Liberal environmentalist changes his mind about CO2

[StashDaddy]

Very interesting:

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

[Kris]

I feel like this article is kind of a mishmash of cherry picking and straw man arguments.

He starts out trying to establish his "liberal cred" (?) as some sort of qualification that because he leans left on stuff, he should be trusted as "not one of those tinfoil-hat climate skeptics", I suppose.  But I don't know what being a vegan has to do with anything.

Then he throws out that he used to "believe Al Gore was right" about climate change, as though Al Gore (and his movie) is the authority to challenge, and not actual research by actual climate scientists. 

Then he throws out a bunch of statements that are varying degrees of…. I don't know what.  From mostly truthful to highly misleading or incomplete.  Take "There is no such thing as 'carbon pollution.' Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today." For one thing, "carbon dioxide is not poison" is such a ridiculous statement.  Water isn't "poison," either, but if you drink too much of it, it will kill you. 

And as for the "CO2 concentrations have been many times higher than they are today" bit, yes, that's true -- but not when human life was on this planet.  Yes, the earth would survive if CO2 concentrations rose to those previously high levels. But human beings would not. 

Ugh, I just hate this kind of malarkey.

[music lover]

And as for the "CO2 concentrations have been many times higher than they are today" bit, yes, that's true -- but not when human life was on this planet.  Yes, the earth would survive if CO2 concentrations rose to those previously high levels. But human beings would not. 

Luckily, actual science disagrees with you and we are in no danger. Did you get your information from a reputable source??

400ppm:  Normal background concentration in outdoor ambient air 
350-1,000ppm:  Concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange 
1,000-2,000ppm:  Complaints of drowsiness and poor air. 
2,000-5,000 ppm:  Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present. 
5,000:  Workplace exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions. 
>40,000 ppm:  Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma, even death.

More information:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/co2/

[hunniebun]

Some things are true whether you believe them or not...

[music lover]

Some things are true whether you believe them or not...

And some things are not true whether you believe them or not...

[grantmeaname]

This thread went from 0-petty in record time.

OP, I wouldn't say that the article is not worth talking about, but it does help if you share a couple of your thoughts when you read it. Right now anyone clicking into the thread sees a naked link, some disagreement with that link's author, and then sniping between commenters. Maybe some of your opinions on the subject matter or what you liked/disliked about the article could get things going about the issues.

[the_gastropod]

Frankly, this is not interesting. It's another silly conspiracy theorist bringing up things that've been explained ad-nauseum. It's an article slapped together from various Anthony Watts blog posts. It is especially hilarious that by reading "400 hours"  worth of climate conspiracy nonsense on the internet, he thinks he's qualified to state that all climate researchers are wrong. Wonderful stuff.

And as for the "CO2 concentrations have been many times higher than they are today" bit, yes, that's true -- but not when human life was on this planet.  Yes, the earth would survive if CO2 concentrations rose to those previously high levels. But human beings would not. 

Luckily, actual science disagrees with you and we are in no danger. Did you get your information from a reputable source??

400ppm:  Normal background concentration in outdoor ambient air 
350-1,000ppm:  Concentrations typical of occupied indoor spaces with good air exchange 
1,000-2,000ppm:  Complaints of drowsiness and poor air. 
2,000-5,000 ppm:  Headaches, sleepiness and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present. 
5,000:  Workplace exposure limit (as 8-hour TWA) in most jurisdictions. 
>40,000 ppm:  Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma, even death.

More information:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/co2/

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Nobody is saying CO2 levels are near reaching toxic levels for respiration—they're reaching dangerous levels for heat retention.

[music lover]

Frankly, this is not interesting. It's another silly conspiracy theorist bringing up things that've been explained ad-nauseum. It's an article slapped together from various Anthony Watts blog posts. It is especially hilarious that by reading "400 hours"  worth of climate conspiracy nonsense on the internet, he thinks he's qualified to state that all climate researchers are wrong. Wonderful stuff.

Not all climate scientists are wrong. The ones with a  differing voice simply don't receive any government funding, because every single penny of the multi-millions in government climate funding flows only to those who believe in warming. That, combined with a willing media, and it's fairly obvious why one side of the issue gets the most media coverage.

And, then there are people like you who go right to the insults and completely dismiss any and all information that doesn't parrot what you already believe. It's fairly obvious that you have no interest at all in discussion or debate.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Nobody is saying CO2 levels are near reaching toxic levels for respiration—they're reaching dangerous levels for heat retention.

CO2 has a logarithmic effect...the more that is added, the less it affects temperature. This has been a known and accepted scientific fact for decades. That's why CO2 levels were several multiple times higher in the past with little effect on the temperature.

[the_gastropod]

Not all climate scientists are wrong. The ones with a  differing voice simply don't receive any government funding, because every single penny of the multi-millions in government climate funding flows only to those who believe in warming. That, combined with a willing media, and it's fairly obvious why one side of the issue gets the most media coverage.

This is the same crying victim nonsense that creationists (Intelligent Design advocates) spew when they don't receive state funding for their "research". The fact is, there are very few actual climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC report. The "scientists" who disagree are largely either 1. not climate scientists, or 2. funded by a coal, oil, or automobile company.

These same types of companies were largely responsible for the misinformation being spread about lead being used in gasoline. There was a very similar controversy then, and it took 30 years for anything to be done about it. In hindsight, we now know that leaded gasoline was one of the greatest blunders of the 20th century. I hope it doesn't take that long for us to realize how irresponsible we're being now.

And, then there are people like you who go right to the insults and completely dismiss any and all information that doesn't parrot what you already believe. It's fairly obvious that you have no interest at all in discussion or debate.

That sword cuts both ways, I'm afraid. I've seen these talking points repeatedly. There is nothing new in this article, just a regurgitation of conspiracy theorist drivel.

CO2 has a logarithmic effect...the more that is added, the less it affects temperature. This has been a known and accepted scientific fact for decades. That's why CO2 levels were several multiple times higher in the past with little effect on the temperature.

What's your point? You understand a logarithmic function can still approach infinity, yes? You also understand our release of CO2 into the atmosphere is accelerating, yes?

[Glenstache]

Ugh. So, I took the time to look at a few of the links posted in the article as sources. They fell into two categories:
1. Obviously biased pages set up to do the equivalent of "teach the controversy" on climate change. These are not credible for making a valid point IMHO.
2. Actual bona-fide peer-reviewed literature. This was refreshing. However, these articles appear to be selected because they seem to disprove climate change predictions. However, if you take a look at the related papers, papers that cite them, etc ., then the conclusions that David Siegel (OP article author) makes from them don't add up to much. In this case, I looked at the articles relating to global sea level rise. My review of the literature is aided by three degrees in geology, which helps the jargon make sense.

In other words, this article itself seems to fall into category 1, above. Moving on....

[music lover]

Not all climate scientists are wrong. The ones with a  differing voice simply don't receive any government funding, because every single penny of the multi-millions in government climate funding flows only to those who believe in warming. That, combined with a willing media, and it's fairly obvious why one side of the issue gets the most media coverage.

This is the same crying victim nonsense that creationists (Intelligent Design advocates) spew when they don't receive state funding for their "research". The fact is, there are very few actual climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC report. The "scientists" who disagree are largely either 1. not climate scientists, or 2. funded by a coal, oil, or automobile company.

Government funding far surpasses private funding for climate research and the government has just one position on climate change. Guess who gets the funding??

These same types of companies were largely responsible for the misinformation being spread about lead being used in gasoline. There was a very similar controversy then, and it took 30 years for anything to be done about it. In hindsight, we now know that leaded gasoline was one of the greatest blunders of the 20th century. I hope it doesn't take that long for us to realize how irresponsible we're being now.

And yet you are completely unable to see the misinformation from your side.

And, then there are people like you who go right to the insults and completely dismiss any and all information that doesn't parrot what you already believe. It's fairly obvious that you have no interest at all in discussion or debate.

That sword cuts both ways, I'm afraid. I've seen these talking points repeatedly. There is nothing new in this article, just a regurgitation of conspiracy theorist drivel.

The same applies to your side of the argument.

What's your point? You understand a logarithmic function can still approach infinity, yes? You also understand our release of CO2 into the atmosphere is accelerating, yes?

So what if it's accelerating?? The vast majority of the effect has already happened. That's how logarithmic functions work...adding more will have negligible effect. That's exactly why any increase is basically unimportant after a certain point.

The climate is a very complex system dependant on dozens of factors, yet the majority of government climate funding is earmarked for the study of CO2 and how the government thinks it negatively effects climate. Their mind is already made up, so take a guess where all the taxpayer money to study "climate change" goes to??

[former player]

A long time ago I was told, by one of the lawyers working on the first international climate change negotiations, that "climate change" was a term that didn't properly express what would happen, and that "climate destabilisation" would be more accurate.

Human beings are accustomed to changing climates - we experience them every time we travel outside our own climate zone.  Human beings can also cope with a wide range of climates, from the artic to the equator and from sea level to the top of Everest.   But human beings have great difficultly dealing with unstable cilmates.  It is no accident that the industrial age developed in Western Europe, and particularly in the British Isles, which have one of the most benign and stable climates on the planet with very few extremes.  Extremes of climate disrupt agriculture, damage physical structures and cause harm, illness and death to humans.  Extremes of climate (drought, flood, extreme heat, extreme cold) are increasing all over the world with increased climate destabilisation.  Weather records are being set at increasing rates.

The deniers probably won't make much difference, though, because of inertia, indecision and unwillingness to make hard choices even among those in power who do understand the issues.

We're doomed, I tell you, doomed.*


* per Private Fraser, for any non Dad's Army fans on the board.

[music lover]

Extremes of climate (drought, flood, extreme heat, extreme cold) are increasing all over the world with increased climate destabilisation.  Weather records are being set at increasing rates.

The facts show otherwise. Droughts, floods, etc., have always happened and they are no more frequent than in the past, and no more severe The difference today is that every single bad weather event gets full media coverage, when 40 years ago it may have only received local coverage.

The US has gone the longest period in recorded history without a level 3 hurricane. Level 3 or higher tornadoes are also down, and today with satellite technology none are missed, whereas decades ago if one happened at night in a low population area, it may not have been recorded. Even still, today's numbers are lower:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

[the_gastropod]

So what if it's accelerating?? The vast majority of the effect has already happened. That's how logarithmic functions work...adding more will have negligible effect. That's exactly why any increase is basically unimportant after a certain point.

This response speaks volumes. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm done :)

[Glenstache]

Given the references to academic researchers being money grubbers willing to alter the world economy in order to get an NSF grant, this report seems relevant:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/investigation-finds-exxon-ignored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/

If you actually follow the money, it doesn't lead to a systematic academic conspiracy to get research dollars, it leads to the vested economic interests that have many billion of dollars on the line. Go figure.

If you go to Exxon's page *today* they clearly state a link between greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, methane, etc) and fossil fuels. We can argue about their proposed approach to dealing with climate change (dither, wait, do little, maintain current profit structure), but even they can't outright deny it with a straight face.
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview

and here are a few more petrochemical companies jumping on the climate alarmist bandwagon:
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/
http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/inside-energy/inside-energy-stories/urging-action-to-fight-climate-change.html
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html

Couple those statements with articles such as:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/21/bp-tops-the-list-of-firms-obstructing-climate-action-in-europe

If you want a direct example of how this plays out, see model legislation from ALEC on how your children should be educated:
http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/environmental-literacy-improvement-act/

Note how the legislation precludes a straight teaching of science and requires that "counterveiling" interpretations and points of view are taught. At an endmember, this is the equivalent of forcing inclusion of material from the flat earth society (google it, it's real) in teaching that the Earth is round. This parallels efforts to teach creation science alongside evolution as an equivalent, or efforts in Kansas to redefine sciences to include supernatural effects (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/us/kansas-board-approves-challenges-to-evolution.html?_r=0).

In short, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention.

[Bob W]

I guess I'm just entrenched in my global climate change is real mind set as I have zero inclination to click through the links provided in the essay.   I'll stick with Elon Musk on this one.   People way smarter than I am who have actually looked at CO2 seem to agree.

I also saw no mention of the methane issue.  Apparently there is a very real and significant effect of methane released in the energy industry and cow farts.  I've heard the effect is about equal to all the CO2 gas as methane has a much larger impact on the greenhouse effect. 

I'm such a simpleton that I just assume that pumping trillions of tons of CO2 and Methane into the air that there must be some effect.  If the scientists told me that it was actually making the earth cooler I would go with that as well.  Because,   it must have some effect one way or the other --- so which is it colder or hotter.

Best to tread lightly and leave the earth,  soil,  water,  and air better than we found it. 

[daverobev]

Totally agree with music lover.

All this anti-tobacco stuff is pure nonsense; it's not like anyone's ever *died* of smoking. I can find lots of articles, which may well have been paid for by tobacco firms, that agree. The only ones saying tobacco is bad are paid by the government - y'know, researchers, doctors and so on. What does a doctor know about my smoking? I had asthma *long* before I started smoking, and I have lots of friends who smoke.

Rot and nonsense. Bloody government even wants to raise taxes on smoking to discourage it! It's a free goddamn country!

[Jeremy E.]

Maybe we're causing global warming, maybe we're not. I think riding a bike is a good change regardless. I think Nuclear and Solar power are the future regardless. We are running out of gas, we need to ween ourselves off of it regardless of it's effects on the climate. But having said that, I think we are focused too much on this topic. I think if we really care about the environment, we'll start using less plastics and things that end up in landfills. I don't know a lot about the damages caused by the littering of the pacific ocean between the U.S. and China, but I know it needs to stop.

[former player]

Extremes of climate (drought, flood, extreme heat, extreme cold) are increasing all over the world with increased climate destabilisation.  Weather records are being set at increasing rates.

The facts show otherwise. Droughts, floods, etc., have always happened and they are no more frequent than in the past, and no more severe The difference today is that every single bad weather event gets full media coverage, when 40 years ago it may have only received local coverage.

The US has gone the longest period in recorded history without a level 3 hurricane. Level 3 or higher tornadoes are also down, and today with satellite technology none are missed, whereas decades ago if one happened at night in a low population area, it may not have been recorded. Even still, today's numbers are lower:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/trends

On the other hand, here is a link to a UK Met Office article on increases in UK hot and rainfall records-

http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2014/12/17/has-there-been-a-recent-increase-in-uk-weather-records/

[TechMike]

Calling yourself a "liberal environmentalist" does not immediately qualify you as an expert. I'm with Bob W on this one.

Best to tread lightly and leave the earth,  soil,  water,  and air better than we found it. 

[music lover]

Totally agree with music lover.

All this anti-tobacco stuff is pure nonsense; it's not like anyone's ever *died* of smoking. I can find lots of articles, which may well have been paid for by tobacco firms, that agree. The only ones saying tobacco is bad are paid by the government - y'know, researchers, doctors and so on. What does a doctor know about my smoking? I had asthma *long* before I started smoking, and I have lots of friends who smoke.

Rot and nonsense. Bloody government even wants to raise taxes on smoking to discourage it! It's a free goddamn country!

Don't forget to link those on the other side of the climate debate with the holocaust deniers too. Because it only makes sense, right?

Also, please make the assumption that those who don't believe that the planet will die a fiery death from a couple molecules of CO2 out of 10,000 love to pollute, litter, and leave their vehicles idling all night.

Did I miss anything?

[Telecaster]

The ones with a  differing voice simply don't receive any government funding, because every single penny of the multi-millions in government climate funding flows only to those who believe in warming.  That, combined with a willing media, and it's fairly obvious why one side of the issue gets the most media coverage.

Roy Spencer and John Christie are AGW skeptics (often cited in scientific literature, btw) who have received government funding virtually their entire careers.   

If you take a 10,000 foot view of your statement, you start off with a demonstrably false statement (scientists must believe in AGW in order to receive funding), and you come to a conclusion that is based on a three part conspiracy involving 1) the government, 2) the media, and 3) the vast majority of scientists.

I hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, but what you wrote sounds more than a little crazy. 

[needmyfi]

100 people have been wrong and one guy has been right before.  Ok 

100 climate scientists are wrong but we have let them determine our energy policy: 
we reduce our use of fossil fuels, have cleaner air and a more sustainable energy policy, ultimately fossil fuels are finite, solar power wind etc are not.
we reduce our dependence on OPEC
Results less than tragic

Now lets say the one scientist out there who says global warming is not caused human activity is wrong-but we chose to base our energy policy on his beliefs:
Enough said

[Glenstache]

Going back to the original post about someone becoming a climate skeptic, it is worth also looking at the path and methods of a climate skeptic funded by the Koch brothers to look into climate change concluding that human influence on climate change is real.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7
http://berkeleyearth.org/

The difference being that he had every financial reason to come to a different result, took a solid look at the evidence, and concluded that human CO2 inputs have a real impact on climate and that the impacts will increase over the coming decades. He retains skepticism about some predictions.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

[Kris]

Totally agree with music lover.

All this anti-tobacco stuff is pure nonsense; it's not like anyone's ever *died* of smoking. I can find lots of articles, which may well have been paid for by tobacco firms, that agree. The only ones saying tobacco is bad are paid by the government - y'know, researchers, doctors and so on. What does a doctor know about my smoking? I had asthma *long* before I started smoking, and I have lots of friends who smoke.

Rot and nonsense. Bloody government even wants to raise taxes on smoking to discourage it! It's a free goddamn country!

Don't forget to link those on the other side of the climate debate with the holocaust deniers too. Because it only makes sense, right?

Also, please make the assumption that those who don't believe that the planet will die a fiery death from a couple molecules of CO2 out of 10,000 love to pollute, litter, and leave their vehicles idling all night.

Did I miss anything?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/rolling_coal_conservatives_who_show_their_annoyance_with_liberals_obama.html

[StashDaddy]

Its refreshing to hear of someone reviewing both sides of an issue and changing their mind based on the evidence, instead of blindly being manipulated by political agendas.

I see a lot of people so far trying to prove that "climate change" is real.  Of course its real.  We expect CO2 to have an effect.  However, with the concentration of CO2 only being 0.04% of our atmosphere, the magnitude of CO2-induced climate changes is nothing to be alarmed about.  The climate is always changing, and there are far greater forces at work that CO2.  So in a sense, "the scientists" are right--CO2 does cause global warming....or we should expect it to based on the physics.  But also some of "the scientists" are wrong (clearly-partisan Michael Mann) about the alarmism. 

I think future generations will look back and laugh at our fear of <0.1% CO2 in our atmosphere.  As carbon-based beings, we depend on CO2.  Plants grow better at CO2, and in essense CO2 increases the productivity and life-sustainability of our planet.  Some people even say that man-made CO2 emissions have saved the earth (former Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-delivers-powerful-annual-lecture-praises-carbon-dioxide-full-text/).  Makes sense to me.

I think its all moot anyway, I agree with Jeremy E--nuclear is the way of the future.  We'll be forced to turn to turn to nuclear perhaps in 200-300 years.  In around 800 years, most of this CO2 will be naturally sequestered by plant life anyway.  Here's a cool post about Weather in the Year 3000:  http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/weather-in-year-3000-once-again.html?m=1

in the year 3000, the atmosphere will clearly experience no impact of our temporary, multi-centennial usage of fossil fuels at all. However, it doesn't mean that the climate at all continents will be the same as it is today. The climate is always changing but in the long run, surely at the time scale of a millennium, this fact doesn't depend on the humans or anthropomorphic gods in any way.

[the_gastropod]

However, with the concentration of CO2 only being 0.04% of our atmosphere, the magnitude of CO2-induced climate changes is nothing to be alarmed about.
...
I think future generations will look back and laugh at our fear of <0.1% CO2 in our atmosphere.

What do you mean he's dead, doctor? His blood was only 0.04% arsenic!

[GuitarStv]

I think its all moot anyway, I agree with Jeremy E--nuclear is the way of the future.  We'll be forced to turn to turn to nuclear perhaps in 200-300 years.

I like the idea of moving more towards nuclear power, but there just isn't enough fissionable material for this to be a realistic option.  For example, at our current rate of consumption there is about 80 years of Uranium left to use.  If we scale that up to current world demand, there's less than 5 years worth of the stuff (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html).  It's possible that some of the fuel can be recycled, but current recycling recovers only about 30% of the uranium used (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/).

In 200-300 years nuclear likely will not be an option.

[daverobev]

However, with the concentration of CO2 only being 0.04% of our atmosphere, the magnitude of CO2-induced climate changes is nothing to be alarmed about.
...
I think future generations will look back and laugh at our fear of <0.1% CO2 in our atmosphere.

What do you mean he's dead, doctor? His blood was only 0.04% arsenic!

That's not arsenic, it's alcohol. He's just, uh, asleep, and yeah he does drool in his sleep... and wet himself... and sleep-drive into trees. On his way home from the pub.

[Telecaster]

I think its all moot anyway, I agree with Jeremy E--nuclear is the way of the future.  We'll be forced to turn to turn to nuclear perhaps in 200-300 years.

I like the idea of moving more towards nuclear power, but there just isn't enough fissionable material for this to be a realistic option.  For example, at our current rate of consumption there is about 80 years of Uranium left to use.  If we scale that up to current world demand, there's less than 5 years worth of the stuff (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html).  It's possible that some of the fuel can be recycled, but current recycling recovers only about 30% of the uranium used (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/).

In 200-300 years nuclear likely will not be an option.

IMO, Peak Uranium is a bit like peak oil.   Uranium is very abundant in the Earth's crust and if there was demand certainly plenty more could be discovered.   Other options like thorium reactors are possible too.

The main problem as I see it for nuclear are the enormous up front capital costs which require decades to recover.   The huge costs mean huge risks.  If some cheaper energy source comes along, like say natural gas from fracking, you cooked your goose.   Renewables, even though they are more expensive per watt, are smaller scale and hence less risky to investors.   

[JZinCO]

However, with the concentration of CO2 only being 0.04% of our atmosphere, the magnitude of CO2-induced climate changes is nothing to be alarmed about.  The climate is always changing, and there are far greater forces at work that CO2.  So in a sense, "the scientists" are right--CO2 does cause global warming....or we should expect it to based on the physics.  But also some of "the scientists" are wrong (clearly-partisan Michael Mann) about the alarmism. 

I think future generations will look back and laugh at our fear of <0.1% CO2 in our atmosphere.  As carbon-based beings, we depend on CO2.  Plants grow better at CO2, and in essense CO2 increases the productivity and life-sustainability of our planet.

This is an absurd argument.  I would think in this forum you are aware that small magnitudes can have large effects (e.g. advisor fees, a <1% change in ROI over 30 yr). The density of dark energy is on the order of 10^-27 kg/m^3. A scooch higher and the universe would crunch, a scooch lower and we wouldn't have planters, galaxies, stars, etc.
I don't think you understand the concepts of sensitivity and non-linear relationships.

This coming from a conservative who actually works in the field of climate change research.

[Glenstache]

This coming from a conservative who actually works in the field of climate change research.

Don't forget this key element of almost all climate skepticism discussions: being qualified and informed makes you biased and therefore untrustworthy. The pattern I see emerging is (unfortunately) similar to the vaccine debate in which data and statistics drive the skeptics further and further into their entrenched burrows. It is really quite maddening.

[JZinCO]

This coming from a conservative who actually works in the field of climate change research.

Don't forget this key element of almost all climate skepticism discussions: being qualified and informed makes you biased and therefore untrustworthy. The pattern I see emerging is (unfortunately) similar to the vaccine debate in which data and statistics drive the skeptics further and further into their entrenched burrows. It is really quite maddening.

I understand the line of attack but it is SO without merit. A rational person suffering from cancer would seek the opinion of cancer specialists rather than actively seek contrary opinions. Maybe folks don't understand that success in a science-based field (whether basic, applied or very applied (e.g. computer science, civil engineering)) isn't dependent on drinking the kool-aid.

By saying conservative, I was also trying to make the point that scientific findings are apolitical. That a liberal environmentalist rejects climate change has the same impact that a tea partier rejects climate change. To the OP, So what? Did you hear that socialists reject gravity?!

[TechMike]

I like the idea of moving more towards nuclear power, but there just isn't enough fissionable material for this to be a realistic option.  For example, at our current rate of consumption there is about 80 years of Uranium left to use.  If we scale that up to current world demand, there's less than 5 years worth of the stuff (http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html).  It's possible that some of the fuel can be recycled, but current recycling recovers only about 30% of the uranium used (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/).

In 200-300 years nuclear likely will not be an option.

Thanks for the articles. I hadn't realized how little fissionable material we actually had. Seems to me, one of the problems with nuclear power is the same as one of the problems with fossil fuel power; it relies on continual extraction of a finite resource from Earth. It's difficult to predict when we would run out of fissionable material, but just like fossil fuels, we will eventually run out.

This further enforces my belief that the way forward is with renewables like wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. Yes, these require extracting finite resources from the Earth to build the generating stations, but at least many of the materials are reusable/recyclable, and it doesn't generate a constant need for these materials.

Unfortunately, there is no easy or inexpensive solution, but the longer we continue to use fossil fuels, the more irreversible damage we do.

[Glenstache]

This coming from a conservative who actually works in the field of climate change research.

Don't forget this key element of almost all climate skepticism discussions: being qualified and informed makes you biased and therefore untrustworthy. The pattern I see emerging is (unfortunately) similar to the vaccine debate in which data and statistics drive the skeptics further and further into their entrenched burrows. It is really quite maddening.

I understand the line of attack but it is SO without merit. A rational person suffering from cancer would seek the opinion of cancer specialists rather than actively seek contrary opinions. Maybe folks don't understand that success in a science-based field (whether basic, applied or very applied (e.g. computer science, civil engineering)) isn't dependent on drinking the kool-aid.

By saying conservative, I was also trying to make the point that scientific findings are apolitical. That a liberal environmentalist rejects climate change has the same impact that a tea partier rejects climate change. To the OP, So what? Did you hear that socialists reject gravity?!

I think that I don't understand what you mean by SO without merit.

I suspect that we actually agree and my first sentence is overly facetious. The problem is that skeptics suffer from confirmation bias, where they look for things that reinforce what they already believe- and that is not how science works (in principle at least). This is also consistent with your point about what constitutes success in academia and also about seeking contrary opinions, but unfortunately is a level of nuance that is likely to be lost if people don't have adequate science literacy.

Yes, science should be apolitical. The required actions are necessarily politically driven because they are at a societal scale. And I think that is part of how we have arrived at the situation we are in today. The science community for a long time produced the data, best available predictions and related information and put it out there. The groups and industries for which this information is inconvenient geared up their political machines and fought back using a different set of rules. The campaign of disinformation is well documented and makes for an extremely complicated information landscape for the layperson trying to make sense of it all. I'm fortunate to have decades of scientific training and practice under my belt and feel for those trying to make actually make an informed opinion without the adequate scientific tool set. But there is a fundamental difference between those who are confused and trying to make sense of it all and those who willfully try to make a point regardless of what the data says under the guise of skepticism.

[JZinCO]

...

The line of reasoning you referred to is that if one is close to a topic they have less credibility on the topic. That's how I interpret that. And the line of reasoning is without merit. It's funny how that reasoning is used only when topics enter the realm of policy making.

I'm totally in agreement with you. My view may be narrow but is that climate change should not be political. Let me use an analogy. I am trained in forest science so I often wear the scientific hat. I can develop methods to determine hazard, risk and severity of a wildland fire in a rural community. There are no 'shoulds' involved, just what is and is not known. I also wear a consulting hat, independent of the scientific hat. In this role, I can engage in planning and determine what is an acceptable level of hazard, and what way is best to meet the objective. The latter can be political, the former should not be. That's my view.
It is really sad that the campaign of misinformation and attack on science is happening. Because basic science has contributed so much (I've heard >50% global GDP), raising a generation that things science is thing to 'believe' or not, and the promulgation of scientific misunderstanding might have severe consequences in the future. In the end, I think the debate on science will be over and we can move on to actually debating policy.

[Glenstache]

...

The line of reasoning you referred to is that if one is close to a topic they have less credibility on the topic. That's how I interpret that. And the line of reasoning is without merit. It's funny how that reasoning is used only when topics enter the realm of policy making.

I'm totally in agreement with you. My view may be narrow but is that climate change should not be political. Let me use an analogy. I am trained in forest science so I often wear the scientific hat. I can develop methods to determine hazard, risk and severity of a wildland fire in a rural community. There are no 'shoulds' involved, just what is and is not known. I also wear a consulting hat, independent of the scientific hat. In this role, I can engage in planning and determine what is an acceptable level of hazard, and what way is best to meet the objective. The latter can be political, the former should not be. That's my view.
It is really sad that the campaign of misinformation and attack on science is happening. Because basic science has contributed so much (I've heard >50% global GDP), raising a generation that things science is thing to 'believe' or not, and the promulgation of scientific misunderstanding might have severe consequences in the future. In the end, I think the debate on science will be over and we can move on to actually debating policy.

I agree on the value of separation of politics and science and generally share your view. I tend to separate my views as a working scientist from those as a citizen. The history of discussion over climate change is interesting. If we look back at the late 80s and early 90s when these issues were starting to gain attention and traction, there were a number of Republicans including GHW Bush saying that it was an issue that needed to be addressed. 20 years of politicking and while there have been some modest policy gains, the Republican party as a whole has moved backwards on the issue. I find that sad because of what it reflects about how the party is structured ideologically. As you say, this should not be a political issue and related to whether or not a person is classically liberal or conservative. The pragmatic reality of the effects and general shape of the path to action should be equally compelling regardless of political stripe. That it has become politicized to the extent and flavor that is has over the last 20 years is really disheartening both because of the long term consequences and because of what it implies about the gears and mechanics of our political system.  The gulf between how this issue is perceived in the US and much of the rest of the industrialized world is an interesting mirror for the United States to look in.

[Bob W]

And another record high heat day here in Missouri.   We've set every record you could think of over the last 5 years -- record droughts,  record heat waves,  record cold,   record snow,  record rain.    So yeah,  climate change is real kids.   Or is that just too anecdotal?    Look beyond the CO2 to methane as well my friends.   

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=15471

[zenyata]

The whole AGW discussion has flown so far off the rails – particularly in the U.S. where scientific literacy is really pretty appalling – particularly amongst the skeptic crowd (there’s an article somewhere describing how they really don’t qualify to be skeptics because of how little clue they have about the basics of the science and data).

As a geologist and having read a bunch on this topic – here are a few thoughts – pretty much none of which are original thoughts of mine but I’ve tried to add a bit of detail to:

As I’m sure others have pointed out – is AGW settled science ?  Well, is much of anything ever settled science ?  Are there other explanations for what we are observing ?  Possibly.  Find that thing or things and you’ll be famous… But here’s the problem – that forcing mechanism has to be strong – it HAS to “outshine” the KNOWN physics of the greenhouse effect and be something where the scientific community says something like  “well, the greenhouse effect due to carbon loading in the atmosphere is contributing but it’s only really responsible for 4% of the increase in heat we have observed because, you see, there’s this other thing, previously unidentified, that’s really driving this…”   Again – find that and you’ll be a rock star.  The problem, again, is that it is very difficult to come up with any plausible mechanism that creates such a change but at the same time is so subtle in the clues it leaves behind…  At this point the scientific consensus is that dissenting theories for what drives GW – natural cycles, orbital mechanics etc. are batting 0.000 – they are just not strong enough to drive what we have observed in the global record.

Research science is very competitive and few scientists I’ve ever known have gotten into the gig due to delusions of grandeur regarding the riches they’ll be showered with… The funding gravy train angle is such B.S. – there are ALWAYS other topics / areas of research in the earth sciences where funding will be supported   Following on with the previous paragraph – most scientists don’t want to crank out the 3,419th paper on how, yes the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forcings.  The Holy Grail is that they want to be THAT GUY (or GIRL) who FOUND the evidence and wrote THE paper that really did prove something different than all those other researchers.  The climate science denier business types really need to stop projecting their greedy tendencies on research scientists – their motivations are typically light years apart…

Even if there is a money component  to it – yeah wow what an amazing concept that is – for researchers to actually want to get paid for doing a job they were hired to do and put a lot of time and effort into preparing for.  Funny how the right wing can’t champion those traits enough in any other endeavor but science.  As soon as scientists start trying to actually get paid for doing some work – oh…well… GOOD LORD – do you BELIEVE that these scientists get FUNDING to do science and sometimes actually might get paid enough to make a decent living ?    Somehow this is seen as such an illegitimate and fraudulent enterprise as compared to all the other clearly morally clean and legitimate jobs everyone else on the planet gets compensated for performing…

[JZinCO]

  Following on with the previous paragraph – most scientists don’t want to crank out the 3,419th paper on how, yes the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forcings.  The Holy Grail is that they want to be THAT GUY (or GIRL) who FOUND the evidence and wrote THE paper that really did prove something different than all those other researchers. 

Great points over all. I almost brought this up earlier. In fact the bias in science is to support (evidence-based) dissenting views because (a) that's how we build on knowledge (Karl Popper really emphasized this) and (b) you get to relegated to bullsh*t journals like "the journal of negative results" IF you get published when your results echo the existing knowledge. Given this, it's very likely that if any climate change skeptic viewpoints were supportable, they would overturn the bulk of scientific research. In a heartbeat.

[Kris]

  Following on with the previous paragraph – most scientists don’t want to crank out the 3,419th paper on how, yes the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forcings.  The Holy Grail is that they want to be THAT GUY (or GIRL) who FOUND the evidence and wrote THE paper that really did prove something different than all those other researchers. 

Great points over all. I almost brought this up earlier. In fact the bias in science is to support (evidence-based) dissenting views because (a) that's how we build on knowledge (Karl Popper really emphasized this) and (b) you get to relegated to bullsh*t journals like "the journal of negative results" IF you get published when your results echo the existing knowledge. Given this, it's very likely that if any climate change skeptic viewpoints were supportable, they would overturn the bulk of scientific research. In a heartbeat.

Exactly. As another academic, it drives me crazy when people don't get this.  People who argue the whole "climate researchers are all toeing the line for those sweet sweet research bux" thing have no freaking idea what they're talking about.  Anyone who had any idea how this works would know that research grant money only comes for groundbreaking knowledge, not research that confirms what the other guy just said. Not only that, but federal grant money is not fucking PERSONAL money. You don't just get handed a check to do whatever you want with it. Grant recipients have to account very closely for all the money spent, and report it periodically to the grants office.  It is quite a laborious process.  You only get the money to use to do more research, not to buy yourself a fancy new car. To get THAT kind of cash, you'd have to be privately funded by a big corporation. And it's much more likely that a private corporation would hand you money to be their mouthpiece and say whatever they wanted you to.  Like, for example, that there's no reason to believe that fossil fuel use has contributed to climate change.

[StashDaddy]

At this point the scientific consensus is that dissenting theories for what drives GW – natural cycles, orbital mechanics etc. are batting 0.000 – they are just not strong enough to drive what we have observed in the global record.

 

Zenyata, you seem to believe we can understand these things well enough yet to make what you are saying true.  We don't.  For instance, we don't even know why it was warmer than now back in the Midieval Period, and then it got colder during the Little Ice Age of the 1700s / 1800's.  We know it probably wasn't CO2.  So if we don't understand those, might we not understand if some of those same factors are changing the climate naturally today?  Any logical person would have to agree.

I see a lot of the typical liberal alarmist garbage here in response to my last post.  Comparing CO2 to Arsenic and alcohol.  These things are poisons, not essential, life-sustaining compounds that are necessary for our survival like co2.  A better analogy might be Vitamin D or calcium or something.  There is no doubt that you folks would be like these deluded liberals/environmentalists who began to protest dihydrogen monoxide:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

I think skeptics have some pretty good questions about CAGW that are inconvenient for the alarmists and they have no good answer for.  Thats why they try to maintain that the "science is settled" instead of debating it.  Every time they do debate it, they get destroyed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V96k4BO2sBw
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/559-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis

[Telecaster]

At this point the scientific consensus is that dissenting theories for what drives GW – natural cycles, orbital mechanics etc. are batting 0.000 – they are just not strong enough to drive what we have observed in the global record.

 

Zenyata, you seem to believe we can understand these things well enough yet to make what you are saying true.  We don't.  For instance, we don't even know why it was warmer than now back in the Midieval Period, and then it got colder during the Little Ice Age of the 1700s / 1800's.  We know it probably wasn't CO2.  So if we don't understand those, might we not understand if some of those same factors are changing the climate naturally today?  Any logical person would have to agree.

That's an interesting viewpoint.  Because an observation back in late 1600s when we had very, very little data isn't fully explained, therefore observations today when we have lots of data also aren't fully explained.   I would say that no logical person would agree with it.   At least, it doesn't make a lick of sense to me. 

However, the Little Ice Age as you call it is pretty well explained, and quite a while ago too:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/192/4245/1189.extract

That's not the complete explanation, but we don't have complete data either.   Note that you are unwittingly (at least hope unwittingly) a victim of misinformation.   An organization called the Advancement of Sound Science Center was created by tobacco companies in order to lobby for industry interests, by creating doubt about smoking health effects.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center

Their arguments were of the type:  We can't prove that a specific person's cancer was caused by smoking, therefore we can't say that smoking causes cancer; We can't trust the government, etc.   Plus trying to discredit science and scientists in general.  TASSC was then hired by oil companies to use to same tactics regarding global warming.   Steve Milloy is probably the most famous tobacco denier who then become an AGW denier, but there are several other prominent ones.   

The rest of your post is just ad hominems.   In my experience, if someone requires insults to advance their point, they don't have a point.   

[JZinCO]

Zenyata, you seem to believe we can understand these things well enough yet to make what you are saying true.  We don't.  For instance, we don't even know why it was warmer than now back in the Midieval Period, and then it got colder during the Little Ice Age of the 1700s / 1800's.  We know it probably wasn't CO2.  So if we don't understand those, might we not understand if some of those same factors are changing the climate naturally today?  Any logical person would have to agree.

This is patently false.

I see a lot of the typical liberal alarmist garbage here in response to my last post.  Comparing CO2 to Arsenic and alcohol.  These things are poisons, not essential, life-sustaining compounds that are necessary for our survival like co2.  A better analogy might be Vitamin D or calcium or something.

Garbage? Our responses used analogies to demonstrate that, just because a thing is small in absolute and relative magnitude does not mean it is inconsequential.

There is no doubt that you folks would be like these deluded liberals/environmentalists who began to protest dihydrogen monoxide:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

Well great. Now we're at the point of ad hominem. I think that means it's just time to leave the discussion, sit back, grab the popcorn and wait for someone to called a nazi.

[acroy]

It is a very interesting read.

Doomsayers are always yelling that things are going from bad to worse, it's humans fault, we must change and it's probably too late already.

In my short lifetime (the ones I can remember!)
-Peak Oil causing massive economic and societal hardship
-Population Bomb causing mass starvation
-Acid Rain wiping out forests
-DEET wiping out birds
-CFC's destroying the ozone layer

They have been correct a staggering 0% of the time thus far.  I don't trust them this time around, and am 100% against legislation / taxes based on climate change claims.

[RangerOne]

The types of arguments that people throw around that needs to stop is, "Consensus is not an argument for any scientific principle "(quote from the article)

Science is a work in progress, you never find truth with science. Our models become more correct and more refined over time so that we can predict real events. At any given point in time the sum of all those models, right or wrong, are the best answers we have to how the world works. Modern life, all of the glorious toys around us are based on scientific knowledge which is nothing more than scientific consensus.

Here is the problem with telling people this is a good way to think.

1. At any given point in history the international scientific consensus on any issue is the best answer we have. That is a fact. The consensus on any given topic could range from anywhere from horribly wrong to horribly right. Scientific consensus is our only tool weed out the noise.

2. Science itself can be political and yes unpopular ideas do get suppressed even if they are sometimes correct. If you plan to utilize science for policy you have to believe that at some point good unbiased scientists will help to prop up those good ideas that are initially unpopular so that the right ideas become our new consensus.

Just because the scientific consensus inevitably has flaws or may even be wrong does not mean we get a free pass to ignore it. Otherwise it is basically impossible to utilize science in policy decision, which is a big mistake.

In my humble opinion, the job of policy makers is to make policy decisions based on scientific consensus in all fields, from climate to socioeconomic's. You should never base policy off fringe science. Even if it ends up being right, it's a bad bet.

It's scientists job to challenge consensus so our consensus gets more accurate over time. And bad ideas got tossed out.

If you are not part of the scientific community surrounding an issue and you run around arguing with the consensus frankly you are just making noise and confusing the issue. The best you could hope to do to contribute is to raise more money to research issues in as unbiased a manner as possible.

And if politicians determined that an organization has become biased and has incentive to jump to one conclusion over another then you damn well better look into dismantling it and making a less biased organization.

I would rather see an analysis of all of the organizations funding the research that makes up our scientific consensus on climate change. That way we can determine if the science is more likely based on scientific principle or special interests who have something to gain by one outcome being correct.

[JZinCO]

Ok. I'm back in again :)

-Acid Rain wiping out forests
-DEET wiping out birds
-CFC's destroying the ozone layer

They have been correct a staggering 0% of the time thus far.  I don't trust them this time around, and am 100% against legislation / taxes based on climate change claims.

Word. I'm totts glad the gubmt didn't do anything and that these issues went away on their own. Oh wait..
Re: ozone see attachment demonstrating current and projected ozone recovery coinciding with decreased anthropogenic sources. From doi:10.1038/nature04746
Re: DDT, see http://what-when-how.com/new-jersey/auto-theft-to-ballantine-house-new-jersey/ on impacts of DDT reduction
re: acid rain http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404772n Demonstrated recovery post regulation

[RangerOne]

Doomsayers are always yelling that things are going from bad to worse, it's humans fault, we must change and it's probably too late already.

In my short lifetime (the ones I can remember!)
-Peak Oil causing massive economic and societal hardship

I'll bite on another one. While I doubt any person or organization can tell you when peak oil will actually happen, we will absolutely run out of oil... its a finite resource and we use a shit load of it. The impact of running out will only be bad if we are heavily dependent on it when it happens.

No one predicted wide spread fracking would find so much additional oil ... before oil has had its swan song we will likely see a few more inventive ways to dig deeper into the earth to find more hidden oil before peak oil happens.

There is no harm in hedging a bet against a clearly finite resource to resources that will likely be around for as long as the earth is habitable, like sunlight and wind.

[Telecaster]

It is a very interesting read.

Doomsayers are always yelling that things are going from bad to worse, it's humans fault, we must change and it's probably too late already.

In my short lifetime (the ones I can remember!)
-Peak Oil causing massive economic and societal hardship
-Population Bomb causing mass starvation
-Acid Rain wiping out forests
-DEET wiping out birds
-CFC's destroying the ozone layer

They have been correct a staggering 0% of the time thus far.  I don't trust them this time around, and am 100% against legislation / taxes based on climate change claims.

I see this has already been bit on, but are you trying to argue against yourself?   Each of those predictions were prefaced "If nothing changes, then..."

-Peak Oil.   Oil production in the US peaked in about 1973, and declined for decades.  This trend was reversed fairly recently.   What changed?   New technology.   Much of the early research into new technologies fracking and horizontal drilling was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, btw.

-Population bomb.  World population growth has slowed greatly, and may even level off in a few decades.  What changed?   Enormous international efforts to limit population growth for one.   Including providing education for girls, which is one of the best ways to limit population growth.  Note that everyone on this planet has enough to eat, so problem not solved, but moving in the right direction.

-Acid Rain.  Northeastern forests and lakes have greatly improved.  What changed?   Huge reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions, due to a combination of regulations and creation of a sulfur dioxide credit marketplace. 

-DDT.   Vast improvements in bird populations.  What changed?  Enormous reductions in DDT use.   

-CFCs.  Ozone layer is improving.  What changed?  International ban on CFCs.

The common thing in each of those cases is that people did not sit around and wait for the problem to happen (or to continue to happen as the case may be)  People did something and the problems either improved or went away.   Sitting on your hands is not a recipe for success.   

However, that's not the real problem with your argument.  Even if you were correct, you'd still making a logical fallacy.   Each of those are isolated problems, and require different solutions.   Just because someone made a prediction that was wrong (or right), it does not follow that some other prediction about different problem is also wrong.   

[Glenstache]

Side note: I kind of like that people caught the erroneous substitution of DEET for DDT, and then corrected on the science behind banning DDT without breaking stride.