Green lobby must be treated as a religion
By John Kay, In the Financial Times on 09 January 2007.
Environmentalism offers an alternative account of the natural world to the religious and an alternative anti-capitalist account of the political world to the Marxist. The rise of environmentalism parallels in time and place the decline of religion and of socialism.
Anthropologists have established how different cultures independently evolve similar myths – familiar stories, such as the myth of the Fall and the myth of the Apocalypse, which meet deep-seated human needs. The Christian tradition describes the temptation of Adam and Eve and warns of the Last Judgment…
Read the complete article here: http://www.johnkay.com/political/479
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I certainly agree that mankind seems to need a doomsday threat.
And I find the question ” Do you believe in global warming ? ” very odd.
Belief surely doesn’t come into it?
And exagerating horror stories to ensure The Way To Salvation ( Kyoto) is accepted by a terrified populace sounds awfully like a lot of ( mostly past ) religious persuasion.
And a zealous pursuit of heretics thrown in…..
BUT ; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=80
as a non-expert , I’d be foolish to ignore the views of those who should know what they’re talking about.
I can’t accept a conspiracy and if Ian is right and it’s nothing more than a loose coalition of common interests ( sorry if I’ve misquoted Ian) then it’ll all fall apart pretty soon.
Jim: When I ask someone ” Do you believe in global warming ? ” as I often do out of the blue, I follow it up with “How do you know ?” regardless of their answer.
Jim, Real Climate has an economic interest in the gw claims, as does its lead commenter, Gavin A. Schmidt, who is on NASA’s payroll to study something that he better not discount. He works from Columbia (read ultra liberal) University in NYC and he has been well indoctrinated at London schools in the European attitudes towards America. He would never concede an inch towards people who are skeptical to AGW, as liberals never will to conservatives. I would have respect for him if he admitted that maybe, just maybe, there are holes in the gw march. But, he praises Al Gore’s movie, warts and all, and thinks that school children around the world should be forced to watch it.
If you don’t want to ignore people who should know what they are talking about on this issue, there are plenty of them. Unfortunately, taking an opposing view is to open yourself up to attacks by the left, which substitues “consensus” for “scientific proof.”
I split a gut on Woody’s post. RC has an economic interest in GW claims. Woody did you know they are satanists too. Children round the world forced to watch it – chained to their chairs. Let’s show them some creation science instead.
Just the banner of Woody’s site shows me yet another rampant yank astroturf outfit. Don’t they love the flag and going on and on about truth and liberty. Sort out Iraq you crooks.
As far as the lead post is concerned – what a load of fanciful crap – evidence based evidence for presented = 0.0
Surveys of attitudes or anything quantitative = zero.
Yet another boring sweep at the environmental movement in the endless propaganda war.
Let’s have no environmental interests and return to chimney sweep London.
If you want religion try the shopping mall.
Jim concludes “then it’ll all fall apart pretty soon” but I wouldn’t be so optimistic. In the area of soil remediation there is an active industry based on clean-up standards which unsurprisingly are based on environmental modelling. These models contain so many uncertainties and assumptions that the end results are meaningless, but they lead to massive unnecessary expenditures. The whole thing is kept running by an unholy alliance of “environmental scientists” in government, consulting groups and these days even inside industry. It is another religious ritual, paid for as usual by the rest of society, but there is no sign of it ending soon. Greenhouse theories have much more political momentum and with the accompanying religious zeal they are likely to be a burden on society for generations.
Luke, you followed the usual liberal script. Don’t address the point made–just go right to personally attacking the commenter and ridiculing the points with no substance from yourself. Hey, that’s sort of like most of the people in the First Emaculate Church of Global Warming.
Also, this post had nothing to do with Iraq, but it’s amazing that, to a liberal, EVERYTHING can and should be related to Iraq. http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/210909.php
P.S. You can always count on the U.S. to help you, even when you talk about us like dirt.
Luke asked for evidence for the assertion. There is no evidence presented in the opening post, it’s all just baseless assertion.
SJT, we have a “consensus” of readers who agree with the opening post. For global warming worshippers, consensus is more than simple evidence. Why, it’s solid proof!
For goodness sakes, the writer is expressing his particular analysis of a situation. There may be no “evidence” other than his opinion, which is what he is stating. Any new idea has to have such a start. However, if I made a similar assertion on another site, then I could cite his article as “evidence”–except that, of course, Luke would not accept that, either, and would follow up with new demands.
Actually, liberals are well known to continue asking for evidence from conservatives, and conservatives regularly learn that any source that supports conservatives is unacceptable to liberals, which gives the liberal an out from defending his own position. Therefore, the request for evidence of the writer’s views is just a means to avoid discussing the issue.
Now, can we discuss the post without more side-tracking?
Christians have and Easter and environmentalists have Earth Day…and, some, May Day. Earth Day celebrations take on religious or mystical tones by those who celebrate it.
Here’s a related quote from the site link shown below:
“That promotion of Earth Day, which glorifies nature worship, has escalated interest in the occult,” said Harvey of Mission America. “Last year about 75,000 packets of information were sent by Earth Day organizers to public schools nationwide. Often this material reaches the classroom despite it’s religious undertones.”
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4187/CFI/cfreport/index.htm
Of course, this will be claimed to be insufficient evidence, just as everything is to people who will never change their minds.
Woody – No the US always counts on us – we don’t treat you like dirt at all – we’re about the only place to tolerate you guys when you’re screwing up world policy and on the nose ! As well as turning up to almost every stoush that you start. Our thanks – you just rip us off with your trade barriers on our agriculture. Beware of yanks bearing gifts. Especially going on about truth and liberty with big flags ! Yee ha !
Anyway be nice or we’ll turn off your intell.
The point my dear US pal is that this here – this here is supposed to be an evidence based blog. We’re often quantitative with some good references – the opinion of some astroturfing wanker in the Times doesn’t count (IMO of course). Might as well say that all capitalists are satanists too – just invites the return sort of broad sweeping generalisation that is not worth a “nickel”.
Maybe a few people are eco-religious – the reality perhaps are that most people wishfully would like the world to be a better place while worshipping consumerism down the shopping mall.
I have started a new program to save and rebuilt melting glaciers. If you want to make a difference, here’s the link:
http://gmroper.mu.nu/archives/212695.php
I don’t get the “astroturf” references.
Anti-capitalists are Stalinists…just to not disappoint you, Luke.
A few years ago I studied Land Management through a respected tertiary institution. One of the subjects of most value was Flora and Fauna Management. The value was in the methodology.
First, research to understand everything available about the target, whether ecosystem, threatened species, economic species or pest/weed. Assess its strengths weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Then plan to obtain the maximun desired result from the limited resources available. And resources – cash, manpower, land and equipment – are always limited. It is a pragmatic, non emotional approach, working within available knowledge and economic limitations.
This methodology is valuable in that it can be appplied to human systems too. It is refreshing to read an economist, John Kay, who appears to take this approach to business and politics.
He does not say that environmentalism is a new religion, as others do. Instead, he points to similarities, then advises businesses to respect the religions/ideologies of those they do business with, and look for opportunties to do what business must do, make profits. [You do not have to agree with people to work with them.]
In scanning through other articles in John Kay’s website, I am impressed with his sound, non emotional common sense. In Plain English too, a rarity for an economist!
Gee Woody – the glaciers stuff was just so incisive it blew me away. Stalinists – and watch out for reds under the bed Woody. They’re sneakier. Anyway keep plugging away for those hearts & minds out there. Especially Bubba’s. Hey where in the world are you guys gonna shoot up next. Can we come too?
Helen – Kay might have good prose ability – but the lead here suggests a turn to environmentalism as a religion – need some numbers Helen – broad appealling statements aren’t evidence.
So using broad sweeping generalisations and keeping away from Stalinists I’d suggest a fleeting committment to pseudo environmentalism is all you have. Dolphin-free tuna is OK – no tuna is not. Yellow wheelie bins are OK – but don’t ask me to do more. We’re concerned about global warming but pleeease don’t ask me to do anything about it.
Anyway have to go buy a new DVD. Gotta go .. ..
Isn’t environmentalism just a reworking of the biblical worship of Baal, ie the Earth itself as deity.
Let’s all gather in a patch of burned out forest every Tuesday and laugh.
Probably just like property rights fascists worship seizing control of the state coz they were let down by their rural leadership on vegetation laws.
Since the vast majority of world religions are based on baseless assertions, it is valid to compare baseless assertions to the vast majority of world religions.
Every “true believer” in any one of these baseless assertions will tell you, their eyes swimming in fervent conviction, of all the bases they have for their convictions.
In the end, there’s only one way to tell the difference between religious and normal thinking. Religionists, be they greenies, neo-Marxists, anti-capitalists, anarcho-syndicalists, greenhouse-mongers, organickers and others, display their religiosity by refusing all evidence contrary to their beliefs.
They have their dogmas, and after that, all they have left to prove is the strength of their faith.
So Luke, Woody’s not merely taking another “boring sweep at the environmental movement in the endless propaganda war,” but merely pointing out that your insistence on dogma and derision underscores your religiosity.
Schiller – dare I suggest you’re so mired in the right wing religion that you can Woody can’t step outside and see yourselves. Mate – it’s hilarious as a stereotype. You guys are so full of yourselves and on cue. At least we can take the piss !
Basically Aussies are fun loving atheistic hedonists and aren’t up ourselves as much as you guys. We don’t want everywhere to look like Las Vegas either.
anarcho-syndicalists – wow – what’s the that ?
And I note that Christianity hasn’t got a run – you guys have a monopoly on fundamentalist nonsense there too.
Evidence tendered for environmentalism as a mainstream religion = 0.0
I haven’t insisted on any dogma – you guys have.
And lifeforms are more complex than what you think – you see I’d be pro-GM, organic cynical, pro-nuclear, pro-farming – but not at any cost, anti-Kyoto – but pro-AGW, pro- fire regimes in forests – but moderately green on everything else. But you guys wouldn’t think that – you’d just have black and white. And I think many greenies will give you more courteous conversations than you give them.
Try some discrimination in taste guys ! and stop labelling everything as left or right. Chuck the checklist.
Luke,
I am an Aussie, but don’t include me in your yobbish attack on Woody, and the United States. Also, I doubt whether you represent even a small fraction of Australians. Perhaps you are one of those ranting vegemite nationalists, of the same ilk as Sheik Whatsisname Tiddleypush Mohammed.
Rise of environmentalism and decline in religion? No – it’s actually the transmutation of religion into a new form. The religious are still among us but this time instead of speaking in tongues, they prattle on about the tautology of climate change.
Lobbyists evangelise to their particular persuasion – green or otherwise.
A new rule at this weblog is only two to three posts by the same person in one 24 hour period unless you have something substantive to add. So I have just deleted a couple of posts. Sorry.
I’m raptured to learn that religion is back in favour. Religion is the new green which is the new black which is the colour of sin just like irresponsible, self-interested capitalist greed.
Read of the quasi-religious dimension of capitalism as a global civil religion and as the culture of modern society in Capitalism as Religion? A Study of Paul Tillich’s Interpretation of Modernity, Francis Ching-Wah Yip
Also look into Max Weber’s finding of deep connections between capitalism and religion, particulary that protestent ethic.
“Calvinist and Lutheran and other Protestant theology permitted the individual to pursue self-interest in a way incompatible with orthodox Catholic theology.
But now we learn that it’s not that incompatible with other Christian beliefs after all:
How Christianity Created Capitalism,Michael Novak)
http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=344
Capitalism, it is usually assumed, flowered around the same time as the Enlightenment–the eighteenth century–and, like the Enlightenment, entailed a diminution of organized religion. In fact, the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was the main locus for the first flowerings of capitalism. Max Weber located the origin of capitalism in modern Protestant cities, but today’s historians find capitalism much earlier than that in rural areas, where monasteries, especially those of the Cistercians, began to rationalize economic life.
The economic historian David Landes, who describes himself as an unbeliever, points out that the main factors in this great economic achievement of Western civilization are mainly religious:
• the joy in discovery that arises from each individual being an imago Dei called to be a creator;
• the religious value attached to hard and good manual work;
• the theological separation of the Creator from the creature, such that nature is subordinated to man, not surrounded with taboos;
• the Jewish and Christian sense of linear, not cyclical, time and, therefore, of progress; and
• respect for the market.
And From salon:
“..religious belief is conducive to capitalist growth because both enterprises require the mass of adherents to believe in the righteousness of suffering. Victory through suffering, is the Christian mantra. Christianity convinces the poor to work at Denny’s 40 hours per week and to accept the malicious governance of their corporate overlords because, well, God wanted it this way. Dignity in suffering. Just keep going to church and everything will be alright. Your victory is in the next life, so don’t worry about the shitty conditions of this one. Instead of revolting, forming unions, doing something, most people sit back and take the abuse…
Notice how the Sapienza research shows that religious people are less tolerant of other races, nationalities, and have negative attitudes towards women. That kind of dogmatic intolerance is what makes for a good capitalist, someone who can reduce the world (though it resists such reduction) to a simple formula of supply and demand, or good and evil, and then justify every unethical outcome (sweatshops, pollution, degradation of the environment, war over oil) as just a necessary evil of man’s dominion over the earth, or just a necessary evil in the fight against… evil. Capitalism is not based on “justice for all” but on an inherent inequality, a disparity that generates profit. It’s the most fundamental concept in capitalism: Somebody (actually, many people) has to work for less than their work is worth. The intolerance of religious people seems well suited to the capitalist spawning of inequality.
Look to the “prisoner’s dilemma,” a classic dilemma in game theory, for the central reason that religion works so well for capitalism. The prisoner’s dilemma illustrates the conflict between individualistic and collective behaviour. Two men are arrested for the same crime, and interrogated separately. What should they do? Rat each other out? If prisoner A blames prisoner B for the crime, and prisoner B blames prisoner A, then there is no net gain. If prisoner A says nothing and prisoner B says nothing, then there is a slight advantage to both that they will not be convicted of the crime. However, by not saying anything, one risks being blamed by the other (and saying nothing in one’s defense): This is the worst outcome and the best outcome.
In other words, is the individual best advantaged by selfish or unselfish behaviour? The best outcome for either prisoner would see one guy act selfishly (blame the other) and the other guy act unselfishly (say nothing). The first guy gets away because the second guy didn’t say anything, he acted altruistically, and the first guy did, he acted selfishly. The lesson here is: Act selfishly and convince the other(s) to act unselfishly. This is the best outcome for you. Naturally, both prisoners know this, and so they can sabotage each other by both acting selfishly.
What does this have to do with religion? Well, while the agnostic rich people who run the country act in their own self-interest, they also convince the majority of poor people to act unselfishly, primarily by getting poor people to embrace religion and nationalism. Go to Iraq and risk your life to protect the American way of life. What they really mean is, Go to Iraq to protect my precious oil and power. The lesson of the Prisoner’s Dilemma is: Convince everyone else to act unselfishly. But be as selfish as you can be. That’s good capitalism.”
Hmmph!
A line from Matthew (taken out of context) could mean the rich get rich and the poor get poorer
“For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”
This is known as the Matthew effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect
What he is really saying is use it or lose it, “it” being the talents that God gave you. If you want abundance then work, trade, be industrious and use those talents “He that received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made other five.”
This is an instruction that the Law of abundance is an inner power; when put into action by the individual it results in further abundance. The Law knows no favouritism and applies equally to those who are poverty stricken. When applied to education those children who have reading skills (are “wealthier”) very early on tend to thrive academically leaving the others behind. Educators using early diagnostic assessments can correct these imbalances in the early years.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”
Gavin;
Belief according to Macquarie is :
1. that which is believed; an accepted opinion.
2. conviction of the truth or reality of a thing, based upon grounds insufficient to afford positive knowledge: statements unworthy of belief
Now surely the question is ;
Do you accept the evidence that the earth is warming as a result of human activity?
Relying on ” belief ” rather than acceptance of evidence does give rise to a comparison with religion.
Woody , as I’ve said before , imputing motive as a substitute for evaluating the substance of an argument ( a technique employed too frequently in this debate ) is unproductive and again invites comparison with religions – those opposed to my position cannot be acting in good faith.
If you want another source for majority expert opinion what about this;
http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm
” 59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.”
Now I’m the first to admit that the minority viewpoint needs to be heard but majority expert opinion is surely sufficient to prompt action – it was in the case of Iraq!
rog pays attention to the Prosperity gospel from the Hillsong church. Helps to explain the strict beliefs that are espoused but never thought through or substantiated.
A self-satisfying read: Brian Houston ‘You Need More Money: Discovering God’s Amazing Financial Plan for Your Life’. In Brian’s own words, they scratch where people are itching.
“Then, there’s the message, which is simple and alluring. It says that if you embrace this brand of God you will be rewarded financially and spiritually in this life, as well as the next. It is religion for our material age”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Praise-the-Lord-and-pass-the-chequebook/2005/02/18/1108609391134.html
“The Purple Economy, about the tax-free godsend enjoyed by the Australian churches. … Australians had better get used to the “astronomical wealth growth” of young, corporate churches .. New churches are also moving into a host of new business ventures that have nothing to do with religion ..”
So much screaming for NGO accountability here, including talk of religion. But so little screaming for church group transparency and accountability despite their huge influence on political matters, policy and attitudes towards the environment.
Jim, in all due respect, does everything have to do with Iraq? It’s amazing. I think that twelve years of Hussein refusing inspections and lying to the U.N., in violation of the peace treaty, were the reasons, and he was given plenty of notice for which he bribed U.N. and foreign representatives in the food-for-oil scam. That sounds like the reasons, which they were. Don’t get hung up on sixteen words out of twelve years of discussions and negotiations. Otherwise, you would sound like someone gullible enough to accept a few simple global warming claims to accept it.
Now, to the subject, I don’t think that the purpose of the post was to question the motives of AGW believers, but rather to state an observation about them–which is to compare them to a religion.
While you may understand and accept general evidence that AGW is a problem, the masses of people who follow you have absolutely no understanding of the science but just have seen pictures of melting glaciers and noticed a warm Sunday in New York. So, they are putting their faiths in something other than which can be adequately explained or understood by them…and, something that they accept on faith has similarities to a religion.
And, like a religion, the goals of Al Gore’s minions is to recruit believers as fast as possible with exaggerated claims to create a stampede that cannot be stopped–for political reasons and for scientists who eat at the taxpayer trough. Science should be what convinces people–not scaring them with false tales. His presentations are like altar calls by preachers for new believers to come forward and profess their faith and defend their god, or they will burn in Hell.
Here’s a quote from Gore about how to get converts:
“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”
( From this interview: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ )
I want honesty in the debate, and claims of “consensus” is not scientific honesty. Scaring people is not honest. Shutting up dissenters is wrong. People who have another side to present are shouted down, demanded to be fired, and forced into submission of silence.
If you think that a “minority” viewpoint needs to be heard, then stand up for their rights to speak–before we waste a trillion dollars on something that may not work and for which the money could better go to education and medicine. Replace indoctrination with provable facts, and then global warming will be less like a religion.
Jim: After I get an answer to both questions above, my next question is “do you believe in man made global warming?”
That usually stumps them because it requires a real commitment either way on their part.
I think at this stage I would get the same reaction from most of my victims when put on the spot if I had asked them “do you believe in GOD?”
Quite a number of people who think they know me well enough are a bit offended that I even had to ask the AGW question. They can snap back with “of course I do don’t you?”
To be safe I say “I can see our climate change just by looking out the window. What caused it all is a bit tricky.” Jim: In our region the old red gums etc are obviously dying in the paddocks however I can just close my eyes for a minute and imagine all those great holes we dig in the ground.
I can immediately relate to big brown coal dredgers around all the SECV mines in Victoria their radio control systems that our federal government had me eliminating and all the fuss that caused. In my minds eye I needed to know exactly how big their entire operation was over say just three months and their impact on the whole state of Victoria and perhaps beyond. Oddly enough I was simultaneously looking at interstate grid control in NE Victoria, those very same transmission lines that were so affected by the current bushfire. It seems carbon in the atmosphere short circuited the grid on the Vic side.
That raises another question like “are we burning a pathway to HELL?”
Jim: We kid ourselves in the rhetoric we generate.
Woody, you are comparing consensus based on the scientific method, and consensus based on pure opinion. One is backed by scientific theory, one is not. That is, it is a simple, demonstrable fact, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. The individual motivations of those who believe the increase in CO2 in atmosphere is a serious issue has not been demonstrated by the OP to be anything at all.
Louis is spot-on with his comment that the “[r]ise of environmentalism and decline in religion” is “actually the transmutation of religion into a new form…”
Religion is a place-holder for understanding, and when antiquated religions fail, the easy–and obviously popular substitute–a new religion.
It is an unfortunate fact of life in the human condition that belief is easier than understanding, but the defect is explainable because understanding takes *work*. Moreover, ‘being a believer’ can make you part of a supportive community of friends.
The obvious defect of this arrangement is that friends bonded in faith and ignorance can perpetrate atrocities with a clear conscience and call themselves virtuous.
As examples of this I cite the Middle Ages, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, and the recent globe-spanning sequence of riots which began with the “Battle of Seattle.”
And I cite the millions in Africa who died from malaria for lack of DDT, just so that their leaders could preserve European export markets–exports from nations fraught with starvation.
Bad ideas kill people.
Schiller you’re priceless. Woody is rolled gold too. Remember Davey – you’re now supporting this utter rubbish. Tell me they have your full support?
Woody , the comparison with Iraq ( for me ) is in the precautionary principle.
The experts said there was a real WMD stockpile. We all know the rest…….
Incidentally , don’t jump to conclusions.
I fully supported the war and fervently hope the people of Iraq can build a stable and peaceful country.
But that is another subject.
I want an honest and illuminating debate as well and certainly believe that genuine sceptics should be heard and despite the attempts of many to deny them the right to speak out, the opportunity for them to be heard is alive and well.
Whether you call it concensus or something else , the majority of experts believe that the current warming is caused to a significant extent by human actions.
Now do we accept their opinion or not?
Now THIS is really going to p-ss off the ” you’re judged by the company you keep ” school!
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516662
I think that’s my three up Jen………
Seems the religious not only speak in tongues but also with twisted tongues.
“Lobbyists evangelise to their particular persuasion – green or otherwise”.
Lobbyists lobby, usually politicians, but evangelise?
And evangelising to their particular persuasion? What lobbying oneself if one interprets NH’s English literally.
No wonder so many speak in many tongues – a right babel of tongue twisting lobbyists to be sure.
Or does NH actually believe that the debate is between competing sects, whether green, brown, etc and that truth is impossible to recognise.
Religion is recognised by the existence of some axiom that is assumed to be true by consensus, essentially the Platonic or Socratic method – ie the Deductive Method of reasoning.
In religions revelations of truth take precedence over worldly observations of fact.
In those scientific circles where deductive reasoning reigns supreme, theory takes precedence over empirical facts. Albert Einstein reportedly once said, “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts”.
Notice how the religious always refer to their source of authority – in the case of AGW the peer reviewed literature – to make their debating point.
Before the Protestant Reformation the Christian Bible is use during the Middle Ages was written in Latin and only Priests could read it and inform their flock of its truths. Today the priests of AGW also speak and write in an obscure way, this time in the arcanae of statistics until some brave souls decided, like Tyndale, to translate the authoritative pronouncements into the vulgar form. Tyndale into English to result in the King James’ Authorised version, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, into plain english and basic statistics.
The Precautionary Principle is simply a sophisticated way of avoiding personal responsibility so that if the proverbial hits the fan, one cannot be blamed for it.
It is a principle quite well developed in Human Resource Departments, governments and occupational and safety organisations. Every possible contingency to avoid an accident is implemented, so that if, say, an accident occurs on some industrial site, then no one can really be blamed for it.
That is what the precautionary principle is all about – not doing anything that could be construed to assist an imagined future disaster. (all future disasters have to be imaginary until they actually happen, and then they are real).
Taken to its logical conclusion, the precautionary principle suggests self euthanasia as the ultimate precaution.
Louis – now be honest – how much AGW science literature have you really read?
Given the limited time we can invest in establishing the credibility and balance of each person (a minefield proposal by itself), how do we identify one of Jim’s ‘genuine skeptics’ from the ‘common sceptic’ – the irrational, frenzied, perhaps somewhat informed but stridently disbelieving of inconvenient truths kind?
Luke,
As AGW isn’t science, not much at all.
But how do you know that. You’ve obviously read extensively of the literature then and so you might be able to tell us why? Which journals do you think are most at fault?
Pantera
A precise taxonomic identification of genuine vs annoying skeptics may be not be possible. However they may be traits that a clue.
One such trait would be whether any substantive argument or science case is advanced or whether the skepticism is solely based on political and philosophical rhetoric with little substance.
Good stuff Garfield.
Michael Crichton quote….( in State of Fear ).
“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism.
Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a
religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is
in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from
grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result
of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to
die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in
the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free
wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic
structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the
brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk
anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the
reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody
out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary,
because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going
to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of
salvation, or on the side of doom.
Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.”
Phil Sawyer
SJT wrote: “Woody, you are comparing consensus based on the scientific method, and consensus based on pure opinion.”
SJT, the masses of scientists who specialize in other fields and the masses of other people in our country don’t know beans about the science of global warming. To them, it is all on faith that someone is shooting straight with them–like they believed when told that we were going to have another ice age in the 1970’s. It’s all the same alarmist crowd who wants to act and spend money before getting their facts in order and correct.
My attitude on global warming is that it is happening, but the long-term extent of it and the reasons for it still need more research. I haven’t seen any proof that mankind is the primary contributor and that solar activity has been factored in sufficiently. I guess I would trust that crowd if we hadn’t been burned by them so many times on so many phony causes.
Finally, all the money to stop global warming won’t make a dent in it. Maybe they can shove Earth into an orbit further from the sun. Oh, I’m sorry that I said that. Someone might want a research grant to study it.
Money is better spent finding ways to adapt to global warming than to fight it.
Woody – you really are just a rampant liar on AGW. You’re just repeating the tiresome drivel that we have to put up with from contrarians. Every single thing you’ve written above is demonstrably false. I doubt you have the intellectual ability to comprehend any of the material on the subject and bet you have read none of the serious literature. Why – because you haven’t demonstrated it thus far.
I suppose you’re pro-creation science in schools too?
Louis,
Lobby: A group of persons who campaign to pursuade legislators to make regulations favouring their particular interests.
Evagelise: To persuade others to support some principle or cause.
Lobbyists evangelise.
Greenies have a substantial incentive to become a religion. That is, the moment someone mentions that their opinion is motivated by religious belief, anyone opposing their opinion is instantly labeled an X-hater or “intolerant,” or something like that.
In fact, the incentive is so great that they *act* like a religion, label their opponents “deniers,” and do other things to make their opinions sacrosanct.
The rational will perceive that sacrosanct opinions hold only political weight; to that extent, they can be recognized as factually bankrupt.
Luke, one thing that is consistent about leftists is that they have a definitely unearned elitist attitude and can be counted on to make personal attacks and show disdain against anyone who disagrees with them. You follow the script perfectly, and it does not help you to prove your side.
It may be the best that you can do, but it is clear that you do it in hopes that I and others will go away up and concede to fund your emotional causes. A lot of money is involved, so I hope that you understand that my side has other uses for it–starting with our families, their education, and their well being. Those areas have shown greater returns than global warming programs have proven.
Please note that I am not a liar and do not appreciate being called one; and, since I pay taxes that your side wants to seize for dubious solutions, then I have the right to express my views, as long as Jennifer allows me at this site.
I will continue to be a skeptic until your side stops with the hype and offers substantive, honest proof of the causes of global warming, particularly that from mankind, and can demonstrate that proposed solutions will have a significant impact on reducing Earth’s temperature. Until then, it looks just like any money-grabbing lobby who wants to exaggerate claims so as to take over perhaps twenty percent of our economy.
I’m open minded and extremely analytical and would have no problem understanding the science, if it is valid. I rightly tend to not trust people when they throw tantrums when questioned. I’m also suspect of a new movement that’s in bed with liberal politicians. I seek sound proof of a problem with a clear cost/benefit ratio for solving it.
Maybe your side has not done its homework adequately, even though it has certainly been given enough money, so do not blame or attack me for pointing out that deficiency.
See if you can attain the emotional stability to discuss this issue by presenting factual information rather than trying to shout down others. Until then, you make me more skeptical.
What scientific resources have formed the basis of your views Woody? Louis has just told us that he hasn’t read the climate change science because he doesn’t believe in it.
One thing that is consistent with the right common garden sceptics is that they continue to conflate fiction with science. Don’t distinguish but expect us ‘genuine sceptics’ to listen when they extrapolate from opinion pieces, popular books and 3rd hand distortions.
Woody – just for a start – the Ice Age stuff is utterly disgraceful as a line. Some articles in the popular press do not constitute a major science IPCC scale 1970s line on a global cooling.
When you say hype – are you saying the TAR and climate science literature is all “hype”? If so -which and why? Frankly I think most the knockers haven’t bothered to read any. Nor have they decided to seriously engage in any climate science meetings with some of the practitioners.
You have ordained this issue to be political a priori.
You don’t have a solar driver as a warming explanation.
I’m not being emotional – I’m being totally up front. Emotional would have been 2 pages worth. If you want to drop the left/right stuff and discuss the science I’m on !
You also seem to have fogotten that the world is already poorly adapted to climate variation – El Nino, hurricanes, heatwaves, cold snaps, and severe storms already wreak havoc with society. Surely there are adequate spin-offs in the research that also apply to climate varaition as well as climate change.
What to do about the CO2 issue is much more complex. In fact I doubt human society will probably decide to do very little – so adaptation will be the key – to plan effectively here we need much more targetted research. And we need to encourage and facilitate that research.
Don’t be so disingenuous to run climate change science, greenhouse gas mitigation and green politics together over and over. This approach will get us nowhere.
Luke, the “Ice Age stuff” is legitimate, because “leading scientists” convinced “leading magazines” that it was real. And, there are plenty of scientific references that relate solar activity to temperatures here. You could be falling for the rationalizations and twists in RealClimate, for which I have limited respect.
And, yeah, there is a lot of hype in the gw studies, with one of the worst being Al Gore’s film. For instance: “More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in just half a century as a result of global warming.” I live in an area that feels the secondary impact of hurricanes, but this season fell very, very short of claims of larger and more frequent storms. Yet, Al Gore would have you believe that the damage from Katrina came from global warming rather than defective levees built decades ago and for the lack of levees because Louisiana redirected construction funds to pork projects.
Normally liberal ideas are proven wrong in just a few years, so this time they picked one that would take a couple of hundred years to discount. We’ll all be dead by then and will have wasted trillions of dollars for what?
Do your own research, although you’re likely prone to accept what Al Gore says. For, no matter what I would show you, your religious fervor over the issue would blind you to reality. Please refer to a comment above where I stated the following and have pegged many gw advocates:
“Actually, liberals are well known to continue asking for evidence from conservatives, and conservatives regularly learn that any source that supports conservatives is unacceptable to liberals, which gives the liberal an out from defending his own position.”
Rather than people like me having to prove you wrong, may I suggest that the burden of proof is on those who claim that AGW is a major problem and that their ideas to fight it are cost justified. I mean real proof–not anecdotal evidence like pictures of New Orleans. It’s your side that wants the money.
I’ve already said that I accept that global warming is occuring, but I am not convinced that mankind is primarily responsible. To fight what might happen, I have frequently stated that adaptation would likely be the most cost justified approach.
I agree that I want to stick to the science rather than the politics, but it was your side that introduced politics with Kyoto, Al Gore, and the U.N., and your side is now in the process of raiding national treasuries for uncertain solutions. GW activists don’t want to mention politics, because it exposes them and their motives.
Now, I’m ready to stop this boring exchange, and I don’t want to turn Jen’s site into a bicker between political philosophies. But, please understand that there are honest scientists and legitimate research which discount so many gw claims, that I have a reason to be skeptical and analyze every new claim. Maybe you need to spend more time listening to skeptics rather than joining in the chorus of calling names and stifling debate.
(Sorry, Jen, for these political exchanges. I’ll try to avoid them in the future.)
Clearly, the Planet is the new God, and Steve Irwin is his prophet. Expect a resurrection any time soon.
Luke, humans will adapt to climate change far better, and faster, than you give them credit.
They will do so because the likely impacts will remain within or close to the existing range of climatic variation.
And they will generally do so without public servants who can only be justified by grossly exaggerated projections.
The threaded bar that I need to connect my house roof to the foundations, and protect my house from intesified cyclones, does not require the continuous investment of 5% of my personal GDP as Stern claims.
It costs only $200 for materials and $200 in labour to retrofit, once. And that is $400 on a $400,000 house. So if $400 does the job then who gets the rest of the 5% ($20,000) in baksheesh that Stern claims we need to pay?
Now we’re hearing acknowledgement that responding to climate change won’t break the bank and that the sceptics alarmist claims that we’ll all be rooned are pessimistic exaggerations in an attempt to deny and escape change. You common sceptics really should get your stories straight and stop contradicting each other.
Luke I hope you’re humbled by Woody’s balanced assessment of the science and humiliated by his revelation that your side started it 1st, even invented politics perhaps, and therefore he can’t stop playing now he’s caught in an arms race.
Gee Ian – we lets’ scrap Exceptional Circumstances and any cyclone relief then. Phew that’s a saving. Let’s give people credit for having adapted so well over the last 200 years.
Woody – on form you’ve diverted back into the pseudo politico-clap trap again.
Put up on the Ice Age ! Put it up – show a large science grouping in the science literature insisting on an Ice Age. You’re making the claim – substantiate it. Put up or shut up!
Tell me why the warming isn’t caused by humans – what’s your scientific rationale as to (a) another explanation and (b) what’s actually wrong with CO2 greenhouse science?
You’re wanting out of the exchange as it’s starting to get near some evidence and you’re caught naked in the open old son !
While you’re there – tell us how much is spent on climate change science given you’re sure it’s too much.
Debate is not stifled – you have the floor.
Luke,
You have contributed much useful information to this blog. However, I believe Woody has a right to be heard, without being abused. It seems he can hold his own, without my support. I agree with him, that those who begin to shout are feeling threatened. A while ago I had a ‘conversation’ with a botanist who is passionately opposed to prescribed burning, which I think is indispensable. When confronted with facts, she started raising the pitch of her voice until she was shrieking. To make it worse, she put her face close to mine, and her breath smelt rank.
So I am allergic to the shouting school of debate. There are written equivalents of shouting. If I offended you by comparison to Sheikh Tiddleypush Mohammed, I apologise. I was exaggerating, of course.
Pink Pantheress – I’m confused. Here in Aussie, the Liberals are the good guys (right wing conservative types) but in the US they’re the bad guys (left types). Jeez maybe even the left types in the US are as right as the right types in Australia. So we need to loan our lefty types to the Yanks as they don’t have any lefty types. Because if they had real left types instead of soft “liberal” lefty types they’d know they were up against it. So that might mean then our nationals being agrarian socialists aren’t as right wing as we think. So we need to import conservative American farming types to offset the balance. Am I making myself clear.
And can lefty types go to Church or do they worship something else.
Davey – well over 3 posts and Madame Le Slasher will delete before you read BUT I AM NOT SHOUTING 🙂
I’m just having a bit of a tilt at our American friend here – he’s probably a good bloke if you get him off the politics, but I have to straighten him out. He’s got a few roos loose in the top paddock. Motty needs to give him a few Aussie debating tips though.
No Davey we’re still buds – the Shiekh thing didn’t phase me – coz he’s a wanker and I’m not. 🙂
Ask Pantera – she’ll vouch for me.
Woody
the ‘global cooling’ was never more than a scientific curiosity, blown up out of proportion by one news magazine. Why? There was never evidence to support that it was happening. There was never, for example, the equivalent of the IPCC to investigate it, and plan for the the prevention of the it, or consequences of it. This is a favourite red-herring of the AGW deniers, but it is an incredibly lame one, with no basis to it.
The Malkovich cycles ensure that something will happen again in terms of an ice age, but those factors aren’t influencing the planet at the moment.
I don’t doubt the alarmists are content to find something alarming to be alarmed about, but the scientists and science behind the AGW issue are not part of that crowd. They are using research to back their claims, following the same scientific principles that have been proven over time.
Quoting a popular thriller writer here is no more meaningful than quoting a romance writer.
Luke, al-hamdu-lillah, allah akhbar …
SJT Is that Milankovich?
Milankovich, correct, transcription error.
Luke asked, right from the start, for evidence. I don’t see any valid evidence so far to support the original post. It’s mostly rehashed folk tales, like the story of the ‘ice age’.
Luke, I’m not wasting time playing “100 Questions” with you, and I don’t have to prove that I’m a climate scientist to analyze and be suspicious of false and slanted information from the global warming side.
Jim in this thread seems like a nice guy, but he used a phrase that I’ve heard from many global warming backers: “Whether you call it concensus or something else, the majority of experts believe that the current warming is caused to a significant extent by human actions” Read that again…”a significant extent”–a very common phrase used to preach to the public. So, mankind is blamed, but there is no proof or admitting that mankind is the PRIMARY problem–but, that’s a way that your “scientists” mislead people and grab for funds to spend in an area that first needs more research.
The “new ice age” was well publicized and had been for decades. The media took its cues from scientists, and here is a quote from TIME magazine about that at the time: “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”
This recent quote from Jerry Adler, the author of the original Newsweek article: “Predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today,” Adler noted, “because scientists have better tools at their disposal now.”
No, that doesn’t mean consensus, but there were many scientists who believed in global cooling and discussed it with the media, and there was a huge number who failed to come forward to dispute it, and likely there were others who felt that they couldn’t properly confirm that with science in that period. But, what strikes me is the overwhelming silence of those skeptics of global cooling which indicated that they may have agreed with or just didn’t object to the science being publicized. Today, the global warming alarmists want to deny and stick their heads in the sand about their specific and implied acceptance of global cooling by scientists in earlier times. It was there.
Here’s a similar take to mine, which includes quotes from scientists in the field. Scientists Fear They’ve Oversold Global Warming: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
From a letter in 2006 from sixty scientists to Canada’s Prime Minister: “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
From someone whom I know that you disdain, U.S. Senator Inhofe, who backs himself up by naming scientists who agree with him: “The history of the modern environmental movement is chock full of predictions of doom that never came true. These failed predictions are just one reason I respect the serious scientists out there today debunking the latest scaremongering on climate change. Scientists like MIT’s Richard Lindzen, former Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr., the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer and John Christy, Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, Colorado State University’s William Gray, atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Oregon State climatologist George Taylor and astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, to name a few.”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/tgr092606.htm
Maybe SJT above is right when he gives the AGW crowd credit for not being part of that bunch, but the hype that results from their press exceeds the science.
Myself? I’m tired of hearing that the world is coming to an end by the same usual suspects over the decades. I think that they have it wrong again, and so do a lot of brave scientists who put honesty and science above money and popularity.
And, to look at the stupidity from the advocates of global warming, this is from a post that I made some time back, mostly in making fun of them, because they think that sitting in your lawn chairs looking around their property will provide proof of global warming–which we all “know” is mainly caused by mankind.
First from ABC: “Has your life been directly affected by global warming? We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown?”
And, another: “According to the National Wildlife Federation’s Opinion Survey of Hunters and Anglers, a majority are already seeing changes in climate and attributing it to global warming.”
Bull. Maybe you agree with those anecdotal tales to confirm global warming. I think that they are idiots.
Now, I have productive work to complete, so must go. I made every attempt to not lie, as you’ve previously accused me. It’s just that a complete analysis of AGW creates more questions about its extent and outcomes than have been honestly answered. I’m sorry if you get ruffled by that and cannot agree that skeptics might have a point. But, one does not have to be a scientist to see that AGW claims do not pass the smell test.
Woody,
If you want to ignore the popular press on AGW, please feel free. I usually ‘bust a gut’, as Luke put it, whenever they have a computer story, because they often get them so wrong.
Just stick to the science. The IPCC is publishing research based on science. The next report is just about to come out. Read the more accessable scientific journals. If a story in the press refers to scientists and their findings, look up the web to see if they got the story right. Usually there will be a more informed story in another publication. Please, don’t just take CNNs, or Times, word for it.
An Australian, Tim Flannery, a scientist, (although not specialist in the area), has publised a book on the topic. Every claim he makes on the science of the topic, he backs with a reference to a scientific report by those who are experts in the areas they are studying. He explains in detail all the aspects of AGW. There are also some other good books out there on the topic.
SJT, your advice is good for me, and I genuinely appreciate it. However, I still care about major media not reporting AGW correctly because that causes a big problem–a misinformed public that puts pressure on representatives and on taxpayers and on everyone’s lives to fund something that they have simply heard is horrible, and they just go along with it like the crowd in the Emperor’s New Clothes,” because they are afraid of appearing stupid.
I, of course, don’t mind the abuse that I take for raising questions, and I expect assertions requiring major funds to have more credibility.
If Al Gore played it honestly, I wouldn’t be as concerned. Here’s an article about his bad science and his ducking a debate with a skeptic (not denier):
Will Al Gore Melt?
If not, why did he chicken out on an interview?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009552
I won’t duplicate the article here, but it addresses a repeated concern of mine that Gore publicizes bad science, gets loving reviews by Real Climate and mass media, but then ducks a debate on his global warming program, which, according to the story, the U.N. has estimated may cost $553 Trillion (that’s with a T) over this century and will leave us in a weak position to deal with other problems.
The people who sincerely believe that AGW is THE problem should be more concerned about the misrpresentations on this issue. One dishonest person makes the rest suspect. And, stifling debate versus engaging it seems like railroading the issue in hopes that people don’t catch on in time.
Of course, nothing that I say will make a difference, especially to Luke and his like, but just maybe if enough people speak their minds as I have, others may join us so that we make the right decisions–which, bottom line, is what I want.
Thanks for not mentioning Iraq.
Woody,
I’m not a global warming ” backer” – that suggests partisanship and ideology neither of which have any place in this debate.
This is about accepting ( or not ) the opinions of the experts.
I’m not a climatologist or a physicist or a geologist or anything else relevant to the scientific debate on AGW.
And yes I accept your point about ” significant extent ” but they weren’t my words – they were taken directly from the survey of experts I linked to.
We can argue about significant – 5% ? 20% ? 80% ?
but it’s academic.
If the experts are wrong then they’ll have egg on their faces and I’ll look forward to the accusations of lying, conspiracy and hidden motive they’ll have to deal with!!
Woody – you have simply reverted to the popular press, opinion pieces and blog commentary.
The 1970s ice age stuff originated from reporting of a science meeting on ice ages in that period. There was no organised IPCC like program or major research effort at the time saying an ice age was imminent. If you have a body of scientific papers and reports that say so – table them.
The sixty scientists stuff is hardly credible given most of their backgrounds. Yes I will give the you Lindzen et al scientists as “climate scientists of sorts” and as a few science contrarians. And we could spend an interesting few hours analysing where they have been wrong major league. Save Pielke.
You seem very comfortable speculating on the popular media but no dicussion of the formal IPCC reports or the literature of mainstream science journals.
Sorry – I have to suggest you are playing the politics and not the science. You have also typecast me as “lefty greenie”.
The science tells us we have a significant global warming of most places on Earth in the last 100 years. Partly solar initially but the last 30 years have no solar driver. We have a well developed view of CO2 radiative physics in the greenhouse effect which is confirmed by ground based radiometers in Europe and movement in spectral bands from space. We have now a tropospheric warming that Christy and Spencer’s MSU data have been properly calibrated. We have a stratospheric cooling as expected.
We have amplification of warming at the North Pole. Good reasons why the Pole is behaving differently.
Sea level rises occurring as expected. (notice I have not said alarmingly!)
Most glaciers worldwide in retreat – some celebrated ones not and with good reason.
Species behaviour, mating and life cycles changing worldwide.
Greenland increasing rate of edge melt.
Tropical cyclones/hurricanes showing increase in peak intensities in all ocean basins and a hurricane science community divided on attribution. Major debate currently underway.
This all with an increase in CO2 from 270 to 380ppm. Nowhere near double CO2 yet.
There is no doubt from the science that major changes are underway and that we only have one serious scientific explanation as to why.
These are the science realities – banging on a about blog politics is not what the science is reporting.
Do yourself a favour and seriously reading the IPCC TAR – is this a hyped document?
In a few days you will be able to read the 4AR – read it for yourself. Don’t let anyone tell you how to think about it. Simply read it for yourself. And ask is this the work of alarmists?
What to do about the issue is much more complex.
What will happen in the future defends on how we in the developed world and developing world of Asia react (or not).
Yes there has been debate about the “middle ground” among the science community of late. Some scientists are concerned that the world has become too rabid on climate change and has gone hysterical. So they have renewed calls to be utterly professional with science communication and play with a straight bat (Aussie cricket term).
However as Realclimate noted “isn’t that what we’ve been doing all along”. You will notice Realclimate will often shoot down alarmist stories that are not correct. There is one way to communicate the science – and that’s straight.
Most of the contrarian stuff out there is totally disingenuous.
Woody – you need to able to separate the science, greenhouse mitigation, the economy and green politics. Simply running discredited contrarian bunk and old anti-AGW arguments that have been demonstrated as spurious will not attract a thoughtful audience.
Luke,
“We have amplification of warming at the North Pole. Good reasons why the Pole is behaving differently.”
Presumably that should read ” …. the SOUTH Pole is behaving differently.”??
It’s cooling isn’t it – can you bring yourself to say it?
Sorry yes – South Pole – and I should have said Arctic not North Pole.
Well if you want the exact run on it – the Antarctic is warming slightly, but not significantly, some mixed results (and we have discussed why at length – see archives on ozone issues). The troposphere above Antarctica is warming somwhat but not an AGW effect. The Antarctic Peninsula is warming considerably.
Woody – on Feb 2 we will have the IPCC 4th Assessment Report from Working Group I.
“The Physical Science Basis”
I don’t see Al Gore getting a mention somehow – this is the deinitive statement on the best science analysis by the experts. You might read it before opening fire. Note lack of blog opinions !
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Summary for Policymakers
Technical Summary
1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Progress in Observations
· Progress in Understanding of Radiative Forcing, Processes, and Coupling
· Progress in Climate Modelling
· Advances in Understanding Uncertainties
Appendix: Glossary of Terms
2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Definition and Utility of Radiative Forcing
· Recent Changes in Greenhouse Gases
· Aerosols – Direct and Indirect Radiative Forcing
· Radiative Forcing due to Land Use Changes
· Contrails and Aircraft-Induced Cirrus
· Variability in Solar and Volcanic Radiative Forcing
· Synthesis of Radiative Forcing Factors
· GWPs and Other Metrics for Comparing Different Emissions
Appendix: Techniques, Error Estimation, and Measurement Systems
3. Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Changes in Surface Climate
· Changes in the Free Atmosphere
· Changes in Atmospheric Circulation
· Patterns of Variability
· Changes in the Tropics and Sub-Tropics
· Extra-Tropical Changes
· Changes in Extreme Events
· Synthesis: Consistency across Observations
Appendix: Techniques, Error Estimation, and Measurement Systems
4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Changes in Snow Cover and Albedo
· Sea Ice Extent and Thickness Changes
· Changes in Glaciers and Small Ice Caps
· Changes and Stability of Ice Shelves
· Changes and Stability of Ice Sheets
· Changes in Frozen Ground
Appendix: Techniques, Error Estimation, and Measurement Systems
5. Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Changes in Ocean Salinity, Temperature, Heat Uptake, and Heat Content
· Biogeochemical Tracers
· Changes in Ocean Circulation and Water Mass Formation
· Sea Level: Global and Regional Changes
Appendix: Techniques, Error Estimation, and Measurement Systems
6. Paleoclimate
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Proxy Methods and their Uncertainty
· Inferred Past Climate System Change
· Abrupt Climate Change
· Paleo-Environmental Model Evaluation and Sensitivity
· Synthesis: Insights into Climate System Behavior
Appendix: Guide to the Use of Paleoclimatic Information.
7. Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
Executive Summary
· Introduction to Biogeochemical Cycles
· The Carbon Cycle and the Climate System
· Global Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Change
· Air Quality and Climate Change
· Aerosols and Climate Change
· The Changing Land Surface and Climate
· Synthesis: Interactions Among Cycles and Processes
8. Climate Models and their Evaluation
Executive Summary
· Advances in Modeling
· Evaluation of Contemporary Climate as Simulated by Coupled Global Models
· Evaluation of Large Scale Climate Variability as Simulated by Coupled Global Models
· Evaluation of the Key Relevant Processes as Simulated by Coupled Global Models
· Model Simulations of Extremes
· Climate Sensitivity
· Evaluation of Model Simulations of Thresholds and Abrupt Events
· Representing the Global System With Simpler Models
9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Radiative Forcing and Climate Response
· Seasonal-to-Interannual Predictions of Climate Change and their Reliability
· Understanding Pre-Industrial Climate Change
· Understanding Climate Change During the Instrumental Era
Appendix: Methods used to assess predictability
Appendix: Methods used to detect externally forced signals (detection/attribution)
Appendix: Methods used to assess uncertainty
10. Global Climate Projections
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Projected Radiative Forcing
· Timescales of Response
· Climate Change to 2100 and Beyond
· Sea Level Projections
· Scenarios and Simple Models
· Uncertainties in Global Model Projections
11. Regional Climate Projections
Executive Summary
· Introduction
· Evaluation of Regionalization Methods
· Alternative Simple Methods
· Projections of Regional Climate Changes
· Small Islands
· Uncertainties in Regional Projections
List of Authors and Reviewers
Index
Luke,
No problem at my end admitting to the facts that don’t fit the theory and yes I’ve read the explanations for it…
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003188/
Whilst the Peninsula and the coastline is warming , Antartica is cooling.
Jim
I have no problem either as I have posted that link above as well myself (I don’t think originally).
But also:
Significant Warming of the Antarctic
Winter Troposphere
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2006/03/science-turner-2006.pdf
Proportions of Antarctica warming and cooling (1966-2000)
Period
Antarctica
Antarctica without the
Antarctic Peninsula
Annual +41.4%, -58.3% +33.8%, -65.9%
Winter (June±Aug.) +62.5%, -37.3%, +56.3%, -43.4%,
Spring (Sept.±Nov.) +54.1%, -45.7% +49.4%, -50.4%
Summer (Dec.±Feb.) +31.7%, -67.4% +22.8%, -76.3%
Autumn (Mar.±May) +12.6%, -87.4% +0.3%, -99.7%
http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/other_papers/ref7.pdf
“Although there is no evidence of Antarctic-wide warming or cooling over the last 40 to 50 years”.. .. ..
Int. J. Climatol. 25: 279–294 (2005)
ANTARCTIC CLIMATE CHANGE DURING THE LAST 50 YEARS
http://south.aari.nw.ru/publication/climate_change/climate_change.pdf
This paper has examined the temporal variability and change in some of the key meteorological parameters at Antarctic stations. The temperature trends are very variable across the continent: rapid warming has occurred over the Antarctic Peninsula, which stands out as a clear and consistent region of rapid change, whereas conditions have been much more variable in other sectors. Whereas earlier studies (e.g. Raper et al., 1984; Doran et al., 2002) have derived mean temperature trends for the continent based on all the station trends, we have deliberately not attempted to produce such a figure as we feel that this gives an oversimplified view of change in the Antarctic and does not reflect the regional variability. Invariably, such mean figures give a small warming trend, but this is always dominated by the large warming on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. A more realistic picture of temperature change over the Antarctic is obtained by noting that, of the 19 stations examined in this study for which annual trends could be computed, 11 stations have experienced warming over their whole length, seven stations have cooled, and one station had too little data to allow an annual trend to be computed. However, it should be noted that only three of these trends are statistically significant: Faraday/Vernadsky on the peninsula, Novolazarevskya in East Antarctic, which are both warming, and Amundsen–Scott at the South Pole, which has cooled. The cooling at Amundsen–Scott has not been investigated in detail to date, probably as a result of the lack of reliable synoptic-scale analyses on the plateau.
In addition, there are very limited amounts of metadata available for the station, precluding any investigation into the possible effects of changes in instrumentation or the location of the meteorological instruments. However, as can be seen in Table V, the wind speeds at the station have decreased at a statistically significant level in three of the four seasons and in the annual data. A decrease in wind speed would result in a more stable boundary layer and colder conditions at the surface, which would explain the trend towards colder surface conditions. Without reliable surface-pressure analyses it is not clear why the winds, and therefore the pressure gradient, has changed, although the modelling investigation by van den Broeke and van Lipzig (2002) has shown that surface conditions in the interior of Antarctica are sensitive to variations in the circumpolar vortex.
Although there is no evidence of Antarctic-wide warming or cooling over the last 40 to 50 years, Table II
does suggest that there has been a broad-scale change in the nature of the temperature trends between 1961–90 and 1971–2000. Ten of the coastal stations in Table II have long enough records to allow 30-year temperature trends to be computed for both these periods; of these, eight had a larger warming trend (or a smaller cooling trend) in the earlier period. In the Antarctic Peninsula region there were some very cold years during the 1960s and suggestions that there was more extensive sea ice (King and Harangozo, 1998). Since there is a close association between near-surface temperature and sea-ice extent in this area, it may be that there was more sea ice to the west of the peninsula in the 1950s and 1960s compared with later decades; but there are few sea-ice observations prior to the late 1970s, so this is difficult to investigate.
Luke verifies my claim from above:
“Actually, liberals are well known to continue asking for evidence from conservatives, and conservatives regularly learn that any source that supports conservatives is unacceptable to liberals….”
Luke, when you read a report on science that has numerous footnotes, do you actually go to the original sources and check them before you accept the report? Likewise, even if what I read comes from the “popular press,” that press provides its sources, which I may generally assume are legitimate. Have you been to Iraq (here, I’m doing it) to form your opinions or do you rely on “popular press” for information and sources? See? The field of global warming (note that I will not use climate change) is not so precious as to require the whole world to rely on detailed scientific papers to understand or comment on that situation.
I would feel better about a report from the IPCC if the United Nations were not involved. Big government must justify itself to become bigger governments, and a “crisis” gives them to weapon to do that.
Many of you are ignoring a couple of critical points that I have provided.
One is that there are efforts by the global warming crowd to silence and punish all skeptics. The lefty on the Weather Channel wants the certifications of skeptical meteorologists taken away, and others have proposed criminal trials for them! How can honest scientists stand by while their colleagues and supporters try to deny the right to speak on this and, thereby, deny complete scientific debate on the issue? Have all of them been so sure of their positions in the past that they have never changed their minds by hearing another side? (Well, I see one who feels that sure.)
The other point is that the science of global warming is frequently exaggerated and misrepresented. How can honest scientists stand by and let that go on without being seriously concerned as to how it affects their own credibility and the knowledge of the public? Al Gore goes around preaching a rise in the oceans of twenty feet and says that Hurricane Katrina was a result of global warming, and you all know that is unsubstantiated nonsense. Stop the hype and gain credibility.
Silence implies acceptance.
This issue has no end in the debate. Try to listen to both sides and with an open mind, as maybe there is more to learn–especially when so much money is at stake and there may be better uses for that money.
That’s all I’m going to say on this. We could go on forever but I have real work to do. However, you’re welcome to continue the discussion.
Woody – meeting you in cyberspace has really made my day. One has heard about ideologues such as yourself but to actually meet one up close is utterly fascinating.
You’re just going to keep spinning out the uncertainty. Keeping this up means you can say we actually don’t know anything about anything.
Re footnotes – well yes sometimes – stuff I’ve just posted above was a case in point on teh original docs.
“we may generally assume the press are legitimate” – mate you have to be friggin kinding me. I spilt my coffee all over my keyboard when I read that. Do you actually read what you’re writing. Woody I have some fairies in my garden too – believe me.
“is not so precious as to require the whole world to rely on detailed scientific papers to understand or comment on that situation.” – well brain surgery is easy, so is nuclear fusion, string theory or the mass of the Higgs boson. Gene technology is also a cinch before lunch.
The IPCC reports are very readable – but it’s not as much fun as some sensationalist small press articles is it?
“If the United Nations were not involved” – cripes I just fell off the chair. You’re not going tell me it’s a world govt conspiracy are you.
So who would you like to write the summary of climate science then – let’s see we could have Woody, Dick Cheney maybe, Exxon, Phillip Morris or Woody’s Mum or maybe Chile could do it? What about Wal-Mart – that would be reassuring. No let’s ask Mongolia helped by Belgium.
And it’s not really the UN – they facilitate a report by the science community. We’re talking
2500+ expert science contributors
800+ contributing authors and
450+ lead authors from
130+ countries
6 years work
They’re all suspect are they.
As for punishing skeptics – please please – you have acres of print dedicated to your bilge and rubbish. Far too much time has been dedicated to unscholarly disproven crap. As for punishment read the angry hysterical tone of most of the anti stuff on blogs. About every conspiracy theory you can think of. Anyway I don’t think skeptics need to worry about being silenced – they do need to worry about substantiating their position though.
As for Katrina – the general line is that one event doesn’t prove anything and I’m happy to stick with that in the main. However there is some good post hoc analysis which I’ve posted the reference for previous (see archives on hurricanes) that show that when you add up the natural factors including that Atlantic oscillation there really is a contributing AGW residual.
The IPCC predicts a moderate rise in the oceans as appears to be occurring. Al Gore is not the IPCC. Al’s OK – but try to keep him at home will you and out of harm’s way.
You want me to listen with an open mind – well your blog has some of the rankest stuff I have ever seen:
e.g. Global Warming Cause Robs Families
What an amazing piece of sheer nonsense.
How much as been diverted from malarial research and how?
Why not also ban all research of solar system exploration including Mars exploration. Ban all public funding of the arts. Let’s ban all expenditure on unneeded wars that have killed hundreds of thousands collaterally and destabilised the world. Let’s actively lobby against US tobacco companies dumping cigarettes by the ton into Africa. Let’s not be selective here.
You may have noticed that people do die in droughts, heatwaves and hurricanes already. Much of your maligned climate research is directly applicable to both now and the future.
So will you read the 4AR Woody – all that effort just for you. Or will you put the boot in on instinct – a UN conpiracy with 1000s of scientists on the take. Will you report it fairly or peddle the same old same old mischief.
You haven’t actually informed us how much money is being “wasted” – as you don’t know do you?
So I’ll give you something easier to read for some relaxation:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/47065/
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/47106/
See no problem at all with alternative points of view being aired. And being the press as you said – I assumed it’s all 100% correct.
As for real work – that would be filling up your blog with misinformation propagandist posts?
OK – balanced popular journal articles: Here’s one of the longest but most balanced I’ve read.
It includes: “Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem. ”
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Luke, I don’t have time to waste with you, as I have a business and don’t get to live an easy life off of the taxpayers like some. But, I cannot leave your impolite response unanswered.
When reduced to their essence, your rants are simply personal attacks against me, misrepresentations of what I say so that you can attempt false ridicule, and an acknowledgement that censoring and punishing skeptics is acceptable–because they deserve it since they have to be wrong if you are always right.
You skirt my questions but expect me to answer every one from your lists, which I told you that I was not going to do. You attack and try to discredit honorable scientists whom I linked and whom others consider qualified, because you have what appears to be an unearned arrogance.
Your points might be helpful if you explained them and defended them rather than implying that you are right only on the basis that you think everyone on the other side are idiots. We should listen to you?!
BTW, just so that you will shut up on this, I have researched dollar estimates on global warming studies and on proposals to “end” it, including a major study from a PwC where I used to work–but, the numbers vary so much and have so many flaws that you cannot have confidence in them–sort of like global warming studies. As I am a CPA, I think that I am well qualified to review financial information. But, in an attempt to answer your question, “How much of that money is wasted?” Well, probably most, but in your case, if you receive any, likely all of it.
And, just to make you sicker, I once had a science show for kids on public television. I know that you must think that was a step backward to the flat Earth period, but I didn’t teach that or creation. The young people learned real science and the scientific method rather than the “science of consensus.” That puts ten year olds ahead of you.
If you have undisputed information about AGW to share, and I mean undisputed, then that might be worth reading. Otherwise, your comments are typical of liberals who make immature, cute remarks and look around anxiously to find smiling approval from similarly minded peers.
If you have been facinated by “ideologues” such as myself, I cannot say the same for you, because there is no fascination in watching people scream that the end is near with suspect data while they go through federal treasuries and negatively impact the lives of ordinary people.
Perhaps a final observation of mine is that anyone, who wants to use up financial resources on the scale of global warming advocates, better know what they’re talking about and better be absolutely sure before we get started. Right now, we’re not even close.
using up financial resources…. But above we had acknowledgement that people are innovative and resourceful and sceptics always overestimate the costs as an excuse to avoid action, so responding to climate change will not break the bank. I told you sceptics to get your stories straight. Experts say it’s good for economies. Super can be invested in GHG markets for fat returns. Innovations and new markets drive jobs, trade and economic growth. Links on this have been posted before. If you want to be informed, I suggest … oh nah, you’re comfortable in your ignorant denial. It’s your religion.
‘better be absolutely sure before we get started.’ – Woody
Thats a rather odd remark for a ‘scientist’, I have always understood that peer review in respected international scientific journals is simply the most straightforward way for scientific theories to be put forward, argued over and refined… it is precisely because there are few definite answers in science that the considerable resources of companies who benefit from the continued petrochemical dependency of modern society are able to perpetuate their sceptical agenda.
Blatently obvious, commonsense suggests that pumping out hundreds of millions of tons of assorted effluents annually and massive consumption of resources will have an impact on the environment… it’s not rocket science.
I find it immensely entertaining that greenie bashers are so keen to redefine environmentalism as a religious cult… religious extremism is undeniably the zeitgeist of the noughties and neo-conservatives are so very fond of conspiracy theories…
The’Flat Earth period’is a myth invented by Washington Irving in his book History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), regardless of what sort of TV show for kids Woody presented… indeed I’m not convinced that ‘kids TV presenter’ is a particularly exalted scientific qualification to be beating anyone else up with….
Woody – of course it’s impolite – but have a look at your blog and tell me you’re polite and factual. (You’ll probably say you are – but take a random poll and find out !). I find it incredible that neo-conservatives think they can put the boot into anything environmental and expect a completely civil response back. You can’t have it both ways.
We meet evil when and where necessary. I find your position simply outrageous.
Anyway I can see you don’t wish to continue so that’s fine but if you engage in blog debate and run your own highly opinionated and political blog you may expect comment.
I tried to move the debate back to the science -but you prefer to stay on the politics. Then you protest about that situation. The argument style becomes circular, defensive and ever moving.
If you wish to specify a limited set of discussion points to attempt to build a consensus of agreement and disagreement we can keep debating.
Woody
I agree, the press causes a lot of problems in all areas with the standard of reporting. The story has to have an ‘angle’, it is often sensationalised, the standard of reporting is getting lower generally.
However, that does not alter the truth of the issue of AGW. As I said, look to what the scientists are saying.
This is a ‘risk management’ issue, in many ways. If the majority of the scientists are saying that they are right, and the minority are not, and the consequences are severe, which way is the prudent way to act?
It’s all to do with volcanoes under the ocean. I have spoken.
When all the “environmental scientists” forgo traveling, in their thousands, to another conference, & instead start having teleconferences, I will start to get worried.
Untill then, their behavior assures me that there is nothing to worry about. It is simply a nicely loaded gravy train, with lots of travel & “working” holidays.
I find it rather amusing that it is those of you who are so sure that you are the most intelligent, & informed, are really the most gullible.
Hasbeen
what actual evidence do you have it’s all about a gravy train, apart from your opinion?
As it is, if you read Tim Flannery, jet travel puts up pollutants in the atmosphere that cool the earth more than they warm it. One of those lttle quirks scientific investigation has discovered.
Hasbeen is right, the gravytrain is boiling over: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56631
Hasbeen must be describing corporate environmental scientists – doesn’t sound like govt ones.
Probably also explains all the teleconferencing plant being installed and rapid growth of access grids in universities.
I think Hasbeen might just be a prehistoric disaffected old B.Sc. somehow.
In that case SJT, all we have to do is find 10,000 environmental scientists, & fly them around the world, forever.
We can then go back to burning all the things we like, as our scientists will be doing their job.
Saving the world, for us.
Just one problem then.
What will Luke, & especially La P A do, with no world saving left for them to do?
Hasbeen
absurdity is not an argument.
Woody – anyway moving on – can you help me get a Green Card.