The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

face it folks, scaeagles is pwned.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

It is also interesting that the people now saying "yes it is warming but it isn't caused by man" are generally the people who a decade ago were saying "no, it isn't warming."

I find the people who now say "we are definately experiencing global warming" but used to say "we need to stop polluting the planet lest we bring on another Ice Age" far more interesting.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

............ followed by "yes we're causing global warming but that actually makes things better."

C'mon, you and Scaeagles both left Vantucky for warmer climes for a reason.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I find the people who now say "we are definately experiencing global warming" but used to say "we need to stop polluting the planet lest we bring on another Ice Age" far more interesting.

Yes, because a Newsweek article overstating early theorizing of some scientists with interesting ideas is the same thing as the overwhelming consensus that the earth is warming and the very strong evidence that humanity is playing a role.

Wrong theories are proposed all of the time, and they generally eventually get superceded as new evidence comes in. But this one in particular is a case of trying to have it both ways. A small minority of scientists today holding putting forward theories out of odds with general acceptable theory and with minimal supporting evidence are held up as evidence of debate and somehow accepted as more solid that then mainstream stuff. Simultaneously you exaggerate the general acceptance of fringe theories from 30 years ago and hold it up as proof of what goofs scientists can be.

Now that we've covered "global warming denial canards" for 100, 200, and 300, would anybody like to try for a Daily Double?

And I left Vancouver because there isn't a good university there. If I could have that local climate back I would in a heartbeat.

[scaeagles]

I left Vancouver after 4th grade. I still hate rain.

No daily double, but I find this and all of the links therein very interesting, and I have more and more and more of similar type links with reasonable dissent to the entire man made global warming thing.

[Alex]

Do you do any looking into your sources, or is it just good enough that someone wrote it down? And if that is the approach, how do you decide which ones to believe if not simply on the basis of agreeing with what you've already decided.

Let's see what a little bit of research turns up.

Denier #1: Edward Wegman. This man is a statistician with no particular expertize in atmospheric sciences. He enters into the debate because a congressional committee (chaired by a congressman already on record as denying that global warming of any type is happening, and quite fond of reminding testifiers that he represented a coal state) requested an independent review of the statistical methods of a single article that attempted to reconstruct the global climate over the last millennium. Wegman's panel did find significant methodological flaws.

His panel was never asked, and so never said, whether, when corrected the ultimate conclusions of the original article would change. However, another committee asked for a broader review by the National Research Council (here's the report; I recommend at least page 2 and 3) and it found that while the methodological criticisms by Wegman were accurate then when those tests were removed or corrected the final conclusions were still reasonable and independent non-flawed studies had reached similar conclusions. So, this guy may be a denier but all he has ever said in his official capacity is that one article isn't properly founded and that federal granting agencies should make sure statisticians are involved in peer review.

Denier #2: Richard S.J. Tol. You'll see this pattern repeated in the following entries but Tol doesn't actually deny anthropogenic global warming. His research is entirely based on the notion that it is actually happening. But you might notice the realm of his research: economics. Yes, he is more than adequately qualified in atmospheric science but where he diverges from the "consensus" view is not in whether global warming is happening but how bad the impact will be. Particularly in the short term, he thinks the positives may outweigh the negatives. In other words, it isn't a scientific disagreement but rather a policy disagreement. And that is an entirely different debate. I didn't even have to research this one, it is all in the article you link to; apparently the author isn't so clear on what "denier" means. Also, he has really bad hair.



Denier #3: Christopher Landsea. Sadly, though he's on this list of "deniers" he isn't actually a denier. He believes that global warming is happening that that anthropogenic impacts are at least partly to blame. Here he is in October 2005 on PBS's NewsHour:

Well, we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming.

So, he isn't questioning the reality of anthropogenic global warming, just weather it is causing any significant impact on the level of hurricane activity. He also has bad hair:



Denier #4: Duncan Wingham. Yet another "denier" who doesn't actually deny global warming. Or even doubt it. Why, here he is in The Register saying "I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greeland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer."

The only thing he doubts is whether ice thinning in Antarctica is an effect of global warming and then only because it is so far south that so far it is outside the realm of major impact.

====

So that is the first four "deniers." And only one of them can even reasonably be said to actually doubt the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Two of them question very narrow specific questions about it while the fourth agrees completely (though not with the worst case scenarios) and diverges on policy issues.

Somehow I suspect that if I continued down the list I'd find a similar proportion of real doubters to mechanical disagreements (but it is almost midnight and I've grown bored for now). Why? Because I've seen the same tactics in the evolution debate.

Creationists find 20 scientists arguing about narrow mechanical issues related to evolution (all of which rely on the basic assumption on the reality of evolution), add one real evolution denier and they trumpet this as evidence of serious scientific debate on the fact of evolution.

[scaeagles]

Well, Alex, you win. I am now convinced that global warming is in fact man caused and we are all going to perish.

Sarcasm aside, your research is valid and admittedly far more than I have the time to do.

I will offer that I consider the term "denier" to be those who disagree with major cataclysmic events related to global warming as well, as in "denying" that the world will come to an end because of it.

[innerSpaceman]

It's one thing to narrow your definition of "denier," scaeagles ... but that doesn't change your professed belief there's no such thing as anthropogenic global warming. You seem to have a different definition of "denier" when it comes to yourself.


Have I read you wrong? Do you deny man has a hand in the warming of the planet? If so, do you have any scientific basis for that belief, or is it just want you want to believe?


I don't blame you for not having time for research. Life is busy and full of better stuff. I half admire Alex for having the time to do it, and half pity him for having the time to do it.


Nevertheless, it's been done ... and, absent anything from you to the contrary ... all your assertions have been thoroughly debunked.


Are you going to man up ... or stay stubborn?

[Alex]

Ok, but three of those four can't really be said to do that. And you didn't offer them up as examples of people who deny the cataclysmic nature of global warming but rather "and I have more and more and more of similar type links with reasonable dissent to the entire man made global warming thing."

Since you've repeatedly said there is significant scientific disagreement on whether anthropogenic global warming is happening I'm interested in seeing some evidence of that.

There are at least three levels where people can fall from the common schools of thought.

1. Whether anthropogenic global warming is occurring. I honestly don't think, despite claims to the contrary from certain non-science groups, that there is a significant dissension on this among scientists with the actual qualifications to have an opinion. Denier #1 can vaguely be said to be in this camp.

2. Whether certain features and impacts claimed by some to be a result of global warming actually are. Oversimplification exists on both sides, particularly among the laity and scientists theorizing outside their area of expertise. Just as some point out every snowy day as a rebuke of global warming, there are others who will read every change from the status quo ante as a result of global warming. "If all you have is a hammer..." and so on. But it is possible to put yourself in opposition to specific instances of this without in any way rejecting the consensus in #1 about the reality and enormity of anthropogenic global warming. This is where Deniers 2 and 3 are, and to the extent that he has offered evidence on only one very narrow topic, Denier 1 could be put in here too.

3. Policy debate. You can agree entirely that global warming is happening and that it is partially or entirely man caused but still disagree what should be done about it. A lot of people are in this camp (including Denier #2 and myself). Some think the damages won't be as bad as claimed. Or that the mix of positives and negatives may weigh out on the good side (Richard Tol above or Gregg Easterbrook earlier this year in The Atlantic. Or that the speed at which it is happening is slow enough that we'll be able to adjust as it happens. Or that it is simply so big and expensive to control that it is better to just hunker down and weather the storm (so to speak). Or that the world as we know it is coming to an end and unless we treat its control as a global Manhattan Project we face a near extinction event.



But types 2 and 3 are fundamentally different from type 1 and you can't just bundle all three of them up into a single package and offer them as evidence of type 1 as you did.

I know I am once again coming off as harping on minutiae and semantics (though I don't think I am). But there are myriad interesting and useful realms of debate related to global warming. Because, it is a difficult PR position to say "yes, we're heating the planet but I don't think that is a problem because..." I think many of the pundits who are really in that position cop out and take the much more easily defensed, though intellectually dishonest, approach of "we don't have to consider doing anything because some very smart people say it isn't happening and acting before unanimity is silly." An approach that then trickles down to the "rank and file" (a phrase much in the news lately, does anybody ever use this phrase other than reporters reporting on union negotiations?) level and fits in nicely with certain conservative fiscal views and the fact that the average person doesn't have the time or knowledge with which to sort out the competing claims in the editorial columns of the newspapers.

===

But, three months ago I decided to stop talking politics and science here so that I will stop coming off as a prick (though apparently still sociopathic and without values) and I think it best that I go back to that. So I will now play Bioshock for 48 hours until the urge wears off.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles just wants this warming trend to continue so he can eventually own some beachfront property.