How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[varwoche]

Specifically, there are potentially many other factors contributing to GW that have either been ignored or mimized in favor of the predominating CO2 hypothesis

Or so you proclaim, sans evidence.

Many of these things have been covered repeatedly on this and other threads ... Such examples include solar variation (which has been argued to death on this forum), the potential predominating effect of the ENSO in the Pacific

And these studies stand as evidence against your first (unsupported) assertion.

There has yet to be proven a causal link between elevated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere

Nor is evolution proven. Nor is it proven that the 'face' on Mars is a natural feature*. In other words, demands for absolute proof amount to sophistry.

* Preemptively, I consider it more likely that recent warming is caused by the sun than the 'face' on Mars having being created by space aliens (or even illegal immigrants).

Because they have seen a rise in CO2 concentration, and also observed a trend over time of temperature increase, they have made the assumption that there is a causal relationship.

You're leaving out some ever-so-important factors here. (Hint: The Dr. Imago Box )

Since this assumption is felt to be correct and is taken for granted, the entire body of science has gone off in that direction and is now serving primarily to re-affirm that assumption.

So you proclaim, sans evidence.

Whoops! Correction: You have posted evidence. Evidence that counters this crevice-derived speculation.

They have not, in many instances, used rigorous science in attempt to nullify that hypothesis. There have not been adequate prospective studies.

So you proclaim, sans evidence.

There has not been willing independent sharing and investigation of data.

So you proclaim, sans evidence.

And, much serious and legitimate critique of methodology has been either ignored or inadequately responded to.

So you proclaim, sans evidence. (There's a theme developing here, Dr.)

Now, how is that clarification different from anything I've said before? Please. Show me where I am being inconsistent.

One moment you post absurd absolute statements. The next moment you decry absolutism. This is not erased by a visit to the dictionary.

Just because I question the shakey methodology of the current science...

You've posted zero evidence supporting the notion that the science is shaky, yet here you presume this to be fact. No sale.

Thank you for your continued interest in my posts.

The pleasure is mine.

 

[Dr. Imago]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because it is (1) mostly a personal attack and (2) essentially summarized by this one line, which would've sufficed without your long-windedness.

Or so you proclaim, sans evidence.

Here's some evidence of precisely what I'm talking about...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm

A spike in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere between 2001 and 2003 appears to be a temporary phenomenon and apparently does not indicate a quickening build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, according to an analysis by NOAA climate experts.

Now, you have to understand what is going on here. Prior to this, the assumption was that the massive "spike" of atmospheric carbon dioxide was taken as evidence that we were doomed.

Prior to the release of the above report, many examples of the following type of story were released in the lay media...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1217958.htm

Climate experts said that the figures may be an anomaly but that they raised the alarm that climate change may be happening faster than previously believed and that governments around the world should take notice.

Read between the lines there. It "may" (not a strong qualifier) be an anomaly, which inherently suggested that it probably wasn't. And, that "governments around the world should take notice" because this is important stuff.

Mr Keeling said one explanation for the rise "could be a weakening of the earth's carbon 'sinks' [oceans and forests], associated with the world warming, as part of a climate change feedback mechanism."

Pure speculation and assumption. Proven in retrospect.

Meanwhile, Friends of the Earth Scotland's chief executive, Duncan McLaren, said it was "worrying" to see such increases over two years.

Assumption at the time. This was a "worrying" trend to Mr. McLaren. Now, afterwards, we can see that the rise in levels returned to their normal trend.

But, he went on...

"The world can only hope that these figures are an anomaly and not a real trend.

"However, instead of just keeping fingers crossed these findings should send an urgent reminder to governments everywhere of the urgent need to tackle the growing threat of climate change," Mr McLaren said.

Notice the not-so-subtle rhetoric in his words. This is a call to arms, to be sure. Expressions like "the world can only hope" are emotive and desperate in nature. Using terms like "urgent" and "tackle" send a clear message to some that the time to act is now.

But, still cooler heads prevailed...

Mr King, the main government expert, told BBC News that the two parts per million rise two years running is "likely to be an anomaly, which would not be unprecedented, and not the start of a trend, unless it is proved otherwise".

Peter Cox, who heads the carbon cycle group at Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, also told the BBC it was possible to read too much into the figures.

So, who was ultimately right? The cooler heads. Yet, some of the so-called "experts" at the time saw this as "worrying" and postulated there was a weakening of the earth's carbon sinks. Certainly, there was not even clear agreement among members of the panel, yet the alarmists in the group were still ready to sound the bell.

Next, let's go from a news outlet straightaway to a "green friendly" website and see their take on similar "spikes" reported in the past couple of years after that 2001-2003 occurrence?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0119-09.htm

Here's the headline from a year ago:

Surge in Carbon Levels Raises Fears of Runaway Warming

Now, remember the context of the previous "anomaly". Remember that we've only been recording such data consistently since 1958. Remember that, at best, the calculated amount of human emissions can account for a 1.5 PPM rise annually (if you believe those calculations and don't consider any presently unknown or underappreciated feedback mechanisms).

At its most far reaching, the finding could indicate that global temperatures are making forests, soils and oceans less able to absorb carbon dioxide - a shift that would make it harder to tackle global warming.

Speculation, assumption, rhetoric, unsupportable supposition.... whatever you want to call it. This is what people out there are soaking up! And, someone is telling these "journalists" this stuff.

Figures presented to a recent UN climate conference in Nairobi showed that carbon dioxide emissions produced by the worldwide burning of fossil fuels increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2005.

From 1990 to 1999 the emissions increase was 0.8%. But other experts think rising emissions could yet account for the anomaly. Pieter Tans of Noaa cited contrasting figures from the US Department of Energy, which show much sharper annual emissions increases, up to 4.5% in recent years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is expected to announce more robust emissions data when it reports next month.

Wait a minute! They can average the rise over those years? Isn't this spurious data generation that does not help account or explain the spikes, and why there weren't spikes in the intervening years depsite the supposed continued increase in human CO2 emissions? Likewise, nowhere do they attempt to correlate it with temperature data.

Read the article. Then, at the bottom, notice this...

Since this story was published the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration has informed us of an error in their published data. It says the carbon dioxide growth rate for 2006 was 2.05, not 2.64 as originally stated. They have altered the data on their website to reflect that change.

NOAA made a mistake? And at a magnitude of 28.7% over the actual value? How could this happen? I applaud them for acknowledging this and having the courage and responsibility to inform the reader, but what other mistakes have NOAA made? But, clearly you better have your facts straight before you release them to the media. Hope the lesson was learned.

Furthermore, there is only talk of CO2, as well as admonishments about why we should be worried, in these articles. There is no reference to the actual recorded temperature data, which doesn't directly correlate with the CO2 data. And, there is no further attempt to understand or explain the phenomenon. Yet, people freely average the values across time without any question as to whether that is actually a valid methodology.

Now, going back to the original NOAA article from 2005, they dismissively say this:

The increased CO2 levels interested scientists who questioned whether some unknown mechanism might be causing the atmosphere to retain higher levels of CO2.

"Some unknown mechanism"? That's good science?!?? These interested scientists are going to leave it at that? What other work has been done to understand these "unknown" mechanisms? Is it occurring? How come we don't regularly hear about it if it is? How come everyone seems to want to focus on human CO2 emissions?

When you take your blinders off, you begin to see how slowly, insidiously this science has been built up to conclude "anthropogenic global warming" is occurring and to blame it on mankind's emissions from buring fossil fuels. They have focused on that as the culprit, and everywhere you read they keep going back to the 1.5 PPM/year increase. But, what they can't (and apparently don't want to try to) do is explain the anomalies seen in various years. They can't correlate it with recorded temperature data, unless they do rolling averages. And, rolling averages actually don't help to explain observations, they blur them.

So, the supposition continues. If one trusts the data from Moana Loa Observatory, there has clearly been an increase in CO2. A portion of this increase is directly related to man's burning of fossil fuels. But, it is interesting to me to see how these variations in year-to-year "spikes" immediately sound the alarm bells in some people's minds. That's what is sexy. That's what grabs the headlines. Fortunately, as you can see, there are some cooler heads out there who are more circumspect. We don't hear as much from them because people generally want concrete, sure answers and a course of action (I go through this type of phenomenon daily with patients in the hospital, and some will latch on to the biggest moron of a practitioner if they are simply definitive in their course of action).

However, what would be nice is if those cooler heads actually got more attention and if they also suggested that we search for other causes of these anomalies instead of dismissing them as "probably" this or "unknown but likely" that.

This is my entire point right here: the observations, in and of themselves, prove nothing. That is hard for a lot of non-scientific people to understand. But, observation is the beginning of the scientific process, not the end of it. Despite the increases, we are still talking microfractions in the earth's atmosphere. And, a lot of assumptions are made in modeling about the distribution of those microfractions. And, bottom line is that these observations don't directly correlate with recorded temperatures. So where does that really leave us, aside from continued speculation?

What do we need from here on out? Better science. Better, more complete explanations of observed phenomenon, less rhetoric and alarmism, and solid "proof of principle" which can be found in rigorous, well-controlled, and (preferably) blinded, prospective experimentation. This will help to quantify effects. What we don't need is more extrapolation, assumption, interpretation, and speculation.

What I ask is reasonable, but will take time and patience. Until then, alarmism serves no purpose but stir people up and confuse them. What we need is to take a deep breath, do some better science, continue to amass data, and be sure that we're right before there is a call to arms.

With that, I'm completely done posting on this subject. Thank you for your consideration of my position.

-Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because it is (1) mostly a personal attack and (2) essentially summarized by this one line, which would've sufficed without your long-windedness.


...

All I have been trying to do is get you to acknowledge that the absorption spectrum of CO2 is correct, as reported by the HITRAN database. No speculation by anyone in the press, no unknowns, no nothing. Years of research and verification, a project that was started before AGW was even known about, by a body that was created before the IPCC existed, under the auspices of the US Air Force. For 40 years, it has gone over, and over, it's figures, and revised them where corrections were needed. Hundreds of independent scientists have contributed to this body of knowledge.

For some strange reason, it's still too soon to accept this research.

Here is just one of the papers used in the 2004 report.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=bcba5766a3bf7a08875ad811326f3f96

The (2201–0000) combination band of CO2 around 6348 cm−1 is studied with diode–laser spectroscopy, and linestrengths, collision-broadening parameters, and pressure shifts are determined. Linestrengths are modeled with a third-order Herman–Wallis expansion, and discrepancies with values reported in the literature are explained.

What have they done? They have used measurements to study the absorption of CO2. They have then modeled the absorption. They have then compared the measurements with the models, and seen a discrepancy. They have then explained the discrepancy, and updated the models. They have done this all by themselves, the standard scientific process. Self correcting, honing in bit by bit to more accuracy and understanding. This has been going on continually, for 40 years.

Why? Did you know that one of the reasons this data is collected is so it can be used in models?

????? I don't understand what the logical train of thought is here. Heroin is an excellent pain killer, IIRC the best. Junkies use it to get high. Does that stop it being an excellent pain killer?

 

[mhaze]

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because it is (1) mostly a personal attack and

...... alarmism serves no purpose but stir people up and confuse them......
-Dr. Imago

Alarmism on CO2 is no more or less than a rehash of anti nuclear power alarmism, likely as not some of the same characters at the base of it.

 

[CapelDodger]

Alarmism on CO2 is no more or less than a rehash of anti nuclear power alarmism, likely as not some of the same characters at the base of it.

Are they still commies, do you think?

 

[mhaze]

Are they still commies, do you think?

Yes, in North Korea, Cuba and arguably in mainland China.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here is yet another version of the experiment using what-you-are-calling "Dr. Imago's Box" (for which I can take no credit) ...

I'm taking credit for that. You just fed me the basics, I made something useful.

But, as you can see the experimenter again used 100% CO2 instead of the concentrations purported to be present decades from now...

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

... now if we could only get someone to run this experiment at the concentrations in contention we could get an idea of the a real magnitude of effect in practice in lieu of a lot of theoretical speculation based on past observation and attempted correlation.

-Dr. Imago

The US Air Force got people to do that for them back in the 40's. They were concerned that their strategic bombers could be detected by their heat signatures. Answering that (and countering it if necessary) necessated the gathering of basic data on atmospheric absorption of infra-red in cold, rarefied conditions. The result is the HITRAN database.

It's always been that way; get yourself some strategic significance and the funds will flow.

 

[CapelDodger]

Here's yet another nice little gradeschool version of "Dr. Imago's Box"...

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/co2class.htm

The best line of this webpage is this:

... great caution must be exercised in the design and interpretation of scientific experiments.

Truer words were not spoken.

-Dr. Imago

(My emphasis).

The simplistic experiment you've proposed involves a box that reproduces atmospheric conditions which you use to measure CO2 absorption. This is where the design runs into problems (let alone the build). What you seem to be picturing is a measurement applicable only to room temperature and pressure. Angstrom's lab did that back in the 20's and led the subject up a back-alley for decades. What was discovered later was that pressure and temperature do influence CO2 absorption, so Angstrom's experiment was conceptually flawed. It happens.

Angstrom's results still emerge from time to time in the contrarian blogosphere because he concluded that CO2 was at saturation level way back then.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, in North Korea, Cuba and arguably in mainland China.

I can see where "nuclear" and "alarm" would apply there, were we discussing a very different subject, but "nuclear power alarmism"? Not so much. That's more to do with, say, Iran. And nobody was blaming Muslims for it back in the day.

 

[mhaze]

I can see where "nuclear" and "alarm" would apply there, were we discussing a very different subject, but "nuclear power alarmism"? Not so much. That's more to do with, say, Iran. And nobody was blaming Muslims for it back in the day.

"nuclear power alarmism" = Use of fear and propaganda to sway public opinion against nuclear power plants

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't see anyone on the AGW "side" claiming certainty on this.

Actually, I'm openly convinced of it. As I am of gravity, and of the priority of a toddler's birthday party .

 

[CapelDodger]

"nuclear power alarmism" = Use of fear and propaganda to sway public opinion against nuclear power plants

How do North Korea, Cuba and China come into that?

 

[mhaze]

How do North Korea, Cuba and China come into that?

You ask now why your question,"Are there commies? ", properly answered, is irrelevant. So why did you ask it, then?

 

[Round Robin]

Actually, I'm openly convinced of it. As I am of gravity, and of the priority of a toddler's birthday party .

...and she had a wonderful time, thank you!

Dr. Imago:

Regarding your "cooler heads" post, if you wish to discuss the abysmal way the mainstream media generally handles science stories (particularly here in the US), or how some advocacy groups exaggerate AGW with alarmist claims (e.g. "wall of water", etc.), you would have my complete support.

My disagreement with you is not even in your reading of and debate over the current primary research on AGW, which you and any of us are free to do. (well, some of the papers aren't free! ).

Where we part ways is in your dismissal of well established scientific theories and their underlying facts (e.g. spectroscopy, the HITRAN database, etc.) especially when these theories and facts are utilized in myriad other scientific disciplines without controversy and apparently without error. Do you go on Astronomy fora and dispute the composition of nebulae and gas clouds, identified using spectroscopy?

The functionality of lasers, for instance, requires the absorption and re-emission of photons; do you suppose that they should not work at all, or that scientists have had their mechanism wrong for 40 years? If anything, demonstrating the first working laser at Hughes was a wonderful test of the theory of spectroscopy, upon which it partly relies.

Or, do you suppose that spectroscopy is good science and a well-established theory, but that the properties of CO2 are uniquely wrong in the theory, in the HITRAN database, and in experiments such as the one AUP linked?

Returning to the topic of the OP, disputing the basic physics that underlies certain aspects of AGW theory is not a tactic that I have seen often.

 

[CoolSceptic]

My apologies if I have derailed the thread away from the OP, but I personally think that exploring why GWS reject scientific consensus is highly relevant to the OP. I am not arguing the science; I am questioning why there is so much distrust of scientific consensus in this particular incidence

Sorry for not responding sooner, busy weekend and what little time I had available I spent following an entertaining dust up between ClimateAudit and Open Mind.

The reason for distrust is probably manyfold. My main reason is that I have asked questions from areas I know and understand well which are important in climate science, and received answers from experts in the field which display a remarkable ignorance of the basics. This is then compounded by evidence of bias within key organisations (such as the IPCC) and apparent close ties and allegiances between politics and science. None of these things disprove AGW*, but they all get my sceptic alarm bells ringing at full force.

*NB: of course, we will probably never "prove" or "disprove" AGW because the hypothesis is too high-level; the issue is the degree of confidence we have in it. My concerns are sufficient to give me a low degree of confidence in future climate predictions.

Thank you, CoolSceptic, for engaging me on this issue in a serious and rational way. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, I find your statement to be a bit arrogant.

Thank you for your polite and considered response. My apologies if my post came across as arrogant, but the point is a blunt one. I will try to moderate my tone for this next post

By what criteria are any of use qualified to discuss this topic then? Shall we limit the discussion of GW only to experts directly involved in climate research? Forums like this already exist: they are the peer-reviewed journals, conferences, symposia and scientific organizations that have accepted AGW as probable. Most of us are observers, who may or may not have some experience that overlaps A/GW research in some relevant way.

Just to clarify, most of the background of my position is already covered within the peer reviewed literature, sometimes outside of the conventional climate science channels, sometimes within (although usually ignored).

For myself, I have degrees in physics and astronomy, as well as electrical engineering, and to the degree that I am qualified to comment on the claims of GWS, I do.

Good! And I assume that what you found was convincing? How would you have reacted if you felt there were important questions left unanswered?

To the degree that I am not, I defer to expert consensus not individuals. There is a vast difference between using Steve McIntyre or Roger Pielke as an "authority" and using collectively the NAS/AAAS/NMS/AGS/.../.../... as an "authority". To call this a matter of "faith" or "belief" is to belittle the process of the scientific method, in my opinion. "Consensus" is not "counting scientists." A consensus does not form by a vote; it forms after years of thrashing out the facts and hypotheses in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, symposia, etc.

Just to make this clear, I wasn't putting forward Steve Mc or Roger P Sr as "authorities". I presented their arguments as positive evidence of bias within the IPCC. Unfortunately I could not link directly due to my newbie status, but gave enough info in my original post to locate the arguments if people were interested. Their arguments contain specific evidence as to exactly how the process failed. A correct rebuttal of these would be to address the points raised by these individuals. So far such a rebuttal has been lacking, with only appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks in response. Appeal to authority can be valid, but when countering claims of bias, it is a particularly weak argument.

Your position is framed as being quite noble, and I continue to agree with you in principle. I doubt that our respect for science and reason is far apart. However, an honest individual must accept that s/he can never fully grasp a field as large as climate science, or evolution, or any other field that has come to encompass so many different disciplines. Clearly, as laypersons, we are not in a position to spend our days reading all of the relevant literature on climate science. (even those who are in the field likely limit themselves to their area of expertise, since this has become such a multi-disciplinary field) At this point, then, we must pick whom we trust for an honest and balanced overview of the science; I choose the NAS, AAAS, etc. You, evidently, choose different sources to distill the current state of research. It is not naive of me to recognize that I am incapable of grasping the entire field; rather, it would be arrogant to believe that I could.

I except I do not understand the entire field of climate science, but as noted have fundamental concerns that certain key questions that need to be asked are not being asked, therefore some assumptions are not justified. Got to get back to work now anyway, more later

 

[TrueSceptic]

Actually, I'm openly convinced of it. As I am of gravity, and of the priority of a toddler's birthday party .

Convinced, yes, but with 100% certainty? Surely you have a few % left over?

 

[CoolSceptic]

What you're demanding here (it's a GW Sceptic trait that they're very demanding) is that the IPCC reports mention every single published paper that might have any bearing, with full analysis. This is by no means the mandate of the IPCC. The whole point of the IPCC is that it collates and condenses the current science for the benefit of decision-makers who are not themselves climate scientists. They're mostly politicians.

No. That is not what I am demanding, it is what you have chosen to mischaracterise me as demanding (that's the trait of someone presenting a strawman argument, by the way). I did not suggest the IPCC includes every single paper, but presents a broad spectrum of papers instead of one narrow viewpoint that is not representative of the scientific record. And in doing so, they do not have to resolve differences (which would require analysis), but merely highlight differences of position exist within the scientific community. This is trivial to do and common practice within such a literature review. It ain't rocket science.

IPCC reports are not literature reviews. They are what the IPCC was mandated to produce, for the benefit of the people that mandated it.

If they are not doing primary science, it's a literature review, whatever semantics you want to place over the top of that, fine. Unless you're suggesting the IPCC was mandated to produce a biassed tome? I can't remember their exact remit, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't in it.

Far from it. You said the IPCC swept stuff under the carpet; I pointed out that this was a ridiculous notion because the IPCC only deals with what's already in the open : published papers. The IPCC doesn't even have a brush, let alone jurisdiction over a carpet.

The IPCC presents a view of science to policymakers. See, it has the word "government" right there in it. Policymakers are not interested in hunting through the scientific literature to see what bits the IPCC has missed, otherwise there would be no point in having the IPCC in the first place. Hmmm, now I mention that...

"Errors ... with reference to ..." The issue is the hissy-fits and why you focus on them. The "IPCC analysis" with its "errors" demonstrated by single individuals whose ideosyncratic papers had already been swamped by the mainstream. They can always be heard outside the mainstream.

Oh dear. If you actually read RPSr's posts, you would see on AR4 he has a long list of papers, from multiple authors (including himself and many others) which present a view alternative to the IPCC which were not considered, and a few papers which add nothing new to the record which were included. Can you believe that? He provided EVIDENCE!

And what do you provide? A claim of a hissy fit? Wow! Evidence versus ad hominem attack, which of these sounds constructive, and which sounds convincing? What do you have other than hand-waving and ad hominems to counter the evidence presented?

"Swamped by the mainstream"? Really? Have you counted papers? Does counting papers make them more right? Maybe in your strange world. What is the threshold required to get included? Since most papers are narrow in view, couldn't that argument be used to subjectively reject almost any paper? Wouldn't that cause bias? Ooops!

This thread isn't about science or the IPCC dancing to your tune, it's about behaviour. There are always active climate science threads on the Science Forum (too many to keep track of, to my mind, but they spring up like poppies).

Any sign of a valid rebuttal to any of my points? No! Quick, change the subject....

 

[mhaze]

You ask now why your question,"Are there commies? ", properly answered, is irrelevant. So why did you ask it, then?

Nonetheless, just to be sporting, let's see Dr. Klaus's take on the matter -

From Climate Alarmism to Climate Realism
Written By: Václav Klaus
Published In: News Releases
Publication Date: March 9, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like first of all to thank the organizers of this important conference for making it possible and also for inviting one politically incorrect politician from Central Europe to come and speak here. This meeting will undoubtedly make a significant contribution to the moving away from the irrational climate alarmism to the much needed climate realism.
I know it is difficult to say anything interesting after two days of speeches and discussions here. If I am not wrong, I am the only speaker from a former communist country and I have to use this as a comparative -- paradoxically -- advantage. Each one of us has his or her experiences, prejudices and preferences. The ones that I have are -- quite inevitably -- connected with the fact that I have spent most of my life under the communist regime. A week ago, I gave a speech at an official gathering at the Prague Castle commemorating the 60th anniversary of the 1948 communist putsch in the former Czechoslovakia. One of the arguments of my speech there, quoted in all the leading newspapers in the country the next morning, went as follows: “Future dangers will not come from the same source. The ideology will be different. Its essence will, nevertheless, be identical -- the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality.” What I had in mind was, of course, environmentalism and its currently strongest version, climate alarmism.
This fear of mine is the driving force behind my active involvement in the Climate Change Debate and behind my being the only head of state who in September 2007 at the UN Climate Change Conference, only a few blocks away from here, openly and explicitly challenged the current global warming hysteria. My central argument was -- in a condensed form -- formulated in the subtitle of my recently published book devoted to this topic which asks: “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” My answer is clear and resolute: “it is our freedom.” I may also add “and our prosperity.”
What frustrates me is the feeling that everything has already been said and published, that all rational arguments have been used, yet it still does not help. Global warming alarmism is marching on. We have to therefore concentrate (here and elsewhere) not only on adding new arguments to the already existing ones, but also on the winning of additional supporters of our views. The insurmountable problem as I see it lies in the political populism of its exponents and in their unwillingness to listen to arguments. They -- in spite of their public roles -- maximize their own private utility function where utility is not any public good but their own private good -- power, prestige, carrier, income, etc. It is difficult to motivate them differently. The only way out is to make the domain of their power over our lives much more limited. But this will be a different discussion.
We have to repeatedly deal with the simple questions that have been many times discussed here and elsewhere:
1) Is there a statistically significant global warming?
2) If so, is it man-made?
3) If we decide to stop it, is there anything a man can do about it?
4) Should an eventual moderate temperature increase bother us?
We have our answers to these questions and are fortunate to have many well-known and respected experts here who have made important contributions in answering them. Yet, I am not sure this is enough. People tend to blindly believe in the IPCC’s conclusions (especially in the easier to understand formulations presented in the “Summaries for Policymakers”) despite the fact that from the very beginning, the IPCC has been a political rather than a scientific undertaking.
Many politicians, media commentators, public intellectuals, bureaucrats in more and more influential international organizations not only accept them but use them without qualifications which exist even in the IPCC documents. There are sometimes unexpected and for me unexplainable believers in these views. Few days ago, I have come across a lecture given by a very respected German economist (H. W. Sinn, “Global Warming: The Neglected Supply Side, in: The EEAG Report, CESifo, Munich, 2008) who is in his other writings very critical of the German interventionist economic policies and statist institutions. His acceptance of the “conventional IPCC wisdom” (perhaps unwisdom) is striking. His words:

• “the scientific evidence is overwhelming”;

• “the facts are undeniable”;

• “the temperature is extremely sensitive to even small variations in greenhouse gas concentration”;

• “if greenhouse gases were absent from the atmosphere, average temperature of the Earth’s surface would be -6°C. With the greenhouse gases, the present average temperature is +15°C. Therefore, the impact of CO2 is enormous”;

• he was even surprised that “in spite of all the measures taken, emissions have accelerated in recent years. This poses a puzzle for economic theory!” he said.

To make it less of a puzzle, let me make two brief comments.
As an economist, I have to start by stressing the obvious. Carbon dioxide emissions do not fall from heaven. Their volume (ECO2) is a function of GDP per capita (which means of the size of economic activity, SEA), of the number of people (POP) and of the emissions intensity (EI), which is the amount of CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP. This is usually expressed in a simple relationship which is, of course, a tautological identity:
ECO2= EI x SEA x POP
but with some assumption about causality it can be turned into a structural equation. What this relationship tells is simple: If we really want to decrease ECO2 (which most of us assembled here today probably do not consider necessary), we have to either stop the economic growth and thus block further rise in the standard of living, or stop the population growth, or make miracles with the emissions intensity.
I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against the past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to go ahead and to better human conditions. There is no reason to make the, from above orchestrated, change just now -- especially with arguments based on such an incomplete and faulty science as is demonstrated by the IPCC. Human wants are unlimited and should stay so. Asceticism is a respectable individual attitude but should not be forcefully imposed upon the rest of us.
I am also afraid that the same people, imprisoned in the Malthusian tenets and in their own megalomaniac ambitions, want to regulate and constrain the demographic development, which is something only the totalitarian regimes have until now dared to think about or experiment with. Without resisting it we would find ourselves on the slippery “road to serfdom.” The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights and we have to say very loudly that we do respect it and will do so in the future as well.
There are people among the global warming alarmists who would protest against being included in any of these categories, but who do call for a radical decrease in carbon dioxide emissions. It can be achieved only by means of a radical decline in the emissions intensity. This is surprising because we probably believe in technical progress more than our opponents. We know, however, that such revolutions in economic efficiency (and emissions intensity is part of it) have never been realized in the past and will not happen in the future either. To expect anything like that is a non-serious speculation.
I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, which means the Kyoto Protocol era. My conclusion is that in spite of many opposite statements the very robust relationship between CO2 emissions and the rate of economic growth can’t be disputed, at least in a relevant and meaningful time horizon. You don’t need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe:

• the EU less developed countries -- Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain -- which during this very period tried to catch up with the economic performance of the more developed EU countries. Their rapid economic growth led to the increase of their CO2 emissions in 15 years (in which they signed Kyoto) by 53 percent;

• the European post-communist countries which after the fall of communism went through a fundamental, voluntarily unorganizable transformation shake-out and an inevitable radical economic restructuring with the heavy industry disappearing (not stagnating or retreating) practically over night. Their GDP drastically declined. These countries decreased their CO2 emissions in the same period by 32 percent;

• the “normal” EU, slow-growing if not stagnating countries (excluding Germany where it’s difficult to eliminate the impact of the fact that the East German economy almost ceased to exist in that period) increased their CO2 emissions by 4 percent.

The huge differences in these three figures -- +53 percent, -32 percent and +4 percent -- are almost fascinating. And yet, there is a dream among European politicians to reduce CO2 emissions for the entire EU by 30 per cent in the next 13 years (compared to the 1990 level). What does it mean? Do they assume that all countries would undergo a similar economic shock as was experienced by the Central and Eastern European countries after the fall of communism? Now in the whole of Europe? Do they assume that European economically weaker countries would stop their catching-up process? Or do they intend to organize a decrease in the number of people living in Europe? Or do they expect a miracle in the development of the emissions/GDP ratio, which would require a technological revolution of unheard-of proportions? With the help of a -- from Brussels organized -- scientific and technological revolution?
What I see in Europe (and in the U.S. and other countries as well) is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of cynical approach of those who themselves are sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project.
This brings me to politics. As a politician who personally experienced communist central planning of all kinds of human activities, I feel obliged to bring back the already almost forgotten arguments used in the famous plan-versus-market debate in the 1930s in economic theory (between Mises and Hayek on the one side and Lange and Lerner on the other), the arguments we had been using for decades -- till the moment of the fall of communism. Then they were quickly forgotten. The innocence with which climate alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media now present and justify their ambitions to mastermind human society belongs to the same “fatal conceit.” To my great despair, this is not sufficiently challenged neither in the field of social sciences, nor in the field of climatology. Especially the social sciences are suspiciously silent.
The climate alarmists believe in their own omnipotency, in knowing better than millions of rationally behaving men and women what is right or wrong, in their own ability to assembly all relevant data into their Central Climate Change Regulatory Office (CCCRO) equipped with huge supercomputers, in the possibility to give adequate instructions to hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions and in the non-existence of an incentive problem (and the resulting compliance or non-compliance of those who are supposed to follow these instructions).
We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussion about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lesson from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message of our conference.
Václav Klaus is president of the Czech Republic. These remarks were delivered at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, New York, March 4, 2008.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Nominated

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because it is (1) mostly a personal attack and (2) essentially summarized by this one line, which would've sufficed without your long-windedness.



Here's some evidence of precisely what I'm talking about...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm



Now, you have to understand what is going on here. Prior to this, the assumption was that the massive "spike" of atmospheric carbon dioxide was taken as evidence that we were doomed.

Prior to the release of the above report, many examples of the following type of story were released in the lay media...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1217958.htm



Read between the lines there. It "may" (not a strong qualifier) be an anomaly, which inherently suggested that it probably wasn't. And, that "governments around the world should take notice" because this is important stuff.



Pure speculation and assumption. Proven in retrospect.



Assumption at the time. This was a "worrying" trend to Mr. McLaren. Now, afterwards, we can see that the rise in levels returned to their normal trend.

But, he went on...



Notice the not-so-subtle rhetoric in his words. This is a call to arms, to be sure. Expressions like "the world can only hope" are emotive and desperate in nature. Using terms like "urgent" and "tackle" send a clear message to some that the time to act is now.

But, still cooler heads prevailed...



So, who was ultimately right? The cooler heads. Yet, some of the so-called "experts" at the time saw this as "worrying" and postulated there was a weakening of the earth's carbon sinks. Certainly, there was not even clear agreement among members of the panel, yet the alarmists in the group were still ready to sound the bell.

Next, let's go from a news outlet straightaway to a "green friendly" website and see their take on similar "spikes" reported in the past couple of years after that 2001-2003 occurrence?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0119-09.htm

Here's the headline from a year ago:



Now, remember the context of the previous "anomaly". Remember that we've only been recording such data consistently since 1958. Remember that, at best, the calculated amount of human emissions can account for a 1.5 PPM rise annually (if you believe those calculations and don't consider any presently unknown or underappreciated feedback mechanisms).



Speculation, assumption, rhetoric, unsupportable supposition.... whatever you want to call it. This is what people out there are soaking up! And, someone is telling these "journalists" this stuff.



Wait a minute! They can average the rise over those years? Isn't this spurious data generation that does not help account or explain the spikes, and why there weren't spikes in the intervening years depsite the supposed continued increase in human CO2 emissions? Likewise, nowhere do they attempt to correlate it with temperature data.

Read the article. Then, at the bottom, notice this...



NOAA made a mistake? And at a magnitude of 28.7% over the actual value? How could this happen? I applaud them for acknowledging this and having the courage and responsibility to inform the reader, but what other mistakes have NOAA made? But, clearly you better have your facts straight before you release them to the media. Hope the lesson was learned.

Furthermore, there is only talk of CO2, as well as admonishments about why we should be worried, in these articles. There is no reference to the actual recorded temperature data, which doesn't directly correlate with the CO2 data. And, there is no further attempt to understand or explain the phenomenon. Yet, people freely average the values across time without any question as to whether that is actually a valid methodology.

Now, going back to the original NOAA article from 2005, they dismissively say this:



"Some unknown mechanism"? That's good science?!?? These interested scientists are going to leave it at that? What other work has been done to understand these "unknown" mechanisms? Is it occurring? How come we don't regularly hear about it if it is? How come everyone seems to want to focus on human CO2 emissions?

When you take your blinders off, you begin to see how slowly, insidiously this science has been built up to conclude "anthropogenic global warming" is occurring and to blame it on mankind's emissions from buring fossil fuels. They have focused on that as the culprit, and everywhere you read they keep going back to the 1.5 PPM/year increase. But, what they can't (and apparently don't want to try to) do is explain the anomalies seen in various years. They can't correlate it with recorded temperature data, unless they do rolling averages. And, rolling averages actually don't help to explain observations, they blur them.

So, the supposition continues. If one trusts the data from Moana Loa Observatory, there has clearly been an increase in CO2. A portion of this increase is directly related to man's burning of fossil fuels. But, it is interesting to me to see how these variations in year-to-year "spikes" immediately sound the alarm bells in some people's minds. That's what is sexy. That's what grabs the headlines. Fortunately, as you can see, there are some cooler heads out there who are more circumspect. We don't hear as much from them because people generally want concrete, sure answers and a course of action (I go through this type of phenomenon daily with patients in the hospital, and some will latch on to the biggest moron of a practitioner if they are simply definitive in their course of action).

However, what would be nice is if those cooler heads actually got more attention and if they also suggested that we search for other causes of these anomalies instead of dismissing them as "probably" this or "unknown but likely" that.

This is my entire point right here: the observations, in and of themselves, prove nothing. That is hard for a lot of non-scientific people to understand. But, observation is the beginning of the scientific process, not the end of it. Despite the increases, we are still talking microfractions in the earth's atmosphere. And, a lot of assumptions are made in modeling about the distribution of those microfractions. And, bottom line is that these observations don't directly correlate with recorded temperatures. So where does that really leave us, aside from continued speculation?

What do we need from here on out? Better science. Better, more complete explanations of observed phenomenon, less rhetoric and alarmism, and solid "proof of principle" which can be found in rigorous, well-controlled, and (preferably) blinded, prospective experimentation. This will help to quantify effects. What we don't need is more extrapolation, assumption, interpretation, and speculation.

What I ask is reasonable, but will take time and patience. Until then, alarmism serves no purpose but stir people up and confuse them. What we need is to take a deep breath, do some better science, continue to amass data, and be sure that we're right before there is a call to arms.

With that, I'm completely done posting on this subject. Thank you for your consideration of my position.

-Dr. Imago

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Don't get mad at him....Cappie could be "dense" when he has no escape.
We all know that. No matter what you show him he will maintain his claim about the IPCC report, as TrueSceptic maintains that AIT shows basically correct science with just some assertions "not wrong, just not proven at the moment".

No. That is not what I am demanding, it is what you have chosen to mischaracterise me as demanding (that's the trait of someone presenting a strawman argument, by the way). I did not suggest the IPCC includes every single paper, but presents a broad spectrum of papers instead of one narrow viewpoint that is not representative of the scientific record. And in doing so, they do not have to resolve differences (which would require analysis), but merely highlight differences of position exist within the scientific community. This is trivial to do and common practice within such a literature review. It ain't rocket science.


If they are not doing primary science, it's a literature review, whatever semantics you want to place over the top of that, fine. Unless you're suggesting the IPCC was mandated to produce a biassed tome? I can't remember their exact remit, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't in it.


The IPCC presents a view of science to policymakers. See, it has the word "government" right there in it. Policymakers are not interested in hunting through the scientific literature to see what bits the IPCC has missed, otherwise there would be no point in having the IPCC in the first place. Hmmm, now I mention that...


Oh dear. If you actually read RPSr's posts, you would see on AR4 he has a long list of papers, from multiple authors (including himself and many others) which present a view alternative to the IPCC which were not considered, and a few papers which add nothing new to the record which were included. Can you believe that? He provided EVIDENCE!

And what do you provide? A claim of a hissy fit? Wow! Evidence versus ad hominem attack, which of these sounds constructive, and which sounds convincing? What do you have other than hand-waving and ad hominems to counter the evidence presented?

"Swamped by the mainstream"? Really? Have you counted papers? Does counting papers make them more right? Maybe in your strange world. What is the threshold required to get included? Since most papers are narrow in view, couldn't that argument be used to subjectively reject almost any paper? Wouldn't that cause bias? Ooops!


Any sign of a valid rebuttal to any of my points? No! Quick, change the subject....