Why Republicans are Skeptical about Global Warming

Jonathan Chait analyzes Republican opposition to the idea that global warming exists, that it is caused by humans if it does exist, and to doing anything about it:

Why the right goes nuclear over global warming, by Jonathan Chait, Commentary, LA Times: Last year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the respondents, 23% said yes, 77% said no. In the year since that poll, ...[t]he U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90%.

So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.

How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance... The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.

But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.

The truth is more complicated — and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.

Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus.

National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue.

Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. ...Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat.

Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties.

The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way.

You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard.

In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies!

The thinking may have been led by a few, but they found many willing followers. I think the influence of business in the GOP, not just the energy industry, is a factor. The fear is that any policy to address global warming will require business to implement costly changes, or, in the case of unilateral action by the U.S., reduce competitiveness causing profit to fall. Thus the policies, and even the idea the global warming exists are resisted. With Libertarians joining them based on their general opposition to any government interference, opposition has become, as Jonathan notes, part of the party's core principles.

Update: Brad DeLong says Jonathan Chait should ask a deeper question:

Why have the industry shills and the hard-core ideologues led the thinking for the whole conservative movement? They have led the thinking because the energy industry has funded them.

Comments

[robertdfeinman]

Actually there has been a lot of discussion lately about those with a "follower" type of personality. There is a high correlation between those who believe in a hierarchical type of organization led by a strong leader and a right wing orientation. Psychologist Robert Altemeyer has studied this subject for 40+ years and coined the phrase "right wing authoritarian" (RWA) to describe the type.

His work was the basis of John Dean's recent book "Conservatives without Conscience". Altemeyer has now written a free and online book himself which summarizes his work in non-technical terms.

He has even tested elected officials to see how strong the correlation is. I suggest anyone interested in why groups talk past each other read his book. Here's the link:
The Authoritarians

In fact there was an active discussion of the book yesterday on DailyKos with the participation of both Altemyer and Dean.

[reason]

Robert,
thanks for that. I liked Altemeyer's book by the way and I like your website.
But I would like to ask Mark whether he agrees that .."or, in the case of unilateral action by the U.S., reduce competitiveness causing profit to fall." This is surely not necessarily true. It could be surely be offset by exchange rate movements (not to mention by the benefit of technical innovation stimulated by the new regulation). Conservatives only ever seem to think ceterus paribus (except when it comes to tax cuts when they believe in magic steroid effects).

[maria]

It is also the only credible explanation why Bush still has any support at all. And, amazingly, he does.

[real person from the real world]

I've seen ideologues of every stripe, including old wobblies pushing a marxist-union line. I have nothing against unions, and perhas some version of them may come back in vogue and be helpful to us on the lower end of the financial totem pole, but that remains to be seen. Certainly, lots of the older generation, like my father, who often did not have a good education, tended to go with the party line, but I think that many education people tend to be far more objective and independent in their thinking. To get more independent thinkers it will certainly changes in Education, Inc., geared toward getting more US Native born Citizens into Universities, but a more independant thinking citizenry is and will be a function of education. Also, there needs to be broader education, away from narrow areas like business curiculums and into humanitities and libral arts.

[Petter]

Well well, so why then doesn't the democrats and other left-leaning parties around the world confess to the theory of free trade and the efficiency of free markets? There is after all an OVERWHELMING AND NON-DISPUTABLE C O N S E N S U S among economists that that's the best policy for all?

Oh, it must because they think that GWB is for it, and they hate GWB, so they're against it. Other than the obvious passion for being the number one in the care-about game.

(Personally I think one should always respect different opinions. If an argument is good, it will prevail.)

[Mark Thoma]

Petter:

Your assumptions about my position on trade are wrong.

And one small point because it's a common error by defenders of "free markets." Free markets are not necessarily efficient as you imply. Free does not mean competitive, and if the markets aren't competitive or suffer from other failures, there's no reason to believe they will produce an optimal outcome. For example, with factors such as the tragedy of the commons involved, does anyone really believe a free market for resources without well-defined property rights will be efficient? Only true ideologues would make such claims.

I believe in markets, but unlike some on the other side of the political fence, I also believe they should work. Thus, my belief in markets compels me to believe we should fix them when they are broken and sometimes that requires government to step in and overcome significant market failures.

Defending broken markets, as many on the right do from a standard knee jerk reaction about government intervention, does not promote efficiency and the resulting problems undermine the very system they are trying to defend.

[Bruce Webb]

"causing profit to fall"

I am not being snide here. Not because anything against snideness, I would be happy to be crowned the Prince of Snides. But in this case I am as serious as a heart attack

The Economic Right really does define "crisis" as "rich people losing money". It is odd, it is short sighted, it is not even always in their short term interest. They reflexively push back on anything that restricts return on capital.

Certainly they are willing to frame their argument against minimum wage in terms of jobs lost, their argument for tax cuts on capital in terms of jobs gained, their opposition to global warming theories as being junk science. But it always comes down to return.

It's is why rich people on balance tend to be crappy tippers. Ask anyone who has ever worked tables. These people do not buy into the concept of "What goes around, comes around". They don't want to take the chance, they would rather keep it the first time.

I wish this was a joke. But a lot of human misery has been caused by misers. It's more than wordplay my friends.

[calmo]

Well, well, well Petter, (I am soooo tickled with that opening) lookie here...
Well? Whatizit?
Well it B this:
There is after all an OVERWHELMING AND NON-DISPUTABLE C O N S E N S U S
[The theory of free trade and the efficiency of free markets, for you underwhelmed disputants.]
which "the democrats and other left-leaning parties around the world " are refusing to "confess".

Well, what good is a NON-DISPUTABLE C O N S E N S U S if those other clowns keep disputin it, you know?
Don't they know there is no more disputin about it?
What is wrong with these people who don't recognize that they are overwhelmed?
Didn't they get the consensus message that they were just flat-busted nobodies?

I didn't think it was possible to extend Python's Mere Flesh Wound, but Petter shows me I wasn't payin attention.

[Mark Thoma]

On the question about profits, in a competitive market any change in costs that affects profit will bring about adjustment over time - entry and exit - until the normal profit rate is reestablished. Thus, if costs increase the industry will contract (lowering marginal costs) until the (zero economic) profit rate is attained.

[Bruce Webb]

"There is after all an OVERWHELMING AND NON-DISPUTABLE C O N S E N S U S among economists"

Yes and calmo spells his name in lower case.

There was a overwhelming consensus behind the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Didn't make it right.

Mark is a kind and gracious host. He welcomes outsiders and I think truly values our contributions, at least some of the time, gosh maybe even most of the time.

But a lot of us outsiders don't accept consensus and much less C O N S E N S U S. And you would not even believe the range of things we don't consider non-disputable. Around these parts we dispute lots and lots of stuff not normally argued over in the typical faculty lounge of the typical economics department. Particularly those infused with Chicago Pizza or Austrian Schnitzel. Makes for some testy moments now and then, my gosh calmo might even deploy a little snark now and again. Me? I am a boojum.

Which is a literary reference. Which is part of the fun we outsiders bring.

This isn't my house. I don't make the rules. If I did I don't think I would spell them D O G M A. Maybe D A T A and preferably data. Numbers rule! Stale repetitions of Chicago style talking points drool!

There is a certain style of argumentation that starts: Nine out of Ten Nobelists agree. Then there is a kind of argumentation that starts: Most Classical Physicists thought Einstein was a Nut. Which was true in 1905. Not quite so true after 1918. Which is a historical reference, in fact two!

I can be annoying, trust me on that. But I don't go away just because someone has mastered CapsLk. Shouting isn't an argument. Now there are plenty of arguments for Free Trade, and others for Fair Trade, as variously defined. And real vigorous arguments about how either plays out in terms of Income Inequality. And the give and take on those topics gets kind of lively. Sometimes I am amazed Mark lets us hang around. But the day that I start making my arguments in CAPS s p a c e d, is the day I expect a nice private e-mail from Professor T telling me to chill.

Con-sensus. Literally 'together-feeling'. Or in Orwellian terms 'group think'. More often than not consensus reflects reality, but that is because the reality infuses the consensus and not the consensus infusing the reality. Its not a two way street.

[Bruce Webb]

"There was a overwhelming consensus behind the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Didn't make it right."

Wow the Sun is at the center of the solar system? Who knew?

Maybe I shouldn't have rushed that one so quick.

'Geo' 'helio' it's all Greek to me.

[robertdfeinman]

There seems to be some thought (around the edges) of the economic world these days as to whether trade can ever be "fair". Stiglitz, for example, showed that asymmetrical information gives some an advantage. The belief that I know more than you do is what makes the stock market tick. Even if I don't have any inside information I think that my analysis makes me "know" something that gives me an advantage. This is obviously false in the majority of cases, but hope springs eternal...

As for trade between states many people are still basing their beliefs on some sort of neo-Ricardo view, even though most of his simplifying assumptions don't hold anymore. Even examples which seem to contradict his principles (like Singapore) get waved aside.

What I think I can state without being too far from the truth is that when a strong state negotiates a trade deal with a weak state the outcome favors the stronger partner. So cutting labor costs from $15 per hour to $0.15 per hour by outsourcing is bad for the workers who lost their job. But is raising them from $.10 to $.15 an equal gain? How about including the cost of pollution and local resource depletion?

The rich partner makes $14.85 and the poor one $.15 so both are better off, right? If things were really fair WTO meetings wouldn't be causing riots.

[maria]

Some "leftists" want to regulate markets more and some less. Clinton certainly did nothing to disturb free markets. And some "rightists", like Pat Buchanan, are very hostile to free markets and advocate erecting trade barriers. I doubt this is a right vs left issue.

[Bruce Wilder]

"opposition to the idea that global warming exists, that it is caused by humans if it does exist, and to doing anything about it"

(My, we all seem to have wandered off topic, this lovely Sunday morning.)

I actually thought Chait had some useful insights, not the least of which was the recognition that the Republican position on global warming has more to do with a tribal, visceral, know-nothing and don't-care rejection of Gore and like-minded earnest liberals.

He did not bring that thread back around, though to question the basic dialectic of our discourse on global warming, as quoted above. That dialectic does not make much sense.

If Global Warming were not caused by Man, we might still want to do something about it, just as we would probably want to ward off a collision with an asteroid, even though humans did nothing to bring about an imminent collision with an asteroid.

It is an odd place in the chain of reasoning to get hung up.

I could think of other ways those of progressive inclinations might come into a debate with those of conservative predisposition.

For example, we could all agree to do something, and disagree about whether we should simply restrain emissions, or whether we should make additional countervailing interventions.

Or, we could agree that restraining emissions is part of the right thing to do, but disagree on whether we should dial down our consumer society, or simply dial-up our technological sophistication. We could disagree about whether it was better to invest in means of coping with a changed climate, and minimizing the deleterious effects, or whether it was better to invest in slowing the pace of climate change.

We could disagree on the shape of international institutions to coordinate action. We might reasonably disagree about whether an international institution should be empowered to take countervailing action in response to certain observed warming events.

In short, there was a lot of directions for the climate change policy debate to go, none of which will leave business interests or conservatives out of the loop. So, why are we stuck on a question like, "are humans the cause?"

I understand why we might have paused on, "is it really happening, or is it just something that might be happening" given the time frames involved.

And, while we are on this topic, is it just my imagination, or are a lot of conservatives segueing directly from "OK, I concede that it is happening" to "But, it is hopeless, there's nothing we can do."?

[Carolyn Kay]

>>No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too.

Should we pass a law that so-called journalists have to go to prison if they spout generalities like the above without giving any examples, or better, data to back up their claims? I'm so very tired of the desperate attempts to say something bad about Democrats and/or liberals every time one of them criticizes Republicans and/or conservatives.

Liberals are just plain not as willing to follow suggestions, much less orders, from the top as right wingers are. A group of right-wing footsoldiers writes to me frequently. I always know what's pouring out of Karl Rove's fax machine, because of what they're sending me. It matters not at all to them if what they're spouting today is the exact opposite of what they spouted yesterday.

Oh, and by the way, it's exactly this kind of influence by a tiny number of people that got us into that debacle in Iraq.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[James Killus]

I was talking on the telephone to an old friend a while back, when all of a sudden, for no obvious reason that I could figure, he went off on an anti-global warming rant. And it was a _rant_. His voice was raised; he was marching down the denialist talking points one after another. I tried to get a word in edgewise a couple of times, like when he hit the claim that volcanoes put out more CO2 than all the fossil fuels humans have ever burned (so where are the spikes in the CO2 data from the massive eruptions like Mt. St, Augustine and Pinatubo? And how is it that the volcanic CO2 has been accumulating at a rapid rate since the beginning of the industrial revolution and not before?), or the old canard about how the amount of CO2 in the air absorbs all the infra-red it can (the “black sky” myth), so more doesn’t affect anything (the black goes gray in the upper atmosphere, which is where radiative equilibrium plus the adiabatic lapse rate makes the surface warmer if you add more greenhouse gases). But mostly he was just ranting.

At the finish, he was yelling about how after the fall of the Soviet Union, all the Communists decided to create this greenhouse gas hoax in order to destroy the economies of the West, and he hoped that all the commie environmentalists would just kill themselves and stop breathing out CO2. Then he said he’d just been paged and he hung up.

Okay, he knows I’m an atmospheric scientist, so I’m guessing that this was his way of telling me he never wanted to speak to me again. And there’s the fact that we had a long argument just after 9/11, after the Afghanistan invasion but before Iraq, and he was gung ho for invading Iraq, and then every other country in the Middle East, because they were all animals over there, etc. He was also sure that Osama would be caught within 3 months; I tried to get him to make an actual wager on that one, but his wife doesn’t let him gamble.

So I’m thinking that somewhere in there is probably a big part of the answer to the question at hand, but I’m just too weirded out by the extent to which my old friend has gone insane.

[Bruce Webb]

"is it just my imagination, or are a lot of conservatives segueing directly from "OK, I concede that it is happening" to "But, it is hopeless, there's nothing we can do."?

Nope smarter B. It is not your imagination. You just have to add three words:

"there's nothing we can do WITHOUT HURTING PROFITS"

Those of us of a certain age, (and I think the other BW is right there with me) remember James Watts as Secretary of the Interior "explaining" that conservation was just a waste of time because Armageddon was just around the corner anyway.

Well he worked for a guy that claimed that Redwood trees created more pollution than cars.

When you look at the series of statements these guys have made over the last thirty years you have to make a fundamental judgment. "Are these guys just bat shit, science denying crazy son of a bitches?" or "Are they just out to protect corporate profits at all costs because when the crap hits the fan they will be dead anyway?"

Are they brain dead? Or simply cynical beyond rational belief? Here's a hint for you. Most of them ain't stupid.

[calmo]

I take it back, Petter. That was a horrible mislead (It B your fault, tho, with that tickle.). What I wanted to say was that there are many, many, MANY, **M A N Y**, counter examples to this: If an argument is good, it will prevail. but this was alright:Personally I think one should always respect different opinions. just so long as they don't get PUSHY, you know?

So thanks for joining us and whippin us into shape.

Very last thing: What is a boojim?

[john c. halasz]

"Alice In Wonderland": a boojum is a particularly nasty snark.

[calmo]

Carolyn Kay wakes me up with:Oh, and by the way, it's exactly this kind of influence by a tiny number of people that got us into that debacle in Iraq.and I wonder how large a remark that is: fewer voices (a tiny number) with more power.
Certainly no question fewer voices have more money, but in terms of political direction and public policy purporting to represent the many, I think this is not as well recognized.
And deserves a much louder shout than "by the way". The import of Suskind's Loyalty was not that GWB's public policy was entirely political but that it reduced the number of players to a handful...skipping the "public" part until the polls were such a conundrum for those MSM public relation figures.

So, by the way, thank you Carolyn.

[dissent]

My grandmother was a dedicated Christian Scientist. She mistrusted science (in her case preferring a particular religion) and refused medical care because that would have required her to place her faith in science and the scientific method.

It would be interesting to confront these Republicans in Congress with their selective disregard of scientific consensus.

How many of the global warming skeptics do you think would hold to the same standard of disregarding science when choosing their own medical care for, oh, say, cancer?

I think they should be confronted with this hypocrisy.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20climate.html?ex=1332043200&en=4dd70fdb4e01f0f4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 20, 2007

Material Shows Weakening of Climate Reports
By ANDREW C. REVKIN and MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON — A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the official, Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he had made in government reports over several years. Mr. Cooney said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.

They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the "climate team leader" for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures.

Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases for the oil industry had had no bearing on his actions once he joined the White House. "When I came to the White House," he testified, "my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration."

Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing and recommendations on what he had seen in good faith as the "most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge." ...

[ken melvin]

Just the facts. You can stack them, shovel them, throw them at others, walk around with a bushel basket full, ..., but it's the thinking that counts and the thinking only counts if it agrees with the facts. Just the facts, the whole of the facts, and nothing but the facts, so help me great god of reason.

[vorpal]

I think this is an interesting subject. I have experienced times where I feel like Republicans feel as if this has been politicized by scientists. That is, they think that scientists have a political agenda just like Republicans do. They think that everybody is like them.

There is a movie called, "The Great White Hype." In it, a white boxer is hyped so much that he actually begins to believe the hype. He thinks he can beat a black heavywight champion. This belief ends when he is sprawled out on canvas floor of the ring.

People believe in "God." To me, that's just as crazy as denying global warming. But who is to stop them from this bizarre notion? It makes them feel good to believe something they were told as a child.

In general, people will believe whatever fits their identity best, as long as their are no consequences to that belief.

[anne]

Brad DeLong:

"Why have the industry shills and the hard-core ideologues led the thinking for the whole conservative movement? They have led the thinking because the energy industry has funded them."

Notice then the starkness of the role of Exxon's Philip A. Cooney in editing and effectively censoring government climate reports.

[tom]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&pr=goog-sl

[anne]

The extensiveness of this Administration's political censoring of scientists has ranged from a climate change aversion nuttiness of instructing government biologists not to mention polar bears to not allowing astronomers to mention the big bang to not allowing mention of birth control in aiding southern African health clinics.

[calmo]

Thanks tom.
I wonder if Gore has a comeback.
What about you? 100% agreement or like me, totally fascinated by the face of Nigel Calder...ok, maybe it was more than the rings under his eyes, that voice.

[evagrius]

I think that denying global warming, or better global climate change, is related to Cartesian dualism, that is, thinking that one's mind and one's body are two separate substances that are somehow coordinated which is why we are minds in bodies.
In the case of global warming, think of the earth as one substance and human beings, ( profit-seeking minds), as another substance.
So far, they've been coordinated but there's no real reason to think they need to be.
So...those who deny climate change, deny that humans have had a causal effect, or deny that humans can have a causal effect to modify it, are like those who deny that their bodies are real and that they are embodied beings, preferring instead to think they're just bare intellects receiving sensory transmissions perceived on a screen. They therefore think of the earth as that which can be transformed into that most ethereal of substances, profit. It is only then that the earth exists or is real. Otherwise, it is merely an epiphenomenon as real or unreal as a television transmission.

[Bupa]

Part of the problem might be the abysmal coverage of climate change by the US media.

I don’t read American papers much. Krugman on Monday’s and Friday’s, BDL and Dean Baker media criticisms, and the stuff anne posts nearly everyday on various blogs including this one. That's about it.

So it could just be that I haven’t investigated it enough. I’m sure anne will respond with 50 recent NYTimes articles proving me wrong.

I do read the Financial Times most days. They often have front page stories on global warming issues. Recently they had 2 stories on US businesses pleading with Congress to do something about Global Warming.

The front page headline on March 19 was “US business lobbies for emissions cuts”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f561dfbe-d64c-11db-99b7-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=728a07a0-53bc-11db-8a2a-0000779e2340.html

“Leading US financial investors joined some of the country’s largest ¬companies on Monday and urged Capitol Hill to follow Europe by setting mandatory targets to reduce US carbon emissions.
The group, which represents more than $4,000bn (€3,004bn, £2,060bn) worth of investor capital, including funds managed by Merrill Lynch, Calpers, Allianz and Calvert, said Washington should end investor uncertainty by establishing “size-able, sensible long-term cuts” to US carbon emissions.
Together they constituted the largest array of US private sector leaders that has so far come together to call for radical action on global warming.
The group – Investors and Business for US Climate Action – includes the chief executives of Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, Sun Microsystems and PG&E Corp. It said Congress should also establish an economy-wide carbon price to stimulate the creation of a US cap-and-trade regime. “

Another article a few days earlier (March 14) also front page: US car chiefs back emissions plan

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/47b9e904-d27a-11db-a7c0-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=728a07a0-53bc-11db-8a2a-0000779e2340,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F47b9e904-d27a-11db-a7c0-000b5df10621%2Cdwp_uuid%3D728a07a0-53bc-11db-8a2a-0000779e2340.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Findepth%2Fclimatechange

“The chief executives of America’s four largest car companies on Wednesday said they would co-operate with an ambitious legislative plan to tackle global warming and agreed on the merits of devising a US-wide carbon emission “cap and trade” regime.
Their pledge, which took place in a rare joint appearance before Congress, marked a significant step forward for the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, which aims to draft America’s first national global warming legislation in the next few months. “

Were these two stories covered in the US press? If so, were they buried deep in the paper or were they headlines?

RealClimate.org has recently focused on some poor NY Times articles by William Broad:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/broad-irony/

To the Editor:
With “From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype,” The Times missed an excellent opportunity to explore the difficulties of communicating science in a way that is both accurate but understandable. Instead, you advanced the specious criticisms of a few well-known contrarians who wouldn’t have agreed with Al Gore had he read aloud from a textbook. We direct readers to our blog RealClimate (www.realclimate.org) for a scientific review of the movie last May by our colleague Eric Steig, which concludes that Gore on the whole got the science right.
Michael E. Mann
University Park, Penn.
Gavin A. Schmidt
New York

[ken melvin]

Denial, the ability to rationalize the irrational; isn't it irrational?

The leaders are being irrational. The followers, the pack, arrational, simply await the cry. Without, they've nothing to say. Given the word, they howl in unison.

[Bubba]

Why not consider the question of why liberals seem to so easily embrace global warming? It appears to me that liberals want to do for the global climate what they have done for every other "problem" that they tackle. Which is to wring their hands, spend lots of money, and yet realize no effectual change.

[Stormy]

James Killus,

Thanks for the post. I am going to a 50th year class reunion shortly. I think I will be equally as weirded out. But you got me thinking.

The intensity of the deniers rises as the evidence pours in. It is close to rising to cult status. Maybe that is what happens when a segment of the population is left behind. Belief for some is not easily surrendered. They are not stupid; it a profound reaction to an attack on a world view.

My sister and her husband became Jehovah Witnesses many years ago. They were barely twenty at the time. For the next forty years, we barely talked to one another. Now we talk, but we carefully skirt some issues. She is a bright, articulate woman who became a JW at a critical moment in her development as an adult: a family crisis, tragedy; someone there with “answers” that helped put her world in order. At such moments, the mind cannot cope; any stay against confusion works. That stay becomes central to self-definition.

Nor can the mind move ahead, for to do so means a profound re-consideration of how the world operates and of who we are. Real adults learn to live with uncertainty, that the world may not be what they think it is. Only now do I realize that small events separate her from me. I could have as easily been her as she me.

The fact that our activities now dangerously affect the planet and its future is a profoundly disturbing thought. What we thought as safe and inviolate behavior is now in question. Even now, though I have repeatedly argued the case for global warming, when I go outside, look at the trees, the sky…the world seems the same. Have I seriously acted on my beliefs, I ask myself? Yes and no, are the twin answers. Deep inside I find myself making a long-range plan. But there is a part of me that continues to think that nothing has changed, that the horrors I write about—ocean acidification, fish stocks crashing, desertification, disappearing potable water sources, dangerous storms, etc. etc—are not real. Yet in almost seventy years of living, I have seen incredible changes occurring in a number of environments. But seventy years is the blink of an eye.

I am not sure what I am trying to say about your friend. Keep him as your friend is the best I can offer. He is scared. And maybe there is not a big difference between you and him, just as I have found that there is not a big difference between me and my sister.

[calmo]

Hope I can ever say something this...wise:just as I have found that there is not a big difference between me and my sister.thank you for that thought and that compassion for others, Stormy.

[Bubba]

If the human response to global warming / climate change is to be based on science it would help to have accurate data such as these:

What impact does solar activity have on the earth's climate? How accurately can this influence be quantified?

What impact do oceanic and geological processes have on the earth's climate? How accurately can this influence be quantified?

It would also help to articulate a philosophical stance:

Throughout the history of human civilization man has sought ways to harness the earth's energy to improve his standard of living. Is this a moral thing? To what extent should man let nature run its course vs proactively taking measures to engineer improvements?

Invariably, climate change will help some species and people and harm others. Should we care? If we do care, who is the arbiter and what consideration should be given to the winners and losers?

Then there are the basic economic questions:

What tangible benefit can mankind realize through its attempt to "fix" the global climate?

What is the opportunity cost of this endeavor? Are there better or worse ways to spend our resources to improve the earth's quality of life?

[dale]

"Why not consider the question of why liberals seem to so easily embrace global warming?"

If there is any truth to that statement, it could be based on the premise that liberals tend not to believe that our economic systems can simply be left to themselves, on auto pilot so to speak. For myself, I have plenty of other concerns and projects to be involved with. I don't need global warming. I wish and hope it isn't real.

But I am suspicious that market driven, profit driven, amoral systems of social integration can be sensative to serious side effects and adverse reactions that arise from the workings of our industrial systems. Those systems are wonderful creators of wealth and material progress (of a sort). But they are not functional in terms of intentional aspirations to ecological, spiritual, and relational sorts of well-being.

But as I said, for me global warming is an additional burden that I don't want or need. But if it's real- and I tend to trust the consensus- it would be foolish not to seriously deliberate and act on what should and can be done.

[reason]

Bubba...
"Are there better or worse ways to spend our resources to improve the earth's quality of life?"

Is this question meaningful (especially the phrase earth's quality of life).

Who are talking about exactly? That is really the problem isn't it. People in Bangladesh may not be the primary cause of the problem, but they will obviously be victims. While we still don't have rational humane processes for dealing with distributive issues on a world wide scale we should try to avoid creating catastrophies.

When people start adding up costs and benefits and forget that different people bear the costs and benefits and forget that there is no process for one to compesate the other, I get very annoyed.

[evagrius]

"It would also help to articulate a philosophical stance:"

I did. I pointed out how Cartesian the global warming deniers are.

Philosophically, the Cartesian viewpoint sucks. It's always sucked.

[Bruce Webb]

"a boojum is a particularly nasty snark."

Well I don't know that either snarks or boojums showed up in Alice In Wonderland. But certainly they were central to The Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits

Along with a bellman.

"Beware the jabberwock my son!" Almost as dangerous as Republican doubletalk.

And what are the odds we would be talking Lewis Carroll on the same thread as a "vorpal"? The meta is getting pretty deep here.

[Sean O]

Why is it that because the energy industry believes something that it is automatically regarded as being incorrect? They may fund the message but that does not mean the message is incorrect. On the flip side, do the people that stand to benefit from a stronger global warming message not give money to promote their positions? Since they give money, shouldn't their positions be questioned as well. There is still a lot to be learned about climate change (go to http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com to learn more) and it is foolish to say that the evidence is all in and that the evidence is absolutely conclusive.

[real person from the real world]

I just saw a TV program with Jerry Falwell attacking Global Warming. So many of these right wing ideologues are religious conservatives, who believe in creationism. They have an idea first, then find backing for it later. My nephew, poorly educated and not well off financially, is a stauch republican who is now trashing FDR and he knows even less of the Great Depression than I do, but I grew up with adults who lived thru that. For all I know he believes Global Warming is a conspiracy or hoax.

I still say well educated people tend to be more open minded on topics. I also think that there is hype on both sides, and too many well off types talk and practice environmentalism as a hobby they can well afford, whle others cannot. We need some real alternatives, like reasonably priced electric cars, if for no other reason, but to stop paying more money to keep the Mideast Oil Sheiks in so much money they think they can buy the Louvre.

[ken melvin]

Remember, none of the tobacco executives believed that smoking caused lung cancer.

[anne]

Ken Melvin:

"Remember, none of the tobacco executives believed that smoking caused lung cancer."

Though theoretical statistics begins application and testing as data is collected on the health effects of smoking, and though from the beginning the results are completely clear, the battle against the findings that continues to this day by international tobacco companies was fierce and largely successful for decades. International tobacco companies are, as energy companies, companies vastly profitable and influential.

[Carolyn Kay]

calmo: You’re welcome ;-)

dissent: "selective disregard of scientific consensus"

The scientific method is what has made possible ALL of the technologies we enjoy (and suffer) today. Right wingers love the comforts science has brought us, but deny the findings they're told to dislike.

Bupa: "Part of the problem might be the abysmal coverage of climate change by the US media."

Indubitably. The U.S. media have been stuck on Republican talking points for years.

Bubba: "Why not consider the question of why liberals seem to so easily embrace global warming?"

We've been absorbing all the information and evidence for many, many years.

Bubba: "What is the opportunity cost of this endeavor?"

And what is the opportunity cost of denial? The boom industries of this century are going to be developing alternative fuels and technologies to reverse carbon dioxide buildup and protect from the effects of erratic weather patterns. Whether the phenomena we're seeing are due to human effort or not.

You'd think right-wing entrepreneurs would be jumping on this bandwagon, instead of trying to stop it.

Sean O: "it is foolish to say that the evidence is all in and that the evidence is absolutely conclusive."

And none of us IS saying that. You may want to pay closer attention.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[anne]

The New York Times can and should be criticized on all sorts of reporting and commentary, in hopes of improving what is a generally superb newspaper. That includes a recent article questioning the emphasis on climate change effects in scattered reports. But, there have been continual superb articles on climate change for years from seemingly every possible perspective and no source other than a source wholly dedicated to the subject has had the continuity of coverage. Andrew Revkin in particular is a highly regarded expert reporter in the field.

[ken melvin]

Bubba, you believe in vaccinations? Insurance? Using crosswalks? Evolution?

[vorpal]

What impact does solar activity have on the earth's climate? How accurately can this influence be quantified?

This has been done extensively by scientists. I can only infer that you are too lazy to investigate. That's pretty lazy because it would only require one search on Google scholar.

What impact do oceanic and geological processes have on the earth's climate? How accurately can this influence be quantified?

This has been extensively studied by scientists as well. See above.

It would also help to articulate a philosophical stance:

This statement is meaningless. But evidently you can use 'big' words in a grammatically correct sentence.

Throughout the history of human civilization man has sought ways to harness the earth's energy to improve his standard of living. Is this a moral thing? To what extent should man let nature run its course vs proactively taking measures to engineer improvements?

Suppose you had an answer to this question. How would you check to see if was correct? You couldn't, could you. So why waste time asking?

Invariably, climate change will help some species and people and harm others. Should we care? If we do care, who is the arbiter and what consideration should be given to the winners and losers?

Again, where are we going with this? Either you care or you don't. If you don't care, you can do anything you are capable of. If you don't care, just say you don't care. Why obfucsate with jibber-jabber(wocky?)?

What tangible benefit can mankind realize through its attempt to "fix" the global climate?

This is a sensible question. We can compare the cost of fightong global climate change with the costs of other means of preserving the environment. For me, this means keeping more than enough habitat for every species of life on the planet. Perhap curbing development would be more effective. Assuming we know our goals, then it makes sense to compare the various ways of achieving them. This is a process known as 'decision-making.' Computer scientists, like myself, understand this concept, politians and idealogues have a hard time with it.

What is the opportunity cost of this endeavor? Are there better or worse ways to spend our resources to improve the earth's quality of life?

Again, if you don't care about, i.e. you don't 'value', the environment, then $0.02 is too much to preserve it. To me, a species of mammal is worth $10 trillion trillion. A bird, $6 trillion trillion. A reptile, mmm, circa $2 trillion trillion. So I'm pretty sure, from my valuation, it is worth it

I can cop a 'tude too.

[Bruce Webb]

"Why obfucsate with jibber-jabber(wocky?)?"

http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,'
____________________

Could we get more meta? Humpty Dumpty could get a job as Communications Director at the RNC in a second. With a subtitle of Master of Impenetrability. Not because the surface message would be complicated, more along the lines of "what I choose it to mean".

___________________
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

Come back galumphing with any selection of Mankiw or Sullivan heads, and the drinks are on me. Or maybe just the scalps will do.

[Bruce Webb]

If not the drinks at least the snicker-snacks.

Possibly related to the snicker-doodles.

[Bruce Webb]

'When I use a word,' Dick Cheney said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

Yep and elections prove nobody cares about deficits and give unlimited political capital to gut Social Security.

Who wrote the playbook: Kafka? Orwell? or Carroll? What does it mean that this question actually makes sense in context?

[James Killus]

Thank you, Vorpal. It does get annoying to have to rebut the same talking points over and over again, doesn't it?

As for Buppa's question about why "liberals" are so easily convinced about global warming, I can only say that I'm an atmospheric scientist who was not convinced of the science until the 1990s, when the global models tracked the climate effects of the Pinatubo eruption almost perfectly. Since then, the science has only strengthened the case. And I am a "liberal" only by the current definition, which is to say that I'm not a Movement Zombie who regurgitates the day's talking points at every opportunity. Jeez, I voted for Gerald Ford.

Stormy, I'd already concluded (and acted on the conclusion) that there were many subjects that were off limits if I wanted to stay in contact with my friend. The fact that he brought up the subject, ranted at me, then basically huing up on me, tells me that he's made some sort of decision about the matter. I've been the one taking the initiative in maintaining contact; at some point you have to acknowledge that the ball is now in someone else's court.

My own upcoming class reunion is my 35th. The last one was the year after 9/11, after the invasion of Afghanistan. I noticed one interesting characteristic of my class of 1972: we came of age during the Vietnam War and not a single person I talked to believed anything that the Bush Administration said.

Yours would have been a Korean Conflict class. A report on that cohort would be interesting.

[RoySV]

Repub/Neo-con reasons to reject AGW, Briefly:

1. Can't admit massive catastrophic failure of free market ideology (opens doors to regulations and interventions, ie no more rape/pillage).
2. Can't rethink idea that GOD gave man unlimited dominion to exploit the earth.
3 Can't fess up to being wrong and taking responsibility. Repubs virtually never do that.
4. To display concern about other people (especially in other countries) is incompatible with anger, hatred, and bullying that defines Repub motivation.
RESULT: Human caused global warming must be rejected as it is a potentially fatal threat to the ideology by which Repubs stay in power.

The core will keep up denial to the very end. (Bunkers in Berlin, if you know what I mean).
Roy

[ig]

"The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry"

no....they are just "tools"

[calmo]

Anybody else (esp enviro scientist James) take in tom's linked video? Twas more than an hour and a little "over-produced" (so that no children get left behind and become agitators or worse later), but compelling. Especially the view that this (Man Made Global Warming) is now an Industry first, and science second or worse.
I thought it was more than just a contribution to the Industry.
Thank you for the Carrol bits and more (snicker-doodles) Bruce Webb.

[Tom L]

Look, opposing global warming plays well to Republicans. That is enough. Opposition to global warming takes its place with many other social values issues dear to the GOP members. If the party elites need to make a concession on this issue due to reality, they will, while blaming the Democrats for hurting the economy, etc.

[Robert]

It was off topic to start with. But I think I'll point out that no mathematically correct theory exists in which (1) capital goods are used in production and (2) it is a logical deduction from the assumptions that individuals in a country must be better off without tariffs on consumer goods. Petter doesn't know what he is talking about. And I don't even bring up Kruman or Stiglitz.

[James Killus]

Calmo,

There's a fairly extensive discussion of the BBC thing on realclimate.org:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414

And at least one of the scientists who appeared in the film feels that he was lied to, and that his remarks were edited to convey things with which he strongly disagrees:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/#more-417

This is part of the old "There are people saying extreme things about this subject, so it's a crock." As I've said more than once, the only people who can be reliably counted on to exagerate effects more than environmentalists talking about environmental dangers, are anti-environmentalists talking about the costs of good environmental policies.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03maple.html?ex=1330578000&en=a6d46fd01e96b570&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 3, 2007

Warm Winters Upset Rhythms of Maple Sugar
By PAM BELLUCK

MONTPELIER, Vt. — One might expect Burr Morse to have maple sugaring down to a science.

For more than 200 years, Mr. Morse's family has been culling sweet sap from maple trees, a passion that has manifested itself not only in jug upon jug of maple syrup, but also in maple-cured bacon, maple cream and maple soap, not to mention the display of a suggestively curved tree trunk Mr. Morse calls the Venus de Maple.

But lately nature seems to be playing havoc with Mr. Morse and other maple mavens.

Warmer-than-usual winters are throwing things out of kilter, causing confusion among maple syrup producers, called sugar makers, and stoking fears for the survival of New England's maple forests.

"We can't rely on tradition like we used to," said Mr. Morse, 58, who once routinely began the sugaring season by inserting taps into trees around Town Meeting Day, the first Tuesday in March, and collecting sap to boil into syrup up until about six weeks later. The maple's biological clock is set by the timing of cold weather.

For at least 10 years some farmers have been starting sooner. But last year Mr. Morse tapped his trees in February and still missed out on so much sap that instead of producing his usual 1,000 gallons of syrup, he made only 700.

"You might be tempted to say, well that's a bunch of baloney — global warming," said Mr. Morse, drilling his first tap holes this season in mid-February, as snow hugged the maples and Vermont braced for a record snowfall. "But the way I feel, we get too much warm. How many winters are we going to go with Decembers turning into short-sleeve weather, before the maple trees say, 'I don't like it here any more?' "

There is no way to know for certain, but scientists are increasingly persuaded that human-caused global warming is changing climate conditions that affect sugaring.

While some farmers and other Vermonters suggest the recent warm years could be just a cyclical hiccup of nature or the result of El Niño, many maple researchers now say it seems more like a long-term trend. Since 1971, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased by 2.8 degrees.

"It appears to be a rather dire situation for the maple industry in the Northeast if conditions continue to go toward the predictions that have been made for global warming," said Tim Perkins, director of the Proctor Maple Research Center at the University of Vermont.

Dr. Perkins studied the records of maple syrup production over the last 40 years and found a fairly steady progression of the maple sugaring season moving earlier and earlier, and also getting shorter.

"We had this long list of factors we started with that could possibly explain it," Dr. Perkins said. "We have eliminated all of those various factors. We are at this point convinced that it is climatic influence." ...

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/us/27warming.html

March 27, 2007

Heat Invades Cool Heights Over Arizona Desert
By TIMOTHY EGAN

SUMMERHAVEN, Ariz. — High above the desert floor, this little alpine town has long served as a natural air-conditioned retreat for people in Tucson, one of the so-called sky islands of southern Arizona. When it is 105 degrees in the city, it is at least 20 degrees cooler up here near the 9,157-foot summit of Mount Lemmon.

But for the past 10 years or so, things have been unraveling. Winter snows melt away earlier, longtime residents say, making for an erratic season at the nearby ski resort, the most southern in the nation.

Legions of predatory insects have taken to the forest that mantles the upper mountain, killing trees weakened by record heat. And in 2003, a fire burned for a month, destroying much of the town and scarring more than 87,000 acres. The next year, another fire swept over 32,000 acres.

"Nature is confused," said Debbie Fagan, who moved here 25 years ago after crossing the country in pursuit of the perfect place to live. "We used to have four seasons. Now we have two. I love this place dearly, and this is very hard for me to watch."

The American Southwest has been warming for nearly 30 years, according to records that date to the late 19th century. And the region is in the midst of an eight-year drought. Both developments could be within the range of natural events.

But what has convinced many scientists that the current spate of higher temperatures is not just another swing in the weather has been the near collapse of the sky islands and other high, formerly green havens that poke above the desert.

Fire has always been a part of Western ecology, particularly when the land is parched. But since the late 1980s, the size and reach of the fires have far exceeded times of earlier droughts. And the culprit, according to several recent studies, is higher temperatures tearing at a fabric of life that dates to the last ice age.

"A lot of people think climate change and the ecological repercussions are 50 years away," said Thomas W. Swetnam, director of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "But it's happening now in the West. The data is telling us that we are in the middle of one of the first big indicators of climate change impacts in the continental United States."

And it comes at a time when millions of Americans are moving to these places. Since 1990, more than eight million homes have been built in Western areas that foresters call "the urban-wild land" interface, also the focus of recent federal firefighting efforts.

The fear is that what happened to Summerhaven is a taste of things to come. As heat-stressed ecosystems provide fuel at the edges of new homes, catastrophic fires could become the new normal. Dr. Swetnam compares it to new developments in hurricane-prone areas in the Southeast.

Others say the projections are overly alarmist, and note that fuel buildup is a legacy of fire repression, not necessarily higher temperatures. They also say the higher reaches of the West may simply be evolving into less alpine settings, and could resemble life that exists at lower elevations.

Still, there is a broad consensus that much of the West is warmer than it has been since record keeping began, and that changes are happening quickly, particularly in places like the sky islands....

[Noni Mausa]

Just to add a twist to this topic...

Imagine two groups, one whose members listen to others, take their opinions and facts into account, and behave in a civil manner...

...versus those who never listen, never bend, and seldom behave with civility, and often behave savagely.

In most conflicts between these groups, the latter will "win" because the former is playing a different game -- a game which cannot proceed properly if one side disregards the rules which make the game possible.

Similarly to a child who has a screaming tantrum if something is suggested which he doesn't approve of, he sets the rules, because the activity can't proceed with a screaming kid around, and the others are too civil to spank him and send him to bed.

Barbarism and insanity are strategies which are remarkably effective in some contexts and within a limited time frame.

Noni

[BiJian Feng]

I've looked at the evidence presented by both sides and there's hardly overwhelming evidence for "Global Warming". What global warming activists must prove is that the recent warming of the Earth is not part of the cycles of warming and cooling the Earth ALWAYS undergoes. We are not at any of the extremes, the Earth has been both hotter than now and cooler than now.

People have good reason to be wary of these disaster predictions that pop up every few years. In the 1970's and early 1980's, the great fear was GLOBAL COOLING! That's right, the same people who were screaming about massive starvation due to the Earth heading into another ice age are back today screaming about massive starvation due to uncontrolled global warming. Time magazine even had a cover devoted to global cooling where they use the same language that we hear today. Scientific Consensus. Undeniable certainty. Catastrophic consequences. And then there was the Ozone Hole crisis, and the DDT B.S. It turns out that DDT doesn't cause eagle egg shells to be thinner and isn't harmful in the quantities that are used in practice. Thanks to the false cries, millions have since died of malaria because DDT was the only affordable anti-mosquito solution poor countries had. Only now are they finally using DDT again. More people died due to this DDT B.S. than in the Iraq war, both sides and civilians included using the most extreme estimates, yet where is the outrage? I bet you'll see none here.

See, once you cry wolf a couple of times, is it perfectly rational for thinking people to be skeptical and demand proof. The more drastic the actions that are recommended, the more proof you need to convince a rational person that this is the best course of action. The counter arguments to Global Warming are also valid and based on fact. Global warming activists have to show that their model has such a higher percentage of being right, that it outweighs the considerable costs of implementing it. Given the highly inaccurate predictions of these models so far (earth has warmed far, far less than predicted, yet in-line with the counter-view that this is a natural cycle) it's perfectly sensible for people to reject taking drastic action until further proof can be offered. Logic and reason, there's nothing wrong with either, unless you happen to be a left-wing extremist who treats global warming as more of a religion than something based on scientific fact.

www.impleader.com

[Stormy]

Bijian Feng,

I assume you read Rachael Carson's Silent Spring, published in 1962? Perhaps not.

If you haven't, then I think for historical reasons alone that you should.

I grew up during that time. And I am well aware of the battle over DDT, as well as the consequences of using it willy nilly.

Spray it on your kids, why don't you?

You look at things a bit too simply. Yes, DDT helped combat malaria. But was the cure worse than the disease?

Question for you: Can you actually describe the effects of DDT on wildlife and on humans?

[reason]

Stormy,
don't feed trolls. BiJian Feng has posted a few times, and is never in response to anybody else, always plugging a website, and is always extremely ideological.

[piglet]

The leaders of the religious right have tried to silence the National Association of Evangelicals' vice president Richard Cizik because he heretically dared to state that Christians have a responsibility to preserve the creation.

“We have observed,” the letter says, “that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time.” Those issues, the signers say, are a need to campaign against abortion and same-sex marriage and to promote “the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.” ... they say, if Mr. Cizik “cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals,” then he should be encouraged to resign.

That's how the right-wing brain works. I'm afraid there's nothing you can do about that.

[BiJian Feng]

Just because I don't share the same viewpoint I'm a troll? I usually read this blog every couple of days and I know that by the time I respond, the conversation will have moved on. That's why my posts are directed toward the overall topic with my general thoughts.

As for Silent Spring, I believe it was a required book I read in college, but I've forgotten most if not all of the details. As for DDT, from what I know, is effective against insects and is not harmful to humans or larger animals in the quantities recommended to combat pests. Of course if you dunk someone's head in a tub of it, I'm sure it would be dangerous.

[BiJian Feng]

Oh, and as for the website, it's my blog I share with a friend.

[calmo]

Thanks for the reply and that link James and the environmentalist's view of this BBC video production. Most of them figured it was an industry production and I wonder if that character could have been better presented, by ignoring some of those "production" values.
After all is said and done, I'm impressed with their correlation of sunspot activity with global temperature even though this data must be very recent and a short data series. The idea that the sun may have something to do with Global Warming seems reasonable...more reasonable than a couple of centuries of burning fossil fuels. CO2 transport and absorption by the oceans/forrests/volcanoes is beyond me by these too seem like larger scale items than the more obvious SUVs.
Is there a similar pattern of global warming on Mars? Venus? That would do it (that man is not causing the global warming) [not that the globe is in fact warming --something few people doubt] for me.

I haven't forgotten your modeling note...yet, just haven't found those moments.

[BiJian Feng]

Yes, scientists have noticed recently that the Martian polar "ice" caps are shrinking too.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars North Pole image

Enlarge Photo

Email to a Friend
RELATED

* Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)
* New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)
* Photo Gallery: Global Warming

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. (continued)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

[Valuethinker]

Calmo

Important to note this was a *Channel 4* production, *not* a BBC production. I mean the Grt Glbl Warming Swndle.

Channel 4 is a UK-licensed TV channel, but it is not the government run station. It was set up, when there were only 3 TV channels (2 public, one private) as an independent rival to them.

The BBC is held to very high standards of public accountability by law, and is financed by a direct license fee from each TV owner (currently £110 or so per annum)-- it answers directly to Parliament, not just to the government. The Chairman and Board were forced to resign when a journalist made a claim, subsequently found by Public Inquiry to be untrue, that Tony Blair lied to the British public about Iraq.

So on questions of science, the BBC does not produce junk science programmes. Parliament and the scientific community would round on them.

C4 just doesn't have the same high standards applied to its broadcasting.

[calmo]

Thanks Value, so the actual piece was all "industry" and no science in your view then coming from that pipe of junk science ....or did you actually take it in?
I confess I did (now if robertdf were only here noting my due diligence and not my regular dilettantish self) and as I proclaimed before "over-produced" but...compelling. The claim has since been made that global temperatures are changing on other planets more or less in step with Earth's. How solid is that claim? How reasonable a thought is it, no matter how well-meaning, to think that we can cool the Earth by forcing everyone to reduce CO2 emissions if a couple of hundred years of fossil fuel burning has not made an impact (the warming due to the sun's tempermental nature)? [Is this the case of the small man complex?]
Shouldn't we be conserving finite resources in any case and just dispense with the Global Warming bit?

[Andrew]

Many of you have jumped to conclusions you all should watch this debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY

My biggest problem with gw crisis groups are they exaggerate GW. New study says gw may lower number of hurricanes. Fact Sea level rise now is only 2 feet by 2100. Fact climatologists base all there study's on computer models. Droughts and floods happen every year climate change wont change that. The reason people suffer is from poverty and all the bad that goes along with it. Republicans are not worried about business losing money but with consumers being forced to pay higher prices for every thing.

Reality is we can not lower CO2 easily. The only base line power sources are coal and nuclear in the United States. Solar and wind are hard to store. I live near fifty wind mills in the country. You do not want to live close to them. Country's in Europe that signed Kyoto have yet to lower there CO2 levels. World wide has spent over a trillion dollars on GW and is a massive business. Hybrid cars are more expensive than hummers and pollute with there batteries.

Andrew

[John S. Sherman]

i just like to say this is the stupid article i hvae eve3r read.. and you oobviously have your head up your ass

[msq]

global earming is the new religion for the empty masses. algor is thier god. nothing cancan refute thier dogma. I wont even try any more, just wait for whats next.

[lonnie]

Yes and the World is Flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth, and a Sky God created the Earth in seven days.

And the Repugs say that Muslims are a bunch of savage, uneducated, dangerous, trogolodytes...

Pot meet kettle...