The environment thread

[Y2HH]

We haven't really started to address it, no. It's hard when something like 50% of the country denies that the problem even exists. We're still putting out increasing amounts of CO2 over the last several decades. If we were really addressing the problem, doing what we need to do, we'd be drastically cutting emissions, not talking about Keystone.

 

This report contains the most recent estimates I've seen. There's a slight dip in the last few years due to the economy crashing, but we aren't doing anything to really reduce emissions.

 

Based on this data, it would lead to the conclusion that it's corporations and factories that cause the issue, since a lot of people, by force or otherwise, are doing something about it. If you buy a car today, it's far more efficient than it was just a decade ago. Same goes for modern appliances, etc. Not only that, but even within us non-believers, we tend to be more efficient about things since everything we can buy is simply more efficient than it once was, or even partially made of recycled materials.

 

Even if an individual doesn't believe it in it, there isn't much they can do to be less efficient and cause more pollution than society around them allows. Plastic bottles are thinner, partially made of post-consumer recycled waste, etc. The examples are numerous, and all around us...even our more modern computers are made to be more environment friendly, being made with glass, metals, etc...which are far better to recycle and reuse than their older plastic counterparts.

 

And yes, I'm a non-believer to a degree. While I believe in climate change/global warming, I don't believe we are as much of the cause of it as a lot of people want to believe. Do I believe we contributed? Yes. But not much.

[StrangeSox]

Transportation still remains the leading source of CO2 emissions. Our engines are much better now, but cars also weigh a hell of a lot more due to both increased comfort and features and increased safety (airbags, ABS, Traction, Stability, more robust chassis, bigger brakes, etc. etc.). You could get 40+MPG cars in the 80's because they were lighter. We were steadily increasing the total amount of fuel consumed every year until the crash.

 

I know you're a non-believer to "a degree," and that rejection of the world-wide scientific understanding of the issue is part of the problem. Could you ever see yourself supporting the large-scale changes we need to address this since you don't even believe it needs to be addressed at that level?

[Y2HH]

Transportation still remains the leading source of CO2 emissions. Our engines are much better now, but cars also weigh a hell of a lot more due to both increased comfort and features and increased safety (airbags, ABS, Traction, Stability, more robust chassis, bigger brakes, etc. etc.). You could get 40+MPG cars in the 80's because they were lighter. We were steadily increasing the total amount of fuel consumed every year until the crash.

 

I know you're a non-believer to "a degree," and that rejection of the world-wide scientific understanding of the issue is part of the problem. Could you ever see yourself supporting the large-scale changes we need to address this since you don't even believe it needs to be addressed at that level?

 

I support those large scale changes now, not because I believe we are the main contributor to rising global temperatures, but because why pollute when you don't have too? If better, more efficient methods for our factories exist today, which would cut emissions/pollution, I'm all for implementing them for the sake of our own health and for cleaner air. Not because I believe it's going to save the world.

 

I'm not rejecting the world-wide scientific understanding of anything other than the idea that *we* are the main cause of global warming. I *do* reject that claim/idea. Because warming trends, even severe ones, have occurred before we existed...and they will occur AFTER we've existed. I do *not*, however, reject the idea that we pollute, needlessly or even carelessly, and there are better modern methods that could be used cut said pollution for the sake of our air quality, etc.

[StrangeSox]

I support those large scale changes now, not because I believe we are the main contributor to rising global temperatures, but because why pollute when you don't have too? If better, more efficient methods for our factories exist today, which would cut emissions/pollution, I'm all for implementing them for the sake of our own health and for cleaner air. Not because I believe it's going to save the world.

 

I'm not rejecting the world-wide scientific understanding of anything other than the idea that *we* are the main cause of global warming. I *do* reject that claim/idea. Because warming trends, even severe ones, have occurred before we existed...and they will occur AFTER we've existed. I do *not*, however, reject the idea that we pollute, needlessly or even carelessly, and there are better modern methods that could be used cut said pollution for the sake of our air quality, etc.

 

But if you don't believe that CO2 is the significant driver of global warming, then there's no reason to cut CO2 emissions. It doesn't impact air quality. If AGW is not a significant thing, then there's no reason to impose carbon caps or C&T; there's no externality there that we need to capture. We can reduce other pollution emissions in other ways with less cost without worrying about CO2 if that's our concern

 

Warming trends have occurred in the past, and yes, they'll occur in the future, but that's not a reason to reject the concept of AGW. Of course scientists who have been studying this for decades have considered what happened in the past; paleoclimatology is the grounds for a lot of our understanding of climate systems in the first place.

[Y2HH]

But if you don't believe that CO2 is the significant driver of global warming, then there's no reason to cut CO2 emissions. It doesn't impact air quality. If AGW is not a significant thing, then there's no reason to impose carbon caps or C&T; there's no externality there that we need to capture. We can reduce other pollution emissions in other ways with less cost without worrying about CO2 if that's our concern

 

Warming trends have occurred in the past, and yes, they'll occur in the future, but that's not a reason to reject the concept of AGW. Of course scientists who have been studying this for decades have considered what happened in the past; paleoclimatology is the grounds for a lot of our understanding of climate systems in the first place.

 

There are pollutants that go hand in hand with CO2 being emitted that do affect our air quality...I'm not an expert, but I assume that if our factories cut pollutants that do affect air quality that CO2 would probably go down with them. And I'm fine with that happening.

 

And I still feel that my reason to reject the concept of AGW is logically sound. I still believe man, with his nearly limitless ego, really wants to be the cause of climate change. I just don't believe we are...I think it's a natural occurance based on the fact it's happened before...and will happen again, with or without us. I'm also not rejecting that we CAN contribute to it...I just believe the amount we actually do contribute is so minimal it doesn't matter. But in our infinite search for self importance, we would like to believe we're making a bigger dent in the universe than we actually are.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Y2HH

[G&T]

LOL at the trolling going on in Shell's "Let's Go" ad contest.

 

link

 

That's a Greenpeace website. It's fake.

[StrangeSox]

Not necessarily. Cutting pollution at plants (and in car engines) generally involves utilizing some form of chemical reaction (catalytic converters), re-burning the gas or other processes. For instance, your typical coal plant emissions controls will have scrubbers that significantly reduce SO2, particulates and mercury (though they still pollute terribly) without doing a thing about CO2. Your car now has multiple catalytic converters and a complex emissions gas re-circ system, but it doesn't cut down on CO2.

 

At the end of the day, it's still a chemical reaction. You need to produce heat to boil water to generate steam to turn a turbine to generate electricity. Generating X amount of heat will always require burning Y amount of coal and producing Z amount of CO2. Efficiencies in the heat transfer/steam generation process can help reduce the amount of fuel needed to produce a certain amount of electricity, but even at unity (i.e. perfect and complete transfer of all energy from the burning coal into electricity), we're still going to have high levels of CO2 emissions. If we want to control those emissions, we need specialized equipment like carbon scrubbers or we need sequestration. These options are available in industrial power settings, but not for automobiles.

[StrangeSox]

And I still feel that my reason to reject the concept of AGW is logically sound. I still believe man, with his nearly limitless ego, really wants to be the cause of climate change. I just don't believe we are...I think it's a natural occurance based on the fact it's happened before...and will happen again, with or without us. I'm also not rejecting that we CAN contribute to it...I just believe the amount we actually do contribute is so minimal it doesn't matter. But in our infinite search for self importance, we would like to believe we're making a bigger dent in the universe than we actually are.

 

There's nothing really logical about that argument, though. You're rejecting the entire field of climatology based on your supposition on some egotistical drive of scientists to believe that man is the cause. That's not really an argument at all, to be honest, and it doesn't even attempt to address any of the actual data and modeling.

[Y2HH]

Not necessarily. Cutting pollution at plants (and in car engines) generally involves utilizing some form of chemical reaction (catalytic converters), re-burning the gas or other processes. For instance, your typical coal plant emissions controls will have scrubbers that significantly reduce SO2, particulates and mercury (though they still pollute terribly) without doing a thing about CO2. Your car now has multiple catalytic converters and a complex emissions gas re-circ system, but it doesn't cut down on CO2.

 

At the end of the day, it's still a chemical reaction. You need to produce heat to boil water to generate steam to turn a turbine to generate electricity. Generating X amount of heat will always require burning Y amount of coal and producing Z amount of CO2. Efficiencies in the heat transfer/steam generation process can help reduce the amount of fuel needed to produce a certain amount of electricity, but even at unity (i.e. perfect and complete transfer of all energy from the burning coal into electricity), we're still going to have high levels of CO2 emissions. If we want to control those emissions, we need specialized equipment like carbon scrubbers or we need sequestration. These options are available in industrial power settings, but not for automobiles.

 

I want cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner forests...I don't care what they have to do in order to accomplish it, either...and if it means that by proxy, CO2 also drops, fine. But I don't care about CO2 if it doesn't affect air or life quality, since I don't believe we caused the warming trend that's occurring. I think it would have occurred whether we were here or not.

[Y2HH]

There's nothing really logical about that argument, though. You're rejecting the entire field of climatology based on your supposition on some egotistical drive of scientists to believe that man is the cause. That's not really an argument at all, to be honest, and it doesn't even attempt to address any of the actual data and modeling.

 

No, I'm rejecting it based on the fact that it's happened before *we* were here to cause the CO2 emissions are you blaming. That is very logical.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I want cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner forests...I don't care what they have to do in order to accomplish it, either...and if it means that by proxy, CO2 also drops, fine. But I don't care about CO2 if it doesn't affect air or life quality, since I don't believe we caused the warming trend that's occurring. I think it would have occurred whether we were here or not.

 

CO2 will not necessarily drop by proxy and it will not drop nearly as much as it needs to if the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is correct. Which is exactly what I was saying earlier: we are not addressing the problem, and you yourself don't even believe it's a problem in the first place. To address CO2 will require an economic burden. What the science shows is that the burden of "do nothing" is likely to be much, much higher.

 

I know you think it would have occurred regardless, but there really isn't any good evidence to support that.

[StrangeSox]

No, I'm rejecting it based on the fact that it's happened before *we* were here to cause the CO2 emissions are you blaming. That is very logical.

 

See, the thing is, thousands of scientists who work on this around the globe also realize (and in fact were the ones to discover!) that there's been global warming before. They've studied these previous warming trends as well as our own. They've developed robust and remarkably accurate models based on paleoclimate and our current situation and the conclusion that thousands of individuals around the globe have come to is: CO2 is the major driver of the current warming and we are the major factor in the current imbalance.

 

That the climate has warmed in the past doesn't actually say anything about our ability to cause it to warm now. In fact, by finding instances in the past of CO2 driving climate change, we find a causal mechanism and can apply it to our own actions. If we know that CO2 rose rapidly at some point millions of years ago and led to global warming, then we can reasonably conclude that our adding of a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause similar warming.

 

eta: did you read the link I provided earlier that specifically addresses this claim?

Edited July 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

See, the thing is, thousands of scientists who work on this around the globe also realize (and in fact were the ones to discover!) that there's been global warming before. They've studied these previous warming trends as well as our own. They've developed robust and remarkably accurate models based on paleoclimate and our current situation and the conclusion that thousands of individuals around the globe have come to is: CO2 is the major driver of the current warming and we are the major factor in the current imbalance.

 

That the climate has warmed in the past doesn't actually say anything about our ability to cause it to warm now. In fact, by finding instances in the past of CO2 driving climate change, we find a causal mechanism and can apply it to our own actions. If we know that CO2 rose rapidly at some point millions of years ago and led to global warming, then we can reasonably conclude that our adding of a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause similar warming.

 

What caused the previous rapid rises, and further, what then caused it to fall on it's own since we weren't here to interfear? I'm not a scientist...and I don't pretend to be. I simply reject the modern idea because it's happened before, and will happen again...with or without us.

 

Are you an expert in this field, or are you just speaking as if you're an expert in this field because you've read a few papers from a few scientists you happen to agree with? And what of those scientists that disagree with this science? Are they all agenda having lairs because they don't agree? There have been a number of documentaries made on both ends of this...despite a majority of them agreeing with this science right now, are we to automatically dismiss any counter arguments simply because we don't like them?

[StrangeSox]

What caused the previous rapid rises, and further, what then caused it to fall on it's own since we weren't here to interfear? I'm not a scientist...and I don't pretend to be. I simply reject the modern idea because it's happened before, and will happen again...with or without us.

 

But you've already admitted in the first sentence that you don't know what the current understanding of the causal factors are. Your rejection is not based on knowledge of the subject.

 

Are you an expert in this field, or are you just speaking as if you're an expert in this field because you've read a few papers from a few scientists you happen to agree with? And what of those scientists that disagree with this science? Are they all agenda having lairs because they don't agree? There have been a number of documentaries made on both ends of this...despite a majority of them agreeing with this science right now, are we to automatically dismiss any counter arguments simply because we don't like them?

 

 

I'm not an expert in the field and am not speaking as one. I did, however, link you to a site that covers many of the aspects of climate science as well as many of the standard 'skeptic' arguments. If you want to know why your "it's happened before" position is unsupportable, go read the link. You are certainly not the first person to come up with this objection.

 

There are some scientists who disagree, yes. It's a very limited number, however, similar to the percentage of scientists who reject evolutionary biology or the HIV-AIDS link. In short, cranks on the fringe. Even those who went into a major study as heavily skeptical of the mainstream claims have found, after examining the data, that AGW is very real.

 

Documentaries are meaningless in this context and I've honestly never seen An Inconvenient Truth. Arguments against AGW are not automatically dismissed but systematically examined and then refuted, either by pointing out bad data, shoddy methodology or over-reaching conclusions. You do get to a point where counter-arguments are dismissed out-of-hand simply because they're weak and unoriginal; this is more applicable to pop-science arguments than actual scientific contributions, however.

[Y2HH]

But you've already admitted in the first sentence that you don't know what the current understanding of the causal factors are. Your rejection is not based on knowledge of the subject.

 

I'm not an expert in the field and am not speaking as one. I did, however, link you to a site that covers many of the aspects of climate science as well as many of the standard 'skeptic' arguments. If you want to know why your "it's happened before" position is unsupportable, go read the link. You are certainly not the first person to come up with this objection.

 

There are some scientists who disagree, yes. It's a very limited number, however, similar to the percentage of scientists who reject evolutionary biology or the HIV-AIDS link. In short, cranks on the fringe. Even those who went into a major study as heavily skeptical of the mainstream claims have found, after examining the data, that AGW is very real.

 

Documentaries are meaningless in this context and I've honestly never seen An Inconvenient Truth. Arguments against AGW are not automatically dismissed but systematically examined and then refuted, either by pointing out bad data, shoddy methodology or over-reaching conclusions. You do get to a point where counter-arguments are dismissed out-of-hand simply because they're weak and unoriginal; this is more applicable to pop-science arguments than actual scientific contributions, however.

 

I will outright admit that other than having the knowledge this has occurred in the past, I do not understand, nor do I have the time to understand modern climatology. What little I do know is that the entire science has become something of a scientific pop-culture phenomena...and money is pouring into it right now, deservedly or not. This bothers me, as it's become almost something of a cult/idealism with some people. Whenever I see pop-science suddenly become flooded with people making megatons of money from it, I see red flags and want everyone to stop, take a step back and continue moving forward with a better -- non-panic inducing -- mindset. Being a layman, I have to take the science at it's word, and I tend to take all relatively new science with a grain of salt, until the data continues to come in and continues to be conclusive to the point that the hypothesis becomes proven scientific fact. History is replete with incorrect science being passed off as fact. I just happen to think the jury is still out on this one, and before we spend trillions upon trillions of dollars we don't have to "kind of maybe" solve the problem, I'd like to see more continued conclusive and irrefutable evidence combined with assured solutions, so we aren't just guessing and wasting even more money (which we've become very good at). Also, if the evidence suggests it will take a global solution, in which all nations must work together for it to happen, then that's what has to happen versus having the US spend trillions to undo the damage, only to have China (for example) double down on CO2 emissions and equal us out, solving nothing in the process.

 

Here is what I would want to know, as matter of fact, not as a matter of "guess", or even as a matter of "possibility". Keeping in mind the resources we have are finite, from man power to money to natural resources necessary to build it, IF we do everything recommended by the scientific community, and spend the trillions of dollars needed to do it (keeping in mind we can no longer spend this same money elsewhere, for other equally pressing needs), will this actually solve the issue? Can this question be answered? If yes, in what expected timeline? What I would find unacceptable for an answer is anything of the following...well, um...well, we're 80% sure it will solve the problem...in 230 years when none of us will be around to have to answer for it...

 

I'm not a religious nut...I don't believe in a floating man in the skies that will save us, or save our planet (which doesn't need saving)...I believe in Science. When I jump up, I come back down...because gravity is real...it can be demonstrated, repeatedly. I CAN be convinced to believe in this science, too...I'm just not convinced...yet.

 

And do note, that some of those websites you posted that supposedly speak of "bad data", for example the "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism" website, is, at it's core, openly biased in it's mission is to prove man made global warming is real. That's not science. Science is in proving something, one way or the other, without regard to which way ends up being correct.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

What caused the previous rapid rises, and further, what then caused it to fall on it's own since we weren't here to interfear? I'm not a scientist...and I don't pretend to be. I simply reject the modern idea because it's happened before, and will happen again...with or without us.

Can't answer all questions before sleeping but will try with this one.

 

There are a large number of ways to change atmospheric CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly tiny compared to the amounts that have been stored on land or in the earth over geologic time. Therefore, you can have any of these mechanisms, and in fact a huge number more, happen and that can wind up changing CO2:

 

Die-off of plant life

Ocean turnover (Bringing up ocean water from the bottom of the ocean, which can have carbon in it)

Decrease of weathering rates

Melting of ices (Ices can contain lots of locked-up carbon)

Erosion of a geologic unit with a lot of carbon

Increase of certain types of volcanic activity

Desertification

Sea level changes (exposing more or less land to biomass).

Acid rain (erodes carbonate rocks)

Overpredation/extinction of key species

 

Just a few examples coming to mind late at night.

 

Now, there's a lot of reasons why some of those would increase or decrease CO2...but the fun part scientifically is...theyhave different chemical signatures. Between the isotopes of carbon and oxygen, and the other signatures (like weathering rates, soil formation, evidence of glaciers) we can put together pictures of how they work and understand what the balances are.

 

Getting a very rapid rise in CO2 geologically, it turns out, is fairly difficult. Most of those mechanisms are pretty slow. Volcanism, erosion, glacial advance/retreat, those are processes that take thousands or millions of years. The only one that really works fast is melting of methane clathrates, which are stable ices that are formed by the presence of methane and can lock up a very large amount of the gas. If you trigger the release of that, through some external event (like warming the ocean, or an impact, or something else) you can release that gas very quickly to the atmosphere. This has probably happened a few times, most recently about 45 million or so years ago I think, and then maybe a few others.

 

That type of event is our only geologic comparison for what we're doing, taking carbon out of the earth rapidly and pumping it into the atmosphere.

 

How does carbon go back down? Well a few things like increasing biomass or putting trees in the arctic can help, but those aren't the big lever.

 

The thing that really draws carbon back down responds on the 10,000 year + timescale...that is erosion. You warm the planet up, you increase weathering of silicate rocks because those weathering rates respond to temperature. You warm the planet, you get faster weathering, and eventually that carbon gets pulled back out of the atmosphere and deposited/locked up in sediments in the Earth again.

 

If we went away right now, the planet would warm another degree or so from what we've already released, probably melt most of greenland in the next 100 years or so and maybe a portion of antarctica, and then weathering rates would start to pick up from the elevated temperatures. Within maybe 100,000 years, the plug of CO2 that we've released will be close to used up.

[Y2HH]

Can't answer all questions before sleeping but will try with this one.

 

There are a large number of ways to change atmospheric CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is fairly tiny compared to the amounts that have been stored on land or in the earth over geologic time. Therefore, you can have any of these mechanisms, and in fact a huge number more, happen and that can wind up changing CO2:

 

Die-off of plant life

Ocean turnover (Bringing up ocean water from the bottom of the ocean, which can have carbon in it)

Decrease of weathering rates

Melting of ices (Ices can contain lots of locked-up carbon)

Erosion of a geologic unit with a lot of carbon

Increase of certain types of volcanic activity

Desertification

Sea level changes (exposing more or less land to biomass).

Acid rain (erodes carbonate rocks)

Overpredation/extinction of key species

 

Just a few examples coming to mind late at night.

 

Now, there's a lot of reasons why some of those would increase or decrease CO2...but the fun part scientifically is...theyhave different chemical signatures. Between the isotopes of carbon and oxygen, and the other signatures (like weathering rates, soil formation, evidence of glaciers) we can put together pictures of how they work and understand what the balances are.

 

Getting a very rapid rise in CO2 geologically, it turns out, is fairly difficult. Most of those mechanisms are pretty slow. Volcanism, erosion, glacial advance/retreat, those are processes that take thousands or millions of years. The only one that really works fast is melting of methane clathrates, which are stable ices that are formed by the presence of methane and can lock up a very large amount of the gas. If you trigger the release of that, through some external event (like warming the ocean, or an impact, or something else) you can release that gas very quickly to the atmosphere. This has probably happened a few times, most recently about 45 million or so years ago I think, and then maybe a few others.

 

That type of event is our only geologic comparison for what we're doing, taking carbon out of the earth rapidly and pumping it into the atmosphere.

 

How does carbon go back down? Well a few things like increasing biomass or putting trees in the arctic can help, but those aren't the big lever.

 

The thing that really draws carbon back down responds on the 10,000 year + timescale...that is erosion. You warm the planet up, you increase weathering of silicate rocks because those weathering rates respond to temperature. You warm the planet, you get faster weathering, and eventually that carbon gets pulled back out of the atmosphere and deposited/locked up in sediments in the Earth again.

 

If we went away right now, the planet would warm another degree or so from what we've already released, probably melt most of greenland in the next 100 years or so and maybe a portion of antarctica, and then weathering rates would start to pick up from the elevated temperatures. Within maybe 100,000 years, the plug of CO2 that we've released will be close to used up.

 

This was informative.

 

Thank you.

[Balta1701]

This was informative.

 

Thank you.

(Mind you, I'm typing this from a hotel room just outside of Boston, so the thanks are really appreciated ).

[Y2HH]

(Mind you, I'm typing this from a hotel room just outside of Boston, so the thanks are really appreciated ).

 

What of the other questions you said you didn't have time to answer yet?

[Balta1701]

The guy at Berkeley who was going to prove that climate change was a fraud had an op-ed in the NYT yesterday.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

 

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

 

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

It's actually kind of nice to see someone come out and say that the IPCC results are very conservative and probably underestimating what we've actually done.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm awaiting the WSJ's next editorial from a random collection of people who doubt AGW.

[Y2HH]

I'm awaiting the WSJ's next editorial from a random collection of people who doubt AGW.

 

This is the exact attitude I take issue with on this topic.

 

I see no reason to look down on people who doubt mans actual contribution to global warming at the moment, any more than I feel you should look down on those who bought into the science regardless of how little study was done at first. Over time, let the facts speak for themselves.

 

This is the entire point of scientific study.

 

As more data is collected, vetted, and mined...the more we learn. There is nothing wrong with being a doubter/believer so long as you are willing to look at the scientific facts as they unfold over time, and be willing to change that opinion/stance to the direction science continues to point too versus jumping in head first (on either end of the pool) and refusing the swim in whatever direction the scientific study dictates you should.

 

When the Global Warming craze began, I was a doubter in every regard. It reeked of another money making scam. Now, it's about 10 years later, and we know much more (to the magnitude of about 100,000 times more than we did just 10 years ago), and I'm very much less of a doubter. Global Warming (or climate change) is real, then again, it always has been, so this wasn't much of a revelation. How much man has contributed too it is what's in doubt...but to what degree does it remain in doubt is the question? I'm more convinced we've made a contribution too it now than I ever was before, but I'm still not convinced this wouldn't have happend with or without us here. That said, I also don't hold the attitude that my opinion will never change regardless of what facts emerge over time.

 

I see nothing wrong with that opinion, either.

 

What I see wrong is people who believe we are 100% at fault and do exactly what you're doing...with that smug condescending attitude toward anyone that questions anything you happen to agree with.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

That was more a shot at their terribly hacking article from January that we discussed here which had a companion piece in the Daily Mail that denied that the planet is even warming (there's more links to people taking apart that editorial in follow-up comments):

 

Forbes does a good job of laying out how hackish and terrible the WSJ's editorial pages are:

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

 

But as Balta explained back then and then recently, the facts are speaking for themselves, and they're overwhelming clear that CO2 is a driver and that anthropological sources of CO2 are the main driver of current warming. As more data is collected, vetted, and mined, we find more and more support for AGW. Yet we do not see any evidence of this reflected in mainstream discussions of the topics. As was noted back in January, the WSJ was eager to publish an editorial full of oft-refuted arguments by denialists but rejected an article signed by hundreds of scientists at NAS. I was specifically condescending towards the WSJ's editorial pages because they're replete with terrible arguments on all sorts of subjects, not just AGW.

 

As you said, it's important to be open-minded and to accept what the evidence shows you. That was the the point of Balta's post! The BEST study group started out as a bunch of skeptics but in the end have been overwhelmingly convinced that AGW is very real and very much a threat. But we don't see that acknowledged by the WSJ or guys like Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That, leading denialist blog); hell, Watts was all gung-ho about BEST until their results came up, and then he backpedaled like crazy. I honestly see little difference between the denialist movement and creationism, which is why I'm skeptical(!) that letting the facts speak for themselves will ever convince those who simply refuse to accept reality.

[StrangeSox]

tl;dr WSJ editorial pages are terrible on many subjects and I reserve the right to mock them

[Y2HH]

tl;dr WSJ editorial pages are terrible on many subjects and I reserve the right to mock them

 

We need those that deny it's existence, because they'll fund science to disprove it...they can uncover holes in the evidence which will help correct the path those that are trying to prove it. Both sides are necessary because this has become politicized science. True science goes from the middle...they don't look to prove something without trying to disprove it at the same time (or visa versa)...they simply look for the facts on the subject at hand.

 

Take with a grain of salt any "science" that's looking to do just one or the other...not both at the same time.