Editorial on Global Warming

Nice summary Jim. What I find most frustrating in the debates is how much is stated as fact, when it's really conjecture or opinion (albeit usually very well informed opinion). I think what you've presented is just the facts...and going any further would be straying into opinion.

David, thanks for your comment! I consider the "summary" more as "informed opinion" as I doubt any single human on this planet has the all the facts about what is going on. But it's very true that conjecture is often presented as "fact" for reason other than "scientific honesty." My goal with this short editorial is serve warning that there's plenty of "BS" being touted as fact from all sides in this debate, making the subject all that more difficult to understand. As I have said before, it is truly unfortunate that this important subject has shifted away from "objective scientific debate" to the politically-spun debacle it has become.

Thanks, Jim, for the BS (from BS!!!). I was quite ignorant about this issue but have slowly begun to read more articles and learned more about this subject. Our household is doing our part with the bulbs, heating, better insulated doors, less driving etc and I hope that more will participate in the "grassroots" campaign. Education is the best way to get people involved. I have followed the "hot topics" discussion from the onset and thanks to all for better educating me. I hope everyone on NPN will read the discussions and share with others. Thanks for sharing.

I won't be renewing my NPN subscription.

Linking to scientific papers from an economist (who incidentally also advocated against endangered species protection in my country) while placing quotes around "prevailing scientific consensus" (thereby diminishing it) does not represent, to me, a "No BS" presentation of facts.

I've enjoyed my time here and wish all of you the best of luck in your endeavours in the future.

Daniel said;

Linking to scientific papers from an economist (who incidentally also advocated against endangered species protection in my country) while placing quotes around "prevailing scientific consensus" (thereby diminishing it) does not represent, to me, a "No BS" presentation of facts.

Hey Daniel, I never claimed my POV as "fact." Geez, do you think I want to end up like those self-proclaimed know-it-alls that my editorial is about?

FWIW, I also provided a link to www.stopglobalwarming.org (the "An Inconvenient Truth" link) . In fact, here is a link to the page where you can join their cause - http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_join.asp

Do you suppose if I join too they can send us some nicer weather here on Long Island?

I appreciate this response more than the initial reply which was retracted, Jim, so thank you for that.

Perhaps my confusion regarding facts was from the title of the piece, which included the words, Executive Summary. I'd be willing to lop off "of facts" from my statement, as I don't believe it changes the substance of what I meant.

What bothers me most, if you are interested, is the movement of a "hot-topic", non-photography-related issue to the front page of the site where it is given equal weight with the fine articles written by yourself and many others. It is not equivalent in terms of content or topical focus. Had you posted it as a subsequent new thread on hot topics, I wouldn't have cared a whit (or perhaps argued about the substance of it, at most). Just to clarify - I don't mind controversial articles on NPN, but they have to be about a controversy relevant to why I visit the site: nature photography.

Perhaps my confusion regarding facts was from the title of the piece, which included the words, Executive Summary.

In case you didn't catch it, I used the phrase as sort of a parody on all those scientific papers (from both sides) that purport to lay bare the "facts." I believe the only one with all of the "facts" about how Earth's climate really works is the Big Guy (or Gal) up there above the stratosphere (notice how we are gender-neutral in our reference to The Almighty, which I'm sure will come back to bite us too).

What bothers me most, if you are interested, is the movement of a "hot-topic", non-photography-related issue to the front page of the site where it is given equal weight with the fine articles...

Luckily for our readers, I only contribute occassionally. I agree that the editorial contributors to NPN are excellent and unlike some of my ramblings, always on target. Good thing I didn't run my piece about the Anna Nicole Smith debacle...

Well, to counter Daniel, I will sign up for a subscription.

Jim, thank you for taking the effort to point out that the science behind global warming policy is FAR from settled, except for those with a political / social agenda. Your links in the previous thread have been very informative. It will be interesting to visit this topic in another 10 years and see what the "consensus" is. Eventually, I am certain, the "scientific truth" will prevail - it will just take some time to work through all the "noise". I can only hope by then that world has not wasted billions of dollars that would have accomplished so much more applied elsewhere.

I am emplyed as a geologist, so that probably accounts for our almost identical views on this topic. I, however, have refrained from comment because I have zero credibility. Even though I get paid to work on CO2 sequestration, my employer is a major oil company.

Here is a UK Documentary. Interesting

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Whenever politics and personal agendas of politicians mix with science half truths and opinions will cloud the real "truth". Witness the dozens of "scientific" articles published by scientists working for drug companies making claims for drugs that later prove to be wrong or overstated. This occurs in any industry , including ours - witness the dramatic claims for this camera, lens or film, etc is better than the competitions' that are presented by "professional" photographers.

In a way they are all correct. It's just that politicians and zealots of all persuasions will seize the particular pieces of data that suits their purpose. True scientists will sift through the maze of data on both sides and attempt to separate the BS from the LON (Laws of Nature). Sometimes this takes a layman to present the hyperbole from both sides for us all to wake up and get on with finding the real "truth".

Thanks Jim, for providing a summary wake up call.

I enjoyed reading your article; thanks for the info. I hope we survive global warming as well as we survived global cooling in the 70's.

I have not participated in this debate on NPN, nor will I following this one post on the issue. As an environmental engineer who worked for twenty years on these issues, these debates just wring me out and make me tired. I often feel if a tiny percentage of the energy devoted to arguing these issues was instead directed toward doing what we can as individuals the world would be a better place.

Jim, I couldn't even read your article, because I personally feel that pieces like yours are part of the problem. I did try to read it, but after two paragraphs and a skim of the rest I just couldn't stomach it. Why? Because IMO it's just one more piece written by someone who isn't qualified as the end all and be all summary of the issue. This is not meant as a personal affront and I really hope you don't take it as one, but what are you really accomplishing here, except to put your viewpoint forward and what is the value of your opinion on global warming to the photography community? I'm sorry, but I just don't get it.

I have read the Kyoto Protocol. I have read IPCC reports dating back more than a decade. I have read numerous peer-reviewed articles on climate change. I've even read that popular author's novel debunking climate change (who was it, Crichton?). And with all that, there's very little I can say with as much certainty as you did.

One thing I can voice is my strong personal belief that rampant resource consumption and pollution simply are not good. I think that's something most of us can agree on. I do appreciate the mention you gave to things you do to reduce energy consumption.

Lori

Update - I've made a few revisions to the editorial, to include references to the following links;

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

In response to those who question my motivation to write the editorial for NPN, it is my hope to provide some balance to the public discussion of this subject. When a person as prominent as Al Gore creates a movie that contains important omissions of fact, and it receives the publicity that it has in the major media, it is up to us "little guys" to speak up and point out the misrepresentation of fact in the movie.

Additionally, the misuse of the phrase "prevailing scientific consensus" or any similiar phrase that infers that the facts are known and are beyond dispute in the scientific community - a tactic used by the IPCC - should be exposed for what they are. See the following links that point to such problems;

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/

Evidently, a priviledged few among the "hundreds of scientitsts" who we are lead to believe are in unanimous agreement are placed in the position to misrepresent the work and findings of the participating scientists. Thus, we have an orchastrated and deliberate attempt to misinform the general public, who will usually take such "authoritive information" at face value and not question it.

I have no problems at all with accepting a proven fact that we're screwing up the planet, as I am already convinced that is true. I have no problem being proactive and making changes to my lifestyle that would be required to help address the problem. In fact, I already do that.

What I have a major peeve with is the abuse of authority, trust and the deliberate misrepresentation of scientific study to promote political/social agendas, and perhaps even unethical financial gain. This is why my editorial appeared and why I stand by it.

Thanks for taking the time to listen to my point of view.

One very important thing you're leaving out is that the speed of the current warming trend is much, much higher than any of the natural warming/cooling cycles experienced before. We're going to see changes in mean temperature in a geologically very short time. Fluctuation is normal, the speed is not.

Basil

Basil, that is a good point and I believe that my editorial acknowledges that our activity has something to do with the current warming trend;

Is the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels solely responsible for the current warming trend? No. In all probability, the current warming trend is due to natural climate change pattern, enhanced/accelerated/exasperated (pick your own poison) by man-made CO2 emissions, harmful land use practices, deforestation, etc.

And, based on your point, the following revision;

Is the current warming trend unusual in any way? The build up of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, along with harmful land-use practices and destruction of habitat in the 20th century has no doubt accelerated and contributed to the current change in climate.

I think this is a fair and accurate representation as it acknowledges man's role, but also acknowledges that we don't know by how much, and that current warming trend is due in part (as stated even in the IPCC reports) to man's activities. To gain a full understanding of the issue, all causes must be looked at, both natural and man-made - not just the few "politically/socially hot" issues, such as the use of fossil fuels.

And no one seems to want to touch the overpopulation issue as it would be politically incorrect to do so, but is ultimately the primary cause of all of this.

I want to respond to Lori's comments, as I completely agree with specifically the first and last paragraphs. Though I work in the backcountry, I have a suprising amount of face time with the public and with the media. And though I'm passionate about the issues, and comment frequently on how our station has seen changes, I really do grow tired of 'the debate'. Lots of opinions, little action...energy not well spent (literally). Well stated...

On top of that, my expertise is fairly specialized, and as a meteorologist looking in the present to 36 hours out in mountain terrain, I'm certainly not an expert at the paleoclimatological past, and the complexly modeled future. I often fight off attempts to pidgen-hole into commenting on such.

I know that meteorologists in the media are often asked to give their opinions on these issues, but simply put, many are not experts in this field, and I see too many speaking well outside their knowledge. This often borders on editorial IMO, and adds to mis-information. This is troubling ... as TV Mets are often average people's only daily dose of 'real science'

Lori's last comment is the most important thing I've read here though...reducing consuption, reducing the burning of fossil fuels at a personal level will go a long way to attack a broad range of issues that I'm also passionate about, like reducing the epidemic rates of childhood asthma!

I am just a mother of two, lover of nature, doing the little bit that I can do to help the environment.
I have a basic knowledge of science from high school so many years ago, I have read through all the comments, links etc. here and in the newspaper, TV and what worries me the most is so often the two sides are so determined to best the other, prove the other wrong... that the real data could slip by unnoticed. There has to be respect coming from both sides for the knowledge and research done by both. Instead... maybe I am wrong... there is a locking of horns without any REAL COMMUNICATION or sharing of data.

Maybe I just don't see the sharing, respect. I will say, that as a mother, I am worried about my children's children and what will be here for them because of our rapid consumption of natural resources and pollution of the world.

My opinions:

1. The climate is changing as it has done thousands of years ago before SUV's and politicans. The glaciers of the last ice age did melt! The big question is what part the human influence contributes. I suggest that we will never know.

2. Many who create the most hysteria also have written books on this subject or are on the speaker circuit. They benefit from all of this. Remember the Y2K hysteria?

3. Many individuals want to impose strict limits on emissions on others but do little themselves to limit their own emissions. Buying "carbon credits" is ludicrous.

4. Because some countries are exempted from suggested reductions in emissions, the climate change discussion has a serious political/socialist tilt which diminishes the credibility of the discussions.

5. Obviously, everything we can do reduce emissions is of great benefit to us regardless of what the affect on climate change is. If you have photo's of scenic views in the mountains from twenty or more years ago, compare the air clarity from then to what it is now.

6. There is alot which can be done quickly to begin reductions but with potentially serious effects on the economy, people and, particularly, the lawmakers who would inact the changes to reduce emissions.

Dick


Dick

Dick,

You suggest we will never know based on what?

Why is buying carbon credits ludicrous?

Paul

While I think it's obvious that the climate is warming, the causes seem to be "educated" guesses or are based on computer models. It seems to me that there are so many possibilities ranging from solar radiation, volcanoes, forest reduction, etc. to human created emissions that there isn't a good way to determine what part each plays. We can measure human caused additions to the atmosphere but can't measure what each of these human caused additions actually contribute to climate change. I think that the only thing we know for certain is that emission/pollution reductions will certainly help whether or not these reductions will reduce the climate change.

Carbon credits are a way to let someone who probably could reduce emissions but decide against reduction to continue to pollute. I know the theory is that carbon credit sales will result in a net improvement but I have my doubts in the real world.

Dick

> 1. The climate is changing as it has done thousands of years ago before SUV's and politicans.
> The glaciers of the last ice age did melt! The big question is what part the human influence
> contributes. I suggest that we will never know.

That arguement is equally old and flawed. Everybody in that field knows that climate changes happened before. It's all about time - and we manage to change things faster than nature has done before, and it's hard to deny that man has a significant impact on the CO2 levels in the athmosphere (equal to 17'000 Kilauea-like volcanoes according to a source referred in that other thread)...

> 2. Many who create the most hysteria also have written books on this subject or are
> on the speaker circuit. They benefit from all of this.

Well... then I guess the oil lobby has no interest at all in this, right? They sure are unbiased. No money to loose. Nope.

BG

Paul asked;

Why is buying carbon credits ludicrous?

In a way it is - by letting those with some extra cash in their wallets off the hook for their excesses. On the other hand, if carbon credits brought nucleary fusion power to reality faster (or any other alternative energy source for the masses), I would find a way to invest. Right now, the "carbon credit industry" is entirely unregulated and we have no idea where our carbon credit $$ ends up or what good it ultimately does for the cause (like taxes).

In this regard, good old conservation trumps "carbon credits" because we an verify our own savings. That's why tax credits for energy saving measures/conservation makes a lot more sense to me - like there used to be for solar water heating systems.

> I am worried about my children's children and what will be here for them because of our rapid
> consumption of natural resources and pollution of the world.

I'm with you on this. The excessive use of oil (I'm guilty too, but probably not as guilty as others ) is almost perverted. Our generation (plus that of our fathers and that of our children) will enter history as those who burned (burned!) one of the most important natural resource on the planet (in terms of manufacturing things as different as plastic bags and medical drugs) in no time. Solar energy of hundreds of millions of years is stored in those deposits - just imagine the amount of energy required in the future to have access to reduced carbon compounds for technical purposes. It's really perverted...

Basil

Sometimes these kinds of discussion leave me very depressed. But here goes:

Global warming is happening. You can perhaps argue about why, or the extent of specific influences, but it is indisputably happening. If you don't believe this, you are on that big river in Africa.

The overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is that increased CO2 emissions are significantly contributing to global warming. Certainly there are scientists who disagree. But there were scientists who disagreed that smoking caused cancer, that DDT endangered birds, and that CFCs damaged the ozone. And a depressing number of the scientists who minimize the effect of CO2 emissions are affiliated with the oil-based, coal-based or gas-based industries. Ask yourself why the current, energy industry-friendly U.S. administration is suppressing research and public comment and altering published reports if the link isn't clear.

We are running an uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere and the climate. We are gambling with the climate that we depend upon for water, food and health. We are jeopardizing the planet. Even if the odds were only one in three that CO2 emissions are the overwhelmingly critical factor in global warming, can we afford to take the chance? Do you have kids? Grandkids? What is your uncontrolled experiment doing to them? If we have a chance to reduce possible future impact now, given the stakes aren't we compelled to make the effort?

We're a group of nature photographers. In the north, where I live, global warming threatening entire ecosystems. Do we not have a duty to care a little more, to act a little earlier, to take responsible steps ourselves?

It's absolutely true that buying a hybrid car only makes a microscopic difference. The differences we as individuals can make in our consumption are symbolic. But they are very important symbols. And at this point I'll accept any symbol, even the dubious value of carbon credits, as a starting point.

Jim said;

It's absolutely true that buying a hybrid car only makes a microscopic difference. The differences we as individuals can make in our consumption are symbolic. But they are very important symbols.

I agree! I'm a firm believer that is all has to start with us as individuals. If we keep consuming excessive amounts of energy and buying gas-guzzling vehciles, the energy suppliers/manufacturers will oblige our buying habits. I have no problem with that as it's simply free enterprise.

If, however, we use less and only buy energy efficient devices/vehicles, market forces will be brought to bear and the manufacturers will once again oblige. It's a simple but effective concept, and will make a difference if everyone begins thinking the same way.

BTW, it is my understanding that the sales of large SUVs has really dropped.. This is the free eneterprise system working as it should - entirely to customer demand.

Jim, thanks for posting!

Dick,

I think you explained your feelings more fully, but I still don't know what this statement about couses of global warming "there isn't a good way to determine what part each plays" is based on. Scientists who do this research do believe that there are good ways to differentiate sources. They have modeled it and have had it published in top peer-reviewed journals and have had other scientists then read it, check it, redo the methods or do new research which gives the same conclusions.

I think skepticism is good, it is fundamental to science. When someone claims man is destroying the environment and causing climate change we should all be skeptical. We should demand more information, demand corroboration through checks, new research, and alternative views. But at some point the evidence becomes convincing and the skeptism should be placed on those who claim it is not true. That is where I'm at. So when someone claims they know that global warming is not caused by human impact I want to check their sources carefully. There are plenty of good reasons to significantly reduce pollution and deforestation, and to use and find alternate energy sources, I don't need to believe in human-induced global warming (in fact I'd rather not). But the more I read, the stronger the case seems to me. Jim gets some credit for that because I've read more in the last week on GW than the previous year.

Here's another fine review by a geologist who was a skeptic:

http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_climatenuts_4.htm


Paul

So putting aside any conversation on the causes, but assuming that we need to reduce CO2 emissions as much as possible as quickly as possible, how do we proceed from here?

Though I remain skeptical that CO2 alone is the cause, I remain 100% convinced that our reliance on fossil fuels must be reduced (and eventually eliminated) for a variety of reasons - both political and environmental (This recent editorial by Bill Hobbs sums up my POV quite well). This is where the discussion seems to loose it's momentum - how do we go about weening ourselves off the fossil fuel diet? I'm hoping we can pick that discussion up in the Energy Technology thread.

"NAIROBI, Kenya - The world's oceans are becoming more acidic (my emphasis), which poses a threat to sea life and Earth's fragile food chain, German researchers told delegates at a U.N. conference on climate change." read more...

This is something that is widely publicized, and the ph of the oceans has indeed fallen slightly during the 20th century. But there is a spin to this that most people are not aware of - the current ocean ph averages about 8.2, which is decidedly alkaline. Even the most "alarmist" prediction of ocean ph has it falling to 7.7 by the end of the 21st century - still not acidic.

Do a Google search of 'ocean ph'

For those of you who have forgotten your high school chemistry, the ph scale ranges from 1 (most acidic) to 14 (most alkaline). A ph of 7 is neutral.

So why do we hear of the oceans becoming "more acidic" instead of "less alkaline"? Even though the latter is the more accurate way of stating it, the former is the most dramatic and definitely a better way to "spin" it for PR purposes. At least in the weather forecasting industry, when the temperature is predicted to go from 10 degrees F. to 20 degrees, it is reported as "not as cold." Like wise in the summer when we go from 90 degrees to 80, it's "not as hot" - not "getting colder tomorrow."

Perhaps just a matter of semantics, but a clever one nonetheless.

A couple of points to add... (Without wanting to get politically involved!)

1. Speed. I agree that the speed of the change is concerning. It is the single biggest factor that points toward a human cause. But there is a problem here: we don't have *direct* measurements of the earth's temperature back much more than one or two hundred years. We have lots of data from which to *infer* temperature, but depending on which data people look at and how they read it, they get different answers. We certainly can agree on general trends, but the statement that the current rate of change is faster than anything in the past cannot be supported by any direct data. For example, things they use to infer temperature (like pollen counts in ice cores) could very easily change at a lower rate rate than the temperature.

2. I've head a couple presentations by an engineer I know who has spent lots of time looking at this issue. (He runs a consulting company which helps oil companies solve problems, many of which are environmental.) He has a theory, which he does not claim is solid, but which he is trying to put forward for further study. In this theory, he suggests that the main problem is not CO2, but Human Enhanced Water Evaporation (HEWE). He still says that the climate is warming, and that human activity is substantially to blame, but that CO2 is not the main culprit. Water vapour is known to be a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but many of the main models used by the global warming community ignore it (or use fudge factors to account for it). The scary thing is that *IF* he's right, many of the things we are doing to reduce CO2 emissions will be making the situation worse, because they emit more water vapour. For example, we're using more natural gas and less coal to make electricity, because NG emits less CO2 per unit of energy generated. But it emits a lot more H2O vapour than coal. Nuclear plants have cooling towers or ponds, which put more H2O vapour into the air. Hydroelectric reservoirs increase evaporation. Etc. Agriculture is a big culprit here, too, with irrigation. I don't know if he's right, but he puts forward some interesting arguments!

-Paul

Sigh...these discussions are just downright depressing.

It's utterly, utterly despicable what has happened to good, sound science in this country. The IPCC report is a consensus report summarizing the opinions of the world's leading scientists on climate change, and even those involved state the report is likely underestimating what's likely to happen in the coming decades.

There is VERY little controversy in the scientific community regarding climate change. We've got empirical data documenting increasing temperature trends, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, warming ocean temperatures, shifts in animal migration timing, etc., etc. etc.

There is VERY little controversy in the scientific community regarding the cause of these changes. Increased CO2 levels are something very tangible that we can measure. Hopefully I've attached the JPEG correctly...if you look at CO2 levels over the past several hundred thousand years, a natural cycle does occur, but that massive spike since the industrial revolution began is anything BUT natural.

A spike in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution, and massive corraborating evidence that warming has occurred during that same time period? Where's the controversy?

Once again, there's VERY little controversy in the scientific community. I work for the USGS. I study land cover change, and collaborate with those tying land cover change to changes in the carbon balance and climate change. The "controversy" about climate change isn't driven by dissent among scientists, it's driven by POLITICS and GREED.

Who are some of the biggest donators to the current administration? Energy companies. They have a vested interest in keeping a fossil-fuel based economy. The current administration has actively pushed the "controversy" over warming because it suits their current political situation.

The "controversy" is political in nature. It is NOT based on scientific dissent.

Paul, some related reading here.

Terry, it looks like at least here in these discussions, we are in unanimous agreement on breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. I think this is important - we may have arrived at this conculsion in different ways and for different reasons, but we're now all on the same bus. Time to put it in gear and move ahead.

Is there truly unanimous agreement that atmospheric CO2 drives global temperature? Or are CO2 levels a result of global temperature change? Is the jury still out on this or is it already decided?

This is not the first paper to report that CO2 and temperature are indeed related, but that CO2 levels rise after temperature increase.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

An open mind is the first requirement in the search for truth.

Jim,

Note that report was given at a conference SPONSPORED by the "Tech Central Station" website your link provides. Check out this link for a summary of Tech Central Station:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tech_Central_Station

Note this comment about TCS:

"In October 2006, two US Senators, Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), and Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.) wrote to ExxonMobil's chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, asking that it "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators singled out TechCentralStation as one such group."

Also note the contributors to TCS. A scientific report at a conference sponsored by TCS, who in turn is funded by Exxon, GM, etc. whose profits depend upon our current energy paradigm? Should we really place more importance on such a report, or on something like the IPCC report that is a consensus of a broad array of the world's best on climate change?

Pointing out this single article is a great illustration of my point. The vast majority of scientists believe what the IPCC report points out...climate change is happening, and we are the primary cause.

It's groups like your TCS and other industry-funded thinktanks that are desperately trying to make a non-controversial issue controversial. As long as the general public THINKS there's a controversy over global warming, these biased groups have accomplished their goal.

True science isn't biased. Groups like this are. The IPCC report is an excellent example of how science SHOULD work...building a consensus based on empirical evidence.

Agree that we get at it from different angles though about fossil fuels.

Terry, the point you make is much like Al Gore's ties to Occidental Petroleum, Generation Investment Management LLP, etc. We can go around and around about who is in whose pocket, and that is a major problem with this debate - it has become so polarized/politicized that most of the alleged fact we read or hear is most likely "spun" beyond recognition.

As people with scientific backgrounds, we know how complicated Earth's processes can be. When someone tells me they have the “causes and effects” of Earth's climate change nailed down to a science and have "undeniable facts" to such a complicated issue, I will respectfully remain a skeptic of any claim beyond the correlation of rising temperature to CO2 levels (or is it the other way around?). Remember it was only 30 years ago these same claims were being made - that we face imminent environmental catastrophe due to global cooling! For me, I will continue to learn as much as I can and try to pick as much fact out of all the background noise as possible. Right now, the background noise from both sides makes it extremely difficult to do so, and I refuse to “buy in” to either side.

In the mean time, we’re all on the same page in terms of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and that should be the focus of our efforts.


BTW, if anyone took the time to watch An Inconvenient Truth, you should watch this one as well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U - to get an equal dose from the other side.

"BTW, if anyone took the time to watch An Inconvenient Truth, you should watch this one as well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Wr1hcIp2U - to get an equal dose from the other side."

That's just it Jim...there really ISN'T much of an "other side" in the scientific community. Do we know the exact extent of global warming, or know exactly what the effects will be on sea level, extreme weather events, etc.? No, but we're working on it. The only thing Al Gore is guilty of is explaining potential effects of global warming as absolutes, when at this stage, we're not sure of the magnitude of those effects.

What we DO know is that the earth is warming, and that we're almost certainly the cause. The real work now from a scientific standpoint is evaluating future effects, not trying to establish whether it's happening or not.

The "Other Side", as you call it, isn't coming from scientists, it's coming from politicians and corporate folks. Once again...science isn't biased, and empirical data shows global warming is happening. Overwhelming scientific consensus is that we're the cause.

It's amazing the similarity between this "controversy" and the "controversy" between evolution and creationism. BOTH situations have the NON-scientists trying (very unsuccessfully) to inject supposedly scientific arguments into the discussion in order to cause controversy.

There's very little controversy within SCIENCE about global warming and it's cause, although there's more controversy on the rate of change and potential effects, and there's even less controversy within SCIENCE about evolution vs. creationism.

Hate to bring up another manufactured "controversy", but as a scientist, these two topics are my biggest pet peeves.

Don't worry though Jim...I'll never cancel my NPN membership like an earlier poster threatened.

Although I don't think global cooling was anywhere near as big an issue among scientists as global warming is, it's irrelevant because the issue is global climate change. And maybe 30 years ago we were hearing from the "first adopters" of a new idea that is naturally becoming better understood as time goes by. Maybe in another 30 years the facts will all be in, and we can have a good laugh about nutty Al Gore and the goofy, doom-and-gloom egg-heads in their ivory tower academies.

Terry, this is a copy of my resposne to John Christopher in the "Al Gore" thread on this same subject. Please be sure to follow the links;

John said;

I especially applaud the “IMO.” Jim, to his credit, is making it clear that he is only stating a personal opinion (on the lack of scientific consensus). For, as a proposition for serious consideration, dismissing the prevailing scientific consensus on global warming...

Again, using the scientific opinion link provided in your response, the various scientific organizations summarize their conclusions in sort of a non-consensus fashion. For example, the IPCC statement reads quite a bit differently than that of the American Association of State Climatologists. The IPCC states with "90% certainty" that the current changes are due entirely to man's burning of fossil fuels, while the AASC and even the Geological Society of America concludes that "the climate changes are due in part to human activities" (my emphasis added).

So, regardless of what one thinks is "prevailing scientific consensus", there is no consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is solely responsible as "An Inconvenient Truth" and its disciples would lead us to believe. The only consensus is the temperature and CO2 concentrations are rising, the climate is changing (as it has for eons) and that human activity has played some role in these latest changes. Trying to read much further into that "prevailing scientific consensus" becomes a matter of conjecture, as a review of the various "statements of organizations" will reveal.

In regards to the movie's sensational predictions of climatal doom, it again flies in the face of "prevailing scientific consensus." According to the AASC, "Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth's environmental system. These components include the oceans, land, lakes, and continental ice sheets, and involve physical, biological, and chemical processes. The complicated feedbacks and forcings within the climate system are the reasons for the difficulty in accurately predicting the future climate." But of course, some will still take the movie's politically-spun message of self-imposed doom "hook, line and sinker" believing it actually represents "prevailing scientific consensus."

Until then I think most people here (and many other places) would agree that we need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, prevent massive deforestation and review our current agricultural practices, among other things.

Now there's a consensus!

"We need to reduce our burning of fossil fuels."

Let me put that a different way. Far too much of the energy that we use, from whatever source, is wasted through inefficiencies. The physics of nature already put limits onto the efficiencies of processes. But why should we be satisfied with a 15% efficient process when the theoretical efficiency is 38%? We cannot achieve the theoretical efficiency, but we can come far closer to it than we are today.

"The only consensus is the temperature and CO2 concentrations are rising, the climate is changing (as it has for eons) and that human activity has played some role in these latest changes."

Exactly!! As for "some" role...given the extreme and unnatural rise in CO2 levels in the past 150 years, and given the rapid climate response in recent decades, don't diminish the "some" role. The IPCC states that the changes are almost certainly due to man's influence. That scientific consensus certainly would call for a word stronger than "some" role in the current climate change.

And please explain why an Inconvenient Truth has a "political spin" to it? Because it's Al Gore? Please explain to me what he has to gain politically by producing this movie? Amazing the vitriole and hatred that comes from the right at anyone or anything that is...GASP...on the left, or even worse (OH MY GOD!)...a LIBERAL!!! Can I do that? Can I use a curse word like 'liberal' on a public website?

The misinformation being spewed by non-scientists is frankly much worse because it was Gore who made the movie, not someone that the right hates so much. The movie certainly does paint a worst-case scenario with regard to some of the effects of climate change. But hey...the basic content of the movie has a thumbs up from SCIENTISTS doing climate change work. Everything in the movie certainly falls within the plausible realm of what could happen.

Who cares if CO2 emissions aren't "solely" responsible? That's splitting hairs. Scientific consensus states they're the primary cause. Those non-scientists spouting potential other contributors are only trying to run a little misdirection to keep this supposed "controversy" alive in the press.

And please explain why an Inconvenient Truth has a "political spin" to it? Because it's Al Gore? Please explain to me what he has to gain politically by producing this movie?

Terry, how Al Gore stands to profit from this all is covered in the Al Gore and global warming thread - especially at the end of the thread. To add to that, many doubt that Mr. Gore has set aside all of his political aspirations, and his labelling of himself as "the ex-president elect" shows he still has an axe to grind over the circumstances of his defeat. He did win the popular vote and combined with his new emergence "in the spotlight" many would not at all be surprised that he runs again in 2008. I know I certainly would not.

But all of that aside, I do not at all see this as a "left-wing vs. right-wing" debate (I'm a registered Libertarian and didn't vote for George W. either time). I see it as a debate among honest, intelligent and well-informed people who are not agreeing on the science of climate change.

One of the most disheartening aspects of the current debate is the dismissal of those who do not agree with the IPCC findings (or with The Goracle as he is known among his supporters) as "non-scientist." I have spent a great deal of time reading up on this issue and the many scholars, paleoclimatologists and respected insitutions who are offering other points of views are certainly just as legitimate and qualified as any I have read in support of the CO2-only cause. In fact, the more I read the more I become a honest, non-partisan skeptic myself that CO2 is solely to blame for the current warming. Evidently, the "prevailing scientific consensus" of the 800 IPCC scientists who participated in their last study drew the same conclusion, though the executive summary of their report has been interpreted by some in a way to indicate otherwise.

The science of earth's climate is challenging and exciting. More recent studies of the sun's role in climate have shed new light on the debate (no pun intended), and in the coming decades we will no doubt learn much more, due in large part to the very substantial increases in research funding from government and improved satelite technology. Hopefully, scientists will be able to present their objective findings without any influence from politicians, Hollywood or those with global social agendas.

In the mean time, we can work towards the reduction of use of fossil fuels through conservation and the development of alternative energy sources/technologies - something we all agree must be done for a variety of good reasons.

Observation - It's interesting that there sems to be far more interest in debating the cause of the current global warming trend then on what can be done about it.

So let's do this - let's all assume for the moment that the atmospheric increase of man-made CO2 is entirely to blame. Let's put all debate on the causes to the side and address this simple question - what do we do now?

This, to me, is a critical question, one that there is relatively little discussion on.

Not to diminish the seriousness of this important question, but some entertaining reading here to prime the conversation.

"What do we do now?"

I agree...there's far too much emphasis on CO2 emissions and what can be done to control them, and far too little emphasis on mitigating the effects of global warming.

The ship has already sailed. We've already set ourselves along a course where global warming is occurring, and will continue to get worse. We've already greatly increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and for the foreseeable future, even if we DO get more aggressive at fighting CO2 emissions, the CO2 concentration will continue to rise until we rid ourselves of our dependence upon fossil fuels.

So much effort is being spent looking at cutting CO2 emissions, with much less effort spent looking at ways to mitigate the effects of global warming. Our climate is changing...how do we cope? How will we change our use of water resources, for example? How will our agricultural production methodologies have to change? How will we cope with rising sea levels?

It's these practical questions resulting from the EFFECTS of global warming that aren't getting enough attention.

My concern as a non scientist is that these debates are going to go on and on and on, while the changes do the same. Action now would make things easier, than waiting till every one gets on the same team and changes are much more advanced and harder to change. Just as my 'motto' about peace beginning with each of us as individuals... the saving of our planet starts the same way.

We as individuals do not have to wait for the 'big guys' to get their acts on the same wavelength. We can start making changes now, in our choices... of cars, appliances, even light bulbs. If we stop buying the 'monster' vehicles... it would force Detroit to change what it puts out. Their ads emphasize speed, power. In my area it is those very cars that are taking lives... because the people who buy those cars want to use that speed and power. Driving with cell phones doesn't help... but that is another story.

I also live in a boating community and realize that you need those big engines to tow the boats. I was a boat owner and bought a 1988 Gran Marquis to pull my boat. No boat now but I still have the V8. As soon as I can afford to purchase a new car I will. In the meantime I will recycle, slowly purchase the newer light bulbs as I am able.

I try not to use chemicals so I can have a beautiful lawn. Some weeds are down right pretty! There is so much we can do as individuals. So don't wait for the 'big guys', start now. Show them that you are concerned despite all the rhetoric going back and forth.

Gee, do I sound like a Mom? Am I so off track in my low scale thinking? In my area developers are coming in and destroying habitat. They make their money and leave, leaving behind a destroyed habitat. It is all tied up together, it is all connected. Plant a tree... or better yet, plant three.

Terry - you asked what Al Gore has to gain politically from his stance? Are you kidding? He's gained exactly what he wanted to gain - he's now the latest Hollywood Darling, and he's loving it! He's a POS politician just like the rest of them (Republican or Democrat). IMO, your attacks on "Conservatives" are every bit as bad as those who attack "Liberals" in that they just serve to deepen the polarization within this country and take the emphasis off where it should be. The largest environmental problem we face in this country is not science based at all, it's political in nature. The darn Repubicans and Democrats would much rather fight each other than work together (they remind me of Sunnis and Shiites). The real problem is not liberal vs. conservative, it's the "Far Left" vs. the "Far Right", both of which are profiting greatly from and enjoying their time in the limelight. It's in both of their interests to keep the turmoil going instead of actually promoting solutions, and IMO that's truly despicable and makes them the true villans in this and other issues.

In an earlier post you describe yourself as "I'm a wacko, far left tree-hugging liberal, without any doubt." You then went on to very effectively elaborate with "However, I still fail to understand why those on the opposite end of the political spectrum must necessarily take an opposite stance on the environment. My biggest pet peeve...not letting individual issues stand on their own, and failing to make a personal choice on each. I truly get sick of BOTH sides of the aisle being so firmly entrenched as either a "liberal" or a "conservative" that simple issues like protecting the environment instead become fodder for political warfare."

I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. I wholeheartedly agree with your earlier statements, but they just don't jive with your attacks on "Conservatives". Just because someone disagrees with you or your stances, they should not be attacked. They are just as entitled to their opinions as you are, however feeble you may think they are. An opposing opinion does not make someone an enemy who is to be villified and belittled. Attacking will most certainly not make them wake up one day and exclaim "Gosh, I finally see light and will switch sides", it will only strengthen their resolve and opposition.

Terry, please understand I'm not attacking you personally here, but am just trying to point out the damage done when you attack your "opposition". If you want to convert someone to your way of thinking, attacking them is not the way. Is it possible that you are one of those who would rather just attack others instead of converting them? If so, then you are part of the problem instead of the solution. Personally, I don't think that's the case, but please remember that words, just like bullets, cannot be called back once they're fired. (It's only taken me 50+ years to figure that out )

Take care my friend.

Barbara - in your earlier post you started with " I am just a mother of two, lover of nature, doing the little bit that I can do to help the environment." IMO, that's perhaps the most powerful statement I've seen yet in this thread, from two points. First, there's no stronger position to directly affect and effect opinion, position, change, and our future than being "just a mother". Secondly, it's been the non-political yet strong-willed voices of dedicated and determined mothers who started organizations such as MADD, and have gotten many goodlaws passed that otherwise would have never been pushed through. There is nothing more determined than a mother on a mission. If true environmental change ever occurs, it would not surprise me at all if it is because of the efforts of a grassroots campaign by concerned mothers.

Please continue being "just a mother", it's the most important job in the world.

Having lived thru the great “Global Cooling” period of the last century, I will begin to
listen seriously to the current “Global Warming” craze, when the scientific community explains either why they lied to me, or why they were so wrong.

If you haven’t read up on the horrible “Global Cooling” catastrophe, please read the
Following article from Newsweek magazine in 1975:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

Here are a few quotes:

“these changes portend a drastic decline in food production”

“The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now”

“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively the meteorologists are hardpressed to keep up with it”

“They are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century”

“The earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about 7 degrees lower than during its warmest eras—and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.”

“solutions proposed, such as melting the artic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers.”

Art,

Some things to consider. First, this is a Newsweek article, not a science journal. It happens to be a poorly researched and highly hyped article. See this link for a better explanation of what scientists really thought in the '70s (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94).

Second, even in the Newsweek article it is very clear that the National Academy of Sciences was very cautious about stating any crisis. Indeed they state that not only do they not know the answers, they don't even know the questions. This is a far cry from what the Same group is saying about Global Warming. In fact the National Academies of Science of all the G8 countries plus 5 others agree on global warming and human impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8%2B5).

Paul

Here is a 390 page report by the U.N. that indicates that Cows are the big culprit.
Who is for giving up hamburgers?

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns


29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.
“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.
“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.
When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.



All 390 pages of this report at:


http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

Art L.

Hey, the Supreme Court must have seen An Inconvient Truth! Maybe there is a role for government....

Cattle and cattle ranching cause all sorts of environmental problems. I'm totally in favor of a highly limited beef diet. I have given up hamburgers to a great extent. Are you suggesting there is something wrong with the UN report or that it somehow belittles the global warming concern?

Paul

A scientist waits for the completion of the current experiment befroe forming the next hypothesis

Unfortunately, there may be no opportunity for a next experiment.

This reminds me of Pascal's Wager.

Pete D.

The underlying problem here is that the human-caused global warming hypothesis cannot be tested experimentally. If it could, the scientific community would have much stronger evidence in support of human-caused warming. The evidence for global climate change (and humankind's role) is based on correlation--i.e. rising temperatures are associated with higher levels of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases." These types of studies do not allow one to determine causation, and so there is always some degree of ambiguity regarding the results. In this case, the oil and coal companies have exploited this shortcoming in an attempt to make it look like there's a controversy among scientists. In fact, where controversies exist they are often over things like the most appropriate statistical methodology--not about the general hypothesis.

My read on this is similar to Jim's: (1) The climate is warming, and (2) to some unknown extent it is human caused. What really gets me pissed are those who claim that since we can't determine the extent to which global warming is related to human activities and/or since we cannot determine what the consequences will be we should just go about or normal routine. I simply cannot understand this point of view???

Jeremy

I'm in nearly 100% agreement with your article Jim. the stuff I don't agree with is insignificant.

But I will say that I like the idea of getting away from fossil fuels, but mainly so we can breath cleaner air, stop spilling oil in our oceans, stop drilling for it where we probably hadn't ought to, and so that our economy isn't so heavily affected by the instability of the Middle East.

I also think that we are headed there. The conspiracy theorist in me is convinced that we could have had alternative energy sources a long time ago, but too much of our economy is tied to oil, so it's been an uphill battle. I think we're nearing the crest of that hill and we'll be building ugly wind farms and damming the rivers so we can run out eclectic cars soon enough.

Oh, and Art Lund, my grandfather and uncle ran a dairy farm in SW Washington State. I spent most of my early childhood on that farm, and I'm here to tell you, them cows is gassy!

I, for the life of me, cannot understand how anyone in their right mind can say that we humans, 6.6 billion strong and growing, are not the driving force for global climate change! Hell, it's a no-brainer even without the science! It's called common sense!

I'm with you Lori!