3 ms·

The conclusion as I understand it is: Since reversing climate change is a hard and expensive process, we should give up trying.

by ggrot 19y ago

DanielBMarkham 19y ago
"...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see..."
- timr 19y ago
  I'm confused....is the conclusion that we should listen to the one dissenting scientist in ten thousand because he gets a few column inches in the Wall Street Journal?
  - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
    From a scientific standpoint, we shouldn't listen to one scientist any more than we should listen to a thousand of them. Science is about models and reproducible experiments. Not consensus. Since this was an op-ed and not a description of a model or an experiment, it's about opinion and politics. I believe the conclusion is that some scientists have different opinions and political views than others, right?
    - timr 19y ago
      Indeed. 99.99% of the world's scientists, based on careful interpretation of many thousands of peer-reviewed studies, agree that global warming is real, and is caused by human activity. A vanishingly small handful of scientists happen to disagree with this assessment, based mostly upon their opinion and politics.
      - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
        Repeat after me: model and reproducible experiment, model and reproducible experiment. All science is provisional and must maintain falsifiability for it to be called science. Statements about how many scientists believe any thing, from phrenology to aether to gravity, is an interesting observation about the current opinions and politics of those who practice science. It is not science itself.
        timr 19y ago
        Thousands of peer-reviewed studies (that means models and experiments) have come to the conclusion that global warming is real, and is caused by human activity. It may be "interesting" that one guy in Alabama disagrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, but it's certainly no more interesting than the members of the flat earth society, or my great uncle Fred, who happens to think that radio waves cause cancer.
        DanielBMarkham 19y ago
        You said you were confused about the point of the article. I believe I have explained the purpose of op-eds. Now I believe you are trying get into a discussion about global warming. My suggestion is that if you are still confused, the topic of your confusion should be "why op-eds about my pet causes bother my sensibilities" I'm afraid I do not have an answer to that question. I'm not trying to be a flip with you, it just seems your initial post was not as clear as it could have been. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would like to argue global warming with you. I am not one of them.
        timr 19y ago
        The only "pet cause" that I have, is to debunk the notion that outsider opinions in science should be given consideration because they are in the minority. I'm sorry if you were confused by my use of rhetoric. However, it gave you a chance to lecture me on the properties of science ("models and experiments"), so perhaps it wasn't time wasted?
        deleted 19y ago
      - sethjohn 19y ago
        It is not true that there is overwhelming scientific consensus about the probability of climate change. While I would agree that most scientists think that it is most likely that "global warming is real", there is a great deal of uncertainty among even the worlds leading climate scientists about the probability of global warming. A few years ago I ran a betting game among students and faculty in the MIT climate program, the idea was to develop some feeling for the 'community consensus' of the likelyhood of global warming. The conclusion: ~71% chance of global warming over the next century. http://www.sethjohn.com/PAOC%20CFM/slide1.html http://www.sethjohn.com/PAOC%20CFM/slide1.html
        timr 19y ago
        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
        sethjohn 19y ago
        There are really a couple of separate issues here. First, it is important to distinguish between the general scientific agreement about past climate changes and the greater confusion about the probability of future climate changes. One of the main reasons why there is such broad agreement among the community is that scientists have tended to focus on the answerable questions such as "has the earth been getting warmer over the last X years" rather than the thornier question of "what caused the earth to get warmer" and "will the earth continue to get warmer." Very few scientific papers have been written that make predictions on the question of future climate. It is also important to remember that while there is generally scientific consensus that global warming is "probably" happening (whatever that means!) or that it is "probably" caused by humans, there is a great deal of uncertaintly about exactly what the probabilities are. If you could get all scientists to agree that there was about a 71% chance that the next century would be warmer, does that count as "scientific consensus that climate change is likely"?
anamax 19y ago
The economic argument from the AGW advocates (Stern report) is that we should spend $100 today to avoid spending $95 (or less) in the future.
- jey 19y ago
  Why or how is it going to get cheaper to deal with if we procrastinate?
  - anamax 19y ago
    The "cures" are frightfully expensive. The mitigations and costs are less so. (The "cures" do get less expensive as technology develops, but Stern didn't include that factor.) Read the Stern report. Notice the discount rate. (Stern does argue that it's appropriate to spend $100 now to avoid spending $95 in the future.) Or, maybe you want to argue that Stern is wrong about the economics. I think that he is, but not in a way that strengthens his conclusion that we should apply the cures now. (Yup - he's an AGW advocate and a commonly cited source for the economic argument.)

The conclusion as I understand it is: Since reversing climate change is a hard and expensive process, we should give up trying.

by ggrot 19y ago

The conclusion as I understand it is: Since reversing climate change is a hard and expensive process, we should give up trying.

DanielBMarkham 19y ago

"...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see..."

timr 19y ago
I'm confused....is the conclusion that we should listen to the one dissenting scientist in ten thousand because he gets a few column inches in the Wall Street Journal?
- DanielBMarkham 19y ago
  From a scientific standpoint, we shouldn't listen to one scientist any more than we should listen to a thousand of them. Science is about models and reproducible experiments. Not consensus. Since this was an op-ed and not a description of a model or an experiment, it's about opinion and politics. I believe the conclusion is that some scientists have different opinions and political views than others, right?
  - timr 19y ago
    Indeed. 99.99% of the world's scientists, based on careful interpretation of many thousands of peer-reviewed studies, agree that global warming is real, and is caused by human activity. A vanishingly small handful of scientists happen to disagree with this assessment, based mostly upon their opinion and politics.
    - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
      Repeat after me: model and reproducible experiment, model and reproducible experiment. All science is provisional and must maintain falsifiability for it to be called science. Statements about how many scientists believe any thing, from phrenology to aether to gravity, is an interesting observation about the current opinions and politics of those who practice science. It is not science itself.
      - timr 19y ago
        Thousands of peer-reviewed studies (that means models and experiments) have come to the conclusion that global warming is real, and is caused by human activity. It may be "interesting" that one guy in Alabama disagrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue, but it's certainly no more interesting than the members of the flat earth society, or my great uncle Fred, who happens to think that radio waves cause cancer.
        DanielBMarkham 19y ago
        You said you were confused about the point of the article. I believe I have explained the purpose of op-eds. Now I believe you are trying get into a discussion about global warming. My suggestion is that if you are still confused, the topic of your confusion should be "why op-eds about my pet causes bother my sensibilities" I'm afraid I do not have an answer to that question. I'm not trying to be a flip with you, it just seems your initial post was not as clear as it could have been. I'm sure there are lots of folks who would like to argue global warming with you. I am not one of them.
        timr 19y ago
        The only "pet cause" that I have, is to debunk the notion that outsider opinions in science should be given consideration because they are in the minority. I'm sorry if you were confused by my use of rhetoric. However, it gave you a chance to lecture me on the properties of science ("models and experiments"), so perhaps it wasn't time wasted?
        deleted 19y ago
    - sethjohn 19y ago
      It is not true that there is overwhelming scientific consensus about the probability of climate change. While I would agree that most scientists think that it is most likely that "global warming is real", there is a great deal of uncertainty among even the worlds leading climate scientists about the probability of global warming. A few years ago I ran a betting game among students and faculty in the MIT climate program, the idea was to develop some feeling for the 'community consensus' of the likelyhood of global warming. The conclusion: ~71% chance of global warming over the next century. http://www.sethjohn.com/PAOC%20CFM/slide1.html http://www.sethjohn.com/PAOC%20CFM/slide1.html
      - timr 19y ago
        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
        sethjohn 19y ago
        There are really a couple of separate issues here. First, it is important to distinguish between the general scientific agreement about past climate changes and the greater confusion about the probability of future climate changes. One of the main reasons why there is such broad agreement among the community is that scientists have tended to focus on the answerable questions such as "has the earth been getting warmer over the last X years" rather than the thornier question of "what caused the earth to get warmer" and "will the earth continue to get warmer." Very few scientific papers have been written that make predictions on the question of future climate. It is also important to remember that while there is generally scientific consensus that global warming is "probably" happening (whatever that means!) or that it is "probably" caused by humans, there is a great deal of uncertaintly about exactly what the probabilities are. If you could get all scientists to agree that there was about a 71% chance that the next century would be warmer, does that count as "scientific consensus that climate change is likely"?

anamax 19y ago

The economic argument from the AGW advocates (Stern report) is that we should spend $100 today to avoid spending $95 (or less) in the future.

jey 19y ago
Why or how is it going to get cheaper to deal with if we procrastinate?
- anamax 19y ago
  The "cures" are frightfully expensive. The mitigations and costs are less so. (The "cures" do get less expensive as technology develops, but Stern didn't include that factor.) Read the Stern report. Notice the discount rate. (Stern does argue that it's appropriate to spend $100 now to avoid spending $95 in the future.) Or, maybe you want to argue that Stern is wrong about the economics. I think that he is, but not in a way that strengthens his conclusion that we should apply the cures now. (Yup - he's an AGW advocate and a commonly cited source for the economic argument.)