Waxman-Markey update: A global warming crossroads?
H.R. 2454, a bill on global warming and climate and energy strategy, sits on a desk in House Energy and Commerce Committee room on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 18,2009, during a markup of the legislation. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Our nation is at a crossroads. We can continue to look the other way and leave these problems to our children, or we can adopt a new energy policy for America.
– Henry Waxman, chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Stories (or blog posts) about something or other being a crossroads on an issue are kinda risky. And they’re kind of a dime a dozen. We in the media tend to look for such things, I guess, and overdo it.
But I’m not sure that’s the case this time. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is huge — literally (932Â pages — see photo above) and figuratively — not to mention environmentally and economically.
There is tons of news coverage and even more commentary out there. The Associated Press has the basic goods here, explaining how the bill appears to be building enough support to pass out of committee this week. Chairman Waxman is predicting victory, though criticism from some industries and some in the environmental community is sharpening. There’s a summary of the bill here, and an interesting list of top 10 reasons to support it here. I also highly recommend my buddy Darren Samuelsohn’s ClimateWire summary, “Energy and Commerce panel’s Dems seek united front to pass climate bill.”
How about folks from coal country? I have not heard word from the United Mine Workers on its position on the current bill, but it appears that the National Mining Association continues to oppose it.
But Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., whose announced support last week for the bill was seen as one political key, said today:
Throughout the course of the negotiations, I have been in continuous discussions with a number of stakeholders including the coal industry, electric utilities and the United Mineworkers, and we are broadly in agreement that the legislation that is the product of our compromise should now move through the Energy and Commerce Committee to be considered in the full House of Representatives.
House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking Republican Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, right, speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, May 18, 2009, during the markup of legislation on global warming and climate and energy strategy. Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif. is at center, and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., listen as left. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Boucher explained that he’s been working closely with Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to amend the bill in ways that would protect the nation’s coal industry:
These goals are the preservation of coal related jobs, the facilitation of growing coal production, and keeping electricity rates affordable in regions like Southwest Virginia where most of the electricity is coal fired. The compromise we have now achieved is a major step toward meeting these goals.Â
Among the changes Boucher apparently was successful in obtaining:
– Language to give electric utilities 90 percent of their emission allowances without charge, with the goal being for state utility regulators to pass on those savings to consumers, thus helping to keep electricity rates down.
– A provision for 2 billion tons annually of offsets that enable electric utilities to invest in agriculture and forestry, including tropical rain forest preservation, as a means of meeting their emission reduction requirements under the law. This allows these utilities to continue using coal, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
–Â A program to accelerate the flow of federal funding for the latest generation of carbon capture and storage technologies. Under this measure, $1 billion annually will be devoted to the development of these technologies for a 10-year period, and estimates — according to Boucher –Â are that with this funding they will be available and reliable in 2020.
Importantly, while saying he would vote for the bill, Boucher said he planned to continue to work to further reduce the size of the carbon dioxide emissions reductions required in the short-term, or by 2020. Originally, the Waxman-Markey bill proposed cuts of 20 percent from 2005 emissions by 2020. That was dropped to 17 percent, and Boucher would like to see if further reduced, to 14 percent. This has been a big issue for the UMWA, which argues that the short-term emissions cuts must be relaxed to give the industry time to develop and widely deploy carbon capture and storage equipment.
Make no mistake — cuts of the greenhouse emissions from the coal industry are going to have to happen if we’re going to deal with climate change. Joseph Romm at Climate Progress has explained that the legislation’s 2020 pollution cuts would be equal to taking 500 million cars off the road — and double that figure by 2030. But don’t forget, as this Union of Concerned Scientists graphic shows, one 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant’s greenhouse emissions are equal to that of 600,000 cars.
And, while the changes Boucher worked out may help get support from coal-state lawmakers, they are also the same changes that have some environmental groups criticizing the legislation at this point. James Hansen, one of the nation’s top climate scientists, has come out saying he hopes the Waxman-Markey bill fails.
While some in the business community continue to attack the legislation, Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, notes that a number of major companies — Alcoa, American Electric Power, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, Nike, Shell Oil and Xerox, and most recently, Duke Energy, have said they won’t renew membership in the National Association of Manufacturers because of disagreements over climate change policies. (Many of these companies are part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, whose call for a reduction of greenhouse emissions of between 14 percent and 20 percent by 2020 was the starting point for the Waxman-Markey bill).
And also today, Knobloch’s group joined with a coalition of other organizations urging lawmakers to improve and then pass the Waxman-Markey bill. The Union of Concerned Scientists has explained how the free-emissions permits provisions of the bill could be improved, as well as outlined other ways to make the bill stronger.
In the end, one of the strongest statements in support of Waxman-Markey was today’s column in the New York Times by Paul Krugman:
It goes without saying that the usual suspects on the right have denounced Waxman-Markey: global warming isn’t real, emission limits will destroy the economy, yada yada. But the bill also faces opposition from some environmentalists, who are balking at the compromises the sponsors made to gain political support.
…So is Waxman-Markey — whose language was released last week — good enough? … The legislation now on the table isn’t the bill we’d ideally want, but it’s the bill we can get — and it’s vastly better than no bill at all.
After all the years of denial, after all the years of inaction, we finally have a chance to do something major about climate change. Waxman-Markey is imperfect, it’s disappointing in some respects, but it’s action we can take now. And the planet won’t wait.
24 comments
Cap & trade progress in Australia is an interesting development. Prime Minister Rudd ran as an anti-carbon candidate in 2007. He has announced the delay until at least 2011 for his trademark emission trading proposal, which is estimated to increase consumer prices 1.1% and reduce GDP growth 0.1% until at least 2050. Support diminishes as real world costs become clear, especially in the current economic environment.
So the legislation is close to perfect now; it will still possibly raise energy prices a little bit somewhere, though. We need to tweak it just a bit more, so that polluting inudustries causing climate change are completely unaffected by the legislation. And then we can save money and time by tossing the huge bill in the recycling bin, since if it does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it’s pointless. People don’t understand that the bill is SUPPOSED to increase the price of actions that cause higher emissions–like driving cars and burning coal. Allowing utilities to keep burning coal if they just buy offsets, where they pay someone elsewhere to do domething that supposedly reduces emissions, has a pretty poor history. Creating a cap-and-trade system allows players with lots of money and lobbyists and lawyers to make hefty profits, but it does very little to reduce the problem. Scientists are saying we’re running out of time to reduce emissions drastically enough to avert the worst consequences of climate change–we need serious, highly effective policy NOW.
To say that the bill is supported by “some environmental groups,” like NRDC and the rest of Climate Action Partnership, is to be excessively polite. These groups regularly sell their “green” credentials to any industry willing to pay the tab. That’s what the CAP was–a group of the fishnet-stockings type groups sitting down with polluting industries to see what they could come up with to be called a climate bill while affecting industry as little as possible, thus delaying real action and preserving profits a few more years.
Unfortunately for humans and other living things, these years are the last ones in which we have a chance of avoiding doing really drastic damage to the planet on which we all depend as a newborn depends on its mother. It’s easy to pretend it doesn’t matter, because of the long gap between emissions of greenhouse gases and their ascent into the upper atmosphere and gradual affect on climate. We’re now feeling only the first touch of the results of twentieth century emissions, and that mostly in the polar regions. But what we’re emitting now will have drastic consequences in twenty and thirty years, perhaps catastrophic ones in forty and fifty years…unless we take adequate action NOW, not in 2020 when it’s too late.
“A provision for 2 billion tons annually of offsets that enable electric utilities to invest in agriculture and forestry, including tropical rain forest preservation, as a means of meeting their emission reduction requirements under the law. This allows these utilities to continue using coal, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
These are not reductions. Under the best of circumstances they are avoided increases, which is not at all the same thing. Under the worst of circumstances they are just plain fraud. The reality will probably be closer to the latter.
The decision of the United States Congress to enact a path — whatever path — heading toward a low-atmospheric-carbon-emission future, is not being made because scientists or ordinary people have persuaded the Congress that it’s necessary to do so to literally save human civilization
Rather, Congress is acting primarily because science has proven to the satisfaction of most mega-rich corporations and banks (and secondarily, of the governments that help them to do business) that it’s necessary to do so to save human civilization.
Because the prime mover here is capital, no path that is not acceptable to capital has a chance of coming about.
The only thing that will move capital to support stricter emissions limitations sooner is data, of whatever sort, showing that they are necessary to protect against severe harm to capital’s interests.
That data is coming on stronger every year, and we can expect capital to react accordingly. Whether their actions are too little, too late, is a big question.
I could have sworn I posted a polite comment on this blog yesterday but it has yet to appear? Censorship in West Virginia?
So, these politicians, scientists, organizations and the media are following the UN IPCC’s 20-year path toward its long term goal. Do they know what they are doing? No, most are just going along with what they think everyone else is going along with. This seems to be Groupthink in action.
Remember, all of this is primarily based on predictions of the future “scenarios†by computer models, programmed by comparatively few scientists–while those “thousands†of scientists that agree with the IPCC are rarely model programmers. Indeed, climate study is a mix of scientific fields, and nobody fully understands the climate in its entirety. Thus, computers don’t understand it either.
Here’s a quote from the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report, after describing how their current models (24 or so) are now “better†than ones they had used for AR3:
“Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale problems also remain.â€
Followed by:
“The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change.†(AR4, 2007, Chapt. 8, p. 601)
Should we be basing 900+ pages of ever-lasting law, on computer models that produce “significant errorsâ€, “significant uncertaintiesâ€, and inabilities that “result from limitations in scientific understandingâ€?
Apparently that’s good enough for Waxman et al…but that is a leap of faith that I cannot make. It is a leap that many prominent scientists cannot make either, but they are widely cast-aside “contrarians” as the IPCC reports call them.
Yes, the UN reports calls skeptical scientists involved in the review process, i.e., those who do not “believe” what the UN already believes before the reports are researched and written…contrarians. I am actually surprised by the use of such negative language by the international body.
So, it seems nobody in the scientific realm or governmental power knows what is going to happen with the future climate, as it is said by the IPCC themselves that their own models cannot accurately predict the future. It is those reports most in Congress are following. The reports also say they do not understand portions of the science behind nature. Yet we are going to be taxed to extinction (a pun there) because of this paranoia over CO2, something life depends on.
Anything is possible in computer climate worlds, including mistakes. What’s impossible for me is believing they are worthy of being the basis of any laws, when the uncontrollable errors and the lack of understood science relating to climate is written about for all to see in the IPCC’s own reports. They plainly say they need new computer power and technology to improve their findings. Let them have their new computers–let the science have time to be properly settled, and do not pass laws yet. The effects of this bill, if it passes, could haunt us in so many ways that we cannot even see, that we will long regret the day this mistake was made. Like climate models, economic models are not reliable enough to predict the future either.
And yes, I hate Mountaintop Removal, hate stream degradation, hate out-of-control logging…but this is not about that–it is about the scientific process being bent way, way out of shape.
MX2,
You have stated some of the contrarian concerns on warming extremely well and the accuracy of the models has been my concern. Unfortunately I believe your post will be removed from this blog since GHG warming by this site is believed to proven.
MX2,
OK, where to start… first off, please lay off assuming that anyone who thinks the science shows something different than you is therefore some kind of religious zealot. There’s no need for that nonsense, and further comments along those lines will be removed without warning. OK?
Now, to what you’re trying to say:
First, “all of this” (the move toward the U.S. dealing with global warming) is not “based primarily on” computer models. Computer models are only part of the science that folks who advocate action on climate change cite.
For example, the IPCC concludes that:
“Warming of the climate is unequivocal, as is now evidence from OBSERVATIONS of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” That’s page 30 of the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report, available here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Those are scientific observations, not computer modeling. IPCC findings — and findings of all of the world’s major national scientific academies — also cite a variety of observations (not models) to back up the finding that most of the CO2 building is caused by human activities, primarily fossil fuel burning.
So, you’re simply wrong to say it’s all based on models. That’s false, and arguing action action by saying it’s all based on models is a dishonest argument.
Second, you’re wrong about the accuracy of the models. You pull out one or two selected statements from the IPCC reports in which they are explaining issues about the modeling. Those statements are frequently used to convince a public with little understanding of the models that climate change isn’t real.
But in fact, the models have proven to be very, very accurate.
The same models that are used to project future climate change and its impacts have proven very accurate in matching the observed climate in recent years. In the book, “Dire Precitions,” Michael Mann and Lee Kump have a chapter on this particular issue. It’s must reading.
Next, you skip over the entire section in Chapter 8 of the IPCC report in which scientists explain that they have “Considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above.”
For Coal Tattoo readers who want to see for themselves, the link to that is:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf. Start on page 600.
But here’s a summary of why scientists have “considerable confidence” in the climate models:
1. The models are based on physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.
2. The models have been able to accurately simulate important aspects of current climate, such as atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover.
3. Models have been able to accurately reproduce features of past climates and climate changes.
More detail on that is available at the link above, and it’s all in a nice two-page box that is pretty easy to understand.
And here’s the summary conclusion:
“…Confidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at large scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.
OK, now I’ve proven Casey wrong … and I think and hope Coal Tattoo readers will take a look at the whole picture of these models.
Ken.
Thomas Rudd,
Do you think the financial industry has a stake in seeing cap and trade pass? I believe banks and investment firms will be allowed to trade and to develop financial products based on emission allowances. It might even be seen as vital in order for utilities and others to hedge their carbon costs into the future. Obviously, this is a huge new market for them.
I have some sympathy with MX2’s comment. There are lots of questions and the models definitely have limits. The big picture suggests a strong, even certain, connection between CO2 and warming. The basic physics are relatively simple–the effect of increasing CO2 on climate was discussed by scientists clear back in the 1700’s. Evidence for a strong link between CO2 levels and climate exists in the geologic record and ice data.
But the details involve a lot of uncertainty. We still don’t completely know the details of the earth’s energy balance–where all the heat goes, let alone how that is changing. The actual forcing from CO2 is quite small, mainly because water vapor is much more dominant and a much more significant insulator in the atmosphere. Cloud cover–will it increase and where, some types of clouds increase albedo, some trap heat, most are somewhere in between. Carbon uptake in the oceans is hard to measure. How will conventional pollution (smog) affect climate and how will that change? We know relatively little about carbon in forests and even less about how that will change with higher CO2 levels. All those glaciers in retreating in Alaska and Europe–they’ve been doing that for 200 years. What does that mean? It goes on and on.
The only certainty is that we are changing our atmosphere and the uncertainty works both ways. The changes may turn out to be even worse than the consensus thinking.
I don’t like to hear that the science has been solved. We’ve just seen what groupthink did in the financial industry with the quants and their ideas about risk. Now we are committing to a huge climate bill that “facilitates growing coal production”, seems to grandfather (yet again) old polluting power plants by giving them allowances for free, allows utilities to offset billions of tons of CO2 emissions rather than cut them and keeps electricity rates artificially low. It would be hard for anyone with doubts about global warming not to have questions about this bill.
There was an interesting editorial in the Washington Post. For some reason, I had never thought, why not just cap?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051802647_pf.html
Casey: Yep, dangerous territory I see. Have you been in the corner watching?
Ken: It’s not where to start, its where to stop, as I do love discussing what is easily the greatest scientific debate of our time, next to the truly religious realm. From my end, it seems like the zealotry is easy to see for people who are following the subject. I seriously don’t think other people who think differently on matters of scientific process or finding are zealots, it is the occasionally extreme responses to alternative viewpoints that I find stunning. I’m an agnostic type, a Darwin fan, I love science and the search for the truth.
In your counter argument, while first working to lower the importance of climate models in reference to other information sources, groups, etc., I think your subsequent serious defense of climate models unintentionally supports my opinion that Climate models are plainly an important aspect of the hypothesis in question. They are used in convincing both politicians and the public that there is a global crisis requiring action of monumental proportions. The IPCC reports rely on the model scenarios to predict possible future outcomes that can only be remedied and mitigated by activity now. Hundreds of millions (billions now?) have been spent on them.
Concerning my chosen quotes, of course the IPCC reports support the models all around the quotes I used. That’s my point–right here in the report section which is all about the faith in the varous models they use, is an incredibly significant little truthful statement about the quality of the climate models, the computers’ abilities (or lack thereof), and admission of areas of “unknown science”. Sure surprised the heck out of me the first time I read the reports. It’s not me saying it…it’s the IPCC saying it…I’m just pointing to it.
There are other examples of suddenly crushing (scientifically) climate model issues, which should be more visible to the public and talked about more by all involved. Yet, they are buried in a sea of text which is mostly saying the opposite. It’s stranger than just GroupThink, it’s like GroupThink DoubleSpeak.
Most importantly, you are misrepresenting my argument–nowhere do I say the climate change is impossible, and in fact I’m of the geology science mindset that sees climate change occurring constantly all throughout earth’s history, currently, and in the future no matter if humans are around or not. Concerning humans and climate, we have handled extreme glacial periods and warm periods like today. We are technologically able to handle more, and solve more problems.
I believe the globe is warming too, as do most of the skeptical scientists, but I don’t think it is all because of man-made CO2. The scientists themselves cannot agree upon this–the level of effect…how much of a rise in temps can it cause–and that is a major part of the disagreement.
As for the “Observed” examples in the IPCC reports, with the quote, “Warming of the climate is unequivocal, as is now evidence from OBSERVATIONS of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.‖These observations are now, less than two years later, equivocal, not unequivocal, as these have all been turned upside down since the report was written. Isn’t there more total ice on the poles combined, than in any time in 30 years? Haven’t land and sea temperatures stabilized and even declined in the last few years? Isn’t global sea level rise about normal in the long term trend? I think the answer to each of these is “yes”.
Mr. Mann is of particular interest to me, not because of his book which I have not read yet, but because of his creation of the famous hockey-stick temperature graph, and the battle over whether it was (is, or again was) accurate or not. Apparently not, as held by an independent researcher and also a governmental audit, but even that is still in debate. In short, I think his past refusal to supply data and model coding to reviewers/auditors is a sign of questionable science. I should get that book though.
I have a longer summary of the known negative issues of IPCC climate models, and these are issues that even the IPCC reports mention. They do not agree totally with your list. Here’s mine:
1.) The 20-plus Global Climate Models (GCMs), AOGCMs and smaller models are all different, developed by different entities, some specializing in certain climate areas that others do not, yet still having recognized problems;
2) they are constantly changing on various levels, outside and inside, from the overall system, down to the smallness of a minor looking slice of code in a “model run” having a small detail altered;
3.) for historic temperature records they sometimes rely on questionable proxy data and methods of coordinating the data; 4.) in some cases they use “ad hoc” filler (or “flux”) based only on personal “objective decisions” by somebody, based on an opinion, or educated guess, not definitive facts;
5.) “forcing” of particular active elements to different degrees both positive and negative (clouds, water vapor, CO2 sinks, oceans, etc,) are of serious continual debate themselves yet the key players in what models conclude;
6.) “cherry picking” of data and historical data sources for model runs may be part of the process;
7.) something as simple as giving a different starting date for a model run, can produce very different end-of-run findings in the realm of temperature;
8.) they are run separately and also in repetition, producing a spaghetti of results on two different levels–initial output and then reuse through another model system which produces another spaghetti of possibilities, leaving a lot for possible results to choose from;
9.) model run findings are combined into various “ensembles” at the end, mixing and matching model systems having different parameters or “personalities” (my own term);
10.) the concept of a computer system, or combined computer systems of the highest quality, realistically modeling an accurate future of earth’s climate, (including temperature) in relation to even the short time scale of 25, 50, to 100 years is currently impossible and will remain so for a long time, as the climate system is inherently chaotic with too many little understood (or unknown) variables to understand at present.
Lastly, the end summary of climate models which you quote…I’m surprised you included that, as a part reads
“Models continue to have significant limitations, such as their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.”
I think that says it all right there.
Yet, its even better to note that clouds (and water vapor) are apparently among the most important feedback mechanisms in the climate system, temperature fluctuation, and relationships between CO2/greenhouse gases and future climate scenarios. If the 20-plus evolving models cannot deal with clouds, they are lacking important features for predicting a possible future that’s questionable to begin with. Again, the IPCC’s answer is a need for better computers. The admissions of errors remain buried in the text. Somehow, never is the over-arching hypothesis questioned, when it seem like it has every reason to be.
I rest my case, and my fingers. Casey! Run!
At least one of the above posts suggests a misconception about the nature of science. Science is not in the business of “proving” things; what science does is to provide EVIDENCE. Whether or not something has been “proven” is a matter of opinion–just like it is in a court of law, that’s why we have hung juries. One difference, though, is that while there IS a standard of “proof” in a courtroom, science doesn’t have one–so again, “proof” is in the eye of the beholder.
Secondly, it’s indisputable that the Earth’s average temp is rising, and the temp correlates well with the CO2 concentration, as it has for hundreds of thousands of years.
That said, if the available evidence is insufficient to make you guys believe that the current warming is caused by human activity, then don’t believe it. But in view of the consequences of the “do nothing” option if the available evidence IS correct, it seems to me prudent to err on the side of caution.
Great dialogue here. It’s good that lay people engage on these issues, and challenge the scientific consensus in whatever way they wish.
I don’t pretend to be able to follow the details of Red Desert’s or MX2’s “taking-apart” and questioning of the IPCC consensus analysis. There are plenty of experts who have spent a lot of time addressing these questions, and I’m satisifed that they have done so adequately.
I do tend to think that people who actually have the scientific training and advanced degrees (and peer-reviewedpublications) to prove it are to be presumed to be right, especialy when they reached a real consensus. Especially because, as a general rule, real scientists are skeptics first and foremost.
I agree that the forces of big wealth and capital are going to make money in connection with climate policy. Making money is a necessary part of getting things done in our world.
The question is why are they even bothering — and the answer is, because they have come to believe that if we don’t move pretty darn fast to severely restricting atmospheric carbon emissions, humanity is toast — including them!
And are they trying to make the process one where they make as much as possible? Oh, yeah.
MX2,
Vickie makes some very important points. The science provides evidence that policymakers can choose to accept or ignore — act on or not.
Any science-based public policy decision must deal with uncertainty, as uncertainty is part of science.
One example I like: Science can’t prove to a 100 percent certainty that if you don’t rock dust an underground coal mine that it’s going to blow up and kill some coal miners. But is that lack of 100 percent certainty cause to not have a rule requiring rock-dusting? I think not.
And I don’t think the uncertainties about the models used in climate science are enough for us to ignore the real dangers that continued inaction present for our society.
On the models, you are insisting on cherry-picking on the paragraphs that outline the uncertainties. You ignore the part where the IPCC says that, despite these issues, they believe he models are strong and useful. The fact that they outline the uncertainties helps make their cases — it shows that they are skeptical scientists who are being transparent about the problems and remaining questions in their work.
I think if you read Michael Mann’s book you would see that’s part of what it does … he outlines the uncertainties very clearly, and provides plain-language explanations of those uncertainties.
While I’m talking about Michael Mann — for those of you who don’t know, MX2’s reference to the “hockey stick” is about a graphic representation in a 2001 IPCC report of the temperature record of the planet going back I think 1,000 years. Some other scientists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, said Mann’s work was wrong — and the controversy has been cited repeatedly by climate change skeptics.
But, Coal Tattoo readers should know that a 2006 National Academy of Science report largely confirmed Mann’s findings. That report is available here:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
I’d also recommend Joe Romm’s post on this subject over at Climate Progress:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorry-deniers-hockey-stick-gets-longer-stronger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/
Finally, MX2 states that “scientists themselves cannot agree” on the extent to which human activities are contributing to climate change … I think that’s simply incorrect. The IPCC report makes it clear that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is VERY LIKELY due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
That term “very likely” means that the IPCC scientists are more than 90 percent sure this is the case.
That’s the fact — the scientific body appointed by nations around the globe to study the issue says it is 90 percent certain that most of the observed warming is caused by human activities (mostly fossil fuel burning).
If MX2 doesn’t think 90 percent certainty is enough … well, that’s up to him. But let’s not mislead people about what the science is currently saying.
Ken.
An addendum to my earlier post. To be clear: I am of the opinion that climate change due to our CO2 emmissions is likely dire.
We have this phenomonly complex environmental problem and now a very complicated bill in Congress that puts a lot of cards in unproven techological solutions like sophisticated financial markets and CCS. That’s a lot of uncertainty for anyone to deal with. Folks with questions deserved to be heard.
Beyond that, global warming has become much more than than a global environmental problem. It’s fraught with all kinds of meanings and politics. It’s become a kind of cultural character sucking up all the oxygen in the room.
One of the biggest uncertainties for me is what else are we missing? Is it really just about limiting carbon? We are making so many changes to the planet; the relentless conversion of biospheres to croplands, the dramatic changes we are making to the oceans, unheard of nitrogen levels everywhere from fossil fuels, fertilizers and sewage, the consequence of our demand for everything without limit.
Perhaps we’ve gone wrong with this whole debate. Rather than threating doom and trying to solve global warming (while insulating everyone form any consequence or pain), we should recoginze the tremendous opportunities, economic, security, environmental, to be gained by improving our energy policy.
It’s been a real pleasure to watch.
Ken, thanks for engaging.
Hmmm. OK. I’m going to divide this in a couple different responses, first to Vickie, then KW and the “Mann hockey-stick issue” later (that will be a fun one!).
Vickie: “Science is not in the business of “proving†things; what science does is to provide EVIDENCE. Whether or not something has been “proven†is a matter of opinion…”
MX2-No, I think the concept of science is different than you describe. For me, science starts out with a hypothesis, an idea about how to explain something accurately and in a provable way, and proceeds to accurately research, test, gather evidence, and skeptically hammer (with critical thinking) every factor in every way possible without having to rely on “opinion” when there is now evidence. A hypothesis can finally reach the level of “theory” if it has held up against skeptical questions, and also if there is now better counter hypothesis.
Even after reaching the level of theory, that theory will often eventually be replaced by a “paradigm shift” to a counter theory, and the process starts over. It is sort of like how even supreme court cases can be overturned years after they were considered perfectly correct by a slight majority.
I view Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has a flawed hypothesis, with many other countering-hypotheses available, but with the latter being pushed aside much too quickly.
Vickie: “…it’s indisputable that the Earth’s average temp is rising, and the temp correlates well with the CO2 concentration, as it has for hundreds of thousands of years.”
MX2-Over the last 20, 100, 1000, 2000, etc. years, the worlds temperatures have gone down, up, down, up, etc. The Earth’s temperature is currently not rising. I do not think I am wrong on that. Even the majority of IPCC models from the 2007 IPCC report did not predict the current situation accurately.
Before the last few years of declining global temperature, temperature had been rising since the 1980s to about 2000. Back through the 20th century there were more ups and downs. Since CO2 began to be measured, especially in the 1950s, the level of CO2 has steadily increased, but not the temperature.
The CO2 increase which is occurring is, in the last few years, not being followed by the temperature, thus the cause and effect do not always match.
Most important, historically, it appears that CO2 increases follow temperature rises, not that temperature goes up because of CO2. That is the opposite of what you hold. That’s what makes blaming CO2 solely for the temperature rises over the twentieth century (a rise of less than a degree overall) still a very questionable opinion.
Which leads to my opinion that the hypothesis holding that CO2 drives temperature change at least partially flawed and cannot be considered anywhere near accurate enough to pass major laws.
Arrrgh. Once I submit things, I then see my (minor) typos…never fails. Sorry about those.
MX2, I love your work.
While writing on Mr. Mann and the hockey stick debate, which I’ll be posting, I realized some very important things I’ve written in the above posts have not been disputed yet. These are very important to the entire debate. If I am not not shown to be very wrong on these, there is a problem with the AGW side.
First:
In defending the models, KW noted (#9) that, even though they are recognized as flawed, the IPCC also has “…OBSERVATIONS of increases in global aver air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.â€
To which I answered (#11): “These observations are now, less than two years later, equivocal, not unequivocal, as these have all been turned upside down since the report was written. Isn’t there more total ice on the poles combined, than in any time in 30 years? Haven’t land and sea temperatures stabilized and even declined in the last few years? Isn’t global sea level rise about normal in the long term trend? I think the answer to each of these is “yesâ€.—end quote. If the answer is not verifiably “Noâ€, then the IPCC and KW are very wrong on that issue. And, it’s important.
Second:
Above, Vickie (#12) mentions key issues about the science (methods) and CO2 (it is, and always has, caused warming, case closed). This defends the IPCC reports accuracy. KW in #14: “Vickie makes some very important points. The science provides evidence that policymakers can choose to accept or ignore — act on or not.†I have explained why I believe Vickie’s points, thus then KW, TR, Red D. (sorry bout that) are wrong in supporting those points, and should all rebut me with current (2009) information as to why I am wrong about methodology and CO2 levels vs. temperature (current and historically). If I’m wrong about basic facts I want to know, as I am open minded to changing my belief, as all argumentative folks should be. If I’m not wrong, then KW, V, TR, Red D, etc., are.
In other words, KW agrees with Vickie without question, and also the IPCCs statement on “OBSERVATIONS…†is important to KW’s defense of the overall IPCC science. However I have refuted both with essentially directly opposite opinion (based on what I think are current scientifically observable facts, i.e. evidence, and arguable to conclusion within this thread). This is where I should be shown I am wrong, or, there are plain problems in the AGW hypothesis, and fans of it are ignoring the basics of the science as it is progressing.
Casey: Keep the car running, you never know when we’ll have to escape. I’d like to say that KW has been very good to allow this debate to continue this far. Next, Mann and the hockey schtick.
MX2,
As I mentioned in a private e-mail message, please — if you are going to take us down the denier route — provide citations and live Internet links for where you are getting your information. Without such citations, there is no way for readers (or me) to really understand what you’re saying and decide if you are right or wrong.
Unfortunately, on the major points you are raising, you’re wrong. I’ll address the three major ones that you complained no one has refuted and refute each one (in doing so, I think this also refutes the point you’ve been trying to repeatedly argue, that the world actually isn’t getting warmer).
Hang on dear readers, here goes:
1. Isn’t there more total ice on the poles combined, than in any time in 30 years?
I don’t believe this is the case.
Climate deniers and skeptics like to point to measures of polar ice area, which indeed indicates growth in the extent of ice over certain time frames. For more, see this post on the climate skeptic blog, Watts Up with That?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/08/polar-ice-worries-north-and-south/ or from this site, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
However, a broader view of Arctic sea shows that this part winter had the fifth lowest total area of the arctic covered by ice since scientists began tracking it 30 years ago. See this article from Techworld, which cites the NASA data on this issue:
http://www.techworld.com.au/article/298362/nasa_satellite_shows_arctic_sea_thin_ice_–_literally
More on this from Andy Revkin at The New York Times, http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/ice-retreat-in-arctic-misses-last-years-mark/
And you can look at the polar ice area data yourself here, at the National Snow and Ice Data Center Web site, http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
But, the more important thing here is that the more meaningful measure of the polar ice is volume, not area.
In the Arctic, 2008 set a record low for sea ice volume, according to this announcement from that same National Snow and Ice Data Center, http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html.
Read commentary about this from Joseph Romm, http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/02/nsidc-stunner-arctic-ice-at-likely-record-low-volume/ and http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/13/thin-ice-free-arctic/
And, recent peer-reviewed science shows that the Antarctic ice sheet is melting much faster than anyone expected:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/abs/ngeo102.html
There’s more about Antarctic ice loss here,
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html
2. Haven’t land and sea temperatures stabilized and even declined in the last few years?
You’re asking the wrong question. Looking at “the last few years” is not an especially helpful exercise, according to scientists who study these issues. You need to look at the longer trend.
Global temperatures have risen just under 1 degree C since the mid-19th century, when modern measurements began. And, the rate of doubling has more than doubled over the past 25 years. See page 36 of Mann’s book, Dire Predictions (Hey MX2, I’m allowing you to have this debate, and engaging it it myself — are you reading any of the material I’m referring to?).
As Joe Romm explains:
Climate is about long-term trends. Perhaps the most interesting fact is that 2008 is on track to be almost 0.1°C warmer than the decade of the 1990s as a whole – and warmer than any year of last century beside (the El-Niño-enhanced) 1998.
(See this blog post: http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-2008-makes-this-hottest-decade-in-recorded-history-by-far/).
As for the 2009 data you ask for, try this … we just finished the 5th warmest April on record:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/19/noaa-fifth-warmest-april-on-record/
3. Isn’t global sea level rise about normal in the long term trend?
Here’s what the IPCC says (this is page 30 of the Synthesis Report, available here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf).
“Increases in seal level are consistent with warming. Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003, and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003.”
So, the rate of increase doubled…
BUT, the IPCC cautions, “Whether this faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the long-term trend is unclear.”
Still, the IPCC reported, “Since 1993, thermal expansion of the oceans has contributed about 57 percent of the sum of the estimated individual contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and ice caps contributing about 28 percent and losses from the polar ice sheets contributing the remainder.”
There’s more about this issue again available from Joe Romm’s blog, http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/01/jpls-new-climate-website-yes-sea-level-rise-has-accelerated/.
In addition, the IPCC (in its more detailed report on the physical science issues, here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf) said this:
“There is high confidence [That means scientists believe there’s an 8 out of 10 chance it’s correct] that the rate of sea level rise
has increased between the mid-19th and the mid-20th
centuries. Sea level change is highly non-uniform spatially,
and in some regions, rates are up to several times the
global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling.
There is evidence for an increase in the occurrence of
extreme high water worldwide related to storm surges, and
variations in extremes during this period are related to the
rise in mean sea level and variations in regional climate.”
The IPCC continued:
“The rise in global mean sea level is accompanied by
considerable decadal variability. For the period 1993 to
2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations
with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1, signifi cantly
higher than the average rate. The tide gauge record indicates
that similar large rates have occurred in previous 10-year
periods since 1950. It is unknown whether the higher rate
in 1993 to 2003 is due to decadal variability or an increase
in the longer-term trend.
“There are uncertainties in the estimates of the contributions
to sea level change but understanding has significantly
improved for recent periods. For the period 1961 to 2003,
the average contribution of thermal expansion to sea level
rise was 0.4 ± 0.1 mm yr–1. As reported in the TAR, it is
likely that the sum of all known contributions for this period
is smaller than the observed sea level rise, and therefore it
is not possible to satisfactorily account for the processes
causing sea level rise. However, for the period 1993 to
2003, for which the observing system is much better, the
contributions from thermal expansion (1.6 ± 0.5 mm yr–1)
and loss of mass from glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland
and Antarctic Ice Sheets together give 2.8 ± 0.7 mm yr–1.
For the latter period, the climate contributions constitute
the main factors in the sea level budget, which is closed to
within known errors.”
Ken.
It is interesting that MX2 insists on using phrases like “open-minded” and “basics of good science” while violating those goals through use of selective interpretation and cherry-picking data, always presented in a way to justify a pre-conceived point. Repeated references to things like “the last few years of declining global temperature” illustrate classic examples of taking data out of context. The global record high temperature occurred in 1998, during an El Nino year, and most of the years since then have been near records. By describing these near record temperatures as “the last few years of declining global temperature”, the writer implies that things have returned to normal and the planet is cooling. This is simply an inappropriate use of the data. He criticizes Mann for the “hockey stick” temperature graph because Mann did not extend the time line far enough, but then relies on an even mroe narrow use of the same flawed approach for claiming that temperatures are declining.
The real issue for skeptics of anthropogenic global warming is the recognition of anthropogenic global warming as a scientifically valid description of climate implies that, if humans caused the warming, humans should fix it. This will inevitably mean changes in the economic prospects for the fossil fuel industry. It leaves us with two choices. Either we can preserve the releatively few existing jobs in the fossil fuel industry, at the expense of everyone in future generations, or we can restrict those jobs and prevent adverse effects on future generations. Almost any moral person would agree that it would be short-sighted to accept the greed and selfishness of a few in exchange for the future welfare of the many. Hence, those few who insist on maintaining the status quo are left with developing phony arguments that such restrictions on pollution will cost everyone today for dubious benefits in the future. These arguments are inevitably driven by a desired rsult, not by observation of existing facts. They inevitably involve cherry-picking only the favorable data instead of a broad “weight-of-evidence” approach that considers all available data. The source of these arguments comes, not from the preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific literature, but from a few think tanks and web sites that specilize in developing a few key sound bites. I am a regulare reader of a half dozen scientific journals, and none of these arguments about “global cooling” ever appear in reputable journals, it would not pass peer-review.
But the real problem for the proponents of the fossil fuel status quo is that the economics don’t work for them either (unless they again insist on using only the same kind of one-sided, all costs and no benefits analyses). Yes, there will be a loss of jobs in fossil fuel industries, but this is already being balanced by increased employment in renewable energy industries. Yes, fossil fuel prices will go up, but this leads to increased efficiencies and new technologies.
A great case in point. The City of Morgantown in 2007 passed a resolution to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to a level 6 % below their level of 1990 (essentially doing their share to implement the Kyoto Protocols.) Last night, the City approved a contract for energy efficiency improvements that will largely meet that goal. How much more will it cost? Well, actually the City will save money doing this. While the naysayers are complaining that it is too expensive, it will destroy the economy, and it can’t be done, Morgantown did it, and they create new private sector jobs and save the taxpayers money in the process.
Thanks Ken for hanging in there and debating this. I am going to try to back out of this hot place and jump in the car with Casey. You and I both are out of time to continue this thread at this scale. As I stated up this thread, it’s easy to debate these things, but where to stop is the hard thing.
This debate has made its way from the Waxman bill, based on a discussion developing out of my concerns about IPCC climate models, and quoting the IPCC report’s own (usually ignored by many) descriptions of errors and faults. Ken (KW) responded, among other ways, with the argumentative counter that in even with the model problems, the “Observations†were alone enough to trust the models. The IPCC quote on observations was:
“Warming of the climate is unequivocal, as is now evidence from OBSERVATIONS of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.â€
I denied these observations were correct even now (in 2009), about two years since they were written, so both the climate models and the observations as held were now equivocal, or arguable, as the current data doesn’t seem to fit the 2007 AR4 Report. If Ken, et al, couldn’t prove me wrong, there were problems with the AGW side.
Here are the three issues KW covers above, and my response.
1. “Isn’t there more total ice on the poles combined, than in any time in 30 years?â€
I point to “total ice on the poles combinedâ€. It reads at the bottom (highlights are mine) about the NOAA/NCDC data for March 2009 at the link http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418090255.htm
“Arctic sea ice coverage was at its sixth lowest March extent since satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Average ice extent during March was 5.85 million square miles (15.16 million sq. km), 3.7 percent below the 1979-2000 average. Arctic sea ice usually reaches its maximum extent in March, and retreats to its annual minimum extent during September. March Arctic sea ice extent has decreased at an average rate of 2.7 percent per decade since 1979.†[That itself is somewhat misleading, as it is recovering nicely so far this year.-MX2]
“Antarctic sea ice extent in March was at its fourth-greatest level of the 31-year observational record. Antarctic sea ice extent reached 15.8 percent above its 1979-2000 average. Since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent for March has increased at an average rate of 4.7 percent per decade.â€
So, by that NOAA/NCDC source, the combination of the north and south polar ice cap “extent†has been increasing over the last 30 years. The north is below (but coming back to near) its 1979-2000 level (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/nsidc_n_timeseries_052109.png), while the south pole has been increasing in its extent so much that the combined result of both north and south poles is an overall increase in extent (north decreasing 2.7 percent per decade, south increasing 4.7 percent per decade) as noted in the NOAA data.
I believe I am correct, using the same NOAA sources as KW does for temperatures. Somebody explain if not.
2. “Haven’t land and sea temperatures stabilized and even declined in the last few years?â€
First, Ken, I want to point out that in reference to above KW#21 where you stated: “Global temperatures have risen just under 1 degree C since the mid-19th century, when modern measurements began.†And also “Unfortunately, on the major points you are raising, you’re wrong. I’ll address the three major ones that you complained no one has refuted and refute each one (in doing so, I think this also refutes the point you’ve been trying to repeatedly argue, that the world actually isn’t getting warmer).â€
You have been over-reacting thoughout this and reading past (or missing) what I’m saying and giving my lowly opinions on. For clarification, I already stated my opinion concerning misquoting me in my earlier post #11, where I also (defensively) clearly described my thinking [new bolds]:
“Most importantly, you are misrepresenting my argument–-nowhere do I say the climate change is impossible, and in fact I’m of the geology science mindset that sees climate change occurring constantly all throughout earth’s history, currently, and in the future no matter if humans are around or not….I believe the globe is warming too, as do most of the skeptical scientists, but I don’t think it is all because of man-made CO2. The scientists themselves cannot agree upon this–the level of effect…how much of a rise in temps can it cause–and that is a major part of the disagreement.â€
Did everybody read that part?
So, I have not been “repeatedly†arguing that “the world actually isn’t getting warmerâ€. I said that it is currently stalled or decreasing slightly. CURRENTLY STALLED AND DECREASING SLIGHTLY. Here’s a link to http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ (with a nice graph) who handles a portion of the satellite readings, along with a good news article from last year spelling it out nicely http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html I think these scientists’ viewpoints are valid. Throw in the current unexpected Solar minimum of historic levels and you have a decline. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm Here’s NASA’s interesting statement on that page “Modern technology cannot, however, predict what comes next. Competing models by dozens of top solar physicists disagree, sometimes sharply, on when this solar minimum will end and how big the next solar maximum will be.†Am I crazy or does this not mean they don’t have a clue as to what the Sun, very important to our long-term climate, will do?
This is where the terminology must be watched, and why the overall debate is often thrown off by mixing terms improperly. I’ve been challenging your concept of the climate model accuracy by saying that, unlike the IPCC AR4 “observation†claims used to dismiss the climate models’ problems, the earth temperature has reached an unexpected stabilized trend, i.e., recognized only since the report was written and released in 2007. Not making false claims here.
Yes long trends are important.. The shortest “trend†for climate (not weather) is hardly 10 years, and even that can certainly be argued about as it is so short. Thirty years is better, 1000 years great, etc. (again, I like the longest trends, i.e., geologic time scale, as I’ve stated). The longer trends covering human history to me make current global warming and climate change nothing new at all. Climate change was destroying towns 600 years ago in Britain for gosh sakes http://www.farshores.org/n8grave.htm, I’m saying climate change is quite common, but unpredictable uncontrollable. Changing climate is not a new discovery in human history; rising and falling temperature is not a new discovery in human history; humans play a role in changing the climate on a some scale (which I think is minor, except in the case of things like Mountaintop Removal, which I hate), which has been known by historians for a long time, but, all this is being treated like it is something new.
I also find merit in the possibility that the warming of the twentieth century in general following the trend up from the “Little Ice Age†of the 17th and18th centuries (an extended cooling trend). Back further to the 10th and 12th centuries there was an extended warming trend (the Medieval Warming Period). Going back thousand of years you can find major climate change going on in various parts of the world, all without human-made CO2 playing a role. These are events in the realm of the historical and archaeological record, not cherry picked proxy data put into some climate model and squirted out the other end.
3.“Isn’t global sea level rise about normal in the long term trend?â€
I will be the first to tell you to never to by a house by the ocean or live in a city at sea level or near to it, weather the sea level is rising, or falling, and expect it to be there for eternity. The sea has been rising since the last Ice Age, and everybody has known that for a long time before “global warming†was a buzz word. Apparently there is no accelerated sea level rise over the 20th century information from the IPCC AR3 (TAR). “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Ocean/sea_level.html If it has rising since 2003, then it is not a long enough trend to be significant.. In the long-term trend on the following graphs, sea level rise trend is generally stabilized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
I’d say that equals “about normal in the long-term trend†as I stated.
Unknown Ocean science reported since 2007 that effect models
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
Volcanoes under the Artic Ocean http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=81bb2fd3-63f1-476f-b0be-f48c0dc90304
From the Washington Times last week, concerning the Maldeves Islands, “Sea level threat revised†http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/22/sea-level-threat-revised/
Climate Model Problems
BBC News.â€Climate Models No Model for Success†May 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7381250.stm
BBC News, IPCC Process Problems and Model problems “No Consensus of IPCC’s Level of Ignoranceâ€. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
A funny one on models from 1933: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/11/21/long-distance-weather-forecasts-now-made-by-machine/
Michael Mann and Co.
Ken, send me a copy of that fine book and save paper…I’ll return one your way…
The archive at ClimateAudit, which includes the Wegman Report on the Hockey Stick graph: http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
This gives a great view into the more recent Hockey Stick debate, how it came back to life, and the oddities of peer review, journals, the IPCC, and the world of academics. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
OK Ken, et al, new guy, etc. that’s my response. I don not think I’ve been proven wrong here, you can come right back at throw a verbal chair at me, which I’ll take as Casey and I speed off, but at least I think you may now have a better understand my disagreements with the “man-made global warming†hypothesis, and the personal opinion that the debate is far from settled, even though we are told it is.
And yes, I’d like to talk in the future more about the AR4. I will try to keep the rest of my posts small, and linked nicely.
Again Ken, thank you a ton for wanting to discuss this. I love Coal Tattoo and I think it’s a great thing in the battle against the removal of WV’s mountains, water problems, pollution, etc. I’m still an environmentalist, just not the kind that is behind the “CO2 is the sole cause” angle.
Casey, hit the gas! Thanks for the ride!
Epilogue:
There he sat, back home at the overheated computer, wonder if it was supposed to rain again tomorrow.
Sorry to be long in responding; have been away.
In response to MX2:
(”For me, science starts out with a hypothesis, an idea about how to explain something accurately and in a provable way”)
A hypothesis is an idea whose validity can be TESTED. “An apple a day keeps the doctor away” could be used as an hypothesis, for example. Suppose you did test it, you did everything right, and at the end of your experiment your statistical test said there was a 90% probability your hypothesis was true. Certainly that constitutes EVIDENCE that the hypothesis is true, and for some people, it’s good enough evidence to constitute “proof.” For others, it isn’t. That’s why it’s a matter of OPINION as to whether something’s been proven.
In science, a “theory” is an EXPLANATION of some observed aspect of the natural world–e.g. the “germ” theory of disease. We know, beyond any doubt, that certain diseases are caused by microorganisms to which we collectively refer as “germs.” The “germ theory of disease” is an overarching explanation for how this occurs.
[…] ::THE LOOK - adventures in rock and pop fashion:: » Explosion and Lacy Lady: When Terry took a tripPopMatters Holiday Gift Guide - Popped CultureBlogs @ The Charleston Gazette - » Waxman-Markey update: A global warming crossroads? […]
Leave a Comment