Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Two things. I don't have to be a scientist to have an opinion.

Of course not. But you do to have a qualified one.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Secondly I don't have any inkling that Cardiologists might actually be motivated to portray facts as anything else than they are. I have seen people do exactly that with regard to Global Warming/Climate Change.

Why wouldn't they? They make money from expensive procedures and future appointments. Telling you that you are perfectly healthy and to go home is against their own financial interests. They have a huge motivation to lie.

But like I said, global warming doesn't have a direct impact on you so you can take an anti-science approach. But if it did, you'd be praying at the altar of it along with the creationists who suddenly lose their beliefs the minute a life depends on something.

[gstelmack]

And yet every time we post something from a scientist against global warming, they get shot down as being from big energy and so not having a legitimate opinion. So are you going to weigh the scientists from both sides, or only listen to the ones you want to hear from?

And yes, I've walked away from a doctor who was asking me to do things that made no sense and found one who did (I hate the ones who listen to the pharmaceutical industry and fix things by throwing more drugs at you). There is also such a thing as a "second opinion" in medicine. They haven't cured everything yet you know

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And yet every time we post something from a scientist against global warming, they get shot down as being from big energy and so not having a legitimate opinion. So are you going to weigh the scientists from both sides, or only listen to the ones you want to hear from?

I haven't seen anything from a scientist posted. The last thing I saw posted was an editorial by a lobbyist for Exxon.

Every qualified scientist should voice their opinions and what their studies show. But right now, out of those qualified scientists, the overwhelming majority of them have a view that global warming exists.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And yes, I've walked away from a doctor who was asking me to do things that made no sense and found one who did (I hate the ones who listen to the pharmaceutical industry and fix things by throwing more drugs at you). There is also such a thing as a "second opinion" in medicine. They haven't cured everything yet you know

This wouldn't be one doctor, it would be virtually every major cardiologist. So if you went to 500 cardiologists who told you the same thing, would you still pass up on the procedure? I would hope not.

[Warhammer]

I've said it before and I will say it again. Unfortunately, many scientists have agendas. Their agenda, to get more money. How do they get more money? By getting people to invest in their research. How do they get more people to invest in their research? THE SKY IS FALLING! UNLESS WE DO MORE RESEARCH IN HOW TO REVERSE THIS WE WILL ALL DIE!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I haven't seen anything from a scientist posted. The last thing I saw posted was an editorial by a lobbyist for Exxon.

We've talked about this in many threads dating back to the Michael Crichton book. I've posted several dissenting opinions, including from the old head of the NOAA hurricane center, and from one who studied sun activity.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Every qualified scientist should voice their opinions and what their studies show. But right now, out of those qualified scientists, the overwhelming majority of them have a view that global warming exists.

Are you sure, or is that just what the media is telling you? Keep in mind the post above where the spin from the politicos did not match the scientist conclusion at all. And that this has become enough of a hot-button topic that the dissenters are shouted down, no one wants to look at the actual science they are trying to present.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This wouldn't be one doctor, it would be virtually every major cardiologist. So if you went to 500 cardiologists who told you the same thing, would you still pass up on the procedure? I would hope not.

Not if I actually talked to 500, no. How many scientists have you talked to again that believe in global warming? You've mostly read media reports coming from the UN council, which is headed by a railroad engineer BTW, and one from India which does not want to sign the latest UN treaty because they are a "developing nation" and thus would have their economy crippled, right?

One of the few places I've found where I can get a decent view of both sides of the issue has been Discover magazine. They are generally pro Global Warming, but they aren't afraid to print the dissenting opinions. I read the articles from both sides whenever they come out. I've read the web sites posted here. I've looked at the graphs, I've read the arguments and papers. My conclusions are that the earth did warm up in the 90s (and has for a century or two), it's not warming right now (both sides agree on that, by the way), that the earth has gone through these heating / cooling cycles for its entire history (again, the global warming graphs agree on this), that we were in an ice age 10,000 years ago, that areas of the planet were warmer than they are now just a few centuries ago, and that CO2 levels are high. What I have not seen convincing evidence of is that CO2 is the main force driving that increase (there are other greenhouse gases as well, plus there is sun activity, plus there is paving, plus other factors), or that man is main cause of all of this, or that it's anything but a natural cycle with man contributing maybe some small factor to it. I certainly have not seen any evidence that armageddon is just around the corner if we don't stop emitting CO2 immediately.

I do know one place folks have pointed me to is RealClimate. It was interesting to find out that one of the main guys behind it was one of those implicated in the e-mail scandal (and putting aside most of the debates about the statistics, I still have not heard a reasonable explanation for stacking the peer review boards for their papers...). I've read some of his recent interviews, and he comes off as just a bad a spin-meister as everyone claims the energy folks are. There is a ton of politics tied up in this issue.

As pointed out above, before the politicians got hold of this, there was a general consensus that there was some warming, but no evidence that man was behind it, or that it was anything but natural. Once the politicians got involved and money got thrown at it, science got buried behind the spin, and no one can tell us what changed between the two points. We keep being told about "improved models", but those models are having a hard time with the flat temperatures over the last few years and are notoriously inaccurate. We keep being told about "more data", but all we can see are the massaged numbers. We keep being told there is a "consensus", but anyone who tries to present a dissenting opinion has their publications buried, or they are dismissed as doing poor science, or they are being paid by an energy company.

This is not nearly as "solved" as you'd like to believe it is.

[gstelmack]

Here's another example of a gaping hole in this whole debate:

News Release : Team finds subtropical waters flushing through Greenland fjord : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

This is discussing how ocean currents affect glacier melting. A key quote for me:

Originally Posted by article

While melting due to warming air temperatures is a known event, scientists are just beginning to learn more about the ocean's impact — in particular, the influence of currents — on the ice sheet.

We have a very complex climate system, and large parts of it are just now being studied more carefully. And we are finding more and more factors involved in bits that are blindly assigned to "warming thanks to CO2". Until we know more about all of these factors and how they impact climate, how can you claim this is "solved"?

[Warhammer]

Hey, didn't I say this is what was happening earlier in this thread?

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

A little more fun for the discussion.

Physics Professor Quits APS over Global Warming Hoax

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at UCSB has quit the American Physics Society over their handling of the global warming debate. Here's a key quote in his lengthy resignation letter:

But how does he feel about ManBearPig?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Al's on the warpath........

Obama has failed to lead on climate: Gore - Yahoo! News

[Kodos]

Let's just hope the naysayers are right.

[Marc Vaughan]

I personally put as much credence in the 'disaster' Global Warming people as I do in the counter arguments which indicate a mini ice-age is coming:

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity | Mail Online

(personally I think mankind definitely influences the environment but don't think our science is at the level where we can accurately predict its effect or indeed exactly why things are changing - the data we have available to base assumptions on is simply far too small to be accurate, living sensibly and in a 'green' manner is a good thing and definitely should be 'pushed' ... but I dislike the scare mongering which is common in this area)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

... but I dislike the scare mongering which is common in this area)

Come to the Bay Area. You'll feel like you're back in the middle of the Industrial Revolution when you go back home.

I purposefully ask for plastic bags at the grocery stores here. Just to piss the tree huggers off.

[fantom1979]

I am not a scientist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn express last night, so what do I know. It just seems like the weather has been screwy for the past 5 years or so. Are we causing it? Is the weather really different on a long term scale? I don't know. But I do know that burning coal and dumping radiation into our water supply isn't that great for us, so I am a pretty big fan of renewable power whenever is it feasible.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I am not a scientist and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn express last night, so what do I know. It just seems like the weather has been screwy for the past 5 years or so. Are we causing it? Is the weather really different on a long term scale? I don't know. But I do know that burning coal and dumping radiation into our water supply isn't that great for us, so I am a pretty big fan of renewable power whenever is it feasible.

Back in the '80s I remember reading that we were in the midst of an abnormally mild stretch of weather, and that when things finally returned to normal everyone would be wondering why the weather was so crappy. It's the only correct weather prediction beyond the current day I think I can remember (and they get the current day wrong often enough as it is).

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I personally put as much credence in the 'disaster' Global Warming people as I do in the counter arguments which indicate a mini ice-age is coming:

Earth facing a mini-Ice Age 'within ten years' due to rare drop in sunspot activity | Mail Online

(personally I think mankind definitely influences the environment but don't think our science is at the level where we can accurately predict its effect or indeed exactly why things are changing - the data we have available to base assumptions on is simply far too small to be accurate, living sensibly and in a 'green' manner is a good thing and definitely should be 'pushed' ... but I dislike the scare mongering which is common in this area)

+100.

1) We have a sense of how the climate works, but we have a long way to go before we really get a handle on how all the variables interact--no one really knows why the average global temperature jumped about 7 degrees Celsius some 12,000 years ago, or why it dropped between the 1940s and 1970s before resuming the climb that began in the late nineteenth century.

2) Even if we do not understand entirely how it works, taking carbon that was stored below the earth's surface over a period of millions of years, and blowing most of it into the atmosphere during a period of a few hundred years, is potentially risky.

I think this debate would have turned out better if someone had said "look, I cannot tell you for certain what the future holds, but carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we are putting an awful lot of carbon emissions into the atmosphere--we should probably just play it safe and go easy on the planet."

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I try to avoid the arguments where one side is dead-set opposed to even listening to any arguments as the entire point of a debate seems fruitless.

I did want to comment, however that I have heard valid arguments to many things, from:

"Global Warming is bullshit"

to

"Bull shit causes global warming."

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I did want to comment, however that I have heard valid arguments to many things, from:

"Global Warming is bullshit"

to

"Bull shit causes global warming."

Nicely played.

[molson]

Originally Posted by King of New York

I think this debate would have turned out better if someone had said "look, I cannot tell you for certain what the future holds, but carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we are putting an awful lot of carbon emissions into the atmosphere--we should probably just play it safe and go easy on the planet."

That sounds sensible, but certainly nothing would ever be changed with a "we should probably just play it safe" mantra.

As for the sunspot stuff/mini ice-age stuff, I don't discount it, but I sure read a lot more about shrinking antarctic ice than I do about increasing antarctic ice (I've read zero about the latter actually happening - though it's funny to see people absolutely jump on that speculation while completely blowing off what has ACTUALLY happened).

I wish we all could get on board with a comprehensive, aggressive energy plan in the U.S. that would save us from all things, not just global warming. Economy, national security, environment - it is ALL in play, energy is the key, and amazingly, conveniently, the same type of actions/progress would hugely benefit us in all those areas, regardless of anyone's individual political leanings. And yet, we still can hardly make any progress.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by King of New York

+100.

...

I think this debate would have turned out better if someone had said "look, I cannot tell you for certain what the future holds, but carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we are putting an awful lot of carbon emissions into the atmosphere--we should probably just play it safe and go easy on the planet."

This I'll agree with, as well Marc's comments above.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project results are in

Skeptic who ran project's take on the findings

[JPhillips]

The temperature has a well known liberal bias.

[Ryan S]

It would be nice if someone could send some of the global warming to Scotland, it has been 3 or 4 years since the temperature has risen much over 70.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

It would be nice if someone could send some of the global warming to Scotland, it has been 3 or 4 years since the temperature has risen much over 70.

I'm pretty sure that the graph shows temps have gone up a couple of degrees over 200 years. I don't think that's going to help you much unless you're a big fan of 72 but hate 70 (still big enough to cause a lot of other problems, tho).

SI

[Warhammer]

Aw frick... I had a huge 10 point post about this stuff. Not going to recreate the wheel, but this is all a bit to do about nothing. Essentially, the guy says the only way to disprove AGW is if there is no warming. Climate by definition is always changing. It is either getting warmer or getting cooler. The earth is never at a steady state. So saying that the only way to disprove AGW is by everything remaining the same is a false premise.

He also excuses poor weather equipment saying that at least it shows trends. While I understand that logic, it also means any trend they show will be magnified up or down. If people want to make sweeping changes to society, we better get this done right and not base it off of skewed data. Especially, when we're talking about 1deg. Based upon the kelvin temperature scale, that's .3% increase in temperature.

Not only that, but this is only based upon land measurement. We're only getting 1/4 of the picture.

[sterlingice]

What sweeping changes to society?
* Trying to force better gas mileage in cars/trucks/planes/boats? Shouldn't we be doing that anyway for a myriad of reasons from reliance on other countries and security to the other toxins that burning gasoline puts into the air.
* Trying to reduce energy usage for society as a whole? See previous point.
* Trying to reduce emissions from factories. Again, see above and also what about the whole concept of "if you can't clean up after yourself, then you can't do it". Just because we've become increasingly lax about it, doesn't mean we shouldn't live by it.

I just don't see where these "sweeping changes" don't have other ancillary benefits or aren't something we should have been doing already and just got lazy/lax about.

SI

[Warhammer]

- Bishop Hill blog - Keenan's response to the BEST*paper

Interesting analysis of the paper along with emails.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Interesting that he hangs his hat on critiquing the statistical methods without reading the paper about their statistical methods.

Short of obtaining an MS in statistics, who is right? He or the BEST statisticians?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What sweeping changes to society?
* Trying to force better gas mileage in cars/trucks/planes/boats? Shouldn't we be doing that anyway for a myriad of reasons from reliance on other countries and security to the other toxins that burning gasoline puts into the air.
* Trying to reduce energy usage for society as a whole? See previous point.
* Trying to reduce emissions from factories. Again, see above and also what about the whole concept of "if you can't clean up after yourself, then you can't do it". Just because we've become increasingly lax about it, doesn't mean we shouldn't live by it.

I just don't see where these "sweeping changes" don't have other ancillary benefits or aren't something we should have been doing already and just got lazy/lax about.

SI

Oil is too valuable to burn. I've said it before and I will keep saying it til I die. Oil is too valuable to burn.

The problem is, what fuel do we have that has the energy density of hydrocarbons? However, look at batteries. They are not the answer. What do we do with the left over batteries? We can't put them in a landfill (or shouldn't). The whole debate about cars right now is not changing the amount of energy to transport us, its all about where the energy production is taking place. I've been to oil refineries, power plants, paper mills, chemical plants, battery plants, food plants, etc., for work. There are two types of plants I hope I never go into again, one is the protein rendering plants (where they take all the chicken, pork byproducts and cook it all down) and the other is type is battery plants. When you see what happens at a battery plant, you'll question why in the world they are even argued as a cleaner energy source.

Heck, one of the big benefits from cars when they were introduced was how they cleaned up cities that relied previously on horse power.

If you want to cut emissions, then go to hydrogen based engines. However, there are a number of issues doing that.

Second, I am all for making things more efficient. The problem is consumers don't like buying small cars. Also, there is only so much you can do to an internal combustion engine.

Regarding emissions from factories, people are talking about carbon dioxide. That's not what we need to worry about. Its the methanes, the nitrous oxides, ozone, and other pollutants that we need to worry about.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What sweeping changes to society?
* Trying to force better gas mileage in cars/trucks/planes/boats? Shouldn't we be doing that anyway for a myriad of reasons from reliance on other countries and security to the other toxins that burning gasoline puts into the air.
* Trying to reduce energy usage for society as a whole? See previous point.
* Trying to reduce emissions from factories. Again, see above and also what about the whole concept of "if you can't clean up after yourself, then you can't do it". Just because we've become increasingly lax about it, doesn't mean we shouldn't live by it.

I just don't see where these "sweeping changes" don't have other ancillary benefits or aren't something we should have been doing already and just got lazy/lax about.

SI

The problem (as I see it) isn't the big picture "reduce, reuse, recycle". I think most sane people would agree that those are targets we should all be aiming for. The problem is knee-jerk implementations that have their own effects that, in some cases, are similar or worse than the problem being solved.

For example, the government push towards ethanol fuels is, in my mind, a net negative when you consider that we are now just fueling our cars with food in a world where food is still scarce. Is ethanol-based gasoline technically more environmentally friendly than the non-ethanol gasoline we have traditionally used? Sure. But when looking at the global effect of routing vast amounts of corn away from the food supply and into our gas tanks, I'd say it is a poor decision.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

For example, the government push towards ethanol fuels is, in my mind, a net negative when you consider that we are now just fueling our cars with food in a world where food is still scarce. Is ethanol-based gasoline technically more environmentally friendly than the non-ethanol gasoline we have traditionally used? Sure. But when looking at the global effect of routing vast amounts of corn away from the food supply and into our gas tanks, I'd say it is a poor decision.

The push for ethanol has been one of the biggest boondoggles of recent memory - it's a good example of how people need to be careful about pursuing "green" tech and understanding what the real issues are.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Interesting that he hangs his hat on critiquing the statistical methods without reading the paper about their statistical methods.

Short of obtaining an MS in statistics, who is right? He or the BEST statisticians?

But that's part of peer review. Personally, I would go with the statistician regarding the statistics.

Keep in mind who the dialogue is between. The paper publisher, a statistician, and an editor. The interesting thing to me was towards the bottom of the page.

From: James Astill
To: D.J. Keenan
Sent: 18 October 2011, 17:57
Subject: Re: BEST papers

Dear Doug

Many thanks. Are you saying that, though you mistrust the BEST methodology to a great degree, you agree with their most important conclusion, re the surface temperature record?

best
James

James Astill
Energy & Environment Editor



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: D.J. Keenan
To: James Astill
Sent: 18 October 2011, 18:41
Subject: Re: BEST papers

James,

Yes, I agree that the BEST surface temperature record is very probably roughly right, at least over the last 120 years or so. This is for the general shape of their curve, not their estimates of uncertainties.

Cheers, Doug



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They then came out with the press-release which said:

Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1°C since the mid-1950s.

The whole paper is about how they are manipulating the data. The fact that they used smoothed data in their analysis IS flawed.

Back in engineering school, we learned that you always had to use your raw data for any analysis. You might make best fit lines or smoothed data for presentations. You would typically have your error bars in there as well. The reason why you would always use raw data is the data would be corrupted after you smoothed it. 1.6 may become 1.5, later may become 1.3, etc. That's what Hill is arguing here. He also points out why there methodology was refuted years ago.

A good example we could all relate to is take a digital picture. Reduce the picture, so you reduce the size of the file. Then enlarge it back to regular size. It will look different. Same sort of thing going on here.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I understand the concept of data smoothing.

What I don't understand, or perhaps know where to turn without more statistical knowledge, is when statisticians disagree.

Keenan states that he had not yet read our long paper on statistical methods. I think if he reads this he is more likely to appreciate the sophistication and care that we took in the analysis. David Brillinger, our chief advisor on statistics, warned us that by avoiding the jargon of statistics, we would mislead statisticians to think we had a naive approach. But we decided to write in a more casual style, specifically to be able to reach the wider world of geophysicists and climate scientists who don't understand the jargon. Again, if Keenan reads the methods paper, he will have a deeper appreciation of what we have done.

I saw no retort from Keenan on this point. BEST has statisticians too. Keenan didn't read the paper that dealt with the statistical methods. Short of reading and fully comprehending the paper of statistical methods - which, even with my background, would not likely help the matter, how does one decide where the error is?

Which is to say, why do YOU trust Keenan over what BEST did statistically?

[sterlingice]

And, very true- I definitely agree with both of the last two posts (Fidatello and Warhammer, if someone posts before this screed posts). Burning food is stupid, as is frivolously burning oil. And, yes, Warhammer, I understand it is a lot more complicated than "just use a different energy source". To say that without understanding that we just don't have something that can generate the amount of energy we need would be disingenuous.

Let's look at an example, tho: if the government increased CAFE standards over 10 years to 50 mpg instead of the current 35ish- where is the harm? The industry has a goal to shoot for and a reasonable time frame. We finally just did this, tho it's 61/46mpg and it's 2025 not 2020 so that's a good step in the right direction. However, the penalties are way too low so we'll just seem more companies in violation ($55 per mpg is a joke- make it $500 per mpg and you'll get more compliance).

So, again, where is the harm in making a comprehensive energy policy and doing something like putting in goals that are in the mid-distance (10-20 years): not too short as to make it drastic but not far enough off that it won't make an impact. Companies should be able to turn production towards those goals and everyone can reasonably work towards this.

Similarly, it's what I found frustrating about the cap and trade debate. If you incentivize companies monetarily and give them a fair time horizon, they will work towards that goal. If you tell someone that in 10 years, it will cost them $5 per ton of carbon (or whatever the value), they will find ways to avoid having to spend too much. A long term measured approach would have worked fine but we're not going to see that for a while again.

SI

[Warhammer]

For one, Brillinger is on staff at UC Berkeley. More money coming into the university is good for him. Second, I agree with that the use of any smoothed data in an analysis is wrong.

Also, every paper that I have seen, the modus operandi is that you write technically and explain in layman's terms. So, you would use the statistician's jargon and then talk through it if needed. Why not do this? Why dumb down a scientific paper? I don't care why its in another paper, why you would do this causes me to doubt this instantly. Are they trying to pull a fast one?

What Keenan says later in the chain, 2+2=5 is wrong, is true. You can try and justify why 2+2=5, but regardless of the justification it is wrong. That's why Keenan points out the previously written paper regarding the use of data smoothing.

Also, another thing, remember, Muller was writing to the editor, not Keenan when he points out that Keenan didn't read the other paper. Again, to me, that is like saying, "You can't listen to him. We've got good reasons for it. If he only took the time to read it he'd understand."

Also, this was an interesting quote from Keenan:

And so the question is this: was the statistical model that was adopted for their analysis a reasonable choice? If not, then--since their conclusions are based upon that model--their conclusions must be unfounded.

In fact, the statistical model that they adopted has been rejected by essentially everyone. In particular, it has been rejected by both the IPCC and the CCSP, as cited in my previous message. I know of no work that presents argumentation to support their choice of model: they have just adopted the model without any attempt at justification, which is clearly wrong.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Let's look at an example, tho: if the government increased CAFE standards over 10 years to 50 mpg instead of the current 35ish- where is the harm? The industry has a goal to shoot for and a reasonable time frame. We finally just did this, tho it's 61/46mpg and it's 2025 not 2020 so that's a good step in the right direction. However, the penalties are way too low so we'll just seem more companies in violation ($55 per mpg is a joke- make it $500 per mpg and you'll get more compliance).

So, again, where is the harm in making a comprehensive energy policy and doing something like putting in goals that are in the mid-distance (10-20 years): not too short as to make it drastic but not far enough off that it won't make an impact. Companies should be able to turn production towards those goals and everyone can reasonably work towards this.

If someone made a car that where it was economically advantageous for me to buy it with a higher mpg, I'd be all over it. The last car I bought for myself, I compared the price of fuel to the overall cost of the car, with estimated 2000 miles per month, and a 5 year lifetime of payments (was for work, so 5 years was the time between cars at the time). Based upon that analysis, I bought the car with lower mpg. I couldn't justify the $7500 dollars for the more efficient car. This was back in 2001, so it might shake out differently today.

That said, while I can get behind the government imposing standards in this manner, I am much more amenable to the market setting the demand and market for something of that nature. But, I also try to take as much of the impulse and intensity out of buying a car, so I understand that I am not your normal car buyer.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

For one, Brillinger is on staff at UC Berkeley. More money coming into the university is good for him.

But, as has been pointed out several times in this thread and is implicit in this sentence, if science is merely at the whim of who pays the bills then wouldn't this Koch-funded study have come to different conclusions?

As far as the smoothed data debate goes, I have no leg to stand on. You have Tukey and Brillinger on one side and Keenan on the other. I have no reason to suspect the correctness of either side. Keenan certainly writes well and seems to know what he's talking about, and I'm not saying he's wrong.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If someone made a car that where it was economically advantageous for me to buy it with a higher mpg, I'd be all over it. The last car I bought for myself, I compared the price of fuel to the overall cost of the car, with estimated 2000 miles per month, and a 5 year lifetime of payments (was for work, so 5 years was the time between cars at the time). Based upon that analysis, I bought the car with lower mpg. I couldn't justify the $7500 dollars for the more efficient car. This was back in 2001, so it might shake out differently today.

That said, while I can get behind the government imposing standards in this manner, I am much more amenable to the market setting the demand and market for something of that nature. But, I also try to take as much of the impulse and intensity out of buying a car, so I understand that I am not your normal car buyer.

Yes, but that's purely market-based so purely profit driven by the companies that manufacture cars. If I'm making governmental policies- I have a duty to my citizens as a whole and not just the profit motive of any company or industry. Bluntly, if I'm making country-wide policy decisions, I don't particularly care what you, as an individual or individual corporation, want. If it's for the overall good of the country that we drive more fuel efficient cars because we don't want to be as dependent on other countries for oil, it's cleaner burning, etc- then we need to tax those activities to make the price more true to its actual cost to society.

To continue with the gasoline price example, the only reason gas is 3.whatever a gallon is because that is where the supply and demand curve meet.*

*Plus a few cents in taxes for road construction that really should be more based on toll roads and not gasoline if you wanted a fair usage tax but it was the best thing we could measure it with at the time. So, no, gas tax doesn't go towards the next couple of paragraphs but something altogether different.

Never mind that the actual supply cost is basically the cost of drilling it, refining it, shipping it, and delivering it. It is influenced only by the direct materials costs to get it from the earth and to your car- what intrinsic value does that even have? And never mind that the supply curve is artificially shifted by oligopoly structured pricing of a resource supplied by one of only a handful of companies which lends itself to price fixing.

Does this take into account the economic impact of the pollution in the air? No. Does it take into account the political cost of the needs (potential terror threats, weakening of regional political power, partial costs of war or military support to ensure our supply chain, etc)? Not in the least. Yet, we as a country have to suffer the consequences and pay the price in everything from increased health care costs from smog, increased costs for the military, etc. And these don't get passed on to the companies supplying the product- they are ultimately passed on to the taxpayer.

Similarly, is your demand curve influenced by any of the above? You'll see a handful of activists who will only bike or drive more fuel efficient cars or who will behave differently in an attempt to curtail some of the above. However, what your individual actions do are unlikely to affect you in any substantial way. We live in a system where what you do as an individual has a limited effect but it's multiplied millions of times over. So, acting in your own individual best interest is frequently against what is in our collective best interest. If I live 5 miles from work and decide to drive instead of bike for a week, the only cost I pay is for gas as the extra pollution I put in the environment and the extra oil I burn has a minimal effect. However, if 100 million drivers all made that decision, it would create a drastic difference in pollution and oil used.

So, in short- your gas cost of buying it from Shell or BP or whoever and the societal cost of you using extra gas are as comparable as peas and grapefruits. They're both round but have very little to do with each other.

SI

Then we can get into the argument that there are checks and balances on government and corporations in terms of elections and purchasing from said company. However, there's also a pretty easy argument to be had these days that each additional dollar you get has disproportionally more political power. For instance, the dollar that gets you from $34999 a year to $35000 a year in income has less political power than the one that gets you from $1999999 to $2000000 because you're much more likely to spend the latter on political influence to make even more money. Then you can use that political power to make you even more money by making favorable conditions for your business which you can turn into even more political power to gain even more money. But now we're getting into territory for the Occupy Wall Street thread so I'll just stop now.

[gstelmack]

Discover magazine pointed out an interesting trend in this last month's issue: nearly 10X as many peer-reviewed papers are later pulled due to inaccuracies than a decade ago. Most of those are due to fraud. This is AFTER the peer review. I'll need to go back and dig up the article to get the exact numbers.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I would be interested in seeing the article.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yes, but that's purely market-based so purely profit driven by the companies that manufacture cars. If I'm making governmental policies- I have a duty to my citizens as a whole and not just the profit motive of any company or industry. Bluntly, if I'm making country-wide policy decisions, I don't particularly care what you, as an individual or individual corporation, want. If it's for the overall good of the country that we drive more fuel efficient cars because we don't want to be as dependent on other countries for oil, it's cleaner burning, etc- then we need to tax those activities to make the price more true to its actual cost to society.

To continue with the gasoline price example, the only reason gas is 3.whatever a gallon is because that is where the supply and demand curve meet.*

But this is the problem. Why does government need to make this call for me? Additionally, it becomes even more important to get the right results and scientific data to make the call.

I am all for reducing emissions, but not all emissions are created equal. I'm still trying to figure out what CO2 is the big one everyone is trying to limit vs. methane.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Discover magazine pointed out an interesting trend in this last month's issue: nearly 10X as many peer-reviewed papers are later pulled due to inaccuracies than a decade ago. Most of those are due to fraud. This is AFTER the peer review. I'll need to go back and dig up the article to get the exact numbers.

I'm thinking there are quite a few things playing into that and not all are bad:

1) Think about 10 years ago (well, I'm using 2000), only 44% of the country had internet* and I'd bet maybe 1/5th or 10th had broadband access (according to some site I found online- just wait, this gets better). So is it that more fraud was happening or just that more fraud is discoverable now? People can actually look at and validate results and that just wasn't very easy 10 years ago. So, we're actually finding more mistakes (for instance, someone could challenge my 44% number that I found on some random website).

2) I don't think standards are as high now for sources. Some idiot can just yammer on about 44% of the US having internet in 2000 and who's really going to bother to check? As long as the number sounds just about right and reinforces what you believe- are you even going to check it?

3) There are so many more sources. I can just go pick a random internet site and is there really any authority to challenge it? Sure, but who is going to sit there and check every source? I realize that is the job of the editors but just like in every field there are good and bad.

4) Speaking of "so many more sources"... that including journals. I don't have numbers in front of me but my wife works in the academic publishing field (scientific editor) and she has talked about how, like in all publishing, the number of outlets has exploded. Whereas 50 years ago, I bet most research doctors in the Ivy League read the New England Journal of Medicine, there's a huge diversity now. You have a few like Nature, Science, NEJM, etc which still maintain high Impact factors. But now, just like in so many other fields, there is an increased splintering and specialization.

*source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm
And, really, I should have used some number like 28%- believable but not what the site says just to see if people noticed

So, yeah, probably more fraud. But I doubt it's gone up exponentially.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But this is the problem. Why does government need to make this call for me? Additionally, it becomes even more important to get the right results and scientific data to make the call.

I am all for reducing emissions, but not all emissions are created equal. I'm still trying to figure out what CO2 is the big one everyone is trying to limit vs. methane.

This has two pieces to it, so let's split out those first two lines:

"But this is the problem. Why does government need to make this call for me?"
Because, at the end of the day, it's not all about you. If a nuclear waste company wants to buy out your neighborhood and dump things in both of your next door neighbor's yard because they have more money than you and, well, you're just one person- yeah, the government gets to step in there. Or at least I would hope they would. Similarly, if you want to spew crap into the air (methane's a good call there, sulfur dioxide is another, etc) that I breathe- well, it's ethereal but it does seem like a dispute between parties with no clear jurisdiction is where the government can get involved.

As to the "let's wait out the data" claim- how many years do you want? Give me a number. 20? 50? 500? There's no such thing as "well, we have enough data now" last I checked, particularly for a cyclical phenomenon with lots of noise. Science is made to be amended and changed, to be sure, but you still want to make the best call with the best information you have. You can either try to change things now with our best theories or you can sit around and in 50 years go "wow, I guess we should have listened" if bad things come to pass.

SI

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

This has two pieces to it, so let's split out those first two lines:

"But this is the problem. Why does government need to make this call for me?"
Because, at the end of the day, it's not all about you. If a nuclear waste company wants to buy out your neighborhood and dump things in both of your next door neighbor's yard because they have more money than you and, well, you're just one person- yeah, the government gets to step in there. Or at least I would hope they would. Similarly, if you want to spew crap into the air (methane's a good call there, sulfur dioxide is another, etc) that I breathe- well, it's ethereal but it does seem like a dispute between parties with no clear jurisdiction is where the government can get involved.

I agree, but I disagree. The problem is, this is not an issue people run on (can't think of the last time I heard someone asked what their stance on Methane emissions was). We can go round and round on things. First, this example is different from the cars due to who and what is doing it (institutional emissions vs. private). Second, and I guess this is where the discussion is relevant, one is a known pollutant, sulfur dioxide is something no one will argue is a pollutant. CO2 on the other hand is very debatable.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As to the "let's wait out the data" claim- how many years do you want? Give me a number. 20? 50? 500? There's no such thing as "well, we have enough data now" last I checked, particularly for a cyclical phenomenon with lots of noise. Science is made to be amended and changed, to be sure, but you still want to make the best call with the best information you have. You can either try to change things now with our best theories or you can sit around and in 50 years go "wow, I guess we should have listened" if bad things come to pass.

SI

Its not a matter of what is debatable. Different subject, but let's say the government made a law that someone could not sail off the edge of the map because they would fall off. We know better than you, and it is for your own safety. Columbus would not have rediscovered and opened the New World up for colonization. Yet, the flat earth was based upon accepted fact at the time. People accepted a flat earth for what, 500, 1000 years? Did that make it a fact? No, it was bad science.

There are far too many flaws in the science of global warming. There are too many questions. There are a ton of items I can say, "Well, what if you're wrong?" At what cost do we implement pollution controls? Do we sacrifice our economy for something that isn't settled science?

The problem is not if the earth is warming, it is a matter of degrees. We are talking about a 1 deg C on average increase (which is not a good way to measure anyway, but for argument's sake will suffice). Nature is recognized as causing at least .75 deg of this. So we're talking about completely changing everything we've done for .25 deg C? So to be outside the margin of error, our calculations (based on a mathematical model, I might add) have to be accurate to within .25 of a deg. C. I don't think we're there.

Not only that, we are working under the assumption that the climate is a constant. Its not. Should we be working with a baseline of 1980? 1970? What about 1840? Heck, why not 2008? Depending on the year we use as a baseline, we can't come to a consensus. Also, this is assuming that we believe warming is a bad thing. Why is it bad? For nearly every negative to warming temperatures, I can point to something positive.

[Neon_Chaos]

Whatever is happening, we're feeling the brunt of it here in the tropics.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Its not a matter of what is debatable. Different subject, but let's say the government made a law that someone could not sail off the edge of the map because they would fall off. We know better than you, and it is for your own safety. Columbus would not have rediscovered and opened the New World up for colonization. Yet, the flat earth was based upon accepted fact at the time. People accepted a flat earth for what, 500, 1000 years? Did that make it a fact? No, it was bad science.

Are we really comparing the scientific field of the 1400's to the scientific field of today?

Originally Posted by Warhammer

There are far too many flaws in the science of global warming. There are too many questions. There are a ton of items I can say, "Well, what if you're wrong?" At what cost do we implement pollution controls? Do we sacrifice our economy for something that isn't settled science?

Depends on who you are talking to. These questions aren't really coming from experts in the field, they are coming from those outside the field. Often times those with little or no scientific background. Similar to how there are a lot of people who have questions about vaccines and feel they are a danger to children.

As for sacrifices, I'd say yes. You can say this about anything though with high risks. Would I put extra restrictive security measures on nuclear power plans that could potentially harm millions in an area? Yes. Even if those restrictions had high costs and hurt the economy. I guess there is always a point where we factor in the value of human lives though which is different for everyone.

Ultimately though, this is stuff we'll have to do regardless of global warming. At some point we're going to need to find a way to shift away from oil. At some point we're going to need to find ways to power a planet efficiently. Why keep procrastinating? I see trying to advance scientifically an essential part of our species. The free markets and private enterprises have shown that in many industries, they can't or won't innovate. So government does have to step in. While I'm for cutting spending in many areas, I'm also for spending a lot of money in science and advancing as a country and species. It's sad we are taking funding away from NASA when this is a time we should be putting money in. This country used to fly people to the moon and back. Now we applaud being able to wrap up some shitty loans and selling it for something more valuable. That's pathetic.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Depends on who you are talking to. These questions aren't really coming from experts in the field, they are coming from those outside the field. Often times those with little or no scientific background. Similar to how there are a lot of people who have questions about vaccines and feel they are a danger to children.

You mean we should be skeptical that the same rocket scientists (yes, literally rocket scientists) that were behind the tobacco industry claims that there were no health risks from smoking, that there was no ozone hole, that banning DDT wasn't needed are the same ones that have driven the climate change denial movement?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm pretty sure that the graph shows temps have gone up a couple of degrees over 200 years. I don't think that's going to help you much unless you're a big fan of 72 but hate 70 (still big enough to cause a lot of other problems, tho).

SI

70 to 72? Not a big deal
31 to 33? A real big deal

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Are we really comparing the scientific field of the 1400's to the scientific field of today?

The point is that just because something is accepted, does not mean it is right. I'd also argue that there is nothing close to a consensus.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Depends on who you are talking to. These questions aren't really coming from experts in the field, they are coming from those outside the field. Often times those with little or no scientific background. Similar to how there are a lot of people who have questions about vaccines and feel they are a danger to children.

As for sacrifices, I'd say yes. You can say this about anything though with high risks. Would I put extra restrictive security measures on nuclear power plans that could potentially harm millions in an area? Yes. Even if those restrictions had high costs and hurt the economy. I guess there is always a point where we factor in the value of human lives though which is different for everyone.

First, who is a climate expert? Sure, you can study the climate, but how far back can you go? Geologists have had quite a bit to do with reconstructing the ancient earth, shouldn't they have a say? What about meterologists? These guys work with the weather on a daily basis. Shouldn't they have some say as well? After all, climate is just the weather through time. Plus, based upon what they are trying to do, statisticians should have a say in this because all the climate people are doing is attempting to put together a mathematical model.

Also, who says that warming is bad? Who determines this? There are just as many doomsday scenarios about temperature going the other way.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ultimately though, this is stuff we'll have to do regardless of global warming. At some point we're going to need to find a way to shift away from oil. At some point we're going to need to find ways to power a planet efficiently. Why keep procrastinating? I see trying to advance scientifically an essential part of our species. The free markets and private enterprises have shown that in many industries, they can't or won't innovate. So government does have to step in. While I'm for cutting spending in many areas, I'm also for spending a lot of money in science and advancing as a country and species. It's sad we are taking funding away from NASA when this is a time we should be putting money in. This country used to fly people to the moon and back. Now we applaud being able to wrap up some shitty loans and selling it for something more valuable. That's pathetic.

I don't think anyone is arguing any of this. I agree with most of it. Oil is too valuable to burn. We need to put more money into NASA, etc., etc.