Climate Scientists in Copenhagen Issue Key Messages - It's Getting Worse, Folks

Really appreciated your article Sir, and your ongoing efforts to inform and educate, both here at Gather and, when shared elsewhere with the larger world beyond.

Unless it's against Gather rules or your own discretionary concerns, may I provide links to this offering from my home blog?

Drop a "ping" or gather mail if you've time.

Thanks again
Adrian

"destroyed the majority of the planets" ?? Which planets did they destroy? Who were these sloths of humanity 200 years ago? Exactly what are you trying to say, Colin?

Thanks for posting to Get To The Points

Key message #3. Yes, if indeed (a) factors affecting climate change have been correctly identified, the quantification of their roles accurately determined, and mitigation can be effective.

Key message #4. Yes, regardless of the reasons for climatic change. Climate change is inevitable regardless of human actions. The questions are to what extent human activities effect adverse change and the quantitative potential for effective mitigation.

Key message #5. Much of this is true regardless of the effects upon climate change. There are plenty of laudable goals quite apart from climate change including preservation of biodiversity, decreasing toxicity of our resources for the health of human and other species, preservation of topsoil and water supplies....

Thanks, David, for bringing us a voice of science and reason to confront the industry PR.

Let's not forget this;

"DISCLAIMER: THIS PRESS RELEASE IS WRITTEN BY THE CLIMATE SECRETARIAT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN. THE PEOPLE QUOTED DOES NOT NECESSARILY SHARE THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY OTHERS IN THIS TEXT."

A lot of speakers and a lot of interesting subjects but considering that each speaker was allotted 15 minutes or so, not a lot of information was disseminated.
When the report on the compiled information is released sometime in or after June we will know more.
But for now I don't think we could rely on the climate secretariat's opinion as proof that "its getting worse".

Thanks for the post. Some continue to deny that climate change is a problem.

It is my hope that we can find solutions that not only provide the mitigation to resolve climate change, but also to provide for more sustainable communities.

David- it is what it is, the truth. Prince Charles made a speech in Brazil explaining that we have 100 months left to deal with this challenge. Personally, I think that's optimistic, it might be too late already. It's pretty obvious that the arctic is going to be ice-free in the summertime within 3 to 10 years, and once that happens the Greenand ice pack is sure to follow.
After a certain point, the denial squad became amusing in a bitter way. I marvel that they still do not get it. yes Dan, that means you.

obviously I refer to Dan E., NOT to Dan C.!

"Let's not forget this;

"DISCLAIMER: THIS PRESS RELEASE IS WRITTEN BY THE CLIMATE SECRETARIAT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN. THE PEOPLE QUOTED DOES NOT NECESSARILY SHARE THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY OTHERS IN THIS TEXT."

What's your point, Dan?

"A lot of speakers and a lot of interesting subjects but considering that each speaker was allotted 15 minutes or so, not a lot of information was disseminated."

Traditionally speakers are given 15 or 20 minutes to present the highlights of their research. Even if they had an hour it wouldn't be sufficient to present all of their data, methods, results, assumptions, etc. The only purpose of presenting is to communicate the availability of scientific research, after which the listeners can ask questions and then go to look at the actual research, which must be published or prepared in some official way. The key is to communicate the existence of data in the presentation. The data then need to stand on their own merits, and many scientists will review the information prior to publication (or in many cases, the data have already been published).

"When the report on the compiled information is released sometime in or after June we will know more."

Like what? Will you read the scientific studies? Will you even read the conference report? In any case, the conference report will merely provide contextual information. If you want to know the science you actually have to read the science.

"But for now I don't think we could rely on the climate secretariat's opinion as proof that "its getting worse"."

The secretariat does not have an opinion. They merely compile the information. As usual you have misinterpreted the disclaimer on the press release. All it says is that the secretariat (which is pretty much what it sounds like it is) prepared the press release, which isn't peer-reviewed. The scientific committee of the conference would have reviewed and agreed to the language; in fact, they probably provided it to the secretariat). The actual report will undergo peer review by anyone being cited and everyone whose research is reported.

As for the "It's getting worse, folks" part of my title, that is my paraphrasing of the more technical language used in press release and the conference itself. It is not the "secretariat's opinion," because as I explained the secretariat doesn't have an opinion. [It would be like saying the court reporter was typing up his or her opinion rather than recording the proceedings.] My paraphrase was necessary to communicate within the title the bottom line conclusions in plain language that even lay people could understand. Well, most lay people.

Chris,
Do you have any explanation for the 10 year plateau and recent drop in the temperature of our planet?
Have you seen any explanations from the IPCC?
The C02 levels just keep rising, we humans continue to pump billions of tons of it every year into our atmosphere and the temperature is not responding like the IPCC models predicted.

"It's pretty obvious that the arctic is going to be ice-free in the summertime within 3 to 10 years, and once that happens the Greenand ice pack is sure to follow."

"Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent."

http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic%2BSees%2BMassive%2BGain%2Bin%2BIce%2BCoverage/article12851.htm

"What's your point, Dan?"

That your premise is baseless, that there is no way we can surmise by the press release that "it's getting worse folks"

Yes when the report comes out I will look at it, and if it's not just an opinion piece I may read it.

It will be interesting to see how (if) they address this almost ten year temperature plateau then drop.

if available I will take a look at the research they use to support their conclusions and compare it to the information used by the skeptics.

An interesting take on the conference.

"It's problematic when largely unresolved debates among the world's climate change researchers get reduced to six key messages."

"And they were debates that did occur during the conference. Experts from the natural sciences and social sciences, from engineering and policy sciences, from economics and the humanities, all presented findings from their work and these were discussed and argued over. These debates mixed science, values, ethics, and politics. This is the reality of how climate change now engages with the worlds of theoretical, empirical, and philosophical investigation."

"A gathering of scientists and researchers has resolved nothing of the politics of climate change. But then why should it? All that can be told?—?and certainly should be told ?—?is that climate change brings new and changed risks, that these risks can have a range of significant implications under different conditions, that there is an array of political considerations to be taken into account when judging what needs to be done, and there are a portfolio of powerful, but somewhat untested, policy measures that could be tried."

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/what_was_the_copenhagen_climate_change_conference_really_about/

Dan E:

Unfortunately we can't read your quotes. Try putting your links in an anchor tag instead.

Also, rather than reading articles from that have been slanted, try going to the source. The ice "expansion" that you mention from the NSIDC is explained by that very group: the melting was quite severe the year before, and since there is always some random fluctuation it is hardly unexpected. The area may be "twice the size of the nation of Germany" but in global terms that is still relatively small.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) has produced a report, which I've linked to. This is the source of your "expansion" information... or at least the source for your articles. A relevant quote is below.

"The ice cover in 2008 began the year heavily influenced by the record-breaking 2007 melt season. Because so much ice had melted out during the previous summer, a vast expanse of ocean was exposed to low winter air temperatures, encouraging ice growth. Although still well below average, March 2008 saw slightly greater ice extent at the annual maximum than measured in recent years. However, the ice was also thin: less than a year old and vulnerable to melting in summer. Even the geographic North Pole was covered with thin ice, capturing the imaginations of many in the media and general public."

It's problematic when largely unresolved debates among the world's climate change researchers get reduced to six key messages

I wonder, Dan E. were you being clever or merely lazy when you failed to provide a hyperlink to the article? Since you did provide the copied URL without the hyperlink I'm going to assume it was just laziness.

The use of the selective cut and pasting to willfully misrepresent the article, however, is dishonest.

For example, this is one of the quoted paragraphs above (including the introductory sentence you left out):

"These are all valid debates to have. And they were debates that did occur during the conference. Experts from the natural sciences and social sciences, from engineering and policy sciences, from economics and the humanities, all presented findings from their work and these were discussed and argued over. These debates mixed science, values, ethics, and politics. This is the reality of how climate change now engages with the worlds of theoretical, empirical, and philosophical investigation."

And this is the paragraph before that you ignored, but to which the above paragraph was referring:

"Which brings us back to the calls for action and the “inexcusability of inaction.” What action on climate change exactly is being called for? During the conference there were debates amongst the experts about whether a carbon tax or carbon trading is the way to go. There were debates amongst the experts about whether or not we should abandon the “two degrees” target as unachievable. There were debates about whether or not a portfolio of geo-engineering strategies now really needs to start being researched and promoted. And there were debates about the epistemological limits to model-based predictions of the future. There were debates about the role of behavioural change versus technological change, about the role of religions in mitigation and adaptation, and about the forms of governance most likely to deliver carbon reductions."

It's hard to take someone seriously when they either can't comprehend the information or willfully choose to lie about it to promote their preconceived ideological view.

Anyone who wants to see what the article says can go read the whole thing at the link at the beginning of this comment. Either way, keep in mind that it is a blog, and I've said over and over again that blogs are not peer-reviewed. They are merely the unvalidated comments and opinions of the writers. Some are well thought out and informed, others are garbage. Readers of the linked article can pass their own judgment if they are so inclined to do so.

David, why be unkind? Not everyone knows how to provide a link like you did. I do, but I've seen many people admit that they just cannot get it. That's not laziness, and your comment was unkind.

"The use of the selective cut and pasting to willfully misrepresent the article, however, is dishonest."

No it isn't David,
I made no attempt to charaterize the article one way or the other.
Your characterization of it as dishonest is just a part of your dismiss and demean debating tactic nothing more.

"It's hard to take someone seriously when they either can't comprehend the information or willfully choose to lie about it to promote their preconceived ideological view."

Continued dismiss & demean,

Please post my lie.

"Anyone who wants to see what the article says can go read the whole thing at the link at the beginning of this comment."

Which is why I posted the address.

"I wonder, Dan E. were you being clever or merely lazy when you failed to provide a hyperlink to the article? Since you did provide the copied URL without the hyperlink I'm going to assume it was just laziness."

You mean like....'Oh I wish that Dan wouldmake hyperlinks, It's just so much trouble to cut and past, it just takes to much effort'

You mean like that kind of lazy David?



"Unfortunately we can't read your quotes. Try putting your links in an anchor tag instead."

Ian,
What do "my quotes" have to do with an anchor tag?

Thanks Marilyn,
But that is how David is, That is what he does.

thank you for sharing this

Half the world could become unliveable

"Global warming could make half the world’s inhabited areas too hot to live in and southern Europe may be turned into semi-desert, climate experts warned at a scientific congress in Copenhagen."

"Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised."

David: "It's Getting Worse, Folks"

That's an understatement, David. We're on course for catastrophic warming.

"That's not laziness, and your comment was unkind."

Is it not unkind to humanity to willfully deceive?

"That's an understatement, David. We're on course for catastrophic warming."

As the planet cools? LOL!

Thank you for all the links.

Y'all are missing the biggest problem. It doesn't matter WHO "wins" the argument in this thread. The reality is that, when it comes to environmental matters, we've kept insisting that the planet changes in "Geologic time." We've taken that mantra to heart, and we expect to be able to mix scientific fact and political expediency in years-long debates before we actually MUST have a decision. After all, that's how the USA air and water and waste management laws and regulations were developed/are developing, is it not? Heck, I remember one of the economist Samuelsons writing that he wouldn't purchase so much as a (name of item?) from any firm that voluntarily reduced its pollution load, because they would be violating the first tenet of business, by simultaneously voluntarily cutting their profit margin.

Unfortunately, it appears that, in this case, "Geologic time" may have already passed us by. Folks, if you think the climate''s gonna be bad, wait 'til you see the wars that come out of the unliveability of another third of the planet. Sure hope the Mars Missions show us something.

Chuck- the Mars missions will show us a cold and dry corpse of a planet, upon which a handful of people could survive in misery if we are willing to spend many billions per year to keep them alive. Not to mention that if we destroy this third rock from the sun, we will lose any moral claim to the fourth rock.

but I realize that you were not seriously suggesting that as the solution. I just wanted to rant a bit about the notion for the benefit of readers like Dan E who might think no problem ruin this planet just move on. More likely, he figures jesus will rapture him up if the worst happens, or that Jehovah wrote us a blank check so nothing bad like the breakdown of our planetary biological systems will ever happen.

Chris,
It amazes me that the most ardent supporters of the theory of man made global warming are the ones with the least fact and the most insults.

Do you really believe you can insult your way past scientific fact?

It is set out so plainly and simply, why don't the leaders of the world demand it be done?
It is not just coincidence that the climate changes and the running out of affordable fossil fuels have come to an end at the same time!

just wondering what underlying beliefs of yours are standing in the way of your acceptance of modern science, that's all, Dan. Not trying to insult, not seriously.

Chris,
How about posting some of that "modern science"?

I refer you to the IPCC.

"I refer you to the IPCC."

You mean the organization who's science could not predict this ten year climate anomaly of temperature moderation that we are experiencing?

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L05701, doi:10.1029/2008GL036307, 2009

ACRIM-gap and TSI trend issue resolved using a surface magnetic flux TSI proxy model

Nicola Scafetta
Physics Department, Duke University,
Durham, North Carolina, USA

Richard C. Willson
ACRIM,
Coronado, California, USA

"1. Introduction
[2] The contiguous ~30 year TSI database of satellite observations extends from late 1978 to the present includes the maxima and minima of three sunspot cycles. This database is comprised of the observations of seven independent experiments: Nimbus7/ERB [Hoyt et al., 1992], SMM/ACRIM1 [Willson and Hudson, 1991], ERBS/ERBE [Lee et al., 1995], UARS/ACRIM2 [Willson, 1997], SOHO/VIRGO [Fröhlich et al., 1997], ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003] and SORCE/TIM [Kopp et al., 2005] (see Figures S1–S3 of the auxiliary material). None of these independent datasets covers the entire period of observation, thus a composite of the database is necessary to obtain a TSI time series."

Chris, notice that last statement, "None of these independent datasets covers the entire period of observation, thus a composite of the database is necessary to obtain a TSI time series."

That is the "modern science" that the IPCC has been working with, and please notice this included in the conclusion in this research paper,

"24] This finding has evident repercussions for climate change and solar physics. Increasing TSI between 1980 and 2000 could have contributed significantly to global warming during the last three decades [Scafetta and West, 2007, 2008]. Current climate models [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] have assumed that the TSI did not vary significantly during the last 30 years and have therefore underestimated the solar contribution and overestimated the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036307.shtml

The scientists who study the sun have been saying this for decades. How could the IPCC and their "modern science" get it so wrong?

Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception

David - Interesting article, thanks for sharing it with us. It sounds like the conference went well, and thats great!

"The scientists who study the sun have been saying this for decades. How could the IPCC and their "modern science" get it so wrong?"

Really? Please explain the article you cited, in particular the part that says the IPCC consensus is wrong.

"Really?"
Yes.

"Please explain the article you cited,"

I know that it's a little confusing all of that technical scientist jargon and all but if you read carefully I'm sure you'll get it.

"the part that says the IPCC consensus is wrong. "

David this is a research letter it deals in data and research...you know science. It would not contain political commentary concerning a consensus.

In other words, you don't know and you don't care, because you think it says what you want it to say (even though it doesn't).

There's that durn reading comprehension problem rising up again David!

Actually we both know what it is David, don't we? The research strongly suggest that you are wrong and you just won't accept it.

you have your eyes closed, your fingers in your ears and you are singing la-la-la-la- just so you don't have to accept it.

You have become a parody of yourself, Dan. You must be very proud.

Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception.

Of course, not all denialists are deceivers. Some are just incapable of understanding science (or even logic).

Which are you?

"Dan. You must be very proud."

Well yes I am David,
We have been going at this for quiet some time now, yet you have to offer any effective debate against the science that shows the IPCC conclusions in error.

Seems like nearly day by day research is found that disputes the IPCC'S position that C02 is the cause of global warming.

Case in point,

"Cosmic Ray Flux and Neutron monitors suggest we may not have hit solar minimum yet"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/15/cosmic-ray-flux-and-neutron-monitors-suggest-we-may-not-have-hit-solar-minimum-yet/

Yup David it looks like we (the earth) may remain cooler for quiet a while.

just stop Dan, i can't bear this.

"Such and such a source says..."

One common ploy is circular citation. The denialist industry creates a "press release" masquerading as scientific opinion. It then ensures that it circulates to its network of bloggers - some paid, others merely ideological lackeys - for distribution. Call it the "cut-and-paste" method of creating the impression that there is more uncertainty than there is, more disagreement than there is, and more authority than there is. Citing a blog that stole from another blog that stole from another blog that got it from the industry denialist machine is a combination of lazy and deceitful. The intent is to create an implied volume of information when it is in fact nothing more than creative plagiarism. Given that any person with a computer can publish anything they want without any kind of check on its factual integrity, no blog can be used for anything more than ascertaining the blogger's opinion, which by definition is tuned to their inherent biases. That's why you get the same sort of "conspiracy theory" stories showing up on "conspiracy theory" blogs. In short, citing a blog as a source of scientific fact is meaningless, not to mention that it and shows a lack of scientific understanding and/or a willingness to deceive.

Isn't that exactly what this is? A copy and paste press release masquerading as scientific opinion? No real data. Not a single citation. Most of the IPCC refers to "socio-economic" concerns and not environmental or scientific evidence. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should understand that economists really are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination. Whatever they want to call themselves they are not a reliable source of information or projections and history has shown they should not be a deciding factor for governmentally enforced policies. Combined with "social scientists" and "political scientists" they could be considered a major source of global warming as they produce nothing more than a bunch of hot air.

"Social science" and "political science" have nothing to do with the climate and all "research" being done by them in regards to this are frivolous and amount to nothing more than a farce. They lend more credibility to those who oppose the IPCC which does no scientific research whatsoever and don't appear to have any system for validating anything either.

Of the very few models not readily cited (or vaguely referred to) are too much like weather models and much of the historical data about climate is absent. In many of the "scenarios", which are not absolutes, the emphasis is on far reaching assumptions and really don't focus on climate as much as they do on "socio-economics". Just about every day we get to see the inaccuracy of some of these technologies and their inabilities to predict short term weather. One would like to believe that over a number of years and billions of dollars the accuracy of this technology would have improved but the process of selection of the millions of possible scenarios it is limited to just one and is still completely random.

One area that I find to be quite contradictory throughout the debate is the assumption that "global warming" scenarios appear to stop all evolution in it's tracks and organisms won't be able to adapt to the progressive changes.

Pollution is a problem in the environment and cannot be disputed but the lack of any intelligent unbiased solutions on any sides of this debate should be of greatest concern to the people. It is the same on all sides as evident by the majority of the presentations on the issues concerning the IPCC. They are not concerns for the general welfare of the world population but more with control over the resources of the world, who can use them and how/when. When one considers the alleged causes and controls the UN wants to implement, the developing counties would actually have the greatest advantage as opposed to disadvantage as they have the opportunity to protect their resources unlike the developed countries who have already polluted them. Things such as relying more on point of use energy generation would eliminate the stated concerns and challenges of the countries who have centralized generation with distribution grids.

If the concern is real and we are in such dire straights that we really lack any time, science would get a major boost by governments implementing requirements/restrictions on the emissions of these toxic substances regardless of where they originate from instead of relying on this ongoing political debate and non-existent public funds to correct a problem that for the most part is beyond the publics understanding or doing. Isn't that is why congress uses our money to fund all these agencies who were supposed to protect us from or at the very least inform the public about the effects of industry on the environment and people?

Anyone who is concerned about the environment/pollution and focuses solely on the impacts from fossil fuels with complete disregard of the impacts created by the biochemical companies (who appear to be one of the largest benefactors of many UN implemented/enforced policies) or certain elements, such as weather manipulation experiments, which are not even taken into consideration or even mentioned, is not really as concerned with the environment or humanity as much as they are in the creation of policy.

I'm all for logic but it is very hard to find any whenever science and the governments get together.

BLL - I presented the key messages that came out of a scientific conference of climate scientists. It's from a press release, not a blog.

Good point Blind,

But you see it's O.K. when David does it.

"But you see it's O.K. when David does it."

But I didn't copy a blog and claim it was science, did I, Dan? I highlighted the six key messages from a press release and called them six key messages from a press release.

You do realize to have credibilty you have to make some logical sense, at least occasionally. A little journalistic integrity helps too.

"I'm all for logic but it is very hard to find any whenever science and the governments get together. "

By the way, nice platitude. What does it mean?

"But I didn't copy a blog and claim it was science, did I, Dan?"

Close enough David,

You copied a press release from the administrators of the confrence and claimed;

"Climate Scientists in Copenhagen Issue Key Messages - It's Getting Worse, Folks"

The climate scientists had nothing to do with the press release....Oh you are so disingeious, so deceptive......OH SO DISHONEST!!!! I'm just apalled.....(snicker) LOL!

"The climate scientists had nothing to do with the press release....Oh you are so disingeious, so deceptive......OH SO DISHONEST!!!! I'm just apalled.....(snicker) LOL!"

False indignation is part of the denialists deception playbook. See Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception

Apparently also are basic reading comprehension skills.

I guess it's just another platitude like "Global Warming, It's getting worse folks" although there is more readily available factual information on the lack of logic coming from our government. The fundamentals of our monetary system is the reason why it could never be sound so statements like "Our economy is fundamentally sound" is void of any logic. Logic deals with principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration.

If you go to the IPCC website and the UN Climate Change Conference website, where a comment to one of your articles came from , "Half the world could become unliveable" [sic], you are hard pressed to find any scientific data to support such claims. On the UNCCC website you get the impression that you may be getting close but when you click on the "Climate Facts" link you are presented with what can be described as nothing more than a sales page. Not a single fact on the climate. When you go through the IPCC documents the underlying message is that they want to place a tax on CO2 emissions more than they want to reduce or eliminate them. The footnotes in the documents give a more accurate picture of the realities and the actual goals. Ninety percent inaccuracy/uncertainty is a pretty low standard. If we go to other concerns with ninety percent accuracy/certainty there is no talk about it whatsoever as these are typically very profitable enterprises.

The US government and world organizations are the master in the art of deception especially in the areas of science. The IPCC documents rely on the lack of basic comprehension skills of people because those who can comprehend have a list of questions. One "fact" they continually refer to beginning with documents created in 1998 is a "fifty year observation" that began in 1970 and in 2007 the fifty year time frame has remained static.

ACT determined that about 50% of college entrants lack adequate college-level skills in reading comprehension and the majority of graduates are missing college-ready skills in math and science. Harvard had done a study indicating that college graduates had an even lower comprehension rate of about 5%. Much of this has been filtered from the public along with many of the articles about "Strategic Misrepresentation" classes. Their reasoning for lower comprehension was that the materials they are tested on are more complex. Unfortunately their was no thought given to re-administering the ACT test upon graduation. The Art of Deception: The same businesses and organization who are complaining the most are looking for more money to research this "trend", however they are the same ones who have the control over the curriculums that have produced these students or "human resource materials". So logic would cause one to question wether it is a lack of comprehension or if it is based upon affective questioning. Do they really not understand what they read or do they come to a logical conclusion based upon analysis of the information and not influenced by the feelings and emotions they were intended to produce?

Lady, "Blind" is a good word for you. If college graduates are ill equipped to made judgments, how well equipped are the high school grads who make up the denial movement?

"When you go through the IPCC documents the underlying message is that they want to place a tax on CO2 emissions more than they want to reduce or eliminate them"

That seems a bit disingenuous on your part. How would you suggest coaxing people to use less fossil fuels, perhaps we should make those fuels cheaper? How would that work? Not to mention, you probably think that CO2 emissions are a good thing, so do not pose as someone who favors reducing or eliminating them and is outraged only by the perceived (but in fact nonexistent) hypocrisy of your opponents. If you do not favor reducing or eliminating carbon emissions, stop posing as someone who does.

hiding underneath your arguments, and those of Dan and of LB above, is the conviction that this is not about science, and that science is quite unnecessary to making a good judgment on climate change. It's not about science, it is about your conspiracy theory that Obama and the IPCC are using climate change as a trojan horse to convert the US economy to outright communism. Admit it. And if you admit it, stop using fake science as cover for your free market mania. Repeat after me: I don't care about science one bit, it's all about my visceral fear that jackbooted liberal goons are going to take away all my money in the "false" project of preserving our planet for future generations.

So what you are saying Chris W. is that regardless of the level of education you have you have nothing intelligent to say or add and therefore must rely on character defamation because you have no clue about any of the topics that you have touched upon and are a well trained parrot? Was that the extent of your education "repeat after me"? That has been the educational standard for quite some time now and you appear to be incapable of analytical reasoning not to mention you know nothing about me, who I am or why I even joined Gather in the first place.

One thing that is painfully evident is that there are primarily only two types of people on this site. Those who expect some sort of god to provide everything for them and those who expect the government to provide everything for them. The sad thing about it is that regardless of which category they fall into the ones who claim to be the utmost authorities and comment on many articles never cite any relevant information relying solely on the defamation of those who express an opposing viewpoint intelligent or otherwise.

You are an example of why there is more involvement with social and political science in this matter than their is of those who should be able to provide data that can be analyzed and their findings reproduced or at least researched further. If you read the article "Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception" you fit the description quite well as it is a technique employed by both side of many debates or discussions when one is incapable of expressing an intelligent response.

Maybe you can direct us all to the white papers detailing the research that you support so adamantly or are uneducated assumptions and name-calling the extent of your abilities?.

I didn't see a denial of my accusation in there, Blind Lady. If it was character defamation, sorry, but I struggle to see inside the heads of deniers because I can't quite understand the motivation. If you are not thinking about communism as you comment on climate science, then say so and maybe I will believe you. You see an agenda in my approach to climate change science, which happens to mirror the prevailing science. I see an agenda in yours, which does not.

I do not consider myself a well trained parrot, by the way. I have read several dozen books on climate change written by scientists. Only a couple of those were written by denial squad members, and I will admit that I put those down after reading one chapter, because the books seemed silly.

I never expected God to provide me with everything, since I am not a believer. Did I expect the federal government to provide me everything? No. I pay my taxes and I don't whine about it. I don't make much money, so I don't pay much taxes.
Actually the majority of gatherites do fall into broad categories, but there are some who really defy categorization. You might be surprised.

"I guess it's just another platitude like "Global Warming, It's getting worse folks""

Actually, this would not be a platitude, just a catchy title reflecting the key messages that was the topic of the post. A platitude is when you say something without meaning under the impression that it has meaning. Like:

"I'm all for logic but it is very hard to find any whenever science and the governments get together. "

So, what does it mean?

"One thing that is painfully evident is that there are primarily only two types of people on this site. Those who expect some sort of god to provide everything for them and those who expect the government to provide everything for them."

Actually, this seems to be more a reflection of your own limited appreciation than reality. True there are people who think God will provide everthing for them; true there are people who expect the government to provide everything for them. But in both cases this is a very small percentage of the people on Gather and in the real world. You can say the same for people like yourself who think that the government has no role in society. Except for providing the roads you drive on, the soldiers who fight for us, and enforcing laws that helped stop rivers from catching fire and children from working 12 hour shifts in the factory and gave you vacation days every year (plus a bunch of other stuff).

But by artificially pigeon-holing people into two groups, neither of which thinks, you can present yourself as one of a few "who think for themselves," and thus your views are right and everyone elses views are wrong. That mentality is what got us into the mess we're in now. Different viewpoints matter. As does some logical support for those views.

That said, there is a dearth of thinking by many people, both on Gather and out in real life. To likely overgeneralize, we seem to be more prone to believe bloggers who state what we already agree with over scientists who study a phenomenon for a living, if what the scientists say is inconvenient for us. Do scientists have opinions? Of course. Scientists are people and thus have political opinions just like everyone else, and those opinions span the range from ultra left wing to ultra right wing and everything in between. But this isn't about opinions. Science is about data. The data must be able to stand scrutiny. Data are compiled, evaluated, argued over, tested, retested, recompiled, reevaluated, and re-argued over ad nauseam. And the sum total of thousands of studies by thousands of researchers over many decades of work are synthesized into some meaningful consensus. After which, of course, scientists continue to collect data to more and more fine-tune our understanding of a phenomenon.

"or are uneducated assumptions and name-calling the extent of your abilities?."

"Actually, this seems to be more a reflection of your own limited appreciation than reality."

Blind,
An answer to your question from David, did you expect anything else?

Thank you Dan for again proving your inability to comprehend basic English. You didn't even read the full comment, did you?

Good information and a reminder.

Not only did the Bush Adm actively dismiss the idea of global warming, today, on more than 2400 AM radio stations, the deniers proclaim daily that it is a lie.

They require no proof, for their opinions, but demand irrefutable proof from anyone trying to bring action to stop global warming, then refuse to accept what evidence is offered.


If the capitalists can find a way to make money off stopping global warming, there would be action.

Thank you Dan for again proving your inability to comprehend basic English.

The partial quote you cite is from BLL to Chris W and has nothing to do with me.

As for the quote of mine that you cite, it was the beginning of a long comment that placed it into the context needed for comprehension. You didn't even read the full comment, did you? As usual, you started with a false premise and then sought out anything that could be taken to support your preconception.

I struggle to see the technical data that are the basis of the claims written about. Whenever one has to dig for information that is used for legislation it is an indication that something isn't being properly presented. When the legislation in question removes the sovereignty of nations along with the safeguards they put in place to protect the general welfare of their populations it raises more of a concern. The IMF, WHO and the WTO have numerous contradictory sets of policies that are being put in place throughout the world and much of the reasoning to do with "Global Warming" contradict those of their agricultural, nutrition and health policies. Vegetation plays an important part with the earth's atmosphere and currently there is a single company that owns all the patent rights to these naturally occurring organisms.

To not read something because it sounds "silly" is not something I would do or recommend. Much of what we take for granted was at one time considered "silly", pointless, unnecessary or even impossible and on and on. I am not afforded such a luxury to always pick and choose what I read and while I respect the opinions of others I cannot use them to verify or disprove a claim that someone makes about a particular matter. If you don't read the information from both sides of an issue completely you do not have all the information needed to make a proper decision. That is why congress had set the legal standard of "the truth the whole truth" as often times the truth lies somewhere in the middle. When the synthesis is unavailable or only available to a select few who all have financial and political reasons to promote a theory or idea how are others supposed to make an informed intelligent decision? Are you aware that the majority of the information used comes from a single source regardless of where the research facility is or who is conducting it? Do you know about Project Argus and the hole in the Ozone Layer or other weather manipulation tests conducted by the military? Why is it that these tests aren't included in any reports? How can it remain shielded under so-called national security when the end goal is a single world "security force" under the control of the UN? When you read all the documents pertaining to global warming you will realize that it is more of political issue than it is scientific concern.

Elements such as CO2 are naturally occurring and nature has an ability to correct itself when out of balance. Research done on old military and industrial sites that have been demolished or destroyed over time by vegetation have shown that the vegetation has also cleaned the sites of toxins and heavy metals through the process of phytoremediation. It has also done this at rates much quicker than expected. If one were to reproduce studies done with tomato plants and high levels of CO2 one disturbing thing you will find is that certain genetically modified plants do not respond the same way absorbing considerably less than a normal plant and attempts to genetically modify plants found most effective for phytoremediation have been unsuccessful to say the least.

Like nitrogen, radiation or anything else, even water, too much at one time can prove to be overwhelming with devastating effects but a single cause/solution mindset, which is the focus of the UN is not the answer and it is creating monopolies that have not maintained ethical business practices throughout history. If you don't like the "free market" now you are going to like it a lot less when it is completely gone.

"If the capitalists can find a way to make money off stopping global warming, there would be action."

Actually, the smart ones already are making money by changing wasteful business practices. Thing is, pollution is expensive. In the past the cost was externalized by companies and taxpayers picked up the tab. Now companies know that they lose a lot of profit by dumping it in a river or spewing it into the air. They know that unsustainable practices will cost them in the long run and that by "getting their act together" they can actually make more money.

Even the companies that fund the denialist camps are making changes to move into a sustainable future. Sadly, they are playing both sides of the coin as their delaying tactics allow them to position themselves to outcompete newer, more efficient players that don't have the start-up resources that the big players have. It's the game they play.

BLL - The problem is that you conflate so many different and disconnected ideas in your comments that it is hard to follow your reasoning. I'll try to tease apart a few (but not all, given the time it would take).

"The IMF, WHO and the WTO have numerous contradictory sets of policies that are being put in place throughout the world and much of the reasoning to do with "Global Warming" contradict those of their agricultural, nutrition and health policies."

True, single governments (like the US) often have contradictory policies because they are often developed by disconnected agencies under the authority of disconnected laws. International organizations such as the ones you mention are even more disconnected. So shouldn't we be trying to connect things better? And what does the fact that governments aren't always consistent with their policies have to do with the science?

"Vegetation plays an important part with the earth's atmosphere and currently there is a single company that owns all the patent rights to these naturally occurring organisms."

Clearly you're referring to Monsanto, which owns a large share of the GMO market. But there are other companies in GMOs as well, and would be even more except for the European ban on GMOs and uncertainty among other countries, mostly political but some scientific. But that isn't what you said. Neither Monsanto or any other company can hold patents on natural vegetation. Just the GMO varieties.

"To not read something because it sounds "silly" is not something I would do or recommend."

I'm not sure to what you're referring here. Sure, some ideas sound silly but turn out to be good ones. I don't have a problem with silly ideas. I do have a problem with presenting a lie as an idea, or intentionally misrepresenting the science and calling it science, or pretending that a blog is science. Any idea, whether it sounds silly or not, has to be backed by data and supporting information. No idea can be based on intentional deceit. Bring on the silly ideas - just support them honestly.

"When you read all the documents pertaining to global warming you will realize that it is more of political issue than it is scientific concern."

This comment only really can be put into perspective by including all the information that precedes it, but I didn't include it because it is using random examples of (perhaps deserved) anti-government rhetoric to support a completely independent conclusion. There is a scientific consensus on global warming. That is true. How various factions fight over what to do about it (or deny it) is not part of the science - that is the politics you mention. But the fact that politicians and corporations act like children doesn't change the fact that there is a scientific consensus.

"Elements such as CO2 are naturally occurring and nature has an ability to correct itself when out of balance."

Drink a glass of water. Aaah, refreshing. Open your mouth while you are submerged in a swimming pool. Dead. Nature has a way of correcting itself - to a point. How many dinosaurs are living today? How about the dodo bird? One was wiped out by natural galactic, geologic, and ensuing climatic forces. The other was wiped out in a matter of a few years entirely due to the actions of humans. Try another example, there are areas on this planet that used to be covered in vegetation but now are deserts. Some because of long-term climatic changes over millions of years. Some because humans overfarmed the land and set in motion a chain of events that made it unable to support life in just a few years.

The moral - don't think that climatic changes are unimportant, and don't think that man can't impact the rate of change.

"If you don't like the "free market" now you are going to like it a lot less when it is completely gone."

I never said I don't like the "free-market," but I would say that it doesn't exist and never existed. If it did it would be disasterous to everyone but a few robber barons and kings. It seems like your motivation for not believing the science is your fear that it would mean communism or fascism (or somehow, communism and fascism, as you said before). But that means you are ignoring the science because you think it would be inconvenient. That's not how science works.

David: "Actually, the smart ones already are making money by changing wasteful business practices."


GE's "ecomagination" initiative is featured in

Joel Makower's Strategies for the Green Economy : Opportunities and Challenges in the New World of Business.

Wal-Mart has developed a "sustainability" program, not only to address global warming, but other environmental and efficiency issues as well.

Two websites that show how environmental responsibility is profitable (more so than than pollution) are:

GreenBiz and Sustainable Business.

Not only are the ideological politics denying global warming bankrupt, the economic arguments against sustainability are empty, as well.

David: "I never said I don't like the 'free-market,' but I would say that it doesn't exist and never existed."

Exactly. The "free market" is a sound-byte, used to push a political agenda that has protected vested interests. That changed in November. There is now a new direction, and hopefully it will be a "fair market" - and one that rewards responsibility (including environemental responsibility). For the sake of the next couple of generations, we can hope too that it is a market that will be able to grow within the contraints of the real natural world - and not in an effort to ignore, distort, destroy, dominate or otherwise deny it.

Glad to see your article is getting the attention it deserves, David.

David and BLL- to pursue that thought expressed by BLL-

"Elements such as CO2 are naturally occurring and nature has an ability to correct itself when out of balance."
on the issue of nature being "self correcting"- with nearly 7 billion humans on the ground now, such self corrections would need to be instantaneous to prevent loss of life from the predicted consequences of climate change. Unfortunately, nature does not work that way on CO2. It is well documented that CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for centuries. Sure there was CO2 in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial planet earth, but humans nearly doubled it in 200 years by burning up massive amounts of oil and coal. Nature might eventually restore the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it's not going to happen if we continue the process of adding billions of tons of additional CO2 to the system. Teeter-totters do not return to horizontal when you put a cinderblock on one of the seats.

"Teeter-totters do not return to horizontal when you put a cinderblock on one of the seats."

I don't know why, but for some reason I like this analogy.

"Glad to see your article is getting the attention it deserves, David."

Some would say too much attention, Carla. But check out the newer article on /a>Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception.

LOL. Yes, some people don't want the truth to get out.

"The partial quote you cite is from BLL to Chris W and has nothing to do with me."

Maybe...why don't you ask Blind to make sure. LOL!

"David: "Actually, the smart ones already are making money by changing wasteful business practices.""

Steve,
How would a 50 cent a gallon additional tax added to fuel effect these forward thinking companies ability to move forward? Or increased energy costs? Or the increased tax rates proposed on companies?
How would it effect these companies if their customers could not purchase as much because of the effects of those factors on themselves?

A carbon tax would have a restrictive effect on the advancement of alternative energy.

Dan.

I addressed David's statement above - and gave references.

A 50 cent/gal. gas tax is not necessarily meant to move oil companies along. Sorry. And why would cutting into Exxon's record profits disturb you? Carbon taxes are meant to discourage carbon emissions. Proposals for carbon taxes are revenue neutral. Income taxes are cut to compensate for losses in increased carbon taxes. Of course, Exxon could get in the renewable energy business - couldn't they?

Tax incentives/subsidies to renewables are a separate issue, though they can and should be paid for by taxes on carbon. There doesn't need to be any adverse effect on renewables. And when you consider the tax breaks/subsidies that would be required to further pursue fossils, which are increasingly more difficult to find and extract, then deployment of renewables is a deal.

Consider $150 billion that has been committed to expanding renewables over the next decade. If we had done this eight years ago instead of spending (presently) $605 billion in Iraq, then we would be driving electric or hydrogne fuel cell cars already, and your house would be powered via a computer that managed your energy use.

At any rate, the outlook for renewables seems optimistic.

Btw, Dan, it's good to see you are actually discussing aspects of these issues that actually are subject to debate - policy.

Dan: "A carbon tax would have a restrictive effect on the advancement of alternative energy."

Two points: 1. This is the kind of statement vested interests will make when confronted with change. I used to hear that CAFE standards would cost auto industry jobs. Ultimately, those jobs went away anyway, didn't they? 2. "Alternative" energy is no longer an accurate term. That term assumes and "alternative" to something. Renewable energy is what we are talking about - solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro.

"Carbon taxes are meant to discourage carbon emissions."

My understanding is that there has been no reduction of carbon emissions in any country that has impleminted carbon restriction tax measures....Do you know of any?.....Didn't think so.

"Proposals for carbon taxes are revenue neutral."

How so Steve?
Everything on the store shelves raises in costs due to increased fuel costs, fuel to get back and forth to work costs more, energy to heat and cool homes rises.

Please explain how carbon taxes are "revenus neutral".

The facts are that they (carbon taxes) are not revenue neutral as you claim, that the people most impacted by a carbon tax are the most vernerable in our society the poor and elderly.

"Btw, Dan, it's good to see you are actually discussing aspects of these issues that actually are subject to debate - policy."

Only those of the faith see it that way Steve, those concerned with the truth don't.

"I used to hear that CAFE standards would cost auto industry jobs. Ultimately, those jobs went away anyway, didn't they?"

Wait a minute, are you saying that it wasn't a big deal that CAFE standards caused a loss of jobs because those jobs would have been eventually lost anyway?

Dan: "...are you saying that it wasn't a big deal that CAFE standards caused a loss of jobs because those jobs would have been eventually lost anyway?"

Nope. As a matter of fact, the Japan government instituted efficiency standards that the (not so) Big Three resisted for decades. Japanese automakers adapted, and as a result, have been kicking the (not so) Big Three's respective asses. So who lost jobs due to CAFE standards? The point (which you missed) is that these threats are empty - like renewable energy will be disadvantaged by carbon taxes.

Dan: "My understanding is that there has been no reduction of carbon emissions in any country that has impleminted carbon restriction tax measures...."

Your "understanding" is, as usual, skewed. It seems results are mixed. Norway's Carbon Tax Fails to Deliver Emissions Reductions
__________

Norway imposed a carbon tax some 17 years ago but emissions have shifted in the wrong direction: Greenhouse gas emissions grew 15 percent....

Other nations have made carbon taxes work. For example, Sweden and Denmark reduced emissions 14 percent and 8 percent, respectively, without sacrificing economic growth....

Yet the Wall Street Journal story points to some positive signs behind Norway's efforts to reduce emissions....

The extra fee has forced some sectors hardest hit by the carbon tax — oil and
gas, in particular -- to rethink the way they do business....

Dan: "Everything on the store shelves raises in costs due to increased fuel costs, fuel to get back and forth to work costs more, energy to heat and cool homes rises."

Gosh, like last summer, when oil reached $147/barrel? Yeah, let's wait until that happens again before we actually do something about shifting to renewables.

Dan: "...the people most impacted by a carbon tax are the most vernerable in our society the poor and elderly."

Some time ago, when you raised this concern about "the most vernerable in our society", I gave you a reference to a program Amory Lovins proposed. Actually, it's the poor and elderly, who are going to be hit hardest by climate change. And it's the poor, urban kids, who stand to be big winners in a green economy. Van Jones is a leading writer on that subject.

Dan: "Please explain how carbon taxes are 'revenus neutral'."

Offsets in lower income taxes. Why not? Why shouldn't we tax pollution instead of income? Why do you claim that wouldn't be revenue neutral? People pay more in income taxes than your theoretically prohibitive rise in the cost of living.

Dan: 'Only those of the faith see it that way Steve...."

Don't make me list all those scientific organizations again....

Dan: "...those concerned with the truth don't."

Well, go enjoy your little truth with the other skeptics. I'm not going to waste any more time on that. If you want to "debate" policy - what to do about the problem - then I'm in. Otherwise, I find no useful purpose in arguing whether there is a problem.