Climate Change Update

It looks like another semi-prominent member of the Climate Alarmist community has gotten caught with his whole arm in the cookie jar.  I’ve been waiting to see how the story that has become known as FakeGate (bet you haven’t seen any mention of that in the MSM) would play out before posting a summary, but The Weekly Standard has saved me the trouble.  Wattsupwiththat has also been keeping the story at the top of its site since the first revelations about 2 weeks ago, and is up to their 58th update as of today.

The Weekly Standard article ends with some interesting comments and revelations:

More than a few observers have asked why anyone should trust Gleick’s scientific judgment if his judgment about how to deal with climate skeptics is so bad. -Gleick’s defense of his motives would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic: “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated—to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.”

Let’s take these in order. Anony-mous? True, Heartland’s board documents reveal seven-figure contributions for their climate work from one “anonymous donor,” but environmental organizations take in many multiples of Heartland’s total budget in anonymous donations washed through the left-wing Tides Foundation. The Environmental Defense Fund thanks 141 anonymous donors in one recent report. “Well-funded”? Heartland’s total budget for all its issues, which include health care, education, and technology policy, is around $4.4 million, an amount that would disappear into a single line item in the budget for the Natural Resources Defense Council ($99 million in revenues in 2010). Last year, the Wall Street Journal reports, the World Wildlife Fund spent $68.5 million just on “public education.”

The dog that didn’t bark for the climateers in this story is the great disappointment that Heartland receives only a tiny amount of funding from fossil fuel sources—and none from ExxonMobil, still the bête noire of the climateers. Meanwhile, it was revealed this week that natural gas mogul T. Boone Pickens had given $453,000 to the left-wing Center for American Progress for its “clean energy” projects, and Chesapeake Energy gave the Sierra Club over $25 million (anonymously until it leaked out) for the Club’s anti-coal ad campaign. Turns out the greens take in much more money from fossil fuel interests than the skeptics do.

Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

The Gleick episode exposes again a movement that disdains arguing with its critics, choosing demonization over persuasion and debate. A confident movement would face and crush its critics if its case were unassailable, as it claims. The climate change fight doesn’t even rise to the level of David and Goliath. Heartland is more like a David fighting a hundred Goliaths. Yet the serial ineptitude of the climate campaign shows that a tiny David doesn’t need to throw a rock against a Goliath who swings his mighty club and only hits himself square in the forehead.

As most regular readers here know, I’ve followed this issue for a long time, although after the second release of emails known as ClimateGate 2 a  few months ago, my interest in what will eventually become known as the greatest scientific scam of all time began to wane.  FakeGate may well be the final nail in the AWG coffin.  One can only hope.

About these ads

74 thoughts on “Climate Change Update

  1. Amazona

    As the Weekly Standard article rightly noted, the claim that there was a goal of ..“dissuading teachers from teaching science.” was a ham-handed tip-off that this came from some rabid and dishonest Lefty climateer. (Sorry for the redundancy.)

    This comment encapsulates two of the most beloved of the climateer lies: That their belief system represents “science” and that skeptics reject science.

    We will no doubt see similar squealing from blog adherents to the bogus belief system that is AGW.

  2. Amazona

    One of the funniest antics of Gleick’s is outlined in one of the links in the thread: An article by Steve McIntyre reveals:

    The newest candidate for the hallowed ranks of America’s Dumbest Criminals is Peter Gleick, MacArthur Genius. Gleick, who fancied himself the scourge of climate skeptics and imagined that Heartland’s climate program was funded by fossil fuel corporations and the Koch brothers, has admitted that he managed to trick a Heartland administrator and obtain confidential financial information by impersonating a Heartland director, an act that appears to contain all the elements of fraud. But the actual documents didn’t show that Gleick was feared by Heartland. Nor was even he mentioned. Nor did the documents show that Heartland’s climate program was funded by fossil fuel corporations or the Koch brothers.

    Gleick is alleged to have forged a document that places Gleick as Heartland’s nemesis, a document that resulted him in garnering the recognition and praise from Andy Revkin and others that he apparently desired.

    “Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own.”

    Yes, Gleick , discovering that he was a complete nonentity to Heartland, invented a reference to himself to try to establish himself as a high-powered threat —a “high-profile climate scientist” no less.

    Too funny. And this is the caliber of “scientist” so beloved by the warmists and climateers.

    1. RetiredSpook Post author

      JR, even funnier; the comments after your linked article are overwhelmingly anti-alarmist/liberal — totally the opposite of what you usually find in response to WAPO articles.

      1. neocon1

        ‘US officers should hang over Koran incident’
        Sunday, February 26, 2012

        A top Iranian military commander said Saturday that nothing but burning the White House and hanging US commanders could remedy the pain caused to Muslims by the burning of Korans at a US military base in Afghanistan, pan-Arab Al Arabiya news channel reported Sunday. ”

        The US has committed such an ugly act and burned Korans because of the heavy slap it has been given by Islam,” Basij (volunteer forces) Commander Brig.-Gen. Muhammad Reza Naqdi told Iran’s semi- official Fars new agency, according to the Al Arabiya report. “Their apology can be accepted only by hanging their commanders; hanging their commanders…

        I say they should start at the very top.

      2. Green Mountain Boy

        He is Commander in Chief after all. At least according to the Constitution. We all know how much he respects that document though, so it’s Bush’s fault again.

    1. RetiredSpook Post author

      GMB,

      What’s the old saying, “it’s better to have fought and lost than never to have fought at all”? WRT your link, I don’t think the average person has a clue about how many billions of dollars flow through liberal money laundering foundations like Tides. The Left has been trying to brainwash generations of young skulls full of mush since the 30′s, and they’re no closer to creating a population of mind-numbed robots than they were then. They can spend as much as they want; it won’t matter. This fight will eventually be fought out in the streets, and most of these liberal pussies don’t have the guts. Can’t you just hear them, “He dude, you’re damaging my i-Pad. — my parents paid good money for that.”

  3. Jonathan Swift

    I’ve got a question for you guys. This debate always seems to be between one group of people screaming that Anthropogenic Global Warming is going to kill us all and another group screaming that the first group is totally full of it. But I’ve always assumed that for most people on either side, there has to be some level of doubt.

    So what would you guys say you think the odds are that humans will cause harmful global climate change via our emissions in the next 50 years? And, as a follow up question, how large would the odds have to be before you believed that some sort of government intervention would be reasonable?

    1. RetiredSpook Post author

      Easy question, Swifty. IMO, the odds that humans “will cause harmful global climate change via our emissions in the next 50 years” are ZERO.

      Now a question in return: assuming I’m wrong (not likely, but possible), and government intervention is required to “save the planet”, what course of action would you recommend the government take? I would assume, if you believe that government action could affect climate, that you would have, based on sound, scientific principles, some target figures in mind; temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, precipitation levels, etc.. You surely wouldn’t just have the government act just for the sake of action. You would have to have some pretty strong scientific proof that certain government actions would achieve certain levels of results.

      1. Jonathan Swift

        Color me confused. In the space of two sentences, you claim that the odds that anything negative is going to happen are “ZERO” and then turn around and admit that you could be wrong. How could that be a consistent answer? Am I missing something?

      2. RetiredSpook Post author

        How could that be a consistent answer? Am I missing something?

        Yeah, Swifty, you missed the “IMO” part.

      3. Jonathan Swift

        I still don’t get it. You said right there in the next sentence that it was “possible” that you are wrong, which indicates to me that when you examine the issue from a purely reasoned perspective, you understand that there’s no way for you to be entirely sure about it. How do you reconcile that with your opinion? Is this one of those faith-based things where you choose to believe that humans can’t warm the planet?

      4. RetiredSpook Post author

        How do you reconcile that with your opinion? Is this one of those faith-based things where you choose to believe that humans can’t warm the planet?

        Swifty, the best answer I can give you is that I’m confident enough that I’m right, that I would stake my life on it. Now how about you answer MY question.

      5. Jonathan Swift

        Sure. I think Cluster’s idea down below is a pretty good place to start. Incentives to generate clean, homegrown energy would go a long way toward simultaneously mitigating the risk that we cause climate problems for ourselves and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. That sounds much more likely to be successful than direct emission regulation, which only works in my mind if we can get the rest of the world to agree to work under the same standards (and follow through as thoroughly as we do). Otherwise, industry just moves to other countries that still happen to share our atmosphere.

        I’ve got another question for you and anybody else here that are so sure about all of this that you would bet your life. What is the basis for your conviction? I’ve heard a lot of reasons that people think the science behind current AGW theories is faulty, but even if you believe there is a large conspiracy trying to influence public opinion on the matter, isn’t is possible that they are accidentally right? We know for certain that we are emitting, among other things, Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere. We also know that it has been demonstrated repeatedly on a small scale that CO2 retains heat. What evidence have you seen to convince you so thoroughly that there is no way that this could translate into a damaging effect on a macro scale?

      6. RetiredSpook Post author

        I’ve got another question for you and anybody else here that are so sure about all of this that you would bet your life. What is the basis for your conviction?

        Swifty, I’ve read literally thousands of pages of studies, reports, scientific articles, etc. over the last decade — on both sides of the issue. And, unlike many skeptics, I do study both sides. The Alarmist side has been caught so many times faking data, photos (the famous Polar Bear and melting glacier photos), that their cause, as it were, has been damaged beyond repair. If the truth and the facts were on their side, they could just present the truth and the facts and not have to constantly cheat.

        Just out of curiosity, do you ever read anything on this issue that challenges your core beliefs and your world view?

      7. Jonathan Swift

        I’ve read enough to know that I’m not an expert in the field. I do know that surveys of publishing climatologists consistently show 96% or more of them agreeing that AGW is a real and probable concern. I find it believable that some portion of that consensus comes from non-scientific pressures, but I also think that even if 9 out of 10 dissenters are quashed, you still end up with a majority of publishing climatologists on the other side of the issue. I am not sure I buy that there is any global organization that has that much influence over the scientific community.

        I will say that my answer to my own question is a lot less than 100%. You’re welcome to try to change my mind further if you can cite specific sources for me to read that do the most to confirm to you that man can’t or won’t affect the climate.

      8. RetiredSpook Post author

        I’ve read enough to know that I’m not an expert in the field. I do know that surveys of publishing climatologists consistently show 96% or more of them agreeing that AGW is a real and probable concern.

        I’ve not ever seen a figure as high as 96%, Swifty. Can you provide a link to a survey from an unbiased organization that shows that? Keep in mind that ClimateGate 1 and 2 revealed that Alarmist scientists have subverted the peer review process to exclude or create substantial roadblocks for skeptic scientists who disagree with them from publishing.

      9. Jonathan Swift

        There’s actually a Wikipedia article on this exact issue that is not a bad place to start:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

        Again, I’m actually sympathetic to the view that some amount of this consensus encouraged via external pressures. I just have a really hard time swallowing the claim that somebody has the means to get a majority of the men and women who have dedicated their lives to the discipline of climate study to discard integrity so that they can get some extra grant money.

    2. Count d'Haricots

      Swifty,
      Your question is invalid for the following reasons,

      1) The other “group” is neither “screaming” nor are we making claims regarding the fullness of the Warmists. The Two groups are the Warming Zealots, or Warmists that believe the man has caused the climate to change, and that change is harmful. The other are the ones who, with the help and understanding of the science demonstrate that the issue is neither “settled science” nor is AGW even a verifiable theory.

      2) That speculative “odds” can have anything to do with long term climatic conditions. We have demonstrated many times that the climate is neither predictive not quantifiable with any degree of accuracy based on our understanding at this time. The Warmists use models to predict models, which do a very poor job of “predicting” past events then don’t understand why no one believes them.

      3) Even if we were to assume that humans can affect climate, which is a stretch to begin with, we would be confronted with the dilemma of whether or not that change is harmful. If we radiate the planet via an atomic episode, global climate will be the least of our worries. But, short of that there is no evidence at this time that anything we do inside of blowing half the planet into space, will affect the global climate. There is only theory since humans have never before affected the climate, and we are unaware given the absence of any demonstrable evidence of how exactly the course of human events could possibly affect the global climate.

      4) Since we cannot determine if or how the event may happen “within the next 50 years” and we cannot judge whether or not that affect is detrimental, it is folly to decide in advance what the all-mighty government should or shouldn’t do to exacerbate the situation. Since we know from experience that asking the government to intercede will end badly for us, the question really becomes how can they screw up a good thing like a modicum of warming generally that increases growing seasons, feeds and cloths a greater percentage of the world’s population, and requires less fuel and less resources to do so?

      1. RetiredSpook Post author

        like a modicum of warming generally that increases growing seasons, feeds and cloths a greater percentage of the world’s population, and requires less fuel and less resources to do so?

        And therein lies the rub, Count. If you’ve ever read The Green Agenda, you know that the last thing the radical, environmental Left wants is to feed and clothe more people.

      2. Jonathan Swift

        “1) The other “group” is neither “screaming” nor are we making claims regarding the fullness of the Warmists. The Two groups are the Warming Zealots, or Warmists that believe the man has caused the climate to change, and that change is harmful. The other are the ones who, with the help and understanding of the science demonstrate that the issue is neither “settled science” nor is AGW even a verifiable theory.”

        I am not certain the specific verbage for framing the debate is worth arguing about. We’ll just say that there is a disagreement and I’m interested to see how sure you are that nothing is going to happen.

        “2) That speculative “odds” can have anything to do with long term climatic conditions. We have demonstrated many times that the climate is neither predictive not quantifiable with any degree of accuracy based on our understanding at this time. The Warmists use models to predict models, which do a very poor job of “predicting” past events then don’t understand why no one believes them.”

        I agree that climate is difficult to predict, but shouldn’t that make you also doubt that you have such a thorough understanding of climate science that you are completely sure that we can’t do anything to harm ourselves via climate change?

        “3) Even if we were to assume that humans can affect climate, which is a stretch to begin with, we would be confronted with the dilemma of whether or not that change is harmful. If we radiate the planet via an atomic episode, global climate will be the least of our worries. But, short of that there is no evidence at this time that anything we do inside of blowing half the planet into space, will affect the global climate. There is only theory since humans have never before affected the climate, and we are unaware given the absence of any demonstrable evidence of how exactly the course of human events could possibly affect the global climate.”

        Right, I specifically worded my question to ask only about harmful change. I’d also add that it seems likely to me that any change, even if it is initially beneficial, would eventually become harmful if taken far enough (provided there isn’t some exponential autocorrection system built into our atmosphere that will keep us from moving past the area of beneficial climate change).

        I also understand that your position is that there is no strong evidence of our ability to alter global temperatures. But it seems like absence of definitive evidence doesn’t make for definitive evidence of absence.

        “4) Since we cannot determine if or how the event may happen “within the next 50 years” and we cannot judge whether or not that affect is detrimental, it is folly to decide in advance what the all-mighty government should or shouldn’t do to exacerbate the situation. Since we know from experience that asking the government to intercede will end badly for us, the question really becomes how can they screw up a good thing like a modicum of warming generally that increases growing seasons, feeds and cloths a greater percentage of the world’s population, and requires less fuel and less resources to do so?”

        We can’t determine for sure whether anything is going to happen at any given time, for sure, but that doesn’t preclude trying to alter our behavior to avoid perceived threat. If you are walking down the sidewalk and a car is swerving erratically down the street, you don’t necessarily wait until you are definitely in his path to take a few steps back from the curb.

        I’m really just asking you to make the same sort of risk/consequence determination that people have to make on all sorts of issues. I assume, as a rational human being, you have some amount of evidence that would convince you that we need to start looking at our options for limiting emissions. Maybe you have some other idea besides using the government that would allow us to avert the potential damage, and that’s fine too. The question is really about how much risk there would have to be in your eyes before you made the determination that we, as a race, should consider making some changes to deal with it.

      3. RetiredSpook Post author

        We can’t determine for sure whether anything is going to happen at any given time, for sure, but that doesn’t preclude trying to alter our behavior to avoid perceived threat.

        And thus the question I asked earlier: in what way do you “alter your behavior to avoid a perceived threat”, a threat for which the only current evidence is computer models that are based on flawed, manipulated and fraudulent data? More importantly, in an era when many governments around the world are broke, how much money do you allocate to respond to your perceived threat, and what more important areas (clean air and water, disease control, etc.) do you shortchange in the process?

      4. Count d'Haricots

         ) The other “group” is neither “screaming” nor are we making claims regarding the fullness of the Warmists. The Two groups are the Warming Zealots, or Warmists that believe the man has caused the climate to change, and that change is harmful. The other are the ones who, with the help and understanding of the science demonstrate that the issue is neither “settled science” nor is AGW even a verifiable theory.”
        I am not certain the specific verbage (sic) for framing the debate is worth arguing about.

        The verbiage is the only thing worth arguing about; if we allow you to set the terms of the argument based on deceptive motives we cannot discuss what is actually happening and what can or cannot be done.

        I agree that climate is difficult to predict,

        I didn’t say “difficult to predict” I wrote that it “cannot be “ predicted.

        I specifically worded my question to ask only about harmful change.

        And we reject the premise of the question.

        I’d also add that it seems likely to me that any change,

        The climate is always changing, that’s not what you asked, you proffered that “humans will cause” climate change and we reject that premise.

        We reject that because as I pointed out, it has never happened in the course of all of humanity that humans caused the climate to do anything, ever.

        But it seems like absence of definitive evidence doesn’t make for definitive evidence of absence.

        Drawing conclusions based on absence of evidence is the purview of the Warmists. I have a lack of evidence that you are really a warthog with a iPad, should I ask for a Congressional investigation based on my lack of evidence?

        that doesn’t preclude trying to alter our behavior to avoid perceived threat.. If you are walking down the sidewalk and a car is swerving erratically down the street,

        Sorry Swifty, your argument is we don’t see a car, nor is there a car, nor will there ever be a car swerving down this street but we should alter our behaviors because we “perceive” a swerving car might someday be on a street somewhere.

        I’m really just asking you to make the same sort of risk/consequence determination that people have to make on all sorts of issues.

        I plan for natural disasters by stockpiling supplies in case I’m cut off from everyone else. I don’t plan for disasters like a killer whale invading my living room with a Glock 9mm.

      5. RetiredSpook Post author

        I don’t plan for disasters like a killer whale invading my living room with a Glock 9mm.

        ROTFLMAO!!!

      6. Jonathan Swift

        “And thus the question I asked earlier: in what way do you “alter your behavior to avoid a perceived threat”, a threat for which the only current evidence is computer models that are based on flawed, manipulated and fraudulent data? More importantly, in an era when many governments around the world are broke, how much money do you allocate to respond to your perceived threat, and what more important areas (clean air and water, disease control, etc.) do you shortchange in the process?”

        Okay, my second question was probably overly simplistic. There is a cost/benefit analysis to be made after you determine risk, and in most cases you do some extra weighting on issues that can cause large enough catastrophes that you can’t reasonably roll them in to the generalized risk equation. But you still have to determine risk before you can make that assessment, which brings us back to my first question.

      7. RetiredSpook Post author

        But you still have to determine risk before you can make that assessment, which brings us back to my first question.

        Swifty, global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom in relation to a number of other global priorities, and in the last decade it’s actually lost ground. There’s a reason for that.

      8. tiredoflibbs

        Based on your logic swifty, there is a remote chance that a meteor will strike this earth and all life as we know it will end.

        Should we prepare by boosting our space program and develop shuttles to land and train personnel to drill and plant a nuclear bomb and detonating it and destroy said meteor?

        Using your logic, it could happen, we should prepare for it and mitigate the risk on mass extinction.

    3. Cluster

      Jonathan,

      I reject your premise. There is no correlation between carbon output and increasing temperatures. In fact, temperatures have been consistent, if not cooling the last decade while carbon output has increased. That being said, it is a conservative position to transition to a greener more sustainable energy platform as soon as the private market, fueled by consumer demand, can make it viable. The governments involvement should be to encourage that R&D by offering tax breaks and/or possible rewards for those who can produce the first sustainable and mass produceable alternative energy platform.

      1. RetiredSpook Post author

        I reject your premise. There is no correlation between carbon output and increasing temperatures.

        Actually, Cluster, there IS a correlation, but it’s small, and, historically, increased CO2 has lagged temperature increases rather than caused them. Wattsupwiththat had an excellent, well-sourced guest post yesterday that puts the entire debate in layman’s terms.

      2. Jonathan Swift

        I get that you guys don’t think AGW is a real thing. I was merely trying to get you guys to express how much risk you think there actually is that you are wrong. Or should I take your response to mean that there is no doubt in your mind that we are incapable of altering our environment through emissions?

        And, for the record, I like that particular idea for government involvement. I don’t mean to say that the involvement I am describing has to include emission caps or anything else that would directly raise the cost of doing business.

      3. Cluster

        Spook,

        I believe, again the IMO thing, that the correlation between carbon output and increasing temperatures is purely coincidental. I believe the solar cycle has been 100% responsible for the increase in temperatures that have been measured.

  4. RetiredSpook Post author

    What Swifty has engaged in in this thread is commonly known as The Precautionary Principle. It has become a central tenet of the Left’s efforts to control public policy, and the climate change/global warming issue is a prime example of the use of the Precautionary Principle. In climate change/global warming, the Left has constructed a strawman of elaborate and historical proportions and declared very early on in the history of the issue that the science was settled and the debate was over, based on nothing more than climate models, models, as it turns out, that have not been able to predict the past, much less the future.

    1. Jonathan Swift

      You make it sound like it is some sort of duplicitous argument, but making policy determinations based on long term projections is a necessary part of running a successful government.

      To give a prime example, let’s take our military. If I suggest that we cut half of our military budget tomorrow, I suspect most of the people here would be against it. But why, specifically? The military would likely be workable for years to come with a budget half as large. Eventually, our ability to address a threat to our security might become compromised, but you can’t point out a specific invader that will come in at a specific time.

      We engage in predictive spending. We can’t know who will try to invade us or attack our citizens, so we do our best to estimate what we will need and what we can afford. Is that not precautionary policy?

      1. RetiredSpook Post author

        We can’t know who will try to invade us or attack our citizens, so we do our best to estimate what we will need and what we can afford. Is that not precautionary policy?

        It is, but the example you cite is based on a lot of information, most of which can be backed up with facts, historical perspective and intelligence. Several of us have done our best to answer your questions in a polite and civil way. What evidence do you find compelling that leads you to believe that the risk of catastrophic man-made warming/climate change is significant enough to warrant any amount of government intervention? And regardless of the level of your risk assessment, what scientific principles do you apply to judge the level and type of government intervention. For example, let’s say that you just believe that if the government would mandate that everyone should drive a hybrid car and switch out their incandescent light bulbs for CFL’s, that that would make a difference. How much difference (I’m talking about temperature), and on what scientific studies or principles is your assessment based?

      2. bardolf

        “It is, but the example you cite is based on a lot of information, most of which can be backed up with facts, historical perspective and intelligence.” – Spook

        Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking. Which of the following did the U.S. envision?

        1. 9/11 or rise Taliban
        2. Fall of Shah of Iran
        3. Invasion of Kuwait
        4. Pearl Harbor
        5 World War I
        .
        .

        The U.S. government has no clue where the next attack will come from. The Precautionary Principle is the invasion of Iraq, the embargo of Iran, the interference in Western European democracies post WW2, … Maybe those were the right things to do, but they certainly weren’t based on anything more solid than a gut feeling.

      3. Jonathan Swift

        RetiredSpook,

        I think I kind of touched the answers to your questions in a post above. The provability of the core of the greenhouse effect on a micro scale along with the strong consensus among climate scientists do a lot by themselves to give me pause. Even if there is some doubt in my mind about the applicability of the smaller scale science and the possible manufactured nature of the consensus, it seems like it is at least worth a look, especially if we can make mitigating policy that benefits us even if we are wrong.

      4. RetiredSpook Post author

        Even if there is some doubt in my mind about the applicability of the smaller scale science and the possible manufactured nature of the consensus, it seems like it is at least worth a look, especially if we can make mitigating policy that benefits us even if we are wrong.

        OK, you’re headed in the right direction. Can you expand on that? Worth what kind of “look”? What kinds of “mitigating policy”? Mitigating what?

      5. Jonathan Swift

        Any policy would necessarily involve either lowering the risk of damage or reducing the effect of the damage were it to occur. The prize money for clean energy breakthroughs that Cluster mentioned is not a bad idea. You can also move around tax incentives to better favor low emission energy production.

        We can also start getting more in the way of metric-based global treaties in place so that we have built in mechanisms for reacting to the issue if it does present itself as a major problem. Otherwise, if we end up in a position where we determine that emissions really do need to be cut drastically in a short amount of time, we are more likely to be able to pull it off globally without having to bring military options to bear.

    2. Count d'Haricots

      Spook,
      Precisely why they want to be given a pass on the semantics;

      “We’ll just say that there is a disagreement and I’m interested to see how sure you are that nothing is going to happen.”

      If we are skeptical about Anthropogenic Climate change, we are accused of saying “nothing will happen.”

      I specifically worded my question to ask only about harmful change.

      The point of this statement is to get in that a) change due to human activity is inevitable, and we’re only interested in the harmful aspects of that change. Because, of course, if humans are not involved all the change would be beneficial.

      “as a rational human being, you have some amount of evidence that would convince you that we need to start looking at our options for limiting emissions.”

      By implication, only an irrational person would doubt that “emissions” of carbon dioxide are harmful and must be limited.

      making policy determinations based on long term projections

      Again, we must assume they have made some valid prediction which they have not. But we are expected to believe that CO2 causes global warming and if we limit our emissions of CO2 the Warming will not happen.

      Limit emissions of cow flatulence by eating more calf, ok. Limit carbon dioxide emissions from beer by drinking faster sure. But limiting CO2 by redistributing wealth in the industrialized world, and limiting possibility for advancement in the poorest regions? Not so much.

      1. Jonathan Swift

        You’re reading a lot more into my words than I meant to put there. I kind of skipped replying to your last post for that reason.

        “If we are skeptical about Anthropogenic Climate change, we are accused of saying “nothing will happen.””

        No, I actually meant nothing would happen in terms of AGW. I know the climate is not going to remain stable whether we are here or not.

        “The point of this statement is to get in that a) change due to human activity is inevitable, and we’re only interested in the harmful aspects of that change. Because, of course, if humans are not involved all the change would be beneficial.”

        I ignored beneficial change because it seems trivial to come to an agreement that we don’t necessarily need to react strongly to positive change, so I wanted to focus the discussion on the pieces where we’d likely disagree.

        “By implication, only an irrational person would doubt that “emissions” of carbon dioxide are harmful and must be limited.”

        No, and in this case I admit that I might not have been entirely clear. Let me rephrase the statement. I assume, as a rational human being, there is some threshold of quality and quantity of evidence that, if presented to you, would convince you that something needs to be done.

        “Again, we must assume they have made some valid prediction which they have not. But we are expected to believe that CO2 causes global warming and if we limit our emissions of CO2 the Warming will not happen.”

        I’m not even sure how you get to that from my statement. You can plan long term and work to mitigate risk without assuming that the risk being addressed is even probable, much less confirmed.

        That’s about as far as I’m willing to go addressing anybody who wants to turn this into a discussion about my word choice. I am, in fact, asking pointed questions, but I don’t believe I’ve done so in such a way that it could be construed as duplicitous. If you can’t have a discussion with me without assuming bad faith just on the grounds that I don’t agree with you, I don’t think we can have a meaningful interaction.

  5. RetiredSpook Post author

    If you can’t have a discussion with me without assuming bad faith just on the grounds that I don’t agree with you, I don’t think we can have a meaningful interaction.

    I’m not sure exactly who you’re referring to with this statement. As I said earlier, I think most of the responses to your questions have been civil and to the point. If you can’t answer our questions, how about providing answers to your own questions from your POV.

    1. Jonathan Swift

      I was referring specifically to Count d’Haricots, whom I quoted repeatedly in that same post, and who has spent several long posts attacking my diction as if I were deliberately using loaded terminology.

      I believe I’ve also answered your questions to a large degree (forgive me if I am wrong, this multi-threaded comment stream is kind of hard to read).

      I think I’d hit around 60% as my own answer to my initial question. As I said before, the second question was probably a little unfair and vague, but I’d definitely rate my assessment as high enough that we should be doing something. I think we’re still probably far enough away from any real tipping point of no return that we can work from the perspective of encouraging technological advancements that solve the issue for us rather than draconian measures to regulate industry.

      1. neocon1

        johnathan Slow

        THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

        The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K and the global freezing claims in the 1960′s and 70′s were. Global warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain.

        There are not many individuals, groups, or organizations willing to stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those who support global warming within the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few have decided to do the right thing and take a stand against this evil, proving just how unscientifically founded global warming is and exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).

        The date that you see by each headline is the date when it was posted here. If you know of a news story, research, or information that should be posted here, please let us know and provide us with a link. The articles posted for previous years have been archived and links are provided to them; by year; at the bottom of this page.

        http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

      2. neocon1

        I think we’re still probably far enough away from any real tipping point of no return

        what a cart load of horse SHIITE

      3. J. R. Babcock

        I’m a little late to getting back to the party — busy day. At the risk of muddying the water, what happens if so-called solutions to this “perceived” problem have unintended consequences that create even worse problems? Someone spoke earlier of a possible mechanism that allows the planet to find equilibrium. What if the rise in CO2 is the planet’s way of enhancing the growth of crops to help feed an increasing global population? Estimates are that the atmospheric level of CO2 will double by 2080 (I think). That would still put it at around 760-780 ppm or 4-500 ppm less than is artificially created in today’s greenhouses.

        Naw, on second thought, it’s probably not possible for a government program to create unintended consequences — never mind.

      4. J. R. Babcock

        but I’d definitely rate my assessment as high enough that we should be doing something.

        That’s one of the biggest problems I have with those of you on the Left. You always have to be “doing something”. Doesn’t matter if it’s necessary. Doesn’t matter how much it costs. Doesn’t matter if it violates the law of diminishing returns. Can’t you just step back and smell the roses once in a while?

      5. Amazona

        JR, have you noticed the refusal to acknowledge the BENEFITS of the temperature rise these hysterics are wailing about?

        They whine about the alleged (but unproven) “pollution” factor of CO2, yet are strangely silent about the reduced emissions of various byproducts of heating necessary to survive in cold weather. No generation of heat is without some form and degree of related pollution. But the reduced need to generate heat is somehow ignored, because it really WOULD be an inconvenient truth to acknowledge the benefit of burning less wood, less coal, less fuel oil, less peat, less whatever.

        There is the advantage of more and easier food production in a warmer climate. What’s that about a lower climate-related death rate? Oh, let’s ignore that, too. Ditto for the overall quality of life in a milder climate.

        Even without the admission that our planetary climate is so dependent on our relationship to that big ball of fire in the sky, meaning that we are inevitably headed for a cooling cycle, the inherent dishonesty in not even acknowledging the benefits of a milder and warmer cycle is glaring.

      6. Jonathan Swift

        It would be more glaring if I hadn’t already discussed it several times in this discussion thread.

        Any benefit from a warmed climate most likely eventually ends after you alter it far enough, so even if there is short term gain, you still end up with having to deal with cutting emissions eventually. It is also worth noting that even if a global climate change results in better agricultural productivity, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you don’t have other problems in the same temperature range. It won’t be much consolation to people living in low coastal regions that even though their property is now under the ocean, their food will be cheaper.

        In other words, citing possible benefits of a warmer climate doesn’t really significantly alter the discussion. It just means that if we really are changing the climate, we might get lucky and get more good than bad out of it for a while.

    1. neocon1

      bloodypDump

      so you admit scientists LIE?
      Isnt that what we are saying here?

      do try to pay attention dahling

      1. neocon1

        My My My

        Obama’s Environmental Justice Announcement
        Brian Sussman

        I just got off a conference call with the Environmental Protection Agency (I do this regularly just to try stay in the loop as to what these seditious bureaucrats are up to). The call featured EPA chief Lisa Jackson who shared an “important announcement” regarding “the Obama administration’s commitment to environmental justice.”

        If the term environmental justice is new to you, take heart: my soon to be released book (Eco-Tyranny) will expose the whole damned plan. In a nutshell, environmental justice is a government-sponsored ploy to fleece for-profit businesses for imaginary pollution crises they have supposedly caused which have — again supposedly — impacted lower income minority communities. The businesses in the crosshairs are hit with fees, fines, penalties, and lawsuits, with the resulting funds going to pay for welfare handouts.

        In today’s announcement from the EPA, Jackson stated, “If we aspire to build an economy and a society that works for every American, we can’t allow the heaviest burdens of pollution and health threats to fall on our poorest citizens. Bringing together our federal partners to tackle these challenges is a major step toward health, environmental and economic benefits in communities across the nation.”

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/obamas_environmental_justice_announcement.html#ixzz1ndA7AqJY

    2. Amazona

      Just what does an opinion on the alleged dangers of AGW have to do with the belief that the United States Constitution is the preferred political model for governing the United States?

      Just what does an opinion on the integrity of some scientists have to do with the belief that the United States Constitution is the preferred political model for governing the United States?

      1. neocon1

        Caribbean to use loans to ready for climate change
        AP/WorldMag ^ | Feb 27, 4:57 PM EST

        GEORGETOWN, Guyana (AP) — International lenders will give $65 million in concessionary loans to 18 Caribbean nations to help the islands defend their coasts and fragile economies from the impact of climate change.

        The European Investment Bank will channel its lending through the Barbados-based Caribbean Development Bank, which announced the initiative Monday.

        The program will provide low-cost funds for public and private sector projects that deal with climate change adaptation or help reduce carbon emissions.

      2. Amazona

        “climate change adaptation”

        Around here that means putting on a coat, or opening a window.

  6. Count d'Haricots

    Spook,
    I know you saw this recent headline; Freezing winters ahead due to melting Arctic Sea ice ,/a>

    “ Climate change means autumn levels of sea ice have dropped by almost 30 percent since 1979 – but this is likely to trigger more frequent cold snaps such as those that brought blizzards to the UK earlier this month.

    The researchers say dramatic loss of ice may alter atmospheric circulation patterns and weaken the westerly winds that blow across the North Atlantic Ocean from Canada to Europe.

    This will encourage regular incursions of cold air from the Arctic into Northern continents – increasing heavy snowfall in the UK.

    Dr Liu said: “The results of this study add to an increasing body of both observational and modeling evidence that indicates diminishing Arctic sea ice plays a critical role in driving recent cold and snowy winters over large parts of North America, Europe and east Asia.”

    While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades there has been abnormally large snowfall in these areas.”

    Did you catch that? Global warming will cause much colder weather in England for years to come. This is the reason they shouldn’t be allowed to control the dialog with innuendo and allusion. The article states that “autumn levels of sea ice have dropped by almost 30 percent” without explaining that “autumn levels” aren’t definitive of overall levels of ice and snow in the artic on a year by year basis.

    Then go on to say “dramatic loss of ice may” while never establishing that any “loss of ice” has occurred much less dramatic loss. http://www.c3headlines.com/arcticgreenlandantarcticglacierssea-ice/ which we know to be a seriously flawed assumption.

    appears to have been held in moderation due to bad link//Moderator

    1. Amazona

      Not only that, but summer levels of the snowpack have declined since, well the beginning of summer.

      The loss of ice is dramatic.

      Oh, if only we had some way to predict when we might replace this lost snow and ice!!!!!!

      I’m going to go out on a limb and predict a loss of summer greenery in, say, January. Sounds like a climate change crisis to me!

      1. Count d'Haricots

        Sounds like “Tonight’s forecast: Dark. Continued dark throughout most of the evening, with some widely scattered light towards morning.”
        Al Sleet

  7. neocon1

    LOL

    “You probably don’t have to be an idiot to be a modern democrat but no one knows for sure as it has never yet been tried.

    Things that Make a Good Democrat

    1. You oppose capital punishment, but support abortion on demand and the killing of babies who survive abortion.

    2. You have a firm belief that businesses create oppression but the government creates prosperity.

    3. You know that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than Nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic terrorists and North Korean communists.

    4. You believe there would be no art without Federal funding.

    5. You know that global temperatures are more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs than by documented cyclical changes in the earth’s climate.

    6. You believe the AIDS virus was created by right wingers and is spread by a lack of federal funding.

    7. You believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

    8. You believe hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

    9. You know that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

    10. You see the NRA as bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

    11. You strogly believe that the 50% of the population who pay 100% of the taxes are not paying their fair share.

    12. You know that Margaret Sanger, Maya Angelou, Huey P. Newton and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.

    13. You believe standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

    14. You agree that military veterans are more of a threat to America than muslim terrorists.

    15. You know that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.

    16. You believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a democrat President who lied under oath and raped women belonged in the White House.

    17. You believe homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, but Christmas Mangers and Creches should be illegal.

    18. You believe illegal Democrat Party funding by radical Islamists is acceptaqble and somehow in the best interest to the United States if it helps get a democrat elected.

    19. You view messages like this one as part of a vast right wing conspiracy.

    20. You don’t see any contradiction in giving Federal workers a Christmas Day holiday while making it illegal to say “Merry Christmas.”

    21. You know that Islam is a religion of peace but Christianity is destroying America.”

Comments are closed.