Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

“Near Certainty” on Humans and Global Warming

—

by

Peter Galuszka
in , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

cooch-ageddonBy Peter Galuszka

Here’s some red meat for global warming deniers: A draft report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there’s “near certainty” that humans cause global warming.

This is the group of hundreds of scientists and other experts who review global warming data under the auspices of the United Nations and are the ones deniers, especially gubernatorial candidate Kenneth Cuccinelli  and some ‘local bloggers,” love to attack.

In their latest draft, the scientists retreated “slightly” from their earlier predictions. They had said that the planet could rise by a low number of 3.6 degrees. Now they say it is 2.7 degrees.

That’s the low. If the number is closer to 5 degrees, there will be enormous consequences for planet earth by the start of the next century.

Climatologists, including former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann who figured in Atty. Gen. Cuccinelli’s witch hunt for emails, have criticized the report saying that experts have been bullied by politicians into softening their estimates. Mann said that the IPCC “has once again erred on the side of understating the degree of the likely changes.”

The larger point is that global warming is real and that humans are the most recent cause – however politicized the reporting process is.

Cuccinelli, meanwhile, seems to have gotten a lot more hay out of playing tough guy with Mann. His gubernatorial platform for Virginia’s economy is going nowhere, The Washington Post says.

In an editorial today, the Post notes that Cuccinellui’s slender plan does call for cutting business taxes by one third and personal income taxes by 13 percent. That would mean $1.4 billion lost in state revenue.

Sounds great. Also less filling. What Cuccinelli does not really say is what happens after you cut the revenue. Obviously services would have to be cut, but what businesses would want to move to Virginia if their workers have to contend with crappy schools and roads. Cuccinelli doesn’t address the problem.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, meanwhile, took time out yesterday to announce a $600 million plus budget surplus. Sounds great. But then, the government and his wife Maureen were also spending part of their day talking to federal prosecutors about whether they should be charged in connection with the Star Scientific case.

(Image from Style Weekly)

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

22 responses to ““Near Certainty” on Humans and Global Warming”

  1. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Peter, I’m still waiting for the scientists too: 1) explain the extremely warm Middle Ages; 2) the very cold Medieval Period; and 3) disclose their current and intended sources of funding. They might well be right, but why doesn’t the media ask these questions?

    And surprise, surprise, surprise – Fred Hiatt and Lee Hockstader support higher taxes. Neither has the knowledge of what they write about. They were the same clowns who supported Mark Warner’s tax increases because they “benefited schools, public safety and social services.” Never mind that the net cost to Fairfax County was $107 million for the first year and that FCPS got back a whopping $7 million in additional school spending, while 49 localities cut local tax support for public schools. Real journalists would have known the facts. Hiatt and Hockstader lack the basic competence and ethics to call themselves journalists. That also explains some of the reasons why the Post sold for a mere $250 million.

    I know quite a few Republicans, Democrats and Independents who volunteer their time to better the interests of Fairfax County residents. They take the time to learn the facts. Too bad, we suffer with a dishonest and incompetent editorial board from the area’s largest, but sinking, media company.

    1. jft Avatar
      jft

      TMT,

      1. The Medieval Warm Period involved higher temperatures only in some regions, but global temperatures were not as warm as they are today. Further, the causes for the regional warming from that period have been explained – higher average solar radition, less volcanic activity, and possibly changes in ocean circulation patterns. See for more information.

      2. I’m not sure what you are referring to with regards to a “very cold Medieval Period” but perhaps this page or this page can provide the answer you are looking for.

      3. There is no indication that climate change scientists are funded by special interests groups (unlike climate change “skeptics” who are typically associated with one or more industry-funded anti-science think tanks). See this article for a longer discussion of the issue. Most climate change scientists work for universities or government agencies, which means that they receive funding through university and/or government grants, which are usually announced both by the recipient and the grant-making organization. For example, you can see a list of awards from the National Science Foundation here. A search using the keyword “climate” returns 3000 hits, and it is likely that many more awards exist.

      The sources of funding for climate change scientists are not a problem, and those sources do not cast any doubt on the actual science. This is a confusing issue for climate change “skeptics”, because they are used to having all of their reports criticized for being funded by entrenched business interests that are opposed to proposals limiting emissions. But the truth is that anti-climate change reports are routinely debunked solely because of the reports’ bad science, not because of the reports’ funding sources.

      The funding of “skeptical” articles is usually reported as well, but that’s because this makes for good drama – which drives viewership (which is critical for the economic survival of certain very liberal media sources). So there’s really two conversations going on: the climate change scientists who read and respond to the anti-climate change “scientists” (who are generally not scientists in the field of climate change), and the liberal media versus the conservative media.

      Ignoring the shenanigans between journalists, all of whom are essentially putting on a show to generate pageviews, we see that the underlying scientific discussion is overwhelmingly in support of the existence of climate change – and this is true regardless of funding sources (which are generally public knowledge anyway).

      1. TMT Avatar
        TMT

        jft – You used a lot of words to say nothing. You didn’t explain how the Middle Ages could be warm without carbon emissions. That’s the entire point. Climate scientists claim human caused behavior – carbon emissions — is causing global warming. Ergo, no spike in carbon emissions; the temperatures should not be “above average.” Where is the explanation?

        And, as I recall from the 70s, the climate scientists were predicting a new ice age – even in the face of all the data about increased carbon emission It’s called credibility. How can the same cause — human behavior causing increased carbon emissions, which in turn causes both a coming ice age and GW?

        If you hire an expert to testify in court, the expert is going to do his/her best to support your position. If a foundation gives a climate scientist a grant to research global warming, why should I believe the scientist do his/her best to support the conclusion of global warming? Climate science is geared to produce a desired result — global warming. It’s not the type of science where the goal is to learn more about our world. If it were, we’d see a more vigorous debate. We’d hear the experts talking about the Middle Ages and the 1970s’ ice age predictions.

        1. larryg Avatar
          larryg

          TMT – there IS debate within the scientific community about this – but there are other reasons why the earth can warm and they are looking at more than one indicator of warming from THIS reason.

          In EVERY science there are varying perspectives about something but when a consensus is reached – it’s not something to ignore … the people who agree have reached a point where they are convinced about some aspects… and there is much more that goes into their assessment than you or I.

          this is for ALL scientific inquiry…. why is there a different credibility standard ONLY for this one?

          You know even when science was looking at cigarettes and cancer – there was , and remains, some disagreement because they could not – and still cannot tell you PRECISELY the exact way that cancer results from smoking – but they are convinced of enough other aspects to it to arrive at a consensus.

          The cigarette industry used this less than 100% agreement and certainty to attack the science and the scientists – if you recall.

          1. TMT Avatar
            TMT

            I think it is reasonably possible that there is GW and it could be affected by carbon emissions. I think it is also possible that earth has experienced substantial climate changes that are not related to carbon emissions. I don’t think the scientists know enough to differentiate between the two. I don’t think the scientists have explained why there were major changes in climate during periods where there is no evidence of major increases in carbon emissions. I don’t think scientists have been honest enough to explain why, using the same types of data, many predicted a new ice age just 30-some years ago.

            I believe that many climate scientists would jigger results to keep the funding flowing. What differentiates them from the many experts who write papers and testify on behalf of their funders/clients? I would ask the same questions of a scientist who argued that GW didn’t exist.

            There’s money to be made by doing work that concludes GW is caused by human behavior. There is no money in doing work that finds other causes for changes in climate. And those who take the first path are excused from having to explain fundamental inconsistencies in their “science.” Does that mean they are necessarily wrong? No. But why do they get a pass? I wouldn’t give them one if I were cross-examining them.

  2. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    the GW issue has become an iconic “cause” of those who do not trust govt or institutions especially if there are “liberals” involved.

    take other fields of science like hurricane modelling or tsunami prediction or asteroids on a possible collision course and the folks who worry about the science involved with global warming could give a rat’s behind about the science associated with these other things.

    not that they’d really be able to understand at the level a PHD with a life-long career might understand – anyhow.

    there are no global conspiracies about scientists predicting hurricanes with “flawed” methodology that that virtually not a single hurricane has been precisely predicted in terms of path and severity… witness how much worse recent ones have been than initially predicted…yet no outcries about “hockey sticks” and other conspiracies… nope.

    Oh.. and then of course.. it’s also the media’s fault for not also seriously doubting ..since of course they’re liberals also and thoroughly in bed with those nasty liberal scientists … both the scientists and the media – around the planet involved in a global conspiracy about …hurricane modelling… oops… nope… global warming…

  3. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    Larry, are my questions unreasonable? As I’ve written many times, I don’t necessarily doubt climate change or the impact of carbon emissions, but I sue would like to test the credibility of those seeking more government money and control.

  4. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    TMT – are they consistent with regard to other science, hurricane predication or the CFC issue in the 80’s?

    Why is GW – subjected to a different standard of “skepticism” than lots of other science – today – and in the past?

    The very same scientists at NOAA and NASA that we believe for hurricanes and CFCs and other science are cast as “lying liberals” engaged in a Global Conspiracy on GW.

    for me – I do not understand how the very same scientists can be considered credible on some science and liars on other science.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Larry, here’s the difference: Hurricane researchers don’t assume the mantle of hurricane science in order to make audacious claims, based not on science but on ideology, about how to re-order the global economy in order to reduce hurricane damage.

      The Global Warmists don’t simply assert that man-made global warming is occurring, they further assert (1) that the warming will be universally detrimental, if not catastrophic, a proposition not subject to empirical proof or disproof until it does or does not happen decades from now, (2) that the only way to prevent said tragedy is to reduce C02 emissions, and that the only way to reduce C02 emissions is to restructure the global economy along lines that happen to be congenial to liberals, progressives and other statists.

      Only a liberal would have the audacity to assert that the preceding three statements are “settled science” and denounce skeptics as anti-scientific know-nothings. Quite extraordinary!

      1. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        what “mantle”? there is none.. it’s a figment of the right’s imagination.

        the climate science folks do the same exact thing the hurricane folks do – and with the same problems, errors, and inconsistencies.

        saying the climate scientist “assert” damage is laughable. It’s like you saying that it’s wrong for a hurricane scientist to rate the strength of a hurricane.

        what “empirical proof” do you require of hurricane science?

        it sound like if a hurricane was predicted to be really, really big and potentially cause catastrophic damage – the cost would influence your beliefs…

        so you’re okay with hurricane damage costs but not global warming costs… so you believe the first and disbelieve the second.

        that’s about as anti-science as one can get

      2. larryg Avatar
        larryg

        ” The Global Warmists don’t simply assert that man-made global warming is occurring, they further assert (1) that the warming will be universally detrimental, if not catastrophic, a proposition not subject to empirical proof or disproof until it does or does not happen decades from now, (2) that the only way to prevent said tragedy is to reduce C02 emissions, and that the only way to reduce C02 emissions is to restructure the global economy along lines that happen to be congenial to liberals, progressives and other statists.”

        how does that differ from the CFC issue? were you calling the CFC scientists “liberals, progressives and statists” then?

        what changed? If we had the CFC issues today – would you now oppose it?

  5. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    My political/economic issues with GW in contrast to other weather/climate-related subjects is: those studying hurricanes (or tornadoes or big snow/ice storms) are not trying to have major taxes imposed on the public or give regulatory agencies substantially more authority to regulate people’s lives and the economy.

    Indeed, the States of New York and New Jersey are fighting efforts by Verizon to avoid rebuilding a wireline network on several barrier islands in those two states to be replaced by Verizon’s wireless network. Yet, it’s pretty well decided that not building or rebuilding houses, etc., on barrier islands would reduce the impact of hurricane damage. Verizon’s position is consistent with that view of the world.

    I’ve attended a number of public meetings where Enviros demand people be forced to pay more for energy, higher taxes, grant more authority to the EPA, etc., because of GW.

    I am also skeptical of people getting paid to be experts. Every expert in court is tested as to whether he/she is biased or developed an opinion simply to support the paying party. So why shouldn’t “scientists,” who are getting paid to foster GW not also subject to the same scrutiny?

    I’d like answers to my original questions.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      re: ” My political/economic issues with GW in contrast to other weather/climate-related subjects is: those studying hurricanes (or tornadoes or big snow/ice storms) are not trying to have major taxes imposed on the public or give regulatory agencies substantially more authority to regulate people’s lives and the economy.”

      TMT – do you consider increased insurance premiums, denial of insurance coverage, re-drawing of FEMA flood maps – as the equivalent of taxes and regulation that affects people’s lives and economy?

      Many homes in the Sandy-affected area of NJ are either no longer insurable or the premiums will triple or they have to jack up the whole house.

      do you consider these costs to people to be unfair govt policy?

      If we have 4 or 5 more hurricanes like Sandy up and down the East Coast to affect places like Norfolk, Savannah, Jacksonville, Miami.. would you believe that the ’cause’ was the science predicting it?

  6. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” are not trying to have major taxes imposed on the public or give regulatory agencies substantially more authority to regulate people’s lives and the economy.”

    did they do that with CFCs?

    why would you dispute the science – no matter what the costs downstream might be or not?

    science does not make policy decisions. they do the science – like they did with CFCs. why did you not dispute science when they determined that CFCs were too high and potentially damaging to the earth if nothing was done?

    are you deciding how much science you’ll believe based on how expensive the recommendations might be?

    what if you are wrong and the science was right ? are you so sure that science is wrong that you’re willing to gamble on the outcome ?

    why was that not the result with CFCs?

    re: ” So why shouldn’t “scientists,” who are getting paid to foster GW not also subject to the same scrutiny?”

    ALL scientists get PAID for ALL science TMT.

    WHY do you select JUST ONE TYPE of science to make this point?

    are you doubting that scientists that are PAID to study hurricanes are BIASED? Cancer? why not? why do you ONLY suspect the ones that are
    paid to study GW?

  7. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    we’re still back to why these particular scientists are not be believed/trusted than any other scientists.

    I respect your positions TMT – even if I don’t always agree but on this issue, I’m truly befuddled trying to understand the rationale… especially since
    some of the very same scientist are also involved in other earth sciences like hurricanes, CFCs, etc.

    it just seems that for one particular area of science – there is a different standard for scientists…..that other areas…

    the only answer I can come up with – to this point – is that people think the changes will be so expensive that we simply cannot afford them – so we essentially discount the science as not true.

  8. TMT Avatar
    TMT

    But how come science teaches us average temperatures were much higher during the Middle Ages, where we certainly did not have carbon emissions anywhere near where we are today? Yet no one — scientists, politicians or the media discuss this. Why not? My life experience suggests that they don’t want it discussed because they cannot explain it and the it is seemingly inconsistent with the current GW thinking.

    CFCs were quite different to my way of thinking. Scientists claimed CFC emissions were causing a hole in the ozone. They proposed the use of new chemicals that could replace CFCs at reasonable cost to the economy. CFCs were phased out.

    I’m also troubled by the lack of knowledge of what is a normal range of temperatures on earth. We could be much hotter than the norm; or much colder; or about the same. As I understand GW theory, it presumes normal temperatures existed in the 1800s and early 1900s. But why is that true, given millions and millions of years of the earth’s existence? Shouldn’t this issue be discussed?

    How many “climate scientists” are truly “climate scientists”? And what does a climate scientist need to know to be qualified? It strikes me we have an awful lot of people claiming to be climate scientists. Does it have anything to do with the availability of funding? Where were the climate scientists 50 years ago? I know 35 years ago, they were predicting a new ice age.

    I don’t necessarily believe these people are wrong. I just resent they get a free pass that other professionals don’t receive.

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Hah bacon fiddles while Rome floods!

  10. Breckinridge Avatar
    Breckinridge

    The whole climate change apocalypse is a religion, a mass hysterical neurosis (thank you, Sigmund Freud) intended to adapt to the weight of liberal guilt. And to challenge the religion is to risk a trip to the stake, where the fire will cleanse your soul. Facts don’t matter. Reason doesn’t matter. If the house of cards collapses these poor benighted souls will have no anchor, no reason to exist. It MUST be true.

    The environmental priesthood was in danger of losing its way (and the federal gravy train) because we’ve done too good a job of cleaning up the waters, cleaning up the air. I lived in the LA area in the 60s, I’ve looked into the abyss. The air and water laws have worked, but a new crisis needed to be invented to keep the priesthood fat and happy. First it was the coming ice age, then it was global warming, and now is CLIMATE CHANGE! That is a brilliant choice because since the beginning of time climates have, uh, CHANGED!

    Talk to me about the concentration of CO2 in the ocean and what that might do to the fish, and I’ll listen, but peddle your stories of the apocalypse with LaHaye and those idiots, thanks.

    1. larryg Avatar
      larryg

      ” The whole climate change apocalypse is a religion, a mass hysterical neurosis (thank you, Sigmund Freud) intended to adapt to the weight of liberal guilt.’”

      would you say this about scientists that study hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes., etc…

      these are the same kinds of scientists that study climate … they’re all cut
      from the same cloth.

      would you call all earth science scientists – religious hysterical liberals?

      why? why not?

      why do you think one particular area of science has scientists with these flaws and other scientific areas – not?

  11. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    re: ” But how come science teaches us average temperatures were much higher during the Middle Ages, where we certainly did not have carbon emissions anywhere near where we are today? Yet no one — scientists, politicians or the media discuss this. Why not? My life experience suggests that they don’t want it discussed because they cannot explain it and the it is seemingly inconsistent with the current GW thinking.”

    I think it certainly can be discussed but it’s not a reason to disbelieve the much larger avalanche of data either. Science always has seeming contradictions but when a consensus – around the planet, to include NOAA and NASA is reached – to consider all of that a conspiracy just is loony in my view.

    “CFCs were quite different to my way of thinking. Scientists claimed CFC emissions were causing a hole in the ozone. They proposed the use of new chemicals that could replace CFCs at reasonable cost to the economy. CFCs were phased out.”

    but it was the SAME KIND of science. they were people who doubted it.. there was scientific data that seemed to contradict it. there were scientists who disagreed – including Fred Singer – a current GW skeptic. But a consensus of scientists made a recommendation and it was implemented.

    You sound like – if the cost is reasonable you’ll believe it and if not you won’t believe it.

    “I’m also troubled by the lack of knowledge of what is a normal range of temperatures on earth. We could be much hotter than the norm; or much colder; or about the same. As I understand GW theory, it presumes normal temperatures existed in the 1800s and early 1900s. But why is that true, given millions and millions of years of the earth’s existence? Shouldn’t this issue be discussed?”

    why do you worry about things at this level ONLY for THIS science? don’t you take a lot of other science at face value according to what a consensus of science believes?
    why ONLY THIS SCIENCE do you have these issues?

    “How many “climate scientists” are truly “climate scientists”? And what does a climate scientist need to know to be qualified? It strikes me we have an awful lot of people claiming to be climate scientists. Does it have anything to do with the availability of funding? Where were the climate scientists 50 years ago? I know 35 years ago, they were predicting a new ice age.”

    when it’s hundreds around the world – to include NOAA and NASA do you have the same “qualification” issues with other science?

    “I don’t necessarily believe these people are wrong. I just resent they get a free pass that other professionals don’t receive.”

    Geeze TMT – we give that same “pass” to nuclear scientists, to scientists that looks at asteroids hurtling towards us or cancer … science is far from perfect. It’s two steps forward, one step back .. more often than not…

    but you still sound like you are holding climate science to a different standard than other science and that’s what befuddles me.

    I do not pretend to seriously understand – cancer research… or diabetes research… NOR CFCs or Climate science… but when a consensus – around the world agree on something… it’s not smart to deny it… healthy doubt/skepticism.. yes.. deny…no.

  12. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    “The whole climate change apocalypse is a religion, a mass hysterical neurosis (thank you, Sigmund Freud) intended to adapt to the weight of liberal guilt. And to challenge the religion is to risk a trip to the stake, where the fire will cleanse your soul. Facts don’t matter. Reason doesn’t matter. If the house of cards collapses these poor benighted souls will have no anchor, no reason to exist. It MUST be true.”

    when you have scientists – around the word to include our own NASA and NOAA – in consensus – and you deny – that’s just whacko IMHO of course.

    “The environmental priesthood was in danger of losing its way (and the federal gravy train) because we’ve done too good a job of cleaning up the waters, cleaning up the air. I lived in the LA area in the 60s, I’ve looked into the abyss. The air and water laws have worked, but a new crisis needed to be invented to keep the priesthood fat and happy. First it was the coming ice age, then it was global warming, and now is CLIMATE CHANGE! That is a brilliant choice because since the beginning of time climates have, uh, CHANGED! ”

    around the world ? and what do NASA and NOAA have to do with pollution?

    “Talk to me about the concentration of CO2 in the ocean and what that might do to the fish, and I’ll listen, but peddle your stories of the apocalypse with LaHaye and those idiots, thanks.”

    you’re confusing the left loons view of what the science is saying with what scientists around the world are saying.

    the left loons are just as bad as the deniers in the opposite way.

    this is just plain anti-science… part of it the result of serious – but successful propaganda/disinformation efforts… that have impugned science itself.

    the truly odd thing is that when sciences produces 10 possible hurricane tracks for one hurricane – and it hits none of the predicted paths exactly.. we do not accuse the scientists of colluding to “create” more opportunities for employment and conspiring about the data… we accept that they are doing their job and that errors and inconsistencies come with the territory and that the net product – a somewhat imperfect prediction of a hurricane path – is ….. REAL… and not a LIE….

    do that with climate – and it all becomes a conspiracy… wow!

  13. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    “… tell them there are certain attributes our faith assigns to Climatologists: omniscience, omnipotence, justice, and grace. We humans have such a slight acquaintance with power and knowledge, so little conception of justice, and so slight a capacity for grace, that the workings of these great attributes together is a mystery we cannot hope to penetrate,” said Reverend Aimes then laughed.
    Adapted from the novel Gilead.

Leave a Reply

Read More