The environment thread

[iamshack]

That's missing the point. He's exposing the gaping logical hole in that argument, not claiming that AGW is true because "follow the money."

I don't agree. He attacks one of the WSJ article's arguments with the exact same reasoning. And it happens to be true. There is a tremendous amount of money on both sides of the issue and each side is simply trying to point out the financial motivations of the other side as their singular and deep dark secret behind their claims.

[StrangeSox]

I don't agree. He attacks one of the WSJ article's arguments with the exact same reasoning. And it happens to be true. There is a tremendous amount of money on both sides of the issue and each side is simply trying to point out the financial motivations of the other side as their singular and deep dark secret behind their claims.

 

I don't see it. He's pointing out that the WSJ is being dishonest by only highlighting the financial interests of one side and completely ignoring those of the other.

[StrangeSox]

Forbes does a good job of laying out how hackish and terrible the WSJ's editorial pages are:

 

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

 

 

[iamshack]

Forbes does a good job of laying out how hackish and terrible the WSJ's editorial pages are:

Come on...both sides obviously have an agenda and will martial their resources to fight for it at all costs...all you're doing is cheerleading for the side you happen to agree with here.

[NorthSideSox72]

Come on...both sides obviously have an agenda and will martial their resources to fight for it at all costs...all you're doing is cheerleading for the side you happen to agree with here.

Did you even read what he posted? The whole point of it was not to cheerlead, but instead to see both sides. WSJ elected to post an article that tried to apply argumentative logic to prove the falsehood, but turned down the one that instead used scientific principles. Even if you believe only one or the other, publishing one without the other is a pretty good indicator of bias. That was the point.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Come on...both sides obviously have an agenda and will martial their resources to fight for it at all costs...all you're doing is cheerleading for the side you happen to agree with here.

 

All I'm doing is "cheerleading" for the side that has the overwhelming amount of evidence and the agreement of every major scientific body in the world against the often-wrong WSJ editorial page.

 

There's no equivalency here between the two sides.

[StrangeSox]

Did you even read what he posted? The whole point of it was not to cheerlead, but instead to see both sides. WSJ elected to post an article that tried to apply argumentative logic to prove the falsehood, but turned down the one that instead used scientific principles. Even if you believe only one or the other, publishing one without the other is a pretty good indicator of bias. That was the point.

 

They trotted out the same denialist crap again, there was nothing new to their assertions at all.

[iamshack]

Did you even read what he posted? The whole point of it was not to cheerlead, but instead to see both sides. WSJ elected to post an article that tried to apply argumentative logic to prove the falsehood, but turned down the one that instead used scientific principles. Even if you believe only one or the other, publishing one without the other is a pretty good indicator of bias. That was the point.

WSJ obviously comes down on one side and has every right to publish whichever article they choose. Every paper in the world does this.

 

SS, and yourself, obviously come down on the other side and are offended by this.

 

As if there are not enough forums or venues from which to get climate change/global warming information...why are you both so incredibly offended that the WSJ would only publish the side that furthers their agenda?

 

[StrangeSox]

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

WE ARE DEEPLY DISTURBED BY THE RECENT ESCALATION OF POLITICAL ASSAULTS ON SCIENTISTS in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

 

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

 

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

 

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfi es the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientifi c assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly

and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

 

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

 

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively.

 

The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

 

P. H. GLEICK,* R. M. ADAMS, R. M. AMASINO,

E. ANDERS, D. J. ANDERSON, W. W. ANDERSON,

L. E. ANSELIN, M. K. ARROYO, B. ASFAW,

F. J. AYALA, A. BAX, A. J. BEBBINGTON,

G. BELL, M. V. L. BENNETT, J. L. BENNETZEN,

M. R. BERENBAUM, O. B. BERLIN, P. J. BJORKMAN,

E. BLACKBURN, J. E. BLAMONT, M. R. BOTCHAN,

J. S. BOYER, E. A. BOYLE, D. BRANTON,

S. P. BRIGGS, W. R. BRIGGS, W. J. BRILL,

R. J. BRITTEN, W. S. BROECKER, J. H. BROWN,

P. O. BROWN, A. T. BRUNGER, J. CAIRNS JR.,

D. E. CANFIELD, S. R. CARPENTER,

J. C. CARRINGTON, A. R. CASHMORE,

J. C. CASTILLA, A. CAZENAVE, F. S. CHAPIN III,

A. J. CIECHANOVER, D. E. CLAPHAM, W. C. CLARK,

R. N. CLAYTON, M. D. COE, E. M. CONWELL,

E. B. COWLING, R. M COWLING, C. S. COX,

R. B. CROTEAU, D. M. CROTHERS, P. J. CRUTZEN,

G. C. DAILY, G. B. DALRYMPLE, J. L. DANGL,

S. A. DARST, D. R. DAVIES, M. B. DAVIS, P. V. DE

CAMILLI, C. DEAN, R. S. DEFRIES, J. DEISENHOFER,

D. P. DELMER, E. F. DELONG, D. J. DEROSIER, T. O.

DIENER, R. DIRZO, J. E. DIXON, M. J. DONOGHUE,

R. F. DOOLITTLE, T. DUNNE, P. R. EHRLICH, S. N.

EISENSTADT, T. EISNER, K. A. EMANUEL, S. W.

ENGLANDER, W. G. ERNST, P. G. FALKOWSKI,

G. FEHER, J. A. FEREJOHN, A. FERSHT, E. H.

FISCHER, R. FISCHER, K. V. FLANNERY, J. FRANK,

P. A. FREY, I. FRIDOVICH, C. FRIEDEN, D. J.

FUTUYMA, W. R. GARDNER, C. J. R. GARRETT,

W. GILBERT, R. B. GOLDBERG, W. H. GOODENOUGH,

C. S. GOODMAN, M. GOODMAN, P. GREENGARD,

S. HAKE, G. HAMMEL, S. HANSON, S. C. HARRISON,

S. R. HART, D. L. HARTL, R. HASELKORN,

K. HAWKES, J. M. HAYES, B. HILLE, T. HÖKFELT, J. S.

HOUSE, M. HOUT, D. M. HUNTEN, I. A. IZQUIERDO,

A. T. JAGENDORF, D. H. JANZEN, R. JEANLOZ,

C. S. JENCKS, W. A. JURY, H. R. KABACK, T. KAILATH,

P. KAY, S. A. KAY, D. KENNEDY, A. KERR, R. C.

KESSLER, G. S. KHUSH, S. W. KIEFFER, P. V. KIRCH,

K. KIRK, M. G. KIVELSON, J. P. KLINMAN, A. KLUG,

L. KNOPOFF, H. KORNBERG, J. E. KUTZBACH, J. C.

LAGARIAS, K. LAMBECK, A. LANDY, C. H.

LANGMUIR, B. A. LARKINS, X. T. LE PICHON, R. E.

LENSKI, E. B. LEOPOLD, S. A. LEVIN, M. LEVITT,

G. E. LIKENS, J. LIPPINCOTT-SCHWARTZ, L. LORAND,

C. O. LOVEJOY, M. LYNCH, A. L. MABOGUNJE, T. F.

MALONE, S. MANABE, J. MARCUS, D. S. MASSEY,

J. C. MCWILLIAMS, E. MEDINA, H. J. MELOSH,

D. J. MELTZER, C. D. MICHENER, E. L. MILES,

H. A. MOONEY, P. B. MOORE, F. M. M. MOREL,

E. S. MOSLEY-THOMPSON, B. MOSS, W. H. MUNK,

N. MYERS, G. B. NAIR, J. NATHANS, E. W. NESTER,

R. A. NICOLL, R. P. NOVICK, J. F. O’CONNELL, P. E.

OLSEN, N. D. OPDYKE, G. F. OSTER, E. OSTROM,

N. R. PACE, R. T. PAINE, R. D. PALMITER,

J. PEDLOSKY, G. A. PETSKO, G. H. PETTENGILL,

S. G. PHILANDER, D. R. PIPERNO, T. D. POLLARD,

P. B. PRICE JR., P. A. REICHARD, B. F. RESKIN,

R. E. RICKLEFS, R. L. RIVEST, J. D. ROBERTS, A. K.

ROMNEY, M. G. ROSSMANN, D. W. RUSSELL,

W. J. RUTTER, J. A. SABLOFF, R. Z. SAGDEEV,

M. D. SAHLINS, A. SALMOND, J. R. SANES,

R. SCHEKMAN, J. SCHELLNHUBER,

D. W. SCHINDLER, J. SCHMITT, S. H. SCHNEIDER,

V. L. SCHRAMM, R. R. SEDEROFF, C. J. SHATZ,

F. SHERMAN, R. L. SIDMAN, K. SIEH, E. L. SIMONS,

B. H. SINGER, M. F. SINGER, B. SKYRMS,

N. H. SLEEP, B. D. SMITH, S. H. SNYDER, R. R. SOKAL,

C. S. SPENCER, T. A. STEITZ, K. B. STRIER,

T. C. SÜDHOF, S. S. TAYLOR, J. TERBORGH,

D. H. THOMAS, L. G. THOMPSON, R. T. T JIAN,

M. G. TURNER, S. UYEDA, J. W. VALENTINE,

J. S. VALENTINE, J. L. VAN ETTEN, K. E. VAN HOLDE,

M. VAUGHAN, S. VERBA, P. H. VON HIPPEL,

D. B. WAKE, A. WALKER, J. E. WALKER,

E. B. WATSON, P. J. WATSON, D. WEIGEL, S. R.

WESSLER, M. J. WEST-EBERHARD, T. D. WHITE,

W. J. WILSON, R. V. WOLFENDEN, J. A. WOOD,

G. M. WOODWELL, H. E. WRIGHT JR., C. WU,

C. WUNSCH, M. L. ZOBACK

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:

petergleick@pacinst.org

Notes

1. The signatories are all members of the U.S. National

Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf.

2. Signatory affi liations are available as supporting material

at www.

[StrangeSox]

WSJ obviously comes down on one side and has every right to publish whichever article they choose. Every paper in the world does this.

 

SS, and yourself, obviously come down on the other side and are offended by this.

 

As if there are not enough forums or venues from which to get climate change/global warming information...why are you both so incredibly offended that the WSJ would only publish the side that furthers their agenda?

 

I'm not offended. I'm laughing at how terrible and hackish they are. They have a right to publish dumb, hack articles full of crap ideas refuted hundreds of times, and I and others have the right to point this out.

 

There's plenty of venues to get AGW information, and not all of it good. We don't need more venues printing blatantly false information, and places that do are rightfully subjected to harsh criticisms.

Edited January 30, 2012 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

They trotted out the same denialist crap again, there was nothing new to their assertions at all.

What would you have them trot out? They're the people advocating for the status quo...all they must do is point out how wrong those seeking drastic change have been.

Edited January 30, 2012 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

What would you have them trot out? They're the people advocating for the status quo...all they must do is point out how wrong the those seeking drastic change have been.

?

[iamshack]

I'm not offended. I'm laughing at how terrible and hackish they are. They have a right to publish dumb, hack articles full of crap ideas refuted hundreds of times, and I and others have the right to point this out.

 

There's plenty of venues to get AGW information, and not all of it good. We don't need more venues printing blatantly false information, and places that do are rightfully subjected to harsh criticisms.

My only issue is the one side is not the only one printing blatantly false information.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

WSJ obviously comes down on one side and has every right to publish whichever article they choose. Every paper in the world does this.

 

SS, and yourself, obviously come down on the other side and are offended by this.

 

As if there are not enough forums or venues from which to get climate change/global warming information...why are you both so incredibly offended that the WSJ would only publish the side that furthers their agenda?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

1. SS and I do not agree on this. If you bothered to read anything either of us posted, you will see that. He feels only one side is worth hearing, I think people will only come to a good conclusion if they hear both.

 

2. Who said I was incredibly offended? I said it showed a bias - which it does. That's it.

 

3. No, every paper in the world doesn't do this. And even if they did, it doesn't make it right.

 

4. For the record, I read the Journal every day. They are far and away the best source of information in the US for national business news and data. So it isn't as if I'm on some sort of crusade here.

 

[StrangeSox]

What would you have them trot out? They're the people advocating for the status quo...all they must do is point out how wrong those seeking drastic change have been.

 

I'd rather they not trot out wrong ideas and keep denying reality. They have the right to continue being wrong and advocating for the status quo, but they have no right to be immune from criticism for those positions.

[iamshack]

?

I know better than to even get into this with you...

[StrangeSox]

My only issue is the one side is not the only one printing blatantly false information.

 

I'm not aware of any papers being retracted for falsified data.

[Balta1701]

I'm not aware of any papers being retracted for falsified data.

There have been a couple, hugely0-publicized retractions from the IPCC 2007 report, but out of 2000 pages, that does happen.

 

And it's astonishing how much press those have gotten

[StrangeSox]

There have been a couple, hugely0-publicized retractions from the IPCC 2007 report, but out of 2000 pages, that does happen.

 

And it's astonishing how much press those have gotten

 

Retractions due to making things up or just being wrong?

[StrangeSox]

The Daily Mail (another Murdoch paper) has a related piece on how, hey, it's not really warming at all!

 

 

Let's regraph that data twice: (via kevin drum)

 

 

Look! No warming trend! But do you see the problem? I've given you a hint by embedding the 1997-2011 data within a larger chart, instead of just producing it on its own, as the Mail did. So that should make things pretty obvious. But in case you need a bigger hint, click the link for the full set of data, not cherry-picked to begin with the huge El Niño spike of 1998.

 

 

 

Hey look! The warming trend is back!

 

"They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must"

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Retractions due to making things up or just being wrong?

The most well known, the Himalayan glacier claim wound up being pulled from a non-peer-reviewed study and press statements by a particular guy, and still made it past the IPCC reviewers. There have been a few other attribution errors and people ahve taken issues with how material was summarized and condensed, but that's about the only serious one that should not have been included.

 

The reality of course is that the IPCC report has been wrong lots of times...but a huge majority of those it has underestimated the impacts we've already seen, because the document is designed to be a conservative document built for political consumption, and they know they can't push too hard no matter what the data really says.

[StrangeSox]

Skeptical Science goes through a point-by-point breakdown of the WSJ op-ed. It's a little heavy on the "argument from authority" stuff (namely, that these people aren't really authorities in this field) in the beginning but digs into the actual data.

[StrangeSox]

More on how terrible the WSJ editorial (and the Daily Mail piece) are here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...ts-reach-lower/

 

This is why "present both sides" isn't really a workable solution, because it's not two equal sides making a case for a subjective decision like "coke is better than pepsi, here's why!" It analogizes very well to the evolution/creationism issue. The denialist side simply is not interested in the truth of what an overwhelming majority of the science says.

 

The Daily Mail piece even went so far as to ask the Met Office (where the data came from) about the paper, and then published an article making claims that are in direct contradiction with what the Met Office told the author. There's no real debate here, no two sides to present. There's the actual work done by scientists, and then the political and ideological backlash against it.

Edited January 31, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

I of course do not agree with your premise that both sides shouldn't be aired.

 

But more importantly, I think this whole argument can be better tackled by removing the issue-pollution that is going on. There is the question of whether or not the earth is warming and the climate changing... and then there is the question of how much of that is anthropogenic.

 

The first question, I'd agree with you, is no question at all. The evidence is right there, in black and white. A century or more of consistent, measured, endlessly scientifically confirmed rise in temperature. Denying this is pure ignorance.

 

But the question of how much (or even if) that warming is caused by humanity, cannot be considered open and shut. There has been a ton of science showing various correlations and relationships that suggest causality is likely - but it cannot possibly be confirmed. Therefore, a rigorous discussion around THIS point is, I think, very healthy for us all.

 

My own personal view is that the science has been so overwhelmingly pointing to at least some degree of human causality, that it is highly likely we are responsible for at least part of it. How much, I do not know. But just because that is my view, that doesn't mean there is no discussion to be had, as to the anthropogenic question.

[Balta1701]

But the question of how much (or even if) that warming is caused by humanity, cannot be considered open and shut.

Really, I don't think this is true. That is a question that has been investigated just as heavily as any of the others, because there's enormous amounts of funding for anyone who can come up with a plausible mechanism other than CO2, and CO2 is the only one that really works. Furthermore, it's also the only one that really works at all throughout geologic time, and our correlations in that area have gotten better and better, to the point where there is virtually no obvious recorded temperature anomaly in the geologic record that is not associated with a large fluctuation of CO2 and nothing else. It really is the driver, and it's driving things right now.

 

The IPCC report has once again been abundantly cautious on this issue and said that, in their words "since 1750, it is extremely

likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes." Really, what they'll say when they're not making a document for policymakers is even stronger than that, there is effectively nothing that would drive the warming since 1750, and it's highly likely that humanity has been a dominant influence on the climate for at least 7000 years. Their number is that CO2 and greenhouse forcing is the strongest influence by a factor of 5, as noted there, and that is almost certainly a conservative number.