Shermer flips GW stance

[CapelDodger]

I conceded to him that there could be such a distinction. I just don't see how you tell the difference or what benefit it serves other than ad hominem argument.

It's a collective noun, it serves to specify a particular group, those who believe rather than doubt. If that seems pejorative to you, it's because you share my low regard for unshakeable belief. "Creationist" serves exactly the same kind of purpose. You concede the distinction; the word applies to those who fit it. You may feel it comprises the empty set, but it's a set all the same.

I'm not talking about the coming or going of an ice-age.

Why, then, do you refer to "millions of years" rather than the relevant timescale? Yes the climate has constantly varied, yes there are reasons for it. What is the reason for the recent warming, on a century time-scale, at what would be expected to be a quiescent period in an inter-glacial? There are natural influences on the climate, but you're surely not arguing that human influence is thus precluded.

Amongst the rather glaring differences between this inter-glacial and previous ones are human agriculture, the extent of human exploitation of wood as a raw material, and the amount of coal, oil and natural gas burnt. Is it such a great leap to connect a very unusual inter-glacial climate event with these differences?

I have no idea why you are using this straw man. Non-AGW does not always lead to an ice-age. As I pointed out there have been many fluctuations of many varying intensities.

I'm not erecting straw-men, I'm failing to get your points. Mea culpa.

The coming and goings of ice-ages is not relevant to this discussion and does not advance an argument counter to my point and does not justify your use of the word "denialist".

They weren't meant to, they were directed at your comment that climate has varied "for millions of years", in fact it's always varied. It's not relevant that climate can vary naturally when addressing AGW. Natural influences do not preclude human influence.

So can we dispense with the coming and going of ice-ages?

So can we dispense with the "climate changes naturally, always has" comments, which are not contentious?

Ad hominem if you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is either unaware of the evidence or has been misled.

Why is that ad hominem? If I claimed that honest doubters of evolution lacked the facts and/or had been misled, would I be engaging in an ad hominem attack? Most people know little about science, less about climate, and there is no end of material in their faces questioning AGW, such as that BBC piece by Prof Gray you cited.

Oh, right, as if calling critics of AGW "denialist" is not engaging in polemics.

I'm not the scientist you linked to, I'm just this guy who posts on the JREF forums. That said, the use of "denialist" is not polemics. Polemics might involve words like "bandwagon" and claims of dangerous conspiracies. Here's some more :

This includes the governments of developed countries, the media and scientists who are willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research on this topic

As we're all well aware, it's governments that are pushing money into the "more research needed" rather than taking action, while the scientific consensus is that action is imperative on the basis of what we already know.

You respond to my take on Prof Gray's piece by referring to my use of language. Isn't that an ad hominem response?

This is completely beside the point. AGW is falsifiable. That it hasn't been falsified is not proof that AGW is correct.

You don't seem to read my posts in relation to the comments they respond to. Denialists and wishful-thinkers must be continuously hopeful that the warming-trend will reverse, just as some other folk are hopeful that the Rapture will happen. The real world keeps letting them down. I do take a certain guilty pleasure in that.

Duh, I have no doubt you continue to use "denialist" (which isn't a word BTW). Rhetoric and fallacy are very persuasive. Why would you stop?

It's a word. It's use is quite widespread. I didn't make it up. It may not be in the OED yet, but it will be very soon.

 

[RandFan]

It's a collective noun, it serves to specify a particular group, those who believe rather than doubt. If that seems pejorative to you, it's because you share my low regard for unshakeable belief. "Creationist" serves exactly the same kind of purpose. You concede the distinction; the word applies to those who fit it. You may feel it comprises the empty set, but it's a set all the same.

You mean like a set of IPU's, yeah, agreed.

Why, then, do you refer to "millions of years" rather than the relevant timescale?

Because that is how long the world has been around.

Yes the climate has constantly varied, yes there are reasons for it. What is the reason for the recent warming, on a century time-scale, at what would be expected to be a quiescent period in an inter-glacial? There are natural influences on the climate, but you're surely not arguing that human influence is thus precluded.

Clearly I'm not arguing that human influence is precluded. In this regard I only have one point. There are many periods of warming and cooling. Humans have only been around for a small period and AGW, if it exists is difficult to distinguish from the many other periods of temperature change.

Amongst the rather glaring differences between this inter-glacial and previous ones are human agriculture, the extent of human exploitation of wood as a raw material, and the amount of coal, oil and natural gas burnt. Is it such a great leap to connect a very unusual inter-glacial climate event with these differences?

Sorry, this has not been established.

They weren't meant to, they were directed at your comment that climate has varied "for millions of years", in fact it's always varied. It's not relevant that climate can vary naturally when addressing AGW. Natural influences do not preclude human influence.

? I never suggested that anything preclude human influence. My point is only that over millions of years the earth has warmed and cooled to varying degrees. Trying to peg this current cycle to humans is problematic.

So can we dispense with the "climate changes naturally, always has" comments, which are not contentious?

? It is salient to my point that the current cycle could very well be just another one of earths many cycles. To ignore millions of years of varying changes and only focus on current trends is counter productive.

Why is that ad hominem?

What more can I say? It fits the definition. Look closely again at what I said, that stement does not match with your next statement.

Ad hominem if you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is either unaware of the evidence or has been misled.

If I claimed that honest doubters of evolution lacked the facts and/or had been misled, would I be engaging in an ad hominem attack? Most people know little about science, less about climate, and there is no end of material in their faces questioning AGW, such as that BBC piece by Prof Gray you cited.

See above.

You don't seem to read my posts in relation to the comments they respond to. Denialists and wishful-thinkers must be continuously hopeful that the warming-trend will reverse, just as some other folk are hopeful that the Rapture will happen. The real world keeps letting them down. I do take a certain guilty pleasure in that.

I don't even know who it is you are talking about.

It's a word. It's use is quite widespread. I didn't make it up. It may not be in the OED yet, but it will be very soon.

So you say.

 

[CapelDodger]

It may not have a useful function face-to-face, and I agree that it sounds punitive.

...

It's a continuum, in this case, and my rule of thumb is that when you bring contrary information to a denier, they will reject it as false by definition.

It's hard to draw the exact borders of a swamp, but there's a lot of stuff that is definitely out in or out of the swamp. Those I think of (at a particular meta-level) as "cultists" are definitely out there. They are believers. In UFO's, in Atlantis, in H-H-O, the Moon Scam, whatever. Denialists are a subset of cultists. So are monetarists. For instance.

Cultists tend not to engage, or at least not for long. They fixate on minutiae that they regard as crucial while we normals miss their point. And, of course, if their cause doesn't flourish there's a conspiracy involved. It could all be, like, great if it wasn't for The Man, man. Y'know what I'm sayin'?

 

[RandFan]

But I think we can use the term in a meta-discussion, to describe a catergory of participant. Just like we have to distinguish between Creation Science and Intelligent Design advocates, and as Nova Land showed, we distinguish between debunkers versus skeptics (in the CSICOP world, it's debunkers versus investigators), we benefit from distinguishing between critics and deniers.

I think that it can have a useful purpose in a discussion but it is more problematic in a debate IMO. If you fall back on the use of the term to paint anyone who disagrees with you as such then it is ad hominem.

It's a continuum, in this case, and my rule of thumb is that when you bring contrary information to a denier, they will reject it as false by definition. There is nothing you can show them that will change their mind. They may pay lip service "...of course, I could be wrong, but I haven't been shown anything that's convincing so far." But they're pretty cavalier with that 'convincing' rule.

This could apply to anyone on any side of any issue. The point, to me, isn't which side is right but what is right. Labels and ego have a way of getting in the way.

That's why Creationists are a good analogue. I've seen creationists caught dead-to-right in a lie, and they admit it. Then, next week at a different church, they haven't removed it from their presentation. They just aren't too worried about every single details' inaccuarcy, because they think overall they're right. I think it's a cognitive dissonance of sorts.

The other thing is that there's sometimes evidence of unreasonable expectations. This is why the AGW side has had a shifting argument. Strategic manoevres to the rear, as it were, in stages:

1. there is no evidence that the world is heating up
2. there is no evidence that the world's heating is significantly anthropogenic
3. there is no evidence that the anthropogenic heating will be so serious as to merit action
4. there is no evidence that action will help reduce GW
5. the action that will help reduce GW will cost more than GW itself
6. OK, OK, we could have saved a fortune by acting, but it's too late now, so there's no point. Oh, well, it's our grandkids' problem now.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Paradigms often change incrementally. I don't see the point of disparaging a group who take a counter position to AGW even if, in the end, they are wrong. I think when it comes to science critisism and argument is a good thing. Those who are honest will eventually accept the evidence. That someone has not yet accepted it like Dr. Gray doesn't make that person dishonest or obtuse.

By all means point out those who are dishonest like many of those in the ID movement. I think doing so is more difficult when it comes to AGW however.

ETA: link to NESS podcast. Skip to about 45 minutes into the podcast, where the hosts discuss the chronic problem of denialism within skepticism.
NESS Podcast #38 (NESS is the home of Rebecca Wilson, of Skepchics fame) Here's the article he discusses in the podcast: Skepticism and Denial by Steven Novella, MD

I haven't taken the time yet but I will. Please bear with me,

RandFan

 

[CapelDodger]

You mean like a set of IPU's, yeah, agreed.

Sorry, don't get your lingo.

Because that is how long the world has been around.

So what? The relevant issue is what's going on now, within an inter-glacial. Glaciations have extreme events at each end but that only features on the millions of years scale. It's not relevant to what's happening at this point in this inter-glacial.

Clearly I'm not arguing that human influence is precluded. In this regard I only have one point. There are many periods of warming and cooling. Humans have only been around for a small period and AGW, if it exists is difficult to distinguish from the many other periods of temperature change.

It is very easy to distinguish. The primary signal is in the distribution of the warming - more significant in winter than summer, more significant in night temperatures than in day temperatures.

What else do you imagine is causing the current warming? Why didn't it happen in previous inter-glacials?

Sorry, this has not been established.

That's your response to a question?

I never suggested that anything preclude human influence. My point is only that over millions of years the earth has warmed and cooled to varying degrees. Trying to peg this current cycle to humans is problematic.

Back to the ice-ages. Didn't we negotiate them away?

It is salient to my point that the current cycle could very well be just another one of earths many cycles. To ignore millions of years of varying changes and only focus on current trends is counter productive.

See my previous.

What more can I say? It fits the definition. Look closely again at what I said, that stement does not match with your next statement.



See above.

I can't fathom what you're talking about.

I don't even know who it is you are talking about..

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, don't get your lingo.

A set of invisible pink unicorns.

So what? The relevant issue is what's going on now, within an inter-glacial. Glaciations have extreme events at each end but that only features on the millions of years scale. It's not relevant to what's happening at this point in this inter-glacial.

I agree that glaciation is not relevant to what is going on now. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The temperature of the earth doesn't simply fluctuate from one extreme to another. It demonstrably increases and decreases in varying degrees like it is now between glaciation periods.

Can we please drop that red herring?

It is very easy to distinguish. The primary signal is in the distribution of the warming - more significant in winter than summer, more significant in night temperatures than in day temperatures.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

What else do you imagine is causing the current warming? Why didn't it happen in previous inter-glacials?

It has happened. See Dr. Gray's website. Where are you getting this notion that such fluctuations have never happened? That is just silly.

That's your response to a question?

The statements leading to the question have not been established.

Back to the ice-ages.

Snore... Why?

Didn't we negotiate them away?

Huh?

I can't fathom what you're talking about.

Ok,

Ad hominem if you conclude that anyone who disagrees with you is either unaware of the evidence or has been misled.

Note that the word is "if" is a logical operator. You are concluding that those who disagree with you are ignorant. That is by definition ad hominem since you are attacking the person.

 

[blutoski]

I think that it can have a useful purpose in a discussion but it is more problematic in a debate IMO. If you fall back on the use of the term to paint anyone who disagrees with you as such then it is ad hominem.

I actually think you're right. I would be more specific than 'ad hominem', and say that it could be an example of poisoning the well.

This could apply to anyone on any side of any issue. The point, to me, isn't which side is right but what is right. Labels and ego have a way of getting in the way.

I'm not sure if it could apply to anyone. Again, my experience is more with creationists, and I often ask them: "What sort of evidence would convince you that evolution was true?" Mostly, they say, "nothing." That's an evolution denier. I a million years, I could never say that that's an eccentric subtype of skeptic. By the same token, the attachment of conspiracy theories to GW means that there is a pretty good chance that nothing you present woul be acceptable.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Paradigms often change incrementally. I don't see the point of disparaging a group who take a counter position to AGW even if, in the end, they are wrong. I think when it comes to science critisism and argument is a good thing. Those who are honest will eventually accept the evidence. That someone has not yet accepted it like Dr. Gray doesn't make that person dishonest or obtuse.

By all means point out those who are dishonest like many of those in the ID movement. I think doing so is more difficult when it comes to AGW however.

The example I gave of retreating arguments is not intended to describe AGW as a whole. I talking about a single conversation with a 'denialist', which will progress through all these stages in one sitting. They will make one concession after another, ultimately, every stage is an argument for inaction. Tomorrow, the same guy will 'reset' and his next conversation will start at point #1 as if today's conversation never happened.

The motives are mixed, and it's interesting to speculate on individual bases. Usual CT stuff. Again: a recurring theme is that GW plays some pivotal role in the scientific agenda, whatever that is.

 

[RandFan]

What else do you imagine is causing the current warming?

See below

Global Warming

Some solar scientists are considering whether some part of global warming may be caused, by a periodic but small increase in the Sun's energy output. An increase of just 0.2% in the solar output could have the same affect as doubling the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'

Scientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.

 

[RandFan]

I actually think you're right. I would be more specific than 'ad hominem', and say that it could be an example of poisoning the well.

I'm not sure if it could apply to anyone. Again, my experience is more with creationists, and I often ask them: "What sort of evidence would convince you that evolution was true?" Mostly, they say, "nothing." That's an evolution denier. I a million years, I could never say that that's an eccentric subtype of skeptic. By the same token, the attachment of conspiracy theories to GW means that there is a pretty good chance that nothing you present woul be acceptable.

The example I gave of retreating arguments is not intended to describe AGW as a whole. I talking about a single conversation with a 'denialist', which will progress through all these stages in one sitting. They will make one concession after another, ultimately, every stage is an argument for inaction. Tomorrow, the same guy will 'reset' and his next conversation will start at point #1 as if today's conversation never happened.

The motives are mixed, and it's interesting to speculate on individual bases. Usual CT stuff. Again: a recurring theme is that GW plays some pivotal role in the scientific agenda, whatever that is.

I agree. Good post.

 

[bignickel]

Anyone read the new "Tom the Dancing Bug"?
http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=td060610
Literal 'raising the hurdles'

The link will probably last about 2-3 weeks b4 MSN bumps it completely off.

 

[epepke]

Epepke,
Michael Shermer is holds a doctorate in philosophy, I believe--not in science. But scientists all over the world are becoming increasingly convince that global warming is a major problem and that human's need to do something about it. I suspect Shermer was saying that it's time to stop debating the issue and start pressing our leaders to take action. I'm interested to hear if he replies to you and what he says. There are multiple threads on the topic at the skeptic societies forum, along with information from those who attended. (I did not).

I posted his response a few messages ago.

I have little problem with the idea that global warming is significant; I came to that conclusion some years ago. I also may be somewhat unusual in that I did work professionally on some climate models.

My quandary is not about this specific application per se but of the position and meaning of skepticism in general.

 

[epepke]

Gray agrees that the world is warming, but is of the opinion that the AGW "bandwagon" is not the one to be on. We (the consumers of the world) are "almost assuredly not" responsible. This "small" (sic) warming is "likely" a result of "natural alterations in global ocean currents" which are "as yet little understood". AGW "has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject". Such polemics from a scientist? Almost passion. Very odd. I must look this guy up.

I won't say that I agree with this person.

However, I think that it's important to point out that the emphasis on the idea that global warming is antrhopogenic matters much is in itself polemic. I, at least, don't see the value in concluding it.

The past is gone. We can't do anything about it. The only things that we can do are understand the problem, try to figure out what we could do about it, and then decide what to do, preferably informed by a good predictive model of what our actions will be.

As far as I can tell, these are entirely different questions from the question of whether humans caused it in the first place. The only relation is some sort of rather naive assumption that if and only if humans caused it, then humans can reverse it.

This makes no sense to me. Let's say that it were discovered that current global warming had more to do with sun cycles or water vapor were what's causing global warming. I don't see that this has anything to do, whatsoever, with the question of how reducing carbon dioxide emissions can allow us to engineer the warmth.

Aspirin helps ameliorate a headache, whether or not one posits that the headache was caused by an aspirin deficiency. Lithium helps ameliorate bipolar mood disorder, whether or not one posits that bipolar mood disorder is caused by a lithium deficiency. In these two cases, the positing is wrong, but there are some where it's right. Vitamin C helps ameliorate scurvy, and Vitamin D helps ameliorate rickets. But if there's existing bone damage from a deficiency of Vitamin D, it might require something other than Vitamin D to fix, like maybe surgery.

The only possible value in determining where something came from is in enhancing the understanding of the problem. What one does to fix it may be totally different.

 

[RandFan]

I won't say that I agree with this person.

Thanks epepke,

The more I think about capel's post the more it bothers me.

Gray agrees that the world is warming, but is of the opinion that the AGW "bandwagon" is not the one to be on. We (the consumers of the world) are "almost assuredly not" responsible. This "small" (sic) warming is "likely" a result of "natural alterations in global ocean currents" which are "as yet little understood". AGW "has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gain from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject". Such polemics from a scientist? Almost passion. Very odd. I must look this guy up.

Who really is engaging in the polemics? Isn't it polemic to use words like "denialist"?

Meteorologist Dr. William Gray
Meteorologist Dr. William Gray may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting. Each December, six months before the start of hurricane season, the now 75-year-old Gray and his team issue a long-range prediction of the number of major tropical storms that will arise in the Atlantic Ocean basin, as well as the number of hurricanes (with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more) and intense hurricanes (with winds of at least 111 mph).

Yes, please, look him up.

As for passion, when I attended TAM one of my favorite speakers was William Dennett. I don't think I have ever seen a speaker more passionate. I'm not impressed with your argument of attacking Dr. Gray for his passion.

 

[davefoc]

I'm not sure whether anybody has posted a link to this artilce in the Washington Post or not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html

The article discusses the nature of quite a bit the AGW skepticism.

Gray is mentioned several times in the artilcle. Here are some of the comments about him.

The Web site Real Climate, run by a loose group of climate scientists, recently published a detailed refutation of Gray's theory, saying his claims about the ocean circulation lack evidence. The Web site criticized Gray for not adapting to the modern era of meteorology, "which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying."
The field has fully embraced numerical modeling, and Gray is increasingly on the fringe. His cranky skepticism has become a tired act among younger scientists. "It's sad," says Emanuel, who has vowed never again to debate Gray in public.

Another AGW skeptic that the article spends quite a bit of time discussing is Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This guy might be Shanek on steroids. I thought the one idea that libertarians pretty much agreed on was that there are some consequences of private property utilization that create costs for the general society for which government regulation is required. For instance pollution. As near as I can tell by what the guy said in this article his view is that government shouldn't encumber the entrepreneur with the costs of the polution he creates, rather it should rely on the free market to encourage other entrepreneurs to solve the problem. So in the case of AGW, even if it is real (which he doubts) the solution is not government regulation but rather less regulation so that the free market can get to fixing the problems.

ETA: The refutation to Gray referenced above:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

 

[articulett]

See below

Global Warming

Some solar scientists are considering whether some part of global warming may be caused, by a periodic but small increase in the Sun's energy output. An increase of just 0.2% in the solar output could have the same affect as doubling the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'

Scientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.

Although I a secret admirer of yours--I have to point out that the second cite is 6 years old--and the 1st site doesn't agree with what you wrote--The site itself is updated in real time, but I also found this quote there from a 2001 report:

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a UN-established scientific panel, produced a three-volume report on global climate change. That report describes global effects that have already been observed and suggests other effects that may occur.

At the request of the White House, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) appointed a panel of scientists to address the issue of climate change and consider the IPCC report. The report from that panel states:

“Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the models project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessments that examine only the next 100 years may well underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.”

I think the scientific community who studies global climate patterns have become even stronger in their recommendations that human's take action. Certainly, whether people are a large cause of the problem or only a minor part is not as important as doing all we can to prevent the point of no return.

My field is genetics--and with cancer, people can be cured--but once a cell or two enter the bloodstream and have the opportunity to colonize elsewhere--the battle becomes a lot harder to win. There is a moment in time when saving a particular person from a particular cancer is too late. I don't think many scientists are advocating complacency or "let's wait and see"... We can not predict what magnificent inventions technology will reveal--but, at the same time, it would be foolish to plan on winning the lottery to pay off one's debts.

Maybe Michael Shermer is saying that this is an issue we cannot afford to spend time arguing about--lest the point of no return comes a lot sooner than we had anticipated. People have a financial interest in encouraging complacency--but what motives would scientists all over the world have for expressing increasing alarm?

Here's more from a link in the first link you posted:

"We also know that human activities—primarily the burning of fossil fuels—have increased the greenhouse gas content of the earth’s atmosphere significantly over the same period. Carbon dioxide is one of the most important greenhouse gases, which trap heat near the planet’s surface.

The vast majority of climate researchers agree with these overall findings. The scientific disagreements that do still exist primarily concern detailed aspects of the processes that make up these largely accepted general themes."

http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/primer/index.html

 

[articulett]

And there's this--from a link at the Stanford site:

"The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that it is likely that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

http://www.conservationinstitute.org/climate_change/globalclimatechange.htm

 

[RandFan]

Maybe Michael Shermer is saying that this is an issue we cannot afford to spend time arguing about--lest the point of no return comes a lot sooner than we had anticipated. People have a financial interest in encouraging complacency--but what motives would scientists all over the world have for expressing increasing alarm?

Thanks articulett, let me make clear that my only contention here has been that skeptics of global warming shouldn't simply be dismissed because they take a contrary view. I have conceded that a so-called "denialist" could exist and I have said that I myself have not argued against AGW much in the last year. I have conceded that more and more scientists seem to be moving to that side of the aisle.

To answer your question, there is a significant amount of money in research and studying global warming is what is generating the funding and grants right now. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that scientists are taking their position just to enrich themselves it is a valid point that many could be.

Very good post (yours I mean)

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure whether anybody has posted a link to this artilce in the Washington Post or not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305.html

The article discusses the nature of quite a bit the AGW skepticism.

Gray is mentioned several times in the artilcle. Here are some of the comments about him.


Another AGW skeptic that the article spends quite a bit of time discussing is Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. This guy might be Shanek on steroids. I thought the one idea that libertarians pretty much agreed on was that there are some consequences of private property utilization that create costs for the general society for which government regulation is required. For instance pollution. As near as I can tell by what the guy said in this article his view is that government shouldn't encumber the entrepreneur with the costs of the polution he creates, rather it should rely on the free market to encourage other entrepreneurs to solve the problem. So in the case of AGW, even if it is real (which he doubts) the solution is not government regulation but rather less regulation so that the free market can get to fixing the problems.

ETA: The refutation to Gray referenced above:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Thanks Dave

 

[varwoche]

there is a significant amount of money in research and studying global warming is what is generating the funding and grants right now. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that scientists are taking their position just to enrich themselves it is a valid point that many could be.

I frequently see this argument. Is it true there is a significant amount of money in studying GW? It seems as if the opposite is also true, courtesy of the oil industry.

 

[RandFan]

I frequently see this argument. Is it true there is a significant amount of money in studying GW? It seems as if the opposite is also true, courtesy of the oil industry.

I don't think that they are mutually exclusive possibilities. Yes, I do think that government funding dollars are going into climate research to study AGW.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the oil companies are not funding this research but world governments including the USA seem to think it is important. I don't have the figures so I could be wrong. It is a contention of Dr. Grays and I believe it was Shermer's and other skeptics and critics so I will concede that it could be wrong.