
Alcan
Alcoa Inc.
American Electric Power
Baxter International Inc.
Boeing
BP
California Portland Cement
CH2M HILL
Cummins Inc.
Deutsche Telekom
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
DuPont
Entergy
Exelon
GE
Georgia-Pacific
Hewlett-Packard Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
IBM
Intel
Interface Inc.
John Hancock Financial Services
Lockheed Martin
Novartis
Ontario Power Generation
PG&E Corporation
Rio Tinto
Rohm and Haas
Royal Dutch/Shell
SC Johnson
Sunoco
Toyota
TransAlta
United Technologies
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool Corporation
Wisconsin Energy Corporation
http://www.pewclimate.org/companies_leading_the_way_belc/company_profiles/index.cfm
The US companies reported here:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-05-31-business-globalwarming_x.htm
http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=7037026
http://blog.issproxy.com/2006/06/interesting_column_on_climate.html
The major US companies that publicly supported mandatory GHG restrictions at the US Senate Energy Committee’s (headed by Pete Domenici) April 4, 2006 Climate Conference: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conferences.Detail&Event_id=4&Month=4&Year=2006
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator. Lugar::
http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/s_res_312.cfm
The US House Appropriations Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234959&Month=5&Year=2006&Party=1
The US Senate:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234715&Month=6&Year=2005&Party=0
Exxon: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/CCR5/climate_science.asp
Are these all people who just pretend to love capitalism, but are really insidiously trying to detroy our way of life? Inquiring minds want to know!!!
Regards,
TT
Published: June 29, 2006 12:13 AM
TokyoTom, while I think the quotes and clues you are giving on the subject are very interesting, I believe you are getting perhaps carried away in the meaning you give to my and other posts. As Peter correctly insisted, I do not fight the idea of evolution, or as a matter of fact, the idea of decadence (from the golden age, as air was still unpolluted). Nor do I recommend to go all the way with polluting the earth...
As you look at politics however, you start to wonder why climate change becomes such a big thing lately. Many scientists make genuine research, sure. The question is why does government make so much publicity around it? Is it a coincidence that oil reserves dramatically shrink? As someone posted here, - “how come they all talk about CO2 and not about methane?�.
I believe this is all a set of arguments to promote a new “safe and clean� atomic era, in fact.
The environmental argument against atomic waste pollution is a bit different than that against global warming though.
As a libertarian I would recommend that polluting corporations should be held liable for disturbing the use that their neighbors make of the environment, if not they should stop their business, as Rothbard implies. Now to claim someone may change the weather still doesn’t make him necessarily liable to pay damage fees… The weather changes are - within certain limits - believed to be accepted by everyone.
However, the atomic trend seems to be at least as much of an actual threat to mankind (and private property) than CO2 is, especially with the increased risk of terrorism that exploiting corporations don’t bother to insure against. Global warming is an argument that needs to be scrutinized very critically when it comes to “government taking actions against it� thus. And if libertarians don't criticize it, who's going to do it?
Published: June 29, 2006 3:24 AM
Mark: Thank you for your wonderful help in showing that the problem is exactly opposite to what you have stated. Garbage in, garbage out, I say.
1. First, your link brings us nowhere, because you've misspelled Antarctic. However, interested readers can find it by going to the home page - http://iceagenow.com/ - and clicking on Growing Glaciers and from there on Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker, which brings us to a web page that is more than a year old.
2. Second, before providing more information on the specific topic of the Antarctic, a side discussion of this website is instructive. Let me simply quote from an article published in the Guardian last year (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html):
"Iceagenow.com was constructed by a man called Robert Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age." It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle" and that "underwater volcanic activity -- not human activity -- is heating the seas."
"Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect." His Web site is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures -- or something resembling the figures -- he quoted: "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55 percent of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich."
reliable source?
"The source [is] … given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology"
21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche.
LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential.
It wasn't hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: LaRouche is named on the front page of the magazine's Web site, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning: "We in LaRouche's Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings ... it is empiricism."
Oh well, at least there is a source for [Felix’s] figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the Internet. They were first published online by Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his Web site (www.sepp.org) and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the US National Center for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into the Washington Post.
They are constantly quoted as evidence that man-made climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "A paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one.
Surely?
I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat. …
It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals."
This former architect believes we are due for an imminent ice age - to be triggered by the underwater volcanoes he believes is responsible for rising atmospheric CO2 - he publishes only selective and old data that supports his argument. Nonetheless, this type of easily disproven crap is widely spread around the internet by climate change deniers.
http://timlambert.org/2005/06/pearson-claims-that-undersea-volcanoes-cause-global-warming/
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
3. Okay - back to glaciers and the Antarctic.
The World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) data mentioned at the iceagenow site is available at http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/dataexp.html. This is merely raw data that is mirrored at the U of Colorado's The National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is a data repository for NOAA and NASA as well. http://nsidc.org/about/
The NSIDC reports as follows: http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
"Because they are so sensitive to temperature fluctuations, glaciers provide clues about the effects of global warming (Oerlemans, J. 2001). The 1991 discovery of the 5,000 year-old "ice man" preserved in a glacier in the European Alps fascinated the world, yet the discovery meant that this glacier had reached a 5,000-year minimum. With few exceptions, glaciers around the world have retreated at unprecedented rates over the last century. Some ice caps, glaciers, and even an ice shelf have disappeared altogether. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within decades."
An excellent chart showing the rapid accelerating drops in glacier mass from 1961 to 2003 is at the same web page. annual and The Global Glacier Mass.
Other recent news from the NSIDC is here: http://nsidc.org/news/.
Those of you with further interest on Greenland might enjoy this recent long special report by the LA Times, "Greenland's Ice Sheet Is Slip-Sliding Away": http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-sci-greenland25jun25,1,1483560.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Finally, thorough discussions of the Antarctic can be found here at these pages of reaclimate.com, which is maintained by those true villains - yes! - climate scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=antarctic
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/antarctic-cooling-global-warming/
All of their pages are open for comment, to which the authors devote considerable to to responding.
My understanding is that "data from the "Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment" (GRACE) satellites to show that the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass at a rate of 150 +/- 80 km3 each year since 2002. That's equivalent to about 0.4 mm of sea level rise each year. This is about twice other recent estimates, while IPCC 2001 actually gives negative 0.1 mm/yr." http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/
"The "iconic" Antarctic temperature trends are the large warming seen on the Antarctic Peninsula, which has had various repercussions including the collapse of several ice shelves. ... [and] around East Antarctica there is a general warming of the troposphere, greatest at around mid-height (at 600 hPa) at 0.7 ºC/decade over the last 30+ years."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/significant-warming-of-the-antarctic-winter-troposphere/
4. You say: "We read and hear continually that "glaciers all around the world are melting", a claim advanced to "prove" that global warming is both reality and a looming crises. And since man is the official villain in this drama, enlightened political "leaders" must impose draconian restrictions on man's "addiction" to fossil fuels and other "wasteful" activities. Almost never does one encounter comment or fact that contradicts this claim, which is endlessly repeated by the political establishment at top volume."
Wow - you certainly have the victimization/persecution complex down. Now if you would just your head out from wherever you're hiding it, you might realize that the reason you feel the way you do - at least on the science - is because you're wrong, and because you don't want to change your mind the clear preponderance of the evidence is weighing you down. Well, okay; we all make mistakes, but we can change our minds and move on - in fact there has been a veritable avalanche of prominent skeptics conceding that they are now convinced that the climate is changing, it's man's fault and we'd better do something about it. I gave alot of links to them earlier this week at Reisman's prior post here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/005221.asp
You may disagree with what some are saying in the debate over what should be done - it take it that your rostrum, even if you're wrong on the facts, is nothing - but many economists do not think the needed restrictions are "draconian" but in fact are quite affordable (and much less than the all-in costs of the Iraq war so far). http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conferences.Detail&Event_id=4&Month=4&Year=2006. The principle is to eliminate the subsidy to GHG production that results from the lack of effective property rights in the atmosphere. This can be solved, just like we didn't tank the economy on solving other pollution problems, and have introduced effective proporty rights solutions in SO2 emissions and fisheries.
And, contrary to your whining, it is readily demonstrable that the "establishment", backed by the rent-seekers, has effectively squelched meaningful action on climate change for many years now, and there are many well-funded smear and smog machines (starting with the WSJ editorial page) that endlessly publicize so-called uncertainties about climate change science, along with fear of enviros. Let me know if you really need me to demonstrate this for you.
5. You say: "when a culture absorbs a lot of philosophical confusion and misconceptions about very abstract fundamental stuff--dealing with issues such as "what is the nature of the universe?" or "of man?" or "of man's attempts to acquire knowlege?" or "of the nature of knowlege and whether or not knowlege is really even possible?"--such confusion and misconceptions misdirect the teachings issued by damaged institutions. This intellectual damage becomes entrenched corruption when the State coercively subsidizes "correct science" and punishes "deviant science"."
I can agree with the notion that public investment in research skews the market and is potentially corrupting, but are you really saying you mean we had no Manhattan Project, no Moon project, no space probes or telescopes, no funding of basic physical research, no funding of biological, chemical or climate sciences - all because it leads inexorably to Lysenkoism and eugenics? I'll agree there are some dark sides to government research, but it seems to me that knowing more about how the planet works is kinda a good thing.
Your first sentence, however, is simply a welter of confusion. I don't blame you, though - the world is increasingly a difficult place to understand, what with acclerating internationalization, culture change, vulnerability to terrorism, government abuse and so on. I think we have a limited ability to handle very rapid change - which is why we all long for simpler days and simpler problems. We also all have a difficult time with paradign shifts in scientific understanding - from Gallileo to Newton to Einstein to Pasteur.
Believe me, I wish it were true, and that it was impossible for man to have an impact on climate or regional ecosystems. However, one must now deny too much reality to accept that illusion. We've had a profound impact on the planet and will continue to have one. It behooves us to understand how, and to make sure our institutions have the right feedback mechanisms to that undesired and uncontrolled changes do not get out of hand.
6. Finally, whom to trust? Excellent question. I don't recommend a trusting and naive assumption that any one source is unfailingly coreect or unbiased. One must balance the sources and volume of the evidence and make up one's own mind.
On this point, it strikes me as curious that you seem place an unfailing trust in (i) the Bush administration, which has lied us into disasters such as Iraq, stifles all internal dissent and even classifies the toilet paper (maybe an exaggeration), (ii) crackpot non-scientists and (iii) the very voluable pundits and scientists whom - surprise! - are funded by those very people who have the greatest to gain from the gravy train they are now on, conducted by an Administration and party which have found that unstinting partisanship and fear-mongering helps them secure control over the huge rents now available under our burgeoing federal government.
Sorry, but I tend to find our NAS and other scientific organizations much more credible, especially in view of the Administration's well-known attempts to squelch those scientists who have a message that the Administration does not consider politically advantageous.
Regards,
TT
Published: June 29, 2006 5:21 AM
Artisan, thanks for clarifying your position.
1. Why is why climate change becoming such a big thing politically in the US lately? Well, first, could it have something to do with the fact that the science is becoming so overwhelming recently that it's almost untenable to deny? Second, do you suppose the partisanship might have something to do with how the Republican party has brazenly sold out the country to special interests, all the while mocking the Democrats? By the way, it's been clear that the special interests have been funding most of the alarmist skepticism about the untrustworthiness of the scientists, the enviros, the Democrats, the EU, the Chinese and everyone else who hates our freedom and wants to destroy the foundations of the American economy (including gays, too, of course!).
2. Why does no one talk about methane? Well, of course the climate scientists do, as a cursory review would show you. Methane is actually a more potent GHG than CO2, and is exacerbating climate change as melting permafrosts are leading to huge methane releases and warming seas could do so as well. I suspect you may be aware that the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol and the European trading systems certainly do take methane into account. In the US, methane is only a minor part of the discussion because methane has a positive value in itself, so it is really not an industrial waste gas.
And of course there is plenty of opposition to taking action to deal with the property rights failure that global warming constitutes - mostly cynically funded by those who benefit from exploiting global resources for free, while exporting costs to everyone else. See this article, for example: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html, as well as other articles by Chris Mooney detailing the misuse of science: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/articles.php.
What's a good libertarian to do? May I suggest: (i) think clearly about the science, (ii) recognize the property rights failure that lies at the core of it, (iii) pay attention to whom is benefitting from doing nothing, and (iv) push for solutions that address the problem in a manner most consistent with libertarian principles - such as the successful transferrable property rights programs that are being implemented to solve overfishing problems and the SO2 permitting program under the Clean Air Act.
Regards,
TT
PS: What country are you native to?
Published: June 29, 2006 5:54 AM
Roger, I'm late in addressing your indirect comments since CMB capably responded to part of them. Let me respond to some point that he omitted.
As to methane, see my above response to Artisan. Of course the biggest risks are the permafrosts and clathrates, but I imagine you already know. I suspect you already know that the Amazon continues to be rapidly removed - pursuant to subsidies to do so - and deforestation there and elsewhere have long been significant CO2 contributors. You might also be aware that with the disruption of the hydrological cycle, the Amazon is rapidly warming and drying, and is now in an extended drought. You may also have heard the latest from the Panamanian tropical research center that higher temperatures are actually disrupting photosynthesis and SLOWING the uptake of CO2.
I have provided here and on other posts countless cites to climate change information that is responsive to all of the questions you pose. Let your fingers do the walking - I am happy to make specific suggestions, but you really have to make up your own mind. My understanding is that the many different scientists at many different institutions in many countries have examined and take into account, in warning about the forcing by human-generated GHGs, all of the current knowledge about Malkinovich and sunspot cycles.
But it seems to me that, by referring to the scientists themselves as leftists, you have already allowed your politics to distort your view of the science. Can I take it you also don't believe in evolution, think the moon landing, Mars rovers and Hubble telescope to be faked, and that the Administration really cares about balancing the budget and that the never-ending war on terror is actually the best way to secure a good future?
I think you might benefit from reading a little bit more about what the skeptics of the skeptics have to say: http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/articles.php
While I think the science is convincing and provided ample links above and elsewhere - at the invitation of Dr. Reisman's presentation of what he considers to be persuasive in the face of much stronger countervailing evidence, my main point in posting on climate change here at Mises has been simply to note that the economics of the problem are quite easy to understand from a Misean perspective as a failure (and abuse) of property rights. Failing to remedy the problem, like other market failures, leads to damage to many for the benefit of a few - and in this case those few have been very generous in funding the pundits who have loudly trumpeted our ignorance and purveyed a fear of enviros. There are obvious Misean-type solutions to tragedy of the commons problems.
You and others might very well decide that leftists, greens and even most on the right don't understand the nature of the problem, and that the solutions they propose - such as more leaving GHGs unregulated while offering subsidies to other energy sources and huge public works projects - are wrong-headed; on which point I would agree, and say you should loudly proclaim it, as these policies simply waste taxpayer money. However, I do think that this is a serious issue, and we should not let the propoerty rights failure go unremedied.
I have addressed this issue in many posts previously, but am happy to take it up again if you are willing to discuss.
Regards,
TT
PS: I think this addresses Vince's questions as well. Yancey, why are you holding out?
Published: June 29, 2006 6:41 AM
Tom,
I apologize for my comment. I forgot about your initial posting, which does indicate that your second posting was tongue-in-cheek. Again, my apologies.
And thank you TokyoTom for refreshing my memory regarding Tom's initial comment.
Published: June 29, 2006 6:48 AM
Yes, I was joking. No need to apologize. I should have put a smile :) after my comments.
Published: June 29, 2006 8:14 AM
TT:"But it seems to me that, by referring to the scientists themselves as leftists, you have already allowed your politics to distort your view of the science."
That university professors are overwhelmingly leftist has been demonstrated by numerous polls. Most scientists are university professors who get their research money from the government. So it's safe to assume most scientists are lefties. Also, it has been demonstrated that keeping the federal money flowing toward your pet research project requires scaring the wits out of the public. Hence the conflict of interest on the part of scientists in the GHC debate. To scientists who are not university faculty, I apologize.
"Can I take it you also don't believe in evolution, think the moon landing, Mars rovers and Hubble telescope to be faked..." Your biases are showing, Tom. You seem to think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
Published: June 29, 2006 8:51 AM
Tom, thank you for alerting readers to my error in linking to http://iceagenow.com/, where they can read documented science that indicates the ice cap of Greenland and Antarctica are growing in volume, rather than melting. Another fascinating link on Felix's web site is to an article by world renowned atmospheric scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski, whose career spans fifty years taking ice cores from glaciers. Scroll to near the bottom of Felix's web page to "Approaching Ice Age" or similar, which features Jaworowski's article in unabridged form as published by non other than the nefarious Lyndon LaRouche. (Jaworowski's article was previously published in a Polish scientific journal).
I leave it to readers to decide for themselves if a thinker, such as Jaworowski, who has incurred tangible disapproval from the so-called intellectual establishment for his incorrect ideas about climateology, is capable of good insightful science. As to Tom's comments about the supposedly laughable and pathetic efforts of Robert Felix, who lacks what Tom obviously esteems above all else, namely tinsel prestige and academic "credentials", what can one say? Either one primarily looks for facts and evidence, or one primarily seeks guidance from "prestigious" authority. I like facts and logic, and I know Felix does because I've read his book (one of Amazon's best sellers).
I also like Robert Felix, because he is willing to sign his name to his iddeas and writing.
Published: June 29, 2006 3:34 PM
Roger, thanks for your note. If I thought you and others here - including Dr. Reisman - who disagree with me on the science, economics or political economy were stupid, I wouldn't waste my time or your trying to persuade you otherwise.
Rather, as I noted on Reisman's prior post, http://blog.mises.org/archives/005221.asp, I think that people have a hard time changing their minds, especially on matters that are not staring them in the face, and even very highly intellegent people and, yes, scientists. Me, too. We did not evolve to truly understand the world, but to understand enough to help us to survive and have off-spring. The result is that we build basic maps of reality in our heads and reform them when we have to. Cognitive science shows that we subconsciously filter out much dissonant information, and we all know that it is easier to defend our current reality and to dismiss information that would force us to do to much work in changing our minds. That's why Darwin, Pasteur and Einstein had such a difficult time. Don't they say that acceptance of breakthroughs in science occurs one death at a time, as the "old guard" dies?
On this, you mistake my question, which is not derogatory but meant to ask you to examine what your thinking leads you to. If you reject the scientific papers of university climatologists on the basis that they are "leftists", "greens" or whatnot, should you not also dismiss on the same grounds all other science that comes from universities? And like Mark, will you also dismiss all climate science (and other science)coming from government-employed scientists? What scientists's views will you then accept, on anything? My point here is that I presume you are not really a skeptic of university or government science generally, so I hope you will examine why you are so resistant to listening on climate science.
In my view, you are struggling against accepting the bulk of the science because you have a pre-existing view that you naturally and understandably find easier to defend than to change, so you find ways to dismiss outright the dissonant information. I don't mean to be offensive in suggesting this, but it does seem that your off-the-cuff dismissal and labelling are hallmarks that this very human phonomenon is at work. I have a very intelligent sister who is very resistant to accepting any part of evolution, so I have spent years trying to figure her out. The cognitive science of how our brains function has been helpful to me in getting my head around this, as well as my own resistance to acknowledging error or changing my mind.
On the climate science again, please note that even though you might prefer not to listen to university scientists or government scientists, there are plenty of others out there - in business and on the right - who are convinced on the science. Some have maintained consistent positions, but many have changed their minds and their public positions as the evidence has become more convincing. Even Exxon (see link above) has now publicly acknowledged that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. As I noted with links on Reisman's prior post, these include prominent libertarians and skeptics - don't read me, go see what they have to say. Go read what the fundamentalists who have, in a painful public schism with their brethren, made a 180 degree turn have to say:
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/pub/scientific_business_perspectives_fact.pdf
http://www.christiansandclimate.org/pub/macfarland_briefing_hires.pdf (March 2005 presentation by Mack MacFarland, DuPont Inc. Senior Scientist to evangelical leaders and Senate staffers).
http://www.creationcare.org/resources/climate/
Here are some more handy quotes for you that come from above (pun intended):
Lord John Browne, CEO of BP: “We’ve found that an emissions trading system, which ensures that resources are applied in the right places, is the best way to keep costs down, and we’ve emonstrated that, far from being a cost burden, reducing emissions by eliminating waste can add value … In fact within the first three years we
added $650 million of value, for an investment of around $20 million … Our aspiration is to turn a threat and a risk into an opportunity.�
Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO of DuPont: “DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate. We also believe that the best approach is for business to lead, not wait for public outcry or government mandates. From our experience of the past ten years, we know that integrating environmental considerations into our business strategies enhances our ability to achieve sustainable growth.�
Michael Morris, CEO of the U.S.’s #1 coal-burning utility and largest electricity generator, American Electric Power: “The science debate goes on, but we know enough to move now.�
Business Week Editorial: “we do know that the world is warming – the ‘90s were the warmest decade in centuries. We know that businesses can save money and increase efficiency by cutting energy costs. And we know that a national policy that cuts fossil fuel consumption converges with a geopolitical policy of reducing energy dependence on Middle East oil. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions is no longer just a ‘green’ thing. It makes business and foreign policy sense, as well.�
James E. Rogers, CEO of Cinergy, a utility with $4.6 billion in annual revenue that produces 95% of its electricity from burning coal: “…I am convinced that it is prudent to take action now to address what we do know (about climate change).�
Paul Anderson, CEO of Duke Energy, an electric utility: “Personally I feel the time has come to act.� “We will be proactive on the issue of global climate change … Ideally, U.S. public policy should encourage a transition to a lower-carbon-intensive economy through a broad-based approach, such as a carbon tax or other mechanism
which addresses all sectors of the economy.�
Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO of General Electric (the country’s largest company), in announcing the GE’s “Ecomagination� efforts : “I think [global warming] is something we need to start figuring out and taking proactive steps to make improvements on.�
Anyway, I'm sorry if I come across as slighting you. I'm definitely poking you, but I don't think I've been unfair.
Regards,
Tom
Published: June 29, 2006 9:44 PM
I'm fascinated that TT appears to believe energy executives unquestioningly when they support his preconceptions, but considers scientific papers which oppose them worthless when there may be some connection between their funding stream and those same energy companies.
Note to TT: scientists, whatever they believe, are human. The phenomenon of scientists generating results that tend to increase their importance and funding stream is hardly restricted to those supported by the energy industry.
In fact, scientists in most fields today spend at least 1/3 of their time fund-raising, and they are seldom shy about using any tactic that will get them a buck - science is a very competitive business, and if you don't stretch your grant applications your peers will. I find this famous quote from GW bigwig (and MacArthur winner) Stephen Schneider quite informative:
Hope is, of course, the operative word.
Anyone interested in checking TT's flood of GW science should spend a little time at climateaudit.org.
The Climate Audit researchers, McKitrick and McIntyre, wrote the original paper which resulted in the NAS panel, which essentially found the "hockey stick" research statistically worthless - while papering it over with the text that TT quotes above, which declares that even though Mann's papers prove nothing, other research shows the same "facts," so it doesn't matter! Of course, if the hockey stick is any evidence of the quality of work in the GW field...
Note that McKitrick and McIntyre are some of the only independent people looking at the field - McKitrick is a professor in a completely different area, McIntyre is a mining consultant.
I find a comparison between the discussion styles at ClimateAudit and at the "official" GW site, RealClimate, extremely telling. I am not a statistician, but I suspect anyone used to analyzing technical Internet discussions will understand my perspective.
A good example is this discussion:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=725
Published: June 30, 2006 2:47 AM
Mark:
Thanks for your note, but I notice that you have failed to respond to a single aspect of my long post to you. Why?
Why do you feel so certain that non-scientists like Felix and a few iconoclasts like Jaworowski have all the answers?
1. I am happy to keep correcting your links, because I think that the balance in weighing the volume and credibility of the evidence is clearly favor of the view that anthropogenic global warming is discernable, progressing and will continue to grow worse. I don't at all mind you holding up non-scientists and a few iconoclasts for comparison; in fact, I encourage you to trot out more of them, as they help discredit the very position that you are clinging to.
There are plenty of places to find the iconoclasts - "iceagenow.com", the Lyndon Larouche website where you also like to drag up things, the WSJ editorial page, and countless other special-purpose Exxon and coal-funded sites and other sites that do contract work for these industries. They are not ignored by the real climate scientists, and you can find plenty of credible rebuttal.
But I would just think you might want to pay a little more attention to the fact that the most honest of the pundits have been jumping the skeptic ship en masse recently, leaving only those who are still taking paychecks from industry and those for whom internal mental hurdles have as of yet been too difficult to surmount. Are you going to be one of the last passengers on this sinking ship?
2. As for Jawoworski, let me remind everyone again that the Larouche site, by it own advertising, also flatly rejects the theory of relativity, quantum theory, and other achievements of modern science. Why isn't Jawoworski publishing in peer-reviewed journals? Maybe the answer is that he is a nuclear researcher and runs a radiology lab focussing on exposure to radiation and Chernobyl fallout - although in that capacity aparently has been on alot of glaciers, his interest in climatology is purely a personal hobby.
Obviously, the fact that his interest in climate is not professional doesn't disqualify him from commenting, but it is readily apparent that his very limited "scientific" work (as opposed to his work for lay readers), in which he questions the reliability of CO2 records extracted from ice cores, simply isn't tested against peer scientists and what has been reviewed subsequently has been shown to be full of errors - as the links below clearly demonstrate.
http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=19
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=16
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=18#comments
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=25
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/jabberowski.html
My favorite post is rather lengthy, but here is a taste: http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
"How can they possibly pack so much misinformation into such a small space? To honor exceptional achievement in mendacity, I would like to present the Golden Horseshoe Award to that writer who has out-performed his or her peers in density of false statements per column-inch.
"To receive the first Golden Horseshoe Award, I can think of no more worthy recipient than Zbigniew Jaworowski.
"This post is an examination of the Jaworowski statement, and the Golden Horseshoe Award is a celebration of just how mind-bogglingly wrong, from beginning to end, it manages to be.
"Jaworowski makes several specific assertions that the methodology used in atmospheric measurements from ice cores is flawed. Each and every one of these assertions is mistaken.
"He makes sweeping accusations of data manipulation by climate researchers. Those accusations are unsupported by any evidence, direct or indirect.
"These extravagant claims of bias and dishonesty in the scientific community reveal a deep misconception of the state of climate research, and of the scientific process generally.
"Jaworowski’s statement is not likely to help the public understand the state of our planet’s climate and the process by which scientists go about investigating it.
"In fact, there is so much wrong with this statement that it’s hard to know where to start."
That's someone else's view, but I find it convincing after doing a bit of reading up. Despite his climate change work being garbage that is published in very obscure places, Felix still manages to attract attention by the likes of Steve Milloy at FOX News. Milloy is financed by Exxon, publishes JunkScience.com and is an adjunct scholar at CEI (having been removed from Cato due to his involvement in the Abramhoff scandals): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188176,00.html
Milloy's piece is addressed here: http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=48
FOX, of course, doesn't mind that it is being used to publish paid opinion pieces for industry shills: http://laweekly.blogs.com/judith_lewis/2006/01/why_wont_fox_du.html
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060206&s=thacker020606
That Jawoworski also somehow merits inclusion with the other sixty "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines" to be included in a published letter to Canadian prime minister Harper -
http://www.restoringamerica.org/SpecialFeatures/sixty_scientists_call_on_harper_.htm - provides some indication of how little credibility these scientists have on climate change. I would note that the American Meteorological Society (AMO) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU) alone, which represent over 50,000 scientists worldwide and whose members include most scientists involved in climate change research, have officially adopted position statements recognizing that human-induced climate change is occurring and should be addressed.
3. You say that the efforts of Robert Felix are "supposedly laughable and pathetic" - I agree, but those are clearly your words, not mine. I am happy to see your acknowledgement that Felix lack prestige and academic "credentials" in climate change, but you don't go far enough - he's an architect, for Pete's sake, and doesn't himself claim to have any professional STUDY or EXPERIENCE in any part of the field of climatology. That you find him to be full of facts and logic says volumes about you and others who seek their authority in climate change in the likes of him. The book reviews at Amazon make facinating reading! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0964874687/ref=cm_rev_next/104-9510802-3345557?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=11.
Not sure what makes you think I "obviously esteem above all else ... tinsel prestige and academic "credentials". I weigh what I read from different sources, and make my judgments based on track records, my evaluation of the consistency and reliability of what they to say, and what I understand to be their self-interests. Personally, I do find scientists to be more credible in the fields of their expertise than non-scientists, but that's just me, being a fool, I suppose.
4. Yeah, I noticed that Robert Felix signs his own name, and I use a nom de plume. Guess that makes me totally unreliable? Well, try this as a thought experiment - I'm aware that I'm not posting here under my name, but I still have a reputation to establish and protect - a brand, so to speak. I'm posting here, and even spending time responding to you, because I'd like to persuade people. For that reason, I try to be as logical as I can be, using arguments amd insights that I think are helpful to understanding and can be supported if challenged. For that task, does my real name matter - or yours?
It's sufficient that people know my brand name. The reputation I earn I'm willing to live with.
Regards,
Tom
Published: June 30, 2006 3:12 AM
TT,
You can go on and on with unending lists of all kinds of people with multi-various credentializations from the most august institutions and that's all well and good.
What's puzzles me is that I've yet to hear [any] of the anti-GHG/ pro-GW mouthpieces say that the technology to remediate many kinds of noxious emmissions have been with us for many years.
As we coverse about this, the technology to put the vast majority of "Smokestacks" out of business sits, on the shelf, ready to go.
Not only can "Smokestacks" be put out of business, but the Industrial Gas cartel, another huge source of pollution, in its own right, & a major slurper of energy inputs, can be made redundant in the same exercise.
That none of your vaunted "experts" give rise to the idea that their beloved Gov't is responsible for deforming the Marketplace into a schema predicated upon Waste, should, rightly, open your eyes.
You should really understand the full extent of the massive economic reordering the U.S. underwent during the administration of FDR.
Your "arguments" sail, too easily, past some very serious impediments to rectifying the "problem(s)" you perceive. So much so, that it sounds as simple as: "Everyone's doin' it!~".
You really aren't paying attention, I would have thought, as well, that you would have called "fraud" in the face of: "The great Wal-Mart Success Story" on the grounds of the tremendous environmental degradation occuring in China, alone.
But, maybe, because they(China) were never a target of Kyoto, they don't count?
TT, you're a good dude. Do better. Do different.
Published: June 30, 2006 4:02 AM
Curtis, many thanks for your comments.
1. You say "TT appears to believe energy executives unquestioningly when they support his preconceptions, but considers scientific papers which oppose them worthless when there may be some connection between their funding stream and those same energy companies."
I'm curious as what has made you think I "believe energy executives unquestioningly" in any circumstances. To what preconceptions of mine are you referring?
The second part is clearly an over-generalization, but would you agree with the point that (1) one should take with a grain of salt any statements by pundits with respect to a matter in which a particular industry has a financial interest, when it turns out that the industry is actually funding the pundit, and (2) that it is quite interesting to note that when this funding is broad and masked insofar as possible? Would you also agree that this is very much the case with respect to global warming?
I would direct readers who are interested in the way corporate money has corrupted the debate to take a brief look at the research reported here:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/world_burns.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/mckibben_introduction.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/snowed.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/05/gelbspan.html
As to preconception, we all undeniably have them and are influenced by them. I try to be as consciouly aware of my own as much as possible. I certainly have my own views on climate change and other issues, but they are not etched in stone and continue to evolve - even after I showed up here three months ago - due to the influence of others' perspectives and additional data.
Finally, you refer to my deeming "scientific papers" funded by interested industries to be worthless. There are very few of these - mostly there are public articles or speeches that are financed. As for scientific papers that are peer-reviewed or used by industry for its own purposes (other than PR), I have no doubt that industry can and does generate excellent science. Exxon, for example, has conducted and supported climate science research for 25 years, produced more than 40 papers in peer-reviewed literature, and has scientists serving on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous related scientific bodies. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/CCR5/climate_science.asp
But even though Exxon now publicly acknowledges that "the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere poses risks that may prove significant for society and ecosystems, ... [and] that these risks justify actions now, [e]ven with many scientific uncertainties," it still remains in Exxon's financial interest to delay any effective approach to climate change.
2. Scientists are human and have to find financing for their work? An important point, but hardly news, and hardly relevant to this discussion - except as it may pertain to certain iconoclasts who lose the competition for funding for real work and find it easier to sell out to the fossil fuels spin machine.
There is no monolithic science, but thousands of scientists, all competing for funding and fame - and the Bush administration and the fossil fuels industry have deep pockets and an agenda for delay. Do you really mean to imply that all of the university, government and corporate scientists have no interest in tapping those funds to deny that would show that climate change is NOT a problem? Of course they are - it's just that there is apparently no strong anti-global warming case to be made. Just a dwindling number of iconclasts and non-experts.
Schneider's quote of course goes to an entirely different point - how to explain menaingful scientific results to non-scientists, especially in the face of dedicated opposition from people with a vested interest in the status quo. Perhaps you've noticed (i) we're still trying to convince the bulk of America in evolution (resistance from the religious community and from politicians eager to curry favor) and (ii) a huge portion of Americans seem to believe we invaded Iraq because Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that the WMD's also really justified the invasion (partisan political advantage and financial interests of special interests)?
3. Climateaudit is not a bad site, but they are focused on recent controversy with respect to a very small piece of the evidence for climate change relating to the pre-industrial past, before we started dumping vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Further clarity will come from that debate, and that's a good thing and shows how science is done. But it doesn't change our present impact on the climate, the rapidly rising levels of CO and methane, and the rapid changes in climate that are already in evidence. It does not change the debate, which has really shifted to the question of how much will the climate change based our our emissions so far, and how can we start to get our impact on the climate under control.
Can you tell me if you think I've lost sight of any particular trees while keeping in mind that the forest is burning, Craig?
Regards,
TT
Published: June 30, 2006 5:57 AM
MEH:
You make excellent points that I haven't particularly been trying to argue except tangentially, because Reisman's threads here have been about what he sees as the lack of evidence for climate change.
I HAVE noted that the source of the problem is both a property rights failure and political delay caused by rent-seeking and partisan opportunism. I also have noted that the government is massively involved in screwing up both environmental regulation generally and with subsidies to the energy companies - see my post to Robert Bradley.
As to Walmart and China, yes - China is massively degrading its environment, yes I'm worried (and am directly downstream), but no, I think we need to drag China and others into an international agreement to have an effective solution, and there are plenty of levers to do it with. We only have one global atmosphere. But, believe it or not, I've got a job and simply didn't see there was a fun thread out there clamoring for my attention. Next time you think I'm need, can you drop me an email?
Regards,
Tom
Published: June 30, 2006 6:09 AM
TT,
The Wal-Mart puff piece is here: http://www.mises.org/story/2219
on the same page of this weblog.
Seems that the good Author of said piece, wide-on for CorpoStatism, notwithstanding, has gone missing since being hoisted by own petard(s).
For me, flap about AGW is akin to believing in "Peak Oil", or, better; "Oil is a "Fossil Fuel"". Pollution, at least, is able to be measured, in the here and now, and many of its ill-effects are readily knowable.
I hear you about the fallacy(-ies) of "externalities", the conceit is truly a ruse.
Reagan had it easy, he could point to a physical wall. We're not so fortunate, the walls we must tear down are made of the stern stuff of superstition, psuedoscience, and sanctimony.
Failing that...
Published: June 30, 2006 7:08 AM
TT sez;
"You say that "Global warming is a socialist political movement not a scientific fact."
Don't let your own rhetoric fool you. Are theinvestors, major corporations and Republican representatives noted below all socialists? "
In a word, yes. I don't accept appeals to authority, especially not political or large-scale corporate authority, who are mostly just positioning themselves to benefit from whatever statist solutions are imposed. If not, they would be acting independently and not waiting for a state-imposed solution.
But yes, most of them are at least demonstrably statist and incipiently socialist, so, no, their endorsements cut no ice with me. Let's stick to the scientific evidence pro and con. There's certainly a lot of it.
Published: June 30, 2006 8:31 AM
TokyoTom,
Your quotes from certain prominent utility executives do accurately reflect the positions of a growing number of those in the electric utility industry. However, other considerations motivate them. Specifically, complying with carbon gas emission caps would likely require the utilities to make additional capital investment in their generating plants, and under the existing regulatory framework these companies will very likely be permitted to earn a return of and on their investments. And, I might add, a quite reasonable risk-adjusted return. So agreeing with the proponents of man-caused global warming represents an excellent, relatively low-risk strategy for these utilities to grow earnings.
In addition, you probably can find quotes from proponents of nuclear power also agreeing with the advocates of man-caused global warming, and I believe the reasoning here is obvious. This is not a criticism of nuclear power on my part, just an identification of motivation.
In all of this, maybe Rothbard's dictum regarding economic/historical research bears mentioning: just follow the money.
Published: June 30, 2006 8:11 PM
"Whether your arguments about a particular issue are valid or not does NOT logically depend on whether you are supported by issue advocates or partisans or not. Your arguments are either valid or invalid, period."
"A person who indulges in ad hominem attacks instead of addressing another's ideas, has in effect conceded intellectual defeat."-- Bevin Chu, antiwar.com, Oct. 22, 1999
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
-- Socrates
"It's far easier to support people who agree with you than to bribe people to do your bidding." -- Brian Doherty, ReasonOnline, May 6, 2003.
-- from this page on "The "Who funded it?" Fallacy
Published: July 1, 2006 7:37 PM
TT,
Thanks for your reasoned comments.
I understand your faith in the institutional structure of science, but - based on my own personal experiences in the scientific world, and what I've read of others' - I find it misplaced.
As liberal intellectuals, our belief in scientific consensus is a historical product of the reputation that "science" has built up over the last 300 years. For most of this time it was fighting with a competing species of institutional truth, which was called "religion." Religion focused on supernatural explanations for physical phenomena, whereas science looked for simple mathematical laws.
In this struggle science had two key advantages.
One was the wisdom-of-crowds effect: scientists were not organized. They did not have to respond to central administrative bodies which judged their rightness or wrongness. There was some patronage, but it was rarely institutionalized, and scientists with heterodox views who did not have private wealth could usually support themselves by teaching. Erroneous groupthink did occur, often associated with early forms of centralized science such as royal societies, academies, etc, but the lack of specialized monocultures insured a high level of herd immunity.
Two was Popperian falsifiability. (I am well aware that Popper's views on economics were primitive and that Mises used the word "science" in a thoroughly un-Popperian way. But I think that in today's world, where "science" has the level of positive association that any religion could envy, Popper's minimalistic definition is preferable. Words are just words.) Falsifiability is so effective that even in a thoroughly broken institutional environment like the Soviet Union, a lot of excellent science got done. Combined with real research independence, it almost earns the spiritual trust we associate with "science."
The problem with the vast reams of GW research you cite is that its level of both falsifiability and independence is very low. Therefore, I see very little reason to be influenced by it.
As you point out, the historical dendrochronology work that the ClimateAudit guys have debunked - the NAS panel, many of whom are part of the GW establishment - is not a terribly important part of the argument for GW. It has been more important to the media campaign. The real meat of the GW argument is the result of various computer models of global climate which incorporate CO2 forcing.
These models are a classic case of unfalsifiable research. It's not that their results are uninteresting, but they are essentially weather predictions on a global and secular scale, modeling "cells" which are measured in square kilometers by a few simple variables. Obviously if a model predicts that Earth should have turned into Venus in 1988 it is falsified, but the effects in question are nowhere near on this scale. In fact, since (as you never see in the papers) the greenhouse effect of CO2 is proportional to the log of the concentration, a simple incorporation of doubled CO2 into the models leads to very little temperature increase, on the order of one degree I think. To get the results the modelers claim, you need all kinds of intricate feedback effects - which, of course, occur. But you are inevitably including some effects and not others, because you don't have a computer the size of Jupiter. The whole system is so subtle and sensitive that if alarming results generate press, attention, and (inevitably in a system of state-funded science) money, and non-alarming ones don't, it requires no conscious dishonesty whatsoever for an evolutionary effect to occur that produces only alarming models. I think of the ClimateAudit work as a canary in a coal mine that reveals this tendency in a field where it is easy to catch and describe formally.
As for funding, as I mentioned in another thread, I think you need to put yourself in the position of the scientists involved. Central funding of science, by bodies like NSF in the US, generates very powerful orthodoxies, inevitably handing a lot of power over one's career to a very small and intellectually monolithic peer group. If your work is in a falsifiable field, and you happen to be right when the orthodoxy is wrong, it makes sense to challenge them in any way you can, because if you can demonstrate it you can pull off a palace coup and gain this power for yourself and your acolytes. But since GW doesn't really have any falsifiable problems, bucking the groupthink makes very little sense. I don't know that anyone has compiled any numbers, but the funding available for anti-AGW research from interested companies is surely miniscule compared to that of NSF and all the eco-NGOs. It may disappear at any time as companies like Exxon take the route of BP and decide, as large companies tend to do, to go with the political flow. And it has the added little side benefit of making all your peers think of you as a shill and a traitor, and getting you on McCarthyist hit lists like exxonsecrets.org. It's no wonder that most of the professors on the anti-AGW side are people like Richard Lindzen who are protected by academic tenure. In fact, it's probably a lot easier to develop a new career as an Austrian economist than as an anti-AGW researcher, and that's saying a lot.
None of this, I must repeat, tells us in any way that the AGW theory is wrong. It does not mean that, pace Exxon, "carbon dioxide is life." It just means that "scientific consensus" is not a particularly good argument for creating new institutions of global government to attack the problem.
Science, in the Popperian sense at least, does not answer most questions of public policy. The question with AGW and measures to counter it is simply the usual one of making decisions about risk in the context of uncertainty.
Seeing as (since we are on mises.org) in the 20th century, big government killed a lot more people than bad weather, I find the perspective that minimizing government in the 21st century is more important than minimizing CO2 generally compelling. Of course, this is a matter of opinion and you're