Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[Augustine2004]

I just read that the region of the Bakken oil field (NW USA and SW Canada) had the coldest winter in 100 years. Companies couldn't do much drilling and pumping.

[rogero]

I concur with Frank that dialogue with the extremists "phank" and "Augustine----" (what a travesty dishonor of use of that moniker) is a futile pursuit.

[Augustine2004]

rogero, you are quite free to point out any flaw in my argument. And if your last post here was prompted by my report, you seem like one who complains he couldn't get the thermometer reader to listen. Why the hell do something that may stop the reader's reports?

[FLovell]

I concur with Frank that dialogue with the extremists "phank" and "Augustine----" (what a travesty dishonor of use of that moniker) is a futile pursuit.

Actually, Aug and I are not terribly far apart on the topic of Global Climate (AGW vs. plain ol' GW) -- I could be wrong but while Aug and I don't see perfectly eye-to-eye I think we disagree less than we agree on this subject. Of course, as a Global Climate Change "Inevitablist" (one who presently strongly suspects Earth's climate will do in the future pretty-much what it has done in the past [warm and cool and warm again as colossal forces have their Fourier-dynamic net way with Earth] and regardless of ANYthing we humans do or don't do to try to tweak and fine-tune global climate) almost nobody sees eye-to-eye with me on the topic of this dialogue list. As for other subjects, I try (not always with success, but I do try) to stay out of dialogue here that strays off-topic. My being an atheist and a (little-l) libertarian keeps most others in major disagreement with me on many other issues too...being at odds with MOST people is a way of life for me, but I argue only when invited, but only so long as doing so is fruitful (failures to communicate are not worth prolonging) and preferably only in appropriate forums.

Like you, Rogero, I am not a fan of Big Gu'mint <grin>. And I think premature intense politicization of anything is always a bad move.

'Nuff said by me here and now... -- Frank

[phank]

Actually, Aug and I are not terribly far apart on the topic of Global Climate (AGW vs. plain ol' GW) -- I could be wrong but while Aug and I don't see perfectly eye-to-eye I think we disagree less than we agree on this subject. Of course, as a Global Climate Change "Inevitablist" (one who presently strongly suspects Earth's climate will do in the future pretty-much what it has done in the past [warm and cool and warm again as colossal forces have their Fourier-dynamic net way with Earth] and regardless of ANYthing we humans do or don't do to try to tweak and fine-tune global climate) almost nobody sees eye-to-eye with me on the topic of this dialogue list.

One would think that this distinction would be amenable to careful investigation. And perhaps the best way to do that is to identify all of the causes behind current warming trends, both human and otherwise. Of course, that's hard to do. And then to weight these causes to see how much each is contributing to the total. And of course that's hard to do as well. One approach I see being used is to look for clues in past warming and cooling periods, long before there were any humans. But many avenues of research are in fact being followed. We may start with opinions as to human contributions, but it's always possible those opinions will be malleable as evidence is accumulated.

Like you, Rogero, I am not a fan of Big Gu'mint <grin>. And I think premature intense politicization of anything is always a bad move.

'Nuff said by me here and now... -- Frank

Politicization makes any sort of objective scientific efforts nearly impossible, because politics often determines who gets funding, and whose findings will get paid attention to. The political process and actors aren't all that interested in knowing exactly what's happening; they're interested in knowing the social and public effects of the perception of what's happening, and knowing how to manage those perceptions for political purposes.

Something like global warming cannot avoid being intensely political, even in concept. And that's true because both the possible effects of warming, and the possible effects of trying to manage that warming, have broadly political, social, and economic ramifications. So the political battle, far from being premature, must come FIRST. We as a broad society, even a global society, must decide what we prefer to believe. Once there is consensus on that preference, we can comfortably act accordingly. Of course, if reality disagrees with our preferences, it means our comfortable policies will end up being counterproductive. If and when that becomes clear enough, then what we do is we look at the "stupid" decisions made a couple generations ago, and we wonder "what were they thinking? Couldn't the SEE the obvious?"

[Augustine2004]

Something like global warming cannot avoid being intensely political, even in concept. And that's true because both the possible effects of warming, and the possible effects of trying to manage that warming, have broadly political, social, and economic ramifications. So the political battle, far from being premature, must come FIRST.

I am going to pose a counterfactual question. What if this political battle is won BEFORE we have any sort of a substantial scientific basis for one broad conclusion or something else AND the battle goes to the laissez faire side? Would you then wring your hands and sprinkle ashes on your head?

[phank]

I am going to pose a counterfactual question. What if this political battle is won BEFORE we have any sort of a substantial scientific basis for one broad conclusion or something else AND the battle goes to the laissez faire side? Would you then wring your hands and sprinkle ashes on your head?

I'm not sure I understand this question. If the political battle (the battle of public opinion, and of funding, and of priorities, etc.) is won by the "no problems here, plenty of problems over there" side, then there will be little public interest. Yeah, you might have a few climatologists doing small scale studies on their own dime, but so what? The point is, in this case the "battle" would never escalate into the public perception. You wouldn't know anyone was making such claims, neither would I. Nobody can keep up with what everyone is writing in every offbeat publication. So we wouldn't either know or care. And perhaps we would never need to.

But by now, the global warming battle HAS been fought, and I guess what you'd call the "laizzez faire" side has lost it, in the sense that too many qualified people have written and spoken too prominently, and the issue has reached broad public awareness. And the current scientific results are becoming too solid to hand-wave away. So NOW the battle is over what we DO about it. And here, my strong suspicion is that we'll do essentially nothing, because the inertia against changes of that magnitude is simply overwhelming. People aren't going to make (or pay for) changes like that if they don't have to.

We are kind of like the uninsured pauper who needs major medical attention to stay alive. We MUST have it, we can't afford it, so we WON'T GET it. No use wringing our hands. Certainly I'm not making any lifestyle changes, and I'm not about to. I don't know anyone who is.

[FLovell]

One would think that this distinction would be amenable to careful investigation. And perhaps the best way to do that is to identify all of the causes behind current warming trends, both human and otherwise. Of course, that's hard to do. And then to weight these causes to see how much each is contributing to the total. And of course that's hard to do as well. One approach I see being used is to look for clues in past warming and cooling periods, long before there were any humans. But many avenues of research are in fact being followed. We may start with opinions as to human contributions, but it's always possible those opinions will be malleable as evidence is accumulated.

Politicization makes any sort of objective scientific efforts nearly impossible, because politics often determines who gets funding, and whose findings will get paid attention to. The political process and actors aren't all that interested in knowing exactly what's happening; they're interested in knowing the social and public effects of the perception of what's happening, and knowing how to manage those perceptions for political purposes.

Something like global warming cannot avoid being intensely political, even in concept. And that's true because both the possible effects of warming, and the possible effects of trying to manage that warming, have broadly political, social, and economic ramifications. So the political battle, far from being premature, must come FIRST. We as a broad society, even a global society, must decide what we prefer to believe. Once there is consensus on that preference, we can comfortably act accordingly. Of course, if reality disagrees with our preferences, it means our comfortable policies will end up being counterproductive. If and when that becomes clear enough, then what we do is we look at the "stupid" decisions made a couple generations ago, and we wonder "what were they thinking? Couldn't the SEE the obvious?"

May be, and maybe not. 'Nuff said by me on this here and now.. -- Frank

[Augustine2004]

Is it me, or is Phank really as incoherent as I think he is?

[FLovell]

Is it me, or is Phank really as incoherent as I think he is?

-- Frank

[phank]

Is it me, or is Phank really as incoherent as I think he is?

You might ask specific questions, and see if we can get on the same page. Otherwise, this question serves no purpose other than to indicate that you aren't making the effort to parse through what I write.

(And note that this is Natural Science 301. If you had gone to college, you would realize that the material at ANY 300-level course is going to seem incoherent to those who have not taken 101 and 201.)

[Augustine2004]

Phank is saying two contradictory things.

1. The public is apathetic about climate change despite the State's efforts to drum up support for its proposed policies ostensibly designed to ameliorate it. Therefore, nothing will be done about it.

2. Phank is nevertheless seems a bit alarmed despite writing, 'No use wringing our hands.'

3. He does not come right out and suggest State action, but I get the impression he wants us to push for it.

4. He surely knows--or is he a complete naif--that if we do not want State action, we have to fight against it.

[phank]

Phank is saying two contradictory things.

1. The public is apathetic about climate change despite the State's efforts to drum up support for its proposed policies ostensibly designed to ameliorate it. Therefore, nothing will be done about it.

No, this isn't quite correct. The public isn't apathetic, the public is ambivalent. Not the same thing. As with most things, the public wants the goodies but does not wish to pay for them. My belief is that the goodies in this case aren't as immediate as the payment, so nothing will happen. It's no accident that American marketing is a gratification-now, payment-later business.

2. Phank is nevertheless seems a bit alarmed despite writing, 'No use wringing our hands.'

Yes, but how is this contradictory? We might all be disturbed at the prospect of death, but this doesn't mean we should standing around wringing our hands over it.

3. He does not come right out and suggest State action, but I get the impression he wants us to push for it.

The problem here is, "state action" is too undefined. States have a way of taking some very inappropriate actions, because they have to try to please everyone who matters, and this is often a mixed lot. I'm quite sure that there are SOME things the state can do which would be both inexpensive and cost-effective. I'm equally sure the state won't do those things, because the expense would fall on those too powerful to upset. So what the state tends to do is inconvenience those less powerful, accomplishing little or nothing of value, in order to create the perception that they are "addressing the problem."

4. He surely knows--or is he a complete naif--that if we do not want State action, we have to fight against it.

Again, "state action" is much too broad. But as we can see right here in this thread, even trying to move toward cleaner air offends those who feel that the air is clean enough and the effort inconveniences someone.

The problem with a large and rather pluralistic nation is, there is no action the state can take about anything (including not taking any action!) that won't offend a lot of people. When there isn't even any agreement on whether we have a problem at all, the state is basically hosed. No matter what it does (or does not do) is guaranteed to be wrong, in the eyes of many. So the state, very cautiously, attempts to address things nearly everyone agrees should be addressed - like reducing air pollution - and sure enough, along comes someone to oppose even THAT!

My understanding is, Glenn's "solution" to the problem is to hope that someone else solves it in some way we can't currently imagine, sometime in the future, but meanwhile business as usual, let's ignore the problem. And you seem to be saying, we should wait until someone besides the state does something about it. And meanwhile, let's all hope there are no problems, because the State is always wrong, and nobody else will do squat.

My belief is, doing anything meaningful about global warming faces serious obstacles. For one, it's a pay now and hope for results in a generation or two issue, and that's the opposite of how things get done. For another, the cost of doing anything truly helpful is more than anyone is going to be willing to pay. For another, exactly what would be most effective is yet to be determined. For another, there's nothing resembling a global organization capable of managing such an enterprise even if there were global agreement that something should be done AND global agreement on what it is.

So I think what's going to happen is, nature will take its course and we will do our best to deal with the fallout. Or someone else will - I won't last that long.

[Augustine2004]

The Economist has an article on the quiet sun
http://www.economist.com/node/18833483

[grmorton]

Years ago, a young geoscientist was in my office complaining about some stupid decision that the Executive Committee of our company had made. He said he simply couldn't understand why they did what they did. I asked him what he would be willing to do for $1 million per year? He, quite rationally, replied: "Almost anything!". To which, I replied, "That is all you need to know to understand upper management!"

So, it was with interest today that I saw the lawsuit against NASA wanting to know if James Hansen has complied with Federal law for the estimated $1.2 million he has made off of being an environmental spokesman. It seems that he has been paid, and paid handsomely by the environmental groups, who always turn around and tell us how pristine pure his science is. But of course, when I say something about oil, I often have these same kind of folks dismiss what I say because I am 'paid by the oil industry'. And these same folks claim that tobacco scientists in the 1960s were tainted by taking tobacco money. But, my suspicion is that very few of these folks will condemn Hansen for getting rich off his political advocacy (and earning a nice taxpayer salary as well). Because he says what they want to hear, they will still contend that Hansen getting rich off his advocacy has no impact on the believe-ability of his science. Of course, they won't grant that same status to people in the oil industry speaking about oil, nor tobacco paid scientists.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677...ansens-records

Hansen would be a fool to find data contradictory to his gravy train!

ATI Law Center Asks Court to Force NASA to Produce Ethics and Outside Employment Records of Dr. James Hansen

ATI seeks to learn whether NASA approved Hansen's outside employment, which public financial disclosures and other documents reveal to have brought him at least $1.2 million in the past four years."

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...124303434.html

© source where applicable

The Hill notes that it is a 'conservative' group doing the suing. Of course it is a conservative group. The liberal groups don't care if their favorite guy is paid off to say what he does. Only a conservative group would care.

I have often been sarcastically asked by the global warming crowd if I thought AGW was a grand conspiracy. I have always answered that it was group think. But with Al Gore earning almost a billion dollars off of AGW one has to wonder if the science is being stilted by the $$$ in the eyes. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...llionaire.html

No doubt, the AGW crowd will now condemn me for even mentioning this conflict of interest Hansen has. Such conflicts of interest are only to be mentioned if one is speaking of a conservative. Thus I am being very rude and impolite to think that a single standard should be applied to the likes of Hansen AND to the tobacco researchers.