Global warming

[Schneibster]

Great points, Schneibster. The hysteria about nuclear power is a good example of how the policy wonks have totally screwed up, and plan to keep up the practice.

You've made a number of logical and factual errors in this piece.

First, Harry Reid's policies are based on global warming- but whether they are good or bad has nothing to do with whether AGW is true or false. And railing against a politician's policies is not a subject for a thread in SMM&T. It really does belong in politics. Scientific theories are not policies. Scientific theories are scientific theories, and policies are policies. If you don't like the policies, don't take it out on the scientific theory. And don't try to change it with fake data, either.

Second, you said Mann pointed out one error, but failed to mention the other he had also pointed out. That second error is the conflation of the current conditions with regard to CO2 with high levels of CO2 in the past. Not only has life on Earth evolved to deal with lower levels of CO2 over the last several million years, but we don't know of a period in Earth's past when the levels of CO2 rose as fast- or even within an order of magnitude of as fast- as they are now. And the only other times when it is even theorized to have happened were times of mass extinctions- The Great Dying, for example. Do you think it's a good idea to be creating conditions in our atmosphere that might be similar to those that obtained during a period called The Great Dying? And if you think that's unfair, I'll point out that it was you who chose to conflate current conditions with those of the past- I merely chose past conditions that illustrate my point. And they are equally similar to current conditions with those you chose. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Third, you failed (as far as I saw) to mention that the judge in that British case found that the standard education policies already in place dealing with the presentation of such films were sufficient, and did not order additional policies be enacted. So basically, the judge found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the film was so inflammatory that it needed to be banned, or even have special policies be enacted by the educational system regarding discussion of it. As far as I was concerned, that was the message from the judge. The bit about the nine points is spin. He probably put it in there so the plaintiff wouldn't go around whining. Give them something to do to keep them busy so they'll shut up.

Finally, it's worth noting that the CO2 we are emitting today will have impact for a long time; centuries, IIRC, though it may be only one. Certainly more than a human lifetime. Marry in haste, repent at leisure, they say. Some people, you go to bed with for one hour, you get a hundred year kid and he got brothers and sisters and they got uncles, they say. And one of the points about this is, the heat doesn't stop building up until equilibrium is reached, and that takes a long time. We may not have caught up to the CO2 released during the Civil War yet. We don't know. We suspect we have, but we DON'T KNOW. What we do know is that even if we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere right now, it won't stop heating up for at least a decade, and possibly a century. We also know we've almost certainly passed a tipping point; the Arctic is plain flat gone. If it could be ice free in summer by 2040, it's just about for sure it's gonna be ice free, no matter what we do now. What other tipping points exist? We don't know. We DON'T KNOW. We better stop soon, or we're liable to find out, and major climatic changes are going to upset apple carts all over the world.

Am I sure we're gonna go extinct because of AGW? Hell no. Matter of fact, I expect we won't. But it's sure starting to look like we, as a species, might be doing some major Malthusian die-off real soon. And that ain't gonna be pretty, and it ain't gonna be neat and clean. Wars and rumors of wars. Scary, scary stuff people are liable to do, particularly if we in the US are still part of the problem and not part of the solution when the time comes to start laying blame. That could get real sticky. And I get to pay right along with you guys for y'all running your mouths; they'll tar me with the same damn brush. You guys wanna shut up? Sorry, but that's how I see it. I figure I better have something to point to proves I was on the right side when they start stringing people up, you know? You might want to think about whether you might want something like that later on.

So I see cherry-picking, and I see distortion of scientific fact, and finally I see conflation of policy that may or may not be right with scientific theory in an effort to discredit that theory. Overall, sorry Harpoon, I'm not impressed. I smell agenda. The only saving grace is that you had the stones to publish what Reid and Mann had to say; and I give you a fair bit of cred for that. My only question is, did those appear in the same format as the two editorials you showed us? In other words, if your two editorials appeared in a print version of your paper, did the two letters as well? If so, you get full marks for integrity.

Now, thanks for the compliment. I think I returned one; certainly, I consider integrity an important gauge of a journalist, and I hope you do too. Obviously I don't agree with Reid on nuclear energy (as can be clearly seen on the nuclear thread). But I need to point out that I also don't agree with your AGW agenda. Whether I agree with you on Reid is footless, particularly on a forum other than politics. I won't chide you on the quality of your paper; that's your lookout, and I will say that you're considerably less of a problem than quite a few people out there who claim to be journalists with considerably less justification than you have in my humble and non-journalist opinion. Still, I'd like to see you separate the scientific argument from the policy argument; the two really have nothing to do with one another. Criticize Reid all you like for bad policies; but be sure you do it on good grounds. Don't politicize science. And try to make sure you understand what it says. That's all a reasonable person can ask, I think. And I don't think it's excessive.

 

[mhaze]

But there will be no nuclear power in the United States while Harry Reid is Senate Majority leader.

By the way, Dr. Mann thought I was being rude and has a story about my celsius gaff on RealClimate.org. I'm enjoying my 15 minutes of fame, or should I say shame?

2 plants are being built in Texas now and overall in the US, 18 new ones in the permitting process.

 

[CapelDodger]

So I see cherry-picking, and I see distortion of scientific fact, and finally I see conflation of policy that may or may not be right with scientific theory in an effort to discredit that theory. Overall, sorry Harpoon, I'm not impressed. I smell agenda. The only saving grace is that you had the stones to publish what Reid and Mann had to say; and I give you a fair bit of cred for that. My only question is, did those appear in the same format as the two editorials you showed us? In other words, if your two editorials appeared in a print version of your paper, did the two letters as well? If so, you get full marks for integrity.

Harpoon's OK. (Hi, Harpoon .) His focus is local, activist and encyclopaedic - and why not?

It's a particular example of what'll happen generally - to no great effect. Political, diplomatic and economic systems just aren't up to coping with a problem like AGW. Policy will continue to be a plaything of power-brokers at all levels, which means much talk and no action.

 

[mhaze]

Harpoon's OK. (Hi, Harpoon .) His focus is local, activist and encyclopaedic - and why not?

It's a particular example of what'll happen generally - to no great effect. Political, diplomatic and economic systems just aren't up to coping with a problem like AGW. Policy will continue to be a plaything of power-brokers at all levels, which means much talk and no action.

I can't recall ever seeing selective quoting, cherry picking or agenda driven discussion from Harpoon.

Can't say the same about Mann and the Hockey Stick Team.

 

[CapelDodger]

I can't recall ever seeing selective quoting, cherry picking or agenda driven discussion from Harpoon.

Can't say the same about Mann and the Hockey Stick Team.

An odd response to my post. It has no obvious, nor even devious, bearing.

To expand on my post, the irrational and contradictory behaviour that Harpoon observes locally is reflected everywhere, at all levels. There's no prospect of coherent strategies being put in place quickly enough to make any real difference. The political structures aren't there to do it. The price of oil will have far more influence - the economic structures are in place to ensure that.

 

[mhaze]

Please forgive this excessive length



Great points, Schneibster. The hysteria about nuclear power is a good example of how the policy wonks have totally screwed up, and plan to keep up the practice.

I don't know how much attention our situation in eastern Nevada with Harry Reid is getting. I didn't get a chance to see the PBS "News Hour" report on this issue (they were in town last week), but I did catch the snipett on PBS' "Nightly Business Report" on Oct. 23.

The reporter, Stephanie Dhue, said "What happens in places like this will help determine coal's future."

Harry Reid has vowed to block construction of three coal plants being proposed in Nevada, two in our rural county. He says Nevada must lead in the changeover to renewables. And do it immediately and without question or debate.

Nevada has already set what I believe is the highest standard for utilities in the country (please correct me if I'm wrong). They must increase the share of 'green' energy in their mix annually by 3% until they provide 20% of their power thru alternative sources by 2015 and a
quarter of that must come from solar. They currently have 37 renewable projects under contract for a total of 580 megawatts, most of which would come from geothermal plants in Northern Nevada but also including solar plants, biomass and hydroelectric projects.

Nevada Power in LV hasn't made that mark yet and the legislature is considering sanctions. Part of the delay is the 60 MW Nevada Solar One project, which just came on line last June. It's the third largest solar project in the world (the company boasts), but it came in three years late.

Not good enough for Reid, who has marshalled the Sierra Club and about every other environmental group to fight the proposed coal projects.

That's an interesting anomally, as SPR has an older coal plant that the EPA has fined for exceeding pollution standards. The proposed Ely Energy Center (EEC) would allow SPR to take that plant off line. The other two, unrelated projects are not as defensible, as they intend to
sell their power on the open market.

Part of the EEC plan includes a transmission line connecting Northern Nevada with Southern Nevada. That will allow much of the excess geo power in Northern Nevada to be transmitted to Las Vegas. And it will enable renewable groups to piggyback on the transmission line.

Ausra, a solar outfit, is investigating sites near the proposed line and two wind farms also are interested.

Reid is determined. He denies there's any future in IGCC or carbon sequestration. Nevada utilities must instead switch to renewables immediately, which would derail the current state efforts to provide power to meet Nevada's growth and bring in more renewables.

He says he has introduced a bill in the Senate (I haven't seen it yet) that will mandate any power lines on public lands carry at least 75 percent renewable power -- and no nuclear, of course! The bill is to include funding for any "green" comany proposing a 1000MG facility to build its own transmission lines -- to be paid back with user fees.

So Reid says no more coal, but no nuclear either?

We've felt a little of his muscle in this. I'm editor of the local newspaper -- a 2,700 circulation weekly; not exactly an opinion setter.

Yet Reid has personally rebutted one of my columns -- about the British court's nine errors in an "Inconvenient Truth." I noted Gore deserves his Nobel for bringing AGW to the front burner (pun intended), but the movie is just a movie, contains several scientific errors and is alarmist.

The following week, I wrote an editorial about CO2. Many of our local people have mistakenly understood that CO2 is a poison. I just wrote a light piece based on the Wikipedia entry on CO2 and explained (non technically) its role in photosynthesis, our respiration and some uses we have for it -- like in Pop Rocks (sorry if that reference gets lost on non-US candy-eaters).

I recapped some of Wiki's past history of CO2 in the atmosphere, and noted there is 35% more since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Without trying to explain how GHG works in the atmosphere, I noted our planet would be frigid without them. I did make a blunder. Wiki said the earth's average temp would be 33C degrees colder without them. But knowing few of my readers use celsius, I clicked open my celsius-to-Fahrenheit calculator, typed in 33 and got 91.44, which I rounded to almost 100 degrees.

That would be fine for converting an actual temperature, but was 32 degrees off for a temperature difference. Knuckleheaded.

Dr. Michael Mann, in a LTE, noted that was one glaring error in the editorial, which was full of "a number of errors and misrepresentations, and a cherry-picking of the scientific evidence."

Ely is quite some distance from Penn State. I find it intriguing that Reid, arguably the second-most powerful man in the U.S. government, and an illustrious paleoclimatologist like Dr. Mann feel they must respond to what I'm writing for less than 3,000 rural Nevadans -- unless, it's the idea of a paced and reasonable transmission to renewables that must attacked whereever it pops up. We need policy not panic.

Reid's reaction I understand: he's a frequent subject of the editorial cartoons I draw. But Mann? I would think he has better things to do than sweat small-town newspaper opinions.

I've included links to the offending pieces and the reactions. You won't find them particularly interesting, but since I cited them, here they are.
CO2 editorial:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2007/10/31/opinion/opinion01.txt
Mann's letter:
http://www.elynews.com/articles/2007/11/08/opinion/opinion04.txt
"Inconvenient Truth" column:
http://elynews.com/articles/2007/10/17/opinion/opinion02.txt
Reid's rebuttal:
http://elynews.com/articles/2007/10/24/opinion/oped02.txt

Mann also says the editorial's credibility is undermined by a "number of errors and misrepresentations, and a cherry-picking of the scientific evidence."

Total Nonsense.

You tried to put everything into a balanced perspective, he doesn't like the assertion that "CO2 isn't a poison". He's wrong, you are right. You miscalculated F and C, big deal. They want to make something of that? What a joke. Want a dozen of Mann's mistakes? Let's start with his statement to the Wegman Committee -

"I am no statistician".

In Mann's words, to his surprise you printed his letter and a "scathing rebuttal"?

If he wants to walk into (email into) Ely with his hockey stick, he needs to be ready to play hockey.

 

[CapelDodger]

By the way, Dr. Mann thought I was being rude and has a story about my celsius gaff on RealClimate.org. I'm enjoying my 15 minutes of fame, or should I say shame?

You're handling it elegantly. Blush and move on. With one reason fewer for doubting AGW and its significance, of course.

 

[rsaavedra]

Today I watched "An inconvenient truth", awesome documentary! The data and graphs provide very compelling evidence, and Gore's presentation in and of itself is truly excellent. Highly recommended.

PS. Shame on the US really for not having joined the Tokyo pact (at least by the time of the DVD, haven't checked whether anything has changed about that by now.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Ely is quite some distance from Penn State. I find it intriguing that Reid, arguably the second-most powerful man in the U.S. government, and an illustrious paleoclimatologist like Dr. Mann feel they must respond to what I'm writing for less than 3,000 rural Nevadans -- unless, it's the idea of a paced and reasonable transmission to renewables that must attacked whereever it pops up. We need policy not panic.

It was your notoriety that prompted a response. Your modest publication was new meat for the contrarian choir, and they're short of it these days. Mostly they're gnawing over twenty-year old bones - when they're not digging up very gamey meat from the MWP.

A paced and reasonable transition is what everybody is talking about. Sadly, that's all they're doing. At the highest level talks are scheduled for discussion of negotiations of the 2012 replacement for Kyoto. Which, I think we'll all agree, was itself a rather damp squib.

 

[CapelDodger]

Today I watched "An inconvenient truth", awesome documentary! The data and graphs provide very compelling evidence, and Gore's presentation in and of itself is truly excellent. Highly recommended.

Welcome to the lion's den.

PS. Shame on the US really for not having joined the Tokyo pact (at least by the time of the DVD, haven't checked whether anything has changed about that by now.)

The Kyoto pact is old news now - all eyes are turned to 2012 and the next pact. Which may be a treaty - that's yet to be negotiated, but upgrading a pact to a treaty does demonstrate that the matter's being taken seriously .

 

[Harpoon]

You learn nothing from praise, only from criticism. But a break in the learning process is appreciated, as well.
Thanks Schneibster, CapelDodger and mhaze.

 

[mhaze]

Today I watched "An inconvenient truth", awesome documentary! The data and graphs provide very compelling evidence, and Gore's presentation in and of itself is truly excellent. Highly recommended.

PS. Shame on the US really for not having joined the Tokyo pact (at least by the time of the DVD, haven't checked whether anything has changed about that by now.)

PPS: See anything a bit odd about the scales on the side of those graphs?

Shame on you for suggesting we should have joined the Kyoto pact!

And now China has stated in no uncertain terms that they will not abide by any post Kyoto pact that restricts their emissions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Mann also says the editorial's credibility is undermined by a "number of errors and misrepresentations, and a cherry-picking of the scientific evidence."

Total Nonsense.

You tried to put everything into a balanced perspective, he doesn't like the assertion that "CO2 isn't a poison". He's wrong, you are right. You miscalculated F and C, big deal. They want to make something of that? What a joke. Want a dozen of Mann's mistakes? Let's start with his statement to the Wegman Committee -

"I am no statistician".

In Mann's words, to his surprise you printed his letter and a "scathing rebuttal"?

If he wants to walk into (email into) Ely with his hockey stick, he needs to be ready to play hockey.

Try breathing it in, it is a poison. But that's irrelevant since the IPCC has never claimed it is a poison, or it isn't. They have just pointed out that it is making global temperatures rise.

 

[Schneibster]

I have been informed by PM that the letters from Reid and Mann were published equally with the editorial; that bears public mention and acclaim. I am pleased to hear that, Harpoon. My compliments on your integrity stand. If my criticism helped, I'm glad.

 

[Locri]

Try breathing it in, it is a poison. But that's irrelevant since the IPCC has never claimed it is a poison, or it isn't. They have just pointed out that it is making global temperatures rise.

It might be a poison to humans, but I'm sure the trees and grass and other plants would strongly disagree. It is kind of hard to understand exactly how CO2 is so often considered pollution when it is also a very critical gas for promoting life on the planet.

It reminds me of Penn and Teller getting signatures to ban di-hydrogen monoxide *grin*

 

[a_unique_person]

It might be a poison to humans, but I'm sure the trees and grass and other plants would strongly disagree. It is kind of hard to understand exactly how CO2 is so often considered pollution when it is also a very critical gas for promoting life on the planet.

It reminds me of Penn and Teller getting signatures to ban di-hydrogen monoxide *grin*

Like I said, if it's poisonous or not is irrelevant.

 

[mhaze]

Try breathing it in, it is a poison. But that's irrelevant since the IPCC has never claimed it is a poison, or it isn't. They have just pointed out that it is making global temperatures rise.

Which is why this is a bit odd, or perhaps a bit over reacting on Mann's part.

The original editorial didn't look like something that demanded a reply - it didn't attack Mann's "science".

 

[Schneibster]

Which is why this is a bit odd, or perhaps a bit over reacting on Mann's part.

The original editorial didn't look like something that demanded a reply - it didn't attack Mann's "science".

First, your puerile effort to promote a fight between me and Harpoon is noted, and is now exposed for everyone to see your lack of character and your manipulative ways.

Second, either you cannot read or you are lying again; I showed factual errors and cherry picking, which is precisely what Mann claimed. You claimed above that there were none; your precise claim was "nonsense."

Why are you here? You have nothing to contribute but lies, manipulation, and discord.

 

[mhaze]

Important Global Warming Facts

EcoEnquirer Environmental News

provides penetrating analysis of the pre released developing stories in global warming.

An organized network of skeptical deniers paid exclusively by Big Oil has infiltrated the multiple levels of plausible deniability in the Gore/IPCC/Soros spiderweb. Secret infiltration over a period of decades was funded completely by Big Oil in a carefully planned action led by ex Reagan operatives. A special prize of stuffed Polar Bears was provided to key operatives in the Soros/Gore/IPCC conspiracy.

The Polar Bears were stuffed with spread spectrum video transmission equipment coupled to dual PTZ (pan-tilt-zoom) cameras in the eyes, and powered without the need for batteries by global warming heat absorption and utilization systems designed for covert Gulf War operations.

Radical green operatives never guessed the true nature of the Polar Bears.

Speculators Push Sea Ice to $20/Ton

New Board Game Craze Sweeping the Country

EPA Seeks to Have Water Vapor Designated a Pollutant

Global Warming Claimed to Increase Asteroid Impact Risk

Tornado Intensity Scale Expanded in Anticipation of Global Warming

Near-Normal 2006 Hurricane Season Blamed on Global Warming

EPA to Mandate Reductions in Emissions from Volcanoes

Evidence of Hurricanes Before Global Warming?

Weather Radars to Help Fight Global Warming

'Operation Icelift' Launched to Save Antarctic Ice Sheet

 

[Harpoon]

Like I said, if it's poisonous or not is irrelevant.

It's not at all relevant to the AGW debate. It is relevant, however, in the narrow context I addressed.

Not through conspiracy, but through rumor in our 5,000 population, isolated community, many of my readers have come to believe that a plan to build two coal-fueled power plants in our valley would poison them with CO2.

Coal burning emits many poisonous gases -- all regulated by the EPA. If the existant regulations are too lax is a different discussion. But there are no emission standards for CO2 (which was the point of the piece). And that's the center of our local debate about the power plants.

While attending a local Oktoberfest, I overheard several citizens express fear that they and their familes would be "poisoned" by these unregulated and uncontrolled CO2 emissions.

In my editorial I attempted to explain a little about CO2's properties and everyday uses. I did note examples of deaths caused by CO2 through suffocation, not toxitity. And I clearly stated there has been a 35 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the beginning of industrialization.

Although, the Nevada Energy Commission has mandated 20 percent of the state's power must come from renewables by 2015, which I believe is the highest standard in the nation, Sen. Reid has vowed to block the plant's construction, which would derail the state's effort to do something... anything. As CapelDodger has noted it's all talk and no action.

Nevada's energy plan is only a baby step in the right direction, but it's better than the proposed federal standards.

But, as Schneibster has pointed out, that's a discussion for the political forum.

Saturated fat is not a poison. But put too much into your system, it will clog your arteries and kill you -- not through toxity, but just the mechanical process of dislodging a blot clot missile to your brain.

CO2's threat is similar in that it is not a poison, but our unbridled contribution of it to the atmosphere has created a unique and dangerous situation because of its properties as a GHG.

If there was cherry picking in my editorial, it was inadvertant. I used a single source, Wikipedia. My "agenda" for the editorial was to calm fears that breathing CO2 would be harmful. My larger "agenda" is to allow the construction of these plants in our valley and the addition of wind farms and solar facilities that plan to piggyback onto the plants' transmission lines.

While I have the expertise to comment and try to influence public policy, I do not have any formal scientific background, so I do not attempt to criticize any AGW research.

However, I do believe that the other side should always be heard -- even if it's a small minority and not part of a consensus, no matter the subject. I'll continue to do so. It's that "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," thing; an old-fashioned concept in our PC age.

However, instead of clogging this thread with more policy discussion, if you want to discuss it more, PM me or start a thread in an appropriate forum. Can we move on?