Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I'm not sure if you don't believe or you do...uncontrolled methane launched into the atmosphere will have dire dire effects on life as we know it.

Same goes with the oceans, if they continue to warm up and acidify giant deposits of methane will be released and once that starts you can't really stop it.

I imagine methane release will cause changes. I guess I could do without the rhetoric. The Earth has undoubtedly gone through extreme changes during its billions of years of existence. And we are extremely recently (about 0.0002% of it's existence) past an ice age, which trapped the methane to begin with. Life creates methane that has to be dealt with.

Think of the Earth as a giant landfill for biological waste. If we are, indeed, artificially heating up the Earth, we're merely developing a better incinerator for the mess billions of years of life heaped upon us. (this was written tongue in cheek, of course).

The dire consequences are the results of artificial practices humans have developed in the last few hundred years. Our systems of farming and city-building, while well-adapted to a static climate, are not all that suited to a changing climate.

People like Mann and Gore believe fervently in preserving the static climate at all costs. Mann has gone as far as to develop "tricks" to create false temperature records for the past few thousand years (again, only a minute percentage of the Earth's history).

While we should look into energy sources (not just here, but in China/India/etc. as well) that accelerate the transformation of buried fuels into the atmosphere, this is not the emergency Gore claims it is.

It would be more efficient, long-term, to also focus on developing systems of farming and city-building that better match our ever-changing planet. The focus on CO2 is definitely a cart-before-horse exercise.

[Qwikshot]

This is a really good infographic to start off with since the rest of the stuff is more academically verbose

How Many Gigatons of CO2? | Information Is Beautiful

From the Pew Center

Climate Change 101 series | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Addressing Climate Change in the Near Term: Short-Lived Climate Forcers | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

From the World Bank on what a +4deg C world will be like (it's 100 plus pages)

Climate Change Report Warns of Dramatically Warmer World This Century

Just a few things...this isn't just about a cycle, it's about us and how we as a whole are impacting things.

I think George Carlin said it best to people who said (and I'm paraphrasing) "Save the Planet", we don't need to save the planet, it'll still be here long after we're gone, but we need to save ourselves from ourselves if we want to live on it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

North Pole is a lake!!!!!

North pole now a lake | Fox News

[CraigSca]

North Pole 'Lake' Vanishes : Discovery News

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

According to NBC, a leaked report says the world is in dire straits.....

Never-before-seen changes in Iceberg Alley - Video on NBCNews.com

Fox looked at the exact same report and says otherwise.....

Leaked draft of climate report struggles with drop in warming | Fox News

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

News in my industry, though the article should have gone a bit further into the real findings of the study. The regions really don't have to move (assuming their prediction of temperature change is true). The reason they're having to move is that they want to keep growing grapes that are the staple of the California industry (merlot, cabernet, chardonnay, etc.). There are grape varietals that are grown in other areas that are much less water-reliant that would grow just fine in those areas. What they really need to do is broaden the interest in more grape varieties, but I doubt they'll bother to do that.

Wine-growing regions may shift from climate change - San Francisco Chronicle

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Great, now it's cold again........

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Great, now it's cold again........

Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online

Ah yes, the Daily Mail - definitely a source to be trusted when it comes to interpreting climate science.

[sterlingice]

Should we just start posting every day it's above average or below average since clearly one good way to promote the idea that "Global Warming is Bullsh!t" is to conflate climate and weather.

SI

[molson]

It didn't surprise anyone that there'd be some regression to the mean this year.

Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

Remember folks, all scientific research and conclusions are paid for and bullshit unless they're reported in Fox News or the Daily Mail, and are consistent with the policy goals of the U.S. Republican party - in which case they're beyond all reproach. It's good to question science, unless its contrary to the Republican party line, in which case you're unpatriotic or something.

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Should we just start posting every day it's above average or below average since clearly one good way to promote the idea that "Global Warming is Bullsh!t" is to conflate climate and weather.

SI

Considering Mizzou B-ball fan considers a photo of snow at a golf tournament scientific proof of his positions, this wouldn't be too far fetched for this thread. Edit: And it is a little drafty in my office right now, that has to be proof of something.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Considering Mizzou B-ball fan considers a photo of snow at a golf tournament scientific proof of his positions, this wouldn't be too far fetched for this thread. Edit: And it is a little drafty in my office right now, that has to be proof of something.

Have I taken a position? I just post these articles to show how stupid it all is. It's amusing to me. I've been pretty clear that I think both sides are full of it and the reality is likely somewhere in the middle. Anyone who believes either side at this point needs to have their head examined.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Should we just start posting every day it's above average or below average since clearly one good way to promote the idea that "Global Warming is Bullsh!t" is to conflate climate and weather.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Have I taken a position? I just post these articles to show how stupid it all is. It's amusing to me. I've been pretty clear that I think both sides are full of it and the reality is likely somewhere in the middle. Anyone who believes either side at this point needs to have their head examined.

Exactly. The truth is somewhere in the middle, just like in the discussions about whether you should vaccinate your kids or whether the earth is flat. Similarly 99 is between 1 and 100- it's just a lot closer to one side than the other.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Have I taken a position? I just post these articles to show how stupid it all is. It's amusing to me. I've been pretty clear that I think both sides are full of it and the reality is likely somewhere in the middle. Anyone who believes either side at this point needs to have their head examined.

I'm not sure what "in the middle" means - you think global warming is happening but that it won't kill us as quickly as some of the most extreme predictions (predictions which may be exaggerated due to political bias) would suggest? I think that would be a reasonable enough opinion, but your posts suggest that you've just chosen one extreme agenda-driven side over another. That's the part of this I've never quite understood - even if some of the more alarmist global warming conclusions are exaggerated for political benefit, how does that make the opposite conclusion, supported by the extreme-right-wing sources you tend to cite, automatically correct? Why shouldn't we question those conclusions with the same rigor, especially considering they're in an extreme minority?

Edit: I also don't think the fact that one year may have different arctic ice levels than another year necessarily means that "both sides are full of it"....I don't think anybody is suggesting that global climate change means that the planet is going to get hotter every single day and year like clockwork until we all melt. (though I do think Fox News and the Daily mail are attempting to imply the opposite, that global warming is "disproven" by any regression to the mean or even any localized cooling trend). Climate change is a big, broad deal that's measured over single temperature degrees, GLOBAL climate, and decades, if not centuries.)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

That's the part of this I've never quite understood - even if some of the more alarmist global warming conclusions are exaggerated for political benefit, how does that make the opposite conclusion, supported by the extreme-right-wing sources you tend to cite, automatically correct? Why shouldn't we question those conclusions with the same rigor, especially considering they're in an extreme minority?

I cite the idiots, regardless of side. There's plenty to go around. You should question them all, because they're all idiots. It's politically motivated bulls%*#, just as the title of this thread notes.

[cartman]

Yeah, they are all idiots all right, only motivated by politics.

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science | Ars Technica

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

See???? We're all going to die.

Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say | Fox News

[sterlingice]

Personally, I'm much more concerned with how long the planet can host human life at a comfortable level.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

See???? We're all going to die.

Planet good for another 1.75 billion years, scientists say | Fox News

"Continuing to host life" isn't quite necessarily the same as "planet good for another 1.75 billion years". This study is not about global warming, its about astronomy. It's calculating the time that the earth will remain in thee solar system's "habitable zone", and thus, how long the planet can potentially host life, "barring nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid or some other disaster". (And even if those things happened, earth would still be capable of at least theoretically hosting some kind of life, as long as it's orbit isn't disrupted to the point where its no longer in the solar system's habitable zone.

I mean, you not see that, or are you trolling? Do you not recognize the source of this article, the headline they choice, what the study actually says, and what Fox News's intent is in using this headline with this article? I mean, I actually think you're an intelligent guy. The way you consume and spit out this stuff is just bewildering though.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure what "in the middle" means - you think global warming is happening but that it won't kill us as quickly as some of the most extreme predictions (predictions which may be exaggerated due to political bias) would suggest?

I'm here, except I also think the outsize attention given to global warming (and thus CO2) comes at the expense of reducing other harmful chemicals and pollutants (like lead) that could be much more cheaply reduced in the environment. I think we've reached the point where focusing on reducing CO2 emissions in developed countries has reached a point of diminishing returns and the money and focus should be on helping developing countries skip over or drastically shorten the period of industrialization where they absolutely destroy the environment that we went through from like 1880-1930, because it's obvious people in this country aren't willing to accept a reduced standard of living at the expense of CO2 emissions, and it would be morally reprehensible to hold other countries back from achieving our standard of living. Also, I think it's more cost-effective and better in the long run to figure out how to adapt to a changing climate (for example, not rebuilding New Orleans below sea level, moving some farming operations further north as all that Canadian tundra starts turning into a place people can live) instead of trying to preserve the status quo.

On actual climate, I don't think that the climate we saw when we started looking closely at it is the ideal one or the natural state of the world. I think that there was a mini ice age that bottomed out around 1850 (when many more accurate temperature measurements start) and think we're still well below the temperatures that occurred during the medieval warm period, so if those people could adapt and the planet snapped back from that I don't think this is the immediate crisis that many make it out to be (and many of the people who want us to take it more seriously know better, but also know that the public will only take it seriously if they claim the threat is imminent).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

"Continuing to host life" isn't quite necessarily the same as "planet good for another 1.75 billion years". This study is not about global warming, its about astronomy. It's calculating the time that the earth will remain in thee solar system's "habitable zone", and thus, how long the planet can potentially host life, "barring nuclear holocaust, an errant asteroid or some other disaster". (And even if those things happened, earth would still be capable of at least theoretically hosting some kind of life, as long as it's orbit isn't disrupted to the point where its no longer in the solar system's habitable zone.

I mean, you not see that, or are you trolling? Do you not recognize the source of this article, the headline they choice, what the study actually says, and what Fox News's intent is in using this headline with this article? I mean, I actually think you're an intelligent guy. The way you consume and spit out this stuff is just bewildering though.

Send your sarcasm meter to PO Box 3728, Broken Item, OK 66666. It needs repairs.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Send your sarcasm meter to PO Box 3728, Broken Item, OK 66666. It needs repairs.

Somehow I don't buy that your post was intended to mock Fox News.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Somehow I don't buy that your post was intended to mock Fox News.

Evidently the part of your meter that monitors who I was targeting is broken as well.

Edit: Though I do like to look at Fox News just to see what headline they have on many stories. It's usually funny and always twists the focus of the article away from what the real focus should be.

[Coffee Warlord]

And once again.

I am calling for a return for high-CFC, big gas guzzling engines, and various other things that MAKE IT FUCKING NOT SNOW IN OCTOBER.

We need MORE global warming!

[Subby]

Here is a good article on a doctor that is at the forefront of climate change skepticism. Makes you feel pretty good about believing that climate change is, in fact, not bullshit.

Harvard-Smithsonian global warming skeptic helps feed strategy of doubt, gridlock in Congress - Politics - The Boston Globe

Researcher helps sow climate-change doubt
Industry-funded Cambridge astrophysicist adds to partisan divide
By Christopher Rowland | Globe Staff November 05, 2013

WASHINGTON — The setting was not unusual for a scholarly conference: a bland ballroom in a Houston hotel. But Willie Soon’s presentation was anything but ordinary. As PowerPoint slides flashed on a screen, his remarks crescendoed into a full-throated denunciation.

“Those people are so out of their minds!’’ exclaimed Soon, a solar researcher at the prestigious Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge. He assailed former vice president Al Gore, among others, for his views on climate change, calling predictions of catastrophic ocean tides “crazy’’ and scornfully concluding: “And they call this science.’’

Never mind that Soon, an astrophysicist, is no specialist on global sea levels, and his most notable writing on the subject was an op-ed article in the conservative Washington Times last year.

He has, nonetheless, established himself as a front-line combatant in the partisan crossfire over rising oceans, melting ice, and other climate issues beyond his primary expertise. Coveted for his Harvard-Smithsonian affiliation, and strident policy views, he has been bankrolled by hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy industry grants.

Polar bears? Not threatened. Sea level? Exaggerated danger. Carbon dioxide? Great for trees. Warming planet? Caused by natural fluctuation in the sun’s energy.

Soon’s views are considered way outside the scientific mainstream, which makes him a prophet or a pariah, depending on which side you ask. Some say his work simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, that his data are cherry-picked to fit his thesis.

But in Washington, where facts generally lose the race with opinion, he is a force. His writings and lectures are frequently cited by industry backed groups and think tanks, as they attempt to sow doubt about global warming.

And the strategy is working.

Outside the Beltway, the science is largely settled. Yet in the capital, government response to one of the major environmental and economic challenges facing the planet is mired in an endless cycle of conflicting claims and partisan finger-pointing.

The work of Soon, and a handful of like-minded scientists, is seen by critics in Congress and elsewhere as a case study in how this deadlock has been engineered by energy companies and antiregulation conservatives.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island.
“They are merchants of doubt, not factual information,’’ said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who delivers a Senate speech every week demanding stronger air-quality standards. “Their strategy isn’t to convince people that the scientists are wrong. Their strategy is simply to raise the specter that there is enough doubt that . . . you should just move onto the next issue until this gets sorted out,’’ he said. “It gives credibility to a crank point of view.’’

Divided US Congress, public

No fewer than 13 US agencies spend more than $2.6 billion a year gathering and analyzing evidence on climate shifts — in land, at sea, at the poles, in space.

The conclusion? Global warming is real, and human activities are almost certainly a major cause.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, has likewise prepared a series of reports documenting the dangers. The latest, released in September, said there is a 95 percent certainty that human activity is the primary cause of the planet’s warming. The report predicts oceans will rise by nearly 3 feet by the end of the century.

And here is the official view of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society: “The scientific evidence is clear: Global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

Yet that global scientific consensus is changing few minds in Congress. By latest count, 127 US representatives and 30 senators believe that global warming is not happening or, if it is, that human activity is not the cause, according to a tally by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group.

Voter surveys also show a divided public. Gallup, the polling firm, said this year that 57 percent of Americans surveyed believe global warming is a man-made phenomenon, while 39 percent say it is due to natural causes.

This muddled picture has made congressional action all but impossible.

The Senate killed comprehensive climate-change legislation in 2010 after the House passed the bill, which was co-authored by then-representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts. Markey said the bill failed because “polluters manufactured a blizzard of industry-funded doubt. If not for that, the climate bill would have passed.”

Frustrated, President Obama has opted to bypass Congress and is pursuing stronger regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency. The capital is girding for yet another round of lobbying and legal battles over those new rules.

There are shrill and over-the-top voices on the left as well, more focused on pillorying climate-change skeptics than in promoting reasoned debate. But conservatives and energy interests have the lengthiest record of funding and promoting reports that attempt to debunk prevailing theories of climate change.

Soon’s work falls into that category.

As is common among the Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, Soon receives no taxpayer-funded salary; his compensation is dependent on outside grant money, according to the Smithsonian Institution.

He has proved adept at winning grants. Over the last dozen years, he has received research funding of more than a $1.2 million from sources such as ExxonMobil; Southern Company, a foundation run by the Koch brothers, conservative energy moguls; and industry trade group American Petroleum Institute, according to public documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Greenpeace, the environmental advocacy group.

Some of Soon’s papers disclose the sources of his funding, others do not. Industry and conservative sources have been the sole source of his funding since 2006, according to the records.

Most of Soon’s industry backers either declined to comment or did not respond directly to questions about why they support his work. The American Petroleum Institute cited the quality of his academic credentials.

“You have a guy that is aligned and associated with Harvard University, one of the top universities in the United States, and the Smithsonian, also very reputable,’’ said institute spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel.

Soon declined multiple requests for a formal interview but responded to some questions in brief conversations after public appearances in Chicago and Washington. The fact that all of his grant money since 2006 has been from energy companies or antiregulatory interests has no bearing on his work or findings, Soon said.

“No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write,’’ Soon told the Globe, “especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works, all by itself.’’

He said he is seeking only to spread the truth about science as he sees it. Scientists who say carbon-dioxide-induced warming is a virtual certainty, he added, have allowed political fashion to compromise their integrity.

He lays claim to higher standards.

“They have lost sight of the fundamental quest,’’ he said. “We follow the evidence.’’

Furor over published results

Soon, 48, began his journey to prominence in the world of global-warming doubters in Cambridge, where he arrived in the early 1990s.

A native of Malaysia, Soon had earned his PhD at the University of Southern California. He then won a coveted appointment at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics as a post-doctoral researcher, assisting another prominent climate-change doubter, Sallie Baliunas, who was studying variations in solar radiation. He won a full-time appointment as an astrophysicist in 1997.

Soon and Baliunas both served as senior scientists at the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-tank in Washington. Based on their analysis of energy fluctuations from the sun, they raised questions about the role of carbon emissions in global warming.

Soon’s overarching argument is that temperature change on Earth is not caused by burning fossil fuels but by what he calls the “King Kong of the climate system,’’ the sun — which is his primary area of expertise.

In 2003, Soon and Baliunas published a research paper that caused an international controversy and won Soon favor among climate conservatives in Congress.

“20th Century Climate Not So Hot,’’ the Harvard-Smithsonian press release declared at the time of the paper’s release.

The “meta-analysis,’’ which is a broad review of previously published scientific papers, asserted that 240 studies of climate-related data such as tree rings and ice borings, when taken together, revealed that the last century was neither the warmest nor the most extreme on record. The claim bucked the growing body of evidence that showed a marked increase in temperature in the second half of the 20th century.

Controversy over the paper’s publication included allegations of methodological flaws and the failure of outside peer reviewers to appropriately scrutinize its claims. At one journal that published it, Climate Research, a handful of editors resigned to protest the decision to accept it.

Soon and Baliunas had plucked weather data from various regions in various centuries throughout history, said their detractors, then incorrectly used that information to make broad conclusions about the temperature of the planet during the so-called Medieval Warm Period, about 1,000 years ago.

Published in two separate peer-reviewed journals, the paper contained an acknowledgment: part of the research funding came from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s lobbying arm in Washington.

Michael Mann, a prominent climate researcher who performed crucial temperature studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst during the 1990s and is now a professor at Pennsylvania State University, said he was surprised when he read the paper.

“Every self-respecting climate scientist that I knew that read it agreed, this was appalling,’’ Mann said. “It wasn’t legitimate. It was simply a politically motivated attack on a body of work masquerading as science.’’

Despite doubts about its validity and questions about the authors’ ties to industry, the paper gained immediate traction in Washington.

Industry-funded and conservative skeptics inside and out of the Bush administration seized on it to attack Mann’s own findings from a few years earlier, which showed centuries of relatively level temperatures followed by a sharp uptick after humans began pumping more carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere.

The condemnation of the broader scientific community did not matter in the political debate, Mann said in an interview.

“You attack the science, you create confusion, you divide the public,’’ he said, “and that’s enough to make sure there will be no policy progress in this country.’’

In the last decade, Soon has given private briefings to congressional staff and traveled throughout the United States and the world on speaking appearances.

This year, Soon has been critical of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $20 billion infrastructure plan to protect New York City from rising waters. He has urged residents of Delaware to disregard dramatic warnings about higher ocean tides.

His work has been cited in floor speeches by members of the US House and Senate, who say evidence of human-induced climate change is lacking and does not justify the economic costs of cutting greenhouse emissions. Among his admirers: Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, who has cited Soon’s research in the Senate and famously denounced global warming as “the greatest hoax every perpetrated on the American people.’’

Soon also has fans among scientists who tend to share his views.

“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas,’’ Dyson said in an e-mail to the Globe. “For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.’’

A ‘hero’ among skeptics

Soon’s work has made for an awkward relationship with his employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where most of the scientists train their attention on galaxies, black holes, and other mysteries of the cosmos.

As the name suggests, the center is a hybrid, made up of scientists from both Harvard College Observatory and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, a division of the Smithsonian Institution.

Soon is employed by the Smithsonian side of the house and has an indefinite appointment.

In 2011, for health reasons he declined to disclose, he went from full-time to part-time status. Although Soon initially agreed to an interview, the observatory declined to permit it to take place on its campus.

“Willie’s opinions regarding climate change are his personal views not shared within our research organization,’’ spokesman David Aguilar said in an e-mail.

Soon said he is required by the center to recite a disclaimer – saying his views are his own, and not that of Harvard-Smithsonian — each time he speaks or writes on anything outside his expertise in solar radiation. But the complexities of his relationship with Harvard-Smithsonian are often ignored by his sponsors and conference hosts eager to showcase his impressive credentials.

The Harvard-Smithsonian Center’s former director, Harvard astronomy professor Irwin Shapiro, said there was never any attempt to censor Soon’s views. Nor, he said, was Soon the subject of complaints or concern among the 300 scientists at the center.

“As far as I can tell,’’ said Shapiro, “no one pays any attention to him.’’

While that may be true in the academic environs of Cambridge, it is definitely not the case in Washington.

Soon maintains affiliations with several industry-supported conservative groups that package and aggressively promote his scientific reviews, videos, blogs, and op-eds in an effort to shape the climate-change debate. In addition to the Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Chicago, they include two nonprofits in Washington where Soon serves as a scientific advisor, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and the Science and Public Policy Institute.

All three organizations — which have received energy industry funding — vigorously oppose greenhouse gas regulations and operate websites that provide endless debating fodder for climate-change skeptics in the United States and abroad.

Among the leaders of the Center for a Constructive Tomorrow is its communications director Marc Morano, a former advisor and speechwriter for Oklahoma’s Senator Inhofe and other Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Morano also was a producer for conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh’s television show in the 1990s.

“Willie Soon is a hero of the skeptical movement,’’ said Morano. “When you are an early pioneer, you are going to face the scrutiny and attacks.’’


Keeping up the attack

Soon was back in the spotlight one Monday in late September, a typical split-screen day in Washington’s partisan climate wars.

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Massachusetts native Gina McCarthy, met with reporters at a hotel breakfast near the White House to defend new greenhouse-gas restrictions the agency had proposed the week before.

“EPA is an agency that, after all, is based on science and moving forward with what peer-reviewed science tells us,’’ she said. “In the issue of climate, it tells us that climate change is real, and that human activities are fueling that change.’’

Two hours later, just a few blocks from the Capitol, Willie Soon appeared on stage at the conservative Heritage Foundation to spread the word about a 1,000-page rebuttal, distributed by the Heartland Institute, of a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The rebuttal, featuring analysis by 47 authors of recent published reports, is intended to provide lawmakers with a competing viewpoint on the science.

Except for a Fox News report that prominently featured Soon, Heartland officials have complained the report has been ignored by the mainstream media.

Before the Heritage Foundation audience of 100 people, Soon won appreciative applause before launching into a fresh set of attacks: “IPCC is a pure bully,’’ he said, accusing the body of “blatant manipulations of fact’’ and engaging in a “charade.’’

“Stop politicizing science!’’ he said. “Just stop!’’

Christopher Rowland can be reached at crowland @globe.com.

[Warhammer]

There is an article in The Economist from Oct 19th that describes what is happening in science right now, and how the commonly accepted method of conducting science, and peer review is going off the rails. That article focuses on the medical industry, but it echoes what I posted earlier the thread, it doesn't even mention climate science. It would be a good read for most in this thread regardless of the side of the line they are on.

Regarding Soon, his work regarding the sun and astrophysics is debunked, but that is directly related to climate. The sun is he single largest driver of the climate, when it's rays are more oblique in the winter, it cools significantly. When they are more direct, the temperature increases dramatically. If the solar output where to increase by 5-10%, temperatures would rise significantly. If it's output were to decline by the same amount, we could go into another ice age.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There is an article in The Economist from Oct 19th that describes what is happening in science right now, and how the commonly accepted method of conducting science, and peer review is going off the rails. That article focuses on the medical industry, but it echoes what I posted earlier the thread, it doesn't even mention climate science. It would be a good read for most in this thread regardless of the side of the line they are on.

NPR's had something similar a few weeks ago. As I understand it, there are now a growing number of scientific journals which will publish your work if you pay them. While they say that they also peer review the papers, a guy at the journal Science (which is old & well-respected) did a study where he submitted a well-written but fatally flawed paper to hundreds of these journals and found out that most clearly didn't peer review them at all.

Here's the article: Some Online Journals Will Publish Fake Science, For A Fee : Shots - Health News : NPR

The conclusion seemed to be, to me, to confirm how important actual peer review is, and a good warning, again, not to believe just anything that's posted online.

[molson]

And can I assume that these issues with for-profit scientific publications only cast doubt, for some reason, on one side of the global warming "debate", and not either the other side (which seems to get a lot of face time on these fringe publications), and not even other fields in science (except apparently for one article about autism and vaccines)? What other broadly held scientific consensus may I feel free to disregard this morning as the result of these Economist and NPR exposes? I mean, is smoking healthy now, or anything cool like that?

[miked]

The article in the Economist wasn't focused on the pay-for-publish bit (though that was part of it). It was mostly focused on how unrepeatable experiments are and the various reasons why. The pay-for-publish model is around, but is actually very well known in the field and most of the people don't believe what comes out of those crappy journals as well. If I publish in one of those journals, my university is surely not writing some press release about it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

And can I assume that these issues with for-profit scientific publications only cast doubt, for some reason, on one side of the global warming "debate", and not either the other side (which seems to get a lot of face time on these fringe publications), and not even other fields in science (except apparently for one article about autism and vaccines)? What other broadly held scientific consensus may I feel free to disregard this morning as the result of these Economist and NPR exposes? I mean, is smoking healthy now, or anything cool like that?

You seem grumpy and bitter.

[flere-imsaho]

Source.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Source.

That just means that there were 2,258 peer reviewed articles on global warming that were wrong.

[flere-imsaho]

I believe you mean 2,257 articles were wrong, my good man.

[gstelmack]

Given the recent history of "peer reviewed" articles, I think we're missing some info here, like sources they were actually published in. Not all "peer reviewed" articles are actually reviewed by a group of conscientious peers.

Edit: I do see that he has this list at his site, so I appreciate the citations.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I believe you mean 2,257 articles were wrong, my good man.

Oops! I did go to public school...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Given the recent history of "peer reviewed" articles, I think we're missing some info here, like sources they were actually published in. Not all "peer reviewed" articles are actually reviewed by a group of conscientious peers.

Edit: I do see that he has this list at his site, so I appreciate the citations.

OK, let's assume 1,000 of those articles appeared in journals with questionable integrity. And, since I'm being generous, let's say that all 1,000 of those articles were ones supporting the notion that global warming is man-made.

You'd end up with:

1,258 peer-reviewed articles accepting that global warming is man-made.
1 article rejecting that global warming is man-made.

Which, you're right, changes the conversation considerably.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, let's assume 1,000 of those articles appeared in journals with questionable integrity. And, since I'm being generous, let's say that all 1,000 of those articles were ones supporting the notion that global warming is man-made.

You'd end up with:

1,258 peer-reviewed articles accepting that global warming is man-made.
1 article rejecting that global warming is man-made.

Which, you're right, changes the conversation considerably.

I guess I'm a sheep or something because I do believe in Global Warming/Climate Change. I just don't see how anyone can argue against seven billion of us having an impact on the climate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I guess I'm a sheep or something because I do believe in Global Warming/Climate Change. I just don't see how anyone can argue against seven billion of us having an impact on the climate.

Indeed. I was talking about this the other night with someone who I converse with sometimes (very rationally and civily) who is on the other side of the aisle on a lot of issues.

We both agree that there's no doubt that we as a species are having an impact on the climate. I come from the "yes global warming, yes man-made climate change" side of things.

But where I differ from some people (and where he appreciated me intellectually) was in saying that, in the grand scheme of things, we may be affecting the planet to a degree, but the planet's ability to affect its own climate is far greater than ours.

To give an example (made up numbers).

We may be affecting global climate by warming Earth 0.2 degrees a year. But if the Earth is actually preparing to enter another Ice Age or mini Ice Age, it has the ability itself to cool the earth by say...2 degrees a year. So in that context, our affect is really pretty negligable in the grand scheme of things.

Basically my viewpoint boils down to something like "we're a pimple on the back of a flea on the back of the animal that is the world." Mankind as a species is insignificant in the grand scheme of this planet. If we fuck up and exterminate ourselves the Earth will go on and eventually another species will arise. It may take a long time (a very long time in our puny conception), but the Earth will recover to an equilibrium.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Basically my viewpoint boils down to something like "we're a pimple on the back of a flea on the back of the animal that is the world." Mankind as a species is insignificant in the grand scheme of this planet. If we fuck up and exterminate ourselves the Earth will go on and eventually another species will arise. It may take a long time (a very long time in our puny conception), but the Earth will recover to an equilibrium.

I don't know? We may be a flea but we're a flea that's getting bigger, fatter and dumping far more things into our atmosphere than we were even a century ago. Population has climbed from 1.6 to 7.1 billion in a little over a century and by 2050 will be flirting with double-digits.

Could it be a massive coincidence that temperatures are rising with the growth of human population? Sure it could. I'm not a scientist and there are people far smarter than me that do that type of work evaluating our impact on the world around us. But I'm not so quick to dismiss human impact on our climate.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I don't know? We may be a flea but we're a flea that's getting bigger, fatter and dumping far more things into our atmosphere than we were even a century ago. Population has climbed from 1.6 to 7.1 billion in a little over a century and by 2050 will be flirting with double-digits.

Could it be a massive coincidence that temperatures are rising with the growth of human population? Sure it could. I'm not a scientist and there are people far smarter than me that do that type of work evaluating our impact on the world around us. But I'm not so quick to dismiss human impact on our climate.

I think you misunderstand me. We definitely have an impact. I have no doubt about that. And like you've said, it's a huge one.

Hell, we've far exceeded the carrying capacity of this rock given our current technological state.

Im not opposed to a good old-fashioned Malthusian die-off.
It also scares the fuck out of me that we have all of our eggs in this one basket (literally and figuratively). I 100% believe we need to diversify or we're going to go extinct. May not be today, may not be tomorrow, may not be in our lifetimes or our kid's lifetimes or their kids lifetimes, but we will.

I'm just saying that to the planet as an entity (Gaia if you will), we're insignificant. The dinosaurs were far more significant in terms of being around for a measurable period of time than we have been. If we were to all die out tomorrow the planet as an entity would reach a new equilibrium, either overriding our changes or working with them, and new life would arise.

Even the worst impact that scientists are saying that we're having on the planet pales in magnitude to what the planet itself is able to do to itself in self-regulating (a new Ice Age for example) IMO.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Was at a lecture at work and they discussed the Fermi Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) and the general consensus from the astronomers present was that it is likely that all technologically advanced civilizations are doomed to destroy themselves before they can successfully contact any other one. Make depressing sense to me.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

Was at a lecture at work and they discussed the Fermi Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox) and the general consensus from the astronomers present was that it is likely that all technologically advanced civilizations are doomed to destroy themselves before they can successfully contact any other one. Make depressing sense to me.

I was thinking about that today. That we'll burn out long before we mature enough technologically to reach the stars and colonize.

You're right... it's depressing.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK, let's assume 1,000 of those articles appeared in journals with questionable integrity. And, since I'm being generous, let's say that all 1,000 of those articles were ones supporting the notion that global warming is man-made.

You'd end up with:

1,258 peer-reviewed articles accepting that global warming is man-made.
1 article rejecting that global warming is man-made.

Which, you're right, changes the conversation considerably.

Well, we could also go back to the political argument that another explanation here is you need funding to do the research to write a paper to have it published, and you don't get funding if you are disproving global warming. Or we need to investigate the editorial boards to find out how many peer reviewed works that argue against global warming are rejected from publication.

There are many possibilities here.

To reiterate my stance (before it gets misconstrued): sure, the earth may be getting a bit warmer, but is this truly an unusual occurrence, or just part of the natural cycles (i.e. how much of it is really man)? And why do all the "temperatures will go up X degrees in the next decade!" predictions keep failing? And if those keep failing, how do you really know that this trend is enough to do all this doomsaying?

And I'm also with DT that we need to be doing MORE space exploration, trying to get all our eggs out of this one basket, if we want to keep the species going. Everyone will forget all about global warming if the Yellowstone volcano goes off (again) or a large asteroid hits us (again).

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Even the worst impact that scientists are saying that we're having on the planet pales in magnitude to what the planet itself is able to do to itself in self-regulating (a new Ice Age for example) IMO.

Maybe I just should have quoted this

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, we could also go back to the political argument that another explanation here is you need funding to do the research to write a paper to have it published, and you don't get funding if you are disproving global warming. Or we need to investigate the editorial boards to find out how many peer reviewed works that argue against global warming are rejected from publication.

OK.

Let's say that of those 2,258 articles, 1000 are from journals with questionable integrity (as above).

Then, of the 1,258 left, let's say another 1000 are from scientists who slanted their research so as to get funding.

We're left with:

258 articles confirming that global warming is man-made

and

1 article rejecting the notion that global warming is man-made.

...in just one calendar year...

...and that's assuming that 1 article itself can be trusted....

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Maybe I just should have quoted this

Don't get me wrong though - I don't think we shouldn't be trying to do whatever we can to reduce the effect that we have on the planetary ecosystem. That's just common sense, otherwise we're just hastening our own demise (or a nice Malthusian die-off). Just saying that that also needs to be balanced with the reality of being currently horribly exposed to ecological/manmade/extraterrestrial (not alien, but from outer space) dangers.

So whateverr we can do to reduce ANY of those (reduce manmade global warming/eliminate global nuclear weapons stockpiles/get some space colonies and long-distance generational ships launched, we need to be doing.

It's why I'm in favor of a world-government too. Because right now we're too fragmented to make the best use of our resources to do any of these big things.

Gotta run to dinner now, love these types of discussions though, will have more thoughts later.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, we could also go back to the political argument that another explanation here is you need funding to do the research to write a paper to have it published, and you don't get funding if you are disproving global warming. Or we need to investigate the editorial boards to find out how many peer reviewed works that argue against global warming are rejected from publication.

Or we can just apply Occam's Razor and realize that climate change is real.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

OK.

Let's say that of those 2,258 articles, 1000 are from journals with questionable integrity (as above).

Then, of the 1,258 left, let's say another 1000 are from scientists who slanted their research so as to get funding.

We're left with:

258 articles confirming that global warming is man-made

and

1 article rejecting the notion that global warming is man-made.

...in just one calendar year...

...and that's assuming that 1 article itself can be trusted....

My point was more that there may likely well have been more than 1 article rejecting that notion, if not for the political atmosphere.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Or we can just apply Occam's Razor and realize that climate change is real.

Actually, Occam's Razor for me is of course climate change is real, the earth was doing it for millennia before we ever came along, and well before the industrial revolution. The question is whether or not something we have done is particularly accelerating this trend, or whether we can do anything to reverse it.

I'm kind of with DT: I agree that it doesn't mean we shouldn't be better about the environment, reduce pollution, etc. I just don't think we need to go all Armageddon over this. I've felt that way about most of the environmental movement for most of my life: fear-mongering, Armageddon scenarios, expecting everyone to live like we did 1000 years ago (when life expectancy was pretty short and miserable, but they gloss over that part), but with a grain of truth. I'm all for reducing emissions in general (not just carbon), sustainable energy, not dumping chemicals everyone, and generally being far more responsible wardens of our environment, but I'd like to get there in a much more civilized, responsible manner.