Global Warming, "State of Fear"
 

I just wanted to send a big thanks out to Michael Crichton for finally collecting in one place a nice bibliography of all the references about why the "global warming" crisis isn't (in his latest novel, "State of Fear"). We had this discussion a few months back, but I had trouble digging up references to a lot of the statements I remembered about how global warming was mostly a myth, and how mother nature is at least as responsible as mankind for perceived environmental changes.

He's got a nice collection of references to temperature readings around the globe (showing urban areas with increased temperatures, rural areas with no increase or small decreases), data on glacier metling / expanding (far more glaciers are getting larger than are receding), comparisons of greenhouse gas levels to other possible factors (including temperature dips in the 40s/50s while greenhouse gases were "skyrocketing"), a good talk about how most charts showing greenhouse gas increases are misleading because they only show the upper part of the range (greenhouse gases from 310 ppm to 360 ppm, and the charts only show the 300+ range), and a host of other topics. Also a nice discussion at the end of the book about the politicization of science.

He succinctly states the case for my stance on this issue: we have no clue what really impacts the environment, the earth undergoes climatic change all the time without any help from mankind, we're in a normal warming period from the last ice age (that is taking a LONG time), the weather is getting better, not worse, and that a warming trend would not necessarily be a bad thing, as increased growing seasons from El Nino have shown. None of this means we still don't keep an eye on pollution, preserve open space, and similar goals that help mankind in general, but much of the current fearmongering is just that, fearmongering.

He also does a good job of providing a wide variety of references, including to those that disagree with him. I'm going to have to go hunt down some of the books he references for further reading.

oh dear lord.... the screaming crying left wing liberals are gonna jump all over this one.

and the intelligent posts continue :rolleyes: congratulations for applying your stereotype to all types of ideologies.

wow. that's shocking that the american public could be so hideously misled on such an issue that many take very seriously.

it's disgusting. it really is.

Wow. What shit. We should do everything we can to minimize pollution, preserve open space, etc. There's a hole in the Ozone layer for a reason you know.

This is a great way for the Kyoto team to take the lead. I'm looking forward to what gains the Kyoto signee's make and at what price. So far, I'm unaware of how much money they have spent and what benefits they have had.

I agree with you. Those should absolutely be objectives in the "master plan". The deal is that much of the Global Warming alarmists ignore that there are a good number of scientists that debunk most of the evidence that Global Warming advocates tout. Global Warming because of polution shouldn't be considered to be a completely factual phenomenon.

The biggest problem I have with it, is that when you dig deep enough in most Global Warming Factiods, you run into statements like. The world hasn't had this high an average temperature in nearly 2000 years. So what exactly did man do 2000 years ago to cause global warming. It is entirely possible that the planet's temperature fluctuates over time, virtually ignoring anything man has done.

I've been thinking of putting the new Chriton Book on my reading list. I think I'd put it there even if he fell on the other side of the spectrum, and declared it scientific fact. The topic genuinely interests me, and most sites on the Net are incredibly biased one direction or the other.

You're right. It is shameful that most Americans accept Global Warming due to mankind as an accepted proven phenomenon. It just goes to show you what a powerful political and propaganda machine can do with regard to misleading the public. For years practically anything the environmentalists have spun with regard to Global Warming has been reported by the media as if there were no opposing points of view.

I'm glad we can come together and agree on this travesty.

seeing America vote, I wonder if they give a damn.

Regardless of his intellect, I find it humorous that people are holding up a novelist who has written of extraterrestials and created an impossible dinosaur DNA cloning concept as a credible source on science.

wait... there was no dinosaur island? Next you'll tell me there was no killer shark in Jaws.

But the problem I think most people who say "global warming isn't real" fail to grasp is that even if this is a normal, natural phenomenon there weren't people living in places like New Orleans or Miami back when the world was this warm before. So, if we don't find some way to combat said global warming in some way, shape, or form, these are cities that will be washed away. Yes, if we are wrong about the causes, we need to be looking at other causes. However, if we do remain warm then standing around saying "you're wrong, this isn't what causes it" doesn't really solve the problem.

SI

[

The biggest problem I have with it, is that when you dig deep enough in most Global Warming Factiods, you run into statements like. The world hasn't had this high an average temperature in nearly 2000 years. So what exactly did man do 2000 years ago to cause global warming. It is entirely possible that the planet's temperature fluctuates over time, virtually ignoring anything man has done.

I've been thinking of putting the new Chriton Book on my reading list. I think I'd put it there even if he fell on the other side of the spectrum, and declared it scientific fact. The topic genuinely interests me, and most sites on the Net are incredibly biased one direction or the other.[/quote]

This is what I've been telling my friends for a while : That '' The climate fluctuates overtime.'' All just argue that I'm an anti environment Pro Bush weirdo.
I do agree that we need to do something with the current state of global pollution.

If you human didn't cause it, fighting it would be a bad, bad idea. You are actually suggesting that we should work to control natural weather patterns? Scary.

My advice is not to own land in Miami and NO in a few hundred years.

you rag my post... then make a post like this.

nice

Crichton actually does pretty good research. Sure, he's writing fiction and often twists a scientific principle for the good of the story, but he does pretty good background research.

In this case, his twist is to exaggerate our ability to control our environment (I won't say more without ruining the plot). And that part of the plot is most definitely fantasy. But the discussions about global warming and the environmental movement are pretty heaviliy footnoted and grounded in 3 years of reasearch. I've never seen a novel of his as heavily footnoted as this one, or with as complete a bibliography. At the very least, pick up the book at your local bookstore and check out the Appendices and Bibliography before you judge this as your typical Crichton fantasization.

As I said at the top, one of the nice bits of this book is the fairly extensive bibliography. He has sources from both sides of the fence, giving you the opportunity to go read the same sources to draw your own conclusions. That bibliography alone is worth the price of the book if you are interested in Global Warming and other environmental topics.

This book is definitely on my birthday list. I read about the book a few weeks ago and Crichton spoke of the research that went into it. Originally, he was surprised to see the amount of data that was contrary to the doom and gloom you hear from the environmentalist side. That's one of the things that always got to me. I remember sitting through science class in 8th grade and the teacher was talking about New York City being under water within 20 years. That was over 20 years ago, and I'm still waiting. No, it doesn't mean it's not ultimately going to come true (although that's still under question), but the doom and gloomers have to stop saying the sky is falling.

Sure, we need to control pollution, but there's a balance we need to keep in perspective.

I'm saying that America couldn't care less about global warming, you call half the public whining babies, a bit of a difference.

Nah, only about 20% of the public consider themselves to be "liberal". He called a substantial subset of the public whining babies.

Which sounds really scary when you make it glib like that but anything can be broken down to an oversimplified soundbyte without much difficulty.

Never mind that we do things like seed clouds for rain, build coastlines for the express purpose of keeping water out (at taxpayer expense, btw, so I think we have a vested interest), and trying to control CFC emissions. Those are "working to control natural weather patterns" and so is doing nothing. Should we have just let CFC emissions continue because we don't want "to control natural weather pattern"? It's not like I'm talking Cobra Commander with a Weather Dominator (TM- patent pending). Now who's fearmongering?

So, your advice is to do nothing and tell those people "invest in life vests"? Then I hope it's a disproportionate amount of your tax dollars that go to help bail these people out. Or maybe you just like watching people die because you think anyone who recycles a coke can is a crazy environmentalist.

SI

in a way your right... i ment to put 'far' left instead of just left. I have no problem with your average, level headed everyday liberal.(not many left in the democratic party imo) But the exremely loud and vocal far left i have a problem with.


Now back to what you said, you 'implied' that since america voted Bush in, that means we don't care about global warming?? Im a republican and i care, but i oppose certain 'treaties' that would screw america more then any other country signing it.

It's all Dick Cheney's fault. He could have stopped this last week if he only cared. But now, it's too late, grab your parka's and head for Mexico!

I'm saying that global warming was at best the 10-12th factor in my voting, and I'd assume it would work that way for most of America.. but perhaps I'm wrong. Looking at exit polls, environmental issues weren't even mentioned... of course, thats probably poor polling, but I'd say that as much press as it gets, its not really a big issue for the electorate (kind of like all the crap on everyone's military record).

well, around these parts we've had about 2 weeks of sub 50 degree weather so far this winter, so something screwy is going on. Not that I'm complaining yet. I could deal if it stated above 70, but only if it topped out at 90.

I think (opinion based on little fact) that if anything, mankind is accelerating the various trends of the earth's warming/cooling period. The question if this is true is, how much of an acceleration is occuring. I'm not saying there'll be an ice age next week or next year or the next 1000 years, but I think if it moves it up even 100, that something I'd prefer to be pushed back.

I'm more worried about the ecological effects (wildlife wise) than global warming.

Icky thread.

What would you be prepared to do?

besides trying to find alternatives to our current resources, that theoretically have a less harmful impact on the environment? I can't really use and do things I can't afford and that aren't available, and since I have no clue (nor the patience to figure out) how a hydrogen fuel cell works, I'm pretty much at the the whim of corporate America.

And I don't know how to ride a bike, so I can't bike to work (that, and the 2 mile long, 200 foot high bridge I drive over... did I mention I'm scared of heights?)

But it's definately up to corporate America to save the Earth then?

unless I buckle down and go to school... which will only happen if I do environmental law... and I think I'd rather date Angelina Jolie instead (yes, thats bad).

I think its their job to curb what they're doing.

So, if corporate America "curbs" what they are doing we are okay? What does "curb" mean? Are we willing to collapse the US and EU economies to meet the ends, I mean, if that's what it takes?

so this is how it is then:
environmentalists: "Stop polluting or the world will end"
corporations: "we have to pollute or the economy will collapse"

sounds like both sides give the chicken little argument without making any concessions to see if either side is off in their projections. If the market can't adjust to outside forces, chances are the market isn't as strong as they make it out to be.

I'm just asking questions to see how far you would go. You seem to suggest that you would not be willing to allow the enviroment to get in the way of our economy. I tend to agree, mostly because I don't think we need to go to extremes to be responsible with the enviroment.

The next question would have to be would you be willing to stagnate the US economy? Because in the last election, the economy was a very important issue. The enviroment is a big issue, but not at the expense of stagnating the US Economy seems to be a fair assessment as well.

So that is why I stand here today and say we should continue to make enviromental responsability an issue we should deal with, but if we wan't to go to extremes, such as what the Kyoto Agreement suggests, I'll pass, just like President Clinton did (It was the responsable thing to do for our country).

Again, it's politics. If the US takes the lead on an issue, global security for instance, we are evil. If we allow the EU to take the lead on an issue, global warming for instance, we are evil. Politics with a capital BS.

Let the EU and Russia actively engage the Kyoto agreements. I want to know how much money they spend, how many jobs are lost, how much of the O-zone is restored, how much ice is restored to Anarctica, how many lives are saved, and how many years armaggedon is delayed.

Then I will be glad to re-assess the USA logical and reasonable stance on this.

I think the problem is nobody seems willing to do studies of moderation. They either want to do a study that says" there is no global warming" or "there is global warming"... or perhaps people don't want to read those studies. Anyway, I think there needs to be more accountability for US corporations. There can be advances made that won't stagnate the economy... a million changes could be put into place. The problem is, people want them all or nothing. I liken it to the gay marriage debate and the far left's stance. They want full gay marriage, but they seem unwilling to even have a starting place. I think the same is true for environmentalists. They want sweeping reform instead of baby steps. Implement some small changes, give it some time. Assuming those work out, start pushing for more changes, until finally you get everything you want.

Of course, things don't work out that way and thats an oversimplification, but ideally thats what I would do. It seems politics have gotten worse at picking their battles and just gone to fighting whole wars.

I agree. But who can do it? A vast majority of our educated scholars have made themselves partisans to one cause or the other before they even graduate college.

That issue gets discussed in the book as well.

I was playing on the "if." If it is natural, it would be as very bad idea to try to change it. You're talking about radically changing the weather of the whole planet. Even in your illustration (building coastlines, and or we can go further into levy systems, etc.) man has often done more damage than good with our solutions to natural problems. I think we would be better off in many cases to try to live around nature than try to alter it.

If CFC's are making the change, ban them, but there you are correcting a man made problem.

As for the last bit, for the most part I'd say it is usually easier (and cheaper) moving people off flood planes than it is to constantly try to prevent the flood, and then pay to rebuild the damage when the flood comes anyway. So, no I wasn't saying give them lifevest. I was saying it is time to move. :D

Well, time for me to dust off my Homer reading glasses and act smart. I got a book to read.

You are not that good an actor.







(j/k. That's one of those lines where I can't help myself put retort.)

Random observation: The people that love to whine and argue about "issues", often seem to be the least likely to DO anything about those same "issues".

But some things just aren't an "issue". That's why this debate can be so important. Why throw so much effort into preventing something that is simply not proven to exist, despite what the media wants to keep saying?

As for actually doing something, another interesting documented point is that of Yellowstone National Park. The first "managed" park in this country, run by people with all the best intentions of "preserving" nature. There is documented failure after documented failure in their attempts to preserve that park (elk become endangered, kill off coyotes, elks eat all the plants, etc). Sometimes you're better off leaving well enough alone, especially if you don't know what you're doing and have not studied the problem enough OR well enough to know what the effects are going to be of your fixes. Mother Nature has a pretty good habit of being self-correcting.

The environment is a complex system that does not take well to simple fixes...

Coming from a distinctly LIBERAL point of view, I have to say that I am not a defender of teh environment. my personal belief is that those who raise the battle cry that we are destroying the earth are simply deluded. This planet and its ecosystem have existed far longer than we have even been around. It has taken meteor strikes, savage techtonich changes, mass floods, ice ages etc etc.

Even IF humanity and its growth are causing some change in the environment, there is no factual reason to believe that its going to cause any serious damage or change to the planet and its ecosystem.

it is normal for things to change and fluctuate. The earth will warm, the earth will cool and all the while we'll be sitting here having these same discussions.

Bunny-Loving-Tree-Huggers: "We're destroying teh environment, big business MUST be stopped or we'll all DIE!!!"

Corporate holligans: "Ignore the Hippies, everything's fine, want another air freshener?"

I do believe that we need to eliminate things that we KNOW to cause problems, like CFC's they are poisonous and can seriously suck Oxygen from the very air around us. Not good stuff, we shouldn't be allowing anyone to use them.

I also believe that the two aforementioned groups both need to just shut the hell up and find more important hobbies to spend their time on.

My nickel.

You are making the assumption that CFC or any other emissions are impacting the global temperature. I say it would be nice to move toward eliminating pollution, but I think it is rash to retool industry, at great cost, so we can reduce emissions with the HOPE that we will curb man's contribution to global warming. You seem to be advocating that or, assuming that the Planet's temperature is varying of its own accord, that we do make some effort beyond reducing emissions to control global temperature. Maybe a sun shield or something, like on the Simpsons.

I think your nickel is well spent.

Something I wish would become more palletable (I hope that doesn't mean easilly placed on a pallet) is nuclear power. I'd much rather see Nuclear power spread, and become typical than see the continued burning of coal for electricity. That seems like a very sad thing to do to the environment when there are cleaner alternatives about.

While I love the sun shield Simpsons reference , you completely swung and missed at my point. First, I never said CFC emissions impacted global temperature- I thought we dispensed with that myth in the early 90s. Global warming vs ozone hole- two different problems. My point was that it was an example of how we were imposing our will on the environment because we saw a problem and went to correct it.

Towards the whole point, I just don't understand this air of "if it's not a problem we created, we don't have to deal with it". Yes, we do have to deal with it. Not doing anything is also a way of dealing with it. This reminds me of talking with some friends of mine in law school: all they want to do is avoid culpability because we have it in our minds that if we don't create the mess, someone else will deal with it.

Tangent but example of what I'm trying to say: "If my name is Marty McFly and I go back in time and push my peeping tom dad out the way when he's about to get hit by a car but he hits his head, he could sue me. Never mind that if I hadn't done anything, he'd be dead" (It seems like whenever a friend was studying torts, they always had examples like this). He can argue that he wouldn't have had as much damage done by the car, etc. so a perfectly well intentioned act which almost certainly did more harm than good ends the good samaritan in worse trouble than if he had let the person die.

Same thing here: even if it's a perfectly natural phenomenon and not caused by what we are doing, then we need to find some *other* way to change things because global warming *is* a problem whether we caused it or not and someone has to do something about it and these days that someone is us.

SI

Until a truly safe and fool proof way is found to deal with teh waste products of nuclear fission I really can't support this idea. Its still far easier to clean the emmisions from a coal burning plant than it is to safely store depleted uranium from nuclear power plants.

Fusion, if it could be made stable, would eliminate the need for either. Solar, wind and water power all provide perfectly good energy, though they are far less efficient at it.

There are many possible routes. We just need to get all these whining complaining "the sky is falling" masses to work on those instead of trying to raise a panic.

thats just it, if it is in fact a natural cycle then we have no right to try and change it. If the main reasons for "doing" something about global warming *if its truly happening* are to protect low lying cities and people's property and lives, then I have to say its better to let them move to safer locations and learn that life isn't constant and if you purchase waterfront property you are taking a risk that you might lose everything.

I don't believe anything humanity does truly affects the planet on a "life threatening" scale *for the planet* and if we affect things out of self interest we're no better than the corporations who want to mow down the forests and build casinos.

The planet doesn't need our services, its a bit out of our league to affect.

I just found this thread because I remembered that I had misspelled palatable, or rather misused palletable in its place. I did a search to see if anyone called me on it. In any case I found your reply when I did.

I don't think we are anywhere near being able to effectively use Solar, wind, or water power, let alone fusion(stable or otherwise). Well at least not Water power that environmentalists would consider acceptable, because I'm assuming that dams are ruled out. I also don't think it is easy to clean up the emmissions generated by burning coal, nor hard to store nuclear waste that is the byproduct of our nuclear plants today. There are a number of sites around the country where those bi-products are safely secured. Not to mention Yucca Mountain.

:)

Guess what my wife brought home for me yesterday? State of Fear. I'm gonna be on to you left wing fear mongerors. Watch out! (Either that or I'm gonna end up shooting up some Humvee Dealership with hot pink paint balls.) I'm still wondering if this book is some sort of trap to get right-wingers to read a enviromentalist book.

This is one thing that cracks me up, why does every thing need to be mankind's fault? The amount of pollution given off by one volcanic eruption dwarfs the amount of pollution mankind produces in a year (by like 1000 fold or something).

The Earth has been around for some 4.5 billion years. Man have been around in a civilized form for 8000 years. 99% of all lifeforms that have existed here are extinct, even if we have another mass extinction, who is to say whether it was caused by man or by nature?

brilliant, brilliant read

i always feel so smart whenever i finish a Michael Crichton book

Unfortunately, it's just that: feeling smart. It's never, ever a good idea to get your science from popular novels, especially from admittedly-biased sources. You'll get better science from Perdido Street Station.

The Pew Center has just released a statement gently refuting all of Crichton's points:

http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

Anthropogenic warming trends aren't even a matter of debate anymore, sadly. I know people would rather think differently - I certainly would - but that's no excuse for putting your head in the sand. It's a shame that Crichton has to use tricks (cherry-picking Ns to prove his 'point' while ignoring aggregate data) and outright falsities (conversion to grassland results in warming) to sell novels.

great book - excellent read.

regardless of where you side on the issue - I believe this from the book is a great idea and hard to argue with:

I am paraphrasing here, but this is basically one of his major points.

In Medical testing (by no mean perfect) they do a lot of "blind" research where one group is setting up the tests, another group running them, another group analyzing the data, all with no contact (or even knowledge of who the other groups are) The point being the the results are hopefully not biased since they scientists do not know a) the source of their funding and b) the expected results.

with GW - being such a political topic (its political ramifications far outweigh its actual impact on us "so far") virtually all the scientific research is from individuals who know where their funding is coming from AND know what the expected results are.

we would all benefit from some truly unbiased, "blind" research. I think the overriding point of the Creighton novel is that we simply don't know one way or another very much about the global climate and that most of what is stated as fact (again by either side) is overstated.

And the Pew Center has never made shit up to suit its purposes, nor have they ever paid anybody a wheelbarrow full of cash in order to get them to say shit that will promote their agenda.

If you believe that, do a Google search for Sean Treglia and campaign finance reform.

If Pew's saying State of Fear's full of crap, then I'm ready to name Michael Crichton "Chief Scientist of Planet Earth".

This is a fiction novel, right? So why all the defensiveness?

It's not like anyone outside of Al Gore believed "The Day After Tomorrow" when it was in theatres. Crichton has made a career out of writing books loosely based on science to give it a semblance of believability. But it's not like people believe a time machine exists (Timeline) or attacking microscopic machines are wondering the desert (Prey) after they read them.

The fact it makes some people do more research on the issue of global warming after reading the books can't be a bad thing, can it? That is, unless some are afraid of what they may find.

Ah, sweet ad hominem. The fact that your positions on policy issues are based on your personal feelings towards the parties involved rather than the relative strength and merits of the arguments is duly noted.

...and yes this applies to the previous poster to the extent that he applied the same tactic...

The fact is there are no truely proven facts. yes there is tons of data, but no-one has been around to collect data over the first million or so years before humanity came along to discover if this is a natural phenomena or not.

The panic stricken bullshit being touted around today is intended purely to make people afraid of something so that others can push THIER political agendas, nothing more.

there are MUCH more pressing issues, let this one die.

An article that presents some facts regarding global warming.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman...icle_141.shtml

To summarize, it pretty much states that the warming trend of the sun explains the earth's increase in temperature. See diagrams in article.

Actually, this book is one of the first from Crichton with a fairly complete bibliography, and he makes it clear when he's bringing in heavily researched facts (it's a fairly heavily footnoted novel). It's a bit of a different approach for Crichton.

And a number of the scientists he cites in his footnotes have said that he misrepresented their work and conclusions.

If indeed this book caused people to run to qualified sources and do some research, that would be a great thing. Read the thread and ask yourself if that is what is happening. I'd suggest a different hypothesis: that the book is being used an excuse for a lot of people to believe exactly what they want to believe. It is promoting an end to research, not a beginning.

If you read the actual science, however, you'll find something quite different. There's a great, raging debate over a great many things - even in the refutation document, Pew gives a nod of its head when Crichton gets it right. Good science is never afraid of debate.

If you look at the areas of disagreement, however, you'll find they are matters of specificity and cause, not of existance. Everyone admits that the data says one thing very clearly - anthropogenic warming is real, and it is likely a growing problem. All of the debate is happening an a level below that, deciding 'whys', and the 'what exactlys'.

I know the internet message board is, currently, the lowest form of human interaction (and might even be just below chimp feces-tossing), but all of the willfull ignorance astounds me. An entire community of people that have dedicated their lives to the study of these phenomena overwhelmingly agree that there is genuine evidence that this is occuring. Against that, what do we have? A few people with political agendas and a fairly mediocre novelist?

Me, I'm not arrogant enough to get involved in the debate. I'm not qualified. I'm a writer, and my wife is a molecular biologist/bioinformatician; when she starts babbling on about telemares sequences and such I don't bloody argue with her, I nod my head for as long as I have to and watching the bloody footy game out of the corner of my eye. I don't read a couple of popular books, much less a bleeding novel, and then procede to argue with her entire discipline about basic premises. I'd be an idiot and an arse if I did. Somehow, though, people think the exact same behavior is ok here. Gotta wonder.

1. I don't have an agenda and am torn about the GW issue, but citing anything by the Pew Center automatically makes me roll my eyes.

2. I salute Wolvendancer for his abundant usage of such terms as "footy", "bloody", "bleeding" and "arse". Nice job, "old chap".

Let's say I buy your premise. The next questions are:

A) How do we know it will continue to get "warmer"
B) What's to say human beings can impact this in any appreciable manner.

Most data suggests that man's impact on the "warming" of the Earth is very minimal compared to non-man controlled actions (aspects of the sun, Volcanos, ...). What I find quite amazing is how people think if we just use a little less hairspray or increase car emission standards, somehow we can stop global warming.

If a volcano goes off in the next 100 years, it will do 10 times more damage to the atmosphere and "increase global warming" more than man's entire efforts for that century. Should we go out and try to plug active volcanos then?

This has always smelled to me like an excuse for an agenda. If you simply want to say that Earth may be warming and we should continue to study its trends, I'm fine with that. But the moment someone brings up Kyoto or a similar agenda is the moment they throw out a significant amount of science in favor of their own motives (not saying you did this, just simply trying to beat you to the punch if it is indeed your agenda ;) )

This, I think, is the most damning item calling into question Crichton's "research":



I have read this independently elsewhere. Now, there are two possible explanations. One is that Crichton wasn't very careful in fact checking his sources. The other is that Crichton is being deliberately dishonest, and ranks somewhere well below Dan Rather on the intellectual integrity chart. Either way, if he can't get something as easy to check as this right, what does that say about the rest of his arguments? It says to me that he is not a trustworthy source of information.

So, just so I understand. Hansen said exactly what Crichton cited, but because Crichton didn't tell us every other scenerio he had thrown at the wall, he should not have cited that one?

Seems like Hansen should have just cited his "main hypothesis" then if he wanted it to be taken as his main testimony. Then again, if he did that, he might have chosen the wrong one ;)

You don't honestly believe that what you just wrote is a legitimate defense of Crichton, do you? You understand, don't you, that creating a best-case, most likely case, and worst-case scenario is a very common practice in both science and business? The burden in this case is not on Hansen to foresee how critics will misrepresent his testimony a decade or two in the future, but on people like Crichton to report it accurately. Hansen's motives for creating three scenarios are not at issue here, and for all we know, maybe he was told by the committee or a superior to prepare and present all three. Hanson apparently was very clear that the middle scenario (the one that has been pretty accurate in its predictions) as the most likely. And Crichton and Michaels have come pretty close to outright lying by implying otherwise.

Oh, and one more thing you might want to consider about Hansen's testimony. He did emphasize Scenario B, the most likely scenario over the other two in his testimony.

But Hansen himself has since admitted his 1988 testimony jumped to conclusions not supported by the data. Again, it seemed like he was searching for potential outcomes more than providing one solid theory. Here's his exact words in a 1998 article (Summary on p. 8):

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/...ansenSatoG.pdf

Basically, he was saying that we don't have enough information yet to make any kind of decision on this issue. Yet, many with an agenda, are taking his projections in 1988 as fact for the existance of Global Warming when even he does not feel comfortable with that assertion given the many holes in the data. Wonder why Pew glossed over this newer account?

As to his 1988 testimony, he gave three scenerios yet hammered the "worst" repeatedly in order to get more funding. There was a report in both Time (July 4, 1988) and the Boston Globe that reported only the "worst" theory and how he responded after giving it (from Time):


So, given this was the study given the most press from his testimony and the one that prompted numerous attempts (many successful) to create legislation on this issue, it would make sense that it would be the one Crichton cited. And, in none of these articles did Hansen state that the Globe, NY Times or Time magazine should not talk about his "worst case" exclusively.

So, regardless of which theory he meant to be the "real" one in the testimony, the worst case was trumpeted in the media and helped him get a lot of funding. And he wasn't all that eager to bring the discussion back to case B and C when the funding and legislation was being discussed. So, for Crichton to report this scenerio primarily in his book makes some sense given the ferver it created.

From what I've learned, too many urban centers (like big cities) will produce pollution which you can send a settler or engineer to clean it up (the engineers are faster). Additionally, once we learned nuclear power, there are nuclear pollution areas that the settlers and engineers have to clean up as well.

If only we could build the Hoover Dam...

(I never understood how Civ decided that hydro power was so environmentally friendly)

Wow that article has so many problems with it I don't even know where to start. But let's just address the main problem that people who don't believe that humans caused global warming. See B) below.


A) We know it will get even warmer because that's what the computer models tell us. I know that some people won't be too happy with that answer but believe me scientists base much more important decisions on computer models.

B) Here is the main point. Lot's of different variables affect the earth's heat. Things on earth not including man(volcanos, clouds, earth's magnetic field etc...) and things not on earth(the sun, asteriods, etc...) play a role. The computer models are spot on predicting the data back thousands of years when taking accout for all of these factors. They all fail to predict this current uptick in temperature. When you add in CO2 levels everything fits.

The key here is that even though lots and lots of variables contribute much more than current CO2 levels to the temperature of the earth, scientists understand how they contribute. CO2 levels currently have a small impact on the earth's temperature but a measureable one. Notice I am not predicting doom here or suggesting that everyone stop using their cars. Most scientists who work on global warming aren't predicting doom either. Some are though and they are the ones that are getting more press because that is a better story.

That isn't to say that we should just ignore these effects either. It is something that needs studying. Studying that currently isn't being done or isn't being done enough.

BTW, here is the CNN press release on the oceanic study that ends this debate. Case closed, the world is warming up. We are indeed having an effect on the increase. It is a small effect right now but something to be mindful of in the future.

Are these the same models that like to tell the weathermen that it will stop snowing any minute now, when it continues to snow all day along and dumps 20 inches on you? Or that has absolutely no clue where a hurricane will be more than an hour or two out? Some of the rest of your points are good, but it's absolutely ridiculous to believe that any climate-predicting computer model is worth much of anything right now.

This is the same Tim Barnett that said:

He also said the West was going to have a continued drought for the forseeable future and it wouldn't get better for atleast a decade on May 5, 2004. Here's his response to people questioning the "gloom and doom" of his study:


Well, in the first four months of 2005 we have already eclipsed our "projected" rainfall for the year in Arizona and between November and March, we have gotten around 10 inches (the average yearly rate is about 4).

Here's another question that hasn't been asked - the North Pole has experienced very short summers the past three years with less than usual melting - esp in 2004. That is completely at odds with his computer "simulation" baseline:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_untersteiner3.html

The kicker for me is:
Given me a break, we have had significantly higher swings back when the only "emissions" in the atmosphere came from animals and cave men after a big dinner. This guy is basically the lead "scare-guy" on global warming and has made it his life's goal to end the debate on man's impact on global warming (if it indeed will continue to occur).

Even if there has been a slight increase in temp, there are so many factors at play and other aspects that make it extremely unlikely man is having all much of an impact. I have no problem with studies on this issue and more research, but I have yet to see any piece of evidence to show car emissions and the other babble in Kyoto (which is his true motive for going into all this) is any more responsible for these "trends" than natural causes.

:D That's the funniest thing I've read in a while! Seriously though to answer your question the weatherman computer models and the global warming computer models are completely different even though it seems like they should be the same. They are built in a similiar way though taking data recent data and then extrapolating into the future. The daily weather though is much harder because it takes previous similiar weather patterns from the past couple of days and tries to guess what will happen the next day(or longer!). You can get into lot's of trouble like this. The global warming models take previous years worth of data and then extrapolate and they don't care if one region gets some extra snow in a day(or winter) just that the global picture works out. I've posted this link before but it still appears to be the best one out there at explaining all the factors that go into climate modeling and show a bunch of data on the subject. The plot on the very bottom shows models without CO2 and how poorly they fit the data, models using only CO2 and how poorly they fit the data, and a cobined model and how well it fits the data.

http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_...pact/man1.html

So even if you don't trust you weatherman you can still buy into this.

In terms of impact on humans, an ice age would have a vastly more significant impact than global warming. Let's keep our house warm.

utter and complete horse shit. no computer model is going to have the accuracy to predict changes in GLOBAL factors. Again this goes back to the fact that there isn't enough data ANYWHERE to come to any conclusions either way, we don't know if it will get warmer, we don't no if it will cool off, we don't know if the planet will explode.

IE the keys words here "WE DON'T KNOW"

Everything in those models is based on a hypothosis of one or more scientists, and through data they collect, is biased toward their opinions. As was stated eariler, without soe sort of large scale blind research, wehere the data can't be corrupted or catered to one sides opinion its all a bunch of steaming horse manure.

Computer models are the answer...please...people program models, people make mistakes, models are full of mistakes.

Your right, lack of data is clearly the problem here.




Yes there have been big swings in the past like you say, but these swings are understood. The models match with those swings. Just because this swing isn't the biggest doesn't mean that we can't undrestand it.

Just because a model happens to match these swings for a decade does not mean we fully understand the cause. There's also a lot of unaccounted noise in the data that has been thrown out in these studies (ie, the shorter and cooler summers in the North Pole). If you look at the predictions, both "B" and "C" had a very similar first 10 years. Where the difference came was 20-30 years down the road and there is nothing in any of those three scenerios that leads me to believe the next 20 years will fall in line with those simulations. If you get enough data points, you can pretty much make any projection you like and get away with it. The increase in CO2 predicted in the 80s has fallen well short of Hansen's main projections as well (from the Boston Globe):
This is what drives me nuts. When things cycle worse - it's because we are doing something wrong. When they cycle back or slow down, it's because we are suddenly now doing something better (of course, no one can ever figure out what that thing is). There are a great deal of natural climate shifts and I am sure that the world's population has a minor impact on that from time to time. But to act as if there is legit science that shows by accepting the Kyoto Accords or some similar method we can somehow impact this process is a major leap of faith.

From everything I have read and seen, going to the Kyoto would be akin to taking a thimble of sand off the beach and throwing it in the ocean from a global climate perspective. The global warming issue has gone from an interesting intellectual exercise to try and see what some factors could be and matching trends to a rally point for pro-environment and anti-business groups (mostly based in Europe) to try and stick it to the US.

Until someone shows me proof that humans can somehow chnage the climate and it's trends that have formed over millions of years, I am not going to worry about crazy ideas like Kyoto. Now, I will still look at the science on a potential warming trend, but it's a simple academic exercise as there is little we can do to change it.

And your showing data for ONE region, yay, so antarctica has had some big swings, and is having another, so what? its not a radical shift, there is no direct correlation to the CO2 concentration and this specific high point in temperature, and I'm sorry you disagree, but you can't show me a computer model that I won't be able to look at and point out several severe flaws in its algorithms for decision making, why is that you say? because they're created by p[eople who WANT to have a specific result from their models. I'm not trying to say all scientists and researchers are dishonest, I AM saying however that like any other human being they will strive to deliver the results people are looking to prove who hand over the funding for them to do so.

There is no direct proof that this shift in temperature is anything more than a regular natural occurence, and until someone can actually deliver verifiable proof of such, I will continue to state :

Global Warming is utter horseshit.

75% of climatologists disagree with you.

They are entitled to their assholes...errr opinions.....

Wow I certainly hope that there are few scientists out there that are doing that. If a group of scientists were to do such a thing though it would be hard to pull off since other scientists do similiar work and cross check results. You would be surprised how much peer review there is in the science community. When I say computer models it's because there are many of them and they have all agreed that you just can't predict this uptick with natual causes alone. Believe me, if someone could come up with a model that matched the data so well and only used natural causes that would change everything. And don't think that people haven't tried to find such a model. Yes that plot that I showed was only for antartica but other data for other regions exist(though not as far back).

Just out of curiousity, what would statisfy those who don't believe in human's causing global warming that it really does exist? If a computer model was found that explained the data with only natural causes then I would be convinced that human's weren't having an effect for instance.

BTW, one of the beautiful things about science is the fact that scientists aren't afraid to be wrong. Newton's law of motion are all wrong. Einstein was completely wrong about quantum mechanics. You look at some data, hypothesize about what's going on, and then test it, and test it, and test it. If it passes these tests great. If it fails every one that's great too because now you have more information about what's really going wrong. If it passes several tests but fails in a certain region then you modify it(like newton's laws). This is the way the science should be done.

You blew this off above, but I'll say it again anyway: I'll be more likely to believe these predictions when they finally prove they can predict climate change with any sort of reasonable accuracy. When 24-hour weather prediction starts hitting something close to 100% accuracy, I'll start believing they have a solid grasp of what affects our climate. Right now they are regularly wrong 8 hours in advance (heck, this past winter my forecast was for "occasional flurries" and it did not change to "light snow" until 1/2 inch had already fallen).

There are clearly factors that affect our weather and climate that the scientists have not found or identified, or they have the weights way off (i.e. something is affecting the climate more than they think). They have not demonstrated yet that they understand these enough to make predictions, so why should I believe much of anything they predict right now?

A key problem here is that the timeframes are so huge. We won't know for quite some time (decades at least) if these large-scale global climate models are accurate. Should we be making drastic economy-affecting changes based on computer models that have yet to be proven?

Humans do affect the environment (there is no inconceivable way we do not). As to what that affect is, it's like how many licks does it take to get to the center of the Tootsie Roll lollipop. The world may never know.

I didn't mean to blow this off. Weather simulations are completely different from climate simulations. Weather simulations are much, much, harder than climate simulations from what I understand. And the data seems to bear that out. Look at how well the models match the data.




If there was a weight way off or something big that the scientists were missing how come the models fit the data so well? Sure these models are completely useless at telling you if it's going to snow today or not but that isn't their point.


If the models have done such a good job of matching that data for such a long time why shouldn't we believe them? Why are the next 20 or 30 years the testing grounds for these models. Why not the past 30 years where they are right inline with the data?

That said I am NOT suggesting that we completely mess with the economy to "fix" these problems. These models don't tell you anything about the repercussions, if any, to the earth. Other research is needed to answer that question. I mearly suggesting that we go forward and start studying what effects these could have on the enviroment. There is precious little quality information out there about what would happen if the temperature does go up by 2-3 degrees. There is a lot of guesses and doomday speak but no good studies. In my mind these models have shown that further study is warented.

As for lack of data. I don't think anyone is really making that claim. In fact even the skeptics are pointing to the very scientific reports being used to document Global Warming, the small printed parts where the Scientists say that there is actually too much data to accurately model, predict, or even draw a meaningful conclusion as to the cause of even the meager warming seen. There is a lot of data, and more variables than scientists can deal with. More variables than the computer models can deal with. Certainly more variables than are used in computer models designed by people with a specific result in mind.

Also, about your pretty graph. There is a reason it isn't considered predictive. That is because there is no indication that the rise in temperature wasn't causing the increase in Green House Gasses. You do know what plants produce through photosynthesis right? C02. You understand that plants thrive in warmth, right? Don't bother correcting me. It's been done, and Yes, I'm an idiot. Forget this paragraph even happened.

Not many people are claiming there isn't global warming. While many more will argue whether or not CFCs are the cause of it. My problem with the Global Warming Evironmentalist types is that they claim man is behind it. There is just no freaking evidence of that. What caused the global warming before man was building factories with smokestacks? What did man do thousands of years ago when the earth was warmer? What did the Dinosaurs do to bring about one of several Ice Ages? Doesn't it just seem possible that the earth's climate goes through cycles? Man doesn't have to be the cause of this.

Because it's borderline TRIVIAL to make a model that matches old data (or at least much, much easier than creating a model that predicts future behavior). You know what the end result is, so you keep tweaking your rules and variables until the results are correct. That doesn't mean that the same model will be accurate in predicting future trends, just that it happens to match what happened before.

Example: Flip a coin 1000 times. Heads comes up 55%, Tails 45%. I can easily make you a model that simulates a flipping coin and matches that data. That won't be an accurate model, though.

We don't know these models are correct until time proves them correct. Heck, if man has such a big influence on the environment as you are claiming these models prove, and man has a bigger and bigger impact as we become more industrialised, how can you claim that past performance proves future performance? Since man is introducing new factors all the time, how do you know the models accurately predict the impact of those new factors, since they aren't in the data you're claiming proves their validity?

The data from Antartica is significant since it shows a consistent pattern of behaviour for 400,000 years. As a planet we move from Ice Age to a interglacial period back to ice age over and over. We should be slowly moving towards another Ice Age right now. We should see falling CO2 levels to match this as we have over the last 400,000. The problem we do not. Instead of falling the CO2 levels have risen in the last 8000 years.

There may be a natural reason for this with a period greater than 400,000 years. However we know how heat is transferred to the Earth and we understand the spin of the Earth and its orbit. No one has been able to produce a solid reason for this CO2 increase based on nature. Some have posited it is related to the rise of Agriculture while evidence provides support for this it still needs more work.

Solid evidence exists from multiple sources confirming a rise in world wide temperatures. While slight it is certainly measureable and present, however the effect of increased tempurature is still in doubt. The more extreme have argued that catastrophic events will result mostly centering on ocean currents. Among the more extreme is the glaciers of Greenland will melt flooding fresh water into the Atlantic and significantly alter water flow off its coast. However Greenland is not melting fast enough to produce this result. Nor do we know if Greenlands glaciers will continue to melt over the next several years.

So...
The rising temperature is releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is pseudoscience at its best.

Nice chart, very eye catching,
shows correlation,
not cause and effect.

What Arles isn't telling anyone is that he's secretly hoping for Global Warming to be true so that he'll eventually have oceanfront property down there in Arizona.

I'm on to you Arles!!! ;)

You caught me ;)

I actually don't mind the pursuit of answers for the current warming trend. In fact, I find a lot of the research very interesting. I just get a little agitated when the leap is made to man's role in these changes. Until we get a little more data and confidence on what man can (or cannot) impact, basing economic policy on global warming seems like shooting someone in the leg to remove a mosquito.

With enough fitting parameters, I can make a model to fit any data I want. Saying "gee, this model really fits the data well!" is a completely empty assertion, since it's designed to fit a significant portion of that data. OK, I'm oversimplifying -- if the model is relatively simple with few fitting parameters and it still fits existing data well, it has value as suggesting that the variables are significant in controlling the behavior. But since the big deal here is predicting the future, it would be nice to have some evidence that the models have predictive value -- that one of these "nice fit" models not only handles its source data well, but also tracks well with what happens after its source data is turned off and it's left to its own devices.

So if the correlation is not the causation, what is the common factor, and can you formulate a model that captures the effect?

I do. Apparently you don't.

I disagree.

If you shot someone in the leg to get rid of a mosquito, you would have most likely actually gotten rid of the mosquito. Kyoto and the like doesn't promise to be anywhere near that effective.

Damn it!!!! I just thought of this when I was away at lunch. It was one of those "I could have had a V8" moments. I was hoping to sneak back into the thread, and edit that whole thing out, but alas I have been exposed as an idiot.

I took a stab at thinking of why his graph didn't prove what he was stipulating. Instead I'm now an idiot, and I think I should avoid arguing before my first cup of coffee.

I'm heading straight for that I'm With Stupid thread.

What I was pointing out is the chart didn't "prove anything" and was calling BS on it.
It dosn't disprove anything either.
The chart shows an "apparent correlation."

It shows:

1. Higher temps could be causing higher CO2.
2. Higher CO2 could be causing higher temps.
3. Both higher temps and higher CO2 could be the result of some other unrelated cause.

Maybe the local arctic drive inn was showing a racy movie, causing sweating and heavy breathing.
Thus raising both the temp and the CO2 concentration.

It looks like it should show something but dosn't.

Well, I do think that Surtt and I have addressed that pretty well.

ok this is my last post of this thread(I hope). I just want to clear up a few points that I haven't made very clear.


Your absolutely correct this plot doesn't prove anything. I just posted it as a reply to show that scientists have plenty of data to work with. I actually wanted to find on without CO2 levels but I couldn't find one.


These models don't "tune" with recent data they "tune" with very old data and then are run to predict recent data. Scientists have to do this because they can't create another earth to run experiements on so the newer data gets run on as the experiement. When run like this the predictions of the newer data is just like predicting what things are going to be in 20 or 30 years.

Also, it's very hard to create a model that fits this new data(and previous data) well. It's not nearly as simple as you think. In fact none of the models that only uses natural causes fit the newer data at all and all of the models that add in CO2 levels match the data. If just one model that only used natural causes fit the data then I would be convinced. If it were so simple to create a model that predicted the climate there would be hundreds of models out there that used completely different variables. This is not the case. The only models that work are the ones that use the CO2 levels with a correct mixure of natural causes.


Again the impact here is very small when compared to other forces. I'm not claiming that this is a huge thing or even that it will have any effect on the enviroment. I believe that projections of human output of CO2 are used as imputs to predict future years. I am not an expert but I am believe these predictions are arrived at in a similiar way looking back at past data of CO2 output to predict future CO2 emissions.

You absolutely correct that some other factor that hasn't been present before could be introduced. This new factor would have to have never been present during the earth's timeline that we have data for but if that were to happen then these models would indeed be incorrect. These models are only good if the conditions on earth for the past 400,000 years remain the same. Certianly man is able to produce things not natural found so this is possible.


You are correct that the earth's climate does go in cycles and that there are other large factors that effect the climate much more than CO2 levels. These factors are known and understood by the climate models as they have correctly predicted the climate for thousand's of years. That's the proof the scientists understand these factors. If they didn't understand these large factors then the models would be incorrect for large periods in the earth's history. CO2 levels are a small effect but the natural causes don't predict the current(small) temperature increase. Only models that factor in both large(natural) and small(CO2 levels) causes can correctly predict the climate.


I completely agree with you. No economic policy changes should be made until we understand what impact(if any) this temperature increase will have. In fact, no matter what is causing this temperature increase it makes sense to study the results to know what effect it will have on the enviroment. Even if we aren't creating the increase and can't do anything about it studying it will help us prepare for what it might bring.

BTW, I don't think it's such a leap to suggest that man is effect the climate. If you believe that at certain levels CO2(a greenhouse gas) can effect the climate, and you believe that man is emitting CO2(which we are), then the only question is at what level does man have to emit CO2 before we see an increase in temperature. I believe these models show that we have reached that point but even if we haven't that point is out there.

Lastly, I don't think I have done a good job at explaining just how well the models that only use natural causes do at predicting the climate. For thousands of years these models correctly predict the earth's temperature to tenths of a degree celsius or better. We should have great confidence in them because they do such a good job for such a long period of time. Only the last 50 years or so do they fail to correctly predict the climate. Now they are off a degree. This is a large variation for a model that has done so well for thousands of years. Models that add it CO2 levels being back the precision to about a tenth of a degree even for the most recent data. How much more data is needed to show that the natural models are missing something? Do they need to be off by two degrees? Five degrees? Ten degrees? For how long do they need to be incorrect? If 50 years isn't enough time is 100 years enough? 200? What is needed for those who don't believe that man is warming up the globe to prove that it actually exists?

Ok, I will grant they have data, but as I've said before, they don't have enough, nor do they have any direct evidence supporting your opinion.


The problem here lies with the fact that they're "tuning" with VERY limited data sets...ice core temperature readings are a wonderful tool, but the science behind those is also relatively new and could be proven fallible at any point as new things arise. basing a global warming scare on models including such data is fear mongering at best and sheer foolhardiness on the scientists part at worst.


This is also a problem in my opinion, stop and think about this for a moment. it IS hard to develop these models, hard and probably pretty damned expensive. I would put a years salary on the line to bet you that damned near every model out there right now used some algorithm's or data sets directly from OTHER models. This invalidates the "They all say the same thing" argument, because unless they're designed and built uniquely they are the SAME model.


This statement goes against your entire argument, so now you're saying that humanity isn't a real significant problem here?


This would be perfectly acceptable, if you had included extra-terrestial input as well. anything in the universe could have caused this shift, higher solar flares, a large pocket of radiation flowing through this area of the galaxy, divine intervention, who knows? This is why I call BS on the whole fear mongering topic. No one honestly knows, they make up models based on whatever data they can find and claim that it "predicts" or "proves" their opinion, and that is a complete fallacy.


Again, these predictions are based on very shakey data collected from ice cores. While we haven't found fault with the core data, that is only one VERY small piece of data relating to a vast and immense thing we like to call the environment. Climactic changes cannot be accurately predicted or even modeled based on such data and be truly trustworthy.


I commented on the whole ice core data thing earlier, but again, when the majority if not all these models are using much of the same data and using such small data identities like the ice cores as a major basis factor, they simply aren't that reliable in predicting anything.

To conclude, and then I'll leave this topic alone as well, Scientists by definition should be unbiased, but we're all human and humans are biased, no matter how they deny it. Everyone on both sides of this argument can whip up models and definitions and data and tons of factoids and blurbs and precidents which uphold their side of the argument. The point I'm trying to press home here is that we still know NOTHING, we don't have a true cause and effect, we don't have direct and irrefutable evidence that humanity is actually having a significant effect on things,we have no way to verify WHAT in fact may lead to the tiny shift in temperatures that people are seeing.

I'm not ignorant enough to say there is nothing happening, obviously the world has cycles and will change over time. What I am upset about and angered by is the rampant fear mongering that this topic creates within the truly un-knowing in the worlds population. People will believe whatever line they're fed, and its sad that the theories that scientists are coming up with are being twisted and stated as hard facts by the media and over-zealous environmental groups.

As for what it will take to convince me? I don't know, but if at some point I am convinced, I'll come back here and apologize for my vehemence =)

Do you have even the slightest understanding of the way these models are developed?

Going beyond that, complaining about the data sets seems completely specious to me in the absence of a specific complaint -- of course the modelers are going to be using either similar or identical data, because they're trying to use the most accurate data they can use (garbage in, garbage out, and all that).