Great Global Warming !

Brimming with indignation today, after reading the news about the Great Global Warming Swindle, the Channel 4 programme which 'debunks' climate change as a plot by environmentalists. The film understandably brought a deluge of complaints when it was aired 15 months ago. Now the broadcast regulator Ofcom has administered a wrist-slap to Channel 4 for bias in the way it represented some of the contributor comment. But it stopped well short of acknowledging that the programme was a bit of lying anti-science propaganda.

According to the environmentalist George Monbiot, the film's maker Martin Durkin has form in this area. He has made two films for the science programme Equinox, one claiming that breast implants are completely safe and the other about genetic engineering - in both cases authorities who he interviewed were shocked to find themselves being totally misrepresented. One got out in time, before lending her name and reputation to a view diametrically opposite to what she actually believed, while the other said she felt 'completely betrayed and misled... they did not tell me it was going to be an attack on my position'. 

Monbiot also makes some quite detailed charges against the programme itself. Graphs were doctored to alter the facts about temperature rises. The scientific credentials of people who Durkin invited on the programme to pooh-pooh global warming were falsely inflated. Other contributors hid the fact that they were funded by fossil fuel companies or lobby groups, sometimes mendaciously. Durkin invoked non-existent political conspiracy theories and invented claims, such as that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than all man-made sources put together (actually a small fraction), and that the oceans are the biggest source of carbon dioxide (it's a vital carbon sink).

The Ofcom verdict is disastrous, because it appears to vindicate the right of broadcasters to talk absolute rubbish about things that really matter. Monbiot claims the programme has measurably weakened the UK public's appreciation of the dangers of global warming, and I'm afraid he may be right.  The TV channel couldn't care less: if the programme 'creates noise', job done.

Global warming scepticism offers interesting parallels for parapsychology and the understanding of paranormal experience - or the lack of it. They aren't exact parallels, and in some cases 'paradox' would be a better word.  In fact I've sometimes wondered whether the folks at the Skeptical Inquirer feel dissonance about this. On the one hand they are natural bedfellows with the 'sceptics' who boldly go their own way against the herd. Every sceptical instinct is to yell, the emperor has no clothes! - the thing the mob so ardently believes in doesn't exist. At the same time the 'believers' in this case are mainstream scientists - they can hardly go against the consensus that actually it does.

Meanwhile, the climatologists whose work is being misrepresented are in exactly the same position as parapsychologists. Both are specialists in their field, which is immensely complex and not easily second-guessed by other scientists, who ideally ought to trust their judgement, yet instead come up with all sorts of phony arguments backed with flimsy 'evidence', sarcasm and invective.  It's frustrating for climatologists, as it is for parapsychologists, because they know from an abundance of studies that they are right, but they can't provide definitive proof.

For instance Stephen H. Schneider, climatologist professor at Stanford University, 'strongly believes' that there is overwhelming evidence of man-made global warming. Just not in the strict sense of a criminal trial with beyond-a-reasonable-doubt criteria, but in the sense of a civil proceeding, where preponderance of evidence is the standard and a likelihood greater than 50 per cent is enough to win the case. It lacks full proof, but a subjective reading puts it well over the minimum threshold of belief - 'far enough to assert that it is already proved to the point where we need to consider taking it seriously.' [What We Believe But Cannot Prove, pp. 76-7]

It's interesting nevertheless that climatologists are taken at their word by the rest of the scientific community, while parapsychologists, who could say pretty much the same thing, are considered beyond the pale.

A lot of this is packed into some remarks by climatologist Stuart D Jordan, summing up articles for the Skeptical Inquirer last year in which he makes the case for man-made global warming. He too frets that science does not offer certainty, and points out that it is typically presented in the language of statistics and probabilities. This is especially true of scientific studies of complex phenomena, he says, of which climate science is an excellent example, 'even though these phenomena remain rooted in the basic laws of nature'. 

Jordan goes on to point out that the fact of 'uncertainty' is viewed by people unfamiliar with science as evidence for a major scientific controversy, even though there really isn't any. 

Often this false claim is made by those who wish to discourage action to address the problems associated with climate change. There are certainly a few scientists of integrity who remain sceptical of the current near consensus, but the interested reader might consider the language of some of the critics and investigate their sources.

Yes indeed!

The conclusion? The controversy shows how easily science can be subverted by wishful thinking. Psi sceptics desperately want telepathy not to be true, because it mucks up their entire world view. Climate-change sceptics fight the concept of global warming because it's scary to think about and because (I'm guessing here) it imposes an intolerable burden of guilt. So they lie and abuse and misrepresent, and are gratefully referred to people who feel the same as they do.

Of course climate change is a live issue, a matter practically of life or death. That's not exactly the case with parapsychology, yet it too, in its way, has profound implications for humanity, for those who can understand and trust its findings. If the dynamics of misrepresentation can be grasped in the case of the one, then perhaps it will start to influence perceptions of the other.

Comments

[Mark]

Ya know, you need to show this post to your pal Michael Prescott that you were thanking a while back for his publicity. Not only does Prescott not believe in Global Warming, he said that if he had it to do over again, he would vote for George Dubya. He may be on our side in the whole paranormal thing, but the man's still a moron.

[The Major]

That is unfair, Mark. Michael is far from being a moron, and just because he doesn't share your viewpoint on every subject doesn't make him one either.

So maybe Michael doesn't agree with the concept of 'global warming' or at least think it's a man made concept. I disagree with Michael on this point as well. It doesn't make him a moron.

There's far too much of this political tarnishing that goes on. Anyone who dares go the right is a fool in the eyes of the left and vice versa.

Case in point. I saw an article in The Guardian the other day about David Mamet, and how his work will suffer now he's abandoned his liberal political leanings for a more conservative approach. Basically, he had a viewpoint that differed from the author of the piece and therefore, he was making a 'grave mistake'. A pathetic argument.

My first thought upon hearing the Ofcom ruling was whether anyone reported Richard Dawkins' attempt at misrepresentation with Rupert Sheldrake, and what Ofcom would have to say about that one.

[Småfornå]

Mark, are you still butthurt over Michael having different beliefs than you?

[Bryan]

I understand where Mark is coming from. It's just so disappointing when an ally puts on blinkers and lets you down.

How can the opposition ever be won over to effective action against global warming if you can't even convince your own allies?

[Mark]

Yeah, I guess I am butthurt, for as insulting a way to put it as that is. Seriously, though, I do not think that everyone who disagrees with me is a moron - just the ones who disagree with me and cannot back up their disagreements with good reasoning (and Prescott can't). Besides, I'd love to hear some good reasoning on how someone who STILL supports George Dubya after all this could be anything but a moron. If anyone has some to offer, I'd be interested in hearing it. No issue exists in a bubble that shields it from all other issues. We have to be cautious with who we ally ourselves with in this movement. I used to have more respect for Prescott, but now I just think that he's an idiot who happened to choose correctly on the issue of paranormal phenomena. By the way...to be clear, Prescott is not just sceptical of of whether Global Warming is man-made, he is sceptical that it is happening at all.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2008/02/thats-cold-baby.html

The comments that he leaves in the comments section responding to the other message board posters are even more damning than the main post. Even after this post I was still cool with him, but once he said that he would vote for George Duyba - AGAIN! - that's when it was just too much. Looking back, I probably should have been disillusioned sooner...

[*]

There were three dramatic episodes of global warming that occurred at the end of the last three ice ages. Interestingly, temperatures started to rise during those warming periods well before the atmospheric carbon dioxide started to increase. In fact, the carbon dioxide levels did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm.

More CO2 makes plants grow not just bigger, but better in every way. It makes them more resistant to extreme weather conditions. In a study discussed in the journal Plant Ecology, a team of scientists subjected the Mojave Desert evergreen shrub to three different concentrations of carbon dioxide - the current level of 360 ppm and at 550 ppm and 700 ppm. The plants, which were being grown in simulated drought conditions, responded more favorably in the carbon dioxide-rich environments. Photosynthetic activity doubled in the 550 ppm environment and tripled at 700 ppm. So, increased photosynthetic activity enables plants to withstand drought better. It will also expand the habitat of many plants, improving rangeland in semi-arid areas and enhancing agricultural productivity in arid areas.

Tropical trees also grow much better when CO2 levels are higher. They develop expanded root systems, and this increases their ability to absorb water and nutrients.

Environmentalists should be extolling the virtues of this benign greenhouse gas. It is Earth’s best friend. More than that, by allowing wheat, peanuts, flowers, cotton and numerous other plants to do very well, CO2 will obviously benefit an ever-growing human population. Instead of moaning, rejoice! More gratitude, less attitude, and fire up those fossil fuels!

[Michael H]

I recall Mark's embarrassing explosion on MP's threads a few months ago. It's interesting that some people will consider political positions that differ with their own to have relevance on issues of agreement.

The climate alarmists need to take a deep breath and consider what Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, has to say:

“I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom and wanted to command not only the people but also the nature . . . This experience taught me that freedom and rational dealing with the environment are indivisible . . .

“I . . . do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology . . . In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the Proletariat), this time in the name of the Planet. Structurally, it is very similar.

“I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism . . .

“I ask: "What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?" My answer is: "it is our freedom." I may also add "and our prosperity".

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/blue_planet_in_green_shackles.html

Those on the climate alarmist bandwagon may be shocked if and when they get what they're asking for.

Never mind if, in fact, the planet is actually overheating at all:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=f6fa4aca-61b4-4824-adb4-78eb8fa9081a

[Bryan]

The President of the Czech Republic? Probably the most obscure authority ever cited in the Global Warming debate!

Sea ice in the Arctic shrank to a record low last year -- nearly 40 per cent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000. It's nearly as bad this year. If ice melts in the Arctic, that means it’s getting warmer. That’s not rocket science.

[Michael H]

Apparently, you didn't bother reading either of the links above, Bryan. The testimony of the President of the Czech Republic is entirely germane to the political and economic aspects of the debate. As far as whether warming is 'fact', consider these excerpts from of the National Post story of May 20th, 2008:

"You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.

"Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.

"Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993".

"According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.

"Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.

"Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.

"Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.

"Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled.""

The point is not whether or not there may be legitimate concerns about climate change that need to be addressed. What is important to grasp is that the psychological climate of alarmism and panic that the AGW proponents have managed to create makes reasonable fact-finding and decision-making nearly impossible, and the political and economic consequences of allowing that to continue could be extremely grave.

[Michael Prescott]

"Sea ice in the Arctic shrank to a record low last year ... If ice melts in the Arctic, that means it’s getting warmer." - Bryan

It's not that simple. For one thing, scientists have recently discovered that undersea volcanoes in the Arctic have been erupting since 1999.

"Is it possible that it these eruptions, part of an 'ongoing process,' have played a part in whatever melting there has been of the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets?

"Scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory have put together a chart showing Arctic ice relatively stable until a precipitous decline began in 1999 — the very year the Arctic eruptions started."

http://snipurl.com/352z6

I still think global warming/climate change has been greatly oversold, just like the great global cooling scare of the 1970s.

But that's just one moron's opinion. :-)

[Mark]

Oh, go to hell! (then again, that may be where the whole planet is going if we listen to the Michaels posting here) You guys either missed or don't agree with the whole point of the main post. You have to trust these experts, as they know more than you about what they're talking about. Even if they can't be one billion percent sure, they still have to be trusted more than two guys who surf the internet looking for glitches in the Matrix. The only way you guys should ever be trusted, in this instance, is if you can prove with a very high degree of certainty that you are right (but, given the complexity of the issue pointed out in the main post, you probably would not be able to do that without becoming experts yourselves). And, seriously, quotations from the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and a link to a story on Investor's Business Daily...(no chance of a conflict of interest there!)...just do not cut it.

[Mark]

Oh yeah, and one more thing, I am not embarrassed at all by my "explosion." If I was, I could have easily posted my comments under another name, and I sure as hell would not have linked to the thread where I got upset. There are things worth getting upset about. The idiocy of people like Prescott is one of them.

[Michael H]

You guys either missed or don't agree with the whole point of the main post.

I don't think so, Mark. I think the Great Global Warming Swindle was slanted to the right, and Gore's Nobel-Prize winning effort was slanted to the left. That's the truth, inconvenient as it may be.

The point is that sorting through the reactive states of minds that the data is first interpreted by, and then reported on through, makes it extremely difficult to discern the truth. Robert is absolutely right that the same basic thing hampers paranormal research. The thing is, it's easy to see the reactivity and flawed thinking in skeptics and other people, it's one hell of a lot more difficult to see it within ourselves.

You can't see that because you are yourself interpreting everything from a highly reactive state of mind. What I will say is that if AGW is factual, the solution will have to do with adaptation, not climate control. If it's not factual, the bureaucrats and policy wonks will be forever grateful for the citizen alarmists who helped them usher in their new, improved version of a Brave New World.

[Mark]

I'm going to use the opening statement that Joe Pesci's character used in the movie My Cousin Vinny:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, everything that man said...is bullshit."

Seriously, though, Michael H, I don't agree with most of what you said in your last post, and I'm more convinced than ever that you just don't get what the main post was about. Even if I agreed with everything that you said, YOU have the burden to prove all of the things that you just said with a high degree of certainty, but instead, you are more than willing to assume that I am being reactive rather than acknowledging that I am probably a better expert on what is going on in my mind than you. Sometimes people are not reactive - sometimes they are just genuinely pissed off...and should be. That's what's going on with me, and if you think that I'm wrong, you're going to need some damn good evidence, otherwise it's best to just trust me. Dopey skeptical outsiders like James Randi and Michael Shermer (and Michael H) failing to trust people who have done a lot more work than them in a certain area, even though the skeptics don't have damn good evidence to prove that the believers are wrong, is one of the biggest things that has stifled progress throughout the ages. Robert's post was not about sorting through reactive states of mind surrounding certain issues; it was about making the point that if you don't have damn good evidence to prove the experts wrong, THEN YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP! Let the experts sort through the reactive states of mind surrounding their respective issues, as they are more qualified. I'll repeat - read the main post again - you didn't get it.

[Michael Prescott]

If we want to calmly consider the issue of global warming, there are three questions to ask. 1) Is global warming actually taking place? 2) Is human activity responsible? 3) Is there anything we can do about it?

With regard to #1, the evidence is mixed. Between 1900 and 1940, the Earth's climate warmed. But between 1940 and 1975, there was a cooling trend. (This led to alarmist stories in the mid-'70s about a new Ice Age.) From 1975 to 2000 there was a warming trend. Since 2000, temperatures have been steady or, possibly, have decreased slightly.

We can see, then, that there are fluctuations in global temperature. A period of warming may be followed by a period of cooling, and vice versa. On this basis, it is hard to accept the prognosis that because there was a warming trend from 1975 to 2000, this trend must inevitably continue. Indeed, it has not continued over the past eight years.

Then we come to #2. Is human activity - specifically industrialization - responsible for warming trends when they occur? Well, we already saw that warming took place between 1900 and 1940, but cooling followed between 1940 and 1975. There was no letup in industrial activity during the second period - in fact there was a considerable upsurge in manufacturing around the world - yet temperatures went down.

But we can survey longer time periods. The Medieval Warm Period lasted from 1100 to 1400 AD. Temperatures were quite warm. Greenland, for instance, was warmer than it is today. (We know this because Viking settlements have been unearthed beneath the ice sheets that presently cover the island.) Then from 1400 to 1850, there was a serious cooling trend now called the Little Ice Age.

In other words, planetary temperatures have undergone warming and cooling trends throughout history, long before industrialization.

That brings us to #3. People who are concerned about global warming blame the problem on carbon emissions - specifically carbon dioxide - and want to reduce such emissions. But is carbon dioxide a cause of climate change? Scientists have inspected ice cores and found that, in the past, temperatures tended to rise before CO2 levels did. There was typically a time lag of about 600 years between the higher temperatures and the increased CO2. It would appear, then, that higher CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause. If this is true, then reducing CO2 emissions may not help reduce global warming; we would be treating a symptom rather than the cause.

Now, how can a layman like me disagree with all the experts? Well, to begin with, it's not all the experts. The experts are by no means unanimous on this issue. So even if we are going to trust the experts, we first have to choose which experts to trust.

Moreover, the experts have been wrong before - as when they warned us about a new Ice Age in the '70s. At that time, some experts suggested dropping nuclear bombs on the Arctic to melt the icebergs and prevent sea levels from falling. Should we have listened to them?

Most important, science today is heavily politicized. Large amounts of government grant money are involved. Political ideologies become invested in certain theories. And there is the enticing prospect of a vast global bureaucracy that will dictate industrial policy to all the nations of the world. Some global warming enthusiasts may visualize themselves running that bureaucracy, or at least serving as advisers to those who do run it.

I'm not saying all proponents of global warming have such motives, but I suspect that some do. This alone should provide grounds for caution.

[Mark]

Yep, you're right, it's not all of the experts. Just 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of them. Okay, maybe a little exaggeration there. You also said:

"We can see, then, that there are fluctuations in global temperature. A period of warming may be followed by a period of cooling, and vice versa. On this basis, it is hard to accept the prognosis that because there was a warming trend from 1975 to 2000, this trend must inevitably continue."

I agree that it is hard to accept such a prognosis based on such (very probably) oversimplistic reasoning. You haven't scratched the surface of all of the data and reasoning that the climatologists use to come to their conclusion. Could they be wrong? Yes. Is the scientific community in desperate need of change? Yes. It's still irresponsible to go against what the vast majority of experts believe based on nothing more than a few things that seem, to the uninitiated, like contradictions. I'm going to repeat that this is exactly what skeptics like Shermer and Randi do to try to hold back certain avenues of scientific research. Don't you have your own blog for this, Prescott? You should write a complete essay laying out the best reasoning that you have available to you on why it is that you don't believe in global warming and post it to one of your websites. After that, invite any climatologist who will take the time out of his busy schedule to weigh in. I can guarantee you that if the extent of your reasoning is contained in you last post on this blog, you're going to get hammered.

[Robert McLuhan]

‘More CO2 makes plants grow not just bigger, but better in every way.’

Great, but if half of us are under water we won’t be around to appreciate it.

I’m going to put my hand up here and admit that I don’t have certainty about this. You can’t seriously understand something unless you have studied it in some detail. But it’s not always practical to do that. As Mark rightly insists, we have to trust the experts. What we can do is decide who the true experts are. Common sense says that the people who are doing the work are the experts. The ones who are barracking from the sidelines are not.

That’s why I make the comparison with parapsychology. A long while ago I got curious about nineteenth century séance mediums. What the hell was all that about? I found two books in my local library, one Natural and Supernatural by Brian Inglis, the other Ruth Brandon’s The Spiritualists that gave diametrically opposite views of the same scientific investigations by people like Crookes and Richet. Both are highly literate and persuasive, and left me no further on. It took me the best part of two years, and a lot of trawling through journals, thinking and comparing, until I came to the secure conclusion that Brandon had no idea what she was talking about.

The real difference between the two, if I had been prepared to accept it, is that Inglis was passing on the opinions of the many scientists who had closely observed the phenomenon over many years, while Brandon was simply marshalling the doubts and suspicions of people who mainly hadn’t, including her own.

It’s also in the approach. If what George Monbiot says is true – and if it isn’t he’s just making it up, which would be risky, but I ought to check – the director of the global warming film, Martin Durkin, specialises in striking controversial poses, twisting the research of real experts to fit his thesis, and doctoring the numbers. This reeks of propaganda, not science.

One more thing. I’m accustomed to hearing sceptics say that they went along with global warming claims until they looked into the evidence, and were shocked to find how poor it was. It’s exactly that sort of talk that kept me suspicious of parapsychology for so long. I eventually realised that the sceptics hadn’t really got very far in their research: what they had found was the documented suspicions of other sceptics, which provided them with the ammunition they needed. At that point they stopped thinking and researching, if indeed they had ever really started. I strongly suspect that will turn out to be the case in the climate change debate.

I really do want to get to grips with this, though. I hope soon to find time to read up on the issues. Who knows, I may really be surprised and shocked to find it’s all a big con. But everything I have learned about parapsychology leads me seriously to doubt it.

[Larry B]

It's not a big con, Robert. That's what they want you to believe.

Many climate-change sceptics, as it seems to me have posted here, like to think they are proudly independent people, refusing to be cowed by UN-sponsored orthodoxy from the IPCC. In fact, the arguments of climate sceptics have largely been moulded by a far more sinister force - the US-based conservative think tanks. A recent academic survey of environmentally sceptical books found that 92 per cent were linked with these think tanks, which include the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Since the early 1990s, these and other industry-funded front groups have been leading an anti-environmental backlash, changing the tenor of the political debate on environmental issues and bombarding the media and the public with disinformation.

The authors of the study, published in the June edition of a journal called Environmental Politics, argue that, far from being a true grass-roots movement, "environmental scepticism is an elite- driven reaction to global environmentalism, organised by core actors within the conservative movement". The "self-portrayal of sceptics as marginalised 'Davids' battling the powerful 'Goliath' of environmentalists and environmental scientists is a charade", given that the "sceptics are supported by politically powerful conservative think tanks funded by wealthy foundations and corporations".

Next time someone insists global warming isn't happening, ask yourself where their views come from - and whose interests they serve.

Unfortunately, real knowledge and real science is telling us some inconvenient truths that on a very basic level question many of the fundamental assumptions and dogmas about Western society, namely the idea that market forces are "sovereign", pure and benign.

To examine or question these "faith-based" assumptions about the nature and consequences of "the market" and "growth" on a finite planet with finite resources, is a form of dangerous heresy, not far removed from treason.

So climate change and what we do to mitigate it, is, in essence, an attack and critique of the power structure we live under. When the elite lash out at the "greens" for wanting to undermine, curtail and destroy global capitalism, this isn't just rhetoric and spin, it's an accurate statement of what's at stake.

There will be real conflict and struggle, partly because of people’s innate conservatism, their emotional attachment to their subjective point of view. Currently, they’ve been educated by advertising from Big Business to love their air conditioning and their gas guzzlers. People have got used to them. They are going to have to be educated out of them. And People don’t like change. The conflict and struggle will be between those who are militant about saving the planet before it's too late and those whose minds are still closed.

The science is solid. We have to believe the REAL scientists of the IPCC. We must ignore the pseudo science of the non peer reviewed fossil fuel lobbyists and libertarian think tanks .We all have to face the fact that our fossil fuel burning way of life has to change.

Are you old enough to remember how the tobacco industry fought tooth and nail against the medical and scientific community over the causal effect between cigarette smoking and cancer? It's no secret that Big Oil, Big Coal, right wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Libertarians, and others have used the tobacco industry's tactics to cast doubt on the validity of what the scientific community has concluded about the causal effect between climate change and the release of greenhouse gases by mankind. Many Americans died because of Big Tobacco's greed and selfishness. This time around, the stakes are exponentially higher. For the sake of our children and future generations, we need to take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate against the climate change consequences that have already been set in motion.

[Mickey D]

Good site if you are into the science:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
also http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400

Yes they are biased but they are a good deal more convincing than the dogma being shouted out from the other side.

"Virtually all of the research since 1999 has been refuting [the theory of human-caused global warming]."

"The delegation met Wednesday with counterparts from Europe, and Inhofe and many of his colleagues were shocked at the Europeans' refusal even to consider scientific research that casts doubt on predictions of cataclysmic warming. "They just don't want to talk about the science," said Inhofe. "They don't want to listen. They were Zombies" No they don't - they invested tons of political capital and taxpayers money in this and they aren't going to suddenly turn around and admit they are wrong.

[Michael H]

“Next time someone insists global warming isn't happening, ask yourself where their views come from - and whose interests they serve.”

And the next time someone insists global warming IS happening, ask yourself where their views come from - and whose interests they serve.

This is the whole problem. Getting to absolute facts behind the political agendas of each side is so daunting as to be nearly impossible. Anyone with a little time on their hands can easily discover passionate arguments that support either argument; one envisioning massive rises in sea levels and assorted catastrophic environmental disasters, the other picturing the social, cultural and economic collapse of western society. The information that is available is both presented and evaluated from an apocalyptic mindset, which is highly dangerous.

Recognizing the emotional climate that had infected the climate question, the US debate society Intelligence Squared decided to address this issue in March of 2007. The debate format they use involves a specific structure, and they poll the audience both prior to and following the debate to measure the effect of the arguments presented. The proposition placed in front of the audience was: Global Warming is Not a Crisis. Prior to the debate, 57% rejected the proposition, with 30% in support and 13% undecided. In other words, a clear majority felt going in that global warming was indeed a crisis.

The introductory remarks from the Chairman of Intelligence Squared sets the table:

“I’m Robert Rosenkranz, Chairman of Intelligence Squared, which is an initiative of the Rosenkranz Foundation.

“So let me just say a word about why we’re doing this. It’s really with the intention of raising the level of public discourse in this country. It comes from a feeling that political conversations are just too rancorous and that this nation could benefit from a forum for reasoned discussion of key policy issues.

“The topic tonight is one that has attracted an enormous amount of interest. The proposition: Global Warming is not a crisis.

“Why this particular, topic? Senator Barbara Boxer, Al Gore have assured us that on this particular topic the debate is over. Well, we took that as throwing down the gauntlet and I personally am cynical enough to think that perhaps there’s a distinction between science and political science . . . maybe a side that feels like there is nothing to debate, might feel that there are perhaps some inconvenient truths on the other side that they would prefer not to deal with. I’m old enough to remember when there was a scientific consensus on global cooling, and this was in the 1970s with all kinds of alarmist data on that subject.

I’m enough of a businessman to know that the modeling and the use of the computer, algorithms and forecasting the future is a very, very difficult undertaking. I mean, if one could predict the weather or patterns of storms even a year in advance it would be worth billions and billions of dollars to people engaged in energy trading or insurance underwriting and a whole bunch of other pursuits. And yet it can’t really be effectively done. So tonight’s debate, I think, is addressing issues that for me are very real and which, at Intelligence Squared we feel can use some serious enlightenment. First of all, on the science of it. Does science really have the ability to tell us with a good degree of reliability what is going to happen to our climate over a hundred year period? And secondly, the economics. This all leads in effect to public policies that say we should invest money now for benefits in the future. Well, that always poses the traditional questions of, well, what are the costs? What are the benefits? What are the alternatives? What are the risks of action? What are the risks of inaction? So there are a whole welter of economic aspects that I think, hopefully tonight we’re going to get some enlightenment on as well.”

The full debate transcript, which explores all sides in depth, is available in PDF format at this link (366KB - 79 pages):

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/_GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf

Each side presented strong arguments, as is always the case with the topics they explore. Upon conclusion of the debate, the audience was polled again. The results showed a significant reversal of opinion, with a majority now in favor of the proposition. 46% concluded that global warming was not a crisis, 42% remained in opposition to the proposal, while 12% remained on the fence. A full 15% who had rejected the proposition reversed their position upon hearing the facts presented in a calm, measured formal process. If nothing else, it demonstrates that the issue is far from settled.

Given that the most recent data shows that we are now in the midst of a 20 to 30 year cooling trend, as reported in the National Post article I linked earlier and numerous other sources, I can’t help but think that if the debate were to be held again, support for the proposition would be even stronger.

Despite the claims of Mark, Bryan and Larry B, I do not consider myself to be a skeptic in the sense that it is meant today: someone who defends the status quo. I am a skeptic in the sense of being willing to question everything in order to arrive at the best possible conclusion. And maintaining a clear head on this issue is particularly difficult.

Larry B’s claim and that those who question AGW are engaging in “a form of dangerous heresy, not far removed from treason” betrays the apocalyptic stance that he’s adopted on this issue, while the claim that “We have to believe the REAL scientists of the IPCC. We must ignore the pseudo science of the non peer reviewed fossil fuel lobbyists and libertarian think tanks” betrays the faith he has placed in those of the opposite persuasion. It is of apparently no concern that Vaclav Klaus suggests that climate science "is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming". Mark, meanwhile, rejects MP's link because it is on an investment-related site, yet accepts information as valid from sources that more closely mirror his political leanings.

Is there any difference between Larry B’s claim that opposition to his faith must be ‘pseudoscience’, and the paranormal ‘skeptics’ claims regarding Dean Radin’s work? At the same time, Mark uses the argument that AGW must be real because it represents the 'majority opinion', yet he accepts the exact opposite stance on paranormal issues. And the majority on the paranormal issue is far more decided.

Finally, if Larry B or anyone else wants to label me as an “elite lashing out at the "greens" for wanting to undermine, curtail and destroy global capitalism”, they should know that I am currently living in a 24 ft. camping trailer pulling 30 amps of electricity while consuming less that a gallon of propane monthly. I’m at an elevation of 5000 ft. above sea level, and consume approximately 20 gallons of gasoline each month for the auto. Meanwhile, when he is not flying all over the world to spread his message of impending calamity regarding AGW, Al Gore lives in a massive “green” mansion in the Cumberland River Valley, which I’m sure the millions he has earned for his unselfish efforts helps maintain.

So I ask: Which of us is the more responsible environmental citizen, and which of the alarmists on this thread can claim a lower level of energy usage than I?

[Michael Prescott]

I don't think we're going to settle the global warming controversy here, but I hope Michael H and I (and others) have laid some grounds for doubting that the world is coming to an end. It did not end in the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may well have been warmer than they are today, and it will not end now.

I've seen many "crises" come and go, and somehow the planet and the human species soldier on. The experts are always declaring that we are doomed for some reason. After a while, you learn to take their prognostications with a large helping of salt.

I find Mark's hostility to me a little puzzling. He was always treated with respect on my blog, even after he declared he was a committed Communist who believed Communism would work very well if properly understood. I never banned him from the site, and after he left in a huff, I expressed the hope that he would return. I still hope so.

[Larry B]

It's pretty obvious there will be no agreement on this issue at the moment. But it would be interesting to revisit the comments here in 10 years and then again in 20 years time. If nothing much is done, here are two predictions I don't think even the hardest skeptic would disagree with:

1. Fossil fuels -the "finite resources" I refer to will continue to be exploited by Global Capitalism (and in China’s case, State Capitalism) without scruple.

2. CO2 emissions will be even greater than they are now, so CO2 levels in the atmosphere will be higher than they are now, and will still be rising.

If a resource is finite, increasing exploitation of it is unsustainable. If CO2, methane and nitrous oxide are emitted on increasing scales, the effect on the health of our atmosphere will obviously be unsustainable.

Surely if something is unsustainable, any argument that suggests otherwise is itself unsustainable. Is this not logical?

It is because human beings are not by nature logical creatures that they will hear an irrefutable argument, then rationalize, dissemble and fudge the issue. I quite understand. But will our grandchildren?

[Mark]

Michael H, you are making so many bad assumptions that it's hard to deal with them all. Just as an example, Al Gore pays higher prices for clean energy, so he probably is doing better than you on reducing his emmisions. Okay, this is going to be the last post on this subject because the global warming skeptics are just not getting what I'm saying. I'm not using "the argument that AGW must be real because it represents the 'majority opinion,'" but rather I'm simply saying that we should trust the experts unless we have damn good evidence against them. I already admitted that they could be wrong, but most of the time they're going to be right. Yes we need to change the scientific community to make them more open-minded (I think a good first step would be the passing of a code of ethics which would require some punishment of scientists that voice an opinion about a subject that they are not qualified to talk about - like when Neil deGrass Tyson, the astrophysicist, trashed psi) but even considering all of that, it is still not okay to waltz in as an outsider, provide a few potential problems, and act as if you have disproven something. Really, my point isn't even about global warming or psi. My point is that the experts should always be trusted unless an outsider can present some damn good evidence that the experts are wrong. The burden is on the outsider. Now, I understand that on some issues the experts don't have a consensus. At that point, the best thing to do is either do a lot of research yourself and become an expert (like Robert did), or wait for a consensus to arrive. In the case of something like global warming, though, a consensus has arrived. It could be wrong, and there are problems with the scientific community that need rectified, and there are political concerns that influence these things - these are all true - but even with such a flawed system, we have to trust the consensus unless we have damn good reasoning not to. By the way, I think that most of the experts in psi (I mean the people who actually work in psi research as opposed to people like Tyson) actually do believe that something is there, so I'm not being contradictory, unlike what Michael H suggested. If someone wants to argue the real point with me - if someone wants to argue that maybe the experts have the burden to prove themselves to outsiders, or some more nuanced position, then I would like to get that argument going. If the rest of the posts are going to be more of the same with outsiders posting minor potential problems that they have with global warming and acting as if they have dubunked the whole thing, then I am going to post no further on this subject.

[Michael H]

" . . . outsiders posting minor potential problems that they have with global warming and acting as if they have dubunked the whole thing . . ."

The points I made, Mark, were:

A) The AGW issue is far from settled.

B) Attempting to evaluate anything from the perspective of an apocalyptic mindset is highly dangerous.

C) Political affiliations and other belief systems play a significant role in interpretation of any data, as well as which arguments someone considers valid.

As MP says, eventually it will become clear that the sky is not falling, mankind will continue to limp along. Hopefully, the future will include some revolutionary ideas about energy production, but maximizing the chances for that to happen is directly related to encouraging calmness and reflection, not panic and reactivity.

Einstein was right in observing that problems aren't solved on the level they are created. If AGW is indeed a man-made problem, the solution will come from a higher level of thinking than is being practiced at the moment by all sides of the debate.

[Bryan]

"encouraging calmness and reflection"

sounds like business as usual to me. That's the status quo. I wonder if you considered the correct response to 9/11 should have been "calmness and reflection"?

Going back to the "Great Global Warming Swindle", I wonder why the program felt it necessary to tell direct lies, for instance that volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than mankind, and that the oceans are carbon dioxide emitters rather than carbon sinks? Surely to ally yourself with this is in itself morally dubious.

In my experience, most deniers have no children of their own. So they don't have to think about the future.

[Michael H]

"I wonder if you considered the correct response to 9/11 should have been "calmness and reflection"?"

Well, since you mentioned it, yes. I've felt for a long time that the psychological climate in the USA following 9/11 was what led to the Iraq mess. The CW today of course, is that the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence and all, but the entire emotional climate in the country was so intense that the Administration, Congress, the press and the public were all vulnerable to poor decision making. There was a very strong consensus to engage in Iraq. And look where we are now.

Again, Bryan, the point I'm making is that keeping a clear head is necessary in order to make good decisions. "Calm reflection" doesn't mean "make no decisions"; it means to weigh all facts and anticipate all the consequences with as much of an objective and measured perspective as is possible. Doing so allows response, rather than reaction.

As far as GGWS goes, I already stated above that it was slanted to the right. At no point did I pledge allegiance to that film. "An Inconvenient Truth" was slanted to the left. Neither one represents 'truth'.

It appears to me that the alarmists have already achieved their ends on this issue, at least with policy makers. What will be interesting to see is whether they can maintain that if additional data supporting evidence for an extended, steady cooling cycle continues to come in. Especially if energy and food costs keep skyrocketing, foreclosures keep rising and the economy keeps sputtering. From what I can tell, most Americans are concerned about providing for their children in the here and now at the moment.

Meanwhile, China's firing up a new coal plant every day.

[Biker]

You don't need to be concerned just because analysis of carbon dioxide in the ancient Antarctic ice showed that at no point in the past 650,000 years did levels approach today's carbon dioxide concentrations of around 380 parts per million.

We can breathe air up to 1% CO2 10,000 ppm without ill effects (and only over 5% is directly toxic). So even if we burn all 90 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic after the Ice melts of course :) we’ll still be OK.

And I’ve yet to read of a medium who said a dead soul got in touch with her to tell us to stop using oil. It’s our planet, peeps. We have to use the resources we’ve got.

[Bryan]

If Biker gets his way, he'll have quite a lot of dead souls on his conscience.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

The impression that I got from reading sceptical commentary on research in parapsychology is that scientists who conduct this research are not recognised as being authorities in this field, even if they may be (or have been) recognised as being authorities in other fields. I don't know whether the same is true with climatologists.

[Robert McLuhan]

Hrvoje, parapsychologists are THE authorities in their field. They are the ones doing the research - there isn't anyone else. That's the point we need to get across. Sceptics sometimes pose as authorities, but they seldom do any real work. There are, and have been in the past, a very few people within parapsychology who are sceptical of psi - Blackmore is probably the best example in recent years.

I don't know, but I get the impression it's the same sort of thing in climatology, with most climatologists supporting the idea of global warming as a result of human activity, a minority taking a sceptical position, and sceptics outside the field who know much less about it.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I agree, Robert, I just don't think that the perception of the two groups of scientists is the same. If so, then they face different challenges. Climatologists need to convince the politicians that their findings should be acted upon, while parapsychologists need to convince mainstream scientists that their findings are indeed scientific.

[Mark]

I just want to post a link to this page to debunk that canard that Prescott put forth about a global cooling scare in the 1970s:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

So typical of anti-global-warming people to put out this type of garbage. I wish I knew this earlier...