AGW Smoking Gun? NYT gets AGW marketing strategy memo: Stop using 'global warming'!

Originally posted by Tentickles

Now, natural climate change is something to study and watch with a scientific eye. While we can not stop it, studying it will help us prepare for the future.

Disclaimer!
Global Warming is NOT the same as climate change!

Unfortunately, there's no one to "blame" for natural climatic cycles, and little motivation to punish anyone in particular.

If you can create a straw man, like CO2 or AGW, you can attack it and the people, lifestyles and industries that you can relate it to.

Then you can punish, tax or charge them for their faux "contributions" to the faux problem. You don't have to create a solution, but you can take credit for any result, natural or otherwise.

I agree with you there is no man-made "Global Warming."

We can certainly harm the local environment around us, but neither the U.S., nor mankind generally, are responsible for global changes in climate.

jw

Originally posted by melatonin
True, hope you're well.

Well i didn't want to go overboard but i suppose this really isn't; hope your well too.

It was clear that the scientists were shouting pretty loud about the problem.

Agreed but why this particular issue? How why and when did the age old popular public movement to stop regular corporate environmental destruction merge/were superseded by this interesting take that 'humans' ( not the capitalist system and the few who profits from it) are responsible for the current environmental problems and that we better take full responsibility for the past&present&future or we will be responsible for the potential destruction&devastation ( all the worse case scenarios seem to get air time; not so much the case for the million dead Iraqi's who wont be around to worry about any environment) of the entire biosphere? Why are we suddenly being held responsible when the environmental movement correctly lay the blame on the capitalist system, not humanity?

That's what i'm asking.

It's not up to them to whistleblow and highlight other escapades of the Bush government.

Surely that isn't the case in the compartmentalized science establishments of the world. My question is why you think this specific aspect of the age old environmental struggle gained so much traction when the evidence for pollution based ( non CO2) destruction of the environment being so well established? You say that the Bush government tried to bury this date but why did they fail so badly when they managed to just fine when it came to protecting corporations by underfunding and laying siege to the EPA; the agency that 'we the people' empowered to protect us from ALL sorts of pollution? Why the success of a media/environmental campaign that lies both the blame and the responsibility, and cost, of a solution at the door of the people who suffered most already?

I think the issues surrounding the Iraq war attracted a lot of attention (weapons of mass distraction? Halliburton?).

And one would suspect that it would considering the outrageous lies and ridiculous misrepresentations it was all based on. Issues of war and peace ( EVERYONE wants peace, some have just been convinced that you need to kill to get there) are certainly better understood by the general public than the climate sciences that yielded AGW.

If anything doesn't the lies over the Iraq invasion just show what educated powerful people can get away with; why and how are 'we' ( not that 'we' are but 'they' tell us that 'we' are) so sure in this instance? Doesn't international law about war and peace have a far deeper root than modern 'western' science, yet here we are?

Similarly, after the 1st election, the escapades got attention (voting machines etc, Florida and the republican dudes banging on windows, I recall). Financial? Not too sure, don't really follow that area.

And yet the open election fraud that got Bush elected twice were not overturned despite it being a proverbial open and shut case even back then? If the media can cover ( or shall i say not cover) the election fraud so well why trust the coverage of this particular aspect of the environmental battle? Why can't we save the planet, as we have always tried, in all the other ways that modern technology allows? Why the focus on changing our lives when we are not and never have been the problem? Why trust the same media that even when i fails to defend corporations manages to shift the blame onto 'us'? Why can't the people and the system which created this problem be made to pay for the cleaning bill they could so easily afford by introducing the manufacturing standards that will radically cut back on pollution will still allowing generous profits?

Why are we again left holding the, very large, bill?

Not sure it has. You don't honestly think that the issues surrounding Iraq war got no attention?

Oh i meant in terms of the environmental struggle&debate; all you hear is how humanity ruined the planet and how we better change our lives if we want to fix it, or in the case of the doomers, survive. Where is the discussion of shutting down any heavy industry in the western world that doesn't at least meet the local air quality standards? Why no discussion of giving the EPA fangs? Why no discussion on 'star wars' type programs ( the pentagon budget is still going up, not down as Obama let on) to sequester CO2 ( if it's that dangerous, 'runaway' effects or not, which i don't believe it is) from the environment? Why not just tell us how many trees we need to plant per year to offset CO2 releases? Why the discussion on my lifestyle choices without any context as to what choices i were never allowed to seriously consider?

It tends to correlate with other factors.

Yes, i agree that motives are deeply intertwined with how people investigate& understand the world around them and how easily our collective fears and introspective qualities can be abused to victimized the already abused masses.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Agreed but why this particular issue? How why and when did the age old popular public movement to stop regular corporate environmental destruction merge/were superseded by this interesting take that 'humans' ( not the capitalist system and the few who profits from it) are responsible for the current environmental problems and that we better take full responsibility for the past&present&future or we will be responsible for the potential destruction&devastation ( all the worse case scenarios seem to get air time; not so much the case for the million dead Iraqi's who wont be around to worry about any environment) of the entire biosphere? Why are we suddenly being held responsible when the environmental movement correctly lay the blame on the capitalist system, not humanity?

That's what i'm asking.

OK, well firstly, the Bush government were on a mission to obfuscate the science, and these scientists were directly affected - so it sort of makes sense for them to whistleblow, not really gonna complain about gitmo instead. Human effects would certainly involves industry, which of course underpins any major economical system - capitalist or communist ect. Thus, human/anthropogenic cover all the bases - individual, industrial, environmental/lifestyle etc etc.

I think the Iraqi death toll has had lots of media attention - certainly did in the UK.

Surely that isn't the case in the compartmentalized science establishments of the world. My question is why you think this specific aspect of the age old environmental struggle gained so much traction when the evidence for pollution based ( non CO2) destruction of the environment being so well established? You say that the Bush government tried to bury this date but why did they fail so badly when they managed to just fine when it came to protecting corporations by underfunding and laying siege to the EPA; the agency that 'we the people' empowered to protect us from ALL sorts of pollution? Why the success of a media/environmental campaign that lies both the blame and the responsibility, and cost, of a solution at the door of the people who suffered most already?

These things have all been well-documented. For example, Bush making all kinds of poor appointments in important positions.

I don't see the real issue. You just seem to be saying that you think x, y, and z are just as, or moreso, important than climate change. OK, if you say so. But none of the other issues have been ignored.

And one would suspect that it would considering the outrageous lies and ridiculous misrepresentations it was all based on. Issues of war and peace ( EVERYONE wants peace, some have just been convinced that you need to kill to get there) are certainly better understood by the general public than the climate sciences that yielded AGW.

If anything doesn't the lies over the Iraq invasion just show what educated powerful people can get away with; why and how are 'we' ( not that 'we' are but 'they' tell us that 'we' are) so sure in this instance? Doesn't international law about war and peace have a far deeper root than modern 'western' science, yet here we are?

Again, you seem to complain that Iraq was ignored compared to climate science - it clearly wasn't. It had massive press, from the lies to the death, to the torture to gitmo, to where in the world is Bin Laden.

Similarly, the Israel and Gaza event had massive coverage. I think you're well off base. You would think people are in hysterics over swine flu.

And yet the open election fraud that got Bush elected twice were not overturned despite it being a proverbial open and shut case even back then? If the media can cover ( or shall i say not cover) the election fraud so well why trust the coverage of this particular aspect of the environmental battle? Why can't we save the planet, as we have always tried, in all the other ways that modern technology allows? Why the focus on changing our lives when we are not and never have been the problem? Why trust the same media that even when i fails to defend corporations manages to shift the blame onto 'us'? Why can't the people and the system which created this problem be made to pay for the cleaning bill they could so easily afford by introducing the manufacturing standards that will radically cut back on pollution will still allowing generous profits?

Why are we again left holding the, very large, bill?

I outlined the bold bit, as it appears very much a non-sequitur. Firslty, whether there was real fraud is not clear. But, I get most of my information for climate science from scientific sources. I don't rely on the media.

And it's not about saving the planet, it will do fine with or without us. We have benefited from industrialisation, I know it's easy to put all the blame on industry and corporations, but as individuals we do have some input through our actions. Indeed, if we didn't consume half the crap, they wouldn't make it.

There is technology now that could 'save the planet'. It involves moving away from carbon-based fuels, via 'clean' coal when really possible etc (i.e., convert all old stations), to other forms of energy - nuclear and renewables.

Changing lifestyles really means basic things - changing cars to more efficient forms or even public transport, use less energy hungry bulbs, turn off at the plug sockets, better designed homes, support local food sources, ect ect. Minor things. They all help. But without change at the industrial level, it will be minimal.

You don't need to live in a mudhut and eat mudpies by candlelight.

Oh i meant in terms of the environmental struggle&debate; all you hear is how humanity ruined the planet and how we better change our lives if we want to fix it, or in the case of the doomers, survive. Where is the discussion of shutting down any heavy industry in the western world that doesn't at least meet the local air quality standards? Why no discussion of giving the EPA fangs? Why no discussion on 'star wars' type programs ( the pentagon budget is still going up, not down as Obama let on) to sequester CO2 ( if it's that dangerous, 'runaway' effects or not, which i don't believe it is) from the environment? Why not just tell us how many trees we need to plant per year to offset CO2 releases? Why the discussion on my lifestyle choices without any context as to what choices i were never allowed to seriously consider?

I think much heavy industry has already shut down. It's moved to areas where the environmental regulation is weak. So we get cheap and nasty shiny things to weigh us down, and also the illusion of reducing emissions. While China et al crap in their backyard instead.

Plants lots of trees if you want, but they really won't help that much.

Perhaps focus a bit more, there's a bit too much there for me to really consume and reply to. But the main strand appears to be that climate science gets too much press at the expense of other important issues.

Sorry don't agree. Almost all the issues you point out have attracted attention of some sort and at varying levels. I think you're barking up the wrong tree. The media are quite capable to cover climate science, Bush cronyism, and Paris Hilton's draws all at the same time.

A second strand is that the label human or anthropogenic victimises the individual - that's a category error. It covers all human activities, including industry.

And finally, EPA/climate/environment and Obama. He appears to be on it.

US environment agency deems CO2 a health risk
Apr 17, 2009

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Environmental Protection Agency has shifted course by deeming carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a health risk, in a landmark turnaround that could impact climate change regulation.

"After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the US Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding ... that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare," said an EPA statement posted on its website on Friday.

The move, which could open the door to stronger regulation on greenhouse gas emissions, marks a significant shift on climate change from the previous presidency of George W. Bush, which failed to heed EPA warnings on the possibly devastating consequences of inaction.

Don't blame anyone but those who were determined to maintain the status quo, ignoring and gagging scientists and the EPA. 8 years have been wasted in the US.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by StellarX


reply to post by melatonin

It seems that this thread has segued away from manipulation of information and toward implementation of solutions.

Surprisingly, I see much that I can agree with between your observations.

There can be no doubt that media manipulation of AGW information is at least on par with that of other socially relevant topics, including false or superficial justifications for imperialism, or political bastardization of the American election process.

Some facts are overemphasized and others ignored or criticised. Either way, the underlying subject suffers.

I believe Earth's climate is changing. I believe man can be very destructive of his environment.

Does man's local activity have a significant global effect? Scientists differ.

Although the U.S. is a major producer of GHGs, UK and European consumption of American goods as well as their own production are significant contributors of the total output of GHGs into the troposphere and stratosphere.

The CO2-centered remedies that have been initiated under Kyoto, known as CMD, have generally failed to accomplish any significant reduction of CO2 and at greatly underestimated expense. The carbon-credit market has fallen precipitously. Australia has delayed implementing their own scheme because of the overall cost imposed upon a depressed economy.

While American efforts for NO2 and SO2 reduction have produced excellent results, they are not solely attributable to "cap and trade." Market and regulatory forces have contributed to changing industry standards and practices.
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...

Kuznets hypothesized that as societies become wealthier they also become greener. This has been proven by analysis of more than 150 years of data, and the resulting "Kuznets curves" clearly confirm his theories.
www.perc.org...

As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy. This global decarbonization trend has been proceeding at a remarkably steady rate since 1850, according to Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and Paul Waggoner of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station:

“The long-term trend is toward natural gas and nuclear power, or conceivably solar power. If the energy system is left to its own devices, most of the carbon will be out of it by 2060 or 2070.”

The United States and other Western countries seem to be near the top of a Kuznets curve for carbon emissions and ready to start the happy downward slope. The amount of carbon emitted by the average American has remained fairly flat for the past couple of decades, and per capita carbon emissions have started declining in some countries, like France.

Meanwhile, more carbon is being taken out of the atmosphere by the expanding forests in America and other affluent countries. Deforestation follows a Kuznets curve, too. In poor countries, forests are cleared to provide fuel and farmland, but as people gain wealth and better agricultural technology, the farm fields start reverting to forestland.

Of course, even if rich countries’ greenhouse impact declines, there will still be an increase in carbon emissions from China, India and other countries ascending the Kuznets curve. While that prospect has environmentalists lobbying for global restrictions on greenhouse gases, some economists fear that a global treaty could ultimately hurt the atmosphere by slowing economic growth, thereby lengthening the time it takes for poor countries to reach the turning point on the curve. (Estimated to be around $3,000 per capita income.)

The Kyoto treaty didn’t transform Europe’s industries or consumers. While some American environmentalists hope that the combination of the economic crisis and a new president can start an era of energy austerity and green power, Mr. Ausubel says they’re hoping against history.

Over the past century, he says, nothing has drastically altered the long-term trends in the way Americans produce or use energy — not the Great Depression, not the world wars, not the energy crisis of the 1970s or the grand programs to produce alternative energy.

“Energy systems evolve with a particular logic, gradually, and they don’t suddenly morph into something different,” Mr. Ausubel says. That doesn’t make for a rousing speech, but in the long run, a Kuznets curve is more reliable than a revolution.

www.nytimes.com...

We could move a long way toward more civil and enlightened discussion of climate change and causality if we had a central repository for studies and data on both sides of the argument, a Climate Change Library of sorts on the lines of other topically restricted Wikis.

Wouldn't that help more than ad campaigns, talking points, and maketing strategies for one theory or the other?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
I believe Earth's climate is changing. I believe man can be very destructive of his environment.

Does man's local activity have a significant global effect? Scientists differ.

Hardly. 97% of climate scientists in one recent poll agree that it does, and 80%ish of the wider earth science community. Other polls show similar numbers.

While American efforts for NO2 and SO2 reduction have produced excellent results, they are not solely attributable to "cap and trade." Market and regulatory forces have contributed to changing industry standards and practices.
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...

Can you even separate 'cap and trade' from regulatory forces? The regulations were in direct response to clean air issues and the negative effects of SO2 and NO2 on humans and environment. And the market forces will just act to hone efficiency and technology. I have no problem with us become rich beyond our wildest dreams - just pass some of that money onto science, lol.

So, Kuznuts:

Proponents of the EKC
hypothesis argue that:

at higher levels of development, structural change towards
information-intensive industries and services,
coupled with increased environmental awareness,
enforcement of environmental regulations, better
technology and higher environmental expenditures,
result in leveling off and gradual decline of environmental
degradation (Panayotou, 1993, p. 1).

www.steadystate.org...

Kuznets hypothesized that as societies become wealthier they also become greener. This has been proven by analysis of more than 150 years of data, and the resulting "Kuznets curves" clearly confirm his theories.
www.perc.org...

Not my area, but a quick read shows it's not a clear as you make out. But, whatever, I don't have much argument - we develop using industry and science, we find some of the approaches have negative influences through science and impacts, we regulate and change.

The curve is great and all that, but the curve is just a curve. It's not GDP that causes the fall in pollution and environmental impacts.

I would doubt you're so naive to suggest that?

This global decarbonization trend has been proceeding at a remarkably steady rate since 1850, according to Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University and Paul Waggoner of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station:

And that's why we are emitting ever greater quantities of the stuff across the globe, lol. We can't wait for this curve to do its magic. We need the regulation and action, we need to force the change, then the curve can apply.

The United States and other Western countries seem to be near the top of a Kuznets curve for carbon emissions and ready to start the happy downward slope. The amount of carbon emitted by the average American has remained fairly flat for the past couple of decades, and per capita carbon emissions have started declining in some countries, like France.

And we just send our dirty industry to developing countries instead. See:

Of course, even if rich countries’ greenhouse impact declines, there will still be an increase in carbon emissions from China, India and other countries ascending the Kuznets curve.

While that prospect has environmentalists lobbying for global restrictions on greenhouse gases, some economists fear that a global treaty could ultimately hurt the atmosphere by slowing economic growth, thereby lengthening the time it takes for poor countries to reach the turning point on the curve. (Estimated to be around $3,000 per capita income.)

Stern and others have a lot of analysis of these Kuznuts curves. Funny that a certain group of people complained when Kyoto gave these countries breathing space. Anyway, Stern (2004):

The evidence presented in this paper shows
that the statistical analysis on which the environmental
Kuznets curve is based is not robust.
There is little evidence for a common inverted
U-shaped pathway that countries follow as
their income rises. There may be an inverted Ushaped
relation between urban ambient concentrations
of some pollutants and income
though this should be tested with more rigorous
time-series or panel data methods. It seems
unlikely that the EKC is an adequate model of
emissions or concentrations. I concur with
Copeland and Taylor (2004), who state that:
‘‘Our review of both the theoretical and
empirical work on the EKC leads us to be
skeptical about the existence of a simple and
predictable relationship between pollution and
per capita income.’’

www.steadystate.org...

Over the past century, he says, nothing has drastically altered the long-term trends in the way Americans produce or use energy — not the Great Depression, not the world wars, not the energy crisis of the 1970s or the grand programs to produce alternative energy.

“Energy systems evolve with a particular logic, gradually, and they don’t suddenly morph into something different,” Mr. Ausubel says. That doesn’t make for a rousing speech, but in the long run, a Kuznets curve is more reliable than a revolution.

www.nytimes.com...

Aye, kuznuts curves have magical influences on human behaviour, lol.

It's a pretty silly and obvious idea, tbh - but then, thankfully, I'm not an economist. Essentially, we create some process without knowledge of the consequences (phenomena starts increasing), we become aware of the consequences in time by real-world impacts and science (it's getting to a peak and pressure to act grows), we regulate, act, and change (it goes down). All the time we are growing as an economy. Hence we get a curve, lol.

But whaddooiknow.

However, we just send most of our dirty industry to other places, whilst we move towards service economy. If we don't regulate and act. Emissions of CO2 go nowhere but upwards, and the science tells us where that will take us.

We could move a long way toward more civil and enlightened discussion of climate change and causality if we had a central repository for studies and data on both sides of the argument, a Climate Change Library of sorts on the lines of other topically restricted Wikis.

We sort of do. It's called the scientific literature. There isn't really both sides either. That only exists on the interwoobles and other areas outside science. Economics, no idea. But I would assume they have journals as well.

reply to post by melatonin

Aside from "lol" and ad hominem your response consists of cites to a much discredited (700 page) report from Sir Nicholas stern, a proven advocate of AGW exaggeration, and CASSE, the advocates for no-growth model of economic sustainablility.

Of course, it is impossible to reconcile the inherent conflict between their base philosophies; Stern advocates steady growth but with drastic and immediate CO2 remediation and reduction, while CASSE advocates NO growth and a "steady-state" economy (convince Bangladesh ands Darfur that a "steady state" are in their best interests) as the best ecological solution to global environmental problems.

So, acute schizophrenia with a luddite overlay? How do you live with yourself?

Do you only use electricity to post on ATS?

Lord Stern has been soundly and roundly criticized on both side of the Atlantic by non-stakeholders (unlike he and yourselves) as a fearmonger who exaggerates CO2 "threats" and minimizes costs of mitigation and remediation schemes while overstating their effectiveness.

Respected academic scholars from Cambridge to Yale has pointed up his fraud. Many freely going on record and publishing peer-reviewed "Scientific Literature.

Disagree? Here's Stern:

Tackling climate change is the pro-growth stragegy for the longer term and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries. ... Emissions have been, and continue to be, driven by economic growth; yet stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth.

www.hm-treasury.gov.uk...

Stern believes that 550ppm is acceptable by 2050? What about all those coastlines and the horror of passing the 385ppm current threshhold?

Achieving these deep cuts in emissions will have a cost. The Review estimates the annual costs of stabilisation at 500-550ppm CO2e to be around 2% of GDP by 2050 — a level that is significant but manageable.

(Id.)

What do mainstream scietists say?

A number of other economists and scientists argued that the review's assumptions were far more pessimistic than those of most experts in the field, and that while claiming to be a review of current academic thinking the Stern review's conclusions were in fact at odds with the mainstream view. ... Among others, Berkely, Yale and Cambridge scholars call Stern's combination of pure rate of time preference and rate of risk aversion "patently absurd."

P. Dasgupta (2007), National Institute Economic Review, 199:4-7;
H.R. Varian (2006), International Herald Tribune, December 15

Richard Tol, an environmental economist at the Economic and Social Research Institute and lead author (among over 450 lead authors) for the IPCC, said:

"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail.

There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make. (...) Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to impacts."

Tol also showed that the Stern Review's estimate of the social cost of carbon is an outlier in the literature. Tol further referred to the Stern Review as populist science.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Environmental writer Bjørn Lomborg criticised the Stern Review in OpinionJournal:

Mr. Stern's core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest ... falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.

www.opinionjournal.com...

Compare Stern's pro-growth advocacy with CASSE 's underlying philosophy:

Steady State

Learn Steady State Basics
Why is economic growth a threat to sustainability and wellbeing? What is a steady state economy and why is it preferable to the growth paradigm? CASSE provides numerous resources to tackle these issues.
Issue #1.- Downsides of economic growth ... .

And consider their base point of view:

Facts About Economic Growth

Economic growth is causing more problems - dire problems - than it solves. Slowly but surely, economic growth has become a primary threat to the environment, national security, international stability, and future generations. To refute the misleading rhetoric that there is no conflict between economic growth and environmental protection - as well as economic sustainability - CASSE provides information on the downsides of growth with an emphasis on ecological concepts.

www.steadystate.org...

Your Luudite underpinnings show through, but the mental illness overlay has only just now become apparent (to me).

Since you cannot refute the validity of the Kuznets curve and the fact that as economies become wealthier, they pay more attention to clean water, clean air and a sustainable environment, do you have to resort to citation of opposing crackpot theorists who deny or misrepresent scientific consensus?

The gig, most definitely is up.

deny ignorance
jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by melatonin

 

Aside from "lol" and ad hominem your response consists of cites to a much discredited (700 page) report from Sir Nicholas stern, a proven advocate of AGW exaggeration, and CASSE, the advocates for no-growth model of economic sustainablility.

Blah blah. It's not actually. It's an economics journal article which reviews EKCs. Nothing to do with the 700 page Stern Review.

Don't you tire of being wrong on such very basic issues? It shows a complete lack of attention to detail. I, again, focused very well on the main issue of your post - a magical curve that does magical things - and you don't even bother accounting for any of it. It was supposedly just ad hom, 'lol', and some 700 page review I never even mentioned.

Do you only use electricity to post on ATS?

Nope, I have a well-trained team of hamsters.

Lord Stern has been soundly and roundly criticized on both side of the Atlantic by non-stakeholders (unlike he and yourselves) as a fearmonger who exaggerates CO2 "threats" and minimizes costs of mitigation and remediation schemes while overstating their effectiveness.

Respected academic scholars from Cambridge to Yale has pointed up his fraud. Many freely going on record and publishing peer-reviewed "Scientific Literature.

Why so quick to call fraud? Can it not be disagreement? The Stern Review was a major report with many innovative approaches to the issue. Of course it would be contentious. If economics is anything like science (and it holds such pretensions), at the forefront that's the norm - squabbles and bickering, and eventually some sort of agreement evolves.

But calling it fraud just reflects on you, dude.

So what do other notable economists think in general about the situation?

A straightforward calculation shows that mitigation is better than business as usual – that is, the present value of the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs – for any social rate of time preference less than 8.5%. No estimate of the pure rate of time preference, even by those who believe in relatively strong discounting of the future, has ever approached 8.5%.

These calculations indicate that, even with higher discounting, the Stern Review’s estimates of future benefits and costs imply that mitigation makes economic sense. These calculations rely on the report’s projected time profiles for benefits and its estimate of annual costs, about which there is much disagreement. Still, I believe there can be little serious argument about the importance of a policy aimed at avoiding major further increases in CO2 emissions.

www.project-syndicate.org...

If you look closely at what climate economists are saying, you can discern two areas of basic agreement. First, there is a broad consensus that the cost of climate inaction would greatly exceed the cost of climate action–it’s cheaper to act than not to act. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by moving to alternative energy sources and capturing carbon from coal-fired power plants will cost less in the long run than dealing with the effect of rising sea levels, drought, famine, wildfire, pestilence, and millions of climate refugees. (There are some outliers who disagree with this–Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg [5] comes to mind–and some respected economists, like William Nordhaus [6], who argue that future, richer generations will be able to more easily shoulder the cost burden than we can.) But influential mainstream economists from Paul Volcker [7] to Robert Stavins [8] to Lord Nicholas Stern [9] to Larry Summers [10] all agree that action is cheaper than inaction, even if they disagree on much else (Stavins can’t stand Stern’s methodology; Summers prefers a carbon tax to cap-and-trade). Stavins, director of Harvard’s Environmental Economics Program, phrased it this way in a recent paper [11]: “There is general consensus among economists and policy analysts that a market-based policy instrument targeting CO2 emissions … should be a central element of any domestic climate policy.”

linky

You are just beating another bogeyman that wasn't even brought up. Of course people like Lomberg and others whine about the Stern Review. Of course it's contentious.

But I never even mentioned or used it, lol.

Stern believes that 550ppm is acceptable by 2050? What about all those coastlines and the horror of passing the 385ppm current threshhold?

It would be more a case of what is realistic. I think it's starting to be accepted that we'll be lucky to hold emissions below 450ppm, even if we act quickly. Any realistic action will have a gradual effect. I think most people pay enough attention to notice there is no magic wand.

What do mainstream scietists say?

Yes, you're still beating a strawman sourced from your inability to note details.

Tol also showed that the Stern Review's estimate of the social cost of carbon is an outlier in the literature. Tol further referred to the Stern Review as populist science.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Still a strawman.

Environmental writer Bjørn Lomborg criticised the Stern Review in OpinionJournal:

Strawman.

Compare Stern's pro-growth advocacy with CASSE 's underlying philosophy:

Strawman?

And consider their base point of view:

Facts About Economic Growth

Strawman?

Your Luudite underpinnings show through, but the mental illness overlay has only just now become apparent (to me).

lol

A luddite? You've gotta be kidding.

Since you cannot refute the validity of the Kuznets curve and the fact that as economies become wealthier, they pay more attention to clean water, clean air and a sustainable environment, do you have to resort to citation of opposing crackpot theorists who deny or misrepresent scientific consensus?

The gig, most definitely is up.

deny ignorance
jw

Well, if we are up against people who can't even pay attention to very basic details, I'm sure the gig will have numerous encore's and run for several extra years, leading the band to platinum album success and the hall of fame.

'Twas actually very funny. You saw the name 'Stern' - a bogeyman - and the trigger-like reflex just automatically went off on one, lol.

I better hadn't mention Michael Mann. Oops.

[edit on 5-5-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Stern, the econometrist, has little to say about AGW hype. His econometric approach to Kuznets methodolgy is far from damning:

There may be an inverted Ushaped relation between urban ambient concentrations of some pollutants and income though this should be tested with more rigorous time-series or panel data methods. It seems
unlikely that the EKC is an adequate model of emissions or concentrations. I concur with Copeland and Taylor (2004), who state that:
‘‘Our review of both the theoretical and empirical work on the EKC leads us to be skeptical about the existence of a simple and predictable relationship between pollution and per capita income.’’

www.steadystate.org...

However, Stern, the AGW evangelist, is exactly what this thread is about: hype over science. Discredited hype hiding behind 'authority' and government sponsorship of false hypotheses and solutions.

Better target, so, yes, I "pulled the trigger." The other adds nothing to the AGW disagreements.

Seems to be your ("lol" and ad hominem) forte, no? Reply with non-substantive responses. None of your posts add substance, anywhere.

I know it's tough to think and live as you do, but you just have to accept some things you cannot change. I'm sure you can find acceptance among your peers without spreading your joy ("lol") and wit ("Kuznuts") on threads that substantively discuss topics.

As for this thread, the "marketing strategy" memo that got leaked is hard to address on the merits, isn't it?

That said, you've relied throughout your reply (even for the cite to David Stern) upon CASSE (Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy) and their steadystate.org website.

True Luddites, all.

Yet, except again for your offhanded dismissal of scientific consensus, you make no effort whatsoever to defend the CASSE tenet that No Growth is key to survival, and that economic growth poses an immediate threat
to livelihoods and existence.

Care to respond to my previous quotes of their philosophy and related questions? I didn't think so.

As the thread topic makes clear, the most significant "climate change" efforts of the AGW crowd include marketing, hype and neurolinguistic manipulation of the the electorate and public.

I still think a central repository is the best answer for ready comparison and evaluation. Your reference to "scientific literature" does nothing but name an obvious source for contributions to the repository.

Having side-by-side papers, data and analyses would reveal that there still exist significant differences on climate change causality and AGW.

Most AGW advocates will not endorse such ready comparison, because the differences would be obvious and their "settled science" mantra would be more easily called into question.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
However, Stern, the AGW evangelist, is exactly what this thread is about: hype over science. Discredited hype hiding behind 'authority' and government sponsorship of false hypotheses and solutions.

Better target, so, yes, I "pulled the trigger." The other adds nothing to the AGW disagreements.

So you mistake what I posted for something else, when it was actually well-focused on the EKC issue - which I also said I had no real argument with, as it pretty obvious in some ways, and go off on a strawman about a bogeyman.

Completely ignoring everything I said. You see, j, if all you see in my posts is 'lol', ad hom, and stuff that's not there, there is no point in having a discussion.

You are unable to do so.

Seems to be your ("lol" and ad hominem) forte, no? Reply with non-substantive responses. None of your posts add substance, anywhere.

Yes, of course. If you don't actually read or understand my posts it may look that way.

Listen, if you really want this forum to yourself, allowing the likes of you and muaddib to post your inane BS with minimal challenge, jusy say so. I might even give you what you want.

It's all you have, though. Misrepresent and hope for TPTB to feel sorry for you and ban me. That's actually very pathetic.

I know it's tough to think and live as you do, but you just have to accept some things you cannot change. I'm sure you can find acceptance among your peers without spreading your joy ("lol") and wit ("Kuznuts") on threads that substantively discuss topics.

Yes, of course. Even though I actually knew little about EKCs, and did some research, posted some of my own analysis - it's just lol, ad hom, and non-substantive posts.

As for this thread, the "marketing strategy" memo that got leaked is hard to address on the merits, isn't it?

It's a crap document from an environmentalist group that will not be noted positively. The very idea that people will use 'our deteriorating atmosphere' in place of 'global warming' or 'climate change' is a joke.

All it shows is how rubbish marketing research can be. We're not talking about the likes of the Luntz memo which guided republicans in their obfuscation and led to the well-documented gagging and manipulation of science during the Bush years.

That said, you've relied throughout your reply (even for the cite to David Stern) upon CASSE (Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy) and their steadystate.org website.

True Luddites, all.

Again, the article had arguments, I also posted my own on EKCs. You ignored them all in some effort to destroy a straw-based bogeyman.

Yet, except again for your offhanded dismissal of scientific consensus, you make no effort whatsoever to defend the CASSE tenet that No Growth is key to survival, and that economic growth poses an immediate threat
to livelihoods and existence.

Why should I defend it? I don't even care for the claim. I essentially said so, if you bothered to read my earlier post.

Most AGW advocates will not endorse such ready comparison, because the differences would be obvious and their "settled science" mantra would be more easily called into question.

jw

The science is as settled as can be. If someone actually presents real evidence, then perhaps there's something to discuss. Again, there is no real discussion over the reality of human impacts.

And, overall, there's no chance of discussion with the likes of you. You're like a walking talking Dunning-Kruger doll.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by jdub297
I believe Earth's climate is changing. I believe man can be very destructive of his environment.
Does man's local activity have a significant global effect? Scientists differ.

Originally posted by melatonin

Hardly. 97% of climate scientists in one recent poll agree that it does, and 80%ish of the wider earth science community. Other polls show similar numbers.

This is exactly what the thread is about!
Misleading generalizations presented as "Truth" or "Fact" in support of the AGW hypothesis.

Where do I start? How about with what your "recent poll" actually reported:
"Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change"

The survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.

"Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change"
stats.org...

Can't be more 'on-topic' than that, can you?

97% of climate scientists" ..."agree"

on AGW?

Well, NO, not really:

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Source: STATS.org (see link above for complete survey results (as opposed to a biased plagiarization and misrepresentation))

No mention of "man-made" or "anthropogenic" is there? No mention of man at all. Causality? Didn't see that anywhere.

Climate Scientists

?

NO, not really:

Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science.

Membership in the A.M.S. or A.G.U. (each of which offers "Associate" (i.e., non-meteorologists/geologists/climatologists) and "Emeritus" (i.e., "retired") memberships) and co-listing in A.M.W.S. DOES NOT equal "climate scientists."

Notwithstanding questionable credentials, what do the respondents really think about 'Global Warming" in general?

A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”

A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years.

Source: Harris/STATS survey, link above.

"Consensus" on warming generally, (not to mention AGW)? Nope. "Settled" that warming has happened, is happening, or will happen in the last or coming centuries? Nope.

But, what do they really think about "man-made" influences versus natural?

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

This is a consensus? "Settled" science? Only in the AGW mythology.

As far as "settled science" and "consensus" are concerned, did your Pollsters even ask? YES, they did!
(I'll share their answers, since no rational AGW advocate (an oxymoron?) would report the response)

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science.
However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

10 to 20 years? You mean your Pollsters don't see an immediate danger or threat? They don't agree that we already know enough to enforce draconian remedies on the populace?

Oh, yeah. They did ask that question! (To which fewer than HALF saw great danger, and over 50 to 100 years! The majority of respondents saw little or moderate threat. Can't say that out loud, can we?)

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Anthropogenic? No! Man-made? No! Human influenced? No!
Who would've known?

No one, if the hype and marketing machines had kept steadily grinding away at reason and objectivity.

But, the media and marketers wouldn't lie to us, would they? Guess what - Harris/STAT asked the respondents THAT question, too:

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable.” (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.)
Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.

Well, obviously these respondents must be pressured, right?

Five percent say they have been pressured by public officials or government agencies to “deny, minimize or discount evidence of human-induced global warming,” Three percent say they have been pressured by funders, and two percent perceived pressure from supervisors at work. (10% total)

Three percent report that they were pressured by public officials or government agencies to “embellish, play up or overstate” evidence of global warming: Two percent report such pressure from funders, and two percent from supervisors. (7% total)

A small fraction, with no statistcally relevant difference between them, felt pressure for or against AGW.

And, guess what your pollsters advised about polls and surveys as "gospel" or "proof" of ANYTHING:

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with non-response, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments.

As I stated at the beginning, and in the topic, hype and marketing keep the AGW movement thriving, rather than science.

Thanks, mel, for the Poll info. (Substance over slander, fact over hype.)

Deny Ignorance!
jw

Originally posted by jdub297
This is exactly what the thread is about!
Misleading generalizations presented as "Truth" or "Fact" in support of the AGW hypothesis.

The poll is readily available. And it's not the only one.

97% of climate scientists" ..."agree"

on AGW?

Well, NO, not really:

Yes, in recent polls, really.

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Source: STATS.org (see link above for complete survey results (as opposed to a biased plagiarization and misrepresentation))

No mention of "man-made" or "anthropogenic" is there? No mention of man at all. Causality? Didn't see that anywhere.

Yes, I do. I read the actual article that outlined the poll and its data.

An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey, which contained up to nine questions (the full study is given by Kendall Zimmerman [2008]):

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

...

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

tigger.uic.edu...

Climate Scientists

?

NO, not really:

Membership in the A.M.S. or A.G.U. (each of which offers "Associate" (i.e., non-meteorologists/geologists/climatologists) and "Emeritus" (i.e., "retired") memberships) and co-listing in A.M.W.S. DOES NOT equal "climate scientists."

Again, your poor attention to detail shines through. I agree, that's a poorly targeted poll - but that's not the one I was talking about, lol.

Notwithstanding questionable credentials, what do the respondents really think about 'Global Warming" in general?

A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”

A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years.

Source: Harris/STATS survey, link above.

"Consensus" on warming generally, (not to mention AGW)? Nope. "Settled" that warming has happened, is happening, or will happen in the last or coming centuries? Nope.

It's a different poll, and you're not even comparing comparable questions:

Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

84% of american 'climate scientists' in this poll for human-induced warming, only 5% that it doesn't contribute. Rest unsure. As you noted, it's not a very specific population. But still a massive majority, and very comparable to the more general Earth Scientists data for Zimmerman. There is no real debate over the issue of human influence.

This is a consensus? "Settled" science? Only in the AGW mythology.

Again, your attention to detail is dreadful. There is no real debate over whether humans are contributing to climate change. Other areas are open for discussion. I've said this quite a few times. We can argue details.

Moreover, just so you know, the debate happens in the scientific literature. These are just opinions.

Anthropogenic? No! Man-made? No! Human influenced? No!
Who would've known?

No one, if the hype and marketing machines had kept steadily grinding away at reason and objectivity.

lol.

You're great.

As I stated at the beginning, and in the topic, hype and marketing keep the AGW movement thriving, rather than science.

Thanks, mel, for the Poll info. (Substance over slander, fact over hype.)

Deny Ignorance!
jw

Don't thank me, you found that poll data all by yourself. It wasn't even the one I was talking about. Quite sad.

Again, that poll shows there is no real debate. As you note, the Harris Poll not ideal - pretty small and not very specific. Another recent poll was done by Roger Pielke Sr, James Annan, and Fergus Brown. They used a slightly different method but quite specific, asking those who actually research and publish climate science in the major journals. They found similar numbers to the Zimmerman study.

Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.

www.climatesci.org...

So, essentially, there is overwhelming agreement amongst expert climate scientists that claims like this...

Originally Posted by jdub297
I agree with you there is no man-made "Global Warming."

We can certainly harm the local environment around us, but neither the U.S., nor mankind generally, are responsible for global changes in climate.

..are wrong. And claims of a consensus for the claim of human activity altering climate are well-substantiated.

I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for you now.

Another post brought you by Melatonin(TM). 100% Ad hom, lol, and 0% substance

[edit on 6-5-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

The poll is readily available. And it's not the only one.

Okay, so we are now deep into the thread, and you have at last disclosed some of your sources:
CASSE (whose agenda you now disavow), and the pollsters for your proud statement

97% of climate scientists" ..."agree" in recent polls, really.

Source: www.climatesci.org...

So, what is the basis for this statement, and what was the poll?

ABSTRACT. An online poll of scientists' opinions shows that … there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC's WG1 (2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Working Group 1 (WG1) report).

There remains substantial disagreement about the magnitude of anthropogenic impacts. The IPCC WG1 perspective is the mean response, though there are interesting differences between mean responses in the USA and in the EU. There are, also, a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective.

Your Source:
www.climatesci.org...

Wow! Couldn't have told that from your post, but it never hurts to look beyond the hype and misrepresentation.

So, what exactly did they do to come to this conclusion?

The issue of whether scientists agree about the causes of climate change has persisted in discussions of climate science in general and in the development of policy on climate variability and change. We have undertaken a poll of scientists' opinions in which authors of climate papers in journals and authors of presentations in the 2007 AGU and 2007 EGU General Assemblies were invited to express their opinion.

This poll does not follow randomized selection as used to completely sample a population (see, e.g.: The American Assoc. for Public Opinion Research, guidelines for research). Thus, the poll cannot be tested for statistical significance. The methodology is not statistically formal, the results viewed accordingly.

1807 emails were sent to scientists, in 53 countries, selected from sources which we judged to be representative of the climate science community. We selected potential respondents from the second and third authors of papers allowing for a larger range of participation from less senior scientists and those in roles such as research assistant, broadening the range of job roles and seniority in the sample. No translations were made; all enquiries were in English. One consequence is that no statistically meaningful international comparisons can be made.

The poll was designed to replicate the range of ʹattitudesʹ to the AGW hypothesis. This took three parts: an opinion on the degree of climate impacts; an opinion on the reliability of the IPCC WG1 science; and an opinion on the role of CO2. The three‐part statements allowed for respondents to find a statement which matched their personal understanding or opinion. A weakness is that the responses do not distinguish between the three elements of the statements, so no inference can be made about agreement with any one part of the statements.

(Another weakness is that only 140 of the 1807 polled actually found one of the 7 pre-selected "opinions" came close to their own. Many respondents selected 2 or more! 92% did not selecy ANY of the pre-scripted "opinions")

(Id.)

So, 'scientists' includes Research Assistants and other "job roles," including "second and third authors," who may not even be "scientists" at all!

The e-mail "poll" went to 53 countries "without translation."

And, the "poll" consisted of "3-part statements" incorporating hypothetical opinions on global warming, human causation, and the IPCC working group report. No wonder fewer than 8% responded.

There were 140 responses (7.8%) out of the 1807 contacted. We are not presenting the results as representing anything other than the views of those who responded as we have no way to assess the relationship of the responders with the total relevant population.

This is AGW scientific consensus? 8% responders qualifies to even suggest 97% agreement of 'climate scientists?

Hype and misrepresentation. See the Original Post.

What did the results really show?

Statement 5 was the “pure agreement” position, which represented a strong agreement with the scientific basis of the IPCC report. (40% of respondents, or 3% of those polled, selected this option.) 18% responded that the IPCC Report overstates the role of CO2, or exaggerates the risks implied by focusing on CO2-dominated AGW. The scientists based in the USA who replied to the survey are more in disagreement with the Report than scientists outside.

Paraphrasing E. G. Robinson, "Where's your consensus now, Moses?"

What were the pollsters conclusions, rather than your own?

In conclusion, there is strong agreement among responders (60 out of 140 out of 1807) on the important role of radiative forcing due to human additions of CO2 on AGW. However, the relative role of this forcing, in comparison to other climate forcings, is still an open scientific question.

Oops. But surely there's some agreement, right?

There continues to be an important debate about the correct attribution of forcings which should be clearly expressed as an area of uncertainty to policy makers in the relevant scientific summaries.

(I have this "Poll" but haven't copied it here due to character-count limits, and the sheer idiocy of the format. I can, if requested, post a verbatim copy of the drivel and skewed 'opinions' the 1807 e-mail recipients were asked to agree with. The fact that 92% did not agree with any of them is another consideration contributing to non-publication in this response.)

And Maggie Zimmerman's masters thesis? tigger.uic.edu...

A 2-page summary of someone else's work? Based on answers to 2 questions out of 9? About current temperatures compared to "pre-1800s?"
(Like the Pleistocene Period, the Ice-Age, the Little Ice Age, the Maunder Minimum? (aren't some of those even 'pre-man'?)) Based on 3,000 responses out of 11,000 enquiries? And 77 or 79 (Maggie isn't really sure) "climate scientists" total? Consensus?

Well, that "settles" that science, doesn't it? See what happens when you reveal your sources?

Deny Ignorance!

jw

Another post brought you by Melatonin(TM). 100% Ad hom, lol, and 0% substance

[edit on 7-5-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by melatonin

I don't see the real issue. You just seem to be saying that you think x, y, and z are just as, or moreso, important than climate change. OK, if you say so. But none of the other issues have been ignored.

Can't disagree more Mel. The world wide hysteria and domination of the AGW issue has sidelined just about every other environmental concern in favor of reduction of CO2.

The public have been fed a regular and consistent diet of CO2 led global warming, to the extent they chant the words 'global warming' at the slightest weather anomaly, but are less and less aware and concerned about the daily death of 50,000 of their fellow men due to hunger and poverty each day, the state of our planetary water systems, our air quality, the top soil erosion and mineral depletion, the scourge of chemical fertilizers, the death toll from allopathy, the cause of the current financial debacle (OTC derivatives etc), out of control globalisation, blah blah blah.

AGW has become the green issue that has mainstreamed the once proud and ethical role of eco-warrior into the unthinking role of eco-sheep, and mainstreamed a rather dubious if not downright despicable 'solution' which will likely have no impact on our planet's health whatsoever, yet further indebt and enslave the 'masses'.



At last, an intelligent debate thread on AGW. Hope I didn't spoil it

Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by melatonin

The poll is readily available. And it's not the only one.

Okay, so we are now deep into the thread, and you have at last disclosed some of your sources

You only had to ask. I've posted it a number of times over the last week or so. But you're still wrong. The source I was using was actually the Zimmerman article. Main reason being that it is a better poll than the Pielke Sr study, and is also actually published. The Pielke paper got knocked back at peer review.

CASSE (whose agenda you now disavow), and the pollsters for your proud statement

97% of climate scientists" ..."agree" in recent polls, really.

Source: www.climatesci.org...

My 'source' for the EKC information was the Stern (2004) article which reviewed previous studies - you know, the one you didn't bother reading and mistook for the Stern Review. It was just readily available on that website.

I mentioned nothing about CASSE, that was just you going all shock and awe on a strawman.

Wow! Couldn't have told that from your post, but it never hurts to look beyond the hype and misrepresentation.

Because they are two different questions. The magnitude of impacts and the existence of human impacts. I already said we could argue about details.

So, 'scientists' includes Research Assistants and other "job roles," including "second and third authors," who may not even be "scientists" at all!

It never said that - it said a range of seniority and job roles. Second and third authors will be people who contributed significantly to the research, that could possibly include research assistants (who will have expertise and work in the lab) and post-docs (who work in the lab). Research assistants will know their stuff - they will have degrees and some expertise, just junior and possibly not doctored. Moreover, it is only a possibility.

Funny thing is that in many papers the last author is the senior scientist a lot of the time, lol.

This is AGW scientific consensus? 8% responders qualifies to even suggest 97% agreement of 'climate scientists?

Hype and misrepresentation. See the Original Post.

Again, you're just completely clueless. This is my last response to you here, as you're hopeless.

I have said that polls have shown that. Look, here:

Hardly. 97% of climate scientists in one recent poll agree that it does, and 80%ish of the wider earth science community. Other polls show similar numbers.

No poll does anything more than present a representative opinion from a sample. Moreover, that wasn't my primary source for the information. It just supported the Zimmerman article which is what I have posted elsewhere. Why do you think the above says the stuff about 80% and earth scientists?

The fact that the data from all three polls are comparable just adds to their validity. Three different measures, three different samples, three comparable results.

1: Harris Poll (you posted). 84% of a general sample agree with AGW.
2: Zimmerman (my main source). 80ish% of a general Earth Science sample and 97% of an expert sample of climate scientists.
3: Brown, Pielke, & Annan (a supporting source). 97% of a sample of publishing research in climate science.

So. Poll 1 supports 2. Poll 2 supports 3. And the chances are that if the Harris Poll had assessed opinion of those working in climate science, it would be finding similar data to 2 and 3 (i.e., about 97%).

What did the results really show?

Statement 5 was the “pure agreement” position, which represented a strong agreement with the scientific basis of the IPCC report. (40% of respondents, or 3% of those polled, selected this option.) 18% responded that the IPCC Report overstates the role of CO2, or exaggerates the risks implied by focusing on CO2-dominated AGW. The scientists based in the USA who replied to the survey are more in disagreement with the Report than scientists outside.

Paraphrasing E. G. Robinson, "Where's your consensus now, Moses?"

Again, different questions. It goes a bit like this:

1. Are humans influencing climate? (overwhelming yes)
2. How much? (a range of opinions)

You keep arguing that 1 is wrong. For example:

I agree with you there is no man-made "Global Warming."

We can certainly harm the local environment around us, but neither the U.S., nor mankind generally, are responsible for global changes in climate.

jw

And I keep saying that polls show there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion amongst expert climate scientists that you are wrong.

What were the pollsters conclusions, rather than your own?

In conclusion, there is strong agreement among responders (60 out of 140 out of 1807) on the important role of radiative forcing due to human additions of CO2 on AGW. However, the relative role of this forcing, in comparison to other climate forcings, is still an open scientific question.

Oops. But surely there's some agreement, right?

Yes, we can argue details. I've said that numerous times. It is a different issue.

You are clueless. You really are. Are you just doing this so I'll call you something beyond T&Cs, leading me to get banned?

I just find the last few posts so hard to believe. You know, tbh, if this is the level of discussion here now, as I pointed out - you can have the forum all to yourselves.

See what happens when you reveal your sources?

Deny Ignorance!

jw

Yes, you find new ways to make me feel even more embarrassed for you.

I really do have more important stuff to do than to allow you to outdo yourself in expressing your cluelessness. Do me a favour - find a clue, learn to pay attention to details, then maybe we can actually have a half decent discussion.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

And, yes, RogerT. I've been busted by the Keystone ATS crew. They are currently trying to figure out how to put a key in the handcuffs, what handcuffs are actually for, who was it they busted, just where is their police station, and also what day it is.

ABE: just been given a better idea. I always said to myself I would never do it, but I'm not letting a group of clowns run me off the forum.

Bye j. Bye Roger. And the same to the socks.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by melatonin]

Just got done reading the thread.

Melatonin, you are so BUSTED!

'97% of climate scientists agree on AGW' - what a crock, I will never again take your posts on face value.

Thanks jdub for your diligent expose.

What a shame the majority of ATS will probably not make it to page 2

Originally posted by RogerT

The world wide hysteria and domination of the AGW issue has sidelined just about every other environmental concern in favor of reduction of CO2.

The public have been fed a regular and consistent diet of CO2 led global warming, to the extent they chant the words 'global warming' at the slightest weather anomaly.

s4u

The hype and marketing ( as per the topic) have overrun logic, credulity, and science.

There is so much contrarian opinion a discussion of the merits of AGW could go on forever.

But, mel's mindless clinging to and misrepresentation of pro-AGW opinion would prevent any resolution.

Great observation!

jw

At last, an intelligent debate thread on AGW. Hope I didn't spoil it

Originally posted by melatonin

The source I was using was actually the Zimmerman article.

Your link leads directly to Maggie's 2-page summary of what other people did. She (as do you) relies on 2 questions out of 9, and responses from either 77 or 79 (she's not sure) "climate scientists" (per her definition and their self-identification) out of 10,000+ online inquiries.

Maggies masters thesis, "The Consensus on the Consensus," is self-published thru "LuLu." Her "summary" is published thru AGU.

"CASSE (whose agenda you now disavow), and the pollsters for your proud statement

97% of climate scientists" ..."agree" in recent polls, really.

I mentioned nothing about CASSE, that was just you going all shock and awe.

Your link to the article is through the "steadystate.org" website of CASSE, the Luddites. That is your "authority," not mine.

They are two different questions. The magnitude of impacts and the existence of human impacts.

More honestly, they are 2 questions out of 9.

The 1st question asks if temps have changed compared to "pre-1800s." Even though there are 3 'alternatives ( up, down, neither), who will say that the Ice Age was warmer? The Little Ice Age? The Maunder Minimum? The Pleistocene Period?

The 2nd question asks if man has had an effect on "changing" temperatures. It doesn't say "rising," "cooling," or some combination.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Sorce: Maggie's summary of her masters thesis.

"So, 'scientists' includes Research Assistants and other "job roles," including "second and third authors," who may not even be "scientists" at all!"

It never said that.

Now you've switched back to the other e-mail "survey" with 140 respondents out of 1,800+ polled on 7 3-part questions. It specifically said they included "research assistants" to achieve "a range of seniority and job roles."

Second and third authors will be people who contributed significantly to the research, that could possibly include research assistants (who will have expertise and work in the lab) and post-docs (who work in the lab). Research assistants will know their stuff - they will have degrees and some expertise, just junior and possibly not doctored. Moreover, it is only a possibility.

1st, you don't even know which papers/posts were chosen; how can you state as fact who was involved and what their backgrounds were? You don't even know (nor do the pollsters) who actually answered the questions for the 140 'reponders.'

We call that "bootstrapping." It is nothing but surmise and hype. Misleading at best. (And, you acknowledge that RAs were included!)
Certainly no way to claim "scientists" provided all 140 responses.

Funny thing is that in many papers the last author is the senior scientist a lot of the time, lol.

The "funny thing" is that THIS paper was authored by the student! You cannot even apply your generalization to your own "authority" much less any of the 1800 papers/posts and 140 responses.

"This is AGW scientific consensus? 8% responders qualifies to even suggest 97% agreement of 'climate scientists?"

Again, you're just completely clueless. This is my last response to you here, as you're hopeless.

Can't accept the flaws in the "authority?" don't use them.

Hype, misleading.

I have said that polls have shown that. Look, here:

97% of climate scientists in one recent poll agree that it does, and 80%ish of the wider earth science community. Other polls show similar numbers.

"One recent poll" is pretty non-specific, isn't it? "Other polls" say you're wrong.

I've shown above how the Harris poll doesn't in any way support your conclusions.

Moreover, that wasn't my primary source for the information. It just supported the Zimmerman article which is what I have posted elsewhere.

Do you mean Maggie's thesis, ""The Consensus ... " (2008), or her 2 out of 9 question summary of it, "Doran and Zimmerman" (20 Jan., 2009)?

The fact that the data from all three polls are comparable just adds to their validity. Three different measures, three different samples, three comparable results.

1: Harris Poll (you posted). 84% of a general sample agree with AGW.
2: Zimmerman (my main source). 80ish% of a general Earth Science sample and 97% of an expert sample of climate scientists.
3: Brown, Pielke, & Annan (a supporting source). 97% of a sample of publishing research in climate science.

Except that I've shown that each of these is flawed and misrepresented. I've given the links to all of them. You are content to half-report them, and leave out the source.

Anyone who actually reads the polls/articles will see for themselves that they do not stand for the conclusions you state, and even contradict you on their face.

It goes a bit like this:

1. Are humans influencing climate? (overwhelming yes)
2. How much? (a range of opinions)

An outright lie. Just look at the 2 questions I quoted from your main authority. You are completely misrepresenting what they say and what the responses were. Scroll up. Read for yourself.
Q1. Are temps today different from "pre-1800s?"
Q2. Do humans impact changes in climate?

"What were the pollsters conclusions, rather than your own?"

In conclusion, there is strong agreement among responders (60 out of 140 out of 1807) on the important role of radiative forcing due to human additions of CO2 on AGW. However, the relative role of this forcing, in comparison to other climate forcings, is still an open scientific question.

Yes, we can argue details. I've said that numerous times. It is a different issue.

No argument on this. Your authority's conclusions aren't "details." 'The role of CO2 ... is still an open question' is neither 'details' nor "consensus." It is not "a different issue," it contradicts your prime argument that the AGW issue is settled.

See what happens when you reveal your sources?

Deny Ignorance!

jw

Originally posted by ANNED
Just shows that they are not really worried about global warming and are using it and the other names they want to call it as a backdrop for there neo-luddite programs.

Well that presumes they believe in global warming/climate change or don't , if any, know the true causes.

This has been my view for many years.
The environmentalist have been fighting many small wars againt the corporations for years.
This fight to stop project after project and corporation after corporation has been a slow and expenive battle and many times the enviromentist have lost.

Mostly lost yes, as they fought both the corporations and a largely corporately owned government.

Then they came up with the global warming scam that they could roll all of these battles onto one large program.

I am not sure that they did. Global warming smacks of propaganda as it presumes human, not corporate/ systemic causes, responsibility when humans are they one's that never wanted this version of capitalism.

And since it is very hard to prove the global warming is real they have got there people in the scientific community to come up with bogus research that is hard to refute.
then they agreed to never debate there research with any non believers.

Since when is the environmental movement so well funded and so effective? How did they manage to succeed on the 'AGW ( now climate change) front when they failed so miserably elsewhere? I don't think the environmental movement have much in the way of 'aid' in the science establishments of the world and and don't know how they would have managed to afford the help in the first place. As for the 'non-debate' that is hardly the way the environmental movement functions or has functioned so far and i thus can't see how they should be blamed for having their views co opted and exploited.

I am still trying to find when the leaders held there meeting to finalize this program.

Good luck, in my opinion you will have a better chance of finding santa.

If we can prove when they met to plan this global warming scam we might be able to prove that they conspired to plan this global warming scam.

This persons name is just one more to add to the list of conspirators.

Hey i reckon 'they' ( financiers/bankers/ corporations) came up with this idea in the same boardrooms , where else, that they came up with all their other exploitative and inhuman systems and practices.

When you look at the environmental groups you find a small number of leaders that run interlinking environmental groups that work together on many projects.

Oh so now it's a terrorist network? Can't we say the very same thing of our political organizations and their campaigns? Can't we say much the same for the science establishments and practically everything else humanity is involved in? How else are we supposed to interact? Let's not turn the best efforts of grass roots organizing into quasi terrorist 'cells'.

And many of there groups are interlinked by memberships.
and there are few of the leadership of these environmental groups that do not set on the boards of other groups or run front groups to make the environmental movement look a lot larger then it really is.

Sounds like a CIA memo to Bush about the terrorist threat in the Middle east; very low on substance.

I have seen many time you would have a group of environmental groups protesting against a project.
When you started to look at these groups you would find that there was in fact just one group with a large number of front groups that would refuse to give out any membership list and would give out bloated membership numbers.

Yes, sure, it's embarrassing when you try to 'save the planet' and you just fail so terribly at attracting people to actively participate in marches and campaigns. It's not in my opinion evidence that they are 'devious' and bent on our destruction as much as it counts in favor of them being human.

What you would find was that the front groups would each use the main groups membership list to pad there membership numbers.

Sure and i have never heard of a political organization/pressure group that had more members and supporters than they thought they did. It's just in our nature to work from the presumption that the world is , and works, the way we think it does. No evidence here that environmentalist are evil or even came up with the "CO2 is evil" idea.

Many times this would lead to the lawmakers believing there was a lot more opposition to a project then there really was.

Absolutely but strangely this isn't saving our forests, cutting back on the REAL pollutants that spews forth from practically every factory chimney in the world and accomplishing much in terms of saving the environment globally. Why is it when environmentalist campaign against certain things ( new oil refineries,power stations, mines etc) , mostly the very things that have allowed our wealth and independence, they have much success but when they campaign for better air quality standards and the preservation of rivers and the like they fail relatively miserably?

That view , presuming it's correct, leads me to believe that just like American unions the large American environmental groups have been largely subverted to serve the very corporate/financial interest we are trying to fight.

I don't see any reason why we need to turn these groups into terrorist organizations to be fought and resisted but we should certainly be wary of supporting them blindly and thus probably against our long term interest.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

... they fought both the corporations and a largely corporately owned government.
...
Since when is the environmental movement so well funded and so effective? ... .
I don't think the environmental movement have much in the way of 'aid' in the science establishments of the world and and don't know how they would have managed to afford the help in the first place.

Every one of the most well-known environmental groups IS a corporation, funded by corporations, foundations and individuals who are allowed by the government to deduct their donations on their tax returns.

Many are run by or funded from Universities with billion-dollar endowments.

They are big enough and powerful enough to claim seats at major conferences and studies normally reserved for governments. NGOs such as Greenpeace not only participate in global environmental policy, they help form it!

Just last month, Greenpeace sat in at a preliminary U.N. meeting in Copenhagen for this December's post-Kyoto AGW conference. They opposed giving, and the value of, "carbon credits' for passive (Read: doesn't generate income for them and their sponsors) activity such as re-forestation and slowing deforestation.

"Greenpeace: Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market"
www.reuters.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why is it when environmentalist campaign against certain things ( new oil refineries,power stations, mines etc) , mostly the very things that have allowed our wealth and independence, they have much success but when they campaign for better air quality standards and the preservation of rivers and the like they fail relatively miserably?

Simple: Follow the money. As noted above, if their efforts will not result in more funds for themselves, the object does not merit much attention.

Why would Gore, IPCC and Greenpeace fight against forests and in favor of keeping carbon credits scarce and their value high, if their hand wasn't in the carbon 'cookie jar?'

That view , presuming it's correct, leads me to believe that just like American unions the large American environmental groups have been largely subverted to serve the very corporate/financial interest we are trying to fight.

Close. They don't serve corporations/financiers, they ARE corporations and financiers!

I don't see any reason why we need to turn these groups into terrorist organizations to be fought and resisted but we should certainly be wary of supporting them blindly and thus probably against our long term interest.

They've done it to thenselves and deserve every critique they get.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


it's all about wagging the dog.


the green movement spawns an organisation like greenpeace and many others, then they along with a few corporate sponsors invent AGW and CO2 trading to accompany it.


from then on, certificates occupy the policy of these organisations, because it's money for nothing. green ideals are quickly forgotten and denied or at least ignored.


(warning: last paragraph contains sarcasm and a mockery of market ideology!)


Worst of all, lots of useful idiots still sit on the bandwagon policing their own and attacking any dissent, without asking a dime. a market like that cannot work properly with free labor, obviously.

[edit on 2009.5.10 by Long Lance]