Tuesday this week marked what to many people was a welcomed respite from the summer heat, as a cool rain, more in place for February or March, blanketed the area for hours, dropping close to half an inch. By most measures, it would have been unremarkable, were it not for the fact that it occurred on June 28 – something that, as we know, just does not happen in California.
It is often difficult to separate mere weather from climate, and it is almost forgivable when people make the error of suggesting one day of weather supports or refutes a notion. Weather can be thought of as a mere data point. It was 98 and sunny today in Davis – that is weather. Climate is the totality of data points, a trend that paints a big picture.
A recent three-part series in Scientific American paints a bigger picture of what is going on. John Carey, whose research was funded by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, wrote that “More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate models, are now a matter of observation.”
“In this year alone massive blizzards have struck the U.S. Northeast, tornadoes have ripped through the nation, mighty rivers like the Mississippi and Missouri have flowed over their banks, and floodwaters have covered huge swaths of Australia as well as displaced more than five million people in China and devastated Colombia. And this year’s natural disasters follow on the heels of a staggering litany of extreme weather in 2010, from record floods in Nashville, Tenn., and Pakistan, to Russia’s crippling heat wave,” he writes.
Weather or climate is a question we always must ask. A single event is weather, a pattern of events is climate. Extreme weather events have always occurred, but the magnitude of such events is such that they should only be expected to happen once in 100 years. The predictions of these climate change models is that extreme weather of all sorts will become far more common.
Asks Mr. Carey, “So are the floods and spate of other recent extreme events also examples of predictions turned into cold, hard reality?”
His answer is yes.
“Scientists used to say, cautiously, that extreme weather events were “consistent” with the predictions of climate change. No more. “Now we can make the statement that particular events would not have happened the same way without global warming,” says Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.”
Mr. Carey argues there are two key lines of evidence. He argues that we have not merely become more aware of recent disasters, but rather “The data show that the number of such events is rising.”
To bolster his point, Mr. Carey talks to Munich Re, one of the world’s largest reinsurance companies, which has compiled the world’s most comprehensive database of natural disasters – going back to AD 79 with the eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
“Researchers at the company, which obviously has a keen financial interest in trends that increase insurance risks, add 700 to 1,000 natural catastrophes to the database each year, explains Mark Bove, senior research meteorologist in Munich Re’s catastrophe risk management office in Princeton, N.J.,” he writes.
They do find a small increase in geologic events due to better reporting. But they find the increase in the number of climate disasters is far larger.
“Our figures indicate a trend towards an increase in extreme weather events that can only be fully explained by climate change,” says Peter Höppe, head of Munich Re’s Geo Risks Research/Corporate Climate Center: “It’s as if the weather machine had changed up a gear.”
John Carey shifts his attention to a second line of evidence which comes from an emerging branch of science called climate attribution, where researchers “examine individual events like a detective investigating a crime, searching for telltale fingerprints of climate change.”
Writes Mr. Carey, “This doesn’t mean that the storms or hot spells wouldn’t have happened at all without climate change, but as scientists like Trenberth say, they wouldn’t have been as severe if humankind hadn’t already altered the planet’s climate.”
However, this science is not without skeptics and remains controversial.
“There’s an active debate among researchers about whether the Russian heat wave bears the characteristic signature of climate change or whether it was just natural variability, for instance. Some scientists worry that trying to attribute individual events to climate change is counterproductive in the larger political debate, because it’s so easy to dismiss the claim by saying that the planet has always experienced extreme weather.”
That said, the evidence seems to be growing “for a link between the emissions of modern civilization and extreme weather events. And that has the potential to profoundly alter the perception of the threats posed by climate change.”
Despite the growing consensus in the scientific community, in the United States the discussion of climate change has become injected with politics and thus polarized along party lines.
However, Richard Muller’s testimony to Congress should give climate skeptics a bit of pause. Professor Muller seemed like the perfect agent for climate skeptics, impeccable credentials, a Berkeley physist with a history of questioning scientific wisdom.
He had asserted that global measurements of temperature are flawed by the failure of scientists to account for things like urban heat islands.
While he believes that climate change is real and dangerous, he also believes that climate scientists have oversold their case and failed to heed the warning and criticism of outsiders.
Skeptics wanted a legitimate face, and to put legitimate research behind their claims, so many of them backed the Berkeley Project, including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. “Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation’s most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases,” a Los Angeles Times article reported on April 4.
In late March of 2011, Professor Muller reported his findings to Republicans on Capitol Hill who expected him to tout the company line.
Reported the Los Angeles Times, “But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is “excellent…. We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.”
Reported the Times, “Conservative critics who had expected Muller’s group to demonstrate a bias among climate scientists reacted with disappointment.”
“Anthony Watts, a former TV weatherman who runs the skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat.com, wrote that the Berkeley group is releasing results that are not “fully working and debugged yet…. But, post normal science political theater is like that.”, the LA Times continued.
Professor Muller had, over the years, agreed with Mr. Watts’ view “that weather station data in official studies are untrustworthy because of the urban heat island effect, which boosts temperature readings in areas that have been encroached on by cities and suburbs.”
However, many climatologists claimed that their research accounted for that effect.
“Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming?” Professor Muller asked in his written testimony. “We’ve studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no.”
Do Professor Muller’s findings discredit all criticism of climate change science? No.
But it should serve as at least a cautionary tale that scientific inquiry into skeptic claims may in fact bear out the original findings. People need to remember that scientific research published in journals is peer-reviewed. Peers who know the field look for factors that may be unaccounted for.
Moreover, it is competitive. The idea that there is some convention that would prevent counterveiling evidence to come forward is implausible. The scientist who discredits a key plank of climate change theory could make a career, that is a strong incentive.
At the end of the day, I think the push against climate change is far more political than it is science-based. The fact that much of the research is backed by industry money and supported by conservative think tanks ought to give people in the center much more pause.
Finally, I would argue at this point, what do we have to lose by making the kinds of changes and the shift to cleaner-burning technology?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]It is often difficult to separate mere weather from climate, and it is almost forgivable when people make the error of suggesting one day of weather supports or refutes a notion. Weather can be thought of as a mere data point. It was 98 and sunny today in Davis – that is weather. Climate is the totality of data points, a trend that paints a big picture.[/quote]
Yes, and a cold rainy day in June in CA is an inconvenient truth for global warming adherants, so of course can be thrown out as an “inconsistent” data point of no significance. Or it can be rolled into the convenient and self-serving “extreme weather” theory to explain global warming. That way all cases are covered and no one can discount the global warming theory – all bases are covered. The tortured logic here is just breathtaking.
If in fact one climate day is a mere data point, so are a few hundred years juxtaposed against the earth’s life of billions of years. Global warming may or may not be true – there is really no way of knowing for certain. Should we cut down on air pollution because it is bad for health? I would give that question a resounding “yes”. But I’m sure a hailstorm (pardon the pun) of criticism is coming my way, for not being an acolyte of the global warming theory. How dare I question it, will be the hue and cry!
If I believe air pollution is a bad thing, and air pollution should be reduced, then why is it so necessary for me to believe one way or the other as to how I arrived at that conclusion? I don’t have to take a lot of ice or tree samples, do tons of research, churn out reams of research paper, to figure out air pollution is not good for the lungs to breath. But then I would not be using a “theory” to make big bucks – and that is the crux of the global warming matter. The Al Gore model of exploitation comes to mind… just my opinion 🙂
“Yes, and a cold rainy day in June in CA is an inconvenient truth for global warming adherants”
This statement really shows the lack of understanding of climate change. A cold day is not an inconvenient truth but rather more evidence of it. On average temperatures are warmer, but the global does not warm evenly. Instead as some areas warm, others cool. What has happened is the change in weather patterns and that leads to more extreme weather and odd occurrences.
Here is the Scientific American article ([url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change[/url])to save WDF the trouble
What policies do you feel should result from your conclusion (which I share) that we should cut down on air pollution?
It would be useful if much of the debate about climate change/global warming could focus on the prescriptions rather than on the underlying science. The regional impacts of increasing global temperatures, rising sea levels, and changing precipitation patterns need to be addressed. Many of those are cross-border issues, requiring international agreements. Some involve countries far too poor to pay for infrastructure projects. Adaptation has often taken a back seat to mitigation in the policy realm, but those policies are going nowhere. Sea levels are going to affect coastal communities via inundation and water quality. In the dry Western U.S., increased water storage is going to be necessary.
Let’s assume carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are dead (they are). Let’s assume Copenhagen-style agreements will continue to go nowhere. So to keep it simple: do you support mandating higher mpg standards for American cars? Would you be willing for the US to use foreign aid dollars to help finance international projects to reduce flooding in Bangladesh? Do you support the Sites Reservoir in California? Those are all climate change-related policy questions.
“Strange and Extreme Weather: Fluke or Evidence of Global Climate Change?”
This question really shows a lack of understanding of climate change.
It is equally nonsense if phrased in its negative.
“Recent Cold Summer Weather: Fluke or Evidence of No Global Warming?”
Both phrasings indicate a basic misunderstanding of the scientific process to analyze data.
But this topic does seem to drive blog traffic, as indicated in the previous discussion of this topic.
JR: did you read the SA article?
It is worth pointing out here that Scientific American is a popular science magazine, not a peer-reviewed science journal. The article is an interesting overview of the relationship between climate and weather and the impact of increasing global temperatures. It isn’t a survey of recent research on the topic or a review of the current areas of controversy. The answer to both of JR’s headlines would be ‘neither provable nor falsifiable’.
[quote]It would be useful if much of the debate about climate change/global warming could focus on the prescriptions rather than on the underlying science. [/quote]
Couldn’t agree w you more! I think my general thoughts are to strive for this country to become energy independent through pushing for exploration of all forms of energy – wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, oil exploration here, etc. If we can develop cars/energy sources, for instance, that are consumer friendly/desirable and energy/cost efficient, other countries will follow suit. I suspect the best way to address the problem of global pollution is to lead by example… just my thoughts 🙂
[quote]“Strange and Extreme Weather: Fluke or Evidence of Global Climate Change?”
This question really shows a lack of understanding of climate change.
It is equally nonsense if phrased in its negative.
“Recent Cold Summer Weather: Fluke or Evidence of No Global Warming?”
Both phrasings indicate a basic misunderstanding of the scientific process to analyze data.
[/quote]
Nicely said! Touche!
Elaine
I agree with you that the best way for us to lead would be by example as in the development of more energy efficient cars… etc.
I also do not think it would hurt us to learn from the good examples of other countries that are less car and luxury vehicle dependent and who rely more on their feet, bicycles, and public transportation. I think a little mutual learning and flexibility would go a long way in terms of pollution reduction.
At the end of the day, I think the push against climate change is far more political than it is science-based. The fact that much of the research is backed by industry money and supported by conservative think tanks ought to give people in the center much more pause.
wow! what a way to attack those merely for disagreeing with you! to his credit, I have argued this issue with Don Shor, and he did not say this to me.
As if the push for “climate change” is driven by movtives pure as the white driven snow? Who supports climate change? The wind, solar, and other alternative fuel industries, who stand to profit monetarily. As for the scientists themselves, you think their research occurs in a vaccum? or could it be they are provided research grants by organizations that have a desired outcome in mind?
And as far as political motives go, look no further than “vote for al gore” and my book and movie will only cost you 29.95! The democrats frequently look to Global warming as a campaign issue. it comes up again and again.
now would the vanguard like to dispense with the bull?
Finally, I would argue at this point, what do we have to lose by making the kinds of changes and the shift to cleaner-burning technology?
actually, depending on the severity of the measures proposed, people either have a lot to lose or little to lose. If auto manufacturers adopted rigid carbon cutting offsets in their autos, they would produce cars with lousier performance, lower quality for higher prices. A great case in point is the beginning electric cars, which fit two people and don’t really have any trunk space. a lot of money thrown into a lousy project. I don’t want that thrown into Americans against their will.
DMG: “whose research was funded by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change”
an example of exactly what I’m talking about. Now do you really believe that Mr. Carey, if his research showed errors or flaws in climate change theories, would continue to recieve money and praise from Pew?
David is inaccurate to say that “his research was funded” by Pew. John Carey is a freelance science writer, not a research scientist. From what I know of philanthropic institutions such as Pew, I would guess he received a grant to spend the time writing the three-part series for Scientific American. Given his track record as a published science writer (“His stories have won awards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Wistar Institute and a number of other organizations. He was also a National Magazine Award finalist.”) I doubt they even had to give him editorial guidance.
[i]As for the scientists themselves, you think their research occurs in a vaccum? or could it be they are provided research grants by organizations that have a desired outcome in mind? [/i]
If it is publicly funded, as with the National Science Foundation, there is no desired outcome. When it is a private foundation — whether environmentalist or pro-business — they still don’t have much control over the outcome. They put out requests for proposals, they get grant proposals; their review committees assess the topic, scope, methodology, and credentials of the applicant. The hope is that it will yield results worthy of publication in peer-reviewed journals.
In most cases there is no specific ‘pro-‘ or ‘anti-global warming’ outcome that would be specific to the project. The effect of temperature on pollen viability doesn’t prove or disprove climate change. It just tells you how one strain of wheat might respond to higher temperatures.
If the methodology is not sound, the work is shoddy, or the results and conclusions are questionable, peer review will be very critical. It is difficult, though not impossible, to bend results toward a pre-determined outcome. What made “climate-gate” so offensive to many scientists was the taint of manipulation, the withholding of data apparently to prevent outside review by critics, and the petty character traits displayed by certain researchers. Many researchers outside the small group involved were appalled by the revelations from those emails, as you can find if you peruse the various academic blogs out there.
A valid criticism, in my opinion, is the disproportionate amount of funding going to climate modeling. As Pielke Sr and others have noted, real-world observations are probably more important than statistical modeling. If the latter is taking resources from the former, then it is a misplaced priority.
” I would guess he received a grant to spend the time writing the three-part series for Scientific American. Given his track record as a published science writer (“His stories have won awards from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Wistar Institute and a number of other organizations. He was also a National Magazine Award finalist.”) I doubt they even had to give him editorial guidance.”
question: does his track record include anything that remotely questions or criticizes the theory of global warming?
I also think to say he is freelance and not research scientist is a doesnt hit at the root issue: Pew funded his research. He had to know ahead of time what Pew expected of him, given the name of the organization. He does not need to have a private conversation with editorial staff on Pew to recognize he has to be very careful of saying anything critical of the global warming theory.
but ultimately this lengthy paragraph did a tap dance around my question. If Mr Carey had published anything remotely critical of global warming theory, do you think he would have been provided the grant by pew?
Elaine hit at something that I think is worth repeating and bothered me: “covering all the bases”.
in other words, if there were not extreme weather going on at the moment, we cannot use that to dispute climate change because climate is weather occurring over a long time. We need to look at a larger graph over a period of years.
if there is extreme weather, such as some of the items mentioned, then it is evidence global warming is real.
the point being, the climate change theory is true no matter what happens because its supporters have covered all the bases. sorry, but that is not my idea of science. that is a grotesque abomination of the scientific method, and lazy thinking as far as I’m concerned.
but when all else fails, just drink the kool aid.
A freelance writer would not apply to Pew to write an article reviewing research that is aligned with the skeptical viewpoint about climate change. Such a writer would apply to one of the Koch foundations, Cato Institute, or Heartland Institute. If your point is that this branch of the Pew foundation promotes an environmentalist viewpoint, you are correct.
I agree with the point of your next post. Citing current weather conditions on behalf of alarmist OR skeptical positions about climate change is pointless. A hot summer, cold winter, rainy or dry spell — doesn’t prove anything.
On one of the climate blogs (RealClimate) a researcher gave a general rule of 30-year trends as being relevant. Given multi-decadal oscillations (Pacific, Arctic, etc.), and how they interact with shorter oscillations (El Niño, La Niña, etc.), even longer periods may be necessary to see meaningful trends.
It is useful to assess whether the extent of damage from weather events is increasing. But one of the worst distortions in Inconvenient Truth was regarding the extent of hurricane damage, and linking it to global warming. That was thoroughly debunked within a couple of years of the movie’s release.
“even longer periods may be necessary to see meaningful trends. But there is no mistaking the trend of the last 150 years.”
the the last 150 years out of how many though? carbon dating puts the entire earth’s recorded history in the billions. how could you possibly presume take 150 year trend out of 5 billion and obtain something meaningful?
Don,
As a researcher, I’m glad you took the time to clarify some points brought up by Mussers, who seem to have less understanding of how science works than I do of courtroom procedure! It’s kind of dismaying to read some the comments above, who might make intelligent contributions to law enforcement discussions on this forum, but are befuddled and misled as to how research works. A rigorous taskmaster is physical reality; farcical research cannot be maintained for long. To some extent the climate discussion in the media has been hijacked by politicians and other corporate interests who are seeking to form policy–notice I said the discussion in the media; not the discussion by most of the researchers themselves. Also at fault may be a few scientists with extremist views (on both sides of the climate debate); extremism makes for good drama in the media, but these extremists do not represent the views of the majority of researchers; so the mainstream media tends to give a distorted (and overdramatized) presentation of the state of the research.
It seems to me the politicization of the climate debate, fostered mainly by the political establishment (AlGore emphatically included) is useful to the powers-that-be for several reasons; one connection I haven’t seen before ties into the end of easy oil–there’s a lot of world oil reserves left, but most of the stuff that’s easy and cheap to retrieve and refine has already been pumped; the remaining oil is more geographically remote, deeper, and dirtier (more impurities); much of it is much more expensive to extract, transport, and refine; so petrol costs have only one direction to go–up, up,up, relentlessly, with significant decade-to-decade price increases. Perhaps it is politically more tenable and advantageous to ask people to voluntarily reduce their petrol burning and energy expenditure by promoting the idea that this will save the planet; rather than asking them to face the grim reality that they really have no choice; because the easy oil is disappearing. This is part of the reality that the amount of easy-to-get resources on earth are finite; and we have done a pretty thorough job as a species at getting at most of the easy stuff. In other words the rhetoric around the issue of reducing energy consumption (long-term) is framed in large part in terms of climate change; ultimately I suspect we will continue burning the dwindling supplies of easy oil until the last drop we can find is gone. The almost inevitable reduction in energy use (barring cold-fusion or some other energy breakthru success) can be served up in a more politically palatable way by framing it in a climate change context; in terms of coming together and making in common a noble sacrifice (might take the edge of everyone scrambling for the last drop…)
To jimt: I am not Musser; I always sign E Roberts Musser (Elaine).
Read an interesting article in The Week, alerting readers that we may be heading into a cold era because of a dormant period for sunspots. One of the problems I have with the “global warming theory” is that it only takes into account one factor – CO2 emissions – to explain supposed “climate change”. Yet there are literally thousands of factors out there that could cause climate change, or what we could be seeing is nothing more than a normal weather cycle of hundreds/thousands of years.
So I go back to my original thesis – lets get cracking on becoming energy independent, and explore all avenues…
Another thought: The highjacking of the “global warming theory” for political gain on both sides of the aisle has done nothing but provide an excuse for politicians to avoid the necessity of developing a comprehensive energy policy – which we have known we is a necessity as far back as 1976, the advent of the first gas lines. The “global warming theory” IMHO has caused more harm than good…
Let’s get on with the job at hand – a sensible, realistic energy policy that moves us towards energy independence…
ERM: [i]One of the problems I have with the “global warming theory” is that it only takes into account one factor – CO2 emissions – to explain supposed “climate change”. [/i]
That is not true. Climate models include CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” as well as other factors (called ‘forcings’) — water vapor, methane, etc. In fact, that is what the models are all about.
Here is a list of forcings: [url]https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html[/url]
Reduced sun spot activity might take care of 20% or so of the expected global temperature increase over the next century, assuming the increase is at the low end of the probability range.
I don’t think a theory itself can cause harm. But turning it into a political football is not usually conducive to good policy outcomes.
Regardless of its origins, accuracy and validity, global warming has become a proxy for a left worldview. It has evolved into a massive political-scientific-media propaganda program bent on exploiting common human fears about the destructive power of the natural world to gain political advantage and ultimately change the world to suit elite liberals. Regardless of the legitimacy of intent within the science community (one diminished by Climategate emails), the involvement of so much left-leaning political and media power with a track record promoting so much anti-free market capitalism is more than enough to justify the strongest of opposition. Global warming, or climate change as its benefactors have strategically renamed it, has become the front of an epic ideological war. This is an inconvenient truth.
Taken on its scientific merits alone, the theories of human caused global warming are sketchy at best. The correlation of temperature increase and Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere is interesting; however it is far from a conclusive cause and effect. We could find many examples of disparate data to draw similar cause-effect conclusions: for example, the number of illegal immigrants coming to the US and the increase in global temperature. Just because these two things correlate on a graph slope does not mean they are related.
The main problem with theories of human-made global warming is the miniscule amount of human-made Co2 compared to all known greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
See the following graph:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/carbon_graph_1.gif [/img]
Humans only contribute 0.28% of all greenhouse gases, and only 0.117% are from human-made carbon emissions. Total carbon in the atmosphere is only 3.618% of total greenhouse gases.
This graph sums it up:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/carbon_graph_2.gif [/img]
The problems with theories of anthropogenic global warming are numerous. The biggest is the alignment with political motives. Even denying or ignoring that reality… the increases in human-caused greenhouse gases are such a miniscule component of overall greenhouse gases that we are foolish for allowing environmental alarmists and fear mongers to gain so much traction. Our 4+ billion year old planet has successfully dealt with natural phenomena many, many orders of magnitude more voluminous than our human carbon emissions. Fighting air pollution is a logical and reasonable mission. However, doing so at the expense of lives and livelihoods based on fantastic, wild and unproven theories of pending environmental chaos – especially when aligned with a specific ideological worldview – is a political war cry deserving of equal counter response.
“[i]global warming has become a proxy for a [i]left[/i] worldview.[/i]”
So please describe the [i]right[/i](wing) worldview on this topic.
Perhaps you can choose from one of these:
1. Climate change isn’t occurring.
2. Climate change is occurring, but we can’t do anything about it because it would cost too much
3. Climate change is occurring, but we shouldn’t worry about it.
You seem to have covered all three in your reply above, but (1) and (2 or 3) are mutually exclusive.
Just for the record: I have managed greenhouses. Take a cube of air. Put a very thin layer of glass or plastic around that cube of air. It is amazing how much the temperature will rise. It doesn’t take much of anything to trap the long wave radiation. So your point about the small amount of CO2 involved is not particularly relevant unless you describe what the earth’s temperature would be without that 0.28% of greenhouse gases we have generated since the Industrial Revolution.
[i]The main problem with theories of human-made global warming is the miniscule amount of human-made Co2 compared to all known greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.[/i]
By that argument, then you should be quite comfortable if we lose ozone from our atmosphere, because ozone is present in even smaller concentrations than greenhouse gases, especially anthropogenic CO2.
If you removed all of the GHG from Earth’s atmosphere, then temperatures would be colder, less stable, and probably humans wouldn’t be here. An important thing to remember about CO2 and most other GHG, especially compared to water vapor, is that they stay in the atmosphere for a very long time (years and centuries) compared to a few days for water vapor.
[i] Our 4+ billion year old planet has successfully dealt with natural phenomena many, many orders of magnitude more voluminous than our human carbon emissions. [/i]
Agreed! Earth will continue to take care of itself on regardless of what humans do or don’t do, and whether humans remain or not. The bigger question is can human society adapt fast enough to these potential changes. Also worth note is that humans were not around when there were much higher concentrations of CO2. Humans may well be the only known species that is capable of regulating its own environment on such a significant scale. But because this kind of change is happening at a rate that doesn’t feel as immediate or threatening, then it’s hard to get motivated.
[i]Taken on its scientific merits alone, the theories of human caused global warming are sketchy at best. The correlation of temperature increase and Co2 concentrations in the atmosphere is interesting; however it is far from a conclusive cause and effect.[/i]
You can look at planets that have higher concentrations of CO2, and they are warmer than they would otherwise be. For instance, Venus has an atmosphere that is 96.5% CO2, and has surface temperatures that are 860 degrees F and hotter, which happens to be hotter than the surface of Mercury. There really isn’t any other plausible explanation for why except for Venus’ high CO2 concentration. (By the way, just so you don’t think to accuse me of being alarmist, most sensible climate scientists do not think that Earth will become as hot as Venus in the near future)
One way that we can certainly test the cause and effect issue is by continuing to put CO2 into the atmosphere and watch what happens. Problem is that it might be difficult to press the “reset” button on that experiment.
There comes a point when, in the face of enough evidence, refusal to accept the most plausible explanation for what you see scientifically becomes a point of belief rather than a point of science. Much as is the case for someone who insists that Earth is a few thousand years old.
ERM: [i]Read an interesting article in The Week, alerting readers that we may be heading into a cold era because of a dormant period for sunspots. One of the problems I have with the “global warming theory” is that it only takes into account one factor – CO2 emissions – to explain supposed “climate change”. Yet there are literally thousands of factors out there that could cause climate change, or what we could be seeing is nothing more than a normal weather cycle of hundreds/thousands of years.[/i]
Thanks for the reference. (
[url]http://theweek.com/article/index/216359/are-we-facing-a-mini-ice-age
[/url])
But you read too much into the article, Elaine. For starters, the title is more of a teaser to invite curiosity and readers. It doesn’t necessarily reflect conclusions of the article.
One bit in your article that should be noted:
[quote]Could this counteract global warming?
No. Researchers have found that this “grand minimum” in sunspot activity “would lower temperatures by 0.3°C at most,” says Michael Marshall at NewScientist. And that’s simply “not enough to compensate for our greenhouse gas emissions.” So even if sunspot activity does quiet down, the result “isn’t a new ice age: It’s a slightly less severe heatwave.”[/quote]
The current warming trend does not respond in any significant way to sunspot activity. Regardless of what sunspots are or aren’t doing, the trend continues. Climate scientists have taken into account the many other factors that you would wish be considered, and the one factor that seems to come out clearest affect in this warming trend is buildup of man-made greenhouse gases.
JB: [i]Regardless of its origins, accuracy and validity, global warming has become a proxy for a left worldview.[/i]
Probably. I would also suggest, as Don does above, that it has become a proxy for many in a conservative worldview. Ron Suskind might also agree with you:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community[/url]
[i]”1. Climate change isn’t occurring.”[/i]
I think climate change has been occuring since day one and will continue to change. Thank nature and God.
[i]”2. Climate change is occurring, but we can’t do anything about it because it would cost too much.”[/i]
I think climate change is occuring as per #1 above, but we don’t know how much man contributes to it if any, and political-based attempts at solving the problem will not solve the problem but will cause many more problems for the human race and at great expense.
[i]”3. Climate change is occurring, but we shouldn’t worry about it.”[/i]
Again, see #1. I worry much more about the trifecta of science-government-media gaining too much power at any point. But certainly for something like this because all three have ties to money generated by it and they would gain tremendous power by it. We have many, many more immediately pressing domestic and global problems to worry about.
Since fossil fuels are not sustainable, at some point the economic scales will tip in favor of sustainable and cleaner fuels and the problem of carbon emmissions will begin to solve itself. Meanwhile I am fine with spurring investment in invention and production of alternative clean energy. It is the right direction, but it should not be a government-mandated forced direction. The market will solve the problem over time.
wdf1: [i]”You can look at planets that have higher concentrations of CO2, and they are warmer than they would otherwise be. For instance, Venus has an atmosphere that is 96.5% CO2, and has surface temperatures that are 860 degrees F and hotter, which happens to be hotter than the surface of Mercury. There really isn’t any other plausible explanation for why except for Venus’ high CO2 concentration.”[/i]
Again, there is no reasonable correlation. We are talking about .117% of a non-toxic gas that comprises only .039% of our atmosphere. This is the same gas that humans exhale and green plants consume. Last I checked there was no evidence of green plants on Venus.
Our atmosphere contains about 1% water vapor… which is 95% of our greenhouse gases. It seems maybe scientists should focus on reducing water vapor instead of Co2.
JB: [i]Our atmosphere contains about 1% water vapor… which is 95% of our greenhouse gases. It seems maybe scientists should focus on reducing water vapor instead of Co2.[/i]
Water vapor has an upper limit of concenetration in the atmosphere. You can’t get beyond that upper limit unless you raise the temperature (you’re at the upper limit when it’s 100% relative humidity). CO2 has no upper limit. That’s why you can actually get 95+% CO2 in the atmosphere in a place like Venus. Water vapor in the atmosphere is variable and has a low residence time. That’s why humidity goes up and down. Given these factors, it makes more sense to worry about CO2 concentration.
Again, why do you think a larger percentage of CO2 should be necessary to make a convincing difference? The already present (non-anthropogenic) amount of GHG is what allows you to enjoy your life on Earth. What’s added to that is what pushes the temperature up .
The reason that there isn’t more CO2 in the atmosphere now is that plants have been taking up CO2 from the atmosphere for about three billion years through photosynthesis. It has all been sequestered in sedimentary rocks on Earth since that time in the form of fossil fuels and invertebrate shell material (limestone).
[i]”CO2 concentration”[/i]
I think that is a bit of a disingenuous term. When compared to the makeup of the earth’s atmosphere, we are talking about a few thousands of a percent of human-made C02, right? How can any substance be “concentrated” at those levels?
If I remember my high school science, the atmosphere is 78% hydrogen, and 21% oxygen (give or take). Out of the remaining 1% human-made CO2 is a miniscule fraction.
If CO2 accounts for 0.039% of our atmosphere today, how much will it be 50 years from now assuming current trends for human CO2 emissions continue unabated… 0.044%?
Also, wouldn’t one major super volcanic eruption throw more material into our atmosphere than decades of human activity can account for?
[i]If I remember my high school science, the atmosphere is 78% hydrogen, and 21% oxygen (give or take).[/i]
Um, no. You’re confusing nitrogen and hydrogen.
You seem to prefer percentages. Try ppm instead. Before the Industrial Revolution CO2 was stable at 280 ppm for thousands of years. Now it is 390 ppm.
Most of your questions about the basic science of greenhouse gasses and global warming are answered in various online primers on the subject. Even skeptics don’t disagree with the basic premise, as you seem to suggest in your post they might.
Jeff
I am not going to dispute your numbers, they may be accurate, but miss the point. If there is a deleterious process occurring, whether you wish to focus on pollution, as Elaine does, or whether you believe in a more widespread process called “global warming”the fact remains that there is only one aspect of the process that we have any reasonable chance of affecting. And that is our own behavior. So if we have reasonable steps that we can take to minimize these problems such as greater fuel efficiency, increased conservation measures, development of cleaner energy sources, I think we would be remiss not to implement them. On many different conversations here you have decried selfishness. I personally think it is the height of selfishness to continue the remarkably materialistic lifestyle we have developed while pretending we are not damaging our environment.
Whoops… yes nitrogen. I guess I didn’t remember my high school science class. That makes sense since it was crappy and made me dislike the subject for a decade after.
“Before the industrial revolution”…
In 1800 the global population was about 1 billion. Today it is over 6 billion. Going from 280 ppm to 390 ppm seems a reasonable consequence. How else are we going to supply food and energy to 6 billion people?
I think we have two choices:
1 – Listen to the science-political-media drumbeat to enact policies that artificially constrain economic development in the name of global warming so more starve and die… thereby reducing the rate of population growth and the need to produce food and energy.
2 – Encourage investment in sustainable energy and food sources while CO2 levels continue to increase and we risk destructive climate events that might cause more to starve and die thereby reducing the rate of population growth and the need to produce food and energy.
I will take door number 2 any day.
The reasons:
1. The first approach is the typical liberal approach of negative top-down control… telling people and businesses what they need to stop doing. Conversely, the second approach takes advantage of American positive individualism and entrepreneurial spirit married with the ability to pursue profit. The second works, the first does not.
2. God is still a bit more powerful than the liberal science-political-media consortium for the climate and for determining who dies and who lives.
3. If we do everything the liberal-science-political-media consortium wants us to do, the earth will likely still warm and cool on its own.
Well this supposes that you accept two of your assertions as fact.
1) your belief that entrepreneurial spirit married with the ability to pursue profit is necessarily positive. I disagree. This approach is largely what got us pollution in the first place which I believe most of us agree is not healthy for humans.
2) “God is still a bit more powerful…..” This presupposes a belief in a “God” who takes any direct interest at all in human affairs. I do not. And I am fairly sure that neither of us has the ability to provide conclusive evidence for our beliefs, which gets us back to doing the best we can to “clean up our own mess” as it were.
[i] Listen to the science-political-media drumbeat to enact policies that artificially constrain economic development[/i]
Actually, as I noted on a previous post, I support focusing on adaptation since I think attempts at mitigation (reducing CO2) will not pass in a democracy, nor succeed if enacted as proposed. I may be in a minority here on that. I don’t think carbon taxes or cap-and-trade are politically viable, nor would they work unless they were more draconian. Obviously Copenhagen/Kyoto processes aren’t working, either.
So we need to begin now to help (for example) Bangladesh build Holland-style flood control. They can’t build it on their own, and it will destabilize a perilous part of the planet if millions try to move. That means the industrial world has to expend resources and money. Do you support international efforts at coping with sea level rise?
Don Shor: [i]I support focusing on adaptation since I think attempts at mitigation (reducing CO2) will not pass in a democracy, nor succeed if enacted as proposed. I may be in a minority here on that.[/i]
I actually agree with you. I see way too much “it can’t possibly be our/my fault” kind of thinking tied to this issue right now to enact any substantive reductions, or stabilizations in the near future.
It will probably take another solid generation or so to check out if glaciers continue to melt back, if sea level rises, if the warming trend continues, if still no other plausible explanation gains acceptance, for the populace to reach a critical level of agreement. By then it will be seriously too late to talk about returning to a 20th century environment.
Don – It’s a mistake to throw up our hands and say that a democracy can’t mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. I am just finishing a year in France, a year with the smallest carbon footprint in my entire life. In France, one kilowatt hour of electricity produces about 85 grams of carbon dioxide. In California, which is well better than the US national average, it’s 235 grams. So it’s just not true that democracies can’t achieve it. What’s true is that *our* democracy can’t achieve it, or at least, that it has failed for 30 years. It just so happens that France’s solution in the electricity sector is box office poison in California.
As for the consequences, we don’t have to go as far as Bangladesh. Try Florida. Florida isn’t any more eager to build thousands of miles of sea walls than it is to do anything else about global warming. What will instead happen is that it will see more and more floods and property values will go down. What happened to New Orleans — not Hurricane Katrina specifically but the depopulation that came afterwards — will eventually happen to Florida.
Don: “[i]Do you support international efforts at coping with sea level rise?[/i]”
Sure, to some degree if sea levels actually rise. The US already gives more that other countries for this type of help.
The bottom line for me is that I think it will far better for the world in general to ignore the alarmist hype over climate change and work on developing economies that can improve residents’ quality of life, while also encouraging green industry to develop.
China is building about one coal-fired power plant per month. Like the US, they have copious amounts of coal and it is the cheapest electricity for them and the also for the US. The technology for cleaning CO2 from coal burners is currently much too complex and costly. Frac drilling in shale desposits – a technology developed in the US by a private company – may end up being the best “green” technology development of the century. Natural gas is much cleaner fuel than coal and oil. It is still not sustainable and still not completely free of carbon emissions; however, it it a promising bridge to a future where new technology developments will provide even cleaner energy.
I would support a government program to help convert the US to more natural gas use while we also provide incentives to promote green technology development. For example, a tax credit for companies spending R&D money on green technology development.
Using a rats in a maze analogy, the global warming alarmists and liberals in general see to prefer a solution where the government attempts to block options to force the rats to take a government-preferred path. Meanwhile the rats chew holes in walls to find their preferred path. The solutions I prefer set a bit of cheese along the path most avantageous to the whole, but also expect some wall chewing to occur.
There is an interesting paper just got published that that just discusses a large survey which reviews the scientific knowledge of people with opinions on global warming.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503
One conclusion may surprise some of the Vanguard readers:
“On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”
Jeff: sea levels are rising. Since we’re coming out of an ice age, they’ll rise regardless of human contributions.
[i]I would support a government program to help convert the US to more natural gas use while we also provide incentives to promote green technology development. For example, a tax credit for companies spending R&D money on green technology development. [/i]
Same here. It seems there are areas of agreement that could lead to some kind of energy/climate legislation getting through Congress and signed by the President. Probably not until after the 2012 elections, though, and both parties will be pushed hard by their more radical bases. Compromise is a dirty word in politics this year, even though polls slow that the public supports bipartisanship.
JR: that conclusion doesn’t surprise me. The more you understand, the more complex you realize the issue is. Accurate risk-perception requires some level of scientific understanding (though hardly anything like an advanced degree). A teenager asked me once if I thought that global warming was an emergency. I replied, “if it is, it’s a slow-moving emergency.” It merits a thoughtful response and some reconsideration of the current policy prescriptions.
[quote]“On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones.”[/quote]
LOL
Again – think energy policy, energy policy, energy policy – to become energy independent – that’s the key. The “global warming theory” IS NOT THE KEY, BUT A POLITICAL HOT POTATO (pardon the pun)!
Don – Because humanity is changing the Earth’s surface so quickly, it’s difficult to tell whether the Earth is otherwise still entering or leaving an ice age. I have seen one paper conclude that the warm interim is over and that we would be returning to an ice age, if not for the fact that global warming is sending temperatures higher dozens of times faster. Even if we were still leaving the last ice age, it would understate the point to say that sea levels would rise regardless. It’s inches per century vs yards per century.
JR – I know some mathematicians who happen to be conservatives and/or libertarians and/or Republicans. It is true that global warming is in a different social condition among them than, say, evolution. Generally they agree that the backlash against the theory of evolution is idiotic. They aren’t happy about the association between creationism and their side of politics; they would either say that the association is overplayed, or in any case they it’s not their favorite rant.
With global warming, it’s true, many of these same right-leaning mathematicians are skeptical. Yes, they are very literate and very numerate people. But they are still wrong about what climate scientists have accomplished. For professional climate scientists, global warming is as real as Cincinnati. And people have released plenty enough carbon dioxide into the air to have caused it. The only remaining question is whether there is another smoking gun in the room besides the one that was fired by Homo Sapiens. It’s hard to say no, only because it’s always hard to establish a negative.
So in other words, yes, that poll looked at generally literate, generally numerate members of the public, and it found a slightly skeptical answer. But if they had polled the National Academy of Sciences, they would have gotten a very different answer. It is true that the public has heard too much from journalists and politicos, and not enough from scientists. On the other hand, the actual truth isn’t in the middle. It is not the case that ice at the North Pole is weakening for people with one set of values and holding steady for people with another set of values. No, ice at the North Pole is weakening dramatically whether or not people learn about it.
GK: [i]Don – Because humanity is changing the Earth’s surface so quickly, it’s difficult to tell whether the Earth is otherwise still entering or leaving an ice age. I have seen one paper conclude that the warm interim is over and that we would be returning to an ice age, if not for the fact that global warming is sending temperatures higher dozens of times faster. Even if we were still leaving the last ice age, it would understate the point to say that sea levels would rise regardless. It’s inches per century vs yards per century.[/i]
One way to appreciate what you’re saying, as supported in the paper you mention, is that if you look at sea level curves, they were already leveling off from their rise in coming out of the last ice age. What may be anticipated is a new rising trend beyond that leveling off.
See [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise[/url]
Greg Kuperberg – Welcome back. I haven’t seen posts from you for some time. Don’t then have Intenet in France?
Don:[i]sea levels are rising. Since we’re coming out of an ice age, they’ll rise regardless of human contributions.”[/i]
Wasn’t it only a few years ago that scientists were warning us that we were entering a new ice age?
I see a future where global temps fall and scientists scramble to adjust their climate models without ever saying they are sorry for their previous alarmist premonitions.
It must be refreshing to work in a profession where you always have an excuse for being wrong: new discoveries provide the cover.
[i]Wasn’t it only a few years ago that scientists were warning us that we were entering a new ice age?[/i]
No.
[i]I see a future where global temps fall[/i]
Based on what science?
Don, it was during the 1970s:
[url]http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims[/url]
[quote]Despite many claims to the contrary, the 1970’s global cooling fears were widespread among many scientists and in the media. Despite the fact that there was no UN IPCC organization created to promote global cooling in the 1970s and despite the fact that there was nowhere near the tens of billions of dollars in funding spent today to promote man-made global warming, fears of a coming ice age, showed up in peer-reviewed literature, at scientific conferences, voiced by prominent scientists and throughout the media.
Newsweek Magazine even used the climate “tipping point” argument in 1975. Newsweek wrote April 28, 1975 article: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”[/quote]
Of course scientists know more now.
Might they again know more 10-20 years from now?
I am aware of the popular media representations from the 1970’s. Here is a more in-depth overview of the state of research at the time:
[url]http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf[/url]
Don: I looked at this. What is your point?
My point was that scientists were sounding alarms about global cooling. That point still stands and is backed up by the article you posted.
Jeff – Of course there is Internet in France. I have the same cable broadband here as in Davis. Anyway, thanks for saying hello.
As Don says, “Wasn’t it only a few years ago that scientists were warning us that we were entering a new ice age?” is inaccurate in two key respects. The last gasp of the global cooling predictions were in about 1975. It is a bit of a stretch to call 35 years “a few years”. Moreover, at that time, journalists issued “warnings”, but most scientists didn’t.
Climate modeling was only about 10 years old then — it was only really possible with decent computers and decent global satellite measurements. Scientists knew full well that they had to calculate the sum of three trends: (1) A return to a new ice age, which is what the Earth would be doing if not for human activities. (2) Global cooling accelerated by pollution that shades the planet. (3) Global warming caused by pollution that strengthens the greenhouse effect. Scientists as a group didn’t know then how these terms added up.
The smoking gun came with direct satellite measurements of global carbon dioxide around 1981. It was suddenly obvious that, whatever else the planet was doing, human-generated CO2 was trapping a tremendous amount of heat. In fact, the way that the satellites measure the CO2 is by measuring the heat radiation that doesn’t pass through it. After that, climate scientists basically had the answer. They have never changed their message since then, except that for a couple of reasons the slide to global warming is worse than they had first thought.
But it is true that science journalism is still very confused. It is accidentally confused by journalists who don’t know all that much science and who are under pressure to sensationalize and get creative. And it is deliberately confused by politicos of several types. It is unfortunately true that scientists can only speak to most of the public through journalists or through grade school teachers.
You know, scientists have an unsentimental side. They also don’t enjoy spending 100% of their time explaining things to an untrained public. One prediction floating around is that humanity is simply not going to listen and that it will eventually create a heat age and destabilize the ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica. It’s like talking to a smoker who won’t change his mind. “Okay, so we’ll subtract a few years from your life expectancy, so be it.”
medwoman:[i]”your belief that entrepreneurial spirit married with the ability to pursue profit is necessarily positive. I disagree. This approach is largely what got us pollution in the first place”[/i]
Did you use electricity today, or drive a car? Did your employer use any products created by processes that generate CO2? Might your life be a bit different today without all these profit-pursuing polluters? You work in the medical field; how many lives have been saved by new drugs and new medical equipment produced by this thing you see as being so negative? I think you might be biting the hand that feeds you and most of the other 6 billion people on the planet.
[i]My point was that scientists were sounding alarms about global cooling. That point still stands and is backed up by the article you posted.[/i]
The point I was making is best illustrated by Table 1 of that article. A small number of papers indicated the possibility of global cooling. A somewhat larger number was neutral on the subject. The largest number indicated the possibility of global warming. Greg has accurately described the state of climate research then. Scientists weren’t “sounding alarm.” Popular media was. Meanwhile oceanographic research fleets were getting more organized, buoys were being distributed, data was being shared among oceanographic institutions, corporations, and the military, and computers were moving from mainframe to desktop with vast increases in their ability to process data. Satellites began measuring ice extent and depth.
[i]Might they again know more 10-20 years from now?[/i]
Yes. The probability is very, very low that what they know will lead to a prediction of colder global temperatures, due to what we know about the basic physics and the trends in atmospheric gases.
JB
“”Did you use electricity today, or drive a car?” Yes, and I. Am attempting to minimize these activities as much as possible. I do not see innovation as negative as you seem to imply, but I also do not see it as unequivocally positive either. The medical advances that you site all have serious and often life threatening associated risks. To consider only the benefits, without a serious consideration of the downside, or unintended consequences can have disastrous effects. What I am in favor of is a more balanced view that considers both pros and cons. I do not share your feeling that “the ability to pursue profit” without some kind of regulation is likely to produce a balanced view. Left to their own devices, pharmaceutical companies have been known to exaggerate benefits while downplaying known ( to them at any rate) risks.
Another example? Cigarette companies denying harmful effects of smoking until lvirtually buried in evidence and then still attempting to hook the under seventeen crowd and populations in the developing world. Unfortunately “self policing” of industry does not seem to have been very effective in our society and too often it has been left to the government to step in and say that it is not ok to poison kids or sell drugs that you are aware are no better than placebo or have a high risk of causing heart attack or stroke.
medwoman: We can both hide our true worldview behind nuance; but I think it is clear that you focus on the negative aspects of our modern industrialized free-market capitalist society and focus I on the negative of over-reaching government. With respeect to business, I think the positive far far outweighs the negative. We have a largely self-correcting system that punishes most bad operators with failure and rewards good operators with success.
Have you ever trained a dog? Dogs respond to positive reward and praise much better than they do discipline. Punishment leads to other behavior problems. Think of business the same way. It reponds to reward of profit much better than the discipline of regulation. Too much regulation causes unintended consequences often more costly to society than the damages the regulation was attempting to correct.
Simply stated, I think you and other liberal progressives, possibly because many of you get your livihood once or twice removed from the profits of private industry, see business as a bad dog and want to discipline it. I however see it as a very, very good dog with a need for more correct incentive for even better behavior.
(The post above being so ignorant, I got enraged enough to rant longer than the posting mechanism allows, so I shall split it into parts.)
PART ONE
J Boone: Your argument is quite the boilerplate dumbing-down of societal circumstances provided for you by the right-wing echo chamber, which, tragically, also appears to lead Barack Obama around by the nose. We aren’t dealing with the salivation of small-brained pets, this is economics. The working class has no meaningful say under this system of two parties controlled by Wall Street (the rich, who get, as you put it, their “livihood” from their fat-cat parents who also condition them thoroughly to establish all manner of phony-ass franchises to rationalize away their wealth as resulting from their being “businessmen”!) This is borne out by the fact that there are only Business sections (read: boss’ sections) of newspapers, not one for Labor.. and while all countries but ours have a respect for honest science on the issue, in our excessively God-fearing land an obscene percentage of people actually believe the paid propagandists for Big Oil who use their science degrees to garner big bucks in such slimy fashion– resulting from inordinate attention paid by the media (especially broadcast media, which is all for which the majority of our workaholic citizenry make time!) due to the simple fact that media is predominantly controlled by jinormous corporations such as NewsCorp, who have a clear agenda though the consumers are easily bamboozled by a phrase like “fair and balanced” being preposterously issued forth at the end of every fakenews headline segment.
WERE a working class party ever to constitute a plurality of Congress, we would see decent regulation of a situation that threatens all life on Earth– to the profit of all, while the present head-in-the-sand approach amounts to penny-wisdom/pound-foolishness. Not only the greed, but also the small-mindedness of the Right means that they’ll never take on the difficulty of getting their minds around an epic and complex problem, when it’s so much more convenient and profitable for them to use their sheer media muscle to hoodwink half the society into thinking “ah well, nothing we can do about it so might as well show God what we think of Creation by fouling our own nest. At we didn’t let the commie pinko progressives win arguments on TV during the last, choking days of Earth!”
PART TWO
Also note how useless Dems are to the left on this as with so many issues: the left-hand goalpost they set out to work from was “cap and trade”.. a clepto-capitalist boondoggle only guaranteeing Goldman-Sachs’ further enrichment, and which was tried in Europe and proven not to reduce emissions at all, after all the wrangling and effort got expended. They don’t want to lead in an environmental, scientifically enlightened fashion– it’s obvious they’re just there to do PR and photo op’s to whatever (minimally) necessary level to dish out to greenies in order to take their votes for granted every stupid, expensive election cycle.
A phrase like “a largely self-correcting system that punishes most bad operators with failure ” is just so absurd and obscene that one just can’t let it slip by. So, so many examples prove you wrong– i.e. Clinton’s Repug-lite manoeuvre of nixing Glass-Steagall on his way out of office, which brought about the ’07 CDO/CDS crash?? THAT “self-correction”? Do you see the banksters, who wrote the braindead “modernization act”, suffering? Oh wait, they put a gun to Congress’ heads and got $1.xx TRILLION in bailouts, while the desparately-needed infrastructure upkeep, jobs-generation stimulus was never got `round to.. and now Obama lets the Right write the narrative about some so-called “spending crisis” when austerity is proven to be nothing but disaster in this type of situation. Wallstreet-controlled Washington guarantees the perpetuation of subsidies to megaconglomerates both in direct tax money and public lands, in addition to the all-important externalization of costs (environmental cleanup, anyone?) onto the pollution-ingesting working class.
Prominent Climate Change Skeptic Received Over $1 Million From Oil, Coal Companies
[url]http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/29/headlines#9[/url]
Leading U.S. Climate Scientist: Current Extreme Weather in Line with Climate Change
[url]http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/30/headlines#11[/url]
Here’s something relating to your super-over-generalized use of the word “business” which you claim “reponds to reward of profit much better than the discipline of regulation”..
[url]http://www.alternet.org/environment/151689/the_gop’s_crazy_war_on_lighting_efficiency_standards[/url]
I first heard about this from the voice of RFK Jr. on his show [url]www.ringoffireradio.org[/url] some time back, and am glad to see Greenpeace summing it up again (in their piece referenced above by DemocracyNow)..
“In 1998, the API, ExxonMobil and the Southern Company sat round a table with other oil companies and think tanks they plotted and funded a Global Climate Science Communications Plan to undermine the climate science and support for the Kyoto Protocol that had just been agreed. “Victory will be achieved when… average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science”… read the plan. “Uncertainty” was also their objective for the media. The detail funding sources from corporate purses going to think tanks and front groups who will coach scientists with messages counter to the rising consensus on the global warming crisis. Even though this ‘scandal’ was front page news at the New York Times, our assumption is they did it anyway.”