Science writer Michael Shermer is a professional Doubting Thomas. In addition to founding The Skeptic Society and editing its magazine, he writes the monthly Skeptic column for Scientific American. I find his skepticism occasionally absurd but reliably rigorous, and I read his column as a regular check on my assumptions. Being panned by Shermer doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but his endorsement carries weight if only for the demonstrable fact that it is so rarely given.
In this month's issue Shermer writes about human-caused global warming, first describing the roots of his long-held environmental skepticism before conceding: "Nevertheless, data trump politics, and a convergence of evidence from numerous sources has led me to make a cognitive switch on the subject of global warming."
Whoa.
His conclusion:
Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.
Let's rephrase that: It's past time.
Here's what that means: If you're still out there pretending that your political and cultural biases somehow make you smarter than climate scientists on the subject of global warming, it's time for you to SHUT THE HELL UP.
If you're a blogger who has been part of the campaign to sow FUD around any intelligent discussion of global warming and you ever want to be taken seriously again, now's the time for you to apologize, publicly. Go on the record. Add your voice to the chorus of responsible citizenship.
The new topic is what should be done. We're done talking about whether global warming is a liberal hoax.
Take that, Michael Crichton.
Honestly? I find it embarrassing that he still has a job. I'm tired that it's easier to call a scientist a liberal (wink, wink) and part of the intelligentsia - thus dismissing them - than thinking perhaps, just perhaps, that they have something to say that is worthwhile. That perhaps - imagine this: scientists might just work their asses off to understand the world around them. I'm sick of books like Crichton's receiving alot of attention simply because people WANT to believe it - not because it is the truth. I agree - Shermer should shut the hell up or better yet, he and Crichton can go on an extended vacation with Ann Coulter and Tom Cruise.
But I don't know what to do regarding global warming. It's got to be a multi-prong approach - conservation coupled to more progressive approaches. Read my post from last week on how folks from third world countries are trying to say that global warming is trashing their natural heritage (coral reefs, glaciers) and that countries like the US should be held responsible. We should be held responsible - we should want as a society to be responsible.
We need an UPHEAVAL. A scientific revolt. First though, we need a new administration (or do we?).
Posted by: Pam | Sunday, June 18, 2006 at 20:27
A few examples of the crazy, unscientific folk out there (like NASA and the BBC):
NASA says that the Earth's ozone layer appears to be on the road to recovery. - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/26may_ozone.htm?list832167
The BBC says reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4880328.stm
The BBC also says climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
Scientists disagree with Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Posted by: Moses Finklestein | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 07:25
I've got to work - so I don't have time to go through all of the articles you posted - but I did see the NASA one. Doesn't it...prove the point? Basically, they attribute ~50% of their observations to the fact that we reduced CFC emissions - a man-made compound was banned, emissions, reduced, we saw improvement in the ozone layer (in the upper stratosphere). Another component they are still looking into - the lower stratosphere seems to have recovered more than they would have predicted. I haven't read the May 4th Nature article - but I think I'll try to download it later today. So something man-made has accelerated the process - but more interestly, we modified our behavior and the situation improved. That is hopeful. Global warming is just one thing - and it IS a natural process, cyclical, etc - but the issue (from what I read) is that we are accelerating the rate at which it is occurring - thus making it more difficult for ecosystems, etc to adapt. Gotta run.
Posted by: Pam | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 08:31
Once upon a time I would have checked out your links. Not any more. I'm done wasting my time taking you twits seriously. However, just working from memory:
1. Ozone layer and the greenhouse effect: Two totally separate issues. And the reason that the ozone layer is recovering is because we made political changes 20 years ago that reduced the gases that were destroying it. As I recall it, "skeptics" at the time said the ozone hole was hype and that requiring changes in refrigeration technology was going to damage our economy.
2. The No. 1 greenhouse gas is water vapor. So yes, water vapor affects global warming. The thing is, H2O isn't persistant like CO2.
3. Changes in the sun? Well OF COURSE changes in the sun affect the climate. All sorts of things can, and have, affected microclimates and the macroclimate. There weren't any people around back in the hot old days when the poles were like the equator. But natural changes are now another topic. The topic WE'RE concerned with is anthropogenic warming, and the significant issue in that topic is carbon dioxide. CO2 levels now stand somewhere around 380 ppm, up about 100 ppm from the "sweet spot" days.
4. I don't care that some scientists disagree with Gore about global warming. I don't care that there's a 5 percent fringe. I'm glad that there's dissent within the scientific community. But NONE OF THAT CHANGES THE FACT THAT THE OTHER 95 PERCENT OF THE SCIENTISTS WHO COUNT HAVE BEEN IN AGREEMENT ON THE BASIC TENETS OF ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING FOR YEARS NOW.
You're a FUD guy. That's it. That's all.
Posted by: Daniel | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 08:40
Daniel, I love those who can refute an argument before even hearing it. If you assume that you have already heard every attack that could possibly be made against your stance, then for you new evidence speaking to either side will always be immaterial. That is not only unscientific, but tantamount to covering your eyes and ears once you have made an opinion. In response to your number 4, I can only quote from the article you refused to read before responding:
[There are] hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
I can only hope that this will spark some curiosity within your deadset mind, and that you will at least read the article.
As for the other points, I will have to do further investigation. (Notice the lack of outright disregard for your points.)
Posted by: Moses Finklestein | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 13:40
Blah blah blah, Moses. You don't get it. This post was me coming out and saying I'm done arguing about this. You're free to go around crying about my deadset mind all you wish, but I spent the better part of three months studying up on this subject full-time in 2005, and I've engaged in literally dozens of "constructive" engagements with people who hold similar beliefs about global warming, and here's what I've learned: You're wrong. Not only that, but your crowd has no interest in changing, learning or growing.
So that's not a conversation. That's a waste of time. You've made a non-qualifying offer.
At some point, a rational argument has to end. Reason prevents me from wasting more time on the points you want me to consider.
Posted by: Daniel | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 15:37
Nations, just like people, do not behave wisely until they have exhausted every other possible option.
That's probably a quote I heard from somewhere. Google it!
Don't despair, Dan. We'll run out of fossil fuels soon enough. That will certainly slow down global warming.
Posted by: Jason | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 18:36
Saying that you're done arguing about the truth about global warming is no different than a Christian saying that they refuse to believe that evolution is real. Both of you are wrong, and both stupid.
I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, but it's interesting that I can't think of ANY liberal who has an open mind about global warming. Not one.
The simple fact of the matter is this: the weather changes. It gets hotter for awhile, then it cools back down. Back in the 70's, they were looking for ways to warm the earth, including coloring the polar ice caps black to try to warm the earth. Then the weather changed, and the ice age fearmongers had to find another bugaboo.
What makes you think that not using fossil fuels will "slow down global warming?" The only viable fuels now are all carbon based; just because it didn't come out of the ground doesn't mean it doesn't have carbon. Biodiesel, ethanol, soydiesel all put carbon dioxide in the air, just like fossil fuels do. If we're so concerned about carbon dioxide, I say we stop f'n breathin', man... No point ruining the environment with our respiration, too.
The earth made it this far without us destroying it, why do you insist that now, in the next 50 years, we're gonna screw it all up. Here's an idea.
When Rob Fowler can tell me for sure what days that it will rain next month, or even next week, I'll believe that your lauded "climate scientists" can accurately predict the weather in fifty years.
'Til then, not so much.
Posted by: chip | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 20:39
Wow. You guys are really out there. "Lauded climate scientists"? Are you one of those that thinks a scientist is just saying stuff to get attention? Come on. Get a clue. Global warming isn't about one thing. It isn't simply about fossil fuels. And it isn't about being liberal or conservative. There isn't one solid scientist in support of global warming that is so naive to think that "weather" doesn't change. Christ, do you want to talk geological time? Do you want to go there? This isn't about weather - this is about observed trends in global patterns (not just one pattern, a whole bunch of patterns) that all converge into a common hypothesis. Yes, the planet has warmed before. DUH. It's cooled before too. But a big difference here is rate of change - it's kinetics, not your stupid "weather" that the "lauded climate scientists" are worried about. Get out of your human-centric head and read a little. I did read through the four references that the prior poster cited - and you know what? I don't think he nor you want to play that game. Four references - BFD. Do you want to see a couple of thousand citations - in fields from climatology to ecology to microbiology to geology to oceanography? Do you want to see some real science or keep your head in the sand?
I found a quote earlier this week that is ironically perfect for this - it was on a ScienceBlogger's website (Island of Doubt):
'As for evolution, it happened. Deal with it.'
-- Michael Shermer
Ironic, isn't it? I'm sure in a few years (he's made a big step recently) Michael Shermer will be saying: As for global warming, it's happening. Deal with it.
Posted by: Pam | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 22:08
Writes Chip:
"Saying that you're done arguing about the truth about global warming is no different than a Christian saying that they refuse to believe that evolution is real. Both of you are wrong, and both stupid."
Except for one little problem, Chip: I'm making that statement after spending a big chunk of my valuable time studying the subject, examining both sides, reading the skeptics, discussing the subject in online forums and, ultimately, coming to a personal conclusion that the science behind the overwhelming majority of climate scientists was sound.
The Christian who refuses to accept that evolution is real is simply running away from science, though he may try to wear the trappings of science while doing so.
You know who else likes to wear the trappings of science without actually respecting the process of science? Smug conservatives on intellectual stilts who come strutting around with their Competitive Enterprise Institute talking points acting like their hard-ass-but-savvier-than-thou understanding of human nature somehow makes them more expert on climate science than actual climate scientists, who are probably all just a bunch of liberals.
And if you'll go back and look, you'll notice that I didn't say a word about what the proper solution was. I said the subject that we're talking about now is what we should be doing about it, and that's a big subject.
But we're done talking about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is taking place. It is. That's settled. If your biases and various psychological pathologies prevent you from seeing that, then go stand in a corner somewhere with "Moses Finkelstein" and whine about how stupid liberals are. Just don't expect anybody outside the lunatic fringe to take you seriously anymore.
I'm not rejecting your arguments because I'm stupid or because I lack curiosity. I'm rejecting your arguments because you haven't done your homework. Your problem is that you've been lapped so badly, you actually think you're ahead.
Posted by: Daniel | Monday, June 19, 2006 at 22:40
You're right, I haven't done my homework. Or, not so much.
1. I found this article that said that global warming was causing an ice age. It's nonsense.
2. Remember during Katrina when they couldn't shut up about surface temps in the Gulf? Then Wilma came through as a stronger hurricane, and the temps were lower. But I wasn't paying attention. Not me.
3. Then, it was plants causing global warming.
4. Then, 2 stories came out the same day, with opposite conclusions.
5. Then there's global warming leading to cooler daytime temps, that causes a frog to become extinct.
6. Here, I wondered why there are no concrete numbers in climate science.
7. Here's more.
8. Global cooling? Huh?
9. "Junk" climate science.
You're right. I'm bad to not do my homework.
Posted by: chip | Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 17:25
I didn't know I could get my talking points from the CEI, either. Dammit, I had to read all of those articles by myself, and it could have been so much easier...
Posted by: chip | Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 17:27
And as a last hurrah, I'll ask this? Why do all of these stories "suggest" findings? Why do they show what "may" or "might" or "could" happen? There's nothing in concrete in any of these articles. They are asking us to accept their data at face value, yet they can't provide anything solid to base the data on. All of the conclusions are based on modeled data, when in reality we have no idea what the future holds. We don't know that in the next five years, somebody won't have a solution to the problems. I don't deny that globally, data shows that it's getting warmer. What I don't agree with is the assertion that we caused it.
I also remember the 80's, when the temps were in the 100's in South Carolina. And funny enough, I don't recall it getting that hot in recent years. As a matter of fact, the record temp for June 20th in Charleston is 100 degrees, in 1970! That's 8 degrees warmer than today, so can I cherry pick those two data points and declare global cooling as a worldwide catastrophe? It's easy to use data to support your premise, if you want to...
Posted by: chip | Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 17:53
Come back again when you really know what you're talking about. You act as if global warming is only about warming. I'm with Daniel now - you (and others like you) are a waste of time. You haven't done your homework, you've googled a few things that you don't even understand, and most of them you didn't even properly reference. No scientist ever asks you to accept their data at face value - we question our own data and everybody elses on a daily (even hourly) basis. We're so entrenched in the peer-review system that we edit street signs when we're supposed to be driving. If you think that science is about a constant stream of definitive answers, then you need to speed one day in the shoes of a research scientist. If you think you even remotely understand the complexities of global warming, then you must be pretty amazing. Go off somewhere, with Tom Cruise and Ann Coulter, and start a race of super humans. Just pick an island that has some areas pretty high above sea level.
Posted by: Pam | Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 18:39
So I don't understand it, but you do? Get over your f'n self, how about it? I've worked in a research lab, I've got an engineering degree, and I know better to accept something just because you think I ought to. I didn't Google anything, those were actually news stories that I read and commented on, or linked.
If global warming isn't about warming, then why is it called global warming, you mindless twit? Instead of trying to avoid debates by calling me a waste of time, why not back up what you say? Show some data, link some articles, make the argument.
You can't do it, though, can you? It's easier to say how wrong I am, to say that I'm a waste of time, to deflect the questions as useless without bothering to answer them. Quit taking the easy way out.
The problem with climate science is that there is NO way to determine what is going to happen in the future. Too many things can change, too fast. Ten years from now, we might not even be using fossil fuels. Maybe we'll use more, who knows? There could be a massive volcanic eruption. I'm not saying that the whole of global warming theory is wrong, I just don't think that people are to blame for it. If we are, we'll adapt. So will the rest of the earth. Survival of the fittest, right, unless that doesn't apply to this debate.
Here's another nugget for you to ignore. Al Gore and Shermer point to disappearing glaciers as evidence of global warming. What happened to all of the water? Why didn't the sea levels rise? Why have we not all died our horrible global warming caused deaths because of the current disappearance of glaciers, if this is such a catastrophe? Because it's not such a catastrophe, that's why.
Don't forget, your argument should be structured as follows:
1. Chip= Dumb Conservative
2. Pam= Enlightened Microbial Lab Scientist = Smarter than Chip
3. Daniel= Journalist = Definitely Smarter than Chip
4. Global Warming= REAL CATASTROPHE
5. Don't present ANY FACTS, at all, because it's best to just point out how stupid and Conservative that Chip is.
Just sayin'
Posted by: chip | Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 22:07
I have not read every article in the world on climate change because I have other things I have to do. The fact that the vast, vast majority of scientists in relevant fields agree is really enough for me. I trust them more than Michael Crichton, et al.
Frankly, I'd like it better if it were a conspiracy. It'd be one less thing to worry about. I just don't see scientists' motivation for making it all up, though I'm sure the conspiracy theories are out there.
But the evolution remark was telling and certainly cuts against you, not Dan. Creationists cherry pick a few small gaps in knowledge and use them to "disprove" an overall very persuasive theory with exceptionally broad scientific support. That's what these conservatives do with climate change.
And glaciers? Come on. Of course the small ones haven't vastly elevated sea levels. The biggie, as I understand it, is the ice cap on Greenland -- a whole lot of ice currently not in the ocean at all. Not good if it melts.
Posted by: Ben | Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 22:56
Thank goodness somebody finally acknowledged how smart I am. I've been waiting for that for years. Whew. Now I can retire happy.
But Pam is definitely smarter than me. And you. Don't insult her.
As for citing sources, let me instead cite just one. It pretty much covers the waterfront.
Posted by: Daniel | Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 08:45
Electronic discourse still demands a modicum of civilized and decent behavior. Does it make you feel better to pitch a tantrum when you don't have the facts? I am appalled that utter rudeness and disrespect passes for argument.
Can you not see that no one can take you seriously when you behave like that? You do your cause more harm than good by calling people names.
How sad to see such a powerful medium used for schoolyard bullying. Aren't you, deep down, better than that?
And, just FYI, accepting global warming doesn't make you a Liberal. It is quite separate from the Iraq war, gay marriage, illegal immigration, corporate corruption, fiscal responsibility and intelligent design. It's not all or nothing. Really. I swear. You can be against abortion-on-demand and acknowledge scientitific research on climate change. There's no requirement that you start wearing sandals, get dreadlocks and eat tofu. You can still think Al Gore is kinda boring. You can still think the arguments against SUVs are silly and simplistic. It's OK.
This is America. You can pick and choose.
Posted by: Janet Edens | Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 09:09
Wait, I think I was called a 'mindless twit'. I haven't heard the word 'twit' since my brother used to call me a twit, no, wait - he just called me a twit last week. It was a term of endearment.
I love being called enlightened!
Daniel - that was a good link to provide. I have about 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific articles (all related to global warming) in an Endnote file on my office computer (all collected last fall during my class), but I'm still working from home for a few more hours. It would be hard to decide the handful to post. I didn't realize, however, that 'news stories' were the major source of information for scientists now. Funny, I haven't seen a single research publication in Science or Nature that cites The Washington Post on how to make a stem cell line.
Janet - I've heard the aliens are here to extract all of the anti-oxidants from plant life. I swear I saw some of them early this morning around my one pomegranete. It was creepy. I tried to take a photograph, but they saw me and scurried away.
Posted by: Pam | Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 09:28
If you'd read Daniel's comment earlier to Moses, he called him a twit. Now, in addition to demonstrating your lack of attention to detail, your sarcasm has insulted your host. Heh.
Also, if you'd bothered to read the links I posted, despite the fact that you are just sure that they are chock full of conservative disinformation, you'd have read excerpts from an article at Opinion Journal, an offshoot of the Wall Street Journal, in which scientists were lamenting that articles submitted to both Science and Nature were either rejected out of hand, or submitted to unusual forms of criticism. For the sake of argument, I'll give you another shot at reading it here.
I think I've been misinterpreted here, and now I'm being attacked. That's fine, but remember, none of you know me. First, I responded to Daniel claiming that there was no more room for argument in the global warming debate. And here I was thinking that journalists were supposed to be impartial, above the fray, and all of that nonsense. Way to tip your hand.
As far as Pam goes, every post she's made has been confrontational. She has yet to provide any NEW information to the debate, if that's what this is. She's disparaged Moses' four links (BFD, I think she said...), she's implied that I'm just a know-nothing, and she's mostly just avoided the issue in favor of attacking the messengers. If you're capable of reading back with an impartial eye, you'll see that I'm right.
Ben discrediting the glacier evidence, when that's what is held up as the proof that global warming is a catastrophe, is also telling. If he'd bothered to read the Shermer article, he'd have seen that this was the "tipping point" for Shermer.
And I don't know where he got the impression that I'm a creationist, maybe reading comprehension classes would help? I simply said that Daniel's argument was similar to the anti-evolution argument. I think that over the course of these comments, he's proven my point, with the assistance of Pam. He's made up his mind, so I should apologize for my beliefs, and become an activist. That's what he said. That's similar to a creationist Christian saying that we shouldn't teach evolution in school, despite cointradictory evidence in favor of evolution. Just sayin.'
As far as Pam being smarter than me, that's debatable. I'm in no way convinced of that. I can see that she's closed minded, and absolutely convinced that she's cornered the market on fact. But smarter than me? Nah.
Posted by: chip | Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 18:42
Let's start with the National Academy of Sciences (http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/index.shtml) and their 2006 report on "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change." Here's the pdf link: http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf. It's a nice overview.
Posted by: Pam | Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 20:01
OK, I got the time to read your report. I'm not impressed, and I'll tell you why. I'm sure we'll disagree.
I don't like that there seems to be a sure consensus that we're destroying the earth, yet the report is riddled with incertain terms like might and possibly. I just don't see why a .9 degree F increase in temperature, spread out over 28 years, is such a reason for alarm. It seems to me that this is overhyped just a bit.
I don't like that there are such vast differences in the predictions by climate models. I understand that different models use different assumptions, different calculations, but really, can we trust such vast swings in results?
The main thing that really gets my blood to boiling is the assertion that global warming can somehow make it cooler. It's horsecrap. What it indicates to me is that there are mechanisms in the atmosphere that tend to stabilize any changes in the atmosphere. I'm not saying that GOD is gonna make it okay, or that GOD wouldn't let us screw up his creation. What I'm saying are that the laws of Physics and Thermodynamics still apply, no matter what the politics of the matter.
My guess is, the jury is still out. I haven't seen anything yet that indicates to me that a catastrophic change is coming. I've seen a lot of scientists with conflicting data and somewhat hype-y conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
Posted by: chip | Thursday, June 22, 2006 at 20:00
You are using phrases like "destroying the earth" - I've yet to read in a single peer-reviewed article that sort of language, even in articles that were strongly pro-global warming. Most scientists are trying to work towards a consensus with the tools that they have available to them - some of these tools are predictive, for sure. Models are just that - predictive tools - but when you're talking global processes, models are all we've got. We just have to hope that they have good data inputs and that with increasing data inputs, are refined over time. If you expect science to give you a result with 100% certainty, then you're looking for something that is impossible. What I actually liked about the NAS report is that the gaps and uncertainties in our knowledge base were mentioned - if you think scientists that support global warming think that everything is known about it, then you are wrong. There are many things that are not well-understand yet. The jury is still out regarding a "catastrophic change" - but then again, those are your words and not the words that I see used in the scientific literature. But the rate of change is uncertain. There are a handful of very vocal scientist-skeptics of global warming (Lindzen being one of them) - and thousands of scientists that support global warming - did you know that the early proponents of global warming were considered radical and were once viewed much the same way as the skeptics are today? It's interesting how that happens (and it's not unique to global warming) - but the shift is due to a slow consensus building amongst the scientific community. I'm curious...what Law of Thermodynamics is being discounted with the whole warming-cooling thing? This process is not new, and has happened before - it's been documented in the geological record. If the NAS report doesn't help you think differently, then perhaps we're going to have to wait and see. One interesting thing to note though - is that the American Petroleum Institute now has a webpage on global warming and what they are doing to help - including an admission that burning fossil fuels is contributing to the process. You can download their "Climate Challenge: A Progress Report" here -http://api-ec.api.org/policy/index.cfm?bitmask=001001004001000000.
Regarding a .9 degree temp change in 28 years - if the rate stays the same, and we end up being 4 degrees warming in ~120 years, I'd hate to be owning property in coastal South Carolina.
Posted by: Pam | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 00:21
OK, I'll applaud you for restoring civility to this discussion. Seriously. We both got out of hand, and now we're discussing it like grownups.
Maybe I've directed my focus at the wrong parties. I agree, I haven't actually seen any scientists predicting broad spectrum disaster. I have seen media reports (not Dan's, surprisingly, but he indicated that he's just now come to his final conclusion) that have been way overdone, perhaps due to author interpretation. I've most definitely seen bloggers predict dire consequences, and of course the TV and Air America types. Democratic Underground comes to mind, too. So we're both somewhat right, I guess. At the very least, I can see how we looked at the issue from two different viewpoints.
I wasn't saying that any laws of thermodynamics were being discounted, just that some of the hype around the issue leads to claims that can't possibly be true.
Posted by: chip | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 18:39
Yep, I'll second what Chip said and thank Pam too. This wound up being a good thread.
And Chip was also right that I introduced the word "twit" into this thread. I guess I should confess that I didn't believe that "Moses Finkelstein" was a real name. Sounded too much like "Funky Winkerbean." Mr. Finkelstein, if you are in fact a real person with the name Moses Finkelstein, I do apologize for calling you a twit.
Posted by: Daniel | Saturday, June 24, 2006 at 13:55
Did anyone read the article by Eugene Linden in Parade this weekend? That's the kind of article that I'm talking about.
Posted by: chip | Monday, June 26, 2006 at 18:59
Chip. My reading comprehension is fine. As I said, the similarity between you on global warming and the creationists on evolution is strategy and relative position to scientific consensus. I'm not saying you believe the same thing, just that you resort to similar tactics in similar situations.
To repeat: Take a broad, scientific consensus, then take a few gaps in knowledge to act as if the whole package is unreliable. They do it to evolution, which you apparently find distasteful. Then you do the same thing to global warming.
As to the glacier comment, I don't quite understand where you're coming from. Yes, Shermer and I agree that Greenland (and he adds Antarctica) is the real threat. They melt completely, we're screwed. You seemed to be suggesting that we've had some melting, and we're not drowning yet - SO THERE! My (and Shermer's) point is that there's a lot more ice, and it's not good if it melts. As the other thread suggests, we may be screwed anyway at this point - so does that mean we throw up our hands and stop worrying?
And I'm curious: Even if you're not totally convinced, why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution? If reducing auto emissions also means, say, depending less on Middle Eastern oil, which improves our security position? Why not be cautious, if it means getting a jump start on a needed transition from a fuel source that will, in the near or distant future, run out?
Yes, I'm oversimplifying a bit, but how do you see the big picture? Does it go beyond disliking the smarmy, know-it-all attitudes of liberals (and that describes both sides)?
Dan, feel free to send this to the other global warming post.
Posted by: Ben | Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 11:29
Did I ever say I didn't want to err on the side of caution? What I said is that this issue is over-hyped. I don't disagree that it seems that the earth seems to be getting warmer. There's certainly evidence that CO2 levels are rising. What I am not so sure of is the question of whether the two are related. And if they are indeed related, how do we know that there is not some sort of environmental mechanism to counteract the effects of rising CO2? How do we know that the certain increase in plant growth due to CO2 increases won't work to balance the levels in the atmosphere? How do we know that, if the average temperature does increase, it won't tend to even temperatures across the globe, rather than just heating the polar regions, melting the ice caps, raising the sea level twenty feet and killing us all? The answer is, we don't know. I don't know, and neither do you. Neither does Dan, or Pam, or Eugene Linden, for that matter. We can only speculate about what might happen, and the evidence isn't good enough yet for some of the wild claims being made by people like Al Gore. They are making these claims to score political points, and nothing else.
As far as the glaciers go, Shermer said the following:
That's why I suggested that you might want to read the article. But then, I'm a dumb conservative wingnut, so what do I know?
As far as scientific consensus goes, you may want to reevaluate that position. There is no consensus. That's the problem with the whole debate. If every model was predicting the same result, or even close to the same results, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are still too many unknown factors for the models to be that accurate. Remember, in a grand scale, we're talking about weather. These guys are trying to predict what the weather will be like 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now. It's a tough task, and you have to make a ton of assumptions to even attempt it. Then, these assumptions have to come true. And even then, it still may not be right.
I'll finish with this, and I'm done with the thread. It's AMAZING what we've learned about our climate in the past 30 years. Think how much more we'll know in 2 months, or 2 years, or 20 years. I say that we continue learning, and if evidence indicates that we need to take extreme measures to change our climate, we do so then. Until then, of course, we should be looking for new ways to fuel our cars and light our homes. And we're doing that, aren't we?
Posted by: chip | Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 17:50
Chip, since you insist, you are a dumb wingnut conservative. I did read the article, and here's the section I was referring to:
"According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants."
In other words, to repeat the point that you seem intent on not understanding, the worrisome melting has only begun to occur.
The consensus among relevant scientists exists, like it or not. But I'm done too. The interesting discussion is on the other thread.
Posted by: Ben | Thursday, June 29, 2006 at 01:06