 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: The Preble's travesty
The director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale Hall, is concerned about the scientific integrity of the process for listing endangered species. He’s right to be concerned, too, but he’ll miss the real scandal if he doesn’t broaden his focus.
Hall has ordered a review of eight decisions influenced by a former high-level Interior official who resigned in May after an internal probe concluded she’d pressured scientists.
Fine. Review her work. But at the end of the day, don’t try to tell us that defenseless agency scientists are cowering before political intimidation. Because some of them appear quite adept at hard ball themselves.
The history of the Preble’s jumping mouse, whose habitat includes the Front Range, is a case in point.
Incredibly, one of the decisions Hall has ordered reviewed is the 2005 proposal to “delist” Preble’s as a threatened subspecies.
Why doesn’t he review the entire history of how the agency has handled the Preble’s listing? It qualifies as a travesty.
When federal officials declared the mouse threatened in 1998, they relied upon a shoddy, cursory analysis of the mouse’s range and population.
The lawsuit demanding the listing actually claimed only a few hundred Preble’s mice survived — an implausible judgment since refuted by a growing body of evidence.
Meanwhile, the agency took as gospel the definition of Preble’s as a separate subspecies that emerged in the early 1950s after the study of three specimens by a scientist who has since disavowed his conclusion. And it discounted contrary analysis.
The agency did have a genetic analysis on its side; trouble is, its data have not been released for independent review.
The capper, however, was the treatment of Rob Roy Ramey, former chairman of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science’s zoology department, after his research questioned whether Preble’s is a distinct subspecies at all. Ramey announced his findings in December 2003, and he’s been a marked man ever since.
A year ago, I documented the pressure put on Ramey and his employer based upon correspondence and e-mails I reviewed. It was clear that attempts to gag Ramey included angry complaints from a Fish and Wildlife official to museum leaders that apparently included a threat to suspend funding related to Preble’s research.
This same official, Ramey says, denounced him in inflammatory phone messages.
Fish and Wildlife took public action, too. Seemingly determined to neutralize Ramey’s research with a contrary study, it tapped a federal scientist whose previous work defining subspecies practically guaranteed he’d “refute” Ramey — which in due course he did. (Incredibly, there are no generally accepted criteria defining subspecies in such cases, and the agency resists pleas by scientists such as Ramey to establish them.)
Sen. Wayne Allard’s office has since obtained copies of other correspondence shining a light on Fish and Wildlife’s behind-the-scenes efforts to undermine Ramey’s work, which Allard laid out in a letter sent this week to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.
Meanwhile, Fish and Wildlife has yet to seriously tackle the main argument made in the 2003 petitions requesting that Preble’s be taken off the threatened list — not Ramey’s work, but the fact that officials grossly underestimated the prevalence of the mouse. If Hall is interested in polishing the agency’s image, he might begin by demanding an end to such foot-dragging.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200708010002
Posted by on August 2, 2007 08:17 AMAh yes, an example of "progressives" thwarting scientific inquiry for their own agenda. What say you, liberals?
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 2, 2007 09:02 AMIt would appear that there is no difference between the "meadow jumping" mouse, the "Western jumping" mouse, and the "Pacific jumping" mouse other than geography. They are all members of the Zapus genus. The three distinctions are arbitrary and designed to divide up the genus so as to place the "meadow jumping" mouse into a smaller population group so as to fall under the endangered category and invoke protection. Such is the strategy of environmentalists.
Posted by CC on August 2, 2007 09:18 AMhttp://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_6521226
Posted by history buff on August 2, 2007 02:35 PMMy age 78 and growing up on farm in Ohio, I used to bring non-poisonous snakes and owls into barn to feed on mice. Also we had cats in barns and sheds for same purpose. Now living in city, I place d-con under sinks and in garage and sheds. Living all over U.S. I have seen many different colors and sizes of mice, but all could and did jump. Had same traits too, that were unsanitary and messy to have around. Always seemed to want to come inside and place their life in extreme danger. Liberals and environmentalists put up signs so deer would know where to cross highways, so perhaps they could educate the mice to stay out of houses. (This post not necessarily all tongue in cheek).
Posted by Frank Whiteman on August 2, 2007 09:34 PMI'm scared of mice too Frank
Posted by on August 2, 2007 10:00 PMAlso afraid to give your name. Think that is major problem in todays society. Easy to cast snide remarks from the shadows. Perhaps you have not read or heard of people dying in Colorado with diseases carried by mice. Where mice thrive, rats do too, and history recorded plague causing death. But go ahead and be afraid. At least I do something about problems effecting me or my family.
Posted by Frank Whiteman on August 4, 2007 10:52 PMIf only Vince and his horde would demand as much scientific credibility from the global warming deniers they seem to love so much.
Posted by jay on August 6, 2007 09:03 AMCould it be that efforts to save these so-called endangered species causes global warming? Can't these bureaucrats and scientists breed a prebles meadow jumping cat? We waste millions upon millions of dollars every year to save a rat or a weed or a fish. Screw 'em...if they can't adapt to a changing world, let them go the way of the dinosaur.....man has dominion over the earth and its creatures.
Posted by Buff Driver on August 7, 2007 09:35 AMIn the early to mid ‘90s I was employed near Rocky Flats at a strip-mining facility. The Prebles mouse controversy came and when the state biologists showed-up to set traps to ascertain if the little bouncers were near the facility we asked him “where have you found them?” his answer was “everywhere we’ve looked”. Sounds like a worthy crisis to me. By the way, if the drought in Houston was global warming can you run by me again what the flooding is? Oh yea “atmospheric volatility”. I get it, so if hot it’s Global Warming and if it’s cold it’s Global W……….
Posted by kobetabber on August 7, 2007 07:54 PMyyyyaaaaawwwwnnnn
Posted by on August 7, 2007 09:09 PMKobe you're not a Denier are you?
http://www.globalwarming101.com
Posted by on August 8, 2007 08:59 AMMan is not the cause of solar activity. Solar activity is the cause of global warming. Thus, unless it is demonstrated that man can control solar activity, man cannot control global warming. Naturally occurring planetary and solar thermal cycles are not a cause for alarm. Not a denier, an embracer. Last I checked the Sahara was still dry.
Posted by kobetabber on August 8, 2007 09:24 AM"Solar activity is the cause of global warming. "
I noticed there is a very concise debunking of that myth on the website previously posted.
Posted by jay on August 8, 2007 01:28 PMThe validity of the website depends on the problem not being solar activity. But in case you missed the recent event known as “sunrise” and the corresponding hemispherical warming, they’ll be another one tomorrow.
Posted by kobetabber on August 8, 2007 08:31 PMkobetabber -
"Solar activity is the cause of global warming"
Nope
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html
"Global warming" is the mechanism of the anti-globalists to retard the growth of the West and America, in particular, which has the consequence - intended or unintended - of shifting power and wealth to China and India. Our efforts here - Amendment 37 and its progeny - will only have a miniscule effort in reducing the growth of carbon emissions on a global basis. But we will will tax and "cost" ourselves into economic recession to derive a "green" feeling of goodness.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 9, 2007 08:46 AMKobetabber...believe the science pal...it's good for you.
Slouch...you scare me a little.
Posted by jay on August 9, 2007 11:03 AMOne question: Why won't Al Gore debate anyone who has an opposing viewpoint on global warning? Might it be that his investments into carbon offsets would be endangered?
Hmm...is there a little inconvenient truth to this this line of reasoning?
Posted by Zorander on August 9, 2007 03:36 PMJay - And that is because I present a view antagonistic to yours which rocks your neatly held view that there should be no divergence. And this is how liberal (in the original meaning of the word) discourse met its death.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 9, 2007 03:39 PMYou guys know why Deniers always drag Al Gore into the debate?
Because saying you simply refuse to believe nearly every single scientist on the matter makes you sound crazy.
Slouch...how do you reconcile your position against nearly 100% of peer-reviewed, credible scientists on this issue?
How do you disregard all the credible, peer-reviewed data that prove you wrong?
Posted by jay on August 9, 2007 04:31 PMWarmest year on record 1934. According to the “natural selection” crowd, you know the guys who have the man from monkey science (I believe its peer reviewed also) man should have no problem with global warming. Man adapts, and if not he’ll evolve into a carbon breathing hominid. Maybe our main competition we’ll be a giant, hydrogen breathing,Preble’s decendent.
Posted by kobetabber on August 10, 2007 06:43 AMJay
How do YOU reconcile that the indisputable evidence of the infamous "hockey stick" graph of Mann used by the IPCC as the key piece of evidence in its 2001 report was ... gasp ... disputed by Canadian scientists (the audacity, the temerity of those 'deniers' to dare question this "nearly 100% peer-reviewed data" from CREDIBLE scientists!) and found to be severely lacking. See: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
See: "The 'Hockey Stick:' A New Low in Climate Science" link here: http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
"This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy."
Slouch, did you know that in addition the the US National Academy of Science the credible, peer-reviewed members of the following orgs have all concurred on the phenomenon of gw? Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
Do you believe they all acted in error?
Posted by jay on August 10, 2007 11:40 AMJay
Answer my question as posed above. Or stay in your self-imposed comfort zone. It's up to you.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 10, 2007 01:41 PMThe hockey stick myth has been debunked so many times I didn't even know it was still being used as a Denier talking point.
Do we really have to go through the exercise of proving you wrong or can we just move on?
Posted by jay on August 10, 2007 05:18 PMI still do not understand how me driving a matchbox can control the sun. And yes, I do believe all of those organizations are wrong about man’s contribution to GW.
Posted by kobetabber on August 11, 2007 06:32 AMI don't know Jay, it appears Slouch has got the better of the argument here. Personally, I don't want to have to pay beaucoup bucks on my energy bills over the next few years just to allow the Chinese and Indians take over what;'s left of our manufacturing base.
Posted by BooBoo on August 11, 2007 07:11 PMSo before I start debunking myths...let's just save time and make sure I have all the ones you believe in straight so we can make this as short of a process as possible and move forward.
You believe that
1, The sun is the cause of the majority of abnormal global warming we've seen since the dawn of the industrial revolution
and/or
2. You believe that the scientists who make up nearly every single one of the supporters of the data behind global warming are wrong/incompetent and therefore there is no scientific consensus on the matter
and/or
3. The data progressions represented by the "hockey stick" graph and others have been thoroughly debunked and don't represent the actual fluctuations of temp/gas emmissions/co2 levels/etc.
Did I get that right? Is there anything else that you'd like to add before we start?
Posted by jay on August 13, 2007 02:35 PMI agree with Jay. That hockey stick graph was soooo bogus and the enviros just can't admit it because they have drank the Kool-ade.
Posted by Pete on August 14, 2007 03:59 PMHey Jay ol' buddy, another example of "indisputable" evidence ... (and they were heard to exclaim "DENIERS"!)
"Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder
Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble
Aug 14, 2007 04:30 AM
DANIEL DALE
STAFF REPORTER
In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.
After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.
Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.
More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."
But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.
Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."
However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."
A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.
This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.
Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.
McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.
"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 14, 2007 04:15 PMAlso, check out this ... Guess the date?
Page 2 headline in the ________ edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."
Nov. 2, 1922. That's right ... 1922!!
The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."
"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 14, 2007 04:23 PMCan I get an answer? Are those the only myths I'll be debunking or do you have some other reasons for not believing that humans contribute to gw? Just want to save a little time. I'm sure you understand. If we get all the Denier-talking points out at once we don't to go through the process several times as more come up. So...one more time....are there any other reasons besides the ones I've summarized for your Denier-status?
Posted by jay on August 14, 2007 06:04 PMI don't expect Jay to read the following article, but it is posted for those with a more tolerant and open mindset for discourse:
Hedging Climate Bets
By James V. DeLong : BIO| 29 Jan 2007
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will release its Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers on February 2. While the report is embargoed, those involved say it will "increase the sense of urgency" that "time is running out," according to Greenwire.
As we put up the storm shutters for the forthcoming gale-force oratorical winds, it is interesting to suggest another way of looking at the issue, by borrowing some concepts from the world of finance.
Anyone who deals with financial operators such as hedge funds quickly learns the concept "mis-priced assets," and slides into a habit of examining the world within its framework. It is indeed a useful way to think.
Whereas most people live in a world of specific prediction, in which authorities assert firmly that X or Y will or will not happen, the hedgies admit that they don't know and can't know. Their world is probabilistic, full of uncertainties and contingencies. It is not probabilistic in the sense of a card game, where the odds of drawing a spade are precisely 25% -- that would make investment bets easy. It is uncertain, which means that you don't know the odds on drawing a spade, or perhaps even whether this particular deck has any spades in it, and the presence of spades may actually be contingent on whether another deck entirely turns out to have any hearts. The crucial judgments concern investment strategy in light of assessments of these complicated probabilities.
The nature of the business makes hedgies into odds players. Not in the sense of "I know there are no spades left in the deck, so my straight has a lock on his hand," but in the sense of "The market is pricing this hand as if there were 8 spades left in the deck whereas I know that there are only 3." Or, to shift to an investment context, the calculation is "the market is pricing Deck Industries as if it has a 30% chance of getting that contract, but my specialized knowledge of the particular processes involved leads me to believe that its chance is actually 50%," or perhaps, "this company looks like a dog, but my technical expert says there is 30%-50% chance that its patents will be crucial to some major tech players."
The bet is that Mr. Market is mis-pricing assets, in the sense that the value it puts on them does not reflect the true probabilities, and that the hedgie, for some reason, has superior insight into these true probabilities. This does not mean that the hedgie is always right - a 60% batting average is great - or that the favored horse always wins. A 10% chance is a long shot, but it wins 10% of the time. So the hedgie, like a Las Vegas casino, wants to keep making bets at favorable odds.
In this world, the worst sin is assuming something has a 100% probability when it may well have considerably less, or assuming it has zero probability when it actually has a real shot. "They forgot the tail of the risk," is a term of contempt, bringing to mind bygone firms gone bust, such as Long Term Capital Management.
As one capitalist recently noted at a conference (I don't think he would want to be identified): "I make money when idiots mis-price assets. Luckily, I am blessed with a large supply of idiots, many of them in government."
Governments are indeed reliable founts of asset mis-pricing. High in the running for all-time champion was the FCC's implementation of the 1996 Telecom Act, which led to extravagant valuations of new firms that had no assets and no customers - their business model was to buy access to facilities built by existing carriers and then attract these carriers' customers by offering cut rates. It did not work, and those who invested on the assumption that the government could make it work lost heavily.
Even as we speak, a combination of do-good greens, political manipulators, anti-industrial technophobes, venture socialists, and the reactionary rich (the categories are not mutually exclusive) are promoting a mis-pricing scheme of even greater magnitude. This one involves assets whose value is based on the theory that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are responsible for what is going to be an unacceptable degree of global climate change.
It is possible that this theory is correct, but it much less certain than the drum beat of propaganda would have us believe. For example, a somewhat contradictory news account on the forthcoming report said, "And the cause is clear, say the authors: 'It is very likely that [man-made] greenhouse gas increases caused most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century,' says the report." I would have thought that "very likely" is not the same as "clear cause," but perhaps I suffer from excessive logic.
A competing explanation of the mild warming that has occurred during the past few decades is that the sun goes through regular cycles in the amount of energy it emits, which results in changes in the energy received by the earth and in its exposure to cosmic rays from elsewhere in the galaxy. It could well be that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an effect of this sun-cycle-caused warming and not a cause. Some serious observers think so, and they have some interesting arguments (or see the recent controversial articles by Christopher Monckton (pp. 20-22)).
It is also of course possible that the sun cycle theory is not correct. The IPCC researchers dismiss it as a serious factor, according to the press leaks.
It is also possible that both theories are correct; that CO2 and sun cycles are jointly responsible. Or it could be that sun cycles are the primary cause of current warming, but that in the long run continuing CO2 emissions will have a warming effect, so there is a long-term CO2 problem to be dealt with, even if it not the immediate problem now assumed to exist.
There are many possibilities, but the crux is that the probability that the current strong form of the CO2 theory of climate change is correct is nowhere near the 100% assigned to it by the hype, and the probability that the sun cycle theory (or any other theory or group of theories) is correct is nowhere near the 0% that is assigned to it. So, by definition, any assets that are now priced on the basis of these complementary assumptions are mis-priced. As climate change research proceeds over the next decade, better insight into the true probabilities will be achieved, so the potential for repricing assets to better accord with the underlying realities offers opportunities for favorable investment bets.
So, of what use is this information?
One could use it to start the Sun Cycle Investment Fund. This would be a beneficent enterprise, in the same way that the bets on Tradesports are useful. There is nothing like the opportunity to place a bet at favorable odds to trigger curiosity and investigation. In fact, maybe those known contemptuously as "the deniers" should establish an on-line betting market, a la Tradesports. Surely, all the scientists, politicians and journalists who assert that CO2 theory is indisputable would be eager to bet their own 401(k) money on the proposition. (Figuring out how to resolve the bets would be a problem, though. Tradesports deals with discrete events.)
For those interested in keeping national policy from going off the rails on climate change, with all the economic and social destruction this threatens, the question is how to leverage this hedge fund mode of thinking to influence the debate.
Several thoughts come to mind.
The first is to ask whether such a mis-match really exists. Another tenet of hedge fund thinking is that market prices not only react to information, they also provide information about what people really think. Mr. Market is made up not just of New Yorkers and Londoners, who get their environmental expertise from the New York Times and the Economist, it encompasses Russian oligarchs and Asian billionaires, who can buy excellent advice from scientists not dependent on toeing the proper foundation or Western government political line to keep their grant money flowing. If these see deluded Westerners willing to place bad bets, they will be on the other side of the trades until over-all prices better reflect the underlying probabilities.
So one logical approach is to ask exactly what the prices of various assets are telling us about disinterested opinion concerning CO2 theory. Granted, the market is very noisy, and prices reflect possible government mandates and subsidies, the U.S. interest in energy independence for security and foreign policy reasons, and the peak oil issue. But buried somewhere in the haystack is valuable information about what some of the world's smartest investors really think about CO2, and it would behoove those in the "skeptic" community to find it and feed it back into the political debate. Who ya gonna believe -- Al Gore or an Indonesian billionaire with real money on the line and access to some of the best expertise in the world?
A second use for the question about the relationship of asset prices to the probabilities of CO2 theory is domestic. At present, much of the U.S. financial class seems seriously misinformed about the climate change issue; unrelenting propaganda has had its impact, and this is about to be accentuated by the impact of the new report.
But this mis-education occurred when nothing of personal importance was at stake and ignorance was rational. With the Democrats back in power on Capitol Hill, there is a real possibility of serious governmental initiatives, and ignorance is no longer rational. The financial markets bustle with smart people, all seeking an edge over Mr. Market's assessment of probabilities. Once they are alerted to the possibility of mis-pricing, their smart move will be to seek out the work of the reputable skeptics and judge it by honest yardsticks of scientific inquiry rather than by the hype of self-interested propagandists. Of course, the prospect that Asian billionaires may be selling or buying mis-priced assets from New York counterparties is a powerful incentive.
If over the next five to 10 years, as more information becomes available, there is a significant probability that the credibility of the CO2 explanation will be undermined, then the implications for the proper allocation of investments are enormous. Those who get a good grip on the real probabilities will profit at the expense of those who do not.
A third possible use of these concepts of probabilities and mis-priced assets lies in dealing with those who now seek to profit from the hype, which is increasingly supported by important economic interests that hope to ride the issue to profits (See Kim Strassel's recent article in the Wall Street Journal for more on this). Indeed, one can regard the rising intensity of CO2 theory propaganda, the increasing pressure for government subsidies and mandates, and the efforts to silence "deniers," all as contrarian indicators that the crisis mongers are aware that reality is not necessarily on their side, and as a symptom that they are determined to cash in quickly before more sober analysis prevails. Venture socialists investing in subsidized ethanol or windpower are examples, as are companies that would like to collect CO2 tax credits for phasing out obsolete facilities.
These punters need to understand that there is a downside to such bets. If the strong form of the anthropogenic CO2-induced climate change theory turns out to be wrong, there will be a significant push to abolish misbegotten policies of favoritism that would then be crippling developed world economies in international competition, and a lot of assets might be written down to zero. The venture socialists will not be given a pass. If their bets turn out wrong, it will be pointed out that they knew the risks, and that any bailouts will be loudly mocked.
So in the end, those who doubt the hype may need to do little except make sure that skeptical information remains available. If it is out there, the financial community will come to it in the end, as long as it understands that the stakes involve possible trading profits. Greed does indeed have its uses.
Slouch
Thanks for posting that article. It's really an eye-opener. There is a worthy point to be made and the global warming side seeks to shut down the debate using very un-liberal methods. They should be absolutely ashamed. (But they impervious to such given their righteousness.)
Posted by BooBoo on August 16, 2007 08:22 AMSee Slouch this is the kind of non-peer reviewed drivel that may be confusing you on the credible, valid science behind gw.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=346
I'll ask again in the hope that I can help you find some more credible sources on the subject that have been validated by nearly every scientist in the field...instead of exxon-funded lawyers who do nothing but shred your credibility on the matter.
Do you have any other reasons besides the ones I've outlined for not believing the science behind gw that has been validated, reviewed and agreed with by nearly every single scientist in the field?
Seriously....I"m really asking. I think I can really help you here....
Posted by jay on August 16, 2007 11:29 AMMy other question is why are you choosing to believe politicians and oil company stooges instead of scientists...on the question of the validity of science?
Who convinced you that believing that humans contribute to gw makes you a raving far left wing liberal?
Posted by jay on August 16, 2007 11:31 AMAh, yes, the time-honored tactic of the "progressive" movement - sully and attack the character of the other side. How very KOS-like of you, Jay. But, I should not have expected anything less. It is very Himmler-like, no?
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 16, 2007 03:42 PMI wasn't attacking anyone Slouch. I simply brought to light the fact that your source was a lawyer funded by Exxon.
Now can we get back to the question at hand?
Are the reasons I've summarized a comprehensive list of the reasons why you don't believe that humans contribute to GW?
I"d be happy to address your "concerns" one by one and provide credible, peer-reviewed, scientific information in a very non-threatening way if it will help alleviate some of your confusion on the issue.
Posted by jay on August 16, 2007 03:47 PMGosh, Jay is so very predictable. I think all of these guys have received the same sheet of talking points - from Time and Newsweek.
Below are some more deniers which, if Jay is true to form, will be denigrated as being bankrolled by ... get ready ... drumroll please . BIG OIL!
- George Will: "So, "the debate is over." Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration." It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by -- how did you guess? -- big oil.
- Fiona Harvey, the Financial Times' environmental correspondent, fresh from yet another international confabulation on climate change, wrote that while Earth's cloud cover "is thought" to have increased recently, no one knows whether this is good or bad. Is the heat-trapping by the clouds' water vapor greater or less than the sun's heat reflected back off the clouds into space? Climate-change forecasts, Harvey writes, are like financial forecasts but involve a vastly more complex array of variables. The climate forecasts, based on computer models analyzing the past, tell us that we do not know how much warming is occurring, whether it is a transitory episode or how much warming is dangerous -- or perhaps beneficial.
-
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 17, 2007 09:40 AMJay, a great column by Will for you to read ... but, of course, you won't, because George is in the pocket of ... BIG OIL!
Let Cooler Heads Prevail
The Media Heat Up Over Global Warming
By George F. Will
Sunday, April 2, 2006; Page B07
So, "the debate is over." Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to "Be Worried. Be Very Worried," and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.
Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.
Jenny S. Martinez:
The Real Verdict on Jose Padilla
Michael Gerson:
What History Taught Karl Rove
Eugene Robinson:
In Iraq, Shattering Villages and Illusions
Charles Lane:
A Marylander to Honor
Charles Krauthammer:
Return of the Natural
Today's Editorials
Think Tank Town | On Faith | PostGlobal
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Grasping Reality with Both Hands: Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal
Bring it On!
Paul Thurrott's Internet Nexus - A technology blog
Full List of Blogs (122 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share
Tag This Article
Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Subheadline
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Subheadline Blurb None
3. Tag This Article
Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried -- as very worried -- as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, "Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?"
It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by -- how did you guess? -- big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .
Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.
Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and "all the scientists" say something must be done "right now." Schweitzer, quickly recovering from hopefulness and returning to the "be worried, be very worried" message, said "it's even more critical than that" because China and India are going to "put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with conventional coal-fired generators than all of the rest of the planet has during the last 150 years."
That is one reason why the Clinton administration never submitted the Kyoto accord on global warming for Senate ratification. In 1997 the Senate voted 95 to 0 that the accord would disproportionately burden America while being too permissive toward major polluters that are America's trade competitors.
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
In fact, the Earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the Earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Midwest -- must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is "over"?
About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.
Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
georgewill@washpost.com
One more shill for BIG OIL (as Jay would characterize it): "And they were called DENIERS!"
Professor Robert Essenhigh doesn't think global warming is man-made. He's quoted as saying,
At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does.
Essenhigh thinks global warming is just a natural climate cycle. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmophere is a symptom of the cycle and not its cause.
This would put a damper on environmentalists' desire to regulate the economy in order to "save the planet," but facts won't get in the way of extending government's power.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 17, 2007 09:50 AMSlouch, why are you running from this debate? Are you afraid that if we list the specific reason why you don't believe that humans contribute to global warming I'm going to be able to debunk them as myths? Isn't that part of the learning process? Validating beliefs? If we don't go through that vetting process every once in a while....folks end up with a ridiculous view of what is "truth". Surely you're not afraid of going through that process are you?
I'll be waiting if you find the courage.
Posted by jay on August 17, 2007 10:15 AMIf this were a prizefight it would have been stopped a few rounds ago. How many more head blows can Jay take?
Posted by BooBoo on August 17, 2007 11:45 AMJay
And here's another one from a "denier" that I invite you to rebut ... that noise in the background is me laughing gleefully
"Overturning the "Consensus" in One Fell Swoop [Joel Schwartz]
New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. Schwartz’s study is “in press” at the Journal of Geophysical Research and you can download a preprint of the study here.
According to Schwartz’s results, which are based on the empirical relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content, doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1oC increase in average temperature (0.1–2.1oC, two standard deviation uncertainty range). Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range).
Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming.
A couple of other interesting implications of Schwartz’s results:
Aerosols have a relatively small effect on temperature. A doubling of CO2 has an estimated climate “forcing” of 2.7 watts per square centimeter (W/cm2). In contrast, actual aerosol concentrations during the 20th Century had a forcing of -0.3 W/cm2 with a large uncertainty range that could mean either net cooling or net warming from aerosols.
The response time, or “time constant”, of the climate to greenhouse gas forcing is relatively small—only five years. In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming “in the pipeline” from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6oC during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing.
Schwartz is careful to include the appropriate caveats to his results. But he also shows that his estimates are consistent with much of the previous literature on the subject. His study also has the virtue of relying largely on empirical measurements of actual climate behavior during the 20th Century, rather than on climate models.
Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism.
Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific “consensus”, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?"
08/16 03:34 PM
And yet another one from the "Deniers!" crowd ... will Jay take the challenge and rebut this as well? Or will he continue to attack the "deniers!" as being in the pocket of BIG OIL! He he ...
Atlantic Panic Debunked
Thursday, August 16, 2007
By Steven Milloy
Climate alarmists gleefully surfed a 2005 Nature study that claimed greenhouse gas emissions would slow Atlantic Ocean circulation and cause a mini ice age in Europe. Their ride now seems headed for a gnarly wipeout.
An international team of researchers just reported in the journal Science (Aug. 17) that the intensity of the Atlantic circulation may vary by as much as a factor of 8 in a single year. The decrease in Atlantic circulation claimed in the Nature study falls well within this variation and so is likely part of a natural yearly trend, according to the new study.
The media release for the 2005 Nature study ominously read, “The ocean currents that help to maintain Northern Europe's relatively clement climate are weakening, according to a new survey carried out in the Atlantic Ocean. The new data shows that the system of currents that moves warm waters north and returns cooler waters to more southerly latitudes has weakened by 30 percent since 1957.”
Researchers aboard a 2004 voyage led by the UK National Oceanography Centre’s Harry Bryden surveyed the strength of currents at various depths at latitude of 25 degrees north. Although Bryden found no change to the Gulf Stream — the northward flow of warm water near the surface — he reported a 50 percent reduction in the amount of cold, deep waters flowing southwards and a 50 percent increase in the amount of water recirculating within subtropical regions without reaching higher latitudes. These changes, according to Bryden, showed that less water is completing a full circuit of the entire Atlantic current system.
The Nature study spawned a tidal wave of scary headlines around the world that December, including “Scientists Say Slow Atlantic Currents Could Mean a Colder Europe” (New York Times); “Fears of Big Freeze as Scientists Detect Slower Gulf Stream” (The Independent, UK); “Shifting Currents Renew Fears of Freezing” (The Gazette, Montreal); “Europe Faces Feal Day After Tomorrow” (Courier Mail, Australia); and “Ocean Flow Findings Indicate Harsher Winters for Europe” (Press Trust of India).
Even the anti-Kyoto Protocol, non-alarmist magazine The Economist fell for the Atlantic Panic.
“Dr. Bryden’s data indicate that what [geologic] history and the [climate] models describe may actually be happening at the moment to currents in the north Atlantic … Dr. Bryden’s result is about as robust as can be expected … Dr. Bryden’s finding … provides a reason to think more clearly about the whole issue of climate change.”
Nine months later, in an editorial entitled, “The Heat Is On” (Sept. 9, 2006), The Economist moved squarely into the alarmist camp. “The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction. America should lead the way,” is how the editorial opened. “Mr. Bush has got two years left in the job. He would like to be remembered as a straight shooter who did the right thing. Tackling climate change would be one way to do that,” is how the article closed.
Bryden’s line of thinking also found its way into the most recent report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — a report that includes him as one of its reviewers. Although the report didn’t endorse Bryden’s claimed magnitude for the Atlantic slowdown, it did conclude that such a slowdown was “very likely” during the 21st century.
But now Bryden’s finding has been exposed as a nothing burger — although this should have come as no surprise.
Bryden worked with only very limited oceanic data — five sets of ship-based temperature and salinity measurements from the north Atlantic collected during research cruises between 1957 and 2004. His prediction of a much larger slowdown of the Atlantic current than made by climate model simulations is the sort of extreme outlier result that often occurs with the use of incomplete and inadequate data.
In contrast, the new result is based on bottom pressure, temperature and salinity data for the full water column on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge collected continuously since March 2004. The ocean-interior measurements were complemented by sea cable and satellite measurements of the northward flow of the Gulf Stream and surface-driven wind transport, respectively. What a difference high-quality data makes.
Even though Bryden wisely backed off his alarmist claims by mid-2006 after reviewing a year’s worth of the new measurements, his retraction garnered virtually no media attention. The New Scientist’s “No New Ice Age for Western Europe” (Nov. 4, 2006), New Zealand National Business Review’s “Scientists Debunk Gulf Stream Failure Scenario” (Jan. 26, 2007) and a passing mention on National Public Radio (Jan. 29, 2007), hardly begin to undo the media hysteria launched in December 2005.
Despite the new Atlantic data, however, there is still much uncertainty about the variation in Atlantic current. A recent study in the Journal of Climate estimated that it will take several decades of data to detect trends in Atlantic circulation. A news article accompanying the new Science study observed, “Similarly, it will take decades of monitoring to determine which (if any) of the models analyzed by the IPCC most accurately reflects reality.”
Several decades, you say? But we’re being stampeded into global warming regulation now. The Atlantic Panic underscores our limited knowledge of how the climate system functions. Does it really make sense to regulate first and ask questions later?
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 17, 2007 02:44 PMSlouch...I really don't understand why you won't simply share with me the list of reasons you have for not believing that humans contribute to global warming. I've heard of running from a fight, but this is a little ridiculous.
When you're ready to do that I'd be happy to provide you with credible, peer-reviewed information that will address each of your "concerns".
I'd really like to start that process...but if you're just going to refuse to engage in that conversation I guess it can be safely assumed that you're not going to fight a battle that you will lose. Good for you for reading some Sun Tzu.
Stop running...it won't hurt much.
Posted by jay on August 17, 2007 03:01 PMpoor slouchy
me thinks he is a little over his head here
Posted by on August 17, 2007 10:48 PMAnd the list grows !
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 20, 2007 08:27 AMAnd the list grows !
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 20, 2007 08:27 AMAnd another one !!
Science 6 July 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5834, pp. 28 - 29
Another Global Warming Icon Comes Under Attack
Richard A. Kerr
Climate scientists are used to skeptics taking potshots at their favorite line of evidence for global warming. It comes with the territory. But now a group of mainstream atmospheric scientists is disputing a rising icon of global warming, and researchers are giving some ground.
The challenge to one part of the latest climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "is not a question of whether the Earth is warming or whether it will continue to warm" under human influence, says atmospheric scientist Robert Charlson of the University of Washington, Seattle, one of three authors of a commentary published online last week in Nature Reports: Climate Change.
Instead, he and his co-authors argue that the simulation by 14 different climate models of the warming in the 20th century is not the reassuring success IPCC claims it to be. Future warming could be much worse than that modeling suggests, they say, or even more moderate. IPCC authors concede the group has a point, but they say their report--if you look in the right places--reflects the uncertainty the critics are pointing out.
Twentieth-century simulations would seem like a straightforward test of climate models. In the run-up to the IPCC climate science report released last February (Science, 9 February, p. 754), 14 groups ran their models under 20th-century conditions of rising greenhouse gases. As a group, the models did rather well (see figure). A narrow range of simulated warmings (purple band) falls right on the actual warming (black line) and distinctly above simulations run under conditions free of human influence (blue band).
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 20, 2007 08:32 AMJay should read the following
The notion had been propagated in the media and popular culture that there is a "consensus" among virtually all scientists not funded by oil and gas money that the world is heating up at a rapid pace, and that this is a result of human activity, especially in North America and Europe, where people are consuming too much carbon-based energy.
For example, Dr. Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel said that "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS (the American Meteorological Society) shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns."
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., spoke at Al Gore's Live Earth event on July 7. Referring to global warming skeptics, he said, "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." The lynch mob was gathering.
In a previous column, I noted that CBS's Scott Pelley used the Newsweek tactic of comparing the skeptics to Holocaust deniers. When he was asked why, in a "60 Minutes" story on global warming, he ignored the views of the skeptics, he said, "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?" This is the mentality among many in the media, and it is reflected in the Newsweek cover story.
But according to one of the believers in the man-made global warming theory, Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, the allusion to so-called "deniers" is "an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change."
Newsweek didn't take his admonition seriously.
In fact, the science behind global warming is the subject of a legitimate debate. This is an area in which our media, if reporters were truly devoted to professional journalism and objective coverage, could shine. Instead, they resort to using smear tactics against one side.
If journalists practiced real journalism, in terms of getting access to different sources of information, they would consult and make use of Senator Inhofe's website where Marc Morano's information appears.
Many in the liberal media despise Inhofe and Morano because they are so effective.
Interestingly, however, after Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" won the Academy Award for best documentary, many scientists began coming out of the "Skeptic" closet. They had seen enough and were no longer going to fear the wrath of the media.
In a column, Morano identifies scientists who have gone from believer to skeptic. They include David Bellamy, "famed UK environmental campaigner recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the new science and who now calls global warming fears "poppycock." And Claude Allegre, "a top geophysicist and French Socialist" who now says the cause of climate change is "unknown," accused the proponents of "manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money." There are many more, identified and quoted.
This writer noted many of the skeptics in a column which has generated emails from scientists in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries. One is the aforementioned Bob Carter of Australia, who first directed me to some important data suggesting that there has been no warming whatsoever in this century.
Posted by LiberalSkeptic on August 20, 2007 08:40 AMSlouch...why don't I just start debunking myths and if you have the courage to dispute the data and valid, PEER-REVIEWED information I give...by all means speak up since you refuse to directly engage me in this debate...not that I blame you....I wouldn't want to toe your line either....
Does that sound good or will you continue to try to run from me?
Posted by jay on August 20, 2007 12:23 PMSpeaking of PEER-REVIEWED ...
Could the skeptics be right, and the majority of the world's peer-reviewed "experts" wrong?
The history of science shows consensus doesn't guarantee success. The collective wisdom of the early 1900s declared continental drift bunk. Some Nobel laureates attacked Einstein's theory of relativity.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 20, 2007 12:46 PMAntonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".
"Could the skeptics be right, and the majority of the world's peer-reviewed "experts" wrong?"
Glad to see I won't have to debunk the myth that there isn't a scientific consensus on this issue...or that nearly every single peer-reviewed scientist in or near the field agrees with this consensus.
Are we agreed on the format then Slouch? I just don't want you to have any wiggle room once we start the process...I'm sure you understand.
Are there any "skeptic viewpoints" in particular that you'd like to to address at the beginning?
Posted by jay on August 20, 2007 12:58 PMScientist Steven Schneider, in "Global Warming," says scientists must "decide what the right balance is between being (politically) effective and being honest." So much for the "unbiased" opinion of a "peer-reviewed" scientist. Heh, heh.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there's more water vapor than any other greenhouse gas. In fact, up to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and clouds.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 21, 2007 10:40 AMWhy won't Jay read the below? Because he is intolerant of views that are contrary to his. Such is the ideological straightjacket that is the "progressive" mindset.
Scientific secrecy is a danger to all
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The latest wrinkle in the global-warming controversy finds the National Aeronautics and Space Administration quietly correcting its historical data to compensate for an earlier error, a correction that should deflate some of the recent panic-mongering about an apparently warming Earth.
The correction reduced the average temperatures for 2000-2006 in the continental United States by about 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit (with many stations showing lower readings and many showing readings much above average). That dethroned 1998 as the hottest year on record, a distinction in the NASA data set that now belongs to 1934 (by an insignificant margin over 1998). Several other recent hot years were moved down in the rankings, and the 1930s now account for four of the top 10.
The number changes don’t greatly affect worldwide averages - but they reveal a disturbing arrogance among scientists in the community of global-warming true believers.
The data-handling error - the assumption that one set of numbers was identical to another when it was not - was discovered by Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre, who notified NASA on Aug. 4. NASA almost immediately corrected its Web site, but without any notice of the changes. You can bet that if the correction had shifted the data the other way, there would have been press releases, news conferences and lugubrious music on the TV news. As it was, it was left to the conservative blogosphere to spread the word; the mainstream media ignored the episode.
That’s not the worst of it. NASA refused to release to McIntyre the computer codes it used to make the correction, though a huge amount of the agency’s other climate codes are online. McIntyre believes there are “real and interesting statistical issues” involved in the records of the observing stations on which NASA relies, issues of whether the proper corrections have been made for the well-known “heat island” effects of urban areas. Most warming believers take it on faith that they have; McIntyre says he knows of too many instances where a thermometer has been placed closer than 100 feet to a paved surface.
Science is not supposed to work by secrecy. Stonewalling by NASA will only increase the number and fervor of the skeptics.
The myths I like to debunk right away have already been done away with by admission from our good man Slouch.
Namely, those myths are that there isn't a scientific consensus on the issue of gw and that there is a sizeable credible, peer-reviewed scientific "opposition" to the data behind gw.
If that's not agreed, Slouch, please tell me now.
In most instances, I find Deniers have a tough time coming to terms with those facts....that there is a broad, credible scientific consensus behind gw and that the opposition nearly to a man isn't broad and isn't peer-reviewed and/or stands up to scientific validation.
Glad we have those biggies out of the way up front. Again...if that's not the case, speak now or forever cease the Denial of those facts.
Let's move on to one of my favorites...The Conspiracy Theory.
Slouch illustrated it's use for us above:
"Global warming" is the mechanism of the anti-globalists to retard the growth of the West and America"
Great example. Thank you.
The Conspiracy Theory comes in many forms, but most often can be distilled to the basic premise that there is "collusion", not "consensus" on global warming...group think intended as a means to an end. Most Conspiracy Theorists believe that fighting global warming would inevitably cause an economic nuclear winter...and as ridiculous as it seems...believe that there is a broad conspiracy amongst the peer-reviewed scientific community whose sole purpose is to bring about the reality of the aformentioned economic armageddon.
The hypothesis (for it doesn't pass the test to become theory) that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs is an unfounded myth, put simply. One has to shake the sand from their ears and put on their true skeptic's hat and wonder what type of organizations would benefit from the propagation of such a ridiculous talking point. We'll leave that for later.
The verifiable fact is that companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will of course depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for said reductions and the means by which it is implemented.
That said, an independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment. Considering the enormous cost per household of the recent tax cuts, iraq war and deficit spending...this represents a single digit fraction of the costs absorbed recently by the american taxpayer.
Experience and sound fiscal policies (taught in some of the best colleges, Slouch:) has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. That's a pretty strong statement. Read it again if you don't understand its clear implication for this translatable issue. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth...again...sound fiscal policy taught in institutions of higher learning...leaving the clear correlation that many Deniers are deficient to a fault in that area.
Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy to a FAR greater extent that taking sensible, realistically implemented proactive action. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now than to absorb higher costs and greater economic stability by sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to believe that the sky is blue. No one is implying that we sabatoge our own economy be enacting overly constrictive and economically counterproductive regulations designed to reduce our impact. My personal thought is that we should do all that we can without severely impacting the ecnonomy. Surely there's no conspiracy in that stance is there?
Seeing the boogeymen of collusion and conspiracy instead of scientifically valid consensus is quite a needlessly dramatic take on what is really just the normal course of scientific investigation. Again one has to wonder who would benefit from making such an implication. Do some thinking on that and we'll get back to it.
The best indicator of what individual scientists think is to look at current scientific journals, where new and different is the paramount value and scientist are free to express their own work and more importantly, open said work up to peer review and scientific debate....the bedrocks of validating scientific theory...again, something the Deniers' sources have lacked for years...which is the bane of conspiracy theorists everywhere. Sounds like a good topic for research, don't you think?
Naomi Oreskes took on just this topic. She did an ISI database search with the keyphrase "global climate change" and then surveyed all 928 abstracts she found that had been published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. She divided the papers into six categories:
-explicit endorsement of the consensus position
-evaluation of impacts
-mitigation proposals and methods
-paleoclimate analysis
-rejection of the consensus position
This is important Slouch, so pay attention. Her key finding is that NONE of these papers fell into the last category while 75% fell into the first three. This is an extremely robust consensus of peer-reviewed opinion, especially considering that the start date was a full two years before the much attacked 1995 IPCC report (more about that later as well).
More importantly, considering that these abstracts were chosen at random and identified without the hinderance of scientific community favor or influence...it is the heighth of irresponsibility and intellectual dishonesty to suggest a conspiracy resides within the peer-reviewed, scientifically credible pages of these said journals.
My work is done here....this house is clean of The Conspiracy Myth.
Shall we move on to the next one?
I see by your recent post that you're trying to imply that there is truth to the myth that there is still scientifically valid debate occuring about the basic premises of global warming...so I'll wait until I hear from you so that if we aren't agreed according to the first couple of paragraphs above, we'll have to back up and get those out of the way.
let me know...just here to help.
Posted by jay on August 21, 2007 11:20 AMNext, Jay the "thoughtful progressive" will be backing single-payer healthcare. You see folks, progressives are great at forwarding plans as long as they can "socialize" the costs to the rest of the society whilst carving out exceptions for their protected class. What unbelievable hypocrites are these people.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 21, 2007 03:49 PMHey how come Jay refuses to respond to Slouch, who makes some pretty convincing arguments? I guess Jay is just scared.
Posted by on August 21, 2007 03:50 PMSTOP THE PRESSES!! MORE INDICATION THAT THE "PEER-REVIEWED" SCIENTISTS ARE RIGHT AND THE CASE IS CLOSED ON HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Arctic August: NYC Sets Record For Coldest Day
High Of 59 Degrees Ties Chilliest August High Set In 1911
(CBS) NEW YORK Don't forget to bundle up if you're headed out in New York City today.
After all, it is August 21.
The city along with the rest of the tri-state region is feeling the chilly effect of a cold front sweeping through the region, accompanied by cool rain showers.
Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67.
"This unusual blast of cold air smashed our previous record for the coldest high temperature on August 21, which is 64 degrees, set back in 1999," CBS 2 meteorologist Jason Cali told wcbstv.com.
In fact, the 59-degree high tied the record for the coldest high temperature ever for the month of August in New York City, when it reached just 59 degrees in 1911.
Today's highs are more common in the city for the final days of October, when the average high ranges from 59 degrees to 61 degrees.
Heh, heh
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 21, 2007 03:55 PMSlouch, please respond to my debunking of The Conspiracy Myth or at least respond to the question at the end regarding the "Scientific Consensus Myth" and or "Sizeable/Credible Opposition Myth"....just wanting to know which myth I need to debunk next. Thanks buddy.
Posted by jay on August 21, 2007 05:15 PMThe following MUST be true because it has been studied at a .... drumroll please .... a PEER-REVIEWED University. Thus, the debate is ended, and thus that dare dissent shall be branded DENIERS! Heh, heh
Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching
The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.
Now poor moose are being blamed for global warming.
Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.
Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.
Bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon dioxide gas. Cows pose the same problem (more...).
Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year's moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.
Hey Jay,
Please respond to the above e-mail and the previous e-mails I have posted and acknowledge that the debate continues regarding the causes of global warming. I know you consistently duck these questions, but I'm really hoping for the sake of a liberal and tolerant forum that you will respond. I continue to wait very patiently for your admissions.
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on August 22, 2007 08:06 AMThanks for responding Slouch.
I guess we have to regress a bit and cover the "Sizeable Opposition/No Scientific Consensus Myth" before moving on.
No worries, I thought as much by your postings.
Give me a bit I'll get that out to you.
Again....just trying to help.
Can I ask a question to get us started?
How do you reconcile the fact that nearly every single credible, peer-reviewed scientist in the field concurs with the scientific consensus on gw?
The same type of overwhelming consensus is seen with evolution, yet there are still dogmatically driven folks who still dissent...but that doesn't a debate make....why should the dogma and politics-driven Deniers be seen in anything but the same light?
Respond at your convenience...I'll start the debunking of the afore mentioned myths.
Posted by jay on August 22, 2007 08:57 AMBeen a little busy today and am heading out for a late meeting...gonna have to debunk those a little later...any feedback from my good man slouch?
Any other myths that I should cover while I'm at it?
This would be a lot easier and quicker if you'd just stop running give me a list....but I digress.
Will get the latest up shortly.
Posted by jay on August 22, 2007 04:37 PMBueller?
Bueller?
Predictably absent....
Posted by jay on August 22, 2007 09:13 PMMoving on...
Much like the "debate" on evolution vs. creationism...the "debate" about global warming isn't taking place in the scientific community. There is certainly dogmatic dissent seen in well-funded sectors...but that dissent is neither scientifically valid, sizeable nor accredited through the time honored process of PEER-REVIEW.
The most respected scientific bodies the world over have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are contributing to it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (IN ADDITION TO THEIR COUNTERPARTS THE WORLD OVER), which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
That's an important statement people so take note. No one is talking about the sky falling. No one is talking about nuking the economy (a myth I guess we'll have to cover later)...but rather "cost-effective steps". Unlike Slouch who would have you believe that any acknowledgement of the scientific facts behind human influenced global warming is equivalent to being a "bleeding heart liberal"...or that any action taken to curb human contribution to global warming would result in "economic catastrophe" or "undue economic regulation".....these world renowned, highly accredited, PEER-REVIEWED scientific organizations are simply saying that we need to do what we can within reason.
Seems like a pretty sensible solution doesn't it?
I''ll ask again....you know why Deniers always attack Al Gore instead of the scientists who support the undeniable data behind human influenced gw?
Because saying you don't believe nearly EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST IN THE FIELD makes you sound like an uneducated hillbilly. I'll say it again...uneducated hillbilly.
Let me rephrase that for the cheap, far right seats. You can side with the politicians and lobbyists on this one...or you can side with the folks who base their opinions on PEER-REVIEWED data.
Your choice...but like Slouch...your choice will affect the quality of your credibility on the matter moving forward.
How do I know that nearly every single, PEER-REVIEWED scientist in the field is on my side on this one? I'll reference an afore-mentioned study regarding the research of PEER-REVIEWED, scientific journal articles on the subject. Why entries in scientific journals? THIS IS IMPORTANT SO PAY ATTENTION. Because everything else is simply unfounded, non-peer-reviewed, scientifically invalid opinion.
Naomi Oreskes took on just this topic. She did an ISI database search with the keyphrase "global climate change" and then surveyed all 928 abstracts she found that had been published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. She divided the papers into six categories:
-explicit endorsement of the consensus position
-evaluation of impacts
-mitigation proposals and methods
-paleoclimate analysis
-rejection of the consensus position
This is important Slouch, so pay attention. Her key finding is that NONE of these papers fell into the last category while 75% fell into the first three. This is an extremely robust consensus of PEER-REVIEWED opinion, especially considering that the start date was a full two years before the much attacked 1995 IPCC report (more about that later as well).
More importantly, considering that these abstracts were chosen at random and identified without the hinderance of scientific community favor or influence...it is the heighth of irresponsibility and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY to suggest a conspiracy resides within the peer-reviewed, scientifically credible pages of these said journals.
Thus we have irrevocable, PEER-REVIEWED data that unlike the the popular opinion on the far right....there isn't anything even close to resembling sizeable, credible, PEER-REVIEWED scientific opposition to global warming. To suggest otherwise...as Slouch has so pathetically attempted to do is simply d-u-m dumb. Sorry to put it so bluntly. The facts speak for themselves.
So...you can choose to believe political pundits, industry funded, NON-PEER-REVIEWED, NON ACCREDITED "scientists", politcians or corporate PR execs.....or you can believe nearly every single scientist in the field...your choice...but like I said...like slouch...your credibility suffers accordingly.
Thus people.....it is a MYTH that there is no scientific consensus on gw...and it is a MYTH that there is a sizeable, PEER-REVIEWED, credible oppositon to the science behind gw.
NEXT!
What shall we tackle next next Slouch?
I've now debunked The Conspiracy Myth, The No Consensus Myth and The Sizeable Opposition Myth. What shall we move on to next? My thought is we get to the myth that the current data is consistent with the normal climate cycles we've experienced over the last....say....half a billion years.
Thoughts?
Would that be prudent or would you rather I debunk another of your choosing? We could tackle the myth that the sun is causing the majority of warming...or how about the one about it being cold in Minnesota in December so gw doesn't exist.
You choose...I'm here to help you so that's really the only responsible thing to do.
Bueller...
Bueller....
Posted by jay on August 22, 2007 10:16 PMBueller...
Bueller...
Posted by jay on August 23, 2007 04:09 PMGee, I guess we're done here...I thought for sure Slouch would put up a little more of a fight after seeing his myths topple like the puppet parliment in iraq...
Thanks for playing...see...that wasn't that painful was it...next time don't run so long and it will be a much shorter process
Posted by jay on August 24, 2007 12:09 PMBoy, this Jay fellow is really pathetic. He probably doesn't have a job.
Posted by BooBoo on August 28, 2007 11:20 AMMore bad news for Jay and his brittle ego ... heh, heh
Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007
Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.
Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.
DAILYTECH
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
###
Global ocean temperatures drop to coldest in 6 1/2 years
The temperature of the ocean has cooled 0.2 degrees C in the past few of years, and is now only 0.1 degrees C warmer than it was throughout much of 1944. This data set had been showing a general warming trend since the late 1970s, (as well as a warming trend from the 1910s through the mid 1940s) with the warmest time being recorded in the El Nino year of 1998.
Despite temperatures peaking in 1998, it's been reasonable to describe the temperature trend as continuing, since 1998 at the time was a flukishly hot spell. Since 1998, the "normal" trend line approached what had been flukishly warm.
The reversal to cooler temperatures is not yet long or strong enough to discredit global warming completely... by a long shot. However, global warming alarmists had been warning that global warming had dramatically accelerated in the past couple decades; although ocean temperatures had risen a mere degree over the last century, the alarmists had warned of an increasing rate of warming, or even an increasing rate of an increasing rate of warming, suggesting the next century could see temperatures increase by several degrees.
Although this data is still consistent with a long, gradual trend of increasing ocean temperatures, it is not consistent with any sudden accelerations in warming trends.
My source is a data table at the NOAA, which could not be linked to directly, since it is available over file transfer protocol (FTP), not hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP). This is the link: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat It may be accessed from the bottom of the page I linked to in the source field, under "The Monthly Global Ocean Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)." My source is purely the data; the web page from which I derived it has not been updated to reflect any updated data.
Jay,
Please let me know where I can find the GW control world. You know, the one without human activitiy so we can compare it against this one and compare the results.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on October 2, 2007 10:46 AM