France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax

However... the ice on greenland and antarctica is not floating.

Click to expand...

Correct, also I recently overheard (will find reference as soon as possible) that the non-floating portions of greenland and antarctica are in fact getting thicker. As I said, I'll try and find that reference.

Tommygunn said:

Not being a scientist it isn't as easy for me to evaluate these things as it might be if I was a scientist.
What I wonder ... at the end of the day is, if global warming was truly legitimate science, and factual, why are some scientists still debating it?
IF the situation should be obtained where all scientists do agree, then I guess I will be more impressed.
Until then I suppose I am as impressed by the theory as I am by the theory that cholera is caused by "bad air."

Click to expand...

You're asking for something that is already largely happening. I know that attacks on consensus are the 'in thing' right now, but I think one or two things need highlighting.

Firstly, there is Naomi Oreske's work (and I'm aware of Peiser before anyone trots out that name) which analysed peer reviewed climatology papers for evidence of disagreement with the consensus opinion - that being the IPCC report, a very very heavily peer reviewed document, the signatories to which are worth a look. Look her work up, she found that none disagreed.

Secondly, there is a wikipedia page listing notable objectors (for various reasons and with a background in natural science) to the current consensus. You'll recognise some of the names even if you don't read a lot on the subject. Names like Lindzen, Spencer, Singer. The list isn't very long, especially when you consider that there are more than 800 contributing authors to the latest IPCC report.

Now (be very careful how you read this) there is an argument that objections to the global warming position actually receive a disproportionate amount of air time. If you took a random sampling of relevant scientists, and gave five of them a ten minute TV show each you'd probably have fifty minutes of people by and large agreeing with the consensus. This isn't to say that Singer et al should be ignored, but it does suggest to me that it can be lost on many as to the scope of this derided consensus.

As to why it is still debated - a lot of science is, especially where it impacts on public policy and industry. See smoking and cancer.

Correct, also I recently overheard (will find reference as soon as possible) that the non-floating portions of greenland and antarctica are in fact getting thicker. As I said, I'll try and find that reference.

Click to expand...

What's happening is akin to taking a half of a birthday cake, eating a few bites, sharing some with your friend, and then putting what's left on top of the other half. Sure, the cake is now thicker, but that doesn't mean there's more cake.

Glacial thickening is a result of increased snowfall, as increased precip is part of just about every GW model. We're seeing more precipitation, thus more snowfall in artic regions, but that doesn't mean the ice isn't melting. The net trend is that Greenland, Antartica, and the Artic are losing ice. The contrarians are hoping you'll mistake thicker glaciers that happen to cover a lot less territory and have a lot less total mass for what's really happening--the ice is, in fact, melting pretty rapidly.

Iain makes a good point; if anything, GW contrarians are given more than a fair shake of the media time and exposure. We don't give flat earth society folk and evolution deniers equal time (as well we shouldn't), and the plain reality is that when you represent such a small portion of your field as a whole, you can't really be all that upset when you consider just how careful the media is to include catchphrases like "there's still some skeptics out there" and the like. If anything, the media is hypersensitive to claims of bias and goes a little too far, and gives the impression there's still significant scientific debate on this subject.

As for the idea that people like Galileo and the cholera epidemic folk were bucking "consensus", that's a poor analogy. The "consensus" they were bucking was NOT a peer reviewed process of analysis, showing your work, etc, and is not comparable to what the IPCC has done. It was NOT something arrived at via a scientific process the way things like atomic theory, climate theory, evolutionary theory are arrived upon.

Correct, also I recently overheard (will find reference as soon as possible) that the non-floating portions of greenland and antarctica are in fact getting thicker. As I said, I'll try and find that reference.

Click to expand...

There was a study that showed the ice at one location in Antarctica was getting thicker; however, over the entire continent that is not the case (and the author of the particular study in question here cautioned people to not interpret his work too broadly). And the antarctic ice shelves, and Greenland glaciers, are rapidly disappearing.

Since when does the US take orders from France?

We're talking about an idle threat from a cowardly leader who's making threats LITERALLY because he THINKS the European Onion will back him. Come on, really. Is it wise to threaten Americans with a tax that you aren't even certain will be levied?

What a loser.

Next, he'll be demanding we sign up with the UN's gun-grab policies, because he's "pretty sure" the UN will invade if we don't. GEEEZZZ...

Hey, I just went Senior! Groovy!

I'm no scientist (and a rather bad environmentalist, sadly), but a few things stand out here -


One, the assertion that "Greenpeace and the Sierra Club" are funding Exxon-like pro-warming studies - I see this pretty often. In an argument on a baseball board going right now, in fact. As little as I know about academic science, I know that the reality is that environmental group-funded studies are few and far between (if for no other reason than funding - hippies don't have ExxonMobil-money).

Makes me wonder if this isn't a talking point being pushed by certain segments of the right-wing media (O'Reilly, Rush, NRO) and being bought wholesale by the spreaders.

Two, the assertion that it doesn't matter if 'warming is nonexistent/not manmade/etc.' studies are funded by those with a vested interest in denial. In what way does that differ from 'marketing' and 'advertising,' fellas? Do you believe every claim offered up by a manufacturer? Do you still believe that tobacco has absolutely no relationship with cancer?

And, frankly, a lot of the arguments against seem to be of the 'know nothing' variety - if I haven't seen it for my own eyes, it couldn't exist. And if I have seen it, but don't like the logical conclusions, I'll have to believe I saw something else.

OK

I haven't even bothered to read past post 25 but wish to state my honest opinion as one who has been here a long time and watched all the stupidity wash back and forth across the Atlantic. The French are moot. They don't matter and haven't mattered since 1917 when they were thoroughly beaten by my uncles from germany.

As far as this Global Warming is concerned, it is the old parable of the fleas on a dogs back arguing over which of them owns the dog.

Iain said:

You're asking for something that is already largely happening. I know that attacks on consensus are the 'in thing' right now, but I think one or two things need highlighting.

Firstly, there is Naomi Oreske's work (and I'm aware of Peiser before anyone trots out that name) which analysed peer reviewed climatology papers for evidence of disagreement with the consensus opinion - that being the IPCC report, a very very heavily peer reviewed document, the signatories to which are worth a look. Look her work up, she found that none disagreed.

Secondly, there is a wikipedia page listing notable objectors (for various reasons and with a background in natural science) to the current consensus. You'll recognise some of the names even if you don't read a lot on the subject. Names like Lindzen, Spencer, Singer. The list isn't very long, especially when you consider that there are more than 800 contributing authors to the latest IPCC report.

Now (be very careful how you read this) there is an argument that objections to the global warming position actually receive a disproportionate amount of air time. If you took a random sampling of relevant scientists, and gave five of them a ten minute TV show each you'd probably have fifty minutes of people by and large agreeing with the consensus. This isn't to say that Singer et al should be ignored, but it does suggest to me that it can be lost on many as to the scope of this derided consensus.

As to why it is still debated - a lot of science is, especially where it impacts on public policy and industry. See smoking and cancer.

Click to expand...

I guess my main point -- poorly expressed -- was that, what ever is happening with the climate, is happening to the climate. Whether or not we agree about it or not doesn't change the facts about what is out there. Remember the little credit on the "X-FILES" theme that said "The Truth is Out There."??? Well, not to put too fine a point on a SF TV show, but our "agreeing" on somehtting, or disagreeing, doesn't change the facts, it really only reveals what we really know -- or don't -- about the facts.

Whether some "concensus" on cholera is a poor analogy or not is not relevant; all analogies break down on close examination; they're primarily a teaching tool and a somewhat clumsy one at that.
Thirty-five years ago in science class I was told we're heading for another ice age. Today, with supposedly better instruments and better computers we are told it's global warming ... yet what is "out there" is the same + 35 years.
Assuming our science improves in the next 35 years as much as it has in the past... who's to say our understanding of these ... "trends" won't change again?
In the meantime, can't we approach keeping our environment clean, and cleaning up the messes we KNOW about, a little more sanely?

I say tell France to kiss our a##....

Tommygun,
The global cooling myth strikes again! Ugh. I can't vouch for what your science teacher said that long ago, but the reality is that climatologists didn't believe that then or now. The "they used to believe in global cooling" myth is another one that's been debunked pretty mercilessly.

In short, global cooling was never the consensus view that warming is today, so I'd say it's highly unlikely they'll be singing a different tune in a few decades.

I'm all for cleaning up the messes we know about, but GW is a mess we know about, and it's a biggun. The same folks denying GW tend to be the same ones who oppose cleaning up the other messes anyway.

French demands tax ?

Okay it's simple argue or not on climate change is a moot point.
BUT France can go to _______________ fill as you see fit.
Why should we listen to some country thats always demanding we do this or that especially after they stand up and repeatedly insult and demand things from us. Now they want $ . How about we send them a bill for all of the ammo and lives we lost over there. ?
Climate models say france will be under water so let it rise !! Will miss england.

FWIW, here's my take:

Let's concede, for the moment, that the climatological consensus has been reached and the world is doomed to become Venus North if we don't change our ways.

The climatologists might be doing a credible job descriptively, but it is prescriptively that they are a total joke.

If the masses, no matter their education, are too ill-educated to contest the "fact" that GW is a human driven problem, isn't the reverse true as applied to climate scientists in the context of what to do about it?

How many climatologists out there are also claiming to be economists, game theorists, electrical engineers, research chemists, nuclear physicists, or claim other expertise in a myriad of other both "hard" and "soft" sciences to be able to authoritatively opine about what to do?

They might be describing the problem, but their prescriptions are of little or no worth.

We need a tax on carbon? Based on what expertise pray tell?
Cap and trade?
Sequestration?
Expansion of use of 18% efficient solar panels?

I am forced to conclude that no climatologists are claiming you'll have to give up the auto and live in a cave because outside of their narrow expertise, they haven't a clue as to the societal ramifications of the prescriptions to their descriptions.

Instead, ignorant politicians sieze upon the topic to look trendy. They pass treaties and fund further research, maybe have a blue ribbon panel once in awhile. And then they don't follow through because they realize the treaty/research/commisions' findings actually call for wrenching societal change and they like remaining elites rather than becoming ex-politicians.

In short, who cares if GW is real or not? Nothing effectvely will be done about it until it is absolutely necessary, and even if, then probably too little and too late to matter.

You might as well enjoy whatever little time you have left before you are killed by the climate.

You GW koolaide drinkers never fail to amaze me.

We need to clean up our own messes.

There are those here who think I should get a year in the pen for pitching a cigarette pack out the car window. Blind obedience to the indoctrination that littering is somehow bad.

So,

The cigaretter pack I pitched out the car window in 1990 is long gone. Dried up, biodegraded and blown away.

The trash bag full of pampers that I dutifully bagged up in 1975 and put into the trash is still fermenting along in the landfill and I can pretty well guanendamtee that if what is to be believed, that trash bag full of pampers will still be there 100 years from now.

Yeah, good for the environment.


Here is a fact that you can take to the bank.

There will always be an environment.

We will learn to adapt to the environment or we will croak.

Now, we can yearn for yesteryear when we had passenger pigeons and dodo birds and when we could walk on the ice floes and hunt the hairy mammoths and have our pet mastedons but the reality is now.

100 years from now, people will have learned to adapt to whatever changes to the environment have occured or they will have perished. Either way, it has no effect on us. We can leave the earth cleaner or dirtier. It won't matter to them.

Grow up. You are not the center of the universe.

I predict that they will have some really cool video games. Probably virtual reality.

Somebody will have invented a thingy that you can put on your finger like a blood pressure moniter except that it will be the most way out drug like euphoria inducer that drugs will be obsoleted (except for the purist scientist types that long for the good ol' days) and by disconnecting the device one will return to full operation (no impairment for .gov to make war on)

So the sky will be yellow and the ocean will lap on Ohio. We won't be there to whine and they won't know any difference.

I say scrap fuel economy standards, alternative fuel subsidies, capital gains, and corporate income taxes, and replace them all with a single carbon tax...

Pro-business, much more efficient and no more whining from leftists.

atek3

Where does the money come from?

Just a quick question for all you Global warming scientist, on this thread you know the experts who make their living off studying global warming, who pays you? I mean since you have to eat and unless your just wealthy, where do you get your money? Since some of you have led us to believe that this is what you do for a living and you know all about it, where do you work? Does it come from scientific grants, do you work for companies founded by billionaires who only are interested in the well being of mankind?

If global warming was not caused by man, would you still get the same money that you get now to study global warming? Or would you have to find something else to be alarmed over and receive funding for that? Since studies by oil companies can not be trusted because they are biased, they are evil you know, but what about those people who make their living off global warming being man's fault, can they be trusted or are they evil too? Me, I don't know I am just asking.

Your question is leading and dishonest. You're asserting vested interests behind global warming research - whose vested interests? What's the economic counterpart to BigEnergy?

As far as jobs go, that's simply absurd. If global warming weren't an issue, would there no longer be a climate to study? Is that really your argument?

The issue of global warming is a lot more important in Europe than in the US. The issue of Jihadism is less important in Europe than in the US.

The difference in what's important to the average person is important, as these individual persons add up to large aggregates of both governmental people and their citizenry.

Again, Europe is the largest buyer of US exports. What nobody really can afford is a serious trade war. But, given the aggregate of our private debts as well as our public debts, we're in no shape to deal with any such serious "war".

It may be fun to deride the French; it may be entertaining to argue over the correctness of projected rises in average temperatures and sea levels. The fact remains that the perceptions about warming and rising have real-world consequences.

Art

ozarkhillbilly said:

Just a quick question for all you Global warming scientist, on this thread you know the experts who make their living off studying global warming, who pays you? I mean since you have to eat and unless your just wealthy, where do you get your money? Since some of you have led us to believe that this is what you do for a living and you know all about it, where do you work? Does it come from scientific grants, do you work for companies founded by billionaires who only are interested in the well being of mankind?

If global warming was not caused by man, would you still get the same money that you get now to study global warming? Or would you have to find something else to be alarmed over and receive funding for that? Since studies by oil companies can not be trusted because they are biased, they are evil you know, but what about those people who make their living off global warming being man's fault, can they be trusted or are they evil too? Me, I don't know I am just asking.

Click to expand...

I've found that one of the biggest problems with environmentalism in general is the polarized view that everyone has of it. As a scientist, it frustrates me to no end to have organizations that are supposedly "helping" the environment undermining the cause. The most credible scientists, in my opinion, tend to work for themselves via grants, or at universities. The thing they stressed to us the most in school was credibility and bias. You cant set out to prove anything or you've already lost any credibility you have. The best scientists are doing their research with their own money(or minimal outside funding) and on their own time. Honestly, the most important work results in conclusions that no one wants to hear, so it's difficult to get funding. The reason GW is so well funded is because the results are in line with pre-set agendas.

I study Environmental Forest Biology with a concentration in Wildlife, so I dont study GW specifically, though I'd consider myself better educated on the subject than most. The people who make their living off of GW are qualified enough to make their living studying something else, and there is no shortage of things to be studied. There are definitely various agendas on both sides, but it's difficult to determine where what needs to be done ends and where their own agenda begins. As much as I hate to say it, the free market* is horrendous for the environment. It's not so much a problem of people being free to choose what they like, but the current economic system.

Neoclassical economics is riddled with problems, from being inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics to making incorrect assumptions regarding human behavior, there are so many flaws that I cant even begin to explain them all here. The shortcomings of the free market are most obvious in developing nations in the tropics. The economic theories used to govern the free market need to incorporate biophysical realities, most if not all, man made environmental problems are caused by this. If anyones interested in doing some reading on biophysical economics, send me a message and I'll send you some links/papers.

*Note that I'm in no way in favor of socialism or government interference in general. The system just needs to be adjusted to internalize all of the environmental costs that are currently ignored.

Helmetcase said:

Tommygun,
The global cooling myth strikes again! Ugh. I can't vouch for what your science teacher said that long ago, but the reality is that climatologists didn't believe that then or now. The "they used to believe in global cooling" myth is another one that's been debunked pretty mercilessly.

In short, global cooling was never the consensus view that warming is today, so I'd say it's highly unlikely they'll be singing a different tune in a few decades.

I'm all for cleaning up the messes we know about, but GW is a mess we know about, and it's a biggun. The same folks denying GW tend to be the same ones who oppose cleaning up the other messes anyway.

Click to expand...

My memory isn't perfect, but it's not that bad. All the science issues we read and reports indicated there was a theory that we were heading toward another ice age. My science teacher(s) weren't pulling it out of their hat. I was there.
I don't deny that there are messes that need to be cleaned up. I just disagree that "GW" is a "biggun." Humanity produces only about 4-5% of the greenhouse gasses on this planet. Even IF we could stop 100% of that I doubt it would stop whatever climactic tendencies are in ascendancy.
I have, I believe, already stated my opinion about how valid "concensus" is in science, so whatever there was in favor of ice ages then versus global warming today isn't important to me, really.

I thought the French were trying to downplay religion.

was watching a chinese TV show with a friend that stole gore's movie and rebroadcast it with chinese commentary. in the show the chinese voice-over said that america makes more "greenhouse gas" than any other country, and that the chinese government is "worried about the world's ecology".

i replied that america makes 3X as much electricity as china, and that my shoes don't get a fine coating of coal ash on them when i leave them out on the porch overnite in pennslyvania, like they do here in luoyang. i also asked when was tha last time someone caught a fish in the luo river.

Boats said:

Let's concede, for the moment, that the climatological consensus has been reached and the world is doomed to become Venus North if we don't change our ways.

The climatologists might be doing a credible job descriptively, but it is prescriptively that they are a total joke.

If the masses, no matter their education, are too ill-educated to contest the "fact" that GW is a human driven problem, isn't the reverse true as applied to climate scientists in the context of what to do about it?

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. The most qualified people to propose solutions are the people who understand the problem. That means the people who have studied the problem.

How many climatologists out there are also claiming to be economists, game theorists, electrical engineers, research chemists, nuclear physicists, or claim other expertise in a myriad of other both "hard" and "soft" sciences to be able to authoritatively opine about what to do?

Click to expand...

None that I'm aware of. If a climatologist needs input and analysis from (for example) an economist or engineer, it's easy enough to pick up the phone and call one, or walk to over to the next building on campus and talk to one.

I am forced to conclude that no climatologists are claiming you'll have to give up the auto and live in a cave because outside of their narrow expertise, they haven't a clue as to the societal ramifications of the prescriptions to their descriptions.

Click to expand...

And here we get to your real complaint: any measure which would help remedy the situation is not politically acceptable to you. Since you don't like reality, you choose to ignore it and then...

You might as well enjoy whatever little time you have left before you are killed by the climate.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a great way to handle environmental problems.

Seriously, your attitude is irresponsible. Conservatives are supposedly all about personal responsibility, but you are refusing to be responsible for the consequences of your actions because you don't like the "social ramifications."

:banghead:

ozarkhillbilly said:

Where does the money come from?

Just a quick question for all you Global warming scientist, on this thread you know the experts who make their living off studying global warming, who pays you? I mean since you have to eat and unless your just wealthy, where do you get your money? Since some of you have led us to believe that this is what you do for a living and you know all about it, where do you work? Does it come from scientific grants, do you work for companies founded by billionaires who only are interested in the well being of mankind?

Click to expand...

I can only assume that this is (at least partially) directed at me. Climate change is not my field, but I dabble occasionally. My salary comes (albeit indirectly) from the NSF. As Saturnine explained, most good research in the US is performed in universities and via grants (which often come from the NSF). These people are often tenured university professors and their students/postdocs (tenure helps to ensure academic freedom) and the funding is generally from non-partisan, agenda-free sources.

If global warming was not caused by man, would you still get the same money that you get now to study global warming? Or would you have to find something else to be alarmed over and receive funding for that? Since studies by oil companies can not be trusted because they are biased, they are evil you know, but what about those people who make their living off global warming being man's fault, can they be trusted or are they evil too? Me, I don't know I am just asking.

Click to expand...

Your argument is disingenuous. Research done by people who are funded by organizations which have an interest in the outcome of said work can not be trusted to be unbiased. It is not logical to assume that the consensus opinion is formed from biased research just because the opposing viewpoint is riddled with bias (funded by oil companies).

(Sorry Tommygunn, I didn't see this one

Tommygunn said:

So you don't see economic self interst as reason conservative free marketers would want to protect the environment? There is where I see your political bent showing.

Click to expand...

No, there really is little economic self-interest for environmental protection... perhaps a little, but certainly far less than there should be. It's the tragedy of the commons.

I have read articles from learned men who have argued that what we're doing, and the current climatological evidence suggest, indicate we're actually heading for another ice age.

Click to expand...

Show me one article in any peer-reviewed scientific journal from the last ~50 years.

What I wonder ... at the end of the day is, if global warming was truly legitimate science, and factual, why are some scientists still debating it?

Click to expand...

Mostly because they are paid (by oil companies) to debunk it. It's essentially a corrupt advertising campaign.

Seriously.

IF the situation should be obtained where all scientists do agree, then I guess I will be more impressed.

Click to expand...

There really is a very solid consensus on this in the scientific community. The detractors are vocal (they're paid to be) but they're very few and far between.

Tommygunn said:

My memory isn't perfect, but it's not that bad. All the science issues we read and reports indicated there was a theory that we were heading toward another ice age. My science teacher(s) weren't pulling it out of their hat. I was there.

Click to expand...

I don't know where your science teacher got his/her information, but it is a fact that the scientific community was not predicting a global cooling trend in the 70's. There were some popular press articles to that effect. It's not
unusual for popular press to sensationalize headlines and jump to incorrect conclusions. That does not mean that scientists were actually predicting an ice age, or even a cooling trend.

I don't deny that there are messes that need to be cleaned up. I just disagree that "GW" is a "biggun." Humanity produces only about 4-5% of the greenhouse gasses on this planet. Even IF we could stop 100% of that I doubt it would stop whatever climactic tendencies are in ascendancy.

Click to expand...

Actually, your information here is not correct. Humanity produces the vast majority of the net greenhouse emissions. The CO2 emissions from (for example) the ocean or biosphere (respiration, decomposition, etc.) can generally be neglected because that carbon was already in circulation. The problem is that we're adding a lot of new carbon to what was an otherwise stable and closed system.

I have, I believe, already stated my opinion about how valid "concensus" is in science, so whatever there was in favor of ice ages then versus global warming today isn't important to me, really.

Click to expand...

Consensus is important. Science is a search for facts and predictive truth. There's only one "right answer" (though of course when predicting complex phenomena, there are inevitably many models which may or may not be "close").

Ah, AGW again...

The French can tax whatever they want...Chirac is outbound.

Dang "global warming"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070206/ap_on_re_us/arctic_blast

Those who have alluded to the fact that much of the alarm over AGW is indeed coming from the left end of the political spectrum have recognized the problem.

AGW is a near-perfect issue for justifying increasing government intrusion into every aspect of society.

Not to mention the wealth redistribution possibilities for all those developing nations.

Try taking a geological perspective - it considerably mitigates the alarm...

At least it works for me.

I don't doubt that the climate is warming...why should I? It's happened often throughout geological history. Is it due to human activity?

Some of it could be.

So? It's all happened before - when humans were not yet present on the planet.

You cannot cram nearly seven billion folks onto a planet such as Earth without consequences. On the other hand, does humanity have the ability to voluntarily restrict its own population growth? Not lookin' good there.

I prefer Mark Steyn's take on the issue to the views of the AGW alarmists.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/241518,CST-EDT-STEYN04.article

"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050."

You like the alarmists' approach? Whatever floats your boat.

If the alarmists are correct you could actually have more water to float a boat in.

Those who have alluded to the fact that much of the alarm over AGW is indeed coming from the left end of the political spectrum have recognized the problem.

AGW is a near-perfect issue for justifying increasing government intrusion into every aspect of society.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

They've got their dogma, and you've got yours.

:banghead: