For all of you who are skeptic when it comes to global warming, can you send me some evidence or anything else that disproves a lot of the supposed science that's floating around? I understand that global warming is real, just like global cooling is real (or else we wouldn't be alive), but I'm talking about the debatable seriousness of man-made global warming.
I remember in the beginning high school I was the biggest supporter of doing anything at all to stop global warming, but of course that's when I wasn't really in tune with the real world. I see kids going around these days preaching about global warming, even students at my college, who have never even seen any scientific evidence regarding either side.
I've done a few papers and stuff on global warming for school, but if everyone could just send the best possible evidence you can find, I'd greatly appreciate. I want to make sure to have all of my arguments formatted and ready in case I ever get into a heated debate where I can take people to school with some statistics.
The Geologic Record and Climate Change by Tim Patterson - A skeptical paleoclimatologist's view on CO2 and climate change in Earth's history. Climate Change Science by Ken Gregory - A comprehensive compilation of climate-related graphs, facts and figures from a skeptic's perspective.
The Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html (short)
Christopher Booker's book The Real Global Warming Disaster is very good: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Global-Warming-Disaster-Scientific/dp/1441110526
Or if you want documentaries:
The Great Global Warming Scandal: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647
Global Warming or Global Governance: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443
The Cloud Mystery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Thank you both very much so far! I appreciate the help!
I disagree with about 99% of libertarians on this issue and would advise you to take the global warming deniers with a healthy grain of salt. They spew a lot of nonsense, as covered here and here.
Not that there aren't opposing views (though they lack credibility IMO) but be careful of letting political ideology guide your views on mattters of science.
Yeah, I try to not let politics influence science, but it's hard to decide what science is real and what isn't. A lot of the information regarding trophic levels in relation to CO2 levels and everything just baffles me when it starts to get complex. That's the thing - a lot of people who support all measures against global warming simply are not smart enough to comprehend the science. They understand correlation but not causation. Seeing Al Gore's documentary clearly isn't enough to formulate an opinion, and many of them haven't even seen the documentary, let alone anything else. So it's really hard for me to decide.
That's why I like Newt Gingrich's policy with global warming. He doesn't really believe too much in it because the reports are contradictory, but he still wants to do something just in case, but not anything that would hurt the free market. I personally think ExxonMobil is doing a great job already researching gasoline production from algae. It's brilliant.
I strongly agree with Cork on this issue. Why is it that libertarians think all is lost if global warming turns out to be real? We seem to suddenly lose our faith in markets and human ingenuity on this issue. I suggest people read these three great articles:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/fixing-global-warming-for-fun-if-not-for-profit/
http://freepressonline.net/content/global-warming-shifting-debate
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/featured/how-a-free-society-could-solve-global-warming/
"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess
"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox
Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)
Books: The Hockey Stick Illusion: Global Warming and the Corruption of Science (A.W. Montford, 2009) Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (2009) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
Resources: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC) Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)
Videos: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min) (ABC News) Global Warming is not a crisis (Video) (8min) (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography)
Prominent Skeptics:
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001)
Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer
Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001)
Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)
S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000)
Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism and this article I wrote.
Viception: “The best argument for countering climate change is to stop cataclysmic effects on humanity, but the chances of cataclysmic effects are small. Some people believe taking those chances is too risky. To significantly affect global warming would require fossil fuel reduction resulting in higher energy costs. Alternative energies like wind and solar would not exist without government aid. Those higher energy prices would harm people, especially poor people. Some poor people burn biomass for cooking and warmth because they cannot afford electricity. That biomass incineration causes indoor air pollution which kills more people than global warming. To raise energy prices will ensure poverty. More people die from contaminated water, indoor air pollution, malaria, and malnutrition than from global warming. There is no contaminated drinking water, indoor air pollution, malaria, or malnutrition in this city because it is wealthy, allowing it to afford better water quality, cleaner energy, better healthcare, and nutritious food. Climate change should be monitored and countered if the benefits outweigh the costs. If you believe climate change is a future catastrophe, then you probably believe dihydrogen monoxide is a current problem. Dihydrogen monoxide is a colorless, odorless chemical that kills thousands of people each year. It is in the food supply, has been found in the air, has been used as part of chemical warfare, and can kill you if you inhale it. People have been asked to sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide. Most people sign the petition. Later they learned they agreed to ban water, chemically known as dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide can have bad and good effects on human welfare. Likewise, climate change can have bad and good effects on human welfare. Before considering banning water or countering climate change, the full effects of the proposal should be considered.”
[Gero: What is climate change does harm people? What is the libertarian response? This was covered in response to air pollution.]
Viception: “Who owns the air? Everyone? No one? Imagine [Person 1’s] P1’s home emits air pollution that damages [Person 2’s] P2’s garden. P1 owes restitution to P2 for property damage. If P1’s home emits air pollution that causes P2 to become sick, P1 owes P2 restitution because P2 did not give informed consent to breathe polluted air. P2 does not have a right to clean air. P2’s injury due to inhalation of air pollution without informed consent entitles P2 to restitution. If one becomes sick due to naturally polluted air, one is not entitled to restitution. In a free market anarcho-capitalist society, different communities would likely manage air pollution in different ways. Some may limit the amount of air pollution permitted. Some may allow anyone sickened by polluted air to sue the polluter.”
[Gero: The Climatic Research Unit email controversy, also called Climategate, has been whitewashed, according to Patrick J. Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia from 1980-2007, and current senior fellow at the Cato Institute.]
There are a number of discussions involved into the climate debate (a hot topic).
1. Wether or not there is global warming or not. Even this is dismissed by some "sceptcis".
2. Wether or not global warming is (significantly) caused by human actions (both CO2 emissions and chopping tropical woods, etc.).
3. Wether there is anything we can do about it, that is, wether the effects of actions to prevent further global warming, don't cause other effects that may be same bad or worse.
<<<
Prominent Skeptics: John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001) Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001) Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present) S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000) Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)
>>>
Please provide the info on which oil company pays which scientist and how much.
P2 does not have a right to clean air. P2’s injury due to inhalation of air pollution without informed consent entitles P2 to restitution
So.. P2 does have a right to clean air. That looks like it is saying the same thing.
If P1 needs P2s consent to pollute P2s air, then P2 has a right to clean air, and P1 does not have the right to pollute P2s air.
The depths people will go to justify their personal biases amazes me.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Rob Heusdens:Please provide the info on which oil company pays which scientist and how much.
Please provide what environmentalist organization you work for and how much you are paid.
MIT's inconvenient scientist (The Boston Globe)
Rob Heusdens: There are a number of discussions involved into the climate debate (a hot topic). 1. Wether or not there is global warming or not. Even this is dismissed by some "sceptcis". 2. Wether or not global warming is (significantly) caused by human actions (both CO2 emissions and chopping tropical woods, etc.). 3. Wether there is anything we can do about it, that is, wether the effects of actions to prevent further global warming, don't cause other effects that may be same bad or worse.
although it is alluded to in your step 3, I think that between 1 and 2, you should ask what the the consequences both good and bad of a warmer globe?
some of these consequences seem/are incalculable.
4. If everything above is true then whether let free market decide best course of action or not
This is never debated and everyone by default assumes that governments must step up and "bailout" nature by stealing from taxpayers and paying special interests. Just like 2008 bubble; people never learn.
Especially when politicians are supposed to politicize science in the first place.
PopTech listed a lot of resources I like, "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is a pretty god-like take down on the IPCC's main icon.
I should add that before we can even begin to debate the cause of the "warming" in question, we must first establish whether we even have accurate enough data to contend with.
Think about it. The data we have comes from a wide variety of equipment and conditions spread across twelve decades. I'm referring to things like...
1. The switch from mercury to digital thermometers - and who knows how inconsistent the earliest models of both types were calibrated.
2. Building of cities around weather stations plus the laying of new pavement which absorbs heat. The effect of this is strongly suggested by the fact that most of the warming has occurred in the Northern hemisphere where greater industrialization has occurred.
3. When and how temperatures where recorded at respective weather stations. For example, did some idiot take it upon themselves to go from recording data in the morning to mid-day? Or could it be that some weather stations decided to take most of their measurements during warmer seasons out of convenience thus producing warmer trends in cumulative data?
4. Not to mention the closure of weather stations in the coldest parts of Earth (e.g. Siberia - where the best attempts to reach absolute zero have been conducted) in accordance with the collapse of the Soviet regime. "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)" has a great discussion about this.
I could go on with more examples and in greater detail, but this is just off the top of my head.
In short - I don't think public policy (given that it even exists of course) should be taking any kind of restrictive actions on such flimsy evidence - period.
Is there any studies that measure nuclear detonation's affects on the warming? I wager release enough heat to vaporize anything in a x mile radius + the area, ought to do something to the temperature. Especially when multiple countries were doing the testing. I think it is still legal to do testing, it just has to be underground iirc. But that still adds heat to the earth.
The concern over nuclear testing on the climate came up in the 1960's and it was determined that atmospheric testing had no long term effects on the climate.
No possible way I can argue or even hold an opinion on the science, I have no reason to disagree with it; but I wouldn't be suprised if there was some form of left wing political shenanigins that is somehow twisting the issue somehow. That is just flat out hunchism though.
to op: personally, i don't think the approach of layman "evaluating the evidence" of climate change is very useful.
"well, people spend years learning climate science, but I think I could pick up enough knowledge in a weekend to weight the evidence intelligently.: Its *not* going to happen.
instead, you will want to go to the experts (the climate scientists themselves). but since there is not universal agreement, how do you know who to trust?
these are the questions you need to ask yourself. you need to remind yourself that you are approaching climate science from a point of ignorance.
this guy has the best summary of my views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
That guy's argument is the most ridiculous I have ever heard, here is why,
Re: The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See (Video) (2min)
I think instead of ignoring or fighting the issue via denying the science, it may be best for "the right" to try to offer more decentralized solutions something like demand a radical decentralized form of government (be it anti EU or stat rights) if they sign some form of environmntal treaty , demand very harsh conditions for politicians and groups recieving money or paying money to the environmental cause, things like that. If it is a political rat, it can be smoked out by that method, certainly not by attacking the science. If conditions really are "that bad", the opposition is realy in the drivers seat on every other issue and can dictate ust about any terms they want.
Dondoolee,
agreed.
No one is denying the science as the science supports the skeptics position,
800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)
It is disappointing to see someone make the ridiculous claim about "denying" something they are not read up on.
Here are some more resources,
A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth (PDF) (Marlo Lewis Jr. Ph.D.)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
The Skeptics Handbook (PDF)
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
The science of climate change is way outside of my ken. Honestly I have no time or interest to read about it. I am interested in the politics, economy, and sociology of climate change, that is where I feel as if I can hold somewhat of an opinion. What I am wondering though is if I can match your anti climate change links with anti Evolution and "Einstein was wrong" links by just as credible people.
Either way, it is beside the point. If the left has put that much weight behind one political issue, all the right has to do is perform political judo and make the left a politicaly impotent 1 trick poney. It wouldn't be too difficult to imagine a Burkean world with 1 externality to acknowledge. If there is a political rat that is causing the grief, and we are getting some distorted image of climate change, it will reveal itself; it has to, the left put too much value behind one fairly monolithic issue. There is no reason to fight science with science, in fact that is probably the least prudent way to take care of this issue regardless of which science is right.
Actually no you cannot match my links with anti-evolution links as you will not find anything in a credible science journal. The only connection to religion is with which furor proponents of "man-made"climate change pronounce their beliefs in it,
Environmentalism as Religion (PDF) (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
There is a political rat who has caused the grief, Al Gore. The distorted image of climate change you are getting is in one of alarm. All skeptics believe in climate change, they support a mild warming of 0.7c since the end of the little ice age, they do not however believe it to be caused mostly by man, if at all. None support the notion of catastrophe unless we cripple the world's economies by decarbonizing through government taxation. If the average person knew the whole truth it is a rather boring issue that is not very exciting and certainly not worth worrying about.
Freeman Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College (1936-1941), B.A. Mathematics, Cambridge University (1945), Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1946–1947), Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University, (1947–1948), Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949), Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951), Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953), Fellow, Royal Society (1952), Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994), Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963), Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964), Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965), Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966), Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968), Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968), Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969), J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize (1970), Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975), Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975), Harvey Prize (1977), Wolf Prize in Physics (1981), Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988), Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993), Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present), Member, London Mathematical Society (2000), Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003), President, Space Studies Institute (2003-Present) Notable: Unification of Quantum Electrodynamics Theory.
"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson
Rob Heusdens, do you think global warming legislations are anti-worker and anti-industry?
Do you think these legislations benefit only a very narrow bourgeoisie interest?
I think this misses the point of "authoratative credit" relative to the problem backing the claims. One random dude (and perhaps even a layman) just doesn't warrent enough credit for most layman to make that "ticket chart" to perform a cost/benefit analysis.
I recommend checking out this and this for a high-level "voice of reason" coming from two individuals with impeccable credentials (in part because of who they are and in part because they are, in fact, proponents of the GW hypothesis). It's a good way to splash some cold water in the face of hyperventilating GW-useful-idiots.
Global warming may very well be real and it may very well be anthropogenic. That doesn't mean it isn't being overblown by globalists looking for a lever they can use to impose a one world empire.
Clayton -
@Student: I disagree that a non-expert cannot form educated opinions on subjects in which he is a non-expert. In fact, humans do this all the time, every day, it's a necessary part of survival. I agree that armchair climatologists likely cannot contribute anything worthwhile to the debate. But that doesn't mean I cannot reach the conclusion that the vast majority of the discussion of GW in the public forum is wildly polarized special-pleading. You've got scoffers on the Right who prance around under the rubric of being a "skeptic" and then you've got the Jeremiahs on the Left running around doing the Chicken Little. Whenever I read the remarks of real climate scientists outside of political forums like the IPCC, I either find no conclusions regarding the imminence and extremity of catastrophe, or I find calls to moderation, while taking the problem seriously. Why is that so hard? If the science suggests there might be a problem, the part of prudence is to take it seriously. But when an identifiable group of non-experts are consistently hyping the issue and there is an easily identified motive for their hyping the issue, how is it unreasonable to point out, "hey, you're hyping the issue"?
P.S. That video is horrid. I saw it a long time back and I was stunned at the ineptitude of this high school teacher presenting a) a false-dichotomy and b) failing to apply any sort of cost-benefit analysis. The Copenhagen Consensus uses a much more rational approach to global problems facing humanity and they consistently rank spending on measures to counter Global Warming as one of the lowest ROI items.
Wasn't it back then that people were clamoring about Global Cooling? I'll try to look into it someone, initial searches haven't pulled up anything.
They all took money from big oil. Does that make their opinions moot?
Poptech wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 25 2010 9:41 AM: Don't Believe the Hype (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT) Books: The Hockey Stick Illusion: Global Warming and the Corruption of Science (A.W. Montford, 2009) Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (2009) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology) Resources: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC) Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? (PDF) (The Heartland Institute) Videos: Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min) (ABC News) Global Warming is not a crisis (Video) (8min) (Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography) Prominent Skeptics: John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001) Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001) Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present) S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000) Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present) Quote
Poptech wrote the following post at Sun, Jul 25 2010 9:41 AM:
Clayton,
So you evaluate the contents of the climate change debate based on the style of presentation (whether they sound like a "chicken little" for example) and whether or not you like the outlet through which the presentation was made (i never knew the IPCC was "political" but that the copenhagen consensus was not)?
got it.
The IPCC report is, of course, political... it was issued by a political body. The Copenhagen Consensus is a private organization but, of course, its primary concern is influencing political decisions which makes it political. I am not putting forward Copenhagen Consensus uncritically, I'm just noting that their methodology actually takes into account cost and benefit which the YouTube high-school teacher utterly fails to even mention.
As for the chicken little comment, I'm criticizing the crossfire circus on the cable shows (I find right-wing "skepticism" as ridiculous as left-wing fear-mongering). These discussions are of zero rational value, they are nothing more than verbal chest-pounding contests to give the partisan audience something to cheer on.
Reasonable discussion of the issue is decidedly less exciting. I accept the AGW hypothesis at a sufficiently relaxed confidence interval. Yet I think that aspiring globalists have an interest in hyping the issue and, given that a large portion of the research funding for GW comes from aspiring globalists, I think the level of alarm in the debate should be tempered accordingly. Scientists are not disembodied brains, they are human beings who live and exist in the social context with their own ends and aims. Subsidies of scientific research matter, they influence the discussion, maybe not by changing the facts, but by altering which facts are considered most notable and worthy of scientific research.
Is it true that the global warming phenomena is happening, or has happened, everywhere in the solar system? I've heard from skeptics that temperatures were rising on Marx, Triton, Venus, ect. This, if true, would cast serious doubt on AGW.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I get the feeling you are comparing apples to oranges. The IPCC report is an assessment of the basic science of climate change. So I am not surprised you won't find a cost-benefit analysis there, that isn't its purpose. But it isn't like those types of studies are only conducted by the CC either. The EPA routinely produces cost-benefit analyses of climate change legislation (the cost they generate on the us economy and the benefit they contribute by reducing the threat of global warming):
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html
So I am not exactly sure what you are complaining about. But I do agree that the cost-benefit analyses should be conducted.
As for the rest of your post, it looks like you are talking about the political motivations of "globalists" "over hyping" climate change. Since I can read the minds of the vocal climate change proponents you apparently have in mind, ill take your word for it.
PS* Just a note, the high school teacher's video explicitly discusses the costs and benefits of action on climate change. You could easily argue his analysis is incomplete (how odd for a youtube video to not pass peer review), but it simply false to say it isn't mentioned. I would recommend rewatching. Of course, I don't want to spend too much time defending someone else's youtube video so I think that will be the last i say on it.
Student: The EPA routinely produces cost-benefit analyses of climate change legislation (the cost they generate on the us economy and the benefit they contribute by reducing the threat of global warming): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html So I am not exactly sure what you are complaining about. But I do agree that the cost-benefit analyses should be conducted.
The EPA routinely produces cost-benefit analyses of climate change legislation (the cost they generate on the us economy and the benefit they contribute by reducing the threat of global warming):
Perhaps he is talking about the fact that a cost-benefit analysis is impossible in the absent of voluntary markets.
And the fact that a government department claims to be doing this proves what exactly? except that obviously they, but surprisingly you also, still don't get the calculation problem of socialism.