Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[Michael Hardner]

I have given you the examples many many times. It is not clear why I should repeat them on this thread. I suggested the hockey stick illusion because it is good summary of these "jaw dropping examples of incompetence".

It's not that at all. The challenge that came back (which I believe came from you) challenged the selection of data points, and still came up with an 80% correlation. Even if their study was valid (and it has been rebutted) then that's nothing like many jaw dropping examples, it's just science.

If that was incompetence, then the retraction by skeptic Friis-Christensen would definitely be incompetence but it's not. It's scientific debate.

You're being completely unreasonable.

[bloodyminded]

There are surveys that show that scientists in academia are largely left leaning. The only exceptions are field like geology where scientists frequently work with private companies as part of their research.

What surveys? I have heard it asserted--probably with some accuracy--that the majority of professors in the Humanities--notably Sociology and, oddly, the study of Literature--lean mildly left. (My own experience suggests too that they are, albeit with many, many exceptions, establishment liberals by ideology...a far cry from the "radical left campus" charged by certain right-wing, professional Victimologists.) But what about the Business Faculties--one of the biggest on campus?

And how have you measured a comparativenumber of conservative geologists compared to folks in other fields?

Do you mean you personally know a conservative geologists...and so have wildly extrapolated from this?

Well, I personally know a very conservative English professor (a damn fine one, incidentally). Therefore, the consensus opinion is bunk, and English profs are conservative.

It's also fascinating that you imply merely working with the Saviour--"private companies"--will determine somebody's beliefs and their political stance. Hell, I worked for WalMart, and was temporarily dependent on that paycheque. And yet somehow I didn't move into the sober realms of the political right.

We have been over this many times and your response is basically: the scientists can't be wrong because they tell me they are not wrong and scientists would never lie to protect themselves or collegues from public criticism.

This is a remarkably promiscuous caricature of Michael Hardner's opinions. His continually-stated wish for greater public accountability in institutions of influence would seem to undermine your claim.

Edited October 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

This is a remarkably promiscuous caricature of Toadbrother's opinions.

It was directed to me, and as I said above I'm starting to find TimG's hyperbole and over-extension to be tiresome. Mostly because he seems articulate and able to make a point, but like many he chooses to exaggerate.

[waldo]

I have given you the examples many many times. It is not clear why I should repeat them on this thread. I suggested the hockey stick illusion because it is good summary of these "jaw dropping examples of incompetence".

you want to beak-off about jaw dropping incompetence... while you have the temerity to continue your "Montford Delusion" scam... now into this thread. Too funny.

[dre]

Society advances when it learns to do more with less. Forcing people to use more expensive energy is a giant step backwards.

And others started hiring because it became cheaper to produce goods locally. The changes you want will *only* be driven by real increases in the market price of fossil fuels. Governments will simply screw up the economy if they insist on forcing change to happen before the market is ready.

All of it driven by a government stealing money from activities that generate wealth and forcing it to be spent on things that consume wealth. It is not sustainable spending.

I am not against R&D. I am against the obsession with CO2 which takes money away from useful investments and directs it torwards carbon scammers. Take CO2 targets, carbon trading, renewable mandates and renewable subsidies off the table and I would not complain.

I am not against R&D. I am against the obsession with CO2

CO2 concerns are one of the most important factors driving R&D.

Take CO2 targets, carbon trading, renewable mandates and renewable subsidies off the table and I would not complain.

All those things can play a usefull part in driving innovation. Some of them already are. Your stand against subsidies for renewables is illogical, unless you take that same stand again other energy subsidies and you dont. In fact you whined about Yucca Mountain being shut down which was nothing more than a huge subsidy to the nuclear inustry.

You dismiss renewables simply because they dont jive with your ideology. And again, you seem to be pretty much in the dark about how new technologies are developed.

[GostHacked]

Are people missing the point of the thread?

[TimG]

It's not that at all. The challenge that came back (which I believe came from you) challenged the selection of data points

All you did is demonstrate that you have no grasp of the scientific issues at play. I really did not have the desire to get into long discussion about why your "rebuttal" was absolutely irrelevant to the point being made. Especially since you often assume that quote mining from abstract of a paper on a jounrnal's website trumps a detailed argument presented on a blog.

At the end of the day, I think this thread is more intesting because it is the policy that matters. The science is a sideshow provided one acknowledges there are great uncertainities in the predictions of the future impacts of climate change.

Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

There are surveys that show that scientists in academia are largely left leaning.

On great... back to the global science conspiracy again.

[Michael Hardner]

All you did is demonstrate that you have no grasp of the scientific issues at play. I really did not have the desire to get into long discussion about why your "rebuttal" was absolutely irrelevant to the point being made. Especially since you blindly assume that quote mining from abstract of a paper on a jounrnal's website always trumps a detailed argument presented on a blog.

I'm talking about the academic challenge, not MY rebuttal. If they had found no correlation whatsoever, then that might start to constitute incompetence - but the statistical paper you submitted still found an 80% correlation. And again, it's being disputed in the literature.

"Quote mining" might be an apt criticism if I wasn't taking out sentences from the *conclusion* of the paper, or quoting your paper.

Your criteria for jaw-dropping incompetence is nowhere near met. Just wave the white flag, and let's move on to the next point. There's nothing more unbecoming to me than somebody arguing over a dead point.

[Michael Hardner]

Are people missing the point of the thread?

Yes, I think we all are (again)....

[dre]

All you did is demonstrate that you have no grasp of the scientific issues at play. I really did not have the desire to get into long discussion about why your "rebuttal" was absolutely irrelevant to the point being made. Especially since you often assume that quote mining from abstract of a paper on a jounrnal's website trumps a detailed argument presented on a blog.

At the end of the day, I think this thread is more intesting because it is the policy that matters. The science is a sideshow provided one acknowledges there are great uncertainities in the predictions of the future impacts of climate change.

All you did is demonstrate that you have no grasp of the scientific issues at play.

No... thats your act.

[TimG]

It's also fascinating that you imply merely working with the Saviour--"private companies"--will determine somebody's beliefs and their political stance. Hell, I worked for WalMart, and was temporarily dependent on that paycheque. And yet somehow I didn't move into the sober realms of the political right.

Here is a link to survey data: http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=1208

They are talking about scientists which I presume excludes business and humanities. I have see other surveys which break it down by discipline. Geologists are the one exception.

Any bias is a result of self-selection. In high school anyone which the aptitude to become a scientist or an engineer could choose to be either. Right leaning people tend to choose fields where they are likely to work in the private sector (i.e. engineer). Left leaning people tend to choose fields where they can work for the government (i.e. academic scientists).

[Michael Hardner]

Here is a link to survey data: http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=1208

They are talking about scientists which I presume excludes business and humanities. I have see other surveys which break it down by discipline. Geologists are the one exception.

Any bias is a result of self-selection. In high school anyone which the aptitude to become a scientist or an engineer could choose to be either. Right leaning people tend to choose fields where they are likely to work in the private sector (i.e. engineer). Left leaning people tend to choose fields where they can work for the government (i.e. academic scientists).

Score. That seems like a real survey, from a real magazine. Non-response is recorded, which likely means this is a rigorous study, even though the summary doesn't give sample size, or methods.

Well done.

[TimG]

Your stand against subsidies for renewables is illogical, unless you take that same stand again other energy subsidies and you dont. In fact you whined about Yucca Mountain being shut down which was nothing more than a huge subsidy to the nuclear industry.

The nuclear industry needs government to allow it to do something with its waste. In the ideal world the waste would be recycled but it needs be stored safely until it can be recycled. All of these costs should be bourn by the nuclear industry but they need governmnet permission. That is what I am complaining about.

I also reject all subsidies for all energy sources. The difficultly is advocates deperate to make their case choose call things a subsidy when they are not.

Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Score. That seems like a real survey, from a real magazine. Non-response is recorded, which likely means this is a rigorous study, even though the summary doesn't give sample size, or methods.

Does that mean you will no longer dispute my claim that scientists are a left leaning? Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Here is a link to survey data: http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=1208

They are talking about scientists which I presume excludes business and humanities. I have see other surveys which break it down by discipline. Geologists are the one exception.

Any bias is a result of self-selection. In high school anyone which the aptitude to become a scientist or an engineer could choose to be either. Right leaning people tend to choose fields where they are likely to work in the private sector (i.e. engineer). Left leaning people tend to choose fields where they can work for the government (i.e. academic scientists).

Thanks for the link. But it's not a convincing argument: you claim "largely left-leaning" (and the author claims "overwhelmingly liberal"), after showing stats of 56% self-identified liberals, and 55% Democrat-voters.

Since 50%/50% is itself statistically unlikely, I don't see this as powerful evidence of bias.

At any rate, personal political leanings (which everybody has, whether they identify them or not) is not evidence of scientific bias.

[GostHacked]

Yes, I think we all are (again)....

I feel for you dude. WTF is so difficult about staying on topic these days? I like the premise of the thread, and it's interesting to see people glaze over that and just say AWG is not true. We are talking about a hypothetical situation where we are claiming it as true, and now how do we deal with it.

I've seen pages of 'not true'. Without even paying lip service to the topic at hand.

Anyways, One solution to me is to stop mowing down forests. They provide a means in which CO2 gets extracted from the air, and oxygen get put into the air. The less vegetation on planet earth and with more people more industry, means we will all be having a hard time breathing and there will be less and less oxygen in the air. There are quick and easy solutions we can implement now to mitigate the rising temps. Forests can help.

Stop using coal as a source of energy. No matter how scrubbed, it's still dirty as hell, and contributes more than just C02 into the air.

Use products that can be 100% recylced. There really is no need for 10 different grades of commercial plastics that we use for everything. Not all facilities have the ability to handle certain classifications of recyclable materials. Axing bottled water would save a lot and actually have an immediate and noticeable impact.

If we started in the 80s with pursuing green technology, we might have been able to avoid this whole mess. If we start now, we can still avoid much of the mess, however it will take a little longer to see the good results.

When I purchase a house (within the next couple years) I am going to do what I can to make it self sustainable with as much green tech as I can afford. Which is another problem, make the green tech cheap, and you will find many wanting to make the leap to switch. We can outfit our homes right now with cheap solar and wind generation and have a storage solution for the not so sunny days. Getting the majority of houses off the grid and self sustainable will also help reduce the amount of pollution from power plants.

I am sure many of you have a small solution that if all of us adopted, collectively we can make a huge impact.

[TimG]

Thanks for the link. But it's not a convincing argument: you claim "largely left-leaning" (and the author claims "overwhelmingly liberal"), after showing stats of 56% self-identified liberals, and 55% Democrat-voters.

Only 2% identified themselves as Conservative and only 6% as Republican. That shows a very strong tilt towards one side of the political debate.

At any rate, personal political leanings (which everybody has, whether they identify them or not) is not evidence of scientific bias.

But the peer decides what science is deemed to be correct an this is important in fields like climate where data is ambiguous and can be interpreted in many ways. Political ideology is be like a thumb on the scale that skews the results.

Let me made one thing clear: I don't believe that any scientist deliberately misrepresents science. I am saying that given judgements that could go either way the personal views of scientist will affect those judgements.

Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Does that mean you will no longer dispute my claim that scientists are a left leaning?

That is what it means.

[Michael Hardner]

I feel for you dude. WTF is so difficult about staying on topic these days? I like the premise of the thread, and it's interesting to see people glaze over that and just say AWG is not true. We are talking about a hypothetical situation where we are claiming it as true, and now how do we deal with it.

Hey, it's ok... it's a contentious issue - not to be taken too personally...

[wyly]

Are people missing the point of the thread?

yup...I don't recall seeing any posts that address the OP...

the obvious solutions cut CO2 production, a switch to green energy which will have numerous long term financial and economic benefits...use carbon based resources to make recyclable products, burning a valuable non-renewable resource is the dumbest thing ever, if nothing else you would think the denier crowd could at least comprehend that much...

there is research into cloud making in order to lower global temps, it has already been done successfully on a small scale...doing it on the immense scale that is required is the challenge...a spin off benefit is that it will improve wind energy technology and reduce fuel/energy costs for shipping...

[TimG]

the obvious solutions cut CO2 production, a switch to green energy which will have numerous long term financial and economic benefits...use carbon based resources to make recyclable products, burning a valuable non-renewable resource is the dumbest thing ever, if nothing else you would think the denier crowd could at least comprehend that much.

Easier said than done. That is the problem. When renewables can compete in a free market with fossil fuels they will be used. More importantly, it will happen as oil increases in price. The trouble is caused by the impatient folks who insist everything has to be done now and (naively) assume that the government actually has the power to change the trillion dollar market for energy. Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Only 2% identified themselves as Conservative and only 6% as Republican. That shows a very strong tilt towards one side of the political debate.

That's a fair point, and I apologize for missing it first time around.

But the peer decides what science is deemed to be correct an this is important in fields like climate where data is ambiguous and can be interpreted in many ways. Political ideology is be like a thumb on the scale that skews the results.

I understand the hypothesis, but so far it remains merely that.

Let me made one thing clear: I don't believe that any scientist deliberately misrepresents science. I am saying that given judgements that could go either way the personal views of scientist will affect those judgements.

Possibly. But why wouldn't the judgement remain neutral? Are geologists more likley to skew their results in a conservative direction, should a controversy arise? I don't see why it would happen on a regular basis.

And, just as much to the point, what makes AGW ideas "left-leaning"?

That there are political debates that arise around a subject doesn't mean that each side is either "conservative" or "liberal" by necessity. That's rather like mistaking causes and effects.

For an analogy, look at the fierce debates that sprung up on the eve of the Iraq War. Many conservatives felt (and remain under the delusion) that this was "left vs. right" debate, based soley on the fact that larger numbers of Western conservatives were in support, and smaller numbers of liberals were.

But in fact, this isn't true. Everywhere outside of,literally, three or four countries, the majority of people were opposed to the war, at least as far as we can tell from the numerous polls that were published. (In the case of the "supportive" Eastern European countries--"New Europe," as the US administration declared with imperial pomposity--public support was actually lower than in Wetsern Europe.)

And yet the idea was that "the left" foolishly opposed the war, and so must be met in rhetorical battle.

When in fact, on this particular issue, the Left just happened to be in rough agreement with world opinion generally. (This is, of course, utterly aside from who was "right" and who was "wrong.")

These climate debates are of a similar nature, or at least arguably. The left--right or wrong--is closer to the standard, mainstream view on the matter. "The left" did not come up with the idea.

Even if a small majority of American scientists vote for the centrist Business Party called "Democrats."

Edited October 5, 2010 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

For those of you interested in policy I strongly recommend Pielke's book "climate fix".

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526

I disagree with Pielke on the idea that CO2 is a clear and present danger but he explains why the current attempts to regulate CO2 are doomed to fail.

[wyly]

That is what it means.

it shouldn't...if a scientist is purely research driven what potential employers are there?...what private corporation gives a damn about the sex life of a moose? that's something the federal and provincial governments have an interest in funding...

if a researcher is driven purely by profit he/she isn't going to find that working for a non profit organization like federal government...where is a geologist most likely to find work? energy and mining, company profit affects their livelyhood which is why so many of those working for oil and coal companies refute AGW....

where scientists work is determined by their interests and if it's of financial interest to the corporate world...most will take work wherever it is offered, and if it's researching the sex life of a moose that offer isn't coming from the private sector...

Edited October 5, 2010 by wyly