Climate Change Poll

[Keepitsimple]

Probably time for another checkpoint to see how our members are thinking:

The planet has been warming since the end of the last ice age. The "concensus" is that warming has been accellerating and that human-induced CO2 is the primary driving force behind this. Activists build on this consensus by saying it will soon result in "runaway" Global Warming. There is a growing debate challenging this consensus with "skeptics" saying that CO2 has only a small effect on warming and that what we are experiencing is more related to the natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet. Where do you stand on this issue?

Edited August 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

I'm satisfied with the scientific consensus that human-induced CO2 is the major driver of our warming planet and will result in Global Warming. I don't know about the "tipping point from which we may not recover" though and I couldn't answer the poll for that reason.

My experience with my local climate and weather appears to match what was predicted and what I was told I could expect. That also jibes with what I hear first hand from people from around the world.

It's very difficult to believe it's not true. I just don't know about the runaway part.

Modified (in keeping with Keepitsimple's modification)

Edited August 10, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

I voted for #2, but I concur with eyeball. 'Runaway' global warming ?

[waldo]

I voted for #2, but I concur with eyeball. 'Runaway' global warming ?

ah, yes... Simple ton is at it again... but one notes, he didn't feel his own poll worth enough to vote in.

why bother actually defining 'runaway global warming'... what's the Simple definition?

why bother to actually define 'intelligently reducing carbon emissions?... particularly in the context of the undefined Simple reference to 'runaway global warming'

no need to use quotations around the word consensus - hey, Simple?

what? In consideration of the "scam" reference, where are the options for 'global warming is undeniable, is attributed to anthropogenic CO2, but deniers with political and ideological bent are determined to delay and prevent any measures toward mitigation and/or adaptation and/or prevention? Where's that poll option, hey Simple?

of course, the ever present Simple wet dream - the imagined "growing debate" that resides entirely in the minds of deniers, principally residing within the denialsphere... occasionally surfacing into the mainstream driven by lazy and dishonest "hack-journalists", often influenced by the denial machine - one funded by the likes of Koch Industries, right-wing think tanks, big oil, et al. There is no growing debate challenging the consensus... if there were, Simple could certainly step forward with actual evidence of substantive science/study that does exactly that - challenge the consensus. Since we have the early denier camp arrive with their votes, perhaps we could have Wild Bill and/or lukin and/or... even Simple... put forward their case for the cause of warming. You know, make a case for something... anything... other than anthropogenic CO2. Waiting...

[waldo]

Merchants of Doubt - How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming - By Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

The troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on such areas as public health, environmental science, and issues affecting quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly—some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it.

Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, historians of science, roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how ideology and corporate interests, aided by a too-compliant media, have skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain

The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.

Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.

Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.

Later still, the group defended the tobacco giants against charges that second-hand smoke causes cancer and other diseases. And then, starting mainly in the 1980s, this same group took on the battle against climate change.

What is amazing is that, although these attacks on science have been wrong for 30 years, they still sow doubts about established facts. The truth is that there is big money backing the climate-change deniers, whether it is companies that don't want to pay the extra costs of regulation, or free-market ideologues opposed to any government controls.

[TimG]

How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming - By Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

Orsekes is just another conspiracy theory nutjob who has as much credibility as a 9/11 truther or an Obama birther.

[waldo]

Orsekes is just another conspiracy theory nutjob who has as much credibility as a 9/11 truther or an Obama birther.

ya, ya... nothing quite like a well researched and thorough account to bring out the attacks... on the person. Of course, there is always the well researched and thorough account!

hey now - I note your follow-up vote... since you so readily accept that warming has/is occuring (I mean... who other than the likes of Simple actually speaks to cooling), since you've been avoiding requests in the past to offer your alternative to anthropogenic CO2 warming, perhaps you might like to line up with Wild Bill, lukin and Simple, and actually offer a substantive challenge to anthropogenic CO2 - hey?

[Keepitsimple]

Runaway Global Warming

With regards to Runaway Global Warming....perhaps I can clear things up a bit. It's a term that has often appeared in the media - along with similar terms like "tipping points" and a "point of no return". Basically, the implication is that if we keep spewing CO2, there will come a day when it will be too late to do anything about it. Depending on who is speaking, that tipping point could be today, 5 years or 20 years. Here's an article from Real Climate - I'm usually loathe to use them as a source but in this case, they've inadvertently made a good argument that the media has confused things with the use of such terms - but in the end, they confirm how little we actually know.

Runaway tipping points of no return

I wonder if any else has noticed that we appear to have crossed a threshold in the usage of the phrase ‘tipping point’ in discussions of climate? We went from a time when it was never used, to a point (of no return?) where it is used in almost 100% of articles on the subject. Someone should come up with a name for this phenomenon….

............................

Much of the discussion about tipping points, like the discussion about ‘dangerous interference’ with climate often implicitly assumes that there is just ‘a’ point at which things tip and become ‘dangerous’. This can lead to two seemingly opposite, and erroneous, conclusions – that nothing will happen until we reach the ‘point’ and conversely, that once we’ve reached it, there will be nothing that can be done about it. i.e. it promotes both a cavalier and fatalistic outlook. However, it seems more appropriate to view the system as having multiple tipping points and thresholds that range in importance and scale from the smallest ecosystem to the size of the planet. As the system is forced into new configurations more and more of those points are likely to be passed, but some of those points are more globally serious than others. An appreciation of that subtlety may be useful when reading some of the worst coverage on the topic.

Read the whole article here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/

Edited August 9, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

Here's an article from Real Climate - I'm usually loathe to use them as a source...

of course, Simple... you clearly have a strong aversion to referencing legitimate science backed sources, particularly from a blog run by real climate scientists - as distinct from your typical, standard go-to blog scientists/TV weatherman.

did you actually read the article... cause it certainly doesn't fit within your highly constrained poll options that speak singularly to a "runaway" result. Of course, your highly contentious ideological bent presumes on leveraging "catastrophic" end as the boogeyman!

[TimG]

nothing quite like a well researched and thorough account to bring out the attacks.

Visit any 9/11 truther site. You will find lots of "well researched" accounts about how Bush planned the entire thing. Oreakes's premise is absurd because it requires one to believe that a small group of people with a tiny amount of money could out argue the extremely well financed coalition of governments, sympathetic media and environmental groups. The much more plausible explanation is the skeptics have the better arguments.

The problem with people like Oreakes is they are obsessed with the idea that agreement on science should automatically mean agreement on policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of people have simply decided they don't want the policies and that would not change even if it was possible to prove that the IPCC is right about CO2.

since you've been avoiding requests in the past to offer your alternative to anthropogenic CO2 warming

What is your obsession with an 'alternative'? We simply don't have the data that allows us to determine how much an effect CO2 really has. The onus is really on the people pushing to IPCC hypothesis to conclusively demonstrate that it is correct.

[waldo]

The problem with people like Oreakes is they are obsessed with the idea that agreement on science should automatically mean agreement on policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of people have simply decided they don't want the policies and that would not change even if it was possible to prove that the IPCC is right about CO2.

hardly... as a historian of science, she most clearly accepts the consensus; however, this quote would hardly support your assertion that she, as you say, "is obsessed with the idea that agreement on science should automatically mean agreement on policy". Clearly, you're comfortable with your personal self-serving adapt-R-Us position... she most certainly doesn't accept it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen

What is your obsession with an 'alternative'? We simply don't have the data that allows us to determine how much an effect CO2 really has. The onus is really on the people pushing to IPCC hypothesis to conclusively demonstrate that it is correct.

obsession? I certainly can't help if you feel uneasy in, without foundation, challenging the scientific consensus. In this latest go-around, you've simply reaffirmed, once again, your position that you accept warming, don't accept that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause... and choose to deny/ignore the evidence, while failing to refute the evidence and/or offer any substantive alternative. But, uhhh... carry on.

[TimG]

hardly... as a historian of science, she most clearly accepts the consensus; however, this quote would hardly support your assertion that she

That quote is hardly representative of her other public statements. If she really agreed that the 'question on what to do' is still open she would not really care about people who point out the uncertainties that cloud the scientific picture. I suspect what she really means is we can debate things like cap and trade vs. a carbon tax but anyone who suggests that CO2 mitigation is a waste of time is a 'denier'. So unless you can find some quotes that show she agrees that doing nothing is a perfectly valid policy choice, I will say that my original statement about her obsessions is correct.

I certainly can't help if you feel uneasy in, without foundation, challenging the scientific consensus.

I am a voter who has to be convinced to support anti-CO2 policies. That means the the onus is on the purveyors of the consensus to provide me which evidence that I find compelling. The onus is not on me to show that their evidence is not enough. IOW - I don't need to challenge anything. All I am saying is the evidence offered to date for a CO2 induced catastrophe is not that compelling. Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

I've modified the poll to change "runaway global warming" to "a tipping point from which we may not recover". A couple of posters found the first term confusing.....so I've changed it to use the more common phrase.

[waldo]

That quote is hardly representative of her other public statements. If she really agreed that the 'question on what to do' is still open she would not really care about people who point out the uncertainties that cloud the scientific picture. I suspect what she really means is we can debate things like cap and trade vs. a carbon tax and anyone how suggests that CO2 mitigation is a waste of time is a 'denier'. So unless you can find some quotes that show she agrees that doing nothing is a perfectly valid policy choice, I will say that my original statement about her obsessions is correct.

nonsense - you would presume to ignore her spoken word (as I quoted) where she states policy options are still open, and cast her historical account as portrayed within "The Merchants of Doubt", as 'an agenda' towards, as you stated, "policy agreement"... which it most certainly is not.

I am a voter who has to be convinced to support anti-CO2 policies. That means the the onus is on the purveyors of the consensus to provide me which evidence I find compelling. The onus is not on me to show that their evidence is not enough. IOW - I don't need to challenge anything. All I am saying is the evidence offered to date for a CO2 induced catastrophe is not that compelling.

what's the point? You clearly line up with the denier camp that chooses to continually move the supplied evidence goalposts... each time supportive evidence is provided (either new or continuing), you'll simply state - "not enough... do you have more"? Denying the evidence in the face of failing to offer any other substantive alternative... is simply, denying the evidence.

[waldo]

I've modified the poll to change "runaway global warming" to "a tipping point from which we may not recover". A couple of posters found the first term confusing.....so I've changed it to use the more common phrase.

BFD - you clearly didn't read the very article you quoted... your poll is still poorly written with incomplete options presented, notwithstanding the selective emphasis on cause/effect that isn't applied consistently to all applicable options.

[TimG]

you would presume to ignore her spoken word (as I quoted) where she states policy options are still open

Her quoted words were ambiguous. I have listened to entire speeches by her I do not believe for a second that she means anything other than choosing how to reduce CO2 emissions. Her mission is to push people to adopt the CO2 reduction policies that she prefers and she denigrates anyone who disgrees with her policy choices.

each time supportive evidence is provided (either new or continuing), you'll simply state - "not enough... do you have more"?

The trouble is there is no credible evidence supporting the catastrophic AGW claims. All we have are 'scientific' opinions and guesses (note: evidence of warming is NOT evidence for a coming catastrophe). Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Her quoted words were ambiguous. I have listened to entire speeches by her I do not believe for a second that she means anything other than choosing how to reduce CO2 emissions. Her mission is to push people to adopt the CO2 reduction policies that she prefers and she denigrates anyone who disgrees with her policy choices.

then you should have no trouble in providing examples of where she states, unequivocally, her specific policy choices are the only policy options... you know, something that would actually counter her quoted statement that (I paraphrase), "policy options are open".

The trouble is there is no credible evidence supporting the catastrophic AGW claims. All we have are 'scientific' opinions and guesses.

so... says... you. However, you could make a start by actually defining your use of 'catastrophic' in your repeated use of CAGW. That's certainly not a term/acronym with any scientific foundation, nor one used by any scientists... what legitimacy do you draw upon to continue to use it?

[TimG]

then you should have no trouble in providing examples of where she states, unequivocally, her specific policy choices are the only policy options.

She pretty much excludes any policy choice other than 'strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions' with this statement:

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

However, you could make a start by actually defining your use of 'catastrophic' in your repeated use of CAGW.

Based on what we know of climate we know that warming can be good and bad. Catastrophic AGW is the hypothesis that warming is always bad. We have evidence of warming but zero evidence that warming will be bad. Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

She pretty much excludes any policy choice other than 'strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions' with this statement:

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

no, try again... there is nothing personalized in a quote stating "some policy-makers and the media... have used climate science uncertainty... to argue against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions"... notwithstanding, whatever "strong measures" equates to, notwithstanding "strong measures" doesn't preclude an openness toward what those measures will/might/could be. Oh wait, that's right... you're from the "no measures are required" camp that simply states, "whatever happens - we'll just adapt... it'll be cheaper, ya know!"

Based on what we know of climate we know that warming can be good and bad. Catastrophic AGW is the hypothesis that warming is always bad. We have evidence of warming but zero evidence that warming will be bad.

CAGW is a term made up by deniers - one that you've clearly latched on to; again, it has no foundation within the science, has not been used/defined by scientists. Oh my! I did not realize you came from the CO2 is plant food camp!

[TimG]

whatever "strong measures" equates to, notwithstanding "strong measures" doesn't preclude an openness toward what those measures will/might/could be.

Her opinion is clear: if you agree with the science you must support her desired policy of CO2 reduction. If you don't agree with her policies then you must be 'denying the science'. That is NOT being open minded as far as I am concerned. The science is policy neutral. We could agree 100% on every scientific claim but still disagree on whether CO2 reductions are the appropriate response. Personally, I do not think that CO2 reductions are a useful policy focus since CO2 reductions are technologically impossible. That is opinion based on my personal knowledge of the science of energy production. In my opinion the people who are being 'anti-science' are the Oreskes of the world who think science is nothing but a political club that can be used to silence your political opponents.

it has no foundation within the science, has not been used/defined by scientists.

So what? CAGW is was the policy debate is about. If there is no catastrophe there is no need to do anything about CO2. You can snivel and whine as much as you want but that is what the entire policy debate is all about. And that is why the only evidence that means something is evidence that supports the predictions of catatrophe. So far, we have nothing but predictions by unverified climate models. That is not compelling evidence as far as I am concerned. Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[lukin]

People like waldo are easily influenced. It's too bad for his camp that many people are waking up to the agw scam. It's all about transfer of wealth. Plain and simple.

I'll do whatever I can to piss off the eco-greenies.

[Keepitsimple]

I noticed that Waldo has been feverishly posting but has not yet cast a vote. Typical.

[waldo]

Her opinion is clear: if you agree with the science you must support her desired policy of CO2 reduction. If you don't agree with her policies then you must be 'denying the science'. That is NOT being open minded as far as I am concerned. The science is policy neutral. We could agree 100% on every scientific claim but still disagree on whether CO2 reductions are the appropriate response. Personally, I do not think that CO2 reductions are a useful policy focus since CO2 reductions are technologically impossible. That is opinion based on my personal knowledge of the science of energy production. In my opinion the people who are being 'anti-science' are the Oreskes of the world who think science is nothing but a political club that can be used to silence your political opponents.

outright CO2 reduction is a part of the solution... as you obviously know, it's not the complete solution - but don't let that stop you from a narrow-minded posit that suits the/your broad-based denial agenda. Apparently, such policy options as target efficiencies, increased sustainability, nuclear, CCS, cap™, cap&dividend, etc., to you, can simply be couched in terms of "CO2 emission"... and easily dismissed. Your honest broker parroting presumes to exclude scientists from making/offering policy alternatives and recommendations.

So what? CAGW is was the policy debate is about. If there is no catastrophe there is no need to do anything about CO2. You can snivel and whine as much as you want but that is what the entire policy debate is all about. And that is why the only evidence that means something is evidence that supports the predictions of catastrophe. So far, we have nothing but predictions by unverified climate models. That is not compelling evidence as far as I am concerned.

no - it's what you and your delay/denial brethren have made it when you adopted and continue to falsely promulgate the use/legitimacy of the term "CAGW"... it's a denier made-up term with no scientific foundation. As I said, if you couldn't foster a boogeyman... the catastrophe boogeyman... you'd be hard(er) pressed to accept such things as roadmap solution strategies that presume to address interim stages, working to alleviate the absolute worst case scenarios, by, for example, successfully staged, dependent and/or cooperative, policy alternatives. The "all or nothing" catastrophe boogeyman gets regularly trotted out by the delay/denial crew - hey?

[waldo]

People like waldo are easily influenced. It's too bad for his camp that many people are waking up to the agw scam. It's all about transfer of wealth. Plain and simple.

I'll do whatever I can to piss off the eco-greenies.

you're an inconsequential gnat with nothing substantive to offer. By the way, what's an eco-greenie? (feel free to reference your favoured go-to "Green Agenda" website... you know, the one you copied copiously from (verbatim, word for word), while presuming to chastise others for not having any original thoughts )

[waldo]

I noticed that Waldo has been feverishly posting but has not yet cast a vote. Typical.

inconsequential poll with trumped up, missing, skewed/biased options... nah, sorry, I'll pass

(however, please note I haven't been hesitant in letting you know what I think of your poll... oh wait, am I still on ignore?)