Global Warming backdown

[bloodyminded]

I understand the limitations of the models, and actually I appreciate being able to debate with someone who can speak on a more scientific level as you have in our last few exchanges. I do not think the models are useless, and I also am convinced that they will only continue to become ever more accurate and reliable. What would you propose to do while these models have not yet fully matured? Just throw up our hands and declare that we give up? I maintain that our actions should be based on what knowledge we have, even if that knowledge is imperfect. I see no other rational course of action.

I think this nails it quite well.

[Pliny]

name='Bonam' date='09 July 2010 - 07:03 PM, said:"

I understand the limitations of the models, and actually I appreciate being able to debate with someone who can speak on a more scientific level as you have in our last few exchanges. I do not think the models are useless, and I also am convinced that they will only continue to become ever more accurate and reliable. What would you propose to do while these models have not yet fully matured? Just throw up our hands and declare that we give up? I maintain that our actions should be based on what knowledge we have, even if that knowledge is imperfect. I see no other rational course of action.

I think this nails it quite well.

Except, unlike yourself he isn't suggesting Kyoto II as a solution or vast redistributions of wealth a la Maurice Strong.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

Except, unlike yourself he isn't suggesting Kyoto II as a solution or vast redistributions of wealth a la Maurice Strong.

But indeed, I'm not suggesting anything whatsoever. The discussion about how rotten scientists are versus what should be done are rather distinct arguments. I hold that "the scientists are wrong, the models are useless, and the agendas and biases are the whole point" is a monumentally stupid argument; how we're going to deal with the problem is an excellent and vital argument.

Edited July 10, 2010 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

Very well put. Thanks.

So well put that you think it needed to be re-posted? Like we couldn't just read it the first time! You must be after sharkman's job of forum cheerleader.

[waldo]

interesting… you started out belittling IPCC likelihood (probability) assignments by labeling them as “guesses”. In terms of ‘expert views’, one of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you maintained your position by stating, as you said, “Guesses by experts are still guesses”. You then shifted slightly by speaking to bias and subjectivity. In your assessment, you’re not willing to accept the expert view likelihood (probability) assignment as an informed knowledge/choice (biased, or not)… you simply choose to denigrate it all as “guess work”!

in terms of ‘quantitative analysis’, the other of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you make a blanket statement that categorizes all quantitative analysis as, “extremely subjective”… you then proceed to speak of Bayesian analysis and prior distribution choice… and throw in a sprinkling of negative personalization (was it something I said?). Now, in my somewhat dated statistical training, I seem to recollect a strong emphasis on attempting to exclude (or at least limit) said bias/subjectivity in prior distributions… if you adhere to the subjectivist school of Bayesian analysis. On the other hand, the issue of prior distribution bias/subjectivity doesn’t come forward… if you adhere to the objectivist school of Bayesian analysis (and objective prior distributions)… a view of Bayesian analysis you seem unfamiliar with. As you said, “I really get the impression that you know how to quote the lingo but have little understanding of what it means”.

Because that is what it is.

You want a concrete example look at climate sensitivity. We have no idea what the actual sensitivity is nor do we even know if it is a constant (i.e. sensitivity could be higher coming out of an ice age than it is today).

all discussion to this point focused on equilibrium climate sensitivity… your reference to a non-equilibrium climate state (your ice age reference) is not germane to that discussion. If you’d like to open up the discussion to include a measure of the strengths of, for example, climate feedbacks at a particular time, then you need to explicitly state you’re speaking of effective (and not equilibrium ) climate sensitivity… or do you even recognize (or appreciate) the distinction?

Also sensitivity is something that can never be measured directly - it is something which can only be inferred by using a model that assigns values to many different unknown quantities (aerosols, cloud cover, et. al.).

no – independent of models, many studies have been done to calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations.

So what the IPCC did is assume that all estimates of CO2 sensitivity represented independent measurements and that CO2 sensitivity is a constant.

in your broad sweeping commentary, do you have something that calls to question the IPCC review of independent scientists conducting independent research and bringing forward, independently, their estimates for CO2 sensitivity? If you do, you’ll need to be more specific – beyond your broad brush commentary and implications. And, again, your “assuming constant” reference seems at odds in a discussion related to equilibrium sensitivity – hey?

It then constructed a PDF based on the range of values for these various methods. The trouble is this PDF could be completely wrong if any of their assumption are wrong. In this case the assumption that each estimates independent measurements is likely wrong because researchers estimates for unknown values like aerosols are affected by the expected result and this introduces a bias into the estimate. This bias is likely why the estimates of CO2 sensitivity have not changed for 30 years (1.5-4.5).

now… you’re simply, collectively, calling into question the studies/results… surely, you’re not implying the IPCC review constructed it’s own confidence levels, error bars, uncertainty factors, etc. The assorted resulting IPCC PDF’s simply mirror the study analysis/results… representing the broad assembly of studies within the review. The estimates of CO2 sensitivity have changed… I highlighted a few of the most significant changes for you in terms of TAR-to-AR4 progression. Firstly, the latest AR4 introduced defined probability (likelihood) assignments to those sensitivity ranges; secondly, in spite of your insistence in continuing to reference 1.5°C, AR4 no longer includes it within the recognized likely range… in fact, it explicitly states, “equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C” (that’s 90% probability… yet, you still insist on referencing 1.5°C as “plausible” – quite telling, indeed!). Your reference to aerosols/bias is, again, not germane to a discussion of equilibrium sensitivity… aerosols don't affect the intrinsic sensitivity of the climate, but, of course, as a forcing within the broad grouping of forcings, they are important to the actual transient climate response. But, it would appear, you’re not only unfamiliar with the distinction between equilibrium and effective climate sensitivity, you also don’t appear to recognize (or appreciate) transient climate response as a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to GHG forcing.

In fact there is a historical precedent for the kind of bias I describe with the estimates of electron charge which were originally conducted by Millikan. His value was wrong but it took a long time to discover this because scientists that replicated the experiment assumed that Millikan was right and adjusted their numbers to ensure a better match with Millikan. In an field were scientists that suggest a low CO2 sensitivity are immediately attacked at stooges of 'fossil fuel companies' it is not reasonable to claim that the exact same bias is not at work.

you mean like the hopelessly flawed Lindzen-Choi 2009 study that presumed to estimate sensitivity at 0.5°C? Would you really like to go there… or simply accept a, as you say, “stooging” on their part?

What this all means is the the 'quantitative' probabilities don't mean much. What matters is the range of plausible values. That is why I say the planet will warm due to CO2 and the only question is by how much.

obviously – but your insistence in holding to a minimalistic/optimistic 1.5°C climate sensitivity estimate, doesn’t fit within the IPCC probability categorizations. You continue to ignore the best-estimate of ~3°C and completely discount possibilities toward 4.5°C… because… you can. You wouldn’t bite, twice now, on my questioning your previously stated “business as usual (BAU) scenario” justification for your hanging on to the 1.5°C estimate value... so, let’s be more specific – hey? Since you’re the one that keeps drawing pointed reference to the IPCC reports, as the concept of BAU no longer exists within AR4, just what BAU scenario were/are you describing in presuming to hold to your 1.5°C sensitivity estimate?

[waldo]

TimG - you are unfit for this forum - you make far too much sense....you're much too rational.

sycophants-R-Us, hey Simple?

Very well put. Thanks.

So well put that you think it needed to be re-posted? Like we couldn't just read it the first time! You must be after sharkman's job of forum cheerleader.

[waldo]

So? Warming is not necessarily bad and even if there are some bad effects people can adapt to changes.

Someone already pointed out several pages ago how stupid this reasoning is, since the coming adaptation will mean mass migrations from overpopulated equatorial regions of the world, which are suffering the greatest impacts of climate change at the moment.....which is a major reason why the CIA has added climate change to its list of threats to national security. Apparently they don't trust the soothing words of the so called skeptics either! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495

I touched upon this climate change as a U.S. national security threat theme in past MLW posts, highlighting related reports/positions of the U.S. Defense Dept (re: it's Quadrennial Defense Review Report) and the CIA (re: the launch of the CIA's Center on Climate Change and National Security) - here in this previous MLW post. Additionally, I referenced the Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the Director of National Intelligence - here in this previous MLW post.

there's also this just released video concerning "Climate Change and National Security"

[TimG]

I touched upon this climate change as a U.S. national security threat theme

A Quadrennial Defense Review Report issued by the Department of Defense in February 2010 states that "assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." It concludes that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.

A bunch of speculation that would be equally valid for any other hypothetical problem. The questions we care about is 1) are these negative effects it likely to occur? 2) can we do anything about it even if we wanted to?

2) is actually the more pertinent point because stopping or even significantly lowering emissions is not a technically feasible option. The only real choice is 1) trash out economies with ineffective policies that push business and jobs overseas 2) adapt as required. 2) is the only rational choice as far as I am concerned.

Edited July 11, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

A bunch of speculation that would be equally valid for any other hypothetical problem. The questions we care about is 1) are these negative effects it likely to occur? 2) can we do anything about it even if we wanted to?

2) is actually the more pertinent point because stopping or even significantly lowering emissions is not a technically feasible option. The only real choice is 1) trash out economies with ineffective policies that push business and jobs overseas 2) adapt as required. 2) is the only rational choice as far as I am concerned.

They are hypothetical, yes, as they're contingency plans.

However, National Defense does not make contingency plans willy-nilly, for any potential issue that crosses their minds. They make contingency plans for matters of real potential significance.

Several years ago, USSpace Command produced a study which fully predicted terrorist issues, rising reliance on counterinsurgency, widespread global disaffection with the Superpower, and so on...and it was predicated largely on neoliberal economic policies (rather than on Evil Islamists...policymakers can't afford the comforting, masturbatory fantasies of Good and Evil that drive public support for "wars on Terror" and other sick jokes); they predicted that the economic system and the growing disparity between rich and poor nations would cause large-scale violent upheavals and trans-national attacks by disaffected groups, leading to US-led wars and counterinsurgency operations.

Of course, it might just be a massive coincidence....

Yeah. We really are in a battle of Freedom versus Islamofascism, and our actions have had nothing whatsoever to do with any of these major issues. Those lefties at Space Command and the Pentagon are just a bunch of bleeding heart America haters....

[TimG]

However, National Defense does not make contingency plans willy-nilly, for any potential issue that crosses their minds. They make contingency plans for matters of real potential significance.

I am sure they have a plan for alien invasion too.

[bloodyminded]

I am sure they have a plan for alien invasion too.

Well, we can talk about what we do know, or speculate about what we don't. It's not clear that they're equal processes.

[TimG]

Well, we can talk about what we do know, or speculate about what we don't. It's not clear that they're equal processes.

What know is it is the DOD's job to anticipate the worst and prepare for it. The DOD's plan tells us nothing about the probability of such an outcome.

Personally, I think there is a lot of political propaganda going on here because no matter what happens with climate change I guarantee you that food and water scarcity, disease, instability and war will be a big part of future. The game being played by CAGW activists is to pretend there is some kind of link so they then can attribute all of those things to climate change.

In fact there is a name for the kind of science that claim these kinds of unfalsifiable links.

We saw the same BS from the alarmists when Katrina hit - a disaster that was caused entirely by a government failing to prepare adequately for a foreseeable and unpreventable natural event.

Edited July 11, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Personally, I think there is a lot of political propaganda going on here because no matter what happens with climate change I guarantee you that food and water scarcity, disease, instability and war will be a big part of future. The game being played by CAGW activists is to pretend there is some kind of link so they then can attribute all of those things to climate change.

In fact there is a name for the kind of science that claim these kinds of unfalsifiable links.

This is a remarkably promiscuous leap you're making.

First, assuming it's all bunk (which rather contradicts your claims that we should be careful and cautious about the information we're receiving...meaning, evidently, look askance at climatologists but implciitly trust those who disagree with them...as if the "sceptics" are a pristine force of objective truth); then, taking your assumption as established fact, predicting that the terrible things you enumerate will all be blamed on something which you have now established is bunk.

At any rate, you will be able to promote exactly the type of error-riddled thinking you are now excoriating; any catastrophes that might occur due to climate change...you can say "they would have happened anyway."

A neat trick.

[TimG]

First, assuming it's all bunk.

You seem to be missing the point: such claims are completely unfalsifiable. i.e. there is no way to show that they are wrong because no matter what happens there will be climate change and there will be war. That makes them junk science.

CAGW activists also have a bad track record on this front when it comes to hurricanes. For years, they have been insisting that there is a link between hurricanes and climate change when there is absolutely no evidence. The only scientific support they have are computer models show hurricanes might be slightly stronger but they would also be slightly less frequent. Yes despite that theoretical support for a small effect there is zero evidence for it in the historical record. But that does not stop numerous government agencies from citing increased hurricane damage as consequence of AGW.

Edited July 11, 2010 by TimG

[WIP]

A bunch of speculation that would be equally valid for any other hypothetical problem. The questions we care about is 1) are these negative effects it likely to occur? 2) can we do anything about it even if we wanted to?

2) is actually the more pertinent point because stopping or even significantly lowering emissions is not a technically feasible option. The only real choice is 1) trash out economies with ineffective policies that push business and jobs overseas 2) adapt as required. 2) is the only rational choice as far as I am concerned.

Weren't you the one who was talking about adaptation? What sort of adaptation do you think is going to happen as millions of Africans and South Asians try to flee the effects of a changing climate? And that's why the CIA is studying possible security risk scenarios.

[TimG]

What sort of adaptation do you think is going to happen as millions of Africans and South Asians try to flee the effects of a changing climate?

If it happens.

What you do not seem to understand is it is physically/economically impossible to do anything significant about CO2 emissions over the next 30 years at least. That is because it took 100 years to build out current energy infrastructure, because we do not have economically viable alternatives and because the demand for energy in China and India is exploding.

And that's why the CIA is studying possible security risk scenarios.

So? This would be the same CIA that claimed that Saddam had WMDs?

[WIP]

If it happens.

What you do not seem to understand is it is physically/economically impossible to do anything significant about CO2 emissions over the next 30 years at least. That is because it took 100 years to build out current energy infrastructure, because we do not have economically viable alternatives and because the demand for energy in China and India is exploding.

So? This would be the same CIA that claimed that Saddam had WMDs?

I wish I had time to post on one of your other threads earlier about alternative energy. Because your whole argument against windmills and solar panels, for example, is based on the premise that we need to continue our trajectory of using large and increasing amounts of energy. And this is not going to happen, one way or the other. All fossil fuels will eventually run out; considering their environmentally damaging effects, the sooner the better! And most of the energy used is a colossal waste because cheap energy made globalization and factory farming possible. When energy prices started to rise, many of us re-discovered gardening and farmers markets. This trend is called relocalization, and it is how CO2 levels can be brought down to historic levels and give future generations time to solve other species-threatening problems.

[TimG]

is based on the premise that we need to continue our trajectory of using large and increasing amounts of energy.

If population increases and/or the developing world industrializes then energy demand will increase. This is an unavoidable reality. When world population starts to stablize in 30 years we will see energy use stabilize.

And most of the energy used is a colossal waste because cheap energy made globalization and factory farming possible.

Factory farming also brought down the cost of food which benefits the poorest people the most. If it did not it would not have made the in roads it has. Eliminate cheap food and you hurt the poor the most.

When energy prices started to rise, many of us re-discovered gardening and farmers markets.

Feel good exercises that do nothing to solve the problem of supplying food to cities with millions of inhabitants.

This trend is called relocalization, it is how CO2 levels can be brought down to historic levels and give future generations time to solve other species-threatening problems.

As oil prices increase we will need a return to local production so I do not disagree with the premise of relocalization. However, a return to local production will have a marginal effect on CO2 emissions because higher oil prices will not reduce the amount of oil burned - it will simply require that people be more choosy about which activities require the burning. If higher oil price did actually reduce the amount of oil burned you would see the price of oil collapse until usage picked up again. The only way to change that dynamic is to find alternatives that are cheaper than oil.

[waldo]

****bump**** uhhh... Timmay!

interesting… you started out belittling IPCC likelihood (probability) assignments by labeling them as “guesses”. In terms of ‘expert views’, one of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you maintained your position by stating, as you said, “Guesses by experts are still guesses”. You then shifted slightly by speaking to bias and subjectivity. In your assessment, you’re not willing to accept the expert view likelihood (probability) assignment as an informed knowledge/choice (biased, or not)… you simply choose to denigrate it all as “guess work”!

in terms of ‘quantitative analysis’, the other of the IPCC guideline associations available to assist in assigning a likelihood (probability), you make a blanket statement that categorizes all quantitative analysis as, “extremely subjective”… you then proceed to speak of Bayesian analysis and prior distribution choice… and throw in a sprinkling of negative personalization (was it something I said?). Now, in my somewhat dated statistical training, I seem to recollect a strong emphasis on attempting to exclude (or at least limit) said bias/subjectivity in prior distributions… if you adhere to the subjectivist school of Bayesian analysis. On the other hand, the issue of prior distribution bias/subjectivity doesn’t come forward… if you adhere to the objectivist school of Bayesian analysis (and objective prior distributions)… a view of Bayesian analysis you seem unfamiliar with. As you said, “I really get the impression that you know how to quote the lingo but have little understanding of what it means”.

Because that is what it is.

You want a concrete example look at climate sensitivity. We have no idea what the actual sensitivity is nor do we even know if it is a constant (i.e. sensitivity could be higher coming out of an ice age than it is today).

all discussion to this point focused on equilibrium climate sensitivity… your reference to a non-equilibrium climate state (your ice age reference) is not germane to that discussion. If you’d like to open up the discussion to include a measure of the strengths of, for example, climate feedbacks at a particular time, then you need to explicitly state you’re speaking of effective (and not equilibrium ) climate sensitivity… or do you even recognize (or appreciate) the distinction?

Also sensitivity is something that can never be measured directly - it is something which can only be inferred by using a model that assigns values to many different unknown quantities (aerosols, cloud cover, et. al.).

no – independent of models, many studies have been done to calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations.

So what the IPCC did is assume that all estimates of CO2 sensitivity represented independent measurements and that CO2 sensitivity is a constant.

in your broad sweeping commentary, do you have something that calls to question the IPCC review of independent scientists conducting independent research and bringing forward, independently, their estimates for CO2 sensitivity? If you do, you’ll need to be more specific – beyond your broad brush commentary and implications. And, again, your “assuming constant” reference seems at odds in a discussion related to equilibrium sensitivity – hey?

It then constructed a PDF based on the range of values for these various methods. The trouble is this PDF could be completely wrong if any of their assumption are wrong. In this case the assumption that each estimates independent measurements is likely wrong because researchers estimates for unknown values like aerosols are affected by the expected result and this introduces a bias into the estimate. This bias is likely why the estimates of CO2 sensitivity have not changed for 30 years (1.5-4.5).

now… you’re simply, collectively, calling into question the studies/results… surely, you’re not implying the IPCC review constructed it’s own confidence levels, error bars, uncertainty factors, etc. The assorted resulting IPCC PDF’s simply mirror the study analysis/results… representing the broad assembly of studies within the review. The estimates of CO2 sensitivity have changed… I highlighted a few of the most significant changes for you in terms of TAR-to-AR4 progression. Firstly, the latest AR4 introduced defined probability (likelihood) assignments to those sensitivity ranges; secondly, in spite of your insistence in continuing to reference 1.5°C, AR4 no longer includes it within the recognized likely range… in fact, it explicitly states, “equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C” (that’s 90% probability… yet, you still insist on referencing 1.5°C as “plausible” – quite telling, indeed!). Your reference to aerosols/bias is, again, not germane to a discussion of equilibrium sensitivity… aerosols don't affect the intrinsic sensitivity of the climate, but, of course, as a forcing within the broad grouping of forcings, they are important to the actual transient climate response. But, it would appear, you’re not only unfamiliar with the distinction between equilibrium and effective climate sensitivity, you also don’t appear to recognize (or appreciate) transient climate response as a measure of the strength and rapidity of the surface temperature response to GHG forcing.

In fact there is a historical precedent for the kind of bias I describe with the estimates of electron charge which were originally conducted by Millikan. His value was wrong but it took a long time to discover this because scientists that replicated the experiment assumed that Millikan was right and adjusted their numbers to ensure a better match with Millikan. In an field were scientists that suggest a low CO2 sensitivity are immediately attacked at stooges of 'fossil fuel companies' it is not reasonable to claim that the exact same bias is not at work.

you mean like the hopelessly flawed Lindzen-Choi 2009 study that presumed to estimate sensitivity at 0.5°C? Would you really like to go there… or simply accept a, as you say, “stooging” on their part?

What this all means is the the 'quantitative' probabilities don't mean much. What matters is the range of plausible values. That is why I say the planet will warm due to CO2 and the only question is by how much.

obviously – but your insistence in holding to a minimalistic/optimistic 1.5°C climate sensitivity estimate, doesn’t fit within the IPCC probability categorizations. You continue to ignore the best-estimate of ~3°C and completely discount possibilities toward 4.5°C… because… you can. You wouldn’t bite, twice now, on my questioning your previously stated “business as usual (BAU) scenario” justification for your hanging on to the 1.5°C estimate value... so, let’s be more specific – hey? Since you’re the one that keeps drawing pointed reference to the IPCC reports, as the concept of BAU no longer exists within AR4, just what BAU scenario were/are you describing in presuming to hold to your 1.5°C sensitivity estimate?

[waldo]

I touched upon this climate change as a U.S. national security threat theme in past MLW posts, highlighting related reports/positions of the U.S. Defense Dept (re: it's Quadrennial Defense Review Report) and the CIA (re: the launch of the CIA's Center on Climate Change and National Security) - here in this previous MLW post. Additionally, I referenced the Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the Director of National Intelligence - here in this previous MLW post.

there's also this just released video concerning "Climate Change and National Security"

A bunch of speculation that would be equally valid for any other hypothetical problem. The questions we care about is 1) are these negative effects it likely to occur? 2) can we do anything about it even if we wanted to?

2) is actually the more pertinent point because stopping or even significantly lowering emissions is not a technically feasible option. The only real choice is 1) trash out economies with ineffective policies that push business and jobs overseas 2) adapt as required. 2) is the only rational choice as far as I am concerned.

well... I am rather disappointed you caught yourself and edited out your suggestion these were all politically motivated reports/positions - we could have had some fun there - hey?

as for your 2 questions, apparently... all those military guys and spooks accept that, as you say, "negative effects are likely to occur... some have begun to occur". From their perspectives, they also intend to do something about it - go figure.

stopping emissions? As in completely stopping emissions??? Huh - how would you do that... who has ever proposed that? We get you don't accept the IEA's 40-year pathway to halve the world’s carbon emissions, titled, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2010: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.”... referenced here in this previous MLW post: ... but c'mon, even the IEA accepts the obvious practicalities of a continued, yet significantly reduced, reliance on oil & coal.

edit to add reference to, "Germany targets switch to 100% renewables for its electricity by 2050"

Germany already leads the world on renewable energy and could become first G20 country to kick the fossil-fuel habit

Germany could derive all of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2050 and become the world's first major industrial nation to kick the fossil-fuel habit, the country's Federal Environment Agency said today.

The country already gets 16% of its electricity from wind, solar and other renewable sources – three times' higher than the level it had achieved 15 years ago.

"A complete conversion to renewable energy by 2050 is possible from a technical and ecological point of view," said Jochen Flasbarth, president of the Federal Environment Agency.

"It's a very realistic target based on technology that already exists – it's not a pie-in-the-sky prediction," he said.

Edited July 12, 2010 by waldo

[waldo]

Except, unlike yourself he isn't suggesting Kyoto II as a solution or vast redistributions of wealth a la Maurice Strong.

Maurice Strong!!! Pliny, don't forsake the Pope... is the Pope on hiatus... has the Pope left the (Pliny) building?

squawk! Pope Gore! squawk! Pope Gore! squawk! Pope Gore!

What's the latest from the Pope?

I imagine like your poster child Pope Gore,

... Pope Al Gore and The Book of An Inconvenient Truth? Yuk! Yuk!

Al Gore still the infallible Pope?

...such as presented by Pope Gore

It will take some time before you get the word from Pope Gore.

...from your High priests and Pope Gore.

[waldo]

that muted sound in the distance is the muffled wailing and gnashing of teeth from within the denialsphere... the final dealth knell of the denier's hackergate wet dream... of course, none of the same mainstream sources that played up the nothingness behind hackergate are giving it's renouncement the same presence. But such is the way of the denier... manufactured doubt and uncertainty is their game!

NYT editorial - A Climate Change Corrective

Perhaps now we can put the manufactured controversy known as Climategate behind us and turn to the task of actually doing something about global warming. On Wednesday, a panel in Britain concluded that scientists whose e-mail had been hacked late last year had not, as critics alleged, distorted scientific evidence to prove that global warming was occurring and that human beings were primarily responsible.

It was the fifth such review of hundreds of e-mail exchanges among some of the world’s most prominent climatologists. Some of the e-mail messages, purloined last November, were mean-spirited, others were dismissive of contrarian views, and others revealed a timid reluctance to share data. Climate skeptics pounced on them as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate research to support predetermined ideas about global warming.

The panel found no such conspiracy. It complained mildly about one poorly explained temperature chart discussed in the e-mail, but otherwise found no reason to dispute the scientists’ “rigor and honesty.” Two earlier panels convened by Britain’s Royal Society and the House of Commons reached essentially the same verdict. And this month, a second panel at Penn State University exonerated Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist and faculty member, of scientific wrongdoing.

Dr. Mann, who was part of the e-mail exchange, had been accused of misusing data to prove that the rise in temperatures over the last century was directly linked to steadily rising levels of carbon dioxide. His findings, confirmed many times by others, are central to the argument that fossil fuels must be taxed or regulated.

Another (no less overblown) climate change controversy may also be receding from view. This one involves an incorrect assertion in the United Nations’ 3,000-page report on climate change in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The U.N. acknowledged the error and promised to tighten its review procedures. Even so, this and one or two other trivial mistakes were presented by some as further proof that scientists cannot be trusted and that warming is a hoax.

There have since been several reports upholding the U.N.’s basic findings, including a major assessment in May from the National Academy of Sciences. This assessment not only confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities but warned of growing risks — sea level rise, drought, disease — that must swiftly be addressed by firm action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academy’s report, and Wednesday’s debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies.

[TimG]

edit to add reference to, "Germany targets switch to 100% renewables for its electricity by 2050"

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/12/a-green-retreat.html

Germanys solar subsidies, a signature project in the countrys battle against climate change, are perhaps the most wasteful green scheme on earth, producing a mere 0.25 percent of the countrys energy at a cost to consumers of as much as $125 billion. A leading member of Merkels Christian Democrats in the German Parliament says there is growing unease both in his party and in the Bundestag about the scary monster weve created that is sucking up ever larger amounts of money for a negligible effect.

That idea has so far figured little in the debate, largely because mainstream environmentalists fear it will distract from their push for CO2 cutbacks. Yet adaptation may offer equally valid and much less expensive choices than cutting back on emissions. For example, one of the most-feared effects of warming is rising sea levelsyet mankind has successfully dealt with similar rises for centuries. As soon as you start talking to Dutch engineers, you realize that sea-level rise is business as usual, says Geden. Declining water supplies in some regions of the world, another effect of warmer temperatures, might be more effectively met with efficient water distribution and less water-hungry crops than global temperature targets. Another emerging area of innovation is climate engineering, such as the manipulation of cloud cover and other artificial means of reflecting heat back into space.

In other words, some of the money spent on current policies that often have only limited efficacy might be better spent on other measures, including protection against the worst effects of warming. Whats more, current economic worries are a reminder that every dollar spent on solar cells or biodiesel is a dollar less for education and other budget priorities. If that means climate and environmental policies in the future will be more stringently measured in terms of the tradeoffs involved given finite resources, that would be a lasting benefit that even Kevin Rudd might appreciate.

Music to my ears. Edited July 12, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/12/a-green-retreat.html

Music to my ears.

ya, ya... no surprise you'd pull out something from the struggling and on it's death bed newsrag Newsweek. This previous MLW post speaks to what Newsweek has become... is all about. I'm particularly impressed with those 3 Shell Oil advertisements directly inserted into your linked article's page source... certainly... music to your ears - hey?

[Shady]

This inquiry choose a number of members who had blatent conflicts of interest.

Exactly. The news headlines should have read 'Climate Alarmists Clear Fellow Climate Alarmists of Wrongdoing.' Despite of course the conflicting facts in their emails. The whole investigation would be like the cigarette companies investigating themselves, and then exonerating themselves.

And let's not forget. Peer-reviewed actually means peer-approved, as in climate alarmist approved!