perfidy

Are we allowing any daylight here between "reversing global warming" and "mitigating its most potentially damaging effects?" It would appear not.

In any case, this -- Given my lack of certitude that it’s a man-made problem, the possibility of a man-made solution strikes me as unspeakably arrogant of man, to be honest. -- is very nearly stupid. Polio and smallpox weren't man-made problems either, and yet we somehow managed to tidily whip their asses. We harnessed the atom and we put men's footprints on The Moon of Earth. You have that little confidence in the things we can do? I don't.

Who, by the way, are these "other authorities?" The AEI and its $10,000 cash prizes for scientists willing to contradict the IPCC? Taranto's "argument" -- We don’t have enough scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative opinion -- is itself an appeal to authority! I mean, who's "we," Taranto? You got a frog in your pocket? What, precisely, makes him a reliable arbiter of what is and isn't sufficient science on this matter? Oh, yes -- "intuition." After all, We lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. We just feel like it's wrong, therefore it must be.

The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry.

Yeah. So do the evolutionary biologists, the Round-Earthers, and the heliocentrists.

Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt.

Alas, James, to wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not sufficient to cast yourself as the real scientists for expressing skepticism. You must also be right.

The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies.

Therefore it must be wrong, eh? Heaven forbid Taranto's -- and your -- ideological opponents got something correct all on their own.

Assuming arguendo that any of the conclusions of the IPCC are correct, it's the height of folly to keep tapping your pipe against your teeth, rubbing your glasses with your handkerchief and saying, "Hmmmm . . . I'm not convinced. Let's gather even more data," no? Yes, some of the implications and potential solutions are uncomfortable. That doesn't make the conclusions wrong. It seems to me more like you aren't in a position to be convinced -- nor will you ever be -- rather than that you aren't convinced

Phil:

A couple things occur to me. First, as I highlighted in my post, Taranto's use of the word "we" specifically DOES refer to him and the frog in his pocket.

Second, if you're really curious, I'd be more than happy to line up cites and sources which reach different conclusions than you claim the IPCC report does. If you're not actually interested, I won't waste my time.

The difference here, and the point of my post, is that I really don't give a wet shit what you think about global warming, I draw no conclusions about your open-mindedness or intelligence for the choice you've made, and I feel no compulsion to either prove you wrong or to bludgeon you into agreeing with me by claiming that you're "nearly stupid" for not seeing things my way.

The fact that the feeling is clearly not mutual IS the point of my post.

You've seen nothing? Literally, nothing at all, that indicates that there might, possibly, be a problem? Wow. I find that extremely difficult to believe, but OK. Although I'm not sure that the conclusions of a multiyear, multidisplinary study with thousands of data points and observations counts as "appeal to authority" in the way that, say, "Well, my doctor is smart and he believes in UFOs" is.

As for this: Above all, we can’t stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?

I seem to recall a situation much like this in regards to the Iraq War, except a) Taranto et al. were on the other side of it at the time, b) "evil" was probably the nicest word that was used, and c) it's still going on. So, in short, cry me a goddamned river, Taranto.

Nope - nothing to convince me it's a man-made problem, and nothing to convince me that it's a net problem at all. Please don't get the impression I think there's no possibility of regional effects from changes in the weather, just as there have always been regional effects from the changes our world's been through over time.

Given my lack of certitude that it's a man-made problem, the possibility of a man-made solution strikes me as unspeakably arrogant of man, to be honest. And since none of the supposed solutions on offer today claims to be able to reverse global warming in any event, it would seem that science agrees with me on that matter.

Not that I'm appealing to authority or anything. But if I chose to appeal to an authority, there happen to be several from which to choose, and IPCC is just one of them, hair and all.

Apropos nothing much, and certainly not proferred to advance the ball on this subject, two links to articles of potential interest.

Causes">http://longorshortcapital.com/pooplution-and-you.htm]Causes of CO2

Make">http://longorshortcapital.com/make-emissions-delicious-stop-global-warm… Emissions Delicious, Stop Global Warming

"Interest", in this context, is synonymous with "cheap jokes, salted with the occasional valid statement, and the occasional completely incorrect statement". As a for-instance, the graph at the first link that says CO2 comprises 76% of greenhouse gases should actually say that it's 76% of non-water-vapor GHG.

Just how divided is the scientific community on the subject of global warming? I actually did think they (scientists) were in agreement that man-made pollution does contribute to global warming, and that better alternatives need to be put into wider use. I thought the whole debate was whether global warming was only a more recent affliction of the planet, or if it was a naturally-occurring event that man has negatively affected. (Granted, Edog has a bit more time to research things than I do)

Yes, I was trying to point out that there are actual scientists, and not just religious zealots, who are researching and finding conclusions in regards to global warming. If you come across any mroe articles on this, let me know! Thanks.

Excellent question - how divided is the scientific community? Depends on what part of GW you're talking about.

Has the earth warmed? There appears to be no real debate on this matter - it's a simple measurement over a period of time when such measurements can reliably be made, and yes, it has occurred, in a relative sense. Is the earth warmer than it's ever been? Nope. But it's warmed in recent years.

Is global warming caused by CO2, or something else entirely? Well, that's where things start to get interesting. There's an apparent correlation between increases in global temperature and CO2 over the past couple weeks. Sorry, did I say weeks? I almost said "millenia", but in terms of the age of the planet, and all the warming and cooling cycles it's been through, it's not even proper to call those millenia "weeks". "Seconds" might be a better comparative unit of measure. Correlation is not causation, and in any event, CO2 makes up something like 5% of what are commonly referred to as "greenhouse gases" - the bulk of the rest is water vapor. Recognition that correlation <> causation is one big reason that the debate continues on this point.

Is the increase in CO2 caused by man? Another nettlesome point. Some of the increase seen in CO2 is correlated with the industrialization of the global economy. But it's also correlated with a lot of other things we have more of today than we did 200 years ago, and that entire "correlation <> causation" problem remains.

Is the change in global temperature meaningful in any real sense? Another significant bone of contention. I don't pretend to know, personally, but based on the fact that most AGW alarmists have as their basis the fact that if we don't de-industrialize the world, right god-damned now!, starting with the established industrial economies, well, I tend to at least consider the possibility that someone's pissing on my shoes and telling me it's just raining.

And I'm not alone in that skepticism. So the debate continues.

To summarize:

Is the planet warmer than it was 100 years ago?

Answer: Yes.

Does it matter?
Is it based on CO2 rather than other factors such as variability in solar impacts, climatological ephemera that we can't even pretend to understand or predict, or other things?
If it happens to be caused by CO2, is it (industrially) man-made, caused by non-industrial deforestation, cow-farts, or something else?

Answer to all three: Nobody knows for sure, and if they tell you that they do know for sure, and that they're willing to bet the future of the strongest economies in the world on their surety, then you'd be wise to consider the possibility that they've got other motives.

Sunrunner:

We can agree that they're both entitled to state their opinions, and that Goodman's comments were inflammatory, but while Taranto may be wrong, he's neither inflammatory nor naive in his remarks. (Wait - of course he's inflammatory, but as a general stylistic point, not specific to this discussion. Just wanted to be clear on that)

It's not really Taranto's opinion on global warming that he was writing about, it's the (utterly false) presumption and widespread reporting that all "honest-to-God scientists" have reached the same conclusion.

You don't seem to make such a claim. I hope you were just pointing out that there are some scientists who have come to those conclusions.

Until all or substantially all of them do so, and while even today, those that agree with the thesis might be correct, it's incorrect to claim that the debate is over, or that those who point out the inconvenient truth that the debate continues are being naive. It's all in the definition of the word "debate".

The debate is clearly not over, and no amount of "religious zeal" on the part of those shouting that the debate is over will make it so.

If Ellen Goodman had really wanted to make a strong point about global warming, she should NEVER have brought up the Holocaust. I will admit she lost me there. How exactly does discussion about the Holocaust compare in any way with discussions about global warming? Global warming is not exclusively a man-made problem, there's evidence that global warming has occurred throughout the history of this planet, but man's disregard for taking care of our planet has made the issue of global warming WORSE. It would be hard to convincingly argue that we (as an overall species) have never shown a complete disregard for the consequences of abusing our natural resources.

I have a hard time not thinking that Taranto is purposely putting his "blinders" on when he says that "The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry." Aren't these scientists, you know, honest-to -God scientists with degrees and bunches of letters after their names, that are doing this research and coming to these conclusions about global warming? At least once you get past the people on both sides who try to stir up anger and hysteria with inflammatory remarks (Goodman) and somewhat naive statements (Taranto). Of course, since both articles are opinions, and this IS the U.S. of A., they are entitled to their arguements.