The Dangers of Disputing Warming Orthodoxy
Unfortunately, we cannot remain neutral while the experts battle. The global-warming advocates support drastic measures that would seriously affect production. Some of them go further and call for curbs on human population. In this connection, it is more than a little disturbing that John Holdren, chosen by Barack Obama as his science advisor since the publication of Horner's book, is a close associate of Paul Ehrlich. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (72)
Silas Barta (formerly Person)
??? Why do "libertarians" keep bringing this up? What does it matter if the measures they support would "seriously affect production"? Isn't the important question whether AGW claims are, you know, actually true or not, and whether that implies a rights violation?
I mean, would you ever imagine a libertarian saying, "Yes, some loons want people to arm themselves, but this would cause *massive* damage to mugger salaries" ? No, because that would be stupid. Muggers don't have a right to a "salary" predicated on violating others' rights like that.
So, what's the idea? If a large number of people, in the aggregate, cause someone's land to be permanently flooded, is that a rights violation warranting compensation? If you don't think so, please, have the courage to stand up and be counted instead of just recommending the "market solution" of shifting the costs onto the victims.
FWIW, I am skeptical of the scientific claims. What I am not skeptical of, is whether their truth would imply a rights violation. I an not skeptical of the wrongness of claiming that some amount of "economic growth" can justify flooding someone's long-time land with impunity. And yes, some libertarans here have said exactly that. I'm not going to post links yet because I want you guys to feign outrage first.
Published: January 8, 2009 9:32 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Silas,
Libertarians keep "bringing it up" in response to the argument "so what if the science isn't certain, let's just err on the side of safety--what can it harm?" Well, it can harm a lot, and I don't think it's at all wrong to point that out. I have a problem with inflicting harm to prevent a harm that I can't even be sure will ever happen.
If I could be even somewhat sure that someone's land would be permanently flooded that would induce me to consider the proposed solution. But I'm not gonna shoot my neighbor just because I'm afraid he might commit a crime.
Published: January 8, 2009 9:48 AM
Bob Kaercher
Silas: In investigating claims of a rights violation, the burden of proof is on the accuser to actually *prove* that the flooding was caused by the deliberate acts of another party. If I were to hook up a massive hose and set about deliberately flooding your land, then yes, I should be held accountable.
But if your "proof" is that the industrial output of my factory is somehow responsible for the massive rains that flooded your land, it's a very dubious claim, seeing as how it's based on the unconfirmed and debatable theories of a group of scientists, with which many other scientists actually disagree.
Published: January 8, 2009 9:55 AM
Bob Kaercher
I'd like to add that even if one were to accept anthropogenic global warming theory, how does one even go about proving which specific industrial outputs caused an incident of flooding?
Published: January 8, 2009 10:06 AM
Silas Barta
Bob_Kaercher: Correction: The claim is that land will be flooded *for centuries* due to higher sea levels, not that it will be flooded *temporarily* due to higher local rainfall.
As my next attempt to do your research for you, the claim is that a certain aggregate level of emissions causes the damage, not any one specific factory. If you think this gets *all* factories off the hook, or your legal theory can't handle this form of causality, then it's your theory that needs fixing, not the brown people.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:34 AM
Phil
The problem that I see is that this is not even science. This is so-called 'science-by-consensus.' That is, the scientists have a theory that is agreed upon, but not proven. In fact, it can will be proven given the narrow definition of scientific evidence (something that is reproducible and predictable in nature). Therefore, in order to get the theory to be labeled as a scientific fact, scientists who support it use a consensus approach, stating that since most scientists agree, then it must be true.
This is no more science then those scientists who thought that perpetual motion or spontaneous generation were facts. Further investigation and evidence, of course, proved the scientists wrong, but only through the application through the scientific method. That is, scientific evidence was given. Many people dont understand the limitations of scientific evidence, and therefore assume that what science says in consensus must be fact. This could not be further from the truth.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:34 AM
Poptech
If anyone has any doubts that Man-Made Global Warming is an unproven theory pushed by hysterics, you can read all the evidence here:
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
I am a computer scientist who intially researched the topic when the hysteria got going after Al Gore's propaganda movie and ALL "evidence" led back to worthless computer models. I could not believe that was all the evidence. But it was true and then I realized that most people blindly accept computer generated results because they do not understand how computers work. The whole thing is absolute exaggerated nonsense pushed by far-left radical environmentalists, politicians and scientists (the same few). Their goal is state control over energy use and thus control of the economy.
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/fact-only-computer-illiterates-believe.html
Published: January 8, 2009 10:37 AM
Poptech
Global Sea-rise Levels By 2100 May Be Lower Than Some Predict
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145113.htm
"Despite projections by some scientists of global seas rising by 20 feet or more by the end of this century as a result of warming, a new University of Colorado at Boulder study concludes that global sea rise of much more than 6 feet is a near physical impossibility."
Published: January 8, 2009 10:41 AM
Poptech
This is an excellent guide:
The Skeptics Handbook (Joanne Nova, Ph.D. Meteorology)
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skepticshandbook1-4.pdf
Published: January 8, 2009 10:43 AM
gene
I am appalled at how many Libertatians fall into this trap of false logic. Using Austrian principles, whether global warming is occurring and whether it has to do with humans is of little concern. What is paramount is the lack of truthful accounting when it comes to the environment and the economy. We have never justly valued and fairly purchased either land or any of the resources that eminate from it. We have never truthfully accounted for pollution at its source and compensated those individuals or society at large for its effects. It is always way down the line in some courtroom. We continue to subsidize large scale destruction of the natural systems to profit corporate interests. This is socialism and Libertarians should stand up firmly against it, global warming or not. The "forgotten man" is everywhere when focusing on pollution, it is the Libertarian who has forgotten him.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:50 AM
Poptech
That is nice but Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution and Global Warming has nothing to do with pollution. The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Pollution is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) will do absolutely nothing to make the air you breath "cleaner". Regulating Carbon Dioxide (CO2) through either 'Carbon Taxes' or 'Cap and Trade' policies will simply make energy (electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, heating oil ect...) much more expensive and severely cripple the economy.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html
gene, your whole argument is irrelevant to the Global Warming debate since pollution has nothing to do with Global Warming.
"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT
Published: January 8, 2009 10:55 AM
Inquisitor
Gene has a good point, but I think the fact stands tha AGW claims must either meet the standard burden of proof before calling for massive structural changes in global economies. Silas may derisively dismiss this point as is his MO, and if he has some actual proof for the AGW hypothesis that'd meet that ordinarily required to be met in front of a court, he should present it.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:00 AM
Bob Kaercher
"As my next attempt to do your research for you, the claim is that a certain aggregate level of emissions causes the damage, not any one specific factory. If you think this gets *all* factories off the hook, or your legal theory can't handle this form of causality, then it's your theory that needs fixing, not the brown people."
Whatever, Silas Person, what you are asserting still begs for what we call *PROOF*, not just assumptions based on what one THINKS is the cause of certain effects. That's how mentally stable people generally evaluate whether or not there has been any rights violation, and if so, who, specifically, is responsible. There can be no rights violation without specific rights violator(s) being responsible for it.
And what is your reference to "the brown people" suposed to mean?
Published: January 8, 2009 11:03 AM
Silas Barta (formerly Person)
Bob_Kaercher:
Please be sure to read my posts before responding. Like I said before in the post you didn't completely read, I am personally skeptical about the truth of AGW, but, it's a separate matter about how to resolve disputes in the case that it is true, which a political philosophy must have an answer for, and it is that that I'm trying to address here. On that matter, proof of the claims is irrelevant: think of it has a (very important) thought experiment if you want.
But, in any case, your remarks about the burden of proof reveal a certain lack of knowledge about the issues. Whatever you can claim about AGW believers, they certainly have presented a prima facia case, which shifts the burden to those wishing to refute it.
Finally, the term "brown people" is a reference to the set of non-wealthy coastal dwellers likely to be hurt by higher sea levels, the ones libertarians often end up trivializing in their attempt to justify their inalienable right to cheap gas for propelling their cars on government roads. (For example, Bob_Murphy -- and I'm not going to give you the link because that's "stalking" -- once casually dismissed the need for compensation of AGW victims on the basis that "the land's not worth that much". Guess he didn't realize it's not worth much because of the poor people who live there...)
Published: January 8, 2009 11:17 AM
I Hate Taxes
"Some of them go further and call for curbs on human population."
I have absolutely no problems with that. If socialists and communist scumbags want to sacrifice their own lives to make more room for humanity to prosper freely, who can be against that ?
It would even be my pleasure to help them achieve this goal.
Given that socialists and communists are not egotistical, it must certainly mean that would like to sacrifice their own lives to curb human population.
And given that I am not egotistical myself, I am even ready to volunteer and pay money to help them achive this goal so that we can live in a more prosperous and free world.
The best thing that could happen is for socialists and communist scumbags to live by their own standards and practice what they preach.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:30 AM
I Hate Taxes
Reply To Silas Barta,
"??? Why do "libertarians" keep bringing this up?"
Because Socialist enviro-nazi scumbags like yourself keep assaulting our earnings and freedoms because of global whinning !!!
If you want us to shut up about global whinning, then stop assaulting our wealth and freedoms.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:34 AM
Bob Kaercher
No, no, no, Silas, the burden of proof has most definitely not been shifted to the skeptics. The burden of proof is on those asserting the theory, and what they have offered so far is dubious and questionable.
But let's just assume here, purely for the sake of argument, that AGW theory has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. It still stands, nonetheless, that before any authority can do anything to or with MY industrial property, they still have to prove that MY property's industrial outputs has actually contributed to the phenomenon and violated the specific properties of other persons. Someone can't just say that "Look, the rising sea level flooded my land. I charge Bob Kaercher as the culprit, as his factory caused this." The burden of proof is still on the accuser that MY factory is actually the causal factor for the rising water levels. To force me to alter my property otherwise would be a violation of MY rights.
Should we just assume that ALL factories contribute to AGW equally? Or do some contribute to the damage more than others? Or do the outputs of some industries not contribute at all? To what extent does MY factory contribute to AGW, and if it does at all, whose property, specifically, has been damaged as a result?
Even if AGW is proven beyond any doubt, all those questions will still have to be sorted out by the accuser. It would not be license for authorities to just force all or any industrialists, willy-nilly, to make compensation or restitution to others. (Though I have little doubt that they would claim that it
Published: January 8, 2009 11:35 AM
I Hate Taxes
Phil,
The problem is NOT the science but the POLITICS of global warming.
Socialists, communists and collectivist tyrants are disguising as environmentalists in order to assault free market capitalism, private property and individual freedoms.
This is the part where I have a problem. Even if global warming is true, it's no excuse to assault my freedoms and private property.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:39 AM
I Hate Taxes
PEOPLE,
The question is NOT wether global warming is true or not. The real question is wether we should assault private propery and individual freedoms or not in response to global warming.
I STRONGLY believe that Global Warming is TRUE and will cause weather havoc and mass tragedy down the road.
This whole science debate is a trick from the left to steer us away from the political debate.
Should we or should we not assault private property and individual freedoms in response to global warming ?
This is the TRUE DEBATE that leftists would want to steer us all away from.
And my answer to this is NO WE SHOULD NOT assault private property nor individual freedoms to curb global warming.
Even if global warming is real and even if it is coming and will cause mass tragedy... each and every individuals should NOT give up his private property rights not individual freedoms.
LIVE FREE OR DIE !!!
Yes Global Warming is true and YES individual liberties and private property is more important.
In fact, the more free individuals will be, the more power each and everyone of us will have to curb global warming.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:45 AM
Silas Barta (formerly Person)
@Bob_Kaercher: No, no, no, Silas, the burden of proof has most definitely not been shifted to the skeptics. The burden of proof is on those asserting the theory, and what they have offered so far is dubious and questionable.
Oh, okay, so none of the presented evidence counts as making a prima facia case because You Say So. Thanks for sorting that out for us.
It still stands, nonetheless, that before any authority can do anything to or with MY industrial property, they still have to prove that MY property's industrial outputs has actually contributed to the phenomenon and violated the specific properties of other persons. Someone can't just say that "Look, the rising sea level flooded my land. I charge Bob Kaercher as the culprit, as his factory caused this." The burden of proof is still on the accuser that MY factory is actually the causal factor for the rising water levels. To force me to alter my property otherwise would be a violation of MY rights.
Yay! I get to do more of your research for you!
If the aggregate level of CO2 is responsible for permanent flooding (i.e. the exact claim under discussion that you weren't aware of), it follows that everyone emitting fossil fuels is responsible in proportion to their emissions, which would justify a fixed compensation fee/penalty per unit of emissions. (Some more basic research for you: biological sources of emission, like breathing and burning trees, don't increase CO2 concentrations because they only return to the atmosphere that which was recently taken from it.)
Please get a little more informed on the issues before you characterize AGWers (including the libertarian ones) of necessarily wanting to "will-nilly" strip others of arbitrary rights.
Published: January 8, 2009 11:50 AM
AC
Gene's Quote:
"Using Austrian principles, whether global warming is occurring and whether it has to do with humans is of little concern. What is paramount is the lack of truthful accounting when it comes to the environment and the economy. We have never justly valued and fairly purchased either land or any of the resources that eminate from it. "
I must disagree with bad logic. The earth has no value until someone finds a way to put its resources to use. How do you value minerals that are worthless today but in 100 years will be valuable because human ingenuity will have created a use for them? How many thousands of years of human history did "valuable" oil lay in the ground? The oil wasn't valuable until a use was found for it.
Gene's "just" valuation is based upon sentimental nonsense. For good measure, the first humans never bought the land either, but they sold it. Same goes for the Native American Indian settlers on the North American continent.
Human ingenuity makes land and resources valuable.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:01 PM
redshirt
Hello, is this thing working?
Published: January 8, 2009 12:07 PM
Brent
Silas just likes to play devil's advocate. You don't actually support Al Gore / Greenpeace / UN type policies, do you Silas?
Published: January 8, 2009 12:19 PM
Andras
I think (Man-Made) Global Warming qualifies as a religion and should be treated as such!
Published: January 8, 2009 12:23 PM
Stanley Pinchak
How can the diluvial delusionists counter the fact that warmer temperatures will not affect the south pole and could lead to an increase of glaciation and subsequent lowering of ocean levels as warmer climate leads to greater polar precipitation.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA235.html
Global warming is about control. Anthropological contributions to global climate change are insignificant, lost in the noise of the hugely massive energy flows into and out of the biosphere. To assume that the minuscule actions of humans could effect such massive systems is the pinnacle of hubris. To use this unjustifiable thesis as the cause for imposing socialism and the subsequent impoverishment of all mankind not in the ruling class or its court of intellectuals is perverse.
If we want to debate pollution torts, i would concur that this is a much more valuable pursuit than countering the mad assertions of a grasping elite, easily countered by even a cursory look at objective science.
Published: January 8, 2009 12:31 PM
Silas Barta
@Brent: What? Sorry, all I got out of your comment was, "Ug. You not this tribe. Bad! Grrrr!"
How about we stick to the issues instead of replaying our primal history?
Published: January 8, 2009 12:52 PM
redshirt
Eventually one of my post attempts will get through. Maybe too many links.
I would caution against referring to old data-- its only good for review. I would also strongly refute any one liner single link as evidence for ones arguments; it can only lead to confusion. Check out wikipedia on global warming, global dimming, and the "list of scientists opposing the mainstream..." These are extensive.
The real "NOW" issue is fresh water. A great deal of effort may have to go into solving water problems due the loss of glaciers and oddly, increasing rainfall. (Less snow and more lost rainwater runoff.)
I also like to think that we need to conserve natural resources like coal and oil for times when we may not be able to rely on solar; there are other reasons to push for green.
Go to sciencenews.org ; they have some more recent articles on some of the contradictory results that arise with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. (changes in fresh water in the ocean could trigger cooling in the higher latitudes; CO2 in the upper atmosphere could keep low orbit satellites up there longer)
Published: January 8, 2009 12:58 PM
Silas Barta
@Brent: Apologies, on second reading, that was probably unfair of me to say.
To answer your question, no I don't support those groups' policies, but I'm not playing devil's advocate either, in the sense of "making arguments I don't agree with". Sure, I don't support curtailment of CO2 emission rights *now*, but I still believe that the truth of e.g. the IPCC report and related harms to others would justify its restriction, or the requirement that compensation be paid.
Published: January 8, 2009 1:00 PM
DD
The issue of Global warming should not be a threat to "free markets" regardless of the evidence.
The idea that we have to refute the global warming and human cause element in order to save freedom is absurd. Socialsm is an economic disaster leading to wasteful resources and inefficencies. So "Socialism" couldn't solve any problem anyway. This should be the Liberterian position. If there is a Global Warming threat, then an unhampered free market is the only optimal means to sustain and adapt to such changes anyway. This should be the position.
Published: January 8, 2009 1:17 PM
Eric
Poptech is right. His link about computer modeling is right on target.
In the field of computer science, there's a computer language that all professional programmers (old enough to know about) still laugh at. It's the language of old computer fosils, called Fortran. It's the oldest computer language and the last time I worked in Fortran was probably around the early '80s.
When I was an undergraduate and I wanted to study computers there was a debate as to which department I needed to be in (before CS was a major). The math dept told me I had enough math to graduate, but that I needed to take a language course in Russian.
I laughed, and said, "If I want to learn a strange foreign language, I'll study Fortran".
Forty years later I've still the same opinion of Fortran.
And now, to see that the climate modelers actually still use Fortran, it makes perfect sense. Only the worst programmers would look for a job programming in Fortran today. The only thing worse might be to program in Cobol. What a terrific challenge to someone with brains. No, I'd say the only programmers that would take on this job, in Fortran, would likely be the bottom of the barrel or someone with an agenda.
And can we get to see this code? No, of course not, it's secret. Maybe they're too embarrassed to publish the code.
Published: January 8, 2009 2:03 PM
Mark Knutson
All things being equal, the validity of a scientific model of the earth's temperature would seem to be completely orthagonal to libertarianism. However, this scientific theory has been primarily used as a tool for the increase in size and scope of state control over our lives--I submit it is primarily a political tool with some science slathered over the top to make its critics seem irrational.
I further submit that we live in an age of superstition rather than rational enlightenment, and that global warming hysteria is exhibit A of this fact. As the son of a scientist and having apparently overly idealistic notions of the intellectual integrity a scientist should bring to their work, its disappointing that today's non-religion religion of the state is couched completely in terms of science and rationality. In the ultimate of double-speak, science has become the language and servent of liberal faith. And those that trim their sails to the winds of reality are denounced as modern day heretics.
It is helpful to bear in mind that from its very earliest days, socialists characterized themselves as being science-based--the 'rationa' approach to things. Needless to say, any self-adopted label reflects the conceits of its adopters rather than an accurate description thereof.
Published: January 8, 2009 2:40 PM
Mark Knutson
Also, to note that our mother, the earth, in the unkindest cut of all, has betrayed those who worship her by being insensitive as to have actually become colder in the last decade or so.
But as one prophet, sternly explaining today as mankinds last chance to redeem itself before weather apocalypse, the recent cooling only proves how much the earth will be warming.
Surely any warming is a test of faith, comparable to Jesus' temptation in the dessert or the trials of Job.
Published: January 8, 2009 2:49 PM
Mark Knutson
My wry irony has been deflated a bit by my getting my last sentence backwards--it should read:
"Surely any cooling is a test of faith, comparable to Jesus' temptation in the dessert or the trials of Job."
Published: January 8, 2009 2:51 PM
Brent
Silas, even if the IPCC reports were completely truthful, how on earth could you ever justify the policies of "CO2 restriction"? They surely can't be justified on a cost-benefit basis... the IPCC proponents don't appear to care about costs or benefits and economics tells us that implementation of "CO2 restriction" policies is likely to cause way more harm than good.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:16 PM
J Cortez
Current global warming theorists tend to advocate this notion that if what they're saying is true and their policies aren't followed, somehow the human race will gleefully march toward death.
The human race has survived many natural disasters, some on a global scale. With current levels of knowledge and technology, I don't see how solutions to help people adapt couldn't be created by the market and used to great affect by everyone.
The people spearheading this don't desire this, as they, for the most part, are anti-market and anti-industry. One of the original founders of Greenpeace, who left the organization due to what he saw as a growing anti-human mindset, has said similar things to this effect.
Setting aside the inherent property rights issues with all of the proposals of the environmental movement, I think it is very important to question the science behind this.
I used to absolutely believe that global warming existed. Over the past two years, my view has changed.
One thing that made me doubt the claims was a documentary I saw about a year ago. It was made in the 1970's and was warning about the dangers of global cooling. I thought it was profound that the experts had gotten this completely wrong. It made me think of other "scientific" attempts to control people and industry and how they ended with the opposite effect rather than what was intended.
Some of this is trickling into mainstream circles. Chad Myers, for example, is the second CNN meteorologist (Robert Marciano is the first) to go against the current theory.
I definitely think the issue is not settled and policy decisions should not be made.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:17 PM
Joe Stoutenburg
I have to lend support to Silas in this debate. Proponents of AGW have made a prima facia case for their theory. Opponents of the theory have the burden of proof to refute those arguments. They have done so. The debate continues.
I gather that most of us (myself and, apparently, Silas included) tend to side with the arguments of the the anti-AGW crowd. That's not what is the current debate. We're debating what would be appropriate actions if AGW could be reasonably confirmed. The only people who seem to have offered opinions on this are Silas and I Hate Texas.
Silas appears open (at least in principle) to legitimizing some kind of forceful intervention in the interests of people whose property would be damaged by the results of AGW. I Hate Texas unequivocally denounces any intervention, urging us to not "assault private property" in response to AGW. He apparently either rejects the notion of defending the property of people adversely impacted by AGW, or he has not considered the possibility.
From a libertarian perspective, I think that this is actually a gray area. We can imagine more common situations in which the complexity can be easily seen. Suppose that a person erroneously believes that his neighbor threatens his property. On the basis of his belief, he defends himself and damages his neighbor's property in the process.
Had his belief been correct, his response would have been appropriate. As it is, he has aggressed against his neighbor and so is in the wrong. It is not uncommon for conflict to arise in which there is dispute regarding damages. While we may be understandably interested in determining who is right, I think that libertarians should have a broader focus. We should work to promote peaceful solutions to conflict.
When a threat is immediate and direct (such as a person breaking into your home with the intent to cause bodily harm), violence may be unavoidable. Few people deny a person the right to forcefully defend themselves in that instance. However, in situations in which guilt is not easily assigned or in which the possibility for damages is remote, I believe that it is wise to urge peaceful resolution.
There should be a resolution to the AGW conflict. The first part of it is to carry on scientific debate regarding the real potential for damages. If the majority of people can be swayed, a voluntary change in behavior may be attainable. If few people are convinced, what is an AGW advocate to do within the bounds of libertarianism?
Any number of solutions could be available. I propose that he attempt to gain control of enough capital to be able to purchase property and turn it toward uses that he believes will ameliorate AGW problems. As he changes the minds of more people with capital, they too can similarly employ their capital in ways that serve their AGW agenda.
If they use violence and coercion to achieve their goals, they should understand our resistance. We simply don't agree with their assertions regarding the facts. That they readily resort to violence makes us wonder whether they have other agenda that they do not name. If they are sincere in their beliefs and want to convince libertarians, they will have to employ patient persuassion.
I, for one, simply do not believe that the threat is so immediate that forceful "self-defense" is warranted.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:17 PM
(8?»
"Unfortunately, we cannot remain neutral while the experts battle."
What?????
Why are you engaging in collectivist divide-and-conquer traps?
Have you completely lost your individuality?
"We" do NOTHING. You do your thing, I'll do mine.
To insist otherwise is to create the very conditions you seek to alleviate, being stampeded by the herd.
GW is an issue for individuals to deal with, not abstract warring collectives. All you're doing is adding to the "heat," in the typical fight the good fight do-gooder destruction of communication. You'll notice that this thread is full of your kind, not looking to share ideas, but to defend them.
War, HUH! Good God ya'll. What is it good for?
Absolutely nothin'!
Remember Sun Tzu's advice for winning a battle?
Don't fight it.
Published: January 8, 2009 3:20 PM
Eric
It is true that the cause of global warming (hysteria) was/is caused by global cooling (hysteria).
It was, after all, the global cooling doomsayers that suggested we could solve the problem of cooling by creating global warming - by injecting more co2 into the air.
Published: January 8, 2009 4:17 PM
Andras
Again:
I think (Man-Made) Global Warming qualifies as a religion and should be treated as such!
You can not disprove what is non-existent!
Published: January 8, 2009 4:18 PM
Brian T
AGW alarmism stems from one (faulty) premise - that we could reach a "tipping point", a point of no return, where the increase CO2 will cause an uncontrolled & uncontrollable process of runaway heating of the planet that cooks all life. The scenario arises from one source only, the computer generated models. Yes, the scenario has been replicated in controlled experiments in laboratories - ie: man made greenhouses, closed systems. Poptech is right though. The model output is only as good as its input(s) and even 'modern' science doesn't know enough about the real-world Climate system to model all of the potential inputs.
The truly valid use of the Precautionary Principle says you don't wreck the developed world's economies, and the lives, liberties and properties of all the world's peoples, on a hunch or a theory. We need to demand irrefutable proof. The burden is on "them" to show why we should have to submit to yet another tax (what is taxation? Anyone out there a Rothbard fan? [*rhetorical question]), which is all that cap-and-trade, and all the myriad other schemes out there, really are.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is about 0.038% of the atmosphere. Source: Earth Fact Sheet at NASA:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. 3.4% of the 0.038% atmospheric content is Anthropogenic in origin.
Atmospheric CO2 is estimated to be about 380ppmv, at present. It's widely accepted that the Ordovician period (510-438 million years ago) was characterized by atmospheric CO2 levels of 4,000-5,000 ppmv. I'd like to know why the earth climate-system didn't self-destruct then? Anyone have a good link to any reasonable explanations?
Earth's population is expected to increase an additional billion people in about 50 years time. Since CO2 is plant-food, how will we feed those people if we restrict/remove CO2? Increased human activity is preparing the ground for the needed increase in food production. Or is this the reason for the agenda of Malthusians like John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich? Lets prevent the increase in population by restricting the means of feeding the people, by starving those with the least ability to survive ...survival of the fittest, you know?
It's all about power and **control**. Follow the money.
A great study might be one showing how much lower CO2 emissions might have been in the 20th century absent the world's Central Banks, fractional reserve banking. and most of all fiat currencies. I'd venture a guess that the conspicuous consumption of the developed world would have been much, *much*, less.
Vindiciae contra Tyrannos
Published: January 8, 2009 4:28 PM
nuke gray
Here in Australia, a skeptic came up with a useful term for AGW believers- 'Warmaholics'. It's a useful term indeed. I tried to popularise 'alwarmists'. feel free to use either!
Published: January 8, 2009 6:11 PM
J707
Originally posted by Silas:
*****Yay! I get to do more of your research for you!
If the aggregate level of CO2 is responsible for permanent flooding (i.e. the exact claim under discussion that you weren't aware of), it follows that everyone emitting fossil fuels is responsible in proportion to their emissions, which would justify a fixed compensation fee/penalty per unit of emissions. (Some more basic research for you: biological sources of emission, like breathing and burning trees, don't increase CO2 concentrations because they only return to the atmosphere that which was recently taken from it.)
Please get a little more informed on the issues before you characterize AGWers (including the libertarian ones) of necessarily wanting to "will-nilly" strip others of arbitrary rights.********
And how might we guage each person's proportionate contribution to the amount of CO2 in the air if they, for instance, plant a lot of trees? Do they get a coupon for doing so?
There are an estimated 800 trees for every human being on the planet (thats TREES- not bushes, shrubs, grasses, mosses, lianas/vines, etc...just trees). Keeping in mind that studies have shown plants grow much faster and more efficiently in a more CO2-rich environment, and keeping min mind that plants breathe in CO2 and expel oxygen as a waste product....how do we guage each person's contribution to both the levels of CO2 in the air, and their contribution to plant growth which will in turn convert that gas into breatheable oxygen?
More to the point...how do we ever actually accurately guage humankind's impact- if any- on global warming via greenhouse gases?
- Again, keeping in mind human-to-plant ratios and the fact that the most predominant greenhouse gas (CO2, accounting for 98% of the GH effect) makes those plants grow quicker and in greater abundance?
Published: January 8, 2009 6:47 PM
Stanley Pinchak
J707,
the goal is to muddy the water enough with pseudo-science and conjecture to justify the Hegelian necessity of socialist planning. The number of inputs contributing to the present climate are of such a number that no model has access to the entirety of these variables, nor were they available, could their contributions in various unknown feedback loops be determined through correlations. The entire concept of climatology is preposterous in the sense that its adherents could predict the future. However, the absence knowledge is never a basis for discouraging public policy. Carefully selected datasets which show a useful correlation are plenty of empirical evidence for massive state action. Any contrary evidence is always spurious, or as the debate has shifted, still proves man's contribution to not global warming per se, but global climate change. In this way, whether the data show any change at all, the need for the state to intervene has never been more urgent.
Published: January 8, 2009 7:29 PM
Poptech
Alarmists have NOT made their case. Non-existent claims of consensus, a political report (IPCC) signed off by 60 scientists (not thousands), bogus computer models and absolutely no application of the scientific method is not science.
Every single argument has been refuted. Just because something happens that does not prove what caused it. For example the Arctic Ice:
First of all we have only measured the Arctic ice via satellite since the '70s. This was a very cold period, so cold the media was proclaiming another ice age was on the way:
Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975)
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
The Coming Ice Age (1/3) (Video) (9min) (In Search Of, 1978)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZKtJSlhFsA
The Coming Ice Age (2/3) (Video) (5min) (In Search Of, 1978)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NimH5w_fzM
The Coming Ice Age (3/3) (Video) (8min) (In Search Of, 1978)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2yHACNPcL4
The Arctic ice grows completely back every winter which the media intentionally ignores. They like to use the single day when the ice has retreated the most during the summer as propaganda that it is like that year round:
Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003370/SeaIceMaxWdates320x240.mpg
There are plenty of scientific explanations for any increased loss of Arctic ice:
Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures (University Of Washington)
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=7070
There are also active volcanoes under the Arctic:
Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths (National Geographic)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arctic-volcano.html
Hydrothermal Vents Found in Arctic Ocean (National Geographic)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html
Hotbed of Volcanic Activity Found Beneath Arctic Ocean (National Geographic)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/06/0625_030625_gakkelridge.html
Scientists Find Northernmost Arctic Hydrothermal Field Venting Water at 570 Degrees F (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724153941.htm
Under Icy Arctic Waters, A Fiery, Unexpected Find (The New York Times)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E1DE1F30F933A15751C0A9679C8B63
Finally, historically there is extensive scientific evidence of the Arctic ice melting in the past, obviously not caused by SUVs:
Bones Of Crocodile-Like Beasts Tell Tale Of Arctic Warming Millions of Years Ago (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/12/981218080733.htm
Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Science Daily)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm
To say they have made a case is laughable beyond belief and more importantly, science.
Published: January 8, 2009 7:34 PM
Eric
How does one escape from being declared a witch?
Deniers are CARBON criminals!
Hmmmm, I wonder, why can't someone make a RICO case against these people. They ARE a criminal enterprise, just look at how much Al Gore has made on this. And he has called for illegal activity from his minions.
Then again, the government is also an ongoing criminal enterprise, maybe it should file RICO charges against itself. We could turn those DC buildings into some fine jails.
Published: January 8, 2009 7:44 PM
Bob Kaercher
Silas Bartas Person:
"'@Bob_Kaercher: No, no, no, Silas, the burden of proof has most definitely not been shifted to the skeptics. The burden of proof is on those asserting the theory, and what they have offered so far is dubious and questionable.'
"Oh, okay, so none of the presented evidence counts as making a prima facia case because You Say So. Thanks for sorting that out for us."
Allow me to do some research for YOU, Mr. Person. A competing theory of climate change asserts that it's been unusually high levels of solar activity in recent years that's the culprit. This has made the oceans warmer, and the warmer they get, the more C02s they emit. The more C02s that build up, the COOLER then the Earth's surface eventually becomes. There have been climate scientists who have documented this cycle with ice core samples.
How's that for a prima friggin' facie case? AGW theorists should contact their lawyers to file suit against the sun for damages ASAP.
But to get back to the issue of how to deal with rights violations IF (and that's a huge "IF") anthropogenic global warming is somehow proven beyond all doubt to be reality....
Silas: "If the aggregate level of CO2 is responsible for permanent flooding (i.e. the exact claim under discussion that you weren't aware of), it follows that everyone emitting fossil fuels is responsible in proportion to their emissions, which would justify a fixed compensation fee/penalty per unit of emissions."
Please read very carefully: There would still be a burden of proof upon the accuser in your hypothetical flooding case to establish a causal link between the emissions of an individual industrial property (or properties) and damage done to another property. If some emitted particulants somehow caused sea levels to rise and flood someone else's property, it yet begs for proof that it was MY factory's emitted particulants, rather than someone else's, that caused the particular instance of rising water levels in question. To take action against me otherwise would be a greivous injustice, as I would be forced to make restitution for property damage that I did not cause.
It's very simple, Silas: In order for there to have been an identifiable rights violation, there must have been identifiable individual rights violator(s). Someone who's land has been flooded would not be able to extract restitution from "everyone emitting fossil fuels" in proportion to their emissions. They would have to prove--yes, PROVE--that the particulants that caused the flooding came from MY factory before anyone could even discuss forcing me to make restitution to the flooding victim.
If a cattle farmer's grazing field becomes saturated with petroleum, can he just file suit against any and all industrial plants that use oil in the area, and make all of them pay him in proportion to the amount of oil they use or produce? No, he would have to establish WHERE the oil came from so that the people actually responsible for the negligence are the ones forced to make compensation, rather than some completely innocent third party, or parties.
I don't think I can be any clearer.
Published: January 8, 2009 10:59 PM
Oil Shock
Poptech,
that is a great collection of links. Thanks.
Published: January 9, 2009 1:18 AM
Kakugo
A thing that always strikes me about you Americans is your approach to this issue. You resemble early Christian clerics: if you read the history of the early oucils you'll see they resembled gigantic street brawls and troops had often to be called in to separate the factions. Dead and wounded were not uncommon.
Manmade Global Warming is not a matter of "science": it's a matter of faith, each faction absolutely convinced they hold the ultimate truth and that the opponents are unbelievers in need of a sound lesson. What if Global Warming was true but caused by, say, solar activity? Could either faction do anything about it?
Of course governments are seeing this a Godsend gift to increase taxes and extend controls over the society. who doesn't know this?
Published: January 9, 2009 1:47 AM
Stanley Pinchak
Bob Kaercher,
thank you for tickling my thinking bone. How can a future flood victim purportedly harmed by users of CO2 have any greater claim than a present flood victim has against the individuals who contribute to the water cycle? When the ability to tease out the evidence proving harm is impossible, no tort may stand on what amounts to mere assertion. We must merely place these types of damages in the classification of natural disaster and through entrepreneurial foresight avoid them and prudent and sound insurance aim to minimize our losses in general. None of the scenarios of ice cap melting can result in sea level changes which occur in a short time period. Reasonable estimates put the change at a meter in 100 years. If the market and its actors can not adjust in that type of a time frame, in that case, litigation is the least of humanity's problems.
If the rise in the sea levels begins to become confirmed year after year, coastal property will be discounted heavily (unless we allow ownership in ocean rights). This will entail a one time loss to the owner at the time that the market discounts the expected future revenue stream from the properties deemed vulnerable. What makes this situation much different from a land owner who suddenly finds that a river has begun to change course and his house will soon be washed away?
Published: January 9, 2009 8:25 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
Here's another thought regarding the plight of the people who might suffer if AGW were to flood their properties. The alleged reason why there is so production and its corresponding emission of CO2 is the desire for consumption. We must consider whether the people in question would be willing to cut their consumption in order to avert the disaster.
This is just what AGW proponents are urging. To the extent that they use peaceful, voluntary means to attempt to influence lower consumption, we can argue against their claims, but we should have no moral problem with them. It is when they use unwarranted violence and coercion to force lower production. Even if their claims are true, one wonders whether they may save some property from flooding while facing others (perhaps the same people whose property has been saved) with starvation.
Again, this is a complex problem all around. It warrants peaceful, market reactions. I hope that no one here will argue for arming the state with more power even if AGW is widely confirmed.
Published: January 9, 2009 9:04 AM
Bob Kaercher
Stanley: That sounds right to me, too. I was merely trying to indulge Silas Person's "thought experiment" on the narrow terms stipulated by him. But I certainly agree with you.
Published: January 9, 2009 9:36 AM
redshirt
I noticed that both sides of this argument were each saying to the other that this or some other paper or papers on the subject refutes the other while saying that listing papers that take a stand on the subject can't be used to prove a point.
I would be very cautious about denying global warming and equally cautious about overstating the role of people in the process.
It could be shown ultimately that things are worse or not as bad depending on the natural processes that mask the human impact.
But it merits keeping up with the science. Some of the global warming changes are potentially very rapid... 20 years to ice age like cold snap in Europe due to shutting down the saline-thermal conveyor from the tropics. Or rapid loss of water supply from the glaciers (then a cold snap). Or methyl hydrate release and greater warming. It would be nice to know ahead of time if any of these scenarios is likely to play out!
Published: January 9, 2009 3:31 PM
delbwato
I think that the adverse climate is undeniably due to AGW (Asinine Government Weasels). Since there is no clear, scientifically unequivocal danger of death by man-made weather, I think the best policy for me, me, me is to jump on the bandwagon with a government job with about six figure$ supporting the hoax cum religion whereby I live comfortably regardless and, right or wrong, I have someone else to blame. You know, “Hey, the consensus is sound” or “I had my doubts but ‘they’ wouldn’t listen”. The acolytes are happy, the apostates are inconsequential and nobody dies. Becoming an iniquitous, non-murderous weasel should be easy to mentally justify as the ones being harmed by property seizure for me, me, me just grumble placidly and cough it up so it’s not like it’s that important to them.
And life is good. Whaddaya think?
Published: January 9, 2009 5:04 PM
Walt D.
The computer models used to predict global warming generate multiple "scenarios" or "parallel universes". The hysteria is generated by the consequences of the worst case scenarios. However, we only have a single real world scenario, and for 2008 we are down at the other end of the spectrum. This outcome was predicted by the sunspot cycle model and by the Farmer's Almanac model. So the question arises as to whether the CO2 "polluters" should be held financially responsible for damages in other parallel universes?
OK, my argument is tongue-in-cheek. However, there are many well respected scientists, such as David Deutsh, who argue that certain phenomena, such as single-photon interference patterns can only be explained in terms of "parallel universes".
So the question I am asking here is to what extent we consider the scenarios produced from climate simulation models to be reality?
Published: January 9, 2009 8:13 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Walt D.,
I think that we can consider the scenarios to be reality when the market starts discounting swaths of land which will become unusable in the near future (as viewed by the discounters). Even at such a point, it would still be difficult if not impossible to determine if the (A) is applicable to the warming in question.
Published: January 9, 2009 8:42 PM
Walt D.
Stanley
I understand your point. However, in no-arbitrage scenarios forecast "prices" do not have to be realized. (Example - what is the one year forward price of IBM - ignoring the dividend, it does not depend on where I expect IBM to be trading in 1 year.)
Incidentally, your experiment has already taken place in Santa Barbara. The town council voted to paint a line where the ocean would come to if global warming predictions of ocean levels rising came true. The net result was a drop in value for ocean front properties. Realtors quickly took advantage of the situation to hype the values of the "new oceanfront properties". The city council then dropped the plan!
Published: January 9, 2009 9:14 PM
SailDog
AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a risk management problem. There are two key questions: what is the probability that Global Warming is anthropogenic? and What are the impacts if true?
We can be all fairly certain the impacts are horrific. The West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are in danger of breaking up. Together they would result in a 12m sea level rise.
So what is the probability that Global Warming is Anthropogenic? The earth consists of a large number of interlocking climate systems. Many of these are showing changes that are highly correlated with increasing levels of Greenhouse gases (GHG's) including CO2.
The basic science of how GHG's work is well understood and not in dispute. Without their influence the world would be in a permanent ice age.The key question is wether increased levels of some GHG's (CO2, CH4, NOX's etc) are upsetting earths delicate thermal balance causing a trend line increase in temperatures. This is where the issues get tricky.
However the modeling has become surprisingly accurate. Input the data in for any particular year and the models accurately backwards predict the climate for that year. There is now a much higher probability they will true for the future as well.
Reverting to my first comment - this is a risk management issue. It is. I personally believe AGW is high risk and we should be planning accordingly.
Published: January 10, 2009 5:58 AM
fundamentalist
SailDog: "However the modeling has become surprisingly accurate."
I don't think that is accurate. As Walt wrote above, the models are all over the place. And the models have never been validated. The current models fit the data well, and the creators are happy with that. But that doesn't mean they can forecast well. The climate models don't use statistical techniques, but the problem is similar. In statistics, when you create a model, such as a regression model, you first fit the model to the data. Then you validate the model by attempting to predict a different data set than the one on which you built your model. For climate modelers, they would need to build their model on say the data from the first half of the 20th century and try to predict the climate for the second half. They tried that back in the 1980's when climate modeling first got started and the models failed miserably in their predictions even though the models fit the training data set very well. As far as I have been able to determine, they have never tried again. Fit is sufficient for them, but it shouldn't be.
In addition, all of the variables in the models are highly correlated. In statistics, that means you can't tell which variable is really the cause of the effect. For example, CO2 levels are highly correlated with temperature and the activity of the sun. Climate modelers have chosen to assign cause to CO2 levels because it fits their theory, even though temp increases lead CO2 levels instead of lagging behind them as one would expect.
In the historical datat, temperatures rise before CO2 levels rise, indicating that higher temperatures cause increases in CO2 levels, which makes sense because warmer climates encourage animal life. But then the climate scientists are left without a cause for rising temperatures. Until very recently, they refused to include solar activity in their models because they were fixated on CO2. Some now include limited Solar data, usually the 11-yr cycle, just enough to declare it insufficient as a cause. I'm confident that when scientists honestly model solar activity, especially the roughly 300-yr cycle, they will find that solar activity explains temperature increases better than do GHGs.
BTW, those who fear melting of the ice caps should find a book called "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings." It contains maps of Greenland and Antarctica before they were ice covered, including detailed drawings of rivers and mountain ranges that we have been able to discover through the ice only very recently with advanced technology.
Published: January 10, 2009 9:32 AM
Walt D.
Stanley wrote
the goal is to muddy the water enough with pseudo-science and conjecture to justify the Hegelian necessity of socialist planning. The number of inputs contributing to the present climate are of such a number that no model has access to the entirety of these variables, nor were they available, could their contributions in various unknown feedback loops be determined through correlations.
I think Stanley has hit the nail on the head - AGW is an excuse for a massive "tax for fools/research grants for fools" program.
Here is a back-of-a-matchbox calculation that shows the problem with the computer models:
Using the following assumptions:
Surface area of the earth ~ 500 million sq km.
Take a 1 km grid.
2000 vertical points. (100ft to 200,000 ft)
100 time points per day (every 15min)
This model would require 100 terabytes per measurement per day, 36 thousand terabyte per year. 360 billion terabytes going back 10,000 years. This is a lot of data!
Even then, we have only covered a tiny fraction of the earth's climate history.
Published: January 10, 2009 9:34 AM
Mike D.
" It's widely accepted that the Ordovician period (510-438 million years ago) was characterized by atmospheric CO2 levels of 4,000-5,000 ppmv. I'd like to know why the earth climate-system didn't self-destruct then? Anyone have a good link to any reasonable explanations?"
Brian T. - this is correct. However, the continents had not yet formed in the Ordovician period - there were no polar ice caps to melt! I'm sure that if you plugged 4,000 ppm into the computer models it would predict huge temperatures.
However, you are probably wasting your time making a scientific argument to the AGW crowd - they believe that the earth was formed on October 24th 4004 BC at 9:00 am (GMT?) or some other young earth hypothesis. From their point of view, you are talking about something that happened 400-500 million years before the earth was formed.
The AGW crowd has the same consensus argument as the Keynesians. It is an undisputed fact that the majority of mainstream economists are Keynesian. However, that does not mean that they are anything other than wrong. It reminds me of the old bumper sticker "Eat horse manure - a billion flies can't all be wrong!.
Published: January 10, 2009 9:53 AM
Walt D.
Fundamentalist makes some excellent points on in sample/out of sample validation. There is another powerful technique - since the PDE's are invariant under a "t" "-t" substitution, we can run the model backwards in time. This tends to pinpoint absurd extrapolation. In the population explosion models in the 1970's, running the models backwards in time predicted the "Garden of Eden" two person population during the renaissance!
Published: January 10, 2009 10:18 AM
Andras
Walt D, Fundamentalist,
The model should have been run further back and we could have an exact birth date for the Creator.
If you want to site science there is Henry's Law from the early eighteen hundreds which states that the higher the temperature of a two component gas-liquid system the higher the partial tension of the gas over the liquid. In layman terms: the warmer your solution the more gas it releases or by warming your soda you can get rid of the bubbly.
And carbon dioxide is not the worst greenhouse gas. It is water (and it is also ~100 fold more in air). So after greens get rid of CO2 they need to dry the planet.
Come on guys! That is where we get when we discuss religion.
Published: January 10, 2009 1:59 PM
Poptech
"However the modeling has become surprisingly accurate. Input the data in for any particular year and the models accurately backwards predict the climate for that year. There is now a much higher probability they will true for the future as well." - SailDog
This is a perfect example of someone who does not understand computer systems. This lack of understanding is why so many believe in AGW.
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/fact-only-computer-illiterates-believe.html
Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. What this means is you are attempting to have your model's output match the existing historical output that has been recorded. For example matching the global mean temperature curve over 100 years. Even if you match this temperature curve with your model it is meaningless. Your model could be using some irrelevant calculation that simply matches the curve but does not relate to the real world. With a computer model there are an infinite number of ways to match the temperature curve but only one way that represents the real world. It is impossible for computer models to prove which combination of climate physics correctly matches the real world. Do not be fooled this logic is irrefutable by anyone who understands computer science and computer modeling.
Published: January 10, 2009 8:26 PM
Walt D.
"However the modeling has become surprisingly accurate. Input the data in for any particular year and the models accurately backwards predict the climate for that year. There is now a much higher probability they will true for the future as well." - SailDog
Poptech - In all fairness he said he was surprised. Presumably, what he is saying that he is surprised that a bullshit model would give predictions that are accurate? Isn't this just an example of the broken clock? In 2008 the climate model has returned to its expected behavior and has predicted results that are bullshit. Politicians are now getting the message. It is difficult to sell people on global warming when they are freezing their asses off (in Chicago and New York). I had a Christmas card from a friend in UK who said they had had the worst summer since 1966. It appears that the fact that we have had no sunspot activity is more predictive than CO2. The AGW frauds claimed that sunspot activity is tantamount to astrology -the change in solar flux in negligible. They attributed to high temperatures that occurred when we had very high sunspot activity to man made global warming. It now appears that they were wrong. In fact, in the AGW theory, no cooling can occur. Since man made CO2 increases then concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, if solar flux changes are deemed to be insignificant, the only change that can occur from a thermodynamic perspective, in the absence of volcanic eruptions, is a monotonic increase in average global temperature.
Published: January 11, 2009 12:48 AM
Walt D.
The Ice Man Cometh?
http://newsfromrussia.com/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0
Published: January 11, 2009 1:19 PM
David C
Mike D said:
'However, you are probably wasting your time making a scientific argument to the AGW crowd - they believe that the earth was formed on October 24th 4004 BC at 9:00 am (GMT?) or some other young earth hypothesis. From their point of view, you are talking about something that happened 400-500 million years before the earth was formed.'
Response - would that were true. But last time I looked, and if I may also generalise a bit, the ranks of agw DENIERS were chockfull of rabid young-earth creationists with scarcely two empirical facts to rub together. Conversely, the AGW-is-evil-and-we-gotta-do-something-about-it brigate is full of enthusiastic but misguided 'earth scientists' and biologists whose sentimentality about 'unspoilt' nature ( Not to mention their generally socialistic instincts which arise from the cognitive nexus between wellmeaning compassion and economic ignorance), blinds them to the difference between values and facts, oughts and izzes, and who have yet to understand that science yields no certainty, and that Grand Plans' consequences always impose costs that always outweigh any benefits.
All of which makes things very awkward for rationalist, Darwinian AGW skeptics like myself - we have to work doubly hard to demonstrate that yes, there IS real, proper science backing up AGW skepticism, and no, its just coincidence that the ideology of the rightwing fundamentalist religious fascists just happens to support the same conclusion for polemical reasons of their own. O the shame!.
Speaking of fascists, I have a similar problem with the one-dimensional political left-right spectrum. As a principled libertarian, I have long objected to being classified as 'right-wing', and hence lumped in with 'fascists', 'Nazis', and (modern) republicans or neocons - all of whom represent the very antithesis of the libertarian values I believe in. Again, O the shame!
Published: January 13, 2009 7:40 AM
David C
Mike D said:
'However, you are probably wasting your time making a scientific argument to the AGW crowd - they believe that the earth was formed on October 24th 4004 BC at 9:00 am (GMT?) or some other young earth hypothesis. From their point of view, you are talking about something that happened 400-500 million years before the earth was formed.'
Response - would that were true. But last time I looked, and if I may also generalise a bit, the ranks of agw DENIERS were chockfull of rabid young-earth creationists with scarcely two empirical facts to rub together. Conversely, the AGW-is-evil-and-we-gotta-do-something-about-it brigate is full of enthusiastic but misguided 'earth scientists' and biologists whose sentimentality about 'unspoilt' nature ( Not to mention their generally socialistic instincts which arise from the cognitive nexus between wellmeaning compassion and economic ignorance), blinds them to the difference between values and facts, oughts and izzes, and who have yet to understand that science yields no certainty, and that Grand Plans' consequences always impose costs that always outweigh any benefits.
All of which makes things very awkward for rationalist, Darwinian AGW skeptics like myself - we have to work doubly hard to demonstrate that yes, there IS real, proper science backing up AGW skepticism, and no, its just coincidence that the ideology of the rightwing fundamentalist religious fascists just happens to support the same conclusion for polemical reasons of their own. O the shame!.
Speaking of fascists, I have a similar problem with the one-dimensional political left-right spectrum. As a principled libertarian, I have long objected to being classified as 'right-wing', and hence lumped in with 'fascists', 'Nazis', and (modern) republicans or neocons - all of whom represent the very antithesis of the libertarian values I believe in. Again, O the shame!
Published: January 13, 2009 7:41 AM
fundamentalist
David C: "...rabid young-earth creationists with scarcely two empirical facts to rub together."
Cleary you don't know anything about young-earth creationists. The movement is all about scientific evidence and they have far more evidence for their position than do evolutionists. Check out creationscience.com/onlinebook for a small sample of the scientific evidence.
Published: January 13, 2009 8:28 AM
Ron
I'd like to ask what may be a stupid question:
There is no land beneath the north pole, correct? If this is the case, then the ice in the northern ice cap is floating. So why, then, do people think sea levels will rise if that ice melts? Does the level of iced tea in your glass rise as the ice cubes melt? Floating ice is already displacing as much water as it's ever going to displace, frozen or not.
Or are AGW proponents arguing that only ice that has formed over land will cause problems?
Published: January 13, 2009 10:39 AM
Poptech
Just to make it clear I am a firm evolutionist. I do not support any religious doctrine over science.
Ron, yes the Arctic ice melting is irrelevant since floating ice displaces the same amount of water once melted. The great concerns are the Greenland and Western Antarctic Ice Sheets, neither of which will melt for thousands of years. Antarctica is actually getting colder and the ice sheets growing.
Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening (USA Today)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm
ERS Altimeter Survey Shows Growth of Greenland Ice Sheet Interior (ESA - European Space Agency)
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMILF638FE_planet_0.html
Published: January 14, 2009 2:10 AM
fundamentalist
"... floating ice displaces the same amount of water once melted..."
Actually, doesn't ice have a greater volume than the melted water? It seems to me that ice expands the volume of water, which is why ice breaks rocks, tears of up roads and can crack an engine block.
Published: January 14, 2009 7:56 AM
Stanley Pinchak
fundamentalist,
True, the volume of water in ice is greater than that of liquid water, I believe that water's maximum density is at 34F. However, all floating objects displace their mass in the equivalent volume of water. Assuming that no sublimation nor evaporation occur during the melting of ice, the volume of melted ice (water) is exactly equal to the volume of water previously displaced by the ice. The differences in density between ice and water is what allows for icebergs and icecaps to float and has no effect on the final displacement of water/ice combinations, unless the volume of water remaining is insufficient to buoy the mass of the ice. In that event, the "sea level" would fall when the ice melted.
Published: January 14, 2009 11:43 AM