by Judith Curry
Overall, the research reported here offers only limited support for viewing climate change as an important influence on armed conflict. However, framing the climate issue as a security problem could possibly influence the perceptions of the actors and contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Journal of Peace Research has a special issue Climate Change and Conflict. All articles are available online for the month of February. See this link for the table of contents that provides links to the individual papers.
The guest editor of the special issue Nils Petter Gleditsch provides an overview article Whither the weather? Climate Change and Conflict . Some excerpts:
Violence is on the wane in human affairs, even if slowly and irregularly. In recent years, however, pundits and politicians, along with a few scholars, have raised the specter that this encouraging trend towards peace might be reversed by environmental change generally and by climate change specifically.
Virtually all the articles in this special issue try to disentangle the causal chains between climate change and conflict.
Climate change is the world’s first truly global man-made environmental problem13and a firm warning that human activities can influence our physical environment on a global scale. The range of possible consequences of climate change is so wide, even for the limited temperature changes foreseen in the IPCC scenarios, that it is difficult to sort out the main priorities. Obviously, if a reversal of the trend towards a more peaceful world was one of these consequences, it should have a prominent place on the policy agenda. Based on the research reported here, such a pessimistic view may not be warranted in the short to medium run. However, framing climate change as a security issue may influence the perceptions of the actors in local and regional conflict and lead to militarized responses and thus perhaps contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The study of the relationship between climate change and conflict has advanced noticeably in the past five years. With regard to how changes in precipitation may influence internal conflict, the one area where we now have a fair number of studies, the dominant view seems to be that rainfall abundance is associated with greater risks than drought and that in any case other conflict-generating factors are more important. Studies of how climate change may promote interstate conflict over water resources also seem to point in the direction of a weak or a null relationship. On the whole, however, it seems fair to say that so far there is not yet much evidence for climate change as an important driver of conflict. In recent reviews of this literature, conclude that although environmental change may under certain circumstances increase the risk of violent conflict, the existing evidence indicates that this is not generally the case.
While we primarily hope that the studies presented here will have an impact on scholarly research in this area, they could also have an influence on policymaking. The IPCC is currently working on its Fifth Assessment Report, scheduled for release in 2013. For the first time, this report will have a chapter on the consequences of climate change for human security, including armed conflict . We hope that the studies reported here will contribute to a balanced assessment by the IPCC, built on the best peer-reviewed evidence.
I read most of the abstracts and a few of the articles. Here are some excerpts from a few of the abstracts (I didn’t select the regional articles, but the broader ones):
Berit Kvaloy, Henning Finseraas, and Ola Listhaug: The publics’ concern for global warming: A cross-national study of 47 countries
The data show that a large majority of the public in all countries are concerned about the problem of global warming and that this assessment is part of a broader concern for global environmental issues. The widespread concern implies that global warming has the potential to generate mass political participation and demand for political action. Variation across nations in wealth and CO2 emissions is not significantly related to the publics’ assessments of the problem, and, somewhat counterintuitively, people from countries relatively more exposed to climate-related natural disasters are less concerned about global warming.
Vally Koubi, Thomas Bernauer, Anna Kalbhenn, Gabrielle Spilker: Climate Variability, economic growth, and civil conflict
In this article we revisit the climate–conflict hypothesis along two lines. First, we concentrate on indirect effects of climatic conditions on conflict, whereas most of the existing literature focuses on direct effects. Specifically, we examine the causal pathway linking climatic conditions to economic growth and to armed conflict, and argue that the growth–conflict part of this pathway is contingent on the political system. Second, we employ a measure of climatic variability that has advantages over those used in the existing literature because it can presumably take into account the adaptation of production to persistent climatic changes. Our empirical analysis does not produce evidence for the claim that climate variability affects economic growth. However, we find some, albeit weak, support for the hypothesis that non-democratic countries are more likely to experience civil conflict when economic conditions deteriorate.
Drago Bergholt and Paivi Lujala: Climate-related natural disasters, economic growth, and armed civil conflict
This article uses econometric methods to study the consequences of climate-induced natural disasters on economic growth, and how these disasters are linked to the onset of armed civil conflict either directly or via their impact on economic growth. The results show that climate-related natural disasters have a negative effect on growth and that the impact is considerable. The analysis of conflict onset shows that climate-related natural disasters do not increase the risk of armed conflict. This is also true when we instrument the change in GDP growth by climatic disasters. These findings have two major implications: if climate change increases the frequency or makes weather-related natural disasters more severe, it is an economic concern for countries susceptible to these types of hazards. However, our results suggest that more frequent and severe climate-related disasters will not lead to more armed conflicts through their effects on GDP growth.
Rune Slettebak: Don’t blame the weather! Climate-related natural disasters and civil conflict.
This study focuses on how climate-related natural disasters such as storms, floods, and droughts have affected the risk of civil war in the past. The frequency of such disasters has risen sharply over the last decades, and the increase is expected to continue due to both climate change and demographic changes. Countries that are affected by climate-related natural disasters face a lower risk of civil war. One worrying facet of the claims that environmental factors cause conflict is that they may contribute to directing attention away from more important conflict-promoting factors, such as poor governance and poverty. There is a serious risk of misguided policy to prevent civil conflict if the assumption that disasters have a significant effect on war is allowed to overshadow more important causes.
Erik Gartzke: Could climate change precipitate peace?
This article examines the effects of climate change on international conflict subsequent to the onset of European industrialization. Surprisingly, analysis at the system level suggests that global warming is associated with a reduction in interstate conflict. This naive relationship is suspect, however, as the increased consumption of carbon-based fuels is itself associated with changing patterns of politics and prosperity. In particular, economic development has been viewed as a cause of both climate change and interstate peace. Incorporating measures of development, democracy, cross-border trade, and international institutions reveals that systemic trends toward peace are actually best accounted for by the increase in average international income. The results imply that climate change, which poses a number of critical challenges for citizens and policymakers, need not be characterized as fundamentally a security issue, though climate change may have important security implications on the periphery of world politics. The analysis here also suggests that efforts to curb climate change should pay particular attention to encouraging clean development among middle-income states, as these countries are the most conflict prone. Ironically, stagnating economic development in middle-income states caused by efforts to combat climate change could actually realize fears of climate-induced warfare.
JC comments: For background, previous threads on this topic include
- Climate change and security
- New report on climate change and security
- New research on the links between climate change and conflicts
- Climate refugees
“Violence is on the wane in human affairs, even if slowly and irregularly.”
Much like the rise in global temperature over the last 50 years?
So the biggest point is that, in a warming world, we’ll have less war.
Violence looms ahead unless leaders of nations and scientific organizations [UN IPCC, US NAS & UK RS] awaken to reality and cease the deception exposed by Climategate emails and documents in November 2009.
See this one-page summary of “The Sun – The nuclear furnace that made our elements and sustains our lives.”
If hyperlinks in the document don’t work, try
The experimental observations indicate nothing special about the Sun or the existence of life on the stellar debris that remained behind to orbit the pulsar after the Sun exploded five billion years (5 Gyr) ago.
Life may evolve naturally on other planets that formed this way throughout the universe. The axial geometry that we suggested in 1976 for the supernova explosion is now know to be commonplace, e.g., in the explosion of Supernova 1987A:
Although we didn’t know it in 1976, most stars probably have neutron-rich cores that direct the axial explosions shown above.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Already the propaganda war is in full swing:
Time magazine is again leading the way.
Selfishness is the root of violence and destruction of social organizations, just as cancerous cells eventually destroy the whole organism.
That is our current danger.
President Eisenhower warned of this danger to society if a federal “scientific-technological elite” took control of policy. Climategate confirmed his warning. See first and last videos of my career .
Jacques Costeau said, “All life-cycles are one,” and our studies  show that life-cycles coexist as one system with cycles of water and air on earth because:
a.) Excited neutrons in the solar core are being converted into atoms and releasing energy on the other side of the opaque photosphere, and
b.) Atoms from the solar core formed the earth and photons from the photosphere primarily power the cycles of life, oceans and air.
1. Video summary of career (1961-2011)
Somehow I think that if I want to now anything useful about war, the last place I would look would be a journal called The Journal of Peace Research. Just as, if I want to learn about the free market, the last place I would look would be in Das Kapital.
That said, these articles just seem to be the “peace researchers” attempt to get a slice of the massive climate research pie.
Well actually I found these articles to mostly NOT support much of a link between climate change and conflict. This was not what I expected from a journal named “peace.”
Gosh, I now have my future academic career mapped out. I will make a nice living out of publishing endless articles about things that are *not* linked to climate change.
Are there no depths of irrelevance to which academe will not stoop?
LA – and well should you, if it refutes the worse parts of the scare.
So on the basis of the journal’s title, you have a presumption that the authors presenting their research will have a bias and publish flawed research finding?
And of course, I’m sure that you similarly presume bias from research produced by the military, research produced by “skeptical” scientists, etc. I mean it’s not like your prejudice reflects any bias on your part.
Joshua, I had the same reaction i.e. that a journal called ‘Peace’ published a number of articles finding no connection between CC and conflict. I, like so many other people, get mental images of what I might expect before I dig in… it is not a character flaw if you actually read beyond your first impression, aborb the material and weigh it against other things you know and be surprised when, upon final assessment, it was not what you expected. Happens all the time to rationally thinking people. Are you suggesting Judith is incapable of rational thinking?
Joshua. we come to alll texts with priors. call it an expectation. if you happened upon a pile of mails labelled moshers mail there are certain things you might expect.
also judithsaid nothing about biased results. frankly if I read a journal called peace I would expect arguments tying war to climate change. its the cause of the moment. that doesn’t mean I think the articles will be flawed. rather if I find flaws I might suggest bias as a cause rather than stupidity
As I understand it, your point seems similar to that John made. I responded to him below (misplaced)..
My question is whether or not you would have been more likely to consider them flawed if they had reported different conclusions (prior to finding methodological flaws) – particularly in a journal titled “Peace” relative to a journal entitled, say, “The Mismeasure of Mann.”
Would you examine the methodologies of the papers in a journal titled “Peace” with the same level of scrutiny no matter the conclusions? Would you be more likely to accept the conclusions of these papers without intense scrutiny of the methodologies employed if they had different conclusions?
I only read the brief excerpts in your post, but I would agree that each of the summaries does suggest less linkage between climate and risk of war than I would expect from progressive advocates. But all but one of them include caveats that strongly suggest that more research must be done. (The exception being Bergholt and Lujala.) I must admit I read it with some humor in the vein of “we have done some preliminary research, and what we find may not provide support for CAGW remedies…yet.” (The climate equivalent of the Chicago refrain of “Nice store ya got here. Be a shame anything happened to it.”)
These quotes all suggest (to my mind) that “more needs to be done:”
“However, framing climate change as a security issue may influence the perceptions of the actors in local and regional conflict and lead to militarized responses and thus perhaps contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
“The widespread concern implies that global warming has the potential to generate mass political participation and demand for political action.”
“However, we find some, albeit weak, support for the hypothesis that non-democratic countries are more likely to experience civil conflict when economic conditions deteriorate.”
“The frequency of such disasters has risen sharply over the last decades, and the increase is expected to continue due to both climate change and demographic changes.”
“The results imply that climate change, which poses a number of critical challenges for citizens and policymakers, need not be characterized as fundamentally a security issue, though climate change may have important security implications on the periphery of world politics.”
My (admittedly biased) read – we haven’t found a strong linkage yet…but….
And I still wouldn’t go to the Journal of Peace Research to learn about war.
As far as learning about war, I guess I’d go to the War College.
I think you should re-read the first piece you quoted. It basically says, “there is no link (yet) so stop saying there’s one” – aimed at greens, primarily.
I think you miss para-phrase the first author’s conclusion. He wrote that claims that there is a strong linkage “may not be warranted in the short to long term” and that claiming a strong linkage “may” lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. He further wrote that “there is not yet much evidence for climate change as an important driver of conflict.”
“May not,” “not yet,” “may.” Hardly the resounding skeptical command that you rewrote. Oh, and he accepts CAGW as a given, like a good default progressive.
But either way, I am not sure how any of it contradicts the comment that I wrote? What precisely would I learn in a re-reading that would conflict with what I quoted verbatim?
Re-quoting for my own convenience:
“However, framing climate change as a security issue may influence the perceptions of the actors in local and regional conflict and lead to militarized responses and thus perhaps contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
IMO, while “influencing perceptions” leading to “militarized responses” seems like a strong claim on the importance of the climate issue at all, and while the qualifiers “may” and “perhaps” lessen the impact of the warning, I think this is still a warning (to the IPCC?) not to overplay the link between climate change and war.
In a world where the “scientific consensus” is often used to imply CAGW, requiring radical action, one of the reasons being the avoidance of conflict, it’s a good reality check and thus beneficial to the skeptical side.
Actually, Das Kapital is one of the first places to start to understand capitalism?
Are there any examples from the past where climate change has caused wars?
My first thought was along these lines, then I saw the conclusions of the papers.
Additional proof that I should learn about something sufficiently before coming to conclusions.
No. Good points. The important thing is that she corrected for her prejudices.
But let’s look at a hypothetical. Do you think that Judith would have given the same level of credibility to studies as methodologically sound as the ones in that journal had presented opposite conclusions in a journal called “Peace?” I tend to doubt it. Would she have then allowed her prejudices to affect her assessment of the veracity of the science?
Again, however, my questions to Judith aren’t so much that viewing “pro-consensus” research with a skeptical eye is unfounded. The problem that I have is when such skepticism is selectively applied.
“The problem that I have is when such skepticism is selectively applied.”
Ok… fair enough….
“Do you think that Judith would have given the same level of credibility to studies as methodologically sound as the ones in that journal had presented opposite conclusions in a journal called “Peace?” I tend to doubt it.”
Maybe not… but since that was not the case, we don’t really know and therefore can only guess… it’s speculation. Speculation of other peoples thoughts can be a slippery slope.
I could speculate your original comment was geared more toward provocation rather than reasoned inquiry, would I be wrong?
Uhhhh…. no comment? Is that a squirrel?
Although I’m a free market disciple myself, I think reading Das Kapital, and understanding its critiques on a free market economy would be essential to understanding all sides of the debate (eg the destructive effects of an amplifying biz cycle) . Just as if I wanted to learn about the link between Anthro and Global Warming, I wouldn’t just read the most pro-AGW source I could, as they would surely tend to negate any uncertainty in the models.
Looks to me like a tortured train of logic that is completely out of touch with reality and no doubt created to further scare the populace into going along with the “global-warming” crowd.
Wars are the result of the evil desires of a few to subjugate others to gain power and wealth. Always has been, always will be. Real or imagined “man-caused” climate change is irrelevant.
I believe the correct description is ‘hangers-on’. Maybe ‘rent-seeking’ or ‘camp followers’
Is there no field on academe where putting ‘climate change’ in your grant application raises ridicule rather than unzips the purse strings?
I look forward next to Martha’s indepth study of the feminist perspective on climate and peace studies.
LA – while there is some truth in what you say about academe and topics-of-the-day, did you read the abstracts. See Judith’s comment. The cynic would be expecting a “strong link”. The fact that one was generally not found is GOOD FOR SKEPTICS.
sorry bout the caps.
Nope I didn’t read them much. My remark was generally aimed at the idea that there should even be such a ‘field of study’ at all. Have they nothing better to do all day?
Before I started trying to study the climate change problem, I had a sort of residual warm fuzzy feeling about academics left over from my undergraduate days. But the more I learn about them and their antics the less and less remains. Compared with the people I worked with in technology, management, sales and engineering in my career in IT, they seem to be extremely petty-minded, very self-important and largely irrelevant. Studies like these – whether good or bad for sceptics – only reinforce this view.
I see where billc is coming from, but I agree with you that it is a bit baffling that such a ‘field of study’ actually exists. And the inverted commas are justified because they hint that the phrase itself grants undue legitimacy to the ‘researchers’.
In a way, even though we’re supposedly in a period of economic austerity [and 25,000 children die from preventable causes every single day] we are so awash with surplus cash that we can barely find a pointless academic study for it all.
By coincidence, I read yesterday that ‘expert researchers’ had found the theoretical limit to how fast a human being can run – 9.2 seconds for a hundred meters. Not content with increasing the sum of human ‘knowledge’ by using a model to produce such a random number, they show off their expertise [ignorance of reality?] by further predicting that this final definitive milestone will be achieved by 2037. It sounds to me like these ‘researchers’ could have successful (and lucrative) careers as climate modellers.
Someone should have asked them to predict the winners in the mens & womens 2038 Olympic 100 meter dash.
The headline writes itself.
World Disintegrates in Ball of Flame – Women and Minorities Hardest Hit
Or a candidate for the world’s most boring headline.
‘Global temperatures unchanged for a decade. No casualties’.
Little did I realise that within a year it would be superseded by
‘Global temperatures unchanged for 15 years’
But there were plenty of casualties as the True Believers performed some unnatural mental and scientific gymanastics trying to disprove this unwelcome observation. .
I think you are mis-reading this.
I would also argue that if there is any academic field where funding could be justified under the meme of climate change it is in this one. I believe a large number of us are here not because we think science has it wrong about getting warmer, but because it has been corrupted by policies and politics. I tend to think studying this will produce results which support our opinions.
i agree. and I would go further, and some of you may not agree, that study the issue of climate and war generally, may have some strategic significance, and thus be a sight more useful than predicting who will win the 100-meter dash in 2038.
personally, I think the issue is meriting attention, and I am pleased that the results suggest catastrophe is not likely. an ounce of prevention, blah blah blah…
Is it asking too much that the study of peace, war, and climate be tied to, say, the last 100 (or 500) years of actual historically-observed peace and war, as opposed to projective climate-peace-war computer models?
Using that standard, I’d guess that relation of war to observed climate (or weather) is approximately zero.
I can only nit-pick..
You say “approximately”. I think my choice might have been “indistinguishable from” but perhaps there’s room for a little disagreement?
One false meme leads to another. “Climate Policy = Energy Policy” being a ready example.
Lindsey Graham and John McCain being two examples of who should be wiped off the political map for their pandering swill and AGW appeasement.
Cold leads to ice, ice leads to dead crops, dead crops lead to disaster.
In the history of earth temperature, it gets warm, then cold, then warm, then cold. Warm leads to Cold and Cold leads to Warm. A natural stable cycle.
My small contribution was of the humorous kind:
got me banned from the ‘Real Climate’ despite the fact that Gavin received his PhD from the same University I got MSc some years earlier. I only hope that his sense of humour would improve with age.
Probably because it was not actually funny and was insulting to an individual.
Only holly I know is a prickly sort of bush loves loads of CO2, deprived of it would be dead, as the rest of us too; the CO2 is life giving very rare commodity (only 300 ppm) and as such should be celebrated.
I wonder is there something in the psychological make up of the ‘AGW people’ that makes them so doom laden and deprived of the precious god’s gift called ‘the sense of hummer’.
I appreciate your humor, Vukcevic. Before government funds appeared on the scene, honest science had shown that:
a.) Sunlight + CO2 + Plants => Food for Animals
Beneath the opaque photosphere (the source of sunlight) we now know that:
b.) Neutrons => Atoms (H, He, etc) => Photosphere
The chronological order in the conversion of nuclear rest mass into life:
b.) Neutrons evolved into atoms on one side of the opaque photosphere.
a.) Atoms evolved into plant life that supports animal life – like you and me -on the other side of the photosphere.
Those processes continue today and cause continuous changes in Earth’s climate and also the continuous evolution of life.
Big Brother tried to avoid reality by hiding experimental data for the last four decades (1971-2011), as shown above. Big Brother has little or no sense of humor about being caught.
It’s amazing what nonsense is being published and tolerated when climate change is invoked.
Here’s some future suggestions for similar articles
Theology: ‘Climate change’s uninfluence on modern interpretations of the Pentateuch’
Engineering : ‘How did climate change influence Stephenson’s choice of railway gauge at 4ft 8 1/2 inches?’ (answer : not at all).
Contemporary Recreational Studies: ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming..Tracing its influence on the evolution of the design of today’s Olympic Approved Hockey Stick’.
the list is near endless…..
Gaia is not mocked 8)
‘Gaia is not mocked’
Oh yes she is, buster. But more particularly her devoted acolytes. Such a target-rich environment for ridicule and pomposity puncturing.
For all the above comments decrying that this journal/issue/field even exists, pause to consider (the post starts with the first couple):
“Based on the research reported here, such a pessimistic view may not be warranted in the short to medium run. ” (pessimistic = AGW bad for peace)
“However, framing climate change as a security issue may influence the perceptions of the actors in local and regional conflict and lead to militarized responses and thus perhaps contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
i.e. AGW scares could be worse than reality
“On the whole, however, it seems fair to say that so far there is not yet much evidence for climate change as an important driver of conflict. In recent reviews of this literature, conclude that although environmental change may under certain circumstances increase the risk of violent conflict, the existing evidence indicates that this is not generally the case.”
-An alarmist smack-in-the-face.
“We hope that the studies reported here will contribute to a balanced assessment by the IPCC, built on the best peer-reviewed evidence.”
-Not too subtle.
I’m going to be accused of thinking everyone else here has a reading comprehension problem but holy crap people, really!?
I’m betting Joshua will be along soon to show how this journal is in fact a well-funded denialist publication or has been hijact by the deniers.
Bill, I agree, the comments from skeptics do not seem commensurate with what was actually said in the post (and in the articles).
It’s the middle of the day in the USA, slow going ;)
The tone of the editorial is rather direct for a scientific pub. Good for them.
I would expect Martha, Joshua, Louise etc. to be complaining about this, not the skeptics
Dr Curry – you seem to be under the mistaken belief that the ‘skeptical’ denizens would read anything past the title of the journal to form their opinions. Well, now you know better, it’s just a pity they don’t.
good one, louise :)
But first we have to stop laughing. That’ll take a while.
There is plenty of hubris in the article and premise, no surprise skeptics are sensitive to such presentations;
“However, framing climate change as a security issue may influence the perceptions of the actors in local and regional conflict and lead to militarized responses and thus perhaps contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Sure, if a big chunk of the world is encouraged to go on binge of fanaticle green excess and delusions it could encourage conflicts. The issue is the climate delusions in peoples minds not the actual climate.
Only radicals and green panderers can present climate “policy” as a security policy being the main point.
“good one, louise ?
Tell me this is sarcasm.
What is that supposed to mean? Please point to an example of something that I’ve done that you think would be consistent with that prediction.
I have asked Judith often why she discounts the potential impact of tribalism on one side but not the other. I have never, however, selectively discounted sophisticated research from anyone simply on the basis of presumptions of bias. I think that all research should be viewed with a skeptical eye towards the potential effects of “motivated reasoning” or other biases – but I have never said that bias exists in research merely from presumptions based on where the conclusions presented fit into the climate debate spectrum.
It’s interesting to watch how, once again, my perspective has been twisted – such as I have pointed out so frequently when “skeptics” wrongly make assumptions about my perspective on global warming.
I mean taking a sarcastic shot is all fair game, billc – but at least you should have some basis for the shot. I’m pretty surprised to see this coming from you.
Here’s how this could have played out in an alternate universe:
BillC: “blah” (what I said)
Joshua: “wtf. you gotta be kidding”
Back to reality, I was *mostly* kidding. However, your prolific profile (?) on this blog makes you sort of a bigger target than others.
Seriously, if you googled this journal and found that its editorial board consisted mainly of people who had self-declared to be climate skeptics going back many years, wouldn’t you have brought it to our attention? I almost looked, because I was surprised at the conclusions, but I considered the possibility too slight to be worth probing.
Yes I, like Judith, was surprised at the conclusions, simply because in my estimation, any headlines I have seen regarding the possible link between climate change and conflict usually tout significance. I could be wrong. See even Fred Moolten’s comment “The conclusions drawn appear to depend in part on the choice of metrics.”. I am surprised no skeptics have responded to that comment saying, “Oh sure, you warmist, want to downplay these findingd.”
I would have brought it up if no one had mentioned that the board had a notable orientation in the climate debate. Otherwise, not. I would not say that their work should be dismissed simply on the basis of their orientation.
If your wtf? statement were in isolation, it would be just a wtf? statement. But such mistaken characterizations of my perspective happens all the time here. As such, it is instructive. Why are people making incorrect assumptions about my perspective? Especially since they self-identify as “skeptics?” The fact that you did it also is kind of interesting. If someone like hunter had done it, it would just be another mischaracterization to add to a very long list. Usually, however, you’re much more careful than that.
The problem I have is when Judith notes such affiliations only on one side of the debate. For example, why does she ignore the tribal orientation of LIndzen (analogizing environmentalists to eugenicists, climate scientists to Lysenko, etc.) or McKitrick (calling people “groveling, terrified cowards) when she talks about their work? Does she similarly neglect to mention that “pro-consensus” scientists call people “deniers” when she discusses their work?
i haven’t quit being careful
I have told Martha in the past that I think that sometimes, she allows tribalism to diminish the quality of her analysis. That said, she didn’t say that the authors work should be dismissed because of his larger orientation, just his larger orientation is relevant to the discussion. In my view, “skeptics” have it right when they say that orientation should be considered as relevant to the discussion. That’s why I first came to this blog when I heard Judith speaking to the relevance of tribalism. Where some “skeptics” have it wrong is that they want to consider the relevance of orientation only on one side of the debate. And that is why I have been disappointed to find that Judith seems to have a similarly selective interest in tribalism.
The question I have is why you are used what Martha does to characterize what I do?
going back to my initial comment, I think that if you found out that this was in fact a bunch of skeptics talking you would definitely have pointed it out, with glee. take my comment in the context that I am allowing for that prior to be a possible reality, and Martha’s comment serves to provide partial confirmation. enough about this. i still am disappointed in this whole thread. is it not possible to be both a liberal and a skeptic? i guess the answer is, better keep ma’ mouth shut.
We’re repeating ourselves, but I want to do so again because it seems that you’ve missed my point.
Yes, I would likely have done as you said. It is more than a possibility – I’d say it is a probability – but only if Judith (or others) had failed to note that the authors were in fact a bunch of “skeptics.”
My problem is when people are selective in considering the relevance of orientation. It is rarely dispositive, but it should always be considered as relevant. We know that motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc., are inextricably linked to the human reasoning process. The only way to control for those biases is to acknowledge than and try as best as we can to take them into consideration. It’s a messy process.
my point was, it could be real, in which case my prediction would have been correct. as it wasn’t real, my prediction was false. instead, martha, a different commenter with a different POV, pointed out something different about the authors.
ergo, i gambled and lost.
with hindsight being what it is, i would not make that comment now that martha has spoken (http://pbskids.org/martha/)
I read all the excerpts above befors I commented. Billc, I disagree. Itdoesn’t matter whether the conclusions are pro AGW or pro sceptic.
All these war&climate ‘researches’ are so absurd they should never be permitted in polite society. It speaks tons aboutacademia nowadays that they are unable to throw out this risible rubbish.
Academia these days drips with unconscionable behavior. The blur between rational science and pseudo science is growing. Most are educated beyond their ability for rational thought, they end up mimicking like parrots the rhetoric that is dished up to them.
Now that we are into a second generation of mimickers, they have become lost and unable to think conceptually, there is a reliance on producing factual nonsense, derived from a lazy intellect, masters at spinning data into ideology, not theory.
Partial thought is rampant, the presentation of predictions with copious amounts is just an excuse, cutting, pasting and interpreting data is not a practice of good scientists.
univocalness is the principle that gives a general theory. Certainly, under determination should be used for general exploration of a physical phenomenon, but if there is not one definitive theory amongst a cohort of physics disciplines that provide a representation of nature by determining for itself an isomorphic set of models, then it should not be accepted without scepticism.
When concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens, then they might come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors.
Methodology is artisan, you can see variations of interpretations over plots, trends ad multivariate data. Methodology should not take a deterministic stand, it must be supported by the history and philosophy of science. So many people today – and even professional scientists – seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest.
A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is – in my opinion – the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Albert Einstein to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944)
It is good that more and more researchers are willing to stand up and point out that CO2 is not the cause of all the world’s evil.
This recent article was a nice contrast to some of the rent seeking fear mongering articles that AGW promoters have issued over the last several years.
thanks I needed that
Agreed…. I thought the articles were going to descend into the typical CAGW fear mongering. I was really surprised to see the majority opinion was one of; ‘there is no connection between climate change and conflict’. I would have bet a lot against that result…. good thing I don’t gamble :)
Nothing here at all. I got as far as “Climate change is the world’s first truly global man-made environmental problem.” Then I wrote this.
for that matter, that statement is wrong as ozone depletion was the first. regardless of your opinion of it…
What about fire ?
Sorry – the environment was only discovered in 1974 so fire does not count.
I also found the statement “Climate change is the world’s first truly global man-made environmental problem.” to be overly pretentious and downright unconvincing.
The doorbell rang on a wintery night and I opened the door to speak with a young person, button on her lapel, and a petition in hand whose purpose was to close a local coal fired power plant causing global warming. She requested I sign the petition, contribute $25 to the cause, and accept a handout brochure outlining the death train coal car issue. As she stood there I held the storm door open as she spoke, and watched her begin to uncontrollably shiver and her voice began to quiver. She was showing the visible signs of hypothermia. My thoughts leapt to images of my daughters at this person’s age, out at night with a petition to legalize marijuana. I wanted to invite my doorbell ringer into my home even though I was home alone that night. I didn’t. I did the same thing for my doorbell ringer as for my own children: listened, said I would not sign, I would not contribute and asked if there were anything else they wanted. Tough love.
With the greens I encounter, I politely listen, try to see them as people and withdraw any support I may have provided in the past, I don’t renew subscriptions, I certainly don’t contribute money. I speak to my neighbors, talking about the weather. I do provide my opinion when asked; and when confronted by a death train coal car advocate, I simply say the issue is not worth fighting about. Time will tell if there will be warming or cooling, and personally I am not in any hurry or mood to rush headlong into speculations about the weather.
On the global economy and war issues, I realize that I, like many others have a hard time predicting the future. Witness the recent plethora of natural gas found in the USA, energy literally just to be picked up. The price of natural gas now $2.50/mbtu and just think, 2 years ago it was $14/mbtu. Who would have thunk it? If and when the Keystone Pipeline gets built, I don’t envision a conflict with our Northern neighbor: Canada. Gas & Oil; nuclear & coal, there is very little of an energy issue here in the USA to go to war about. As for others? Well, as has been nation’s leader’s want, they have miscalculated their neighbors intent or coveted their neighbors resources and gone to war on almost any pretext; energy is just about as good as any other.
Now the European greens have set the stage for a trade war with China &/or North American over a carbon tax on airline flights. Everyone will be the loser on this one unless the usual long and drawn out negotiation process already in place is used, as I suspect, the currently freezing their buts off cooler heads will prevail. See ya’ greens.
I met a green on the streets of SF. I explained to her that she didn’t want to talk to me. she insisted. 15 seconds later she was fumbling with her phone trying to google an argument. At some point she said Koch Koch Koch.
sounded like a 5150 to me.
That wouldn’t, by chance, be the death trains of coal that will be rolling through Washington to the proposed Bellingham shipping terminal?
The opponents want the NEPA review to include impacts of burning the coal in China.
“Dr Curry – you seem to be under the mistaken belief that the ‘skeptical’ denizens would read anything past the title of the journal to form their opinions. Well, now you know better, it’s just a pity they don’t.”
Speaking of pompous and delusional…….case in point.
The latest articles, cited in the post, appear to be part of a running controversy ignited mainly by Marshall Burke’s PNAS article in 2009 – see, e.g., Climate Change and Armed Conflict. The conclusions drawn appear to depend in part on the choice of metrics. My impression, as someone not very familiar with the evidence, is that unequivocal findings that will resolve the issue are unlikely to emerge any time soon.
“Climate change” (aka “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”) is likely to enhance global conflict –
by diverting attention and funds away from our critical need to transition to alternative/new fuels.
Consequently there will be greater conflict over declining light crude resources – with the rich pressing down poor by bidding up the price of fuel.
I agree that the price of fuel has a huge impact on standards of living in all regions of the world, and that IF there were a dramatic rise in energy prices, we would see more conflict.
I doubt, however, that this will happen except under artificially contrived shortage conditions – a FORCED abandonment of fossil fuels, coupled with continued fearmongering and resulting avoidance of nuclear solutions.
Re: “IF there were a dramatic rise in energy prices,”
Look at the evidence. We have already seen a 400% increase in AVERAGE crude oil prices from $25/bbl to $100/bbl. On top of that, speculators spiked prices to $147/bbl – after which they dropped to $33/bbl before OPEC cut production to rapidly bring them back above $80/bbl. At $100/bbl, OPEC is raking in $1 trillion/year plus as much to non-OPEC oil firms. That extra $1.5 trillion out of the global economy is directly behind the EU and US economic crises.
Each $10 increase in crude oil costs cuts $35 billion from US discretionary income. Economist James Hamilton shows the US economy lost $5 trillion, dropping from projected growth into recession between Aug 2007 and Nov 2008 due to higher oil prices. For details see Hamilton Causes and Consequences of the 2007-08 Oil Shock Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2009: 215-259
Hamilton shows that oil shocks preceeded 10 of the 11 US recessions since WWII. Oil Prices, Exhaustible Resources, and Economic Growth
Actuary Gail Tverberg observes that Three Major Journals Publish Articles on Limited World Oil Supply. e.g., In Nature, Climate Policy: Oil’s Tipping Point has Passed, by James Murray and David King
The US DOD 2010 Joint Operating Environment report warned:
Today’s failure to provide abundant alternative/new fuels will increase the global economic depression that will provide the breeding grounds for new totalitarian regimes.
The only reason we are not seeing higher increases in oil prices is “demand destruction” caused by high oil prices depressing economies.
Shortages of fuel directly increase the likelihood of conflict where climate has at best a very weak influence. You ignore reality at your peril and that of our next generation.
This is an opinion piece from today in the GulfNews by a former OPEC employee
This is at least partly the way they view the west. Note the subtle implications of conquests over oil,
Thanks for that link. See Al Fathi’s previous Debate rages on when oil will peak
Hey, oil is going to disappear about the same time as the Himalayan glaciers. What a coincidence.
What is it about the year 2035?
Distinguish “oil” into light crude oil, heavy oil, bitumen, and oil shale.
US 48 states light oil peaked in 1970 and is now less than half of the peak.
There is a trillion bbl of shale oil in Colorado. The challenge is how to get it out. Similarly plenty of bitumen (“tar” aka “oil sands”) in Alberta. The challenge is accessing it fast enough and cost effectively.
Obama refuses to import it because it is “dirty”. He would rather we lose our jobs, and borrow from the Chinese to support his government bloat.
David L. Hagen,
I am no more convinced by peak oil alarmism than I am by CAGW alarmism. Yes, sharp rises in oil prices have contributed to recessions in the U.S. But excessive government spending, taxation and regulation have had a far greater negative effect.
The European populace has been burdened by gasoline prices double or more of what we in the US have been paying for decades. But it is only the profligate redistributionist policies of their governments that have brought countries like Greece to the brink of bankruptcy. Notice that no one is talking about lowering energy taxes in Greece to deal with the crisis?
Our economy will adjust as prices increase, so long as progressives aren’t successful in using the increases to meddle even further in the economy. And yes, even for the poor. Increased prices make those alternative carbon fuels recoverable. To the regret of those so desperate to increase government control of the economy.
Notice how David does not use inflation adjusted dollars to hype hide the falseness of his claim about energy prices.
You wrote: “by diverting attention and funds away from our critical need to transition to alternative/new fuels.”
Imo the lack of use of alternative new fuels is a function of price. It is not a lack of attention or that the government spent too much money funding bad programs.
Economies function robustly during periods of low cost energy.
Re “Economies function robustly during periods of low cost energy.”
Conversely, economies function poorly under high transport fuel prices.
The issue is not so much “energy” as transport fuel.
Modern economies hardly function at all without transport fuel.
Germany’s war effort collapsed when its coal to fuel factories were destroyed. War with Japan was precipitated by US oil embargo trying to constrain Japan, (not by rapid “climate change”).
Re: “It is not lack of attention .. .”
There most definitely is a lack of attention to the rapid transitions we are being forced into. See Robert Hirsch 2005 which was ignored.
Very rapidly increasing fuel prices brought on the housing crisis and the 2008 and 2010 economic crises and the EU crisis. Dig into the underlying causes as exposed by James Hamilton. Try to comprehend the magnitude of the changes needed as shown by Robert Hirsch, 2011. The consequences of “climate change” are remote, uncertain, and negligible by comparison.
“Catastrophic climate change” is only slightly more likely than an invasion by space aliens.
“Peak oil” is a cyclical popular delusion that has been coming and going from the public square for over 100 years.
The biggest threat to world peace is thieving governments around the world squandering the treasure of their respective nations on idiocratic and corrupt causes.
While I agree that “climate change” alarms have been exaggerated, I recommend studying the issues regarding the cumulative statistics of oil production before further exposing your ignorance.
See The Oil Drum
Our Finite World
Hunter, you say the problem is “squandering the treasure”.
No matter who does it, benevolent democracies or corrupt regimes, that is what the concept of peak oil boils down to. So we squandered it to advance our causes, either selfish or charitable, and at some point we have to count the beans that we have left. You might not like it, but that’s what policymakers do.
It is not oil depletion but total fossil fuel depletion that is critical.
No, the point about peak oil that you cannot seem to address is that it is a fantasy.
The public treasure is the wealth that hard and smart work created and that governments around the world are on the verge of destroying on a scale unprecedented in history.
It not “alarmism” but the practical pragmatic issues of the magnitude of the rapid transition being forced on us by nature. Please begin reading about the logistics required.
See Aleklett’s new book: Peaking at Peak Oil by Springer.
The IEA now expects the current 80 million bbl/day “liquids” production to decline to 15 million bbl/day by 2035!
With population growing at 1.2%/year, providing even 1.5%/year per capita global growth would require another 60% increase or 50 million bbl/day.
Together that would require 135 million bbl/day of new hydrocarbon “liquids” production by 2035 alone.
To recover and convert oil sands into a syncrude requires about $100,000 /bbl/day production. i.e. we would need ~$14 trillion invested from now to 2035 into alternative fuels to bring about this transition. That’s $600 billion/year or $12 billion/week.
That is not yet happening. Robert Hirsch warned that it would take about 20 years to ramp up before the peak to prevent a major down turn.
The “plateau” (aka “peak”) is now upon us – and that 20 years preparation has not happened.
What do you propose we transition to?
How do you propose to do so?
In a timely manner?
Do you wish to go to work?
Lemmings rushing off a cliff are also unconcerned in their group think.
David l. Hagen,
I love it when progressives tell others to read more. If only we read this book, or that article, we would see the brilliance of their desperate attempts to restructure the world economy based on their own latest theory of impending catastrophe.
I don’t need to read any particular book to know there are more than enough fossil fuels available to sustain the world economy for the foreseeable future. Do they become more expensive as the easier sources now available? Sure. But no where near as expensive as pouring trillions of dollars down the commode of “renewable energy.”
Progressive lemmings have come up with one chicken little scenario after another in my life time, all of which were proof that we had to hand the reins of the economy over to them. Y’all have done wonders for Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal. You can dress you progressivism up as any type of science you want, it’s no sale.
Answer your own questions, with respect to “renewables.
What do you propose we transition to?
How do you propose to do so?
In a timely manner?
Do you wish to go to work?
And I’ll add one – How do we do it without keeping the third world in unending poverty?
Gary, You have David pegged wrong. He is a very thoughtful conservative who is careful about collecting all the information available. He does that for AGW as a skeptic and fossil fuel as a realist.
I have no problems with that and look at most of the links he provides as there is always something interesting to glean from them.
Re: How do we do it without keeping the third world in unending poverty?
By providing abundant transport fuel cheaper than OPEC’s crude oil, faster than population growth and oil depletion
(and by adapting to whatever climate happens to do).
In the interim by enhancing recovery of crude oil and other hydrocarbons.
In the long term by synthesizing fuel via concentrated solar thermal energy.
And I’m working on ways to do that!
PS Thanks WebHubTelescope for correcting missperceptions.
You wrote: “By providing abundant transport fuel cheaper than OPEC’s crude oil, faster than population growth and oil depletion”
My question: how are you suggesting this be done? Are you suggesting that developed countries provide fuel below the cost to produce it? If anyone can invent such a fuel they will certainly be wealthy beyond their dreams, but I don’t see it happening in other than dreams
The problem with your sources is they all assume stasis in our ability to produce hydrocarbons. As the current boom with fracking shows (and the incipient boom in shale oil from fracking shows), innovation keeps changing the rules. How long does a transition take? It depends on how motivated we get. Which depends on how high the price goes. In other words, it’s a negative feedback loop. And the negative feedback loop isn’t just limited to our growing ability to recover hydrocarbons. If that doesn’t work, we’ll see other pressure valves start to go off. Nuclear power will start to look mighty appealing as a way to heat our homes when we’re paying 50 cents a kwh.
In fact, that’s basically the history of human civilization. We’ve broken through a half-dozen earlier energy crises, each time by switching to a new and better power supply, each time at exactly the point where our earlier power supply has become cost-prohibitive. The failure to plan for “peak whale oil” isn’t taught in social studies as an avoidable catastrophe, not because it never happened, but because it wasn’t a catastrophe.
In short, no doubt you’re right that someday we’ll hit peak oil. Even if the non-biogenic theory proves right, demand will eventually outstrip the supply. But there’s no reason for us to worry about that. The free market automatically “plans” our most efficient path through the ever-changing parameters of our demand for energy.
You have David pegged correctly: Just another catastrophist wanker.
Web, David, Hansen, Gore, Malthus: flim flam artists selling bs- some on large stages, others on very, very small stages.
Sometimes they even believe their bs- who can tell?
Like Jehovah’s Witnesses peddling the return of Christ in 1975, when the prediction passes, they just pretend they never made it and move the goal post to the next prophetic pile of bs.
As far as pegging, I am finding out that many of the commenters on this site are former gamblers who have to fulfill that need to bluff their way to a “win”. I card-count Rob Starkey, pokerguy, and Anteros as commenters who flaunt their gambling talent, and I wonder how many more there are out there. Then there are commenters like Don Montford who gambled in the markets. The problem is that these commenting boards are so gamed by people trying to push their own personal agenda that it turns you suspicious into everyone’s motives.
In any case, that’s why I tend to take a dry math and statistical view, bordering on bean counting, to many of these issues. And this is more an outgrowth from my interests in baseball stats and pseudo-science debunking growing up. If you have problems with my work, don’t worry, as it will be falsified as necessary by the passage of time.
I suspect our definitions of conservative are markedly different. You probably think both Bushes, McCain, Dole, Ford, Nixon and Romney are conservatives. And by that definition (big government Republicans) David Hagen might well be a “conservative.” But I don’t know a single genuine conservative (as that term is defined by conservatives) who advocates for expansive government policy based on CAGW or peak oil.
David L. Hagen,
What do you mean by “By providing abundant transport fuel cheaper than OPEC’s crude oil, faster than population growth and oil depletion?”
If by “provide” you mean make available, then that is the status quo. Oil markets are wide open. If by “provide” you mean give, free of charge, that is not only bad economic policy (and completely progressive by the way), but bad for the targeted countries. Poor governance is the primary cause of poverty in the third world (I don’t use “developing world” because too many of those kleptocratic socialist paradises are not developing at all.) Protectionist trade policies driven by trade unions and crony capitalists being the second greatest cause. Shipping billions of dollars worth of fossil fuels to be stolen by the socialist dictator du jour is a bad idea.
“In the interim by enhancing recovery of crude oil and other hydrocarbons.” Well there I agree with you. I am all for drill baby drill.
As for research into “concentrated solar thermal energy,” if there is a way to economically derive energy from solar, I have much more faith in the research efforts of private companies with an incentive to make a real cost benefit analysis, and risk their own money, than I would in government directed “no such thing as a failed program” research.
It is true that I used to play poker full time for reasonably high stakes. That does not mean I approach issues differently than other engineers. I look at the supporting data for a position. Imo- You frequently write long comments that appear to sound scientific, but actually are largely nonsense.
Personally, I have zero personal agenda on the topic of climate change other than that I wish the decisions on policy to make sense.
I don’t think we understand the actual rate of warming as a function of CO2, and I don’t think we have models that can reliably predict long term future conditions. I prefer to stick to facts. Unless you understand these points, it really does not make sense to implement any drastic CO2 related policies.
Web—do you think we KNOW what the rate of warming will be as a function of CO2? (without a margin of error that makes the estimate meaningless)
I seriously doubt you think we have effective GCM’s. You are brighter than to claim we do.
Re: “that developed countries provide fuel below the cost to produce it?”
No. By reducing the cost to produce the fuel below all other fuels, and by increasing the volume sufficient to reduce the price of fuel.
Re: “wealthy beyond their dreams”
You dream too small. The fuel needed over the next 40 years will nominally be worth ~$100 trillion.
Re: “I don’t see it happening in other than dreams”
Engineers dream in detail. The methods will become public when the fuels go into production and/or patents are published.
However you may not see it.
Re: “Do they become more expensive as the easier sources now available? Sure. . . . trillions”
Look at economics of products under inelastic demand. What portion of you income would you be willing to pay to get to work when fuel shortages hit and you lose your job if you don’t get there?
See James Hamilton above. The cost of oil has already dropped US GDP by $5 trillion below the rate it would have been at otherwise. Try to study and grasp the magnitude and implications of the trends reported by Hamilton and Hirsch rather than flippantly dismissing them.
Try actually reading James Hamilton above and look at his graphs and statistics on production peaking for each of the US states.
Yes new technologies can open up new resources. But that develops another set of logistic Hubbert type peaks by resource by region. It does not change the hard rule of physics/geology under the previous regime.
Try reading and understanding WebHubTelescopes long document.
As for prophecies, see John B. Payne, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy. Baker 1976. He documents 1817 entries on Biblical predictions covering 8,352 verses. You might be surprised at the historical probabilities of Biblical prediction and fulfillment.
Do you really want to go down the road of biblical prophecy as a support for the idea of peak oil?
Catastrophists are always declaring the apocalypse/end to be just over the horizon, no matter how often they have to move the horizon. I grew up a believer in catastrophist end-of-whatever. I had a first edition of Ehrlich’s bilge. I sat in the room with respected geophysical types in the 1970’s declaring how we would be peaking oil by 1985 or so. My grandfather knew people appointed by President Wilson to design a policy for how to deal with the imminent end of oil by the mid-1920’s.
Don’t give me this “look at the charts’ bs. Catastrophists always have cool charts and graphs to ‘prove’ their prophecy.
The real catastrophe is the one unfolding right now: the taking of resources and their squandering by irresponsible, wasteful and ignorant government officials.
OMG–You post a link referencing bible verses as your plan to produce fuel? You are kidding
<blockquote.Personally, I have zero personal agenda on the topic of climate change other than that I wish the decisions on policy to make sense.,
You seem like a nice-enough guy, and I have no reason to believe that you have any more of a personal agenda (other than simply wanting policies to make sense) than the next climate debater. but no one has “zero personal agenda” (outside of simply wanting policies to make sense) in debating topics that have social, economic, cultural, and political underpinnings. Some people may certainly have less of a partisan agenda than others, but a sure sign that someone’s out of touch with their own agenda is when someone claims that they have “zero” agenda.
Everything that we know about psychology and how people reason contradicts that statement.
David L. Hagen,
Just as progressives who hang their hats on CAGW as the cause for every evil in the world, you do the same with peak oil.
“Very rapidly increasing fuel prices brought on the housing crisis and the 2008 and 2010 economic crises and the EU crisis.”
You’re the guy whose only tool is a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail. And I don’t take reading suggestions from myopic fanatics.
Rob Starkey, hunter & GregM
The reference to Payne is for evidence on the historical validity and fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. It had nothing to do with peak oil or geological statistics.
See Wikipedia on peak oil for some links to statistics.
Sam Foucher at graphoilogy.com provides a spread sheet of megaprojects. so you can evaluate the statistics yourself if you have the courage.
Steve Mohr obtained his PhD on modeling fossil resources.
See: Steve Mohr’s Thesis: Projection of World Fossil Fuel Production with Supply and Demand Interactions. He provides the software free for those brave enough to actually look at the evidence and test sensitivities.
Jeff Brown and Sam Foucher show that “Available Net Exports” (after China and India) have already fallen 13% since 2005. Can you extrapolate the impact of this current trend for the next 20 years? Or understand its consequences for oil importing countries?
Look at the list of countries that have already peaked. e.g. 40 out of 54. Only 14 countries had not peaked in this 2009 list.
That current trend of declining available oil imports will have a far greater impact on “conflict” than any foreseeable “climate change” over the next few decades.
Compare the actual decline rates for the UK and Indonesia compared to Foucher’s conservative “Export Land Model”.
Hirsch’s optimistic scenario is that mitigation is unlikely to overtake decline for over a decade. Why? Because decline gets a big head start before we recognize it.
Hirsch has done the math. The burden falls on you to show quantitative detailed ways including the logistics involved to justify for more optimistic scenarios.
Without transitions to alternative fuels, some portray much more severe conflict scenarios.
Why is Iran mass producing cruise missile and fast petrol boats? Not because of an abundance of oil!
You have the burden of proof to demonstrate a sound basis for optimistic alternatives.
See: Verifying the Export Land Model – A Different Approach Gail the Actuary. (She knows her statistics and supports her conclusions with quantitative details!)
See the full list of 174 countries in 2010.
Re “Very rapidly increasing fuel prices brought on the housing crisis and the 2008 and 2010 economic crises and the EU crisis.”
That was quantified by economics Prof. James Hamilton. See ref. above.
Obviously I don’t believe in using GCM’s, and I said so as much last night in the “Trends” thread:
Now the reason I don’t believe in using these is the same reason that climate scientists such as Andrew Lacis state, which is that they are mainly used for show. All of the spatial nature of the GCMs average out and all that you are left with is the forcing function response.
The reason that they are used for show is that many people refuse to believe the output unless they see some noise on the curves. The GCM’s are perfect for generating the noise. It makes no sense to me but that is human nature and I have seen it played out in my own professional work — run a Monte Carlo and you get some noise, even though it is not always necessary.
So, my path has been to use the analysis approach where I get to use diffusion, dispersion, and all the other macro effects that define the transient climate response.
In response to your comment of February 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm regarding personal agenda- Imo it depends on your definition of terms, and I am not very interested in examining why people believe in something as I am in the rationale for their positions. In regards to positions on potential climate change, I am an independent politically, non religious, and would be completely willing to change my views on the topic if there were better models that could forecast future conditions relevant to humans as a function of CO2. I do look at the issue from the perspective of a US citizen first and the “worldview” second.
So it depends on your definition of terms. Imo that is not a “personal agenda”, but it is a bias.
To make the claims that you’ve made, you need to dismiss a rather extensive body of research on how people reason.
In addition, you would need to either:
(1) assume that the very strong correlation between political ideology and position in the climate debate is purely coincidental or,
(2) view yourself as being virtually unique in approaching the debate.
Neither of those conclusions would seem very skeptical in my view.
You have made it very clear in quite a number of your posts that you have a strong political ideology. There’s nothing wrong with that, and there is nothing that proves that your views are overtly biased by your strong political ideology. However, an absolute statement that your strong political ideology has no influence on your reasoning does not seem consistent with skepticism, in my view.
If you don’t even allow for the possibility that your strong political orientation might in fact influence how you reason about the science, then you have no possibility, none, zilch, nada, niente, zero, bupkis possibility of controlling for any bias that you might have.
Re: “referencing bible verses as your plan to produce fuel? You are kidding”
For the actual verse relating to producing new/alternative fuels see Jeremiah 33:3 ESV
No I am not kidding. Those who are stewards recognize and rely on their source.
You believe I have a strong political ideology, and I disagree completely. I hold no allegiance to any political party and establish positions on policy considerations based upon the information on the specific issue. There are times I agree with Ralph Nader, and other times I agree with Ron Paul. I consider both to act nutty on certain issues. As it happens, I voted for Obama in the last election, but believe he has done a poor job as president to date on the economy.
As I stated previously it comes down to a definition of terms. Is it a “personal agenda” in your view to believe the US needs to get its economic house in order? Imo it does not show a personal agenda as the issue will not impact my personal situation in any way.
As I view it, a personal agenda is where a person’s individual beliefs such as their religious perspective or membership in a group overshadow what they would or might have otherwise held as a position on a particular issue. I agree that I have certain biases, but that Imo is very different than a “personal agenda”. Then again, I am willing to adjust my view if the data justifies a change. If you can point out an example of me showing a “personal agenda” I’ll see if I agree.
I support your right to have any belief you wish as long as that belief is not imposing on the rights of others. I do not think your religious superstitions have any place in government policy formation.
Holding allegiance to a political party is not a necessary condition to having strong political ideology. Having a strong allegiance to a political party is not mutually exclusive with establishing positions on policy considerations based upon the information on the specific issue.
The same is true for my views on Paul and Nader.
I also voted for Obama, and I also think he has done a poor job.
No. The strong personal agenda would be that you have strong feeling about how the US should get its economic house in order. You are not apolitical. I have seen you express strong ideological perspective on a variety of issues. That is one aspect of your partisanship. Another is your strong identification as a “skeptic.”
I think that is an unrealistic attitude, and is in contradiction to an extensive body of literature on how people reason.
I agree to an extent – where I disagree is that a religious perspective or membership in a group are a necessary condition to having a strong personal agenda in a contentious area of debate that has social, cultural, and political ramifications.
Ok. So then I guess we do have a different view on what a “personal agenda” means.
I think it is pointless for us to pursue that discussion, as any agreement would necessitate that one of us would change their understanding of the term “personal agenda.” As such, I will just restate in different terms that I think that you have you biases that affect your reasoning in the climate debate, just like anyone else – particularly those who have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Re: “I do not think your religious superstitions have any place in government policy formation.”
The USA was founded by USC The Declaration of Independence -1776.
By enabling acts for equal footing in the Union, all States mutually required that their constitutions not be repugnant to the Constitution AND the principles of the Declaration of Independence. See 48 USC 2 and 48 USC 3.
Thus States mutually required that no-one reject the principles of the Declaration – which include:
That is the foundation for the USA and current law. Similarly, the House
No personal opinions to the contrary can change that.
Judith said; ‘Well actually I found these articles to mostly NOT support much of a link between climate change and conflict. This was not what I expected from a journal named “peace.”
Indeed one of the studies explicitly states;
“On the whole, however,it seems fair to say that so far there is not yet much evidence for climate change as an important driver of conflict.”
Is that because local conflict would be driven by local climate change and that is hard to discern as actually happening, and if it did happen would likely to be at a slow pace which is much less of an impetus for change than say a sudden political crisis over territorial ambitions?
Past studies have examined the potential for conflict as per the study cited below;
This is a remarkable document formulated by the CIA for the American Govt dating from Aug 1974 when the climate was perceived to be changing back to a cold one and deals with the implications of this and the potential for conflict.
It seems obvious that substantial climate change-if it were rapid and therefore noticeable-will have the capability of causing disruption between neighbours, for example by the need to protect water resources. However slow climate change- or change that is not perceived to be out of the ordinary or caused by their neighbours- is much less likely to cause conflict than a sudden political event
So a hypothesis that is not supported by evidence. Quick send it to the IPCC, they seem to have folk who can ‘find’ evidence!
“Conflict research” and “peace research” are different sides of the same coin. You need to understand conflict to understand peace and vice versa. Peace research sounds nicer.
Peace research had its field invaded by climate researchers making silly claims, and politicians making even sillier claims about climate and war. In this special issue, they fight back with a modicum of rigor and data.
Richard, thanks much for this perspective
Richard Tol –
+1, and very succinctly put.
You could have also mentioned that a warmer climate is only speculatively? linked to a decline in food production and therefore hunger. I think few reasonable people find that speculation convincing.
Secondly, hunger leads to torpor. It does not provide the energy for war – it never has.
He said the claims were silly. What more do you want?
Anteros, you say “hunger leads to torpor. It does not provide the energy for war – it never has.” Tosh
Ever heard of the Corn Law riots? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRcorn.htm
Or how about the more recent ‘Arab Spring’ fuelled partly (especially in Tunisia and Lybia) by rising food prices? War and Peace don’t just happen between nations but within nations too and hunger can clearly be a driver of these.
Speaking of silly partisan cross-selling in AGW propaganda;
Free birth control to fight climate change!
Different day/topic, different organizations, same central planning Eutopian (totalitarian) ambitions. They’re all the same people on any number of topics looking for “synergy”. There is no need for “climate researchers” to “invade” Peace research anymore than the NY Times needs to invade Politico or MSNBC. All miserable comrades on the train to nowhere.
They might fight for turf to justify their existence on occassion, the market is certainly saturated with this garbage (take a look at their declining market shares and the number of equity worthless organizations like “Time” and “Newsweek” involved).
Both Peace Research and climate research need defunding, especially as they link to political agendas.
I think characterizing these articles as “fighting back” is a bit too generous. As was BillC’s comment above saying one of the articles essentially said “‘there is no link (yet) so stop saying there’s one.’” If the IPCC had included the qualifiers and hedges that are in these articles, we might never have gotten the climate wars.
The qualms about this journal are not based on whether studying peace can inform us on war. It is that those who identify themselves as “peace researchers” can pretty confidently be counted on to come from a firmly progressive (ie. CAGW supportive) perspective. Note that every author accepts the CAGW gospel that climate change, aka CAGW, is a major threat. They just seem to say it may be not AS DEFINITE or AS SERIOUS a threat RIGHT NOW as other CAGW proponents have been claiming.
Is this the usual full throated defense of CAGW orthodoxy? No. Are the articles skeptical assaults on the “consensus?” Absolutely not. Give the authors credit for not blindly following the accepted wisdom that all bad things flow from CO2, but let’s not give them medals of valor just yet.
Before criticizing skeptics for being…skeptical…about this post, remember that it started with this line. “Overall, the research reported here offers only limited support for viewing climate change as an important influence on armed conflict.” Ohhh, only limited support, that’s much different.
I can just see them closing up Real Climate now, with devastating attacks like this.
A number of comments were made above in response to Richard Tol’s comment, and in light of this, it’s of interest to note the article in the above series by Conor Devitt and Richard Tol. The abstract reads:
“This article presents a model of development, civil war and climate change. There are multiple interactions. Economic growth reduces the probability of civil war and the vulnerability to climate change. Climate change increases the probability of civil war. The impacts of climate change, civil war and civil war in the neighbouring countries reduce economic growth. The model has two potential poverty traps – one is climate-change-induced and one is civil-war-induced – and the two poverty traps may reinforce one another. The model is calibrated to sub-Saharan Africa and a double Monte Carlo analysis is conducted in order to account for both parameter uncertainty and stochasticity. Although the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) is used as the baseline, thus assuming rapid economic growth in Africa and convergence of African living standards to the rest of the world, the impacts of civil war and climate change (ignored in SRES) are sufficiently strong to keep a number of countries in Africa in deep poverty with a high probability.”
I’ve read the whole article, but not knowing this topic well, I hope I didn’t misunderstand it. It appears to tell us that climate change threatens to increase the potential for civil war and to reduce economic growth, but economic growth can reduce the dangers. A future world with economic growth might be safer and more prosperous than today’s world, but less so than if climate change were not a detrimental influence. This will vary from one region to another, and some regions may end up worse off overall. A major element underlying the threats imposed by climate change is regional drought (although other reports have focused on excessive rainfall as a concern as well).
I don’t feel qualified to judge the methodology.
I am no expert on African affairs, so I could be way of the mark here, but I believe that African nations will never achieve levels of economic development until they deal with corruption.
Joshua likes to talk about tribalism. Africa is a world beater in that category.
If your summary is correct, then the paper is saying nothing but using many nice sciencey, academic words to accomplish it.
1) if climate change is going to exacerbate conflict, it’s probably going to be in africa
2) there are better ways to improve africa than focus on limiting co2 emissions
Fred: The paper does three things.
First, we revisit the SRES scenarios of the IPCC. The IPCC assumes that the future will be peaceful, even though that past was not. If you relax that assumption, economic growth is much slower. The effect is so drastic that I suspect that emissions growth is slower too.
Second, we test whether past drought had an impact on past civil war. We find it had. (Other papers in the special issue find it had not, or that it had but with the opposite sign to ours.)
Third, we add climate change to our scenario analysis. We find that climate change impact on civil war is dominated by the development impact on civil war.
Could you unpack that a bit? Are you saying that slower development would more likely cause civil war than climate change would be?
If so, how did you control for a moderator or mediator effect of climate change on the relationship between development and civil war?
If we run the model without the impact of climate change on civil war, then the results* hardly change.
If we run the model without the impact of economic growth on civil war, then the results* are completely different.
In the model, everything depends on everything, so results refer to both the level of development at the end of the century and the probability of civil war at that time.
How do you investigate for the possibility that climate change could have a significant effect on development – particularly differentially depending on the existing levels of development in various countries?
And I should add, how do you investigate for the possibility that the effect of climate change on development might correlated differently with the likelihood of civil war in various countries, presumably depended on existing levels of development?
In other words, would climate change have a bigger impact on development in less developed countries, and as a result, be more likely to set the table for civil war in those countries?
Yes, yes, yes and yes
The paper is open source. Have a read.
G Dyer wrote Climate Wars in 2008. Like most leftists, he thinks wars are caused by resource shortages (water, food, fuel), instead of insane leaders and cults.
We do not know what causes war, not past wars (like WW1) and surely not future wars.
“Insane leaders and cults” is the most sensibleexplanation. Seeing the energy policies implemented for eg. InGermay – it maywell be that we have our share of insane leaders. What is to blame is not AGW bur the climatechange hysteria.
About applying the magic wand of statistics toward discerning the causes of war – this is silly.
Silly is exactly the right word :)
Lebensraum, plunder, religion (theological or political) and ego (individual and/or collective) seem to sum up the causes of most of the wars I know much about
(Apologies to Jacob and no unpleasantness meant, but the German ‘Lebensraum’ is the spot on word here)
Think Joe Room intoning from Mann’s latest tome while leading a Greenpeace war fleet sailing under the flag of Mother Gaia and and you’ll be getting there.
I think you guys are missing the most obvious cause of war. Tribalism.
One other cause of war – lust for power. Hannibal, Alexander, Mohammed, Saladin, Napolean, Stalin, and Hitler come readily to mind. And they didn’t even know about peak oil or global warming. We call Hitler and Stalin insane now, but that is more a moral than a clinical statement. They weren’t really any more brutal than their forebears. Evil is not a mental disease, it is a choice.
I can’t help thinking we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel here..topic-wise. More useful would be a discussion of the repercussions of global cooling… which is both much more dangerous, and much more likely. I can easily foresee a scenario under LIA conditions which leads to war…or at least widespread civil unrest… due to food shortages. Woe betide those clueless politicians and governmental “experts” whose boneheaded embrace of CAGW has led to more expensive energy.
I’m suddenly getting mental images of the Frensh Revolution… complete with full tumbrils headed you know where.
Your abrupt cooling scenario was addressed in a Pentagon paper a couple of years ago. The other scenario is that food production needs to double by 2050 regardless. AGW is a distraction from solving environmental and social problems.
The very best way to improve food production is more CO2 and warmer temperatures.
Re: More CO2 & warmth to improve food production.
As documented at CO2Science.org and in the NIPCC reports.
e.g., see: NIPCC Interim Report 2011 ,
7 Terrestrial Plants and Soils
7.10. Food Production
Errata: NIPCC 2011 Interim Report
Chapter 7 Terrestrial Plants and Soils PDF (1.4 MB)
Those are all greenhouse (ironic) experiments unlimited water and nutrients. In the real world not so much. What plants do do is adjust the size and number of stomata – limiting water loss. Is this a good thing on a global scale? I suggest that it has significant hydrological and therefore ecologicl implications.
What’s beautiful about that comment is that even while saying that it is a waste of time to discuss the relationship between climate change and social/geopolitical ramifications/disruption, you want instead to discuss the relationship between climate change and social/geo-political ramifications/disruption.
Now that’s a special kind o’ logic.
Now, of course, climate change consistent with AGW theory, as opposed to your “more likely” type of “global cooling” which as far as I know has no/zilch/nada/niente/zero/bupkis scientific support (as a long-term probability) – apparently includes disruption to climate patterns such that we’d have disruptive cooling in some areas (for a while) even as we have disruptive warming on other areas. But, of course, that would be of no “concern,” because that kind of climate change doesn’t fit with a particular partisan orientation.
The journal looks at the issue of climate change and conflict. Not warming and conflict.
So after saying that looking at the issue of climate change and conflict is scraping the bottom of the barrel, he goes on to express alarmism about the connection between climate change (of which “global cooling” would be one type, as would “global warming,” as would a significantly more variable climate, as would be a much wetter climate, as would be a much drier climate) and conflict.
How could you see that as being consistent?
And in doing so, he even goes on to ignore the possibility that there could be regional “cooling” that is consistent with AGW.
Look, hyperbole is part of the game. We all do it. And some of us admit it when we do is. And some of us feel compelled to defend hyperbole when others do it (if it supports our “tribe”).
Careful there, pokerguy. Anteros gets very “concerned” about that type of alarimism.
If only I could muster such a thing!
I’m not sure I’ve ever approached such extremes of emotion as “concerned” – certainly not about the prevalence of alarm and feverish imagination amongst human beings about the future of the weather.
I do enjoy, however, pointing out it’s irrationality, it’s incredible history of bearing no relation to reality, and how convinced people are of the legitimacy of their imaginings.
Experience seems to show that while understanding of the genuine experiences of fearful people is needed, ridicule is the best public policy.
If you weren’t being so bone-headedly tribal you would see somting reasonable in pokerguy’s comment. You would have to do a miniscule amount of what you recommend everybody do, which is confront the best interpretation of someone’s reasoning. You might do well to try it here.
There are two perspectives that actually are not inconsistent. Firstly that climate change isn’t a big issue, really. It’s much less important than people think – we’re becoming more climate resilient by the day, and most worries are just imagination.
OK, that’s a position that pokerguy takes – me too. From that point, you can move your focus – zoom in a little, if you like – and ask what is better [not forgetting that it isn’t going to be the end of the world] and ask what would be better – 2 degrees warmer or 2 degrees colder?
It is then, from this different perspective, entirely reasonable to suggest that colder is vastly worse than warmer. In fact it might even be so much worse that it is worth getting concerned about! It’s a comparison – you see? Relative – two different perspectives.
It’s quite consistent to say that vague amounts of warmer are insignificant or irrelevant, but small amounts of colder are significant and detrimental. It makes sense – unless you insist on refusing to take it seriously.
I don’t happen to subscribe to the second position, but there isn’t anything illogical about it. My understanding is that changes are not something to generally be scared about – even though we are – but at the same time, life (including human life) thrives better with relative warmth rather than relative cold.
Let’s look at your characterization of pokerguy’s perspective:
And examine it against this statement from pokerguy:
OK, I guess you’re right. Well, as long as war, food shortages and widespread civil unrest are “no big issue, really.”
So I guess the difference of viewpoint there lies in how we each define what is a “big issue, really?”
You’re right. pokerguy doesn’t give the impression that he thinks all climate change is non-serious. So his position is much simpler and still consistent. Warmer is irrelevant, colder is bad news.
I think he’s got a point except that I personally don’t fall for the extremity of the cold characterisation.
He’s making a comparison and his device (rather than sarcasm) is hyperbole.
The beauty of using amorphous terms like “climate change” is they can mean whatever you want them to mean at the time. Usually when CAGW advocates use the term they mean the phenomenon formerly known as global warming. But when a skeptic uses it in that sense, they can then accuse him of stupidity because the term simply means changing climate.
But of course, pokerguy didn’t even use the term in the comment being dissected. Joshua first read it into his comment, then intentionally misinterpreted it.
“So after saying that looking at the issue of climate change and conflict is scraping the bottom of the barrel, he goes on to express alarmism about the connection between climate change (of which “global cooling” would be one type, as would “global warming,” as would a significantly more variable climate, as would be a much wetter climate, as would be a much drier climate) and conflict.”
That’s pretty lame, even by Joshua’s standards.
This gets better all the time. With an increasing number of “skeptics” weighing in, more hilarity ensues:
From pokerguy in a later post:
So – I “intentionally misinterpreted” his statement, and he later confirmed my interpretation that his original comment was w/r/t “climate change.”
You fellas are hilarious. My sides are killin’ me.
And Gary – if you’re going to direct a comment to me, at least have the cojones to direct the comment to me.
On the rare occasion I direct a comment to you, I always address it to you. I was commiserating with Anteros in his trying to deal with the thousandth variation of your serial attempts to get attention by diverting the discussion into inane semantic disagreements.
Oh. Ok. You were only “commiserating with Anteros.”
You boyz are hilarious.
I agree with billc and yourself that the general tenor of these articles is that cataclysmic wars don’t appear to increase in their liklihood as a result of variations in the climate.
The point made by ‘sceptics’ above, though, is of a slightly different nature. Firstly there is an obvious undercurrent that is wholly [from even a vaguely sceptical perspective] unjustified.
What would you call this? False? Ridiculous? Wrong?
The majority of people in China have never even heard of global warming..
The “problem of global warming” already gives away the uncritical presumptions of the writers. Why would someone who does not believe there is a ‘problem’ take these people seriously?
Secondly – perhaps with some irony – the writers say that although there isn’t any genuine reason for conflict, talking about it a lot could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps they should fund the distribution of leaflets to all the disaffected regions of the world pronouncing that
Do you not think there are better uses of funding than ‘research’ such as this?
The majority of people in China have never even heard of global warming..
Not according to this poll.
The “problem of global warming” already gives away the uncritical presumptions of the writers. Why would someone who does not believe there is a ‘problem’ take these people seriously?
Why should they care? And conversely why should they, or indeed anyone else, take people who do not believe there is a problem seriously.
Your tribal insistence on pedantry proves the lie of the comment I was criticising. Your poll makes my point far more eloquently and shows the writers claim to be exactly what I suggested – ridiculous, wrong and false.
Let’s try again.
The Gallup poll shows that in 36 countries the majority of people don’t even know something about global warming, so how can the majority be actually concerned about it.
I think you misunderstand the dynamic of spreading panic. People feel the need to spread it. The object of the exercise is to convince other people to panic too, so unfortunately people who imagine there’s a problem absolutely have to take other people seriously. People who think the world is coming to an end rarely keep their feelings to themselves.
I must say, that was a rather spectacular maneuver.
You managed to argue that a poll that shows that 62% of people in China reporting knowledge about global warming proves your statement that
Are you serious? Did you read what I wrote?
The fact of 62% of Chinese having ‘heard’ of global warming is pedantry. I describe it as such. I don’t argue that the poll says the opposite of what it does.
I have to say your comment was the most irrelevant, and facetious of all the hundreds of posts you make daily. Moreover it was false which in a way is a wonderful irony. If you’re going to indulge in tedious sophistry, wouldn’t it make sense to avoid factual errors?
Read it again and you’ll see what I mean.
I am having some trouble understanding your comment. Apparently I understand you wrong, but as near as I can tell, you’re saying that pointing out your factual error when you said that:
is “pedantry.” Is that correct?
As you well know.
You seem to have forgotten the substantive point which was that the claim that –
was either false, wrong or ridiculous. As a way to convey the ridiculousness of the (false) claim I used the cartoon idea that the ‘majority of Chinese haven’t even heard of global warming!’
To point out that there is a poll which suggests 62% of Chinese at least know something about global warming is of course pedantic in the extreme – it is almost autistic – and actually makes my substantive point (exactly as I said it did). The fact that the poll suggests there are 36 countries where less than half of the population know something about global warming makes my point, well, incontrovertible.
Picking the cartoon expression in a way that makes the point of it even stronger, is not only pedantic but self-defeating.
It baffles me that you’d want to defend such nonsense.
It looks to me that the statement you highlighted was wrong. perhaps Inexcusably sloppy. We would all do well to examine why such a wrong, and perhaps inexcusably sloppy comment would get through peer review.
But your statement was wrong also. Also, arguably, inexcusably sloppy. Consider my Andrew pointing that out, and my questioning your accountability on the matter, as a form of peer review.
Unless you can provide a logical proof that two wrongs makes a right, then I think that you should simply acknowledge your error, consider why you made it, and move on to your larger point.
And Anteros –
Perhaps you could point out to me where I “defend[ed] such nonsense.” I’ll wait.
Nice poll. Approximately one billion people in China live on an average of about $700.00 per year. I’m just wondering whether Gallop contacted them on their blackberries or iphones for the survey?
Wait – Anteros –
I guess I do owe you an apology.
So when you said this:
You were deliberately making a cartoonish comment that you assumed the reader would know was false?
If so, I did completely misread your comment. I do the best I can with what I’ve got, but I still manage to miss things quite often.
That said, your other accusations were wrong, and you might have saved all these subsequent comments if you had merely responded to Andrew’s comment by saying that you were intentionally making a cartoonish comment. Still I offer my apologies.
Here’s how that type of poll works. The pollsters take a representative sample and assesses their views on a topic.
It isn’t necessary for them to contact one billion people to estimate (within a range of error) the views of the Chinese population.
Of course, if you have something specific to point to as a methodological problem in how they created their sample, I’d like to see it. In general, I think that Gallup does take a fairly scientific approach to polling, one that would take into account the access of the general population to technology – but I’m sure that sometimes their methodology is questionable.
You accept polls (that support your position) as gospel, just like you do climate science. I don’t. When I see Gallup can’t even get US political polls right with any regularity, I question their ability to speak with authority on issues in China, Zimbabwe, the Congo etc. But I understand, you have been taught not to question. That is why I am a skeptic and you are not.
If I didn’t do the immediately cautious and clear thing of saying to aa that my comment was cartoonish [perhaps at the time I thought it reasonably obvious], I should say that I was also ‘carried away’ by a poll which had 36 countries confirming my point.
I was perhaps swooning with my good luck that someone could dig out a poll which showed exactly (bar the cartoon) what I was trying to say.
I forgot to make completely sound, the ground underneath my feet.
I don’t think I was being unduly pedantic. It’s common for the “skeptics” to pretend that AGW is some kind of Western conceit and that developing countries are not concerned about it, I think it’s important to stress that this is not the case. Of course the poll doesn’t show how many people in each country are “concerned” about it but it’s certainly true that their governments are, as anyone who followed events in Durban would be aware. That includes the Chinese government, which is why they are investing heavily in renewables and instituting their own carbon trading schemes.
That developing countries sent delegates to Durban is hardly a surprise.
1. Its a nice place to visit for a little R&R
2. With some of the Western governments in guilt-trip mode, there might have been a free handout to be had. It would have been negligent of any country not to have sent somebody to try and get their hands on the loot.
But you cannot take this entirely understandable piece of Realpolitik to signify real concern over climate change. You’d need a lot more evidence.
The Chinese are investing in coal and nuclear electrical production. Renewables are likely dwarfed by these two. Also, isn’t much of their “renewable” production for the export market?
One look at the state of water and air quality standards in China should be enough to convince even the most fanatic CAGW supporter that China pays lip service to the issue of climate change and nothing more.
As for them instituting their own carbon trading schemes – no s__t. The Chinese are no slouches in offering sucker bets and parting fools from their money. Like Al Gore, they will be laughing all the way to the bank.
I view this differently. Sure, people all over the world thing climate change/AGW is a “problem”. They also probably think poor government in North Korea is a problem. Ask how much they are willing to pay to avoid it, that is a better question.
“The data show that a large majority of the public in all countries are concerned about the problem of global warming and that this assessment is part of a broader concern for global environmental issues.”
Why do I not know some of these people? The majority of people in the public who I talk to think this is BS. There are some, but they are not a majority of people I talk to and listen to.
RE this comment “that contradict some of the arguments made in the previous analyses ”
That is likely due to the fact that most of the previous research under discussion was pretty much not worth the paper it was printed on.
Improving economic conditions, added to the growing interdependence of nation’s economies act to reduce the chances of armed conflict. People are also realizing that improving economic conditions tend to go hand in hand with increased personal freedom. Political systems where economic and personal freedoms are restricted are prospective hot spots for conflict, most likely ignited by internal factors. Something as amorphous to most people as climate change doesn’t even register as a factor worth considering.
How about climate change and baking cookies?
Not sensational enough?
“Improving economic conditions, added to the growing interdependence of nation’s economies act to reduce the chances of armed conflict.”
This is a side topic from the silly Peace Research article.
There is absolutely no historic evidence supporting this claim. Europe committed suicide twice in the 20th century with by far the most advanced economies (inter-dependent) in the world. Conflict is hard to understand, I can’t stand the thought of people at “Peace Research” at many levels.
No doubt, most AGW advocates shouldn’t be left in a room alone to discuss “world peace” given the pinhead global framework they start with.
Can you see the difference between these 2 sentences?
“Improving economic conditions, added to the growing interdependence of nation’s economies act to reduce the chances of armed conflict.”
“Improving economic conditions, added to the growing interdependence of nation’s economies reduce the chances of armed conflict.”
As for the inter-dependence of European economies in 1914 and 1939 as compared today – I don’t think the first two are even in the same ball park.
This is a digression timg56, these things happen when the topic is so weak as a starting point.
More people have died at war since WWII’s end than during. Of course that’s many more years to achieve that result. Generally, I think platitude driven concepts at JPR are a sad sack. There is nothing in a history book over any extended time to support the theory that great economic interdependence reduces conflict. In fact, usually some parties becomes a creditors and the others borrowers and this increases the chance of conflict overtime.
It’s a somewhat Marxist conclusion that economic disadvantages are the roots of most national conflict or even revolution from within. I suggest you be wary of the slighest amount of JPR doctrine or thinking (Kool-aid).
“Public Concern for global warming”
More spin from the “Journal of Peace Research” if you need more confirmation than this feature on Climate and War.
You can also try;
Democracy and the Environment: An Empirical Assessment (1998)
“These findings suggest that democracy cannot be viewed unidimensionally in its relationship to the environment, and that assumptions by theorists and policy-makers concerning the positive effect of democracy on the environment need to be re-examined.”
For the full Greenshirt effect.
I realize there are many topics and contributors but there is plenty of full moonbat crazy right before your eyes.
It matters little if the temperature rises by 1 or 3 degrees with respect to resource wars. The levels of fecundity in many parts of the world have made revolution and war the only outcome.
Have a look at Ethiopia as an example of North Africa/Middle East.
Looking back at ‘LiveAid” in 1984/85, many of us wanted to save the population of Ethiopia from starvation, caused by war and drought.
In 2010 there were three times the number of Ethiopians born as in 1982. There are 82 million Ethiopians and the population expansion rate is 2.6% per year. Economic growth is is about 6% per year, but agriculture accounts for half GDP, 43% of exports, and 85% employment. In bad years there will be war between the farmers and herders.
Climate Change and War
This seems to be an interesting topic. Let’s see.
The Journal of Peace Research article by Nils Petter Gleditsch concludes:
Hmmm. Let’s analyze that.
An open debate is going on today on whether or not significant “climate change” really is a “truly global man-made environmental problem” or not.
Gleditsch provides no data to support the notion that this is the case.
And the jury is still out on this postulation, i.e. the science is NOT settled
The author makes another leap of faith in postulating a causal link between “climate change” and “war”.
Disappointingly, this claim is not substantiated by citing a a long listing of wars, which have occurred in the past directly as the result of climate change, but rather only by hypothetical deliberations.
However, there are historical data out there.
Famines have been caused by crop failures resulting from unusually cold years and also by local droughts or floods.
The 30-year war, which ravaged much of northern Europe, came during a very cold period, during which frequent crop failures and famines were recorded.
The most likely cause of the climate shift that led to these unusually cold years was an extremely inactive sun over a longer period, ushering in one of the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age, itself an extended period of harsher winters plus colder and wetter summers than had previously or subsequently been experienced.
The massive human migrations and associated wars, which eventually led to the downfall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the historic period known as the Dark Ages, also followed a significant cooling shift.
The Norman invasion of Britain, on the other hand, occurred during a milder than normal epoch, the Medieval Warm Period.
So are there really historical data, which would conclusively point to a causal relationship between our planet’s climate and wars?
It would be fascinating to read such a study – especially if it were written by someone like Tony Brown, who knows how to present the facts in an interesting way, with interwoven anecdotal and historical tidbits, which keep the reader from dozing off.
But this essay is not that.
It is simply a rehash of IPCC claims and propaganda in favor of action on climate change. As the author writes:
Let’s have the ”scholarly research” first, before we try to ”have an influence on policymaking”.
[And it also occurs to me that it would be good to have far less Joshua-pollution at Climate Etc … so that one’s mouse is not obliged to fight so hard to find an intelligent on-topic post (such as yours, Max!) to read :-)]
Thanks for the shout out, hro001.
And as always, thanks for reading. It means a lot to me.
Thank god the Heartland Institute is around to do that for us.
Joshua wrote: “OK, I guess you’re right. Well, as long as war, food shortages and widespread civil unrest are “no big issue, really.”
So I guess the difference of viewpoint there lies in how we each define what is a “big issue, really?”
Joshua, I sympathize with you. It must be exhausting being a warmist these days. It seems as if everyday there’s more bad news for you guys, another paper casting doubt, another insider turning apostate, another glacier refusing to melt. Fortunately for you, you’ve never been too concerned with making affirmative arguments (i.e Agw is real because of xyx), or even with contesting skeptical arguments in any substantive way. No, your m.o. is to split nearly invisible hairs in a self-admiring, sneering tone. You seem to believe that if you’re clever enough people won’t notice that you’re not really saying anything.
I was merely responding to the topic at hand, which as I’ve stated I consider rather ridiculous. Climate change and war? Please. If, and I say if we’re gong to have such a conversation, it seems to me to make much more sense to consider it in the context of something that is obviously much more dangerous and socially disruptive.
Can you reconcile these two statements for me?
The Koubi et al. article, Climate variability, economic growth, and civil conflict goes into significant detail, but the first and last paragraphs of the abstract pretty much sum it up:
This study has neither postulated a causal relationship between human activities and disruptively significant climate change nor a causal relationship between climate change and war (as the more tenuous study by Gleditsch did), but simply sticks to the facts, i.e.:
– There is weak support for the premise that ” non-democratic countries are more likely to experience civil conflict when economic conditions deteriorate”.
– ” Despite many claims by high-ranking policymakers and some scientists that climate change breeds violent conflict, the existing empirical literature has so far not been able to identify a systematic, causal relationship of this kind.”
But will IPCC still make such claims?
“Can you reconcile these two statements for me?
Climate change and war? Please.”
Utterly typical Joshua. Sophist nitpicker that you are.
As you must realize, I was using “climate change” in the way it was intended, as the replacement weasel term for “global warming.”
is that how the term was used in the articles that you described as scraping the bottom of the barrel?”
It was my impression that some of the articles, at least, examined the impact of climate variability – which would include your much-feared “global cooling.” Sorry for my error.
There is no “systematic causal relationship” simply because the greenhouse conjecture is not based on real world physics.
Prof Claes Johnson has proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation* that energy in radiation only gets converted to thermal energy if the peak frequency of the radiation from the source is above the peak frequency of the radiation from the target.
This essentially provides a mechanism which explains why the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies for radiative heat transfer, as it does for heat transferred by conduction.
There seems no plausible alternative explanation for the observed Second Law, so I suggest we all heed what Johnson has deduced mathematically, being as he is, a Professor of Applied Mathematics.
It is not the net radiative flux (or even its direction) which determines whether (and in which direction) thermal energy is transferred. For example, if the emissivity of two bodies is very different, there can be more radiative flux from the cooler one. But all that flux will be scattered by the warmer one and not converted to thermal energy. Only the flux from the warmer one (no matter how weak) will be converted to thermal energy in the cooler one. This “ensures” that the Second Law is valid in all cases because it depends
on peak frequency which is proportional to absolute temperature – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
Thus the IPCC “backradiation” cannot affect the temperature of the surface and there can be no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.
Such a stentorious tone. Well played. You fit in nicely with the rest of your fellow skeptics, giving the group some balance in the basso profundo range.
You fit in nicely with the rest of your fellow skeptics, giving the group some balance in the basso profundo (sic) range””
.Ad Hom. Doug Cotton knows ten times as much as you about causation of climate as you. For balance, here is a Ad Hom for you.
You fit in nicely with the rest of your fellow warmists, giving the group some balance in the basso profundo (sic) range””
There are numerous issues with those arguments.
Please find some textbooks on college physics on heat transfer. Then study absorptivity and emissivity. e.g., see books on solar energy.
e.g. Meinel & Meinel Applied Solar Energy
Then on to radiative heat transfer., especially on Kirchoff’s law, absorptivity and emissivity and Planck weighted black body radiation.
For a full evaluation, you have to integrate over all frequencies considering the wavelength dependent absorptivity and emissivity on both bodies as a function of the angle to the surface, using Planck weighted radiation.
For a glimpse, see Ferenc Miskolczi on his calculation for earth’s optical depth. The upward and downward radiation is about balanced in the lower atmosphere, with the difference increasing towards the top of the atmosphere.
No you are off track and don’t understand what is involved here. You could start by reading the links I provided.
Then see my latest post here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-892087
PS I’ve studied and taught plenty of physics thank you since my first degree in physics completed 1963 to 1966 inclusive.
It’s amazing how confused people of such background can be. (Reading Claes Johnson can only add to the confusion, so totally wrong are his ideas.)
Doug Cotton’s comments on the science should stand on their own merit without any need to display the length of his ****** :)
Yes, that’s how I was using the term. It’s pretty much the expected usage these days. Apology not needed.
By the way Joshua, my offer for a small wager is still open. I notice that the UK Met office has been overly warm in their modeled forecasts in 11 out of the last 12 years. That’s one long bad streak. If Co2’s truly the knob controlling the global thermostat, their rotten luck is bound to run out soon. IN your position, I just might want to jump all over that…
If you’re uncomfortable with betting larger sums we can bring it down to as bite-sized as you like.
My answer is the same. Any short-term bet would be inconsistent with my understanding of the scientific debate. The terms of any bet I’d make would necessarily mean that neither of us would be alive to collect.
What I fail to understand is why anyone who understands the science would propose a bet that could be collected within our lifetimes.
I understand where you’re at with this. No climate events in three years or thirty years will ‘prove’ any current contention.
I do have a different view of betting though. I don’t take bets that are certain – it feels like stealing or idiot-abuse. I can’t persuade myself that I’m ‘teaching someone a good lesson’ so I don’t avail myself of such bets.
But I’m very much a gambler at heart [retired from ‘proper’l gambling due to adverse events]. One of the benefits of proposing wagers on uncertain events [apart from the fun and excitement] is to clarify our beliefs. I for instance am happy to bet anybody who is interested that the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity will fall by the time of AR6. Of course it is uncertain, but it is a way of me expressing [and finding out my conviction about] certain beliefs I have.
I’d also be prepared to bet that the rate of warming since the start of the satellite era [or 1990 FAR for that matter] will never reach 0.2 degrees per decade. And people can choose their cut-off date if they’re worried about their mortality.
The reason I’m happy to offer those – and other bets – is in a way because I’m not at all dismayed to lose. The pleasure of having the bet is worth the risk of some financial loss.
Which I think may be different to your feeling about wagers.
And hey, none of this is a surprise given our differing views about the risk involved in either nuclear power or climatic changes…
Actually, the “I only bet on sure things” was a bit of hyperbole to take shots at Don and Anthony, and you sniffed it out. For example, I just lost some money to my friend in New York over the Super Bowl. The risk of losing that money was worth the potential of rubbing it in had the Giants lost.
I don’t want to bet on the weather over the next 3 years because I have no opinion on the weather over the next 3 years. The weather over the next 3 years is a random set of outcomes, and I don’t care about the weather over the next 3 years except:
To the extent that if we have warm winters like this year I won’t have to shovel much snow. I have a 150′ driveway and it’s gravel, and the cheap snow-blower I got two years ago is a less than worthless piece of crap. I had to do the entire driveway by hand lots of times over the past two winters and I don’t feel like coughing up the money to get a better snow blower. So a warm 3 winters would be good in that sense.
On the other hand, I like snow and I just got a nice new pair of snowshoes and I live right near a nice park with lots of nice trails and I would love to be able to go on some nice nearby snowshoe treks with my dog.
And I would prefer cooler summers. Last year in Philly was a beeatch – although fortunately I was in California for the worst stretch of it.
So I’m kind of torn about whether I’d like it to be warmer or colder over the next 3 years. And obviously there’s no direct connection between the weather here in Philly and the global temps. I am going to Colorado in early March – so as long as there’s enough snow on the ground for good snowshoeing (I’ll be at quite high elevations so I don’t anticipate any problems), I’d prefer relatively warm weather to be able to enjoy the wilderness without needing to put on too many layers.
All in all, I have no betting interest one way or the other.
Would you bet that the next three years won’t see a cooling of 100C?
Such a bet would be consistent with the science.
Would you bet against a warming of 100C in the next three years?
Such a bet would be consistent with the science
Sure, I’ll take either of those bets. Those bets would fall into the sure thing category. Which one are you offering? How much?
Joshua: “Any short-term bet would be inconsistent with my understanding of the scientific debate.”
Mosher: How about this short term bet?
So its clear that you will take SOME short term bets.
How about: Warming less than 1C in the next three years?
You see, you claimed an understanding of the science debate.
What is your understanding?
Yes. You pointed to an error in my earlier statements. You are right. I would take some short-term bets – those that would be a sure thing and essentially take out the random aspect of the weather over the next three years.
Where did I claim an understanding of the science debate? When I said that I would take a bet that we won’t see a cooling of 100C in the next three years? OK. If you want to see that as claiming an understanding of the science, more power to you.
Josh: “Any short-term bet would be inconsistent with my understanding of the scientific debate”
Mosher: whats your understanding?
“Where did I claim an understanding of the science debate?.
I don’t understand the science. Hence, no bet would be consistent with my understanding of the science.
I have no idea what your middle name is. Hence no bet that it is Gomer, or Elmer, or Mergatroyd, or Oglethorpe, etc.would be consistent with my understanding of what your middle name is.
Heavens to Murgatroyd!
You’re missing a bet, moshe; much demand soon for alternative teaching to consensus climate science.
Hey, you’re doing it yourself. Surely there’s not only one way, your way, eh?
The Betting Bots Big Battle.
YOu seem to be taking a position in which you’ll never have to admit you’re wrong, no matter what the climate does while you’re still around. Which I must say feels stylistically consistent with your whole approach.
I’m not saying let’s bet on whether CAGW will one day officially and unequivocally be proven to be an accurate hypothesis. I’m inviting you to bet on what happens over the next 3 years because to many minds, including many luke warmers, another 3 years or so of no warming might well be significant.. That’s in the context of the previous 13 + years of no warming. Even Andrew Revkin has conceded that another 3 years of no warming will damage the AGW case.
I don’t know what you think I’d have to admit that I’m wrong about. What do I think is right? You don’t know, so how could you know what would make me be wrong?
As far as I’m concerned, nothing that could take place over the period of 3 years could prove anything right or anything wrong. That makes no sense to me. I get that 3 more years would make a period of “no warming” that some people say reaches statistical significance, but even there, it is possible for such a period to occur, statistically speaking, without AGW being disproven. If it isn’t disproven now, then 3 years more years couldn’t possibly to the trick, in my book.
The truth of AGW will only be proven long term. Even a couple of decades of cooling going forward would not disprove it. It would depend on many variables.
I’m with Mojib “global warming” Latif. Take the long-view. Even Chief taks a long view, except unfortunately he mixes it in with delusional ranting about pissant leftists.
As far as I’m concerned, it makes sense to look carefully at the costs and benefits of possible mitigation policies with an eye towards the probabilities and the other negative consequences of burning fossil fuels. Nothing more or less makes a whole lot of sense to me – especially betting on a 3 year weather trend and thinking that somehow it would tell us anything of significance about long-term climate change.
If that means I’m in disagreement with Revkin, it would hardly be the first time.
I only bet on sure things. That’s why I offered a bet to Don on something where he was clearly wrong. That’s why I offered a bet to Anthony Watts on something where he was clearly wrong. They both ducked the bets, so I can understand why you think I’m ducking. But I’ve given you my explanation – and you’re entitled to not believe me if you want.
I have been following your exchange with Joshua. Let me give you my observation.
Joshua does not want to “bet on the weather”
(Smart guy, that’s what my grandfather always advised me.)
But let’s assume Joshua is not averse to betting on the weather because of advice from his grandfather or a basic distaste for wagers of any kind.
Why then would Joshua not want to bet on the weather?
As a dyed-in-the wool true believer in the CAGW premise he sees that CO2 is increasing rampantly, so he knows that temperature must follow in lock step.
So he would have to bet that it will be warmer as we emit more CO2 and atmospheric levels continue to rise.
Yet, to his great dismay he sees that the Met Office predictions of “BBQ summers”, :milder than normal winters”,”record years”, etc, have ALL been wrong.
So he fears that, despite his firm conviction that it must warm, it might just not do so again.
This obviously presents Joshua with a real dilemma.
Should he rejoice that his worst fears of climate catastrophe are not really taking place?
Or should he fear that his belief in the CAGW premise may have been a mistake?
That there really is no CAGW threat?
That all his past fretting and worrying about calamitous climate change were in vain?
This possibility fills Joshua with even more “angst”.- since it would mean that he was duped from the start.
So he will avoid making any bets about the future weather (or climate) out of a double-edged fear.
Fear of being right and fear of being wrong.
if you’re going to direct a comment to me, at least have the cojones to direct the comment to me
If you want to know what I believe, just ask me. That way you won’t make false statements like those that filled that post.
And btw – I’m still waiting for your response to my comment over at Tamsin’s place pointing out how bogus was your reference to the Rasmussen poll.
Here’s the guest editor
‘On the whole, however, it seems fair to say that so far there is not yet much evidence for climate change as an important driver of conflict. In recent reviews of this literature, conclude that although environmental change may under certain circumstances increase the risk of violent conflict, the existing evidence indicates that this is not generally the case’
Which translated into plain English says
‘We looked for evidence of a link between conflict and climate change, and couldn’t find much. It doesn’t seem to be important’
Which is fair enough
In anywhere outside academe, it would be followed by
‘Therefore we do not feel that there will be any point in continuing further study of this moribund area.
Over the next month we will llean up our research and archive it neatly so that if it is ever required again a new generation will be able to gt up to speed quickly.
We thank the taxpayers for funding our work. But see no need for further funds in this area. As from four weeks from today’s date, our research project is officially complete and we stand down’
But something tells me that the pull of the gravy train is too strong and that just ain’t going to happen…….
Here’s Latimer: I don’t understand anything about science or social science or politics or economics; I don’t want to; I don’t think any of it is important; and I’m not remotely interested in examining reasons for anything. Why would I be? :-(
O.K., but the post is argumentation, and for anyone seriously interested in that we are talking about whether or not we have good reasons for thinking something.
The broader discussion is environmental scarcity, population and security. The scholarship in this area is obviously hotly debated because of human interests, but also because of theoretical and methodological issues specific to the field of social science — which perhaps is not as easily recognized by those outside the field, unless you read about it.
It is relevant to this discussion that in the literature, Gleditsch is considered an optimist who believes in the power of human ingenuity to conquer all and this underlies his editorial interpretations.
The work of the Toronto Group (Tom Homer-Dixon) and ENCOP, previously discussed here and also at Keith’s, questions the limits of ingenuity assumed by Gleditsch , and seems overall more informative as a framework for constructing rational choices in a world where moreo than half of all people are directly dependent on renewables for daily life and the world economy continues to increase rather than decrease inequalities. When we combine these social, political and economic realities with environmental stress and impacts from climate change, rational agreement about good choices for ourselves and others will be based on pragmatism rather than idealism.
“It is relevant to this discussion that in the literature, Gleditsch is considered an optimist who believes in the power of human ingenuity to conquer all and this underlies his editorial interpretations. ”
I apologize. I should have called out Martha earlier.
Martha – whatever you think of the editorial, the tone of the whole volume seems to me to resonate with much of what I read in the “ten suggestions for policymakers” article linked on the “human choice and climate change” thread. You are apparently familiar with the main author’s work. Is she, too, overly optimistic? I will admit, I do not know this field.
I think my qualifications in science (MSc, Chemistry) are quite good enough to hold my own with you on the topic, thank you.
But I also have one important knowledge bank, which I would hazard is not available to you. Thirty years experience in the non-academic world. Because out there in the big bad world we are constantly looking at our priorities. There is not an infinity of time or talent or money. And that means that we have to learn to use them wisely and to maximum effect.
Assuming that the guys who have spent their time looking at ‘climate change and peace studies’ aren’t complete goofs, then it has been a waste of their talent to spend so much time on not finding something that isn’t there. And having learnt that, it would be criminal to allow them to continue to waste more. The world has far more urgent problems to fix for it to be sensible to let them fester away in some insulated academic sandbox endlessly writing tedious irrelevant papers that nobody will ever read.
I realise that such an environment is most likely the only one you have ever known – your complete inability to write in anything other than academic meaningless gobbledegook betrays the fact that you have had very few extra-academe influences in your life – but one day you will learn about the big world out there. And about prioritising your efforts.
When that day has come, it may be worth having a discussion with you. But until then, I think not.
PS This of course assumes that you are not really some uber-clever satirist like Sacha Baron Cohen (Ali G and Borat) who has invented the ‘Martha’ character to make subversive points about the nature of academic ‘social sciences’. If so you are doing a great job. The characterisation is pretty near perfect, but I do occasionally wonder ‘is this for real? Can any one individual so reflect the stereotype?’
I’ll let Martha, of course, have the final word. But the seemingly baffling, cryptic, so-called “tribal” and even, sometimes “clueless” character of Martha’s comments actually make good sense if climate “science” is viewed from a “green economy” perspective.
In other words, Martha is viewing climate science issues from a different and much grander and more ambitious vantage point than those on this blog narrowly focused on conventional science and argumentation.
Google: “Wikipedia green economy” and “Fox news [I know! I know!] un chief aides plot green economy”. That last referral contains a link to a relevant UN “green economy” document–at least purportedly.
The “green economy” business also goes a long way to explaining, I recommend, how it is possible that leading scientific institutions like the Royal Society have become corrupted by the now dying CAGW scam (being replaced, as we speak, by “sustainability” as the new front for some really “big plans” for us “little people”).
I mean, why not chuck “bourgeois” notions of science and ethics when, in doing so, there’s a whole world to gain? I mean, like, you know, “Paris is worth a mass.”
nice comment mike
“there is not yet much evidence for climate change as an important driver of conflict”
Mistakenly Omitted: “We will soon be producing studies that say otherwise.”
And BTW, we could do with a hefty wedge of funding to produce the aforementioned scary studies [although we can give you the conclusions now if you like]
The media bias is staggering when colder events occur.
IPCC and government programs are all for AGW but the monkey wrench is in the planet not following the “consensus scientists” agenda.
I guess funding is more important than actual lives… :-(
You can’t mean the under-reporting of the events in Europe.
The media is impartial and informative and non-bias….op’s sorry that ONLY happens in “Joe’s World”.
QUESTION: Shall prospects of global cooling be considered a disaster too?
ANSWER: Note: Nikola Scafetta believes that, “The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040.” Scafetta’s forecast is based upon, `physical mechanisms’ and `the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators,’ such as for examples, ENSO effects and solar activity. Qing-Bin Lu believes that, “a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.” Humanity will adapt and global cooling need not necessarily be considered a disaster for everyone. Even so there will be many challenges, as for example, Canadian wheat production. And, there always is the possibility of disaster. Walter Starck noted that if only humans really were able to heat the globe, “and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago.”
QUESTION: What if global warming were to continue for 100 years? But, what if as throughout the 10,000 years of the Holocene, the global warming had nothing to do with humans–still a disaster?
ANSWER: Even if you assumed that humans were heating the globe by releasing CO2, as Walter Stark noted, humanity would run out of fossil fuels `well before any drastic effects on climate are possible.’ Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that global warming has been much better for humanity than global cooling. To put global warming into historical perspective, the Minoan, Roman, and medieval warm periods have one thing in common. The current global temperatures are 5°F cooler than these previous warm periods. Even given the most alarmist predictions based on a `doubling of atmospheric CO2,’ as Walter Starck observed, `The net result…is most likely to be positive.”
If there is no looming disaster, then the rational for spending, which means more government involvement, goes away.
Can’t let that happen.
True story – with the repeal of Prohibition, the Treasury Dept (along with a Bureau established under the Justice Dept) suddenly had thousands of agents and employees with no purpose. The solution? Create an incident involving a Treasury agent and an attempt to bypass a tax on a firearm and we get the Volstead Act. Now all those agents again have purpose. Ain’t life grand when you work for the government?
Led to the National Firearms Act (1934). Volstead Act (1919) was a result of 18th Amendment (Prohibition) passage.
“To put global warming into historical perspective, the Minoan, Roman, and medieval warm periods have one thing in common. The current global temperatures are 5°F cooler than these previous warm periods.”
The science doesn’t remotely support the above claim. Where does that 5°F cooler figure come from?
The reason why I don’t have a lot of tolerance for climate “skeptics” is because they have a bad and revealing habit of falsely dismissing the threat of climate change through the use of faulty and shoddy research. The above kind of claim is run-of-the-mill for acceptance at places like WUWT.
Research they don’t like is viciously attacked. Faulty, perhaps even baseless, figures that fit their tribal agenda are waved through.
And all the while they are screwing it up they are there shaking their heads at science as if to say they know how to do it better. Priceless huh?
Economic historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote a perceptive study of war and peace, ‘The Causes of War’, (Macmillan 19730 ) based on a survey of all the international wars fought from 1700 to the time of writing. Blainey argues that to analyse why nations go to war is to enter an area of crowded assumptions often not backed up by the evidence. Historical analysis focuses mostly on aims and overlooks the means that leaders must also consider when they choose war over peace. In making their choices the private correspondence of the decision makers reveals the perceptions behind their decisions Archives of correspondence on the eve of WW1 show the German, French and British leaders confident that the war would be short and all of them optimistic that they had the means to achieve victory.
One shibbiloth, ( not to be confused with Chief’s blue pony,) that Professor Blainey destroys is the contention that wars may be fought as a diversion in times of internal unrest and economic downturn. Leaders’ private comments show they are reluctant to risk war in these times and don’t have the war chest to pay for it.
Blainey finds optimism is a recurring pattern in decision makers’ perceptions on the eve of war and argues that anything that increases optimism may be regarded as a cause of war and anything that dampens it may be considered a cause of peace. Optimism comes from whatever permeates the assessments of contending nations, economic conditions, the seasons, ideology, patriotism and so on. Blainey refers to a thesis by economist Alex McFie, who in 1937 traced a link between the trade cycle and outbreak of recent wars and predicted that the present economic upswing was dangerous for European peace. He was correct… Fluctuations in the business cycle were also linked to sunspot number by economist/meteorologist William Jeeves, who also noted the prevalence of Autumn stockmarket panics , this seasonal rise and ebb in confidence, whatever its cause, may provide an additional reason why most wars break out in Spring orSummer.
So it looks like pessimistic scenarios of disastrous climate change, as an important influence in armed conflict, don’t seem to have much currency if its periods of high prosperity that lead to hubris and to war. :-)
Sorry, my paragraphing didn’t work.
The greatest danger is that world leaders are trapped with the rest of us, like rats on a sinking ship. They may do anything in desperation.
Their misguided policies created the current situation. Climategate emails and documents trace the damage back to flawed science promoted by the US NAS, the UK RS and the UN IPCC over the past four decades.
The collapse of AGW confirms the one-page summary of experimental data from analysis of
1. Solar emissions (neutrinos, luminosity, solar wind),
2. Meteorites, planets and lunar samples (1969 Apollo Mission), and
3. Nuclear rest masses (National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory)
Society will remain in danger of irrational actions by world leaders so long as leaders of the scientific community continue to ignore
a.) The above experimental data, and
b.) Recorded evidence that NASA hid Jupiter data that confirm the above summary and promoted the AGW story as factually correct.
c.) nature’s harmonic simultaneous 4- day time cube
Lolwot, a friend asked for the one-page summary on the Sun so he could ask leading solar physicists to comment on the data:
They did not, but claimed the AGW scandal had nothing to do with four decades of deceit about Earth’s heat source – the Sun.
They want no blame for AGW policies that closed down CO2-producing industries here, sent the jobs overseas, and left:
a.) Hundreds homeless, jobless, living on welfare, food-stamps, unemployment, social security, etc., and
b.) A sharply declining value of the US dollar (i.e., the cost of goods is increasing daily).
World leaders and leaders of the scientific community are trapped with the rest of us, like rats on a sinking ship, and want no responsibility for having produced the current situation.
And the situation will not improve while our policies are guided by seriously flawed AGW dogma.
Climate and war? No way man… Greece up the Left coast and it’s California Here we Come! No worries man–so long as public sector employees have their jackboots on the throats of the productive.
Climate change might affect skirmishes indirectly – say with the melting arctic and several countries trying to claim previously buried riches/resources. Or arguments on who owns recently opened shipping lanes in the Arctic Sea.
That’s the way I see it mostly likely to play out.
So, you don’t see Iran, Russia and China joining forces to make war on the rest of the world as a means to retain power and keep their people in chains, irrespecive of which way the wind blows?
Before and After: Increase in Hydrocarbon Use–
Yes Virginia there really is an explanation: It’s a flaming charriot in the sky with Apollo at the reins of furious horses snorting fire from their nostrils, stupid.
We could be energy independent. But, with small minded politicians and superstitious schoolteachers we’re headed in the wrong direction.
Until humans can control the sun, nuclear energy is the solution. “Currently, this solution is not possible owing to misguided government policies, regulations, and taxation and to legal maneuvers available to anti-nuclear activists. These impediments should be legislatively repealed.”
[Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine]
Anyone who thinks about these points will realise there is no greenhouse effect …
(1) The direction of net radiative energy flow can be the opposite of the direction of heat transfer. if you have a warmer object (say 310 K) with low emissivity (say 0.2) and a cooler object (say 300 K) with much higher emissivity (say 0.9) then net radiative energy flow is from the cooler to the warmer object. Yet the Second Law says heat transfer is from hot to cold. So, there is no warming of the warmer body by any of the (net) radiative energy going into it.
(2) Any warming of a warmer surface by radiation from a cooler atmosphere violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Consider the situation when the surface is being warmed by the Sun at 11am somewhere. Its temperature is rising and net radiative energy flow is into the surface. How could additional thermal energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to make the surface warm at a faster rate?
Clearly radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface. The surface molecules “reject” radiation which has a peak frequency lower than the peak frequency of their own emission, and so no radiative energy is converted to thermal energy. (This was proved in Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation.), So the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.
sounds like the kind of genuine controversy the Royal Society are neglecting! That and the flat earth/round earth debate.
AGW Believes may wish to stick with Tarot cards to predict the future and burning copies of the Old Farmers Alamanac to prevent heresy from spreading.
Oh look, deniers like Watts are getting paid big money to tell lies!:
And you poor suckers here let them lead you around by the nose.
Get your head out of it Holly.
Nobody leads sceptics around by the nose.
Nullius in verba: on the word of no one.
You are an insulting moron.
And you are a gullible fool. Didn’t act like a sceptic when you believed the paid liars, did you?
“”And you are a gullible fool.””
Idiot, I am a liberal thinker, I question everything. It’s my training. You have the nose rings attached by the manner of your education.
You are a believer, not me.
MArkus I question your intelligence. Why don’t you go read the documents and see if you can come up with an alternative explanation? Not “sceptical” enough?
“You are an insulting moron.”
Holly is certifiable, no doubt. Your basic sterotypical Move-On.Org, angry, hate based, IPCC supporting climate advocate with the NY Times links to prove it.
Just let it go is the best advice. She’s garden variety. There are plenty of more benevolent Gianist trolls that are certainly less shrill if you feel the need.
Funny position you take on this HS. I guess I should take up the stance that I couldn’t possibly read anything the ‘insider’ stole from Heartland to expose their sundry ways. Isn’t that your position on the climategate dossier Holly? How can you tolerate this abhorrent behavior by the thief? Is it now ok for someone to steal information to further ‘the cause’? I’m sure it won’t keep you up at night. Your coming off as a bit hypocritical.
So you admit the climategate hacker was a thief now? Of course, that became obvious when the thief release the dud called “climaegate 2”
Sorry, this insider is likely a real whistleblower who couldn’t stomach the lies anymore.
“Sorry, this insider is likely a real whistleblower who couldn’t stomach the lies anymore.”
Of course, how silly of me to not realize how clever you are at telling the difference. BTW, you didn’t answer my question. Your ok with someone ‘stealing’ information to expose big bad Heartland Institute?
I love the climate denier argument that an insider in an organization leaking documents to which they have access (and which can clearly be argued are protected by the whistleblower statutes) is comparable to somebody hacking into a foreign university’s email server and actually stealing files. I guess beings “skeptical” makes one ignore those little differences, LOL.
If you are are really so skeptical, take a look at John R. Mashey’s report that came out today, which not only confirms the authenticity of the leaked documents but goes into great detail about the money trail, as well as some very fishy accounting to the IRS from all of our favorite denial think tanks, which violate several of the 501c3 rulings…..
Trout, first you need to understand I am no climate change denier. Second you need to know HS made it clear she would never read ‘stolen’ emails related to climategate and now is taking a very hypocritical or ironic position wrt to her own beliefs. Third, you need to consider the climategate emails may have been exposed by an insider within EAU. If you can’t come to terms with these facets of the argument I present, then your not able to make a reasoned evaluation of all the information. Finally, I am not questioning the authenticity of the documents, I am pointing out how biased some people are in evaluating information. I add you to the list of those who are not able to.
Exactly where and when did I write what you claim I wrote and where is the exact quote and what is the context?
Or did you just make that up?
“Or did you just make that up?”
HS, no I didn’t make it up. Judith made a comment about Climategate 2.0 emails here:
You responded here:
Your response infers you would not read ‘stolen’ emails as you took a very condescending tone with Judith in your comment.
I responded here:
You never replied to my comment.
You have not responded to my query above either. I’ll ask for a third time. Is it now ok for someone to steal information to further a cause be it UEA emails or Heartland? Simple answer, yes or no?
Thank you for looking that up; I don’t come here too often so am apt to miss things. I wrote: “Why are you reading stolen private emails anyway? And why do you believe a bunch of statements taken out of context and distorted to make good people look bad?”
So I did not say I would never read them, though I did criticize Curry for doing it. As a researcher I might read them for information or out of sheer curiosity, but I would be very careful about spreading them around or interpreting them without understanding the source and the context. That may be hypocritical, but there it is.
As for your argument that they are in public now; even so, they are still stolen private emails.
It is wrong to steal, although I can imagine rare circumstances where it might be excused or justified.
The person who stole the CRU emails hacked into their computers then cherry-picked some of the emails, losing the context, and hacked into RealClimate to place them on that website. That is the act of a criminal out to discredit good scientists, not a whistleblower. The same criminal waited a year and then released more cherry-picked emails but not the complete collection. Again, the act of a criminal, not a whistleblower. And in fact the emails show no wrong-doing. There have been all sorts of enquiries and no wrongdoing has been established. As a group, the AGW deniers earned my lasting contempt by distorting a few cherry-picked emails, lying about them, buiilding up a huge ridiculous conspiracy fantasy and basically acting like gullible, dishonest idiots.
How were the Heartland documents acquired? It’s unclear; I certainly would not believe Heartland’s version without some independent confirmation. Maybe a whistleblower, maybe a disgruntled employee or ex-employee. Is one document fake? Maybe, I don’t know. But the other documents have independent confirmation of at least some parts by John Mashey, whom I know to be a careful and accurate researcher, and by others.
HS, though I would not agree with you on the content of the climategate emails not showing a larger picture of certain scientists trying hard to preserve their ‘consensus’ view, I thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
The ‘thief’ or ‘whistleblower’ who released the climategate emails appears to be motivated to release the emails to demonstrate the ‘consensus’ is not only weak, but also has much to do with maintaining power over a message, who tells it and how it is told. Whoever did it, did not try to alter the contents of the emails, he/she simply exposed a larger dialogue taking place that is not very scientific in behavior. There was no creation of impropriety, just exposure, and so it is credible.
The ‘thief’ or ‘whistleblower’ who released the Heartland documents, OTOH, was motivated to ‘create’ impropriety IF their are fake documents involved. In that case, the exposer loses all credibility and the whole endeavor will end up causing more harm to the cause than to help.
We could argue at length whether either of the two perpetrators are thieves or whistleblowers. In reality, people will assign the proper term based upon how credible they view the evidence and the situation. At this time I have to give the Climategate email exposer the upper hand on that front and therefore, of the two, the more likely moniker of whistleblower.
I believe there’s a small bill of $100,000,000,000 to be paid to developing countries each year from 2020. CEO’s managing funds like that probably get enough to live on. And $30 million for East Anglia et al probably helped a bit. No, no, these AGW proponents don’t have a vested interest. /sarc
Frankly, if I stood to lose money due to a fraud such as the greenhouse conjecture, I would consider it worth paying for a good legal defense. That’s what the work of Heartland amounts to and I say good on the oil companies for supporting it.
Interesting. Our very own David Wojick getting paid for his “skepticism.”
Say it ain’t so, David!
His crap was UNbelievable before we found out he was being paid, finding out that he gets paid to be stupid, makes him look a bit smarter.
Once again Holly sneaks into her daddy’s office to use the computer.
Were you not previously going on about how the UEA emails were “stolen” and that a crime had been committed? In fact I recall you saying something to the effect that anyone referring to such stolen documents was in effect condoning criminal action.
I am curious where the outrage is now?
And AGW proponents fooled the world with their newly invented backradiation from a cold atmosphere which they claimed (with a bit of mathematics) caused the surface to cooler more slowly in the evenings and warm more quickly in the mornings. They thought radiation meant heat transfer was inevitable. Pity that physics says it ain’t necessarily so.
And you, Holly Stick fell for it hook line and sinker without them ever doing a simple experiment to see if backradiation really can warm the surface. It didn’t for me in my experiment – not even 0.1 degree C.
If it had it would have been in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as I have explained in other posts.
David Wojick –
You’re being paid to develop a curriculum that will dissuade teachers from teaching science??????!!!!???!?!
Please, tell me that’s some kind of a typo.
Otherwise, it seems to me that we may have a climategategate on our hands.
I think you can read that another way. The poor choice of word (I believe) is ‘effective’. This may have been intended in a negative sense – i.e. having the negative effect of dissuading teachers from teaching science. Simply, I suppose, because controversy (and uncertainty?) are things teachers naturally steer away from.
I hope I’m not being naive with this…
I read you explanation for how it could mean something other than what it says a couple of times now, and I fail to understand what you’re explaining.
Maybe you could try again? The document clearly suggests strategies that would be “effective” at dissuading teachers from teaching science. Now I find it hard to believe that David would be involved in an effort at reaching such a goal – but I fail to see how your suggesting of an alternate reading makes any sense.
You may be right. I gravitated towards that interpretation on the obvious grounds that I could not believe that people [David W esp’] would aim to dissuade teachers from teaching science. I couldn’t comprehend it.
Without that assumption, I conclude that you are probably correct. Which leaves me a bit brain-numb!!
Face it, Josh, this commenting site is full of shills, cons, marks, gamers, tricksters, players, dicers, fools, and reliable clowns.
You could and should write a paper on it — a working title: “The Epistemologist as Hustler”.
‘Face it, Josh, this commenting site is full of shills, cons, marks, gamers, tricksters, players, dicers, fools, and reliable clowns’
Don’t be so hard on yourself and little Joshie. You might hurt his so fragile self-image.
Christ, as bad that is, even more is the typical nonsense he wants to inject into the classroom
Actually, I personally have no problem with teaching the “controversy.”
I don’t see teaching the “controversy” as interjecting nonsense.
That said, the wording of that document is flat out bizarre. I certainly David can explain how it is simply a typo, and that when he saw it he immediately worked to correct the obviously unsupportable intentions it describes.
I will add that I certainly hope that David is not simply creating curricula that are propaganda, and that they present a comprehensive overview of the variety of perspectives in the relevant debates.
I must admit I am a bit dubious about that.
Hopefully, perhaps he’ll provide a link to an example of a module he’s created – so we can see whether or not it makes a good-faith effort to present the full range of the related controversies.
You think mankind changing the climate is major controversial? It really isn’t. Neither is the confusing claim about ‘natural emissions’. Only someone attempting to confuse students about natural carbon cycles versus the change that mankind has made to the carbon cycle would teach that as a controversy.
As someone actually involved in teaching science – to 1st through 12th graders – I’d like to note the non-profit I work with eliminated the term environmental from all of our documents and material.
Why? Because the term has been loaded with so much negative baggage, mainly by “environmental” groups who wouldn’t know good science if it bit them in the ass.
Sure, everyone needs to keep their rooms clean, but it is possible to be destructively obsessive compulsive about it.
Earth in the Balance. Now there’s a good slogan for the combined environmentalist techno-optimist.
See, nothing new here…
As The World Turns
Heartland are of not the slightest interest to me and do not spreak for me. However when you quote;
“His effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.’
Surely there is only a missing word needed to provide the context;;
‘from teaching THE science (of climate change’
Read ‘teaching consensus science’. That makes all the sense in the world, conveys the meaning of the passage, and shows that all this caterwauling about this by the alarmists is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the ‘consensus science’ is failing, and the consensus is dissolving.
Just to make sure you’re right – you’d support the goals as outlined in that document given the text change you suggest? You support an effort to “dissuade teachers from teaching THE science of climate change?”
I support teaching about the controversy and presenting questions that some people have about uncertainty to students. Students should be provided with information about the full context of the debate.
But in now way does that equate to dissuading teacher from teaching THE science of climate change. No matter how you slice it, IMO. How could you, or anyone else, defend that as a goal?
I hope I understand you incorrectly, because otherwise it just boggles.
If that is the explanation that David provides, I will be sorely disappointed. If that is the explanation that he provides, I hope that he will link to some of his curricula so that we can see whether it represents a goof faith effort to present all the views on the science fairly.
As usual, the more “skeptics” weigh in on an issue, the more fascinating it gets:
So – students should not be taught the “consensus science,” even though it is obviously well-represented among the expert opinions of thousands of scientists, consistent with myriad associations of scientists, etc.
Your argument isn’t that both sides of the debate should be presented in full context, but that teachers should be “dissuaded” from teaching “the consensus science?”
And that makes “all the sense in the world?”
Spectacular, kim. Just spectacular.
I will pick up the heartland issue on the week in review, this friday. lets let this simmer a bit first, to see what the reactions are.
OK. I just thought since I (along with everyone else) understand ergodicidy, it was OK to move to other matters: :-)
Oh, c’mon, youngun, we’re talking climate science here. Consensus climate science is failing and the consensus is dissolving. You may distract, but don’t get too far off the track or you’ll get lost as usual.
Just one more, Judith, if you’ll permit.
Heh. Typos are fun.
Let me change that too:
As I mentioned above, I am involved with science education and I can tell you that I wouldn’t want some of the folks over at sks or RC within a country mile of students. They are not educators but preachers.
I’d like to see someone like dana1981 spend a day in the field with us, but if he is even remotely like his blog personna, I’m more likely to want to knee-cap the bastard.
You are obviously one up on me, as I don’t understand what ergodicity means or is.
But then what I don’t know is vast. Exceeds what I do know (or think I know) by many orders of magnitude.
This is a bit of a semantic argument, but I would say that it is a fact that it is “controversial” in that so many Americans question whether or not mankind is changing the climate. There is, in fact, a controversy. There is relatively little controversy among scientists, and “teaching the controversy” would include informing students of that fact.
If you claim that there is “no controversy,” then students are ill-equipped to handle what they see when they turn on Fox News or get information from other places where there is much disagreement on these issues. If you “teach the controversy,” then students can put what they hear into the appropriate context.
We’re discussing science as a controversy, not a politics meandering of sorts. This stuff about so many not believing in the evidence should be taught in other areas, such as politics or current events or psychology. Although what you are talking is a conversation that is likely to come up organically in science class.
I don’t think that you can separate the science from the politics or the current events or the psychology. In my view, all subjects need to be taught from an interdisciplinary perspective – including science.
There is absolutely no harm done by teaching the science in full context. There is harm done by teaching such material in isolation from the full context.
Science needs to be taught in a way that combines discipline-specific information along with scientific method, scientific reasoning, etc. Such material is inextricably linked.
Are you aware of what “teaching the controversy” is? You are making arguable points about what can be part of science discussion and student preparation for real world application, but there is a long history of this kind of tactic. It’s not what you are talking about. It’s about causing confusion to students about what is and what isn’t controversial in the science community.
That’s a good point. I have been using a term that has a loaded meaning, but using it in a different way.
I really just mean teaching about the controversy as you teach the science: in other words, informing students what as known about the predominance of opinion among scientists, explaining that many Americans are misinformed about what the predominant opinion is among scientists, showing the tribal behaviors displayed by scientists in Wall Street Journal editorials, examining the complicated nature of implementing mitigation policies, etc.
I tend to agree that a discussion of the issue of climate change belongs in a class other than science. If fact I tend to think the term climate change should not be used anywhere near a science class. We shouldn’t be teaching”climate change” to students, rather they should be learning chemistry, physics, math, biology and perhaps most importantly, the ability to observe, hypothesize, collect data, and question, question, question.
If anything got me interested in this subject, it was the failure by the people claiming that global warming / climate change / extreme climate is the biggest issue facing mankind to do exactly what I mentioned above. You don’t have to be a “Climate Scientist” to know what good science is.
I was reading your short excerpt not the whole piece, so perhaps the context of your quote and my reply was lost. I think it is just saying that he wants to provide an alternative viewpoint on the science of climate change to the one currently taught, which relies on the IPCC view and doesn’t currently show that there is a scientific alternative viewpoint.
I think there are two distinct questions here.
1. Has mankind changed our climate locally, regionally (and hence, by cumulation globally) over pre-historical and historical times?
2. Are we able to willfully change our planet’s climate perceptibly by any actions, which we might undertake?
I would submit to you that the answer to (1) is very likely “YES”, while the answer to (2) is much more uncertain, inasmuch as there have been no actionable proposals made to date, which would have a discernible impact on out planet’s future climate, AFAIK.
In fact, I’d say the answer to (2) is very likely “NO”, until someone does come up with such an actionable proposal.
I have come to the conclusion that I will have to bury our current “consensus” under a huge pile of factual mapping and factual science.
Not to have any understanding of velocities and motion of our planet is somewhat of an eye opener to how bad our theories and methods of data manipulation has been.
48 degree latitude is a factual location of motion changing due to the strength difference of centrifugal force with the velocities difference of strength. Circular motion is understanding how two energies interact with each other with their differing speeds.
Again, this is NOT temperature data and will be ignored until the evidence buries the current tribe of dogmatic scientists.
At least PITA must see the insanity of the AGW Believers. If not for man-made energy we’d all be wearing animal fur for warmth and those who did not would soon not be.
Speaking of climate change and (blog) war:
I am cross-posting this from a comment I made at Collide-a-scape. Nothing here that I haven’t said in earlier posts about the Heartland documents, but I’m hoping that posting a comment one more time will help increase the odds of reading David W. respond.
Here’s an aspect of [the Heartland documents] that I find interesting:
I have exchanged many a blog comment with David Wojick – and while not entirely infrequently he has written ad hom attacks to me based in facile reasoning, on many other occasions he has exchanged views with me in good faith .
Now in one of the documents released, it says that he was being contracted to develop curricula that would be “effective” at “dissuading teachers from teaching science.” That is truly a bizarre document.
I disagree with David on much. Very strongly, in fact. Still, I find it hard to believe that he would be involved in an effort as described in the document. I don’t think it is impossible because he has shown a strong tribalism in his attacks against me, and he has openly said that his primary interest in the climate debate is political in nature. Still, my first reaction is to think that there must be something here that I don’t understand. Something that could explain why, although the document suggests otherwise, he would not be accepting $100,000 to create curricula to “dissuade teachers from teaching science.”
If that were the intent of Heartland, I would expect David to produce documentation that he voiced strong opposition to such a goal, as well as evidence that the curricula he has produced make a good-faith effort to present both sides of the climate debate in a fair manner.
In other words, it seems to me that the first reaction should be to give him the benefit of the doubt with an expectation of evidence. Trust, but verify. Instead, what I see are “realists” assuming that such a bizarre intent – to dissuade teachers from teaching science – is really the goal of Heartland and David.
This reminds me of the reaction to “hide the decline,” except in reverse. Nefarious motivations for the “hide the decline” comment were assumed by “skeptics,” and plausible explanations were dismissed out of hand. Why? In my view, because of motivation reasoning, confirmation bias, etc.
I look forward to reading David Wojick’s explanation of the document and some evidence that he wasn’t creating propagandist curricula for students. With such evidence presented, he should continue to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Absent such an explanation (given enough time), I think that he deserves severe criticism.
Here’s something I find interesting since the analogy is out there, though made absurd by the relative sums of money involved. The ClimateGates explain how the consensus came to be wrong about the science. The AEI owe yous don’t explain how the skeptics are wrong.
Moral equivocation is a nasty habit, kim.
By the way, how is that ol’ dot-connecting thang working out?
Any more dots to support your visions of Obama’s “Muslim sympathies?”
Link to the Los Angeles tapes.
And what about the disparity in funding and what about the science?
As usual, Josh and the rest of the belieers rely on lies to push their agenda.
Heartland was not working to stop the teaching of science.
They are developing a curriculum alternative to the bs being pushed by the AGW movement.
But Josh knows this.
Heh, you think climate science is a mess, check out education.
I have. Public education in the US makes HMS Titanic look like an example of a well run ship.
Almost two years ago, Willis Eschenbach chastised our host for not actively taking the lead in starting a detailed investigation of the cabal of “insiders” implicated by Climategate and subsequent revelations, in order to ferret out the truth.
Judith replied that while she disapproved of sloppy or skewed science, she did not see her role as that of attacking individual scientists.
She also stated in followup posts and other statements that she had reservations about the IPCC “consensus process” and that climate science had suffered a loss of public trust and credibility as a result of this process and the Climategate revelations.
So what has happened since then?
There have been a couple of “jes’ fine” white washes but no real critical investigation as Willis was suggesting, but Judith has done a good job – here and elsewhere – in trying to keep the debate going and, above all, in challenging the “mainstream consensus” scientifically, regarding the great uncertainty involved.
And in appears that the public is becoming a bit more involved in (and aware of) the ongoing scientific and political debate surrounding AGW.
It’s hard to attribute this specifically to ClimateEtc., but I’m sure that it hasn’t hurt.
So hats off to Judith!