An inconvenient admission
The latest sign that the “consensus” about global warming is falling apart: The BBC is finally reporting that global temperatures have leveled off since 1998, and that there maybe, possibly, perhaps, conceivably, theoretically, hypothetically, probably-not-but-you-never-know, could be explanations for changes in temperature that don’t involve mankind and carbon dioxide.
Understand, there has been no greater media proponent of climate alarmism than the BBC. Its reach may not be as great in the U.S., but elsewhere in the English-speaking world it’s considered the gold standard for journalism.
If even the Beeb is now grudgingly acknowledging that other viewpoints on the issue may have some legitimacy — after going to great lengths to deny this possibility in the past — then perhaps we can finally have a rational debate.
Or, if this clip of a filmmaker being cut off as he presses Al Gore on a question at a conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists is any indication, perhaps not.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
80 comments Add your comment
pat
October 12th, 2009
4:26 pm
Don’t worry, they will continue to perpetuate this myth so long as it enables them to garner power.
Hillbilly Deluxe
October 12th, 2009
5:21 pm
It used to be excepted scientific fact that the world was flat. Things are often presented as fact, when the truth is, they don’t know one way or the other.
Michael
October 12th, 2009
6:29 pm
It used to be accepted that most adults knew something about grammar and word usage.
Tim Wheeler
October 12th, 2009
6:48 pm
The filmmaker was cut off not because he was challenging Gore, but because his time was up. This was not a one-on-one debate, but a Q&A at a conference where the ground rules clearly set out that everyone who got to the mic was allowed one question and one followup. It was simple fairness to the 10 or so people waiting behind him, not censorship. SEJ saw to it he had a chance to ask any questions at all, since Gore normally doesn’t make himself available to the media. See: http://sej2009.sej.org/2009/10/polar-bears-censorship.html
Andy
October 12th, 2009
8:41 pm
I just read the article with the link above. Perhaps you should read the entire article and not offer the scientist opinion as evidence that global warming is fictional. You republicans seem to have this habit of cherry picking the scientific opinions that most agree with your own. All of us can see the ice sheets in Anartica, Greenland, and the arctic melting and falling away in news stories that occur frequently. You can offer explanations of switching between hot and cold cycles, but I don’t see you offering any evidence to support your views.
You once said that carbon dioxide is not unhealthy, but if happen to be underneath a blanket of CO2 for any length of time, you will die just as surely as if you parked your car in a closed garage with the engine running and you are in the car.
Scientists have said that if the entire antartica ice sheet melted, sea levels worldwide would rise 200 feet. So just a 3% melt rate would increase sea levels 6 feet. Most of Georgia south of the fall line would probably be underwater if the melt rate were anywhere close to this figure. Are you are willing to give up South Georgia if your assumptions are wrong and most scientists are right about global warming?
And would you be willing to accept the consequences of mass migration away from coastal areas and towards higher ground if you are wrong?
mike
October 12th, 2009
9:03 pm
Andy –
“Are you are willing to give up South Georgia if your assumptions are wrong and most scientists are right about global warming?”
Or as some others might say, “Are you are willing to give up New York City if your assumptions are wrong and most intelligence agencies are right about Iraq’s WMD program”?
John Galt Jr.
October 12th, 2009
9:05 pm
Andy, what if mother earth did this to herself anyway without any help from man? Whose fault is it then? You know what the fall line is anyway? There was an ocean there at one time. Hello. Who or what caused the last warming? What caused the last ice age? Maybe I need to get some beachfront property just south of Atlanta.
Shaneeeeeeee Fananeeeeeeeee
October 12th, 2009
9:28 pm
Obama and his administration are the biggest bunch of cry babies ever. Fist the Olympics now Fox News, I think these people have their priorities mixed up.
Gore gets private jets while we walk
October 12th, 2009
9:56 pm
Tim Wheeler wrote “…since Gore normally doesn’t make himself available to the media.” That’s the problem.Gore won’t face his critics because he’s unable to defend his ridiculous claims about global warming.This is strictly a money making issue for Gore as he jets from one SUV to another while not resting at his giant power devouring home.
Joan
October 12th, 2009
10:27 pm
Well, I should be safe. If it warms up to much it won’t happen in my lifetime, and since the country is going to he.. in a handbasket, global warming is going to be the least of the country’s problems. When we start burning our trees for fuel and cooking in this country, Obama will have the America he wants.
ATL
October 12th, 2009
10:42 pm
Keep it up Kyle. When your grandkids are roasting in an unstable world due to climate change, I’m sure they’ll look back on your calls for inaction and be so proud.
artatlarge
October 12th, 2009
11:27 pm
I’ll give you one thing, Mr. Wingfield…you are consistent.
But cherry-picking your data does a disservice to all. Plus, due to the efforts of such corporate apologists as yourself, almost half the people in Britain don’t think that global warming will effect them.
Also, global warming is about much more than temperature. It is also about more severe weather, and many more incidents of it. It is about more and longer droughts is some places, floods in others. It is about earlier springtimes, followed by more short blasts of winter. It is about rapidly retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, greater populations of insects and other pests due to the changes in weather patterns. It is about the rising acidity of oceans.
You republicans will do anything to maintain an unsustainable status-quo, whining about the expense involved in efforts to keep from ruining the planet, and yet with the next breath you claim that the effort to save the planet is about making money for the owners of “green” industries and businesses.
You yourself won’t be satisfied until we reach the tipping point, and natural disasters become more and more commonplace, accompanied by disease, crippling poverty, food riots, environmental displacement of peoples who can no longer live in effected areas, and a calamitous divide between the “have it all and won’t give up a single dime” and the “so poor, hungry, and desperate that we’ll fight in the streets to survive.”
Your calls for inaction, your choosing a single set of data to prove a point for an entire world and entire generations, and your refusal to acknowledge what even George Bush finally admitted only serve to make you look ignorant, greedy, heartless, disingenuous, and somehow pathetic.
If you weren’t so serious, I’d swear your work was all parody.
But I must give you credit for something else, too….
You manage to keep your head in the sand and up your butt at the same time.
Loran, Whatayagot?
October 12th, 2009
11:39 pm
What are the socialists going to do when one of their main premises for strong-arming economic, political, and social policy collapses under them? Why find another horse to ride… like global cooling. They’re relentless.
DebbieDoRight
October 13th, 2009
12:24 am
My thoughts mirror his – “These people are so stupid they make me question evolution,” Bill Maher.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/03/bill-maher-slams-gop-clim_n_308501.html
Gerald West
October 13th, 2009
5:08 am
What kind of fools believe that mankind can poison the air and the oceans without cosequences? The rise or fall of climate tempertures in one or two years doesn’t indicate a trend; that’s a logical fallacy. The trends of the last several years indicate accelerating climate change; some of it caused by man-made pollution.
Why ignore facts and reason, and rely on anecdotes, wishful thinking, and a misunderstanding of statistics?
Richard
October 13th, 2009
6:44 am
To someone back there with the comment about people beliving the earth was flat: Aristotle demonstrated that the earth was a sphere. No educated person in the last 2400+ years has belived it was flat.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
October 13th, 2009
6:52 am
Seems to me that most of the critics complaining about Kyle “cherry-picking” are indeed the most flagrant cherry pickers, the people whose primary argument on global warming is “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” even when the “post hoc” is proving untrue. Typical of people whose religion – here global warming – blind them from the truth.
Bob
October 13th, 2009
7:00 am
Tim Wheeler, nice try ! Gore did not answer the question and would not for a reason. By his predictions some years ago, we should have had 4 more hurricane katrinas and a 5 foot rise in sea level by now. The ocean, according to al would rise twenty feet in twenty years or so, where is the water ?
Bob
October 13th, 2009
7:02 am
c’mon gerald, we do not know what pace the climate changes, saying change is accelerating now when you don’t have a clue what pace it should be on is laughable.
F-105 Thunderchief
October 13th, 2009
7:10 am
The fact is, global warming, or not, the United States needs to develop clean, renewable energy to: increase security by reducing dependence on radical Islamic oil; increase prosperity by developing and marketing these technologies to the rest of the world, so they don’t have to depend on radical Islamic oil; and last, but not least, reduce pollution. Now, let’s quit bickering about global climate change and get this done.
F-105 Thunderchief
October 13th, 2009
7:11 am
Knuckleheads.
Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST
October 13th, 2009
7:26 am
Saxby Chambliss will be voting for Cap and Trade because of the LARGE Ethanol subsidies in the bill. As all you know I am a lobbyist for the Ethanol industry and Dad loves playing golf at expensive courses.
Will
October 13th, 2009
7:31 am
Today’s AJC front page story relating to Georgia’s bipartisan raising and spending of “PAC” money could not offer more proof of the fact that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties when it comes to gross indifference to leadership and our Grand Republic’s well being. The only difference is, when one of the two parties is out of power, that party will preach fiscal responsiblity. When that party is in control, it will ignore fiscal responsibility.
I continue to be amused by republicans showing up at Tea Parties and believing that they speak for this growing movement. Little do these politicians know that they are going to be in for a big surprise next November when distaste for democrat spending does not automatically translate into votes for the opposition party that voted almost in lock-dtep for eight straight budgets republican administration budgets, containing more than 40,000 earmarks, that moved our Grand Republic from a budget surplus to a trillion dollar deficit.
Tcp
October 13th, 2009
7:57 am
Thunderchief has hit the nail on the head…petroleum reserves are dwindling at a pace that require action to avert economic disaster. By the way, over the last five years the average global temperature has been higher than any previous five year period since man became “modern”. The trend is still upward. By picking out only 1998’s data and ignoring the relatively cool year of 1999, the blog is guilty of bias. Additionally, the recent “levelling off” was predicted by climatologists and is expected to end by 2014…and no, I don’t know the reasoning I just know that the prediction existed several years ago. If the warming ends of its’ own volition great…but as Thunderchief said, we still have work to do.
madmommy
October 13th, 2009
8:28 am
I am of the frame of mind that in 20 years when we run out of oil and fossil fuels, we will not have the same issues that we are speaking about today. Just think about it, since everything is created using petroleum and we are running out at a fast pace, then all the worlds issues with global warming will be solved.
I just hope that sound sience wins out on this war. While I think we pollute oceans, rivers, and select areas with garbage, I still think we need to understand more about what is going on than whats to blame. Just looking at one area where there has been a major increase in production on one by product (CO2) and saying the case is solved is bad science. You need to rule out all factors, not just create one hypotheses and run with it cause it would be the easiest sale.
Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST
October 13th, 2009
8:28 am
Here is the original ABC story on Saxby’s PAC program. Saxby collected just under $500,000 from lobbyist and spent nearly $250,000 to play golf. Saxby sure can run by a reporter, hard to believe that Saxby was 4F during the war. PS you have to watch a 5 sec commercial before Saxby comes on.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8677408
bob
October 13th, 2009
8:49 am
We do need clean energy but the democrats cannot get the treehuggers to accept nuclear energy.
Atlanta Native
October 13th, 2009
8:54 am
What is the correct temperature of the Earth?
Which has more impact on Earth’s temperature the sun or humans?
Now that “Global Warming” has been changed to “climate change” does this mean that as the earth cools through 2014 we should burn more fossil fuels to maintain the temperature?
To whom or what do we owe a duty to keep all shorelines intact as of specific date and use our extraordinary human powers to force the earth to bend to our will? What is that date?
As the earth has wa
William
October 13th, 2009
9:05 am
Most of you are relying on science to explain global warming…Al Gore is not a scientist! Most people pushing this global warming is agenda or ideology fed–like most of you! You ignore and brandish the scientist who disagree with you and hail those who agree. So what is the truth? Your ideology fed by your ideology type scientist! You did starve an oil based economy of oil by refusing to drill. You did cause gas prices to soar costing the poor money that could be used for food and shelter. Yes, you progressive liberals did that! You turned to GREEN energy that is going to take years to add jobs and replace the energy supplied by oil. In the mean time you gave the oil companies and those speculators the opportunity to make billions–and they did. Your fervor to make this a better world has assisted the depression to continue. Hey, maybe you feel good about yourself tearing down America. That seems to be the liberal way!!
Cutty
October 13th, 2009
9:08 am
More than enough reason to stick with the status quo, eh Wingfield? Let’s use up all the world’s natural resources and then worry about what we’ll do when we get to that point. Opposing global warming is fine, but even oil companies admit we can’t suck petroleum out the ground forever.
Atlanta Native
October 13th, 2009
9:08 am
I look to the global warming debate and see the equivalent of people pouring over Revelations to determine the end of the world. People need an end, and with one’s religion as science, then people look to science for their doomsday scenario. The fact that, millions of years from now, the sun will expand to engulf the earth is just too far away to accept. Also, there is no guilt attached to this. Just like those who look to Revelations for the sin of the people of the earth and determine that the sin is so great now, the end days must be near, so do those who worship at the altar of science feel collective guilt and see the end is nigh. How to assuage the feelings of guilt? Take responsibility for the temperature of the earth and try to do something about it. But to what end?
The questions I ask above are serious ones. Look into your heart and ask why you believe that global warming is inevitable unless we all do something. Remember that the main emitters of greenhouse gasses on the planet are livestock. Should they all be slaughtered? Isn’t the main emitter where we should start? Should 3rd world countries be required to greatly reduce the number of animals that breathe, belch and emit flatulence? If not, why not?
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 13th, 2009
9:17 am
OMG!!!
You moonbats keep your head in the sand.
The arrogant jackass ducks the question, “no one told the polar bears that”.
I guess when he was done inventing the internet, he started talking to polar bears.
William
October 13th, 2009
9:25 am
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 13th, 2009
9:17 am
I am not as enlighted a you! While I have my head in the sand, you have yours stuck in an ideology. What is the difference?
William
October 13th, 2009
9:30 am
Oil up to near $74 in Europe as dollar weakens. I bet you progressive liberals want the Euro to succeed as the world’s money exchange. Replace American but first you have to replace the dollar–right?
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
9:37 am
When Owl Gore sells his 10 private jets, his 10 bedroom mansion and his fleet of SUVs, I will listen to him. Um…nah, I would never listen to that pantie waste of a girly man.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
9:38 am
Atlanta Native, you make some good points but the difference is the religious sector of the country doesn’t want to bankrupt America over their views. They also don’t want a government takeover of every industry in the name of religion.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
9:40 am
Cutty, you’re contradicting yourself as a lib. First, if the Earth has been around for millions of years then how could it just “end” the resources. Two, not one scientist can say how or when oil would end.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
9:42 am
F-105 Thunderchief, we have tried. Maybe you should tell the environmental whack jobs to move to North Korea. Nuke Energy is the cheapest source of energy around. Even France, YES FRANCE, has gone with that concept. Clean energy is too expensive to produce and would bankrupt normal middle class Americans.
Drill here. Drill now.
Nuke Energy.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
9:44 am
DebbieDoRight
October 13th, 2009
12:24 am
My thoughts mirror his – “These people are so stupid they make me question evolution,” Bill Maher.
Now Debbie, you seem to contradict yourself as well. You libs always preach tolerance and anti-hate speech yet you post a comment by Bill Maher calling people with whom he disagrees with, stupid.
pd
October 13th, 2009
9:50 am
there is too much air pollution, period. Whether its causing the earth’s temperature to change has caused us to be distracted. There can be no doubt that Atlanta is polluted in the summer. You can see it with your eyes. Clean it up.
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 13th, 2009
9:51 am
William, nice spin.
That’s why he doesn’t allow questions, turning the mic. off is a pain.
That’s why Obama is scared of Fox news. He can’t turn the mic. off on a tough and relevant questions.
David
October 13th, 2009
9:51 am
Back in 1974 we were told that oil reserves would be depleted in 30 years. Even today, huge new discoveries of oil are reported.
They must keep the ruled occupied with invented crises otherwise they may ponder the manner in which they are ruled.
Churchill's MOM
October 13th, 2009
10:08 am
Wingboy, I am opposed to Cap & Trade but it has passed the house and both of our Senators will vote for this job killer because Saxby likes golf and Johnny does what Saxby tells him to do. Welcome back to Georgia.
Atlanta Native
October 13th, 2009
10:08 am
David, I was making a parallel, not taking a swipe at religion or science, just human nature.
Still – What is the correct temperature for the earth? I have never heard an answer to that question and await an answer.
I am also curious what the correct shoreline of the earth’s oceans is?
For both questions, what is your source?
Also, what about all the livestock that emit the majority of greenhouse gasses? Slaughter them all? After that will we still need to deplete our GDP through cap and trade? Even if it works? If so, what does that say about one’s motive in this debate?
Before we all deify Mr. Gore, how much money has he made off climate change?
Also, if CO2 is now a pollutant, should I give up exhaling that CO2 all day? Isn’t it irresponsible to own pets, since they pollute? As for polar bears and other large animals that emit tons of CO2, should we not be focusing on decreasing their numbers?
Also, rather than focus on emission, why not absorption? Since 3rd world countries actively engage in deforestation, should they not be penalized for cutting down trees that absorb the harmful pollutant CO2? With the loss of the Amazon rain forest, is that not grounds for a righteous country like the US to invade, stop their cutting of trees and re-plant the rain forest? What economic sanctions are proposed against South American and African countries for their wholesale destruction of CO2 absorbing trees?
When looking at the solutions on the table and those not on the table, what motives do we see?
booger
October 13th, 2009
10:44 am
Andy,
I think the news stories showing ice sheets melting were in fact Al Gores little movie. Other than that I have not seen them. And the truth is that the Antarctic ice pack is growing, and has been for many years. There was a large chunk which broke off of one end of the continent, but ice was growing on the rest of the continent. The Greenland icesheet was also miscalculated. There was a news article where a sailor was standing on ice sheet which according to Gore didn’t exist. A review of data showed 1937 to be the warmest year in recorded history. Independent reviews of the methods used to collect temperature data have revealed unreliable and sloppy collection data collection. And the continued assertion that most scientist agree with global warming is just false. Most government sponsored scientist may agree, but many of them do not agree. These have been fired or put under a gag order for not following suit. Oh and by the way, the polar bear population has been growing.
All of these questions and we are to believe computer models can predict the climate 100 years from now. By the way, much of the temperature data used in the predictions were also created by computer models. It’s all very sloppy and self serving science.
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 13th, 2009
10:52 am
The audacity of it all is Mr. Internet Inventor flew in his carbon-spewing jet to pad his deep pockets with his the shy is falling documentary (sic).
I’m sure as well, like in all the other lectures, if you were to photograph the parking lot outside of these lectures, 85% of the vehicles are gas guzzling 4 runners, jeeps, etc…
The arrogance of liberals is mind numbing. Do as I say, not as I do.
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 13th, 2009
10:53 am
whoops…SKY is falling
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
11:04 am
In many ways this reminds me of TARP, most of us on this board were opposed to it and saw it as a waste. Cap and Trade is a bigger waste but both of our Senators are in the pocket of lobbyist so they will vote for Cap & Trade and our economy will sink further.
RAMBLE ON!!!
October 13th, 2009
11:05 am
Even the BBC wonders what happened to Global Warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Libraryjim
October 13th, 2009
11:28 am
For those who say ‘we never offer proof’ of the non-human causes, try Googling “Global Warming a Chilling perspective”. There you will find charts, diagrams, maps, historical trends, and fossil records. It’s just one of many such websites that are out there if you really have an open mind and want to search for them, instead of just saying “you don’t have proof — so there! Nyah, nyah!”
Kyle Wingfield
October 13th, 2009
12:07 pm
Ramble On, thanks for bringing this discussion back full circle…to the very article I wrote about in the first place…
booger
October 13th, 2009
12:20 pm
Library,
Imagine that. A web site about global warming which has charts and diagrams which support global warming. Even the most ardent global warming scientist admit there is no proof, just computer models. And there are many web sites which show just the opposite of your contention if you really have an open mind.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
12:29 pm
Atlanta Native, I complemented you on your points. Wasn’t knocking you or anything.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
12:30 pm
booger, good point about computer models. Computers predicted the Yankees to win the WS for 10 straight years. It also predicted that USC would win for the last 7 years.
Peter
October 13th, 2009
12:35 pm
That must be the reason why Bush had all the Climate Science reports changed during his administration……
Yes Kyle let’s cut all the trees down and pollute everything for Money…… You have got it so together !
booger
October 13th, 2009
12:46 pm
David Axelfraud,
Thanks. The real scary thing about the science being used is that a great deal of what they call raw data is also generated by computer models. Do we really think we know what temperatures in interior Africa, or Siberia were 100 years ago. These figures are produced by computer models, and the fed into the climate change computer models as data. This is sloppy science.
Atlanta Native
October 13th, 2009
12:52 pm
I just wanted to be sure David.
Notice how no one ever can tell you the correct temperature for earth or address livestock emissions or penalize the third world?
Andy
October 13th, 2009
12:53 pm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090205142132.htm
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
12:57 pm
Kyle, let me pose a serious question for you and ask you to think about it and come up with a serious, well-though out answer:
Why in the world is it “conservative” to argue that the planet is not warming?
I mean, seriously — every self-professed conservative seems to have adopted the advocacy of the anti-global warming position as a core belief. I am damned if I know why. I see no inherently “conservative” principle at issue. Is it just because so many of the people alarmed at climate change are perceived to be liberal?
Dude, science is science. Let the scientists debate and the politicians formulate policy. But for heaven’s sake, don’t let politicians enter a debate about science. Neither they — nor you — have the chops to assess the science.
Andy
October 13th, 2009
12:57 pm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113143438.htm
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
12:58 pm
Hey GA. VALUES: Sorry to break the news to you, but TARP passed the break-even point a while ago, and is on its way to making a profit.
Paul A
October 13th, 2009
1:15 pm
Don’t tell Van Jones. He call you an a$$****.
Don’t tell Al Gore. He’ll cut off your microphone.
What about Prince Charles? Now he drive around in his 12 cylinder Aston Martin gas guzzler without regret.
Learn something you enviro-moonbats… The earth takes care of itself. After 6 billion years it can handle whatever…. Asteroids and comets smash into our planet and yet somehow life moves on.
“Global Warming” is just another way for government to exercise control of populations.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:18 pm
The Snark, debate is needed. Debate is good. The problem is Al Gore has stated that the debate is over when there never was one to begin with. Another problem is the fact that if you want to debate the subject libs call you names like flat-earthers and nazis.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:20 pm
Paul A, anytime the government tells you something is important it never is. During the 70s, Time ran a story about the coming Ice Age. Never happened. The government said that Stimulus was needed to help the economy. It failed. Unemployment is at 10%. The list goes on and on and on. People should make up their own minds and the damn government should stay out of it.
Cutty
October 13th, 2009
1:21 pm
Yeah Axelfraud, we just have dinosaurs walking around now that will replenish oil reserves. You can ‘outtalk’ all the people you want, but your view is a bit too N. Ga backwoods for me.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:21 pm
Can any of you global warming believers please ask your congressman/woman if they drive a hybrid, have solar panels on their ten bedroom mansions, or if they fly commercial?
crickets….chirp….chirp……
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:23 pm
Cutty, I live in Chicago, finished at Duke and make a nice living for myself. Didn’t grow up in N. Ga, comrade. Oil is not going to run out.
David Axelfraud
October 13th, 2009
1:24 pm
Cutty, curious, in all of my science classes, including advanced physics, biochemistry and biology classes, I never heard anyone say that oil came from dinosaurs.
Kyle Wingfield
October 13th, 2009
1:56 pm
Snark: I don’t know that it is “conservative” or “liberal” to argue either side of the scientific debate. I do know that it is factual to observe that temperatures have leveled off over the past decade and that this isn’t what climate models had predicted, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask why this is so — whether there are factors that the models either hadn’t considered or hadn’t given enough weight, whether some of the assumptions fed into these models (which of course dictate what they will produce) were wrong, whether we might cut carbon dioxide emissions all the way to zero without prompting any significant change in the climate.
I do know that it is factual to observe that a growing number of scientists are asking some of these same questions. It is only right in my mind to let this debate play out — not to declare “consensus” because one believes that to be true or expedient, nor, similarly, to declare the whole thing a hoax.
Even if one accepts that the climate is changing — for whatever reason — it does not follow that government must intervene heavily in the marketplace, particularly by picking winners among various companies and technologies. A straight tax on carbon dioxide would achieve the same goal — reducing CO2 emissions — more efficiently and with less market distortion. The fact that so many politicians talk about the urgency of addressing climate change but ignore options like this (or dropping tariffs on ethanol imports…or dropping subsidies for domestic ethanol even though it only increases emissions…or responding to market impulses to increase nuclear power generation…and so on) makes people like me doubt their sincerity, and their motives.
It may be that none of this matters to people who favor bigger government anyway. Which I suppose — your answer, finally! — is why this issue has conservatives and liberals so polarized.
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
2:26 pm
The Snark
12:58 pm
Better try fact check before sticking your foot in your mouth.
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
2:33 pm
The Snark
12:58 pm
We are so far under water we can’t see the bottom, check the facts.. Or did the NYT forget to post the profit from AIG & GM. Thank you Saxby and Johnny for throwing our (borrowed from China) money away.
http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
2:36 pm
Kyle Wingfield
1:56 pm
Saxby will be after your head for telling the truth about Ethanol as most of know he is Senator Ethanol.
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
3:07 pm
Fair enough, Kyle. Thanks.
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
3:09 pm
GA. VALUES:
The Snark always checks his facts. Here is a more recent analysis from
Daniel Gross:
http://www.slate.com/id/2226517/
Ga Values
October 13th, 2009
3:28 pm
The Snark
3:09 pm
There is a big difference between “Might” and “will”.. most reputable business publications are saying LOSS. The Chrysler ,GM money is gone, 1/2 of the AIG is lost and the money that has been recovered will be put into loosing projects like Johnny’s $15,000.00 gift to homebuyers.
“Is TARP Profitable?
The huge government bailout could have cost taxpayers $700 billion. Now it looks like it might break even.”
tcp
October 13th, 2009
3:39 pm
It amazes me to see the level of debate…has anyone checked peer reviewed journals lately? The actual scientists are no longer investigating whether global warming is happening but are now looking at the effects and gauging how various life and climate processes will change. If you’d like to get to the answer…go to the actual science…the bloggosphere is badly contaminated with BS. They no longer debate so the bloggers have to, I suppose. Oh, global cooling has been the focus of one study…not surprisingly conducted by a psychologist.
The Snark
October 13th, 2009
4:04 pm
GA. VALUES: A fair comment. But you started out saying that “we are so far under water we can’t see the bottom,” and that is simply not true.
TaxPayer
October 14th, 2009
9:41 am
Kyle,
I hardly think that you have stumbled upon some earth-shattering discovery with this revelation that the BBC now backs off their former stance. Further, our ability to have a rational discussion has never hinged on such a basis. It just takes two or more rational people with a desire to truly discuss/debate an issue with no underlying motives beyond the search for knowledge and understanding. Once you toss something such as politics or profit into the mix, as usual, all bets are off. With that said, first and foremost, a model is a model and it will always have its limitations based on numerous constraints. Over time, we tend to make advancements that allow us to improve our models and these improvements do tend to alter calculations. Further, the better the model, the more confidence we will have in that model’s ability to ‘predict’ the future. However, one must always be aware that it is just a prediction — it is not a statement of fact and it likely never will be simply because there is too much uncertainty regarding possible future events to ever allow us to create the ultimate magic 8-ball. Scientists know this and they always have, even if some of them do, from time to time, let their human traits mask that fact. So, if it is rational debate you want on this issue, seek out scientists instead of politicians and reporters. Of course, once you do that and acquire some new level of knowledge, the question remains — what will you do with it?
Finally, regarding the data that breaks out of the past strong correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature, there is certainly plenty of activity out there in the scientific community that is geared toward learning more from that information. Personally, I would just be thrilled to see more government funding going toward these areas rather than into bigger and better bunker busters, for example. Of course, that’s just me — a maker of love, not war.
One final thought before I leave on the topic of models and consensus, are you one of those that promotes the need for pre-emptive measures against countries that you perceive as a future threat and if so, what model do you prescribe to and is there a consensus regarding its use.
griftdrift
October 14th, 2009
1:13 pm
Kyle, is it factual to state “the consensus…is falling apart”?
Bish
October 19th, 2009
3:59 pm
Citizen Wingfield and doubters, here is forensic evidence of climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjeIpjhAqsM
The photography of James Balog is irrefutable. Balog began his project doubting man’s contribution to climate change. After documenting the extreme ice melt in all corners of the globe for the past several years, he has witnessed first hand the havoc carbon pollution has wrought.