Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 Next
Comments 57801 to 57850:
-
curiousd at 22:01 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Tristan, I can find no place in the article by Hansen, et al in 1981 that states they include sulfates in their calculations. GHG effects only. And at the same time on many places in this site the fact that the 1981 calculation gets the 0.8 degree C increase right is taken as excellent confirmation of their approach. I don't see how all this agrees with your statement, which is - I guess? - that the observed temperature increase is not expected to agree with a GHG only calculation?? -
Russ R. at 21:38 PM on 17 June 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
"Forecast temperature trends for time scales of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model’s equilibrium climate sensitivity. Therefore climate sensitivity would have to be much smaller than 4.2ºC, say 1.5-2ºC, in order to modify our conclusions significantly." Hansen (1988) -
Tristan at 17:50 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
CuriousD The temperature anomaly is not the same as the increase in temperature due to GHG forcing. Human activities force the temperature both up and down. Therefore the temperature impact of GHGs = temperature anomaly + temperature impact of sulfates et al. -
Lloyd Flack at 15:15 PM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
I think conservatism in the US has become different from conservatism in the rest of the West. I think conservatism there has become obsessed with attacking the left and will attack most things that the left supports just because the left supports them. Libertarianism is threatened by the market not having an answer to AGW and hence is looking for reasons to believe it does not exist. Denialism is a club created by libertarians that has been enthusiastically adopted by many conservatives as something to beat the left with. With the libertarians the matter is what they are protecting. With conservatives it is part of the general attack on the left. Most other Western countries have a pragmatic secular conservatism rather than the religious conservatism or the libertarianism that seem to form most of the right in the US. What denialism you fing elswhere is i think mostly ispired by the denialism in the US. . -
curiousd at 14:33 PM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
More focused statement about what bothers me about understanding how climate sensitivity concept jibes with 1981 model result..what is a fast response, what is a slow one and so on. Here are two answers that were given to my questions about the fact that apparently the concentrations of CO2 C2/C1 = 2^(t/2.8), and then about the 1981 calculation of Hansen. I had asked which of his models were plotted in the graph. 1. Dana 1981: Hi curiousd. I believe Figure 6 is a plot using Model 4, actually. If you look at the top of page 3 of the paper (page 959 in the journal), it says Model 4 has the climate sensitivity they're using of 2.8°C for doubled CO2. Prior to that they note that they didn't have enough knowledge at the time to include the vegetation feedback for Models 5 and 6, so 4 was advanced as they could get with reasonable confidence. 2. Am not sure string for this next comment here but: curiousd @53, across a wide range of CO2 concentrations, including all those that have been experienced on Earth in the last 600,000 years or are projected under anthropogenic emissions, doubling CO2 results in a 2-4 degree increase in temperature if we ignore slow feedbacks such as melting of ice sheets. The IPCC best estimate for that figure is 3 degrees C. But if (second comment) the climate sensitivity of about 3 degrees is not slow feedback, then if CO2 has increased by ~40% since pre industrial levels, doesn't this mean, since by first comment they have climate sensitivity of 2.8 in 1981 graph, that C2/C1=1.4 if 40% increase in CO2 since pre industrial era. But C2/C1 = 2^(t/2.8) should have been observed, t is temperature increase. (Check....at t = 2.8, C2/C1 = 2) So 1.4 = 2^(t/2.8) ; solving t - the temperature increase - would be about 1.3 degrees. But we have only seen about 0.8 degrees. I do think they get the 0.8 degrees for 1981 model that had just CO2 direct effect plus holding relative humidity constant to get a water vapor feedback.But then the "climate sensitivity" is not 2.8 degrees????? This all would make sense to me if that 2.8 degrees climate sensitivity did contain a long term feedback we have not seen yet. But from the second comment, that 2.8 does not include the ice/albedo thing, and should therefore be short term??? But then we should have seen over a degree by now? There is a good possibility I am just being dense about this, I know. -
GillianB at 11:10 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Ralbin@15 -- Surely it's OK to discuss 'rhetorical strategy'. It's just another phrase for climate communication and that's a valid topic for discussion. I guess that labelling people and putting them in boxes is valid too, as long as we keep sight of the fact that the main game is persuasion, not classification. -
ralbin at 09:59 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Tom@7: I'm afraid that you are discussing rhetorical strategy, not real policy choices. This kind of conservative ideology is one of the major reasons we're in this predicament. Trying to be nice to these people in hopes of persuading them to come to your side is a delusion. The reason so many conservatives repudiate the concept of global warming is that they implicitly, and occasionally explicitly, recognize that admitting the existence and magnitude of the problem undermines their ideology. For a good example, take a look at the part of Rachel Maddow's interview of Senator Inhofe where he admits that global warming seemed reasonable to him until he thought about the consequences of conceding its existence. You may think the conservatism means defending the status quo, but Adler's version of conservatism, widely prevalent in the USA, is a form of neo-liberal (Coasian) libertarian radicalism. Composer@9: So, what are the legal barriers and how would they be reduced? How would permitting be simplified? In the USA, this would mean reducing reducing local and state authority and de facto strengthening federal authority. Equally important, Adler's suggestion would likely involve reducing the ability of existing property owners to use court systems to obstruct wind developments. Again, this would tilt authority to administrative bureaucracies, most likely Federal level ones. This is hardly a libertarian, "conservative" approach. Several of Adler's proposals are sensible, including regulatory reforms to facilitate offshore windpower developments, but claiming that these are "small government, conservative" policies is window dressing. -
Charliec65 at 09:49 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
On the conservative side of things, the Economist, has a great special on global warming in the current addition. They don't start from a position of denial, represent the data accurately, and speak to the benefits and dangers of the warming. Absolutely nothing is going to come from the Earth Summit, except more warming. -
michael sweet at 09:32 AM on 17 June 2012Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Dallas Texas suffered $1.5-2 billion dollars of damage from a hail storm last week. This link to a Reuters article gives some detail. Apparently from 1990-2010 the total damage in the USA from severe weather (except hurricanes) was about $20 billion. This single storm was 10% of that. Doug Bostrom has some interesting links at Real Climate in the monthly thread look around comment 206. Dougs links include peer reviewed articles about the frequency of hail storms and global warming. -
JohnMashey at 07:48 AM on 17 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
re: 65 yes It was not accidental that I though the de Freitas / Michaeles / CR history worth writing up, starting a year ago. -
funglestrumpet at 07:24 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
The way things are going, I am grateful that anyone on the same side of the fence as Monckton can show that they have actually considered the situation. What we always seem to get is denial that Climate Change is happening, or if it is, denial that it is anything to worry about. Adoption of these positions seems to be a right-wing rite of passage, even though it is obvious that they neither know nor care where the passage in question is leading them. I rather think that we are at the last chance saloon. The science is not going to win the day with the denialati. Even the knowledge that YouTube etc. has a wealth of evidence showing those who are responsible for the lack of action on tackling Climate Change does not deter them, and I would not be in their shoes for all the tea in China when the public eventually sees through the deception. So let's encourage Professor Adler. We might as well, nothing else is working. Overly pessimistic? Possibly, but who reading this seriously expects anything dramatic to come from next week's Earth Summit 2012? And we really are now at the stage where only dramatic action is going to guarantee a tolerable future for the next generation and beyond. This blog should now be at the stage where it is discussing the scientific merits, or otherwise, of the remedial actions currently proposed instead of seeing a "Glimmer of hope" because a right-winger speaks some sense for a change. -
scaddenp at 06:34 AM on 17 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
My basis for worrying about coal is the very large volume of it available and very cheap price of it. Tar sand oil is very expensive. I think it is likely that technological advance and increasing oil price will move us away from petroleum and leave tar sands behind as well. However, this is also likely massively increase demand for electricity and in many places, coal is the cheap way to do create it - especially if you have subsidies. -
r.pauli at 06:18 AM on 17 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
What a great discussion. But we have let go of science to talk about politics. As politics should properly be separated from science. But if politics is to enter this fray, then Alder should be scientifically vetted. Most politicians seem to regard the 2007 IPCC as the accepted science - quite dated. Like trying to fight a house fire based on initial reports of smoke. Rather than the flames before us now. -
Andy Skuce at 05:43 AM on 17 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
L. Hamilton: Thanks for those comments. I'm looking forward to reading your paper when it's published. An open access version of Lawrence Hamilton's Polar Geography paper is available here. -
Mike3267 at 05:11 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
This post at RealClimate does a good job of discussing model-data comparisons more generally. -
Esop at 03:18 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Good stuff, Dana. Looking forward to the debunking of Solheims ridiculous claims. He is like our (Norwegian) local version of Pat Michaels, ie. a serial disinformer. Got a free pass to the press, while the realists, like Rasmus (Benestad) who submit a written debunking of the misinformation usually won't get their rebuttal printed. This is more often than not the case in Norways major newspaper, Aftenposten. Once upon a time, it reported the science, but has turned into a bona fide denialist rag, unfortunately. I sense that the disinformers are getting rather desperate these days. Could it have something to do with the fact that their own favorite dataset (UAH AMSU) is at an all time high level right now, indicating that 2013 could likely be the hottest on record, just like Hansen predicted years ago. Contrast that to the deniers forecast of dramatic cooling. Just like we saw back in 08 when Hansen predicted a record in 2010 while the denier choir were sure the temps would continue to drop. -
dana1981 at 03:09 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
From a purely psychological perspective it's not odd. James Hansen is one of the world's foremost climate scientists, one who has been making very good climate model-based predictions for decades, and one who actively advocates for moving away from fossil fuels immediately. Thus it's easy to see why "Hansen was wrong" is a psychologically appealing argument for those who are in denial about AGW. And the further he was 'wrong', the more it supports their denial, which is why they argue for Scenario A, even though it's actually the furthest from reality. For those of us who are climate realists it's very strange that they keep making this obviously wrong argument. But that's because it's difficult for a realist to understand the psychology of a person who's in denial. -
KR at 02:44 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Dana1981 - it might be worth a combined graph, 1998 values first, then 2010 values to the right, to give some perspective under the same scale. Might even add some actual lines connecting the bars, although that could be a little busy visually. I would completely agree - arguing about differences from Scenario A is a complete strawman fallacy - one often tied to a "CO2 is the only forcing" error. I really find it odd that the 'skeptics' keep cycling back to such a bad argument. -
dana1981 at 01:40 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
Oh yeah Alex, longer timeframe = larger forcings = larger y-axis in the updated version. -
Alex C at 01:15 AM on 17 June 2012Hansen 1988 Update - Which Scenario is Closest to Reality?
I was thrown off for a second by the seemingly smaller methane contribution over the longer period, then noticed the scales of the graphs are different. So, just a heads-up to anyone wanting to do comparisons between the two time periods. -
L. Hamilton at 01:10 AM on 17 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Using different survey data, analytical methods and "science literacy" indicators, we also found that more scientifically-literate respondents tend to be more polarized. Hamilton et al. (2012) "Public knowledge and concern about polar-region warming" in Polar Geography. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1088937X.2012.684155 There are some differences between our conclusions and those of Kahan et al., however. 1. In our analysis of both 2006 and 2010 General Social Surveys, the 2011 NCERA national survey, and 2012 statewide polls in New Hampshire, despite the polarizing effects we also found positive main effects for science literacy on concern/belief regarding climate change. It does not appear that science literacy's effects are totally overthrown by politics, although they are moderated. 2. Explanations for these patterns emphasize that science knowledge is not one thing. General background knowledge helps one to acquire and frame, perhaps selectively, true or false "facts" that reinforce one's prejudices. However, the specific content of those facts -- a more detailed kind of science literacy -- can be significantly different depending on politics. A new paper examining the behavior of more detailed climate science knowledge or is currently in review. -
curiousd at 00:49 AM on 17 June 2012Lessons from Past Predictions: Hansen 1981
Hello All, Curious D back with more questions pertaining to explaining all this to a basic physics class. So.. 1. You folks have taught me that there is a logarithmic dependence of dF in terms of CO2 by empirical results or simulations. Therefore, an exponential growth of CO2 concentration leads to a linear increase in expected T with time. But.. 2. there are separate fast responses and long term responses. Therefore: 3. If by magic, all CO2 going into the atmosphere were to stop, there would still be another shoe (or maybe more than one shoe) to drop. I figured out the predicted temperature increase of Hansen's 1981 paper assuming only his CO2 alone plus the constant humidity water vapor based on his results from his "model one" and I think it gives just about the observed 0.8 degrees C. O.K. BUT 4. The "removing ice decreased albedo" feedback has not really struck home yet from assuming CO2 about 40% increase over pre industrial levels. Correct? Then: 5. Is a 40% increase in CO2 enough to eventually melt Greenland?(i.e. even in a magic world with no more CO2 Greenland ice is eventually toast anyway. Yes? No?) 6. How can there be a constant climate sensitivity, including long term feed backs, if large fractions of the world ice were gone? If there were no ice left would there not be an "as bad as it can get" effect on the climate sensitivity? No ice left means no ice-albedo feedback anymore? (Yes? No?) I am completely on board with the notion that AGW is probably an existential threat exceeding all out nuclear warfare, but for me it is really, really important to have all my ducks in a row when teaching this stuff. So I do not see how the idea of a constant eventual increase in temperature is associated with CO2 doubling if you compare the situation with lots of ice left (now) with no ice left (eventually BAU), because of the "as bad as it can get effect in terms of "ice melting - albedo lessening feedback". -
DSL at 00:37 AM on 17 June 2012There is no consensus
Example, Punksta? The social construction of knowledge via the scientific method takes the garbage out eventually. The more scrutiny the discipline gets, the quicker the garbage is taken out. I can't think of a discipline that is not funded by a political institution(s). Solely? Probably not. I keep thinking of Jeffrey Wigand's research while he was working for a tobacco company. He did good work, but he wasn't allowed to publish his findings (often the case with private research). The scientist wasn't the problem, though. Wigand wasn't pushing an agenda (well, not true - he was working on smoke-free cigarettes and that may be why he decided to work for the company); the political institution (the company) was the corrupting force (well, it didn't force Wigand to lie about his findings; it just prevented publication either in physical expression (engineered product) or in sharing with the rest of the world). The diversification and dispersal of science throughout the university system is a good way to keep politics (in the mainstream sense) from taking a heavy hand in most sciences. -
chriskoz at 21:22 PM on 16 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
I disagree that the real issue for climate is coal, because (as scaddenp & NSherrard seem to argue) we run out of oil very soon and there'll be no petroleum. Tar sands & shales will no doubt provide very large of domestic (CAN & US) reserves for potential petroleum production. And that's a very sad prospect for future generations, because shale is one of the dirtiest fuels: it produced the most CO2 per unit of usable energy. When we run out of oil, then tars & shales can become economically viable and will be exploited if no better alternatives are developped. The prospect of exploiting resources with big CO2 footprint is very tempting for environmental and scientific ignorants and certaqinly very possible by policy makers like Romney, if they listen to (-snip-) individuals like Singer. Therefore I totally understand Jim Hansen who turned to activism by joining the rally against Keystone pipeline & got himself arrested. And he succeeded with thisaction: Obama vetoed it later. IMO, that was a very impotant decision with respect of US economy's cabron footprint.Moderator Response: [DB] Inflammatory snipped. -
Punksta at 20:24 PM on 16 June 2012There is no consensus
So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
In theory, yes. Does though assume that scientists behave as scientists ought to, eg making their data available etc etc, and more generally searching for truth rather than pushing an agenda. Which, when the sole funder of a science is political institutions, may be easier said than done. And so an apparent science consensus may in reality be a political consensus in disguise. -
GillianB at 16:14 PM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
As things are now, it's refreshing to hear statements like this coming from Americans -- "Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern." We could do worse than give them more oxygen in the US. It's a different story in Europe where even the right side of politics seems to gets it. For me, it's important to emphasise every time that the right/left politicization of climate issues is nowhere near universal. In 2009, when Copenhagen city council voted to become the world's first carbon-neutral city, how close was the vote -- 50/50 or perhaps a sweeping 80/20? It was unanimous. It's not surprising that they are on track so far to achieve their 2025 goal. -
sailrick at 15:41 PM on 16 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
@6 Rob Painting Thanks for the response. -
BodHod at 14:44 PM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
I'm a bit of a fence-sitter - interestingly both politically and on the subject of climate change risk. I find SkS to be a beacon amongst the many sources of dodgy and biased information on the subject - so you do a great job - thanks! I don't mind the personal bias of authors being evident, but at times authors stray beyond bias and make the occasional slightly barbed comment. This has certainly annoyed skeptic friends who I've referred to SkS in order to back up an argument. Therefore it does seem that, at least occasionally, the hard work you do explaining the science is spoiled by allowing your political opinions to taint otherwise politically unsullied argument. Keep up the good work. As far as possible keep out the politics. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:29 PM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
From his paper on prizesPrizes are no panacea. Indeed, barring some serendipitous discovery, there is no panacea for the climate policy challenge. Yet technology inducement prizes offer a relatively low-cost way to encourage greater innovation than traditional grant-based R&D funding. In order to encourage greater levels of technological innovation, it would also be desirable to reduce existing regulatory barriers to the development and deployment of alternative technologies, as well as to place a price on carbon, ideally with a simple and straightforward carbon tax.
When people argue that there is no possible technological fix for the carbon emission problem they are strengthening his argument for prizes. He also argues that the atmosphere as a commons needs super-competition since it cannot be protected by competition. An argument against his proposal is that prizes are a gamble. But considering the magnitude of the needed reductions, a seems like a worthwhile gamble to me, basically libertarian and a believer in innovation. -
Charliec65 at 12:25 PM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
The Kahn et al study corroborates other studies and observation in social psychology; Jonathan Haidt's, The Righteous Mind is worth a look. We're not rational creatures and are excellent at bending the facts to suit our ends, and we don't like being pushed. Community, friendship, commonly shared problems drive our social network. We're great warriors too, but wars cost lives and treasure. The best you're ever going to do is to engage people in making their own observations, and using their powers of reasoning, and one has to build on these innate skills and foster their use through practice. A story is worth way more than a pile of facts. -
Composer99 at 11:31 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
ralbin: Adler has discussed why a cap & trade solution is unsatisfactory from a conservative-libertarian perspective in the Atlantic article compared to the fee & dividend approach advocated by Hansen (namely, per Adler the former is more susceptible to rent-seeking & special interest interference than the latter). In addition, I am not certain how your claim Similarly, his recommendation that legal barriers to deployment be eased is essentially advocacy of increased governmental regulatory power. follows from what Adler wrote. In fact, the example he gives, where a wind power project has been postponed for some time by delays in obtaining permits, is much more likely to be the opposite of what you assert. Surely reducing permit requirements is a rollback of governmental regulatory power rather than an increase? -
Andy Skuce at 09:50 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Dave123 @ 15 I don't quite see it that way, but what does bother me in some of this analysis is that there's a bit of a patronizing air to it; at the extreme, treating your opponents' views as being the manifestation of some kind of social or psychological pathology that needs to handled with kid gloves, could easily appear condescending. To be sure, if I detected some "skeptic" trying to administer sugar-coated medicine to me, I'd be offended. I think that there are potential sources of blow-back if a culturally sensitive approach to communication is done clumsily. For it to work, your respect for the opponents' cultural values has to be genuine and I'm sure I'm not the only one in the climate debate who finds that kind of authenticity hard to fake. -
Tom Smerling at 09:23 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Ralbin @#5 I fully understand why some of Adler's far-right critics say that given what Adler wrote, he can't be a real conservative. I have a harder time understanding why we would want to reinforce that logic, thereby forcing people to choose between climate science vs. their identity and their peer group. How is that a winning strategy? BTW, Dan Kahan (referenced in Andy Skuce's SkS post immediately before this one) explores this issue in great detail through his research on "Cultural Cognition." Maintaining one's identity and one's status among peers trump objectivity almost every time. -
Tom Smerling at 08:47 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Dennis - re: think tanks, I was actually thinking of Peter Wehner, who is at the neo-con Ethics & Public Policy Center, described by SourceWatch as "the cutting edge of the neoconservative-driven culture war against progressive theology and secularism, and the associated effort to ensure right-wing control of the Republican Party." To be more accurate, I could have written "academia or some think tanks." -
shoyemore at 07:31 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
One point about the Kahan study is that it is US only. The US has the most "structured" right-left (or right-centre) divide in the democratic world. Boundaries are much more fluid in Europe, and I think the Kahan results would not be duplicated there. However, I could not hazard a guess on how different - probably the alignment of minimizing climate risk and hierarchical-individualism would be weaker. Here is a recent Eurobarometer Poll, where (in general) Europeans rate climate change as a worse problem than the economy, but behind provision of food and water for the world's poor. Eurobarometer Poll on AGW Australia seems to more resemble the US rather than Europe. But I could be wrong there. -
Dennis at 06:42 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Tom @4: Do you know of any of the conservative think tanks (e.g., Cato, Heritage, AEI) that accepts the IPCC scientific reports, or major scientific organization (e.g., AAAS, NAS, AGU) scientific statements on climate change? My mind wanders to a guy like Patrick Michaels at Cato, who clearly does not. When you write about "tolerance of diversity of opinion" at conservative think tanks, I can't think of any regarding climate science. In fact, I find the opposite, as I mention above. Adler is at a university -- a very different beast entirely -- and yet another community that conservatives routinely attack as part of the "liberal bias" -- even for science! -
Dave123 at 06:34 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
This is a somewhat political opinion but all this talk of the need to defer to the delicate sensibilities of the alleged conservatives is simply a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome...and in the long run is counter productive. You don't end temper tantrum politics by coddling the miscreants. -
shoyemore at 06:28 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Andy S, Yes, the perceptions of risk in climate change, and the policies you are prepared to support are closely aligned (as you say). However, Roberts did not make any remarks refuting the useful observation of the Brookings poll that personal experience counts more than scientific evidence, to which the public get only limited exposure. If anything, it shows the importance of highlighting the scientific explanation on occasions where public attention is held by important weather events. -
ralbin at 06:23 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
While Adler deserves some credit for breaking away from the party line, this piece isn't a "conservative's approach" it's a white flag of surrender. Conservatives traditionally have 2 responses to externalities like global warming - deny they exist (Milton Friedman) or claim that property rights can be assigned to construct a market (Ronald Coase). The latter is the cap and trade strategy. Adler's piece is an implicit repudiation of bedrock principles of conservatism. The claim that a carbon tax is a "small government" solution is dubious. Any effective carbon tax will have to be global, requiring considerable international negotiations and considerable adjustments of present world economic arrangements. These are hardly "small government" tasks. Similarly, his recommendation that legal barriers to deployment be eased is essentially advocacy of increased governmental regulatory power. Adler is trying to run away from conservatism while maintaining some rhetorical cover. That Adler proposes remedies that violate conservative principles, at least those of American conservatives, demonstrates the bankruptcy of conservative ideas. -
KR at 06:10 AM on 16 June 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
balanceact - See the intermediate version of this post - his sensitivity estimate was 4.2°C/doubling. -
Andy Skuce at 05:55 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Chris G @ 9&10 I found the reporting of the statistics in the Kahan Study hard to understand. A few more tables, bar charts and crossplots would have made things much easier to grasp. Also, some of their classifications were not very clearly defined. On their Figure S4 there are supposed to be dotted red lines showing standard deviations, which don't appear on the document I downloaded. -
Tom Smerling at 05:46 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Dennis @#3 -- Adler has been saying this for several years (check out his links above). To my knowledge he is still widely-regarded as a conservative analyst in good standing, as is Peter Wehner and others. There's more tolerance of diversity of opinion in think tanks than, say, among Republican political candidates. BKSea @#1 Nobody claims that Adler is going to change anybody overnight. What I'm saying is that if we're serious about getting movement on climate policy, it is very important to encourage and promote intellectally-honest conservatives who accept the science, are searching for solutions, and can serve as role models for others. That would make it a lot easier for rank-and-file conservatives -- I'm not talking here about denizens of denial websites -- to take a stand. Think about old ad slogan for Levy's Jewish rye bread: "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's" They increased their market share, and made it into the Ad Slogan Hall of Fame. If we want to make progress, we need to be able to say "You don't have to be liberal to accept climate science." -
Andy Skuce at 05:21 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
shoyemore@8 The Kahan Study dealt with the perception of climate change risk, not whether people thought the climate was changing or not. What policies people are prepared to support is, I would guess, closely aligned with the level of risk they perceive. So, I think the energy policy parts of the poll are more comparable to Kahan's study, particularly because the responses were more politically polarized than the purely climate focussed questions. But I certainly agree, perceptions of the reality of climate change have a lot to do with the weather trends they are experiencing. I suspect that on the subject of smoking it was both personal experience and the clear scientific evidence that caused the shift in public opinion. The fact that smoking also affects others nearby makes it an easier bad habit to portray as anti-social than, say, overeating/obesity, where the damaging health effects are confined to the individual (Michael Bloomberg, take note). -
balanceact at 04:53 AM on 16 June 2012Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
What was Hansen using as the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 back in 1988? Perhaps it is mentioned somewhere but I'm failing to see it. -
Dennis at 04:37 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
I have to agree with BKsea. Adler will simply get labled a RINO (Republican in Name Only) because he deviates from the party line. I hear it over and over again in the USA. Climate science is now no different from tax policy, health care reform, and social welfare programs to America's conservatives. Watch this guy get shunned by his fellow conservatives and show up later as a Democrat. -
DSL at 04:31 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
Well, that could be read alongside Michael Fumento's piece in Salon. Or perhaps Fumento first and then Adler. -
BKsea at 04:25 AM on 16 June 2012Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.
I put on my conservative hat to read this and here is what I got: First paragraph: "la la la la substantial uncertainties remain la la la" Second paragraph: "effects will be most severe in those nations that are both least able to adapt and least responsible" [Yeah! not us! stop reading] Third paragrpah: "la la la tax la la la tax la la la tax" Lots of people have been saying these same things without getting the conservatives to listen. Why do you think they will listen now? -
dana1981 at 03:54 AM on 16 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Interesting, attacks on the peer-review process seem to be becoming more frequent, presumably as attacks on the science itself become more difficult. -
pvincell at 03:31 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
Just to weigh in here, Skeptical Science is a remarkably valuable resource for understanding the peer-reviewed science on climate change. The Kahan paper doesn't cause me to question SkSc in any way. You guys and gals do us a great service--don't ever go away! What the paper *does* do is reinforce for me the need to seek ways to respectfully engage Americans with diverse worldviews. All Americans must be part of the solution to climate change, so maybe we who understand where the science is on this controversial topic can do a better job of reaching out to those who think differently from us. This really tests our commitment to diversity, no? -
Chris G at 03:23 AM on 16 June 2012Scientific literacy and polarization on climate change
From the paper: "...highly science-literate and numerate hierarchical individualists are more sceptical, not less, of climate change risks..." I'm having a hard time finding just what was their cutoff for determining 'high' from 'low'. Another way of saying my alternate explanation is that how an individual arrives at a belief is not necessarily the same within all individuals within a population. Both social coherence (agreeing with members of the group) and scientific literacy are strategies that people can use; there is no guarantee that all individuals within a population use the same strategy. It could be that if you are very highly skilled, your own skills tend to dominate the conclusions you reach, and if you have low skill, you tend to rely more on what your group thinks. In between, there would be a mix of people not only using different strategies, social versus rational, but even the ones attempting to arrive at a science-based conclusion might not applying the same set of rules (choosing to focus an clouds and discount water vapor, or vice versa). It could be also that the rules applied are unconsciously filtered based on social group compliance. Hah, let's test those with limited social coherence tendencies (on the Asperger scale) in comparison with those at the opposite end of that spectrum.
Prev 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 Next
