Last week, Nature published another strong statement addressing the political/economic attack on climate science in an editorial titled “Into Ignorance“. It specifically criticized the right wing element of the U.S. Congress that is attempting to initiate legislation that would strip the US EPA of its powers to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. In so doing, it cited as an example the charade of a hearing conducted recently, including the Republicans’ disrespectful and ignorant attitude toward the science and scientists. Among many low points, this may have reached its nadir when a House member from Nebraska asked, smirkingly and out of the blue, whether nitrogen should be banned–presumably to make the point that atmospheric gases are all either harmless or outright beneficial, and hence, should not be regulated. Aside from the obvious difference that humans are not altering the nitrogen concentration of the atmosphere, as they are with (several) greenhouse gases, such a question boggles the mind in terms of the mindset that must exist to ask it in a public congressional hearing in the first place. But rarely are the ignorant and ideological bashful about showing it, regardless of who might be listening. In fact an increasing number seem to take it as a badge of honor.
There have been even more strongly worded editorials in the scientific literature recently as well. Trevors and Saier (2011)*, in a journal with a strong tradition of stating exactly where it stands with respect to public policy decisions and their effect on the environment, pull no punches in a recent editorial, describing the numerous societal problems caused when those with the limited perspective and biases born of a narrow economic outlook on the world, get control. These include the losses of critical thinking skills, social/community ethics, and the subsequent wise decision making and planning skills that lead a society to long-term health and stability.
Meanwhile, scientific bodies charged with understanding how the world actually works–instead of how they would imagine and proclaim it to–continue to issue official statements endorsing the consensus view that humans are strongly warming the planet in recent decades, primarily by greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Three years ago, we wondered whether geologists in general have a different view on climate change to the climate research community. A recent statement from the U.K. Geological Society, however, suggests that our impressions perhaps were not well-founded.
Notwithstanding these choices of ignorance, many other organizations continue apace with many worthwhile and diverse goals of how to deal with the problem. Here are a few links that we have run across in the last week or two that may be of interest to those interested in sustainability and adaptation. Please note the imminent deadlines on some of these.
The CDKN International Research Call on Climate Compatible Development:
The Climate Frontlines call for abstracts for a July conference in Mexico City on the theme “Indigenous Peoples, Marginalized Populations and Climate Change” [Apologies: the official deadline for abstracts has apparently passed; view this is a conference announcement]
George Mason University’s call for votes on the Climate Change Communicator of the Year
*Trevors, J.T & Saier Jr., M.H. 2011. A vaccine against ignorance? Water, Air and Soil Pollution, DOI 10.1007/s11270-011-0773-1.
Harold Pierce:
So after arguing that CO2 is harmless you won’t take the bet unless you can protect yourself from CO2.
So typical…
18 Septic Matthew: “self-righteousness” is wrong. Scientists are the opposite of self-righteous. It is NATURE’s opinion, not our own opinion. Our own opinion is irrelevant.
11 Hot Rod: “Inferior thoughts? Seriously?” No. Again, it is NATURE’s opinion, not our own opinion. How do you suppose we invented the computer you are using to read this? Was it by making up whatever theory we pleased or was it by doing experiments to discover the mathematics that Nature obeys? In fact, we discovered the truth of Nature. We did not just make stuff up. Computers work and the internet works and so on. Why do our machines work, at least for a while? Because we scientists discovered truth, not opinion.
See: “Revolutionary Wealth” by Alvin & Heidi Toffler, 2006. As the Tofflers say: “Science is different from all the other truth-test criteria. It is the only one that itself depends on rigorous testing.” They go on to say: “In the time of Galileo . . . the most effective method of discovery was itself discovered.” [Namely Science.] The Tofflers also say that: “The invention of scientific method was the gift to humanity of a new truth filter or test, a powerful meta-tool for probing the unknown and—it turned out—for spurring technological change and economic progress.” All of the difference in the way we live now compared to the way people lived and died 500 years ago is due to Science. The other truth filters have contributed misery, confusion, war, fanaticism, persecution, terrorism, inquisitions, suicide bombings, false imprisonments, obesity, diabetes and other atrocities.
See: “Science and Immortality” by Charles B. Paul, 1980, University of California Press. In this book on the Eloges of the Paris Academy of Sciences (1699-1791) page 99 says: “Science is not so much a natural as a moral philosophy”. [That means drylabbing [fudging data] will get you fired.]
Page 106 says: “Nature isn’t just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority.”
Got that? Nature isn’t just the final authority, Nature is the Only authority. That means that scientists are NOT the authorities. NATURE is, and when you try to violate Nature’s laws, things go rather badly for you. For example, jump off of a tall building and try to violate the law of gravity.
Likewise, if we as a species violate Nature’s laws of climate, things will go rather badly for us as a species.
25, Jim in comment: So let me get this straight–you are accusing an un-named scientist of wrong statements re global warming during Congressional testimony but you yourself have not checked to see whether what you are saying here in public is in fact correct or not, and then are further stating that this un-named person should not speak any more on the topic. Do I have that right?–Jim
You have it almost right — there is an implicit question: When I check, will I find that a climate expert (maybe more than one) has made exaggerated claims in testimony before Congress, claims since found to have been disconfirmed? Will I fine that these mistakes were not acknowledged or corrected? Will I find that the people who made the exaggerated claims, and their supporters, positively do not understand that a history of false claims erodes their credibility and the importance of their policy recommendations?
Consider the congressional testimony of a scientist whose name escapes me now, who warned of the dangers of CO2-induced ocean acidification by placing a piece of chalk into vinegar. It’s silly, considering that living organisms are not made from chalk and that the oceans will not acquire the pH of vinegar. After some discussions of the actual science, it will become well recognized that the stunt was an “alarmist” stunt of no importance. Once might have been forgivable, but a series of such exaggerations will make such a scientist a legitimate target of anti-AGW lampooning; if the person furthermore claims that her critics (I think it was a woman) of being “anti-scientist” the subsequent lampooning will be even sharper and more effective. Her problem, and the problems of other scientists who have made exaggerated claims in Congressional testimony, is not that they were too kind and their opponents too anti-science. Does it matter in the discussion today that I have not, as I would if I followed Hank Roberts’ advice and provided a source? I don’t think so; accurate and fully sourced accounts are abundant on the web and in print. My point is that if pro-AGW forces want to succeed they should either become perfect and beyond all reproach, or else they should focus entirely on science and quit casting aspersions on the intelligence, knowledge and integrity of opponents. In five years time you might regain some of the political and policy clout that you have lost in the last 2 years or so.
My opinion is that, if you truly believe that you have lost policy influence purely because your opponents have been anti-intellectual while you have been too science-focused, then you’ll never regain your lost influence. Of course I could be wrong, everyone is wrong sometimes. My prediction is that if you really “pull no punches”, then your influence will decline even further.
Septic Matthew @ 53:
Consider the congressional testimony of a scientist whose name escapes me now, who warned of the dangers of CO2-induced ocean acidification by placing a piece of chalk into vinegar. It’s silly, considering that living organisms are not made from chalk and that the oceans will not acquire the pH of vinegar. After some discussions of the actual science, it will become well recognized that the stunt was an “alarmist” stunt of no importance.
Well, to each his own. My good friend the coral reef expert who has now become an environmental educator because he is so worried about what is happening to the oceans thought it was a great demonstration which very effectively illustrated what was happening to coral reefs.
re #54: well with good friends like this, you dont need enemies!
@ 2 Ron Manley
\…presenting a strongly worded anti-capitalist diatribe will not advance understanding of the issues.\
Only in the USA where unfettered capitalism is one of the issues. The rest of the world says, \Yeah, we knew that.\
For some reason I had a problem with the link to Trevors and Saier. Here is a link to an HTML page:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/4v7347161782r243/fulltext.html
Chalk in vinegar sounds like a good, vivid ‘teaching moment’ to me. Much better than learning the hard way.
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/Point_Reyes_Light/Home/Entries/2010/7/29_After_30_million_deaths,_farmer_seeks_new_seed.html
53. Septic Matthew says:
So… you are saying we shouldn’t defend the science behind AGW, but rather let the anti-science thugs have their way with long-ago debunked straw man arguments that contradict each other most of the time? Just because the majority of the voting populace isn’t (by all appearances) educated well enough to tell the difference? As others have already pointed out, critical thinking has gone the way of the dinosaurs. That’s something we need to change, and pronto!
“You should check out:
“Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity” by K.B. Klashtorin and A.A. Lyubshin, which you can download for free thru this link…” Harold Pierce Jr — 26 Mar 2011 @ 7:59 AM
I did, back when you brought it up in February, and which I discussed here.
They claim to have observed periodicities of 16.8, 17.5, 23, 26, 32, 39, 53.9, 54, 55.3, 55.4, 57, 60, 60.2, 72, 75.8, and 99 year cycles in various fish populations that “…correlate well with the predominate spectra of climate fluctuations…”. They don’t mention specifically which climate fluctuations – temperature, rainfall, ENSO, PDO, AMO, NAO, ice core isotopes, tree rings, or whatever. Not only does correlation not imply causation, they say “It is thus not our goal to discuss particular mechanisms of the climatic processes.”
You cannot get this curve or trend from any combination of the periodic functions they claim. Note that the temperature has been above the trend since 1995.
@ Susan Anderson – yes, I neglected to cite http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php for the list of refuted arguments.
#41
# 31 there does not seem to be much research carried out in this area
[PDF] Health effects of increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in …
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
by DS Robertson – 2006 – Cited by 7 – Related articles
25 Jun 2006 … toxic level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere under lifetime exposure is 426 ppm (Figure 1)4. At the present rate of increase of carbon …
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf –
[Response: Seems rather dubious to me – the data is obscure, the reasoning faulty, and any supporting evidence loose. I think the EPA or others in this case are likely to be far more credible.- gavin]
your response is in accord with my own reading of the article but it does raise the question of what would be a maximum safe whole of life atmospheric concentration with regards to health , All references(EPA} refer to short term high levels.
Is research needed into safe whole of life concentrations or would it be considered a level beyond anything that may be realised over the next century ?
According to the EPA, CO2 is a pollutant that is harmful to humans. If this is true, then why are we permitted to drink hundreds of billions (and billions and billions!) of liters of carbonated beverages?” – 24
“If it were not true, then why does your body go to great lengths to collect and remove it from your body as a metabolic waste product.
Hold your breath for 60 seconds if you wish to experience high internal CO2 levels.
Get back to us with your observations.
Septic Matthew #53, you may be right that the influence of science will be reduced in America (I dunno, maybe you all really are as stupid as Hollywood would have it), but 1. America isn’t the world, and 2. Watch that influence come flooding back the next time you need something explained to you.
“As others have already pointed out, critical thinking has gone the way of the dinosaurs. That’s something we need to change, and pronto!” – 59
The thinking skills of Americans has been in decline for decades.
Given that adults are pretty much unreachable – particularly those who support the TeaPublican Party, the only hope you have is training the next crop of children.
That will take a minimum of 20 years. Is that what you mean by “fast”.
Do you think that you have the time?
Vendicar Decarion #64, your pessimism would be better founded were it not for the fact that adults can learn things too, and let’s face it, Nature (the phenomenon, not the journal) is the best teacher of all.
I could at least have spelled your name right. Sigh…
“It’s silly, considering that living organisms are not made from chalk and that the oceans will not acquire the pH of vinegar.” – 53
Where do you think Chalk comes from? You know… Here on planet earth, it is composed of the calcium carbonate frames and exoskeletons plates of living organisms.
What is chalk made from on your home planet of Conservadopia?
We could of course show you electron micrographs of the effects of higher ocean acidification on the chalk frames of ocean organisms, as this has been studied in good detail.
Here are two.
1. Before Ocean Acidification.
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/OAimages/GephyrocapsaOceanicaBefore.gif
2. After Ocean Acidification = 2x atmospheric increase in CO2.
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/OAimages/GephyrocapsaOceanicaAfter.gif
“In almost all calcifying organisms tested, ranging from single-celled organisms up to reef building corals, there is a decrease in the ability of the organism to produce calcium carbonate in more acidic waters. One study has documented the changes in two species of coccolithophores grown under conditions expected by the end of this century, where both species show significant decreases (25 – 45%) in calcification rates and clear signs of structural damage in their shells, which may affect their physical functioning and reproduction. However, not all species of calcifying organisms are negatively affected by increased acidity, and more research is needed to understand these mechanisms and possible adaptation pathways.”
Dr. Maria Hood – Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission – UNESCO
Dr. Hans-Otto Poertner – Alfred-Wegener Institute
Dr. Victoria Fabry – California State University San Marcos
Dr. Jean-Pierre Gattuso – Laboratoire d’Oceanographie Villefranche
Dr. Ulf Reibesell – IFM-GEOMAR
Feely, R.A., et al. (2004), Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans, Science, v305, 362-366.
Riebesell et al. (2000) Reduced calcification of marine phytoplankton in response to increased atmopsheric CO2, Nature 407, 364-367.
Funny,
I did not read all of the refuted arguments that Brian posted, but 8 of the first 10 have not been refuted. I stopped reading at that point because it seemed ridiculous to continue. If you want to refute skeptical arguments, you have to do better than that.
59, Steve Metzler: So… you are saying we shouldn’t defend the science behind AGW, but rather let the anti-science thugs have their way with long-ago debunked straw man arguments that contradict each other most of the time?
63, One Anonymous Bloke: you may be right that the influence of science will be reduced in America
I have written repeatedly that AGW scientists should focus on the science. Stunts, exaggerations, “pulling punches”, writing about the corrupting influence of corporate money, speculations about other dishonest motives, open scientists (not science itself) to effective ridicule.
Any scientist who ever wrote or said that AGW implied the absence of cold snowy winters will have that quoted relentlessly whenever anyone attributes cold or snow in some place to AGW. It is not the science that lost credibility, but the scientists. Same for the atmospheric scientists who said that Hurricane Katrina portended the perennially increased hurricane activity that didn’t happen: the science has received undiminished respect.
Septic Matthew #25,
I’m sorry to hear that you live under the jackboot of tyranny. For those of us who live in democracies, this is how it works:
1. Government employees pay taxes, like everybody else. (Where do you live? The Ottoman Empire?)
2. Government employees are “net recipients” of taxes because they are net producers of public goods and services. This means they do work. Pay for work is considered fair exchange.
3. Some of the taxpayers that are government employees or fundees are scientists. They sell their highly skilled labor at government rates in a competitive market. In return for funding they produce knowledge.
4. Knowledge is a good that taxpayers are willing to pay for. (We know this because, in democracies, taxpayers have voting rights and choose their governments in free and fair ballots. They have consistently elected governments that choose to use some of their tax money to fund scientific research.)
Still, there are some people who neither produce knowledge, nor seem capable of benefiting from it, yet feel entitled to lecturing and hectoring net producers of knowledge. They even compare government-funded science with police-state rule. This is, as you put it, arrogant and unseemly. Not to mention embarrassingly silly.
Septic Matthew #53, re: chalk and vinegar,
We’ve been over this before. It’s a red herring.
Do you also think it’s silly and misleading to use the contents of a fruit bowl to illustrate the motion of planets in the solar system, since the Sun is not an orange, and the planets are not plums? It’s called “metaphor”. Educators often use it.
In this case, it’s a close metaphor, as ocean acidification will actually cause the calcium carbonate shells of marine organisms in some parts of the ocean to dissolve long before the oceans even become acidic, let alone reach the pH of vinegar.
What puzzles me about you guys is why you let Steve McIntyre (and many others) make what seem to me to be very damaging points, attacking the credibility of the “real” climate scientists, without presenting the counter arguments. This has been going on for quite a long time now.
Surely, with the undoubted firepower you can marshal, you can go to Steve and present chapter and verse as to where he is mistaken. Can’t you?
Your failure to do so is being noticed in the wider community.
[Response: First off, we do not have an official role as spokespeople for the whole community. Secondly, the number of unjustified and baseless accusations against climate scientists from McIntyre and others is huge – far in excess of anyone’s capacity to respond. Third, the responses almost always would consist of a long and repetitive cataloging of methodologies, exhortations to RTFR, and long explanations of what is being done. Sometimes this is warranted, but most times it is not. This has been repeated often enough that there is no longer any expectation that engagement will alter anything – either the intensity of the accusations, nor the level of debate – so the enthusiasm needed to do this is sorely lacking. And what is it for? Does it advance our knowledge of climate sensitivity? Does help constrain impacts? No, it is just another pointless diversion. – gavin]
Septic Matthew #25, 53, re: unnamed scientist in Congressional testimony,
Enough innuendo already. Who are you talking about? When?
Not Hansen’s 1988 projections, I presume. As has been repeatedly discussed on this blog, they have lately turned out to be on the high side, but nowhere near what you’re insinuating.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Mondo,
Now Just a cotton-pickin’ minute. Is it seriously your contention that climate scientists must reply in detail to every argument from every blinkered ideologue solely for the benefit of said ideologue’s deluded acolytes? Surely, the time of actual scientists could be spent better doing actual science and educating those who actually want to learn.
I believe you have things bass ackwards. It is McI and his ilk who are avoiding engagement in the only place where it counts–in the peer-reviewed literature.
Now by “wider community” do you mean that we must convince blinkered ideologues or have the clue over at McFraudit put on weight lately?
[Response: ‘mondo’ is a troll. we won’t be seeing any more of him here now. – moderator]
Dan H @68:
“I did not read all of the refuted arguments that Brian posted, but 8 of the first 10 have not been refuted.”
Who claimed that they had been refuted? Are you changing the words because you read carelessly or because you wanted to twist the argument in your favour?
The claim was that these repeated arguments had been answered. Many of the arguments are possibly true, but do not help the denialists claims that anthropogenic climate change is not taking place or need not be a concern, for example #2 “Climate’s changed before”.
Dan H. @68,
Hmm, let’s see:
1 “It’s the sun”–insolation hasn’t changed appreciably since 1950. Next!
2 “Climate’s changed before”–utterly irrelevant. Next!
3 “There is no consensus”–97.5% of atively publishing in climate science agree that we are warming the climate significantly; there is not a single professional organization of scientists or national academy that dissents from the consensus–Next!
4 “It’s cooling”–2010 was the warmest year on record. All but 1 of the 10 warmest years on record have been since 2000. Next!!
5 “Models are unreliable”–http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
Next!!
6 “Temp record is unreliable”–all 5 major temperature indices agree on the trend. So does BEST. Next!!
7 “It’s not bad”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/climind/pdsi.html
and there’s LOTS more
8 “It hasn’t warmed since 1998″–See 4. above
9 “Ice age predicted in the 70s”–since when was Newsweek a reliable source of scientific information
10 “Antarctica is gaining ice”–Not according to the best measurements available from GRACE– and irrelevant, even if true.
Dan, I’m beginning to wonder if you are paying attention.
6 “Temp record is unreliable”–all 5 major temperature indices agree on the trend. So does BEST. Next!!
Not only that, but a competent programmer/analyst should have no trouble verifying the fundamental validity of those temperature indices in just a few days, using publicly-available raw temperature data. In particular, NASA’s “Meteorological Stations” temperature index is particularly easy to reproduce, to a darned good approximation (presuming that one is reasonably competent).
“…but 8 of the first 10 have not been refuted.” Dan H. — 26 Mar 2011 @ 11:18 PM
Which 8? What evidence can you cite in support of any of those arguments? Which 2 do you accept as refuted arguments?
I’d like to add a (self refuting) argument #153 “Warmists refer me to the incomprehensible “scientific” literature, then call me willfully ignorant when I don’t read it”
I realize I am persona non grata here (and I do agree with the general premise of this post), but I have to question the validity of this statement, unless I am misreading it:
“Aside from the obvious difference that humans are not altering the nitrogen concentration of the atmosphere, as they are with (several) greenhouse gases…”
What about this study (and there are innumerable others):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604144322.htm
ScienceDaily (June 5, 2009) — More and more, scientists are getting a better grip on the nitrogen cycle. They are learning about sources of nitrogen and how this element changes as it loops from the nonliving, such as the atmosphere, soil or water, to the living, whether plants or animals. Scientists have determined that humans are disrupting the nitrogen cycle by altering the amount of nitrogen that is stored in the biosphere.
The chief culprit is fossil fuel combustion, which releases nitric oxides into the air that combine with other elements to form smog and acid rain. But it has been difficult to know precisely the extent to which such emissions have altered the nitrogen balance.
Researchers from Brown University and the University of Washington have found a new way to make the link. The scientists show that comparing nitrogen isotopes in their deposited form — nitrates — can reveal the sources of atmospheric nitric oxide. In a paper published June 5 in Science, the group traces the source of nitrates to nitric oxides released through fossil fuel burning that parallels the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The group also reveals that the greatest change in nitrogen isotope ratios occurred between 1950 and 1980, following a rapid increase in fossil fuel emissions.
“What we find is there has been this significant change to the nitrogen cycle over the past 300 years,” said Meredith Hastings, assistant professor of geological sciences at Brown and the paper’s lead author. “So we’ve added this new source — and not just a little bit of it, but a lot of it.”
To make the link, Hastings, with Julia Jarvis and Eric Steig from the Department of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, examined at high resolution for the first time two isotopes of nitrogen found in nitrates in a Greenland ice core. The core, 100 meters long and taken at the peak of the Greenland ice cap in June 2006, contains a record of nitrates from about 1718 to 2006, according to the group.
Tests showed the ratio of the nitrogen-15 isotope to the more common nitrogen-14 isotope had changed from pre-industrial times to the present.
“The only way I can explain the trend over time,” Hastings said, “are the nitric oxide sources, because we’ve introduced this whole new source — and that’s fossil fuels burning.”
[Response: Gail, you’re not persona non grata here, at least not from my perspective. -mike]
This is a great posting. And wonderful discussion. Thanks so much
Science meets with a strong challenge when facing the forces of personal opinion. Congress and carbon capitalists can pontificate platitudes but they cannot change the fundamentals of climate science.
The boundary of science and politics is nicely defined by observing the strange illogical proclamations twisted to fit the particular political or economic stance. However, this allows science to more clearly navigate political waters – just sail forward until hitting the reefs of misinformation and bad science – beyond that, there be monsters.
Hmm… perhaps a congressional hearing is like a weather event, (oh jeekers, there must be an elegant metaphor in here somewhere) – it is born of political climate, and yet can be an anomaly of any changing political climate. Note the rhetorical hot air, the chaotic storm clouds and lightning strikes. Eventually it passes and then to prepare for the next big storm. Difficult to model and predict.
Septic Matthew #69 Sure, scientists can always look for better ways to communicate, so let’s just imagine how that’s going to go: Scientist “we have determined finding A is a significant factor in phenomenon B”. Congressman Shill (Rep): “You used a trick to hide the decline!”
It seems to me that credibility is not the issue.
This is the presentation that SM is thinking of, as presented by Dr. Lubchenko — to Congress and many other venues.
http://www.noaa.gov/video/administrator/acidification/
Gail,
Presumably the referral to nitrogen was to molecular nitrogen (N2) which makes up a little shy of 80% of the air. Human activity is not appreciably changing this concentration, nor is any harm expected from molecular nitrogen.
The sources you quote deal with reactive nitrogen in its various forms (nitrogen oxides, ammonia, etc; one of these, N2O, is actually a greenhouse gas), which is a whole different ballgame and one where human activity indeed had an important influence.
And if he either listened to or read the scrolling text under the presentation, it’s explicit: the ocean isn’t as acidic as vinegar or dilute vinegar; rate of change is faster in the illustration. Then she shows the photos of pterapods in sea water at the ph expected at current rates of change, and the change over time.
How fast? 100x faster than any change in acidity experienced by marine organisms in at least 20 million years.
When do corals start to fail? Mid-century.
When do pterapods get compromised badly? End of this century.
Roughly 2/3 of the published research has been since 2004.
Sadly, SM is as usual reposting talking points not looking at primary sources.
We need better septics.
#84–
I knew all that sounded familiar. Thanks, Hank.
As I said a while back, removal of context is reliably a staple denialist tactic. It’s always good to check the sources–there’s nothing so well-phrased that it can’t be twisted by a determined propagandist. They’ll just change a few words if need be. . . as, for example, has been repeatedly done in the “hide the decline” affair (where it has often been falsely claimed that climate data was altered), or the “it hasn’t warmed since 1995” meme, where the word “significant” is often excised.
#79, 83–Yes, it would be rather remarkable if human emissions were somehow able to increase the c. 80% of atmospheric mass accounted for by N2! Increased NOX, on the other hand, seems a sure bet, even without the interesting story that Gail pointed to.
73, CM: Not Hansen’s 1988 projections, I presume. As has been repeatedly discussed on this blog, they have lately turned out to be on the high side, but nowhere near what you’re insinuating.
81, One Anonymous Bloke: Sure, scientists can always look for better ways to communicate, so let’s just imagine how that’s going to go: Scientist “we have determined finding A is a significant factor in phenomenon B”. Congressman Shill (Rep): “You used a trick to hide the decline!”
As far as I can tell from reading the archives, James Hansen’s written testimony to Congress has always been pretty good — a little on the high side (perhaps, but it’s too soon to tell), but very reasonable.
70, CM: 2. Government employees are “net recipients” of taxes because they are net producers of public goods and services. This means they do work. Pay for work is considered fair exchange.
I agree with that. My comment was about people who think that working for the government is superior to working for the companies that are taxed by the government. I am glad that I don’t work for the cigarette companies (or substitute your favorite evil company), but were I paid out of taxes paid by cigarette smokers I would not claim any moral superiority.
71, CM: Do you also think it’s silly and misleading to use the contents of a fruit bowl to illustrate the motion of planets in the solar system, since the Sun is not an orange, and the planets are not plums?
It would depend on the claim being made, wouldn’t it? You wouldn’t claim that the plum and orange accurately represented the respective masses or sizes of the earth and sun, would you? You wouldn’t claim that the your orbits of the fruits had the correct sizes relative to the sizes of the fruits, orbits of the planets, and sizes of the sun and planets, would you? You wouldn’t claim that your planets had the same constituents as the plums, would you? You wouldn’t claim to be able to predict the future of the sun from the rotting of the orange, would you?
To answer somebody’s question, chalk is what remains after everything else has rotted away; nothing living is made from chalk, but from HCO3 incorporated into complex biological matrices. Dumping chalk into vinegar is a metaphor for nothing that is going to happen.
If it is true that climate scientists have never said anything worth mocking, then my comments are moot. Did climate scientists never make predictions of permanent drought in the Sierra Nevada Mountains or Queensland Australia, or predict ever increasing hurricanne activity after 2005? Did no one ever predict a 2C – 4C rise in temps in the 2000s?
#2 That comment seems to me to be admirable and correct and congratulations to them for saying it.
Ray,
I am beginning to think that you are the one not paying attention. If you continue to forego the science for politics, then I think you will remain ignorant of the facts. I will give you point #4, because the planet has neither warmed nor cooled during that timeframe. I agree that point #2 is irrelevent, so I do not see wh y skeptical science is addressing it. Other than that, their rebuttals are laughable, especially #3. I cannot believe that people are taken in by that survey. The denailists are even using it to show how many scientists do not believe that the world has warmed. I cannot believe that you would agree with them.
> nothing living is made from chalk, but from
> HCO3 incorporated into complex biological matrices.
You believe this, why?
What source are you relying on for this belief?
Why do you trust your source?
Perhaps reading would help.
I suggest Google Scholar would like to be your friend.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=white+cliff+dover+fossil+image
will find for example this:
[PDF] What Corals are Dying to Tell Us About CO2
K Caldeira – Oceanography, 2007
“The word “Cretaceous” comes from the
Latin word creta, meaning chalk, a form
of calcium carbonate. The famous white
cliffs of Dover consist of chalk depos-
ited during the Cretaceous period in
the form of billions of shells of micro-
scopic organisms. These organisms were
mostly coccolithophores, single-celled
algae enclosed within calcium carbonate
shells. Hence, the Cretaceous is named
for the chalky deposits produced by
abundant marine microorganisms with
calcium carbonate shells….”
Septic Matthew #86, #87 “Did Climate scientists…” You’re the only one saying they did, and now you’re asking whether it’s true or not. You also allege the existence of “…people who think that working for the government is superior…” In a day or so, will you start asking whether they exist too? I don’t think you actually have any evidence to support your assertions at all.
P.S. for SM:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kjQ4AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA109
I also recommend p. 185.
Re. 24 Harold Pierce Jr — \According to the EPA, CO2 is a pollutant that is harmful to humans. If this is true, then why are we permitted to drink hundreds of billions (and billions and billions!) of liters of carbonated beverages?\
* United States Environmental Protection Agency – Aquatic Life: Ocean Acidification and Marine pH
* Geological Society press release – Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown ‘by end of century’
* Papers on ocean acidification/a>
* The 800 lb. Gorilla in the Ocean
* Ocean acidification: global warming’s evil twin
* Anoxic event
* New Film on Ocean Acidification Reveals Unseen Face of CO2 Pollution
* Ocean acidification disorients fish, riles up scientists
* An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification
There you go. In case you’re in the USA, you can now write to your legislator and tell them to get off the EPA’s back. But in advance and just in case…
New climate disinformer fad: Ocean acidification denial
Septic Matthew, Uh, just exactly where did you see gummint employees claiming superiority over corporate workers? Good Lord, Man, do you even live in the same country I do? Gummint workers have been utterly slandered by politicians ever since Reagan!
And as to whether any climate scientist has ever said anything risible, that simply misses the point. In science, we rely on the consensus and not on what any single scientist says. The consensus among active scientists–constrained by the best available evidence–has an excellent record of prognostication.
The consensus among denialists–constrained by…well, mostly making crap up–not so much. Ridicule is just about the only strategy I know of for treating those who employ the ridiculous strategy of refusing to consider the evidence.
Dan H.@89, Hmm, I saw no reference to politics in my post. I saw facts–facts that you very carefully avoided in your reply. Now why was that, I wonder. I would also note that 3 (the number of points you even bothered to sidestep) is not equal to 10 (the number of points you claimed were absurd).
So, Dan, why, if there has been no warming since 1998 was 2010 the warmest year on record–and this despite being a much less severe El Nino than 1998? Why are the 10 warmest years but 1 all in the past decade?
Also, the claim of consensus is not based on a single study. Even Bray and von Storch find similar numbers. Moreover, you again utterly failed to address my second point–the fact that no professional or honorific society of scientsts dissents from the consensus position. Must have slipped your mind, huh?
Maybe you’d care to actually address the facts in the arguments, Dan, rather than simply whistling past the graveyard. Or we’ll sweep up the ashes of your credibility (it’s not much of a job) and leave them for you by the door.
FWIW, there is a major difference between nitrogen (N2) molecules in the atmosphere and nitrogen atoms in the biosphere. Basically the latter are NOx, N2O and various nitrates. There is no measurable difference on N2 mixing ratios in the atmosphere. Again, FWIW, there are minor (ppm) variations in O2 mixing rations which can be attributed to humans. (google Ralph Keeling)
SM’s offering fits in the denial-contradictions collection:
“CO2 is life” and “nothing living is made from chalk” are a pair.
“I will give you point #4, because the planet has neither warmed nor cooled during that timeframe.” Dan H. — 27 Mar 2011 @ 6:34 PM
Now that’s laughable. Also counterfactual, fallacious, false, faulty, in error, incorrect, mistaken, specious, and untrue. In short, Dan H’s unsupported bloviations suggest he may be a troll.
84, Hank Roberts: When do corals start to fail? Mid-century.
When do pterapods get compromised badly? End of this century.
I have written too much for one thread already, but I will say that those are testable hypotheses. My prediction is that the population levels will fluctuate independently of atmospheric/ocean CO2 concentration; the frequencies of genes and mechanisms sensitive to CO2 will change, but not as much as when mosquitoes adapt to pesticides. Too bad we won’t be around to see which hypotheses fair the best.
#97–But “neither warmed nor cooled” is almost true, if by “that timeframe” you mean 2002 to the present!
What’s really laughable is the implicit argument that hey, “3% of climate scientists is a whole lot of people!”