ucfengr says:

You really mean to say you haven’t seen those BP ads?
You mean the “Beyond Petroleum” ads? I’ve seen them, but so what? Last time I checked the vast majority of BP’s business still involved the production and refining of petroleum products. That they make small investments in alternative energy technologies is not surprising, most energy companies do. I’ve seen nothing in the ads that would indicate that large scale implementation of these alternative technologies is any closer than several decades away, so I am not sure I see the relevance.
I guess they don’t advertise on Sean Hannity.
This looks like an ad-hominem to me or are you asserting that the (false) implication that I get my information solely from various conservative (and therefore unreliable) sources is in some way not a personal attack?

ucfengr says:

You really mean to say you haven’t seen those BP ads?
You mean the “Beyond Petroleum” ads? I’ve seen them, but so what? Last time I checked the vast majority of BP’s business still involved the production and refining of petroleum products. That they make small investments in alternative energy technologies is not surprising, most energy companies do. I’ve seen nothing in the ads that would indicate that large scale implementation of these alternative technologies is any closer than several decades away, so I am not sure I see the relevance.
I guess they don’t advertise on Sean Hannity.
This looks like an ad-hominem to me or are you asserting that the (false) implication that I get my information solely from various conservative (and therefore unreliable) sources is in some way not a personal attack?

ucfengr says:

This is indeed true but the big issue is that there is no incentive to optimize for greenhouse gas emissions.
Why would you want to artificially incentivize optimizing for greenhouse gas emissions when it’s not clear that doing so will have any appreciable impact on global warming? Again, I must point out that the considerable resources spent to solve this hypothetical problem are resources that can’t be spent to solve more immediate problems.

Mumon says:

Gordon Mullings:
Where did I imply you’re a Nazi or a Christian Fascist?
I would suppose if one were one, then there’d be no shame in owning the title, and I wouldn’t accuse you of being too ashamed to own the title, if I indeed thought you fancied yourself that way. Which I don’t.
ucefenger:
BP is actually making substantial investments in this regard.
are you asserting that the (false) implication that I get my information solely from various conservative (and therefore unreliable) sources is in some way not a personal attack?
That Sean Hannity and the like are indeed unreliable is not in question.
But the fact that you’re unaware of what BP is doing, and apparently unaware of factual information relevant to the argument is not an attack on you personally; I’m not “appealing to the emotions” in stating what is an obvious fact: i.e., you are not bringing facts to the table.
You can’t really claim “You’re attacking me!” if it is brought up that you are not drawing upon reliable sources of information, and might well be – as conjecture- drawing on proven unreliable sources of information.

Matthew Goggins says:

Sam,
“We’ll never run out of anything. There will always be trees, oil, food, water, everything we could ever want or need. Conservation is an atheistic plot and definitely against the Bible.”
Although you meant this sarcastically, it is a true statement. These are all infinite resource examples that we won’t run out of with proper management.
We have enough trees, food, water, and lots of other important necessities to last a very, very long time. As you point out, with proper management, these resources are, for most practical purposes, infinite.
Oil, on the other hand, does not seem to fit in the same category. Why do you claim oil is something we won’t run out of? Do you mean to say that energy supplies in general are inexhaustible, or are you talking specifically about oil itself?
Please note that I am not actually disagreeing with you, I am just trying to pin down your meaning.

ucfengr says:

Hey mumon, looks like BP was fined $500K for illegal disposal of hazardous waste on Alaska’s North Slope and $10M for violating federal clean air laws at 8 US refineries and ordered to spend an additional $500M modernizing its pollution control equipment http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0103/0103bp.htm. More facts for ya’. With friends like these, the envirnment doesn’t need many enemies.

ucfengr says:

You can find that out at “bp.com.” It, like much other information, is on the internet. While most of their funding is in exploration and petroleum, that’s understandable from a business perspective (why should they, if they have billions in infrastructure, be expected to walk away from that all at once?). However, they’ve significantly ramped up their alternative energy spending from 04 to 05. You should update your numbers.
So, you drank the BP Kool-Aid. Do you work there or something? I’m surprised (but I guess I shouldn’t be) that you would direct me to the BP site to find reliable information on BP as opposed to BP propaganda. I guess I can direct you to the Rush Limbaugh website so that you can find out that Rush is indeed always right and you can get your secret-decoder ring.
And when did Sean Hannity ever – ever- issue a retraction?
I honestly don’t know. I find Hannity to be a bit boring, and generally prefer music to talk (which is why I have XM).
Ummm… Matthews is hardly these days “liberal.”
Wow, a blog site (manned no doubt by some guy sitting around in his pj’s) says that Matthews is not a (gasp) liberal. That’s evidence?
It is “bias” itself to “balance” fact with fiction.
Where have I balanced “fact with fiction”?
BTW–Do you have any evidence (other than the company website) to dispute my claims? You run around claiming that I don’t provide any evidence, but I’ve provided a lot more to back up my claims than you have to dispute them.

Gordon Mullings says:

All:
It seems the discussion is, sadly, being dogged by ad hominems on the side of those who are advocating the Kyoto protocol type solution. (And BTW, M knows exactly what happened in “the Dover Thread, from Christmas eve on; where he joined the ad hominem chorus of B and LL; including his own remarks there that are utterly indefensible.)
This is sad as the issue csan be discussed at a serious level, with profit. Can’t we return to that level? If not, onlookers should note that resort to ad hominems is a strong sign of failing to have a good case ont he merits.
Now on specific points:
1] Sam: RE: “We’ll never run out of anything. There will always be trees, oil, food, water, everything we could ever want or need. Conservation is an atheistic plot and definitely against the Bible.” S: Although you meant this sarcastically, it is a true statement. These are all infinite resource examples that we won’t run out of with proper management.
–> First, the observed scale of the universe is ~ 10E80 atoms, which while quite large is most definitiely finite. Earth is ~ 6 * 10E24 kg, quite finite. So, on mere physical grounds, you are wrong to claim that resources are infinite. Economics adds to that, as “resource” implies that the worth of what is extracted or produced is at least equal to the costs put into its production. (For instance, there is a vast quantity of gold dissolved in the oceans, but the cost to exptract it is far higher than the value of the metal, so there is no economic resource there.)
–> Second, we need to contrast two very different philosphies, CONSERVATIONISM and PRESERVATIONISM. The former is consistent with wise use of natural resources. The latter, seeks to in effect prioritise the biophysical environment over human needs, ending up in the sort of observations like comparing humans to a cancer on the earth etc, and end up suggesting that the earth would be better off without most of us being on it.
–> Third,the creation mandate we can read in Genesis, and further teachings including the Golden Rule, are more than consistent with conservation and wise use, as was shown in the above. Indeed, it can be shown that the Bruntland sustainablity principle is based in thinking tthat traces to the Golden Rule. For instance, the constraint that we should not compromise the capacity of future generations to meet their needs is of course a direct implication of “do to others as you would that they do to you.” [Cf Matt 7:12 etc.]
–> The GR of course is the foundation-stone of judaeochristian ethics. So the issue is not just a matter of alleged atheist plots. While it is true that the issues have ben dogged by the issues of the so-called environmentalist watermelon agenda [green outside, red inside], issues linked to the destructive implications of ignoring the economic dimension of the human environment, especially the vcital importance of enforceable property rights and the superiority of market based allocation over attempted centrally planned allocation are material environmental constraints on SD thinking!
2] B: Adapting is one of the reasons why I suspect most of the cost estimates are overstated. There is no good model that simulates our ability to adapt . . . . we can estimate the worst possible cost. The difference between today’s GDP and 1990′s. Obviously any estimate that’s greater than that ignores the ‘brain dead’ method of simply rolling back to 1990. Of course simply rolling back ignores any application of either existing or soon to invent technology.
–> Onlookers, first note that B here admits the degree of ignorance involved in tinkering with the economy on the hope that somehow the required technologies will apear in time to rescue the situation. Here, the counsel of prudence would be to reckon with the uncertsainties through projecting a fan of scenarios from optimistic to pessimistic cases and using robust strategies that do not massively harm the global economy. Such a strategy looks a lot like: fund more research, invest in economically viable energy efficiency and alternate energy projects, and update as more credible knowledge comes on line through that research.
–> However, the root of the problem is that work in the physical and economic senses are tightly linked. For, when economic work is done, raw materials are transformed into useful forms, which are given desired shapes and motions, fulfilling human wants. That means that matter is subjected to forces acting across displacements that give it ordered motion, i.e. for a given technology, the more product produced, the more work is done.
–> That immediately means that energy use levels are functionally linked to GDP, though the relationship is not linear, due to scaling laws and changing technology. So, when the key technologies to make the switch away from fossil fuels are decades out on average [with one major exception], rolling back energy use to 1990 levels is going to mean that we are not doing so by switching technologies but largely by reducing the scale of economic activity. In short, by inducing an artificial and sustained deep economic recession. [Also note that 1990 was in the trough of a recession in the global economy at that time, which the Kyoto protocol's drafters must have known. So the 1990 consumption levels were inadequate for the adequate functioning of the 1990 economy.]
–> In that context, let us do a simple model, more or less a very crude input-output analysis, but one that is good enough to make the point. For, if we compound 2 – 3% more or less real GDP growth over 15 years, we see [using 2.5%] that the economy now is probably in real terms at ~ 145% of 1990 levels, so rolling back energy use to the 1990 level on a sustained basis is probably going to require cutting physical work levels by at least 10 – 20+% for decades. That means, large scale unemployment on a sustained basis, i.e. damage to the social fabric not seen since the depression of the 1930′s.
–> Moreover it will likely feed back into slowing down the research and development and innovation required to undertake the technology switches discussed above, probably by decades. That in turn will sharply constrain prospects for switching technologies to meet further levels of cuts required. [BTW, that is exactly why the US senate voted against it back in 97, something like 95 supporting the poiint that it was unworkable and destructive to American interests. That is, this was a consensus of the major parties under a Democratic president with an environmentalist vice president sitting as the President of the Senate.]
–> Let us therefore look at he potential breakthrough: Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. These are currently beinfg developed in SOuth Africa based on German HTGR work dating to the 1950s – 80s. In effect by immersing a bed of tennis-ball sized pebbles of SiC-coated reactor fuel in circulating He gas, it is possible to create a new reactor technology that is safe against a great many of the hazards of present technologies. The sustem is modular in 100 MW increments [a very handy size for all sorts of good reasons], and it has been estimated that it can produce electricity at ~ 1/9c/kWhr, very good by comparison with most existing technologires. PBMRs can move the global economy away from C-based fuels, can be deployed massively within this decade — the South Africans are talking about mass production and sales to a global market — and so can bridge us to the onward technologies several decades out.
–> But of course, that entails a switch to nuclear technologies and acceptance of having to deal with a significant — but I think manageable wastes storage and proliferation hazard control problem. So, we have a major decision to make . . .
3] This isn’t really an argument against Kyoto but an argument against its target. Why not simply advocate 2000 as the target year? Why not advocate simply having overall emmissions grow at a slower rate than the year before? The idea should be to get something in place and then either tighten or losen it depending on how the research goes.
–> This dodges the basic pointt hat Kyoto locks in the 1990 target as its centre-piece, committing annex 1 countries to this constraint whilst opening up the door [on a "Fairness" argument] for countries outside of this to havge much looser constraints. That is the context in which there is a serious question as to whether it would if implemented actually yield a control on emissions.
–> Further to this, as I recall, the much despised and denounced George Bush haqs been so despised and denounced precisely for advocating that some flexibility be introduced in how one looks at achieving emission reductions. {Note, the current admisistration has NOT rejected the concept that there may be a material anthropogenic component to the climate trends as monitored and inferred, but has advocated flexibility. One would not infer that from the tone and substance of discussion in the major media and policy level discussions reported therein!)
–> So, has B now joined in treason against the environment, with that infamous environmental criminal and lackey of the US Oil Industry, Dubya . . . ?
–> Of course, what is happening is that, again, when issues have to be addressed on merits not ad hominems, a surprising degree of agreement is possible.
4] MG: We have enough trees, food, water, and lots of other important necessities to last a very, very long time. As you point out, with proper management, these resources are, for most practical purposes, infinite. Oil, on the other hand, does not seem to fit in the same category. Why do you claim oil is something we won’t run out of? Do you mean to say that energy supplies in general are inexhaustible, or are you talking specifically about oil itself?
–> Of course there is the technical point that we are not dealing with a real infinity. But the underlying point, that there is no shortage in prospect a la Club of Rome scary scenarios based on their then state of the art global models of the 1960s to 70s, is well taken. [In short, the issue of the limitations of modelling is material, and has long been!]
–> On this, I recall my shock years ago when I ran across a Greenpeace review on Oil, which argued that oil will not run out, it will have to be shut down, as the physical quantum int he earth’s crust is sufficient for centuries of consumption.
–> There is also a minority opinion that [most or much?] oil is abiotic in origin, being produced by high temp high pressure processes leading to chaining of methane molecules etc. At least some russians scientists seem to take this seriously.
–> But, with the Canadian Tar sands and the US Oil shale deposits, plus the coal reserves in a context where ever since WW II synthetic oil production has been a facor [CF South Africa's SASOL process and plants], oil is not physically runing out. Offshore deposits are also a major issue, including deepwater, especially as drilling technology advances.
–> So the issue is that alternative technologies are int he end going to have to win the day largely based on their economic merits, and technical achievements.
6] BP:
–> British Petroleum has adopred an environmentally friendly persona, and seems to be in part sincere about it.
–> But, in the end, they have to account to their shareholders, and even in todays markets oil is making ~ 9% profits I gather, as opposed to MAcDonalds at ~ 24% from some numbers I recently saw. Investments in alternative techs can in that light be viewed as covering the possibilities through prudent high-risk, potential high payoff developments.
++++++++++++++
Grace, open eyes
Gordon

ucfengr says:

British Petroleum has adopred an environmentally friendly persona, and seems to be in part sincere about it.
GM–No doubt, BP has adopted an environmentally friendly persona. But there is a lot of evidence arguing against their sincerity. As an aside, I have nothing against BP in specific or oil companies in general. They provide a much needed service in a tricky environment. I have no problem with BP leading with their environmental credentials, as small as they may be, but IMO it is more PR than actual progress. I agree with their business model of small investments in future technologies and big investments in current, profitable ones.

Gordon Mullings says:

Again:
Further from VG.
Recall, the question is, what has materially changed in the state of climate knowledge and modelling since this time, givent hat “consensus” was being pushed then too . . .
1] Greenhouse gas forcings . . .

The evidence that increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing changes in the climate continues to be unconvincing That the effects of increases in greenhouse gases are not causing a global temperature change is shown by the following facts:
Temperature measurements by MSU satellites in the lower troposphere, where greenhouse warming is supposed to take place, have found no evidence for such a warming for the past twenty years, although these measurements do respond to volcanic, ocean (El Ni

ucfengr says:

If conservatives didn’t misinform, there simply wouldn’t be conservatism. That’s the long and the short of it.
I am reminded of the Star Trek episode where Kirk is able to short out an android by telling everything Harry Mudd says is a lie and then Harry telling the android “I am lying”, locking the android in a logic loop. I assume that mumon would also short out if I agreed with his insane ravings.
You’ve got to lie to people to get them to act not only against their own self-interest, but also the communuity’s interest, the nation’s interest and the world’s interest, and solely for helping a very, very few.
Conservatives, the new Jews. Perhaps we could get some of the folks at moveon.org and media matters to gin up a “Protocols of the Elders of Conservatism” to explain the conservative plan of world domination.
So, no, it’s not “bias,” to correct conservative misinformation, since conservatism itself is predicated on the existence of misinformation.
What are Buddhism, Socialism, Liberalism, Communism, Anarchism, and Antidisestablishmentarianism predicated on the existence of? But seriously, what’s the difference between misinformation and a difference of opinion with mumon, because I’m having a hard time seeing it. What I see is if mumon agrees, it’s truth, if mumon disagrees, it’s misinformation.

Gordon Mullings says:

All:
It is worth noting on the above the point made by the Evangelicals group on their site, as Joe excerpts and summarises:

Mumon says:

Gordon Mullings:
Mumon et al, I have now given some remarks onthe status of that consensus as at 2000 and the TAR. What say ye?
You’ve cut and pasted from a website that intermixes the trivial with the hard to verify.
However let me take aparet one penetrating faux penetrating glance into what ought to be the obvious:

The period from 1945 to 1975 showed a slight fall in surface temperature. This Report makes no attempt to explain this.

This result is rather obvious. Now put on your thinking cap here.
What might have happened from about 1945 onwards that might have caused this?
Did you say, “above ground nuclear weapons testing?”
Anther correct answers would include: China’s Great Leap Forward “people’s steel making” experiment.
Now why did it take 10 years to stop? Transients in the atmosphere + other things TBD.
That doesn’t prove anything; other than that you can cut and paste.

Gordon Mullings says:

All:
Isn’t it interesting to see what happens when a bluff is called?
Observe: I have — through citing and linking comments by Dr Vincent Gray, “Climate Consultant, . . . Crofton Downs, Wellington, New Zealand” which make highly specific technical points regarding the 2001 TAR report — pointed to several of the major concerns about the IPCC process and its reports, amplifying my earlier coments. [Similarly, the linked page begins with Dr Fred Singer's summary of specific, page-referenced critiques, and goes on to a debate over public accountability for the substance of the draft. Whether or no the owner of the site can be critiqued, the sustantial matter is highly relevant and should be addressed on the merits: Are Dr Gray's observations accurate to the report's substance [nb at that time, in draft form], has there been a substantial improvement in the quality of the work since then?]
What is the response?

M: “You’ve cut and pasted from a website that intermixes the trivial with the hard to verify.”

If onlookers will link the page from which I excerpted some comments by a climatologist in New Zealand, s/he will soon enough see that this page was in effect a discussion board on the IPCC TAR [NB: Link is to policy makers summary, go to this page for more details] in the run-up to its public release in 2001.
By going to these linke M can easily enough verify for himself that the concerns raised are real; I linked them because the pattern of concerns raised is in fact familiar to me, from having had to worek with these issues. Indeed, the problem over the gap betweenthe technical studies and their limitations and the confident assertions in public statements and policy maker summaries is a notorious feature of the issue, especially in the aftermath of the fiasco over the 2nd report, in 96. [That was a specific concern raised by the incoming Bush Admin when it commissioned a review in I think 2001.]
So, M has some homework to do.
Now, on specific points:
1] M: However let me take aparet one penetrating faux penetrating glance into what ought to be the obvious: VG: The period from 1945 to 1975 showed a slight fall in surface temperature. This Report makes no attempt to explain this. M: This result is rather obvious. Now put on your thinking cap here.
–> At this point in the excerpt, VG is summarising gaps between the climate nodels and the observations. Reposting, and cleaning up a bit:

The evidence that increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing changes in the climate continues to be unconvincing That the effects of increases in greenhouse gases are not causing a global temperature change is shown by the following facts:

[1]Temperature measurements by MSU satellites in the lower troposphere, where greenhouse warming is supposed to take place, have found no evidence for such a warming for the past twenty years, although these measurements do respond to volcanic, ocean (El Ni

Mumon says:

Gordon Mullings:
Let me again just take one other point- nobody with day jobs has the time to go through Mr. Mullings’ cutting and pasting- and see where it leads:
[2] Computer based climate models based on the theory of greenhouse warming do not fit the surface temperature record.
What does “do not fit” mean? An exact fit? What does “fit” mean? What is the level of correlation that he is seeking for a fit?
Mr. Mullings- like his sources – ignores the fact that the models show a non-linear interaction between the amount of particulate matter put into the system and carbon dioxide put into the system.
Re: David Suzuki, Mr. Mullings fell right into the problem. He cut and pasted from the aforementioned site, but evidently didn’t read a) what Suzuki actually said, and b) the response of the pollution apologist. In short: Suzuki was mentioning what happened in October, and there’s no data there at all as to what happens in October! Anybody who’s ever lived in the Northeast knows that it’s in October that the weather changes markedly!
So much for Mr. Mullings’ challenge to the “alleged” consensus!

Gordon Mullings says:

All:
Observe carefully M’s sadely persistent resort to ad hominems of various stripes, whilst failing to actually address the issue at stake.
For instance it is not a matter of day jobs or cutting and pasting, but rather of the need to address the fact that a scientific “consensus” can be claimed where there are serious defects in it — indeed that is part of Kuhn’s point about paradigm shifts — and that here is just such a challenge to the pattern of the evolving GW controversies in science and policy, from circa 1988 on.
Now, on specifics:
1] What does “do not fit” mean? An exact fit? What does “fit” mean? What is the level of correlation that he is seeking for a fit?
–> Here the point is quite simple, and as repeatedly outlined: the models across a quite long period of the “consensus” formed trend lines that obviously diverged from the observed data, especially on the structure of the trends in the temperature measurement. (Cf a discussion post 2000 here.)
–> That is why for instance, there has been a significant discussion on satellite soundings vs surface measured data.
–> So, the “consensus” champions need to account for a cosensus view based on models that plainly diverged from observation.
2] Mr. Mullings- like his sources – ignores the fact that the models show a non-linear interaction between the amount of particulate matter put into the system and carbon dioxide put into the system.
–> Here, we have an irrelevancy: yes, the models have had to account for multiple forcings and feedbacks, and there has been a debate on exactly these points, inclusive of water vapour, SO2 impacts, etc etc. In short, across much ofthe life of the “consensus” there has been a challenge for models to account adequately for the trends.
–> Why then should we, circa 1991, 1996 and 2001 have trusted the “consensus” support for these models that failed to cover the observed data adequately? Models that from the technical comments excerpted above, failed to address properly several basic points for such modelling to have credibility? And, going beyond that, why then should we have trusted them enough to undertake serious economic dislocations in the teeth of immature alternative technologies, based on such models?
3] Re: David Suzuki, Mr. Mullings fell right into the problem. He cut and pasted from the aforementioned site, but evidently didn’t read a) what Suzuki actually said, and b) the response of the pollution apologist. In short: Suzuki was mentioning what happened in October, and there’s no data there at all as to what happens in October!
–> Indeed, Mr Suzuki made claims that winter in his hometown, in his youth began in October, but now begins later. However,the first basic point is that the time series over the past 130 years on AVERAGE ANNUAL TEMP [which would correlate to warming trend] shows no obvious major trend that would substantiate the warming implied there.
–> Second, Nov and Dec trends which were used in the JD discussion — which is what I addresed] do relate to the apparent timing of the onset of winter, as can be seen in the consistent fall in temp from Nov to Dec; in a zone where wintrer temps clearly average below freezing, and the Nov Temps are above that level [and approach avge for the year], then the Dec temps fall dramatically [towards the winter temp avg]. Thus, I infer that Nov is the transition month and Dec is the real winter month in that part of the world. What they further show is that there is no clear dramatic trend of later and later transitions to lower temp across a span of 130 years: if winter begins in Oct 40 – 50 years ago, Nov shouldshow typical winter weather conds, I would think, as well as Dec. In short, this new point is an irrelevancy.
4] So much for Mr. Mullings’ challenge to the “alleged” consensus!
–> Excuse me: Do I understand properly that in M’s world, an irrelevant rebuttal on an irrelevant remark by JD addresses adequately the issues raised by Singer and Gray inter alia, on the technical problems with the “consensus” on CC/GW?
–> PLainly, this takes the strawman argument and the red herring fallacy to new heights!
5] Gordon Mullings is trying to use the “cut and paste copious amounts of data” to avoid any meaningful discussion on the issue.
–> Really now! I have spoken to the issue that there is a problem with the consensus view of CC across its history, giving a specific illustration citing specific comments by specific qualified persons. And that is to be dismissed as an attempt to avoid a meaningful discussion of the issue?
–> Onlookers will be able to judge for themselves just who has been avoiding a serious discussion, by resorting to distractors and personal attacks.
6] It is clear that Mr. Mullings is not looking critically at the stuff he’s cut and pasted; how could he miss for example, discussions on the weather in October “refuted” with data from weather in November?
–> If M had looked at the data he would have seen why Nov and Dec data is relevant: that is the period which shows a cooling off from above freezing [and near to the annual averages for these rather cold cities] to below it.
–> In short, there is a consistent seasonal trend of moving from significantly above freezing to significantly below freezing between November and December in that part of the world. That sounds rather like the onset of winter weather to me; though I stand to be corrected on this point if my understanding of winter is erroneous. [Astronomically, that's a very different story as the winter solstice is late Dec.]
–> Further to this, even basic exploratory data analysis techniques do not show the sort of obvious trends that would have shown up if winter had typically set in in Oct 40 – 50 years or more ago, but much later now. THat is, if there was a period in which winter consistently set in in Oct, I would expectthat for that time, Nov temps would look more like Dec temps andwinter averages than they do.
–> Next, observe that at its root all of this is a red herring and based on a strawman: M is failig to materially address the issues on the climate change “consensus ” view; views expressed by climatologists using a cluster of specific technical points as noted above through excerpts, and as linked.
7] Mr. Mullings has attempted a common gambit; when faced with answers, and critiques, he doesn’t respond directly and resorts to more cutting and pasting!
–> First, please do not abuse that poor Chess word — or I’ll sic the resident chess players on you. (We are not describing sacrificial openings for chess games here.) ;->)
–> Second, onlookers can easily enough see for themselves just who is failing to address key points, and is resorting to distractions and ad hominems. The material point is: “Consensus” can cover a multitude of sins. M has failed to address these substantially, and now wishes to dismiss the need to addres these core issues.
–> If he wishes to do something serious, he can look at the IPCC TAR as linked and comment in light of the limitations and challenges already excerpted so that anyone who cares to can see for themselves.
–> Indeed, onlookers can also see for themselves what happened when I linked to the point wheere he joined the chorus of calling me a nazi, saying that he preferred the term christofascist . . no evidence, just ad hominem. Similarly, he several times above insinuated that i did not know what I was talking about: evidence was put forward, and was met with either more distractors, misrepresentations and ad hominems or else silence [as if one can walk away without accountability]. Sad. Onlookers can judge for themselves the implications of this sort of behaviour on M’s part.
++++++++++
Grace, open eyes
GEM

JOLLYBLOGGER says:

Christians Taking a Stand Against Global Warming – Huh?

By now I am guessing that most of my readers have heard 85 of evangelicalism’s prominent leaders have banded together to launch a full frontal assault on global warming. If you haven’t heard about this, you can read about it

Mumon says:

Matthew Goggins:
I don’t consider myself a “liberal” because the word tends to be too nebulous (and I am a reasonable guy, actually); and yeah, liberals get things wrong, but wherever I see conservative policy being formulated, it invariably has this “up is down and black is white” quality to it, mostly because it comes out of places, as I implied to Gordon Mullings, where conclusions are stated first and then some policy is made to fit those conclusions.
Hence we have “Health Savings Accounts” proposals that don’t do anything to help health, we have fights against raising the minimum wage when in fact it’s been known since the Depression that raising the minimum wage to an optimal amount helps overall employment and the economy, we have “Social Security Reform” that transfers risk and busts the budget, we have an “energy policy” that leaves us less secure…I could go on.
So my point stands: conservative policy is based on gathering support for people to act against their own self-interest; usually by distracting people by some canard like the “threat” of gay marriage.

Mumon says:

End of Oct corresponds to beginning of Nov, more or less…
No, the end of October is the end of October, and everything else you say on that cannot change that very simple fact.
This sort of ad hominem can of course be turned around.
It’s not an “ad hominem”; it’s a citation of a very real conflict of interest.
Notice how the second sentence begins: “Despite the apparent controversy . . .” — which of course implies that the “consensus” is by no means monolitic.
Actually the word “apparent” implies, obviously, that there really is no controversy; and indeed there isn’t, except as manufactured by corporate funded think tanks, and the occasional conspiratorial layman, such as Daly.
So, while we see the conclusion of a particular (and dominant) school and the open disparaging of those who beg to differ,…
Let me add what you left on the cherry tree on that cherry-picked quote:

…paleoclimate evidence comprises only one of many independent lines of evidence indicating a primary role of human activity in modern climate change. If the only line of evidence that remains in dispute pertains to estimated millennial temperature histories, then the case for denialism appears extremely weak indeed.

There’s as much of a “controversy” here as there is amongst reputable scientists and “intelligent” “design” proponents, or people that talk to ghosts or astrologists.
In short, back to the core point made by Joe and Crichton, the appeal to “consensus” is not a reliable index of soundness at any given time, especially where there are gaps in the models being put forth and serious questions on the data.
Well, again, you’ve shown through your links that there is data global warming exists, even from the cherry picked data from the Cato Institute.
So, like, all verbiage, cutting and pasting, ad hominem attacks, etc. aside, just what evidence do you have that the earth is either cooling or the temperature is remaining the same?
And remember, October and November are different months…
Not to mention, that the accusations of nazism and christofascism in the Dover thread [cf from Xmas eve on] had no foundation on facts either evident or adduced.
Ah, yes, and this continued on the War on Valentine’s Day…
Well, you know what? I stand by what I said there:

I prefer the term “Christo-fascism” rather than “Nazi,” but the fact that you have to repeat the “big lies” of “judaeo-christian historical roots of the civil liberties they enjoy” gives it away. The notion of civil liberties, of course, is pagan in origin; ancient Greece to be exact. As we all know, the first governments of Israel and of Christian tradition were merciless murderous theocracies. And this of course extends down to that butcher, John Calvin, and the Salem witch trials.

Of course you’re bringing this up likely to “poison the well,” as though somehow this was a bad thing on my part. But the fact is, telling the truth and remembering the past accurately is key to ensuring that all enjoy and use their civil liberties that are the legacy of our pagan cultural heritage.
But I’m grateful for your reminding me of this.

ucfengr says:

No, the end of October is the end of October, and everything else you say on that cannot change that very simple fact.
Is there a significant difference between Oct 29 and Nov 3? There might be if your wife’s birthday falls on one of the days, but is it really a sign of impending doom if winter sets in on Oct 29 one year and Nov 3 the next? It might be significant if it consistently fell on Oct 29 for the past 100 years and then gradually started migrating to Nov 29 over 50 years or so, but even that may not be a sign of anything other than a normal warming cycle.

richard says:

Didn’t see much about what God might think in the debate. Can I suggest a few strands to consider.
1. Greed – are we consumming far more than a reasonable share of the world’s resources in a way which would be unsustainable for us in the long-term, let alone if all the other people on the planet began to get even close to our level of consumption.
2. Stewardship – have we just trashed the planet. Did God really expect us to strip the place bare leaving a wreck for future generations – or are you rather hoping that Jesus is comming back soon and will clear the mess up for us.
3. Honesty – what’s the real issue – are you concerned that the science may be incomplete or just that you will have to reduce your profligate use of the world’s resources so the rest of God’s people (including those in NJ!) can have, at least, enough!

ucfengr says:

There is a corresponding practice known as oligopsony; this explains why nobody’s actually seen employment actually rise as a result of increases in the minimum wage.
I read your post and what I noticed was that the minimum wage was significantly below the prevailing wage for low-experience, low-skill jobs. As long as you set the minimum wage below the prevailing wage you aren’t going to have a problem, it’s when you start raising the minimum wage to significantly above the prevailing wage that you are going to have a problem. I also notice that most of the studies cited took place during the 1990s, a period of significant economic growth, it’s possible to assert that employment growth may have been even greater in the absense of the increase in the minimum wage.

Gordon Mullings says:

Onlookers:
While I will remark on M’s latest round of remarks, I think the more important focus is to identify key useful points that can be noted from this thread that provide useful guidance in addressing sceintific controversies with an ideological, political or policy tinge, as that is what is really productive.
I. Key points:
Below are some suggested lessons to be learned:

1] Science is inescapably provisional and subject to differences of qualified opinion: While it is common to see an appeal to “consensus” [not to mention ad hominems targetting those who beg to differ] to foreclose the inherently open-ended explanations that science offers, we should note that scientific knowledge and methods are always subject to correction in light of further observations and argument.
2] When science intersects with policy, that irreducible uncertainty can make a vital difference to policy choice: The reason why “consensus” is often posed in the teeth of lingering controversies, is that the different sides of the in fact unresolved argument make a difference for decisions on policy. In short, the fact of controversy is material to the decision process, so the all too commonly observed attempts to suppress factoring in the credible range of opinions offered by qualified scientists, is inherently an attempt to manipulate the outcome of deliberations and decisions on policy without hearing out both sides of the key issues.
3] The open knowledge of the existence of scientific uncertainties, limitations and controversies is therefore in the interests of policy makers and the public at large: It these factors exist and can make a difference, it is in our best interest to become aware of the existence and of the ways to evaluate the relevant arguments, which typically rest on the logic of inference to best explanation. In short, scientific censorship is not in the interests of the public.
4] Balanced summaries of debates and projection of “fans” of scenarios that capture the credible range of posible futures can help us identify policies that are robust across the range of reasonable possiblities: Here, we have a test for manipulative spin: if the dominant school on a given topic fails to provide a fair summary of the points of consensus and difference among qualified scientists, and a projection to a reasonable “fan” of possible futures in that light, then decisions and policies are unlikely to be robust against the uncertainties and limitations attending to the process. That is, they will quite likely prove unsustainable.
5]A sustainable policy process will therefore force consideration of the range of opinions and possible futures that make a difference tot he decisions to be made and policies and projects to be implemented: This is of course, glorified common sense, but sadly, that is too often a scarce commodity. To implement such a sustainable approach, it is necessary to properly scan the natural and human environments and trends [thus identify opportunities and threats], identify diverse stakeholders, engage an honest participative process of consultation and decision, and to make and implement robust decisions. [Cf discussion and suggestions on sustainable development here.]

–> Sadly, it is quite hard to meet this standard. But, for our own good, we had better.
II. On specific points:
1] M: No, the end of October is the end of October, and everything else you say on that cannot change that very simple fact.
–> UCF, Thanks for the support: Is there a significant difference between Oct 29 and Nov 3?
–> This one simple point captures the major problem at work here. Now, plainly, one month follows another, so the end of October is by definition juxtaposed to the beginning of November.
–> So, if there is a shift in the beginning of winter to a time that is “a lot later” then that means that warmer weather has to be appearing in: November. If the trend is so obvious that it can be casually observed, it will show up in the temperature trends for November. But, in fact, the pattern shown indicates no obvious change in that months’ [rather fluctuating] weather over a 130 year span.
–> And, givent he urban heat island effect, cycles, and the possibilities for other forcings we do not understand or know about, UCF is right to ask questions on the significance of an observed trend. [On this, I once saw a certain PhD scientist visiting a display at an environmental centre, observing uncorrected temp data for an airport in the vicinity of a city that had undegone rapid concretising ovetr the past 60 years, and say: isn't the rise in temp obvious . . . i.e. he did not know that here may be more to the story. Guess why?]
2] the word “apparent” implies, obviously, that there really is no controversy; and indeed there isn’t, except as manufactured by corporate funded think tanks, and the occasional conspiratorial layman, such as Daly.
–> Here is an attempt to rewrite the history of the scientific debates and suppress the fact that a significant number of dissenters challenged the IPCC’s dominant school, from 1991 on. Further to this, the cites above show that their challenge was not exactly without effect. [The onlookers should know that for instance the challengers have for instance included Bill Gray, the originator of the Hurricane number prediction equation, who has highlighted the significance of the North Atlantic Oscillation as a key explanatory factor in hurricane number and intensity trends.]
3] Let me add what you left on the cherry tree on that cherry-picked quote:
–> Notice the direct implication of dishonesty. But in fact it should be obvious that this cite was put forward by M, and so my task was to highlight what could easily be missed in the rush to the presentation of the “right” side of the issue. Onlookers can easily enough follow up the link to see the context, so I very properly highlighted what is being overlooked, as a balancing input. Excerpting from yesterday afternoon:

–> Notice how the second sentence begins: “Despite the apparent controversy . . .” — which of course implies that the “consensus” is by no means monolitic. So when it goes on to say in the next few words “the basic conclusion–that the global and hemispheric-scale warmth of the past few decades appears anomalous in a very long-term context–has stood up remarkably well in many independent studies (see Figure 1).” That should be understood as the claim of onse side of a dispute.
–> It then shortly goes on to observe: “This is not to say that all estimates agree in their details. Indeed, there is a fair scatter among the various published estimates.” That is there is material diversity in the data, which is driving some of the controversy among the relevant communities of scientists. It then goes on, again:

–> My purpose should be obvious, and it is plain that in fact there has been and contrinues to be a range ofd credible opinions on GE/CC and its statistical inferences and causal factors. The public and policy makers have a right to know this, and the insertion of adjectives of dismissal makes little difference, save to highlight the fact that dismissal of the other side of the story is what is going on — even as a grudging adjustment in light of the force of some of the arguments so adduced is happening.
4] Well, again, you’ve shown through your links that there is data global warming exists, even from the cherry picked data from the Cato Institute. So, like, all verbiage, cutting and pasting, ad hominem attacks, etc. aside, just what evidence do you have that the earth is either cooling or the temperature is remaining the same?
–> Ad hominems and strawmen again. Onlookers should note that the skeptics on the IPCC school’s claims have not disputed the fact that there are data trends in observed temps and proxies projected back into the past. What has been in dispute are things that M has consistently failed to address, things that were in fact excerpted to draw them to his attention.
–> Note also the underlying structure of the argument I am making: we are looking athte history of the appeal to alleged consensus, with the IPCC TAR of 2001 as a key exhibit. In so doing, we are highlighting how this appeal can easily mask material factors, evsn as it derides and dismisses those who raise questions about the dominant school’s claims. Then, later, we csan see wher e things have had to be adjusted over the past 5 years, as the recent blog post being discussed on climate change illustrates. [BTW on this Cato has had a greater flexibility in its discussion over the years than M's dismissals would lead you to infer. THat is, the evidence is that they are following what they think the credible evidence indicates, thoug for some things we may also be seeing a for the sake of argument position.]
–> Selecting a few of these points, from remarks on the IPCC 2001:

a]Duraton of warming trends: FS: [Ch 2] 12-23: Do not link the sea level rise to the increase of temperature. It is most likely the result of the slow melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet. It has been ongoing for some 15,000 years.
b] Model-Policy links: FS [Gen:] 2. Address Article 2 of the FCCC. What is the scientific meaning of

Sam says:

Matthew
Oil, on the other hand, does not seem to fit in the same category. Why do you claim oil is something we won’t run out of? Do you mean to say that energy supplies in general are inexhaustible, or are you talking specifically about oil itself?
Please note that I am not actually disagreeing with you, I am just trying to pin down your meaning.
Energy supplies are exhaustible when they are properly managed. Trees, oil, food, water, solar, and wind are all infinite resources. All differ in levels of production and availability at any given time but they are still considered a “flow resource”. Oil is inexhaustible when the demand is equal to the amount created by organic matter.

Gordon Mullings says:

Sam & Jerry:
A couple of quick points:
1] S: Why do you claim oil is something we won’t run out of? Do you mean to say that energy supplies in general are inexhaustible, or are you talking specifically about oil itself?
–> Strictly, the whole earth is a finite entity, mass ~ 6*10E24 kg [that's 6 followed by 24 zeros in kilograms (double to get it in pounds, roughly), or about 6 followed by 21 zeros tons], in a wider universe observed at ~ 10E80 atoms. “Infinite” means that for any given number we guess for the size of something, there is an arbitrarily higher number that can be applied and will still be less than the actual size . . . that is, there is no upper bound on the size.
–> Srictly, oil, coal etc are finite, but the issue is that there is enough of the material available that at projected rates of consumption, there are centuries of materials, providing it becomes economical to extract, e.g oil sands adn oil shales or really deep water oil fields.
–> But, I suspect that over the next several decades, the world will move away from these sources, for various reasons. I have suggested we need to look seriously at PBMR nuclear reactors over the next several years, and at hydrogen and fuel cells [especially for transportation, which is something like the no 2 line item on fossil fuel use, after electricity generation].
2] J: All I have to go on is the meager news reports coming in every week telling me that global warming is happening and it is caused by human activity. If I am being lied to then there must be some vast left-wing conspiracy going on involving most of the world’s scientists and politicos. Glaciers melting, ski resorts going broke, reefs bleaching, plants not taking up as much CO2. What am I, a poor semi-ignorant, semi-educated layman, to believe?
–> First, we need to distinguish between changes in weather patterns and associated phenomena — and, change is a dominant feature of our world — and the development and validation of credible theories that lead us to confidently conclude that the changes we see are materially human-induced.
–> For, there is a classic fallacy, usually abbreviated “post-hoc” i.e. “after this, so because of this.” In short, we can assume cause on inadequate grounds, and especially where the view is supported by those we look to for credible opinions, then we can get into deep trouble. For instance, it was not so long ago that it was inferred that since black people were often underacheivers in education and society, it was because of an inherent inferiority in our race’s genetic endowments. And, there were a great many cases of “dumb” and poor black people to support such an idea. Nowadays, most people realise that much of that was simply a false pattern of thinking, genersally called racism. But, for generations, it was a deeply held and stubborntly defended conviction.
–> So let us beware of the possibility of large scale post hoc reasoning, in a context where the unsettled nature of the underlying science is not ussually highlighteds in popular level, media and policy discussions. [I have given you a quick look at some of those uncertainties, limitations and debates in the above. Remember, that at EVERy time since this became a major topic att he turn of the 90's, one side has consistently been presented as the "consensus" -- and the evolution of that consensus in light of telling criticisms and further discoveries has not been underscored in the public and policy level discussions. Nor have the linkd issues of economic and technical challenges linked to doing a full Kyoto "now, now, now . . ." been properly and fairly discussed at these levels.]
3] What is going on, and what can we do?
–> What is happening is the ideologisation of science, coupled to the polarisation of the media culture in the US in particular. As a result, we often do not hear a balanced account that gives the limitations and uncertainties in the claimed “consensus” views — which too often are simply the views of dominant schools.
–> So, it is not a matter of grand conspiracies made in the proverbially smoke-filled rooms, but what happens when the politics of an issue and hostility and suspicion over assumed bad motives of “the other side” begin to dominate over a balanced assessment of the issues. This should be no surprise, as that noew seems to tbe the dominant mode in so much of public discourse adn deliberation on almost any issue of current interest. And since today’s scientists are seldom philosophically or historically literate — I think a solid intro to philosphy and history of science should be a compulsory course for every first year grad student in science [it isn't] — they are very vulnerable to the institutional politics that comes out in the above.
–> What ordinary people will have to do in such a context is to insist that they want to hear BOTH sides of the story, and will support only policies that are robust against the credible range of possible futures — that is, sustainable policies. Thus, I strongly suggest you may find this page on straight or spin games in the media and general public helpful, this one on the basics of scientific approaches, and this one on a basic philospher’s toolkit, if you want to look at it at the next step above that.
–> Personal observations of weather trends, anecdotal accounts of particular phenomena that seem to support a given story of what is happening, and the like are basically worthless in figuring out the overall pattern and dynamics behind a global, only partly understood process. At least, this thread may help to highlight that something has gone very, very wrong with public and policy level discussion onthis topic.
–> So, insist on hearing out both sides of an issue, from credible representatives on each side, and if one side is playing ad hominem games rather than focussing on the merits — or is tickling your ears with whatt hey think you want to hear — that is a bad sign.
–> I wish things were simpler than that, but they aren’t.
+++++++++++++
Grace, open eyes
Gordon
PS: Jerry: Your comment on the issue of design is also in need of a straight or spin review, too. Have a look at threads since Dec to see why. (Surprise, it is again an issue linked to the polarisatrion and ideologisation of science and public discussion. Why not look at the exchange with H in this thread?)