The idea that the entire case on global warming comes from a single data set that no one made a copy of is absurd on the face of it. Even if one were to willfully believe that the rest of the article is true, something which I am dubious about, it doesn't mean much in the greater scheme of climate science. One can always find a sloppy scientist. That's why scientists practice things like peer review and replication. The conclusion that global warming is real has been replicated across any number of studies. People opposed to the idea that global warming is real will point to any discrepancy, bit of sloppy science, or dispute on any detail as evidence that it must -all- be wrong. But it's a fallacious and misleading argument. A bit of sloppy science is nothing more than one bit of sloppy science. A slight dispute over details is nothing more than a slight dispute over details. The core of the position that global warming is real and caused by humans has overwhelming evidence behind it. One sloppy scientist doesn't change that fact.
Steve Mcintyre is an interesting guy. His hobby is to check the data, statistics, and models published in climate science articles. As far as I know his work is quality, at least several of his corrections have found their way into mainstream climate records. The fact that he has been involved in so many tooth-and-nail fights to obtain the data he seeks, often being flatly denied, ought to concern anyone who cares about the veracity of the claims of climate scientists and activists, as well as anyone with a vested interest in a political system that looks poised to spend trillions of dollars on climate policy over the next decade.
You can check out his blog here: http://www.climateaudit.org/. But be warned, it's not political at all. If you don't have a head for data series and regression models, you'll be put to sleep.
The amount of bad scientific practices and obfuscation that this one man has uncovered is staggering (scientists cherry-picking data for a paper and then refusing to provide the whole data set seems a common complaint). However, as good citizens we must believe that the thousands of papers he has not gotten around to checking are perfectly valid. To do otherwise is to be painted with the label of "heretic".
In the end, it is the poor treatment of the scientific process by scientists and activists, as well as the religion-like enforcement of agreement, that causes me to hold onto my green skepticism. I'm not sure that climate change won't Kill Us All, but I am not convinced by those that do think so.
edit: One final cause of my green skepticism is the fact that so many highly-publicized predictions made by environmentalists in the past, many of whom held PHDs, have been wrong. But more importantly, they have always been wrong in one direction, the direction of overstating the environmental damage done by human activity. The environmentalists of the 1960s foresaw a world that would undergo multiple environmental holocausts by the 1980s, which of course never came to pass.
While the quality of past predictions has no direct bearing on the quality of current predictions, indeed one might even assume that modern predictions are of higher quality given more advanced methods and greater funding, it does make me skeptical of any would-be green Nostradamus, at least until one establishes a good track record of predicting the future.
"But more importantly, they have always been wrong in one direction, the direction of overstating the environmental damage done by human activity."
In most cases where the predictions have been wrong, they were only wrong because a law has was passed to fix the problem, as in the case of DDT, acid rain, rivers catching on fire, etc.
In just about every case where we haven't passed a law the predictions have come true... fishery deplition, rain forest destruction, mercury and pcbs in fish, etc.
So how do you weigh your decision? Are you waiting for unassailable evidence? What is your best guess at the cost of regulation needed to fix the problem you are not unconvinced exists? How does that cost change over time as we do nothing? Or do you care about any of that?
This isn't (just) an internet flame war. The goal isn't (or shouldn't be) to "win" by poking holes in the oppositions argument. It should be to make the best/safest decision possible given the evidence at hand.
But that's the point: there has to be a decision made. By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically.
> But that's the point: THERE HAS TO BE A DECISION MADE.
No, not really. That's an argument that's often heard from the confirmalists(1), injecting it into the discussion as a premise. It's not the language of people who are confident truth is on their side.
The action-now argument assumes that no significant technological advances will be made. If e.g. desalination on a massive scale becomes viable, most of the drought-problem can be solved. If the nuclear power waste problem can be solved (e.g. by raising the efficiency), we can slash a huge percentage of current emissions with little to no downside. If artificial photosynthesis becomes viable, we can even wash out already emitted CO2.
Deciding against globally orchestrated emissions programs -- which will have very real costs in terms of economic growth, which fuels increases in living standards, especially in countries where it isn't so high -- isn't denying climate changes. It's arguing that we're already hard at work slashing our dependencies on fossil fuels, and that we probably know a lot more in 20 years than we do today.
If I'm wrong, and we don't take the decision, then we're much better equipped, both technologically and financially, to handle the situation in 20 years than we are today. If I'm right, and we do it, then we're severely limiting the ability of the worlds poorest regions in increasing their own well-being. 400 mio. Chinese entering the middle class, and accepting that a western standard of living (car, air condition, heating, hot baths, flying on vacation) is going to be denied to them because of changes in the climate lying decades ahead? Not gonna happen, no matter what Hu Jintao said at the UN.
(1) It's a stupid word, but so is deniers and denialists.
Deciding against globally orchestrated emissions programs -- which will have very real costs in terms of economic growth, which fuels increases in living standards, especially in countries where it isn't so high -- isn't denying climate changes
I cannot help observing that skepticism of environmental problems correlates strongly with economic certitude. Those argue most passionately that we have insufficient data about the climate are so totally confident in the predictions of economic ruin that they don't even bother to explain their reasoning.
Why this spurious equation of energy efficiency with a halt to economic development? The goal of the green movement is to increase the ratio of productivity to waste, particularly external waste (ie that affecting the commons). Your argument implies that economic development in poor countries must follow the same path that of the west during the industrial revolution, and that fossil fuels are the only coin that buys future prosperity.
If I'm wrong, and we don't take the decision, then we're much better equipped, both technologically and financially, to handle the situation in 20 years than we are today.
I've been following (but not crusading for) environmental issues for 20 years, longer if I include youthful awareness - for example, my uncle used to be an agricultural inspector who'd tackle farmers dumping manure into rivers. We have greatly enhanced our technology over the last 20 years, so why can we not put that expertise to work now, instead of waiting for some future panacea?
As for being in better future financial shape, you assume an inevitable upward trend, a future in which we will all be richer and have more disposable income, so we can afford to kick the can down the road. Only a few short years ago the bull market was hailed as a great economic success, this time it was different, the mistakes of the past would never be repeated, etc. The fact is that we are just as likely to experience a recession or other financial bust in the future as we are experiencing now. When the market is going up people procrastinate on distant necessities in favor of short-term profit. When the market is down such investments are called too risky. To believe that some future market will be so awash in capital as to render environmental improvement a trivial overhead is to subscribe to a form of socioeconomic teleology, not so different from belief in a technological singularity which will obviate all current problems as we become beings of pure energy or suchlike.
The goal of the green movement is to increase the ratio of productivity to waste, particularly external waste (ie that affecting the commons).
You can only have one objective function.
Promoting development means increasing the ratio of economic output to people. The green movement wants to increase the ratio of productivity to waste.
In the (highly likely, considering how large the solution space is) event that the solution to both these problems is not the same, following the prescriptions of the green movement will mean sacrificing some development.
Wasted labor seems to me to fall under that goal (not that I am offering a a fully burnished economic theory here). If your need is illumination, say, a lantern or even a candle is considerably less wasteful than a fire, both in terms of externalities and the effort required to operate it - obtaining oil or a candle that lasts a week, vs armfuls of wood that last for one night which cost time and effort to gather and which are not easily portable once set on fire.
> ... totally confident in the predictions of economic ruin that they don't even bother to explain their reasoning.
I don't predict economic ruin -- I predict slower economic growth. It's not the same.
What I do think, is that there's a huge moral dilemma when we in the western world who're enjoying the fruits of economic growth are now ready to push much poorer parts of the world into slowing their growth, and thus slowing their ascent to the prosperity we're all but taking for granted.
> Why this spurious equation of energy efficiency with a halt to economic development?
Energy efficiency is going to advance itself, since efficiency equals money saved. But the kind of energy efficiency sought under the banner of saving the planet has nothing to do with efficiency, and everything to do with forcing us into using less energy at whatever the cost.
> Your argument implies that economic development in poor countries must follow the same path that of the west during the industrial revolution
Burning fossil fuels is by far the cheapest and easiest way to generate mechanical and electrical energy on demand. Especially when bootstrapping an infrastructure, it's also the most efficient. Gasoline, diesel and oil are simply the only readily available sources of energy that's immediately and cheaply transportable and storable. There is no reason to believe that rural Africa is going to go anywhere without burning a lot of fossils. China and India are sufficiently densely populated and able in terms of infrastructure that they can probably fuel much of their growth electrically -- but barring a breakthrough in nuclear power, there's only so much of it that's going to be generated without fossil-burning.
However: That might change, come economic development.
Taxing (in whatever way, directly or indirectly) carbon emissions -- and that's really the only political proposal that's on the table will curtail economic growth: It will make it harder for the "little man" in China, India, Africa and Russia who can create economic growth by driving his car to the next town, or who can increase yield from his field by using a tractor, or mechanised irrigation pumps, or who tries to run a factory. To hundreds of millions of people there is simply no way of doing these things available, that doesn't involve burning fossils.
Since rich countries for this reason will be expected to lead the way, it will also mean that the inventor of something that might change this dynamic, would have a harder time raising the necessary capital. The richer an economic is, the more money it can afford to throw into universities, research and startups.
> I've been following (but not crusading for) environmental issues for 20 years
Good. Then I'm sure you'll agree it would have been disastrous if humankind had sat down in 1989 and decided to implement a world-wide scheme that would essentially dampen economic growth and development.
> We have greatly enhanced our technology over the last 20 years, so why can we not put that expertise to work now, instead of waiting for some future panacea?
Because we still don't have a solution that doesn't involve dragging down the world economy. Our solution today is to try to stop doing the things that emit carbon, but as long as those things are also to a large extend the things that create wealth, it has some extremely bad side effects. Wind turbines are fine for up to about 15% of the electrical supply in the developed world. Solar is promising where and when the sun shines. Water plants are fine where are water for them (not many places left, if any). Nuclear is nice, except for the waste and the extremely high requirements for safety (making them slow and expensive to construct and operate).
We are getting there, and we have several outs. Electrical cars and hydrogen infrastructure would allow a much higher share of wind and solar in the mix. 3rd gen. biodiesel might help. Efficient scrubbers would allow us to stop caring about coal, oil and gas plants. But we are not there yet.
> As for being in better future financial shape, you assume an inevitable upward trend (...) Only a few short years ago the bull market was hailed as a great economic success
Energy creates wealth, because it makes the same person more efficient. That's the essence of the industrial revolution: harnessing energy in machines, suddenly one person can create much more. Since then, machines and how we operate them has developed massively in favour of efficiency -- from the steam hammer to Tim Ferris operating business on an iPhone lying on a beach.
And we need to look at the economy at a much grander scale than 10 years. Economies expand and contracts, but over a longer time, it invariably expands. When there is talk of global climate change, a scale of 100 years is more appropriate.
> To believe that some future market will be so awash in capital as to render environmental improvement a trivial overhead is to subscribe to a form of socioeconomic teleology
I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that it's going to be richer than this one, and not least, more developed than this one. About 120 years ago we worried about the wether the supply of whale oil could meet the demand -- in other words, it seemed unlikely that in the future, the market would be awash (pardon the pun) in whale oil. Then we refined mineral oil, and that was that. Nobody knows what the future holds. The officials going to Copenhagen (which reminds me, I need to find a place out of the city to park my car for those weeks) think they know what the future holds. I claim that they can't and that history speaks against what they are trying to do.
I don't want to endlessly grow the thread so I won't respond with an essay, but: [green causes] have everything to do with forcing us into using less energy at whatever the cost is where we disagree. The environmental goal is to reduce externalities which damage the environment and result in costly future problems. Energy efficiency is one strategy in pursuit of that goal. In short, I feel you are discounting the future cost of pollution management.
it would have been disastrous if humankind had sat down in 1989 and decided to implement a world-wide scheme that would essentially dampen economic growth and development
You say you don't predict economic ruin, but you suggest that more attention to environmental considerations in 1989 would have been 'disastrous' - hmm. Conversely, it would have been advantageous if we had sat down in 1989 and committed more resources to renewable energy sources instead of dismissing their utility. For example, British engineers had developed promising wave-power technology in the 80s which now enjoys a renaissance, but when North Sea oil was discovered investment in that technology was halted. It would have been better to exploit North Sea oil and funnel some of that windfall back to R&D. Some background on this particular case: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1018.html
I really don't want to get into politics or point-scoring, but I basically believe you are naively discounting the utility of environmental stability.
First, let me apologize for the essay. I didn't mean to write that long when I set out.
I don't discount the utility of environmental stability. But I have a hard time convincing myself that politicians and bureaucrats are in any position to impact environmental stability in a significant positive way.
If only this was a Pigovian tax on carbon emissions being suggested, I'd probably go along -- especially if sweetened with some development subsidies for the countries hit harder by this. But it's not. It's a bid to get people to stop using the single source of energy that has brought about the largest expansion of prosperity ever seen.
> You say you don't predict economic ruin, but you suggest that more attention to environmental considerations in 1989 would have been 'disastrous'
Well, I did contradict myself slightly there. It was said with reference to the boom in prosperity enjoyed by eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union -- one that was largely fuelled by cheap and readily available gas. Form them not to have experienced that, while not spelling economic ruin, would have been very unfortunate.
Is it not essentially a Pigovian tax? I assumed (perhaps naively) that that is exactly what it is. What aspects of it make you think differently?
> It's a bid to get people to stop using the single source of energy that has brought about the largest expansion of prosperity ever seen
Maybe, but the intention behind it is irrelevant isn't it? If the benefits outweigh the costs then we should do it. If not, not.
Just because some (or most) of the green movement wants to reduce fossil fuel consumption for agrarian-socialist reasons doesn't automatically make reducing fossil fuel consumption a bad idea, does it?
That's a false dichotomy. There are not only "believers" and "non-believers" in any issue. It should always be the goal of all parties in the discussion to work from the best possible data/predictions.
Besides your argument is circular. The urgency you express with "THERE HAS TO BE A DECISION MADE" assumes that the data/predictions are correct.
I think you missed my point. It's not a dichotomy at all, it's a spectrum. There is some (incomplete) evidence, and some choices of action available, and some (uncertain) costs to be borne because of those choices.
Your point seems to be that we should do nothing, because we don't know that the "data/predictions are correct".
That's not a middle ground, it's a choice. You are making an AFFIRMATIVE decision that the costs (amortized over probabilities) of regulation are greater than those of inaction. I don't think you realize this. You think you're just delaying a decision, but because the cost models aren't constant, you're actually making one. And obviously I think you're making it based on some very flawed logic.
It's only a decision in the sense that each day I "decide" not to go to medical school, and so sacrifice some future earning potential. Inaction may have consequences, but that doesn't make it a decision. And by inaction I mean maintaining the status quo not literally doing nothing.
Inaction is always our default position: innocent until proven guilty. Your argument is tantamount to "consider the cost (amortized over the probability that he actually did it -- which we can't actually know) of letting this murderer go free!"
"It's only a decision in the sense that each day I "decide" not to go to medical school"
Well, it is a decision in that sense. That's a real sense in which a decision can be made. At each point in time we choose to do one thing from among the infinite possibilities available to us. And in making the decision to do that one thing, we are making the decision not to do any of the other things, even if not consciously.
I don't know where you're coming from with the "inaction is always our default position" thing. What do you mean when do you say "default"? Do you mean that we should (oof, I hate to bring "should" into this) sometimes maintain the status quo even if doing so doesn't have the highest expected outcome for us? Do you mean that we should sometimes maintain the default even if the expected outcome of doing so is dramatically lower than doing something? (I'm gonna go ahead and assume that this isn't what you believe, but if it is, our argument has to end here, because the only response that I've got is, "Well, that's really stupid.")
Because I would argue that that's the situation that we're in with global warming. I actually agree with you that the scientific establishment should be treated with substantial skepticism. But I also think that global warming is probably happening, and through applications of logic I've decided that reacting to a fictional global warming is SO SO much better than not reacting to a real global warming that we'd be insane to choose inaction as long as there's still some non-infinitesimal probability that global warming's happening.
You seem to think that you have an ace in the hole with your argument that our society supports an "innocent until proven guilty" approach. In fact, I am both a believer in the "expected value" approach to choosing a course of action and an ardent defender of innocent-until-proven-guilty. This is because the downside of convicting an innocent person is dramatically larger than the downside of letting a guilty man free -- not only because locking up an innocent guy for 40 years is much worse than letting some embezzler get away with it, but because every time our legal system sends an innocent person to jail the public loses some faith in it, and faith in the legal system is one of the most fundamental elements of a stable and happy society.
Okay, I think I'm done. I'm pretty damn sleep deprived at the moment, though, so if I missed anything please point it out and I'll address it later.
I do see your point that in some sense we make infinite many implicit decisions all the time, but I think the word really refers specifically to the intentional act of creating a position. Though that's a semantic argument and not really important because my main point in the above comments was that this is not a now or never issue. Inaction today isn't a commitment of any kind, because the same options will be available tomorrow.
Do you mean that we should (oof, I hate to bring "should" into this) sometimes maintain the status quo even if doing so doesn't have the highest expected outcome for us?
No, certainly not. I mean that we should maintain the status quo until we can reasonably estimate those expected outcomes and their costs/benefits (ask questions first, shoot later). This article is arguing that we don't yet have those reasonable estimates.
I think the "innocent until proven guilty" approach is and expected value approach. Public loss of faith in the system is a huge cost (probably much bigger than letting the average criminal go free). So I think there's an implicit cost/benefit analysis there.
There are also costs associated with (at least some of) the proposed global warming solutions. I'm thinking specifically of cap and trade, a system with far reaching economic consequences we can't fully understand until it's actually implemented. So before we implement it, we'd better know with some degree of certainty that the current situation is bad enough to warrant a potentially dangerous economic experiment. On the other hand, I think investment in alternative energy is a relatively low cost decision (sort of a "what the hell, it can't hurt").
Your first point is semantic. I grant it, but I don't see that it changes anything. You still oppose carbon regulation, which is the issue at hand.
Your second is just a bizarre analogy. Yes, that's exactly what my argument is saying. But analogizing a decision of real world regulation (where we should be able to make a rational decision) to criminal justice (where we get tied up with the moral issues of unjust punishment, or "soft on crime" tolerance) is just weird. Are you trying to argue that "unjustly" regulating carbon is a violation of someone's basic human rights? Again, weird.
In fact I do not, and you've placed me into one of the two mutually exclusive categories I accused you of creating earlier.
I'm only arguing that relevant data/predictions should be reasonably vetted (this article makes some pretty strong claims against that point). And second, that whatever policies we enact should be supported by rational gathering of evidence, not just fabricated urgency.
You are making the mistake assuming that the level of understanding of our climate for scientists is a limited as your own. If that was the case then certainly there would be good cause to delay action until further knowledge was gained. However it turns out that many brilliant people all around the world have been devoting their professional lives to understanding this. The data/predictions have been 'vetted', evidence has been 'rationally gathered' the urgency is based on fact and has been not fabricated.
Unless you are prepared to devote a large portion of your life to studying climate there is no chance you (or I) will develop anything like a sufficient understanding of the models to have a meaningful opinion their accuracy. All we can do is choose who to believe on the topic. We are all 'blindly following' other people's opinion on the matter.
The reasonable default position is to believe the people who are spending the most time and effort looking into the issues - the 'experts'. For whatever reasons you are choosing not to believe them but instead following a group that has devoted far less time and effort in research.
Granting more power through regulation just because you think "something" needs to be done about something you haven't proven to exist. That doesn't seem like a bad idea at all, does it? "Don't just do something, stand there."
That's the absolutist argument. You want "proof" before you will do anything at all. Read up the thread, it's exactly what I'm arguing against -- that logic just plain doesn't work. If you're not looking at risks and costs, you're not looking seriously at the problem.
I want proof that there is a good possibility of a problem happening before I do something about it. You would really venture into throwing around labels and debating against that stance? Regulation is bad if it's not needed, that doesn't make me and absolutist. That means I've evaluated the potential of a problem and the proposed 'fix', and I think it does more harm than good. I don't write code unless it solves a clear problem, why should I treat regulation any differently?
There's Scientific correctness, and then there's risk. The likelihood is that the science is correct, so the risk is high.
Look at it this way, play Russian roulette - you can't prove that you're going to shoot yourself in the head, but that doesn't make it safe. Nope, corrective action should be taken against the risk.
The science should continue. Until there's a good body of scientific evidence that what we're doing is safe (and at the current rate, that's very unlikely), there will still be the need for change.
> The science should continue. Until there's a good body of scientific evidence that what we're doing is safe (and at the current rate, that's very unlikely), there will still be the need for change.
The question is not "change or not?", the question is "what change?"
When the "reduce carbon" folks start seriously pushing nuclear, as in breaking ground for a nuke/month in the US, I'll believe that they think that AGW is a serious problem. As long as they act like it's just a club for political ends and feel-good moralism....
I'd rather see move money going into the solar/wind/electric ecosystem, but yep, the greens need to get over their primal fear of nuclear as part of the solution, and the mainstream politicians need to rearrange the funding priories.
It's not just nukes, it's a bunch of things that folks who were actually serious would do that they're not doing. Either they're ignorant or they're not serious, and either way ....
You don't have to rearrange govt funding priorities to get nukes built. You merely have to significantly fix the approval process.
The same is true of the wind farm that Ted Kennedy blocked to protect his view.
You don't have to rearrange govt funding priorities to get nukes built.
True. But it would help everyone else if western governments being so nice to the (massive, rich) oil industry. The best non-oil technologies would benefit the most, like they should in a competitive market.
When global warming proponents spell out the actual danger, usually things don't get bad for a hundred+ years. Seems like we have time to make carefully informed decisions.
But that's kind of the point, regardless of what you think about global warming you should be wary of "you're either with us or against us" type arguments.
And for the record I don't know much about global warming, it seems at least plausible, and I certainly don't reject it. I'm just wary of the kind of argument from urgency that's become so popular lately in American politics (and I'm sure it's been an effective political tool since the beginning of time).
I agree about being wary of overly simplistic ideologues. However, conflating climate change science with such ideologues is itself an over simplification. I'd look into the actual science and see if urgency may be a valid stance before spending time arguing against a call urgency.
By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically
One thing that the world really needs to do is move beyond labels like "denialist". I'm sick of depiction that the only possible positions we can possibly take are "No way, global warming is absolutely a complete myth" and "zomg we're all going to die!"
The truth doesn't always sit somewhere between the two extremes on every controversial debate, but I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where it does. One can think that anthropogenic global warming is probably a nonzero problem without buying into every extreme-level prediction or supporting every suggested policy prescription.
I don't believe I asked you to buy into "every" prediction or support "every" prescription.
But it's a fair point: which regulation choices do you support? My experience is that the seemingly-moderate "science is incomplete" skeptics, when pressed, generally argue for no action at all. That would put them much farther on the "denialist" (I don't know what other label to use, and you didn't offer a suggestion) end of the spectrum, no?
See, this is a straw man argument. No one, and I mean no responsible person in government has argued for no action at all in my lifetime. We've had environmental regulations since people were afraid of Global Cooling. This has always been a question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action"
question of degree not one of "action vs. non-action"
Not just of degree but of kind. Assuming anthropogenic global warming really _is_ a problem of nonzero severity, there's a vast array of actions that can be taken on a governmental level. These include:
carbon taxes
build more nuclear power plants
more funding for alternative energy research
cap and trade
giant mirrors in orbit to reflect sunlight
more funding for clean coal research
kill half the population
ban electricity
build artificial trees for carbon sequestration
and so forth. They all have risks and rewards, costs and payoffs. We should not be entirely surprised that our elected leaders tend to prefer the ones (carbon taxes, cap and trade) which involve our elected leaders getting more money and more power.
Should I infer that you are in favor of one or more of those courses? My guess from your tone is that you oppose all of them. So how is it not correct to characterize your advocacy as being for "inaction?".
If you really want to know, then I'd say funding alternative energy research, clean coal research, and probably building more nuclear plants are a good idea. Giant mirrors are worth consideration, just in case -- remember, we're talking about risk minimization here. We shouldn't launch them just yet, but we should figure out how to make them just in case the planet ever does get sufficiently warm to cause serious problems (in which case it won't matter whether it's anthropogenic or heliogenic anyway).
Carbon taxes might be an alright idea provided that they're offset by cuts to other taxes. Cap and trade seems to me like a much worse idea for various reasons (potential for corruption, weird economic distortion, potential of very high long-term economic costs, doesn't actually do all that much anyway).
The remaining solutions (kill half the population and ban electricity) aren't much good either.
> By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically.
So what? If a particular response is "correct", why does it matter who else advocates said response? Why does it even matter what their reasons are?
Surely you're not arguing that we should do dumb things because ugly people say otherwise....
BTW - you've got things backwards. It isn't "go along with us because we're good people", it's "we're good people because we do good things". If you're pushing bad science....
I don't think any intelligent reasonable person objects to the fact that the global temperature is rising. As for Human activity being the cause that is far from settled.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for reducing emissions and generally doing anything we can to reduce our impact as much as is possible because it's just good sense. But stating that the industrial age caused the rise when we really have so little understanding of how all this works rankles me just a bit. I especially object to the attempts to assign blame as a scare tactic for political gain. Especially when there are equally valid reasons to reduce emissions and lessen our impact local air quality and increased efficiency in manufacturing being just a few of the reasons.
The plain fact is that while there "might" be a correlation with Human activity that does not imply a cause and effect relationship out of hand. I don't think we really have enough data or understanding yet to make an assumption regarding the cause.
[Edit: I had a misplaced sentence which totally made that read wrong. Just fixed it]
Except for the fact that global temperature is falling, not rising - dependent on how (and where) you measure it.
That's part of the problem. We don't know enough about how this highly complex climate system works to measure it consistently. Given the variation between the hottest and coldest places on earth are somewhere around 100 degrees celsius I have real problems with the term global warming as a whole. It's a series of interconnected problems with interconnected knock-on effects.
While it's a reasonable view to hold that temps have been falling since 1998, it's hard to point out a source (on either side) that hasn't been called into question. Just google on "global temperature since 1998" and similar, and you'll see lots of partisan debate and screaming about it on the front page. Unfortunately, everyone on both sides seems to cherrypick data to avoid letting facts get in the way of Truth, and it's very hard to know who, if anyone, has an unbiased desire to present data.
With all due respect, you haven't answered the question. You've made a factual statement: "global temperature is falling." It should be trivial to back that statement up with evidence. You refuse to do so, and in doing so reframe your original point to the substantially weaker statement "temps have been falling since 1998." That latter assertion is indeed trivial to support: here[1] is a data set that supports that second assertion. You will note the central point that the narrowly-framed question can be true while the broad implication can be false.
If you are going to stand by the statement "global temperature is falling" I would again ask for a citation.
If you cannot or will not back up your assertion with evidence, please do not couch them in the terminology of fact. "JFGI" is not a citation.
You've made a factual statement: "global temperature is falling."
That's so easily checkable that I'm not sure why you'd assert it. You can just reread the post you just replied to. I did not say that. I have not edited that post.
The closest I came was that it was reasonable to believe that global temperature fell after 1998, and suggested that since I know of no source of data which isn't disputed by one side or the other, it's pointless for me to track down data to support a claim I haven't made.
If you are going to stand by the statement "global temperature is falling" I would again ask for a citation.
I have no plans to stand by someone else's statement. Thanks, anyway.
I did support my actual claim that it was reasonable for a third party to believe that global temperature is falling, by pointing out that google's first page of results provides many examples of vociferous arguing both ways. I really have no idea what global temperature is doing, apart from the obvious fact that it's not increasing or decreasing so quickly as to be unmistakable, since lots of mistaking is going on, one way or the other.
"JFGI" is not a citation.
On the assumption that you're unable or unwilling to copy/paste or type "global temperature since 1998" into Google yourself to see this first page of results, here's a handy link http://www.google.com/search?q=global+temperature+since+1998 . Sheesh.
> Given the variation between the hottest and coldest places on earth are somewhere around 100 degrees celsius I have real problems with the term global warming as a whole.
As do many climate scientists. I've heard the term "Global Weirding" thrown around before. The term is a better descriptor because what we humans actually experience isn't hotter weather, but highly unusual climate occurrences: storms, record temperature fluctuations, etc.
You echo my thoughts on the issue. But what really bothers me is the logical outgrowth of that logic.
What I mean is, as you said, most agree the planet is getting warmer. That's the actual problem here. But Global Warming advocates are so convinced of their absolute infallibility that they're suggesting a solution based on a cause they can't prove.
So my question is "What if they're wrong?" If the Global Warming movement really believes this trend will lead to the end of life as we know it shouldn't they be considering all options? Shouldn't someone be talking about ways to live if their climate predictions are correct and we aren't the cause?
The fact that they completely ignore that side of the issue tells me their pushing an agenda not trying to solve the actual problem.
Indeed, Any solution that assumes the wrong cause may cause just as much harm as it does good. For all we really know the trend could suddenly halt or accelerate despite our attempts to "control" it. When political goals drive the debate then true discourse gets drowned out and progress may either stop or continue in the wrong direction.
The sad thing is that absurd arguments work. All that's needed for denialism to win is doubt. Just one goof, or bad actor, or wrong result can be spun like this into a "collapse" of the case it is making.
The fact that this is an argument of risk, where the argument for carbon legislation needs to be weighed not against the certainty of the science but on the best-guess risks of inaction is completely lost on the public and the media.
