The Bureaucratic Thermostat
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
-
An editorial in the SF Gate has lit my fire this morning. In it, the anonymous author asserts that placing our eggs in the CO2 basket will halt climate change on earth. Give me a break. (John Stossel won’t sue me for that will he?)
Global warming can’t be solved by California alone, and mistakes here could set back efforts immeasurably.
Wow…the ego of the warming alarmist is staggering. Global warming can’t be solved by California because it’s not a problem humans can solve (or create). Just because we have recorded temperature fluctuations in the last century (that have also occurred for millions, dare I say, BILLIONS of years) it must be our fault. After all, isn’t everything our fault?
How can it be reasonable to think humans can keep the earth’s climate in a static state. It’s insane, it’s unrealistic, it’s impossible. Humans can’t create thunderstorms, stop tornadoes, relieve droughts, make it snow, change course of cyclones, cause earthquakes, or even predict any of these climatic events with much accuracy. Yet, I’m being told that a cap-and-trade program will save us all. WHAT?!?!? Bureaucracy is the new thermostat? I’m calling BS on that.
For consumers and business the biggest concern may be cost. Nichols, who was put in charge of the climate change issue by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, begged off predicting financial impacts for now.….Among the biggest boosters of the climate-change package are Silicon Valley financiers, who believe the field is ripe for growth.
Ya don’t say. You mean that the financiers who will profit greatly from a cap and trade scheme are in favor of it? Didn’t see that coming. How much has Al Gore made preaching his alarmism? That helps him afford his electric and natural gas bills that continue to climb.
Moving on…
There’s next to no doubt about global warming and its changes to weather, farming, health and habitation.
The author got this point right, but is on the wrong side of the fence. Earth’s climate has ALWAYS changed, and always will, regardless of how powerful the St of CA believes itself to be. The first half of the last century saw a temperature decrease. Many scientists were preaching doom and gloom of another Ice Age. Then there were a few decades of temperature increase…then a decade again of cooling….now predictions that the cooling will last another 20 years. This all happened while CO2 levels continue to rise. At least the plants are loving it.
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 27 June 2008:
Sham and scam for the scientifically challenged and politically correct crowd.
Comment by hugh d'apostrophe on 27 June 2008:
Isn’t it amazing how many people are duped by this idea that we puny humans could be changing the climate? As if the simple act of dumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere year after year, decade after decade, could make the tiniest difference! What hubris!
I’m not surprised that the public could swallows this hokum. But the entire scientific community? How could so many peer reviewed scientists be so easily fooled? (Of course, there are a few brave stalwarts still willing to stand up to the Climate Hysterics, but their numbers are dwindling.)
Well, I shouldn’t be surprised. I mean, this is the same scientific community that swallowed Darwin’s theories wholesale, and continues to promote the bogus idea that humans are descended from apes.
Keep up the good work!
H.
Comment by Jason Blanchard on 28 June 2008:
Hugh, humans account for a mere 3% C02 released into the atmosphere each year. Also keep in mind that TOTAL CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time is about .038%!!! 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, .9% Argon, and .038% CO2. CO2 levels DO NOT correlate to temperature changes. If you’d do some research, you might discover that water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas, and accounts for MUCH more warming that CO2 ever will. Ever.
Comment by Jason Blanchard on 28 June 2008:
Hugh, as for the “few brave stalwarts”/….? Again, you’ve been misled. How about over 31,000 SCIENTISTS rejecting anthropogenic GW?
http://notinmygreenhouse.hypocrisy.com/2008/05/19/over-31000-scientists-reject-human-related-global-warming/
Jason Blanchards last blog post..The Bureaucratic Thermostat
Comment by Hugh D'Apostrophe on 28 June 2008:
Jason, I totally agree. I mean, I’m not a scientist, but your facts are really impressive. 3%? Wow!
In trying to make sense of the question of climate change, I could trust the vast majority of the *peer-reviewed* scientific community which has concluded that human activities are warming the planet, and that urgent action is needed. Or, I could choose to listen to a small number of scientists who question the consensus.
(31,000 deniers? That is quite a lot of scientists. How many of those are peer reviewed? How many teach at major universities or work for governments? How many are supported by oil and coal industry money?)
I think I’ll choose the easy route — I go with Jason’s 31,000 supposed scientists, who happily do not believe I need to change my consumption habits in any way! That’s truly convenient.
H.
Comment by Jason Blanchard on 28 June 2008:
Show me your “vast-majority”…it doesn’t exist.
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
It is peer-reviewed…. http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html
The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science. http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications_Of_Signers.html
As far as consumption goes, that’s a bit of a different story and should be discussed on it’s own. But,keep in mind….Nothing in the St of CA proposal endorses, or encourages less consumption. It’s quite the opposite. They are expecting growth to their state economy with carbon caps, and cap and trade schemes.
Jason Blanchards last blog post..The Bureaucratic Thermostat
Comment by Bill - Florida on 28 June 2008:
Hugh - Without knowing if Jason has good data, consensus seems to be absent based on these two meanings:
1. broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group
2. view of society in equilibrium: a concept of society in which the absence of conflict is seen as the equilibrium state of society
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 28 June 2008:
Jason:
I have read the ROBINSON-ROBINESON AND SOON paper; and reviewed the massive list of petition signers - impressive, and I even know a couple. Many years ago I lunched with Dr. Teller at Westminster and queried him on Oppenheimer. He had broad interest and intellect. Although the petition focuses on the Kyoto Protocol, and even though I am only trained in Metallurgical and Chemical Engineering this whole climate change debate is a political con job based on junk science.
Do not be dissuaded by the asinine attacks.
Comment by Hugh D'Apostrophe on 28 June 2008:
Hi Jason:
I’m sorry, I don’t find that list of scientists impressive in the least. These are individual scientists, many of which do not have PhDs.
I am much more impressed by the reports from the IPCC, with input from the top scientific societies around the world, and findings endorsed by the following very impressive list of national academies: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil); Royal Society of Canad; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academié des Sciences (France); Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany); Indian National Science Academy; Accademia dei Lincei (Italy); Science Council of Japan; Russian Academy of Sciences; Royal Society (United Kingdom); National Academy of Sciences (United States of America); Australian Academy of Sciences; Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts; Caribbean Academy of Sciences; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Royal Irish Academy; Academy of Sciences Malaysia; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences — not to mention the following national institutions specializing in climate, earth and ocean sciences: NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); National Academy of Sciences (NAS); State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS); American Geophysical Union (AGU); American Institute of Physics (AIP); National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); American Meteorological Society (AMS); Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS).
Note that these are not individual scientists. These are academies and institutions composed of the best and most respected scientists in their respective countries — all of whom are peer-reviewed scientists (with advanced degrees!) publishing in the most important journals, from the most prestigious schools, in the most important and relevant government agencies. When the academy of one country can agree to endorse scientific findings, that is impressive. When this many academies and institutions on this level endorse findings, that is what we call an overwhelming consensus.
A study covered in Science Magazine (note that we are not talking about “DailyTech” here) examined 928 papers in peer-reviewed journals from 1993-2003, and found the following:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
Remember that this is not your ordinary scientific question. If the consensus is correct, the world faces a looming disaster on a massive scale that threatens our very civilization. By spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about an issue of this magnitude, you may be delaying action, thereby contributing in some small way to greater suffering when the consequences of climate change begin to unfold.
The people of the future may look back at our time and reserve their greatest scorn for the foolish deniers who promoted inaction at a time when action was required — not unlike the way our generation looks back at the appeasers of fascism. It won’t be the first time that large numbers of people chose to stick their heads in the sand when the time came to act.
H.
Comment by Jason Blanchard on 29 June 2008:
Hugh, remember my name….Jason Blanchard. In 20 years, find me, and let’s talk again.
In case you missed it, there are over 9,000 PhD’s that signed that petition.
The IPCC? Really? All 51 of them that signed the Feb, 2002 petition?? I’ll take my 30,000 to your 51, all day long.
Oh yeah, we can totally trust the UN, because they had Saddam’s WMD nailed too….didn’t they? My distrust of the IPCC is so large that I will devote a new entry for that this week…stay tuned.
Your science mag link is from papers through 2003…mine was from 2004-2007 - same scientific method examining global warming papers, different result. There is NO consensus.
Jason Blanchards last blog post..The Bureaucratic Thermostat
Comment by Hugh D'Apostrophe on 29 June 2008:
Jason: I’m sorry, I don’t understand what the number 51 represents? Surely it does not represent the number of distinguished scientists involved in the study, nor the number of scientists represented by the distinguished academies and institutions that endorsed the findings.
Remember that we’re talking about the national academies of the major industrialized nations. That includes the US National Academy of Sciences. If you have respect for science, and for scientists — which you claim to have — one would think that this body commands your utmost respect. It is an elite group of scientists — it represents the most important and distinguished scientists in the United States. The National Academy of Scientists is the big leagues. All of your 9000 PhDs would doubtless KILL for the chance to be member of this body (or of the national academies of their respective nations).
The US National Academy of Sciences is not known for its radicalism, or for quickly coming to faulty conclusions. It is quite conservative, in fact. Consensus from this body would command the respect of anyone who is not a self-deluded ideologue.
Re: the UN. You are playing a transparent rhetorical trick by using the failures of the UN in confronting the dictator of Iraq to dismiss the IPCC findings. The alleged failures of the UN have no bearing whatsoever on the findings of a massive group of scientists convened by the UN to study climate change. I suppose you imagine that the scientists convened were somehow bullied or manipulated into findings that were false? Again, your profound ignorance is showing, Jason.
(This line of reasoning is absurd for another reason: Assuming that the UN could somehow influence the findings, why would they force a conclusion that runs directly contrary to the financial and corporate interests of the powerful industrialized countries that are the real power at the UN? The findings of the IPCC are most inconvenient to the US, the EU, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and every other industrialized country on the planet, since they indicate that the current reliance on oil and coal is unsustainable and must be countered by massive spending on alternative energy and clean-up.)
You are correct that the study I sent is from 2003. I find it amusing that you see this as cause for dismissal of this point. Since 2003, the consensus on the human role in climate change has increased, not decreased. You are deluding yourself by believing otherwise, but I don’t have time to go fishing around for an additional study. Since you don’t listen to the National Academy of Sciences, I doubt you will listen to anyone who contradicts your ideology.
As for the number of PhDs: 9000 is an impressive number (though I find it amusing that the original number of 31,000 has now dwindled significantly). Again, that number pales in significance compared to the academies and institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences (not to mention NASA itself!) that I previously cited. Each academy is comprised of hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists, and these are scientists of the highest stature at the most important institutions.
By claiming that this group has been fooled by a “sham,” you have exposed your own shocking ignorance. Essentially, you are claiming that the best scientists in the world, the elite scientific institutions, have all been duped. Some powerful force has paid them all off, so that they can advocate for changes that are going to be quite inconvenient for governments, corporations and individuals. That’s an interesting theory, Jason. Good luck being taken seriously at any university or scientific institution.
20 years is a long time, but I’ll try to remember to find you. (Which reminds me: I know some people who told me in 2003 that the Iraq war would be a cake walk, and that by this time in 2008 the Middle East would be stabilized, with a democratic Iraq at its heart. I should look them up.) I predict that if you have any integrity whatsoever, you will be ashamed of yourself for contributing in your own small way to poisoning the public debate.
H.
Comment by Jason Blanchard on 30 June 2008:
The IPCC’s latest report from February 2007, has exactly 51 signatures. That’s it. The IPCC reports are generated by the politicians. The IPCC doesn’t do any research, or fund any research. They gather data that suits their needs, and call it consensus. I know of disputes related to their data, their projections, their computer models, their math….They cherry pick data, obscure data, falsify data, and call anyone with a dissimilar opinion a heretic. They won’t debate the climate realists, and I know why. The IPCC is frighteningly similar to an attorney trying to convince everyone of their side of the story with as much spin as they can muster.
I understand that there are some big institutions involved in supporting the human caused GW. I also understand these big institutions rely HEAVILY on grants for their money. Scientists have learned that funding is directly tied to the congressional issue of the day, which is now GW. The easiest way to get the $$ is to tie their issue to global warming.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/grantsmanshipand_the_global_wa.html
The IPCC has a history of ignoring any viewpoints not supported by their political agenda. Many scientists have quit the IPCC and demanded their names be removed from it’s list of “experts”. In one case, it was only after legal action was threatened did the IPCC remove his name. The IPCC has presented a lopsided view and always, always, fails to present alternative theories. It’s all humans fault with CO2 emissions, period. Anyone who thinks/says otherwise is a heretic and must be getting paid (like Al Gore isn’t).
I wonder if you are even reading my responses. There are over 31,000 scientist that have signed the petition against scientific consensus, over 9,000 are PhD. As I said above….The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS.
Did you happen to catch the
No one is being duped, other than sheep following the media and politicians. There are some scientists who truly believe in man-made gw, but you must also be ready to admit that there are TENS of THOUSANDS of scientists that do not share that viewpoint. To ignore them, to silence them, to conclude “the science is final” is absurd. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. I’ve NEVER said we should stop researching, stop studying, stop debating, stop projecting ramifications of humans’ affect on the climate. But, that is exactly what you are asking of me.
Jason Blanchards last blog post..The Bureaucratic Thermostat
Comment by richard cochrane on 30 June 2008:
JASON-
Right on point. IPCC admits to coming cooling for 10-12 years but morbidly predicts rapid warming thereafter. There is a growing body of research that appears to show - at minimum - variability, with an even probability that warming forecast will be wrong.
In the 70s I recall forceful debate about the coming ice age that provoked a lot of the datra gathering be9ng relied upon today. What is clear is that more and more scientist are speaking out for science and not IPCC-like politics.
It is hard to defuse politics with scientific facts but worth the effort. This is not unlike the nucelear energy debate fueled by foolishness like CHINA SYNDROME fantasy no more based on facts than INcONVENIENT TRUTH.
Comment by hugh d'apostrophe on 30 June 2008:
Hi Jason:
Now that I’m done with work for the day, I have some time to waste writing back to you about these important issues.
First, let me just say that I am saddened to hear you say that you do not feel I’ve been reading your postings. I have carefully gone through your posts and addressed each point individually, several times now.
You, however, have not responded to my main point: the number of scientists that you proudly trumpet has no meaning whatsoever. What matters are the credentials of the scientists. I do not have time to research every name on that list of names, but I did take the time to run a Google search on two names chosen at random.
First up: Satya P. Rochlani. Well, that’s disappointing. This eminent scientist does not have much of a web presence, which in this day and age is a likely indicator that he is not a very important scientist, does not publish much or at all, and is not cited by other scientists. (He does throw up several hits as one of the signers of the petition in question, however.)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=wXU&q=Satya+P.+Rochlani&start=10&sa=N
Well, I’ll try again. Next up, Paul L. Gorsuch. This gentleman has a number of Google hits, and it appears that he is a neurosurgeon in Great Falls, Montana. I find it interesting that his field of expertise is disorders of the spine, and not something relevant to the climate change debate, such as — well, how about oceanography?
http://www.spineuniverse.com/mdpage.php?doctorID=2389
Hm. This isn’t going so well for your side of the debate, Jason. I really was only going to Google a couple names at random, but now my curiosity has been peaked, so I think I will try again.
Let’s try Karl Hallman Pool.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=CYp&q=%22Karl+Hallman+Pool%22&btnG=Search
Well, you get the idea. You can repeat this number — 31000, only 9000 of which have PhD credentials — until the cows come home. You could probably add to that number if you really worked at it. But you won’t find many scientists of the caliber of the relatively small number you cited that have signed on to the latest IPCC report.
In fact, I invite you to waste your own time plucking names from the IPCC report, and I predict that you will find these scientists have advanced degrees, publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals, are expert in the relevant sciences, and are cited by other, equally established scientists in the field.
You have claimed that the large institutions which have endorsed the IPCC — institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences and NASA — have taken this stance in the face of contradictory evidence for the purposes of crass economic gain. That claim is simply not credible, and it betrays a true disregard for the integrity of the hard-working scientists at these institutions.
It is interesting to me that you cite studies, couch your claims in scientific garb, and claim to respect scientists. But when the findings of the most prestigious institutions in science disagree with your ideology, you simply claim that they are liars bent of deceiving the public.
I have never said “the science is final.” If have said that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real, and that it is being driven by human activity.
Richard makes a familiar point: That in the 70s there was discussion of climate change, but at that time the fear was of a new ice age. It is a weak point, easily refuted. The claims of a new ice age were circulated in the popular press, not the scientific community. There were no major studies supporting claims for a new ice age. There were no serious scientists making dire claims of a looming disaster from a new ice age. There was no IPCC equivalent investigating such claims. In short, there is no comparison between the two disaster scenarios. One has science to back it up, the other is a fiction of the popular press.
I know what you will say in response, Jason. “But there are 31,000 scientists who reject the IPCC’s science!” Well, I am looking forward to seeing what you come up with when you Google the scientists that have signed any of the IPCC’s studies.
At this point, I consider all of your points refuted. Good luck being taken seriously anywhere outside of your tiny bubble of ideologues.
H.
Comment by Jason Blanchard on 1 July 2008:
Hugh, I appreciate the debate, I truly do. I hope everyone else does as well.
As far as googling names on the IPCC report, it would be a waste of time. I’ve read the process regarding how their names are added to the “consensus”, and it is not reliable. Many other issues I have with the IPCC are detailed in this post.. http://hypocrisy.com/2008/06/30/ipcc-idiots-politicians-creating-chaos/
The key science chapter of the IPCC’s April 2007 report was endorsed by only 4 IPCC reviewers. Scientists formerly on the IPCC have had to SUE to get their named removed from the “consensus”. Scientists formerly on the IPCC have had their data distorted to meet the IPCC’s dire predictions. The IPCC systematically ignores ALL evidence that points to anything other than their viewpoint. They are presenting a one-sided argument and expecting us to swallow it whole. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it.
Jason Blanchards last blog post..IPCC: Idiots + Politicians Creating Chaos