<p>Barrons, what do you think the difference is between the “old tobacco days” and now? And what’s the basis for your opinion that cancer/smoking science is better supported than CO2/global warming?</p>
<p>The evidence for the harmful effects of tobacco and for anthrogenic global warming are very different. Much of the evidence for tobacco’s harm comes from simple epidemiology - comparing cancer rates for smoker and matched non-smoker populations. There are also animal models - exposing animals to tobacco smoke and there is some knowledge and speculation about the effects at a cellular and sub-cellular level. For AGW, there are no analogous studies. There is only one earth, so no epidemiology and there are no extra comparable planets that we can pollute to observe the effects.</p>
<p>Thanks edead for answering an obviously inane question made just for grandstanding effect.</p>
<p>
This statement is basically false. The epidemiology studies linking cancer and smoking simply observed a correlation between the two. The same kind of correlation between rising CO2 levels and global warming is what triggered climate change study as well. The “one Earth” has had varying levels of greenhouse gases and varying levels of global temperatures at different times, which can be compared, just like a group of smokers can be compared to a group of non-smokers. And the correlation is there with global warming, just like it is with smokers. It is true that we can’t experiment by polluting another planet to see what happens, but that’s not the only form of experimentation that’s possible. And climate science has another advantage over cancer studies back in the “old tobacco days” - they actually understand how the cause and effect works, which is something the cancer researchers didn’t close in on until the 90’s.</p>
<p>So, yeah - every scientific study is different - but when is that difference actually significant? I’ll agree that we’re further along the cancer/tobacco study path today than the CO2/warming one - but we’re further along with climate science today than we were with tobacco studies in the 70’s and 80’s. </p>
<p>So to answer my very pertinent question which Barrons understandably ducked: The difference between the “old tobacco days” and now is that the bogus arguments that were being used then as a rear-guard action to prevent actions beneficial to the public but harmful to private profits were being using against the still imperfect but already good enough science linking smoking with cancer. Now those same bogus arguments are being used against the equally imperfect but equally good enough science linking greenhouse gas emissions with global warming. And in many cases by the exact same people - like Fox’s Steven Milloy.</p>
<p>And that’s the only difference.</p>
<p>The correlations they can get between smoking and cancer and predictive models are FAR more accurate and the cause and effect is much more clear. Find me a scientist who would back your claim that the accuracy of the two theories is similar and we can talk. Otherwise you are just posting more hot air which the climate might not need.</p>
<p>[American</a> Thinker: Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory](<a href=“http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html]American”>Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory - American Thinker)</p>
<p>Barrons, I’m not sure why you would post a link to a guy who writes: “I am not a climatologist or meteorologist” and then proceeds to convincingly demonstrate the truth of that statement. After a lengthy discourse on an inapt analogy to something with little if any actual relevance to climate change, your author swings into attack mode with:
“Many accounts?” Well, yeah. The propaganda mill was in overdrive, so “many accounts” were undoubtedly generated, but here’s what the National Research Council’s Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate concluded after a lengthy investigation:
Which, as it happens, is what the “Hockey Stick” chart said. Other studies produced the same results: [Surface</a> Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years](<a href=“http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2]Surface”>Summary | Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years | The National Academies Press)</p>
<p>When your “American [non]Thinkers” aren’t busy foaming at the mouth and repeating political slogans in the guise of science, and accusing scientists who don’t toe the right-wing party line of lying for money, what else do they do, anyway?</p>
<p>I don’t buy your arguments. The harmful effects of tobacco were based on millions of data points. And yes, the relationship was argued for a long time because causation was difficult to prove. The correlation between CO2 and GW is based on a sample set of ONE. We don’t understand the effect of CO2 or other pollutants in spite of the general agreement that heat is trapped by the earth’s atmosphere. All those high-powered greenhouse gas models seem highly speculative and we may not know if any of them are useful for a long time.</p>
<p>Ignoring the past climate shifts - which presumably were not anthrogenic - appears to be a serious flaw in the arguments. It doesn’t really matter if the current global mean temps are higher than they were during the Middle Age warm period. We know that there have been very large shifts in global temperatures and we need to have some understanding before we jump to conclusions about our current trending.</p>
<p>Edad, all you demonstrate with your posts is that you don’t understand a lot of things involved in climate science - not that climate scientists don’t understand those things. That’s understandable - climate science has been described as the “definition of complexity.” But climate scientists don’t ignore past climate shifts - they study them. They do understand a lot more about the effect of CO2 - and other pollutants - than you and I do; that’s why they’re climate scientists and we’re not. They have been studying that stuff for years; each year, more data comes on line; new experiments are devised, new test results are analyzed. If you go to a climate scientists website instead of a politically slanted website you’ll find reams of data analyzed and analyzed and analyzed until your eyes bleed - and that’s just the public sites.</p>
<p>Your assertion that climate scientists have “ignored” very obvious data points says more about the source of your information regarding climate science than about what actual climate scientists have and are studying. Nothing has been ignored. Yes, it’s an ongoing process, with new data, refinement of previous models, etc. But the various studies which have confirmed the essential accuracy of the “hockey stick” model are an example. They don’t exactly duplicate the first data analysis but each set of data analyzed is generally consistent with the theory. Yes, the further back you go the harder it is to find proxy data from which to project average temperatures. But they’re working on that, too.</p>
<p>I think if you think back to the 70’s and 80’s you’ll remember arguments about tobacco which were widely disseminated which have an uncanny resemblance to the arguments being made about climate change. “We just don’t know enough.” (How much is “enough?”) “There’s no clear proof.” (There wasn’t.) And most of all, the arch, sneering tone used to de-legitimize the people who we now know were right all along. Remember the “Smoke Nazis?” Now we call them “alarmists.”</p>
<p>Global warming isn’t JSUT about the planet getting warmer, which it is, its about the weather getting more erratic, because of warm fronts etc</p>
<p>Lets see- we have flooding in numerous places, we have incredible snow storms, we have ice, we have wind, we have weather chaos, and for those who think the weather is just about the USA, its not- its about the whole planet,and when you have nations and cities losing coastline, flooding desimating countries, who then have people with no homes or work or infrastrucure, what do you think happens?</p>
<p>Social unrest at a minimum</p>
<p>And why the battle against global warming ideas- is cutting back on gas consumption such a bad thing, is creating technology that is safer, cleaner cheaper, longer lasting a bad thing?</p>
<p>As for alarmist, lets look at tanning and cancer shall we? How many of you just went, eh, don’t need to sunscreen my kid, cause I wasn’t sunscreened when I was little…need more proof that something is going on with the atmosphere cause who could be bothered with protecting my little one…did you use the same logic you are applying to your denying of global warming…that you needed more proof, or did you use caution, because it was prudent</p>
<p>What I don’t get is that the best econometric computer models do a very average to poor job of predicting the economy a year or two out but you are willing to buy a much more complex computer model that is supposed to project worldwide weather decades out. NOBODY is that good.</p>
<p>I would rather do more to protect my home planet, then less…are you averse to convervation, using less gas, using green products, recycling, etc?</p>
<p>Point is, we are trashing our planet, using up resources, at a minimum do you even admit that much?</p>
<p>Actually I think that’s a fine idea. I’m just not ready to upset the economy and spend Billions on some maybe problem that is, at worst, generations from causing any serious problems. </p>
<p>The earth is what, 4.5 Billion years old. Most of their data is from maybe 1000 years with some snippets a few hundred thousand years old. They are trying to measure an elephant by feeling his tail.</p>
<p>Sure conservation and alternate energy are great ideas. Unfortunately, the world also has China and lots of other developing countries. They will continue to crank out cars, trucks, heavy machinery and factories faster than you can count. They are not about to stop and go back to subsistence farming. Nor are the developed countries ready to stand still or go backwards. If in fact our consumption of fossil fuels is causing serious harm to the environment, then the required solutions might be very drastic and well beyond cutting back a bit or using some green products, or recycling. We can try tens of thousands of square miles of solar panels and wind farms, but cost and destruction of our land will be unacceptable. Most likely we will need to bring online lots of nuclear reactors. Of course, our esteemed climatologists don’t know what is required. At this point the stated goal is to cut back a bit. No one can tell if that is necessary or even close to being sufficient. </p>
<p>I don’t believe there is much we know about climatology. Maybe the dire consequences are true. If so, we can assess with a high degree of accuracy steps that would be necessary to replace our current energy consumption. Even with some serious improvements in solar cell efficiency, we would need to cover several of our States with solar panels. Sorry but I happen to like parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. We would also need huge wind farms. Kind of expensive, not to mention all those chopped up birds.</p>
<p>Politics and science just don’t mix very well. We don’t want to hear the bad news - if there is any. We want to believe we are accomplishing something with our recycle efforts. Like my neighbors, I separate cans, plastic and newspaper. In my area it is just a joke on the public. Many of us know that there is no actual recycling - at least not where I live. There is no market, no local re-manufacturing facilities and the cost of carting the materials is too high.</p>
<p>Insomnia so I’m reading this whole thread… I just had an observation for dmd77
I once had an evangelist ask me a series of questions framed in this exact same way. Seems like being green is turning into a religious experience for some of you…</p>
<p>dmd77 said:
"Okay, here’s my question:</p>
<p>even if we (humans) are not causing global climate change by releasing huge amounts of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere… suppose the alarmists are right. Now ask yourself: does it do any harm to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce if there is no global effect? (No.) Does it do any harm to reduce the amount of CO2 if there is a global effect? (No.) Does it help to reduce the CO2 either way? (Yes–if there is–and No–if there’s not.)</p>
<p>So why on earth wouldn’t you hedge your bets by reducing CO2, just in case."</p>
<p>"does it do any harm to reduce the amount of CO2 we produce if there is no global effect? (No.) " </p>
<p>And how do you propose reducing CO2? Are you going to give up using your car to go to work, or take vacations or visit friends? Are you going to walk to the grocery store and carry your food home in a cart? Are you going to stop heating and cooling your house? Are you going to stop using lights and electricity and unplug your computer? What about all the power it takes to move water and waste? Are you going to get your water by walking to the town well and dig a latrine in your backyard? Modern agriculture and distribution takes a lot of energy. I guess we will just raise chickens and plant vegetables in our yards. Hospitals are huge energy hogs. We need to shut those down. I guess if you are healthy enough to walk to the hospital, you really don’t need to go anyway. I work in a large medical lab with lots of robotic instrumentation, computers and air conditioners. Our couriers also rack up a few million miles a year picking up blood specimens from hospitals, nursing homes and doctors offices. I guess all of that needs to go. That will leave me plenty of time for my vegetables and chickens.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with conservation, except we tend to develop really distorted ideas. We like to believe a few small things are making a difference when in fact we are doing the equivalent of just spitting in the ocean. Politicians are especially good at pretending. Everytime we have an energy crisis, the first solution is to extend daylight savings time. Of course, this does nothing except possibily increase fuel consumption. The retailers love it. If we get home from work earlier, we are more likely to go shopping in the evening. I can give you endless examples of do-gooder, greenie ideas that accomplish little or nothing.</p>
<p>edad - You do an awesome job of articulating what I think but just can’t express. Thanks! The whole issue is just so much more complex than people want to believe. It involves economics, politics, religion (for some), physical infrastructure, and yes science. It feels good to go into “code red” mode, institute aggressive policies to save the planet NOW but many of these policies can actually backfire, lead to greater human suffering. Interventionist movements are noble but so often crude and ultimately harmful in their implementation. I think we need to go slower, strive for a civil discussion, stop vilifying those on the "other side"of the argument.</p>
<p>OK, for a civil discussion, let’s start here:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Stop calling anyone who thinks that the scientific consensus on global warming is likely to be right an “alarmist.” Responding to a scientifically based warning about the consequences of continuing an activity isn’t being “alarmist”, it’s just being prudent.</p></li>
<li><p>Stop using exaggerations like accusing people concerned about the quality of life their children will experience if the consensus of climate scientists are right of suggesting that everyone should forego medical care, indoor plumbing, etc. This is what’s called a “straw man” argument and it’s offensive and unworthy.</p></li>
<li><p>Try to avoid arguments which suggest that people looking to protect their children’s future are just looking to “feel good” and rush into action thoughtlessly. Accept the possibility that electing to ignore a well reasoned heads up about the future consequences of current behavior may not always be a sign of wisdom.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Mammal, you call for civil discussion and an end to villifying those on the other side of the discussion, but applaud edad for doing just what you decry. Are you aware of the contradiction in your own post? But am for civil discourse - In that vein, instead of reacting to the stupid stereotypes you guys project onto others, I’ll make one actual set of suggestions. Not projest opinions onto you, but make an actual suggestion of my own. </p>
<p>Consider: The average single family home in California has enough space on its roof to install enough PV panels to supply the entire energy usage of that residence for an entire year, plus charge a battery powered electric car with enough juice to travel 30 miles a day. Of course, there are lots of practical obstacles to overcome before every house in California would have PV panels on its roof, and those panels only produce electricity in daytime, wouldn’t power factories, etc., and 30 miles of car travel a day isn’t enough for everyone - but do you think if the same amount of effort were put into pursuing that end as we put into other priorities, and other simple infrastructure changes were made to make living in our communities less dependent on the consumption of petroleum and coal that we couldn’t reduce our use of those resources? And the downside of embarking on such a campaign would be - what? Sending less money to unstable political states in the Middle East? Is tha a bad thing?</p>
<p>Kluge, so people who disagree with your point should be civil, but you can write things like “Jeff Jacoby is a moron.” Being polite only goes in one direction in your world, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Jeff Jacoby is a moron. He is a public figure, who publishes a column which is intellectually dishonest. Am I supposed to pretend he doesn’t? Who else am I supposed to be civil to? Ann Coulter? Chuck Baker? David Duke? Is there no point where I can say: "The emperor has no clothes? </p>
<p>Being civil means not misrepresenting the opinions of people who disagree with you. That is what, in my opinion, Jeff Jacoby does. Does being civil mean I should ignore other people misrepresenting the positions they disagree with, or pretend that they’re being honest? I don’t think so - that just means that the side with the least integrity “wins” - which is the position I think we’re in today.</p>
<p>I am absolutely prepared to address honest argument fairly presented (Edad’s second paragraph, for example.) Dishonest argument - like Edad’s first paragraph - should be exposed for what it is.</p>
<p>The truth is; scientists don’t have all the answers. Some think that mankind is causing a lot of our global warming issues, while others don’t and believe that it’s mostly nature.</p>
<p>And, it appears that if the “Mankind is at fault” believers get cornered over incorrect facts and information, then their natural retreat position is to say; “Isn’t it better to be safe just in case the scientists who believe that mankind is a major problem” are right??? The question has been asked hundreds of time; “Does it do any harm to be green, reduce, co2, etc…”</p>
<p>Well, unfortunately, the answer to that question is; “It depends.” In turn, I will ask you to think about all the negative results that can happen by going “Green” too quickly.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Economic instability - Can our country and citizens financially afford to go green that quickly? What does it do to our existing debt? Do we raise taxes or the cost of consumer goods? Will it put us into an economic recession? Also, what about the rest of the world’s economy. Can China and India’s people afford the cost of goods if the price includes not using fossil fuels?</p></li>
<li><p>Political Instability - What about the countries of the world, like the middle east, who’s gross domestic product is Fossil fuels. This is basically the only product; other than SAND that they have to trade/sell. In return, they get food, clothing, technology, cars, etc… Basically, their ENTIRE EXISTENCE comes from the money made from oil. Do you expect them to go back to all being goat herders? Tell me that the country wouldn’t become even more unstable politically. Especially if the world eventually said; “We don’t need you at all anymore”.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Now, do all these people with economic and political problems start relocating and immigrating to other countries. Those that are left are going to be extremely poor. They will use whatever they can for fuel.</p>
<p>So, my question is the same to you. “Can we afford to go green?” “Indeed, is their harm?” This is not to say that we shouldn’t be looking for alternative fuels. We should. But, if we allow the process to happen for ECONOMICAL reasons and not ENVIRONMENTAL reasons which can be mostly emotionally charged; then we can eliminate the economic and political issues. For instance, the middle east is in an area where solar and electrolyte technology can be much easier to research and possibly evolve. If we can get that involved there, then many of the political issues can be averted. If we can get more involved with developing countries like India, China, and other Asian areas to develop alternative means of energy being that are starting anyway, this can bypass the economic issues. The internet is a prime example. Because many of these countries had very little technology to begin with, they started right at fiber optics. They didn’t even know what dialup is. Their internet experience is in many places so much superior to us. Well, get them to go directly to other non fossil fuel types of energy.</p>
<p>Anyway, those are the things you need to worry about. Unfortunately, those that are screaming about global warming and the environment, are doing so out of emotions. They have very few undisputed facts. And they know very little of global macro-economics or politics. They don’t understand the cascade affects. So, while I applaud you efforts to want to see the planet cleaner and greener; and that you are willing to concede that mankind might not be the reason for all the global warming; you need to consider more the economic and political implications of trying to go off of fossil fuels to fast. I’m not saying not to do it, just that you need to let the market and industries do it and not make it a political CAUSE. Then it will be something that the consumer can afford and other nations can be involved with.</p>