An open letter to Prime Minister Harper

[BC_chick]

We have gone over this list of scientists before. Many of them are former professors and have not done peer reviewed work for a very long time.

Having read the Dion thread, I thought betsy understood the meaning of peer-reviewed scientific journal and I was therefore arguing from that standpoint.

I think you just hit the nail on the head. I don't think she's understood the term quite yet.

[Topaz]

I think the answer to Kyoto question is for people to look around the world and use their common sense and asked themselves "Are the poles at each end of the earth suppose to melt?" IF they do, what happens then? The oceans get higher and coastlines come in land. If you pollute long enough you will harm the environment and it will have bad effects on the earth and its habitats. If we ignore it then people will die so isn't better to keep an open mind that this could be very true??

[jdobbin]

Having read the Dion thread, I thought betsy understood the meaning of peer-reviewed scientific journal and I was therefore arguing from that standpoint.

I think you just hit the nail on the head. I don't think she's understood the term quite yet.

I think Harper saw the list of scientists who wrote him. He also saw the long list of scientists who countered that letter. All of those scientists are still working in the field and not retired to speaking engagements.

Harper isn't going to get an easy ride on global warming. He is going to offend his base of support here because he will act on emissions even while dragging his feet. And as he drags his feet, he will annoy those that do want to make an effort.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Peer Review" is a process, not scientific perfection....it is also not designed to catch purposeful fraud:

Peer-review is a critical part of the functioning of the scientific community, of quality control, and the self corrective nature of science. But it is no panacea. It is helpful to understand what it is, and what it isn’t, its uses and abuses.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/def...asp?Display=115

[betsy]

1. Dr John Everett, now a consulting oceanographer; also involved with the IPCC as reviewer, etc. This contains much useful info. Dr Everett shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change. Good review of the main issues, including the IPCC & its procedures, esp the famous 'scientific consensus'. Provides good background/context for lay inquirers.

Dr. Everett is not an opponent of reducing emissions.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Media/...ony_Everett.pdf

Yes, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change.

[jdobbin]

Yes, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change.

What he said in his report to Congress in April is that he is an expert in assessment not in the science of climate change.

Read that link. It is all there.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the answer to Kyoto question is for people to look around the world and use their common sense and asked themselves "Are the poles at each end of the earth suppose to melt?" IF they do, what happens then? The oceans get higher and coastlines come in land. If you pollute long enough you will harm the environment and it will have bad effects on the earth and its habitats. If we ignore it then people will die so isn't better to keep an open mind that this could be very true??

No...human mortality rates related to the "environment" were actually much higher before the industrial revolution due to things like infant mortality, famine, floods, earthquakes, tsunami, tropical diseases, etc. Technology (including cheap energy) have driven such rates down. Three hundred years ago, it was a major accomplishment to have survived winter in many parts of Canada.

So there may be other reasons to engage the GW circus, but human mortality is not one of them.

[BC_chick]

Dr. Everett is not an opponent of reducing emissions.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Media/...ony_Everett.pdf

Yes, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change.

Despite the fact the jdobbin already addressed this, I want to put forth a suggestion to you about what you're trying to establish here - how much sense does it make to argue that someone is advocating something, which, by your admission, that person also claims to be futile?

[betsy]

Yes, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change.

Despite the fact the jdobbin already addressed this, I want to put forth a suggestion to you about what you're trying to establish here - how much sense does it make to argue that someone is advocating something, which, by your admission, that person also claims is futile?

First, what do you mean by my admission? It's his admission. Read the quote. He thinks reducing emission is a good idea, AND he says that doing so will have no significant effect on climate change.

Dr John Everett "shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change."

Everett, without his saying so, does seem to agree with the Harper approach. He considers the reduction of emissions a good thing. He also comsiders that reduction in emissions will not help alleviate climate change. Without knowing more of what he says and thinks - in other words, purely from this quote, we learn nothing about why he thinks reduction of carbon emissions is good. We can infer that he feels that it would be a valuable reduction in pollution. We can infer no more than that. And we're taking liberties at that. In other words, he didn't say why. We'll have to read the entire link to fully understand where he's coming from, assuming that he says why.

Edited. Removed some.

[betsy]

Pinning all your trust on this so-called peer-reviewed...or any peer-reviewed journals, and accepting them without question, is not sensible.

I am not denying there is climate change. What I'm questioning and challenging are those peer-reviewed journals.

The Politics of Peer Review

"In fact, "peer review" turns out to be highly susceptible to such subversion. For one thing, it's only as reliable as the individuals chosen to serve as "peers" and the formal process within which peer review takes place.

Peer review doesn't automatically serve as a "guarantor of truth," note Rutgers University science policy scholars Stuart Shapiro and David Guston, and it also won't necessarily quench controversy in highly politicized scientific areas.

So while "peer review" may be important as a direction or ideal, it's not a process that can be automatically and uncritically trusted to strengthen science. In closing, another telling example of the ambiguities inherent in peer review comes to mind. Last year the Stanford Law Review, a non-peer reviewed journal, published a devastating critique of economist John Lott's famed "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis, which had generally been supported by a series of peer reviewed studies that, in retrospect, seem severely flawed. Not surprisingly, Lott now criticizes the Stanford Law Review study for not being peer reviewed. But the substance of the argument is what actually counts, and economists seem increasingly convinced that Lott has lost on the merits--peer review notwithstanding.

Perhaps there's a lesson there when it comes to the OMB/OIRA proposal. Before automatically embracing "peer review," we should be exceedingly careful to determine what the phrase actually means, who's using it--and why they care."

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/peerreview/

[BC_chick]

Therefore, all the more we need to tread with caution...instead of jumping off the cliff and spending TRILLIONS of dollars, and on top of that, putting our economy at great risk!

Regarding Dr. Everett who you brought up - are you agreeing that it's not very sound logic for you to claim that somebody who disagrees with the human-causes of GW, believes, for some reason, in reducing emissions?

[ScottSA]

Every scientist with an opinion is funded by someone, or else they'd be washing dishes. To say that scientists who argue against global warming are paid lackeys of G&O companies is as silly as saying that scientists who argue for it are lackeys of the Sieraa Club or the UN, which is where much of their funding comes from. And if this is the case; if scientists can simply be bought of by the highest bidder; then what's the point of listening to them at all?

There is not a consensus...there never was. There may be a rough consensus that global warming is taking place, as it did many times in the past, but there is certainly not a consensus that human emissions are causing or even appreciably affecting it. Nor is there any kind of consensus at all that Kyoto is going to fix it even if there were no other debates. In fact, many GW advocates now openly admit that Kyoto is not the answer. I know it's hip and liberal and "openminded" to believe anything the hemp sandal wearing crowd says, but even the IPCC is revising downwards its apocalyptic predictions, and it's about as one-sided as it gets.

Kyoto may or may not be the answer, that's not what I'm arguing here, I'm arguing about the number of peer-reviewed scientific journals which agree with human causes of GW vs. the others. You are implying that they are getting their funding from environment groups at the same time that you are neither denying nor confirming that the naysayers are getting their funding from special interest groups.

Are you implying that with the billions of dollars in revenue earned by the special interests groups, a handful of scientists who are on the fringes of the community is the best they can come up with..... meanwhile the environmental groups somehow have to resources to pay off the thousands of scientists who argue otherwise?

Your question presupposes that they ARE trying to influence public opinion, and that is what I question. And in spite of your ad hominem directed at the list of scientists, it works both ways...there are very few scientists who actually deal with global warming on ANY side, and those who do make up a hugely disparate crowd with numerous opinions and axes to grind. You'll find that a large number of scientists flogging the human cause side are biologists or piano teachers or English professors with a great deal less expertise than those you claim are on the "fringes."

But really, you're not interested in the truth; you're interested in what's hip. Have at 'er.

[ScottSA]

I think the answer to Kyoto question is for people to look around the world and use their common sense and asked themselves "Are the poles at each end of the earth suppose to melt?" IF they do, what happens then? The oceans get higher and coastlines come in land. If you pollute long enough you will harm the environment and it will have bad effects on the earth and its habitats. If we ignore it then people will die so isn't better to keep an open mind that this could be very true??

You have a few different topics shoved in there. "Pollution" doesn't equal CO2, the poles are not melting, and keeping an open mind does not involve rushing out to spend billions on a whim. Common sense would suggest that if the earth has heated and cooled many times before ever a smokestack was built, that manmade CO2 has very little to do with it. Common sense would suggest that if even the IPCC has revised downward it's prediction from a 6' rise to a 4" rise over 100 years, that we ought not start jumping off buildings to avoid the melting pole apocalypse quite yet. Common sense would suggest that we ought to reduce pollution, as distinct from CO2 to the greatest extent possible without destroying the economy. That's common sense. What most folks here are talking about is hemp sandaled hipness.

[betsy]

Therefore, all the more we need to tread with caution...instead of jumping off the cliff and spending TRILLIONS of dollars, and on top of that, putting our economy at great risk!

Regarding Dr. Everett who you brought up - are you agreeing that it's not very sound logic for you to claim that somebody who disagrees with the human-causes of GW, believes, for some reason, in reducing emissions?

No, I changed my explanation. Please go back and read it. It's not a contradiction at all. It's a misquote of Everett and me.

As for my statement concerning the trillions and the destruction of our economy (which got deleted), I stand by that.

[betsy]

Jdobbin and BC Chick:

"This site is constructed by Dr. John Everett to provide objective information about climate warming from the perspective of a systems analyst who is often asked about climate change, whether as part of some other issue or directly in Congressional testimony. Every effort is made to present all the issues, similar to what an enquiring mind would need to understand before rendering an opinion as to whether there are pros and cons to a warming (or cooling) scenario for a particular sector in a particular region, or even for the global society. Essentially, this is a site for those who think before they leap. For those whose mind is already determined, perhaps you should go elsewhere and not become confused by facts."

For those not afraid of facts, go to...

http://climatechangefacts.info/AboutUs.html

[betsy]

Yes, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change.

What he said in his report to Congress in April is that he is an expert in assessment not in the science of climate change.

Why is it suddenly important that a scientist be an expert in climate change. The god of all global warming gods is a geneticist.

What precisley is wrong about being an expert in assessment? At least it's clearly related to the issue...assessing the possible causes of climate change. Anyway I think he is more important than a mere assessor. Like a property assessor. Or some other mundane assessment role. No! He is the assessor of all assessors! And his property is....THE EARTH!

[BC_chick]

Your question presupposes that they ARE trying to influence public opinion, and that is what I question. And in spite of your ad hominem directed at the list of scientists, it works both ways...

So it's an ad hominem attack when I label the fraction of scientists who make up the naysayers as the "fringe" but acceptable when you accuse the majority who are proponents as a circus?

there are very few scientists who actually deal with global warming on ANY side, and those who do make up a hugely disparate crowd with numerous opinions and axes to grind. You'll find that a large number of scientists flogging the human cause side are biologists or piano teachers or English professors with a great deal less expertise than those you claim are on the "fringes."

Your favourite line right back at ya - link please.

[jester]

This climate arguement is getting like playing soldiers as a kid--" I shot you--No you didn't you missed--never did--etc,etc". It will happen no matter what we do and at it's own time and speed. The problem isn't how to stop it (we can't) or slow it down but what will we do during and after. Are we as a species going the way of 99.9% of the rest of life on Earth, extinct, or will we manage to survive and evolve ourselves and our society. At present we will follow the mammoths example during the last climate change only with more arguements and " I told you so".....

[BC_chick]

Why is it suddenly important that a scientist be an expert in climate change. The god of all global warming gods is a geneticist.

What????

What precisley is wrong about being an expert in assessment?

First, you got it backward, he's an expert in assessment, but not in global-warming.

As for the importance thereof - maybe because it'll help in the assessment!

[BC_chick]

Are we as a species going the way of 99.9% of the rest of life on Earth, extinct, or will we manage to survive and evolve ourselves and our society. At present we will follow the mammoths example during the last climate change only with more arguements and " I told you so".....

Did you read some of the suggestions in betsy's talking points website? They are suggesting that global-warming is going to do the earth good.

Just like tobacco-company funded ads from days gone by which read "Nine out of ten doctors recommend Camel" (the cigarette) as shown in "An Inconvenient Truth."

[jester]

The whole climate change from both sides is becoming boring. People are tired of being told we are doomed and all politicians come up with are more taxes or costs. If the sea level goes up 20m people are not just going to sit there getting wet they will move. The planet changes all the time and either we will or we won't change as well, it doesn't really matter who turns out to be right in the end. All the contests for who has the most points and scientists are wasting time that could be better used.

[ScottSA]

They are suggesting that global-warming is going to do the earth good.

The warming trend during the middle ages did the earth a great deal of good. It's not clear to me how longer growing periods with better plant food (CO2) and shorter winters is going to be a bad thing. Oh, right...4" of sea level increase, maybe, over the next 100 or so years.

[Remiel]

Higher Temperatures + Even More People = A Plague's Best Friend

[jdobbin]

http://climatechangefacts.info/AboutUs.html

And from his site:

My specialty is in impacts assessment (oceans, coasts, fisheries, polar regions), not the science of climate change.

[jdobbin]

Why is it suddenly important that a scientist be an expert in climate change. The god of all global warming gods is a geneticist.

What precisley is wrong about being an expert in assessment? At least it's clearly related to the issue...assessing the possible causes of climate change. Anyway I think he is more important than a mere assessor. Like a property assessor. Or some other mundane assessment role. No! He is the assessor of all assessors! And his property is....THE EARTH!

He is free to make an assessment. However, he is not an expert in the science of climate change as he himself admits.