More on Global Warming
Yesterday, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a report that the increasing frequency of very hot days will threaten up to 81% of US wine-growing acreage. This followed a report last week that global warming will increase the frequency and severity of forest fires in Oregon and the west. According to the wine-growing report:
In the principal wine grape growing regions of California, Oregon and Washington, growing season temperatures already have warmed by more than 1 1/2 degrees Fahrenheit between 1948 and 2002, driven mostly by changes in minimum temperatures....
The paper concludes that production in the Napa and Sonoma valleys and Santa Barbara County would essentially be eliminated by the late 21st century. The only areas in California that would remain suitable are the narrow coastal bands and the Sierra Nevada, according to the analysis.
In my post on the study about forest fires last week, a heated debate broke out about whether global warming is happening (it involved a global-warming denier and an earth scientist and I found it instructive). This post isn't intended to be gasoline to that fire. In fact, the article mentions that"models aren't yet good enough to predict effects on future agriculture and at best can only suggest possible outcomes"--so warming deniers have plenty of peg on which to hang their hats. Rather, I'd like to use that debate and this recent news as an opportunity to examine why the deniers deny.
For those of us who are alarmed by global warming, the reasons are obvious. To the extent that our own activities caused and worsen the warming--about which there is now a scientific consensus--we are keen to reverse the damage. It becomes a political debate only when it comes to will--there's nothing particularly partisan about the scientific truth of global warming. If, in the vanishingly remote case that human activity has nothing to do with global warming, we'll cause little damage by having addressed our production of greenhouse gasses. On the other hand, if we sit on our thumbs and watch, we'll have no one to blame when the forests burn to a crisp, agriculture in the US collapses, and war, famine, and drought rage across the globe.
So why do the deniers deny? To begin with, I think they, like many modern conservatives, have succumbed to the postmodern fallacy: since all reality is subjective, how can we possibly trust the incomplete research of climate scientists? This view is abetted by a failure to understand the scientific process. Misunderstanding science isn't reason enough, however, for deniers to take up the cause.
Although they almost universally try to couch their rebuttals of the science as "skepticism," the deniers' motivation is almost always elsewhere. The Bush White House, as evidenced by Dick Cheney's oil-lobby-drafted energy bill, are patrons of the oil industry. Their efforts to deny global warming were no more than a sop to their donors. In other cases, paranoid deniers assert that it is a conspiracy by liberals to eviscerate US autonomy, to weaken the US's economic position, or to gain political advantage in a debate about which most Americans agree. As the debate breaks out, and the deniers inevitably try to hang onto 1% of inconclusive data while ignoring the 99% that is conclusive, it's not always clear what agenda they're trying to conceal.
What should be obvious, though, is that there is an agenda. While some environmentalists may indeed wish to punish the GOP for its arrogance about global warming, the majority of Americans are just worried about what it means in their lives. We see it in the scientific data, the changes in weather and the seasons, and even in our own gardens.
There will be hundreds of reports like the ones about forest fires and wine-growing over the coming years. Reasonable people will be alarmed and want to do something about it, but a small cadre will continue to argue that we can't believe our eyes. But in the resulting "debate," the deniers will be arguing something other than science.
|
July 11, 2006 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (80 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 11, 2006 2:06:50 PM
I'm sticking to my postmodern fallacy argument. With the rise of AM talk radio screamers and FOX news, conservatives have been weened for the past decade on the idea that everything's a lie (except, of course, for the actual misstatements of Fox and the screamers). It has allowed vast swaths of the US to just ignore science. This wouldn't have been possible forty years ago, when modernist science was still revered. But post-modernism has made everything possible. (Not that post-modernism is at fault.)
As to the economic argument, poppycock I say (to them, not you). No matter what you think about global warming, no one on the planet thinks we'll be able to run our cars on gasoline forever. The country that abandons fossil fuels for the next generation of energy first will be the country to dictate standards, much as the US did during the fifties with autos and the 80s with computers. Ending use of the internal combustion engine by, say 2020 would not only not bankrupt the US, it would be a fantastic economic boon.
And of course, mostly global warming is going to devastate economies, which corporations now readily concede. That's why they, if not the dinosaurs of the White House/oil complex, have already begun to take measures to reduce greenhouse gasses.
On the other hand, over-analysing someting isn't new for me, so I have to regard it as a possibility...
Posted by: Richard | Jul 11, 2006 2:15:56 PM
To be fair what's being denied is that mankind is changing the climate. Not that any climate change is occuring. Most would probablly say they believe the climate is always changing.
The denial in the science of evolution is a denial we came from apes and other inter-species evolution. Not that evolution does not exist at all.
Since the hockey stick theory is debunked and a mini-ice age preceeded todays warming trend it is not an unreasonable position to believe that today's warming is a natural and unavoidable occurance.
Especailly when so many climatoligists and meteroligists are not convinved themselves that mankind is responsible for the current changes.
Posted by: Brian Santo | Jul 11, 2006 2:56:12 PM
It is absolutely clear that a very large proportion of people do not understand the very fundamentals of modern science: you form a postulate, you gather evidence, and the evidence either supports the postulate -- in which case you keep the postulate, or it doesn't -- in which case you repostulate.
Some people are simply incapable of accepting that. Some people (including some scientists) are reluctant to admit they were/are wrong.
Others simply are not interested in evidence -- they're probably a small minority (I hope they're a small minority) but there are definitely people who _want_ to believe what they believe, and no amount of evidence will ever be good enough.
Many of the people Steven Maurer is talking about -- those who deny because they can, deny as a political choice. They purposefully compound and exacerbate the ignorance of others to muddy the issue, generally to keep to some status quo that the evidence suggests is unsupportable. People schooled in logic and rhetoric (I'm not one of them) can and have pointed out the strategies that political deniers use.
Richard is correct, but sadly so. Helpfully clarifying the precise position of political deniers just lets them off the hook for deliberately muddying the waters.
He is fairly summing up comments on global warming made by W and his minions. But the actual effect of those comments was to confuse the issue and maintain the status quo -- pretending global warming isn't a problem, so nothing need be done about it.
And there you have the liberal dilemma in a nutshell. The evidence is that W wasn't lying, and yet...
Posted by: Albert | Jul 11, 2006 3:29:39 PM
Especailly when so many climatoligists and meteorligists are not convinved themselves that mankind is responsible for the current changes.
All of my climatologist and meteorologist friends agree that humankind IS responsible for the current warming of the globe. Not sure who you're hanging out with.
Posted by: oregonj | Jul 11, 2006 3:48:55 PM
I agree with SM that the reason the deniers persist is because they have an economic interest and they can get away with it.
Look at the most blatant instance. They elected a VP that could run the federal government at their behest, their requests to purge rules and agencies of environmental protection are being granted in large part , and the oil and coal companies are profting directly from that. They are even able to appoint their own company representatives into positions where they can attempt to change agency scientific findings, as oil industry shill Phil Coomey did in 2003. See Phil alter a scientific report in order to benefit ExxonMobil, his client.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/06/07/politics/08climate_162.gif
I think the 'skeptic science" is an explicit strategy by mostly coal and oil companies seeking to maintain a seed of doubt in as many minds as possible so as to delay regulatory action as long as possible. Just as the tobacco companies were lying about what they knew about the health effects of smoking, the intelligent people running these fossil fuel companies surely know what they are doing - thay have just made the tradeoff between making more money and controlling this pollution. It is a dynamic that the executives of large corporate interests have repeated over and over. The saddest part is that enough gullible individuals buy into their agenda - and enough politicians get enough campaing funding - to keep this tragedy rolling on, year after year.
Posted by: Jeffk | Jul 11, 2006 3:59:52 PM
Richard, above, has stated some of the reasoning he uses in his denial, but it's more of a justification than motivation. However, his use of the phrase "a natural and unavoidable occurance" seems indicative of a "not-my-fault" attitude. In other words, for Richard, it's all about blame.
I think that's another major cause of denial: The denier denies because it keeps it from being their fault.
That's a popular theme in America - blame someone else. If it's not their fault, why should they have to deal with it, and why should they have to pay for it?
In this case, I think the answer is simple: You deal with it because it's easier and less expensive than the alternative.
It's like a choice between fixing your car or getting a new one, except that you can't get a new one. This is the only planet we have, and if it breaks, mankind is screwed.
Posted by: Former Salem Staffer | Jul 11, 2006 4:09:36 PM
I'm not the least bit worried about wine crops drying up....but the second beer hops are endangered, I may too jump aboard this bandwagon...
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 11, 2006 4:13:59 PM
Richard, go to RealClimate.org (a site hosted by climate scientists and a 2005 Scientific American award winner), check out the EPA's global warming site, or do a Google search. The science is not remotely in doubt. From the EPA:
Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.
The only real basis for denying the realities of global warming is ignorance of the science.
Posted by: Harry | Jul 11, 2006 4:29:22 PM
Albert writes:
>Especailly when so many climatoligists and meteorligists are not >convinved themselves that mankind is responsible for the current >changes.
All of my climatologist and meteorologist friends agree that humankind IS responsible for the current warming of the globe. Not sure who you're hanging out with.
--------------------------
So, how big was your sample size (all your climato/meteoro friends)? Was that a representative sample size?
Do you have any non '...ologist' friends that could have influenced you as well?
Posted by: Jeremiah Baumann | Jul 11, 2006 6:19:58 PM
I have to say I'm a little shocked to find global warming deniers in this community of generally engaged people. I don't know of credible scientists who continue to deny. Even the Bush EPA has come around despite the continuing resistance of Mr. Bush himself. And it's well documented that the denials can be traced to major funding by fossil fuel companies, particularly Exxon Mobil.
More interesting, I think, is a tidbit Jeff mentioned which isn't getting much discussion. The too-commonly-held notion that stablilizing our climate will somehow cause economic chaos is just incorrect. A major economic transition, yes, but a transition to a cleaner, healthier, and more efficient economy & society. Renewable energy generates significantly more jobs than fossil fuel development. Energy conservation keeps money in consumers' and businesses' bank accounts, money that can be spent in the local economy rather than shipped for foreign oil & gas lords. Solving global warming doesn't have a downside.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 11, 2006 9:05:50 PM
No need to go to far.
Our very own Oregon State Climatologist has his doubt and if far from being persuaded.
And his reasons are all science based.
There is substantial science based doubt out there. For people here to play this like there is none but kooks and profiteers is sloppy science.
With thingss like thwe "Hockey stick theory" being debunked, other global warming boiler plates are not far behind.
It's OK to look up. A chicken won't fall on your face.
>"In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases"<.
If all of mankind causes emits around 5%, 1/20th of all greenhouse gases how can the United States emit 1/5 of all greenhouse gases?
Posted by: Jen | Jul 11, 2006 9:18:08 PM
Rising greenhouse gases are only part of the global climate change equation. I believe Jeff has oversimplified his argument to make his point, but that doesn't change the fact it's an oversimplification.
To suggest that CO2 (alone, or in combination with other gases) is the only variable in the global climate change equation is naive. Other factors include: solar cycles, orbital variations in the "pitch" of the earth (Milankovitch cycles), volcanic eruptions, and the relationship between ocean temperatures/currents/weather.
It's also naive to suggest the United States is uniquely poised to reduce greenhouse gases. Developing countries (primarily China, India, Brazil) are increasing GHG emissions at greater rates than the U.S. is likely to reduce.
The scientists can (and do) distinguish between data that can be measured by proxy (tree rings, ice cores, etc) and the multitude of variables which produced the changes they can measure. Long story short: we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rising. We don't know (with certainty) if reducing those gases will lead to global cooling.
Posted by: lw | Jul 11, 2006 10:29:28 PM
Apparently President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore are deniers. They had over 8 years in office to address global warming. Why did they advocate deep-sixing the Kyoto Treaty?
Posted by: oregonj | Jul 11, 2006 11:04:48 PM
The science "debate" on the existence of anthropogenic climate (rather than on the details), wholly created by the industry disinformation machine, isn't the interesting point here - its only noise that will be wrung out in due time.
I think it is more interesting to look at Jeff's original question: "Why do the deniers deny?". I wrote above that I think it is the profit agenda, and then secondarily to push the limits on purveying as much misinformation toward delaying greenhouse gas pollution as long as possible to achieve those profits. Now, based on these comments, of which I estimate contain only one (maybe two) paid industry trolls to achieve the disinformation goals of that strategy, the remainder are due to the third reason for denying: just plain failure (deliberate or out of laziness) to apply the scientific method to a scientific question.
And by the way, our State Climatologist is not a climate scientist - he is a meteorologist that collects climate data. His climate change "work" has been paid in part by TechCentral.com, a website developed and funded to present the "science " view of its funders, including ExxonMobil. To my knowledge, he has ZERO peer-reviewed articles on global climate change.
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 12, 2006 5:55:48 AM
Albert: Hang out with some Notational Academy of Sciences types. They issued a report a few weeks ago on the subject. The newspaper headline was generally that the report confirmed man played a role, but the real story is buried in the details as you can see from these excerpts from the OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS section (I added bold to the excerpts; my comments are italic):
“• Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence...”
This affirms the existence of the medieval warm period AND the little ice age. Since neither of these features show up on the “hockey stick” chart, this flaw casts serious doubt on the chart and the methods used to create it, as well as all other work using these methods.In plain English: the “Hockey Stick” Chart has been disproven. (Notice below that they compare current temperature to the medieval warm period, but on the “hockey stick” chart they are nowhere close in temperature-this difference alone should disprove the chart and its methods.)
“• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by...”
Four centuries ago was 1600 A.D., right in the middle of the little ace age which ran from 1500 to 1850 per above. The committee basically said: we are warmer than the middle of the little ice age. Personably I’m glad!
“• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. ...”
The use of the phrase“many but not all” hardly suggests the comprehensive knowledge that justifies a need for immediate action to stem global warming. It does, however, suggest that there might be something substantiateable here.
“• Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 ...”
Very little confidence means just that.
JK: And from page 12, sheet 36 (I bolded parts of the original & commented in italic):
“ the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium....”
Note the use of the word “plausible”. This is not a very high degree of confidence.
“ Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because ...
The committee has even less confidence in this claim than they had in something that was only plausible. In Plain English, the claim that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year” sucketh. Also keep in mind that this report is basically debunking the politically correct position and therefore needs to tread lightly.
JK: Over the years, the public has paid little attention to the climate debate, until the “hockey stick” chart and the claim that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” The report basically destroys both of these claims.
See http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html for old newspaper coverage of past weather cycles.
The NAS report is free from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html (A bit hard to find - look in the box offering it for sale).
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 12, 2006 6:00:39 AM
oregonj:To my knowledge, he has ZERO peer-reviewed articles on global climate change.
JK: Probably not, but look how badly Mann got his 8 year old peer reviewed stuff criticized by the NAS report (see my previous message).
As to peer reviewed - it is not a god. Would you trust a peer reviewed journal of Republican economics? Or a peer reviewed journal of astrology?
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Richard | Jul 12, 2006 7:53:47 AM
Our State Climatologist, like many others, has data that demonstrates the uncertainty about Man's role in global warming.
The real deniers are those who pretend man's role is conclusive and that no questions and contrary data exist.
It's my understanding that our State Climatologist was paid one time a $500 fee for writing a report, on his own view, on a specific topic for some industry publication.
If you think that rules him out of the scientific community you are worse than a denier yourself.
I have read much on Global Warming and I don't buy the Goreamonium.
Like countless others I don't fall into your rediculous self serving categories used to prop up your own radical stance on this issue.
Insulting the populous who doesn't ride your Gore bus demonstrates your agenda is far from scientific.
Posted by: blizzak | Jul 12, 2006 7:59:14 AM
I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to pretend that I can read a few articles and come to a reasoned position about global warming. However, science has been wrong many times in the past and it could be wrong this time. Scientists have also made "mistakes" that could have been politically motivated (Klamath basin fish studies). So it's not unwise to be skeptical about what the "vast majority" of scientists are telling us about global warming.
Jeff's question about why deniers deny is an interesting one. Here's another one, "Why would scientists forcefully argue for human-caused global warming if the evidence doesn't support it?"
Here's my conspiracy theory answer: liberal scientists from industrialized countries are arguing for human-caused global warming because they want to keep third world countries from industrializing. There's a slice of the progressive movement that wants the rest of the world to engage in subsistence farming forever; human-caused global warming is good theory to keep economic growth from happening in the third world.
I don't believe this conspiracy theory (well, maybe a little bit), I'm just trying to make the point that ulterior motives can always be found and there are few (no?) people out there whose perception of the truth is not driven by their own self-interest (economic, ideological, psychological, whatever).
Posted by: Albert | Jul 12, 2006 8:48:54 AM
The image I get from some of the deniers who have come forth here is that we're on a fast-moving train. The train is headed for a bridge which is out, and some of you are spending time arguing that "no, the bridge really isn't out, or maybe we should wait until we get closer to make sure we're making the right decision to stop the train so that we all don't go crashing into the gulch."
To you the deniers: what if you're wrong? If you're wrong and global warming is real, humankind is causing it, and it's going to lead to some pretty nasty results, doesn't it behoove us to make big changes now to avoid the consequences?
And if those who believe that global warming is real are wrong, we've switched over to cleaner-burning fuels, turned our lawns into gardens, built more mass transit, drive less, build greener buildings, and the 10,000 other changes we're making around the world to our daily lives. These changes seem like good ones - especially for the longevity of other species, clean air, clean water, etc.
I'm mostly glad that I'm seeing signs everywhere that the "deniers' line" is collapsing. Perhaps we'll be able to save the planet and future generations from living in a much warmer place.
I grew up with a Father who always liked to play the devil's advocate. He would have made a great addition to libertarian thinktank in the early days. He has finally come around and is opening his ears to what our society has been about for years. Me First. Use up everything we can for our own benefit.
You deniers should be sent to some island in the Pacific which is about to be wiped out by rising sea levels. Then, let's see how much longer you would hold onto your position.
And, you're smart, no doubt about it. We could sure use your smarts to solve this issue. Or, you can continue to look like fools and we'll remember you that way.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 12, 2006 9:11:35 AM
Coupla responses:
It's also naive to suggest the United States is uniquely poised to reduce greenhouse gases.
I'm certainly not suggesting that. With the forces arrayed in favor of the oil lobby in Washington and throughout Congress, it's clear that the US badly trails the rest of the world on this score. China, for example, has far better CAFE standards than we do. My suggestion is that the country that leads the evolution to the next generation of power--an inevitability given the finite sources of oil--will reap the lion's share of the advantage. In the past, it was the US who led the way (cars first, and a generation later, computers) and reaped the benefit. We need to get busy if we're going to repeat the success.
I believe Jeff has oversimplified his argument to make his point, but that doesn't change the fact it's an oversimplification.... Long story short: we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rising. We don't know (with certainty) if reducing those gases will lead to global cooling.
I don't mean to suggest that CO2 is the only source--and I tried to use "greenhouse gases" as one indicator. But you're right that other activities are affecting climate as well: in India, research has shown that deforestation has affected the monsoons. But because the oil industry runs ads like this one, I thought it was important to examine the motivation behind the lies:
But other scientific studies found exactly the opposite: Greenland ’s glaciers are growing, not melting; The Antarctic ice sheet is getting thicker, not thinner. Did you see any big headlines about that? Why are they trying to scare us? Global warming alarmists claim the glaciers are melting because of carbon dioxide from the fuels we use. Let’s force people to cut back, they say....And as for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke. It’s what we breathe out and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life.
It is the deniers' intention to put the burden of proof on the science, hoping to obscure the existing data by highlighting missing data. But it's reasonable to put the burden of proof back on the deniers, whose "data" is cherry picked to support an ideological position. Scientists, despite Blizzak's bizarre and wholly unsupported claims, are just following the numbers. They're not behind a giant profit-protecting lobby.
It's well worth mentioning.
Posted by: Albert | Jul 12, 2006 10:23:32 AM
Here's an idea that just came to me. Take the entire federal military budget, and personnel, and transfer it to the EPA. Seems like a good presidential platform to run on :) I wonder if that would be enough manpower, and funding to turn things around. Would be a good start, anyway.
Posted by: Patrick Kennedy | Jul 12, 2006 10:01:11 PM
Why do the deniers deny is an interesting question. I don't know the answer though your thinking sounds reasonable to me. Personally, I don't believe that hardcore deniers will be persuaded by science or by anything else. However, it is important to rebut them, not to change their minds but because people who are just starting to pay attention to the climate change issue need to understand that the deniers are at the fringe.
I think we are entering a phase where people will focus their attention on what we should do about climate change. I don't believe that voluntary actions will get the job done and that we need national regulations. From my perspective, the questions will be will the regulations be sufficient to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at low enough levels, will the regulations be timely and will they be as equitable and cost effective as possible. If the Supreme Court rules that the Clean Air Act can be used to regulate carbon dioxide, it is possible that regulations can be written without Congress passing a new law. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it will require Congress to pass new law. For example, Congressman Henry Waxman has introduced legislation called "The Safe Climate Act of 2006" that would require the EPA to enact a cap and trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions. Of course nothing will happen during the Bush administration but after Bush I believe it is inevitable that the U.S. will undertake regulatory actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Some additional warming is now inevitable because of the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted. To help answer the question of how we get a handle on emissions, the International Energy Agency at the request of the G-8 countries has just produced a report called “Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.” The report lays out various scenarios, using technologies that already exist or are under development, that the report says will return carbon dioxide emissions to current levels by the year 2050 rather than have emissions stay on a course to be two and a half times their current levels. Future energy use by developed, transitional and developing countries are included in the study. The study found that the most significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions avoided would come from energy efficiencies (roughly 50%). In addition to energy efficiencies the scenarios also include various assumed mixes of renewable energy sources, coal with carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, nuclear power, oil and natural gas. All of the scenarios assume an incremental cost of $25 (per ton CO2 emissions avoided) economic incentive. The report says that for comparison this cost is less than the average price for European Union CO2 emission permits for the first 4 months of 2006. Though the costs are substantial, it would seem they are not ruinous not withstanding some claims to the contrary (the deniers next line of attack after questioning the science.)
But enough of that and back to vineyards – realclimate.com has an interesting new post up on English vineyards, the medieval warm period and global climate change.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 12, 2006 11:51:58 PM
Editor's note: TypePad crashed today, and all comments made between 12:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. PST were lost. Our apologies. We're not happy either.
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 13, 2006 1:00:48 AM
Jeff Alworth: Richard, go to RealClimate.org
JK: Also go to ClimateAudit.org, the site that debunks RealClimate.org and its hockey stick and some other climate fallicies.
Jeff Alworth: The only real basis for denying the realities of global warming is ignorance of the science.
JK: Apparently you haven’t understood the conclusions of the recent National Academy of Sciences report - it just confirms the suspicions that we skeptics have had all along that this whole panic is wildly exaggerated. The report said that: * A little ice age DID exist. * A medieval warm period likely existed. * We are currently about as warm as the medieval warm period.
The importance of their findings is that one foundation of the modern concern over warming, the hockey stick chart DOES not show a little ice age or a medieval warm period. This makes that chart wrong. It also makes the methods used to derive the chart wrong and these methods are used by others in the field, so other work is also affected.
The report also said: Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”
The “hockey stick” temperature chart and the claim of the last decade being the warmest in a 1000 years are the two most important pieces of “evidence” for the believers and they just got proven wrong.
That report shows that science is NOT on the side of the alarmists. It says that we are warming up after the little ice age (probably with some help from man) and we are still not shown to be warmer than the medieval ages. It explicitly denies the claim of the 1990s being the warmest decade in 1000 years.
Bottom line the so called deniers have been shown to be rightfully skeptical of the panic spread by the true believers.
So why was I a skeptic? Because I have a better B.S. detector. Why did you believe the B.S.? (by that I mean the “we are headed for doom” viewpoint, not that we are warming after a the little ice age.)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 13, 2006 1:07:50 AM
Jeremiah Baumann: ... And it's well documented that the denials can be traced to major funding by fossil fuel companies, particularly Exxon Mobil.
JK: Can I assume that you are against the Kyoto protocols because Exxon was a big contributor to that cause.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Jennifer W. | Jul 13, 2006 7:17:01 AM
I am not "backed by fossil fuel companies" and I believe the earth would be warming with or without consumption of fossil fuels.
I also doubt that total elimination of automobiles would reverse or appreciably slow global warming. I believe there are many proponents of anthropogenic climate change that are simply anti-car, anti-capitalist, and (to some degree) anti-American, and "reducing CO2 emissions" is simply their backdoor attempt to socialize transportation and exert state control over MY CHOICES of how and where I live.
I don't believe my interests are aligned with Greenpeace or the environmental lobby in general.
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 13, 2006 8:25:14 AM
JK: Here is a link to a Canadian newspaper op ed that explains the recent NAS report and how it verified most of what one “doubter” claimed. The author’s web site, ClimateAudit.org is quite good.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=cea34354-b1af-467b-9f49-4ef98f416e71
Here is a teaser form that link:
Many people have heard the claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the warmest year. Environment Canada headlined them on pamphlets mailed across the country a few years ago. These claims interested us in verifying exactly how scientists were able to assert so confidently that the late 20th century was warmer than when the Vikings were farming Greenland (the Medieval Warm Period). Last year, the National Post profiled our published research, which had identified major flaws in what was called the Hockey Stick -- a graph prominently featured in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.
We knew that calling this icon into question would be controversial, but we did not expect it would spark a battle between two powerful committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and lead to the formation of a blue-chip panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Shortly after last year's Post profile, The Wall Street Journal did a long article interviewing both us and the principal Hockey Stick author, Michael Mann. In that article, Mann was quoted as saying he would not be "intimidated" into disclosing the algorithm by which he obtained his results.
(go to the link for MUCH more)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Hmm | Jul 13, 2006 9:45:09 AM
It is the deniers' intention to put the burden of proof on the science...
Um, yeah? Why is it bad to have the burden of proof on the science?
My $.02 is this:
Hysteria sells. Scientists get paid to study what people are afraid of. If scientists can scare everyone into thinking we have to solve this (man-made) global warming problem, there's lot's of money in it for them. It's no different than selling papers.
If a reporter can quote a scientist who just received a huge grant from some agency or respected institute that says that humans are a scourge (true, but for a later discussion), he gets a front-page story and lots of accolades.
I'm a skeptic. Not that the earth is warming, because the data shows it is. But rather, I don't believe in the positive-feedback nonsense being pushed out there (to wit, if we get any hotter, we'll just keep getting hotter until the earth spontaneously combusts). Bigger hurricanes serve to stir up the colder waters at depth. A negative feedback loop. Warmer climates give longer growing seasons and more arable (natural or manmade) land, creating more plant mass (biodeisel anyone?), sucking up more CO2 and offsetting the urban heat-island effect. A negative feedback loop.
Here's the chart the NAS used in their last report.
Which is scarier? Which, therefore, is the one that gets the press?
I have no dog in this fight. I'm not an oil industry flack, nor am I an eco-warrior. I'm just a guy who's trying to figure out whether the Gore movie makes sense and what if anything I (we) can do about it, even if it IS an alarming problem that will kill millions.
I guarantee that if I wanted to go find some data suggesting that warmer temperatures were going to cause massive species die-offs that I could get that published, because it fits in the "I just KNOW the earth is getting hotter and it's my fault" line the media's been pushing on us.
The argument that, "Well, we should try." is laughable. I mean, cars kill people, right? Why not ban them? Seriously. We would save far more people by banning cars worldwide than anything we can do about global warming. Some small Pacific islands may disappear, but other areas will become habitable, and North Dakota might even become pleasant. Outlaw cattle and livestock. Force everyone to be vegan. For their own good. Will we be miserable? Those of us who enjoy meat would be. Would we live longer? Maybe. Would I want to live without meat and a personal freedom transport (read, car)? No.
The deniers, at least those with my bent, don't believe that the answer is reverting to hunting and gathering, which whether true or not, appears to be the goal of the eco class. We are happy with the status quo for a reason. It seems to work.
I'm a fervent recycler (thanks to my wife), we're a one car family, we have a rain barrel for watering, and we generally live pretty sustainably. But if the doomsday proponents had their way, we'd have to sell the car we have, because it's a six-cylinder minivan that uses gas, not hydrogen.
The deniers, if you ask them, will support clean air, clean water, recycling, alternative fuels, and all other manner of environmentally friendly changes. We just don't buy this "Day After Tomorrow" crap. And if it happens, it ain't gonna be because of us. It'll be a solar flare or a major volcanic event or something on a global scale, not my minivan. That's our take.
Posted by: genop | Jul 13, 2006 9:46:42 AM
Interesting. In todays news I read our Governor has proposed legislation requiring energy producers to obtain 25% of production from "green" sources. Energy producers have realized record profits. The expense of developing cleaner sources will suck some of those profits from shareholders. The immediate response to the Govs. proposal from the energy production industry is of course resistence. Why? Because they like profit. Duh. Their public relations response. We are developing cleaner production, we just don't want to be locked in to a specific percentage. In other words trust us to do the right thing. No sympathy here. Right on Teddy K! This proactive stance during an election year is refreshing. Oh yeah, I agree that profit drives denial.
Posted by: Brian Santo | Jul 13, 2006 11:02:07 AM
And here we have JK, whose arguments are examples of several interesting denial mechanisms.
Latch on to a single sub-point (the Mann hockey stick projection) and assume that if one subsidiary point is questionable, the main point is wrong.
Attack motives. Scientists want to make money? But if wanting to remain employed is corruptive, let's try communism, or maybe anarchy, huh? Right, I didn't think so. It is possible to do good science and get paid for it.
Assume as a lay individual you're better at evaluating science than the tens of thousands of scientists who have a pretty rigorous system of peer review. The personal ("I'm smart" "I'm an independent thinker") becomes political ("I can comment on reams of evidence I've never seen concerning an issue that involves us all").
Another fundamental misconception about science has cropped up in this discussion -- that a proposition must be proved. The only way to prove global warming is accelerating beyond what is wise to simply allow to happen and that human activity is exacerbating and accelerating the phenomenon would require us to do nothing but observe until the problem is irreversible.
You go with the weight of evidence. There is overwhelming agreement that the weight of evidence suggests that global warming is a problem now, will become a worse problem, and that human activity is exacerbating the problem.
Posted by: John Bartley | Jul 13, 2006 11:48:42 AM
> a scientific consensus?
No, not yet.
There is adequate scientifically based evidence that other factors are at play. Says who? Al Gore: "(scientists) don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" (one way or the other)... "(scientists) don't know... They just don't know." - from "An Inconvenient Truth."
Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
Why the variation? Why the three decade dip when Detroit had NO environmental controls whatsoever? There's better evidence for the recent warming, incontrovertibly provable evidence for an external factor; that fusion reactor 93 million miles away, which has, beyond doubt, been proven to be getting brighter.
A Swiss/German study suggested historic solar output increases cause global climate changes; East Anglians verified it (an essential element of science, replicability). Indirect effects on the ozone layer and cloud cover were cited, which could magnify the hotter sun.
You see, there's one greenhouse gas which is far more powerful than CO2, which no one is doing anything about; dihydrogen monoxide. Yep, water vapor.
"I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor" says Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University, a leading world authority on climate.
Here's a source-referenced analysis of the impact of CO2, methane and other greehouse gases when compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide. It should be required reading for anyone wishing to invoke science in this discussion.
Not only does dihydrogen monoxide retain heat far better than C02, but it also condenses into clouds. Some clouds trap heat, some reflect it back into space.
That's really what we need to spend resources on; a global thermostat we can alter at will, so when the next Ice Age comes, we can deal with that as well as any excessive warming (and what's excessive to you might not be excessive the the Viking settlers of Greenland; oh, that's right, they froze to death when the last Little Ice Age struck, so they can't complain any more).
There are far cheaper ways to control our climate than the economy-busting Kyoto mutual suicide pact. Forex, if CO2 was proven to be a serious problem once scientifically compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide, pay cargo ships to to drop iron filings into the oceans as they go about their travels, which will soaks up a very large amount of CO2 in a non-toxic way.
Lastly, have you considered that Global Warming may not be an unqualified evil? I was taught in Revolutionary History class that Knox was able to sledge cannon from Ticondaroga to Boston via the frozen Hudson River. The Hudson hasn't frozen over for over a century, and there are an awful lot of folks who like it that way.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Jul 13, 2006 1:46:03 PM
> a scientific consensus?
No, not yet.
There are always a few people who disagree with any consensus, thus we have a flat earth society. While global warming has not reached the same level of consensus as the theory that the earth is round, it is a consensus. Is there some evidence for competing theories on the causes? Yes, but it is pretty weak and was incorporated into the discussion and evaluation that lead to the scientific consensus.
Lastly, have you considered that Global Warming may not be an unqualified evil?
I think it would take most people about 30 seconds of consideration, once they understand is impacts, to decide it is indeed "an unqualified evil".
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 13, 2006 5:57:29 PM
Brian Santo:And here we have JK, whose arguments are examples of several interesting denial mechanisms.
Latch on to a single sub-point (the Mann hockey stick projection) and assume that if one subsidiary point is questionable, the main point is wrong.
JK: Not “one subsidiary point”, but the two most impressive points in the believer’s favor: the impressive looking chart and the, now-disproven, “fact” that the 1990 was the warmest decade in 1000 years. The believers also had the reliability of their data and its analysis called into question.
Brian Santo: You go with the weight of evidence.
JK: Not when millions of people will have a lower standard of living due to nutty ideas on how to cure a non-problem. Just look locally, Randy Leonard is laying the stage for rising gasoline prices in Portland which his bio mandate. (Bio is such a good idea, they have to force it on us).
Brian Santo: There is overwhelming agreement that the weight of evidence suggests that global warming is a problem now, will become a worse problem, and that human activity is exacerbating the problem.
JK: No there isn’t. And the most convincing arguments were just disproven by the NAS report.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 13, 2006 6:01:32 PM
Ross Williams:> a scientific consensus?
No, not yet.
There are always a few people who disagree with any consensus, thus we have a flat earth society.
JK: And you are in danger of being on the side of the flat earth society since the NAS report ripped the foundation out from under the alarmists.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 13, 2006 7:02:15 PM
John Bartley: Here's a source-referenced analysis of the impact of CO2, methane and other greehouse gases when compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide. It should be required reading for anyone wishing to invoke science in this discussion.
JK: Thanks for an excellent post with several very good links. Although I have not looked at all of your links, I particularly liked the one that shows that water vapor is far more effective than CO2 and that overall, man is contributing just 0.28% of the effect from warming gases and that 99.72% are natural. ( http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
It looks like too many people on this site have been getting their science from the Sierra Club instead of places like you links.
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Jennifer W. | Jul 13, 2006 7:17:33 PM
The City of Portland just passed an ordinance that mandates the blending of 10% ethanol in all gasoline sold in Portland. What's not to like? It's good for the environment, right? Those righty-tighties at Cornell University don't think so...Corn based ethanol also consumes $1.4 billion in Corporate Welfare annually. Did I mention it takes alot of hydrocarbon energy to refine it?
Newton's Third Law: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
98% of U.S. ethanol is (and will continue to be) made out of corn. The City of Portland's ordinance is silent as to the source of the ethanol, yet Commissioner Leonard somehow believes he's going to help Oregon Farmers?
Here's the bad news: The Gulf Coast dead zone has been growing in size since nitrogen fertilizers were first introduced to post World War II farming. Here's the worse news: 2.2 billion pounds on nitrogen are draining each year into the Gulf of Mexico. But instead of giving corn a growth spurt, the nitrogen fuels massive algae blooms that then die and suck all of the oxygen out of the water as they decompose. If we increase the amount of nitrogen draining into the gulf, we are likely to DECIMATE Louisiana's fishery, currently valued at $2.3 billion/year. That's BILLION dollars, with a B.
Ironically, the City of Portland's ethanol mandate is inconsequential in terms of total American energy consumption. And despite all the SUV-haters here at B/O, gasoline only represents 17% of America's total energy consumption (coal is the biggest piece of the energy pie, while diesel consumption is less than half of gasoline's volume).
Portland represents a whopping 2/10% of total U.S. Population. In 2004, Oregonians consumed an average 418.4 gallons of gasoline/per capita. If you multiply that consumption by 500,000 Portlanders, that equals 20.92 million gallons of gasoline that will be replaced with ethanol (assuming they provided the same fuel economy, which they don't). It sounds great, right? Unfortunately, the wholesale price of ethanol is $0.50/gallon more than gasoline: PORTLANDERS WILL PAY AN EXTRA $10.4 million/year to replace 10% of their gasoline consumption with ethanol.
OK, OK, you've convinced me: ethanol sucks. But what about Biodiesel? If you took all the oil seed crops grown in the US and converted them to fuel, you could replace roughly 15% of current US diesel consumption. So much for energy independence! You also wouldn't have any vegetable oils for human consumption (or they would be much more expensive).
On the upside, we may destroy a $2.2 billion fishery in Lousiana (as if they needed any more problems), and help enrich farmers in Iowa and Nebraska. Food prices will have to go up (because corn is so integral to other foods/beverages, as well a livestock feed).
I thought y'all loved fish?
Posted by: oregonj | Jul 13, 2006 7:22:52 PM
Hey JK, you already threw in the towel once on July 9. When confronnted with the actual language of the National Academy of Sciences that says explicitly that the severity of anthropogenic global warming does not significantly depend on the actual degree of warming in mideaval times or the cooling in the Little Ice Age, your response was "you have to let this play out." If I have to let it play out, that means to me that the current NAS report does reaffirm the scientific consensus. Now JK, can you be be clear? When you requested that "we have to let it play out", that implies we have to wait for NEW data to convince the NAS scientists to CHANGE their conclusions? This seems very inconsistent with your statement that 'the most convincing arguments were just disproven by the NAS report'?
In case you forgot, here is your own response to the actual words in the report :
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 9, 2006 12:20:08 AM
oregonj: I think JK also missed the part of the report (pg 23) that says: "It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be altered if, for example, the global mean surface temprerature 1000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today.
JK: Many of the articles that go into that “scientific consensus” likely rely on the same flawed methods and data as used by the now discredited “hockey stick”. You have to give this time to play out.
Posted by: Patrick Kennedy | Jul 13, 2006 8:59:01 PM
Here is part of a joint statement from the National Science Academies of eleven countries including the United States National Science Academy.
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they
can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
Seems like the National Academies don't share the skeptics skepticism.
Posted by: oregonj | Jul 13, 2006 9:36:04 PM
Most skeptics don't realize that they have even lost our nutcase President as a skeptic. Here is a statement signed by, believe it or not, George W Bush:
"We know increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of the Earth's surface." G8-2005.
But, then again, even I find it hard to believe that the President frequently comprehends his words or actions.
Posted by: Jennifer W. | Jul 13, 2006 10:04:27 PM
Patrick:
Isn't it interesting that even the scientists from 11 nations believe the solution ought to be "cost-effective".
Do you think that ethanol is a "cost-effective" part of the solution?
Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 13, 2006 11:29:22 PM
oregonj: Hey JK, you already threw in the towel once on July 9. When confronnted with the actual language of the National Academy of Sciences that says explicitly that the severity of anthropogenic global warming does not significantly depend on the actual degree of warming in mideaval times or the cooling in the Little Ice Age, your response was "you have to let this play out."
JK: I didn’t throw in the towel, you apparently missed this part of my reply: ” likely rely on the same flawed methods and data as used by the now discredited “hockey stick”. That means that there are probably dozens, maybe hundreds, of flawed studies because of the problems uncovered by the NAS. It will take quite a while to sort out which ones are damages and which ones are still valid. That is what in ment by giving it time to play out.
oregonj: If I have to let it play out, that means to me that the current NAS report does reaffirm the scientific consensus. Now JK, can you be be clear? When you requested that "we have to let it play out", that implies we have to wait for NEW data to convince the NAS scientists to CHANGE their conclusions?
JK: That means that there are probably a lot of flawed studies out there, some probably used by that part of the NAS report. After all they didn’t have years to sort through the whole field to find every error. But I expect a lot of corrections to appear.
Patrick Kennedy: Here is part of a joint statement from the National Science Academies of eleven countries including the United States National Science Academy.
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they
can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
Seems like the National Academies don't share the skeptics skepticism.
JK: They also ar probably relying on flawed reports containing the flaws recently published in the NAS report. Give it time to play out (IE: for people to sort out which reports are still valid)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: Patrick Kennedy | Jul 14, 2006 7:08:28 AM
Jennifer W. - I am not a cheerleader for ethanol. I think a lot of the excitement about ethanol is because we want to become independent of mideast oil and because it is helping the economy in the farming sector.
In my view, we in the United States must do our part to begin to bring worldwide greenhouse gas emissions back to a sustainable path. It is too late to avoid climate change but we may still be able to avoid the most dangerous impacts. I think we need national regulations to cause reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions. Within a legal and regulatory context, I think the economy should have a great deal of flexibility to find the best and most timely ways of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations could take the form of a carbon tax, a cap and trade system of controlling greenhouse gas emissions, a requirement for greatly improved fuel economy standards on automobiles, etc. A recent international study that I reference above suggests that roughly half of the carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided due to energy efficiency measures.
The important thing is that we move promptly to solutions that will return our greenhouse gas emissions to an environmentally sustainable level.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 14, 2006 10:40:08 AM
Folks, arguing with Jim Karlock does his own project of denial a service. His position varies with the argument, and his science is terrible. His position does verify what I talked about in my initial post, however: somewhere, under all the smoke and mirrors, Jim's got an agenda. I'll admit I haven't waded through his thousands of words of obfuscation closely enough to identify it, but it's there.
Care to admit it publicly, Jim?
Posted by: Don Smith | Jul 14, 2006 11:03:45 AM
Not to speak for Jim, but if he shares MY agenda, which is, as the climatologists say, highly probable, it is this:
We do not believe that our lifestyle should be returned to hunter-gatherer status because of alarmist predictions, nor do we believe that the climate change we are seeing is sufficiently anrthropegenic to allow us to do ANYTHING to reverse the general trend.
I believe that we have done a hell of a lot of damage to our planet. I believe that we have collapsed many of our major fisheries. I believe we have developed areas that were once in balance but are now prone to wildfire, mudslide, and other environmental calamities (you know, rivers afire and all that).
But, unlike most here, I believe, for example, that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring has killed more people than Pol Pot. Her alarmist view of DDT, a nasty chemical, but profoundly effective at killing skeeters, has relegated Africa to a constant scourge of Malaria. DDT in local doses sufficient to kill off mosquito populations has no discernible effect on the thickness of bird eggs. It does, however, effect eggs when used like a sprinkler system, as we did, pouring 100s of times more than necessary into the environment.
Our view is that alarmism is horrible for the environment. We don't wish to kill the world. We live here. But the Eco-larmists swing the pendulum so far that to follow their advice would be to destroy our way of life.
Admittedly, we can all be more sustainable. Reduce, reuse, recycle, and all that. But we are simply to insignificant a species to think that we can turn down the planets temperature even if we wanted to, given the scope of the task. Maybe it's humility versus hubris. I still stand in a meadow in the Mt. Hood Natl Forest at night, look up, and feel small.
I do my part. But I don't think the Africans battling malaria on a daily basis are too thrilled with the West's fascination with alarmism.
That's my agenda.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 14, 2006 12:10:10 PM
Don, I appreciate your transparency. With comments like yours, a conversation feels possible. The bulk of your comments refer to ecosystem-level destruction, not global warming. I'm the first to admit that the environmental movement has largely put its foot wrong, taking folks like you who essentially support their cause and turning you into foes. But that's a slightly different conversation than the one about global warming.
On that point, you write: "We do not believe that our lifestyle should be returned to hunter-gatherer status because of alarmist predictions, nor do we believe that the climate change we are seeing is sufficiently anrthropegenic to allow us to do ANYTHING to reverse the general trend."
The extent to which we can reverse our damage is an open question. But that's very different from saying that, since the greenhouse gases are already in the atmosphere, we shouldn't worry about how many more we generate. The unambiguous finding of study after study is that continuing to produce greenhouse gases will worsen the problem geometrically.
I think you're also conflating the findings of scientific studies and the motivations of folks like me, for whom global warming is the key political issue of the day. I'm certainly not suggesting a return to a pre-industrial era. Those who are are as rare and wacky as so-called liberals who support terrorism. Everyone recognizes that industrialization revolutionized human life on this planet. But why does that mean we have to support the internal combustion engine? Surely our incredibly able scientists can figure out ways to generate power that is less polluting than using fossil fuels. To argue otherwise is just silly.
Current policy solutions exist to begin to address the worst causes of greenhouse gases that will neither cripple our economy or put us at a strategic disadvantage.
Posted by: Don Smith | Jul 14, 2006 3:32:28 PM
Jeff:
Fair enough, as to my conflating two arguments. I'll set that aside and assume I'm in error. But you state that your goal is to address the worst causes of greenhouse gases through policy. OK, then why are we allowing cars (like Jim's, sorry Jim) on the road - even with the best bumper stickers - that emit 1970's levels of emissions when today's cars are 90% cleaner. The governor scores points by trying to make the 10% emitters 10% cleaner while doing nothing about the beaters that cause 90% of our car-based pollution? That's politics that I can't applaud.
Hybrids are becoming popular because gas is expensive. Electric cars were promising, but apparently killed by Detroit. That's wrong. I'd LOVE to own an electric car. Powered by nuclear generated energy. That doesn't kill fish. I'm all about that.
But, the problem policy-wise is that we have these massive corporate subsidies (here's where I get your head nodding) for Detroit, who has massive political power to maintain the status quo. Ethanol, the single stupidest idea yet, also gets massive subsidies, making it look affordable, yet it produces less power (joules) than it takes to create and is, by some accounts, responsible for contaminating the Gulf of Mexico through the petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides used to create it. And yet Randy Leonard gets applause on this site for being forward-thinking in proposing a permanent 10% ethanol blend.
Here's an idea, how about Blue Oregon becomes committed to only applauding environmental decisions that ACTUALLY produce a net benefit to our environment rather than applauding anything that (seems to) stick a finger in the eyes of Bush or Big Oil (BOil). The thing that drives me nuts is this quest to score political points without earning them.
Ted has done nothing to stop global warming, but his feel-good, cost-bunches adoption of CA emissions standards makes him the bee's knees here. That's a load.
I support the market. I know that makes me a pariah. But I oppose the market players using political power to manipulate the market (corporate welfare, barriers to entry, regulation designed to help corner the market for one player (thanks, Wayne Scott)). I want my planet to be better than I left it, but these ideas the Left keeps coming up with are often counterproductive or marginally effective for a massive cost of compliance.
I don't even mind curbing CO2 emissions if it'll help, but I honestly think there's disagreement as to whether our CO2 emissions have a discernible effect such that a decrease in a manner that won't kill us would be detectable.
I don't know if you clicked through to this link on Advanced Fast Reactor Nuclear power plants, but it's fascinating.
/www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
Apparently, while Detroit was killing the most promising personal transportation option since internal combustion, Congress was killing the most promising energy production option since, well, peat moss.
Since this thread is dying (only you and I are now reading it), I hope you'll repost some of this as round 3 and see if we can generate a meaningful discussion among the broader populous again.
This truly has been a comfortable open discussion, the kind I prefer.
Posted by: Albert | Jul 14, 2006 3:40:50 PM
Since this thread is dying (only you and I are now reading it)
thread not dying, loved the comment about peat moss :)
perhaps some of us are just listening, certainly reading :)
Posted by: Don Smith | Jul 14, 2006 3:45:58 PM
Thanks, Albert. I love a zinger....
Anyway, looks like I botched the link. It's:
And I'm sure nationalcenter.org is some right-wing-funded anti France website, or something, but the FAQ above was really a fascinating read. Had nothing to do with global warming per se, but rather, what we can do with Nucyoolar Energy if we don't want nuclear waste and rogue nations getting spent fuel rods.
I didn't know any of this stuff, and I try to stay aware of geeky things like this.
Posted by: Mister T | Jul 14, 2006 5:24:53 PM
I agree with your above comments completely.
Everytime I pass an old beater (especially a '68 VW bus or bug with blue smoke coming out the tailpipe), I wonder why "government" hasn't forced/incentivized them to junk it. And I laugh out loud if it's sporting a "Love your Mother" or "Greenpeace" bumper sticker.
And there are PLENTY of Wealthy "progressives" that have no problem flying to Aspen, the Hamptons, Whistler, or Cabo for along weekend, and then jetting right back. Some of them even do it on (GASP) PRIVATE JETS!
Rather than forcing all automobile drivers to purchase ethanol or biodiesel blends, why hasn't the city converted their fleet to natural gas (NG)? How come Tri-Met hasn't converted all those particulate emitting diesel buses to NG or propane? Caterpillar and Detroit Diesel have been manufacturing NG commercial engines for at least 5 years.
BACK IN 1985, I owned a "flex-fuel" Chevy pick-up that would run on gasoline or propane: you could even switch from one fuel to the other while driving down the highway! Propane emits about 99% fewer particulates than diesel, and there is no discernible odor when driving/biking behind the vehicle. I don't know if the CO2 emissions are any lower.
Tri-Met just keeps on belching black smoke everytime they press on the accelerator? What impact do all those filthy diesel bus emissions have on metro air quality? And don't tell me they don't have enought money: if they can spend $40 million the transit mall or extend MAX lines all across the region, they could afford to upgrade their buses to run on NG or Propane.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jul 11, 2006 12:44:45 PM
So why do the deniers deny? To begin with, I think they, like many modern conservatives, have succumbed to the postmodern fallacy: since all reality is subjective, how can we possibly trust the incomplete research of climate scientists?
Post-modern? Reality is subjective? I think you're way over-analyzing it.
To me, deniers deny for two reasons. First, because there's economics involved. Truly addressing the problem of global warming in any meaningful way would require massive, trillion dollar changes in the world economy. This is too scary for nearly anyone to contemplate, not even for liberals.
Literally everything in the current way of life in industrialized nations, from mechanized agriculture, to the conduit of goods and services, to intra-national travel, depends on cheap, abundant, energy. Just imagining what life would be like under a $5/gallon carbon-tax (which is the only way to seriously change consumer behavior) is something people instinctively shrink from.
So they go to the second reason. Deniers deny - because they can.
It is remarkably easy to stick your head in the sand and deny the obvious. That's why 72% of Americans (which, by definition, must include half of the people voting Democratic) refuse to believe in the science of evolution.
Denial is just that. The facts are staring you in the face. It's just to painful to admit. I'm sure there's a country ballad about a cheating boyfriend in there somewhere. Certainly, it's easy to do with climate science.