ABC Online Radio National - Counterpoint 11/04/2005 [This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/counterpoint/stories/s1339366.htm]
Climate Change Response
Monday 11 April 2005 Presented by Michael Duffy
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville, answers your queries arising from our Climate Change show of Monday 4 April.
Transcript
Michael Duffy: Last week we devoted our entire program to sceptical views of climate change. Our next guest is also a global warming sceptic—Bob Carter is a geologist and environmental scientist, an adjunct research professor at James Cook University, and he specialises in climate change. I’ve asked him on to the program to respond to some of the letters and emails that you, our listeners, sent us after last week’s show. Bob, welcome to Counterpoint.
Bob Carter: Thank you, Michael, it’s a pleasure to be here.
Michael Duffy: A big theme in our listener response was a sense of indignation that we should even be giving time to this viewpoint. Listener Steve Phillips wrote, ‘How is it that a responsible media outlet like the ABC can run a story like this years after the most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which concluded categorically that climate change is happening and humans are causing it?’ And we had a lot of other letters on the same lines. Bob, many listeners clearly believe there’s a scientific consensus here. Do you think they’re right?
Bob Carter: Well, coming to the first part of your question, I point out that the people you’ve had on your programs, such as Bill Kininmonth and Aynsley Kellow, are not people whose views you dismiss lightly. Bill used to be director of the National Climate Centre, and Aynsley Kellow’s written a book on the history of the Kyoto Accord and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s role in achieving it. Such persons, and myself as you introduced me, are often termed ‘sceptics’ and that’s meant to be a term of denigration, but I’m a scientist…it’s my job to be a sceptic, Michael, and those who are not sceptical towards human-caused global warming or, indeed, towards any other fashionable environmental concern, are acting in unscientific manner…religious, even.
Michael Duffy: So how many people like you are there amongst the ranks of climate experts?Bob Carter: You mentioned the word ‘consensus’, and asked whether there is a consensus on human-caused global warming. It’s an interesting word because it’s a sociological concept, not a scientific one. You don’t, for instance, hear people say that there’s a consensus that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Rather, clearly understood scientific principles enable us to predict that that will indeed be the case. So when you hear people claim a consensus for some opinion or other…or another example is invoking precautionary principle, either of those statements are of themselves an admission that the science is uncertain and, as Hermann Goering might have said at that point, ‘you should reach for your gun’. Science doesn’t care whether or not there’s a consensus about something. Science only cares whether statements are consistent with known facts and established theories, whether statements are testable and whether they have predictive power. There isn’t yet any general theory of climate, and nor is there likely to be in the near future. So there cannot be a true consensus about predictions for climate change. Is there a social consensus on human caused global warming? Well, yes, on some things. For example, all competent scientists agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but there are huge differences of opinion about the amount of warming that will be caused by increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; there’s no consensus about that at all. And, in fact, overall the evidence suggests that any warming resulting from that cause will be minor. So if I was to rephrase your question…not say ‘is there a consensus?’ but to ask directly ‘has human-caused global warming been able to be measured yet?’—the answer has to be ‘no’. That’s despite the expenditure of more than $50 billion trying to show that.
Michael Duffy: Perhaps the most common premise that underlies a lot of the emails we’ve received, and also a great deal of what I’ve read about this, is that the climate was pretty stable until the Industrial Revolution. Is that true?
Bob Carter: It’s absolutely untrue. It’s one of the big misconceptions in this whole debate. There’s abundant geological evidence, and it comes especially from cores beneath the ocean sea bed and cores through the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland, that in the past climate has varied on a very wide number of scales. Everyone is familiar, for example, with the 11-year sun spot cycle, during which the sun’s radiated output varies just slightly. Then, at the other extreme, there are 100,000 year long cycles in Earth’s orbit around the sun, and that also affects the climate in the sense of driving us into and out of ice ages. In between 11-year and 100,000 year cycles there’s manifold other cycles, some of which we’re only just beginning to discover. Was climate stable before the Industrial Revolution? Well, the Antarctic ice cores tell us that just 20,000 years ago, which is a blink of an eye in geological time, temperature was about seven degrees colder than today in the peak of the last ice age, whereas if we go back before that to the previous warm periods called interglacials, then the three previous interglacials were, respectively, five degrees, four degrees and six degrees warmer than today. So climate has always changed, it always will, and trying to prevent climate change is quite simply futile. Rather, we need to prepare to cope with changes as they occur, be they warmings or coolings.
Michael Duffy: One of our listeners, Eric Storley, is also a great supporter of the IPCC process, as was our last writer, and he said to us, ‘Some of your guests are scientists and should realise you cannot dismiss a peer review discovery without revealing fatal methodological flaws.’ Thanks Eric. But, Bob, let’s talk about perhaps the most famous study underpinning the IPCC view, the so-called ‘hockey stick’. This is a graph that shows the climate as having been stable for about 1,000 years, and then suddenly shooting up roughly 100 years ago. The graph passed two IPCC peer reviews. What do we know now about the ‘hockey stick’?Bob Carter: Well, we know that it’s broken, funnily, that the ‘hockey stick’ was one of three main props that the IPCC used to argue that human-caused global warming was occurring in their last report, which was in 2001. The other two props, incidentally, were the surface temperature measurements made by thermometers that show a rise of temperature of about half a degree since 1970, and the third prop is that computer models predict temperature increases in the future. Now, all three of these arguments are now discredited, including the ‘hockey stick’, which has been shown to be based on flawed statistics. The surface temperature record, we know that that is biased by the urban heat island effect whereby the towns and cities that we live in generate heat locally, and although the curve that you see reproduced in the newspaper or on television is corrected for that curve, there are many, many scientists who believe that the correction is not adequate. At the same time, it conflicts with independent estimates or measurements that we have of changing temperature made in the atmosphere by satellites and weather balloons. They show very little net change over the last 30 or 40 years. And finally, the third argument of the IPCC that the computer models predict warming in the future…well, of course; they’re designed to. They grossly oversimplify and they often just guess at the workings of a climate system that we do not yet fully understand.
Michael Duffy: What do we know about the general global temperatures in the past 50 years, or can’t we say?
Bob Carter: Well, we can say that temperature’s gone up, as measured by the ground base thermometers, about half a degree since 1970, but that we don’t see that same increase when we measure the atmosphere using more sophisticated modern methods. But even if it has gone up half a degree, so what? This is a very small amount of change in the context of the natural changes to the system that I spoke to you about before, and there’s every reason to expect future changes of the same magnitude, anything up to half to a degree to a degree, either up or down, because that’s the way climate is; it’s never stable, it’s always changing.
Michael Duffy: What about the past thousand years, up to about 1900?
Bob Carter: That’s where the big argument is centred over the ‘hockey stick’ because that purports to summarise accurately the temperatures, particularly for the northern hemisphere, over that time period. And the answer is that there is good evidence that in the Medieval warm period and also prior to that in the Roman warm period before the birth of Christ, temperature was at least as warm as it was today, if not indeed a little bit warmer still. Then, in between those warm periods, of course, we’ve had cold periods such as the famous Little Ice Age experienced in Europe in the 17th, 18th centuries.
Michael Duffy: Another one of our listeners, Richard Evans, wrote, ‘The one fact that does not seem to be in dispute is the progressive rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.’ Bob, is this right and, if it is, is the IPCC right in saying that more carbon dioxide will automatically produce warmer temperatures?
Bob Carter: Well, Michael, the short answers to that are yes, and yes, and isn’t that great, basically. As I mentioned earlier, all scientists agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is to say, it has a warming effect. That said, the balance of the evidence also suggests that the amount of warming that will be produced by the famous doubling of carbon dioxide that is always spoken about, that warming will amount to only a few tenths of a degree. Now, that’s at the level of the noise in the climate system, so it’s not something that one should be overly concerned about. Two other points about carbon dioxide; the first is that we have a record of carbon dioxide from the ice cores which preserve as little bubbles samples of the atmosphere in past times. An analysis of those cores shows quite clearly that, in the past, rises in temperature, when they occurred, occurred before the rises in carbon dioxide, and the period is between a few hundred and a few thousand years. Now, if temperature rises before carbon dioxide, then it cannot be the primary cause of that temperature change. I mean, you don’t hear people saying that lung cancer causes smoking, now do you? A second point about carbon dioxide is that increasing it in the atmosphere is actually a benefit to human kind. Why? Well, first because it’s a very powerful aerial fertiliser which increases plant productivity, and it’s one of the reasons the increases in level…why we’ve had a green revolution, and it helps us feed the world. The second is that mild warming, of the sort that’s likely to be produced by an increase in carbon dioxide, is actually a very useful insurance policy because if there’s one thing that all climate scientists agree on, it’s that we’re going to go into another ice age. Now, we don’t know exactly when but, nonetheless, a little bit of warming will go a long way and is not by any means the bad thing that it’s made out to be every day.
Michael Duffy: If your view of this is right and global warming is a horror story that’s not supported by the known facts, then I guess four groups of people who’ve convinced most of us to take it seriously have acted somewhat strangely. I’m thinking of the IPCC, the environmental movement—or some of it, the media, and of course governments. Would you mind just running through those four groups briefly and telling us why you think that each of them are so attracted to this idea?
Bob Carter: Well, I don’t think that they’ve acted strangely. I think they’ve acted more as less exactly as you would expect them to. For example, take the environmentalists; as political groupings they wish to attain political ends, and they therefore use and acknowledge science only when the results of science suit those political ends. When the science results are ambiguous or don’t suit (this is the case for human-caused global warming) the environmentalists invoke the precautionary principle, I guess, and very often resort to personal attacks on people who point out the obvious, which is that we have not yet been able to measure human-caused global warming. The second you mentioned, the IPCC; it’s received advice from many excellent scientists and they’re still involved with the IPCC, but it’s not primarily a scientific body. In the end, it’s a political body with a life of its own and, as such, the advice to policy makers that the IPCC releases no longer gives primacy to scientific reasoning. It actually gives primacy to political advice. Thirdly, and probably the biggest problem of the lot is governments and the bureaucrats who advise them. Why is that? It’s because they’ve decided that research funding should be directed towards activities that they or the tax payer perceive to be ‘useful’. Now, as soon as you do that, it’s quite inevitable that scientists’ efforts become slanted towards problems that they think are of public concern. After all, in essence; no climate change problem, then no climate change research money. And this is much more damaging than just at the level of the individual scientist. For example, as a result of this policy, organisations such as CSIRO now resemble government consultancies rather than genuine science research agencies. In effect, the government no longer does, or even can, receive disinterested advice on science issues of today. And the fourth group, I guess, is the media, and because the media is kindly using me today I have to be careful what I say I guess…
Michael Duffy: No, please, say whatever you like.
Bob Carter: …but the media’s job, surely, is entertainment and making money, and both of these are enhanced by a good scare story, which scientists now produce in abundance. You may think I’m making this up but the latest that I’ve heard are, firstly, that dandruff enhances global warming, and the second one is that an amino acid which is produced by blue-green algae when they bloom in the Baltic Sea in the northern hemisphere, that chemical is known to cause Alzheimer’s disease, and so there’s a claim that Alzheimer’s disease in Nordic countries is going to increase as a result of global warming. It’s not difficult to produce these scare stories and, to be fair, the media finds them very useful to help them sell newspapers.
Michael Duffy: Thanks very much for coming on the program, Bob. We’ll leave it there.
Presenter: Michael Duffy
Producer:Janne Ryan
24 comments:
Okay Pete, I liked this guy (kind of). He clearly has some credentials (even if they are tangential to climate science) and I would say, from the limited amount of information in the above interview, he knows what he is talking about.
Essentially Carter makes three claims: 1) “consensus” is the wrong word for a scientific precept – unless there is a testable hypothesis with verifiable results, there cannot be consensus, and such a thing as global warming cannot as yet be tested; 2) that the different natural cycles of the Earth could and probably do account for most of the global climate trends, up and down; and 3) that global warming is a product of the “entertainment” minded media; Carter even goes so far as to suggest that CO2 is good for plant life.
These are good, relatively clear-headed reasons – wouldn’t you say? So I’m inclined to believe him…up to a point…
But then there’s the “however” (there always seems to be a “however,” doesn’t there?) and a number of red flags pop up.
Red Flag #1: This guy is a geologist. I know, I know, first climate scientists were geologists (geologists learn about paleoclimates from core samples which catch the gasses in the ancient atmospheres; sediment is also an indicator of what climate it was formed in). But when I look this guy up on Wikipedia I find this for his area of expertise: “Carter has published scientific papers on taxonomic palaeontology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, New Zealand maritime glaciation,[4] Quaternary geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef.” The majority of his work has not been in climate science – he seems to be a very part time meteorologist and then only once this climate issue came up. Wikipedia is not always the bastion of unfaultable truth, of course, but I do not see why I should doubt it in this case. Do you, Pete?
Red Flag #2: At first Carter’s “consensus” comment made a good deal of sense…but then it began to bother me a bit. Carter’s definition of “sociological concept” began to seem frankly untenable, essentially because he is utilizing an essentially connotative definition – “consensus” does not mean in the scientific world what it means in the social world – and using the word in a non-standard way, changing the meaning of the word. I say this because “consensus” also has a denotative (To signify directly; refer to specifically) definition. The denotative definition of “consensus” is “An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.” It may be imprecise by scientific standards, but if most scientists agree on something can’t there be a “consensus” about it? If the scientific community reaches a position as a whole, isn’t that a “consensus”? I’m not saying there is such a thing as a consensus on global warming, mind you, just that one could or could not say that it has been reached…and all of the sudden Carter’s statement seemed like clever and articulate obfuscation to me. He seemed to be trying to pull a semantic veil over the issue by using his supposed scientific authority. Hmmmm….
Red Flag #3: And this is a big one. I found this on “SourceWatch”: Carter works for something called the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. Ouch. Okay, that’s a big one. If we are eliminating scientists who work for the Intergovernmental Panel, much less environmentalists who work for, say, Greenpeace or EarthFirst, because their science might be polluted by personal associations, then we have to eliminate Carter for the same reasons. Also, Carter has numerous ties to the drilling industry in Australia. Seems like the possibility of another red flag. What’s more, both Wikipedia and SourceWatch quoted a Sydney newspaper article which states: "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community." I don’t know about that last one…might be a sign of the liberal Australian media…or it might be a sign of Dr. Carter’s scientific credibility…
Red Flag #4: Look at those closing statements about CO2 and the benefits of global warming. Likewise for the entertainment value of the news media. Seems to me a bit too one-sided and too cherry-red happy. At least for me. I don’t know that he is wrong about CO2 being good for plant life, but it does seem a little too ideal given the circumstances…
I think, while I admire Carter for his straightforwardness, I have to wonder about his motives and, yes, even his credentials.
My big question to you, Pete, is why do you believe Dr. Carter over a scientist who believes in global warming. Why not believe, for instance, Keith Shine, who has impressive scientific credentials and who believes in global warming. Or Bill Kininmonth and Aynsley Kellow, which Carter references in his interview? What makes Carter an authority over many other also qualified scientists?
Finally, since you have spent hundreds and thousands of hours and most of your adult life studying geology and climate science, could you decipher the following for me? There was some debate at this link about Carter’s work, and I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it – it’s pretty complex stuff.
Links to the actual website are at the end.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
(Quote from site follows)
It is confusing one of my friends and I’m not sure what to say in response to it.
It’s called “There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998″ by Bob Carter
[Response: There's so much wrong with this screed that it's hard to know where to start. As noted by others, the theory does not predict an uninterrupted monotonic increase in temperature. Over short time periods, a single anomalously hot year can mean you have to wait a few years extra before the next really hot year comes along. (see also Coby's discussion at http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.html ) Carter writes as if the only reason for suspecting that temperature is linked to CO2 is that temperature has been going up and CO2 has been going up. In fact, there is basic physics behind this expectation, and when the physics is embodied in a model, and all climate forcings (including solar and volcanoes) are taken into account, you find that there is no consistent explanation of the post-1970 warming without invoking a substantial CO2 effect. He writes about the mid-century interruption in warming as if no climate scientists had ever thought about it, whereas the role of aerosols in this feature was the main breakthrough of the IPCC Second Assessment Report. He describes the "bladder trembling" Mann hockey-stick curve as a "statistical construct," whereas the basic conclusions have been borne out by many independent studies (amply discussed on RealClimate). And so forth. The whole column is, as Carter himself would put it, "Tosh." --raypierre]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/#comment-11443
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/#comment-11443
Dear Anon,
Wow, you sure took the above interview or aritcle apart, almost like a psychoanalytical crime-solver. Surely, you seem to assume, anyone even remotely "skeptical" of man-caused global warming must be guilty of some kind of crime, lack of credibility, or guilty by association with some known criminal element, (e.g. "Big Oil").
You insinuate that I am biased in my choice of who to listen to or believe in; may I point out that your bias is plainly oozing out of every pore in your body, figuratively speaking.
Wickipedia is a non-issue. We both know what it is. Everything they put out must be questioned. Actually, I think this is true about anything and everything anymore. Trust no one, question everthing, test everyone. It is so easy to fabricate and manipulate data, and in this digital electronic age, everything becomes just data.
As an aside, if Obama had been investigated more thoroughly before the election we might not be living the nightmare now unfolding.
Along a slightly divergent line, what do you make of this news from Shell?
Royal Dutch Shell Will Focus on Biofuels
March 19, 2009 | Reuters
Royal Dutch Shell has decided that their renewable fuels efforts will focus on biofuels as they cut back on investments in wind and solar technologies.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE52G4SU20090317
Shell employs many of the world's best scientists and economists. They can afford to. The best go into industry, where the challenges and rewards are greatest. You'd better believe they don't believe in man-caused global warming. They don't speak out publicly for political reasons, but privately they laugh at the naivite' of the "true believers".
Ummmm...thanks for responding, Pete. I'm not sure what you are saying here....
I didn't quite follow how the Obama reference had anything to do with Bob Carter, or what you meant by the "everything is data" comment, or what Shell investing in bio-fuels had to do with any of this...
Anyway. No, I don't automatically assume that anyone who doubts global warming is guilty of a crime - that's your wording and your hyperbole. I did check up on Dr. Carter, however, and I'm sorry, but there are several reasons to doubt his credentials and what he says; I listed them above.
I was wondering if you could explain to me how my bias oozed from my very pours? How so?
I mean, we're both critical thinkers, right?
Anon,
Ha, ha, ha,....I did go off on a bit of a tangent there. Critical thinkers huh? Ok, if you want a label, I'll accept that.
Carter is not my favorite skeptic; he is just one of many. He doesn't have the highest of credentials or notoriety, especially here in the U.S. He may be a bit eccentric, but I give anyone teaching and conducting research at the Phd. level credit for at least being intelligent and ambitious.
Perhaps you could lead me to a convincing article about why carbon dioxide emissions are causing "irreversible" global warming. That really is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I don't need a refresher course in test-tube molecular physics. I also absolutely do not trust computer models because they are based on too many variables and too many modelers with an agenda.
I want to see something verifiable, something measurable, repeatable, observable, something with a predictive track record, something scientific. Otherwise you're just begging me to "believe". I'm thoroughly trained to not believe just because some "authority" says so. Even "authorities" can, and often are wrong. Mindless trust often leads a ship onto the rocks and a plane into a mountain.
Oh, by the way. I work with many kinds of predictive computer models and my work is scrutinized and challenged at the highest level. I know what it is like to be held accountable, which many working in research for the government are clueless about.
Look at Obama's Czars; for the most part they are far, far left buffoons, so far out of touch with reality as to be laughable, except that what they are proposing has very serious consequences. They have no tract record in industry. They are not held accountable for their scientific pronouncements. They are politicians and beauracrats.
Interesting. By far the most cogent, detailed, grammatically correct response, Pete. I’m impressed. Is there more than one person responding on this blog? (more than one “Pete” in the “Place”?’ ) And / or levels of sobriety?
Anyhoo – to the discussion:
“I give anyone teaching and conducting research at the Phd. level credit for at least being intelligent and ambitious.”
Okay, that’s cool.
But what about a Ph.D. teaching and conducting research who disagrees with your stand and asserts that global warming is a real and present danger? They do exist, you know. Why don’t you give them credence? Why do you only cite popular press articles (often from newspapers or trade journals) only on one side of the issue? If credentials are the issue, couldn’t you find the same or even better credentials for a scientist who does believe in global warming? Why do you believe a political scientist or a geologist over a climate scientist? I’m willing to bet you could find plenty’o Ph.D.s teaching and researching at the highest levels who say global warming exits and his human-caused – why don’t you believe them?
This is the perennial question I have while looking over your site.
“I want to see something verifiable, something measurable, repeatable, observable, something with a predictive track record, something scientific. Otherwise you're just begging me to ‘believe.’”
Okay. How about this site:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
I believe they have a number of links to verifiable, measurable, repeatable, etc. studies.
Quote from the site:
“When one reviews all the data, both from thermometers and paleotemperature proxies, it becomes clear that the Earth has warmed significantly over the last 140 years. Global warming has occurred.”
Disagree? Why?
Here’s a popular press article which does indeed indicate a consensus among scientists:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
And yet another one:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
But okay, these are created by the liberal media. So I went to the “Wilson Web Database” and checked randomly on the “Applied Science Full Text” database; I checked the box marked “peer reviewed.” I keyed “global warming” into the search field and came up with 606 papers; I checked only on papers in the last year.
I came up with:
Sen, Z. Global warming threat on water resources and environment: a review. Environmental Geology v. 57 no. 2 (March 2009) p. 321-9
The abstract for this article read:
“A review on global warming, greenhouse effect, and climate change problems that are expected to endanger water-related demand and supply patterns is presented. Topics discussed include linguistic identification of these problems on a logical basis to take the necessary precautions and implementation of mitigation schemes after evaluating vulnerability possibilities via fuzzy logic.”
Do you have an opinion on this person’s work?
To be fair, there were a number of papers that suggested either a) not enough evidence is known, or b) there is disagreement on global warming.
My question to you, why don’t you present both sides since there appears to be plenty of hard scientific evidence for both?
"I'm thoroughly trained to not believe just because some ‘authority’ says so. Even ‘authorities’ can, and often are wrong. Mindless trust often leads a ship onto the rocks and a plane into a mountain.”
Okay, I could buy that – seems like a good deal of metaphor, but I can believe it. Humans are often mislead because they are so excitable.
So, why then do you believe an “authority” like Dr. Clark? Couldn’t he be leading you into the metaphoric mountain also? Why believe him and not some others? Why do you only believe “authorities” on one side of the issue? Same old question. Are you sure that you are not “excitable” when it comes to “liberal” causes that, oh I don’t know, Barak Obama believes in?
“I work with many kinds of predictive computer models and my work is scrutinized and challenged at the highest level. I know what it is like to be held accountable, which many working in research for the government are clueless about.”
Well, I don’t doubt your professional credentials, never have, never will – it’s your neutrality and objectivity I doubt. I also doubt your ability to interpret this particular science, as I would my own ability, and this is actually the crux of the problem, not the idea that there is no verifiable research. I believe you do not know enough to judge the debate – and neither do I – but you will happily cite any “authority” who brushes aside global warming as “alarmist” and denigrate any scientist or politician who believes otherwise. And I suspect I will type “I do not believe or disbelieve in global warming” until my digits are bruised but it will not matter.
“Look at Obama's Czars; for the most part they are far, far left buffoons, so far out of touch with reality as to be laughable.”
Which brings me back to the neutrality thing. This is what? The fifth screed against democratic politicians? Usually apropos of nothing in particular? Are you sure you’ve got a balanced view of the world that allows you to judge this debate?
This is my second perennial question, one which likewise goes unanswered again and again…Did you decide in global warming alarmism before or after Al Gore? You really, really seem to dislike the democrats – usually this is a sign of hard right beliefs. And usually people on the hard right dismiss global warming. Why I’m not sure. Probably because hard right wingers associate this particular science with ecology which they associate with hippies which they associate with liberals, or something to that effect.
Well, two names down – on to #3.
Anon,
You're severely testing my patience. You're a perpetual whiner and I despise that, and an armchair quarterback, a sideline critic who deserves no respect.
Why should I publish some global warming true-believer's rubbish? To show "both sides" of the issue? Nonsense. That kind of thing is everywhere for everyone to see. Read what I've revealed about the relationship between General Electric,(the parent company) and NBC, MSNBC, The Weather Channel, Newsweek Magazine and how they monopolize the news being fed to the public about global warming. Josef Goebbels would be proud of the propaganda machine.
You make reference to NOAA. Listening to them about global warming is like listening to Exxon/Mobil about the oil and gas industry. They are biased. They have to be.
In the case of NOAA they receive all of their funding from the government. Without a climate crisis their funding would be cut, there would be layoffs. What would you expect them to say?
The same goes for university researchers. They all depend primarily on government funding. They have got to sound the shrill sound of crisis or their requests for grant money will go unanswered. I don't need to be a pure "climate scientist" to know that. I know how the game is played in seeking grant money.
You make assumption after assumption about me and my motives, in a desperate-sounding attempt to belittle and discredit me. Yet you know little about me except for the choice of what I post here and the actual short commentary I add.
You act like some egalitarian seeker of truth, yet you are passionate about your agenda and seek to silence me and surely any other person who questions or threatens your beliefs.
My war against what I call the myth of man-caused global warming is conducted because it is something I have a fair bit of knowledge about. Howeve it is not the only aspect of the liberal, socialist agenda I disagree with. I'm sure you suspect that. I don't go into other things much because I chose to focus what limited time and energy I have on what I think I know best.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm
In the above survey they asked government funded climate researchers if they believed in man-caused global warming, and not surprisingly they nearly all did. That is equivalent to asking a group of Catholic Priests if they believe in Jesus. It is a meaning- less survey except that it reveals how self-serving these academic "climate scientists" are.
Sen, Z. Global warming threat on water resources and environment: a review. Environmental Geology v. 57 no. 2 (March 2009) p. 321-9
The above kind of article is meaningless because it begins by assuming that there is global warming and that it is caused by man's activities.
Most articles supporting global warming are of this nature. Of course there has been global warming, ever since the end of the last Ice Age. It has been warming and sea level has been rising for most of the last 20,000 years. This has obviously been triggered by and controlled by something other than the burning of fossil fuels.
Dying polar bears? Nonsense. Melting glaciers? Natural and normal. Rising sea levels? Yes, maybe, but not at unusual rates.
Increasing storms? No, and the list of nonsensical scientific reports goes on endlessly.
If you've been any kind of scientist for at least the last 20 years and you've sought funding, you've had to find a way to tie it to the myth of man-caused global warming or you didn't get funding. Now that is truly an inconvenient truth.
And finally, I'm not here to garner you approval or respect of my grammatical or literary skills. I have nothing to prove, I'm merely trying to communicate as best as I can.
Good heavens, son. You're going to blow a gasket.
You managed to get me riled. Someone just said, "don't pick a fight with someone who likes to fight".....(smile)
I don't like liars, and that is what this whole man-caused global warming thing has become, a carefully crafted and orchestrated pack of liars seeking to control and make a huge profit from scaring the public. They desperately need to be exposed. Call me a scientific whistle-blower.
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas H. Huxley
Are you sure Huxley wasn’t talking about you? To wit –
“You're severely testing my patience. You're a perpetual whiner and I despise that, and an armchair quarterback, a sideline critic who deserves no respect.”
You had a phrase for this kind of ad hominem assault…let me see, what was it?… “pathetic and laughable”? Oh yes, that was it. Sticks and stones anyway. And I have to write it again, Pete, YOU INVITED ME!!! You gave me a list of names to look at. In fact, you double-dog-dared me. And now you’re riled?! Sheese.
“Why should I publish some global warming true-believer's rubbish? To show ‘both sides’ of the issue? Nonsense.”
Nonsense? Rubbish? NOAA does not think so – some pretty big brains there. In fact, this sounds a little like an unwillingness or inability to engage…I’d say publish both sides so that your readers know that you are not just preaching to the choir and/or are a reasonable, rational, objective commentator on a public scientific debate…which you are, right? No wingnutatude here.
“That kind of thing is everywhere for everyone to see.”
Well, to be fair, so are the deniers. Most anti-warmists are blogs like this one. Key in “global warming” and you get a great deal in the blogosphere. Which makes me wonder even more about the legitimacy of the debate in general. In fact, one actually has to search to find the scientific stuff – the layman’s opinion of the scientific stuff is actually predominant. Again, there is plenty of good science by good honest scientists against a “warmist” POV – I just haven’t seen it reflected here. Well, with every new day there is hope!
“Read what I've revealed about the relationship between General Electric,(the parent company) and NBC, MSNBC, The Weather Channel, Newsweek Magazine and how they monopolize the news being fed to the public about global warming. Josef Goebbels would be proud of the propaganda machine.”
I am, I am! Geeze. You gotta give me time to get there. Except now you’re getting mad about it. And “Goebbels”? Really? The Nazi propaganda minister = national news magazines? Yeah, that’s a rational analogy. You have a flair for the dramatic, my droogy. By the way, haven’t you cited a number of media sources in your blog like the above?
“You make reference to NOAA. Listening to them about global warming is like listening to Exxon/Mobil about the oil and gas industry. They are biased. They have to be. In the case of NOAA they receive all of their funding from the government. Without a climate crisis their funding would be cut, there would be layoffs. What would you expect them to say?”
Well, first off I don’t know if this true – I’d ask you to prove it. Objectively. And secondly: how does this change their findings? I’d believe a government scientist over a corporate one. Elsewhere in the blog you justify the inclusion of petroleum engineers by suggesting everyone needs a paycheck. How is that different than government scientists?
“The same goes for university researchers. They all depend primarily on government funding. They have got to sound the shrill sound of crisis or their requests for grant money will go unanswered.”
Well…kind of. Most university researchers have tenure, the senior ones anyway, so they are pretty well protected and guaranteed a paycheck. This is a pretty big “assumption,” wouldn’t you say? Not to mention a “sweeping generalization.” You don’t think there are any legitimate, honest researchers in academia? Seems like another bit of hyperbole and, for someone as sensitive to his online persona, you sure deride other people a great deal. What’s that bit about dishing it out...? Also seems to me you cite a number of professors - like the next in line, #3 on your list, has his picture on a university website. Huh. Guess the Men in Black haven't gotten to him yet.
"The above kind of article is meaningless because it begins by assuming that there is global warming and that it is caused by man's activities.”
Really? You read it already? You know this researcher? Or did you simply look at the title? Did you attack this piece of research with the a priori belief that nothing this scientist says has any value? That’s a little bit like covering your ears and going “la-la-la-la-la” really loudly.
“You act like some egalitarian seeker of truth…”
Yup. That’s me.
“…yet you are passionate about your agenda…”
Well, sure. If by “agenda” you mean actually trying in my own small way to objectively evaluate one side of an argument on a certain blog which invited me to do so, then sure. I’ll say it one more time: I don’t believe or disbelieve in global warming. However, your blog has confirmed some of my worst fears about deniers.
“…and seek to silence me and surely any other person who questions or threatens your beliefs.”
Now come on, Pete. I’ve spent all this time actively trying to discuss with you. How could I possibly “silence” you?! By the way, for some reason my home computer wouldn’t post on your blog last night – I figure it is a glitch in my home system, because you certainly wouldn’t be one of those ‘I’m-taking-my-ball-and-going-home-because-I’m-losing’ types who block IP addresses would you?
“Dying polar bears? Nonsense.”
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you’d actually done your own research into the subject…or did you find healthy polar bears on the web somewhere…
“Howeve it is not the only aspect of the liberal, socialist agenda I disagree with. I'm sure you suspect that.”
Yeah. My “assumptions” were kind of borne out, weren’t they Pete?
“Melting glaciers? Natural and normal. Rising sea levels? Yes, maybe, but not at unusual rates.
Increasing storms? No, and the list of nonsensical scientific reports goes on endlessly.”
Well, I sure hope you are right. Again, there are lots and lots of smart people who disagree who maybe, just maybe, know more about it than you and I do. That seems to be a hard pill for some people to swallow…
“If you've been any kind of scientist for at least the last 20 years and you've sought funding, you've had to find a way to tie it to the myth of man-caused global warming or you didn't get funding. Now that is truly an inconvenient truth.”
Again, can you prove that this? I know it would be inconvenient to do so, but that’s a pretty big charge. Seems to me there are more than a few university researchers on your blog here. I wasn’t aware of any of them living under a bridge.
“And finally, I'm not here to garner you approval or respect of my grammatical or literary skills. I have nothing to prove, I'm merely trying to communicate as best as I can.”
Okay. So why mention it?
I’ve said it twice and I’ll say it again – if you want me to bug off, I will. Not everyone can stand the heat (Get it? It’s a joke. A play on global “warming.”)
By the way, I feel a little funny constantly being called "Anon." Let's pick a name - Eddie Van Halen is cool. So is Marion Morrison. Or Werner Von Braun? You pick. Or don't pick. No matter.
Dearest Anon,
I think the name fits you well. Who cares anyway. The people I care for know who I am.
The answers to all of your questions can be found on this blog, from polar bears to glaciers to sea level, I've touched on these subjects before.
When someone writes a paper, does "research" or whatever, and the basic premise is something like "IF sea level rises 20 feet" (because of man-caused global warming) then all these bad things will happen. If someone says that then the whole article is bogus, because it is based on an assumption. If a boulder falls off a cliff onto you head it will hurt. Well yes, that is true, but what is the chance of that happening? They never say; they blindly accept the myth that man is causing global warming and that sea level will rise that much. This kind of thinking is bad, bad, worthless, grant-groveling ass-kissing, work-making "science".
You have not identified yourself in any way, what you do, where you live, your education etc. Are you sincere about learning or are you just here to bait me?
You do understand that this issue of global warming has become nearly completely politicized and polluted with deception, name calling, threats and emotionalism. Of course that is how Al Gore and his guiding environmentalists want it. They can't and won't argue the science because they lose every time.
And no, comparing their propaganda with that of Josef Goebels is legitimate. If you do your homework and see what really goes on behind the scenes I think you'll agree.
Do another search here on James Hansen, and his relationship with The Heinze Foundation-controlled by John Kerry's wife. Look into what the real agenda is of the large environmental groups. You'll find it is really ugly, really dirty. Read the article I just posted about RealClimate.org
Cheers,
Peter
"Are you sincere about learning or are you just here to bait me?"
Here to learn. Am learning. Not sure I am learning what you would like me to learn or, more specifically, I'm not coming to the stated conclusions you would like me to come to.
"You do understand that this issue of global warming has become nearly completely politicized and polluted with deception, name calling, threats and emotionalism."
Yeah, I think most everyone understands that.
But Pete, in all honesty, don't you see yourself in this statement? Even a little bit? Do you really, truly not see that this is exactly the sort of stuff that you are doing here? I think I find a good deal of name calling, some people who seem to be actively involved in deception, and there's definitely a good deal of emotionalism here. Plus a complete unwillingness even to engage in the possibility of alternate points of view.
It makes me worry.
Yrs. Anon.
Anon,
Of course I'm capable of being emotional; I'm human. I don't listen to Rush and his friends. I try to come to my own decisions.
There is no real scientific debate because those tauting man-caused global warming keep saying "the debate is over". The debate is rarely ever over if scientific principles are adhered to.
Al Gore won't debate. James Hansen won't debate. They won't publish their research and reveal what parameters they used in their computer models. The operate by going to the public, by creating fear, and by bullying people, and by personally attacking honest sincere scientific skeptics such as myself.
I'm not going to take it. I don't have to. I'm retired, (or I was), even so, I'm pretty independent and I don't have to be politically correct, at least not yet.
There is no open scientific debate on whether carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels cause global warming, which is the heart of the debate. The oil and gas industry, the coal industry, in fact most all industry has been so demonized by environmentalists that open, public debate has been eliminated.
Instead they show pictures of cute polar bears, calving glaciers, (which is what they do every summer), while the mainstream media is in collusion with the global warming alarmists, especially NBC and MSNBC. Their sensationalist reporting on the weather, blaming everything from flooding, to drought, to wildfires, you name it, everything at all sensational is attributed to global warming, and now what they call "climate change". It is a massive fraud.
Geologists know the climate is always changing, always has and always will. We see it in our work every day. The climate changes we're seeing now are nothing not seen before, not the severity or the frequency. We can and have documented this thousands of times, all over the world, with measurable, quantifiable records and reports. Climate modelers can not come close to this kind of veracity and scientific validity.
Here is what should really worry you. Don't worry about me, or who you think I represent. Worry that with all this uncertainty about whether carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming, and even if it did, there is little we can do about it without totally bankrupting the world economy, in spite of these obvious warnings, our politicians (including the man at the top) are eager to impose draconian new laws (cap and trade), amounting to more taxes into the Trillions of dollars, all based on inadequate science.
THAT is what you should really worry you, and your children and their grandchildren, because they will be paying for today's fraud and scandal.
Peter
You fascinate me, Pete, you really do.
You accuse me of doing something and then you do exactly the same thing two posts later.
You accuse "warmists" (first time I've ever run into that slang, by the way) of name calling and then you call them names.
You claim that the debate is ruled by "emotionalsim" and then you excuse your self for being "emotional" because you are "human."
You claim that warmists exaggerate and use propaganda and then you compare the champion of the worst genocide in human history to Newsweek.
You accuse me of having an "agenda" and then you openly attack the President of the United States (who hasn't even had a year in office).
You accuse warmists of ignoring data but you refuse to even look at science which suggests global warming is real.
And so on and so on. In short, Pete, you do exactly the same things that you accuse others of doing; it's that old "beam in your eye" thing - someone once said that, can't remember who.
At worst its hypocritical, at best remarkably un-self-reflexive. Thus it is not "who" you represent, Pete, but "what" you represent that I worry about. I am not attacking you personally - just for your own piece of mind (since you seem to take this very personally). I do not know you - how could I attack you? I rather imagine that you are pleasant, good company, pay your taxes, abide the law, etc. But in your cyberlife you represent the sort of insane shouting match that has dominated American discourse since the last decades of the 20th century. That is the "what" which worries me.
I will check back in a couple days. I've been going through your list, reading what you have posted and then checking these people's backgrounds. So far, as an educated layman looking for guidance, I would trust two of them, and then with provisions.
Here's looking at you, kid.
Dearest, dearest Anon....
I'd love to sit down and have a beer with you....I'll even pay....for what that is worth.
I'm deadly, deadly serious about this myth of man-caused global warming scam. It is not an academic exercise. I am not an academic, but a working scientist who has far more experience with reality than anyone should. Forgive me my literary inepetitude.
Your want the truth? You and I should talk in private. I don't like playing these internet games..but there is no other way to get the truth out there before the public. The internet sets us free to tell the truth. You will learn it as you look around. I am but just one small voice.
The people you should not believe are those who are "peer reviewed".....that means they have bowed to the "party line"........they have kissed ass...you know that, I know that, they know that.......
I will not be subjugated, forced to bow down, by anyone. You can quote me on that. I will go down fighting for truth and liberty.
Have I made myself clear? I will not accept lies, force, intimidation, or corruption....come beat down my doors.
Whoa...Pete buddy...I think you need to take a break from whatever your painting or gluing, the fumes you know...
I'm going to leave you alone for a while so you can regroup.
Thank you very sincerely for your offer of a brewski on you, but I rather imagine the conversation would not be that much different. Besides, I have another six years before I'm even eligible for parole and I don't think they'd let me out to discuss global warming and drink beer.
Let's just leave it in cyberspace, shall we?
You get some rest now. Anon and gone.
Anon,
Says it all that you go slinking away. Good riddance.
Well, since we are a little short of 1/4 of the way through the list, I thought we should check in. This is what we have discussed so far:
Lomborg: a political scientist. Believes that CO2 is causing global warming -- thus he is a "warmist." Simply thinks that money is better spent elsewhere than on global warming. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: minimal to none.
Carter: a geologist. Seems to know his science from a geologist’s perspective but has some troubling associations and dubious reasoning. Can we trust him to be objective? Unclear. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: unknown for the above reasons.
Botkin: a biologist. Very good guy who made some sound observations from within the perimeters of his own discipline. He neither dismisses nor embraces climate change, but has a more measured response that we should be objective and rational in our discussion; he does appear to be somewhat dubious of computer models. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: strong, but only from a biologist’s point of view.
Evans: an electrical engineer. Nutjob. No peer-review or serious scientific work on climate change. Probably trying to cash in on the political climate. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: none whatsoever.
Easterbrook: a geologist. Solid scientific work. Interesting at the least, compelling if not convincing data which seems to indicate a nature climate cycle. Unclear if he is an objective researcher. Relevance to the scientific climate debate: strong, with reservations noted above.
Anyway, 16 more to go. It is interesting that out of the above 5, 3 are “deniers,” 1 is a “warmist,” and 1 is on the fence; 2 of the “deniers” have serious issues with credibility. You’re right, Pete, I am learning a great deal here.
Simply my 2 cents and not worth more than that, but it is interesting.
Post a Comment