Topic: Global Warming

[KJP]

Restored from the yet-to-be-cleaned purgatory, just in time for the Copenhagen summit.

Let the debate begin -- again!!

[David]

Let the debate begin -- again!!

*swallows 4 tylenol*

[Hootenany]

Alright!  One of my favorite threads... back from the dead!

Obvious topic of discussion are the hacked emails from East Anglia University that some say prove scientists there are manipulating data to get a specific result.  The EPA has said recently that these revalations change nothing about the "concensus" on climate change.  What gives?

http://thehill.com//blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/70943-epa-chief-the-hacked-emails-dont-change-a-thing

Obviously this changes SOMETHING.  Some of the data is now in question and should be scrutinized.  The more appalling revolution for me in this whole controversy was the fact that a group of global warming scientists had snuffed out all dissenting voices at a certain peer-review journal in effect making the journal a collection of commentaries rather than a collection of scientific research. 

[KJP]

After going through all the pages to clean them up, I saw you posted a lot, so I figured you'd be one to miss this puppy! 

And if you go through all of the pages, you'll notice that my M.O. became:
1. post controversial article to stir up some sh!t
2. walk away
3. sh!t is stirred up 
4. come back a few weeks later to post another sh!t-stirring article
5. wash/rinse/repeat
 

[Keith]

Obvious topic of discussion are the hacked emails from East Anglia University that some say prove scientists there are manipulating data to get a specific result.  The EPA has said recently that these revalations change nothing about the "concensus" on climate change.  What gives?

The emails don't change most of what we know about climate change. They just give us a perspective that some of the data has been cleaned up a bit to highlight the overall trend. Obviously what was done was wrong, and this makes all the research and writings from this University suspect, but it doesn't change the research done by other governments, schools and other organizations.

Obviously this changes SOMETHING.  Some of the data is now in question and should be scrutinized. 

I agree completely. It's unfortunate, but I think that a lot of the data is going to have to be double checked at a minimum and possibly thrown out if it can't be verified.

The more appalling revolution for me in this whole controversy was the fact that a group of global warming scientists had snuffed out all dissenting voices at a certain peer-review journal in effect making the journal a collection of commentaries rather than a collection of scientific research. 

I agree. Intentionally hushing up dissenting opinions and controversial research is unscientific, morally wrong, and considering the significance we place on the this subject, should be illigal (if it isn't already).

[Hts121]

Like this debate ever really hinged on "data"....

[Hootenany]

^What do you mean?

Data has shown that we are in a warming period.  That can't really be disputed (unless you're looking at the recent cooling trend over the last 8-10 years).  What the debate really hinges on is what is causing the warming.  Some say it's all man-made and some say that it's mostly sun driven.  Either way the debate needs to take place to determine what the corrective action is (if any). 

The problem started when the green movement and its counterpart were hijacked by corporations and special interests thus polarizing the entire nation on the issue.  The attitude that "if you're against CO2 sequestering as a method of stopping climate change then you must enjoy clubbing baby seals," must end.  Or "if you drive a Prius you must eat tofu and throw blood on fur coats."  It's ridiculous.

My argument against CO2 emission limits is that the reduction is CO2 emissions is going to do NOTHING to change the current climate trend.  I don't believe the data is there to prove that a reduction of X amount of CO2 will result in cooling of X degrees.  Without sufficient proof that CO2 emissions reductions will work to stop or slow climate change it is inappropriate to wreck the world's largest economies in an attempt to control something that is beyond our control.  Even then we would need to determine if the cost is worth whatever climate change is derived.  We're all for a cleaner planet, but much of this CO2 nonesense has nothing to do with that.

[Hts121]

What I mean is that this topic has been perverted by partisan politics on both sides.  Much more often than not on this specific topic, one's political affiliation determines which side of the debate he/she comes out on.  We have too many advocates and not enough scientists weighing in on an issue that, at its nuts and bolts, is all about science.

[KJP]

OK, how's this for a debate-fueler??

Was Russian secret service behind leak of climate-change emails?
FSB accused of paying hackers to discredit scientists after stolen correspondence traced to server in Siberia
By Shaun Walker
Monday, 7 December 2009

The news that a leaked set of emails appeared to show senior climate scientists had manipulated data was shocking enough. Now the story has become more remarkable still.

The computer hack, said a senior member of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, was not an amateur job, but a highly sophisticated, politically motivated operation. And others went further. The guiding hand behind the leaks, the allegation went, was that of the Russian secret services.

The leaked emails, which claimed to provide evidence that the unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, colluded with colleagues to manipulate data and hide "unhelpful" research from critics of climate change science, were originally posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, at a firm called Tomcity, an internet security business.

READ MORE AT:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-service-behind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.html

[noozer]

EPA gives legal teeth to war on warming
Agency declares CO2, other gases a peril to public health
Tuesday,  December 8, 2009 3:04 AM
By Spencer Hunt

The U.S. EPA officially declared carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming a threat to public health, a major step toward enacting limits on climate-changing pollutants.

Yesterday's announcement was timed to coincide with an international summit on climate change underway in Denmark and was seen as a move to pressure Congress to pass its own limits.

It was a legal step the Environmental Protection Agency must take before it can limit carbon dioxide produced by vehicles, factories and power plants.

Full story at:
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2009/12/08/copy/EPAwarming.ART_ART_12-08-09_A1_K1FU5MG.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

[Ram23]

What I mean is that this topic has been perverted by partisan politics on both sides.  Much more often than not on this specific topic, one's political affiliation determines which side of the debate he/she comes out on.  We have too many advocates and not enough scientists weighing in on an issue that, at its nuts and bolts, is all about science.

When even the scientists are caught up in the politics game and picking sides, which the emails illustrate pretty clearly, there's no real way to ever make it about science. 

[David]

When even the scientists are caught up in the politics game and picking sides, which the emails illustrate pretty clearly, there's no real way to ever make it about science. 

Same problem with economics. Though no one would expect climatologists to be as bad!

[Hts121]

What I mean is that this topic has been perverted by partisan politics on both sides.  Much more often than not on this specific topic, one's political affiliation determines which side of the debate he/she comes out on.  We have too many advocates and not enough scientists weighing in on an issue that, at its nuts and bolts, is all about science.

When even the scientists are caught up in the politics game and picking sides, which the emails illustrate pretty clearly, there's no real way to ever make it about science. 

These scientists were "busted"... no doubt about it.  I think the planet earth has a few other scientists though who have looked at this issue.  We can't damn the whole profession for the actions of a very few.  And I am POSITIVE, some of the data opponents have relied on in the past has been skewed as well.  I just think that everyone, especially the public, needs to put politics aside on this one.  You have a picture of John Boehner as your avatar.... so, I would bet my paycheck that you are a skeptic.  If somebody had a Nancy Pelosi avatar, I would safely assume they are a proponent and that is disappointing. 

I just don't get how this all became so politicized.  It is not like we are talking about gay marriage or abortion, where religious beliefs will commonly restrict one's viewpoint to one side of the debate or the other.  This is about the well-being of the Earth and the well-being of our global economies. 

[X]

What I mean is that this topic has been perverted by partisan politics on both sides.  Much more often than not on this specific topic, one's political affiliation determines which side of the debate he/she comes out on.  We have too many advocates and not enough scientists weighing in on an issue that, at its nuts and bolts, is all about science.

When even the scientists are caught up in the politics game and picking sides, which the emails illustrate pretty clearly, there's no real way to ever make it about science. 

A neat trick, that.  Start an argument with someone who's doing work you don't like, then say that since they're on one side of an argument, their work isn't to be trusted.  I'm sure there's a lesson about poisoning the wells of public debate in their, but I'm sure the lesson will come too late.

[Boreas]

The rapacious philosophy of drill, mine, and pollute has pushed the otherwise moderate or Republican scientists into the Democratic Party.  If you were concerned about protecting habitat, how on Earth could you vote for Bush/Cheney or Voinovich? 

John McCain was in favor of climate protection, but he did not emphasize it enough in the election so he lost those aforementioned swing voters.  Bush 41 actually advocated environmental protection policies and *wanted* to be known as "the Environmental President".  I could not imagine any contemporary Republican saying that and campaigning on the environment.  The extreme RWers would find another candidate and "primary" him out of office.  (See Scozzafava, NY-23, Nov 2009).

Meanwhile in Britain, the Conservative (Tory) Party tries to outdo the Liberal Party by advocating more protective climate protection policies than their rivals.  Why can't American Republicans be "responsible" like their brethren on the other side of the ocean? 

Get a real haircut and get a job
Why can't you be like your big brother Bob??

[Hootenany]

It all comes down to taxes.  Those on the right view those on the left as using global warming as an excuse to tax the hell out of everyone in the name of "saving the planet".  That is how it became so politicized.  Apparently climate protection isn't cheap and those on the left don't seem to care too much.  More affordable proposals are needed or nothing will get done.

[David]

Environmental regulations are costly. I thought that's why Republicans are against the whole global warming thing.

[CleveChiNola]

if they simply reframed the argument, I am sure most Americans would rally behind it.
  For instance, instead of talking CO2, carbon credits, etc, measure the amount of imported oil each year.  Say we want to cut the amount of imported oil in half in 20 years.  A lot of people on the right would be all for it, especially if a little bit of leaway was given to producing more domestic oil.
  Since oil markets are a commodity, and there really isn't any way to separate domestic oil production from foreign oil imports, a 50% reduction in imported oil would roughly be a 50% reduction overall. 

But with politics, on both sides, the results matter the least, sticking it to the other guy matters the most.

[Hts121]

It all comes down to taxes.  Those on the right view those on the left as using global warming as an excuse to tax the hell out of everyone in the name of "saving the planet".  That is how it became so politicized.  Apparently climate protection isn't cheap and those on the left don't seem to care too much.  More affordable proposals are needed or nothing will get done.

But the global warming skeptics are the same people who spare none of my tax money ousting foreign leaders and setting up faux democracies around the globe.  I think we have reached the intersection of Standard and Standard.

You are correct that the right wing considers it a giant conspiracy and claim there is a hidden agenda.  But why?  It's simple - because their leaders (cough, cough Limbaugh) tell them it is.  Agree or disagree with global warming (and I, thankfully, have no opinion), I can assure you that it is NOT a conspiracy to justify raised taxes or bigger government - Nor is there a conspiracy amongst white people to "hold the black man down" since we are on the topic of conspiracies.  The people who advocate for climate protection genuinely believe that the proposed measures are vital to our very existence.  They may be wrong in their predictions, but their hearts are in the right place.

[Boreas]

& The global warming skeptics are the same people who spare none of my tax money building useless weapon systems.  We are still deploying a fleet of submarines to match the dreaded Soviets--an empire that ended 20 years ago and was moribund 30 years ago.

[Hootenany]

^Let's stop with the generalizations.  There are a few anti-war Republicans (see Ron Paul), all of whom I tend to agree with.  On the other hand there are plenty of Democrats out there that continue to feed our bloated military.  Most of them have military suppliers in their districts, so it's understandable that they would support the construction of submarines which would bring thousands of jobs to their district.

In short, I would support reducing the size of our military in exchange for more investment in "green" technology (save carbon sequestering) so long as it creates manufacturing jobs. 

[Civvik]

& The global warming skeptics are the same people who spare none of my tax money building useless weapon systems.  We are still deploying a fleet of submarines to match the dreaded Soviets--an empire that ended 20 years ago and was moribund 30 years ago.

Now we are building them to match the Chinese.

[Boreas]

The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked... --Herman Goering, of the Third Reich fame

[kingfish out of water]

^Let's leave Hitler/Nazis out of this, please.

kthx

[kingfish out of water]

Some perspective:
      
ClimateGate: The 6 Most Dubious Claims About The Supposed "Global Warming Hoax"

A few weeks ago, hackers broke into the emails of one of the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and climate skeptics have been having a field day making mountains out of molehills about what the emails contain. The verdict on global warming is in -- it's caused by humans and it is happening and nothing in the emails challenges that. However, with the internet abuzz about what has been labeled "ClimateGate," we thought we should set the record straight about the rumors, lies and insinuations about what the emails actually contain -- and what they "prove" about climate change. "ClimateGate" itself is a misnomer. Perhaps the nickname should be "SwiftHack" for the way people with political agendas have "swiftboated" the global warming reality. As world attention turns to the climate conference in Copenhagen this December, this email hack acts as a distraction from the huge task at hand of getting world leaders to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As professor Richard Somerville says, "We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public."

Check out our slideshow and pick what you think the most dubious claim that is being spread by skeptics about the emails.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

[AmrapinVA]

EPA gives legal teeth to war on warming
Agency declares CO2, other gases a peril to public health
Tuesday,  December 8, 2009 3:04 AM
By Spencer Hunt

The U.S. EPA officially declared carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming a threat to public health, a major step toward enacting limits on climate-changing pollutants.

Yesterday's announcement was timed to coincide with an international summit on climate change underway in Denmark and was seen as a move to pressure Congress to pass its own limits.

It was a legal step the Environmental Protection Agency must take before it can limit carbon dioxide produced by vehicles, factories and power plants.

Full story at:
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2009/12/08/copy/EPAwarming.ART_ART_12-08-09_A1_K1FU5MG.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

If there wasn't any CO2 on this planet, life wouldn't exist. Why not just ban carbon and oxygen and eliminate the "middle man"? We can put a "cap and trade" program on the Sun.

[Boreas]

^not very insightful.

[kingfish out of water]

But typical.

[Hootenany]

The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is to tell them that they are being attacked... --Herman Goering, of the Third Reich fame

How true this quote is!  Sounds a bit like what some global warming fanatics (see Al Gore) are doing to convince the World that drastic action must be taken.  We are being attacked by CO2 and we MUST act!

[AmrapinVA]

What I mean is that this topic has been perverted by partisan politics on both sides.  Much more often than not on this specific topic, one's political affiliation determines which side of the debate he/she comes out on.  We have too many advocates and not enough scientists weighing in on an issue that, at its nuts and bolts, is all about science.

When even the scientists are caught up in the politics game and picking sides, which the emails illustrate pretty clearly, there's no real way to ever make it about science. 

These scientists were "busted"... no doubt about it.  I think the planet earth has a few other scientists though who have looked at this issue.  We can't damn the whole profession for the actions of a very few.  And I am POSITIVE, some of the data opponents have relied on in the past has been skewed as well.  I just think that everyone, especially the public, needs to put politics aside on this one.  You have a picture of John Boehner as your avatar.... so, I would bet my paycheck that you are a skeptic.  If somebody had a Nancy Pelosi avatar, I would safely assume they are a proponent and that is disappointing. 

I just don't get how this all became so politicized.  It is not like we are talking about gay marriage or abortion, where religious beliefs will commonly restrict one's viewpoint to one side of the debate or the other.  This is about the well-being of the Earth and the well-being of our global economies. 

There are plenty of "well-being" issues that are concrete. Issues with overpopulation and nuclear weapons come to mind. Why do we need to stretch science into the nether regions in order for people to take action about saving the planet? A small scale nuclear war would end the global warming debate, forever. It's a very real and growing threat, much more so than "global warming". Yet, everybody acts like since the Cold War is over these weapons have wiped themselves off the Earth, when there are tens-of-thousands of them. Always seemed strange to me.

[Hootenany]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

[AmrapinVA]

^not very insightful.

Rather be scientific than "insightful".

[AmrapinVA]

But typical.

Thanks for the compliment. I am usually scientifcally correct on this subject!

[noozer]

NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman poses an interesting question in his latest column: If we take agressive steps to deal with climate change and it turns out to be a hoax.... wouldn't we still wind up stronger and more energy independent?

December 9, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Going Cheney on Climate
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

In 2006, Ron Suskind published “The One Percent Doctrine,” a book about the U.S. war on terrorists after 9/11. The title was drawn from an assessment by then-Vice President Dick Cheney, who, in the face of concerns that a Pakistani scientist was offering nuclear-weapons expertise to Al Qaeda, reportedly declared: “If there’s a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Cheney contended that the U.S. had to confront a very new type of threat: a “low-probability, high-impact event.”

Soon after Suskind’s book came out, the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who then was at the University of Chicago, pointed out that Mr. Cheney seemed to be endorsing the same “precautionary principle” that also animated environmentalists. Sunstein wrote in his blog: “According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change. Indeed, another vice president — Al Gore — can be understood to be arguing for a precautionary principle for climate change (though he believes that the chance of disaster is well over 1 percent).”

Of course, Mr. Cheney would never accept that analogy. Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well.

Fullcolumn at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?th&emc=th

[AmrapinVA]

^Overpopulation is talked about very little and it kind of surprises me.  The easiest way to cap or reduce CO2 emissions is to cap or reduce the global population.  You'd think you'd hear more about this from the climate science community.  Maybe it's not talked about because it just isn't practical.  I guess you can't really mandate that people don't have children or only have a certain number of children.  That wouldn't work in a democracy and it didn't work very well in China either.

You're right, Hoot. In fact most of the "climate change" concrete examples simply overlook the fact that overpopulation or some other issue has a bigger footprint. Take the Sahara. It's growing, nobody is arguing that. Thirty years ago it seemed pretty obvious that the growth was due to poor farming techniques and that the areas to the south of the Sahara were having a pronounced population boom draining the limited water resources (such as the source of the Niger River) to their limit.

Now, this is thinking is ancient history. CO2 is to blame. Somehow a power plant in Germany dried up the undeground aquifers and rivers, not farming and overuse. The local population gets off the hook, the West gets the blame and the Sahara will grow because money being thrown at improving these peoples lives are now spent on computer simulations proving the end of the world is near or building wind-turbines in non-windy places. Not surprisingly the First World is preaching and The Third World gets the shaft, again.