To be fair what's being denied is that mankind is changing the climate. Not that any climate change is occuring. Most would probablly say they believe the climate is always changing.

The denial in the science of evolution is a denial we came from apes and other inter-species evolution. Not that evolution does not exist at all.

Since the hockey stick theory is debunked and a mini-ice age preceeded todays warming trend it is not an unreasonable position to believe that today's warming is a natural and unavoidable occurance. Especailly when so many climatoligists and meteroligists are not convinved themselves that mankind is responsible for the current changes.

It is absolutely clear that a very large proportion of people do not understand the very fundamentals of modern science: you form a postulate, you gather evidence, and the evidence either supports the postulate -- in which case you keep the postulate, or it doesn't -- in which case you repostulate.

Some people are simply incapable of accepting that. Some people (including some scientists) are reluctant to admit they were/are wrong.

Others simply are not interested in evidence -- they're probably a small minority (I hope they're a small minority) but there are definitely people who want to believe what they believe, and no amount of evidence will ever be good enough.

Many of the people Steven Maurer is talking about -- those who deny because they can, deny as a political choice. They purposefully compound and exacerbate the ignorance of others to muddy the issue, generally to keep to some status quo that the evidence suggests is unsupportable. People schooled in logic and rhetoric (I'm not one of them) can and have pointed out the strategies that political deniers use.

Richard is correct, but sadly so. Helpfully clarifying the precise position of political deniers just lets them off the hook for deliberately muddying the waters.

He is fairly summing up comments on global warming made by W and his minions. But the actual effect of those comments was to confuse the issue and maintain the status quo -- pretending global warming isn't a problem, so nothing need be done about it.

And there you have the liberal dilemma in a nutshell. The evidence is that W wasn't lying, and yet...

I agree with SM that the reason the deniers persist is because they have an economic interest and they can get away with it.

Look at the most blatant instance. They elected a VP that could run the federal government at their behest, their requests to purge rules and agencies of environmental protection are being granted in large part , and the oil and coal companies are profting directly from that. They are even able to appoint their own company representatives into positions where they can attempt to change agency scientific findings, as oil industry shill Phil Coomey did in 2003. See Phil alter a scientific report in order to benefit ExxonMobil, his client.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/06/07/politics/08climate_162.gif

I think the 'skeptic science" is an explicit strategy by mostly coal and oil companies seeking to maintain a seed of doubt in as many minds as possible so as to delay regulatory action as long as possible. Just as the tobacco companies were lying about what they knew about the health effects of smoking, the intelligent people running these fossil fuel companies surely know what they are doing - thay have just made the tradeoff between making more money and controlling this pollution. It is a dynamic that the executives of large corporate interests have repeated over and over. The saddest part is that enough gullible individuals buy into their agenda - and enough politicians get enough campaing funding - to keep this tragedy rolling on, year after year.

Richard, above, has stated some of the reasoning he uses in his denial, but it's more of a justification than motivation. However, his use of the phrase "a natural and unavoidable occurance" seems indicative of a "not-my-fault" attitude. In other words, for Richard, it's all about blame.

I think that's another major cause of denial: The denier denies because it keeps it from being their fault.

That's a popular theme in America - blame someone else. If it's not their fault, why should they have to deal with it, and why should they have to pay for it?

In this case, I think the answer is simple: You deal with it because it's easier and less expensive than the alternative.

It's like a choice between fixing your car or getting a new one, except that you can't get a new one. This is the only planet we have, and if it breaks, mankind is screwed.

I'm not the least bit worried about wine crops drying up....but the second beer hops are endangered, I may too jump aboard this bandwagon...

Albert writes:

Especailly when so many climatoligists and meteorligists are not >convinved themselves that mankind is responsible for the current >changes.

<h2>All of my climatologist and meteorologist friends agree that humankind IS responsible for the current warming of the globe. Not sure who you're hanging out with.</h2>

So, how big was your sample size (all your climato/meteoro friends)? Was that a representative sample size? Do you have any non '...ologist' friends that could have influenced you as well?

I have to say I'm a little shocked to find global warming deniers in this community of generally engaged people. I don't know of credible scientists who continue to deny. Even the Bush EPA has come around despite the continuing resistance of Mr. Bush himself. And it's well documented that the denials can be traced to major funding by fossil fuel companies, particularly Exxon Mobil.

More interesting, I think, is a tidbit Jeff mentioned which isn't getting much discussion. The too-commonly-held notion that stablilizing our climate will somehow cause economic chaos is just incorrect. A major economic transition, yes, but a transition to a cleaner, healthier, and more efficient economy & society. Renewable energy generates significantly more jobs than fossil fuel development. Energy conservation keeps money in consumers' and businesses' bank accounts, money that can be spent in the local economy rather than shipped for foreign oil & gas lords. Solving global warming doesn't have a downside.

No need to go to far. Our very own Oregon State Climatologist has his doubt and if far from being persuaded. And his reasons are all science based.

There is substantial science based doubt out there. For people here to play this like there is none but kooks and profiteers is sloppy science.

With thingss like thwe "Hockey stick theory" being debunked, other global warming boiler plates are not far behind. It's OK to look up. A chicken won't fall on your face.

"In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases"<.

If all of mankind causes emits around 5%, 1/20th of all greenhouse gases how can the United States emit 1/5 of all greenhouse gases?

Rising greenhouse gases are only part of the global climate change equation. I believe Jeff has oversimplified his argument to make his point, but that doesn't change the fact it's an oversimplification.

To suggest that CO2 (alone, or in combination with other gases) is the only variable in the global climate change equation is naive. Other factors include: solar cycles, orbital variations in the "pitch" of the earth (Milankovitch cycles), volcanic eruptions, and the relationship between ocean temperatures/currents/weather.

It's also naive to suggest the United States is uniquely poised to reduce greenhouse gases. Developing countries (primarily China, India, Brazil) are increasing GHG emissions at greater rates than the U.S. is likely to reduce.

The scientists can (and do) distinguish between data that can be measured by proxy (tree rings, ice cores, etc) and the multitude of variables which produced the changes they can measure. Long story short: we know that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are rising. We don't know (with certainty) if reducing those gases will lead to global cooling.

Apparently President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore are deniers. They had over 8 years in office to address global warming. Why did they advocate deep-sixing the Kyoto Treaty?

The science "debate" on the existence of anthropogenic climate (rather than on the details), wholly created by the industry disinformation machine, isn't the interesting point here - its only noise that will be wrung out in due time.

I think it is more interesting to look at Jeff's original question: "Why do the deniers deny?". I wrote above that I think it is the profit agenda, and then secondarily to push the limits on purveying as much misinformation toward delaying greenhouse gas pollution as long as possible to achieve those profits. Now, based on these comments, of which I estimate contain only one (maybe two) paid industry trolls to achieve the disinformation goals of that strategy, the remainder are due to the third reason for denying: just plain failure (deliberate or out of laziness) to apply the scientific method to a scientific question.

And by the way, our State Climatologist is not a climate scientist - he is a meteorologist that collects climate data. His climate change "work" has been paid in part by TechCentral.com, a website developed and funded to present the "science " view of its funders, including ExxonMobil. To my knowledge, he has ZERO peer-reviewed articles on global climate change.

Albert: Hang out with some Notational Academy of Sciences types. They issued a report a few weeks ago on the subject. The newspaper headline was generally that the report confirmed man played a role, but the real story is buried in the details as you can see from these excerpts from the OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS section (I added bold to the excerpts; my comments are italic): “• Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence...” This affirms the existence of the medieval warm period AND the little ice age. Since neither of these features show up on the “hockey stick” chart, this flaw casts serious doubt on the chart and the methods used to create it, as well as all other work using these methods.In plain English: the “Hockey Stick” Chart has been disproven. (Notice below that they compare current temperature to the medieval warm period, but on the “hockey stick” chart they are nowhere close in temperature-this difference alone should disprove the chart and its methods.) “• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by...” Four centuries ago was 1600 A.D., right in the middle of the little ace age which ran from 1500 to 1850 per above. The committee basically said: we are warmer than the middle of the little ice age. Personably I’m glad! “• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. ...” The use of the phrase“many but not all” hardly suggests the comprehensive knowledge that justifies a need for immediate action to stem global warming. It does, however, suggest that there might be something substantiateable here. “• Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 ...” Very little confidence means just that.

JK: And from page 12, sheet 36 (I bolded parts of the original & commented in italic): “ the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium....” Note the use of the word “plausible”. This is not a very high degree of confidence. “ Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because ... The committee has even less confidence in this claim than they had in something that was only plausible. In Plain English, the claim that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year” sucketh. Also keep in mind that this report is basically debunking the politically correct position and therefore needs to tread lightly.

JK: Over the years, the public has paid little attention to the climate debate, until the “hockey stick” chart and the claim that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” The report basically destroys both of these claims. See http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html for old newspaper coverage of past weather cycles. The NAS report is free from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html (A bit hard to find - look in the box offering it for sale). Thanks JK

oregonj:To my knowledge, he has ZERO peer-reviewed articles on global climate change. JK: Probably not, but look how badly Mann got his 8 year old peer reviewed stuff criticized by the NAS report (see my previous message). As to peer reviewed - it is not a god. Would you trust a peer reviewed journal of Republican economics? Or a peer reviewed journal of astrology?

Thanks JK

Our State Climatologist, like many others, has data that demonstrates the uncertainty about Man's role in global warming. The real deniers are those who pretend man's role is conclusive and that no questions and contrary data exist. It's my understanding that our State Climatologist was paid one time a $500 fee for writing a report, on his own view, on a specific topic for some industry publication. If you think that rules him out of the scientific community you are worse than a denier yourself. I have read much on Global Warming and I don't buy the Goreamonium. Like countless others I don't fall into your rediculous self serving categories used to prop up your own radical stance on this issue. Insulting the populous who doesn't ride your Gore bus demonstrates your agenda is far from scientific.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to pretend that I can read a few articles and come to a reasoned position about global warming. However, science has been wrong many times in the past and it could be wrong this time. Scientists have also made "mistakes" that could have been politically motivated (Klamath basin fish studies). So it's not unwise to be skeptical about what the "vast majority" of scientists are telling us about global warming.

Jeff's question about why deniers deny is an interesting one. Here's another one, "Why would scientists forcefully argue for human-caused global warming if the evidence doesn't support it?"

Here's my conspiracy theory answer: liberal scientists from industrialized countries are arguing for human-caused global warming because they want to keep third world countries from industrializing. There's a slice of the progressive movement that wants the rest of the world to engage in subsistence farming forever; human-caused global warming is good theory to keep economic growth from happening in the third world.

I don't believe this conspiracy theory (well, maybe a little bit), I'm just trying to make the point that ulterior motives can always be found and there are few (no?) people out there whose perception of the truth is not driven by their own self-interest (economic, ideological, psychological, whatever).

Why do the deniers deny is an interesting question. I don't know the answer though your thinking sounds reasonable to me. Personally, I don't believe that hardcore deniers will be persuaded by science or by anything else. However, it is important to rebut them, not to change their minds but because people who are just starting to pay attention to the climate change issue need to understand that the deniers are at the fringe.

I think we are entering a phase where people will focus their attention on what we should do about climate change. I don't believe that voluntary actions will get the job done and that we need national regulations. From my perspective, the questions will be will the regulations be sufficient to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at low enough levels, will the regulations be timely and will they be as equitable and cost effective as possible. If the Supreme Court rules that the Clean Air Act can be used to regulate carbon dioxide, it is possible that regulations can be written without Congress passing a new law. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it will require Congress to pass new law. For example, Congressman Henry Waxman has introduced legislation called "The Safe Climate Act of 2006" that would require the EPA to enact a cap and trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions. Of course nothing will happen during the Bush administration but after Bush I believe it is inevitable that the U.S. will undertake regulatory actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Some additional warming is now inevitable because of the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted. To help answer the question of how we get a handle on emissions, the International Energy Agency at the request of the G-8 countries has just produced a report called “Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.” The report lays out various scenarios, using technologies that already exist or are under development, that the report says will return carbon dioxide emissions to current levels by the year 2050 rather than have emissions stay on a course to be two and a half times their current levels. Future energy use by developed, transitional and developing countries are included in the study. The study found that the most significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions avoided would come from energy efficiencies (roughly 50%). In addition to energy efficiencies the scenarios also include various assumed mixes of renewable energy sources, coal with carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, nuclear power, oil and natural gas. All of the scenarios assume an incremental cost of $25 (per ton CO2 emissions avoided) economic incentive. The report says that for comparison this cost is less than the average price for European Union CO2 emission permits for the first 4 months of 2006. Though the costs are substantial, it would seem they are not ruinous not withstanding some claims to the contrary (the deniers next line of attack after questioning the science.)

But enough of that and back to vineyards – realclimate.com has an interesting new post up on English vineyards, the medieval warm period and global climate change.

Jeff Alworth: Richard, go to RealClimate.org JK: Also go to ClimateAudit.org, the site that debunks RealClimate.org and its hockey stick and some other climate fallicies.

Jeff Alworth: The only real basis for denying the realities of global warming is ignorance of the science. JK: Apparently you haven’t understood the conclusions of the recent National Academy of Sciences report - it just confirms the suspicions that we skeptics have had all along that this whole panic is wildly exaggerated. The report said that: * A little ice age DID exist. * A medieval warm period likely existed. * We are currently about as warm as the medieval warm period.

The importance of their findings is that one foundation of the modern concern over warming, the hockey stick chart DOES not show a little ice age or a medieval warm period. This makes that chart wrong. It also makes the methods used to derive the chart wrong and these methods are used by others in the field, so other work is also affected. The report also said: Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”

The “hockey stick” temperature chart and the claim of the last decade being the warmest in a 1000 years are the two most important pieces of “evidence” for the believers and they just got proven wrong.

That report shows that science is NOT on the side of the alarmists. It says that we are warming up after the little ice age (probably with some help from man) and we are still not shown to be warmer than the medieval ages. It explicitly denies the claim of the 1990s being the warmest decade in 1000 years.

Bottom line the so called deniers have been shown to be rightfully skeptical of the panic spread by the true believers.

So why was I a skeptic? Because I have a better B.S. detector. Why did you believe the B.S.? (by that I mean the “we are headed for doom” viewpoint, not that we are warming after a the little ice age.)

Thanks JK

Jeremiah Baumann: ... And it's well documented that the denials can be traced to major funding by fossil fuel companies, particularly Exxon Mobil. JK: Can I assume that you are against the Kyoto protocols because Exxon was a big contributor to that cause.

Thanks JK

I am not "backed by fossil fuel companies" and I believe the earth would be warming with or without consumption of fossil fuels.

I also doubt that total elimination of automobiles would reverse or appreciably slow global warming. I believe there are many proponents of anthropogenic climate change that are simply anti-car, anti-capitalist, and (to some degree) anti-American, and "reducing CO2 emissions" is simply their backdoor attempt to socialize transportation and exert state control over MY CHOICES of how and where I live.

I don't believe my interests are aligned with Greenpeace or the environmental lobby in general.

JK: Here is a link to a Canadian newspaper op ed that explains the recent NAS report and how it verified most of what one “doubter” claimed. The author’s web site, ClimateAudit.org is quite good.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=cea34354-b1af-467b-9f49-4ef98f416e71

Here is a teaser form that link:

Many people have heard the claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the warmest year. Environment Canada headlined them on pamphlets mailed across the country a few years ago. These claims interested us in verifying exactly how scientists were able to assert so confidently that the late 20th century was warmer than when the Vikings were farming Greenland (the Medieval Warm Period). Last year, the National Post profiled our published research, which had identified major flaws in what was called the Hockey Stick -- a graph prominently featured in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001.

We knew that calling this icon into question would be controversial, but we did not expect it would spark a battle between two powerful committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and lead to the formation of a blue-chip panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Shortly after last year's Post profile, The Wall Street Journal did a long article interviewing both us and the principal Hockey Stick author, Michael Mann. In that article, Mann was quoted as saying he would not be "intimidated" into disclosing the algorithm by which he obtained his results. (go to the link for MUCH more)

Thanks JK

It is the deniers' intention to put the burden of proof on the science...

Um, yeah? Why is it bad to have the burden of proof on the science?

My $.02 is this:

Hysteria sells. Scientists get paid to study what people are afraid of. If scientists can scare everyone into thinking we have to solve this (man-made) global warming problem, there's lot's of money in it for them. It's no different than selling papers.

If a reporter can quote a scientist who just received a huge grant from some agency or respected institute that says that humans are a scourge (true, but for a later discussion), he gets a front-page story and lots of accolades.

I'm a skeptic. Not that the earth is warming, because the data shows it is. But rather, I don't believe in the positive-feedback nonsense being pushed out there (to wit, if we get any hotter, we'll just keep getting hotter until the earth spontaneously combusts). Bigger hurricanes serve to stir up the colder waters at depth. A negative feedback loop. Warmer climates give longer growing seasons and more arable (natural or manmade) land, creating more plant mass (biodeisel anyone?), sucking up more CO2 and offsetting the urban heat-island effect. A negative feedback loop.

Here's the Mann Hockey Stick.

Here's the chart the NAS used in their last report.

Which is scarier? Which, therefore, is the one that gets the press?

I have no dog in this fight. I'm not an oil industry flack, nor am I an eco-warrior. I'm just a guy who's trying to figure out whether the Gore movie makes sense and what if anything I (we) can do about it, even if it IS an alarming problem that will kill millions.

I guarantee that if I wanted to go find some data suggesting that warmer temperatures were going to cause massive species die-offs that I could get that published, because it fits in the "I just KNOW the earth is getting hotter and it's my fault" line the media's been pushing on us.

The argument that, "Well, we should try." is laughable. I mean, cars kill people, right? Why not ban them? Seriously. We would save far more people by banning cars worldwide than anything we can do about global warming. Some small Pacific islands may disappear, but other areas will become habitable, and North Dakota might even become pleasant. Outlaw cattle and livestock. Force everyone to be vegan. For their own good. Will we be miserable? Those of us who enjoy meat would be. Would we live longer? Maybe. Would I want to live without meat and a personal freedom transport (read, car)? No.

The deniers, at least those with my bent, don't believe that the answer is reverting to hunting and gathering, which whether true or not, appears to be the goal of the eco class. We are happy with the status quo for a reason. It seems to work.

I'm a fervent recycler (thanks to my wife), we're a one car family, we have a rain barrel for watering, and we generally live pretty sustainably. But if the doomsday proponents had their way, we'd have to sell the car we have, because it's a six-cylinder minivan that uses gas, not hydrogen.

The deniers, if you ask them, will support clean air, clean water, recycling, alternative fuels, and all other manner of environmentally friendly changes. We just don't buy this "Day After Tomorrow" crap. And if it happens, it ain't gonna be because of us. It'll be a solar flare or a major volcanic event or something on a global scale, not my minivan. That's our take.

Interesting. In todays news I read our Governor has proposed legislation requiring energy producers to obtain 25% of production from "green" sources. Energy producers have realized record profits. The expense of developing cleaner sources will suck some of those profits from shareholders. The immediate response to the Govs. proposal from the energy production industry is of course resistence. Why? Because they like profit. Duh. Their public relations response. We are developing cleaner production, we just don't want to be locked in to a specific percentage. In other words trust us to do the right thing. No sympathy here. Right on Teddy K! This proactive stance during an election year is refreshing. Oh yeah, I agree that profit drives denial.

And here we have JK, whose arguments are examples of several interesting denial mechanisms.

Latch on to a single sub-point (the Mann hockey stick projection) and assume that if one subsidiary point is questionable, the main point is wrong.

Attack motives. Scientists want to make money? But if wanting to remain employed is corruptive, let's try communism, or maybe anarchy, huh? Right, I didn't think so. It is possible to do good science and get paid for it.

Assume as a lay individual you're better at evaluating science than the tens of thousands of scientists who have a pretty rigorous system of peer review. The personal ("I'm smart" "I'm an independent thinker") becomes political ("I can comment on reams of evidence I've never seen concerning an issue that involves us all").

Another fundamental misconception about science has cropped up in this discussion -- that a proposition must be proved. The only way to prove global warming is accelerating beyond what is wise to simply allow to happen and that human activity is exacerbating and accelerating the phenomenon would require us to do nothing but observe until the problem is irreversible.

You go with the weight of evidence. There is overwhelming agreement that the weight of evidence suggests that global warming is a problem now, will become a worse problem, and that human activity is exacerbating the problem.

a scientific consensus?

No, not yet.

There is adequate scientifically based evidence that other factors are at play. Says who? Al Gore: "(scientists) don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" (one way or the other)... "(scientists) don't know... They just don't know." - from "An Inconvenient Truth."

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

Why the variation? Why the three decade dip when Detroit had NO environmental controls whatsoever? There's better evidence for the recent warming, incontrovertibly provable evidence for an external factor; that fusion reactor 93 million miles away, which has, beyond doubt, been proven to be getting brighter.

A Swiss/German study suggested historic solar output increases cause global climate changes; East Anglians verified it (an essential element of science, replicability). Indirect effects on the ozone layer and cloud cover were cited, which could magnify the hotter sun.

You see, there's one greenhouse gas which is far more powerful than CO2, which no one is doing anything about; dihydrogen monoxide. Yep, water vapor.

"I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor" says Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University, a leading world authority on climate.

Here's a source-referenced analysis of the impact of CO2, methane and other greehouse gases when compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide. It should be required reading for anyone wishing to invoke science in this discussion.

. Therefore, any serious climate control plan requires considering how to make more cirrus (and especially altocirrus) while reducing altocumulus formation.

Not only does dihydrogen monoxide retain heat far better than C02, but it also condenses into clouds. Some clouds trap heat, some reflect it back into space.

That's really what we need to spend resources on; a global thermostat we can alter at will, so when the next Ice Age comes, we can deal with that as well as any excessive warming (and what's excessive to you might not be excessive the the Viking settlers of Greenland; oh, that's right, they froze to death when the last Little Ice Age struck, so they can't complain any more).

There are far cheaper ways to control our climate than the economy-busting Kyoto mutual suicide pact. Forex, if CO2 was proven to be a serious problem once scientifically compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide, pay cargo ships to to drop iron filings into the oceans as they go about their travels, which will soaks up a very large amount of CO2 in a non-toxic way.

Lastly, have you considered that Global Warming may not be an unqualified evil? I was taught in Revolutionary History class that Knox was able to sledge cannon from Ticondaroga to Boston via the frozen Hudson River. The Hudson hasn't frozen over for over a century, and there are an awful lot of folks who like it that way.

> a scientific consensus?

No, not yet.

There are always a few people who disagree with any consensus, thus we have a flat earth society. While global warming has not reached the same level of consensus as the theory that the earth is round, it is a consensus. Is there some evidence for competing theories on the causes? Yes, but it is pretty weak and was incorporated into the discussion and evaluation that lead to the scientific consensus.

Lastly, have you considered that Global Warming may not be an unqualified evil?

I think it would take most people about 30 seconds of consideration, once they understand is impacts, to decide it is indeed "an unqualified evil".

Brian Santo:And here we have JK, whose arguments are examples of several interesting denial mechanisms.

Latch on to a single sub-point (the Mann hockey stick projection) and assume that if one subsidiary point is questionable, the main point is wrong. JK: Not “one subsidiary point”, but the two most impressive points in the believer’s favor: the impressive looking chart and the, now-disproven, “fact” that the 1990 was the warmest decade in 1000 years. The believers also had the reliability of their data and its analysis called into question.

Brian Santo: You go with the weight of evidence. JK: Not when millions of people will have a lower standard of living due to nutty ideas on how to cure a non-problem. Just look locally, Randy Leonard is laying the stage for rising gasoline prices in Portland which his bio mandate. (Bio is such a good idea, they have to force it on us).

Brian Santo: There is overwhelming agreement that the weight of evidence suggests that global warming is a problem now, will become a worse problem, and that human activity is exacerbating the problem. JK: No there isn’t. And the most convincing arguments were just disproven by the NAS report.

Thanks JK

Ross Williams:> a scientific consensus?

No, not yet.

There are always a few people who disagree with any consensus, thus we have a flat earth society. JK: And you are in danger of being on the side of the flat earth society since the NAS report ripped the foundation out from under the alarmists.

Thanks JK

John Bartley: Here's a source-referenced analysis of the impact of CO2, methane and other greehouse gases when compared to the impact of dihydrogen monoxide. It should be required reading for anyone wishing to invoke science in this discussion. JK: Thanks for an excellent post with several very good links. Although I have not looked at all of your links, I particularly liked the one that shows that water vapor is far more effective than CO2 and that overall, man is contributing just 0.28% of the effect from warming gases and that 99.72% are natural. ( http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)

It looks like too many people on this site have been getting their science from the Sierra Club instead of places like you links.

Thanks JK

The City of Portland just passed an ordinance that mandates the blending of 10% ethanol in all gasoline sold in Portland. What's not to like? It's good for the environment, right? Those righty-tighties at Cornell University don't think so...Corn based ethanol also consumes $1.4 billion in Corporate Welfare annually. Did I mention it takes alot of hydrocarbon energy to refine it?

Newton's Third Law: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

98% of U.S. ethanol is (and will continue to be) made out of corn. The City of Portland's ordinance is silent as to the source of the ethanol, yet Commissioner Leonard somehow believes he's going to help Oregon Farmers?

Here's the bad news: The Gulf Coast dead zone has been growing in size since nitrogen fertilizers were first introduced to post World War II farming. Here's the worse news: 2.2 billion pounds on nitrogen are draining each year into the Gulf of Mexico. But instead of giving corn a growth spurt, the nitrogen fuels massive algae blooms that then die and suck all of the oxygen out of the water as they decompose. If we increase the amount of nitrogen draining into the gulf, we are likely to DECIMATE Louisiana's fishery, currently valued at $2.3 billion/year. That's BILLION dollars, with a B.

Ironically, the City of Portland's ethanol mandate is inconsequential in terms of total American energy consumption. And despite all the SUV-haters here at B/O, gasoline only represents 17% of America's total energy consumption (coal is the biggest piece of the energy pie, while diesel consumption is less than half of gasoline's volume).

Portland represents a whopping 2/10% of total U.S. Population. In 2004, Oregonians consumed an average 418.4 gallons of gasoline/per capita. If you multiply that consumption by 500,000 Portlanders, that equals 20.92 million gallons of gasoline that will be replaced with ethanol (assuming they provided the same fuel economy, which they don't). It sounds great, right? Unfortunately, the wholesale price of ethanol is $0.50/gallon more than gasoline: PORTLANDERS WILL PAY AN EXTRA $10.4 million/year to replace 10% of their gasoline consumption with ethanol.

OK, OK, you've convinced me: ethanol sucks. But what about Biodiesel? If you took all the oil seed crops grown in the US and converted them to fuel, you could replace roughly 15% of current US diesel consumption. So much for energy independence! You also wouldn't have any vegetable oils for human consumption (or they would be much more expensive).

On the upside, we may destroy a $2.2 billion fishery in Lousiana (as if they needed any more problems), and help enrich farmers in Iowa and Nebraska. Food prices will have to go up (because corn is so integral to other foods/beverages, as well a livestock feed).

I thought y'all loved fish?

Hey JK, you already threw in the towel once on July 9. When confronnted with the actual language of the National Academy of Sciences that says explicitly that the severity of anthropogenic global warming does not significantly depend on the actual degree of warming in mideaval times or the cooling in the Little Ice Age, your response was "you have to let this play out." If I have to let it play out, that means to me that the current NAS report does reaffirm the scientific consensus. Now JK, can you be be clear? When you requested that "we have to let it play out", that implies we have to wait for NEW data to convince the NAS scientists to CHANGE their conclusions? This seems very inconsistent with your statement that 'the most convincing arguments were just disproven by the NAS report'?

In case you forgot, here is your own response to the actual words in the report :

Posted by: jim karlock | Jul 9, 2006 12:20:08 AM

oregonj: I think JK also missed the part of the report (pg 23) that says: "It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be altered if, for example, the global mean surface temprerature 1000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today. JK: Many of the articles that go into that “scientific consensus” likely rely on the same flawed methods and data as used by the now discredited “hockey stick”. You have to give this time to play out.

Here is part of a joint statement from the National Science Academies of eleven countries including the United States National Science Academy.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

Seems like the National Academies don't share the skeptics skepticism.

Most skeptics don't realize that they have even lost our nutcase President as a skeptic. Here is a statement signed by, believe it or not, George W Bush:

"We know increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of the Earth's surface." G8-2005.

But, then again, even I find it hard to believe that the President frequently comprehends his words or actions.

Patrick:

Isn't it interesting that even the scientists from 11 nations believe the solution ought to be "cost-effective".

Do you think that ethanol is a "cost-effective" part of the solution?

oregonj: Hey JK, you already threw in the towel once on July 9. When confronnted with the actual language of the National Academy of Sciences that says explicitly that the severity of anthropogenic global warming does not significantly depend on the actual degree of warming in mideaval times or the cooling in the Little Ice Age, your response was "you have to let this play out." JK: I didn’t throw in the towel, you apparently missed this part of my reply: ” likely rely on the same flawed methods and data as used by the now discredited “hockey stick”. That means that there are probably dozens, maybe hundreds, of flawed studies because of the problems uncovered by the NAS. It will take quite a while to sort out which ones are damages and which ones are still valid. That is what in ment by giving it time to play out.

oregonj: If I have to let it play out, that means to me that the current NAS report does reaffirm the scientific consensus. Now JK, can you be be clear? When you requested that "we have to let it play out", that implies we have to wait for NEW data to convince the NAS scientists to CHANGE their conclusions? JK: That means that there are probably a lot of flawed studies out there, some probably used by that part of the NAS report. After all they didn’t have years to sort through the whole field to find every error. But I expect a lot of corrections to appear.

Patrick Kennedy: Here is part of a joint statement from the National Science Academies of eleven countries including the United States National Science Academy.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

Seems like the National Academies don't share the skeptics skepticism. JK: They also ar probably relying on flawed reports containing the flaws recently published in the NAS report. Give it time to play out (IE: for people to sort out which reports are still valid)

Thanks JK

Jennifer W. - I am not a cheerleader for ethanol. I think a lot of the excitement about ethanol is because we want to become independent of mideast oil and because it is helping the economy in the farming sector.

In my view, we in the United States must do our part to begin to bring worldwide greenhouse gas emissions back to a sustainable path. It is too late to avoid climate change but we may still be able to avoid the most dangerous impacts. I think we need national regulations to cause reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions. Within a legal and regulatory context, I think the economy should have a great deal of flexibility to find the best and most timely ways of reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations could take the form of a carbon tax, a cap and trade system of controlling greenhouse gas emissions, a requirement for greatly improved fuel economy standards on automobiles, etc. A recent international study that I reference above suggests that roughly half of the carbon dioxide emissions could be avoided due to energy efficiency measures.

The important thing is that we move promptly to solutions that will return our greenhouse gas emissions to an environmentally sustainable level.

Not to speak for Jim, but if he shares MY agenda, which is, as the climatologists say, highly probable, it is this:

We do not believe that our lifestyle should be returned to hunter-gatherer status because of alarmist predictions, nor do we believe that the climate change we are seeing is sufficiently anrthropegenic to allow us to do ANYTHING to reverse the general trend.

I believe that we have done a hell of a lot of damage to our planet. I believe that we have collapsed many of our major fisheries. I believe we have developed areas that were once in balance but are now prone to wildfire, mudslide, and other environmental calamities (you know, rivers afire and all that).

But, unlike most here, I believe, for example, that Rachel Carson's Silent Spring has killed more people than Pol Pot. Her alarmist view of DDT, a nasty chemical, but profoundly effective at killing skeeters, has relegated Africa to a constant scourge of Malaria. DDT in local doses sufficient to kill off mosquito populations has no discernible effect on the thickness of bird eggs. It does, however, effect eggs when used like a sprinkler system, as we did, pouring 100s of times more than necessary into the environment.

Our view is that alarmism is horrible for the environment. We don't wish to kill the world. We live here. But the Eco-larmists swing the pendulum so far that to follow their advice would be to destroy our way of life.

Admittedly, we can all be more sustainable. Reduce, reuse, recycle, and all that. But we are simply to insignificant a species to think that we can turn down the planets temperature even if we wanted to, given the scope of the task. Maybe it's humility versus hubris. I still stand in a meadow in the Mt. Hood Natl Forest at night, look up, and feel small.

I do my part. But I don't think the Africans battling malaria on a daily basis are too thrilled with the West's fascination with alarmism.

That's my agenda.

Jeff:

Fair enough, as to my conflating two arguments. I'll set that aside and assume I'm in error. But you state that your goal is to address the worst causes of greenhouse gases through policy. OK, then why are we allowing cars (like Jim's, sorry Jim) on the road - even with the best bumper stickers - that emit 1970's levels of emissions when today's cars are 90% cleaner. The governor scores points by trying to make the 10% emitters 10% cleaner while doing nothing about the beaters that cause 90% of our car-based pollution? That's politics that I can't applaud.

Hybrids are becoming popular because gas is expensive. Electric cars were promising, but apparently killed by Detroit. That's wrong. I'd LOVE to own an electric car. Powered by nuclear generated energy. That doesn't kill fish. I'm all about that.

But, the problem policy-wise is that we have these massive corporate subsidies (here's where I get your head nodding) for Detroit, who has massive political power to maintain the status quo. Ethanol, the single stupidest idea yet, also gets massive subsidies, making it look affordable, yet it produces less power (joules) than it takes to create and is, by some accounts, responsible for contaminating the Gulf of Mexico through the petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides used to create it. And yet Randy Leonard gets applause on this site for being forward-thinking in proposing a permanent 10% ethanol blend.

Here's an idea, how about Blue Oregon becomes committed to only applauding environmental decisions that ACTUALLY produce a net benefit to our environment rather than applauding anything that (seems to) stick a finger in the eyes of Bush or Big Oil (BOil). The thing that drives me nuts is this quest to score political points without earning them.

Ted has done nothing to stop global warming, but his feel-good, cost-bunches adoption of CA emissions standards makes him the bee's knees here. That's a load.

I support the market. I know that makes me a pariah. But I oppose the market players using political power to manipulate the market (corporate welfare, barriers to entry, regulation designed to help corner the market for one player (thanks, Wayne Scott)). I want my planet to be better than I left it, but these ideas the Left keeps coming up with are often counterproductive or marginally effective for a massive cost of compliance.

I don't even mind curbing CO2 emissions if it'll help, but I honestly think there's disagreement as to whether our CO2 emissions have a discernible effect such that a decrease in a manner that won't kill us would be detectable.

I don't know if you clicked through to this link on Advanced Fast Reactor Nuclear power plants, but it's fascinating.

/www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

Apparently, while Detroit was killing the most promising personal transportation option since internal combustion, Congress was killing the most promising energy production option since, well, peat moss.

Since this thread is dying (only you and I are now reading it), I hope you'll repost some of this as round 3 and see if we can generate a meaningful discussion among the broader populous again.

This truly has been a comfortable open discussion, the kind I prefer.

Thanks, Albert. I love a zinger....

Anyway, looks like I botched the link. It's:

This link

And I'm sure nationalcenter.org is some right-wing-funded anti France website, or something, but the FAQ above was really a fascinating read. Had nothing to do with global warming per se, but rather, what we can do with Nucyoolar Energy if we don't want nuclear waste and rogue nations getting spent fuel rods.

I didn't know any of this stuff, and I try to stay aware of geeky things like this.

I agree with your above comments completely.

Everytime I pass an old beater (especially a '68 VW bus or bug with blue smoke coming out the tailpipe), I wonder why "government" hasn't forced/incentivized them to junk it. And I laugh out loud if it's sporting a "Love your Mother" or "Greenpeace" bumper sticker.

And there are PLENTY of Wealthy "progressives" that have no problem flying to Aspen, the Hamptons, Whistler, or Cabo for along weekend, and then jetting right back. Some of them even do it on (GASP) PRIVATE JETS!

Rather than forcing all automobile drivers to purchase ethanol or biodiesel blends, why hasn't the city converted their fleet to natural gas (NG)? How come Tri-Met hasn't converted all those particulate emitting diesel buses to NG or propane? Caterpillar and Detroit Diesel have been manufacturing NG commercial engines for at least 5 years.

BACK IN 1985, I owned a "flex-fuel" Chevy pick-up that would run on gasoline or propane: you could even switch from one fuel to the other while driving down the highway! Propane emits about 99% fewer particulates than diesel, and there is no discernible odor when driving/biking behind the vehicle. I don't know if the CO2 emissions are any lower.

Tri-Met just keeps on belching black smoke everytime they press on the accelerator? What impact do all those filthy diesel bus emissions have on metro air quality? And don't tell me they don't have enought money: if they can spend $40 million the transit mall or extend MAX lines all across the region, they could afford to upgrade their buses to run on NG or Propane.

Would you believe that Ryan Frank of the Oregonian reports that "Earlier this year, COMMISSIONER RANDY LEONARDheaded down to a wilder stretch of California in his RV by himself.

HE DROVE A BIG HONKING Recreational Vehicle and he was ALONE?

Jeff Alworth: ... Jim's got an agenda. I'll admit I haven't waded through his thousands of words of obfuscation closely enough to identify it, but it's there.

Care to admit it publicly, Jim? JK: It’s real simple (even liberals used to believe it): Let people be free; have a damn good reason to restrict someone’s freedom.

Applying that principle to this thread: The NAS report has ripped the foundation out from under the “alarmist” view of global warming. The reality is that we are warming, with some help from man, after the little ice age. We may or may not be warmer than the medieval warm period. The limitations of our knowledge of the past climate has been underestimated - we actually know less than many think. The report specifically criticized the claim of the 1990s being the warmest decade in 1000 years. That is the heart of the latest science from the NAS.

Any corrective measures are pre-mature in view of our lack of knowledge.

Try actually reading, at lest its conclusions section. You will learn something. Be sure to notice the our current 400 years of warming started in the little ice age (which the “hockey stick team” has tried to deny).

BTW the re-affirmation of the existence of the little ice age and medieval warm period, shows that the “science” behind the hockey stick chart is defective. Many other studies used these, now shown defective, methods, so there are wide implications of the whole field.

Care to admit your agenda? It always seems to, just happens to, want to tell others how an where to live?

Thanks JK

JK - Another government report criticizes the global warming panic crowd

Here is part of a “fact sheet” on a just released government report on the climate debate.

From: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf Full report: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Report Raises New Questions About Climate Change Assessments

‘It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.’ – Excerpt from Wegman report

Thanks JK

Jeff Alworth: I'm just a guy who has looked very carefully at the data and found it very compelling. JK: “very carefully at the data” - What data? The hockey stick has been debunked by the NAS report. Its methods have been called into question. The data has been called into question. The NAS specifically debunked the claim that the 1990s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in 1000 years. Those were the most compelling claims. What is left after the NAS report more or less says we are warming up afer the “little ice age”and man played some part. So what? BTW have you seen the excellent fit between some aspects of solar activity and Earth’s temperature - a far more rational postulate.

Jeff Alworth: I'm glad to hear you admit to some of your real concerns--that you regard these findings as a part of a larger political effort to stifle your liberty. JK: I didn’t say anything about a “a larger political effort.”

Jeff Alworth: You are going to try to convince people that there's no global warming to preserve your own liberty, and I'm going to say that's not your right. There's a bigger picture here. JK: Sounds like you shoving your religion down peoples throats.

Thanks JK

It is JK who is the religious fanatic, refusing to release his deathgrip on his dogma in the face of scientific fact.

I note that Tom Brokaw's report "Global Warming, What You Need to Know" is airing tonight on the Discovery Channel, replaying Saturday the 22nd.

Ed Bickford: It is JK who is the religious fanatic, refusing to release his deathgrip on his dogma in the face of scientific fact. JK: You have not learned a thing from what I have been posting - the scientific facts changed a couple weeks ago with the release of the National Academy of Sciences report. It knocked out the “hockey stick” and the claim of the 1990s being the warmest in a 1000 years. It also pointed out a number of limitations to data about past climate which will force the revision of many papers about climate.

I suggest that you at least read the conclusions section of the National Academy of Sciences report, it rips the foundations out from under the most alarming climate data, leaving a picture of a more or less ordinary climate. Report is free from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

There is also the newer report which criticizes the authors of the “hockey stick” chart for being reluctant to share their data/methods, and misusing statistics (and probably more - I have just started looking at it.). They also found that you can get a hockey stick chart from red noise by using the methods used to create the famous “hockey stick.” Further evidence that the “hockey stick”, the single most convincing “evidence” for warming, is COMPLETELY WRONG.

I suggest that you update your knowledge so that you will not continue think that I am wrong.

PS: In general, groups that are asking you to give them money to save the world, are usually not trustworthy sources of “facts” (Republicans, Democrats, Sierra Club, etc.)

Thanks JK

JK does not understand the science he criticises, as has been shown by other commenters. He is a troll who has nothing of substance to offer in a critical debate, but insists on wasting large columns on bluster. I can only assume that his true aim is to blockade thoughtful debate.

Ed:

Thanks for shutting down the constructive dialog. If you have a problem with Jim's criticism, criticize that with objective evidence of his error in analysis. You'll find that by labeling people as trolls and criticizing people's motivations, you'll learn nothing new.

I hope to keep this objective and positive as it has been largely to this point.

Jeff:

I am not shocked to hear you could support a noo-kyoolar option. I know that enviros have been killing nuclear for decades, but the resurgence of nuclear has been due to the realization that it is largely a safe, clean efficient power option that, with the exception of the nuclear waste issue and the NIMBY problem, is largely a winner.

The beauty of the fast reactors described in the link I posted, which I'm admittedly just learning about, is that it's orders of magnitude more efficient (!) and it can use waste from light-water reactors like Trojan (!) and does not produce, but rather consumes, the weapons-grade plutonium that is currently bred in LWRs, mitigating the proliferation risk.

As for wedges, the CFC issue was great for the ozone layer, but it was a straightforward change for which there was a cost-effective replacement. Fossil fuels are going to cause CO2 emission, but if it's true that water vapor is a far more significant heat trapper, and that human-insutrial-based CO2 emissions are a fraction of the CO2 emitted in the world, then I don't see it as terribly important to change from that in an economically damaging way this decade.

In fact, I truly believe that global warming, here it comes, is the LEAST important environmental issue we face (duck) and here's why:

1) It seems as though the natural warming and cooling cycles are vastly nature-based and we can only change it marginally.

2) Air and water quality are directly affected by human activity and can be directly controlled by human intervention.

3) The percentage of extinctions due to human activity in habitat destruction and pollution far exceeds the loss of species due to a warming planet and those species that are lost to a warming planet would likely, by my guess, be lost anyway in the next warming cycle that isn't human-induced. That's evolution. You DO believe in that, right? :)

4) Policy decisions by local leaders like Ted CAN affect wildlife - salmon, etc., but there is no detectable difference in our climate when Randy Leonard imposes a blend of gas that increases costs to Portlanders. Randy's policy might contribute to the death of Louisiana's fisheries, but he's making a stand against big oil. Who cares? If he were a Republican, you'd be slaughtering him, but he's fighting the mean oil companies, so you cheer him.

We listen to Gore say that Man-Bear-Pig, er, global warming is the most important environmental crisis EVER and that's so scary and monumental that we breathlessly nod and wonder what we can do. But in reality, it's logging, overfishing, polluting, not recycling, waste, poor policy, and lack of respect for our environment that impacts our earth far more.

However, reduce, reuse, recycle and Think Globally, Act Locally are soooo early 90's that they don't capture the imagination and scare people into voting for the scaremongers. Just as I scoff - SCOFF - at the neocons who are saying we are all going to die by the hands of terrorists if we don't give up all our civil liberties, and I scoff - SCOFF - at the safety experts on the news saying that we're all going to die from (insert random tragedy that happens once a decade), I also scoff at the notion that unless we break the back of big oil (which seems to be an agenda point) and all bicycle everywhere, we're going to have a statue of liberty with only her torch out of the water, which is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

So, there's that.

JK has no constructive dialog to offer, and I need not welcome the beating of a dead horse. It is a common tactic of conservative kool-aid drinkers to clog an avenue of discussion with obstinate denial and misconstruction of facts. That is not honest debate, and not welcome here.

If you don't agree with Bickford, you must be a conservative ideologue?

Why is it that skeptics like Don Smith seem to assume climate scientists haven't considered factors like natural variation in climate, the incremental nature of anthrogenic CO2 emissions or that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? These skeptics throw in a few facts, which they have apparently just discovered, to bolster their cause of minimizing the dangers of global warming. The skeptics do a little hand waving with these isolated facts but then ignore the rigorous and thorough quantitative analysis of climate change that has been done by hundreds of climate scientists over a period of decades. It is these professional assessments of climate change that have led climate scientists and others to believe that climate change is indeed the most serious environmental threat we face. And yes, nuclear power which has a significant downside, must be on the table as part of a mix of solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

My disagreements are with people who argue points of scientific fact with no respect for logic or scientific method. Taking a view opposing mine annoys me, but doesn't shut me down.

I am rightly offended by commenters who consume vast swathes of a medium that has to compete for the short attention spans of busy people, and fills them with specious arguments that have no serious basis in fact. I don't make that judgement lightly; we all have the opportunity to make fools of ourselves here, so long as we're not being antisocial. Long-winded diatribes on unsupported arguments are an abuse of the privilege of being published here.

Patrick Kennedy: Why is it that skeptics like Don Smith seem to assume climate scientists haven't considered factors like natural variation in climate, the incremental nature of anthrogenic CO2 emissions or that water vapor is a greenhouse gas? JK: Because the paleoclimate set is a little, inbred clique, of ideologues. See the second report that I mentioned - it specifically mentions their inbredness and the failure of peer review of their claims: “In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.” (Page 4, bold added)

Patrick Kennedy: It is these professional assessments of climate change that have led climate scientists and others to believe that climate change is indeed the most serious environmental threat we face. JK: I am still waiting for the citation to proof that “most climate scientists... believe that climate change is indeed the most serious environmental threat we face”. Last I read that was NOT THE CASE (keep in mind I do not read Gore or Sierra Club for my science.). Warming ,yes; most serious, no.

Here is a quote from another “scientist’ in the field: Schneider: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of an doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Discover mag. Oct. 1989, my bold.)
You fell for their B.S.

Patrick Kennedy: The skeptics do a little hand waving with these isolated facts but then ignore the rigorous and thorough quantitative analysis of climate change that has been done by hundreds of climate scientists over a period of decades JK: Yeah, right - those scientists were warning us of a coming ice age 40 years ago. See http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html Too bad you appear to ignore the facts pointed out by the NAS report. You are the denier.

Thanks JK

Ed Bickford:JK does not understand the science he criticises, JK: I apparently understand it a lot more than you do - you have learned nothing from the NAS report. Are you incapable of understanding that the alarmists have lost their only two pieces of “evidence” (the “hockeys tick” and the warmest decade in 1000 years claim)?

Ed Bickford:He is a troll who has nothing of substance to offer in a critical debate JK: Speak for yourself, I have presented excerpts from a highly prestigious report. What have you contributed, except personal accusations founded on religious belief?

Ed Bickford: JK has no constructive dialog to offer JK: Your inability to learn anything from a highly prestigious report is truly amazing.

Ed Bickford: It is a common tactic of conservative kool-aid drinkers ... obstinate denial and misconstruction of facts. JK: Care to mentions any specifics. (Please remember that Al Gore is not a primary source.)

Ed Bickford: My disagreements are with people who argue points of scientific fact with no respect for logic or scientific method. JK: Then why do you steadfastly refuse to learn anything from the NAS report. You have been lied to by the alarmists and don’t even realize it. You are now the denier.

Let me throw in a new fact: If you take bristle cone pine trees out of the data set that produced the hockey stick, it becomes an eventless line. Did I mention that the data that went into that curve had the “low frequency” information removed in the data processing? That is why it does not show the little ice age or the mediaeval warm periods. The modern period shows a rise because it is real data (spliced on to a line with the large variations removed.) I am tending towards the belief that we are dealing with scientific fraud in that chart.

Thanks JK

Jim Karlock is probably counting down the days until 10 AM July 19 when Congressman Joe "big oil" Barton's Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a hearing that will receive testimony from a panel of carefully selected statisticians who will claim to have found some problems with the 1998 temperature reconstruction of Mann et al and the so-called Hockey Stick. We can probably expect that their work will follow the usual pattern of the deniers and will not have gone through the peer review process. Barton commissioned the work of the statisticians because he was unhappy that another Republican, Sherwood Boehlert of New York had asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the science of temperature reconstruction for assessing climate change. I doubt that Barton's "experts" will be citing the passage from the summary of the NAS report that said " The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."

Never in the history of human events have so many people, with so little scientific training, been so certain of a conclusion that is quite so difficult to know with such specificity. Hubris, in my view.

It is also striking that those who profess such confidence in their scientific certainty are so quick to shout BLASPHEMY when their conclusions or methodology are called into question.

If a Congressman is having a hearing on the statistical shortcomings of Mann et al, perhaps it would be worth listening to their testimony before you dismiss them as a bunch of kooks?

Patrick Kennedy” Jim Karlock is probably counting down the days until 10 AM July 19 when ... receive testimony from a panel of carefully selected statisticians who will claim to have found some problems with the 1998 temperature reconstruction of Mann et al and the so-called Hockey Stick. JK: Have you looked at their report yet? IT is even more devastating than the NAS reporet. By the way the “selected statisticians” are led by Dedward J. Wegman, here is his bio from George Mason U: http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.html Here is a short sample: Dr. Wegman served in national office in the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, the American Statistical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He served as President of the International Association for Statistical Computing. He has published more than 160 papers and eight books. His professional stature has been recognized by his election as Fellow of the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Washington Academy of Science and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics.

Can I now expect you to claim that he sold out his lifetime of solid science accomplishment to pay lip service to a Republican party hack?

Patrick Kennedy” I doubt that Barton's "experts" will be citing the passage from the summary of the NAS report that said " The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward." JK: You left out the rest of that quote (bold added): “Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.” (Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html, sheet 18-19) ” You apparently missed the characterization of that claim as merely “plausible”. This is not a very high level of confidence. It is no where the level required to cry that he sky is falling. You also left out: “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year” (that is even less confidence that merely plausable)

I hope you noticed that they re-affirmed the existence of the little ice age. Mann’s chart DOES NOT SHOW the little ice age. That discrepancy alone is enough to toss out the whole “hockey stick” chart.

As to “supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions”, many of these have the same errors as Mann’s stuff and will likely be discredited too as the dust settles.

Thanks JK

ALbert:

I know I'm going to get in trouble with you here, but the article doesn't tell us anything. The headline is "Pacific Mangroves Disappearing under Rising Seas," but the story, unless written in the future, doesn't match the catchy headline. Here's what UNEP has to say about mangroves:

"Mangroves are threatened by activities such as overharvesting, freshwater diversion, pollution, prolonged flooding and fluctuating sea levels. In addition, the charcoal and timber industries, tourism and other coastal developments are destroying mangrove forests. The rapidly expanding shrimp aquaculture industry poses the gravest threat - as much as 50 per cent of recent mangrove destruction has been due to clear-cutting for shrimp farms... Globally, about half of the world's mangrove forests may have been lost."

Seas right now aren't rising. There's a threat that they will. Maybe. But the threat is from us cutting them down, not warming the environment to a point they flood out.

In fact, there's hope from the UNEP:

"There is a global trend towards greater reliance on plantations as a source of industrial wood. The development of a significant global plantation estate is quite recent; half of all plantations in the world are less than 15 years old. Asia has led plantation establishment globally; as of 2000, about 62 per cent of all forest plantations were located in that region. Other significant developments include: rising private sector investment in plantations in developing countries; increasing foreign investments in plantations; and an expansion of ‘outgrower’ schemes whereby communities or small landowners produce trees for sale to private companies (FAO 2001b)."

"Forest industries continue to adapt to changes in raw materials, namely the increased supply of plantation wood and of a wider range of species. Recently there has been an emergence of innovative ways to make better use of available supplies and of residues and waste. Such new developments include laminated veneer lumber, glue-laminated timbers and products based on wood fibres. In addition, modern technologies that reduce environmental impacts, through pollution control and other means, are now available to wood-processing industries (FAO 2001a)."

What this is saying is that industry is adapting to help the environment - and that the mangroves and other biologically diverse and sensitive areas will therefore be more likely to be protected.

That sounds like a good thing to me. Jim's destruction-of-hockey-stick thesis still stands. Your citation is to an article that provides no news. IF seas rise, mangroves will suffer. OK, but there's no evidence seas are rising, or that they will. Only the implied conclusion that global warming is happening and that we, "the most powerful force in nature" (Gore, from the movie), can stop it.

Again, my point to Jeff was that global warming is bigger than us, overblown by the media, and far less significant to the environment than the raping and pillaging we've been doing over the last 200 years.

Go.

Albert: I Googled Rising Sea Level...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise JK: Of course anyone can write or change articles in wikiopedia - it has ZERO credibility.

Albert: Most scientists agree that global warming presents the greatest threat to the environment. JK: I keep hearing this repeated time after time - Do you have a credible source for this?

Albert: There is little doubt that the Earth is heating up. In the last century the average temperature has climbed about 0.6 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) around the world. JK: As the report notes, there was a little ice age that ended around 1850, the start of our current warming. SO WHAT? Would you rather still be in the little ice age?

Albert: The current rate of warning is unprecedented, however. It is apparently the fastest warming rate in millions of years, suggesting it probably is not a natural occurrence. JK: You obviously learned nothing from the NAS report - one of its major points was that there is not enough reliable data to make any conclusions about the past climate beyond 900 AD and you are believing that we know about the climate millions of years age. Please read the conclusions of the report. It is more credible than anything that you listed here.

Albert: And most scientists believe the rise in temperatures will in fact accelerate. The United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001 that the average temperature is likely to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. JK: They also got sucked into the, now discredited, “hockey stick” climate chart. They have little credibility.

JK: You might ponder this quote form one climate scientist (bold added): Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described the scientists' dilemma this way: "On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but; human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. This `double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47

Bottom line: this guy thinks it is ok to lie to the public. In case you don’t know who Schnider is - he is a climate researcher, publisher in peer reviewed journals and professor at a California University.

Thanks JK

Albert: I've been thinking about what Jim has to teach us with his framing and obfuscation, except how to muddy the waters, and confuse people. Which works well, it seems. JK: I am simply relaying the work of distinguished scientists while you post accusations and your feelings. Please read the conclusions section of the report - you will learn something. Actually you can learn a lot, but you probably won’t.

Albert: Part of me wishes there was a way that people who endangered others' lives with their words and deeds could be punished. For instance, Exxon/Mobil, by having spent time and money to print denial reports and advertisements and slow down any work on global warming - the heads of these companies should be put in stockades. JK: Now you are wishing to punish people who differ from you. You sound like a left wing version of the right wing fascists. You have your version of reality that you believe in so strongly that you think you have a right to IMPOSE it on others. Maybe I should ask: How do we punish people (Schneider, Mann) who intentionally lie to the public to get them panicked into diverting money from starving children in Africa to waste on pseudo science crap like impending disaster from global warming.

Albert: oh yeah, one of the things I'm getting from Jim is how repeating something helps get it into the discussion/understanding of a problem. If you repeat hockey stick and little warming in medieval times - what does that do. JK: It might help you understand that the primary evidence for global warming HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FATALLY FLAWED. Medieval warming and the little ice age are missing from your most convincing piece of evidence, the “hockey stick” chart. It is not a little thing - it is the foundation of the recent panic and it has been proven wrong. Eventually you’ll understand.

Thanks JK