Boston Globe peddling AGW "Truth"

[themusicteacher]

Check it:

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/07/01/no_climate_debate_yes_there_is/

I'm not really a scientist as such but is there anything to this? Do any of these people cited in the article have a leg to stand on? Are they credible sources and engaging in good-faith scientific undertakings or are they ideologues and/or scientists only in a general sense who haven't really examined the evidence?

Thoughts?

EDIT: A lot of the scientists he cites are not climatologists but physics folks and mathematicians. Also, several of his links are old (2001). John Christy seems to be the lone real climate guy who thinks that AGW is "alarmist." His credentials look solid but does anyone know much about this guy?

 

[ben m]

The author is Jeff Jacoby, the Globe's resident right-winger. Normally he's confined to the op-ed pages---I don't know who let him sneak into the lifestyle section.

Anyway, he's basically repeating the exact same points that every AGW denier is: "Liberals are rushing into socialist-style action, but I can find three scientists, including Richard Linzden, who say there's nothing to worry about, and a whole pile of books from Regnery Press."

 

[bokonon]

It's funny how so many people want to end the debate by fiat ("There is no longer any debate") rather than honestly address the points raised by the skeptics.

I am in favor of adding a $4/gallon tax to gasoline to encourage conservation, and think if coal-fired power plants are built in this country, they'll need to do everything possible to limit emissions -- and if that means they can't be competitive at this point in time, too bad.

But I don't think AGW is a disaster in the making, and the debate is far from over.

 

[BenBurch]

Um, bokonon? There is no credible debate. A debate just like the Intelligent Design debate is not a debate, its politics.

 

[Pipirr]

It's funny how so many people honestly address the points made by the skeptics, only to find it makes no difference whatsoever.

No wait, it's not funny at all.

 

[lomiller]

Um, bokonon? There is no credible debate. A debate just like the Intelligent Design debate is not a debate, its politics.

Ah, but don’t you understand? Let me walk you though the logic step by step:

1) The peer reviewed literature differs from right wing political opinion.
2) This makes the literature inherently political rather then scientific in nature.
3) This means that AGW is really only a political argument rather then a scientific one.
4) If therefore follows that the only non-political based climate research is coming from people like Spencer and Lindzen who dispute global warming.
5) Since the only real science on AGW says it isn’t happening the obvious political conclusion is that the right wingers are correct and we need to immediately stop taking any action on it.

Q.E.D.

 

[themusicteacher]

Um, bokonon? There is no credible debate. A debate just like the Intelligent Design debate is not a debate, its politics.

I agree. The debate seems to be manufactured and based on political, ideological and economic arguments not rational or scientific ones. Flatly stating that "the debate is not over" is a less-than-clever way of circumventing the definition of "concensus." AGW "truthers" seem to want to believe that if even one scientist disagrees with AGW then there is still a "debate" that is somehow "raging" within the scientific community that is being suppressed by the "left-wing" media and the Obama administration. I will say, though, that John Christy seems to have no ties to big oil or coal but believes that AGW theory is flawed due to temp measurement data skews (I believe it was PopTech who brought this up at some point). Of course, one lone scientist is not going to convince anyone (unless they are pre-disposed to that position; cough, Inhofe, cough) nor should he.

To all the deniers out there, I would ask: If there were one or two or even 700 scientists (many of them not well-versed in climatology) screaming that AGW were real while thousands of various climate experts were saying, "the hell it is," who would you believe? It's easier to create a vast conspiracy in your mind, ignore evidence and do some very strenuous intellectual gymnastics than admit that you may be wrong.

Ahh, ain't the "(mis)Information Age" great?

 

[BenBurch]

I can still find as many scientists that will say that HIV does not cause AIDS as these guys can find denying AGW.

But are you gonna put on a rubber, or not?

 

[casebro]

I'm tired of the debate, or even the debate about whether there should be a debate.

I'm waiting for a few more years of satellite data to come in. That will eliminate all the finagling built into models, urban heat effects, and proxies. Raw data that covers the whole Earth. Little interpretation required. Lately it shows a cooling trend, but more data is needed.

That is not even considering that a warmer climate and higher ocean levels just might make Earth a nicer place, rather than the doom and gloom prophesies that some believe.

 

[patrick767]

I can still find as many scientists that will say that HIV does not cause AIDS as these guys can find denying AGW.

But are you gonna put on a rubber, or not?

Very nice.

I sometimes wonder how many scientists have to agree before the deniers think that's enough to do something about global warming. Given the potential consequences of warming, even if climatologists were split 50/50 on the issue (they're not), how could we afford to do nothing?

 

[themusicteacher]

I'm tired of the debate, or even the debate about whether there should be a debate.

I'm waiting for a few more years of satellite data to come in. That will eliminate all the finagling built into models, urban heat effects, and proxies. Raw data that covers the whole Earth. Little interpretation required. Lately it shows a cooling trend, but more data is needed.

That is not even considering that a warmer climate and higher ocean levels just might make Earth a nicer place, rather than the doom and gloom prophesies that some believe.

You're biting on the weather bit. Weather is not climate. Plus, there is no cooling "trend" on a climatological level. A trend would be something like 100 years of consistent cooling (in which you'd have shorter periods of warming), not 10. The long-term trends show warming at rates not experienced in the era of human civilization.

 

[sol invictus]

I sometimes wonder how many scientists have to agree before the deniers think that's enough to do something about global warming. Given the potential consequences of warming, even if climatologists were split 50/50 on the issue (they're not), how could we afford to do nothing?

I don't think it's quite so clear cut. Reducing CO2 emissions is going to be expensive. It's going to slow the development of underdeveloped countries, and it's probably going to add to the misery of the world's poor. It's going to cost rich nations something as well, although probably much less (and one should always bear in mind that pressures like that sometimes lead to new technologies that end up increasing productivity in the long run).

Now of course global warming is going to be expensive too, or potentially even catastrophic. But quantitatively how expensive and how dangerous it is is very difficult to estimate, and that makes the policy question - how much to do, and when - really hard.

I wish the debate would focus more on that and less on politicized false dichotomies.

 

[macdoc]

I'm not really a scientist as such but is there anything to this?

How about....no.

 

[patrick767]

I don't think it's quite so clear cut. Reducing CO2 emissions is going to be expensive. It's going to slow the development of underdeveloped countries, and it's probably going to add to the misery of the world's poor. It's going to cost rich nations something as well, although probably much less (and one should always bear in mind that pressures like that sometimes lead to new technologies that end up increasing productivity in the long run).

Now of course global warming is going to be expensive too, or potentially even catastrophic. But quantitatively how expensive and how dangerous it is is very difficult to estimate, and that makes the policy question - how much to do, and when - really hard.

I wish the debate would focus more on that and less on politicized false dichotomies.

But the political opposition, at least in the US, appears to want to do absolutely nothing. I'm just saying that even if there were huge divisions in the scientific community about AGW (again, there really aren't), it makes sense to take some sensible actions now. Some of the actions we can take, such as reducing our dependence on fossil fuels by developing alternative energy sources, will be beneficial in the long run even without global warming, giving us additional reason to go ahead and do it.

 

[technoextreme]

I'm not really a scientist as such but is there anything to this? Do any of these people cited in the article have a leg to stand on?

Hoooohaaaa..... I may not be a climatologist persay but I am smart enough to know that some of those people that he cited are ****ing morons who are bastardizing the field they represent to try and give them any authority on global warming.

 

[bokonon]

Um, bokonon? There is no credible debate. A debate just like the Intelligent Design debate is not a debate, its politics.

No, it isn't "just like" the Intelligent Design debate.

The AGW proponents say that warming over the past 50 years is "most likely" due to human activity. Proponents of evolution don't say that the variety of species observed today is "most likely" caused by descent with modification and natural selection.

The AGW proponents make specific claims about the future (i.e., "Sea levels will rise by X amount by the end of the century."). Proponents of evolution do not.

I realize that credibility is in the mind of the mind holder, but even adding the word "credible" to "There is no debate" doesn't make it so in my opinion.

 

[bokonon]

I sometimes wonder how many scientists have to agree before the deniers think that's enough to do something about global warming. Given the potential consequences of warming, even if climatologists were split 50/50 on the issue (they're not), how could we afford to do nothing?

Is there a debate about the potential consequences?

For the record, I don't think draconian carbon clampdown is probably going to spell the end of civilization as we know it either. Many of the measures being proposed can be justified by arguments other than "global warming".

I'm not a skeptic because I want to keep burning coal and driving a Humvee until I kick off, and after that, to hell with the rest of you. I have kids too.

I'm a skeptic because the evidence I've seen has not convinced me that the situation is as dire as is being portrayed by the folks sounding the alarm.

Whether they are Chicken Littles or Cassandras will, I trust, become more evident with the passage of time.

 

[themusicteacher]

No, it isn't "just like" the Intelligent Design debate.

The AGW proponents say that warming over the past 50 years is "most likely" due to human activity. Proponents of evolution don't say that the variety of species observed today is "most likely" caused by descent with modification and natural selection.

The AGW proponents make specific claims about the future (i.e., "Sea levels will rise by X amount by the end of the century."). Proponents of evolution do not.

I realize that credibility is in the mind of the mind holder, but even adding the word "credible" to "There is no debate" doesn't make it so in my opinion.

Those sound like some good strawmen. No, evolution says what any good science says: that the evidence is highly suggestive and supportive of the theory. AGW does that as well. No scientist worth his salt says that they have 100% proven something, only that the evidence is heavily (even if to the point of being incontrovertable) in favor or against a specific hypothesis.

Those "specific claims" you're referring to are gross exaggerations. They often may say "could rise as much as" or "here are the possibilities but nobody says, "it will happen this way exactly."

The "debate" is like it or not, very similar to the evolution/creation debate. Evolution (AGW) is a well-supported theory backed up by mountains of data that are strongly suggestive of the existence of evolutionary (AGW) processes. Creationism (AGW denial) ignores the preponderance of evidence and relies on decidedly unscientific evidence (or believes that a single piece of evidence or a single "expert" saying something that might contradict a small piece of evidence in favor of the theory amounts to the theory being "proven" false) and/or conspiracy hypotheses. In that case, the creationist (AGW denier) thinks that revision of the theory means that the theory itself is entirely wrong and that this is somehow proof that their supposition is correct.

You can "debate" whether or not a human has landed on the moon all you'd like. However, the evidence is strongly suggestive (to the point of being incontrovertible) that we did, indeed, land not just one but several people on the moon. It's a pseudodebate but have it if you'd like (there are conspiracy theorists who say they also have evidence - or the evidence presented by NASA is rigged - that we did not land on the moon).

 

[brodski]

No, it isn't "just like" the Intelligent Design debate.

The AGW proponents say that warming over the past 50 years is "most likely" due to human activity. Proponents of evolution don't say that the variety of species observed today is "most likely" caused by descent with modification and natural selection.

they would if they were honest- all scientific findings are tentative and are subject to revision based on new data.

 

[BenBurch]

No, it isn't "just like" the Intelligent Design debate.

The AGW proponents say that warming over the past 50 years is "most likely" due to human activity. Proponents of evolution don't say that the variety of species observed today is "most likely" caused by descent with modification and natural selection.

The AGW proponents make specific claims about the future (i.e., "Sea levels will rise by X amount by the end of the century."). Proponents of evolution do not.

I realize that credibility is in the mind of the mind holder, but even adding the word "credible" to "There is no debate" doesn't make it so in my opinion.

Bokonon, in Science, we never, ever say more than "most likely."

Even with Evolution.

Even with genetics.

Yes, all science we now know rules out any other cause.

All else is political spin JUST like the Creation Science goons.

No credible debate whatsoever, all opinions to the contrary... Well, you know what opinions are like... We all have one.