1

Our climate may be warming but even if it is,can anyone really prove it is being caused by something that we can control. I read that the climate on Mars also shows indications of a warming trend and I want to know how my SUV is causing that.

2

No doubt people are going to disagree with you on this and argue with your rationale.

Whether you are right or not, the last sentence is all that needs or should be agreed upon.

Excellent reflection Joe!

3

I find the "trust" people place in science intersting since there is virtually no time in history that it has not been contradicted by the next generation. Why do we "trust" it so much? It seems to me this is a matter of having no other alternative.

4

There's a lot in what you say.

Nonetheless, even if global warming had never been thought of, wouldn't we be better off using less petroleum for fuel? There is a finite amount available.

Some of the opposition to taking action on global warming is just wanting to live the same old way, I think, and I don't think we can have a transportation "system" like this forever.

5

Joe,

Amen on poverty.

Global warming. Warm compared to ... what exactly?

Pull out your map and look at Greenland. The Norsemen named it that about 1,000 years ago. Supposedly they grew crops there. Obviously, they named it Greenland for a reason that is not obvious to us today. It must have been warmer than today, right?

We can only guess from tree rings and ice core samples, but it looks like the earth was warmer back then than in the Middle Ages.

So are we warming now, or are we returning to normal temperature?

Regarding consensus science, if you look up Global Cooling in Wikipedia you see some interesting items from the '70's, such as this:

----
April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine. Titled "The Cooling World," it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change" and pointed to "a drop of half a degree [Fahrenheit] in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968." However, the Newsweek article did not make "environmentalist" claims regarding the cause of that drop. To the contrary, it stated that "what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery" and cited the NAS conclusion that "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions." Rather than proposing environmentalist solutions, the Newsweek article suggested that "simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies" would be appropriate
-----

The scientific debate on global warming does not seem well covered in the media. It is accepted as fact that there is a greenhouse effect. I think everyone needs to read articles carefully and critically. For example, this article questions some of the accepted stories about temperatures rising in Antarctica

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb111004.shtml

This opinion piece also questions global warming

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

Nevertheless, we should all do our part to reduce the use of fossil fuels. I ride my motorcycle to work when it is warm enough.

Fortunately, China probably pumps enough particulates into the air to blot out the sun and cool the earth, to offset the greenhouse effect. [that was an attempt at humor]

6

regarding Greenland, it was named such in spite of the hostile climate to attract more settlers. See wikipedia.

7

As a scientist, I shout "Amen!" to the Crichton quote.

8

"I find the "trust" people place in science intersting since there is virtually no time in history that it has not been contradicted by the next generation."

This is an incredible misrepresentation of scientific progress. Sure, there have been setbacks, frauds, and failed hypotheses, but the history of science is more accurately characterized as one of steady, often spectacular, progress. Compare the science of today to that of one hundred years ago. Then go back another hundred years. Keep going. See what I mean?
People trust science for the same reason they invest in stocks: time and results have shown that it is best to do so. It is the distrust of science that I find interesting.

9

Hey there,Joe (sounds like a catchy name for a song)

Have you listed the fallacy mentioned by Creighton, the fallacy of consensus:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled."

I really like that one.

10

As I understand it, implementing KYOTO would net us a degree of temperature. Now let me welcome you to the real world. The business effected would simply relocate to China, India, Mexico or the Pacrim and our one degree of saving would wind up being a degree in the other direction.

11

The American Meteorological Society consistently states that accurate temperature readings date back only to the 1880's. And those are surface temps at that. So how are we draw any king of conclusion about a 6,000 year old planet on 130 years of data?

What if the sun is just getting hotter? If you are going to excuse scientists from the scientific method, you may as well embrace evolution.

12

More pseudo scientific blarney. And politicized, too. Somehow I expected better out of the Evangelical community. They did make the MSM, btw, which may have been their only reason.
As M. Crichton maintains we need real science. We also need real Christianity. This isn't either.

13

I am always amazed at how people who claim to decry "postmodernism" are often those who try to consider science as something that is amenable to the technques of postmodernism.

Crichton, of course, doesn't really have a professional scientific background at all, and so can't -or won't- understand that when scientists say there is a consensus on global warming, that merely means:

The theoretical framework and models that give rise to global warming, and observations of the affects therein, do account for much of what we're seeing.

It is absurd to hear somebody like Joe Carter inveigh against poverty and spending money, when he clearly supported - and no doubt voted for- the most (or second most- Ronald Reagan ran up some numbers here) profligate, imperialist, impoverishing regime in the history of the United States.

Finally, the lack of logic here is astounding.

Poverty is a serious issue indeed - but so is our depletion of fossil fuels, as well as an economic model that presupposes the existence of inefficient use of those fuels to "create wealth."

We can addres both poverty and energy gluttony.

Just not with the loonies and anti-science folks in charge right now.

14

Giraffe,

Regarding Greenland, keep reading in the Wikipedia entry:
---
The fjords of the Southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period.
---
So there may have been some marketing hyperbole, but the point I made about it being warmer is probably still valid.

15

Mumon,

You make some interesting points. I believe that Crichton's background is medical, so that may be his bias. There are many examples in medicine of the consensus being incorrect. A recent example is the erroneous belief that stress causes stomach ulcers. As you know, an Australian scientist, who recently won the Nobel prize for discovering that bacteria causes ulcers, was ridiculed for many years for his theories. IIRC he went so far as to give himself an ulcer.

I think the fallacy is that the media ASSUMES that the cause of global warming is well understood, and reports it that way. There may be agreement among most scientists who are qualified to speak on this issue that the earth is getting warmer. I am not aware that there is agreement on the cause of the warming trend. That is the key issue.

Regarding public policy, we have to remember that we do have scarce, finite resources on our planet. IF the Kyoto agreement requires that we have to allocate a disproportionate amount of resources to reducing the emission of "greenhouse" gasses, then it does affect our ability to eradicate poverty. As stewards of the planet, we have to be wise in the allocation of resources. We can address both issues, but bad science could lead us to devote an inappropriate amount of resources to lowering global temperatures, when we are not certain of the cause.

I am somewhat discouraged by the recent attempts to censor NASA scientists by the untruthful agency PR person who was a political appointee. We need an honest scientific debate on this issue, not censorship.

16

"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

This is only partly true. These scientists would be forgotten, not "great" had their ideas not formed the nucleus of the next consensus. All this decrying of scientific consensus seems to support placing any crackpot "theory" on an equal footing with established science. If an idea has merit, it will eventually prevail against any consensus it seeks to undermine. This is what made those great scientists great: they had to overcome opposition through merit, not misplaced charity.

17

As a scientist, there is one absolutely essential feature that consensus provides: funding. The scary thing about Crichton's quote, is not that it is novel or undisputed, but that it needed to be said at all. Science is coming to mean "the study of what can be funded". The long affair of science with government, beginning with the Manhatten project, is today bearing this bitter fruit. The irony should not be lost, that those who rejected the stultifying dogmatism of religion (as in l'affaire Galileo), are now found embracing the stultifying dogmatism of politics.

There is much more that can and should be said here, about the tendency to address marginally understood issues, to settle unsettled debates, to jump to conclusions, all under the caveat "consensus". We as scientists suffer from the same instant gratification problem as society at large, we want instant fame, we want answers now, we would rather be notorious than right. It isn't just global warming, but it is on all topics judging from the rash of retracted Science articles, and is even true of Nobel prizes judging from the age and citation of recent prizewinners. Despite the loud protestations from "modernist" scientists, we are all post-moderns now.

Finally, AIDS is a post-modern plague whose root causes are as much about ethics as they are about viruses. And it is precisely for those ethical reasons that it has become the poster child for Western concern whose post-modern response has been a completely materialist and mostly ineffectual solution. (Uganda's ABC policy includes ethics and remains the most successful response in all of Africa.) Read Lucretius' "de Natura" (the founding document of materialism circa 50BC), especially the chapter on how to avoid the temptations of Venus. Materialism's response to ethical challenges has remained unchanged for over 2050 years! So it is with concern that I read your last sentence saying that poverty is the major problem in the world to combat. This is once again, a materialist analysis of a problem with huge ethical dimensions.

For decades USAID has poured into Haiti, the poorest nation in the western hemisphere and a scant 500 miles from US mainland, without making a dent in the staggering poverty there. In fact, if my 12 week visit in 1981 can be generalized, it has made things worse. If we can't solve poverty in our own backyard, what right do we have to export failed solutions to Africa? We must stop viewing the world through these materialist blinders and recognize the poverty of soul that expresses itself as poverty of possessions. Unless both are addressed there is little hope to rescue either.

18

Rob Ryan

I know science grows and changes. Duh! but why is it so often assumed to be correct now? would it not also have been assumed to be right 20 years ago or 40 or 200? So why do we so "trustingly" believe it is right now? Unquestionably often!

19

What's quite predictable is the overrated Crichton essay as well as the Newsweek article from the 1970's being trotted out in any debate about global warming. I've yet to see any evidence that the 'global cooling' hypothesis was ever attracted a major mainstream consensus from the scientific community. In fact the only thing that ever seems to get cited when 'global cooling' is mentioned is that one article from Newsweek.

Second Crichton's point about some great scientists bucking consensus is also overrated. At any given time there are hundreds of people 'bucking consensus'. In order to go from crank to great scientist one must convince the 'consensus' through the presentation of objective evidence, until that happens the person is just another crank unless your knowledge of his field is so great that you can see the evidence & logic is on his side.

In other words the Chricton argument isn't an argument at all. Instead of saying global warming is incorrect for XYZ reasons it dismisses it with a wave of the hand noting that the 'consensus' has been wrong before so whose to say they aren't wrong now? Congrats Joe, you've just startd down the yellow brick road of extreme relativism!

20

But even the less far-fetched proposals can have a devastating impact. For example, there was much hand-ringing over the U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol even though it would have cost $150 billion annually and have only delayed the warming expected in 2100 by six years. For half that cost, notes Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, we could provide clean drinking water, sanitation, and basic health care and education for every person in the world.

Errr the US did refuse to sign Kyoto. Did we provide clean drinking water, sanitation and basic healthcare and education for every person in the world? I must have missed it. Damm that CNN!

21

rdsmith3 (Bob)

IF the Kyoto agreement requires that we have to allocate a disproportionate amount of resources to reducing the emission of "greenhouse" gasses, then it does affect our ability to eradicate poverty. As stewards of the planet, we have to be wise in the allocation of resources. We can address both issues, but bad science could lead us to devote an inappropriate amount of resources to lowering global temperatures, when we are not certain of the cause.

Actually they're not mutually exclusive; remember the US is the most profligate energy user per capita on the planet.

The real issue- and I suspect that Joe Carter will recoil as though he were a Holy Water Sprinkled possessed Reagan MacNeill when I say that the answer's actually quite simple:

Going back to the 1970s, but accelerating since the Reagan years, it has been manifestly apparent that there's been structural deficiencies in our economy, due completely to our over-reliance on imported petroleum.

Now we already know how to deal with structural deficincies in our economy.

We had one before.

These deficiencies mean -as is self evident- that the laissez-faire capitalism advocated by Republicans and their shills simply can't address them.

But there is a way to do it.

We did it before.

We need something on the order of or greater than the New Deal to do it.

We've got the money to do it, too.

Or should I say the wealthiest do.

And we're going to, also.

Because China's already doing it. The UK is doing it. Sweden is doing it. Japan's doing it.

And our choice is simple and stark: either we do it too, or we become like Peru or someplace like that.

22

Rick: "So why do we so "trustingly" believe it is right now? Unquestionably often!"

Because it is unquestionably often right. I for one do not camp out by the radio or follow every scientific study with bated breath. When they said butter was bad for you, I thought, "Hmmm...I really like butter; let's wait and see." Lo and behold, another study indicts margarine, and butter isn't so bad. But when my doctor says, "Eat less fat and fewer calories overall, exercise, and don't smoke" I have a great deal of confidence in his advice because it is in line with longstanding *gasp!* scientific consensus, backed up with tons of data.

What you call assuming to be correct I call accepting expert opinion with confidence. That doesn't mean I'm not selective about extending my confidence. Aren't we all?

23

You make some interesting points. I believe that Crichton's background is medical, so that may be his bias. There are many examples in medicine of the consensus being incorrect. A recent example is the erroneous belief that stress causes stomach ulcers. As you know, an Australian scientist, who recently won the Nobel prize for discovering that bacteria causes ulcers, was ridiculed for many years for his theories. IIRC he went so far as to give himself an ulcer.

He won the Nobel Prize even though his theory is rejected by the consensus? Noooo wait, you mean he won the Nobel after the consensus came to accept this theory so that proves the consensus can't be trusted? So maybe he doesn't deserve the prize after all! Why get mad at the consensus rejecting him initially, maybe you should be mad that the consensus changed their minds? Maybe they were right initially?

Of course the people who know about the story also know that the reason the consensus changed its mind was that the good doctor presented excellent evidence to support his theory. Should they have changed faster? Probably but that call is made by looking at the evidence.

Regarding public policy, we have to remember that we do have scarce, finite resources on our planet. IF the Kyoto agreement requires that we have to allocate a disproportionate amount of resources to reducing the emission of "greenhouse" gasses, then it does affect our ability to eradicate poverty. As stewards of the planet, we have to be wise in the allocation of resources. We can address both issues, but bad science could lead us to devote an inappropriate amount of resources to lowering global temperatures, when we are not certain of the cause.

I fully agree however the cries of 'bad science' are almost always followed up in this debate with no science. Try reading the Newsweek article Joe cited. It's evidence consists of:

1. A short run decrease in temp by half a degree between '45-'68.

2. A bad winter in 1972

3. Historical observation that the earth used to be cooler therefore we may be 'reverting' to another ice age.

Hardly the mass of data along with models that has been assembled in support of the global warming hypothesis. Joe even distorts the recommended policies. Newsweek did not advocate melting the polar ice caps. In fact, it wrote:

They [climatologists] concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.

In other words, with limited data the recommendations were actually quite rational. If we did follow such advice the worst we would have had was some extra food laying around (which we probably did anyway due to the insanity of farm subsidies). Ohhh yea economic projections might have been off a bit but then again if our life depended on them being correct we'd all be dead by now.

24

Nice Rob

I wish there were a lot more of you! I love the balanced approach. Pick and choose what is true.

25

Boonton

The relevance of the ulcer example is that resources were wasted for decades on false treatments for ulcers. I honestly do not know enough to explain how it came to be that we believed that stress causes ulcers. I can infer that bad science is partially or mostly to blame. It was accepted by many intelligent doctors that stress causes ulcers. Many people poured acid-reducing liquids into their stomachs, without curing the problem.

Similarly, I fear that global warming is such an emotional issue that we could possibly spend, as a nation, billions on false treatments. We will fall into the same sort of group thinking as with the ulcer example if we fail to have a healthy scientific debate on this.

I suggest that everyone read "The Logic of Failure" by Dorner. We risk repeating the mistakes delineated in this book. I fear that the current debate does not address the complexity of global warming. I am referring to the debate as presented in the media, and known to most of us, not necessarily the research that is occurring.

Are there models that have adequate explanatory power for global warming? Correlation is not cause. Have we considered the significance of time and climatological cycles?

We should not stick our head in the sand about this, but we should also not pursue expensive solutions to a problem we do not understand, based purely on an emotional reaction to something.

We should also reduce our use of fossil fuels through conservation and greater efficiency.

26

The relevance of the ulcer example is that resources were wasted for decades on false treatments for ulcers. I honestly do not know enough to explain how it came to be that we believed that stress causes ulcers. I can infer that bad science is partially or mostly to blame. It was accepted by many intelligent doctors that stress causes ulcers. Many people poured acid-reducing liquids into their stomachs, without curing the problem.

Ok, yes that's true. If we had perfect knowledge we would not have waited until now to treat ulcers with anything other than antibiotics. Likewise if we had perfect knowledge we wouldn't have waited around for about 7,000 years until we got around to making pencillian. How is this relevant though?

I suggest that everyone read "The Logic of Failure" by Dorner. We risk repeating the mistakes delineated in this book. I fear that the current debate does not address the complexity of global warming. I am referring to the debate as presented in the media, and known to most of us, not necessarily the research that is occurring.

Good point but speaking of complexity do you realize that Joe would have gotten more out of the Global Cooling debate if he had just spent a few minutes looking its wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling). But I don't think the problem is with the current debate addressing 'complexity' but you addressing it. If you choose to seriously involve yourself in the debate you'd realize that 'correlation is not cause', the 'significance of time' and 'climatological cycles' are hardly new ideas.

27

Yes, that's it! Communism or Socialism - they will solve all our problems. Why didn't we think of it before?

But then why is our economy still the most important world economy? Why are the socialist economies of Western European so stagnant with unemployment so high? Why did all those Eastern European nations leave the wonderful life of Communistic government hand-outs behind?

We should just take the money from the "wealthy" and give it to everyone else. Never mind the fact that the disincentive it creates will cause less money to be made (who wants to work if it all will just be taken from you), causing drastically fewer "wealthy," leaving less people to take money from and even less for everyone that you started with.

Why the constant carping on getting off of imported oil, when the same people scream when drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR, or in the Gulf Coast or in every other domestic location is suggested?

28

Aaron:

Permit me to tell you what Rush Limbaugh or Fox News or James Dobson never will:

...why is our economy still the most important world economy?

Is it? To the extent that our economy is important today stems from the following inter-related factors:

• We use more energy per capita than every other nation on earth- and in fact way out of proportion to the extent that we contribute to the world GDP.
• In order to support this petroleum based economy, we are spending lots of money - and not paying for it- to support oil industry tax breaks, and most importantly, military expenditures. It has been estimated that if the end user actually paid all the costs assoicated with a gallon of gas, it would be $7 a gallon.
• We also use our military and banking systems to enforce an oil market that is traded almost entirely in dollars. Should the rest of the world lose faith in the dollar, and in particular not trade oil in dollars, you will see rampant inflation in the US associated with a drop in the dollar relative to other currencies.
• We don't save money. We've created asset and equity bubbles to prop up the economy, and when folks decide to stop lending us money- not if- the US won't be the consumer of last resort.

When the last item comes true, the US will be a second rate economy again.

Why are the socialist economies of Western European so stagnant with unemployment so high?

Actually, the US's unemployment rate is about the same as West Germany's "high" unemployment rate.

They just define unemployment differently than we do.

Why did all those Eastern European nations leave the wonderful life of Communistic government hand-outs behind?

A false dichotomy fallacy. Having state run mechanisms in some sectors of the economy does not preclude the existence of any market mechanisms.

Why the constant carping on getting off of imported oil, when the same people scream when drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR, or in the Gulf Coast or in every other domestic location is suggested?

Because it doesn't do anything to address the structural inefficiencies in the US economy. Our problem is not really not enough oil, it is that our economy depends on using more of it than any other nation to generate a unit portion of our GDP.

29

"Pick and choose what is true."

You do not do this, Rick? And why the surly tone?

First "Duh!"
Then "Nice Rob
I wish there were a lot more of you!"

Have I made you angry somehow? I thought my comments were civil. You needn't take it personally that I take issue with a comment of yours. I intended no insult.

30

Boonton wrote: If you choose to seriously involve yourself in the debate you'd realize that 'correlation is not cause', the 'significance of time' and 'climatological cycles' are hardly new ideas.

No kidding, but I am not the one issuing a public statement with a call to action. I tried to emphasize that these are issues not well addressed in the media debate on this issue. In fact, I even said, "I am referring to the debate as presented in the media, and known to most of us, not necessarily the research that is occurring." Please don't quote me out of context.

The significance of this is that we see the ECI stating:
-----
Claim 1: Human-Induced Climate Change is Real

Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels.
-----

I am not a scientist, and I presume that the signatories are generally not scientists. However, I did not see addressed the issues I mentioned: Are there models that have adequate explanatory power for global warming? Correlation is not cause. Have we considered the significance of time and climatological cycles?

I am not criticizing the call to action. I am trying to make the point (unsuccessfully, it seems) that they are presenting a view that seems biased. They have pre-supposed that humans are causing global warming. They are presenting this as scientific fact.

Boonton wrote: If we had perfect knowledge we would not have waited until now to treat ulcers with anything other than antibiotics. ... How is this relevant though?

No, that is not at all the point I was making. Where did I say anything about perfect knowledge? In the era of the modern scientific method, the medical community as a whole, especially in the US, had just accepted the causality of ulcers. Similarly, the evangelicals who signed the statement, and many others, seem to be just accepting the causality of global warming. That is a relevant example.

31

Yes, that's it! Communism or Socialism - they will solve all our problems. Why didn't we think of it before?

I wasn't aware anyone proposed either communism or socialism on this list as a solution to any problems...let alone as a solution to all of them. Please, though, feel free to share your research.

Why the constant carping on getting off of imported oil, when the same people scream when drilling in a tiny portion of ANWR, or in the Gulf Coast or in every other domestic location is suggested?

Are you bashing George Bush who has rejected drilling in the Gulf Coast? You must be a terrorist!

32

rdsmith3,

I'm not sure what it is you're really upset about. The questions you ask about climate models can be easily found on the web, usually in several levels of detail depending upon how experienced you are with science. Bjorn Lomborg's book, The Skeptical Environmentalist is an excellent place to start. (Incidently, Lomborg does a good job getting to the detail behind numerous environmental scares but he does admit that global warming may be the one area that the environmentalists are right on).

From what I've read the models are generally forming a pretty solid consensus that global warming is real and is man made but there is still disagreement on its impact & on the extent that reasonable changes in behavior can alter the outcome.

33

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606

I mentioned this opinion piece earlier, but wanted to highlight it again. This is an example (from 2001) of the type of scientific thought that I do not see reflected in the ECI statement.

34

I suppose you are going to accuse me of not reading your post, but a few things seem to be lacking.

1. You have not actually taken on or examined any of the evidence in support of or against global warming. Instead you have been busy deriding other people that do so.

2. You have not examined the question of whether if global warming does exist, do Christians have any responsibility toward mitigating its effects.

3. You also have not addressed the primary Biblical reasoning for Christian environmental activism, the "Dominion" lines in Genesis.

4.Other than the fact that your article appears on a website called "The Evangelical Outpost", it could have easily just been the usual anti-environment press releases distributed as "news" by the GOP.

5. The approach taken in the post is the same one taken when discussing evolution vs ID. Rather than discuss or argue specific facts for or against, you attack the people making such arguments.

6. By sneering at the science and scientists instead of discussing the facts, you overlook evidence that would suggests that global warming is both true and that it's a good thing. Namely that it has prevented another Ice Age. But because you have already decided your position before looking at the evidence, you are incapable of seeing anything but your own pre-formed conclusions. This leaves you blinded by ego and probably destined to walk right into the nearest wall.

35

I recently purchased an Atlas written in the 1930's oddly enough , it's showing the exact same pattern we have now as an average climate.
I think the earth has cycles.Science hasn't proven to me otherwise. The tools of science are more modern now than ever.

We can upgrade hurricanes today months after the fact from wind in one spot on a map. How many of these storms would we have known about 100 years ago?

I still haven't figured out the data from the Medieval warming cycle. Science either ignores that cycle or doesn't explain it fully to a layman.

If there has been global warming since that time, how do we determine what is a cycle and what is an actual problem.

I'm not a scientist , and while I'd like to become a self supportive farmer in my own neo-world utopia sometimes, it's just not feasably possible to do so.

Especially while smoke stacks pour in the 3rd world in an effort to become as strong a power as the US.

Right or Wrong sometimes science-sense must take a back seat to common sense.

Saving the world for a couple years while loosing our way of life just doesn't make sense to me.

36

Kudos to the 85 evangelical leaders who have the brains and guts to state the obvious in the knowledge that many (most?) of their right-wing, pro-big business constituents would disagree. I'm very surprised and pleased. I can only hope it makes a difference.

The business community and most of the religious right has either consistently opposed or ignored efforts of the last 40 years to clean up our air, water, and soil. When even oil companies admit that carbon dioxide emissions are affecting the climate, it seems that the tide may be turning.

I don't think we need to choose between ending poverty and cleaning up our act. The poorest countries are not big polluters and I can't see that their future is seriously endangered by the proposed standards.

What exactly do you propose, Joe, to stop "millions dying in poverty"? The vast majority of those are dying because of lack of access to clean water or basic medical care. How do you propose we help them? These are people who haven't even entered the agricultural age, much less the industrial age. Does the rejection of Kyoto save even one life?

37

Right or Wrong sometimes science-sense must take a back seat to common sense.

Saving the world for a couple years while loosing our way of life just doesn't make sense to me.

I think you're trying to say something but it just isn't quite working. Read these two sentences again and just think how odd they really sound.

38

I mentioned this opinion piece earlier, but wanted to highlight it again. This is an example (from 2001) of the type of scientific thought that I do not see reflected in the ECI statement.

Fair enough, here's what that piece had to say:

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

So far so good. Here is where he asserts the jury is still out:

But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

Now the reason for our limitations in regards to the second quote can be summed up as:

1. The climate natually changes so its hard to detect how much change might be due to 'normal' change versus greenhouse gas increases.

2. The interplay of numerous variables is very complicated making the thing a real bitch to model even with the best computers pounding away at it.

The fact is that even with this view we see an issue here that is more serious than the brief 'global cooling' story from the 70's. (If you read about global cooling more you'll note that in some respects it might have resolved itself...the key driver in the hypothesis was aerosols (tiny particles) reflecting back some sunlight as they accumulated in the air...even the greenhouse nature of CO2 was recognized and the question was which effect would be stronger...as fuels became cleaner to burn, however, aerosols became less important).

The question should be examined from the reverse. Considering we do not know how this system works is it logical to conclude we can just drastically increase one of the 'ingredients' without anything bad happening? In this regard you might consider the 'cost' to be something like an insurance policy. If ten years and $150B later you find the evidence concludes warming is either not going to happen or is manageable you can go back to burning away. On the other hand, if you discover it is worse than you intially thought you've already have some serious time and money invested in finding ways out of greenhouse gasses.

39

Saving the world for a couple years while loosing our way of life just doesn't make sense to me.

Can we agree then, as long as you want to keep "your way of life," that you pay for it out of your own pocket, as well?

And by that I mean that all costs associated with troop deployments to the Middle East and Central-South Asia be funded by a gas tax.

After all, why should I subsidize your gasoline welfare with my taxes?

40

Boonton: Considering we do not know how this system works is it logical to conclude we can just drastically increase one of the 'ingredients' without anything bad happening?
---
Of course not. I am very much in favor of reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, and I said so above. This should help reduce "greenhouse" gasses. However, we do not know if this man-made ingredient is the main ingredient or just the pinch of salt. Should we also look at bovine flatulence?

Boonton: In this regard you might consider the 'cost' to be something like an insurance policy. If ten years and $150B later you find the evidence concludes warming is either not going to happen or is manageable you can go back to burning away.
---
No, it is not at all an insurance policy. An insurance policy provides a certain pay off based on a contingent event (death, car accident, etc.). We do not have a certain pay off for the $150B you propose spending. We may just have wasted $150B that we could have spent on poverty. Again, I am not saying we should ignore this issue. I believe we should devote significant resources to researching it more, but we should not devote significant resources to fixing the cause of global warming until we know for sure what the main cause is.

Boonton: On the other hand, if you discover it is worse than you intially thought you've already have some serious time and money invested in finding ways out of greenhouse gasses.
---
That presumes you have wisely allocated resources to addressing the true cause. Given the current emotional reaction to this problem, and given the uncertainty regarding the cause, we may well be farther away from fixing the problem.

41

ex-preacher: The vast majority of those are dying because of lack of access to clean water or basic medical care. How do you propose we help them? These are people who haven't even entered the agricultural age, much less the industrial age. Does the rejection of Kyoto save even one life?
---

Perhaps you did not intend this, but it comes across as an ethno-centric view of poverty and hunger. I can drive to Newark, NJ right here in the U.S. and see lots of poor, hungry people. They are very much living in the present age.

And, yes, adopting the Kyoto agreement could possibly take away from our ability to help these people. Let's say we want to replace a dirty coal-fired generator somewhere in the US with a clean nuclear generator for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How much do they cost? Billions?

From the perspective of "reduce global warming" only, you cannot easily do a cost/benefit analysis of the project. The benefit of reducing the emissions is invaluable, if you believe popular science. (Aside from the fact that nobody actually wants one of these in their back yard since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl).

Now consider it from the perspective of allocating scarce resources -- the economists' classic guns vs. butter decision. If you only have a billion and you can spend it on a nuclear reactor or on feeding people, which do you choose? You cannot build half of a reactor. You either spend a billion or you don't.

I suggest that this is an example of how chasing Kyoto could reduce the resources available for other causes; causes that are perhaps more important.

42

No, it is not at all an insurance policy. An insurance policy provides a certain pay off based on a contingent event (death, car accident, etc.). We do not have a certain pay off for the $150B you propose spending. We may just have wasted $150B that we could have spent on poverty. Again, I am not saying we should ignore this issue. I believe we should devote significant resources to researching it more, but we should not devote significant resources to fixing the cause of global warming until we know for sure what the main cause is.

Like any insurance policy there's an opportunity cost. If you spent $500 for home insurance and your house does not burn down you've lost quite a few diners out. But please, enough of the $150B spent on 'fighting poverty'. We didn't spend the $150B to implement Kyoto. Do you mind showing me the poverty we eliminated with that savings? Military spending alone is close to $600B per year. I'm not saying $150 isn't a lot of money but in the big scheme of things it's not exactly the horror that is being depicted. Also it's probably highly inflated for reasons that I won't go into on this post unless you want me to.

That presumes you have wisely allocated resources to addressing the true cause. Given the current emotional reaction to this problem, and given the uncertainty regarding the cause, we may well be farther away from fixing the problem.

I'm not exactly sure what this 'emotional reaction' is that you're talking about. The 'emotional thinking' seems to be happening on Joe's side here. The impression seems to be that we must do nothing unless we are absolutely 100% sure we are making the best, most perfect decision possible.

Now consider it from the perspective of allocating scarce resources -- the economists' classic guns vs. butter decision. If you only have a billion and you can spend it on a nuclear reactor or on feeding people, which do you choose? You cannot build half of a reactor. You either spend a billion or you don't.

Errr wouldn't the reactor generate power that could be used to either produce food or sold to buy it? I do appreciate your point about resource allocation but I think here is it becoming more of a fallacy of the false choice rather than clear thinking. For example, look at the "Choose Kyoto and it costs $150B and maynot be worth anything or spend $150B and cure worldwide poverty" idea that has been pushed here by the 'unemotional thinkers'. Dude, we choose option B why is the poverty still with us? I notice $150B doesn't seem to represent the end of world poverty when the subject is, say, abolishing the estate tax.

43

rdsmith3 (Bob) writes: "Perhaps you did not intend this, but it comes across as an ethno-centric view of poverty and hunger. I can drive to Newark, NJ right here in the U.S. and see lots of poor, hungry people. They are very much living in the present age."

It has nothing to do with being ethno-centric. It has to do with the facts. No one in this country is starving to death (with the possible exceptions of Lindsay Lohan and Callista Flockhart). I challenge you to produce a single reliable statistic to the contrary. We do have lots of people dying from problems related to obesity though.

"Now consider it from the perspective of allocating scarce resources -- the economists' classic guns vs. butter decision. If you only have a billion and you can spend it on a nuclear reactor or on feeding people, which do you choose? You cannot build half of a reactor. You either spend a billion or you don't."

That's a false choice. Are you aware that this country spends only 15 cents per $100 of income on aid to poor countries. That's .15%. IOW, we spend 99.85% on something else.

There are many, many things we could do without if we really wanted to help the poor. Like eliminate farm subsidies. I wonder how much of Exxon-Mobil's $38 billion dollar profit will go to help the poor. How about if every church in America decided to do without air-conditioning (as people did for thousands of years) until every person in the world has food, water and basic medical care? I remember someone saying something about selling all your possessions and giving the money to the poor. Oh yeah, that doesn't apply to us. That would be welfare.

44

Joe, great article as usual! My concern with this initiative has nothing to do with the scientific guessing thats going on, but with the motives of the ECI. It seems to be another attempt to say "see we are not so bad."

We have been recycling since my wife took an ecology elective in her undergrad. I have not known the joy of tossing a can in the trash in years. We have 4 cans in the garage for recycling--I have been domesticated. I believe it helps, but I don't do it to be a better christian.

The honest truth is I don't believe anyone knows whether it is fossil fuels or volcanic dispersions or....... Speaking from my discipline you can't treat the patient if you guessing at the disease. If we abandon our western lifestyle another culture will assume the lead=China. This all smacks of social engineering to me. To be a good person you must believe in global warming?

As a Christian my concern is not so much how to help a person or the planet exist forever. If we continue as we are, what will we have saved? What's the deal with a coalition of pastors speaking to an issue like this? Sounds like a statement from the Bishops. Is the work of the gospel completed so that we can focus on other issues? Are the members of these so called leaders churches compelled to agree on this issue?

45

Perhaps I'll return to the other most substantive issues later, but I just have to bite on the Crichton quote. He's guilty of a quite elementary confusion. We who are not scientists must rely upon the opinions of those who are. On our own, we lack the requisite expertise to arrive at informed opinions of the issues that exercise scientific minds. (Often we lack even that expertise necessary to understand, in any detail, the competitor scienfitic views that are in play.) Thus we cannot on our own verify this or that scientific opinion. But in a world of scientific controversry, to what opinion are we to give assent? Here is where we, the lay-community, must look to ooncensus. Concensus among the relevant class of experts is good reason to believe that what they say is true. It is of course not conclusive reason. But it is good reason. Why do you and I, both non-physicists, accept Einsteinian relativity and reject its Newtonian predecessor? Surely not becuause we fully understand the two theories and have thoroughly researched the various experimental confirmations of the former. Rather we accept the one and reject the other because there's concensus among the class of relevant scientific experts. Concensus is, for the lay-community, a guide to truth.

Why is it a guide to the truth? The reason is simply this: if each member of a community of scientists each independently arrives at some conclusion, that's good reason for us non-scientists to believe that the conclusion at which they've arrived is true. If a multiplicity of good minds, appropriately trained, each independently in search of the fact of the matter, arrive at the same conclusion, we the non-scientists must pay attention. Indeed we must take their agreement as quite strong prima facie evidence that what they say is true. (Again it is not conclusive evidence. But is good evidence nonetheless.)

Of course if one does have the relevant expertise then one does not appeal to any concensus among one's scientific peers when one comes to an opinion. Rather one assesses the evidence for oneself and thereby comes to an opinion.

Thus it is perfectly legitimate for us who lack the requisite climatological expertise to rely upon the concensus of climatologists on the issue of global warming. Concensus most surely has a place in the promulgation of scientific knowledge to a wider, non-scientific audience. Crichton fails to make this distinction between those for whom it is legitimate to make appeal to scientific concensus and those for whom it is not. Scientists with the requistite expertise as a matter of fact do not, and of course should not. We on the other hand should, and must.

46

We interrupt this act in the 10-in-one sideshow to bring you news that George Deutsch, the Republican who lied on his job application and tried to censor scientists speaking out on global warming, speaks out:

Speaking to a Texas radio station and then briefly to The New York Times, Mr. Deutsch said the scientist, James E. Hansen, exaggerated the threat of warming.

Parts of the interview were posted on the Web site of WTAW, an AM station in College Station (wtaw.com), where Mr. Deutsch attended Texas A&M University until he joined President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004. The Times reported today that contrary to his résumé, he never graduated from Texas A&M.

In the interview, Mr. Deutsch said that Dr. Hansen had partisan ties "all the way up to the top of the Democratic Party," and that he was "using those ties and using his media connections to push an agenda, a worst-case-scenario agenda of global warming." He said that anyone who disagrees with Dr. Hansen "is labeled a censor and is demonized and vilified in the media — and the media of course is a willing accomplice here."

Mr. Deutsch contended that although Dr. Hansen was a scientist, he wanted to talk about policy as well as science. "He wants to demean the president, he wants to demean the administration and create a false perception that the administration is watering down science and lying to the public," Mr. Deutsch said. "And that is patently false."

We know this is a lie because Deutsch, a political appointee with no scientific background whatsoever, was, in fact trying to water down science himself!

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

It should be noted that it was since discovered that Deutsch actually didn't graduate Texas A&M, and it was discoverd first, I believe at Daily Kos. Here's what the Times said:

Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé. No one has disputed those parts of the document.

According to his résumé, Mr. Deutsch received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."

Yesterday, officials at Texas A&M said that was not the case.

"George Carlton Deutsch III did attend Texas A&M University but has not completed the requirements for a degree," said an e-mail message from Rita Presley, assistant to the registrar at the university, responding to a query from The Times.

Is it any wonder why, when the Evangelical Christians say one thing on science, and I agree, and Joe Carter says something suspiciously like something that would please a propagandist like Deutsch, that I suspect an agenda is in play?

47

We have been recycling since my wife took an ecology elective in her undergrad. I have not known the joy of tossing a can in the trash in years. We have 4 cans in the garage for recycling--I have been domesticated. I believe it helps, but I don't do it to be a better christian.

My father-in-law has a garbage company so I've learned a bit more than the average person about recycling. The paper and metal cans you recycle is marginally profitable. The plastic might as well go in the landfill (BTW, there is no shortage of landfill space). So if you fail to recycle don't worry, I can't speak for God but mother nature forgives you.

Recycling is only 'ecological' in the proper context. Take metal coffee cans. Excellent recycling material, premium steel. However you know those plastic-like bags that they sell the coffee bricks in? They are basically impossible to recycle but when you look at the energy involved in melting down the metal and reforming it, the environment is better off if you did the bags and threw them in the landfill.

As a Christian my concern is not so much how to help a person or the planet exist forever. If we continue as we are, what will we have saved? What's the deal with a coalition of pastors speaking to an issue like this? Sounds like a statement from the Bishops. Is the work of the gospel completed so that we can focus on other issues? Are the members of these so called leaders churches compelled to agree on this issue?

Errr, well I think they are arguing that this is part of their Christian duty to 'stewardship' over the earth.

48

"a billion here, a billion there; pretty soon you're talking about some serious money"

let me help you, ex, that's $0.0015. So that other one would be $99.0085. If your sources are right.

Mr. Mason, I had just written almost everything you said, word for word, before I read your post. Do you have my puter tapped?

Admit it ya'll, the disdain for the consensus thing on global warming is just a backdoor attack on the consensus thing of us evolutionists. Admit it, now. That's what it is, isn't it?

Two points:

1. The world has been over-populated since the beginning of warfare. That, my friends, goes back a long, long time. Why else would you have war if it were not for an area's lack of resorces or a friction between neighboring philosophies?

2. "The poor will be with you always." saith the Great One. All our efforts toward eliminating the problem are laughable, even negative, until point one is addressed. But birth-control is a four-letter-word to a great many people in the world today.

Let me go out on a limb here, as those of you who know me know I am not afraid to do. Global warming is real; it is so real, that many, many lay-people and several scientists are going to be quite surprised by it. Write down this date and note that I said it: When the critical point is reached, the gulf stream stops streaming, the snow stops falling, the rains and drought hit different parts of the world, the fires rage, the lakes dry up and the ocean rises, remember, I told you so. Things are going to progress a lot faster than even the most mamby-pamby, liberal, doom-and-gloom climatologist could dream of, and then we'll see how much debating we'll be having.

As a 55-year-old man relatively safely escounced in the woodlands of Mississippi, I look forward to not getting cold like my forebears did in their old age. I may still have to build a fire of a night, but only to chase a 55 degree chill from these old bones, and not a 30 degree one. I look forward to being able to grow my corn and tomatos year round. I won't have to be very worried about the price of gas or propane. I have a supply of old Mother Earth News magazines. I have a couple of guns. The rest of you can go to hell.

I believe the Republicans have about the same attitude, though I hate to share any common ground with them. They have hinted that global warming will be good for the US economy, and you can't help but surmise that they are hoping that it leads to the starvation of a couple of hundred million Chinese as well. My attitude is pretty much lazy-fair, as there's not much I can do anyway, other than write on this stupid post. What I'm curious about is if the historically stupid populace of the US will return a Republican to office or vote Democrats in in November and again in 2008 so the the pendulum can swing the other way for awhile.

I guess we'll see after a while. I'm still debating whether to buy some potential beachfront property in Hattiesburg. And I am breathlessly waiting to see how Rush is going to backtrack out of his stance on global warming. Rest assured, he will have a creative way of blaming the Democrats for it.

49

In his last post just two days a go, Mr. Carter—in his regular series on logical fallacies wrote:

#383 Know Your Fallacies — Poisoning the well — a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.

Joe follows up today with a perfect demonstration of exactly that fallacy by quoting a 30-year old article in Newsweek (a paragon of scientific literature) about a few scientists claiming global cooling may be a danger and uses that to discredit the overwhelming consensus today that the globe is actually warming — something that even G. W. Bush admits.

It's a teaching moment; thank you, Mr. Carter. And yet you offer more with the Crichton quote, 'Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels....' Bravo! One might call this the Spurious relationship fallacy following the Wikipedia link you provided. Since sometimes great new theories buck the current consensus, any claim to which most scientists agree must be wrong.

You are truly a master. You've fooled even your most ardant admirers into believing this post. However, because I know you are a man of integrity, I'm sure tomorrow your post will explain that you were just demonstrating the way logical fallacies can be and are used to sway the uneducated masses and serve the purposes of Satan. Only be shining the light of legitmate reason on such drivel can we serve the God. Thanks for being such a bright beacon of truth.

50

"Errr, well I think they are arguing that this is part of their Christian duty to 'stewardship' over the earth. "

Actually I think that is a bit of poor theology, the stewardship thing. Try to find Christ or the Apostles promoting this logic.

It is a unique time we live in. When a rock star, Bono, is the main speaker at the White House prayer breakfast. When he spoke it was to the burning issue of our time, the complete holocaust that is Africa. Bono's speech http://www.data.org/archives/000774.php was more relavent, my opinion, than this climate initiative. Bono concerned about souls and 80 evangelical pastors concerned about the environment.

How far should we go in this good stewardship of the Earth idea? Alot of cars in those church parking lots. Single family homes seem like a waste of space to me. There are much more eficient ways to live. If we did not eat so much beef, there would be less methane released. What is MPG rating that is the least efficient but you can still be a good steward and drive?

51

The business community and most of the religious right has either consistently opposed or ignored efforts of the last 40 years to clean up our air, water, and soil. When even oil companies admit that carbon dioxide emissions are affecting the climate, it seems that the tide may be turning.

I'd like to see where a Church has opposed Air or Water legislation. Please site a source. Brittish Petroleum I'm guessing is who you are siting above for admitting to GW. They as a PR measure issued this statement in a response to special interest groups.

I don't think we need to choose between ending poverty and cleaning up our act. The poorest countries are not big polluters and I can't see that their future is seriously endangered by the proposed standards.

Incorrect, the poorest countries are typically the biggest polluters of air and water and have the largest negative impact on the environment due to heating and cooking.

52

As a scientist (I thought I'd use the same opening as many others), I find Crichton's quote silly. It is true that at many points in history, the consensus of scientists in a particular field has been wrong, and those within made it difficult for those who stood outiside of it. In a way, that is actually a good thing: science doesn't change on a whim, and makes every new theory fight for its life. In doing so, only the most empirically valuable theories will survive. In another way, it's bad, because it can stifle good ideas.

However, we cannot evaluate every consensus the same, and someone as bright as Crichton should realize that. But, as a previous commentor noted, Crichton doesn't really have a formal background in science, so it may not be surprising that he doesn't understand the many different ways in which a consensus can develop and operate. If a consensus develops because one theory or paradigm fits the available data the best, that's a good thing. Where global warming is concerned, that's exactly what has happened: models of climate change that include anthropogenic warming fit the data best. Since no one has produced any model without anthropogenic warming that fits the data well, a consensus has developed. There are still plenty of people, even some who at this point stand within the consensus, who are trying to find other models. But all of the available information says one thing: global warming, with human causes.

53

Good job yet again, Joe.

I find it almost comical that people will believe almost anything with the excuse that an expert told them so.

We were all given minds to think with and to reason with. Therefore, we do not need to blindly follow the so-called, "Experts". We should look at their work with a careful eye and see if they have any religious, political, or perhaps monetary motivation behind their "conclusions".

We are all human after all and have our failings. Why folks like Boonton and Mumon want to place blind faith in these folks just because they are tagged with the word "expert" is beyond me.

54

Even if we concede that global warming is happening (somewhat likely) and that it is mostly man-made (not so likely), how is it clear that a Kyoto-type plan is going to have any impact? I haven't seen anything that would indicate that Kyoto will do anything but delay a small fraction of projected "global warming" for a relatively short time (a decade or less). It also seems to assume that countries like India and China are going to remain relatively stagnant, as will much of the African and South American continents. I don't see how those are valid assumptions. A lot of folks also seem to be under the impression that Kyoto compliance is a one-time $150B as opposed an annual cost. So now your ten-year cost is actually $1.5T, quite a difference, for something that we aren't sure is happening and aren't sure that we can do anything about even if it is.

55

A lot of people also seem to be encouraging the assumption that the worst case (doomsday) scenario is the most likely, something that I don't think is valid. Has anybody done a risk assessment on what's most likely to happen even if the worst projections on global warming are true? Say global mean temp does rise 5 degrees C over the next hundred years, what's the liklihood of the doomsday scenario happening vs. some less apocolyptic result?

56

If nothing else, Joe's post, and the ECI statement, are encouraging a debate on this topic among Christians. That is a good, healthy outcome.

Just one final comment

I said: "Now consider it from the perspective of allocating scarce resources -- the economists' classic guns vs. butter decision. If you only have a billion and you can spend it on a nuclear reactor or on feeding people, which do you choose? You cannot build half of a reactor. You either spend a billion or you don't."

ex-preacher said: That's a false choice.

No, it most certainly is not. I presented a simplified two dimensional example, but the resource allocation choice is very real. A fundamental job of governments is to allocate scarce resources. It is part of the macroeconomic policy. Resources are finite. Even with private (mostly religious) groups contributing time and money, we still have choices to make.

57

great discussion on GW. I have one question though, most references to resources here are categorized as "finite". While this is true on some resources, it is not true on all resources.

58

From an engineering perspective, a Kyoto type plan seems to be a poor risk mitigation strategy. It's hugely expensive, the risk reduction seems ridiculously small (best case you delay a small fraction of your projected warming), the potential of the risk (the doomsday scenario) being realized seems also very small, and the even if you realize the risk, it won't be for another 100 years. Seems to me that there are more pressing concerns that you can do something about, that may serve to help mitigate the risks posed by potential global warming.

59

E&L: "I find it almost comical that people will believe almost anything with the excuse that an expert told them so."

Some people will believe almost anything WITHOUT the excuse that an expert told them so.

60

Millions of people will die in this century because of old age. Stop the madness!

61

Even if we concede that global warming is happening (somewhat likely) and that it is mostly man-made (not so likely), how is it clear that a Kyoto-type plan is going to have any impact? I haven't seen anything that would indicate that Kyoto will do anything but delay a small fraction of projected "global warming" for a relatively short time (a decade or less). It also seems to assume that countries like India and China are going to remain relatively stagnant, as will much of the African and South American continents. I don't see how those are valid assumptions. A lot of folks also seem to be under the impression that Kyoto compliance is a one-time $150B as opposed an annual cost. So now your ten-year cost is actually $1.5T, quite a difference, for something that we aren't sure is happening and aren't sure that we can do anything about even if it is.

A very good point. However, now that we have broached the topic, let's dig a bit deeper:

1. Most cost estimates are done in a very niave fashion. Typically they go like this: Our GDP is $1,000B per year and we emit 100M tons of CO2, therefore to cut down to 900M tons will require 10% of our GDP or $100B per year.

2. This assumes that the economy is optimized to minimize CO2 emmission. However since there is almost never any direct cost associated with CO2 emmission (other pollutants do often come with a cost be it taxes, regulations, or tradable credits etc.) it's highly unlikely that such linear calculations are the best that the market can do. Unfortunately they are probably the best we have to go on if we must come up with a number.

3. There's a contradiction between asserting that Kyoto only cuts a fraction of greenhouse gasses and then bemoaning its cost. If you want to cut a huge portion of warming you're going to have to accept a huge cost. The value of something like Kyoto today is not that it will solve global warming but that it will start putting the mechanisms in place to optimize emmissions. The mechanisms can be tightened or loosened over time as evidence swings one way or another.

From an engineering perspective, a Kyoto type plan seems to be a poor risk mitigation strategy. It's hugely expensive, the risk reduction seems ridiculously small (best case you delay a small fraction of your projected warming), the potential of the risk (the doomsday scenario) being realized seems also very small, and the even if you realize the risk, it won't be for another 100 years. Seems to me that there are more pressing concerns that you can do something about, that may serve to help mitigate the risks posed by potential global warming

What I liked about Kyoto was its market mechanisms. Basically each country would get an emission target. If they came in under they could sell that underage to another country. If they came in over they could buy it from another country. Emmissions trading schemes have been used with acid rain and other types of pollution and they tend to reduce pollution more dramatically and at less cost than direct regulation or taxes. The reason is that businesses have a carrot as well as a stick. If they find ways to come in under the targets that becomes an asset they can turn around and sell to competitors who are not as efficient. Environmental groups can literally put their money where their mouths are by purchasing credits on the market as well thereby driving up their costs and making it harder to afford emmissions.

Of course if it turns out the targets are too tight relative to their cost the gov't simply issue credits and sell them on the open market.

62

There's a certain kind of fundamentalist conservative Christian mentality that always gives me the willies. Goes like this:

1. God says we should be fruitful and multiply, so we need to make as many babies as we can. More is better. Lots more is lots better.

2. We were given dominion over all the animals and things on the planet. They are ours to use. It is sinful and ungodly not to use them.

3. The Rapture will come soon - see the Book of Revelations! So thinking and planning for future generations is against the word of God.

4. We'll never run out of anything. There will always be trees, oil, food, water, everything we could ever want or need. Conservation is an atheistic plot and definitely against the Bible.

5. I expect to always live the way I live. I refuse to change any aspect of my life, except that I hope to have a bigger car, bigger house, and a bigger family.

And as long we're faced with having to deal with this mentality, living in a more gentle fashion upon the earth is going to be a long, uphill struggle. As far as global warming goes, I think Crichton's afterword (the whole chapter) lays out a fairly compelling argument for the "jury being out" at the present time. But then, I've never thought otherwise.

The real point, however, is that a wasteful and gluttonous lifestyle - which characterizes the way most of us live by one benchmark or another - comes at a price we cannot afford. The coming global competition for resources will only intensify, and it would be in our strategic interest to reduce our consumption of everything (except knowledge and art).

I don't have my trusty cocktail napkin with me, but I think we could completely dispense with imports of mideast oil with a very modest effort. This morning, for instance, a woman pulled out of her driveway and drove two blocks in front of me before turning in at the nearby school to drop off her child. What's wrong with that picture?

Reducing trips, driving more efficient vehicles, using less plastics, eating less, buying less, these things would help, and we would only have to achieve a 12-percent reduction across the board to eliminate those pesky imports. The fact is, the objectives of KYOTO would be in our national interest to attain because it would better for us to volunarily enact them in ways of our own design than to ultimately have to adopt them as an emergency measure in the midst of a major crisis.

More - if we are the country that develops the key technologies required, we'll be in a good position to market those discoveries and procedures to other countries downstream. Unfortunately, it's going the other way 'round, so that we'll be looking to Europe and Japan and paying them for their expertise, instead.

A completely sustainable way of living may not be in our grasp in the near future, but any small steps we take in that direction will offer such benefits as cleaner air, cleaner water, more abundant resources (organic and inorganic), increased lifespans and/or better quality of life, and better karma. So why is it that I get the distinct impression that this paragraph I'm typing right here will be considered unBiblical, unconservative, and an affont to orthodox sensibilities?

63

There's a contradiction between asserting that Kyoto only cuts a fraction of greenhouse gasses and then bemoaning its cost. If you want to cut a huge portion of warming you're going to have to accept a huge cost.

B--My assertion is that even using the most optimistic case, Kyoto will only delay a small fraction of projected global warning at enormous cost. I don't see the contradiction.

What I liked about Kyoto was its market mechanisms.

Actually it's more of a psuedo-market where a government agency creates a product that nobody wants and is of questionable value and then forces people to use it. But that still doesn't talk about its value as a risk mitigation plan. If we don't know the probability of a risk occuring or even what the true risk is, it doesn't make sense to spend a whole lot of resources mitigating the risk, especially when it's not clear that your plan will be a significant risk mitigator. This seems to be the case with global warming and Kyoto.

64

I see nobody stepped up to the plate to declare that they would indeed not be so proud as to accept government gasoline welfare, and would therefore gladly pay through gas taxes the costs of troop deployment in the Middle East and Central Asia.

I also see that nobody seems to care- I guess denial is thick- that our government has been trying to censor scientists on global warming, as noted above.

It gets better. DarkSyde notes that in the aftermath of Katrina, the government censored scientists from saying that yes indeed, global warming may have affected the intensity of storms and hurricanes, which is why '05 was such a bad year.

Well worth reading.

You wonder, if all these things are really that uncertain, why is the Bush regime trying to silence scientists? Why are they engaging in Lysenkoism?

Why are political hacks without any background in science trying to limit what scientists say?

Are you a a rube, a mark or are you a shill?

And yeah, there's definite shilling going on both in cyberspace as well as Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN now. Dont' kid yourself. This thing is being astroturfed by Republican operatives all over the place.

65

IF.

If we could convert solar energy into power easily and cheaply enough, we would have more power than we knew what to do with. I don't remember the exact figures but it's something like if we could use all the BTU energy that falls on the United States in a single day in the form of sunlight, we could power the entire nation for a year. If that is anywhere close to accurate, then reaching a goal of 1/365th of that would be sufficient to take care of our needs. Funding, however, often goes into such sidetrack dreams as ethanol, geothermal, and nuclear schemes. Not that they don't have their merits.

That is why I am such a fanatic about earth-sheltered buildings. The secret of the earth-sheltered building’s energy savings is in its use of solar energy. It depends on the constant temperature of our sun-heated earth at ten feet down, usually about 58 degrees. Now we all know that solar power doesn’t work that well and it’s too expensive. Isn’t that what we’ve been told? Let me tell you how solar energy works; let me tell you that you are surrounded by solar energy every day. The oil that we pump from the ground is the stored solar energy of forests and swamps long dead. The 2x4’s and plywood with which we build our homes, and the financing paperwork we sign to pay for those homes all come from those solar collectors we know as trees. The wind that fertilizes the cornfields and wheat fields that feed us is a solar wind. In fact, Hurricane Katrina herself was nothing more than a monstrous heat engine produced by the warming of the Atlantic and Gulf waters, a solar storm if you will, with the power of hundreds of nuclear bombs. Solar energy works, and sometimes works well enough to shatter countryside and dispense with its population. Solar energy would work for us, if we tried harder to harness it.

Here in Mississippi, most of our electricity comes from the burning of coal, that black rock that is the stored solar-energy remains of ancient swamps and forests. One of my favorite forms of solar energy is natural gas, that byproduct of the oil business. I use both. I would never have an all-electric house. I learned that in the ice storm of 1996. My conviction was reinforced during Katrina. I have a gas stove and water heater, and during the Katrina-imposed 11-day blackout at my house, I had a hot meal and a hot shower almost every night. Many of my neighbors did not. The lesson? Always have a back-up plan.

Every energy source in the world, except nuclear power, is solar. Wood, wind, coal, oil, gas, corn, hurricanes, tsunamis, all life, is solar. Since we're already indirectly using it, should we try harder to harness the power that makes everything possible.

And in a tip-o-th-hat, Dark Side of the Moon concession to you anal-obsessives patpits of the world, I will admit, that yes, the sun is nuclear.

Shall we bring the Sun to the Earth? IF so, how?

Through nuclear?

IF not, solar?

66

Raven wrote;

". The Rapture will come soon - see the Book of Revelations! So thinking and planning for future generations is against the word of God.

4. We'll never run out of anything. There will always be trees, oil, food, water, everything we could ever want or need. Conservation is an atheistic plot and definitely against the Bible.

5. I expect to always live the way I live. I refuse to change any aspect of my life, except that I hope to have a bigger car, bigger house, and a bigger family."

I consider myself a fundamentalist conservative Christian that moves in fundamentalist conservative Christian circles and I don't know anyone who thinks like that.

Points 1 & 2, yes, 3, 4 & 5? Nope.

67

E & L wrote,

"Why folks like Boonton and Mumon want to place blind faith in these folks just because they are tagged with the word "expert" is beyond me."

They arent just simply tagged expert overnight. They have done ALOT of research, most of it reviewed and have nothing to gain by publishing their results. Except for a small few, however they're all working for GB.

68

All:

Let's start with the latest news on Montserrat: up to about 6 - 12 months ago, the "consensus" and debate was on what criteria should be used to declare the eruption over.

Then, a "rebel" scientist publicly expressed a different opinion at the 10th enniversary congference, triggering sharp rebuttals. WIthin weeks, as he predicted but was rebuked for, the mountain started a new dome building cycle, and over the past few days we have been having jet plane noises and ash venting as steam has roared out of a line of new vents in the now 20+ mn cu m dome.

In short, science is always a work in progress, and those who manage issues tied to science should be aware of that. But, politics, media spin and science make for a volatile and potentially deadly mix. On the local talk show that I at that time was a co=host for, I called for a new approach: projecting pessimistic, "likely" and optimistic scenarios explicitly, with probabilities if that was possible; then robust plans would cover the resulting fan of possibilities. (For my pains, I was publicly derided as an ignoramus misrepresenter of the situation. But, then, the mountain has shown that in fact this sort of thing is what is needed. Of course, there have been no apologies for the ad hominem attacks . . .)

As I think back to the climatre change related projects I once had to handle in my time as a projects officer for environment and sustainablity projects, I remember a very similar pattern.

Perhaps, then, there is need for some of the posters of the more overheated comments above -- forgive the pun -- to cool off a bit, and rethink.

1] GW Debate

--> There is a reason there is a debate: we are discussing temperature proxies [once we go beond about 120 years ago], we have biases due to urban heat islands on a good part of the data, and nost of all, a computer model is subject to GIGO: garbage in, garbage out -- where no sufficiently complex program is ever fully clean of bugs.

--> Further to this, science is itself a less than certain process, which as Thomas Kuhn pointed out 20 - 50 years ago, is subject to the institutional and worldview ppolitics of the relevant institutions: thus, the issue of paradigm shift. When people are heavily invested in a perspective -- financially, reputationally, emotionally, institutionally -- it is very hard to shift their position.

--> Climate modeling is still a very inexact process, and until very recently the models were uable to retrodict observed late-year global patterns, i.e. if you prime the model with known data for years X - n to X, then try to predict X +1 , 2, etc, you rapidly ran into difficulties.

--> Indeed, we should recognise that chaos theory was in part discovered by early attempts to model climates with even simplistic equations: stopping a run, then restarting it led to f=unpredictable divergence. Thus, the butterfly in brazil causes a hurricane in Maine effect.

2] Cost-benefits and uncertainties

--> The basic point of a cost-benefits picture is that to get to numbers you need reasonable and credible probabilities etc. But, where one is dealing with uncertainties and guess work, one has to shift to prudence instead.

--> Prudence tells us that there is a near-CERTAINTY that significant energy use is directly connected to economically productive activities, and that for the decades ahead future that energy base is largely going to be fossil fuels, Hopefully, starting 10 years out or so, there can be a switch to hydrogen and onwards to fusion.

--> By sharpest contrast, we do not have enough high quality data to track long term climate trends with anywhere near that degree of certaintly, much less trace the causes of the variations we do observe. And, mamthematics tells us that any number of trend lines can be fitted to the short run trends we have high confidence in. [Recall, the most trustworthy, satellite soundings, traces to 1979.]

--> Adding to this, it is still an open question as to the dynamics involved: Co2 emissions are held to feed back into H2O vapopur levels, thence heating. And, it was just announced that trees emoit methane in quantities that make a big difference to all the models.

--> So, we should temper our trust in scientific findings and consnsus opinions as well as press releases with somne serious reflection on the uncertainties attaching to empirically anchored inferences to best current explanations.

3] What is the path of prudence?

--> First, we need to collect some dots and continue to collect them: research is needed, but it should not be presented as more robust than it is. [If you hear an echo of my recent remarks on chemical evo to H, yes it is there.)

--> Second, we should realise that there is a tradeoff between environmental stresses and economic development, so that accepting a sufficiently lower rate of